Prolitec v. ScentAir Technologies

Document Sample
Prolitec v. ScentAir Technologies Powered By Docstoc
					                          UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
                             EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN


Prolitec Inc.,

                 Plaintiff,
                                                            Case No.
        v.

ScentAir Technologies, Inc.,

                 Defendant.


                                            COMPLAINT


        Plaintiff, Prolitec Inc., for its Complaint against defendant, ScentAir Technologies, Inc.,

hereby alleges as follows:

                                           THE PARTIES

        1.       Plaintiff, Prolitec Inc., (“Prolitec”), is a Wisconsin corporation having its principal

place of business at 1235 West Canal Street, Milwaukee, WI 53233.

        2.       Defendant, ScentAir Technologies, Inc., (“ScentAir”), is a North Carolina

corporation having its principal place of business at 14301 South Lakes Drive, Suite G,

Charlotte, NC 28273.

                                  JURISDICTION AND VENUE

        3.       This is an action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the

United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et. seq. Accordingly, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over

this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).

        4.       The Court has personal jurisdiction over ScentAir pursuant to Wis. Stat.

§ 801.05(1) because ScentAir provides, uses, offers for sale, and sells products in this state and

this district that infringe patent rights of Prolitec. Personal jurisdiction over ScentAir is also
proper under Wis. Stat. § 801.05(4) because Prolitec has suffered injury within this state and

judicial district due to the infringing activities of ScentAir. This Court’s exercise of personal

jurisdiction over ScentAir comports with the Due Process Clause of the United States

Constitution.

       5.       Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)-(d) and 28 U.S.C.

§ 1400(b).

                   COUNT I – PATENT INFRINGEMENT, 35 U.S.C. § 271

       6.       Prolitec restates and realleges the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.

       7.       On April 19, 2011, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”)

issued U.S. Patent No. 7,930,068, (the “’068 Patent”), titled “System and Method of Controlling

Operation of a Liquid Diffusion Appliance,” to Prolitec. A true and correct copy of the ’068

Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

       8.       Prolitec owns the ’068 Patent and has owned the ’068 Patent throughout the

period of ScentAir’s infringing acts.

       9.       ScentAir manufactures, uses, sells, and offers to sell scent delivery systems that

release fragrances into the environment under the names ScentWave, ScentDirect, and

ScentStream.

       10.      ScentAir’s commercial activities with respect to its ScentDirect product directly

and indirectly infringe one or more claims of the ’068 Patent.

       11.      ScentAir’s infringement is, upon information and belief, willful. On February 13,

2012, Prolitec, through counsel, notified ScentAir of the ’068 Patent, and that ScentAir’s

products, including, but not limited, to its ScentDirect product, infringe the ’068 Patent. A true

and correct copy of the February 13, 2012 letter is attached hereto as Exhibit B.




                                                  2
       12.        ScentAir has been, and is still, directly infringing the ’068 Patent under 35 U.S.C.

§ 271(a) by making, selling, offering for sale, importing, and using its ScentDirect product, and

ScentAir will continue to do so unless enjoined by this court.

       13.        ScentAir has been, and is, actively inducing infringement of the ’068 Patent under

35 U.S.C. § 271(b) by providing to customers the ScentDirect product, along with instructions

and directions that result in the use of the methods and systems disclosed and claimed in the ’068

Patent. ScentAir intends that its customers use the ScentDirect product in accordance with

instructions and directions provided by ScentAir, and knows that its customers and other users of

the ScentDirect product use it to infringe the ’068 Patent, thus, intentionally inducing

infringement of the ’068 Patent.

       14.        ScentAir has been, and is, contributorily infringing the ’068 Patent under 35

U.S.C. § 271(c) by selling, offering for sale, and importing its ScentDirect product. The

ScentDirect product is a material part of the methods disclosed and claimed in the ’068 Patent.

The ScentDirect product is not a staple article or commodity of commerce, and has no substantial

non-infringing use. ScentAir knows that its ScentDirect product is made or adapted for an

infringing use.

       15.        As a direct and proximate result of ScentAir’s infringement of the ‘068 Patent,

Prolitec is suffering damages and irreparable injury for which it has no adequate remedy at law.

                                       PRAYER FOR RELIEF

       WHEREFORE, Prolitec prays that the Court:

       1) Find that ScentAir has infringed the ’068 Patent;

       2) Grant a permanent injunction prohibiting ScentAir from further infringement of the

’068 Patent;




                                                    3
        3) Require ScentAir to pay damages to Prolitec adequate to compensate for the

infringement and not less than a reasonable royalty, together with prejudgment interest and costs;

        4) Award Prolitec multiple damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 for ScentAir’s willful

infringement;

        5) Find this to be an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and require ScentAir to pay

Prolitec’s litigation expenses including reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; and

        6) Grant any other relief that the Court may deem just and proper.

                                        JURY DEMAND

        In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38, Prolitec hereby demands a trial

by jury in this action.



Dated: May 15, 2012.                           s/ Jennifer L. Gregor
                                               James D. Peterson
                                               Jennifer L. Gregor
                                               Andrew C. Landsman
                                               GODFREY & KAHN, S.C.
                                               One East Main Street, Suite 500
                                               Madison, WI 53703
                                               Phone: 608-257-3911
                                               Fax: 608-254-0609
                                               Email: jpeterson@gklaw.com,
                                               jgregor@gklaw.com,
                                               alandsman@gklaw.com

                                               Nicholas A. Kees
                                               GODFREY & KAHN, S.C.
                                               780 North Water Street
                                               Milwaukee, WI 53202-3590
                                               Phone: 414-273-3500
                                               Fax:    414-273-5198
                                               Email: nakees@gklaw.com

                                               Attorneys for Plaintiff, Prolitec Inc.
7939395_3




                                                 4

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:28
posted:5/19/2012
language:Latin
pages:4