Nunka et. al. v. Innovative Health Solutions et. al.
Official Complaint for Declaratory Judgement in Civil Action No. 0:14-cv-60573-RNS: Nunka Corporation et. al. v. Innovative Health Solutions Inc. et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, the Hon. Robert N. Scola presiding. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-la36 for more info.
Content
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: _______________ NUNKA CORPORATION, a Florida corporation; AMM MARKETLING CORPORATION, a Florida corporation; BLUE TREE SOLUTIONS LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company; and MARPAY TECHNOLOGIES INC., a Wyoming corporation, Plaintiffs v. INNOVATIVE HEALTH SOLUTIONS INC., an Indiana corporation; and INNOVATIVE HEALTH SOLUTIONS LLC, an Indiana domestic limited liability company, Defendants _________________________________________/ COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGEMENT Plaintiffs NUNKA CORPORATION (“NUNKA”), AMM MARKETING CORPORATION (“AMM MARKETING”), BLUE TREE SOLUTIONS LLC (“BLUE TREE SOLUTIONS”), MARPAY TECHNOLOGIES INC. (“MARPAY TECHNOLOGIES”), (collectively, “PLAINTIFFS”), by and through the undersigned counsel, hereby file this Complaint against INNOVATIVE HEALTH SOLUTIONS INC. and INNOVATIVE HEALTH SOLUTIONS LLC (collectively, “IHS” or “DEFENDANTS”) and, in so doing, allege as follows: NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. This is an action for a declaratory judgment of the provisional rights relative to
United States Patent Application No. 61/894,270 (the “’270 Patent Application”) under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 and under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35, United States Code.
PARTIES 2. The Plaintiff, Nunka, is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Nunka maintains its principal place of business at 11 NE 15th Avenue,
State of Florida.
Pompano Beach, Florida 33060, and is, for reasons set forth below, subject to the jurisdiction of this Court. 3. The Plaintiff, AMM Marketing, is a corporation organized and existing under the
laws of the State of Florida. AMM Marketing maintains its principal place of business at 11 NE 15th Avenue, Pompano Beach, Florida 33060, and is, for reasons set forth below, subject to the jurisdiction of this Court. 4. The Defendant, Innovative Health Solutions, Inc. is an Indiana corporation with
its principal place of business at 823 South Adams Street, Versailles, Indiana 47042, and are, for the reasons set forth below, subject to the jurisdiction of this Court. 5. The Defendant, Innovative Health Solutions, LLC is an Indiana domestic limited
liability company with its principal place of business at 823 South Adams Street, Versailles, Indiana 47042, and are, for the reasons set forth below, subject to the jurisdiction of this Court. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 6. Subject matter jurisdiction of this Court over this action is based on 35 U.S.C. §
154(d), 28 U.S.C. § 1331, § 1338, and § 2201-2202. In the alternative, this Court also has diversity jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because this action is between citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 7. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant, Innovative Health Solutions
Inc. because said Defendant made allegations of patent infringement against the Plaintiffs, some of which are Florida business entities, and have directed their threats of litigation for patent
2 of 9
infringement into the State of Florida which resulted in Plaintiff’s need for declaratory relief. This Court also has personal jurisdiction over Defendant, Innovative Health Solutions Inc., because, upon information and belief, said Defendant has sales agents in the State of Florida, conducts business within the State of Florida, makes substantial sales to the States of Florida, directs substantial advertisements and marketing efforts to the State of Florida, and has a website that is accessible within the State of Florida and specifically targets residents of the State of Florida. 8. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendant, Innovative Health
Solutions LLC, because said Defendant made allegations of patent infringement against the Plaintiffs, some of which are Florida business entities, and have directed their threats of litigation for patent infringement into the State of Florida which resulted in Plaintiff’s need for declaratory relief. This Court also has personal jurisdiction over Defendant, Innovative Health Solutions LLC, because, upon information and belief, said Defendant has sales agents in the State of Florida, conducts business within the State of Florida, makes substantial sales to the States of Florida, directs substantial advertisements and marketing efforts to the State of Florida, and has a website that is accessible within the State of Florida and specifically targets residents of the State of Florida. 9. Venue properly lies with the Southern District of Florida pursuant to the
provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1391. Upon information and belief, Defendants have sold products and offered products for sale in the Southern District of Florida, a substantial part of the alleged events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this district and Defendants’ threats of litigation for patent infringement were directed to business entities domiciled in this judicial district.
