Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/217738982/Total-Automotive-v-Dorman-Products
Timestamp: 2016-07-30 05:47:02
Document Index: 16380149

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§ 1331', '§ 1391', '§ 285', '§ 284', '§ 285', 'art23']

UploadSign inJoinBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicEditors' Picks BooksHand-picked favorites from our editorsEditors' Picks AudiobooksHand-picked favorites from our editorsEditors' Picks ComicsHand-picked favorites from our editorsEditors' Picks Sheet MusicHand-picked favorites from our editorsTop BooksWhat's trending, bestsellers, award-winners & moreTop AudiobooksWhat's trending, bestsellers, award-winners & moreTop ComicsWhat's trending, bestsellers, award-winners & moreTop Sheet MusicWhat's trending, bestsellers, award-winners & moreCategoriesArts & IdeasBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipChildren'sComputers & TechnologyCooking & FoodCrafts & HobbiesFantasyFiction & LiteratureHappiness & Self-HelpHealth & WellnessHistoryHome & GardenHumorLGBTMystery, Thriller & CrimePolitics & EconomyReferenceReligionRomanceScience & NatureScience FictionSociety & CultureSports & AdventureTravelYoung AdultCategoriesArts & IdeasBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipChildren'sComputers & TechnologyCooking & FoodFantasyFiction & LiteratureHappiness & Self-HelpHealth & WellnessHistoryHome & GardenHumorLGBTMystery, Thriller & CrimePolitics & EconomyReferenceReligionRomanceScience & NatureScience FictionSociety & CultureSports & AdventureTravelYoung AdultCategoriesAdaptationsChildren’sCrime & MysteryFictionHumorMangaNonfictionRomanceSciFi, Fantasy & HorrorSuperheroesYoung AdultPublishersArcanaArchie ComicsBOOM! StudiosDynamiteIDW PublishingKingstone ComicsMarvel ComicsSpace Goat ProductionsTop Cow ComicsValiant ComicsZenescopeDifficultyBeginnerIntermediateAdvancedMixedInstrumentBrassDrums & PercussionGuitar, Bass, and FrettedPianoStringsVocalWoodwindsGenreClassicalCountryFolkJazz & BluesMovies & MusicalsPop & RockReligious & HolidayStandardsWelcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out moreUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Total Automotive, Inc., Plaintiff, v. Dorman Products, Inc., Defendant.) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Civil No. 14-CV-______ (____/____)
Plaintiff Total Automotive, Inc. (“Total Automotive”), for its Complaint against Defendant Dorman Products, Inc. (“Dorman”), states and alleges as follows: NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. 2. This action is based on the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. Total Automotive seeks injunctive relief and damages for Dorman’s importation
or manufacture, Dorman’s sale and use, as well as Dorman’s inducement of and contribution to the sale and use by others of hinge bracket kits for automobiles, which kits infringe U.S. Patent No. 8,601,654 (the “ ʼ654 Patent”). PARTIES 3. Total Automotive is a Minnesota corporation, with a principal place of business in
Chanhassen, Minnesota. 4. Dorman is a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place of business at 3400
East Walnut Street, Colmar, Pennsylvania, 18915. 5. Dorman supplies automotive replacement parts to the automotive aftermarket and
mass merchandise markets throughout the United States, including in Minnesota.
75693615.2 0039084-00010
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 6. This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over the claims made by Plaintiff in this
action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338. 7. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Dorman because Dorman has offered
and offers infringing products for sale in this District and its actions foreseeably cause damage to Total Automotive in this District. 8. Venue in this District is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 9. herein. 10. On December 10, 2013, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and Total Automotive incorporates paragraphs 1 through 8 hereof as if fully set forth
legally issued the ʼ654 Patent, entitled Door Hinge Repair Apparatus and Method. 11. 12. A copy of the ʼ654 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. The ʼ654 Patent is a continuation of application 12/512,443, filed on July 30,
2009, now Patent No. 8,001,665, which is a continuation of application 11/429,776, filed on May 8, 2006, now Patent No. 7,568,267, which is a continuation of application 10/858,783, filed on June 2, 2004, now Patent No. 7,059,032 (the “ ’032 Patent”). 13. Each of the Patents referenced in the preceding paragraph claim priority to
provisional application 60/475,886, filed on June 4, 2003, and provisional application 60/475,860, filed on June 4, 2003. 14. 15. Total Automotive owns the ʼ654 Patent by assignment. Dorman has infringed and continues to infringe the ʼ654 Patent directly,
contributorily, and via inducement in this District and elsewhere by importing or making, selling, using, and offering to sell hinge bracket kits. 2
Dorman’s hinge bracket kits have no substantial non-infringing use. Dorman is continuing to import or make, sell, use, and offering for sale hinge
bracket kits infringing the ʼ654 Patent. 18. Dorman has known of the ʼ032 Patent since at least the AAPEX Show on
November 3, 2009, and has known of the ʼ654 Patent since no later than April 11, 2014. COUNT I PATENT INFRINGEMENT 19. herein. 20. Dorman has infringed and continues to infringe the ʼ654 Patent by importing or Total Automotive incorporates paragraphs 1 through 18 hereof as if fully set forth
making, using, selling, and/or offering to sell within the United States products that embody one of more of the claims of the ʼ654 Patent, including products bearing a Dorman part number of 38417, 38418, 38456, and 38457. 21. Dorman is further intentionally encouraging and inducing infringement by its
customers, who are selling, purchasing, and/or using the infringing Dorman hinge bracket kits, in violation of Total Automotive’s rights under the ʼ654 Patent. 22. Dorman has not had and does not have authorization, or a license or permission to
use the subject matter claimed in the ʼ654 Patent. 23. By infringing—directly, contributorily, and by inducement—one or more claims
of the ʼ654 Patent, Dorman has unfairly reaped a substantial commercial and competitive advantage and savings in research, development, and operational time and cost, all to Total Automotive’s detriment. 24. As a direct and proximate result of Dorman’s infringement of the ʼ654 Patent,
Total Automotive has been injured and has been caused significant financial damage.
Dorman previously withdrew its product from the market after being advised that
it infringed Total Automotive’s patent rights. 26. Dorman’s reintroduction of its hinge bracket kits into the market constitutes a
willful infringement and violation of Total Automotive’s patent rights. 27. Dorman has refused to withdraw its infringing products from the market, will
continue to infringe the ʼ654 Patent, will continue to harm Total Automotive’s market position, for which no adequate remedy at law exists, and Dorman will cause irreparable injury and damage to Total Automotive, unless enjoined by this Court. REQUEST FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Total Automotive seeks the following relief: 1. Entry of judgment that Dorman has willfully infringed the ʼ654 Patent and is
liable to Total Automotive for infringement; 2. An Order enjoining Dorman from infringing, inducing others to infringe, or
contributing to the infringement of the ʼ654 Patent. 3. An award of damages adequate to compensate Total Automotive for Dorman’s
direct infringement of the ʼ654 Patent, in an amount to be determined at trial, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty; 4. An award of damages adequate to compensate Total Automotive for Dorman’s
inducement of infringement of the ʼ654 Patent, in an amount to be determined at trial; 5. An award of damages adequate to compensate Total Automotive for Dorman’s
contributory infringement of the ʼ654 Patent, in an amount to be determined at trial; 6. An Order directing Dorman to deliver for destruction all infringing products in its
possession or control;
7. products sold; 8.
An Order directing Dorman to retrieve, to the extent possible, all infringing
An Order directing Dorman to disclose all purchasers of infringing products,
except for those products that Dorman actually retrieves from such purchasers; 9. If a permanent injunction is not granted, a judicial determination of the conditions
for future infringement, such as a royalty-bearing compulsory license or such other relief as may be appropriate; 10. A post-judgment equitable accounting of damages for the period of infringement
of the ʼ654 Patent following the period of damages established at trial; 11. infringement; 12. 13. A finding that this case is exceptional pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285; An award of pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys’ fees, and costs pursuant An award of treble damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284 for Dorman’s willful
to 35 U.S.C. § 285; and 14. Any such other just and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
JURY DEMAND Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all claims and issues so triable.
s/ Marc A. Al Marc A. Al (MN Bar ID 247923) Andrew J. Pieper (MN Bar ID 389262) 33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4200 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 373-8801 Facsimile: (612) 373-8881 maal@stoel.com ajpieper@stoel.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF TOTAL AUTOMOTIVE, INC.
Total Automotive v. Dorman Products by PriorSmart23 viewsEmbedDownloadDescriptionOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 0:14-cv-01066: Total Automotive, Inc. v. Dorman Products, Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, no judge ye...Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 0:14-cv-01066: Total Automotive, Inc. v. Dorman Products, Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-lae7 for more info.Categories: 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
RelatedCertainteed v. Owens Corningby PatentBlastMobileMedia Ideas v. HTCby PriorSmartEuro-Pro Operating v. CVS Caremark et. al.by PriorSmartEureka Mobility v. Voxx Internationalby PriorSmartXEO Int. v. Kretek Internationalby PriorSmartDenmel Holdings Et. Al. v. Howard Miller Company Et. Al.by PatentBlastErico International v. Phillips et. al.by PriorSmartUS Federal Trade Commission: forummarketby ftcCastlen Optometrics v. Essilor Internationalby PriorSmartBeacon Navigation v. Kia Motors et. al.by PriorSmartRichmond v. Orgillby PriorSmartTrans Video Electronics v. Nintendo Of America et. al.by PriorSmartIntegrated Claim Systems v. Aetna Healthby PatentBlastBear Creek Technologies v. CSC Holdingsby PriorSmartNovelPoint Tracking v. LG Electronicby PriorSmartBmwby sabatino123Yamauchi v. Albany Internationalby PriorSmartJoseph Alter v. Walt Disney Companyby PriorSmartRothschild GPS Sharing Innovations v. Nissan North Americaby PriorSmartBergstrom v. Idle Free Systemsby PriorSmartSimilar to Total Automotive v. Dorman ProductsCertainteed v. Owens CorningMobileMedia Ideas v. HTCEuro-Pro Operating v. CVS Caremark et. al.Eureka Mobility v. Voxx InternationalXEO Int. v. Kretek InternationalDenmel Holdings Et. Al. v. Howard Miller Company Et. Al.Erico International v. Phillips et. al.US Federal Trade CommissionCastlen Optometrics v. Essilor InternationalBeacon Navigation v. Kia Motors et. al.Richmond v. OrgillTrans Video Electronics v. Nintendo Of America et. al.Integrated Claim Systems v. Aetna HealthBear Creek Technologies v. CSC HoldingsNovelPoint Tracking v. LG ElectronicBmwYamauchi v. Albany InternationalJoseph Alter v. Walt Disney CompanyRothschild GPS Sharing Innovations v. Nissan North AmericaBergstrom v. Idle Free SystemsBuyer's RemediesRichmond v. Sears Roebuck