Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Kardiametrics v. Control Media Technology

Kardiametrics v. Control Media Technology

Ratings: (0)|Views: 45 |Likes:
Published by PriorSmart
Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-01592-UNA: Kardiametrics LLC v. Control Media Technology LLC. Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l9aC for more info.
Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-01592-UNA: Kardiametrics LLC v. Control Media Technology LLC. Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l9aC for more info.

More info:

Published by: PriorSmart on Sep 23, 2013
Copyright:Public Domain

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

10/18/2013

pdf

text

original

 
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
KARDIAMETRICS, LLCPlaintiff,v.CONTROL MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY, LLC,Defendant.C.A. No.DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
Plaintiff Kardiametrics, LLC, for its Complaint against Control MedicalTechnology, LLC (“Defendant”), alleges as follows:
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1.
 
This is an action for patent infringement in violation of the Patent Act of theUnited States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 1
et seq
.2.
 
This Court has original and exclusive subject matter jurisdiction over the patentinfringement claims for relief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).3.
 
This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant hastransacted and is transacting business in the District of Delaware that includes, but is not limitedto, the sale of products that practice the subject matter claimed in the patents involved in thisaction.4.
 
Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. §1391(b-c) and 1400(b) because asubstantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this Districtwhere Defendant has done business and committed infringing acts and continues to do businessand to commit infringing acts.
 
2
PARTIES
5.
 
Plaintiff Kardiametrics, LLC (“Plaintiff”) is a limited liability company organizedunder the laws of the State of Delaware.6.
 
Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that DefendantControl Medical Technology, LLC is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Utah, with its principal place of business at 5010 Heuga Court, Park City, Utah 84098. Plaintiff is further informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendant is in the business of selling medical devices and that, at all times relevant hereto, Defendant has done and continuesto do business in this judicial district, including, but not limited to, by selling the medical deviceslisted below to customers located in this judicial district.
FACTS
7.
 
Plaintiff is informed and believes that in 1995, PercuSurge, Inc. (“PercuSurge”)was formed as a private company to develop solutions allowing interventional vascularphysicians to capture and remove debris and blood clots, otherwise known as emboli andthrombi that dislodged during artery-clearing procedures such as angioplasty and stenttreatments, that might otherwise block downstream vessels and damage those vessels and organssuch as the brain and heart.8.
 
Plaintiff is informed and believes that in December 2000, Medtronic, Inc.acquired PercuSurge for approximately $225 million in stock at a time when PercuSurge had noproduct approved for patient use in the United States and eleven issued US patents andapproximately twenty-six pending US applications.9.
 
Plaintiff is informed and believes that on or about June 1, 2001, the U.S Food andDrug Administration (the “FDA”) granted clearance to Medtronic to market the PercuSurgeGuardWire Plus™ Temporary Occlusion and Aspiration System (the “GuardWire”). Plaintiff isfurther informed and believes that the GuardWire was the first distal embolic protection systemto receive FDA approval in the United States.
 
310.
 
On October 24, 2000, United States Patent No. 6,135,991 entitled “AspirationMethod” (the “‘991 Patent”) was duly and legally issued to Ketan P. Muni, Gholam-Reza Zadno-Azizi, and Celso Bagaoisan as inventors. A true and correct copy of United States Patent No.6,135,991 is attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference.11.
 
On January 31, 2012, United States Patent Office issued an Ex ParteReexamination Certificate for the ‘991 Patent confirming the patentability of claims 12-14.Plaintiff is informed and believes that the United States Patent Office did not reexamine claims1-11 and 15-59.12.
 
On or about April 18, 2013, Plaintiff acquired by assignment all right, title andinterest in and to the ‘991 Patent. The’991 Patent is valid and in force.13.
 
Defendant has been and is now infringing the ‘991 Patent, in this judicial districtand elsewhere, by selling and distributing certain medical devices including the ASPIRE MAXAspiration System™; MAX Aspiration Catheters™; and ASPIRE Aspirator™ which,individually or in combination, incorporate and/or use subject matter claimed by the ‘991 Patent.Further, Defendant has been and is now intending to and/or encouraging others to directlyinfringe the ‘991 Patent. Specifically, Defendant has been and is now directing end users of theabove referenced products, including through written techniques and instructions, to use theseproducts alone or in combination to infringe the ‘991 Patent.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF(Infringement of the ‘991 Patent)
14.
 
Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1-13.15.
 
The claims of the ‘991 Patent relate to “an improved method for aspiratingemboli, thrombi, and other types of particles from the human arterial or venous system, themethod being particularly well suited for treating stenoses or occlusions within saphenous veingrafts, coronary arteries, arteries above the aortic arch such as the carotid and cerebral arteries,and similar vessels.”

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->