Case 1:19-cv-00366 ECF No. 1 filed 05/08/19 PageID.

1 Page 1 of 12

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

ASSA GROUP, INC. d/b/a Enwork,

a Michigan Corporation,
Case No. _____________________
Plaintiff,
v. Honorable ____________________

SURFACE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

a Missouri Corporation.

Defendant.

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Assa Group, Inc. d/b/a Enwork ("Enwork” or “Plaintiff”), for its Complaint

against Defendant Surface Technologies, Inc. (“Surface Technologies” or “Defendant”), hereby

alleges as follows:

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This is a civil action for the infringement of United States Design Patent Nos.

D776,474 (“the D’474 patent”) and D776,968 (“the D’968 patent”) (collectively, “patents-in-

suit”) under the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 100 et seq., arising from Surface

Technologies’ manufacture, use, offer to sell, and/or sale of infringing table products.

THE PARTIES

2. Plaintiff Assa Group, Inc. d/b/a Enwork is a Michigan corporation having its

principal place of business at 12900 Christopher Drive, Lowell, Michigan 49331.

3. Upon information and belief, Defendant Surface Technologies, Inc. is a Missouri

corporation having its principal place of business at 7106 E. Truman Road, Kansas City, Missouri

64126.

1
 Case 1:19-cv-00366 ECF No. 1 filed 05/08/19 PageID.2 Page 2 of 12

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and

1338(a) because this is an action arising under the Patent Laws of the United States, 35, U.S.C. §

100 et seq.

5. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendant because (a) upon

information and belief, Surface Technologies transacts business in Michigan through the sale of

products into Michigan, and (b) because Defendant has committed, and continues to commit,

tortious acts within the state of Michigan giving rise to this action.

6. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and/or 1400(b), because Surface

Technologies is subject to personal jurisdiction in this district, and Surface Technologies has

committed acts of patent infringement in this district.

THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT

7. On January 17, 2017, the D’474 patent, entitled “Table Base,” was duly and legally

issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). A true and correct copy of the D’474

patent is attached as Exhibit A. The D’474 patent is valid, enforceable and currently in full force

and effect.

8. Plaintiff Assa Group, Inc. is the owner and assignee of all substantial rights, title,

and interest in the D’474 patent, including the right to bring this action and enforce the D’474

patent against infringers, and to collect damages for all relevant times.

9. On January 24, 2017, the D’968 patent, entitled “Table Base,” was duly and legally

issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). A true and correct copy of the D’968

patent is attached as Exhibit B. The D’968 patent is valid, enforceable and currently in full force

and effect.

2
 Case 1:19-cv-00366 ECF No. 1 filed 05/08/19 PageID.3 Page 3 of 12

10. Plaintiff Assa Group, Inc. is the owner and assignee of all substantial rights, title,

and interest in the D’968 patent, including the right to bring this action and enforce the D’968

patent against infringers, and to collect damages for all relevant times.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

11. Enwork is a leading office furniture manufacturer in the areas of product design

and innovation. Enwork maintains a permanent showroom for its products at The Merchandise

Mart in Chicago. Enwork is also an annual exhibitor at NeoCon, which is the largest commercial

design industry exhibition in North America. Enwork first exhibited tables protected by the

patents-in-suit at NeoCon in 2016.

12. Enwork makes, sells, and promotes tables whose ornamental table base designs are

protected by the patents-in-suit. These products include Enwork’s Equilibrium line of tables which

are marketed and sold throughout the United States.

13. Enwork’s Equilibrium line of tables are provided in various configurations which

are protected by the patents-in-suit, including the “inverted V” shown in the D’474 patent (Exhibit

C), triangular legs shown in the D’968 patent (Exhibit D), and also versions having end caps to

cover the gap between the opposed legs to provide the appearance of a solid base (Exhibit E).

14. The end cap version shown in Exhibit E is also protected by the patents-in-suit since

the broken lines shown in the drawings of the patents-in-suit do not form any part of the patents’

claims, and therefore the patents-in-suit cover a table base that is either closed or open between

the opposed legs.

15. Upon information and belief, Surface Technologies owns and operates the website

www.surfacetech.com. Through its website Surface Technologies offers to sell an “Axis” table at

the webpage www.surfacetech.com/axis. (Exhibit F)

3
 Case 1:19-cv-00366 ECF No. 1 filed 05/08/19 PageID.4 Page 4 of 12

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF:

(INFRINGEMENT OF THE D’968 PATENT)

16. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-15 as if fully set forth

herein.

17. The claimed design of the D’968 patent is shown in Figures 1 through 10 of the

patent and described in the accompanying figure descriptions. See Exhibit B. Representative

images are below:

4
 Case 1:19-cv-00366 ECF No. 1 filed 05/08/19 PageID.5 Page 5 of 12

18. Surface Technologies offers its Axis tables for sale, including through its website.

Representative images of the Axis table from the Defendant’s product brochure and website

located online are shown below1:

19. In the eye of the ordinary observer familiar with the relevant prior art, giving such

attention as a purchaser usually gives, the claimed design of the D’968 patent and the table base

of the Axis tables are substantially the same, such that the ordinary observer would be deceived

into believing that the table base of Surface Technologies’ Axis table is the design claimed in the

D’968 patent.

20. Enwork did not give Surface Technologies authorization or license to make, use,

offer to sell, or sell the infringing products.

