Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/133783196/Minka-Lighting-v-Craftmade-International
Timestamp: 2017-03-28 12:02:00
Document Index: 599410051

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1331', '§ 1391', '§ 284', '§ 289', '§ 283', '§ 285', '§ 271', '§ 284', '§ 289', '§ 283']

BrowseInterestsStay InformedCareerPersonal GrowthFiction & BiographiesHealth & FitnessLifestyleCultureBrowse byBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION MINKA LIGHTING, INC., PLAINTIFF, V. CRAFTMADE INTERNATIONAL, INC., DEFENDANT. § § § § § § § §
COMPLAINT Plaintiff Minka Lighting, Inc. (“Minka”) files this Complaint for patent infringement against Defendant Craftmade International, Inc. (“Craftmade” or "Defendant"), and for cause would show as follows: THE PARTIES 1. Plaintiff Minka is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State
of California, with its principal place of business at 1151 West Bradford Court, Corona, California 92882. 2. On information and belief, Defendant Craftmade is a corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business at 650 S. Royal Lane, Suite 100, Coppell, Texas 75019. Defendant Craftmade may be served with process by serving its registered agent, John Mares, at 3401 West Trinity Boulevard, Grand Prairie, Texas 75050.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this controversy pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338 because it is a civil action involving a federal question related to claims for patent infringement arising under the Patent Act, Title 35 of the United States Code. 4. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Craftmade because it is a
resident of this State, and conducts business in this State, including without limitation, the manufacture, use, importation, distribution, sale and/or offer for sale of infringing products in this State and this District, and Defendant should reasonably anticipate being haled into court in this State. 5. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(2) and 1400(b)
because a substantial part of the events giving rise to Minka’s claims occurred in this District, including without limitation, Defendant's manufacture, use, importation, distribution, sale and/or offer for sale of the infringing products in this District; Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in this District; and Defendant has committed torts in whole or in part in this District. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 6. Plaintiff Minka is in the business of designing, manufacturing, importing,
distributing, marketing, offering to sell and/or selling high-quality home products, including ceiling fans. Minka sells its ceiling fans via authorized distributors located throughout the United States, including in this District. 7. Minka has invested substantial time, effort, skill, expense, and resources in
designing and engineering its ceiling fans. 8. On information and belief, Defendant Craftmade is in the business of
manufacturing, importing, distributing, marketing, offering to sell and/or selling ceiling fans. On
information and belief, Defendant Craftmade directly competes with Minka in the U.S. ceiling fan industry. 9. On information and belief, Defendant Craftmade offers for sale and sells its
ceiling fans to consumers through authorized retailers in this State, as well as throughout the United States. On information and belief, Defendant Craftmade’s authorized retailers in this State and in this District distribute, market, offer for sale and/or sell Defendant Craftmade’s infringing ceiling fans. COUNT I INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. D678,997 10. Minka repeats and realleges the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 9 as if fully
set forth herein. 11. Minka is the sole owner of U.S. Patent No. D678,997 (the “997 Patent”) entitled
“Ceiling Fan,” issued on March 26, 2013. A true and correct copy of the ‘997 Patent is attached as Plaintiff’s Exhibit A and incorporated by reference herein. 12. Minka offers for sale and sells ceiling fans that are commercial embodiments of
the invention claimed in the ‘997 Patent, including without limitation, a ceiling fan offered under the trademark “WING.” Minka offers for sale and sells its patented “WING” ceiling fans throughout the United States, including in this District. 13. From the date of issuance of the ‘997 Patent to the present, Minka has marked its
“WING” ceiling fans with the ‘997 Patent number. 14. 15. Minka has not licensed any of its rights in the ‘997 Patent to Defendant. On information and belief, Defendant, without license from Minka, has made,
used, imported, distributed, sold and/or offered for sale, and is making, using, importing, distributing, selling and/or offering for sale the “VOGUE” line of ceiling fans, including without
limitation, Model Numbers VG54TI and WG54FB, that infringe the claim of the ‘997 Patent, either literally or under the Doctrine of Equivalents. 16. On information and belief, the Defendant’s infringement occurred with actual
and/or constructive knowledge of the ‘997 Patent. 17. By reason of Defendant's infringement, Minka is entitled to damages to the full
extent authorized by 35 U.S.C. § 284 and/or § 289, and injunctive relief pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 283. Minka is also entitled to its attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. 18. The infringing acts of Defendant have been the actual and proximate cause of
damage to Minka, and Minka has sustained damages and will continue to sustain damages as a result of Defendant's infringement of the ‘997 Patent. 19. Minka has no adequate remedy at law. The foregoing acts of Defendant have
caused Minka irreparable harm. Unless enjoined, Defendant's acts as alleged herein will continue to cause Minka irreparable harm. JURY DEMAND 20. Plaintiff demands a trial by jury. RELIEF REQUESTED Wherefore, Plaintiff Minka Lighting, Inc. prays for a judgment that: A. Defendant has infringed and is infringing Minka’s rights in the ‘997 Patent, in
violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271; B. Minka be awarded damages adequate to compensate it for the damages it has
suffered as a result of Defendant's infringement of the ‘997 Patent, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284 and/or § 289; C. Defendant be ordered to pay pre-judgment interest to Minka on all amounts
awarded and post-judgment interest until paid at the maximum lawful rate; -4-
Defendant, its officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys and all persons
acting in concert or participation with it who receive actual notice of the Court's order, be enjoined pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 283 from: (1) directly or indirectly manufacturing, using, importing, offering for sale, selling, causing to be sold, or in any way distributing any ceiling fan that directly infringes the ‘997 Patent; (2) directly or indirectly manufacturing, using, importing, distributing, offering for sale, selling, causing to be sold, or in any way distributing any ceiling fan that infringes the ‘997 Patent under the Doctrine of Equivalents; and (3) E. attempting, causing, or assisting any of the above-described acts. The Court retain jurisdiction of this action for the purpose of enabling Minka to
apply to the Court at any time for such further orders and interpretation or execution of any order entered in this action; for the modification of any such order; for the enforcement or compliance therewith; and for the punishment of any violations thereof; F. 285; and G. Minka be awarded such other and further relief, at law or in equity, as the Court Defendant be ordered to pay Minka's attorneys' fees, as provided by 35 U.S.C. §
may deem just.
Respectfully submitted, /s/ Lisa H. Meyerhoff Lisa H. Meyerhoff Texas Bar No. 14000255 Email: Lisa.Meyerhoff@bakermckenzie.com BAKER & MCKENZIE LLP 2300 Trammell Crow Center 2001 Ross Avenue Dallas, Texas 75201 Phone: 214 978 3035 Fax: 214 978 3099
Myall S. Hawkins Texas Bar No. 09250320 Email: Myall.S.Hawkins@bakermckenzie.com Tan H. Pham Texas Bar No. 24046628 Email: Tan.Pham@bakermckenzie.com William Ryan Hales Texas Bar No. 24074340 Email: Ryan.Hales@bakermckenzie.com BAKER & MCKENZIE LLP Pennzoil Place, South Tower 711 Louisiana, Suite 3400 Houston, TX 77002-2746 Phone: 713 427 5000 Fax: 713 427 5099 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF MINKA LIGHTING, INC.
329503-v1\HOUDMS
Sign up to vote on this titleUsefulNot usefulMinka Lighting v. Craftmade International by PatentBlast0.0 (0)EmbedDownloadDescriptionMinka Lighting v. Craftmade InternationalMinka Lighting v. Craftmade InternationalRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentShow moreShow less
RelatedPoint Source Solutions v. R.P.S. Products et. al.by PriorSmartM.J. Woods v. Little Rapidsby PatentBlastLT Tech v. Frontrange Solutionsby PatentBlastGlobeTecTrust v. Knologyby PriorSmartMeadows Financial Systems v. Little Caesar Enterpriseby PriorSmartCrook v. Ascena Retail Groupby PriorSmartCrook v. Westportby PriorSmartAdvanced Data Access v. Analog Devicesby PriorSmartPower Management Enterprises v. Toshiba America Information Systemsby PriorSmartDehn's Innovations v. Cleanblastor et. al.by PriorSmartPetEdge v. LTD Commodities Holdingsby PriorSmartJ-Channel Industries v. Lowe's Companies et. al.by PatentBlastLBS Innovations v. Alfred Angelo Et. Al.by PatentBlastParallel Networks v. Ignite Technologiesby PatentBlastParallel Networks v. Kontikiby PatentBlastRenfro v. Building Products Manufacturing Internationalby PriorSmartF & G Research, Inc. v. Google, Inc. - Document No. 4by Justia.comSecure Axcess v. Accell et. al.by PriorSmartL&H Concepts v. SkyGolf et. al.by PriorSmartL&H Concepts v. SkyHawke Technologiesby PriorSmartEBS Automotive Services et. al. v. Motorvacby PriorSmartBall Metal Beverage Container v. Cml&Jby PriorSmartB.E. Technology v. Twitterby PriorSmartby PriorSmartPatent Infringementby brainleagueMPHJ Technology Investments v. Federal Trade Commissionby PriorSmartSundesa v. Harrison-Daniels - Complaintby slbursteinInnovative Timing Systems v. Orbiterby PriorSmartSimilar To Minka Lighting v. Craftmade InternationalSkip carouselPoint Source Solutions v. R.P.S. Products et. al.M.J. Woods v. Little RapidsLT Tech v. Frontrange SolutionsGlobeTecTrust v. KnologyMeadows Financial Systems v. Little Caesar EnterpriseCrook v. Ascena Retail GroupCrook v. WestportAdvanced Data Access v. Analog DevicesPower Management Enterprises v. Toshiba America Information SystemsDehn's Innovations v. Cleanblastor et. al.PetEdge v. LTD Commodities HoldingsJ-Channel Industries v. Lowe's Companies et. al.LBS Innovations v. Alfred Angelo Et. Al.Parallel Networks v. Ignite TechnologiesParallel Networks v. KontikiRenfro v. Building Products Manufacturing InternationalF & G Research, Inc. v. Google, Inc. - Document No. 4Secure Axcess v. Accell et. al.L&H Concepts v. SkyGolf et. al.L&H Concepts v. SkyHawke TechnologiesEBS Automotive Services et. al. v. MotorvacBall Metal Beverage Container v. Cml&JB.E. Technology v. TwitterPatent InfringementMPHJ Technology Investments v. Federal Trade CommissionSundesa v. Harrison-Daniels - ComplaintInnovative Timing Systems v. OrbiterCyberFone Systems v. RCN Telecom ServicesTQP Development v. Allied ElectronicsMinka Lighting v. Craftmade International