Braun unit sued for infringing hospital’s patents for artificial joints

A unit belonging to German company Braun has allegedly infringed five patents relating to artificial joints for knee and hip replacements, according to a complaint filed by the Orthopaedic Institute for Children.

The claim, filed at the District Court for the District Delaware on Friday, October 9, accused Aesculap Implant Systems of making artificial joints for knee and hip replacements in children with a specialised polyethylene patented by the hospital’s researchers.

The file stated that the Orthopaedic Hospital is an independent charitable organisation that provides care for children with musculoskeletal disorders, and is the largest paediatric orthopaedic programme in the western US.

It further stated that: “In addition to seeing and treating tens of thousands of children per year that come through Orthopaedic Hospital’s doors, Orthopaedic Hospital conducts scientific research aimed at improving orthopaedic materials, implants, surgical instrumentation, and surgical techniques.”

According to the complaint, researchers at the California-based institute, Harry McKellop and Fu-Wen Shen, developed the polyethylene used for the components of artificial joints.

It stated that the “patents-in-suit teach that an implant can be rendered oxidation-resistant, for example, by adding one or more antioxidants, such as vitamin E, to the polyethylene”.

By using vitamin E, the institute claimed that the joints consequently have a stronger resistance to oxidation, making them less susceptible to wear and tear.

The institute accused Aesculap of using its patented inventions as part of its vitamin E blended polyethylene “ Vitelene”, a flagship product across its hip reconstruction and femoral  head product lines from 2014 onwards.

According to the complaint, despite “having active and constructive knowledge” of the institute’s patents, Aesculap marketed “Vitalene” by proclaiming that vitamin E was an anti-oxidant and that its vitamin E–blended polyethylene was “oxidation resistant”.

It claimed that by creating and marketing such a product, the company had directly infringed all of the patents that cover the invention.

The institute further stated that it had been injured and “continues to be injured monetarily and otherwise” by the company’s direct infringement of its patents and is seeking damages, alongside patent royalties.

Did you enjoy reading this story?  Sign up to our free daily newsletters and get stories sent like this straight to your inbox.