Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/124251812/Smith-et-al-v-Garlock-Equipment-Company
Timestamp: 2017-05-01 07:58:20
Document Index: 118233753

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§ 1331', 'art. 6', '§ 1391', '§ 287', '§ 284', '§ 154', '§ 154', '§ 284', '§ 285', '§ 154', '§ 284', '§ 285', '§ 284', '§ 1961']

Smith et. al. v. Garlock Equipment Company | Patent | Patent Infringement
ScribdBrowseInterestsCareer & MoneyPersonal GrowthPolitics & Current AffairsScience & TechHealth & FitnessLifestyleEntertainmentBiographies & HistoryFictionBrowse byBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinSmith et. al. v. Garlock Equipment CompanyUploaded by PriorSmartPatentPatent InfringementPlaintiffTitle 35 Of The United States CodeGlossary Of Patent Law Terms0.0 (0)DownloadEmbedDescription: Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 5:13-cv-00104-GAF: Smith et. al. v. Garlock Equipment Company. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, the ...View MoreOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 5:13-cv-00104-GAF: Smith et. al. v. Garlock Equipment Company. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, the Hon. Gary A. Fenner presiding. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l7Bj for more info.Copyright: Public DomainDownload as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI KANSAS CITY DIVISION BRENT E.SMITH and AES RAPTOR, LLC Plaintiffs, v. GARLOCK EQUIPMENT COMPANY, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Plaintiffs Brent E. Smith (“Smith”) and AES Raptor, LLC (“AES”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), through their undersigned attorneys, file this Complaint against Defendant Garlock Equipment Company (“Garlock”), and state and allege as follows: Parties 1. 2. Smith is a natural person residing in Weston, Missouri. AES is a for-profit limited liability company formed under the laws of the State of
Missouri with a principal place of business at 1349 Taney, North Kansas City, MO 64116. AES designs and manufactures fall protection products for use by commercial roofers and sheet metal workers. These products include the AES Raptor Stinger™ and the AES Raptor TriRex™. The sole member of AES is Smith. 3. Garlock is a for-profit corporation formed under the laws of the State of Minnesota
with a principal place of business at 2601 Niagara Lane North, Plymouth, MN 55447. Garlock can be served through its Chief Executive Officer, Randy Rollins at the foregoing address. Garlock manufactures and sells products and equipment, including safety equipment, used by professional roofing contractors. 1
Jurisdiction and Venue 4. This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq.
This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). 5. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Garlock because Garlock has
purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting business within this State and this District by, among other things, offering for sale and selling the Cobra Multi-Man Mobile Fall Protection Cart and the Cobra Twin-Man Mobile Fall Protection Cart. 6. 1400. Factual Background 7. On August 14, 2012, United States Patent No. 8,240,431 (“the ‘431 Patent”) entitled Venue is proper in this District and Division pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and
“Apparatus and Method of Arresting a Fall” issued to Smith. Since its issuance, the ‘431 Patent has been in full force and effect. The ‘431 Patent is valid and enforceable. Smith has commercialized the invention claimed in the ‘431 Patent through AES, incorporating this invention in the AES Raptor Stinger™ and the AES Raptor TriRex™ products. Smith owns all right, title and interest to the ‘431 Patent, including the right to sue for past, present and future infringements. Smith has properly marked the AES Raptor Stinger™ and the AES Raptor TriRex™ products pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 287(a). A true and correct copy of the ‘431 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 8. On December 20, 2007, United States Patent Application Publication No. US
2007/0289811 (“the ‘811 Publication”) was published. A true and correct copy of the ‘811 Publication is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
The application of the ‘811 Publication issued as the ‘431 Patent, and the ‘811
Publication includes claims that are substantially identical to the claims of the ‘431 Patent. 10. Garlock has infringed and continues to infringe the ‘431 Patent by making, using,
offering to sell, and/or selling in the United States, and/or importing into the United States, products or processes that practice the invention claimed in the ‘431 Patent. These products include the Cobra Multi-Man Mobile Fall Protection Cart and the Cobra Twin-Man Mobile Fall Protection Cart, which are covered by claims 1 and/or 5 in the ‘431 Patent. 11. Garlock also provides infringing products or processes to distributors, dealers,
customers, and/or others with detailed instructions and information on how to use and/or sell the infringing products or processes. Garlock’s acts constitute inducement to infringe the ‘431 Patent whenever its distributors, dealers, customers, and/or others use and/or sell Garlock’s infringing products or processes. 12. Garlock has profited through infringement of the ‘431 Patent. As a result of
Garlock’s unlawful infringement of the ‘431 Patent, Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer damage. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from Garlock the damages they suffered as a result of Garlock’s unlawful acts. 13. On information and belief, Garlock’s infringement of the ‘431 Patent was and is
willful and deliberate, entitling Plaintiffs to enhanced damages and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. 14. On information and belief, Garlock intends to continue its unlawful infringing
activity, and Plaintiffs will continue to suffer irreparable harm from such activity—for which there is no adequate remedy at law—unless Garlock is enjoined by this Court.
