Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/147683412/Polliwalk-s-v-Crocs-et-al
Timestamp: 2016-10-21 15:56:29
Document Index: 213110276

Matched Legal Cases: ['§1', '§1331', '§1391', '§271', '§271', '§ 285', '§ 285', '§ 285', '§ 285', '§ 284']

BrowseBrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicPolliwalk's v. Crocs et. al.Uploaded by PriorSmartDefendantPatentpatentPatent Infringement111 viewsDownloadEmbedDescription: Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-11425: Polliwalk's, Inc. v. Crocs, Inc. et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, no judge yet a...See MoreOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-11425: Polliwalk's, Inc. v. Crocs, Inc. et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l8Ah for more info.Copyright: Public DomainDownload as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTSPOLLIWALKS, INC. Plaintiff, v. CROCS, INC. and KOHL’S CORPORATION, INC. Defendants.
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Plaintiff, Polliwalks, Inc. (“Polliwalks”), by its undersigned counsel, for its complaint against Crocs, Inc. (“Crocs”) and Kohl’s Corporation, Inc. (“Kohl’s and collectively with Crocs, “Defendants”), states as follows: NATURE OF ACTION 1. This is an action for patent infringement arising under the Patent Laws of the
United States, 35 U.S.C. §1 et seq. THE PARTIES 2. Polliwalks is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts and has its principal place of business in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 3. Upon information and belief, Crocs (NASDAQ: CROX) is a Delaware
{W3736167.1}
Upon information and belief, Kohl’s (NYSE: KSS) is a Wisconsin corporation
having its principal place of business in Wisconsin. Kohl’s operates approximately 24 department stores in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 5. Upon information and belief, Defendants offer to sell products, and, in fact sell
products throughout the United States, including in this judicial district and introduce products that infringe one or more claims in United States Patent No. 8,371,043 (the “ ‘043 Patent”) and United States Patent No. 8,371,044 (the “ ‘044 Patent”) into the stream of commerce knowing that they would be sold in this judicial district and elsewhere in the United States. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 6. This is an action for patent infringement arising under the Patent laws of the
§§1331 and 1338(a). 8. 9. Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. §§1391 and 1400. Joinder of Crocs and Kohl’s in this action is proper as Crocs manufactures and
markets to Kohl’s its infringing products which infringing products Kohl’s markets and sells to consumers in this judicial district all as part of the same transaction or series of transactions concerning the same infringing products. COUNT I (Infringement of the ‘043 Patent) 10. Polliwalks hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 9 by reference as though set
“USPTO”) duly and legally issued the ‘043 Patent. Polliwalks owns the entire right, title and
interest in the ‘043 Patent and such ownership rights are confirmed by assignments recorded in the USPTO. A true and accurate copy of the ‘043 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. 12. Crocs makes, uses, sells or offers for sale, three-dimensional sculpted shoes
called: (i) Crocs Crockskin Clogs and (ii) Crocs Chameleon Alien Clogs (collectively, the “Infringing Products”) that infringe one or more claims of the ‘043 Patent. 13. Kohl’s uses, sells, offers for sale to consumers, the Infringing Products that are
sold to Kohl’s by Crocs. True and accurate excerpts from Kohl’s website are appended hereto as Exhibit 2. 14. Crocs has also infringed one or more claims of the ‘043 Patent by knowingly and
actively inducing others to infringe, by contributing to the infringement of others, including but not limited to Kohl’s, and by intentionally aiding, assisting and encouraging the infringement by others, including but not limited to Kohl’s through the sale, offer for sale, manufacture and use of the Infringing Products. 15. Defendants were made aware of the ‘043 Patent and their infringement thereof at
least as early as its receipt of correspondence from counsel for Polliwalks providing notice of the ‘043 Patent and Defendants infringement thereof which was sent to each of the Defendants on or about May 23, 2013. The letters were sent United States Priority Mail with a tracking number. Defendants responded to these letters and thereby confirmed their receipt thereof. 16. In addition, on or about September 3, 3010, Kohl’s was provided written notice of
the US Utility application which published on February 5, 2009 under publication No.: US-20090031587 which matured into the ‘043 Patent. Additionally, a continuing application was filed and issued as the ‘044 Patent.
Upon information and belief, since at least the time Defendants received notice,
Defendants have induced and continue to induce others to infringe at least one claim of the ‘043 Patent under 35 U.S.C. §271 (b) by, among other things, and with specific intent or willful blindness, actively aiding and abetting, others to infringe, including, but not limited to, Defendants’ customers, whose use, and on the part of retailers, sale, offer for sale and use of the Infringing Products constitutes direct infringement of at least one claim of the ‘043 Patent. 18. In particular, Defendants’ actions that aid and abet others such as their
distributors, partners and/or customers to infringe include advertising and distributing the Infringing Products. Upon information and belief, Defendants have engaged in such actions with specific intent to cause infringement or with willful blindness to the resulting infringement because Defendants have had actual knowledge of the ‘043 Patent since at least the date Defendants received notice from Polliwalks’ counsel notifying Defendants of their infringement of the ‘043 Patent. 19. Despite Polliwalks’ counsel’s notice regarding the ‘043 Patent, Defendants have
continued to infringe the ‘043 Patent. On information and belief, Defendants’ infringement has been and continues to be willful. 20. Polliwalks has been harmed by Defendants’ infringing activities. COUNT II (Infringement of the ‘044 Patent) 21. Polliwalks hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 20 by reference as though
set forth fully herein. 22. On February 12, 2013, the USPTO duly and legally issued the ‘044 Patent.
Polliwalks owns the entire right, title and interest in the ‘044 Patent and such ownership rights
are confirmed by assignments recorded in the USPTO. A true and accurate copy of the ‘044 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 3. 23. Crocs makes, uses, sells or offers for sale, the Infringing Products that infringe
one or more claims of the ‘044 Patent. 24. Kohl’s uses, sells, offers for sale to consumers, the Infringing Products that are
sold to Kohl’s by Crocs. See Exhibit 2. 25. Crocs has also infringed one or more claims of the ‘044 Patent by knowingly and
actively inducing others to infringe, by contributing to the infringement of others, including but not limited to Kohl’s, and by intentionally aiding, assisting and encouraging the infringement by others, including but not limited to Kohl’s through the sale, offer for sale, manufacture and use of the Infringing Products. 26. Defendants were made aware of the ‘044 Patent and their infringement thereof at
least as early as its receipt of correspondence from counsel for Polliwalks providing notice of the ‘044 Patent and Defendants infringement thereof which was sent to each of the Defendants on or about May 23, 2013. The letters were sent United States Priority Mail with a tracking number. Defendants responded to these letters and thereby confirmed their receipt thereof. 27. Upon information and belief, since at least the time Defendants received notice,
Defendants have induced and continue to induce others to infringe at least one claim of the ‘044 Patent under 35 U.S.C. §271 (b) by, among other things, and with specific intent or willful blindness, actively aiding and abetting, others to infringe, including, but not limited to, Defendants’ customers, whose use, and on the part of retailers, sale, offer for sale and use of the Infringing Products constitutes direct infringement of at least one claim of the ‘044 Patent.
In particular, Defendants’ actions that aid and abet others such as their
distributors, partners and/or customers to infringe include advertising and distributing the Infringing Products. Upon information and belief, Defendants have engaged in such actions with specific intent to cause infringement or with willful blindness to the resulting infringement because Defendants have had actual knowledge of the ‘044 Patent since at least the date Defendants received notice from Polliwalks’ counsel notifying Defendants of their infringement of the ‘044 Patent. 29. Despite Polliwalk’s counsel’s notice regarding the ‘044 Patent, Defendants have
