throbber
Case 1:09-cv-00146-RBK-JS Document 1 Filed 03/05/09 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`JOSEPH NEEV,
`
`
`
`
`
`ABBOTT MEDICAL OPTICS INC.,
`a Delaware corporation; and
`RAINFOREST ACQUISITION INC.,
`a Delaware corporation,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 09-
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`_______________________________________________________________
`
`COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`_______________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`For its Complaint, Plaintiff alleges:
`
`PARTIES
`
`1. Plaintiff Joseph Neev is an individual.
`
`2. Defendant Abbott Medical Optics Inc. ("AMO"), upon information and
`
`belief, is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of
`
`Delaware, and is a successor in interest to Advanced Medical Optics, Inc. On
`
`information and belief, either AMO or its wholly owned and controlled subsidiary
`
`is a successor-in-interest of Intralase Corp.
`
`3. Defendant Rainforest Acquisition Inc. (“Rainforest”) is a corporation
`
`organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delawar, and was an
`
`Alcon Research, Ltd.
`Exhibit 1004 - Page 1
`
`

`

`Case 1:09-cv-00146-RBK-JS Document 1 Filed 03/05/09 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 2
`
`acquisition vehicle by which Abbot Laboratories acquired Advanced Medical
`
`Optics, Inc. On information and belief, Rainforest is now, in fact, known as AMO
`
`by virtue of a name change, but is named as a separate entity out of caution. All
`
`references to AMO in this pleading refer to and include Rainforest.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`4. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and
`
`1338(a).
`
`5. AMO is subject to personal jurisdiction in this District because, upon
`
`information and belief, AMO is a Delaware corporation and is doing and has done
`
`substantial business in this District, including business relating to the sale and
`
`distribution for sale of the infringing products as described below.
`
`6. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b).
`
`COUNT I – PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`7. Mr. Neev incorporates and realleges the allegations of paragraphs 1
`
`through 6 as if fully set forth herein.
`
`8. Mr. Neev is the owner of United States Patent No. 6,482,199 B1 ("the
`
`'199 Patent"), which was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and
`
`Trademark Office on November 19, 2002. A copy of the ‘199 Patent is attached as
`
`Exhibit A to this Complaint.
`
`9. AMO, directly, through wholly owned and controlled subsidiaries, or
`
`both, has infringed, induced infringement of, and contributed to the infringement
`
`Alcon Research, Ltd.
`Exhibit 1004 - Page 2
`
`

`

`Case 1:09-cv-00146-RBK-JS Document 1 Filed 03/05/09 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 3
`
`of one or more claims of the '199 Patent by making, using, selling and/or offering
`
`to sell infringing products and processes.
`
`10. AMO has taken its actions without license from, or permission of, Mr.
`
`Neev.
`
`11. AMO has and has had actual notice of the '199 Patent.
`
`12. AMO has and has had constructive notice of the '199 Patent pursuant to
`
`35 U.S.C. § 287(a).
`
`13. Upon information and belief, AMO's infringement, contributory
`
`infringement, and inducement of infringement of the '199 Patent has been and
`
`continues to be willful and deliberate. As a result, Mr. Neev is entitled to increased
`
`damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 and to attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in
`
`prosecuting this action under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
`
`14. AMO’s infringement of Mr. Neev’s exclusive rights under the ‘199
`
`Patent will continue to damage Mr. Neev, causing irreparable harm for which there
`
`is no adequate remedy at law, unless enjoined by this Court.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Mr. Neev prays:
`
`1. That this Court enjoin Defendant, its agents and employees, and any
`
`others acting in concert with it, from infringing, inducing the infringement of, or
`
`contributing to the infringement of the ‘199 Patent;
`
`Alcon Research, Ltd.
`Exhibit 1004 - Page 3
`
`

`

`Case 1:09-cv-00146-RBK-JS Document 1 Filed 03/05/09 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 4
`
`2. That this Court award Mr. Neev his damages resulting from Defendant's
`
`infringement;
`
`3. That this Court award Mr. Neev treble damages as a result of Defendant's
`
`willful misconduct;
`
`4. That this Court declare this case an exceptional case pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 285; and
`
`5. That this Court award Mr. Neev his costs and attorneys' fees and such
`
`other relief as is just.
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`Mr. Neev demands trial by jury.
`
`Dated:
`
`March 5, 2009
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ David L. Finger
`David L. Finger (DE Bae ID #2556)
`Finger, Slanina & Liebesman, LLC
`One Commerce Center
`1201 N. Orange Street, 7th Floor
`Wilmington, DE 19801-1186
`Tel. (302) 573-2525
`Fax (302) 573-2524
`dfinger@delawgroup.com
`
`Of Counsel:
`Kenneth G. Parker
`Teuton, Loewy & Parker LLP
`3121 Michelson Drive, Ste. 250
`Irvine, CA 92612
`(949) 442-7100 Telephone
`(949) 442-7105 Facsimile
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Joseph Neev
`
`Alcon Research, Ltd.
`Exhibit 1004 - Page 4
`
`

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


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

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

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

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

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

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

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

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

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

Your account does not support viewing this document.

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

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

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

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

Become a Member

One Moment Please

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

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

Your document is on its way!

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

Sealed Document

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

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


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket