Case 1:10-cv-11041-NMG Document 1 Filed 06/18/10 Page 1 of 21
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
`
`
`__________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS ELECTRONICS
`)
`N.V. and PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NORTH
`)
`)
`AMERICA CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`ZOLL MEDICAL CORPORATION,
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`)
`__________________________________________)
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 10-11041
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. and Philips Electronics North
`
`America Corporation (collectively “Philips”) bring this complaint for patent infringement against
`
`Defendant Zoll Medical Corporation (“Zoll”).
`
`NATURE OF ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This is an action for patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271, et seq., by Philips
`
`against Zoll for infringement of United States Patent Nos. 5,607,454; 5,721,482; 5,735,879;
`
`5,749,905; 5,773,961; 5,800,460; 5,803,927; 5,836,978; 5,879,374; 6,047,212; 6,178,357;
`
`6,304,783; 6,356,785; 6,441,582; and 6,871,093 (the “Patents-in-Suit”).
`
`PARTIES
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. is a corporation organized under the
`
`laws of the Netherlands with a principal place of business in Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
`
`Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. is the assignee and owner of the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`Philips Exhibit 2002
`Zoll Lifecor v. Philips
`IPR2013-00609
`
`Page 1 of 21
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
`
`
`__________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS ELECTRONICS
`)
`N.V. and PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NORTH
`)
`)
`AMERICA CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`ZOLL MEDICAL CORPORATION,
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`)
`__________________________________________)
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 10-11041
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. and Philips Electronics North
`
`America Corporation (collectively “Philips”) bring this complaint for patent infringement against
`
`Defendant Zoll Medical Corporation (“Zoll”).
`
`NATURE OF ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This is an action for patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271, et seq., by Philips
`
`against Zoll for infringement of United States Patent Nos. 5,607,454; 5,721,482; 5,735,879;
`
`5,749,905; 5,773,961; 5,800,460; 5,803,927; 5,836,978; 5,879,374; 6,047,212; 6,178,357;
`
`6,304,783; 6,356,785; 6,441,582; and 6,871,093 (the “Patents-in-Suit”).
`
`PARTIES
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. is a corporation organized under the
`
`laws of the Netherlands with a principal place of business in Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
`
`Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. is the assignee and owner of the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`Philips Exhibit 2002
`Zoll Lifecor v. Philips
`IPR2013-00609
`
`Page 1 of 21
`
`
`
`Case 1:10-cv-11041-NMG Document 1 Filed 06/18/10 Page 2 of 21
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiff Philips Electronics North America Corporation is a corporation
`
`organized and existing under the laws of Delaware, with a place of business at 3000 Minuteman
`
`Road, Andover, Massachusetts 01810. Philips Electronics North America Corporation is a
`
`wholly-owned subsidiary of Philips Holding USA, Inc., which, directly and indirectly, is a
`
`wholly-owned subsidiary of Plaintiff Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. Philips Electronics
`
`North America Corporation is licensed to manufacture, use, and sell products under the Patents-
`
`in-Suit.
`
`4.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant Zoll is a corporation organized under the
`
`laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, with a principal place of business at 269 Mill
`
`Road, Chelmsford, Massachusetts 01824.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`5.
`
`This is an action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the
`
`United States, 35 U.S.C. § 271, et seq.
`
`6.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 1331 and 1338.
`
`7.
`
`Upon information and belief, Zoll maintains its principal place of business within
`
`Massachusetts and has voluntarily placed automatic external defibrillator products into the
`
`stream of commerce, knowing that Massachusetts is the likely destination of a substantial
`
`quantity of such products.
`
`8.
`
`Upon information and belief, a substantial part of the events giving rise to these
`
`claims for patent infringement occurred in Massachusetts and in this judicial district.
`
`9.
`
`Upon information and belief, Zoll is subject to personal jurisdiction in this district
`
`because it is a corporation organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 21
`
`
`
`Case 1:10-cv-11041-NMG Document 1 Filed 06/18/10 Page 3 of 21
`
`10.
`
`Upon information and belief, Zoll is subject to personal jurisdiction in this district
`
`because it maintains or has maintained continuous and systematic contacts with Massachusetts
`
`and this judicial district.
