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
U-Haul International v. Sela Products et. al.

U-Haul International v. Sela Products et. al.

Ratings: (0)|Views: 37|Likes:
Published by PriorSmart
Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. None: U-Haul International Incorporated v. Sela Products LLC et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l9fA for more info.
Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. None: U-Haul International Incorporated v. Sela Products LLC et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l9fA for more info.

More info:

Published by: PriorSmart on Oct 07, 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

06/30/2014

pdf

text

original

 
 
563482.DOC
-1-1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526
Richard E. OneyState Bar No. 009235
Third Floor Camelback Esplanade II2525 East Camelback RoadPHOENIX, ARIZONA 85016-4237TELEPHONE: (602) 255-6000FACSIMILE: (602) 255-0103reo@tblaw.com
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTDISTRICT OF ARIZONAU-Haul International, Inc., a Nevada corporation,Plaintiff,v.Sela Products, LLC, an Oklahoma limited liabilitycompany; Nihat Itmec, an individual; A. RifatKars, an individual; and Douglas Donald, anindividual,Defendants.Case No.
COMPLAINT
Jury Trial Requested For its complaint against the defendants, U-Haul International, Inc. alleges asfollows:
Parties
1.
 
Plaintiff U-Haul International, Inc. (hereinafter “U-Haul”) is a Nevadacorporation having its principal place of business in Phoenix, Arizona.2.
 
On information and belief, defendant Sela Products, LLC (“Sela Products”)is an Oklahoma limited liability company with its principal place of business in Edmond,Oklahoma.
 
 
563482.DOC
-2-1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526
3.
 
On information and belief, defendant Nihat Itmec is a citizen and residentof Turkey.4.
 
On information and belief, defendant A. Rifat Kars is a citizen and residentof Turkey.5.
 
On information and belief, defendant Douglas Donald is a citizen and resident of Oklahoma and was an employee of defendant Sela Products at all timesrelevant to this matter.
Jurisdiction and Venue
 6.
 
This is an action for declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. This Court has jurisdiction over this dispute pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331(federal question jurisdiction), 1338 (patents), and 1367 (supplemental jurisdiction). Anactual controversy exists as to the inventorship and/or invalidity of a United States patent.7.
 
Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b).
General Allegations
8.
 
By early 2009, U-Haul was working with defendant Sela Products inconnection with the development of a design for a wheeled dolly for moving furniture or heavy loads (the “U-Haul dolly”). U-Haul and Paul Grabill, an employee of U-Haul,were intimately involved in the design and testing of the U-Haul dolly.9.
 
By August 5, 2009, the development of the U-Haul dolly design wascompleted and U-Haul began purchasing units of the dolly from Sela Products, whicharranged for manufacture of the dolly in accordance with the completed design.10.
 
Sometime thereafter, U-Haul discontinued purchasing the U-Haul dolliesfrom Sela Products and began purchasing the dollies from another supplier, SouthernPerfections Fabrication Holdings, Inc. (“SPFH, Inc.”).11.
 
On information and belief, by July 20, 2010, Sela Products prepared a patent application relating to the U-Haul dolly design, naming only defendants Nihat
 
 
563482.DOC
-3-1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526
Itmec, A. Rifat Kars and Douglas Donald as inventors. Sela Products did this without theknowledge of U-Haul or Paul Grabill.12.
 
Sela Products also obtained an assignment from defendants Nihat Itmec, A.Rifat Kars and Douglas Donald of all of their right, title and interest in the patentapplication and any and all Letters Patent that may be granted based upon that patentapplication.13.
 
On August 20, 2010, Sela Products filed the patent application as U.S.Patent Application No. 12/859,939 (the “'939 Patent Application”), still without theknowledge of U-Haul or Paul Grabill and incorrectly naming defendants Nihat Itmec, A.Rifat Kars, Douglas Donald as the only inventors.14.
 
On October 1, 2013, based on the '939 Patent Application, the United StatesPatent and Trademark Office issued United States Patent No. 8,544,859 (the “'859Patent”), which incorrectly named defendants Nihat Itmec, A. Rifat Kars and DouglasDonald as the only inventors.15.
 
Around the time that the '859 Patent issued, U-Haul first became aware thatSela Products had filed the '939 Patent Application. On or about September 25, 2013,Sela Products had its patent counsel send a demand letter to U-Haul’s current supplier,SPFH, Inc., advising that the '859 Patent would issue within a week, that the U-Hauldolly would infringe the issued patent, and demanding that SPFH, Inc. cease and desistfrom supplying the U-Haul dollies to U-Haul.16.
 
U-Haul has an interest in the '859 Patent for at least the reason that PaulGrabill is obligated to assign his interest in that patent to U-Haul.
Count I (Correction of Inventorship)
(Against All Defendants)17.
 
U-Haul realleges and incorporates by reference all of the precedingaverments of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

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)//-->