Perrie v. Perrie

1
COMPLAINT FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF AND DAMAGES: [PATENT INVENTORSHIP]

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

SCHWEDLER LAW GROUP
Carl J. Schwedler SBN: 244189
216 F Street #125
Davis, CA 95616
Telephone: (530) 210-3104
Email: carl@schwedlerlaw.com

Attorney for Plaintiff
SALLY PERRIE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SALLY PERRIE,

Plaintiff,
v.

KENNETH ALLAN PERRIE
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 14-993

COMPLAINT FOR EQUITABLE
RELIEF AND DAMAGES: [PATENT
INVENTORSHIP]

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

This is an action arising under the patent laws of the United States, arising under 35 U.
S.C. 100 et seq., seeking declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. 2201 and/or 2202, correcting the
inventorship and ownership of several patents pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 256. This is also an action
for unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty and an action for breach of express contract and
breach of implied contract arising under the statutory and common laws of California.
THE PARTIES
1. Sally Perrie is a resident of California, 504 Nursery Street, Nevada City, CA 95959.
2. On information and belief, Defendant Kenneth Allan Perrie, is a resident of California,
residing at 74075 Alpine Lane, Palm Desert, CA 92211.

2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3. On information and belief Defendant Kenneth Allan Perrie is an employee of Spa Resort
Casinos, located at 401 East Amado Road, Palm Springs, CA, 92262.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1338(a) (as this
case civil action is based on statute relating to patents, plant variety protection, copyrights and
trademarks), 1338(b) (as to unfair competition claims joined to the action), 1367 (as to the state
law based claims), 2201 and 2202.
5. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b), 1391(c), 1391(d), and
1400(b).
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
PATENTS
6. U.S. Patent No. 8,435,106 ("the 106 patent") titled "Wagering game with
persistent selection state" issued on May 7, 2013, with Kenneth Allan Perrie an Olaf Vancura
incorrectly listed as the sole joint inventors.
7. Sally Perrie is an inventor of the 106 patent.
8. On information and belief, the entire right to the 106 patent was improperly
applied for and subsequently improperly assigned by Kenneth Allan Perrie and Olaf Vancura
without the authorization of Sally Perrie.
9. U.S. Patent No. 7,771,265 ("the 265 patent") titled "Method of operating a
casino game having a hidden pattern" issued on August 10, 2010, with Kenneth Allan Perrie an
Olaf Vancura incorrectly listed as the sole joint inventors.

3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

12. U.S. Patent No. 7,032,901 ("the 901 patent") titled Poker dice casino game
method of play" issued on April 25, 2006, with Kenneth Allan Perrie an Olaf Vancura
15. U.S. Patent No. 6,988,948 ("the 948 patent") titled Casino bonus game using
player input" issued on January 24, 2006, with Kenneth Allan Perrie an Olaf Vancura incorrectly
listed as the sole joint inventors.
18. U.S. Patent No. 6,855,055 ("the 055 patent") titled Method for controlling
length of casino game" issued on February 15, 2005, with Kenneth Allan Perrie an Olaf Vancura
method of play" issued on June 8, 2004, with Kenneth Allan Perrie an Olaf Vancura incorrectly

4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

24. U.S. Patent No. 6,645,071 ("the 071 patent") titled Casino bonus game using
player strategy" issued on November 11, 2003, with Kenneth Allan Perrie an Olaf Vancura
method of play" issued on May 20, 2003, with Kenneth Allan Perrie an Olaf Vancura incorrectly
method of play" issued on November 19, 2002, with Kenneth Allan Perrie an Olaf Vancura

5

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

33. U.S. Patent No. 6,398,644 ("the 644 patent") titled Pattern reverse keno game
method of play" issued on June 4, 2002, with Kenneth Allan Perrie an Olaf Vancura incorrectly
method of play" issued on October 23, 2001, with Kenneth Allan Perrie an Olaf Vancura
39. U.S. Patent No. 6,193,235 ("the 235 patent") titled Like kind card game" issued
on February 27, 2001, with Kenneth Allan Perrie an Olaf Vancura incorrectly listed as the sole
joint inventors.
42. U.S. Patent No. 6,186,505 ("the 505 patent") titled Like kind money board table
game" issued on February 13, 2001, with Kenneth Allan Perrie an Olaf Vancura incorrectly

