throbber
Case 1:20-cv-01111-RJJ-SJB ECF No. 48, PageID.428 Filed 07/22/19 Page 1 of 26
`
`In the United States District Court
`For the Western District of Tennessee
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs;
`
`Darrell K. Thompson;
`William T. Holt (deceased);
`Leatha J. Holt (next of kin); and
`NewAir Manufacturing, LLC,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Stryker Corporation;
`Physio-Control International,
`Inc.;
`Physio-Control, Inc.;
`Psysio-Control Manufacturing,
`Inc.;
`Jolife AB;
`and Bain Capital, Inc.,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:19-cv-2038
`
`
`
`
`Jury Trial Demanded
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement,
`Trade Secret Misappropriation, Fraud, and
`Demand for Jury Trial
`
`
`Plaintiffs, Darrell K. Thompson, William T. Holt (Deceased), Leatha J.
`
`Holt (next of kin), and NewAir Manufacturing, LLC, (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”)
`
`by and through counsel, for their Complaint for Patent Infringement, and Trade
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01111-RJJ-SJB ECF No. 48, PageID.429 Filed 07/22/19 Page 2 of 26
`
`Secret Misappropriation against Medtronic Public Limited Company, Medtronic,
`
`Inc., Stryker Corporation, Physio-Control International, Inc., Physio-Control
`
`Manufacturing, Inc., Physio-Control, Inc., Jolife AB, and Bain Capital, Inc.
`
`(collectively, the “Defendants”) state as follows:
`
`The Parties
`
`1. Plaintiff Darrell K. Thompson (“Thompson”) is a resident of the State of
`
`Tennessee.
`
`2. Plaintiff William T. Holt (“W. Holt”) is deceased, and his next of kin, Leatha J.
`
`Holt (“Holt”), is a resident of the state of Tennessee.
`
`3. Plaintiff NewAir Manufacturing LLC (“NewAir”) is a domestic limited liability
`
`company duly organized and incorporated under the laws of the State of
`
`Tennessee, with its principal place of business in Bartlett, TN.
`
`4. Defendant Stryker Corporation (“Stryker”) is a domestic corporation duly
`
`organized and incorporated under the laws of the State of Michigan, with its
`
`principal place of business in Kalamazoo, MI. (Stryker and all wholly owned
`
`subsidiaries of Stryker hereafter collectively referred to as “Stryker
`
`Defendants.”)
`
`5. Defendant Physio-Control International, Inc. (“Physio-Control Int’l”) is a
`
`corporation duly organized and incorporated under the laws of the State of
`
`Washington with its principal place of business in Redmond, WA. Upon
`
`information and belief, Physio-Control Int’l is a wholly owned subsidiary of
`
`Stryker.
`
`
`Page 2 of 26
`Amended Complaint
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01111-RJJ-SJB ECF No. 48, PageID.430 Filed 07/22/19 Page 3 of 26
`
`6. Defendant Physio-Control Manufacturing, Inc. (“Physio-Control Mfg.”) is a
`
`corporation duly organized and incorporated under the laws of the State of
`
`Washington with its principal place of business in Redmond, WA. Upon
`
`information and belief, Physio-Control Mfg. is a wholly owned subsidiary of
`
`Stryker.
`
`7. Defendant Physio-Control, Inc. (“Physio-Control”) is a corporation duly
`
`organized and incorporated under the laws of the State of Washington with its
`
`principal place of business in Redmond, WA. Upon information and belief,
`
`Physio-Control is a wholly owned subsidiary of Stryker. Physio-Control has a
`
`duly filed foreign certificate of existence with the Tennessee Secretary of State.
`
`8. Defendant Jolife AB is a foreign corporation duly organized and incorporated in
`
`Sweden with its principal place of business in Lund, Sweden. Upon information
`
`and belief, Jolife AB is a wholly owned subsidiary of Physio-Control.
`
`9. Defendant Bain Capital, Inc. (“Bain Capital”) is a corporation duly organized
`
`and incorporated under the laws of the state of Delaware with a principal place
`
`of business in Boston, MA.
