michelin north america v. attturo - complaint

8/17/2019 Michelin North America v. Attturo - Complaint

1/16

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

GREENVILLE DIVISION

MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

ATTURO TIRE CORPORATION, and

SVIZZ-ONE CORPORATION, LTD.,

Defendants.

Civil Action No. __________________

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Michelin North America, Inc. (“Michelin”), by its undersigned attorneys, files

this original Complaint for patent infringement against Defendants Atturo Tire Corporation and

Svizz-One Corporation, Ltd. (collectively “Defendants”), and alleges as follows:

1. Michelin brings this action pursuant to the United States Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. §

100, et seq.

2. Defendants have infringed and continue to infringe Michelin’s United States

Design Patent No. D483,322 (the ‘322 patent). The ‘322 patent is entitled “Tire Tread.”

Parties

3. Michelin North America, Inc. is a New York corporation having a regular and

established place of business in Greenville, South Carolina. Michelin operates tire

manufacturing facilities within the State of South Carolina, including within the geographic area

comprising the Greenville Division of the United States District Court for the District of South

Carolina.

6:16-cv-01539-JMC Date Filed 05/13/16 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 9


2/16

2

4. Upon information and belief, Defendant Atturo Tire Corporation (“Atturo”) is a

corporation organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of Wyoming with its

principal place of business in the State of Illinois. Atturo is engaged in the business of

purchasing, distributing, using, importing, selling and/or offering for sale tires. Atturo has

committed, and continues to commit, acts of direct infringement and inducement infringement of

the ‘322 patent.

5. Upon information and belief, Defendant Svizz-One Corporation Ltd. (“Svizz-

One”) is a Thai corporation with its principal place of business located at 4/1-2 Moo 7,

Banglane-Kohrat Road, Bangpla Banglane, Nakornpathom, Thailand, 73170. Svizz-One is

engaged in the business of manufacturing, exporting, distributing, using, importing, selling

and/or offering for sale tires, including but not limited to tires manufactured on behalf of, at the

direction of and/or for Atturo. Svizz-One has committed, and continues to commit, acts of direct

infringement of the ‘322 patent.

Jurisdiction and Venue

6. This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 100 et

seq., and this Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over all causes of action set forth

herein under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, and 1338.

7. Upon information and belief, pursuant to the U.S. Constitution and S.C. Code

Ann. § 36-2-803, the Court has personal jurisdiction over Atturo because Atturo has, and

continues to, market, import, distribute, sell, and/or offer for sale, either directly or through

intermediaries, tires that infringe the ‘322 patent in the State of South Carolina and within the

geographic area including the Greenville Division of the United States District Court for the

District of South Carolina. In addition, upon information and belief, using established



3/16

3

distribution channels Atturo has purposefully placed tires, including the infringing tires, into the

stream of commerce, knowing the likely destinations of the tires include the State of South

Carolina, and Atturo’s connections and activities with South Carolina are such that it should

have reasonably anticipated being brought into a court of the State of South Carolina.

8. Upon information and belief, pursuant to the U.S. Constitution and S.C. Code

Ann. § 36-2-803, the Court has personal jurisdiction over Svizz-One because Svizz-One has, and

continues to import, distribute, sell, and/or offer to sale tires, either directly or through

intermediaries such as Atturo, that infringe the ‘322 patent, in the State of South Carolina and

within the geographic area comprising the Greenville Division of the United States District Court

for the District of South Carolina. In addition, upon information and belief, through established

distribution channels Svizz-One has purposefully manufactured and placed tires, including the

infringing tires, into the stream of commerce, knowing the likely destinations of the tires include

the State of South Carolina, and Svizz-One’s connections and activities with South Carolina are

such that it should have reasonably anticipated being brought into a court of the State of South

Carolina.

9. Upon information and belief, Defendants have imported tires and/or caused tires

to be imported into the United States, either directly or through intermediaries, including through

the Port of Charleston, South Carolina.

10. Upon information and belief, venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§§ 1391(b) and (c) and 1400(b) because Defendants are subject to this Court’s personal

jurisdiction and Defendants have committed acts of infringement in this District.



4/16

4

Patent-in-Suit

11. On December 9, 2003, United States Design Patent No. D483,322 (the ‘322

patent), entitled “TIRE TREAD,” was duly and legally issued, naming James DeWitt Knowles,

Alan Defazio, and Stephen Lash as inventors. A true and accurate copy of the ‘322 patent is

attached hereto as Exhibit A.

12. Michelin is the owner by assignment of all right, title and interest in the ‘322

patent. A true and accurate copy of the assignment is attached as Exhibit B.

13. The ‘322 patent was granted for a new, original, and ornamental design for a tire

tread.

Defendants’ Infringing Activities

14. Upon information and belief and as set forth above, Atturo imports, distributes,

uses, offers for sale, and/or sells tires in the United States that infringe the ‘322 patent either

directly or through intermediaries. Such infringing tires include, but are not necessarily limited

to, tires identified as and sold under the name, brand and/or model of “Atturo AZ600” or

“AZ600,” (collectively the “Accused Atturo Products”). The Accused Atturo Products embody

the design protected under the ‘322 patent or are a colorable imitation thereof as set forth in 35

U.S.C. § 289.

15. The Accused Atturo Products are manufactured by Svizz-One in Thailand.

16. Upon information and belief and as set forth above, Svizz-One makes infringing

tires overseas and imports, uses, offers for sale, and/or sells tires in the United States that

infringe the ‘322 patent including within the State of South Carolina either directly or through

intermediaries. Such infringing tires include, but are not limited to, tire identified as and sold

under the name, brand and/or model of “Thunderer Ranger 007 R601” and “R601,” (collectively



5/16

5

the “Accused Svizz-One Products”). The Accused Svizz-One Products embody the design

protected under the ‘322 patent or are a colorable imitation thereof as set forth in 35 U.S.C. §

289.

COUNT I – DESIGN PATENT INFRINGEMENT

AS TO BOTH DEFENDANTS

17. Michelin incorporates by reference all allegations of the preceding paragraphs as

if fully set forth here verbatim.

18. Atturo’s offering for sale, sale, importation and/or use of the Accused Atturo

Products in the United States directly infringes the ‘322 patent, and Atturo will continue to do so

unless enjoined by this Court under 35 U.S.C. § 283 and/or the equitable powers of the Court.

19. Svizz-One’s offering for sale, sale, importation and/or use of the Accused Svizz-

One Products in the United States directly infringes the ‘322 patent, and Svizz-One will continue

to do so unless enjoined by this Court under 35 U.S.C. § 283 and/or the equitable powers of the

Court.

20. Michelin has not granted a license or any other rights to Defendants to make, use,

import, offer for sale, or sell the design embodied in the ‘322 patent.

21. Defendants’ direct infringement of the ‘322 patent irreparably harms Michelin,

including for example, avoiding Michelin’s right to exclude others from making, using, selling,

or offering to sell products embodying the invention patented in the ‘322 patent. Michelin is

without adequate remedy at law.

22. Defendants have possessed notice and actual knowledge of the ‘322 patent at least

as of the service of this Complaint, and their infringement of the ‘322 patent since that time has

been and continues to be willful and deliberate.



6/16

6

23. Defendants’ direct infringement of the ‘322 patent constitutes willful

infringement because such continues to proceed despite an objectively high likelihood that its

conduct infringes the ‘322 patent, and this likelihood is either known to Defendants or so

obvious that Defendants should have known that its conduct infringed the ‘322 patent.

24. Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the above-described acts of

infringement.

COUNT II – INDUCED INFRINGEMENT

AS TO ATTURO

25. Michelin incorporates by reference all allegations of the preceding paragraphs as

if fully set forth here verbatim.

26. Atturo has had actual knowledge of the ‘322 patent since at least the date on

which Atturo received service of the Complaint in this action.

27. Upon information and belief, Atturo has induced, and continues to induce, others

to infringe the ‘322 patent by encouraging and promoting the use, import, marketing, sale and/or

offering for sale by others of tires that infringe the ‘322 patent, including but not limited to the

Accused Atturo Products.

28. Upon information and belief, Atturo has sold and continues to sell, offer to sell,

distribute and market the Accused Atturo Products to a network of distributors, wholesalers,

resellers and/or directly to end consumers with the intent that these parties will use, market, offer

to sell and/or sell the Accused Atturo Products in the United States in a manner that infringes the

‘322 patent.

29. Upon information and belief, Atturo provides its distributors, wholesalers,

resellers and/or customers with marketing and/or advertising materials and/or instructions,



7/16

7

through its website or by other means, regarding the infringing use, marketing, offering for sale

and/or sale of the Accused Atturo Products in the United States.

30. Atturo has observed its distributors, wholesalers, resellers and/or customers using,

marketing, offering to sell and/or selling the Accused Atturo Products in the United States.

31. Upon information and belief, Atturo is aware or should have known that the use,

marketing, offering to sell and selling of the Accused Atturo Products in the United States by

Atturo or its distributors, wholesalers, resellers and/or customers would directly infringe the ‘322

patent.

32. Atturo’s actions to aid and abet its distributors, wholesalers, resellers and/or

customers to directly infringe the ‘322 patent with knowledge that use, marketing, offering for

sale and selling of the Accused Atturo Products in the United States would directly infringe the

‘322 patent constitutes induced infringement.

33. Atturo’s induced infringement of the ‘322 patent has irreparably harmed

Michelin, including for example, avoiding Michelin’s right to exclude others from making,

using, selling, or offering to sell products embodying the design patented in the ‘322 patent or a

colorable imitation thereof.

34. Atturo’s inducement infringement of the ‘322 patent will continue unless enjoined

by the Court under 35 U.S.C. § 283 and/or the equitable powers of this Court.

35. Atturo’s inducement infringement of the ‘322 patent was and continues to be

willful because such has occurred and continues to proceed despite an objectively high

likelihood that Atturo’s conduct infringes the ‘322 patent, and this likelihood was and still is

either known to Atturo or so obvious that Atturo should have known that its conduct infringed

the ‘322 patent.



8/16

8

Request for Relief

Wherefore, Michelin respectfully requests the entry of judgment against Defendants

Atturo and Svizz-One and each of their respective subsidiaries, successors, parents, affiliates,

officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation,

providing the following relief:

A. Finding that Defendants have directly infringed the ‘322 patent and finding that

such infringement has been willful;

B. Finding that Defendant Atturo has committed inducement infringement of the

‘322 patent and finding that such infringement has been willful;

C. Entering a permanent injunction, under 35 U.S.C. § 283 and the equitable powers

of the Court, against Defendants and all those in active concert or participation with Defendants,

to prevent further direct and/or indirect infringement of the ‘322 patent;

D. Awarding to Michelin, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 289, Defendants’ profits derived

from infringement of the ‘322 patent;

E. Finding that this is an exceptional case and award Michelin its attorneys’ fees and

other expenses of litigation pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 and/or other applicable laws; and

F. Granting such other legal and equitable relief and the Court may deem just and

proper.



9/16

9

JURY DEMAND

Michelin demands a trial by jury on all issues triable to a jury.

This the 13th

day of May, 2016.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/Tim F. Williams

Tim F. Williams (Fed. Id. 6276)Steven R. LeBlanc (Fed. Id. 7000)

Jason A. Pittman (Fed. Id. 10270)

DORITY & MANNING, P.A.P.O. Box 1449

Greenville, S.C. 29602-1449

Tel: 864-271-1592

Fax: 864-233-7342

[email protected]@dority-manning.com

[email protected]

Attorneys for Plaintiff



10/16



GREENVILLE DIVISION


Plaintiff,

v.



Defendants.

Civil Action No. __________________

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

COMPLAINT

Exhibit A

6:16-cv-01539-JMC Date Filed 05/13/16 Entry Number 1-1 Page 1 of 5


11/16



12/16



13/16



14/16



15/16



GREENVILLE DIVISION


Plaintiff,

v.



Defendants.

Civil Action No. __________________

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

COMPLAINT

Exhibit B



16/16


michelin north america v. attturo - complaint

Documents