6

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

without the authorization of Sally Perrie
method of play" issued on January 16, 2001, with Kenneth Allan Perrie an Olaf Vancura
48. The above games all represent some adaptation of a popular family board game to
the requirement for a table or electronic game for the casino industry.
49. In particular, the 901, 016, 088, 713, 686 and 955 patents relate to the
adaptations of the board game Yahtzee to casino applications (the YAHTZEE PATENTS)
50. In particular, the 106, 265, 948, 055, 071 and 644 patents relate to
adaptations of the board game Battleship to casino applications (the BATTLESHIP
PATENTS).
51. In particular, the 235 and 505 patents relate to the adaptations of the board game
Monopoly to casino applications (the MONOPOLY PATENTS).
SALLY PERRIE'S RELATIONSHIP WITH KENNETH ALLAN PERRIE
52. Sally Perrie and Kenneth Allan Perrie (collectively the Perries) were married
February 14, 1982, and remained married at all times during the development of the above
inventions.
53. Throughout their marriage, Kenneth Allan Perrie has been employed variously at
positions within the casino industry.
54. In September of 1982, the Perries moved to Tahoe City, CA.

7

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

55. Sally Perrie and Kenneth Allan Perrie formed a company, Gaming Concepts,
Inc., in 1982 for the purpose of game development. Under Gaming Concepts, Inc., the Perries
jointly developed concepts for electronic and table games for the casino industry.
56. Sally Perrie and Kenneth Allan Perrie acted as partners in game development, and
as business partners for the exploitation of the intellectual property developed therefrom.
57. In or around the mid to late 1980s, on a trip to Toys R Us together, Sally Perrie
suggested to Kenneth Allan Perrie that they use popular board games as a basis for casino games.
58. From that time forward, their business efforts were increasingly directed toward
the adaptation of popular board games for use as table or electronic casino games.
59. Their efforts eventually gave rise to patentable inventions referenced herein as the
YAHTZEE PATENTS, the BATTLESHIP PATENTS and the MONOPOLY PATENTS.
60. In addition to the patented board game developments, the Perries also worked on
the development of casino games based on the board games Trivial Pursuit, Stratego and Clue.
61. In or around February of 1992, Kenneth Allan Perrie relocated to the east coast
from the couples home in Nevada. Sally Perrie and their daughter, Kate Perrie, remained in
their home in Nevada.
62. In the period from the beginning of their board game development in the 1980s to
the time Kenneth Allan Perrie moved to the east coast, numerous friends, relatives and business
colleagues were made aware of the development efforts of the Perries.
63. During the development period, the couple kept various materials readily visible
around the house relating the game development, including mock-ups of games relating to the
YAHTZEE PATENTS, the BATTLESHIP PATENTS and the MONOPOLY PATENTS and
casino games based on the board games Trivial Pursuit, Stratego and Clue.
64. The games Yahtzee, Monopoly, Battleship, Trivial Pursuit, Stratego and Clue at
that time were all owned by Milton Bradley, a manufacturer of these and other popular board
games.

8

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

65. In order to market any of the games, the Perries understood they would need to
acquire permission from Milton Bradley. To that end, in or around 1991 the Perries took a trip
together to the east coast to visit the offices of Milton Bradley, in order to pitch their concept of
electronic and table casino games for a suite of games including Yahtzee, Monopoly, Battleship,
Trivial Pursuit, Stratego and Clue.
66. Even before the trip to Milton Bradley, the Perries had needed to advance the
game concept significantly in that casino odds are strictly regulated, and the games required
significant adaptation in order to work as a casino betting game.
67. The Perries were understandably excited about the visit to Milton Bradley, and
even before leaving numerous friends, relatives and business colleagues were aware of the
advance work that had been accomplished in the development of the games, and were impressed
that the difficult issues of re-configuring the games for casino style betting were sufficiently
resolved to take the concept to Milton Bradley.
68. In the Perries visit to Milton Bradleys offices, they took mock-ups of several of
the games, showing the general layout and providing explanations regarding the requirements of
casino odds and betting regulations, and the proposed solutions.
69. In the Perries visit to Milton Bradleys offices, Milton Bradley representatives
expressed initial hesitation, due to the family nature of the traditional board games, and
expressed especial concern about their flagship Yahtzee.
70. In the visit to Milton Bradleys offices, the Perries sought to make Milton Bradley
aware of the general threat of video games to traditional board games, and argued that Milton
Bradley would need to appeal to a new, electronic generation.
71. After an all-day meeting with Milton Bradley, the couple returned home happy
that Milton Bradley had not outright rejected the proposal. Numerous friends, relatives and
business colleagues heard the reports of the trip and noted the Perries excitement about the
prospects of selling the games, and the increased energy devoted to finalizing the deal.

9

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

72. In 1994 Sally Perrie and Kenneth Allan Perries became separated.
73. Until separation, and for some time afterwords, Sally Perrie and Kenneth Allan
Perrie spoke nearly daily about the game concepts and the prospects of closing a deal with
Milton Bradley
74. In 1995 the Perries took a cruise trip to the Bahamas, and during a visit to Black
Beards Tower in Nassau Kenneth Allan Perrie informed Sally Perrie that a deal had been
completed with Milton Bradley for the name rights, and that Mikohn gaming would distribute
the resulting games based on the popular Milton Bradley board games.
75. The Perries agreed at this time to treat the casino gaming opportunity relating to
the Milton Bradley board game adaptations within the family business.
76. After the separation, Kenneth Allan Perrie increasingly took on the role of
running the business for the family.
77. At all times after separation and up until the filing of papers for a divorce, the
game development relationship remained the same, with Kenneth Allan Perrie managing the
business for the family, and making regular payments to Sally Perrie.
78. On information and belief, Kenneth Allan Perrie met Olaf Vancura in 1994.
79. On information and belief, Olaf Vancura at the time was a professor working at
Cornell, in the field physics.
80. On information and belief, Kenneth Allan Perrie and Olaf Vancura completed
patent applications for the YAHTZEE PATENTS, the BATTLESHIP PATENTS and the
MONOPOLY PATENTS beginning in the late nineties on concepts developed by Sally Perrie
with Kenneth Allan Perrie during their time together living in South Lake Tahoe and before the
separation.
81. Sally Perrie did not understand that patents had been filed solely in the names of
Kenneth Allan Perrie and Olaf Vancura, effectively securing ownership away from Sally Perrie,
without her being named as an inventor.

10

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

82. Sally Perrie was not informed that the rights to the intellectual property had been
assigned to Mikohn, Inc., without her authorization.
83. Sally Perrie was not provided with copies of agreements or account statements
relating to the disposition of the business.
84. Sally Perrie has never received a full accounting of the money generated from
licensing, sale, and/or assignment or other disposition of rights in, to or relating to the patents.
85. Sally Perrie has never received a full accounting of the money generated from
other intellectual property relating to the board gaming development of the business.
86. In all respects, and at all time, Kenneth Allan Perrie took on the responsibility nd
acted as a fiduciary for Sally Perrie in their business partnership for the development and
marketing of the
COUNT ONE
(CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF SEEKING CORRECTION OF
PATENT INVENTORSHIP OF THE YAHTZEE PATENTS)
87. Sally Perrie hereby incorporates and fully realleges by this reference, a though
fully set forth herein, each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 86 of this
Complaint.
88. Kenneth Allan Perrie knew, or should have known that the discoveries, creations
and inventions described above were conceived, created and invented by Sally Perrie.
89. Sally Perrie is the sole inventor or, in the alternative, a joint inventor of the
subject matter disclosed and claimed in the YAHTZEE PATENTS. As the sole inventor or, in
the alternative, joint inventor of the subject matter disclosed and claimed in the YAHTZEE
PATENTS, Sally Perrie owns or, in the alternative, jointly owns the YAHTZEE PATENTS and
maintains sole or, in the alternative, joint equitable title therein.
90. The inventorship of the YAHTZEE PATENTS must be corrected pursuant to 35
U.S.C. 256 to name Sally Perrie as the sole inventor or, in the alternative, a joint inventor.

11

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

91. As a direct, legal and proximate result of being omitted as an inventor or, in the
alternative, a joint inventor of the YAHTZEE PATENTS, Sally Perrie has suffered damage and
is entitled to declaratory relief and other relief and remedies as described in paragraphs A
through T of this complaint.
92. WHEREFORE, Sally Perrie prays for judgment as hereinafter set forth.
COUNT TWO
(CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF SEEKING CORRECTION
OF PATENT INVENTORSHIP OF THE BATTLSHIP PATENTS)
Complaint.
subject matter disclosed and claimed in the BATTLESHIP PATENTS. As the sole inventor or, in
the alternative, joint inventor of the subject matter disclosed and claimed in the BATTLESHIP
PATENTS, Sally Perrie owns or, in the alternative, jointly owns the BATTLESHIP PATENTS
and maintains sole or, in the alternative, joint equitable title therein.
96. The inventorship of the BATTLESHIP PATENTS must be corrected pursuant to
35 U.S.C. 256 to name Sally Perrie sd the sole inventor or, in the alternative, a joint inventor.
alternative, a joint inventor of the BATTLESHIP PATENTS, Sally Perrie has suffered damage
and is entitled to declaratory relief and other relief and remedies as described in paragraphs A

