Xiros, Ltd. v. DePuy Synthes, Inc. et al

On June 28, 2021, Plaintiff Xiros, LTD. represented by Cabrach J. Connor and John M. Shumaker of Connor Kudlac Lee PLLC, and Neel Chatterjee of Goodwin Procter LLP filed an intellectual property - patent lawsuit against Depuy Synthes, Inc., Johnson & Johnson, Depuy Orthopaedics, Inc., Medical Device Business Services, Inc., Depuy Synthes Sales, Inc., Waco Orthopedics, Ascension Medical Group Providence Orthopedic And Sports Medicine, Jacob Battle, M.D., And Chad S. Conner, M.D, (collectively, “Defendants”) for alleged patent infringement. This case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas.

In the complaint, the Plaintiff alleges “DePuy manufactures and sells patient-specific surgical systems, known as TruMatch surgical templates, to guide surgical drills and saws during knee replacement surgeries. DePuy manufactures and sells two versions of the TruMatch system: TruMatch Personalized Solutions Resection Guides and TruMatch Solutions Pin Guides (collectively, the “Accused Products”). DePuy is the last listed owner of the TruMatch trademark.”

The Plaintiff further alleges “Defendants have infringed, and continue to infringe, the Asserted Patents by making, using, providing, offering to sell, importing, and selling (directly or through intermediaries) the Accused Products in this district and elsewhere in the United States, and by contributing to the infringement of, or inducing others to infringe the Asserted Patents. DePuy has been aware of Xiros’ innovations, patents, and patent applications for over a decade and expressed great interest in Xiros’ technology.”

The Plaintiff even further alleges “Between June and August 2007, Leeds tried to negotiate a licensing agreement for the technology disclosed in the ’663 Application. However, DePuy never made a sincere offer to obtain a license, and refused to license the ’663 Application, claiming that Leeds would face “significant barriers” in obtaining a granted patent. Instead of properly licensing the technology, DePuy used the knowledge obtained under protection of the confidentiality agreement to create the competing TruMatch line of products.”

The Plaintiff lays down four claims for relief. The first is for alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,125,674. The second claim is for the alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,265,51. The third claim is for the alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,835,265. The final claim is for alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,835,266.

In the prayer for relief, the Plaintiff has requested the Court to enter a judgment holding Defendants liable for infringement of the Asserted Patents; an order enjoining each Defendant, its officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys and affiliated companies, its assigns and successors in interest, and those persons in active concert or participation with it, from continued acts of infringement of the Asserted Patents; an order awarding Xiros pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284 resulting from Defendants’ past, current, and future infringement of the Asserted Patents, together with prejudgment and post-judgment interest; a finding that Defendants’ willfully infringed the patents-in-suit; a declaration that this case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285, and an award of Xiros’s reasonable attorneys’ fees; and any and all other legal or equitable relief as may be available under law and which the Court may deem proper.

This case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the status of this case. Sign up to view the latest case updates and court documents.