Endonovo Therapeutics, Inc.,
Plaintiff,
v.
BioElectronics Corporation,
Defendant.
Case No.COMPLAINT FOR PATENTINFRINGEMENTDEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
Plaintiff, Endonovo Therapeutics, Inc. (“Endonovo”), files this Complaint for Patent Infringement against BioElectronics Corporation ("BioElectronics"), and Demand for Jury Trial.
Endonovo hereby complains and alleges as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1.Endonovo owns several patents based on the innovations of Dr. Arthur A. Pilla involving electromagnetically based medical therapies.
2.Dr. Pilla was a well-known pioneer in the field of electromagnetic herapies. Dr. Pilla’s life was focused on research involving the biological effects of electromagnetic fields and the use of such fields in healing various ailments in numerous areas of medicine.
3. Dr. Pilla invented the first FDA-approved bone healing device using Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields (PEMF). This device was designed to help hard to heal fractures, or non-unions. Dr. Pilla’s discoveries led to the creation of an entire industry in Electrotherapeutics.
4.Dr. Pilla obtained several patents on these EMF technologies hedeveloped. Endonovo currently owns the rights to many of Dr. Pilla’s patents, which have been infringed and continue to be infringed by several products that Defendant has made, used, imported, sold and/or offered for sale.
5.Defendant has made, used, imported, sold and/or offered for sale its infringing products for use in the same fields which Endonovo’s patents intended them to be used, and for the same purposes which the patents are directed.
6.Defendant has also created advertisements and instructions which describe infringing product uses and instruct users to combine components and/or otherwise use products in certain ways which infringe Endonovo’s patented method claims.
NATURE OF THE ACTION
7.This is a patent infringement action, based on the patent laws of the United States, codified at 35 United States Code, sections 271,et seq., brought by Endonovo against Defendant for its infringement, including willful infringement, of two United States Patents owned by Endonovo, the patent numbers and titles of which are: a. U.S. Patent No. 7,740,574, entitled “Electromagnetic Treatment Induction Apparatus and Method for Using Same” (“The ‘574 Patent”);b.U.S. Patent No. 7,758,490, entitled “Integrated Coil Apparatus for Therapeutically Treating Human and Animal Cells, Tissues and Organs with Electromagnetic Fields and Method for Using Same” (“The ‘490Patent”);
8.A true and correct copy of The ‘574 Patent is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit A.
9.A true and correct copy of The ‘490 Patent is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit B.
10.The '574 and the '490 Patents are collectively referred to as "Patents-in-Suit,"PARTIES
11.Plaintiff Endonovo Therapeutics, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business located at 6320Canoga Avenue, 15th Floor, Woodland Hills, CA 91367.
12.Defendant BioElectronics, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Maryland, with its principal place of business located at 4539Metropolitan Court, Frederick, Maryland 21704.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
13.This civil action arises out of the United States patent laws codified at35 United States Code sections 1et seq., thereby providing this court with subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 United States Code section 1331and 1338 subdivision (a), where this is a federal question involving patent infringement. The federal district courts therefore have original jurisdiction.
14.This court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant BioElectronics, as it also derives substantial profits, revenue and/or income from the sale of its own infringing products within California, including direct sales as well as indirect sales through its own distributors and/or retailers located in California, or that knowingly distribute or sell products to California consumers and/or businesses.
15.Venue is proper in this court pursuant to 28 United States Code sections1391 and 1400 where these Defendant resides, or has committed acts of infringement within this district and has a regular and established place of business. Upon information and and belief, BioElectronics has a sales office and agent for service of process located at 31255 Cedar Valley Drive, Westlake Village, CA 91361.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
16.Dr. Arthur Pilla was an internationally recognized authority on non-invasive electrotherapeutics, who developed many products and patented technologies before his death in 2015.
17.During his life, Dr. Pilla conducted pioneering research in electromagnetic field (EMF) effects on living tissue and as of his death has already been awarded at least 16 patents with another 21 patents pending in the area of EMFtherapeutics.
18.Dr. Pilla founded several EMF companies, including Ivivi Technologies (“Ivivi”). He patented several technologies during his time at Ivivi, assigning those patent rights to Ivivi.
