Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/104115745/Baxter-International-et-al-v-Fresenius-Medical-Care-Holdings-Inc-d-b-a-Fresenius-Medical-Care-North-America-et-al
Timestamp: 2017-03-23 19:54:16
Document Index: 261975298

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§ 1331', 'art, 3', '§ 1391', '§285', '§285', '§285', '§285', '§\n285', 'art0']

BrowseInterestsStay InformedCareerPersonal GrowthFiction & BiographiesHealth & FitnessLifestyleCultureBrowse byBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION BAXTER INTERNATIONAL, INC.AND BAXTER HEALTHCARE S.A., Plaintiffs, v. FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE HOLDINGS, INC. d/b/a FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE NORTH AMERICA and FRESENIUS USA, INC., Defendants. COMPLAINT Plaintiffs Baxter International, Inc. and Baxter Healthcare S.A. (collectively “Baxter”), through their attorneys, K&L Gates LLP, brings this action against Defendants Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc. and Fresenius USA, Inc. (collectively, “Fresenius”) to obtain permanent injunctive relief, actual damages, treble damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs for Fresenius’ infringement of Baxter’s asserted patents. NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. This is an action arising under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 1
Civil Action No.: 12-cv-06890 COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
et seq. and is brought by Baxter against Fresenius for Fresenius’ infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,815,595 (“the ‘595 patent”), 8,066,671 (“the ‘671 patent”), 8,075,526 (“the ‘526 patent”), and 8,206,338 (“the ‘338 patent”) (collectively, “Patents-in-Suit”). THE PARTIES 2. Baxter International, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in Deerfield, Illinois. Baxter Healthcare S.A. is a Swiss corporation with its principal
place of business in Opfikon, Switzerland. Baxter is a leading provider of dialysis-related products and services to assist patients with kidney disease. Baxter’s research and development facility for its dialysis-related products is located in Round Lake, Illinois. 3. Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc. d/b/a Fresenius Medical Care North
America is a New York corporation with its principal place of business in Waltham, Massachusetts. Fresenius USA, Inc. is a Massachusetts corporation with its principal place of business in Walnut Creek, California. Fresenius makes dialysis machines, equipment and
supplies, provides dialysis services and operates dialysis clinics across the United States. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and
1338(a) because this action arises under the patent laws of the United States. 5. This Court has general and specific personal jurisdiction over Fresenius.
Fresenius has continuous and systematic contacts in Illinois. Specifically, Fresenius operates or has operated clinics in the following cities located in this District: Chicago (six separate clinics), Antioch, Elk Grove Village, Deerfield, McHenrey, Skokie, Elmhurst, Lombard, Melrose Park, Villa Park, West Chicago, Oak Park, Berwyn, Blue Island, Joliet, Bolingbrook, Olympia Fields, Orland Park, Aurora, Willowbrook, Naperville, Plainfield, Niles, Merrionette Park, and Evergreen Park. 6. Fresenius’ clinics in Chicago are located at the following addresses: 557 Polk
Street, Suite 203, Chicago, IL 60607; 5401 S. Wentworth, Chicago, IL 60609; 825 W. 35th Street, Chicago, IL 60609; 4008 N. Broadway, Chicago, IL 60613; 1111 E. 87th Street, Suite 700, Chicago, IL 60619; 1044 N. Mozart, 3rd Floor, Chicago, IL 60622.
Fresenius generates substantial revenue and has numerous employees across its
broad clinical network in this District. Further, these clinics extensively use Fresenius’ Liberty Cycler peritoneal dialysis system and related disposable items and equipment (“Accused Product”). 8. In addition to its clinic employees, Fresenius also has numerous sales, marketing,
accounting, management and operations employees in this District. Fresenius also uses its website fmsjobs.fmcna.com/Illinois-jobs to solicit additional potential employees. 9. Fresenius has committed acts of infringement in this Judicial District.
Specifically, the Accused Product is sold to and/or used by patients at clinics in Chicago and throughout this District that are operated by third parties. These clinics include: Circle Medical Management, 1426 W. Washington Blvd., Chicago, IL 60607; University of Illinois Hospital Dialysis, 1859 W. Taylor UIMCC MC 794, Room 1003, Chicago, IL 60612; and, Rush University Medical Center, 735 Kellogg, Chicago, IL 60612. 10. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and 1400(b). FIRST CLAIM: INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,815,595 11. herein. 12. On October 19, 2010, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and Baxter incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 10 of its Complaint as if fully set forth
legally issued the ‘595 Patent, entitled “Automated Dialysis Pumping System.” A copy of the ‘595 Patent is attached as Exhibit A. 13. Fresenius has infringed and is infringing, either literally or under the doctrine of
equivalents, the ‘595 Patent by making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling within the United States, and/or importing into the United States, without authority, the Accused Product.
