Paper
`Filed on behalf of: BONUTTI SKELETAL INNOVATIONS LLC
` Date: July 31, 2014
`
`By: Cary Kappel, Lead Counsel
`William Gehris, Backup Counsel
`Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC
`485 Seventh Avenue
`New York, NY 10018
`Telephone (212) 736-1257
`(212) 736-2015
`Facsimile (212) 736-2427
`E-mail:
`ckappel@ddkpatent.com
`wgehris@ddkpatent.com
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`ZIMMER HOLDNGS,
`INC. and ZIMMER, INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`BONUTTI SKELETAL INNOVATIONS LLC
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Case: IPR2014-00191
`
`
`
`Patent 7,837,736
`_______________
`DECLARATION OF DR. SCOTT D. SCHOIFET, M.D. IN
`SUPPORT OF PATENT OWNER RESPONSE
`
`
`Exhibit 2001
`Zimmer v.
`Bonutti Skeletal Innovations LLC
`Trial IPR 2014-00191
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Scott D. Schoifet
`
`Case: IPR2014-00191
`
`
`
`Introduction
`
`I, Scott D. Schoifet, hereby declare under the penalty of perjury:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`I reside at 19 Macclesfield Drive, Medford, NJ. 08055.
`
`I am a board certified surgeon specializing in Total Joint
`
`Replacement and Adult Reconstructive Surgery in the practice of Reconstructive
`
`Orthopedics P.A.
`
`3.
`
`I have been retained as an expert witness and asked to render opinions
`
`regarding certain matters pertaining to the inter partes review (IPR2014-00191) of
`
`the Bonutti U.S. Patent No. 7,837,736 (“the '736 patent”).
`
`I offer this declaration
`
`(“Declaration”) in support of Bonutti Skeletal’s Patent Owner Response.
`
`4.
`
`I obtained my Medical Degree from Columbia University College of
`
`Physicians and Surgeons, New York, New York in 1983. I completed my General
`
`Surgery Residency at St. Vincent’s Hospital, New York, New York, in 1985; and
`
`my Orthopedic Residency at the Strong Memorial Hospital, University of
`
`Rochester, Rochester, New York in 1988. I completed my Fellowship in Total
`
`Joint Replacement and Adult Reconstructive Surgery at the Mayo Clinic in
`
`Rochester, Minnesota, in 1989, where I was appointed as an Instructor in
`
`Orthopedic Surgery. I obtained my board certification from the American Board of
`
`Orthopedic Surgery in 1991.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Scott D. Schoifet
`
`Case: IPR2014-00191
`
`
`
`5.
`
`Shortly after completing my Fellowship, I entered private practice in
`
`September, 1989. I joined Reconstructive Orthopedics P.A. in May, 1990. I am an
`
`instructor for Minimally Invasive Surgery Quad Sparing for Partial and Total Knee
`
`Replacements, both nationally and internationally.
`
`6.
`
`I have performed over 7,000 total knee and total hip replacements. I
`
`performed my first minimally invasive surgery (“MIS”) knee replacement in
`
`November of 2003 and have performed over 4,800 MIS total knee replacements
`
`since then. I currently average 700 MIS total knee replacements per year.
`
`7.
`
`I am a fellow of the American College of Surgeons (FACS), and the
`
`American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (FAAOS). I also am a member of
`
`the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons (AAHKS).
`
`8.
`
`I have been a consultant for Stryker since 2004 and have been
`
`involved with surgeon teaching and product design. I designed supplemental
`
`instrumentation for Scorpio MIS instruments and assisted with the design of the
`
`entire Triathlon anterior referencing MIS instruments and technique guide. Most
`
`recently I have been on the design team for the new Triathlon Tritanium
`
`uncemented tibia.
`
`9.
`
`A more detailed account of my work experience and qualifications is
`
`included in my curriculum vitae, which is attached as Appendix A to this
`
`Declaration.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Scott D. Schoifet
`
`Case: IPR2014-00191
`
`
`
`10.
