Itchmo Forums for Cats & Dogs Brought to you by Itchmo: Essential news, humor and info for cats, dogs and pet owners.
November 26, 2014, 04:31:30 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  

Go To Itchmo.com: Read the latest cat, dog and pet news, pet food recall info, product reviews and more — updated daily.


Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Wysong vs Purina Over Probiotics patent  (Read 1872 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Cato
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1322



« on: March 13, 2009, 05:02:13 PM »

Wysong and Purina have filed law suits against one another over probiotics technology in petfood.  Wysong claims to not only have been using the technology years before Purina obtained the patent, but to also have invented the technology.  I don;t care who invented the technology but what concerns me is that Purina is apparantly preventing other petfood makers from using probiotics in their petfood formulations.  That's not right! 
See http://www.wysong.net/wysong-vs-purina.php
« Last Edit: March 13, 2009, 05:03:55 PM by Cato » Logged
Steve
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1827



« Reply #1 on: March 13, 2009, 05:17:07 PM »

Stop Buying Nestle Products.

http://www.nestle.com/Brands/BrandHome.htm

It's time this company learns a lesson until they "get it".

5 Controversy and criticism

    * 5.1 Marketing of formula
    * 5.2 Compensation from Ethiopian Government
    * 5.3 Nestlé Purina in Venezuela
    * 5.4 Bottled water
    * 5.5 Genetically-modified organisms
    * 5.6 Slave-labour Suppliers
    * 5.7 Outsourcing and Price-Fixing
    * 5.8 Melamine in Chinese milk
    * 5.9 Misleading advertising claims about Maggi noodles
« Last Edit: March 13, 2009, 05:33:13 PM by Steve » Logged
lesliek
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 10319


Trooper,Remy & Fragile


« Reply #2 on: March 13, 2009, 07:00:06 PM »

You missed one:
6  misleading ads about extended life for your dog when eating Purina dog chow
Logged

"the world's most inept extortionist"
Pita_Purr_Parler
Guest
« Reply #3 on: March 14, 2009, 04:14:24 AM »

