Source: https://es.scribd.com/document/60711053/Downhole-Products-v-Top
Timestamp: 2016-09-25 02:30:48
Document Index: 428837784

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§ 1331', '§ 1391', '§ 282', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 284', '§ 285', '§ 284', 'art191']

NavegarNavegarInteresesBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultNavegar porLibrosAudio librosCómicsPartiturasExplorar todoSubirIniciar sesiónRegistrarseLibrosAudio librosCómicsPartituras¡Bienvenido a Scribd! Comienza tu prueba gratis y accede a libros, documentos y más.Buscar másIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION DOWNHOLE PRODUCTS PLC, Plaintiff, v. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
TOP-CO LP, Defendant.
COMPLAINT Plaintiff DOWNHOLE PRODUCTS PLC (“Downhole” or “Plaintiff”) states the following for its Complaint against Defendant TOP-CO LP (“Top-Co” or “Defendant”): NATURE AND BASIS OF ACTION 1. This is an action in which Downhole asserts against Top-Co claims for patent
infringement arising under the United States Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq. Downhole seeks monetary damages and permanent injunctive relief against Top-Co. PARTIES 2. Downhole is a Texas corporation, having its principal place of business at 4140
World Houston Parkway, Suite 160, Houston, Texas 77032. 3. On information and belief, Top-Co is a Canadian corporation, having its principal
place of business at 7720 - 17 Street, Edmonton, AB T6P 1S7. 4. On information and belief, Top-Co has a place of business at 3443 North Sam
Houston Parkway West, Suite 200 Houston, TX 77086.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action under 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1331 and 1338. 6. 7. Venue in this Court is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400. On information and belief, defendant Top-Co has transacted business within this
judicial district, has committed tortious acts within this judicial district, has committed tortious injury to Downhole in this judicial district, regularly does or solicits business in this judicial district, derives revenue from goods used or consumed or services rendered in this judicial district, engages in other persistent courses of conduct in this judicial district, and is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court. Further, on information and belief, Top-Co has interactive
websites that are used in and/or accessible within this judicial district. FACTUAL BACKGROUND U.S. Patent No. 6,435,275 8. On August 20, 2002, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued
United States Patent No. 6,435,275 (“the ’275 Patent”), entitled “Casing Centraliser” to inventors Ian Alastair Kirk, William Barron, and Alistair Bertram Clark. A true and correct copy of the ’275 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 9. 10. The ’275 Patent is currently in full force and effect. All right, title, and interest in and to the ’275 Patent have been assigned to
Downhole Products PLC, which is the sole owner of the ’275 Patent. 11. The ’275 Patent includes eighteen claims generally directed to a casing centralizer
comprising a plastic material.
In accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 282, the ’275 Patent, and each and every claim
thereof, is presumed to be valid. DEFENDANT’S CONDUCT 13. On information and belief, Top-Co makes, uses, offers to sell, and/or sells within
the United States and this judicial district products, including but not limited to centralizers, which include and/or practice one or more of the inventions claimed in the ’275 Patent. 14. On information and belief, Top-Co’s infringing products include at least the Type
346 Top Reach Glider centralizer. COUNT ONE: TOP-CO’S INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’275 PATENT UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 271 15. Downhole repeats, realleges, and incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth
herein, the allegations of the preceding paragraphs, as set forth above. 16. On information and belief, Top-Co has infringed and continues to infringe, has
actively and knowingly induced and continues to actively and knowingly induce infringement of, and/or has contributed to and continues to contribute to acts of infringement of one or more claims of the ’275 Patent, all in violation of 35 U.S.C. §§ 271(a), (b), and/or (c). 17. Top-Co’s acts of making, using, offering for sale, and selling products that use,
include, and/or practice one or more of the inventions claimed in the ’275 Patent have been without the permission, consent, authorization, or license of Downhole. 18. As a result of Top-Co’s infringing acts, Downhole has been and continues to be
damaged in its business and property, and thus Downhole is entitled to recover damages for Top-Co’s infringing acts, which in no event can be less than a reasonable royalty.
On information and belief, Top-Co’s infringing acts are, have been, and continue
to be willful, with knowledge of the ’275 Patent, and in willful, wanton, and deliberate disregard thereof. 20. As a result of Top-Co’s infringing acts, Downhole has been and continues to be
irreparably injured unless and until Top-Co’s continuing acts are restrained and enjoined by this Court, and Downhole has no adequate remedy at law. 21. Downhole is entitled to injunctive relief enjoining and restraining Top-Co, its
officers, agents, servants, and employees, acting jointly or severally, and all persons acting in concert with it, and each of them, from further infringement, inducement of infringement, and/or contributory infringement of the ’275 Patent. PRAYERS FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Downhole respectfully prays for entry of a judgment as follows: A. Finding that Top-Co has infringed, induced infringement of, and/or contributorily
infringed one or more claims of the ’275 Patent, all in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271; B. Permanently enjoining Top-Co, its officers, agents, servants, representatives, and
employees, and all persons acting in concert with them, and each of them, from infringing, inducing the infringement of, and contributorily infringing the ’275 Patent; C. Awarding Downhole damages for Top-Co’s infringement, inducement of
infringement, and/or contributory infringement of the ’275 Patent; D. Finding that Top-Co’s infringement, inducement of infringement, and/or
contributory infringement of the ’275 Patent has been knowing and willful; E. Increasing all damages awarded to Downhole in this case to three times the
damages amount found by the jury or assessed by the Court pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284;
Declaring this case to be an exceptional case and awarding Downhole its
attorneys’ fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285; G. and H. and equitable. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL DOWNHOLE hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues in this action that are so triable as a matter of right and law. Respectfully submitted, this 22nd day of July, 2011. Granting Downhole such other and further relief as the Court deems just, proper, Awarding Downhole costs and prejudgment interest pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284;
_________________________________ Julie A. McWhirter (Texas Bar No. 00794224) (S.D.T.X. Admission No. 20860) A. Shane Nichols (Texas Bar No. 24063267) (application to S.D.T.X. pending) KING & SPALDING LLP 1100 Louisiana, Ste. 4000 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 751-3201 Facsimile: (713) 751-3290 Email: snichols@kslaw.com C. Suzanne Werner (application to S.D.T.X. pending) KING & SPALDING LLP 1180 Peachtree Street, N.E. Atlanta, Georgia 30309 Telephone: (404) 572-4600 Facsimile: (404) 572-5134 Email: swerner@kslaw.com
Downhole Products v. Top por PriorSmart191 visitaInsertarDescargaDescripción:Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 4:11-cv-02714: Downhole Products PLC v. Top-Co LP. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, no judge yet assig...Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 4:11-cv-02714: Downhole Products PLC v. Top-Co LP. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l4eK for more info.Intereses Types, Business/Law, Court FilingsLeer en Scribd móvil: iPhone, iPad y Android.Copyright: Public DomainDownload as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentMostrar másMostrar menos
RelacionadoEMG Technology v. Union Pacific Railroad Companypor PriorSmartEMG Technology v. AOLpor PriorSmartEclipse IP v. Overstock.compor PriorSmartBruckbauer v. Lemanspor PriorSmartGold Medal Products v. C. Cretors & Companypor PriorSmartDataTern, Inc. et. al.por PriorSmartBluebonnet Telecommunications v. HTC Americapor PatentBlastBrandywine Communications Technologies v. Galaxy Internet Servicespor PriorSmartEverspin Technologies v. NVEpor PriorSmartPower Integrations Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int'l Inc., C.A. No. 04-1371-JJF (D. Del. July 22, 2010) (Farnan, J.).por YCSTBlogYananton v. Doskocil Manufacturing Companypor PriorSmartFind My Iphone patent suitpor jeff_roberts881Abdou v. Alphatec Spinepor PriorSmartMy Health v. Healthrageouspor PatentBlastIU Research Complaintpor Gregory VincentFormax v. Alkar-RapidPak-MP Equipment et. al.por PriorSmartExcentus v. CodePro Innovationspor PriorSmartPanTaurus v. Microsoftpor PriorSmartIdeative Product Ventures v. Accellpor PriorSmartCommonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation v. Cisco Systemspor PriorSmartWestern Falcon et. al. v. Moore Rod & Pipe et. al.por PriorSmartMagna Electronics v. TRW Automotive Holdings Et. Al.por PatentBlastCarlini Enterprises et. al. v. Paul Yaffe Design et. al..pdfpor PatentBlastMagpul v Plinker Tactical Complaintpor Richard JohnsonQuality Experience Testing v. Ascom Network Testingpor PatentBlastCortelyou v. Charles Eneu Johnson & Co., 207 U.S. 196 (1907)por Scribd Government DocsNetwork Signatures v. Comcastpor PriorSmartUniloc Luxembourg et. al. v. Palisadepor PriorSmartSimilar to Downhole Products v. TopEMG Technology v. Union Pacific Railroad CompanyEMG Technology v. AOLEclipse IP v. Overstock.comBruckbauer v. LemansGold Medal Products v. C. Cretors & CompanyDataTern, Inc. et. al.Bluebonnet Telecommunications v. HTC AmericaBrandywine Communications Technologies v. Galaxy Internet ServicesEverspin Technologies v. NVEPower Integrations Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int'l Inc., C.A. No. 04-1371-JJF (D. Del. July 22, 2010) (Farnan, J.).Yananton v. Doskocil Manufacturing CompanyFind My Iphone patent suitAbdou v. Alphatec SpineMy Health v. HealthrageousIU Research ComplaintFormax v. Alkar-RapidPak-MP Equipment et. al.Excentus v. CodePro InnovationsPanTaurus v. MicrosoftIdeative Product Ventures v. AccellCommonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation v. Cisco SystemsWestern Falcon et. al. v. Moore Rod & Pipe et. al.Magna Electronics v. TRW Automotive Holdings Et. Al.Carlini Enterprises et. al. v. Paul Yaffe Design et. al..pdfMagpul v Plinker Tactical ComplaintQuality Experience Testing v. Ascom Network TestingCortelyou v. Charles Eneu Johnson & Co., 207 U.S. 196 (1907)Network Signatures v. ComcastUniloc Luxembourg et. al. v. PalisadeCatalyst Corporate Federal Credit Union v. IP Navigation Group et. al.Cynamide Case