Applied Medical Resources v. Tyco Healthcare Group

8/4/2019 Applied Medical Resources v. Tyco Healthcare Group

1/46

Case 8:11-cv-01406-JVS -AN Document 1 Filed 09/13/11 Page 1 of 46 Page ID #:1


2/46

-1-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiff Applied Medical Resources Corporation for its Complaint states

and alleges as follows:

PARTIES

1. Plaintiff Applied Medical Resources Corporation (Applied) is acorporation incorporated under the laws of California and has its principal place

of business at 22872 Avenida Empresa, Rancho Santa Margarita, California

92677, in Orange County, California.

2. Upon information and belief, Defendant Tyco Healthcare GroupLP (Defendant) is a Delaware limited partnership, doing business as

Covidien, and having a principle place of business at 15 Hampshire Street,

Mansfield, Massachusetts 02048.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. This is an action for patent infringement arising under the PatentLaws of the United States (Title 35 of the United States Code).

4. The Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1338(a).5. Venue lies in this district under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) and (c) and

1400(b) in that Defendant has committed acts of infringement in this district.

Venue is proper in the Southern Division of this district under the provisions of

General Order 349-A (1)(A) in light of the facts that: 1) plaintiff Applied is

resident in the Southern Division, 2) Defendant resides in a place outside the

Central District of California, and 3) either the claim for patent infringement

arose in the Southern Division where Applied has been injured by Defendants

infringement or the majority of claims for patent infringement arose outside the

Central District of California where Defendant has committed the majority of its

acts of infringement.

THE PATENT-IN-SUIT

6. Applied is the owner by assignment of U.S. Patent No. 8,016,755entitled SURGICAL ACCESS APPARATUS AND METHOD (the 755



3/46

-2-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

patent) which issued September 13, 2011 and which names Richard C. Ewers,

John R. Brustad, Edward D. Pingleton, Nabil Hilal, Gary R. Dulak, Payam

Adlparvar, and Robert R. Bowes as the inventors. A true and correct copy of

the 755 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A. As the owner, Applied has the

right to sue for infringement of the 755 patent.

DEFENDANTS INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,016,755

7. Applied repeats and re-alleges the allegations of paragraphs 1-6 ofthis Complaint as if set forth fully herein.

8. Defendant infringes, both directly and indirectly, one or moreclaims of the 755 patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. 271, by making, using,

offering for sale, selling, and/or importing products marketed by Defendant as a

SILS Port, and also by marketing and promoting the SILS Port and related

products for use in what Defendant promotes as SILS Procedures.

9. The SILS Port is a surgical access device suitable for, inter alia,performing laparoscopic surgical procedures with one or more instruments

passing through the device and through a single incision in an abdominal wall of

a patient with the abdominal cavity pressurized with an insufflation gas.

10. The SILS Port surgical access device is adapted to provideinstrument access to the abdominal cavity for surgical procedures while

generally maintaining insufflation pressure in the abdominal cavity of a patient.

11. The SILS Port surgical access device is formed of an elastomericmaterial.

12. On information and belief, the SILS Port surgical access device isformed of a material comprising a triblock copolymer.

13. On information and belief, the SILS Port surgical access device isformed of a material comprising an oil.

14. On information and belief, the SILS Port surgical access device isformed of a material comprising a foaming agent.



4/46

-3-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

15. The SILS Port surgical access device has an external flange and aninternal flange integrally formed with the device.

16. The SILS Port surgical access device with flanges is formedmonolithically.

17. The external flange of the SILS Port surgical access device isadapted to be disposed external to the abdominal wall of a patient in an

operative position and the internal flange of the device is adapted to be disposed

internal to the abdominal wall in the operative position, wherein the device is

configured to be maintained in the operative position and adapted to form a seal

with the abdominal wall.

18. The SILS Port surgical access device has one or more openingsbetween an external surface and an internal surface of the device, the openings

when operatively disposed are in communication with an incision in a patients

abdominal wall and form a working channel between a location external to the

abdominal wall and a location internal to the abdominal wall.

19. The SILS Port surgical access device is adapted to conform to asurface of an instrument inserted through the working channel, at least a portion

of the device between the external flange and the internal flange and within an

incision in a patients abdominal wall between an external surface of the

abdominal wall and an internal surface of the abdominal wall is adapted to form

an instrument seal with the instrument.

20. The SILS Port surgical access device is adapted to be locatedwithin an incision in a patients abdominal wall and create a radially

compressive force to provide an axial seal between the device and the

abdominal wall.

21. Defendants acts of infringement are undertaken withoutpermission or license from Applied.

22. Applied is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that



5/46



6/46



7/46

Exhibit -6-



8/46Exhibit -7-



9/46Exhibit -8-



10/46Exhibit -9-



11/46Exhibit -10-



12/46Exhibit -11-



13/46Exhibit -12-



14/46Exhibit -13-



15/46Exhibit -14-



16/46Exhibit -15-



17/46Exhibit -16-



18/46Exhibit -17-



19/46Exhibit -18-



20/46Exhibit -19-



21/46Exhibit -20-



22/46Exhibit -21-



23/46Exhibit -22-



24/46Exhibit -23-



25/46Exhibit -24-



26/46Exhibit -25-



27/46Exhibit -26-



28/46Exhibit -27-



29/46Exhibit -28-



30/46Exhibit -29-



31/46Exhibit -30-



32/46Exhibit -31-



33/46Exhibit -32-



34/46Exhibit -33-



35/46Exhibit -34-



36/46Exhibit -35-



37/46Exhibit -36-



38/46Exhibit -37-



39/46Exhibit -38-



40/46Exhibit -39-



41/46Exhibit -40-



42/46Exhibit -41-



43/46



44/46



45/46



46/46


Documents

Applied Medical Resources v. Tyco Healthcare Group