Annual report pursuant to Section 13 and 15(d)


12 Months Ended
Feb. 29, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  



In 2013, the Company commenced in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California a declaratory judgment action against competitor, EMED Technologies Corp. (“EMED”) to establish the invalidity of one of EMED’s patents and non-infringement of the Company’s needle sets.  EMED answered the complaint and asserted patent infringement and unfair business practice counterclaims. The Company responded by asserting its own unfair business practice claims against EMED.  On June 16, 2015, the Court issued what it termed a “narrow” preliminary injunction against the Company from making certain statements regarding some of EMED’s products.  The Company is complying with that order.  On March 24, 2016, EMED filed a motion for a second preliminary injunction regarding sales of RMS products in California.  The Company is opposing that motion and briefing for this motion, as well as case discovery is ongoing.


On June 25, 2015, EMED filed a claim of patent infringement for the second of its patents, also directed to the Company’s needle sets, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.  This second patent is related to the one concerning the Company’s declaratory judgment action.  Given the close relationship between the two patents, the Company has requested that the Texas suit be transferred to California.  The Court has not yet ruled on the Company’s transfer request.  Discovery in the Texas suit is ongoing.


On September 11, 2015, the Company requested an ex parte reexamination of the patent in the first filed case, and on September 17, 2015 the Company requested an inter partes review (IPR) of the patent in the second filed case.  On November 20, 2015, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) instituted the ex parte reexamination request having found a substantial new question of patentability concerning EMED’s patent in the first filed case.  A decision to institute the IPR for EMED’s patent in the second filed case was ordered by the USPTO on February 19, 2016 having determined a reasonable likelihood all claims of the patent may be found to be unpatentable.  Based on the grant of the IPR, the Company intends to request the Court stay proceedings of the second filed case until conclusion of the IPR.


Although the Company believes it has meritorious claims and defenses in these litigations and proceedings, their outcomes cannot be predicted with any certainty.