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
Tekni-Plex et. al. v. Cain et. al.

Tekni-Plex et. al. v. Cain et. al.

Ratings: (0)|Views: 68 |Likes:
Published by PriorSmart
Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 5:13-cv-04502-JLS: Tekni-Plex, Inc. et. al. v. Cain et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the Hon. JEFFREY L. SCHMEHL presiding. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l8RW for more info.
Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 5:13-cv-04502-JLS: Tekni-Plex, Inc. et. al. v. Cain et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the Hon. JEFFREY L. SCHMEHL presiding. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l8RW for more info.

More info:

Published by: PriorSmart on Aug 05, 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

10/09/2013

pdf

text

original

 
IN THE
UNITED STATESDISTRICTCOURT
FORTHE
EASTERN
DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIATEKNI-PLEX, INC. and TRI-SEALHOLDINGS, INC.Plaintiffsv.R. MICHAEL
CAIN
and TAB-IT LLCDefendants
)
))
)
)
)
)
COMPLAINTCivil Action No.JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
1.
PlaintiffsTekni-Plex,Inc. and Tri-Seal Holdings,Inc.(hereinafter collectively "plaintiff')bring this action seeking a declaration,orders and award
of
monetary damages andinjunctive relief against defendants in order to,
inter alia,
halt defendants' misrepresentationsregarding ownership
of
plaintiff's proprietary technology and to correct inventorship
of
andaward ownership to plaintiff
of
U.S.Patent No. 8,348,082 ("the'082 patent,"attached asExhibit A) and allU.S.and foreign counterpart applications and patents thereto (hereinafter collectively"the Patents").
PARTIES
2.
Tekni-Plex,Inc.is a Delaware corporation having a place
of
business in King
of
Prussia,Pennsylvania. Tri-Seal Holdings,Inc.,a Delaware corporation andwhollyowned subsidiary ofplaintiffTekni-Plex,Inc.,is doing business in this District.
3.
Defendant Tab-IT, LLC is,and at all relevant times has been,a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws
of
Pennsylvania havingitsprincipal place
of
business in Mountville, Pennsylvania and conducting business generally in this District.
 
4.
Defendant
R.
Michael Cain ("Cain") is an individual who, at all relevant times,hasbeenresiding and doing business in thisDistrict.On information and belief, Cain formed, organized and has, at all relevant times, been an officer and managing agent
of
defendant Tab-IT,LLC. Cain is the sole named inventor
of
the'082patent and the Patents generally.
JURISDICTIONANDVENUE
5.
This is an action,
inter alia,
forDeclaratoryJudgment arising under 28 U.S.C.
§§
2201, 2202 and
35
U
.S
.C.
§
256
et seq.,
violation
of
the Lanham Act
15
U.S.C.
§
1125(a)
etseq.,
violation
ofthe
Pennsylvania Uniform Trade Secrets Act,
12
Pa.C.S.
§§
5301, 5302
et seq.,
breach
of
contract, common law conversion andunfair competition
6.
Jurisdiction and venue are proper in this Courtpursuantto 28 U.S.C.
§§
1331,1338 and 1391.
FACTS
7.Plaintiff incorporatesbyreference each allegation contained in the paragraphs above as though fully set forth herein.
8.
Plaintiff, through one or more
of
its regular and full-time employees, includingPatrick Santo Moschitto, originally conceived, designed, developed and reduced to practice anew, confidential and proprietary product design, structure and configuration comprising a pulltab innerseal and a method
of
manufacture therefor (hereinafter collectively
"plaintiffs
proprietary innerseal technology"). Substantially all
of
the details
of
and for the design,structure, composition and method
of
manufacture
of
plaintiffs
proprietary innerseal technologyare described and claimed in the Patents including the'082patent.2
 
9. At and during the time that
plaintiffs
proprietary innerseal technology wasconceived, developed and reduced to practice,Cain was a full-time,regular employee
of
plaintiffand working with the design-and-development team,from whom Cain learned about said technology together with
plaintiffs
confidential internal electronic and paper records.10. While Cain was employed by plaintiff,one
of
Cain's duties was to work
on
theproject to develop
plaintiffs
proprietary innerseal technology,which Cain knew was confidentialand proprietary to plaintiff.11. At all relevant times,plaintiff required all employees involved with theproprietary innerseal technology to agree to maintain said technology in confidence and to assignany rights arising out
of
inventorship therein to plaintiff.
12
.At all relevant times,Cain knew that
plaintiffs
proprietaryinnerseal technology was confidential information proprietary to plaintiff and was not to be disclosed to or used byany third partyincluding Cain without authorization from plaintiff.
13
.In knowing violation
of
his obligations to plaintiff,Cain applied for the Patentsincluding the'082 patent in his own name as the purported sole inventor
of
an allegedinvention(s) that is comprised
of
plaintiffs
proprietary innerseal technology.14.In knowing violation
of
his obligations to plaintiff,Cain caused the Patentsincluding the'082 patent to be applied for and issued naming himself as the sole inventor andfurther purporting to assign exclusive ownership
of
the Patents,including the'082 patent, to Tab-IT,LLC.
15
.On information and belief,Cain formed and is using defendant Tab-IT,LLC as a vehicle for attempting to commercially exploit the Patents and the subject matter thereofincluding
plaintiffs
proprietary innerseal technology without authorization from plaintif
f.
In3

You're Reading a Free Preview

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