throbber
LIFESCAN, INC., and
`LIFESCAN SCOTLAND LIMITED
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`v.
`
`UNISTRIP TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
`CHARLOTTE DIVISION
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`NOW COMES Defendant UniStrip Technologies, LLC (“Defendant”), and answers the
`
`
`
`
`
` Case No.: 3:14-CV-00274-MUL
`
`ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`AND COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`Defendant.
`_____________________________________
`
`Plaintiff’s Complaint:
`
`1.
`
`Defendant admits that Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit, that they seek injunctive relief
`
`and damages, and that they allege infringement of US Patent Nos. 6,241,862 (the ‘862 Patent)
`
`and 7,250,105 (the ‘105 Patent).
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Defendant admits the allegations of paragraph 2.
`
`Defendant admits the allegations of paragraph 3.
`
`Defendant admits that it is organized under the laws of the State of North
`
`Carolina, and that it has a principal place of business at 301 McCullough Drive, Suite 400,
`
`Charlotte, North Carolina. Except as expressly admitted, Defendant denies the allegations of
`
`paragraph 4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`Defendant admits the allegations of paragraph 5.
`
`Defendant admits the allegations of paragraph 6.
`
`Defendant admits the allegations of paragraph 7.
`
`
`
`1
`Case 3:14-cv-00274-RJC-DSC Document 9 Filed 07/29/14 Page 1 of 14
`
`

`
`8.
`
`Defendant admits that such monitoring is done to detect hypoglycemia and
`
`hypoglycemia, and that such conditions could lead to serious complications if untreated.
`
`Defendant admits that some people test their blood glucose several times each day, and that such
`
`testing is one of the most important things that people with diabetes can do to ensure their health
`
`and to prevent long-term complications. Except as expressly admitted, Defendant denies the
`
`allegations of paragraph 8.
`
`9.
`
`Defendant denies the validity of the ‘862 Patent. Without admitting the validity
`
`of the ‘862 Patent, Defendant admits that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued the ‘862
`
`Patent on June 5, 2001, and that it is titled “Disposable Test Strips with Integrated
`
`Reagent/Blood Separation Layer.” Defendant admits that Exhibit B to the Complaint is a copy of
`
`the ‘862 Patent. Except as expressly admitted, Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 9.
`
`10.
`
`Defendant denies the validity of the ‘105 Patent. Without admitting the validity of
`
`the ‘105 Patent, Defendant admits that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued the ‘105
`
`Patent on July 31, 2007, and that it is titled “Measurement of Substances in Liquids.” Defendant
`
`admits that Exhibit B to the Complaint is a copy of the ‘105 Patent. Except as expressly
`
`admitted, Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 10.
`
`11.
`
`Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 11 for lack of sufficient
`
`information to form a belief as to their truth.
`
`12.
`
`Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 12 for lack of sufficient
`
`information to form a belief as to their truth.
`
`13.
`
`Defendant admits that LifeScan is a leader in the worldwide market for blood
`
`glucose monitoring systems. Defendant admits the remaining allegations of paragraph 13.
`
`14.
`
`Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 14.
`
`
`
`2
`Case 3:14-cv-00274-RJC-DSC Document 9 Filed 07/29/14 Page 2 of 14
`
`

`
`15.
`
`Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 15 for lack of sufficient
`
`information to form a belief as to their truth.
`
`16.
`
`17.
`
`Defendant admits the allegations of paragraph 16.
`
`Defendant admits that it promotes, and instructs users to use, UniStrip1™ Test
`
`Strips with LifeScan’s OneTouch® Ultra®, Ultra®2, UltraSmart®, and UltraMini® meters. Except
`
`as expressly admitted, Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 17.
`
`18.
`
`19.
`
`20.
`
`Defendant admits the allegations of paragraph 18.
`
`Defendant admits the allegations of paragraph 19.
`
`Defendant admits that the packaging of the UniStrip1 Test Strips states that the
`
`UniStrip1 Test Strips are “for use with OneTouch Ultra, Ultra2, UltraSmart, and UltraMini
`
`meters.” Defendant denies that the image depicted in paragraph 20 is an accurate image of the
`
`UniStrip1 Test Strips packaging. Except as expressly admitted, Defendant denies the allegations
`
`of paragraph 20.
`
`21.
`
`Defendant admits that the Instructions for Use in the UniStrip1 packaging state
`
`the words set forth in paragraph 21, among others. Except as expressly admitted, Defendant
`
`denies the allegations of paragraph 21.
`
`22.
`
`Defendant admits that it has been aware of the ‘105 Patent and the ‘862 Patent
`
`since the formation of the Defendant. Except as expressly admitted, Defendant denies the
`
`allegations of paragraph 22.
`
`23.
`
`Defendant repeats its responses to the allegations in paragraphs 1-22, and
`
`incorporate them herein by reference.
`
`24.
`
`25.
`
`Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 24.
`
`Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 25.
`
`
`
`3
`Case 3:14-cv-00274-RJC-DSC Document 9 Filed 07/29/14 Page 3 of 14
`
`

`
`26.
`
`27.
`
`Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 26.
`
`Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 27. Defendant has reviewed the
`
`‘862 Patent and does not infringe it in any manner. To that end, Defendant has voluntarily
`
`provided samples to Plaintiffs to show the same.
`
`28.
`
`Defendant repeats its responses to the allegations in paragraphs 1-27, and
`
`incorporate them herein by reference.
`
`29.
`
`30.
`
`31.
`
`Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 29.
`
`Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 30.
`
`Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 31. Defendant is specifically
`
`precluded from infringing the ‘105 Patent by explicit holdings by the Fed. Cir. in LifeScan
`
`Scotland, Ltd. v. Shasta Technologies, LLC, 734 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2013) and the Supreme
`
`Court in Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2111 (2014).
`
`32.
`
`33.
`
`34.
`
`Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 32.
`
`Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 33.
`
`Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 34.
`
`
`
`AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`FIRST DEFENSE – INVALIDITY
`
`Each and every claim of the ‘862 Patent and the ‘105 patent is invalid because it is
`
`anticipated by the pertinent prior art under 35 U.S.C. §102, and/or would have been obvious to one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art in light of the pertinent prior art at the time of the claimed invention under 35
`
`U.S.C. §103.
`
`
`
`4
`Case 3:14-cv-00274-RJC-DSC Document 9 Filed 07/29/14 Page 4 of 14
`
`

`
`Each and every claim claims of the ‘862 Patent and the ‘105 Patent are invalid for lack of
`
`enablement, insufficient written description, indefiniteness, and/or failure to disclose the best mode
`
`of the invention as required by 35 U.S.C. §112.
`
`Each and every claim claims of the ‘862 Patent and the ‘105 Patent are vague and indefinite
`
`and incorporate limitations that are neither disclosed, described, explained, nor enabled by the
`
`specifications of the ‘862 Patent and the and the ‘105 Patent.
`
`SECOND DEFENSE - UNENFORCEABILITY
`
`Each and every claim of the ‘862 Patent and the ‘105 Patent is unenforceable for public use
`
`and/or offer for sale/sale more than one year prior to filing of the U.S. patents.
`
`THIRD DEFENSE – NONINFRINGEMENT
`
`Defendants did not and do not infringe, either directly, contributorily, or by inducement, any
`
`valid and enforceable claim of the ‘862 Patent or the ‘105 Patent, either literally or under the doctrine
`
`of equivalents, as is open and obvious and well known to Plaintiff.
`
`Plaintiff’s claims related to each and every claim of the ‘105 Patent are precluded to the
`
`extent the ‘105 Patent includes all method claims where no single entity performs all of the claimed
`
`steps thereby precluding contributorily or induced infringement by Defendant pursuant to Limelight
`
`Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2111 (2014).
`
`FOURTH DEFENSE – PATENT EXHAUSTION
`
`
`
`Plaintiff’s claims related to each and every claim of the ‘105 Patent are precluded pursuant to
`
`the doctrine of patent exhaustion. See LifeScan Scotland, Ltd. v. Shasta Technologies, LLC, 734 F.3d
`
`1361 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
`
`FIFTH DEFENSE – PATENT MISUSE
`
`
`
`Plaintiff’s claims related to each and every claim of the ‘105 Patent are precluded by the
`
`doctrine of patent misuse based on Plaintiff broadening the scope of the ‘105 Patent to restrain
`
`
`
`5
`Case 3:14-cv-00274-RJC-DSC Document 9 Filed 07/29/14 Page 5 of 14
`
`

