Applied Medical Resources Corporation v. Tyco Healthcare Group LP dba Covidien
Published: Sep. 6, 2014 | Result Date: Jul. 25, 2014 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: 8:11-cv-01406-JVS-AN Bench Decision – Plaintiff
Court
USDC Central
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Matthew S. Bellinger
(Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear LLP)
Joseph F. Jennings
(Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear LLP)
Defendant
Benjamin M. Cutchshaw
(WCCB Law LLP)
Donald L. Morrow
(JAMS ADR)
Facts
Applied Medical Resources Corp. sued Tyco Healthcare Group LP, doing business as Covidien, in connection with a patent dispute.
Meanwhile, Gaya Ltd., Covidien LP, and Covidien Sales's sought a determination with respect to the inventorship concerning certain patents held by Applied. Gaya filed an unjust enrichment and conversion claim against Applied.
Contentions
PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff claimed rights to U.S. Patent No. 8,016,755 (Patent '755) entitled "Surgical Access Apparatus and Method." Plaintiff accused defendant of infringing its patent, both directly and indirectly, by making, offering for sale, or otherwise making available products that infringed on one or more claims under the patent. Particularly, plaintiff claimed that defendant infringed on its patent through its product, the "SILS Port" and related products as well as by promoting the "SILS Procedures." Plaintiff claimed that the SILS Port was a surgical access device used in performing laparoscopic surgical procedures, which entailed certain claims under plaintiff's patent. Plaintiff alleged that defendant's acts of infringement were undertaken without permission or license from Applied. Plaintiff asserted a claim for patent infringement, and sought a declaratory judgment and an injunction against defendant.
DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendant denied plaintiff's allegations, and asserted various affirmative defenses.
Result
With respect to Gaya's claims against Applied, the court concluded that federal patent law preempted Gaya's claims of unjust enrichment and conversion. The court also concluded that Gaya and Covidien failed to prove that any individual associated with Gaya was a sole or joint inventor of any of the inventions claimed by Applied, including Patent '755 and four others. The court also determined that Gaya and Covidien lacked standing to pursue a determination whether the named inventors were misjoined. Moreover, the court ruled that all remaining claims and defenses of Applied and Covidien would be adjudicated in future proceedings.
Other Information
FILING DATE: Sept. 13, 2011.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390