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
Target Training International v. Stanek Rea

Target Training International v. Stanek Rea

Ratings: (0)|Views: 26|Likes:
Published by PatentBlast
Target Training International v. Stanek Rea
Target Training International v. Stanek Rea

More info:

Published by: PatentBlast on Oct 23, 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

04/02/2014

pdf

text

original

 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWACENTRAL DIVISION
TARGET TRAINING INTERNATIONAL,LTD.,Plaintiff,v.TERESA STANEK REA, ACTINGDIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATESPATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE,Defendant.)))))))))))Civil Action No. 3:13-cv-3057
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Target Training International, LTD ("TTI") for its Complaint against TeresaStanek Rea, the Acting Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO"),alleges and states as follows:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1.
 
This is an action by the assignee and owner of United States Patent No. 7,249,372("the '372 patent") TTI seeking review of the Director's final determination and denial of its 37C.F.R. § 1.181 Petition seeking reconsideration of the PTO's decision to enter an
inter partes
 reexamination filing date of September 14, 2013 for a Reexamination filed against the '372 patent.2.
 
This action arises under the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq., and under theAdministrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701 – 06. This action further arises under the Rules of Practice in Patent Cases, 37 C.F.R. § 1.1 et seq., specifically sections 1.248, 1.181,1.183, 1.915, and 1.919.1
 
PARTIES
 3.
 
Plaintiff TTI is an industry leading organization in the field of data-drivenresearch of human behavior and motivators in the realms of hiring and development. TTI isincorporated in the State of Iowa with a registered agent in the Northern District of Iowa, and with its headquarters and principle place of business in Scottsdale, Arizona.4.
 
Defendant Teresa Stanek Rea serves as Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Acting Director of the PTO. The Director is the head of the PTO and isresponsible for superintending and performing all duties required by law with respect to thegranting and issuing of patents, and is named in her official capacity.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5.
 
This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, 5U.S.C. §§ 701 – 06, and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1338(a) and 1361.6.
 
Venue is proper in this Jurisdictional District under 5 U.S.C. §§ 702 – 06, and 28U.S.C. § 1391(e).7.
 
TTI is registered with the Iowa Secretary of State and has a registered agent inClear Lake, Iowa, in Cerro Gordo County.8.
 
Cerro Gordo County is in the Central Division of the Northern District of Iowawhich makes all filings in this case appropriate in the Sioux City office.
BACKGROUNDThe '372 Patent
9.
 
The '372 patent issued to Plaintiff TTI, as assignee of Bonnstetter et al. on July24, 2007 and attached as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of the '372 patent.2
 
10.
 
The '372 patent issued from a patent application that was filed on January 12,2001.11.
 
The '372 patent is entitled, "Network Based Document Distribution Method" and is directed at a method of distributing and collecting documents over a network and doing business over the Internet.12.
 
TTI is the assignee and sole owner of the '372 patent.
'372 Patent Litigation
 13.
 
The '372 patent is the subject of two related and parallel disputes in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.14.
 
On September 17, 2010, TTI filed a complaint against Extended Disc NorthAmerica, Inc. ("EDNA") for direct and contributory infringement of the '372 patent – Case No.4:10-cv-03350 ("
TTI (I)
").15.
 
On April 4, 2011, Extended DISC International, Inc., a Finnish Corporation,("EDI") filed a first
 Ex Parte
Request for Reexamination.16.
 
On May 4, 2011, EDNA, the U.S. franchisee of EDI and defendant in the firstTexas case, filed the first Motion to Stay Litigation Pending Reexamination of the '372 patent in
TTI (I)
.17.
 
On May 19, 2011, the Court denied EDNA's Motion to Stay PendingReexamination in
TTI (I)
.18.
 
On June 7 2011, and in response to defenses asserted by EDNA, TTI filed asealed Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint in
TTI (I)
to add as a defendant, Extended DISC International, Inc. ("EDI") – the Finland based company.3

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)//-->