UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

ARCTIC CAT, INC., a Minnesota Corporation, and ARCTIC CAT SALES INC., a Minnesota Corporation Plaintiffs, v. POLARIS INDUSTRIES INC. a Minnesota Corporation, and POLARIS INDUSTRIES INC., a Delaware Corporation Defendants.

Civil Action ________

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NONINFRINGEMENTAND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Arctic Cat Inc. and Arctic Cat Sales Inc. (collectively “Arctic Cat”) for their Complaint against Defendant Polaris Industries Inc. (“Polaris (MN)”) and Defendant Polaris Industries Inc. (“Polaris (DE)”) (collectively “Polaris”) state and allege as follows: THE PARTIES
1. Arctic Cat Inc. is a Minnesota corporation having a principal place of business

at 505 North Highway 169, Suite 1000, Plymouth, Minnesota 55441.
2. Arctic Cat Sales Inc. is a Minnesota corporation having a principal place of

business at 601 Brooks Avenue South, Thief River Falls, MN 56701.
3.

On information and belief, Polaris MN is a Minnesota corporation with its

principal place of business located at 2100 Highway 55, Medina, MN 55340.

4.

On information and belief, Polaris DE is a Delaware corporation with a

registered office located at 100 S 5th Street, #1075, Minneapolis, MN 55402.
5.

On information and belief, both Polaris MN and Polaris DE maintain

offices at 2100 Highway 55, Medina, MN 55340. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
6.

Arctic Cat brings this declaratory judgment action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§

2201 and 2202 seeking a declaration that Arctic Cat does not infringe three patents, allegedly owned by or assigned to Polaris, all entitled “Side-by-Side ATV.” The three patents are United States Patent Nos. 8,596,405 (the “‘405 patent”), 7,819,220 (the “‘220 patent”), and 8,382,125 (the “‘125 patent”) (collectively “Patents in Suit”).
7.

This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. §§

101 et seq., and under the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.
8.

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C.

§§ 1331 and 1338, and under the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c).
9.

Polaris MN and Polaris DE maintain offices and transact business within

the State of Minnesota. Polaris (MN) is a Minnesota-based company, subject to the jurisdiction of this Court. Polaris (DE), by maintaining offices and transacting business in the State of Minnesota, has purposefully availed itself of the privileges and benefits of the laws of the State of Minnesota, and is therefore subject to the jurisdiction of this Court.
-2-

POLARIS’ PATENT INFRINGEMENT ALLEGATIONS
10.

On December 3, 2013, an attorney for the Polaris Entities sent Arctic Cat a

letter with the heading: “Re: Notification of Patent Infringement – Polaris v. Arctic Cat.” That letter accused Arctic Cat’s Wildcat products of infringing the Patents In Suit. A true and correct copy of Polaris’ December 3, 2013 letter is attached to the complaint as Exhibit D.
11.

The December 3, 2013 Polaris letter further stated that Polaris had reviewed

“photos and other information” regarding Arctic Cat’s soon-to-be launched Wildcat Trail vehicle, and asserted that Arctic Cat’s Wildcat Trail vehicle would infringe one or more claims of Polaris’ Patents In Suit.
12.

The December 3, 2013 Polaris letter further demanded that Arctic Cat

cease and desist making, using, offering for sale, selling, or importing “any product” that allegedly infringes the Patents In Suit, including Arctic Cat’s Wildcat vehicles. COUNT I: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,596,405
13.

Arctic Cat hereby incorporates all of the preceding allegations of this

Complaint as though set forth fully herein.
14.

Polaris claims that it owns the ‘405 patent. A true and correct copy of the

‘405 patent is attached to the complaint as Exhibit A.
15.

Polaris has asserted that Arctic Cat’s manufacture, offer to sell and sale of

certain Arctic Cat products infringes the ‘405 patent, and has demanded that Arctic Cat cease and desist making, using, offering for sale, selling, or importing such products,
-3-

including Arctic Cat’s Wildcat, Wildcat 4 and Wildcat Trail products, thereby giving rise to an actual and justiciable case or controversy between Arctic Cat and Polaris relating to the ‘405 patent.
16.

