Biedermann Technologies GmbH & Co. KG v. K2m, Inc. et al.
Infringement action filed 24 Jul 2023 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and closed 27 Dec 2023, with 16 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: appeal dismissed.
Case record
- Patents involved
- US9572600B2US8123784B2US10058353B2US8945194B2US9895173B2US8828060B2US9962191B2US8257399B2US6736820B2US9393049B2US9597121B2US9814595B2US9566093B2US10130485B2US8979898B2US8882817B2
- Case no.
- 23-2168
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- Fed. Cir.
- Court level
- Court of Appeals
- Case region
- District of Columbia
- Chief judge
- None recorded
- Trial level
- Appeal
- Filed – Closed
- 24 Jul 2023 – 27 Dec 2023
- Duration
- 156 days
- Basis of termination
- Appeal Dismissed
- Products & marks
- Cascadia device · Everest device · Yukon device
Check this patent against your own product
Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.
Get an FTO claim chart- 01Ranked prior artEvery hit source-linked
- 02Claim-level comparisonAgainst your own product
- 03Legal statusAcross 174 jurisdictions
Bone anchoring device, tool and method for assembling the same and tool for use with the same
A bone anchoring device includes an anchoring element having a shaft for anchoring in the bone and a head, a receiving part formed in one piece, and a pressure element formed in one piece. The receiving part has a seat for receiving the head and an outer channel for receiving a rod to be connected to the anchoring element, which is pivotable with respect to the receiving part and can be fixed at an angle by exerting pressure via the pressure element onto the head. The pressure element is movable in the receiving part and includes an inner channel for receiving the rod and a spring element that engages a portion of the receiving part via a detent connection so that the pressure element can be held in a position that allows pivoting of the anchoring element. The spring element is formed by at least a first portion of one of two side walls forming the inner channel, the first portion being spaced apart from a second portion of the one side wall by a slot. At least a portion of the detent connection is located on the one side wall.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 21 Feb 2017
- Earliest priority
- 20 Aug 2009
- Est. expiry
- 13 Aug 2030
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- BIEDERMANN, LUTZ · MEER, MARTIN
- Classification
- A61B17/70
- Prosecution counsel
- Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
- Examiner
- HAMMOND, ELLEN C
Anchoring element for use in spine or bone surgery, methods for use and production thereof
An anchoring element for use in spinal or bone surgery is described. A shaft (1) for anchoring in a vertebra or bone section is connected to a receiving part (22) which serves to connect to a rod (100) having a pre-determined diameter (D). The receiving part (22) provides a U-shaped recess (26) forming a channel for the reception of the rod and two legs (27, 28). The legs are free on their end and have a thread (30, 31) that cooperates with a securing element to fix the rod in the receiving part. When inserted into the receiving part, the rod surface facing the end surface (29) is at a pre-determined distance (A) in an axial direction from the end surface (29). The thread (30, 31) of the legs extends from the end surface a distance that is smaller than or equal to the pre-determined distance (A). Also, an undercut (33, 34) is provided adjacent to the thread whose edge farthest away from the thread is located at a distance (B) from the end surface. Distance (B) is larger than the pre-determined distance (A). The anchoring element is cheap to manufacture and has a reduced overall height as compared to the known anchoring elements. Methods of using the anchoring element also are described.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 28 Feb 2012
- Earliest priority
- 11 Mar 2003
- Est. expiry
- 11 Mar 2024
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- BIEDERMANN, LUTZ · HARMS, JURGEN
- Classification
- A61B17/70A61B17/58
- Prosecution counsel
- Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
- Examiner
- ROBERT, EDUARDO C
Also asserted in this case
14 moreThe docket lists 16 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining 14 asserted patents are one query away in Eureka.
- US10058353B2Bone screw
- US8945194B2Bone screw
- US9895173B2Element with a shank and a holding element connected to it for connecting to a rod
- US8828060B2Element with a shank and a holding element connected to it for connecting to a rod
- US9962191B2Spinal implant and methods of use thereof
- US8257399B2Anchoring device for anchoring a rod in bones or vertebrae
- US6736820B2Bone screw
- US9393049B2Spinal fixation system
- US9597121B2Bone anchoring device
- US9814595B2Multi-walled placeholder
- US9566093B2Bone screw
- US10130485B2Multi-walled placeholder
- US8979898B2Iliosacral polyaxial screw
- US8882817B2Spinal fixation system
Parties of record
Biedermann Technologies GmbH & Co. KG
- Core tech
- A61B17/70A61B17/58
- Counsel
- Adam G. Unikowsky · Bryan Scott Hales · John C. O’Quinn · Luke Dauchot · Stephen DeSalvo AT
- Firm
- Jenner & Block LLP, Kirkland & Ellis LLP
K2m, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Charles Patrick Kennedy · David M. Krinsky · Gregory Scott Gewirtz · Russell W. Faegenburg
- Firm
- Lerner David LLP, Williams & Connolly LLP
- Also named
- K2M Group Holdings, Inc.
