Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : PLNI - Game Over -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: scion who wrote (5513)	7/19/2006 1:19:49 AM
From: scion	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12518

11. Upon information and belief, Mr. Turek signed the inventor declaration knowing that it was false and with the intent to deceive the PTO. COUNTERCLAIM Case 5:04-cv-00336-JBC Document 75 Filed 07/13/2006 (Request for Declaratory Judgment as to the '714 Patent) For its counterclaim against Plaintiff, Dayton states as follows: 1. This Counterclaim arises under the Patent Laws of the United States. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this Counterclaim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338, 2201 and 2202. 2. Plaintiff has submitted to the personal jurisdiction and venue in this District by filing the First Amended Complaint. 3. Plaintiff has alleged that it is a Nevada corporation with principal offices at Lexington, Kentucky. 4. Dayton is an Ohio corporation doing business in Ohio with principal offices in Dayton, Ohio. 5. By its First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that it is the owner by assignment of the '714 patent and that Dayton and Aztec infringe the '714 patent. An actual controversy thus exists between Plaintiff and Dayton as to whether the '714 patent is valid, infringed and enforceable. 6. Dayton has not infringed any claim of the '714 patent. 7. The '714 patent is invalid, in whole or in part, for failure to comply with one or more provisions of the patent laws and regulations of the United States including, without limitation, 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103 and 112. 8. Upon information and belief, the '714 patent is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct of the named inventors and their attorneys before the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO"). 9. On or about February 28, 1989, James N. Turek signed a declaration in support of the '714 patent application stating that he was a co-inventor of one or more inventions claimed in the '714 patent. 10. Upon information and belief, Mr. Turek is not a co-inventor of any invention claimed in the '714 patent. 11. Upon information and belief, Mr. Turek signed the inventor declaration knowing that it was false and with the intent to deceive the PTO. 12. On or about October 30, 1989, Mr. Turek signed a declaration in support of the '714 patent application stating that the inventions claimed therein were nonobvious as evidenced by their commercial success in the marketplace. 13. Upon information and belief, statements made in Mr. Turek's declaration of commercial success that relate to present and pending sales contracts are false and are not supported by documentary evidence. 14. Upon information and belief, Mr. Turek signed the declaration of commercial success knowing that it was false and with the intent to deceive the PTO. 15. An actual controversy exists between Plaintiff and Dayton over the parties' respective rights and liabilities in connection with the '714 patent. Dayton seek a judicial declaration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 et seq. that it has not infringed the '714 patent and that the patent is invalid and unenforceable. WHEREFORE, Dayton prays that the Court enter judgment in its favor and against Promotional Containers, Inc. on the Counterclaim and that it: 1. Dismiss the Complaint and First Amended Complaint with prejudice; 2. Declare that the '714 patent is invalid and unenforceable; 3. Declare that Dayton and Aztec do not infringe the '714 patent; 4. Declare that this is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and award to Dayton its reasonable attorney's fees and expenses; and 5. Award Dayton all other statutory, legal and equitable relief to which it may be entitled and as the Court deems just and proper. Case 5:04-cv-00336-JBC Document 75 Filed 07/13/2006 PROMOTIONAL CONTAINERS, INC. Plaintiff, vs. AZTEC CONCRETE ACCESSORIES, INC. and DAYTON SUPERIOR CORPORATION Defendants. ))))))))))))) Case No.: 04-336 Judge Jennifer B. Coffman