Case 1:10-cv-11041-NMG Document 15 Filed 07/18/11 Page 1 of 43
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
`
`
`
`KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS ELECTRONICS N.V.
`and PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NORTH
`AMERICA CORPORATION,
`
` Plaintiffs/Counterclaim-Defendants,
`
`v.
`
`ZOLL MEDICAL CORPORATION
`
` Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff.
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 1:10-cv-11041-NMG
`
`DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`Defendant ZOLL Medical Corporation (“ZOLL”) hereby answers the Amended Complaint of
`Plaintiffs Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. and Philips Electronics North America
`Corporation (collectively “Philips”) as follows. ZOLL denies all allegations that it does not
`expressly admit below.
`
`NATURE OF ACTION
`
`COMPLAINT PARA. 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”).
`
`ANSWER: This paragraph does not require a response from ZOLL. To the extent a response is
`called for, ZOLL denies the allegations of this paragraph.
`
`PARTIES
`
`COMPLAINT PARA. 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.
`
`ANSWER: ZOLL lacks knowledge sufficient to confirm or deny the allegations of this
`Paragraph, and therefore denies them.
`
`
`
`Philips Exhibit 2020
`Zoll Lifecor v. Philips
`IPR2013-00618
`
`Page 1 of 43
`
`

`

`Case 1:10-cv-11041-NMG Document 15 Filed 07/18/11 Page 2 of 43
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT PARA. 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.
`
`ANSWER: ZOLL lacks knowledge sufficient to confirm or deny the allegations of this
`Paragraph, and therefore denies them.
`
`COMPLAINT PARA. 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.
`
`ANSWER: Admitted.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`COMPLAINT PARA. 5: This is an action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws
`of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 271, et seq.
`
`ANSWER: ZOLL admits that the Philips Complaint purports to bring an action for patent
`infringement, and that such actions arise under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of
`the United States Code. ZOLL denies the other allegations of this Paragraph.
`
`COMPLAINT PARA. 6: This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28
`U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338.
`
`ANSWER: Denied, on the ground that, on information and belief, one or both of the plaintiffs
`lack standing to bring this action with regard to some or all of the patents-in-suit.
`
`COMPLAINT PARA. 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.
`
`ANSWER: Admitted.
`
`COMPLAINT PARA. 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.
`
`ANSWER: ZOLL lacks knowledge sufficient to confirm or deny the allegations of this
`Paragraph, and therefore denies them.
`
`
`
`2
`
`Page 2 of 43
`
`

`

`Case 1:10-cv-11041-NMG Document 15 Filed 07/18/11 Page 3 of 43
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT PARA. 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.
`
`ANSWER: Admitted.
`
`COMPLAINT PARA. 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.
`
`ANSWER: Admitted.
`
`COMPLAINT PARA. 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.
`
`ANSWER: Denied.
`
`COMPLAINT PARA. 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.
`
`ANSWER: Admitted.
`
`COMPLAINT PARA. 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.
`
`ANSWER: Admitted.
`
`COUNT 1: ALLEGED INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,607,454
`
`COMPLAINT PARA. 14: Philips incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-13 as if fully set forth
`herein.
`
`ANSWER: ZOLL incorporates by reference its answers to paragraphs 1–13 as if fully set forth
`herein.
`
`
`
`3
`
`Page 3 of 43
`
`

`

`Case 1:10-cv-11041-NMG Document 15 Filed 07/18/11 Page 4 of 43
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT PARA. 15: On March 4, 1997, the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`(“USPTO”) 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.
`
`ANSWER: ZOLL admits that United States Patent No. 5,607,454 (“the ’454 patent”) is titled
`“Electrotherapy Method and Apparatus” and on its face lists David Cameron and other
`individuals in Washington as inventors. ZOLL denies that the ’454 patent was duly and legally
`issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. ZOLL lacks knowledge sufficient to
`confirm or deny the other allegations of this Paragraph, and therefore denies them.
`
`COMPLAINT PARA. 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.
`
`ANSWER: Denied.
`
`COMPLAINT PARA. 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.
`
`ANSWER: Denied.
`
`COMPLAINT PARA. 18: Zoll does not have a license or permission to use the ’454 patent.
`
`ANSWER: Denied. See affirmative defenses 7–9.
`
`COMPLAINT PARA. 19: 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.
`
`ANSWER: Denied.
`
`COMPLAINT PARA. 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.
`
`ANSWER: Denied.
`
`
`
`4
`
`Page 4 of 43
`
`

`

`Case 1:10-cv-11041-NMG Document 15 Filed 07/18/11 Page 5 of 43
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT PARA. 21: In a letter dated November 17, 2008, Philips provided notice to Zoll
`of the ’454 patent and its infringing conduct.
`
`ANSWER: ZOLL admits that it received a letter from Philips dated November 17, 2008. ZOLL
`denies the other allegations of this paragraph.
`
`COMPLAINT PARA. 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.
`
`ANSWER: Denied.
`
`COUNT 2: ALLEGED INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,721,482
`
`COMPLAINT PARA. 23: Philips incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-13 as if fully set forth
`herein.
`
`ANSWER: ZOLL incorporates by reference its answers to paragraphs 1–13 as if fully set forth
`herein.
`
`COMPLAINT PARA. 24: 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. 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.
`
`ANSWER: ZOLL admits that United States Patent No. 5,721,482 (“the ’482 patent”) is titled
`“Intelligent Battery and Method for Providing an Advance Low Battery Warning for a Battery
`Powered Device such as a Defibrillator” and on its face lists Carl E. Benvegar of Oregon and
`other individuals in Washington and Oregon as inventors. ZOLL denies that the ’482 patent was
`duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. ZOLL lacks
`knowledge sufficient to confirm or deny the other allegations of this Paragraph, and therefore
`denies them.
`
`COMPLAINT PARA. 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.
`
`ANSWER: Denied.
`
`
`
`5
`
`Page 5 of 43
`
`

`

`Case 1:10-cv-11041-NMG Document 15 Filed 07/18/11 Page 6 of 43
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT PARA. 26: Zoll does not have a license or permission to use the ’482 patent.
`
`ANSWER: Denied. See affirmative defenses 7–9.
`
`COMPLAINT PARA. 27: 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.
`
`ANSWER: Denied.
`
`COMPLAINT PARA. 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.
`
`ANSWER: Denied.
`
`COMPLAINT PARA. 29: In a letter dated November 17, 2008, Philips provided notice to Zoll
`of the ’482 patent and its infringing conduct.
`
`ANSWER: ZOLL admits that it received a letter from Philips dated November 17, 2008. ZOLL
`denies the other allegations of this paragraph.
`
`COMPLAINT PARA. 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.
`
`ANSWER: Denied.
`
`COUNT 3: ALLEGED INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,735,879
`
`COMPLAINT PARA. 31: Philips incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-13 as if fully set forth
`herein.
`
`ANSWER: ZOLL incorporates by reference its answers to paragraphs 1–13 as if fully set forth
`herein.
`
`
`
`6
`
`Page 6 of 43
`
`

`

`Case 1:10-cv-11041-NMG Document 15 Filed 07/18/11 Page 7 of 43
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT PARA. 32: 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.
`
`ANSWER: ZOLL admits that United States Patent No. 5,735,879 (“the ’879 patent”) is titled
`“Electrotherapy Method for External Defibrillators” and on its face lists Bradford E. Gliner and
`other individuals in Washington as inventors. ZOLL denies that the ’879 patent was duly and
`legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. ZOLL lacks knowledge
`sufficient to confirm or deny the other allegations of this Paragraph, and therefore denies them.
`
`COMPLAINT PARA. 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.
`
`ANSWER: Denied.
`
`COMPLAINT PARA. 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.
`
`ANSWER: Denied.
`
`COMPLAINT PARA. 35: Zoll does not have a license or permission to use the ’879 patent.
`
`ANSWER: Denied. See affirmative defenses 7–9..
`
`COMPLAINT PARA. 36: 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.
`
`ANSWER: Denied.
`
`COMPLAINT PARA. 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 and/or lost profits due to loss of sales, profits, and potential sales that Philips
`would have made but for Zoll’s infringing acts.
`
`ANSWER: Denied.
`
`
`
`7
`
`Page 7 of 43
`
`

`

`Case 1:10-cv-11041-NMG Document 15 Filed 07/18/11 Page 8 of 43
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT PARA. 38: In a letter dated November 17, 2008, Philips provided notice to Zoll
`of the ’879 patent and its infringing conduct.
`
`ANSWER: ZOLL admits that it received a letter from Philips dated November 17, 2008. ZOLL
`denies the other allegations of this paragraph.
`
`COMPLAINT PARA. 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.
`
`ANSWER: Denied.
`
`COUNT 4: ALLEGED INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,749,905
`
`COMPLAINT PARA. 40: Philips incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-13 as if fully set forth
`herein.
`
`ANSWER: ZOLL incorporates by reference its answers to paragraphs 1–13 as if fully set forth
`herein.
`
`COMPLAINT PARA. 41: On May 12, 1998, the USPTO duly and legally issued United States
`Patent No. 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.
`
`ANSWER: ZOLL admits that United States Patent No. 5,749,905 (“the ’905 patent”) is titled
`“Electrotherapy Method Utilizing Patient Dependent Electrical Parameters” and on its face lists
`Bradford E. Gliner and other individuals in Washington as inventors. ZOLL denies that the ’905
`patent was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. ZOLL
`lacks knowledge sufficient to confirm or deny the other allegations of this Paragraph, and
`therefore denies them.
`
`COMPLAINT PARA. 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.
`
`ANSWER: Denied.
`
`COMPLAINT PARA. 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
`
`
`
`8
`
`Page 8 of 43
`
`

