You are on page 1of 9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

CHRYSLER GROUP LLC, Case No. _______________ Plaintiff, v. LKQ CORPORATION and KEYSTONE AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendants. __________________________________________________________________/ Patrick G. Seyferth (P47575) Bush Seyferth & Paige PLLC 3001 W. Big Beaver Road, Suite 600 Troy, MI 48084 (248) 822-7800 Attorney for Plaintiff __________________________________________________________________/ COMPLAINT Plaintiff Chrysler Group LLC (Chrysler), by its undersigned counsel, brings the following claims against LKQ Corporation (LKQ) and Keystone Automotive Industries, Inc. (Keystone, and collectively, Defendants), and in support thereof, alleges the following: Jury Trial Demanded

NATURE OF ACTION 1. This is patent infringement action in which Chrysler seeks injunctive

relief and compensatory damages, past and future, amounting to the infringers profits, Chryslers lost profits, and/or no less than a reasonable royalty. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2. This action arises under the United States Patent Act, codified at 35

U.S.C. 1 et seq., and in particular, 35 U.S.C. 271, 281-285 and 289. 3. This Court has original jurisdiction over the subject matter of this

action under 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1338(a). 4. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because

Defendants have transacted business in this District, have committed acts of infringement in this District, and continue to commit acts of infringement in this District. 5. Venue is proper within this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b),

1391(c), and 1400(b) because Defendants have transacted business in this District, advertise and solicit business in this District, have committed acts of infringement and continue to commit acts of infringement in this District, and have established minimum contacts with this District.

PARTIES 6. Plaintiff Chrysler is a limited liability company organized and existing

under the laws of the State of Delaware, with a principal place of business at 1000 Chrysler Drive, Auburn Hills, MI 48321. 7. LKQ is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the

state of Delaware, with its principal place of business at 500 West Madison Street, Suite 2800, Chicago, IL 60661. LKQ, together with its subsidiaries, sells

replacement parts, components, and systems for automotive vehicles throughout the United States. 8. Keystone is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the

state of California, with its principal place of business at 700 East Bonita Avenue, Pomona, CA 91767. Keystone is a subsidiary of LKQ that distributes aftermarket replacement parts for automotive vehicles throughout the United States. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 9. Michigan. Chrysler is headquartered in the Detroit suburb of Auburn Hills, Chrysler designs, develops, manufactures, and sells automobile

products, including Chrysler, Jeep, Dodge, and Ram brand vehicles and products.

10.

Chrysler also manufactures and sells original equipment manufacturer

(OEM) replacement parts for its automobile products, including for its Ram brand vehicles. 11. Chrysler protects the innovative designs of its vehicles and parts. In

particular, Chrysler owns various United States design patents relating to its Ram automobile parts designs. Relevant to this dispute, Chrysler is and has been the owner of all right, title, and interest to each of the United States design patents identified in Table 1 (collectively, Ram Design Patents) since the date each patent duly and legally issued to Chrysler. A copy of each Ram Design Patent is attached to this Complaint as indicated in Table 1. TABLE 1 Design Patent No. D605996 D609615 D602618 D609150 D609141 D609143 D611395 Issue Date of Patent 12/15/2009 2/9/2010 10/20/2009 2/2/2010 2/2/2010 2/2/2010 3/9/2010 Exhibit No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

TABLE 1 Design Patent No. D602619 D641503 D627276 Issue Date of Patent 10/20/2009 7/12/2011 11/16/2010 Exhibit No. 8 9 10

12.

Chrysler has sold and is currently selling automobile parts bearing the

designs claimed in the Ram Design Patents. 13. Without Chryslers authorization, Defendants have offered for sale

and sold in the United States and this District products, including replacement parts, for Ram brand vehicles having designs covered by the Ram Design Patents (Accused Products). Defendants knowingly and intentionally sold and continue to sell the Accused Products as replacement parts for Chryslers vehicles. COUNT I Infringement of the Ram Design Patents 14. Chrysler incorporates by reference the allegations contained in

paragraphs 1 through 13 above. 15. Defendants have directly infringed, and continue to directly infringe

each of the Ram Design Patents by making, using, selling, offering for sale and/or

importing the Accused Products. Defendants are liable for their infringement of the Ram Design Patents in violation of 35 U.S.C. 271. 16. Defendants are further liable as active inducers of infringement of the

Ram Design Patents in violation of 35 U.S.C. 271 by knowingly taking active steps to encourage and facilitate direct infringement by others, including third party distributors, automobile repair shops, and/or users of Defendants Accused Products. 17. Defendants are contributory infringers of the Ram Design Patents in

violation of 35 U.S.C. 271 by making, using, selling, and/or offering for sale within the United States components embodying a material part of the inventions described in at least one claim of the Ram Design Patents, which components are known by Defendants to be specially made or specially adapted for use in infringement of at least one claim of the Ram Design Patents, and that are not staple articles or commodities suitable for substantial, non-infringing use. 18. Defendants have knowledge of the Ram Design Patents at least as of

the filing of this Complaint and as evidenced by LKQs acknowledgment in its 2012 10-K Annual Report that its aftermarket products are at risk of infringing the patents of OEMs, like Chrysler: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Records indicate that OEMs are seeking more design patents than they have in the past. To

the extent that the OEMs are successful with intellectual property infringement claims, we could be restricted or prohibited from selling certain aftermarket products, which could have an adverse effect on our business. See Ex. 11 at 17. 19. Because Defendants had knowledge of the Ram Design Patents,

Defendants have willfully undertaken and carried out their infringing activities with knowledge of the Ram Design Patents in total disregard of Chryslers lawful rights under those patents, and continue to do so. 20. Chrysler has been and continues to be damaged by Defendants

infringement of the Ram Design Patents. 21. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 284 and 289, Chrysler is entitled to recover

damages, in an amount to be proven at trial, adequate to compensate Chrysler for the infringement, including the infringers profits, Chryslers lost profits, and/or no less than a reasonable royalty. 22. Damages alone will not be a sufficient remedy under the law, and

Chrysler has been and will continue to be irreparably harmed by Defendants infringement of the Ram Design Patents. Only a permanent injunction against Defendants will be adequate.

23.

This case is exceptional within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 285, and

Chrysler is entitled to an award of attorneys fees. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Chrysler hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues. RELIEF SOUGHT WHEREFORE, Chrysler respectfully prays for: A. Judgment that Defendants infringe and have infringed the Ram

Design Patents in violation of 35 U.S.C. 271; B. A permanent injunction against Defendants, its agents, servants,

employees, officers, and those in privity with or controlled by them, from further infringement of the Ram Design Patents; C. An award of infringers profits, Chryslers lost profits, and/or a

reasonable royalty and other damages arising from Defendants infringement of the Ram Design Patents, in an amount to be proven at trial, together with prejudgment and post-judgment interest and costs; D. An award trebling the damages found at trial, as permitted by 35

U.S.C. 284;

E.

Judgment that this is an exceptional case within the meaning of 35

U.S.C. 285, and an award of reasonable attorneys fees; F. Such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

Dated: January 16, 2014

Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Patrick G. Seyferth . Patrick G. Seyferth Bush, Seyferth & Paige 3001 W. Big Beaver Road, Suite 600 Troy, MI 48084-3107 Attorney for Plaintiff Chrysler Group LLC