Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`ESTTA238322
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`09/23/2008
`
`Filing date:
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`91184143
`Plaintiff
`ANTHONY P. SCHMIDT
`RICHARD S. ROSS, ESQ.
`SUITE 237
`4801 SOUTH UNIVERSITY DRIVE
`FT. LAUDERDALE, FL 33328
`UNITED STATES
`prodp@ix.netcom.com
`Motion to Suspend for Civil Action
`RICHARD S. ROSS, ESQ.
`prodp@ix.netcom.com
`/richard ross/
`09/23/2008
`opp3.ts.pdf ( 2 pages )(40135 bytes )
`Schmidt Complaint.pdf ( 12 pages )(443634 bytes )
`
`Proceeding
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Submission
`Filer's Name
`Filer's e-mail
`Signature
`Date
`Attachments
`
`
`ESTTA238322
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`09/23/2008
`
`Filing date:
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`91184143
`Plaintiff
`ANTHONY P. SCHMIDT
`RICHARD S. ROSS, ESQ.
`SUITE 237
`4801 SOUTH UNIVERSITY DRIVE
`FT. LAUDERDALE, FL 33328
`UNITED STATES
`prodp@ix.netcom.com
`Motion to Suspend for Civil Action
`RICHARD S. ROSS, ESQ.
`prodp@ix.netcom.com
`/richard ross/
`09/23/2008
`opp3.ts.pdf ( 2 pages )(40135 bytes )
`Schmidt Complaint.pdf ( 12 pages )(443634 bytes )
`
`Proceeding
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Submission
`Filer's Name
`Filer's e-mail
`Signature
`Date
`Attachments
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`ANTHONY P. SCHMIDT, JR.
`
`Opposer,
`
`V.
`
`VERSACOMP, INC.
`
`Applicant.
`
`Opposition No. 91184143
`Opposition No. 91185234
`
`OPPOSER’S MOTION TO SUSPEND PROCEEDINGS PENDING OUTCOME OF
`
`
`
`ANOTHER PROCEEDING OR ALTERNATIVELY TO RESET CONFERENCING
`
`DISCOVERY DISCLOSURE AND TRIAL DATES
`
`Commissioner for Trademarks
`
`P.O. Box 1451
`
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1451
`
`COMES NOW,
`
`the Opposer, ANTHONY P. SCHMIDT (“Schmidt”), who
`
`respectfully moves this Board for an order suspending the present proceedings pending the outcome
`
`of the parties’ federal district court civil action regarding issues in common with those here, in
`
`Anthony P. Schmidt, Jr. v. Versacomp, Inc., et al., Case No. 08-60084-CIV-JORDAN (S.D. Fla.
`
`2008)(“Action”). TBMP §510.02(a). See 37 C.F.R. §2.117(a). See also General Motors Corp. v.
`
`Cadillac Club Fashions, Inc. , 22 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1933 (TTAB 1992). Attached to this motion is a copy
`
`of the complaint in the Action. (Exhibits omitted). To the extent the Board decides not to suspend
`
`proceedings, Schmidt alternatively moves that it reset conferencing, discovery, disclosure and trial
`
`dates. Counsel have conferred regarding the substance of this motion, and as of the present date,
`
`Applicant has not decided whether it will oppose the motion
`
`WHEREFORE, Schmidt respectfully moves for an order granting this motion, and
`
`
`
`suspending proceedings pending the outcome of the Action.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By:
`
`s/Richard S. Ross, Esg.
`RICHARD S. ROSS, ESQ.
`Attorney for Opposer Anthony P. Schmidt, Jr.
`Atrium Centre
`
`4801 South University Drive
`Suite 237
`
`Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33328
`
`Tel (954)252-9110
`Fax (954) 252-9192
`rod /fi1‘iX.flfi3iC0TE,.COITI
`E mail
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been served
`this 23“ day of September, 2008 to counsel for Applicant by First Class United States Postal Service
`Mail addressed as follows:
`
`Daniel S. Polley, Esq.
`DANIEL S. POLLEY, P.A.
`l2l5 E. Broward Blvd.
`
`Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301-2133
`
`s/Richard S. Ross, Esg.
`RICHARD S. ROSS, ESQ.
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
`
` CASE NO.
`
`Ull/-ZLGCH
`
`ANTHONY P. SCHMIDT, JR.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`VERSACOMP, INC. d/b/a
`TNT LIFT SYSTEMS, a Florida corporation;
`and RICHARD ULRICH,
`
`Defendants.
`
`/
`
`
`
`
`IN IAK5 ~-—-..._ D-
`
`CI
`
`“MN 2 2 2003
`‘;<L:§3§a:Lv‘f»,: 3:300,
`
`
`==v» : v
`.FT.'Ll‘\:L1)'D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT FALSE DESIGNATION OF
`
`ORIGIN UNFAIR COMPETITION BREACH OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
`
`CANCELLATION OF FLORIDA STATE TRADEMARK/SERVICE MARK
`
`REGISTRATIONS AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`PlaintiffANTHONY P. SCHMIDT, JR, (hereinafter “Plaintiff” or “Schmidt”), by his
`
`attorney, as and for his Complaint, sues Defendants VERSACOMP, INC. d/b/a TNT LIFT
`
`SYSTEMS, a Florida corporation; and RICHARD ULRICH (collectively “Defendants”), and alleges
`
`and avers as follows:
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`1 .
`
`This is a complaint for federal trademark infringement, and false designation oforigin arising
`
`under §§ 32 and 43 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114(1) and 1 125(a), respectively, for Florida
`
`unfair competition, for breach of a settlement agreement, and for cancellation of two Florida
`
`Department of State trademark/service mark registrations.
`
`2.
`
`This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
`
`l338(a) and 15 U.S.C. § 1 121. This Court has related supplemental claim jurisdiction over the state
`
`
`
`
`
`law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1338(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 1367. This court has retained subject
`
`matter jurisdiction over the breach of settlement agreement claim by virtue of its Order [DE 59] in
`
`Schmidt v. Versacomp, et al., Case No. 05-61593-CIV—JORDAN.
`
`3.
`
`Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. §139l(b) and (c) because a substantial part
`
`of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred and occur in this district, and the
`
`Defendants regularly conduct business in this district.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`4.
`
`The Plaintiff, ANTHONY P. SCHMIDT, JR., is an individual domiciled in the state of
`
`Michigan and a resident of the state of Florida, and is a citizen of the United States of America.
`
`5.
`
`The Defendant, VERSACOMP, INC. d/b/a TNT LIFT SYSTEMS, is a corporation organized
`
`under the laws of the state of Florida, with a principal place of business address in Ft. Lauderdale,
`
`Florida. Upon information and belief, Versacomp, Inc. is engaged in the business of manufacturing
`
`and selling marine accessories, including boat lifting devices, throughout the United States including
`
`this district.
`
`6.
`
`The Defendant, RICHARD ULRICH, upon information and belief,
`
`is the president, a
`
`director, and the majority shareholder of Defendant Versacomp, Inc.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`Schmidt is an entrepreneur and inventor.
`
`Schmidt is the owner of all substantial right, title and interest in and to a number of United
`
`States patents, including, but not limited to U.S. Pat. No. 5,544,606 (“the ‘606 patent”) which issued
`
`on April 13, 1996. The ‘606 patent is directed to a vehicle lift for a boat. More specifically, the lift
`
`is attached to the transom of a large boat or yacht and is power operated to raise or lower a lift
`
`
`
`
`
`platform into and out of the water. The lift is used as a swim platform, or a platform onto which a
`
`personal water craft or dinghy is secured.
`
`9.
`
`Prior to the invention ofthe ‘606 patented device, Schmidt, in 1988, incorporated a business
`
`in Florida, with a principal place ofbusiness located in this district, for the purpose ofmanufacturing
`
`and selling boat lifting devices. This company was called TNT MARINE ENTERPRISES, INC.
`
`In 1994, Schmidt continued manufacturing and selling boat lifting devices under the corporate name
`
`and service mark TNT MARINE EQUIPMENT, INC.
`
`In 2000, Schmidt sold TNT MARINE
`
`EQUIPMENT, INC. to a third party, and retained a security interest in his patents, including the ‘606
`
`patent. The third party continued to operate TNT MARINE EQUIPMENT, INC. as a manufacturer
`
`and seller ofboat lifting devices. In 2000, the third party defaulted, and in 2005, Schmidt ultimately
`
`recovered ownership in his patents, including the ‘606 patent, and also recovered the right to sue for
`
`past infringements thereof.
`
`10.
`
`In 2001, VERSACOMP, at the direction of ULRICH, began doing business as TNT LIFT
`
`SYSTEMS. The Defendants, as TNT LIFT SYSTEMS, began manufacturing and selling boat lifting
`
`devices referred to as TNT lifts or TNT LIFT SYSTEMS. At the time the Defendants adopted the
`
`TNT and TNT LIFT SYSTEMS marks, they knew that Schmidt’s buyer, the third party, was still
`
`actively using Schmidt’s TNT mark on boat lifting devices.
`
`11.
`
`In 2005, Schmidt alleged that the Defendants infringed the ‘606 patent. Schmidt enforced
`
`the ‘606 patent by bringing suit for patent infringement against the Defendants before this court in
`
`Schmidt v. Versacomp, et al., Case No. 05-61593-CIV-JORDAN (“Schmidt 1”). Schmidt I was
`
`resolved by settlement agreement. Exhibit A. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms
`
`
`
`
`
`of the settlement agreement. Exhibit B.
`
`12.
`
`In March, 2006, Schmidt recommenced his business under his original TNT MARINE
`
`ENTERPRISES, INC. name and began again to manufacture and sell boat lifting devices under his
`
`TNT mark, including boat lifts incorporating one or more of the claims of the ‘606 patent.
`
`13.
`
`On December 5, 2007, Schmidt became owner, by assignment, of the federal trademark
`
`registration TNT, for vehicle lifts, U.S. Reg. No. 0818635. The first use in commerce of the United
`
`States of the registered NT mark commenced at least as early as 1965. Exhibit C, attached, is a copy
`
`of the TNT federal certificate of trademark registration. The assignment, Exhibit D, of the federal
`
`TNT trademark registration to Schmidt includes the right of Schmidt to sue for past infringements.
`
`14.
`
`U.S. Reg. No. 0818635 is valid, subsisting, and incontestible.
`
`15.
`
`On December 27, 2007, Schmidt gave the Defendants notice of his prior, superior rights to
`
`the trademark TNT for vehicle lifts, including boat lifts, and requested that they cease and desist
`
`from infringing his trademark rights. The Defendants have refused to cease and desist their
`
`infringing conduct, and they continue to manufacture and sell boat lifting devices under the marks
`
`TNT and TNT LIFT SYSTEMS.
`
`16.
`
`On March 7, 2007, VERSACOMP filed a United States trademark/service mark application
`
`before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) for the mark TNT, U.S. Serial. No.
`
`77124511. Exhibit E. The application was signed by ULRICH, in which ULRICH, on behalf of
`
`VERSACOMP, falsely declared that VERSACOMP first used the TNT mark on January 1, 1989 for:
`
`Transom lifts and parts therefor; hydraulic tenders/transom lifts for marine vessels,
`boats and personal watercrafts; lifts and platforms secured to a transom of a marine
`vessel, boat or personal watercraft; transom platforms and parts therefor; swim
`platforms and parts therefor; installation, repair and maintenance oftransom lifts and
`platforms.
`
`
`
`
`
`The PTO refused the Defendants’ application to register the TNT mark for boat lifts as it concluded
`
`that there was a likelihood ofconfusion between the applied for TNT mark, and Schmidt’s registered
`
`TNT trademark, U.S. Reg. No. 0818635. Exhibit F.
`
`17.
