Proceeding
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Submission
`Filer's Name
`Filer's e-mail
`Signature
`Date
`Attachments
`
`Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`ESTTA637808
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`11/08/2014
`
`Filing date:
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`92054171
`Plaintiff
`Valeritas, Inc.
`SHERI S MASON
`MORSE BARNES-BROWN & PENDLETON
`230 3RD AVE FL 4
`WALTHAM, MA 02451
`UNITED STATES
`smason@mbbp.com, ttab@mbbp.com, tdunn@mbbp.com, scon-
`nolly@mbbp.com, gkrakau@mbbp.com
`Motion for Summary Judgment
`Thomas F. Dunn
`ttab@mbbp.com
`/Thomas F. Dunn/
`11/08/2014
`Motion for Summary Judgment.pdf(237019 bytes )
`Exhibit A - H (M0702550).PDF(2861906 bytes )
`Exhibit I 1 (M0702551).PDF(5851707 bytes )
`Exhibit I 2.pdf(5730833 bytes )
`Exhibit J to L.pdf(323288 bytes )
`
`

`
` 
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`In the matter of: U.S. Reg. No. 3,895,432
`
`For the Mark: VGO
`
`Filing Date:
`
`Registration Date: December 21, 2010
`
`Cancellation No.: 92054171
`
` March 2, 2010
`
`
`____________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`Valeritas, Inc.,
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`Petitioner,
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`VGo Communications, Inc.
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`Respondent.
`
`
`)
`___________________________________ )
`
`  
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`Currently both the mark owned by Valeritas, Inc. (“Valeritas” or “Petitioner”) and the
`
`mark owned by VGo Communications, Inc. (“VCI” or Respondent”) are being used in
`
`connection with the care and management of patients having diabetes.
`
`.                         
`
`                
`
`
`
`                 
`
`                                    
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner hereby moves pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 and 37 C.F.R. § 2.127(e) for
`
`entry of summary judgment in its favor that Respondent’s VGO mark in U.S. Reg. No.
`
`3,895,432 (“VCI’s VGO Mark”) be cancelled on the grounds that VCI’s VGO Mark is likely to
`
`cause confusion, mistake, and/or falsely suggest to the public that there is an association between
`
`Petitioner and Respondent because: (i) the literal element of VCI’s VGO Mark is identical to the
`
`{M0701849.2 } 
` 
`
`1 
`
`

`
`literal element of Petitioner’s V-GO mark; (ii) VCI’s VGO design mark (which is displayed on
`
`the specimen of use submitted by Respondent) is virtually identical to Petitioner’s V-GO design
`
`mark; (iii) the goods are complementary and thereby closely related; (iv) Petitioner has prior
`
`rights to the VGO mark; (v) the channels of trade should be given less importance because the
`
`marks are identical; (vi) competition is not required to establish likelihood of confusion; and
`
`(viii) Petitioner will be damaged by the continued registration of VCI’s VGO Mark. Pursuant to
`
`37 C.F.R. § 2.127(d), Petitioner requests that the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (the
`
`“Board”) suspend the above-captioned Cancellation proceeding (the “Cancellation”) pending a
`
`decision on this Motion for Summary Judgment, and, in the event that summary judgment is
`
`denied, that the Cancellation proceeding dates be reset.1
`
`
`
`I. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD
`
`Parties may resolve legal disputes through summary judgment where there is no genuine
`
`issue of material fact and more evidence than already available would not change the result in the
`
`case. Pure Gold, Inc. v. Syntex (U.S.A.), Inc., 221 U.S.P.Q. 151, 154 (T.T.A.B. 1983), aff’d,
`
`739, F.2d 624 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (granting summary judgment on the issue of likelihood of
`
`confusion where evidence which might be provided at trial would not change result given the
`
`differences in the goods of the parties). “The [Board] shall grant summary judgment if the
`
`movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled
`
`to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). In reviewing a summary judgment
`
`motion, the Board may consider requests for admission and requests for production and their
`
`responses if they are provided with the moving party’s brief. 37 C.F.R. § 2.127(e)(2).
`
`                                                             
`1 Petitioner has pending at this time a Motion to Compel on which the Board has not yet ruled. Plaintiff is filing this
`Motion for Summary Judgment for consideration in the event the Board declines to grant Petitioner’s Motion to
`Compel because the date hereof is the final date on which Petitioner may file a Motion for Summary Judgment.2
`
`{M0701849.2 } 
` 
`
`2 
`
`

`
`
`
`Here, there is no genuine dispute of material facts. Petitioner is the owner of the V-GO
`
`mark, in both standard characters and as a design mark, for use in connection with “[m]edical
`
`apparatus, namely, infusion and injection devices for administering drugs” in the healthcare
`
`industry, specifically in the field of diabetes care and management. Respondent applied to and
`
`successfully registered the VGO mark for “robotic video and audio communication hardware;
`
`computer software for use in connection with audio and video communication systems.”
`
`Respondent uses a design mark, as depicted in its specimen of use, in connection with its
`
`telepresence robot. Respondent’s product, a telepresence (or telemedicine) robot, is used in the
`
`healthcare industry, including the field of diabetes care and management. Because the standard
`
`character marks are identical and the design marks are substantially similar, and because the
`
`marks are being used in the healthcare industry, which includes the field of diabetes, confusion is
`
`likely. Thus, Petitioner is entitled to judgment on this issue as a matter of law.
`
`
`
`II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`A. Petitioner Owns Registrations for the V-GO Mark
`
`Petitioner is the owner of the V-GO (standard character) mark in U.S. Reg. No.
`
`4,125,819, (“Petitioner’s V-GO Mark”) and the V-GO DISPOSABLE INSULIN DELIVERY
`
`SYSTEM (& Design) mark in U.S. Reg. No. 4,105,936 (“Petitioner’s V-GO Design Mark”)
`
`(collectively, “Petitioner’s Marks”) for use in connection with “[m]edical apparatus, namely,
`
`infusion and injection devices for administering drugs.” (Exhibit A).
`
`
`
`B. Respondent Owns a Registration for the VGO Mark
`
`Respondent is the owner VCI’s VGO Mark, which is the subject of this proceeding
`
`(Exhibit B).
`
`{M0701849.2 } 
` 
`
`3 
`
`

`
`
`
`C.
`
`Respondent Owns VCI’s VGO Design Mark
`
`Respondent’s registration is for the VGO mark in standard characters but Respondent
`
`uses a design mark in commerce. Specifically, as depicted in the specimen of use filed with its
`
`application (Exhibit C), Respondent uses the design mark below (“VCI’s VGO Design Mark”):
`
`
`
`It is appropriate for the Board to consider the specimen of record as evidence of how a mark is
`
`actually being used in commerce when evaluating competing marks for likelihood of confusion
`
`purposes. As Professor McCarthy explains, “[a]s to format, if applicant’s mark is shown in the
`
`application in typed letters, it is appropriate to compare the actual specimen of applicant’s use
`
`with opposer’s format usage.” J. Thomas McCarthy, 3 McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair
`
`Competition § 20:15. The courts have followed this rule for at least 40 years. In Phillips
`
`Petroleum Company v. C.J. Webb, Inc. 170 U.S.P.Q. 35 (C.C.P.A. 1971), Phillips opposed
`
`applicant’s CRC MARINE FORMULA 6-66 mark based on an alleged likelihood of confusion
`
`with Phillips’ 66 mark. Although applicant’s mark in standard characters was significantly
`
`different than opposer’s mark, the Federal Circuit’s predecessor court examined the specimens of
`
`use submitted with the application. The court noted that because the application was submitted
`
`in standard characters, the “application is not limited to the mark depicted in any special form. In
`
`trying to visualize what other forms the mark might appear in, we are aided by the specimens
`
`submitted with Webb’s application as illustrating the ‘mark as actually used.’ ” Id. At 36. It was
`
`clear from “the specimen included with the application papers in the record,” id., that the “66”
`
`portion of applicant’s mark was more prominent that the other portions of the mark. As a result,
`
`{M0701849.2 } 
` 
`
`4 
`
`

