The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision January 20, 2026, in *Barry v. DePuy Synthes Companies*, concluding appeals from a long-running patent infringement lawsuit that began in 2017. The case involves Dr. Mark A. Barry as plaintiff-appellant against multiple DePuy Synthes entities, including DePuy Synthes Sales, Inc., Medical Device Business Services, Inc., and DePuy Synthes Products, Inc.
The litigation centers on allegations that DePuy induced surgeons to infringe certain claims of Barry's U.S. Patent Nos. 7,670,358, 8,361,121, and 9,668,787, collectively referred to as "the Asserted Patents." The patents appear to relate to medical device technology, though the specific nature of the inventions is not detailed in the available court documents.
The case originated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under case number 2:17-cv-03003-PD, with Judge Paul S. Diamond presiding. During the district court proceedings, DePuy moved to exclude two of Barry's expert witnesses, Dr. Walid Yassir and Dr. David Neal, and the district court granted the motion, though the full reasoning and implications of this exclusion are not specified in the available materials.
The Federal Circuit panel consisted of Circuit Judges Kathleen M. Prost, Raymond T. Taranto, and Alan D. Stark. Circuit Judge Stark authored the majority opinion for the court, while Circuit Judge Prost filed a dissenting opinion, indicating the appeals court was not unanimous in its decision.
Representing plaintiff-appellant Barry was a team from Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP led by David Clay Holloway of the Atlanta office, who argued the case before the Federal Circuit. The legal team also included attorneys Courtney Dabbiere and Mitchell G. Stockwell, as well as Kathleen Geyer and Dario Alexander Machleidt from the Seattle office, Andrew William Rinehart from Winston-Salem, North Carolina, and Jonathan L. Cochran from Stapleton Segal Cochran LLC in Philadelphia.
Defendants-appellees DePuy Synthes were represented by Gregory A. Castanias of Jones Day's Washington, D.C. office, who argued before the Federal Circuit. The defense team included Tracy A. Stitt, T. Kaitlin Crowder, Thomas Koglman, Kenneth Luchesi, and Patrick Norton from Jones Day's Cleveland office, as well as Kevin Vincent McCarthy from the New York office.
The case represents typical patent litigation in the medical device industry, where disputes often arise over induced infringement claims. Induced infringement occurs when a defendant encourages or instructs others to directly infringe patent claims, rather than directly infringing themselves. In this context, Barry alleged that DePuy induced surgeons to use medical devices in ways that infringed his patents.
The involvement of expert witnesses Dr. Yassir and Dr. Neal, and DePuy's successful motion to exclude them at the district court level, suggests the case involved complex technical issues requiring specialized testimony. Expert witness testimony is crucial in patent cases to help courts understand the technical aspects of the inventions and determine questions of infringement and validity.
The Federal Circuit's jurisdiction over this case stems from its exclusive appellate jurisdiction over patent disputes. As the specialized appeals court for patent matters, the Federal Circuit reviews district court decisions in patent cases to ensure consistent application of patent law across the country.
The presence of both a majority opinion by Circuit Judge Stark and a dissenting opinion by Circuit Judge Prost indicates the legal issues in the case were complex enough to divide the three-judge panel. Dissenting opinions in patent cases often address different interpretations of claim construction, infringement analysis, or validity determinations.
The case numbers 2023-2226 and 2023-2234 suggest there were multiple appeals or cross-appeals from the district court's decisions, which is common in complex patent litigation where both parties may appeal different aspects of the trial court's rulings.
This decision adds to the Federal Circuit's body of precedent in medical device patent litigation and induced infringement law. The outcome of the case and the specific legal holdings will likely influence future patent disputes in the medical device industry, particularly those involving allegations that manufacturers induce healthcare providers to infringe patents through their use of medical devices.
The nearly decade-long litigation timeline, from the 2017 filing to the 2026 Federal Circuit decision, illustrates the lengthy nature of complex patent disputes, particularly those involving multiple parties and sophisticated technology in regulated industries like medical devices.