3 of 9
EXISTENCE OF ACTUAL CONTROVERSY 10. There is an actual controversy within the jurisdiction of this Court under 28
U.S.C. § 2201 and 2202. 11. On or about February 26, 2014, counsel for IHS sent a cease and desist letter
(hereinafter “IHS cease and desist letter”) to Plaintiffs, a true and correct copy of which is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit “A.” 12. The IHS cease and desist letter alleges that “production, marketing, distribution,
offering for sale and sale of ‘Neurova’ induces the infringement of IHS’s proprietary treatment method embodied in Patent Aplication No. 61/894,270.” 13. The IHS cease and desist letter alleges that IHS has provisional patent rights, § 154(d), because, as stated in the letter, “patents issuing on published
under 35 U.S.C.
applications will include the right to obtain reasonable royalties from other who, with actual notice of the published application, made used, sold, offered to sell, or imported the invention as claimed in the published application before the patent was granted.” 14. The IHS cease and desist letter threatens that Plaintiffs’ activities subject them to
additional damages based on willful conduct, by stating that “your present activity places you at substantial risk for such liability accruing hereafter.…Understand that IHS will enforce its rights to the full extent of the law, and your continued contact after this notice will provide support for a finding of willful conduct, and therefore provide a basis for the award of attorneys’ fees and exemplary damages.” (emphasis added). Thus, IHS has taken affirmative acts related to the enforcement of IHS’s alleged patent rights.
4 of 9
15.
The IHS cease and desist letter asserts that certain language and/or content in
websites http://nunkacorp.com and http://www.chronicpaintherapy.com constitutes unfair competition and false advertising. 16. The IHS cease and desist letter threatens Plaintiffs with immediate and imminent
litigation if Plaintiffs continue any activities associated with the Neurova product, by stating that “[i]f you wish to avoid being subjected to the liability, cost, expense and expenditure of time necessarily involved in becoming a defendant in litigation such as that described above, you will cease and desist in your production, marketing, distribution, offering for sale and sale of ‘Neurova’…no later than March 5, 2014, cancel any intended appearance at the trade show just mentioned, and confirm those facts to me in writing by March 7th. Otherwise, IHS will look to other means of protecting its rights and interests.” (emphasis added). 17. Plaintiffs have been meaningfully preparing to launch Neurova at a significant
trade show for the American Academy of Pain Medicine (AAPM), scheduled to be begin on March 6, 2014 in Pheonix, Arizona (hereinafter “trade show”). IHS discovered that Plaintffs “reserved booth space No. 435” at the trade show. A mere seven days before the trade show, IHS sent the cease and desist letter demanding that Plaintiffs not attend the trade show and demanding that Plaintiffs confirm this non-attendance in writing prior to the trade show or be subject to litigation. Thus, Plaintiffs have been meaningfully preparing to conduct potentially infringing activity and require a declaratory judgment to ascertain Plaintiffs rights under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35, United States Code. 18. The IHS cease and desist letter imposes two actual and imminent deadlines on
Plaintiffs by which they must comply or, otherwise, be named as a “defendant in litigation.” The first deadline that IHS imposes on Plaintiffs is to cease production, marketing, distribution,
5 of 9
offering for sale, and sale of Neurova by March 5, 2014. The second deadline that IHS imposes on Plaintiffs is to provide confirmation in writing by March 7, 2014. 19. Based on IHS’s communications with the Plaintiffs, its assertion that the
Plaintiff’s activities will subject Plaintiffs to litigation costs and expenses, including increased damage awards based on willful conduct, and its assertion that it will pursue immediate action naming Plaintiffs as “a defendant in litigation” if Plaintiffs attend the trade show and/or continue to produce, market, distribute, offer for sale, or sell Neurova, Defendants have created in the Plaintiffs a reasonable apprehension that they will initiate litigation and demand the right to prohibit Plaintiffs from making, using, and selling Neurova. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 20. Plaintiff, Nunka, is a Florida corporation that manufactures Neurova and operates
the website http://nunkacorp.com. 21. Plaintiff, AMM Marketing filed registration documentation for Neurova under
Section 510(k) of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. 22. Plaintiff, Blue Tree Solutions distributes Neurova and operates the website
www.chronicpaintherapy.com. 23. 24. Plaintiff, Marpay Technologies distributes Neurova. Plaintiffs reserved booth space at a trade show for the American Academy of Pain
