Case: 1:13-cv-01217 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/14/13 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION PHATRAT TECHNOLOGY, LLC vs. Plaintiff, Civil Action No. RIDDELL, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendant. COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGMENT Plaintiff PhatRat Technology, LLC ( PhatRat ) complains against Riddell ( Riddell ) as follows: THE PARTIES 1. Plaintiff PhatRat is a Colorado limited liability company having a place of business at 10437 Goosehaven Drive, Lafayette, Colorado, 80026. PhatRat is the exclusive licensee and holder of all substantial rights to U.S. Patent Nos. 7,386,401 (entitled Helmet That Reports Impact Information, and Associated Methods ) and 7,693,668 (entitled Impact Reporting Head Gear System and Method ), referred to below as the PhatRat Patents. PhatRat has standing to sue for infringement of the PhatRat Patents. The PhatRat Patents and relate to systems and methods for determining the impact to a head or helmet during sporting activities and combat, by measuring the impact to a head and/or helmet, and reporting the impact information wirelessly to a remote location. 2. Defendant Riddell is a private corporation headquartered in Rosemont, Illinois. Riddell provides customers its Head Impact Telemetry System ( HITS ) and Sideline Response System ( SRS ), aspects of which PhatRat contends infringe the
Case: 1:13-cv-01217 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/14/13 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:2 PhatRat Patents as alleged below. The HITS technology is mounted within football helmets, and in conjunction with SRS, allows for easy and accurate monitoring of onfield head impacts via wireless communication. The technology uses electronics in the helmet that monitor and record impacts while in use, and measures the location, magnitude, duration and direction of head impacts and impact accumulations and transmits this information wirelessly to the sideline. Coaches and medical doctors can use the information to assess the likelihood of a head injury, such as a concussion. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, e.g., 35 U.S.C. 271, 281, 283-285. Subject matter jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1338(a). 4. Defendant Riddell resides in the State of Illinois, and in this judicial district. Accordingly, this Court has personal jurisdiction over Riddell, and venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. 1391 and/or 1400. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 5. Inventors Curtis A. Vock, Dennis Darcy and Peter Flentov have over 60 years of engineering experience. Between them they have invented over 100 patents, and their past employers include leading engineering corporations such as Draper Laboratories, Honeywell, and Lockheed Martin. The inventors made several key intuitive leaps concerning how to monitor and quantify sports movement, associated either with the person, the sporting vehicle used by the person, or apparel worn by the person. They developed the idea over time through a series of patent applications, beginning as early as 2
Case: 1:13-cv-01217 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/14/13 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:3 1994. The 401 Patent issued on June 10, 2008 and the 668 Patent issued on April 6, 2010. 6. Riddell has been aware of patents owned by PhatRat that relate to sports monitoring systems since at least approximately July 25, 2006, the date of a firm license offer sent to Riddell on behalf of PhatRat. The offer asked Riddell to review U.S. Patent No. 7,054,784 and U.S. Patent Application No. 11/221,029, now U.S. Patent No. 7,162,392 (both then owned by PhatRat) and asked Riddell to contact PhatRat to discuss licensing terms. Both the 401 Patent and 668 Patent relate to each of the 784 and 392 patents. 7. On February 17, 2011 PhatRat s counsel sent a follow-up license offer to Riddell indicating that Riddell s sports monitoring systems were covered by claims in PhatRat s patent portfolio, including the 401 Patent and 668 Patent. COUNT I 401 PATENT 8. PhatRat hereby incorporates paragraphs 1-7 above by reference. 9. Riddell has infringed at least one claim of the 401 Patent through, among other activities, making, using (for example by testing), offering to sell, and/or selling the Riddell SRS and HITS systems. Riddell s infringement may include additional products, services and technologies (to be determined in discovery) marketed or used by Riddell. Riddell has also knowingly and intentionally actively aided, abetted and induced others to infringe (such as its customers, users, and/or business partners in this judicial district and throughout the United States). Riddell has also knowingly contributed to customer infringement, within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 271(c), by among other things providing 3
Case: 1:13-cv-01217 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/14/13 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:4 the Riddell SRS and HITS systems, which are not staple articles of commerce capable of substantial noninfringing use. 10. As a direct and proximate consequence of the infringement, PhatRat has been, is being and, unless such acts and practices are enjoined by the Court, will continue to be injured in its business and property rights, and has suffered, is suffering, and will continue to suffer injury and damages for which it is entitled to relief under 35 U.S.C. 284 adequate to compensate for such infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty. 11. Riddell s infringement of the 401 patent has been and continues to be willful and deliberate and has injured PhatRat and it is therefore entitled to recover damages adequate to compensate it for such infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty. COUNT II 668 PATENT 12. PhatRat hereby incorporates paragraphs 1-10 above by reference. 13. Riddell has infringed at least one claim of the 668 Patent through, among other activities, making, using (for example by testing), offering to sell, and/or selling the Riddell SRS and HITS systems. Its infringement may include additional products, services and technologies (to be determined in discovery) marketed or used by Riddell. Riddell has also knowingly and intentionally actively aided, abetted and induced others to infringe (such as its customers, users, and/or business partners in this judicial district and throughout the United States). Riddell has also knowingly contributed to customer infringement, within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 271(c), by among other things providing 4
Case: 1:13-cv-01217 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/14/13 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:5 the Riddell SRS and HITS systems, which are not staple articles of commerce capable of substantial noninfringing use. 14. As a direct and proximate consequence of the infringement, PhatRat has been, is being and, unless such acts and practices are enjoined by the Court, will continue to be injured in its business and property rights, and has suffered, is suffering, and will continue to suffer injury and damages for which it is entitled to relief under 35 U.S.C. 284 adequate to compensate for such infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty. 15. Riddell s infringement of the 668 patent has been and continues to be willful and deliberate and has injured PhatRat and it is therefore entitled to recover damages adequate to compensate it for such infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff PhatRat asks this Court to enter judgment against Riddell and against its respective subsidiaries, affiliates, agents, servants, employees and all persons in active concert or participation with them, granting the following relief: A. An award of damages adequate to compensate PhatRat for the infringement that has occurred, together with prejudgment interest from the date infringement of the PhatRat Patents began and statutory costs; B. A finding that Riddell s infringement has been willful; C. An award to PhatRat of all remedies available under 35 U.S.C. 284; D. An award to PhatRat of all remedies available under 35 U.S.C. 285; 5
Case: 1:13-cv-01217 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/14/13 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:6 E. A permanent injunction prohibiting further infringement, inducement and contributory infringement of the PhatRat Patents; and F. Such other and further relief as this Court or a jury may deem proper and just. JURY DEMAND PhatRat demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable. Dated: February 14, 2013 PhatRat Technology, LLC By: /s/ William W. Flachsbart William W. Flachsbart Robert P. Greenspoon Michael R. La Porte FLACHSBART & GREENSPOON, LLC 333 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 2700 Chicago, IL 60601 T: 312-551-9500 F: 312-551-9501 Attorneys for Plaintiff PhatRat Technology, LLC 6