Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/220905211/Kia-Motors-America-et-al-v-Wingard
Timestamp: 2017-04-28 11:07:26
Document Index: 60887368

Matched Legal Cases: ['art0', '§ 2201', '§ 100', '§\n1331', '§ 1391', '§ 285']

ScribdBrowseInterestsCareer & MoneyPersonal GrowthPolitics & Current AffairsScience & TechHealth & FitnessLifestyleEntertainmentBiographies & HistoryFictionBrowse byBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinKia Motors America et. al. v. WingardUploaded by PriorSmart0.0 (0)DownloadEmbedDescription: Official Complaint for Declaratory Judgement in Civil Action No. None: Kia Motors America, Inc. et. al. v. Wingard. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, no judge yet ...View MoreOfficial Complaint for Declaratory Judgement in Civil Action No. None: Kia Motors America, Inc. et. al. v. Wingard. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-lanq for more info.Copyright: Public DomainDownload as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.; and KIA MOTORS CORPORATION, Plaintiffs, v. PETER F. WINGARD, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT Plaintiffs Kia Motors America, Inc. (“KMA”) and Kia Motors Corporation (“KMC”) (collectively, “Kia”) seek a declaration that Kia does not and has not directly or indirectly infringed United States Patent No. 5,530,431. Kia alleges as follows. NATURE OF ACTION 1. This is an action for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement arising under the
patents laws of the United States, Title 35 of the United States Code. Kia requests this relief because Defendant Peter F. Wingard (“Wingard”) has filed ten lawsuits claiming that Kia’s customers, namely, certain dealers of Kia-branded automobiles (“Kia dealers”), allegedly infringe United States Patent No. 5,530,431 (“the 431 patent”) “by using, importing, selling and/or offering to sell” the “Kia Optima, Kia Rio, and Kia Soul Smart Key and/or Keyless Entry system [that] embody and/or contain keyless ignition systems” (“the Accused Ignition Systems”). See, e.g., Complaint at ¶¶ 15, 17, Wingard v. Berwyn Kia, No. 1:14-cv-01619 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 7, 2014). A true and correct copy of the 431 patent is attached as Exhibit A. The Accused Ignition Systems are included in certain Kia-branded automobiles manufactured by
KMC and KMA’s wholly-owned subsidiary, Kia Motor Manufacturing Georgia, Inc. (“KMMG”), and are distributed within the United States by KMA to a network of Kia dealers. Wingard’s litigation campaign against Kia’s dealers has placed a cloud over Kia’s products, threatened Kia’s business and relationships with its dealers, and created a concrete and immediate justiciable controversy between Kia and Wingard. THE PARTIES 2. Plaintiff KMA is a California corporation with its principal place of business
located at 111 Peters Canyon Road, Irvine, CA 92606. KMA is a wholly-owned subsidiary of KMC. KMA is engaged in the business of distributing motor vehicles and related parts and accessories, and is the sole authorized distributor in the United States of Kia-branded automobiles, some of which include the Accused Ignition Systems, to a network of Kia dealers located throughout the United States. 3. Plaintiff KMC is a corporation organized under the laws of the Republic of Korea
and has its principal place of business at 231 Yangjae-dong, Seocho-gu, Seoul 137-938, South Korea. KMC was founded in 1944 and is Korea’s oldest manufacturer of motor vehicles. From its origins making bicycles and motorcycles, KMC has grown to become the world’s fifth largest vehicle manufacturer. KMC manufactures certain Kia-branded automobiles, namely, the Kia Optima®, Kia Rio®, and Kia Soul®, which include the Accused Ignition Systems. KMA’s wholly-owned subsidiary, KMMG, manufactures the Kia Optima®, which includes the Accused Ignition Systems. 4. On information and belief, Defendant Peter F. Wingard is an individual with a
residence at Apartment 308, 1501 Brandonshire Court, Greensboro, North Carolina 27409.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. This action arises under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and
2202, and under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 100 et seq. 6. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. §§
1331, 1338(a), and 2201(a). 7. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Wingard. Among other things, Wingard
submitted to the personal jurisdiction of this Court by filing a Complaint for alleged infringement of the 431 patent against Berwyn Kia. See Complaint, Wingard v. Berwyn Kia, No. 1:14-cv01619 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 7, 2014). 8. In addition, this Court has personal jurisdiction over Wingard for another reason:
Wingard has purposefully directed into Illinois his enforcement activities regarding the 431 patent. As part of this enforcement campaign, Wingard filed suit against Illinois-based Berwyn Kia, accusing Berwyn Kia’s use, sale, and offer to sell of Kia-branded automobiles that contain the Accused Ignition Systems with infringement of the 431 patent. 9. Venue is proper in this Judicial District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c),
because a substantial part of the events giving rise to Kia’s claim occurred in this District, and because Wingard is subject to personal jurisdiction here. FACTUAL BACKGROUND I. Existence of a Justiciable Controversy 10. In or about October 2013, Wingard, through counsel, launched a letter campaign
accusing several Kia dealers with infringing “at least claim 14” of the 431 patent with respect to the use, sale and offer for sale of Kia-branded automobiles that contain the Accused Ignition Systems.