Medicine to be held in Pheonix, Arizona on March 6-8, 2014. 25. Defendant, IHS, through counsel, sent a cease and desist letter to Plaintiffs on or
about February 26, 2014, attached herein as Exhibit “A.” 26. The IHS cease and desist letter alleges patent infringement liability of the ’270
Patent Application under 35 U.S.C. § 154(d) for producing, marketing, distributing, offering for
6 of 9
sale, and selling Neurova. 27. The IHS cease and desist letter demands that the Plaintiffs cease all production,
distribution, marketing, and sales of Neurova. 28. The IHS cease and desist letter demands that the Plaintiffs cancel their appearance
at the trade show. 29. The IHS cease and desist letter threatens litigation against Plaintiffs if
confirmation in writing is not received by March 7, 2014 that all of the above activities have ceased, including cancellation of any appearance at the trade show. COUNT I: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF UNENFORCEABILITY OF AND NONLIABILITY FOR INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’270 PATENT APPLICATION 30. Plaintiff re-alleges and re-avers the allegations contained in paragraphs one (1)
through thirty (30) as if fully set forth herein. 31. IHS has stated that production, marketing, distribution, offering for sale, and the
sale of Neurova induces infringement of the ‘270 Patent Application. 32. IHS alleges that Plaintiffs are liable for infringement of HSI’s provisional rights
to the ‘270 Patent Application under 35 U.S.C. § 154(d). 33. IHS alleges that continued contact after this notice will provide support for a
finding of willful conduct and therefore provide a basis for the award of attorneys’ fees and exemplary damages. 34. Plaintiffs contend that a mere Provisional Patent Application filed under 35
U.S.C. § 154(d) is, by itself, unenforceable against any third party and, by itself, cannot form the basis upon which any relief can be granted for patent infringement. 35. Plaintiffs contend that Provisional Patents Applications are not customarily
published by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Plaintiffs contend that
7 of 9
they have not received a copy of the ‘270 Patent Application, nor are Plaintiffs aware of a publication of the ‘270 Patent Application. Therefore, Plaintiffs contend that they are not on actual notice of the ‘270 Patent Application, as required by 35 U.S.C. § 154(d). 36. Plaintiffs contend that production, marketing, distribution, offering for sale, and
the sale of Neurova does not constitute infringing activity. 37. Plaintiffs contend that production, marketing, distribution, offering for sale, and
the sale of Neurova does not make Plaintiffs liable under 35 U.S.C. § 154(d) for damages or attorney’s fees. 38. As a result of the acts described in the foregoing paragraphs, there exists a
substantial controversy of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment. 39. An actual and justiciable controversy exists between Plaintiffs and IHS as to
whether Plaintiff’s activities will subject them to liability under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35, United States Code. A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate so that the Plaintiffs may ascertain its right regarding the ‘270 Patent Application. DEMAND FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, by and through the undersigned counsel, respectfully requests that judgment be entered in its favor and prays that this Court grant them the following relief: A. A declaration that production, marketing, distribution, offering for sale, importing,
exporting and selling Neurova does not render any of the Plaintiffs liable for damages or for attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 154(d); B. A declaration that Plaintiffs are the prevailing parties in this action and that this
case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285;
8 of 9
C.
An injunction restraining and enjoining the Defendants and each of their officers,
employees, agents, alter egos, attorneys, and any person in active concert or participation with them from: 1) directly or indirectly accusing any of the Plaintiffs of patent infringement; 2) from implying, directly or indirectly, publicly or privately to any third parties, that any of the Plaintiffs are engaged in patent infringement; and from otherwise making reference to any of the Plaintiffs, directly or indirectly, publicly or privately to any third parties, with respect to patent infringement under the Court’s powers under 28 U.S.C. § 2022 to grant further necessary or proper relief based on declaratory judgment or decree; D. An award of Plaintiffs’ reasonable attorney’s fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and any
other applicable authority; E. An award of full litigation expenses incurred in this action and taxable costs under
28 U.S.C. § 1920; and
F.
