PMTI on SSS watchlist...with a story.
BURLINGTON, Mass., Dec 13, 2005 /PRNewswire-FirstCall via COMTEX/ -- Palomar Medical Technologies Inc. (Nasdaq: PMTI), a leading researcher and developer of light- based systems for cosmetic treatments, today announced that the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued several rulings in Palomar's favor in connection with an ongoing patent infringement lawsuit filed by Palomar and the Massachusetts General Hospital ("MGH") against Cutera, Inc. In this lawsuit, Palomar and MGH accuse Cutera's CoolGlide family of products of infringing U.S. Patent No. 5,735,844 (the '844 patent). Yesterday, the Court denied Cutera Inc.'s requests for summary judgment of invalidity and non-infringement. The next step in the lawsuit is a jury trial, and Palomar will ask the Court to set a trial date at a January 12, 2006 scheduling hearing. If Palomar prevails at trial, Cutera may be ordered to pay millions in damages for past sales and ordered to stop selling infringing products. Palomar does not plan on licensing Cutera going forward. Palomar also alleges that Cutera's activities constitute willful infringement of the '844 patent. If Palomar prevailed on such a claim, Cutera could be forced to pay up to triple the amount of the original damages assessment.
In the summary judgment ruling, the District Court denied Cutera's request for summary judgment that the '844 patent is invalid over prior art, namely articles by Kuhns and Ohshiro. Also in the summary judgment ruling, the District Court denied Cutera's request for summary judgment that Cutera's products do not infringe the '844 patent. The Court held that Cutera was attempting to read limitations into the patent claims that did not exist.
Patricia Davis, Palomar's General Counsel and a registered patent attorney, commented, "It is important to note that the Court rejected Cutera's invalidity arguments and held that Cutera's references, namely articles by Kuhns and Ohshiro, do not anticipate the asserted claims of the '844 patent. At the same time, the Court also rejected Cutera's urging to limit the patent's true scope with regard to infringement. We continue to believe in the strength of our infringement position against Cutera."
Chief Executive Officer Joseph P. Caruso commented, "We are very pleased with the Court's ruling, and we are looking forward to having a trial as soon as possible. We have always believed in the strength of the '844 patent as well as its corresponding patent family members, and we will continue to aggressively enforce all of our patents." |