`
`11.
`
`Upon information and belief, Zoll is subject to personal jurisdiction in this district
`
`because it purposefully engaged in activities that gave rise to Philips’ claims for patent
`
`infringement and which were directed to residents of Massachusetts and this judicial district.
`
`12.
`
`Upon information and belief, Zoll resides in this district for purposes of 28 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 1391(c) and 1400(b) because it is subject to personal jurisdiction in this district.
`
`13.
`
`Upon information and belief, venue for this civil action in this judicial district is
`
`proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b), 1391(c), and/or 1400(b), as Zoll is subject to personal
`
`jurisdiction in this district.
`
`COUNT 1: PATENT INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,607,454
`
`Philips incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-13 as if fully set forth herein.
`
`On March 4, 1997, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”)
`
`14.
`
`15.
`
`duly and legally issued United States Patent No. 5,607,454 (“the ’454 patent”), entitled
`
`“Electrotherapy Method and Apparatus,” to the listed inventor David Cameron of Seattle,
`
`Washington, and other co-inventors in Washington. Plaintiff Koninklijke Philips Electronics
`
`N.V. is the assignee and owner of the ’454 patent, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A.
`
`16.
`
`Upon information and belief, Zoll has infringed and continues to infringe the ’454
`
`patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), (b), and/or (c), by making, using, offering for sale, selling,
`
`and/or importing in the United States automated external defibrillators, including the AED Plus
`
`and AED Pro automated external defibrillators, and by contributing to and/or inducing
`
`infringement of the ’454 patent.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 21
`
`
`
`Case 1:10-cv-11041-NMG Document 1 Filed 06/18/10 Page 4 of 21
`
`17.
`
`18.
`
`Zoll does not have a license or permission to use the ’454 patent.
`
`As a result of Zoll’s infringement of the ’454 patent, Philips has been irreparably
`
`injured. Unless such infringing acts are enjoined by this Court, Philips will continue to suffer
`
`additional irreparable injury.
`
`19.
`
`As a result of Zoll’s infringement of the ’454 patent, Philips has suffered, and
`
`continues to suffer, damages, in an amount not yet determined, of at least a reasonable royalty
`
`and/or lost profits due to loss of sales, profits, and potential sales that Philips would have made
`
`but for Zoll’s infringing acts.
`
`20.
`
`In a letter dated November 17, 2008, Philips provided notice to Zoll of the ’454
`
`patent and its infringing conduct.
`
`21.
`
`Despite knowledge of the ’454 patent, Zoll has continued to infringe this patent.
`
`Zoll acted with reckless disregard of the ’454 patent by continuing to infringe the patent when it
`
`knew or should have known that its actions constituted infringement.
`
`COUNT 2: PATENT INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,721,482
`
`22.
`
`23.
`
`Philips incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-13 as if fully set forth herein.
`
`On February 24, 1998, the USPTO duly and legally issued United States Patent
`
`No. 5,721,482 (“the ’482 patent”), entitled “Intelligent Battery and Method for Providing an
`
`Advance Low Battery Warning for a Battery Powered Device such as a Defibrillator,” to the
`
`listed inventor Carl E. Benvegar of McMinnville, Oregon, and other co-inventors in Oregon and
`
`Washington. Plaintiff Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. is the assignee and owner of the ’482
`
`patent, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit B.
`
`24.
`
`Upon information and belief, Zoll has infringed and continues to infringe the ’482
`
`patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), (b), and/or (c), by making, using, offering for sale, selling,
`
`4
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 21
`
`
`
`Case 1:10-cv-11041-NMG Document 1 Filed 06/18/10 Page 5 of 21
`
`and/or importing in the United States infringing products, including the Zoll Smart Battery and
`
`automated external defibrillators, including the AED Pro automated external defibrillator, and by
`
`contributing to and/or inducing infringement of the ’482 patent.
`
`25.
`
`26.
`
`Zoll does not have a license or permission to use the ’482 patent.
`
`As a result of Zoll’s infringement of the ’482 patent, Philips has been irreparably
`
`injured. Unless such infringing acts are enjoined by this Court, Philips will continue to suffer
`
`additional irreparable injury.
`
`27.
`
`As a result of Zoll’s infringement of the ’482 patent, Philips has suffered, and
`
`continues to suffer, damages, in an amount not yet determined, of at least a reasonable royalty
`
`and/or lost profits due to loss of sales, profits, and potential sales that Philips would have made
`
`but for Zoll’s infringing acts.
`
`28.
`
`In a letter dated November 17, 2008, Philips provided notice to Zoll of the ’482
`
`patent and its infringing conduct.
`
`29.
`
`Despite knowledge of the ’482 patent, Zoll has continued to infringe this patent.
`
`Zoll acted with reckless disregard of the ’482 patent by continuing to infringe the patent when it
`
`knew or should have known that its actions constituted infringement.
`
`COUNT 3: PATENT INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,735,879
`
`Philips incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-13 as if fully set forth herein.
`
`On April 7, 1998, the USPTO duly and legally issued United States Patent No.
`
`30.
`
`31.
`
`5,735,879 (“the ’879 patent”), entitled “Electrotherapy Method for External Defibrillators,” to
`
`the listed inventor Bradford E. Gliner of Bellevue, Washington, and other co-inventors in
`
`Washington. Plaintiff Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. is the assignee and owner of the ’879
`
`patent, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit C.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 21
`
`
`
`Case 1:10-cv-11041-NMG Document 1 Filed 06/18/10 Page 6 of 21
`
`32.
`
`Upon information and belief, Zoll has infringed and continues to infringe the ’879
`
`patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), (b), and/or (c), by making, using, offering for sale, selling,
`
`and/or importing in the United States automated external defibrillators, including the AED Plus
`
`and AED Pro automated external defibrillators, and by contributing to and/or inducing
`
`infringement of the ’879 patent.
`
`33.
`
`34.
`
`Zoll does not have a license or permission to use the ’879 patent.
`
`As a result of Zoll’s infringement of the ’879 patent, Philips has been irreparably
`
`injured. Unless such infringing acts are enjoined by this Court, Philips will continue to suffer
`
`additional irreparable injury.
`
`35.
`
`As a result of Zoll’s infringement of the ’879 patent, Philips has suffered, and
`
`continues to suffer, damages, in an amount not yet determined, of at least a reasonable royalty
`
`and/or lost profits due to loss of sales, profits, and potential sales that Philips would have made
`
`but for Zoll’s infringing acts.
`
`36.
`
`In a letter dated November 17, 2008, Philips provided notice to Zoll of the ’879
`
`patent and its infringing conduct.
`
`37.
`
`Despite knowledge of the ’879 patent, Zoll has continued to infringe this patent.
`
`Zoll acted with reckless disregard of the ’879 patent by continuing to infringe the patent when it
`
`knew or should have known that its actions constituted infringement.
`
`COUNT 4: PATENT INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,749,905
`
`Philips incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-13 as if fully set forth herein.
`
`On May 12, 1998, the USPTO duly and legally issued United States Patent No.
`
`38.
`
`39.
`
`5,749,905 (“the ’905 patent”), entitled “Electrotherapy Method Utilizing Patient Dependent
`
`Electrical Parameters,” to the listed inventor Bradford E. Gliner of Bellevue, Washington, and
`
`6
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 21
`
`
`
`Case 1:10-cv-11041-NMG Document 1 Filed 06/18/10 Page 7 of 21
`
`other co-inventors in Washington. Plaintiff Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. is the assignee
`
`and owner of the ’905 patent, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit D.
`
`40.
`
`Upon information and belief, Zoll has infringed and continues to infringe the ’905
`
`patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), (b), and/or (c), by making, using, offering for sale, selling,
`
`and/or importing in the United States automated external defibrillators, including the AED Plus
`
`and AED Pro automated external defibrillators, and by contributing to and/or inducing
`
`infringement of the ’905 patent.
`
`41.
`
`42.
`
`Zoll does not have a license or permission to use the ’905 patent.
`
`As a result of Zoll’s infringement of the ’905 patent, Philips has been irreparably
`
`injured. Unless such infringing acts are enjoined by this Court, Philips will continue to suffer
`
`additional irreparable injury.
`
`43.
