Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/180639531/Malibu-Boats-v-Nautique-Boat-Company
Timestamp: 2017-06-24 18:00:57
Document Index: 773993615

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 100', '§ 271', '§ 1331', '§ 1400', '§ 1400', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271']

Malibu Boats v. Nautique Boat Company | Injunction | Patent Infringement
Malibu Boats v. Nautique Boat CompanyUploaded by PriorSmartRelated InterestsInjunctionPatent InfringementVenue (Law)PatentLawsuitRating and Stats0.0 (0)Document ActionsDownloadShare or Embed DocumentEmbedDescription: Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 3:13-cv-00656: Malibu Boats, LLC v. Nautique Boat Company, Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, no...View MoreOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 3:13-cv-00656: Malibu Boats, LLC v. Nautique Boat Company, Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l9pS for more info.Copyright: Public DomainDownload as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE EASTERN DISTRICT MALIBU BOATS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Plaintiff, v. NAUTIQUE BOAT COMPANY, INC., a Florida corporation, Defendant. MALIBU’S COMPLAINT FOR INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 8,539,897 AND 8,534,214 Plaintiff Malibu Boats, LLC (“Malibu”), hereby complains of Defendant Nautique Boat Company, Inc. (“Nautique”), and alleges as follows: JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. This Complaint states causes of action for patent infringement arising under the DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Civil Action No.
patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 100 et seq., and, more particularly, 35 U.S.C. §§ 271 and 281. 1338(a). 2. Upon information and belief: Nautique conducts business throughout the United This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and
States, including in this judicial district, and has committed the acts complained of in this judicial district and elsewhere. 3. Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). For purposes
of § 1400(b), Nautique resides within this judicial district.
PARTIES 4. Malibu is a Delaware limited liability company having a place of business at 5075
Kimberly Way, Loudon, Tennessee 37774. 5. Nautique is a Florida corporation having a place of business at 14700 Aerospace
Parkway, Orlando, Florida 32832. PREVIOUS CASE 6. In September 2013, Malibu filed similar claims against Nautique in a lawsuit
pending in the Central District of California with case number CV13-06854. On October 28, 2013, the California court raised a concern about the propriety of venue. In part to avoid a venue dispute that might delay resolution of its claims, Malibu is dismissing without prejudice the California action on even date herewith. ALLEGATIONS FOR ALL CLAIMS 7. On September 24, 2013, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”)
issued U.S. Patent No. 8,539,897 (“the ’897 patent”), titled “Surf Wake System for a Watercraft.” A copy of the ’897 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. 8. On September 17, 2013, the PTO issued U.S. Patent No. 8,534,214 (“the ’214
patent”), titled “Surf Wake System and Method for a Watercraft.” A copy of the ’214 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. 9. 10. 11. States. 12. Nautique has equipped and continues to equip at least some of its inboard waterMalibu owns the ’897 and ’214 patents. Nautique manufactures inboard water-sports boats within the United States. Nautique offers for sale and sells inboard water-sports boats within the United
sports boats with the Nautique Surf System.
Nautique is presently advertising and offering for sale in the United States inboard
water-sports boats equipped with the Nautique Surf System. 14. Nautique has sold one or more inboard water-sports boats equipped with the
Nautique Surf System to a dealer located within the Eastern District of Tennessee. 15. Through its website, Nautique directs at least some potential customers interested
in its boats to a dealer located within the Eastern District of Tennessee through whom a Nautique boat equipped with the Nautique Surf System can be purchased. These potential customers include at least some potential customers whose zip code corresponds to a region within the jurisdiction of the Eastern District of Tennessee. 16. Through its website, Nautique directs at least some potential customers who are
interested in the Nautique Surf System to a dealer located within the Eastern District of Tennessee through whom a Nautique boat equipped with the Nautique Surf System can be purchased. These potential customers include at least some potential customers whose zip code corresponds to a region within the jurisdiction of the Eastern District of Tennessee. 17. Upon information and belief: Nautique became aware of the ’897 patent on or
about September 24, 2013. 18. Upon information and belief: on or about September 24, 2013, Nautique became
aware of Malibu’s allegations that Nautique is infringing the ’897 patent. 19. Upon information and belief: Nautique became aware of the ’214 patent on or
