Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/133771956/Richmond-v-Quanzhou-Bright-Solar-Energy-Et-Al
Timestamp: 2018-05-22 01:12:06
Document Index: 131182335

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 271', '§ 1331', '§ 1391', '§\n1400', '§ 1391', '§ 1391', '§ 1391', '§ 299', '§ 1391', '§ 287', '§ 284']

Richmond v. Quanzhou Bright Solar Energy Et. Al. | Patent Infringement | Personal Jurisdiction
Description: Richmond v. Quanzhou Bright Solar Energy et. al.
) Civil Action No. ) ______________ QUANZHOU BRIGHT SOLAR ENERGY CO. LTD, ) JEEYEE SOLAR ENERGY INT'L ) DEVELOPMENT CO., ) QUANZHOU JEEYEE SOLAR ENERGY CO., LTD., ) TRUE VALUE RETAIL, INC., ) FOREVER GIFTS, INC. (TEXAS), and ) FOREVER GIFTS, INC. (CHINA), ) ) Defendants. ) _______________________________________________) COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
Lawrence C. Hersh Attorney at Law 17 Sylvan Street Suite 102B Rutherford, New Jersey 07070 Tel: (201) 507-6300 Fax: (201) 507-6311 lh@hershlegal.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Simon Nicholas Richmond
Of Counsel Theodore F. Shiells Texas State Bar No. 00796087 Shiells Law Firm P.C. Dallas, Texas 75202 Tel: (214) 979-7312 Fax: (214) 979-7301 tfshiells@shiellslaw.com
COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND Plaintiff Simon Nicholas Richmond (“Richmond” or “Plaintiff”), for his claims against Defendants Quanzhou Bright Solar Energy Co. Ltd, JeeYee Solar Entergy Int’l Development Co., Quanzhou JeeYee Solar Energy Co., Ltd., True Value Retail, Inc., Forever Gifts, Inc. (Texas) and Forever Gifts, Inc. (China), (collectively, “Defendants”) makes and files this Complaint and alleges as follows: 1. A. 1. B. 2. Plaintiff Richmond. Plaintiff Richmond is an individual and resident of New Jersey. Defendants. Quanzhou Bright Solar Energy Co. Ltd (Quanzhou Bright) is a THE PARTIES
corporation organized and existing under the laws of China, having a principal place of business at Beifeng Industrial Park, Fengze District, Quanzhou, Fujian, China. Quanzhou Bright may be served may be served pursuant to the Hague Convention. 3. JeeYee Solar Energy Int'l Development Co. (JeeYee) is a corporation
organized and existing under the laws of China, having a principal place of business at Beifeng Industrial Park, Fengze District, Quanzhou Fujian, China. JeeYee may be served may be served pursuant to the Hague Convention.
Quanzhou JeeYee Solar Energy Co., Ltd. (Quanzhou JeeYee) is a
corporation organized and existing under the laws of China, having a principal place of business at Zhongbao Xibao Fengze District, Quanzhou Fujian, 362000, China. Quanzhou JeeYee may be served may be served pursuant to the Hague Convention. 5. Upon information and belief, Quanzhou Bright Solar Energy Co. Ltd,
Quanzhou JeeYee and JeeYee are alter egos of each other and/or are so closely related to one another that they are jointly and severally liable and may be considered the same company for purposes of this Complaint. 6. For purposes of this Complaint, Quanzhou Bright Solar Energy Co.
Ltd, Quanzhou JeeYee and JeeYee shall be collectively referred to as “JeeYee.” 7. True Value Retail Inc. (True Value) is a corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, having a principal place of business at 8600 W. Bryn Mawr Avenue, Chicago, IL 60631-3505. True Value may be served through its agent for service of process, The Corporation Trust Company, Corporation Trust Center, 1029 Orange St., Wilmington DE 19801 8. Forever Gifts, Inc. (Forever Gifts Texas) is a corporation organized
and existing under the laws of the State of Texas, having a principal place of business at 825 Avenue H E, Arlington, TX 76011. Forever Gifts Texas may be
served through its agent for service of process, Chiue Corp, 1112 W. Northwest Highway, Grapevine, TX 76051. 9. Forever Gifts, Inc. (Forever Gifts China) is a corporation organized
and existing under the laws of China, having a principal place of business at ZhiBen Building, FuMing Road, Futian District, Shenzhen, China. Forever Gifts China may be served pursuant to the Hague Convention. 10. Upon information and belief, Forever Gifts China and Forever Gifts
Texas are alter egos of each other and/or are so closely related to one another that they are jointly and severally liable and may be considered the same company for purposes of this Complaint. 11. For purposes of this Complaint Forever Gifts China and Forever Gifts
Texas shall be collectively referred to as “Forever Gifts.” 2. 12. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
of the United States, Title 35, United States Code, including 35 U.S.C. §§ 271 and 281-285. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
3. A. 12.
New Jersey Long-Arm Statute, J.J. CT. R. 4:4-4 and principles of due process. 13. The United States Defendants all have sufficient minimum contacts
with New Jersey and this district and the maintenance of this suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. 14. The foreign Defendants have sufficient minimum contacts with the
United States and the maintenance of this suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. B. Specific Jurisdiction. 1. 15. United States Defendants.
