Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
American Recreation Products v. Tennier Industries

American Recreation Products v. Tennier Industries

Ratings: (0)|Views: 57 |Likes:
Published by PriorSmart
Official Complaint for Declaratory Judgement in Civil Action No. 4:13-cv-00421: American Recreation Products LLC v. Tennier Industries, Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l7Mw for more info.
Official Complaint for Declaratory Judgement in Civil Action No. 4:13-cv-00421: American Recreation Products LLC v. Tennier Industries, Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l7Mw for more info.

More info:

Published by: PriorSmart on Mar 08, 2013
Copyright:Public Domain

Availability:

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

03/08/2013

pdf

text

original

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTEASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURIEASTERN DIVISIONAMERICAN RECREATION PRODUCTS,LLC,Plaintiff,vs.TENNIER INDUSTRIES, INC.Defendant.))))))))))) No.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDEDCOMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
Plaintiff American Recreation Products, LLC alleges as follows for its Complaint againstDefendant Tennier Industries, Inc.:
Parties
 1.
 
Plaintiff American Recreation Products, LLC (“ARP”) is a Delaware limitedliability company with a principal place of business at 600 Kellwood Parkway, Chesterfield,Missouri 63017.2.
 
On information and belief, Tennier Industries, Inc. (“Tennier”) is a New York corporation with a principal place of business in Boca Raton, Florida.
Nature of the Action
 3.
 
ARP brings this action for declaratory relief under the Patent Laws of the UnitedStates, 35 U.S.C. § 100
et seq
. ARP seeks a declaratory judgment that it does not infringe anyclaim of U.S. Patent No. 5,533,216 (“the ‘216 patent”), that it cannot be held liable for infringement of the ‘216 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 1498(a), and that the claims of the ‘216 patent are invalid.
 
 2
Jurisdiction and Venue
 4.
 
The Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and1338(a) because the claims alleged below are brought under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28U.S.C. §§ 2201(a) and 2202, and the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 100
et seq
.5.
 
Tennier is subject to personal jurisdiction in the Eastern District of Missouri because it possesses the necessary minimum contacts with Missouri and because such anexercise of personal jurisdiction in this district would not offend traditional notions of fair playand substantial justice. Tennier’s contacts with Missouri include Tennier’s repeated allegationsof patent infringement directed at ARP in Missouri, Tennier’s allegations of patent infringementdirected at ARP’s customers, again with effects directed at Missouri, Tennier’s apparent plans tointerrupt ARP’s supply of accused products which are manufactured in Missouri, and, oninformation and belief, the business Tennier transacts in Missouri.6.
 
Venue in this district is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because asubstantial part of the actions, statements, threats, and property giving rise to ARP’s claimsoccurred or is located in this district, and because Tennier is subject to personal jurisdiction inthis district.
Substantial Controversy Between The Parties
 7.
 
Tennier asserts that it owns all right, title and interest in the ‘216 patent, entitled“MODULAR SLEEPING BAG,” which was issued on July 9, 1996. A copy of the ‘216 patentis attached to this Complaint as Exhibit A.8.
 
On February 19, 2013, Tennier sent a letter to ARP, alleging that a product knownas the Slumberjack MSS Complete Modular Sleep System (“the accused product”) infringes the‘216 patent. A copy of Tennier’s letter is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit B.
 
 39.
 
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
ʼ
216 patent.
COUNT IDeclaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of the ‘216 Patent
13.
 
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
ʼ
216 Patent
17.
 
ARP incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in all preceding

You're Reading a Free Preview

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