This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Intellectual Property
Copyright Infringement
Patent Infringement

Rawcar Group LLC dba CFI Medical Solutions v. Grace Medical Inc., Pulse Medical Inc., Preferred Medical Products, A&B Medical Specialties LLC

Published: Apr. 18, 2015 | Result Date: Oct. 30, 2014 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 3:13-cv-01105-H-BLM Verdict –  $315,000

Court

USDC Southern District of California


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Frank A. Angileri

Roland J. Tong

Thomas W. Cunningham

Rebecca J. Cantor
(Brooks Kushman PC)

William E. Thomson Jr.
(Brooks Kushman PC)


Defendant

Charlena Thorpe

Brian C. Horne
(Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear LLP)


Facts

Rawcar Group LLC dba CFI Medical Solutions filed an infringement suit against Grace Medical Inc., Pulse Medical Inc., Preferred Medical Products, and A&B Medical Specialties LLC.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff, which developed, manufactured and sold medical products, accused defendants of infringing on its patent rights related to patents entitled "Sterile Radiological Drape" and "Sterile Radiological Imaging Unit Drape and Method Providing a Sterile Surface Therewith." It also sold and owned trademark and copyright rights to, a sterile equipment called the "C-ARMOR," which covered the subject patents.

Plaintiff alleged that defendants sold, used, or otherwise made available, a product called "C-SHIELD," which incorporated the subject patents. Plaintiff informed defendants that they were infringing on plaintiff's patents, but defendants continued to manufacture and market the infringing product.

Plaintiff sued defendants for patent infringement, trademark infringement, copyright infringement, unfair competition and false advertising under California state law, and injury to business reputation under the common law.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
Defendants denied the allegations and asserted various affirmative defenses. Defendants filed counterclaims for a declaration of non-infringement of the subject patents, declaration of invalidity of the subject patents, trademark registrations, tortious interference with contracts and economic relations, statutory unfair competition and common law unfair competition.

Result

The jury rendered a verdict in favor of CFI and awarded it $315,000 in damages.

Other Information

FILING DATE: May 8, 2013.


#118909

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390