Case 1:20-cv-00925-JFB-SRF Document 1 Filed 07/08/20 Page 1 of 19 PageID #: 1
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`HOLOGIC, INC., a Delaware corporation; and
`CYTYC SURGICAL PRODUCTS, LLC, a
`Massachusetts limited liability company,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`MINERVA SURGICAL, INC., a Delaware
`corporation,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Civil Action No. _______________
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`For its Complaint against Minerva Surgical, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Minerva”), Plaintiffs
`
`Hologic, Inc. (“Hologic”), and Cytyc Surgical Products, LLC (“Cytyc”; collectively “Plaintiffs”)
`
`by its attorneys, allege as follows:
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`In this action, Plaintiffs Hologic and Cytyc allege that Defendant willfully
`
`infringed U.S. Patent No. 9,095,348 (“the ’348 Patent” or “the Patent-in-Suit”) and that it
`
`concealed its commercialization of its infringing product from Plaintiffs and the Court to avoid
`
`being held accountable for its unlawful activity.
`
`PARTIES
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff Hologic is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
`
`State of Delaware with a principal place of business at 250 Campus Drive, Marlborough,
`
`Massachusetts, 01752. Hologic is a leader in women’s health care including diagnostics,
`
`screening, and imaging, as well as medical intervention and treatment. Hologic is the owner by
`
`assignment of the ’348 Patent
`
`26746783.1
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00925-JFB-SRF Document 1 Filed 07/08/20 Page 2 of 19 PageID #: 2
`
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiff Cytyc is a limited liability company organized and existing under the
`
`laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts with a principal place of business at 250 Campus
`
`Drive, Marlborough, Massachusetts, 01752. Cytyc is a leader in designing, developing, and
`
`selling medical devices for the treatment of excessive or abnormal endometrial bleeding. Cytyc
`
`is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Hologic.
`
`4.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Minerva is a corporation organized and
`
`existing under the laws of the State of Delaware with a principal place of business at 4255
`
`Burton Drive, Santa Clara, CA 95054.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`5.
`
`This action arises under the Patent Laws of the United States, Title 35 of the
`
`United States Code.
`
`6.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the causes of action asserted herein
`
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`7.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendant. On information and
`
`belief, Defendant has had systematic and continuous contacts with this District, regularly
`
`transacts business within this District, and regularly avails itself of the benefits of this District.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant, directly or through intermediaries (including sales agents
`
`and others), uses, offers for sale, sells, imports and/or distributes to others for such purposes,
`
`endometrial ablation products for the treatment of abnormal uterine bleeding, in the United
`
`States and this District.
`
`8.
`
`Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)-(c) as, among other
`
`reasons, Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in this District and a substantial part of the
`
`events giving rise to the claims occurred in this District.
`
`26746783.1
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00925-JFB-SRF Document 1 Filed 07/08/20 Page 3 of 19 PageID #: 3
`
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Overview Of Endometrial Ablation
`
`The ’348 Patent relates to the treatment of “menorrhagia,” i.e., menstrual bleeding
`
`A.
`
`9.
`
`that is abnormally heavy in amount or duration. One treatment for this condition is a
`
`transcervical surgical technique, known as endometrial ablation, in which the lining of the uterus
`
`is destroyed to prevent further bleeding, such as by using heat, sub-zero temperatures, or
`
`electrical energy. In the early-1990s, physicians used “first generation” endometrial ablation
`
`instruments such as an electrified metal ball (a “roller ball”) or wire loop to burn away the
`
`endometrial lining of the uterus. These techniques were effective but lengthy, often taking 30 to
`
`50 minutes, because the physician had to move the instrument carefully over the entire inner
`
`surface of the uterus to ensure complete removal of the endometrial lining, bit-by-bit. They also
`
`presented serious risks to the patient, e.g., electrocution of nearby organs. Further risks were
`
`presented by the need to distend (inflate) the uterus with a potentially toxic fluid, requiring
`
`control of the fluid pressure to avoid forcing fluid into the bloodstream via the vessels in the
`
`uterine wall (known as intravasation) or into the abdominal cavity via the fallopian tubes.
`
`B.
`
`10.
`
`The NovaSure System Modernized Endometrial Ablation
`
`In the late-1990s, while at Cytyc’s predecessor-in-interest, Novacept, Inc.
