Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/210408140/O-S-Security-v-John-D-Brush-Co-Inc-d-b-a-Sentry-Group
Timestamp: 2018-04-24 01:03:11
Document Index: 556423739

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 284', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 284', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 284', '§ 284', '§ 285']

O.S. Security v. John D. Brush & Co., Inc. d/b/a Sentry Group | Patent Infringement | United States Patent And Trademark Office
Description: Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 8:14-cv-00314: O.S. Security LLC v. John D. Brush & Co., Inc. d/b/a Sentry Group. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Central Distric...
Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 8:14-cv-00314: O.S. Security LLC v. John D. Brush & Co., Inc. d/b/a Sentry Group. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-la2f for more info.
Hemant H. (“Shashi”) Kewalramani (State Bar No. 262290) shashi@ljpklaw.com LEE, JORGENSEN, PYLE & KEWALRAMANI, P.C. 440 W. 1st Street, Suite 205 Tustin, California 92780 Telephone: (714) 252-6611 Facsimile: (714) 602-4690 Attorneys for Plaintiff, O.S. SECURITY LLC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN DIVISION O.S. SECURITY LLC, Plaintiff, v. JOHN D. BRUSH & CO., INC. D/B/A SENTRY GROUP Defendant. Complaint Filed: March 3, 2014 CASE NO. SA CV 14-00314 ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 6,359,547; 6,977,576; 7,019,615 and 7,295,100 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT This is an action for patent infringement in which Plaintiff, O.S. Security LLC (“OSS” or “Plaintiff”), complains against Defendant, John D. Brush & Co., Inc. d/b/a Sentry Group, as follows:
On information and belief, Defendant John D. Brush & Co., Inc. d/b/a
Sentry Group is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York with
its principal place of business at 900 Linden Avenue, Rochester, New York 14625. Defendant John D. Brush & Co., Inc. d/b/a Sentry Group may be served with process by serving its chief executive officer, James B. Brush, 900 Linden Avenue, Rochester, New York 14625. Defendant sells its products under, at least, the name “SentrySafe.” JURISDICTION AND VENUE
This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because it has
purposely availed itself of the privileges and benefits of the laws of California. Additionally, this Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendant because it has committed, aided, abetted, contributed to, and/or participated in the commission of acts giving rise to this action within this judicial district and has established minimum contacts within the forum such that the exercise of jurisdiction over Defendant would
not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Defendant has sold,
advertised, solicited customers, marketed and/or distributed the infringing products in this judicial district and has designed, made, or had made, on its behalf, and placed the infringing products into the stream of commerce with the reasonable expectation and/or knowledge that actual or potential ultimate purchasers and users for such products were located within this judicial district. Defendant’s products are available
for purchase within the Central District of California.
1400(b). INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,359,547
6,359,547 (“the `547 patent”), entitled “Electronic Access Control Device,” and owns all rights to sue, and collect damages, including past damages, for infringement of the `547 patent. A true and correct copy of the `547 patent, which was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) on March 19, 2002, is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Defendant has had knowledge of the `547 patent since at least as early as
May 17, 2002, where the ‘547 patent was brought to the attention of Defendant in a letter from Micro Enhanced Technology, Inc. (the previous owner of the ‘547 patent) alleging Defendant’s infringement of the ‘547 patent.
27 28 - 3 –
With pre-filing knowledge of the `547 patent, Defendant has been and is
directly infringing the `547 patent in this judicial district, and elsewhere in the United States. Defendant’s direct infringements include, without limitation, making, using, offering for sale, and/or selling within the United States, and/or importing into the United States, electronic access control devices, including, but not limited to, Sentry’s
X075 Security Safe. Defendant is thus liable for infringement of the `547 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
With pre-filing knowledge of the `547 patent, Defendant has been and is,
in this judicial district and elsewhere in the United States, actively inducing infringement of the `547 patent. Defendant’s inducements include, without limitation
and with specific intent to encourage the infringement, knowingly inducing others (including, but not limited to, Defendant’s business partners, sales agents, and customers) to use, offer for sale, and/or sell within the United States, and/or import into the United States, electronic access control devices, including, but not limited to, Sentry’s X075 Security Safe, which Defendant knows infringes one or more claims of
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - 4 –
the `547 patent. Defendant is thus liable for infringement of the `547 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).
in this judicial district and elsewhere in the United States, actively contributing to the infringement of the `547 patent. Defendant’s contributions include, without limitation,
making, using, offering to sell and/or selling within the United States, and/or importing into the United States, one or more components including at least Sentry’s X075 Security Safe, which constitute a material part of the invention recited in one or more claims of the `547 patent, knowing the Sentry’s X075 Security Safe to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of the `547 patent, and not staple
articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use. Defendant is thus liable for infringement of the `547 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(c).
In addition to Defendant’s pre-filing knowledge of the `547 patent and its
infringement thereof, Defendant has had knowledge of its infringement of the `547
patent through the filing and service of Plaintiff’s Original Complaint in this matter and has continued to infringe the `547 patent without making any effort to stop such infringement.
Defendant has profited through the infringement of the `547 patent. As a
result of Defendant’s unlawful infringement of the `547 patent, Plaintiff has suffered
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - 5 –
and will continue to suffer damage. Plaintiff is entitled to recover from Defendant damages that are adequate to compensate it for the infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 284, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty.
Defendant has continued to infringe one or more claims of the `547
patent despite an objectively high likelihood that Defendant’s actions constitute
Accordingly, Defendant’s infringement has been
willful and deliberate, making this an exceptional case and entitling Plaintiff to enhanced damages, reasonable attorney fees, and costs. INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,977,576
6,977,576 (“the `576 patent”), entitled “Electronic Access Control Device,” and owns
all rights to sue, and collect damages, including past damages, for infringement of the `576 patent. A true and correct copy of the `576 patent, which was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) on December 20, 2005, is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
Defendant has been and is directly infringing the `576 patent in this
judicial district, and elsewhere in the United States. Defendant’s direct infringements include, without limitation, making, using, offering for sale, and/or selling within the United States, and/or importing into the United States electronic access control devices, including, but not limited to, Sentry’s X075 Security Safe. Defendant is thus liable for infringement of the `576 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
Defendant, at a minimum, has knowledge of the ‘576 patent through the
filing and service of this Complaint, and upon information and belief has continued making, using, importing, offering for sale, and/or selling electronic access control
devices, including, but not limited to, Sentry’s X075 Security Safe.
Complaint, Defendant has been and is, in this judicial district and elsewhere in the United States, actively inducing infringement of the `576 patent. Defendant’s
inducements include, without limitation and with specific intent to encourage the infringement, knowingly inducing others (including, but not limited to, Defendant’s
business partners, sales agents, and customers) to use, offer for sale, and/or sell within the United States, and/or import into the United States, electronic access control devices, including, but not limited to, Sentry’s X075 Security Safe, which Defendant knows infringes one or more claims of the `576 patent. Defendant is thus liable for infringement of the `576 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).
Complaint, Defendant has been and is, in this judicial district and elsewhere in the United States, actively contributing to the infringement of the `576 patent. Defendant’s contributions include, without limitation, making, using, offering to sell and/or selling within the United States, and/or importing into the United States, one or
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - 7 –
more components including at least Sentry’s X075 Security Safe, which constitute a material part of the invention recited in one or more claims of the `576 patent, knowing the Sentry’s X075 Security Safe to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of the `576 patent, and not staple articles or commodities of commerce
suitable for substantial non-infringing use. Defendant is thus liable for infringement of the `576 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(c).
Defendant has profited through the infringement of the `576 patent. As a
result of Defendant’s unlawful infringement of the `576 patent, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer damage. Plaintiff is entitled to recover from Defendant
damages that are adequate to compensate it for the infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 284, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty.
Defendant’s infringements of the `576 patent is or has been willful, Plaintiff reserves the right to request such a finding at time of trial.
INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,019,615
7,019,615 (“the `615 patent”), entitled “Electronic Access Control Device,” and owns all rights to sue, and collect damages, including past damages, for infringement of the `615 patent. A true and correct copy of the `615 patent, which was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) on March 28, 2006, is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
Defendant has been and is directly infringing the `615 patent in this
judicial district, and elsewhere in the United States. Defendant’s direct infringements
include, without limitation, making, using, offering for sale, and/or selling within the
United States, and/or importing into the United States electronic access control devices, including, but not limited to, Sentry’s X075 Security Safe. Defendant is thus liable for infringement of the `615 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
Defendant, at a minimum, has knowledge of the ‘615 patent through the
filing and service of this Complaint, and upon information and belief have continued
making, using, importing, offering for sale, and/or selling electronic access control devices, including, but not limited to, Sentry’s X075 Security Safe.
Complaint, Defendant has been and is, in this judicial district and elsewhere in the United States, actively inducing infringement of the `615 patent. Defendant’s
inducements include, without limitation and with specific intent to encourage the infringement, knowingly inducing others (including, but not limited to, Defendants’ business partners, sales agents, and customers) to use, offer for sale, and/or sell within the United States, and/or import into the United States, electronic access control devices, including, but not limited to, Sentry’s X075 Security Safe, which Defendant
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - 9 –
knows infringes one or more claims of the `615 patent. Defendant is thus liable for infringement of the `615 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).
Complaint, Defendant has been and is, in this judicial district and elsewhere in the United States, actively contributing to the infringement of the `615 patent.
Defendant’s contributions include, without limitation, making, using, offering to sell and/or selling within the United States, and/or importing into the United States, one or more components including at least Sentry’s X075 Security Safe, which constitute a material part of the invention recited in one or more claims of the `615 patent, knowing the Sentry’s X075 Security Safe to be especially made or especially adapted for use in
an infringement of the `615 patent, and not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use. Defendant is thus liable for infringement of the `615 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(c).
Defendant has profited through the infringement of the `615 patent. As a
result of Defendant’s unlawful infringement of the `615 patent, Plaintiff has suffered
To the extent that facts learned in discovery show that any one of
Defendant’s infringements of the `615 patent is or has been willful, Plaintiff reserves
the right to request such a finding at time of trial. INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,295,100
7,295,100 (“the `100 patent”), entitled “Electronic Access Control Device,” and owns
all rights to sue, and collect damages, including past damages, for infringement of the
`100 patent. A true and correct copy of the `100 patent, which was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) on November 13, 2007, is attached hereto as Exhibit D.
Defendant has been and is directly infringing the `100 patent in this
include, without limitation, making, using, offering for sale, and/or selling within the United States, and/or importing into the United States electronic access control devices, including, but not limited to, Sentry’s X075 Security Safe. Defendant is thus liable for infringement of the `100 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
Defendant, at a minimum, has knowledge of the ‘100 patent through the
filing and service of this Complaint, and upon information and belief has continued making, using, importing, offering for sale, and/or selling electronic access control devices, including, but not limited to, Sentry’s X075 Security Safe.
Complaint, Defendant has been and is, in this judicial district and elsewhere in the
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - 11 –
United States, actively inducing infringement of the `100 patent.
inducements include, without limitation and with specific intent to encourage the infringement, knowingly inducing others (including, but not limited to, Defendant’s business partners, sales agents, and customers) to use, offer for sale, and/or sell within the United States, and/or import into the United States, electronic access control
devices, including, but not limited to, Sentry’s X075 Security Safe, which Defendant knows infringes one or more claims of the `100 patent. Defendant is thus liable for infringement of the `100 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).
United States, actively contributing to the infringement of the `100 patent. Defendant’s contributions include, without limitation, making, using, offering to sell and/or selling within the United States, and/or importing into the United States, one or more components including at least Sentry’s X075 Security Safe, which constitute a material part of the invention recited in one or more claims of the `100 patent, knowing
the Sentry’s X075 Security Safe to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of the `100 patent, and not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use. Defendant is thus liable for infringement of the `100 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(c).
With have profited through the infringement of the `100 patent. As a
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - 12 –
result of Defendant’s unlawful infringement of the `100 patent, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer damage. Plaintiff is entitled to recover from Defendant damages that are adequate to compensate it for the infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 284, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty.
Defendant’s infringements of the `100 patent is or has been willful, Plaintiff reserves the right to request such a finding at time of trial. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment and seeks the following relief: (a) For judgment in favor of Plaintiff that Defendant has directly infringed, induced others to infringe, and/or contributed to others’ infringement of the ‘547 patent, ‘576 patent, ‘615 patent and ‘100 patent; For judgment and an order requiring Defendant to pay Plaintiff its damages, costs, expenses, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and post-judgment royalties for Defendant’s infringement of the ‘547 patent, ‘576 patent, ‘615 patent and ‘100 patent, as provided under 35 U.S.C. § 284; For judgment that Defendant has willfully infringed at least the `547 patent and enhancement of Plaintiff’s damages by reason of the nature of Defendant’s infringement; For judgment and an order that this case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and requiring Defendant to pay Plaintiff’s reasonable attorneys’ fees; and For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
JURY DEMAND Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial on all issues and claims so triable. Dated: March 3, 2014 Respectfully submitted, LEE, JORGENSEN, PYLE & KEWALRAMANI, P.C.
/s/ Hemant H. (“Shashi”) Kewalramani State Bar No. 262290 Attorneys for Plaintiff O.S. SECURITY LLC
Documents Similar To O.S. Security v. John D. Brush & Co., Inc. d/b/a Sentry Group