Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/92439347/Pentair-Water-Pool-and-Spa-et-al-v-Hayward-Industries-et-al
Timestamp: 2016-09-25 19:52:48
Document Index: 707265567

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§ 1331', '§ 1400', '§ 282', '§ 282', '§ 271', '§ 285', '§ 271', '§ 285', '§ 284', '§ 285', 'art130']

BrowseBrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicWelcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out moreIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION Civil ActionNo. 5:12-CV-251 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
COMPLAINT Plaintiffs, Pentair Water Pool and Spa, Inc. (“Pentair”) and Danfoss Drives A/S (“Danfoss”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) file their Complaint against Defendants Hayward Industries, Inc. and Hayward Pool Products, Inc. (collectively “Hayward”) and aver as follows: PARTIES 1. Pentair is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of
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. On information and belief, Hayward manufactures, markets and sells the accused
district, including through the dealership in Raleigh, North Carolina. 8. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1400(b), 1391(b) and 1391(c). THE PLAINTIFFS’ PATENTS 9. On April 27, 2010, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”)
duly and legally issued United States Patent No. 7,704,051 B2 entitled PUMP CONTROLLER SYSTEM AND METHOD (“the „051 Patent”). A true and correct copy of the „051 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 10. By virtue of assignment agreements, Pentair is the owner of the entire right, title
and interest in and to the „051 Patent. 11. U.S.C. § 282. 12. On September 13, 2011, the USPTO duly and legally issued United States Patent The „051 Patent is entitled by statute to a presumption of validity pursuant to 35
No. 8,019,479 B2 entitled CONTROL ALGORITHM OF VARIABLE SPEED PUMPING SYSTEM (“the „479 Patent”). A true and correct copy of the „479 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit C. 13. Plaintiffs are the joint owners of the entire right, title and interest in and to the
„479 Patent, by virtue of assignment agreements from the inventors. 14. U.S.C. § 282. 15. On information and belief, Hayward makes, uses, offers for sale and sells variable The „479 Patent is entitled by statute to a presumption of validity pursuant to 35
speed pumps, including, but not limited to its EcoStar pumps, which embody and/or contain variable speed pump technology encompassed by the above patents. Selected pages from Hayward‟s website relating to the infringing pump products are attached as Exhibit D (http://www.hayward-pool.com/prd/In-Ground-Pool-Energy-Solutions-EcoStar_10201_10551_21501_-1_14002__I.htm). Page 3
variable speed pumps, including, but not limited to its EcoStar SVRS pumps, which also embody and/or contain variable speed pump technology encompassed by the above patents. Selected pages from Hayward‟s website relating to the infringing pump products are attached as Exhibit E (http://www.hayward-pool.com/prd/In-Ground-Pool-Pumps-EcoStarSVRS_10201_10551_21502_-1_14002__I.htm). 17. On information and belief, Hayward makes, uses, offers for sale and sells
controllers for variable speed pumps, including, but not limited to Pro Logic controllers, which in combination with Hayward variable speed pumps, embody and/or contain technology encompassed by the above patents. Selected pages from Hayward‟s website relating to the infringing products are attached as Exhibit F (http://www.hayward-pool.com/prd/In-GroundPool-Premium-Automation-Pro-Logic-_10201_10551_17501_-1_17015_14007_I.htm). COUNT I (Infringement of the ‘051 Patent) 18. Plaintiffs Pentair and Danfoss incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1-23 of this
Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 19. Hayward has infringed and continues to infringe the „051 Patent by, inter alia,
making, using, selling and/or offering to sell, in the United States, variable speed pumps and controllers, including, but not limited to, EcoStar pumps, EcoStar SVRS pumps alone and in combination with the Pro Logic controllers, and by contributing to infringement and actively inducing others to infringe the „051 Patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. §§ 271(a), (b) and (c). 20. On information and belief, Hayward was aware of the existence of the „051 Patent,
On information and belief, Hayward has acted with willful disregard of Plaintiffs‟
patent rights and has willfully and deliberately infringed the „051 Patent. 22. 23. Hayward will continue to infringe the „051 Patent unless enjoined by this Court. As a result of Hayward‟s infringement of the „051 Patent, Plaintiffs have been and
reasonable attorneys‟ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. COUNT II (Infringement of the ‘479 Patent) 25. Plaintiff Pentair incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1-24 of this Complaint as
though fully set forth herein. 26. Hayward has infringed and continues to infringe the „479 Patent by, inter alia,
making, using, selling and/or offering to sell, in the United States, variable speed pump products including, but not limited to, EcoStar pumps and EcoStar SVRS pumps alone and in combination with the Pro Logic controllers, and by contributing to infringement and actively inducing others to infringe the „479 Patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), (b) and (c). 27. On information and belief, Hayward was aware of the existence of the „479 Patent,
and was aware that the marketing, manufacturing, use, offer for sale and sale of Hayward variable speed pumps and Pro Logic controllers would constitute infringement thereof. 28. On information and belief, Hayward has acted with willful disregard of Pentair‟s
patent rights and has willfully and deliberately infringed the „479 Patent. 29. 30. Hayward will continue to infringe the „479 Patent unless enjoined by this Court. As a result of Hayward‟s infringement of the „479 Patent, Pentair has been and
attorneys‟ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that this Court grant the following relief: A. B. willful; C. Award Plaintiffs as appropriate a preliminary and a permanent injunction Enter judgment that Hayward infringes the „051 and „479 Patents; Declare that Hayward‟s infringement of the „051 and „479 Patents has been
restraining Hayward, its officers, agents, servants, employees and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with them from further infringement of the „051 and „479 Patents; D. Award Plaintiffs as appropriate damages from Hayward adequate to compensate
its acts of infringement: E. Award Plaintiffs as appropriate treble damages, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284,
based on the willfulness of Hayward‟s infringement; F. Declare that this is an exceptional case pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285, and award
reasonable attorneys fees and taxable costs, particularly in view of the intentional and willful nature of Hayward‟s patent infringement. G. Such further relief as this Court deems just and appropriate. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiffs hereby request a jury trial on all issues.
