Universal Support Systems v. CommScope et. al by patentbl

VIEWS: 53 PAGES: 6

									                        IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                   FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA


UNIVERSAL SUPPORT SYSTEMS, LLC                        )
                                                      )
     Plaintiff,                                       )
                                                      )
v.                                                    ) Civil Action No. 5:11-cv-00084
                                                      )
COMMSCOPE, INC.; COMMSCOPE, INC.                      ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
OF NORTH CAROLINA; ANDREW                             )
CORPORATION; TC GROUP, LLC AND                        )
TC GROUP COMMSCOPE HOLDINGS,                          )
LLC                                                   )
                                                      )
     Defendants.


                                            COMPLAINT

         Plaintiff Universal Support Systems, LLC (“USS”), for its complaint against defendants

Commscope, Inc.; Commscope, Inc. of North Carolina; Andrew Corporation; TC Group, LLC

and TC Group Commscope Holdings, LLC (collectively “Commscope” or “Defendants”),

seeking damages, injunctive relief and other relief for patent infringement, alleges as follows:

                                       NATURE OF ACTION

         1.       This is an action for patent infringement arising under Title 35 of the United

States Code, seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief against Commscope due to its

continued violation of USS’s rights in U.S. Patent No. 6,669,163.

                                              PARTIES

         2.       USS is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of

Kentucky, having its principal place of business in Elizabethtown, Kentucky. USS is a small

company that supplies the telecommunications industry with platforms for supporting
telecommunications equipment, for example on buildings or in connection with cellular phone

towers or installations.

       3.      Commscope, Inc. is a formerly public corporation organized and existing under

the laws of the State of Delaware, having its principal place of business in Hickory, North

Carolina. Upon information and belief, Commscope, Inc. was acquired by TC Group, LLC

and/or TC Group Commscope Holdings, LLC in 2011 and those entities and/or others may be

responsible for the unlawful conduct of Commscope, Inc. described below.

       4.      Commscope, Inc. of North Carolina is a corporation organized and existing under

the laws of the State of North Carolina, having its principal place of business in Hickory, North

Carolina. Upon information and belief, Commscope, Inc. of North Carolina was acquired

(directly or indirectly) by TC Group, LLC and/or TC Group Commscope Holdings, LLC in 2011

and those entities and/or others may be responsible for the unlawful conduct of Commscope, Inc.

of North Carolina described below.

       5.      Andrew Corporation is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the

State of Delaware, having a principal place of business in Orland Park, Illinois. Andrew

Corporation was acquired by Commscope, Inc. in 2007 and Commscope, Inc. and/or its

successors are responsible for the unlawful conduct of Andrew Corporation described below.

       6.      Upon information and belief, TC Group, LLC and/or TC Group Commscope

Holdings, LLC acquired (directly or indirectly) Commscope, Inc and Commscope Inc. of North

Carolina in 2011 and those entities and/or others may be responsible for the unlawful conduct of

the other defendants described below.

       7.      USS competes with Commscope for the sale of platforms and other equipment to

the telecommunications industry and others.




                                                2
                                 JURISDICTION AND VENUE

       8.      This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28

U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).

       9.      This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because, on information and

belief, Defendants transact business within this district, including, without limitation, the

manufacture or offer for sale of the infringing products described herein.

       10.     Venue in this district is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C §§ 1391(b) and (c) and

1400(b).

                                        PATENT-IN-SUIT

       11.     On February 23, 2001, an application was filed for a patent on Mr. Wilman E.

Davis, Jr.’s invention of a Support Apparatus and Grounded Equipment Frame. USS is the

assignee of that invention. On December 30, 2003, United States Patent No. 6,669,163 issued

and USS was awarded full patent protection for the Davis invention (“the ‘163 Patent”). A true

and accurate copy of the ‘163 Patent, which is valid and subsisting, is attached hereto as Exhibit

A and incorporated herein by reference.

       12.     USS is the owner by assignment of all rights, title and interest in and to the ‘163

Patent and possesses all rights of recovery thereunder, including the right to sue for infringement

and recover past damages.

                                           COUNT I
                          (Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,669,163 )

       13.     USS hereby incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1

through 12 of this Complaint as if stated herein.

       14.     Defendants, without USS’s authorization and in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271,

have directly and contributorily infringed and continue to infringe the ‘163 Patent by making,



                                                    3
using, offering to sell and/or selling legs for equipment platforms used in the telecommunications

industry and elsewhere, including, without limitation, the legs that Commscope identifies by the

product name “Weight Dispersement Leg for Equipment Platform” (“the Accused Products”),

which are covered by one or more claims of the ‘163 Patent.

          15.   To the extent that Defendants’ infringement of the ‘163 Patent is or has been

willful, USS reserves the right to request such a finding at the time of trial.

          16.   Defendants’ conduct has caused USS to be deprived of rights, remunerations and

profits which would have otherwise come to USS but for the infringement, thereby entitling USS

to recover its damages but no less than a reasonable royalty for Commscope’s infringement.

          17.   USS has no adequate remedy at law, and Defendants’ conduct has caused and, if

not enjoined, will continue to cause irreparable damage to USS.

          18.   As a result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct, USS is entitled to injunctive relief.

                                      RELIEF REQUESTED

          WHEREFORE, USS prays:

          A.    That this Court order, adjudge and decree that Defendants have directly and

contributorily infringed the claims of the ‘163 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271.

          B.    That injunctions, preliminary and permanent, be issued out of this Court

restraining Defendants, and their officers, agents, servants and employees, from directly or

indirectly making or causing to be made, selling, or causing to be sold, or offering for sale,

importing, or using or causing to be used in any way the inventions of the claims of ‘163 Patent,

or otherwise directly infringing, contributorily infringing or inducing infringement of the ‘163

Patent.

          C.    That this Court order Defendants, their officers, agents, servants and employees to

deliver up to this Court for destruction all products infringing upon, directly or otherwise, any


                                                  4
claim of the ‘163 Patent or the use of which would infringe, directly or otherwise, any claim of

the ‘163 Patent.

       D.        That Defendants be ordered to account for and pay over all proceeds and profits

made by them from its wrongful infringing acts, and to account for and pay to USS damages in a

sum to be determined by the Court.

       E.        That, if supported by the evidence, the damages awarded by the Court to USS be

trebled in view of intentional copying of USS’s patented inventions and willful and wanton

violation of USS’s patent rights.

       F.        That this Court find this to be an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and

order Defendants to pay to USS reasonable attorney’s fees and all other costs which may be

incurred by USS.

       G.        That this Court order Defendants to pay the costs of this action, pre-judgment

interest and post-judgment interest.

       H.        That this Court grant to USS such other and further relief as may be deemed just

and equitable.




                                                  5
                                      JURY DEMAND

      USS hereby demands trial by jury on all issues so triable.



Dated: June 16, 2011                       Respectfully submitted,

                                           /s/ Irving M. Brenner
                                           Irving M. Brenner (NCSB No. 15483)
                                           MCGUIREWOODS LLP
                                           201 North Tryon St.
                                           Charlotte, NC 28202
                                           Tel: 704.343.2000
                                           Fax: 704.373.8935
                                           ibrenner@mcguirewoods.com

                                           Counsel for Plaintiff




                                               6

								
To top