Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/174908367/J-Channel-Industries-v-MI-Windows-and-Doors
Timestamp: 2017-03-30 11:48:32
Document Index: 241489053

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1331', '§ 1391', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 284', 'art0']

J-Channel Industries v. MI Windows and Doors
BrowseInterestsStay InformedCareerPersonal GrowthFiction & BiographiesHealth & FitnessLifestyleCultureBrowse byBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NORTHERN DIVISION J-CHANNEL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION, Case No. 3:13-cv-611 Plaintiff, v. MI WINDOWS & DOORS, LLC, Defendant. PATENT CASE JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
COMPLAINT Plaintiff J-Channel Industries Corporation files this Complaint against MI Windows and Doors, LLC for infringement of U.S. Reissue Patent No. 40,041 (“the ’041 reissue patent”). THE PARTIES 1. J-Channel Industries Corporation (“JCI”) is a corporation organized and existing
under the laws of Delaware having an address at 900 Walt Whitman Road, Melville, NY 11747. 2. MI Windows and Doors, LLC (“MI Windows” or “Defendant”) is a Delaware
limited liability company with its principal place of business in Gratz, Pennsylvania. MI Windows may be served with process through its registered agent in the State of Tennessee, CT Corporation System, 800 South Gay Street, Knoxville, TN 37929. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. 4. This is an action for patent infringement under Title 35 of the United States Code. Jurisdiction is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 (Federal
Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(c) and 1400(b) because Defendant has
committed acts of infringement in this district and/or is deemed to reside in this district. 6. This Court has personal jurisdiction over MI Windows and venue is proper in this
district because MI Windows has committed acts of infringement in the State of Tennessee, including in this district, and has engaged in continuous and systematic activities in the State of Tennessee, including in this district. For instance, MI Windows has, at a minimum, engaged in systematic activities within this district by virtue of its business relationship with regional distributor/retailer of MI Windows products, Southland Distributors, located at 3700 Pleasant Ridge Road, Knoxville, TN 37921. Additionally, on information and belief, MI Windows markets and/or sells its window products throughout the United States and in particular within the State of Tennessee. Furthermore, MI Windows has registered with the State of Tennessee to do business in Tennessee and maintains an agent for service of process in Tennessee. Therefore, MI Windows has engaged in continuous and systematic activities in this district and has purposefully availed itself of the privileges of conducting business in this district. COUNT I (INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. REISSUE PATENT NO. 40,041) 7. 8. JCI incorporates paragraphs 1 through 6 herein by reference. This cause of action arises under the patent laws of the United States, and in
particular, 35 U.S.C. §§ 271, et seq. 9. The ’041 reissue patent is entitled, “Window Frame for Manufactured Housing.”
JCI is the assignee of the ’041 reissue patent with ownership of all substantial rights in the ’041 reissue patent, including the right to exclude others and to enforce, sue, and recover damages for
past and future infringement. A true and correct copy of the ’041 reis sue patent is attached as Exhibit 1. 10. The ’041 reissue patent is valid, enforceable and was duly issued in full
compliance with Title 35 of the United States Code. (Direct Infringement) 11. Defendant has directly infringed one or more claims of the ’041 reissue patent in
this judicial district and/or elsewhere in Tennessee and the United States, including at least claim 1, without the consent or authorization of JCI, by or through its having made, offered for sale, and/or used products that infringe the ’041 reissue patent. Defendant is thereby liable for infringement of the ’041 reissue patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271. 12. More particularly, Defendant has infringed at least claim 1 of the ‘041 reissue
patent by, among other things, having made, used, offered for sale, sold, and/or imported windows having an integral J-Channel, including but not limited to MI Windows’s 3500 Series new construction vinyl window. Defendant is liable for these direct infringements of the ‘041 reissue patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271. 13. In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(3), JCI will likely have additional
evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for discovery on this issue. ADDITIONAL ALLEGATIONS PERTAINING TO PATENT INFRINGEMENT CLAIMS 14. JCI has been damaged as a result of Defendant ’s infringing conduct described
herein. Defendant is, thus, liable to JCI in an amount that adequately compensates JCI for Defendant’s infringements, which, by law, cannot be less than a reasonable royalty, together with interest and costs as fixed by the Court under 35 U.S.C. § 284. 3
JURY DEMAND JCI hereby requests a trial by jury pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. PRAYER FOR RELIEF JCI requests that this Court find in its favor and against Defendant, and that this Court grant JCI the following relief: a. b. Enter judgment for JCI on this Complaint; Enter judgment that one or more claims of the ’041 reissue patent has been directly infringed by Defendant; c. Enter judgment that Defendant accounts for and pays to JCI all damages to and costs incurred by JCI because of Defendant’s infringing activities and other conduct complained of herein; d. Enter judgment that Defendant accounts for and pays to JCI a reasonable royalty because of Defendant’s past infringing activities and other conduct complained of herein; e. Award JCI pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on the damages caused by Defendant’s infringing activities and other conduct complained of herein; and f. Award JCI such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper under the circumstances.
Timothy E. Grochocinski Aaron W. Purser Joseph P. Oldaker INNOVALAW, P.C. 1900 Ravinia Place Orland Park, Illinois 60462 P. 708.675.1975 F. 708.675.1786 teg@innovalaw.com apurser@innovalaw.com joldaker@innovalaw.com COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF J-CHANNEL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION
Sign up to vote on this titleUsefulNot usefulJ-Channel Industries v. MI Windows and Doors by PriorSmart0.0 (0)EmbedDownloadDescriptionOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 3:13-cv-00611: J-Channel Industries Corp. v. MI Windows and Doors, LLC. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tenne...Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 3:13-cv-00611: J-Channel Industries Corp. v. MI Windows and Doors, LLC. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l9gz 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
RelatedExergen v. Kazby PriorSmartExergen v. Thermomedics et. al.by PriorSmartAmsted Industries v. Tianrui Group Foundry Company et. al.by PriorSmartBrandywine Communications Technologies v. Allworxby PriorSmartRecognicorp v. Oakley Capital Private Equity et. al.by PriorSmartTainoApp v. Amazon.comby PatentBlastIntellectual Ventures I LLC, et al. v. Toshiba Corp., et al., C.A. No. 13-453-SLR (D. Del. Sept. 3, 2014).by YCSTBlogJOAO Bock Transaction Systems v. Charles Schwabby PatentBlastPersonalized Media Communications v. Zyngaby PriorSmartMcKlein Company v. Swany Americaby PriorSmartBillingNetwork Patent v. HealthFusionby PriorSmartBillingNetwork Patent v. Themis Solutionsby PriorSmartWirtgen America v. Roadtecby PriorSmartEclipse IP v. GoWaiter Business Holdingsby PriorSmartQualitas Manufacturing v. Chicagone Developersby PriorSmartKirker Enterprises v. Max Makeup Cherimoya et. al.by PriorSmartComplaint HTC v Appleby pauloverhauserDavid Netzer Consulting Engineer v. Shell Oil Company Et. Al.by PatentBlastPono Paani v. Jolt Team - Complaintby slbursteinIngeniador v. Savvis et. al.by PriorSmartMxgo Technologies v. Zimbra Et. Al.by PatentBlastB.E. Technology v. Grouponby PriorSmartDynamic Transmission Technologies v. T-Mobileby PriorSmartJohnstech International v. JF Technology Berhad et. al.by PriorSmartQuest Nettech v. PrizeLogicby PriorSmartCamco Manufacturing v. Valterra Productsby PriorSmartJiteshby Vivek GargBluebonnet Telecommunications v. Avayaby PriorSmartSimilar To J-Channel Industries v. West WindowSkip carouselExergen v. KazExergen v. Thermomedics et. al.Amsted Industries v. Tianrui Group Foundry Company et. al.Brandywine Communications Technologies v. AllworxRecognicorp v. Oakley Capital Private Equity et. al.TainoApp v. Amazon.comIntellectual Ventures I LLC, et al. v. Toshiba Corp., et al., C.A. No. 13-453-SLR (D. Del. Sept. 3, 2014).JOAO Bock Transaction Systems v. Charles SchwabPersonalized Media Communications v. ZyngaMcKlein Company v. Swany AmericaBillingNetwork Patent v. HealthFusionBillingNetwork Patent v. Themis SolutionsWirtgen America v. RoadtecEclipse IP v. GoWaiter Business HoldingsQualitas Manufacturing v. Chicagone DevelopersKirker Enterprises v. Max Makeup Cherimoya et. al.Complaint HTC v AppleDavid Netzer Consulting Engineer v. Shell Oil Company Et. Al.Pono Paani v. Jolt Team - ComplaintIngeniador v. Savvis et. al.Mxgo Technologies v. Zimbra Et. Al.B.E. Technology v. GrouponDynamic Transmission Technologies v. T-MobileJohnstech International v. JF Technology Berhad et. al.Quest Nettech v. PrizeLogicCamco Manufacturing v. Valterra ProductsJiteshBluebonnet Telecommunications v. AvayaSecure Axcess v. PNC Bank, National Association et. al.Q-Tips, Inc. v. Johnson & Johnson (Two Cases), 207 F.2d 509, 3rd Cir. (1953)J-Channel Industries v. West Window