`
`the court found a likelihood of confusion and reversed the TTAB’s decision dismissing the
`
`opposition.
`
`
`
`Moreover, the Federal Circuit has recently reinforced the validity of the Phillips case. See
`
`Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Group, Inc., 98 U.S.P.Q.2d 1253, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“As
`
`explained in Phillips, illustrations of the mark as actually used may assist the T.T.A.B. in
`
`visualizing other forms in which the mark might appear.”)
`
`
`
`Similar to the Phillips’ case, it is appropriate for the TTAB to consider how Respondent
`
`actually uses the mark in commerce based on the specimen included with the application papers
`
`in the record.
`
`
`
`D. Petitioner uses its V-GO Mark and its VGO Design Mark in the healthcare industry
`
`Petitioner’s product is an insulin delivery device. As it is well known, insulin devices are
`
`used in the healthcare industry, specifically in the field of diabetes care and management.
`
`Petitioner has been using both its standard character mark and its design mark in connection with
`
`its insulin delivery device.
`
`
`
`E. Respondent uses both the VCI VGO Mark and the VCI VGO Design Mark in the
`healthcare industry, including in the field of diabetes care and management
`
`
`While Respondent registered its VGO mark for use in connection with an audio and
`
`video telecommunications device without specifying an industry, it is undisputed that
`
`Respondent is using the mark in the healthcare industry, including in the field of diabetes care
`
`and management.
`
`Respondent advertises its product as “A Groundbreaking Telemedicine Solution”
`
`(Exhibit D). The article, Amana Healthcare to connect patient with Vgo robots, (Exhibit E)
`
`{M0701849.2 } 
` 
`
`5 
`
`

`
`states “[t]he telepresence robots will allow patients, family members or health professionals to
`
`drive the robot and interact through the build in video and audio.” Another article, Rady
`
`Children’s Announces VGo Deployment in Telemedicine Program, states “[d]octors at Rady
`
`Children’s Hospital today introduced the deployment of a fleet of Vgo telemedicine robots,
`
`allowing physicians to evaluate patients quickly and from anywhere… [d]octors are now able to
`
`interact and perform their jobs in ways not previously possible” (Exhibit F).
`
`In fact, Respondent admits that the healthcare industry is at least one third of its market.
`
`In the deposition of Thomas Ryden under Rule 30(b), Mr. Ryden indicates that the healthcare
`
`industry is a third of its market:
`
`
`
`Q: What percentage of VCI’s market consists of healthcare?
`A: I would say a third. I think it’s almost a third between those
`three major market groups.
`
`
`(Exhibit G, pp 45 – 48.) In Respondent’s white paper, Extending the Reach of Care, it advertises
`
`that the “Vgo robotic telepresence can make a profound impact” and then it describes how
`
`Respondent’s product can be used in the healthcare industry, i.e., for second opinions, medical
`
`training, and in-home post-op care (Exhibit H). In fact, Respondent’s website makes numerous
`
`references to Respondent’s product’s uses in the healthcare industry. (Exhibit I). Also,
`
`Respondent’s products are advertised in healthcare magazines. For example, the VGO
`
`telepresence robot was featured in Modern Healthcare (Exhibit J)
`
`
`
`More importantly, Respondent promotes its product for use the same field in which
`
`Petitioner promotes its product – the field of diabetes care and management. Respondent and
`
`PositiveID Corporation, a diabetes management company, conducted a joint product
`
`demonstration in May of 2012 at the American Telemedicine Association Conference (Exhibit
`
`{M0701849.2 } 
` 
`
`6 
`
`

`
`K). The purpose of the joint product demonstration was to demonstrate “PositiveID’s iglucose
`
`wireless communication device for diabetes management operates in conjunction with Vgo’s
`
`robotic telepresence to show the ability of wireless technology to transform healthcare through
`
`mobile interaction between patients and healthcare providers” (Exhibit L).
`
`
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`In In re E.I. DuPont DeNemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361 (C.C.P.A. 1973) the
`
`predecessor of the Federal Circuit set forth a multi-factor test for determining likelihood of
`
`confusion. These factors include: (i) “the similarity or dissimilarity of the marks in their
`
`entireties as to the appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression,” and (ii) “the
`
`similarity or dissimilarity and nature of the goods or services as described in an application or
`
`registration or in connection with which a prior mark is in use.”
`
`
`
`A. VCI’s VGO Mark is identical to Petitioner’s V-GO Mark
`
`Petitioner’s registration for its mark in standard characters is for the distinctive term “V-
`
`GO” whereas Respondent’s registration is for the mark “VGO.” The only different between the
`
`two marks is use of a hyphen. Since a hyphen is a character that does not significantly alter the
`
`mark, the marks are virtually identical.
`
`Because the mark is distinctive and the marks are virtually identical, consumer confusion
`
`is highly likely. Accordingly, the Board must determine that Respondent’s VGO Mark is
`
`confusingly similar to Petitioner’s V-GO Mark.
`
`
`
`{M0701849.2 } 
` 
`
`7 
`
`