continued to infringe the ‘044 Patent. 30. On information and belief, Defendants’ infringement of the ’044 Patent has been
and continues to be willful. 31. Polliwalks has been harmed by Defendants’ infringing activities. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Polliwalks demands judgment for itself and against the Defendants, as follows: A. An adjudication that Defendants have infringed the ‘043 Patent; B. An adjudication that Defendants have infringed the ‘044 Patent; C. for injunctive relief, both preliminary and permanent, enjoining Defendants, and their officers, directors agents, servants, employees, and all their entities and individuals acting in concert with them or on their behalf from further infringement of either the ‘043 Patent and/or the ‘044 Patent; D. An Award of damages to be paid by Defendants adequate to compensate Polliwalks for Defendants’ past infringement of either the ‘043 Patent and/or the ‘044 Patent,
and any continuing or future infringement through the date such judgment is entered, including interest, costs, expenses and an accounting of all infringing acts; E. for an award of enhanced damages resulting from Defendants’ willful infringement of the ‘043 Patent, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285; F. for an award of enhanced damages resulting from Defendants’ willful infringement of the ‘044 Patent, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285; G. for an award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 based on, but not limited to, Defendants’ willful infringement of the ‘043 Patent; H. for an award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 based on, but not limited to, Defendants’ willful infringement of the ‘044 Patent; I. for an award of costs, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on any damages awarded, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284 and other applicable law; and J. for such other and further relief as the Court deems just and reasonable.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38, Polliwalks hereby demands a trial by jury in this action on all claims and issues so triable. Respectfully submitted, POLLIWALKS, INC., By its counsel, Dated: June 13, 2013 /s/ Jeffrey E. Francis Jeffrey E. Francis, BBO #639944 Jfrancis@pierceatwood.com Joseph Maraia (BB) # 650569) jmaraia@pierceatwood.com PIERCE ATWOOD LLP 100 Summer Street Suite 2250 Boston, MA 02110 (617) 488-8136
Documents similar to Polliwalk's v. Crocs et. al.Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. et al - Document No. 149Wyncomm v. Fujitsu Et. Al.Reald v. Masterimage 3D Et. Al.Wyncomm v. Lenovo Group et. al.Relay IP v. Brocade Communications SystemsBrandywine Communications Technologies, LLCRelay IP v. Hitachi Cable AmericaTechnology Properties v. Canon et. al.Yyz v. BMC SoftwareSelect Retrieval v. Ll BeanBrandywine Communications Technologies v. Datum CommunicationsQuest Nettech v. D.L. Blair1 MainShieldmark v. Insite SolutionsEclipse IP v. OfficeMax North AmericaShieldmark v. Creative Safety SupplyZoll Medical v. Philips Electronics North AmericaRydex Technologies v. OPW Fueling Components Et. Al.Smart Search Concepts v. Buy.ComQuest Nettech v. US Sweepstakes & FulfillmentQuest Nettech v. Pop2LifeSmart Search Concepts v. NordstromCommercial Recovery v. Burns & CarlisleQuest NetTech v. Gage Marketing GroupWyncomm v. Velocity MicroWyncomm LLCQuest Nettech v. PrizeLogicActivision TV v. Adspace NetworksTelecomm Innovations v. Seiko Epson Et. Al.Activision TV v. National CinemediaBooks similar to Polliwalk's v. Crocs et. al.Petition for CertiorariPetition for Certiorari – Patent Case 94-782 - Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) - Patent Statute 35 USC 261 – Judgment lien Statute 12 USC 1963Petition for Certiorari Denied Without OpinionStop Judicial AbusePetition for Certiorari – Patent Case 99-396 - Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) Patent Assignment Statute 35 USC 261The Role of Patent Information in the Transfer of TechnologyThe Complete Guide to Securing Your Own U.S. PatentPetition for Certiorari Denied Without OpinionA Great Trial in Chinese HistoryAssassination of LincolnLimitationsBrief Tales From The BenchAmerican TragedyWhy I Hate Casey Anthony ~ Not By OJ SimpsonMy Life During The O.J. Simpson TrialJustice PervertedTravestySpread SpectrumThe VerdictThe Winston AffairA Moveable VerdictGuilty Until Proven Innocent (2014)Justice For NoneThe Vince Cardozo MysteriesNext of KinJohn J. RobinetteCriminal LawThe Science of PersuasionLicensed to LieBooks about DefendantThe Jurors Who Knew Too MuchThe FormulaJury DoodyThe VerdictOscar Pistorius The VerdictLaw, Life and LaughterMurder in MarpleDocuments about DefendantAmended Complaint Filed 9/30/2016 Jane Doe Declaration as FiledDoe v. Trump et al refiled complaint 9/30/16Pennie v. Soros et al Amended Complaint2016-04-18 Cheri Jacobus Lawsuit Against Trump and LewandowskiRyan Bundy Mistrial Motion09-20-2016 ECF 1305 USA v SHAWNA COX - Notice That the U.S. Attorneys' Office Has Been Caught Coaching WitnessesBundy wants govt to ID informantsMejia v. Freeman - FIT AND THICK trademark complaint.pdf179125570172US v. Deric LostutterLil Wayne v. Cash Money - complaint.pdf20160718 - Wwe Cte LawsuitCavanaugh v BarteltAndrea Tantaros suitMumford Emergency MotionCarlsbad Police Brutality ComplaintTake-Two and Rockstar Games v Leslie BenziesZenimax v Oculus - Amended ComplaintHobos Proffer Amended Levaquin complaint Solid Oak Sketches v Take-TwoPalantir LawsuitLawsuit against Hillary ClintonPokemon Go lawsuitGoguen/Baptiste San Mateo CourtRoss Ulbricht Sentencing Podliska v Select Committee and Trey GowdyGov-Uscourts-Nysd-460787-1-0Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against EOS Lip BalmDocuments about PatentBusiness Development Executive Resume SampleGlobal Competitiveness Report 2005/2006 Executive SummaryStandard Form of Agreement for Design ServicesPalantir LawsuitLinx Bracelet v. Origami OwlProClin® 150, 200 & 300 Preservatives General Safety and HandlingThe Conservative Nanny StateTierneyConsulting AgreementAgainst Intellectual Property, by Stephan Kinsella Consulting ContractMossberg Firearms 2012 CatalogOpportunity KnocksApple Inc (AAPL) Form 10-K (Annual Report) Filed 2008-11-05DOW CHEMICAL CO /DE/ 10-K (Annual Reports) 2009-02-20Broadcom Corp v. Innovium - complaint.pdfPershing Square Sohn PresentationNovartis patent JudgementWizards of the Coast v. Cryptozoic Entertainment et. al.Dbc Settleltr 00384ohDANAHER CORP /DE/ 10-K (Annual Reports) 2009-02-25Apple vs Android 10.12.02AppleVsSamsung_11.07.05Kodak C.F.O.'s declarationGame of War v. Empire Z - Machine Zone v. Ember Entertainment complaint.pdfGENENTECH INC 10-K (Annual Reports) 2009-02-20Richmond Ring & Pinion InstallationAVON PRODUCTS INC 10-K (Annual Reports) 2009-02-20Changing the Industrial Geography in AsiaThe Oppidan Press Edition 10 2011 (The Investec Rhodes Top 100 Special Edition)Books about patentThe Necessity of AtheismLicensing and Managing Electronic ResourcesArguments before the Committee on Patents of the House of Representatives, on H. R. 11943, to Amend Title 60, Chapter 3, of the Revised Statutes of the United States Relating to Copyrights
May 2, 1906.Supplementary Copyright Statutes, US Copy. OfficeThe Seas of QuiviraThe Trouble with DaleksIndipendent Inventors and Pro Corporate Federal CourtsPetition for Certiorari Denied Without OpinionPetition for Certiorari Denied Without OpinionThe World Needs Marriage Equality NowPatent EaseMr. Huston/ Mr. NorthThe Foundations of Vacuum Coating TechnologyHow to Find Out About PatentsThe Role of Patent Information in the Transfer of TechnologyMicroprocessorsOutput Measurement in Science and TechnologySinking the Jolly RogerHow to Start a Patent Leather Business (Beginners Guide)How to Start a Patent Medicines (wholesale) Business (Beginners Guide)How to Start a Patent Fuel Production Business (Beginners Guide)How to Start a Patent Fuel (wholesale) Business (Beginners Guide)How to Start a Patent Agent Business (Beginners Guide)How to Start a Patent Broker Business (Beginners Guide)ConnectionPatent EaseGreat African American InventorsInternet Book PiracyDocuments about patentLil Wayne v. Cash Money - complaint.pdfSample Producer Contract (Royalty-Bearing Work for Hire)Solid Oak Sketches v Take-TwoAs 3600-2009 Concrete StructuresGov-Uscourts-Nysd-460787-1-0StarsBrief of Amici Curiae 212 Songwriters, Composers, Musicians, And Produce...HaloSongs Inc v SheeranProClin® 150, 200 & 300 Preservatives General