infusion pool products v. shasta industries

7/30/2019 Infusion Pool Products v. Shasta Industries

1/19


2/19

- 1 -COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL CASE NO.

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. Plaintiff Infusion Pool Products, Inc. (hereinafter IPP) brings this actionagainst Defendant Shasta Industries, Inc., d.b.a. A&A Manufacturing (hereinafter

A&A) under the United States Patent Law to enjoin the current and prospectiveinfringement of IPPs patent and for recovery of monetary damages resulting from those

actions.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. This patent infringement action arises under the United States Patent Law,United States Code Title 35. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under 35 U.S.C.

271 and 289.

3. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b),because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in

this judicial district.

4. In addition, Defendant targets electronic advertising at this judicial districtand maintains at least one (1) interactive, as opposed to passive, website from which

residents of this judicial district make purchases and interact with Defendants sales and

customer service representatives. Second, Defendants website mainly serves to advertise

and promote sales of its products. Third, Defendant conducts telephone and email

customer service that puts it in direct communication with residents of this judicial

district. Fourth, Defendant freely chooses to fulfill order requests from residents of this

judicial district and freely choose to ship products directly to residents of this judicial

district with intent to make a profit from those transactions. Finally, Defendant has

advertised, offered for sale, sold, and unless enjoined by this Court, will continue to

advertise, offer for sale, and sell in this judicial district products that infringe IPPs patent

as set forth more fully herein. Accordingly, the Court has personal jurisdiction over the

Defendant and venue in this District is proper under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) and 1391(c).


3/19


1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

THE PARTIES

A. Plaintiff IPP5. Plaintiff Infusion Pool Products, Inc. is, and at all times mentioned herein

was, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Nevada andhaving a principal place of business in California. IPP designs, manufactures, and sells

various types of products for swimming pools.

B. Defendant A&A6. Upon information and belief, Defendant A&A is, and at all times mentioned

herein was, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Arizona,

having a principal place of business in Arizona. Defendant A&A is a designer,

manufacturer, and seller of swimming pool products.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. IPP and its Patent7. For several years, IPP has been an innovator in the design, development,

sale, and marketing of swimming pool products, more specifically water return fittings

that are installed on the walls and floors of swimming pools.

8. On July 8, 2009, a U.S. Patent application for a pool fitting with venturimanufactured and sold by IPP was filed. The United States Patent and Trademark Office

(USPTO) acknowledged the novel, innovative, unique, and nonobvious design of the

pool fitting with venturi by awarding U.S. Patent No. 8,322,908 (the 908 Patent). A

true and correct copy of the 908 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated

by reference. The 908 Patent serves as prima facie proof that the design of IPPs pool

fitting with venturi is novel and nonobvious.

9. On March 15, 2013, IPP acquired exclusive ownership of the entire right,title, and interest in and to the 908 Patent, including all rights to enforce that patent and

to recover for infringement.

B. Defendants Wrongful Conduct10. Defendant A&A has infringed and continues to infringe the 908 Patent


4/19


1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

through, among other activities, the manufacture, use, offer for sale, and sale of its G4

Venturi Powered Cleaning Heads and other pool fittings with venturi.

11. On March 28, 2013 Defendant A&A was explicitly notified byrepresentatives of IPP that it is infringing the 908 Patent.

12. Defendant A&A has refused to acknowledge its infringement of the 908Patent and has refused to cease the manufacture, use, offer for sale, and sale of its G4

Venturi Powered Cleaning Heads and other pool fittings with venturi.

13. Thus, with full knowledge that IPP owns the 908 Patent and that the G4Venturi Powered Cleaning Heads is protected by the 908 Patent, Defendant A&A

willfully chose to reproduce, import, promote, advertise, and sell G4 Venturi Powered

Cleaning Heads and other pool fittings with venturi throughout the United States without

the permission or consent from IPP.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Federal Patent Infringement Under 35 U.S.C. 271

14. Plaintiff repeats and hereby incorporates herein by reference, as thoughspecifically pleaded herein, the allegations of paragraph 1 through 13.

15. IPP is the exclusive owner of the entire right, title, and interest in and to the908 Patent, including all rights to enforce that patent and to recover for infringement.

16. Defendant A&A has been and is presently infringing the 908 Patent withinthis judicial district and elsewhere by importing, promoting, offering to sell, and selling

swimming pool fittings or products that infringe the 908 Patent by incorporating the

claims of the 908 Patent and by having been made in accordance with the teachings of

the 908 Patent. Representative sample of one of Defendants infringing product is shown

in Exhibit B.

17. Defendants infringement of the 908 Patent has been and continues to bewillful and deliberate.

18. Defendant will continue the infringement of the 908 Patent and irreparablyharm IPP unless the infringing activities are enjoined by this Court.


5/19


1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

19. IPP has no adequate remedy at law.20. As a result of Defendants unauthorized and willful infringement of IPPs

patent rights, IPP is entitled to Defendants profits, reasonable attorneys fees, and cost of

action.PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff IPP prays that this Court grant relief as follows:

A. For a judgment that Defendant A&A has infringed IPPs 908 Patent;B. For an injunction barring Defendant, its officers, directors, agents, servants,

employees, representatives, attorneys, related companies, successors, assigns, and all

others in active concert or participation with them from copying and reproducing any of

IPPs patented invention without consent, or otherwise infringing IPPs patent rights in

any manner;

C. For permanent injunctive and declaratory relief barring Defendant fromcontinued infringement of the 908 Patent and/or other equitable relief;

D. For an Order ordering Defendant to account to IPP for all gains, profits, andadvantages derived by Defendant by its infringement of IPPs 908 Patent or such

damages as are proper;

E. For an Order awarding IPP actual and/or statutory damages for Defendantspatent infringement in an amount to be determined at trial; and since Defendant

intentionally infringed IPPs 908 Patent, for the maximum allowable statutory damages

for each violation;

F. For an Order awarding IPP its costs, attorneys fees, and disbursements inthis action; and

G. For an Order awarding IPP such other and further relief as the Court deemsjust and proper.


6/19


1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DATED: May 2, 2013

By:___ ________________________

Louis F. TeranAttorney for Infusion Pool Products, Inc.


7/19


1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury as provided by Rule 38(a) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure.

DATED: May 2, 2013

By:___________________________

Louis F. Teran

Attorney for Infusion Pool Products, Inc.


8/19


9/19


10/19


11/19


12/19


13/19


14/19


15/19


16/19


17/19

- 4 -


18/19


19/19

infusion pool products v. shasta industries

Documents