intermetro industries v. enovate medical
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/13/2019 InterMetro Industries v. Enovate Medical
1/28
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
INTERMETRO INDUSTRIES CORPORATION,
a Delaware corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
ENOVATE MEDICAL, LLC
a Delaware limited liability company,
Defendant.
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
NOW COMES the Plaintiff, INTERMETRO INDUSTRIES
CORPORATION (InterMetro), by its attorneys HARNESS, DICKEY &
PIERCE, PLC, and for its Complaint against ENOVATE MEDICAL, LLC
(Enovate Medical), states as follows:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. This is an action for patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271, 283,284 and 285.
Case 3:02-at-06000 Document 1359 Filed 11/22/13 Page 1 of 28
-
8/13/2019 InterMetro Industries v. Enovate Medical
2/28
2
THE PARTIES
2. InterMetro is a Delaware corporation having a principal place ofbusiness at 651 N. Washington St., Wilkes-Barre, PA 18705.
3. On information and belief, Enovate Medical is a Delaware limitedliability company having places of business at 7820 N. Lilly Road, Canton, MI
48187, and 1152 Park Avenue, Murfreesboro, TN 37129.
4. On information and belief, Enovate Medical was formed by themerger of Stinger Medical, a manufacturer and provider of mobile clinical
workstations based in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, and Enovate, a manufacturer and
provider of mobile and wall-mounted point-of-care work station solutions based in
Canton, Michigan. See http://www.enovatemedical.com/news-
StingerEnovatePR.html andhttp://stingerandenovate.com/.
5. On information and belief, Enovate Medical is the largest provider ofmobile clinical workstations in the country. See
http://www.enovatemedical.com/news-StingerEnovatePR.html and
http://stingerandenovate.com/.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
6. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1338(a).
Case 3:02-at-06000 Document 1359 Filed 11/22/13 Page 2 of 28
-
8/13/2019 InterMetro Industries v. Enovate Medical
3/28
3
7. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Enovate Medical becauseEnovate Medical has transacted business in Pennsylvania by offering for sale and
selling computer carts in Pennsylvania, among other products, that InterMetro alleges
infringe its patents. SeeFed. R. Civ. P. 4(h) and 42 PA.CONS.STAT. 5322(a).
8. This Court also has personal jurisdiction over Enovate Medical becauseEnovate Medical has in the past and continues to cause harm to InterMetro in
Pennsylvania as a result of acts it has and continues to commit both inside and
outside of Pennsylvania. SeeFed. R. Civ. P. 4(h) and 42 PA.CONS.STAT. 5322(a).
9. Venue over Enovate Medical is proper in this judicial district under 28U.S.C. 1391(d) and 1400(b).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
10. On December 10, 2002, the United States Patent and TrademarkOffice (Patent Office) issued United States Patent No. 6,493,220 entitled
Mobile Clinical Workstation (the 220 patent). A copy of the 220 patent is
attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 1.
11. On December 20, 2002, EMS Technologies Inc. (EMS), apredecessor-in-ownership to InterMetro of the point-of-care cart technology that is
embodied in the 220 patent, issued a news release announcing the Patent Office
had awarded the 220 patent. The release stated:
This patent describes the essential features of the cart-based form
factor in a workstation, which is equipped with a computer and power
Case 3:02-at-06000 Document 1359 Filed 11/22/13 Page 3 of 28
-
8/13/2019 InterMetro Industries v. Enovate Medical
4/28
4
supply, and is connected wirelessly to a local area network by WiFi
access points. [We] developed the technology for cart-based systems,
which allow healthcare providers to realize the full benefits of clinical
point-of-care applications as the way to improve patient safety with a
device that is easy to use.
The patent on the Mobile Clinical Workstation protects the flagship
product of our Healthcare Solutions Group, which has established the
industry-standard form factor and created a leading position in this
growing market for wireless technology.
SeeExhibit 2.