`

`Case 1:10-cv-11041-NMG Document 15 Filed 07/18/11 Page 9 of 43
`
`
`
`the AED Plus and AED Pro automated external defibrillators, and by contributing to and/or
`inducing infringement of the ’905 patent.
`
`ANSWER: Denied.
`
`COMPLAINT PARA. 44: Zoll does not have a license or permission to use the ’905 patent.
`
`ANSWER: Denied. See affirmative defenses 7–9.
`
`COMPLAINT PARA. 45: 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.
`
`ANSWER: Denied.
`
`COMPLAINT PARA. 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.
`
`ANSWER: Denied.
`
`COMPLAINT PARA. 47: In a letter dated November 17, 2008, Philips provided notice to Zoll
`of the ’905 patent and its infringing conduct.
`
`ANSWER: ZOLL admits that it received a letter from Philips dated November 17, 2008. ZOLL
`denies the other allegations of this paragraph.
`
`COMPLAINT PARA. 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.
`
`ANSWER: Denied.
`
`COUNT 5: ALLEGED INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,773,961
`
`COMPLAINT PARA. 49: Philips incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-13 as if fully set forth
`herein.
`
`ANSWER: ZOLL incorporates by reference its answers to paragraphs 1–13 as if fully set forth
`herein.
`
`COMPLAINT PARA. 50: 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
`
`
`
`9
`
`Page 9 of 43
`
`

`

`Case 1:10-cv-11041-NMG Document 15 Filed 07/18/11 Page 10 of 43
`
`
`
`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 18, 2010, when it assigned the ’961 patent to Plaintiff Philips Electronics
`North America Corporation.
`
`ANSWER: ZOLL admits that United States Patent No. 5,773,961 is titled “Dynamic Load
`Controller for a Battery” and on its face lists David B. Cameron and other individuals in
`Washington as inventors. ZOLL denies that the ’961 patent was duly and legally issued by the
`United States Patent and Trademark Office. ZOLL lacks knowledge sufficient to confirm or deny
`the other allegations of this Paragraph, and therefore denies them.
`
`COMPLAINT PARA. 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.
`
`ANSWER: Denied.
`
`COMPLAINT PARA. 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.
`
`ANSWER: Denied.
`
`COMPLAINT PARA. 53: Zoll does not have a license or permission to use the ’961 patent.
`
`ANSWER: Denied. See affirmative defenses 7–9.
`
`COMPLAINT PARA. 54: 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.
`
`ANSWER: Denied.
`
`COMPLAINT PARA. 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.
`
`ANSWER: Denied.
`
`
`
`10
`
`Page 10 of 43
`
`

`

`Case 1:10-cv-11041-NMG Document 15 Filed 07/18/11 Page 11 of 43
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT PARA. 56: In a letter dated November 17, 2008, Philips provided notice to Zoll
`of the ’961 patent and its infringing conduct.
`
`ANSWER: ZOLL admits that it received a letter from Philips dated November 17, 2008. ZOLL
`denies the other allegations of this paragraph.
`
`COMPLAINT PARA. 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.
`
`ANSWER: Denied.
`
`COUNT 6: ALLEGED INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,800,460
`
`COMPLAINT PARA. 58: Philips incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-13 as if fully set forth
`herein.
`
`ANSWER: ZOLL incorporates by reference its answers to paragraphs 1–13 as if fully set forth
`herein.
`
`COMPLAINT PARA. 59: 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.
`
`ANSWER: ZOLL admits that United States Patent No. 5,800,460 (“the ’460 patent”) is titled
`“Method for Performing Self-Test in a Defibrillator,” and on its face lists Daniel J. Powers and
`other individuals in Washington as inventors. ZOLL denies that the ’460 patent was duly and
`legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. ZOLL lacks knowledge
`sufficient to confirm or deny the other allegations of this Paragraph, and therefore denies them.
`
`COMPLAINT PARA. 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.
`
`ANSWER: Denied.
`
`
`
`11
`
`Page 11 of 43
`
`

`

`Case 1:10-cv-11041-NMG Document 15 Filed 07/18/11 Page 12 of 43
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT PARA. 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.
`
`ANSWER: Denied.
`
`COMPLAINT PARA. 62: Zoll does not have a license or permission to use the ’460 patent.
`
`ANSWER: Denied. See affirmative defenses 7–9.
`
`COMPLAINT PARA. 63: 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.
`
`ANSWER: Denied.
`
`COMPLAINT PARA. 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 and/or lost profits due to loss of sales, profits, and potential sales that Philips
`would have made but for Zoll’s infringing acts.
`
`ANSWER: Denied.
`
`COMPLAINT PARA. 65: In a letter dated November 17, 2008, Philips provided notice to Zoll
`of the ’460 patent and its infringing conduct.
`
`ANSWER: ZOLL admits that it received a letter from Philips dated November 17, 2008. ZOLL
`denies the other allegations of this paragraph.
`
`COMPLAINT PARA. 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.
`
`ANSWER: Denied.
`
`COUNT 7: ALLEGED INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,803,927
`
`COMPLAINT PARA. 67: Philips incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-13 as if fully set forth
`herein.
`
`ANSWER: ZOLL incorporates by reference its answers to paragraphs 1–13 as if fully set forth
`herein.
`
`
`
`12
`
`Page 12 of 43
`
`

`

`Case 1:10-cv-11041-NMG Document 15 Filed 07/18/11 Page 13 of 43
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT PARA. 68: On September 8, 1998, the USPTO duly and legally issued United
`States Patent 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 coinventors 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.
`
`ANSWER: ZOLL admits that United States Patent No. 5,803,927 (“the ’927 patent”) is titled
`“Electrotherapy Method and Apparatus for External Defibrillation,” and on its face lists David
`Cameron and other individuals in Washington as inventors. ZOLL denies that the ’927 patent
`was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. ZOLL lacks
`knowledge sufficient to confirm or deny the other allegations of this Paragraph, and therefore
`denies them.
`
`COMPLAINT PARA. 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.
`
`ANSWER: Denied.
`
`COMPLAINT PARA. 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 and AED Pro automated external defibrillators, and by contributing to and/or
`inducing infringement of the ’927 patent.
`
`ANSWER: Denied.
`
`COMPLAINT PARA. 71: Zoll does not have a license or permission to use the ’927 patent.
`
`ANSWER: Denied. See affirmative defenses 7–9.
`
`COMPLAINT PARA. 72: 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.
`
`ANSWER: Denied.
`
`COMPLAINT PARA. 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.
`
`ANSWER: Denied.
`
`
`
`13
`
`Page 13 of 43
`
`

`

`Case 1:10-cv-11041-NMG Document 15 Filed 07/18/11 Page 14 of 43
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT PARA. 74: In a letter dated November 17, 2008, Philips provided notice to Zoll
`of the ’927 patent and its infringing conduct.
`
`ANSWER: ZOLL admits that it received a letter from Philips dated November 17, 2008. ZOLL
`denies the other allegations of this paragraph.
`
`COMPLAINT PARA. 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.
`
`ANSWER: Denied.
`
`COUNT 8: ALLEGED INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,836,978
`
`COMPLAINT PARA. 76: Philips incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-13 as if fully set forth
`herein.
`
`ANSWER: ZOLL incorporates by reference its answers to paragraphs 1–13 as if fully set forth
`herein.
`
`COMPLAINT PARA. 77: On November 17, 1998, the USPTO duly and legally issued United
`States Patent No. 5,836,978 (“the ’978 patent”), entitled “Electrotherapy Method for Producing a
`Multiphasic Discharge Based upon a Patient-Dependant [sic] 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 18, 2010, when it assigned the ’978 patent to Plaintiff Philips Electronics
`North America Corporation.
`
`ANSWER: ZOLL admits that United States Patent No. 5,836,978 (“the ’978 patent”) is titled
`“Electrotherapy Method for Producing a Multiphasic Discharge Based upon a Patient-Dependent
`Electrical Parameter and Time,” and on its face lists Bradford E. Gliner and other individuals in
`Washington state as inventors. ZOLL denies that the ’978 patent was duly and legally issued by
`the United States Patent and Trademark Office. ZOLL lacks knowledge sufficient to confirm or
`deny the other allegations of this Paragraph, and therefore denies them.
`
`COMPLAINT PARA. 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.
`
`ANSWER: Denied.
`
`
`
`14
`
`Page 14 of 43
`
`

`

`Case 1:10-cv-11041-NMG Document 15 Filed 07/18/11 Page 15 of 43
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT PARA. 79: Zoll does not have a license or permission to use the ’978 patent.
`
`ANSWER: Denied. See affirmative defenses 7–9.
`
`COMPLAINT PARA. 80: 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.
`
`ANSWER: Denied.
`
`COMPLAINT PARA. 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