COUNT I Infringement of the ‘431 Patent 15. herein. 16. Garlock has directly and/or indirectly infringed, either literally or under the doctrine Plaintiffs incorporate by reference their foregoing allegations as if fully set forth
of equivalents, one or more claims of the ‘431 Patent by making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling in the United States, and/or importing into the United States, products or processes that practice the invention claimed in the ‘431 Patent. 17. Garlock has induced others to infringe one or more claims of the ‘431 Patent by
providing infringing products or processes to distributors, dealers, customers, and/or others with detailed instructions and information on how to use and/or sell the infringing products or processes. 18. 19. Garlock’s activities have been without express or implied license from Plaintiffs. As a result of the infringement of the ‘431 Patent, Plaintiffs have been damaged, will
be further damaged, and it entitled to be compensated for such damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284 in an amount to be determined at trial. COUNT II Infringement of the Smith’s Provisional Rights in the ‘431 Patent 20. herein. 21. On information and belief, Garlock had actual knowledge of the ‘811 Publication, its Plaintiffs incorporate by reference their foregoing allegations as if fully set forth
specification and claims. 22. On information and belief, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 154(d), Garlock has directly
and/or indirectly infringed, either literally or though the doctrine of equivalents, Smith’s provisional 4
patent rights in one or more claims of the ‘431 Patent by making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling in the United States, and/or importing into the United States, products or processes that practice the invention claimed in the ‘431 Patent. 23. 24. Garlock’s activities have been without express or implied license from Plaintiffs. As a result of Garlock’s infringement of Smith’s provisional rights in the claims of
the ‘431 Patent, Smith is entitled to recover a reasonable royalty pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 154(d)(1). Willful Infringement 25. herein. 26. On information and belief, Garlock’s past and continuing infringement of the ‘431 Plaintiffs incorporate by reference their foregoing allegations as if fully set forth
Patent has been deliberate and willful. Its conduct warrants an award of treble damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284. Moreover, this is an exceptional case as set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 285 warranting an award of attorney’s fees. Jury Trial Demand Plaintiffs demand trial by jury on all issues so triable. Prayer for Relief WHEREFORE, upon final hearing or trial, Plaintiffs pray for the following relief: A. B. A judgment that Garlock has infringed the ‘431 Patent; A judgment that Garlock has infringed Smith’s provisional rights in the claims of the ‘431 Patent; C. A judgment and order permanently restraining and enjoining Garlock and its directors, officers, employees, servants, agents, affiliates, subsidiaries, distributors,
dealers, others controlled by them, and all persons in active concert or participation with any of them, from further infringing the ‘431 Patent; D. A judgment and order requiring Garlock to pay Smith a reasonable royalty for infringing on his provisional rights in the claims of the ‘431 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 154(d)(1); E. A judgment and order requiring Garlock to pay damages to Plaintiffs adequate to compensate them for Garlock’s wrongful infringing acts in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 284; F. A judgment and order requiring Garlock to pay increased damages up to three times, in view of its willful and deliberate infringement of the ‘431 Patent; G. A finding in favor of Plaintiffs that this is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and an award of Plaintiffs of their costs, including reasonable attorney’s fees and other expenses incurred in connection with this action; H. A judgment and order requiring Garlock to pay Plaintiffs pre-judgment interest under 35 U.S.C. § 284 and post-judgment interest under 28 U.S.C. § 1961 on all damages awarded; and I. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and appropriate.
By: _/s/David L. Marcus ______________ David L. Marcus, Mo. Bar No. 47846 1100 Main Street, Suite 2700 Kansas City, Missouri 64105 (816) 256-3181 (telephone) (816) 222-0534 (facsimile) dmarcus@gbmglaw.com and MASHBURN LAW OFFICE, LLC Denise Mashburn, MO. Bar No. 64003 800 NE Vanderbilt Lane Lee’s Summit, MO 64064 (816) 774-1507 (telephone) (816) 525-1917 (facsimile) denise.mashburn@gmail.com Attorney for Plaintiffs
Documents Similar To Smith et. al. v. Garlock Equipment CompanySkip carouselDownhole Products et. al. v. Top-Co Cementing Products et. al.OurPet's Company v. Rhode Island Textile Company et. al.Skedco v. Strategic OperationsEssociate v. Integrate.com3rd Eye Surveillance v. City of Irving, TexasPolara Engineering v. Campbell CompanyThermaPure v. C&C Clean Team EnterprisesSkydex Technologies v. Implus FootcareLund v. Bushwacker Et. Al.Sapphire Dolphin LLCMass Engineered Design v. Dell et. al.Yyz v. BMC SoftwareYyz v. Software et. al.Whalen Furniture Mfg. v. Walker Edison FurnitureAmazon Amicus BriefBobcar Media v. Aardvark Event Logistics - ComplaintAdaptix v. Huawei Technologies et. al.Parallel Iron v. Hitachi Data Systems et. al.Princeton Digital Image v. Simbionix et. al.Wyncomm v. Pantech Et. Al.BorgWarner v. Pierburg et. al.Titanide Ventures v. GoogleinventistSweepstakes Patent Company Et. Al. v. Burns Et. Al.Pascual Godines Petitioner vs. the Honorable Court of Appeals Special Fourth Division and Sv Agro Enterprises Inc. Respondents.UbiComm v. Lexmark InternationalEFFData Carriers LLCArrivalStar Et. Al. v. Vantage Point MappingMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Hewlett-Packard CompanyDocuments About PatentSkip carousel16-12-20 Apple Complaint v. Acacia Et Al.AppleVsSamsung_11.07.05Gillette Company v. ADKM, Inc. d/b/a Harry's Razor Company et. al.Samsung vs Apple - Samsung's Appeal to the Supreme CourtNike v. SkechersNokiaVsApple_11.03.31.100Consulting AgreementPRICELINE COM INC 10-K (Annual Reports) 2009-02-20Wizards of the Coast v. Cryptozoic Entertainment et. al.Apple vs Android 10.12.02Nokia Complaint Against Apple in federal district court, WisconsinBeyond PhilanthropyDavid Einhorn's presentation on Green Mountain RoastersBose vs Beats (ITC complaint)Apple vs Samsung 11.04.22Bose v. Beats Civil ComplaintGENENTECH INC 10-K (Annual Reports) 2009-02-20Provisional Patent ApplicationAgainst Intellectual Property, by Stephan Kinsella Translation of Mannheim 2O240 Ruling Motorola v MicrosoftMicrosoftVsMotorola_11.12.11Novartis patent JudgementGoogle Dec Action vs RockstarKoninklijke Philips N.V. et. al. v. Nintendo et. al.11-07-01 Apple Motion for PI Against SamsungAppleVsHTCandS3_11.07.2914-01-21 Apple v. Samsung Summary Judgment OrderBU v AppleAmicus Brief in Support of Samsung RehearingGreenwich Ballistics v. Jamison InternationalMore From PriorSmartSkip carouselLike kind card game (US patent 6193235)Like kind money board table game (US patent 6186505)Intelligent user interface including a touch sensor device (US patent 8288952)User interface with proximity sensing (US patent 8035623)Wine cellar alarm system (US patent 8710985)Cell regulatory genes, encoded products, and uses related thereto (US patent 7030227)Multicasting method and apparatus (US patent 6434622)Method and apparatus for retrieving data from a network using linked location identifiers (US patent 6226655)Casino bonus game using player strategy (US patent 6645071)High-speed serial linking device with de-emphasis function and the method thereof (US patent 7313187)Casing spacer (US patent 6736166)Advance Products & Systems v. CCI Piping SystemsModern Telecom Systems LLCTracBeam v. AppleRichmond v. Creative IndustriesSenju Pharmaceutical et. al. v. Metrics et. al.VIA Technologies et. al. v. ASUS Computer International et. al.Perrie v. PerrieSenju Pharmaceutical et. al. v. Metrics et. al.Kenzinc v. imblowingup et. al.Sun Zapper v. Devroy et. al.Merck Sharp & Dohme v. Fresenius KabiTracBeam v. T-Mobile et. al.ATEN International v. Uniclass Technology et. al.Mcs Industries v. Hds TradingDok Solution v. FKA Distributung et. al.GRQ Investment Management v. Financial Engines et. al.Merck Sharp & Dohme v. Fresenius KabiMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Konami Digital Entertainment