Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/209889835/MacNeil-IP-v-United-Brokerage-Company-et-al
Timestamp: 2017-04-23 10:26:13
Document Index: 371604739

Matched Legal Cases: ['§1331', '§1338', '§1391', '§1400', '§ 285', '§ 283', '§ 284', '§ 284', '§ 284', '§ 285', '§ 283']

ScribdBrowseInterestsPolitics & Current AffairsCareer & MoneyPersonal GrowthFictionHealth & FitnessLifestyleEntertainmentBiographies & HistoryScience & TechBrowse byBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinMacNeil IP v. United Brokerage Company et. al.Uploaded by PriorSmartPatentPatent InfringementLimited Liability CompanyDefendantJudgment (Law)0.0 (0)DownloadEmbedDescription: Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-01458: MacNeil IP LLC v. United Brokerage Company Inc. et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illin...View MoreOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-01458: MacNeil IP LLC v. United Brokerage Company Inc. et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l9ZD for more info.Copyright: Public DomainDownload as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION MACNEIL IP LLC, an IllinoisLimited Limited Liability Company, Plaintiff, v. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
COMPLAINT Plaintiff MacNeil IP LLC (“MacNeil”), by and through its undersigned counsel, and for its Complaint against Defendants, United Brokerage Company Inc. (“United Brokerage”), United Brokerage Packaging National Accounts, LLC (“National”), and United Brokerage Company of North Carolina, LLC (“United Brokerage of North Carolina”) (collectively, “Defendants”) alleges as follows: Nature of the Action 1. This is an action against Defendants for patent infringement. Parties 2. MacNeil is an Illinois limited liability company with a principal place of business
Georgia company with its principal place of business located in Augusta, Georgia. 6. Upon information and belief, Defendants manufacture “Do Not Load On Top”
Cones (hereinafter, the “Infringing Product”) and offer for sale and sell the Infringing Product to their distributors, resellers, and end-users. Jurisdiction and Venue 7. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§1331 and 28 U.S.C. §1338 because MacNeil’s claims arise under the laws of the United States. 8. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because they transact
business in this District by, on information and belief, offering to sell and selling products, including the Infringing Product, to customers in this district. 9. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C §1391(b) and (d) and §1400(b)
Patent No. 5,769,598 (“the ‘598 Patent”) entitled Antistacking Warning Device and Stacking
Damage Detector and naming David F. MacNeil as the inventor. A true and accurate copy of this valid and duly issued ‘598 Patent is attached as Exhibit 1. 11. As of April 13, 2010, MacNeil became the owner by assignment of all legal
rights, title and interest in and to the ‘598 Patent. 12. On information and belief, Defendants manufacture, offer for sale and sell the
Infringing Product, which are “Do Not Load On Top” Cones that infringe the ‘598 Patent. COUNT I – INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,769,598 13. 14. MacNeil restates and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 12 as if fully set forth herein. Upon information and belief, without the consent of MacNeil, Defendants have
made, sold and/or offered for sale the Infringing Product which directly infringes, either literally or through the doctrine of equivalents, at least one claim of the ‘598 Patent. 15. Upon information and belief, without the consent of MacNeil, Defendants have
committed acts that constitute inducement of infringement of at least one claim of the ‘598 Patent by others through their acts of making, selling and/or offering to sale the Infringing Product. 16. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ direct infringement and/or
inducement to infringe the ‘598 Patent, MacNeil has suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable injury, and damages in an amount not yet determined, for which MacNeil is entitled to relief. 17. Upon information and belief, Defendant’s direct infringement, indirect
infringement and/or inducement to infringe the ‘598 Patent has been and continues to be willful and deliberate.
Defendants as follows: A. B. C. D. § 285; E. Enter a permanent injunction, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 283, restraining and Enter judgment that Defendants have directly infringed the ‘598 patent; Enter judgment that Defendants have induced others to infringe the ‘598 patent; Enter judgment that Defendants have willfully infringed the ‘598 patent; Enter judgment that this case is found to be an “exceptional case” under 35 U.S.C.
enjoining Defendants and their respective officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, customers and those in concert or participation with Defendants from any further sales of the Infringing Products and any other infringement of the ‘598 patent, whether direct or indirect; F. Enter judgment ordering Defendants to compensate MacNeil for Defendants’
infringement of the ‘598 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284; G. U.S.C. § 284; H. Enter a judgment for an award of pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and Enter a judgment ordering Defendants to pay enhanced damages pursuant to 35
costs to MacNeil pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284; I. Enter a judgment for an award of MacNeil’s reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant
to 35 U.S.C. § 285; J. Enter a permanent injunction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 283, restraining and
Documents Similar To MacNeil IP v. United Brokerage Company et. al.Skip carouselSeasonal Specialties v. Inliten et. al.Ignite v. Pacific Market International Et. Al.David Netzer Consulting Engineer v. Shell Oil Company Et. Al.ShurTech Brands v. PractecolAcceleron v. Hitachi Data SystemsTechnology Properties v. Samsung Electronics et. al.Droplets v. Williams SonomaDroplets v. NordstromDroplets v. eBay et. al.Parallel Networks v. Wizards of the CoastDigitude Innovations v. HTC et. al.J-Channel Industries v. Lowe's Companies Et. Al. 2J-Channel Industries v. Lowe's Companies Et. Al.Whalen Furniture Mfg. v. Walker Edison FurnitureVoice Integration Technologies LLCSundesa v. High Energy LabsCreser Precision System v. CA.docxCreser PreCreser Precisions Systems Inc. vs. CA (G.R. No. 118708)cisions Systems Inc. vs. CA (G.R. No. 118708)Creser Precision vs CA DigestCreser Precision vs CA, g. r. No. 118708, 02 February 1998SoftVault Systems v. SophosGametek v. Crowdstar International et. al.Whalen Furniture Mfg. v. TechCraft ManufacturingAdvanced Processor Technologies v. XilinxIntegrated Claim Systems v. Aetna HealthAdvanced Optical Tracking, LLC v. Koninklijke Philips N.V., et al, C.A. No. 12-1292-LPS-CJB (D. Del. Sept. 9, 2013)GPS Industries v. DenncoCassidian Communications v. Bandwidth.comExacto v. Platte ChemicalHVAC Modulation Technologies v. CarrierDocuments About PatentSkip carousel16-12-20 Apple Complaint v. Acacia Et Al.Gillette Company v. ADKM, Inc. d/b/a Harry's Razor Company et. al.Samsung vs Apple - Samsung's Appeal to the Supreme CourtAppleVsSamsung_11.07.05Nike v. SkechersNokiaVsApple_11.03.31.100Consulting AgreementWizards of the Coast v. Cryptozoic Entertainment et. al.PRICELINE COM INC 10-K (Annual Reports) 2009-02-20Nokia Complaint Against Apple in federal district court, WisconsinAgainst Intellectual Property, by Stephan Kinsella Apple vs Android 10.12.02Beyond PhilanthropyDavid Einhorn's presentation on Green Mountain RoastersKoninklijke Philips N.V. et. al. v. Nintendo et. al.Bose v. Beats Civil ComplaintProvisional Patent ApplicationGoogle Dec Action vs RockstarTranslation of Mannheim 2O240 Ruling Motorola v MicrosoftNovartis patent JudgementApple vs Samsung 11.04.22AppleVsHTCandS3_11.07.29MicrosoftVsMotorola_11.12.11Bose vs Beats (ITC complaint)GENENTECH INC 10-K (Annual Reports) 2009-02-203D Systems v. Formlabs et. al.Rockstar v Samsung.pdfEPO Examiners Can No Longer Ensure Appropriate Quality StandardsAmicus Brief in Support of Samsung Rehearing12-04-30 Apple-Samsung Teksler-Kim Letter Re FRANDMore From PriorSmartSkip carouselLike 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.Mcs Industries v. Hds TradingDok Solution v. FKA Distributung et. al.GRQ Investment Management v. Financial Engines et. al.Merck Sharp & Dohme v. Fresenius KabiMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Konami Digital Entertainment