P. 1
Procter & Gamble Company v. Conopco et. al.

Procter & Gamble Company v. Conopco et. al.

|Views: 154|Likes:
Published by PriorSmart
Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-00732-MRB: Procter & Gamble Company v. Conopco, Inc. et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, the Hon. Michael R. Barrett presiding. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l9ha for more info.
Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-00732-MRB: Procter & Gamble Company v. Conopco, Inc. et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, the Hon. Michael R. Barrett presiding. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l9ha for more info.

More info:

Published by: PriorSmart on Oct 10, 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

02/26/2014

pdf

text

original

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY

, Plaintiff, vs. CONOPCO, INC. dba UNILEVER and UNILEVER UNITED STATES, INC., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-732 ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT ) AND JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff, The Procter & Gamble Company (“P&G”), for its claims against Conopco, Inc., dba Unilever and Unilever United States, Inc., (collectively “Unilever”), hereby states and alleges the following: THE PARTIES AND JURISDICTION 1. P&G is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Ohio

that maintains its principal place of business at One Procter & Gamble Plaza, Cincinnati, Ohio 45201. 2. On information and belief, Conopco, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing

under the laws of the State of New York that maintains its principal place of business at 700 Sylvan Avenue, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632. 3. On information and belief, Unilever United States, Inc. is a corporation organized

and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware that maintains its principal place of business at 700 Sylvan Avenue, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632.

4.

This Court has personal jurisdiction over Unilever under the Ohio long-arm

statute (O.R.C. § 2307.382) because Unilever has sold and offered for sale in this State and this District shampoo products that infringe P&G’s intellectual property. 5. This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35, United

States Code. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1338(a) and 1331. 6. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(2) and 1400(b). THE PATENTS 7. On September 17, 2002, United States Letters Patent No. 6,451,300 (“the ’300

patent”) entitled “Anti-Dandruff and Conditioning Shampoos Containing Polyalkylene Glycols and Cationic Polymers,” was duly and legally issued to P&G as the assignee of the named inventors. Since that date, P&G has been the owner of the ’300 patent. A true and correct copy of the ’300 patent is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit A. 8. On November 18, 2003, United States Letters Patent No. 6,649,155 (“the ’155

patent”) entitled “Anti-Dandruff and Conditioning Shampoos Containing Certain Cationic Polymers,” was duly and legally issued to P&G as the assignee of the named inventors. Since that date, P&G has been the owner of the ’155 patent. A true and correct copy of the ’155 patent is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit B. 9. On December 13, 2005, United States Letters Patent No. 6,974,569 (“the ’569

patent”) entitled “Shampoos Providing A Superior Combination Anti-Dandruff Efficacy and Condition,” was duly and legally issued to P&G as the assignee of the named inventors. Since that date, P&G has been the owner of the ’569 patent. A true and correct copy of the ’569 patent is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit C.

2

UNILEVER REPUDIATES THE PARTIES’ AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE 10. On October 28, 1998, P&G and Unilever entered into a settlement term sheet (the

“Term Sheet”) that resolved a series of patent disputes between the parties. 11. The Term Sheet provides a mechanism for the parties to resolve their disputes,

short of court litigation. Specifically, it includes provisions regarding the handling of future patent disputes between the parties. In particular, the Term Sheet provides that in case new patent issues arise, the parties agree to first seek resolution through good faith negotiations. 12. The Term Sheet further provides that if such negotiations are not successful, the

next step is for the parties to participate in mediation. 13. If those first two steps do not result in a resolution, the Term Sheet provides a

third step prior to resorting to litigation: non-binding arbitration. If arbitration is unsuccessful, only then can the parties litigate the matter. Specifically, the Term Sheet allows the parties to go to court after completion of the arbitration. 14. For 15 years the parties abided by the provisions set forth in the Term Sheet.

Those provisions led to the resolution of at least five (5) patent disputes globally between the parties. 15. On or about January 8, 2013, P&G notified Unilever of P&G’s belief that certain

of Unilever’s anti-dandruff particulate containing shampoo products infringe certain claims of the ’300 patent, the ’155 patent, and the ’569 patent. 16. Pursuant to the provisions of the Term Sheet, the parties first sought resolution of

the dispute through negotiations. When those negotiations proved unsuccessful, the parties agreed to mediate the matter, as required by the Term Sheet.

3

17.

During the negotiations, on May 17, 2013, Unilever’s counsel told P&G’s counsel

that “Unilever remains committed to complying with the dispute resolution process we have in place with P&G.” 18. On July 22, 2013, P&G and Unilever engaged in mediation in a further attempt to

resolve their dispute regarding these anti-dandruff shampoo patents. 19. Following the mediation, the parties continued to discuss terms of a settlement of

the dispute, but were unable to reach an agreement. 20. Unilever has refused to arbitrate this matter, and has otherwise now repudiated the

Term Sheet. On August 14, 2013, in the midst of the post-mediation negotiations, and in direct contravention of the provisions of the Term Sheet, Unilever began three adversarial proceedings challenging the validity of P&G’s patents. Unilever filed Petitions for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), seeking to have the ’300 patent, the ’155 patent, and the ’569 patent declared invalid. If instituted into USPTO trials, those IPR petitions will be decided by judges at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In addition, on the same date it filed the IPR petitions, Unilever filed suit in the United Kingdom against P&G on Unilever’s claims regarding an unrelated patent. THE INFRINGING PRODUCTS 21. Unilever currently manufactures, markets, sells and offers for sale anti-dandruff

or scalp therapy shampoo products, under its Clear, Axe, Suave and Dove brands, including, among others, the following products: Clear Scalp & Hair Beauty Therapy Strong Lengths Nourishing Shampoo, a/k/a Clear Scalp & Hair Therapy Strong Lengths Nourishing Shampoo; Clear Scalp & Hair Beauty Therapy Total Care Nourishing Shampoo, a/k/a Clear Scalp & Hair Therapy Total Care Nourishing Shampoo; Clear Scalp & Hair Beauty Therapy Moisturizing Dry

4

Scalp Nourishing Shampoo, a/k/a Clear Scalp & Hair Therapy Moisturizing Dry Scalp Nourishing Shampoo; Clear Scalp & Hair Beauty Therapy Damage & Color Repair Nourishing Shampoo, a/k/a Clear Scalp & Hair Therapy Damage & Color Repair Nourishing Shampoo; Clear Scalp & Hair Beauty Therapy Frizz Control Nourishing Shampoo; Clear Scalp & Hair Beauty Therapy Volumizing Root Boost Nourishing Shampoo, a/k/a Clear Scalp & Hair Therapy Volumizing Root Boost Nourishing Shampoo; Clear Scalp & Hair Beauty Therapy Complete Care Nourishing Anti-Dandruff Shampoo, a/k/a Clear Scalp & Hair Therapy Complete Care Nourishing Anti-Dandruff Shampoo; Clear Scalp & Hair Beauty Therapy Ultra Shea Cleanse & Nourish Shampoo; Clear Men Scalp Therapy Strong & Full Anti-Dandruff Daily Shampoo; Clear Men Scalp Therapy 2 in 1 Dry Scalp Hydration Anti-Dandruff Daily Shampoo & Conditioner; Clear Men Scalp Therapy 2 in 1 Clean & Refresh Anti-Dandruff Daily Shampoo & Conditioner; Clear Men Scalp Therapy Clean & Refresh Anti-Dandruff Daily Shampoo; Clear Men Scalp Therapy 2 in 1 Complete Care Anti-Dandruff Daily Shampoo & Conditioner; Clear Men Scalp Therapy Cool Sport Mint Anti-Dandruff Daily Shampoo; Clear Men Scalp Therapy 2 in 1 Scalp Comfort Anti-Dandruff Daily Shampoo & Conditioner; Axe Armor Anti-Dandruff 2 in 1 Shampoo + Conditioner; Axe Freeze Anti-Dandruff Scalp Cooling 2 In 1 Shampoo + Conditioner, a/k/a Axe Freeze Itch Relief 2 In 1 Cooling anti-dandruff shampoo + conditioner; Dove Men + Care Fortifying Shampoo Anti Dandruff Shampoo; Suave Scalp Solutions AntiDandruff 2 In 1 Shampoo & Conditioner invigorating ocean minerals & aloe vera; Suave Scalp Solutions Anti-Dandruff Shampoo nourishing coconut & shea butter; and Suave Scalp Solutions Anti-Dandruff Shampoo revitalizing mint & eucalyptus, (collectively “the infringing products”). Attached to this Complaint as Exhibit D are photographs of the packaging of the infringing products.

5

22.

On information and belief, Unilever knows and intends that the infringing

products are sold to consumers to use as shampoos. 23. The packaging of the infringing products include instructions directing consumers

to use the products as shampoos. COUNT I – INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’300 PATENT 24. P&G incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through

23 as if fully rewritten herein. 25. On information and belief, Unilever is directly infringing the ’300 patent by

manufacturing, using, offering to sell and selling products that infringe the ’300 patent, including, but not limited to the following products: Clear Scalp & Hair Beauty Therapy Strong Lengths Nourishing Shampoo, a/k/a Clear Scalp & Hair Therapy Strong Lengths Nourishing Shampoo; Clear Scalp & Hair Beauty Therapy Total Care Nourishing Shampoo, a/k/a Clear Scalp & Hair Therapy Total Care Nourishing Shampoo; Clear Scalp & Hair Beauty Therapy Moisturizing Dry Scalp Nourishing Shampoo, a/k/a Clear Scalp & Hair Therapy Moisturizing Dry Scalp Nourishing Shampoo; Clear Scalp & Hair Beauty Therapy Damage & Color Repair Nourishing Shampoo, a/k/a Clear Scalp & Hair Therapy Damage & Color Repair Nourishing Shampoo; Clear Scalp & Hair Beauty Therapy Frizz Control Nourishing Shampoo; Clear Scalp & Hair Beauty Therapy Volumizing Root Boost Nourishing Shampoo, a/k/a Clear Scalp & Hair Therapy Volumizing Root Boost Nourishing Shampoo; Clear Scalp & Hair Beauty Therapy Complete Care Nourishing Anti-Dandruff Shampoo, a/k/a Clear Scalp & Hair Therapy Complete Care Nourishing Anti-Dandruff Shampoo; Clear Scalp & Hair Beauty Therapy Ultra Shea Cleanse & Nourish Shampoo; Clear Men Scalp Therapy Strong & Full Anti-Dandruff Daily Shampoo; Clear Men Scalp Therapy 2 in 1 Dry Scalp Hydration Anti-Dandruff Daily Shampoo

6

& Conditioner; Clear Men Scalp Therapy 2 in 1 Clean & Refresh Anti-Dandruff Daily Shampoo & Conditioner; Clear Men Scalp Therapy Clean & Refresh Anti-Dandruff Daily Shampoo; Clear Men Scalp Therapy 2 in 1 Complete Care Anti-Dandruff Daily Shampoo & Conditioner; Clear Men Scalp Therapy Cool Sport Mint Anti-Dandruff Daily Shampoo; and Clear Men Scalp Therapy 2 in 1 Scalp Comfort Anti-Dandruff Daily Shampoo & Conditioner, (collectively “the ’300 patent infringing products”), without authority or license from P&G. 26. On information and belief, Unilever knows, should know, or is willfully blind to

the fact that the ’300 patent infringing products are specially made or adapted for an infringing method. Nevertheless, it has sold, and continues to sell, a material component of the patented invention that is not a staple article of commerce capable of substantial noninfringing use. 27. Unilever has been and is currently actively inducing infringement of the ’300

patent by others, without authority or license from P&G. Among other infringements induced, Unilever has actively induced others to perform, within the United States, the methods recited by the claims of the ’300 patent. Unilever provides instructions to consumers directing them to perform methods that infringe the claims of the ’300 patent. On information and belief, Unilever has knowledge of the ’300 patent and knows that the induced acts constitute infringement of the ’300 patent. 28. As such, Unilever has knowingly, or with willful blindness, contributed to and

induced, and continues to contribute to and induce, the infringement of the claims of the ’300 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271. 29. On information and belief, Unilever’s foregoing acts of infringement have been

and continue to be willful and deliberate.

7

30.

P&G has been damaged, in an amount yet to be determined, by Unilever’s acts of

infringement and will continue to be damaged by such acts in the future. COUNT II – INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’155 PATENT 31. P&G incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through

30 as if fully rewritten herein. 32. On information and belief, Unilever is directly infringing the ’155 patent by

manufacturing, using, offering to sell and selling products that infringe the ’155 patent, including but not limited to the following products: Clear Scalp & Hair Beauty Therapy Damage & Color Repair Nourishing Shampoo, a/k/a Clear Scalp & Hair Therapy Damage & Color Repair Nourishing Shampoo; Clear Men Scalp Therapy Strong & Full Anti-Dandruff Daily Shampoo; Clear Men Scalp Therapy 2 in 1 Dry Scalp Hydration Anti-Dandruff Daily Shampoo & Conditioner; Clear Men Scalp Therapy Cool Sport Mint Anti-Dandruff Daily Shampoo; Axe Armor Anti-Dandruff 2 in 1 Shampoo + Conditioner; Dove Men + Care Fortifying Shampoo Anti Dandruff Shampoo; Suave Scalp Solutions Anti-Dandruff 2 In 1 Shampoo & Conditioner invigorating ocean minerals & aloe vera; Suave Scalp Solutions Anti-Dandruff Shampoo nourishing coconut & shea butter; and Suave Scalp Solutions Anti-Dandruff Shampoo revitalizing mint & eucalyptus, (collectively “the ’155 patent infringing products”), without authority or license from P&G. 33. On information and belief, Unilever knows, should know, or is willfully blind to

the fact that the ’155 patent infringing products are specially made or adapted for an infringing method. Nevertheless, it has sold, and continues to sell, a material component of the patented invention that is not a staple article of commerce capable of substantial noninfringing use.

8

34.

Unilever has been and is currently actively inducing infringement of the ’155

patent by others, without authority or license from P&G. Among other infringements induced, Unilever has actively induced others to use and perform, within the United States, the methods recited by the claims of the ’155 patent. Unilever provides instructions to consumers directing them to perform methods that infringe the claims of the ’155 patent. On information and belief, Unilever has knowledge of the ’155 patent and knows that the induced acts constitute infringement of the ’155 patent. 35. As such, Unilever has knowingly, or with willful blindness, contributed to and

induced, and continues to contribute to and induce, the infringement of the claims of the ’155 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271. 36. On information and belief, Unilever’s foregoing acts of infringement have been

and continue to be willful and deliberate. 37. P&G has been damaged, in an amount yet to be determined, by Unilever’s acts of

infringement and will continue to be damaged by such acts in the future. COUNT III – INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’569 PATENT 38. P&G incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through

37 as if fully rewritten herein. 39. On information and belief, Unilever is directly infringing the ’569 patent by

manufacturing, using, offering to sell and selling products that infringe the ’569 patent, including but not limited to the following products: Clear Scalp & Hair Beauty Therapy Complete Care Nourishing Anti-Dandruff Shampoo, a/k/a Clear Scalp & Hair Therapy Complete Care Nourishing Anti-Dandruff Shampoo; Clear Men Scalp Therapy Strong & Full Anti-Dandruff Daily Shampoo; Clear Men Scalp Therapy 2 in 1 Dry Scalp Hydration Anti-Dandruff Daily

