ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

CICAS IP LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

Olympus Corporation and Olympus 

America Inc.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:23-cv-292

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

CICAS IP LLC (“Plaintiff”) hereby files this Original Complaint for Patent Infringement against 

Olympus Corporation (“Olympus Japan”) and Olympus America Inc. (“Olympus America,” and 

collectively with Olympus Japan, “Olympus” or “Defendant”), and alleges, upon information and belief, 

as follows:

THE PARTIES

1. CICAS IP LLC is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the State 

of Wyoming with its principal place of business at 30 N Gould St, Suite R, Sheridan, WY 82801.

2. Upon information and belief, Defendant Olympus Japan is a Japanese corporation with a place of 

business at Shinjuku Monolith, 2-3-1 Nishi-Shinjuku, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 163-0914, Japan. 

3. Upon information and belief, Defendant Olympus America is a New York corporation with a 

place of business in this District located Plano, Texas. Upon information and belief, Olympus 

America employs individuals in this Judicial District involved in the sales and marketing of its 

Case 2:23-cv-00292-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 06/22/23 Page 1 of 17 PageID #: 1
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 2

products. Olympus America may be served with process via its registered agent United States 

Corporation, 211 E. 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin, Texas 78701. Upon information and belief, 

Olympus America does business in Texas, directly or through intermediaries, and offers its 

products and/or services, including those accused herein of infringement, to customers and 

potential customers located in Texas, including in the judicial Eastern District of Texas.

4. Olympus was founded on October 12, 1919 as Takachiho Seisakusho. The founder of the 

company, Takeshi Yamashita, established the company with the financial assistance of his 

previous employer, with a view to achieving domestic production of microscopes. Three decades 

later, Olympus successfully developed the world's first gastrocamera for practical use. The spirit 

of creation that infused the company at its founding has been passed on through the years, from 

the release of the company's first product to its breakthroughs in Opto-Digital Technology today.

See https://www.olympus-global.com/company/milestones/founding.html?page=company.

5. On information and belief, Olympus is engaged in research and development, manufacturing, 

importation, distribution, sales and related technical services for endoscopic solutions. See 

https://www.olympus-global.com/company/profile/business.html?page=company. 

6. Olympus identifies its endoscopic products as including, but not limited to, the SPiN System. See 

https://medical.olympusamerica.com/procedure/peripheral-bronchoscopy-spin-thoracicnavigation-system. These Olympus products are made outside and inside the United States of 

America and then are imported into the United States, distributed, and sold to end-users via the 

Internet and via distribution partners, retailers, reseller partners, and solution partners, including 

Olympus America. Those sales occur in the United States, and throughout Texas, including in 

this District. 

Case 2:23-cv-00292-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 06/22/23 Page 2 of 17 PageID #: 2
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 3

See screenshot of Defendant’s webpage showing Olympus Corporation of America as the U.S. 

contact of Defendant products https://www.olympus-global.com/products/contact/ and

https://www.olympusprofed.com/pulm/navigated-bronchoscopy/28782/. 

7. The SPiN System was acquired in the December 29, 2020 Olympus acquisition of Veran 

Medical Technologies, Inc. (“Veran”) for over $300 Million. See https://www.olympusglobal.com/news/2020/nr02011.html; https://www.veranmedical.com/news/olympus-acquiresveran-medical-technologies-inc/; https://www.medtechdive.com/news/Olympus-buys-Veran-for300M/591708/. Veran is now referred to as Olympus Veran and identified as an Olympus 

location. See https://www.olympusamerica.com/contact-us.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

8. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).

9. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant. Defendant has continuous and systematic 

business contacts with the State of Texas. Defendant transacts business within this District and 

elsewhere in the State of Texas. Further, this Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant 

Case 2:23-cv-00292-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 06/22/23 Page 3 of 17 PageID #: 3
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 4

based on its commission of one or more acts of infringement of patent-in-suit in this District and 

elsewhere in the State of Texas.

10. Upon information and belief, Defendant transacts substantial business in the State of Texas and 

this Judicial District. Defendant has committed acts of infringement in this District by, among 

other things, offering to sell and selling products that infringe the asserted patents, including the 

accused products as alleged herein, as well as providing service and support to its customers in 

this District. Upon information and belief, Defendant, directly or indirectly, participates in the 

stream of commerce that results in products, including the accused products, being made, used, 

offered for sale, and/or sold in the State of Texas and/or imported into the United States to the 

State of Texas.

11. Olympus America maintains regular, physical, continuous, and established places of businesses, 

including places of business for Regional Vice President, territory sales managers and technical 

sales for Texas, including products related to the Accused Instrumentalities and 

Gastroenterologists, in this District, which Defendant has established, ratified, and controlled; 

have employed people to conduct their business from this District; and from which they have

willfully infringed the Asserted Patents in order to benefit themselves in this District. Defendant 

commits acts of infringement in this District, including as explained further below by making 

and using the infringing systems in, and performing at least one step of the accused methods of 

the Asserted Patents, at their regular and established places of business in this District.

12. As shown below, Defendant has employees in the Eastern District of Texas, including a Regional 

Vice President for over 26 years:

Case 2:23-cv-00292-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 06/22/23 Page 4 of 17 PageID #: 4
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 5

See https://www.linkedin.com/in/don-white-77623912/ (screenshot of Don White’s LinkedIn page, as 

Regional Vice President, located in Plano, of Defendant).

See https://www.linkedin.com/in/josephlake/ (screenshot of Joseph Lake’s LinkedIn page, as Technical 

Sales for Texas, located in Plano, of Defendant).

Case 2:23-cv-00292-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 06/22/23 Page 5 of 17 PageID #: 5
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 6

See https://www.linkedin.com/in/ryan-mcquay/ (screenshot of Ryan McQuay’s LinkedIn page, as 

Territory Manager, located in Plano, of Defendant).

13. As shown above, all three of these employees are located in this District in Plano, Texas, and 

McQuay even notes in “Experience” as being “on-site”. Their locations within the Eastern

District of Texas are important to the business performed and defendant had intention to 

maintain some place of business in the Eastern District of Texas in the event any employees 

decided to terminate their residences as a place there.

14. Defendant’s employees also not merely possess inventory. Their use in the Eastern District of 

Texas part of Defendant’s services to its Eastern District of Texas customers, a job that falls on 

these employees. When sample products or inventory arrive at these employees’ places of 

businesses, they then visit local customers to deliver or show the samples.

15. Defendant has further solicited salespeople in public advertisements to cover the challenged 

venue area and preferred that those employees live in their assigned sales area. Their locations

within the Eastern District of Texas are important to the business performed and defendant had

intention to maintain some place of business in the Eastern District of Texas in the event any

employees decided to terminate their residences as a place there.

16. Defendant has regular, physical presences of Defendant employees in this District conducting 

Defendant’s business. Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business at the 

Defendant defined places and separate areas by the regular, physical presence of its employees.

Case 2:23-cv-00292-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 06/22/23 Page 6 of 17 PageID #: 6
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 7

17. Venue is proper in this District as to Defendant pursuant to at least 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(c)(2) and 

1400(b). As noted above, Defendant maintains a regular and established business presence in 

this District. See In re Monolithic Power Sys., Inc., 50 F.4th 157, 160 (Fed. Cir. 2022); see also 

AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Google LLC, No. 2:19-CV-00361-JRG, 2022 WL 1511757, at *9

(E.D. Tex. May 12, 2022)

18. Venue is proper in this Judicial District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b), 1391(c) and 1400(b) 

because, among other things, Olympus Japan is subject to personal jurisdiction in this Judicial 

District, Defendant has regularly conducted business in this Judicial District, certain of the acts 

complained of herein occurred in this Judicial District, and Defendant is not a resident in the 

United States and may be sued in any judicial district.

