Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Main Menu

Krauser v. BioHorizons, Inc., et al.

Court:
Southern District of Florida
Subject Matter:
Patent
Procedural Posture:
Motion for Summary Judgment
  • Jack. T. Krauser, D.M.D. v. BioHorizons, Inc.
    Jack. T. Krauser, D.M.D. v. BioHorizons, Inc.
    Jack. T. Krauser, D.M.D., Plaintiff v. BioHorizons, Inc, Defendants, Case 10-CV-80454-Marra/Hopkins, 7/6/2012, 3:30 P.M. (EST). Paul G. Rogers Federal Building and Courthouse, West Palm Beach, FL, Judge Kenneth A. Marra presiding.

    Jack. T. Krauser, D.M.D., Plaintiff v. BioHorizons, Inc, Defendants, Case 10-CV-80454-Marra/Hopkins, 7/6/2012, 3:30 P.M....

Case Summary: 10-80454

This case is about the interpretation of an agreement that settled a dental implant patent infringement claim.

Plaintiff Krauser filed a complaint for declaratory relief against defendants Biohorizons, et al. According to Krauser, in the early 1990s, he conceived of a new type of dental implant system and received a patent for the device. During that time, Krauser contracted with Minimatic to produce drawings and prototypes of his new system and to market and sell the new system. Allegedly, Minimatic submitted an application for its own patent, named its principal as the inventor, and failed to pay to Krauser royalties from the sales. Krauser sued Minimatic; Minimatic filed for relief in bankruptcy court. Krauser filed claims in the bankruptcy that were resolved by two settlement agreements that required Minimatic to do certain things. Minimatic merged into BioLok and BioHorizons acquired BioLok. Krauser alleges that defendants did not comply with the terms of the agreements and wants all rights to the system.

Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, argument of which is the subject of the video. Defendants have alleged that the amount of time within which Dr. Krauser could sue (the “statute of limitations”) has ended. If Dr. Krauser is asking for “specific performance” (do what you agreed to do) of the agreement, that time would be one year from the lack of performance and has passed. If Dr. Krauser is alleging “breach” (you didn’t do what you were supposed to do) of the contract, the amount of time would be five years from the breach and has not passed. The court must determine what the cause of action is. If the time has run, the suit will be forever dismissed. Defendants are also alleging that the dental implant system they are now using is not the system that Dr. Krauser invented. They argue there is no factual dispute about this fact; plaintiffs say there is a dispute. The case is awaiting a decision by the judge.

Case Highlights

  • Notice of Removal file 4/1/2010 [Doc #1]
  • Second Amended Complaint filed 9/8/2010 [Doc #31]
  • Answer filed 9/22/2010 [Doc #32]
  • Corrected Motion for Summary Judgment filed 5/14/2012 [Doc #140]
  • Opposition to Motion filed 6/1/2012 [Doc #151]
  • Hearing on 7/6/2012

Case-related documents, including those referenced above, are available via the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) service. For more information, visit Pacer.gov.