`
`On March 7, 2007, VERSACOMP filed a United States trademark/service mark application
`
`before the PTO for the mark TNT LIFT SYSTEMS, U.S. Serial. No. 77124487. Exhibit G. The
`
`application was signed by ULRICH, and claims the following:
`
`Transom lifts and parts therefor; hydraulic tenders/transom lifts for marine vessels,
`boats and personal watercrafts; lifts and platforms secured to a transom of a marine
`vessel, boat or personal watercraft; transom platforms and parts therefor; swim
`platforms and parts therefor; installation, repair and maintenance of transom lifts and
`platforms.
`
`The PTO refused the Defendants’ application to register the TNT LIFT SYSTEMS mark for boat
`
`lifts as it concluded that there was a likelihood of confusion between the applied for TNT LIFT
`
`SYSTEMS trademark, and Schmidt’s registered TNT trademark, U.S. Reg. No. 0818635. Exhibit
`
`H.
`
`18.
`
`The Defendants’ use of TNT and TNT LIFT SYSTEMS for the goods and services identified
`
`in its PTO applications constitutes the use in commerce of a colorable imitation, copy and
`
`reproduction of Schmidt’s TNT mark. Upon information and belief, the Defendants’ TNT and TNT
`
`LIFT SYSTEMS marks share an identical sight and sound, and a strong similarity of meaning with
`
`Schmidt’s TNT registered trademark. The Defendant’s use of TNT and TNT LIFT SYSTEMS for
`
`boat lifting devices and parts and service therefore is deceptively and confusingly similar to
`
`Schmidt’s long-standing TNT trademark for vehicle lifts.
`
`19.
`
`The Defendants’ boat lifts are being distributed and sold in the same types of commercial
`
`channels and to the same class of purchasers as Schmidt’s boat lifts.
`
`
`
`
`
`20.
`
`The Defendants’ use ofTNT and TNT LIFT SYSTEMS is likely to cause confusion, mistake,
`
`or deception in the minds of the public in that consumers will believe that there is some association
`
`with, relationship or connection to Schmidt where there is none.
`
`21.
`
`The Defendants’ infringement constitutes a willful and malicious violation of Schmidt’s
`
`trademark rights, aimed at preventing Schmidt from continuing to build a business around a mark
`
`TNT that he owns, and originated in the marine industry.
`
`COUNT I
`
`FEDERAL TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT UNDER LANHAM ACT § 32
`
`22.
`
`Plaintiff repeats and hereby incorporates herein by reference, as though specifically pleaded
`
`herein, the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 21.
`
`23.
`
`The Defendants’ use ofthe TNT and TNT LIFT SYSTEMS marks comprises an infringement
`
`of Schmidt’s registered trademark TNT and is likely to cause confusion, mistake and deception of
`
`the public as to the identity and origin of Schmidt’s goods and services, causing irreparable harm to
`
`Schmidt for which there is no adequate remedy at law.
`
`24.
`
`By reason of the foregoing acts, the Defendants are liable to Schmidt for trademark
`
`infringement under 15 U.S.C. § lll4.
`
`COUNT II
`
`FALSE DESIGNATION OF ORIGIN UNDER LANHAM ACT § 43
`
`25.
`
`Plaintiff repeats and hereby incorporates herein by reference, as though specifically pleaded
`
`herein, the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 21.
`
`26.
`
`The Defendants’ conduct utilizing the designation TNT and TNT LIFT SYSTEMS
`
`constitutes a false designation of origin, and/or a false or misleading description of fact, and/or a
`
`
`
`
`
`false or misleading representation of fact that is likely to cause confusion, cause mistake or to
`
`deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of the Defendants with the Plaintiff or as to
`
`the origin, sponsorship, or approval of the Defendants’ goods and/or services or commercial
`
`activities of the Plaintiff.
`
`27.
`
`By reason of the foregoing acts, the Defendants are liable to Schmidt under 15 U.S.C. §
`
`1125(a).
`
`COUNT III
`
`COMMON LAW UNFAIR COMPETITION
`
`28.
`
`Plaintiff repeats and hereby incorporates herein by reference, as though specifically pleaded
`
`herein, the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 21.
`
`29.
`
`The aforesaid conduct ofthe Defendants has been willful, wanton, and malicious supportive
`
`of Plaintiff’ s claim for punitive damages, which is specifically pled herein.
`
`30.
`
`By reason of the foregoing acts, the Defendants are liable to Schmidt for common law unfair
`
`competition under the laws of the state of Florida.
`
`COUNT IV
`
`BREACH OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
`
`31.
`
`Plaintiff repeats and hereby incorporates herein by reference, as though specifically pleaded
`
`herein, the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 21.
`
`32.
`
`In the settlement agreement reached in Schmidt 1, Exhibit A, the Defendants agreed to pay
`
`Schmidt $50,000 for past infringement of the ‘606 patent. The Defendants further agreed not to
`
`infringe the ‘606 patent in the future, provided that if Defendants made, used, offered to sell, or sold
`
`boat lifts incorporating the ‘606 patented invention to Bullware Yachts or Nordic Tug,
`
`the
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants would be obligated to pay Schmidt a license fee per boat lift. If the license fee was not
`
`paid timely, Schmidt would be entitled to a judgment against the Defendants in Schmidt I for
`
`$80,400 less the $50,000 payment made by the Defendants to Schmidt.
`
`33.
`
`Upon information and belief, the Defendants intentionally and willfully replaced, made, used,
`
`offered for sale or sold a boat lift infringing the ‘606 patent subsequent to the date of the settlement
`
`agreement in Schmidt I, did not timely pay to Schmidt any license fee, and will continue to infringe
`
`unless enjoined by this court.
`
`34.
`
`By reason of the foregoing acts, the Defendants are in breach of the settlement agreement in
`
`Schmidt 1.
`
`COUNT V
`
`CANCELLATION OF FLORIDA STATE TRADEMARK/SERVICE MARK
`REGISTRATIONS
`
`35.
`
`Plaintiff repeats and hereby incorporates herein by reference, as though specifically pleaded
`
`herein, the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 21.
`
`36.
`
`The Defendants sought to and did apply to register Plaintiffs TNT mark, claiming it as their
`
`own, for the following goods/services: Installation, repair and maintenance of transom lifts &
`
`platforms, transom lifts and parts thereof, hydraulic tenders/transom lifts, etc., with the Florida
`
`Department of State.
`
`37.
`
`In their application, the Defendants falsely or fraudulently declared or represented to the
`
`Florida Department of State that they first used the TNT mark for the stated goods/services anywhere
`
`on January 1, 1989, and first used the TNT mark in Florida on January 1, 1989.
`
`3 8.
`
`Based upon the Defendants’ false or fraudulent declarations or representations, on March 12,
`
`
`
`
`
`2007, the Florida Department of State issued to Defendant Versacomp, Inc. a certificate of
`
`trademark/service mark registration, Reg. No. T07000000345 (“the ‘345 registration”) for the mark
`
`TNT.
`
`39.
`
`The Defendants are not the owners of the TNT mark.
`
`40.
`
`The ‘345 registration was granted improperly.
`
`41.
`
`The ‘345 registered TNT mark is so similar, as to be likely to cause confusion or mistake or
`
`to deceive, to Schmidt’s federally registered TNT mark, U.S. Reg. No. 0818635, which was
`
`registered prior to the date of filing of the application for state registration by the Defendants, and
`
`which has not been abandoned.
`
`42.
`
`By reason of the foregoing act regarding the application for the ‘345 registration, the
`
`Defendants are liable to Schmidt for punitive or exemplary damages pursuant to Fla. Stat. §495. 1 21.
`
`43.
`
`The Defendants sought to and did apply to register Plaintiff’ s TNT mark, in the form of TNT
`
`LIFT SYSTEMS, claiming it as their own, for the following goods/services: Installation, repair and
`
`maintenance of transom lifts & platforms, transom lifts and parts thereof, hydraulic tenders/transom
`
`lifts, etc., with the Florida Department of State.
`
`44.
`
`On March 12, 2007, the Florida Department of State issued to Defendant Versacomp, Inc.
`
`a certificate of trademark/service mark registration, Reg. No. T070000O0346 (“the ‘346
`
`registration”) for the mark TNT LIFT SYSTEMS.
`
`45.
`
`The Defendants are not the owners of the TNT LIFT SYSTEMS mark.
`
`46.
`
`The ‘346 registration was granted improperly.
`
`47.
`
`The ‘346 registered TNT LIFT SYSTEMS mark is so similar, as to be likely to cause
`
`confusion or mistake or to deceive, to Schmidt’s federally registered TNT mark, U.S. Reg. No.
`
`
`
`
`
`0818635, which was registered prior to the date of filing of the application for state registration by
`
`the Defendants, and which has not been abandoned.
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays:
`
`1.
`
`That Defendants, their agents, officers, employees, representatives, successors, assigns,
`
`attorneys and all other persons acting for, with, by, through or under authority from each of them,
`
`be preliminarily and permanently enjoined from:(a) using Schmidt’s TNT mark depicted in Exhibit
`
`C, or any colorable imitation thereof; (b) using any trademark or service mark that imitates or is
`
`confusingly similar to or in anyway similar to Schmidt’s TNT mark, or that is likely to cause
`
`confusion, mistake, deception, or public misunderstanding as to the origin of Schmidt’s products or
`
`services, or their connectedness to Defendants; and (c) from directly or indirectly infringing the ‘606
`
`patent.
`
`2.
`
`That Defendants be required to file with the court and serve on Schmidt within thirty (30)
`
`days after entry of the Injunction, a report in writing under oath setting forth in detail the manner and
`
`form in which Defendants have complied with the Injunction;
`
`3.
`
`That, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117, Defendants be held liable for all damages suffered by
`
`Schmidt resulting from the acts alleged herein;
`
`4.
`
`That, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1 1 17, Defendants be compelled to account to Schmidt for any
`
`and all profits derived by them from their illegal acts complained of herein;
`
`5.
`
`That the Defendants be ordered pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1118 to deliver up for destruction
`
`all containers, labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles, advertising, promotional
`
`material or the like in possession, custody or under the control of Defendants bearing a trademark
`
`found to infringe Schmidt’s TNT trademark rights, as well as all plates, matrices, and other means
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`of making the same;
`
`6.
`
`That the court declare this to be an exceptional case and award Schmidt his full costs, and
`
`reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117;
`
`7.
`
`That the court cancel the Florida Department of State certificates of registration, the ‘345
`
`registration and the ‘346 registration, pursuant to Fla. Stat. §495.101;
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`That the court award to Schmidt punitive damages pursuant to Fla. Stat. §495. 121;
`
`That the court award to Schmidt pre and post judgment interest;
`
`10.
`
`That the court grant Cisco any other remedy to which Schmidt may be entitled as provided
`
`for in 15 U.S.C. §§ 1116 and 1117 or under state law;
`
`11.
`
`That all structures, CAD programs, jigs, fixtures, templates, including replacement parts,
`
`incorporating Schmidt’s invention under the ‘606 patent made, used, offered for sale, or sold be
`
`offered up to Schmidt, destroyed or modified so as to effectively terminate the unauthorized use of
`
`Schmidt’s invention in violation of the ‘606 patent or breach of the Schmidt 1 settlement agreement; _
`
`12.
`
`That the court award to Schmidt treble damages, costs and attorney fees for the settlement
`
`agreement breach;
`
`13.
`
`That the court award to Schmidt all gross profits realized by the Defendants as result of the
`
`settlement agreement breach; and,
`
`14.
`
`That the court award such and other fiarther relief that it deems just and proper.
`
`ll
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated:
`
`z/Y
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`S. ROSS, ESQ.
`Attorney for Plaintiff Anthony P. Schmidt, Jr.
`Fla. Bar No. 436630
`
`Atrium Centre
`
`4801 South University Drive
`Suite 237
`
`Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33328
`Tel 954/252-9110
`
`Fax 954/252-9192
`
`E mail: prodp@ix.netcom.com
`
`12
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
