Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
PhatRat Technology v. Riddell

PhatRat Technology v. Riddell

Ratings: (0)|Views: 151 |Likes:
Published by PriorSmart
Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-01217: PhatRat Technology, LLC v. Riddell. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l7E2 for more info.
Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-01217: PhatRat Technology, LLC v. Riddell. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l7E2 for more info.

More info:

Published by: PriorSmart on Feb 14, 2013
Copyright:Public Domain


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Civil Action No.
Plaintiff PhatRat Technology, LLC (“PhatRat”) complains against Riddell(“Riddell”) as follows:
1. Plaintiff PhatRat is a Colorado limited liability company having a place of  business at 10437 Goosehaven Drive, Lafayette, Colorado, 80026. PhatRat is theexclusive licensee and holder of all substantial rights to U.S. Patent Nos. 7,386,401(entitled “Helmet That Reports Impact Information, and Associated Methods”) and7,693,668 (entitled “Impact Reporting Head Gear System and Method”), referred to below as the “PhatRat Patents.” PhatRat has standing to sue for infringement of thePhatRat Patents. The PhatRat Patents and relate to systems and methods for determiningthe impact to a head or helmet during sporting activities and combat, by measuring theimpact to a head and/or helmet, and reporting the impact information wirelessly to aremote location.2. Defendant Riddell is a private corporation headquartered in Rosemont,Illinois. Riddell provides customers its Head Impact Telemetry System (“HITS”) andSideline Response System (“SRS”), aspects of which PhatRat contends infringe the
Case: 1:13-cv-01217 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/14/13 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:1
2PhatRat Patents as alleged below. The HITS technology is mounted within footballhelmets, and in conjunction with SRS, allows for easy and accurate monitoring of on-field head impacts via wireless communication. The technology uses electronics in thehelmet that monitor and record impacts while in use, and measures the location,magnitude, duration and direction of head impacts and impact accumulations andtransmits this information wirelessly to the sideline. Coaches and medical doctors canuse the information to assess the likelihood of a head injury, such as a concussion.
3. This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, e.g., 35U.S.C. §§ 271, 281, 283-285. Subject matter jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331and 1338(a).4. Defendant Riddell resides in the State of Illinois, and in this judicialdistrict. Accordingly, this Court has personal jurisdiction over Riddell, and venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 and/or 1400.
 5. Inventors Curtis A. Vock, Dennis Darcy and Peter Flentov have over 60years of engineering experience. Between them they have invented over 100 patents, andtheir past employers include leading engineering corporations such as Draper Laboratories, Honeywell, and Lockheed Martin. The inventors made several key intuitiveleaps concerning how to monitor and quantify sports movement, associated either withthe person, the sporting vehicle used by the person, or apparel worn by the person. Theydeveloped the idea over time through a series of patent applications, beginning as early as
Case: 1:13-cv-01217 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/14/13 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:2
31994. The ‘401 Patent issued on June 10, 2008 and the ‘668 Patent issued on April 6,2010.6. Riddell has been aware of patents owned by PhatRat that relate to sportsmonitoring systems since at least approximately July 25, 2006, the date of a firm licenseoffer sent to Riddell on behalf of PhatRat. The offer asked Riddell to review U.S. Patent No. 7,054,784 and U.S. Patent Application No. 11/221,029, now U.S. Patent No.7,162,392 (both then owned by PhatRat) and asked Riddell to contact PhatRat to discusslicensing terms. Both the ‘401 Patent and ‘668 Patent relate to each of the ‘784 and ‘392 patents.7. On February 17, 2011 PhatRat’s counsel sent a follow-up license offer toRiddell indicating that Riddell’s sports monitoring systems were covered by claims inPhatRat’s patent portfolio, including the ‘401 Patent and ‘668 Patent.
8. PhatRat hereby incorporates paragraphs 1-7 above by reference.9. Riddell has infringed at least one claim of the ‘401 Patent through, amongother activities, making, using (for example by testing), offering to sell, and/or selling theRiddell SRS and HITS systems. Riddell’s infringement may include additional products,services and technologies (to be determined in discovery) marketed or used by Riddell.Riddell has also knowingly and intentionally actively aided, abetted and induced others toinfringe (such as its customers, users, and/or business partners in this judicial district andthroughout the United States). Riddell has also knowingly contributed to customer infringement, within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c), by among other things providing
Case: 1:13-cv-01217 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/14/13 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:3

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->