This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
1800 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Telephone: (801) 532-1234 Facsimile: (801) 536-6111 firstname.lastname@example.org J. Kevin Grogan (Pro Hac Vice Pending) MCCORMICK, PAULDING & HUBER 1350 Main Street, 5th Floor Springfield, MA 01103 Telephone: (413) 736-5401 Facsimile: (413) 733-4543 email@example.com Attorneys for Hydrofera, LLC IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
HYDROFERA, LLC, an Illinois corporation; Plaintiff, v. GWM PRODUCTS, LLC, a Texas limited liability corporation; and EXURO MEDICAL, LLC, a Utah limited liability company. Defendants.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
COMPLAINT DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 1. Plaintiff, Hydrofera, LLC, (“Hydrofera”), complains against GWM Products,
LLC and Exuro Medical, LLC, (collectively “Defendants”) as follows: JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2. This civil action for patent infringement arises under the patent laws of the United
States, specifically under Title 35 of the United States Code, sections 271, et seq. Subject matter jurisdiction in this Court arises under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). 3. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants as they each are
incorporated in and/or, upon information and belief, have a place of business within this judicial district. Moreover, Defendants regularly conduct business in this district and have committed acts in this judicial district which give rise to this action. On information and belief, Defendants make, manufacture, sell, offer for sale, and have sold infringing products from within this district in interstate commerce as well as to residents of this jurisdiction. On information and belief, Defendants have business relationships and/or have collaborated with multiple businesses in this district to sell, offer for sale, and/or advertise their products. 4. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b), (c)
and/or 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). PARTIES 5. Hydrofera is an Illinois corporation with a place of business at 322 Main Street,
Willimantic, CT 06226. Hydrofera is the exclusive licensee of U.S. Patent No. 6,183,764, (“the ’764 patent”).
Defendant GWM Products LLC is a Texas limited liability corporation with,
according to the most current U.S. Food and Drug Administration Establishment Registration and Device Listing, an address at 7414 South State Street, Midvale, UT 84047 (“GWM”). 7. Defendant Exuro Medical LLC is a Utah limited liability company with an
address at 310 E. 300 S., Salt Lake City, UT 84111 (“Exuro”). GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 8. In July 2012, the owner of the ’764 patent, Shanbrom Technologies, LLC
(“Shanbrom”), entered into an Amendment Technology License Agreement with Tolland Development Company, LLC, a Connecticut corporation (“TDC”) (the “Amended License”). The Amended License gave TDC an exclusive license to, inter alia, the ’764 patent. 9. In 2012, Plaintiff Hydrofera acquired certain assets of Hydrofera, LLC, a
Connecticut corporation, (“Hydrofera CT”), and TDC including, but not limited to, all of TDC’s right, title and interest in and to the licensed ’764 patent. 10. For over a decade, Hydrofera, through the acquired Hydrofera CT, has
manufactured and sold bacteriostatic wound dressings for use in wound care, surgery and ophthalmology, among other applications. Hydrofera’s bacteriostatic wound dressings include a polymeric foam material with a combination of methylene blue and gentian violet dyes bound to the foam. Plaintiff’s technology has proven to be highly effective at inhibiting the growth of microorganisms and has received awards, such as a medal at the 2000 Medical Design Excellence Awards.
Indeed, Hydrofera’s Hydrofera Blue® wound dressing, launched in 2003, has
been found to be effective at inhibiting the growth of, for example, escherichia coli and staphytlococcus aureus, and to promote wound healing. 12. Hydrofera develops and protects its technology through its own patents and
through licensed patents, including specifically, the exclusively licensed ’764 patent. 13. Defendant GWM manufactures or has manufactured, offers for sale, and, upon
information and belief, sells the “RTD®” wound dressing that includes a polymeric foam material, i.e., polyurethane, which has methylene blue and gentian violet dyes bonded throughout. Defendant GWM claims that its wound dressing has an anti-microbial effectiveness against, inter alia, escherichia coli and staphytlococcus aureus. Defendant GWM does not have any rights to the ’764 patent. 14. Defendant Exuro is engaged in the domestic and international distribution,
manufacture and/or sale of various medical products including GWM’s RTD wound dressing. Defendant Exuro does not have any rights to the ’764 patent. 15. Upon information and belief, Defendants’ RTD wound dressing has been
previously investigated by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration and found to be adulterated and manufactured without an effective and adequate quality system in place. 16. Upon information and belief, the RTD dressing infringes the ’764 patent,
Defendants are aware of the ’764 patent and are aware that their RTD dressing infringes the ’764 patent, and Defendants continue to willfully infringe the ’764 patent.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Infringement of the ’764 Patent) 17. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in preceding paragraphs 1
through 16, inclusive. 18. The ’764 Patent was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and
Trademark Office on February 6, 2001. Hydrofera is the exclusive licensee of the ’764 Patent. A true and correct copy of the ’764 Patent is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit 1. 19. Defendants are infringing, contributing to the infringement of, and/or inducing
others to infringe the ’764 patent by making, manufacturing, promoting, marketing, advertising, distributing, offering for sale and selling and/or causing to be offered or sold wound dressings, including the “RTD®” wound dressing, that infringe at least one claim of the ‘764 Patent literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents. 20. Plaintiff has been damaged and has suffered irreparable injury due to Defendants’
acts of infringement, and will continue to suffer irreparable injury unless Defendants’ acts are enjoined. 21. Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable damage to its business,
including, without limitation, lost profits, loss of business reputation, loss of business opportunities, and loss of market share, by reason of Defendants’ acts of patent infringement as alleged herein. 22. Plaintiff is entitled to recover from Defendants the damages sustained as a result
of Defendants’ acts. Defendants have willfully infringed the ’764 Patent. Defendants’ acts make this an exceptional case within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 23. Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all matters herein so triable. RELIEF REQUESTED 24. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for Judgment as follows: a. That Defendants have infringed, contributed to the infringement of, and
induced infringement of, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, at least one claim of the ’764 patent; b. That Defendants and their subsidiaries, affiliates, parents, successors,
assigns, officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all other persons acting in concert or in participation with it, be temporarily and preliminarily enjoined during the pendency of this action, and permanently enjoined thereafter, from infringing the ’764 patent, and specifically from directly or indirectly making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing any products or services embodying the inventions of the ’764 patent, including, without limitation, the Defendants’ RTD wound dressings, during the life of the claims of the ’764 patent without Plaintiff’s express written authority; c. That Plaintiff be awarded all damages attributable to Defendants’
infringement of the ’764 patent in an amount according to proof at trial, but not less than a reasonable royalty; d. That Defendants be ordered to deliver to Plaintiff, for destruction at
Plaintiff’s option, all products that infringe the ’764 patent; e. That Defendants be required to account for all gains, profits, advantages,
and unjust enrichment derived from their violations of the law;
f. 285; g.
That this case be deemed “exceptional” within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. §
That Plaintiff be awarded its reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in
connection with this matter; h. That Plaintiff be awarded enhanced damages and/or costs pursuant to 35
U.S.C. § 285 and/or applicable law; i. and, j. That the Court award Plaintiff such other, further, and different relief as That Plaintiff be awarded the costs of suit, and an assessment of interest;
the evidence may require and as the Court deems proper under the circumstances. DATED this 7th day of November, 2013.
/s/ Margaret Niver McGann MARGARET NIVER MCGANN PARSONS BEHLE & LATIMER J. KEVIN GROGAN MCCORMICK, PAULDING & HUBER Attorneys for Hydrofera, LLC
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.