Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/140051657/Magna-Mug-v-Novelty
Timestamp: 2017-07-20 18:13:47
Document Index: 107608169

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1331', '§ 1391', '§ 271', '§ 284', '§ 285', '§ 271', '§ 284', '§ 285', '§ 284', '§ 285']

Magna-Mug v. Novelty | Patent Infringement | Patent
Magna-Mug v. NoveltyUploaded by PriorSmartRelated InterestsPatent InfringementPatentTitle 35 Of The United States CodeDamagesUnited States Patent LawRating and Stats0.0 (0)Document ActionsDownloadShare or Embed DocumentEmbedDescription: Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-00304-SAS: Magna-Mug LLC v. Novelty, Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, the Hon. S Arthur Sp...View MoreOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-00304-SAS: Magna-Mug LLC v. Novelty, Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, the Hon. S Arthur Spiegel presiding. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l8nG for more info.Copyright: Public DomainDownload as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION Magna-Mug LLC PLAINTIFF, vs.Novelty, Inc. (d/b/a Novelty Distributors Company) DEFENDANT. COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT [JURY DEMAND] Case No. 1:13-cv-00304 Judge __________________________
For its Complaint against Novelty, Inc. (doing business as Novelty Distributors Company), Plaintiff Magna-Mug LLC states as follows: THE PARTIES 1. Plaintiff Magna-Mug LLC ("Magna-Mug") is an Ohio Limited Liability
Company having a principal place of business at 192 Country View Drive, Harrison, Ohio 45030. Magna-Mug is the originator of the innovative, patented technology and design for a collapsible, insulating, soft-sided, magnetic beverage holder. 2. Defendant Novelty, Inc. ("Novelty") is an Indiana corporation having a principal
place of business at 351 W. Muskegon Drive, Greenfield, Indiana, 46140. Novelty is registered to do business in Ohio as a foreign corporation, doing business as Novelty Distributors Company. Novelty makes, imports, uses, offers to sell, and/or sells within the United States, including in the state of Ohio and this judicial district, products incorporating Magna-Mug's patented technology and design.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. This action is for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the United
States, Title 35 of the United States Code. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338. 4. Defendant Novelty is conducting business on a systematic and continuous basis
within the United States, including the state of Ohio and this judicial district. 5. On information and belief, Defendant Novelty makes, imports, uses, offers to sell,
and/or sells within the United States, including in the state of Ohio and this judicial district, products that infringe the patents at issue in this action. 6. Defendant Novelty is registered to do business in Ohio as a foreign corporation,
and has a registered agent for service of process in Ohio. Defendant Novelty is subject to personal jurisdiction in this judicial district because it has established minimum contacts with the forum such that the exercise of jurisdiction would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice, and it has committed acts of infringement in this judicial district. 7. 1400(b). GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 8. Magna-Mug is the assignee and owner of all rights, title and interest in U.S. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c), and
Patent No. 7,021,594 B2 ("the '594 patent"), entitled "Folding Magnetic Holding Wrap For Cups Or Mugs"). The '594 patent was duly and legally issued on April 4, 2006, by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A true and correct copy of the '594 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. Any licenses to the '594 patent that Magna-Mug has granted have been non-exclusive, and Magna-Mug has retained all rights to enforce the '594 patent.
Magna-Mug is the assignee and owner of all rights, title and interest in U.S.
Patent No. D547,618 S ("the '618 patent"), entitled "Magnetic Beverage Holder"). The '618 patent was duly and legally issued on July 31, 2007, by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A true and correct copy of the '618 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. Any licenses to the '618 patent that Magna-Mug has granted have been non-exclusive, and Magna-Mug has retained all rights to enforce the '618 patent. 10. Defendant Novelty does not have a license to the '594 patent or the '618 patent,
and has never had such a license. 11. Defendant Novelty makes, uses, sells, offers for sale or imports products that
infringe the '594 patent and the '618 patent, including the "Magnetic Can Cooler" listed as "Item #100-160" and any substantially similar products under any product line or item number ("the Accused Products"). The Accused Products infringe one or more valid claims of the '594 patent, and embody the claimed design of the '618 patent. The design of the Accused Products is substantially the same as the design of the '618 patent, such that in the eye of the ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, the two designs are substantially the same, and the resemblance is such as to deceive such an observer, inducing him to purchase one supposing it to be the other. 12. Defendant Novelty had actual notice of Magna-Mug's patents, and Defendant Nevertheless,
Novelty's infringement of those patents, at least as early as May 17, 2010. Defendant Novelty continued to infringe the '594 patent and the '618 patent. 13.
