Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/87085948/Yananton-v-3M-Company
Timestamp: 2016-07-26 13:19:33
Document Index: 750173980

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 284', 'Application No. 10', '§ 1331', '§ 1391', '§ 271', '§ 284', '§ 284', '§ 285', '§ 284', '§ 285', '§ 283', 'art78']

UploadSign inJoinBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicEditors' Picks BooksHand-picked favorites from our editorsEditors' Picks AudiobooksHand-picked favorites from our editorsEditors' Picks ComicsHand-picked favorites from our editorsEditors' Picks Sheet MusicHand-picked favorites from our editorsTop BooksWhat's trending, bestsellers, award-winners & moreTop AudiobooksWhat's trending, bestsellers, award-winners & moreTop ComicsWhat's trending, bestsellers, award-winners & moreTop Sheet MusicWhat's trending, bestsellers, award-winners & moreCategoriesArts & IdeasBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipChildren'sComputers & TechnologyCooking & FoodCrafts & HobbiesFantasyFiction & LiteratureHappiness & Self-HelpHealth & WellnessHistoryHome & GardenHumorLGBTMystery, Thriller & CrimePolitics & EconomyReferenceReligionRomanceScience & NatureScience FictionSociety & CultureSports & AdventureTravelYoung AdultCategoriesArts & IdeasBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipChildren'sComputers & TechnologyCooking & FoodFantasyFiction & LiteratureHappiness & Self-HelpHealth & WellnessHistoryHome & GardenHumorLGBTMystery, Thriller & CrimePolitics & EconomyReferenceReligionRomanceScience & NatureScience FictionSociety & CultureSports & AdventureTravelYoung AdultCategoriesAdaptationsChildren’sCrime & MysteryFictionHumorMangaNonfictionRomanceSciFi, Fantasy & HorrorSuperheroesYoung AdultPublishersArcanaArchie ComicsBOOM! StudiosDynamiteIDW PublishingKingstone ComicsMarvel ComicsSpace Goat ProductionsTop Cow ComicsValiant ComicsZenescopeDifficultyBeginnerIntermediateAdvancedMixedInstrumentBrassDrums & PercussionGuitar, Bass, and FrettedPianoStringsVocalWoodwindsGenreClassicalCountryFolkJazz & BluesMovies & MusicalsPop & RockReligious & HolidayStandardsWelcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out moreIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION Patrick M.Yananton, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 3:12-cv-941 v. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 3M Company, Defendant.
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT This is an action for patent infringement in which Plaintiff Patrick M. Yananton makes the following allegations against Defendant 3M Company (“3M”). BACKGROUND 1. Mr. Yananton is the inventor and the sole owner of United States Patent No.
7,726,260 (the “’260 patent”) entitled “Absorbent Pad for Entrapping Small and Coarse Particles, Retaining Liquids and Eliminating Odors.” 2. This is a patent infringement action in which Mr. Yananton alleges that 3M has
infringed and continues to infringe the ’260 patent without a license. 3. Mr. Yananton seeks monetary damages of no less than a reasonable royalty,
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284. Mr. Yananton also seeks injunctive relief to prevent further infringement of the ’260 patent. 4. Mr. Yananton is a prolific inventor. He currently holds 14 issued U.S. patents and
5 pending U.S. patent applications pertaining to pet products. In 1975, while working as an assistant microbiologist in the research and development (R&D) department at Hoffman-La Roche, Mr. Yananton co-authored his first U.S. patent, which relates to a diagnostic device to
reformulate protein and carbohydrate substrates. As part of his master’s thesis, Mr. Yananton was awarded his second U.S. patent in 1976, which relates to a novel method for rapid identification of bacteria and antibiotic susceptibility patterns—a technique that still is in use today. Mr. Yananton assigned his first two patents to Hoffman-La Roche. 5. Since 1984, as a sole inventor, Mr. Yananton has developed an extensive portfolio
of numerous patents and patent applications related to pet products. 6. For instance, from 1984 to 1993, Mr. Yananton was the President of R&D,
consulting, and new product development for a company named Commercial Products Research. During that time, Mr. Yananton developed a line of patents related to deodorizing pet products, including puppy training pads and cat litter box pads. 7. In 1993, Mr. Yananton founded Feliners International Inc. and started
manufacturing, marketing, and wholesaling the pet deodorizing pads covered by his growing patent portfolio. 8. While at Feliners International, Mr. Yananton invented yet a new technology for
which he filed U.S. Patent Application No. 10/033,862 (the “’862 application”), entitled “Absorbent Pad for Entrapping Small and Coarse Particles, Retaining Liquids and Eliminating Odors” in December 2001. The patent at issue in this case – the ’260 patent – is one of several patents that claim priority to the ’862 application. THE PARTIES 9. Plaintiff Mr. Yananton is an individual residing at 1598 Oak Glen Rd., Toms
River, New Jersey 08753. 10. On information and belief, Defendant 3M is a Delaware corporation with its
corporate headquarters and principal place of business at 3M Center, St. Paul, MN 55144-1000.
3M may be served via its registered agent for service of process, CT Corporation System Inc., 350 N St. Paul Street, Ste. 2900, Dallas, TX 75201. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 11. This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of the
United States Code. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). 12. This Court has personal jurisdiction over 3M. 3M has conducted and does
conduct business within the State of Texas. 3M, directly and/or through intermediaries (including other 3M entities, subsidiaries, distributors, sales agents, and others), manufactures, ships, distributes, offers for sale, sells, and/or advertises its products (including, but not limited to, the products that are accused of infringement in this lawsuit) in the United States, the State of Texas, and the Northern District of Texas. 3M (directly and/or through intermediaries, including other 3M entities, subsidiaries, distributors, sales agents, and others) has purposefully and voluntarily placed one or more of its products (including, but not limited to, the products that are accused of infringement in this lawsuit), as described below in Count I, into the stream of commerce with the expectation that the products will be purchased by customers in Texas including the Northern District of Texas. These infringing products have been and continue to be purchased by customers in the Northern District of Texas. 3M has committed the tort of patent infringement within the State of Texas, and, more particularly, within the Northern District of Texas as alleged in more detail below. 13. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400(b).
COUNT I INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,726,260 14. Mr. Yananton refers to and incorporates herein the allegations set forth in
Paragraphs 1 through 13 above. 15. United States Patent No. 7,726,260 (the “’260 patent”), entitled “Absorbent Pad
for Entrapping Small and Coarse Particles, Retaining Liquids and Eliminating Odors,” was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on June 1, 2010, after a full and fair examination. A true and correct copy of the ’260 patent is attached as Exhibit A. 16. Mr. Yananton is the sole owner of the ’260 patent and has the exclusive right to
sue for infringement and recover damages for all past, present, and future infringement. 17. 3M has infringed and continues to infringe, either literally or under the doctrine of
equivalents, claims of the ’260 patent by making, using, offering to sell, selling (directly or through intermediaries or authorized agents under 3M’s direction and/or control), and/or by importing, in this judicial district and elsewhere throughout the United States, certain mat products that use and embody the inventions claimed in the ’260 patent. The infringing mat products include, but are not limited to, 3M’s products sold under the following brands and/or product names: ScotchTM Litter Trap Mat, 3MTM Litter Trap Mat, 3MTM Dirt Stop Scraper Mat and PruvenTM Litter Trap Mat. Upon information and belief, 3M’s infringing mats may be made, used, sold, offered for sale, and/or imported under additional product names and/or brands. 3M is thus liable for direct infringement of the ’260 patent, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). 18. 3M has had actual and constructive knowledge of the invention claimed in the
’260 patent and its application since approximately 2007 when Mr. Yananton initiated communications with 3M about a potential arrangement and collaboration to commercialize a line of entrapment pads covered by the ’260 patent and its application. During those 4
communications, Mr. Yananton disclosed to 3M the then-pending ’862 application in order to facilitate further negotiations and discussion. Upon reviewing the ’862 application and other related materials that Mr. Yananton disclosed to 3M, 3M indicated its purported lack of interest in the technology and subsequently terminated communications with Mr. Yananton. 19. On June 21, 2011, shortly after the ’260 patent issued, Mr. Yananton and his
patent attorney contacted 3M and provided actual notice of the ’260 patent’s recent issuance. 3M was unresponsive to the notice. 20. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, Mr. Yananton is entitled to recover from 3M the
damages sustained by Mr. Yananton as a result of 3M’s wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial, but no less than a reasonable royalty. 21. 3M’s infringement of the ’260 patent has been and continues to be willful. As
such, Mr. Yananton is entitled to enhanced damages, up to and including treble damages, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284. 22. 3M’s infringement of the ’260 patent has damaged and will continue to damage
