Kee Action Sports v. Shyang Huei Industrial

8/13/2019 Kee Action Sports v. Shyang Huei Industrial

1/21

Craig R. Rogers, Oregon State Bar No. [email protected] C. Phillips, Oregon State Bar No. [email protected] IP LAW GROUP LLP9600 SW Oak St., Suite 560Portland, Oregon 97223Phone: 503) 517-8900Fax: 503)517-9919Attorneys for Plaintiff KEE Action Sports, LLC

FILED 4 J ~ 4 1 4 1 2 G 9 J S D C ~ P

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTDISTRICT OF OREGONPORTLAND DIVISION

KEE ACTION SPORTS LLC a Delawarelimited liability company,Plaintiff,

v

SHYANG HUEI INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD., aTaiwan Company, dba SUNWORLDINDUSTRIAL CO, LTD., also dbaDANGEROUS POWER, also dba DPENGINEERING, andAMAZONE, INC., a California Corporation

Defendants.

~ ~ ~ 4 o ~ V 07 ZCOMPLAINT FOR PATENT

INFRINGEMENTBreach of Contract; Breach of

Covenant of Good Faith and FairDealing; Declaratory Judgment;Willfulness; Exceptional CasePursuant to 35 U.S.C. 271, 281,284 and 285 and Oregon State andCommon Law)

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIALREQUEST FOR EXPEDITED

DETERMINATION PURSUANTTO Fed. R. Civ. P. 57UN ER

SE L

Page

55blt3COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT, Breach of Contract, Breach of Covenant ofGood Faith and Fair Dealing, Declaratory Judgment, Willfulness, and Exceptional Case


2/21


3/21

III. JURISDICTION ND VENUE4. The amount in controversy in this matter exceeds the sum of $75,000, exclusive

of interest and costs, and is between citizens of different states and a foreign state. Diversityjurisdiction therefore exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332.

5 Jurisdiction in this Court over the Patent Infringement action is proper under 28U.S.C. 1331 and 1338(a), as this claim for patent infringement arises under the patent laws ofthe United States.

6 Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b), 1391(c), and 1400(b),

as Defendants have consented to this forum and, upon information and belief, have furtheroffered for sale, advertised, solicited orders for, and sold products that are the subject of thislitigation in this District.

IV. F CTU L B CKGROUNDA. Contract-in-Suit7 The Amended and Restated Patent License Agreement ( Restated License

Agreement ), executed between SunWorld and KEE in January 2012, is included as part oftheSettlement Agreement, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. eeExh. A, pp. 9-18.

B Patents-in-Suit8 On October 19, 1999, the U.S. Paten t and Trademark Office ( U.S. PTO )

duly and legally issued U.S. Patent No. 5,967,133 (the '133 patent ), entitled PneumaticallyOperated Projectile Launching Device. A true and correct copy ofthe '133 patent is attachedas Exhibit B

Page COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT, Breach of Contract, Breach of Covenant ofGood Faith and Fair Dealing, Declaratory Judgment, Willfulness, and Exceptional Case


4/21

9. On November 5 2002, the U.S. PTO duly and legally issued U.S. Patent No.6,474,326 (the '326 patent ), entitled Pneumatically Operated Projectile Launching Device.A true and correct copy of the '326 patent is attached as Exhibit C.

10. On October 28, 2003, the U.S. PTO duly and legally issued U.S. Patent No.6,637,421 (the ' 421 patent ), entitled Pneumatically Operated Projectile Launching Device. Atrue and correct copy ofthe '421 patent is attached as Exhibit D.

11. On September 5 2006, the U.S. PTO duly and legally issued U.S. Patent No.7,100,593 (the ' 593 patent ), entitled Pneumatically Operated Projectile Launching Device. A

true and correct copy of the '593 patent is attached as Exhibit E.12. On October 20, 2009, the U.S. PTO duly and legally issued U.S. Patent No.

7,603,997 (the ' 997 patent ), entitled Electrical Control Unit for Paintball Gun. A true andcorrect copy of the '997 patent is attached as Exhibit F.

13. On November 3, 2009, the U.S. PTO duly and legally issued U.S. Patent No.7,610,908 (the ' 908 patent ), entitled Pneumatically Operated Projectile Launching Device. Atrue and correct copy of the '908 patent is attached as Exhibit G.

