Case: 1:11-cv-02437 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/11/11 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:1
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. __________
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`)))))))))))))))
`
`
`
`ROBERT BOSCH LLC,
`
`
`UL ENTERPRISES LLC d/b/a STNA,
`DANYANG UPC AUTO PARTS CO., LTD.,
`and SCAN TOP ENTERPRISE CO. LTD.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC (“plaintiff”), through its attorneys, for its complaint against
`
`defendants UL Enterprises LLC d/b/a STNA, Danyang UPC Auto Parts Co., Ltd., and Scan Top
`
`Enterprise Co. Ltd. (collectively “defendants”), avers as follows:
`
`1.
`
`This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of the
`
`United States Code (for example, §§ 271, 281, 283, 284 and 285) as hereinafter more fully
`
`appears. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 1331 and 1338.
`
`COUNT ONE – INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,530,111
`
`2.
`
`On March 11, 2003, United States Letters Patent No. 6,530,111 (“the ’111
`
`patent,” attached as Exhibit A) were duly and legally issued for an invention in a windshield
`
`wiper blade. Plaintiff is the owner of those Letters Patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. __________
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`)))))))))))))))
`
`
`
`ROBERT BOSCH LLC,
`
`
`UL ENTERPRISES LLC d/b/a STNA,
`DANYANG UPC AUTO PARTS CO., LTD.,
`and SCAN TOP ENTERPRISE CO. LTD.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC (“plaintiff”), through its attorneys, for its complaint against
`
`defendants UL Enterprises LLC d/b/a STNA, Danyang UPC Auto Parts Co., Ltd., and Scan Top
`
`Enterprise Co. Ltd. (collectively “defendants”), avers as follows:
`
`1.
`
`This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of the
`
`United States Code (for example, §§ 271, 281, 283, 284 and 285) as hereinafter more fully
`
`appears. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 1331 and 1338.
`
`COUNT ONE – INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,530,111
`
`2.
`
`On March 11, 2003, United States Letters Patent No. 6,530,111 (“the ’111
`
`patent,” attached as Exhibit A) were duly and legally issued for an invention in a windshield
`
`wiper blade. Plaintiff is the owner of those Letters Patent.
`
`
`
`Case: 1:11-cv-02437 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/11/11 Page 2 of 8 PageID #:2
`
`3.
`
`Defendants have infringed and are still infringing the ’111 patent directly and
`
`indirectly by making, importing, offering for sale, using and selling windshield wiper blades
`
`embodying the patented invention, such as the Valvoline Aquablade and beam-type wiper blades
`
`sold under the DuPont brand, and will continue to do so unless enjoined by this Court.
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law against defendants’ infringement and,
`
`unless defendants are enjoined from their infringement of the ’111 patent, plaintiff will suffer
`
`irreparable harm.
`
`5.
`
`Defendants have knowledge of the ’111 patent and such infringement is and
`
`continues to be willful and deliberate.
`
`6.
`
`As a result of defendants’ acts of infringement, plaintiff has suffered and will
`
`continue to suffer damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
`
`COUNT TWO – INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,553,607
`
`7.
`
`On April 29, 2003, United States Letters Patent No. 6,553,607 (“the ’607 patent,”
`
`attached as Exhibit B) were duly and legally issued for an invention in a windshield wiper blade.
`
`Plaintiff is the owner of those Letters Patent.
`
`8.
`
`Defendants have infringed and are still infringing the ’607 patent directly and
`
`indirectly by making, importing, offering for sale, using and/or selling windshield wiper blades
`
`embodying the patented invention, such as the Valvoline Aquablade, the Michelin Stealth and
`
`beam-type wiper blades sold under the DuPont brand, and will continue to do so unless enjoined
`
`by this Court.
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law against defendants’ infringement and,
`
`unless defendants are enjoined from their infringement of the ’607 patent, plaintiff will suffer
`
`irreparable harm.
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`Case: 1:11-cv-02437 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/11/11 Page 3 of 8 PageID #:3
`
`10.
`
`Defendants have knowledge of the ’607 patent and such infringement is and
`
`continues to be willful and deliberate.
`
`11.
`
`As a result of defendants’ acts of infringement, plaintiff has suffered and will
`
`continue to suffer damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
`
`COUNT THREE – INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6, 611,988
`
`12.
`
`On September 2, 2003, United States Letters Patent No. 6,611,988 (“the ’988
`
`patent,” attached as Exhibit C) were duly and legally issued for an invention in a windshield
`
`wiper blade. Plaintiff is the owner of those Letters Patent.
`
`13.
`
`Defendants have infringed and are still infringing the ’988 patent directly and
`
`indirectly by making, importing, offering for sale, using and/or selling windshield wiper blades
`
`embodying the patented invention, such as the Michelin Stealth and beam-type wiper blades sold
`
`under the DuPont brand, and will continue to do so unless enjoined by this Court.
`
`14.
`
`Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law against defendants’ infringement and,
`
`unless defendants are enjoined from their infringement of the ’988 patent, plaintiff will suffer
`
`irreparable harm.
`
`15.
`
`Defendants have knowledge of the ’988 patent and such infringement is and
`
`continues to be willful and deliberate.
`
`16.
`
`As a result of defendants’ acts of infringement, plaintiff has suffered and will
`
`continue to suffer damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
`
`COUNT FOUR – INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,836,926
`
`17.
`
`On January 4, 2005, United States Letters Patent No. 6,836,926 (“the ’926
`
`patent,” attached as Exhibit D) were duly and legally issued for an invention in a windshield
`
`wiper blade. Plaintiff is the owner of those Letters Patent.
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`Case: 1:11-cv-02437 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/11/11 Page 4 of 8 PageID #:4
`
`18.
`
`Defendants have infringed and are still infringing the ’926 patent directly and
`
`indirectly by making, importing, offering for sale, using and/or selling windshield wiper blades
`
`embodying the patented invention, such as the Valvoline Aquablade, the Michelin Stealth, and
`
`beam-type wiper blades sold under the DuPont brand, and will continue to do so unless enjoined
`
`by this Court.
`
`19.
`
`Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law against defendants’ infringement and,
`
`unless defendants are enjoined from their infringement of the ’926 patent, paintiff will suffer
`
`irreparable harm.
`
`20.
`
`Defendants have knowledge of the ’926 patent and such infringement is and
`
`continues to be willful and deliberate.
`
`21.
`
`As a result of defendants’ acts of infringement, plaintiff has suffered and will
`
`continue to suffer damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
`
`COUNT FIVE – INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,944,905
`
`22.
`
`On September 20, 2005, United States Letters Patent No. 6,944,905 (“the ’905
`
`patent,” attached as Exhibit E) were duly and legally issued for an invention in a windshield
`
`wiper blade. Plaintiff is the owner of those Letters Patent.
`
`23.
`
`Defendants have infringed and are still infringing the ’905 patent directly and
`
`indirectly by making, importing, offering for sale, using and/or selling windshield wiper blades
`
`embodying the patented invention, such as the Valvoline Aquablade and Michelin Stealth wiper
`
`blades, and will continue to do so unless enjoined by this Court.
`
`24.
`
`Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law against defendants’ infringement and,
`
`unless defendants are enjoined from their infringement of the ’905 patent, plaintiff will suffer
`
`irreparable harm.
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`Case: 1:11-cv-02437 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/11/11 Page 5 of 8 PageID #:5
`
`25.
`
`Defendants have knowledge of the ’905 patent and such infringement is and
`
`continues to be willful and deliberate.
`
`26.
`
`As a result of defendants’ acts of infringement, plaintiff has suffered and will
`
`continue to suffer damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
`
`COUNT SIX – INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,973,698
`
`27.
`
`On December 13, 2005, United States Letters Patent No. 6,973,698 (“the ’698
`
`patent,” attached as Exhibit F) were duly and legally issued for an invention in a windshield
`
`wiper blade. Plaintiff is the owner of those Letters Patent.
`
`28.
`
`Defendants have infringed and are still infringing the ’698 patent directly and
`
`indirectly by making, importing, offering for sale, using and/or selling windshield wiper blades
`
`embodying the patented invention, such as the Valvoline Aquablade and beam-type wiper blades
`
`sold under the DuPont brand, and will continue to do so unless enjoined by this Court.
`
`29.
`
`Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law against defendants’ infringement and,
`
`unless defendants are enjoined from their infringement of the ’698 patent, plaintiff will suffer
`
`irreparable harm.
`
`30.
`
`Defendants have knowledge of the ’698 patent and such infringement is and
`
`continues to be willful and deliberate.
`
`31.
`
`As a result of defendants’ acts of infringement, plaintiff has suffered and will
`
`continue to suffer damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
`
`COUNT SEVEN – INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,293,321
`
`32.
`
`On November 13, 2007, United States Letters Patent No. 7,293,321 (“the ’321
`
`patent,” attached as Exhibit G) were duly and legally issued for an invention in a windshield
`
`wiper blade. Plaintiff is the owner of those Letters Patent.
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`Case: 1:11-cv-02437 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/11/11 Page 6 of 8 PageID #:6
`
`33.
`
`Defendants have infringed and are still infringing the ’321 patent directly and
`
`indirectly by making, importing, offering for sale, using and/or selling windshield wiper blades
`
`embodying the patented invention, such as the Valvoline Aquablade and Michelin Stealth wiper
`
`blades, and will continue to do so unless enjoined by this Court.
`
`34.
`
`Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law against defendants’ infringement and,
`
`unless defendants are enjoined from their infringement of the ’321 patent, plaintiff will suffer
`
`irreparable harm.
`
`35.
`
`Defendants have knowledge of the ’321 patent and such infringement is and
`
`continues to be willful and deliberate.
`
`36.
`
`As a result of defendants’ acts of infringement, plaintiff has suffered and will
`
`continue to suffer damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
`
`COUNT EIGHT – INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,523,520
`
`37.
`
`On April 28, 2009, United States Letters Patent No. 7,523,520 (“the ’520 patent,”
`
`attached as Exhibit H) were duly and legally issued for an invention in a windshield wiper blade.
`
`Plaintiff is the owner of those Letters Patent.
`
`38.
`
`39.
`
`The ’520 patent is valid and enforceable.
`
`Defendants have infringed and are still infringing the ’520 patent directly and
`
`indirectly by making, importing, offering for sale, using and/or selling windshield wiper blades
`
`embodying the patented invention, such as the Valvoline Aquablade and Michelin Stealth wiper
`
`blades, and will continue to do so unless enjoined by this Court.
`
`40.
`
`Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law against defendants’ infringement and,
`
`unless defendants are enjoined from their infringement of the ’520 patent, plaintiff will suffer
`
`irreparable harm.
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`Case: 1:11-cv-02437 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/11/11 Page 7 of 8 PageID #:7
`
`41.
`
`Defendants have knowledge of the ’520 patent and such infringement is and
`
`continues to be willful and deliberate.
`
`42.
`
`As a result of defendants’ acts of infringement, plaintiff has suffered and will
`
`continue to suffer damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands following relief:
`
`
`
`A.
`
` A judgment in favor of plaintiff that defendants have infringed, directly
`
`
`
`
`
`and indirectly by way of inducement and/or contributory infringement, the ’111, ’607, ’988,
`
`’926, ’905, ’698, ’520 and ’321 patents;
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`A permanent injunction, enjoining defendants and their officers, directors,
`
`agents, servants, employees, affiliates, divisions, branches, subsidiaries, parents, and all others
`
`acting in concert or privity with any of them for infringing, inducing the infringement of, or
`
`contributing to the infringement of the aforementioned patents;
`
`
`
`
`
`C.
`
`An award to plaintiff of the damages to which it is entitled under at least
`
`35 U.S.C. § 284 for defendants’ past infringement and any continuing or future infringement,
`
`including both compensatory damages and treble damages for willful infringement;
`
`
`
`
`
`D.
`
`A judgment and order requiring defendants to pay the costs of this action
`
`(including all disbursements), as well as attorneys’ fees as provided by 35 U.S.C. § 285;
`
`
`
`
`
`E.
`
`An award to plaintiff of pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on its
`
`damages; and
`
`
`
`
`
`F.
`
`Such other further relief in law or equity to which plaintiff may be justly
`
`entitled.
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`Case: 1:11-cv-02437 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/11/11 Page 8 of 8 PageID #:8
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`Plaintiff demands a trial by jury.
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: April 11, 2011
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Mark A. Hannemann
`Jeffrey S. Ginsberg
`KENYON & KENYON LLP
`One Broadway
`New York, NY 10004
`Tel.: (212) 425-7200
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ William P. Oberhardt
`William P. Oberhardt
`WILLIAM P. OBERHARDT, LLC
`70 West Madison St., Suite 2100
`Chicago, IL 60602
`Tel.: 312-251-1100
`Fax: 312-251-1175
`Atty. Reg. No. 3122407
`
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
