Int'l Med. Devices. v. Cornell - Complaint

Case 2:20-cv-03503 Document 1 Filed 04/15/20 Page 1 of 266 Page ID #:1
1 Ryan G. Baker (Bar No. 214036)

2 rbaker@bakermarquart.com
Melissa A. Meister (Bar No. 296744)
3 mmeister@bakermarquart.com
4 May Y. Chan (Bar No. 230534)
mchan@bakermarquart.com
5 Emily R. Stierwalt (Bar No. 323927)
6 estierwalt@bakermarquart.com
BAKER MARQUART LLP
7 777 S. Figueroa St., Suite 2850
8 Los Angeles, California 90017
Telephone: (424) 652-7800
9 Facsimile: (424) 652-7850
10 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – WESTERN DIVISION
13
14 INTERNATIONAL MEDICAL Case No.
DEVICES, INC., a corporation
15 organized under the laws of California; CIVIL COMPLAINT FOR:
16 MENOVA INTERNATIONAL, INC., a 1. MISAPPROPRIATION OF
corporation organized under the laws of TRADE SECRETS (FEDERAL);
17 California; and JAMES ELIST, MD, an 2. MISAPPROPRIATION OF
18 individual, TRADE SECRETS (CAL.);
3. TRADEMARK
19 Plaintiffs, INFRINGEMENT;
v. 4. COUNTERFEIT MARK;
20 5. COPYRIGHT
ROBERT CORNELL, MD, an
21 individual; AUGMENTA, LLC, a INFRINGEMENT;
6. BREACH OF CONTRACT;
corporation organized under the laws of 7. BREACH OF GOOD FAITH
22
Delaware; ROBERT J. CORNELL, AND FAIR DEALING;
23 M.D., P.A., a professional association 8. UNFAIR COMPETITION;
organized under the laws of Texas; and
24 9. DECLARATORY RELIEF
JONATHAN CLAVELL, MD, an
25 individual; CLAVELL UROLOGY,
[DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL]
PLLC, a professional limited liability
26
corporation organized under laws of
27 Texas; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive,
28
Defendants.
COMPLAINT
1 INTRODUCTION
2 1. In 2018, Defendant Dr. Robert Cornell reached out to Plaintiff Dr. James
3 Elist through others to inquire about a cosmetic penile enhancement implant Dr. Elist
4 had developed over his lengthy career—the Penuma™ implant (“Penuma” or the
5 “Implant”). Dr. Elist and affiliated companies hold nine patents related to Penuma,
6 the only such male enhancement implant to receive clearance for commercial use by
7 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) to date. Although much of the
8 intellectual property underlying Penuma is articulated in the patent portfolio,
9 Plaintiffs Dr. Elist, International Medical Devices, Inc. (“IMD”), and Menova
10 International, Inc. (“Menova”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) have also developed and
11 possess numerous trade secrets related to the use, functionality, and further
12 development of Penuma. For this reason, Penuma’s sole contract manufacturer has
13 been—at all times during its involvement with Penuma—subject to a strict
14 confidentiality agreement, and any doctor desiring to be trained to use Penuma must
15 first sign a non-disclosure agreement (the “Penuma NDA”).
16 2. Seeking to learn more about Penuma, Dr. Cornell signed the Penuma
17 NDA. During his Penuma training, Dr. Cornell asked many questions. Unbeknownst
18 to Plaintiffs at the time, Dr. Cornell was not training to use Penuma; his malicious
19 intent was to gather confidential trade secrets and other information with which he
20 intended to (and eventually did) launch a competing product. Plaintiffs bring this
21 action to stop Dr. Cornell, his company, Augmenta, LLC (“Augmenta”), and his
22 professional association, Robert J. Cornell, M.D., P.A. (the “Cornell PA” and, with
23 Dr. Cornell and Augmenta, the “Cornell Defendants”), from commercializing
24 Plaintiffs’ trade secrets and other intellectual property, and to redress the harm already
25 caused by the Cornell Defendants’ acts of misappropriation, infringement, breach of
26 contract, and unfair competition.
27 3. Dr. Cornell’s unlawful scheme is beyond dispute. He obtained a patent
28 from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) with Plaintiffs’ trade secrets
1
COMPLAINT
1 (U.S. Patent No. 10,413,413 B1 [the “‘413 Patent”]). Of course, Dr. Cornell
2 wrongfully claims inventorship. But he did not invent; he stole. Dr. Cornell also
3 included in his patent application Penuma drawings he neither created nor had any
4 right or authorization to use. The ‘413 Patent, while registered in Dr. Cornell’s name,
5 is comprised entirely of Plaintiffs’ intellectual property. The patent is the product of
6 fraud on the USPTO and is unenforceable.
7 4. Dr. Cornell also purports to offer Plaintiffs’ product, the Penuma
8 implant, to prospective patients although he is not authorized by Plaintiffs to do so
9 and Plaintiffs—the owners of Penuma—have never provided him with authorized
10 Penuma implants for use nor any authorization to advertise the Penuma implants.
11 These offers contain misleading information about Penuma implants, infringe on
12 Penuma’s federally registered trademark name, and create confusion in the relevant
13 marketplace with the aim of redirecting potential customers of Plaintiffs to the Cornell
14 Defendants.
15 5. The Cornell Defendants’ actions have significantly harmed Plaintiffs.
16 Not only have the Cornell Defendants misappropriated certain of Plaintiffs’ trade
17 secrets and inserted them into the public domain, the Cornell Defendants have misled
18 the USPTO and have now started to confuse the market to divert customers from
19 Plaintiffs with a product and other intellectual property stolen from Plaintiffs. The
20 Cornell Defendants’ unlawful conduct has already harmed Plaintiffs’ business and
21 continues to cause irreparable harm to Plaintiffs.
22 6. In addition, others who, on information and belief, work with the Cornell
23 Defendants, namely Defendants Dr. Jonathan Clavell and Clavell Urology, PLLC
24 (collectively, the “Clavell Defendants”) also falsely advertise on their website that “[a
25 ventral or cosmetic phalloplasty] procedure is a simple procedure that can be made in
26 conjunction with penile implant surgery, penis enlargement procedures, such as
27 Penuma, or can be performed on its own.” The Clavell Defendants have never
28 received training on the Penuma procedure, are not authorized to offer Penuma, and
2
COMPLAINT
1 their statements to the contrary are designed to confuse consumers into believing that
2 they are authorized providers of the product. Presumably, the Cornell Defendants and
3 the Clavell Defendants’ only aim by advertising “Penuma” is to divert Plaintiffs’
4 potential patients to the Cornell Defendants’ competing product, the Augmenta
5 implant.
6 7. For these reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court find that
7 Plaintiffs are entitled to monetary and injunctive relief. Based on Dr. Cornell’s brazen,
8 surreptitious conduct, punitive damages are also warranted against the Cornell
9 Defendants.
10 General Background and Nature of the Action
11 8. Plaintiffs are pioneers in the aesthetic and reconstructive urology
12 industry. Plaintiff Dr. Elist is a renowned urologist and the holder of multiple patents
13 on subcutaneous silicone penile implants designed to expand the size of a penis by
14 facilitating tissue expansion. These patents protect Dr. Elist’s invention: Penuma, the
15 first, and on information and belief, only penile implant for cosmetic correction
16 cleared by the FDA.
17 9. Dr. Elist exerted immeasurable effort to clear Penuma for surgical use
18 and FDA clearance, including facilitating and paying for a five-year study on over
19 400 patients with the results published in a peer-reviewed academic journal. The
20 results of the study were overwhelmingly successful.
21 10. To protect the reputation and goodwill associated with Dr. Elist and
22 Penuma, Plaintiffs have taken care to ensure that Penuma is implanted solely by well-
23 trained and talented surgeons in the field of aesthetic and reconstructive urology. For
24 example, Dr. Elist personally trains any surgeon who wishes to offer the Implant to
25 patients. Because Dr. Elist desired to protect the trade secrets and intellectual property
26 related to the Implant, not only is Penuma’s sole contract manufacturer subject to a
27 strict confidentiality agreement, but all surgeons are required to sign the Penuma NDA
28 prior to any training and/or authorization to purchase and offer Penuma.
3
COMPLAINT
1 11. In early 2018, Dr. Cornell contacted Gesiva Medical, LLC, Penuma’s
2 United States distributor, regarding training to use the Implant. On information and
3 belief, Dr. Cornell had no prior experience with cosmetic penile implants before
4 learning about Penuma. Dr. Elist agreed to provide such training to Dr. Cornell in
5 Beverly Hills, California. The training commenced on March 30, 2018. As required,
6 Dr. Cornell signed the Penuma NDA before Plaintiffs provided any non-public
7 information related to Penuma to Dr. Cornell.
8 12. Unlike other training sessions, however, Dr. Cornell’s interest in Penuma
9 went beyond excitement for the revolutionary product or the surgical technique to
10 include the research and development pipeline plans for future iterations of the
11 Penuma implant. Dr. Cornell asked Dr. Elist direct questions about Penuma research
12 and development plans. Relying on the signed NDA and the natural assumption that
13 Dr. Cornell was genuinely interested in purchasing and utilizing Penuma implants in
14 his surgical practice, Dr. Elist shared with Dr. Cornell the requested future plans to
15 update the product design of Penuma and the surgical technique associated with the
16 placement of the Penuma implant. Dr. Elist would not have provided Dr. Cornell with
17 training on Penuma and would not have disclosed or discussed any Penuma research
18 and development plans with Dr. Cornell if Dr. Cornell had not signed the Penuma
19 NDA. In fact, Dr. Elist does not generally discuss any Penuma research and
20 development plans with prospective Penuma surgeons.
21 13. After Dr. Cornell returned to his home state of Texas, it became clear
22 that Dr. Cornell’s visit to California had been nothing more than a ruse to steal trade
23 secrets Dr. Elist has spent a lifetime creating. Almost immediately upon returning to
24 Texas, on July 23, 2018, the Cornell Defendants filed a provisional application for
25 penile implants that facilitate tissue expansion based entirely on what Dr. Cornell
26 learned about Penuma from Dr. Elist. Then, Dr. Cornell filed a second provisional
27 application on December 14, 2018, which was also based entirely on what Dr. Cornell
28 learned about Penuma from Dr. Elist. Eventually, the Cornell Defendants formally
4
COMPLAINT
1 filed two non-provisional patent applications with the USPTO based on these
2 provisional applications. These two non-provisional patent applications directed to
3 penile implants were filed by Dr. Cornell, along with two purported co-inventors,
4 David Nichols and Hans Mische, on January 3, 2019.
5 14. The first patent application, U.S. Patent Application No. 16/238,792,
6 matured into U.S. Patent No. 10,413,413 (the “’413 Patent”) on September 17, 2019.
7 The second application, U.S. Patent Application No. 16/238,821 (the “’821
8 Application”), is pending and has been recently published on January 23, 2020, as
9 U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0022812 A1. Plaintiffs did not learn about these nefarious actions
10 until after the ‘413 Patent had been issued by the USPTO on September 17, 2019. On
11 information and belief, the patent application for the ‘413 Patent was never published,
12 making it impossible for Plaintiffs to discover the Cornell Defendants’ misconduct
13 before the USPTO.
14 15. In their patent application for the ‘413 Patent, the Cornell Defendants
15 utilized a copyrighted image from Dr. Elist’s website. Of course, this use was not
16 authorized; it was copyright infringement.
17 16. Contemporaneously, Dr. Cornell began advertising on his website and
18 through targeted Internet advertising schemes his connections to Penuma, claiming to
19 perform the Penuma procedure even though he had not completed his training and,
20 therefore, could not purchase Penuma implants from IMD, the only distributor. These
21 advertisements also contained misleading information about the results of the Penuma
22 implant procedure and the recovery period. These advertisements infringed on
23 Penuma’s federally registered trademark name (the “Penuma Mark”), which was
24 registered on September 20, 2016 and given U.S. Reg. No. 5044348, has been used
25 in commerce since January 7, 2016, and continues to be used in commerce by
26 Plaintiffs. Further, these advertisements created confusion in the relevant market, all
27 with the aim of redirecting potential customers of Dr. Elist to the Cornell Defendants
28 to increase future sales of Augmenta and fees charged by the Cornell Defendants for
5
COMPLAINT
1 their surgical procedures. Recently, Dr. Elist’s office has received dozens of calls
2 from potential patients confused about whether Dr. Cornell is offering the Penuma
3 implant and procedure. Dr. Cornell persists in these targeted Internet advertising
4 schemes even after repeated requests by Plaintiffs that he cease and desist such
5 behavior.
6 17. During the prosecution of the patent application of the ‘413 Patent, the
7 USPTO rejected all claims. Claim 1 is the only independent claim of this patent.
8 Importantly, the USPTO rejected claim 1 and several dependent claims as being
9 anticipated by Dr. Elist’s U.S. Patent No. 6,537,204 (the “’204 Patent”). The USPTO
10 also rejected the remaining dependent claims as being obvious based on the ‘204
11 Patent in combination of Dr. Elist’s U.S. Patent No. 8,986,193 (the “’193 Patent”) or
12 other prior art references. In other words, all claims in the Cornell Defendants’ patent
13 application for the ‘413 Patent were considered not patentable over Dr. Elist’s patent.
14 The Cornell Defendants presented nothing novel or inventive in their patent
15 application.
16 18. To overcome the USPTO’s rejection and present inventive subject
17 matter, the Cornell Defendants misappropriated Plaintiffs’ trade secrets. The Cornell
18 Defendants, without any authorization and in breach of contract, disclosed a future
19 change of Penuma that was disclosed to Dr. Cornell on March 30, 2018 during his
20 visit to Dr. Elist’s clinic—namely that the penile implant would contain internal
21 pockets or voids of space. Dr. Elist’s decision to include internal pockets or voids of
22 space in future iterations of Penuma was based solely on his clinical observation of
23 patients’ experiences with Penuma—observations Dr. Cornell could not have made
24 himself given that, on information and belief, he had no experience with cosmetic
25 penile implants prior to his exposure to Penuma.
26 19. The Cornell Defendants provided these trade secrets, which did not
27 belong to them and which were stolen from Plaintiffs, in an interview with the patent
28 examiner on April 25, 2019. In doing so, the Cornell Defendants succeeded in
6
COMPLAINT
1 convincing the examiner that Plaintiffs’ trade secrets—which the Cornell Defendants
2 had misappropriated and claimed as their own—are indeed the inventive subject
3 matter of the ‘413 Patent. The Cornell Defendants then incorporated the
4 misappropriated trade secrets in amendments to their patent claims filed April 30,
5 2019. Based on these trade secrets, the Cornell Defendants improperly obtained the
6 ‘413 Patent, a patent that publicly disclosed trade secrets Plaintiffs reasonably sought
7 to, and did, protect. Of course, Dr. Elist is not included as an inventor on the ‘413
8 Patent, although the patent is the result of Dr. Elist’s intellectual property. Dr. Elist
9 should be the sole inventor of the ‘413 Patent, which should be unenforceable as
10 issued.
11 20. The Cornell Defendants also incorporated additional trade secrets stolen
12 from the Plaintiffs in the ‘413 Patent, including the inclusion of one or more mesh
13 tabs, the employment of absorbable sutures, and the use of an antibacterial agent in
14 future iterations of Penuma.
15 21. The Cornell Defendants’ pending ’821 Application is also based on
16 Plaintiffs’ trade secrets. Without the misappropriated trade secrets, the ’821
17 Application contains zero inventive material. The ’821 Application should be voided.
18 22. On information and belief, the Cornell Defendants are now taking steps
19 to commercialize stolen trade secrets by selling Augmenta to the medical community
20 at large, despite the fact that, on information and belief, the Cornell Defendants have
21 not obtained any FDA clearance or approval on their product. Given the market
22 confusion the Cornell Defendants and Clavell Defendants have created through their
23 targeted Internet advertising schemes, this wrongful conduct further damages
24 Penuma.
25 23. The Clavell Defendants falsely advertise on their website that “[a ventral
26 or cosmetic phalloplasty] procedure is a simple procedure that can be made in
27 conjunction with penile implant surgery, penis enlargement procedures, such as
28 Penuma, or can be performed on its own.” On information and belief, this statement
7
COMPLAINT
1 is designed to confuse potential patients visiting the Clavell Defendants’ website to

2 think they can get a Penuma implant in conjunction with a ventral or cosmetic
3 phalloplasty procedure performed by Dr. Clavell. The Clavell Defendants do not have
4 permission to use the Penuma Mark on their website, and they are not authorized to
5 implant Penuma. On information and belief, the Clavell Defendants are located in the
6 exact same medical office space as the Cornell Defendants and are working in concert
7 with the Cornell Defendants to divert potential patients away from Dr. Elist and
8 Penuma to the Cornell Defendants and Augmenta. On information and belief, Dr.
9 Clavell is listed on Augmenta’s website as a certified Augment implant surgeon.
10 24. Plaintiffs seek this Court’s assistance to stop the Cornell Defendants and
11 the Clavell Defendants from continuing their illegal and injurious conduct. Plaintiffs
12 have suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable harm unless the Cornell
13 Defendants are enjoined from further abuse of Plaintiffs’ trade secrets and intellectual
14 property. Plaintiffs seek an order for impoundment and destruction of all infringing
15 copies of its content and corrective advertising to remedy the Cornell Defendants’
16 unfair competition. Further, Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the Clavell Defendants from
17 continuing to misappropriate the Penuma Mark. Plaintiffs also seek declaratory relief
18 from the Cornell Defendants and damages from the Cornell Defendants and Clavell
19 Defendants for their wrongful conduct, including but not limited to invalidation of the
20 ‘413 Patent, voiding the pending ’821 Application, compensatory damages, statutory
21 damages, treble damages, and punitive damages, as well as an award of Plaintiffs’
22 costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in this action.
23 PARTIES
24 25. IMD is a corporation organized under the laws of California with its
25 principal place of business at 8500 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 707, Beverly Hills,
26 California 90211. IMD was created to serve as the distribution entity for Penuma to
27 surgeons. IMD is also the registered entity for Penuma with the FDA.
28
8
COMPLAINT
1 26. Menova is a corporation organized under the laws of California with its
2 principal place of business at 8500 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 707, Beverly Hills,
3 California 90211. It was created to hold the intellectual property associated with
4 Penuma. Menova holds the Penuma Mark and all international intellectual property
5 rights.
6 27. Dr. Elist is an individual residing in Beverly Hills, California. Dr. Elist
7 is the inventor of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,445,594 (the “’594 Patent”) (implant for
8 expanding penile girth and length); 5,669,870 (the “’870 Patent”) (penile implant for
9 improved appearance); 5,899,849 (the “’849 Patent”) (subcutaneous penile implant);
10 D462,770 (the “’770 Design Patent”) (tapered penile implant); 6,475,137 (the “’137
11 Patent”) (subcutaneous penile implant); 6,537,204 (the “’204 Patent”) (structural
12 penile implant); 8,986,193 (the “’193 Patent”) (penile implant); 9,504,573 (the “’573
13 Patent”) (prosthesis for improved penis function); and 10,350,070 (the “’070 Patent”)
14 (prosthesis for improved penis function).
15 28. On information and belief, Dr. Cornell is an individual residing in
16 Houston, Texas. He is the founder of Augmenta.
17 29. On information and belief, Augmenta is a limited liability company
18 organized under the laws of Delaware, with its principal place of business at 1315 St.
19 Joseph Parkway, Suite 1700, Houston, Texas 77002. On information and belief, this
20 is the same address at which Dr. Cornell operates his urology practice. On information
21 and belief, Augmenta was formed by Dr. Cornell to capitalize on the Plaintiffs’
22 intellectual property and trade secrets.
23 30. On information and belief, the Cornell PA is a professional association
24 organized under the laws of Texas, with its principal place of business at 1315 St.
25 Joseph Parkway, Suite 1700, Houston, Texas 77002. On information and belief, the
26 Cornell PA is Dr. Cornell’s alter ego and/or the entity through which he does business.
27 31. On information and belief, Dr. Clavell is an individual residing in
28 Houston, Texas and is the owner of Clavell Urology, PLLC.
9
COMPLAINT
1 32. On information and belief, Clavell Urology, PLLC is a professional

2 limited liability corporation organized under the laws of Texas, with its principal place
3 of business at 1315 St. Joseph Parkway, Suite 1700, Houston, Texas 77002. On
4 information and belief, Clavell Urology, PLLC is Dr. Clavell’s alter ego and/or the
5 entity through which he does business.
6 33. Plaintiffs are unaware of the true names and capacities, whether
7 individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise, of defendant DOES 1 through 10,
8 inclusive, or any of them, and therefore sues these defendants, and each of them, by
9 such fictitious names. Plaintiffs will seek leave of this Court to amend this Complaint
10 when the status and identities of these defendants are ascertained.
11 34. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant, each of the Defendants
12 was the agent of the other Defendants, and in doing the things alleged, each defendant
13 was acting within the course and scope of its agency and was subject to and under the
14 supervision of its co-defendants. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that each of the
15 fictitiously named defendants is responsible in some manner for the injuries to
16 Plaintiffs alleged in this Complaint. Plaintiffs further allege that their injuries were
17 proximately caused by each and all such Defendants.
18 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
19 35. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the parties based on
20 principles of diversity, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), as the action is between a
21 citizen and corporations of California and a citizen of another state. Dr. Elist is a
22 citizen of California and Menova and IMD are both organized under the laws of
23 California with their principal place of business in Beverly Hills, California. Drs.
24 Cornell and Clavell are citizens and residents of Texas. Augmenta is incorporated
25 under Delaware law and based in Houston, Texas. The Cornell PA and Clavell
26 Urology PLLC are organized under the laws of Texas and based in Houston, Texas.
27 The amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
28
10
COMPLAINT
1 36. This Court also has subject matter jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 1836
2 as well as 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(b), as this action includes violations of the
3 federal Defend Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1836; the federal Copyright Act of
4 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 101, et seq.; Federal Trademark Law, 15 U.S.C. § 1114, et seq.;
5 and related claims of unfair competition.
6 37. Additionally, this Court has supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §
7 1367.
8 38. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Cornell Defendants for the
9 following reasons: (i) Dr. Cornell traveled to California to meet with Dr. Elist and that
10 is where the theft of Plaintiffs’ trade secrets and intellectual property occurred; (ii)
11 Dr. Cornell signed the Penuma NDA in California, which provides that it “shall be
12 construed and enforced in accordance with the internal laws of the State of
13 California”; and (iii) the Cornell Defendants market or marketed themselves, Penuma,
14 and Augmenta to California residents and surgeons. On information and belief, the
15 Cornell Defendants have contacted urological surgeons located within the state of
16 California to become Augmenta-certified surgeons.
17 39. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Clavell Defendants for at
18 least the following reasons: (i) the Clavell Defendants regularly do business or solicit
19 business, engage in other persistent courses of conduct, and/or derive substantial
20 revenue from products and/or services provided to individuals in California; (ii) the
21 Clavell Defendants have purposefully established substantial, systematic, and
22 continuous contacts with California and expect or should reasonably expect to be in
23 court here; and (iii) the Clavell Defendants purposefully availed themselves of the
24 privilege of conducting activities within California and the causes of action alleged
25 herein arise out of the Clavell Defendants’ contacts with California. Thus, this Court’s
26 exercise of jurisdiction over the Clavell Defendants will not offend traditional notions
27 of fair play and substantial justice.
28
11
COMPLAINT
1 40. Venue is proper in this Judicial District because a substantial part of the
2 events given rise to this Complaint occurred in this District, and the Cornell
3 Defendants and Clavell Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in this District.
4 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS
5 41. Penuma is the first, and on information and belief, only cosmetic
6 correction penile implant cleared by the FDA.
7 42. Dr. Elist is the sole inventor of the Penuma penile implant, which he
8 created after years of working in the field of aesthetic and reconstructive urology, and
9 specifically, with penile enhancement procedures.
10 43. Dr. Elist is the inventor of no fewer than nine patents on penile implants
11 dating back to August 29, 1995, which are more particularly described above. These
12 patents protect Dr. Elist’s inventions, including Penuma—a subcutaneous silicone
13 penile implant designed to expand the size of a penis by facilitating tissue
14 expansion—the commercial product that embodies his inventions.
15 44. As with all innovative technologies, Plaintiffs also possessed trade
16 secrets related to their constant efforts to update Dr. Elist’s invention. One method by
17 which Plaintiffs protected these trade secrets was by requiring a strict confidentiality
18 agreement with Penuma’s sole contract manufacturer.
19 45. Additionally, to ensure that Penuma was implanted solely by well-
20 trained and talented surgeons in the field of aesthetic and reconstructive urology, Dr.
21 Elist personally met with, and trained, surgeons that wanted to purchase and implant
22 Penuma. Dr. Elist started these trainings in 2017 with all surgeons signing the Penuma
23 NDA in advance of such trainings.
24 46. The training program was initially very small and consisted only of
25 surgeons who also served on the Board of Advisors for Penuma.
26 47. On January 11, 2018, Dr. Cornell contacted Tom Hopper, the president
27 of Gesiva Medical, LLC (“Gesiva”), by email to request training on Penuma. Gesiva
28
12
COMPLAINT
1 is the exclusive distributor of the Penuma implant in the United States. Dr. Cornell
2 represented he became aware of Gesiva and Penuma at a medical conference.
3 48. Mr. Hopper replied to Dr. Cornell and informed him that there was a
4 multi-step process to be approved to use the Penuma implant, including meeting with
5 Dr. Elist in Beverly Hills, California to observe multiple Penuma implant procedures
6 along with a Gesiva representative. Dr. Cornell advised on January 12, 2018, that he
7 saw “real opportunity to expand the level of service” he currently offered his patients
8 and wanted to learn more about Penuma “expeditiously.”
9 49. On January 22, 2018, Gesiva representative Duncan Louie met with Dr.
10 Cornell in person and confirmed Dr. Cornell’s interest in Penuma. Mr. Louie told Dr.
11 Cornell he would arrange for dates for Dr. Cornell to observe the Penuma procedure
12 at Dr. Elist’s Beverly Hills facility.
13 50. Dr. Cornell visited Dr. Elist’s clinic on March 30, 2018. This was the
14 first opportunity Dr. Cornell had to learn any detailed information about Penuma.
15 51. At the beginning of Dr. Cornell’s visit to Dr. Elist’s clinic, and before
16 any detailed discussions of Penuma, Dr. Cornell signed a March 30, 2018 Penuma
17 NDA with IMD and Dr. Elist (the “Penuma NDA”). Under the Penuma NDA, Dr.
18 Cornell agreed to “protect and hold in the strictest confidence the Confidential
19 Information; [] not disclose any Confidential Information to any person or entity,
20 unless required by law or other regulatory authority . . . and [] not use directly or
21 indirectly the Confidential Information for its own benefit or benefit of any other
22 person.” The definition of “Confidential Information” included, among other things,
23 information relating to “past, present, or future products, services, [] techniques or
24 technical information and data” regarding Penuma. The definition of Confidential
25 Information thus includes, but is not limited to, trade secrets and trade secret
26 information. The Penuma NDA is governed by California law and allows for the
27 recovery of attorneys’ fees. A true and correct copy of the Penuma NDA is attached
28 as Exhibit A.
13
COMPLAINT
1 52. After the Penuma NDA was signed, Dr. Cornell was granted access to
2 the Confidential Information, including, but not limited to, trade secrets and trade
3 secret information. Dr. Cornell knew much of the information disclosed to him during
4 his visit was confidential and proprietary. Dr. Elist answered Dr. Cornell’s questions
5 because he believed this information would be used to lawfully incorporate the use of
6 Penuma into Dr. Cornell’s practice. At the time, Dr. Elist was unaware of Dr.
7 Cornell’s true motives, which were to use Plaintiffs’ trade secrets and intellectual
8 property to start a competing venture, confuse consumers, trade on Plaintiffs’
9 goodwill, and benefit himself at the expense of Plaintiffs.
10 53. During his training with Dr. Elist, Dr. Cornell specifically asked about
11 the research and development plans for Penuma. Without Dr. Cornell’s acceptance
12 of the NDA, Dr. Elist would not have provided Dr. Cornell with training on Penuma
13 nor discussed any Penuma research and development plans with Dr. Cornell.
14 54. Relying on the Penuma NDA, however, and assuming that Dr. Cornell
15 was genuinely interested in purchasing and using Penuma implants in his practice,
16 Dr. Elist shared with Dr. Cornell Plaintiffs’ future plans to update the product design
17 of Penuma and the surgical technique associated with the placement of the Penuma
18 implant, including that future iterations of Penuma would contain internal pockets or
19 voids of space in the Implant. On information and belief, Dr. Elist’s decision to
20 include internal pockets or voids of space in future iterations of Penuma was based on
21 his clinical observation of patients’ experiences with Penuma.
22 55. In this same training, Dr. Elist discussed with Dr. Cornell that he
23 intended to include one or more mesh tabs on the implant, employ absorbable sutures
24 in the surgical method, and cover Penuma in an antibacterial agent in future iterations
25 of Penuma.
26 56. On information and belief, prior to meeting with Dr. Elist, Dr. Cornell
27 was not aware of how Penuma was constructed at all, let alone that it could be updated
28 or modified. As someone with no experience with cosmetic penile implants, Dr.
14
COMPLAINT
1 Cornell certainly had no clinical observations of his own from which to draw. In
2 contrast, Dr. Elist had spent years working to develop and modify Penuma; during the
3 course of this time, Dr. Elist had developed numerous ideas and techniques to modify
4 and/or further develop Penuma. Most of these are trade secrets.
5 57. Dr. Elist’s trade secrets have significant commercial value and are based
6 on his unique and vast experience with aesthetic penile implants. Not only do these
7 trade secrets allow Dr. Elist to help address the needs of more patients, but they mark
8 him as an innovator in the field of aesthetic penile implants, which itself, has
9 significant innate and commercial value.
10 58. Once Dr. Cornell returned to Houston from Beverly Hills, ignoring the
11 Penuma NDA, he began to utilize what he learned about Plaintiffs’ trade secrets and
12 intellectual property to try and create a penile implant using information he had
13 learned during Penuma training.
14 59. On July 23, 2018, a mere four months after meeting with Dr. Elist, Dr.
15 Cornell sought to capitalize on Plaintiffs’ intellectual property by applying for a
16 provisional patent application for “Cosmetic Penile Implant and Related Methods of
17 Implanting,” Provisional Application No. 62/702,062. Again, on December 14, 2018,
18 Dr. Cornell filed a second provisional patent application—Provisional Application
19 No. 62/779,825, “Cosmetic Penile Implant and Related Methods of Implanting.”
20 60. On or about September 21, 2018, on information and belief, Dr. Cornell
21 incorporated Augmenta in the State of Delaware. On or about October 15, 2018, on
22 information and belief, Dr. Cornell registered Augmenta for business within the State
23 of Texas. On information and belief, Augmenta was created to utilize the intellectual
24 property and trade secrets stolen by Dr. Cornell to compete with Plaintiffs and
25 Penuma.
26 61. On January 3, 2019, the Cornell Defendants filed a non-provisional
27 patent application for a silicone penile implant for cosmetic enhancement that was
28 based entirely on the intellectual property and trade secrets Dr. Cornell had learned
15
COMPLAINT
1 from Dr. Elist, including the internal pocketing, mesh tabs, absorbable sutures, and
2 antibacterial coating. This patent application issued as the ‘413 Patent on September
3 17, 2019. A true and correct copy of the patent prosecution history for the ‘413 Patent
4 is attached as Exhibit B. Plaintiffs were not aware of this patent until after the ‘413
5 Patent issued because, on information and belief, the Cornell Defendants’ patent
6 application was not made public.
7 62. Figure 14B of the ‘413 Patent is an unauthorized still image from a video
8 that Dr. Elist created and placed on his YouTube channel to demonstrate the Penuma
9 implant and describe the Penuma procedure. In Dr. Elist’s original video, the image
10 was accompanied by text explaining the Penuma procedure. In an attempt to obfuscate
11 the origins of the image, on information and belief, Dr. Cornell had the image edited
12 to remove the informational text from Dr. Elist’s original video, which also slightly
13 truncated the image. The video from which the image was taken was submitted to the
14 United States Copyright Office for protection on or about February 2020, Case # 1-
15 8530639781 and is currently pending a U.S. Copyright Registration Number. A true
16 and correct copy of the submission confirmation from the United States Copyright
17 Office is attached as Exhibit K. A true and correct copy of the still image taken
18 without authorization from Dr. Elist’s Penuma video is attached hereto as Exhibit L.
19 63. On March 15, 2019, the USPTO rejected all of the Cornell Defendants’
20 claims citing Dr. Elist’s ’204 Patent and ’193 Patent as prior art.
21 64. In order to overcome the USPTO’s rejection, Dr. Cornell initiated an
22 interview with the patent examiner on April 25, 2019, where he presented Plaintiffs’
23 trade secrets as the inventive subject matter of his patent application. Dr. Cornell
24 fraudulently disclosed future iterations of Penuma in emphasizing that the penile
25 implant in the ‘413 Patent would contain internal pockets or voids of space. Dr.
26 Cornell then amended his patent claim on April 30, 2019, wherein he further
27 emphasized this exact trade secret information, which Dr. Cornell had learned only
28 by visiting Dr. Elist in Beverly Hills, California, on March 30, 2018.
16
COMPLAINT
1 65. Based on this allegedly “new” information, the USPTO granted Dr.
2 Cornell the ’413 Patent on September 17, 2019.
3 66. On May 22, 2019, Dr. Cornell, along with his “co-inventors,” each swore
4 under penalty of perjury that he was the “original inventor or an original joint inventor
5 of a claimed invention” in the application for the ‘413 Patent. That statement was
6 knowingly false and punishable under 18 U.S.C. § 1001.
7 67. According to USPTO records, Dr. Cornell assigned the ’413 Patent to
8 Augmenta. On information and belief, Dr. Cornell formed Augmenta to market,
9 promote, and distribute the product he created from Plaintiffs’ stolen intellectual
10 property.
11 68. Contemporaneously with these actions, Dr. Cornell began falsely
12 advertising on his website and through targeted Internet advertising schemes,
13 including utilizing Google’s advertising services, that he was an authorized Penuma
14 surgeon. In reality, Defendant was not an authorized Penuma surgeon because he had
15 not yet completed the required training, nor had he been authorized to distribute
16 Penuma implants. Consequently, Dr. Cornell had no access to Penuma implants.
17 69. The Penuma Mark is suggestive, arbitrary, or fanciful because it requires
18 a mental leap from the mark to the product. Penuma is automatically entitled to
19 trademark protection because Penuma is inherently distinct.
20 70. The USPTO recognized that Penuma was entitled to be protected when
21 it issued a trademark for Penuma on September 20, 2016, U.S. Reg. No. 5044348.
22 Menova, a company wholly owned by Dr. Elist, is the sole owner of the Penuma
23 Mark. A true and correct copy of the search results for Penuma in the Trademark
24 Electronic Search System and the Penuma Registration is attached as Exhibit C.
25 71. The Penuma Mark is a valid trademark because registered marks are
26 presumed valid. Thus, the Penuma Mark is protected by United States trademark laws.
27 72. On information and belief, Dr. Cornell deliberately copied the Penuma
28 Mark when he used the Penuma Mark in commerce to target interstate customers
17
COMPLAINT
1 interested in Penuma implants with false internet advertisements, which were

2 intended to steer business away from Dr. Elist and to Dr. Cornell’s new company,
3 Augmenta. True and correct copies of Dr. Cornell’s use of the Penuma Mark on Dr.
4 Cornell’s website and in Google Ads are attached as Exhibits D and E, respectively.
5 73. These advertisements not only infringed on the Penuma Mark, which
6 Defendant had no authorization to use, but created confusion in the marketplace.
7 Defendants’ advertisements contained misleading information about the results of the
8 Penuma implant procedure and the recovery period, advertising better results with a
9 quicker recovery time than that advertised by Penuma and Dr. Elist. As an example,
10 Augmenta’s website now advertises that Augmenta’s rates of infection from surgery
11 will be “significantly lower than any other type of penile implant,” even though, on
12 information and belief, an Augmenta implant has never been actually implanted in a
13 single individual and is not cleared or approved by the FDA. On information and
14 belief, all of this was done with the aim of driving more clients to Defendants.
15 74. Potential customers were actually confused by Defendant’s
16 advertisements and reached out to Dr. Elist concerning their confusion. Dozens of
17 prospective patients called Dr. Elist and inquired as to whether Dr. Cornell offered
18 the Penuma implant.
19 75. On information and belief, the Cornell Defendants are now taking steps
20 to commercialize Augmenta utilizing Plaintiffs’ stolen trade secrets and intellectual
21 property and are selling both the Augmenta implant and certifications to be able to
22 implant Augmenta on its website. A true and correct copy of screenshots of
23 Augmenta’s website as of January 2020 are attached as Exhibit F.
24 76. Penuma is the result of years of research and development, clinical
25 studies, patent protection, trade secrets, and FDA clearance, while Augmenta is the
26 result of stolen trade secrets and intellectual property, trademark infringement, false
27 and misleading advertising, copyright infringement, and no known clinical tests
28 whatsoever.
18
COMPLAINT
1 77. Indeed, the Cornell Defendants’ claims on Augmenta’s website that it is

