Swimways et. al. v. Innovation First International et. al.

download Swimways et. al. v. Innovation First International et. al.

of 5

Transcript of Swimways et. al. v. Innovation First International et. al.

  • 8/13/2019 Swimways et. al. v. Innovation First International et. al.

    1/5

    UNI TED S T T E S D I S T R I C T C O U R TFOR T HE E ST ER N D I S T R I C T OF VIRGIN

    N o r f o l k Div is ion

    FILED

    ACLEHK. U.S. cisr,,,;;; c o u h tNO~ =O. K VA

    S W I M W Y S C O R P O R T I O N andVAP CREATIVE LTD

    Plaintiffs CaseNo.^MCAl^fSJ U R Y T R I L D E M N D E D

    INNOVATION FIRST INTERNATIONALINC and INNOVATION FIRST LABS INC

    Defendant

    C O M P L IN T

    Plaintiffs SwimWays Corporation ( SwimWays ) and Vap Creative, Ltd. ( Vap )(collectively, Plaintiffs ), by counsel, for their Complaint against Defendants Innovation FirstInternational, Inc. ( Innovation First International ) and Innovation First Labs, Inc. ( InnovationFirst Labs ) (collectively, Defendants ) allege as follows:

    Part ies

    1. Plaintiff Vap Creative, Ltd. is an Ohio corporation with its principal place ofbusiness at 3721 M o hler Road, Cin cinn ati, Oh io 4 52 41 . It is t he o w ne r o f United States Patent No.6,860,785 ( 785 patent ), which was duly and legally issued on March 1, 2005. A true andaccurate copy of the 785 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

    2. PlaintiffSwimWays is a Virginia corporationwith its principal place of business at5816 Ward Court, Virginia Beach, Virginia 23455. It is an exclusive licensee fromVap, of the7 85 patent.

    3. Defendant Innovation First International, upon information and belief, is a Texascorporation with its principal place of business at 1519 Interstate 30 West, Greenville, TX 75402.

  • 8/13/2019 Swimways et. al. v. Innovation First International et. al.

    2/5

    4. Defendant Innovation First Labs, upon information and belief, is a Texascorporationwith itsprincipalplace of business at 1519 Interstate 30 West, Greenville,TX 75402.

    5. On information and belief Defendant Innovation First Labs is a wholly ownedsubsidiary of Defendant Innovation First International.

    ur isdic t ion and Venue

    6. Thisis an action for patent infringement arising under the Patent Act 35 U.S.C. 1etseq.

    7. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28U.S.C. 1331 and 1338(a).

    8. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(c) because it is a districtin which Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction.

    9. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because Defendants havecommitted, directed, authorized, endorsed and/or approved of acts of infringement in the EasternDistrict of Virginia; Defendants have caused tortious injury to SwimWays in the Eastern District ofVirginia, Norfolk Division; and Defendants have transacted substantial business in this judicialdistrict.

    Facts Applicable to AH Coun ts

    10. Swimways is a worldwide manufacturer of innovative and commercially successfulleisure and recreational water products. The SwimWays brand has beenaround for over 35 yearsand SwimWays continues to invest substantial resources into its product design anddevelopment tocreate unique, quality products which are leaders in the industry. SwimWays products can befound in thousands of major retailers and individual pool dealers, both in the United States andabroad.

    11. SwimWays products include a line of Rainbow Reef swimming fish products,

  • 8/13/2019 Swimways et. al. v. Innovation First International et. al.

    3/5

    examples of which are shown in Exhibit B.12. The Rainbow Reef products have been advertised through various advertising

    media including on the Internet and substantial advertising dollars have been spent in connectionwith the products. The Rainbow Reef products have appeared in print media newspapers tradejournals, magazines, promotional materials, and on the Internet, in addition to at retail locations.

    13. On information and belief Defendants market their infringing products throughvarious advertising media and those products areavailable forsaleat retail locations throughout theUnited States.

    14. Defendants sell a variety of robotic fish products sold under the name Aquabot( Accused Products ) that infringe one or more claims of the 785 Patent. An example of theA c c u s ed P r o du c ts is sh o w n in E x h ib it C .

    oun t One I n f r i n g e m e n t of t he 7 85 p at en t)

    15. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege, as if fully set forth herein, each and every allegationcontained in the foregoing paragraphs.

    16. Defendants manufacture, distribute, sell, offer to sell, and/or import the AccusedProducts throughout the United States in the stream of interstate commerce.

    17. The Accused Products embody and infringe the 785 patent in violation ofSwimWays statutory rights under 35 U.S.C. 1 et seq.

    18. Defendants do not have license or authorization fromSwimWays to utilize the 785patent.

    19. Defendants conduct also constitutes contributory and/or induced infringement ofthe 785 patent.

    20. Defendants infringement of the 785 patent has been willful.

  • 8/13/2019 Swimways et. al. v. Innovation First International et. al.

    4/5

    21. The foregoing acts of patent infringement by Defendants have caused, and unlessenjoined by this Court will continue to cause immediate and irreparable injury and damage toPlaintiffs, leaving Plaintiffs with no adequate remedy at law.

    Prayer For Rel ie fWHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray:(a) that thisCourt issue preliminaryand permanent injunctiverelief againstDefendants,

    their respective officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, parent andsubsidiary corporations, assigns and successors in interest, and those persons inactive concert or participation with them, enjoining them from continued acts ofinfringement of the 785 patent including without limitation an injunction againstfuture sales o f th e Accused Products;

    (b) a judgmentthatthe 785 patentis dulyand legally issued,valid, andenforceable;(c) a judgment thatDefendants have infringed oneormoreclaims of the 785 patent;(d) an accounting and award of compensatory and punitive damages under 35 U.S.C.

    284 including, but not limited to, Plaintiffs lost profits, but in any event not lessthan a reasonable royalty, resulting from Defendants infringement of the 785patent, togetherwith prejudgment and postjudgment interest;

    (e) that Defendants acts be deemed willful and intentional and that Defendants berequired to pay to Plaintiffs additional damages equal to three times the actualdamages awarded pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 284;

    (f) that this be adjudged an exceptional case and that Plaintiffs be awarded theirattorney fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 285 inaddition toother authority;

    (g) that this Court award Plaintiffs their costs incurred herein; and

  • 8/13/2019 Swimways et. al. v. Innovation First International et. al.

    5/5

    (h) for such other and further relief as this Court deems just.J U R Y D E M N D

    Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38, Plaintiffs hereby demands a trial by juryo n all issues s o triable.Dated: February 12,2014

    Craig L. MytelkaVirginia State Bar No. 31652C o u n s e l f o r P l a in t if f sWILLIAMS MULLEN, P.C.99 9 Waterside Dr., Suite 1700Norfolk, VA 23510Telephone: (757) 473-5336Facsimile: 757) [email protected]

    By:

    S W I MW A Y S C O R PO R A TI O N an d V A PCREATIVE, LTI

    John oJ SwingUVirgin^ State Bar No 8 ?C o u n s e l f o r P l a in t if f sWILLIAMS MULLEN, P.C.999 Waterside Dr., Suite 1700Norfolk, VA 23510Telephone: (757) 473-5327Facsimile: (757) [email protected]


Multi-scale assessment of human-induced changes to ... · (Neill et al. 2001; Davidson et al. 2004; Neill et al. 2006; Figueiredo et al. 2010; Neill et al. 2011; Macedo et al. 2013;

Multi-scale assessment of human-induced changes to ... · (Neill et al. 2001; Davidson et al. 2004; Neill et al. 2006; Figueiredo et al. 2010; Neill et al. 2011; Macedo et al. 2013;

SwimWays Et. Al. v. Greyland Trading

SwimWays Et. Al. v. Greyland Trading

The human genome Lander et al. 2001 Venter et al. 2001 Patil et al. 2001 Gabriel et al. 2002 Reich et al. 2001 Sabeti et al. 2002 Yu et al. 2002.

The human genome Lander et al. 2001 Venter et al. 2001 Patil et al. 2001 Gabriel et al. 2002 Reich et al. 2001 Sabeti et al. 2002 Yu et al. 2002.

Oceana et al vs.BOEM et al

Oceana et al vs.BOEM et al

(12) United States Patent (10) Patent No.: US 7895.275 B1 ... Gutta et al. Signes et al. Hashimoto et al. Ghashghai et al. Ting et al. Vaidyanathan et al. Obradovich Larsson et al.

(12) United States Patent (10) Patent No.: US 7895.275 B1 ... Gutta et al. Signes et al. Hashimoto et al. Ghashghai et al. Ting et al. Vaidyanathan et al. Obradovich Larsson et al.

Wisconsin et al v. Fitzgerald et al

Wisconsin et al v. Fitzgerald et al

Edinburgh Research Explorer€¦ · 62 et al., 2005; Costa et al., 2008; Wedley et al., 2011) and sick dogs (Carattoli et al., 2005; Pomba et 63 al., 2009; Gibson et al., 2011a),

Edinburgh Research Explorer€¦ · 62 et al., 2005; Costa et al., 2008; Wedley et al., 2011) and sick dogs (Carattoli et al., 2005; Pomba et 63 al., 2009; Gibson et al., 2011a),

Buzz Bee Toys v. Swimways - Water Warriors

Buzz Bee Toys v. Swimways - Water Warriors

ArcticDx et. al. v. Sequenom et. al.

ArcticDx et. al. v. Sequenom et. al.

Wacom et. al. v. Applebox et. al.

Wacom et. al. v. Applebox et. al.

Troya et al Dooley et al Fancourt et al Zhong et al · Troya et al Involving patients with dementia in decisions to initiate treatment Dooley et al ... Elena Garralda Simon Gilbody

Troya et al Dooley et al Fancourt et al Zhong et al · Troya et al Involving patients with dementia in decisions to initiate treatment Dooley et al ... Elena Garralda Simon Gilbody

Glynn et. al. v. Christy et. al.

Glynn et. al. v. Christy et. al.

AMT 13-2413-2020 - Copernicus.org · 2020. 7. 15. · et al., 2019; Feinberg et al., 2019; Gao et al., 2015; Jiao et al., 2016; Popoola et al., 2018; Yuval et al., 2019). Distributed

AMT 13-2413-2020 - Copernicus.org · 2020. 7. 15. · et al., 2019; Feinberg et al., 2019; Gao et al., 2015; Jiao et al., 2016; Popoola et al., 2018; Yuval et al., 2019). Distributed

Perry et al v. Judd et al

Perry et al v. Judd et al

USA, Et Al v. Kaplan, Et Al

USA, Et Al v. Kaplan, Et Al

Quaternary evolution of the Caravelas strandplain – …Dominguez et al. 1998). (Suguio et al. 1985, Martin et al. 1987, 1988, Suguio et al. 1988, Martin et al. 2002). Martin et al.

Quaternary evolution of the Caravelas strandplain – …Dominguez et al. 1998). (Suguio et al. 1985, Martin et al. 1987, 1988, Suguio et al. 1988, Martin et al. 2002). Martin et al.

EXHIBIT A2 - cases.justia.com · 811996 Konrad 1211996 Koppolu et al. 211997 Duscher et al. 311997 Koppolu et al. 511997 Koppolu et al. 711997 Ashe et al. 511998 Koppolu et al. 911998

EXHIBIT A2 - cases.justia.com · 811996 Konrad 1211996 Koppolu et al. 211997 Duscher et al. 311997 Koppolu et al. 511997 Koppolu et al. 711997 Ashe et al. 511998 Koppolu et al. 911998

EXHIBIT E - cases.justia.com · 811996 Konrad 1211996 Koppolu et al. 211997 Duscher et al. 311997 Koppolu et al. 511997 Koppolu et al. 711997 Ashe et al. 511998 Koppolu et al. 911998

EXHIBIT E - cases.justia.com · 811996 Konrad 1211996 Koppolu et al. 211997 Duscher et al. 311997 Koppolu et al. 511997 Koppolu et al. 711997 Ashe et al. 511998 Koppolu et al. 911998

NCAA Et Al v. Christie Et Al

NCAA Et Al v. Christie Et Al

(12) United States Patent (io) · Sevcik et al. Ryanetal..... 144/154.5 Govindaraj et al. Kennedy et al. Malone Woods et al. Takahashi et al. Dick et al. Ceroll et al. Caron et al.

(12) United States Patent (io) · Sevcik et al. Ryanetal..... 144/154.5 Govindaraj et al. Kennedy et al. Malone Woods et al. Takahashi et al. Dick et al. Ceroll et al. Caron et al.