Quantcast

Parts of testimony stricken in patent infringement case involving endoscopy systems

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA RECORD

Wednesday, December 25, 2024

Parts of testimony stricken in patent infringement case involving endoscopy systems

Lawsuits
General court 07

shutterstock.com

SAN FRANCISCO – A judge in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California recently ruled to strike testimony related to a patent case involving two medical companies that design and manufacture integrated operating room systems.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley ruled Aug. 1 to have several portions of testimony stricken from the court record as it relates to experts called by defendants Stryker Corp. in a patent infringement case brought by Karl Storz Endoscopy-America (KSEA). 

“Having carefully reviewed the parties’ briefing and voluminous exhibits, the court concludes that oral argument is unnecessary,” Corley stated in the ruling.

Corley rulled to have three portions of witness testimony stricken from the record, including parts of testimony by Stryker expert witness Harold J. Walbrink, who reportedly provided unproven theories and claims to the record.

In the ruling, Corley also granted KSEA motion struck portions of footnotes regarding the patents in question because it introduced “new and previously undisclosed” theories to the patent arguments.

The plaintiffs requested a host of other information be stricken from the record but their requests were denied.

According to court documents, KSEA first filed their patent infringement complaint in 2005 in the U.S. District Court of the Western District of Tennessee. It was then transferred to the Northern District of California court in 2009.

The plaintiffs allege that Stryker infringed upon several of their patents in the creation of a voice-controlled system that controls operating devices, including endoscopic cameras, lights and other equipment.

In their complaint, KSEA provided circumstantial evidence of direct infringement, stating they didn’t need direct evidence to prove that a surgeon had in fact used the product in question to be liable for their claims.

They also included more specific evidence that Stryker’s products were likely used in the operating room in an infringing manner, such as marketing materials issued by the defendant.

More News