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
0Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Lintec v. Disco et. al.

Lintec v. Disco et. al.

Ratings: (0)|Views: 99|Likes:
Published by PriorSmart
Official Complaint for Declaratory Judgement in Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-02434-JWS: Lintec Corporation v. Disco Corporation et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, the Hon. John W Sedwick presiding. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l9AE for more info.
Official Complaint for Declaratory Judgement in Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-02434-JWS: Lintec Corporation v. Disco Corporation et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, the Hon. John W Sedwick presiding. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l9AE for more info.

More info:

Published by: PriorSmart on Dec 02, 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

12/02/2013

pdf

text

original

 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
    B   r   y   a   n    C   a   v   e    L    L    P    T   w   o    N   o   r   t   h    C   e   n   t   r   a   l    A   v   e   n   u   e ,    S   u   i   t   e    2    2    0    0    P   h   o   e   n   i   x ,    A   r   i   z   o   n   a    8    5    0    0    4  -    4    4    0    6    (    6    0    2    )    3    6    4  -    7    0    0    0
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
LINTEC CORPORATION, a Japanesecorporation,Plaintiff,v.DISCO CORPORATION, a Japanesecorporation; and DISCO HI-TEC EUROPE,GMBH, a German limited liability company,Defendants. No.
LINTEC CORPORATION’SCOMPLAINT AGAINST DISCOCORPORATION AND DISCOHI-TEC EUROPE GMBH
Plaintiff Lintec Corporation files this Complaint against Defendants DiscoCorporation and Disco Hi-Tec Europe GmbH, and alleges as follows:
NATURE OF ACTION
1. This is an action for a Declaratory Judgment of Correct Inventorship. In
 Priewasser v. Lintec Corp. & Lintec of America, Inc.
, Case No. 2:13-cv-01109-SRB (D.George C. Chen (SBN 019704)george.chen@bryancave.comJacob A. Maskovich (SBN 021920) jamaskovich@bryancave.com
BRYAN CAVE LLP
Two N. Central Avenue, Suite 2200Phoenix, AZ 85004-4406Telephone: 602-364-7000Facsimile: 602-364-7070Brenton R. Babcock 
 (Pro Hac Vice
 to be filed
 )
 brent.babcock@knobbe.comMarko R. Zoretic
 (Pro Hac Vice
 to be filed
 )
marko.zoretic@knobbe.comLaura E. Hall
 (Pro Hac Vice
 to be filed
 )
laura.hall@knobbe.com
KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
2040 Main Street, 14th Floor Irvine, CA 92614Telephone: 949-760-0404Facsimile: 949-760-9502Attorneys for Plaintiff LINTEC CORPORATION
 
212345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
    B   r   y   a   n    C   a   v   e    L    L    P    T   w   o    N   o   r   t   h    C   e   n   t   r   a   l    A   v   e   n   u   e ,    S   u   i   t   e    2    2    0    0    P   h   o   e   n   i   x ,    A   r   i   z   o   n   a    8    5    0    0    4  -    4    4    0    6    (    6    0    2    )    3    6    4  -    7    0    0    0
Ariz., filed May 31, 2013) (the “Parallel Proceeding”) presently pending before thisCourt, Plaintiff Lintec Corporation (“Lintec”) is defending against claims brought byKarl Heinz Priewasser (“Priewasser”), an Executive Vice President of Disco Hi-TecEurope GmbH (“Disco Hi-Tec”), which is a subsidiary of Disco Corporation (“Disco”).In that case, Priewasser claims,
 inter alia
, that he is an inventor of a patent owned byLintec.2. Upon information and belief, Priewasser was obligated to assign anyrights to the purported invention he allegedly conceived to Disco and/or Disco Hi-Tecas a result of his employment. Upon information and belief, Priewasser also wasobligated to assign any other purported intellectual property rights, and any claimsand/or causes of action related thereto as set forth in the Complaint in the ParallelProceeding, to Disco and/or Disco Hi-Tec as a result of his employment. Therefore,Defendants Disco and Disco Hi-Tec would be the true and correct owners of the allegedintellectual property rights if Priewasser’s allegations of inventorship in the ParallelProceeding were valid. As such, Plaintiff seeks from this Court an Order declaring thatthe inventorship of the patent at issue in the Parallel Proceeding is correct, and resolvingthis controversy between Disco and Disco Hi-Tec in favor of Lintec.
CONSOLIDATION WITH THE PARALLEL PROCEEDING:
Priewasser v. Lintec Corp. & Lintec of America, Inc.
,Case No. 2:13-cv-01109-SRB (D. Ariz., filed May 31, 2013)
3. On November 20, 2013, Lintec filed counterclaims against Priewasser,Disco, and Disco Hi-Tec in the Parallel Proceeding. [Dkt. No. 27.] Thosecounterclaims are substantively the same as the claims set forth in this Complaint. On November 25, 2013, during the Scheduling Conference, the Court intimated thatLintec’s filing of “counterclaims” against third parties Disco and Disco Hi-Tec mayhave been procedurally improper. Counsel for Lintec informed the Court that Lintecwould evaluate its “counterclaim” designation and determine if those claims should
 
312345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
    B   r   y   a   n    C   a   v   e    L    L    P    T   w   o    N   o   r   t   h    C   e   n   t   r   a   l    A   v   e   n   u   e ,    S   u   i   t   e    2    2    0    0    P   h   o   e   n   i   x ,    A   r   i   z   o   n   a    8    5    0    0    4  -    4    4    0    6    (    6    0    2    )    3    6    4  -    7    0    0    0
have been brought in some other manner. Lintec has concluded that its claims againstDisco and Disco Hi-Tec may properly be brought as “third-party claims” in the ParallelProceeding. Accordingly, on November 26, 2013, Lintec filed an amendedcounterclaim against Priewasser [Dkt. No. 36] and a separate third-party complaintagainst Disco and Disco Hi-Tec [Dkt. No. 37] in the Parallel Proceeding. Those third- party claims are substantively the same as the claims set forth in this Complaint.4. Lintec has nonetheless filed this separate action out of an abundance ocaution in the unforeseen event that the Court determines that Lintec’s filing of third- party claims against Disco and Disco Hi-Tec in the Parallel Proceeding is for somereason procedurally improper. In view of the substantial length of time required toserve Disco in Japan and Disco Hi-Tec in Germany, Lintec believes that proceeding promptly and simultaneously with both actions ensures that those two foreign partiesmay be served as soon as practicable in both actions. Of course, Lintec intends to proceed against Priewasser, Disco, and Disco Hi-Tec in only a single proceeding: either (and preferably) only in the Parallel Proceeding (thereby dismissing this action without prejudice in due course), or only in a consolidated proceeding (by seeking to consolidatethis action with the Parallel Proceeding in due course). Thus, Lintec does not intend toin any way multiply the proceedings or duplicate any substantive efforts expended bythe Court or the parties.
PARTIES
5. Lintec Corporation (“Lintec”) is a corporation organized and existingunder the laws of Japan, with its principal place of business at 23-23 Honcho, Itabashi-ku, Tokyo 173-0001 Japan.6. Disco Corporation (“Disco”) is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Japan, with its principal place of business at 13-11 Omori-Kita 2-chome,Ota-ku, Tokyo 143-8580 Japan.7. Disco Hi-Tec Europe GmbH (“Disco Hi-Tec”) is a limited liability

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)//-->