This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Case No. 2:13-cv-860
Plaintiff, Precision Dynamics Corporation, by its attorneys Quarles & Brady LLP, for its Complaint against Defendant alleges as follows: NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. This is an action for patent infringement and trademark infringement brought
under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq. and the Trademark Act of 1946, as amended (the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§1051 et seq.) Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and damages arising from Defendant’s infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,296,982 (the ‘982 Patent) and U.S. Trademark Reg. No. 3,082,443.
THE PARTIES 2. Plaintiff Precision Dynamics Corporation (“Precision Dynamics”) is a California
Corporation with its principal place of business located at 27770 North Entertainment Dr., Ste. 200, Valencia, California 91355. 3. Precision Dynamics is a manufacturer of identification bands with adhesive labels
of the sort that are often used for patient identification by hospitals and doctors’ offices. 4. Defendant Typenex Medical, L.L.C. is a limited liability company with its
headquarters at 303 East Wacker Drive, Suite 1200, Chicago, IL 60601. 5. bands. 6. Typenex conducts business in this judicial district by promoting, distributing, Typenex is a direct competitor of Precision Dynamics in the field of identification
selling, and offering to sell products, including the infringing identification bands, directly to consumers within this judicial district. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 7. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and
1338, with reference to the United States Patent Laws, Title 35 of the United States Code and the Lanham Act §32 (15 U.S.C. § 1114). 8. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant under 28 U.S.C. § 1400 and
Wis. Stat. § 801.05. 9. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400.
THE PATENT-IN-SUIT 10. On October 30, 2012, U.S. Patent No. 8,296,982 entitled “Form For Wristband
with Adjacent Labels” was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the ‘982 Patent is attached as Exhibit A. 11. Precision Dynamics is the owner by assignment of the entire right, title and
interest in the ‘982 Patent. 12. The ‘982 Patent relates to an improved identification band, such as a wristband,
that is designed to include preprinted adhesive labels having correlated unique identification codes on the band and on each label. This invention is useful in a variety of circumstances, including in hospitals, laboratories, and doctors’ offices. TRADEMARK AT ISSUE 13. Precision Dynamics is the owner of the CONTOURBAND trademark for non-
metallic identification wristbands. 14. Precision Dynamics filed an application to register the CONTOURBAND
trademark for non-metallic identification wristbands with the United States Patent and Trademark Office on April 26, 2005, and the mark issued as a registered trademark on April 18, 2006. Attached as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of this trademark registration. 15. 16. U.S. Registration Number 3,082,443 is valid, subsisting, and incontestable. Precision Dynamics has used the CONTOURBAND trademark throughout the
United States in connection with promoting its identification bands. 17. Precision Dynamics has invested a significant amount of time, manpower and
financial resources to develop the consumer goodwill and high quality that is now associated with the CONTOURBAND trademark.
The CONTOURBAND trademark has come to represent and symbolize the
enviable reputation and valuable goodwill of Precision Dynamics among members of the trade and purchasing public with regard to identification bands. COUNT I PATENT INFRINGEMENT 19. Precision Dynamics realleges and incorporates by reference as if fully set forth
herein the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 18. 20. Defendant Typenex has infringed and continues to infringe, directly or indirectly,
one or more claims of the ‘982 Patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, by making, using, selling and offering for sale in the United States, or importing into the United States, identification bands that infringe at least claim 1 of the claims of the ‘982 Patent. 21. Defendant Typenex has made, used, offered for sale, sold or imported into the
United States these infringing products under the trade name The Contour. 22. Precision Dynamics has been damaged by Typenex’s infringement of the
‘982 Patent in an amount to be determined at trial. 23. Precision Dynamics has been and continues to be irreparably injured by
Typenex’s continuing infringement of the ‘982 Patent, and Typenex’s infringing activities will continue unless enjoined by this Court pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 283. COUNT II TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT Lanham Act §32 (15 U.S.C. § 1114) 24. Precision Dynamics realleges and incorporates by reference as if fully set forth
herein the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 23. 25. Typenex has used “The Contour Band” to generate customer interest and trade off
the goodwill associated with Precision Dynamics’s CONTOURBAND trademark. Attached as 4
Exhibit C is a printout from Typenex’s website, which uses the phrase “The Contour Band” in advertising. 26. Typenex has used the phrase “The Contour Band” to falsely attract customer
interest in an effort to increase attention for Typenex’s competing identification bands. 27. trademark. 28. Typenex’s unauthorized use of the phrase “The Contour Band” has caused, and is Typenex is not authorized to use the Precision Dynamics’s CONTOURBAND
likely to continue to cause, confusion, mistake, or deception in the market. 29. Typenex’s use of the phrase “The Contour Band” has caused, and is likely to
continue to cause, confusion or mistake or to deceive customers into falsely believing that Typenex’s marketing, press mentions, and advertised services come from Precision Dynamics or that Precision Dynamics has approved of or sponsored such advertisements or services, all in violation of the Lanham Act § 32 (15 U.S.C. § 1114). 30. Given Precision Dynamics’s long use of the CONTOURBAND trademark and
strong market presence, Typenex has had knowledge of Precision Dynamics, Precision Dynamics’s reputation in the industry, and Precision Dynamics CONTOURBAND trademark. 31. Typenex’s unauthorized use of the phrase “The Contour Band” was and continues
to be done intentionally, willfully, and with a reckless disregard for Precision Dynamics’s rights. 32. Typenex’s actions have unjustly damaged Precision Dynamics’s trademark,
business reputation and the goodwill associated with Precision Dynamics’s trademark. 33. Typenex’s actions are causing irreparable injury to Precision Dynamics for which
there is no adequate remedy at law.
Typenex’s actions constitute willful trademark infringement entitling Precision
Dynamics to the remedies set forth in 15 U.S.C. § 1117 and 15 U.S.C. § 1118. COUNT III COMMON LAW TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT 35. Precision Dynamics realleges and incorporates by reference as if fully set forth
herein the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 34. 36. Typenex’s unauthorized use of the phrase “The Contour Band” in promotion of its
identification bands constitutes trademark infringement in violation of Wisconsin’s common law. 37. Typenex’s use of the phrase “The Contour Band” is confusingly similar to
Precision Dynamics’s CONTOURBAND trademark and Typenex’s use in connection with identification bands constitutes trademark infringement in violation of Wisconsin’s common law. 38. Unless the Court enjoins Typenex from using the phrase “The Contour Band”
Precision Dynamics will suffer irreparable harm for which it has no adequate remedy at law.
REQUEST FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Precision Dynamics Corporation respectfully requests a judgment: A. B. Declaring that Typenex has infringed U.S. Pat. No. 8,296,982; Permanently enjoining Typenex, and all those in active concert or participation
with Typenex, from directly or indirectly infringing the ‘982 Patent, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 283; C. Awarding Precision Dynamics damages adequate to compensate it for Typenex’s
infringement of the ‘982 Patent; D. Awarding prejudgment interest and costs pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284
A permanent injunction prohibiting Typenex’s use of the phrase “The Contour
Band” and any mark or design that is confusingly similar to the CONTOURBAND trademark as provided under 15 U.S.C. §1116(a) and/or under Wisconsin’s common law; F. An order requiring destruction of all marketing materials containing the phrase
“the Contour Band” and the withdrawal from the market any advertising using the infringing mark; G. Monetary relief, in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact for all harm
Precision Dynamics has suffered as a result of Typenex’s actions, and other actual damages or monetary relief, including without limitation monetary recovery for corrective advertising; H. I. Treble damages as provided under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a); Precision Dynamics’s actual costs and attorneys’ fees as provided for under the
Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1117, 1125(a); and J. Granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL The Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury in this action on all claims and issues triable before a jury. Dated this 29th day of July, 2013. /s/ Johanna M. Wilbert David R. Cross Johanna M. Wilbert QUARLES & BRADY LLP 411 East Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 2350 Milwaukee, WI 53202-4497 Telephone: 414-277-5000 Fax: 414-978-8942 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org Attorneys for Plaintiff, Precision Dynamic Corporation
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.