Case 1:11-cv-03855-RLV Document 62 Filed 03/01/12 Page 1 of 13
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
`ATLANTA DIVISION
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO.:
`1:11-cv-03855-RLV
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiff Canon Inc. (“Canon”), for its Amended Complaint against
`
`Defendants Color Imaging, Inc. and General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd.
`
`(collectively, “Defendants”), alleges as follows:
`
`The Parties
`
`1.
`
`Canon is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of
`
`Japan, having its principal place of business at 30-2, Shimomaruko 3-chome, Ohta-
`
`ku, Tokyo 146-8501, Japan.
`
`2.
`
`Canon is a leading innovator, manufacturer and seller of a wide
`
`variety of copying machines, laser beam printers, inkjet printers, cameras and other
`
`consumer, business and industrial products.
`
`
`CANON INC.,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`COLOR IMAGING, INC. and
`GENERAL PLASTIC INDUSTRIAL
`CO., LTD.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CANON KABUSHIKI KAISHA EXHIBIT 2204
`General Plastic Indus. Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha
`IPR2016-01361
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
`ATLANTA DIVISION
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO.:
`1:11-cv-03855-RLV
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiff Canon Inc. (“Canon”), for its Amended Complaint against
`
`Defendants Color Imaging, Inc. and General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd.
`
`(collectively, “Defendants”), alleges as follows:
`
`The Parties
`
`1.
`
`Canon is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of
`
`Japan, having its principal place of business at 30-2, Shimomaruko 3-chome, Ohta-
`
`ku, Tokyo 146-8501, Japan.
`
`2.
`
`Canon is a leading innovator, manufacturer and seller of a wide
`
`variety of copying machines, laser beam printers, inkjet printers, cameras and other
`
`consumer, business and industrial products.
`
`
`CANON INC.,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`COLOR IMAGING, INC. and
`GENERAL PLASTIC INDUSTRIAL
`CO., LTD.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CANON KABUSHIKI KAISHA EXHIBIT 2204
`General Plastic Indus. Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha
`IPR2016-01361
`
`
`
`Case 1:11-cv-03855-RLV Document 62 Filed 03/01/12 Page 2 of 13
`
`
`
`3.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Color Imaging, Inc. (“Color
`
`Imaging”) is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Delaware,
`
`having its principal place of business at 4350 Peachtree Industrial Boulevard, Suite
`
`100, Norcross, Georgia 30071.
`
`4.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant General Plastic Industrial Co.,
`
`Ltd. (“General Plastic”) is a company organized and existing under the laws of
`
`Taiwan, having its principal place of business at 50 Tzu-Chiang Road, Wu-Chi
`
`Town, Taichung County, Taiwan R.O.C.
`
`5.
`
`On information and belief, General Plastic owns 10 percent or more of
`
`the stock of Color Imaging and is a supplier of products to Color Imaging,
`
`including products accused of infringement in this case.
`
`Jurisdiction and Venue
`
`6.
`
`This is an action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws
`
`of the United States, Title 35 of the United States Code. Accordingly, this Court
`
`has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`7.
`
`Defendants are subject to this Court’s personal jurisdiction, consistent
`
`with the principles of due process and the Georgia Long-Arm Statute, because
`
`Color Imaging’s principal place of business is located in this judicial district and
`
`because each of Defendants, directly or through intermediaries, is transacting
`
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`Case 1:11-cv-03855-RLV Document 62 Filed 03/01/12 Page 3 of 13
`
`
`
`business, supplying products, committing acts of patent infringement and/or
`
`contributing to and inducing acts of patent infringement by others in Georgia,
`
`including in this judicial district.
`
`8.
`
`Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b), (c) and (d)
`
`and 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b).
`
`Canon’s Patent-in-Suit
`
`9.
`
`On January 12, 2010, U.S. Patent No. 7,647,012 (the “’012 patent”),
`
`entitled “Sealing Member, Toner Accommodating Container and Image Forming
`
`Apparatus,” duly and legally issued to Canon as assignee of the inventors, Yusuke
`
`Yamada, Yutaka Ban, Katsuya Murakami, Fumio Tazawa and Hironori Minagawa.
`
`A true and correct copy of the ’012 patent is attached as Exhibit A.
`
`10. Canon is the sole owner of the entire right, title and interest in and to
`
`the ’012 patent, including the right to sue and recover for any and all infringements
`
`thereof.
`
`11. The ’012 patent describes and claims, among other things, a toner
`
`supply container capable of being used in an electrophotographic image forming
`
`apparatus such as a copier. The toner supply container is designed to be inserted
`
`into and removed from an electrophotographic image forming apparatus, as
`
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`Case 1:11-cv-03855-RLV Document 62 Filed 03/01/12 Page 4 of 13
`
`
`
`needed, in order to replenish the electrophotographic image forming apparatus’
`
`toner.
`
`12. On January 12, 2010, Canon filed a lawsuit alleging infringement of
`
`the ’012 patent against Densigraphix Kopi Inc. and Densigraphix Inc. (collectively,
`
`“Densigraphix”) in the United States District Court for the Eastern of District
`
`Virginia, Case No. 1:10-cv-34-CMH-IDD. This lawsuit resulted in a Stipulation,
`
`Consent Judgment and Permanent Injunction, which the Court entered on March 9,
`
`2010.
`
`13. On June 29, 2010, Canon filed a lawsuit alleging infringement of the
`
`’012 patent against Copylite Products Corp., Copylite Products, LLC (collectively,
`
`“Copylite”) and Polek & Polek Inc. (“Polek”) in the United States District Court
`
`for the Eastern of District Virginia, Case No. 2:10-cv-313-JBF-TEM. This lawsuit
`
`resulted in a Stipulation, Consent Order and Permanent Injunction as to each of
`
`Copylite and Polek, which the Court entered on September 16, 2010.
`
`14. The aforementioned Permanent Injunctions, among other things,
`
`permanently enjoined Densigraphix, Copylite and Polek from making, using,
`
`selling, offering to sell and importing certain toner bottle products (the “Enjoined
`
`Toner Bottle Products”).
`
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`Case 1:11-cv-03855-RLV Document 62 Filed 03/01/12 Page 5 of 13
`
`
`
`Defendants’ Infringing Activities
`
`15. On information and belief, Defendants are engaged in the business of
`
`manufacturing, importing, selling and/or offering to sell replacement toner
`
`products and parts for copiers and printers, including toner bottle products for use
`
`in Canon imageRUNNER® copiers. Specifically, on information and belief,
`
`General Plastic designs and manufactures such toner bottle products, which it
`
`offers for sale and sells to customers worldwide, including in the United States.
`
`On information and belief, one customer for the toner bottle products of General
`
`Plastic in the United States is Color Imaging. On information and belief, Color
`
`Imaging purchases such toner bottles from General Plastic, then fills, packages and
`
`warehouses them. On information and belief, Color Imaging offers both empty
`
`toner bottle products as well as finished toner bottle products for sale worldwide.
`
`16. On information and belief, Defendants’ toner bottle products are sold
`
`both to end users and to resellers. On information and belief, resellers to whom
`
`Defendants’ products are sold include, but are not limited to, UniNet Imaging, Inc.