Mr. Yananton, causing irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law, unless 3M is enjoined by this Court. 23. This case is “exceptional” within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285. Mr. Yananton
is thus entitled to an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of suit. JURY DEMAND 24. Mr. Yananton hereby requests a trial by jury pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. PRAYER FOR RELIEF 25. Plaintiff Mr. Yananton respectfully requests this Court to enter judgment in his
favor and against 3M, granting the following relief: 5
An adjudication that 3M has infringed and continues to infringe claims of the ’260 patent;
An award to Mr. Yananton of damages adequate to compensate him for 3M’s acts of infringement, no less than a reasonable royalty, together with prejudgment and postjudgment interest;
An award to Mr. Yananton of enhanced damages, up to and including treble damages, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, for 3M’s willful infringement;
An award to Mr. Yananton for his costs of suit and for reasonable attorney’s fees, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285, due to the exceptional nature of this case, or as otherwise permitted by law;
A grant of a permanent injunction, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 283, enjoining 3M from further acts of infringement; and
/s/ Donald Puckett Donald Puckett, Lead Attorney Texas Bar No. 24013358 Theresa M. Dawson State Bar No. 24065128 SKIERMONT PUCKETT LLP 2200 Ross Ave, Suite 4301W Dallas, TX 75201 Tel: (214) 978-6600 Fax: (214) 978-6601 donald.puckett@skiermontpuckett.com terri.dawson@skiermontpuckett.com Counsel for Plaintiff Patrick M. Yananton
Yananton v. 3M Company by PriorSmart78 viewsEmbedDownloadDescriptionOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 3:12-cv-00941-N: Yananton v. 3M Company. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, the Hon. David C Godbey pres...Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 3:12-cv-00941-N: Yananton v. 3M Company. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, the Hon. David C Godbey presiding. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l5Lw for more info.Categories: 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
Related v. Sabinsa et. al.by PriorSmartGillette Company v. SD Blades et. al.by PriorSmartJST Performance et. al. v. Sun Auto Electronics et. al.by PriorSmartReiber v. Western Digitalby PriorSmartArgentum Medical et. al. v. Fuchs et. al.by PriorSmartCassidian Communications v. Synergem Emergency Communications et. al.by PriorSmartCpuMate Et. Al. v. Cooler Master Et. Al.by PatentBlastAdavanced Dynamic Interfaces, LLC v. Aderas Inc., C.A. No. 12-963-GMS (D. Del. Jan. 11, 2013)by YCSTBlogranscenic, Inc. v. Google, Inc., C.A. No. 11-582-LPS (D. Del. Dec. 22, 2014) (Standing Opinion)by YCSTBlogSiegel case joint status update - February 25, 2013by Jeff TrexlerMMI v. Rich Godfrey Assocs. - Complaintby slburstein1. Kho vs. CA 379 scra 410.docxby Edryne Jeth Faraon JuntillaInternet Communications Solutions v. MagicJack Vocaltec et. al.by PriorSmartLT Tech v. Sysaid Technologies Et. Al.by PatentBlastLittle v. World Packagingby PriorSmartConnective Licensing et. al. v. Mason Vitaminsby PriorSmartGroucho's Franchise Systems v. Grouchy's Deliby PatentBlastMotorola iPhone 4S Complaintby tomkrazit3D Design Solutions v. Cadence Design Systems et. al.by PriorSmartComplaintby pauloverhauserIlife Technologies v. Body Mediaby PatentBlastEdizone v. Spenco Medicalby PriorSmartROY-G-BIV v. Siemens et. al.by PriorSmartLifePort Sciences LLCby PriorSmartSimilar to Yananton v. 3M Company v. Sabinsa et. al.Gillette Company v. SD Blades et. al.JST Performance et. al. v. Sun Auto Electronics et. al.Reiber v. Western DigitalArgentum Medical et. al. v. Fuchs et. al.Cassidian Communications v. Synergem Emergency Communications et. al.CpuMate Et. Al. v. Cooler Master Et. Al.Adavanced Dynamic Interfaces, LLC v. Aderas Inc., C.A. No. 12-963-GMS (D. Del. Jan. 11, 2013)ranscenic, Inc. v. Google, Inc., C.A. No. 11-582-LPS (D. Del. Dec. 22, 2014) (Standing Opinion)Siegel case joint status update - February 25, 2013MMI v. Rich Godfrey Assocs. - Complaint1. Kho vs. CA 379 scra 410.docxInternet Communications Solutions v. MagicJack Vocaltec et. al.LT Tech v. Sysaid Technologies Et. Al.Little v. World PackagingConnective Licensing et. al. v. Mason VitaminsGroucho's Franchise Systems v. Grouchy's DeliMotorola iPhone 4S Complaint3D Design Solutions v. Cadence Design Systems et. al.ComplaintIlife Technologies v. Body MediaEdizone v. Spenco MedicalROY-G-BIV v. Siemens et. al.LifePort Sciences LLCWCM Industries v. IPS et. al.Novo Transforma Technologies LLCCYVA Research Holdings v. Ebay