Complaint
Complaint
Complaint
Provided by:
Overhauser Law Offices
LLC
www.iniplaw.org
www.overhauser.com
)
)
Plaintiffs
)
vs.
)
)
ADP DISTRIBUTORS USA, INC. and ADP )
DISTRIBUTORS, INC.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
This is a civil action arising in part under the Patent Laws of the United States,
Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and monetary damages resulting from Defendants
infringement of its patent rights under United States Patent Nos. 6,401,563 and 5,941,684, as set
forth more fully below.
THE PARTIES
3.
Plaintiff Cummins Ltd. is a limited company organized under the laws of England
and Wales, and has principal places of business located at St. Andrews Road, Huddersfield,
United Kingdom HD16RA. Cummins Ltd., including through its division Cummins Turbo
4827-8321-8221
Technologies, manufactures and distributes turbochargers for diesel engines primarily in the
medium and heavy duty diesel engine markets.
4.
Plaintiff Cummins Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of
Indiana, and has a principal place of business at 500 Jackson Street, Columbus, Indiana 47201.
Cummins Inc. is a global power leader that designs, manufactures, distributes and services diesel
and natural gas engines and engine-related component products, including turbochargers,
filtration, aftertreatment, fuel systems, controls systems, air handling systems, and electric power
generation systems.
5.
(Rotomaster USA) is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of California, is
doing business as Rotomaster, and has a principal place of business at 2420 West 14th Street,
Suite A, Tempe, Arizona 85281.
6.
Upon information and belief, Defendant ADP International is the parent company
This Court has exclusive subject matter jurisdiction over the claims asserted
This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Rotomaster USA, which does
business within the State of Indiana and within this Judicial District, and has committed acts of
infringement within this Judicial District, and/or has advertised or otherwise promoted its
-2-
accused products as available in this Judicial District and placed its products within the stream of
commerce with the expectation and/or knowledge that such products would be purchased by
customers and/or used by customers within this Judicial District.
10.
This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant ADP International, which
does business within the State of Indiana and within this Judicial District, and has committed acts
of infringement within this Judicial District, and/or has advertised or otherwise promoted its
accused products as available in this Judicial District and placed its products within the stream of
commerce with the expectation and/or knowledge that such products would be purchased by
customers and/or used by customers within this Judicial District.
11.
com) promoting their turbochargers and replacement parts that is accessible in the United States,
including in this Judicial District.
12.
and/or sell, the accused products to, or on behalf of, entities in the United States, including
entities located within this Judicial District.
13.
Upon information and belief, Defendant ADP International imports the accused
products into the United States for sale or use in the United States, including in this Judicial
District.
14.
Upon information and belief, the conduct of Defendants as alleged herein has
substantial part of the events that give rise to this action have occurred and continue to occur in
this Judicial District.
-3-
16.
and (d) and 1400(b) because, upon information and belief, various acts and transactions
constituting at least a substantial portion of the claims arose in this Judicial District. Venue is
also proper in this Judicial District because Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in this
Judicial District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(c).
U.S. PATENT NO. 6,401,563
17.
United States Patent No. 6,401,563 (the 563 patent), entitled Actuating
Mechanism For A Slidable Nozzle Ring, was duly and legally issued on June 11, 2002. A true
and correct copy of the 563 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
18.
Plaintiff Cummins Ltd. is the owner of all right, title and interest in the 563
patent, including the right to sue thereon and the right to recover for infringement thereof.
Cummins Ltd., including through its division Cummins Turbo Technologies, sells turbochargers
and turbocharger components in the original equipment and first-fit fields of use.
19.
Plaintiff Cummins Inc. is an exclusive licensee to the 563 patent for sales of
The claims of the 563 patent are generally directed to a linkage assembly for
22.
23.
24.
25.
Defendants have had prior knowledge of the 563 patent since at least as early as
July 12, 2013 when Rotomaster was sent correspondence from Plaintiffs regarding the 563
patent.
U.S. PATENT NO. 5,941,684
26.
United States Patent No. 5,941,684 (the 684 patent), entitled Variable
Geometry Turbine, was duly and legally issued on August 24, 1999. A true and correct copy of
the 684 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
27.
Plaintiff Cummins Ltd. is the owner of all right, title and interest in the 684
patent, including the right to sue thereon and the right to recover for infringement thereof.
Cummins Ltd., including through its division Cummins Turbo Technologies, sells turbochargers
and turbocharger components in the original equipment and first-fit fields of use.
28.
Plaintiff Cummins Inc. is an exclusive licensee to the 684 patent for sales of
-5-
29.
The claims of the 684 patent are generally directed to a turbine, such as one used
in connection with a turbocharger, having one or more springs which provide non-linear length
to spring force characteristics on a displaceable sidewall.
30.
31.
32.
33.
Upon information and belief, Defendants have had prior knowledge of the 684
patent since at least as early as July 12, 2013 when Rotomaster was put on notice of the
Cummins patent portfolio, which portfolio Rotomaster investigated in response to prior
correspondence from Plaintiffs.
DEFENDANTS INFRINGING ACTIVITIES AND ACCUSED PRODUCTS
The Accused Rotomaster Turbocharger (Model No. H1550112N)
34.
35.
each other, advertise for sale, offer for sale, import, sell and/or use within the United States
turbochargers identified by Rotomaster Model. No. H1550112N (the Accused Rotomaster
Turbocharger).
36.
shown below:
37.
Each and every claim element of independent claim 1 of the 563 patent is
present, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, in the Accused Rotomaster
Turbocharger.
-7-
39.
Further, each and every claim element of one or more of dependent claims 2
through 8 of the 563 patent is present, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, in the
Accused Rotomaster Turbocharger. For example, and without limitation, each and every claim
element of dependent claim 2 of the 563 patent is present, either literally or under the doctrine
of equivalents, in the Accused Rotomaster Turbocharger.
40.
Each and every claim element of independent claim 1 of the 684 patent is
present, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, in the Accused Rotomaster
Turbocharger.
41.
Further, each and every claim element of one or more of dependent claims 2
through 7 of the 684 patent is present, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, in the
Accused Rotomaster Turbocharger. For example, and without limitation, each and every claim
element of dependent claim 2 of the 684 patent is present, either literally or under the doctrine
of equivalents, in the Accused Rotomaster Turbocharger.
The Accused Rotomaster Replacement Part
42.
each other, advertise for sale, offer for sale, import, sell and/or use within the United States
turbocharger replacement parts, including a nozzle ring assembly (the Accused Rotomaster
Replacement Part).
43.
-8-
44.
Each and every claim element of independent claim 1 of the 563 patent is
present, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, in the Accused Rotomaster
Replacement Part or a turbocharger containing the Accused Rotomaster Replacement Part.
46.
Further, each and every claim element of one or more of dependent claims 2
through 8 of the 563 patent is present, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, in the
Accused Rotomaster Replacement Part or a turbocharger containing the Accused Rotomaster
Replacement Part.
For example, and without limitation, each and every claim element of
dependent claim 2 of the 563 patent is present, either literally or under the doctrine of
equivalents, in the Accused Rotomaster Replacement Part or a turbocharger containing the
Accused Rotomaster Replacement Part.
-9-
others or each other, directly infringed at least claim 1 and one or more dependent claims of the
563 patent, including, without limitation, dependent claim 2, by advertising for sale, offering for
sale, importing, selling and/or using within the United States turbochargers, including by way of
example and not by way of limitation as to infringing products, the Accused Rotomaster
Turbocharger and the Accused Rotomaster Replacement Part.
49.
Part include a linkage assembly for linking together certain components within a turbocharger or
turbomachine, including a nozzle ring, at least one rod guided for movement in a direction
parallel to the central axis of the nozzle ring, linkage mechanism connected to one end of the rod
and pivotally connected to the nozzle ring, and wherein the rod is pivotal with respect to its
central axis, as claimed in the 563 patent.
50.
Replacement Part include a foot member having a first end face abutting said annular nozzle ring
and a second end face fixed to said rod, one end of said foot member being pivotally connected
to said annular nozzle ring on the first end face of said foot member, as claimed in dependent
claim 2 of the 563 patent.
51.
Upon information and belief, Defendants infringement of the 563 patent has
been willful.
52.
The activities of Defendants as complained of in this Count have injured and been
to the detriment of, and continue to injure and be detrimental to Plaintiffs and, as a result thereof,
-10-
Plaintiffs are entitled to recover damages adequate to compensate it for the infringement
complained of herein, including lost profits, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty.
53.
Plaintiffs substantial damage and irreparable injury by virtue of their past and on-going
infringement.
COUNT II: DIRECT INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,941,684
54.
others or each other, directly infringed at least claim 1 and one or more dependent claims of the
684 patent, including, without limitation, dependent claim 2, by advertising for sale, offering for
sale, importing, sellingand/or using within the United States turbochargers, including by way of
example and not by way of limitation as to infringing products, the Accused Rotomaster
Turbocharger.
56.
turbine wheel, a gas inlet passage defined between a fixed wall and a sidewall, at least one spring
biasing the sidewall away from the fixed wall, and means for apply an axial force to the sidewall
in opposition to the spring to control the axial position of the sidewall, wherein the spring has
non-linear length to spring force characteristics such that the resultant of the spring force and
axial force applied to the sidewall as a result of gas flow through the passage increases
continuously as the sidewall is displaced, as claimed in the 684 patent.
57.
Turbocharger increases as the sidewall is displaced from a first position to a second position, as
claimed in dependent claim 2 of the 684 patent.
-11-
58.
Upon information and belief, Defendants infringement of the 684 patent has
been willful.
59.
The activities of Defendants as complained of in this Count have injured and been
to the detriment of, and continue to injure and be detrimental to Plaintiffs and, as a result thereof,
Plaintiffs are entitled to recover damages adequate to compensate it for the infringement
complained of herein, including lost profits, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty.
60.
Plaintiffs substantial damage and irreparable injury by virtue of their past and on-going
infringement.
COUNT III: INDUCEMENT TO INFRINGE THE 563 PATENT
61.
Upon information and belief, Defendants had knowledge of the 563 patent.
63.
the 563 Patent by advertising for sale, offering to sell, selling and/or importing into the United
States the Accused Rotomaster Replacement Part, and providing instructions for installing such
part in turbochargers to produce turbochargers which directly infringe at least claim 1 and one or
more dependent claims, including, without limitation, dependent claim 2, of the 563 patent.
64.
has been installed within the United States into turbochargers to produce turbochargers which
directly infringe at least claim 1 and one or more dependent claims, including, without limitation,
dependent claim 2, of the 563 patent.
65.
Defendants knew or should have known that the sales of the Accused Rotomaster
Replacement Part would induce, and actively induce, actual infringement of the 563 patent.
-12-
Defendants offered for sale, sold and/or imported within the United States the
Defendants knew that its Accused Rotomaster Replacement Parts were especially
made or especially adopted for inclusion in turbochargers which directly infringe at least claim 1
and one or more dependent claims including, without limitation, dependent claim 2, of the 563
patent.
69.
Parts were installed within the United States into turbochargers to produce turbochargers which
directly infringe at least claim 1 and one or more dependent claims including, without limitation,
dependent claim 2, of the 563 patent.
70.
-13-
1.
Judgment that Defendants have directly infringed one or more claims of the 563
2.
Judgment that Defendants have directly infringed one or more claims of the 684
3.
Judgment that Defendants have actively induced infringement one or more claims
patent;
patent;
Judgment that Defendants have contributorily infringed one or more claims of the
563 patent;
5.
agents, servants, employees, representatives, licensees, successors, assigns, and those persons in
active concert or participation with any of them, from directly or indirectly infringing the 563
patent and 684 patent;
6.
of the 563 patent and 684 patent, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for use of the
invention together with interest and costs under 35 U.S.C. 284;
7.
8.
determined to be willful;
9.
Declaring that this action be an exceptional case pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 285 and
11.
Awarding to Plaintiffs such other and further relief as the Court deems just and
proper.
-14-
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ James D. Dasso
James D. Dasso (Ill. ARDC 6193545, admitted
to practice before S.D. Indiana)
Jeanne M. Gills (Ill. ARDC 6225018, Pro Hac
Vice admission to be applied for)
Aaron J. Weinzierl (Ill. ARDC 6294055, Pro
Hac Vice admission to be applied for)
Jason A. Berta (Ill. ARDC 6295888, Pro Hac
Vice admission to be applied for)
FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
321 North Clark Street, Suite 2800
Chicago, Illinois 60654-5313
312.832.4500
312.832.4700 (Fax)
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Cummins Ltd. and
Cummins Inc.
-15-