Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/180886092/Tire-Service-Equipment-Manufacturing-v-Gaither-Tool
Timestamp: 2016-10-28 13:25:19
Document Index: 21776138

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§ 1331', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', 'art24']

Tire Service Equipment Manufacturing v. Gaither Tool
BrowseBrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA TIRE SERVICE EQUIPMENT MFG. Co., INC., Plaintiff, v. GAITHER TOOL CO., Defendant. Civil Action No. 13-CV-2996 COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Plaintiff Tire Service Equipment Mfg. Co., Inc. (“TSI”), for its Complaint against Defendant Gaither Tool Co. (“Gaither”), alleges and states as follows: JURISDICTION 1. This is an action for patent infringement under the patent laws of the United
States, 35 U.S.C. § 1, et. seq. This Court therefore has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338. PARTIES 2. TSI is a Minnesota corporation with its headquarters located in Phoenix, AZ.
TSI’s manufacturing facility is located in Monticello, MN. 3. Upon information and belief, Gaither is an Illinois corporation with its principle
place of business located at 21 Harold Cox Drive, Jacksonville, IL 62650. FACTS 4. On January 30, 2001, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and
validly issue U.S. Patent No. 6,179,033 B1, entitled “Method and Apparatus for Seating Tubeless Tires” (“the ‘033 Patent”). A true and correct copy of the ‘033 Patent is attached as Exhibit A.
Since September 21, 2000, TSI has been the owner by assignment of all right,
title, and interest in the ‘033 Patent. The assignment was duly recorded with the United States Patent and Trademark Office on November 1, 2000. 6. For some period of time, Gaither has been making, using, selling, and offering for
sale in the United States and Minnesota its Bead Bazooka™ apparatus for seating tubeless tires. 7. Gaither has been placed on notice by TSI that Gaither’s Bead Bazooka™ product
infringes one or more claims of the ‘033 Patent. Despite such notice, Gaither continues to make, use, sell, and offer for sale its Bead Bazooka™ product for sale in the United States and Minnesota. CAUSES OF ACTION Count I: Patent Infringement in Violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) 8. reference. 9. Gaither’s Bead Bazooka™ product, and Gaither’s use of the Bead Bazooka™ TSI restates and realleges paragraphs 1 through 7 and incorporates them herein by
product, infringes one or more claims of the ‘033 Patent, including, but not limited to, claims 13 and 18, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). 10. Gaither’s continuing infringement and violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) has caused,
and will continue to cause, loss and damage to TSI in an amount to be determined at trial, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty. 11. Gaither’s continuing infringement and violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) has caused,
and will continue to cause, irreparable harm and injury to TSI such that TSI is entitled to an injunction enjoining Gaither and all persons in active concert with it from making, using, selling, or offering to sell the Bead Bazooka™ product.
Count II: Patent Infringement in Violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) 12. by reference. 13. Gaither’s sale of its Bead Bazooka™ to others, and its instructions to others on TSI restates and realleges paragraphs 1 through 11 and incorporates them herein
how to use the product, actively induces infringement of one or more claims of the ‘033 Patent by others, including but not limited to claim 13 of the ‘033 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). 14. Gaither’s active inducement of infringement by others has been made knowingly
and with the specific intent to cause others to directly infringe one or more claims of the ‘033 Patent. 15. Gaither’s continuing infringment and violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) has caused,
and will continue to cause, loss and damage to TSI in an amount to be determined at trial, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty. 16. Gaither’s continuing infringement and violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) has caused,
and will continue to cause, irreparable harm and injury to TSI such that TSI is entitled to an injunction enjoining Gaither and all persons in active concert with it from making, using, selling, or offering to sell the Bead Bazooka™ product. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL TSI demands a trial by jury on all issues triable to a jury. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Tire Service Equipment Mfg. Co., Inc. prays for entry of judgment against Defendant Gaither Tool Co. as follows:
On Count I, for an award of damages against Gaither, the precise amount to be
determined at trial, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty. 2. On Count II, for an award of damages against Gaither, the precise amount to be
determined at trial, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty. 3. this action. 4. 5. For pre- and post-judgment interest on all sums awarded as allowed by law. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and equitable. For an award of TSI’s attorneys’ fees and all costs incurred in connection with
s/Aaron C. Nyquist Alan M. Anderson (149500) Aaron C. Nyquist (0392394) Alan Anderson Law Firm LLC Crescent Ridge Corporate Center 11100 Wayzata Blvd., Suite 545 Minneapolis, MN 55305 Tel: (612) 756-7000 Fax: (612) 756-7050 Email: aanderson@anderson-lawfirm.com anyquist@anderson-lawfirm.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Tire Service Equipment Mfg. Co. Inc.
Tire Service Equipment Manufacturing v. Gaither Tool by PriorSmart24 viewsEmbedDownloadDescriptionOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 0:13-cv-02996: Tire Service Equipment Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. Gaither Tool Co. Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Min...Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 0:13-cv-02996: Tire Service Equipment Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. Gaither Tool Co. Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l9qc 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
RelatedDevice Security v. Asurionby PriorSmartStanton Concepts v. Brookstone et. al.by PriorSmartModine Manufacturing Company v. Borg-Warnerby PriorSmartPragmatus Telecom v. Saksby PriorSmartPragmatus Telecom v. AOL.by PriorSmartPragmatus Telecom v. Reed Elsevier US Holdingsby PriorSmartPragmatus Telecom v. Foot Lockerby PriorSmartby PriorSmartPragmatus Telecom v. Vizioby PriorSmartPragmatus Telecom LLCby PriorSmartPragmatus AV v. Citrix Systemsby PriorSmartPragmatus Telecom v. Bosch Security Systemsby PriorSmartSmith & Nephew v. Hologicby PriorSmartNVE v. Everspin Technologiesby PriorSmartLED Tech Development v. Home Depotby PriorSmartPragmatus Telecom LLCby PriorSmartPragmatus Telecom v. Aramarkby PatentBlastPragmatus Telecom v. Office Depotby PatentBlastPragmatus Telecom LLCby PriorSmartPragmatus Telecom LLCby PriorSmartPragmatus Telecom v. Genuine Parts Companyby PatentBlastPragmatus Telecom v. First Databy PriorSmartPragmatus Telecom LLCby PriorSmartPragmatus Telecom LLCby PriorSmartPragmatus Telecom v. Seagate Technology Holdingsby PatentBlastPragmatus Telecom v. Dish Networkby PriorSmartBradhart Products v. Antler Insanityby PatentBlastEcolab v. FMCby PriorSmartSimilar to Tire Service Equipment Manufacturing v. Gaither ToolDevice Security v. AsurionStanton Concepts v. Brookstone et. al.Modine Manufacturing Company v. Borg-WarnerPragmatus Telecom v. SaksPragmatus Telecom v. AOL.Pragmatus Telecom v. Reed Elsevier US HoldingsPragmatus Telecom v. Foot LockerPragmatus Telecom v. VizioPragmatus Telecom LLCPragmatus AV v. Citrix SystemsPragmatus Telecom v. Bosch Security SystemsSmith & Nephew v. HologicNVE v. Everspin TechnologiesLED Tech Development v. Home DepotPragmatus Telecom LLCPragmatus Telecom v. AramarkPragmatus Telecom v. Office DepotPragmatus Telecom LLCPragmatus Telecom LLCPragmatus Telecom v. Genuine Parts CompanyPragmatus Telecom v. First DataPragmatus Telecom LLCPragmatus Telecom LLCPragmatus Telecom v. Seagate Technology HoldingsPragmatus Telecom v. Dish NetworkBradhart Products v. Antler InsanityEcolab v. FMCNexus Display Technologies v. EizoPragmatus Telecom LLC