Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out 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
AFA Polytek North America Et. Al. v. Clorox Company, The Et. Al.

AFA Polytek North America Et. Al. v. Clorox Company, The Et. Al.

Ratings: (0)|Views: 76|Likes:
Published by PatentBlast
AFA Polytek North America et. al. v. Clorox Company, The et. al.
AFA Polytek North America et. al. v. Clorox Company, The et. al.

More info:

Published by: PatentBlast on Jun 20, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

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

12/24/2013

pdf

text

original

 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTDISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINACHARLESTON DIVISION
AFA POLYTEK (NORTH AMERICA) INC.and DISPENSING TECHNOLOGIES, B.V.,Plaintiffs,v.THE CLOROX COMPANY, GUALADISPENSING S.p.A. and GUALADISPENSING USA NORTH AMERICA,Defendants.CASE NO.:
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Plaintiffs, Afa Polytek (North America) Inc. and Dispensing Technologies, B.V.(collectively, “Plaintiffs”), for their Complaint of patent infringement against Defendants TheClorox Company, Guala Dispensing S.p.A., and Guala Dispensing USA North America(collectively, “Defendants”) do hereby assert and allege:
COMPLAINTPARTIES
1.
 
Plaintiff Afa Polytek (North America) Inc. (“Afa North America”) is acorporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, having a principal place of business at 84 Hubble Drive, O’Fallon, Missouri 63368. Plaintiff Afa North America isa wholly owned subsidiary of Afa Dispensing Group, B.V.2.
 
Plaintiff Dispensing Technologies, B.V. is a company organized and existingunder the laws of the Netherlands, having a principal place of business at Grasbeemd 1, 5705 DEHelmond, Netherlands. Plaintiff Dispensing Technologies, B.V. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Afa Dispensing Group, B.V.3.
 
Upon information and belief, Defendant The Clorox Company (“Clorox”) is acorporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, having a principal place of business at 1221 Broadway, Oakland, California 94612.
2:13-cv-01633-RMG
 
- 2 -4.
 
Upon information and belief, Defendant Guala Dispensing S.p.A. (“GualaS.p.A.”) is a corporation organized under the laws of Italy, having a principal place of business atZona Industriale D/5, 15122 Spinetta Marengo (AL), Italy.5.
 
Upon information and belief, Defendant Guala Dispensing USA North America(“Guala US”) has a principal place of business at 3838 Colonel Vanderhorst Circle, MountPleasant, South Carolina 29466, and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Guala S.p.A. (Guala USand Guala S.p.A. are referred to herein collectively as “Guala.”)
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
6.
 
This is an action for patent infringement arising under the laws of the United States, Title 35 of the United States Code, including 35 U.S.C. §§ 271 and 281-285. This Courthas original jurisdiction over the subject matter of this claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).7.
 
Defendant Clorox has submitted to the personal jurisdiction of this Court bycommitting acts that establish its legal presence within the State of South Carolina and this judicial district, including acting directly to sell and offer for sale to South Carolina residents inthis judicial district infringing products that practice, embody, and/or facilitate unauthorized useof the claimed inventions of the patent-in-suit, thereby constituting patent infringement under 35U.S.C. § 271(a), and harming Plaintiffs. Upon information and belief, Clorox has also generallyacted to place these infringing products into the stream of commerce with the intent, purpose,and reasonably foreseeable result of supplying the South Carolina market. By virtue of itsabove-described actions, Clorox has transacted business, contracted to supply services or things,committed tortious acts, regularly done or solicited business, engaged in a persistent course of conduct, and/or derived substantial revenues from infringing products used in South Carolina. Inlight of Clorox’s aforementioned contacts with the State of South Carolina and its purposefulavailment of the rights and benefits of South Carolina law, maintenance of this suit in this Courtwould not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.8.
 
Upon information and belief, Defendant Guala US is subject to the personal jurisdiction of this Court by virtue of the fact that it has a regular and established place of  business in this judicial district. Upon information and belief, Defendant Guala US also has
 
- 3 -regularly done or solicited business, engaged in a persistent course of conduct, and/or derived substantial revenues from transacting business and/or contracting to provide products and/or services, including infringing products, in South Carolina. In light of Guala US’saforementioned contacts with the State of South Carolina and its purposeful availment of therights and benefits of South Carolina law, maintenance of this suit in this Court would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.9.
 
Upon information and belief, Defendant Guala S.p.A. is subject to the personal jurisdiction of this Court by virtue of the fact that it has regularly done or solicited business,engaged in a persistent course of conduct, and/or derived substantial revenues from transacting business and/or contracting to provide products and/or services, including infringing products, inSouth Carolina. In light of Guala S.p.A.’s aforementioned contacts with the State of SouthCarolina and its purposeful availment of the rights and benefits of South Carolina law,maintenance of this suit in this Court would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.10.
 
Venue with respect to Defendants is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§§ 1391(b), (c), and (d) and 1400(b) because, inter alia, a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this judicial district, Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in and therefore reside in this judicial district, and Defendants havecommitted acts of patent infringement in this judicial district.
FACTS
11.
 
Afa Dispensing Group, B.V. (“Afa Dispensing”), the parent of Plaintiffs Afa North America and Dispensing Technologies B.V. (Afa Dispensing collectively with Plaintiffs isreferred to as “Afa”), is a world leader in technologically advanced liquid dispensing systems.Afa Dispensing applies its proprietary technologies as a technical platform for developing newways to dispense all types of liquids, beverages, soft food products, and other fluids. AfaDispensing’s wide range of proprietary products includes the best trigger sprayer in the market,known as OpUs
®
.

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)//-->