14. On May 24, 2011, the U.S. PTO duly and legally issued U.S. Patent No.7,946,285 (the ' 285 patent ), entitled Pneumatically Operated Projectile Launching Device. Atrue and correct copy of the '285 patent is attached as Exhibit H.

15. KEE is the owner by assignment from Smart Parts, Inc. ( Smart Parts ) ofthe

'133, '326, '421, '593, '997, '908, and '285 patents (the patents-in-suit ) and owns all rights,title, and interest in the patents-in-suit, including the right to sue for and recover all past, present,and future damages for infringement of the patents-in-suit.

Page4- COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT, Breach ofContract, Breach of Covenant ofGood Faith and Fair Dealing, Declaratory Judgment, Willfulness, and Exceptional Case


5/21

16. The patents-in-suit are valid, enforceable and were duly issued in full compliancewith Title 35 ofthe United States Code.

C. Facts Supporting Claim for Relief17. In January 2012, KEE, Sun World, and Amazone entered into a Settlement

Agreement to resolve all outstanding disputes between the parties, including assertions ofpatentinfringement by both KEE and Sun World against each other. ee Exh. A.

18. As part ofthe Settlement Agreement, KEE and Sun World entered the RestatedLicense Agreement granting Sun World a non-exclusive, worldwide license to manufacture,

import, offer for sale, and sell products covered by the '133, '326, '421, '593, 997, '908, and'285 patents and their related patents (collectively, the Electronic Paintball Gun Patents ). eeExh. A pp. 9-18.

19. Despite agreeing to the terms ofthe Restated License Agreement to induce KEEto enter into the Settlement Agreement, Sun World promptly breached the terms of the RestatedLicense Agreement by, among other things, failing to provide the required report or pay theroyalties accrued under the Restated License Agreement for the first quarter 2012.

20. Upon information and belief, Sun World materially breached the Restated LicenseAgreement before obtaining any opinion of counsel with respect to non-infringement orinvalidity.

21. Upon information and belief, Sun World attempted to retroactively justify its

material breach by hiring counsel to provide an opinion of invalidity.22. In a letter dated July 30, 2012, Sun World, through its counsel, purported to justify

its refusal to pay royalties or otherwise comply with the Restated License Agreement by merelyasserting that its electronic paintball gun products do not infringe any valid claim of any of the

Page COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT, Breach ofContract, Breach of Covenant ofGood Faith and Fair Dealing, Declaratory Judgment, Willfulness, and Exceptional Case


6/21

'Electronic Paintball Gun Patents. ' A true and correct copy of SunWorld's letter to KEE datedJuly 30, 2012 is attached hereto as Exhibit I

23. Sun World has since failed to provide any ofthe reports required by the RestatedLicense Agreement, has failed to pay any of the royalties due under the Restated LicenseAgreement, and has further refused to comply with any of the other terms of the RestatedLicense Agreement.

24. Upon information and belief, despite its failure to comply with the terms of theRestated License Agreement, SunWorld continues to manufacture, import, offer for sale, and sell

products covered by the Electronic Paintball Gun Patents, including its Dangerous Power Fusion,FX, F8, Threshold, G3, G4, G5, El, Rev-I, and/or M3Al branded paintball guns (collectively,Infringing Products ).

25. Upon information and belief, Amazone is SunWorld's exclusive U.S. distributorand distributes Infringing Products covered by the Electronic Paintball Gun Patents within theUnited States.

26. By materially breaching the provisions of the Restated License Agreement and bycontinuing to manufacture, import, sell, offer for sale, and distribute Infringing Products withoutpaying the required royalties thereon, Defendants are infringing the patents-in-suit.

27 Defendants' infringing activities have deprived KEE of sales without providingKEE with the benefits of the Restated License Agreement, have permitted Defendants to market

and sell Infringing Products without paying for use of the patented technology-therebyproviding them with an unfair competitive advantage over KEE and its licensees, and havediminished the value ofKEE s patented technology.



7/21

D Historical Backgroundi Industry Innovation

28 The sport o paintball is still relatively young and dynamic. Since the firstpaintball game over 30 years ago, a few key technological advances have changed the way thesport is played.

29 Securing more than 40 U.S. and International patents related to paintball, SmartParts provided some o the foremost technological innovations in the sport ofpaintball.

