Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/127125366/Caswell-v-Net-Irrigate
Timestamp: 2017-03-26 15:07:38
Document Index: 687290697

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 101', '§ 1331', '§ 1391', '§ 1400', '§ 284', '§ 284', '§ 283', 'art0']

Caswell v. Net Irrigate | Patent
BrowseInterestsStay InformedCareerPersonal GrowthFiction & BiographiesHealth & FitnessLifestyleCultureBrowse byBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinCarl D. Crowell, OSB No. 982049 email: crowell@kite.com CROWELL LAW P.O.Box 923 Salem, OR 97308 (503) 581-1240 Of attorneys for plaintiff
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON Eugene Division GARY CASWELL, Plaintiff, COMPLAINT v. PATENT INFRINGEMENT NET IRRIGATE, LLC, An Indiana Limited Liability Company, DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Defendant. Case No.: 6:13-cv-00320
COMPLAINT Plaintiff Gary Caswell, (“Caswell”) alleges:
BACKGROUND 1. When Caswell conceived his invention which is the subject of this complaint, global
demand for copper was on the rise. The agricultural industry fell victim to this global demand as thieves preyed on farmers whose irrigation systems, often in remote locations, contained large quantities of copper wire. 2. Copper thieves not only stole copper wire, but left the irrigation systems inoperable. As a
result, farmers not only suffered damage to their irrigation systems, but also suffered damage to
their crops which went without irrigation. As such, Caswell saw a need for a means to monitor irrigation systems and activate an alarm in the event of unauthorized tampering and/or theft. 3. Caswell invented his Anti-Theft Method and Device to address these problems facing
farmers. 4. In February of 2011, the United States Patent Office determined Caswell’s invention was
new, unique and useful and issued United States Patent No. 7,880,612 (“‘612 Patent”) for his Anti-Theft Method and Device.
THE PARTIES 5. 6. Gary Caswell is an individual residing in Marion County in the State of Oregon. On information and belief, Net Irrigate, LLC (“Net Irrigate”) is a limited liability
company having its principal place of business in Bloomington, Indiana.
RIGHTS OF PLAINTIFF 7. Plaintiff is the sole inventor and owner of all rights in United States Patent No. 7,880,612
(“'612 Patent”), issued on Feb. 1, 2011, titled Anti-Theft Method and Device.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 8. 9. 10. This is action is pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq., and other relevant laws. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). On information and belief, Net Irrigate is subject to personal jurisdiction in the District of
Oregon, consistent with the principles of due process and the Oregon Long Arm Statute, because Net Irrigate offers its products for sale nationwide, has transacted business in this District, has
committed and/or induced acts of patent infringement in this District, and/or has placed infringing products into the stream of commerce through established distribution channels with the expectation that such products will be purchased by residents of this District. 11. Venue in this district is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 and 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b).
PATENT INFRINGEMENT 12. 13. 14. Caswell incorporates the allegations set forth above. Net Irrigate sells a product branded as the WireRat. The WireRat is an alarm device adapted for connection to a pre-existing irrigation system
circuit and a plurality of electric conductors. 15. circuit. 16. The WireRat is an alarm device which supplies continuous voltage to electrical The WireRat is an alarm device for detecting voltage in a pre-existing irrigation system
conductors when no voltage is found in a pre-existing irrigation circuit. 17. The WireRat is an alarm device which detects the voltage in the electric conductors of an
irrigation circuit and sounds an alarm when there is a disruption. 18. Net Irrigate infringes and/or induces others to infringe the '612 Patent by making, using,
offering to sell, and/or selling in the United States, and/or importing into the United States, products or processes that practice the invention claimed in the '612 Patent. 19. 20. 21. Net Irrigate infringes at least Claims 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 of the '612 Patent. Net Irrigate has profited through infringing the '612 Patent. As a result of Net Irrigate’s unlawful infringing activity, Caswell has suffered and will
Caswell is entitled to recover damages suffered as a result of Net Irrigate’s unlawful acts. On information and belief, Net Irrigate’s infringing activity is willful and deliberate,
entitling Caswell to enhanced damages and reasonable attorney fees and costs. 24. On information and belief, Net Irrigate intends to continue its unlawful infringing activity
and Caswell will continue to suffer irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law unless Net Irrigate is enjoined by this Court.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Caswell prays for relief as follows: A. For a judgment declaring Net Irrigate has infringed the ‘612 Patent; B. For a judgment awarding Caswell compensatory damages as a result of Net Irrigate’s infringement of the ‘612 Patent, together with interest and costs and in no event less than a reasonable royalty; C. For a judgment declaring Net Irrigate’s infringement of the ‘612 Patent has been willful and deliberate; D. For a judgment awarding Caswell treble damages and pre-judgment interest under 35 U.S.C. § 284 as a result of Net Irrigate’s willful and deliberate infringement of the ‘612 Patent; E. For a judgment declaring that this case is exceptional and awarding Caswell his expenses, costs, and attorney fess in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 284 and Rule 54(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; F. For a grant of a permanent injunction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 283, enjoining Net Irrigate from further acts of infringement; and
G. For such further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial. DATED: February 24, 2013.
Respectfully submitted, CROWELL LAW /s/ Carl D. Crowell Carl D. Crowell, OSB No. 982049 email: crowell@kite.com P.O. Box 923 Salem, OR 97308 (503) 581-1240 Of attorneys for the plaintiff
Sign up to vote on this titleUsefulNot usefulCaswell v. Net Irrigate by PriorSmart0.0 (0)EmbedDownloadDescriptionOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 6:13-cv-00320-TC: Caswell v. Net Irrigate, LLC. Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, the Hon. Thomas M. Coffin pre...Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 6:13-cv-00320-TC: Caswell v. Net Irrigate, LLC. Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, the Hon. Thomas M. Coffin presiding. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l7HU 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
RelatedVeselin Mandaric v. Crucial Innovationby PriorSmartArrivalStar et. al. v. Pedigree Technologiesby PriorSmartArrivalStar et. al. v. RECON Dynamicsby PriorSmartArrivalStar et. al. v. Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authorityby PriorSmartArrivalStar et. al. v. Satellite Monitoring and Remote Trackingby PriorSmartArrivalStar et. al. v. GPS Policeby PriorSmartAmended BCYP Complaint vs. Living Socialby EDVAEclipse IP v. MeetMoiby PriorSmartArrivalStar et. al. v. Tracking Innovationsby PriorSmartGordium Innovations v. Cienaby PriorSmartGordium Innovations LLCby PriorSmartGordium Innovations LLCby PriorSmartGordium Innovations v. Lantronixby PriorSmartGordium Innovations v. Adtranby PriorSmartGordium Innovations LLCby PriorSmartLocata LBS v. Factual.pdfby PatentBlastGordium Innovations v. SMC Networksby PriorSmartGordium Innovations LLCby PriorSmartVantage Point Technology v. Appleby PriorSmartGordium Innovations LLCby PriorSmartGordium Innovations LLCby PriorSmartGordium Innovations LLCby PriorSmartGordium Innovations v. Intelligent Network Solutionsby PriorSmartGordium Innovations LLCby PriorSmartGordium Innovations LLCby PriorSmartPkoh Nyc v. EvriHolder Productsby PriorSmartPkoh Nyc v. Sili Goodnessby PriorSmartLBS Innovations v. Alfred Angelo Et. Al.by PatentBlastSimilar To Caswell v. Net IrrigateSkip carouselVeselin Mandaric v. Crucial InnovationArrivalStar et. al. v. Pedigree TechnologiesArrivalStar et. al. v. RECON DynamicsArrivalStar et. al. v. Central Puget Sound Regional Transit AuthorityArrivalStar et. al. v. Satellite Monitoring and Remote TrackingArrivalStar et. al. v. GPS PoliceAmended BCYP Complaint vs. Living SocialEclipse IP v. MeetMoiArrivalStar et. al. v. Tracking InnovationsGordium Innovations v. CienaGordium Innovations LLCGordium Innovations LLCGordium Innovations v. LantronixGordium Innovations v. AdtranGordium Innovations LLCLocata LBS v. Factual.pdfGordium Innovations v. SMC NetworksGordium Innovations LLCVantage Point Technology v. AppleGordium Innovations LLCGordium Innovations LLCGordium Innovations LLCGordium Innovations v. Intelligent Network SolutionsGordium Innovations LLCGordium Innovations LLCPkoh Nyc v. EvriHolder ProductsPkoh Nyc v. Sili GoodnessLBS Innovations v. Alfred Angelo Et. Al.Ring Wrap v. Commemorative Brands - ComplaintKlever Marketing v. LivingSocialCaswell v. Net Irrigate