|4 Months Ended|
Jun. 30, 2017
|Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]|
NOTE 4 LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
Lawyers representing EMED Technologies Corp. (“EMED”) sent RMS a letter dated, May 1, 2013, which alleged that the RMS High-Flo Butterfly design infringed a patent controlled by EMED. RMS disputed this claim and we believed that our design did not infringe and that the EMED patent itself was not valid. Under advice of counsel, on September 20, 2013, the Company commenced in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California a declaratory judgment action against competitor, 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. Both parties have requested injunctive relief and monetary damages. Discovery is ongoing.
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 seeking to have the Company held in contempt, claiming that certain language in the Company’s device labeling does not comply with the injunction. In response to a show cause order, the Company advised the Court that the language in the Company’s labeling that EMED challenged is language that the FDA directed the Company to use in its labeling. The Court discharged the show cause order, effectively rejecting EMED’s contempt argument.
On March 24, 2016, EMED filed a motion seeking a second preliminary injunction prohibiting RMS from selling three of its products in California. The Company opposed that motion on April 19, 2016. A decision on the motion is still pending.
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 (“PTAB”) at the USPTO issued a final written decision regarding the validity of the patent. On January 12, 2017, the PTAB issued its final written decision invalidating the claims asserted by EMED in the Texas litigation. On January 26, 2017, the Company and EMED requested that the Texas case remain stayed pending EMED’s appeal of the PTAB’s final ruling to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”).
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 USPTO instituted the ex parte reexamination request having found a substantial new question of patentability concerning EMED’s patent in the first filed case. All EMED claims have been rejected by the USPTO Examiner in a Non-Final Office Action. EMED filed a response that is awaiting consideration by the Examiner. Thus, the ex parte reexamination is ongoing. 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. Oral argument for the IPR was held on November 22, 2016 and a final ruling issued on January 12, 2017. In its final ruling, the PTAB held the claim asserted by EMED against the Company in the second filed case was invalid. EMED appealed the PTAB’s final ruling, and EMED’s opening brief in the CAFC was filed on June 26, 2017. The Company is now responding.
Although the Company believes it has meritorious claims and defenses in these actions and proceedings, their outcomes cannot be predicted with any certainty. We believe that it is very likely both patents will be determined invalid, however, if any of these actions against the Company are successful, they could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.
The entire disclosure for legal proceedings, legal contingencies, litigation, regulatory and environmental matters and other contingencies.
Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef