Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Ball Metal Beverage Container v. Cml&J

Ball Metal Beverage Container v. Cml&J

|Views: 17|Likes:
Published by PatentBlast
Ball Metal Beverage Container v. Cml&J
Ball Metal Beverage Container v. Cml&J

More info:

Published by: PatentBlast on Mar 19, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


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





 Civil Action No.BALL METAL BEVERAGE CONTAINER CORP.,a Colorado corporation,Plaintiff,v.CML&J, LLC,a Connecticut limited liability company,Defendant. ______________________________________________________________________________ 
COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND ______________________________________________________________________________ 
 Plaintiff Ball Metal Beverage Container Corp. (“Ball”) for its Complaint and JuryDemand against Defendant CML&J, LLC (“CML&J”), states as follows:
This is an action for a declaratory judgment that Ball and its accused product donot infringe, directly or indirectly, any valid claim of United States Patent No. 8,245,866 (the“’866 patent”) and that at least claims 13-16 of the ’866 patent are invalid. Ball also asserts aclaim for tortious interference against Defendant CML&J, who is the alleged owner of the ’866 patent.
The Parties
Plaintiff Ball is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Coloradowith its corporate headquarters and principal place of business at 9300 West 108th Circle,Westminster, Colorado, 80021.3.
Defendant CML&J is a Limited Liability Company organized and existing under 
2the laws of Connecticut with its principal place of business at 20 Jennifer Lane, Cromwell,Connecticut, 06416. Upon information and belief, Defendant CML&J has no businessoperations other than the assertion and attempted licensing of its patent.
Jurisdiction and Venue
This is an action for declaratory judgment that the claims of United States Patent No. 8,245,866 are invalid and not infringed. This action is brought under the patent laws of theUnited States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 101
et seq
. and the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§2201
et seq
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this Complaint, which arises under the patent laws of the United States, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because Defendant CML&J is subject to jurisdiction in this District, and therefore deemed to reside in this District; under 28 U.S.C. §1391(c) because a substantial part of the events giving rise to Ball’s claims occurred in thisDistrict; and under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) because Defendant CML&J is subject to jurisdiction inthis District, and therefore deemed to reside in this District.6.
This Court also has subject matter jurisdiction over this civil action pursuant to 28U.S.C. §§ 1332(a)(1) and (c)(1) because the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between citizens of different States.7.
This Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over Ball’s tortious interferenceclaim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) because the claim is so related to the declaratory judgmentclaims in the action within the Court’s original jurisdiction that they form part of the same caseor controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.8.
This Court has personal jurisdiction over CML&J because CML&J continues to
3make objectively baseless and bad faith threats of asserting one or more claims of the ’866 patentagainst Ball—the designer and manufacturer of the product at issue with its principal place of  business in Colorado—despite Ball repeatedly providing detailed reasons why it does notinfringe any of the asserted claims and why the asserted claims are invalid. Additionally,CML&J continues to prosecute one or more claims of its objectively baseless and bad faith patent infringement claims against MillerCoors, one of Ball’s largest customers, despite Ball’sdetailed presentation of non-infringement and invalidity defenses to CML&J. Like Ball, itscustomer MillerCoors also has long standing and current ties to Colorado. Coors, a part of theMillerCoors’ joint venture, was founded in 1873 in Golden, Colorado and continues to operatethe Coors Brewery in Golden, Colorado that still stands as one of the largest single-site breweriesin the world. CML&J’s repeated demands, threats and litigation in the face of clear evidence of non-infringement and invalidity constitutes objectively baseless and bad faith assertion of the’866 patent and tortious interference with the business relationship between Ball, themanufacturer of the accused product, and Ball’s customer MillerCoors.
Background Facts & General Allegations
On information and belief, CML&J is the owner by assignment of the ’866 patent,which issued on August 21, 2012 from a patent application filed with the United States Patentand Trademark Office on August 25, 2006. According to the face of the ’866 patent, it claims priority to provisional application number 60/711,197, which was filed on August 25, 2005. Atrue and accurate copy of the ’866 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.10.
In general terms, the claims of the ’866 patent are directed to a container top (alsoknown as a can top or can end) with both a pull tab and a secondary vent opening, e.g., a firstopening that allows a user to pour liquid from a container and a second opening, or vent, that

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)//-->