`
`In connection with my study of this matter and reaching the opinions
`
`stated herein, I have reviewed and considered:
`
`(A)
`
`the '736 patent and its prosecution history before the United States
`
`Patent and Trademark Office, focusing on claims 21, 22, and 31;
`
`(B) United States Patent No. 5,755,801 to Walker (“Walker”) (Exhibit
`
`1002);
`
`(C)
`
`the Institution Decision in IPR 2014-00191, paper 10 (February 28,
`
`2014)(“Institution Decision”), focusing on the discussion of the instituted grounds
`
`of anticipation over Walker; and
`
`(D)
`
`the Declaration Of Arthur G. Erdman, Ph.D. (Exhibit 1005), focusing
`
`on the discussion of Walker.
`
`11.
`
`I understand that the Patent Office has instituted a review of the '736
`
`patent based on the following ground: (i) Whether claims 15-22, 26-28 and 31-36
`
`are anticipated by Walker. I have been instructed that for a claim to be anticipated,
`
`it must be shown by a preponderance of the evidence that each and every element
`
`of the claim must be found in a single prior art reference (in this case Walker),
`
`exactly as claimed.
`
`12.
`
`I understand that claims 15-20, and 26-28 are no longer at issue in
`
`this proceeding.
`
`13.
`
`For purposes of this Declaration, I have been asked to consider
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Scott D. Schoifet
`
`
`whether claims 21, 22 and 31 are anticipated by Walker.
`
`Case: IPR2014-00191
`
`Priority Date
`
`14.
`
`In preparing this Declaration, I have reviewed the '736 patent and
`
`considered each document cited herein, in light of the knowledge of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art in the field of knee arthroplasty, as it stood in 2002.
`
`15.
`
`I have been instructed by counsel that the effective filing date of the
`
`'736 patent with respect to the subject matter of claims 15-22, 25-28 and 31-36 is
`
`July 8, 2002.
`
`The Person Of Ordinary Skill In The Art
`
`16.
`
`Based on my experience, it is my opinion that a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art to which the '736 patent relates in 2002 would have an
`
`undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering or biomechanical engineering or
`
`graduate coursework covering topics relevant to biomechanical devices or
`
`orthopedics, or an orthopedic surgeon having experience performing knee
`
`arthroplasty or joint replacement procedures. In this Declaration, whenever I refer
`
`to a person of ordinary skill in the art, it is to be understood that I refer to a person
`
`of that skill in 2002.
`
`General Background Of The '736 Patent
`
`17.
`
`The '736 patent in general describes methods and surgical
`
`techniques for knee-joint replacement using MIS techniques, as well as designs for
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Scott D. Schoifet
`
`Case: IPR2014-00191
`
`
`prosthetic implants, and instrumentation for performing surgical techniques for
`
`knee-joint replacement using MIS techniques. Knee replacement surgery is
`
`commonly referred to as knee arthroplasty.
`
`18.
`
`Claims 15-22, 26-28 and 31-36 relate generally to mobile bearing
`
`implants. Claims 17, 18, 20 and 31-36 relate specifically to implants for knee
`
`arthroplasty, whereas the remaining claims relate more generally to joint implants,
`
`which could be for knee joints, but could also be for other joints such as joints in
`
`the finger, wrist, shoulder, hip, ankle, or toe.
`
`19.
`
`A portion of a human leg, including a knee joint, is schematically
`
`illustrated in Figure 6 of the '736 patent, reproduced below. Generally speaking,
`
`the knee is the portion of the leg where the femur 126, tibia 214, and patella 120
`
`meet. In every-day use, the femur is the thigh bone, the tibia is the shin bone, and
`
`the patella is the knee cap. In the '736 patent, the terms "anterior", "posterior",
`
`"lateral", "medial" and "distal" are used. These are commonly used words in
`
`medicine. With reference to the figure below, which is a right leg the anterior side
`
`of the knee is the front of the knee, and the posterior side of the knee is the back of
`
`the knee. The side of the knee closest to the knee of the other leg (which would be
`
`the left side in the figure below) is the medial side (or inside) of the knee, and the
`
`opposite (on the right in the figure below) is referred to as the lateral side (or
`
`outside) of the knee.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Scott D. Schoifet
`
`Case: IPR2014-00191
`
`20.
`
`The subject matter of claims 15-22, 26-28, and 31-36 can be
`
`illustrated with Figures 88-90, reproduced below:
`
`7
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Scott D. Schoifet
`
`Case: IPR2014-00191
`
`21.
`
`Figures 88-90 show two embodiments of a self-centering mobile
`
`bearing implant. ('736 patent, col. 99, ll. 34-35, col. 101, lines 6-8). Figures 88-89
`
`illustrate a mobile bearing implant 1250 including a femoral component 1252 and
`
`a tibial component 1254. (Id., col. 99, ll. 36-38). Mobile bearing implant 1290 of
`
`Figure 90 includes "a femoral component . . .. . . . analogous to femoral component
`
`1252" and a tibial component 1292. (Id., col. 101, ll. 6-14).
`
`22.
`
`The tibial component 1254/1292 in turn is comprised of a tibial tray
`
`(1266 in Figs. 88-89, 1294 in Fig. 90) and a bearing insert (1268 in Figs 88-89,
`
`1296 in Fig. 90). Tray 1266/1294 includes a tapered spike 1270/1298 and a plate
`
`member 1272/1300. (Id., col. 99, ll. 50-51, col. 101, ll. 15-16). Plate member
`
`1272/1300 has a superior surface 1274/1302 which is shown as "a concave,
`
`spherically shaped plateau surface." (Id., col. 99, ll. 53-54, col. 101, ll. 18-20).
`
`8
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Scott D. Schoifet
`
`Case: IPR2014-00191
`
`
`Bearing insert 1268/1296 has a spherically shaped inferior surface 1284/1304 so
`
`that the interface between tibial tray 1266/1294 and bearing insert 1268/1296
`
`enables sliding motions along these inferior (1284/1304) and superior (1274/1302)
`
`surfaces. (Id., col. 99, ll. 56-60, col. 101, ll. 21-25).
`
`23.
`
`The superior surface of the bearing insert 1268/1294 interfaces with
`
`the femoral component 1252. In this regard, the superior surface of the bearing
`
`insert includes a pair of depressions (1280 in Figure 89, dotted lines in Figure 90)
`
`that form bearing surfaces for the condyles surfaces of the femoral component.
`
`(Id., col. 100, ll. 6-8).
`
`24.
`
`The embodiment of Figures 88-89 and the embodiment of Figure 90
`
`differ in some respects.
`
`25.
`
`In the embodiment of Figures 88-89, the bearing insert 1268 includes
`
`a recess in the form of a dovetail shaped groove 1288 which mates with a
`
`protrusion in the form of a dovetail pin shaped track 1276. Although "shown
`
`centrally located, track 1276 can be located elsewhere along superior surface 1274
`
`. . .." (Id., Figures 88-89. col. 99, l. 62 to col. 100, l. 1).
`
`26.
`
`In the embodiment of Figure 90, the bearing insert 1294 includes a
`
`recess 1308 in the form of a hole or cavity which mates with a protrusion 1306 in
`
`the form of a post or pin. The hole or cavity 1308 extends from inferior surface
`
`1304 upward into the interior of bearing insert 1296, as indicated by the dashed
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Scott D. Schoifet
`
`Case: IPR2014-00191
`
`
`lines depicting component 1308. The pin/post 1306 cooperates with hole/cavity
`
`1308 "to permit rotation of bearing insert 1296 with respect to tibial tray 1294."
`
`(Id , Figure 90, col. 101, ll. 28-31).
`
`27.
`
`Pin/post 1306 of Figure 90 is not located at "the center of the tibia",
`
`but rather, "is offset medially toward the medial compartment of the knee" ( Id. ,
`
`Figure 90, col. 101, ll. 55-57). The '736 patent explains that "[o]ffsetting post 1306
`
`more toward the medial compartment of the knee recreates the natural pivoting
`
`motion on the knee, with less translation medially, a more stable joint medially,
`
`and more rotational arc or more movement laterally. " ( Id , col. 101, ll. 63-67).
`
`28.
`
`Although Figures 88-90 depict the protrusion 1276/1306 on the tray
`
`1266/1294 and the recess 1268/1308 on the bearing insert 1268/1294, this
`
`arrangement can be switched so that the protrusion is on the bearing insert and the
`
`recess is on the tray. (Id. col. 100, ll. 2-5, col. 101,ll. 31-34).
`
`29.
`
`Further, although these self-centering mobile bearing implants are
`
`illustrated with reference to total knee replacement, they can also be "applied to . .
`
`. partial knee replacement." (Id. col. 102, ll. 1-4).
