Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/162140621/Integrated-Claim-Systems-v-Aetna-Dental
Timestamp: 2016-08-30 19:45:56
Document Index: 16640986

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§ 271', '§ 1391', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 284', '§ 285', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 284', '§ 285']

BrowseUploadSign inJoinBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicWelcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out moreUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION INTEGRATED CLAIM SYSTEMS, LLC, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) AETNA DENTAL INC., ) ) Defendant. ) _______________________________________)
Case No. 2:13-cv-649 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Plaintiff Integrated Claims Systems, LLC (“ICS”), for its complaint for patent infringement against Defendant Aetna Dental Inc. (“Aetna Dental”) alleges as follows: THE PARTIES 1. Plaintiff ICS is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws
of the State of New York, with its principal place of business at 118 Weaver Road, Elizaville, New York. 2. Upon information and belief, Defendant Aetna Dental is a corporation organized
and existing under the laws of the State of Texas, with its principal place of business at 1 Prudential Circle, Sugar Land, Texas. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. This action arises under the United States Patent Laws, 35 U.S.C. §§ 1, et seq.
The Court has personal jurisdiction over Aetna Dental because it has committed
acts of patent infringement within this Judicial District in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, maintains an office in Texas, transacts business within this Judicial District, has purposely availed itself of the privileges and benefits of the laws of the State of Texas, solicits customers in the State of Texas, and has paying customers who are residents of the State of Texas and who each use Aetna Dental‟s products and services in the State of Texas. Upon information and belief, Aetna Dental derives substantial revenue from the infringing products and services used within this Judicial District, and should reasonably expect its actions to have consequences within this Judicial District. 5. 1400(b). THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT AND BACKGROUND 6. ICS is the owner of all right, title, and interest in U.S. Patent No. 7,178,020 (the Venue is proper in this Judicial District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)-(c) and
Resonance Images (“MRIs”), Positron Emission Tomography (“PET”) images, Computer Assisted Tomography (“CAT”) scans are all examples of tomography. These images are often filed in connection with healthcare claim forms. Other documents frequently submitted with claim forms include x-rays, strip charts, perio charts, intraoral pictures, lab reports and narratives, and explanation of benefits, among others. 11. In 1994, a surgeon who was aware of Dr. DiRienzo‟s radar work asked if it would
almost 20 years now, Dr. DiRienzo has researched and developed systems and methods for processing insurance claims and the forms that typically accompany them. Dr. DiRienzo‟s efforts have been rewarded with eleven United States Patents in this field. He is also the named inventor of four other United States Patents and has a number of pending patent applications. 13. Aetna Dental has actual knowledge of its infringement of the DiRienzo patents.
On January 29, 2013, ICS sent a licensing proposal that included the DiRienzo patents to Aetna Dental. On March 12, 2013, ICS‟s counsel followed up with a voicemail to Mr. Joel Hodge at Aetna Dental. On April 3, 2013, ICS sent a follow up letter to Aetna Dental. As of the filing of this Complaint, Aetna Dental has not responded to any of these communications. 14. Upon information and belief, Aetna Dental makes, uses, offers for sale or sells
within the United States a system and method allowing the electronic submission and processing of insurance claims and corresponding electronic attachments (the “Insurance Claim System”). Such attachments may include, for example, x-rays, perio charts, intraoral pictures, explanation of benefits, and lab reports and narratives, among others. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘020 PATENT) 15. ICS restates and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 14
above and incorporates them by reference. 4
Upon information and belief, Aetna Dental, through its Insurance Claim System,
has infringed and continues to infringe, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, at least claim 27 of the „020 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by making, using, offering for sale or selling the Insurance Claim System within the United States. 17. Upon information and belief, Aetna Dental, through its Insurance Claim System,
has infringed and continues to infringe at least claim 27 of the „020 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) by inducing vendors, insurance providers, customers and others to make, use, sell, or offer for sale within the United States, products or processes that practice inventions of the „020 patent, including the Insurance Claim System, with knowledge of and intent that such vendors, insurance providers, customers and others infringe the „020 patent. Aetna Dental has intentionally caused, urged, encouraged, or aided in the action that contributed to and induced infringement, including direct infringement, of the „020 patent by vendors, insurance providers, customers and others. Upon information and belief, such intentional action includes, for example, contracting with vendors or others to make or use certain systems and processes of the Insurance Claim System; causing, urging, encouraging, or aiding certain actions by vendors or others to make or use the Insurance Claim System; and causing, urging, encouraging or aiding insurance providers, customers or others to make or use the Insurance Claim System. As a result of its conduct, Aetna Dental has induced and is contributing to infringement and inducing such vendors, insurance providers, customers and others to make or use systems and methods, such as the Insurance Claim System, to infringe at least claim 27 of the „020 Patent. Additionally and in the alternative, Aetna Dental has induced and is inducing vendors, insurance providers, customers and others to implement and utilize parts of or all of the systems and methods of the Insurance Claim System to infringe at least claim 27 of the „020 patent. Aetna Dental has
patent by Aetna Dental has been and continues to be willful and deliberate. As a result, ICS is entitled to increased damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 and to attorney fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this action under 35 U.S.C. § 285. 19. ICS has been damaged by Aetna Dental‟s infringement of the „020 patent, has
been irreparably harmed by that infringement, and will suffer additional damages and irreparable harm unless this Court enjoins Aetna Dental from further infringement. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘768 PATENT) 20. ICS restates and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 14
above and incorporates them by reference. 21. Upon information and belief, Aetna Dental, through its Insurance Claim System,
has infringed and continues to infringe, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, at least claim 1 of the „768 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by making, using, offering for sale or selling the Insurance Claim System within the United States. 22. Upon information and belief, Aetna Dental through its Insurance Claim System,
has infringed and continues to infringe at least claim 1 of the „768 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) by inducing vendors, insurance providers, customers and others to make, use, sell, or offer for sale within the United States, products or processes that practice inventions of the „768 patent, including the Insurance Claim System, with knowledge of and intent that such vendors, insurance providers, customers and others infringe the „768 patent. Aetna Dental has intentionally caused, urged, encouraged, or aided in the action that contributed to and induced 6
infringement, including direct infringement, of the „768 patent by vendors, insurance providers, customers and others. Upon information and belief, such intentional action includes, for example, contracting with vendors or others to make or use certain systems and processes of the Insurance Claim System; causing, urging, encouraging, or aiding certain actions by vendors or others to make or use the Insurance Claim System; and causing, urging, encouraging or aiding insurance providers or others to make or use the Insurance Claim System. As a result of its conduct, Aetna Dental has induced and is contributing to infringement and inducing such vendors, insurance providers, customers and others to make or use systems and methods, such as the Insurance Claim System, to infringe at least claim 1 of the „768 patent. Additionally and in the alternative, Aetna Dental has induced and is inducing vendors, insurance providers, customers and others to implement and utilize parts of or all of the systems and methods of the Insurance Claim System to infringe at least claim 1 of the „768 patent. Aetna Dental has engaged and is engaging in this conduct while aware of the „768 patent and with the intent to infringe. 23. Upon information and belief, the infringement of one or more claims of the „768
patent by Aetna Dental has been and continues to be willful and deliberate. As a result, ICS is entitled to increased damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 and to attorney fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this action under 35 U.S.C. § 285. 24. ICS has been damaged by Aetna Dental‟s infringement of the „768 patent, has
been irreparably harmed by that infringement, and will suffer additional damages and irreparable harm unless this Court enjoins Aetna Dental from further infringement.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, ICS prays for judgment: A. B. that Aetna Dental has infringed and is infringing the „020 and „768 patents; enjoining Aetna Dental, its officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys,
successors and assigns and all other persons in active concert or participation with any of them from infringing, contributing to infringement and/or inducing infringement of the „020 and „768 patents; C. awarding ICS compensatory damages for Aetna Dental‟s infringement, together
Respectfully submitted, /s/ Charles Ainsworth Charles Ainsworth State Bar No. 00783521 Email: charley@pbatyler.com Parker, Bunt & Ainsworth, P.C. 100 E. Ferguson, Suite 1114 Tyler, Texas 75702 8
Integrated Claim Systems v. Aetna Dental by PatentBlast22 viewsEmbedDownloadDescriptionIntegrated Claim Systems v. Aetna DentalIntegrated Claim Systems v. Aetna Dental Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentShow moreShow less
RelatedEMG Technology v. Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association - College Retirement Equities Fundby PatentBlastRexam Prescription Products v. Purechoice Et. Alby PatentBlastStemina Biomarker Discovery v. Metabolonby PriorSmartAlkermes Pharma Ireland v. Mylan Pharmaceuticalsby PriorSmartLocata LBS v. Factual.pdfby PatentBlastVersata Software et. al. v. Zoho Corporation dba ManageEngineby PriorSmartMemory Integrity LLCby PriorSmartInterMetro Industries v. Enovate Medicalby PatentBlastHawk Technology Systems v. Pennsylvania State Universityby PriorSmartSophos v. RPost Holdings et. al..pdfby PatentBlastGPS Industries v. Denncoby PriorSmartAptarGroup v. Lifeway Foodsby PatentBlastTuf-Tite v. Federal Package Networksby PriorSmartIntellectual Property - Patentby Beichen ChenAdrain v. Amazon.com et. al.by PriorSmartPatent infringement lawsuit filed by Boulder-based Dinkum Systems against GoPro by jasonblevinsIV's second complaint against Motorolaby CNET NewsLodsys Group v. MobileAgeby PriorSmartCypress Semiconductor v. Silego Technologyby PriorSmartEmeraChem Holdings v. Volkswagen Group of America et. al.by PriorSmartTurbo Style - Complaintby slbursteinPLL Technologies v. Texas Instrumentsby PriorSmartUS Federal Trade Commission: richmondcmpby ftcNetwork Acceleration Technologies LLCby PriorSmartSimilar to Integrated Claim Systems v. Aetna DentalEMG Technology v. Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association - College Retirement Equities FundRexam Prescription Products v. Purechoice Et. AlStemina Biomarker Discovery v. MetabolonAlkermes Pharma Ireland v. Mylan PharmaceuticalsLocata LBS v. Factual.pdfVersata Software et. al. v. Zoho Corporation dba ManageEngineMemory Integrity LLCInterMetro Industries v. Enovate MedicalHawk Technology Systems v. Pennsylvania State UniversitySophos v. RPost Holdings et. al..pdfGPS Industries v. DenncoAptarGroup v. Lifeway FoodsTuf-Tite v. Federal Package NetworksIntellectual Property - PatentAdrain v. Amazon.com et. al.Patent infringement lawsuit filed by Boulder-based Dinkum Systems against GoPro IV's second complaint against MotorolaLodsys Group v. MobileAgeCypress Semiconductor v. Silego TechnologyEmeraChem Holdings v. Volkswagen Group of America et. al.Turbo Style - ComplaintPLL Technologies v. Texas InstrumentsUS Federal Trade CommissionNetwork Acceleration Technologies LLCIntellectual PropertyCool Gear International v. Progressive International