JURISDICTION. 6. Personal jurisdiction is proper in New York as to EMI. EMI has sold and

Transcription

1

2

3 JURISDICTION 5. This is an action for patent infringement under the United States patent laws, 35 U.S.C. 271, et seq. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C and 1338(a). 6. Personal jurisdiction is proper in New York as to EMI. EMI has sold and delivered at least one infringing cervical collar that was purchased by a buyer in New York, and Laerdal is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that EMI has sold and delivered a substantial amount of infringing product to buyers in New York. EMI has a commerciallyoriented website that may be viewed by purchasers in New York on which EMI has offered to sell and continues to offer to sell infringing product, and that provides buyers located in New York with , fax and mail instructions for purchasing infringing product. EMI has partnered with a worldwide network of distributors who promote and sell EMI s products; EMI s distributors include at least one (Chief) that has sold at least one infringing product to a buyer in New York, and Laerdal is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that EMI s network of distributors includes one or more distributors located in New York. Laerdal is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that EMI derives substantial revenue from interstate commerce generally and from commerce directed to New York specifically. 7. Personal jurisdiction is proper in New York as to Chief. Chief has sold and delivered at least one infringing cervical collar to a buyer in New York, and Laerdal is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that Chief has sold and delivered a substantial amount of infringing product to buyers in New York. Chief has a commercially-oriented website that may be viewed by purchasers in New York on which Chief has offered to sell and continues to offer to sell infringing product and on which buyers located in New York may purchase infringing -2-

4 product. In addition, Chief has three designated account managers for New York Public Safety Sales, whose and telephone numbers are displayed on Chief s website. Laerdal is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that Chief derives substantial revenue from interstate commerce generally and from commerce directed to New York specifically. 8. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C and Laerdal is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that a substantial part of Defendants infringing acts giving rise to Laerdal s claims occurred in this District. BACKGROUND 9. Laerdal is an innovator in the field of medical devices for trauma victims, including immobilization devices for use in the treatment of neck and spine injuries. One such device is the Laerdal Stifneck Select Extrication Collar ( Stifneck ). A photograph of one version of the Stifneck collar is attached hereto as Exhibit Laerdal is the owner, by assignment, of U.S. Patent No. 5,795,315 ( the 315 Patent ) and U.S. Patent No. 6,090,058 ( the 058 Patent ). Copies of these patents are attached hereto as Exhibits 2 and 3, respectively. 11. Laerdal s 315 and 058 Patents cover the structure, design and use of the Stifneck collar. Laerdal prominently marks its Stifneck collars with a notice that the product is protected under, inter alia, the 315 Patent. The 315 Patent and the 058 Patent are collectively referred to herein as the Laerdal Patents. 12. Laerdal is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that EMI has sold and offered to sell a cervical collar under the name Immobilizer within the United States. The Immobilizer is a nearly identical copy of Laerdal s Stifneck collar. A photograph of a genuine Laerdal Stifneck collar (above) and an EMI Immobilizer collar (below) is attached hereto as -3-

5 Exhibit The Immobilizer collar includes the structure recited in at least claims 1-8 and of Laerdal s 315 Patent. 14. Laerdal is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that EMI has sold and offered to sell Immobilizer cervical collars within the United States as a standalone product and also as a component of at least two kits: the EMI Mega Pro Response Complete Kit and the EMI TacMed Response Pack Complete Kit. 15. Laerdal is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Chief has purchased Immobilizer cervical collars from EMI and has sold and offered to sell the Immobilizer cervical collars that it purchased from EMI within the United States as a standalone product and also as a component of at least the EMI Mega Pro Response Complete Kit. 16. Laerdal is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that each Immobilizer cervical collar includes a Manual of Cervical collar [sic] that includes instructions for use of the collar. These instructions for use instruct the user to perform each of the steps recited in at least claim 1 of the 058 Patent. 17. On January 31, 2014, Laerdal s counsel notified EMI and Chief that their conduct in making, importing, using, selling and offering to sell Immobilizer collars infringes at least claims 1-8 and of Laerdal s 315 Patent, and that they induced users of the Immobilizer cervical collars to infringe at least claim 1 the 058 Patent by means of the instructions for use contained in the Manual of Cervical collar [sic] distributed with the collars. -4-

6 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,795,315) 18. The allegations of paragraphs 1-17 above are incorporated herein by reference. 19. Laerdal is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendants have infringed within the last six years and continue to infringe one or more claims of the 315 Patent in this District and elsewhere in the United States by making, using, offering to sell, selling, and/or importing Immobilizer cervical collars, as a standalone product and also as a component of one or more kits. 20. Laerdal is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendants have induced and are inducing infringement of the 315 Patent by others at least by selling Immobilizer cervical collars with an instruction sheet that instructs users as to how to use the product. Direct infringement by others occurs at least when they use the Immobilizer cervical collar. Defendants had knowledge of the 315 Patent at least as early as January 31, 2014, and at least following that date engaged in the conduct complained of above with the intent to induce infringement of the 315 Patent. 21. Laerdal is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendants have contributed to and are contributing to infringement of the 315 Patent by others at least by selling and offering to sell Immobilizer cervical collars as a component of one or more equipment kits, including but not limited to the EMI Mega Pro Response Complete Kit and the EMI TacMed Response Pack Complete Kit. The Immobilizer cervical collar is a material component of each such kit, is not a staple item of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use, and is specially made for use in infringing the 315 Patent. Direct infringement by others occurs at least when they use the Immobilizer cervical collar. Defendants had knowledge of the

7 Patent at least as early as January 31, 2014, and have continued to engage in the conduct complained of above following such date. 22. Upon information and belief, Defendants direct and indirect infringement of the 315 Patent will continue unless enjoined by this Court. As a direct and proximate consequence of Defendants direct and indirect infringement of the 315 Patent, Laerdal has suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable injury and damages, in an amount to be determined at trial, and for which Laerdal is entitled to relief. 23. For at least the reason that Defendants continue to knowingly sell a knock-off product that infringes the 315 Patent, Defendants direct and indirect infringement of the 315 Patent is exceptional and entitles Laerdal to attorneys fees and costs incurred in prosecution of this action under 35 U.S.C SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,090,058) 24. The allegations of paragraphs 1-23 above are incorporated herein by reference. 25. Laerdal is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendants have infringed within the last six years and continue to infringe one or more claims of the 058 Patent in this District and elsewhere at least by using Immobilizer cervical collars. 26. Laerdal is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendants have induced and are inducing infringement of the 058 Patent by others at least by selling Immobilizer cervical collars with an instruction sheet that instructs users as to how to use the product. Direct infringement by others occurs at least when they use the Immobilizer cervical collar. Defendants had knowledge of the 058 Patent at least as early as January 31, 2014, and at least following that date engaged in the conduct complained of above with the intent to induce -6-

8 infringement of the 058 Patent. 27. Laerdal is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendants have contributed to and are contributing to infringement of the 058 Patent by others at least be selling and offering to sell Immobilizer cervical collars as a component of one or more equipment kits, including but not limited to the EMI Mega Pro Response Complete Kit and the EMI TacMed Response Pack Complete Kit. The Immobilizer cervical collar is a material component of each such kit, is not a staple item of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use, and is specially made for use in infringing the 058 Patent. Direct infringement by others occurs at least when they use the Immobilizer cervical collar. Defendants had knowledge of the 058 Patent at least as early as January 31, 2014, and have continued to engage in the conduct complained of above following such date. 28. Upon information and belief, Defendants direct and indirect infringement of the 058 Patent will continue unless enjoined by this Court. As a direct and proximate consequence of Defendants direct and indirect infringement of the 058 Patent, Laerdal has suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable injury and damages, in an amount to be determined at trial, and for which Laerdal is entitled to relief. 29. For at least the reason that Defendants continue to knowingly sell a knock-off product that infringes the 315 Patent, Defendants direct and indirect infringement of the 315 Patent is exceptional and entitles Laerdal to attorneys fees and costs incurred in prosecution of this action under 35 U.S.C JURY DEMAND Laerdal respectfully requests trial by jury for all issues so triable. -7-

9 PRAYER FOR RELIEF Laerdal requests entry of judgment and other relief in its favor and against Defendants as follows: A. Enter judgment that Defendants have infringed and continue to infringe the 315 Patent, and that the 315 Patent is valid and enforceable; B. Enter judgment that Defendants have infringed and continue to infringe the 058 Patent, and that the 058 Patent is valid and enforceable; C. Enter a preliminary and permanent injunction restraining and enjoining Defendants, and their respective officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and any persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the order by personal service or otherwise, from any further manufacture, use, sales, offers to sell, or importations of any and all products that fall within the scope of the Laerdal Patents and from any further provision of services that fall within the scope of the Laerdal Patents; D. Award Laerdal damages to compensate it for Defendants infringement of the Laerdal Patents, in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the claimed inventions by Defendants; E. Award Laerdal up to treble damages; F. Award Laerdal pre-judgment and postjudgment interest and costs; G. Award Laerdal its reasonable attorneys fees and other litigation expenses; and -8-

10