`
`Claim Construction
`
`30.
`
`I have been instructed that I should interpret the terms of the claims
`
`following a legal standard defined as the “broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`consistent with the specification.” I have been informed that under the broadest
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Scott D. Schoifet
`
`Case: IPR2014-00191
`
`
`reasonable interpretation standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and
`
`customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in
`
`the context of the entire disclosure.
`
`31.
`
`I have been instructed to consider claims 21, 22, and 31 which are set
`
`forth below.
`
`32.
`
`I understand that claim 15 itself is no longer at issue in this
`
`proceeding. However, I have been instructed that claims 21 and 22 depend from
`
`claim 15, and therefore that these claims include each and every element of claim
`
`15:
`
`Independent Claim 15
`
`15. A device to replace an articulating surface of a first side of a joint
`in a body, the joint having first and second sides, comprising:
`a base component, including a bone contacting side
`connectable with bone on the first side of the joint, and a base sliding
`side on an opposite side of said base component relative to said bone
`contacting side;
`a movable component, including a movable sliding side, said
`movable sliding side being matably positionable in sliding
`engagement with said base sliding side, and an articulating side on an
`opposite side of said movable component relative to said movable
`sliding side, shaped to matingly engage an articulating surface of the
`second side of the joint;
`a protrusion extending from one of said base sliding side or
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Scott D. Schoifet
`
`Case: IPR2014-00191
`
`movable sliding side, said protrusion substantially offset with respect
`to a midline of the first side of a joint;
`a recess sized to receive said protrusion, disposed in the other
`of said base sliding side or movable sliding side, said protrusion and
`recess matable to constrain movement of said first and second
`components relative to each other, thereby promoting movement of
`the joint within desired anatomical limits.
`Dependent Claims 21 and 22
`
`21. The device of claim 15, wherein said protrusion and recess engage
`to permit relative rotation of said base sliding side and said movable
`sliding side about an axis of said protrusion.
`
`22. The device of claim 15, wherein said protrusion is a pin, and said
`recess is a hole sized to receive said pin.
`Independent Claim 31
`
`31. A knee arthroplasty device, comprising:
`a tibial tray including a lower distal surface and an upper
`proximal surface, said proximal surface having either a post or a
`cavity, said post or cavity offset from at least one of a medial-lateral
`centerline and an anterior-posterior centerline of said tibial tray;
`a tibial tray insert engageable with said proximal surface and
`having a mating second cavity if said tibial tray has a post, or a mating
`post if said tibial tray has a cavity, said mating post or mating cavity
`offset from at least one of the medial-lateral centerline and the
`anterior-posterior centerline of said tibial tray, wherein said mating
`cavity is adapted to receive at least a portion of said post, or said
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Scott D. Schoifet
`
`Case: IPR2014-00191
`
`
`
`mating post is adapted to be received in at least a portion of said
`cavity;
`wherein said tibial tray insert rotationally moves with respect
`to said tibial tray, about said post, when the device is used within the
`body such that the rotation of the tibial tray insert is asymmetric with
`respect to at least one of the medial-lateral centerline and the anterior-
`posterior centerline of said tibial tray.
`
`Walker
`
`33. Walker is directed to prostheses for knee replacement. (Walker,
`
`title). In the Corrected Petition, the Petitioner relies upon the embodiment shown
`
`in Figures 2, 2A, 2B, and 2C. (Corrected Petition, pp. 28-36). This is also the
`
`embodiment relied upon by the Board in its Institution Decision. (Institution
`
`Decision, pp. 9-10).
`
`34.
`
`Referring to Figure 2a, there is provided a tibial platform 41and a
`
`meniscal component 44. Tibial platform 41includes an "upstanding stud 42", a "rail
`
`48", and "a semicircular abutment 50 which is upstanding at the medial side of the
`
`platform." (Walker, col. 4, ll. 12-13, 20, 23-25).
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Scott D. Schoifet
`
`Case: IPR2014-00191
`
`35. Meniscal component 44 includes a "slot 43" which receives the stud
`
`42, "a recess 49" that engages with the rail 48, and "a recess or notch 51" which is
`
`"rounded." (Id., col. 4, ll. 13, 20-21, 25-29) (emphasis added). "Rotation of the
`
`meniscal component 44 about an axis X at the edge of the tibial platform is
`
`controlled by [the] abutment 50." (Id., col. 4, ll. 23-25) (emphasis added).
`
`The Hole/Cavity Limitation of Claims 22 and 31
`
`36.
`
`Claim 22 specifies that the protrusion of claim 15 is a pin and that the
`
`recess of claim 15 is a hole sized to receive the pin.
`
`37.
`
`Claim 31 specifies that the tibial tray insert has a cavity and the tibial
`
`tray has a post (or vice versa). Claim 31 further specifies that the " mating cavity
`
`is adapted to receive at least a portion of said post, or said mating post is adapted to
`
`be received in at least a portion of said cavity." In other words, post is received at
`
`least in part, in the cavity.
`
`38.
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
`
`familiar with the '736 patent specification and claims would understand that recess
`
`14
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Scott D. Schoifet
`
`Case: IPR2014-00191
`
`1308, shown in figure 90, is a hole or cavity. In particular, a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would recognize from figure 90 that the dotted line shows where the
`
`hole or the cavity is located in bearing insert 1296, and if switched, the hole or the
`
`cavity could be located in the superior surface 1302. (Id. col. 101, ll. 28-34). In my
`
`experience, dashed lines are a common way to illustrate this.
`
`39.
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
`
`would understand that a notch (like notch 51 of Walker) is not the same as a hole
`
`or cavity because they are common terms with a common understanding within the
`
`medical field. For example, in the medical field there is a intercondylar notch on
`
`the end portion of the femur:
`
`(http://www.kneeguru.co.uk/KNEEnotes/knee-dictionary/intercondylar-
`
`notch)(Exhibit 2004)
`
`15
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Scott D. Schoifet
`
`Case: IPR2014-00191
`
`
`
`40.
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize from the '736
`
`patent specification that a notch is not a hole and that the terms are used in their
`
`ordinary and customary meaning. For example, as part of a discussion of a femoral
`
`procedure an intercondylar notch and a hole are discussed in the same sentence:
`
`“The drill 128 is utilized to form a hole 130 in the center of the intercondylar notch
`
`in the distal end portion 124 of the femur 126 in a known manner. The drill 128 is
`
`used to form the hole 130 while the leg 70 is in the orientation illustrated in FIGS.
`
`2 and 3. The patella 120 is in the offset position illustrated in FIG. 8.” (Id. col. 17,
`
`ll. 24-31).
`
`41.
`
`The intercondylar notch and the drilled hole in the distal end portion
`
`124 of the femur 126 is shown even more clearly in Figure 31:
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Scott D. Schoifet
`
`Case: IPR2014-00191
`
`42.
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art would also understand that when
`
`designing a medical device a mechanical specification for a notch is not same as a
`
`mechanical specification for a hole or cavity.
`
`43.
`
`I have consulted on medical instrumentation design and based on my
`
`experience a notch is not a hole or cavity and to use the term notch interchangeably
`
`with the terms hole or cavity would cause confusion among designers and result in
`
`a different design.
`
`44.
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
`
`familiar with Walker would recognize that component 51, in Figures 2-c, is not a
`
`hole or cavity because the terms hole, cavity and notch are well known in the
`
`medical field and component 51 is clearly illustrated in the figures as a notch. (Id.
`
`col. 4, ll. 23-29, col. 4, ll. 30-34).
`
`17
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Scott D. Schoifet
`
`Case: IPR2014-00191
`
`
`
`45.
`
`Likewise a pin or post is not the same as an abutment, particularly
`
`when used in combination with a hole or cavity into which it is received as it is in
`
`the context of claims 22 and 31. In orthopedics a pin or post is typically used to fix
`
`or align one device (or bone) to another device (or bone) by drilling (or passing
`
`through) a hole cavity through the two devices (or bones). We commonly pin
`
`fractures or pin guides to bones. An abutment is not a pin. We would not use an
`
`abutment to fix align one device (or bone) to another device (or bone) nor does an
`
`abutment reside within a hole or cavity. A person of ordinary skill in the art of
`
`orthopedics at the time would not consider the abutment of Walker to be a pin or
`
`post as those terms are used in claims 22 and 31.
`
`46.
`
`Accordingly, Walker does not meet the requirements of either claim
`
`22 or claim 31, because the notch 51 is not a hole or a cavity as claimed, nor is the
`
`abutment 50 a pin or post which is received in a hole or cavity as claimed.
`
`The Rotation Limitation of claims 22 and 31
`
`47.
`
`Claim 21 requires "wherein said protrusion and recess engage to
`
`permit relative rotation of said base sliding side and said movable sliding side
`
`about an axis of said protrusion."
`
`48.
`
`Claim 31 requires "wherein said tibial tray insert rotationally moves
`
`with respect to said tibial tray, about said post."
`
`49.
`
`Accordingly, both claims require a rotational movement about an
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Scott D. Schoifet
`
`
`axis of the post/protrusion.
`
`Case: IPR2014-00191
`
`50.
`
`This rotational movement is illustrated in Figure 90 (shown above)
`
`and described at col. 101, ll. 28-31. This rotation of the tibial tray insert about the
`
`pin/post axis within a hole/cavity is consistent with what a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art would understand to be rotational movement about an axis.
`
`51.
`
`In Walker, there is no rotation about "an axis of said protrusion" as
`
`required by claim 21, and the tibial tray insert does not move "rotationally . . .
`
`about said post."
`
`52. Walker is quite explicit in pointing out that the protrusion is located
`
`in the notch to allow for translational movement. Specifically, Walker explains
`
`that the "notch 51" is "rounded as shown to allow approximately 2 mms movement
`
`in an anterior posterior direction."
`
`53.
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
`
`would not consider the movement of component 44 of Walker to be rotation about
`
`an axis of the protrusion as required by claim 22 or rotation about a post as
`
`required by claim 31.
`
`54.
`
`I am being compensated at my normal consulting rate for my work.
`
`My compensation is not dependent on and in no way affects the substance of my
`
`statements in this declaration.
`
`55.
`
`In signing this declaration, I recognize that the declaration will be
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Scott D. Schoifet
`
`Case:
`
`IPR20l4—0Ol91
`
`filed as evidence in a contested case before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of
`
`the United States Patent and Trademark Office. I also recognize that I may be
`
`subject to cross examination in the case and that cross examination will take place
`
`within the United States. If cross examination is required of me, I will appear for
`
`cross examination within the United States during the time allotted for cross
`
`examination.
`
`56.
`
`I reserve the right to supplement my opinions in the future to
`
`respond to any arguments that Petitioner raises and to take into account new
`
`information as it becomes available to me.
`
`57.
`
`All of the statements made in this declaration of my own
`
`knowledge are true. All statements made based on information and belief are
`
`believed to be true. Further, these statements are made with the knowledge
`
`that willful false statements and the like so made are punishable by fine or
`
`imprisonment, or both, under §100l of Title 18 of the United States Code and
`
`that such willful false statements may jeopardize the validity of the subject
`
`patent.
`
`Date:
`
`Signature.
`
`Scott D. Schoifet
`
`20
`
`

`
`APPENDIX A
`
`
`
`
`
`APPENDIX AAPPENDIX AAPPENDIX A
`
`
`
`

`
`case 3:13-cv-00176-JVB-CAN document 74-2 filed 04/21/14 page 2 of 5
`
`CURRICULUM VITAE
`
`
`
`Scott David Schoifet, M.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Diploma
`
`BA Chemistry
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Honors in General Surgery
`
`St. Vincents Hospital and
`Medical Center
`New York City, New York
`
`University of Rochester
`Strong Memorial Hospital
`Rochester, New York
`
`
`Mayo Clinic
`Rochester, Minnesota
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Business Address
`
`Reconstructive Orthopedics, PA
`Tower Medical Building, Suite 6
`737 Main Street
`Lumberton, New Jersey 08048
`1-609-267-9400
`
`
`
`1975
`
`1975 - 1979
`
`1979 - 1983
`
`1983 - 1985
`
`
`
`1985 – 1988
`
`1988 - 1989
`
`July 12, 1991
`2021
`
`July, 1989 through April, 1990
`May, 1990 through Present
`
`
`
`
`
`Personal Data:
`
`
`Date of Birth: 01/21/1958
`Place of Birth: Highland Park, New Jersey
`Married: 3 Children
`
`
`Citizenship: USA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Education:
`
`Highland Park High School
`Highland Park, New Jersey
`
`Cornell University
`New York State
`
`Columbia University College of
`Physicians and Surgeons
`New York, New York
`
`Post Graduate Training:
`
`Residency, General Surgery
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Residency, Orthopedic Surgery
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Fellowship, Adult Reconstructive Surgery
`
`
`
`
`
`Educational Honors – Awards:
`
`Honors General Surgery Clerkship
`Honors Orthopaedic Clerkship
`Appointed Instructor in Orthopedics at the Mayo Clinic
`Phi Beta Kappa Honor Society – Junior Year, Cornell University
`
`Licenses:
`License to practice Medicine and Surgery in State of New Jersey
`
`Board Certification:
`American Board of Orthopedic Surgery
`Re-Certification
`
`
`
`Employment History:
`Elizabeth Orthopedic Group
`Reconstructive Orthopedics, P.A.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`case 3:13-cv-00176-JVB-CAN document 74-2 filed 04/21/14 page 3 of 5
`
`
`
`
`Cornell University, New York
`Mayo Clinic, Rochester, New York
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`May, 1990 through Present
`September 2003 to present
`
`October 2003 to Present
`
`Curriculum Vitae - Scott David Schoifet, M.D.