19.Ivivi was a subsidiary of another company, ADM Tronics Unlimited, Inc. (“ADM”).
20.Rio Grande Neurosciences, Inc. (“Rio”) acquired certain ADM and Ivivi assets over the course of several years. By 2015 Rio had acquired all of Ivivi’s PEMF technology based patents, which Rio had previously licensed.
21.Endonovo thereafter acquired these PEMF-based patent rights from Rio on December 26, 2017.
22.Endonovo specifically acquired several patents which Defendant has been infringing and continue to infringe by making, creating, producing, manufacturing, importing, supplying, distributing, using, selling, reselling and/or offering to sell various infringing products or components contained therein which infringe alone or in combination.
PATENTS, ASSIGNMENT AND OWNERSHIP
23.The ‘574 Patent was granted on June 22, 2010.
24.All rights, title, and interest in the ‘574 Patent at the time it was granted, were assigned to Ivivi. Rio later acquired all rights, title and interest to the‘574 Patent, which it then sold to Endonovo.
25.Since December 26, 2017, Endonovo has owned all rights, title andinterest in the ‘574 Patent.
26.The ‘490 Patent was granted on July 20, 2010.
27.All rights, title, and interest in the ‘490 Patent at the time it was granted, were assigned to Ivivi. Rio later acquired all rights, title and interest to the‘490 Patent, which it then sold to Endonovo.
28.Since December 26, 2017, Endonovo has owned all rights, title andinterest in the ‘490 Patent.
DEFENDANT'S KNOWLEDGE OF THE PATENTS AND WILLFULINFRINGEMENT
29.Dr. Pilla was a pioneer in the area of EMF technologies, including PEMF, and incorporating those technologies into healing and therapeutic devices and medical therapies. Anyone practicing in electromagnetic therapy research and product development is aware of Dr. Pilla and his research, since it forms the basis of all such technologies, and whose innovations have been patented in this and many other countries.
30.On December 1, 2016, Defendant BioElectronics submitted its 510(K)premarket notification of intent to market the infringing ActiPatch device (ExhibitC). BioElectronics listed as its predicate device the IVIVI Torino II K070541, which is the device protected by the Patents-in-Suit and sold by the owner of the Patents-in-Suit at the time. A copy of the chart submitted by BioElectronics in its 510(K)filing comparing the technical features of its Actipatch device with the IVIVI TorinoII K070541 is reproduced below. Some of the technical features, such as the
anatomical sites, portable, how energy is deposited, carrier frequency, burst duration, burst frequency, energy deposited, and power required, are the same exact technical features covered in many of the claim limitations of the Patent-in-Suit.
31.Plaintiff's products, including the IVIVI Torino II K070541 and the Sofpulse, have patent markings, which serve as constructive notice of Plaintiff'spatent rights to Defendant.
32.Defendant thus has knowledge at least as of the filing of this Complaint, or had or should have knowledge of the Patents-in-Suit well before then, and thus is willfully, knowingly and/or recklessly infringing Patents-in-Suit by and through their ongoing and continued wrongful activities.
DEFENDANT'S INFRINGING ACTIVITIES
33.Defendant makes, markets, imports, uses, sells, and/or offers for sale several products employing pulsed shortwave therapy technology that uses low power pulsed electromagnetic fields ("Accused Products") within the United States, including this district, which infringe the Patents-in-suit.
34.Non-limiting examples of Accused Products sold by Defendant that infringe the Patents-in-Suit include the ActiPatch Therapy Trial, ActiPatch Knee Pain Therapy Kit, HealFast Crescent Patch, HealFast Square Patch, and the HealFastPet Patch Loop.
INFRINGEMENT CLAIMS
COUNT I
35.Endonovo repeats, realleges, and incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth herein, the allegations of all preceding paragraphs, as set forth above.
36.Defendant has infringed and continues to infringe one or more of the claims of the ‘574 patent, by making, using, selling and/or offering for sale within the United States, or otherwise importing into the United States the infringing products and/or infringing components of those products in violation of 35 United States Code, section 271, subdivision (a).