`
`As a result of Zoll’s infringement of the ’905 patent, Philips has suffered, and
`
`continues to suffer, damages, in an amount not yet determined, of at least a reasonable royalty
`
`and/or lost profits due to loss of sales, profits, and potential sales that Philips would have made
`
`but for Zoll’s infringing acts.
`
`44.
`
`In a letter dated November 17, 2008, Philips provided notice to Zoll of the ’905
`
`patent and its infringing conduct.
`
`45.
`
`Despite knowledge of the ’905 patent, Zoll has continued to infringe this patent.
`
`Zoll acted with reckless disregard of the ’905 patent by continuing to infringe the patent when it
`
`knew or should have known that its actions constituted infringement.
`
`COUNT 5: PATENT INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,773,961
`
`46.
`
`Philips incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-13 as if fully set forth herein.
`
`7
`
`
`
`Page 7 of 21
`
`
`
`Case 1:10-cv-11041-NMG Document 1 Filed 06/18/10 Page 8 of 21
`
`47.
`
`On June 30, 1998, the USPTO duly and legally issued United States Patent No.
`
`5,773,961 (“the ’961 patent”), entitled “Dynamic Load Controller for a Battery,” to the listed
`
`inventor David B. Cameron of Seattle, Washington, and other co-inventors in Washington.
`
`Plaintiff Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. is the assignee and owner of the ’961 patent, a
`
`copy of which is attached as Exhibit E.
`
`48.
`
`Upon information and belief, Zoll has infringed and continues to infringe the ’961
`
`patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), (b), and/or (c), by making, using, offering for sale, selling,
`
`and/or importing in the United States infringing products, including the Zoll Smart Battery and
`
`automated external defibrillators, including the AED Plus and AED Pro automated external
`
`defibrillators, and by contributing to and/or inducing infringement of the ’961 patent.
`
`49.
`
`50.
`
`Zoll does not have a license or permission to use the ’961 patent.
`
`As a result of Zoll’s infringement of the ’961 patent, Philips has been irreparably
`
`injured. Unless such infringing acts are enjoined by this Court, Philips will continue to suffer
`
`additional irreparable injury.
`
`51.
`
`As a result of Zoll’s infringement of the ’961 patent, Philips has suffered, and
`
`continues to suffer, damages, in an amount not yet determined, of at least a reasonable royalty
`
`and/or lost profits due to loss of sales, profits, and potential sales that Philips would have made
`
`but for Zoll’s infringing acts.
`
`52.
`
`In a letter dated November 17, 2008, Philips provided notice to Zoll of the ’961
`
`patent and its infringing conduct.
`
`53.
`
`Despite knowledge of the ’961 patent, Zoll has continued to infringe this patent.
`
`Zoll acted with reckless disregard of the ’961 patent by continuing to infringe the patent when it
`
`knew or should have known that its actions constituted infringement.
`
`8
`
`
`
`Page 8 of 21
`
`
`
`Case 1:10-cv-11041-NMG Document 1 Filed 06/18/10 Page 9 of 21
`
`COUNT 6: PATENT INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,800,460
`
`Philips incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-13 as if fully set forth herein.
`
`On September 1, 1998, the USPTO duly and legally issued United States Patent
`
`54.
`
`55.
`
`No. 5,800,460 (“the ’460 patent”), entitled “Method for Performing Self-Test in a Defibrillator,”
`
`to the listed inventor Daniel J. Powers of Bainbridge Island, Washington, and other co-inventors
`
`in Washington. Plaintiff Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. is the assignee and owner of the
`
`’460 patent, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit F.
`
`56.
`
`Upon information and belief, Zoll has infringed and continues to infringe the ’460
`
`patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), (b), and/or (c), by making, using, offering for sale, selling,
`
`and/or importing in the United States automated external defibrillators, including the AED Plus
`
`and AED Pro automated external defibrillators, and by contributing to and/or inducing
`
`infringement of the ’460 patent.
`
`57.
`
`58.
`
`Zoll does not have a license or permission to use the ’460 patent.
`
`As a result of Zoll’s infringement of the ’460 patent, Philips has been irreparably
`
`injured. Unless such infringing acts are enjoined by this Court, Philips will continue to suffer
`
`additional irreparable injury.
