Sie sind auf Seite 1von 9

Case 4:12-cv-00223-DCB Document 1 Filed 03/27/12 Page 1 of 9

1 DECONCINI MCDONALD YETWIN & LACY, P.C. 2525 EAST BROADWAY BLVD., SUITE 200 2 TUCSON, AZ 85716-5300 (520) 322-5000 3 4 Peter B. Goldman (AZ # 018011)
pgoldman@dmyl.com

5 Mark D. Lammers (AZ # 010335) 6 John C. E. Barrett (AZ # 022813) 7 jbarrett@dmyl.com 8 Attorneys for Plaintiff 9 10 11 12 13 14 Defendant. 15 16 17 Plaintiff, Abrams Airborne Manufacturing, Inc. dba Vltor Weapon Systems vs. O. F. Mossberg & Sons, Inc., DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL U.S. DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Abrams Airborne Manufacturing, Inc., NO. Plaintiff, VERIFIED COMPLAINT
mlammers@dmyl.com

18 (Abrams) alleges as follows: 19 20 21 22 23 24 2. PARTIES Plaintiff Abrams is an Arizona corporation having a principal place of 1. NATURE OF THE ACTION This is an action for patent infringement under the United States Patent Act,

35 U.S.C. 1 et seq. Abrams seeks injunctive relief and damages.

25 business at 3735 North Romero Road, Tucson, Arizona 85705. 26

Case 4:12-cv-00223-DCB Document 1 Filed 03/27/12 Page 2 of 9

1 2 3 4 5 6

3. 4.

Abrams also does business as Vltor Weapon Systems (Vltor). On information and belief, Defendant O. F. Mossberg & Sons, Inc.

(Mossberg) is a Connecticut corporation having a principal place of business in North Haven, Connecticut. 5. Mossberg designs, manufactures, markets, distributes and sells firearms and

7 firearms-related products, including the Mossberg MMR Hunter Semiautomatic Rifle and 8 MMR Tactical Semiautomatic Rifle (together, the MMR Series).
DECONCINI MCDONALD YETWIN & LACY, P.C.

9
2525 East Broadway Blvd., Suite 200 Tucson, AZ 85716-5300

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 6. This is an action for patent infringement under the patent laws of the United

10 11 12 13 14

States, Title 35, U.S.C. 1 et seq. 7. 8. Subject matter jurisdiction of this Court is founded upon 28 U.S.C. 1338. Mossberg has intentionally reached into the State of Arizona to damage

15 Plaintiff. 16 17 18 19 intentional acts expressly aimed or purposefully directed at a resident of the State of Arizona, targeting a known resident of the State of Arizona, and would cause harm, the 9. Mossberg knew or had reason to know that its acts alleged herein were

20 brunt of which would be suffered and which Defendant knew was likely to be suffered in 21 the State of Arizona. 22 23 contacts in this District and the business it advertises for and conducts in this District. 24 25 26
Case Name; Case No. _______ Page 2 of 9

10.

General personal jurisdiction over Mossberg also is proper based on its

11.

Mossberg states on its website at

Case 4:12-cv-00223-DCB Document 1 Filed 03/27/12 Page 3 of 9

1 http://www.mossberg.com/dealers/dealers.asp?section=resources, that We do not sell 2 firearms direct from the factory. 3 4 5 6 solely via local dealers and distributors in each state including Arizona and this District. 13. On information and belief Mossberg has established more than thirty (30) 12. On information and belief Mossberg sells firearms throughout the country

7 distribution centers in Arizona for the advertising, marketing and sale of its products, 8 including the MMR Series, in Arizona.
DECONCINI MCDONALD YETWIN & LACY, P.C.

9
2525 East Broadway Blvd., Suite 200 Tucson, AZ 85716-5300

14.

On information and belief for many years Mossberg has introduced its

10 11 12 13

products into the stream of commerce of Arizona by selling its products to customers in this state. 15. On information and belief Mossbergs contacts with the State of Arizona have

14 been continuous and systematic for many years. 15 16 17 18 19 distributing and selling its firearms, including the MMR Series, throughout Arizona. 17. On its website, at http://www.mossberg.com/dealers/default.asp?state=AZ, 16. On information and belief Mossberg has cultivated ongoing business

relationships with distributors and dealers in Arizona for the purpose of marketing,

20 Mossberg identifies by name and address approximately 30 Mossberg stocking dealers 21 with whom it does business in Arizona. A copy of the website is attached as Exhibit 1. 22 23 Arizona with other distributors and dealers not listed on the Mossberg website, including 24 25 26
Case Name; Case No. _______ Page 3 of 9

18.

On information and belief Mossberg also does business in the State of

without limitation Tombstone Tactical in Chino Valley, Arizona, Davidsons in Prescott,

Case 4:12-cv-00223-DCB Document 1 Filed 03/27/12 Page 4 of 9

1 Arizona, and Diamondback Police Supply in Tucson, Arizona. 2 3 4 5 6 these products will be purchased by consumers in Arizona. 20. This Courts exercise of personal jurisdiction is also proper because Mossberg 19. On information and belief Mossberg has purposefully introduced its products

into the stream of commerce in the State of Arizona with the reasonable expectation that

7 has committed acts of patent infringement in this District. 8


DECONCINI MCDONALD YETWIN & LACY, P.C.

21.

On information and belief the Arizona distributors and dealers identified on

9
2525 East Broadway Blvd., Suite 200 Tucson, AZ 85716-5300

the Mossberg website as Mossberg stocking dealers market and sell the MMR Series in Arizona. 22. On information and belief other Arizona distributors and dealers in addition to

10 11 12

13 those identified on the Mossberg website, including without limitation Tombstone Tactical, 14 Davidsons, and Diamondback Police Supply market and sell the MMR Series in Arizona. 15 16 17 18 19 20 distribution channels Mossberg would enjoy substantial sales of its firearms in Arizona including the MMR Series. 24. This Courts assertion of personal jurisdiction over Mossberg comports with 23. Mossberg knew, or reasonably could have foreseen, that by its actions it

would form commercial distribution channels in Arizona, and that by means of these

21 principles of fair play and substantial justice. 22 23 reason of the facts alleged in this Complaint. 24 25 26
Case Name; Case No. _______ Page 4 of 9

25.

Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. 1391(c) and 1400(b) by

26.

Venue is also proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. 1391(c) and 1400(b)

Case 4:12-cv-00223-DCB Document 1 Filed 03/27/12 Page 5 of 9

1 because Mossberg is subject to the exercise of personal jurisdiction within this judicial 2 District and has committed acts of patent infringement within this judicial District. 3 4 5 6 7 8
DECONCINI MCDONALD YETWIN & LACY, P.C.

27.

Venue is also proper in this District because Mossberg is subject to the

personal jurisdiction of this Court under Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Long-Arm statute of the State of Arizona, Rule 4.2, Ariz. R. Civ. P. PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28. forth herein. 29. On January 31, 2012, U.S. Patent No. 8,104,393 B2 (the 393 Patent) Abrams incorporates by reference all allegations stated above as if fully set

9
2525 East Broadway Blvd., Suite 200 Tucson, AZ 85716-5300

10 11 12

entitled Charging Handle was duly and legally issued on U.S. Patent Application Serial

13 No. 12/460,001 filed July 10, 2009. A copy of the 393 Patent is attached as Exhibit 2. 14 30. Abrams is the exclusive assignee of the 393 Patent and the owner of all rights

15 to recover for past infringements of its claims and to enjoin ongoing and future 16 17 18 19 20 31. 32. 33. The 393 Patent is valid. The 393 Patent is enforceable. The 393 Patent discloses and claims a charging handle assembly for a infringements of its claims.

21 firearm (the Abrams Charging Handle). 22 23 trademarks of Vltor and under the name and trademarks of its licensee, Bravo Company 24 25 26
Case Name; Case No. _______ Page 5 of 9

34.

Abrams markets and sells the Abrams Charging Handle under the name and

USA, Inc. (Bravo).

Case 4:12-cv-00223-DCB Document 1 Filed 03/27/12 Page 6 of 9

35.

At all times material the Abrams Charging Handle marketed and sold by

2 Abrams and Bravo was duly and legally marked pursuant to the notice requirements of the 3 4 5 6 7 36. Until January 31, 2012 the Abrams Charging Handle was marked with, among other notices, the notice VLTOR Pat. Pending. 37. Since January 31, 2012, the Abrams Charging Handle has been marked with, Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. 287.

8 among other notices, VLTOR U.S. Patent 8104393 pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 287.
DECONCINI MCDONALD YETWIN & LACY, P.C.

9
2525 East Broadway Blvd., Suite 200 Tucson, AZ 85716-5300

38.

The Mossberg website states at

10 11 12

http://www.mossberg.com/products/default.asp?id=45&display=feat, and at http://www.mossberg.com/products/default.asp?id=44&display=feat, that the MMR Series,

13 in both the Tactical and Hunter models, respectively, includes as a standard feature an 14 Oversized charging handle for quick, ambidextrous engagement (the Mossberg 15 Charging Handle). 16 17 18 19 20 Mossberg website sell the Mossberg MMR Series in Arizona equipped with the Mossberg Charging Handle. 40. On information and belief other Arizona distributors and dealers supplied by 39. On information and belief the Arizona weapons dealers identified on the

21 Mossberg, including Tombstone Tactical, Davidsons, and Diamondback Police Supply sell 22 23 41. 24 25 26
Case Name; Case No. _______ Page 6 of 9

the MMR Series in the State of Arizona equipped with the Mossberg Charging Handle. Mossberg has advertised, offered for sale, made, used and/or sold products

affected by this action within this judicial District and elsewhere.

Case 4:12-cv-00223-DCB Document 1 Filed 03/27/12 Page 7 of 9

42.

The products at issue include, but are not necessarily limited to, the Mossberg

2 Charging Handle identified as a standard feature on all MMR Series models. 3 4 5 6 and elsewhere in the United States by, among other things, offering for sale, selling, making and using a charging handle covered by one or more claims of the 393 Patent to the injury 43. Mossberg has been and now is directly infringing the 393 Patent in Arizona

7 of Abrams, and without authority or license from Abrams. 8


DECONCINI MCDONALD YETWIN & LACY, P.C.

44.

On information and belief, Mossberg has been and now is indirectly

9
2525 East Broadway Blvd., Suite 200 Tucson, AZ 85716-5300

infringing the 393 Patent by way of inducing infringement and/or contributing to the infringement of the 393 Patent in the State of Arizona, in this judicial District, and elsewhere in the United States. 45. 46. Mossberg continues to engage in acts which infringe the 393 Patent. As a direct and proximate result of Mossbergs acts of infringement, Abrams

10 11 12 13 14

15 has been damaged. 16 17 18 19 extent of which cannot be ascertained until discovery is completed. 48. As a result of Mossbergs infringement of the 393 Patent, the instant case is 47. Abrams has suffered monetary losses and other damages, the full amount and

20 an exceptional case and Abrams is entitled to treble the damages finally determined under 21 35 U.S.C. 284 as well as reasonable attorneys fees under 35 U.S.C. 285. 22 23 servants, employees, attorneys, representatives, affiliates, partners, distributors, dealers, and 24 25 26
Case Name; Case No. _______ Page 7 of 9

49.

Unless a permanent injunction is issued enjoining Mossberg and its agents,

all others acting in concert with them and/or on their behalf from infringing the 393 Patent,

Case 4:12-cv-00223-DCB Document 1 Filed 03/27/12 Page 8 of 9

1 Abrams will be greatly harmed and suffer irreparable harm. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8


DECONCINI MCDONALD YETWIN & LACY, P.C.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Abrams asks that the Court: A. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 283 issue a final and permanent injunction

enjoining Mossberg from infringing the 393 Patent; B. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 284 award Abrams an accounting to determine

the full extent and amount of its damages which shall be computed to be no less than a reasonable royalty pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 284; C. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 284 award Abrams treble the damages suffered

9
2525 East Broadway Blvd., Suite 200 Tucson, AZ 85716-5300

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

as a result of Mossbergs infringement of the 393 Patent; D. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 285 award Abrams its costs and reasonable

attorneys fees; and E. and proper. JURY DEMAND Pursuant to Rule 38(b), F.R. Civ. P., Abrams demands a jury trial in this action. DATED this 27th day of March, 2012. DECONCINI MCDONALD YETWIN & LACY, P.C. By: /s/ Peter B. Goldman Peter B. Goldman Mark D. Lammers John C.E. Barrett 2525 E. Broadway Blvd., Suite 200 Tucson, AZ 85716-5300 Attorneys for Plaintiff
Case Name; Case No. _______ Page 8 of 9

Award Abrams such other and further relief as the Court deems just

Case 4:12-cv-00223-DCB Document 1 Filed 03/27/12 Page 9 of 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
DECONCINI MCDONALD YETWIN & LACY, P.C.

VERIFICATION STATE OF ARIZONA County of Pima ) ) ss. )

Eric S. Kincel, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the General Manager for the Plaintiff; that he is familiar with the facts in this matter; the he has reviewed the foregoing Verified Complaint; that the information contained therein is true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief.

9
2525 East Broadway Blvd., Suite 200 Tucson, AZ 85716-5300

10 11 12

Eric S. Kincel 13 14 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this _____ day of __________, 2012,

15 by Eric S. Kincel. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Case Name; Case No. _______ Page 9 of 9

Notary Public

My Commission Expires: