Minarc et. al. v. Kenneth Andrew Miller et. al

download Minarc et. al. v. Kenneth Andrew Miller et. al

of 12

  • date post

    14-Apr-2018
  • Category

    Documents

  • view

    219
  • download

    0

Embed Size (px)

Transcript of Minarc et. al. v. Kenneth Andrew Miller et. al

  • 7/30/2019 Minarc et. al. v. Kenneth Andrew Miller et. al.

    1/12

    Case 2:13-cv-03538-SH Document 1 Filed 05/17/13 Page 1 of 12 Page ID #:6

  • 7/30/2019 Minarc et. al. v. Kenneth Andrew Miller et. al.

    2/12

    2

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    CISLO&

    THOMASLLP

    AonyaLw

    SUTE500

    13332

    nStr

    SATAMONICACAFORIA90401-4110

    T

    310)451-0647

    Fcml310)394-4477

    COMPLAINT

    Plaintiffs Minarc, Inc. and M3 House, LLC (collectively Plaintiffs unless

    referred to individually), by and through its attorneys, allege for their complaint

    against Kenneth Andrew Miller (Miller), as follows:

    1. This counterclaim seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringementof United States Patents 8,109,055 (the 055 Patent), 8,109,058 (the 058

    Patent), and 8,234,833 (the 833 Patent) under the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

    2201 and 2202 and the patent laws of the United States, Title 35, United States

    Code. Should Plaintiffs become aware of prior art that would tend to invalidate one

    or more of the aforementioned patents, Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend this

    complaint to seek a declaratory judgment of invalidity as well.

    THE PARTIES

    2. Plaintiff Minarc is a California corporation with its principal place ofbusiness located at 2324 Michigan Ave., Santa Monica, California 90404.

    3. Plaintiff M3 House, LLC is a California limited liability company withits principal place of business located at 2324 Michigan Ave., Santa Monica,

    California 90404.

    4. Both Minarc and M3 House, LLC are involved in various aspects ofbusiness relating to affordable, modern, innovative, and sustainable building design

    and construction using factory-built, sustainable materials, including panels of

    standardized sizes, which are used in a way that reduces the carbon footprint of a

    building and minimizes energy consumption while providing up-to-date, stylish,

    and contemporary look and feel, among other things.

    5. Defendant Miller, believed to be a resident of Nevada, is the owner ofKama Efficiency Building Systems, Inc. dba K-tect Sustainable Building Systems,

    which manufacturers panel for building construction.

    Case 2:13-cv-03538-SH Document 1 Filed 05/17/13 Page 2 of 12 Page ID #:7

  • 7/30/2019 Minarc et. al. v. Kenneth Andrew Miller et. al.

    3/12

    3

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    CISLO&

    THOMASLLP

    AonyaLw

    SUTE500

    13332

    nStr

    SATAMONICACAFORIA90401-4110

    T

    310)451-0647

    Fcml310)394-4477

    JURISDICTION

    6. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of these claimspursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1338(a), 2201, and 2202.

    7. Defendant Miller is subject to personal jurisdiction in this judicialdistrict inasmuch as Defendant Miller and his company had a business relationship

    with Plaintiffs and shipped and supplied materials to Plaintiffs in this judicial

    district for use in at least one of Plaintiffs construction projects in this judicial

    district.

    8. In addition, in or about early February of 2013, Miller, through hiswife, Alaina, accused Plaintiffs of infringing one or more of the above-referenced

    patents (each owned by Miller) publicly on Facebook, privately to Plaintiffs

    through Plaintiffs Facebook account, and through e-mail communications directly

    to Plaintiffs at their business e-mail addresses at their business address in Santa

    Monica, California. Miller has also accused Plaintiffs of infringing one or more of

    the above-referenced patents through its counsels communications with Plaintiffs

    counsel. Miller has also accused one or both Plaintiffs of infringing the

    aforementioned patents via service in this judicial district of a lawsuit against

    Plaintiffs for patent infringement, albeit that said lawsuit for patent infringement

    was improperly filed in Nevada state court, rather than in a federal court, as

    required by 28 U.S.C. 1338. These various accusations and actions by Miller and

    those acting at his behest have also been communicated to businesses in the Los

    Angeles area with whom Plaintiffs are doing, or are attempting to do, business. For

    these reasons, Miller is subject to personal jurisdiction in this Court.