12

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

COUNT THREE
(CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF SEEKING CORRECTION
OF PATENT INVENTORSHIP OF THE MONOPOLY PATENTS)
Complaint.
subject matter disclosed and claimed in the MONOPOLY PATENTS. As the sole inventor or, in
the alternative, joint inventor of the subject matter disclosed and claimed in the MONOPOLY
PATENTS, Sally Perrie owns or, in the alternative, jointly owns the MONOPOLY PATENTS
and maintains sole or, in the alternative, joint equitable title therein.
102. The inventorship of the MONOPOLY PATENTS must be corrected pursuant to
35 U.S.C. 256 to name Sally Perrie as the sole inventor or, in the alternative, a joint inventor.
alternative, a joint inventor of the MONOPOLY PATENTS, Sally Perrie has suffered damage
and is entitled to declaratory relief and other relief and remedies as described in paragraphs A
COUNT FOUR
(CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF AND DAMAGES ARISING
FROM BREACH OF EXPRESS CONTRACT AGAINST DEFENDANT)
Complaint.

13

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

106. During the development of the patents, Kenneth Allan Perrie at all times managed
the business for the Perries, including marketing of the business to casinos and game developers,
such as MiKohn, Inc., and received all funds resulting from the commercialization of the
YAHTZEE PATENTS, the BATTLESHIP PATENTS and the MONOPOLY PATENTS in his
own name.
107. The Parties operated their casino game development business under an express
oral agreement that Kenneth Allan Perrie would manage the business for the Parties, as partners
in the game development business, as co-developers of the games, and for the benefit of their
mutual family interests.
108. The Parties operated their casino game development business as under an express
oral agreement that Kenneth Allan Perrie would manage the licensing and contracting of the
developed games for the mutual benefit of both Parties and disburse all funds accordingly and
fairly.
109. During the marriage, Kenneth Allan Perrie regularly, and for much of the
marriage on a monthly basis, paid over to Sally Perrie a portion of the proceeds of the business.
110. In light of the divorce proceedings between the parties, Sally Perrie now comes to
see that she was wrongly omitted as an inventor on the YAHTZEE PATENTS, the
BATTLESHIP PATENTS and the MONOPOLY PATENTS, as alleged in Counts One, Two and
Three herein.
111. Further in light of the divorce proceedings, Sally Perrie now comes to see that she
was wrongly denied her true share in the remuneration received by Kenneth Allan Perrie from
the business.
112. Further in light of the divorce proceedings, Sally Perrie now comes to see that she
was wrongly denied an accounting of the proceeds, monetary or otherwise, received by Kenneth
Allan Perrie from the business.

14

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

113. Sally Perrie has performed all of her obligations under the terms of the express
contract between the Parties as to promotion of the gaming business, except insofar as Sally
Perrie was prevented from fulfilling her obligations as a result of Kenneth Allan Perries conduct
or was excused from such obligations as a result of being deliberately excluded and prevented
from performing same by Kenneth Allan Perrie.
114. Kenneth Allan Perrie has breached the express contract between the Parties as
alleged in paragraphs 1 through 104 of this complaint.
115. As a direct, legal and proximate result of Kenneth Allan Perries breach of the
express contract, Sally Perrie has suffered damage and is entitled to declaratory relief, monetary
compensation and other relief and remedies as described in paragraphs A through T of this
complaint.
COUNT FIVE
(CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF AND DAMAGES ARISING
FROM BREACH OF THE IMPLIED CONTRACT AGAINST DEFENDANT)
Complaint.
118. The Parties operating their casino game development business as co-developers
and partners, with an implied contractual understanding that actions taken by Kenneth Allan
Perrie in promotion, sales, licensing or other business arrangements or agreement for monetary
or other remuneration would inure to the benefit of the partnership and/or the family interest.
119. Sally Perrie has performed all of her obligations under the terms of the implied
contractual or other understanding between the Parties as to promotion of the gaming business,
except insofar as Sally Perrie was prevented from fulfilling her obligations as a result of Kenneth

