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
0Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
June Tailor v. Fairfield Processing

June Tailor v. Fairfield Processing

Ratings: (0)|Views: 10|Likes:
Published by PatentBlast
June Tailor v. Fairfield Processing
June Tailor v. Fairfield Processing

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

06/20/2013

pdf

text

original

 
4845-4776-4500.1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTEASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
JUNE TAILOR, INC.,Plaintiff,v.FAIRFIELD PROCESSING CORP.,Defendant.Case No. _____________  
COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff June Tailor, Inc. (“June Tailor”), for its Complaint against DefendantFairfield Processing Corp. (“Fairfield”), alleges as follows:
PARTIES
1.
 
June Tailor is a Wisconsin corporation having a place of business at 2861Highway 175, Richfield, Wisconsin 53076.2.
 
Fairfield is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the stateof Connecticut, having a place of business at 88 Rose Hill Avenue, Danbury, Connecticut,06810. Fairfield is engaged in the business of, among other things, making (or having made),offering to sell, and selling fusible batting products for use in quilting.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3.
 
Fairfield has committed certain acts of patent infringement in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271 in this judicial district, including the offer to sell and sale of infringing products.
 
- 2 -
4845-4776-4500.1
4.
 
This Court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over the subject matter  pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338.5.
 
This Court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant, because Fairfield conducts business in this judicial district through purposeful, continuous and systematic contactsin this judicial district, including offers to sell and sales of infringing products in this judicialdistrict and throughout the United States.6.
 
Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400(b) because this Court can properly exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant, and the defendant has committed certain acts of patent infringement in this judicial district.
BACKGROUND
7.
 
June Tailor owns all rights, title and interest in U.S. Patent No. 6,838,398entitled “Quilting Method and System” (the ‘398 patent), that issued on January 4, 2005. A copyof the ‘398 patent is attached as Exhibit A.8.
 
June Tailor owns all rights, title and interest in U.S. Patent No. 7,176,148entitled “Quilting Method and System” (the ‘148 patent), that issued on February 13, 2007. Acopy of the ‘148 patent is attached as Exhibit B.9.
 
June Tailor is engaged in the business of commercializing productsincluding a fusible batting. The fusible batting sold by June Tailor includes the “Quilter’sFusible Batting.” Copies of promotional materials of June Tailor showing the Quilter’s FusibleBatting are attached as Exhibit C. Such promotional materials can also be seen athttp://store.junetailor.com/store/c-9-fusible-batting.aspx.
 
- 3 -
4845-4776-4500.1
10.
 
Fairfield makes, uses, offers to sell, and sells products for quilting,including, among other products, “Soft n Crafty®.” Soft n Crafty® products are being offered for sale in this judicial district.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION – INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘398 PATENT
11.
 
June Tailor repeats all of the allegations of Paragraphs 1-11 of thisComplaint as if set forth fully herein.12.
 
Fairfield has infringed, and currently continues to infringe the ‘398 patentin this judicial district and elsewhere in the United States by, among other actions, making,using, offering to sell, and selling products including but not limited to Soft n Crafty®, inviolation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).13.
 
Infringement by Fairfield of the ‘398 patent has caused and will continueto cause damage to June Tailor.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION – INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘148 PATENT
14.
 
June Tailor repeats all of the allegations of Paragraphs 1-14 of thisComplaint as if set forth fully herein.15.
 
Fairfield has infringed and continues to infringe the ‘148 patent in this judicial district and elsewhere in the United States by, among other actions, making, using,offering to sell, and selling products including but not limited to Soft n Crafty®, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).16.
 
Infringement by Fairfield of the ‘148 patent has caused and will continueto cause damage to June Tailor.

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)//-->