Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/137289879/Amsafe-Bridport-v-Fatzer
Timestamp: 2015-10-10 09:57:56
Document Index: 764891067

Matched Legal Cases: ['§146', '§1331', '§146', '§1391', '§135', '§112']

Amsafe Bridport v. Fatzer
P. 1Amsafe Bridport v. FatzerAmsafe Bridport v. FatzerRatings: (0)|Views: 53|Likes: 0Published by PriorSmartOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-00474-AJT-TCB: Amsafe Bridport Limited v. Fatzer AG. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the Hon. Anthony J Trenga presiding. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l84f for more info.Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-00474-AJT-TCB: Amsafe Bridport Limited v. Fatzer AG. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the Hon. Anthony J Trenga presiding. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l84f for more info.More info:Categories:Types, Business/Law, Court FilingsPublished by: PriorSmart on Apr 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/137289879/Amsafe-Bridport-v-Fatzer04/22/2013pdftextoriginal IN
STATESDISTRICTCOURTFOR
ZGI3
AMSAFEBRIDPORT
aUnitedKingdomCompany,
Court,Bridport,Dorset,
UnitedKingdomDT63QU,
FATZERAG,aSwitzerlandCompany,
Salmsacherstrasse
8590Romanshorn,
#If*
PlaintiffAmSafeBridportLimited("AmSafe")foritscomplaintagainstthedefendant
FatzerAG("Fatzer"),statesasfollows:
1.Thisisacivilactiontoremedythedecisionandjudgment
AppealsandInterferences("Board")
theUnitedStatesPatentandTrademarkOffice
("USPTO")adversetopartyLeeminginInterferenceNo.105,862,titled"StephanBeat
Wartmann,JuniorParty(Patent7,975,594["theWartmann'594patent"])v.DavidWilliam
Leeming,SeniorParty(Application10/584,605["theLeeming'605application])"asprovided
forby35U.S.C.§146.
2.AmSafeisalimitedcompanyexistingunderthelaws
theUnitedKingdom,
havingitsprincipalplace
businessatTheCourt,Bridport,Dorset,UnitedKingdomDT63QU.
3.DavidWilliamLeeming,theinventor
thesubjectmatter
claims41-51
theLeeming'605application,hasassignedtheentireright,title,andinterestinandtotheLeeming'605applicationtoAmSafe,which,forthepurposes
thisaction,istherealparty-in-interestforsaidapplications.
4.Uponinformationandbelief,Fatzerisacompanyexistingunderthelaws
Switzerland,havingitsprincipalplace
businessatSalmsacherstrasse9,CH-8590
5.Uponinformationandbelief,StephanBeatWartmannandHanspeterKaufmann
claimtobetheinventors
claims1-11
theWartmann'594patent.
6.Uponinformationandbelief,theinventorshaveassignedallrightsinthe
Wartmann'594PatenttoFatzer,which,forthepurposes
thisaction,istherealparty-in-
interestfortheWartmann
'594
JURISDICTIONAND
7.Jurisdictionisbasedon28U.S.C.
§§1331
and1338and35U.S.C.§146.
8.Venueisproperinthisjudicialdistrictunder28U.S.C.§1391and35U.S.C.
(CivilAction
U.S.C.§
reallegesandincorporatesbyreferenceparagraphs1-8ofthisComplaint.
10.OnJanuary3,2012,theBoarddeclaredaninterference,designatedasInterferenceNo.105,862("the'862interference"),under35U.S.C.§135(a)betweenthe
patentandtheLeeming'605application.
11.TheWartmann'594patentandtheLeeming'605applicationgenerallyrelatetoa
textilebarrieruseabletoprotectatargetfromdamagecausedbyashape-chargedwarheadsuch
asarocketpropelledgrenade(RPG).12.Indeclaringthe
'862
interferencetheBoarddeterminedthatcertainclaims
Wartmann'594patentandtheLeeming'605applicationinterferebecausetheyclaimcommon
subjectmatter.The'862interferenceisbasedonasingle"count"thatdefinestheinterferingsubjectmatterinthealternative:claim1
theWartmann'594patentorclaim41
Leeming'605application.Onlythefirstinventor
subjectmattercorrespondingtothecountis
entitledtopatentclaimsdirectedtothatsubjectmatter.13.TheUSPTOdesignatedclaims1-11
theWartmann'594patentas
correspondingtothecount.
14.TheBoarddesignatedclaims
theLeeming'605applicationas
correspondingtothecount.15.DavidWilliamLeemingistheinventor
theLeeming'605application,whichisentitledtopriorityunder35U.S.C.§
tothepriority
thefilingdate
Leeming'spriorityapplications,namely,GreatBritainPatent
No.GB060130.0,
January17,2006("theLeeming'130application"),
andInternationalApplicationSerialNo.PCT/GB007/000329,filedJanuary17,2007("the
'329
application").
16.Duringthe'862interferenceandonFebruary25,2013,theBoardmailedand
filedpaperno.
titled"Decision-Motions-Bd.R.125(a)"(attachedheretoasExhibitA),
whichreadsinpart:"ORDEREDthatWartmann'sMotion18attackingLeeming'sclaims
asunpatentableunder35U.S.C.§112;firstparagraph,aslackingwrittendescriptioninthe
17.Duringthe'862interferenceandonFebruary25,2013,theBoardmailedand
no.109,
titled"Judgment
127"(attachedhereto
part:"ORDERED
thatjudgmentonpriorityasto
enteredagainst
partyDAVIDWILLIAM
LEEMING;FURTHERORDERED
thatseniorparty'sclaims
Application10/584,605,whichcorrespondtoCount1,areFINALLYREFUSED"
TheBoard'sdecisionsandjudgmentinthe'862interferencewerebased
anerroneousdeterminationadversetoparty
includingthatset
inparagraph19of
thisComplaint.