Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/147430204/Datascope-et-al-v-Teleflex-et-al
Timestamp: 2017-11-20 12:48:20
Document Index: 692501180

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 271', '§ 1331', '§ 1391', '§ 271', '§271', '§271', '§ 285']

Datascope et. al. v. Teleflex et. al. | Injunction | Patent Infringement
Description: Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-03638-JLL-MAH: Datascope Corp. et. al. v. Teleflex Incorporated et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of New J...
Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-03638-JLL-MAH: Datascope Corp. et. al. v. Teleflex Incorporated et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, the Hon. Jose L. Linares presiding. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l8zU for more info.
SILLS CUMMIS & GROSS P.C Jeffrey J. Greenbaum Brian N.
Biglin One Riverfront Plaza Newark, New Jersey 07102 Tel: (973) 643-7000 PEARL COHEN ZEDEK LATZER LLP David A. Loewenstein Clyde A. Shuman 1500 Broadway, 12th Floor New York, New York 10036 Tel: (646) 878-0800 Attorneys for Plaintiffs UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY DATASCOPE CORP. and MAQUET CARDIOVASCULAR US SALES LLC, Plaintiffs, v. TELEFLEX INCORPORATED and ARROW INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendants. : : : : : : : Document Electronically Filed COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND JURY DEMAND Civil Action No.
Plaintiffs Datascope Corp. (“Datascope”) and Maquet Cardiovascular US Sales LLC (“Maquet US”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) allege as follows: NATURE OF THIS LAWSUIT 1. This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of the
United States Code, including 35 U.S.C. §§ 271 and 281-285. This Court has exclusive subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
PARTIES 2. Plaintiff Datascope is a Delaware corporation having its principal place of
business at 1300 MacArthur Boulevard, Mahwah, New Jersey 07430. 3. Plaintiff Maquet US is a Delaware limited liability company having its
principal place of business at 45 Barbour Pond Drive, Wayne, New Jersey 07470. 4. On information and belief, Defendant Teleflex Incorporated (“Teleflex”) is a
Delaware corporation having its principal place of business at 155 S Limerick Road, Limerick, Pennsylvania 19468-1603. 5. On information and belief, Defendant Arrow International, Inc. (“Arrow”) is a
Pennsylvania corporation having its principal place of business at 2400 Bernville Rd, Reading, Pennsylvania 19605. On information and belief, Defendant Arrow is a whollyowned subsidiary of Defendant Teleflex. (Defendants Teleflex and Arrow will be referred to collectively as “Defendants.”) JURISDICTION AND VENUE 6. On information and belief, each of the Defendants is subject to this Court’s
specific and general jurisdiction due at least to its substantial business within this judicial district, including: (i) marketing, producing, distributing, using, selling, and/or offering to sell intra-aortic balloon catheter and intra-aortic balloon pump products including, but not limited to, “UltraFlex 7.5”, “Ultra 8”, “NarrowFlex,” “RediGuard,” “FiberOptix™”, “LightWave”; and “AutoCAT 2 WAVE” (“Infringing Products”) and (ii) regularly doing or soliciting business, engaging in other persistent courses of conduct, and/or deriving substantial revenue from the Infringing Products provided to individuals within the United States and this judicial district. 7. 1400(b). Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b), 1391(c) and
FACTS 8. Datascope is the owner of all right, title and interest in United States Patent
No. 6,616,597 (the “‘597 Patent”), entitled “Intra-Aortic Balloon Catheter Having a Dual Sensor Pressure Sensing System,” issued on September 9, 2003 (copy attached as Exhibit A); United States Patent No. 6,935,999 (the “‘999 Patent”), entitled “Intra-Aortic Balloon Catheter Having a Dual Sensor Pressure Sensing System,” issued on August 30, 2005 (copy attached as Exhibit B); United States Patent No. 7,112,170 (the “‘170 Patent”), entitled “Intra-Aortic Balloon Catheter Having a Dual Sensor Pressure Sensing System,” issued on September 26, 2006 (copy attached as Exhibit C); and United States Patent No. 7,229,403 (the “‘403 Patent”), entitled “Intra-Aortic Balloon Catheter Having a Dual Sensor Pressure Sensing System,” issued on June 12, 2007 (copy attached as Exhibit D) (collectively, the “Patents in Suit”), including the right to sue for past damages. 9. Datascope, founded in 1964, is a pioneer developer and manufacturer of
medical devices for clinical healthcare markets in interventional cardiology. Datascope is the world leader in intra-aortic balloon catheter counterpulsation technology. Datascope created the first commercial intra-aortic balloon pump system in 1970, to assist the heart using counterpulsation therapy. Datascope created a next-generation intra-aortic balloon pump system in 1971, and introduced the world’s first percutaneous intra-aortic balloon catheter, Percor, in 1979. Datascope’s transportable System 84, introduced in 1981, allowed for patient transport during therapy, and has continued its history of innovation. 10. Datascope has expended substantial sums in research and development of its
products, and has a well-deserved reputation and a provider of high quality medical devices, including but not limited to intra-aortic balloon catheter and intra-aortic balloon pump products, in the United States and elsewhere. Datascope has realized substantial sales success for these products, including generation of substantial revenues and profits.
11. United States. 12.
Maquet US is the exclusive licensee of each of the Patents in Suit in the
Maquet US is the United States seller of a variety of medical devices, and is
the exclusive United States seller of Datascope’s products covered by the Patents in Suit. Maquet US has expended substantial sums in marketing the medical devices it sells, including but not limited to products covered by the Patents in Suit. Maquet has realized substantial sales success for these products, including generation of substantial revenues and profits. 13. Robert B. Schock, Jonathan Williams and Daniel A. Walters are named
inventors of each of the Patents in Suit, and conceived and developed the subject matter thereof while employed at Datascope, in this judicial district.
INFRINGEMENT OF THE PATENTS IN SUIT 14. Defendants have infringed and continue to infringe one or more claims of each
of the Patents in Suit, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, either directly, contributorily and/or by inducement, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, by making, using, selling or offering to sell, and/or causing others to make, use, sell, in the United States and this judicial district the Infringing Products. 15. On information and belief, Defendants have sold thousands of Infringing
Products throughout the country that include a fiberoptic pressure sensor located in the tip of the device covered by a protective material, which, inter alia, avoids dependence upon continued operator vigilance and maintenance in order to maintain a good quality waveform. On information and belief, these same Infringing Products also employ a fluidic column in communication with a pressure transducer, which Defendants instruct can be used as a backup arterial pressure signal and/or for zeroing and/or calibration of the fiberoptic sensor. 16. On information and belief, Defendants supply each user of the Infringing
Products with detailed instructions and educational material on how to directly infringe one or more claims of each of the Patents in Suit. 17. On information and belief, users of the Infringing Products directly infringe
one or more claims of each of the Patents in Suit. 18. On information and belief, Defendants had actual and/or constructive
knowledge of the existence of one or more of the Patents in Suit before this Complaint was filed. In addition, Defendants will receive further confirmatory notice as to the existence of the Patents in Suit upon the service of this Complaint. 19. On information and belief, with knowledge of the Patents in Suit, therefore,
Defendants have also indirectly infringed, and will continue to indirectly infringe, one or more claims thereof under 35 U.S.C. §271(b) through the active inducement of direct
infringement by encouraging and intending that their customers configure the Infringing Products in manner that embodies and/or practices the claimed inventions of the Patents in Suit. On information and belief, Defendants have actively induced direct infringement by, inter alia, designing and introducing into the stream of commerce the Infringing Products suitable for infringing uses in medical applications, by publishing manuals and promotional literature describing and instructing users about the configuration and operation of those products, where the configuration and operation infringe the Patents in Suit, and by offering support and technical assistance to its customers that encourage use of those products in ways that directly infringe one or more claims of each of the Patents in Suit. 20. On information and belief, Defendants have performed, and will continue to
perform, the acts that constitute inducement of infringement with the knowledge that the acts induced thereby would constitute direct infringement by its customers. 21. On information and belief, Defendants have also indirectly infringed, and
continue to indirectly infringe, one or more claims of the Patents in Suit under 35 U.S.C. §271(c) by selling, offering for sale, and/or importing the Infringing Products within or into the United States knowing that those products are especially made or especially adapted for use in direct infringements of the Patents in Suit by their customers, and knowing that those products are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use. 22. Defendants’ infringing conduct has caused Plaintiffs substantial and
irreparable damage. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from Defendants the damages sustained as a result of Defendants’ infringing conduct. Defendants’ acts of infringement will continue to damage Plaintiffs in an amount not yet determined, causing irreparable harm, for which there is no adequate remedy at law, unless enjoined by this Court.
JURY TRIAL DEMAND 23. Pursuant to Rule 38, Fed. R. Civ. P., Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury on all
issues set forth herein that are properly triable to a jury. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court grant the following relief and to enter judgment in their favor as follows: A. A judgment declaring that Defendant Teleflex has infringed, induced and/or contributed to the infringement of the Patents in Suit; B. An injunction permanently restraining and enjoining Defendant Teleflex (and any of Teleflex’s officers, directors, employees, agents, servants, successors, assigns, and any and all persons in privity or in concert with Teleflex, or any of them, directly or indirectly) from infringing the Patents in Suit in any manner; C. Awarding Plaintiffs damages adequate to compensate them for damages sustained as a result of Defendant Teleflex’s infringement of the Patent in Suit, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty, together with interest from the date infringement of the Patents in Suit began; D. A judgment declaring that Defendant Teleflex willfully infringed the Patents in Suit, and awarding treble damages; E. A judgment declaring that Defendant Arrow has infringed, induced and/or contributed to the infringement of the Patents in Suit; F. An injunction permanently restraining and enjoining Defendant Arrow (and any of Arrow’s officers, directors, employees, agents, servants, successors, assigns, and any and all persons in privity or in concert with Arrow, or any of them, directly or indirectly) from infringing the Patents in Suit in any manner;
Awarding Plaintiffs damages adequate to compensate them for damages sustained as a result of Defendant Arrow’s infringement of the Patent in Suit, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty, together with interest from the date infringement of the Patents in Suit began;
A judgment declaring that Defendant Arrow willfully infringed the Patents in Suit, and awarding treble damages;
A judgment declaring that this case is exceptional and an award of attorneys’ fees and costs to Plaintiffs pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285; and
Respectfully submitted, SILLS CUMMIS & GROSS P.C. One Riverfront Plaza The Legal Center Newark, New Jersey 07102 Tel: (973) 643-7000 Fax: (973) 643-6500 By: s/ Jeffrey J. Greenbaum Jeffrey J. Greenbaum Brian N. Biglin jgreenbaum@sillscummis.com bbiglin@sillscummis.com Of counsel: David A. Loewenstein Clyde A. Shuman PEARL COHEN ZEDEK LATZER LLP 1500 Broadway, 12th Floor New York, NY 10036 Tel: (646) 878-0800 Fax: (646) 878-0801 DavidL@pczlaw.com ClydeS@pczlaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs Datascope Corporation, and Maquet Cardiovascular US Sales LLC Dated: June 11, 2013
Documents Similar To Datascope et. al. v. Teleflex et. al.