Ficep v. Voortman

download Ficep v. Voortman

of 5

Transcript of Ficep v. Voortman

  • 7/29/2019 Ficep v. Voortman

    1/5

    4840-3464-7570.4

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

    DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

    FICEP CORPORATION,2301 Industry Court,Forest Hill Industrial Park,

    Forest Hill, Maryland 21050

    Maryland County of Residence: Harford

    County

    Plaintiff, Civil Action No.: _______

    v.

    VOORTMAN USA CORP.,

    450 South Spruce Street,

    Manteno, Illinois 60950

    Defendant.

    COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

    I. PARTIES

    1. Plaintiff Ficep Corporation (Ficep) is a Maryland corporation having offices at

    2301 Industry Court, Forest Hill Industrial Park, Forest Hill, Maryland 21050.

    2. On information and belief, defendant Voortman USA Corp. (Voortman) is an

    entity organized under the laws of Illinois and having a place of business at 450 South Spruce

    Street, Manteno, Illinois 60950.

    II. BACKGROUND

    3. This action for patent infringement arises under the patent laws of the United

    States, 35 U.S.C. 1 et seq.

  • 7/29/2019 Ficep v. Voortman

    2/5

    - 2 -4840-3464-7570.4

    4. Ficep is the owner of all rights, title and interest including the right to bring a

    suit for patent infringement in U.S. Patent No. 7,974,719, entitled Method and Apparatus for

    Automatic Manufacture of an Object with Multiple Intersecting Components (the 719

    Patent) (copy attached as Exhibit A, hereto).

    5. Ficep is an industry leader and principal supplier of structural steel and plate

    fabrication and processing systems. The 719 patent generally relates to systems and methods

    for the manufacture of construction components, such as steel beams, including for example by

    cutting or shaping the component or marking particular locations thereon based upon

    construction information that may be stored in a computer.

    6. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action under 28 U.S.C.

    1331 and 1338(a).

    III. CLAIM FOR RELIEF

    7. Ficep incorporates by reference each of the foregoing paragraphs, as if fully stated

    herein.

    8. Defendant Voortman has directly and/or indirectly infringed one or more claims

    of the 719 Patent, in violation of one or more subsections of 35 U.S.C. 271 including at least

    one or more of subsections 271(a), (b), (c), (f) and (g).

    9. By correspondence from its counsel dated March 20, 2012 and/or April 16, 2012,

    Ficep told Voortman of Voortmans infringements on account of at least one or more of

    Voortmans V704M layout marking system products, V806 and V808 coping products, V603

    and V630 drilling products, and V330C and V330S plate processing products.

  • 7/29/2019 Ficep v. Voortman

    3/5

    - 3 -4840-3464-7570.4

    10. Voortmans direct infringements and/or the direct infringements of others, for

    which Voortman would be liable as an indirect infringer satisfy all the limitations of one or

    more claims of the 719 Patent, either literally or by equivalents.

    11. Defendant Voortman is liable as a direct infringer because it has made, used, sold,

    offered to sell, or imported into the U.S., products or services that are within the scope of one or

    more claims of the 719 Patent and/or Defendant Voortman has made, used, sold, offered to sell,

    or imported into the U.S. products, made by methods claimed in the 719 Patent.

    12. Defendant Voortman is liable as an indirect infringer for the direct infringement

    of others that have made, used, sold or offered to sell, or imported into the U.S., products or

    services that are within the scope of one or more claims of the 719 Patent and/or that have

    made, used, sold, offered to sell, or imported into the U.S., products made by methods claimed in

    the 719 Patent.

    13. On information and belief, defendant Voortman has actively induced infringement

    of the 719 Patent, at least by intentionally encouraging the direct infringement of one or more

    claims of the 719 Patent by customers, buyers, sellers and others. On information and belief,

    prior to this action, Voortman had knowledge of and intended to cause direct infringement by

    others and/or Voortman willfully blinded itself to the existence of the 719 Patent and such

    infringement.

    14. On information and belief, defendant Voortman is also a contributory infringer of

    one or more claims of the 719 Patent, at least because it sells, offers to sell, or imports into the

    U.S. a material or apparatus for use in practicing subject matter claimed in the 719 Patent,

    constituting a material part of the invention, knowing the same to be especially made or

    especially adapted for use in such infringement, and not a staple article or commodity of

  • 7/29/2019 Ficep v. Voortman

    4/5

    - 4 -4840-3464-7570.4

    commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use. On information and belief, prior to this

    action Voortman had knowledge of the 719 Patent and intended to cause direct infringement by

    others, and/or Voortman willfully blinded itself to the existence of the 719 Patent and such

    infringement.

    15. Ficep has sustained damages as a result of Voortmans direct and/or indirect

    infringement of the 719 Patent identified herein and Voortman is liable for such damages in this

    action, including pre-suit damages.

    16. Ficep has no adequate remedy at law for Voortmans continued infringement of

    the 719 Patent such that the Court must enjoin Voortman from further acts of infringement.

    17. On information and belief, Voortmans direct and/or indirect infringement of the

    719 Patent is and has been willful and deliberate, justifying increased damages under 35 U.S.C.

    284.

    18. In addition, Voortmans infringement of the 719 Patent is exceptional and

    entitles Ficep to an award of attorneys fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this action under

    35 U.S.C. 285.

    IV. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

    Ficep hereby demands a trial by jury of all issues so triable in this action.

    V. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

    WHEREFORE, Ficep respectfully requests the following relief:

    A. Enjoin Voortman and each of its respective affiliates, subsidiaries; officers, directors,

    employees, agents, representatives, licensees, successors, assigns and all those

    acting for them, on their behalf, or in concert with them from further infringement

    of the 719 Patent as alleged herein.

  • 7/29/2019 Ficep v. Voortman

    5/5

    - 5 -4840-3464-7570.4

    B. Award Ficep compensatory damages, costs, prejudgment interest, and postjudgment

    interest for infringement of the 719 Patent;

    C. Award Ficep treble damages per 35 U.S.C. 284;

    D. Declare the claim for relief asserted herein to be exceptional under 35 U.S.C. 285

    and award Ficep its reasonable attorneys fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this

    action; and

    E. Award such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.

    Dated: February 7, 2013 /s/ Lisa S. Mankofsky

    Lisa S. MankofskyGen. Bar No. 04940FOLEY & LARDNER LLP

    3000 K Street, N.W. Suite 600

    Washington, D.C. 20007-5109Telephone: (202) 672-5300

    Facsimile: (202) 672-5399

    [email protected]

    Attorneys for Plaintiff

    FICEP CORPORATION

    Of Counsel:

    Robert J. SilvermanFOLEY & LARDNER LLP

    111 Huntington Avenue

    Boston, MA 02199

    Telephone: (617) 342-4000Facsimile: (617) 342-4001

    [email protected]