Broan-Nutone v. Haier America Trading

8/3/2019 Broan-Nutone v. Haier America Trading

1/7

- 1 -

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

BROAN-NUTONE, LLC,

Case No. 11-cv-707Plaintiff,

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

v.

HAIER AMERICA TRADING, LLC,

Defendant.

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Broan-NuTone, LLC (Broan-NuTone), by and through its undersigned

counsel, for its Complaint against Haier America Trading, LLC (Defendant) alleges as

follows:

I. PARTIES1. Plaintiff Broan-NuTone, LLC is a limited liability company organized and

existing under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business at 926 West

State Street, Hartford, Wisconsin 53027.

2. Defendant Haier America Trading, LLC, is a limited liability company organizedand existing under the laws of the State of New York with its principal place of business at 1326

Broadway, New York, New York 10018.


2/7

- 2 -

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. This is an action for patent infringement under the Patent Laws of the UnitedStates, 35 U.S.C. 1, et seq.

4. This Court has exclusive subject matter jurisdiction over this case for patentinfringement pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1338(a).

5. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because it has sufficientminimum contacts with the forum as a result of business conducted within the State of

Wisconsin. Specifically, Defendant has conducted, and does conduct, business within the State

of Wisconsin and within this District. Defendant directly, or through intermediaries (including

agents, contractors, distributors, dealers, resellers, wholesalers and others), ships, distributes,

offers for sale, sells and advertises various products in the State of Wisconsin and in this District.

As set forth below, Defendant has also committed the tort of patent infringement and has

contributed to and induced acts of infringement by others, within this State and this District.

6. Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)-(c) and1400(b).

III. INFRINGEMENT OF UNITED STATES DESIGN PATENT NO. D473,297 S

7. Broan-NuTone re-alleges the paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein.8. On April 15, 2003, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

duly and legally issued Design Patent No. US D473,297 S (the 297 Patent) after a full and fair

examination. A true and correct copy of the 297 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

9. The 297 Patent was assigned to Broan-NuTone, and Broan-NuTone holds allright, title, and interest in and to the 297 Patent.

10. The 297 Patent relates to a range hood, as shown and described in Exhibit A.


3/7

- 3 -

11. Defendant has directly and/or indirectly infringed and/or induced infringement ofone or more claims of the 297 Patent by making, having made, using, selling, offering to sell,

and/or importing in or into the United States, including this judicial district, without authority,

products which infringe the 297 Patent, including its 370 CFM range hoods.

12. As a direct and proximate consequence of the acts and practices of Defendant ininfringing the 297 Patent, Broan-NuTone has been, is being, and unless such acts and practices

are enjoined by the Court, will continue to be injured in its business and property rights.

13. As a direct and proximate consequence of the acts and practices of Defendant ininfringing the 297 Patent, Broan-NuTone has suffered, is suffering, and will continue to suffer

injury and damages, for which Broan-NuTone is entitled to relief under 35 U.S.C. 284, in an

amount to be determined at trial.

14. The acts and practices of Defendant has also caused, is causing, and, unless suchacts and practices are enjoined by the Court, will continue to cause immediate and irreparable

harm to Broan-NuTone for which there is no adequate remedy at law, and for which Broan-Nu-

Tone is entitled to injunctive relief under 35 U.S.C. 283.

IV. INFRINGEMENT OF UNITED STATES DESIGN PATENT NO. D482,769 S

15. Broan-NuTone re-alleges the paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein.16. On November 25, 2003, the USPTO duly and legally issued Design Patent No.

US D482,769 S (the 769 Patent) after a full and fair examination. A true and correct copy of

the 769 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit B.


18. The 769 Patent relates to a range hood, as shown and described in Exhibit B.


4/7

- 4 -






21. As a direct and proximate consequence of the acts and practices of Defendant ininfringing the 769 Patent, Plaintiff Broan-NuTone has suffered, is suffering, and will continue to

suffer injury and damages, for which Broan-NuTone is entitled to relief under 35 U.S.C. 284,

in an amount to be determined at trial.


harm to Broan-NuTone for which there is no adequate remedy at law, and for which Broan-Nu-


V. INFRINGEMENT OF UNITED STATES DESIGN PATENT NO. D521,622 S

23. Broan-NuTone re-alleges the paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein.24. On May 23, 2006, the USPTO duly and legally issued Design Patent No. US

D521,622 S (the 622 Patent) after a full and fair examination. A true and correct copy of the

622 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit C.


26. The 622 Patent relates to a range hood, as shown and described in Exhibit C.


5/7

- 5 -






29. As a direct and proximate consequence of the acts and practices of Defendant ininfringing the 622 Patent, Plaintiff Broan-NuTone has suffered, is suffering, and will continue to

suffer injury and damages, for which Broan-NuTone is entitled to relief under 35 U.S.C. 284,

in an amount to be determined at trial.


harm to Broan-Nu-Tone for which there is no adequate remedy at law, and for which Broan-Nu-


VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Broan-NuTone, LLC prays for the following relief:

A. A judgment that Defendant Haier America Trading, LLC has infringed,contributorily infringed, and/or induced infringement of each of the patents-in-suit as alleged

above;

B. A judgment and order preliminarily and permanently enjoining Defendant, itsemployees and agents, and any other person(s) in active concert or participation with it from


6/7

- 6 -

infringing, contributorily infringing, and/or inducing infringement of each of the patents-in-suit

as alleged above;

C. A judgment and order requiring Defendant to pay Plaintiff Broan-NuTone LLC,damages under 35 U.S.C. 284, including prejudgment interest and supplemental damages for

any continuing post-verdict infringement up until entry of the final judgment with an accounting

as needed;

D. A judgment and order declaring this an exceptional case and awarding Broan-Nu-Tone attorneys fees, as provided by 35 U.S.C. 285; and

E.

A judgment and order awarding Broan-NuTone such other and further relief as

this Court may deem just and proper.

VII. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff Broan-Nu-Tone demands that all issues be determined by jury.


7/7

- 7 -

Dated: October 14, 2011

Respectfully submitted,

DEWITT ROSS & STEVENS S.C.

s/ Joseph T. Miotke

Joseph T. Leone

[email protected] T. Miotke

[email protected]

Two East Mifflin Street, Suite 600

Madison, Wisconsin 53703Phone: (608) 255-8891

Fax: (608) 252-9243

GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP

Scott J. Bornstein

[email protected]

MetLife Building

200 Park Avenue

New York, NY 10166

Phone: (212) 801-9200

Fax: (212) 801-6400

Gerald L. Fellows

[email protected]

Kimberly A. [email protected]

GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP

2375 East Camelback Road, Suite 700

Phoenix, Arizona 85016Phone: (602) 445-8000

Fax: (602) 445-8100

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

BROAN-NUTONE, LLC

Broan-Nutone v. Haier America Trading

Documents

Transcript of Broan-Nutone v. Haier America Trading