Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/178233075/Smash-v-LB-International
Timestamp: 2015-08-30 19:14:59
Document Index: 562385239

Matched Legal Cases: ['§271', '§1331', '§1338', '§1367', '§1400', '§1391', '§287']

P. 1Smash v. LB InternationalSmash v. LB InternationalRatings: (0)|Views: 41|Likes: 0Published by PriorSmartOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 0:13-cv-02909: Smash, LLC v. LB International Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l9kK for more info.Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 0:13-cv-02909: Smash, LLC v. LB International Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l9kK for more info.More info:Categories:Types, Business/Law, Court FilingsPublished by: PriorSmart on Oct 22, 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/178233075/Smash-v-LB-International04/20/2014pdftextoriginal 20857475v1
SMASH, LLC,
Plaintiff, Case No:v. JudgeLB INTERNATIONAL INC., Magistrate JudgeDefendant.
Now comes plaintiff, Smash, LLC (“Smash”), and as a complaint against Defendant LBInternational, Inc. (“LB International”) hereby requests a jury trial on all issues so triable andstates as follows:
Smash is a Minnesota corporation in good standing having its principal place of business at 310 Bergamot Drive, Medina, Minnesota 55340.2.
On information and belief, Defendant LB International, is a New York corporation having its principal place of business at 150 Engineers Road, Hauppauge, New York 11788.
This action arises under the Patent Laws of the United States; more specifically,this action arises under 35 USC §271. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court pursuant to 28 USC§1331 and §1338. This court has discretion under 28 U.S.C. §1367 to exercise supplemental
2 jurisdiction over Smash’s state law claims asserted herein, all of which arise from the samecommon core of operative facts as set forth more fully below. Defendant conducts business inMinnesota and is therefore subject to the jurisdiction of this Court.
Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 USC §1400(b) and§1391(b) and (c) because, on information and belief, infringement by defendant has occurred inthis judicial district. On information and belief, Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction inthis district.
Smash’s Business5.
created a unique lighted holiday ornament, which includes ahollow shell housing a portion of a string of lights. The lighted ornament creates a stunninglighted ball or other shaped ornaments (“Claimed Products”).
Smash holds patent rights with respect to its unique lighted holiday ornament, andhas built its business around this innovation.Defendant’s Business7.
On information and belief, Defendant manufactures and sells a variety of products, including lighted holiday ornaments, including a “100 sphere light” (“AccusedProducts”).8.
On information and belief, LB International sells its products, including thelighted holiday ornaments (the Accused Products) at least throughout the United States.
COUNT I(Infringement of United States Patent No. 5,772,312)
Susan M. Pihl-Niederman, Hollyanne M. Pihl and Sharon P. Frederickson(“Inventors”) conceived and developed certain improvements in lighted holiday ornaments forwhich they sought patent protection based on a patent application filed October 30, 1996, suchapplication resulting in grant of United States Patent No. 5,772,312 (“‘312 Patent”) (a copy of which is attached as
On November 22, 1999, the ‘312 Patent, including all rights related thereto andarising therefrom, was assigned by Inventors to Smash. A copy of such assignment is attachedhereto as
Holiday ornaments licensed by Smash that utilizes the technology disclosed andclaimed in the ‘312 Patent (the “Claimed Products”) are marked with a notice of the ‘312 Patent,pursuant to 35 USC §287(a).12.
In late 2010, Smash learned that LB International was selling the AccusedProducts. Throughout 2011 and 2012, Smash informed LB International that its conductconstitutes infringement of Smash’s ‘312 Patent.13.
Effective December 16, 2012, Smash and LB International entered into a Non-Exclusive License Agreement (“License Agreement”). Under the terms of the LicenseAgreement, Smash licensed to LB International the non-exclusive right, beginning on December16, 2012, to sell or distribute products, which in the absence of the License Agreement, wouldinfringe at least one claim of the ‘312 Patent. In exchange for Smash’s license, LB Internationalagreed to pay Smash a certain royalty payment for all licensed sales going forward. The parties’