`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. ___________________
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`))))))))
`
`)))
`
`
`)
`)
`
`F’REAL FOODS, LLC and
`RICH PRODUCTS CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`
`
`HAMILTON BEACH BRANDS, INC.,
`HERSHEY CREAMERY COMPANY and
`PAUL MILLS D/B/A MILLS BROTHERS
`MARKETS,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiffs f’real Foods LLC (“f’real”) and Rich Products Corporation (“Rich”)
`
`complain of Defendants Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc. (“Hamilton Beach”), Hershey Creamery
`
`Company (“Hershey Creamery”) and Paul Mills doing business as Mills Brothers Markets
`
`(“Mills Brothers”) as follows:
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`1.
`
`This is a civil action for patent infringement. This Court has subject
`
`matter over this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`2.
`
`Personal jurisdiction over all defendants is vested in this Court because
`
`each of the defendants has committed acts of infringement in this judicial district, is incorporated
`
`in this judicial district, has asserted counterclaims in this Court related to the patents at issue
`
`and/or has otherwise engaged in a persistent course of conduct in this judicial district.
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00041-CFC Document 1 Filed 01/26/16 Page 2 of 15 PageID #: 2
`
`3.
`
`Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c)
`
`and 1400(b) because each of the defendants has conducted acts of infringement in this district,
`
`does business in this district, and resides in this district.
`
`PARTIES
`
`4.
`
`f’real is a California limited liability company with its principal place of
`
`business at 6121 Hollis Street, Suite 500, Emeryville, California 94608. f’real regularly does
`
`business in this judicial district through its retail customers and has lost business opportunities in
`
`this judicial district due to the infringing actions set forth in this Complaint.
`
`5.
`
`Rich is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at One
`
`Robert Rich Way, Buffalo, New York 14213. f’real is a wholly owned subsidiary of Rich and,
`
`for a period of time, the patents in suit were assigned to Rich.
`
`6.
`
`Hamilton Beach is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
`
`business at 4421 Waterfront Drive, Glen Allen, Virginia 23060.
`
`7.
`
`Hershey Creamery is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
`
`business at 301 South Cameron Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101.
`
`8.
`
`Paul Mills d/b/a Mills Brothers Markets has a principal place of business
`
`at 508 S.E. 2nd Street, Milford, Delaware 19963.
`
`F’REAL’S PATENT RIGHTS
`
`9.
`
`f’real produces milkshakes, smoothies and frozen cappuccino beverage
`
`products that are sold at over 13,000 locations across the United States and Canada, including
`
`convenience stores, colleges, universities, theaters and military bases. To enjoy a f’real product,
`
`the customer chooses a desired frozen milkshake, smoothie or cappuccino from a merchandizing
`
`freezer at the retail location and inserts it into a blender sold to the retailer by f’real. The blender
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00041-CFC Document 1 Filed 01/26/16 Page 3 of 15 PageID #: 3
`
`then mixes the frozen product to a desired consistency and makes it available for the enjoyment
`
`of the customer.
`
`10.
`
`f’real’s founder, Mr. Jim Farrell, began f’real’s business in the garage of
`
`his California home. Mr. Farrell’s objective was to build a business that would allow customers
`
`to prepare their own high quality milkshakes at convenience stores and fast food restaurants.
`
`11.
`
`In building the f’real business, Mr. Farrell faced numerous challenges.
`
`A first challenge was providing the customer with a choice of quality milkshakes that could be
`
`quickly prepared without extensive training or involvement by the busy retailer. A second
`
`challenge was to keep the blender sanitary after milkshakes were prepared, again without
`
`extensive training or involvement by the busy retailer.
`
`12. Mr. Farrell addressed the first challenge by pre-preparing milkshakes in
`
`various flavors using quality ingredients, freezing them and then sealing them for delivery to the
`
`retailer. To achieve a preferred old-fashioned texture for f’real’s frozen milkshakes, Mr. Farrell
`
`developed a self-serve blender that could be operated by the customer. In testing prototype
`
`blenders, Mr. Farrell found that simply cutting through the frozen milkshake with a blender blade
`
`did not produce the old-fashioned milkshake texture he wanted. After hard work and
`
`experimentation, Mr. Farrell discovered that adding liquid, such as milk or water, to the frozen
`
`milkshake during the blending process made it easier to blend to a milkshake with old-fashioned
`
`texture. Mr. Farrell also discovered that the milkshake could be aerated to help produce the
`
`desired texture.
`
`13.
`
`On May 17, 1996, Jim Farrell filed U.S. Patent Application No. 649,534
`
`for his new blender and blender process. Based upon this patent application, the U.S. Patent and
`
`Trademark Office duly and legally issued U.S. Patent No. 5,803,377 (“’377 patent”) on
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00041-CFC Document 1 Filed 01/26/16 Page 4 of 15 PageID #: 4
`
`September 8, 1998, entitled “Apparatus And Method For Making Frozen Drinks,” to Mr. Farrell
`
`as the inventor. f’real owns the ‘377 patent and has the right to sue for infringement. A copy of
`
`the ‘377 patent is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 1.
`
`14.
`
`Unless the milkshake blender is sanitized in a timely manner, bacteria can
`
`grow on food particles left in the blending chamber and lead to disease. To address this need for
`
`sanitation, Mr. Farrell conceived of a system for the f’real blenders that would both
`
`automatically minimize the amount of food particles released in the food preparation chamber
`
`during preparation of the milkshake and then automatically clean the food preparation chamber
`
`after the milkshake was prepared and removed from the chamber. Mr. Farrell’s concept
`
`minimized the release of food particles by having f’real’s blender automatically place a splash
`
`shield over the top of the milkshake while the milkshake was being blended. When the blending
`
`was complete and the milkshake was removed from the blending chamber, cleaning fluid would
`
`automatically be sprayed through nozzles into the blending chamber to rinse off the splash shield
`
`as well as the walls of the blending chamber.
`
`15.
`
`On November 15, 2002, Mr. Farrell filed U.S. Provisional Patent
`
`Application No. 60/426,622 for his automatic sanitizing blender and sanitizing process. This
`
`U.S. Provisional Patent Application led to three issued U.S. Patents.
`
`16.
`
`On December 5, 2006, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office duly and
`
`legally issued U.S. Patent No. 7,144,150 (“’150 patent”), entitled “Rinseable Splash Shield And
`
`Method Of Use,” to Mr. Farrell as the inventor. f’real owns the ‘150 patent and has the right to
`
`sue for infringement. A copy of the ‘150 patent is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 2.
`
`17.
`
`On April 21, 2009, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally
`
`issued U.S. Patent No. 7,520,658 (“’658 patent”), entitled “Rinseable Splash Shield And Method
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00041-CFC Document 1 Filed 01/26/16 Page 5 of 15 PageID #: 5
`
`Of Use,” to Mr. Farrell as the inventor. f’real owns the ‘658 patent and has the right to sue for
`
`infringement. A copy of the ‘658 patent is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 3.
`
`18.
`
`On April 21, 2009, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally
`
`issued U.S. Patent No. 7,520,662 (“’662 patent”), entitled “Rinseable Splash Shield And Method
`
`Of Use,” to Mr. Farrell as the inventor. f’real owns the ‘662 patent and has the right to sue for
`
`infringement. A copy of the ‘662 patent is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 4.
`
`DEFENDANTS’ ACTIVITIES
`
`19.
`
`In or about 2010, defendant Hamilton Beach indicated to f’real that it was
`
`interested in supplying milkshake blending equipment to fast food restaurants, full service
`
`restaurants and ice cream stores. To avoid violating f’real’s patent rights, Hamilton Beach
`
`sought and obtained a license from f’real under f’real’s ‘150, ‘658 and ‘662 patents. A little
`
`more than a year later, Hamilton Beach changed its mind about paying f’real for use of f’real’s
`
`patented technology and, on August 2, 2011, Hamilton Beach sent f’real a notice of termination
`
`under the license agreement.
`
`20.
`
`In or about 2013, Hamilton Beach teamed up with co-defendant Hershey
`
`Creamery to go into direct competition with f’real in f’real’s core convenience store market.
`
`Hamilton Beach makes the MIC2000 mix-in-cup milkshake blenders and provides them to
`
`Hershey Creamery with MIC2000 operating manuals. Hershey Creamery then leases the
`
`MIC2000 milkshake blenders and sells its frozen milkshakes to convenience store retailers along
`
`with providing operating instructions, including Hamilton Beach’s MIC2000 operating manuals.
`
`Hershey Creamery has also placed videos on YouTube to explain how its frozen milkshakes
`
`should be prepared in the Hamilton Beach MIC2000 mix-in-cup blenders. One retailer who is
`
`operating a Hamilton Beach MIC2000 blender and selling Hershey Creamery milkshakes for use
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00041-CFC Document 1 Filed 01/26/16 Page 6 of 15 PageID #: 6
`
`with that blender is Mills Brothers Market at 508 S.E. 2nd Street, Milford, Delaware 19963
`
`owned by defendant Paul Mills. The Hamilton Beach MIC2000 mix-in-cup blenders and
`
`Hershey Creamery frozen milkshakes are used in the type of “Shake Shop Express” kiosks
`
`shown in attached Exhibit 5.
`
`21.
`
`Hamilton Beach and Hershey Creamery have also demonstrated use of
`
`Hershey Creamery frozen milkshakes in conjunction with the Hamilton Beach MIC2000
`
`blenders at trade shows, to retail customers and in their respective offices.
`
`22.
`
`The MIC2000 blenders made by Hamilton Beach practice blending
`
`inventions disclosed and claimed in f’real’s ‘377 patent as well as blender sanitation inventions
`
`disclosed and claimed in f’real’s ‘150, ‘658 and ’662 patents.
`
`23.
`
`For example, like the blenders disclosed and claimed in f’real’s ‘377
`
`patent, the Hamilton Beach MIC2000 blender is an apparatus for making frozen drinks from a
`
`frozen substance having a housing, a cup holder, a liquid dispenser, and a rotating blade(s) for
`
`grinding the frozen substance and for aerating the mixture of the frozen substance and dispensed
`
`liquid.
`
`24.
`
`For f’real’s ‘150 patent, the MIC2000 blender is a mixing machine that
`
`mixes a liquid with frozen Hershey Creamery milkshakes in a cup using a rotatable blade within
`
`a rinse chamber where a splash shield is used to cover the top of the cup during mixing and rinse
`
`nozzles are used to clean the splash shield after the blending process is completed.
`
`25.
`
`For f’real’s ‘658 patent, the MIC2000 blender is a mixing machine having
`
`a cup holder, a rotatable mixing blade on a shaft, a stepper motor coupled to the rotatable mixing
`
`blade shaft to move the mixing blade up and down and a splash shield slidably oriented on the
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00041-CFC Document 1 Filed 01/26/16 Page 7 of 15 PageID #: 7
`
`mixing blade shaft having sufficient mass to retain the Hershey Creamery frozen milkshake cup
`
`in the MIC2000 cupholder.
`
`26.
`
`For f’real’s ‘662 patent, in the process of using the MIC2000 blender, a
`
`user places a Hershey Creamery frozen milkshake cup in the MIC2000 cupholder so that the
`
`MIC2000 splash shield can cover the top of the cup during blending. After blending is
`
`completed and the user removes the blended Hershey Creamery milkshake cup from the
`
`MIC2000 blender, the MIC2000 blender sprays rinsing fluid from its nozzles to clean off the
`
`splash shield.
`
`27.
`
`On April 24, 2015, f’real’s attorneys provided a document entitled
`
`“Plaintiff’s Initial Infringement Contentions For Defendants” to attorneys for each of the
`
`Defendants providing detailed explanations of why each asserted claim of f’real’s ‘377, ‘150,
`
`‘658 and ‘662 patents is being infringed by the Defendants.
`
`28.
`
`Hamilton Beach also produces and sells BIC2000 blend-in-cup blenders.
`
`The Hamilton Beach BIC2000 is used for blending drinks in disposable cups. On information
`
`and belief, the Hamilton Beach BIC2000 is constructed in manner similar to the Hamilton Beach
`
`MIC2000 except that its upper blending blade is not designed for aeration and the BIC2000 does
`
`not insert fluid into the drink during the blending process. The Hamilton Beach BIC2000
`
`infringes f’real’s ‘150, ‘658 and ‘662 patents for the same reasons identified for the Hamilton
`
`Beach MIC2000 in “Plaintiff’s Initial Infringement Contentions For Defendants,” served on
`
`Defendants in C.A. No. 14-1270.
`
`F’REAL’S PREVIOUS ENFORCEMENT OF ITS PATENT RIGHTS
`
`29.
`
`f’real originally asserted the ‘377, ‘150, ‘658 and ‘662 patents (“Patents-
`
`in-Suit”) against each of the Defendants in a complaint filed on October 3, 2014. See D. Del.
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00041-CFC Document 1 Filed 01/26/16 Page 8 of 15 PageID #: 8
`
`C.A. No. 14-1270 (GMS), D.I. 1. At that time, f’real believed and alleged that it owned each of
`
`the Patents-in-Suit (see id. ¶¶ 12, 15-17). In addition, f’real brought claims in its previous
`
`complaint for trademark infringement, trade dress infringement, and unfair competition (see id.
`
`¶¶ 55-72).
`
`30.
`
`During discovery, a patent assignment was produced that indicated on
`
`December 11, 2012, at the time Rich acquired f’real, f’real’s founder Jim Farrell assigned
`
`f’real’s rights in the Patents-in-Suit to Rich (see Exhibit 6). Based on this patent assignment,
`
`Hamilton Beach questioned whether f’real had standing to assert its patent infringement claims
`
`at the time the previous complaint was filed (see C.A. No. 14-1270 (GMS) D.I. 98)).
`
`31.
`
`To eliminate the need to litigate the standing issue, f’real recently assigned
`
`the Patents-in-Suit back to f’real (see Exhibit 7) and subsequently moved to dismiss its patent
`
`infringement claims from the previous action. The trademark and unfair competition claims
`
`nonetheless remain pending in the previous action. Plaintiffs expect to ask the Court to
`
`consolidate this case with the previous case.
`
`COUNT I
`(Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,803,377)
`
`32.
`
`f’real and Rich reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1
`
`through 31 of this Complaint.
`
`33.
`
`34.
`
`The ‘377 patent is valid and enforceable.
`
`Through use of the MIC2000 blender and the Hershey Creamery frozen
`
`milkshakes, Hamilton Beach, Hershey Creamery and Mills Brothers have each directly infringed
`
`claims 1-7, 9-14 and 17-27 of the ‘377 patent by making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or
`
`importing into the United States MIC2000 blending machines that embody or practice the
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00041-CFC Document 1 Filed 01/26/16 Page 9 of 15 PageID #: 9
`
`patented inventions, including the MIC2000 blending machine pictured in the “Shake Shop
`
`Express” kiosk shown in attached Exhibit 5.
`
`35.
`
`Despite knowing through a previously filed f’real patent enforcement
`
`action that its unlicensed blending machines infringe the ‘377 patent when used for frozen
`
`Hershey Creamery milkshakes, Hamilton Beach and Hershey Creamery have induced the
`
`infringement of claims 1-7, 9-14 and 17-27 of the ‘377 patent by providing MIC2000 operating
`
`manuals and MIC2000 demonstrations to Mills Brothers and other retailers for use of unlicensed
`
`Hamilton Beach MIC2000 blending machines, including the MIC2000 blending machine
`
`pictured in the “Shake Shop Express” kiosk shown in attached Exhibit 5.
`
`36.
`
`Since they know that their unlicensed blending machines and frozen
`
`milkshakes infringe the ‘377 patent, Hamilton Beach’s and Hershey Creamery’s infringement of
`
`the ‘377 patent is willful, deliberate and in conscious disregard of f’real’s patent rights, making
`
`this an exceptional case within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. §§ 284 and 285.
`
`37.
`
`On information and belief, Hamilton Beach, Hershey Creamery and Mills
`
`Brothers will continue to infringe the ‘377 patent, and thereby cause irreparable injury to f’real
`
`and Rich, unless enjoined and restrained by this Court.
`
`38.
`
`As a result of the infringement of the ‘377 patent by Hamilton Beach,
`
`Hershey Creamery and Mills Brothers, f’real and Rich have been damaged in an amount to be
`
`determined at trial.
`
`COUNT II
`(Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,144,150)
`
`39.
`
`f’real and Rich reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1
`
`through 38 of this Complaint.
`
`40.
`
`The ‘150 patent is valid and enforceable.
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00041-CFC Document 1 Filed 01/26/16 Page 10 of 15 PageID #: 10
`
`41.
`
`Through use of the MIC2000 blender and the Hershey Creamery frozen
`
`milkshakes, Hamilton Beach, Hershey Creamery and Mills Brothers have each directly infringed
`
`claims 15, 20 and 22 of the ‘150 patent by making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or
`
`importing into the United States MIC2000 blending machines that embody or practice the
`
`patented inventions, including the MIC2000 blending machine pictured in “Shake Shop Express”
`
`kiosk shown in attached Exhibit 5. Hamilton Beach also directly infringes claims 15, 20 and 22
`
`of the ‘150 patent by making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing into the United
`
`States BIC2000 blending machines that embody or practice the patented inventions.
`
`42.
`
`Despite knowing through Hamilton Beach’s terminated license agreement
`
`with f’real and f’real’s previously filed patent infringement action that Hamilton Beach’s
`
`unlicensed MIC2000 blending machines when used for Hershey Creamery’s frozen milkshakes
`
`infringe the ‘150 patent, Hamilton Beach and Hershey Creamery have induced the infringement
`
`of claims 15, 20 and 22 of the ‘150 patent by providing MIC2000 operating manuals and
`
`MIC2000 demonstrations to Mills Brothers and other retailers for use of the unlicensed Hamilton
`
`Beach MIC2000 blending machines, including the MIC2000 blending machine pictured in the
`
`“Shake Shop Express” kiosk shown in attached Exhibit 5. On information and belief, Hamilton
`
`Beach has also induced the infringement of claims 15, 20 and 22 of the ‘150 patent by providing
`
`BIC2000 operating manuals and BIC2000 demonstrations to BIC2000 customers and
`
`prospective customers.
`
`43.
`
`Since they know that their unlicensed blending machines and frozen
`
`milkshakes infringe the ‘150 patent, Hamilton Beach’s and Hershey Creamery’s infringement of
`
`the ‘150 patent is willful, deliberate and in conscious disregard of f’real’s patent rights, making
`
`this an exceptional case within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. §§ 284 and 285.
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00041-CFC Document 1 Filed 01/26/16 Page 11 of 15 PageID #: 11
`
`44.
`
`On information and belief, Hamilton Beach, Hershey Creamery and Mills
`
`Brothers will continue to infringe the ‘150 patent, and thereby cause irreparable injury to f’real
`
`and Rich, unless enjoined and restrained by this Court.
`
`45.
`
`As a result of the infringement of the ‘150 patent by Hamilton Beach,
`
`Hershey Creamery and Mills Brothers, f’real and Rich have been damaged in an amount to be
`
`determined at trial.
`
`COUNT III
`(Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,520,658)
`
`46.
`
`f’real and Rich reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1
`
`through 45 of this Complaint.
`
`47.
`
`48.
`
`The ‘658 patent is valid and enforceable.
`
`Through use of the MIC2000 blender and the Hershey Creamery frozen
`
`milkshakes, Hamilton Beach, Hershey Creamery and Mills Brothers have each directly infringed
`
`claims 1 and 5-11 of the ‘658 patent by making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing
`
`into the United States MIC2000 blending machines that embody or practice the patented
`
`inventions, including the MIC2000 blending machine pictured in the “Shake Shop Express”
`
`kiosk shown in attached Exhibit 5. Hamilton Beach also directly infringes claims 1 and 5-11 of
`
`the ‘658 patent by making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing into the United
`
`States BIC2000 blending machines that embody or practice the patented inventions.
`
`49.
`
`Despite knowing through Hamilton Beach’s terminated license agreement
`
`with f’real and f’real’s previously filed patent enforcement action that Hamilton Beach’s
`
`unlicensed MIC2000 blending machines when used for Hershey Creamery frozen milkshakes
`
`infringe the ‘658 patent, Hamilton Beach and Hershey Creamery have induced the infringement
`
`of claims 1 and 5-11 of the ‘658 patent by providing MIC2000 operating manuals and MIC2000
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00041-CFC Document 1 Filed 01/26/16 Page 12 of 15 PageID #: 12
`
`product demonstrations to Mills Brothers and other retailers, including for use of the unlicensed
`
`Hamilton Beach MIC2000 blending machine pictured in the “Shake Shop Express” kiosk shown
`
`in attached Exhibit 5. On information and belief, Hamilton Beach has also induced the
`
`infringement of claims 1 and 5-11 of the ‘658 patent by providing BIC2000 operating manuals
`
`and BIC2000 demonstrations to BIC2000 customers and prospective customers.
`
`50.
`
`Since they know that Hamilton Beach’s unlicensed blending machines
`
`when used with Hershey Creamery’s milkshakes infringe the ‘658 patent, Hamilton Beach’s and
`
`Hershey Creamery’s infringement of the ‘658 patent is willful, deliberate and in conscious
`
`disregard of f’real’s patent rights, making this an exceptional case within the meaning of
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 284 and 285.
`
`51.
`
`On information and belief, Hamilton Beach, Hershey Creamery and Mills
`
`Brothers will continue to infringe the ‘658 patent, and thereby cause irreparable injury to f’real
`
`and Rich, unless enjoined and restrained by this Court.
`
`52.
`
`As a result of the infringement of the ‘658 patent by Hamilton Beach,
`
`Hershey Creamery and Mills Brothers, f’real and Rich have been damaged in an amount to be
`
`determined at trial.
`
`COUNT IV
`(Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,520,662)
`
`53.
`
`f’real and Rich reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1
`
`through 52 of this Complaint.
`
`54.
`
`55.
`
`The ‘662 patent is valid and enforceable.
`
`Through use of the MIC2000 blender and the Hershey Creamery frozen
`
`milkshakes, Hamilton Beach, Hershey Creamery and Mills Brothers have each directly infringed
`
`claim 21 of the ‘662 patent by practicing the patented invention with MIC2000 blending
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00041-CFC Document 1 Filed 01/26/16 Page 13 of 15 PageID #: 13
`
`machines, including using the type of MIC2000 blending machine pictured in the “Shake Shop
`
`Express” kiosk shown in attached Exhibit 5. Hamilton Beach also directly infringes claim 21 of
`
`the ‘662 patent by using BIC2000 blending machines to practice the patented invention.
`
`56.
`
`Despite knowing through Hamilton Beach’s terminated license agreement
`
`with f’real and f’real’s previously filed patent infringement action that Hamilton Beach’s now
`
`unlicensed MIC2000 blending machines when used with Hershey Creamery frozen milkshakes
`
`infringe the ‘662 patent, Hamilton Beach and Hershey Creamery have induced the infringement
`
`of claim 21 of the ‘662 patent by providing operating instructions to Mills Brothers and other
`
`retailers for use of unlicensed Hamilton Beach MIC2000 blending machines, including the
`
`MIC2000 blending machine pictured in the “Shake Shop Express” kiosk shown in attached
`
`Exhibit 5. On information and belief, Hamilton Beach has also induced the infringement of
`
`claim 21 of the ‘658 patent by providing BIC2000 operating manuals and BIC2000
`
`demonstrations to BIC2000 customers and prospective customers.