`
`competition unlawfully in an appropriately defined relevant market. The ‘105 Patent covers both
`
`meters and strips whereas Defendant only provides strips.
`
`SIXTH DEFENSE – FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`
`Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
`
`SEVENTH DEFENSE – FAILURE TO JOIN NECESSARY PARTIES
`
`Plaintiffs’ claims are barred because they failed to join all necessary parties to this Action.
`
`EIGTH DEFENSE – IMPLIED LICENSE
`
`Plaintiff’s claims are barred by Plaintiff’s license, consent, and acquiescence to Defendant’s
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`use.
`
`NINTH DEFENSE – RESERVATION AND NON-WAIVER
`
`Defendant reserves all affirmative defenses under Rule 8(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil
`
`Procedure, the Patent Laws of the United States and any other defenses, at law or in equity that may
`
`now exist or in the future be available based on discovery and further factual investigation in this
`
`case.
`
`
`
`6
`Case 3:14-cv-00274-RJC-DSC Document 9 Filed 07/29/14 Page 6 of 14
`
`

`
`COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`NATURE OF THE CASE
`
`1.
`
`This is an action in Counterclaims for Declaratory Judgment and other relief
`
`brought under the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02. Counterclaimant
`
`seeks a declaratory judgment that Counterclaimant’s products do not infringe any patent rights
`
`purportedly owned by Plaintiffs / Counterclaim Defendants. In particular, Counterclaimant
`
`seeks a declaratory
`
`judgment (a)
`
`that Counterclaimant’s products and
`
`the use of
`
`Counterclaimant’s products do not infringe U.S. Patent No. 6,241,862 (“the ‘862 patent”), and
`
`(b) that Counterclaimant’s products and the use of Counterclaimant’s products do not infringe
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,250,105 (“the ‘105 patent”).
`
`PARTIES
`
`2.
`
`UniStrip is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of
`
`North Carolina and has its principal place of business at 301 McCullough Dr, Fourth Floor,
`
`Charlotte, North Carolina 28262.
`
`3.
`
`LifeScan is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of California with
`
`its headquarters and principal place of business in Wayne, Pennsylvania.
`
`4.
`
`LifeScan Scotland is a private limited company organized and existing under the
`
`laws of the United Kingdom, with its headquarters and principal place of business in Inverness
`
`Scotland.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`This is a declaratory judgment action brought under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to the
`
`following statutes:
`
`
`
`7
`Case 3:14-cv-00274-RJC-DSC Document 9 Filed 07/29/14 Page 7 of 14
`
`

`
`(a)
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1331, this being a civil action arising under the laws of the
`
`United States;
`
`(b)
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1337 (a), this being a civil action arising under an Act of
`
`Congress regulating commerce and protecting trade and commerce; and
`
`(c)
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1338(a), this being a civil action arising under an Act of
`
`Congress relating to alleged patent rights.
`
`7.
`
`This Court may declare the rights and other legal relations of the parties in this
`
`case under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and Rule 57 Fed.R.Civ.P. because an actual and justiciable
`
`controversy exists concerning the rights of, and legal relations between, Counterclaimant and
`
`Plaintiffs / Counterclaim Defendants.
`
`8.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Plaintiffs / Counterclaim Defendants
`
`consistent with the principles underlying the U.S. Constitution and N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-75.4.
`
`9.
`
`On information and belief, Plaintiffs / Counterclaim Defendants have regularly
`
`and intentionally conducted business in this State and District, have initiated the above-captioned
`
`litigation thereby voluntary subjecting themselves to the personal jurisdiction of this Court, and
`
`to this venue, and are subject to personal jurisdiction in this State and District by virtue of their
`
`contacts here.
`
`10.
`
`On information and belief, Plaintiffs / Counterclaim Defendants have conducted
`
`business in this State and District by, inter alia, systematically offering for sale products and/or
`
`services, selling products and/or services, providing a website, sending solicitations, and
`
`otherwise engaging in business activities within this State and District.
`
`
`
`8
`Case 3:14-cv-00274-RJC-DSC Document 9 Filed 07/29/14 Page 8 of 14
`
`

`
`11.
`
`On information and belief, Plaintiffs / Counterclaim Defendants have placed their
`
`products into the stream of commerce while knowing that the products will likely arrive in this
`
`State and District.
`
`12.
`
`On information and belief, Plaintiffs / Counterclaim Defendants’ products are
`
`offered for sale to customers residing in this State and District and have been sold to customers
`
`in this State and District.
`
`13.
`
`Venue is proper in this Court under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
`
`Counterclaimant is located in this District, a substantial part of the events giving rise to
`
`Counterclaimant’s claims occurred in this State and District, Plaintiffs / Counterclaim
`
`Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in this State, and Plaintiffs / Counterclaim
`
`Defendants initiated the above-captioned litigation, thereby electing and voluntary subjecting
`
`themselves to this venue.
`
`FACTS RELATED TO ALL COUNTS
`
`14.
`
`Defendant / Counterclaimant realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1
`
`through 1-13, inclusive, as if fully set forth in this paragraph.
`
`15.
`
`Counterclaimant imports, offers for sale and sells products for use in connection
`
`with measuring and monitoring blood glucose levels, including test strips (“allegedly infringing
`
`product”) for use with blood glucose meters.
`
`16.
`
`Plaintiffs / Counterclaim Defendants, through correspondence from their counsel,
`
`and through the Complaint in the above-captioned matter, have alleged that Counterclaimant has
`
`violated federal patent laws and have attempted to enforce their alleged patent rights against
`
`Counterclaimant.
`
`17.
`
`In response to the correspondence, Counterclaimant reviewed the assertions and
`
`found them to be baseless, without merit, and in bad faith. Counterclaimant provided this
`
`
`
`9
`Case 3:14-cv-00274-RJC-DSC Document 9 Filed 07/29/14 Page 9 of 14
`
`

`
`information to the Plaintiffs / Counterclaim Defendants, offered to explain why Plaintiffs /
`
`Counterclaim Defendants allegations are baseless, without merit, and in bad faith, and
`
`voluntarily provided samples of the allegedly infringing product to the Plaintiffs / Counterclaim
`
`Defendants.
`
`18.
`
`Plaintiffs / Counterclaim Defendants have failed to test or perform an adequate
`
`pre-filing factual investigation on the allegedly infringing product.
`
`19.
`
`Plaintiffs / Counterclaim Defendants have failed to contact the Counterclaimant to
`
`discuss why Plaintiffs / Counterclaim Defendants allegations are baseless, without merit, and in
`
`bad faith.
`
`20.
`
`Contrary to Plaintiffs / Counterclaim Defendants’ allegations, Counterclaimant
`
`has not infringed any of Plaintiffs / Counterclaim Defendants’ purported rights and is not liable
`
`to Plaintiffs / Counterclaim Defendants for patent infringement or any other federal, state, or
`
`common law causes of action, in law or in equity.
`
`21.
`
`Counterclaimant is not liable to Plaintiffs / Counterclaim Defendants for any fees,
`
`monetary damages, or any other relief Plaintiffs / Counterclaim Defendants now claim.
`
`COUNT I
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT, INVALIDITY,
`UNENFORCEABILITY OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,241,862
`
`Defendant / Counterclaimant realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1
`
`22.
`
`through 1-21, inclusive, as if fully set forth in this paragraph.
`
`23.
`
`Plaintiffs / Counterclaim Defendants have threatened Counterclaimant’s business
`
`in this State and District and elsewhere by accusing Counterclaimant of unlawful actions,
`
`including infringement of the ‘862 patent.
`
`24.
`
`Counterclaimant has not infringed any claim of the ‘862 patent.
`
`
`
`10
`Case 3:14-cv-00274-RJC-DSC Document 9 Filed 07/29/14 Page 10 of 14
`
`

`
`25.
`
`Counterclaimant is legally permitted to make, import, use, sell, and offer to sell
`
`UniStrip1 Test Strips and otherwise conduct its respective business activities without permission,
`
`involvement, or interference from Plaintiffs / Counterclaim Defendants.
`
`26.
`
`There is an actual and substantial controversy between Counterclaimant and
`
`Plaintiffs / Counterclaim Defendants of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the rendering
`
`of a declaratory judgment by this Court.
`
`27.
`
`Counterclaimant is entitled to a judgment declaring that it has not violated any
`
`purported rights of Plaintiffs / Counterclaim Defendants under federal, state, or common law and
`
`is not liable to Plaintiffs / Counterclaim Defendant for any claims, including any claim for patent
`
`infringement concerning the ‘862 patent.
`
`COUNT II
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT, INVALIDITY,
`UNENFORCEABILITY OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,250,105
`
`Defendant / Counterclaimant realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1
`
`28.
`
`through 1-27, inclusive, as if fully set forth in this paragraph.
`
`29.
`
`Plaintiffs / Counterclaim Defendants have threatened Counterclaimant’s business
`
`in this State and District and elsewhere by accusing Counterclaimant of unlawful actions,
`
`including infringement of the ‘105 patent.
`
`30.
`
`31.
`
`Counterclaimant has not infringed any claim of the ‘105 patent.
`
`Counterclaimant is legally permitted to make, import, use, sell, and offer to sell
`
`UniStrip1 Test Strips and otherwise conduct its respective business activities without permission,
`
`involvement, or interference from Plaintiffs / Counterclaim Defendants.
`
`32.
`
`There is an actual and substantial controversy between Counterclaimant and
`
`Plaintiffs / Counterclaim Defendants of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the rendering
`
`of a declaratory judgment by this Court.
`
`
`
`11
`Case 3:14-cv-00274-RJC-DSC Document 9 Filed 07/29/14 Page 11 of 14
`
`

