`
`V Anderson
`Corroon up
`
`Case 1:12-cv-01110-GMS Document 41 Filed 03/07/14 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 2158
`Case 1:12—cv—O1110—GMS Document 41 Filed 03/07/14 Page 1 of 2 Page|D #: 2158
`1313 North Market Street
`PO. Box 951
`
`Wilmington. DE 19899-0951
`302 984 6000
`
`wwwpotteranolerson.com
`
`Philip A. Rovner
`Partner
`provner@potteronderson.com
`(302) 984-6140 Direct Phone
`(302) 658-1192 Fax
`
`March 7, 2014
`
`BY E—FILE
`
`The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet
`Chief Judge
`United States District Court
`
`for the District of Delaware
`
`U.S. Courthouse
`
`844 King Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`
`Re:
`
`Bonutti Skeletal Innovations LLC V. Zimmer Holdings, Inc., et al.
`D. Del., C.A. No. 12-1107-GMS
`Bonutti Skeletal Innovations LLC V. ConforMIS, Inc.,
`
`D. Del., CA. No. 12-1109-GMS
`Bonutti Skeletal Innovations LLC V. Wright Medical Group, Inc., et al.,
`D. Del. C.A. No. 12-1110-GMS
`
`Dear Chief Judge Sleet:
`
`Plaintiff, Bonutti Skeletal Innovations, Inc. (“Bonutti Skeletal”), writes in regard to the
`inter partes review (“IPR”) petitions filed by third-party Smith & Nephew, Inc. Defendants in
`the above captioned actions, Zimmer Holdings, Inc. (“Zimmer”), ConforMIS, Inc.
`(“ConforMIS”), and Wright Medical Group (“Wright”), have filed a joint motion to stay pending
`that IPR. Bonutti Skeletal Innovations LLC V. Zimmer Holdings, Inc., C.A. No. 12-1107 (GMS),
`D.I. 35; Bonutti Skeletal Innovations LLC v. ConforMIS, Inc., CA. No. 12-cv-1109 (GMS), D.I.
`42; Bonutti Skeletal Innovations LLC v. Wright Medical Grp., C.A. No. 12-1110 (GMS), D.I. 33.
`
`Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1 .2(b), I write to inform the Court that on February 28, 2014,
`the USPTO denied Smith & Nephew's IPR petition for review of claim 13 of U.S. Patent No.
`7,806,896 (the “’896 patent”) and granted Smith & Nephew’s IPR petition for review of claim 1
`of the ’896 patent. A copy of the decision denying and granting in part Smith & Nephew’s IPR
`petition with respect to the ’896 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A (the ‘"896 Decision”).
`The USPTO “concluded that Petitioner has not demonstrated ‘a reasonable likelihood of
`
`prevailing on its assertion that claim 13 of the ’896 patent is unpatentable.” (’896 Decision at
`27.) The USPTO stated: “[a]t this stage of the proceeding, we have not made a final
`determination on the patentability of claim 1.” (Id.) Bonutti Skeletal currently asserts the ’896
`patent against each of Zimmer, ConforMIS, and Wright.
`
`
`
`Case 1:12-cv-01110-GMS Document 41 Filed 03/07/14 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 2159
`Case 1:12—cv—O1110—GMS Document 41 Filed 03/07/14 Page 2 of 2 Page|D #: 2159
`
`The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet
`March 7, 2014
`
`Page 2
`
`Additionally, on February 26, 2014, the USPTO granted Smith & Nephew’s IPR petition
`for review of claim 23 of U.S. Patent No. 7,749,229 (the “’9229 patent”). A copy of the decision
`granting Smith & NepheW’s IPR petition’ with respect to the ’896 patent is attached hereto as
`Exhibit B (the “’9229 Decision”). The USPTO stated: “we have not made a final determination
`on the patentability of the challenged claim.” (’9229 Decision at 22.) Bonutti Skeletal currently
`asserts the ’9229 patent against only Zimmer.
`
`Respectfully,
`
`/s/ Philip A. Rovner
`
`Philip A. Rovner
`proVner@potteranderson.com
`
`PAR/mes/ 1 141947
`
`‘
`
`cc: All counsel of record — by CM/ECF and E—mail
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