30 Among its major innovations, Smart Parts revolutionized the sport o paintball in

1996 by introducing the first electro-pneumatic paintball gun (or marker ) to the market.31 Realizing the importance o this technology, Smart Parts filed and prosecuted

more than 12 separate patents to issuance relating to the electronic control ofpaintball guns,including United States Patent Nos. 5,881,707; 5,967,133; 6,035,843; 6,474,326; 6,637,421;7,100,593; 7,603,997; and 7,610,908; 7,946,285, as well as several foreign patents (collectively,the Electronic Paintball Gun Patents ).

32 Smart Parts' intuition into the importance o this innovation has been confirmedby the development o the industry.

33 Despite initial industry skepticism regarding the viability o these inventions, afterviewing Smart Parts' success, numerous other companies scrambled to introduce electro-pneumatic paintball guns.

34 Although not a single electro-pneumatic paintball marker existed on the marketbefore Smart Parts conceived and reduced its invention to practice, since Smart Parts' trade showdemonstration o an electro-pneumatic paintball marker in January 1996, almost every other

Page COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT, Breach o Contract, Breach o Covenant oGood Faith and Fair Dealing, Declaratory Judgment, Willfulness, and Exceptional Case


8/21

major paintball gun manufacturer has subsequently introduced one or more electro-pneumaticpaintball markers.

35. Currently, professional paintball competitions are almost entirely played withelectro-pneumatic paintball markers.

36. The rapid industry transition from reluctance to embracing Smart Partsinnovation is a testament to the importance o this technology to the industry and to theextraordinary value o the proprietary interests granted through the Electronic Paintball GunPatents.

37. Recognizing both the importance o the technology and the corresponding patentrights granted to Smart Parts, nearly all o the companies that manufacture electro-pneumaticpaintball guns took a license under the Electronic Paintball Gun Patents to permit them tomanufacture and sell electro-pneumatic paintball guns.

38. After the Electronic Paintball Gun Patents began issuing, and beginning withNational Paintball Supply, Inc. (a predecessor to KEE) in 2003, more than 15 separatecompanies have taken a license under the Electronic Paintball Gun Patents to produce productscovered by these patents.

39. In 2008 and 2009, the paintball industry suffered a severe blow as a result o theeconomic downturn, and Smart Parts was forced to declare bankruptcy in 2 1 0 despite itsextremely popular electro-pneumatic paintball gun line and the numerous licenses issued under

its Electronic Paintball Gun Patents.



9/21

ii. KEE s Acquisition40. As a licensee ofthe Electronic Paintball Gun Patents, and recognizing the

tremendous value of this technology, on or around March 2011, KEE paid a substantial sum ofmoney to acquire all of the intellectual property assets belonging to Smart Parts.

41. The intellectual property assets of Smart Parts, and, in particular, the ElectronicPaintball Gun Patents, represented some of the most valuable business assets of Smart Parts atthe time of its bankruptcy.

42. Plaintiffs Electronic Paintball Gun Patents remain extremely valuable business

assets that mandate stringent enforcement to protect their value.43. Without strict enforcement, KEE will be deprived of the benefit of its substantial

investment in this intellectual property.iii. The Bad Faith and Infringing Actions of SunWorld

44. Upon information and belief, Sun World entered the paintball gun market on oraround 2006, with its introduction of the Dangerous Power Fusion branded paintball marker.

45. SunWorld's Fusion paintball marker was similar in design to Planet Eclipse's Egopaintball marker, which was a licensed electro-pneumatic paintball marker covered by SmartParts' royalty bearing license agreement with Planet Eclipse.

46. Upon information and belief, recognizing their need for a license under SmartParts' patents to continue to produce their Fusion marker and to compete in the industry,

SunWorld entered into a license agreement with Smart Parts effective January 1 2007, agreeingthat their Fusion marker was a covered Patented Product. A true and correct copy of the SmartParts/Sun World Patent License Agreement ( Patent License Agreement ) is attached hereto asExhibit J.



10/21

47 Despite its agreement to pay royalties on all sales o its Patented Products,Sun World, upon information and belief, significantly underreported the number o PatentedProducts which they manufactured and sold, and failed to account for and pay royaltiesamounting to over 300,000.00 during the time period between execution o the Patent LicenseAgreement and September 30, 2011.

