Whelen Engineering v. CPS Emergency LED Lighting & Equipment

of 8
7 views
PDF
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Document Description
Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. None: Whelen Engineering Co Inc v. CPS Emergency LED Lighting & Equipment. Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l5M2 for more info.
Document Share
Document Tags
Document Transcript
  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTDISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT WHELEN ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC. ))Plaintiff, ))v. )) Civil Action No.CPS EMERGENCY LED LIGHTING & EQUIPMENT ))Defendant. )) COMPLAINT FOR PATENT AND TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENTAND JURY DEMAND Plaintiff Whelen Engineering Company, Inc. (“Plaintiff”), for its patent infringementcomplaint against Defendant CPS Emergency LED Lighting & Equipment (“Defendant”), states asfollows: I. PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1.   This is an action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of 35 U.S.C. §1 et seq . and trademark infringement arising under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq.  2.   Plaintiff is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Connecticut with a principal place of business in Chester, Connecticut.3.   Upon information and belief, Defendant is a company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Alabama with a principal place of business in Opelika, Alabama.4.   Subject matter jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court by 15 U.S.C. § 1121 and 28U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).  25.   Personal jurisdiction exists generally over Defendant because Defendant hassufficient minimum contacts with this forum as a result of its business conducted in the State andDistrict of Connecticut. Defendant has and continues to sell its infringing products in the District of Connecticut. Defendant also maintains an active website whereon Defendant uses one or more of Plaintiff’s trademarks and offers for sale items that infringe one or more of Plaintiff’s valid patents.6.   Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400(b). II.   PATENT INFRINGEMENT 7.   United States Letters Patent No. 6,641,284, entitled “LED Light Assembly,” a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A (hereinafter “the ‘284 patent”), was duly and legally issued bythe U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on November 4, 2003 and named James L. Stopa and Todd J.Smith, both residents of Connecticut, as inventors.8.   Plaintiff is, and at all times relevant has been, the lawful owner of all right, title andinterest in and to the ‘284 Patent, including all rights to recover for past infringement thereof byvirtue of an assignment from inventors James L. Stopa and Todd J. Smith, duly executed onFebruary 20, 2002 and recorded in the Assignment Division of the United States Patent andTrademark Office at reel/frame 012643/0841.9.   The ‘284 patent is valid and enforceable.10.   United States Letters Patent No. D500,384, entitled “Reflector for Light Assembly,” acopy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B (hereinafter “the ‘384 patent”), was duly and legallyissued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on December 28, 2004 and named Jon H. Lyons,Todd J. Smith and James L. Stopa, all residents of Connecticut, inventors.11.   Plaintiff is, and at all times relevant has been, the lawful owner of all right, title andinterest in and to the ‘384 Patent, including all rights to recover for past infringement thereof by  3virtue of an assignment from inventors Jon H. Lyons, Todd J. Smith and James L. Stopa, dulyexecuted on December 13, 2002 and recorded in the Assignment Division of the United States Patentand Trademark Office at reel/frame 013593/0798.12.   Plaintiff has marked its products embodying the invention claimed in the ‘284 patentand the ornamental design claimed in the ‘384 patent in accordance with 35 U.S.C. §287.13.   Defendant has been infringing and is continuing to infringe, directly and indirectly byway of inducement and/or contributory infringement, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, the ‘284 patent and the ‘384 patent under 35 U.S.C. §271 by importing, manufacturing,using, offering to sell and/or selling in this District and elsewhere in the United States products thatfall within the scope of one or more claims of each of the ‘284 patent and ‘384 patent.14.   Defendant has sold products covered by one or more claims of each of the ‘284 patentand ‘384 patent to customers in the State of Connecticut through its website,“www.hidheadquarters.net”.15.   Defendant's acts of infringement and active inducement of infringement set forthabove have damaged Plaintiff and will continue to cause Plaintiff irreparable harm for whichPlaintiff has no adequate remedy at law unless such acts of infringement and active inducement of infringement are enjoined and restrained by this Court. III. LANHAM ACT – TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT 16.   Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1-15 above.17.   Plaintiff is the owner of all right and title to, and goodwill associated with, UnitedStates Trademark Registration No. 76424588 for the trademark LINEAR-LED ® used in connectionwith, inter alia , warning lights and warning light systems sold in interstate commerce.18.   In sales of warning light products on its website, Defendant consistently has used and  4continues to use the LINEAR-LED ® trademark without Plaintiff’s permission or authorization.19.   Defendant has used, and is believed to be continuing to use, Plaintiff’s LINEAR-LED ® trademark in connection with Defendant’s interstate sale of warning lights and warning lightsystems that are not manufactured by or affiliated with Plaintiff.20.   Defendant’s use of the LINEAR-LED ® trademark in connection with the sale of warning lights and warning light systems that are not manufactured by Plaintiff is likely to causeconfusion as to the source or srcin of said warning lights and warning light systems.21.   Defendant has used the LINEAR-LED ® trademark in connection with the sale of warning lights delivered to Connecticut.22.   Defendant’s acts constitute willful infringement under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1114.23.   Defendant’s acts of trademark infringement have damaged Plaintiff and will continueto cause Plaintiff irreparable harm for which Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law unless such actsare enjoined and restrained by this Court. IV. TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT 24.   Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1-23 above.25.   In addition to the registered trademark LINEAR-LED ® , Plaintiff is the owner of allright and title to, and goodwill associated with, the trademarks FREEDOM ™ and VERTEX ™ used inconnection with, inter alia , warning lights and warning light systems sold in interstate commerce.26.   In sales of warning lights on its website, Defendant consistently has used andcontinues to use the trademark FREEDOM ™ , and the term “VTX” which is confusingly similar tothe trademark VERTEX ™ , without Plaintiff’s permission or authorization.27.   Defendant has used, and is believed to be continuing to use, Plaintiff’s FREEDOM ™  
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks
SAVE OUR EARTH

We need your sign to support Project to invent "SMART AND CONTROLLABLE REFLECTIVE BALLOONS" to cover the Sun and Save Our Earth.

More details...

Sign Now!

We are very appreciated for your Prompt Action!

x