12. Over the next decade, EMS and subsequent owners of the point-of-care cart technology, including InterMetro, pursued additional patents on the
subject matter through Patent Office continuation practice.
13. Their efforts resulted in the Patent Office awarding U.S. Patent Nos.6,721,178 (the 178 patent); 7,009,840 (the 840 patent); 7,612,999 (the 999
patent); 7,791,866 (the 866 patent); 7,990,691 (the 691 patent); and
8,526,176 (the 176 patent). SeeExhibits 3and 5-9, respectively.
14. On February 10, 2003, EMS sued a competitor for infringing the 220patent.
15. The next day, the Atlanta Business Chronicle published an articleabout the lawsuit. EMSs Director of its Healthcare Solutions Group was quoted
in the article, putting competitors on notice that the patent rights would be
enforced:
Case 3:02-at-06000 Document 1359 Filed 11/22/13 Page 4 of 28
-
8/13/2019 InterMetro Industries v. Enovate Medical
5/28
5
We are quite determined to enforce our patent rights, and to require
other providers of point-of-care carts to either develop their own
unique products, or pay reasonable compensation to EMS for the use
of technology that we created.
See Exhibit 10.
16. EMSs enforcement activities also included issuing press releases andpublishing product brochures with notice of its patents.
17. In addition, EMS marked its point-of-care carts with its patentnumbers; approached competitors at trade shows to inform them of its patents; and
sent letters to competitors offering them an opportunity to license its patent rights.
18. EMSs actions resulted in multiple patent infringement lawsuits thatresolved on terms which included the infringers paying undisclosed amounts to
license the patents, and acknowledging the validity and enforceability of the
patents. See Exhibit 11.
19. In February 2005, Flo Healthcare Solutions, L.L.C. (Flo), asuccessor-in-ownership to EMSs point-of-care-cart technology, including the
related patents and patent applications, sent notice letters to competitors in the
point-of-care-cart market, including Rioux Vision, Inc. (Rioux Vision) and
Stinger, a predecessor to Enovate Medical, among others. See Exhibits 12 and 13.
20. The letters offered an opportunity to license both the 220 and 178patents, they enclosed copies of the patents, and they pointed out that other
competitors were licensed under the patents.
Case 3:02-at-06000 Document 1359 Filed 11/22/13 Page 5 of 28
-
8/13/2019 InterMetro Industries v. Enovate Medical
6/28
6
21. On October 26, 2006, Flo sued Rioux Vision for infringing the 178patent.
22. On March 21, 2008, the Court granted Flo summary judgment thatRioux Visions point-of-care carts infringed numerous claims of the 178 patent.
23. On December 8, 2008, Flo sued Omnicell, Inc. (Omnicell), forinfringing the 178 patent.
24. On September 30, 2009, Flo assigned InterMetro the entire right, titleand interest to the point-of-care cart technology, including the related patents and
patent applications.
25. The written assignment expressly granted InterMetro the exclusiveright to seek and obtain all remedies available at law (including money damages)
and in equity for any past, present and future infringement of the patent properties.
26. In September 2010, InterMetro settled the lawsuits against RiouxVision and Omnicell, which included granting them a license to the patents.
27. Three years before, on September 20, 2007, Rioux Vision filed aPetition forInter PartesReexamination of the 178 patent with the Patent Office.
28. On February 15, 2013, the Patent Office issued a reexaminationcertificate for the 178 patent that confirmed the patentability of claims 2-6, 18-22,
27-33, 39, 43, 44, as well as the patentability of newly added claims 45-130. A
Case 3:02-at-06000 Document 1359 Filed 11/22/13 Page 6 of 28
-
8/13/2019 InterMetro Industries v. Enovate Medical
7/28
7
copy of the Inter Partes Reexamination Certificate for the 178 patent is attached to
this Complaint as Exhibit 4.
29. Since the 220 patent issued on December 10, 2002, InterMetro andits predecessors-in-ownership have continuously marked their point-of-care carts
with the 220 patent and related patents.
30. Competitors in the point-of-care-cart market have long been on noticeof InterMetros patents for the point-of-care-cart technology and its intent to
enforce these patents.
COUNT IINFRINGEMENT OF U.S.PATENT NO.6,493,220
31. InterMetro restates the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-30.32. On December 10, 2002, the Patent Office duly and lawfully issued the
220 patent. SeeExhibit 2.
33. InterMetro owns the 220 patent, along with the right to bring suit andrecover damages for past, present and future infringement of the 220 patent.
34. Enovate Medical has in the past and/or currently is directly infringingthe claims of the 220 patent under 35 U.S.C. 271(a) by making, using, offering
for sale and selling, without InterMetros authority, computer carts and medication
carts that embody one or more of the 220 patent claims.
35. By way of example and not limitation, Enovate Medical has in thepast and/or currently is making, using, offering for sale and selling the Enovate
Case 3:02-at-06000 Document 1359 Filed 11/22/13 Page 7 of 28
-
8/13/2019 InterMetro Industries v. Enovate Medical
8/28
8
Medical Computer Cart and the Enovate Medical Medication Cart, each of which
directly infringes at least claims 2 of the 220 patent, among other claims. See,
e.g.,Exhibits 14 - 17.
36. Enovate Medical has in the past and/or currently is inducing andcontributing to the direct infringement of the 220 patent claims in violation of 35
U.S.C. 271(b) and (c), by making, using, offering for sale and selling, without
InterMetros authority, computer carts and medication carts with knowledge of the
220 patent and its claims; knowing that others, including customers and users of
its computer carts and medication carts, will use the carts in an infringing manner;
knowing that its computer carts and medication carts are a material part of the
invention claimed in the 220 patent; knowing that its computer carts and
medication carts are especially made or especially adapted for use in an
infringement of the 220 patent; and knowing that its computer carts and
medication carts are not staple articles or commodities of commerce that are
suitable for substantial non-infringing use.
37. By way of example and not limitation, Enovate Medical has in thepast and/or currently is making, using, offering for sale and selling the Enovate
Medical Computer Cart and the Enovate Medical Medication Cart that its
customers use to directly infringe at least claims 2 of the 220 patent, among other
claims. See, e.g.,Exhibits 14 17.
Case 3:02-at-06000 Document 1359 Filed 11/22/13 Page 8 of 28
-
8/13/2019 InterMetro Industries v. Enovate Medical
9/28
9
38. Enovate Medicals marketing materials extoll the benefits of itscomputer carts and medication carts with a computing device and a display, and,
among other things, instruct on the installation and set-up of the carts with a
monitor and CPU, or a laptop computer. See Exhibits 14 - 17.
39. The benefits Enovate Medical touts in its marketing materials for itscomputer carts and medication carts could not be realized without using a
computing device and a display with the carts.
40. Enovate Medicals computer carts and medication carts have nosubstantial non-infringing use.
41. In view of the facts alleged herein, Enovate has known of the 220patent, or has been willfully blind to the 220 patents existence, since at least
2005.
42. Enovate Medicals infringing activities have been willful anddeliberate.
43. Enovate Medicals infringing activities are directly and proximatelycausing immediate and irreparable injury to InterMetro for which InterMetro has
no adequate remedy at law.
44. Enovate Medical will continue its infringing activities unless enjoinedfrom doing so by the Court.
Case 3:02-at-06000 Document 1359 Filed 11/22/13 Page 9 of 28
-
8/13/2019 InterMetro Industries v. Enovate Medical
10/28
10
45. Enovate Medicals infringing activities have and continue to directlyand proximately cause damages to InterMetro.
COUNT IIINFRINGEMENT OF U.S.PATENT NO.6,721,178
46. InterMetro restates the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-45.47. On April 13, 2004, the Patent Office duly and lawfully issued the 178
patent. SeeExhibit 3.