48. After its acquisition o the Electronic Paintball Gun Patents and related licenseagreements, KEE contacted Sun World to get an accounting o its royalties due under the PatentLicense Agreement and to ensure future payment thereof.

49. Based on industry information, KEE had reason to believe that Sun World hadsignificantly underreported its royalty obligations under the Patent License Agreement.

50. During SunWorld's subsequent negotiations with KEE with respect to itsunderreported and unpaid past due royalty obligations, SunWorld raised numerous issues relatedto its own patents.

51. Among other things, Sun World asserted that three o its own patents, U.S. PatentNos. 7,252,080 and 7,392,802 (related to a clamping feedneck design), and U.S. Patent No.7,156,135 (related to a quick release ASA adapter) were being infringed by KEE.

52 In order to settle all outstanding disputes between the parties and to ensure that nofuture disputes arose between these parties related to these patents, KEE, SunWorld, andAmazone entered into a global Settlement Agreement and supporting agreements in January2012. ee Exh. A

53. As a key part o the Settlement Agreement to resolve these disputes, the partiesmutually agreed to prohibit any future challenges to the validity or enforceability o any o thepatents asserted by any o the other parties.

Page 1 COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT, Breach o Contract, Breach o Covenant oGood Faith and Fair Dealing, Declaratory Judgment, Willfulness, and Exceptional Case


11/21

54. Specifically, the Restated License Agreement included a provision in whichSun World and its Related Companies agree[d] not to contest or otherwise challenge, andagree[d] not to assist others in contesting or challenging, the validity and/or enforceability o theElectronic Paintball Gun Patents. Exh. A, pp. 10-11, 2.05.

55. In order to assure mutual protection against future challenges to the validity otheir asserted patents, SunWorld included substantially identical provisions to this in its licenseagreements to KEE.

56. Specifically, in the clamping feedneck Patent Cross-license Agreement, Each

party agree[d] not to contest or otherwise challenge, and agree[d] not to assist others incontesting or challenging, the validity and/or enforceability o the other party's ClampingFeedneck Patents. Exh. A, p. 21, 2.05.

57. Similarly, in SunWorld's Quick-Release ASA Patent License Agreement to KEE,Sun World required KEE to agree not to contest or otherwise challenge, and agree not to assistothers in contesting or challenging, the validity and/or enforceability o the Patent. (Exh. A p.29, 6.02).

58. As part o the Restated License Agreement, Sun World also acknowledged that theElectronic Paintball Gun Patents covered several o their paintball gun products, including theirE1 G4, Fusion, Rev-1, G3, and Threshold branded paintball guns (collectively PatentedProducts ), and agreed to pay continuing royalties for those Patented Products Sold during the

term o the Restated License Agreement. ee Exh. A p. 18, Schedule A59. The Fusion, Threshold, G3, Rev-1 G4, and E1 paintball markers are therefore all

admittedly covered by the Electronic Paintball Gun Patents.



12/21

60. The Fusion X (FX), F8, G3 Spee-R, M3A1, and G5 paintball guns operate onprinciples similar to the Patented Products included in Schedule 1 of the Restated LicenseAgreement and are similarly covered by the Electronic Paintball Gun Patents.

61. As part of the Settlement Agreement and Restated License Agreement, Sun Worldfurther agreed to pay, and did pay, a substantial sum of money to cover its past due unreportedand underreported royalties, giving Sun World ample motivation and opportunity to contest thevalidity of the Electronic Paintball Gun Patents at that time. ee Exh. A p. 3 1.01.

62. Despite committing to the terms of the Restated License Agreement to induce

KEE into entering the Settlement Agreement and its related documents, SunWorld almostimmediately reneged on its commitments made under that agreement.

63. Sun World s violations ofKEE s patent rights have been in knowing disregard ofKEE s rights under the Electronic Paintball Gun Patents and, upon information and belief, werebegun before obtaining any opinion of counsel with respect to non-infringement or invalidity.

64. Likewise, upon information and belief, SunWorld s decision to breach theRestated License Agreement was made before obtaining any opinion of counsel with respect tonon-infringement or invalidity.

65. Although Sun World made a royalty payment for the final quarter of2011 within afew weeks after the Settlement Agreement was executed, Sun World thereafter failed to make itsrequired royalty payments under the Restated License Agreement for the first quarter of 2012.