More particularly, Defendant's manufacture, use, sale, and/or offer for sale in the United States and/or importation into the United States of at least the Accused Products infringe at least claim 1 of the'574 Patent ("Asserted '574 Patent Claim"). Plaintiff reserves the right to assert additional claims of the '574 patent after a reasonable opportunity for investigation and discovery.
37.Defendant’s infringement of the ‘574 Patent is based on literal infringement or infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, or both.
38.Defendant’s acts of making, using, selling and/or offering for sale or otherwise importing the infringing products has been done without license, and without the permission, consent, or authorization of Endonovo.
39.Attached hereto as Exhibit C, and incorporated by reference herein, are claim charts detailing how each of the Accused Product infringes independent claim1 of the ’574 patent.
40. The Court has not yet construed the meaning of any claims or terms in the ’574 patent. In providing these detailed allegations, Plaintiff does not intend to convey or imply any particular claim construction or the precise scope of the claims. Plaintiff’s contentions regarding the construction of the claims will be provided in compliance with the case schedule, any applicable federal or local procedural rules, and/or any applicable orders.
41.Plaintiff contends that each element of each Asserted Claim is literally present in the Accused Products. If as a result of the Court’s constructions or other determinations one or more claim elements are not literally present, Plaintiff contends that each such element is present under the doctrine of equivalents and reserves its right to provide more detailed doctrine of equivalents contentions after discovery, a claim construction order from the Court, or at another appropriate time.
42.Endonovo is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendant gained substantial profits and revenue, and subjected Endonovo to profits and revenue through loss of sales of its own products by virtue of their infringement of the ‘574 Patent.
43.Endonovo has been harmed and sustained damages as a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s infringement of the ‘574 Patent. Endonovo is thus entitled to monetary compensation for Defendant’s infringement in an amount to be determined to compensate for Endonovo’s lost sales and profits and/or the profits and revenue gained by Defendant through its infringement of the ‘574 Patent, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty.
44. Endonovo is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that the infringement of the ‘574 Patent by Defendant is and has been intentional, willful and without regard to Endonovo’s rights. Defendant is aware of Dr. Pilla and his pioneering EMF research and the patents he obtained while conducting that research, which Endonovo now owns. Endonovo has patent markings on its own products that provide constructive notice to the Defendant, and Defendant should be aware of the Patents-in-Suit.
45. Despite Defendant's knowledge of the Patents-in-Suit , Defendant sold and continue to sell the ‘574 Infringing Products in complete and reckless disregard of Endonovo’s patent rights. As such, Defendant acted recklessly and continue to willfully, wantonly, and deliberately engage in acts of infringement of the ‘574 Patent, justifying an award for increased monetary damages pursuant to 35 United States Code, section 284, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 35 United States Code, section 285.
46. As a result of Defendant’s unlawful activities, Endonovo has suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law. Endonovo competes with Defendant in these areas of developing medical device technologies and/or therapies. Endonovo also currently licenses use of the‘574 Patent and is engaged in the licensing of its patent portfolio generally. Defendant’s continued infringement of the ‘574 Patent causes, and will continue to cause harm to Endonovo in various ways, including but not limited to, price erosion, loss of goodwill, damage to reputation, lost business opportunities, lost revenue and income from the sale of its own products, and increased direct and/or indirectcompetition.
47. Monetary compensation alone for the damages incurred due to the harm caused by Defendant’s infringing activities is, and will continue to be, insufficient to compensate Endonovo for these harms. Endonovo is therefore entitled to preliminary and/or permanent injunctive relief. Unless enjoined, Defendant will continue its infringing activities and conduct. Thus, injunctive relief is necessary to protect Endonovo from ongoing injury and further damages.
COUNT II
48. Endonovo repeats, realleges, and incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth herein, the allegations of all preceding paragraphs, as set forth above.
49.Defendant has induced and continues to induce infringement of one or more of the claims of the ‘574 Patent, in violation of 35 United States Code, section271, subdivision (b).
50.Defendant knew of the '574 Patent as alleged in the preceding paragraphs, as set forth above.
51. In addition to their direct infringement, Defendant has indirectly infringed, and will continue to indirectly infringe the ‘574 Patent by supplying components and otherwise instructing, directing and/or requiring others, as well as other suppliers, resellers, distributors, customers, purchasers, consumers and/or other users to perform the steps of the ‘574 Patent’s method claims, whether literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, where all such steps of the method claims are performed either by the Defendant or its suppliers, resellers, distributors, customers, purchasers, consumers and/or other users, or some combination thereof.
52. Defendant knowingly induced the acts that infringe at least claim 1 of the '574 Patent, namely by instructing their suppliers, resellers, distributors, customers, purchasers, consumers and/or users to position the therapeutic device in proximity to a target pathway structure and to couple the claimed electromagnetic signal to the target pathway structure using the claimed inductive apparatus device thereby providing treatment.
53.Defendant specifically intended their suppliers, resellers, distributors, customers, purchasers, consumers and/or users to infringe the '574 Patent and knew that their acts constituted infringement.
54.Such instruction and/or encouragement included, but was not limited to, advising third parties to use the ‘574 Infringing Products in an infringing manner, and distributing various guidelines and procedures to third parties explaining or instructing those parties on how to use the ‘574 Infringing Products in an infringing manner, providing mechanisms through which third parties could or may infringe the‘574 Patent, as well as by advertising and promoting the use of the ‘574 Infringing Products in an infringing manner.
55. Examples of wrongful instruction, encouragement, advertisement, and distribution of guidelines can be seen on Defendant’s websites, advertisements for the ‘574 Infringing Products, as well as Defendant’s own FAQ sheets, brochures, User Guides and Instruction Sheets for the ‘574 Infringing Products, which, among other things, instructs, and/or encourages combining the PEMF inductive devices to a brace or other therapeutic device and/or item which is thereafter placed by the instructions near the location of the injured area requiring the therapy.
56.Endonovo is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendant has gained substantial profits and revenue, and subjected Endonovo to lost profits and revenue through loss of sales of its own products by virtue of their indirect infringing activities involving the ‘574 Patent.
57.Endonovo has been harmed and sustained damages as a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s infringement of the ‘574 Patent. Endonovo is thus entitled to monetary compensation for Defendant’s infringement in an amount to be determined to compensate for Endonovo’s lost sales and profits and/or the profits and revenue gained by Defendant through its indirect infringing activities involving the ‘574 Patent, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty.
58. Where Defendant has acted recklessly and continue to willfully, wantonly, and deliberately engage in acts of indirect infringement of the ‘574 Patent, an award for increased monetary damages pursuant to 35 United States Code, section 284, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 35 United States Code, section285, is justified.
59.Where such indirect infringement also threatens to damage Endonovo in ways that cannot be adequately compensated by monetary compensation alone, Endonovo also requests and is entitled to preliminary and/or permanent injunctive relief from Defendant’s ongoing infringing activities.
COUNT III
60. Endonovo repeats, realleges, and incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth herein, the allegations of all preceding paragraphs, as set forth above.
61.Defendant has infringed and continues to infringe one or more of the claims of the ‘490 patent, by making, using, selling and/or offering for sale within the United States, or otherwise importing into the United States, the infringing products, and/or infringing components of those products, in violation of 35 United States Code, section 271, subdivision (a). More particularly, Defendant's manufacture, use, sale, and/or offer for sale in the United States and/or importation into the United States of at least the Accused Products infringes at least claim 1 of the '490 Patent. Plaintiff reserves the right to assert additional claims of the '490patent after a reasonable opportunity for investigation and discovery.
62.Defendant’s infringement of the ‘490 Patent is based on literal infringement or infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, or both.
63.Defendant’s acts of making, using, selling and/or offering for sale or otherwise importing the infringing products and/or related services, have been done without license, and without the permission, consent, or authorization of Endonovo.
64.Defendant’s infringement includes, but is not limited to, the manufacture, use, importation, sale, and offer for sale of the Accused Products.
65.Attached hereto as Exhibit D, and incorporated by reference herein, ARE claim charts detailing how the Accused Products infringe claim 1 of the ’490patent.
66.The Court has not yet construed the meaning of any claims or terms in the ’490 patent. In providing these detailed allegations, Plaintiff does not intend to convey or imply any particular claim construction or the precise scope of the claims. Plaintiff’s contentions regarding the construction of the claims will be provided in compliance with the case schedule, any applicable federal or local procedural rules, and/or any applicable orders.
67.Plaintiff contends that each element of each Asserted Claim is literally present in the Accused Products. If as a result of the Court’s constructions or other determinations one or more claim elements are not literally present, Plaintiff contends that each such element is present under the doctrine of equivalents and reserves its right to provide more detailed doctrine of equivalents contentions after discovery, a claim construction order from the Court, or at another appropriate time.
68.Endonovo is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendant has gained substantial profits and revenue, and subjected Endonovo to lost profits and revenue through loss of sales of its own products by virtue of its infringement of the ‘490 Patent.
69.Endonovo has been harmed and sustained damages as a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s infringement of the ‘490 Patent. Endonovo is thus entitled to monetary compensation for Defendant’s infringement in an amount to be determined to compensate for Endonovo’s lost sales and profits and/or the profits and revenue gained by Defendant through its infringement of the ‘490 Patent, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty.
70.Endonovo is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that the infringement of the ‘490 Patent by Defendant is and has been intentional, willful and without regard to Endonovo’s rights. Defendant is aware of Dr. Pilla and his pioneering EMF research and the patents he obtained while conducting that research, which Endonovo now owns. Endonovo has patent markings on its own products that provide constructive notice to the Defendant, and Defendant should be aware of the Patents-in-Suit.
71.Despite Defendant’s knowledge of the Patents-in-Suit, Defendant sold and continue to sell the ‘490 Infringing Products in complete and reckless disregard of Endonovo’s patent rights. As such, Defendant acted recklessly and continue to willfully, wantonly, and deliberately engage in acts of infringement of the ‘490Patent, justifying an award for increased monetary damages pursuant to 35 United States Code, section 284, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 35 United States Code, section 285.
72. As a result of Defendant’s unlawful activities, Endonovo has suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law. Endonovo competes with Defendant in these areas of developing medical device technologies and/or therapies. Endonovo also currently licenses use of the‘490 Patent and is engaged in the licensing of its patent portfolio generally. Defendant’s continued infringement of the ‘490 Patent causes, and will continue to cause, harm to Endonovo in various ways, including but not limited to, price erosion, loss of goodwill, damage to reputation, lost business opportunities, lost revenue and income from the sale of its own products, and increased direct and/or indirect competition.
73.Monetary compensation alone for the damages incurred due to the harm caused by Defendant’s infringing activities is, and will continue to be, insufficient to compensate Endonovo for these harms. Endonovo is therefore entitled to preliminary and/or permanent injunctive relief. Unless enjoined, Defendant will continue its infringing activities and conduct. Thus, injunctive relief is necessary to protect Endonovo from ongoing injury and further damages.
COUNT IV
74.Endonovo repeats, realleges, and incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth herein, the allegations of all preceding paragraphs, as set forth above.
75.Defendant induced and continues to induce infringement of one or more of the claims of the ‘490 Patent, in violation of 35 United States Code, section 271,subdivision (b).
76.Defendant knew of the '490 Patent as alleged in the preceding paragraphs, as set forth above.
77.In addition to its direct infringement, Defendant indirectly infringed, and will continue to indirectly infringe the ‘490 Patent by supplying components and otherwise instructing, directing and/or requiring others, as well as other suppliers, resellers, developers, distributors, customers, purchasers, consumers and/or other users to perform the steps of the ‘490 Patent’s method claims, whether literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, where all such steps of the method claims are performed either by the Defendant or its suppliers, resellers, developers, distributors, customers, purchasers, consumers and/or other users, or some combination thereof.
78.Defendant knowingly induced the acts that infringe at least claim 1 of the '490 Patent, namely by instructing their suppliers, resellers, distributors, customers, purchasers, consumers and/or users to integrate the claimed coupling device with a positioning device to be placed in proximity to a target pathway structure.
