ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

OMNITEK PARTNERS LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

BIONIC POWER INC.,

Defendant.

CASE NO. 2:24-cv-00041

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Omnitek Partners, LLC (“Plaintiff” and/or “Omnitek”) files this complaint against Bionic 

Power Inc. (“Defendant” and/or “Bionic Power”) for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,645,246

(“the ’246 Patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 8,062,237 (“the ’237 Patent”), and alleges as follows:

THE PARTIES

1. Plaintiff is a New Jersey company having its principal place at 85 Air Park Drive, Unit 3, 

Ronkonkoma, New York, 11779.

2. Upon information and belief, Defendant is a company organized and existing under the 

laws of Canada and has a principal place of business at 2661 Lillooet Street, Vancouver, 

BC V5M 4P7, Canada.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 271 et seq. 

Plaintiff is seeking damages, as well as attorney fees and costs.

4. Jurisdiction is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, 1338, and 1367.

Case 2:24-cv-00041-JRG Document 1 Filed 01/24/24 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 1
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 2

5. On information and belief, this Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because 

Defendant has committed, and continues to commit, acts of infringement in this District, 

has conducted business in this District, and/or has engaged in continuous and systematic 

activities in this District.

6. More specifically, Defendant, directly and/or through intermediaries, ship, distribute, use, 

offer for sale, sell, and/or advertise products and services in the United States, the State of 

Texas, and the Eastern District of Texas including but not limited to the Products as detailed 

below. Upon information and belief, Defendant has committed patent infringement in the 

State of Texas and in the Eastern District of Texas. Defendant solicits and has solicited

customers in the State of Texas and in the Eastern District of Texas. Defendant has paying 

customers, who are residents of the State of Texas and the Eastern District of Texas, who 

each use and have used the Defendant’s products and services in the State of Texas and in 

the Eastern District of Texas.

7. On information and belief, Defendant’s instrumentalities that are alleged herein to infringe 

were and continue to be used, imported, offered for sale, and/or sold in this District.

8. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(c)(3) because Shot 

Scope is not a resident of the United States and therefore may be sued in any judicial 

district.

PATENTS-IN-SUIT 

9. Plaintiff is the sole and exclusive owner, by assignment, of the ’246 Patent and the ’237 

Patent (hereinafter referred to as “the Omnitek Patents”).

Case 2:24-cv-00041-JRG Document 1 Filed 01/24/24 Page 2 of 11 PageID #: 2
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 3

10. On January 12, 2010, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) duly and 

legally issued the ’246 Patent, entitled “Method for Generating Power Across a Joint of the 

Body During a Locomotion.” The ’246 Patent is attached as Exhibit A.

11. On November 22, 2011, the USPTO duly and legally issued the ’237 Patent, entitled 

“Device for Generating Power Across a Joint.” The ’237 Patent is attached as Exhibit B.

12. Plaintiff possesses all rights of recovery under the Omnitek Patents, including the exclusive 

right to recover for past, present and future infringement.

13. The ’246 Patent contains seven claims including one independent claim (claim 1) and six

dependent claims.

14. The ’237 Patent contains one independent claim (claim 1).

15. The priority date of the Omnitek Patents is at least as early as August 11, 2004. As of the 

priority date, the inventions as claimed were novel, non-obvious, unconventional, and nonroutine.

16. Plaintiff alleges infringement on the part of Defendant of the Omnitek Patents.

17. The Omnitek Patents teach systems and methods for generating power from an exerted 

energy associated with muscles acting across a joint, by absorbing energy during one or 

more periods of a periodic motion of the joint in which energy is absorbed by the muscles, 

and at least partially returning the absorbed energy to an energy storage device or power 

consuming device. See ’246 Patent, Abstract.

18. The ’246 Patent was examined by Primary United States Patent Examiner Loan H. Thanh. 

During the examination of the ’246 Patent, the United States Patent Examiner searched for 

prior art in the following US Classifications: 601/5; 482/2; 482/51; 601/23; and 601/33.

Case 2:24-cv-00041-JRG Document 1 Filed 01/24/24 Page 3 of 11 PageID #: 3
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 4

19. After conducting a search for prior art during the examination of the ’246 Patent, the United 

States Patent Examiner identified and cited the following as the most relevant prior art 

references found during the search: US 4,872,665; US 4,941,273; US 4,967,734; US 

5,011,136; US 5,090,138; US 5,701,685; US 6,024,713; US 6,397,496; US 6,666,796; US 

6,966,882; US 7,219,449; US 7,537,573; US 2002/0094919; US 2003/0056396; US 

2004/0040180; US 2005/0262725; US 2008/0277943; and US 2009/0036804. 

20. After giving full proper credit to the prior art and having conducted a thorough search for 

all relevant art and having fully considered the most relevant art known at the time, the 

United States Patent Examiner allowed all of the claims of the ’246 Patent to issue. In so 

doing, it is presumed that Examiner Thanh used his knowledge of the art when examining 

the claims. K/S Himpp v. Hear-Wear Techs., LLC, 751 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2014). 

It is further presumed that Examiner Thanh had experience in the field of the invention, 

and that the Examiner properly acted in accordance with a person of ordinary skill. In re 

Sang Su Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2002). In view of the foregoing, the claims 

of the ’246 Patent are novel and non-obvious, including over all non-cited art which is 

merely cumulative with the referenced and cited prior art. Likewise, the claims of the ’246

Patent are novel and non-obvious, including over all non-cited contemporaneous state of 

the art systems and methods, all of which would have been known to a person of ordinary 

skill in the art, and which were therefore presumptively also known and considered by 

Examiner Thanh.

21. The ’237 Patent was also examined by Primary United States Patent Examiner Loan H. 

Thanh. During the examination of the ’237 Patent, the United States Patent Examiner 

Case 2:24-cv-00041-JRG Document 1 Filed 01/24/24 Page 4 of 11 PageID #: 4
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 5

searched for prior art in the following US Classifications: 601/5; 601/23; 601/33; and 

482/51.

22. After conducting a search for prior art during the examination of the ’237 Patent, the United 

States Patent Examiner identified and cited the following as the most relevant prior art 

references found during the search: US 6,768,246; US 7,056,297; US 7,390,309; US 

7,445,606; US 7,645,246; US 7,652,386; US 7,659,636; US 7,731,670; US 2006/0046909; 

US 2006/0260620; US 2007/0016329; US 2007/0050044; US 2007/0056592; US 

2007/0233279; and US 2010/0076346. 

23. After giving full proper credit to the prior art and having conducted a thorough search for 

all relevant art and having fully considered the most relevant art known at the time, the 

United States Patent Examiner allowed the claim of the ’237 Patent to issue. In so doing, 

it is presumed that Examiner Thanh used his knowledge of the art when examining the 

claims. K/S Himpp v. Hear-Wear Techs., LLC, 751 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2014). It 

is further presumed that Examiner Thanh had experience in the field of the invention, and 

that the Examiner properly acted in accordance with a person of ordinary skill. In re Sang 

Su Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2002). In view of the foregoing, the claims of the 

’237 Patent are novel and non-obvious, including over all non-cited art which is merely 

cumulative with the referenced and cited prior art. Likewise, the claims of the ’237 Patent 

are novel and non-obvious, including over all non-cited contemporaneous state of the art 

systems and methods, all of which would have been known to a person of ordinary skill in 

the art, and which were therefore presumptively also known and considered by Examiner 

Thanh.

Case 2:24-cv-00041-JRG Document 1 Filed 01/24/24 Page 5 of 11 PageID #: 5
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 6

24. The claims of the Omnitek Patents were all properly issued, and are valid and enforceable 

for the respective terms of their statutory life through expiration, and are enforceable for 

purposes of seeking damages for past infringement even post-expiration. See, e.g., 

Genetics Institute, LLC v. Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics, Inc., 655 F.3d 1291, 1299 

(Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[A]n expired patent is not viewed as having ‘never existed.’ Much to 

the contrary, a patent does have value beyond its expiration date. For example, an expired 

patent may form the basis of an action for past damages subject to the six-year limitation 

under 35 U.S.C. § 286”) (internal citations omitted).

25. The nominal expiration date for the claims of the ’6246 Patent is no earlier than August 11, 

2025.

