This case was last updated from PACER on 10/22/2021 at 15:15:04 (UTC).

Novarad Corp. v. Medivis, Inc.

Case Summary

On October 13, 2021, Novarad Corporation (hereinafter “Plaintiff” or “Novarad”), represented by Francis DiGiovanni and Thatcher A. Rahmeier of Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, filed an intellectual property lawsuit against MediVis, Inc. (“Defendant” or “MediVis”), seeking permanent injunctive and declaratory relief along with damages, among other reliefs, for the alleged infringement of the United States Patents owned by the Plaintiff. This case was filed in U.S. District Court in the District of Delaware with Judge Leonard P. Stark presiding

 

The Plaintiff filed this complaint for the alleged infringement of United States Patent No. 10,945,807 (the “’807 Patent”) and United States Patent No. 11,004,271 (the “’271 Patent”) (together, the “Patents-in-Suit”) owned by the Plaintiff. 

 

In the complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that, “Upon information and belief, by making, using, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing into the United States the Accused Product, MediVis has in the past, does now, and continues to directly infringe, contributorily infringe, and/or induce others to infringe the claims of the ’271 patent literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271.”

 

The Plaintiff further alleged that, “Upon information and belief, MediVis knew about the ’271 Patent at least because it knew of Novarad’s products and its patent marking, and had received written notice from Novarad, and MediVis knew that its actions constituted infringement of the ’271 Patent because of the marking and because the letter sent by Plaintiff made MediVis aware that the Accused Product infringed one or more claims of the ’271 Patent” and “Upon information and belief, the marketing material and technical literature for MediVis’s Accused Product, and MediVis employees trained in using and instructing others to use the Accused Product, instruct MediVis’s customers and other users on how to use the Accused Product in a way that infringes the claims of the ’271 Patent.”

 

The Plaintiff also alleged that, “Upon information and belief, MediVis acted in an objectively reckless manner with respect to Novarad’s patent rights. Upon information and belief, MediVis has made, sold, offered to sell, and/or imported into the United States the Accused Product knowing that it was highly likely that its acts would infringe the ’271 Patent, and continued to do so even after receiving the letter from Plaintiff. As a result, MediVis has engaged in willful infringement of the ’271 Patent”

 

Similar allegations have been made by the Plaintiff with reference to the alleged infringement of other Patents-in-suit. 



There are two claims for relief laid down by the Plaintiff, one for the alleged infringement of each of the Patents-in-suit.

 

In the prayer for relief, the Plaintiff has requested the Court for preliminary and permanent injunctive and declaratory relief along with an award damages adequate to compensate it for Defendant’s infringement of the Patents-in-Suit, including an award of Plaintiff’s lost profits due to the infringement and an order finding that Defendant willfully infringed the Patents-in-Suit. The Plaintiff further requested that the Court declare that this is an exceptional case and award Plaintiff’s enhanced damages, costs, and attorney’s fees in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 285 as well as any other relief the Court deems just and proper. 

 

This case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the status of this case. Sign up to view the latest case updates and court documents

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    1:21-CV-01447

  • Filing Date:

    10/13/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Intellectual Property - Patent

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

Leonard P. Stark

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

Novarad Corp.

Defendant

Medivis, Inc.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

Francis DiGiovanni

Attorney at Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1410

Wilmington, DE 19801

Thatcher A. Rahmeier

Attorney at Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1410

Wilmington, DE 19801

 

Court Documents

#1

1 #1

Exhibit 1

1 #2

Exhibit 2

1 #3

Exhibit 3

1 #4

Exhibit 4

1 #5

Civil Cover Sheet

#2

#3

#4

#5

#6

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/20/2021
  • DocketCase Assigned to Judge Leonard P. Stark. Please include the initials of the Judge (LPS) after the case number on all documents filed. (nms) (Entered: 10/20/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/14/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#6) SUMMONS Returned Executed by Novarad Corp.. Medivis, Inc. served on 10/14/2021, answer due 11/4/2021. (DiGiovanni, Francis) (Entered: 10/14/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#5) Summons Issued with Magistrate Consent Notice attached as to Medivis, Inc. on 10/13/2021. (apk) (Entered: 10/13/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#4) Disclosure Statement pursuant to Rule 7.1: No Parents or Affiliates Listed filed by Novarad Corp.. (apk) (Entered: 10/13/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#3) Report to the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks for Patent/Trademark Number(s) 10,945,807 ;11,004,271. (apk) (Entered: 10/13/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#2) Notice, Consent and Referral forms re: U.S. Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (apk) (Entered: 10/13/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#1) COMPLAINT filed with Jury Demand against Medivis, Inc. - Magistrate Consent Notice to Pltf. ( Filing fee $ 402, receipt number ADEDC-3719767.) - filed by Novarad Corp.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit 3, #4 Exhibit 4, #5 Civil Cover Sheet)(apk) (Entered: 10/13/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer Thatcher A. Rahmeier

Latest cases represented by Lawyer Francis DiGiovanni