Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
100% Speedlab v. Oakley

100% Speedlab v. Oakley

Ratings: (0)|Views: 124 |Likes:
Published by PriorSmart
Official Complaint for Declaratory Judgement in Civil Action No. 3:12-cv-01261-IEG-BGS: 100% Speedlab, LLC v. Oakley, Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, the Hon. Irma E. Gonzalez presiding. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l6ag for more info.
Official Complaint for Declaratory Judgement in Civil Action No. 3:12-cv-01261-IEG-BGS: 100% Speedlab, LLC v. Oakley, Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, the Hon. Irma E. Gonzalez presiding. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l6ag for more info.

More info:

Published by: PriorSmart on May 24, 2012
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

02/01/2013

pdf

text

original

 
 1
Complaint
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728X-PATENTS, APCJONATHAN HANGARTNER, Cal. Bar No. 1962685670 La Jolla Blvd.La Jolla, CA 92037Telephone: 858-454-4313Facsimile: 858-454-4314 jon@x-patents.com Attorneys for Plaintiff 100% Speedlab, LLC
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
100% SPEEDLAB, LLC,Plaintiff,v.OAKLEY, INC.,Defendant.Case No.
COMPLAINTJURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Plaintiff 100% Speedlab, LLC. (“100% Speedlab”) for its Complaint avers asfollows:
PARTIES
 1.
 
Plaintiff 100% Speedlab is a company organized and existing under the lawsof the State of California with its principal place of business in San Diego, California.2.
 
Defendant Oa
ley, Inc., (“Oa
ley”) is a corporation organized and existingunder the laws of the State of Washington, with its principal place of business at One Icon,Foothill Ranch, California 92610.
 
'12
CV1261
BGS
IEG
 
 -2-
Complaint
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
 3.
 
Plaintiff 100% Speedlab see
s declarations of invalidity and non-infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,971,268 (the ’268 patent) entitled “ControlledDeflection Goggle.”4.
 
This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Complaint pursuantto the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, under federalquestion jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1338(a), and as arising under thePatent Laws of the United States, Title 35 of the United States Code.5.
 
This Court has personal jurisdiction over Oa
ley because Oa
ley’sheadquarters is located in California, and the company has a continuous, systematic, andsubstantial presence in the State of California and within this judicial district.6.
 
Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§1391and 1400.
BACKGROUND
7.
 
100% Speedlab designs, sells and distributes motocross goggles andaccessories, including the
 Racecraft 
line of motocross goggles.8.
 
Oa
ley is the owner by assignment of the ‘268 patent.9.
 
On or about April 23, 2012, Oa
ley’s outside counsel at the firm of KnobbeMartens Olson & Bear LLP wrote to 100% Speedlab indicating that Oa
ley has“determined that your Racecraft motocross goggles infringe several claims of Oa
ley’s‘268 patent, including at least Claim 1,” and demanding that 100% Speedlab “immediatelycease further infringement of the ‘268 patent.” The letter further asserted that if 100%Speedlab did not comply with Oa
ley’s demands, the accompanying draft complaintwould be filed alleging infringement by 100% Speedlab. A true and correct copy of theApril 23, 2012 letter from Michael K. Friedland, including the attached draft complaintand copy of the ‘268 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
 
 -3-
Complaint
1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272810.
 
In subsequent discussions between counsel for 100% Speedlab and Oa
ley,Oa
ley has continued to allege that 100% Speedlab’s
 Racecraft 
goggle infringes the ‘268 patent and that the ‘268 patent is valid.
COUNT I(Declaratory Judgment Of Non-Infringement Of The ‘268 Patent)
11.
 
100% Speedlab realleges and incorporates by reference all of the previousallegations set forth herein.12.
 
As a result of the charges of infringement of the ‘268 patent by Oa
ley, anactual controversy exists as to infringement of the ‘268 patent by 100% Speedlab.
COUNT II(Declaratory Judgment Of Invalidity Of The ‘375 Patent)
13.
 
100% Speedlab realleges and incorporates by reference all of the previousallegations set forth herein.14.
 
The ’268 patent is invalid for failure to comply with one or more of therequirements of title 35 of the United States Code including, but not limited to, §§ 101,102, 103, and 112.15.
 
As a result of the charges of infringement and assertions of the validity of the‘268 patent by Oa
ley, an actual controversy exists as to the validity of the ‘268 patent.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
 WHEREFORE, 100% Speedlab prays that judgment be entered by this Court in itsfavor and against defendants as follows:A. Declaring that 100% Speedlab has not infringed the ‘268 patent;B. Declaring that the ‘268 patent and all claims thereof 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)//-->