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
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Woodbolt Distribution v. Natural Alternatives International

Woodbolt Distribution v. Natural Alternatives International

Ratings: (0)|Views: 65 |Likes:
Published by PriorSmart
Official Complaint for Declaratory Judgement in Civil Action No. 4:13-cv-01834: Woodbolt Distribution, LLC v. Natural Alternatives International, Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l8DB for more info.
Official Complaint for Declaratory Judgement in Civil Action No. 4:13-cv-01834: Woodbolt Distribution, LLC v. Natural Alternatives International, Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l8DB for more info.

More info:

Published by: PriorSmart on Jun 25, 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

03/21/2014

pdf

text

original

 
70901-080001
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXASHOUSTON DIVISION
 
WOODBOLT DISTRIBUTION, LLC, )))Plaintiff, ) Civil Action No.: __________ )v. )) JURY DEMANDED) NATURAL ALTERNATIVES )INTERNATIONAL, INC., ))Defendant. )
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY,NONINFRINGEMENT AND UNENFORCEABILITY OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,470,865NATURE OF ACTION
1.
 
This is an action for declaratory judgment of non-infringement, invalidity andunenforceability of U.S. Patent No. 8,470,865 (“’865 Patent”) pursuant to the DeclaratoryJudgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202, and the United States Patent Law, 35 U.S.C. § 100
et  seq.
 
THE PARTIES
 2.
 
Woodbolt Distribution, LLC (“Woodbolt”) is a corporation organized andexisting under the laws of the State of Texas with its principal place of business located at 715 N.Main Street, Bryan, TX 77803-3327. Woodbolt manufactures and sells dietary foodsupplements, including supplements containing beta-alanine, a common and naturally occurringamino acid.3.
 
On information and belief, Defendant Natural Alternatives International, Inc.(“NAI”) is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware with its
 
70901-080002 principal place of business located at 1185 Linda Vista Drive, San Marcos, California 92078. Oninformation and belief, NAI owns by assignment the ’865 Patent.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
 4.
 
This Court has exclusive subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1331, 1338(a), 2201, 2202, and the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1,
et seq
.5.
 
This Court has personal jurisdiction over NAI because NAI has sought to enforceits related U.S. Patent No. 8,067,381 (“’381 Patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 8,129,422 (“‘422Patent”) in this Court.6.
 
Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because NAI issubject to personal jurisdiction in this Court.
FACTUAL BACKGROUNDA. NAI’s Prior Patent Infringement Actions In This Court
 7.
 
 NAI filed a patent infringement action on the ’381 Patent, Civil Action No. 4:11-cv-4511 in this Court on December 21, 2011 against Woodbolt and its contract manufacturers based on Woodbolt’s sales of its products containing beta-alanine (“’381 Patent Action”).8.
 
 NAI filed a patent infringement action on the ’422 Patent, Civil Action No. 4:12-cv-1388, in this Court on May 3, 2012 against Woodbolt based on Woodbolt’s sales of its beta-alanine products (“’422 Patent Action”).9.
 
Civil Action No. 4:12-cv-1388 has been consolidated into Civil Action No. 4:11-cv-4511 (“Consolidated Action”).10.
 
Presently pending before the Court in the Consolidated Action are a number of motions, including Woodbolt’s Motion For Summary Judgment that the ’381 Patent and ’422Patent are invalid.
 
70901-080003
B. Woodbolt’s
Inter Parte
Reexaminationsin the United States Patent and Trademark Office
11.
 
On May 31, 2012, Woodbolt filed a Request for 
 Inter Partes
Reexamination inthe United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) on the ’381 Patent (“’381 PatentReexamination Request”) alleging that the ’381 Patent claims are unpatentable on a number of alternate grounds. One ground was because of a defective priority claim due to NAI’s express priority disclaimer in an earlier application (Ser. No. 10/717,217 filed November 18, 2003). Theeffect of the express priority disclaimer made U.S. Patent No. 5,965,596 (“’596 Patent”), NAI’searliest patent on the same subject matter, prior art to the ’381 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).The ’596 Patent discloses each and every feature of the ’381 Patent claims. Other grounds werethat the ’381 Patent claims were unpatentable in view of multiple prior art publications not previously considered by the USPTO.12.
 
On July 26, 2012, the USPTO issued an Order Granting Reexamination (“’381Patent Reexamination Order”) and an Office Action finding all claims in the ’381 Patentunpatentable due to the priority defect, and, alternatively, unpatentable based on multiple prior art publications not previously considered by the USPTO cited by Woodbolt in its ’381 PatentReexamination Request (“’381 Reexamination Office Action”).13.
 
On October 29, 2012, NAI filed a Response to the ’381 Reexamination OfficeAction.14.
 
On November 28, 2012, Woodbolt filed Comments on NAI’s Response(“Woodbolt’s Comments in ’381 Reexam”). As of this date, the USPTO has not withdrawn itsfinding and rulings that the claims are unpatentable.15.
 
On July 19, 2012, Woodbolt filed a Request for 
 Inter Partes
Reexamination in theUnited States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) on the ’422 Patent (“’422 Patent

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)//-->