LAW OFFICES OF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

VENABLE, CAMPILLO, LOGAN & MEANEY, P.C.

1938 EAST OSBORN ROAD PHOENI X, ARIZONA 85016 TELEPHONE (602) 631-9100 FACSIMILE (602) 631 9796 E-MAIL DOCKETING@VCLMLAW .COM

Lance C. Venable (AZ Bar No 017074) Joseph R. Meaney (AZ Bar No. 017371) Attorneys for Plaintiffs UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 1. Phoenix, Arizona. 2. Upon information and belief, Desco is a California corporation having its Plaintiff Botron Co., Inc. (Botron) seeks a Declaratory Judgment that Botron is not infringing any rights, Patent or otherwise, owned by Defendant Desco Industries, Inc. (Desco"). In support of this action, Botron alleges as follows: PARTIES AND JURISDICTION Botron is an Arizona corporation with its principal place of business in BOTRON CO., INC.; an Arizona Corporation, Plaintiffs, vs. DESCO INDUSTRIES, INC., a California Corporation, Defendant. Case No.: COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

(JURY TRIAL REQUESTED)

23
24 25 26 27 28

principal place of business in Chino, California. 3. Personal jurisdiction over the Defendant is proper in this District based on

contacts and the business it advertises for and conducts within with this state. 4. This Complaint for Declaratory Judgment under 28 U.S.C. 2201 and 2202,

is properly filed in respect to an actual controversy of which this Court has

-1-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

jurisdiction under the Patent Laws of the United States (35 US.C. 1 et. seq.) and 28 U.S.C. 1338. 5. Venue is proper in this district under to 28 U.S.C. 1400. SUBJECT MATTER OF CONTROVERSY AND ACTS COMPLAINED OF 6. Botron is a resident of this District and develops and sells electrostatic

discharge (ESD) safe and static control equipment, including one under the name Elite throughout the country including to customers in this District. 7. On or about December 12, 2011, Botron received a letter from Desco. The

8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

letter alleged that Botron was using a product that was covered by U.S. Patent No. 6,078,875 (the 875 Patent), which Botron identified as the Elite product. 8. Desco further alleged that it owned all rights to the 875 Patent and that by Botron responded to Descos letter by sending a response letter on December using the Elite product, Botron infringed Descos rights under the U.S. Patent Laws. 9. 29. In the letter, Botron requested that Botron clarify what claims of the 875 patent were being infringed. 10. A week later, Botron received a letter from Descos counsel. The letter

specifically threatened Botron that if it refused to immediately stop making, using, selling, and offering for sale of its Elite product, or any similar product that infringed the 875 patent, Desco would proceed by taking legal action against Botron. 11. Descos threats and actions have placed Botron in reasonable apprehension of

being sued by Desco, and have created an actual controversy within the scope of 28 U.S.C. 2201. 12. Botron believes that it has not violated any of Descos rights under the patent

23
24 25 26 27 28

laws and is not otherwise liable to Desco for any actions arising out of the use, sale, or offer for sale of its Elite product. 13. Botron further alleges that the 875 Patent is invalid as being anticipated or

rendered obvious by prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 and perhaps other

-2-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

sections of 35 U.S.C. as well. 14. Unless Desco is permanently enjoined from doing so, it will continue to assert

its perceived rights against Botron, its officers, and its customers. 15. Unless Desco is enjoined from doing so, Botron will continue to be greatly and Descos charge of patent infringement constitutes a grave and wrongful

irreparably injured and has no adequate remedy at law. 16. interference with Botrons business in this District and elsewhere throughout the United States.

8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Botron prays for judgment as follows: 1. For a judgment and declaration that the sale of Botrons Elite product, or any related product, does not infringe any rights owned by Desco; 2. For a judgment and declaration that the 875 Patent is invalid under at least one section of 35 U.S.C. 3. For a decree enjoining and restraining Desco from all further charges of infringement and violations of rights, including: a. threatening Botrons existing or prospective customers, suppliers, dealers or any users of its Elite product with statements or representations that they are performing acts or engaged in activity that violate Descos rights; and b. initiating or maintaining infringement litigation, or threatening litigation, against Botrons existing or prospective customers, suppliers, dealers or any users of its software that asserts or charges infringement or other violation of Descos rights; 4. For damages in the amount proven at trial; 5. For Botrons attorneys fees; 6. For Botrons costs of suit incurred herein; and

23
24 25 26 27 28

-3-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

7. For other relief as the Court believes is just and proper.

JURY DEMAND Botron demands a jury trial on all triable issues.

Dated this 13th day of January 2012 Venable, Campillo, Logan & Meaney, P.C.

8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

By /s/Lance C. Venable Lance C. Venable SBN 017074 Joseph R. Meaney SBN 017371 1938 East Osborn Road Phoenix, Arizona 85016 Tel: 602-631-9100 Fax: 602-631-4529 E-Mail docketing@vclmlaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff

23
24 25 26 27 28

-4-