Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/223875379/Presqriber-v-Siemens-Medical-Solutions
Timestamp: 2017-03-30 07:56:08
Document Index: 276140247

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1331', '§ 1391', '§ 271', '§ 287', '§ 284', '§ 284', '§ 285', 'art0']

Presqriber v. Siemens Medical Solutions
BrowseInterestsStay InformedCareerPersonal GrowthFiction & BiographiesHealth & FitnessLifestyleCultureBrowse byBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION PRESQRIBER, LLC, Plaintiff, v. SIEMENS MEDICAL SOLUTIONS USA, INC., Defendant. Case No. 6:14-cv-464 PATENT CASE JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT Plaintiff Presqriber, LLC files this Complaint against Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc., for infringement of United States Patent No. 5,758,095 (the “‘095 Patent”). PARTIES AND JURISDICTION 1. This is an action for patent infringement under Title 35 of the United States Code. Plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief as well as damages. 2. J urisdiction is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 (Federal Question) and 1338(a) (Patents) because this is a civil action for patent infringement arising under the United States patent statutes. 3. Plaintiff Presqriber, LLC (“Plaintiff” or “Presqriber”) is a Texas limited liability company with its principal office located in the Eastern District of Texas, at 719 W. Front Street, Suite 211, Tyler, Texas 75702. 4. Upon information and belief, Defendant Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc. (“Defendant”) is a Delaware corporation and has a principal office located at 51 Valley Stream Parkway, Malvern, PA 19355. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant has committed, and continues to commit, acts of infringement in the state of Texas, has 2 conducted business in the state of Texas, and/or has engaged in continuous and systematic activities in the state of Texas. 5. On information and belief, Defendant’s Electronic Health Record (“EHR”) systems that are alleged herein to infringe, were and/or continue to be made, had made, used, sold and/or offered for sale in the Eastern District of Texas. VENUE 6. Venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(c) and 1400(b) because Defendant is deemed to reside in this district. In addition, and in the alternative, Defendant has committed acts of infringement in this district. COUNT I (INFRINGEMENT OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 5,758,095) 7. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 6 herein by reference. 8. This cause of action arises under the patent laws of the United States, and in particular, 35 U.S.C. §§ 271, et seq. 9. Plaintiff is the owner by assignment of the ‘095 Patent with sole rights to enforce the ‘095 Patent and sue infringers. 10. A copy of the ‘095 Patent, titled “Interactive Medication Ordering System,” is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 11. The ‘095 Patent is valid and enforceable, and it was duly issued in full compliance with Title 35 of the United States Code. 12. The ‘095 Patent is a prominent, pioneering patent in medical services field. This is evidenced in part by the extent to which the ‘095 Patent has been forward-cited as prior art in connection with the examination of subsequently-issued U.S. patents. The ‘095 Patent has been forward-cited in more than 200 subsequently-issued U.S. patents to date, including patents 3 originally assigned to such prominent companies in the medical systems or services fields as Walgreen (21 times), Medco (16 times to Medco or a predecessor), Epic (10 times), Cerner (7 times), Greenway (7 times), General Electric (3 times), McKesson (3 times), Baxter (2 times), J ohnson & J ohnson (2 times), Siemens (2 times), Becton Dickinson, Quest Diagnostics, and WebMD. The ‘095 Patent is also of such sufficient prominence that it has been cited in numerous non-medical U.S. patents, including patents originally assigned to such prominent U.S. companies as Accenture, eBay, Ford, IBM and Microsoft. The ‘095 Patent has also been forward-cited 8 times in patents originally assigned to the University of Texas Board of Regents, and 3 times in patents originally assigned to the United States of America (as represented by the Secretary of the Army). And notwithstanding the fact that it was filed in 1995 and issued in 1998, the ‘095 Patent continues to be relevant today, as evidenced by the fact that the ‘095 Patent was forward-cited approximately 28 times in U.S. patents that issued in 2013 or 2014 to date. (Direct Infringement) 13. Upon information and belief, Defendant has infringed and continues to directly infringe one or more claims of the ‘095 Patent, including at least claims 1, 13, 14 and 15, by making, having made, using, selling and/or offering for sale Electronic Health Record systems that have achieved ONC-ATCB Certification for “Ambulatory” and/or “Inpatient” medical practices (the “Accused Instrumentalities”). Defendant’s Accused Instrumentalities include at least the following systems: INVISION Clinicals Inpatient INVISION EHR INVISION EHR B2 INVISION EHR B3 INVISION EHR B4 MedSeries 4 MedSeries4 Clinical Suite Inpatient MedSeries4 EHR 4 MedSeries4 EHR B2 MobileMD Patient Portal Siemens Analytics Siemens NOVIUS Lab Soarian Clinicals Inpatient Soarian EDM Soarian EHR Soarian EHR B2 Soarian EHR B3 Soarian Quality Measures (Indirect Infringement – Inducement) 14. Upon information and belief, Defendant has induced infringement and continues to induce infringement of one or more claims of the ‘095 Patent, including at least claims 1, 13, 14 and 15, by end users of the Accused Instrumentalities. Defendant specifically intended for end users of the Accused Instrumentalities to infringe the ‘095 Patent and knew that the end users’ acts constituted infringement. Defendant had knowledge of the ‘095 Patent or acted with willful blindness to the ‘095 Patent, and Defendant had the specific intent to cause infringement. 15. As set forth in more detail in paragraph 12 above and paragraph __ below, Defendant had knowledge of the ‘095 Patent from at least the time the ‘095 Patent was cited in the examination of a U.S. patent originally issued to Defendant or a corporate affiliate of Defendant in the same corporate family and in the business of coordinating with Defendant with respect to medical systems, including without limitation Electronic Health Record systems such as the Accused Instrumentalities. In addition, Defendant has had knowledge of the ‘095 Patent at least from the time of service of this Complaint. 16. Upon information and belief, since Defendant has been on notice of the ‘095 Patent, Defendant has continued to encourage, instruct, enable, and otherwise cause end users of the Accused Instrumentalities to use the Accused Instrumentalities in a manner that infringes one or more claims of the ‘095 Patent, including at least claims 1, 13, 14 and 15. 5 17. Defendant’s specific intent to cause infringement can be inferred from, without limitation, the facts that Defendant makes, has made, uses, sells and/or offers for sale the Accused Instrumentalities, that infringing functionality comprises a key feature of the Accused Instrumentalities, that Defendant markets certain infringing features of the Accused Instrumentalities in its promotional materials, and that Defendant has obtained ONC-ATCB Certification for the Accused Instrumentalities based in part on the infringing functionality of the Accused Instrumentalities. In addition, Plaintiff is not aware of any evidence showing any investigation or design around by Defendant, or that Defendant has taken any remedial action with respect to the ‘095 Patent. 18. In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(3), Plaintiff will likely have additional evidentiary support for its claims of induced infringement after a reasonable opportunity for discovery on this issue. (Additional Allegations Related to Count One) 19. Defendant’s actions complained of herein are causing irreparable harm and monetary damage to Plaintiff and will continue to do so unless and until Defendant is enjoined and restrained by this Court. 20. Plaintiff is in compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 287. COUNT 2 WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT 21. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 20 herein by reference. 22. The infringement of the ‘095 Patent by Defendant has been willful and continued to be willful after Defendant had knowledge of the ‘095 Patent. Upon information and belief, Defendant had knowledge of the ‘095 Patent because the ‘095 Patent because the ‘095 Patent was cited as prior art in connection with the examination of at least two (2) subsequently-issued U.S. 6 patents that were originally assigned to Defendant (U.S. Patent Nos. 7,653,873 and 8,365,068). In addition, as described in paragraph 12 above, the ‘095 Patent is a prominent, pioneering patent in the medical systems field, and it has been forward-cited in more than 200 subsequently-issued U.S. patents to date and continues to be forward-cited to this day. 23. After the time Defendant had knowledge of the ‘095 Patent, it continued to directly infringe the ‘095 Patent and/or induce infringement of the ‘095 Patent. Upon information and belief, Defendant did so despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of a valid patent (i.e., the ‘095 Patent), and this objectively-defined risk was known to Defendant or so obvious that it should have been known to Defendant. 24. In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(3), Plaintiff will likely have additional evidentiary support for its claims of willful infringement after a reasonable opportunity for discovery on this issue. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff, under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, requests a trial by jury of all issues so triable by right. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court to: a) Enter judgment for Plaintiff on this Complaint on all causes of action asserted herein; b) Enjoin Defendant, its agents, officers, servants, employees, attorneys and all persons in active concert or participation with Defendant who receive notice of the order from further infringement of United States Patent No. 5,758,095 (or, in the alternative, awarding Plaintiff a running royalty from the time of judgment going forward); 7 c) Award Plaintiff damages resulting from Defendants’ infringement in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 284; d) Award Plaintiff enhanced damages as provided under 35 U.S.C. § 284; e) Award Plaintiff pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and costs; f) Enter judgment and an order finding that this is an exceptional case within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285 and awarding to Plaintiff its reasonable attorneys’ fees; and g) Award Plaintiff such further relief to which the Court finds Plaintiff entitled under law or equity. Dated: May 8, 2014 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Craig Tadlock Craig Tadlock State Bar No. 00791766 J ohn J . Harvey, J r. State Bar No. 09179770 Keith Smiley State Bar No. 24067869 TADLOCK LAW FIRM PLLC 2701 Dallas Parkway, Suite 360 Plano, Texas 75093 903-730-6789 craig@tadlocklawfirm.com john@tadlocklawfirm.com keith@tadlocklawfirm.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Presqriber, LLC More From This UserSkip carouselLike kind card game (US patent 6193235)Like kind money board table game (US patent 6186505)Intelligent user interface including a touch sensor device (US patent 8288952)User interface with proximity sensing (US patent 8035623)Wine cellar alarm system (US patent 8710985)Cell regulatory genes, encoded products, and uses related thereto (US patent 7030227)Multicasting method and apparatus (US patent 6434622)Method and apparatus for retrieving data from a network using linked location identifiers (US patent 6226655)Casino bonus game using player strategy (US patent 6645071)High-speed serial linking device with de-emphasis function and the method thereof (US patent 7313187)Casing spacer (US patent 6736166)Advance Products & Systems v. CCI Piping SystemsModern Telecom Systems LLCTracBeam v. AppleRichmond v. Creative IndustriesSenju Pharmaceutical et. al. v. Metrics et. al.VIA Technologies et. al. v. ASUS Computer International et. al.Perrie v. PerrieEckart v. Silberline ManufacturingSenju Pharmaceutical et. al. v. Metrics et. al.Kenzinc v. imblowingup et. al.Sun Zapper v. Devroy et. al.Merck Sharp & Dohme v. Fresenius KabiTracBeam v. T-Mobile et. al.ATEN International v. Uniclass Technology et. al.
Sign up to vote on this titleUsefulNot usefulPresqriber v. Siemens Medical Solutions by PriorSmart0.0 (0)EmbedDownloadDescriptionOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 6:14-cv-00464: Presqriber, LLC v. Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc.,,. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texa...Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 6:14-cv-00464: Presqriber, LLC v. Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc.,,. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-larh 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
RelatedPrecision Dynamics v. Artemaxby PriorSmartSafegate Airport Systems Et. Al. v. RLG Docking Systems Et. Al.by PatentBlastRSI Video Technologies v. Vacant Property Security Et. Al.by PatentBlastPresqriber v. Quest Diagnosticsby PriorSmartPhoenix Licensing et. al. v. Verizon Communications et. al.by PriorSmartLifetime Industries v. Trim-Lokby PriorSmartLamina Packaging Innovations v. Camus Wines and Spirits Groupby PriorSmartUnverferth Mfg v. Par-Kanby PriorSmartSafegate Airport Systems et. al. v. RLG Docking Systems et. al.by PriorSmartDinDon v. Conica Gift Trust - Complaintby slbursteinSuperior Industries v. Masaba.pdfby PatentBlastElite Gaming Tech. v. Spec Int'l - Complaintby slbursteinLamina Packaging Innovations v. John Jameson Import Companyby PriorSmartExitExchange v. Kayak Softwareby PriorSmartPhoenix Licensing et. al. v. Sprintby PriorSmartPhoenix Licensing et. al. v. Toyota Motor North America et. al.by PriorSmartLife Technologies et. al. v. Ebioscienceby PriorSmartFlashpoint Technology v. Pantech et. al.by PriorSmartCharge Lion v. Skyworks Solutionsby PriorSmartExitExchange v. Travelocity.comby PatentBlastArczar v. Hasbroby PatentBlastRecruitMe v. Care.com.pdfby PatentBlast11-11030-GAOby barzilay123Spatium Innovations v. Blackboardby PriorSmartPanTaurus v. Global Silicon Electronics, Inc. d/b/a BUSlink Mediaby PriorSmartMilos Misha Subotincic et. al. v. McKee Foods et. al.by PriorSmartUnverferth v. Par-kanby pauloverhauserJoao Control and Monitoring Systems v. Ford Motor Companyby PriorSmartSimilar To Presqriber v. CernerSkip carouselPrecision Dynamics v. ArtemaxSafegate Airport Systems Et. Al. v. RLG Docking Systems Et. Al.RSI Video Technologies v. Vacant Property Security Et. Al.Presqriber v. Quest DiagnosticsPhoenix Licensing et. al. v. Verizon Communications et. al.Lifetime Industries v. Trim-LokLamina Packaging Innovations v. Camus Wines and Spirits GroupUnverferth Mfg v. Par-KanSafegate Airport Systems et. al. v. RLG Docking Systems et. al.DinDon v. Conica Gift Trust - ComplaintSuperior Industries v. Masaba.pdfElite Gaming Tech. v. Spec Int'l - ComplaintLamina Packaging Innovations v. John Jameson Import CompanyExitExchange v. Kayak SoftwarePhoenix Licensing et. al. v. SprintPhoenix Licensing et. al. v. Toyota Motor North America et. al.Life Technologies et. al. v. EbioscienceFlashpoint Technology v. Pantech et. al.Charge Lion v. Skyworks SolutionsExitExchange v. Travelocity.comArczar v. HasbroRecruitMe v. Care.com.pdf11-11030-GAOSpatium Innovations v. BlackboardPanTaurus v. Global Silicon Electronics, Inc. d/b/a BUSlink MediaMilos Misha Subotincic et. al. v. McKee Foods et. al.Unverferth v. Par-kanJoao Control and Monitoring Systems v. Ford Motor CompanyCuozzo Speed Technologies v. Fujitsu Ten Corp. of AmericaExitExchange v. FriendFinder NetworksPresqriber v. Cerner