Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/200673282/OurPet-s-v-Doskocil-Complaint
Timestamp: 2015-11-30 22:38:23
Document Index: 292682517

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 281', '§ 1331', '§ 281', '§ 1332', '§ 2307', '§ 1391', '§ 1400', '§ 2307', '§ 287', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 284', '§ 285', '§ 285']

P. 1OurPet's v Doskocil - ComplaintOurPet's v Doskocil - Complaint|Views: 4|Likes: 0Published by slbursteinOurPet's v Doskocil - ComplaintOurPet's v Doskocil - ComplaintMore info:Published by: slburstein on Jan 19, 2014Copyright:Attribution Non-commercialAvailability:Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content|Add to collectionSee moreSee lesshttps://www.scribd.com/doc/200673282/OurPet-s-v-Doskocil-Complaint01/10/2015pdftextoriginalCase: 1:14-cv-00091 Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/15/14 1 of 8.PageID #: 1
Doskocil Manufacturing Co. d/b/a Petmate, 2300 E. Randol Mill Road Arlington, Texas 76061, Defendant.
NOW COMES the Plaintiff, OurPet’s Company, and for its Complaint against the Defendant alleges as follows: THE PARTIES 1. The Plaintiff, OurPet’s Company, is a corporation organized under the laws of Colorado, and has its principal place of business in Fairport Harbor, Ohio, which is in Lake County. 2. The Defendant, Doskocil Manufacturing Company d/b/a Petmate, is a business entity and has its principal place of business in Arlington, Texas.
21 22 23 24 25 26 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. This is an action for patent infringement. The patent claims arise under the patent laws of the United States, specifically 35 U.S.C. § 281. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction in this
Case: 1:14-cv-00091 Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/15/14 2 of 8. PageID #: 2
matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338, and 35 U.S.C. § 281 because this action arises under the patent laws of the United States. 4. Alternatively, this Court has diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) as the amount in controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000 and the action is between citizens of different states. 5. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendant by virtue of their sale of products, transaction of business, and solicitation of business within the State of Ohio, within this judicial district and elsewhere. 6. Ohio’s Long-Arm Statute, RC § 2307.382(A)(1), provides that “A court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person who acts directly or by an agent, as to a cause of action arising from the person’s: (1) Transacting any business in this state.” In this case, the
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 dog bowls that are widely sold throughout the state at big-box retailers including Petco®. 21 22 23 24 25 26 8. Venue is proper in the Northern District of Ohio pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) and/or 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in this judicial district, the Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in this district, and infringement occurred within this judicial district. Defendant transacts business in this state. The Defendant supplies infringing dog bowls that are widely sold throughout the state at big-box retailers including Petco®. 7. Ohio’s Long-Arm Statute, RC § 2307.382(A)(2), provides that “A court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person who acts directly or by an agent, as to a cause of action arising from the person’s: (2) Contracting to supply services or goods in this state.” In this case, the Defendant contract to supply goods in this state. The Defendant supplies infringing
Case: 1:14-cv-00091 Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/15/14 3 of 8. PageID #: 3
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 9. Since its founding in 1995, the Plaintiff has designed, produced, and marketed a broad line of innovative, high-quality accessory and consumable pet products in the United States and overseas. 10. The Plaintiff has dedicated extensive time to the understanding of pet aging and its critical link to nature. 11. Along with proper nutrition, mental stimulation, physical exercise, and veterinary care, the Plaintiff’s products help to maintain the health and wellness of pets. 12. The Plaintiff strives to develop truly unique and innovative products. In fact, almost all of the Plaintiff’s products are patented and are the only ones of their kind in the marketplace. 13. The Plaintiff has become a leader in feeding systems to improve the health and comfort of
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 16. All rights to the ‘045 patent, including but not limited to, the right to recover for 21 22 23 24 25 26 infringement thereunder, has been assigned to the Plaintiff, OurPet’s Company. 17. The Plaintiff has manufactured and marketed products in commerce that read on the ‘045 patent, namely, the Plaintiff’s line of raised feeders. pets. 14. Dr. Steve Tsengas is the founder and CEO of the Plaintiff corporation. 15. On December 10, 2002, United States Design Patent No. D467,045, entitled “Stackable Pet Feeder” (hereinafter referred to as the ‘045 patent) duly and legally issued to Steven Tsengas, as inventor, for the aforementioned Stackable Pet Feeder. (A true and accurate copy of the ‘045 patent as issued is attached hereto as “Exhibit 1.”)
Case: 1:14-cv-00091 Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/15/14 4 of 8. PageID #: 4
18. The Plaintiff’s products have enjoyed considerable sales success, but less success than should be but for the Defendant’s actions. 19. The Plaintiff’s products have been marketed throughout commerce and marked as protected by patents, thus complying with 35 USC § 287 et seq. 20. Upon information and belief, the Defendant, at times relevant, had actual knowledge of the Plaintiff’s raised feeders and of the existence of the ‘045 patent. 21. The Defendant has been and is currently making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing products that infringe the ‘045 patent. 22. The Defendant has infringed the Plaintiff’s patent by, including but not limited to, making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing their “bowl mates™ by Petco®” raised feeder products. (See the labeling of the accused product attached hereto as “Exhibit 2” and
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 patent owned by the Plaintiff in respect to the allegedly infringing product identified in this 21 22 23 24 25 26 lawsuit. 25. The Plaintiff is entitled to an award of damages against the Defendant for patent infringement, and enhanced damages for willful infringement. “Exhibit 3,” which is a front and back view, respectively, of the product labeling.) 23. The aforementioned activities of the Defendant have injured and threaten future injury to the Plaintiff. More specifically, the Defendant’s activities have diminished the Plaintiff’s
goodwill and caused the Plaintiff to lose sales that it otherwise would have made but for the sales of the Defendant. 24. The Defendant is not authorized in any way to sell their infringing products or to use the
Case: 1:14-cv-00091 Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/15/14 5 of 8. PageID #: 5
CLAIM NO. 1 (Patent Infringement 35 U.S.C. § 271) 26. The Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each statement, whether written above or below, as if each is fully re-written herein. 27. The Defendant has been and is currently making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing products that infringe the ‘045 patent. (See a claims chart comparing the ‘045 patent to the accused product attached as “Exhibit 4.” The claims chart is for illustrative purposes only, and Plaintiff reserves the right to modify and amend its infringement contentions during the course of this lawsuit pursuant to the Local Patent Rules.) 28. The Defendant has infringed the ‘045 patent because the Defendant’s accused article, namely, the “bowl mates™” product, embodies the patented design of the ‘045 patent or any colorable imitation thereof. Infringement occurs both directly and/or indirectly through the doctrine of equivalents. 29. The Defendant’s product is substantially similar to the ‘045 design patent under the “ordinary observer” test enunciated in Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir.
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2008); Citing Gorham Co. v. White, 81 U.S. 511 (1871). 30. The Defendant’s product is an infringement of the ‘045 patent, and in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271 within this judicial district and elsewhere. 31. The Defendant will continue to make, use, offer for sale, sell, and import their infringing products unless enjoined by this Court. 32. The Defendant has been, and is, actively inducing infringement of the ‘045 patent.
Case: 1:14-cv-00091 Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/15/14 6 of 8. PageID #: 6
33. The Defendant’s infringement is, and at all times has been, deliberate, willful, with full knowledge of the Plaintiff’s patent rights, and wanton, and as a result, the Plaintiff is entitled to treble damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284. 34. This is an exceptional case within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285, and the award of appropriate attorneys’ fees to the Plaintiff is justified. PRAYER FOR RELIEF / REQUEST FOR REMEDIES WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays that this Court to enter an Order in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant as follows: A) A preliminary injunction enjoining the Defendant from making, using, or selling any product that infringes upon the ‘045 patent; B) A permanent injunction enjoining the Defendant from making, using, or selling any product
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 F) Judgment against Defendant indemnifying the Plaintiff from any claims brought against the 21 22 23 24 25 26 Plaintiff for negligence, debts, malpractice, product liability, or other breaches of any duty owed by the Defendant to any person who was confused as to some association between the Plaintiff and Defendant as alleged in this Complaint; that infringes upon the ‘045 patent; C) An accounting for damages resulting from Defendant’s patent infringement and contributory infringement and the trebling of such damages because of the knowing, willful, and wanton nature of the Defendant’s conduct; D) An assessment of interest on the damages so computed; E) An award of attorney’s fees and costs in this action under 35 U.S.C. § 285;
Case: 1:14-cv-00091 Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/15/14 7 of 8. PageID #: 7
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 P) Prejudgment interest. 21 22 23 24 25 26 JURY DEMAND WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff requests a trial by jury on all issues so triable. L) Ordering a product recall of infringing product for destruction; M) Requiring Defendant to file with this Court and serve on the Plaintiff within thirty (30) days of this Court’s order a report setting forth the manner in which they complied with the order; N) Requiring Defendant to provide to Plaintiff all sales records, including but not limited to, email, mail, and advertising lists; O) Damages according to each cause of action herein; and
Case: 1:14-cv-00091 Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/15/14 8 of 8. PageID #: 8
___/s/ David A. Welling_____________ C. VINCENT CHOKEN (0070530) DAVID A. WELLING (0075934) (lead counsel) Choken Welling LLP 3020 West Market Street, Ste. A Akron, Ohio 44333 Tel. (330) 865 – 4949 Fax (330) 865 – 3777 vincec@choken-welling.com davidw@choken-welling.com JOHN D. GUGLIOTTA (0062809) Patent, Copyright & Trademark Law Group, LLC 3020 W. Market St., Ste. C Akron, Ohio 44333 Tel. (330) 253 – 2225 Fax (330) 659 – 5855 johng@inventorshelp.com Counsel for the Plaintiff
Case: 1:14-cv-00091 Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 01/15/14 1 of 12. PageID #: 9
Case: 1:14-cv-00091 Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 01/15/14 2 of 12. PageID #: 10
Case: 1:14-cv-00091 Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 01/15/14 3 of 12. PageID #: 11
Case: 1:14-cv-00091 Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 01/15/14 4 of 12. PageID #: 12
Case: 1:14-cv-00091 Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 01/15/14 5 of 12. PageID #: 13
Case: 1:14-cv-00091 Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 01/15/14 6 of 12. PageID #: 14
Case: 1:14-cv-00091 Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 01/15/14 7 of 12. PageID #: 15
Case: 1:14-cv-00091 Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 01/15/14 8 of 12. PageID #: 16
Case: 1:14-cv-00091 Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 01/15/14 9 of 12. PageID #: 17
Case: 1:14-cv-00091 Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 01/15/14 10 of 12. PageID #: 18
Case: 1:14-cv-00091 Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 01/15/14 11 of 12. PageID #: 19
Case: 1:14-cv-00091 Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 01/15/14 12 of 12. PageID #: 20
Case: 1:14-cv-00091 Doc #: 1-2 Filed: 01/15/14 1 of 1. PageID #: 21
Case: 1:14-cv-00091 Doc #: 1-3 Filed: 01/15/14 1 of 1. PageID #: 22
Case: 1:14-cv-00091 Doc #: 1-4 Filed: 01/15/14 1 of 3. PageID #: 23 Claims Chart Comparison between U.S. Des. 467,045 and Product by Bowl Mates™ by petco® (made by Doskocil / PetMate) Des. 467,045 FIG. 10 is a left, top, front perspective view of a second embodiment of a stackable pet feeder showing my new design; Accused Infringing Product
Case: 1:14-cv-00091 Doc #: 1-4 Filed: 01/15/14 2 of 3. PageID #: 24 Claims Chart Comparison between U.S. Des. 467,045 and Product by Bowl Mates™ by petco® (made by Doskocil / PetMate)
Des. 467,045
Accused Infringing Product
FIG. 14 is a top plan view thereof, with both bowls removed for clarity of disclosure;
Case: 1:14-cv-00091 Doc #: 1-4 Filed: 01/15/14 3 of 3. PageID #: 25 Claims Chart Comparison between U.S. Des. 467,045 and Product by Bowl Mates™ by petco® (made by Doskocil / PetMate)
Case: 1:14-cv-00091 Doc #: 1-5 Filed: 01/15/14 1 of 3. PageID #: 26
Case: 1:14-cv-00091 Doc #: 1-5 Filed: 01/15/14 2 of 3. PageID #: 27
Case: 1:14-cv-00091 Doc #: 1-5 Filed: 01/15/14 3 of 3. PageID #: 28
Case: 1:14-cv-00091 Doc #: 1-6 Filed: 01/15/14 1 of 2. PageID #: 29
Case: 1:14-cv-00091 Doc #: 1-6 Filed: 01/15/14 2 of 2. PageID #: 30