Download - Procter & Gamble Company v. Conopco et. al
-
7/27/2019 Procter & Gamble Company v. Conopco et. al.
1/13
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIOWESTERN DIVISION
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CONOPCO, INC. dba UNILEVER andUNILEVER UNITED STATES, INC.,
Defendants.
))
)
))
)
))
)
)
Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-732
COMPLAINT
AND JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff, The Procter & Gamble Company (P&G), for its claims against Conopco, Inc.,
dba Unilever and Unilever United States, Inc., (collectively Unilever), hereby states and
alleges the following:
THE PARTIES AND JURISDICTION
1. P&G is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Ohiothat maintains its principal place of business at One Procter & Gamble Plaza, Cincinnati, Ohio
45201.
2. On information and belief, Conopco, Inc. is a corporation organized and existingunder the laws of the State of New York that maintains its principal place of business at 700
Sylvan Avenue, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632.
3. On information and belief, Unilever United States, Inc. is a corporation organizedand existing under the laws of the State of Delaware that maintains its principal place of business
at 700 Sylvan Avenue, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632.
-
7/27/2019 Procter & Gamble Company v. Conopco et. al.
2/13
2
4. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Unilever under the Ohio long-armstatute (O.R.C. 2307.382) because Unilever has sold and offered for sale in this State and this
District shampoo products that infringe P&Gs intellectual property.
5. This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35, UnitedStates Code. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1338(a) and
1331.
6. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(2) and 1400(b).THE PATENTS
7.
On September 17, 2002, United States Letters Patent No. 6,451,300 (the 300
patent) entitled Anti-Dandruff and Conditioning Shampoos Containing Polyalkylene Glycols
and Cationic Polymers, was duly and legally issued to P&G as the assignee of the named
inventors. Since that date, P&G has been the owner of the 300 patent. A true and correct copy
of the 300 patent is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit A.
8. On November 18, 2003, United States Letters Patent No. 6,649,155 (the 155patent) entitled Anti-Dandruff and Conditioning Shampoos Containing Certain Cationic
Polymers, was duly and legally issued to P&G as the assignee of the named inventors. Since
that date, P&G has been the owner of the 155 patent. A true and correct copy of the 155 patent
is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit B.
9. On December 13, 2005, United States Letters Patent No. 6,974,569 (the 569patent) entitled Shampoos Providing A Superior Combination Anti-Dandruff Efficacy and
Condition, was duly and legally issued to P&G as the assignee of the named inventors. Since
that date, P&G has been the owner of the 569 patent. A true and correct copy of the 569 patent
is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit C.
-
7/27/2019 Procter & Gamble Company v. Conopco et. al.
3/13
3
UNILEVER REPUDIATES THE PARTIES AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE
10. On October 28, 1998, P&G and Unilever entered into a settlement term sheet (theTerm Sheet) that resolved a series of patent disputes between the parties.
11. The Term Sheet provides a mechanism for the parties to resolve their disputes,short of court litigation. Specifically, it includes provisions regarding the handling of future
patent disputes between the parties. In particular, the Term Sheet provides that in case new
patent issues arise, the parties agree to first seek resolution through good faith negotiations.
12. The Term Sheet further provides that if such negotiations are not successful, thenext step is for the parties to participate in mediation.
13. If those first two steps do not result in a resolution, the Term Sheet provides athird step prior to resorting to litigation: non-binding arbitration. If arbitration is unsuccessful,
only then can the parties litigate the matter. Specifically, the Term Sheet allows the parties to go
to court after completion of the arbitration.
14. For 15 years the parties abided by the provisions set forth in the Term Sheet.Those provisions led to the resolution of at least five (5) patent disputes globally between the
parties.
15. On or about January 8, 2013, P&G notified Unilever of P&Gs belief that certainof Unilevers anti-dandruff particulate containing shampoo products infringe certain claims of
the 300 patent, the 155 patent, and the 569 patent.
16. Pursuant to the provisions of the Term Sheet, the parties first sought resolution ofthe dispute through negotiations. When those negotiations proved unsuccessful, the parties
agreed to mediate the matter, as required by the Term Sheet.
-
7/27/2019 Procter & Gamble Company v. Conopco et. al.
4/13
4
17. During the negotiations, on May 17, 2013, Unilevers counsel told P&Gs counselthat Unilever remains committed to complying with the dispute resolution process we have in
place with P&G.
18. On July 22, 2013, P&G and Unilever engaged in mediation in a further attempt toresolve their dispute regarding these anti-dandruff shampoo patents.
19. Following the mediation, the parties continued to discuss terms of a settlement ofthe dispute, but were unable to reach an agreement.