2 “designed to be the safest penile implant in the world,” “allows for natural male
3 enhancement . . . without compromising movement or function[,] something other
4 devices can’t do;” “is lighter and softer than any other cosmetic penile implant
5 available;” and is more “natural” than another “other implant in the world” are false,
6 fraudulent, misleading, based on zero actual testing of the product or FDA clearance
7 or approval, and attempt to create a false dichotomy between Plaintiffs’ intellectual
8 property and Augmenta when, in fact, Augmenta is the result of the Cornell
9 Defendants’ theft of Plaintiffs’ trade secrets and intellectual property.
10 78. These issues loom large in the male enhancement field, which is littered
11 with nightmare anecdotes of fundamentally unsafe and harmful procedures (none of
12 which are Penuma). For this reason, Penuma’s product integrity and reputation is of
13 paramount importance. The Cornell Defendants’ unlawful activities not only do
14 Plaintiffs great harm, those activities threaten to further damage the reputation of the
15 penile implant industry.
16 79. On information and belief, the Cornell Defendants have worked in
17 concert with the Clavell Defendants to further harm Plaintiffs.
18 80. In October 2019, on information and belief, Dr. Cornell had Dr. Clavell,
19 a urologist who shares office space with Dr. Cornell and Augmenta, attend and
20 observe Penuma implant procedures performed by a Penuma-trained physician in
21 Houston, Texas.
22 81. Afterward, the Clavell Defendants falsely suggested on their website that
23 defendant Dr. Clavell is a properly trained and authorized Penuma surgeon. On the
24 website, the Clavell Defendants claim “[a ventral or cosmetic phalloplasty] procedure
25 is a simple procedure that can be made in conjunction with penile implant surgery,
26 penis enlargement procedures, such as Penuma, or can be performed on its own.”
27 https://houstonmenshealth.com/procedures/ventral-phalloplasty/ (last visited on
28 March 18, 2020). This statement is designed to mislead visitors to the Clavell
19
COMPLAINT
1 Defendants’ website to think they could get a Penuma implant in conjunction with a
2 ventral or cosmetic phalloplasty procedure performed by Dr. Clavell. In fact, the
3 Clavell Defendants do not have any authorization, whatsoever, from Plaintiffs to
4 perform the Penuma procedure. Further, the Clavell Defendants do not have
5 permission to use the Penuma Mark on their website. The Clavell Defendants’ actions
6 infringe the Penuma Mark and, much like the false advertising posted by the Cornell
7 Defendants, appears designed, on information and belief, to redirect prospective
8 Penuma patients to Augmenta. It is currently unknown what financial arrangement, if
9 any, the Clavell Defendants have with the Cornell Defendants for patients directed to
10 Augmenta from the Clavell Defendants’ false advertising.
11 82. Due to the Cornell Defendants and Clavell Defendants’ actions as
12 described herein, Plaintiffs have suffered, and will continue to suffer, irreparable
13 harm, without Court intervention.
14 CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
15 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
16 MISAPPROPRIATION OF TRADE SECRETS
17 (Defend Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1836 et seq.)
18 (By All Plaintiffs Against the Cornell Defendants)
19 83. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference as though fully set forth herein the
20 allegations of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.
21 84. Plaintiffs’ ability to compete in the aesthetic and reconstructive urology
22 industry, in the United States and globally, is directly dependent on maintaining the
23 secrecy of their trade secrets and other confidential and proprietary information.
24 85. For this reason, Plaintiffs have a set of procedures in place to ensure their
25 trade secret information, including the future pocketed design of Penuma, remained
26 confidential. This information is protectable as trade secrets under the federal Defend
27 Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1836 et seq.
28
20
COMPLAINT
1 86. Plaintiffs’ trade secret information has independent economic value and
2 is not generally known or readily available to the public, including competitors.
3 Plaintiffs expended substantial time, resources, and ingenuity in developing this
4 information based on their own efforts.
5 87. Plaintiffs made reasonable efforts to ensure that all of their confidential
6 and proprietary information, including trade secrets and trade secret information,
7 remained secret by, among other things, requiring Penuma’s sole contract
8 manufacturer to sign a strict confidentiality agreement, requiring the Penuma NDA
9 before any confidential information was disseminated to anyone else, disclosing
10 confidential information only to those individuals who needed the information to
11 perform their duties, only disclosing confidential research and development
12 information to those who had signed the Penuma NDA and requested that information
13 directly, and keeping track of each disclosure of confidential information made and
14 to whom.
15 88. Without the trade secret protection provided by the Penuma NDA and
16 Plaintiffs’ reasonable efforts to maintain the secrecy of their confidential and
17 proprietary information, Plaintiffs would be unable to distribute and expand the
18 availability of Penuma and the Penuma surgical technique beyond Dr. Elist’s clinic in
19 a manner consistent with patient safety.
20 89. On March 30, 2018, Dr. Cornell, Dr. Elist, and IMD entered into the
21 Penuma NDA, which forbade Dr. Cornell from disclosing or using the Confidential
22 Information. The Penuma NDA specifically defined the Confidential Information as,
23 “various information . . . which relates to past, present or future products, services,
24 software, techniques or technical information, and data, business plans, marketing
25 plans, financial statement and proformas relating to the business affairs, plans and
26 operations.” Ex. A, pg. 1. The Penuma NDA thus covered Plaintiffs’ trade secrets and
27 trade secret information, among other information.
28
21
COMPLAINT
1 90. In the meeting with Dr. Cornell, Dr. Elist disclosed the research and
2 development plans for future versions of the Penuma implant. This information was
3 not publicly known and only shared with Dr. Cornell because he signed the Penuma
4 NDA and asked Dr. Elist directly about such information.
5 91. The Cornell Defendants violated the Defend Trade Secrets Act by
6 misappropriating Plaintiffs’ trade secret information in a willful manner and with the
7 deliberate intent to injure Plaintiffs’ business, and for the Cornell Defendants’ own
8 financial gain including, without limitations and as described above, by (a) acquiring
9 Plaintiffs’ trade secrets; (b) disclosing Plaintiffs’ trade secrets to the USPTO to
10 wrongfully obtain a patent on a penile enlargement implant that was, in actuality,
11 invented by Plaintiffs; and (c) using Plaintiffs’ trade secrets for the Cornell
12 Defendants’ benefit. At all relevant time, on information and belief, the Cornell
13 Defendants knew or had reason to know that Plaintiffs’ trade secrets were acquired
14 by improper and deceitful means, conspired together to obtain and/or use the trade
15 secrets, and aided and abetted each other in doing so.
16 92. As a proximate result of the Cornell Defendants’ misappropriation,
17 Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer actual damages, and the Cornell
18 Defendants will be unjustly enriched, in sums not yet ascertained. Plaintiffs also
19 suffered and will continue to suffer immediate and irreparable harm, which will
20 continue until the Cornell Defendants’ misconduct is preliminarily and permanently
21 enjoined.
22 93. The Cornell Defendants’ misappropriation was intentional, malicious,
23 and in bad faith, and has subjected and will continue to subject, Plaintiffs to cruel and
24 unjust hardship in conscious disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights, so as to justify an award
25 of exemplary and punitive damages according to proof at trial. Further, under the
26 Defend Trade Secrets Act, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees
27 as a result of the Cornell Defendants’ willful and malicious misappropriation.
28
22
COMPLAINT
1 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

2 MISAPPROPRIATION OF TRADE SECRETS
3 (Cal. Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Cal. Civil Code §§ 3426 et seq.)
7 95. Plaintiffs’ ability to compete in the aesthetic and reconstructive urology
8 industry in the United States and globally, is directly dependent on maintaining the
9 secrecy of their trade secrets and other confidential and proprietary information.
10 96. For this reason, Plaintiffs have a set of procedures in place to ensure their
11 trade secret information, including the future design of Penuma with internal pockets,
12 remained confidential. This information is protectable as trade secrets under the
13 California Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Cal. Civil Code §§ 3426, et seq.
14 97. Plaintiffs’ trade secret information has independent economic value and
15 is not generally known or readily available to the public, including competitors.
16 Plaintiffs expended substantial time, resources, and ingenuity in developing this
17 information based on their own efforts.
18 98. Plaintiffs made reasonable efforts to ensure that all of their confidential
19 and proprietary information, including trade secrets and trade secret information,
20 remained secret by, among other things, requiring Penuma’s sole contract
21 manufacturer to sign a strict confidentiality agreement, requiring the Penuma NDA
22 before any confidential information was disseminated to anyone else, disclosing
23 confidential information only to those individuals who needed the information to
24 perform their duties, only disclosing confidential research and development
25 information to those who had signed the Penuma NDA and requested that information
26 directly, and keeping track of each disclosure of confidential information made and
27 to whom.
28
23
COMPLAINT
1 99. Without the trade secret protection provided by the Penuma NDA and
2 Plaintiffs’ reasonable efforts to maintain the secrecy of their confidential and
3 proprietary information, Plaintiffs would be unable to distribute and expand the
4 availability of Penuma and the Penuma surgical technique beyond Dr. Elist’s clinic in
5 a manner consistent with patient safety.
6 100. On March 30, 2018, Dr. Cornell, Dr. Elist, and IMD entered into the
7 Penuma NDA, which forbid Dr. Cornell from disclosing or using the Confidential
8 Information. The Penuma NDA specifically defined the Confidential Information as,
9 “various information . . . which relates to past, present or future products, services,
10 software, techniques or technical information, and data, business plans, marketing
11 plans, financial statement and proformas relating to the business affairs, plans and
12 operations.” Ex. A, pg. 1. The Penuma NDA thus covered Plaintiffs’ trade secrets and
13 trade secret information, among other information.
14 101. In the meeting with Dr. Cornell, Dr. Elist disclosed the research and
15 development plans for future versions of the Penuma implant. This information was
16 not publicly known and only shared with Dr. Cornell because he signed the Penuma
17 NDA agreeing to maintain the strictest secrecy of the confidential information learned
18 in the meeting and asked Dr. Elist directly about such information.
19 102. The Cornell Defendants violated the California Uniform Trade Secrets
20 Act by misappropriating Plaintiffs’ trade secret information in a willful manner and
21 with the deliberate intent to injure Plaintiffs’ business, and for the Cornell Defendants’
22 own financial gain including without limitations and as described above by (a)
23 acquiring Plaintiffs’ trade secrets; (b) disclosing Plaintiffs’ trade secrets to the
24 USPTO to wrongfully obtain a patent on a penile enlargement implant that was, in
25 actuality, invented by Plaintiffs; and (c) using Plaintiffs’ trade secrets for the Cornell
26 Defendants’ benefit. At all relevant times, on information and belief, the Cornell
27 Defendants knew or had reason to know that Plaintiffs’ trade secrets were acquired
28
24
COMPLAINT
1 by improper and deceitful means, conspired together to obtain and/or use the trade
2 secrets, and aided and abetted each other in doing so.
3 103. As a proximate result of the Cornell Defendants’ misappropriation,
4 Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer actual damages, and the Cornell
5 Defendants will be unjustly enriched, in sums not yet ascertained. Plaintiffs also
6 suffered and will continue to suffer immediate and irreparable harm, which will
7 continue until the Cornell Defendants’ misconduct is preliminarily and permanently
8 enjoined.
9 104. The Cornell Defendants’ misappropriation was intentional, malicious,
10 and in bad faith, and has subjected and will continue to subject, Plaintiffs to cruel and
11 unjust hardship in conscious disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights, so as to justify an award
12 of exemplary and punitive damages according to proof at trial. Further, under the
13 California Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover reasonable
14 attorneys’ fees as a result of the Cornell Defendants’ willful and malicious
15 misappropriation.
16 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
17 TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT
18 (15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1125(a))
19 (By All Plaintiffs Against Dr. Cornell, the Cornell PA and
20 the Clavell Defendants)
23 106. On January 10, 2016, Menova filed for the Penuma Mark. The USPTO
24 federally registered the Penuma Mark on September 20, 2016 (U.S. Reg. No.
25 5044348), which is owned by Menova. A true and correct copy of the search results
26 for Penuma in the Trademark Electronic Search System and the registration certificate
27 are attached as Exhibit C.
28
25
COMPLAINT
1 107. The Penuma Mark has been used in commerce since January 7, 2016.
2 Plaintiffs continue to use the mark on Dr. Elist’s website, Penuma’s website
3 (http://penuma.com), and on informational and marketing material. The Penuma
4 Mark is suggestive, arbitrary, or fanciful because it requires a mental leap from the
5 mark to the product. The Penuma Mark is automatically entitled to trademark
6 protection because the mark is inherently distinct.
7 108. During the March 30, 2018 meeting between Dr. Cornell and Dr. Elist,
8 none of the Plaintiffs guaranteed any future collaboration with Dr. Cornell or that they
9 would sell Penuma to Dr. Cornell. Further, Menova and Dr. Elist never authorized
10 Dr. Cornell to use the Penuma Mark.
11 109. Nevertheless, Dr. Cornell and the Cornell PA developed a dedicated
12 section of their medical practice’s website to Penuma and began to advertise Dr.
13 Cornell as a Penuma surgeon on targeted Internet advertising campaigns, such as
14 those run by Google. True and correct copies of Dr. Cornell’s website and the Google
15 Ads are attached as Exhibits D and E.
16 110. Dr. Cornell’s website on Penuma is likely to cause consumer confusion
17 or to deceive consumers who believe they can obtain a Penuma implant from Dr.
18 Cornell’s clinic even though Dr. Cornell does not perform the Penuma procedure, and
19 the Plaintiffs, the exclusive source of Penuma, have never sold the implant to Dr.
20 Cornell.
21 111. On June 25, 2018, IMD sent Dr. Cornell a cease and desist email
22 demanding that Dr. Cornell refrain from further use of the Penuma Mark. A true and
23 correct copy of the email is attached as Exhibit G.
24 112. Despite demanding that Dr. Cornell cease use of the Penuma Mark, Dr.
25 Cornell and the Cornell PA continued to use the Penuma Mark on their website for
26 over a year. During this period, Dr. Cornell and the Cornell PA made numerous false
27 representations about the product, including falsely detailing the type of anesthesia
28 used, incorrectly stating the length of time patients must abstain from sexual activity,
26
COMPLAINT
1 overpromising the results of such procedure, and falsely advertising the availability
2 of the Penuma implant at their Houston clinic.
3 113. On August 4, 2019, IMD emailed Dr. Cornell and stated that IMD
4 received confusing inquiries from potential patients who believed Penuma was
5 already available at Dr. Cornell and the Cornell PA’s clinic in Houston due to a page
6 on their website. IMD noted that the webpage was extremely problematic and was
7 damaging to Plaintiffs because of its inaccuracies. IMD requested Dr. Cornell fix the
8 inaccuracies about Penuma or take down the web page. On August 5, 2019, Dr.
9 Cornell assured IMD that all mentions of Penuma would be removed from the
10 website. True and correct copies of the August 4, 2019 email and August 5, 2019
11 email are attached as Exhibit H.
12 114. Despite these assertions, Dr. Cornell and the Cornell PA continued to use
13 the Penuma Mark on their website. Dr. Cornell and the Cornell PA claim “[v]entral
14 phalloplasty genital contouring is a technically simple procedure that Dr. Cornell
15 often performs in conjunction with Penuma penile enhancement surgery to increase
16 penile length or girth.” This statement infringes on the Penuma Mark and is also false
17 and inaccurate as Dr. Cornell has never performed the Penuma penile enhancement
18 surgery. A true and correct copy of the webpage as it existed in January 2020 is
19 attached as Exhibit I.
20 115. Dr. Cornell and the Cornell PA also blatantly ignored Plaintiffs’ cease
21 and desist emails when they paid for Google Ads using the Penuma Mark. A true and
22 correct copy of an ad for Penuma by Dr. Cornell and/or the Cornell PA is attached as
23 Exhibit E.
24 116. On information and belief, the Google ads were live starting on October
25 20, 2019, and remain live as of the date this Complaint is filed.
26 117. In addition, the Clavell Defendants deliberately mislead visitors to their
27 website that defendant Dr. Clavell is a properly trained and authorized Penuma
28 surgeon. The Clavell Defendants advertise on the website that “[a ventral or cosmetic
27
COMPLAINT
1 phalloplasty] procedure is a simple procedure that can be made in conjunction with

2 penile implant surgery, penis enlargement procedures, such as Penuma, or can be
3 performed on its own.” This statement is misleading and designed to convince visitors
4 to their website to think they could get a Penuma implant in conjunction with a ventral
5 or cosmetic phalloplasty procedure performed by Dr. Clavell. The Clavell Defendants
6 do not have permission to use the Penuma Mark on their website, and they are not
7 authorized to perform Penuma implants. Among other things, the Clavell Defendants’
8 use of the Penuma Mark on their website constitutes trademark infringement. A true
9 and correct copy of the webpage as it existed in March 2020 is attached as Exhibit J.
10 118. Plaintiffs have been, and absent injunctive relief will continue to be,
11 irreparably harmed by Defendants’ actions. Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary and
12 permanent injunction pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1116 restraining and enjoining
13 Defendants and their agents and employees, and all persons acting on their behalf,
14 from using the Penuma Mark in commerce.
15 119. Dr. Cornell, the Cornell PA and the Clavell Defendants’ infringement
16 was intentional, malicious, and in bad faith and has subjected and will continue to
17 subject Plaintiffs to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of Plaintiffs’
18 rights, so as to justify an award of exemplary and punitive damages according to proof
19 at trial.
20 120. Further, this constitutes an exceptional case within the meaning of
21 Section 35 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1117, for which Plaintiffs are entitled to
22 recover their attorneys’ fees.
23 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
24 COUNTERFEIT MARK
25 (15 U.S.C. § 1117)
26 (By All Plaintiffs Against the Cornell Defendants and the Clavell Defendants)
28
COMPLAINT
1 122. The Penuma Mark was registered for implants comprising of natural,
2 non-living material with the USPTO on September 20, 2016.
3 123. The Cornell Defendants intentionally used the Penuma Mark, knowing
4 that it was a counterfeit mark, in connection with offering to sale a penile implant
5 when they purchased Google Ads and when they advertised the product on Dr.
6 Cornell and the Cornell PA’s website. True and correct copies of the website and
7 Google Ads are attached as Exhibits D and E.
8 124. The Clavell Defendants intentionally used the Penuma Mark, knowing
9 that it was a counterfeit mark, in connection with offering cosmetic phalloplasty
10 procedures on their website.
11 125. Because the Cornell Defendants used the Penuma name, the mark they
12 used in their advertisements was identical to the genuine Penuma Mark held by
13 Menova.
14 126. By utilizing the Penuma Mark to direct consumer traffic to the Cornell
15 Defendants’ website and then offer them an implant comprising of natural, non-living
16 material to consumers that is not the Penuma implant, but is instead the Augmenta
17 implant, the Cornell Defendants have violated 15 U.S.C. § 1117.
18 127. Because the Cornell Defendants and Clavell Defendants have utilized a
19 counterfeit mark, Plaintiffs are entitled to treble the actual amount of damages, or
20 statutory damages, at their election.
21 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
22 COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
23 (17 U.S.C. § 501)
24 (By All Plaintiffs Against All the Cornell Defendants)
27
28
29
COMPLAINT
1 129. On or about October 2014, Plaintiffs created a video entitled “Penile

2 Enlargement Implant Surgery Animation Video” (the “Video”) and posted it on
3 YouTube. The Video is protected copyright.
4 130. On or about February 2020, Plaintiffs sent a completed application form,
5 the requisite filing fee, and a copy of the Video to the United States Copyright Office,
6 Case # 1-8530639781. The Video is currently pending a U.S. Copyright Registration
7 Number.
8 131. On information and belief, on or about July 2018, the Cornell Defendants
9 captured a still image from the Video, truncated it to obfuscate its origins, and used it
10 without authorization as an image in the Cornell Defendants’ provisional patent
11 application for the Augmenta implant.
12 132. The Cornell Defendants’ actions constitute copyright infringement. As a
13 direct and proximate result thereof, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from the Cornell
14 Defendants their actual damages as a result of the infringement, as well as any profits
15 of the Cornell Defendants that are attributable to the infringement in an amount
16 according to proof at trial.
17 133. Plaintiffs further are entitled to recover their attorneys’ fees and full costs
18 pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505.
19 134. The Cornell Defendants’ copyright infringement was intentional,
20 malicious, and in bad faith, and has subjected and will continue to subject, Plaintiffs
21 to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights, so as to justify
22 an award of exemplary and punitive damages according to proof at trial.
23 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
24 BREACH OF CONTRACT
25 (By IMD Against Dr. Cornell)
28
30
COMPLAINT
1 136. On March 30, 2018, Dr. Cornell, Dr. Elist, and IMD entered the Penuma
2 NDA, wherein Dr. Cornell agreed to “protect and hold in the strictest confidence the
3 Confidential Information; [] not disclose any Confidential Information to any person
4 or entity, unless required by law or other regulatory authority . . . and [] not use
5 directly or indirectly the Confidential Information for its own benefit or benefit of any
6 other person.” The definition of “Confidential Information” included, among other
7 things, information relating to “past, present, or future products, services, []
8 techniques or technical information and data” regarding Penuma. The definition of
9 Confidential Information thus included, but was not limited to, trade secrets and trade
10 secret information.
11 137. Dr. Cornell had access to Confidential Information from Plaintiffs,
12 including, but not limited to, trade secrets and/or trade secret information. Dr. Cornell
13 then exploited this Confidential Information when he claimed to develop Augmenta
14 and filed for a patent on the product without Plaintiffs’ consent.
15 138. Dr. Cornell breached the Penuma NDA when he used Confidential
16 Information, including, but not limited to, trade secrets and/or trade secret
17 information, to create, develop, and seek patents for the Augmenta implant.
18 139. Dr. Cornell’s breach of the Agreement and use of Confidential
19 Information, including, but not limited to, trade secrets and/or trade secret
20 information, has caused, and will continue to cause, damage to the Plaintiffs in an
21 amount to be proven at trial.
22 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
23 BREACH OF COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING
24 (By IMD Against Dr. Cornell)
27 141. IMD, Dr. Elist, and Dr. Cornell entered into the Penuma NDA, an
28 agreement with an effective date of March 30, 2018.
31
COMPLAINT
1 142. The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is implied into all
2 contracts under California law. That covenant obligated Dr. Cornell to perform the
3 terms and conditions of the Penuma NDA fairly and in good faith, and to refrain from
4 doing any act that would deprive Plaintiffs of the benefits of the contract.
5 143. Dr. Cornell breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing implied
6 into the Penuma NDA by using Plaintiff’s Confidential Information, including, but
7 not limited to, trade secrets and/or trade secret information to build Augmenta.
8 144. Dr. Cornell’s breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
9 dealing and use of Plaintiff’s Confidential Information has caused, and will continue
10 to cause, damage to Plaintiffs.
11 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
12 UNFAIR COMPETITION
13 (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200)
17 146. The Cornell Defendants’ conduct alleged herein, including, but not
18 limited to, their misappropriation of Plaintiffs’ trade secrets and infringement on
19 Plaintiffs’ copyrights and trademarks, lying under penalty of perjury to the USPTO,
20 and Dr. Cornell’s false and fictitious advertising of himself as a surgeon authorized
21 to perform the Penuma procedure in order to divert business from Plaintiffs to himself
22 and Augmenta, constitutes unfair, unlawful, and/or fraudulent business acts and
23 practices under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 because such acts are forbidden by
24 various state and federal laws and are unscrupulous, unfair, and injurious to Plaintiffs.
25 147. As a proximate result of the Cornell Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs have
26 suffered and will continue to suffer actual damages, and the Cornell Defendants will
27 be unjustly enriched, in sums not yet ascertained. Plaintiffs also suffered and will
28
32
COMPLAINT
1 continue to suffer immediate and irreparable harm, which will continue until the
2 Cornell Defendants’ misconduct is preliminarily and permanently enjoined.
3 NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
4 DECLARATORY RELIEF
8 149. The ‘413 Patent was granted was because the Cornell Defendants used
9 Plaintiffs’ trade secret information to mislead the USPTO to believing the inventors
10 discovered something novel but in fact, the inventive materials were stolen from
11 Plaintiffs.
12 150. The ‘413 Patent lists Dr. Cornell, Hans Mische, and David Nichols as
13 inventors. In fact, none of these individuals invented anything that was the basis for
14 the issuance of the ‘413 Patent. Accordingly, the ‘413 Patent should be declared
15 unenforceable and/or invalid in its entirety.
16 151. Because the ‘413 Patent was granted solely on the basis of Plaintiffs’
17 intellectual property, trade secrets, and trade secret information, the Court should
18 declare that the true and sole inventor, and the only assignee, of Patent No. US
19 10,413,413 B1 is Dr. Elist.
20 152. Alternatively, because the ‘413 Patent contains no new novel invention
21 by the named inventors, excludes any true inventor, and is solely derivative of Dr.
22 Elist’s intellectual property, trade secrets, and trade secret information, the Court
23 should declare the ‘413 Patent is unenforceable and/or invalid in its entirety.
24 153. The Cornell Defendants’ pending ‘821 Application is a purported
25 invention comprising of Dr. Elist’s trade secrets and intellectual property. The named
26 inventors Dr. Cornell, Hans Mische, and David Nichols did not conceive nor reduced
27 to practice the subject matter of the ‘821 Application. Accordingly, as with the ‘413
28
33
COMPLAINT
1 Patent, the Court should declare that Dr. Elist is the true and sole inventor of the ‘821
2 Application.
3 154. Alternatively, the Court should declare the ‘821 Application voided.
4
5 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
6 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment as follows:
7 1. For an injunction restraining and enjoining the Cornell Defendants, their
8 agents, employees, and all other persons acting in concert or participating with them:
9 a. From disclosing or using any proprietary, confidential, or trade
10 secret information obtained from Plaintiffs;
11 b. From using in commerce the Penuma Mark;
12 c. From representing by any means whatsoever that Augmenta is
13 associated with Plaintiffs, and from otherwise acting in a way
14 likely to cause confusion, mistake, or deception on the part of
15 consumers as to the origin or sponsorship of such products;
16 d. From doing any other acts or things calculated or likely to cause
17 confusion or mistake in the minds of the consuming public or to
18 lead consumers to believe that Augmenta comes from Plaintiffs or
19 is somehow sponsored or licensed by, or associated with or
20 affiliated with, Plaintiffs or Penuma;
21 e. From making any false or misleading statements in connection
22 with Augmenta;
23 f. From otherwise unfairly competing with Plaintiffs;
24 g. To return all proprietary, confidential, and trade secret
25 information and other property misappropriated or otherwise
26 obtained from Plaintiffs; and
27 h. From commercializing, or in any other manner, marketing,
28 developing, promoting, and/or profiting from Plaintiffs’
34
COMPLAINT
1 proprietary, confidential, and trade secret information, including

2 the ’413 Patent and the ‘821 Application.
3 i. From pursuing any domestic or international patent applications
4 that involve Plaintiffs’ proprietary, confidential, or trade secret
5 information, and to withdraw any such applications currently in
6 process, including the ‘821 Application;
7 2. For a declaration that Dr. Elist is the true and sole inventor, and the only
8 assignee, of the ‘413 Patent and ‘821 Application or, alternatively, that the ’413 Patent
9 and the ‘821 Application are invalid;
10 3. For compensatory and consequential damages permitted by law
11 according to proof;
12 4. For restitution for unjust enrichment according to proof;
13 5. For punitive and exemplary damages according to proof;
14 6. For statutory damages where authorized and according to proof;
15 7. For prejudgment interest at the maximum legal rate;
16 8. For costs of suit;
17 9. For attorneys’ fees as provided by statute or agreement; and
18 10. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
19
20 Dated: April 15, 2020 BAKER MARQUART LLP
21 By: /s/ Ryan G. Baker

22 Ryan G. Baker
Attorneys for Plaintiffs,
23 INTERNATIONAL MEDICAL DEVICES,
24 MENOVA, and DR. ELIST
25
26
27
28
35
COMPLAINT
1 REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL

2 Plaintiffs hereby request a trial by jury.
3
4 Dated: April 15, 2020 BAKER MARQUART LLP
5 By: /s/ Ryan G. Baker

6 Ryan G. Baker
Attorneys for Plaintiffs,
7 INTERNATIONAL MEDICAL DEVICES,
8 MENOVA, and DR. ELIST
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
36
COMPLAINT
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT C
Reg. No. 5,044,348 Menova International, Inc (CALIFORNIA CORPORATION)

8500 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 707
Registered Sep. 20, 2016 Beverly Hills, CA 90211
CLASS 10: Implants comprising natural, non-living materials

Int. Cl.: 10
FIRST USE 1-1-2016; IN COMMERCE 1-7-2016
Trademark
THE MARK CONSISTS OF STANDARD CHARACTERS WITHOUT CLAIM TO ANY
Principal Register PARTICULAR FONT STYLE, SIZE OR COLOR
The wording "PENUMA" has no meaning in a foreign language.
SER. NO. 86-870,784, FILED 01-10-2016

WILLIAM H DAWE III, EXAMINING ATTORNEY
REQUIREMENTS TO MAINTAIN YOUR FEDERAL TRADEMARK REGISTRATION
WARNING: YOUR REGISTRATION WILL BE CANCELLED IF YOU DO NOT FILE THE

DOCUMENTS BELOW DURING THE SPECIFIED TIME PERIODS.
Requirements in the First Ten Years*

What and When to File:
First Filing Deadline: You must file a Declaration of Use (or Excusable Nonuse) between the 5th and 6th
years after the registration date. See 15 U.S.C. §§1058, 1141k. If the declaration is accepted, the
registration will continue in force for the remainder of the ten-year period, calculated from the registration
date, unless cancelled by an order of the Commissioner for Trademarks or a federal court.
Second Filing Deadline: You must file a Declaration of Use (or Excusable Nonuse) and an Application
for Renewal between the 9th and 10th years after the registration date.* See 15 U.S.C. §1059.
Requirements in Successive Ten-Year Periods*

What and When to File:
You must file a Declaration of Use (or Excusable Nonuse) and an Application for Renewal
between every 9th and 10th-year period, calculated from the registration date.*
Grace Period Filings*
The above documents will be accepted as timely if filed within six months after the deadlines listed above with
the payment of an additional fee.
*ATTENTION MADRID PROTOCOL REGISTRANTS: The holder of an international registration with an

extension of protection to the United States under the Madrid Protocol must timely file the Declarations of Use
(or Excusable Nonuse) referenced above directly with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).
The time periods for filing are based on the U.S. registration date (not the international registration date). The
deadlines and grace periods for the Declarations of Use (or Excusable Nonuse) are identical to those for
nationally issued registrations. See 15 U.S.C. §§1058, 1141k. However, owners of international registrations
do not file renewal applications at the USPTO. Instead, the holder must file a renewal of the underlying
international registration at the International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organization, under
Article 7 of the Madrid Protocol, before the expiration of each ten-year term of protection, calculated from the
date of the international registration. See 15 U.S.C. §1141j. For more information and renewal forms for the
international registration, see http://www.wipo.int/madrid/en/.
NOTE: Fees and requirements for maintaining registrations are subject to change. Please check the
USPTO website for further information. With the exception of renewal applications for registered
extensions of protection, you can file the registration maintenance documents referenced above online at h
ttp://www.uspto.gov.
NOTE: A courtesy e-mail reminder of USPTO maintenance filing deadlines will be sent to trademark
owners/holders who authorize e-mail communication and maintain a current e-mail address with the
USPTO. To ensure that e-mail is authorized and your address is current, please use the Trademark
Electronic Application System (TEAS) Correspondence Address and Change of Owner Address Forms
available at http://www.uspto.gov.
Page: 2 of 2 / RN # 5044348
1/15/2020 Case 2:20-cv-03503 Document 1Trademark
Filed Electronic
04/15/20 SearchPage
System228
(TESS)
of 266 Page ID #:228
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Home|Site Index|Search|FAQ|Glossary|Guides|Contacts|eBusiness|eBiz alerts|News|Help
Trademarks > Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS)
TESS was last updated on Wed Jan 15 04:13:44 EST 2020
Logout Please logout when you are done to release system resources allocated for you.
Record 1 out of 1
( Use the "Back" button of the Internet Browser to return to

TESS)
Word Mark PENUMA

Translations The wording "PENUMA" has no meaning in a foreign language.
Goods and Services IC 010. US 026 039 044. G & S: Implants comprising natural, non-living materials. FIRST USE:
20160101. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20160107
Standard Characters
Claimed
Mark Drawing Code (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
Serial Number 86870784
Filing Date January 10, 2016
Current Basis 1A
Original Filing Basis 1A
Published for
July 5, 2016
Opposition
Registration Number 5044348
International
1367771
Registration Number
Registration Date September 20, 2016
Owner (REGISTRANT) Menova International, Inc CORPORATION CALIFORNIA 8500 Wilshire Blvd, Suite
707 Beverly Hills CALIFORNIA 90211
Type of Mark TRADEMARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE
|.HOME | SITE INDEX| SEARCH | eBUSINESS | HELP | PRIVACY POLICY
tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4804:xdpxix.2.1 1/1
EXHIBIT D
EXHIBIT D
EXHIBIT E
EXHIBIT E
EXHIBIT F
EXHIBIT F
! ! " " #$%&'()*+,-./
%*00489&&1-."#/01:"471/06/#0'
!"#$%&' ( )*+$,-."#/01$%&)*+2,-."#/013#4356*0"7'
) ;$,<=>?@A,
,-."#/01$B"471/0
:';<=;&>?'@&:AB=
>$+&*C1-&1C0$31-3D.-+E&1C4(-3C,&FCG&*.4+&+,$.,D+*+,-5
'()*+,-.&31&.&)4CH.4&3,,CI.-3C,&3,&*.4+&DC1*+-3D&1(G)+G%5
!
$--012!!.()*+,-.3*04.,-5,+-!#$%6'()*+,-.7+0785$-*4 9!99
! ! " " #$%&'()*+,-./
J ; = '> = K & L M & > ? = & # N ; : K O P & Q N P >

'JJNQR:AP?=K&R;NP>?=>AJ&S;N:N<AP>P5
'()*+,-.&$.1&H++,&E+13),+E&.,E&0+GF+D-+E&H%&*.,%&CF&-$+&*C1-&.DDC*0431$+E&0GC1-$+-3D
(GC4C)31-1&3,&-$+&TCG4EU&-G(4%&G+IC4(-3C,3V3,)&*.4+&+,$.,D+*+,-&1(G)+G%5
$--012!!.()*+,-.3*04.,-5,+-!#$%6'()*+,-.7+0785$-*4 !99
! ! " " #$%&'()*+,-./
L'JX=K&LM&>?=&L=P>
'()*+,-.&31&.&)GC(,EHG+.Y3,)U&$%EGC0$3443D6DC.-+EU&1343DC,+&0+,34+&3*04.,-&FCG&*.4+&DC1*+-3D
+,$.,D+*+,-&E+13),+E&.,E&0.-+,-+E&H%&4+.E3,)&0GC1-$+-3D&(GC4C)31-&KG5&;CH+G-&Z5&JCG,+44&3,
?C(1-C,U&>+[.15
$--012!!.()*+,-.3*04.,-5,+-!#$%6'()*+,-.7+0785$-*4 W!99
! ! " " #$%&'()*+,-./
;=]N:S>AN@';M&R;NJ=KS;=U
&
T$34+&1.F+4%&G+I+G13H4+U&31&3,-+,E+E&.1&.&43F+64C,)&.,E&.H1C4(-+4%&43F+6D$.,)3,)&1C4(-3C,&FCG&*+,
T$C&T.,-&-C&+,$.,D+&-$+3G&*.,$CCE&-C&-$+3G&1.-31F.D-3C,5
$--012!!.()*+,-.3*04.,-5,+-!#$%6'()*+,-.7+0785$-*4 \!99
! ! " " #$%&'()*+,-./
K=PA<@=K&>N&L=&>?=&P'B=P>&R=@A:=
AQR:'@> A@ >?= #N;:K
>CC&*.,%&*+,&$.I+&+[0+G3+,D+E&(,T.,-+E&13E+6+FF+D-1&FGC*&0CCG&3*04.,-&E+13),&CG&(,G+43.H4+
.,E&(,,.-(G.4&H(4Y3,)&.)+,-&3,_+D-3C,15&'()*+,-.&31&10+D3F3D.44%&E+13),+E&-C&.IC3E&-$+1+
0GCH4+*15
$--012!!.()*+,-.3*04.,-5,+-!#$%6'()*+,-.7+0785$-*4 ^!99
! ! " " #$%&'()*+,-./
P'B= a =BB=J>A]=
'()*+,-.&$.1&H++,&10+D3F3D.44%&E+13),+E&-C&H+&-$+&1.F+1-&.,E&*C1-&,.-(G.4&1C4(-3C,&FCG&0+,34+
+,$.,D+*+,-&.,E&31&-G.,1FCG*3,)&-$+&TCG4E&CF&DC1*+-3D&(GC4C)%5
'&0G3*.G%&*C-3I.-3C,&FCG&KG5&JCG,+44&T$+,&E+13),3,)&'()*+,-.&T.1&-C&3*0GCI+&(0C,&-$+&1.F+-%
CF&C-$+G&-G+.-*+,-1&C,&-$+&*.GY+-5
'()*+,-.&31&E+13),+E&-C&+43*3,.-+&-$+&D$.,D+1&CF&-$+&(,T.,-+E&13E+6+FF+D-1&CF&3,F+D-3C,U&0.3,U
(,,.-(G.4&4CCY&.,E&F++4U&.1&T+44&.1&-$+&,++E&FCG&*(4-304+&0GCD+E(G+15
$--012!!.()*+,-.3*04.,-5,+-!#$%6'()*+,-.7+0785$-*4 `!99
! ! " " #$%&'()*+,-./
S @ R' ; ' : : = : = K & B : = b A L A : A > M & ' @ K

JNQBN;>
'()*+,-.&.44CT1&FCG&-$+&*C1-&,.-(G.4&*.4+&+,$.,D+*+,-&0C113H4+&T3-$C(-&DC*0GC*313,)
*CI+*+,-&CG&F(,D-3C,5
PC*+-$3,)&C-$+G&E+I3D+1&D.,O-&EC5&&#+&D.44&3-&c>$+'()*+,-.=FF+D-5
$--012!!.()*+,-.3*04.,-5,+-!#$%6'()*+,-.7+0785$-*4 8!99
! ! " " #$%&'()*+,-./
JNQBN;>&a&B:=bALA:A>M
'()*+,-.&4+,)-$+,1&-$+&F4.DD3E&0+,31&T$34+&1-344&0+G*3--3,)&F(G-$+G&+4C,).-3C,&T3-$&%C(G&,CG*.4
+G+D-3C,5&'-&-$+&1.*+&-3*+U&-$+&3*04.,-&+,$.,D+1&HC-$&F4.DD3E&.,E&+G+D-&0+,34+&)3G-$&e&43-+G.44%&-C
%C(G&10+D3F3D.-3C,&e&.44&T3-$C(-&DC*0GC*313,)&-$+&,.-(G.4&F4+[3H343-%&.,E&DC*0G+113H343-%&CF&%C(G
,C,6+G+D-&0+,315&@C&C-$+G&3*04.,-&3,&-$+&TCG4E&EC+1&-$31&.1&,.-(G.44%5
'()*+,-.&31&-$+&F3G1-&3*04.,-&-C&.D$3+I+&.&F4+[3H4+ !"#$%&'( &))&*(&-$GC()$C(-&3-1&1-G(D-(G+&f&.

F+.-(G+&T$3D$&1+0.G.-+1&3-&,C-&C,4%&FGC*&+.G43+G&0+,34+&3*04.,-1&CF&.44&Y3,E1U&H(-&FGC*&.44&C-$+G
3*04.,-1U&0+G3CE5
$--012!!.()*+,-.3*04.,-5,+-!#$%6'()*+,-.7+0785$-*4 d!99
! ! " " #$%&'()*+,-./
; = P S :> P & N @ :M & N S ; & > = J ? @ N : N < M

J'@&'J?A=]=5
#+4DC*+&-C&-$+&F(-(G+5&'()*+,-.&31&-$+&F3G1-&3*04.,-&-C&.D$3+I+&.&F4+[3H4+&)G.E3+,-&+FF+D-
-$GC()$C(-&3-1&1-G(D-(G+U&DG+.-3,)&.&,.-(G.4U&E%,.*3D&+,$.,D+*+,-&-$.-&%C(O44&+,_C%&FCG&.&43F+-3*+5
$--012!!.()*+,-.3*04.,-5,+-!#$%6'()*+,-.7+0785$-*4 g!99
! ! " " #$%&'()*+,-./
@ = b >6 < = @ = ; '> A N @ & > = J ? @ N : N < M

'()*+,-.&31&43)$-+G&.,E&1CF-+G&-$.,&.,%&C-$+G&DC1*+-3D&0+,34+&3*04.,-&.I.34.H4+5&S,43Y+&-$+&G3)3EU
(,,.-(G.4&1343DC,+&(1+E&3,&C-$+G&0+,34+&3*04.,-1U&'()*+,-.h1&1CF-&.,E&F4+[3H4+&?C,+%DC*H
-+D$,C4C)%&0GCE(D+1&.&DC*FCG-.H4+&.,E&,.-(G.4&4CCY&.,E&F++4&-$.-&31&-G(4%&C,+6CF6.6Y3,E5
'()*+,-.&.41C&(-343V+1&.,&3,,CI.-3I+U&E31DG++-U&.,E&1+D(G+&1(G)3D.4&.00GC.D$&-$.-&G+1(4-1&3,&.
,+.G4%&3,I313H4+&1D.G&(,E+G,+.-$&-$+&0+,31&T3-$C(-&.,&.HEC*3,.4&3,D313C,&CG&-$+&,++E&FCG&.
1(G)3D.4&EG.3,5
'()*+,-.&-G(4%&31&-$+&@+[-&<+,+G.-3C,&Q.4+&A*04.,-5
! "
!""#$%&
6 !""#$%&
&'''()*+,-../(+.0&1230,4"*50#
6 !""#$%&
&"'7"",8(+.0&19:;<=>170#?*
&'''(74$"*38*0(+.0&*230
@*3,$ #$
$--012!!.()*+,-.3*04.,-5,+-!#$%6'()*+,-.7+0785$-*4 9"!99
! ! " " #$%&'()*+,-./
!"#$%&'()*+*+),-&./0(1)2."310(4),33)5%&'(6)5/6/$7/84)9#):8;1$()/ !../$;/)</9)6%(/)8/6%&0
='(("6>??@@@4:8;1$(4;!.?/;!../$;/A@/9A8/6%&04'(.B4
$--012!!.()*+,-.3*04.,-5,+-!#$%6'()*+,-.7+0785$-*4 99!99
! ! " " #$%&'%()*+,-./%0,1'%.)23(.
%122-45&&678"#926:"-369209#2'
!"#$%&' ( )*+$%&)*+,#-,./012"3'
)*+
?47),2.,)4%,$%@3A%$+,)29%B
C3',.43'*0,%D5%@),<E,)3,F ,43'$.,3G,02.@39G3$),7(0,H%,5$%57$%0,)3,92..,.%A%$7*,07+.,3G,I3$/:
J%8'*7$,(3(K.%D'7*,7@)2A2)+,@7(,H%,$%.'9%0,I2)42(,3(%,I%%/L,7(0,%D%$@2.%,@7(,H%,$%.'9%0
7G)%$,)I3,I%%/.
-G)%$,-'89%()7,.'$8%$+L,I4%(,@7(,M,47A%,2()%$@3'$.%B
M(,93.),@7.%.L,.%D'7*,2()%$@3'$.%,@7(,H%,$%.'9%0,7G)%$,+3'$,N,I%%/,53.)35%$7)2A%,A2.2):,,O39%
57)2%().,I43,7$%,7),$2./,G3$,0%*7+%0,I3'(0,4%7*2(8L,2(@*'02(8,@%$)72(,5%35*%,I2)4,027H%)%.,7(0
)3H7@@3,'.%$.L,97+,$%&'2$%,93$%,)29%,H%G3$%,)4%+,@7(,.7G%*+,$%.'9%,2()%$@3'$.%:
?47),7$%,)4%,53)%()27*,.20%,%GG%@).,3G,)4%,5$3@%0'$%B
-*)43'84,7**,5$3@%0'$%.,47A%,53)%()27*,.20%,%GG%@).L,)4%,93.),.%$23'.,.20%K%GG%@),3G,295*7()
.'$8%$+,2.,2(G%@)23(:,P)4%$L,(3(K7()2H23)2@,@37)%0,@3.9%)2@,5%(2*%,295*7().,47A%,$%53$)%0,7
= :NQ,@395*2@7)23(,$7)%,I2)4,>:>Q,3G,)4%.%,@395*2@7)23(.,H%2(8,2(G%@)23(:,R4%.%,2(G%@)23(.
3G)%(,$%&'2$%,7,$%5%7),5$3@%0'$%,G3$,0%A2@%,$%93A7*:,,-'89%()7L,H+,@3()$7.)L,53..%..,7,'(2&'%
4+0$3542*2@,@37)2(8,)47),7**3I.,2),)3,H%,@37)%0,2(,7,@'.)39,7()2H23)2@,G3$9'*7,5$23$,)3,5*7@%9%():
,M(,)4%,47(0.,3G,%D5%$2%(@%0,5$3.)4%)2@,.'$8%3(.L,2(G%@)23(.,3@@'$,2(,755$3D297)%*+,=,)3,
5%$@%(),3G,7()2H23)2@K@37)%0,5%(2*%,295*7().,5*7@%0,)3,@3$$%@),%$%@)2*%,0+.G'(@)23(:,R42.L,43I%A%$L
2.,7(,3*0%$,57)2%(),535'*7)23(,)47),3G)%(,47.,@395*2@7)2(8,9%02@7*,@3(02)23(.,.'@4,7.,027H%)%.L
4+5%$)%(.23(L,7(0,4284,@43*%.)%$3*,K,7**,3G,I42@4,2(@$%7.%,)4%2$,$2./,3G
2(G%@)23(:,S7(+,-'89%()7,57)2%().,I2**,H%,+3'(8%$,7(0,4%7*)42%$T,)4%$%G3$%L,I%,%D5%@)
-'89%()7U.,2(G%@)23(,$7)%.,)3,H%,.28(2G2@7()*+,*3I%$,)47(,7(+,3)4%$,)+5%,3G,5%(2*%,295*7():,
V3I,9'@4,572(,@7(,M,%D5%@),7G)%$,)4%,5$3@%0'$%B
J7$%*+L,I4%(,8%(2)7*,.'553$),7(0,2@%,57@/,755*2@7)23(,7$%,2(.'GG2@2%()L,3A%$K)4%K@3'()%$,WD)$7
O)$%(8)4,R+*%(3*,3$,5$%.@$25)23(,9%02@7)23(.,.'@4,7.,R$79703*,7(0,X7H75%()2(,@7(,H%,'.%0,)3
%GG%@)2A%*+,@3()$3*,7(+,02.@39G3$):
4))5.6!!7'89%()7295*7():(%)!#-1;%5;<=:4)9* =!>
! ! " " #$%&'%()*+,-./%0,1'%.)23(.
V3I,*3(8,03%.,)4%,5$3@%0'$%,)7/%B
-'89%()7,2.,7(,3')57)2%(),5$3@%0'$%,5%$G3$9%0,'(0%$,8%(%$7*,7(%.)4%.27,)4$3'84,7,.2(8*%L
.97**,35%(2(8,2(,)4%,./2(,7(0,2.,%D5%@)%0,)3,)7/%,*%..,)47(,7(,43'$:,,M(,97(+,2(.)7(@%.L,)4%
%()2$%,5$3@%0'$%,@7(,)7/%,3(*+,>",92(')%.Y
V3I,9'@4,03%.,2),@3.)B
)4%,@3.),I2**,A7$+,793(8,.'$8%3(.,H%@7'.%,3G,02GG%$%(@%.,2(,)4%,G7@2*2)+,G%%.,793(8,A7$23'.
.'$8%$+,@%()%$.,3$,43.52)7*.:,,R4%,0%A2@%,2.,5$2@%0L,43I%A%$L,.3,%7@4,57)2%(),@7(,%D5%@),)3,57+
7H3'),Z=<L""",)3,Z=[L""",G3$,7**,%D5%(.%.:,,J%&'%.).,G3$,\@'.)39\,295*7().,3G,'(@3993(,.2]%.
I2**,@3.),755$3D297)%*+,Z "L""":
?2**,)4%,-'89%()7,0%A2@%,97/%,9+,5%(2.,H288%$B
-H.3*')%*+Y,-'89%()7,2(@$%7.%.,H3)4,)4%,82$)4,7(0,G*7@@20,*%(8)4,3G,)4%,5%(2.:,,M),97+,7*.3
2(@$%7.%,)4%,%$%@),*%(8)4,3G,)4%,5%(2.,2(,.39%,9%(L,7*)43'84,)42.,%GG%@),2.,93$%,A7$27H*%:,,R4%
-'89%()7,2.,3GG%$%0,2(,*%(8)4.,7(0,2()%$(7*,@2$@'9G%$%(@%,)3,.5%@2G2@7**+,G2),+3'$,H30+L,%7@4,I2)4
7,82$)4,%(47(@%9%(),H%)I%%(,>"Q,)3,>[Q:,,O43'*0,+3',0%.2$%,7,02GG%$%(),0%8$%%,3G
%(47(@%9%()L,7,@'.)392]%0,-'89%()7,M95*7(),@7(,H%,970%,)3,+3'$,.7)2.G7@)23(:
?2**,)4%,-'89%()7,7*)%$,5%(2*%,.%(.7)23(B
-'89%()7,47.,H%%(,0%.28(%0,)3,92(292]%,@3()7@),I2)4,(%$A%.,$%.53(.2H*%,G3$,5%(2*%,.%(.7)23(:
,^3,.')'$%.,7$%,5*7@%0,(%7$,)42.,_07(8%$,]3(%\,7(0,)4%,295*7(),47.,H%%(,5'$53.%G'**+,0%.28(%0
)3,7A320,@3()7@),I2)4,)4%.%,.)$'@)'$%.:,-'89%()7,2.,7,.3G)L,G*%D2H*%,7(0,)75%$%0
.2*2@3(%,295*7(),@37)%0,I2)4,7,.5%@27*2]%0,4+0$3542*2@L,H7@)%$27*K$%.2.)7(),@37)2(8,'(2&'%,)3,7(+
3)4%$,@3.9%)2@,5%(2*%,295*7():,,-'89%()7,2.,0%.28(%0,)3,*33/,7(0,G%%*,H3)4,(7)'$7*,7(0
@39G3$)7H*%:,M),.43'*0,(3),7*)%$,)4%,&'7*2)+,3G,+3'$,%$%@)23(,3$,5%(2*%,.%(.7)23(,0'$2(8,.%D'7*
7@)2A2)+,3$,7),$%.):,
?2**,)42.,5$3@%0'$%,7GG%@),9+,7H2*2)+,)3,7(,%$%@)23(B
-H.3*')%*+,(3):,,M(,G7@)L,.43'*0,7,57)2%(),I43,$%@%2A%.,7(,-'89%()7,@3.9%)2@,295*7(),0%A%*35
%$%@)2*%,0+.G'(@)23(,G3$,'($%*7)%0,$%7.3(.,*7)%$,2(,*2G%L,4%,@7(,.)2**,.7G%*+,$%@%2A%,7(,2(G*7)7H*%
5%(2*%,295*7():,,M(G*7)7H*%,5%(2*%,295*7().,7$%,@3(.20%$%0,)3,H%,)4%,83*0K.)7(07$0,)$%7)9%(),3G
4))5.6!!7'89%()7295*7():(%)!#-1;%5;<=:4)9* !>
! ! " " Case 2:20-cv-03503 Document 1 Filed #$%&'%()*+,-./%0,1'%.)23(.
04/15/20 Page 251 of 266 Page ID #:251
%$%@)2*%,0+.G'(@)23(,7(0L,I4%(,@39H2(%0,I2)4,-'89%()7L,3GG%$,)4%,@47(@%,G3$,*2G%K*3(8,7(0
%(47(@%0,.%D'7*,G'(@)23(:
?47),2G,M`9,(3),.7)2.G2%0,I2)4,)4%,@3.9%)2@,$%.'*)B
-'89%()7,47.,H%%(,0%.28(%0,)3,7**3I,G3$,.7G%,$%93A7*,I2)4,92(297*,$2./,)3,%$%@)2*%,G'(@)23(L
'$2(7)23(L,5%(2*%,.%(.7)23(L,7(0,@3.9%)2@,755%$7(@%:
M.,-'89%()7,%D5%@)%0,)3,H%,7,5%$97(%(),.3*')23(B
MG,+3',7$%,4755+,I2)4,)4%,@3.9%)2@,$%.'*),3G,+3'$,5$3@%0'$%L,+3',@7(,%D5%@),+3'$,-'89%()7
M95*7(),)3,*7.),7,*2G%)29%,I2)43'),)4%,(%%0,G3$,.'$82@7*,$%A2.23(:
-$%,)4%$%,7(+,9%)7*,@3953(%().,)47),9284),5$%*'0%,$%@%2A2(8
7(,SJM,3$,57..2(8,'(02.)'$H%0,)4$3'84,72$53$),.%@'$2)+B
a395$2.%0,%()2$%*+,3G,295*7()K8$70%,.2*2@3(%,7(0,%9H%00%0,53*+%.)%$,9%.4L,-'89%()7,47.
H%%(,%(82(%%$%0,)3,H%,7.,02.@$%%),7.,2),2.,%GG%@)2A%:,,R4%$%,7$%,(3,9%)7*,@3953(%().,)3
@395*2@7)%,7(+,SJM,.)'0+,3$,.3'(0,7(+,7*7$9.,7),)4%,72$53$):::,3$,7(+I4%$%,%*.%,G3$,)47),97))%$:
! "
!""#$%&
6 !""#$%&
&'''()*+,-../(+.0&1230,4"*50#
6 !""#$%&
&"'7"",8(+.0&19:;<=>170#?*
&'''(74$"*38*0(+.0&*230
@*3,$ #
!"#$%&'()*+*+),-&./0(1)2."310(4),33)5%&'(6)5/6/$7/84)9#):8;1$()/ !../$;/)</9)6%(/)8/6%&0
='(("6>??@@@4:8;1$(4;!.?/;!../$;/A@/9A8/6%&04'(.B4
4))5.6!!7'89%()7295*7():(%)!#-1;%5;<=:4)9* >!>
EXHIBIT G
EXHIBIT G
10/22/2019 Case 2:20-cv-03503 Document 1Gmail - Unauthorized
Filed 04/15/20 Penuma Advertisement
Page 253 of 266 Page ID #:253
Jonathan Elist <jonathan.elist@gmail.com>
Unauthorized Penuma Advertisement