`
`33.
`
`Plaintiff is barred from asserting any claim of the ‘105 patent based on the
`
`doctrine of patent exhaustion as ruled by the Fed. Cir. in LifeScan Scotland, Ltd. v. Shasta
`
`Technologies, LLC, 734 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
`
`34.
`
`Defendant does not contributorily infringe or induce infringement of any claims
`
`of the ‘105 patent since no single entity performs all of the claimed steps of the ‘105 patent
`
`pursuant to Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2111 (2014).
`
`35.
`
`Counterclaimant is entitled to a judgment declaring that it has not violated any
`
`purported rights of Plaintiffs / Counterclaim Defendants under federal, state, or common law and
`
`is not liable to Plaintiffs / Counterclaim Defendant for any claims, including any claim for patent
`
`infringement concerning the ‘105 patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`WHEREFORE, Defendant / Counterclaimant prays for the entry of a judgment:
`
`A.
`
`Declaring that Defendant / Counterclaimant has not infringed or otherwise
`
`violated any purported rights of Plaintiffs / Counterclaim Defendants, including any provisions
`
`of 35 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. or any other asserted federal, state, or common law laws;
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Finding this case exceptional in favor of Defendant / Counterclaimant pursuant to
`
`35 U.S.C. § 285 pursuant to Plaintiffs / Counterclaim Defendants for inter alia failure to test or
`
`perform an adequate pre-filing investigation on the allegedly infringing product, and awarding
`
`Defendant / Counterclaimant its costs and reasonable attorney fees;
`
`
`
`C.
`
`Granting Defendant / Counterclaimant a speedy hearing pursuant to Rule 57, Fed.
`
`R. Civ. P.; and
`
`
`
`D.
`
`Granting Defendant / Counterclaimant any such further legal and equitable relief
`
`as the Court may deem just and proper.
`
`
`
`12
`Case 3:14-cv-00274-RJC-DSC Document 9 Filed 07/29/14 Page 12 of 14
`
`

`
`JURY TRIAL DEMAND
`
`Defendant / Counterclaimant respectfully requests that all issues so triable be tried by and
`
`before a jury.
`
`
`
`Dated: July 29, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CLEMENTS BERNARD PLLC
`
`By: /s/ Christopher L. Bernard
`Christopher L. Bernard
`N.C. State Bar No. 27713
`Lawrence A. Baratta, Jr.
`N.C. State Bar No. 37589
`1901 Roxborough Road, Suite 250
`Charlotte, NC 28211 USA
`Tel:
`704-790-3600
`Fax: 704-366-9744
`cbernard@worldpatents.com
`lbaratta@worldpatents.com
`
`UNISTRIP TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`
`By: /s/ Andrew S. O’Hara
`Andrew O'Hara
`N.C. State Bar No. 24057
`General Counsel
`UniStrip Technologies, LLC
`301 McCullough Rd, Suite 400
`Charlotte, NC 28269 USA
`Telephone: 704-526-5848
`andyo@unistrip-tech.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
`AND COUNTERCLAIMANT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`Case 3:14-cv-00274-RJC-DSC Document 9 Filed 07/29/14 Page 13 of 14
`
`

`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
` hereby certify that on the date listed below, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of
`
` I
`
`Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to the following:
`
`DAVID N. ALLEN
`DOUGLAS GRIMES
`Hedrick Gardner Kincheloe & Garofalo, LLP
`PO Box 30397
`Charlotte, NC 28230
`PH: (704) 366-1101
`FAX: (704) 366-6181
`dallen@hedrickgardner.com
`dgrimes@hedrickgardner.com
`
`Dated: July 29, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`CLEMENTS BERNARD PLLC
`
`By: /s/ Christopher L. Bernard
`Christopher L. Bernard
`N.C. State Bar No. 27713
`Lawrence A. Baratta, Jr.
`N.C. State Bar No. 37589
`1901 Roxborough Road, Suite 250
`Charlotte, NC 28211 USA
`Tel:
`704-790-3600
`Fax: 704-366-9744
`cbernard@worldpatents.com
`lbaratta@worldpatents.com
`
`
`
`
`14
`Case 3:14-cv-00274-RJC-DSC Document 9 Filed 07/29/14 Page 14 of 14

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket