Horus Vision, LLC v. Sheltered Wings, Inc

8/12/2019 Horus Vision, LLC v. Sheltered Wings, Inc.

1/79

COOLEYLLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

PALO ALTO

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

COMPLAINT

COOLEY LLPHEIDI L. KEEFE (178960) ([email protected])DANIEL J. KNAUSS (267414) ([email protected])3175 Hanover StreetPalo Alto, CA 94304-1130Telephone: (650) 843-5000Facsimile: (650) 849-7400

CASIMIR JONES, S.C.DAVID A. CASIMIR ([email protected])KIRK J. HOGAN ([email protected])DAVID A. PAYNE ([email protected])2275 Deming Way, Suite 310Middleton, WI 53562-5527Telephone: (608) 662-1277Facsimile: (608) 662-1276

Attorneys for PlaintiffHORUS VISION, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HORUS VISION, LLC, a California limitedliability company,

Plaintiff,

v.

SHELTERED WINGS, INC., a Wisconsin

corporation, D/B/A VORTEX OPTICS,

Defendant.

Case No.

COMPLAINTFORPATENTINFRINGEMENT

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL


2/79

COOLEYLLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

PALO ALTO

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2 COMPLAINT

COMES NOW Plaintiff Horus Vision, LLC (Horus Vision), by its undersigned

attorneys, and for its Complaint against Defendants Sheltered Wings, Inc., doing business a

Vortex Optics (Vortex Optics), states and alleges as follows:

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This is a civil action for patent infringement, injunctive relief, and damages arisingout of the infringement of United States Patent Number 8,109,029 (the 029 patent and the

patent-in-suit). The patent-in-suit relates to telescopic gunsights and associated equipmen

useful for increasing shooting accuracy. This action arises under the patent laws of the United

States and is based on an actual controversy between the parties with respect to the infringemen

of the above-named patent. A true and accurate copy of the 029 patent is attached hereto a

EXHIBIT A.

PARTIES

2. Horus Vision is incorporated under the laws of the State of California and has principal place of business at 659 Huntington Avenue, San Bruno, California, 94066.

3. Upon information and belief, Sheltered Wings, Inc., which does business aVortex Optics, is incorporated under the laws of the State of Wisconsin and has a principal place

of business at 2120 West Greenview Drive, Suite Four, Middleton, Wisconsin 53562.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. This is a civil action for patent infringement, injunctive relief, and damages arisingunder the United States Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. 1 et seq. Jurisdiction and venue are conferre

upon this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1332, 1338(a), and 1391(b) and (c).

5. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C 1331 and 1338(a).

6. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Vortex Optics because, upon informationand belief, it conducts business throughout the United States and in this District and has engaged

and continues to engage in infringing activities in this District. On information and belief, Vortex

Optics has also placed and continues to place infringing products into the stream of commerce

with knowledge or understanding that such products are sold in the State of California, including


3/79

COOLEYLLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

PALO ALTO

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3 COMPLAINT

in this District. Upon information and belief, Vortex Optics purposefully avails itself of th

privilege of conducting activities in California, thus invoking the benefits and protections of th

laws of California. The acts by Vortex Optics have caused and continue to cause injury to Horu

Vision within this District.

7. Venue in this Court is proper under 28 U.S.C. 1391 because Vortex Opticconducts business in this District, engages in infringing activities in this District, is subject to

personal jurisdiction in this District, and has had and continues to have substantial contacts with

this forum. In addition, venue is proper because Horus Visions principal place of business is in

San Bruno, in this District, and Horus Vision has suffered and continues to suffer harm in thi

District.

FACTS

8. Horus Vision is a company engaged in the business of selling products in the fieldof ballistics, firearm scopes, reticles, and ballistics computer software, and is the owner by valid

assignment of the 029 patent, entitled Apparatus and Method for Calculating Aiming Poin

Information, which relates to the aforementioned fields, and which was duly and legally issued

on February 7, 2012. Horus Vision may enforce the 029 patent.

9. On information and belief, Vortex Optics has developed, manufactured, importedused, offered to sell, and/or sold, and continues to develop, manufacture, use, offer to sell, and/or

sell, firearm scopes incorporating reticles under the name VORTEX, including, but not limited to

the VORTEX RAZOR EBR-2 MRAD RETICLE, the VORTEX RAZOR EBR-2B MRAD

RETICLE, and the VORTEX RAZOR HD 520x50 RIFLESCOPE with VORTEX RAZOR

EBR-2B MRAD RETICLE.

10. On information and belief, Vortex Optics intends to continue to developmanufacture, import, use, offer to sell, and/or sell firearm scopes incorporating reticles under the

name VORTEX, including, but not limited to, the VORTEX RAZOR EBR-2 MRAD RETICLE

the VORTEX RAZOR EBR-2B MRAD RETICLE, and the VORTEX RAZOR HD 520x50

RIFLESCOPE with VORTEX RAZOR EBR-2B MRAD RETICLE in the future.

11. Vortex Optics has had actual knowledge of the claims of the 029 patent since no


4/79

COOLEYLLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

PALO ALTO

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4 COMPLAINT

later than April 27, 2012, when Vortex Optics was notified of its infringement by Horus Vision

Since that time, the parties have corresponded regarding Horus Visions claim of infringement

but no agreement was reached. Vortex Optics has refused to acknowledge Horus Visions claims

provide a substantive response to Horus Visions notice of infringement, cease its infringing

activities, or compensate Horus Vision for damages caused by its infringement.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Infringement of the 029 patent)

12. Horus Vision incorporates by reference the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 1above, as if fully set forth herein.

13. On information and belief, Vortex Optics has been infringing at least claim 27 othe 029 patent, and is still infringing the 029 patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. 271, by, at least

its activities in connection with the aforementioned firearm scope and reticle products, including

but not limited to, the VORTEX RAZOR EBR-2 MRAD RETICLE, the VORTEX RAZOR

EBR-2B MRAD RETICLE, and the VORTEX RAZOR HD 520x50 RIFLESCOPE with

VORTEX RAZOR EBR-2B MRAD RETICLE products. Vortex Optics has infringed and

continues to directly infringe one or more claims of the 029 patent by importing, making, using

selling, and/or offering to sell in the United States one or more firearm scope and/or reticle

products, including but not limited to those identified in this Complaint, in violation of 35 U.S.C

271.

14. On information and belief, Vortex Optics has been inducing the infringement of aleast claim 27 of the 029 patent, and is still inducing the infringement of the 029 patent, in

violation of 35 U.S.C. 271, by, at least, its activities in connection with the aforementioned

firearm scope and/or reticle products. These acts include, but are not limited to, Vortex Optics

promotion, offers to sell, and sales of Vortex Optics infringing firearm scope and reticle product

to customers and end users in the United States. Vortex Optics induces others to infringe the 029

patent by assisting, facilitating, and encouraging others to perform acts or construct product

known by Vortex Optics to infringe the 029 patent. Vortex Optics advertises and promotes th

infringing products, offers detailed product information on its webpage, www.vortexoptics.com


5/79

COOLEYLLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

PALO ALTO

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5 COMPLAINT

and offers support and assistance to its customers, who directly infringe the 029 patent. Thes

intentionally taken actions have actually induced and continue to induce direct infringement by

customers and end users in the United States. Despite having actual notice of the 029 patent

Vortex Optics continues to make, use, sell, and/or offer to sell infringing products with the

knowledge or willful blindness that its conduct will induce Vortex Optics customers to infring

the 029 patent. Vortex Optics has induced infringement and continues to induce infringement o

one or more claims of the 029 patent by importing, making, using, selling, and/or offering to sel

in the United States one or more firearm scope and/or reticle products, including but not limited

to those identified in this Complaint, in violation of 35 U.S.C. 271.

15. On information and belief, Vortex Optics has been contributing to theinfringement of at least claim 27 of the 029 patent, and is still contributing to the infringement of

the 029 patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. 271, by, at least, its activities in connection with the

aforementioned firearm scope and/or reticle products. Vortex Optics has contributed t

infringement and continues to contribute to infringement of one or more claims of the 029 paten

by supplying an important and material component of infringing products to customers and end

users in the United States, including without limitation the products recited in this Complaint

Such products are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial non

infringing uses. Such products have no substantial use that is non-infringing because they hav

no plausible use other than as components of firearm scope products that infringe at least one

claim of the 029 patent. Vortex Optics has contributed to, and continues to contribute to, th

infringement of one or more claims of the 029 patent by importing, making, using, selling

and/or offering to sell in the United States one or more firearm scope and/or reticle products

including but not limited to those identified in this Complaint, in violation of 35 U.S.C. 271.

16. Vortex Optics infringement of the 029 patent has been and continues to bwillful and deliberate.

17. Vortex Optics infringement of the 029 patent will continue unless enjoined bythis Court.

18. As a direct and proximate consequence of Vortex Optics infringement of the 029


6/79

COOLEYLLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

PALO ALTO

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6 COMPLAINT

patent, Horus Vision has suffered, is suffering, and unless enjoined by the Court, will continue to

suffer injury, for which Horus Vision is entitled to damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 284 of an

amount to be proven at trial.

19. As a direct and proximate consequence of Vortex Optics infringement of the 029patent, Horus Vision has suffered, is suffering, and unless enjoined by the Court, will continue to

suffer irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law, and for which Horus Vision

is entitled to injunctive relief pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 283.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Horus Vision prays for judgment as follows:

A. That the claims of the 029 patent are valid and enforceable.

B. That Vortex Optics be held to have infringed the patent-in-suit.

C. For the entry of an order preliminarily and permanently enjoining Vortex Optics

its subsidiaries, affiliates, parents, successors, assigns, officers, agents, servants, employees

attorneys, and all persons acting in concert or in participation with them, or any of them, from

infringing, contributing to the infringement of, and inducing infringement of the patent-in-suit

and specifically from directly or indirectly making, using, importing, selling, or offering for sale

any products embodying the inventions of the patent-in-suit during the life of the claims of the

patent-in-suit, without the express written authority of Horus Vision.

D. That Vortex Optics be directed to fully compensate Horus Vision for all damage

attributable to Vortex Optics infringement of the patent-in-suit in an amount according to proo

at trial, including, but not limited to, reasonable royalties and lost profits.

E. For an award of enhanced damages, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 284.

F. That Vortex Optics be ordered to deliver to Horus Vision, for destruction at Horu

Visions option, all products that infringe the patent-in-suit.

G. That Vortex Optics be required to account for all gains, profits, advantages, and

unjust enrichment derived from its violations of law.

H. For an award of pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and costs pursuant to 35


7/79

COOLEYLLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

PALO ALTO

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7 COMPLAINT

U.S.C. 284.

I. That Vortex Optics be required to pay Horus Vision its costs of suit, including it

attorneys fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 285.

J. That Horus Vision have such other, further, and different relief as the Court deem

proper under the circumstances.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Horus Vision hereby

demands a trial by jury of all issues triable of right by a jury in the above-captioned case.

Dated: March 3, 2014 COOLEY LLPHEIDI L. KEEFEDANIEL J. KNAUSS

/s/Heidi L. KeefeHeidi L. KeefeAttorneys for PlaintiffHORUS VISION, LLC


8/79

EXHIBIT A


9/79


10/79


11/79


12/79


13/79


14/79


15/79


16/79


17/79


18/79


19/79


20/79


21/79


22/79


23/79


24/79


25/79


26/79


27/79


28/79


29/79


30/79


31/79


32/79


33/79


34/79


35/79


36/79


37/79


38/79


39/79


40/79


41/79


42/79


43/79


44/79


45/79


46/79


47/79


48/79


49/79


50/79


51/79


52/79


53/79


54/79


55/79


56/79


57/79


58/79


59/79


60/79


61/79


62/79


63/79


64/79


65/79


66/79


67/79


68/79


69/79


70/79


71/79


72/79


73/79


74/79


75/79


76/79


77/79


78/79


79/79

Documents

Horus Vision, LLC v. Sheltered Wings, Inc