Arctic Cat’s manufacture, use, offer to sell and/or sale of its Wildcat

vehicles are not an infringement of the ‘405 patent. Arctic Cat does not make, use, offer for sale or sell any product that infringes any claim of the ‘405 patent.
17.

This Court has jurisdiction over the dispute and the claim is ripe for

adjudication.
18.

Accordingly, Arctic Cat request that the Court declare that Arctic Cat’s

Wildcat Products do not infringe any claims of the ‘405 patent, either directly, indirectly or under the doctrine of equivalents. COUNT II: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,819,220
19.

Arctic Cat hereby incorporates all of the preceding allegations of this

Complaint as though set forth fully herein.
20.

Polaris claims that it owns the ‘220 patent. A true and correct copy of the

‘220 patent is attached to the complaint as Exhibit B.
21.

Polaris has asserted that Arctic Cat’s manufacture, offer to sell and sale of

certain Arctic Cat products infringes the ‘220 patent, and has demanded that Arctic Cat cease and desist making, using, offering for sale, selling, or importing such products, including Arctic Cat’s Wildcat, Wildcat 4 and Wildcat Trail products, thereby giving rise

-4-

to an actual and justiciable case or controversy between Arctic Cat and Polaris relating to the ‘220 patent.
22.

Arctic Cat’s manufacture, use, offer to sell and/or sale of its Wildcat

vehicles are not an infringement of the ‘220 patent. Arctic Cat does not make, use, offer for sale or sell any product that infringes any claim of the ‘220 patent.
23.

This Court has jurisdiction over the dispute and the claim is ripe for

adjudication.
24.

Accordingly, Arctic Cat request that the Court declare that Arctic Cat’s

Wildcat Products do not infringe any claims of the ‘220 patent, either directly, indirectly or under the doctrine of equivalents. COUNT III: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,382,125
25.

Arctic Cat hereby incorporates all of the preceding allegations of this

Complaint as though set forth fully herein.
26.

Polaris claims that it owns the ‘125 patent. A true and correct copy of the

‘125 patent is attached to the complaint as Exhibit C.
27.

Polaris has asserted that Arctic Cat’s manufacture, offer to sell and sale of

certain Arctic Cat products infringes the ‘125 patent, and has demanded that Arctic Cat cease and desist making, using, offering for sale, selling, or importing such products, including Arctic Cat’s Wildcat, Wildcat 4 and Wildcat Trail products, thereby giving rise to an actual and justiciable case or controversy between Arctic Cat and Polaris relating to the ‘125 patent.
-5-

28.

Arctic Cat’s manufacture, use, offer to sell and/or sale of its Wildcat

vehicles are not an infringement of the ‘125 patent. Arctic Cat does not make, use, offer for sale or sell any product that infringes any claim of the ‘125 patent.
29.

This Court has jurisdiction over the dispute and the claim is ripe for

adjudication.
30.

Accordingly, Arctic Cat request that the Court declare that Arctic Cat’s

Wildcat Products do not infringe any claims of the ‘125 patent, either directly, indirectly or under the doctrine of equivalents. JURY DEMAND
31.

Arctic Cat demands a jury trial for all issues triable to a jury.

WHEREFORE, Arctic Cat prays that: A. B. The Court enter judgment in Arctic Cat’s favor and against defendants; The Court declare and enter judgment that Arctic Cat does not infringe any claims of the ‘405 patent; C. The Court declare and enter judgment that Arctic Cat does not infringe any claims of the ‘220 patent; D. The Court declare and enter judgment that Arctic Cat does not infringe any claims of the ‘125 patent; E. The Court declare and enter judgment that this is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285; F. The Court direct that defendants pay Arctic Cat’s attorney fees and costs incurred with this civil action; and
-6-

G.

The Court award such further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Michael D. Okerlund (321709) ARCTIC CAT INC. ARCTIC CAT SALES INC. 505 North Highway 169, Suite 1000 Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 (763) 354-1819 (tel.) (763) 354-1806 (fax) Attorney for Arctic Cat Inc. and Arctic Cat Sales Inc.

-7-