20. Unilever has refused to arbitrate this matter, and has otherwise now repudiated theTerm Sheet. On August 14, 2013, in the midst of the post-mediation negotiations, and in direct
contravention of the provisions of the Term Sheet, Unilever began three adversarial proceedings
challenging the validity of P&Gs patents. Unilever filed Petitions forInter Partes Review
(IPR) before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), seeking to have the
300 patent, the 155 patent, and the 569 patent declared invalid. If instituted into USPTO trials,
those IPR petitions will be decided by judges at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In addition,
on the same date it filed the IPR petitions, Unilever filed suit in the United Kingdom against
P&G on Unilevers claims regarding an unrelated patent.
THE INFRINGING PRODUCTS
21. Unilever currently manufactures, markets, sells and offers for sale anti-dandruffor scalp therapy shampoo products, under its Clear, Axe, Suave and Dove brands, including,
among others, the following products: Clear Scalp & Hair Beauty Therapy Strong Lengths
Nourishing Shampoo, a/k/a Clear Scalp & Hair Therapy Strong Lengths Nourishing Shampoo;
Clear Scalp & Hair Beauty Therapy Total Care Nourishing Shampoo, a/k/a Clear Scalp & Hair
Therapy Total Care Nourishing Shampoo; Clear Scalp & Hair Beauty Therapy Moisturizing Dry
-
7/27/2019 Procter & Gamble Company v. Conopco et. al.
5/13
-
7/27/2019 Procter & Gamble Company v. Conopco et. al.
6/13
6
22. On information and belief, Unilever knows and intends that the infringingproducts are sold to consumers to use as shampoos.
23. The packaging of the infringing products include instructions directing consumersto use the products as shampoos.
COUNT I INFRINGEMENT OF THE 300 PATENT
24. P&G incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through23 as if fully rewritten herein.
25. On information and belief, Unilever is directly infringing the 300 patent bymanufacturing, using, offering to sell and selling products that infringe the 300 patent,
including, but not limited to the following products: Clear Scalp & Hair Beauty Therapy Strong
Lengths Nourishing Shampoo, a/k/a Clear Scalp & Hair Therapy Strong Lengths Nourishing
Shampoo; Clear Scalp & Hair Beauty Therapy Total Care Nourishing Shampoo, a/k/a Clear
Scalp & Hair Therapy Total Care Nourishing Shampoo; Clear Scalp & Hair Beauty Therapy
Moisturizing Dry Scalp Nourishing Shampoo, a/k/a Clear Scalp & Hair Therapy Moisturizing
Dry Scalp Nourishing Shampoo; Clear Scalp & Hair Beauty Therapy Damage & Color Repair
Nourishing Shampoo, a/k/a Clear Scalp & Hair Therapy Damage & Color Repair Nourishing
Shampoo; Clear Scalp & Hair Beauty Therapy Frizz Control Nourishing Shampoo; Clear Scalp
& Hair Beauty Therapy Volumizing Root Boost Nourishing Shampoo, a/k/a Clear Scalp & Hair
Therapy Volumizing Root Boost Nourishing Shampoo; Clear Scalp & Hair Beauty Therapy
Complete Care Nourishing Anti-Dandruff Shampoo, a/k/a Clear Scalp & Hair Therapy Complete
Care Nourishing Anti-Dandruff Shampoo; Clear Scalp & Hair Beauty Therapy Ultra Shea
Cleanse & Nourish Shampoo; Clear Men Scalp Therapy Strong & Full Anti-Dandruff Daily
Shampoo; Clear Men Scalp Therapy 2 in 1 Dry Scalp Hydration Anti-Dandruff Daily Shampoo
-
7/27/2019 Procter & Gamble Company v. Conopco et. al.
7/13
7
& Conditioner; Clear Men Scalp Therapy 2 in 1 Clean & Refresh Anti-Dandruff Daily Shampoo
& Conditioner; Clear Men Scalp Therapy Clean & Refresh Anti-Dandruff Daily Shampoo; Clear
Men Scalp Therapy 2 in 1 Complete Care Anti-Dandruff Daily Shampoo & Conditioner; Clear
Men Scalp Therapy Cool Sport Mint Anti-Dandruff Daily Shampoo; and Clear Men Scalp
Therapy 2 in 1 Scalp Comfort Anti-Dandruff Daily Shampoo & Conditioner, (collectively the
300 patent infringing products), without authority or license from P&G.
26. On information and belief, Unilever knows, should know, or is willfully blind tothe fact that the 300 patent infringing products are specially made or adapted for an infringing
method. Nevertheless, it has sold, and continues to sell, a material component of the patented
invention that is not a staple article of commerce capable of substantial noninfringing use.
27. Unilever has been and is currently actively inducing infringement of the 300patent by others, without authority or license from P&G. Among other infringements induced,
Unilever has actively induced others to perform, within the United States, the methods recited by
the claims of the 300 patent. Unilever provides instructions to consumers directing them to
perform methods that infringe the claims of the 300 patent. On information and belief, Unilever
has knowledge of the 300 patent and knows that the induced acts constitute infringement of the
300 patent.
28. As such, Unilever has knowingly, or with willful blindness, contributed to andinduced, and continues to contribute to and induce, the infringement of the claims of the 300
patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. 271.
29. On information and belief, Unilevers foregoing acts of infringement have beenand continue to be willful and deliberate.
-
7/27/2019 Procter & Gamble Company v. Conopco et. al.
8/13
8
30. P&G has been damaged, in an amount yet to be determined, by Unilevers acts ofinfringement and will continue to be damaged by such acts in the future.
COUNT II INFRINGEMENT OF THE 155 PATENT
31. P&G incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through30 as if fully rewritten herein.
32. On information and belief, Unilever is directly infringing the 155 patent bymanufacturing, using, offering to sell and selling products that infringe the 155 patent, including
but not limited to the following products: Clear Scalp & Hair Beauty Therapy Damage & Color
Repair Nourishing Shampoo, a/k/a Clear Scalp & Hair Therapy Damage & Color Repair
Nourishing Shampoo; Clear Men Scalp Therapy Strong & Full Anti-Dandruff Daily Shampoo;
Clear Men Scalp Therapy 2 in 1 Dry Scalp Hydration Anti-Dandruff Daily Shampoo &
Conditioner; Clear Men Scalp Therapy Cool Sport Mint Anti-Dandruff Daily Shampoo; Axe
Armor Anti-Dandruff 2 in 1 Shampoo + Conditioner; Dove Men + Care Fortifying Shampoo
Anti Dandruff Shampoo; Suave Scalp Solutions Anti-Dandruff 2 In 1 Shampoo & Conditioner
invigorating ocean minerals & aloe vera; Suave Scalp Solutions Anti-Dandruff Shampoo
nourishing coconut & shea butter; and Suave Scalp Solutions Anti-Dandruff Shampoo
revitalizing mint & eucalyptus, (collectively the 155 patent infringing products), without
authority or license from P&G.
33. On information and belief, Unilever knows, should know, or is willfully blind tothe fact that the 155 patent infringing products are specially made or adapted for an infringing
method. Nevertheless, it has sold, and continues to sell, a material component of the patented
invention that is not a staple article of commerce capable of substantial noninfringing use.
-
7/27/2019 Procter & Gamble Company v. Conopco et. al.
9/13
9
34. Unilever has been and is currently actively inducing infringement of the 155patent by others, without authority or license from P&G. Among other infringements induced,
Unilever has actively induced others to use and perform, within the United States, the methods
recited by the claims of the 155 patent. Unilever provides instructions to consumers directing
them to perform methods that infringe the claims of the 155 patent. On information and belief,
Unilever has knowledge of the 155 patent and knows that the induced acts constitute
infringement of the 155 patent.
35. As such, Unilever has knowingly, or with willful blindness, contributed to andinduced, and continues to contribute to and induce, the infringement of the claims of the 155
patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. 271.
36. On information and belief, Unilevers foregoing acts of infringement have beenand continue to be willful and deliberate.
37. P&G has been damaged, in an amount yet to be determined, by Unilevers acts ofinfringement and will continue to be damaged by such acts in the future.
COUNT III INFRINGEMENT OF THE 569 PATENT
38. P&G incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through37 as if fully rewritten herein.
39. On information and belief, Unilever is directly infringing the 569 patent bymanufacturing, using, offering to sell and selling products that infringe the 569 patent, including
but not limited to the following products: Clear Scalp & Hair Beauty Therapy Complete Care
Nourishing Anti-Dandruff Shampoo, a/k/a Clear Scalp & Hair Therapy Complete Care
Nourishing Anti-Dandruff Shampoo; Clear Men Scalp Therapy Strong & Full Anti-Dandruff
Daily Shampoo; Clear Men Scalp Therapy 2 in 1 Dry Scalp Hydration Anti-Dandruff Daily
-
7/27/2019 Procter & Gamble Company v. Conopco et. al.
