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
H.B. Fuller Company v. Henkel.pdf

H.B. Fuller Company v. Henkel.pdf

Ratings: (0)|Views: 61|Likes:
Published by PatentBlast
H.B. Fuller Company v. Henkel
H.B. Fuller Company v. Henkel

More info:

Published by: PatentBlast on Nov 01, 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

07/02/2014

pdf

text

original

 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA H.B. Fuller Company
,
 
Plaintiff, vs.
Henkel Corporation
, Defendant. Civil No. __________________
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
Plaintiff H.B. Fuller Company (“HBF”), for its Complaint against Defendant Henkel Corporation (“Henkel”), alleges as follows:
PARTIES
 1.
 
Plaintiff HBF is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Minnesota, with its principal place of business at 1200 Willow Lake Boulevard, St. Paul, MN 55110-5101. 2. On information and belief, Defendant Henkel is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware, with its principal place of business at One Henkel Way, Rocky Hill, CT 06067-3581.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
 3. The claims alleged herein arise under the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1,
et seq
.
 
 -2-
dms.us.52642075.04
 
4. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to
28 U
.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). 5. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Henkel under Minn. Stat. § 543.19. For example, Henkel transacts business in Minnesota and has continuous and systematic contacts with Minnesota, including intentionally directing its products for sale into the state of Minnesota, maintaining distributor relationships in the state of Minnesota for the sale of its products, and registering to do business in the state of Minnesota. On information and believe, Henkel also, either by itself or through distributors, offers to sell and/or sells hot melt adhesives in this District, including, in particular, hot melt adhesives under the Technomelt brand name, that infringe the patent at issue in this case. 6. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c), and 1400(b).
PATENT-IN-SUIT
7. On December 21, 2004, United States Patent No. 6,833,404 (“the ’404  patent”), entitled “Hot Melts Utilizing a High Glass Transition Temperature Substantially Aliphatic Tackifying Resin,” was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A true and correct copy of the ’404 patent is attached as Exhibit A. 8. HBF owns the ’404 patent by assignment. 9. Henkel has been on notice of the fact that it makes and sells products that infringe the ’404 patent since at least August 27, 2012, when HBF notified Henkel of its infringement by letter, in compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 287(a).
 
 -3-
dms.us.52642075.04
 
CLAIM FOR RELIEF FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
10. HBF realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 9 as if fully stated herein. 11. Henkel has knowledge of the ’404 patent. 12. Henkel makes, markets, and sells hot melt adhesives under the Technomelt  brand name, including hot melt adhesives marketed as TS-106M and TS-106. 13. On information and belief, Henkel’s hot melt adhesives, including, in  particular, Technomelt hot melt adhesives marketed as TS-106M and TS-106, are covered by at least one claim of the ’404 patent. 14. Accordingly, on information and belief, Henkel has directly infringed and is directly infringing the ’404 patent by making, using, importing into the United States, offering to sell, and/or selling hot melt adhesives, including, in particular, Technomelt hot melt adhesives marketed as TS-106M and TS-106, in the United States, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271. 15. On information and belief, Henkel will continue to directly infringe the ’404 patent unless and until Henkel is enjoined by this Court. 16. As a result, HBF has been and will continue to be damaged and irreparably injured unless and until Henkel’s infringing activities are enjoined by this Court.

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)//-->