BACKGROUND AND PATENTS-IN-SUIT 

19. Plaintiff is the sole and exclusive owner, by assignment, of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,850,794 (“the 

’794 Patent”) titled “Endoscopic Targeting Method and System” relating to image-guided 

surgery, and in particular, to an endoscopic targeting method and system.

20. By operation of law, the ’794 Patent was originally issued and exclusively vested to the named 

inventor, Ramin Shahidi, as of the issue date of the ’794 Patent. See 35 U.S.C. § 261; 

Schwendimann v. Arkwright Advanced Coating, Inc., 959 F.3d 1065, 1072 (Fed. Cir. 2020); 

Suppes v. Katti, 710 Fed. Appx. 883, 887 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Taylor v. Taylor Made Plastics, Inc., 

565 Fed. Appx. 888, 889 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The inventors, in a written instrument dated 

November 6, 2001, and filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office on January 23, 

2002, assigned all rights, title, and interest in the ’794 Patent to Stanford University. 

Case 2:23-cv-00292-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 06/22/23 Page 7 of 17 PageID #: 7
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 8

21. Stanford University, in a written instrument dated October 31, 2007, and filed with the United 

States Patent and Trademark Office, assigned all rights, title, and interest in the ’794 Patent back 

to Ramin Shahidi.

22. Ramin Shahidi, in a written instrument dated April 8, 2010, and filed with the United States 

Patent and Trademark Office on April 13, 2010, then assigned all rights, title, and interest in the 

’794 Patent to California Institute of Computer Assisted Surgery, Inc.

23. Thereafter, California Institute of Computer Assisted Surgery, Inc. assigned all rights, title, and 

interest in the ’794 Patent to the Plaintiff. As such, Plaintiff has sole and exclusive standing to 

assert the ’794 Patent and to bring these causes of action.

24. The ’794 Patent is valid, enforceable, and was duly issued in full compliance with Title 35 of the 

United States Code.

25. The inventions described and claimed in the ’794 Patent were invented individually and 

independently by Ramin Shahidi.

26. The ’794 Patent includes numerous claims defining distinct inventions. As represented in Fig. 

Fig. 1 of the ’794 Patent below, the inventions generally relate to image-guided surgery, and in 

particular, to an endoscopic targeting method and system.

Case 2:23-cv-00292-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 06/22/23 Page 8 of 17 PageID #: 8
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 9

27. The priority date of each of the ’794 Patent is at least as early as September 23, 2000. As of the 

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

28. Before the inventions of the ’794 Patent, endoscopic surgical tools were used in a variety of 

surgical procedures. Typically, such tools included an optical system for visualizing patient 

structure at or near a target site, and a surgical tool for carrying out desired operations at the site,

e.g., removal of tissue for biopsy, surgical removal of necrotic or tumorous tissue, surgical repair 

of tissue structure, etc. See ’794 Patent, Col. 1, ll. 1-21.

29. Therefore, in an endoscope-guided operation, the surgeon would be required to know in which 

direction, and what distance to advance the tool in order to optimally access the target site. Since 

an endoscopic tool can only view surface structure, the surgeon would often have difficulty in 

locating and/or accessing a target site, which is likely to be hidden from endoscopic view. Id., 

Col. 1, ll. 23-9.

Case 2:23-cv-00292-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 06/22/23 Page 9 of 17 PageID #: 9
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 10

30. The inventor of the ’794 Patent conceived new an endoscopic targeting method and system to 

assist a surgeon in performing an endoscopic surgical procedure or endoscopic examination of a 

patient. Id., Col. 1, ll. 30-3.

31. To do so, the ’794 Patent includes, in one aspect, a system for enhancing the ability of a surgeon 

to access a target site within a patient. The system includes a data file containing volumetric scan 

data of a region of the patient that includes the target site, a display device, a movable imagining 

tool for producing on the display device, an image of visible patient structure seen by the tool, 

where the position of the tool is tracked relative to the position of the patient, and a computer 

operatively connected to data file, display screen, and tracking device. Id., Col. 1, ll. 36-45.

