Stryker European Operations Holdings LLC and Howmedica Osteonics Corp. v. Treace Medical Concepts, Inc.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Delaware denied Treace Medical Concepts, Inc.’s motion to dismiss patent infringement claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The court declined at the pleading stage to construe the asserted patent claims as requiring implants made from resorptive material and held that the plaintiffs adequately pleaded infringement of claim 1 of the ’583 patent.

Holdings

1. At the pleading stage, the court could not conclude that the asserted claims clearly and unmistakably disclaim implants made from non-resorptive materials. For purposes of deciding the motion, the court adopted plaintiffs' proposed construction and held that the terms "implant" and "intramedullary implant" do not require the implant to be made of a resorptive material.
2. The complaint adequately pleaded infringement of claim 1 of the '583 Patent because its annotated images and accompanying explanations identified the accused product's barbed section, longitudinal axis, and alleged flat cross-section and explained their claimed perpendicular relationship.
3. The court denied dismissal of the indirect-infringement and doctrine-of-equivalents allegations because defendant's arguments for dismissal presupposed that literal infringement had not been adequately pleaded, and the court found that literal infringement was adequately pleaded.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the asserted patent claims clearly require the claimed implant or intramedullary implant to be made from a resorptive material at the pleading stage.
2. Whether the complaint plausibly pleaded infringement of claim 1 of the '583 Patent, including the limitation requiring a flat cross-section perpendicular to the longitudinal axis.
3. Whether the allegations of indirect infringement and infringement under the doctrine of equivalents should be dismissed when they were challenged only on the premise that literal infringement was inadequately pleaded.

Disposition

dismissed