COUNT I

(Infringement of United States Patent No. 7,645,246)

26. Plaintiff refers to and incorporates the allegations in Paragraphs 1 – 25, the same as if set 

forth herein.

27. This cause of action arises under the patent laws of the United States and, in particular 

under 35 U.S.C. §§ 271, et seq.

28. Defendant has knowledge of its infringement of the ’246 Patent, at least as of the service 

of the present complaint.

29. The ’246 Patent is valid, enforceable, and was duly issued in full compliance with Title 35 

of the United States Code.

30. Upon information and belief, Defendant has infringed and continues to infringe one or 

more claims, including at least Claim 1, of the ’246 Patent by manufacturing, using, 

importing, selling, offering for sale, and/or providing (as identified in the Claim Chart 

attached hereto as Exhibit C) products including, but not limited to, the Amplify augmented 

Case 2:24-cv-00041-JRG Document 1 Filed 01/24/24 Page 6 of 11 PageID #: 6
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 7

exoskeleton (“Products”), which infringe at least Claim 1 of the ’246 Patent. Defendant 

has infringed and continues to infringe the ’246 patent either directly or through acts of 

contributory infringement or inducement in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271.

31. Defendant also has and continues to directly infringe, literally or under the doctrine of 

equivalents, one or more claims, including at least Claim 1, of the ’246 Patent, by having 

its employees internally test and use these exemplary Products.

32. The service of this Complaint, in conjunction with the attached claim chart and references 

cited, constitutes actual knowledge of infringement as alleged here.

33. Despite such actual knowledge, Defendant continues to make, use, test, sell, offer for sale, 

market, and/or import into the United States, products that infringe one or more claims, 

including at least Claim 1, of the ’246 Patent. On information and belief, Defendant has 

also continued to sell the exemplary Products and distribute product literature and website 

materials inducing end users and others to use its products in the customary and intended 

manner that infringes one or more claims, including at least Claim 1, of the ’246 Patent. 

See Exhibit C (extensively referencing these materials to demonstrate how they direct end 

users to commit patent infringement).

34. At least since being served by this Complaint and corresponding claim chart, Defendant 

has actively, knowingly, and intentionally continued to induce infringement of the ’246

Patent, literally or by the doctrine of equivalents, by selling exemplary Products to their 

customers for use in end-user products in a manner that infringes one or more claims, 

including at least Claim 1, of the ’246 Patent.

35. Exhibit C includes at least one chart comparing the exemplary claim 1 of the ’246 Patent 

to Defendant’s exemplary Products. As set forth in this chart, the Defendant’s exemplary 

Case 2:24-cv-00041-JRG Document 1 Filed 01/24/24 Page 7 of 11 PageID #: 7
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 8

Products practice the technology claimed by the ’246 Patent. Accordingly, the Defendant’s 

exemplary Products incorporated in this chart satisfy all elements of the exemplary claim 

1 of the ‘246 Patent.

36. Plaintiff therefore incorporates by reference in its allegations herein the claim chart of 

Exhibit C.

37. Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages adequate to compensate for Defendant's 

infringement.

38. Defendant’s actions complained of herein will continue unless Defendant is enjoined by 

this court.

39. Defendant’s actions complained of herein are causing irreparable harm and monetary 

damage to Plaintiff and will continue to do so unless and until Defendant is enjoined and 

restrained by this Court.

40. Plaintiff is in compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 287.

COUNT II

(Infringement of United States Patent No. 8,062,237)

41. Plaintiff refers to and incorporates the allegations in Paragraphs 1 – 40, the same as if set 

forth herein.

42. This cause of action arises under the patent laws of the United States and, in particular 

under 35 U.S.C. §§ 271, et seq.

43. Defendant has knowledge of its infringement of the ’237 Patent, at least as of the service 

of the present complaint.

44. The ’237 Patent is valid, enforceable, and was duly issued in full compliance with Title 35 

of the United States Code.

Case 2:24-cv-00041-JRG Document 1 Filed 01/24/24 Page 8 of 11 PageID #: 8
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 9

45. Upon information and belief, Defendant has infringed and continues to infringe one or 

more claims, including at least Claim 1, of the ’246 Patent by manufacturing, using, 

importing, selling, offering for sale, and/or providing (as identified in the Claim Chart 

attached hereto as Exhibit D) products including, but not limited to, the Amplify augmented 

exoskeleton (“Products”), which infringe at least Claim 1 of the ’237 Patent. Defendant 

has infringed and continues to infringe the ’237 patent either directly or through acts of 

contributory infringement or inducement in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271.

46. Defendant also has and continues to directly infringe, literally or under the doctrine of 

equivalents, one or more claims, including at least Claim 1, of the ’237 Patent, by having 

its employees internally test and use these exemplary Products.

47. The service of this Complaint, in conjunction with the attached claim chart and references 

cited, constitutes actual knowledge of infringement as alleged here.

48. Despite such actual knowledge, Defendant continues to make, use, test, sell, offer for sale, 

market, and/or import into the United States, products that infringe one or more claims, 

including at least Claim 1, of the ’237 Patent. On information and belief, Defendant has 

also continued to sell the exemplary Products and distribute product literature and website 

materials inducing end users and others to use its products in the customary and intended 

manner that infringes one or more claims, including at least Claim 1, of the ’237 Patent. 

See Exhibit D (extensively referencing these materials to demonstrate how they direct end 

users to commit patent infringement).

49. At least since being served by this Complaint and corresponding claim chart, Defendant 

has actively, knowingly, and intentionally continued to induce infringement of the ’237 

Patent, literally or by the doctrine of equivalents, by selling exemplary Products to their 

Case 2:24-cv-00041-JRG Document 1 Filed 01/24/24 Page 9 of 11 PageID #: 9
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 10

customers for use in end-user products in a manner that infringes one or more claims, 

including at least Claim 1, of the ’237 Patent.

50. Exhibit D includes at least one chart comparing the exemplary claim 1 of the ’237 Patent 

to Defendant’s exemplary Products. As set forth in this chart, the Defendant’s exemplary 

Products practice the technology claimed by the ’237 Patent. Accordingly, the Defendant’s 

exemplary Products incorporated in this chart satisfy all elements of the exemplary claim 

1 of the ’237 Patent.

51. Plaintiff therefore incorporates by reference in its allegations herein the claim chart of 

Exhibit D.

52. Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages adequate to compensate for Defendant's 

infringement.

53. Defendant’s actions complained of herein will continue unless Defendant is enjoined by 

this court.

54. Defendant’s actions complained of herein are causing irreparable harm and monetary 

damage to Plaintiff and will continue to do so unless and until Defendant is enjoined and 

restrained by this Court.

Plaintiff is in compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 287.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully asks the Court to:

1. Enter judgment for Plaintiff on this Complaint on all cases of action asserted herein;

2. Enter an Order enjoining Defendant, its agents, officers, servants, employees, 

attorneys, and all persons in active concert or participation with Defendant who 

receives notice of the order from further infringement of United States Patent Nos. 

Case 2:24-cv-00041-JRG Document 1 Filed 01/24/24 Page 10 of 11 PageID #: 10
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 11

7,645,246 and 8,062,237 (or, in the alternative, awarding Plaintiff running royalty 

from the time judgment going forward);

3. Award Plaintiff damages resulting from Defendant’s infringement in accordance 

with 35 U.S.C. § 284; and

4. Award Plaintiff such further relief to which the Court finds Plaintiff entitled under 

law or equity.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, requests a trial by jury of 

any issues so triable by right.

Dated: January 24, 2024 Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Randall Garteiser

Christopher A. Honea

 Texas Bar No. 24059967

 chonea@ghiplaw.com

Randall Garteiser

 Texas Bar No. 24038912

 rgarteiser@ghiplaw.com

M. Scott Fuller

 Texas Bar No. 24036607

 rgarteiser@ghiplaw.com

GARTEISER HONEA, PLLC

119 W. Ferguson Street

Tyler, Texas 75702

Telephone: (903) 705-7420

Facsimile: (903) 405-3999

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF

Case 2:24-cv-00041-JRG Document 1 Filed 01/24/24 Page 11 of 11 PageID #: 11