Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/234906016/A-G-Findings-Mfg-v-Pelican-Products
Timestamp: 2015-05-06 09:04:11
Document Index: 398520086

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§ 1331', '§ 1', '§ 48', '§ 48', '§1391']

P. 1A.G. Findings & Mfg. v. Pelican ProductsA.G. Findings & Mfg. v. Pelican ProductsRatings: (0)|Views: 9|Likes: 0Published by PriorSmartOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 0:14-cv-61670-MGC: A.G. Findings & Mfg. Co. v. Pelican Products, Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, the Hon. Marcia G. Cooke presiding. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-laKV for more info.Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 0:14-cv-61670-MGC: A.G. Findings & Mfg. Co. v. Pelican Products, Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, the Hon. Marcia G. Cooke presiding. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-laKV for more info.More info:Categories:Types, Business/Law, Court FilingsPublished by: PriorSmart on Jul 23, 2014Copyright:Public DomainAvailability:Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content|Add to collectionSee moreSee lesshttps://www.scribd.com/doc/234906016/A-G-Findings-Mfg-v-Pelican-Products08/06/2014pdftextoriginal 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: _____________________________________ A.G. FINDINGS & MFG. CO. d/b/a BALLISTIC CASE CO., a Florida Corporation, Plaintiff, v. PELICAN PRODUCTS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant. / VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT JURY DEMAND VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Plaintiff, A.G. Findings & Mfg. Co. d/b/a Ballistic Case Co. (referred to herein as “Plaintiff”) by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby allege in its Complaint against Defendant, Pelican Products, Inc. (referred to herein as “Defendant”) as follows: NATURE OF THE ACTION 1.
This is a civil action for patent infringement of United States Patent No. 8,624,111
(hereinafter “the ‘111 Patent”) arising under the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq
. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2.
This Court has original jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a), and 1338(a) because this action arises under the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.
The parties are diverse and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 exclusive of interests and costs. 4.
This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendant pursuant to Florida’s long-arm statute, F.S. § 48.193 (1)(a)(1)-(1)(a)(2), in that the Defendant is (a)
operating, conducting, engaging in, or carrying on a business in the State of Florida and (b) committing tortious acts within the State of Florida. 5.
Furthermore, this Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendant pursuant to Florida’s long-arm statute, F.S. § 48.193 (1)(a)(6)(a)-(1)(a)(6)(b), as the Defendant is causing injury to persons or property within Florida arising out of an act or omission by the Defendant outside of this state where at or about the time of injury (a) the Defendant engaged in solicitation or service activities within Florida or (b) products, materials or things processed, serviced or manufactured by Defendant anywhere were used or consumed within Florida in the ordinary course of commerce, trade or use. 6.
Venue is proper in this district at least under 28 U.S.C. §§1391(b)(2) because Defendant has committed acts of patent infringement within this district giving rise to this action. THE PARTIES 7.
Plaintiff is a Florida corporation with its principal address at 1133 Sawgrass Corp. Parkway, Sunrise, Florida 33323. 8.
Based upon information and belief, Defendant is a Delaware corporation with its principal address at 23215 Early Avenue, Torrance, California 90505. 9.
Defendant is in the business of importing, making, selling and/or offering to sell mobile device cases in this District and throughout the United States. 3 THE PATENT-IN-SUIT
On January 7, 2014, the ‘111 Patent, entitled “Multilayer Portable Device Case and Method Therefor,” was duly and lawfully issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). A true and correct copy of the ‘111 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 11.
Fernando Tages and Daniel Acero are the inventors of the ‘111 Patent. See Exhibit A. 12.
Plaintiff is the owner by assignment of the ‘111 Patent of all right, title and interest in and to the ‘111 Patent and holds the right to use and recover damages for infringement thereof, including but not limited to past damages. See Exhibit A. 13.
The ‘111 Patent is in full force and effect as of the date of this Complaint and at all times relevant to the allegations herein. FACTUAL BACKGROUND A.G. FINDINGS & MFG. CO. 14.
Plaintiff is well-known in the United States for designing and manufacturing creative and protective mobile device cases. Plaintiff designs, manufactures and sells mobile device cases which contain one and two piece hard shells, TPU gels, silicone gels, holsters, belt clips, sewn leather cases, screen protectors as well as combinations thereof. Using state-of-the-art materials and fashionable designs, Plaintiff is recognized in the industry for providing superior quality and stylish products. 15.
Plaintiff is the owner by assignment of the ‘111 Patent and the patent is in full force and effect. The ‘111 Patent is directed toward a mobile device case as shown in the drawings of the ‘111 Patent. See Exhibit A. Activity (1)FiltersAdd to collectionReview Add NoteLikeShowingAllMost RecentReviewsAll NotesLikesYou've already reviewed this. Edit your review.Rating 0/5Post notePost reviewPost replyPost note and like1 hundred readsLoad more