Zimmer Surgical, Inc. v. Stryker Corporation
1:16-cv-00679
D. Del.Aug 30, 2017Background
- Plaintiffs Zimmer Surgical, Inc. and Dornoch Medical Systems, Inc. sued Stryker Corporation and Stryker Sales Corporation alleging patent infringement of a patent issued June 3, 2014; suit filed August 8, 2016.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state claims for direct, induced, contributory, and willful infringement. The motion was referred to a Magistrate Judge.
- Magistrate Judge recommended denying dismissal as to direct and willful infringement and partly granting/denying as to indirect infringement.
- Defendants objected to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations only on willful infringement and inclusion of “consumables” as accused products. Plaintiffs responded. The District Judge conducted de novo review of objections.
- The Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Report except on willfulness: it sustained defendants’ objection on willfulness (granting dismissal of willful infringement) but overruled the objection to “consumables,” finding no need for further specificity beyond the accused Neptune 2 and Neptune 3 systems. Plaintiffs were given leave to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of direct infringement pleading | Complaint pleads facts showing direct infringement of the patent by accused systems | Complaint fails to state direct infringement | Motion to dismiss denied as to direct infringement (Magistrate's recommendation adopted) |
| Induced & contributory infringement (pre-filing conduct) | Plaintiffs asserted indirect infringement claims based on defendants' conduct | Defendants argued indirect claims should be dismissed for pre-filing conduct lacking required elements | Induced and contributory claims dismissed to the extent they rely on conduct prior to filing; remainder not dismissed |
| Willful infringement (knowledge & timing) | Plaintiffs argued willfulness based on defendants' knowledge (including litigation-related knowledge) | Defendants argued plaintiffs failed to plead actual pre-suit knowledge sufficient for willfulness under Seagate | Court sustained defendants' objection: willfulness claim dismissed for lack of pleaded post-filing factual allegations; plaintiffs granted leave to amend |
| Accused products specificity ("consumables") | Plaintiffs included “consumables” with Neptune 2/3 systems as accused products | Defendants sought greater specificity/exclusion of consumables | Court overruled objection; no further specificity required beyond identifying Neptune 2 and Neptune 3 systems |
Key Cases Cited
- Beazer E., Inc. v. Mead Corp., 412 F.3d 429 (3d Cir. 2005) (magistrate judge may issue report and recommendation on dispositive motions)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (standard for plausibility under Rule 12(b)(6))
- Davis v. Abington Mem'l Hosp., 765 F.3d 236 (3d Cir. 2014) (complaint must do more than labels and conclusions)
- In re Rockefeller Ctr. Props., Inc. Sec. Litig., 311 F.3d 198 (3d Cir. 2002) (courts need not credit bald assertions or legal conclusions)
- Johnson v. City of Shelby, 135 S. Ct. 346 (2014) (complaint not to be dismissed for imperfect statement of legal theory)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (facial plausibility standard and context-specific inquiry)
- Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1923 (2016) (willfulness standard post-Seagate)
- In re Seagate Technology, 497 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (pre-Halo willfulness framework)
- Masimo Corp. v. Philips Elec. N Am. Corp., 62 F. Supp. 3d 368 (D. Del. 2014) (local discussion of standards and magistrate procedures)