48. On February 15, 2013, the Patent Office issued a reexaminationcertificate for the 178 patent, confirming the patentability of claims 2-6, 18-22,
27-33, 39, 43 and 44, as well as the patentability of newly added claims 45-130.
See Exhibit 4.
49. InterMetro owns the 178 patent, along with the right to bring suit andrecover damages for past, present and future infringement of the 178 patent.
50. Enovate Medical has in the past and/or currently is directly infringingthe claims of the 178 patent under 35 U.S.C. 271(a) by making, using, offering
for sale and selling, without InterMetros authority, computer carts and medication
carts that embody one or more of the 178 patent claims.
51. By way of example and not limitation, Enovate Medical has in thepast and/or currently is making, using, offering for sale and selling the Enovate
Medical Computer Cart and the Enovate Medical Medication Cart, each of which
Case 3:02-at-06000 Document 1359 Filed 11/22/13 Page 10 of 28
-
8/13/2019 InterMetro Industries v. Enovate Medical
11/28
11
directly infringes at least claim 2 of the 178 patent, among other claims. See, e.g.,
Exhibits 14 17.
52. By way of further example and not limitation, Enovate Medical has inthe past made, used, offered for sale and sold the Sydekick Medication
Workstation that directly infringes at least claim 2 of the 178 patent, among other
claims. See, e.g.,Exhibit 19.
53. By way of further example and not limitation, Enovate Medical has inthe past made, used, offered for sale and sold the Levitator Medication
Workstation that directly infringes at least claim 43 of the 178 patent, among
other claims. See, e.g.,Exhibit 20.
54. Enovate Medical has in the past and/or currently is inducing andcontributing to the direct infringement of the 178 patent claims in violation of 35
U.S.C. 271(b) and (c), by making, using, offering for sale and selling, without
InterMetros authority, computer carts and medication carts with knowledge of the
178 patent and its claims; knowing that others, including customers and users of
its computer carts and medication carts, will use the carts in an infringing manner;
knowing that its computer carts and medication carts are a material part of the
invention claimed in the 178 patent; knowing that its computer carts and
medication carts are especially made or especially adapted for use in an
infringement of the 178 patent; and knowing that its computer carts and
Case 3:02-at-06000 Document 1359 Filed 11/22/13 Page 11 of 28
-
8/13/2019 InterMetro Industries v. Enovate Medical
12/28
12
medication carts are not staple articles or commodities of commerce that are
suitable for substantial non-infringing use.
55. By way of example and not limitation, Enovate Medical has in thepast and/or currently is making, using, offering for sale and selling the Enovate
Medical Computer Cart and the Enovate Medical Medication Cart that its
customers use to directly infringe at least claim 2 of the 178 patent, among other
claims. See, e.g.,Exhibits 14 17.
56. By way of further example and not limitation, Enovate Medical has inthe past made, used, offered for sale and sold the Sydekick Medication
Workstation that its customers use to directly infringe at least claim 2 of the 178
patent, among other claims. See, e.g.,Exhibit 19.
57. By way of further example and not limitation, Enovate Medical has inthe past made, used, offered for sale and sold the Levitator Medication
Workstation that its customers use to directly infringe at least claim 43 of the 178
patent, among other claims. See, e.g.,Exhibit 20.
58. Enovate Medicals marketing materials extoll the benefits of itscomputer carts and medication carts with a computing device and a display, and,
among other things, instruct on the installation and set-up of the carts with a
monitor and CPU, or a laptop computer. See, e.g., Exhibits 14 - 17.
Case 3:02-at-06000 Document 1359 Filed 11/22/13 Page 12 of 28
-
8/13/2019 InterMetro Industries v. Enovate Medical
13/28
13
59. Other marketing materials inform customers that the computer cartsand medication carts Accommodate most computer configurations: AIO, thin
clients, tablets, small form factors, and laptops. See, e.g., Exhibits 19and20.
60. The benefits Enovate Medical touts in its marketing materials for itscomputer carts and medication carts could not be realized without using a
computing device and a display with the carts.
61. Enovate Medicals computer carts and medication carts have nosubstantial non-infringing use.
62. In view of the facts alleged herein, Enovate Medical has known of the178 patent, or has been willfully blind to the 178 patents existence, since at least
2005.
63. Enovate Medicals infringing activities have been willful anddeliberate.
64. Enovate Medicals infringing activities are directly and proximatelycausing immediate and irreparable injury to InterMetro for which InterMetro has
no adequate remedy at law.
65. Enovate Medical will continue its infringing activities unless enjoinedfrom doing so by the Court.
66. Enovate Medicals infringing activities have and continue to directlyand proximately cause damages to InterMetro.
Case 3:02-at-06000 Document 1359 Filed 11/22/13 Page 13 of 28
-
8/13/2019 InterMetro Industries v. Enovate Medical
14/28
-
8/13/2019 InterMetro Industries v. Enovate Medical
15/28
15
its computer carts and medication carts, will use the carts in an infringing manner;
knowing that its computer carts and medication carts are a material part of the
invention claimed in the 999 patent; knowing that its computer carts and
medication carts are especially made or especially adapted for use in an
infringement of the 999 patent; and knowing that its computer carts and
medication carts are not staple articles or commodities of commerce that are
suitable for substantial non-infringing use.
73. By way of example and not limitation, Enovate Medical has in thepast and/or currently is making, using, offering for sale and selling the Enovate
Medical Computer Cart and the Enovate Medical Medication Cart that its
customers use to directly infringe at least claims 1, 6, 8 and 15 of the 999 patent,
among other claims. See, e.g., Exhibits 14 - 17.
74. Enovate Medicals marketing materials extoll the benefits of itscomputer carts and medication carts with a computing device and a display, and,
among other things, instruct on the installation and set-up of the carts with a
monitor and CPU, or a laptop computer. See, e.g., Exhibits 14 - 17.
75. The benefits Enovate Medical touts in its marketing materials for itscomputer carts and medication carts could not be realized without using a
computing device and a display with the carts.
Case 3:02-at-06000 Document 1359 Filed 11/22/13 Page 15 of 28
-
8/13/2019 InterMetro Industries v. Enovate Medical
16/28
16
76. Enovate Medicals computer carts and medication carts have nosubstantial non-infringing use.
77. In view of the facts alleged herein, Enovate Medical has known of the999 patent, or has been willfully blind to the 999 patents existence, since at least
2009.
78. Enovate Medicals infringing activities have been willful anddeliberate.
79. Enovate Medicals infringing activities are directly and proximatelycausing immediate and irreparable injury to InterMetro for which InterMetro has
no adequate remedy at law.
80. Enovate Medical will continue its infringing activities unless enjoinedfrom doing so by the Court.
81. Enovate Medicals infringing activities have and continue to directlyand proximately cause damages to InterMetro.
COUNT IVINFRINGEMENT OF U.S.PATENT NO.7,791,866
82. InterMetro restates the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-81.83. On September 7, 2010, the Patent Office duly and lawfully issued the
866 patent. See Exhibit 7.
84. InterMetro owns the 866 patent, along with all rights to bring suit andrecover damages for past, present and future infringement of the 866 patent.
Case 3:02-at-06000 Document 1359 Filed 11/22/13 Page 16 of 28
-
8/13/2019 InterMetro Industries v. Enovate Medical
17/28
17
85. Enovate Medical has in the past and/or currently is directly infringingthe claims of the 866 patent under 35 U.S.C. 271(a) by making, using, offering
for sale and selling, without InterMetros authority, computer carts and medication
carts that embody one or more of the 866 patent claims.
