Cranial Technologies Sues Ottobock for Infringement of Cranial Remodeling Patents
Contributed by Knobbe Martens. Originally published on Patexia; republished here as part of the LexDana archive.

Written by: Adam G. Copeland
Cranial Technologies, Inc. sued Ottobock SE & Co. KGaA and Active Life LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on March 29, 2023. The lawsuit alleges that Ottobock’s MyCRO Band and iFab system infringe U.S. Patent No. 7,242,798, titled “Automatic Selection of Cranial Remodeling Device Configuration,” which issued in 2007; and U.S. Patent No. 7,227,979, titled “Automatic Selection of Cranial Remodeling Device Trim Lines,” which issued in 2007. Below is an example figure from U.S. Patent No. 7,242,798:

Cranial Technologies also alleges that Ottobock’s MyCRO Band and iFab system infringe U.S. Patent No. 10,603,203, titled “Custom Cranial Remodeling Devices Manufactured By Additive Manufacture,” which issued in 2020; U.S. Patent No. 10,846,925 titled “Method of Manufacture of Custom Cranial Remodeling Devices By Additive Manufacture,” which issued in 2020; and U.S. Patent No. 10,726,617, titled “Method of Manufacture of Custom Headwear by Additive Manufacturing,” which issued in 2020. Below is an example figure from U.S. Patent No. 10,603,203:

Cranial Technologies is an Arizona corporation, Ottobock is a German corporation, and Active Life is a Delaware company. The lawsuit asserts that Ottobock sold the infringing products to Active Life, and that Active Life operates under Ottobock’s direction and control and for Ottobock’s direct benefit. Cranial Technologies has not previously filed any lawsuits against either Ottobock or Active Life. The case docket is available here.
More insights
Structuring Solar IP Claims for Leverage: How System Claims and Induced or Contributory Infringement Can Expand Enforcement Options
Written by: Tyler S. Cox Key Takeaways: Nextpower’s mix of apparatus and system claims illustrates how claim strategy can expand enforcement flexibility. Additionally, carefully drafting patent claims can expand the scope of protection of the claim…

Patexia Insight 256: Patent Litigation Remains Concentrated in Key U.S. District Courts
U.S. District Court patent litigation continues to be one of the most consequential and data-rich arenas in intellectual property enforcement. Between July 1, 2020, and June 30, 2025, 18,352 patent cases were filed across federal courts, involving tens of…

Litigation Finance Tax Dropped From Trump S Big Beautiful Bill
In a major development for the billion dollar litigation finance industry, a tax provision targeting litigation funders has been removed from President Trump’s sweeping tax and spending legislation, dubbed the “Big, Beautiful Bill”,…