On information and belief, Defendant Novelty willfully and maliciously infringed
(and continues to infringe) Magna-Mug's patents despite actual knowledge of the infringement. A member of Defendant Novelty's management told the management of Magna-Mug that he did
not care about Magna-Mug's patents and did not fear a patent lawsuit because he had more money to defend against such a lawsuit than Magna-Mug had to prosecute it. COUNT ONE Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,021,594 B2 14. 15. Each of the foregoing paragraphs is incorporated by reference. Defendant Novelty has been and is now directly infringing and actively inducing
infringement of the '594 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271. The infringing acts include, but are not limited to, the manufacture, use, promotion, sale importation, and/or offer for sale of the Accused Products. Defendant Novelty induces infringement by its customers when, for
example, it sells and/or causes to be sold to its customers the Accused Products that infringe the '594 patent with the knowledge and intent that its customers will use the accused products. Defendant Novelty induces infringement by its customers when it sells them the Accused Products and instructs and encourages them to use them. 16. Defendant Novelty's past and continued acts of infringement of the '594 patent
have injured Magna-Mug, and thus Magna-Mug is entitled to recover compensatory damages for the infringement in an amount subject to proof at trial. 17. Defendant Novelty's infringement of Magna-Mug's exclusive rights under the
'594 patent has and will continue to damage Magna-Mug's business, causing irreparable injury to Magna-Mug, for which there is no adequate remedy at law, unless Defendant Novelty is enjoined by this Court from further infringement. 18. Defendant Novelty has long been on notice of the '594 patent. Accordingly, its
infringement of the patent-in-suit has been and/or will continue to be willful and deliberate. This
entitles Magna-Mug to increased damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 and to attorney's fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this action under 35 U.S.C. § 285. COUNT TWO Infringement of U.S. Patent. No. D547,618 S 19. 20. Each of the foregoing paragraphs is incorporated by reference. Defendant Novelty has been and is now directly infringing and actively inducing
infringement of the '618 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271. The infringing acts include, but are not limited to, the manufacture, use, promotion, sale importation, and/or offer for sale of the Accused Products. Defendant Novelty induces infringement by its customers when, for
example, it sells and/or causes to be sold to its customers the Accused Products that infringe the '618 patent with the knowledge and intent that its customers will use the accused products. Defendant Novelty induces infringement by its customers when it sells them the Accused Products and instructs and encourages them to use them. 21. Defendant Novelty's past and continued acts of infringement of the '618 patent
have injured Magna-Mug, and thus Magna-Mug is entitled to recover compensatory damages for the infringement in an amount subject to proof at trial. 22. Defendant Novelty's infringement of Magna-Mug's exclusive rights under the
'618 patent has and will continue to damage Magna-Mug's business, causing irreparable injury to Magna-Mug, for which there is no adequate remedy at law, unless Defendant Novelty is enjoined by this Court from further infringement. 23. Defendant Novelty has long been on notice of the '618 patent. Accordingly, its
entitles Magna-Mug to increased damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 and to attorney's fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this action under 35 U.S.C. § 285. REQUST FOR RELIEF Wherefore, Magna-Mug respectfully requests that the Court: a. b. order trial by jury on all issues so triable; render judgment finding that Defendant Novelty has infringed, directly and/or by
inducement, the '594 and '618 patents; c. d. find that Defendant Novelty's infringement was willful; issue a permanent injunction preventing Defendant Novelty, and those in active
concert with Defendant Novelty, from further infringement or inducement of infringement of the '594 and '618 patents; e. f. award compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial; award enhanced damages up to and including treble damages pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 284; g. h. award interest as allowed by law; award an accounting and/or supplemental damages for any damages not addressed
at trial and any post-trial damages; i. declare that this case is exceptional pursuant to 35 U.S.C.§ 285, award costs and
reasonable attorney fees incurred in connection with this action; and j. grant such other and further relief as the Court and jury deem just and proper.
Respectfully submitted, /s/ Thomas F. Hankinson Cheryl Scotney (0069531) Thomas F. Hankinson (0088367) KEATING MUETHING & KLEKAMP PLL One East Fourth Street, Suite 1400 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Tel: (513) 579-6400 Fax: (513) 579-6457 cscotney@kmklaw.com thankinson@kmklaw.com Attorneys for Magna-Mug LLC
Recommended DocumentsDocuments Similar To Magna-Mug v. NoveltySkip carouselMitek Systems v. TIS America et. al.Microwave Vision Et. Al. v. ESCO Technologies Et. Al.Kimber Cakeware v. Bradshaw - ComplaintOakley Inc. v. Coyote Vision - ComplaintSapphire Dolphin v. ImationFlambeau v. PrimosStarTrak Information Technologies v. Blue Tree SystemsLamina Packaging Innovations v. Maisons Marques & Domaines et. al.Promega et. al. v. Life Technologies et. al.ATLeisure v. Red Star TradersDisplay Pack v. QmadixTela Innovations Inc.P S Products et. al. v. SC ImportsJoao Control & Monitoring Systems v. Protect AmericaArrivalStar et. al. v. Zebra Technologies InternationalArrivalStar et. al. v. ELM Freight HandlersKroy IP Holdings v. Starbucks.pdfBridgestone Americas Tire Operations v. Schrader-Bridgeport International Et. Al.ATT ComplaintWyncomm v. Silicon Mountain Memory Et. Al.Acolyte Technologies v. Jeja International et. al.Unified Messaging Solutions v. Pandora MediaCellport Systems v. Pantech et. al.LMK Technologies v. BLD ServicesAnchor Packaging v. Mullinex PackagesNoticeContent Extraction And Transmission v. Wells Fargo Bank, National AssociationSwipe Innovations v. Moneris Solutions et. al.Advanced Processor Technologies v. Advanced Micro DevicesGuardian Media Technologies v. Amazon.com Et. Al.Documents About Patent InfringementSkip carouselNokia Complaint Against Apple in federal district court, WisconsinNike v. SkechersGreenwich Ballistics v. Jamison InternationalNYT Complaint Against LodsysFacebook's Counterclaims to Yahoo's Patent LawsuitKoninklijke Philips N.V. et. al. v. Nintendo et. al.BU v ApplePosner OrderSemantic Compaction Systems et. al. v. Speak For Yourself et. al.Treehouse Avatar Technologies v. TurbineRockstar v Samsung.pdfBose v. Beats Civil ComplaintBose vs Beats (ITC complaint)Lodsys Complaint Against Adidas BestBuy Et AlAmended Galaxy Complaint3D Systems v. Formlabs et. al.PersonalWeb Technologies et. al. v. Rackspace et. al.Pi-Net International v. GameStopSENATE HEARING, 109TH CONGRESS - PATENT LAW REFORMLiberty Safe and Security Products v. Rhino MetalsOptrel v. A.C.E. International Company, Inc. d/b/a ArcOneHawk Technology Systems v. Old Evangeline DownsShawkee Mfg. Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co, 322 U.S. 271 (1944)Omega Patents v. General Motors Company et. al.PanTaurus v. DropboxCS Clean Tech v. Homeland Energy Solutions v. MillerCoorsUsco S.P.A. v. ValuePart et. al.e.Digital et. al. v. Strontium Americas et. al.Steelhead Licensing LLCMore 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