Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/152548898/Opticool-Technologies-v-Liebert
Timestamp: 2016-07-23 20:14:06
Document Index: 382699555

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§ 2201', '§ 1', '§ 1331', '§ 1391', '§ 101', 'art135']

UploadSign inJoinBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicEditors' Picks BooksHand-picked favorites from our editorsEditors' Picks AudiobooksHand-picked favorites from our editorsEditors' Picks ComicsHand-picked favorites from our editorsEditors' Picks Sheet MusicHand-picked favorites from our editorsTop BooksWhat's trending, bestsellers, award-winners & moreTop AudiobooksWhat's trending, bestsellers, award-winners & moreTop ComicsWhat's trending, bestsellers, award-winners & moreTop Sheet MusicWhat's trending, bestsellers, award-winners & moreCategoriesArts & IdeasBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipChildren'sComputers & TechnologyCooking & FoodCrafts & HobbiesFantasyFiction & LiteratureHappiness & Self-HelpHealth & WellnessHistoryHome & GardenHumorLGBTMystery, Thriller & CrimePolitics & EconomyReferenceReligionRomanceScience & NatureScience FictionSociety & CultureSports & AdventureTravelYoung AdultCategoriesArts & IdeasBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipChildren'sComputers & TechnologyCooking & FoodFantasyFiction & LiteratureHappiness & Self-HelpHealth & WellnessHistoryHome & GardenHumorLGBTMystery, Thriller & CrimePolitics & EconomyReferenceReligionRomanceScience & NatureScience FictionSociety & CultureSports & AdventureTravelYoung AdultCategoriesAdaptationsChildren’sCrime & MysteryFictionHumorMangaNonfictionRomanceSciFi, Fantasy & HorrorSuperheroesYoung AdultPublishersArcanaArchie ComicsBOOM! StudiosDynamiteIDW PublishingKingstone ComicsMarvel ComicsSpace Goat ProductionsTop Cow ComicsValiant ComicsZenescopeDifficultyBeginnerIntermediateAdvancedMixedInstrumentBrassDrums & PercussionGuitar, Bass, and FrettedPianoStringsVocalWoodwindsGenreClassicalCountryFolkJazz & BluesMovies & MusicalsPop & RockReligious & HolidayStandardsWelcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out moreUNITED D STATES DISTRICT D COURT WESTERN DISTR RICT OF NE EW YORK OPTICOOL TECHN NOLOGIES, LLC, L Pla aintiff, vs.LIEBERT T CORPORA ATION. De efendant.
COM MPLAINT T AND JUR RY TRIAL L DEMAND D
Civ. N No.: 13-CV-6350
Plaintiff, Opt tiCool Techn nologies, LL LC (“Plaintif ff”), by and t through its a attorneys, W Woods Oviatt Gilman G LLP, , for its Complaint aga ainst Defend dant, Lieber rt Corporatio on ("Defend dant") alleges as follows: PRELIMINA P ARY STAT TEMENT 1. This is an action fo or declarator ry relief con ncerning a ce ertain patent t under the P Patent
Laws (Ti itle 35, Unite ed States Code 35 U.S.C C. § 1 et seq) ), seeking a judicial dec claration of f noninfringem ment and/or r invalidity on behalf of Plaintiff f with regar rd to that p patent owne ed by Defendan nt. E PARTIES S THE 2. ff is a New w York limit ted liability company h having its principal place of Plaintif
business in Webster, New York. 3. nformation and a belief, Defendant D is an Ohio cor rporation ha aving its prin ncipal Upon in
place of business b in Columbus, C Ohio. O 4. Upon information and belief, Defendant D c claims that P Plaintiff has infringed up pon a
certain pa atent owned d by Defenda ant.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. This claim for relief arises under the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C.
§§ 2201 and 2202. This is a civil action for declaratory judgment concerning a United States Patent under the Patent Laws, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et. seq. This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over this claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338. 6. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendant. Upon information and
belief, the Defendant does business, or has done business, in the State of New York sufficient to meet the statutory and constitutional requirements for the assertion of personal jurisdiction. 7. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c) in
that a substantial part of the alleged acts or omissions giving rise to the claims asserted herein occurred or had effects in this district. In the alternative, venue is proper in that both the plaintiff and the defendant conduct business within the Western District of New York. RELEVANT FACTS 8. Plaintiff is in the business of selling data center cooling systems characterized by
a low-pressure, refrigerant-based system which is adaptable to any computing equipment rack under the registered trademark OptiCool®. 9. Defendant claims ownership of United States Patent No. 8,261,565 entitled
“Cooling System for High Density Heat Load” issued September 11, 2012 (the ‘565 patent). 10. On or about February 18, 2013, Defendant’s attorneys invited Plaintiff to discuss
possible licensing of the ‘565 patent. 11. By letter correspondence dated May 30, 2013, Plaintiff’s attorneys declined
Defendant’s invitation to license the ‘565 patent.
Further correspondence from Defendant’s attorneys dated June 26, 2013 reiterated
the Defendant's offer to license. 13. Additionally, Defendant’s June 26, 2013 correspondence asserted that “[w]e
(Liebert) find that the OptiCool system likely falls within the scope of the claims of the above patent (the ‘565 patent) based on the information we have regarding the OptiCool system. We have attached claim charts of claims 3 and 4 of this patent showing how at least these claims clearly read on the OptiCool system . . . .” 14. The June 26, 2013 correspondence goes on to declare “[t]he fact that your client’s
OptiCool system infringes this patent is not accidental or unintentional.” 15. Additionally, the June 26, 2013 correspondence states that Defendant “will not
hesitate to enforce its intellectual property rights when it feels it is necessary to do so.” 16. 17. Plaintiff denies that any infringement of the Defendant's patent has occurred. In the alternative, Plaintiff has reason to believe that some or all of the claims
within the ‘565 may be invalid or otherwise unenforceable. AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Declaratory Relief) 18. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations contained in paragraphs “1” through
“16” of this Complaint, as if more fully set forth herein. 19. This claim arises from an actual and justiciable controversy between Plaintiff and
Defendant as to Plaintiff’s alleged infringement of Defendant's patent and/or the validity of the ‘565 patent. 20. Plaintiff believes that it has not, and is not now, infringing upon Defendant's patent
by means of Plaintiff’s making, using, and offering for sale the OptiCool® data center cooling system.
In the alternative, Plaintiff believes that assertions of infringement cannot be
maintained consistent with statutory conditions of patentability and the statutory requirements for disclosure and claiming that must be satisfied for patent validity under at least one of 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112. 22. Plaintiff, therefore, asks that the Court enter a judgment declaring that Plaintiff has
not infringed upon Defendant's patent by means of Plaintiff’s selling and/or offering for sale the OptiCool® data center cooling system or, in the alternative, a judgment that the Defendant's patent is invalid or otherwise unenforceable. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, OptiCool Technologies, LLC, demands judgment against the Defendant, as follows: A. that the Court declare that Plaintiff has not infringed the ‘565 patent;
B. that, in the alternative, the Court declare that ‘565 patent is invalid or otherwise unenforceable as against Plaintiff; C. parties; D. that Plaintiff recover the costs of this suit; and that the Court further declare the respective rights and responsibilities of the
E. that Plaintiff be granted such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper, including, but not limited to, its reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in this action as allowed by law.
DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL Pursuant to FRCP Rule 38(b), Plaintiff hereby requests trial by jury on all issues so triable.
DATED: July 8, 2013 Rochester, New York WOODS OVIATT GILMAN LLP
By: /s/: Donald W. O’Brien, Jr. Donald W. O’Brien, Jr., Esq. Katherine H. McGuire, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff 700 Crossroads Building 2 State Street Rochester, New York 14614 585.987.2800 dobrien@woodsoviatt.com kmcguire@woodsoviatt.com
Opticool Technologies v. Liebert by PriorSmart135 viewsEmbedDownloadDescriptionOfficial Complaint for Declaratory Judgement in Civil Action No. 6:13-cv-06350: Opticool Technologies, LLC v. Liebert Corporation. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York,...Official Complaint for Declaratory Judgement in Civil Action No. 6:13-cv-06350: Opticool Technologies, LLC v. Liebert Corporation. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l8H4 for more info.Categories: 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
Related2010-1142 Orderby PATracerMotivation Innovations v. PetSmartby PatentBlastHicks v Client Services Summary Judgementby KentWAJames Reyna v. Debra Dexter - Document No. 3by Justia.comParalegals Working Overtimeby southfllawyersDOJ Opposition to Motion for Reconsiderationby Ben Sheffner2nd DCA Smackdown - Howell v. ED BEBB, InC., 2D09-3664 Summary Judgment Reversedby Foreclosure FraudQuality Night Lights v. Energizer Holdingsby PatentBlast2012 CD Cal DC v Towles - Batmobile is (c)Ableby Brian WassomDoyle v. McConagha et al - Document No. 82by Justia.comNickell v Matlock Land Title 2nd Coa b230321 06 04 2012by William B.OLD CARCO, LLC (APPEAL - SDNY) - 28 - ORDER AFFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT - Gov.uscourts.nysd.360215.28.0by Jack RyanDoc 82-1by janiceshellThe New Paradigm Arrivalby Jjlee1079Exxon Briefby Danae BentonBoies Schiller Opposition Brief Rule 26f Conf Stampedby PaulWolfCLT Logistics v River West Brandsby propertyintangiblefile0.741672255602804by J Doeaxanarby Eriq GardnerUntitledby PriorSmartWARDEN REPLY TO STATE'S RESPONSE TO WARDEN MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATIONby Roy WardenRules & Pages - NJ Court Rulesby x3pia FL Motion for Reconsideration on Order Denying Motion to Quashby winstons2311Provenzano et al v. The Thomson Corporation et al - Document No. 12by Justia.comHemmah 2d Jury Trial Zeroes Plaintiff No Amended Judgmentby Seth Leventhal12-307 #10 by Equality Case FilesContructions of particular statutes.docxby JpagAliviado v. Procter and GamAliviado v. Procter and Gamble et. al., G.R. No. 160505ble Et. Al., G.R. No. 160505, March 9, 2010by Ram Migue SaintSimilar to Opticool Technologies v. Liebert2010-1142 OrderMotivation Innovations v. PetSmartHicks v Client Services Summary JudgementJames Reyna v. Debra Dexter - Document No. 3Paralegals Working OvertimeDOJ Opposition to Motion for Reconsideration2nd DCA Smackdown - Howell v. ED BEBB, InC., 2D09-3664 Summary Judgment ReversedQuality Night Lights v. Energizer Holdings2012 CD Cal DC v Towles - Batmobile is (c)AbleDoyle v. McConagha et al - Document No. 82Nickell v Matlock Land Title 2nd Coa b230321 06 04 2012OLD CARCO, LLC (APPEAL - SDNY) - 28 - ORDER AFFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT - Gov.uscourts.nysd.360215.28.0Doc 82-1The New Paradigm ArrivalExxon BriefBoies Schiller Opposition Brief Rule 26f Conf StampedCLT Logistics v River West Brandsfile0.741672255602804axanarUntitledWARDEN REPLY TO STATE'S RESPONSE TO WARDEN MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATIONRules & Pages - NJ Court Rules FL Motion for Reconsideration on Order Denying Motion to QuashProvenzano et al v. The Thomson Corporation et al - Document No. 12Hemmah 2d Jury Trial Zeroes Plaintiff No Amended Judgment12-307 #10 Contructions of particular statutes.docxAliviado v. Procter and GamAliviado v. Procter and Gamble et. al., G.R. No. 160505ble Et. Al., G.R. No. 160505, March 9, 2010Symczyk v. Genesis Healthcare Corp. (3d Cir. 2011) (FRCP 68 OOJ Does Not Moot FLSA Claim)