Rago v. Anglers Select - Complaint

Case 3:17-cv-02456-SK Document 1 Filed 05/01/17 Page 1 of 12
1 Byron Cooper, Bar No. 166578

Email: bcooper@teklaw.co
2 TEKLAW
380 Hamilton Ave., #1278
3 Palo Alto, CA 94302
Telephone: (650) 283-4244
4 Fax: (650) 617-3201
5 Richard T. Ogawa, Bar No. 159749
Email: richard@rtogawa.com
6 OGAWA P.C.
313 Bryant Court
7 Palo Alto, CA 94301
Phone: 650 906-0323
8
Attorneys for Plaintiff
9 GERALD STEVE RAGO
10
11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
13
14 GERALD STEVE RAGO, an Individual, Case No. 5:17-cv-2456
15
Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
16 INFRINGEMENT
VS.
17 JURY TRIAL DEMAND
ANGLERS SELECT LLC., a New Jersey
18 Limited Liability Company dba ECOPRO
TUNGSTEN; JUSTIN LUCAS, an
19 individual; and DOES 1 through 10,
Inclusive,
20
Defendants.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
Case No. 5:17-cv-2456
1 Plaintiff Gerald Steve Rago ("Rago") complains and alleges as follows against
2 Defendants Anglers Select LLC dba EcoPRO Tungsten (EcoPRO); Justin Lucas
3 (Lucas), and DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive (collectively Defendants).
4 THE PARTIES
5 1. Plaintiff Gerald Steve Rago is an individual who resides at 1432
6 Glenwood Lane, Bishop, California 93514. Rago does business as Rago Baits and
7 designs and sells fishing baits and participates in fishing competitions as a
8 professional multi-species trophy angler.
9 2. Anglers Select LLC is a New Jersey Limited Liability Corporation that
10 does business as EcoPRO Tungsten with its principal place of business at 311
11 Mechanic Street, Boynton, New Jersey 07045. On information and belief, EcoPRO
12 designs, manufactures, offers for sale and sells fishing baits and other fishing
13 equipment.
14 3. Justin Lucas is an individual who resides at 53 Hembree Drive,
15 Guntersville, Alabama 35976. On information and belief, Lucas is the principal of
16 Lucas Fishing, LLC and participates in fishing competitions as a professional sport
17 fisherman and engages in the marketing and sale of fishing baits and other fishing
18 products.
19 4. The true names and capacities of the Defendants sued herein as DOES 1
20 through 10, inclusive, are currently unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore sues such
21 Defendants by fictitious names. Each of the Defendants designated herein as a DOE
22 is legally responsible for the unlawful acts alleged herein. Plaintiff will seek leave of
23 Court to amend this Complaint to reflect the true names and capacities of the DOE
24 Defendants when such identities become known.
25 JURISDICTION
26 5. This is a suit for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the
27 United States, Title 35 of the United States Code 1 et seq. This Court has subject
28 matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1338(a).
1
Case No. 5:17-cv-2456
1 6. This Court has personal jurisdiction over EcoPRO and Lucas because
2 each of these Defendants has committed and continues to commit acts of patent
3 infringement and have engaged in business dealings with Rago and his attorneys in
4 the State of California, including in this District. The acts by EcoPRO and Lucas
5 cause injury to Rago within this District. Upon information and belief, EcoPRO
6 derives substantial revenue from professional sport fishing products sold within this
7 District, expect their actions to have consequences within this District, and derive
8 substantial revenue from interstate and international commerce. Upon information
9 and belief, Lucas is a native Northern Californian who continues to have substantial
10 personal and professional sport fishing contact in this District.
11 VENUE AND INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
12 7. Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. 1391(c) and
13 1400(b).
14 8. Upon information and belief, EcoPRO and Lucas conduct substantial
15 business in this forum, directly or through intermediaries, including: (i) at least a
16 portion of the infringements alleged herein; and (ii) regularly doing or soliciting
17 business, engaging in other persistent courses of conduct and/or deriving substantial
18 revenue from goods and services provided to individuals in this forum. Pursuant to
19 Local Rule 3-2( c), Intellectual Property Actions are assigned on a district-wide basis.
20 BACKGROUND AND NATURE OF THE ACTION
21 9. Plaintiff Rago is the owner and designer of Rago Baits that have
22 revolutionized the sport fishing industry. Since about 2001 Rago has designed baits
23 that have won at least three Bassmaster Elite Series fishing tournaments and
24 hundreds of other tournaments around the country. Rago is well known as one of the
25 premier bait designers in the world and was the first to introduce many innovative
26 designs that were radical departures from conventional bait designs.
27 10. Ragos creative achievements have resulted in broad intellectual
28 property protection for his innovations, including patents and broad recognition of his
2
Case No. 5:17-cv-2456
1 innovations in the US and Japan as the first creator for many of his bait designs.
