Fyda Freightliner Cincinnati v. Link Mfg

8/3/2019 Fyda Freightliner Cincinnati v. Link Mfg

1/14

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

CASE NO. __________________

JUDGE _____________________

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY

JUDGMENT OF PATENT INVALIDITY

AND NON-INFRINGEMENT

Plaintiff, Fyda Freightliner Cincinnati, Inc. (Fyda) by way of its Complaint

alleges the following against Defendant Link Manufacturing, LTD (Link):

THE PARTIES

1. Fyda is an Ohio corporation having a principal place of business at OneFreightliner Drive, Cincinnati, Ohio 45241.

2. Upon information and belief, Link is a corporation organized and existingunder the laws of the State of Iowa, with its principal place of business located at 223 15th

Street, NE, Sioux Center, Iowa 51250-2120.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. These claims arise under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C.

2201 and 2202, and the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. 1 et seq.

4. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction based upon 28 U.S.C. 1331,

1338(a), 2201 and 2202.

5. On information and belief, Link engages in business in Ohio and in this

District, and has thus purposefully availed itself of the privilege of doing business in the

FYDA FREIGHTLINER CINCINNATI, INC.,

an Ohio Corporation,

Plaintiff,

vs.

LINK MFG., LTD., an Iowa Corporation,

Defendants.

1:11-cv-733


2/14

2

State of Ohio and in this District, both generally and specifically, by marketing a casket

transporting unit throughout the State of Ohio, including but not limited to a unit that it

alleges is protected by U.S. Patent No. 6,932,401 (the 401 patent) which is attached

hereto as Exhibit A and is in issue herein.

6. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)

and (c), and 1400(b).

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

7. This is a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration of non-

infringement and/or invalidity of the 401 patent. The 401 patent, assigned to Link,

issued on August 23, 2005 from an application filed as U.S. Application No. 10/963,033.

THE PRESENCE OF A CASE OR CONTROVERSY

8. Link has demonstrated its intent to prevent competition to its casket-

transporting unit.

9. Link has shown its willingness to assert the 401 patent and has already

sued Fyda in the U.S. District Court of Nebraska asserting that Fydas casket transporting

unit infringes the 401 patent, but Link has since dismissed the Complaint.

10. Link has never disavowed an intent to assert that Fydas unit infringes the

401 patent. To the contrary, Link has not, to date, provided Fyda with a covenant not to

assert the 401 patent against Fyda or Fydas unit.

11. Because Link has previously sued Fyda or its unit, Fyda has a reasonable

apprehension that Link will refile suit against Fyda for infringement of the 401 patent

with respect to Fydas same unit.

12. To avoid legal uncertainty and to protect its substantial investment in its


3/14

3

unit, Fyda has brought these claims for declaratory judgment against the 401 patent. An

actual justiciable controversy exists between the parties as to the infringement and

invalidity of the 401 patent.

COUNT I

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGMENT

13. Fyda restates and incorporates by reference its allegations in the preceding

paragraphs.

14. An actual case or controversy exists between Fyda and Link as to whether

the 401 Patent is not infringed by Fyda.

15. A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate so that Fyda may

ascertain its rights with respect to the 401 Patent.

16. Fyda has not infringed and does not infringe, directly, contributorily, by

inducement, or in any other manner, any valid and enforceable claim of the 401 Patent.

COUNT II

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY

17. Fyda restates and incorporates by reference its allegations in the preceding

paragraphs.

18. An actual case or controversy exists between Fyda and Link as to whether

the 401 Patent is invalid.

19. A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate so that Fyda may

ascertain its rights as to whether the 401 Patent is invalid.

20. The 401 Patent is invalid for failure to meet the conditions of

patentability and/or otherwise comply with one or more of 100 et seq. (including

101, 102, 103, and/or 112) of Title 35 of the U.S. Code.


4/14

4

FYDAS PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Fyda respectfully requests that this Court enter a Judgment and

Order in its favor against Link:

1. Declaring that the claims of the 401 patent are invalid and/or

unenforceable;

2. Declaring that no valid and enforceable claim of the 401 patent has been

infringed by Fyda and/or Fydas unit;

3. Permanently enjoining Link, its officers, agents, directors, servants,

employees, subsidiaries, and assigns, and all those acting under the authority of or in

privy with them or with any of them, from asserting or otherwise seeking to enforce the

401 patent against either Fyda or Fydas unit;

4. Declaring that this case is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. 285 and

awarding Fyda its attorneys fees, costs, and expenses; and

5. Awarding Fyda any further additional relief as the Court may deem just,

proper and equitable.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Fyda respectfully demands a jury trial of all issues triable to a jury in this action.

DATED this ____ day of October, 2011.

______________________________________

Stuart A. Strasfeld, Esq. (Ohio Sup. Ct. No. 0012399)

Robert J. Herberger, Esq. (Ohio Sup. Ct. No. 0043848)ROTH,BLAIR,ROBERTS,STRASFELD &LODGE100 Federal Plaza East, Suite #600

Youngstown, OH 44503-1893

(330)744-5211 (330)744-3184

[email protected]

[email protected]

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF

/Stuart A. Strasfeld/

18


5/14

EXHIBIT

A


6/14


7/14


8/14


9/14


10/14


11/14


12/14


13/14


14/14

Documents

Fyda Freightliner Cincinnati v. Link Mfg