A jury has awarded $20 million to Rasmussen Instruments, LLC, a medical device business based in Salt Lake City, Utah, in a patent infringement lawsuit against DePuy Synthes, the orthopedic company of Johnson & Johnson based in Raynham, Massachusetts.
$20M Verdict Against DePuy Synthes for Patent Infringement
1 min read Premium comments
Secondary#depuysynthes#rasmusseninstruments#kneeprosthesis
At issue in the matter were two patents filed by Gary Lynn Rasmussen, M.D., a Murray, Utah-based orthopedic surgeon and owner of Rasmussen Instruments. The two asserted patents, both titled “Arthroplasty Systems and Methods for Optimally Aligning and Tensioning a Knee Prosthesis,” were U.S. patent number 9,492,180 (the ‘180 patent) and U.S. patent number 10,517,583 (the ‘583 patent). Dr. Rasmussen assigned both patents to Rasmussen Instruments (Rasmussen).
Dr. Rasmussen filed a provisional patent application for his invention in 2005. Per the complaint, this application described “a device for maintaining the tension in the ligaments of a knee joint and/or adjusting the alignment of a knee joint during knee replacement surgery.”
From 2012 to 2014, Dr. Rasmussen allegedly met with DePuy for the purpose of licensing the invention. According to the original complaint, negotiations broke down in 2014.
During that same time, the complaint asserted that DePuy continued to prosecute its own patent applications for an infringing product. Additionally, the complaint argued that DePuy was selling and marketing an infringing product. The infringing product is DePuy’s Balanced Sizer for the Attune® Knee System. The Balanced Sizer adjusts the tension of ligaments in a knee joint.
Rasmussen claimed that the instrument directly infringed on its patents. In the 2020 complaint, Rasmussen alleged the Balanced Sizer infringed both the ‘180 patent and the ‘583 patent. The matter went to trial in March 2022.
In awarding $20 million in damages to Rasmussen, it appears that the jury was persuaded by some but not all of Rasmussen’s patent claims. Namely, the jury found that the Balanced Sizer directly infringed on the ‘180 patent and DePuy’s infringement was willful.
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.