JURISDICTION AND VENUE
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.
100% Speedlab designs, sells and distributes motocross goggles andaccessories, including the
line of motocross goggles.8.
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.