Case 4:24-cv-01702-JST Document 5 Filed 03/19/24 Page 1 of 13
`
`Todd R. Tucker (To be admitted pro hac vice)
`Ttucker@calfee.com
`Kyle Deighan (To be admitted pro hac vice)
`kdeighan@calfee.com
`CALFEE, HALTER & GRISWOLD LLP
`1405 East Sixth Street
`Cleveland, Ohio 44114-1607
`Telephone:
`(216) 622-8200
`
`Seth Jessee (State Bar No. 310983)
`sjessee@rutan.com
`RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP
`18575 Jamboree Road, 9th Floor
`Irvine, California 92612
`Telephone: 714-641-5100
`Facsimile:
`714-546-9035
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`AVATION MEDICAL, INC.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`AVATION MEDICAL, INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`
`EMKINETICS, INC.,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`Case No. 3:24-cv-01702
`
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF
`NONINFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT
`NOS. 9,002,477, 11,224,742, AND
`11,844,943
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`21
`
`Plaintiff Avation Medical, Inc. (“Avation” or “Plaintiff”), by and through the
`
`22
`
`undersigned counsel, files this Complaint for Declaratory Judgment of Noninfringement
`
`23
`
`against Defendant EMKinetics, Inc. (“EMKinetics” or “Defendant”) and in support of its
`
`24
`
`Complaint alleges as follows:
`
`25
`
`26
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This is an action for a declaratory judgment of noninfringement arising under
`
`27
`
`the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of the United States Code. Avation requests
`
`28
`
`2848/099999-0084
`20379603.2 a03/19/24
`
`4880-9178-6927, v.1
`
`-1-
`
`Case No.
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`
`Petitioner - Avation Medical, Inc.
`Ex. 1051, p. 1
`
`

`

`Case 4:24-cv-01702-JST Document 5 Filed 03/19/24 Page 2 of 13
`
`1
`
`this relief because Defendant has alleged and continues to allege that Avation’s Vivally®
`
`
`2
`
`3
`
`System (“Vivally”) infringes U.S. Patent Nos. 9,002,477 (the “‘477 patent”), 11,224,742
`
`(the “‘742 patent”), and 11,844,943 (the “‘943 patent”) (collectively, the “Challenged
`
`4
`
`Patents”).
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`2.
`
`Defendant’s affirmative allegations of infringement of the Challenged
`
`Patents against Avation have created an immediate, real, and justiciable controversy
`
`between Avation and Defendant.
`
`3.
`
`Neither Avation nor its products practice the Challenged Patents. Avation
`
`has not induced or contributed to any third-party product or technology that practices the
`
`10
`
`Challenged Patents.
`
`11
`
`12
`
`4.
`
`Avation is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters at 1375 Perry Street,
`
`PARTIES
`
`13
`
`Columbus, OH 43201.
`
`14
`
`5.
`
`Avation is an innovative neuromodulation and digital health company with a
`
`15
`
`mission to make wearable peripheral neuromodulation accessible to patients across a
`
`16
`
`variety of clinical conditions. Avation’s Vivally is an FDA-cleared, closed-loop, at-home
`
`17
`
`wearable neuromodulation device system for patients suffering from urge urinary
`
`18
`
`incontinence and urinary urgency caused by overactive bladder syndrome. Vivally is the
`
`19
`
`first and only such device that is cleared by FDA to be marketed in the United States that
`
`20
`
`applies closed-loop, adaptive and non-invasive at-home neuromodulation to treat these
`
`21
`
`bladder conditions.
`
`22
`
`6.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant is a Delaware corporation with its
`
`23
`
`principal place of business located at 101 Mississippi Street, San Francisco, California
`
`24
`
`94107, which is in San Francisco County.
`
`25
`
`26
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`7.
`
`This action arises under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et
`
`27
`
`seq., and under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq.
`
`28
`
`2848/099999-0084
`20379603.2 a03/19/24
`
`4880-9178-6927, v.1
`
`-2-
`
`Case No.
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`
`Petitioner - Avation Medical, Inc.
`Ex. 1051, p. 2
`
`

`

`Case 4:24-cv-01702-JST Document 5 Filed 03/19/24 Page 3 of 13
`
`1
`
`
`
`8.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C.
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`§§ 1331, 1338(a), and 2201, and 2202. As detailed below, Defendant’s infringement
`
`allegations give rise to an immediate, real, and justiciable controversy between Avation
`
`and Defendant as to whether Avation is infringing or has infringed any claims of the
`
`5
`
`Challenged Patents.
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`9.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant’s
`
`principal place of business is in California and more particularly in this District, rendering
`
`it essentially at home in California.
`
`10. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1400(b) because
`
`10
`
`Defendant resides in the Northern District of California.
`
`11
`
`12
`
`INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
`
`11.
`
`For purposes of intradistrict assignment under Civil Local Rules 3-2(c) and
`
`13
`
`3-5(b), this Intellectual Property Action will be assigned on a district-wide basis.
`
`14
`
`15
`
`12. On April 7, 2015, the USPTO issued the ‘477 patent, entitled “Methods and
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`16
`
`Devices for Performing Electrical Stimulation to Treat Various Conditions,” to Daniel R.
`
`17
`
`Burnett. The face of the ‘477 patent lists EMKinetics, Inc. as the assignee. A true and
`
`18
`
`correct copy of the ‘477 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`19
`
`13. On January 18, 2022, the USPTO issued the ‘742 patent, entitled “Methods
`
`20
`
`and Devices for Performing Electrical Stimulation to Treat Various Conditions,” to
`
`21
`
`Daniel R. Burnett. The face of the ‘742 patent lists EMKinetics, Inc. as the assignee. A
`
`22
`
`true and correct copy of the ‘742 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
`
`23
`
`14. On December 19, 2023, the USPTO issued the ‘943 patent, entitled
`
`24
`
`“Methods and Apparatus for Transdermal Stimulation Over the Palmar and Plantar
`
`25
`
`Surfaces,” to Amit Rajguru, Daniel R. Burnett, Alexander Vergara, and Michael Hemati.
`
`26
`
`The face of the ‘943 patent lists EMKinetics, Inc. as the assignee. A true and correct copy
`
`27
`
`of the ‘943 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
`
`28
`
`2848/099999-0084
`20379603.2 a03/19/24
`
`4880-9178-6927, v.1
`
`-3-
`
`Case No.
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`
`Petitioner - Avation Medical, Inc.
`Ex. 1051, p. 3
`
`

`

`Case 4:24-cv-01702-JST Document 5 Filed 03/19/24 Page 4 of 13
`
`1
`
`
`
`15. On October 23, 2023, Defendant sent Avation a letter to “initiate licensing
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`discussions . . . concerning EMKinetics’ patent portfolio.” In the letter, Defendant stated
`
`that “[w]e believe that the following assets may have particular interest and value to you”
`
`and listed the ‘477 patent, the ‘742 patent, and U.S. Application No. 17/568,276, which
`
`5
`
`issued as the ‘943 patent.
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`16. On December 19, 2023, Defendant’s counsel David Gerasimow spoke via
`
`phone to Avation’s litigation counsel Todd R. Tucker and communicated Defendant’s
`
`belief that Avation requires a license to Defendant’s patent portfolio to market and sell the
`
`9
`
`Vivally System.
`
`10
`
`17. On February 23, 2024, Defendant sent Avation another letter, which
`
`11
`
`provided a “settlement offer” to “fully settle and resolve all claims of patent infringement
`
`12
`
`by EMKinetics against Avation.”
`
`13
`
`18. Defendant’s allegations of infringement by Avation’s Vivally and insistence
`
`14
`
`that Avation requires a license to Defendant’s patent portfolio to continue marketing and
`
`15
`
`selling the Vivally System demonstrate affirmative acts by Defendant to enforce its rights
`
`16
`
`in the Challenged Patents.
`
`17
`
`19. Defendant’s assertions of infringement by Avation’s Vivally allege current
`
`18
`
`infringement beyond meaningful preparation to conduct infringing activity. As a result of
`
`19
`
`Defendant’s assertions of infringement by Avation, Avation is under reasonable
`
`20
`
`apprehension and threat that Defendant will pursue claims that Avation infringes the
`
`21
`
`Challenged Patents.
`
`22
`
`20.
`
`The imminent threat to Avation is further underscored by the fact that on
`
`23
`
`February 23, 2024, Defendant filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the U.S. District Court
`
`24
`
`for the District of Delaware against a third-party medical company called Cala Health,
`
`25
`
`alleging Cala Health’s neuromodulation devices infringes several patents that are related to
`
`26
`
`the Challenged Patents. Defendant’s business strategy of suing companies in the
`
`27
`
`neuromodulation field that apparently refuse to license its patents make it highly likely that
`
`28
`
`2848/099999-0084
`20379603.2 a03/19/24
`
`4880-9178-6927, v.1
`
`-4-
`
`Case No.
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`
`Petitioner - Avation Medical, Inc.
`Ex. 1051, p. 4
`
`

`

`Case 4:24-cv-01702-JST Document 5 Filed 03/19/24 Page 5 of 13
`
`1
`
`Defendant will sue Avation for patent infringement of the Challenged Patents.
`
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`21. Accordingly, there is an immediate and existing case or controversy, and
`
`declaratory judgment jurisdiction exists over the subject matter set forth in this complaint.
`
`22. Neither Avation, nor any of its products, directly or indirectly infringe any of
`
`5
`
`the Challenged Patents.
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`23. Neither Avation, nor any of its products, perform each element of any claim
`
`of the Challenged Patents, nor does Avation instruct third parties to perform each element
`
`of any claim of the Challenged Patents.
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`NONINFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,002,477
`
`24. Avation repeats and realleges each and every allegation set forth in the above
`
`12
`
`paragraphs and incorporates them by reference herein.
`
`13
`
`25.
`
`In view of the facts as alleged above, there is an actual, substantial,
`
`14
`
`immediate, and justiciable controversy between Avation and Defendant regarding whether
`
`15
`
`Avation infringes any claim of the ‘477 patent.
`
`16
`
`26. According to the face of the ‘477 patent, Defendant is the assignee of the
`
`17
`
`‘477 patent. On information and belief, Defendant owns all rights, title, and interest in and
`
`18
`
`under the ‘477 patent.
`
`19
`
`27. Defendant has alleged and continues to allege that Avation’s Vivally is
`
`20
`
`covered by the claims of the ‘477 patent, and that Avation is infringing the ‘477 patent.
`
`21
`
`Defendant may bring suit on this matter at any time. In the meantime, Avation is harmed
`
`22
`
`by these false allegations.
`
`23
`
`28. Avation has not infringed and does not infringe any claim of the ‘477 patent
`
`24
`
`either directly or indirectly, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`25
`
`29.
`
`Independent Claim 1 of the ‘477 patent, which is the sole independent claim
`
`26
`
`of the ‘477 patent, recites as follows:
`
`27
`
`28
`
`1. A method of performing electrical stimulation therapy,
`
`2848/099999-0084
`20379603.2 a03/19/24
`
`4880-9178-6927, v.1
`
`-5-
`
`Case No.
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`
`Petitioner - Avation Medical, Inc.
`Ex. 1051, p. 5
`
`

`

`Case 4:24-cv-01702-JST Document 5 Filed 03/19/24 Page 6 of 13
`
`1
`
`
`
`comprising:
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`non-invasively positioning a first portion of a patient’s body
`
`relative to an electrical stimulator such that a posterior tibial
`
`nerve or branch thereof within the first portion of the body is in
`
`proximity to the electrical stimulator;
`
`passing a current through the electrical stimulator;
`
`delivering an electrical stimulus from the electrical stimulator
`
`to the posterior tibial nerve or branch thereof;
`
`detecting electrical conduction through the posterior tibial
`
`nerve or branch thereof or detecting a muscular response
`
`caused by an electrical conduction through the posterior tibial
`
`nerve or branch thereof via at least one sensor positioned along
`
`a second portion of the body;
`
`receiving a signal from the at least one sensor indicative of the
`
`detected electrical conduction or muscular response thereby
`
`providing feedback about the efficacy of the applied electrical
`
`stimulation therapy; and
`
`adjusting the current via a controller in communication with
`
`the electrical stimulator based on the feedback.
`
`30. Avation’s Vivally does not infringe Independent Claim 1 (or any of the
`
`21
`
`dependent claims) because it does not include every limitation required by the claim. For
`
`22
`
`instance, without limitation and by way of example only, Avation’s Vivally does not meet
`
`23
`
`or embody the limitation of “adjusting the current via a controller in communication with
`
`24
`
`the electrical stimulator based on the feedback.” Avation’s Vivally does not “adjust[] the
`
`25
`
`current” of an electrical stimulator “based on the feedback” of “at least one sensor” as
`
`26
`
`those terms are used in the ‘477 patent. Avation’s Vivally uses pulse-width modulation to
`
`27
`
`apply stimulation energy, in which the electrical signal supplied via the stimulation
`
`28
`
`2848/099999-0084
`20379603.2 a03/19/24
`
`4880-9178-6927, v.1
`
`-6-
`
`Case No.
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`
`Petitioner - Avation Medical, Inc.
`Ex. 1051, p. 6
`
`

`

`Case 4:24-cv-01702-JST Document 5 Filed 03/19/24 Page 7 of 13
`
`1
`
`electrodes is at a constant current. Therefore, at least these claim limitations are not
`
`
`2
`
`practiced by Avation.
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`31.
`
`Therefore, a substantial controversy exists between Avation and Defendant,
`
`parties having adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the
`
`issuance of a declaratory judgment that Avation has not infringed and does not infringe
`
`6
`
`any claim of the ‘477 patent.
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`32. A substantial, immediate, real, and justiciable controversy exists between
`
`Avation and Defendant as to whether Avation’s products infringe the ‘477 patent. Avation
`
`accordingly requests a judicial determination of its rights, duties, and obligations regarding
`
`10
`
`the ‘477 patent.
`
`11
`
`33. Avation seeks a judgment declaring that Avation does not directly or
`
`12
`
`indirectly infringe any claim of the ‘477 patent.
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`NONINFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 11,224,742
`
`34. Avation repeats and realleges each and every allegation set forth in the above
`
`16
`
`paragraphs and incorporates them by reference herein.
`
`17
`
`35.
`
`In view of the facts as alleged above, there is an actual, substantial,
`
`18
`
`immediate, and justiciable controversy between Avation and Defendant regarding whether
`
`19
`
`Avation infringes any claim of the ‘742 patent.
`
`20
`
`36. According to the face of the ‘742 patent, Defendant is the assignee of the
`
`21
`
`‘742 patent. On information and belief, Defendant owns all rights, title, and interest in and
`
`22
`
`under the ‘742 patent.
`
`23
`
`37. Defendant has alleged and continues to allege that Avation’s Vivally is
`
`24
`
`covered by the claims of the ‘742 patent, and that Avation is infringing the ‘742 patent.
`
`25
`
`Defendant may bring suit on this matter at any time. In the meantime, Avation is harmed
`
`26
`
`by these false allegations.
`
`38. Avation has not infringed and does not infringe any claim of the ‘742 patent
`
`27
`
`28
`
`2848/099999-0084
`20379603.2 a03/19/24
`
`4880-9178-6927, v.1
`
`-7-
`
`Case No.
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`
`Petitioner - Avation Medical, Inc.
`Ex. 1051, p. 7
`
`

`

`Case 4:24-cv-01702-JST Document 5 Filed 03/19/24 Page 8 of 13
`
`1
`
`either directly or indirectly, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`39.
`
`Independent Claim 1 of the ‘742 patent, which is the sole independent claim
`
`of the ‘742 patent, recites as follows:
`
`1. A method of treating overactive bladder or incontinence,
`
`comprising:
`
`non-invasively positioning a first portion of a patient’s body
`
`relative to an electrical stimulator such that a branch of a
`
`posterior tibial nerve within the first portion of the body is
`
`directly targeted by the electrical stimulator;
`
`passing a current through the electrical stimulator; and
`
`delivering an electrical stimulus from the electrical stimulator
`
`to the branch of the posterior tibial nerve such that the branch
`
`directly receives the electrical stimulation to treat overactive
`
`bladder or incontinence.
`
`40. Avation’s Vivally does not infringe Independent Claim 1 (or any of the
`
`16
`
`dependent claims) because it does not include every limitation required by the claim. For
`
`17
`
`instance, without limitation and by way of example only, Avation’s Vivally does not meet
`
`18
`
`or embody the limitation of “positioning a first portion of a patient’s body relative to an
`
`19
`
`electrical stimulator such that a branch of a posterior tibial nerve within the first portion of
`
`20
`
`the body is directly targeted by the electrical stimulator.” Additionally, without limitation
`
`21
`
`and by way of example only, Avation’s Vivally does not meet or embody the limitation of
`
`22
`
`“delivering an electrical stimulus from the electrical stimulator to the branch of the
`
`23
`
`posterior tibial nerve such that the branch directly receives the electrical stimulation to
`
`24
`
`treat overactive bladder or incontinence.” Avation’s Vivally does not “directly target[]” a
`
`25
`
`“branch of a posterior tibial nerve” or “deliver[] an electrical stimulus” to a “branch of the
`
`26
`
`posterior tibial nerve” so that the branch “directly receives the electrical stimulation,” as
`
`27
`
`those terms are used in the ‘742 patent. Therefore, at least these claim limitations are not
`
`28
`
`2848/099999-0084
`20379603.2 a03/19/24
`
`4880-9178-6927, v.1
`
`-8-
`
`Case No.
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`
`Petitioner - Avation Medical, Inc.
`Ex. 1051, p. 8
`
`

`

`Case 4:24-cv-01702-JST Document 5 Filed 03/19/24 Page 9 of 13
`
`1
`
`practiced by Avation.
`
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`41.
`
`Therefore, a substantial controversy exists between Avation and Defendant,
`
`parties having adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the
`
`issuance of a declaratory judgment that Avation has not infringed and does not infringe
`
`5
`
`any claim of the ‘742 patent.
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`42. A substantial, immediate, real, and justiciable controversy exists between
`
`Avation and Defendant as to whether Avation’s products infringe the ‘742 patent. Avation
`
`accordingly requests a judicial determination of its rights, duties, and obligations regarding
`
`9
`
`the ‘742 patent.
`
`10
`
`43. Avation seeks a judgment declaring that Avation does not directly or
`
`11
`
`indirectly infringe any claim of the ‘742 patent.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`NONINFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 11,844,94
`
`44. Avation repeats and realleges each and every allegation set forth in the above
`
`15
`
`paragraphs and incorporates them by reference herein.
`
`16
`
`45.
`
`In view of the facts as alleged above, there is an actual, substantial,
`
`17
`
`immediate, and justiciable controversy between Avation and Defendant regarding whether
`
`18
`
`Avation infringes any claim of the ‘943 patent.
`
`19
`
`46. According to the face of the ‘943 patent, Defendant is the assignee of the
`
`20
`
`‘943 patent. On information and belief, Defendant owns all rights, title, and interest in and
`
`21
`
`under the ‘943 patent.
`
`22
`
`47. Defendant has alleged and continues to allege that Avation’s Vivally is
`
`23
`
`covered by the claims of the ‘943 patent, and that Avation is infringing the ‘943 patent.
`
`24
`
`Defendant may bring suit on this matter at any time. In the meantime, Avation is harmed
`
`25
`
`by these false allegations.
`
`26
`
`48. Avation has not infringed and does not infringe any claim of the ‘943 patent
`
`27
`
`either directly or indirectly, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`28
`
`2848/099999-0084
`20379603.2 a03/19/24
`
`4880-9178-6927, v.1
`
`-9-
`
`Case No.
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`
`Petitioner - Avation Medical, Inc.
`Ex. 1051, p. 9
`
`

`

`Case 4:24-cv-01702-JST Document 5 Filed 03/19/24 Page 10 of 13
`
`1
`
`
`
`49.
`
`Independent Claims 1, 14, and 27 of the ‘943 patent recite as follows:
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`1. A method of treating overactive bladder or incontinence,
`
`comprising:
`
`non-invasively positioning a first portion of a patient’s body
`
`near an ankle relative to an electrical stimulator such that a
`
`posterior tibial nerve within the first portion of the body is
`
`directly targeted by the electrical stimulator;
`
`passing a current through the electrical stimulator; and
`
`delivering an electrical stimulus from the electrical stimulator
`
`to the posterior tibial nerve such that the posterior tibial nerve
`
`directly receives the electrical stimulation to treat overactive
`
`bladder or incontinence.
`
`
`
`14. A method of treating overactive bladder or incontinence,
`
`comprising:
`
`non-invasively positioning a first portion of a patient’s body
`
`near an ankle relative to an electrical stimulator positioned
`
`within a sock worn upon a foot of the patient such that a
`
`posterior tibial nerve within the first portion of the body is
`
`directly targeted by the electrical stimulator;
`
`passing a current through the electrical stimulator; and
`
`delivering an electrical stimulus from the electrical stimulator
`
`to the posterior tibial nerve such that the posterior tibial nerve
`
`directly receives the electrical stimulation to treat overactive
`
`bladder or incontinence.
`
`
`
`27. A method of treating overactive bladder or incontinence,
`
`2848/099999-0084
`20379603.2 a03/19/24
`
`4880-9178-6927, v.1
`
`-10-
`
`Case No.
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`
`Petitioner - Avation Medical, Inc.
`Ex. 1051, p. 10
`
`

`

`Case 4:24-cv-01702-JST Document 5 Filed 03/19/24 Page 11 of 13
`
`1
`
`
`
`comprising:
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`non-invasively positioning a first portion of a patient’s body
`
`near an ankle relative to an electrical stimulator positioned
`
`upon a strap which is secured over a foot of the patient such
`
`that a posterior tibial nerve within the first portion of the body
`
`is directly targeted by the electrical stimulator;
`
`passing a current through the electrical stimulator; and
`
`delivering an electrical stimulus from the electrical stimulator
`
`to the posterior tibial nerve such that the posterior tibial nerve
`
`directly receives the electrical stimulation to treat overactive
`
`bladder or incontinence.
`
`50. Avation’s Vivally does not infringe Independent Claims 1, 14, or 27 (or any
`
`13
`
`of the dependent claims) because it does not include every limitation required by the
`
`14
`
`claims. For instance, without limitation and by way of example only, Avation’s Vivally
`
`15
`
`does not meet or embody the limitation of “non-invasively positioning a first portion of a
`
`16
`
`patient’s body near an ankle relative to an electrical stimulator,” which is required by each
`
`17
`
`of the independent claims. Avation’s Vivally does not “position[]” the body “near an
`
`18
`
`ankle” “relative to an electrical stimulator” as those terms are used in the ‘943 patent. The
`
`19
`
`‘943 patent disclosure clearly indicates that “delivering electrical stimulation . . . by
`
`20
`
`stimulating a site overlying a nerve near the medial malleolus [i.e., ankle]. . . generates a
`
`21
`
`painful shock to the patient” and that such electrical stimulation “builds and quickly
`
`22
`
`becomes painful and intolerable.” See Exhibit C, ‘943 patent at 50:62-51:3. The term
`
`23
`
`“near an ankle” as used in the claims of the ‘943 patent therefore cannot encompass
`
`24
`
`delivering electrical stimulation at a site overlying a nerve at the medial malleolus (i.e.,
`
`25
`
`ankle). Avation’s Vivally provides stimulation energy to a site overlying a nerve at the
`
`26
`
`ankle. Therefore, at least these claim limitations are not practiced by Avation.
`
`51.
`
`Therefore, a substantial controversy exists between Avation and Defendant,
`
`27
`
`28
`
`2848/099999-0084
`20379603.2 a03/19/24
`
`4880-9178-6927, v.1
`
`-11-
`
`Case No.
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`
`Petitioner - Avation Medical, Inc.
`Ex. 1051, p. 11
`
`

`

`Case 4:24-cv-01702-JST Document 5 Filed 03/19/24 Page 12 of 13
`
`1
`
`parties having adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the
`
`
`2
`
`issuance of a declaratory judgment that Avation has not infringed and does not infringe
`
`3
`
`any claim of the ‘943 patent.
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`52. A substantial, immediate, real, and justiciable controversy exists between
`
`Avation and Defendant as to whether Avation’s products infringe the ‘943 patent. Avation
`
`accordingly requests a judicial determination of its rights, duties, and obligations regarding
`
`7
`
`the ‘943 patent.
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`53. Avation seeks a judgment declaring that Avation does not directly or
`
`indirectly infringe any claim of the ‘943 patent.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Avation respectfully requests that judgment be entered in its favor
`
`12
`
`and prays that the Court grant the following relief:
`
`13
`
`1.
`
`A judgment declaring that Avation has not infringed and is not infringing,
`
`14
`
`either directly or indirectly, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, any claims of the
`
`15
`
`Challenged Patents, and declaring that the manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale, and/or
`
`16
`
`importation of Avation’s Vivally does not infringe, directly or indirectly, literally or under
`
`17
`
`the doctrine of equivalents, any claims of the Challenged Patents;
`
`18
`
`2.
`
`A judgment that Defendant and each of its officers, directors, agents,
`
`19
`
`counsel, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with any of
`
`20
`
`them, be restrained and enjoined from alleging, representing, or otherwise stating that
`
`21
`
`Avation or the manufacture, importation, use or sale of Avation’s Vivally infringes the
`
`22
`
`Challenged Patents, or from instituting or initiating any action or proceeding alleging
`
`23
`
`infringement of the Challenged Patents against Avation or customers, manufacturers,
`
`24
`
`users, importers, or sellers of Avation’s Vivally;
`
`25
`
`3.
`
`A judgment declaring that Avation is the prevailing party and that this is an
`
`26
`
`exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and awarding Avation its reasonable attorneys’
`
`27
`
`fees, expenses, and costs in connection with this case; and
`
`28
`
`2848/099999-0084
`20379603.2 a03/19/24
`
`4880-9178-6927, v.1
`
`-12-
`
`Case No.
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`
`Petitioner - Avation Medical, Inc.
`Ex. 1051, p. 12
`
`

`

`
`
`Dated: March 19, 2024
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted
`
`RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP
`SETH JESSEE
`
`By: /s/ Seth Jessee
`Seth Jessee
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`AVATION MEDICAL, INC.
`
`Case 4:24-cv-01702-JST Document 5 Filed 03/19/24 Page 13 of 13
`
`1
`
`
`
`4.
`
`A judgment awarding Avation such other relief as the Court may deem just
`
`2
`
`and proper.
`
`Avation hereby demands a jury trial on all issues and claims so triable.
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`2848/099999-0084
`20379603.2 a03/19/24
`
`4880-9178-6927, v.1
`
`-13-
`
`Case No.
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`
`Petitioner - Avation Medical, Inc.
`Ex. 1051, p. 13
`
`