    9. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(2) inasmuch as a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to

    the claim occurred in this judicial district, and the property(ies) that are undergoing

    construction, or will be undergoing construction, by Plaintiffs, are present in this

    judicial district.

    Case 2:13-cv-03538-SH Document 1 Filed 05/17/13 Page 3 of 12 Page ID #:8

  • 7/30/2019 Minarc et. al. v. Kenneth Andrew Miller et. al.

    4/12

    4

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    CISLO&

    THOMASLLP

    AonyaLw

    SUTE500

    13332

    nStr

    SATAMONICACAFORIA90401-4110

    T

    310)451-0647

    Fcml310)394-4477

    10. Miller has publicly and privately accused Plaintiffs of infringing the055 Patent, the 058 Patent, and the 833 Patent. Plaintiffs deny Millers

    allegations of infringement. Plaintiffs do not infringe, and have not in any way

    infringed, the 055 Patent, the 058 Patent, or the 833 Patent. As such, an actual

    and justiciable controversy exists between Miller and Plaintiffs with respect to

    Plaintiffs alleged infringement of the 055 Patent, the 058 Patent, and the 833

    Patent.

    COUNT I

    (Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of the 055 Patent)

    11. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate the facts and allegations of paragraphs1 through 10 above, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.

    12. Plaintiffs have not, nor have they ever, directly infringed,contributorily infringed, or induced others to infringe, any valid claim, if any, of the

    055 Patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, willfully or

    otherwise.

    13. Plaintiffs technology that Miller contends infringes the 055 Patent isnot covered by any valid claim, if any, of the 055 Patent, either literally or under

    the doctrine of equivalents.

    14. Accordingly, there exists an actual justiciable controversy betweenMiller and Plaintiffs concerning whether any claims of the 055 Patent are infringed

    by Plaintiffs.

    15. Plaintiffs request a judgment declaring that Plaintiffs do not, and havenot, directly infringed, contributorily infringed, or induced others to infringe, the

    055 Patent. Such a determination and declaration is necessary and appropriate at

    this time so that the parties may ascertain their respective rights and duties

    regarding the non-infringement of the 055 Patent.

    Case 2:13-cv-03538-SH Document 1 Filed 05/17/13 Page 4 of 12 Page ID #:9

  • 7/30/2019 Minarc et. al. v. Kenneth Andrew Miller et. al.

    5/12

    5

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    CISLO&

    THOMASLLP

    AonyaLw

    SUTE500

    13332

    nStr

    SATAMONICACAFORIA90401-4110

    T

    310)451-0647

    Fcml310)394-4477

    COUNT II

    (Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of the 058 Patent)

    16. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate the facts and allegations of paragraphs1 through 15 above, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.

    17. Plaintiffs have not, nor have they ever, directly infringed,contributorily infringed, or induced others to infringe, any valid claim, if any, of the

    058 Patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, willfully or

    otherwise.

    18. Plaintiffs technology that Miller contends infringes the 058 Patent isnot covered by any valid claim, if any, of the 058 Patent, either literally or under

    the doctrine of equivalents.

    19. Accordingly, there exists an actual justiciable controversy betweenMiller and Plaintiffs concerning whether any claims of the 058 Patent are infringed

    by Plaintiffs.

    20. Plaintiffs request a judgment declaring that Plaintiffs do not, and havenot, directly infringed, contributorily infringed, or induced others to infringe, the

    058 Patent. Such a determination and declaration is necessary and appropriate at

    this time so that the parties may ascertain their respective rights and duties

    regarding the non-infringement of the 058 Patent.

    COUNT III

    (Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of the 833 Patent)

    21. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate the facts and allegations of paragraphs1 through 20 above, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.

    22. Plaintiffs have not, nor have they ever, directly infringed,contributorily infringed, or induced others to infringe, any valid claim, if any, of the

    833 Patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, willfully or

    otherwise.

    Case 2:13-cv-03538-SH Document