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
0Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Donaldson Company v. Baldwin Filters.pdf

Donaldson Company v. Baldwin Filters.pdf

Ratings: (0)|Views: 37|Likes:
Published by PatentBlast
Donaldson Company v. Baldwin Filters
Donaldson Company v. Baldwin Filters

More info:

Published by: PatentBlast on Nov 14, 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

11/14/2013

pdf

text

original

 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA DONALDSON COMPANY, INC.,
 Plaintiff, )) ) ) ) v. ))Civil Action No. 13-cv-3095
BALDWIN FILTERS, INC.
Defendant. )) ) ) ) 
COMPLAINT FOR REVIEW OF PATENT INTERFERENCE DECISION
Plaintiff Donaldson Company, Inc. (“Donaldson”) for its Complaint against defendant Baldwin Filters, Inc. (“Baldwin”) states and alleges as follows:
THE PARTIES
1.
 
Plaintiff Donaldson is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware, with its principal place of business as 1400 West 94
th
 Street, Bloomington, Minnesota 55431. 2.
 
Defendant Baldwin is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware, with its principal place of business at 400 E. Highway 30, Kearney, Nebraska 68847.
JURISDICTION, VENUE, AND TIMELINESS
 3.
 
The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 35 U.S.C. § 146 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). 4.
 
Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c). 5.
 
This Court has personal jurisdiction over Baldwin under Minn. Stat. § 543.19  because, on information and belief, Baldwin transacts business within the state of Minnesota and
 
 
2 because this action arises out of and/or relates to Baldwin’s business activities in Minnesota. In addition, Baldwin has conducted business in Minnesota and has engaged in systematic and continuous contacts within Minnesota. 6.
 
This action under 35 U.S.C. § 146 is timely. On September 13, 2013, the Patent and Trial Appeal Board issued a Decision on Rehearing in response to a timely Request for Rehearing filed by Donaldson. 37 C.F.R. § 1.304(a)(1) requires that the time for commencing a civil action shall expire two months after action on a request for rehearing or reconsideration of a decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. This action, filed on or before  November 13, 2013, is timely.
NATURE OF ACTION
 7.
 
This is an action under 35 U.S.C. § 146 to review decisions of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, now known as the Patent and Trial Appeal Board (“Board”), of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) in Interference No. 105,799 (“the ’799 interference”).
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
 8.
 
This action arises from the ’799 interference, which was declared by the PTO on April 6, 2011. 9.
 
The ’799 interference concerned U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 12/321,127 (“the ’127 application”) to Kevin Schrage, Troy Murphy and Donald Raymond Mork, and U.S. Patent No. 7,318,851 (“the ’851 patent”) to Gene Brown and Steven Merritt. 10.
 
Kevin Schrage, Troy Murphy and Donald Raymond Mork assigned their interest in the ’127 application to Donaldson, and the assignment is recorded at the PTO at Reel 016472, Frame 0962.
 
 
311.
 
Gene Brown and Steven Merritt assigned their interest in the ’851 patent to Baldwin, and the assignment is recorded at the PTO at Reel 016234, Frame 0725. 12.
 
The ’127 application was filed on January 14, 2009, and claims priority to U.S. Application No. 12/215,725 (“the ’725 application”), filed on June 30, 2008. The ’725 application claims priority to U.S. Patent Application No. 11/019,883 (“the ’883 application”), filed on December 21, 2004. The ’883 application claims priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/532,783 (“the ’783 application”), filed on December 22, 2003. 13.
 
The ’851 patent issued from U.S. Patent Application No. 10/979,876 (“the ’876 application”), filed on November 2, 2004. 14.
 
On April 6, 2011, the Board declared the ’799 interference naming the first inventor of the ’127 application, Schrage, as the Senior Party (“Senior Party Donaldson”) and named the inventor of the ’851 patent, Brown, as the Junior Party (“Junior Party Baldwin”). In the Declaration of Interference, the Board identified a single Count comprising claim 1 of the ‘127 application or claim 1 of the ’851 patent (“Count 1”). Claims 1-66 of the ’127 application (“Donaldson’s involved claims”) and claims 1-46 of the ’851 patent (“Baldwin’s involved claims”) were designated as corresponding to Count 1. 15.
 
On June 9, 2011, Senior Party Donaldson filed its list of proposed motions. Donaldson requested authorization to file the following motions: (1) motion that the involved claims of Junior Party Baldwin are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)(1) and (2) and/or § 103(a); (2) motion that claims 1-5, 7, and 9-20 of Junior Party Baldwin are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and/or (b) and/or § 103(a); motion that, in the event the second motion was not granted, to redefine the interference by adding two additional counts; and (4) motion that

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)//-->