On or about October 22, 2013, KMA contacted Wingard’s counsel and advised
that KMA would investigate Wingard’s infringement allegations against the Kia dealers. KMA also advised Wingard that, in the event a license was warranted, KMA would negotiate a license under the 431 patent on behalf of Kia and its U.S. dealers. KMA also advised Wingard that should KMA conclude that a license under the 431 patent was unnecessary, KMA would defend and indemnify the Kia U.S. dealers in the event Wingard pursued legal action against the Kia dealers for alleged infringement of the 431 patent. 12. After investigating Wingard’s charges of alleged patent infringement, on or about
November 22, 2013, KMA advised Wingard’s counsel that, among other things, the Accused Ignition Systems did not infringe the 431 patent. KMA further reminded Wingard of KMA’s obligation and intent to indemnify and defend KMA’s dealers in the event Wingard pursued legal action against KMA’s dealers for alleged infringement of the 431 patent. However, and in an effort to avoid the unnecessary involvement of KMA’s dealers in the potential patent dispute, KMA requested that Wingard bring any suit for alleged patent infringement directly against KMA without involving KMA’s dealers. 13. Wingard ignored KMA’s request. Rather than suing KMA for alleged patent
infringement, from about March 6, 2014 to about March 12, 2014, Wingard filed ten nearly identical complaints for alleged patent infringement against ten separate Kia dealers (“the Kia Dealer Suits”) in ten different jurisdictions. The ten complaints allege that the Kia dealers infringe the 431 patent by “importing, selling and/or offering to sell in the United States” Kiabranded automobiles that include the same Accused Ignition Systems. The ten Kia Dealer Suits are identified in the chart below. ! ! 4
Defendant Kia Dealer Kia of Wilmington Global Kia Orlando Kia East Berwyn Kia Williamsburg Kia Classic Kia Southwest Kia Metro Kia of Madison Joe Myers Kia Kia of Downtown Los Angeles 14.
District D. Del. D.N.J. M.D. Fla. N.D. Ill. E.D. Va. E.D. Tex. N.D. Tex. W.D. Wis. S.D. Tex. C.D. Cal.
Case No. 1:14-cv-00291-LPS 3:14-cv-01587-PGS-LHG 6:14-cv-00367-Orl-18GJK 1:14-cv-01619 3:14-cv-00153-REP 5:14-cv-00028-MHS-CMC 3:14-cv-00865-K 3:14-cv-00185-wmc 4:14-cv-00582 2:14-cv-01796-GW-AGR
Filing Date March 6, 2014 March 6, 2014 March 6, 2014 March 7, 2014 March 7, 2014 March 7, 2014 March 7, 2014 March 7, 2014 March 10, 2014 March 12, 2014
Upon information and belief, Wingard has not yet served any of the complaints in
the above-referenced Kia Dealer Suits. 15. On April 15, 2014, Wingard’s counsel advised KMA of the above-referenced Kia
Dealer Suits, that none of the above-referenced Kia dealers had been served, and that Wingard was interested in settling the Kia Dealer Suits before service. Wingard’s counsel also threatened that additional dealer suits would be filed against additional Kia dealers unless KMA entered into a “nationwide license agreement for the entire KMA US dealership network.” 16. KMC manufactures the Kia-branded automobiles that include the Accused
Ignition Systems, namely, the Kia Optima®, the Kia Rio®, and the Kia Soul®. KMA’s wholly owned subsidiary, KMMG, also manufactures certain Kia-branded automobiles that include the Accused Ignition Systems, namely, the Kia Optima®. 17. KMA distributes Kia-branded automobiles within the United States, and is the
sole supplier of the Kia-branded automobiles that contain the Accused Ignition Systems to the network of Kia dealers located within the United States, including the Kia dealers who are named defendants in the Kia Dealer Suits.
KMA is indemnifying and defending the Kia dealers, including but not limited to
the Kia dealers who are named defendants in the Kia Dealer Suits, with respect to Wingard’s claims for alleged infringement of the 431 patent by the Accused Ignition Systems. 19. KMC, in turn, is indemnifying KMA with respect to Wingard’s claims for alleged
infringement of the 431 patent by the Accused Ignition Systems found in Kia-branded automobiles. 20. For these reasons, an actual controversy exists between Kia and Wingard
concerning the alleged infringement of the 431 patent. II. The Accused Ignition Systems Do Not Infringe The 431 Patent 21. The Accused Ignition Systems do not infringe and have not infringed, either
directly or indirectly, any claim of the 431 patent. 22. No Kia product infringes or has infringed, either directly or indirectly, any claim
of the 431 patent. 23. No third-party, including but not limited to the Kia dealers, infringes or has
infringed, either directly or indirectly, any claim of the 431 patent by virtue of importing, making, using, selling or offering to sell Kia-branded automobiles having the Accused Ignition Systems. COUNT I (Declaration of Non-Infringement of the 431 patent) 24. Kia restates and incorporates by reference the allegations in ¶¶ 1-23 of this
Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 25. 431 patent. In the Kia Dealer Suits, Wingard claims to own all rights, title, and interest in the
In the Kia Dealer Suits, Wingard alleges infringement of the 431 patent by the
Accused Ignition Systems used in certain Kia-branded automobiles. 27. A substantial, immediate, and real controversy therefore exists between Kia and
Wingard concerning whether the Accused Ignition Systems used in certain Kia-branded automobiles infringe or have infringed the 431 patent. A judicial declaration is necessary to determine the parties’ respective rights regarding the 431 patent. 28. KMC and KMA seek a judgment declaring that the Accused Ignition Systems
used in certain Kia-branded automobiles do not infringe and have not infringed, either directly or indirectly, any claim of the 431 patent. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Kia respectfully requests the following relief. An Order: A. Declaring that the Accused Ignition Systems used in certain Kia-branded
automobiles do not and have not infringed, either directly or indirectly, any claim of the 431 patent; B. C. D. Finding this case exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285; Awarding Kia its costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees; and Such further and additional relief as the Court deems just and proper. DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL Kia demands a trial by jury on all issues and claims so triable.
Dated April 28, 2014 By:
Respectfully submitted, /s/ Ralph J. Gabric Ralph J. Gabric (SBN 6198485) Robert S. Mallin (SBN 6205051) Hersh H. Mehta (admission pending) BRINKS GILSON & LIONE NBC Tower, Suite 3600 455 North Cityfront Plaza Drive Chicago, IL 60611-5599 T: (312) 321-4200 F: (312) 321-4299
Seung Hyun Jang (pro hac vice admission pending) BRINKS GILSON & LIONE 1775 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 900 Washington, D.C. 20006-2219 T: (202) 296-8700 F: (202) 296-8701 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Kia Motors America, Inc. and Kia Motors Corporation
Documents Similar To Kia Motors America Et. Al. v. WingardSkip carouselCase 3 kia0288Kia Rio November 2011Brochures 2012 CarensPPI Carsforsale Pricelist09132016Clearcount Medical Solutions v. Surgicount MedicalJunker v. Medical Components Et. Al.B.E. Technology v. People Mediae.Digital v. Kingston Technology Companye.digital v. Patriot Memorye.Digital v. ADATA Technology et. al.e.Digital v. Cavalry StorageShinn Fu v. Bon-Aire Industriese.digital v. Dexxon Groupe Holding Et. Al.e.Digital v. PNY ElectronicsRoss v. Weiser - ComplaintJoao Control & Monitoring Systems v. Protect AmericaWolf Run Hollow v. TargetJOAO Bock Transaction Systems v. Optionshouse et. al.e.Digital v. Other World Computinge.Digital v. New Dane et. al.Wolf Run Hollow v. Best BuyWyncomm v. Micromax InformaticsVantage Point Technology v. Acer America.pdfe.digital v. Mach Xtreme Technology Et. Al.Katrinecz et. al. v. La-Z-Boy et. al.e.Digital v. Super Talent TechnologyLamina Packaging Innovations v. Diageo North Americae.Digital v. Corsair MemoryExitExchange v. Reflected NetworksJOAO Control & Monitoring Systems v. Lowe's CompaniesDocuments About PatentSkip carousel16-12-20 Apple Complaint v. Acacia Et Al.AppleVsSamsung_11.07.05Gillette Company v. ADKM, Inc. d/b/a Harry's Razor Company et. al.Samsung vs Apple - Samsung's Appeal to the Supreme CourtNokiaVsApple_11.03.31.100Consulting AgreementPRICELINE COM INC 10-K (Annual Reports) 2009-02-20Nike v. SkechersWizards of the Coast v. Cryptozoic Entertainment et. al.Apple vs Android 10.12.02Nokia Complaint Against Apple in federal district court, WisconsinDavid Einhorn's presentation on Green Mountain RoastersBose vs Beats (ITC complaint)Beyond PhilanthropyBose v. Beats Civil ComplaintAgainst Intellectual Property, by Stephan Kinsella Koninklijke Philips N.V. et. al. v. Nintendo et. al.GENENTECH INC 10-K (Annual Reports) 2009-02-20Provisional Patent ApplicationGoogle Dec Action vs RockstarApple vs Samsung 11.04.22AppleVsHTCandS3_11.07.29MicrosoftVsMotorola_11.12.11Translation of Mannheim 2O240 Ruling Motorola v MicrosoftNovartis patent Judgement14-01-21 Apple v. Samsung Summary Judgment OrderBU v AppleEPO Examiners Can No Longer Ensure Appropriate Quality StandardsGreenwich Ballistics v. Jamison International12-04-30 Apple-Samsung Teksler-Kim Letter Re FRANDMore 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