Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/127658236/National-Biological-v-Medtek-Lighting-et-al
Timestamp: 2017-08-19 09:27:51
Document Index: 593954810

Matched Legal Cases: ['§1', '§ 271', '§1331', '§1391', '§1400', '§261', '§271']

National Biological v. Medtek Lighting et. al. | Patent | Patent Infringement
National Biological v. Medtek Lighting et. al.
Description: Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-00431: National Biological Corporation v. Medtek Lighting Corp. et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District...
Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-00431: National Biological Corporation v. Medtek Lighting Corp. et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l7KD for more info.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION NATIONAL BIOLOGICAL CORPORATION
23700 Mercantile Road Beachwood, Ohio 44122 Plaintiff, vs. MEDTEK LIGHTING CORP. 3 Depot Street Hudson Falls, New York 12839 and UVBIOTEK, INC. 3 Depot Street Hudson Falls, New York 12839 Defendants. : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : Civil Action No. _________________
Judge __________________________ COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
COMPLAINT Plaintiff National Biological Corporation (sometimes referred to hereinafter as “National Biological”), for its Complaint against Defendants MedTek Lighting Corp. and UVBioTek, Inc., alleges as follows:
This is an action for redress of patent infringement by UVBioTek arising under
the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. §1 et. seq. and seeks damages and injunctive relief as provided in U.S.C. §§ 271 and 281-285. II. 2. The Parties
Plaintiff National Biological is a corporation organized and existing under the
laws of the state of Ohio with a principal place of business in Beachwood, Cuyahoga County, Ohio. 3. Defendant MedTek Lighting Corporation (“MedTek”) is, upon information and
belief, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of New York with a principal place of business in Hudson Falls, Washington County, New York. 4. Defendant UVBioTek Inc., upon information and belief, was, at relevant times, a
corporation organized and existing under the laws of New York with a principal place of business in Hudson Falls, Washington County, New York. 5. Upon information and belief, UVBioTek is now a division of MedTek Lighting
Corporation. UVBioTek Inc., MedTek Lighting Corporation and UVBioTek will sometimes hereafter be referred to collectively as “UVBioTek” or “Defendants.” III. 6. Venue and Jurisdiction
This case arises under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of the United
States Code. Subject matter jurisdiction of this Court is conferred by 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1338.
Venue in this judicial district is proper in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§1391(b)
and (c), 28 U.S.C. §1400(b) and Northern District of Ohio Civ. R. 3.8. IV. 8. Patents-In-Suit
On December 13, 1993, Howard J. Drechsler filed a patent application in the
United States Patent and Trademark Office for his invention entitled, “Phototherapeutic Device and Method.” This application was assigned Serial No. 08/166,092 (the “’092 Application”). 9. On February 11, 1997, U.S. Patent No. 5,601,619 entitled, “Phototherapeutic
Device and Method” (hereinafter the “’619 Patent”) was duly and legally issued from the ‘092 Application. 10. National Biological is the sole assignee of the ‘619 Patent in accordance with 35
U.S.C. §261. A copy of the ‘619 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A. V. 11. Background Facts
National Biological, founded in 1967, is a world leader in the manufacture and
distribution of phototherapy equipment for the treatment of skin conditions such as severe or chronic psoriasis, eczema, vitiligo, and others. National Biological phototherapy devices include units for home ultraviolet (UV) phototherapy and for clinical UV phototherapy. 12. National Biological’s phototherapy equipment is manufactured at its facility in
Cuyahoga County, Ohio, and hundreds of thousands of persons have used National Biological UV phototherapy equipment for treatment of skin conditions.
