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
Supermarket Energy Solutions v. Supermarket Energy Technologies

Supermarket Energy Solutions v. Supermarket Energy Technologies

Ratings: (0)|Views: 58 |Likes:
Published by PriorSmart
Official Complaint for Declaratory Judgement in Civil Action No. 0:13-cv-03137: Supermarket Energy Solutions, Inc. v. Supermarket Energy Technologies, LLC. Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l9uE for more info.
Official Complaint for Declaratory Judgement in Civil Action No. 0:13-cv-03137: Supermarket Energy Solutions, Inc. v. Supermarket Energy Technologies, LLC. Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l9uE for more info.

More info:

Published by: PriorSmart on Nov 14, 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

12/03/2013

pdf

text

original

 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Supermarket Energy Solutions, Inc., Plaintiff, v. Supermarket Energy Technologies, LLC, Defendants. Civil No.:
COMPLAINT FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT (JURY TRIAL DEMANDED)
Plaintiff, Supermarket Energy Solutions, Inc. for its Complaint against the Defendant, hereby alleges as follows:
THE PARTIES
1.
 
Plaintiff Supermarket Energy Solutions, Inc., is a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Minnesota and has a principal place of business in Buffalo, Minnesota. 2.
 
Defendant Supermarket Energy Technologies, LLC is an Arizona limited liability corporation with its principal place of business in Phoenix, Arizona.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3.
 
There is an actual justiciable case or controversy between the parties  pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 regarding the validity and infringement of U. S. Patent 8,539,783 (“the ‘783 Patent”)
.
4.
 
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the Defendant under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a) as this is a declaratory  judgment action arising under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1
et.seq.
 
 
 2
5.
 
This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendant by virtue of Defendant doing business in this District. 6.
 
Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
7.
 
Defendant purports to be the assignee and owner of the ‘783 Patent that issued on September 24, 2013. 8.
 
On October 1, 2013, Defendant through its counsel sent a letter to Plaintiff’s counsel charging that Plaintiff infringes the claims of the ‘783 Patent. The letter includes a claim chart that purports to compare claim 1 of the ‘783 Patent to the Plaintiff’s accused device. Defendant has demanded that Plaintiff redesign its product or  pay a licensing fee to Defendant. 9.
 
The patent application that issued as the ‘783 Patent was filed on February 22, 2010. In the prosecution of the ‘783 Patent application, the applicant alleged to have conceived the invention of the ‘783 Patent prior to November 21, 2008 and submitted documents purporting to show testing of the invention from January 21, 2008 to February 2, 2008. 10.
 
The Plaintiff conceived the invention claimed in the ‘783 Patent well prior to the alleged conception date asserted by the applicant in the ‘783 Patent application. The Plaintiff diligently worked on reducing the invention to practice from its conception date to the fall of 2008. On November 21, 2008, Plaintiff filed a provisional patent application on its invention and that application is now pending in the United States Patent and Trademark Office as a regular utility patent application published on March
 
 3
22, 2012 as US 2012/0067072A1. Plaintiff’s application discloses and claims the same invention claimed in the ‘783 Patent.
COUNT I (DECLARATION OF INVALIDITY)
11.
 
The Plaintiff repeats and incorporates herein the allegations of paragraphs 1-10 above. 12.
 
This Count arises under the Declaratory Judgments Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
et.seq
, and the patent laws of the United States 35 U.S.C. § 1
et.seq.
This Count seeks a declaratory judgment that the claims of the ‘783 Patent are invalid. 13.
 
The Defendant purports to be the assignee and owner of the ‘783 Patent. 14.
 
The Defendant has accused Plaintiff of infringement of the claims of the ‘783 Patent. 15.
 
Upon information and belief, the claims of the ‘783 Patent are invalid and void on the grounds that the purported invention fails to meet the conditions of  patentability specified in Title 35 of the United States Code, including, but not limited to, 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103 and 112. 16.
 
More specifically, the claims of the ‘783 Patent are invalid and void under 35 U.S.C. § 102(g)(2) in that before the alleged invention by the Defendant, the invention was made by the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff had not abandoned, suppressed , or concealed it. 17.
 
A judicial declaration is necessary to resolve this controversy. The Plaintiff is entitled to a declaratory judgment that the claims of the ‘783 Patent are invalid.

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)//-->