Federal Circuit Reverses District Court’s Ruling in Acumed v. Stryker, Remands Case

Holding:

In this appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s judgment dismissing a patent infringement claim relating to a nail product used in treating bone fractures. The district court had earlier issued a judgment of infringement and willfulness against defendant Stryker’s product, a judgment that was later affirmed by the Federal Circuit. Subsequently, plaintiff-patentee Acumed filed a second action based on a longer version of Stryker’s original product. The district court dismissed the subsequent suit on the ground that it was barred by claim preclusion. On appeal however, the Federal Circuit found that Stryker admitted that its previous and present devices were not “essentially the same.” Claim preclusion could not apply in this case, unless the accused device in the action before the court is "essentially the same" as the accused device in a prior action. In so stating, the Federal Circuit concluded that claim preclusion does not bar a claim merely because it could have been raised in a prior action between the parties that was resolved by a final judgment on the merits.

Detailed Summary:

Plaintiff-appellant Accumed, LLC (“Acumed”) was a holder of a patent relating to nail products used in treating bone fractures (“’444 patent”).  It filed this appeal after the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon dismissed its action for patent infringement against defendant-appellee Stryker Corporation, Stryker Sales Corporation, Stryker Orthopaedics, and Howmedica Osteonics Corporation (“Stryker”) on the ground that its complaint was barred by claim preclusion.  In particular, the district court held that Acumed’s instant claim was precluded by a prior infringement suit between the parties.  The district court had already resolved on the merits this previous suit that was entitled…

More Updates