Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/141175488/Won-Door-v-Cornell-Iron-Works
Timestamp: 2017-03-30 20:46:15
Document Index: 154481410

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 154', '§ 1331', '§ 1332', '§ 1338', '§ 78', '§ 1391', '§283', '§284', '§ 154', '§ 154', '§ 13', '§ 13', '§ 13', '§ 13', '§ 13', '§\n284', '§ 284', '§ 285', '§13', 'art0']

BrowseInterestsStay InformedCareerPersonal GrowthFiction & BiographiesHealth & FitnessLifestyleCultureBrowse byBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinH. Dickson Burton (4004) hdburton@traskbritt.com Andrew A. Hufford (14207) aahufford@traskbritt.com TRASKBRITT, P.C. P.O.Box 2550 230 South 500 East, Suite 300 Salt Lake City, Utah 84110 Tele: (801) 532-1922; Fax (801) 531-9168 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Won-Door Corporation IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, NORTHERN DIVISION
WON-DOOR CORPORATION, a Utah Corporation, Plaintiff, vs. CORNELL IRON WORKS, a Pennsylvania Corporation Defendant.
Case No. 2:13-cv-00331-EJF Honorable Magistrate Judge Evelyn J. Furse
Plaintiff Won-Door Corporation (“Won-Door”), by and through its counsel, brings this Complaint against Defendant Cornell Iron Works, Inc., aka Cornell Specialty Products, Inc. (collectively, “Cornell” or “Defendant”), as follows: PARTIES 1. Plaintiff Won-Door is a Utah corporation with its principal place of business at
1865 South 3480 West, Salt Lake City, Utah 84104
On information and belief, Defendant Cornell is a Pennsylvania Corporation with
its principal place of business at 24 Elmwood Ave., Mountaintop, Pennsylvania 18707.
NATURE OF THE ACTION 3. 4. This is a civil action for patent infringement. Cornell has infringed and continues to infringe, contributed to and continues to
contribute to the infringement of, and/or actively induced and continues to induce others to infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent 8,316,914 (“the ‘914 Patent”). Won-Door is the legal owner by assignment of the ‘914 Patent, which was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and which is valid and enforceable. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. This is a civil action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the
United States and, more specifically, under 35 U.S.C. §§ 154, 271, 281, 283, 284 and 285. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the patent infringement claims under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). 6. This Court has diversity jurisdiction over all non-patent infringement claims
asserted in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, because the parties are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional amount of $75,000, excluding interest and costs. This Court has original jurisdiction over the unfair competition claim based upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1338(b) and 1367.
This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because, on information and
belief, Defendant is engaged in regular and substantial business in the State of Utah and the District of Utah. This court also has personal jurisdiction over Defendant under Utah Code Ann. § 78B-3-205(1)-(2) (2011) because, on information and belief, Defendant transacts business in Utah and contracts to supply services or goods in Utah. 8. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and 1400(b), because
Defendant has committed acts of patent infringement in, and has otherwise regularly conducted or conducts business within the State of Utah and the District of Utah.
BACKGROUND 9. Won-Door manufactures sliding doors, folding partitions, tracks and assemblies at
its Salt Lake City, Utah factory. Won-Door’s products are distributed and sold throughout North America, South America, Asia, Europe and the Middle East. 10. Won-Door is an innovator in door and partition design, and its systems are found
in many churches, businesses, government offices, and high security buildings around the world. 11. U.S. Patent Application 12/510,382 (“the ‘382 Application”) was filed on July 28,
2009, and published on February 3, 2011, as US2011/0024061 (“the ‘061 Publication”). 12. The ‘382 Application issued as the ‘914 Patent on November 27, 2012. A true
and correct copy of the ‘914 Patent is enclosed as Exhibit A. 13. The claims of the ‘914 Patent are directed to overhead tracks, header assemblies,
movable partition systems, and methods of forming a header assembly for a movable partition. 14. Won-Door has properly marked its products with “U. S. Patent 8,316,914.”
Won-Door invested substantial time, money and intellectual capital into obtaining
the ’914 Patent. The ‘914 Patent, combined with Won-Door’s superior technology, visual appeal, marketing and pricing, have helped Won-Door distinguish itself in the market and become an industry leader. 16. On information and belief, Cornell manufactures overhead doors and door closure
products, including rolling doors, counter doors (shutters), movable folding partitions, and side folding accordion doors at its factory in Mountain Top, Pennsylvania. 17. 18. Cornell is a direct competitor of Won-Door. Sometime prior to May, 2012, Cornell began manufacturing and selling overhead
tracks, partitions and assemblies which fell within the scope of the invention as claimed in the ‘061 Publication. 19. Won-Door provided formal written notice of the ‘061 Publication through
correspondence sent from Won-Door's attorney on May 14, 2012, which notice was received by Cornell on May 15, 2012. A true and correct copy of that correspondence and delivery receipt is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 20. Despite receiving notice of Won-Door’s provisional rights in the ’914 Patent,
Cornell continued to manufacture and sell infringing tracks, partitions and assemblies, and has continued to do so even after the ‘914 Patent issued on November 27, 2012.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘914 PATENT 21. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of the foregoing
as if set forth fully herein. 4
Won-Door is the exclusive owner and assignee of all right, title and interest in and
to U.S. Patent 8,316,914 (“the ‘914 Patent”), entitled “Movable Partitions, Header Assemblies for Movable Partitions, and Methods of Forming Header Assemblies for Movable Partitions. ” The ‘914 Patent was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on November 27, 2012. See Exhibit A. 23. 24. The ‘914 Patent is valid and enforceable. Cornell has infringed and is continuing to infringe one or more claims of the ‘914
Patent by making, using, selling, or offering to sell products, including overhead track systems for movable folding partitions, that embody the patented invention, and Cornell will continue to do so unless enjoined by this Court. 25. Cornell continued its infringing activities after receiving actual and constructive
notice of the ‘061 Publication and the ‘914 Patent. 26. Cornell’s activities directly infringe, induce infringement and/or contribute to
infringement of at least one claim of the ‘914 Patent without authority or license from WonDoor, and in violation of Won-Door’s rights, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. 27. Cornell’s infringement of Won-Door’s rights in the ‘914 Patent has caused Won-
Door irreparable injury, entitling Won-Door to preliminary and permanent injunctive relief under 35 U.S.C. §283. 28. Cornell's infringing activities entitle Won-Door to an award of damages adequate
to compensate for the infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by Cornell, together with interest and costs.
Cornell's infringing activities are willful, entitling Won-Door to increased
damages and attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. §§284 and 285.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION INFRINGEMENT OF WON-DOOR’S PROVISIONAL RIGHTS IN THE ‘914 PATENT 30. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of the foregoing
as if set forth fully herein. 31. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 154(d), Cornell directly and/or indirectly infringed, either
literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, Won-Door’s provisional rights in one or more claims of the ‘914 Patent, by making, using, selling, or offering to sell products in the United States encompassing the invention as claimed in the ‘061 Publication or importing such an invention into the United States, or by using, selling, or offering for sale in the United States or importing into the United States products made by methods as claimed in the ‘061 Publication. 32. The invention as claimed in the ‘194 Patent is substantially identical to the
invention as claimed in the ’061 Publication. 33. Cornell’s infringement of Won-Door’s provisional rights in the ‘914 Patent
occurred in the period between the date of publication of the ‘061 Publication and the date the ‘914 Patent was issued. 34. Cornell had actual notice of the ‘061 Publication at least as early as May 15,
2012. See Exhibit B. 35. Despite having actual notice of the ‘061 Publication, Cornell continued to infringe
on Won-Door’s provisional rights in the ‘914 Patent.
Cornell’s infringement of Won-Door’s rights in the ‘914 Patent has caused Won-
Door irreparable injury. 37. As a result of Cornell’s infringement of Won-Door’s provisional rights in the
claims of the ‘914 Patent, Won-Door is entitled to obtain a reasonable royalty pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 154(d).
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION STATE LAW UNFAIR COMPETITION 1. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of the foregoing
as if set forth fully herein. 2. Cornell by its actions set forth hereinabove has engaged in intentional business
acts or practices that are unlawful, unfair and/or fraudulent and that have caused a material diminution in the value of the ‘914 Patent. These intentional business acts or practices do not relate to the departure and hiring of an employee by a competitor. 3. Cornell’s conduct as set forth hereinabove gives rise to a cause of action for unfair
competition under the statutory and common law of the State of Utah, including at least Utah Code Ann. § 13-5a-101, et.seq. 4. Cornell has committed the above-described acts in bad faith, with the intention of
trading off of Won-Door’s name, goodwill and reputation. 5. Won-Door has been, and will continue to be, irreparably harmed by the conduct
of Cornell, unless Cornell is enjoined by this Court.
Cornell’s conduct in this regard has damaged Won-Door in an amount to be
determined at trial, which damages should be awarded to Won-Door under Utah Code Ann. § 13-5a-103(1)(b)(i). 7. For Cornell’s conduct in this regard, Won-Door should be awarded its costs and
attorney fees under Utah Code Ann. § 13-5a-103(1)(b)(ii). 8. If the court determines that the circumstances are appropriate, punitive damages
should be awarded to Won-Door for Cornell’s conduct in this regard under Utah Code Ann. § 13-5a-103(1)(b)(iii).
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the following relief: A. B. A judgment that Defendant has infringed the ‘914 Patent; A judgment that Defendant has violated Plaintiff’s provisional rights in the claims
of the ‘914 Patent; C. A judgment that Defendant has engaged in unfair competition pursuant to Utah
Code Ann. § 13-5a-101, et. seq. D. A preliminary and permanent injunction against Defendant, its respective officers,
agents, servants, employees, attorneys, parent and subsidiary companies, assigns and successors in interest, and those persons in active concert or participation with one or any of them, enjoining them from infringement, inducement of infringement, and contributory infringement of each and every one of the ‘914 Patent, including but not limited to an injunction against making, using,
selling, and/or offering for sale within the United States, and/or importing into the United States, any products that infringe one or more of the ‘914 Patent; E. Damages for Defendant’s infringement of the ‘914 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §
284 in an amount not less than a reasonable royalty for Defendant’s use of Plaintiff’s patented technology, and lost profits resulting from Defendant’s infringement; F. G. H. Prejudgment interest; Post-judgment interest; A finding that Defendant’s infringement of the ‘914 Patent is willful, and a
trebling of damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284; I. A declaration that this Action is exceptional pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285, and an
award to Plaintiff of its attorneys' fees, costs and expenses incurred in connection with this Action; J. Actual damages, costs and attorneys' fees, and punitive damages for Defendant's
unfair competition, pursuant to Utah Code Ann. §13-5a-103. K. Such other relief as the Court may deem just and equitable.
JURY DEMAND Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues presented in this Complaint. DATED this 9th day of May, 2013.
/s/H. Dickson Burton_______ H. Dickson Burton Andrew A. Hufford TRASKBRITT, P.C. P.O. Box 2550 230 South 500 East, Suite 300 Salt Lake City, Utah 84110 Tele: (801) 532-1922; Fax (801) 531-9168 Attorneys for Plaintiff
Sign up to vote on this titleUsefulNot usefulWon Door v. Cornell Iron Works by PriorSmart0.0 (0)EmbedDownloadDescriptionOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-00331-EJF: Won Door v. Cornell Iron Works. Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, the Hon. Evelyn J. Furse pre...Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-00331-EJF: Won Door v. Cornell Iron Works. Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, the Hon. Evelyn J. Furse presiding. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l8pA for more info.Interests: Types, Business/Law, Court FilingsRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Public DomainDownload as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentShow moreShow less
RelatedWine Railway Appliance Co. v. Enterprise Railway Equipment Co., 297 U.S. 387 (1936)by Scribd Government DocsRAWFERFAEFAEWFAWEFAWEFAGHTYEJYTUIHFKDGJTKDJUEFHKDby Jun AmaroParallel Iron v. EMCby PriorSmartPJC Logistics v. ATX Groupby PriorSmartParallel Iron v. Amazon Web Services et. al.by PriorSmartMessage Notification Technologies LLCby PriorSmartRemote Locator Systems v. T-Mobileby PriorSmartUbiComm v. S&S Worldwideby PriorSmartMoney Suite Company v. LendingTreeby PatentBlastSteuben Foods v. Nestleby PatentBlast1 - Complaintby slbursteinRecognia v. MDIO Software CC et. al.by PriorSmartTejas Research v. J. C. Penney Company.pdfby PatentBlastTrustees of Boston University v. ASUSTek Computer et. al.by PriorSmartTrustees of Boston University v. Panasonic et. al.by PriorSmartWyncomm v. Fujitsu Et. Al.by PatentBlastKlausner Technologies v. Tango Networksby PriorSmartKlausner Technologies v. Bandwidth.comby PriorSmartKlausner Technologies v. Telesphere Networksby PriorSmartKlausner Technologies v. Schmooze Comby PriorSmartKlausner Technologies v. Clearwire Communicationsby PriorSmartNovelPoint Security v. Seagate Technologyby PriorSmartPanTaurus v. Lenovoby PatentBlastSHC Holding v. All Star Premium- Complaintby slbursteinBrandywine Communications Technologies v. Grandstream Networksby PatentBlastBrandywine Communications Technologies v. Mitel Networksby PriorSmartBrandywine Communications Technologies v. Zultysby PatentBlastCuozzo Speed Technologies v. Nokiaby PatentBlastSimilar To Won Door v. Cornell Iron WorksSkip carouselWine Railway Appliance Co. v. Enterprise Railway Equipment Co., 297 U.S. 387 (1936)RAWFERFAEFAEWFAWEFAWEFAGHTYEJYTUIHFKDGJTKDJUEFHKDParallel Iron v. EMCPJC Logistics v. ATX GroupParallel Iron v. Amazon Web Services et. al.Message Notification Technologies LLCRemote Locator Systems v. T-MobileUbiComm v. S&S WorldwideMoney Suite Company v. LendingTreeSteuben Foods v. Nestle1 - ComplaintRecognia v. MDIO Software CC et. al.Tejas Research v. J. C. Penney Company.pdfTrustees of Boston University v. ASUSTek Computer et. al.Trustees of Boston University v. Panasonic et. al.Wyncomm v. Fujitsu Et. Al.Klausner Technologies v. Tango NetworksKlausner Technologies v. Bandwidth.comKlausner Technologies v. Telesphere NetworksKlausner Technologies v. Schmooze ComKlausner Technologies v. Clearwire CommunicationsNovelPoint Security v. Seagate TechnologyPanTaurus v. LenovoSHC Holding v. All Star Premium- ComplaintBrandywine Communications Technologies v. Grandstream NetworksBrandywine Communications Technologies v. Mitel NetworksBrandywine Communications Technologies v. ZultysCuozzo Speed Technologies v. NokiaGlobeTecTrust v. Frontier CommunicationsGlobeTecTrust v. Cox CommunicationsWon Door v. Cornell Iron Works