`
`10. Medtronic announced its acquisition of Physio-Control on June 30, 1998. Bain
`
`Capital announced its acquisition of Physio-Control from Medtronic on
`
`November 17, 2011. Stryker announced its acquisition of Physio-Control from
`
`Bain Capital on February 16, 2016.
`
`11. Physio-Control announced its acquisition of Jolife AB on April 25, 2011.
`
`
`Page 3 of 26
`Amended Complaint
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01111-RJJ-SJB ECF No. 48, PageID.431 Filed 07/22/19 Page 4 of 26
`
`Jurisdiction and Venue
`
`12. This action arises under the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. This Court has
`
`original jurisdiction over this controversy pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and
`
`1338(a).
`
`13. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claim
`
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because Plaintiff’s state law claim is so related to
`
`the federal claims for which this Court has original jurisdiction that the state
`
`claim forms a part of the same case or controversy.
`
`[I]n any civil action of which the district court have original jurisdiction, the
`district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so
`related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part
`of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States
`Constitution.”) Because the federal district court has original jurisdiction over the
`patent claims and because the other claims are so related to the patent claims that
`they form part of the same case and controversy, this Court has supplemental
`jurisdiction for the remainder of the claims.
`
`
`Tenn. Code. Ann. § 20-4-101 and 104.
`
`14. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants. Defendants regularly and
`
`continuously do business in this District and have infringed or induced
`
`infringement, and continue to do so, in this District. Upon information and
`
`belief, Defendants maintain offices within this District. Furthermore, Stryker
`
`Defendants’ website advertises active job listings in the District. In addition, the
`
`Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because minimum contacts
`
`have been established with the forum and the exercise of jurisdiction would not
`
`offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
`
`15. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1400(b) because
`
`Defendants have committed acts of infringement in this State and in this
`
`
`Page 4 of 26
`Amended Complaint
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01111-RJJ-SJB ECF No. 48, PageID.432 Filed 07/22/19 Page 5 of 26
`
`District, are subject to personal jurisdiction in this District, a substantial part of
`
`the events or omissions giving rise to this claim has occurred in this district, and
`
`the Defendants have a regular and established place of business in this district.
`
`Asserted Patents
`
`16. On January 24, 2006, the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`(“USPTO”) duly and legally issued U.S. Patent No. 6,988,499 (“the ‘499
`
`patent”), entitled “Mechanical Resuscitator,” to William T. Holt. The patent
`
`application for the ‘499 patent was filed on March 22, 2002, and receives the
`
`benefit of such priority date. The inventors have been since amended to be
`
`William T. Holt; by Leatha J. Holt; and Darrel K. Thompson. A true and correct
`
`of the ‘499 patent is attached as Exhibit A. NewAir Manufacturing, LLC is the
`
`owner by assignment of the ‘499 patent and holds all rights and interest in that
`
`patent.
`
`17. The ‘499 patent is valid and enforceable.
`
`Accused Products
`
`18. On November 30, 2010, the USPTO issued U.S. Patent No. 7,841,996 (“the
`
`‘996 patent”), entitled “Positioning Device for Use in Apparatus for Treating
`
`Sudden Cardiac Arrest” to Peter Sebelius and Martina Rosell. The PCT for the
`
`‘996 patent was filed on November 4, 2004, but receives the priority date of
`
`November 17, 2003, for its foreign application. A true and correct copy of the
`
`‘996 patent is attached as Exhibit B. Jolife AB is the owner by assignment of the
`
`‘996 patent and holds all rights and interest in that patent.
`
`
`Page 5 of 26
`Amended Complaint
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01111-RJJ-SJB ECF No. 48, PageID.433 Filed 07/22/19 Page 6 of 26
`
`19. On June 5, 2007, the USPTO issued U.S. Patent No. 7,226,427 (“the ‘427
`
`patent”), entitled “Systems and Procedures for Treating Cardiac Arrest” to
`
`Stig Steen. The PCT for the ‘427 patent was filed on June 6, 2003, but receives
`
`the priority date of May 12, 2003, for its provisional application. A true and
`
`correct copy of the ‘427 patent is attached as Exhibit C. Jolife AB is the owner
`
`by assignment of the ‘427 patent and holds all rights and interest in that patent.