`
`(“Novacept”), Mr. Csaba Truckai co-invented the NovaSure system, as a significant
`
`improvement over prior menorrhagia treatment techniques Mr. Truckai served as Novacept’s
`
`VP of R&D and as its President. The NovaSure system, an embodiment of the ’348 Patent,
`
`revolutionized endometrial ablation, making it safer and more effective than the previous roller
`
`ball or wire loop standards.
`
`11.
`
`The NovaSure device’s applicator treats the entire uterus simultaneously by
`
`conforming to its shape. The handpiece of the NovaSure system is pictured below:
`
`26746783.1
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00925-JFB-SRF Document 1 Filed 07/08/20 Page 4 of 19 PageID #: 4
`
`
`
`
`The NovaSure device ablates the endometrial lining throughout the cavity in two minutes or less,
`
`15 to 25 times faster than first generation techniques. It allowed the procedure to be performed
`
`in a physician’s office, which is generally less expensive, less time consuming, more
`
`comfortable, and more convenient for the patient.
`
`12.
`
`The NovaSure system has become the leading endometrial ablation system,
`
`having been used in the treatment of over three million patients.
`
`C.
`
`13.
`
`The Patent-In-Suit
`
`On August 4, 2015, the USPTO duly and legally issued the ’348 Patent, entitled
`
`“Moisture Transport System for Contact Electrocoagulation” to Mr. Truckai, Russel M.
`
`Sampson, Stephanie Squarcia, Alfonso L. Ramirez, and Estela Hilario as inventors. A true and
`
`correct copy of the ’348 Patent is attached as Exhibit A. Hologic is the assignee and lawful
`
`owner of all right, title, and interest in and to the ’348 Patent.
`
`14.
`
`The patented technology of the ’348 Patent relates to systems for ablating the
`
`endometrial lining of uterine tissue to treat abnormal uterine bleeding.
`
`15.
`
`The ’348 Patent discloses and claims an endometrial ablation device generally
`
`comprising an elongate member, an applicator head coupled to the distal portion of the elongate
`
`26746783.1
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00925-JFB-SRF Document 1 Filed 07/08/20 Page 5 of 19 PageID #: 5
`
`
`member, a handle coupled to the proximal portion (the portion closest to the physician user) of
`
`the elongate member, a deflecting mechanism within the applicator head, and an indicator
`
`mechanism. The deflecting mechanism is housed within the applicator head and, when actuated,
`
`causes the applicator head to expand and conform to the shape of the uterus. When the
`
`applicator head is deployed, the indicator mechanism indicates a dimension of the uterus.
`
`D.
`
`16.
`
`Hologic Paid $325 Million To Buy Novacept And Its Patented Technology
`
`In August 1998, Mr. Truckai executed a broad assignment to Novacept regarding
`
`U.S. Application No. 09/103,072, the application to which the ’348 Patent claims priority.
`
`Mr. Truckai attested that he and other named inventors “invented certain new and useful
`
`improvements as described and set forth in the below-identified application for United States
`
`Letters Patent.” For good and valuable consideration, he assigned all right, title, and interest in
`
`and to the inventions and the application, and any patents which may be granted based on that
`
`application, including continuations in whole or in part, among other things. Thus, Mr. Truckai
`
`assigned to Novacept his entire interest in the application that issued as the ’348 Patent.
`
`17.
`
`In 2004, Mr. Truckai sold Novacept to Cytyc for $325 million dollars. Novacept
`
`was a one-product company whose principal business was the design, development,
`
`manufacture, marketing, and sale of the NovaSure system. Novacept assigned its intellectual
`
`property to Cytyc consistent with Mr. Truckai’s earlier assignments. Specifically, the parties
`
`acknowledged that subsequent patent prosecution would continue when Novacept assigned to
`
`Cytyc rights in any patent and patent applications, including any continuations, whether or not
`
`patented or reduced to practice. As part of the 2004 transaction, Cytyc acquired all right, title,
`
`and interest in the Novacept patent portfolio, and the inventors retained no rights to practice the
`
`technology that they sold.
`
`26746783.1
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00925-JFB-SRF Document 1 Filed 07/08/20 Page 6 of 19 PageID #: 6
`
`
`18.
`
`In 2007, Hologic acquired Cytyc. The post-merger Hologic became the world’s
`
`largest manufacturer of medical products directed to women.
`
`E.
`
`19.
`
`Hologic’s Subsequent Development And Investment In NovaSure
`
`Hologic invested heavily in making NovaSure endometrial ablation the leading
`
`treatment for menorrhagia. Hologic invested millions of dollars and tens of thousands of hours
`
`in further research and development, clinical studies on safety and efficacy, and educational and
`
`training programs for physicians, subsequent to the Novacept acquisition.
`
`20.
`
`Hologic undertook substantial clinical work to provide additional clinical data on
`
`the safety and efficacy of the NovaSure product. Hologic has continued to invest millions of
`
`dollars in clinical trials and research establishing the superior efficacy of NovaSure endometrial
`
`ablation over previous modes of treatment. Today, NovaSure endometrial ablation is the
`
`strongest brand in endometrial ablation—it is the most widely used and most reliable treatment
`
`option available for endometrial ablation.
`
`F. Mr. Truckai Founded Minerva To Compete Directly With Hologic’s
`NovaSure System With An Infringing Product
`
`21.
`
`In 2008, Mr. Truckai formed Minerva, to create the Minerva Endometrial
`
`Ablation System (“EAS”) to compete directly against the NovaSure system. Minerva has
`
`consistently held out Mr. Truckai as its founder.
`
`22. Mr. Truckai developed the Minerva device. His design of the Minerva device
`
`was heavily influenced by his prior work on the patented NovaSure system, the very technology
`
`he had sold to Cytyc, and ultimately infringed patent rights transferred as part of that sale,
`
`including the ’348 Patent.
`
`23. Mr. Truckai was involved in virtually every aspect of the research, development,
`
`testing, clinical testing, and regulatory approval of Minerva’s product. For example, he
`
`26746783.1
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00925-JFB-SRF Document 1 Filed 07/08/20 Page 7 of 19 PageID #: 7
`
`
`facilitated testing by soliciting feedback from physicians and also directed engineers
`
`manufacturing the product. He provided specifications for the physical dimensions of the
`
`Plasma Formation Array (“PFA”), the portion of the device that expands in a woman’s uterus
`
`like the NovaSure system. He revised the product’s Software Requirements. He boasted that he
`
`was involved with every single product-specification document for the Minerva device.
`
`24. Mr. Truckai helped prepare Minerva’s application for an investigational device
`
`exemption (IDE) from the FDA, represented Minerva during meetings with the FDA, provided
`
`input on Minerva’s communications with the FDA, and provided input on patient selection for
`
`clinical trials.
`
`25. Mr. Truckai served as Minerva’s President and CEO at its founding, giving
`
`general direction to the company, putting a management team in place, raising capital, setting the
`
`strategic direction of the company, managing the company, and executing the company plan.
`
`According to Mr. Truckai, all of his job responsibilities were related to the Minerva EAS.
`
`26.
`
`On information and belief, from 2008 and at least through 2019, Mr. Truckai also
`
`served on Minerva’s Board of Directors where he assessed the direction of Minerva’s business
`
`and owed Minerva a fiduciary duty. As a member of the Board, Mr. Truckai had input regarding
`
`all aspects of Minerva’s business. On information and belief, Mr. Truckai owns Minerva stock.
`
`G.
`
`27.
`
`The Minerva Endometrial Ablation System (“EAS”)
`
`The Minerva EAS has two main components: a disposable handpiece and a radio
`
`frequency (RF) Controller:
`
`26746783.1
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00925-JFB-SRF Document 1 Filed 07/08/20 Page 8 of 19 PageID #: 8
`
`
`
`
`The distal end of the disposable handpiece consists of a PFA, which includes an expandable
`
`metal frame covered by a silicone membrane. The proximal end of the disposable handpiece
`
`includes a pivot-grip handle, which expands the metal frame to deploy the PFA, and a PFA
`
`Width Indicator, which indicates the expanded width of the PFA.
`The PFA Width Indicator is pictured below:
`
`28.
`
`26746783.1
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00925-JFB-SRF Document 1 Filed 07/08/20 Page 9 of 19 PageID #: 9
`
`
`
`
`The width of the expanded PFA reflects a dimension of the uterus, because the width of the
`
`Plasma Formation Array is limited by the width of the uterine cavity into which it is deployed.
`
`In other words, because the uterus presses against the PFA, the width of the PFA is a proxy for
`
`the width of the uterus.
`
`26.
`
`The commercialized disposable handpiece includes a Red Area, a Green Area,
`
`and three rows of dots on the PFA Width Indicator—which Minerva calls “Width Indicator
`
`Graduations”:
`
`26746783.1
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00925-JFB-SRF Document 1 Filed 07/08/20 Page 10 of 19 PageID #: 10
`
`
`
`
`The width indicator on Minerva’s EAS handpiece indicates when a patient’s uterus is smaller
`
`than 2.5 cm. The Green Area indicates to physicians that the patient has a uterine width of at
`
`least 2.5 cm—and the Red Area indicates that the patient has a uterine width less than 2.5 cm—
`
`because Minerva’s clinical data excludes women with uteri that are smaller than 2.5 cm. The
`
`rows of dots were added as a result of feedback from physicians. The dot scale on the width
`
`indicator indicates that the patient has a uterine width of approximately 3, 4, or 5 cm via the
`
`respective rows of 3, 4, and 5 dots.
`
`H.
`
`26.
`
`The Prior Lawsuit And Trial
`
`Hologic and Cytyc filed a complaint in this Court against Minerva in November
`
`2015 for infringement of multiple patents including the ’348 Patent (the “First Action”).
`
`26746783.1
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00925-JFB-SRF Document 1 Filed 07/08/20 Page 11 of 19 PageID #: 11
`
`
`29.
`
`Before trial, this Court ruled on summary judgment that Minerva’s EAS product
`
`infringed the ’348 Patent and that no reasonable juror could find that Minerva did not infringe.
`
`30.
`
`The Court also rejected all of Minerva’s invalidity defenses on summary
`
`judgment, finding that a jury trial on those defenses was unnecessary because no reasonable
`
`person could find for Minerva.
`
`31.
`
`The Court also found that Minerva was barred from challenging validity due to
`
`assignor estoppel.
`
`32.
`
`Following a July 2018 jury trial, the jury awarded lost profits and reasonable
`
`royalty damages to Hologic and Cytyc for Minerva’s infringement of the ’348 Patent.
`
`33.
`
`The Court rejected Minerva’s post-trial motions and entered judgment on June 3,
`
`2019 against Minerva in the amount of $6,687,505.31.
`
`34.
`
`A Panel of the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Minerva’s appeal of the
`
`infringement and validity determinations relating to the ’348 Patent and affirmed the judgment.
`
`I.
`
`35.
`
`The Accused “New Pivot” Product
`
`Unbeknownst to Hologic, Cytyc, and the Court at the time of the July 2018 trial,
`
`Minerva had been commercializing a modified hand piece since at least June 28, 2018 that
`
`Minerva had claimed did not infringe the ’348 Patent. Minerva concealed its commercialization
`
`of that design to avoid having it adjudicated in the First Action.
`
`36.
`
`The modified design was conceived by Minerva in 2016, after Minerva had been
`
`sued by Hologic and Cytyc in the First Action. Minerva developed prototypes of an EAS hand
`
`piece that incorporated one design change but was otherwise identical to the then-accused EAS
`
`hand piece. Throughout the First Action and through the July 2018 trial, Minerva maintained
`
`that this design change was merely a proposed change embodied in a prototype and not finalized
`
`into a commercial product.
`
`26746783.1
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00925-JFB-SRF Document 1 Filed 07/08/20 Page 12 of 19 PageID #: 12
`
`
`37.
`
`The design change was made to the proximal and distal grips of the hand piece.
`
`Minerva’s patent counsel referred to its proposed new handle as having a “New Pivot.” This was
`
`indicated in writing on a piece of tape stuck to the device as shown below:
`
`
`
`
`
`38.
`
`As the proximal and distal grips in Minerva’s “New Pivot” handle are squeezed
`
`together, they slide toward one another, engaging two springs inside the proximal grip. The
`
`proximal and distal grips have an attachment point at a crescent-shaped plastic tab that receives
`
`the distal grip. When the grips are squeezed together, the top portions of the proximal and distal
`
`grips hinge or rotate towards one another at the plastic tab on the bottom of the distal grip.
`
`J.
`
`39.
`
`Infringement Of The ’348 Patent By The Accused “New Pivot” Product
`
`In the First Action, it was found that Minerva’s EAS satisfies all the elements of
`
`claim 1 of the ’348 Patent and that it therefore infringed that claim. As discussed, Minerva’s
`
`New Pivot device differs from the Minerva EAS in only one respect: the New Pivot handle.
