Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/143492337/Draeger-Safety-v-E-D-Bullard
Timestamp: 2017-11-21 00:15:56
Document Index: 774657810

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2201', '§ 1', '§ 2201', '§ 1331', '§ 1338', '§ 1391']

Draeger Safety v. E.D. Bullard | Declaratory Judgment | Patent
Description: Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-00727-CB: Draeger Safety, Inc. v. E.D. Bullard, Co. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, the...
Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-00727-CB: Draeger Safety, Inc. v. E.D. Bullard, Co. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, the Hon. Cathy Bissoon presiding. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l8u9 for more info.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA Draeger Safety, Inc.
Plaintiff, Civil Action No. ____________ v. E.D. Bullard, Co. Complaint for Declaratory Judgment Defendant Jury Trial Demanded
Complaint for Declaratory Judgment Plaintiff, Draeger Safety, Inc., by and through its attorneys, Del Sole Cavanaugh Stroyd LLC, files the following Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and states as follows: Nature of this Action 1. This is a Declaratory Judgment action brought by Draeger Safety Inc. Draeger Safety against E.D. Bullard Co. Bullard because of Bullard’s repeated threatened patent litigation against Draeger Safety. 2. This action arises under the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 and the patent laws of the United States, Title 35, United States Code. Specifically, this action seeks a declaration that Draeger Safety does not infringe any claims of United States Patents 7,321,119; 7,622,716; and, 7,897,919 the patents‐in‐suit . The Parties 3. Draeger Safety is a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business at 101 Technology Drive Pittsburgh, PA 15275.
4. Bullard is a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business at 1898 Safety Way, Cynthiana, KY 41031. Jurisdiction and Venue 5. This action arises under the United States patent laws, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., and under the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. 6. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and § 1338 a . 7. Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391. 8. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Bullard because it conducts business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and this district by marketing and offering for sale protective equipment and systems. This Court also has personal jurisdiction over Bullard because, as set forth below, Bullard purposefully directed activities to this Commonwealth when it corresponded with Draeger Safety about Bullard’s patent application and issued patents, which gives rise to this action. Background of this Action 9. There is an actual and justiciable controversy between the parties concerning the patents‐in‐suit, as set forth more fully below. 10. Draeger Safety is an innovator and leader in delivering products that protect, support, and save lives. An exemplary set of these products are the Dräger UCF® thermal imaging cameras. Draeger Safety currently manufactures and sells its UCF 2 line of thermal imaging cameras, which includes model numbers 6000, 7000, 9000, and 9000 NFPA approved.
11. Bullard has threatened to sue Draeger Safety for patent infringement of the patents‐ in‐suit. 12. Bullard first contacted Draeger Safety in September 2006 regarding a patent application, which later led to the ’119 patent. Bullard then contacted Draeger Safety when the ’119 patent issued in 2008. 13. Bullard followed up with Draeger Safety in August 24, 2012, identifying two additional patents that had issued: the ’716 patent and the ’919 patent. In this letter, Bullard made clear that it was investigating Draeger Safety’s thermal imaging cameras with ThermalScan function, and reserved “all of Bullard’s rights and remedies under applicable law.” 14. Even though Draeger Safety explained to Bullard that Draeger Safety did not practice the claims in the patents‐in‐suit, and that Draeger Safety believed the patents‐in‐ suit to be invalid, Bullard continued to correspond and communicate with Draeger Safety about the patents‐in‐suit. 15. For instance, on April 24, 2013, Bullard’s outside counsel emailed Draeger Safety about prior art in reference to what Bullard’s outside counsel characterized as “Bullard’s patent infringement claim.” Bullard’s outside counsel then requested additional information that Bullard could evaluate before “taking next steps.” 16. Bullard’s outside counsel then followed up on that same day with additional threats to sue Draeger Safety. For example, Bullard’s outside counsel requested additional prior art so Bullard “can decide if there is a valid defense so we don’t have to file suit. I have to think it makes more sense to convince us not to file suit than to defend one where you stone walled us” emphasis added .
17. Sales representatives have also accused Draeger Safety of patent infringement during conversations with potential customers. 18. Based on Bullard’s communications, in isolation and in totality, Bullard has evinced its preparedness and willingness to attempt to enforce the patents‐in‐suit against Draeger Safety. As a result, there is a substantial controversy between Bullard and Draeger Safety because Draeger Safety does not and has not practiced any claims in the patents‐in‐suit by selling its UCF 2 line of thermal imaging cameras. Draeger Safety, therefore, brings this complaint to end Bullard’s threatened litigation over the patents‐in‐suit and to obtain a judicial declaration that Draeger Safety does not and has not practiced any claim in the patents‐in‐suit by selling is UCF 2 line of thermal imaging cameras. Count I – Non‐infringement of the ’119 Patent 19. Draeger Safety restates and re‐alleges paragraphs 1‐18 herein. 20. Draeger Safety does not infringe, either directly or indirectly, whether literally or under the Doctrine of Equivalents, any claim in the ’119 patent by manufacturing and selling its UCF 2 line of thermal imaging cameras, which includes model numbers 6000, 7000, 9000, and 9000 NFPA approved. 21. Draeger Safety is entitled to a declaration that it does not infringe any claim of ’119 patent. Count II – Non‐infringement of the ’716 Patent 22. Draeger Safety restates and re‐alleges paragraphs 1‐18 herein. 23. Draeger Safety does not infringe, either directly or indirectly, whether literally or
under the Doctrine of Equivalents, any claim in the ’716 patent by manufacturing and selling its UCF 2 line of thermal imaging cameras, which includes model numbers 6000, 7000, 9000, and 9000 NFPA approved. 24. Draeger Safety is entitled to a declaration that it does not infringe any claim of ’716 patent. Count III – Non‐infringement of the ’919 Patent 25. Draeger Safety restates and re‐alleges paragraphs 1‐18 herein. 26. Draeger Safety does not infringe, either directly or indirectly, whether literally or under the Doctrine of Equivalents, any claim in the ’919 patent by manufacturing and selling its UCF 2 line of thermal imaging cameras, which includes model numbers 6000, 7000, 9000, and 9000 NFPA approved. 27. Draeger Safety is entitled to a declaration that it does not infringe any claim of ’919 patent. Jury Trial Demanded Draeger Safety respectfully demands a trial by jury on all claims so triable.
Documents Similar To Draeger Safety v. E.D. Bullard
Dodger's Bar & Grill v. Johnson County Board, 98 F.3d 1262, 10th Cir. (1996)
udja 1922
Ranking-Data-Form- for-Faculty-100316.docx