about September 17, 2013. 20. Upon information and belief: on or about September 17, 2013, Nautique became
aware of Malibu’s allegations that Nautique is infringing the ’214 patent. 21. Despite knowing of the ’897 and ’214 patents and their relevance to Nautique’s
products, Nautique continues to infringe those patents. -3-
Upon information and belief: the Nautique inboard water-sports boats equipped
with the Nautique Surf System include at least the Super Air Nautique 210, 230, G23, and G25. I. CLAIM FOR INFRINGEMENT BY NAUTIQUE OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,539,897 23. 24. For this claim, Malibu incorporates paragraphs 1–22 of this Complaint. This is a claim for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the United
States, Title 35 of the United States Code. 25. Without authority, Nautique, through its agents, employees, and servants, is
manufacturing, using, promoting, offering for sale, and/or selling within the United States, and/or importing into and/or supplying in or from the United States, products and/or components covered by one or more claims of the ’897 patent, and is, with knowledge of the ’897 patent, actively inducing others to do the same while knowing that the induced acts constitute infringement of the ’897 patent. Moreover, with knowledge of the ’897 patent, Nautique provides products and components knowing that they, alone or as material components in combination with other components, infringe the ’897 patent and thereby contributes to others’ infringement of the ’897 patent. Nautique is thereby infringing, actively inducing others to infringe, and/or contributing to others’ infringement of one or more claims of the ’897 patent, including, for example and without limitation, claim 1 of the ’897 patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, including 35 U.S.C. §§ 271(a), (b), (c), and/or (f). This infringement is currently ongoing. The products relating to Nautique’s infringement include Nautique’s inboard water-sports boats equipped with the Nautique Surf System. 26. Court. 27. Nautique’s infringement of the ’897 patent is irreparably harming Malibu. Nautique’s infringement of the ’897 patent will continue unless enjoined by this
Unless Nautique is enjoined from infringing the ’897 patent, Malibu will continue
to suffer irreparable injury for which it has no adequate remedy at law. 29. Nautique will continue to derive and receive advantages, gains, and profits from
its infringement in an amount that is not presently known to Malibu. 30. Upon information and belief: Nautique’s infringement of the ’897 patent has been
and continues to be deliberate and willful. 31. Malibu is being irreparably harmed and is entitled to injunctive relief as well as
monetary relief in an amount to be determined at trial. II. CLAIM FOR INFRINGEMENT BY NAUTIQUE OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,534,214 32. 33. For this claim, Malibu incorporates paragraphs 1–22 of this Complaint. This is a claim for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the United
States, Title 35 of the United States Code. 34. Without authority, Nautique, through its agents, employees, and servants, is
manufacturing, using, promoting, offering for sale, and/or selling within the United States, and/or importing into and/or supplying in or from the United States, products and/or components covered by one or more claims of the ’214 patent, and is, with knowledge of the ’214 patent, actively inducing others to do the same while knowing that the induced acts constitute infringement of the ’214 patent. Moreover, with knowledge of the ’214 patent, Nautique provides products and components knowing that they, alone or as material components in combination with other components, infringe the ’214 patent and thereby contributes to others’ infringement of the ’214 patent. Nautique is thereby infringing, actively inducing others to infringe, and/or contributing to others’ infringement of one or more claims of the ’214 patent, including, for example and without limitation, claim 17 of the ’214 patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, including 35 U.S.C.
§§ 271(a), (b), (c), and/or (f). This infringement is currently ongoing. The products relating to Nautique’s infringement include Nautique’s inboard water-sports boats equipped with the Nautique Surf System. 35. Court. 36. 37. Nautique’s infringement of the ’214 patent is irreparably harming Malibu. Unless Nautique is enjoined from infringing the ’214 patent, Malibu will continue Nautique’s infringement of the ’214 patent will continue unless enjoined by this
to suffer irreparable injury for which it has no adequate remedy at law. 38. Nautique will continue to derive and receive advantages, gains, and profits from
its infringement in an amount that is not presently known to Malibu. 39. Upon information and belief: Nautique’s infringement of the ’214 patent has been
and continues to be deliberate and willful. 40. Malibu is being irreparably harmed and is entitled to injunctive relief as well as
monetary relief in an amount to be determined at trial. PRAYER FOR RELIEF Malibu respectfully prays for: A. B. an order adjudging Nautique to have infringed the ’897 and ’214 patents; an order enjoining Nautique, as well as its officers, agents, servants, employees, and
