Litigation Details for Integra LifeSciences Corp. v. HyperBranch Medical Technology, Inc (D. Del. 2015)

Integra LifeSciences Corp. v. HyperBranch Medical Technology, Inc (D. Del. 2015)

Docket	1:15-cv-00819	Date Filed	2015-09-15
Court	District Court, D. Delaware	Date Terminated	2019-03-26
Cause	35:271 Patent Infringement	Assigned To	Leonard Philip Stark
Jury Demand	Plaintiff	Referred To
Parties	CONFLUENT SURGICAL, INC.
Patents	11,020,377; 8,808,741; 9,175,017
Attorneys	Robert F. Altherr , Jr.
Firms	Polsinelli PC
Link to Docket	External link to docket

Details for Integra LifeSciences Corp. v. HyperBranch Medical Technology, Inc (D. Del. 2015)

Date Filed	Document No.	Description	Snippet	Link To Document
2015-09-15				External link to document
2015-09-15	310		range of 1650 to 5500 mPa s (cP)." U.S. Patent No. 8,808,741, cols. 7:64-8:1 (cited in Purdue Pharma …;5705 patent") (collectively, the "patents-in-suit" or "asserted patents"). …prosecution of two later patents in the same family as the asserted patent (patents that shared nearly identical… the patents are related and are in the same patent family (the '3705 patent is a…;406 patent) The application for the '3705 patent was filed on May 29, 2008, and that patent issued	External link to document

Litigation summary and analysis for: Integra LifeSciences Corp. v. HyperBranch Medical Technology, Inc (D. Del. 2015)

Last updated: April 28, 2026

Integra LifeSciences v. HyperBranch (1:15-cv-00819): Litigation Posture, Claimed Patent Scope, and Business Implications

What is the case and what is known about the docket?

Integra LifeSciences Corp. v. HyperBranch Medical Technology, Inc., 1:15-cv-00819 (U.S. District Court) is a patent infringement dispute filed in 2015. The matter name and docket identifier are the only reliably specified facts in the prompt; no further case-content details (asserted patents, claim chart themes, claim construction outcomes, claim terms, procedural milestones, trial posture, or final disposition) are provided.

Because patent litigation analysis requires specific docket record content to avoid misstatement (e.g., exact asserted patents and the operative claim constructions), a complete and accurate litigation summary cannot be produced from the information supplied.

Output: none.