IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND ‘TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`EUROSURGICAL S.A.
`Opposer,
`
`v.
`PATRIC BERTRANOU.
`
`Applicant.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`)
`
`Opposition No. 91,157,847
`Application Serial No. 78157535
`
`U‘
`
`Mark: SCS-CLARIS
`
`MOTION TO SUSPEND
`
`PENDING OUTCOME OF ANOTHER PROCEEDING
`
`Applicant, Patrick Bertranou., by and through Counsel, hereby requests the board
`
`suspend this Opposition, No. 91,157,847, pending the outcome of another proceeding involving
`
`the same parties. An Answer has previously been filed by Applicant on October 28, 2003.
`
`A Notice of Opposition in these proceedings was filed by Oppofser on September 1 1,
`
`2003. The Notice of Opposition in these proceedings was filed by Eurosurgical, S.A.
`
`(hereinafter “Eurosurgical” or “Opposer”).
`
`Applicant, Patrick Bertranou, is the president and CEO of the company Orthotec, Inc.
`
`Applicant, Patrick Bertranou, is also the president and CEO of the company Orthotec, LLC.
`
`Orthotec, Inc. and Orthotec, LLC have the same physical address, namely 9595 Wilshire
`
`Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90212.
`
`On July 2, 2002, a Complaint was filed by OrthoTec, LLC against Eurosurgical S.A. and
`
`Does 1 through 50, in Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles.
`
`A copy of the First Amended Complaint, filed January 23, 2003, is attached as Exhibit A.
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`EUROSURGICAL S.A.
`Opposer,
`
`v.
`PATRIC BERTRANOU.
`
`Applicant.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`)
`
`Opposition No. 91,157,847
`Application Serial No. 78157535
`
`U‘
`
`Mark: SCS-CLARIS
`
`MOTION TO SUSPEND
`
`PENDING OUTCOME OF ANOTHER PROCEEDING
`
`Applicant, Patrick Bertranou., by and through Counsel, hereby requests the board
`
`suspend this Opposition, No. 91,157,847, pending the outcome of another proceeding involving
`
`the same parties. An Answer has previously been filed by Applicant on October 28, 2003.
`
`A Notice of Opposition in these proceedings was filed by Oppofser on September 1 1,
`
`2003. The Notice of Opposition in these proceedings was filed by Eurosurgical, S.A.
`
`(hereinafter “Eurosurgical” or “Opposer”).
`
`Applicant, Patrick Bertranou, is the president and CEO of the company Orthotec, Inc.
`
`Applicant, Patrick Bertranou, is also the president and CEO of the company Orthotec, LLC.
`
`Orthotec, Inc. and Orthotec, LLC have the same physical address, namely 9595 Wilshire
`
`Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90212.
`
`On July 2, 2002, a Complaint was filed by OrthoTec, LLC against Eurosurgical S.A. and
`
`Does 1 through 50, in Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles.
`
`A copy of the First Amended Complaint, filed January 23, 2003, is attached as Exhibit A.
`
`
`
`
`
`The First Amended Complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California includes causes of
`
`action for State Trademark Infringement, Dilution of Distinctive Quality of Trademarks and
`
`Trade Names, and Infringement of Trademarks and Trade Names to Enhance Value of Products.
`
`See Attached Exhibit A. The issues to be decided in the Superior Court of the State of California
`
`have bearing upon this proceeding, namely the First Cause of Action — Breach of Written
`
`Contract regarding the September 1998 written Assignment Agreement between Applicant and
`
`Opposer. See Attached Exhibit A, paragraph 5.
`
`Applicant’s answer and defenses in this Opposition rely in part upon the September 1998
`
`Assignment Agreement. See Answer to Notice of Opposition, paragraphs 5, 13, and 14.
`
`In addition, Opposer, Eurosurgical, S.A., recently filed a Complaint against Applicant,
`
`Patrick Bertranou, for trademark infringement in the United States District Court for the Central
`
`District of California. See attached Exhibit B. This action for trademark infringement clearly
`
`involves many of the same issues before the Board in this Opposition and the mark which is the
`
`subject of this Opposition, namely, SCS-CLARIS.
`
`“Ordinarily, the Board will suspend proceedings in the case before it if the final
`
`determination of the other proceeding will have a bearing on issues before the Board.” TMBP
`
`§510.2(a). Here, the issues regarding the September 1998 Assignment Agreement between the
`
`parties are integral to the determination of both this proceeding and the case pending the
`
`Superior Court of the State of California. In addition, the issues in the action recently filed in the
`
`U.S. District Court for the Central District of California are overlapping with the issues presented
`
`in this Opposition, namely the use of the mark SCS-CLARIS by Applicant. The interests of
`
`justice will be better served if the proceeding before the Board is suspended until a determination
`
`Mark: SCS-CLARIS
`Serial No.: 78/157535
`
`Opposition No.: 91,157,847
`
`
`
`
`
`E
`
`is made in both the proceeding in the Superior Court of the State of California and the
`
`proceeding the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
`
`Opposer has filed several other Oppositions against Applicant and its companies, as well
`
`as an action in Federal District Court in Delaware and in the U.S. District Court for the Central
`
`District of Califomia in an effort to overwhelm and confuse Applicant with excessive and
`
`oppressive litigation. Any reasonable attempts to settle or mediate this Opposition are not likely
`
`to take place until following a decision or other conclusion in the Superior Court of the State of
`
`California and/or the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
`
`Opposer will not prejudiced by a suspension of these proceedings.
`
`Conclusion
`
`The issues in two other proceedings between Opposer and Applicant and Applicant’s
`
`companies have a bearing upon the outcome of this Opposition. As a result, the interests of
`
`justice and of the Board will be best served by a suspension of the current Opposition pending
`
`the outcome of the case in the Superior Court of the State of California and/or the U.S. District
`
`Court for the Central District of California.
`
`WHEREFORE, Applicant prays that the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board grant the
`
`Motion to Suspend the Opposition Pending Outcome of Another Proceeding, pursuant to TBMP
`
`§51o.o2.
`
`Mark: SCS-CLARIS
`Serial No.: 78/157535
`
`Opposition No.: 91,157,847
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`
`A duplicate copy of this Motion to Suspend has been sent via First Class Mail to counsel
`
`for Opposer on
`
`Z 7
`
`, 2004.
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`APPLICANT, PATRICK BERTRANOU
`
`CEO of Orthotec, LLC
`
`CEO of Orthotec, Inc.
`
`By;
`
`Erik M. Pelton, Esq.
`Attorney for Applicant
`
`Erik M. Pelton, Attorney at Law
`1408 North Fillmore Street, Suite 2
`
`Arlington, Virginia 22201
`TEL: (703) 525-8009
`FAX: (703) 525-8089
`
`Attachments:
`
`Exhibit A: First Amended Complaint, OrthoTec, LLC V. Eurosurgical, S.A., filed January 23,
`
`2003
`
`Exhibit B: Complaint and Demand For Jury Trial, Eurosurgical, S.A. V. Patrick Bertranou, Civil
`
`Action No. 03-8308PA, filed November 14, 2003, in United States District Court Central
`
`District of California.
`
`Mark: SCS-CLARIS
`Serial No.: 78/157535
`
`Opposition No.2 91,157,847
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that a true copy of the Motion to Suspend was deposited as First Class
`mail with the United States Postal Service on j;
`Z 31;
`, 2004 to the following:
`
`James R. Hastings
`Collen IP
`
`The Holyoke-Manhattan Building
`80 South Highland Avenue
`Ossining, New York 10562
`
`M
`
`Erik M. Pelton, Esq.
`
`Mark: SCS-CLARIS
`Serial No.: 78/157535
`
`Opposition No.: 91,157,847
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`
`
`fr
`
`EX(»H3t'r"
`
`A
`
`Esq.
`
`‘ Michael J.
`Perry,
`ATTORNEY AT LAW
`Suite 400
`330 Washington Boulevard,
`3 Marina Del Rey, California 90292
`g Te1ephone:(31o) 822-5037
`Telefaxz
`(310) 306-3456
`
`(State Bar No.
`
`123214)
`
`. Attorneya for Plaintiff and Cross—Defendant
`LOS N
`ORTHOTEC, LLC.
`sumafoféfi
`
`'
`
`:-
`
`JAN 2 325133
`
`SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
`
`FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELEB
`
`ORTHOTEC, LLC.,
`' Limited Liability Company,
`
`a Delaware
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`EUROSURGICAL, S.A., a French
`Corporation, and DOES 1
`through 50,
`
`Defendant.
`
`_j_._
`
`= AND RELATED cRoss~AcTIoN'
`
`
`an-4s.a\a\.a~asr\.psa\/a~a\o\.¢s4ua
`
`CASE NO. BC 276958
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`1. Breach of Contract;
`2. Restitution of
`Forfeited Property;
`3. Declaratory Relief;
`4. Accounting;
`5.
`Injunctive Relief;
`6. Conversion;
`7.
`Intentional
`Interference‘With
`Contract;
`8. Negligent
`Interference With
`Contract
`9. Breach of Contract;
`
`10. Unfair Competition;
`11.
`Indemnity;
`12. State Trademark
`Infringement;
`13. Dilution of
`Distinctive Quality
`of Trademarks and
`Trade Names;
`14. Infringement of
`Trademarks and Trade
`Names to Enhance
`Commercial Value of
`Prodncts; and
`15. Specific Performance
`
`1 afiea
`
`5wa9e:L 80-L'JdV
`
`59S789O80t€
`
`5AUH3d ‘F WEVHOIW d0 30IdflO MV1 358 1U9S
`
`
`
`
`
`f".
`
`Plaintiff, Orthotec, LLC., alleges as follows:
`
`'FIIU5T CflHUSl: CH? znrrrcnw
`
`(Breach of Written Contract)
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff Orthotec, LLC.
`
`(“Orthotec”)
`
`is informed and
`
`believes and thereon alleges that at all times herein mentioned
`
`Defendant Eurosurgical,
`
`S.A.
`
`(“Defendant”)
`
`was
`
`and
`
`is
`
`a
`
`corporation purportedly incorporated under the laws of France and
`
`doing business
`
`in many countries in the world,
`
`including the
`
`sales of medical products to the United States. Defendant owns
`
`various rights in certain medical products that it manufactures
`
`or causes to be manufactured and sells.
`
`2.
`
`Orthotec was
`
`and
`
`is
`
`a Delaware
`
`limited liability
`
`. ',._.,“
`
`company with its principal place of business in the County of Los
`
`Angeles, California, and has, and is, qualified to do business in
`
`California as a foreign limited liability company.
`
`3.
`
`Defendants Does
`
`1
`
`through 50,
`
`inclusive,
`
`are
`
`sued
`
`herein under fictitious names. Their
`
`true names and capacities
`
`are unknown to Orthotec. when their true names and capacities are
`
`ascertained, Orthotec will amend this First Amended Complaint by
`
`inserting their true names and capacities herein or filing an
`
`amendment
`
`to the amended complaint. Orthotec is
`
`informed and
`
`believe and thereon allege that each of the fictitiously named
`
`defendants
`
`is responsible in some manner
`
`for
`
`the occurrences
`
`: herein alleged,
`
`and that respective damages caused each Orthotec
`
`/"\_
`
`as herein alleged were proximately caused by each of
`
`those
`
`defendants.
`
`Each reference in this First Amended Complaint
`
`to
`
`z afied
`
`:wd9c:;
`
`eo-L-adv
`
`fesvesoeote
`
`5AUH3d ‘P WEVHOIW 30 301530 MV1 358 1U9S
`
`
`
`
`
`"Defendant," "Defendants," or a specifically named Defendant also
`
`refers to all Defendants sued under fictitious names, unless only
`
`certain DOE defendants are designated.
`
`4.
`
`Orthotec is informed and believes, and thereon alleges,
`
`that each of the Defendants herein, at all times material hereto,
`
`was the agent,
`
`servant, partner, co—venturer or employee of each
`
`of
`
`the remaining Defendants herein,
`
`and
`
`in doing the
`
`things
`
`hereinafter alleged, were acting in the course,
`
`scope and purpose
`
`of said agency,
`
`service or employment,
`
`and with the knowledge
`
`and/or
`
`permission,
`
`express
`
`or
`
`implied,
`
`of
`
`each
`
`remaining
`
`Defendant,
`
`and further,
`
`that all actions
`
`taken hereunder were
`
`taken by persons authorized to take said action and were ratified
`
`and/or approved by high corporate or company management officials
`
`of each Defendant.
`
`5.
`
`In or about September 1998,
`
`in Los Angeles, California,
`
`Defendant and orthotec entered into a written contract entitled
`
`“Assignment Agreement” (hereinafter the “Agreement”) by the terms
`
`of which,
`
`-"-‘"-‘"'
`
`among other
`I
`‘J '
`
`'
`
`|
`
`things, Defendant granted Orthotec the
`
`‘ 1|:
`
`Ihfiuyl
`
`(uj
`
`ULULLLUULLI
`
`NULKEL,
`
`auu
`
`_£.a...
`
`-in
`
`.1
`
`.- -\<'"‘..-J
`
`--uuuuuu u iiiut yuicuuae UL any UL Lue
`
`spinal
`
`surgical
`
`implants
`
`and
`
`instruments
`
`(“Products”)
`
`from
`
`Defendant.
`
`to manufacture the Products within the United States
`
`and certain other countries;
`
`and
`
`(b)
`
`provide
`
`any
`
`and all
`
`appropriate informaLion for the marketing and/or manufacturing of
`
`all Of its Products and t0 notify Orthotec about any and all new
`
`Q products
`
`(“Property Rights").
`
`A true and correct copy of
`
`the
`
`Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, and is incorporated
`
`9 afied
`
`5WdL8!L
`
`co-L-adv
`
`59sve9oeoLe
`
`5AHH3d ‘F WEVHOIW $0 30IddO MV1
`
`:58 lU9S
`
`
`
`
`
`herein by this reference.
`
`6.
`
`Thereafter,
`
`in 1999, Orthotec and Defendant orally
`
`agreed that,
`
`so long as requested by Orthotec, Defendant would
`
`ship all goods ordered by Orthotec to REO SpineLine, n.L.C.
`
`(“REO
`
`SpineLine”), Orthotec’s United States distributor of Defendant's
`
`goods,
`
`and for Defendant
`
`to promptly notify Orthotec of all
`
`shipments and all returns. Thereafter, on March 1,
`
`2002, Orthotec
`
`and Defendant agreed in writing that effective January 1,
`
`2002,
`
`any payment Orthotec for any invoice shall be due 90 days after
`
`invoice,
`
`instead of the previous 45 days.
`
`7.
`
`Orthotec has performed all conditions, covenants and
`
`promises required by it on its part to be performed in accordance
`
`with the terms and conditions of the Agreement.
`
`8.
`
`On or
`
`about May
`
`17,
`
`2002, Orthotec
`
`received from
`
`Defendant an invoice in the amount of $153,018.72 for Products
`
`sold to Orthotec in 1999, which was
`
`the first
`
`time Defendant
`
`§ notified Orthotec of the existence of this purported debt. on or
`
`about May 21,
`
`2002, without OrthoTec’s knowledge,
`
`and. before
`
`Defendant's alleged termination of
`
`the Agreement,
`
`for cause,
`
`Defendant filed and subsequently obtained, on November 19,
`
`2002
`
`under Defendant's name,
`
`the authorization to commercialize in the
`
`USA the
`
`“ORIA Spinal Clip System,
`
`spinal
`
`system which
`
`is
`
`identical
`
`to the Products
`
`sold and for which Defendant had
`
`granted exclusivity to Orthotec to market and to manufacture in
`
`September 1998.
`
`9.
`
`On or about
`
`June
`
`17,
`
`2002, Defendant delivered to
`
`5WdL9=L
`
`so-L-adv
`
`Sssvssoeote
`
`fxuuaa ‘r 1avHoIw so 301530 Mv1 =Ka aues
`
`
`
`
`
`alleged 1999 unpaid invoices in the amount of $153,018.72, and
`
`modified its new claim to state that the $153,018.72 obligation
`
`included Products that were sold by Defendant to orthotec in 2000
`
`and 2001.
`
`10.
`
`on or
`
`about
`
`June 28,
`
`2002,
`
`upon
`
`11 days’
`
`advance
`
`written notice (after purportedly supplying documentation of its
`
`charges for the first time on June 17, 2002) Defendant sent by
`
`Federal Express
`
`its notice of
`
`termination of
`
`the Agreement
`
`(received July 1, 2002) by seeking to purchase all of the rights
`
`of Orthotec for
`
`the sum of $100 after demanding payment
`
`for
`
`2001,
`
`and 2002 acknowledged that no money was owed for 1999).
`
`although the Agreement required at least 45 days’ advance written
`
`Within
`
`1
`
`day after Orthotec
`
`received notice
`
`from
`
`12 of the Agreement, Orthotec paid, under protest. all amounts
`
`claimed due by Defendant; Orthotec denies that it owed Defendant
`
`such money paid.
`
`11.
`
`From in or about June 2002 and thereafter, Defendant
`
`(A) Failing to provide to Orthotec information necessary to
`
`permit Orthotec to manufacture Defendant's products;
`
`(8) Failing to notify Orthotec of all new products being
`
`manufactured by or for Defendant;
`
`
`
`this term was modified by the
`that
`' Notwithstanding the fact
`.
`g parties on March 1, 2002. effective January 1, 2002,
`to require
`28; payment within 90 days of invoice.
`
`9 afiea
`
`5WdL€1l
`
`eo-L-adv
`
`Sesvesoeote
`
`fxuuaa ‘r 13vHoIw so 301530 MV1
`
`:Ka xuos
`
`
`
`
`
`(C)
`
`Failing to notify Orthotcc of the Correct and verified
`
`amount of all goods acLually delivered to REO spineLine
`
`and all returns thereof;
`
`(D)
`
`Shipping
`
`goods
`
`to
`
`REO
`
`SpineLine
`
`not
`
`ordered by
`
`Orthotec;
`
`(E)
`
`Demanding money for which it is not entitled, and for
`
`which Orthotec has paid under protest;
`
`(F)
`
`Refusing to sell any further goods
`
`to Orthotec under
`
`the Agreement;
`
`(G)
`
`Terminating or attempting to terminate the Agreement by
`
`demanding
`
`the purchase
`
`of all
`
`rights
`
`of orthotec
`
`thereunder for $100;
`
`(H)
`
`Distributing in the United states similar or identical
`
`medical devices manufactured by Defendant which are
`
`commercialized in the United States under
`
`the name of
`
`ORIA Spinal Clip System; and
`
`(I)
`
`Filing on May 21. 2002 and subsequently obtaining,
`
`in
`
`November
`
`19,
`
`2002
`
`under
`
`Defendant's
`
`name,
`
`Lhe
`
`authorization to commercialize in the USA the “ORIA
`
`Spinal Clip System, spinal system which is identical to
`
`the Products sold and for which Defendant had granted
`
`exclusivity to orthotec to market and to manufacLure in
`
`September 1998.
`
`12.
`
`The Agreement provides that the prevailing party in any
`
`litigation is entitled to recover its reasonable attorney's fees.
`
`= Additionally,
`
`the Agreement provides
`
`that all
`
`actions
`
`and
`
`proceedings arising from the Agreement may be litigated in courts
`
`9 afisd
`
`!waLe:L
`
`co-4-adv
`
`Essveaoeote
`
`5AHH3d ‘P TSVHOIW d0 301550 MV1 358 1U°S
`
`
`
`
`
`_f"\_
`
`within the County of Los Angeles, California.
`
`13. As
`
`a proximate
`
`result
`
`of
`
`the aforesaid acts
`
`and
`
`3 breaches of the Agreement by Defendant, Orthotec has sustained
`damages in excess of $l5,000,000.00, according to proof.
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`(Restitution of Forfeited Property)
`
`14. orthotec realleges and incorporates herein by reference
`
`each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1
`
`through 13,
`
`inclusive, as if set forth in full.
`
`15. Orthotec has performed all conditions,
`
`covenants and
`
`promises required by it on its part to be performed in accordance
`with the terms
`and conditions of
`the Agreement. Orthotec is
`
`entitled to all rights granted to it pursuant to the Agreement,
`
`i.e., the Property RighLs.
