1 DENNIS L.

KENNEDY
Nev. Bar No. 1462
2 SARAH E. HARMON
Nev. Bar No. 8106
3 BAILEY.:. KENNEDY
8984 Spanish Ridge Avenue
4 Las Vegas, Nevada 89148-1302
Telephone: (702) 562-8820
5 Facsimile: (702) 562-8821
dkennedy~BaileyKennedy .com
6 sharmon~BaileyKennedy.com
7 JEFFREY E. OSTROW
(wil comply with LR IA 10-2 within 45 days)
8 BRANDONC.MARTIN
(wil comply with LR IA 10-2 within 45 days)
9 SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
2475 Hanover Street
10 Palo Alto, California 94304
Telephone: (650) 251-5000
Facsimile: (650) 251-5002
jostrow~stblaw.com
bmartin~stblaw.com
~ 11
~~~
.~~~~ 12
~~~~
. ~:zg
.~ ~~-i 13
~~~o
i-~Vl :i
~g)j'" 14
Attorneys for Plaintiff
FREEDOM INOVATIONS, LLC
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
15
16
)
17 FREEDOM INOVATIONS, LLC, a
)
Delaware limited liability company,
)
18 )
Plaintiff,
)
19 )
vs.
)
20 )
CHAS A. BLATCHFORD & SONS, LTD.,
)
21 an English entity, and BLATCHFORD )
PRODUCTS, LTD., an English entity,
)
22 )
Defendants.
)
23 )
24
25
1
Case No.: 2:14-CV-01028
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
JUDGMENT AND JURY DEMAND
1 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND JURY DEMAND
2 Plaintiff Freedom Innovations, LLC alleges against Defendants Chas A. Blatchford &
3 Sons, Ltd. and Blatchford Products, Ltd. as follows:
4 INTRODUCTION
5
1. This is an action for declaratory judgment of non-infringement and
6 invalidity of
United States Patent No. 8,574,312 (the "'3 l2 Patent"), entitled "Prosthetic Anle
7 Joint Mechanism," pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. 2201-02, and the
8 patent laws of the United States, 35 U .S.C. 100 et seq., and for such other relief as the Court
9 deems just and proper.
10
2. A true and correct copy of the '312 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
~ 11 PARTIES
~~~
z g;g;gg
~ i ~ ~ 12 3. Plaintiff Freedom Innovations, LLC ("FI") is a corporation organized and
.:. ~~g
~ ~f,~ 13 existing under the laws of Delaware, with its principal place of
business at 3 Morgan, Irvine, CA
w~;:c
~~
~.. 14 92618.
15
4. On information and belief, Defendant Chas. A. Blatchford & Sons, Ltd. is
16 an English company, with its principal place of
business at Kings Business Park, Basingstoke,
17 Hampshire, United Kingdom R024 8PZ.
18
5. On information and belief, Blatchford Products Ltd. is an English subsidiary
19 ofChas. A. Blatchford & Sons, Ltd., with its principal place of
business at Lister Road,
20 Basingstoke, Hampshire, United Kingdom R022 4AH.
21
6. As alleged herein, Chas. A. Blatchford & Sons, Ltd. and Blatchford
22 Products Ltd. (collectively "Defendants") have engaged in various acts in and directed to
23 Nevada.
24 III
25 III
2
1
2
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
7. This claim arises under the United States patent laws, 35 U.S.C. 1, et seq.,
3 and seeks relief
for which this court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
4 1331, 1338, 1367, andlor 2201-2202.
5
8. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. 1391 because, among other reasons, a
6 substantial part of
the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in Nevada, and
7 Defendants are subject to personal
jurisdiction in this Court for the reasons set out below.
8
9. Defendants purort to be the owners of all rights, title, and interest in and to
9 the'3 12 Patent. Defendants have made statements alleging that FI infringes the '312 Patent. FI
10 has not infringed and does not infringe, either directly or indirectly, any valid and enforceable
~ 11 claim of
the '312 Patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, nor is FI aware of
~~~g
z tLo-oo
~ l j~ 12 any infringement of the ' 3 12 Patent. A substantial controversy exists between the parties which
.:. ~u5R
~ ~ f, ~ 13 is of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant declaratory relief.
i 8;;: 0
==~~.
.c ~..
co 14 10. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants. Defendants have
15 conducted business in and directed to Nevada, including pertaining to the '312 Patent, and have
16 engaged in various acts in and directed to Nevada, including attendance at and promotion of
17 products at tradeshows in Las Vegas. On information and belief
Defendants' subsidiary Endolite
18 North America Ltd. has advertised and sold products in and directed to Nevada.
19
20
BACKGROUND OF PARTIES
11. On or about November 5, 2013, FI received a letter ("Demand Letter") on
21 Defendant Chas. A. Blatchford & Sons, Ltd.' s letterhead, presumably on behalf of itself and
22 expressly on behalf of
Defendant Blatchford Products Ltd., the purported assignee of
the '312
23 Patent. The Demand Letter was signed by Stephen Blatchford as CEO of the Blatchford Group,
24 which, on information, and belief is the ultimate parent of Defendants. The Demand Letter
25
3
~ 11 in Las Vegas made it clear that Defendants were prepared to fie a lawsuit immediately.
~ ~:!g
z aJo-oo
z~~~ 12
(J t3 ~\O
~~~;S
.:. ~Clg
~ ~f,~ 13 NY to conduct further discussions regarding the issues raised by the Demand Letter.
d~~
~.. 14
1 notified FI that the '312 Patent had issued, asserted that the '312 Patent covered FI's products,
2 and requested a proposed solution to the issue.
3
12. On January 6, 2014, the parties had a telephone discussion regarding the
4 issues raised by the Demand Letter.
5
13. On at least February 5, 2014, Defendants were in Las Vegas, Nevada
6 promoting their products at the Hanger Education Fair and National Meeting at the Rio All-
7 Suites Hotel and Casino (the "Tradeshow").
8
14. The parties conveniently met while Defendants were in Las Vegas, for the
9 Tradeshow to conduct further discussions regarding the issues raised by the Demand Letter.
10 Defendants' Demand Letter combined with statements made by Defendants' during the meeting
15. On March 24 and June 13,2014, the parties met atJFK Airport in Queens,
16. On June 20, 2014, the paries had a telephone discussion of
the issues
15 regarding the issues raised by the Demand Letter.
16
17. On June 25, the paries had a final telephone discussion regarding the issues
17 raised by the Demand Letter. It became obvious the parties had reached an impasse and that
18 Defendants' previously threatened lawsuit was imminent.
19
18. Given the contents of the notice letter, the discussions and representations
20 made by Defendants including the discussions and threats made during the meeting on
21 February 5, 2014, in Las Vegas, there is an actual case or controversy regarding whether FI
22 infringes the ' 3 12 Patent and whether the ' 312 Patent is valid.
23 III
24 III
25 III
4
10
~ 11
Cl
"'0
W -N
~
"'00
=00
12
.0 ,
ON
~
.0'0
"on
w~
ZN
.:.
.0
~r-
13 ~
.0-
g~
W ;:0
.. ~ :i
:;
j'"
14 o:
1 COUNT
I
2 DECLARATION OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8/574,312
3 19. FI realleges and incorporates herein by reference the matters set forth in
4 paragraphs 1 - 18 above.
5
20. FI has not infringed and does not infringe, directly or indirectly, any valid
6 and enforceable claim ofthe '312 Patent.
7 21. As a result of the acts described in the foregoing paragraphs, there exists a
8 substantial controversy of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a
9 declaratory judgment.
22. A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate so that FI may ascertain
its rights regarding the '312 Patent.
COUNT I
DECLARATION OF INVALIDITY OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8/574,312
23. FI realleges and incorporates herein by reference the matters set forth in
15 paragraphs 1-22 above.
16
24. The '312 Patent is invalid for failure to meet the conditions of
17 patentability andlor otherwise to comply with one or more of35 U.S.C. 100 et seq., 101, 102,
18 103, 112 and 132.
19
25. As a result of the acts described in the foregoing paragraphs, there exists a
20 substantial controversy of suffcient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a
21 declaratory judgment.
22
26. A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate so that FI may
23 ascertain its rights regarding the '312 Patent.
24
25
5
1
2
JURY DEMAND
27. Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, FI respectfully
3 requests a trial by jury on all issues to which it is entitled to a jury trial by law.
4
5
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, FI respectfully requests that judgment be entered in its favor and
6 prays that the Court grant the following relief:
7
(i) A declaration that FI has not infringed, either directly or indirectly, any valid
8 and enforceable claim of
the '312 Patent;
9
10
III
~ 11
III
~:!g
~ ~O'oo
~~~ 12
III w t3~'O
~o"on
-w~
"'ZN
.:. ~~
III
~ :z"'w 13
~&~
~~~
~~..
14
III co
15
III
16
III
17
III
18
III
19
III
20
III
21
III
22
III
23
III
24
III
25
III
(ii) A declaration that the claims of
the '312 Patent are invalid;
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
~
11
Cl
"lo
W -N
Z
"'00
=00
Z
~~ 12
~
r:~
ZN
.:.
~.~ 13 ~
w
;:0
.. ~:i
:;
"'''
co .. 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(iii) An order declaring that FI is a prevailing party and that this is an exceptional
case, awarding FI its costs, expenses, disbursements, and reasonable attorney fees under 35
U.S.c. 285 and all other applicable statutes, rules and common law; and
(iv) such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
DATED this 25th day of June, 2014.
BAILEY.:. KENNEDY
By: lsi Sarah E. Harmon
Dennis L. Kennedy, Nev. Bar NO.1462
Sarah E. Harmon, Nev. Bar No. 8106
8984 Spanish Ridge Avenue
Las Vegas, Nevada 89148-1302
Telephone: (702) 562-8820
Facsimile: (702) 562-8821
dkennedy~baileykennedy.com
sharon~baileykennedy .com
And
Jeffrey E. Ostrow
(wil comply with LR IA 10-2 within 45 days)
Brandon C. Martin
(wil comply with LR IA 10-2 within 45 days)
2475 Hanover Street
Palo Alto, California 94304
Telephone: (650) 251-5030
Facsimile: (605) 251-5002
jostrow~stblaw.com
bmartin~stblaw.com
Attornevs for Plaintiff Freedom Innovations. LLC
7