Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/75414082/New-World-Pasta-Company-v-American-Italian-Pasta-Company
Timestamp: 2018-09-20 19:00:09
Document Index: 226263474

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§ 271', '§ 1331', '§ 1391', '§ 1400', '§ 287', '§ 285', '§ 283', '§ 284', '§\n285']

New World Pasta Company v. American Italian Pasta Company | Lawsuit | Complaint
New World Pasta Company v. American Italian Pasta Company
Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 4:11-cv-04289: New World Pasta Company v. American Italian Pasta Company. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern Distric…Full description
New World Pasta Company v. American Italian Pasta ...
Long Range Systems v. HME Wireless
Carolina Waterworks v. Taylor Made Group et. al.
McCrory v. Packit
Princeton Digital Image v. J.C. Penney Company
AUGUSTO C. SOLIMAN vs. JUANITO C. FERNANDEZ
Lim Tanhu v. Ramolete
Lo-Q v. QLess
Rojas v. State of New York - Document No. 4
Interface IP Holdings v. JPMorgan Chase
Metrobank vs Sandoval.docx
Civpro Cases 2
Mires v. United States, 10th Cir. (2006)
Kimberly-Clark Worldwide v. Naty AB
Activision TV v. Arby's Restaurant Group
Interface IP Holdings v. Avis Budget Group
Semiconductor Ideas To The Market v. Texas Instruments et. al.
Delaware Radio Technologies LLC et. al.
Delaware Radio Technologies et. al. v. Fuji Heavy Industries et. al.
Open Network Solutions Inc.
Complaint in Indigo Blue Studios against TMZ, Zillow, AOL, and several other defendants for copyright infringement
Yamauchi v. Albany International
CyberFone Systems v. Comcast Cable Communications
Citizens United Lawsuit against the State Department
Adams Suit Dismissed
Case 4:11-cv-04289 Document 1
Filed in TXSD on 12/09/11 Page 1 of 8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION NEW WORLD PASTA COMPANY Plaintiff, v. § § § § § § § § § § § § § §
Civil Action No. ________________
AMERICAN ITALIAN PASTA COMPANY Defendant.
PLAINTIFF NEW WORLD PASTA COMPANY’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Plaintiff NEW WORLD PASTA COMPANY files this Original Complaint against Defendant AMERICAN ITALIAN PASTA COMPANY, alleging as follows:
Filed in TXSD on 12/09/11 Page 2 of 8
NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. This is an action for patent infringement based on the Patent Laws of the United
States, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. 2. This action arises out of the Defendant making, using, selling, offering for sale
and/or importing calcium fortified pasta products which infringe upon at least one of Plaintiff’s issued U.S. Patents.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. This is an action for infringement of a United States patent, arising under the
patent laws of the United States of America, Title 35 of the United States Code, § 271, et. seq. Jurisdiction of the Court is founded on Title 35 United States Code and on Title 28 United States Code, particularly 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). 4. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Parties, and venue is proper in this
District under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) & (c) and 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b).
THE PARTIES 5. Plaintiff NEW WORLD PASTA COMPANY (“NEW WORLD”) is a corporation
that is organized under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business at 85 Shannon Road, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17112. NEW WORLD is a subsidiary of Ebro Foods, S.A. 6. Defendant AMERICAN ITALIAN PASTA COMPANY (“AIPC”) is a Delaware
corporation with its principal offices at 4100 N. Mulberry, Suite 200, Kansas City, Missouri 64116. 2
Filed in TXSD on 12/09/11 Page 3 of 8
AIPC manufactures and distributes pasta and related products throughout the
United States under a variety of brands and trademarks. Defendant is currently doing business in this judicial district by selling its pasta products into this district, including at least some of the products that form the basis of Plaintiff’s claims herein. Defendant’s pasta products compete directly with NEW WORLD’s pasta products.
FACTUAL BASIS 8. NEW WORLD is a worldwide company that manufactures and distributes a wide
variety of food products, including pasta products. 9. On August 31, 1999, United States Patent No. 5,945,144 (the “144 Patent”) was
duly and legally issued to David H. Hahn, Michael L. Nolt, and Frank P. Paris, for an invention entitled “Calcium Fortified Pasta and Process of Making.” Through assignments from the inventors, NEW WORLD PASTA COMPANY is the owner by assignment of all rights, title and interest in the ‘144 Patent, with the exclusive right to enforce the patent against infringers and to sue for and collect damages for all relevant times, including the right to assert the present cause of action. 10. Defendant AIPC manufactures, makes, has made, causes to be made, uses,
practices, imports, provides, supplies, distributes, sells and/or offers for sale pasta products that infringe, directly or indirectly, one or more claims in the ‘144 Patent. For example, and without limitation: 10.1. AIPC makes, uses, sells and/or offers for sale a product marketed as Wegman’s
“Super Pasta” that includes calcium. Reproduced below is a photograph of an exemplary pasta product from AIPC. An annotation has been added to identify the “Calcium”
Filed in TXSD on 12/09/11 Page 4 of 8
reference on the package.