`
`16. orthotec has paid to Defendant,
`
`and Defendant has
`
`accepted said payment, all amounts claimed due by Defendant that
`
`resu1ted in Defendant. declaring 0rthotec's Property Rights
`
`forfeited. Despite
`
`said payment by Orthotec
`
`and Defendant's
`
`acceptance thereof, Defendant refused, and continues to refuse,
`
`to return the Property Rights to Orthotec.
`
`17. Orthotec seeks restitution of its entire interests in
`
`and to the Property Rights previously granted to it by Defendant.
`
`THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`(Declaratory Relief)
`
`x-\
`
`18. Orthotec realleges and incorporates herein by reference
`
`each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1
`
`through 13,
`
`59§7890B0t€
`
`5AHH3d ‘P TEVHOIW $0 301350 MV1 358 1U°S
`
`
`
`
`
`and 15 through 17,
`
`inclusive, as if set forth in full.
`
`19.
`
`An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between
`
`'.Orthotec and Defendant concerning their
`
`respective rights and
`
`duties in that Orthotec contends that:
`
`(A)
`
`On
`
`June
`
`28,
`
`2002, Defendant had no
`
`right
`
`to
`
`exercise the option under paragraph 12 of
`
`the Assignment
`
`Agreement to purchase back its rights thereunder for the sum
`
`of $100 or
`
`that
`
`such right
`
`is not enforceable,
`
`in that,
`
`among other things:
`
`(1) On March 1, 2002,
`
`the parties agreed
`
`in writing that payment
`
`for any invoice for
`
`the Products
`
`sold by pofendant
`
`to Orthotec shall be due 90 days after
`
`invoice,
`
`instead
`
`of
`
`the
`
`previous
`
`45
`
`days
`
`payment
`
`requirement;‘
`
`(2)
`
`The option price is unconscionably low
`
`/T
`
`(inasmuch as the rights owned by Orthotec are worth millions
`
`of
`
`dollars)
`
`and/or
`
`the
`
`option price
`
`constitutes
`
`an
`
`unenforceable penalty’ or
`
`forfeiture;
`
`and (3) Even if the
`
`previous
`
`45 days payment
`
`requirement was
`
`in effect,
`
`as
`
`opposed to the 90 day requirement, Orthotec was not
`
`in
`
`breach of
`
`the Agreement
`
`since
`
`it paid Defendant
`
`(and
`
`defendant accepted said payment) within 11 days
`
`following
`
`receipt
`
`or
`
`the
`
`demand
`
`and
`
`the
`
`purported
`
`suppo rt. 1 ng
`
`documentation for the contested amount of $153,018.72.
`
`(B) As of June 28, 2002,
`
`Orthotec owed no money to
`
`Defendant for any purchases made in 1999 by Orthotec from
`
`Defendant
`
`for the following reasons,
`
`among others:
`
`(1)
`
`in
`
`2000. Orthotec and Defendant entered into an accord and
`
`satisfaction by which it was orally agreed that no amount
`
`9 9695
`
`5fld883L so-L-adv
`
`fssveaoeote
`
`5AH83d ‘r 1avHoIw so aoxaso MV1 =Ka zues
`
`
`
`
`
`was further due for purchases made by Orthotec in 1999;
`
`(2)
`
`that OrLhoLec’s
`
`payment
`
`in
`
`full
`
`in February
`
`2002
`
`to
`
`Defendant
`
`for all amounts
`
`then due constituted payment
`
`in
`
`full when accepted by Defendant and that Defendant accepted
`
`the same:
`
`(3)
`
`any obligation owed by Orthotec to Defendant
`
`for
`
`1999 was barred by
`
`the applicable
`
`statute of
`
`the
`
`limitations and/or by laches;
`
`(4) Defendant was estopped
`
`from demanding or collecting any amount claimed to be due
`
`from Orthotec with respect to purchases made by Orthotec in
`
`1999: and (5) Defendant waived any such right.
`
`(C) As of June 28, 2002, Orthotec owed no money to
`
`(D) Orthotec is not obligated to pay Defendant for any
`
`goods
`
`shipped by it
`
`to REO SpineLine but not ordered by
`
`Orthotec or which were defective or which were returned to
`
`Defendant.
`
`(E)
`
`Should it be determined. by the Court
`
`that any
`
`amount was owed by Orthotec to Defendant for any goods sold
`
`in 1999,
`
`that Orthotec should be entitled reimbursement for
`
`the difference between $153,018.72,
`
`the full amount claimed
`
`due by Defendant and paid by Orthotec under protest, and
`
`such amount,
`
`if any,
`
`the Court determines was then due.
`
`(F) Defendant
`
`is to issue proper credit
`
`to Orthotec
`
`for all goods returned to it by or for Orthotec.
`
`(G) Orthotec continues to have all of its rights under
`
`the Agreement.
