Savannah Licensing LLC v. Taco Bell Corp.

On November 29, 2022, Savannah Licensing LLC (“Plaintiff”), represented by Howard L. Wernow of Sand, Sebolt & Wernow, filed an intellectual property lawsuit against Taco Bell Corp. (“Defendant”), seeking declaratory and injunctive relief with damages for alleged infringement of U.S. patents owned by the plaintiff. This case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.

The plaintiff filed this complaint for the alleged infringement of U.S. patent Nos. 8,680,992 (“the ‘992 Patent”) and 9,454,777 (“the ‘777 Patent”) (collectively, the “Patents-in-Suit”) owned by the plaintiff.

In the complaint, the plaintiff stated, “Plaintiff is presently the owner of the ‘992 Patent, having received all right, title and interest in and to the ‘992 Patent from the previous assignee of record. Plaintiff possesses all rights of recovery under the ‘992 Patent, including the exclusive right to recover for past infringement.”

Plaintiff then alleged, “In violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, Defendant is now, and has been directly infringing, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, the ‘992 Patent. Defendant has had knowledge of infringement of the ‘992 Patent at least as of the service of the present Complaint.”

The plaintiff further alleged, “Defendant has directly infringed and continues to directly infringe at least one claim of the ‘992 Patent by making, using, at least through internal testing or otherwise, offering to sell, selling and/or importing, without limitation, the Accused Instrumentality without authority in the United States, and will continue to do so unless enjoined by this Court. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s direct infringement of the ‘992 Patent, Plaintiff has been and continues to be damaged.”

Plaintiff also alleged, “Defendant has induced others to infringe the ‘992 Patent by encouraging infringement, knowing that the acts Defendant induced constituted patent infringement, and its encouraging acts actually resulted in direct patent infringement either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.”

The plaintiff additionally alleged, “Defendant actively, knowingly, and intentionally has been and continues materially contribute to their own customers’ infringement of the ‘992 Patent, literally or by the doctrine of equivalents, by selling the Accused Instrumentality to their customers for use in end-user products in a manner that infringes one or more claims of the ‘992 Patent. Moreover, the Accused Instrumentality is not a staple article of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use.”

The plaintiff then alleged, “As a result of Defendant’s infringement of the ‘992 Patent, Plaintiff has suffered monetary damages and is entitled to a monetary judgment in an amount adequate to compensate for Defendant’s past infringement, together with interests and costs.”

Similar allegations have been made by the plaintiff with respect to other patents-in-suit.

Plaintiff presented two claims for relief from alleged infringement of the patents-in-suit.

In the prayer for relief, the plaintiff requested declaratory and injunctive relief along with an award of damages and an accounting of all infringing sales and damages.

This is a summary of a legal complaint. All statements, claims, and allegations listed herein reflect the position of the plaintiff only and do not represent the position of UniCourt. Additionally, this case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the current status of this case. To view the latest case updates and court documents, please sign up for a UniCourt account.