NOTE 4  LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

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.  On June 23, 2016 EMED filed a motion challenging RMS’s compliance with that order.  RMS will be opposing that motion.  On March 24, 2016, EMED filed a motion for a second preliminary injunction regarding sales of RMS products in California.  The Company opposed that motion, which is still pending.  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 requested that the Texas suit be transferred to California.  Also, based on a validity review of the patent in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), discussed below, the Company requested the Texas suit be stayed.  On May 12, 2016, the Court entered an order staying the case until after the Patent Trial and Appeal Board at the USPTO issues a final written decision regarding the validity of the patent.

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.  Both the ex parte reexamination and the inter partes review are ongoing.

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