Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/98930011/Cagenix-v-Technique-D-Usinage-Sinlab
Timestamp: 2013-12-12 07:25:53
Document Index: 436513858

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1331', '§ 2201', '§ 1338', '§ 1391', '§ 271', '§ 2201']

Cagenix v. Technique D'Usinage Sinlab
P. 1Cagenix v. Technique D'Usinage SinlabCagenix v. Technique D'Usinage SinlabRatings: 0|Views: 281|Likes: 0Published by PriorSmartOfficial Complaint for Declaratory Judgement in Civil Action No. 2:12-cv-02527: Cagenix, Inc. v. Technique D'Usinage Sinlab Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l6kE for more info.Official Complaint for Declaratory Judgement in Civil Action No. 2:12-cv-02527: Cagenix, Inc. v. Technique D'Usinage Sinlab Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l6kE for more info.More info: categoriesBusiness/Law, Court FilingsPublished by: PriorSmart on Jul 03, 2012Copyright:Public DomainAvailability:Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Free download as PDF, TXT or read online for free from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content|Add to collectionSee MoreSee lesshttp://www.scribd.com/doc/98930011/Cagenix-v-Technique-D-Usinage-Sinlab02/01/2013pdftextoriginal 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEEWESTERN DIVISION
CAGENIX, INC., a Tennesseecorporation,Plaintiff,v. CASE NO. 2:12-cv-02527TECHNIQUE D’USINAGE SINLAB INC.,a Canadian corporation
COMES NOW the plaintiff, Cagenix, Inc. (“Plaintiff” or “Cagenix”) and, for itsdeclaratory judgment complaint against Defendant Technique D’Usinage Sinlab Inc. (“Sinlab”),alleges and states as follows:
Plaintiff is a Tennessee corporation with its principal office in Memphis,Tennessee.2.
Sinlab is a foreign corporation organized and existing under the laws of Canada,having its principal place of business at 3517 Boulevard de la Grande-Allée, Boisbriand, QuébecJ7H 1C2, Canada. Its registered office address is 52 rue des Feux-Follets, Morin-Heights,Québec J0R 1H0, Canada.
This is an action by Cagenix against Sinlab for a declaration of noninfringementof several patents. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this declaratory judgmentaction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as Plaintiff's claims arise under the Federal DeclaratoryJudgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
, and under the patent laws of the United States, 28U.S.C. § 1338(a).4.
Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391.5.
Upon information and belief, Sinlab is subject to the personal jurisdiction of thisCourt due to its patent enforcement activities within the forum including, without limitation,entering into an exclusive licensing agreement with a company that conducts business inTennessee.6.
In the alternative, and upon information and belief, this Court has personal jurisdiction over Sinlab pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2). Plaintiff’s cause of action for a declaration of patent noninfringement arises under federal law; on information andbelief, Sinlab is not subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of general jurisdiction of any state;and, upon information and belief, this Court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over Sinlabsatisfies the constitutional requirements of due process because Sinlab has availed itself of thelaws of the United States and has, in the aggregate, sufficient minimum contacts with the UnitedStates as a whole.
COUNT I – DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
Plaintiff incorporates and re-alleges all prior paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.8.
Sinlab is the assignee of United States Patent Nos. 8,021,153; 7,866,980;7,331,786; 6,814,575; and 6,382,975; hereinafter referred to collectively as “the Patents.”
Sinlab has charged Cagenix with infringement of the Patents and threatened legalaction against Cagenix. Specifically, Sinlab sent Cagenix a cease-and-desist letter dated June 14,2012 in which it stated that Cagenix “is infringing upon the Patents in direct violation of 35U.S.C. § 271” and declared that, if Cagenix refused to comply with its demands by July 2, 2012,“immediately [sic] legal action will be taken by [Sinlab] to protect the Patents,” including thefiling of a lawsuit on July 3, 2012. A copy of that letter is attached hereto as Exhibit A.10.
Cagenix is presently producing and offering for sale the products that Sinlaballeged are infringing on the Patents.11.
On information and belief, Sinlab sent similar cease-and-desist letters in or aroundJune 2012 to several other U.S. companies alleging infringement of the Patents.12.
In view of Sinlab’s accusations of infringement of the Patents and it threats of legal action, Cagenix has a reasonable fear and apprehension that patent infringement litigationwill be brought against it.13.
Despite Sinlab’s threats to the contrary, Cagenix’s products do not infringe any of the claims of the Patents.14.
By reason of the foregoing, an actual controversy between Plaintiff and Defendantexists as to the alleged infringement of the Patents.15.
To resolve the legal and factual questions raised by Sinlab’s assertions of infringement by Cagenix and to afford relief from the uncertainty and controversy whichSinlab’s assertions have precipitated, Cagenix is entitled to a declaratory judgment of its rightsunder 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02 that the sale by Cagenix of its products is not infringing on thePatents owned by Sinlab.
Biohorizons Implant Systems v. Technique D'Usinage Sinlab
Phoenix Licensing et. al. v. Carnival et. al.
Phoenix Licensing et. al. v. American Airlines
Protective cover for laptop computer (US patent 8289703)
Drill bit and method for producing a drill bit (US patent...
Mower with combined steering and brake levers (US patent ...
Mower with combined steering an brake levers (US patent 6...
Dexas International v. Brumis Imports
e-Watch et. al. v. Sharp
Surgibit IP Holdings Pty et. al. v. Orchid Orthopedic Sol...
Hopewell Culture & Design v. Panasonic Corporation of Nor...
Sonic Industry v. Wescom Centra Credit Union
Sonic Industry v. East West Bank
Automated memorial system (US patent 8390204)
Yahrzeitronix v. W&E Baum Bronze Tablet Corp. dba W&E Bau...
RecommendedBiohorizons Implant Systems v. Techni...PriorSmartOfficial Complaint for Declaratory Judgement in Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-0109...