Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/225712376/Wausau-Paper-Towel-Tissue-LLC
Timestamp: 2016-12-06 20:22:25
Document Index: 377960580

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 271', '§ 1331', '§ 1391', '§ 1400', '§ 287', '§ 287', '§ 285', 'art8']

BrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksArticlesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION WAUSAU PAPER TOWEL & TISSUE, LLC A Wisconsin limited liability company, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. ________ Cordell Inc. d/b/a Ridley’s Vacuum and J anitorial Supply A Texas corporation COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendant. Plaintiff, Wausau Paper Towel & Tissue, LLC, alleges as follows: THE PARTIES 1. Plaintiff, Wausau Paper Towel & Tissue, LLC (“Wausau”), is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of Wisconsin and having a principal place of business at 100 Paper Place, Mosinee, Wisconsin. 2. On information and belief, Defendant, Cordell Inc., is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Texas and having a principal place of business at 3700 Reveille Street, Houston, Texas 77087. On information and belief, Cordell Inc. does business as Ridley’s Vacuum and J anitorial Supply (“Ridley’s”). JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. This is a case for patent infringement arising under the Acts of Congress relating to patents, 35 U.S.C. §§ 271; 282-285. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). 4. J urisdiction is proper because, on information and belief, Defendant transacts business in this judicial district including the sales and offering for sale of its products, has committed acts of infringement in this judicial district and Defendant has sufficient contacts with this judicial district to subject itself to the jurisdiction of this Court. 5. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c) and 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). BACKGROUND 6. Wausau is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling various paper towel and tissue products, including paper roll products, to customers around the world. 7. On December 10, 2002, United States Patent No. 6,491,251 (“the ’251 patent”), entitled “Double Core Tissue Roll, Dispenser and Method” was duly and legally issued to Wausau as an assignee of the inventors, Mark Harrison Stanland, Steven M. Slye, Douglas E. Bagan, Alain P. Cotnoir, Randy A. Baughman, and Adam T. Elliott. 8. Wausau is the owner of the entire right, title and interest in and to the ’251 patent, and has been and continues to be the owner. A copy of the ’251 patent is attached as Exhibit A. 9. On November 18, 2003, United States Patent No. 6,648,267 (“the ’267 patent”), entitled “Double Core Tissue Roll, Dispenser and Method” was duly and legally issued to Wausau as an assignee of the inventors, Mark Harrison Stanland, Steven M. Slye, Douglas E. Bagan, Alain P. Cotnoir, Randy A. Baughman, and Adam T. Elliott. 2 10. Wausau is the owner of the entire right, title and interest in and to the ’267 patent, and has been and continues to be the owner. A copy of the ’267 patent is attached as Exhibit B. 11. These patents are directed at paper roll products with spaced core sections, including a process for making paper roll products with spaced core sections. 12. Ridley’s is engaged in the business of importing, using, selling and offering for sale paper roll products with spaced core sections. On information and belief, Ridley’s purposefully imports paper roll products with spaced core sections from abroad and sells them throughout the United States. A photograph of a sample accused paper roll product with spaced core sections, branded “ELEGANCE BATH TISSUE”, is attached hereto as Exhibit C. 13. On information and belief, the paper roll products with spaced core sections are made by unlawfully performing the claimed processes as disclosed in the ’251 and ’267 patents. 14. On information and belief, Ridley’s purchases and imports the paper roll products with spaced core sections manufactured by practicing the claimed processes in the ’251 and ’267 patents outside the United States and without permission from Wausau. 15. On information and belief, the foreign manufacturer’s activities would directly infringe, contribute to the infringement of, and/or induce infringement of the ’251 and ’267 patents through the performance of the claimed process in the United States. COUNT I - INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,491,251 16. Wausau restates the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-15 and incorporate them herein by reference. 17. By virtue of its ownership of the ’251 patent, Wausau maintains the right to sue thereon and the right to recover for infringement thereof. 3 18. On information and belief, Ridley’s has imported, sold and/or used, without Wausau’s consent, paper roll products with spaced core sections that are made by practicing the claimed invention of the ’251 patent outside the United States. The importation of an article made by an infringing process constitutes an act of infringement under Section 271(g). 19. On information and belief, a foreign entity manufactures the paper roll products with spaced core sections abroad by using the claimed process of the ’251 patent outside the United States. 20. On information and belief, Ridley’s purchases, uses and/or sells paper roll products with spaced core sections manufactured outside the United States using the claimed processes of the ’251 patent. 21. On information and belief, the products made using the patented process abroad are neither materially changed by subsequent process nor do they constitute a trivial and nonessential component of another product. 22. Wausau has complied with the notice provision of the patent statutes by marking its packaging with the ’251 patent. 23. Wausau has no adequate remedy for infringement because the use, offer to sell, and/or sale of the paper roll products with spaced core sections in the United States results from use of the claimed process infringing the ’251 patent abroad. 24. Wausau has been damaged by Ridley’s infringement of the ’251 patent and will continue to be damaged in the future unless Ridley’s is permanently enjoined from infringing that patent. 25. Wausau has satisfied the notice provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 287. 4 INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,648,267 26. Wausau restates the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-25 and incorporates them herein by reference. 27. By virtue of its ownership of the ’267 patent, Wausau maintains the right to sue thereon and the right to recover for infringement thereof. 28. On information and belief, Ridley’s has imported, sold and/or used, without Wausau’s consent, paper roll products with spaced core sections that are made by practicing the claimed invention of the ’267 patent outside the United States. The importation of an article made by an infringing process constitutes an act of infringement under Section 271(g). 29. On information and belief, a foreign entity manufactures the paper roll products with spaced core sections abroad by using the claimed process of the ’267 patent outside the United States. 30. On information and belief, Ridley’s purchases, uses and/or sells paper roll products with spaced core sections manufactured outside the United States using the claimed processes of the ’267 patent. 31. On information and belief, the products made by performing the patented process abroad are not materially changed by subsequent process or constitute a trivial and nonessential component of another product. 32. Wausau has complied with the notice provision of the patent statutes by marking its packaging with the ’267 patent. 33. Wausau has no adequate remedy for infringement because the use, offer to sell, and/or sale of the paper roll products with spaced core sections in the United States results from use of the claimed process infringing the ’267 patent abroad. 5 34. Wausau has been damaged by Ridley’s infringement of the ’267 patent and will continue to be damaged in the future unless Ridley’s is permanently enjoined from infringing that patent. 35. Wausau has satisfied the notice provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 287. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment that: A. United States Patent Nos. 6,491,251 and 6,648,267 were duly and legally issued, are valid and enforceable; B. The Defendant Cordell Inc. has infringed one or more claims of United States Patent Nos. 6,491,251 and 6,648,267; C. The Defendant Cordell Inc., its officers, agents, servants and employees, and those persons in active concert or participating with it be enjoined form further infringing United States Patent Nos. 6,491,251 and 6,648,267; D. An accounting be had and the Plaintiff, Wausau Paper Towel & Tissue, LLC, be awarded damages arising out of the Defendant Cordell Inc.’s infringement of United States Patent Nos. 6,491,251 and 6,648,267 with interest; E. The Defendant Cordell Inc. be permanently enjoined from continued use, importation, offer for sale, or sale of the products that infringe the patent-in-suit; F. This case be adjudged and decreed exceptional pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 and that Plaintiff, Wausau Paper Towel & Tissue, LLC, be awarded its costs and attorney’s fees in pursuing this action; and G. Plaintiff, Wausau Paper Towel & Tissue, LLC, be awarded such other and further relief as this Court may deem necessary and proper. 6 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff, Wausau Paper Towel & Tissue, LLC, hereby demands a trial by jury of all issues so triable. Respectfully submitted, WYNNE & WYNNE LLP __/s/ David E. Wynne______________ David E. Wynne Texas Bar No. 24047150 Federal Bar No. 566468 1021 Main Street, Suite 1275 One City Centre Houston, Texas 77002 713-227-8835 (Telephone) 713-227-6205 (Facsimile) dwynne@wynne-law.com (e-mail) AND MERCHANT & GOULD P.C. Eric R. Chad (Attorney-in-Charge) Pro Hac Vice To Be Filed Alan Kowalchyk Pro Hac Vice To Be Filed Merchant & Gould P.C. 3200 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402-2215 (612) 332-5300 (Telephone) (612) 332-9081 (Facsimile) echad@merchantgould.com akowalchyk@merchantgould.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Wausau Paper Towel & Tissue, LLC 7 More From This UserLike kind card game (US patent 6193235)Like kind money board table game (US patent 6186505)Intelligent user interface including a touch sensor device (US patent 8288952)User interface with proximity sensing (US patent 8035623)Wine cellar alarm system (US patent 8710985)Cell regulatory genes, encoded products, and uses related thereto (US patent 7030227)Multicasting method and apparatus (US patent 6434622)Method and apparatus for retrieving data from a network using linked location identifiers (US patent 6226655)Casino bonus game using player strategy (US patent 6645071)High-speed serial linking device with de-emphasis function and the method thereof (US patent 7313187)Casing spacer (US patent 6736166)Advance Products & Systems v. CCI Piping SystemsModern Telecom Systems LLCTracBeam v. AppleRichmond v. Creative IndustriesSenju Pharmaceutical et. al. v. Metrics et. al.VIA Technologies et. al. v. ASUS Computer International et. al.Perrie v. PerrieEckart v. Silberline ManufacturingSenju Pharmaceutical et. al. v. Metrics et. al.Kenzinc v. imblowingup et. al.Sun Zapper v. Devroy et. al.Merck Sharp & Dohme v. Fresenius KabiTracBeam v. T-Mobile et. al.ATEN International v. Uniclass Technology et. al.
Wausau Paper Towel & Tissue, LLC by PriorSmart8 viewsEmbedDownloadDescriptionOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 4:14-cv-01437: Wausau Paper Towel & Tissue, LLC. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, no judge yet assigne...Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 4:14-cv-01437: Wausau Paper Towel & Tissue, LLC. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-lavs for more info.Interests: Types, Business/Law, Court FilingsRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Public DomainDownload as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentShow moreShow less
RelatedAdaptix v. Pantech et. al.by PriorSmartMIH International v. Assist Medical Suppliesby PatentBlastPT Diagnostics v. United Technologiesby PriorSmartPT Diagnostics v. MTU Aero Engines Holding et. al.by PriorSmartOyo Box Corp. v. Bey-Berk - Complaintby slbursteinMIH International v. Surgical Appliance Industriesby PatentBlastGatekeeper Systems v. Carttronics Et. Al.by PatentBlastAnu Ip v. iRiverby PriorSmartNilfisk-Advance v. EDICby PriorSmartAnu Ip v. Aluratekby PriorSmartRmail et. al. v. Right Signature et. al.by PriorSmartDOW JONES REUTERS BUSINESS INTERACTIVE, LLC v. ABLAISE LTD. et al - Document No. 10by Justia.comItt Manufacturing Enterprises et. al. v. Summit Pumpby PriorSmartQualitas Manufacturing v. Chicagone Developersby PriorSmartPT Diagnostics v. Hamilton Sundstrandby PriorSmartSuper Interconnect Technologies v. Acer et. al. by PatentBlastStormTrap v. KriStar Enterprisesby PatentBlastEclipse IP v. Overstock.comby PriorSmartRadiation Stabilization Solutions v. Varian Medical Systems et. al.by PriorSmartLifetime Products v. GSC Technologiesby PriorSmartPT Diagnostics v. Deutsche Lufthansa et. al.by PriorSmartWireless Remote System v. AudiSoft Technologiesby PriorSmartXodus Medical et. al. v. Prime Medical et. al.by PriorSmartGolight v. Pilot Automotiveby PriorSmartSunbeam Products v. Hamilton Beach Brandsby PriorSmartClouding IP v. CNN Interactive Groupby PriorSmartArrivalStar et. al. v. MIS Sciencesby PriorSmartMoenComplaint-v-Mascoby pauloverhauserSimilar to Wausau Paper Towel & Tissue, LLCAdaptix v. Pantech et. al.MIH International v. Assist Medical SuppliesPT Diagnostics v. United TechnologiesPT Diagnostics v. MTU Aero Engines Holding et. al.Oyo Box Corp. v. Bey-Berk - ComplaintMIH International v. Surgical Appliance IndustriesGatekeeper Systems v. Carttronics Et. Al.Anu Ip v. iRiverNilfisk-Advance v. EDICAnu Ip v. AluratekRmail et. al. v. Right Signature et. al.DOW JONES REUTERS BUSINESS INTERACTIVE, LLC v. ABLAISE LTD. et al - Document No. 10Itt Manufacturing Enterprises et. al. v. Summit PumpQualitas Manufacturing v. Chicagone DevelopersPT Diagnostics v. Hamilton SundstrandSuper Interconnect Technologies v. Acer et. al. StormTrap v. KriStar EnterprisesEclipse IP v. Overstock.comRadiation Stabilization Solutions v. Varian Medical Systems et. al.Lifetime Products v. GSC TechnologiesPT Diagnostics v. Deutsche Lufthansa et. al.Wireless Remote System v. AudiSoft TechnologiesXodus Medical et. al. v. Prime Medical et. al.Golight v. Pilot AutomotiveSunbeam Products v. Hamilton Beach BrandsClouding IP v. CNN Interactive GroupArrivalStar et. al. v. MIS SciencesMoenComplaint-v-MascoExpress Card Systems v. ShutterflyExpress Card Systems v. CafePressWausau Paper Towel & Tissue, LLC