Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Integra LifeSciences Corp. v. Hyperbranch Medical Technology, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Delaware

April 6, 2018

INTEGRA LIFESCIENCES CORP., INTEGRA LIFESCIENCES SALES LLC, CONFLUENT SURGICAL, INC., and INCEPT LLC, Plaintiffs,
v.
HYPERBRANCH MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY, INC., Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM ORDER

          HON. LEONARD P. STARK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         WHEREAS, Magistrate Judge Burke issued a 27-page Report and Recommendation ("Report") (D.I. 508), dated February 20, 2018, recommending the Court grant Defendant HyperBranch Medical Technology, Inc's ("Defendant" or "HyperBranch") motion for summary judgment of non-infringement of claims 1, 6, 12, and 17 of the '5705 patent (D.I. 393);

         WHEREAS, on March 2, 2018, Plaintiffs Integra LifeSciences Corp., Integra LifeSciences Sales LLC, Confluent Surgical, Inc., and Incept LLC (collectively, "Plaintiffs" or "Integra") objected to the Report (D.I. 529) ("Objections" or "Objs.");

         WHEREAS, on March 12, 2018, HyperBranch responded to Integra's Objections (D.I. 551) ("Response" or "Resp.");

         WHEREAS, the Court has considered the parties' objections and responses de novo, see St. Clair Intellectual Prop. Consultants, Inc. v. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd., 691 F.Supp.2d 538, 541-42 (D. Del. 2010); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b);

         NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

         1. Plaintiffs' Objections (D.I. 529) are OVERRULED, Judge Burke's Report (D.I. 508) is ADOPTED, and Defendant's motion (D.I. 393)[1] is GRANTED.

         2. Integra objects that the Report improperly construed the claim language at issue by reading in additional limitations not present in the Court's construction. (Objs. at 2-5) Alternatively, Integra contends the Report wrongly concluded there was no material issue of fact regarding whether amide linkages are biodegradable. (Id. at 10) The Court is not persuaded by either of Integra's contentions.

         3. Integra primarily contends the Report wrongly interpreted the esters limitation of the claims. (Objs. at 2) Representative claim 1, with the esters limitation emphasized, recites:

A method of making a biocompatible degradable hydrogel to treat a medical condition of a patient comprising:
identifying a medical condition for treatment by use of a hydrogel formed in situ in a patient and fully degradable in a patient in less than about 180 days; and
mixing a first precursor with a second precursor in situ in the patient to form the hydro gel for treatment of the medical condition,
with the first biocompatible synthetic hydrophilic polymer precursor having a water solubility of at least 1 gram per 100 milliliters and comprising at least two electrophilic functional groups; and the second biocompatible synthetic hydrophilic polymer precursor ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.