66. Upon information and belief, SunWorld unilaterally decided not to pay royaltiesunder the Restated License Agreement sometime during the first quarter of 2012.

Page 2 COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT, Breach of Contract, Breach of Covenant ofGood Faith and Fair Dealing, Declaratory Judgment, Willfulness, and Exceptional Case


13/21

67. Upon information and belief, SunWorld s decision not to pay royalties under theRestated License Agreement came before receiving any opinion of counsel with respect to thevalidity and/or enforceability of the Electronic Paintball Gun Patents.

68. Upon information and belief, despite the parties mutual agreement not to contestthe validity of each others asserted patents, and in an effort to retroactively support its decisionnot to pay royalties under the Restated License Agreement, SunWorld retained counsel toproduce an opinion of invalidity with respect to Electronic Paintball Gun Patents.

69. Several months after failing to pay its first quarter 2012 royalties, and at the time

its second quarter 2012 royalties were coming due, SunWorld, through its counsel, sent a letter toKEE (dated July 30, 2012) alleging invalidity of the Electronic Paintball Gun Patents andrefusing to further comply with any of the requirements under the Restated License Agreement.ee Exh. I

70. Demonstrating a pattern of bad faith, despite finally correcting its failure tocomply with the terms of the original Patent License Agreement and despite its renewed promiseto pay royalties under the Restated License Agreement, shortly after entering into the SettlementAgreement, SunWorld materially breached the terms of the Restated License Agreement byfailing to pay royalties for the first quarter of 2012 and make the required report.

71. Further demonstrating a pattern ofbad faith, Sun World further materiallybreached the terms of the Restated License Agreement by later contesting the validity of the

Electronic Paintball Gun Patents, despite having agreed not to raise such a challenge and despitealso requiring KEE to agree not to raise such challenges against SunWorld s asserted patents.



14/21

72 Further demonstrating a pattern ofb d faith, Sun World further materiallybreached the terms of the Restated License Agreement by refusing to comply with any of theterms of the Restated License Agreement in its letter from counsel dated July 30, 2012.

73 SunWorld has further continued to materially breach the terms of the RestatedLicense Agreement by failing to provide the required reports and royalty payments, by failing toappropriately mark the Patented Products, by failing to provide notice of new Patented Products,and/or by failing to pay the required interest payments, among other things.

74 Upon information and belief, Sun World s assertion of invalidity with respect to

KEE s more than 12 licensed Electronic Paintball Gun Patents, collectively including well over150 issued patent claims, was created retroactively in bad faith and relies entirely on a singlereference unrelated to paintball guns.

75 Defendants continued manufacture, importation, offer for sale, and sale ofPatented Products, despite failing to comply with the terms of the Restated License Agreement,constitute acts of infringement which must be immediately and permanently enjoined.

76 After several months of unsuccessfully attempting to negotiate a resolution ofthese issues with SunWorld, KEE has been forced to bring this lawsuit to enforce its patents andto effectuate the entire scope of the Settlement Agreement between the parties.

77 Sun World s pattern ofb d faith and willful disregard for its contractualobligations should not be rewarded.

78 Sun World should be compelled by this Court to comply with each of its promisesunder the Restated License Agreement, including, among other things, its obligation to payroyalties and accrued interest on Patented Products sold during the term of the agreement and itspromise not to contest the validity or enforceability of the Electronic Paintball Gun Patents.



15/21

79 Defendants should be permanently enjoined from any acts of infringement ofthElectronic Paintball Gun Patents, including the unauthorized sale of Patented Products for whichthe appropriate royalties have not been paid and/or which are not appropriately marked with therequired patent markings.

COUNT IBreach o Contract)

80 KEE hereby incorporates by reference the averments set forth in Paragraphs 1through 79 of this Complaint as if they were set forth fully herein.

81 KEE has performed all acts required of it under the Restated License Agreementor has offered to perform all of the obligations required of it under the Restated LicenseAgreement and related Settlement Agreement).

82 By its actions and inactions described herein, Defendant Sun World has breachedits contractual obligations under the Restated License Agreement in one or more of the followingways:

Page 5

a by failing to provide the required reports for the first quarter of 2012 andevery quarter thereafter;

b by failing to pay royalties and accrued interest thereon for PatentedProducts sold during the first quarter of 2012 and every quarter thereafter;

c by contesting the validity of the Electronic Paintball Gun Patents

immediately following the second quarter 2012;d by failing to appropriately mark the Patented Products with the patent

numbers of the Electronic Paintball Gun Patents; and

COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT, Breach of Contract, Breach of Covenant ofGood Faith and Fair Dealing, Declaratory Judgment, Willfulness, and Exceptional Case


16/21

e by refusing to comply with any of its other contractual obligations underthe Restated License Agreement effective as of its letter to KEE dated July30, 2012.

83 Each ofth breaches by Sun World was material.84 By its actions and inactions described herein, Sun World is in default and has

materially breached its obligations under the Restated License Agreement.85. As a result ofth material breach of SunWorld's covenant not to contest the

validity of the Electronic Paintball Gun Patents, KEE has lost the expected benefits of the

Settlement Agreement and other related agreements entered between the parties, including theexpectation that no further issues would be raised between the parties regarding the validityand/or enforceability of either party's asserted patents.

86 KEE has no adequate remedy at law for Sun World's breach ofthis provision ofthe Restated License Agreement. KEE can only be made whole if SunWorld is required tospecifically perform this provision ofth Restated License Agreement.

87 As a result of the material breaches by Sun World, KEE has lost sales and marketshare with respect to products covered by the Electronic Paintball Gun Patents, in addition toother anticipated benefits ofprotection under the U.S. Patent Laws, without receiving the agreedupon compensation therefore in the form of royalties and interest that should have been paid.

88 KEE has therefore been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial, but believedto exceed more than 300,000 in unpaid royalties and accrued interest thereon.



17/21

COUNT IIBreach o Covenant o Good Faith and Fair Dealing)


90 Implied in every contract is a covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Thiscovenant prohibits either party from engaging in any act that will have the effect of destroying orinjuring the right of the other party to receive the fruits of the contract.

91 The parties entire purpose of entering into the Settlement Agreement was to

resolve all of the outstanding disagreements between the parties and provide a license structurefor the relationship between the parties moving forward that would preclude future disputes.

92. Despite knowing this purpose and inducing KEE to enter into the SettlementAgreement by making the covenants and promises contained in the Restated License Agreement,Sun World knowingly contravened its promises and negated KEE s expectations under theSettlement Agreement by challenging the validity ofKEE s patents, refusing to pay the agreedupon royalties, and refusing in all other respects to comply with the terms of the RestatedLicense Agreement.

93. Due to SunWorld s willful and intentional contravention of the explicit terms ofthe Restated License Agreement, KEE has been prevented from enjoying the expected benefitsof the Settlement Agreement entered into between the parties.

94 KEE has no adequate remedy at law. KEE can only be made whole if Sun Worldis required to specifically perform the terms of the Restated License Agreement.



18/21

OUNTIIIDeclaratory Judgment)


96 A real controversy exists between KEE and SunWorld regarding their respectiverights and obligations under the Restated License Agreement.

97 KEE requests this Court s declaration that:f the Restated License Agreement is a valid and binding contract.

g SunWorld is obligated to effectuate the terms ofthe Restated LicenseAgreement.

98 KEE has no adequate remedy at law. KEE can only be made whole if Sun Worldis required to specifically perform the terms of the Restated License Agreement.

99 Pursuant to ORS 128.100, Plaintiff is entitled to recover its costs.

OUNT IVWillful Patent nfringement U.S. Patent Nos. 5, 967,133; 6,474,326;6,637,421; 7,100,593; 7,603,997; 7,610,908; and 7,946,285)

100. KEE hereby incorporates by reference the averments set forth in Paragraphsthrough 99 of this Complaint as if they were set forth fully herein.

101. As a result of its failure to comply with the terms of the Restated License

Agreement, Defendants manufacture, use, importation, offer for sale, and sale of its Fusion, F8,Fusion X (FX), Threshold, G3, G3 Spee-R, Rev-1, G4, E1, M3A1, and G5 model paintball gunsconstitutes direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271 of one or more claims of each ofKEE s133, 326, 421, 593, 997, 908, and 285 patents.



19/21

102. Sun World s actions further constitute inducement to infringe under 35 U.S.C. 271(b). Upon information and belief, SunWorld knowingly induced direct infringement byAmazone and others with specific intent to encourage their infringement, with knowledge o theElectronic Paintball Gun Patents, and before having obtained opinion o counsel.

