7/30/2019 Minarc et. al. v. Kenneth Andrew Miller et. al.
1/12
Case 2:13-cv-03538-SH Document 1 Filed 05/17/13 Page 1 of 12 Page ID #:6
7/30/2019 Minarc et. al. v. Kenneth Andrew Miller et. al.
2/12
2
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
CISLO&
THOMASLLP
AonyaLw
SUTE500
13332
nStr
SATAMONICACAFORIA90401-4110
T
310)451-0647
Fcml310)394-4477
COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs Minarc, Inc. and M3 House, LLC (collectively Plaintiffs unless
referred to individually), by and through its attorneys, allege for their complaint
against Kenneth Andrew Miller (Miller), as follows:
1. This counterclaim seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringementof United States Patents 8,109,055 (the 055 Patent), 8,109,058 (the 058
Patent), and 8,234,833 (the 833 Patent) under the provisions of 28 U.S.C.
2201 and 2202 and the patent laws of the United States, Title 35, United States
Code. Should Plaintiffs become aware of prior art that would tend to invalidate one
or more of the aforementioned patents, Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend this
complaint to seek a declaratory judgment of invalidity as well.
THE PARTIES
2. Plaintiff Minarc is a California corporation with its principal place ofbusiness located at 2324 Michigan Ave., Santa Monica, California 90404.
3. Plaintiff M3 House, LLC is a California limited liability company withits principal place of business located at 2324 Michigan Ave., Santa Monica,
California 90404.
4. Both Minarc and M3 House, LLC are involved in various aspects ofbusiness relating to affordable, modern, innovative, and sustainable building design
and construction using factory-built, sustainable materials, including panels of
standardized sizes, which are used in a way that reduces the carbon footprint of a
building and minimizes energy consumption while providing up-to-date, stylish,
and contemporary look and feel, among other things.
5. Defendant Miller, believed to be a resident of Nevada, is the owner ofKama Efficiency Building Systems, Inc. dba K-tect Sustainable Building Systems,
which manufacturers panel for building construction.
Case 2:13-cv-03538-SH Document 1 Filed 05/17/13 Page 2 of 12 Page ID #:7
7/30/2019 Minarc et. al. v. Kenneth Andrew Miller et. al.
3/12
3
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
CISLO&
THOMASLLP
AonyaLw
SUTE500
13332
nStr
SATAMONICACAFORIA90401-4110
T
310)451-0647
Fcml310)394-4477
JURISDICTION
6. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of these claimspursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1338(a), 2201, and 2202.
7. Defendant Miller is subject to personal jurisdiction in this judicialdistrict inasmuch as Defendant Miller and his company had a business relationship
with Plaintiffs and shipped and supplied materials to Plaintiffs in this judicial
district for use in at least one of Plaintiffs construction projects in this judicial
district.
8. In addition, in or about early February of 2013, Miller, through hiswife, Alaina, accused Plaintiffs of infringing one or more of the above-referenced
patents (each owned by Miller) publicly on Facebook, privately to Plaintiffs
through Plaintiffs Facebook account, and through e-mail communications directly
to Plaintiffs at their business e-mail addresses at their business address in Santa
Monica, California. Miller has also accused Plaintiffs of infringing one or more of
the above-referenced patents through its counsels communications with Plaintiffs
counsel. Miller has also accused one or both Plaintiffs of infringing the
aforementioned patents via service in this judicial district of a lawsuit against
Plaintiffs for patent infringement, albeit that said lawsuit for patent infringement
was improperly filed in Nevada state court, rather than in a federal court, as
required by 28 U.S.C. 1338. These various accusations and actions by Miller and
those acting at his behest have also been communicated to businesses in the Los
Angeles area with whom Plaintiffs are doing, or are attempting to do, business. For
these reasons, Miller is subject to personal jurisdiction in this Court.
9. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(2) inasmuch as a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to
the claim occurred in this judicial district, and the property(ies) that are undergoing
construction, or will be undergoing construction, by Plaintiffs, are present in this
judicial district.
Case 2:13-cv-03538-SH Document 1 Filed 05/17/13 Page 3 of 12 Page ID #:8
7/30/2019 Minarc et. al. v. Kenneth Andrew Miller et. al.
4/12
4
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
CISLO&
THOMASLLP
AonyaLw
SUTE500
13332
nStr
SATAMONICACAFORIA90401-4110
T
310)451-0647
Fcml310)394-4477
10. Miller has publicly and privately accused Plaintiffs of infringing the055 Patent, the 058 Patent, and the 833 Patent. Plaintiffs deny Millers
allegations of infringement. Plaintiffs do not infringe, and have not in any way
infringed, the 055 Patent, the 058 Patent, or the 833 Patent. As such, an actual
and justiciable controversy exists between Miller and Plaintiffs with respect to
Plaintiffs alleged infringement of the 055 Patent, the 058 Patent, and the 833
Patent.
COUNT I
(Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of the 055 Patent)
11. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate the facts and allegations of paragraphs1 through 10 above, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
12. Plaintiffs have not, nor have they ever, directly infringed,contributorily infringed, or induced others to infringe, any valid claim, if any, of the
055 Patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, willfully or
otherwise.
