UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON TACOMA DIVISION. Plaintiff(s), Defendant(s).

Transcription

1 Kurt M. Rylander, WSBA No. Mark E. Beatty, WSBA No. 0 beatty@rylanderlaw.com RYLANDER & ASSOCIATES PC 0 West th Street Vancouver, WA 0 Tel: 0.0. Fax: 0..0 Attorneys for Plaintiff 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON TACOMA DIVISION SUNMODO CORPORATION, a Washington Corporation, v. UNIRAC, INC., a New Mexico Corporation, Plaintiff(s), Defendant(s). No. -0 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT (An action related to Patents) 0 COMES NOW Plaintiff, SUNMODO CORPORATION (hereinafter Sunmodo ), by and through undersigned counsel, and by this Complaint seeks declaratory judgment against Defendant UNIRAC, INC. (hereinafter Unirac ), and alleges as follows: COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT (-0) //0 :: PM SUNM.00 JURISDICTION AND VENUE. This is an action for a declaratory judgment that SUNMODO does

2 0 0 not infringe any valid claim of United States Patent No.,,0 (the "'0 patent or the Asserted Patent ), and for a declaratory judgment that the claims of the Asserted Patent is invalid.. This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, Title of the United States Code ( U.S.C., et seq.), and under the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act ( U.S.C. 0 and 0).. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to U.S.C. (federal question) and (a) (action arising under an Act of Congress relating to patents).. Plaintiff is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that this Court has personal jurisdiction over Unirac because it has constitutionally sufficient contacts with Washington so as to make personal jurisdiction proper in this Court. Plaintiff is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that Unirac maintains ongoing contractual relationships within this district and conducts or solicits business within this district.. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to U.S.C. (b), (c) and 00(b). PARTIES. Plaintiff, Sunmodo, is incorporated in Washington and has a principal place of business in Clark County, Washington. Sundmodo manufactures and sells a product known as the Ez Roof Mount. COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT (-0) //0 :: PM SUNM.00

3 0. Plaintiff is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that Defendant, Unirac, is a New Mexico corporation and claims to have a principal place of business at Broadway Boulevard NE, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 0.. Plaintiff is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that Unirac owns the Asserted Patent.. Plaintiff is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that Unirac conducts business and engages in contracts and other substantive contact in the State of Washington, and by such extensive conduct, resides in the State of Washington. 0 THE PRESENCE OF AN ACTUAL CONTROVERSY 0. Plaintiff builds and sells a product known as the Ez Roof Mount. It sells that product nationally, internationally, and in the State of Washington.. On May, 0, Unirac, by counsel, sent a letter by Federal Express to Sunmodo. A copy of this letter, including its attachments, is attached hereto as Exhibit A.. In Unirac s May, 0 letter, Unirac claimed to own the 0 Patent, and alleged that the Ez Roof Mount made and sold by Plaintiff infringed one or more claims of the 0 Patent. The letter included a claim chart directed to Plaintiff s Ez Roof Mount contending that the Ez Roof Mount COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT (-0) //0 :: PM SUNM.00

4 0 infringed one or more claims of the 0 Patent. The letter further included a copy of the first page of the 0 Patent. Unirac further stated that that it protected it s intellectual property from infringing product and unfair competition. The letter titled itself as Infringement of U.S. Patent No.,,0.. By Unirac s actions, Plaintiff is in reasonable apprehension of an imminent patent infringement suit relating to the Asserted Patent.. Plaintiff denies that it infringes any valid claim of the Asserted Patent. Plaintiff now seeks a declaratory judgment that it does not infringe any valid claim of the Asserted Patent. 0 COUNT ONE--DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE '0 PATENT. Plaintiff re-alleges every paragraph in this Complaint.. Plaintiff s Ez Roof Mount does not infringe any valid claim of the '0 Patent threatened by Unirac.. An actual controversy exists between Plaintiff and the Defendant as to whether or not Plaintiff has infringed, or is infringing, the '0 Patent; has contributed, or is contributing, to infringement of the '0 Patent; or has induced, or is inducing, infringement of the '0 Patent.. The controversy is such that, pursuant to Federal Rue of Civil Procedure and U.S.C. 0 et seq., Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration, COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT (-0) //0 :: PM SUNM.00

5 0 0 in the form of a judgment, that by its activities Plaintiff has not infringed and is not infringing any valid and enforceable claim of the '0 Patent threatened by Unirac; has not contributed to infringement and is not contributing to infringement of the '0 Patent; and/or has not induced infringement and is not inducing infringement of the '0 Patent. Such a determination and declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time. COUNT FOUR--DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY OF THE '0 PATENT. Plaintiff re-alleges every paragraph in this Complaint. 0. Based on the above-stated conduct, Plaintiff is informed and believes that the Defendant contends that Plaintiff infringes one or more claims of the '0 Patent.. Plaintiff denies that it infringes any valid and enforceable claim of the '0 Patent threatened by Defendant, and avers that the assertions of infringement cannot be maintained consistently with statutory conditions of patentability and the statutory requirements for disclosure and claiming that must be satisfied for patent validity under at least one of U.S.C. 0, 0, and.. Accordingly, an actual controversy exists between Plaintiff and the Defendant as to the validity of the '0 Patent. The controversy is such that, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and U.S.C. 0 et COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT (-0) //0 :: PM SUNM.00

6 seq., Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration, in the form of a judgment, that the '0 Patent is invalid. Such a determination and declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time. 0 0 PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE Plaintiff prays for judgment in its favor as follows: A. For judgment in favor of Plaintiff against Defendant on all claims; B. Declaring that Plaintiff s Ez Roof Mount does not infringe any valid claim of the Asserted Patent; C. Declaring that the one or more claims of the Asserted Patent are invalid under one or more of U.S.C. 0, 0, and ; D. Awarding Plaintiff s its reasonable attorneys fees and costs, including costs for experts, pursuant to State and Federal law, including U.S.C. E. Awarding Plaintiff such other and further relief as this Court deems is just and proper. COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT (-0) //0 :: PM SUNM.00

7 DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all counts so triable. 0 0 DATED This August, 0 /s/ Kurt M.Rylander KURT M. RYLANDER, WSBA /s/ Mark E. Beatty MARK E. BEATTY, WSBA 0 RYLANDER & ASSOCIATES PC 0 West th Street Vancouver, WA 0 Tel: (0) 0- Fax: (0) -0 rylander@rylanderlaw.com Of Attorneys for Plaintiff COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT (-0) //0 :: PM SUNM.00