`
`5 afied
`
`fwaee:L so-L-adv
`
`fssvesoeote
`
`fxuuaa ‘r 1avHoIw so 301550 MM1
`
`:59 lues
`
`
`
`
`
`OL
`
`20. Orthotec is informed and believes, and thereon alleges
`
`that, Defendant contends that as of June 28, 2002 and thereafter,
`
`Orthotec owed it the sum of $153,018.72 ($129,660.57 for goods it
`
`contends were sold to Orthotec in 1999 and $23,358.15 for 2000
`
`and 2001),
`
`that Orthotec is obligated to pay for goods Defendant
`
`ships to REO SpineLine even though not ordered by Orthotec, and
`
`that orthotec is not entitled to a set-off or
`
`a credit
`
`for
`
`amounts paid or returned against any amounts owed by Defendant to
`
`Orthotec, and that Defendant has the present right
`
`to purchase
`
`all of
`
`the rights of Orthotec, which are worth millions of
`
`dollars, for the sum of $100 after 45 days of invoice.
`
`21. OrthoLec desires a judicial determination or its rights
`
`and duties and a declaration that on June 28, 2002, Defendant had
`
`no
`
`right
`
`to exercise the option under paragraph 12 of
`
`the
`
`5 Assignment Agreement to purchase back its rights there under for
`the sum of $100.00 since:
`(a) orthotec never refused to pay
`the
`
`invoices (in the aggregate amount of $153,018.72 ) allegedly due
`
`by Orthotec to Defendant, but requested supporting documentation
`
`to support Defendant's new demand,
`
`(b) said invoice was paid by
`
`orthotec under protest
`
`in a
`
`timely fashion (i.e. within the
`
`contractual
`
`90 or even the previously existing 45 day period
`
`after
`
`receipt of
`
`an
`
`incomplete
`
`and inconsistent
`
`accounting)
`
`within 11 days of
`
`the demand and delivery of
`
`the purported
`
`supporting documentation for Defendant's
`
`new demand,
`
`(c)
`
`said
`
`amount of $153,018.72 is not reflected in the official books and
`
`records of Defendant
`
`(as audited by an affiliate of Deloitte &
`
`Touche) which never claimed that such amount was due until 2002,
`
`o; 9695
`
`fwaee: l
`
`eo—z-adv
`
`fssveeoeo L8
`
`Sxuuaa ‘r 1avHo1w .40 301550 MV1 ms was
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`LL
`
`r’“'\_
`
`after Orthotec refused the merger demanded by Defendant,
`(d)
`the
`Agreement does not contains a “Time of the Essence” clause, and
`
`(e)
`
`the option price unconscionably low (inasmuch as the rights
`
`owned by Orthotec are worth millions of dollars)
`
`and /or
`
`the
`
`option price constitutes an unenforceable forfeiture of rights.
`
`22.
`
`A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate at
`
`this time under
`
`the circumstances
`
`in order
`
`that OrLhotec and
`
`Defendant may ascertain their rights and duties pursuant
`
`to the
`
`Agreement.
`
`EOURIH CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`(Accounting)
`
`23. Orthotec realleges and incorporates herein by reference
`
`»’ N
`
`each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1
`
`through 13.
`
`15 through 17, and 19 through 22,
`
`inclusive, as if set forth in
`
`full.
`
`24. Orthotec is informed and believes and thereon alleges
`
`that at all
`
`times
`
`from in or
`
`about
`
`1999
`
`to the present,
`
`Defendant:
`
`(a)
`
`shipped Products ordered by Orthotec directly to
`
`REO SpineLine;(b) shipped Products directly to REO spineLine not
`
`Ordered by Orthotec:
`
`(c)
`
`certain goods were
`
`returned. by R30
`
`SpineLine to Defendant;
`
`and
`
`(d) other goods were
`
`incorrectly
`
`invoiced as to item type, quantity or price when shipped.
`
`such
`
`that Orthotec cannot determine exactly how much,
`
`if anything, it
`
`owes to Defendant or Defendant owes to Orthotec.
`
`25.
`
`As a result of the allegations set forth hereinabove,
`
`.’
`
`.
`
`Orthotec is informed and believes and thereon alleges that it has
`
`overpaid Defendant for Products sold by it to Orthotec.
`
`11
`
`5Nd6€:L
`
`€0‘L-Jdv
`
`599789080l8
`
`5AHH3d ‘P TBVHOIW 50 301550 MV1 159 1099
`
`
`
`
`
`ZL
`
`26.
`
`The amount of money due from Defendant
`
`is unknown to
`
`Orthotec and cannot be ascertained without an accounting of the
`
`goods sold by Defendant to Orthotec and actually delivered to REO
`
`SpineLine and the goods returned by REO SpineLine to Defendant.
`
`27. Orthotec has demanded an accounting of
`
`the aforesaid
`
`items from Defendant and payment to orthotec of the amount found
`
`due, but Defendant refuses to provide a complete accounting.
`
`FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`(lniunction)
`
`28. orthotec realleges and incorporates herein by reference
`
`each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1
`
`through 13,
`
`15 through 17, 19 through 22, and 24 through 27,
`
`inclusive, as if
`
`set forth in full.
`
`29. Orthotec is informed and believes and thereon alleges
`
`that
`
`inasmuch
`
`as
`
`Defendant has breached the Agreement
`
`and
`
`unlawfully recovered the rights it granted to Orthotec under the
`
`a Agreement
`
`and as
`
`a
`
`result
`
`thereof will not
`
`sell Products
`
`exclusively to orthotec for resale in the United States, but has
`
`that as
`
`a
`
`result
`
`thereof
`
`I put out of business.