AIPC makes, uses, sells and/or offers for sale a product marketed as
Wegman’s “Super Pasta” that is promoted to incorporates “super nutrition” by providing “20% daily value” of calcium (and vitamin D), as compared with traditional pasta which 4
Filed in TXSD on 12/09/11 Page 5 of 8
provides “0% daily value.”
Reproduced below is a photograph of an exemplary pasta
product from AIPC. An annotation has been added to identify the “20% daily value” reference on the package.
One or more of these acts of infringement have been done with knowledge of the
‘144 Patent and without authorization from NEW WORLD. 5
Filed in TXSD on 12/09/11 Page 6 of 8
The preceding allegations are likely to have additional evidentiary support after a
reasonable opportunity for further investigation and discovery.
COUNT I INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,945,144 13. The preceding paragraphs of this Complaint are incorporated herein by reference
as if fully set forth. 14. At all times relevant to this action, NEW WORLD has complied with the notice
provisions of 35 USC § 287 as they concern the ‘144 patent. 15. A reasonable opportunity for further investigation and discovery will likely show
that the AIPC defendant has directly and/or indirectly infringed one or more claims of the ‘144 Patent and have induced and/or contributed to the infringement of one or more claims of the ‘144 Patent by others in the United States and within this District, and will continue to do so unless enjoined by this Court. 16. A reasonable opportunity for further investigation and discovery will likely show
that one or more of these acts of infringement have been willful and in deliberate disregard of the ‘144 Patent and that this is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285. 17. NEW WORLD has been damaged by Defendant’s infringement and will be
irreparably injured unless such infringement is enjoined by this Court as provided by 35 U.S.C. § 283.
Filed in TXSD on 12/09/11 Page 7 of 8
PRAYER WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that: (a) AIPC be adjudged and decreed to have infringed the ‘144 Patent and that such
infringement has been willful and deliberate; (b) Defendant be ordered to pay actual damages to NEW WORLD, but not less than a
reasonable royalty, by reason of Defendant’s infringement and inducement of infringement of the ‘144 Patent together with prejudgment interest, costs and increased damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284; (c) A preliminary injunction against the Defendant AIPC, its officers, agents,
servants and employees, and all entities and individuals acting in concert with them be entered to restrain any further infringement of the ‘144 Patent during the pendency of this case; (e) A permanent injunction against the Defendant AIPC, its officers, agents, servants
and employees, and all entities and individuals acting in concert with them be entered to permanently restrain any further infringement of the ‘144 Patent; (f) This case be declared an “exceptional case” within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. §
285 and reasonable attorney fees and costs be awarded to NEW WORLD; (g) An award be granted of all reasonable attorney fees allowed by statute, costs, pre-
judgment interest, post-judgment interest and any other further relief as may be just and proper; and (h) NEW WORLD be granted such other and further relief as the Court may deem
proper under the circumstances.
Filed in TXSD on 12/09/11 Page 8 of 8
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL NEW WORLD, in accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 38(b), demands a jury trial as to all issues properly triable by a jury.
Respectfully submitted, Date: December 9, 2011 By: /s/ Michael O. Sutton Michael O. Sutton Texas State Bar No. 19535300 Southern District No. 5941 LOCKE LORD LLP 600 Travis Street 2800 Chase Tower Houston, TX 77002-3095 Phone: (713) 226-1327 Facsimile: (713) 223-3717 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF NEW WORLD PASTA COMPANY
Of Counsel: Tanya L. Chaney State Bar No. 24036375 Southern District No. 33555 Monte R. Rhodes State Bar No. 24076643 LOCKE LORD LLP 600 Travis Street 2800 Chase Tower Houston, TX 77002-3095 Phone: (713) 226-1326 Facsimile: (713) 223-3717
Documents Similar To New World Pasta Company v. American Italian Pasta Company
Kristopher Wyatt
Kristel Jane Palomado Caldoza
tellnic