Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. None: Prestige Flag Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Standard Golf Co et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-laEg for more info.
Citation preview
-1- SMRH:426167200.1 COMPLAINT
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
SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP A Limited Liability Partnership Including Professional Corporations
MICHAEL MURPHY (Cal. Bar No. 234695) [email protected] Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP 12275 El Camino Real, Suite 200 San Diego, California 92130 Telephone: (858) 720-8900 Facsimile: (858) 509-3691 Attorney for Plaintiff PRESTIGE FLAG MFG. CO., INC.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
PRESTIGE FLAG MFG. CO., INC.,a California corporation,
Plaintiff,
v. STANDARD GOLF CO, an Iowa corporation, and DOES 1–10, inclusive,
Defendants.
Case No. ___ COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
'14CV1574 JLBJAH
-2- SMRH:426167200.1 COMPLAINT
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
Plaintiff Prestige Flag Mfg. Co., Inc. (“Prestige”) complains and allege as
follows against Defendant Standard Golf Co. (“Standard”).
THE PARTIES
1. Plaintiff is a California corporation, having a principal place of
business at 591 Camino De La Reina # 917, San Diego, California 92108.
2. On information and belief, Defendant Standard is an Iowa corporation,
having a principal place of business at 6620 Nordic Drive, P.O. Box 68, Cedar Falls,
Iowa 50613.
3. The true names, identities and capacities, whether individual, associate,
corporate or otherwise, of Defendants DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, and each of them
(“the DOE Defendants”), are unknown to Prestige at this time, who therefore sues
the DOE Defendants by such fictitious names. When the true names and capacities
or participation of the DOE Defendants are ascertained, Prestige will amend this
complaint to assert the true names, identities and capacities. Prestige is informed
and believes and thereon alleges that each of the DOE Defendants sued herein is
responsible for the wrongful acts alleged herein, and is therefore liable to Prestige in
some manner for the events and happenings alleged in this complaint. Prestige is
informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all times herein mentioned, the
DOE Defendants were and are doing business and/or residing in this District.
NATURE OF THE ACTION
4. This is a civil action against Defendant for infringement of United
States Design Patent No. D564,405 (“the ’D405 Patent”) arising under the patent
laws of the United States, Title 35 of the United States Code.
-3- SMRH:426167200.1 COMPLAINT
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
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction of this action under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1331 (federal question) and 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a) (any Act of Congress relating to
patents).
6. This Court has specific and general personal jurisdiction over
Defendant pursuant to due process and/or the California Long Arm Statute because
Defendant has committed and continues to commit acts of infringement in violation
of 35 U.S.C. §§ 271(a), (b), and (c), and places infringing products into the stream
of commerce, with the knowledge or understanding that such products are sold in
the State of California, including in this judicial district. Defendant’s acts caused
and are causing injury to Prestige within this judicial district. Upon information and
belief, Defendant derives substantial revenue from the sale of infringing products
within this judicial district, expects its actions to have consequences within this
judicial district, and derives substantial revenue from interstate and international
commerce.
7. Venue is proper within this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)
because a substantial portion of the events giving rise to the claims for relief stated
in this Complaint arose in this judicial district. Specifically, Defendant has sold
infringing products in this district, and committed other acts complained of infra
within this district. In addition, venue is proper because Prestige’s principal place of
business is in this district and Prestige suffered harm in this district.
BACKGROUND FACTS
8. Plaintiff Prestige offers a line of golf products under the name Smarty 5
Reflector. The Smarty 5 Reflector screws into the top of a golf flag stick, and
contains five prisms that reflect laser light. Coupled with a range finder (a device
that sends laser light toward the Smarty 5 Reflector and receives laser light reflected
-4- SMRH:426167200.1 COMPLAINT
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
back from the Smarty 5 Reflector), the Smarty 5 Reflector enables a golfer to
accurately determine the distance between the golfer and the golf flag stick.
9. The innovative design of Prestige’s Smarty 5 Reflector is protected
through a design patent issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
Prestige’s design patent covers the ornamental features of the Smarty 5 Reflector,
such as its shape and the location and distribution of prisms throughout the device.
Prestige owns all right, title, and interest in the asserted design patent, the ’405
Patent, titled “Flagpole Reflector,” a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A. The
design claimed in the ’405 Patent is embodied in Prestige’s Smarty 5 Reflector.
10. On information and belief, Defendant Standard is a manufacturer of
golf course accessories. Its products are sold by over 250 distributors on six
continents, and it manufactures, stores, sells, and distributes many of its products in
the United States.
11. On information and belief, Defendant has imported into or sold in the
United States its Laser Reflector product, which infringes the ’405 Patent.
Defendant has not obtained permission from Prestige to use Prestige’s design
claimed in the ’405 Patent. Defendant had many options in developing its Laser
Reflector. Defendant chose to infringe Prestige’s design patent by making, using,
selling or offering for sale, and/or importing its Laser Reflector product during the
term of Prestige’s patent.
12. On information and belief, the resemblance between Defendant’s Laser
Reflector and the Smarty 5 Reflector (and the design claimed in the ’405 Patent) is
such as to deceive an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually
gives, including inducing the purchaser to purchase one supposing it to be the other.
Defendant’s Laser Reflector has an overall appearance that is substantially the same,
in view of the prior art and in the eyes of an ordinary observer, as the Smarty 5
Reflector (and the design claimed in the ’405 Patent), as demonstrated by the side-
by-side comparison below.
-5- SMRH:426167200.1 COMPLAINT
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
Figure 16
’D405
Laser Reflector
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Infringement of Design Patent
13. Prestige realleges each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1
through 12, inclusive, of this Complaint, and incorporates them herein by reference
as though fully set forth.
14. Under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), Defendant has infringed and continues to
infringe, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, the ’D405 Patent by making,
using, selling, and/or offering to sell in the United States, and/or importing into the
United States the Laser Reflector identified in this Complaint, which Laser Reflector
-6- SMRH:426167200.1 COMPLAINT
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
embodies the design covered by the ’D405 Patent. Defendant has and continues to
infringe the ’D405 Patent indirectly, under 35 U.S.C. §§ 271(b) and (c), by inducing
others to infringe the ’D405 Patent, and by committing acts that constitute
contributory infringement of the ’D405 Patent.
15. On information and belief, Defendant has gained profits by virtue of its
infringement of the ’D405 Patent.
16. On information and belief, Prestige has sustained damages as a direct
and proximate result of Defendant’s infringement of the ’D405 Patent, and, as such,
Prestige is entitled to damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 284 and/or 289.
17. On information and belief, Prestige will suffer and is suffering
irreparable harm from Defendant’s infringement of the ’D405 Patent. Prestige has
no adequate remedy at law and is, under 35 U.S.C. § 283, entitled to an injunction
against Defendant’s continuing infringement of the ’D405 Patent. Unless enjoined,
Defendant will continue its infringing conduct.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, Prestige prays:
(a) For a judgment that Defendant has infringed one or more claims
of Prestige’s asserted patent;
(b) An order and judgment preliminarily and permanently enjoining
Defendant and its officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, affiliates,
attorneys, and all others acting in privity, active concert, or participation with any of
them, and their parents, subsidiaries, divisions, successors and assigns, who receive
actual notice of the judgment by personal service or otherwise, from further acts of
infringement of Prestige’s asserted patent;
(c) That Defendant be directed to file with this court, within thirty
days after entry of any injunction in this case, a written statement, under oath,
-7- SMRH:426167200.1 COMPLAINT
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
setting forth in detail the manner in which Defendant has complied with the
injunction;
(d) A judgment awarding Prestige all damages, in an as yet
undetermined amount, adequate to compensate for Defendant’s infringement of
Prestige’s asserted patent, and in no event less than a reasonable royalty for
Defendants’ acts of infringement, including all pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest at the maximum rate permitted by law;
(e) A judgment awarding Prestige all damages, including treble
damages, based on any infringement found to be willful, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §
284, together with prejudgment interest;
(f) Costs of suit and reasonable attorneys’ fees; and
(g) Any other remedy to which Prestige may be entitled under the
law, and any other further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Prestige requests a trial by jury on all issues so triable in this action.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: July 1, 2014
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
By /s/ Michael Murphy
MICHAEL MURPHY Attorney for Plaintiff
PRESTIGE FLAG MFG. CO., INC.
