Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/114799279/MP-Antenna-v-Architron-Sytems-et-al
Timestamp: 2016-12-08 13:31:20
Document Index: 338881680

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§ 281', '§ 1338', '§ 1367', '§ 1391', '§ 2201', '§ 284', '§ 285', '§ 284', 'art132']

BrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksArticlesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISIONMP ANTENNA, LTD. 7887 Bliss Parkway North Ridgeville, Ohio 44039 Plaintiff, vs. ARCHITRON SYSTEMS, INC. 2950 Westway Drive, Suite 101 Brunswick, Ohio 44212 and WIFI PLUS, INC. 2950 Westway Drive, Suite 101 Brunswick, Ohio 44212 and IMMERSIVE TECHNOLOGIES, LLC 1680 Industrial Parkway South Brunswick, Ohio 44212 and ALLEN HIGGINS 696 Ledgerock Circle Brunswick, Ohio 44212, Defendants.
Now comes Plaintiff, MP Antenna, Ltd., by and through its attorneys, and for its claims against Defendants Architron Systems, Inc., WiFi Plus, Inc., Immersive Technologies, LLC, and Allen Higgins, hereby states as follows:
THE PARTIES 1. Plaintiff MP Antenna, Ltd. (hereinafter, “Plaintiff” or “MPA”) is an Ohio
limited liability company with its principal place of business at 7887 Bliss Parkway, North Ridgeville, Ohio. 2. Defendant Architron Systems, Inc. (“Architron”) was incorporated under the
laws of the state of Delaware and most recently had its principal place of business in Brunswick, Ohio. As set forth more fully below, Architron’s corporate charter appears to have been voided by the Delaware Secretary of State. 3. Defendant WiFi Plus, Inc. (“WiFi Plus”) was incorporated under the laws of
the state of Ohio. In 2006 WiFi Plus was merged into Architron, though business continued to be conducted under the WiFi Plus name following the merger. WiFi Plus’ most recent principal place of business was Architron’s last principal place of business, 2950 Westway Drive, Suite 101, Brunswick, Ohio 44212. As set forth more fully below, WiFi Plus’ corporate charter appears to have been cancelled by the Ohio Secretary of State. 4. Defendant Immersive Technologies, LLC (“Immersive”) is an Ohio limited
liability company with its principal place of business in Brunswick, Ohio. 5. Defendant Allen Higgins is an individual residing at 696 Ledgerock Circle,
Brunswick, Ohio 44212. Higgins was formerly President of WiFi Plus, Inc., and subsequently became an employee of Architron. Upon information and belief, he is currently President of Immersive.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 6. MPA’s claims against Immersive arise under the patent laws of the
United States, specifically 35 U.S.C. §§ 1, et seq. for infringement of, among others, U.S. Patent Number 6,496,152, issued December 17, 2002; U.S. Patent No. 7,348,933, issued March 25, 2008; U.S. Patent No. 7,236,129, issued June 26, 2007; U.S. Patent No. 7,138,956, issued November 21, 2006; and U.S. Patent No. 7,030,831, issued April 18, 2006. A copy of abstracts of the patents are attached hereto as Exhibits A through F. 7. The action against Immersive is authorized by 35 U.S.C. § 281, and the
federal courts have original and exclusive subject matter jurisdiction over such claims pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 1338(a). 8. Subject matter jurisdiction over the claims against Architron, WiFi Plus and
Higgins is based on the principles of supplemental jurisdiction set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). 9. Furthermore, the claims against Architron and WiFi Plus are based on a
License Agreement entered into by MPA (as Licensor) and Architron (as Licensee), and Section 9.1 of that License Agreement provides in pertinent part as follows: Any challenges to the validity, scope, construction, enforceability or Licensor’s ownership of any issued patent comprising the Licensed Patent, or any disputes arising from this Agreement or relating to the Licensed Patent, brought by or on behalf of Licensee, shall be brought exclusively in either the Medina County, Ohio, Court of Common Pleas or the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division. Licensee hereby submits to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Medina County, Ohio, Court of Common Pleas and the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The aforementioned choice of venue is intended by the Parties to be mandatory and not permissive in nature, thereby precluding the possibility of litigation between the Parties with respect to or arising