79.Defendant specifically intended their suppliers, resellers, distributors, customers, purchasers, consumers and/or users to infringe the '490 Patent and knew that their acts constituted infringement.
80.Such instruction and/or encouragement included, but was not limited to, advising third parties to use the ‘490 Infringing Products in an infringing manner, and distributing various guidelines and procedures to third parties explaining or instructing those parties on how to use the ‘490 Infringing Products in an infringing manner, providing mechanisms through which third parties could or may infringe the‘490 Patent, as well as by advertising and promoting the use of the ‘490 Infringing Products in an infringing manner.
81.Examples of wrongful instruction, encouragement, advertisement, and distribution of guidelines can be seen on Defendant’s websites, advertisements for the ‘490 Infringing Products, as well as Defendant’s own FAQ sheets, brochures, User Guides and Instruction Sheets for the ‘490 Infringing Products, which, among other things, instructs, and/or encourages combining the PEMF inductive devices to a brace or other therapeutic device and/or item which is thereafter placed by the instructions near the location of the injured area requiring the therapy.
82.Endonovo is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendant gained substantial profits and revenue, and subjected Endonovo to lost profits and revenue through loss of sales of its own products by virtue of their indirect infringing activities involving the ‘490 Patent.
83.Endonovo has been harmed and sustained damages as a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s infringement of the ‘490 Patent. Endonovo is thus entitled to monetary compensation for Defendant’s infringement in an amount to be determined to compensate for Endonovo’s lost sales and profits and/or the profits and revenue gained by Defendant through its indirect infringing activities involving the ‘490 Patent, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty.
84.Where Defendant acted recklessly and continue to willfully, wantonly, and deliberately engage in acts of indirect infringement of the ‘490 Patent, an award for increased monetary damages pursuant to 35 United States Code, section 284, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 35 United States Code, section 285, is justified.
85.Where such indirect infringement also threatens to damage Endonovo in ways that cannot be adequately compensated by monetary compensation alone, Endonovo also requests and is entitled to preliminary and/or permanent injunctive relief from Defendant’s ongoing infringing activities.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE,
Endonovo prays for the following relief:
86.A judgment that Defendant has directly and/or indirectly infringed the‘574 Patent;
87.A judgment that Defendant has directly and/or indirectly infringed the‘490 Patent;
88.An order and judgment either preliminarily or permanently enjoining Defendant as well as Defendant’s officers, agents, affiliates, employees, and/or any other persons acting or attempting to act in concert or participation with Defendant, from any further acts of infringement of the ‘574 Patent;
89.An order and judgment either preliminarily or permanently enjoining Defendant as well as Defendant’s officers, agents, affiliates, employees, and/or any other persons acting or attempting to act in concert or participation with Defendant, from any further acts of infringement of the ‘490 Patent;
90.A judgment awarding Endonovo monetary damages adequate to compensate Endonovo for Defendant’s infringement of the ‘574 Patent, including any and all pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate permitted by law;
91.A judgment awarding Endonovo monetary damages adequate to compensate Endonovo for Defendant’s infringement of the ‘490 Patent, including any and all pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate permitted by law;
92.A judgment that Defendant has willfully, wantonly and/or deliberately infringed the ‘574 Patent;
93.A judgment that Defendant has willfully, wantonly and/or deliberately infringed the ‘490 Patent;
94.A judgment awarding Endonovo increased damages and reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to 35 United States Code section 285 to the extent that the Court finds this case exceptional with respect to Defendant’s infringement of the‘574 Patent;
95.A judgment awarding Endonovo increased damages and reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to 35 United States Code section 285 to the extent that the Court finds this case exceptional with respect to Defendant’s infringement of the‘490 Patent;
96.That Defendant be ordered to pay all of Endonovo's costs associated with this action; and
97. Any such further relief that this Court determines is proper and just.
JURY DEMAND
Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Endonovo demands a jury trial on all issues so triable.
DATED: May 22, 2019MANNING & KASSELLROD, RAMIREZ, TRESTER LLP
