Synthes (USA) v. Spinal Kinetics Inc.

Filing 524

JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Ronald M. Whyte on April 23, 2012. (rmwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/23/2012)

1
2
3
4

E-FILED on

4/23/12

5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
12
13

SYNTHES USA, LLC (f/k/a SYNTHES
(U.S.A.)); SYNTHES USA SALES, LLC; and
SYNTHES, INC.,

14
15
16

Plaintiffs,

No. C-09-01201 RMW

JUDGMENT

v.
SPINAL KINETICS, INC.,

17

Defendant.

18
19

On August 19, 2011 the court dismissed the claims of Synthes, Inc. and Synthes USA Sales,

20

LLC for lack of standing. This dismissal rendered Spinal Kinetics, Inc.'s counterclaim against

21

Synthes, Inc. and Synthes USA Sales, LLC moot. On December 13, 2011 the jury returned its

22

Special Verdict finding that Synthes USA, LLC did not prove that it is more likely than not that

23

Spinal Kinetics, Inc.'s M6 Cervical and M6 Lumbar Devices included all of the limitations of

24

independent claim 29 and dependent claims 30 and 31 of U.S. Patent No. 7,429,270 ("the '270

25

patent"). The jury further found that Spinal Kinetics, Inc. did prove by clear and convincing

26

evidence that the '270 patent did not contain an adequate written description supporting independent

27

claim 29 of the patent. Therefore,

28

IT IS HEREBY ordered, adjudged and decreed:
JUDGMENT
No. 09-C-01201

1

(1) that judgment is entered in favor of Spinal Kinetics, Inc. and against Synthes USA, LLC,

2

Synthes, Inc. and Synthes USA Sales, LLC on their Amended Complaint and that judgment is

3

entered in favor of Spinal Kinetics, Inc. and against Synthes USA, LLC on its (Spinal Kinetics')

4

counterclaim;

5
6
7
8
9

(2) that the counterclaim of Spinal Kinetics, Inc. against Synthes, Inc. and Synthes USA
Sales, LLC is dismissed as moot;
(3) that Spinal Kinetics, Inc.'s M6 Cervical and Lumbar Devices do not infringe claims 29-31
of the '270 patent;
(4) that claims 29-31 of the '270 patent are invalid; and

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

(5) that Spinal Kinetics, Inc. is the prevailing party and entitled to its costs of suit.

11

There are post-verdict motions pending.

12
13

DATED:

April 23, 2012
RONALD M. WHYTE
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JUDGMENT
No. 09-C-01201

2