attorneys and those persons in active concert or participation with Nautique, from infringing the ’897 and ’214 patents; C. an accounting of all gains, profits, and advantages derived by Nautique’s
infringement of the ’897 and ’214 patents and an award of damages adequate to compensate Malibu for Nautique’s infringement of the ’897 and ’214 patents;
an order adjudging Nautique to have willfully infringed the ’897 and ’214 patents
and declaring this to be an exceptional case; E. an order trebling damages and/or for exemplary damages because of Nautique’s
intentional and willful conduct; F. G. H. an award to Malibu of prejudgment and postjudgment interest and costs; an award to Malibu of its attorneys’ fees incurred in connection with this action; and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Dated: October 31, 2013 Respectfully submitted, GRANT, KONVALINKA & HARRISON, P.C. By: s/John P. Konvalinka John P. Konvalinka (TN BPR #001780) Thomas M. Gautreaux (TN BPR #023636) 633 Chestnut Street, Suite 900 Chattanooga, Tennessee 37450-0900 (423) 756-8400 KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP Douglas G. Muehlhauser (CA BPR #179495) Mark Lezama (CA BPR #253479) 2040 Main Street Irvine, California 92614 (949) 760-0404 Attorneys for Plaintiff MALIBU BOATS, LLC
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff Malibu Boats hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
Recommended DocumentsDocuments Similar To Malibu Boats v. Nautique Boat Company.pdfSkip carouselNautique Boat Company v. Malibu Boats.pdfWyers et. al. v. R.M. IndustriesESPN Patent Lawsuitc4cast.com v. DellAbarta v. Invensys SystemsRubbermaid v. Centrex PlasticsSafe Storage v. NexsanArrivalStar et. al. v. Tracking911 Notify v. LifeWatch911 Notify v. Greatcall.pdfCornella v. Fisher-PriceTQP Development v. KeyCorpAmerican Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] 2 Wlr 316 - HlMarconi Wireless Telegraph Co. of America v. Simon, 246 U.S. 46 (1918)Lifetime Products v. GSC TechnologiesCynamide CaseSurpass Tech Innovation v. LG Display Et. Al.ArrivalStar et. al. v. Sportsman's WarehouseArrivalStar et. al. v. SephoraUniloc Et. Al. v. CernerSafe Storage v. VMware2012-13 Giles Rich ProblemATEN International v. Uniclass Technology et. al.Parallel Networks v. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts OnlineQuest Nettech v. HelloWorldGeoTag v. KronosThermolife International v. Intensity NutritionCharge Lion v. SemtechPersonalWeb Technologies v. Amazon Web Services et. al.Eclipse IP v. PatagoniaDocuments About InjunctionSkip carouselU.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruling in Banks v. The Fly on the WallJames (Jim) Cato and Jody (Joe) Stapleton Lawsuit Against Katie LangFanduel v. SchneidermanMotion for stay, 9th Circuit Order, 9 February 2017179125570172Judge Ramos Temporary Restraining Order4:14-cv-00107 #103MOA v BLM TRO Order4:14-cv-00107 #109 Florida Federal OrderKim Davis - Stay Denial (Sept. 17, 2015)1:14-cv-00424 #55 - Order11-07-01 Apple Motion for PI Against SamsungCraigslist v PadMapperPosner Order14A840 SCOTUS Alabama Stay DeniedRHODES v MacDONALD - 8 - MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for Damages, Declaratory Judgment, and Injunctive Relief and Application for TRO - Gov.uscourts.gamd.77605.8.01:12-cv-00589 #118BALDWIN v SEBELIUS, et al. (Healthcare) - 37 - Order Granting Motion to Dismiss - 37 - Casd-0370483289615-5880 #28Greenberg Traurig Revised Memo December 15, 20141:14-cv-00208 #65 Order Clarifying Judgment1:14-cv-00208 #72S.E.C. Lawsuit Against Penny Stock ChaserJudge Kahn's Ruling on FurloughsTierneyFederal judge blocks Obama’s water rule4:14-cv-00107 #101Noncompete AgreementDocket - Nguyen Et.al. v. Chase Bank USA, NA; Chase Home Finance LLC. Et.al.1:14-cv-00208 #59 Stay OrderMore From PatentBlastSkip carouselMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Samsung Electronics Et. AlMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Nintendo of America Et. AlMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Cantor Fitzgerald Et. AlMultiplayer Network Innovations v. ZTE Et. AlMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Toshiba AmericaMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Pantech Et. AlMultiplayer Network Innovations v. NVIDIAActifio v. DelphixRTC Industries v. Flextronics InternationalTactical Medical Solutions v. Karl Et. AlPrometheus Laboratories v. Par Pharmaceutical Companies Et. AlAndrea Electronics v. Lenovo Group Et. Al.Andrea Electronics v. Toshiba Et. Al.Property Disclosure Technologies v. TruliaGlobal Tel*Link v. Securus Technologies et. al.Century Board v. National Registered AgentsIatric Systems v. FairWarningHologram Et. Al. v. Arena3D Industrial Illusion Et. Al.Tech-ni-Fold v. F.P. Rosback CompanyRTC Industries v. ZiveloMotobatt v. Deltran OperationsImpax Laboratories Et. Al. v. Lannett Holdings Et. Al.Alkermes Pharma Ireland v. Sun Pharma Global FZE Et. Al.Unimed Pharmaceuticals Et. Al. v. Perrigo Company Et. Al.Sensus v. Certified MeasurementCapella Photonics v. TellabsCapella Photonics v. Fujitsu Network CommunicationsCapella Photonics v. CienaILife Technologies v. AliphComAeritas v. GameStop