Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/170125317/Repo-Med-Systems-v-Emed-Technologies-Corportation
Timestamp: 2017-12-12 05:27:18
Document Index: 745793151

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1331', '§ 2201', '§ 1391', 'Application No. 12', 'Application No. 12', '§ 271', '§ 102', '§ 102', '§ 271', '§ 285']

Repo-Med Systems v. Emed Technologies Corportation | Declaratory Judgment | Patent
Repo-Med Systems v. Emed Technologies Corportation
Title 35 Of The United States Code
Description: Official Complaint for Declaratory Judgement in Civil Action No. Unknown: Repo-Med Systems, Inc. v. Emed Technologies Corportation. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Californ...
Official Complaint for Declaratory Judgement in Civil Action No. Unknown: Repo-Med Systems, Inc. v. Emed Technologies Corportation. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l9aa for more info.
Stephen J. Akerley (CA Bar No. 160757) DECHERT LLP Email: stephen.akerley@dechert.com 2440 W. El Camino Real, Suite 700 Mountain View, CA 94040-1499 Telephone: (650) 813-4800 Fax: (650) 813-4848 Kevin M. Flannery Vincent A. Gallo DECHERT LLP Cira Centre 2929 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19104-2808 Telephone: (215) 994-4000 Attorneys for Plaintiff Repro-Med Systems, Inc. (d/b/a RMS Medical Products) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 SACRAMENTO DIVISION 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Defendant. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
D ECHERT LLP
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW SILI CON VA LLEY
REPO-MED SYSTEMS, INC. (d/b/a RMS MEDICAL PRODUCTS), Plaintiff, v. EMED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION,
Civil Action No. COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff Repro-Med Systems, Inc. (doing business as RMS Medical Products) (“RMS Medical”), by and through its attorneys, alleges as follows: JURISDICTION 1. This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, specifically Title 35
of the United States Code. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). Further, because this action presents an actual
controversy with respect to the invalidity and non-infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,500,703 (“the ‘703 patent”), the Court may grant declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. 2. On information and belief, Defendant EMED Technologies Corporation
(“EMED”) is subject to personal jurisdiction in the Eastern District of California because EMED’s principal place of business is in this district. 3. Venue properly lies in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and 1391(c). NATURE OF THE CASE 4. RMS Medical seeks a declaratory judgment that the ‘703 patent is invalid and that
neither RMS Medical nor its products have infringed, induced others to infringe, or contributed to the infringement by others of the ‘703 patent. This relief is necessary because EMED has notified RMS Medical via letters that RMS Medical’s HIgH-Flo™ Subcutaneous Safety Needle Sets (“HIgH-Flo Products”) allegedly infringe the claims of the ‘703 patent, and demanded that RMS Medical discontinue making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing the HIgH-Flo Products. PARTIES 5. RMS Medical is a New York corporation, with its principal place of business
located at 24 Carpenter Road, Chester, NY 10918. 6. On information and belief, Defendant EMED is a Nevada corporation, with its
principal place of business located at 1264 Hawks Flight Court, El Dorado Hills, CA 95762. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 7. RMS Medical is a company that specializes in developing and manufacturing
portable medical devices. The HIgH-Flo Products are one of RMS Medical’s products. 8. On May 1, 2013, counsel for EMED sent a letter (“the May 1 Letter”) to RMS
Medical accusing RMS Medical’s HIgH-Flo Products of infringing the claims of filed Patent Application No. 12/187,256. The May 1 Letter informed RMS Medical that its “continued making, using, offering to sell, selling, and/or importing into the United States of [the HIgH-Flo P]roducts may subject [RMS Medical] to the provisional rights afforded by 35 U.S.C. Section -2COMPLAINT
154(d) and remedies arising by any subsequent patent that may be granted upon the Patent Application.” The May 1Letter further demanded that RMS Medical “discontinue making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing the above-named products.” A copy of the May 1 Letter is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 9. The ‘703 patent subsequently issued from Application No. 12/187,256. EMED
purports to be the current owner of the ‘703 patent, entitled “DEVICES AND METHODS FOR PROTECTING A USER FROM A SHARP TIP OF A MEDICAL NEEDLE.” The ‘703 patent issued on August 6, 2013. A copy of the ‘703 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 10. On August 21, 2013, counsel for EMED sent another letter (“the August 21
Letter”) to RMS Medical, informing RMS Medical that the ‘703 Patent had issued and reiterating EMED’s previous demands, and further threatening to seek, inter alia, treble damages for willful infringement. A copy of the August 21 Letter is attached hereto as Exhibit C. 11. Based on EMED’s conduct, there is an actual, substantial, continuing, and
justiciable controversy between RMS Medical, on one hand, and EMED, on the other hand, relating to the purported infringement of the ‘703 Patent. As such, there is a substantial controversy, between parties having adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment. 12. Flo Products. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of the ‘703 Patent) 13. herein. 14. Neither RMS Medical nor its products have infringed, induced others to infringe or RMS Medical realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 to 12 as if fully set forth No claim of the ‘703 patent can be validly construed to be infringed by the HIgH-
contributed to the infringement by others of the ‘703 patent. 15. RMS Medical seeks and is entitled to a declaratory judgment that neither it nor its
products infringe or have infringed under 35 U.S.C. § 271 (or any sub-section thereof) any claim of the ‘703 patent. -3COMPLAINT
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 D. B. C. herein. 17. 16.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Declaratory Judgment of Patent Invalidity of the ‘703 Patent – 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, & 112) RMS Medical realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 to 15 as if fully set forth
The ‘703 patent is invalid for failure to comply with the requirements of Title 35
of the United States Code, including, without limitation, one or more of §§ 102, 103, and 112. 18. RMS Medical seeks and is entitled to a declaratory judgment that all claims in the
‘703 patent are invalid. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, RMS Medical respectfully requests the Court to enter judgment in its favor and against EMED as follows: A. For judgment that neither RMS Medical nor its products infringes or has infringed under 35 U.S.C. § 271 (or any sub-section thereof) any claim of the ‘703 patent; For judgment that the ‘703 patent, and each of the claims therein, are invalid; A judgment deeming this to be an “exceptional” case within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285, entitling RMS Medical to an award of its reasonable attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs in this action; and For such other and further relief as the Court deems just. JURY DEMAND Plaintiff’s demand a trial by jury. Dated: September 20, 2013 DECHERT LLP
By:/s/ Stephen J. Akerley Stephen J. Akerley Kevin M. Flannery Vincent A. Gallo Attorneys for Plaintiff Repro-Med Systems, Inc. (d/b/a RMS Medical Products)
Documents Similar To Repo-Med Systems v. Emed Technologies Corportation
Ab Coaster Holdings v. Icon Health & Fitness
Ball Metal Beverage Container v. Cml&J
Nexans v. Belden et. al.
JAC-Rack v. Unirac
Performance Pricing, Inc. v. Google Inc. et al - Document No. 48
Craft Supplies v. Tormek AB
Taylor Publishing Company v. CTP Innovations
Monster Moto v. APT - Complaint
Datatreasury Corporation v. Wells Fargo & Company et al - Document No. 515
SBFI-North America v. Mass Engineered Design et. al.
Z Produx v. Make-Up Art Cosmetics
Atlas IP v. Medtronic et. al.
Return Mail Rehearing Petition
e.Digital v. JVC Americas et. al.
Silver Spoons v. Govino - Complaint
Cruise v. Guillory Complaint
Wonderland Nurserygoods v. Thorley Industries
Sears, Roebuck and Company and the Plymouth Rubber Company, Inc. v. Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company, 249 F.2d 66, 4th Cir. (1957)
Phd de Sta Co Complaint
Clouding IP v. Rackspace Hosting
Better Mouse Company v. Mad Catz Interactive Et. Al.
