Replies to post #9531 on Gen 2 Technologies Inc (MNIZ)

[shibainu12345]

Doesn’t matter how much. It sets precedence and strengthens their patent defensibility. Federal judges are supposed to respect the decision of their counterparts so it makes future cases more promising.

[MrMojoRisin]

Looks to me like they asked for way more than that.... :-)

Document 1 Filed 11/13/17 Page 6 of 6

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays this Court grant the following relief against Defendant iSee Automation, Inc.:
1. A judgment declaring that BRK owns the Patent and the Subject Technology pursuant to the Patent Assignment Agreement;
2. A judgment declaring that BRK owns BRK’s Mark, which that is the subject of and described in the Trademark Application, pursuant to the Patent Assignment Agreement and ordering iSee to formally transfer ownership of BRK’s Mark to BRK with the United States Patent and Trademark Office;
3. A judgment declaring that BRK entitled to revenues from contracts associated with the Helmet System Patent and Subject Technology and the use of BRK’s Mark, including such contracts entered into between iSee and Rogers Media, pursuant to the Revenue Assignment Agreement;
4. A judgment for damages caused to BRK by iSee’s breaches of the Patent Assignment Agreement and Revenue Assignment Agreement, in an amount to be proven at trial. DATED this 13th day of November, 2017.
COMPLAINT - 6
4850-1307-1441
s/K. Michael Fandel
K. Michael Fandel, WSBA No. 16281 MILLER NASH GRAHAM & DUNN LLP Pier 70, 2801 Alaskan Way, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98121-1128 Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone] Email: [e-mail]
Attorney for Plaintiff BRK, Inc.
MILLER NASH GRAHAM & DUNN LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
T: 206.624.8300 | F: 206.340.9599
PIER 70
2801 ALASKAN WAY, SUITE 300 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98121