Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/123683152/Smith-et-al-v-Guardian-Fall-Protection-et-al
Timestamp: 2018-02-23 05:22:22
Document Index: 93855689

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§ 1331', '§ 1391', '§ 287', '§ 284', '§ 154', '§ 154', '§ 284', '§ 285', '§ 154', '§ 284']

Smith et. al. v. Guardian Fall Protection et. al. | Patent Infringement | Patent
Description: Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 4:13-cv-00105-HFS: Smith et. al. v. Guardian Fall Protection, Inc. et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Mi...
Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 4:13-cv-00105-HFS: Smith et. al. v. Guardian Fall Protection, Inc. et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, the Hon. Howard F. Sachs presiding. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l7zL for more info.
SMITH and AES RAPTOR, LLC Plaintiffs, v. GUARDIAN FALL PROTECTION, INC. and GUARDIAN FALL PROTECTION RENTALS, LLC, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Plaintiffs Brent E. Smith (“Smith”) and AES Raptor, LLC (“AES”)(collectively, “Plaintiffs”), through their undersigned attorneys, file this Complaint against Defendant Guardian Fall Protection, Inc. (“Guardian”) and Guardian Fall Protection Rentals, LLC (“Guardian Rentals”) (collectively, “Defendants”), and state and allege as follows: Parties 1. 2. Smith is a natural person residing in Weston, Missouri. AES is a for-profit limited liability company formed under the laws of the State of
Missouri with a principal place of business at 1349 Taney, North Kansas City, MO 64116. AES designs and manufactures fall protection products for use by commercial roofers and sheet metal workers. These products include the AES Raptor Stinger™ and the AES Raptor TriRex™. The sole member of AES is Smith. 3. Guardian is a for-profit corporation formed under the laws of the State of
Washington with a principal place of business at 26609 79th Avenue S, Kent, WA 98032. Guardian can be served through its President and registered agent, Clifford P. Woodyard, at 26513 79th 1
Avenue S, Kent, WA 98032. Guardian manufactures and sells products and equipment, including safety equipment, used by professional roofing contractors. 4. Guardian Rentals is a for-profit limited liability company formed under the laws of
the State of Washington with a principal place of business at 26609 79th Avenue S, Kent, WA 98032. Guardian Rentals can be served through its President and registered agent, SEL, Inc., at 1420 Fifth Avenue Ste. 3000, Seattle, WA 98101. Guardian rents products and equipment, including safety equipment, used by professional roofing contractors. 5. On information and belief, Guardian Rentals is an affiliate of Guardian, sharing
common ownership and control. On information and belief, Guardian Rentals and Guardian worked in close concert in engaging in the activities allegedly herein, and are jointly and severally liable for all damages occasioned by such activities. Jurisdiction and Venue 6. This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq.
This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). 7. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because Defendants have
purposefully availed themselves of the privilege of conducting business within this State and this District by, among other things, offering for sale and rental, and selling and renting, the Hammer Mobile Fall Arrest Unit and the Mini-Hammer Mobile Fall Arrest Unit. 8. 1400. Venue is proper in this District and Division pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and
Factual Background 9. On August 14, 2012, United States Patent No. 8,240,431 (“the ‘431 Patent”) entitled
“Apparatus and Method of Arresting a Fall” issued to Smith. Since its issuance, the ‘431 Patent has been in full force and effect. The ‘431 Patent is valid and enforceable. Smith has commercialized the invention claimed in the ‘431 Patent through AES, incorporating this invention in the AES Raptor Stinger™ and the AES Raptor TriRex™ products. Smith owns all right, title and interest to the ‘431 Patent, including the right to sue for past, present and future infringements. Smith has properly marked the AES Raptor Stinger™ and the AES Raptor TriRex™ products pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 287(a). A true and correct copy of the ‘431 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 10. On December 20, 2007, United States Patent Application Publication No. US
2007/0289811 (“the ‘811 Publication”) was published. A true and correct copy of the ‘811 Publication is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 11. The application of the ‘811 Publication issued as the ‘431 Patent, and the ‘811
Publication includes claims that are substantially identical to the claims of the ‘431 Patent. 12. Defendants have infringed and continue to infringe the ‘431 Patent by making,
using, offering to sell, and/or selling and/or renting in the United States, and/or importing into the United States, products or processes that practice the invention claimed in the ‘431 Patent. One such product is the Hammer Mobile Fall Arrest Unit, which is covered by claims 1 and/or 5 in the ‘431 Patent. 13. Defendants also provide infringing products or processes to distributors, dealers,
customers, and/or others with detailed instructions and information on how to use and/or sell the infringing products or processes. Defendants acts constitute inducement to infringe the ‘431