principles of specific jurisdiction. Upon information and belief, all United States Defendants have transacted and solicited business in New Jersey and in this district related to the subject matter of the claims alleged herein and, upon information and belief, have committed infringement in this state and district by importing, offering to sell and/or selling goods infringing one or more of the Patents-in-Suit, to one or more customers in this state and district, and/or by exposing for sale, offering for
sale and/or selling such infringing goods to New Jersey residents, including by means of a commercially interactive website targeting New Jersey. Further, each Defendant’s infringement that is the subject of the claims alleged has caused Plaintiff to suffer damages and other losses in New Jersey and this district, a result that was reasonably foreseeable to each United States Defendant at the time each committed its misconduct. 2. 16. Foreign Defendants.
principles of specific jurisdiction. Upon information and belief, each foreign Defendant has transacted and solicited business in the United States related to the subject matter of the claims alleged herein and, upon information and belief, has committed acts of direct infringement in the United States and/or has knowingly induced others to do so. Upon information and belief, all foreign Defendants have knowingly induced infringement in the United States by offering to sell and/or selling goods infringing one or more of the patents in suit to its or his customers, with knowledge of one or more of Plaintiff’s patents and that the foreign Defendant’s goods infringe one or more of Plaintiff’s patents, and with knowledge and/or willful blindness to the fact that its products will be imported into and offered for sale, sold and/or used in the United States by others. Further, each
foreign Defendant’s infringement that is the subject of the claims alleged has caused Plaintiff to suffer damages and other losses in the United States, a result that was reasonably foreseeable to each foreign Defendant at the time each committed its misconduct. C. 17. General Jurisdiction. Personal jurisdiction over the United States Defendants is also proper
under principles of general jurisdiction in that they either resides in this state and district and/or has regularly and purposefully conducted business in New Jersey and this district. 18. Personal jurisdiction over the foreign Defendants is also proper under
principles of general jurisdiction in that, upon information and belief, these Defendants have regularly and purposefully conducted business in the United States. 19. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (c) (3), an alien may be sued in any
judicial district and the joinder of such a Defendant shall be disregarded in determining whether the action may be brought with respect to the other Defendants. D. 20. Venue. Venue also properly lies in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1400(b) because each Defendant either resides in this district and/or has committed acts of infringement in this district. 21. Venue also properly lies in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) (2)
and/or (3) because either a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims recited below, or a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is in this district, or there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought as provided in 28 U.S.C. § 1391, and this court has personal jurisdiction over at least one Defendant. 22. Venue is proper in this district over the foreign corporations pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (c) (3) in that an alien may be sued in any judicial district and the joinder of such a Defendant shall be disregarded in determining whether the action may be brought with respect to the other Defendants. 4. 23. 24. JOINDER PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. § 299
(1) Plaintiff is asserting his right to relief from the Defendants’ unlawful patent infringement against the Defendants jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same series of transactions or occurrences relating to the using, importing into the United States, offering for sale, or selling the same
solar-powered garden light that infringes one or more of the patents in suit and (2) questions of fact related to Defendants’ unlawful patent infringement and common to all Defendants will arise in this action. 25. Upon information and belief, the aforementioned solar-powered
garden light is the same between and among the Defendants because, regardless of brand name or model numbers, the solar-powered garden lights of each Defendant is being repeatedly produced by a common Chinese-located manufacturer. 26. Upon information and belief, the aforementioned same solar-powered
garden lights are also the same between and among the Defendants because, regardless of brand name or model numbers, the solar-powered garden lights of each Defendants are the same in all respects pertinent to at least the ‘477, 827 and ‘700 Color-Changing Patents and the facts underlying the claim of infringement asserted against each Defendant share an aggregate of operative facts that give rise to each cause of action, such that the same proof of infringement as to any one Defendant’s solar-powered garden light will also prove infringement of the other Defendants’ solar-powered garden lights. In particular, upon information and belief, the acts of infringement occurred during the same time period, the Defendants are related as at least supplier-customer, the Defendants use identically sourced components, there is an overlap of the products’ development and
manufacture in that the Defendants copied one another’s products, and that this case involves a claim for lost profits. 27. As to the foreign Defendants, joinder is also proper in that, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1391 (c) (3), an alien may be sued in any judicial district and the joinder of such a Defendant shall be disregarded in determining where the action may be brought with respect to the other Defendants. 5. 28. FACTUAL BACKGROUND – PATENTS IN SUIT
manufacture, and sale of solar-powered garden lighting. Richmond has taken steps to protect his innovative inventions and designs. In particular, Richmond owns United States utility and design patents relating to his solar garden lights. 29. Richmond is the inventor and owner of all right, title, and interest to
the United States patent number 7,196,477 A1, entitled “Solar Powered Light Assembly to Produce Light of Varying Colors,” (“the ’477 Color-Changing Patent”), which duly and legally issued to Richmond on March 27, 2007. 30. Richmond is the inventor and owner of all right, title, and interest to
the United States patent number 7,429,827 A1, entitled “Solar Powered Light Assembly to Produce Light of Varying Colors,” (“the ’827 Color-Changing Patent”), which duly and legally issued to Richmond on September 30, 2008.
Richmond is the inventor and owner of owner of all right, title, and
interest to the United States patent number 8,362,700 A1, entitled “Solar Powered Light Assembly to Produce Light of Varying Colors,” (“the ’700 Color-Changing Patent”), which duly and legally issued to Richmond on January 29, 2013. 32. At all times relevant to this action, Richmond has complied with any
notice provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 287 as they may relate to the Patents in Suit. 6. A. 33. COUNT NO. 1 – INFRINGEMENT OF PLAINTIFF’S PATENTS Same Accused Product Infringement by All Defendants. Upon information and belief, each defendant infringes and/or has
infringed one or more claims of Plaintiff’s ‘477, ‘827 and ‘700 Color Changing Patents by making, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or importing, the same solarpowered garden light, generally described as Color-Changing Ball Solar Stake Path Light, or by knowingly inducing others to do so. 34. Upon information and belief, Forever Gifts sells and/or has sold the
Color-Changing Ball Solar Stake Path Light under the designation Solar Pathway Light with Crackle Glass Sphere, Model: S110300102-A, which infringes one or more claims of Plaintiff’s ‘477, ‘827 and ‘700 Color Changing Patents. 35. Upon information and belief, True Value sells and/or has sold the
Color-Changing Sun and Moon Solar Stake Path under the designation FS Crackle
Sphere Light, True Value Item # 160321, which infringes one or more claims of Plaintiff’s ‘477, ‘827 and ‘700 Color Changing Patents and Plaintiff’s ‘370 Framed Patent. B. 36. Additional Infringements by Defendants. Upon information and belief, Forever Gifts and True Value also sell
and/oir has sold one or more other models of solar-powered garden lights that infringe one or more claims of Plaintiff’s ‘477, ‘827 and ‘700 Color Changing Patents. 37. Plaintiff has been damaged as a result of Defendants’ infringing
activities and will continue to be damaged unless such activities are enjoined by this Court. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, Plaintiff is entitled to damages adequate to compensate for the infringement of Plaintiff’s Patents, including, inter alia, lost profits and/or a reasonable royalty. 38. Plaintiff will be irreparably harmed if Defendants’ patent infringement
continues. Plaintiff relies upon his for protection of his business’s intellectual property and the rampant infringement of his patents by Defendants robs Plaintiff’s business of its intellectual assets and denies Plaintiff the exclusivity in the marketplace for offering and selling his products to which he is entitled under the Patent Laws. This seriously damages Plaintiff in a manner that cannot be
adequately compensated by money alone. Plaintiff is entitled to a permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants, their directors, officers, employees, agents, parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, and anyone else in active concert or participation with them, from taking any other actions that would infringe Plaintiff’s Patents. 7. 39. WILLFULNESS OF THE INFRINGEMENT
As a result of Richmond’s activities, Defendants Forever Gifts and
JeeYee are believed to have long had knowledge of at least Plaintiff’s ‘477 and ‘827 Color Changing Patents and that one or more of their products infringe one or more claims of those patents. As such, their infringement of Plaintiff’s ‘477 and ‘827 Color Changig Patents is deliberate and willful. 8. 40. JURY DEMAND
Documents Similar To Richmond v. Quanzhou Bright Solar Energy Et. Al.
Mitrano v. Hawes, 4th Cir. (2004)
Kettler International v. Smart Trike et. al.
Ingeniador v. Nuance Communications
Marsha Lee Kennedy and Stephen Michael Kennedy v. Robert G. Freeman, M.D. And Robert G. Freeman, P.A., a Texas Corporation, 919 F.2d 126, 10th Cir. (1990)