86. By way of example and not limitation, Enovate Medical has in thepast and/or currently is making, using, offering for sale and selling the Enovate
Medical Computer Cart and the Enovate Medical Medication Cart, each of which
directly infringes at least claims 12, 13, 17, 18 and 21 of the 866 patent, among
other claims. See, e.g., Exhibits 14 - 17.
87. Enovate Medical has in the past and/or currently is inducing andcontributing to the direct infringement of the 866 patent claims in violation of 35
U.S.C. 271(b) and (c), by making, using, offering for sale and selling, without
InterMetros authority, computer carts and medication carts with knowledge of the
866 patent and its claims; knowing that others, including customers and users of
its computer carts and medication carts, will use the carts in an infringing manner;
knowing that its computer carts and medication carts are a material part of the
invention claimed in the 866 patent; knowing that its computer carts and
medication carts are especially made or especially adapted for use in an
infringement of the 866 patent; and knowing that its computer carts and
Case 3:02-at-06000 Document 1359 Filed 11/22/13 Page 17 of 28
-
8/13/2019 InterMetro Industries v. Enovate Medical
18/28
18
medication carts are not staple articles or commodities of commerce that are
suitable for substantial non-infringing use.
88. By way of example and not limitation, Enovate Medical has in thepast and/or currently is making, using, offering for sale and selling the Enovate
Medical Computer Cart and the Enovate Medical Medication Cart which its
customers use to directly infringe at least claims 12, 13, 17, 18 and 21 of the 866
patent, among other claims. See, e.g., Exhibits 14 - 17.
89. Enovate Medicals marketing materials extoll the benefits of itscomputer carts and medication carts with a computing device and a display, and,
among other things, instruct on the installation and set-up of the carts with a
monitor and CPU, or a laptop computer. See Exhibits 14 - 17.
90. The benefits Enovate Medical touts in its marketing materials for itscomputer carts and medication carts could not be realized without using a
computing device and a display with the carts.
91. Enovate Medicals computer carts and medication carts have nosubstantial non-infringing use.
92. In view of the facts alleged herein, Enovate Medical has known of the866 patent, or has been willfully blind to the 866 patents existence, since at least
2010.
Case 3:02-at-06000 Document 1359 Filed 11/22/13 Page 18 of 28
-
8/13/2019 InterMetro Industries v. Enovate Medical
19/28
19
93. Enovate Medicals infringing activities have been willful anddeliberate.
94. Enovate Medicals infringing activities are directly and proximatelycausing immediate and irreparable injury to InterMetro for which InterMetro has
no adequate remedy at law.
95. Enovate Medical will continue its infringing activities unless enjoinedfrom doing so by the Court.
96. Enovate Medicals infringing activities have and continue to directlyand proximately cause damages to InterMetro.
COUNT VINFRINGEMENT OF U.S.PATENT NO.7,990,691
97. InterMetro restates the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-96.98. On August 2, 2011, the Patent Office duly and lawfully issued the
691 patent. SeeExhibit 8.
99. InterMetro owns the 691 patent, along with all rights to bring suit andrecover damages for past, present and future infringement of the 691 patent.
100. Enovate Medical has in the past and/or currently is directly infringingthe claims of the 691 patent under 35 U.S.C. 271(a) by making, using, offering
for sale and selling, without InterMetros authority, computer carts and medication
carts that embody one or more of the 691 patent claims.
Case 3:02-at-06000 Document 1359 Filed 11/22/13 Page 19 of 28
-
8/13/2019 InterMetro Industries v. Enovate Medical
20/28
20
101. By way of example and not limitation, Enovate Medical has in thepast and/or currently is making, using, offering for sale and selling the Enovate
Medical Computer Cart and the Enovate Medical Medication Cart, each of which
directly infringes at least claims 1, 2, 16, 25 and 33 of the 691 patent, among other
claims. See, e.g., Exhibits 14 - 17.
102. By way of further example and not limitation, Enovate Medical has inthe past and/or currently is making, using, offering for sale and selling the Enovate
Medical Ultra Lite Cart that directly infringes at least claim 25 of the 691 patent.
See, e.g., Exhibit 18.
103. By way of further example and not limitation, Enovate Medical has inthe past made, used, offered for sale and sold the Sydekick Medication
Workstation that directly infringes at least claims 1, 2 and 33 of the 691 patent,
among other claims. See, e.g.,Exhibit 19.
104. Enovate Medical has in the past and/or currently is inducing andcontributing to the direct infringement of the 691 patent claims in violation of 35
U.S.C. 271(b) and (c), by making, using, offering for sale and selling, without
InterMetros authority, computer carts and medication carts with knowledge of the
691 patent and its claims; knowing that others, including customers and users of
its computer carts and medication carts, will use the carts in an infringing manner;
knowing that its computer carts and medication carts are a material part of the
Case 3:02-at-06000 Document 1359 Filed 11/22/13 Page 20 of 28
-
8/13/2019 InterMetro Industries v. Enovate Medical
21/28
21
invention claimed in the 691 patent; knowing that its computer carts and
medication carts are especially made or especially adapted for use in an
infringement of the 691 patent; and knowing that its computer carts and
medication carts are not staple articles or commodities of commerce that are
suitable for substantial non-infringing uses.
105. By way of example and not limitation, Enovate Medical has in thepast and/or currently is making, using, offering for sale and selling the Enovate
Medical Computer Cart and the Enovate Medical Medication Cart which its
customers use to directly infringe at least claims 1, 2, 16, 25 and 33 of the 691
patent, among other claims.
106. By way of further example and not limitation, Enovate Medical has inthe past and/or currently is making, using, offering for sale and selling the Enovate
Medical Ultra Lite Cart that its customers use to directly infringe at least claim 25
of the 691 patent. See, e.g., Exhibit 18.
107. By way of further example and not limitation, Enovate Medical has inthe past made, used, offered for sale and sold the Sydekick Medication
Workstation that its customers use to directly infringe at least claims 1, 2 and 33 of
the 691 patent, among other claims. See, e.g., Exhibit 19.
108. Enovate Medicals marketing materials extoll the benefits of itscomputer carts and medication carts with a computing device and a display, and,
Case 3:02-at-06000 Document 1359 Filed 11/22/13 Page 21 of 28
-
8/13/2019 InterMetro Industries v. Enovate Medical
22/28
22
among other things, instruct on the installation and set-up of the carts with a
monitor and CPU, or a laptop computer. See, e.g., Exhibits 14 - 18.
109. Other marketing materials inform customers that the computer cartsand medication carts Accommodate most computer configurations: AIO, thin
clients, tablets, small form factors, and laptops. See, e.g.,Exhibit 19.
110. The benefits Enovate Medical touts in its marketing materials for itscomputer carts and medication carts could not be realized without using a
computing device and display with the carts.
111. Enovate Medicals computer carts and medication carts have nosubstantial non-infringing use.
112. In view of the facts alleged herein, Enovate Medical has known of the691 patent, or has been willfully blind to the 691 patents existence, since at least
2011.
113. Enovate Medicals infringing activities have been willful anddeliberate.
114. Enovate Medicals infringing activities are directly and proximatelycausing immediate and irreparable injury to InterMetro for which InterMetro has
no adequate remedy at law.
115. Enovate Medical will continue its infringing activities unless enjoinedfrom doing so by the Court.
Case 3:02-at-06000 Document 1359 Filed 11/22/13 Page 22 of 28
-
8/13/2019 InterMetro Industries v. Enovate Medical
23/28
23
116. Enovate Medicals infringing activities have and continue to directlyand proximately cause damages to InterMetro.
COUNT VIINFRINGEMENT OF U.S.PATENT NO.8,526,176
117. InterMetro restates the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-116.118. On September 3, 2013, the Patent Office duly and lawfully issued the
176 patent. See Exhibit 9.
119. InterMetro owns the 176 patent, along with all rights to bring suit andrecover damages for past, present and future infringement of the 176 patent.
120. Enovate Medical has in the past and/or currently is directly infringingthe claims of the 176 patent under 35 U.S.C. 271(a) by making, using, offering
for sale and selling, without InterMetros authority, computer carts and medication
carts that embody one or more of the 176 patent claims.
121. By way of example and not limitation, Enovate Medical has in thepast and/or currently is making, using, offering for sale and selling the Enovate
Medical Computer Cart and the Enovate Medical Medication Cart, each of which
directly infringes at least claims 8, 9, 15 and 17 of the 176 patent, among other
claims. See, e.g., Exhibits 14 - 17.
122. Enovate Medical has in the past and/or currently is inducing andcontributing to the direct infringement of the 176 patent claims in violation of 35
U.S.C. 271(b) and (c), by making, using, offering for sale and selling, without
Case 3:02-at-06000 Document 1359 Filed 11/22/13 Page 23 of 28
-
8/13/2019 InterMetro Industries v. Enovate Medical
24/28
-
8/13/2019 InterMetro Industries v. Enovate Medical
25/28
25
125. The benefits Enovate Medical touts in its marketing materials for itscomputer carts and medication carts could not be realized without using a
computing device and a display with the carts.
126. Enovate Medicals computer carts and medication carts have nosubstantial non-infringing use.
127. In view of the facts alleged herein, Enovate Medical has known of the176 patent, or has been willfully blind to the 176 patents existence, since at least
2013.
128. Enovate Medicals infringing activities have been willful anddeliberate.
129. Enovate Medicals infringing activities are directly and proximatelycausing immediate and irreparable injury to InterMetro for which InterMetro has
no adequate remedy at law.
130. Enovate Medical will continue its infringing activities unless enjoinedfrom doing so by the Court.
131. Enovate Medicals infringing activities have and continue to directlyand proximately cause damages to InterMetro.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, InterMetro Industries Corporation prays that this Court:
Case 3:02-at-06000 Document 1359 Filed 11/22/13 Page 25 of 28
-
8/13/2019 InterMetro Industries v. Enovate Medical
26/28
-
8/13/2019 InterMetro Industries v. Enovate Medical
27/28
27
other wrongful acts, and that such amount be paid over to InterMetro as an
equitable remedy;
G. Award to InterMetro all damages it has sustained as a result of theEnovate Medicals patent infringement and order that said damages be trebled in
accordance with 35 U.S.C. 284;
H. Enter judgment declaring that this case is exceptional and thatInterMetro is entitled to recover its costs and reasonable attorneys fees incurred in
this action, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 285; and
I. Enter judgment granting such other and further relief and damages to
InterMetro as justice and equity may require.
JURY DEMAND
InterMetro Industries Corporation hereby requests a trial by jury of all
issues so triable.
Respectfully submitted,
DATED: November 22, 2013 By: s/ Dale M. Heist
Dale M. Heist, PA23314
John Frank Murphy, PA206307
WOODCOCK WASHBURN LLP
Cira Centre, 12thFloor
2929 Arch StreetPhiladelphia, PA 19104
(215) 568-3100
(215) 564-3439 (fax)
Case 3:02-at-06000 Document 1359 Filed 11/22/13 Page 27 of 28
-
8/13/2019 InterMetro Industries v. Enovate Medical
28/28
OFCOUNSEL
Glenn E. Forbis, PA263218, MIP52119
George D. Moustakas, MIP41631
Neal D. Sanborn, MIP75725
HARNESS,DICKEY &PIERCE,PLC5445 Corporate Drive, Suite 400
Troy, Michigan 48098
(248) 641-1400
(248) 641-0270 (fax)
Attorneys for Plaintiff INTERMETROINDUSTRIES CORPORATION
Case 3:02-at-06000 Document 1359 Filed 11/22/13 Page 28 of 28