Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/129347246/Brandstand-America-v-Moss-Holding-Company
Timestamp: 2014-11-23 12:48:18
Document Index: 94839307

Matched Legal Cases: ['§101', '§ 1331', '§ 101', '§ 2201', '§ 1332', '§ 1391', '§ 1400']

Brandstand America v. Moss Holding Company
P. 1Brandstand America v. Moss Holding CompanyBrandstand America v. Moss Holding CompanyRatings: (0)|Views: 54
|Likes: 0Published by PriorSmartOfficial Complaint for Declaratory Judgement in Civil Action No. 8:13-cv-00616-MSS-AEP: Brandstand America, Inc. v. Moss Holding Company. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, the Hon. Mary S. Scriven presiding. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l7MU for more info.Official Complaint for Declaratory Judgement in Civil Action No. 8:13-cv-00616-MSS-AEP: Brandstand America, Inc. v. Moss Holding Company. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, the Hon. Mary S. Scriven presiding. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l7MU for more info.More info:Categories:Types, Business/Law, Court FilingsPublished by: PriorSmart on Mar 08, 2013Copyright: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/129347246/Brandstand-America-v-Moss-Holding-Company07/19/2013pdftextoriginal SLK_CHA:#429851v1 1
UNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURTMIDDLEDISTRICTOFFLORIDA TAMPADIVISION
BRANDSTAND AMERICA, INC. ))Plaintiff, )) v. ) Case No.)) Jury Trial DemandedMOSS HOLDING COMPANY, ))Defendant. ) ____________________________ )
Plaintiff Brandstand America, Inc. (“Brandstand”), for its Complaint againstDefendant Moss Holding Company (“Moss”), alleges and states:
1. This is an action for declaratory judgment arising under the patentlaws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. §101 et seq., for a declaration that U.S. PatentNos. D561,257, D561,258, D561,259, and D571,409 (collectively, “Moss designpatents”) are not infringed by Brandstand, and are invalid and/or unenforceable. Attached hereto as Exhibit A to D are copies of each of the Moss design patents.
2. Brandstand is a Florida corporation with its principal place of businessin Nokomis, Florida.
SLK_CHA:#429851v1 2
3. On information and belief, Defendant Moss Holding Company is aDelaware corporation with a principal place of business in Elk Grove Village, IL.
4. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338 withrespect to the claims arising under the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 101 et seq., andpursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq.5. There is complete diversity between Brandstand and Defendant MossHolding Company, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. Therefore, this Court also has subject matter jurisdiction over thisaction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).6. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 and § 1400 because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in thisdistrict, and Moss Holding Company is subject to personal jurisdiction in this judicial district and Moss Holding Company may be found in this judicial district.7. Personal jurisdiction over Moss Holding Company is established in thisdistrict because Moss Holding Company has had specific business contacts withFlorida and this district that are related to the claims in this Complaint, includingassertions by Moss Holding Company that Brandstand’s activities infringe the Mossdesign patents. Also, on information and belief, personal jurisdiction is establishedin this district because Moss Holding Company has made, and continues to have,continuous and systematic general business contacts with Florida and this district,and/or derives substantial revenue from goods used or consumed in Florida.
SLK_CHA:#429851v1 3
8. Brandstand is in the business of the design, manufacture, and selling of a wide variety of innovative and reliable portable display systems including fortradeshow and exhibit, retail design, and event planning industries..9. Among other products, Brandstand designs, manufactures, and sells acollection of portable display systems called the BrandCusi
Counter.10. Brandstand has an ongoing business relationship with a number of customers that purchase Brandstand products, including purchasing theBrandCusi
Counter.11. On information and belief, Moss Holding Company is in the businessof, among other things, manufacturing and selling portable display systems andenforcing its alleged intellectual property rights.12. On February 22, 2013, counsel for Moss Holding Company, the law firm of Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, LLP, sent a letter to Brandstand(“Moss Cease & Desist Letter”). A copy of the Moss Cease & Desist Letter is attachedat Exhibit E.13. In the Moss Cease & Desist Letter, Defendant Moss alleges that it hasdesign patent rights in its Allure brand portable display assemblies that Mossmanufactures and sells.14. The Moss Cease & Desist Letter asserts that Defendant Moss HoldingCompany owns four U.S. design patents, U.S. Patent Nos. D561,257, D561,258,D561,259, and D571,409, and “[t]he Allure displays are covered by” these designpatents.