Current Docket:
Quote

10/29/2008   1    COMPLAINT
against defendant Wysong Corporation Jury Demand,, filed by Nestec S.A.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet, # 3 Original Filing Form) (Entered: 10/29/2008)
10/29/2008   2    NOTICE OF PROCESS SERVER by Plaintiff Nestec S.A. Process Server: Midstate Court Services  (Entered: 10/29/2008)
10/29/2008   3    DISCLOSURE OF CORPORATION INTERESTS CERTIFICATE by Plaintiff Nestec S.A.Parent companies: Nestle S.A., Subsidiaries: None, Publicly held company: Nestle S.A.,.  (Entered: 10/29/2008)
10/29/2008       Summons Issued as to defendant Wysong Corporation. (DLB) (Entered: 10/29/2008)
10/29/2008       Case Opening Notification - Consents issued to all parties, Disclosure of Corporate Interest issued to defendant. Judge Assigned: Hon. Frederick R. Buckles, U.S. Magistrate Judge. (DLB) (Entered: 10/29/2008)
10/29/2008       Receipt 4644003542 in the amount of $350.00 for CIVIL FILING FEE on behalf of BRYAN CAVE LLP (CCAM) (Entered: 10/29/2008)
10/30/2008   4    REPORT to Commissioner of filing or determination of an action. Mailed to:Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark OfficeP.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, VA 22313-1450 (DLB) (Entered: 10/30/2008)
11/18/2008   5    ENTRY of Appearance by Jeffrey H. Kass for Defendant Wysong Corporation.  (Entered: 11/18/2008)
11/18/2008   6    ENTRY of Appearance by John W. Kepler, III for Defendant Wysong Corporation. (Entered: 11/18/2008)
11/18/2008   7    ENTRY of Appearance by Daniel T. Simpson, Jr for Defendant Wysong Corporation. (Entered: 11/18/2008)
11/18/2008   8    ENTRY of Appearance by Stacy L. Skornia for Defendant Wysong Corporation. (Entered: 11/18/2008)
11/18/2008   9    MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 Complaint by Defendant Wysong Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Entered: 11/18/2008)
11/18/2008   10    ENTRY of Appearance by James B. Surber for Plaintiff Nestec S.A..(Entered: 11/18/2008)
11/18/2008   12    ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File an Answer or Other Respond to the Complaint [Doc. # 9] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant Wysong Corporation shall have to and including December 17, 2008, by which to answer or otherwise respond to plaintiff's Complaint in this cause. Granting 9 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. Re 9 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 Complaint. Answer due by 12/17/2008. Signed by Mag Judge Frederick R Buckles on 11/18/2008. (NCL) (Entered: 11/18/2008)
11/20/2008   13    DISCLOSURE OF CORPORATION INTERESTS CERTIFICATE by Defendant Wysong CorporationParent companies: None, Subsidiaries: None, Publicly held company: None,.  (Entered: 11/20/2008)
11/20/2008   14    CJRA ORDER (jgw). Judge Mag Judge Frederick R Buckles termed. Case reassigned to Judge Honorable Charles A. Shaw for all further proceedings. (NCL) (Entered: 11/20/2008)
12/15/2008   15    MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer or Otherwise Respond to the Complaint by Defendant Wysong Corporation.  (Entered: 12/15/2008)
12/16/2008   16    Docket Text ORDER re: [Doc. 15] Motion for Extension of Time to Answer, filed by Defendant Wysong Corporation; ORDERED GRANTED. Defendant shall answer or otherwise respond to plaintiff's complaint on or before January 16, 2009. Signed by Honorable Charles A. Shaw on December 16, 2008. (LTR) (Entered: 12/16/2008)
01/16/2009   17    Defendant/Counterclaimant Wysong Corporation's ANSWER to 1 Complaint Affirmative Defenses, COUNTERCLAIM against plaintiff Nestec S.A. by Wysong Corporation. (Entered: 01/16/2009)
01/22/2009   18    First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer to Defendant Wysong's Counterclaims, First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply Defendant Wysong's Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaims, by Plaintiff Nestec S.A..  (Entered: 01/22/2009)
01/23/2009       Docket Text ORDER Re: Doc. 18 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response to Defendant Wysong's Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaims by Plaintiff Nestec S.A.; ORDERED GRANTED. Plaintiff shall have up to and including February 16, 2009 in which to file an answer, reply, or other responsive pleading. Signed by Honorable Charles A. Shaw on January 23, 2009. (MBP) (Entered: 01/23/2009)
02/13/2009   19    MOTION to Dismiss :Counts II and III of Wysong's Counterclaim and to Strike Wysong's Affirmative Defense No. 10 by Plaintiff Nestec S.A., Counter Defendant Nestec S.A.. (Entered: 02/13/2009)
02/13/2009   20    MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion re 19 MOTION to Dismiss :Counts II and III of Wysong's Counterclaim and to Strike Wysong's Affirmative Defense No. 10 filed by Plaintiff Nestec S.A., Counter Defendant Nestec S.A..  (Entered: 02/13/2009)
02/13/2009   21    ANSWER to Counterclaim by Nestec S.A..(Entered: 02/13/2009)
02/20/2009   22    STIPULATION for Substitution of Counsel by Defendant Wysong Corporation, Counter Claimant Wysong Corporation.  (Entered: 02/20/2009)
02/20/2009   23    MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 20 Memorandum in Support of Motion, 19 MOTION to Dismiss :Counts II and III of Wysong's Counterclaim and to Strike Wysong's Affirmative Defense No. 10 by Defendant Wysong Corporation, Counter Claimant Wysong Corporation. (Entered: 02/20/2009)
02/20/2009   24    ENTRY of Appearance by Francis X. Duda for Defendant Wysong Corporation, Counter Claimant Wysong Corporation.(Entered: 02/20/2009)
02/20/2009   25    ENTRY of Appearance by Joel D. Monson for Defendant Wysong Corporation, Counter Claimant Wysong Corporation. Entered: 02/20/2009)
02/20/2009   26    ENTRY of Appearance by Dennis S. Harms for Defendant Wysong Corporation, Counter Claimant Wysong Corporation.  (Entered: 02/20/2009)
02/25/2009       Docket Text ORDER Re: Doc. 23 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response to 19 Nestec S.A.'s MOTION to Dismiss Counts II and III of Wysong's Counterclaim and to Strike Wysong's Affirmative Defense No. 10 filed by Defendant/Counter Claimant Wysong Corporation; ORDERED GRANTED. Wysong Corporation shall have to and including March 2, 2009 to file its response to Nestec S.A.'s motion to dismiss and to strike. Signed by Honorable Charles A. Shaw on February 25, 2009. (MBP) (Entered: 02/25/2009)
03/02/2009   27    MOTION for Leave to File Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaims by Defendant Wysong Corporation, Counter Claimant Wysong Corporation.  (Entered: 03/02/2009)
03/02/2009   28    Amended ANSWER to 1 Complaint, COUNTERCLAIM against plaintiff Nestec S.A. by Wysong Corporation.(Entered: 03/02/2009)
03/02/2009   29    MOTION to Stay by Counter Claimants Wysong Corporation, Wysong Corporation, Defendant Wysong Corporation. (Entered: 03/02/2009)
03/02/2009   30    MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion re 29 MOTION to Stay filed by Counter Claimants Wysong Corporation, Wysong Corporation, Defendant Wysong Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of R. Wysong)(Entered: 03/02/2009)
03/06/2009   31    MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Defendant Wysong's Motion to Stay by Counter Defendants Nestec S.A., Nestec S.A., Plaintiff Nestec S.A..  (Entered: 03/06/2009)
03/09/2009   32    Docket Text ORDER re: [Doc. 31] Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Wysong's Motion to Stay, filed by Nestec S.A.; ORDERED GRANTED. Nestec S.A. shall have up to and including March 23, 2009, to file a memorandum in opposition. Signed by Honorable Charles A. Shaw on March 9, 2009. (LTR) (Entered: 03/09/2009)

