Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LAFAYETTE DIVISION RANDALL SCARBOROUGH * * CIVIL

ACTION NO. Plaintiff * * VERSUS * * INTEGRICERT, LLC * * JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendant * ************************************************************************ COMPLAINT COMES NOW, Randall Scarborough (hereinafter Scarborough or Plaintiff), Plaintiff, in the above styled cause who files this, his Original Complaint, complaining of Defendant Integricert, LLC (hereinafter Integricert or Defendant) and respectfully shows unto the Court the following: I. PARTIES 1. Plaintiff, Scarborough, is an individual having a place of residence at 208 Froeba

Drive, Carencro, Louisiana 70520. 2. Defendant, Intergicert, LLC is a limited liability company organized and existing

under the laws of Louisiana, having its principle place of business at 608 Hangar Drive, New Iberia, Louisiana 70560, and may be served with process by serving its Registered Agent, Mr. Kenneth Hix, at this address. Defendant provides or participates in providing services and/or equipment relating to load testing and inspection to oilfield service companies and/or others within the United States itself and/or by and through one or more affiliates, subsidiaries, divisions or other business segments or units.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. This is an action for patent infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 271 and/or 28

U.S.C. 1331. Jurisdiction in this action is based on 28 U.S.C 1331 and/or 1338 and principles of pendent jurisdiction, and venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1400(b) and 1391(b) and (c) because Defendant conducts business within this judicial district and/or has engaged in acts that constitute, contribute to or induce infringement of Plaintiffs U.S. Patent Nos. 6,848,322 and/or 7,248,447, directly or under the doctrine of equivalents, in this judicial district and as alleged in this Complaint. III. CAUSE OF ACTION PATENT INFRINGEMENT 4. herein. 5. On February 1, 2005, U.S. Patent Number 6,848,322 (the 322 Patent) was Paragraphs 1 through 3 are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth

issued for an invention entitled Apparatus and Method for Testing Weld Integrity (A copy of this Patent is attached, made a part hereof and labeled Exhibit A). The

application that issued as the 322 Patent was conceived of and filed by Scarborough, who is the sole named inventor, assigned from Scarborough to S & H Fabrication, then later assigned from S & H Fabrication to Scarborough. Scarborough currently owns all right, title, and interest in the 322 Patent. 6. On October 23, 2007, U.S. Patent Number 7,284,447 (the 447 Patent) was

issued for an invention entitled Apparatus and Method for Testing Weld Integrity (A copy of this Patent is attached, made a part hereof and labeled Exhibit B). The

application that issued as the 447 Patent was filed as a continuation-in-part application,

claiming priority to the original filing date of the 322 Patent under 35 U.S.C. 120, and was conceived of and filed by Scarborough, who is the sole named inventor. All right, title, and interest in the 447 Patent owned by S & H Fabrication was assigned to Scarborough. Scarborough currently owns all right, title, and interest in the 447 Patent. 7. 282. 8. Defendant has actual and/or constructive notice of Plaintiffs 322 Patent and The 322 Patent and the 447 Patent are valid and presumed valid under 35 U.S.C.

Plaintiffs 447 Patent. 9. Defendant has been, and/or is now, infringing, contributing to the infringement of,

and/or inducing the infringement of, one or more claims of the 322 Patent and/or one or more claims of the 447 Patent, directly or under the doctrine of equivalents, by making, using, selling or offering for sale, or contributing to or inducing the making, use, sale or offer for sale by others, that which is the claimed subject matter of Plaintiffs 322 Patent and/or 447 Patent, without Plaintiffs consent and in violation of Plaintiffs rights under the 322 Patent and the 447 Patent. Specifically, Defendant is using, offering for sale, or contributing to or inducing the sale, use or offer for sale by others, load testing and inspection services through at least one method as claimed in Plaintiffs 322 Patent and/or 447 Patent. Further, Defendant is using, offering for sale, or contributing to or inducing the sale, use or offer for sale by others, at least one load testing apparatus as claimed in one or more claims of Plaintiffs 322 Patent and/or 447 Patent. 10. Because Defendant used, sold, or offered for sale, and/or contributed to or

induced the use, sale or offer for sale by others a method and/or apparatus that infringes one or more claims of Plaintiffs 322 Patent and/or 447 Patent, and/or engaged in other

acts that would constitute infringement of one or more claims of Plaintiffs 322 Patent and/or 447 Patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, Plaintiffs 322 Patent and/or 447 Patent are thereby infringed directly, contributorily, or by inducement of others. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to actual damages, which, at a minimum,

constitute a reasonable royalty. Defendant will continue to infringe the 322 Patent and/or the 447 Patent unless, and until, enjoined by order of this Court under 35 U.S.C. 283. 11. The infringement by Defendant of Plaintiffs 322 Patent and/or Plaintiffs 447

Patent is willful, and Plaintiff is accordingly entitled to enhanced damages, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 284, in an amount equal to treble the actual damages. 12. This is an exceptional case such that Defendant should be required to pay

Plaintiffs reasonable attorneys fees in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 285. 13. Defendant is the owner of record of U.S. Patent 7,240,569, which is believed to set forth and describe at least one of the infringing products and/or processes provided by Defendant. (A copy of this Patent is attached, made a part hereof and labeled Exhibit C). It is noted that the patentability of any claims of U.S. Patent 7,240,569 is determined under 35 U.S.C. 101-103, and that the patentability of any portion of U.S. Patent 7,240,569 constitutes a wholly separate legal question, independent from and having no bearing on Defendants infringement of the 322 Patent and/or the 447 Patent, which is determined under 35 U.S.C. 271 and other relevant statutes referenced in Paragraph 3, above. Grant of a patent on an infringing device does not avoid infringement, either literally or by equivalency; a device may be separately patentable independent of whether

a device infringes one or more preexisting patents. Natl. Presto Industries, Inc. v. The West Bend Company, 76 F.3d 1185 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

IV. REQUEST FOR INJUNCTION 14. herein. 15. Due to the infringement of Plaintiffs 322 Patent and/or Plaintiffs 447 Patent by Paragraphs 1 through 13 are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth

Defendant, Plaintiffs ability to practice the patented invention by using, offering for sale, and selling load testing services and/or apparatuses is being impaired, causing irreparable harm and injury to Plaintiffs market share, business reputation, and goodwill. 16. a. As set forth in Paragraphs 2, 7, 9, and other paragraphs above, Plaintiff

possesses a likelihood of success on the merits presented in this complaint, as the 322 Patent and the 447 Patent are valid and presumed valid, and Defendant currently provides or participates in providing services and/or equipment as claimed in the 322 Patent and the 447 Patent. b. As set forth in Paragraphs 8, 11, and 15 above, Defendant possesses notice

of Plaintiffs 322 Patent and 447 Patent, is willfully infringing the 322 Patent and 447 Patent, and will continue to do so, causing continued and irreparable harm and injury to Plaintiff absent preliminary relief. c. Defendants willful and harmful infringement of Plaintiffs 322 Patent

and 447 Patent warrants that Defendant be preliminarily enjoined in the interests of equity and in the public interest.

17.

Plaintiff respectfully asks the Court to grant a preliminary injunction and, after a

hearing and a trial on the merits, to grant a permanent injunction to Plaintiff and against Defendant. V. REQUEST FOR A MARKMAN HEARING 18. herein. 19. The harm Plaintiff has suffered is renewed daily by Defendants wrongful Consequently, a rapid resolution of this matter in Paragraphs 1 through 17 are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth

activities as described herein.

Plaintiffs favor is strongly warranted. 20. Plaintiff therefore further moves for the scheduling of a trial, including but not

limited to, a Markman hearing regarding interpretation of the scope of the claims of the 322 Patent and the scope of the claims of the 447 Patent as soon as the Courts docket will permit. Markman v. Westview Investments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996). VI. DEMAND FOR JURY 21. Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial of all issues so triable, pursuant to Rule 38 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the following relief from the Court and Jury: a. That the 322 Patent be adjudged infringed by Defendant, directly and/or

under the doctrine of equivalents, under all applicable provisions of Title 35, United States Code;

b.

That the 447 Patent be adjudged infringed by Defendant, directly and/or

under the doctrine of equivalents, under all applicable provisions of Title 35, United States Code; c. That the Defendant, its officers, directors, employees, agents and all those

acting in concert with Defendant be preliminary enjoined, and after the final hearing, permanently enjoined pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 283, from all future activities infringing the 322 Patent and from all future activities infringing the 447 Patent, and/or inducing or contributing to the infringement of the 322 Patent or the 447 Patent by others, including making, using, selling or offering for sale the claimed subject matter of the 322 Patent or the 447 Patent; d. That Defendant be ordered to account to Plaintiff for each and every sale,

lease, license, provision of a good or service, or any other source of revenue or profit derived from its infringement of the 322 Patent and of the 447 Patent and to prepare and deliver to the Court a complete list of entities, including all sales, revenues, and/or profits derived from these entities, for whom Defendant has provided load testing and inspection services and/or apparatuses which infringe the 322 Patent and/or the 447 Patent, pursuant to all applicable provisions of Title 35, United States Code; e. That this Court award Plaintiff actual and compensatory damages resulting

from Defendants infringing activities, together with prejudgment and post judgment interest and costs, as provided by 35 U.S.C. 284; f. That this Court order that damages so found or assessed be enhanced or

trebled as a result of willful, deliberate, wanton and reckless infringement by Defendant, as provided by 35 U.S.C. 284;

g.

That this Court order that, because this is an exceptional case, Plaintiff be

awarded and Defendant be ordered to pay the reasonable attorneys fees incurred by Plaintiff in connection with this action, as provided for by 35 U.S.C. 285; h. That the Court issue an Order granting Plaintiff a Markman hearing on

claim interpretation as soon as the Courts docket will permit; i. appropriate. DATED: February 10, 2012. RESPECTFULY SUBMITTED Matthews, Lawson & Johnson, PLLC Guy E. Matthews (T.A.) Texas Bar No. 1320700 2000 Bering, Suite 700 Houston, Texas 77057 Telephone: (713) 355-4200 Telefax: (713) 355-9689 Email: gmatthews@matthewsfirm.com And DOMENGEAUX WRIGHT ROY & EDWARDS, LLC That Plaintiff be awarded such other and further relief as may be just and

s/ Elwood Stevens
_____________________ Bob F. Wright (La. Bar #13,691) Elwood C. Stevens, Jr. (T.A.) (La. Bar #12,459) P. O. Box 3668 Jefferson Towers, Suite 500 556 Jefferson Street Lafayette, LA 70501-3668 Telephone: (337) 233-3033 Telefax: (337) 232-8213 Email: bobw@wrightroy.com Email: elwoods@wrightroy.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF, RANDALL SCARBOROUGH

Оценить