out of this Agreement in any jurisdiction other than that specified in this paragraph. Each Party hereby waives any right it may have to assert the doctrine of forum non conveniens or similar doctrine or to object to venue with respect to any proceeding brought in accordance with this paragraph, and stipulates that the Medina County, Ohio, Court of Common Pleas and the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio shall have in personam jurisdiction and venue over each of them for the purpose of litigating any dispute, controversy, or proceeding arising out of or related to this Agreement. Each party hereby authorizes and accepts service of process sufficient for personal jurisdiction in any action against it as contemplated by this paragraph by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, to its address for the giving of notices as set forth in this Agreement. Any final judgment rendered against a party in any action or proceeding shall be conclusive as to the subject of such final judgment and may be enforced in other jurisdictions in any manner provided by law. 10. The claims arose in this district. The Defendants reside in this district, the
business complained of was in this district, Architron and WiFi Plus agreed to exclusive jurisdiction in this district, Immersive committed patent infringement in this district, and all Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in this district and are therefore deemed to reside in this district. Venue in this Court is therefore proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 and 1400(b). STATEMENT OF APPLICABLE FACTS History of the Patent Rights at Issue 11. Dr. Jack Nilsson developed certain multi-polarized antenna technology and
was awarded six patents covering such technology. Copies of abstracts of the patents are attached hereto as Exhibits A through F (the “Patents”). 12. In 2003, Dr. Nilsson was persuaded by Allen Higgins to form a company to
exploit Dr. Nilsson’s patented technology. That company became WiFi Plus. 13. Dr. Nilsson revocably assigned his rights in the patents to WiFi Plus.
In 2006, Architron, through its subsidiary, XRF Technologies Group, Inc.
(“XRF”), purchased all of the shares of WiFi Plus, including the shares owned by Dr. Nilsson. 15. Later that same year, Architron caused WiFi Plus to be merged into XRF,
and XRF to be merged into Architron, with Architron thereby assuming the assignment of patent rights that Dr. Nilsson had made to WiFi Plus. 16. Architron and WiFi Plus, however, completely failed to meet their various
obligations under the assignment of patent rights. 17. Accordingly, on May 2, 2008, Dr. Nilsson filed suit against Architron, WiFi
Plus and others in the Medina County, Ohio, Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 08CIV0866, seeking, among other things, rescission of the assignment of patents and a return of the patent rights. 18. The trial commenced in November 2009. After several witnesses had
testified, the matter settled. The settlement terms were placed on the record in open court. 19. Among the agreed terms were that Architron and WiFi Plus would assign
the patent rights to MPA (which was a relatively new company formed by Dr. Nilsson with Joseph Bliss), and MPA would enter into a royalty-free, non-exclusive license agreement with Architron. 20. The defendants, however, having staved off a decision by the jury, balked
at signing the settlement papers. 21. On or about May 12, 2010 – more than seven months after the settlement
on the record – the Medina trial court had to order the defendants to sign the settlement
papers. It further ordered that, if defendants refused to sign the documents, a local attorney would be appointed pursuant to Ohio Civil Rule 70 to sign in their stead. 22. documents. 23. On June 30, 2010, the trial court appointed local attorney Matthew Bruce to Defendants – including Defendant Higgins – continued to refuse to sign the
sign the settlement documents on behalf of defendants. 24. On July 2, 2010, Mr. Bruce signed the settlement papers on behalf of
Architron, WiFi Plus, and the other defendants. 25. The settlement papers included a Settlement Agreement and Mutual
Release, a true and accurate copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit G; Assignments of the patents at issue, true and accurate copies of which are collectively attached as Exhibit H; and a License Agreement, a true and accurate copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit I. 26. The defendants filed an appeal over the trial court’s enforcement of the
parties’ settlement agreement. 27. On September 30, 2011, the Ninth District Court of Appeals for the State of
Ohio affirmed the trial court’s decision, thereby upholding the validity and enforceability of the settlement documents signed by Mr. Bruce. The License Agreement 28. Pursuant to Section 2.1 of the License Agreement (which was one of the
settlement documents), MPA granted a limited, non-exclusive, non-transferable license to Architron to produce, manufacture, market and sell those products covered by the Patents that Architron had been producing, manufacturing, marketing and selling as of
November 24, 2009, the date the parties put their settlement on the record in the Medina trial court. (Exhibit I.) 29. Pursuant to the License Agreement, Defendants were obligated within ten
(10) days of Mr. Bruce’s signing of the settlement documents – July 12, 2010 – to provide physical samples of the antennas they intended to market under the Agreement. They failed to do so. 30. After repeated prompting from MPA, Architron, on or about September 8,
2010, through Defendant Higgins, finally proposed only the following thirteen (13) products as potentially being subject to the License Agreement: WFP0200503 WFP0200504 WFP0200507 WFP0200508 WFP0200520 WFP0200526 WFP0200560 WFP0200601 WFP0200640 WFP0200649 WFP0200672 WFP0200691 WFP0200704 31. 2.4 GHz Bullet, N-Female 2.4 GHz Bullet, N-Male 2.4 GHz Omni, N-Female 2.4 GHz Sector, N-Female 2.0-6GHz Omni, Extended N-Female 5.8 GHz Omni, SMA Female 2.4 GHz Tri-Sector Omni, N-Female 2.4-5.8GHz Bullet, Extended N-Female 2.4-5.8GHz Omni, Extended N-Female 2.4-5.8 GHz Ceiling Mount Omni, Extended N-Female 5.9 GHz 90oSector, SMA Female 2.4-5.8 GHz Omni w/ Mounting Leg, Extended N-Female 1.3 GHz Special Mobile Omni, N-Female
Accordingly, the License Agreement covered, at most, the foregoing
thirteen (13) products, although, as MP Antenna was denied its audit rights under the License Agreement, it could not even verify that these products, in fact, fell within the scope of the license. 32. On or about September 30, 2010, counsel for MPA sent a letter to Architron
reminding it that the License Agreement was limited to the thirteen (13) products for which
samples had been produced, and that no modifications of those products were permitted under the License Agreement. 33. 34. The License Agreement also contained additional important limitations. Section 2.2 of the License Agreement prohibited Architron from
sub-licensing its rights. 35. Section 5.1 required Architron to maintain documentation detailing its sales
of licensed product, and Section 5.2 granted MPA the right, upon reasonable notice and during regular business hours, to review all of Architron’s books and records, including financial records, and to inspect Architron’s facilities to verify Architron’s compliance with its obligations under the License Agreement. 36. Pursuant to Section 6.2, MPA had the right to terminate the License
Agreement if, among other reasons, Architron materially breached the License Agreement; it dissolved or wound up its business; or it sold any product without the proper patent marking. 37. In addition, pursuant to Section 6.3, the License Agreement automatically
terminates if Architron fails to make sales of one thousand (1,000) collective units of product during any one calendar year. 38. Pursuant to Section 6.4, the License Agreement also automatically
terminates if Architron directly or indirectly disputes, challenges, or assists in the challenge of the validity, scope, construction, or enforceability of the Patents, or of MPA’s ownership of the Patents, in which case Architron shall pay all of MPA’s costs, fees and expenses associated with its defense of such challenge or opposition.
Section 10.1 provides that the License Agreement is not transferable by
Architron. The non-transferability provision expressly includes the prohibition of express assignments, transfers or assignments by change-in-control of Licensee, or other transfers or assignments by operation of law. Furthermore, such prohibited change-in-control transfers include the sale or transfer to a third party of any substantial part of Licensee’s assets. Any attempted transfer or assignment is deemed to be null and void and constitutes grounds for immediate termination of the License Agreement. 40. Section 10.4 of the License Agreement sets forth the parties’ addresses
where notices may be sent. Architron’s address for notice purposes is listed as “Architron Systems, Inc., 2950 Westway Drive, Suite 101, Brunswick, Ohio 44212.” 41. Section 10.4 provides that “[f]ailure to provide an address for notice within
thirty (30) days of the address below having become invalid will constitute a material breach of this Agreement giving rise to an immediate right of termination.” Architron/WiFi Plus Breaches its Audit Obligations 42. On January 17, 2012, MPA requested in writing to conduct an audit
pursuant to Section 5.2 of the License Agreement. A true and accurate copy of the audit request is attached hereto as Exhibit J. 43. On February 9, 2012, the purported Business Development Manager for
WiFi Plus, Richard J. Theus, Jr., denied MPA’s request for an audit, explaining that Allen Higgins was not available during the time selected by MPA, even though MPA had given Architron two months advance notice. Mr. Theus promised that Defendant Higgins would get back to MPA when he was available. A true and accurate copy of that response is attached hereto as Exhibit K.
Mr. Higgins has never “gotten back” to MPA. Architron’s and WiFi Plus’ Corporate Charters Are Cancelled
A review of the filings maintained by the respective Secretary of State
offices where Architron and WiFi Plus were incorporated reveals that their corporate charters have been cancelled. 46. Attached hereto as Exhibit L is a printout from the Delaware Secretary of
State’s office reflecting that Architron’s corporate status was “voided” as of March 1, 2010. 47. Similarly, attached hereto as Exhibit M is a printout from the Ohio Secretary
of State’s website reflecting WiFi Plus’ filing history. As shown in Exhibit M, WiFi Plus’ corporate charter has been “cancelled.” 48. Included as a part of Exhibit M is a copy of an April 15, 2011 letter that the
Ohio Secretary of State sent to WiFi Plus’ then-registered agent. The letter explains that WiFi Plus failed to pay its corporate franchise taxes and that it was cancelled effective April 15, 2011. 49. The letter further notifies WiFi Plus that “[w]hile cancelled, R.C. Section
5733.21 prohibits any person from exercising or attempting to exercise ‘any powers, privileges, or franchises under the articles of incorporation or certificate of authority.’” 50. Meanwhile, Defendant Higgins continues to go about his business as if
these entities still exist, and as if he is authorized to do whatever he chooses to do with the intellectual property of MPA.
Immersive Improperly Assumes the WiFi Plus Assets 51. Immersive was incorporated in April of 2010 by Defendant Higgins. See
Exhibit N hereto. Upon information and belief, Immersive was set up by Higgins to evade the restrictions under the License Agreement. 52. Despite the License Agreement’s prohibition on sublicensing and transfer of
Architron’s rights as licensee, it appears that Immersive is attempting to use Architron’s assets and rights, including Architron’s rights under the License Agreement, despite the fact that Architron and WiFi Plus no longer exist. 53. At the time of incorporation, Immersive’s office was the same address that
Architron and WiFi Plus had identified as its principal place of business, 2950 Westway Drive, Suite 101, Brunswick, Ohio 44212. 54. 55. 56. 57. WiFi Plus’ telephone number is now Immersive’s telephone number. WiFi Plus’ UPS account number was transferred to Immersive. WiFi Plus’ website address is owned by Immersive. WiFi Plus’ purported physical location is now just a UPS mailbox, having
moved from 2950 Westway Drive, Suite 101 to 3660 Center Road, # 306, Brunswick, Ohio, which is a UPS store. 58. At least two people, Defendant Higgins and Richard Theus, who purport to
work for WiFi Plus out of the UPS mailbox, are actually employed by Immersive. 59. In short, Defendant Higgins and others are propping up a façade of WiFi
Plus in order to improperly take advantage of such rights as Architron/WiFi Plus may still have under the License Agreement, or to obscure from MPA the fact that no such rights continue to exist.
In a filing made on November 7, 2011, Immersive notified the Ohio
Secretary of State that it was changing its offices to 1680 Industrial Parkway South, Brunswick, Ohio 44212. Immersive Infringes MPA’s Patents 61. held by MPA. 62. A review of Immersive’s website reveals at least the following products that Immersive offers for sale various antennas that infringe on the patent rights
infringe on MPA’s Patents (the “Accused Products”) are being offered for sale:                   T-601 (WFP0200601 UWB 2.4GHz to 5.8GHz Bullet with “N” Female connector. ) IT-520 (WFP0200520 UWB 2.4GHz to 5.8GHz Mobile Omni. “N” Female connector) IT-649 (WFP0200649 UWB 2.4GHz to 5.8GHz Ceiling Mount. “N” Female connector) IT-640 (WFP0200640 UWB 2.4GHz to 5.8GHz Ceiling Mount. “N” Female connector ) IT-691 (WFP0200691 UWB 2.4GHz to 5.8GHz Omni with side leg mounting bracket.) IT-526 (WFP0200526 5.8GHz Omni on a SMA Female connector) IT-507 (WFP0200507 2.4GHz Omni with side leg mounting bracket. (will include “optional” pole mounting bracket same as item #5). IT-503 (WFP0200503 2.4GHz Bullet with “N” Female connector. ) IT-504 (WFP0200504 2.4GHz Bullet with “N” Male connector. ) IT-508 (WFP0200508 2.4GHz Single Sector antenna with pole mounting hardware. “N” Female connector) IT-560 (WFP0200560 2.4GHz Tri Sector antenna with pole mount.) IT-672 (WFP0200672 5.8GHz Single Sector antenna with pole mounting hardware. “SMA” Female connector) IT-704 (WFP0200704 1.3GHz Omni on a 8” base . “N” Female connector) IT-505 (WFP0200505 2.4 sector / omni) IT-506 (WFP0200506 2.4 omni mobile) IT-521 (WFP0200521 2.4 sector / omni mobile) IT-522 (WFP0200522 2.4 omni mobile nmo) IT-650 (WFP0200650 5.8 single sector foot mount)
 63.
IT-515 (WFP0200515 750 – 950 omni 8” base)
Immersive’s website indicates that the products are WiFI Plus products, and
the numbering of the products would tend to indicate some connection with WiFi Plus. 64. However, it is believed that Immersive is manufacturing the products, as
WiFi Plus does not have a factory, warehouse or even an office, save for a UPS maildrop. 65. MPA has not granted Immersive (nor Defendant Higgins in his personal
capacity) the right to manufacture the products, and Architron/WiFi Plus did not have the right to sublicense, transfer or assign its manufacturing rights. 66. Yet, even if Immersive is not the manufacturer of the products – in other
words, if Defendant Higgins has structured this in such a way that Immersive is a mere purchaser and reseller of these products -- it still does not have the right to sell them. 67. As shown above, Architron/WiFi Plus’ license to manufacture product has
terminated, and so Immersive could not possibly have any legitimate derivative right to sell the products. 68. Moreover, the Accused Products exceed the 13 products that Architron had
identified as being covered by the License Agreement. 69. As such, Immersive directly infringes the Patents by making and/or selling
the Accused Products, either literally or by virtue of the Doctrine of Equivalents. COUNT I DECLARATORY JUDGMENT (Against All Parties) 70. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs 1 through 69
as if fully rewritten herein.
This is a claim for declaratory judgment pursuant to Rule 57 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 2201. 72. MPA asserts that Architron/WiFi Plus has breached the License Agreement
in one or more of the following ways: (a) by failing to maintain their corporate statuses; (b) by failing to notify MPA of the change in their address for notice purposes; (c) by refusing to permit MPA to exercise its audit rights; (d) by failing to sell the minimum required number of product during one or more calendar years; (e) by transferring or attempting to transfer its assets or rights as a licensee; and (f) by directly or indirectly supporting efforts to question MPA’s ownership of the Patent rights. 73. terminated. 74. It is believed, however, that Defendants may be disputing the termination of As a result of the various breaches, the License Agreement has been
the License Agreement. 75. As such, a dispute exists about whether Architron/WiFi Plus has breached
the License Agreement; and whether Architron/WiFi Plus still retains the right to manufacture and/or sell Product pursuant to the License Agreement. 76. Accordingly, MPA is entitled to a declaration that Architron/WiFi Plus has
breached the License Agreement and that the License Agreement is terminated. COUNT II PATENT INFRINGEMENT (Against Immersive) 77. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs 1 through 76
Immersive had actual notice of the Patents as of the date of its incorporation
in April of 2010. 79. Furthermore, by letters dated August 7, 2012 and August 14, 2012, MPA
notified Immersive that it was infringing on MPA’s patent rights and demanded that Immersive cease and desist from selling the Accused Products. 80. Immersive has refused to cease and desist, and so MPA is entitled to a
reasonable royalty on the sale of the Accused Products. 81. If Immersive is permitted to continue to offer for sale the Accused Products,
MPA will suffer irreparable injury from the erosion of its Patent Rights. 82. MPA has suffered injury from Immersive’s infringement and is entitled to be
made whole to the extent possible by an award of monetary damages, as well as an award of preliminary and permanent injunctive relief. 83. Immersive’s past, present and expected future infringement of MPA’s
Patents, with knowledge of those Patents, is willful and objectively reckless, entitling MPA to enhanced damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, and to an award of its attorney’s fees and costs in the bringing and maintaining this action per 35 U.S.C. § 285. COUNT III TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH LICENSE AGREEMENT (Against Higgins) 84. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs 1 through 83
as if fully rewritten herein. 85. The License Agreement was a valid, enforceable contract, which, if certain
events or contingencies occurred, gave Plaintiff certain additional rights, including the right to terminate the license.
Defendant Higgins knew of the existence of the contract, and was
knowledgeable of the terms of the contract, Architron/WiFi Plus’s obligations pursuant to those terms, and Plaintiff’s rights under those terms. 87. Upon information and belief, Defendant Higgins knowingly and
intentionally, and without business justification or privilege to do so, interfered with Plaintiff’s rights under the License Agreement by, among other things, creating a subterfuge whereby Defendant Immersive could lay claim to certain rights under the License Agreement when, in fact, the agreement should have been voided and no such rights should have existed. 88. Plaintiff has been damaged as a direct result of the tortious interference of
Higgins in an amount to be determined at trial.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff MP Antenna, Ltd., prays for judgment as follows:
On Count I, against Architron and WiFi Plus, declaratory judgment that Architron/WiFi Plus breached the License Agreement and that the License Agreement is terminated; On Count II, against Immersive Technologies, LLC, (a) a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Immersive, as well as its members, successors and assigns, officers, agents, employees, and all entities and individuals acting in concert with Immersive or on its behalf, from continued infringement of MPA’s Patents; (b) an award of a reasonable royalty for Immersive’s exploitation of the Patents from the date on which Immersive first became aware of the Patents; and (c) for an increase of the monetary damages to three (3) times their amount pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284; On Count III, against Higgins, compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial, and punitive damages; On all Counts, court costs, attorney’s fees, and such other legal or equitable relief, including interest, in Plaintiff’s favor as the Court may deem appropriate.
