Tennier demanded that ARP “immediately cease and desist from all further manufacture, use, offers for sale, and sales of sleeping bags that infringe the ‘216 Patent, andfrom importing any such sleeping bags into the United States.”10.
Tennier also demanded that ARP notify its customers that the allegedly infringingsleeping bags would no longer be commercially available. Tennier reiterated these demands inemails to undersigned counsel.11.
ARP has not infringed and does not infringe, directly or indirectly, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, any valid and enforceable claim of the ‘216 patent.12.
In light of the demands Tennier has imposed on ARP, its customer, and itsmanufacturer, there exists a controversy of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant adeclaratory judgment concerning the parties’ respective rights as they relate to the
COUNT IDeclaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of the ‘216 Patent
ARP incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in all preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.14.
Based on Tennier’s allegations of infringement of the ‘216 patent, there is anactual controversy between the parties with respect to infringement of the ‘216 patent.15.
ARP seeks a declaration from this Court that it has not infringed, and is not nowinfringing, the ‘216 patent.16.
ARP additionally seeks a declaration from this Court that Tennier’s allegations of infringement fail, in whole or in part, as a result of 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a) because ARP’s accused products are sold for the benefit of the United States and with its authorization and consent.
COUNT IIDeclaratory Judgment of Invalidity of the
ARP incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in all preceding