Good Mind Solutions v. SipDark - Complaint

CASE 0:20-cv-00730-ECT-KMM Document 1 Filed 03/13/20 Page 1 of 6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Good Mind Solutions Ltd. Case No. ______________
Plaintiff,
vs.
COMPLAINT FOR
DECLARATORY
SipDark, LLC JUDGMENT
Defendant.
PARTIES
1. Plaintiff Good Mind Solutions Ltd. is a is a business entity registered in Varna,
Bulgaria by the laws of the European Union, with its registered address of j.k
Mladost, bl. 103, vh. 1A, ap. 4, Varna 9000, Bulgaria (“Good Mind”).
2. Upon information and belief, Defendant SipDark, LLC is a Minnesota Limited
Liability Company with tis registered office and principal place of business at 1085
Rosemary Ct, Chaska, MN 55318 (“SipDark”).
NATURE OF THE ACTION
3. This is a declaratory judgment action seeking a determination that U.S. Patent No.
D759,189 (the “Patent-in-Suit”) is invalid and unenforceable.
4. Alternatively, if the Court determines the Patent-in-Suit is valid and enforceable,
Good Mind also seeks a determination that it does not infringe any valid or
enforceable claim of the Patent-in-Suit.
5. On information and belief, SipDark LLC is the owner by assignment of the Patent-
in-Suit.
6. A true and correct copy of the Patent-in-Suit is attached as Exhibit A.
JURISDICTION & VENUE
7. Good Mind seeks declaratory relief under, and this Court has jurisdiction to hear
this matter under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
57.
8. This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 35 U.S.C.
§§ 1331, 1338.
9. This Court has personal jurisdiction over SipDark as SipDark is a Minnesota entity
and has its primary place of business in Minnesota.
10. Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 as the Defendant
resides in this jurisdiction and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving
rise to the claim occurred in this jurisdiction.
SUBSTANTIAL CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THE PARTIES
2
11. Good Mind is the seller of Tangra-branded whiskey bullet chillers, a liquid filled
metal whiskey chiller stone in the shape of a firearm cartridge. (“Tangra Bullet”).
SipDark sells a competing, solid metal whiskey chiller stone also designed as a
bullet. Whiskey chillers, also known as whiskey stones, are products of various
shapes and materials designed to be chilled and then placed into a liquor, such as
whiskey, to chill the liquor while avoiding the dilution that would be caused by
using ice.
12. On or about July 19, 2019, SipDark, filed a complaint with Amazon.com,
Complaint ID 6255749521, alleging that Good Mind’s Tangra Bullet product
infringes on the Patent-in-Suit. (“Amazon Complaint”).
13. Good Mind has never received any communications from SipDark. Notice of the
Amazon Complaint from Amazon.com was the first and only notice that Good Mind
has received regarding any alleged infringement.
14. Upon information and belief, the Patent-in-Suit is invalid and unenforceable.
15. The Tangra Bullet does not infringe any valid claims of the Patent-in-Suit.
16. Good Mind has made numerous attempts, both directly and through counsel, to
contact SipDark or its officers regarding the alleged infringement. Attempted
communications included letters from Good Mind’s prior counsel dated August 9,
2019 and letter from Good Mind’s current counsel dated September 30, 2019.
Sipdark has declined to respond to all communications.
3
17. Based on Amazon.com’s policy, the alleged infringement resulted in Amazon first
halting sales of the Tangra Bullet on the Amazon.com marketplace and then
removing the said item from Amazon.com marketplace entirely, and ultimately
disposing of all inventory of the Tangra Bullet which was held in Amazon
warehouses.
18. Amazon.com was a primary sales channel for sale of the Tangra Bullet, which has
been denied to Good Mind based on the allegations of infringement by SipDark.
19. The claim of infringement by SipDark and potential infringement lawsuit prevent
Good Mind from selling the Tangra Bullet in any sales channel or marketplace.
20. Given SipDark’s allegations of infringement, made under penalty of perjury, to
Amazon.com, SipDark may proceed at any point with a suit for patent infringement
against Good Mind.
21. The foregoing demonstrates the existence of a substantial controversy between the
parties that is of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of
declaratory relief.
CLAIM I
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY OF PATENT-IN-SUIT
22. Good Mind realleges and incorporates herein the allegations of the preceding
paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
23. The claims of the Patent-in-Suit are invalid for failure to comply with the
requirements of patentability as specified in 35 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq., including
4
without limitation, 35 U.S.C. 102, 103, or based on other judicially-created bases
for invalidation.
24. As a result of the foregoing paragraphs, the issuance of a declaratory judgment that
Good Mind has not infringed, and does not infringe, directly or indirectly, any claim
of the Patent-in-Suit is warranted.
CLAIM II
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT
OF PATENT-IN- SUIT
25. Good Mind realleges and incorporates herein the allegations of the preceding
paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
26. No claim of the Patent-in-Suit has been or is infringed, either directly or indirectly
by Good Mind.
27. As a result of the foregoing paragraphs, the issuance of a declaratory judgment that
the claims of the Patent-in-Suit are invalid is warranted.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court enter a judgment that:
A. Declares that Good Mind Solutions Ltd. has not infringed and does not infringe
any valid and enforceable claim of the Patent-in-Suit;
B. Declares that each claim of the Patent-in-Suit is invalid and unenforceable.
C. An injunction against Defendants and its officers, agents, employees, attorneys,
and others in active concert or participation with them from asserting
5
infringement or instituting or continuing any legal action for infringement of the
Patents-in-Suit against Good Mind Solutions Ltd. or its suppliers,
manufacturers, distributors, resellers of its products, customers or end users of
its products; and
D. Grant the Plaintiff such other relief as the Court deems appropriate and just
under the circumstances.
Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ Mitchell A. Faas

_________________________________
Mitchell A. Faas
MN Atty No. 0392173
Attorney for Plaintiff, Good Mind Solutions Ltd
Arctos Law PLLP
60 S 6th St, Suite 3580
Minneapolis, MN 55402
(612) 367-4046
Faas@ArctosLaw.com
6
CASE 0:20-cv-00730-ECT-KMM Document 1-1 Filed 03/13/20 Page 1 of 9
JS 44 (Rev. 06/17) CIVIL COVER
CASE 0:20-cv-00730-ECT-KMM SHEET
Document 1-2 Filed 03/13/20 Page 1 of 1
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS
Good Mind Solutions Ltd. SipDark, LLC
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Outside US County of Residence of First Listed Defendant Carver County, Minnesota
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)
Mitchell A. Faas
Arctos Law PLLP, 60 S. 6th St. Ste. 3580, Minneapolis, MN 55402
(612) 367-4046
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
1 U.S. Government 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State 1 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4
of Business In This State
2 U.S. Government 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5 5
Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State
Citizen or Subject of a 3 3 Foreign Nation 6 6

Foreign Country
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only) Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES
110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 625 Drug Related Seizure 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 375 False Claims Act
120 Marine 310 Airplane 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 423 Withdrawal 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
130 Miller Act 315 Airplane Product Product Liability 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729(a))
140 Negotiable Instrument Liability 367 Health Care/ 400 State Reapportionment
150 Recovery of Overpayment 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS 410 Antitrust
& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury 820 Copyrights 430 Banks and Banking
151 Medicare Act 330 Federal Employers’ Product Liability 830 Patent 450 Commerce
152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability 368 Asbestos Personal 835 Patent - Abbreviated 460 Deportation
Student Loans 340 Marine Injury Product New Drug Application 470 Racketeer Influenced and
(Excludes Veterans) 345 Marine Product Liability 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations
153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY 480 Consumer Credit
of Veteran’s Benefits 350 Motor Vehicle 370 Other Fraud 710 Fair Labor Standards 861 HIA (1395ff) 490 Cable/Sat TV
160 Stockholders’ Suits 355 Motor Vehicle 371 Truth in Lending Act 862 Black Lung (923) 850 Securities/Commodities/
190 Other Contract Product Liability 380 Other Personal 720 Labor/Management 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) Exchange
195 Contract Product Liability 360 Other Personal Property Damage Relations 864 SSID Title XVI 890 Other Statutory Actions
196 Franchise Injury 385 Property Damage 740 Railway Labor Act 865 RSI (405(g)) 891 Agricultural Acts
362 Personal Injury - Product Liability 751 Family and Medical 893 Environmental Matters
Medical Malpractice Leave Act 895 Freedom of Information
REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS 790 Other Labor Litigation FEDERAL TAX SUITS Act
210 Land Condemnation 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: 791 Employee Retirement 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff 896 Arbitration
220 Foreclosure 441 Voting 463 Alien Detainee Income Security Act or Defendant) 899 Administrative Procedure
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 442 Employment 510 Motions to Vacate 871 IRS—Third Party Act/Review or Appeal of
240 Torts to Land 443 Housing/ Sentence 26 USC 7609 Agency Decision
245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations 530 General 950 Constitutionality of
290 All Other Real Property 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION State Statutes
Employment Other: 462 Naturalization Application
446 Amer. w/Disabilities - 540 Mandamus & Other -465 Other Immigration
Other 550 Civil Rights Actions
448 Education 555 Prison Condition
560 Civil Detainee -
Conditions of
Confinement
V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)

1 Original 2 Removed from 3 Remanded from 4 Reinstated or 5 Transferred from 6 Multidistrict 8 Multidistrict
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District Litigation - Litigation -
(specify) Transfer Direct File
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
28 USC 2201, 2202; 35 USC 1331, 1338
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:
Declaratory Judgment on Patent Invaldity, Unforceability, and Non-Infringement
VII. REQUESTED IN CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. JURY DEMAND: Yes No
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER
DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
03/13/2020 /s/ Mitchell A. Faas
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 06/17)

Good Mind Solutions v. SipDark - Complaint

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Good Mind Solutions v. SipDark - Complaint

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

CASE 0:20-cv-00730-ECT-KMM Document 1 Filed 03/13/20 Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Good Mind Solutions Ltd. Case No. ______________

1. Plaintiff Good Mind Solutions Ltd. is a is a business entity registered in Varna,

2. Upon information and belief, Defendant SipDark, LLC is a Minnesota Limited

Rosemary Ct, Chaska, MN 55318 (“SipDark”).

NATURE OF THE ACTION

D759,189 (the “Patent-in-Suit”) is invalid and unenforceable.

4. Alternatively, if the Court determines the Patent-in-Suit is valid and enforceable,

enforceable claim of the Patent-in-Suit.

6. A true and correct copy of the Patent-in-Suit is attached as Exhibit A.

JURISDICTION & VENUE

and has its primary place of business in Minnesota.

rise to the claim occurred in this jurisdiction.

SUBSTANTIAL CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THE PARTIES

Complaint ID 6255749521, alleging that Good Mind’s Tangra Bullet product

infringes on the Patent-in-Suit. (“Amazon Complaint”).

has received regarding any alleged infringement.

contact SipDark or its officers regarding the alleged infringement. Attempted

Sipdark has declined to respond to all communications.

been denied to Good Mind based on the allegations of infringement by SipDark.

20. Given SipDark’s allegations of infringement, made under penalty of perjury, to

against Good Mind.

parties that is of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of

paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

requirements of patentability as specified in 35 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq., including

without limitation, 35 U.S.C. 102, 103, or based on other judicially-created bases

of the Patent-in-Suit is warranted.

paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

the claims of the Patent-in-Suit are invalid is warranted.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court enter a judgment that:

any valid and enforceable claim of the Patent-in-Suit;

B. Declares that each claim of the Patent-in-Suit is invalid and unenforceable.

C. An injunction against Defendants and its officers, agents, employees, attorneys,

and others in active concert or participation with them from asserting

infringement or instituting or continuing any legal action for infringement of the

Patents-in-Suit against Good Mind Solutions Ltd. or its suppliers,

manufacturers, distributors, resellers of its products, customers or end users of

its products; and

under the circumstances.

/s/ Mitchell A. Faas

Citizen or Subject of a 3 3 Foreign Nation 6 6

V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)

RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

Anda mungkin juga menyukai