An intellectual property complaint filed against Greenwood Marketing LLC doing business as Restorative Medical or Spry Therapeutics by former business partners Mölnlycke Health Care US LLC (MHC) and Brock USA LLC argues that the defendant has abused MHC’s patent rights through its creation and sale of a “fluidized positioner product” meant to aid bedridden patients.
The Southern District of New York suit filed late last week explains that MHC is a United States subsidiary of a Swedish health device manufacturer. Among other products, it makes fluidized positioner products to prevent bedsores and other pressure ulcers from developing in immobilized patients. MHC asserts that it and Brock own or have licensing rights over two patents that describe the technology underlying these products.
The lawsuit specifies that MHC and Restorative Medical have had several legal entanglements following MHC’s purchase of several businesses from the Purdy family, who owns Restorative Medical. Though the filing claims that their previous intellectual property disputes have been resolved, it accuses Restorative Medical of designing, making, and selling “the Flo-Form positioner,” which allegedly infringes claims of the two patents-in-suit.
The filing states two claims for willful infringement, one for each patent. In support of Restorative Medical’s knowledge of US Patent 8,171,585, the complaint says that “Restorative Medical has known of the ’585 Patent since at least June 2012 when Restorative Medical took a license to the Brock ’585 Patent, which was subsequently transferred from Restorative Medical to MHC.”
As to US Patent 9,120,666, the filing explains that “Restorative Medical has a limited exclusive license for the ’666 Patent within the field of use as defined in the amended License Agreement: over-the-counter sales.” As such, the company has full knowledge that it has exceeded its prescribed license with the Flo-Form positioner, a device “not for over-the-counter sale.”
The lawsuit seeks treble damages for Restorative Medical’s allegedly intentional disregard of MHC’s intellectual property rights in addition to injunctive relief and an award of attorneys’ fees.