`
`and/or UI Supplies, Inc. (collectively, “UniNet”), which in turn resell such
`
`products under their own designations. Defendants market their toner bottle
`
`products as purported alternatives to genuine toner bottle products manufactured
`
`by Canon and sold under the Canon brand name. Included among such toner bottle
`
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`Case 1:11-cv-03855-RLV Document 62 Filed 03/01/12 Page 6 of 13
`
`
`
`products are at least the following (collectively, the “Accused Toner Bottle
`
`Products”):
`
`Accused Toner Bottle
`Product Designation
`Color Imaging
`Designation:
`FCA2270
`
`UniNet Designation:
`11717
`UniNet Designation:
`11718
`
`UniNet Designation:
`13714
`UniNet Designation:
`13691
`Color Imaging
`Designations:
`FCAC5051-C
`FCAC5051-M
`FCAC5051-Y
`FCAC5051-K
`
`Promoted by
`Defendants For Use In
`imageRUNNER®
`2230/2270/2830/2870/
`3025/3035/3225/3230/
`3235/3245/3530/3570/
`4570
`
`imageRUNNER®
`5070/5570/5570N/
`6570/6570N
`imageRUNNER®
`7086/7090/7095/7105
`imageRUNNER®
`5050/5055/5065/5075
`imageRUNNER®
`ADVANCE C5045/
`C5051
`
`
`Corresponding Canon
`Toner Bottle Product
`GPR-15/16
`
`GPR-17
`
`GPR-19
`
`GPR-24
`
`GPR-30
`
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`Case 1:11-cv-03855-RLV Document 62 Filed 03/01/12 Page 7 of 13
`
`
`
`Accused Toner Bottle
`Product Designation
`Color Imaging
`Designations:
`FCAC5035-C
`FCAC5035-M
`FCAC5035-Y
`FCAC5035-K
`
`UniNet Designations:
`15929
`15930
`15931
`15932
`Color Imaging
`Designations:
`FCAC7065-C
`FCAC7065-M
`FCAC7065-Y
`FCAC7065-K
`
`Promoted by
`Defendants For Use In
`imageRUNNER®
`ADVANCE C5030/
`C5035
`
`
`Corresponding Canon
`Toner Bottle Product
`GPR-31
`
`imageRUNNER®
`ADVANCE C7055/
`7065
`
`GPR-33
`
`17. On information and belief, Defendants sell the Accused Toner Bottle
`
`Products within this judicial district and elsewhere.
`
`18. On information and belief, Defendants substantially undercut the
`
`prices that Canon charges for the corresponding genuine Canon toner bottle
`
`products.
`
`19. On information and belief, the Accused Toner Bottle Products are
`
`substantially identical in structure to the Enjoined Toner Bottle Products.
`
`
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`Case 1:11-cv-03855-RLV Document 62 Filed 03/01/12 Page 8 of 13
`
`
`
`Cause of Action: Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,647,012
`
`20. Canon repeats and incorporates by reference the allegations of
`
`paragraphs 1-19 above.
`
`21. Defendants are directly infringing the ’012 patent by making, using,
`
`importing, selling and/or offering to sell toner bottle products embodying the
`
`invention defined by one or more claims of the ’012 patent, including without
`
`limitation the Accused Toner Bottle Products, without authority or license of
`
`Canon.
`
`22. Defendants are also indirectly infringing the ’012 patent by inducing
`
`and/or contributing to the direct infringement of the ’012 patent by end users of the
`
`Accused Toner Bottle Products. On information and belief, Defendants are aware
`
`of the ’012 patent and of their infringement thereof, or, alternatively, Defendants
`
`are willfully blind as to the existence of the ’012 patent and their infringement
`
`thereof. Further, on information and belief, Defendants knowingly induce end
`
`users to use the Accused Toner Bottle Products, thereby inducing infringement of
`
`the ’012 patent. On information and belief, Defendants also contribute to
`
`infringement of the ’012 patent. In particular, the Accused Toner Bottle Products
`
`are specially adapted for an infringing use, and they are not staple articles of
`
`commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use.
`
`
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`Case 1:11-cv-03855-RLV Document 62 Filed 03/01/12 Page 9 of 13
`
`
`
`23. Defendants’ acts complained of herein are damaging and will
`
`continue to cause irreparable injury and damage to Canon for which there is no
`
`adequate remedy at law. Canon is therefore entitled to preliminary and permanent
`
`injunctions restraining and enjoining Defendants from infringing the claims of the
`
`’012 patent.
`
`24. By reason of Defendants’ infringing activities, Canon is suffering and
`
`will continue to suffer substantial damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
`
`25. On information and belief, Defendants knew or should have known of
`
`the objectively high likelihood that their actions constituted infringement of the
`
`’012 patent, but nonetheless have continued their infringement. Defendants’
`
`infringement, therefore, is and has been willful, and this case is exceptional under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 285.