Such other, further, necessary or proper relief as this Court may deem just and
proper. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL PlaintiffS, hereby demand trial by jury of all issues so triable as a matter of law and hereby requests a speed hearing. Dated this 5th day of March, 2014.
Respectfully Submitted,
SCOTT SMILEY, ESQ. THE CONCEPT LAW GROUP, P.A. 200 South Andrews, Se. 100 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Tel: 754.300.1500; Fax: 754.300.1501 Counsel for Plaintiff
9 of 9
United States Patent Application No. 61/894,270 (the “’270 Patent Application”) under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 and under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35, United States Code.
PARTIES 2. The Plaintiff, Nunka, is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Nunka maintains its principal place of business at 11 NE 15th Avenue,
State of Florida.
Pompano Beach, Florida 33060, and is, for reasons set forth below, subject to the jurisdiction of this Court. 3. The Plaintiff, AMM Marketing, is a corporation organized and existing under the
laws of the State of Florida. AMM Marketing maintains its principal place of business at 11 NE 15th Avenue, Pompano Beach, Florida 33060, and is, for reasons set forth below, subject to the jurisdiction of this Court. 4. The Defendant, Innovative Health Solutions, Inc. is an Indiana corporation with
its principal place of business at 823 South Adams Street, Versailles, Indiana 47042, and are, for the reasons set forth below, subject to the jurisdiction of this Court. 5. The Defendant, Innovative Health Solutions, LLC is an Indiana domestic limited
liability company with its principal place of business at 823 South Adams Street, Versailles, Indiana 47042, and are, for the reasons set forth below, subject to the jurisdiction of this Court. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 6. Subject matter jurisdiction of this Court over this action is based on 35 U.S.C. §
154(d), 28 U.S.C. § 1331, § 1338, and § 2201-2202. In the alternative, this Court also has diversity jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because this action is between citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 7. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant, Innovative Health Solutions
Inc. because said Defendant made allegations of patent infringement against the Plaintiffs, some of which are Florida business entities, and have directed their threats of litigation for patent
2 of 9
infringement into the State of Florida which resulted in Plaintiff’s need for declaratory relief. This Court also has personal jurisdiction over Defendant, Innovative Health Solutions Inc., because, upon information and belief, said Defendant has sales agents in the State of Florida, conducts business within the State of Florida, makes substantial sales to the States of Florida, directs substantial advertisements and marketing efforts to the State of Florida, and has a website that is accessible within the State of Florida and specifically targets residents of the State of Florida. 8. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendant, Innovative Health
Solutions LLC, because said Defendant made allegations of patent infringement against the Plaintiffs, some of which are Florida business entities, and have directed their threats of litigation for patent infringement into the State of Florida which resulted in Plaintiff’s need for declaratory relief. This Court also has personal jurisdiction over Defendant, Innovative Health Solutions LLC, because, upon information and belief, said Defendant has sales agents in the State of Florida, conducts business within the State of Florida, makes substantial sales to the States of Florida, directs substantial advertisements and marketing efforts to the State of Florida, and has a website that is accessible within the State of Florida and specifically targets residents of the State of Florida. 9. Venue properly lies with the Southern District of Florida pursuant to the
provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1391. Upon information and belief, Defendants have sold products and offered products for sale in the Southern District of Florida, a substantial part of the alleged events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this district and Defendants’ threats of litigation for patent infringement were directed to business entities domiciled in this judicial district.
3 of 9
EXISTENCE OF ACTUAL CONTROVERSY 10. There is an actual controversy within the jurisdiction of this Court under 28
U.S.C. § 2201 and 2202. 11. On or about February 26, 2014, counsel for IHS sent a cease and desist letter
(hereinafter “IHS cease and desist letter”) to Plaintiffs, a true and correct copy of which is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit “A.” 12. The IHS cease and desist letter alleges that “production, marketing, distribution,
offering for sale and sale of ‘Neurova’ induces the infringement of IHS’s proprietary treatment method embodied in Patent Aplication No. 61/894,270.” 13. The IHS cease and desist letter alleges that IHS has provisional patent rights, § 154(d), because, as stated in the letter, “patents issuing on published
under 35 U.S.C.
applications will include the right to obtain reasonable royalties from other who, with actual notice of the published application, made used, sold, offered to sell, or imported the invention as claimed in the published application before the patent was granted.” 14. The IHS cease and desist letter threatens that Plaintiffs’ activities subject them to
additional damages based on willful conduct, by stating that “your present activity places you at substantial risk for such liability accruing hereafter.…Understand that IHS will enforce its rights to the full extent of the law, and your continued contact after this notice will provide support for a finding of willful conduct, and therefore provide a basis for the award of attorneys’ fees and exemplary damages.” (emphasis added). Thus, IHS has taken affirmative acts related to the enforcement of IHS’s alleged patent rights.
4 of 9
15.
The IHS cease and desist letter asserts that certain language and/or content in
websites http://nunkacorp.com and http://www.chronicpaintherapy.com constitutes unfair competition and false advertising. 16. The IHS cease and desist letter threatens Plaintiffs with immediate and imminent
litigation if Plaintiffs continue any activities associated with the Neurova product, by stating that “[i]f you wish to avoid being subjected to the liability, cost, expense and expenditure of time necessarily involved in becoming a defendant in litigation such as that described above, you will cease and desist in your production, marketing, distribution, offering for sale and sale of ‘Neurova’…no later than March 5, 2014, cancel any intended appearance at the trade show just mentioned, and confirm those facts to me in writing by March 7th. Otherwise, IHS will look to other means of protecting its rights and interests.” (emphasis added). 17. Plaintiffs have been meaningfully preparing to launch Neurova at a significant
trade show for the American Academy of Pain Medicine (AAPM), scheduled to be begin on March 6, 2014 in Pheonix, Arizona (hereinafter “trade show”). IHS discovered that Plaintffs “reserved booth space No. 435” at the trade show. A mere seven days before the trade show, IHS sent the cease and desist letter demanding that Plaintiffs not attend the trade show and demanding that Plaintiffs confirm this non-attendance in writing prior to the trade show or be subject to litigation. Thus, Plaintiffs have been meaningfully preparing to conduct potentially infringing activity and require a declaratory judgment to ascertain Plaintiffs rights under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35, United States Code. 18. The IHS cease and desist letter imposes two actual and imminent deadlines on
Plaintiffs by which they must comply or, otherwise, be named as a “defendant in litigation.” The first deadline that IHS imposes on Plaintiffs is to cease production, marketing, distribution,
5 of 9
offering for sale, and sale of Neurova by March 5, 2014. The second deadline that IHS imposes on Plaintiffs is to provide confirmation in writing by March 7, 2014. 19. Based on IHS’s communications with the Plaintiffs, its assertion that the
Plaintiff’s activities will subject Plaintiffs to litigation costs and expenses, including increased damage awards based on willful conduct, and its assertion that it will pursue immediate action naming Plaintiffs as “a defendant in litigation” if Plaintiffs attend the trade show and/or continue to produce, market, distribute, offer for sale, or sell Neurova, Defendants have created in the Plaintiffs a reasonable apprehension that they will initiate litigation and demand the right to prohibit Plaintiffs from making, using, and selling Neurova. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 20. Plaintiff, Nunka, is a Florida corporation that manufactures Neurova and operates
the website http://nunkacorp.com. 21. Plaintiff, AMM Marketing filed registration documentation for Neurova under
Section 510(k) of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. 22. Plaintiff, Blue Tree Solutions distributes Neurova and operates the website
www.chronicpaintherapy.com. 23. 24. Plaintiff, Marpay Technologies distributes Neurova. Plaintiffs reserved booth space at a trade show for the American Academy of Pain
Medicine to be held in Pheonix, Arizona on March 6-8, 2014. 25. Defendant, IHS, through counsel, sent a cease and desist letter to Plaintiffs on or
about February 26, 2014, attached herein as Exhibit “A.” 26. The IHS cease and desist letter alleges patent infringement liability of the ’270
Patent Application under 35 U.S.C. § 154(d) for producing, marketing, distributing, offering for
6 of 9
sale, and selling Neurova. 27. The IHS cease and desist letter demands that the Plaintiffs cease all production,
distribution, marketing, and sales of Neurova. 28. The IHS cease and desist letter demands that the Plaintiffs cancel their appearance
at the trade show. 29. The IHS cease and desist letter threatens litigation against Plaintiffs if
confirmation in writing is not received by March 7, 2014 that all of the above activities have ceased, including cancellation of any appearance at the trade show. COUNT I: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF UNENFORCEABILITY OF AND NONLIABILITY FOR INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’270 PATENT APPLICATION 30. Plaintiff re-alleges and re-avers the allegations contained in paragraphs one (1)
through thirty (30) as if fully set forth herein. 31. IHS has stated that production, marketing, distribution, offering for sale, and the
sale of Neurova induces infringement of the ‘270 Patent Application. 32. IHS alleges that Plaintiffs are liable for infringement of HSI’s provisional rights
to the ‘270 Patent Application under 35 U.S.C. § 154(d). 33. IHS alleges that continued contact after this notice will provide support for a
finding of willful conduct and therefore provide a basis for the award of attorneys’ fees and exemplary damages. 34. Plaintiffs contend that a mere Provisional Patent Application filed under 35
U.S.C. § 154(d) is, by itself, unenforceable against any third party and, by itself, cannot form the basis upon which any relief can be granted for patent infringement. 35. Plaintiffs contend that Provisional Patents Applications are not customarily
published by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Plaintiffs contend that
7 of 9
they have not received a copy of the ‘270 Patent Application, nor are Plaintiffs aware of a publication of the ‘270 Patent Application. Therefore, Plaintiffs contend that they are not on actual notice of the ‘270 Patent Application, as required by 35 U.S.C. § 154(d). 36. Plaintiffs contend that production, marketing, distribution, offering for sale, and
the sale of Neurova does not constitute infringing activity. 37. Plaintiffs contend that production, marketing, distribution, offering for sale, and
the sale of Neurova does not make Plaintiffs liable under 35 U.S.C. § 154(d) for damages or attorney’s fees. 38. As a result of the acts described in the foregoing paragraphs, there exists a
substantial controversy of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment. 39. An actual and justiciable controversy exists between Plaintiffs and IHS as to
whether Plaintiff’s activities will subject them to liability under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35, United States Code. A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate so that the Plaintiffs may ascertain its right regarding the ‘270 Patent Application. DEMAND FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, by and through the undersigned counsel, respectfully requests that judgment be entered in its favor and prays that this Court grant them the following relief: A. A declaration that production, marketing, distribution, offering for sale, importing,
exporting and selling Neurova does not render any of the Plaintiffs liable for damages or for attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 154(d); B. A declaration that Plaintiffs are the prevailing parties in this action and that this
case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285;
8 of 9
C.
An injunction restraining and enjoining the Defendants and each of their officers,
employees, agents, alter egos, attorneys, and any person in active concert or participation with them from: 1) directly or indirectly accusing any of the Plaintiffs of patent infringement; 2) from implying, directly or indirectly, publicly or privately to any third parties, that any of the Plaintiffs are engaged in patent infringement; and from otherwise making reference to any of the Plaintiffs, directly or indirectly, publicly or privately to any third parties, with respect to patent infringement under the Court’s powers under 28 U.S.C. § 2022 to grant further necessary or proper relief based on declaratory judgment or decree; D. An award of Plaintiffs’ reasonable attorney’s fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and any
other applicable authority; E. An award of full litigation expenses incurred in this action and taxable costs under
28 U.S.C. § 1920; and
F.
Such other, further, necessary or proper relief as this Court may deem just and
proper. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL PlaintiffS, hereby demand trial by jury of all issues so triable as a matter of law and hereby requests a speed hearing. Dated this 5th day of March, 2014.
Respectfully Submitted,
SCOTT SMILEY, ESQ. THE CONCEPT LAW GROUP, P.A. 200 South Andrews, Se. 100 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Tel: 754.300.1500; Fax: 754.300.1501 Counsel for Plaintiff
9 of 9
