Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/129854199/TOMY-International-v-Regent-Baby-Products
Timestamp: 2017-05-25 13:20:00
Document Index: 497856986

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§1331', '§ 1391', '§ 271', '§ 283', '§ 284']

TOMY International v. Regent Baby Products | Patent | Lawsuit
ScribdExploreEXPLORE BY INTERESTSCareer & MoneyBusiness Biography & HistoryEntrepreneurshipLeadership & MentoringMoney ManagementTime ManagementPersonal GrowthHappinessPsychologyRelationships & ParentingReligion & SpiritualitySelf-ImprovementPolitics & Current AffairsPoliticsSocietyScience & TechScienceTechHealth & FitnessFitnessNutritionSportsWellnessLifestyleArts & LanguagesFashion & BeautyFood & WineHome & GardenTravelEntertainmentCelebrity Biography & MemoirPop CultureBiographies & HistoryBiography & MemoirHistoryFictionChildren’s & YAClassic LiteratureContemporary FictionHistorical FictionLGBTQ FictionMystery, Thriller & CrimeRomanceScience Fiction & FantasyBROWSE BY CONTENT TYPEBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicUploadSign inJoinOptionsJoinSign InUploadTOMY International v. Regent Baby ProductsUploaded by PriorSmartPatentLawsuitInjunctionComplaintVirtue0.0 (0)DownloadEmbedDescription: Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-01898: TOMY International, Inc. v. Regent Baby Products Corp. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illino...View MoreOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-01898: TOMY International, Inc. v. Regent Baby Products Corp. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l7Nr for more info.Copyright: Public DomainDownload as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION TOMY INTERNATIONAL, INC. Plaintiff, v.REGENT BABY PRODUCTS CORP., d/b/a BABY KING Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case No. 1:13-cv-01898
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Plaintiff TOMY International, Inc. files this Complaint and demand for jury trial seeking relief for patent infringement by Defendant Regent Baby Products Corp., d/b/a Baby King. Plaintiff alleges and states the following.
NATURE OF LAWSUIT 1. This is a claim for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the United
States, Title 35 of the United States Code. THE PARTIES 2. Plaintiff TOMY International, Inc. (“Plaintiff” or “TOMY”) is a corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware. Plaintiff’s principal place of business is located at 1111 West 22nd Street, Suite 320, Oak Brook, Illinois 60523. Plaintiff is in the business of making and selling, among other things, feeding products for newborns, infants and toddlers. TOMY is the assignee and the owner of the patents involved in this lawsuit. 3. Defendant Regent Baby Products Corp., d/b/a Baby King, (“Defendant” or
“Regent”) is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York.
WHD/9292225.2
Defendant’s principal place of business is located at 182-20A Liberty Avenue, Jamaica, New York, 11412. Regent maintains a website named babyking.com, sells products under the Baby King label and maintains a place of business at 9522 Winona Avenue, Suite #159, Schiller Park, Illinois 60176. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4. This is an action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the
United States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1338(a). 5. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Regent because Regent has
transacted business within this judicial district and therefore has substantial and continuous contacts with this judicial district; because Regent maintains a place of business within this judicial district; because Regent has purposefully availed itself of the privileges of conducting business in this judicial district; and because Regent has committed acts of patent infringement in this judicial district. 6. Venue properly lies within this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b),
1391(c), and 1400(b). Defendant Regent has conducted business in this district and committed acts of patent infringement within this judicial district. COUNT I – PATENT INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,976,604 7. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation
contained in the foregoing paragraphs 1-6 as though fully set forth herein. 8. On December 20, 2005, United States Patent No. 6,976,604 (“the ’604 patent”)
entitled “Restricting Flow in Drinking Containers” was duly and legally issued to inventors James A. Connors, Jr., David E. Medeiros and George S. Dys. TOMY is the owner by
assignment of the ’604 patent. Attached as Appendix A is a true and correct copy of the ’604 patent. 9. Defendant Regent has infringed and continues to infringe the ’604 patent by
making, using, selling and offering to sell and importing the infringing Regent products, including products bearing the Regent brand name such as Baby King and LUVS two-piece reusable spill-proof cup with lid. 10. By making, using, selling and offering to sell and importing infringing products,
Regent has infringed the ’604 patent directly, contributorily and/or through inducement. Regent has engaged in the foregoing conduct in the United States without authority from Plaintiff and during the term of the ’604 patent. 11. Upon information and belief, Regent will continue to infringe the ’604 patent
unless and until it is enjoined by this Court. 12. Regent has caused and will continue to cause Plaintiff irreparable injury and
damage by infringing the ’604 patent. Plaintiff will suffer further irreparable injury, for which it has no adequate remedy at law, unless and until Regent is enjoined from infringing the ’604 patent. COUNT II – PATENT INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,185,784 13. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation
contained in the foregoing paragraphs 1-12 as though fully set forth herein. 14. On March 6, 2007, United States Patent No. 7,185,784 (“the ’784 patent”) entitled
“Drinking Containers” was duly and legally issued to inventors James A. Connors, Jr., David E. Medeiros, George S. Dys, James J. Britto, and John A. Hession. TOMY is the owner by assignment of the ’784 patent. Attached as Appendix B is a true and correct copy of the ’784 patent.
Defendant Regent has infringed and continues to infringe the ’784 patent by
making, using, selling and offering to sell and importing the infringing Regent products, including products bearing the Regent brand name such as Baby King and LUVS two-piece reusable spill-proof cup with lid. 16. By making, using, selling and offering to sell and importing infringing products,
Regent has infringed the ’784 patent directly, contributorily and/or through inducement. Regent has engaged in the foregoing conduct in the United States without authority from Plaintiffs and during the term of the ’784 patent. 17. Upon information and belief, Regent will continue to infringe the ’784 patent
unless and until it is enjoined by this Court. 18. Regent has caused and will continue to cause Plaintiff irreparable injury and
damage by infringing the ’784 patent. Plaintiff will suffer further irreparable injury, for which it has no adequate remedy at law, unless and until Regent is enjoined from infringing the ’784 patent. COUNT III – PATENT INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,286,826 19. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation
contained in the foregoing paragraphs 1-18 as though fully set forth herein. 20. On October 16, 2012, United States Patent No. 8,286,826 (“the ’826 patent”)
entitled “Drinking Containers” was duly and legally issued to inventors James A. Connors, Jr., David E. Medeiros, George S. Dys, James J. Britto, and John A. Hession. TOMY is the owner by assignment of the ’826 patent. Attached as Appendix C is a true and correct copy of the ’826 patent. 21. Defendant Regent has infringed and continues to infringe the ’826 patent by
making, using, selling and offering to sell and importing the infringing Regent products,
including products bearing the Regent brand name such as Baby King and LUVS two-piece reusable spill-proof cup with lid. 22. By making, using, selling and offering to sell and importing infringing products,
Regent has infringed the ’826 patent directly, contributorily and/or through inducement. Regent has engaged in the foregoing conduct in the United States without authority from Plaintiff and during the term of the ’826 patent. 23. Upon information and belief, Regent will continue to infringe the ’826 patent
unless and until it is enjoined by this Court. 24. Regent has caused and will continue to cause Plaintiff irreparable injury and
damage by infringing the ’826 patent. Plaintiff will suffer further irreparable injury, for which it has no adequate remedy at law, unless and until Regent is enjoined from infringing the ’826 patent. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that the Court enter a judgment in TOMY’s favor and against Defendant Regent and provide Plaintiff the following relief: A. Order, adjudge and decree that Defendant Regent has
infringed the ’604 patent, the ’784 patent, and the ’826 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), (b), and (c); B. Issue permanent injunctive relief prohibiting Defendant
Regent and its respective parents, subsidiaries, principals, officers, directors, agents, attorneys, employees, and all others in privity with it from infringing the ’604 patent, the ’784 patent, and the ’826 patent, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 283;
Award Plaintiff its damages for patent infringement and
prejudgment interest and costs against Defendant Regent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284; and D. Award such other and further relief as the Court may deem
just and proper. JURY DEMAND Plaintiff requests a trial by jury on all issues appropriately triable by a jury. Dated this 11th day of March, 2013. WHYTE HIRSCHBOECK DUDEK S.C. Attorneys for Plaintiff
By: s/ Thomas P. Heneghan___________ Thomas P. Heneghan IL Bar No. 6201292 ADDRESS: 161 N. Clark St. Suite 4700 Chicago, IL 60601-3206 33 East Main Street Suite 300 P.O. Box 1379 Madison, Wisconsin 53701-1379 608-234-6032 608-258-7138 (fax) theneghan@whdlaw.com
Documents Similar To TOMY International v. Regent Baby ProductsSkip carouselTrialcard v. P.S.K.W. & Associates et. al.TOMY International v. Greenbrier InternationalCascades Computer Innovation v. Sony-Ericsson Mobile CommunicationsAir Dimensional Design v. Tool King Motor Company et. al.Connective Licensing et. al. v. Iceland HealthOutdoor Edge Cutlery v. BrowningSeasonal Specialties v. Polygroup et. al.Texas sues to block accepting refugeesFutureVision.com v. Verizon CommunicationsHagenbuch v. Komatsu AmericaAmerican Traffic Solutions v. B&W SensorsBeeline.com v. nextSourcePortal Technologies v. Iac/Interactivecorp et. al.CDD Technologies v. Samsung Electronics AmericaSecure Axcess v. Trustmark National Bank et. al.Hopkins v. Walker, 244 U.S. 486 (1917)Clear With Computers v. KennametalClear With Computers v. TextronBlack Rapid v. Millionway International et. al.DietGoal Innovations v. Bravo MediaYowie North America v. Candy Treasure Et. Al.Boehm et. al.Automated Facilities Management v. AssetpointActivision TV v. Build-A-Bear WorkshopJohn C. Kupferle Foundry Company v. Mueller Water Products et. al.Xodus Medical et. al. v. Prime Medical et. al.Essociate v. CPAWayBeacon Navigation v. Ford Motor CompanyJoao Control and Monitoring Systems of California v. ACTI et. al.Prov Rem Rule 58 DigestDocuments About PatentSkip carousel16-12-20 Apple Complaint v. Acacia Et Al.AppleVsSamsung_11.07.05Nike v. SkechersWizards of the Coast v. Cryptozoic Entertainment et. al.NokiaVsApple_11.03.31.100Samsung vs Apple - Samsung's Appeal to the Supreme CourtDavid Einhorn's presentation on Green Mountain RoastersConsulting AgreementGillette Company v. ADKM, Inc. d/b/a Harry's Razor Company et. al.PRICELINE COM INC 10-K (Annual Reports) 2009-02-20Beyond PhilanthropyApple vs Samsung 11.04.22Nokia Complaint Against Apple in federal district court, WisconsinApple vs Android 10.12.02Translation of Mannheim 2O240 Ruling Motorola v Microsoft3D Systems v. Formlabs et. al.Koninklijke Philips N.V. et. al. v. Nintendo et. al.Bose vs Beats (ITC complaint)Provisional Patent ApplicationNovartis patent JudgementBose v. Beats Civil ComplaintAgainst Intellectual Property, by Stephan Kinsella GENENTECH INC 10-K (Annual Reports) 2009-02-2011-07-01 Apple Motion for PI Against Samsung12-04-30 Apple-Samsung Teksler-Kim Letter Re FRAND14-01-21 Apple v. Samsung Summary Judgment OrderAmicus Brief in Support of Samsung RehearingMicrosoftVsMotorola_11.12.11Treehouse Avatar Technologies v. TurbineApple vs Samsung 11.06.16More From PriorSmartSkip carouselLike 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