13. Plaintiffs technology that Miller contends infringes the 055 Patent isnot covered by any valid claim, if any, of the 055 Patent, either literally or under
the doctrine of equivalents.
14. Accordingly, there exists an actual justiciable controversy betweenMiller and Plaintiffs concerning whether any claims of the 055 Patent are infringed
by Plaintiffs.
15. Plaintiffs request a judgment declaring that Plaintiffs do not, and havenot, directly infringed, contributorily infringed, or induced others to infringe, the
055 Patent. Such a determination and declaration is necessary and appropriate at
this time so that the parties may ascertain their respective rights and duties
regarding the non-infringement of the 055 Patent.
Case 2:13-cv-03538-SH Document 1 Filed 05/17/13 Page 4 of 12 Page ID #:9
7/30/2019 Minarc et. al. v. Kenneth Andrew Miller et. al.
5/12
5
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
CISLO&
THOMASLLP
AonyaLw
SUTE500
13332
nStr
SATAMONICACAFORIA90401-4110
T
310)451-0647
Fcml310)394-4477
COUNT II
(Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of the 058 Patent)
16. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate the facts and allegations of paragraphs1 through 15 above, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
17. Plaintiffs have not, nor have they ever, directly infringed,contributorily infringed, or induced others to infringe, any valid claim, if any, of the
058 Patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, willfully or
otherwise.
18. Plaintiffs technology that Miller contends infringes the 058 Patent isnot covered by any valid claim, if any, of the 058 Patent, either literally or under
the doctrine of equivalents.
19. Accordingly, there exists an actual justiciable controversy betweenMiller and Plaintiffs concerning whether any claims of the 058 Patent are infringed
by Plaintiffs.
20. Plaintiffs request a judgment declaring that Plaintiffs do not, and havenot, directly infringed, contributorily infringed, or induced others to infringe, the
058 Patent. Such a determination and declaration is necessary and appropriate at
this time so that the parties may ascertain their respective rights and duties
regarding the non-infringement of the 058 Patent.
COUNT III
(Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of the 833 Patent)
21. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate the facts and allegations of paragraphs1 through 20 above, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
22. Plaintiffs have not, nor have they ever, directly infringed,contributorily infringed, or induced others to infringe, any valid claim, if any, of the
833 Patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, willfully or
otherwise.
Case 2:13-cv-03538-SH Document 1 Filed 05/17/13 Page 5 of 12 Page ID #:10
7/30/2019 Minarc et. al. v. Kenneth Andrew Miller et. al.
6/12
6
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
CISLO&
THOMASLLP
AonyaLw
SUTE500
13332
nStr
SATAMONICACAFORIA90401-4110
T
310)451-0647
Fcml310)394-4477
23. Plaintiffs technology that Miller contends infringes the 833 Patent isnot covered by any valid claim, if any, of the 833 Patent, either literally or under
the doctrine of equivalents.
24. Accordingly, there exists an actual justiciable controversy betweenMiller and Plaintiffs concerning whether any claims of the 833 Patent are infringed
by Plaintiffs.
25. Plaintiffs request a judgment declaring that Plaintiffs do not, and havenot, directly infringed, contributorily infringed, or induced others to infringe, the
833 Patent. Such a determination and declaration is necessary and appropriate at
this time so that the parties may ascertain their respective rights and duties
regarding the non-infringement of the 833 Patent.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully requests that this Court enter a
judgment in its favor and against Miller as follows:
(1) Declaring that Plaintiffs do not infringe, and have not ever infringedU.S. Patent Nos. 8,109,055, 8,109,058, and/or 8,234,833 directly,
contributorily, by inducement, literally, under the doctrine of
equivalents, willfully, or otherwise;
(2) Deeming this to be an exceptional case within the meaning of 35U.S.C. 285, and awarding Plaintiffs its attorneys fees, expenses, and
costs incurred herein;
///
///
///
Case 2:13-cv-03538-SH Document 1 Filed 05/17/13 Page 6 of 12 Page ID #:11
7/30/2019 Minarc et. al. v. Kenneth Andrew Miller et. al.
7/12
Case 2:13-cv-03538-SH Document 1 Filed 05/17/13 Page 7 of 12 Page ID #:12
7/30/2019 Minarc et. al. v. Kenneth Andrew Miller et. al.
8/12
Case 2:13-cv-03538-SH Document 1 Filed 05/17/13 Page 8 of 12 Page ID #:13
7/30/2019 Minarc et. al. v. Kenneth Andrew Miller et. al.
9/12
Case 2:13-cv-03538-SH Document 1 Filed 05/17/13 Page 9 of 12 Page ID #:14
7/30/2019 Minarc et. al. v. Kenneth Andrew Miller et. al.
10/12
Case 2:13-cv-03538-SH Document 1 Filed 05/17/13 Page 10 of 12 Page ID #:15
7/30/2019 Minarc et. al. v. Kenneth Andrew Miller et. al.
11/12
Case 2:13-cv-03538-SH Document 1 Filed 05/17/13 Page 11 of 12 Page ID #:16
7/30/2019 Minarc et. al. v. Kenneth Andrew Miller et. al.
12/12
Case 2:13-cv-03538-SH Document 1 Filed 05/17/13 Page 12 of 12 Page ID #:17