`
`B. VCI’s VGO Design Mark is substantially similar to Petitioner’s V-GO Mark
`
`VCI’s VGO Design Mark is substantially similar to Petitioner’s V-GO Design Mark. As
`
`you can see below, both marks consists of a large capital letter “V” followed by the word “GO”
`
`in smaller capital letters. The fonts are similar, and in both the marks, the fonts are slanted
`
`towards the right. In addition, both marks contain a horizontal lime green element with a
`
`spherical shape on the right-hand side, which suggests movement from left to right.                        
`
`                    
`
`                                    
`
`
`
`In summation, the overall appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression of
`
`VCI’s VGO Mark is virtually identical to Petitioner’s V-GO Mark and VCI’s VGO Design Mark
`
`is substantially similar to Petitioner’s V-GO Design Mark.
`
`
`
`C. The goods are closely related
`
`When marks are very similar or identical, less similarity of the goods is required for a
`
`finding that confusion is likely. McCarthy §23.20.50. As Professor McCarthy explains, “it is
`
`‘only necessary that there be a viable relationship between the goods or services in order to
`
`support a holding of likelihood of confusion.’” Citing In re Concordia International Forwarding
`
`Corp. 222 U.S.P.Q. 335, 1983 WL 51828 (T.T.A.B. 1983).
`
`In fact, the degree of similarity of the goods can be larger if the marks are identical.
`
`McCarthy §23.20.50, citing Kohler Co. v. Baldwin Hardware Corporation, 82 U.S.P.Q.2d
`
`U.S.P.Q.2d 1100, 2007 WL 117575 (T.T.A.B. 2007) (likelihood of confusion found when
`
`identical marks used on senior user’s plumping fixtures and junior user’s door hardware).
`
`{M0701849.2 } 
` 
`
`8 
`
`

`
`Here, because the standard character marks are identical and the design marks are
`
`substantially similar, less similarity of the goods is required. The goods are closely related
`
`because both Respondent’s and Petitioner’s goods are devices that are used in healthcare and
`
`patient management. Petitioner’s product is an insulin delivery device, which is sold and
`
`marketed in the healthcare industry. Respondent’s product may be used in the care and
`
`management of diabetes, as it demonstrated jointly with PositiveID Corporation.
`
`PositiveID Corporation and VGo Communications to Host Joint
`Demonstration of Wireless Health Solutions at American Telemedicine
`Association Conference
`
`Robotic Telepresence and Mobile Health Monitoring Services Offer
`Innovative Care Options to Healthcare Providers
`
`TAMPA, Fla., May 2, 2011 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- PositiveID
`Corporation ("PositiveID") (Nasdaq:PSID), a leader in next- generation
`patient monitoring and diagnostics, and VGo Communications, Inc. ("VGo"),
`the leading provider of robotic telepresence solutions, announced today that
`the companies will host a joint demonstration of their innovative wireless
`health solutions working together at the American Telemedicine Association
`Annual International Meeting and Exhibition 2011 in Tampa, Florida. The
`companies will demonstrate PositiveID's iglucoseTM wireless communication
`device for diabetes management operating in conjunction with VGo's robotic
`telepresence to show the ability of wireless technology to transform healthcare
`through mobile interaction between patients and healthcare providers.
`
`Demonstration Details
`
`Demos will take place twice daily on May 2 and 3 at 12:30 pm ET and 2:30
`pm ET in PositiveID's booth (#1340).
`
`The live demonstration will show a student using iglucose in a hypothetical
`classroom environment. Once the student checks her blood glucose readings, a
`text message will be sent via iglucose to the "remote school nurse" (in
`Boston). The student's low blood sugar reading will prompt the nurse, using a
`VGo, to check on the student in Tampa. The VGo will travel from its booth
`(#1040) to booth #1340, all under the control of the nurse in Boston. The
`nurse will then have a short face-to-face conversation with the student and
`advise the student of actions to take to stabilize her blood sugar.
`
`(Exhibit L)
`
`{M0701849.2 } 
` 
`
`9 
`
`