15

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Allan Perries conduct or was excused from such obligations as a result of being deliberately
excluded and prevented from performing same by Kenneth Allan Perrie.
120. Kenneth Allan Perrie has breached the implied contractual understanding between
the Parties as alleged in paragraphs 1 through 116 of this complaint.
121. As a direct, legal and proximate result of Kenneth Allan Perries breach of the
implied contractual understanding, Sally Perrie has suffered damage and is entitled to declaratory
relief, monetary compensation and other relief and remedies as described in paragraphs A
COUNT SIX
(CAUSE OF ACTION FOR AN INJUNCTION ORDERING KENNETH ALLAN
PERRIE TO ABIDE BY HIS FIDUCIARY DUTY TO SALLY PERRIE AND PROVIDE
AN ACCOUNTING OF THE BUSINESS)
Complaint.
124. Sally Perrie seeks an award of specific performance requiring Defendant Kenneth
Allan Perrie to provide a full and honest accounting of the compensation received by Kenneth
Allan Perrie for the YAHTZEE PATENTS, the BATTLESHIP PATENTS and the MONOPOLY
PATENTS.
125. As a direct, legal and proximate result of Kenneth Allan Perries breach of his
fiduciary duty, Sally Perrie has suffered damage and is entitled to declaratory relief, monetary
complaint.

16

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

COUNT SEVEN
(CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DAMAGES ARISING FROM THE UNJUST
ENRICHMENT OF KENNETH ALLAN PERRIE BASED ON HIS BREAH OF
FIDUCIARY DUTY TO SALLY PERRIE))
Complaint.
128. Through a pattern of activity Kenneth Allan Perrie Sally Perrie has received extra
compensation from the managing of the Parties gaming business, by breaching his duties and
obligations of a contractual and fiduciary nature, as alleged in Counts Four, Five and Six, herein.
129. As a direct, legal and proximate result of Kenneth Allan Perries breach of his
contractual and fiduciary duties, Kenneth Allan Perrie has been unjustly compensated, and to
that extent Sally Perrie has suffered damage and is entitled to declaratory relief, monetary
complaint.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Sally Perrie prays that this Court enter judgment in her favor against the
Defendant, including judgment that:
A. Sally Perrie is the sole or a joint inventor of the 106 patent;
B. Sally Perrie is the sole or a joint inventor of the 265 patent;
C. Sally Perrie is the sole or a joint inventor of the 901 patent;
D. Sally Perrie is the sole or a joint inventor of the 948 patent;
E. Sally Perrie is the sole or a joint inventor of the 055 patent;
F. Sally Perrie is the sole or a joint inventor of the 016 patent;
G. Sally Perrie is the sole or a joint inventor of the 071 patent;

17

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

H. Sally Perrie is the sole or a joint inventor of the 088 patent;
I. Sally Perrie is the sole or a joint inventor of the 713 patent;
J. Sally Perrie is the sole or a joint inventor of the 644 patent;
K. Sally Perrie is the sole or a joint inventor of the 686 patent;
L. Sally Perrie is the sole or a joint inventor of the 235 patent;
M. Sally Perrie is the sole or a joint inventor of the 505 patent;
N. Sally Perrie is the sole or a joint inventor of the 955 patent;
O. An award of damages is entered against Kenneth Allan Perrie for breach of
express contract and breach of implied contract arising under the statutory and
common law of California;
P. An award of damages is entered against Kenneth Allan Perrie for unjust
enrichment breach of fiduciary duty;
Q. An injunction is entered against Kenneth Allan Perrie preventing further
violations of his fiduciary duty to Sally Perrie with regard to their game
development business;
R. That Kenneth Allan Perrie be ordered to provide a full, accurate and honest
accounting of all funds received by the Perries gaming business;
S. An award of damages is entered against Kenneth Allan Perrie adequate to
compensate Sally Perrie for his failure to provide her with just compensation for
his share in their game development business, together with pre-judgment interest
and costs;
T. Any and all such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Sally Perrie hereby
demands a trial by jury of all issues properly triable to a jury.

18

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Dated: August 1, 2014 SCHWEDLER LAW GROUP

/s/ Carl J. Schwedler

CARL J. SCHWEDLER
Attorney for Plaintiff,
SALLY PERRIE

Perrie v. Perrie

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Perrie v. Perrie

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

1

COMPLAINT FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF AND DAMAGES: [PATENT INVENTORSHIP]

Você também pode gostar