NovelPoint Security v. Seagate Technology
Julianna McKenna and Alice Brown, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Peekskill Housing Authority, M. George Habeeb, Individually and in His Capacity as a Consultant to the Peekskill Housing Authority, Cyrus A. Bleakley, Individually and in His Capacity as Chairman of the Members of the Authority, and John E. Daly, Individually and in His Capacity as Housing Manager of the Authority, 647 F.2d 332, 2d Cir. (1981)
Wiremold v. Mono-Systems
SimpleAir v. Microsoft
Jedi Technologies v. Zoosk
Browning-Ferris Industries of Alabama, Inc., a Corp. & E. Harrell Hammonds v. Alabama Dept. Of Environmental Mgmt. Leigh Pegues, as Director of the Ala. Dept. Of Environmental Mgmt. Dr. Dewey A. White, Jr., Bryce Scott Davis, Thomas R. Debray, Dr. Claire B. Elliott, Dr. Cameron M. Vowell, J. Ernest Farnell, and Stanley Graves, as Members of the Environmental Mgmt. Commission of the Ala. Dept. Of Environmental Mgmt., 799 F.2d 1473, 11th Cir. (1986)
Sprint Pcs L.P., Doing Business as Sprint Pcs v. Connecticut Siting Council, Cellco Partnership, Doing Business as Bell Atlantic Mobile, and Springwich Cellular Limited Partnership, 222 F.3d 113, 2d Cir. (2000)
Lodsys Group v. Supervalu
Documents About Declaratory Judgment
Sony Electronics et. al. v. TainoApp
LaurenScruggs
Bmo Harris Bank National Association v. Maxim Integrated Products
Henrietta D., Nidia S., Simone A., Ezzard S., John R., and Pedro R., on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. Rudolph Giuliani, Mayor of the City of New York, Marva Hammons, Administrator of the New York City Human Resources Administration and Commissioner of the New York City Department of Social Services, and Mary E. Glass, Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, 246 F.3d 176, 2d Cir. (2001)
Fanduel v. Schneiderman
Cequent Performance Products v. Wyers Products Group et. al.
Ted Cruz Lawsuit
James K. Shannon, A/K/A James K. Kelly v. Sheriff Sequeechi, Sheriff Lloyd Beair, and Sheriff Bill Lessman, 365 F.2d 827, 10th Cir. (1966)
Rickke L. Green, Also Known as Rickke Leon Green v. Charlie Branson, Sergeant, Osp Patrick McCoy Correctional Officer I, Osp Don Cunningham, Sergeant, Osp Dennis Branch, Lieutenant, Osp Dan Reynolds, Warden, Osp Milton Vogt, Dr., Medical Doctor, Osp J. Robert Dille, Medical Director, Doc, 108 F.3d 1296, 10th Cir. (1997)
Spanx v. Times Three Clothier
Minarc et. al. v. Kenneth Andrew Miller et. al.
Beavers et. al. v. Riley Built et. al.
v. Botron Company et. al.
Francis E. Heydt Company v. United States of America, and Richard Cheney, Secretary of Defense, United States Department of Defense, 948 F.2d 672, 10th Cir. (1991)
Gene W. And Jule C. Reardon v. United States, 491 F.2d 822, 10th Cir. (1974)
Precision Custom Coatings v. Jab Distributors
Learning Network Inc v. Discovery Communicat, 4th Cir. (2001)
Gomba Music - Searching for Sugarman Opinion
Opticool Technologies v. Liebert
FedEx Corporate Services v. Eclipse IP
Starter Corporation v. Converse, Inc., 84 F.3d 592, 2d Cir. (1996)
Texas sues to block accepting refugees
Bridgewater v. Octi Dry Industries et. al.
Metcalfe v. State, Alaska (2016)
Pelco v. Criminal Activity Surveillance, LLC mpany