UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION Magna-Mug LLC PLAINTIFF, vs.

Novelty, Inc. (d/b/a Novelty Distributors Company) DEFENDANT. COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT [JURY DEMAND] Case No. 1:13-cv-00304 Judge __________________________

For its Complaint against Novelty, Inc. (doing business as Novelty Distributors Company), Plaintiff Magna-Mug LLC states as follows: THE PARTIES 1. Plaintiff Magna-Mug LLC ("Magna-Mug") is an Ohio Limited Liability

Company having a principal place of business at 192 Country View Drive, Harrison, Ohio 45030. Magna-Mug is the originator of the innovative, patented technology and design for a collapsible, insulating, soft-sided, magnetic beverage holder. 2. Defendant Novelty, Inc. ("Novelty") is an Indiana corporation having a principal

place of business at 351 W. Muskegon Drive, Greenfield, Indiana, 46140. Novelty is registered to do business in Ohio as a foreign corporation, doing business as Novelty Distributors Company. Novelty makes, imports, uses, offers to sell, and/or sells within the United States, including in the state of Ohio and this judicial district, products incorporating Magna-Mug's patented technology and design.

1

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. This action is for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the United

States, Title 35 of the United States Code. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338. 4. Defendant Novelty is conducting business on a systematic and continuous basis

within the United States, including the state of Ohio and this judicial district. 5. On information and belief, Defendant Novelty makes, imports, uses, offers to sell,

and/or sells within the United States, including in the state of Ohio and this judicial district, products that infringe the patents at issue in this action. 6. Defendant Novelty is registered to do business in Ohio as a foreign corporation,

and has a registered agent for service of process in Ohio. Defendant Novelty is subject to personal jurisdiction in this judicial district because it has established minimum contacts with the forum such that the exercise of jurisdiction would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice, and it has committed acts of infringement in this judicial district. 7. 1400(b). GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 8. Magna-Mug is the assignee and owner of all rights, title and interest in U.S. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c), and

Patent No. 7,021,594 B2 ("the '594 patent"), entitled "Folding Magnetic Holding Wrap For Cups Or Mugs"). The '594 patent was duly and legally issued on April 4, 2006, by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A true and correct copy of the '594 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. Any licenses to the '594 patent that Magna-Mug has granted have been non-exclusive, and Magna-Mug has retained all rights to enforce the '594 patent.

2

9.

Magna-Mug is the assignee and owner of all rights, title and interest in U.S.

Patent No. D547,618 S ("the '618 patent"), entitled "Magnetic Beverage Holder"). The '618 patent was duly and legally issued on July 31, 2007, by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A true and correct copy of the '618 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. Any licenses to the '618 patent that Magna-Mug has granted have been non-exclusive, and Magna-Mug has retained all rights to enforce the '618 patent. 10. Defendant Novelty does not have a license to the '594 patent or the '618 patent,

and has never had such a license. 11. Defendant Novelty makes, uses, sells, offers for sale or imports products that

infringe the '594 patent and the '618 patent, including the "Magnetic Can Cooler" listed as "Item #100-160" and any substantially similar products under any product line or item number ("the Accused Products"). The Accused Products infringe one or more valid claims of the '594 patent, and embody the claimed design of the '618 patent. The design of the Accused Products is substantially the same as the design of the '618 patent, such that in the eye of the ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, the two designs are substantially the same, and the resemblance is such as to deceive such an observer, inducing him to purchase one supposing it to be the other. 12. Defendant Novelty had actual notice of Magna-Mug's patents, and Defendant Nevertheless,

Novelty's infringement of those patents, at least as early as May 17, 2010. Defendant Novelty continued to infringe the '594 patent and the '618 patent. 13.

On information and belief, Defendant Novelty willfully and maliciously infringed

(and continues to infringe) Magna-Mug's patents despite actual knowledge of the infringement. A member of Defendant Novelty's management told the management of Magna-Mug that he did

3

not care about Magna-Mug's patents and did not fear a patent lawsuit because he had more money to defend against such a lawsuit than Magna-Mug had to prosecute it. COUNT ONE Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,021,594 B2 14. 15. Each of the foregoing paragraphs is incorporated by reference. Defendant Novelty has been and is now directly infringing and actively inducing

infringement of the '594 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271. The infringing acts include, but are not limited to, the manufacture, use, promotion, sale importation, and/or offer for sale of the Accused Products. Defendant Novelty induces infringement by its customers when, for

example, it sells and/or causes to be sold to its customers the Accused Products that infringe the '594 patent with the knowledge and intent that its customers will use the accused products. Defendant Novelty induces infringement by its customers when it sells them the Accused Products and instructs and encourages them to use them. 16. Defendant Novelty's past and continued acts of infringement of the '594 patent

have injured Magna-Mug, and thus Magna-Mug is entitled to recover compensatory damages for the infringement in an amount subject to proof at trial. 17. Defendant Novelty's infringement of Magna-Mug's exclusive rights under the

'594 patent has and will continue to damage Magna-Mug's business, causing irreparable injury to Magna-Mug, for which there is no adequate remedy at law, unless Defendant Novelty is enjoined by this Court from further infringement. 18. Defendant Novelty has long been on notice of the '594 patent. Accordingly, its

infringement of the patent-in-suit has been and/or will continue to be willful and deliberate. This

4

entitles Magna-Mug to increased damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 and to attorney's fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this action under 35 U.S.C. § 285. COUNT TWO Infringement of U.S. Patent. No. D547,618 S 19. 20. Each of the foregoing paragraphs is incorporated by reference. Defendant Novelty has been and is now directly infringing and actively inducing

infringement of the '618 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271. The infringing acts include, but are not limited to, the manufacture, use, promotion, sale importation, and/or offer for sale of the Accused Products. Defendant Novelty induces infringement by its customers when, for

example, it sells and/or causes to be sold to its customers the Accused Products that infringe the '618 patent with the knowledge and intent that its customers will use the accused products. Defendant Novelty induces infringement by its customers when it sells them the Accused Products and instructs and encourages them to use them. 21. Defendant Novelty's past and continued acts of infringement of the '618 patent

have injured Magna-Mug, and thus Magna-Mug is entitled to recover compensatory damages for the infringement in an amount subject to proof at trial. 22. Defendant Novelty's infringement of Magna-Mug's exclusive rights under the

'618 patent has and will continue to damage Magna-Mug's business, causing irreparable injury to Magna-Mug, for which there is no adequate remedy at law, unless Defendant Novelty is enjoined by this Court from further infringement. 23. Defendant Novelty has long been on notice of the '618 patent. Accordingly, its

infringement of the patent-in-suit has been and/or will continue to be willful and deliberate. This

5

entitles Magna-Mug to increased damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 and to attorney's fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this action under 35 U.S.C. § 285. REQUST FOR RELIEF Wherefore, Magna-Mug respectfully requests that the Court: a. b. order trial by jury on all issues so triable; render judgment finding that Defendant Novelty has infringed, directly and/or by

inducement, the '594 and '618 patents; c. d. find that Defendant Novelty's infringement was willful; issue a permanent injunction preventing Defendant Novelty, and those in active

concert with Defendant Novelty, from further infringement or inducement of infringement of the '594 and '618 patents; e. f. award compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial; award enhanced damages up to and including treble damages pursuant to

35 U.S.C. § 284; g. h. award interest as allowed by law; award an accounting and/or supplemental damages for any damages not addressed

at trial and any post-trial damages; i. declare that this case is exceptional pursuant to 35 U.S.C.§ 285, award costs and

reasonable attorney fees incurred in connection with this action; and j. grant such other and further relief as the Court and jury deem just and proper.

6

Dated: May 7, 2013

Respectfully submitted, /s/ Thomas F. Hankinson Cheryl Scotney (0069531) Thomas F. Hankinson (0088367) KEATING MUETHING & KLEKAMP PLL One East Fourth Street, Suite 1400 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Tel: (513) 579-6400 Fax: (513) 579-6457 cscotney@kmklaw.com thankinson@kmklaw.com Attorneys for Magna-Mug LLC

7

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful