Case 2:15-cv-01314-JVS-JC Document 22 Filed 04/29/15 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #:74
lo= time and
1
2
3
4
J. Randolph Huston (SBN 40044)
jrh@wwtwlaw.com
WALKER WRIGHT TYLER & WARD
601 West Fifth Street, 8th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Tel: (213) 629-3571
Fax: (213) 896-0377
8
David A. Shough
dshough@das-law.com
LAW OFFICE OF DAVID A. SHOUGH
853 Dayton Oxford Rd.
Carlisle, OH 45005
Tel: (937)242-7325
Fax: (937)719-4410
9
Attorneys for Plaintiff
5
6
7
JAVAJIG, LLC
10
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
13
14
JAVAJIG, LLC,
15
Plaintiff,
16
17
18
vs.
ADRIAN RIVERA
19
Defendant.
Case No. 2:15-CV-01314 JVS (JCx)
AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF
PATENT NON-INFRINGEMENT
AND INVALIDITY
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
20
21
22
Plaintiff JavaJig, LLC (“JavaJig”), for its Amended Complaint against
Defendant Adrian Rivera (“Rivera”), states as follows:
Parties and Jurisdiction
23
24
1.
25
1338(a).
26
2.
27
This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
Plaintiff JavaJig is an Ohio limited liability corporation with a place
of business at 22 South Saint St., Dayton, Ohio.
28
AMENDED COMPLAINT
1
Case 2:15-cv-01314-JVS-JC Document 22 Filed 04/29/15 Page 2 of 7 Page ID #:75
lo= time and
1
2
3
3.
Defendant Rivera, on information and belief, is an individual residing
in Whittier, California, within this district.
4.
Rivera is the named inventor on United States Patent No. 8,720,320,
4
entitled Pod Adaptor System for Single Service Beverage Brewers (“the ‘320
5
patent”). According to pleadings filed by Rivera and ARM before the
6
International Trade Commission, Rivera owns all rights, title and interest in the
7
‘320 patent. A copy of the ‘320 patent is filed herewith as Exhibit A.
8
9
10
11
5.
On information and belief, Rivera is sole owner of Adrian Rivera
Maynez Enterprises, Inc. (“ARM”), which manufactures and sells products that
Rivera and ARM consider to be covered by claims of the ‘320 patent.
6.
JavaJig is the manufacturer of the JavaJig beverage filter basket
12
system (“JavaJig basket”), which is sold throughout the United States by JavaJig
13
and by JavaJig’s reseller, Melitta USA, Inc (“Melitta”). JavaJig also sells the
14
JavaJig Coffee Maker, a brewing machine in which the JavaJig basket can be used.
15
7.
The JavaJig basket is a refillable single-serving coffee filter basket
16
system with a disposable filter, and is designed, in part, to be used with the
17
popular Keurig and similar single-serve coffee brewers as an alternative to more
18
expensive prepackaged, single-use coffee pods. The JavaJig basket is also useable
19
in other single-serve coffee makers, such as the JavaJig Coffee Maker.
20
8.
The ‘320 patent describes and claims particular structures for a
21
different type of reusable single-serve coffee container usable in some Keurig-
22
type coffee brewers.
23
9.
Shortly after the ‘320 patent issued in May, 2014, ARM and Rivera
24
filed a complaint before the International Trade Commission, naming Melitta and
25
others as respondents, alleging that the respondents imported refillable single-
26
serve coffee baskets that infringe the ‘320 patent, and seeking an order to exclude
27
those products from import. In discussions with Melitta and JavaJig counsel
28
concerning that proceeding, ARM and Rivera asserted, though counsel, that the
AMENDED COMPLAINT
2
Case 2:15-cv-01314-JVS-JC Document 22 Filed 04/29/15 Page 3 of 7 Page ID #:76
lo= time and
1
JavaJig basket infringes at least claims 5 and 8 of the ‘320 patent, and ARM and
2
Rivera served discovery requests within the ITC action, regarding the JavaJig
3
basket.
4
10.
Though portions of the JavaJig basket assembly were at one time
5
imported, the JavaJig product is now manufactured entirely in the United States
6
and therefore is not imported and would not be affected by an ITC exclusion order.
7
Melitta entered into a consent order in the ITC action agreeing not to import
8
products that infringed the ‘320 patent.
9
11.
Because of the assertion by ARM and Rivera that the JavaJig basket
10
infringes the ‘320 patent, and the efforts by Rivera to enforce that patent against
11
alleged infringers, and Rivera’s refusal to give a release as to infringement actions,
12
JavaJig has been put in a position of either continuing its allegedly infringing
13
behavior of manufacturing and selling the JavaJig basket in the United States or
14
abandoning that which is claims it has a right to do, unless the respective rights
15
and claims of the parties are determined by the Court. Therefore, a justiciable
16
case or controversy exists between JavaJig and Rivera regarding the infringement
17
and validity of the ’320 patent.
18
First Claim for Relief
19
Non-Infringement – with Keurig-type Brewers
20
12.
JavaJig is not an infringer of any valid claim of the ‘320 patent
21
directly, by contribution, or by inducement, by reason of making, using, selling or
22
offering to sell, or previously importing the JavaJig basket for use with the Keurig
23
and similar single-serve coffee brewers because that product, even as so used,
24
does not contain every limitation of any valid claim of the ‘320 patent, literally or
25
equivalently.
26
27
28
AMENDED COMPLAINT
3
Case 2:15-cv-01314-JVS-JC Document 22 Filed 04/29/15 Page 4 of 7 Page ID #:77
lo= time and
1
Second Claim for Relief
2
Non-Infringement – with JavaJig Coffee Maker
3
4
5
13.
JavaJig incorporates by reference the allegations of paragraphs 1-12
above, as if fully restated.
14.
JavaJig is not an infringer of any valid claim of the ‘320 patent
6
directly, by contribution, or by inducement, by reason of making, using, selling or
7
offering to sell, or previously importing either or both of the JavaJig basket and
8
the JavaJig Coffee Maker for use together, because, as used together, those
9
products do not contain every limitation of any valid claim of the ‘320 patent,
10
literally or equivalently, in part because the JavaJig Coffee Maker used with the
11
JavaJig basket does not contain, literally or equivalently, the “needle-like structure”
12
disposed below the brewing material and/or designed to receive an outflow of
13
fluid that is a limitation of every claim of the ‘320 patent.
14
Third Claim for Relief
15
Invalidity
16
17
18
15.
JavaJig incorporates by reference the allegations of paragraphs 13-14
above, as if fully restated.
16.
At least claims 1, 3-6. 8-10, 12-14, 16-19, and 21 are invalid under
19
35 U.S.C. §§ 102 or 103 or both, in part because of the prior art reuse of Keurig-
20
type coffee cartridges, which, on information and belief, was publicly practiced
21
and/or described in a printed publication prior to alleged invention of or more than
22
one year before the filing of the application for the ‘320 patent. These allegations
23
are likely to have additional evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for
24
further investigation or discovery.
25
17.
To the extent any of claims 2, 7, 11, 15, and 20 are construed in a
26
way to cover the structure of the JavaJig product when used with a brewer, those
27
claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 or 103 or both, in part because of the
28
prior art reuse of Keurig-type coffee cartridges, which, on information and belief,
AMENDED COMPLAINT
4
Case 2:15-cv-01314-JVS-JC Document 22 Filed 04/29/15 Page 5 of 7 Page ID #:78
lo= time and
1
was publicly practiced and/or described in a printed publication prior to alleged
2
invention of or more than one year before the filing of the application for the ‘320
3
patent. These allegations are likely to have additional evidentiary support after a
4
reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery.
5
18.
All claims of the ‘320 patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 or
6
103 or both, in part in view of United States Patent Nos. 6,658,989 and 5,840,189,
7
which were issued prior to alleged invention of and more than one year before the
8
filing of the application for the ‘320 patent. These allegations are likely to have
9
additional evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further
10
investigation or discovery.
Prayer for Relief
11
12
13
14
Wherefore, JavaJig respectfully demands that the Court enter judgment as
follows:
A) That JavaJig is not an infringer of any valid claim of the ‘320 patent
15
directly, by contribution, or by inducement, by reason of making, using, selling or
16
offering to sell, or importing into the United States, the JavaJig basket for use
17
with the Keurig and similar single-serve coffee brewers.
18
B) That JavaJig is not an infringer of any valid claim of the ‘320 patent
19
directly, by contribution, or by inducement, by reason of making, using, selling or
20
offering to sell, or importing into the United States, either or both of the JavaJig
21
basket and the JavaJig Coffee Maker for use together.
22
C) That some or all claims of the ‘320 patent are invalid; and
23
24
25
26
27
28
AMENDED COMPLAINT
5
Case 2:15-cv-01314-JVS-JC Document 22 Filed 04/29/15 Page 6 of 7 Page ID #:79
lo= time and
1
2
3
D) That JavaJig is entitled to such other and further relief and the Court
deems just and appropriate.
Respectfully submitted,
4
5
6
7
8
DATED: April 29, 2015
LAW OFFICE OF DAVID A. SHOUGH
By:
/S/
David A. Shough
Attorneys for Plaintiff JavaJig LLC
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
AMENDED COMPLAINT
6
Case 2:15-cv-01314-JVS-JC Document 22 Filed 04/29/15 Page 7 of 7 Page ID #:80
lo= time and
1
DECLARATION OF SERVICE
2
I certify that the foregoing AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
3
JUDGMENT OF PATENT NON-INFRINGEMENT AND INVALIDITY was
4
served by electronic mail upon the following on April 29, 2015:
5
6
7
8
9
John R. Fuisz
THE FUISZ-KUNDU GROUP LLP
1455 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 400
Washington, DC 20004
Email. Jfuisz@fuiszkundu.com
Attorneys for Defendant
10
11
12
By: /S/
David A. Shough
Attorneys for Plaintiff JavaJig, LLC.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
AMENDED COMPLAINT
7