This case was last updated from PACER on 05/30/2021 at 09:34:26 (UTC).

Seiko Epson Corporation et al v. E TOP, LLC et al

Case Summary

On March 31, 2021, Seiko Epson Corporation ("Seiko Epson"), Epson America, Inc. ("Epson America") and Epson Portland Inc. ("Epson Portland”) (collectively, “Epson” or “Plaintiffs”), represented by Brenna K. Legaard of K & L Gates, LLP filed an intellectual property lawsuit against E Top, LLC ("E Top"), Shuping Hong Hurley and Xuming Hong (collectively, “Defendants”), seeking declaratory relief, injunctive relief and damages for alleged infringement of patented technology related generally to ink cartridges for printers owned by the Plaintiff. This case was filed in the United States District Court for the district of Oregon with Judge John V. Acosta presiding. 

 

In its complaint, Plaintiffs alleged that “This is an action for patent infringement of United States Patent No. 6,955,422 ("the '422 patent"), United States Patent No. 8,794,749 ("the '749 patent"), and United States Patent No. 8,454,116 ("the '116 patent") (collectively, "the Epson Patents").” 

 

Plaintiffs further alleged that “Defendants are contributing to the infringement of the '422 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) by non-parties by offering to sell or selling within the United States or importing into the United States components of the patented inventions set forth in the '422 patent. The components constitute a material part of the patented inventions. Defendants know that such components are especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of the '422 patent. The components are not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use,” and that “Defendants are not licensed or otherwise authorized to make, use, import, sell, or offer to sell any ink cartridge claimed in the '422 patent, and Defendants' conduct is, in every instance, without Epson's consent.”



Plaintiffs also alleged that “On information and belief, defendants Shuping Hong Hurley and Xuming Hong, as members of defendant E Top, LLC, direct and control the infringing activities of defendant E Top and have taken and continue to take active steps to encourage and induce defendant E Top to infringe by actively running and directing the businesses, including but not limited to being the principal decision makers regarding the promotion, advertising, and sale of products that infringe the '422 patent on Defendants' storefronts on internet marketplaces.”

 

Plaintiffs have laid down three claims for relief wherein infringement of one or more claims of ‘422, ‘749 and ‘116 patent have been alleged. 

 

In its prayer for relief, Plaintiffs have requested the Court to declare that Epson Patents are valid and enforceable, and that Defendants have infringed and are infringing the Epson Patents. Plaintiffs further requested the Court to grant preliminary and permanent injunction against Defendants from from continued infringement of the Epson Patents, that the Defendants be ordered to pay Epson its damages caused by Defendants' infringement of the Epson Patents, and that such damages be trebled, together with interest thereon along with costs of litigation. 

 

Disclaimer: This case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the status of this case. Sign up to view the latest case updates and court documents.




 








Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    3:21-CV-00484

  • Filing Date:

    03/31/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Intellectual Property - Patent

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

John V. Acosta

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

Epson Portland Inc.

Seiko Epson Corporation

Epson America, Inc.

Defendants

Shuping Hong Hurley

E TOP, LLC

Xuming Hong

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

Brenna K. Legaard

Attorney at K & L Gates LLP

1 Sw Columbia St, Ste 1900, 97204

Portland, OR 97204

Tigran Guledjian

Attorney at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP

865 S. Figueroa Street, 10Th Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543

Richard H. Doss

Attorney at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP

865 S. Figueroa Street, 10Th Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543

Elizabeth Heather White

Attorney at K&L Gates LLP

One Sw Columbia Street, Suite 1900

Portland, OR 97204

 

Court Documents

#1

#13

#11

#10

#9

#7

#6

#5

#4

#3

#2

1 #7

Proposed Summons

1 #6

Civil Cover Sheet

1 #5

Exhibit E

1 #4

Exhibit D

1 #3

Exhibit C

1 #2

Exhibit B

1 #1

Exhibit A

7 More Documents Available
View All Documents

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/29/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#13) Notice of Attorney Substitution:Attorney Elizabeth White is substituted as counsel of record in place of Attorney Brenna K. Legaard Filed by All Plaintiffs. (White, Elizabeth) (Entered: 04/29/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#12) ORDER by Judge Acosta: GRANTING Motion for Extension of Time to Answer #11 . Deadline for Answer is extended to 5/24/2021. (pjg) (Entered: 04/23/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/22/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#11) Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint, #1 . Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Legaard, Brenna) (Entered: 04/22/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/20/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#10) Patent Report: This report is submitted pursuant to 35 U.S.C. section 290, which requires the clerks of the courts of the United States, within one month after the filing of an action under this title shall give notice thereof in writing to the Commissioner, setting forth so far as known the names and addresses of the parties, name of the inventor, and the designating number of the patent upon which the action has been brought. If any other patent is subsequently included in the action he shall give like notice thereof. Within one month after the decision is rendered or a judgment issued the clerk of the court shall give notice thereof to the Director. The Director shall, on receipt of such notices, enter the same in the file of such patent. (sb) (Entered: 04/20/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/05/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#9) Return of Service Executed as to All Defendants. Service specifically made upon Other Agency. (Legaard, Brenna) (Entered: 04/05/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#8) ORDER by Judge Acosta: GRANTING Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice #6 for Attorney Tigran Guledjian and Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice #7 for Attorney Richard H. Doss. (pjg) (Entered: 04/02/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketClerk's Review of Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Pro Hac Vice admission requested by attorney Richard H. Doss. Filing fee in the amount of $300 collected; Agency Tracking ID: AORDC-8022194 #7 : Reviewed and Ready for Ruling. (ecp) (Entered: 04/02/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketClerk's Review of Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Pro Hac Vice admission requested by attorney Tigran Guledjian. Filing fee in the amount of $300 collected; Agency Tracking ID: AORDC-8022153 #6 : Reviewed and Ready for Ruling. (ecp) (Entered: 04/02/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#7) Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Pro Hac Vice admission requested by attorney Richard H. Doss. Filing fee in the amount of $300 collected; Agency Tracking ID: AORDC-8022194. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Legaard, Brenna) (Entered: 04/02/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#6) Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Pro Hac Vice admission requested by attorney Tigran Guledjian. Filing fee in the amount of $300 collected; Agency Tracking ID: AORDC-8022153. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Legaard, Brenna) (Entered: 04/02/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#5) Report on the Filing or Determination of an Action Regarding a Patent or Trademark (AO Form 120). Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Legaard, Brenna) Modified on 4/7/2021 to add language (sb). (Entered: 04/02/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/01/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#4) Summons Issued Electronically as to E TOP, LLC, Xuming Hong, Shuping Hong Hurley. NOTICE: Counsel shall print and serve the summonses and all documents issued by the Clerk at the time of filing upon all named parties in accordance with Local Rule 3-5. (sb) (Entered: 04/01/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/31/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#3) Notice of Case Assignment to Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta and Discovery and Pretrial Scheduling Order. NOTICE: Counsel shall print and serve the summonses and all documents issued by the Clerk at the time of filing upon all named parties in accordance with Local Rule 3-5. Discovery is to be completed by 7/29/2021. Joint Alternate Dispute Resolution Report is due by 8/30/2021. Pretrial Order is due by 8/30/2021. Ordered by Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta. (sb) (Entered: 03/31/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/31/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#2) Corporate Disclosure Statement . Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Legaard, Brenna) (Entered: 03/31/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/31/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#1) Complaint. Filing fee in the amount of $402 collected. Agency Tracking ID: AORDC-8018626 Filer is subject to the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1. Jury Trial Requested: Yes. Filed by Seiko Epson Corporation, Epson America, Inc., Epson Portland Inc. against All Defendants (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D, #5 Exhibit E, #6 Civil Cover Sheet, #7 Proposed Summons). (Legaard, Brenna) (Entered: 03/31/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where Epson Portland Inc. is a litigant

Latest cases where SEIKO EPSON CORPORATION is a litigant

Latest cases where Epson America, Inc. is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer Richard H Doss