Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/128760082/Auto-Crane-Company-v-G-S-Hydraulics-et-al
Timestamp: 2017-04-25 02:50:57
Document Index: 369366471

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 271', '§ 1332', '§ 1391', '§ 284', '§ 285', '§ 284', '§ 283', '§ 284', '§ 285']

ScribdBrowseInterestsPolitics & Current AffairsCareer & MoneyPersonal GrowthFictionHealth & FitnessLifestyleEntertainmentBiographies & HistoryScience & TechBrowse byBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinAuto Crane Company v. G S Hydraulics et. al.Uploaded by PriorSmartPatentDamagesPatent InfringementTitle 35 Of The United States CodeCar0.0 (0)DownloadEmbedDescription: Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 4:13-cv-00130-JED-FHM: Auto Crane Company v. G S Hydraulics, Inc. et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ok...View MoreOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 4:13-cv-00130-JED-FHM: Auto Crane Company v. G S Hydraulics, Inc. et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, the Hon. John E Dowdell presiding. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l7LY for more info.Copyright: Public DomainDownload as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA (1) AUTO CRANE COMPANY, an Oklahoma corporation, Plaintiff, v. (1) G S HYDRAULICS, INC., a Wisconsin corporation, Defendant. (2) MAINTAINER CORPORATION OF IOWA, INC., An Iowa corporation, Defendant ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT For its claims against the defendants, Plaintiff Auto Crane Company alleges and states as follows: Parties 1. Plaintiff Auto Crane Company (“Auto Crane”) is an Oklahoma corporation with
No. 13-CV-130-JED-FHM
its principal place of business located in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Auto Crane is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 8,272,521 (the “’521 Patent”) which is the subject of this action. 2. Defendant G S Hydraulics, Inc. (“G S Hydraulics”) is a Wisconsin corporation
with its principal place of business located in New Berlin, Wisconsin. 3. Defendant Maintainer Corporation of Iowa, Inc. (“Maintainer”) is an Iowa
Corporation with its principal place of business located in Sheldon, Iowa.
{1083266;} 1
Jurisdiction and Venue 4. This action arises in substantial part out of the patent laws of the United States,
more particularly 35 U.S.C. §§ 271 and 281. Further, this is an action between citizens of different states where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000. Jurisdiction is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1338 and 1367. 5. Upon information and belief, Maintainer imports, offers for sale, and/or sells
equipment having a crane operating systems that read on the ‘521 Patent within the State of Oklahoma and the Northern District of Oklahoma. Further Maintainer routinely sells goods in the State of Oklahoma through its dealer in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Maintainer is therefore subject to personal jurisdiction in this Court. 6. Upon information and belief G S Hydraulics imports, offers for sale, and/or sells
crane operating systems that read on the ‘521 Patent within the Northern District of Oklahoma. Further, this action implicates an agreement that was negotiated at least in part in Oklahoma. G S Hydraulics is therefore subject to personal jurisdiction in this Court. 7. Venue is proper within this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and 1400(a). First Claim for Relief (Infringement of the ‘521 Patent) 8. 9. Auto Crane restates the allegations of paragraphs 1–7 as if fully set forth herein. On September 25, 2012, the ‘521 Patent was duly and legally issued by the U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office, naming Nathan T. Kemmerly, Michael J. Lawson, Mark K. Torbett, and Mark A. Smith as inventors and Auto Crane as the sole assignee. A copy of the ‘521 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
{1083266;}
Since September 25, 2012, Auto Crane has been and remains the owner of the
‘521 Patent and this patent remains in force. 11. Upon information and belief, G S Hydraulics manufactures, causes to be
manufactured, imports, offers for sale, and/or sells crane operating systems that infringe the ‘521 Patent either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. Such crane operating systems include, but may not be limited to, a system sold to Maintainer and marketed and resold by Maintainer under the name “LMI System” (hereinafter the “Infringing Product”). The Infringing Product satisfies all of the required elements and limitations of at least Claim 1 of the ‘521 Patent. 12. Upon information and belief, G S Hydraulics and Maintainer are aware of the
‘521 Patent, but have continued to manufacture, offer for sale, sell, and/or import the Infringing Product knowing that the Infringing Product infringes upon the ‘521 Patent. 13. G S Hydraulics and Maintainer’s infringement of the ‘521 Patent has damaged
and will continue to damage Auto Crane in the form of lost sales, lost profit, diminution of market potential and diminution in asset values. Such damages are immediate, irreparable, and not susceptible to adequate compensation through the award of monetary damages. 14. Auto Crane is entitled to preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, preventing
G S Hydraulics and Maintainer from continuing or undertaking further infringing activities during the term of the ‘521 Patent, including the manufacture, import, sale and/or offer to sell the Infringing Product anywhere within the United States. 15. Auto Crane is further entitled to an award of damages from G S Hydraulics and
Maintainer pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, together with reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285. The damages awarded to Auto Crane should be trebled pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284 in light of defendants’ willful and deliberate infringement.
Second Claim for Relief (Breach of Contract By G S Hydraulics) 16. 17. Auto Crane restates the allegations of paragraphs 1–13 as if fully set forth herein. Auto Crane and G S Hydraulics entered into an agreement, pursuant to which
various employees of the parties would collaborate on the development of the crane control system described in the ‘521 Patent. 18. Auto Crane and G S Hydraulics agreed that upon the successful prosecution of a
patent, Auto Crane would own the patent rights and would have the exclusive right to use the crane control system. 19. G S Hydraulics has breached the agreement by selling a crane control system to
Maintainer, and has proximately caused damages to Auto Crane. WHEREFORE, Auto Crane respectfully requests that the Court enter orders and judgments as follows: First Claim for Relief - Infringement of the ‘521 Patent A. Granting judgment in Auto Crane’s favor against G S Hydraulics and Maintainer; B. Preliminarily and permanently enjoining G S Hydraulics and Maintainer from infringing the ‘521 Patent, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 283; C. Awarding Auto Crane damages, including treble damages, against G S Hydraulics and Maintainer pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284; D. Awarding Auto Crane interest, costs, and attorneys fees against G S Hydraulics and Maintainer pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285; and E. Awarding such other and further relief to which Auto Crane may be entitled.
Second Claim for Relief - Breach of Contract F. Granting judgment in Auto Crane’s favor against G S Hydraulics; G. Awarding Auto Crane damages incurred as a result of G S Hydraulic’s breach of contract; H. Awarding Auto Crane interest, costs, and attorneys fees against G S Hydraulics to the extent allowed by law; and I. Awarding such other and further relief to which Auto Crane may be entitled.
s/Craig A. Fitzgerald Craig A Fitzgerald, OBA No. 15233 Chad Hinrichs, OBA No. 16,664 GABLEGOTWALS 1100 ONEOK Plaza 100 West 5th Street Tulsa, OK 74103 (918) 595-4800 (ph) (918) 595-4990 (fax) Attorneys for Plaintiff Auto Crane Company
Documents Similar To Auto Crane Company v. G S Hydraulics et. al.Skip carouselExcentus v. Quik Trip et. al.McCain v. Lord CorporationHunter Douglas Et. Al. v. Nien Made Enterprise Et. Al.CDDL-1.1.txtSAF-Holland v. HendricksonGojo Industries v. Man CaveSmartData v. NetgearThorne Research Et. Al. v. Atlantic Pro-NutrientsREC Software v. Kyocera America et. al.Motio v. BSP SoftwareMission Pharmacal Company v. PureTekVariant Holdings et. al. v. TravelClickClear With Computers v. Manitowoc Cranes9_lhg.005.pdfTraffic Information v. FandangoMobile Logistics v. Foster FarmsLocata LBS v. Yellowpages.com et. al.Locata LBS v. Yellowpages.com et. al.Tire Hanger v. My Car Guy Concierge Services Et. Al.Beneficial Innovations, Inc. v. Blockdot, Inc. et al - Document No. 26Klausner Technologies v. Callware TechnologiesEW Bliss Co. v. United States, 253 U.S. 187 (1920)MacroSolve v. Gilt Groupe Holdings et. al.Rooth v. Hungarian WorkshopPrecision Shooting Equipment v. Elite Outdoors et. al.Revenue Science, Inc. v. Valueclick, Inc. et al - Document No. 13Igt v. WMS GamingMobile Telecommunications Technologies v. United Parcel ServiceALAXALA Networks v. ReaUnified Messaging Solutions v. BMO Harris BankDocuments About PatentSkip carousel16-12-20 Apple Complaint v. Acacia Et Al.Gillette Company v. ADKM, Inc. d/b/a Harry's Razor Company et. al.AppleVsSamsung_11.07.05Samsung vs Apple - Samsung's Appeal to the Supreme CourtConsulting AgreementNike v. SkechersNokiaVsApple_11.03.31.100Wizards of the Coast v. Cryptozoic Entertainment et. al.PRICELINE COM INC 10-K (Annual Reports) 2009-02-20Apple vs Android 10.12.02Nokia Complaint Against Apple in federal district court, WisconsinDavid Einhorn's presentation on Green Mountain RoastersBeyond PhilanthropyBose v. Beats Civil ComplaintBose vs Beats (ITC complaint)Koninklijke Philips N.V. et. al. v. Nintendo et. al.Against Intellectual Property, by Stephan Kinsella Provisional Patent ApplicationGoogle Dec Action vs RockstarApple vs Samsung 11.04.22Translation of Mannheim 2O240 Ruling Motorola v MicrosoftNovartis patent JudgementGENENTECH INC 10-K (Annual Reports) 2009-02-20AppleVsHTCandS3_11.07.29MicrosoftVsMotorola_11.12.11BU v AppleRockstar v Samsung.pdfEPO Examiners Can No Longer Ensure Appropriate Quality Standards12-04-30 Apple-Samsung Teksler-Kim Letter Re FRAND3D Systems v. Formlabs et. al.More 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