Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/218708898/Chaffin-v-Braden-et-al
Timestamp: 2016-08-29 07:32:27
Document Index: 665446483

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1331', '§ 1391', 'Application No. 10', 'Application No. 60', '§ 282', '§ 271', '§ 285', '§ 284', '§ 285', 'art13']

BrowseUploadSign inJoinBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicWelcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out moreIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS VICTORIA DIVISION MARK N.CHAFFIN Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL R. BRADEN and LBC MANUFACTURING Defendants. § § § § § § § § § §
COMES NOW Plaintiff Mark N. Chaffin (“Chaffin”) and files this Original Complaint for Patent Infringement against Defendants Michael R. Braden (“Braden”) and LBC Manufacturing (“LBC”), and alleges as follows: NATURE OF THE SUIT 1. This is a claim for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of
the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of the United States Code. This Court has original jurisdiction over the subject matter of these claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). 6. Personal jurisdiction over the defendants is proper in this District.
Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and
6,932,912 entitled “Wastewater Treatment System for Residential Septic Systems” (the “’912 Patent” or the “Patent-in-Suit”), a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 9. Chaffin is the owner of all rights, title, and interest in and under the
’912 Patent, which duly and legally issued on August 23, 2005, with Chaffin as the named inventor. United States Patent Application No. 10/370,343, which resulted in the ’912 Patent, claimed the benefit of United States Provisional Patent Application No. 60/358,112, filed February 19, 2002. Chaffin has standing to sue for the infringement of the ’912 Patent. 10. Since at least 2002 Chaffin has been making and selling a wastewater
liquid chlorinator identified as the Chlorination Station Liquid Chlorinator. Chaffin has continuously marked the Chlorination Station Liquid Chlorinator with the ‘912 Patent number since at least 2006. 11. 12. On information and belief, Braden is the sole owner of LBC. Braden had knowledge of Chaffin’s Chlorination Station Liquid
Braden and LBC have actual notice of the ‘912 Patent. Braden and
LBC have had knowledge of the ‘912 Patent since at least 2006. 14. On October 6, 2006, a declaratory judgment action involving the ’912
Patent was filed in this Court against Chaffin in Cecil’s On-Site Products, Inc. v. Mark N. Chaffin, Civil Action No. V-06-98 (S.D. Tex.) (the “Cecil’s case”). Chaffin answered and filed a counterclaim of infringement of the ‘912 Patent against Cecil’s On-Site Products, Inc. 15. On February 11, 2009, this Court issued a Memorandum and Order
(the “Order”) in the Cecil’s case, construing the disputed claim terms of the ’912 Patent. A true and correct copy of that Order is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 16. On September 15, 2009, the Court was notified that the parties in the
Cecil’s case had agreed to and executed a Settlement Agreement resolving all pending claims, and the Cecil’s case was dismissed on October 6, 2009. 17. Braden had knowledge in 2006 of the accused infringing product of
Cecil’s On-Site Products, Inc. in the Cecil’s case. 18. On information and belief, Braden had knowledge in 2009 of this
Court’s Order attached hereto as Exhibit B. 19. In 2009 Braden had knowledge that the Cecil’s case had been settled
and that the accused infringing product was no longer being sold by Cecil’s OnSite Products, Inc.
The ‘912 Patent is valid and presumed valid under 35 U.S.C. § 282.
contributorily, and/or by inducement, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, the claims of the ‘912 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by making, using, selling, and/or offering to sell products in this District and the United States. The infringing products of Defendants include at least Model LBC500 liquid bleach chlorinators and other liquid bleach chlorinators of Defendants having a design similar to the LBC500 liquid bleach chlorinator, if any. 23. Court. 24. Defendants’ acts of infringement have caused and will continue to Defendants’ acts of infringement will continue unless enjoined by this
‘912 Patent and have continued to engage in such infringing activity.
Defendants’ acts of infringement have been willful and deliberate,
rendering this case “exceptional” within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285. JURY DEMAND Chaffin hereby demands a jury trial of all issues in this action triable of right by a jury. DEMAND FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Chaffin requests this Court to enter judgment in its favor and against Defendants, awarding it the following relief: a. Preliminarily and permanently enjoining Defendants, their officers,
agents, servants, employees, and any others acting in concert with them from infringing the ‘912 Patent; b. Awarding Chaffin damages resulting from Defendants’ acts of
infringement and ordering Defendants to account for and pay to Chaffin damages adequate to compensate Chaffin for the infringement of his patent rights, including not less than a reasonable royalty; c. As a result of Defendants’ willful acts of infringement, awarding
Chaffin treble damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284; d. Declaring this case exceptional pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 and
awarding Chaffin interest, costs, expenses and attorney’s fees; and e. Granting Chaffin such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Chaffin v. Braden et. al. by PriorSmart13 viewsEmbedDownloadDescriptionOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. None: Chaffin v. Braden et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, no judge yet assigned. See http://new...Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. None: Chaffin v. Braden et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-lafX 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
RelatedMobile Logistics v. J.B. Hunt Transportby PriorSmartMobile Logistics v. H.F. Campbell & Sonby PriorSmartOpticool Technologies v. Liebertby PriorSmartLightning Wheels v. Skyrocket Toysby PriorSmartTrans Video Electronics v. Vuduby PriorSmartArczar v. Yelpby PriorSmartLindan Enterprises Et. Al. v. Kroellby PatentBlastKlausner Technologies v. Callware Technologiesby PriorSmartNetwork Congestion Solutions LLCby PriorSmartIPVX Patent Holdings v. Hewlett-Packard Companyby PatentBlastArrivalStar et. al. v. WCAF Shipment Managementby PriorSmartEDekka v. Cabela'sby PatentBlastEmeco v. East End - MTD Respby slbursteinThermaPure v. Water Out Oregon et. al.by PriorSmartThe Money Suite Company v. Metlife, Inc., C.A. No. 13-1748-GMS (D. Del. Jan. 9, 2014)by YCSTBlogArrivalStar Et. Al. v. Starbucks Coffee Companyby PatentBlastArrivalStar et. al. v. Geometrix Rail Logisticsby PriorSmartCrossroads Systems v. Cisco Systemsby PriorSmartWayne Fueling Sys. v. ESCO Servs. - Complaintby slbursteinPhoenix Licensing et. al. v. American Express Company et. al.by PriorSmartCian Ip v. Spirent Communications et. al.by PriorSmartMDPL Complaint 15by Myers, Boebel and MacLeod L.L.P.Kappa Digital v. T-Mobileby PatentBlastLegal Quirk Lets Anyone Sue..by Matthew PequignotSimilar to Chaffin v. Braden Et. Al.Mobile Logistics v. J.B. Hunt TransportMobile Logistics v. H.F. Campbell & SonOpticool Technologies v. LiebertLightning Wheels v. Skyrocket ToysTrans Video Electronics v. VuduArczar v. YelpLindan Enterprises Et. Al. v. KroellKlausner Technologies v. Callware TechnologiesNetwork Congestion Solutions LLCIPVX Patent Holdings v. Hewlett-Packard CompanyArrivalStar et. al. v. WCAF Shipment ManagementEDekka v. Cabela'sEmeco v. East End - MTD RespThermaPure v. Water Out Oregon et. al.The Money Suite Company v. Metlife, Inc., C.A. No. 13-1748-GMS (D. Del. Jan. 9, 2014)ArrivalStar Et. Al. v. Starbucks Coffee CompanyArrivalStar et. al. v. Geometrix Rail LogisticsCrossroads Systems v. Cisco SystemsWayne Fueling Sys. v. ESCO Servs. - ComplaintPhoenix Licensing et. al. v. American Express Company et. al.Cian Ip v. Spirent Communications et. al.MDPL Complaint 15Kappa Digital v. T-MobileLegal Quirk Lets Anyone Sue..Wyncomm v. Panasonic et. al.Seever v. Davis - Document No. 2ArrivalStar Et. Al. v. Roadside Systems