`
`59.
`
`As a result of Zoll’s infringement of the ’460 patent, Philips has suffered, and
`
`continues to suffer, damages, in an amount not yet determined, of at least a reasonable royalty
`
`and/or lost profits due to loss of sales, profits, and potential sales that Philips would have made
`
`but for Zoll’s infringing acts.
`
`60.
`
`In a letter dated November 17, 2008, Philips provided notice to Zoll of the ’460
`
`patent and its infringing conduct.
`
`9
`
`
`
`Page 9 of 21
`
`
`
`Case 1:10-cv-11041-NMG Document 1 Filed 06/18/10 Page 10 of 21
`
`61.
`
`Despite knowledge of the ’460 patent, Zoll has continued to infringe this patent.
`
`Zoll acted with reckless disregard of the ’460 patent by continuing to infringe the patent when it
`
`knew or should have known that its actions constituted infringement.
`
`COUNT 7: PATENT INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,803,927
`
`Philips incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-13 as if fully set forth herein.
`
`On September 8, 1998, the USPTO duly and legally issued United States Patent
`
`62.
`
`63.
`
`No. 5,803,927 (“the ’927 patent”), entitled “Electrotherapy Method and Apparatus for External
`
`Defibrillation,” to the listed inventor David Cameron of Seattle, Washington, and other co-
`
`inventors in Washington. Plaintiff Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. is the assignee and
`
`owner of the ’927 patent, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit G.
`
`64.
`
`Upon information and belief, Zoll has infringed and continues to infringe the ’927
`
`patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), (b), and/or (c), by making, using, offering for sale, selling,
`
`and/or importing in the United States automated external defibrillators, including the AED Plus
`
`and AED Pro automated external defibrillators, and by contributing to and/or inducing
`
`infringement of the ’927 patent.
`
`65.
`
`66.
`
`Zoll does not have a license or permission to use the ’927 patent.
`
`As a result of Zoll’s infringement of the ’927 patent, Philips has been irreparably
`
`injured. Unless such infringing acts are enjoined by this Court, Philips will continue to suffer
`
`additional irreparable injury.
`
`67.
`
`As a result of Zoll’s infringement of the ’927 patent, Philips has suffered, and
`
`continues to suffer, damages, in an amount not yet determined, of at least a reasonable royalty
`
`and/or lost profits due to loss of sales, profits, and potential sales that Philips would have made
`
`but for Zoll’s infringing acts.
`
`10
`
`
`
`Page 10 of 21
`
`
`
`Case 1:10-cv-11041-NMG Document 1 Filed 06/18/10 Page 11 of 21
`
`68.
`
`In a letter dated November 17, 2008, Philips provided notice to Zoll of the ’927
`
`patent and its infringing conduct.
`
`69.
`
`Despite knowledge of the ’927 patent, Zoll has continued to infringe this patent.
`
`Zoll acted with reckless disregard of the ’927 patent by continuing to infringe the patent when it
`
`knew or should have known that its actions constituted infringement.
`
`COUNT 8: PATENT INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,836,978
`
`Philips incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-13 as if fully set forth herein.
`
`On November 17, 1998, the USPTO duly and legally issued United States Patent
`
`70.
`
`71.
`
`No. 5,836,978 (“the ’978 patent”), entitled “Electrotherapy Method for Producing a Multiphasic
`
`Discharge Based upon a Patient-Dependant Electrical Parameter and Time,” to the listed
`
`inventor Bradford E. Gliner of Bellevue, Washington, and other co-inventors in Washington.
`
`Plaintiff Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. is the assignee and owner of the ’978 patent, a
`
`copy of which is attached as Exhibit H.
`
`72.
`
`Upon information and belief, Zoll has infringed and continues to infringe the ’978
`
`patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), (b), and/or (c), by making, using, offering for sale, selling,
`
`and/or importing in the United States automated external defibrillators, including the AED Plus
`
`and AED Pro automated external defibrillators, and by contributing to and/or inducing
`
`infringement of the ’978 patent.
`
`73.
`
`74.
`
`Zoll does not have a license or permission to use the ’978 patent.
`
`As a result of Zoll’s infringement of the ’978 patent, Philips has been irreparably
`
`injured. Unless such infringing acts are enjoined by this Court, Philips will continue to suffer
`
`additional irreparable injury.
`
`11
`
`
`
`Page 11 of 21
`
`
`
`Case 1:10-cv-11041-NMG Document 1 Filed 06/18/10 Page 12 of 21
`
`75.
`
`As a result of Zoll’s infringement of the ’978 patent, Philips has suffered, and
`
`continues to suffer, damages, in an amount not yet determined, of at least a reasonable royalty
`
`and/or lost profits due to loss of sales, profits, and potential sales that Philips would have made
`
`but for Zoll’s infringing acts.
`
`76.
`
`In a letter dated November 17, 2008, Philips provided notice to Zoll of the ’978
`
`patent and its infringing conduct.
`
`77.
`
`Despite knowledge of the ’978 patent, Zoll has continued to infringe this patent.
`
`Zoll acted with reckless disregard of the ’978 patent by continuing to infringe the patent when it
`
`knew or should have known that its actions constituted infringement.
`
`COUNT 9: PATENT INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,879,374
`
`Philips incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-13 as if fully set forth herein.
`
`On March 9, 1999, the USPTO duly and legally issued United States Patent No.
`
`78.
`
`79.
`
`5,879,374 (“the ’374 patent”), entitled “External Defibrillator with Automatic Self-Testing Prior
`
`to Use,” to the listed inventor Daniel J. Powers of Bainbridge, Washington, and other co-
`
`inventors in Washington. Plaintiff Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. is the assignee and
`
`owner of the ’374 patent, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit I.
`
`80.
`
`Upon information and belief, Zoll has infringed and continues to infringe the ’374
`
`patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), (b), and/or (c), by making, using, offering for sale, selling,
`
`and/or importing in the United States automated external defibrillators, including the AED Plus
`
`and AED Pro automated external defibrillators, and by contributing to and/or inducing
`
`infringement of the ’374 patent.
`
`81.
`
`Zoll does not have a license or permission to use the ’374 patent.
`
`12
`
`
`
`Page 12 of 21
`
`
`
`Case 1:10-cv-11041-NMG Document 1 Filed 06/18/10 Page 13 of 21
`
`82.
`
`As a result of Zoll’s infringement of the ’374 patent, Philips has been irreparably
`
`injured. Unless such infringing acts are enjoined by this Court, Philips will continue to suffer
`
`additional irreparable injury.
`
`83.
`
`As a result of Zoll’s infringement of the ’374 patent, Philips has suffered, and
`
`continues to suffer, damages, in an amount not yet determined, of at least a reasonable royalty
`
`and/or lost profits due to loss of sales, profits, and potential sales that Philips would have made
`
`but for Zoll’s infringing acts.
`
`84.
`
`In a letter dated November 17, 2008, Philips provided notice to Zoll of the ’374
`
`patent and its infringing conduct.
`
`85.
`
`Despite knowledge of the ’374 patent, Zoll has continued to infringe this patent.
`
`Zoll acted with reckless disregard of the ’374 patent by continuing to infringe the patent when it
`
`knew or should have known that its actions constituted infringement.
`
`COUNT 10: PATENT INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,047,212
`
`Philips incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-13 as if fully set forth herein.
`
`On April 4, 2000, the USPTO duly and legally issued United States Patent No.
`
`86.
`
`87.
`
`6,047,212 (“the ’212 patent”), entitled “External Defibrillator Capable of Delivering Patient
`
`Impedance Compensated Biphasic Waveforms,” to the listed inventor Bradford E. Gliner of
`
`Bellevue, Washington, and other co-inventors in Washington. Plaintiff Koninklijke Philips
`
`Electronics N.V. is the assignee and owner of the ’212 patent, a copy of which is attached as
`
`Exhibit J.
`
`88.
