Patent Infringement Alleged Against French Corporation

In a complaint recently filed in the Northern District of Alabama, two Birmingham companies, Applied Ultrasonics, LLC and UIT, LLC  seek damages for the alleged infringement of a number of patents pertaining to ultrasonic impact technology (“UIT”).  The complaint asserts that Applied Ultrasonics is engaged in “the design, development and delivery of equipment and processes” for utilization of UIT in aerospace, mining, offshore drilling, shipbuilding, infrastructure, automotive, energy production and other industries.  UIT reportedly refers to metallurgical processes in which ultrasonic energy is applied to metals in a controlled manner for the purpose of “improving the structure and properties of metals and welded components.” 

The complaint alleges that defendants SONATS SA, a French corporation, and Empowering Technologies, Inc., an Alabama corporation, knowingly and willfully infringed plaintiffs’ patents by using, offering for sale, selling, importing into the United States, and distributing equipment and related software, including “Defendants’ so-called Stressonic ultrasonic impact treatment or needle peening solution and its StressVoyager solution.”  Plaintiffs further contend that the defendants’ products have “no substantial non-infringing uses,” that defendants’ customers are using the products in a manner that constitutes infringement, and that the defendants have both “directly infringed” and “contributed to and/or actively induced infringement” of the patents.

Plaintiffs contend that defendants’ conduct is causing irreparable injury and seek to permanently enjoin the alleged infringement and to recover monetary damages. 

The case is Applied Ultrasonics, LLC, et al. vs. SONATS SA, et al.,  Case No. 2:13-cv-01494-UNAS-CLS, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Southern Division, filed on August 13, 2013.   

Trademark Infringement Alleged By Donut Joe's Against Donut Chef

Donut Joe’s is a retail donut shop in the Birmingham, Alabama area. In a complaint recently filed in the Northern District of Alabama, Donut Joe’s contends that it registered its trademark “Donut Joe’s” name and its trademark logo (including a donut character wearing a chef’s hat) and that a competing establishment, Donut Chef, which also uses a donut character wearing a chef’s hat as part of its logo, has deceived the public into thinking that it is the same establishment as Donut Joe’s. Donut Joe’s specifically asserts that the Donut Chef name and logo are “colorable imitations” of plaintiff’s name and logo and constitute infringements on the same. The complaint also alleges that the operators of Donut Chef, who are also named defendants in the lawsuit, signed a “confidentiality and non-disclosure agreement” with Donut Joe’s owner in 2010 in furtherance of possible future business relations.

The complaint alleges that the operation of Donut Chef violates the agreement and involves use of confidential information obtained from Donut Joe’s. It further alleges that one of the operators of Donut Chef intentionally induced Donut Joe’s to provide confidential information with no intention of being bound by the confidentiality agreement, and that he used the information to establish his own donut shop as well as providing the same to his son and daughter-in-law, who opened their own donut shop, Heavenly Donut Co. The complaint names Heavenly Donut Co. and its owners as additional defendants and asserts that this third establishment is also using illegally obtained information “to unfairly compete with Donut Joe’s.”

Donut Joe’s seeks to enjoin and restrain the defendants from operating a donut business, from using confidential information, from infringing plaintiff’s trademark, and from using the words “Donut Chef” or “any other colorable imitation of Plaintiff’s registered trademark ‘Donut Joe’s’ or [plaintiff’s logo] in the sale of donuts or similar goods.” Donut Joe’s also seeks profits realized from the sale of Donut Chef products, profits realized through the wrongful use of confidential information, other damages allegedly sustained by plaintiff as a result of infringement, and treble damages under 15 U.S.C. Section 1117. The complaint also demands treble damages for fraud alleged to have been involved in the “accumulation and dissemination of confidential information.”

The case is Donut Joe’s, Inc. v. Werner, et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-01578-UNAS-VEH, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Southern Division, filed on August 26, 2013.