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Adam G. Unikowsky | Biedermann Technologies GmbH & Co. KG | Plaintiff |
| Bryan Scott Hales | Biedermann Technologies GmbH & Co. KG | Plaintiff |
| John C. O’Quinn | Biedermann Technologies GmbH & Co. KG | Plaintiff |
| Luke Dauchot | Biedermann Technologies GmbH & Co. KG | Plaintiff |
| Stephen DeSalvo AT | Biedermann Technologies GmbH & Co. KG | Plaintiff |
| Charles Patrick Kennedy | K2m, Inc. | Defendant |
| David M. Krinsky | K2m, Inc. | Defendant |
| Gregory Scott Gewirtz | K2m, Inc. | Defendant |
| Russell W. Faegenburg | K2m, Inc. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“The parties having so agreed, it is ordered that: (1) The proceedings are DISMISSED under Fed. R. App. P. 42 (b). (2) Each side shall bear their own costs.”
Case 23-2168 · Fed. Cir. · closed 27 December 2023
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
Frequently asked questions
What is case 23-2168?
23-2168 is a patent infringement action brought by Biedermann Technologies GmbH & Co. KG against K2m, Inc., filed on 24 Jul 2023 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The case closed on 27 December 2023.
Which patents were asserted in 23-2168?
US9572600B2 (“Bone anchoring device, tool and method for assembling the same and tool for use with the same”), assigned to BIEDERMANN TECHNOLOGIES GMBH & CO. KG, currently active; US8123784B2 (“Anchoring element for use in spine or bone surgery, methods for use and production thereof”), assigned to BIEDERMANN TECHNOLOGIES GMBH & CO. KG, currently inactive; US10058353B2 (“Bone screw”), assigned to BIEDERMANN TECHNOLOGIES GMBH & CO. KG; US8945194B2 (“Bone screw”), assigned to BIEDERMANN TECHNOLOGIES GMBH & CO. KG; US9895173B2 (“Element with a shank and a holding element connected to it for connecting to a rod”), assigned to BIEDERMANN TECHNOLOGIES GMBH & CO. KG; US8828060B2 (“Element with a shank and a holding element connected to it for connecting to a rod”), assigned to BIEDERMANN TECHNOLOGIES GMBH & CO. KG; US9962191B2 (“Spinal implant and methods of use thereof”), assigned to VB SPINE LLC; US8257399B2 (“Anchoring device for anchoring a rod in bones or vertebrae”), assigned to BIEDERMANN TECHNOLOGIES GMBH & CO. KG; US6736820B2 (“Bone screw”), assigned to BIEDERMANN TECHNOLOGIES GMBH & CO. KG; US9393049B2 (“Spinal fixation system”), assigned to VB SPINE LLC; US9597121B2 (“Bone anchoring device”), assigned to BIEDERMANN TECHNOLOGIES GMBH & CO. KG; US9814595B2 (“Multi-walled placeholder”), assigned to BIEDERMANN TECHNOLOGIES GMBH & CO. KG; US9566093B2 (“Bone screw”), assigned to BIEDERMANN TECHNOLOGIES GMBH & CO. KG; US10130485B2 (“Multi-walled placeholder”), assigned to BIEDERMANN TECHNOLOGIES GMBH & CO. KG; US8979898B2 (“Iliosacral polyaxial screw”), assigned to VB SPINE LLC; US8882817B2 (“Spinal fixation system”), assigned to VB SPINE LLC. The record also lists Cascadia device, Everest device and Yukon device.
How was case 23-2168 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is appeal dismissed. The termination text reads: “The parties having so agreed, it is ordered that: (1) The proceedings are DISMISSED under Fed. R. App. P. 42 (b). (2) Each side shall bear their own costs.”
How long did case 23-2168 take?
156 calendar days, from filing on 24 Jul 2023 to closure on 27 December 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 23-2168?
Adam G. Unikowsky, Bryan Scott Hales, John C. O’Quinn, Luke Dauchot and Stephen DeSalvo AT are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Biedermann Technologies GmbH & Co. KG. Charles Patrick Kennedy, David M. Krinsky, Gregory Scott Gewirtz and Russell W. Faegenburg appear for defendant K2m.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 23-2168 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.
Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.
No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.
No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.