Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
  • A
  • AcroMed Corp. v. Sofamor Danek Group, Inc.AcroMed Corp. v. Sofamor Danek Group, Inc.
From our private database of 16,800+ case briefs...

AcroMed Corp. v. Sofamor Danek Group, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
253 F.3d 1371 (2001)


Dr. Arthur Steffee developed a surgical spine-straightening system that hooked wired rods onto a patient’s spine. In Steffee’s early system, over time the rods would slip, decreasing the surgery’s efficacy. To prevent slippage, Steffee began to use a plate-and-screw system. Steffee conceived of different screw types to potentially use in the plates. Steffee asked Frank Janson, a machinist in a hospital-machine shop, to cut the heads off of regular bone screws. Thereafter, Steffee realized he would need a modified plate design so that the pins fastening the plate into the vertebrae would not slide. Steffee instructed Janson to design such a plate, which Janson did by inserting arcuate recesses into the plate slots. Steffee secured a patent for the device and founded AcroMed Corporation (plaintiff). Steffee assigned his patent rights to AcroMed. AcroMed requested that Janson sign a declaration naming Janson a co-inventor of the device and assigning his rights to AcroMed. Janson refused and instead assigned his rights to Sofamor Danek Group, Inc. (Danek) (defendant). AcroMed sued Danek for infringement. Danek contended that AcroMed’s patent was invalid for failure to name Janson as an inventor. At trial, Janson testified that he conceived of the arcuate recesses and slotted plate before Steffee described the slippage problems. However, Janson did not tell anyone else about these earlier conceptions. The district court granted Acromed’s motion for judgment as a matter of law, holding that the patent was not invalid for improper inventorship. The jury found that Danek had infringed the patent. Danek moved for judgment as a matter of law, and the district court denied the motion. Danek appealed.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Rader, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 449,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 449,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 16,800 briefs, keyed to 224 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial