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
Patent Infringement

Composite Resources Inc. v. Derek R. Parsons

Published: Nov. 4, 2022 | Result Date: Sep. 12, 2022 | Filing Date: Dec. 17, 2021 |

Case number: 2:21-cv-02352-KJM-DMC Bench Decision –  Defense

Judge

Kimberly J. Mueller

Court

USDC Eastern District of California


Attorneys

Plaintiff

William S. O'Hare Jr.
(Snell & Wilmer LLP)

Christopher D. Bright
(Snell & Wilmer LLP)

Sid Leach


Defendant

Perry R. Clark
(Law Offices of Perry R. Clark)


Facts

Composite Resources Inc. owns three related patents: 7,842,067; 7,892,253; and 8,888,807 regarding a novel tourniquet, a medical device for restricting blood flow. Derek R. Parsons was the chief operating officer of Recon Medical, LLC, a medical supplies company. In January 2017, Composite sued Recon in the District of Nevada, alleging Recon's Gen 1, 2, 3, and 4 tourniquets infringed its patents. On September 3, 2021, the same day the court set a date for the case, Recon filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy. The jury found that all of Recon's tourniquets infringed Composite's patents, and the court issue an injunction order on January 6, 2022. The order permanently enjoined Recon and anyone affiliated with Recon from selling, importing, or monetizing the infringing tourniquets. On December 17, 2022, before the court ordered its injunction, Composite filed a lawsuit against Parsons, alleging infringement, inducement of infringement, and civil conspiracy.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff alleged that defendant was liable for Recon's patent infringement violations because he controlled Recon and had ultimate authority over all of Recon's business activities. Further, plaintiff contended that their claims were not precluded by issue preclusion because Parsons was not a party to the Nevada lawsuit, the continuing selling of the infringing tourniquets after Composite filed its lawsuit fit into a temporal exception to claim preclusion, and there was a limitation on claim preclusion when jurisdictional or statutory barriers prevented plaintiff from recovering damages in the initial action.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied all contentions

Result

Parsons' motion to dismiss was granted without leave to amend.


#139724

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

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