9

Shampoo & Conditioner; Clear Men Scalp Therapy Clean & Refresh Anti-Dandruff Daily Shampoo; Clear Men Scalp Therapy 2 in 1 Complete Care Anti-Dandruff Daily Shampoo & Conditioner; Clear Men Scalp Therapy Cool Sport Mint Anti-Dandruff Daily Shampoo; Clear Men Scalp Therapy 2 in 1 Scalp Comfort Anti-Dandruff Daily Shampoo & Conditioner; Axe Armor Anti-Dandruff 2 in 1 Shampoo + Conditioner; Axe Freeze Anti-Dandruff Scalp Cooling 2 In 1 Shampoo + Conditioner, a/k/a Axe Freeze Itch Relief 2 In 1 Cooling anti-dandruff shampoo + conditioner; Suave Scalp Solutions Anti-Dandruff 2 In 1 Shampoo & Conditioner invigorating ocean minerals & aloe vera; Suave Scalp Solutions Anti-Dandruff Shampoo nourishing coconut & shea butter; Suave Scalp Solutions Anti-Dandruff Shampoo revitalizing mint & eucalyptus; and Dove Men + Care Fortifying Shampoo Anti Dandruff Shampoo, (collectively “the ’569 patent infringing products”), without authority or license from P&G. 40. On information and belief, Unilever knows, should know, or is willfully blind to

the fact that the ’569 patent infringing products are specially made or adapted for an infringing method. Nevertheless, it has sold, and continues to sell, a material component of the patented invention that is not a staple article of commerce capable of substantial noninfringing use. 41. Unilever has been and is currently actively inducing infringement of the ’569

patent by others, without authority or license from P&G. Among other infringements induced, Unilever has actively induced others to use and perform, within the United States, the methods recited by the claims of the ’569 patent. Unilever provides instructions to consumers directing them to perform methods that infringe the claims of the ’569 patent. On information and belief, Unilever has knowledge of the ’569 patent and knows that the induced acts constitute infringement of the ’569 patent.

10

42.

As such, Unilever has knowingly, or with willful blindness, contributed to and

induced, and continues to contribute to and induce, the infringement of the claims of the ’569 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271. 43. On information and belief, Unilever’s foregoing acts of infringement have been

and continue to be willful and deliberate. 44. P&G has been damaged, in an amount yet to be determined, by Unilever’s acts of

infringement and will continue to be damaged by such acts in the future. PRAYER FOR RELIEF P&G respectfully prays for the following relief: A. That the Court adjudge and decree that Unilever has infringed and is infringing

the ’300, ’155, and ’569 patents; B. That the Court adjudge and decree that Unilever has contributed to and induced

infringement and is actively contributing to and inducing infringement of the ’300, ’155, and ’569 patents; C. That the Court enter preliminary and permanent injunctions enjoining Unilever,

its officers, employees, agents, and all others acting in concert with it or participating with it from further acts that infringe the ’300, ’155, and ’569 patents; D. That the Court enter preliminary and permanent injunctions enjoining Unilever,

its officers, employees, agents, and all others acting in concert with it or participating with it from actively contributing to or inducing others to infringe the ’300, ’155, and ’569 patents; E. That Unilever be ordered by this Court to account for and pay to P&G damages

adequate to compensate P&G for Unilever’s infringement, contribution to, and inducement of infringement of the ’300, ’155, and ’569 patents;

11

F.

That the Court treble the damages for Unilever’s willful infringement of the ’300,

’155, and ’569 patents; G. H. I. J. That the Court award pre-judgment interest on the damages; That the Court declare this an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285; That the Court award P&G its costs and attorney fees incurred in this action; and That the Court award such other relief as it deems just and proper. JURY TRIAL DEMAND Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, P&G demands a trial by jury of all issues triable of right by jury.

12

Dated: October 10, 2013

Respectfully submitted, /s/ David M. Maiorana Calvin P. Griffith (#0039484) Email: cpgriffith@jonesday.com David M. Maiorana (#0071440) Email: dmaiorana@jonesday.com Thomas R. Goots (#0066010) Email: trgoots@jonesday.com Michael S. Weinstein (#0083802) Email: msweinstein@jonesday.com JONES DAY North Point 901 Lakeside Avenue Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (216) 586-3939 Facsimile: (216) 579-0212 William C. Rooklidge (Pro Hac Vice to be filed) Email: wrooklidge@jonesday.com JONES DAY 3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 800 Irvine, CA 92612-4408 Telephone: (949) 851-3939 Facsimile: (949) 553-7539 Attorneys for Plaintiff The Procter & Gamble Company

13

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)//-->