`
`57.
`
`Since they know that their unlicensed blending machines when used with
`
`frozen Hershey Creamery milkshakes infringe the ‘662 patent, Hamilton Beach’s and Hershey
`
`Creamery’s infringement of the ‘662 patent is willful, deliberate and in conscious disregard of
`
`f’real’s patent rights, making this an exceptional case within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. §§ 284
`
`and 285.
`
`58.
`
`On information and belief, Hamilton Beach, Hershey Creamery and Mills
`
`Brothers will continue to infringe the ‘662 patent, and thereby cause irreparable injury to f’real
`
`and Rich, unless enjoined and restrained by this Court.
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00041-CFC Document 1 Filed 01/26/16 Page 14 of 15 PageID #: 14
`
`59.
`
`As a result of the infringement of the ‘662 patent by Hamilton Beach,
`
`Hershey Creamery and Mills Brothers, f’real and Rich have been damaged in an amount to be
`
`determined at trial.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, f’real and Rich asks this Court to enter judgment in f’real’s and
`
`Rich’s favor against defendants Hamilton Beach, Hershey Creamery and Mills Brothers as
`
`follows:
`
`A.
`
`That defendants Hamilton Beach, Hershey Creamery and Mills Brothers
`
`have infringed f’real’s ‘377, ‘150, ‘658 and ‘662 patents;
`
`B.
`
`That infringement of the ‘377, ‘150, ‘658 and ‘662 patents by Hamilton
`
`Beach and Hershey Creamery has been willful;
`
`C.
`
`That defendants Hamilton Beach, Hershey Creamery and Mill Brothers,
`
`their officers, agents, servants, employees and all persons in active concert or participation with
`
`any of them, and their successors and assigns be temporarily, preliminarily and permanently
`
`enjoined from infringement of the ‘377, ‘150, ‘658 and ‘662 patents including, but not limited to,
`
`making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing into the United States MIC2000 mix-
`
`in-cup blending machines, BIC2000 blend-in-cup blending machines and any other blending
`
`machines that infringe any of the patents-in-suit before the expiration dates of those patents;
`
`D.
`
`As part of the prayed for injunction, that this Court order defendants
`
`Hamilton Beach and Hershey Creamery to recall from their retailers and all others in the chain of
`
`commerce all infringing MIC2000 and BIC2000 blenders;
`
`E.
`
`That f’real be awarded damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 adequate to
`
`compensate it for defendants’ infringement of the ‘377, ‘150, ‘658 and ‘662 patents, but no less
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00041-CFC Document 1 Filed 01/26/16 Page 15 of 15 PageID #: 15
`Case 1:16-cv-00041-CFC Document 1 Filed 01/26/16 Page 15 of 15 PageID #: 15
`
`than a reasonable royalty, with interest (including pre-judgment and post-judgment interest), and
`
`a trebling of such damages in View of the willful nature of the infringement.
`
`F.
`
`That defendants Hamilton Beach, Hershey Creamery and Mills Brothers
`
`be ordered to make a written report within a reasonable period, to be filed with the Court,
`
`detailing the manner of compliance with the requested injunctive relief.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`proper.
`
`That freal be awarded its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit.
`
`That t” real be awarded such other relief as the Court may deem just and
`
`w
`
`freal and Rich hereby demands a trial by jury for all issue so triable.
`
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
`
`
`
`Rodger D. Smith 11 #3778)
`Ethan H. Townsend (#5813)
`1201 North Market Street
`
`PO. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899—1347
`(302) 658-9200
`rsmith@mnat.com
`etownsend@mnat.com
`
`Attorneysfor Plaintifi’s
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Guy W. Chambers
`Ellen P. L1u
`.
`Allyson Madrid
`SIDEMAN & BANCROFT LLP
`One Embarcadero Center, 22'ml Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`(415) 392-1960
`
`January 26, 2016
`9798597.]
`
`15
`
`