Here's the complaint filed by Nestle SA: Docket Entry #1

* nestle_wysong_complaint.pdf (109.4 KB - downloaded 131 times.)
« Last Edit: March 14, 2009, 04:17:07 AM by Offy » Logged
Pita_Purr_Parler
Guest
« Reply #4 on: March 14, 2009, 04:15:27 AM »

Here's Wysong's Answer Docket Entry 17 & Counter and Nestle's Answer to it Docket Entry 21:

*Wysong's Amended Answer is too large to post, if anybody wants a copy of Docket entry 28, just let me know & I'll email it to you.


Excerpt from Docket Entry 28: Wysong's Amended Answer (which IMO should be required reading for ALL of the PFC's):
Quote

COUNT III - SHERMAN ACT VIOLATIONS/PATENT MISUSE AND ATTEMPT TO MONOPOLIZE
COMES NOW defendant/counterclaim plaintiff Wysong Corporation, by and through undersigned counsel, and for Count III of its counterclaim respectfully represents unto the Court as follows:
41. Wysong incorporates paragraphs 1-40 of the Counterclaim as if more fully set
forth herein.
42. As more fully stated in paragraphs 15 through 29, supra, Nestec obtained Claims
1-17 of the ‘569 patent by knowingly and willingly failing to disclose to the PTO certain prior art, existing invention, and/or existing products which utilized the same or substantially the same methods, processes, and end products that are contemplated by Claims 1-17 of the ‘569 patent.
43. On information and belief, neither Nestec nor any of its subsidiaries actually offers for sale any dried, ready-to-eat pet food kibble comprising a gelatinized starch matrix with a lipid coating including a probiotic microorganism, but instead seeks to generate revenue only by threatening infringement litigation by and through license agreement with manufacturers of probiotic pet foods.
13
44. On information and belief, Wysong believes that Nestec seeks to obtain through
threats of expensive and time consuming litigation license agreements from each of at least 25 companies that use, or advertise the use, of probiotics in the sale of natural pet food products with the intention of fixing prices, limiting competition, inflating prices and attempting to control, directly or indirectly, the probiotic pet food market in the United States.
45. Despite the fact that Nestec and its parent, Nestle S.A., and its wholly owned
subsidiary, Nestle Purina Pet Care Global Resources, Inc., are aware that Patent ‘569 was obtain without full disclosure of Wysong’s prior art, Nestec has threatened protracted litigation over the patent which was fraudulently obtained by concealing Wysong’s prior art and through misrepresentation and failure to disclose material facts at the time the patent application was filed in 1997.
46. Because Nestec, by and through its parent, Nestle, and its subsidiary, Purina,
dominate a large part of the pet food market in the United States, the threatened patent suits coupled with proposed licensing agreements are nothing more than an attempt to control and to monopolize the probiotic pet food market.
47. Nestec has conspired with its parent Nestle, and the parent’s wholly owned subsidiary, Purina, to destroy competition in an attempt to control the market in the probiotic natural pet food market in the United States through threatened infringement litigation with Wysong and other probiotic pet food manufacturers and distributors.
48. The probiotic pet food market consists of various manufacturers of natural pet foods, including Wysong, who manufacture and sell natural probiotic pet food products to distributors for wholesale and retail distribution in the United States.
14
49. The probiotic pet food market is a nationwide market which includes various trade mark products which use the probiotic pet food process.
50. Nestec has sought to destroy competition in the probiotic pet food market through the licensing, or attempted licensing, of its improperly obtained and invalidly patented product(s) (i.e. method) from many, if not all, of the competing manufacturers and distributors of natural pet food products, including Wysong.
51. Nestec has tried through its licensing scheme to limit the sale of probiotic products unless such products are covered by its licensing agreement despite the fact that it has not identified any specific product or products it contends are in conflict with its patent.
52. Nestec has engaged in predatory and anticompetitive conduct through threatened infringement litigation in an attempt to dominate and control the probiotic market for pet food.
53. Nestec has engaged in predatory and anticompetitive conduct through the licensing or attempted licensing of its improperly obtained and invalidly patented coating process and/or licensing of product(s) of competing manufacturers and distributors, including Wysong.
54. As Nestec holds the ‘569 patent, it can lessen or destroy competition in the U.S. market for dried, ready-to-eat pet food kibble comprising a gelatinized starch matrix with a lipid coating including a probiotic microorganism by threatening expensive and lengthy litigation against competitors with the intention of monopolizing the domestic market for these products.
55. These actions directly affect, artificially inflate and attempt to control the market for dried, ready-to-eat pet food kibble comprising a gelatinized starch matrix with a lipid coating including a probiotic microorganism, as competitors must pass-on the expenses of the licensing agreements to the consumer and mass distributors.
15
56. Nestec has improperly sought to enforce the ‘569 patent against Wysong through the filing of the complaint, when Nestec knew or should have known that the ‘569 patent is invalid and unenforceable in light of the proceedings before the EPO during the prosecution of related patent applications, EP 97200830 and EP 97200047, to which the ‘569 patent claims priority.
57. Nestec has improperly sought to enforce the ‘569 patent through the filing of the complaint, when Nestec knew or should have known that the ‘569 patent is invalid and unenforceable as anticipated or obvious, or for otherwise failing to comply with the U.S. Patent Laws, including 35 U.S.C. § 101-103, 111-113, and 133.
58. Nestec’s false assertion over patent rights that were known or should have been
known to Nestec to be invalid had a substantial adverse effect on the price of probiotics pet foods within the market to Wysong’s disadvantage, decreasing the sale of its products and attempting to fix prices and thereby caused harm to Wysong, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and Section 3 of the Clayton Act.
59. If Nestec succeeds in its scheme to control the market through its licensing
agreements, the effect will be to artificially inflate and fix prices as the smaller companies are squeezed out of the market prermitting Nestec to set the minimum prices for probiotic pet food products and even eliminate these products in favor of its pet food products which do not use probiotics.
60. In summary, Nestec, alone and in combination with its parents and subsidiaries, have combined and conspired to fix prices, to control and eliminate competition, and to unreasonably restrain interstate commerce in the probiotic pet food market in the United States, directly causing injury and damages to Wysong by disparaging its products and its right to
16
continue to manufacture, sell and distribute probiotic products resulting in the diminution of sale ands and other damages which are the direct proximate result of the actions of Nestec and its parent and its subsidiary as Wysong concedes that this claim and the following claim for vertical and horizontal price fixing are premised on the defense to the ‘569 patent claims which have been challenged in the United States Patent Office and in this court as stated herein.
61. Nestec’s Sherman and Clayton Acts violations are such the Wysong is entitled to treble damages pursuant to Section 4 of the Clayton Act.
WHEREFORE, Wysong demands judgment in its favor on all Counts of the Counterclaim and award the following relief to Wysong:
A. Declare that Wysong’s products and use of probiotics do not infringe Claims 1-17
of the ‘569 patent;
B. Declare that Claims 1-17 of the ‘569 patent are invalid and unenforceable;
C. Declare that Nestec S.A. has violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act [15 U.S.C. § 1] and Section 3 of the Clayton Act [15 U.S.C. § 14] and abused and misused its patent rights in an attempt to control the market
D. Award both actual and punitive damages to Wysong, including treble damages
under the Sherman and the Clayton Acts, namely, 15 U.S.C. § 1 and 15 U.S.C. § 14;
E. Award Wysong attorneys’ fees and costs associated with the defense of the
Complaint and the bringing and prosecution of the Counterclaim; and
F. Order such other relief this Court deems just and proper.
17

* nestle_wysong_answer.pdf (63.72 KB - downloaded 119 times.)
* nestle answer wyson.pdf (24.12 KB - downloaded 158 times.)
« Last Edit: March 14, 2009, 04:38:22 AM by Offy » Logged
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Copyright 2007 Itchmo.com: Read the latest cat, dog and pet news, pet food recall info, product reviews and more — updated daily.
Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines | Sitemap