-
7/29/2019 Pro Performance Sports v. Russell Brands et. al.
1/19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
________Complaint
Grant Kinsel, Bar No. 172407
[email protected]
Michael Song, Bar No. 243675
[email protected]
Perkins Coie LLP
1888 Century Park East, Suite 1700Los Angeles, CA 90067-1721
Telephone: 310.788.9900
Facsimile 310.788.3399
Attorneys forPro Performance
Sports, LLC
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Pro Performance Sports, LLC
Plaintiff,
v.
Russell Brands LLC; Spalding
Holdings LLCDefendants.
Case No. ____________
Complaint for patent
infringement; jury trialdemand
'13CV0486 KSCJAH
-
7/29/2019 Pro Performance Sports v. Russell Brands et. al.
2/19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
_________
Complaint1
Pro Performance Sports, LLC alleges:
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. This is an action for patent infringement under Title 35 of
the
United States Code. The Court has federal-question jurisdiction
under 28
U.S.C 1331, and exclusive original jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C.
1338(a).
2. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)
and
1400 (a).
PARTIES
3. Pro Performance is a limited-liability corporation
organized
and existing under the laws of the State of California with its
principal
place of business in Carlsbad, California. Pro Performance is a
leading
provider of sports training aids and sports-related
products.
4. Pro Performance is informed and believes and thereon
alleges
that Defendant Russell Brands LLC is a Delaware entity with its
principal
place of business in Kentucky. Pro Performance is further
informed and
believes and thereon alleges that Defendant Spalding Holdings
LLC is a
Kentucky limited-liability company with its principal place of
business in
Kentucky. Russell and Spalding are collectively referred to as
Russell.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,371,965
5. Pro Performance incorporates paragraphs 1 through 4,
above.
6. U.S. Patent No. 8,371,965 (the 965 patent), entitled
Miniature Door-Mounted Basketball Hoop, issued on February 12,
2013.
-
7/29/2019 Pro Performance Sports v. Russell Brands et. al.
3/19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
_________
Complaint2
Pro Performance owns all right and title to the 965 patent. A
true and
correct copy of the 965 patent is attached as Exhibit 1.
7. Pro Performance is informed and believes and thereon
alleges
that Russell has infringed, and will continue to infringe, one
or more
claims of the 965 patent by making, using, selling, or offering
to sell in
this country (including in this judicial district), infringing
miniature door-
mounted basketball hoops. Examples of infringing miniature
door-
mounted basketball hoops, include but are not limited to,
Russells NBA
Slam Jam model 56098 sold through, at least, Target Stores in
this andother judicial districts.
8. Pro Performance has been, and will continue to be,
damaged
by Russells infringement of the 965 patent, and has been, and
will be
irreparably harmed unless Russells infringement is enjoined.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Pro Performance requests the following relief:
A. A judgment that Russell infringes the 965 patent;
B. A preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining and
restraining Russell and its officers, agents, attorneys, and
employees, and
those acting in privity or concert with them from infringing the
965
patent for its full term;
C. An award of damages to Pro Performance including pre-
judgment and post-judgment interest in an amount adequate to
compensate Pro Performance for Russells infringement of the 965
patent,
-
7/29/2019 Pro Performance Sports v. Russell Brands et. al.
4/19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
_________
Complaint3
and, if willful infringement is shown, that the damages be
trebled
pursuant to 35 U.S.C 284;
D. For costs and expenses in this action;
E. For a declaration that this is an exceptional case and an
award
of attorneys fees, disbursements, and costs of this action;
and
F. Any other further relief as the Court may deem proper.
February 28, 2013 Perkins Coie LLP
By:Grant Kinsel
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Pro Performance Sports,
LLC
s/ Grant Kinsel
-
7/29/2019 Pro Performance Sports v. Russell Brands et. al.
5/19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
_________
Complaint4
JURY TRIAL DEMAND
Pro Performance Sports, LLC demands a trial by jury on all
issues so
triable.
February 28, 2013 Perkins Coie LLP
By:Grant Kinsel
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Pro Performance Sports,LLC
s/ Grant Kinsel
-
7/29/2019 Pro Performance Sports v. Russell Brands et. al.
6/19
EXHIBIT 1
-
7/29/2019 Pro Performance Sports v. Russell Brands et. al.
7/19
-
7/29/2019 Pro Performance Sports v. Russell Brands et. al.
8/19
-
7/29/2019 Pro Performance Sports v. Russell Brands et. al.
9/19
-
7/29/2019 Pro Performance Sports v. Russell Brands et. al.
10/19
-
7/29/2019 Pro Performance Sports v. Russell Brands et. al.
11/19
-
7/29/2019 Pro Performance Sports v. Russell Brands et. al.
12/19
-
7/29/2019 Pro Performance Sports v. Russell Brands et. al.
13/19
-
7/29/2019 Pro Performance Sports v. Russell Brands et. al.
14/19
-
7/29/2019 Pro Performance Sports v. Russell Brands et. al.
15/19
-
7/29/2019 Pro Performance Sports v. Russell Brands et. al.
16/19
-
7/29/2019 Pro Performance Sports v. Russell Brands et. al.
17/19
-
7/29/2019 Pro Performance Sports v. Russell Brands et. al.
18/19
-
7/29/2019 Pro Performance Sports v. Russell Brands et. al.
19/19
