Arthrodesis Technology LLC filed suit against Wright Medical Technology, Inc in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging patent infringement.
Orthopedic Surgeon Sues Wright Medical for Patent Infringement
2 min read Premium comments
#wrightmedicalSecondary#arthrodesistechnology
Rama E. Chandran, M.D. is Arthrodesis’ sole member. Dr. Chandran is an orthopedic surgeon based in Southern California and the inventor of the relevant patent. Dr. Chandran assigned the relevant patent to Arthrodesis.
The relevant patent is U.S. Patent No. 6,579,293 (the “’293 Patent”), titled “Intramedullary Rod with Interlocking Oblique Screw for Tibio-Calcaneal Arthrodesis.” In 2003, the ’293 Patent was issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office to Dr. Chandran. According to the complaint, “The ’293 Patent relates to a surgical rod-and-screw kit for use in ankle arthrodesis.”
Global medical device company, Wright Medical, focuses on extremities and biologics. Late last year Wright Medical was acquired by Kalamazoo, Michigan-based Stryker Corporation. For OTW’s initial coverage of the acquisition, see “Stryker to Buy Wright Medical for $5.4 Billion.”
Wright Medical’s foot and ankle products include the Valor® Hindfoot Fusion System. Arthrodesis claims the system infringes on its ’293 Patent. Specifically, the system’s “oblique screw to establish ankle arthrodesis by compressing the tibia bone directly or indirectly against the calcaneal bone.”
Arthrodesis also claims that Wright Medical had previous knowledge of the alleged infringement. Notably, Arthrodesis references a letter that Dr. Chandran sent in 2015 as well as a 2015 patent infringement lawsuit filed by Dr. Chandran against Wright Medical. Dr. Chandran later dismissed that lawsuit without prejudice.
Arthrodesis is seeking a permanent injunction against Wright Medical as well as compensatory and treble damages. It is also demanding a trial by jury.
As of the date of this article, Wright Medical has not yet filed a response.
This is not the first time Arthrodesis has filed a patent infringement suit for the ’293 Patent. In 2019, Arthrodesis filed a complaint against Vilex in Tennessee, Inc. and Vilex, Inc. alleging patent infringement for its ’293 Patent. Arthrodesis later dismissed the action with prejudice.
In 2020, Arthrodesis filed a complaint against Zimmer, Inc., and Zimmer US, Inc. alleging patent infringement for its ’293 Patent. Just months after filing the lawsuit, Arthrodesis voluntarily dismissed the action.
React:
Discussion
This is a fascinating development. In my practice we've seen similar outcomes with the revised protocol. The key differentiator seems to be patient selection criteria. Has anyone else noticed the correlation with BMI thresholds?
Great point. I'd push back slightly on the conclusion, the sample size in the cited study is too small to draw population-level inferences. That said, the directional signal is compelling and worth a larger RCT.
We implemented a similar approach last year. Early results are promising but we're still gathering 12-month follow-up data. Happy to share our protocol if anyone is interested.
Join the conversation
Orthopedic professionals are discussing this. Sign in and upgrade to read every comment and add your voice.