`
`
`
`Respondent’s promotion of its product for use of its VGO product in the healthcare industry,
`
`including in the same field in which Petitioner uses its VGO mark – the field of diabetes care and
`
`management –is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive.
`
`
`
`D. Petitioner’s Rights to the VGO mark are Senior to Respondent’s Rights
`
`Petitioner’s rights to the VGO mark are senior to Respondent’s purported rights to the
`
`VGO mark. Petitioner filed applications for Petitioner’s V-GO Design Mark and Petitioner’s V-
`
`GO Mark on June 4, 2009, which subsequently registered on February 28, 2012 and April 10,
`
`2012, respectively. Respondent filed an application for the VGO (standard characters) mark on
`
`March 2, 2010, which subsequently registered on December 21, 2010. Petitioner’s constructive
`
`use date is June 4, 2009, Petitioner’s rights are senior to Respondent’s purported rights.
`
`
`
`E. Channels of trade should be given less importance because the marks are identical
`
`When marks are identical, channels of trade should be given less weight in a likelihood of
`
`confusion analysis because it is not conclusive and does not “form a proper basis for finding lack
`
`of likelihood of confusion or mistake when the identical trademarks are used on the respective
`
`goods of the parties.” McCarthy §24:53; citing J. C. Hall Co. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 340 F.2d
`
`960, 144 U.S.P.Q. 435 (C.C.P.A. 1965), quoted in TAC Technical Instrument Corp. v. Fischer &
`
`Porter Co., 433 F.2d 827, 167 U.S.P.Q. 635 (C.C.P.A. 1970) (emphasis added). Accord
`
`Glamorene Products Corp. v. Procter & Gamble Co., 538 F.2d 894, 190 U.S.P.Q. 543 (C.C.P.A.
`
`1976) (where applicant does not specify channel of sales, present differences between the parties
`
`is not controlling); Wella Corp. v. California Concept Corp., 558 F.2d 1019, 194 U.S.P.Q. 419
`
`(C.C.P.A. 1977) (reversing Board holding that the parties were “locked into” separate trade
`
`{M0701849.2 } 
` 
`
`10 
`
`

`
`channels: no proof of impossibility of use of common trade channels); San Fernando Electric
`
`Mfg. Co. v. JFD Electronics Components Corp., 565 F.2d 683, 196 U.S.P.Q. 1 (C.C.P.A. 1977)
`
`(a registrant's rights “are not to be tied into its current business practices, which may change at
`
`any time”).
`
`  
`
`Therefore, even if Petitioner’s and Respondent’s goods are not sold in the same channels
`
`of trade, because the standard character marks are identical and the design marks are
`
`substantially similar, the channels of trade should be given little weight here.
`
`
`
`F. Competition is not required to establish likelihood of confusion
`
`While arguably Respondent and Petitioner are not competitors, competition is not
`
`necessary for confusion to occur. The real test for trademark infringement is likelihood of
`
`confusion, not competition. McCarthy § 24.13, citing Continental Motors Corp. v. Continental
`
`Aviation Corp., 375 F.2d 857, 153 U.S.P.Q. 313 (5th Cir. 1967); Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Safeway
`
`Properties, Inc., 307 F.2d 495, 134 U.S.P.Q. 467 (2d Cir. 1962).
`
`Therefore, because the standard character marks are identical and the design marks are
`
`substantially similar, whether or not the Respondent and Petitioner are competitors is irrelevant
`
`to determine that confusion is likely.
`
`
`
`G. Petitioner will be damaged by the continued registration of VCI’s VGOMark
`
`The continued existence of the registration is likely to cause harm and damage to
`
`Petitioner in that it falsely represents to the public that VCI has rights in and to the VGO mark
`
`inconsistent with those of Petitioner who has prior rights, and that there is a false presumption of
`
`rights to the registration which are inconsistent with Petitioner’s superior rights. In addition, the
`
`registration falsely suggests to the public that, by virtue of the registration, there is an association
`
`{M0701849.2 } 
` 
`
`11 
`
`

`
`between Petitioner and Respondent with respect to the VGO mark or that Respondent’s goods
`
`are in some manner associated with Petitioner and its registered mark.
`
`
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`There is no genuine dispute of material facts in this case. Respondent registered and is
`
`using a mark that is identical to Petitioner’s mark in literal form, and virtually identical to
`
`Petitioner’s mark in design form. Petitioner rights in the VGO mark are senior to Respondent’s
`
`purported rights in the VGO mark. Moreover, the marks are used on goods that are closely
`
`related insofar as they are complementary, i.e., both are used in the field of diabetes care and
`
`management.
`
`Given that there is no genuine dispute as to the facts of this case, and given that confusion
`
`is likely, Petitioner respectfully requests the Board grant this Motion for Summary Judgment and
`
`order that U.S. Reg. No. 3,895,432 be cancelled.
`
`November 8, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`VALERITAS, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`{M0701849.2 } 
` 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` By: __________________________________________
`
`Sheri S. Mason
`Thomas F. Dunn
`Morse, Barnes-Brown & Pendleton, P.C.
`CityPoint
`230 Third Avenue, 4th Floor
`Waltham, Massachusetts 02451
`Tel:
`781.622.5930
`Fax: 781.622.5933
`Email: ttab@mbbp.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12 
`
`

`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I, Tracy D. Skahan, certify that a copy of the foregoing PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR
`
`SUMMARY JUDGEMENT was served on:
`
`
`Michael J. Bevilacqua, Esq.
`Barbara A. Barakat, Esq.
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP
`60 State Street
`Boston, Massachusetts 02109
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`by placing same with the U.S. Postal Service, via first class mail, postage pre-paid, this 8th day
`of November, 2014.
`
`
`
` 
`
`
`
`_______________________________
`Tracy D. Skahan
`
`{M0701849.2 } 
` 
`
`13 
`
`

`
`EXHIBIT A
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`V--«GO
`
`Reg, No, 4,125,819
`
`VALERITAS. INC. (D:LAWARE CORPORATION)
`SUITE 100
`
`Registered Apr. 10, 2012 750 ROUTE 202 SOUTH
`BRIDGEWATER, NJ 8807
`
`Int. Cl.: 10
`
`TRADEIVIARK
`
`PRINCIPAL REGISTER
`
`FOR: MEDICAL AI’I’ARA'I'IJS, NAMELY, INI* USION AND INJEC'I‘ION DEVICES FOR AD-
`MINISTERING DRUGS, IN CLASS 10 (U.S. CLS. 26, 39 AND 44).
`
`FIRST USE 1-3-2012; IN COMMERCE 1-3-2012.
`
`THE MARK CONSISTS OF STANDARD CHARACTERS WITHOUT CLAIM TO ANY PAR-
`TICULAR FONT, STYLE, SIZE, OR COLOR.
`
`SN 77-752,694, FILED 6-4-2009.
`
`ELLEN B. AWRICH, EXA MINING A'I"I‘()RN EY
`
`Director uflhe Unized States Patent and I‘1'ademu1'l< ()fi'IL'e
`
`

`
`
`
`EXHIBIT B
`EXHIBIT B
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`DISPOSABLE INSULIN DELIVERY
`
`Reg. No. 4,105,936
`
`Registered Feb. 28, 2012
`
`VALERITAS, INC. (DELAWARE CORPORATION)
`SUITE 100
`750 ROUTE 202 SOUTH
`BRIDGEWATER, NJ 08807
`
`Int. Cl.: 10
`
`TRADEMARK
`
`PRINCIPAL REGISTER
`
`Director ufthe United Slales Patem and ’I‘rade1mxrk Office
`
`FOR: MEDICAL APPARATUS, NAMELY, INF USION AND INJECTION DEVICES FOR AD-
`MINISTERING DRUGS, IN CLASS 10 (U.S. CLS. 26, 39 AND 44).
`
`FIRST USE I-3-2012; IN COMMERCE I-3-20I2.
`
`NO CLAIM IS MADE TO THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE "DI SPOSABLE INSULIN DELIV-
`ERY", APART FROM THE MARK AS SHOWN.
`
`THE COLOR(S) DARK GREEN, MEDIUM GREEN, LIGHT GREEN, LIME GREEN, AND
`WHITE IS/ARE CLAIMED AS A FEATURE OF THE MARK.
`
`THE MARK CONSISTS OF THE MARK "V—GO" WITH THE "V" IN DARK GREEN. THE
`IIYPIIEN, WI IICII CROSSES TIIE WORD "GO" IIORIZONTALLY APPROXIMATELY
`WHERE THE "G"'S CROSS BAR WOULD BEGIN AND ENDS INSIDE THE CENTER OF THE
`LETTER "0", IS A GENERALLY OVAL SHAPE WITH DARK GREEN ON THE I ,EFT, FAD NG
`TOWARD THE RIGHT INTO MEDIUM GREEN AND THEN LIGHT GREEN. THE GENER-
`ALLY OVAL SHAPE ENDS WITH A CIRCLE IN LIGHT GREEN, WITHA SHADED CIRCLE
`WITHIN THE LARGER CIRCLE. THE INNER SHADED CIRCLE IS DARK GREEN, FAD_NG
`INWARD TO LIGHT GREEN, AND THEN FADING INWARD TO WHITE. THE HYPHEN IS
`A STYLIZED DESIGN INTENDED TO REPRESENT A FINGER PRICK USED TO DRAWING
`BLOOD FOR TESTING. THE "GO" COMPONENT OF THE WORDING APPEARS IN LIME
`GREEN. THE WORDS "DISPOSABLE INSULIN DELIVERY" ARE IN DARK GREEN BE-
`NEATH THE "GO" COMPONENT. THE WHITE INSIDE THE INNER SHADED CIRCLE ON
`THE HYPHEN IS A PART OF THE MARK. THE REST OF THE WHITE IS NOT PART OF
`THE MARK AND REPRESENTS BACKGROUND AREA.
`
`SN 77-752,697, FILED 6-4-2009.
`
`ELLEN B. AWRICH, EXAMINING ATTORNEY
`
`

`
`
`
`EXHIBIT C
`EXHIBIT C
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`T?
`
`Ew-nl
`
`':I'fi':i'I-fl-GI
`
`5ol1IIIq'_|I:-
`
`

`
`

`
`
`
`EXHIBIT D
`EXHIBIT D
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`HEALTHCARE
`
`APPLICATIONS
`
`Remote EJl§.3El’t
`in todays healthcare
`environments. skills In every area
`are in short supply. VGO enables
`the wider distribution of precious
`skills and expertise. Conduct
`rounds. monitor patients. pop in
`when on call, consult with other
`caregivers. and increase patient
`face time. Use \.-‘Go to increase
`expert availability by being
`anyviihere even when you can ’t go
`there.
`
`Fteatlmission Rediictioiis
`With new regulation which penalize
`institutions for high readmission
`rates. VGO is being used to
`monitor patients after discharge —
`in the skilied nursing facility, rehab
`center. or home — all while
`increasing patient satisfaction.
`
`Eldercare
`\!Go is being used in assisted
`living communities, long—lerr'ri
`rehabilitation facilities. and nursing
`homes to offer more convenience
`to patients by ailowing better
`communication with healthcare
`provicters.
`
`Staff Training
`VGo is an ideal way to increase
`the productivity of
`trainers who
`have
`responsibilities beyond
`a
`single facility
`Instead of a single
`two hour training session bounded
`by travel times in a day. a trainer
`can
`now easily
`conduct
`four
`training
`sessions
`in
`a day ~
`conducted from anywhere.
`
`Distant Faniily ri‘le:'nl'iers
`Visiti rig family members and
`friends is an important part of a
`patients recovery or el:ler‘s aging
`process. VGO can provide flexible
`access to remote visitors in
`maternity wards. post-op patient
`rooms and assisted living iaciiities.
`
`Translation Delivery
`Many healthcare providers are
`required to provide translation
`services for patients whose
`primary language is son'ietl'iing
`other than English. VGo can
`increase the availability of
`translators and give them the
`freedom to position themselves
`appropriately with the patient.
`
`
`
`L
`
`L Introducing VGo®
`
`A Groundbreaking Telemedicine Solution
`"‘;’\‘
`
`
`
`
`
`0 Lower costs and increase productivity by reducing the
`travel of limited clinical resources
`
`0 Increase service levels without high cost capital
`expenditures
`
`a Raise patient satisfaction by providing a higher level of
`clinician contact and access to other visitors who may
`not be local
`
`0 Enhance patient recovery by increasing availability of
`appropriate healthcare personnel
`functionality and
`information exchange
`
`0 Reduce training logistics by providing flexibility in
`location of training experts
`
`0 Save time. see patients in their own environment, and
`improve patient-clinician interaction
`
`gives the healthcare provider or
`family member the ability to not only "be" in a
`distant iocation, but also to “move around” in
`
`that location.
`
`\/Go improves healthcare by
`
`enabling heaithcare providers
`
`to deliver
`
`companion
`
`care
`
`and
`
`comprehensive
`
`monitoring at much lower costs and to
`
`extend and improve family member contacts
`
`and visits.
`
`VGo is not designed as a
`
`replacement
`
`for
`
`in-person interaction but
`
`rather as the next best alternative to “being”
`
`in the clinic, hospital, rehab center, assisted
`
`living facility, skilled nursing facility, or private
`residence.
`\/Go
`also
`eliminates
`the
`
`deficiencies associated with other video
`
`solutions that are locked to a TV or computer
`
`monitor by providing 100% remote controlled
`
`mobility.
`
`The solution does not requireiany special
`
`actions on the part of people in the location
`
`of the VGO; people interact just as if the
`remote VGo—user were there in the flesh.
`
`When you can ’t be there,
`
`VGo there!
`
`“Physicians like me are constantly being asked to be more efficient with our time and
`money. [VGO] is a technology that allows us to be very cautious, efficient, and
`innovative at the same time. ”
`
`-9 Dr. Hiep Nguyen, Children's Hospital Boston
`
`VGO 001293
`
`

`
`Spe-ciiicatioris
`0 43"or 60" High
`‘i3"\N x '|5"D (pivots within footprint}
`19 lbs. (wt standard E‘: hr. battery}
`22 lbs. (wt 12 hr. |ong—liie battery}
`independent dual motorized drives
`0 to 2.5 fiisec variable speed
`Obstacle and stair detection
`Auto—d-asking for battery re-charging
`2MP motorized camera viii flash
`H.264 up to3G fps video codec
`8!-tiiz Hi fidelity audio codec
`6"" LCD display
`5X Zoom
`4 microphone array, 350'” pick--up
`Wo'ofer and ti.-iisater speakers
`Echo and Noise Cancellation
`Integrated touchpad user conlrois
`Speech processor
`AES 8. TLS encryption for security
`Embedded 302.11 WiFl
`Embedded Verizon 4G LTE topt)
`Vt3oNet Manager inreb tool for
`centralized administration
`- C|J5|0l'l'|lZahiB stand-by images
`
`UCIIIIIIIIIOU.'.'....
`
`Box Contents
`0 The VGO w.-‘ 6 hour battery
`- Handtielcl local remote controller
`I Charging Deck 6. Power cord
`Docurneniaticin
`
`Remote Computer
`iiilinimiini Requirements
`
`Windows PC System:
`inrndows t3.'r', Vista. or XP
`Intei Core2 2.0CrhZ or equiiralerit
`2 GB RAM
`40 MB free hard drive disk space
`Camera. mic and spealii:-rsrheadset
`
`VGO App for iPad Tablets:
`- 105 6.0 or tater
`- Compatible with 2, 3. 4 and Mini
`
`Apple Mac System:
`o Mac OS X Version it) 6 or higher
`0
`inlet Processor
`- 2 GB RAM
`- 40 MB tree hard drive disk space
`0 Camera, mic and speaiierslheadset
`
`Neti.-\ro=rk Require tenants
`Broadband interns! access with min
`'i'E8Kbps upload speeds
`
`if inside an enterprise firewall, the
`following outboard firewall ports must
`be open:
`. Port 5222 t)<iir'iF'F'_:
`- Port 3478 (STUNi
`- Pen SCI (i-ITTP Non-proxy}
`0 Port 443 i,H‘iTP3 Non-proxy}
`
`Note‘ A port roster is included in the
`VC-Jo rtpp so you can easily deterrrirrio
`porfstatus
`
`For more do-t‘a.its, please visit our
`FAQ'S at wt-vi-vygoconr oomffaq
`
`it All Works
`
`VGo’s unique capability is in its remote conlrolied
`
`mobility combined with two-way video and audio
`
`communications.
`elements:
`
`The
`
`solution
`
`comprises
`
`two
`
`-
`
`~
`
`The VGo. The remote controlled mobile device
`
`that represents you in a distant location
`
`The VGo App. The software application that is
`
`downloaded to your computer, laptop or iPad that
`
`you use to initiate connectivity, see and hear the
`far end and drive the X/Go,
`
`VGo runs over the Internet with the help of VGoNet, a
`
`special
`
`cloud computing network
`
`that manages
`
`everything so you don’t have to, The network was
`
`especially designed to handle the complexities of a
`
`solution that requires real time AV communications
`and simultaneous robotic remote controls.
`
`
`
`“One of the things we’re going to
`have to do is be where the
`
`patient is - we don ’t have
`enough caregivers and
`resources to do that any other
`way but electronically.”
`
`Greg Walton
`Chief information Officer
`
`El Camino Hospital
`
`
`
`©2