Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/151158470/Park-Industries-Inc
Timestamp: 2017-05-27 07:28:07
Document Index: 228045275

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 271', '§ 1331', '§ 1400', '§ 1391', '§ 271', '§ 287', '§ 271', '§ 287', '§\n285']

Park Industries, Inc. | Patent Infringement | United States Patent Law
ScribdExploreEXPLORE BY INTERESTSCareer & MoneyBusiness Biography & HistoryEntrepreneurshipLeadership & MentoringMoney ManagementTime ManagementPersonal GrowthHappinessPsychologyRelationships & ParentingReligion & SpiritualitySelf-ImprovementPolitics & Current AffairsPoliticsSocietyScience & TechScienceTechHealth & FitnessFitnessNutritionSportsWellnessLifestyleArts & LanguagesFashion & BeautyFood & WineHome & GardenTravelEntertainmentCelebrity Biography & MemoirPop CultureBiographies & HistoryBiography & MemoirHistoryFictionChildren’s & YAClassic LiteratureContemporary FictionHistorical FictionLGBTQ FictionMystery, Thriller & CrimeRomanceScience Fiction & FantasyBROWSE BY CONTENT TYPEBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicUploadSign inJoinOptionsJoinSign InUploadPark Industries, Inc.Uploaded by PriorSmartPatent InfringementUnited States Patent LawPatentTitle 35 Of The United States CodeInjunction0.0 (0)DownloadEmbedDescription: Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-04753: Park Industries, Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, the Hon. Thomas M. Durkin pre...View MoreOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-04753: Park Industries, Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, the Hon. Thomas M. Durkin presiding. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l8FC for more info.Copyright: Public DomainDownload as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS PARK INDUSTRIES, INC., Plaintiff, vs.DIATOOL, LLC, Defendant. ) ) ) ) No. ) ) COMPLAINT ) ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED )
Plaintiff, Park Industries, Inc., through its undersigned attorneys, as and for its Complaint against Defendant Diatool, LLC, alleges and states as follows: THE PARTIES 1. Plaintiff, Park Industries, Inc. ("Park Industries"), is a corporation
organized and existing under the laws of Minnesota and having a principal place of business at 6600 Saukview Drive, St. Cloud, Minnesota 56303. 2. On information and belief, Defendant, Diatool, LLC ("Diatool"), is a
limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of Illinois and having a principal place of business at 1434 West Winona Street, Chicago, Illinois 60640. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. This is a civil action 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. Jurisdiction 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.
5153539vvv1 7/1/2013 2:50 PM
5. U.S.C. § 1400(b).
Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c) and 28
BACKGROUND 6. Park Industries is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling
stone-fabrication machines, including corner saw machines, to customers around the world. 7. On August 10, 2010, United States Patent No. 7,771,249 ("the '249
patent"), entitled "Corner Saw" was duly and legally issued to Park Industries as an assignee of the inventors, Michael P. Schlough, Phillip A. Snartland, Aaron J. Zulkosky. A copy of the '249 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 8. Park Industries is the owner of the entire right, title and interest in and to
the '249 patent, and has been and continues to be the owner. 9. On January 24, 2012, United States Patent No. 8,100,740 ("the '740
patent"), entitled "Corner Saw" was duly and legally issued to Park Industries as an assignee of the inventors, Michael P. Schlough, Phillip A. Snartland, Aaron J. Zulkosky. A copy of the '740 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 10. Park Industries is the owner of the entire right, title and interest in and to
the '740 patent, and has been and continues to be the owner. 11. These patents are directed at corner saw machines used for cutting corner
pieces of stone and other materials. 12. Diatool is engaged in the business of importing, using, selling and/or (See Ex. C,
offering for sale stone-fabrication machines, including corner saw machines.
promoting sale of the accused product.) On information and belief, Diatool purposefully imports stone-fabrication machines, including corner saw machines from abroad and sells them throughout the United States. 2
Upon information and belief, Diatool sells stone fabrication machines,
including corner saws, manufactured by Yonani. (See Exs. D & E.) Such Yonani products include the CornerPro and VeneerPro-VB. 14. A product catalog for stone-fabrication machines, including a sample
accused corner saw machine, identified as Yonani "CornerPro," is attached hereto as Exhibit D. 15. A product catalog for stone-fabrication machines including a sample
accused corner saw machine identified as Yonani "VeneerPro-VB" is attached hereto as Ex. E. 16. On information and belief, the accused corner saw machines are made by
unlawfully performing the claimed methods as disclosed in the '249 and '740 patents. 17. On information and belief, Diatool purchases and imports the accused
corner saw machines manufactured by practicing the claimed methods in the '249 and '740 patents outside the United States and without permission from Park Industries. 18. On information and belief, the foreign manufacturer's activities would
directly infringe, contribute to the infringement of, and/or induce infringement of the '249 and '740 patents through the performance of the claimed methods in the United States. COUNT I - INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,771,249 19. Park Industries restates the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 18
above and incorporates them herein by reference. 20. On information and belief, Diatool is directly infringing, actively inducing
others to infringe, and/or contributing to the infringement of the '249 patent by making, using, importing into the United States, offering to sell, and/or selling the accused corner saw machines, including the CornerPro and VeneerPro-VB, in this district and elsewhere in the United States in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271.
On information and belief, Diatool has imported, sold and/or used, without
Park Industries' consent, the accused corner saw machines that are made by practicing the claimed invention of the '249 patent outside the United States. The importation of an article made by an infringing method constitutes an act of infringement under Section 271(g). 22. On information and belief, a foreign entity manufactures the accused
corner saw machines abroad by using the claimed methods of the '249 patent outside the United States. 23. On information and belief, Diatool purchases, uses and/or sells the
accused corner saw machines manufactured outside the United States using the claimed methods of the '249 patent. 24. On information and belief, the products made using the patented methods
abroad are neither materially changed by subsequent methods nor do they constitute a trivial and nonessential component of another product. 25. On information and belief, Diatool will continue to directly infringe,
actively induce others to infringe, and/or contribute to the infringement of the '249 patent unless and until Diatool is enjoined by this Court. 26. Diatool's acts of infringement have caused and continue to cause damage
to Park Industries, and Park Industries is entitled to recover from Diatool the damages sustained by Park Industries in an amount to be determined at trial. 27. Park Industries has suffered irreparable harm by Diatool's infringement of
the '249 patent and will continue to suffer irreparable harm in the future unless and until Diatool is enjoined from infringing the '249 patent. 28. Park Industries has satisfied the notice provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 287.
COUNT II - INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,100,740 29. Park Industries restates the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-28 and
incorporates them herein by reference. 30. On information and belief, Diatool is directly infringing, actively inducing
others to infringe, and/or contributing to the infringement of the '740 patent by making, using, importing into the United States, offering to sell, and/or selling the accused corner saw machines, including the CornerPro and VeneerPro-VB, in this district and elsewhere in the United States in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271. 31. On information and belief, Diatool has imported, sold and/or used, without
Park Industries' consent, the accused corner saw machines that are made by practicing the claimed invention of the '740 patent outside the United States. The importation of an article made by an infringing method constitutes an act of infringement under Section 271(g). 32. On information and belief, a foreign entity manufactures the accused
corner saw machines abroad by using the claimed method of the '740 patent outside the United States. 33. On information and belief, Diatool purchases, uses and/or sells the
accused corner saw machines manufactured outside the United States using the claimed method of the '740 patent. 34. On information and belief, the products made using the patented method
abroad are neither materially changed by a subsequent method(s) nor do they constitute a trivial and nonessential component of another product. 35. On information and belief, Diatool will continue to directly infringe,
actively induce others to infringe, and/or contribute to the infringement of the '740 patent unless and until Diatool is enjoined by this Court. 5
Diatool's acts of infringement have caused and continue to cause damage
to Park Industries, and Park Industries is entitled to recover from Diatool the damages sustained by Park Industries in an amount to be determined at trial. 37. Park Industries has suffered irreparable harm by Diatool's infringement of
the '740 patent and will continue to suffer irreparable harm in the future unless and until Diatool is enjoined from infringing the '740 patent. 38. Park Industries 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. 7,771,249 and 8,100,740 were duly and legally
issued, are valid and enforceable; (b) The Defendant, Diatool, LLC, has infringed one or more claims of United
States Patent Nos. 7,771,249 and 8,100,740; (c) The Defendant, Diatool, LLC, 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. 7,771,249 and 8,100,740; (d) An accounting be had and the Plaintiff, Park Industries, Inc., be awarded
damages arising out of the Defendant, Diatool, LLC's infringement of United States Patent Nos. 7,771,249 and 8,100,740 with interest; (e) The Defendant, Diatool, LLC, 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, Park Industries, Inc., be awarded its costs and attorney's fees in pursuing this action; and 6
Plaintiff, Park Industries, Inc. be awarded such other and further relief as
this Court may deem necessary and proper. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff, Park Industries, Inc. hereby demands a trial by jury of all issues so triable. Dated: July 1, 2013 Respectfully submitted, PARK INDUSTRIES, INC., Plaintiff By: /s/ Oscar L. Alcantara Oscar L. Alcantara GOLDBERG KOHN, LTD. 55 East Monroe Street Suite 3300 Chicago, Illinois 60603 (312) 201-4000 Attorneys for Plaintiff Park Industries, Inc.