Jonathan Elist <jelist@intlmeddevices.com> Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 7:14 PM
To: drcornell@urosurgeryhouston.com
Cc: James Elist <drelist@drelist.com>
Dear Dr. Cornell:
I hope you are well.
I'm contacting you today regarding the unauthorized Penuma advertisement on your website (https://www.
urosurgeryhouston.com/services/penuma-penile-enhancement). We were surprised, disappointed, and dismayed to see
this page.
While we appreciate your enthusiasm for this new therapy, your unauthorized use of our trademark and your unauthorized
advertising could significantly compromise our planned efforts and could result in legal liability not only for you, but also
for International Medical Devices. Moreover, some of the claims you make regarding Penuma on the site are inaccurate.
Finally, the patient scheduling tool on the page only creates confusion for patients regarding the potential timing of any
roll-out.
Overall, neither the use of the trademark nor permission to advertise Penuma nor the accuracy of the claims made nor
the timing of when Penuma may be offered in your clinic were discussed with International Medical Devices in advance.
This is unacceptable to us.
We therefore demand that you immediately take down any Penuma-related content from your website (in no case later
than Wednesday, June 27) and that you cease and desist from posting any future Penuma-related content on your
website or elsewhere or from making any representations regarding Penuma, International Medical Devices, or your
standing and/or relationship with the same until you are specifically authorized to do so in writing by International Medical
Devices. Failure to comply with the foregoing demand will leave us with no alternative but to refer this matter to our legal
counsel.
Please confirm receipt of this letter at your earliest convenience, and please let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you,
Jon
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=942ff2a60d&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a%3As%3A5585317383924398576&simpl=msg-a%3As%3A5… 1/1
EXHIBIT H
EXHIBIT H
EXHIBIT I
EXHIBIT I
1/15/2020 Ventral Phalloplasty
Case 2:20-cv-03503 Document Genital1Contouring Specialist - Houston,
Filed 04/15/20 Page TX:258
Robertof
J Cornell,
266 MD, PA: Urologist
Page ID #:258
 
Home Meet Dr. Cornell Services Blog Forms Concierge Testimonials Contact
Map Book Online
 Ventral Phalloplasty Genital

 Contouring Specialist
In some cases, a man’s scrotum can cover part of the underside of the penis,
making it look smaller than it is. Dr. Robert J. Cornell offers ventral phalloplasty
genital contouring procedures at his Houston office that help correct this aesthetic
issue, giving you the appearance of a larger penis. Ventral phalloplasty procedures
offer permanent cosmetic results with a high success rate. If you’re unhappy with
Robert J Cornell, MD, PA
Urologist located in Houston, TX the appearance of your scrotal skin and penis, call or schedule a consultation with
Dr. Cornell online to learn more.
 281-607-5300 BOOK ONLINE
Robert J Cornell, MD, PA  Ventral Phalloplasty Genital Contouring Like 0 Share Tweet Save
Ventral Phalloplasty Genital Contouring Q & A

What is ventral phalloplasty genital contouring?
Ventral phalloplasty is a surgical genital contouring procedure that can give you the visual impression of a larger penis. When your
scrotal skin attaches to the underside of your penis shaft, it can form a triangle-shaped flap that covers part of your penis, making it
look smaller. With ventral phalloplasty, Dr. Cornell surgically removes excess scrotum skin.
This cosmetic procedure can improve the look of your penis and help boost your self-confidence with a penis that appears larger and
better-looking scrotum.
Ventral phalloplasty genital contouring is a technically simple procedure that Dr. Cornell often performs in conjunction with Penuma
penile enhancement surgery to increase penile length or girth. However, Dr. Cornell also offers standalone ventral phalloplasty
procedures in some cases.
How does ventral phalloplasty genital contouring work?

First, during a consultation visit, Dr. Cornell reviews your medical history and performs a thorough physical exam to make sure you are
a good candidate for a ventral phalloplasty.
During the procedure, Dr. Cornell prepares the treatment area with shaving and standard skin preparatory techniques using an
https://www.urosurgeryhouston.com/services/ventral-phalloplasty-genital-contouring 1/3
Robertof
J Cornell,
Page ID #:259
 
Home Meet Dr. Cornell Services Blog Forms Concierge Testimonials Contact
Map Book Online
alcohol-based topical solution. You are put under anesthesia for the duration of your surgery.
He holds your scrotal skin taut and makes a checkmark-shaped incision on the frontal scrotal skin near the shaft of your penis. He
then uses special surgical tools to remove some of the scrotal skin outlined by the incision and stitches up the resulting wound
carefully.
Is ventral phalloplasty genital contouring safe?

Dr. Cornell provides safe ventral phalloplasty with minimal chance of risk or side effects. However, as is the case with any surgical
procedure, you may experience complications, like an infection at the incision site or problems with anesthesia. If you experience more
serious side effects, which are very rare after ventral phalloplasty, let the office know right away.
During your pre-operative visits, Dr. Cornell can answer all of your questions and address any concerns you might have about the
procedure. To schedule your consultation with Dr. Cornell and discuss ventral phalloplasty genital contouring, call or use the online
booking tool today.
BOOK ONLINE
Insurance
If you have any questions regarding insurance providers,

please call our office.
View full list of companies
Robertof
J Cornell,
Page ID #:260
LOCATION OFFICE HOURS GET IN TOUCH
 
Cornell,Meet
RobertHome MD, Dr.
PA Cornell Services Blog Forms
Monday Concierge Testimonials
8:30 am - 5:00 pm Contact
Map Book Online
 281-607-5300
1315 St. Joseph Parkway, Suite 1700 Tuesday 8:30 am - 5:00 pm
Houston, TX 77002 Wednesday 8:30 am - 5:00 pm
Phone: 281-607-5300 Thursday 8:30 am - 5:00 pm BOOK ONLINE
Fax: (713) 654-4056 Friday 8:30 am - 5:00 pm
Saturday Closed
Sunday Closed
Privacy Policy Terms & Conditions Contact Us
Robert J Cornell, MD, PA, Houston, TX
Phone (appointments): 281-607-5300 | Phone (general inquiries): 713-652-5011
Address: 1315 St. Joseph Parkway, Suite 1700, Houston, TX 77002
4.96 / 5 
(26 reviews)
EXHIBIT J
EXHIBIT J
4/13/2020 Ventral 1
Case 2:20-cv-03503 Document Phalloplasty
Filedin04/15/20
Houston, TX | Urologist
Page- 262Jonathan
ofClavell
266 Page ID #:262
Cosmetic Phalloplasty in Houston, TX

What is a Ventral or Cosmetic Phalloplasty?
A ventral phalloplasty is a cosmetic procedure that gives the visual impression of a longer penis. Many men have their scrotal skin
attached to the underside of the penile shaft which creates a triangle-shaped ap that covers part of the penis, also known as
scrotal webbing. Scrotal webbing makes the impression of a shorter penis. The ventral phalloplasty removes the extra scrotal skin
and makes the penis look longer.
This procedure is a simple procedure that can be made in conjunction with penile implant surgery, penis enlargement procedures,
such as Penuma, or can be performed on its own.
Book Your Appointment Online Or Call (713) 652-5011
Am I a Candidate for the Procedure?

Dr. Clavell will review your medical history and perform a physical exam to evaluate how much excess scrotal skin is covering your
penis.
Is it Safe?
The ventral phalloplasty is well-known to be a safe procedure in the hands of an expert. Although the most common complication is
infection, Dr. Clavell will administer IV antibiotics prior to your procedure to avoid this complication.
Recovery After Your Procedure

If the ventral phalloplasty is being performed in addition to another procedure, such as penile implant surgery, the recovery will be
similar to the other procedure’s recovery. When done in adjunct to penile implant surgery, performing the ventral phalloplasty will
not delay your healing time. When done alone, the incision takes anywhere between 1 to 3 weeks to heal. You should be able to
resume your regular activities within 1 week.
Why Choose Dr. Clavell?

Dr. Clavell is fellowship-trained in sexual medicine and reconstructive surgery in complex penile cases. He is highly skilled and
pursues excellence in all of his procedures to maximize a cosmetic result while minimizing complications. We invite you to call our
of ce and book an appointment today.
https://houstonmenshealth.com/procedures/ventral-phalloplasty/ 1/1
EXHIBIT K
EXHIBIT K
EXHIBIT L
EXHIBIT L

Int&#39;l Med. Devices. v. Cornell - Complaint

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Int&#39;l Med. Devices. v. Cornell - Complaint

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Case 2:20-cv-03503 Document 1 Filed 04/15/20 Page 1 of 266 Page ID #:1

1 Ryan G. Baker (Bar No. 214036)

1 is designed to confuse potential patients visiting the Clavell Defendants’ website to

1 32. On information and belief, Clavell Urology, PLLC is a professional

1 interested in Penuma implants with false internet advertisements, which were

1 77. Indeed, the Cornell Defendants’ claims on Augmenta’s website that it is

1 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

1 phalloplasty] procedure is a simple procedure that can be made in conjunction with

1 129. On or about October 2014, Plaintiffs created a video entitled “Penile

1 proprietary, confidential, and trade secret information, including

21 By: /s/ Ryan G. Baker

1 REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL

5 By: /s/ Ryan G. Baker

Reg. No. 5,044,348 Menova International, Inc (CALIFORNIA CORPORATION)

CLASS 10: Implants comprising natural, non-living materials

The wording "PENUMA" has no meaning in a foreign language.

SER. NO. 86-870,784, FILED 01-10-2016

REQUIREMENTS TO MAINTAIN YOUR FEDERAL TRADEMARK REGISTRATION

WARNING: YOUR REGISTRATION WILL BE CANCELLED IF YOU DO NOT FILE THE

Requirements in the First Ten Years*

Requirements in Successive Ten-Year Periods*

Grace Period Filings*

*ATTENTION MADRID PROTOCOL REGISTRANTS: The holder of an international registration with an

Home|Site Index|Search|FAQ|Glossary|Guides|Contacts|eBusiness|eBiz alerts|News|Help

Trademarks > Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS)

TESS was last updated on Wed Jan 15 04:13:44 EST 2020

( Use the "Back" button of the Internet Browser to return to

Word Mark PENUMA

|.HOME | SITE INDEX| SEARCH | eBUSINESS | HELP | PRIVACY POLICY

J ; = '> = K & L M & > ? = & # N ; : K O P & Q N P >

S @ R' ; ' : : = : = K & B : = b A L A : A > M & ' @ K

'()*+,-.&31&-$+&F3G1-&3*04.,-&-C&.D$3+I+&.&F4+[3H4+ !"#$%&'( &))&*(&-$GC()$C(-&3-1&1-G(D-(G+&f&.

; = P S :> P & N @ :M & N S ; & > = J ? @ N : N < M

@ = b >6 < = @ = ; '> A N @ & > = J ? @ N : N < M

Jonathan Elist <jonathan.elist@gmail.com>

Unauthorized Penuma Advertisement

Dear Dr. Cornell:

I hope you are well.

 Ventral Phalloplasty Genital

 281-607-5300 BOOK ONLINE

Ventral Phalloplasty Genital Contouring Q & A

How does ventral phalloplasty genital contouring work?

Is ventral phalloplasty genital contouring safe?

If you have any questions regarding insurance providers,

View full list of companies

Privacy Policy Terms & Conditions Contact Us

Robert J Cornell, MD, PA, Houston, TX

Phone (appointments): 281-607-5300 | Phone (general inquiries): 713-652-5011

Address: 1315 St. Joseph Parkway, Suite 1700, Houston, TX 77002

Cosmetic Phalloplasty in Houston, TX

Book Your Appointment Online Or Call (713) 652-5011

Am I a Candidate for the Procedure?

Recovery After Your Procedure

Why Choose Dr. Clavell?

Вам также может понравиться

Int'l Med. Devices. v. Cornell - Complaint

Int'l Med. Devices. v. Cornell - Complaint

'()+,-.&31&-$+&F3G1-&304.,-&-C&.D$3+I+&.&F4+[3H4+ !"#$%&'( &))&*(&-$GC()$C(-&3-1&1-G(D-(G+&f&.