IP Law Daily, PATENT—D.N.J.: Summary judgment denied in breast implant insertion funnel dispute, (Dec 18, 2025)

By Kevin M. Finson, J.D.

Genuine questions of material fact existed as to both infringement and damages, and were supported by expert testimony.

A seller of medical funnels used to insert breast implants was not entitled to summary judgment in patent infringement claims asserted against it, the U.S. District Court in Newark has held. Genuine issues of material fact existed as to infringement and damages because the defendants’ argument as to non-infringement relied on a claim construction other than the one adopted by the court and conflicting expert testimony existed on damages (Novaplast Corp. v. Inplant, LLC, No. 2:20-cv-07396-JXN-JBC (D.N.J. Dec. 15, 2025)).

Novaplast Corporation (Novaplast) was the owner of U.S. Patent No. 10,105,213 (the ’213 patent), entitled “Prosthetic Implant Delivery Device and Method,” which claimed an implant funnel used to insert a prosthetic implant such as a breast implant into a patient’s body, using a first and second fastener to form an opening at the patient-end of the device “sized to allow the prosthetic implant to be urged therethrough.” Novaplast brought suit against Inplant, LLC and Proximate Concepts, LLC (collectively, Inplant) for infringement based on two implant funnel products. Inplant moved for summary judgment and to exclude the testimony of Novaplast’s infringement expert. Novaplast moved for sanctions relating to a prior order on non-infringement contentions.

Exclusion of expert. Inplant argued that Novaplast’s expert was unqualified and that her opinion was unreliable because she did not directly observe an implant get pushed through the distal end of either accused product. The court found that Novaplast’s expert was academically qualified, had worked as a research assistant at two laboratories developing medical devices, and had personally developed several medical devices. The court found that even though this experience was not specifically related to breast implants or implant funnels, the expert was sufficiently qualified to testify, and the issues raised by Inplant went to weight and credibility, not admissibility. The fact that she had not actually observed a breast implant be squeezed through the end of the accused product was not dispositive because she had in fact handled the accused products and observed the size of the opening, and it did not require experimentation to determine that a smaller object would fit through a larger opening.

Summary judgment. Inplant argued that there was no evidence in the record from which a reasonable fact finder could find that the accused product did not infringe a claim limitation that required the connection of fasteners to form a distal opening of a predetermined size, because the opening of the accused product would need to be “sized” by cutting, trimming, or removing a perforated cap. The court found that under its prior claim construction order this was not the meaning of “sized” applicable to the case, and that the connection of the fasteners established the size of the opening, which is what was required.

Inplant also argued that the testimony of Novaplast’s damages expert was insufficient because he did not consider all of the fifteen Georgia-Pacific factors. The court held that the applicable law required only that the expert consider the applicable factors, and the testimony provided explanation for why and to what extent the factors were considered or disregarded.

Sanctions. Novaplast contended that Inplant violated the court’s earlier order by arguing non-infringement contentions not originally disclosed under the local patent rules, especially when the court had denied a motion to amend the non-infringement contentions. The court found that the arguments ultimately made were substantively the same as those originally raised, differing only in wording and not substance, and also noted that the court had eventually granted a motion to amend the non-infringement contentions.

The court denied all three of the motions before it.

The Case is No. 2:20-cv-07396-JXN-JBC.

Judge: Neals, J.

Attorneys: Alexander Lee Callo (Saul Ewing LLP) for NovaPlast Corp. Gregory D. Miller (Rivkin Radler LLP) for Inplant, LLC.

Companies: NovaPlast Corp.; Inplant, LLC; Proximate Concepts, LLC

Cases: Patent NewJerseyNews