2 11. Ragos customers include many of the most famous professionals in
3 sport fishing who have been extremely successful with Ragos designs, including
4 Skeet Reese; Kevin Van Dam, Byron "the Batchelor" Velvick; Shaw Grigsby, Davy
5 Hite; Ish Monroe; Randy Howell; Rick Clunn; Brent Chapman; and Hank Cherry
6 among others.
7 12. There is no doubt Ragos revolutionary bait designs have enjoyed great
8 success. Very few bait designers have made tour level event winning baits, and even
9 fewer have won multiple tour level events. The number of tournament wins for
10 Ragos baits has been described by Livingston Lures CEO, Fred Battah, as
11 amazing. According to a Livingston 2013 press release Battah said When we
12 looked for bait designers around the world one name kept coming up, Rago.
13 13. In 2010 and 2011 the professionals using Ragos bait designs won the
14 Bassmaster Elite TV events and in 2014 a lure body Rago designed for Livingston
15 Lures won the Bassmaster Classic world Championship. Ragos success continues in
16 2017 with another 18 pound class bass caught using Ragos design - so far the largest
17 bass caught in the US during the 2017 season. Rago and his bait designs have been
18 featured in countless newspaper articles, magazine articles, TV shows, and numerous
19 blogs including: Outdoor Life; Field and Stream; Western Outdoor News; Bass West;
20 Bass Times; Bassmaster; and Western Outdoors, among others.
21 14. Unfortunately, the success of Rago and his innovative designs have been
22 the subject of widespread emulation by his competitors, who have attempted to
23 capitalize on Ragos success by imitating and outright copying many of Ragos most
24 successful designs.
25 15. One of many imitators is EcoPRO, which introduced a bait design
26 identical to a Rago bait design at the ICAST 2016 trade show to compete with Rago.
27 Instead of pursuing independent product development, EcoPRO chose to slavishly
28 copy Ragos innovative design, in violation of Ragos patent rights.
3
Case No. 5:17-cv-2456
1 16. EcoPRO not only slavishly copied and reproduced Ragos design, but
2 also hired fishing pro Lucas who falsely claimed to be the creator of the design to
3 assist in marketing and selling the stolen Rago design. As alleged more fully below,
4 EcoPRO and Lucas have made, used, and offered for sale a Rago bait design that is
5 protected by Ragos issued patents, and thus have engaged in illegal patent
6 infringement.
7 17. By this action, Rago seeks to put a permanent stop to EcoPRO and
8 Lucas illegal conduct and obtain compensation for the violations that have occurred.
9 THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT
10 18. On November 15, 2011, United States Patent No. D640,820 (the 820
11 Patent), entitled, SWIM BAIT FISHING LURE DESIGN was duly and legally
12 issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A true and correct copy of
13 the 820 Patent is attached as Exhibit A to this complaint.
14 19. On January 17, 2012, United States Patent No. D652,478 (the 478
15 Patent), entitled, SWIM BAIT FISHING LURE was duly and legally issued by
16 the United States Patent and Trademark Office. D true and correct copy of the 478
17 Patent is attached as Exhibit B to this complaint.
18 20. Plaintiff Rago is the assignee and owner of the right, title and interest in
19 and to the 820 Patent, and 478 Patent including the right to assert all causes of
20 action arising under said patents and the right to any remedies for infringement of
21 them.
22 DEFENDANTS INFRINGEMENTS
23 21. Without license or authorization and in violation of the patent statute,
24 Defendants have infringed and continue to infringe the 820 and 478 Patents by
25 making, using, offering for sale and/or selling to customers within this district and
26 elsewhere in the United States a fish bait called the DUDE that alleges on the
27 package Designed by Justin Lucas in both English and French.
28 22. On information and belief, the DUDE fish bait resulted from Lucas
4
Case No. 5:17-cv-2456
1 obtaining a genuine Rago Bait marketed under the trademark BV3D and
2 slavishly copying the Rago Bait and presenting the copy to EcoPRO as an original
3 Lucas design to be used, made, and offered for sale at the at the ICAST 2016 trade
4 show to compete with Ragos BV3D. Below is a picture of the infringing DUDE
5 bait as offered for sale by EcoPRO and Lucas alongside an original Rago BV3D.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21 23. Rago approached EcoPRO and Lucas after the 2016 ICAST trade show
22 and confronted Defendants regarding their false assertion that Lucas designed the
23 DUDE and asserted the design was made by Rago and copied by Lucas. After
24 being confronted with the truth, Lucas admitted he copied the design from Ragos
25 BV3D. Rago demanded that EcoPRO and Lucas immediately stop all use, sales and
26 offers for sale of the DUDE bait because the Rago BV3D design is protected by
27 Ragos design patents.
28 ///
5
Case No. 5:17-cv-2456
1 24. EcoPROs principals contacted Rago and Ragos counsel in Northern

2 California and offered to buy Ragos BV3D design after Rago confronted Lucas and
3 EcoPRO with their infringement of his design. After negotiating for months to
4 purchase the design Lucas copied, EcoPRO simply abandoned its efforts to purchase
5 or license the design and ignored all communications from Rago and his counsel.
6 25. Despite EcoPROs knowledge that the DUDE bait design was copied
7 from Rago and its knowledge of Ragos patents covering the design, EcoPRO made
8 the decision to abandon discussions to license or purchase the design and has refused
9 and failed to destroy or hand over the infringing molds to Rago, and has refused and
10 failed to acknowledge and confirm that it is no longer making, using, offering for sale
11 or selling the infringing DUDE design.
12 26. On information and belief, EcoPRO and Lucas continue to make, use,
13 offer for sale and sell the infringing DUDE bait in 2017 as evidenced by the photo
14 below.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
Case No. 5:17-cv-2456
1
2 27. EcoPROs DUDE bait design copied from Ragos BV3D is
3 covered by the Patents in Suit as demonstrated in the charts below.
4
US Patent D648,820 US Patent D652,478
5
6
7
8
9 Lucas marketing EcoPRO DUDE Lucas marketing EcoPRO DUDE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Rago Baits BV3D Rago Baits BV3D
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
Case No. 5:17-cv-2456
1 COUNT I INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. D640,820

2 28. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 27
3 as if fully set forth herein.
4 29. Defendants have in the past and still directly (and through inducement)
5 infringe, or directly infringe under the doctrine of equivalents, the claim of the 820
6 Patent by making, using, offering for sale and/or selling within this district and
7 elsewhere in the United States a swim bait fishing lure design marketed as the
8 DUDE.
9 30. Defendants have knowledge of the fact that its products infringe the
10 claim of the 820 Patent, and have direct, firsthand knowledge of the 820 Patent as a
11 result of Plaintiff informing Defendants of the 820 Patent and Defendants
12 infringement thereof by way of a letters and during negotiations after the ICAST
13 trade show in July of 2016.
14 31. Thus, Defendant have been on notice of the 820 Patent since at least the
15 date it received Plaintiff's notice in July 2016.
16 32. Upon information and belief, Defendants have not altered their
17 infringing conduct after receiving Plaintiffs notice in July, 2016.
18 33. Upon information and belief, Defendants continued infringement
19 despite their knowledge of the 820 Patent and the infringement has been objectively
20 reckless and willful.
21 34. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to recover from Defendants the damages
22 sustained by Plaintiff as a result of Defendants infringement of the 820 Patent in an
23 amount subject to proof at trial, which, by law, cannot be less than a reasonable
24 royalty, together with interest and costs as fixed by this Court under 35 U.S.C. 284.
25 COUNT II INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. D652,478
26 35. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 27
27 as if fully set forth herein.
28 ///
8
Case No. 5:17-cv-2456
1 36. Defendants have in the past and still directly (and through inducement)
2 infringe, or directly infringe under the doctrine of equivalents, the claim of the 478
3 Patent by making, using, offering for sale and/or selling within this district and
4 elsewhere in the United States a swim bait fishing lure design marketed as the
5 DUDE.
6 37. Defendants have knowledge of the fact that its products infringe the
7 claim of the 478 Patent, and have direct, firsthand knowledge of the 478 Patent as a
8 result of Plaintiff informing Defendants of the 478 Patent and Defendants
9 infringement thereof by way of a letters and during negotiations after the ICAST
10 trade show in July of 2016.
11 38. Thus, Defendant have been on notice of the 478 Patent since at least the
12 date it received Plaintiff's notice in July 2016.
13 39. Upon information and belief, Defendants have not altered their
14 infringing conduct after receiving Plaintiffs notice in July, 2016.
15 40. Upon information and belief, Defendants continued infringement
16 despite their knowledge of the 478 Patent and the infringement has been objectively
17 reckless and willful.
18 41. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to recover from Defendants the damages
19 sustained by Plaintiff as a result of Defendants infringement of the 478 Patent in an
20 amount subject to proof at trial, which, by law, cannot be less than a reasonable
21 royalty, together with interest and costs as fixed by this Court under 35 U.S.C. 284.
22 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
23 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Court enter judgment against
24 Defendants as follows:
25 A. An adjudication that Defendants have infringed the 820 and 478 Patents;
26 B. A temporary and permanent injunction against Defendants current and any
27 future infringement of the 820 and 478 Patents;
28 ///
9
Case No. 5:17-cv-2456
1 C. An award of damages to be paid by Defendants adequate to compensate

2 Plaintiff for Defendants past infringement of the 820 and 478 Patents and any
3 continuing or future infringement through the date such judgment is entered,
4 including interest, costs, expenses and an accounting of all infringing acts including,
5 but not limited to, those acts not presented at trial;
6 D. A declaration that this case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. 285, and an
7 award of Plaintiffs reasonable attorneys fees;
8 E. To the extent Defendants conduct subsequent to the date of its notice of the
9 820 and 478 Patents is found to be objectively reckless, enhanced damages pursuant
10 to 35 U.S.C. 284 for its willful infringement of the 820 and 478 Patents; and
11 F. An award to Plaintiff of such further relief at law or in equity as the Court
12 deems just and proper.
13 Respectfully Submitted,
14 Dated: May 1, 2017 TEKLAW
Byron Cooper
15 OGAWA P.C.
Richard T. Ogawa
16
By: /s/ Byron Cooper
17 Byron Cooper
18
19 GERALD STEVE RAGO.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10
Case No. 5:17-cv-2456
1 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

2 Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable pursuant to Federal
3 Rule of Civil Procedure 38.
4
5 Respectfully Submitted,
6 Dated: May 1, 2017 TEKLAW
Byron Cooper
7 OGAWA P.C.
Richard T. Ogawa
8
By: /s/ Byron Cooper
9 Byron Cooper
10
11 GERALD STEVE RAGO.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11
Case No. 5:17-cv-2456
Case 3:17-cv-02456-SK Document 1-1 Filed 05/01/17 Page 1 of 7
US00D648820S
(12) United States Design Patent do Patent No.: US D648,820 S

Rago (45) Date of Patent: : *Nov. 15, 2011
(54) SWIM BAIT FISHING LURE DESIGN Primary Examiner Catheri Oliver
(75) Inventor: Gerald S. Rago, Bishop, CA (US) Attorney, Agent, or Firm Richard T. Ogawa; Ogawa
(73) Assignee: Gerald Steve Rago, Bishop, CA (US) ---> -
(*) Notice: This patent is subject to a terminal dis
claimer. (57) CLAIM
:::::: - I claim the ornamental design for swim bait fishing lure
(**) Term: 14 Years design, as shown and described.
(21) Appl. No. 29/363,272
- DESCRIPTION
(22) Filed: Jun. 7, 2010
51) LOC (9) Cl. .................................................. 22-05 FIG. 1 is a topp view of a swim bait fishing9. lure design
9. accord
52) U.S. Cl. ...................................................... D22/131
(52) ing9. to an embodiment of myy design
design;
(58) Field of Classification Search ......... D22/126 133: FIG. 2 is a side view of a portion of the design shown in FIG.
43/42.28, 42.35, 42.45, 42.39, 42.47, 42.46, 1;
43/42.48 FIG. 3 is a bottom view of a portion of the design shown in
See application file for complete search history. FIG. 1:
FIG. 4 is a front view of the design shown in FIG. 1;
(56) References Cited FIG. 5 is a rear view of the design shown in FIG. 1; and,
FIG. 6 is a perspective view of the design of FIG. 1.
|U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS The broken lines in the drawings depict parts of the portion of
D232,549 S :}; 8/1974 Vidler .......................... D22/133 fish bait design that are not part of the claim. The broken lines
D470,564 S + 2/2003 Schlueter ..................... D22/13.1 and the structures and features they depict form no part of the
D522,607 S + 6/2006 King .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D22/133 claimed design.
D542,882 S + 5/2007 Scott ............................ D22/133

* cited by examiner 1 Claim, 6 Drawing Sheets
U.S. Patent Nov. 15, 2011 Sheet 2 of 6 US D648,820 S

z,
;?



US00D652478S
(12) United States Design Patent do Patent No.: US D652,478 S

Rago (45) Date of Patent: : *Jan. 17, 2012
(54) SWIM BAIT FISHING LURE (56) References Cited

- |U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS
(75) Inventor: Gerald Steve Rago, Bishop, CA (US) D232,549 S * 8/1974 Vidler .......................... D22/133
D470,564 S + 2/2003 Schlueter ..................... D22/131
(73) Assignee: Gerald S. Rago, Bishop, CA (US) D522,607 S + 6/2006 King ............................ D22/133
D542,882 S + 5/2007 Scott ............................ D22/133
# ,,; -
(*) Notice: This patent is subject to a terminal dis- cited by examiner
claimer. Primary Examiner Catheri Oliver
(74) Attorney, Agent, or Firm Richard T. Ogawa; Ogawa
(**) Term: 14 Years P.C.
(57) CLAIM
(21) Appl. No.- 29/366,679 Ishown
claim and
the described.
ornamental design for swim bait fishing lure, as
(22) Filed: Jul. 28, 2010 DESCRIPTION

(51) LOC (9) Cl. .................................................. 22-05 FIG. 1 is a top plan view of the swim bait fishing lure showing
the new design;
(52) U.S. Cl. ...................................................... D22/131 FIG. 2 is a side elevation view thereof;
e e e - FIG. 3 is a bottom plan view thereof;
(58) Field of Classification Search ......... D22/126133; FIG. 4 is a front elevation view thereof;
43/42.28, 42.35, 42.45, 42.39, 42.47, 42.46, FIG. 5 is a rear view thereof; and,
43/42.48 FIG. 6 is a perspective view.
See application file for complete search history. 1 Claim, 6 Drawing Sheets
U.S. Patent Jan. 17, 2012 Sheet 1 of 6 US D652,478 S


F|G. 3
F|G. 4


JS-CAND 44 (Rev. 07/16) Case 3:17-cv-02456-SK Document 1-3 Filed 05/01/17 Page 1 of 2
CIVIL COVER SHEET
The JS-CAND 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law,
except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved in its original form by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the Clerk of
Court to initiate the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS
GERALD STEVE RAGO ANGLERS SELECT LLC.; JUSTIN LUCAS
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Inyo County of Residence of First Listed Defendant Out of State.
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)
Byron Cooper, TEKLAW
380 Hamilton Ave., #1278, Palo Alto, CA 94302
(650) 283-4244
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an X in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an X in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
1 U.S. Government 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State 1 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4
of Business In This State
2 U.S. Government 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5 5
Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State
Citizen or Subject of a 3 3 Foreign Nation 6 6
Foreign Country
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an X in One Box Only)
CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES
110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 625 Drug Related Seizure 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 375 False Claims Act
120 Marine 310 Airplane 365 Personal Injury of Property 21 USC 881 423 Withdrawal 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
130 Miller Act 315 Airplane Product Product Liability 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729(a))
140 Negotiable Instrument Liability 367 Health Care/ 400 State Reapportionment
150 Recovery of Overpayment 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS 410 Antitrust
Of Veterans Benefits Slander Personal Injury 820 Copyrights 430 Banks and Banking
151 Medicare Act 330 Federal Employers Product Liability 830 Patent 450 Commerce
152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability 368 Asbestos Personal 840 Trademark 460 Deportation
Student Loans 340 Marine Injury Product 470 Racketeer Influenced and
(Excludes Veterans) 345 Marine Product Liability LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY Corrupt Organizations
153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY 710 Fair Labor Standards 861 HIA (1395ff) 480 Consumer Credit
of Veterans Benefits 350 Motor Vehicle 370 Other Fraud Act 862 Black Lung (923) 490 Cable/Sat TV
160 Stockholders Suits 355 Motor Vehicle 371 Truth in Lending 720 Labor/Management 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) 850 Securities/Commodities/
190 Other Contract Product Liability 380 Other Personal Relations 864 SSID Title XVI Exchange
195 Contract Product Liability 360 Other Personal Property Damage 740 Railway Labor Act 865 RSI (405(g)) 890 Other Statutory Actions
196 Franchise Injury 385 Property Damage 751 Family and Medical 891 Agricultural Acts
362 Personal Injury - Product Liability Leave Act 893 Environmental Matters
Medical Malpractice 790 Other Labor Litigation 895 Freedom of Information
REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS 791 Employee Retirement FEDERAL TAX SUITS Act
210 Land Condemnation 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: Income Security Act 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff 896 Arbitration
220 Foreclosure 441 Voting 463 Alien Detainee or Defendant) 899 Administrative Procedure
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 442 Employment 510 Motions to Vacate 871 IRSThird Party Act/Review or Appeal of
240 Torts to Land 443 Housing/ Sentence 26 USC 7609 Agency Decision
245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations 530 General 950 Constitutionality of
290 All Other Real Property 445 Amer. w/Disabilities 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION State Statutes
Employment Other: 462 Naturalization Application
446 Amer. w/Disabilities 540 Mandamus & Other 465 Other Immigration
Other 550 Civil Rights Actions
448 Education 555 Prison Condition
560 Civil Detainee
Conditions of
Confinement
V. ORIGIN (Place an X in One Box Only)
1 Original 2 Removed from 3 Remanded from 4 Reinstated or 5 Transferred from 6 Multidistrict 8 Multidistrict
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District LitigationTransfer LitigationDirect File
(specify)
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
35 U.S.C. Section 271
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:
Patent Infringement
VII. REQUESTED IN CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, Fed. R. Civ. P. JURY DEMAND: Yes No
VIII. RELATED CASE(S),
IF ANY (See instructions): JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER
IX. DIVISIONAL ASSIGNMENT (Civil Local Rule 3-2)
(Place an X in One Box Only) SAN FRANCISCO/OAKLAND SAN JOSE EUREKA-MCKINLEYVILLE
DATE: 05/01/2017 SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD: /s/ Byron Cooper

JS-CAND 44 (rev. 07/16) Case 3:17-cv-02456-SK Document 1-3 Filed 05/01/17 Page 2 of 2
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS-CAND 44
Authority For Civil Cover Sheet. The JS-CAND 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and
service of pleading or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved in its original form by the Judicial
Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the Clerk of Court to initiate the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is
submitted to the Clerk of Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:
I. a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use
only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and
then the official, giving both name and title.
b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the
time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land
condemnation cases, the county of residence of the defendant is the location of the tract of land involved.)
c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting
in this section (see attachment).
II. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), which requires that jurisdictions be shown in
pleadings. Place an X in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.
(1) United States plaintiff. Jurisdiction based on 28 USC 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.
(2) United States defendant. When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an X in this box.
(3) Federal question. This refers to suits under 28 USC 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment
to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code
takes precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked.
(4) Diversity of citizenship. This refers to suits under 28 USC 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the
citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity
cases.)
III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS-CAND 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above.
Mark this section for each principal party.
IV. Nature of Suit. Place an X in the appropriate box. If the nature of suit cannot be determined, be sure the cause of action, in Section VI below, is
sufficient to enable the deputy clerk or the statistical clerk(s) in the Administrative Office to determine the nature of suit. If the cause fits more than
one nature of suit, select the most definitive.
V. Origin. Place an X in one of the six boxes.
(1) Original Proceedings. Cases originating in the United States district courts.
(2) Removed from State Court. Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 USC 1441. When the
petition for removal is granted, check this box.
(3) Remanded from Appellate Court. Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing
date.
(4) Reinstated or Reopened. Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.
(5) Transferred from Another District. For cases transferred under Title 28 USC 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or
multidistrict litigation transfers.
(6) Multidistrict Litigation Transfer. Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 USC
1407. When this box is checked, do not check (5) above.
(8) Multidistrict Litigation Direct File. Check this box when a multidistrict litigation case is filed in the same district as the Master MDL docket.
Please note that there is no Origin Code 7. Origin Code 7 was used for historical records and is no longer relevant due to changes in statute.
VI. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional
statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553. Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service.
VII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an X in this box if you are filing a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.
Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.
VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS-CAND 44 is used to identify related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket
numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.
IX. Divisional Assignment. If the Nature of Suit is under Property Rights or Prisoner Petitions or the matter is a Securities Class Action, leave this
section blank. For all other cases, identify the divisional venue according to Civil Local Rule 3-2: the county in which a substantial part of the
events or omissions which give rise to the claim occurred or in which a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is situated.
Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.

Rago v. Anglers Select - Complaint

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Rago v. Anglers Select - Complaint

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Case 3:17-cv-02456-SK Document 1 Filed 05/01/17 Page 1 of 12

1 Byron Cooper, Bar No. 166578

1 24. EcoPROs principals contacted Rago and Ragos counsel in Northern

1 COUNT I INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. D640,820

1 C. An award of damages to be paid by Defendants adequate to compensate

1 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

(12) United States Design Patent do Patent No.: US D648,820 S

D542,882 S + 5/2007 Scott ............................ D22/133

U.S. Patent Nov. 15, 2011 Sheet 2 of 6 US D648,820 S

U.S. Patent Nov. 15, 2011 Sheet 3 of 6 US D648,820 S

U.S. Patent Nov. 15, 2011 Sheet 4 of 6 US D648,820 S

U.S. Patent Nov. 15, 2011 Sheet 5 of 6 US D648,820 S

U.S. Patent Nov. 15, 2011 Sheet 6 of 6 US D648,820 S

(12) United States Design Patent do Patent No.: US D652,478 S

(54) SWIM BAIT FISHING LURE (56) References Cited

(22) Filed: Jul. 28, 2010 DESCRIPTION

U.S. Patent Jan. 17, 2012 Sheet 1 of 6 US D652,478 S

U.S. Patent Jan. 17, 2012 Sheet 2 of 6 US D652,478 S

U.S. Patent Jan. 17, 2012 Sheet 3 of 6 US D652,478 S

U.S. Patent Jan. 17, 2012 Sheet 4 of 6 US D652,478 S

U.S. Patent Jan. 17, 2012 Sheet 5 of 6 US D652,478 S

U.S. Patent Jan. 17, 2012 Sheet 6 of 6 US D652,478 S

DATE: 05/01/2017 SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD: /s/ Byron Cooper

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS-CAND 44

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi