h.b. fuller company v. henkel.pdf

7/27/2019 H.B. Fuller Company v. Henkel.pdf

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hb-fuller-company-v-henkelpdf 1/5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

H.B. Fuller Company,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Henkel Corporation,

Defendant.

Civil No. __________________

COMPLAINT AND

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Plaintiff H.B. Fuller Company (“HBF”), for its Complaint against Defendant

Henkel Corporation (“Henkel”), alleges as follows:

PARTIES

1. Plaintiff HBF is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the

state of Minnesota, with its principal place of business at 1200 Willow Lake Boulevard,

St. Paul, MN 55110-5101.

2. On information and belief, Defendant Henkel is a corporation organized

and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware, with its principal place of business

at One Henkel Way, Rocky Hill, CT 06067-3581.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. The claims alleged herein arise under the Patent Laws of the United States,

35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq.



-2-dms.us.52642075.04

4. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to

28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).

5. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Henkel under Minn. Stat.

§ 543.19. For example, Henkel transacts business in Minnesota and has continuous and

systematic contacts with Minnesota, including intentionally directing its products for sale

into the state of Minnesota, maintaining distributor relationships in the state of Minnesota

for the sale of its products, and registering to do business in the state of Minnesota. On

information and believe, Henkel also, either by itself or through distributors, offers to sell

and/or sells hot melt adhesives in this District, including, in particular, hot melt adhesives

under the Technomelt brand name, that infringe the patent at issue in this case.

6. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)

and (c), and 1400(b).

PATENT-IN-SUIT

7. On December 21, 2004, United States Patent No. 6,833,404 (“the ’404

patent”), entitled “Hot Melts Utilizing a High Glass Transition Temperature Substantially

Aliphatic Tackifying Resin,” was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and

Trademark Office. A true and correct copy of the ’404 patent is attached as Exhibit A.

8. HBF owns the ’404 patent by assignment.

9. Henkel has been on notice of the fact that it makes and sells products that

infringe the ’404 patent since at least August 27, 2012, when HBF notified Henkel of its

infringement by letter, in compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 287(a).



-3-dms.us.52642075.04

CLAIM FOR RELIEF FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

10. HBF realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 9 as if

fully stated herein.

11. Henkel has knowledge of the ’404 patent.

12. Henkel makes, markets, and sells hot melt adhesives under the Technomelt

brand name, including hot melt adhesives marketed as TS-106M and TS-106.

13. On information and belief, Henkel’s hot melt adhesives, including, in

particular, Technomelt hot melt adhesives marketed as TS-106M and TS-106, are

covered by at least one claim of the ’404 patent.

14. Accordingly, on information and belief, Henkel has directly infringed and

is directly infringing the ’404 patent by making, using, importing into the United States,

offering to sell, and/or selling hot melt adhesives, including, in particular, Technomelt hot

melt adhesives marketed as TS-106M and TS-106, in the United States, in violation of 35

U.S.C. § 271.

15. On information and belief, Henkel will continue to directly infringe the

’404 patent unless and until Henkel is enjoined by this Court.

16. As a result, HBF has been and will continue to be damaged and irreparably

injured unless and until Henkel’s infringing activities are enjoined by this Court.



-4-dms.us.52642075.04

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, HBF respectfully requests this Court:

A. To enter judgment that Henkel has infringed the ’404 patent in violation of

35 U.S.C. § 271;

B. To enter orders enjoining Henkel, and its respective officers, agents,

servants, employees, attorneys, and all persons in active concert or participation with any

of the foregoing, who receive actual notice by personal service or otherwise of the orders,

from infringing the ’404 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271;

C. To award HBF its damages in amounts sufficient to compensate it for

Henkel’s infringement of the ’404 patent, together with pre-judgment and post-judgment

interest and costs, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284;

D. To declare this case to be “exceptional” under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and to

award HBF its attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs incurred in this action; and

E. To award HBF such other and further relief as this Court deems just and

proper.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, HBF respectfully

requests a trial by jury of any and all issues on which a trial by jury is available under

applicable law.



-5-dms.us.52642075.04

Dated: October 30, 2013

s/Timothy E. Grimsrud

David J. F. Gross (No. 208772)

Timothy E. Grimsrud (No. 34283X)

Linzey A. Erickson (No. 0393058)

FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP

2200 Wells Fargo Center

90 South Seventh Street

Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402-3901

Telephone: (612) 766-7000

Fax: (612) 766-1600

Attorneys for Plaintiff

H.B. Fuller Company

h.b. fuller company v. henkel.pdf

Documents