Você está na página 1de 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

PATTI PRODUCTS, INC., Plaintiff,

v.

DOCKET NO.

INTERNATIONAL TENT AND EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURING, INC. Defendant.

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND NOW COMES the Plaintiff Patti Products, Inc. and sets forth the following allegations against Defendants International Tent and Equipment Manufacturing, Inc. as her Complaint in this matter: I. Parties

1. Plaintiff Patti Products, Inc. (PPI) is a Massachusetts corporation with a place of business in Dracut, Middlesex County, Massachusetts. 2. Upon information and belief, Defendant International Tent and Equipment Manufacturing, Inc. (ITEM) is a corporation with a place of business in Courtland, Virginia.

II.

Jurisdiction and Venue

3. This matter, inter alia, is a claim for patent infringement and arises under the 35 U.S.C., Sec. 101 et seq. Therefore, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1221 and 28 U.S.C. 1338 (a) and 1338 (b). 4. Venue in this judicial district is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) because the holder of the patent being infringed is a resident of the Eastern District of Massachusetts. 5. The exercise of jurisdiction over the Defendant comports with the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and U.S. Constitutional requirements of due process because the tortious acts of the Defendant and/or its agents have caused harm within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Defendant markets its products within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the consumer confusion at issue is occurring in Massachusetts. III. Facts Common to All Counts

6. PPI, via an assignment from Stephan J. Jesus, is the owner and has exclusive rights to the United States Patent known as US Patent No. 7,931,038 B2. A copy of this patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. A copy of the Recordation of Assignment Document is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. 7. This complaint seeks damages for infringement on those rights by ITEM. 8. On October 21, 2008, PPIs assignor filed a patent application for a portable, lightweight, removable system for covering an open dumpster or refuse container mechanism. 9. The patent was approved on April 26, 2011.

10. Pursuant to the patent and assignment, PPI has the exclusive right to manufacture and sell portable, light-weight dumpster covers as set forth in the claims in the patent. 11. PPI has been doing so with its now patented technology for at least five years. 12. In violation of law, ITEM is presently listing and selling products that infringe upon PPIs patent rights. See Exhibit 2. 13. On March 8, 2013, PPI served a cease and desist letter upon ITEM demanding that ITEM refrain from further infringement upon PPIs patent rights. 14. ITEM refused to desist from its infringing conduct after demand. Upon information ad belief, ITEM continues to sell infringing products. IV. Causes of Action COUNT I (Patent Infringement Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 271(a)) 15. PPI repeats and realleges each of the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 16. As set forth herein, ITEM is making, using and/or selling PPIs patented invention in the U.S. without authority from PPI, the assignee of the patent rights. 17. PPI has been harmed by ITEMs unlawful conduct, including damages constituting its lost profits as a result of the infringement and ITEMs failure to pay a reasonable royalty on infringing products it has sold. 18. ITEMs conduct, including but not limited to its infringing conduct after the cease and desist was served, has been willful and entitles PPI up to treble the actual damages and its reasonable attorneys fees. 19. PPI demands all damages and other relief to which it is entitled under the patent laws of the United States of America.

COUNT II (Common Law Infringement) 20. PPI repeats and realleges each of the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 21. Massachusetts common law protects trade dress and prevents third parties from using the same or a similar trade dress in order to mislead the public by palming off a plaintiffs goods. 22. As set forth more fully above, defendant is using the same or a similar trade dress for its products which is leading to consumer confusion. 23. Defendants actions described herein were performed willfully, knowingly and after being informed of the infringement set forth herein. 24. PPI has been harmed by the conduct alleged herein and is entitled to be compensated for the damages sustained as provided by law, including lost royalties, dilution, harm to goodwill and reputation, lost profits, costs, interest and attorneys fees. COUNT III (Violation of G.L. c. 93A) 25. PPI restates and realleges each of the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 26. Upon information and belief, ITEM engaged in trade or commerce within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as that term is defined by Chapter 93A. 27. Due to the conduct alleged herein, ITEM has engaged in unfair competition and unfair and deceptive trade practices under Chapter 93A. Among other things, ITEM has wrongfully converted and used PPIs patent to its own use without license or consent. 28. ITEMs actions described herein were performed willfully and knowingly. 29. As a result of ITEMs unfair and deceptive conduct, PPI sustained injuries, including but not limited to, irreparable injury to its patented ideas and products.

30. Plaintiffs are entitled to be compensated for all harm sustained by them and to all damages allowed by law, including treble damages, costs, interest and attorneys fees. COUNT IV (Request for Preliminary and Permanent Injunction) 31. PPI restates and realleges each of the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 32. On the facts alleged herein, Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief to remedy the harm being caused by ITEM. 33. PPI has shown a likelihood of success on the merits of her claims. 34. PPI has shown that there is a substantial risk of irreparable harm in the absence of injunctive relief and that PPI has no adequate remedy should the patent infringement continue unabated. 35. PPI has shown that there is no legitimate harm to ITEM should an injunction issue. 36. PPI has shown that public policy and legislative mandate favor the issuance of an injunction to prevent the patent infringement alleged herein. 37. PPI is entitled to first a preliminary, and then a permanent, Order from this Honorable Court prohibiting any further infringement. JURY DEMAND PPI demands a trial by jury on all counts of the Complaint that are so triable. WHEREFORE, PPI prays that this Honorable Court: (a) (b) Enter judgment in PPIs favor on all counts of this Complaint; Award damages on each count of this Complaint to the full extent allowed by law and in equity; (c) Award costs, interest, attorneys fees, multiple and punitive damages where appropriate and as allowed by law;

(d)

Enter any and all injunctive relief as allowed by law, including an Order consistent with Count III, above; and

(e)

Enter such other legal and equitable relief as this Court deems just and proper.

Respectfully submitted, PATTI PRODUCTS, INC., By its attorneys, Timothy J. Perry Timothy J. Perry (BBO#631397) tperry@pkjlaw.com PERRY, KRUMSIEK, & DOLAN, LLP 210 Union Wharf Boston, MA 02109 (617) 720-4300 Dated: August 2, 2013