`
`Upon information and belief, Zoll has infringed and continues to infringe the ’212
`
`patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), (b), and/or (c), by making, using, offering for sale, selling,
`
`and/or importing in the United States automated external defibrillators, including the AED Plus
`
`13
`
`
`
`Page 13 of 21
`
`
`
`Case 1:10-cv-11041-NMG Document 1 Filed 06/18/10 Page 14 of 21
`
`and AED Pro automated external defibrillators, and by contributing to and/or inducing
`
`infringement of the ’212 patent.
`
`89.
`
`90.
`
`Zoll does not have a license or permission to use the ’212 patent.
`
`As a result of Zoll’s infringement of the ’212 patent, Philips has been irreparably
`
`injured. Unless such infringing acts are enjoined by this Court, Philips will continue to suffer
`
`additional irreparable injury.
`
`91.
`
`As a result of Zoll’s infringement of the ’212 patent, Philips has suffered, and
`
`continues to suffer, damages, in an amount not yet determined, of at least a reasonable royalty
`
`and/or lost profits due to loss of sales, profits, and potential sales that Philips would have made
`
`but for Zoll’s infringing acts.
`
`92.
`
`In a letter dated November 17, 2008, Philips provided notice to Zoll of the ’212
`
`patent and its infringing conduct.
`
`93.
`
`Despite knowledge of the ’212 patent, Zoll has continued to infringe this patent.
`
`Zoll acted with reckless disregard of the ’212 patent by continuing to infringe the patent when it
`
`knew or should have known that its actions constituted infringement.
`
`COUNT 11: PATENT INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,178,357
`
`Philips incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-13 as if fully set forth herein.
`
`On January 23, 2001, the USPTO duly and legally issued United States Patent No.
`
`94.
`
`95.
`
`6,178,357 B1 (“the ’357 patent”), entitled “Electrode Pad System and Defibrillator Electrode Pad
`
`That Reduces the Risk of Peripheral Shock,” to the listed inventor Bradford E. Gliner of
`
`Bellevue, Washington, and other co-inventors in Washington and other locations. Plaintiff
`
`Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. is the assignee and owner of the ’357 patent, a copy of
`
`which is attached as Exhibit K.
`
`14
`
`
`
`Page 14 of 21
`
`
`
`Case 1:10-cv-11041-NMG Document 1 Filed 06/18/10 Page 15 of 21
`
`96.
`
`Upon information and belief, Zoll has infringed and continues to infringe the ’357
`
`patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), (b), and/or (c), by making, using, offering for sale, selling,
`
`and/or importing in the United States infringing products including Zoll’s CPR-D Padz and
`
`automated external defibrillators, including the AED Plus and AED Pro automated external
`
`defibrillators, and by contributing to and/or inducing infringement of the ’357 patent.
`
`97.
`
`98.
`
`Zoll does not have a license or permission to use the ’357 patent.
`
`As a result of Zoll’s infringement of the ’357 patent, Philips has been irreparably
`
`injured. Unless such infringing acts are enjoined by this Court, Philips will continue to suffer
`
`additional irreparable injury.
`
`99.
`
`As a result of Zoll’s infringement of the ’357 patent, Philips has suffered, and
`
`continues to suffer, damages, in an amount not yet determined, of at least a reasonable royalty
`
`and/or lost profits due to loss of sales, profits, and potential sales that Philips would have made
`
`but for Zoll’s infringing acts.
`
`100.
`
`In a letter dated November 17, 2008, Philips provided notice to Zoll of the ’357
`
`patent and its infringing conduct.
`
`101. Despite knowledge of the ’357 patent, Zoll has continued to infringe this patent.
`
`Zoll acted with reckless disregard of the ’357 patent by continuing to infringe the patent when it
`
`knew or should have known that its actions constituted infringement.
`
`COUNT 12: PATENT INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,304,783
`
`102. Philips incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-13 as if fully set forth herein.
`
`103. On October 16, 2001, the USPTO duly and legally issued United States Patent
`
`No. 6,304,783 B1 (“the ’783 patent”), entitled “Defibrillator System Including a Removable
`
`Monitoring Electrodes Adapter and Method of Detecting the Monitoring Adapter,” to the listed
`
`15
`
`
`
`Page 15 of 21
`
`
`
`Case 1:10-cv-11041-NMG Document 1 Filed 06/18/10 Page 16 of 21
`
`inventor Thomas D. Lyster of Bothell, Washington, and other co-inventors in Washington.
`
`Plaintiff Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. is the assignee and owner of the ’783 patent, a
`
`copy of which is attached as Exhibit L.
`
`104. Upon information and belief, Zoll has infringed and continues to infringe the ’783
`
`patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), (b), and/or (c), by making, using, offering for sale, selling,
`
`and/or importing in the United States automated external defibrillators, including the AED Pro
`
`automated external defibrillators, and by contributing to and/or inducing infringement of the
`
`’783 patent.
`
`105. Zoll does not have a license or permission to use the ’783 patent.
`
`106. As a result of Zoll’s infringement of the ’783 patent, Philips has been irreparably
`
`injured. Unless such infringing acts are enjoined by this Court, Philips will continue to suffer
`
`additional irreparable injury.
`
`107. As a result of Zoll’s infringement of the ’783 patent, Philips has suffered, and
`
`continues to suffer, damages, in an amount not yet determined, of at least a reasonable royalty
`
`and/or lost profits due to loss of sales, profits, and potential sales that Philips would have made
`
`but for Zoll’s infringing acts.
`
`108.
`
`In a letter dated November 17, 2008, Philips provided notice to Zoll of the ’783
`
`patent and its infringing conduct.
`
`109. Despite knowledge of the ’783 patent, Zoll has continued to infringe this patent.
`
`Zoll acted with reckless disregard of the ’783 patent by continuing to infringe the patent when it
`
`knew or should have known that its actions constituted infringement.
`
`COUNT 13: PATENT INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,356,785
`
`110. Philips incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-13 as if fully set forth herein.
`
`16
`
`
`
`Page 16 of 21
`
`
`
`Case 1:10-cv-11041-NMG Document 1 Filed 06/18/10 Page 17 of 21
`
`111. On March 12, 2002, the USPTO duly and legally issued United States Patent No.
`
`6,356,785 B1 (“the ’785 patent”), entitled “External Defibrillator with CPR Prompts and ACLS
`
`Prompts and Methods of Use,” to the listed inventor Cecily Anne Snyder of San Francisco,
`
`California, and other co-inventors in other locations. Plaintiff Koninklijke Philips Electronics
`
`N.V. is the assignee and owner of the ’785 patent, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit M.
`
`112. Upon information and belief, Zoll has infringed and continues to infringe the ’785
`
`patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), (b), and/or (c), by making, using, offering for sale, selling,
`
`and/or importing in the United States infringing products including Zoll’s CPR-D Padz and
`
`automated external defibrillators, including the AED Plus and AED Pro automated external
`
`defibrillators, and by contributing to and/or inducing infringement of the ’785 patent.
`
`113. Zoll does not have a license or permission to use the ’785 patent.
`
`114. As a result of Zoll’s infringement of the ’785 patent, Philips has been irreparably
`
`injured. Unless such infringing acts are enjoined by this Court, Philips will continue to suffer
`
`additional irreparable injury.
`
`115. As a result of Zoll’s infringement of the ’785 patent, Philips has suffered, and
`
`continues to suffer, damages, in an amount not yet determined, of at least a reasonable royalty
`
`and/or lost profits due to loss of sales, profits, and potential sales that Philips would have made
`
`but for Zoll’s infringing acts.
`
`116.
`
`In a letter dated November 17, 2008, Philips provided notice to Zoll of the ’785
`
`patent and its infringing conduct.
`
`117. Despite knowledge of the ’785 patent, Zoll has continued to infringe this patent.
`
`Zoll acted with reckless disregard of the ’785 patent by continuing to infringe the patent when it
`
`knew or should have known that its actions constituted infringement.
`
`17
`
`
`
`Page 17 of 21
`
`
`
`Case 1:10-cv-11041-NMG Document 1 Filed 06/18/10 Page 18 of 21
`
`COUNT 14: PATENT INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,441,582
`
`118. Philips incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-13 as if fully set forth herein.
`
`119. On August 27, 2002, the USPTO duly and legally issued United States Patent No.
`
`6,441,582 B1 (“the ’582 patent”), entitled “Battery Arrangement for Improved Defibrillator
`
`Safe
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
