Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/172015049/Freedom-Scientific-v-Aumed-Et-Al
Timestamp: 2016-12-11 14:32:57
Document Index: 781605161

Matched Legal Cases: ['§1331', '§1332', '§ 48', '§1391', '§ 271', '§ 284', '§ 289', '§ 285', 'art3']

BrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksArticlesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION FREEDOM SCIENTIFIC, INC, a Delaware Corporation, Plaintiff, vs. AUMED, INC., a California Corporation, and AUMED GROUP CORP., a Foreign corporation, Defendants. _____________________________________ / COMPLAINT Freedom Scientific, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Freedom Scientific”), sues Defendants Aumed, Inc. and Aumed Group Corp. (collectively “Aumed”) and alleges as follows: PARTIES 1. Freedom Scientific is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business at Case No. _____________________
11800 31st Court North, Saint Petersburg, Pinellas County, Florida 33716. 2. Defendant Aumed, Inc. is a California corporation with a principal place of
business at 131 Glenn Way, Unit 5, San Carlos, CA 94070. 3. Defendant Aumed Group Corp. is a foreign corporation with a principal place of
business in 3/F Building D No. 31, Jiaoda Dong Road, Haidian District, Beijing 100044, China.
§§1331 & 1338(a). Further, this Court possesses subject matter jurisdiction over this action insofar as the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between citizens of different States as provided in 28 U.S.C. §1332(a)(1). 7. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants pursuant to Fla. Stat.
§ 48.193(1)(a), (b) and (f) & (2). Specifically, Defendants have committed a tortious act within the State of Florida by, inter alia, selling or offering to sell a product which infringes upon patents held by Freedom Scientific. 8. Venue is properly placed in this district and division pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§1391(b), and Local Rule 1.02(c), M.D. Fla. Local Rules. BACKGROUND 9. United States Design Patent No. D624,107, entitled “Hand Held Multi Position
Magnifier Camera,” was duly filed on June 5, 2009, and was issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on September 21, 2010, naming as assignee Plaintiff, Freedom Scientific, Inc. A true copy of the ‘107 Design Patent is attached as Exhibit A to this Complaint and incorporated by reference. 10. The ‘107 Design Patent currently is, and at all relevant times in the past has
been, in full force and effect. 11. United States Utility Patent No. 8,264,598, entitled “Multiposition Handheld
Electronic Magnifier,” was duly filed on June 5, 2009, and was issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on September 11, 2012, naming as assignee Plaintiff, Freedom Scientific, Inc. A true copy of the ‘598 Utility Patent is attached as Exhibit B to this Complaint and
incorporated by reference. 12. The ‘598 Utility Patent currently is, and at all relevant times in the past has
been, in full force and effect. 13. Based on the ‘107 Design Patent and the ‘598 Utility Patent, Freedom
Scientific developed and sells the RUBY® Handheld Video Magnifier (“RUBY”), a portable handheld video magnifier. 14. To use the RUBY®, a user places it over an object, and adjusts magnification
with the zoom button. The RUBY® stays flat on the table or can be held over the reading material with the fold-away handle. The magnified image or text appears in the display window. Additionally, the RUBY® can be converted into a conventional magnifying glass by flipping out the handle. 15. The design and use of the RUBY® is depicted in the below images:
Defendants currently sell the “Image” handheld video magnifier (“Image”),
which is virtually identical in design and function to the RUBY®. The design and use of the RUBY® is depicted in the below images:
Defendants have advertised, promoted, marketed, offered to sell and, upon
information and belief, sold the Image, which infringes upon the ‘107 Design Patent and the ‘598 Utility Patent. 18. Freedom Scientific has been damaged by Defendants’ infringing activities and
will be irreparably injured unless such infringing actions are enjoined by this Court. 19. 20. Freedom Scientific has no adequate remedy at law to prevent such injury. Given Defendants’ clear infringement of Freedom Scientific’s intellectual
property rights, Freedom Scientific will likely prevail upon the merits of this action. 21. The balance of the hardships and the public interest require that Defendants
immediately cease its infringing activities. 22. All conditions precedent to Freedom Scientific’s maintenance of this action
have occurred, have been performed, or have been excused or waived. 23. Freedom Scientific has retained the law firm of Gray Robinson P.A. to
vindicate its rights against Defendants, and Freedom Scientific is obligated to pay its attorneys a reasonable attorneys’ fee for their services.
COUNT I- INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. DESIGN PATENT D624,107 24. Freedom Scientific incorporates by reference and realleges the allegations of
paragraphs 1 through 23 as though fully set forth herein. 25. Defendants, without authority or consent from Freedom Scientific, are directly
infringing the claim of the ‘107 Design Patent by manufacturing, distributing, offering to sell, importing and/or selling the Image, which misappropriates or colorably imitates the design covered by the claim in the ‘107 Design Patent. 26. Defendants’ handheld video magnifier would cause an ordinary person to be
deceived and/or induced into purchasing the Image supposing it to be the RUBY®. 27. Defendants’ infringing conduct is willful, malicious and in conscious disregard
of Freedom Scientific’s rights under the ‘107 Design Patent. 28. Defendants’ activities described above constitute infringement of Freedom
Scientific’s federally protected patent rights in the ‘107 Design Patent and violate 35 U.S.C. § 271. 29. As a result of the acts of Defendant’s infringement of the ‘107 Design Patent,
Freedom Scientific has suffered and continues to suffer damages, and Freedom Scientific is entitled to all remedies provided by Chapter 29 of Title 35, United States Code. 30. Unless temporarily restrained, preliminary and permanently enjoined from
infringing the ‘107 Design Patent, Freedom Scientific will continue to suffer irreparable harm from which it has no adequate remedy at law.
COUNT II- INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. UTILITY PATENT 8,264,598 31. Freedom Scientific incorporates by reference and realleges the allegations of
paragraphs 1 through 23 as though fully set forth herein. 32. Defendants, without the authority or consent from Freedom Scientific, are
directly infringing the ‘598 Utility Patent by manufacturing, distributing, offering to sell, importing and/or selling the Image. 33. Defendants’ infringing conduct is willful, malicious and in conscious disregard
of Freedom Scientific’s rights under the ‘598 Utility Patent. 34. As a result of the acts of Defendant’s infringement of the ‘598 Utility Patent,
Freedom Scientific has suffered and continues to suffer damages, and Freedom Scientific is entitled to all remedies provided by Chapter 29 of Title 35, United States Code. 35. Unless temporarily restrained, preliminary and permanently enjoined from
infringing the ‘598 Utility Patent, Freedom Scientific will continue to suffer irreparable harm from which it has no adequate remedy at law. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Freedom Scientific, Inc. a Delaware corporation, prays for relief as follows: A. That the Court adjudge that Defendants have infringed on the ‘107 Design Patent
and ‘598 Utility Patent; B. That the Court adjudge that Defendants infringement of the ‘107 Design Patent
and ‘598 Utility Patent has been willful and deliberate; C. That the Court permanently enjoin Defendants from manufacturing, distributing,
offering to sell, importing and/or selling the Image;
That the Court award Plaintiff its damages in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 284,
and increase those damages up to three (3) times by reason of the willful and deliberate infringement; E. That the Court award Plaintiff the Defendants’ total profits realized from the
infringement of the ‘107 Design Patent in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 289 F. G. That the Court award Plaintiff its costs in connection with this action; That the Court declare the patent infringement claims herein to be an
“exceptional” case within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285, and award Plaintiff its reasonable attorney fees, expenses and costs in this action; H. That the Court award Plaintiff such other and further relief as the Court may deem
to be just and proper. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Freedom Scientific hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable. Respectfully submitted this 26th day of September of 2013. /s/Kevin P. Crosby KEVIN P. CROSBY, ESQ. Florida Bar No. 654360 GrayRobinson, P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 1000 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 (954)-761-8111 (954)-761-8112 Attorneys for Plaintiff
# 4298516 v1
Freedom Scientific v. Aumed Et. Al. by PatentBlast78 viewsEmbedDownloadDescriptionFreedom Scientific v. Aumed et. al.Freedom Scientific v. Aumed et. al.Read 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
RelatedHarvatek v. Nichia America et. al.by PriorSmartCertainteed v. Owens Corningby PatentBlastCreateAds LLCby PriorSmartCA v. New Relicby PatentBlastCreateAds v. Wix.comby PriorSmartFreescale Semiconductor v. MediaTekby PriorSmartAlex is the Best v. T-Mobile et. al..pdfby PatentBlastEMG Technology v. Williams-Sonoma Et. Al.by PatentBlastMAZ Encryption Technologies v. HTC et. al.by PriorSmartChinook Licensing DE LLCby PriorSmartCreateAds v. 1&1 Internetby PriorSmarte.Digital v. Diasonic Technology et. al.by PriorSmartSelect Comfort v. Sleep Better Store et. al.by PriorSmartLululemon Athletica Canada v Calvin Klein and G-III Apparel Group Ltd Complaintby C BealeU.S. Ethernet Innovations v. Lenovoby PatentBlastGlobeTecTrust v. Knologyby PriorSmartAlex is the Best v. Blackberry et. al.by PriorSmartTennier Industries v. American Recreation Productsby PriorSmartNeurowave Medical Technologies v. Mannby PriorSmartFu Jian Quanyu Industry v. LNL Building Products et. al.by PriorSmartCreateAds LLCby PriorSmartA&J Manufacturing et. al. v. W.C. Bradley et. al.by PriorSmartAeritas v. American Airlinesby PatentBlastSecureNova v. HTC et. al.by PriorSmart3form Et. Al. v. Fresh Conceptsby PatentBlastHunter Douglas Et. Al. v. Nien Made Enterprise Et. Al.by PatentBlastKee Action Sports et. al. v. Valkenby PriorSmartBruckbauer v. Lemansby PriorSmartSimilar to Freedom Scientific v. Aumed Et. Al.Harvatek v. Nichia America et. al.Certainteed v. Owens CorningCreateAds LLCCA v. New RelicCreateAds v. Wix.comFreescale Semiconductor v. MediaTekAlex is the Best v. T-Mobile et. al..pdfEMG Technology v. Williams-Sonoma Et. Al.MAZ Encryption Technologies v. HTC et. al.Chinook Licensing DE LLCCreateAds v. 1&1 Internete.Digital v. Diasonic Technology et. al.Select Comfort v. Sleep Better Store et. al.Lululemon Athletica Canada v Calvin Klein and G-III Apparel Group Ltd ComplaintU.S. Ethernet Innovations v. LenovoGlobeTecTrust v. KnologyAlex is the Best v. Blackberry et. al.Tennier Industries v. American Recreation ProductsNeurowave Medical Technologies v. MannFu Jian Quanyu Industry v. LNL Building Products et. al.CreateAds LLCA&J Manufacturing et. al. v. W.C. Bradley et. al.Aeritas v. American AirlinesSecureNova v. HTC et. al.3form Et. Al. v. Fresh ConceptsHunter Douglas Et. Al. v. Nien Made Enterprise Et. Al.Kee Action Sports et. al. v. ValkenBruckbauer v. LemansGillette Company v. Simplifying Complex SpacesInMotion Imagery Technologies v. Notorious Productions et. al.Freedom Scientific v. Aumed Et. Al.