10/13
10
Shampoo & Conditioner; Clear Men Scalp Therapy Clean & Refresh Anti-Dandruff Daily
Shampoo; Clear Men Scalp Therapy 2 in 1 Complete Care Anti-Dandruff Daily Shampoo &
Conditioner; Clear Men Scalp Therapy Cool Sport Mint Anti-Dandruff Daily Shampoo; Clear
Men Scalp Therapy 2 in 1 Scalp Comfort Anti-Dandruff Daily Shampoo & Conditioner; Axe
Armor Anti-Dandruff 2 in 1 Shampoo + Conditioner; Axe Freeze Anti-Dandruff Scalp Cooling 2
In 1 Shampoo + Conditioner, a/k/a Axe Freeze Itch Relief 2 In 1 Cooling anti-dandruff shampoo
+ conditioner; Suave Scalp Solutions Anti-Dandruff 2 In 1 Shampoo & Conditioner invigorating
ocean minerals & aloe vera; Suave Scalp Solutions Anti-Dandruff Shampoo nourishing coconut
& shea butter; Suave Scalp Solutions Anti-Dandruff Shampoo revitalizing mint & eucalyptus;
and Dove Men + Care Fortifying Shampoo Anti Dandruff Shampoo, (collectively the 569
patent infringing products), without authority or license from P&G.
40. On information and belief, Unilever knows, should know, or is willfully blind tothe fact that the 569 patent infringing products are specially made or adapted for an infringing
method. Nevertheless, it has sold, and continues to sell, a material component of the patented
invention that is not a staple article of commerce capable of substantial noninfringing use.
41. Unilever has been and is currently actively inducing infringement of the 569patent by others, without authority or license from P&G. Among other infringements induced,
Unilever has actively induced others to use and perform, within the United States, the methods
recited by the claims of the 569 patent. Unilever provides instructions to consumers directing
them to perform methods that infringe the claims of the 569 patent. On information and belief,
Unilever has knowledge of the 569 patent and knows that the induced acts constitute
infringement of the 569 patent.
-
7/27/2019 Procter & Gamble Company v. Conopco et. al.
11/13
11
42. As such, Unilever has knowingly, or with willful blindness, contributed to andinduced, and continues to contribute to and induce, the infringement of the claims of the 569
patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. 271.
43. On information and belief, Unilevers foregoing acts of infringement have beenand continue to be willful and deliberate.
44. P&G has been damaged, in an amount yet to be determined, by Unilevers acts ofinfringement and will continue to be damaged by such acts in the future.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
P&G respectfully prays for the following relief:
A. That the Court adjudge and decree that Unilever has infringed and is infringingthe 300, 155, and 569 patents;
B. That the Court adjudge and decree that Unilever has contributed to and inducedinfringement and is actively contributing to and inducing infringement of the 300, 155, and
569 patents;
C. That the Court enter preliminary and permanent injunctions enjoining Unilever,its officers, employees, agents, and all others acting in concert with it or participating with it
from further acts that infringe the 300, 155, and 569 patents;
D. That the Court enter preliminary and permanent injunctions enjoining Unilever,its officers, employees, agents, and all others acting in concert with it or participating with it
from actively contributing to or inducing others to infringe the 300, 155, and 569 patents;
E. That Unilever be ordered by this Court to account for and pay to P&G damagesadequate to compensate P&G for Unilevers infringement, contribution to, and inducement of
infringement of the 300, 155, and 569 patents;
-
7/27/2019 Procter & Gamble Company v. Conopco et. al.
12/13
12
F. That the Court treble the damages for Unilevers willful infringement of the 300,155, and 569 patents;
G. That the Court award pre-judgment interest on the damages;H. That the Court declare this an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. 285;I. That the Court award P&G its costs and attorney fees incurred in this action; andJ. That the Court award such other relief as it deems just and proper.
JURY TRIAL DEMAND
Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, P&G demands a trial by
jury of all issues triable of right by jury.
-
7/27/2019 Procter & Gamble Company v. Conopco et. al.
13/13
13
Dated: October 10, 2013 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ David M. MaioranaCalvin P. Griffith (#0039484)
Email: [email protected] M. Maiorana (#0071440)
Email: [email protected]
Thomas R. Goots (#0066010)Email: [email protected]
Michael S. Weinstein (#0083802)
Email: [email protected] DAY
North Point
901 Lakeside AvenueCleveland, OH 44114
Telephone: (216) 586-3939Facsimile: (216) 579-0212
William C. Rooklidge (Pro Hac Vice to be filed)
Email: [email protected]
JONES DAY3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 800
Irvine, CA 92612-4408
Telephone: (949) 851-3939Facsimile: (949) 553-7539
Attorneys for Plaintiff
The Procter & Gamble Company