Pentair Water Pool and Spa et. al. v. Hayward Industries et. al. by PriorSmart130 viewsEmbedDownloadDescriptionOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 5:12-cv-00251-BO: Pentair Water Pool and Spa, Inc. et. al. v. Hayward Industries, Inc. et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Ea...Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 5:12-cv-00251-BO: Pentair Water Pool and Spa, Inc. et. al. v. Hayward Industries, Inc. et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, the Hon. Terrence W. Boyle presiding. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l5Yy for more info.Interests: Types, Business/Law, Court FilingsRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Public DomainDownload as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentShow moreShow less
RelatedCoprecitec, S.L. Et. Al. v. Brinkmannby PatentBlastVictaulic v. Scholzen Productsby PatentBlastOpinion Lab Complaint Against Lodsysby Florian MuellerKoninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. et. al. v. Nexxus Lightingby PriorSmartUnified Messaging Solutions LLCby PriorSmartArCzar v. Navicoby PriorSmartTobii Technology AB v. Eye Tribe APSby PriorSmartB.E. Technology v. Pandora Mediaby PriorSmartMcDavid v Nike Complaintby Legal WriterCirrex Systems v. Polymicro Technologiesby PriorSmartUnified Messaging Solutions v. Ameriprise Financialby PriorSmartWilson v. Plant Haven et. al.by PriorSmartRydex Technologies LLCby PriorSmartOutdry Technologies v. Geox S.P.a. Et. Al.by PatentBlastAmerican Gutter Filter v. Prime Time Window Cleaning Et. Al.by PatentBlastImmerVision v. Vivotekby PriorSmartJ-Channel Industries v. Lowe's Companies Et. Al.6by PatentBlasteDekka v. Zazzle.comby PriorSmartPatentMarks Communications v. ZTEby PatentBlastExitExchange v. TripAdvisorby PatentBlast11-07-21 Lodsys Amended Complaintby Florian MuellerNewthink v. American Relianceby PriorSmartSolid State Storage Solutions v. Fusion-IOby PatentBlastActivelight v. GoGo Media Networksby PriorSmartJOAO Bock Transaction Systems v. Scottradeby PriorSmartWinvic Sales v. TMD Holdingsby PriorSmartpatenttroll-111003234423-phpapp01by ArunkumarASUS Computer International et. al. v. ExoTabletby PriorSmartSimilar to Pentair Water Pool and Spa et. al. v. Hayward Industries et. al.Coprecitec, S.L. Et. Al. v. BrinkmannVictaulic v. Scholzen ProductsOpinion Lab Complaint Against LodsysKoninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. et. al. v. Nexxus LightingUnified Messaging Solutions LLCArCzar v. NavicoTobii Technology AB v. Eye Tribe APSB.E. Technology v. Pandora MediaMcDavid v Nike ComplaintCirrex Systems v. Polymicro TechnologiesUnified Messaging Solutions v. Ameriprise FinancialWilson v. Plant Haven et. al.Rydex Technologies LLCOutdry Technologies v. Geox S.P.a. Et. Al.American Gutter Filter v. Prime Time Window Cleaning Et. Al.ImmerVision v. VivotekJ-Channel Industries v. Lowe's Companies Et. Al.6eDekka v. Zazzle.comPatentMarks Communications v. ZTEExitExchange v. TripAdvisor11-07-21 Lodsys Amended ComplaintNewthink v. American RelianceSolid State Storage Solutions v. Fusion-IOActivelight v. GoGo Media NetworksJOAO Bock Transaction Systems v. ScottradeWinvic Sales v. TMD Holdingspatenttroll-111003234423-phpapp01ASUS Computer International et. al. v. ExoTabletEntertainment Printing Enterprises v. TicktboxThermoLife International v. John's Lone Star Distribution