32. Then, the computer operates to (i) determine the position and/or orientation of the tool in the 

frame of reference of the patient, (ii) identify the scan-data coordinates (either x,y or x,y,z 

coordinates) of the target site, and (iii) project on the video image on the display device, indicia 

that indicate the lateral position of the target site with respect to the patient structure imaged on 

the display device. Id., Col. 1, ll. 46-52.

33. The ’794 Patent is a pioneering patent and has been cited as relevant prior art in 134 subsequent 

United States Patent Applications, including Applications Assigned to Olympus and such 

technology leaders and academia as Intuitive Surgical Operations, Inc., Veran Medical 

Technologies, Inc., Stryker Corporation, Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. and Covidien.

34. The claims of the ’794 Patent 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 

Case 2:23-cv-00292-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 06/22/23 Page 10 of 17 PageID #: 10
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 11

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).

OLYMPUS’ INFRINGING PRODUCTS 

35. Upon information and belief, Olympus makes, sells, advertises, offers for sale, uses, or otherwise 

provides endoscopic targeting methods and systems, including, but not limited to, the SPiN 

Thoracic Navigation System (“Accused Instrumentalities”), that utilize the ’794 Patent’s 

patented endoscopic targeting methods and systems. On information and belief, these endoscopic 

targeting systems and methods include (a) a data file containing volumetric scan data, (b) a 

display, (c) a movable imaging tool, (d) a computer connected to the data file and display, and 

(e) indicia that indicate the direction and position of target site, as invented in the ’794 Patent.

36. As shown in more detail below, Olympus’ products include each and every limitation of at least, 

but not limited to, claim 1 of the ’794 Patent and therefore literally infringe these claims. 

Plaintiff reserves the right to assert additional claims and to assert infringement under the 

doctrine of equivalents in light of information learned during discovery or in view of this Court’s 

claim construction order.

37. Images of Olympus’ endoscopic targeting products are shown below. Olympus’ endoscopic 

targeting systems products include the require 

o a data file containing volumetric scan data;

o a display;

o a movable imaging tool for producing on the display device, an image of visible 

structure seen by the tool, where the position and/or orientation of the tool is 

tracked with respect to the patient coordinate system; 

Case 2:23-cv-00292-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 06/22/23 Page 11 of 17 PageID #: 11
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 12

o a computer connected to the data file and display, for (i) determining the position 

and/or orientation of the tool in a patient coordinate system, (ii) identifying the 

scan-data coordinates of the target site in the patient coordinate system, and (iii) 

projecting on the video image on the display device; and

o indicia that indicate (a) the direction of the target site, if the target site is outside 

the patient structure imaged on the display device, and (b) the lateral position of 

the target site with respect to the patient structure imaged on the display device 

and the distance between the tool and the target site, if the target site is within the 

patient structure imaged on the display device.

38. For example, the SPiN Thoracic Navigation System is shown below from its website promoting 

the Accused Instrumentalities, as last visited on April 13, 2023:

https://www.veranmedical.com/spin-system/navigated-bronchoscopy/

39. Videos of the Accused Instrumentalities can be found on YouTube that show and describe the 

functionality as required by the ’794 Patent.

Case 2:23-cv-00292-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 06/22/23 Page 12 of 17 PageID #: 12
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 13

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=...VeranMedicalTechnologies

40. An article concerning the Accused Instrumentalities below describe the data file functionality as 

required by the ’794 Patent, and found on Olympus’ website as last visited on April 13, 2023.

Case 2:23-cv-00292-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 06/22/23 Page 13 of 17 PageID #: 13
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 14

https://www.veranmedical.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/feb242014.pdf

COUNT I

Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,850,794

41. Plaintiff incorporates the above paragraphs by reference.

42. Olympus without authority, continues to make, use, sell, offer to sell, and/or import into the 

United States its Accused Instrumentalities as shown above.

43. Olympus thus has infringed and continues to infringe at least claim 1 of the ’794 Patent literally 

and/or under the doctrine of equivalents.

44. Olympus has also actively induced and will continue to actively induce the infringement of at 

least one of claim 1 of the ’794 Patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), by, among other 

things, actively and knowingly aiding and abetting infringement of others through activities such 

as creating and/or distributing videos of use such as the videos above, brochures, manuals,

instructional documents, and/or similar materials with instructions on creating, manufacturing, 

designing, assembling and/or implementing infringing products, with the specific intent to 

induce others to directly make, use, offer for sale, sell, and/or import into the United States 

Case 2:23-cv-00292-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 06/22/23 Page 14 of 17 PageID #: 14
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 15

products that fall within the scope of the ’794 Patent, without license or authority from Plaintiff. 

On information and belief, Olympus knows that the induced acts constitute infringement of the 

’794 Patent.

45. Olympus individually, collectively, or through others or intermediaries, has contributorily 

infringed, and/or is contributorily infringing, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c), at least one 

claim of the ’794 Patent by making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing, material 

parts of the inventions claimed in the ’794 Patent, which are not a staple article or commodity of 

commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use, and knowing the accused parts to be 

especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of the ’794 claims.

46. Olympus has been on actual notice of the ’794 Patent at least as early as the date, December 11, 

2013, it was cited it in Veran’s own patent file histories including U.S. Patent No. 8,696,549B2.

Olympus’ direct and indirect infringement of the ’794 Patent has thus been committed with 

knowledge of the ’794 Patent, making Olympus liable for direct, indirect, and willful 

infringement.

47. Olympus’ infringement of the ’794 Patent will continue to damage Plaintiff, causing irreparable 

harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law, unless it is enjoined by this Court.

48. Plaintiff has been damaged because of the infringing conduct by Olympus alleged above. Thus, 

Olympus is liable to Plaintiff in an amount that adequately compensates it for such infringement, 

which, by law, cannot be less than a reasonable royalty, together with interest and costs as fixed 

by this Court under 35 U.S.C. § 284.

Case 2:23-cv-00292-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 06/22/23 Page 15 of 17 PageID #: 15
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 16

49. Plaintiff and/or its predecessors-in-interest have satisfied all statutory obligations required to 

collect pre-filing damages for the full period allowed by law.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court enter judgment against Defendant as 

follows:

1. Declaring that Defendant has infringed the ’794 Patent;

2. Awarding Plaintiff its damages suffered because of Defendant’s infringement of the ’794

Patent;

3. Awarding Plaintiff its costs, reasonable attorneys’ fees, expenses, and interest; 

4. An award to Plaintiff of enhanced damages, up to and including trebling of Plaintiff’s 

damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284 for Olympus’ willful infringement of the ’794

Patent;

5. Granting a permanent injunction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 283, enjoining Defendants from 

further acts of infringement with respect to the ’794 Patent;

6. Awarding Plaintiff ongoing post-trial royalties for infringement of the non-expired ’794

Patent; and

7. Granting Plaintiff such further relief as the Court finds appropriate.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff demands trial by jury, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 38.

Case 2:23-cv-00292-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 06/22/23 Page 16 of 17 PageID #: 16
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 17

Respectfully Submitted

/s/ Christopher A. Honea

M. Scott Fuller

 Texas Bar No. 24036607

 sfuller@ghiplaw.com

Randall Garteiser 

 Texas Bar No. 24038912

 rgarteiser@ghiplaw.com

Christopher A. Honea

 Texas Bar No. 24059967

 chonea@ghiplaw.com

GARTEISER HONEA, PLLC

119 W. Ferguson Street

Tyler, Texas 75702

Telephone: (903) 705-7420

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

Case 2:23-cv-00292-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 06/22/23 Page 17 of 17 PageID #: 17