`
`Prayer for Relief
`
`
`
`
`
`WHEREFORE, Canon prays for judgment and relief as follows:
`
`A.
`
`That Defendants have directly infringed, contributorily infringed and
`
`induced others to infringe the ’012 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271;
`
`
`
`B.
`
`That Defendants’ infringement be declared and adjudged to be willful
`
`and deliberate;
`
`
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`Case 1:11-cv-03855-RLV Document 62 Filed 03/01/12 Page 10 of 13
`
`
`
`
`
`C.
`
`That Defendants and their subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, directors,
`
`agents, servants, employees, successors and assigns, and all other persons and
`
`organizations in active concert or participation with them, be preliminarily and
`
`permanently enjoined from further acts of infringement of the ’012 patent pursuant
`
`to 35 U.S.C. § 283;
`
`
`
`D.
`
`That Defendants be ordered to pay damages adequate to compensate
`
`Canon for Defendants’ infringement of the ’012 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 284;
`
`
`
`E.
`
`That by reason of the willful and deliberate nature of the infringement,
`
`such damages be trebled pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284;
`
`
`
`
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`That Canon be awarded its attorney fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285;
`
`That Defendants be ordered to pay prejudgment and postjudgment
`
`interest at the maximum rate allowed by law;
`
`
`
`H.
`
`That Defendants be ordered to pay all of Canon’s costs associated
`
`with this action; and
`
`
`
`I.
`
`That Canon be granted such other and additional relief as the Court
`
`deems just and proper.
`
`
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`Case 1:11-cv-03855-RLV Document 62 Filed 03/01/12 Page 11 of 13
`
`
`
`
`
`Jury Demand
`
`Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Canon
`
`demands a jury trial on all issues so triable.
`
`
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`Case 1:11-cv-03855-RLV Document 62 Filed 03/01/12 Page 12 of 13
`
`
`
`Dated: March 1, 2012
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ George L. Murphy, Jr.
`Nicholas M. Cannella (pro hac vice)
`Michael P. Sandonato (pro hac vice)
`Anna Y. Huang (pro hac vice)
`FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER &
`SCINTO
`1290 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, New York 10104-3800
`Tel: (212) 218-2100
`Fax: (212) 218-2200
`ncannella@fchs.com
`msandonato@fchs.com
`ahuang@fchs.com
`
`Edmund J. Haughey (pro hac vice)
`Seth Boeshore (pro hac vice)
`FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER &
`SCINTO
`975 F Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20004-1462
`Tel: (202) 530-1010
`Fax: (202) 530-1055
`ehaughey@fchs.com
`sboeshore@fchs.com
`
`George L. Murphy, Jr. (Bar No. 530376)
`Audra A. Dial (Bar No. 220298)
`KILPATRICK TOWNSEND &
`STOCKTON LLP
`1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800
`Atlanta, Georgia 30309-4528
`Tel: (404) 815-6500
`Fax: (404) 815-6555
`gmurphy@kilpatricktownsend.com
`adial@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Canon Inc.
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`Case 1:11-cv-03855-RLV Document 62 Filed 03/01/12 Page 13 of 13
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing AMENDED
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT with the Clerk of Court using the
`
`CM/ECF system, which will automatically send e-mail notification of such filing
`
`to the following attorneys of record:
`
`Tim Tingkang Xia (txia@mmmlaw.com)
`John P. Fry (jfry@mmmlaw.com)
`Bryan G. Harrison (bharrison@mmmlaw.com)
`W. Andrew McNeil (amcneil@mmmlaw.com)
`
`This 1st day of March, 2012.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ George L. Murphy, Jr.
`George L. Murphy, Jr.
`Georgia Bar No. 530376
`KILPATRICK TOWNSEND &
`STOCKTON LLP
`1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800
`Atlanta, Georgia 30309-4528
`Tel: (404) 815-6500
`Fax: (404) 815-6555
`gmurphy@kilpatricktownsend.com
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
