Você está na página 1de 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS CLEARLINE TECHNOLOGIES LTD. Plaintiff, v.

COOPER B-LINE INC. Defendant.

No. 12-cv-1211-MJR-DGW JURY DEMANDED

ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Plaintiff, Clearline Technologies Ltd. (Clearline) brings this action against Defendant Cooper B-Line, Inc. (Cooper B-Line), and alleges as follows: I. PARTIES 1. Clearline is a Canadian limited company with a principal place of business

at 1149 St. Matthews, Winnipeg, MB Canada R3G 0J8. 2. Upon information and belief, Cooper B-Line is incorporated under the

laws of Delaware, with a principal place of business at 509 West Monroe Street, Highland, Illinois 62249. 3. Cooper B-Line manufactures for sale and/or sells rooftop support products

to consumers in the United States and, more particularly, in the Southern District of Illinois. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4. This is an action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of Jurisdiction as to these claims is

the United States, Title 35, United States Code.

conferred on this Court by 35 U.S.C. 1331 and 1338(a).

PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 1 of 6

5.

Venue is proper in the Southern District of Illinois under 28 U.S.C.

1391 and 1400(b). 6. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendant. Defendant

maintains its principle place of business within the State of Illinois and the Southern District of Illinois. Defendant has conducted and does conduct business within the State of Illinois. Defendant, directly or through intermediaries (including distributors, retailers, and others), ships, distributes, offers for sale, sells, and advertises products in the United States, the State of Illinois, and the Southern District of Illinois. Defendant purposefully and voluntarily sold one or more of their infringing products with the expectation that they will be purchased by consumers in the Southern District of Illinois. These infringing products have been and continue to be purchased by consumers in the Southern District of Illinois. Defendants have committed acts of patent infringement within the United States and, more particularly, within the Southern District of Illinois. PATENT INFRINGEMENT 7. herein. 8. On November 20, 2012, United States Patent No. 8,312,692 (the 692 Clearline incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-6 as if fully set forth

patent) entitled Roof Object Support System was duly and legally issued after full and fair examination. Clearline is the owner of all right, title, and interest in and to the 692 patent by assignment, with full right to bring suit to enforce the patent, including the right to recover for past infringement damages and the right to recover future royalties, damages, and income. The 692 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 9. The 692 patent is valid and enforceable.

PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 2 of 6

10.

Upon information and belief, Defendant has infringed and/or continues to

infringe the 692 patent. Defendant is liable for direct infringement, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, as well as indirect infringement by way of inducement and/or contributory infringement of the 692 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 271 (a), (b), (c), (f), and/or (g). Specifically, Defendants foregoing acts of infringement include infringement by making, using, selling, or offering for sale in or importing into the United States rooftop support devices, without limitation, at least the following products: Cooper B-Lines DURA-BLOK line of products (the Accused Products) including, without limitation, B-Line catalog numbers DBP, DBM, DB-Series, DB6-Series, DB10Series, DB_DS-Series, DBR-Series, DBE-Series, DBM-Series, CLDP10, GRATEWALK rooftop walkways with integrated DURA-BLOCK supports, and ARIST monolithic solar mounting systems using DURA-BLOCK and other similar products, which perform substantially the same function as the devices embodied in one or more claims of the 692 patent in substantially the same way to achieve the same result. 11. Upon information and belief, Defendant has been and is continuing to

induce infringement of the 692 patent under 35 U.S.C. 271(b) and contributes to infringement of the 692 patent under 35 U.S.C. 271(c), in conjunction with such acts of making using, offering for sale, and/or importing into the United States, without authority, instrumentalities that fall within the scope of one or more claims of the 692 patents. Such infringement occurs directly by the distributors, retailers, resellers,

customers, users and/or licensees of the infringing instrumentalities. For example and without limitation, Defendant indirectly infringes claim 11 of the 692 Patent by selling a

PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 3 of 6

rooftop support block that consumers use to support roof objects on roofs. The infringing instrumentalities have no substantial non-infringing uses. 12. patent. 13. Upon information and belief, since at least November 13, 2012, Defendant Defendant is not, either expressly or impliedly, licensed under the 692

has had knowledge of the 692 Patent and/or the pending issuance of the application leading to the 692 Patent. On or about November 13, 2012, Mr. Jason H. Conway sent a communication to Mr. Ryan Dupuis. Upon information and belief, the law firm of Senniger Powers is Defendants counsel in matters related to intellectual property law. Upon information and belief, Mr. Conway is an associate of Senniger Powers. Mr. Dupuis is a patent agent listed on the file wrapper of the application leading to the 692 Patent. The communication from Mr. Conway contained detailed correspondence

relating to the 692 Patent. 14. Upon information and belief, since at least the issuance of the 692 Patent,

Defendant has had knowledge of its infringement of the 692 Patent. Upon information and belief, Defendant deliberately infringed the 692 Patent and acted recklessly and in disregard to the 692 Patent by making and selling the Accused Products. Upon

information and belief, the risks of infringement were known to Defendant and/or were so obvious under the circumstances that the infringement risks should have been known. 15. Defendants acts of infringement have caused damage to Plaintiff.

Plaintiff is entitled to recover from Defendant the damages sustained by Plaintiff as a result of the wrongful acts of Defendant in an amount subject to proof at trial. Defendants infringement of Plaintiffs rights under the 692 patent will continue to

PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 4 of 6

damage Plaintiffs business, causing irreparable harm, for which there is no adequate remedy of law, unless enjoined. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff hereby demands a jury for all issues so triable. PRAYER WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment that: 1. 2. 3. Defendant has infringed the 692 patent. Plaintiff recover actual damages under 35 U.S.C. 284; Plaintiff be awarded supplemental damages for any continuing post-

verdict infringement up until final judgment; 4. Plaintiff be awarded enhanced damages for willful infringement as

permitted under the law; 5. 6. Plaintiff be awarded an accounting of damages; A judgment and order requiring Defendant to pay to Plaintiff pre-

judgment and post-judgment interest on the damages awarded, including an award of prejudgment interest, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 284, from the date of each act of infringement of the 692 patent by Defendant to the day a damages judgment is entered, and a further award of post-judgment interest, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1961, continuing until such judgment is paid, at the maximum rate allowed by law; 7. A judgment and order that Defendant, their agents, employees,

representatives, successors, and assigns, and those acting in privity or in concert with them, be preliminarily and permanently enjoined from further infringement of the 692 patent;

PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 5 of 6

8. royalty; and 9.

In the event a final injunction is not awarded, a compulsory ongoing

Such other and further relied as the Court deems just and equitable. Respectfully submitted, KATZ PLLC /s/ Robert D. Katz Robert D. Katz Texas State Bar No. 24057936 Katz, PLLC 6060 N. Central Expressway, Suite 570 Dallas, Texas 75206 (469) 278-5999 (888) 231-5775 (Facsimile) rkatz@katzlawpllc.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF CLEARLINE TECHNOLOGIES LTD.

DATED: November 28, 2012

PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 6 of 6