Patent whenever its distributors, dealers, customers, and/or others use and/or sell Defendants’ infringing products or processes. 14. Defendants profited through infringement of the ‘431 Patent. As a result of
Defendants’ unlawful infringement of the ‘431 Patent, Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer damage. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from Defendants the damages they suffered as a result of Defendants’ unlawful acts. 15. On information and belief, Defendants’ infringement of the ‘431 Patent was and is
willful and deliberate, entitling Plaintiffs to enhanced damages and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. 16. On information and belief, Defendants intend to continue their unlawful infringing
activity, and Plaintiffs will continue to suffer irreparable harm from such activity—for which there is no adequate remedy at law—unless Defendants are enjoined by this Court. COUNT I Infringement of the ‘431 Patent 17. herein. 18. Defendants have directly and/or indirectly infringed, either literally or under the Plaintiffs incorporate by reference their foregoing allegations as if fully set forth
doctrine of equivalents, one or more claims of the ‘431 Patent by making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling and/or renting in the United States, and/or importing into the United States, products or processes that practice the invention claimed in the ‘431 Patent. 19. Defendants have induced others to infringe one or more claims of the ‘431 Patent
by providing infringing products or processes to distributors, dealers, customers, and/or others
with detailed instructions and information on how to use and/or sell the infringing products or processes. 20. 21. Defendants’ activities have been without express or implied license from Plaintiffs. As a result of the infringement of the ‘431 Patent, Plaintiffs have been damaged, will
be further damaged, and it entitled to be compensated for such damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284 in an amount to be determined at trial. COUNT II Infringement of the Smith’s Provisional Rights in the ‘431 Patent 22. herein. 23. On information and belief, Defendants had actual knowledge of the ‘811 Plaintiffs incorporate by reference their foregoing allegations as if fully set forth
Publication, its specification and claims. 24. On information and belief, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 154(d), Defendants have directly
and/or indirectly infringed, either literally or though the doctrine of equivalents, Smith’s provisional patent rights in one or more claims of the ‘431 Patent by making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling and/or renting in the United States, and/or importing into the United States, products or processes that practice the invention claimed in the ‘431 Patent. 25. 26. Defendants’ activities have been without express or implied license from Plaintiffs. As a result of Defendants’ infringement of Smith’s provisional rights in the claims
of the ‘431 Patent, Smith is entitled to recover a reasonable royalty pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 154(d)(1).
Willful Infringement 27. herein. 28. On information and belief, Defendants’ past and continuing infringement of the ‘431 Plaintiffs incorporate by reference their foregoing allegations as if fully set forth
Patent has been deliberate and willful. Their conduct warrants an award of treble damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284. Moreover, this is an exceptional case as set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 285 warranting an award of attorney’s fees. Jury Trial Demand Plaintiffs demand trial by jury on all issues so triable. Prayer for Relief WHEREFORE, upon final hearing or trial, Plaintiffs pray for the following relief: A. B. A judgment that Defendants have infringed the ‘431 Patent; A judgment that Defendants have infringed Smith’s provisional rights in the claims of the ‘431 Patent; C. A judgment and order permanently restraining and enjoining Defendants and each of their directors, officers, employees, servants, agents, affiliates, subsidiaries, distributors, dealers, others controlled by them, and all persons in active concert or participation with any of them, from further infringing the ‘431 Patent; D. A judgment and order requiring Defendants to pay Smith a reasonable royalty for infringing on his provisional rights in the claims of the ‘431 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 154(d)(1);
A judgment and order requiring Defendants to pay damages to Plaintiffs adequate to compensate them for Defendants’ wrongful infringing acts in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 284;
A judgment and order requiring Defendants to pay increased damages up to three times, in view of their willful and deliberate infringement of the ‘431 Patent;
By: __/s/ David L. Marcus_________________ David L. Marcus, Mo. Bar No. 47846 1100 Main Street, Suite 2700 Kansas City, Missouri 64105 (816) 256-3181 (telephone) (816) 222-0534 (facsimile) dmarcus@gbmglaw.com and
MASHBURN LAW OFFICE, LLC Denise Mashburn, MO. Bar No. 64003 800 NE Vanderbilt Lane Lee’s Summit, MO 64064 (816) 774-1507 (telephone) (816) 525-1917 (facsimile) denise.mashburn@gmail.com Attorney for Plaintiffs
Documents Similar To Smith et. al. v. Guardian Fall Protection et. al.
Smith et. al. v. Guardian Fall Protection et. al. will be available on