On June 25, Blatchford Products, Basingstoke, England, and Blatchford, Miamisburg, Ohio, filed a patent infringement suit against Freedom Innovations, Irvine, California, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division. (Blatchford Products and Blatchford are both wholly owned subsidiaries of Chas A. Blatchford & Sons, Basingstoke, and are collectively called Blatchford for the suit.) In the suit, Blatchford claims ownership of U.S. Patents 8,574,312 (‘312 patent) and 8,740,991 (‘991 patent), both of which are titled “Prosthetic Ankle Joint Mechanism,” and both of which are directed to Blatchford’s echelon prosthetic foot. Blatchford also alleges that Freedom Innovations’ Kinterra Foot/Ankle System infringes on these patents.
Further, on that same date, Freedom Innovations filed an action for declaratory judgment against Chas A. Blatchford & Sons and Blatchford Products in the U.S. District Court, District of Nevada. In its suit, Freedom Innovations claims that it has not infringed on the ‘312 patent either directly or indirectly, and also alleges that the ‘312 patent is invalid for failure to meet the conditions of patentability.
Blatchford issued the following comment regarding the suits: “Blatchford believes that Freedom Innovation’s Kinterra foot infringes Blatchford’s U.S. patents 8,574,312 and 8,740,991…. Freedom Innovations has responded by filing a separate case against Blatchford in Nevada which alleges that the Kinterra foot does not infringe patent 8,574,312 and that the patent is invalid. Obviously Blatchford does not agree with either of these assertions and will vigorously defend its position and advance its claims in the case in Ohio.”
Freedom Innovations issued the following comment regarding the suits: “Freedom filed this action for declaratory judgment for the reasons described in the filing. Freedom disagrees with the assertions made in Blatchford’s complaint filed in response to our action and intends to vigorously defend itself against such assertions. In accordance with company policy, we will not supply any additional information regarding this ongoing legal matter.”