Documents Similar To Park Industries, Inc. v. Diatool,LLCSkip carouselNational Oilwell DHT v. Cougar Drilling Solutions Et. Al.Apple HTC patent lawsuitBestop v. Tuffy Security ProductsBrandywine Communication Technologies v. Mbo DataBrandywine Communications Technologies v. Precision Communiciatons, Inc. dba PCI SystemsPark Industries v. Eurostone MachineOMG et. al. v. ADCO Global et. al.Smith et. al. v. Guardian Fall Protection et. al.Vargas vs YapticoZipit Wireless v. Blackberry et. al..pdfYananton v. OurPet's Companyyananton v. Petco Animal SuppliesGlycobiosciences v. Dara Biosciences et. al.Telecomm Innovations LLCData Carriers LLCMitek Systems v. United Services Automobile AssociationParallel Networks v. Reloaded GamesIcon Health & Fitness v. Saris Cycling GroupArrivalStar et. al. v. CSA SoftwareParallel Networks v. Perfect World Entertainmente.Digital v. Grundig Intermedia et. al. v. American Honda Motor et. al.Technology Properties v. Seiko Epson et. al.Preservation Technologies LLCmInnovative Display Technologies v. Huawei Investment and Holding et. al.Clear With Computers v. Gehl CompanyESIP Series 1 v. Greenair Et. Al.Blue Spike v. Gracenote et. al.PatentMarks Communications v. LG Electronics MobilecommDocuments About Patent InfringementSkip carouselNike v. SkechersNokia Complaint Against Apple in federal district court, Wisconsin3D Systems v. Formlabs et. al.Koninklijke Philips N.V. et. al. v. Nintendo et. al.Bose v. Beats Civil ComplaintBose vs Beats (ITC complaint)Treehouse Avatar Technologies v. TurbinePosner OrderPersonalWeb Technologies et. al. v. Rackspace et. al.Lodsys Complaint Against Adidas BestBuy Et AlNYT Complaint Against LodsysGreenwich Ballistics v. Jamison InternationalFacebook's Counterclaims to Yahoo's Patent LawsuitAmended Galaxy ComplaintBU v AppleSemantic Compaction Systems et. al. v. Speak For Yourself et. al.Rockstar v Samsung.pdfHuawei v. SamsungComponex v. Electronics For ImagingBose vs BeatsRecognicorp v. CCP hf et. al.Technology Licensing v. Blackmagic Design PtyNovartis Pharmaceuticals v. Torrent Pharmaceuticals et. al.BrightEdge Technologies v. Searchmetrics et. al.Canatelo v. HikvisionSymantec v. Veeam Software3M Company et. al. v. Saint-Gobain AbrasivesSpanx vs Yummie TummieVideojet Technologies et. al. v. Markem-ImajeVascular Solutions v. Boston ScientificMore From PatentBlastSkip carouselMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Samsung Electronics Et. AlMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Nintendo of America Et. AlMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Cantor Fitzgerald Et. AlMultiplayer Network Innovations v. ZTE Et. AlMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Toshiba AmericaMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Pantech Et. AlMultiplayer Network Innovations v. NVIDIAActifio v. DelphixRTC Industries v. Flextronics InternationalTactical Medical Solutions v. Karl Et. AlPrometheus Laboratories v. Par Pharmaceutical Companies Et. AlAndrea Electronics v. Lenovo Group Et. Al.Andrea Electronics v. Toshiba Et. Al.Property Disclosure Technologies v. TruliaGlobal Tel*Link v. Securus Technologies et. al.Century Board v. National Registered AgentsIatric Systems v. FairWarningHologram Et. Al. v. Arena3D Industrial Illusion Et. Al.Tech-ni-Fold v. F.P. Rosback CompanyRTC Industries v. ZiveloMotobatt v. Deltran OperationsImpax Laboratories Et. Al. v. Lannett Holdings Et. Al.Alkermes Pharma Ireland v. Sun Pharma Global FZE Et. Al.Unimed Pharmaceuticals Et. Al. v. Perrigo Company Et. Al.Sensus v. Certified MeasurementCapella Photonics v. TellabsCapella Photonics v. Fujitsu Network CommunicationsCapella Photonics v. CienaILife Technologies v. AliphComAeritas v. GameStop