Upon information and belief, Defendants market and sell UV phototherapy units
under the UVBioTek trademark in this judicial district and elsewhere throughout the United States. 14. Defendants’ UVBioTekTM phototherapy units are in direct competition with
National Biological’s phototherapy equipment. 15. A digital controller that is incorporated into UVBioTekTM phototherapy units is
marketed by the Defendants as the AccuSafeTM Controller . 16. Upon information and belief, at least some of UVBioTekTM Single Panel
phototherapy models 100B, 80B, and 60B are equipped with the AccuSafeTM Controller. 17. Upon information and belief, at least some of UVBioTekTM Mobile-Lite 600
phototherapy units are equipped with the AccuSafeTM Controller. 18. Upon information and belief, at least some of UVBioTekTM Model 800B
phototherapy units are equipped with the AccuSafeTM Controller. 19. Upon information and belief, at least some of UVBioTekTM Model 1600B
phototherapy units are equipped with the AccuSafeTM Controller.
FIRST COUNT INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,601,619 20. National Biological repeats and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth
in paragraphs 1 through 19 above.
National Biological is the owner of all rights and title in interest to the ‘619
Patent, including the right to sue for infringement and recover for past infringement and damages. 22. Independent claim 1 of the ‘619 patent is generally directed to a phototherapy
dispensing device including means for generating and displaying a first coded sequence of numerals when a first means has been activated a predetermined number of times, among other claimed features. 23. UVBioTek UV phototherapy units having an AccuSafeTM Controller infringe at
least claim 1 of the ‘619 Patent, as these UVBioTek phototherapy units are phototherapy dispensing devices that comprise means for generating and displaying a first coded sequence of numerals when a first means has been activated a predetermined number of times, and include each and every element and limitation of claim 1. 24. Without the authorization, consent, or permission of National Biological,
Defendants have manufactured, marketed and sold products that infringe the ‘619 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. §271(a) including UVBioTekTM phototherapy units equipped with the AccuSafeTM Controller. 25. Patent. 26. Unless enjoined by this Court, Defendants will continue infringing activities National Biological has been damaged by Defendants’ infringement of the ‘619
through the manufacture, marketing and sale of products that infringe the ‘619 Patent, causing further damages and irreparable harm to National Biological.
RELIEF REQUESTED WHEREFORE, National Biological prays that this Court enter judgment as follows: (A) That the ‘619 Patent is valid and infringed by Defendants’ phototherapy units equipped with the AccuSafeTM Controller; (B) (C) That Defendants be held liable for damages not less than a reasonable royalty; That Defendants, and their officers, agents, suppliers, distributors, servants, employees, successors, assigns, and all persons acting in concert or participation with Defendants, be preliminarily and permanently enjoined and restrained from further infringement of the ‘619 Patent; (D) That National Biological receives such further necessary or proper relief as the Court may deem just. Respectfully submitted, ULMER & BERNE LLP Date: February 27, 2013 s/ Jeffrey R. Schaefer __________________________________ Jeffrey R. Schaefer (0061232) Trial Counsel for National Biological Corporation 600 Vine Street, Suite 2800 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Tel: (513) 698-5108 Fax: (513) 698-5109 E-mail: jschaefer@ulmer.com
JURY DEMAND National Biological Corporation respectfully requests a trial by jury on all issues so triable in this action. s/ Jeffrey R. Schaefer __________________________________ Jeffrey R. Schaefer (0061232)
38683.00000
Documents Similar To National Biological v. Medtek Lighting Et. Al
Lightstream v. Atomic Products
PanoMap v Apple
Olivistar v. Fitbit
Better Mouse Company v. Giga-byte Technology et. al.
Relay IP v. Hitachi Cable America
Telefonix, Inc. et. al.
Qommerce Systems v. Shop MA
IPL-Cases From CD Asia 3
Mobile Transformation v. Project Playlist
Discovery Inc. v. Lisi Group - Complaint
Cywee Group v. Apple
MacroSolve v. Cumulus Media
Datafly v. Travel Hammock - Complaint
Express Card Systems v. Office Depot
Rewards Network v. Zavee
Ames True Temper v. Valley Industries
Concinnitas, LLC Et. Al. v. ZTE (USA) Inc.
Weatherford International Et. Al. v. Blackhawk Specialty Tools
Express Card Systems v. Sam's West
Sumail v Cfi