Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 6

Mark Hindley (7222) STOEL RIVES LLP 201 South Main Street, Suite 1100 Salt Lake City,

UT 84111 Telephone: 801-328-3131 Facsimile: 801-578-6999 mehindley@stoel.com Errol B. Taylor (pro hac vice to be submitted) Fredrick M. Zullow (pro hac vice to be submitted) MILBANK, TWEED, HADLEY & McCLOY LLP One Chase Manhattan Plaza New York, New York 10005 Telephone: 801-328-3131 Facsimile: 801-578-6999 etaylor@milbank.com fzullow@milbank.com

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

THE SUN PRODUCTS CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v.

COMPLAINT Case No. __________ Judge: _________

THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Defendant. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Plaintiff, The Sun Products Corporation (Sun) for its Complaint against Defendant The Procter & Gamble Company (P&G) states: JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. This is an action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of

the United States (Title 35 of the United States Code), including 35 U.S.C. 271, 281, 283, 284

and 285. 2. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28

U.S.C. 1331, 1338, 2201, and 2202. 3. This Court has personal jurisdiction over P&G because P&G (a)

committed acts of patent infringement, including selling and offering for sale the infringing products described herein within this judicial district and/or contributed to or induced patent infringement by others (by, for example, supplying others with infringing products and instructing that the products be used in an infringing manner) in this judicial district, and (b) regularly does business, solicits business, engages in other persistent courses or conduct, and/or derives substantial revenue from products and/or services provided to individuals in this judicial district and this state. 4. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391

because (a) P&G does business in this judicial district; (b) P&G has committed acts of infringement in this judicial district; and (c) P&G is subject to personal jurisdiction in this judicial district. THE PARTIES 5. Plaintiff, The Sun Products Corporation, is a Delaware corporation with its

principal offices in Salt Lake City, Utah and Wilton, Connecticut. Sun is in the business, among other things, of selling laundry treatment compositions. 6. On information and belief, defendant P&G is a company incorporated in

Ohio and has a principal place of business at One Procter & Gamble Plaza, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202.

7.

On information and belief, P&G is in the business, among other things, of

selling laundry treatment compositions, including without limitation, Tide Pods, throughout the United States, including in this judicial district. 8. On information and belief, P&G is doing business in Utah, has continuous

and systematic contacts with Utah, has engaged in activities related to the subject matter of this action and is subject to personal jurisdiction in this judicial district. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF: INFRINGEMENT OF THE 016 PATENT 9. 10. Sun realleges paragraphs 1-8, above, as if set forth specifically here. U.S. Patent No. 8,268,016 (the 016 patent), entitled Laundry

Treatment Compositions, was issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on September 18, 2012, and names inventors Stephen N. Batchelor and Jayne M. Bird. A copy of the 016 patent is attached as Exhibit A. 11. Sun is the owner of the 016 patent by virtue of assignment, and owns all

rights, title and interest in the 016 patent. 12. The 016 patent claims, inter alia, methods for treating laundry and

laundry treatment compositions. 13. P&G, among other things, made, sold, used, and offered to sell within the

United States, and/or imported into the United States, and continues to make, sell, use, and offer to sell within the United States, and/or import into the United States, laundry treatment compositions, including without limitation Tide Pods. 14. P&G has directly infringed and is directly infringing at least one claim of

the 016 patent under 35 U.S.C. 271(a) by, among other things, making, using, selling and offering for sale within the United States, and/or importing into the United States laundry

treatment compositions, including without limitation Tide Pods, which are encompassed by the claims of the 016 patent. 15. P&G has indirectly infringed and is indirectly infringing at least one claim

of the 016 patent under 35 U.S.C. 271(b) by, among other things, having knowledge of the 016 patent and knowing its laundry treatment compositions would infringe the 016 patent, inducing its customers in the United States to directly infringe the 016 patent by using P&Gs laundry treatment compositions, including without limitation Tide Pods, through instructions for use that encompass the claims of the 016 patent. 16. P&G has indirectly infringed and is indirectly infringing at least one claim

of the 016 patent under 35 U.S.C. 271(c) by, among other things, offering to sell, selling within the United States and/or importing into the United States laundry treatment compositions, including without limitation Tide Pods, which are especially made or especially adapted for use that is encompassed by the claims of the 016 patent, and are not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use. 17. On information and belief, P&G has infringed and is infringing at least

one claim of the 016 patent under 35 U.S.C. 271(f) by exporting laundry treatment compositions from the United States, including without limitation, Tide Pods, which are encompassed by the claims of the 016 patent. 18. On information and belief, P&G has been and is aware of the 016 patent

and is intentionally and willfully infringing the 016 patent, and this case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. 285. On information and belief, P&G was aware of the 016 patent and acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions would constitute infringement of the 016 patent.

19.

On information and belief, P&G was aware of the patent application that

resulted in the 016 patent and was on notice as to the scope of the subject matter claimed in that application. 20. On information and belief, P&G was aware that its laundry compositions,

including without limitation Tide Pods were within the scope of the subject matter claimed in application that resulted in the 016 patent. 21. P&Gs infringing acts have been and continue to be the actual and

proximate cause of damage to Sun. P&G is using the 016 patent technology without authorization and causing Sun to suffer at least lost profit damages. Alternatively and/or additionally, P&Gs unauthorized use of the 016 patent technology has caused Sun damages that can be measured according to a reasonable royalty. 22. Sun has no adequate remedy at law and P&G should be enjoined from

infringing the 016 patent. P&G has caused and is causing Sun irreparable harm, and unless enjoined will continue to cause Sun irreparable harm, loss and injury. JURY DEMAND 23. Plaintiff Sun demands a trial by jury. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Sun respectfully requests the following relief: (a) A judgment permanently enjoining P&G, and those acting in concert with

it, from further infringement of the 016 patent; (b) A judgment declaring that P&G has directly infringed and is directly

infringing the 016 patent;

(c)

A judgment declaring that P&G has indirectly infringed and is indirectly

infringing the 016 patent; (d) A judgment awarding Sun damages adequate to compensate Sun for

P&Gs direct and indirect infringement, in an amount no less than a reasonable royalty for P&Gs use of the 016 patent technology, together with prejudgment and post-judgment interest and costs, as fixed by the Court; (e) (f) U.S.C. 285; (g) A judgment awarding treble damages against P&G for willful A judgment declaring that P&Gs infringement is willful; A judgment declaring that as to P&G this case is exceptional under 35

infringement of the 016 patent under 35 U.S.C. 284; (h) 285; (i) (j) Costs and expenses in this action; and Such other relief as this Court may deem proper. A judgment awarding Sun its attorneys fees in this action under 35 U.S.C.

Dated: September 18, 2012

By: /s/ Mark E. Hindley STOEL RIVES LLP Mark E. Hindley MILBANK, TWEED, HADLEY & McCLOY LLP Errol B. Taylor Fredrick M. Zullow Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Вам также может понравиться