103. KEE has been, and continues to be, damaged by Defendants patent infringementin a manner that cannot be fully measured or compensated in economic terms.

104. Defendants patent infringement has damaged, and will continue to damageKEE s market share and deteriorate the market value o Plaintiffs patented technology.

105. Such irreparable harm will continue unless and until Defendants infringingactions are enjoined.

106. Defendants direct and indirect infringement has been willful, entitling Plaintifftotreble damages under 35 U.S.C. 284.

107. This case is exceptional pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 285 and Plaintiff is entitled to anaward o its reasonable attorney s fees and costs.

R QU ST FOR R LI FWHEREFORE, Plaintiff, KEE, requests that judgment be entered in its favor and against

Defendants, as follows:A Declaring that SunWorld has materially breached its contractual obligations under

the Restated License Agreement, by, among other things: failing to report Patented Products(including serial numbers) sold from between January 1 2012 to present; and failing to payroyalties due on Patented Products sold from between January 1 2012 to present; and failing topay interest accrued thereon.

Page 9 COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT, Breach o Contract, Breach o Covenant oGood Faith and Fair Dealing, Declaratory Judgment, Willfulness, and Exceptional Case


20/21

B Ordering specific performance of the Restated License Agreement requiringSun World to: provide the reports required under the Restated License Agreement; pay theroyalties and accrued interest for Patented Products Sold during the term of the Restated LicenseAgreement; and comply in all other respects with the terms of the Restated License Agreement.

C Declaring that SunWorld has materially breached its contractual obligations underthe Restated License Agreement by contesting the validity of the Electronic Paintball GunPatents.

D Ordering specific performance of the Restated License Agreement and prohibiting

Sun World from challenging and/or assisting others in challenging the validity ofthe ElectronicPaintball Gun Patents.

E Ordering that SunWorld, its officers, agents, servants, and employees, and allpersons and organizations in active concert or participation with them, be required to specificallyperform all of their duties and obligations under the Restated License Agreement.

F Finding that pursuant to ORS 28.100, Plaintiff is entitled to recover its costs.G Declaring that Defendants have directly infringed upon KEE s United States

Letters Patent Nos. 6,474,326; 6,637,421; 7,100,593; 7,603,997; 7,610,908; 7,946,285 throughtheir unlicensed manufacture, importation, offer for sale, and/or sale of Fusion, Fusion X, F8,Threshold, Rev-I, G3, G4, G5, and M3A1 model paintball guns.

H Declaring that SunWorld has indirectly infringed upon KEE s United States

Letters Patent Nos. 6,474,326; 6,637,421; 7,100,593; 7,603,997; 7,610,908; 7,946,285 throughits inducement of infringement by Amazone and others.

I Ordering that Defendants, and their officers, agents, servants, and employees, andall persons and organizations in active concert or participation with them, be permanently

Page20 COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT, Breach of Contract, Breach ofCovenant ofGood Faith and Fair Dealing, Declaratory Judgment, Willfulness, and Exceptional Case


21/21

enjoined and restrained from any and all acts of infringement of nited States Patent Nos.6,474,326; 6,637,421; 7,100,593; 7,603,997; 7,610,908; and 7,946,285, including the unlicensedmanufacture, use, sale, offer for sale, advertising, promotion, importation and/or distribution ofany and all paintball guns (including the Fusion, Fusion X, F8, Threshold, Rev-I, G3, G4, G5,and M3A1 model paintball guns) that incorporate the claimed technology.

J Ordering that Defendants' pay to Plaintiff damages equal to a reasonable royaltyfor all sales oflnfringing Products from January 2012 to present.

K Finding that Defendants' infringement has been willful and trebling the amount of

damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 284.L Finding that this case is exceptional, and awarding to KEE its reasonable

attorney's fees and costs pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 285.M. And such other rel ief as this Court deems just and proper.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(a).

Matthew C PhillipsOSB 040979RENAISSANCE IP L W GROUP LLP9600 SW Oak St., Suite 560Portland, Oregon 97223Phone: (503) 517-8900Fax: (503) 517-9919Attorneys for Plaintiff KEE Action Sports LLC

Kee Action Sports v. Shyang Huei Industrial

Documents