Case 2:19-cv-11181-GAD-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 04/23/19 PageID.

1 Page 1 of 8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

GENERAL SCIENTIFIC
CORPORATION d/b/a SURGITEL, Case No. ______________

Plaintiff, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

v.

QUALITY ASPIRATORS, INC. d/b/a

Q-OPTICS,

Defendant.

COMPLAINT FOR DESIGN PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Plaintiff General Scientific Corporation d/b/a SurgiTel (“SurgiTel”), for its

complaint against Quality Aspirators Inc. d/b/a Q-Optics (“Q-Optics”), hereby

alleges as follows:

INTRODUCTION
1. This is an action for patent infringement arising under the Patent Laws

of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. SurgiTel owns exclusive rights in the

ornamental design claimed in United States Design Patent No. D746,354, entitled

“Through-the-Lens Loupes with Improved Declination Angle” (the “’354 Patent”).

2. Q-Optics has used and continues to use the claimed design of the ’354

Patent, without SurgiTel’s permission, on through-the-lens (TTL) loupes that Q-

 Case 2:19-cv-11181-GAD-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 04/23/19 PageID.2 Page 2 of 8

Optics makes, uses, offers for sale, sells, and/or imports into the United States.

3. SurgiTel seeks, among other relief, an injunction preventing Q-Optics

from further infringing the ’354 Patent, and damages and/or a disgorgement of Q-

Optics’ profits from its patent infringement.

THE PARTIES

4. SurgiTel is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the

State of Michigan with a principal place of business at 77 Enterprise Drive, Ann

Arbor, Michigan 48103.

5. On information and belief, Q-Optics is a corporation organized and

existing under the laws of the State of Texas with a principal place of business at

1419 Godwin Lane, Duncanville, Texas 75116.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

6. This action arises under the Patent Laws of the United States, Title 35,

United States Code. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338.

7. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Q-Optics at least because Q-

Optics transacts and solicits business in the State of Michigan, including with respect

to the TTL loupes that infringe the ’354 Patent, and because Q-Optics is committing

and has committed acts of patent infringement in the State of Michigan, at least by

selling and offering to sell TTL loupes that infringe the ’354 Patent in Michigan.
 Case 2:19-cv-11181-GAD-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 04/23/19 PageID.3 Page 3 of 8

8. Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and

1400 at least because Q-Optics has committed acts of infringement in this district,

including with respect to TTL loupes that infringe the ’354 Patent, and has a regular

and established place of business in this district through the presence of a sales

representative who is physically located in the district.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

A. SurgiTel’s ’354 Patent

9. Since 1932, SurgiTel has been a leading provider of loupes, headlights,

and other optical accessories for medical and dental practitioners.

10. SurgiTel has taken steps to protect its innovative designs, including its

TTL loupe designs. In particular, SurgiTel owns various United States design and

utility patents relating to its TTL loupe designs. Relevant to this dispute, SurgiTel

owns all right, title and interest in, and has the right to sue and recover for past,

present, and future infringement of, the ’354 Patent from at least the date the ’354

Patent duly and legally issued to SurgiTel.

11. The ’354 Patent is presumed valid.

B. Q-Optics’ Infringing Activity

12. On information and belief, without SurgiTel’s authorization, Q-

Optics made, used, offered for sale, sold, and/or imported into the United States TTL

loupes having designs that violate the ’354 Patent (the “Infringing TTL Loupes”).
 Case 2:19-cv-11181-GAD-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 04/23/19 PageID.4 Page 4 of 8

The Infringing TTL Loupes include at least products identified by the model names:

Custom TTL Loupes made with the TrueFit™ measurement system, Q Optic Mini

TTL Loupes, as well as Q-Optics’ TTL loupes bearing the same or substantially

similar infringing designs, regardless of model name.

13. On information and belief, Mr. John Matthews is a former employee of

SurgiTel residing in Washtenaw County, Michigan.

14. On information and belief, Mr. Matthews is currently a self-employed

dental sales representative who has sold, and currently sells, TTL loupes from Q-

Optics that infringe the ’354 Patent.

15. On information and belief, Mr. Matthews has sold products that

compete with SurigiTel’s products, including TTL loupes from Q-Optics that

infringe the ’354 Patent, to the University of Michigan Dental School located in Ann

Arbor, Michigan.

16. On information and belief, the overall appearance of the design of the

’354 Patent and the corresponding designs of Q-Optics’ Infringing TTL Loupes are

substantially the same.

17. On information and belief, an ordinary observer will perceive the

overall appearance of the designs of the ’354 Patent and the corresponding designs

of Q-Optics’ Infringing TTL Loupes to be substantially the same.

18. Table 1 below illustrates Q-Optics’ infringement by comparing Figure

 Case 2:19-cv-11181-GAD-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 04/23/19 PageID.5 Page 5 of 8

1 from the ’354 Patent with an exemplary image of the Infringing TTL Loupes.

Table 1: Comparison of ’354 Patent with Exemplary Infringing TTL Loupes

’354 Patent Figure Exemplary Infringing TTL Loupes

19. On information and belief, Q-Optics intended to copy the design

covered by the ’354 Patent.

20. On information and belief, Q-Optics sells and offers to sell its products,

including the Infringing TTL Loupes, to third-party retailers through its wholesale

distribution channel.

21. Q-Optics sells and offers to sell the Infringing TTL Loupes in the

United States, including in Michigan.

22. On information and belief, Q-Optics has infringed and continues to

infringe the ’354 Patent within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 271 at least by making,

using, selling, offering to sell, and/or importing the Infringing TTL Loupes into the

United States without SurgiTel’s authorization.

 Case 2:19-cv-11181-GAD-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 04/23/19 PageID.6 Page 6 of 8

CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Infringement Under 35 U.S.C. § 271 of the ’354 Patent)

23. SurgiTel re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set

forth in paragraphs 1–19 of this Complaint.

24. Q-Optics, without authorization from SurgiTel, has made, used, offered

for sale, sold, and/or imported in or into the United States, and continues to make,

use, offer for sale, sell, and/or import in or into the United States, TTL loupes having

designs that infringe the ’354 Patent.

25. SurgiTel has been and will continue to be irreparably harmed by Q-

Optics’ infringement of the ’354 Patent.

WHEREFORE, SurgiTel respectfully requests that the Court grant the

following relief:

1. A judgment that Q-Optics infringed the ’354 Patent;

2. A permanent injunction enjoining Q-Optics, and all persons in concert

with Q-Optics, from infringing the ’354 Patent;

3. A judgment and order requiring Q-Optics to pay SurgiTel all damages

caused by Q-Optics’ infringement of the ’354 Patent (but in no event less than a

reasonable royalty) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, or the total profit made by Q-Optics

from its infringement of the ’354 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 289;

4. A judgment and order requiring Q-Optics to pay SurgiTel supplemental

 Case 2:19-cv-11181-GAD-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 04/23/19 PageID.7 Page 7 of 8

damages or profits for any continuing post-verdict infringement up until entry of the

final judgment, with an accounting, as needed;

5. A judgment and order requiring Q-Optics to pay SurgiTel increased

damages up to three times the amount found or assessed pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §

284;

6. A judgment and order requiring Q-Optics to pay SurgiTel pre-judgment

and post-judgment interest on any damages or profits awarded;

7. A determination that this action is an exceptional case pursuant to 35

U.S.C. § 285;

8. An award of SurgiTel’s attorneys’ fees for bringing and prosecuting

this action;

9. An Award of SurgiTel’s costs and expenses incurred in bringing and

prosecuting this action; and

10. Such further and additional relief as this Court deems just and proper.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

SurgiTel hereby demands a jury for all issues so triable.

 Case 2:19-cv-11181-GAD-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 04/23/19 PageID.8 Page 8 of 8

Date: April 23, 2019 Respectfully submitted,

HONIGMAN LLP

By: /s/ J. Michael Huget

J. Michael Huget (P39150)
315 East Eisenhower Parkway
Suite 100
Ann Arbor, MI 48108-3330
(734) 418-4200
mhuget@honigman.com

Scott Barnett (P82673)

39400 Woodward Ave.
Suite 101
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
(248) 566-8416
sbarnett@honigman.com

Of Counsel:

BELZER PC
John G. Posa (P49445)
2905 Bull Street
Savannah, GA 31405
(912) 236.3001
jposa@belzerlaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff