Magnolia Medical Technologies, Inc. v. Kurin, Inc.

On January 16, 2019, Magnolia Medical Technologies, Inc. (“Plaintiff”), represented by Anthony D. Raucci, Kenneth L. Dorsney and Rodger D. Smith, II of Morris, Nichols Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Douglas E. McCann and Robert M. Oakes of Fish & Richardson, P.C., Alena Farber, Ashok Ramani, Corrin N. Drakulich, David J. Lisson, Kathryn B. Bi, Maria E. Stiteler, Mathias Samuel, Micah G. Block, Philip T. Sheng and Serge A. Voronov, filed an intellectual property lawsuit against Kurin, Inc. (“Defendant”), represented by Allison C. Penfield, Ariella C. Barel, Ctherine Nyarady, Cyndi Claxton, Jacob Zweig, Jennifer Seraphine, Jonathan Hangartner, Joshua Reich, Karen I. Boyd, Louis L. Wai, Nicholas Groombridge, Kelly E. Farnan and Nicole K. Pedi of Richards, Layton & Finger, PA, seeking injunctive relief and declaratory relief along with damages for alleged infringement of the U.S. Patents owned by the plaintiff. This case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, with Judges Colm F. Connolly and Christopher J. Burke presiding.

The plaintiff filed the complaint for the alleged infringement of the U.S. Patent No. 9,855,001 (the “’001 patent”) and U.S Patent No. 10,028,689 (the “’689 patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”) owned by the plaintiff.

In the complaint, the plaintiff alleged, “Kurin directly infringes, and/or induces the infringement of, at least claim 1 of the ’001 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, by making, using, selling, and/or offering to sell within the United States without authority or license, at least the Kurin Accused Products. Further discovery may reveal additional infringing products.”

Plaintiff further alleged, “Kurin has had knowledge of the ’001 patent and that its activities infringe the ’001 patent since at least the date of the filing of the Complaint.”

The plaintiff then alleged that “Kurin had knowledge and notice of the ’001 patent even earlier. At least as early as December 29, 2016, Kurin had knowledge of the 8,197,420 patent, which was cited as prior art by the examiner during prosecution of a patent application assigned to Kurin. The ’420 patent is the parent patent to the ’001 patent. Kurin also cited the ’420 patent in Information Disclosure Statements submitted during prosecution of applications that eventually issued as U.S. patents in at least January 2017.”

Plaintiff also alleged that “Kurin has indirectly, and is indirectly, infringing at least claim 1 of the ’001 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), by making, using, offering for sale, and selling at least the Kurin Accused Products in the United States without authority. Kurin induces its customers and/or end-users to infringe one or more claims of the ’001 patent at least by encouraging, instructing, and aiding one or more persons in the United States.”

The plaintiff additionally alleged, “Kurin’s infringement of the ’001 patent has damaged and will continue to damage Magnolia. Magnolia is entitled to recover damages adequate to compensate for Kurin’s infringement.”

Similar allegations have been made by the plaintiff with reference to other Asserted Patents.

Plaintiff presented two claims for relief, each for the alleged infringement of the Asserted Patents.

In the prayer for relief, the plaintiff requested a judgment for declaratory relief and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief along with an award for damages, enhanced damages, including pre- and/or post-judgment interest, costs, and disbursements, expenses and attorneys’ fees.

This is a summary of a legal complaint. All statements, claims, and allegations listed herein reflect the position of the plaintiff only and do not represent the position of UniCourt. Additionally, this case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the current status of this case. To view the latest case updates and court documents, please sign up for a UniCourt account.