Safety and HandlingJournal of Music, Technology and EducationLSE MPP Policy Brief 9 Copyright and CreationThe Radio JournalSharing Creative Works (Creative Commons)Studies in Musical TheatrePhoto Permission Agreement_FINALThe SoundtrackThe Conservative Nanny StateYesh Music v. S Carter Enterprises - class action complaint royalties TIDAL.pdfPrince v. Chodera - ComplaintCloud Computing for LibrariesChristos Tsiolkas - Barracuda (Extract)Use of fonts (1.1 MB)Journal of Visual Arts PracticeStudies in Documentary FilmGuide to copyright (1 MB)Documents about Patent InfringementBrief of Amici Curiae 212 Songwriters, Composers, Musicians, And Produce...Wizards of the Coast v. Cryptozoic Entertainment et. al.Apple vs Android 10.12.02AppleVsSamsung_11.07.05Exclusivity AgreementRedigi CapitolRichmond Ring & Pinion Installation12-07-25 Apple v Samsung Adverse Inference Jury Instruction OrderOracle Google ComplaintNokiaVsApple_11.03.31.100Amended Galaxy ComplaintBRISTOL MYERS SQUIBB CO 10-K (Annual Reports) 2009-02-20Nokia vs Apple 11.01.06Apple Samsung VerdictUse of the ITC to Block Foreign Pirate WebsitesOracle Opposition to Google Daubert MotionPersonalWeb Technologies et. al. v. Rackspace et. al.Koninklijke Philips N.V. et. al. v. Nintendo et. al.Oracle Google Damages - June 6 Precis UnredactedGov.uscourts.cand.250725.4.0Translation of Mannheim 2O240 Ruling Motorola v MicrosoftPosner OrderVerdict FormTreehouse Avatar Technologies v. Turbine3D Systems v. Formlabs et. al.Gillette Company v. ADKM, Inc. d/b/a Harry's Razor Company et. al.Bose v. Beats Civil ComplaintAmicus Brief in Support of Samsung RehearingDocuments about Title 35 Of The United States CodeAgainst Intellectual Property, by Stephan Kinsella Oracle Google ComplaintAmended Galaxy ComplaintOracle Opposition to Google Daubert MotionPersonalWeb Technologies et. al. v. Rackspace et. al.Treehouse Avatar Technologies v. Turbine3D Systems v. Formlabs et. al.Gillette Company v. ADKM, Inc. d/b/a Harry's Razor Company et. al.Bose v. Beats Civil ComplaintNokia Complaint Against Apple in federal district court, WisconsinLodsys Complaint Against Adidas BestBuy Et AlBombardier Recreational Products et. al. v. Arctic Cat et. al.BU v Apple14-01-21 Apple v. Samsung Summary Judgment OrderNYT Complaint Against Lodsys11-07-21 Lodsys Amended ComplaintGreenwich Ballistics v. Jamison InternationalFacebook's Counterclaims to Yahoo's Patent LawsuitProvisional Patent ApplicationPinch to Zoom Patent InvalidatedRockstar v Samsung.pdfGoogle Dec Action vs RockstarImmersion Haptics LawsuitSamsung opening brief in Apple case at US Supreme CourtGoogle Cert Petition CioffiCoho Licensing v. LinkedInHuawei v. SamsungPaul Andrew Leitner-Wise Sues LWRC & SIG Sauer Over Patent InfringementNaruto v. Slater Appeal, Opening BriefMore from PriorSmartLike kind card game (US patent 6193235)Like kind money board table game (US patent 6186505)Intelligent user interface including a touch sensor device (US patent 8288952)User interface with proximity sensing (US patent 8035623)Wine cellar alarm system (US patent 8710985)Cell regulatory genes, encoded products, and uses related thereto (US patent 7030227)Multicasting method and apparatus (US patent 6434622)Method and apparatus for retrieving data from a network using linked location identifiers (US patent 6226655)Casino bonus game using player strategy (US patent 6645071)High-speed serial linking device with de-emphasis function and the method thereof (US patent 7313187)Casing spacer (US patent 6736166)Advance Products & Systems v. CCI Piping SystemsModern Telecom Systems LLCTracBeam v. AppleRichmond v. Creative IndustriesSenju Pharmaceutical et. al. v. Metrics et. al.VIA Technologies et. al. v. ASUS Computer International et. al.Perrie v. PerrieEckart v. Silberline ManufacturingSenju Pharmaceutical et. al. v. Metrics et. al.Kenzinc v. imblowingup et. al.Sun Zapper v. Devroy et. al.Merck Sharp & Dohme v. Fresenius KabiTracBeam v. T-Mobile et. al.ATEN International v. Uniclass Technology et. al.Mcs Industries v. Hds TradingDok Solution v. FKA Distributung et. al.GRQ Investment Management v. Financial Engines et. al.Merck Sharp & Dohme v. Fresenius KabiMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Konami Digital Entertainment