/s/ Harold E. Farling Thomas G. Kovach (0047213) Harold E. Farling (0055891) KOVACH & FARLING CO., LPA 925 Leader Building 526 Superior Avenue East Cleveland, Ohio 44114-1401 (216) 357-3301 (216) 357-3304 (fax) tkovach@kflpa.com hfarling@kflpa.com Attorneys for Plaintiff
JURY DEMAND Pursuant to Rule 38(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff demands a trial by jury of all issues so triable. /s/ Harold E. Farling Harold E. Farling One of the Attorneys for Plaintiff
MP Antenna v. Architron Sytems et. al. by PriorSmart132 viewsEmbedDownloadDescriptionOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-02939: MP Antenna, Ltd. v. Architron Sytems, Inc. et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, no j...Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-02939: MP Antenna, Ltd. v. Architron Sytems, Inc. et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l7ap for more info.Interests: 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
RelatedBement v. National Harrow Co., 186 U.S. 70 (1902)by Scribd Government DocsKee Action Sports v. Shyang Huei Industrialby PriorSmartThird Party Copyright License and Acknowledgement Noticesby Devendra GuptaHartell v. Tilghman, 99 U.S. 547 (1879)by Scribd Government DocsExcelsior Wooden Pipe Co. v. Pacific Bridge Co., 185 U.S. 282 (1902)by Scribd Government DocsWhite v. Rankin, 144 U.S. 628 (1892)by Scribd Government DocsLee v. Leeby PatentBlastBrian R. Devlin v. Jerry G. Ingrum and International Integrated Systems, Inc., 928 F.2d 1084, 11th Cir. (1991)by Scribd Government DocsMerry Products v. Test Rite Productsby PriorSmartWix Licensesby d3vil_yoCompulsory Licensing (Final)by Priyanka ShimpiPollin Patent Licensing et. al. v. West Asset Managementby PriorSmartRULES AND REGULATIONS ON INTER PARTES CASE.docxby Andie JosonAmgen Inc. v. F. Hoffmann-LaRoche LTD et al - Document No. 975by Justia.comPatent/Utilility Model License Agreement Between Public Body and Companyby Oficina Española de Patentes y MarcasUniloc et. al. v. VeriSiliconby PriorSmartEFF: law%20profs%20amicus%20brief%20in%20Quanta%20v%20LG%20supporting%20respondentsby EFFmedimmunecalderone107by flastergreenbergLetter of Intentby pierololliUniloc et. al. v. Inmagine et. al.by PriorSmartB.I. v. Satellite Tracking of People et. al.by PriorSmartAltvater v. Freeman, 319 U.S. 359 (1943)by Scribd Government DocsRules and Regulations Ipoby Jay ParconTranslation of Mannheim 2O240 Ruling Motorola v Microsoftby Florian MuellerBombardier Recreational Products Et. Al. v. Arctic Cat Et. Al.by PatentBlastHobbie v. Jennison, 149 U.S. 355 (1893)by Scribd Government DocsMicrobix Biosystems v. Novartis Vaccines and Diagnosticsby PatentBlastNoticeby srinu589Similar to MP Antenna v. Architron Sytems et. al.Bement v. National Harrow Co., 186 U.S. 70 (1902)Kee Action Sports v. Shyang Huei IndustrialThird Party Copyright License and Acknowledgement NoticesHartell v. Tilghman, 99 U.S. 547 (1879)Excelsior Wooden Pipe Co. v. Pacific Bridge Co., 185 U.S. 282 (1902)White v. Rankin, 144 U.S. 628 (1892)Lee v. LeeBrian R. Devlin v. Jerry G. Ingrum and International Integrated Systems, Inc., 928 F.2d 1084, 11th Cir. (1991)Merry Products v. Test Rite ProductsWix LicensesCompulsory Licensing (Final)Pollin Patent Licensing et. al. v. West Asset ManagementRULES AND REGULATIONS ON INTER PARTES CASE.docxAmgen Inc. v. F. Hoffmann-LaRoche LTD et al - Document No. 975Patent/Utilility Model License Agreement Between Public Body and CompanyUniloc et. al. v. VeriSiliconEFFmedimmunecalderone107Letter of IntentUniloc et. al. v. Inmagine et. al.B.I. v. Satellite Tracking of People et. al.Altvater v. Freeman, 319 U.S. 359 (1943)Rules and Regulations IpoTranslation of Mannheim 2O240 Ruling Motorola v MicrosoftBombardier Recreational Products Et. Al. v. Arctic Cat Et. Al.Hobbie v. Jennison, 149 U.S. 355 (1893)Microbix Biosystems v. Novartis Vaccines and DiagnosticsNoticeSanders Lead Company v. Stannum Group et. al.10 - Motion to DismissMP Antenna v. Architron Sytems et. al.