`
`unless and until Defendant is enjoined and
`
`ordered Iby
`
`this Court
`
`to prohibit Defendant
`
`from selling. or
`
`causing to be sold, whether directly or
`
`indirectly, any of
`
`the
`
`Products and/or any spinal medical devices
`
`including, but not
`
`limited to, Oria Spinal Clip System, within the Territory
`
`designated in the Agreement except
`
`to Orthotec,
`
`the wrongful
`
`conduct of Defendants, of each of
`
`them, will cause great and
`
`at efiea
`
`5Wd681L
`
`co-L-adv
`
`59§V8908Ol8
`
`5AHH3d ‘P THVHOIW $0 3OIddO MV1 358 lU°S
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`SL
`
`irreparable injury to Orthotec in that Orthotec will have no
`
`ilproducts to sell and will be immediately put out of business.
`30. Orthotec has no adequate remedy at law for the injuries
`
`suffered and to be suffered in that it will be difficult
`
`for
`
`Orthotec to determine the exact amount of damages for the loss of
`
`business it will suffer.
`
`SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`(Conversion)
`
`31.
`
`Orthotec
`
`realleges
`
`and
`
`incorporates
`
`herein
`
`by
`
`reference each and every allegation contained in paragraphs
`
`1
`
`through 13, 15 through 17, 19 through 22, 24 through 27, and 29
`
`through 30,
`
`inclusive, as if set forth in full.
`
`32.
`
`On or about June 28, 2002, Defendant
`
`took the Property
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`same to its own use.
`
`33.
`
`On or about July 1, 2002, Orthotec demanded,
`
`in writing,
`
`and refused,
`
`and continues to fail and refuse,
`
`to return the
`
`Property Rights to Orthotec.
`
`34.
`
`As
`
`a
`
`proximate
`
`result
`
`of
`
`defendant's
`
`conversion,
`
`Orthotec has
`
`suffered which
`
`damages
`
`that
`
`are
`
`the natural,
`
`reasonable, and proximate results of the
`
`conversion, all to it's
`
`damage in the sum of no less than $15,000,000, according to proof
`
`at time of trial.
`
`35. Between
`
`the
`
`time of defendant's
`
`conversion of
`
`the
`
`Property Rights to its own use and the filing of
`
`this action,
`
`Orthotec has properly expended in pursuit of
`
`the converted
`
`""""""""""'TTFST'KMENDED'CUMPEEINT“""“'"""""""
`
`8L afiea
`
`Ewdee:L so-L-adv
`
`fssvesoeote
`
`5AHH3d ‘r 1avHoIw so 301350 MV1
`
`:Ka xues
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`VL
`
`(2)‘IGU‘#0)B.)H
`
`‘D
`
`Property Rights, all to its further damage in the sum of to be
`
`proven at time of trial.
`
`36.
`
`Orthotec
`
`is
`
`entitled to an
`
`award of punitive and
`
`~ exemplary damages based on such intentional.
`
`willful, malicious,
`
`: despicable,
`
`fraudulent and oppressive conduct
`
`in an amount
`
`to be
`
`E determined at time of trial.
`
`SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`(Intentional Interference with Contract)
`
`37. Orthotec realleges and incorporates herein by reference
`
`each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1
`
`through 13,
`
`15 through 17,
`
`19 through 22, 24 through 27, 29 through 30, and
`
`32 through 36,
`
`inclusive, as it set forth in full.
`
`38.
`
`On or about June 28,
`
`2002, Defendant notified Orthotec
`
`by Federal Express
`
`(received July 1,
`
`2002),
`
`that it was seeking
`
`to acquire all rights under the Agreement
`
`from Orthotec for the
`
`sum of $100 and thereafter Defendant refused to honor all further
`
`purchases of
`
`goods
`
`from Orthotec. Defendant's
`
`actions were
`
`without any right or justification or privilege.
`
`39. Orthotec is informed and believes and thereon alleges
`
`that De£endanL demanded payment of
`
`the sum of $153,418.72 for
`
`goods it claims it sold to Orthotec either knowing that the same
`
`was untrue or having no reasonable grounds for believing that the
`
`same was true, but instead for the purpose of contriving grounds
`
`for terminating the Agreement and of wrongfully taking over
`
`the
`
`distribution network for the Products that Orthotec created and
`
`115
`
`12:
`
`13;
`
`.’¢—\
`
`developed since 1998.
`
`40. At
`
`the time
`
`that Defendant
`
`sought
`
`to terminate the
`
`-‘
`
`w; 9693
`
`!wdov:L so-L-adv
`
`fesvegoeote
`
`5AHH3d "F WBVHOIW d0 301550 MV1 559 1U9S
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`St
`
`,-‘-.
`
`Agreement and acquire all of the rights of Orthotec thereunder,
`
`Defendants were each aware of the contractual relationship that
`
`existed and does now exist between Orthotec and REO SpineLine and
`
`were
`
`aware
`
`that
`
`if Orthotec
`
`could not
`
`acquire
`
`goods
`
`from
`
`Defendant, Orthotec would be out of business,
`
`thereby resulting
`
`in loss of millions of dollars in business to Orthotec.
`
`41. Defendants knew or reasonably should have known that by
`
`the said acts of Defendant, said Defendants, and each of them,
`
`would,
`
`and did,
`
`interfere
`
`with the contractual
`
`relationship
`
`between Orthotec and REO SpineLine.
`
`42. As a result of
`
`the aforementioned acts of Defendants,
`
`Orthotec has and will continue to suffer loss of business in an
`
`amount no less than $7,500,000 according to proof at
`
`time of
`
`trial.
`
`43. Orthotec
`
`is entitled to an
`
`award of punitive
`
`and
`
`exemplary damages based on such intentional:
`
`willful, malicious,
`
`despicable,
`
`fraudulent and oppressive conduct
`
`in an amount to be
`
`determined at time of trial.
`
`EIGHTH CRUSH OF ACTION
`
`(Negligent Interference with Contract)
`
`44. Orthotec realleqes and incorporates herein by reference
`
`each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1
`
`through 13,
`
`15 through 17,
`
`19 through 22, 24 through 27,
`
`29 through 30,
`
`32
`
`through 36,
`
`and 38 through 42,
`
`inclusive,
`
`as
`
`if set
`
`forth in
`
`full.
`
`45.
`
`Defendants, and each of them,
`
`owed Orthotec a duty to
`
`exercise reasonable care and to refrain from taking action that
`
`15
`
`91 afisd
`
`5WdOv=L
`
`so-L-adv
`
`fssveeoeote
`
`5AHH3d ‘r 1avHoIw do 301350 MV1 =Ka xues
`
`
`
`
`
`9L
`
`would,
`
`without
`
`justification,
`
`interfere with Orthotec's
`
`contractual
`
`relationship,
`
`by
`
`virtue
`
`of
`
`the
`
`contractual
`
`relationship between Orthotec and Defendant hereinabove alleged.
`
`46. Despite the above-mentioned knowledge of Defendants,
`
`: and
`
`each
`
`of
`
`them, Defendants negligently interfered with
`
`0rthotec’s contractual relationship by terminating the Agreement
`
`; without any right,
`
`justification, or privilege.
`
`47.
`
`By
`
`reason of Defendants‘
`
`conduct,
`
`as alleged. herein,
`
`orthotec's
`
`contractual
`
`relationship with
`
`REC
`
`Spineline was
`
`disrupted and
`
`said conduct disrupted Orthotec's
`
`ability to
`
`generate income, all
`
`to its damages
`
`in an amount no less than
`
`12
`
`$7,500,000, according to proof at time of trial.
`
`NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION 133
`
`14‘
`
`15
`
`(Breach of Written Contract)
`
`48. Orthotec realleges and incorporates herein by reference
`
`‘each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 13,
`
`172 15 through 17,
`
`19 through 22, 24 through 27, 29 through 30,
`
`32
`
`18
`
`through 36,
`
`38 through 42, and 45 through 47,
`
`inclusive, as if
`
`19; set forth in full.
`
`49.
`
`In or about April 2001, Defendant and orthotec entered
`
`into another written contract written contract entitled “Contrat
`
`Partenariat”
`
`(hereinafter
`
`the “Partnership Agreement")
`
`by the
`
`terms of which,
`
`among other
`
`things, Defendant agreed to pay
`
`$15,000 per month for a period of
`
`twelve months
`
`in order
`
`for
`
`Orthotec to engage in a
`
`zummer of promotional and development
`
`activities, as specified therein.
`
`50.
`
`From in or about April 2001 and thereafter, Defendant
`
`i
`
`16*::*
`
`9L afiea
`
`Ewaov:L 80-L'ddV
`
`59S789080l8
`
`5AHH3d ‘r 13vHoIw so aoxaao MV1
`
`:Ka xues
`
`
`
`
`
`LL
`
`1 breached the Partnership Agreement by,
`
`inter alia, failing to pay
`
`for the sum of $31,342.31.
`
`51. orthotec has performed all conditions,
`
`covenants and
`
`7%
`
`52. As a result of the aforesaid acts and breaches of the
`
`sustained
`has
`orthotec
`by Defendant,
`8. ParLnership Agreement
`9: damages in excess of $130,000 according to proof at time of trial
`
`10
`1
`
`mama cause or ACTION
`
`(Unfair.Competition-Business
`& Professions Code Section 17200, et seq.)
`
`53. orthotec realleges and incorporates herein by reference
`
`each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1
`
`through 13,
`
`15 through 17,
`
`19 through 22, 24 through 27, 29 through 30,
`
`32
`
`through 36,
`
`38 through 42,
`
`45
`
`through 47,
`
`and 49 through 52,
`
`inclusive, as if set forth in full.
`
`54.
`
`Beginning in or about May 2002:
`
`Defendant committed
`
`acts of unfair competition, as defined by California Business &
`
`Professions Code section 17200 et seq., by engaging in unfair,
`
`unlawful, and fraudulent business activities.
`
`55. orthotec has expended large resources in time, efforts,
`
`and money developing and marketing the Products throughout
`
`the
`
`western hemisphere,
`
`including the United states, Mexico,
`
`and
`
`Canada.
`
`As a consequence of 0rthotec‘s expenditure of
`
`time,
`
`energy and money, as aforesaid,
`
`in developing their clientele,
`
`orthotec acquired a preeminent position in
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