The Accused Product infringes at least Claim 1 of the ‘595 Patent. Baxter has been and continues to be damaged by Fresenius’ infringement of the
‘595 Patent, in an amount to be determined at trial. 16. Baxter has suffered irreparable injury for which there is no adequate remedy at
law and will continue to suffer such irreparable injury unless Fresenius’ infringement of the ‘595 Patent is permanently enjoined by this Court. 17. Upon information and belief, Fresenius’ infringement of the ‘595 Patent is, and
has been, willful. 18. Fresenius’ infringement of the ‘595 Patent is exceptional, and thus, pursuant to 35
U.S.C. §285, entitles Baxter to its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this action. SECOND CLAIM: INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,066,671 19. herein. 20. On November 29, 2011, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and Baxter incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 18 of its Complaint as if fully set forth
legally issued the ‘671 Patent, entitled “Automated Dialysis System Including a Piston and a Stepper Motor.” A copy of the ‘671 Patent is attached as Exhibit B. 21. Fresenius has infringed and is infringing, either literally or under the doctrine of
equivalents, the ‘671 Patent by making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling within the United States, and/or importing into the United States, without authority, the Accused Product. 22. 23. The Accused Product infringes at least Claims 1 and 10 of the ‘671 Patent. Baxter has been and continues to be damaged by Fresenius’ infringement of the
‘595 Patent, in an amount to be determined at trial.
Baxter has suffered irreparable injury for which there is no adequate remedy at
law and will continue to suffer such irreparable injury unless Fresenius’ infringement of the ‘671 Patent is permanently enjoined by this Court. 25. Upon information and belief, Fresenius’ infringement of the ‘671 Patent is, and
has been, willful. 26. Fresenius’ infringement of the ‘671 Patent is exceptional, and thus, pursuant to 35
U.S.C. §285, entitles Baxter to its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this action. THIRD CLAIM: INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,075,526 27. herein. 28. On December 13, 2011, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and Baxter incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 26 of its Complaint as if fully set forth
legally issued the ‘526 Patent, entitled “Automated Dialysis System Including a Piston and Vacuum Source.” A copy of the ‘526 Patent is attached as Exhibit C. 29. Fresenius has infringed and is infringing, either literally or under the doctrine of
equivalents, the ‘526 Patent by making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling within the United States, and/or importing into the United States, without authority, the Accused Product. 30. 31. The Accused Product infringes at least Claims 1 and 13 of the ‘526 Patent. Baxter has been and continues to be damaged by Fresenius’ infringement of the
‘526 Patent, in an amount to be determined at trial. 32. Baxter has suffered irreparable injury for which there is no adequate remedy at
law and will continue to suffer such irreparable injury unless Fresenius’ infringement of the ‘526 Patent is permanently enjoined by this Court.
Upon information and belief, Fresenius’ infringement of the ‘526 Patent is, and
has been, willful. 34. Fresenius’ infringement of the ‘526 Patent is exceptional, and thus, pursuant to 35
U.S.C. §285, entitles Baxter to its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this action. FOURTH CLAIM: INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,206,338 35. herein. 36. On June 26, 2012, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally Baxter incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 34 of its Complaint as if fully set forth
issued the ‘338 Patent, entitled “Pumping Systems For Cassette-Based Dialysis.” A copy of the ‘338 Patent is attached as Exhibit D. 37. Fresenius has infringed and is infringing, either literally or under the doctrine of
equivalents, the ‘338 Patent by making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling within the United States, and/or importing into the United States, without authority, the Accused Product. 38. 39. The Accused Product infringes at least Claim 1 of the ‘338 Patent. Baxter has been and continues to be damaged by Fresenius’ infringement of the
‘338 Patent, in an amount to be determined at trial. 40. Baxter has suffered irreparable injury for which there is no adequate remedy at
law and will continue to suffer such irreparable injury unless Fresenius’ infringement of the ‘338 Patent is permanently enjoined by this Court. 41. Upon information and belief, Fresenius’ infringement of the ‘338 Patent is, and
has been, willful.
Fresenius’ infringement of the ‘338 Patent is exceptional, and thus, pursuant to 35
U.S.C. §285, entitles Baxter to its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this action. RELIEF REQUESTED WHEREFORE, Baxter prays for the following judgment and relief against Fresenius: A. B. That Fresenius has infringed the Patents-in-Suit; That Fresenius, its officers, agents, and employees, and those persons in active
concert or participation with any of them, and their successors and assigns be permanently enjoined from infringement of the Patents-in-Suit, including but not limited to an injunction against making, using, offering to sell, and selling within the United States, and importing into the United States, any products covered by the Patents-in-Suit; C. That Baxter be awarded all damages adequate to compensate it for Fresenius’
infringement of the Patents-in-Suit, such damages to be determined by a jury, and if necessary to adequately compensate Baxter for the infringement, an accounting and treble damages as a result of Fresenius’s willful infringement; D. That Baxter be awarded pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum
rate allowed by law; E. That this case be declared an exceptional case within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. §
285 and that Baxter be awarded its reasonable attorney fees, expenses, and costs incurred in connection with this action; and F. proper. That Baxter be awarded such other and further relief as this Court deems just and
JURY DEMAND Baxter hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
Respectfully submitted, /s/ Sanjay K. Murthy__________ Michael J. Abernathy mike.abernathy@klgates.com David A. Rammelt david.rammelt@klgates.com Sanjay K. Murthy sanjay.murthy@klgates.com Robert J. Barz robert.barz@klgates.com Devon C. Beane devon.beane@klgates.com K&L GATES LLP 70 W. Madison St., Suite 3100 Chicago, IL 60602 Tel: (312) 372-1121 Fax: (312) 827-800 Michael J. Bettinger mike.bettinger@klgates.com Irene I. Yang (pro hac vice to be submitted) irene.yang@klgates.com K&L GATES LLP 4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1200 San Francisco, CA 94111 Tel: (415) 882-8200 Fax: (415) 882-8220 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS BAXTER INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND BAXTER HEALTHCARE S.A.
Sign up to vote on this titleUsefulNot usefulBaxter International et. al. v. Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc., d/b/a Fresenius Medical Care North America et. al. by PriorSmart0.0 (0)EmbedDownloadDescriptionOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-06890: Baxter International, Inc. et. al. v. Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc., d/b/a Fresenius Medical Care North America...Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-06890: Baxter International, Inc. et. al. v. Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc., d/b/a Fresenius Medical Care North America et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l6BH for more info.Interests: Types, Business/Law, Court FilingsRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Public DomainDownload as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentShow moreShow less
RelatedInterface IP Holdings v. ETrade Financialby PatentBlastSelect Retrieval v. Ll Beanby PriorSmartHome Products International et. al. v. Hampton Directby PriorSmartAWC Systems Technology v. Barnes Bullets et. al.by PriorSmartInMotion Imagery Technologies v. Rokuby PriorSmartInMotion Imagery Technologies v. Brain Damage Films et. al.by PriorSmartCequent Performance Products v. Hopkins Manufacturing Et. Al.by PatentBlastEMG Technology v. Re/Maxby PriorSmartSonic Industry v. Travelocity.comby PriorSmartTechnical Consumer Products v. Philips Solid-State Lighting Solutions et. al.by PriorSmartUnifi v RIM and Phone Industryby jeff_roberts881Hospital Systems Complaintby Myers, Boebel and MacLeod L.L.P.Cascades Branding Innovation v. Abercrombie & Fitchby PriorSmartMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Microsoftby PriorSmartIP assigenment-周雯-by Wen VanessaTrustees of Boston University v. Seoul Semiconductor Company et. al.by PriorSmartIP Issuesby n1i1Lewit v. Pepsico, Inc. d/b/a Gatoradeby PriorSmartGolden State Natural Products v. TSI Health Sciencesby PriorSmartFinancial Systems Technology Pty. et. al. v. CDW et. al.by PriorSmartGroup-A Autosports v. J2 Engineering et. al.by PriorSmartPremium Sales Network v. MasterSpas - Complaintby slbursteinRotatable Technologiesby shaylin_clarkBuley (Interval vs Complaint)by Taylor BuleyMondis Technology v. LG Electronics Et. Al.by PatentBlastPragmatus AV v. Citrix Systemsby PriorSmartPrecor et. al. v. Yowza Fitness et. al.by PriorSmartFresenius Medical Care Holdings v. Invagen Pharmaceuticalsby PriorSmartSimilar To Baxter International et. al. v. Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc., d/b/a Fresenius Medical Care North America et. al.Skip carouselInterface IP Holdings v. ETrade FinancialSelect Retrieval v. Ll BeanHome Products International et. al. v. Hampton DirectAWC Systems Technology v. Barnes Bullets et. al.InMotion Imagery Technologies v. RokuInMotion Imagery Technologies v. Brain Damage Films et. al.Cequent Performance Products v. Hopkins Manufacturing Et. Al.EMG Technology v. Re/MaxSonic Industry v. Travelocity.comTechnical Consumer Products v. Philips Solid-State Lighting Solutions et. al.Unifi v RIM and Phone IndustryHospital Systems ComplaintCascades Branding Innovation v. Abercrombie & FitchMultiplayer Network Innovations v. MicrosoftIP assigenment-周雯-Trustees of Boston University v. Seoul Semiconductor Company et. al.IP IssuesLewit v. Pepsico, Inc. d/b/a GatoradeGolden State Natural Products v. TSI Health SciencesFinancial Systems Technology Pty. et. al. v. CDW et. al.Group-A Autosports v. J2 Engineering et. al.Premium Sales Network v. MasterSpas - ComplaintRotatable TechnologiesBuley (Interval vs Complaint)Mondis Technology v. LG Electronics Et. Al.Pragmatus AV v. Citrix SystemsPrecor et. al. v. Yowza Fitness et. al.Fresenius Medical Care Holdings v. Invagen PharmaceuticalsDehn&#039;s Innovations v. Total Import Solutions, Inc. d/b/a Nanoskin Car Care Products et. al.Signal IP v. Subaru of AmericaBaxter International et. al. v. Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc., d/b/a Fresenius Medical Care North America et. al.