`
`20. Upon information and belief, Defendants manufacture, sell, offer for sale, and
`
`distribute products according to the claims in the ‘996 and ‘427 patents
`
`including but not limited to the LUCAS Stabilization Strap.
`
`Factual Background
`
`21. Cardiac arrest is commonly treated through either mechanical or electrical
`
`defibrillation or resuscitation. Mechanical resuscitators work by forcing
`
`compressions of the patient’s sternum using manual, hydraulic, pneumatic, or
`
`other physical means. Mechanical resuscitators seek to provide a more
`
`powerful, consistent, and convenient alternative to manual cardiopulmonary
`
`resuscitation (CPR) by repeatedly compressing and decompressing the sternum
`
`on a patient.
`
`22. Several mechanical resuscitators are available on the market, each with
`
`particular advantages. One such mechanical resuscitator is the subject of the
`
`‘499 patent.
`
`23. The ‘499 patent included a method for securing the Mechanical Resuscitator to
`
`the patient by means of an attachment affixed beneath the neck of the patient to
`
`
`Page 6 of 26
`Amended Complaint
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01111-RJJ-SJB ECF No. 48, PageID.434 Filed 07/22/19 Page 7 of 26
`
`both secure the Mechanical Resuscitator and position the neck such that the
`
`patient maintains an open airway during resuscitation.
`
`24. This method of securing the resuscitator to the chest while positioning the neck
`
`was of particular interest to Medtronic because the products offered for sale by
`
`Medtronic at that point did not include such a device for securing the
`
`Mechanical Resuscitator to the patient.
`
`25. While the ‘499 patent included and enabled a securing and positioning device,
`
`the inventors kept as a trade secret the securing and positioning device at least
`
`until such a time as the patent application was published.
`
`26. The securing and positioning unit derived independent economic value from
`
`not being generally known nor readily ascertainable because one of the issues
`
`surrounding other mechanical resuscitators was that most mechanical
`
`resuscitators required additional means to position a patient’s neck to maintain
`
`an open airway during resuscitation and to ensure that the mechanical
`
`resuscitator did not shift or move while administering mechanical resuscitation.
`
`27. On March 23, 2002, Mr. Thompson attended a public presentation at Christian
`
`Brothers University, one day after the application for the ‘499 patent had been
`
`filed.
`
`28. At such time, Mathew M. Morrison (“Morrison”), Director of Production
`
`Development Thoracolumbar for Medtronic, acting as an agent and
`
`representative of Medtronic, approached Mr. Thompson about his Mechanical
`
`
`Page 7 of 26
`Amended Complaint
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01111-RJJ-SJB ECF No. 48, PageID.435 Filed 07/22/19 Page 8 of 26
`
`Resuscitator and expressed interest in the Mechanical Resuscitator on behalf of
`
`Medtronic.
`
`29. Morrison
`
`invited Mr. Thompson
`
`to speak to Darrel F. Untereker
`
`(“Untereker”), the Vice President of Research and Technology for Medtronic.
`
`30. Anticipating the necessity to disclose potentially secret information to
`
`Medtronic, Mr. Thompson mailed a non-disclosure and confidentiality
`
`agreement to Medtronic representatives Morrison and Untereker on October
`
`22, 2002. Mr. Thompson marked as “confidential” written communications
`
`with Medtronic representatives which may have contained references to his
`
`trade secrets.
`
`31. After sending the non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements to Morrison
`
`and Untereker, Mr. Thompson spoke with Untereker about the specifications of
`
`the Mechanical Resuscitator by phone.
`
`32. While Medtronic representatives did not return an executed non-disclosure and
`
`confidentiality agreement, Medtronic representatives continued to solicit
`
`information from him that reasonably should have been known to be confidential
`
`in nature. Medtronic representatives knew or reasonably should have known
`
`that the information shared by Mr. Thompson was confidential.
