`
`
`
`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-cv-11041-NMG
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`AMENDED 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.
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 24
`
`Philips Exhibit 2003
`Zoll Lifecor v. Philips
`IPR2013-00618
`
`
`
`Case 1:10-cv-11041-NMG Document 7 Filed 10/13/10 Page 2 of 24
`
`
`
`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 the assignee and owner of 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 24
`
`
`
`Case 1:10-cv-11041-NMG Document 7 Filed 10/13/10 Page 3 of 24
`
`
`
`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. By assignment from the previous patent
`
`owner, Plaintiff Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. was the assignee and owner of the ’454
`
`patent, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A, until August 18, 2010, when it assigned the
`
`’454 patent to Plaintiff Philips Electronics North America Corporation.
`
`16.
`
`Upon information and belief, Philips and its predecessors, including Heartstream,
`
`Inc., Hewlett-Packard Company, and Agilent Technologies, Inc., have continuously marked their
`
`products with the ’454 patent number.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 24
`
`
`
`Case 1:10-cv-11041-NMG Document 7 Filed 10/13/10 Page 4 of 24
`
`
`
`17.
`
`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.
`
`18.
`
`19.
`
`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.
`
`20.
`
`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.
`
`21.
`
`In a letter dated November 17, 2008, Philips provided notice to Zoll of the ’454
`
`patent and its infringing conduct.
`
`22.
`
`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
`
`23.
`
`24.
`
`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
`
`4
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 24
`
`
`
`Case 1:10-cv-11041-NMG Document 7 Filed 10/13/10 Page 5 of 24
`
`
`listed inventor Carl E. Benvegar of McMinnville, Oregon, and other co-inventors in Oregon and
`
`Washington. By assignment from the previous patent owner, Plaintiff Koninklijke Philips
`
`Electronics N.V. was the assignee and owner of the ’482 patent, a copy of which is attached as
`
`Exhibit B, until August 18, 2010, when it assigned the ’482 patent to Plaintiff Philips Electronics
`
`North America Corporation.
`
`25.
`
`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,
`
`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.
`
`26.
`
`27.
`
`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.
`
`28.
`
`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.
`
`29.
`
`In a letter dated November 17, 2008, Philips provided notice to Zoll of the ’482
`
`patent and its infringing conduct.
`
`30.
`
`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.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 24
`
`
`
`Case 1:10-cv-11041-NMG Document 7 Filed 10/13/10 Page 6 of 24
`
`
`
`31.
`
`32.
`
`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.
`
`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. By assignment from the previous patent owner, Plaintiff Koninklijke Philips
`
`Electronics N.V. was the assignee and owner of the ’879 patent, a copy of which is attached as
`
`Exhibit C, until August 18, 2010, when it assigned the ’879 patent to Plaintiff Philips Electronics
`
`North America Corporation.
`
`33.
`
`Upon information and belief, Philips and its predecessors, including Heartstream,
`
`Inc., Hewlett-Packard Company, and Agilent Technologies, Inc., have continuously marked their
`
`products with the ’879 patent number.
`
`34.
`
`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.
`
`35.
`
`36.
`
`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.
`
`37.
`
`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
`
`6
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 24
`
`
`
`Case 1:10-cv-11041-NMG Document 7 Filed 10/13/10 Page 7 of 24
`
`
`and/or lost profits due to loss of sales, profits, and potential sales that Philips would have made
`
`but for Zoll’s infringing acts.
`
`38.
`
`In a letter dated November 17, 2008, Philips provided notice to Zoll of the ’879
`
`patent and its infringing conduct.
`
`39.
`
`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.
`
`40.
`
`41.
`
`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
`
`other co-inventors in Washington. By assignment from the previous patent owner, Plaintiff
`
`Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. was the assignee and owner of the ’905 patent, a copy of
`
`which is attached as Exhibit D, until August 18, 2010, when it assigned the ’905 patent to
`
`Plaintiff Philips Electronics North America Corporation.
`
`42.
`
`Upon information and belief, Philips and its predecessors, including Heartstream,
`
`Inc., Hewlett-Packard Company, and Agilent Technologies, Inc., have continuously marked their
`
`products with the ’905 patent number.
`
`43.
`
`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
`
`7
`
`
`
`Page 7 of 24
`
`
`
`Case 1:10-cv-11041-NMG Document 7 Filed 10/13/10 Page 8 of 24
`
`
`and AED Pro automated external defibrillators, and by contributing to and/or inducing
`
`infringement of the ’905 patent.
`
`44.
`
`45.
`
`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.
`
`46.
`
`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.
`
`47.
`
`In a letter dated November 17, 2008, Philips provided notice to Zoll of the ’905
`
`patent and its infringing conduct.
`
`48.
`
`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
`
`Philips incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-13 as if fully set forth herein.
`
`On June 30, 1998, the USPTO duly and legally issued United States Patent No.
`
`49.
`
`50.
`
`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. By
`
`assignment from the previous patent owner, Plaintiff Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. was
`
`the assignee and owner of the ’961 patent, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit E, until August
`
`8
`
`
`
`Page 8 of 24
`
`
`
`Case 1:10-cv-11041-NMG Document 7 Filed 10/13/10 Page 9 of 24
`
`
`18, 2010, when it assigned the ’961 patent to Plaintiff Philips Electronics North America
`
`Corporation.
`
`51.
`
`Upon information and belief, Philips and its predecessors, including Heartstream,
`
`Inc., Hewlett-Packard Company, and Agilent Technologies, Inc., have continuously marked their
`
`products with the ’961 patent number.
`
`52.
`
`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.
`
`53.
`
`54.
`
`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.
`
`55.
`
`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.
`
`56.
`
`In a letter dated November 17, 2008, Philips provided notice to Zoll of the ’961
`
`patent and its infringing conduct.
`
`57.
`
`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.
`
`9
`
`
`
`Page 9 of 24
`
`
`
`Case 1:10-cv-11041-NMG Document 7 Filed 10/13/10 Page 10 of 24
`
`
`
`58.
`
`59.
`
`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
`
`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. By assignment from the previous patent owner, Plaintiff Koninklijke Philips
`
`Electronics N.V. was the assignee and owner of the ’460 patent, a copy of which is attached as
`
`Exhibit F, until August 18, 2010, when it assigned the ’460 patent to Plaintiff Philips Electronics
`
`North America Corporation.
`
`60.
`
`Upon information and belief, Philips and its predecessors, including Heartstream,
`
`Inc., Hewlett-Packard Company, and Agilent Technologies, Inc., have continuously marked their
`
`products with the ’460 patent number.
`
`61.
`
`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.
`
`62.
`
`63.
`
`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.
`
`64.
`
`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
`
`10
`
`
`
`Page 10 of 24
`
`
`
`Case 1:10-cv-11041-NMG Document 7 Filed 10/13/10 Page 11 of 24
`
`
`and/or lost profits due to loss of sales, profits, and potential sales that Philips would have made
`
`but for Zoll’s infringing acts.
`
`65.
`
`In a letter dated November 17, 2008, Philips provided notice to Zoll of the ’460
`
`patent and its infringing conduct.
`
`66.
`
`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
`
`67.
`
`68.
`
`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. By assignment from the previous patent owner, Plaintiff Koninklijke
`
`Philips Electronics N.V. was the assignee and owner of the ’927 patent, a copy of which is
`
`attached as Exhibit G, until August 18, 2010, when it assigned the ’927 patent to Plaintiff Philips
`
`Electronics North America Corporation.
`
`69.
`
`Upon information and belief, Philips and its predecessors, including Heartstream,
`
`Inc., Hewlett-Packard Company, and Agilent Technologies, Inc., have continuously marked their
`
`products with the ’927 patent number.
`
`70.
`
`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
`
`11
`
`
`
`Page 11 of 24
`
`
`
`Case 1:10-cv-11041-NMG Document 7 Filed 10/13/10 Page 12 of 24
`
`
`and AED Pro automated external defibrillators, and by contributing to and/or inducing
`
`infringement of the ’927 patent.
`
`71.
`
`72.
`
`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.
`
`73.
`
`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.
`
`74.
`
`In a letter dated November 17, 2008, Philips provided notice to Zoll of the ’927
`
`patent and its infringing conduct.
`
`75.
`
`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
`
`76.
`
`77.
`
`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. By
`
`assignment from the previous patent owner, Plaintiff Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. was
`
`the assignee and owner of the ’978 patent, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit H, until August
`
`12
`
`
`
`Page 12 of 24
`
`
`
`Case 1:10-cv-11041-NMG Document 7 Filed 10/13/10 Page 13 of 24
`
`
`18, 2010, when it assigned the ’978 patent to Plaintiff Philips Electronics North America
`
`Corporation.
`
`78.
`
`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.
`
`79.
`
`80.
`
`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.
`
`81.
`
`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.
`
`82.
`
`In a letter dated November 17, 2008, Philips provided notice to Zoll of the ’978
`
`patent and its infringing conduct.
`
`83.
`
`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
`
`84.
`
`Philips incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-13 as if fully set forth herein.
`
`13
`
`
`
`Page 13 of 24
`
`
`
`Case 1:10-cv-11041-NMG Document 7 Filed 10/13/10 Page 14 of 24
`
`
`
`85.
`
`On March 9, 1999, the USPTO duly and legally issued United States Patent No.
`
`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. By assignment from the previous patent owner, Plaintiff Koninklijke
`
`Philips Electronics N.V. is the assignee and owner of the ’374 patent, a copy of which is attached
`
`as Exhibit I, until August 18, 2010, when it assigned the ’374 patent to Plaintiff Philips
`
`Electronics North America Corporation.
`
`86.
`
`Upon information and belief, Philips and its predecessors, including Heartstream,
`
`Inc., Hewlett-Packard Company, and Agilent Technologies, Inc., have continuously marked their
`
`products with the ’374 patent number.
`
`87.
`
`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.
`
`88.
`
`89.
`
`Zoll does not have a license or permission to use the ’374 patent.
`
`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.
`
`90.
`
`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.
`
`14
`
`
`
`Page 14 of 24
`
`
`
`Case 1:10-cv-11041-NMG Document 7 Filed 10/13/10 Page 15 of 24
`
`
`
`91.
`
`In a letter dated November 17, 2008, Philips provided notice to Zoll of the ’374
`
`patent and its infringing conduct.
`
`92.
`
`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.
`
`93.
`
`94.
`
`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. By assignment from the previous
`
`patent owner, Plaintiff Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. was the assignee and owner of the
`
`’212 patent, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit J, until August 18, 2010, when it assigned the
`
`’212 patent to Plaintiff Philips Electronics North America Corporation.
`
`95.
`
`Upon information and belief, Philips has continuously marked its products with
`
`the ’212 patent number.
`
`96.
`
`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
`
`and AED Pro automated external defibrillators, and by contributing to and/or inducing
`
`infringement of the ’212 patent.
`
`97.
`
`Zoll does not have a license or permission to use the ’212 patent.
`
`15
`
`
`
`Page 15 of 24
`
`
`
`Case 1:10-cv-11041-NMG Document 7 Filed 10/13/10 Page 16 of 24
`
`
`
`98.
`
`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.
`
`99.
`
`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.
`
`100.
`
`In a letter dated November 17, 2008, Philips provided notice to Zoll of the ’212
`
`patent and its infringing conduct.
`
`101. 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
`
`102. Philips incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-13 as if fully set forth herein.
`
`103. On January 23, 2001, the USPTO duly and legally issued United States Patent No.
`
`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. By
`
`assignment from the previous patent owner, Plaintiff Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. was
`
`the assignee and owner of the ’357 patent, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit K, until August
`
`18, 2010, when it assigned the ’357 patent to Plaintiff Philips Electronics North America
`
`Corporation.
`
`16
`
`
`
`Page 16 of 24
`
`
`
`Case 1:10-cv-11041-NMG Document 7 Filed 10/13/10 Page 17 of 24
`
`
`
`104. 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.
`
`105. Zoll does not have a license or permission to use the ’357 patent.
`
`106. 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.
`
`107. 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.
`
`108.
`
`In a letter dated November 17, 2008, Philips provided notice to Zoll of the ’357
`
`patent and its infringing conduct.
`
`109. 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
`
`110. Philips incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-13 as if fully set forth herein.
`
`111. 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
`
`17
`
`
`
`Page 17 of 24
`
`
`
`Case 1:10-cv-11041-NMG Document 7 Filed 10/13/10 Page 18 of 24
`
`
`inventor Thomas D. Lyster of Bothell, Washington, and other co-inventors in Washington. By
`
`assignment from the previous patent owner, Plaintiff Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. is the
`
`assignee and owner of the ’783 patent, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit L, until August 18,
`
`2010, when it assigned the ’783 patent to Plaintiff Philips Electronics North America
`
`Corporation.
`
`112. 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