Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/139041898/Milos-Misha-Subotincic-Et-Al-v-Conagra-Foods-Et-Al
Timestamp: 2018-03-22 06:47:57
Document Index: 716230980

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 271', '§ 1331', '§ 1391', '§ 282', '§ 271', '§ 271']

Milos Misha Subotincic Et. Al. v. Conagra Foods Et. Al. | Patent Infringement | Patent
Description: Milos Misha Subotincic et. al. v. Conagra Foods et. al.
citizen having an address at 83 Riverwood Parkway, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M8Y4E4. 2. Plaintiff Subo Automation Inc. (“Subo”) is a corporation established and existing under the laws of the province of Ontario, Canada, with a principal place of business at 83 Riverwood Parkway, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M8Y4E4. Depending on the context in which it is used herein, the term “Plaintiffs” is intended to include both Plaintiffs Subotincic and Subo. 3. Defendant ConAgra Foods, Inc. (“ConAgra” or “ConAgra Foods”) is a for-profit, Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Omaha, Nebraska. Defendant manufactures and markets brand name food products throughout the United States, including California. 4. At this time, the true names and capacities of Doe Defendants 1-10 are not known to Plaintiff, and Plaintiff therefore sues them under fictitious names. When the actual identities of Does 1 through 10 are determined, Plaintiff intends to seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to name such persons as Doe Defendants. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that Does 1 through 10 participated in one or more of the wrongful acts described herein, and/or are responsible in some way for one or more of the wrongful acts and resulting damages alleged herein. Accordingly, depending on the context in which it is used herein, the term “Defendants” is intended to include not only Defendant ConAgra Foods, but also any other Defendants or any individuals or other entities acting on behalf of or in coordination with the named Defendants regarding the matters discussed herein. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 United States Code, particularly §§ 271 and 281. This Court has jurisdiction over the claim for patent infringement under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). 6. Venue is proper in this judicial District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391
_____________________________________________________________________________________ COMPLAINT 2
KINDRED | POSEY
12 (888) 499-5558 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
and/or 1400(b) as this action relates to patents, and Defendants, on information and belief, have committed acts of infringement here. 7. Personal jurisdiction exists generally over the Defendants because they have sufficient minimum contacts with the forum as a result of continuous and ongoing business conducted within the State of California and within the Central District of California. Personal jurisdiction also exists specifically over each of the Defendants because each, directly or through subsidiaries or intermediaries, makes, uses, sells, and offers for sale, products or services within the State of California and within the Central District of California, that infringe U.S. Patent No. 8,240,726, and/or sells and offers for sale products within the Central District of California that were created or configured as a result of ConAgra’s infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,240,726. THE PATENT 8. On August 14, 2012, United States Patent No. 8,240,726, entitled “End Effector With Multiple Pick-Up Members” (“the ‘726 patent”) was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A true and correct copy of the ‘726 patent is attached as Exhibit A. 9. 10. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 282, the ‘726 patent is presumed valid. Subotincic is the inventor and owner of the entire right, title, and
interest in the ‘726 patent, including the right to recover damages for past, present and future infringement. 11. Plaintiff Subo Automation, Inc. is, and remained at all relevant FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (patent infringement) 12. Defendants have been and are now making, using, selling, offering for sale within the United States, or importing into the United States, end effector tools that infringe one or more claims of the ‘726 patent.
_____________________________________________________________________________________ COMPLAINT 3
times, the exclusive licensee of the ‘726 Patent.
By so making, using, selling, offering to sell within the United
States, or importing into the United States the aforementioned products, Defendants have infringed and continue to infringe the ‘726 patent, either literally or by equivalents, and either directly or indirectly by inducing infringement or contributing to the infringement of the ‘726 patent. 14. With respect to certain claims of the ‘726 patent, on information and belief, to the extent that Defendants are guilty of contributing to the infringement of those claims of the ‘726 patent, Defendants have been and are now making, using, selling, offering for sale within the United States, or importing into the United States, end effector tools, or portions thereof, that are especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of such certain claims, and are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c). By way of example, and not by way of limitation, on information and belief, Defendants import and use end effector tools from a Canadian supplier, which are then installed on robots, the combination of which infringes certain claims of the ‘726 patent that require the combination of a robot and an end effector. On information and belief, Defendants new of the ‘726 patent, and knew the combination of the end effector and robot infringes those claims of the ‘726 patent. 15. Plaintiffs allege that the end effector tools sold by Defendants are a material parts of the invention, and, on information and belief, Defendants knew the tools were specifically made or adapted for an infringing use. On information and belief, Defendants intended to use tools that infringe the ‘726 patent and knew that their acts constituted infringement. 16. With respect to certain claims of the ‘726 patent, on information and belief, to the extent that Defendants are guilty of inducing infringement of those claims of the ‘726 patent, Defendants have been and are now making, using, selling, offering for sale within the United States, or importing into the United
_____________________________________________________________________________________ COMPLAINT 4
States, end effector tools, or portions thereof, that are especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of such certain claims by Defendants’ customers who infringe those claims, and not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). By way of example, and not by way of limitation, on information and belief, Defendants import and use end effector tools from their Canadian supplier, which are then installed on robots, the combination of which infringes certain claims of the ‘726 patent that require the combination of a robot and an end effector. On information and belief, Defendants new of the ‘726 patent, and knowingly induced infringement of those claims of the ‘726 patent. 17. Defendants’ acts of infringement, inducement of infringement, and contributory infringement, of the ‘726 patent as alleged above have injured Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs are entitled to recover damages adequate to compensate them for that infringement, which in no event can be less than a reasonable royalty. 18. On information and belief, Defendants have been aware of the ‘726 Patent and their infringement thereof since issuance of the ‘726 Patent. Despite knowledge of their infringement of the ‘726 Patent, Defendants continued to infringe that patent. Defendants acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of the ‘726 Patent. Defendants therefore willfully infringed the ‘726 patent. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for entry of judgment: A. B. Declaring that the Defendants have infringed one or more claims of That the Defendants account for and pay to Plaintiffs all damages the ‘726 patent. caused by the infringement of the ‘726 patent, which by statute can be no less
_____________________________________________________________________________________ COMPLAINT 5
than a reasonable royalty; C. That the Defendants have willfully infringed the ‘726 patent, and that an award of damages in the highest amount allowed by law be assessed against Defendants for the willful infringement. D. That Plaintiffs be granted their costs, pre-judgment and postjudgment interest on the damages caused to them by reason of the Defendants’ infringement of the ‘726 patent; E. F. G. That Plaintiffs be granted his attorneys’ fees in this action; That costs be awarded to Plaintiffs; That Plaintiffs be granted such other and further relief that is just and
proper under the circumstances. Respectfully submitted: April 25, 2013
12 (888) 499-5558 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 _____________________________________________________________________________________ COMPLAINT 6
Alan Kindred Ivan Posey
Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Subo Automation Inc. and Milos Misha Subotincic /// /// /// /// ///
JURY DEMAND Pursuant to Rule 38(b), F. R. Civ. P., plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial on all issues triable by a jury. Respectfully submitted: April 25, 2013
Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Subo Automation Inc. and Milos Misha Subotincic /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// ///
_____________________________________________________________________________________ COMPLAINT 7
Documents Similar To Milos Misha Subotincic Et. Al. v. Conagra Foods Et. Al.
Wyncomm v. Cowon America
Otter Products v. Seal Shield Et. Al.