`
`33. In 2003, Mr. Thompson sent another non-disclosure and confidentiality
`
`agreement to Untereker having not received an executed copy of the agreement.
`
`34. Mr. Thompson disclosed to Medtronic representatives the trade secrets held by
`
`the inventors of the ‘499 patent regarding the securing and positioning unit.
`
`
`Page 8 of 26
`Amended Complaint
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01111-RJJ-SJB ECF No. 48, PageID.436 Filed 07/22/19 Page 9 of 26
`
`35. Although Medtronic did not acquire Jolife AB until February 25, 2011,
`
`Medtronic maintained contractual relationships with Jolife AB relating to the
`
`development, manufacture, and distribution of medical devices since, at latest,
`
`2002. Since, at latest, 2004, Medtronic has acted as distributor for Jolife AB
`
`products within the United States. Upon information and belief, Medtronic is
`
`the exclusive distributor of Jolife AB products within the United States.
`
`36. Medtronic has sold, offered for sale, and distributed Jolife AB products in all
`
`fifty states and continues to maintain this sale and distribution.
`
`37. Medtronic disclosed and used the trade secrets provided to it by Mr. Thompson
`
`by disclosing information provided by Mr. Thompson to Physio-Control and
`
`Jolife AB. Either Physio-Control, Jolife AB, or both Physio-Control and Jolife
`
`AB together used these trade secrets to develop their own chest compression
`
`device and Positioning Device for Use in Apparatus for Treating Sudden
`
`Cardiac Arrest.
`
`38. Physio-Control, Jolife AB, or both Physio-Control and Jolife AB representatives
`
`knew or reasonably should have known that the information disclosed to them
`
`by Medtronic representatives was confidential.
`
`39. Inventors Peter Sebelius and Martina Rosell assigned their rights to the
`
`invention which would later be published as the ‘996 patent to Jolife AB, and
`
`filed a foreign patent application on November 17, 2003, which is one year, seven
`
`months, and twenty-five days after Mr. Thompson was first approached by
`
`
`Page 9 of 26
`Amended Complaint
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01111-RJJ-SJB ECF No. 48, PageID.437 Filed 07/22/19 Page 10 of 26
`
`Medtronic, and one year, seven months, and twenty-six days after the
`
`application for the ‘499 patent had been filed.
`
`40. Because the ‘499 patent application was published as US 2003/017805 A1 on
`
`September 23, 2003, Jolife AB filed its foreign patent application only one
`
`month and twenty-five days after the publication of the application for the ‘499
`
`patent.
`
`41. Upon information and belief, the claims in the ‘996 patent are based wholly or
`
`in part on the trade secrets disclosed to Medtronic by Thompson.
`
`42. Despite the claims of the ‘996 patent being clearly anticipated by the ‘499
`
`patent, inventors Sebelius and Rosell and assignee Jolife AB did not disclose this
`
`prior art to the patent examiner.
`
`43. On November 30, 2010, the ‘996 patent was issued by the USPTO and assigned
`
`to Jolife AB.
`
`44. The ‘427 patent concerns the methods and mechanism for providing
`
`cardiopulmonary resuscitation through mechanical compression of the sternum
`
`coupled with a linked positive pressure airflow into the patient’s airway and
`
`further describes an attachment affixed beneath the neck of the patient to both
`
`secure the Mechanical Resuscitator and position the neck such that the patient
`
`maintains an open airway during resuscitation.
`
`45. Inventors Stig Steen assigned all rights to the invention which would later be
`
`published as the ‘427 patent to Jolife AB, and filed a provisional patent
`
`application on May 12, 2003.
`
`
`Page 10 of 26
`Amended Complaint
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01111-RJJ-SJB ECF No. 48, PageID.438 Filed 07/22/19 Page 11 of 26
`
`46. Upon information and belief, the claims in the ‘427 patent are based wholly or
`
`in part on the trade secrets disclosed to Medtronic by Thompson.
`
`47. Despite the claims of the ‘427 patent being clearly anticipated by the ‘499
`
`patent, inventor Stig Steen and assignee Jolife AB did not disclose this prior art
`
`to the patent examiner.
`
`48. On June 5, 2007, the ‘427 patent was issued by the USPTO and assigned to
`
`Jolife AB.
`
`49. Upon information and belief, Defendants manufacture, sell, offer for sale, and
`
`distribute, the LUCAS Stabilization Strap and other infringing products
`
`manufactured according to the claims of the ‘996 and ‘427 patents.
`
`50. Upon information and belief, Defendants Physio-Control Int’l, Physio-Control
`
`Mfg., Physio-Control, and Jolife AB manufacture, sell, offer for sale, and
`
`distribute the LUCAS Stabilization Strap and other infringing products
`
`manufactured according to the claims of the ‘996 and ‘427 patents.
`
`51. Upon information and belief, Defendants Medtronic, MDT, Medtronic USA,
`
`Stryker, Medtronic, Inc., Stryker, and Bain Capital sell, offer for sale, and
`
`distribute the LUCAS Stabilization Strap and other infringing products
`
`manufactured according to the claims of the ‘996 and ‘427 patents.
`
`52. The inventors of the ‘499 patent were both the first to invent the securing and
`
`positioning unit and the first to file their patent application for said unit.
`
`53. In late 2011, Mr. Thompson learned that Medtronic had purchased Jolife AB
`
`and had contacted Ryan Landon (“Landon”), a representative of Physio-
`
`
`Page 11 of 26
`Amended Complaint
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01111-RJJ-SJB ECF No. 48, PageID.439 Filed 07/22/19 Page 12 of 26
`
`Control, Physio-Control Intl, and Physio-Control Mfg. regarding the chest
`
`compression device and associated patents.
`
`54. On November 28, 2012, Mr. Thompson spoke with Morrison on the phone. In
`
`the phone conversation, Morrison confirmed with Mr. Thompson that Mr.
`
`Thompson was “the one with the chest device” and inquired as to whether his
`
`patent had issued, to which Mr. Thompson replied affirmatively.
`
`55. During that phone conversation, Mr. Thompson breached the subject of patent
`
`infringement of his patent by a Swedish company. Upon information and belief,
`
`the Swedish company to which Mr. Thompson was referring was Jolife AB.
`
`Upon information and belief, Morrison, acting as representative of Medtronic,
`
`knew that the company to which Mr. Thompson referred was Jolife AB.
`
`56. On November 28, 2012, after speaking with Morrison, Mr. Thompson called
`
`Untereker and left a message with substantially the same information as was
`
`relayed to Morrison.
`
`57. On November 28, 2012, after speaking with Untereker, Mr. Thompson called
`
`Landon. Mr. Thompson relayed to Landon substantially the same information
`
`as was relayed to Morrison and Untereker.
`
`58. On November 28, 2012, after speaking with Landon, Mr. Thompson called
`
`Untereker again and spoke with Untereker. At that time, Untereker confirmed
`
`to Mr. Thompson that the confidential information divulged to Medtronic by
`
`Mr. Thompson regarding the securing and positioning unit had been shared
`
`with multiple departments of Medtronic.
`
`
`Page 12 of 26
`Amended Complaint
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01111-RJJ-SJB ECF No. 48, PageID.440 Filed 07/22/19 Page 13 of 26
`
`59. Upon information and belief, Untereker was including Physio-Control, Physio-
`
`Control Intl, Physio-Control Mfg, and Jolife AB as “departments” to which Mr.
`
`Thompson’s trade secrets were shared.
`
`60. A reasonable opportunity for discovery will likely provide further evidentiary
`
`support for abovementioned facts.
`
`Knowledge of the ‘499 Patent
`
`61. Application No. 10/105,041 for the ‘499 patent was filed on March 22, 2002 and
`
`was published as US 2003/017805 A1 on September 23, 2003. The ‘499 patent
`
`was issued on January 24, 2006.
`
`62. On information and belief, Medtronic and MDT have had knowledge of the
`
`pending application for the ‘499 patent since at least March 23, 2002, when Mr.
`
`Thompson was approached by Morrison about the invention. Alternatively,
`
`Medtronic and MDT have had knowledge of the pending application for the
`
`‘499 patent since at least October 22, 2002, when Mr. Thompson sent a
`
`confidential letter to Medtronic representatives regarding the securing and
`
`positioning device. Alternatively, Medtronic and MDT have had knowledge of
`
`the pending/published application for the ‘499 patent since at least September
`
`23, 2003, when it was published. Alternatively, Medtronic and MDT have had
`
`knowledge of the ‘499 patent since at least January 24, 2006, when the patent
`
`was issued. Alternatively, Medtronic and MDT have had knowledge of the ‘499
`
`patent since November 28, 2012, when Mr. Thompson confirmed the issuance
`
`of his patent to Medtronic representatives. Alternatively, Medtronic and MDT
`
`
`Page 13 of 26
`Amended Complaint
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01111-RJJ-SJB ECF No. 48, PageID.441 Filed 07/22/19 Page 14 of 26
`
`have had knowledge of the ‘499 patent since at least November 30, 2016, when
`
`a Complaint for Breach of Contract, Misappropriation of Trade Secrets, and
`
`Unjust Enrichment was filed in the Shelby County Circuit Court. Alternatively,
`
`Medtronic and MDT have had knowledge of the ‘499 patent since at least the
`
`filing of this complaint.
`
`63. On information and belief, Physio-Control, Physio-Control Intl, Physio-Control
`
`Mfg, and Jolife AB have had knowledge of the pending application since at least
`
`October 22, 2012, when Mr. Thompson was approached by Morrison about the
`
`invention. Alternatively, Physio-Control, Physio-Control Intl, Physio-Control
`
`Mfg, and Jolife AB have had knowledge of the pending application for the ‘499
`
`patent since at least October 22, 2012, when Mr. Thompson sent a confidential
`
`letter to Medtronic representatives regarding the securing and positioning
`
`device. Alternatively, Physio-Control, Physio-Control Intl, Physio-Control Mfg,
`
`and Jolife AB have had knowledge of the pending/published application for the
`
`‘499 patent since at least the currently unknown date that Untereker divulged to
`
`Physio-Control, Physio-Control Intl, Physio-Control Mfg, and Jolife AB the
`
`trade secrets contained in his confidential letter. Alternatively, Physio-Control,
`
`Physio-Control Intl, Physio-Control Mfg, and Jolife AB have had knowledge of
`
`the pending/published application for the ‘499 patent since at least September
`
`23, 2003, when it was published. Alternatively, Physio-Control, Physio-Control
`
`Intl, Physio-Control Mfg, and Jolife AB have had knowledge of the ‘499 patent
`
`since at least January 24, 2006, when the patent was issued. Alternatively,
`
`
`Page 14 of 26
`Amended Complaint
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01111-RJJ-SJB ECF No. 48, PageID.442 Filed 07/22/19 Page 15 of 26
`
`Physio-Control, Physio-Control Intl, Physio-Control Mfg, and Jolife AB have
`
`had knowledge of the ‘499 patent since November 28, 2012, when Mr.
`
`Thompson confirmed the issuance of his patent to Physio-Control, Physio-
`
`Control Intl, Physio-Control Mfg, and Jolife AB representatives. Alternatively,
`
`Physio-Control, Physio-Control Intl, Physio-Control Mfg, and Jolife AB have
`
`had knowledge of the ‘499 patent since at least November 30, 2016, when a
`
`Complaint for Breach of Contract, Misappropriation of Trade Secrets, and
`
`Unjust Enrichment was filed in the Shelby County Circuit Court. Alternatively,
`
`Physio-Control, Physio-Control Intl, Physio-Control Mfg, and Jolife AB have
`
`had knowledge of the ‘499 patent since at least the filing of this complaint.
`
`64. On information and belief, Bain Capital has had knowledge of the ‘499 patent
`
`since at least November 17, 2011 when it acquired Physio-Control from
`
`Medtronic. Alternatively, Bain Capital has had knowledge of
`
`the
`
`pending/published application for the ‘499 patent since at least September 23,
`
`2003, when it was published. Alternatively, Bain Capital has had knowledge of
`
`the ‘499 patent since at least January 24, 2006, when the patent was issued.
`
`Alternatively, Bain Capital has had knowledge of the ‘499 patent since
`
`November 28, 2012, when Mr. Thompson confirmed the issuance of his patent
`
`to Physio-Control, Physio-Control Intl, Physio-Control Mfg, and Jolife AB
`
`representatives. Bain Alternatively, Bain Capital has had knowledge of the ‘499
`
`patent since at least November 30, 2016, when a Complaint for Breach of
`
`Contract, Misappropriation of Trade Secrets, and Unjust Enrichment was filed
`
`
`Page 15 of 26
`Amended Complaint
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01111-RJJ-SJB ECF No. 48, PageID.443 Filed 07/22/19 Page 16 of 26
`
`in the Shelby County Circuit Court. Alternatively, Bain Capital has had
`
`knowledge of the ‘499 patent since at least the filing of this complaint.
`
`65. On information and belief, Stryker has had knowledge of the ‘499 patent since
`
`at least February 16, 2016 when it acquired Physio-Control from Bain Capital.
`
`Alternatively, Stryker has had knowledge of the pending/published application
`
`for the ‘499 patent since at least September 23, 2003, when it was published.
`
`Alternatively, Stryker has had knowledge of the ‘499 patent since at least
`
`January 24, 2006, when the patent was issued. Alternatively, Stryker has had
`
`knowledge of the ‘499 patent since at least November 30, 2016, when a
`
`Complaint for Breach of Contract, Misappropriation of Trade Secrets, and
`
`Unjust Enrichment was filed in the Shelby County Circuit Court. Alternatively,
`
`Stryker has had knowledge of the ‘499 patent since at least the filing of this
`
`complaint.
`
`Infringement of the Asserted Patent
`
`66. No defendant currently has a license to the asserted patent.
`
`67. Defendants have been/are now infringing/will continue to infringe the ‘499
`
`patent in this Judicial District and elsewhere in the United States by, among
`
`other things, making, using, importing, selling, and/or offering for sale products
`
`including but not limited to the LUCAS Stabilization Strap.
`
`68. In addition to directly infringing the asserted patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §
`
`271(a), either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, or both, Defendants
`
`indirectly infringe the asserted patent by instructing, directing, and/or requiring
`
`
`Page 16 of 26
`Amended Complaint
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01111-RJJ-SJB ECF No. 48, PageID.444 Filed 07/22/19 Page 17 of 26
`
`others, including its manufacturers, subsidiaries, customers, purchasers, users,
`
`and developers, to perform all or some of the steps of the claims, either literally
`
`or under the doctrine of equivalents, or both, of the asserted patent. Specifically
`
`but not exclusively, Medtronic and other parent corporations to Physio-Control
`
`and Jolife AB have instructed the development and manufacture of the LUCAS
`
`Stabilization Strap by inventors for Jolife AB in violation of the ‘499 patent. In
`
`addition, parent companies Medtronic, MDT, Stryker, and Bain Capital have
`
`all, during their ownership of or contractual relationships with Physio-Control
`
`and Jolife AB, instructed the development, distribution, sale, and offer for sale
`
`of the LUCAS Stabilization Strap in violation of the ‘499 patent.
`
`69. Furthermore, Defendants contributorily infringe upon the asserted patent by
`
`offering for sale, selling, or importing components of the LUCAS Stabilization
`
`Strap and other infringing products for use in the manufacture of the LUCAS
`
`Stabilization Strap and other infringing products, knowing the same to be
`
`especially made or adapted for use in the infringement. Such components are
`
`not staple articles or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial
`
`noninfringing use. Specifically but not exhaustively, an indeterminate number
`
`of manufacturing and distribution facilities are owned and have been owned by
`
`different subsidiaries of the Stryker Defendants. As such, different parts of the
`
`LUCAS Stabilization Strap may be produced, assembled, or distributed among
`
`several Defendants.
`
`
`Page 17 of 26
`Amended Complaint
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01111-RJJ-SJB ECF No. 48, PageID.445 Filed 07/22/19 Page 18 of 26
`
`70. The allegations with respect to each asserted patent claim, each accused
`
`product, and each specific accused feature are exemplary. As discovery has not
`
`yet begun, Plaintiffs reserve the right to assert additional claims, accuse
`
`additional products, and accuse additional features.
`
`Claims for Relief
`
`Count 1. Direct Infringement of the ‘499 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a)
`
`71. All allegations set forth above are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set
`
`forth.
`
`72. The ‘499 patent is entitled “Mechanical Resucitator.”
`
`73. Defendants have directly infringed and continue to directly infringe, literally or
`
`under the doctrine of equivalents, one or more claims of the ‘499 patent in
`
`violation of 35 U.S.C. §271(a) by making, using, offering to sell, selling (directly
`
`or through intermediaries), and/or importing, in this District and elsewhere in
`
`the United States, the LUCAS Stabilization Strap and other infringing products.
`
`74. Defendants specifically infringes claim 2 of the ‘499 patent which is a dependent
`
`claim to claim 1 of the ‘499 patent. The claims provide as follows:
`
`What is Claimed is:
`1. An improved resuscitator including
`a pump including movable means movable between a first
`position and a second position for forcing gas from the pump
`when moved from the first position to the second position and
`for drawing gas into the pump when moved from the second
`position to the first position, the pump having an opening for
`allowing gas to be drawn into and forced out therethrough;
`a base member for positioning over the sternum area of the
`patient’s chest, the base member having a passageway for
`allowing gas to pass therethrough, the passageway having a first
`end and a second end;
`coupling means for allowing gas to pass from the passageway of
`the base member to the patient’s lungs, the coupling means
`including a hollow tube for being connected to the second end
`
`
`Page 18 of 26
`Amended Complaint
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01111-RJJ-SJB ECF No. 48, PageID.446 Filed 07/22/19 Page 19 of 26
`
`of the passageway of the base member to allow gas to pass from
`the passageway of the base member therethrough;
`and seal means for forming a gas-tight seal between the opening
`of the pump and the first end of the passageway of the base
`member when the movable means of the pump is moved from
`the first position to the second position to allow gas to be forced
`from the pump through the passageway of the base member and
`out the coupling means;
`wherein the improvement comprises:
`sternum means attached to the base member for placement on
`the patient’s chest over the patient’s sternum and for applying
`pressure to the patient’s sternum during resuscitation; said
`sternum means consisting of a ball-like member for simulating
`the heel of a person’s hand when applying pressure to the
`patient’s
`sternum while performing
`cardiopuliminary
`resuscitation
`2. The
`improved resuscitator of claim 1 wherein the
`improvement further includes; neck positioning means for
`maintaining the patient’s airway open during resuscitation.
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,988,499 B2, col. 8, line 30 (Issued January 24,
`2006).
`
`75. The “neck positioning means” of claim 2 is further enabled in the drawings and
`
`in the detailed description. The description of the “neck positioning means”
`
`provides as follows:
`
`The improvement of the present invention preferably includes
`neck positioning means 61 for maintaining the patient's airway
`open during resuscitation. The neck positioning means 61 may
`consist of a firm pillow-like member 63 secured to the base
`member 27 by string means 65 for placement under
`the
`patient's neck during resuscitation to support the patient's neck
`and properly
`limit head and neck movement during
`resuscitation and keep the patient's head properly tilted and
`airway open during forced air compressions and force chest
`compression. The string means 65 may consist of an elastic
`band 67 having a first end 69 attached to the pillow-like
`member 63 and a second end 71 attached
`to
`the base
`member 27.
`
`
`Id. at col. 6, line 6.
`
`76. In the drawings, the “neck positioning means” is illustrated in figures 1 and 3.
`
`77. The LUCAS Stabilization Strap and other infringing products perform each and
`
`every step of claims 1 and 2.
`
`
`Page 19 of 26
`Amended Complaint
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01111-RJJ-SJB ECF No

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