On March 21, 2016, Laerdal Medical Corp. of Wappingers Falls, New York and Laerdal Medical AS of Norway (collectively, “Laerdal”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337.

The complaint alleges that the following entities (collectively, the “Proposed Respondents”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain carbon spine board, cervical collar, and various medical training manikin devices, and accompanying product catalogs, product inserts, literature, and components thereof that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,090,058 (the ‘058 patent) and 6,170,486 (the ‘486 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”) and/or certain copyrights (the “asserted copyrights”), trade dress rights (the “asserted trade dress rights”), and trademarks (the “asserted trademarks”) owned by Laerdal:

  • Shanghai Evenk International Trading Co., Ltd. of China
  • Shanghai Honglian Medical Instrument Development Co., Ltd. of China
  • Shanghai Jolly Medical Education Co., Ltd. of China
  • Zhangjiagang Xiehe Medical Apparatus & Instruments Co., Ltd. of China
  • Zhangjiagang New Fellow Med Co., Ltd. of China
  • Jiangsu Yongxin Medical Equipment Co., Ltd. of China
  • Jiangsu Yongxin Medical-Use Facilities Making Co., Ltd. of China
  • Jiangyin Everise Medical Devices Co., Ltd. of China
  • Medsource International Co., Ltd. of China
  • Basic Medical Supply, LLC of Richmond, Texas

According to the complaint, the ‘058 patent relates to a multiple-size cervical collar used by paramedics, physicians, or medical emergency or hospital personnel to provide initial support of the head in a neutral position for an injured or incapacitated individual. The ‘486 patent relates to an improved head immobilizer for placing beneath an injured patient’s head, consisting of a head support cushion placed under the patient’s head on a backboard, two head support blocks placed on each side of the patient’s head, an adhesive system for holding the head support blocks, and a forehead strap covering the head support blocks and immobilizing the patient’s head.

Also according to the complaint, Laerdal’s asserted copyrights relate to literature included on Laerdal’s website and on promotional catalogs for various Laerdal products. Laerdal’s asserted trade dress rights relate to the trade dress associated with Laerdal’s BaXstrap SpineBoard, Stifneck Select Extrication Collar, Resusci Junior Manikin, Resusci Anne Adult Manikin, Baby Anne (ALS) Manikin, and Resusci Baby Manikin products. Lastly, Laerdal’s asserted trademarks are for BAXSTRAP, POCKET MASK, and STA-BLOCK.

In the complaint, Laerdal states that the Proposed Respondents import and sell products that infringe the asserted patents, copyrights, trade dress rights, and trademarks. The complaint specifically refers to various products associated with the Proposed Respondents as infringing products.

Regarding domestic industry, Laerdal states that it has made significant investments in plant and equipment, engaged in a significant employment of labor and capital, and made significant investments in the exploitation of the technology of the asserted patents, copyrights, trade dress rights, and trademarks in the U.S., including engineering, research and development, marketing, sales and support to hospitals, medical schools, nursing homes, and emergency rooms. Laerdal refers to its Stifneck Select Extrication Collars, Sta-Block head immobilizer products, BaXstrap Spineboard products, and various manikins as domestic industry products.

As to related litigation, Laerdal states that it has been engaged in litigations against certain of the Proposed Respondents in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

With respect to potential remedy, Laerdal requests that the Commission issue a permanent general exclusion order, a limited exclusion order, and a cease and desist order directed at the Proposed Respondents. The complaint states that a general exclusion order is necessary to prevent circumvention of a limited exclusion order, and/or to remedy a pattern of violation of the injunctive relief previously issued by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, and/or to remedy a pattern of violation of Section 337.