IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT. Nature of Action

Similar documents
Case 4:14-cv BRW Document 58 Filed 12/04/15 Page 1 of 13

Case 1:18-cv LPS-CJB Document 5 Filed 05/24/18 Page 1 of 17 PageID #: 47 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION. Plaintiff, Case No:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION. Plaintiff, Case No:

Case 1:14-cv AJS Document 1 Filed 08/21/14 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION. Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-1877

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA. BBK Tobacco & Foods, LLP, an Arizona limited liability partnership, d/b/a HBI International,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION. Plaintiff, Case No:

Case 5:07-cv D Document 1 Filed 06/06/07 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

Case5:13-cv HRL Document15 Filed01/22/13 Page1 of 8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION

Case 4:16-cv Document 1 Filed 09/27/16 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 1

Case 1:16-cv UNA Document 1 Filed 12/16/16 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

Case 1:18-cv UNA Document 1 Filed 10/17/18 Page 1 of 16 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DELAWARE

Case 1:17-cv RGA Document 8 Filed 09/06/17 Page 1 of 90 PageID #: 546 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION : : Plaintiff,

Case 5:17-cv Document 1 Filed 11/06/17 Page 1 of 19

IN THE VANDERBURGH CIRCUIT COURT

Case 1:16-cv JMS-DML Document 1 Filed 02/05/16 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION PLAINTIFF S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 2:08-cv DF-CE Document 1 Filed 07/29/08 Page 1 of 12

Case 1:16-cv TWP-MPB Document 1 Filed 03/16/16 Page 1 of 19 PageID #: 1

Case: 1:14-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 09/05/14 Page 1 of 24 PageID #:1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

Case 1:16-cv UNA Document 1 Filed 03/31/16 Page 1 of 15 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE. Case No.

Attorneys for Plaintiff XR Communications, LLC, dba Vivato Technologies UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 2:10-cv Document 1 Filed 04/07/10 Page 1 of 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

Case 1:18-cv JMS-DML Document 1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 1 of 18 PageID #: 1

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH. Case No. COMPLAINT

Case 3:14-cv AJB-JMA Document 1 Filed 08/07/14 Page 1 of 16

PlainSite. Legal Document. Ohio Northern District Court Case No. 5:12-cv Sherwin-Williams Company v. Wooster Brush Company.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION. E4X, Inc.; Fiftyone, Inc.; JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Case 2:15-cv Document 1 Filed 07/20/15 Page 1 of 19 Page ID #:1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

Yee ) and A.V. Jewelry Export-Import, Ltd. ( AV Jewelry ) (collectively Plaintiffs ), for their

Case 2:11-cv KHV-DJW Document 1 Filed 12/19/11 Page 1 of 20 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS EASTERN DIVISION. Plaintiff, Defendant.

Case 3:15-cv Document 1 Filed 10/05/15 Page 1 of 18

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 2:12-cv JCC Document 1 Filed 06/29/12 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE NO.

Effective Utilization of Patent Searches in the Wake of the AIA Patent Reform Law. April 30, 2012

David C. Doyle PARTNER EDUCATION BAR ADMISSIONS PRACTICES

Case 1:18-cv AKH Document 1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 1 of 21 : : : : : : : : : : : : :

Case 3:10-cv D Document 119 Filed 10/07/13 Page 1 of 19 PageID 1770

Case 3:14-cv PK Document 53 Filed 04/23/15 Page 1 of 7

4. Jeffrey A. Goldberg and Andrew Federhar are attorneys who represented the Kingman Airport Authority with respect to the condemnation proceeding

Paper No Entered: November 6, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

~ft~... J _J ~ ' ;1 '::1st~ ::i<isi~1 110.J tn Dis~~d;e ~

Case 1:17-cv KMT Document 1 Filed 10/24/17 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Case 2:16-cv JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/29/16 Page 1 of 17 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

CIRCUIT COURT OF COLE COUNTY, MISSOURI AMENDED CLASS-ACTION PETITION

THE AMERICA INVENTS ACT NEW POST-ISSUANCE PATENT OFFICE PROCEEDINGS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.

Case 2:16-cv Document 1 Filed 01/04/16 Page 1 of 19 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 09/07/18 Page 1 of 14

The Face of the Patent is not the Whole Story : Determining Effective Patent Life in the US. Anne Marie Clark, Ph.D. and Heidi Berven,, Ph.D., J.D.

Case 5:16-cv HRL Document 1 Filed 06/14/16 Page 1 of 10

Plaintiff, Defendants. undersigned counsel, for his Complaint against defendants Richard Prince ( Mr. Prince ),

Challenges Facing Entrepreneurs in Enforcing and Licensing Patents

Bas de Blank. Representative Engagements. Partner Silicon Valley T E

ANSWER WITH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Case 1:15-cv Document 1 Filed 04/13/15 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

R. Cameron Garrison. Managing Partner

Case 3:16-cv JAM Document 1 Filed 04/29/16 Page 1 of 17

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/04/2013 INDEX NO /2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/04/2013

Case 1:12-cv CCC Document 1 Filed 11/02/12 Page 1 of 22 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Case 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 08/16/17 Page 1 of 17 : : Defendants. :

Case 4:17-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 02/09/17 Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WICHITA FALLS DIVISION. v. Civil Action No. COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Patent Misuse. History:

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff MOAC Mall Holdings, LLC d/b/a Mall of America for its Verified Complaint

Raising the Stakes in Patent Cases

Case 1:06-cv RWR Document t Filed 06/22/2006 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 3:16-cv Document 1 Filed 05/03/16 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KRYPTONITE AUTHORIZED ONLINE SELLER APPLICATION AND AGREEMENT Effective: January 1, 2018

Case 3:18-cv D Document 1 Filed 05/31/18 Page 1 of 23 PageID 1

Litigators for Innovators

Panel on IP Valuation: How Much is it Worth? How Much Can You Get? How Can You Protect It?

Recent Changes to the Patent Litigation Landscape and Predictions for the Future. June 12, 2018

Represented publicly-traded pharmaceutical company in false advertising and trademark

Courthouse News Service

Case 1:11-cv JSR Document 33 Filed 01/20/12 Page 1 of 9

Case 1:16-cv GMS Document 13 Filed 02/13/17 Page 1 of 78 PageID #: 367 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

The Curious Case of Smucker s Uncrustables

MEDICINE LICENSE TO PUBLISH

April 1, Patent Application Pitfall: Federal Circuit Affirms Invalidity of Software Patent for Inadequate Disclosure

Comments of the AMERICAN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW ASSOCIATION. Regarding

PRACTICE TIPS FOR TRADEMARK PROSECUTION BEFORE THE USPTO

AN OVERVIEW OF THE UNITED STATES PATENT SYSTEM

Transcription:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ABBOTT DIABETES CARE INC., Plaintiff, v. DEXCOM, INC., Defendant. C.A. No. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT Plaintiff Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., by and through its undersigned attorneys, complains as follows: Nature of Action 1. This is an action for patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271 involving United States Patent No. 8,175,673 (the 673 patent. Jurisdiction and Venue 2. Jurisdiction for this action is based on 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1338(a. 3. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b and (c and 1400(b. 4. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendant because, among other things, it is organized under the laws of Delaware. Parties 5. Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. ( Abbott is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, having its principal place of business in Alameda, California. 6. DexCom, Inc. ( DexCom is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, having its principal place of business in San Diego, California.

Background 7. On May 8, 2012, the United States Patent and Trademark Office ( PTO duly and legally issued the 673 patent, entitled Analyte Monitoring Device and Methods of Use, to named inventors James Say, Michael F. Tomasco, Adam Heller, Yoram Gal, Behrad Aria, Ephriam Heller, Phillip John Plante, Mark S. Vreeke, Keith A. Friedman, Fredric C. Colman. Abbott is the assignee and owner of the 673 patent. A true and correct copy of the 673 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 8. DexCom is and has been making, using, selling, and offering for sale in the United States continuous glucose monitoring systems, including DexCom s SEVEN PLUS Continuous Glucose Monitoring System and DexCom s G4 PLATINUM Continuous Glucose Monitor. When the systems are used in the manner intended by DexCom, the user practices the invention claimed in the 673 patent. 9. DexCom received FDA approval to market its DexCom SEVEN PLUS Continuous Glucose Monitoring System in February 2009. DexCom has been making, using, offering for sale and/or selling its SEVEN PLUS device in the United States since that date. 10. On October 8, 2012, DexCom announced that it had received FDA approval to market its G4 PLATINUM Continuous Glucose Monitoring System. DexCom has been making, using, offering for sale and/or selling its G4 PLATINUM system in the United States since that date. A true and correct copy of the press release announcing the FDA s approval and DexCom s intentions is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 11. DexCom provides a tutorial for operating the G4 PLATINUM system on a website owned and operated by DexCom. The tutorial is available at <http://www.dexcom.com/faq/inserting-your-sensor-dexcom-g4-platinum-tutorial>. - 2 -

12. Several technical manuals, including a User Guide and Quick Start Guide for the Seven Plus and G4 PLATINUM systems, are available for download on a website owned and operated by DexCom. The materials are available at <http://www.dexcom.com/cgmeducation>. 13. Independent claim 1 of Abbott s 673 patent provides as follows: A method of using an electrochemical sensor, the method comprising: adhering a mounting unit to a skin of a subject; after adhering the mounting unit to the skin of the subject, advancing the electrochemical sensor into the skin of the subject using an inserter; removing the inserter; mounting a housing of a sensor control unit to the mounting unit; and coupling at least one conductive contact disposed on the housing with at least one conductive contact of the electrochemical sensor. 14. When DexCom s Seven Plus and G4 PLATINUM systems are used in the manner intended by DexCom, the user uses an electrochemical sensor, including in the following manner: a. a mounting unit is adhered to a skin of a subject; b. after the mounting unit is adhered to the skin of the subject, the electrochemical sensor is advanced into the skin of the subject using an inserter; c. the inserter is removed; d. a housing of a sensor control unit is mounted to the mounting unit; - 3 -

e. at least one conductive contact disposed on the housing is coupled with at least one conductive contact of the electrochemical sensor. 15. Independent claim 24 of Abbott s 673 patent provides as follows: A method of using an electrochemical sensor, the method comprising: aligning an inserter with a portion of a mounting unit, the inserter configured to carry an electrochemical sensor therewith; adhering a mounting unit to a skin of a subject; after adhering the mounting unit to the skin of the subject, advancing the electrochemical sensor into the skin of the subject relative to the mounting unit using the inserter; mounting a housing of a sensor control unit to the mounting unit; and coupling at least one conductive contact disposed on the housing with at least one conductive contact of the electrochemical sensor. 16. When DexCom s Seven Plus and G4 PLATINUM systems are used in the manner intended by DexCom, the user uses an electrochemical sensor, including in the following manner: a. an inserter is aligned with a portion of a mounting unit; b. the inserter is configured to carry an electrochemical sensor therewith; c. a mounting unit is adhered to the skin of a subject; d. after adhering the mounting unit to the skin of the subject, the electrochemical sensor is advanced into the skin of the subject relative to the mounting unit using the inserter; e. a housing of a sensor control unit is mounted to the mounting unit; and - 4 -

f. at least one conductive contact disposed on the housing is coupled with at least one conductive contact of the electrochemical sensor. 17. On information and belief, DexCom is and has been aware of the Abbott s 673 patent since the May 8, 2012, when the patent issued. DexCom is and has been aware that use of its continuous glucose monitoring systems, including DexCom s Seven Plus and G4 PLATINUM systems, practices the inventions claimed in the 673 patent. 18. On September 7, 2012, DexCom filed a Request for Inter Partes Reexamination of the 673 patent with the PTO, presenting twenty six proposed rejections. On November 13, 2012, the PTO denied DexCom s Request, finding that there is no reasonable likelihood that [DexCom] would prevail with respect to the proposed rejections. On December 13, 2012, DexCom petitioned the Director of the PTO to review the order denying DexCom s Request for Inter Partes Reexamination. The Director of the PTO conducted a de novo review of the record and, on February 19, 2013, denied DexCom s petition, confirming that the request for reexamination did not establish that there is a reasonable likelihood that the requester will prevail. 19. Despite its knowledge of the 673 patent and despite the PTO s rejection of DexCom s request for Reexamination, DexCom has been and is continuing to develop, promote, make, use, sell and offer for sale devices that, when used in the manner intended by DexCom, practice the invention claimed in the 673 patent. 19. COUNT I DECLARATION OF PATENT INFRINGEMENT 673 PATENT 20. Abbott re-alleges and incorporates herein the allegations of paragraphs 1 through - 5 -

21. There is an actual, substantial, continuing justiciable controversy between Abbott and DexCom regarding whether DexCom has infringed the 673 patent. 22. DexCom has, in violation of 35 U.S.C. 271(a, directly infringed the 673 patent by making, using, offering to sell and selling its products, including the DexCom SEVEN PLUS Continuous Glucose Monitoring System and the G4 PLATINUM Continuous Glucose Monitoring System in the United States. 23. DexCom has, in violation of 35 U.S.C. 271(b, actively and knowingly induced and is actively and knowingly inducing the direct infringement of the 673 patent by intentionally aiding and abetting third parties practicing of the inventions claimed in the 673 patent through, among other things, DexCom s sale, advertising, marketing, sales, distribution, tutorials, technical manuals and other dissemination of information concerning DexCom s SEVEN PLUS Continuous Glucose Monitoring System and G4 PLATINUM Continuous Glucose Monitoring System. 24. DexCom has, in violation of 35 U.S.C. 271(c, contributorily infringed the 673 patent by intentionally aiding and abetting third parties practicing of the inventions claimed in the 673 patent through, among other things, DexCom s sale, advertising, marketing, sales, distribution, tutorials, technical manuals and other dissemination of information concerning DexCom s SEVEN PLUS Continuous Glucose Monitoring System and G4 PLATINUM Continuous Glucose and Monitoring System. DexCom s devices are used in practicing the invention claimed in the 673 patented and constitute a material part of the invention claimed in the 673 patent. DexCom s devices are especially made or especially adapted for use in a manner that infringes the 673 patent, and DexCom s devices are not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing uses. - 6 -

25. DexCom s infringement of the 673 patent is and continues to be willful. DexCom is and has been continuing its infringement of Abbott s 673 patent despite DexCom s knowledge of Abbott s 673 patent, despite DexCom s knowledge of its infringement, and despite the PTO s denial of DexCom s Request for Inter Partes Reexamination. Relief Requested WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. prays that the Court enter judgment against Defendant DexCom, Inc. and in favor of Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. as follows: A. Judgment that DexCom's product infringes one or more claims of the 673 patent, directly and by way of inducing and contributory infringement; B. An award of damages and an accounting for DexCom s infringement of the 673 patent, together with interest (both pre- and post-judgment, costs and disbursements as fixed by this Court under 35 U.S.C. 284; C. Judgment that DexCom s infringement has been willful and an award of treble; D. Judgment that the case is exceptional and an award of reasonable attorneys fees under 35 U.S.C. 285; E. Injunctive relief against DexCom s infringement of the 673 patent; F. For such other relief as the Court determines to be just and proper. - 7 -

MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP OF COUNSEL: /s/ Mary B. Graham Mary B. Graham (#2256 Jeremy A. Tigan (#5239 1201 N. Market Street P.O. Box 1347 Wilmington, DE 19899-1347 (302 658-9200 mgraham@mnat.com jtigan@mnat.com Attorneys for Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. Guy Ruttenberg RUTTENBERG IP LAW, PC 1801 Century Park East Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 (310 556-9651 December 31, 2013 7854681-8 -