`
`26746783.1
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00925-JFB-SRF Document 1 Filed 07/08/20 Page 13 of 19 PageID #: 13
`
`
`Accordingly, Minerva is collaterally estopped from denying that the New Pivot device satisfies
`
`all the elements of claim 1 except for the requirement that the handles be “pivotally attached to
`
`one another at a pivot point.”
`
`40.
`
`The Minerva New Pivot device satisfies all the elements of at least claim 1 of the
`
`’348 Patent for the same reasons as Minerva’s EAS device as found in the First Action.
`
`41.
`
`Claim 1 of the ’348 Patent requires in relevant part “a handle coupled to the
`
`proximal portion of the elongate member, wherein the handle comprises a frame, a proximal
`
`grip and a distal grip pivotally attached to one another at a pivot point.” (emphasis added).
`
`Minerva’s prototype New Pivot handle includes a proximal grip and a distal grip that are
`
`pivotally attached to one another at a pivot point. As alleged above, the proximal and distal grips
`
`have an attachment point at a crescent-shaped plastic tab that receives the distal grip. The
`
`proximal and distal grips slide and then hinge or rotate towards one another along the plastic tab
`
`on the bottom of the distal grip. The grips are, therefore, allowed to slide and pivot relative to
`
`each other. The prototype with the New Pivot adds sliding motion, but the grips still have a
`
`pivot point and the pivot point is also the feature that keeps the grips attached to each other. On
`
`information and belief, Minerva’s commercial New Pivot design operates in the same manner.
`
`In sum, despite the design change discussed above, the commercial New Pivot device infringed
`
`at least claim 1 of the ’348 Patent.
`
`42. Minerva’s New Pivot prototype also infringes at least claim 1 of the ’348 Patent
`
`under the doctrine of equivalents. Specifically, any difference between the claimed “proximal
`
`grip and a distal grip pivotally attached to one another at a pivot point” and Minerva’s New Pivot
`
`handle in which the proximal grip and distal grip are attached at a tab and pivot at that tab, is
`
`insubstantial. Minerva’s New Pivot design performs substantially the same function (expanding
`
`26746783.1
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00925-JFB-SRF Document 1 Filed 07/08/20 Page 14 of 19 PageID #: 14
`
`
`and contracting the applicator head) in substantially the same way (squeezing together and
`
`releasing a handle comprised of two attached grips that rotate relative to one another), leading to
`
`substantially the same result (the expansion and contraction of the applicator head). The
`
`prototype was even labeled by Minerva’s patent counsel as the “New Pivot.”
`
`43.
`
`In the First Action, Minerva argued that the New Pivot prototype was a non-
`
`infringing alternative to its then-accused EAS device, and it argued on summary judgment that
`
`prosecution history estoppel precluded Hologic and Cytyc from asserting that the New Pivot was
`
`infringing. The district court rejected Minerva’s argument and Minerva did not appeal. Minerva
`
`is, therefore, collaterally estopped from arguing that the doctrine of equivalents is precluded.
`
`K. Minerva’s Concealment Of Its Commercialization Of The New Pivot Design
`And Its Willful Infringement
`
`44. Minerva concealed its commercialization of the New Pivot product so that it
`
`would not be adjudged to infringe in the First Action. Indeed, despite ongoing obligations to
`
`Plaintiffs and the Court that it supplement its discovery in the First Action, Minerva concealed
`
`the fact that it intended to, and then actually did, commercialize its New Pivot design before the
`
`July 2018 trial. Minerva’s concealment was not passive, as Hologic asked for supplemental
`
`discovery about Minerva’s plans for its New Pivot design, but Minerva refused to provide the
`
`discovery and never corrected its assertions that the New Pivot design had not been
`
`commercialized. Minerva’s misleading statements to Plaintiffs and the Court were willful,
`
`intentional, and deliberately designed to conceal its ongoing infringement, to delay resolution of
`
`Hologic’s infringement claims, and to needlessly increase the cost of asserting the ’348 Patent.
`
`45.
`
`In the First Action, Minerva produced in discovery physical protypes of the New
`
`Pivot device and related documents in an effort to show that it was a non-infringing design-
`
`around to the asserted ’348 Patent claims.
`
`26746783.1
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00925-JFB-SRF Document 1 Filed 07/08/20 Page 15 of 19 PageID #: 15
`
`
`46. Minerva wasted much of expert discovery presenting this design-around theory,
`
`but abandoned that theory during the July 2018 trial, a tactic that it described as a “reasonable
`
`refinement” of its trial plan.
`
`47. Months after the July 2018 trial, Hologic discovered that Minerva’s “refinement”
`
`was actually part of obfuscation that Minerva perpetrated to hide the fact that it had
`
`commercialized the New Pivot design and was trying to keep that device out of the July 2018
`
`trial.
`
`48.
`
`Shortly before trial, on June 22, 2018, Plaintiffs asked Minerva to supplement its
`
`discovery regarding the New Pivot device. Minerva objected on relevance grounds because that
`
`device “is not currently in the market.” Minerva’s assertion was profoundly misleading, as it
`
`purportedly launched its New Pivot device commercially less than a week later, on June 28,
`
`2018, and never corrected its assertion. Plaintiffs did not learn about Minerva’s commercial
`
`launch of its New Pivot device until October 2018.
`
`49. Minerva’s refusal to supplement was particularly misleading because, during
`
`discovery, Minerva testified that it had not completed verification and validation testing of the
`
`New Pivot device and not a single physician had looked at or tested its new handle. Minerva
`
`also confirmed in discovery that it had not applied for FDA clearance for this design. Despite its
`
`supplementation obligations, at no time did Minerva supplement the record with the actual facts
`
`around the testing that permitted it to commercialize the New Pivot device by June 28, 2018.
`
`50.
`
`In fact, Minerva perpetrated its concealment not only on Plaintiffs, but the Court
`
`as well. On June 28, 2018, the Court ruled on the parties’ summary judgment motions, including
`
`those directed to infringement of the New Pivot design. While the Court determined that
`
`prosecution history estoppel did not preclude Plaintiffs from asserting that the New Pivot design
`
`26746783.1
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00925-JFB-SRF Document 1 Filed 07/08/20 Page 16 of 19 PageID #: 16
`
`
`infringed under the doctrine of equivalents, the Court ultimately declined to determine whether
`
`the New Pivot device infringed the ’348 Patent because, “since the product is not being
`
`marketed,” such a ruling would be an advisory opinion. Minerva began marketing and
`
`commercializing its New Pivot device no later than that very same day, yet it never corrected the
`
`Court.
`
`51.
`
`At the trial in late-July 2018, Minerva continued to misleadingly call its New
`
`Pivot device a “prototype” that was to be distinguished from its “current commercial handle,”
`
`even though, at the time, the New Pivot device was actually being commercialized as Minerva’s
`
`current commercial hand piece. In addition, despite already having launched this new hand
`
`piece, Minerva’s founder and board member, Mr. Truckai, told the jury under oath that he was
`
`“not aware of design-around.” This was weeks after Minerva commercially launched the New
`
`Pivot device.
`
`52.
`
`It was not until the middle of post-trial briefing months later that Minerva first
`
`revealed that it “started shipping its redesigned handpiece starting on June 28, 2018”—the same
`
`day the Court had ruled that this prototype “is not being marketed” and just days after Minerva
`
`had refused to provide discovery on this redesign “since the product is not being marketed.”
`
`53. Minerva’s infringement of the ’348 Patent with the New Pivot design has been
`
`willful because of at least the following: (i) Minerva’s subterfuge in hiding its
`
`commercialization of the New Pivot design; (ii) its knowledge of the Court’s summary judgment
`
`ruling that its EAS device infringed the asserted claim of the ’348 Patent; (iii) its knowledge that
`
`the district court repeatedly rejected Minerva’s claim constructions of the ’348 Patent claims as
`
`well as all of its invalidity defenses; (iv) the fact that the only differences between that infringing
`
`product and the New Pivot design are superficial; and (v) the fact that Minerva asserted that the
`
`26746783.1
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00925-JFB-SRF Document 1 Filed 07/08/20 Page 17 of 19 PageID #: 17
`
`
`New Pivot design did not include a “pivot” even though its own patent counsel labeled it with
`
`the term “New Pivot,” among other facts alleged herein.
`
`54.
`
`Furthermore, Minerva’s concealment of its commercialization of the New Pivot
`
`design in the first litigation estops or otherwise precludes it from asserting in this case that the
`
`New Pivot design does not infringe the ‘348 patent.
`
`COUNT I
`
`(Defendant’s Infringement of the ’348 Patent)
`
`55.
`
`Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation set forth in the preceding
`
`paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
`
`56.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant has infringed the ’348 Patent literally and
`
`under the doctrine of equivalents in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271 by making, using, selling,
`
`offering to sell, and/or importing into the United States for subsequent sale or use products that
`
`are covered by at least claims 1, 3, and 8-10 of the ’348 Patent. On information and belief, such
`
`devices include, but are not limited to, the Minerva Endometrial Ablation System with the “New
`
`Pivot” design.
`
`57.
`
`Defendant has had knowledge of the ’348 Patent since at least 2016, and it knew
`
`or should have known that the sale, offer for sale, use, manufacture, and/or importation of
`
`Minerva’s Endometrial Ablation System with the “New Pivot” design would infringe one or
`
`more claims of the ’348 Patent. On information and belief, Defendant was aware that Plaintiffs’
`
`NovaSure system embodied the claimed invention of the ’348 Patent and knew or should have
`
`known that the Minerva Endometrial Ablation System with the “New Pivot” design infringed
`
`one or more claims of the ’348 Patent due to their substantially similar designs. On information
`
`and belief, Minerva knew or should have known that the Minerva Endometrial Ablation System
`
`26746783.1
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00925-JFB-SRF Document 1 Filed 07/08/20 Page 18 of 19 PageID #: 18
`
`
`with the “New Pivot” design infringed one or more claims of the ’348 Patent for the reasons
`
`stated hereinabove.
`
`58.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant’s infringement has been and continues to be
`
`willful, entitling Plaintiffs to treble damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
`
`59. Minerva’s conduct, including its concealment of its commercialization plans in
`
`order to avoid resolution of the New Pivot design’s infringement in the First Action, makes this
`
`an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285. If Minerva had not concealed its commercialization
`
`plans and instead allowed the infringement of the New Pivot design to be adjudicated in the First
`
`Action, then this additional action would not have been necessary.
`
`60. Minerva is estopped from challenging the validity of the ‘348 patent at least due
`
`to assignor estoppel and collateral estoppel. Minerva is also estopped or otherwise precluded
`
`from asserting that the New Pivot design does not infringe the ‘348 patent.
`
`61.
`
`As a result of Defendant’s infringement of the ’348 Patent, Plaintiffs have
`
`suffered damages up to the expiration of the ’348 Patent on November 19, 2018.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court grant the following relief:
`
`1.
`
`Judgment in favor of Plaintiffs Hologic and Cytyc, and against Defendant
`
`Minerva Surgical, Inc., that Defendant has infringed one or more claims of the ’348 Patent;
`
`2.
`
`Judgment in favor of Plaintiffs Hologic and Cytyc, and against Defendant
`
`Minerva Surgical, Inc., that Defendant’s infringement of the ‘348 Patent has been willful;
`
`3.
`
`Judgment awarding Plaintiffs Hologic and Cytyc damages adequate to
`
`compensate for Defendant’s infringement of the ’348 Patent in an amount to be proven at trial,
`
`26746783.1
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00925-JFB-SRF Document 1 Filed 07/08/20 Page 19 of 19 PageID #: 19
`
`
`including lost profits and reasonable royalty damages, together with pre-judgment and post-
`
`judgment interest and costs, as fixed by the Court;
`
`4.
`
`Judgment enhancing the damages due to Defendant Minerva Surgical, Inc.’s
`
`willful infringement, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284;
`
`5.
`
`Judgment declaring that this is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and
`
`awarding Plaintiffs Hologic and Cytyc their attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in prosecuting
`
`their claims; and
`
`6.
`
`Such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury in this action on all issues so triable.
`
`
`DATED: July 8, 2020
`
`Of Counsel:
`
`Matthew M. Wolf
`Jennifer A. Sklenar*
`Marc A. Cohn
`ARNOLD & PORTER LLP
`601 Massachusetts Ave., NW
`Washington, DC 20001-3743
`Telephone: (202) 942-5000
`matthew.wolf@arnoldporter.com
`jennifer.sklenar@arnoldporter.com
`marc.cohn@arnoldporter.com
`
`*Admitted in NY and CA only; practice
`limited to matters before federal courts and
`federal agencies.
`
`
`YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR LLP
`/s/ Karen L. Pascale
`
`
`
`Karen L. Pascale (#2903)
`Pilar G. Kraman (#5199)
`Rodney Square
`1000 North King Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Telephone: (302) 571-6600
`kpascale@ycst.com
`pkraman@ycst.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs Hologic, Inc.
` and Cytyc Surgical Products, LLC
`
`26746783.1
`
`
`19
`
`