Sei sulla pagina 1di 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION Conveyor Dynamics Corporation,

Plaintiff, v. General Kinematics Corporation, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No.: 4:12-cv-1488 Jury Trial Demanded

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF PATENT NON-INFRINGEMENT AND PATENT INVALIDITY Plaintiff Conveyor Dynamics Corporation (Plaintiff), by and through its undersigned counsel, as and for its Complaint for Declaratory Judgment against Defendant General Kinematics Corporation (Defendant), alleges as follows: Nature of the Action 1. Plaintiff brings this action for declaratory relief under the patent laws of the

United States, 35 U.S.C. 100 et. seq. This action relates to Defendants allegation that Plaintiff infringes one or more claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,029,796 (the 796 Patent). A true and accurate copy of the 796 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Parties 2. Plaintiff is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State

of Missouri and its principal place of business is at 7000 West Geneva Drive, St. Peters, Missouri 63376. 3. Upon information and belief, Defendant is a corporation organized and existing

under the laws of the State of Illinois, and its principal place of business is at 5050 Ricker Road, Crystal Lake, Illinois 60014.

4.

Defendant transacts business in Missouri, and offers to transact business in

Missouri, with individuals and entities that are residents of Missouri. Jurisdiction and Venue 5. Upon information and belief, this Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of

these claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1332, 1338(a), 2201, and 2202. 6. Upon information and belief, this Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant

because Defendant transacts business in the State of Missouri and throughout the United States and this action arises out of such transactions by Defendant. 7. 1400(b). Allegations of Patent Infringement 8. Plaintiff is engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing, marketing and Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) and (c) and/or

servicing heavy industrial equipment, including vibratory conveyors. Plaintiffs equipment and services are marketed to the manufacturing industries, including foundries. 9. Defendant is engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing, marketing and

servicing heavy industrial equipment, including vibratory conveyors. Defendants equipment and services are marketed to the manufacturing industries, including foundries. 10. The 796 Patent is entitled Two Way Vibratory Conveyor and issued on

February 29, 2000. A true and correct copy of the 796 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 11. On information and belief, Defendant is the owner by assignment of the 796

Patent. See Exhibit A. 12. On August 1, 2012, Defendant sent to Plaintiff a letter entitled Conveyor

Dynamics-labeled Two Way Conveyor and General Kinematics Corp. U.S. Patent 6,029,79 (Defendants Letter). 2

13.

Defendants Letter asserts that Plaintiffs manufacture and sale of a two-way

conveyor that is in operation by a customer of Plaintiff constitutes infringement of the 796 Patent. 14. Defendants Letter further states that, [i]f this is a first or one-time-only

placement of this two-way conveyor design for [Plaintiff] . . ., then [Defendant] wishes to resolve this infringement situation simply, without the need for you to pay compensation and without the need for litigation. 15. Defendants Letter went on to condition the foregoing proposed resolution upon

agreement by Plaintiff and others to: 1) cease all manufacture and sale in or from the United States of the two-way conveyor design such as is operating at [Plaintiffs customers facility], and 2) remove this two-way conveyor from [Plaintiffs customers facility], and any other such machines you have placed up to now. 16. Defendants Letter requested a response from Plaintiff within twenty days of the

August 1, 2012 date of Defendants Letter. 17. Based on Defendants Letter, a substantial controversy exists between Plaintiff

and Defendant, and Plaintiff has a reasonable apprehension of being sued by Defendant because Plaintiff does not agree with the conclusions of Defendants Letter regarding alleged infringement and does not agree to the conditions set forth in Defendants Letter. 18. In light of the August 21, 2012, response deadline imposed by Defendant in

Defendants Letter, this controversy is of sufficient immediacy and reality to justify the issuance of a declaratory judgment regarding the parties respective rights as they relate to the 796 Patent. Plaintiff believes that the claims of the 796 Patent are invalid and not infringed by Plaintiff.

Count I Declaratory Judgment Non-infringement of the 796 Patent 19. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in all preceding

paragraphs of this Complaint as if set forth in full herein. 20. This is a claim for a declaratory judgment that the 796 Patent is not infringed by

Plaintiff, either directly or as an inducing or contributory infringer. 21. A real, actual, and justiciable controversy exists between the parties regarding the

non-infringement of the 796 Patent by Plaintiff. 22. Defendant conditioned its promise not to sue Plaintiff for infringement of the 796

Patent upon these two conditions: (1) that the two-way conveyor at Plaintiffs customers facility was the first of its kind or a one-time-only placement and (2) that Plaintiff agree to cease all manufacture and sale of this particular conveyor design and remove it and all other such machines that Plaintiff has placed with customers. However, the machine in question is not the first of its kind or an isolated placement and Plaintiff does not agree to Defendants proposed conditions. 23. Plaintiff therefore has a reasonable apprehension that Defendant has and will

continue to assert that Plaintiff infringes the 796 Patent. 24. 25. Plaintiff is entitled to a declaratory judgment that will finally resolve this issue. Plaintiffs products, services, and methods do not infringe any valid or

enforceable claim of the 796 Patent. 26. Plaintiff has not directly infringed or induced the infringement of any of the

claims of the 796 Patent, nor has Plaintiff been a contributory infringer of any of the claims of the 796 Patent. Count II Declaratory Judgment 4

Invalidity of the 796 Patent 27. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in all preceding

paragraphs of this Complaint as if set forth in full herein. 28. 29. This is a claim for declaratory judgment of invalidity of the 796 Patent. For the reasons enumerated above, there exists a real, actual, and justiciable

controversy between the parties regarding the validity of the 796 Patent. 30. Plaintiff has a reasonable apprehension that Defendant has and will continue to

assert that the 796 Patent is valid and enforceable, and infringed by Plaintiff. 31. 32. Plaintiff is entitled to a declaratory judgment that will finally resolve this issue. Each of the claims of the 796 Patent is invalid as anticipated under 35 U.S.C.

102, was in public use or on sale in this country more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States under 35 U.S.C. 102, and/or would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the pertinent prior art at the time of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 103. 33. The claims of the 796 Patent are also invalid for lack of enablement, insufficient

written description, indefiniteness, and/or failure to disclose the best mode of the invention under 35 U.S.C. 112. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in its favor and against Defendant as follows: a. Complaint; For judgment in Plaintiffs favor and against Defendant on Counts I and II of the

b.

For a judicial determination and declaration that Plaintiff has not infringed,

contributed to the infringement of, or induced the infringement of any valid, enforceable claim of U.S. Patent No. 6,029,796; c. For a judicial determination and declaration that U.S. Patent No. 6,029,796 is

invalid and/or unenforceable, in whole or in part; d. e. For Plaintiffs attorneys fees and the costs of this action; and For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial on all issues so triable. Respectfully submitted, POLSINELLI SHUGHART PC

By: /s/ Graham L.W. Day Richard D. Lageson, MO26674 Graham L.W. Day, MO45687 Karen M. Zelle, MO63345 100 South Fourth Street, Suite 1000 St. Louis, MO 63102 Tel. No. (314) 889-8000 Fax No. (314) 231-1776 gday@polsinelli.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF CONVEYOR DYNAMICS CORPORATION

Potrebbero piacerti anche