`Page 2
`
`Faculty Appointments:
`Teaching Assistant, Chemistry & Biochemistry
`Instructor in Orthopaedic Surgery
`
`
`
`Hospital and Administrative Appointments:
`Attending Physician, Virtua Memorial Hospital of
`
`
`Burlington County
`
`
`
`Attending Physician - Virtua Health System
`Medical Director – Total Joint Replacement Program,
`Virtua Health System
`
`
`
`Instructor, Consultant, Trainer –National MIS
` Knee Program – Stryker Orthopaedics
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`April 2004 to Present
`
`
`Membership – Professional Organizations:
`American Medical Association
`American Academy of Orthopedic Surgery
`American College of Surgeons – Fellow
`Burlington County Medical Society
`New Jersey State Medical Society
`
`Research/Publications:
`“Treatment of Infection after Total Knee Arthoplasty by Debridement with Retention of Components”
`
`
`Schoifet, S.D., Morrey, B. F., Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 72-A. 1383-1390, October, 1990.
`
`“Long Term Results of Various Treatment Options for Infected TKA’s”
`
`
`Morrey, B. F., Westholm, F., Schoifet, S. D., Rand, J.A., Bryan, R. S.
`
`“Persistent Infection after Successful Arthrodesis for Infected Total Knee Replacement: A Report of Two Cases”
`
`
`Schoifet, S. D., Morrey, B. F. Submitted to the Journal of Arthoplasty.
`
`“Hip Arthoplasty in Special Cases: Proximal Femoral Fractures”
`
`
`Schoifet, S. D., Sim, F. H., Cabanela, M. E. Chapter 49 in Joint Replacement Arthoplasty. Edited by
`
`
`Bernard F. Morrey, New York, Churchill Livingstone, 1991
`
`
`“Comparative Safety and Resource Utilization of Total Knee Arthroplasty in Inpatient and Outpatient Settings”
`Schoifet, S.D., Journal of Managed Care Medicine, Vol. 14, No.3, pg 27-32, September 2011
`
`
`Instructor – Clinical Cadaver MIS-TKA Labs – Stryker
`
`
`Chicago, Illinois
`
`June 15 & 16, 2004
`
`
`Memphis, Tennessee
`
`September 24 & 25, 2004
`
`
`Newark, New Jersey
`
`November 2 & 3, 2004
`
`
`New Brunswick, New Jersey
`June 5 & 6, 2005
`
`
`Memphis, Tennessee
`
`June 23 & 24, 2005
`New Brunswick, New Jersey
`August 28 & 29, 2005
`New Brunswick, New Jersey
`November 29 & 30, 2005
`New Brunswick, New Jersey
`March 26 & 27, 2006
`New Brunswick, New Jersey
`July 30 & 31, 2006
`New Brunswick, New Jersey
`October 13, 2006
`New Brunswick, New Jersey
`October 29 & 30, 2006
`New Brunswick, New Jersey
`April 1&2, 2007
`Mahwah, New Jersey
`
`July 8 & 9, 2007
`Mahwah, New Jersey
`
`October 14 & 15, 2007
`Mahwah, New Jersey
`
`September 20 & 21, 2008
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`case 3:13-cv-00176-JVB-CAN document 74-2 filed 04/21/14 page 4 of 5
`
`
`
`Curriculum Vitae - Scott David Schoifet, M.D.
`Page 3
`
`
`Presentations:
`Acromioclavicular Dislocation: Current Concepts and Controversy
`
`
`City Wide Grand Rounds
`
`
`
`
`Salvage of Infected Total Knee Replacements
`
`
`Adult Reconstructive Conference,
`
`
`
`Controversies in Bipolar Arthoplasty
`
`
`Adult Reconstruction Conference,
`
`
`Long Term Follow up of Infected TKA’s Treated by Debridement and Retention
`
`
`of Components. Schoifet, S. D., Morrey, B. F.
`
`
`American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons,.
`
` MIS Knee Surgery - Experience & Techniques
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Advances in Surgical Technology
`
`
`
`Bioskills Lab
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MIS-TKR – Current Techniques
`
`
`Japan: Tokyo, Oska, Fukuoka and Toyama
`
`
`
`
`MIS-TKR– Mid-Vastus Approach
`
`
`Annual Meeting of the American Osteopathic
`Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`January 10, 1987
` Rochester, New York
`
` October 4, 1988
`Rochester, Minnesota
`
`March 7, 1989
`Rochester, Minnesota
`
`February 13, 1990
`
`October 21, 2004
`York, PA
`
`
`December 2, 2004
`New York City, NY
`
`March, 2005
`Japan
`
`
`May 13, 2005
`Washington, D.C.
`
`
`
`September, 2005
`Boston, MA
`
`December, 2005
`New York City, NY
`
`December, 2005
`New York City, NY
`
`December, 2005
`New York City, NY
`
`September, 2006
`Japan
`
`
`
`
`October 21, 2006
`Dallas, TX
`
`December, 2006
`Stratford, NJ
`
`
`
`MIS-TKR – Bioskills Lecture and Presentation
`
`
`National Orthopaedic Residents Seminar
`
`
`
`“Why Not Evert the Patella”
`
`
`Advances in Surgical Technology
`
`
`Bioskills Lab
`Current Clinical National Observation Site for Stryker Orthopedic
`“Why Not Evert the Patella”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Advances in Surgical Technology, Bioskills Lab
`
`
` Current Clinical National Observation Site for Stryker Orthopedic
`
`
`
`“Why Not Evert the Patella”
`
`
`Advances in Surgical Technology
`
`
`Bioskills Lab
`Current Clinical National Observation Site for Stryker Orthopedic
`
`
`
`
`MIS-TKA with a Mini Midvastus Approach
`55th Annual Meeting of the Eastern Japan Association
`
`
`
`
`of Orthopedics and Traumatology
`
`
`
`MIS-TKA – Anterior Resurfacing
`
`
`Triathalon Champion’s Symposium
`
`
`MIS-TKA Current Concepts
`
`
`UMDNJ – Stratford
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`case 3:13-cv-00176-JVB-CAN document 74-2 filed 04/21/14 page 5 of 5
`
`Curriculum Vitae - Scott David Schoifet, M.D.
`Page 4
`
`Long Term Quadriceps Strength Retention in Mini Midvastus Approach
`
`
`Presentation at the Annual Meeting of the American
`
`
`Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons
`
`Long Term Quadriceps Strength Retention in Mini Midvastus Approach
`
`
`Presentation at EFFORT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`February 16, 2007
`San Diego, CA
`
`May 15, 2007
`Florence, Italy
`
`September, 2007
`Stratford, NJ
`
`October, 2007
`Mt. Laurel, NJ
`
`October, 2008
`Mahwah, NJ
`
`January, 2009
`Voorhees, NJ
`
`May, 2009
`New Orleans, LA
`
`July, 2009
`Mahwah, NJ
`
`March, 2010
`Mahwah, NJ
`
`June, 2010
`Germany/Austria
`
`November, 2010
`Williamsburg, VA
`
`March, 2011
`Las Vegas, NV
`
`
`MIS-TKA Current Concepts
`
`
`UMDNJ – Stratford
`
`
`
`“Is it time for a knee replacement”
`
`
`Women’s Health