1
See https://surfacetech.com/files/brochure/2019/Axis-Collection.pdf and https://www.surfacetech.com/axis (last
accessed on May 7, 2019); see also https://surfacetech.com/files/brochure/2019/Axis-Collection.pdf and
https://www.surfacetech.com/designstudio/boardroom-tables (displaying various Axis tables).

5
 Case 1:19-cv-00366 ECF No. 1 filed 05/08/19 PageID.6 Page 6 of 12

21. Surface Technologies has directly infringed, and continues to directly infringe, the

D’968 patent by making, using, offering to sell, selling, and/or importing tables, including Axis

tables, having substantially the same ornamental design as the design claimed in the D’968 patent,

in violation of 35 U.S.C. §§ 271(a) and 289.

22. Upon information and belief, Surface Technologies also induced, and continues to

induce, others to infringe the D’968 patent by encouraging and promoting the use and/or sale by

others of tables that infringe the D’968 patent, including by not limited to Axis tables, in violation

of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).

23. Upon information and belief, Surface Technologies has had actual knowledge of

the D’968 patent since at least April 11, 2019 when the U.S. Postal Office delivered a cease and

desist letter from the Plaintiff to the Defendant.

24. Upon information and belief, Surface Technologies has sold and continues to sell,

offer to sell, distribute, and market tables that infringe the D’968 patent, including the Axis tables,

to end customers and/or resellers with the intent that these parties will use, market, offer to sell

and/or sell the products in the United States in a manner that infringes the D’968 patent.

25. Upon information and belief, Surface Technologies knew or should have known

that the use, marketing, offering to sell, and selling of the infringing products by Surface

Technologies or its resellers and/or customers would directly infringe the D’968 patent.

26. Surface Technologies’ direct and indirect infringement of the D’968 patent has

caused and will continue to cause damage to Enwork.

27. Surface Technologies’ direct and induced infringement has also caused and will

continue to cause irreparable harm to Enwork unless and until such infringing conduct is enjoined

pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 283 and/or the equitable powers of this Court.

6
 Case 1:19-cv-00366 ECF No. 1 filed 05/08/19 PageID.7 Page 7 of 12

28. Upon information and belief, Surface Technologies’ acts of infringement have been

or will be undertaken with knowledge of the D’968 patent. Such acts constitute willful

infringement and make this case exceptional pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 284 and 285, and entitle

Enwork to enhanced damages and reasonable attorney fees.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF:

(INFRINGEMENT OF THE D’474 PATENT)

29. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-28 as if fully set forth

herein.

30. The claimed design of the D’474 patent is shown in Figures 1 through 10 of the

patent and described in the accompanying figure descriptions. See Exhibit A. Representative

images are below:

7
 Case 1:19-cv-00366 ECF No. 1 filed 05/08/19 PageID.8 Page 8 of 12

31. Surface Technologies offers its Axis tables for sale, including through its website.

Representative images of the Axis table from the Defendant’s product brochure and website

located online are shown below2:

2
See https://surfacetech.com/files/brochure/2019/Axis-Collection.pdf and https://www.surfacetech.com/axis (last
accessed on May 7, 2019); see also https://surfacetech.com/files/brochure/2019/Axis-Collection.pdf and
https://www.surfacetech.com/designstudio/boardroom-tables (displaying various Axis tables).

8
 Case 1:19-cv-00366 ECF No. 1 filed 05/08/19 PageID.9 Page 9 of 12

32. In the eye of the ordinary observer familiar with the relevant prior art, giving such

attention as a purchaser usually gives, the claimed design of the D’474 patent and the table base

of the Axis tables are substantially the same, such that the ordinary observer would be deceived

into believing that the table base of Surface Technologies’ Axis table is the design claimed in the

D’474 patent.

33. Enwork did not give Surface Technologies authorization or license to make, use,

offer to sell, or sell the infringing products.

34. Surface Technologies has directly infringed, and continues to directly infringe, the

D’474 patent by making, using, offering to sell, selling, and/or importing tables, including Axis

tables, having substantially the same ornamental design as the design claimed in the D’474 patent,

in violation of 35 U.S.C. §§ 271(a) and 289.

35. Upon information and belief, Surface Technologies also induced, and continues to

induce, others to infringe the D’474 patent by encouraging and promoting the use and/or sale by

others of tables that infringe the D’474 patent, including but not limited to Axis tables, in violation

of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).

36. Upon information and belief, Surface Technologies has had actual knowledge of

the D’474 patent since at least April 11, 2019 when the U.S. Postal Office delivered a cease and

desist letter from the Plaintiff to the Defendant.

37. Upon information and belief, Surface Technologies has sold and continues to sell,

offer to sell, distribute, and market tables that infringe the D’474 patent, including the Axis tables,

to end customers and/or resellers with the intent that these parties will use, market, offer to sell,

and/or sell the products in the United States in a manner that infringes the D’474 patent.

9
 Case 1:19-cv-00366 ECF No. 1 filed 05/08/19 PageID.10 Page 10 of 12

38. Upon information and belief, Surface Technologies knew or should have known

that the use, marketing, offering to sell, and selling of the infringing products by Surface

Technologies or its resellers and/or customers would directly infringe the D’474 patent.

39. Surface Technologies’ direct and indirect infringement of the D’474 patent has

caused and will continue to cause damage to Enwork.

40. Surface Technologies’ direct and induced infringement has also caused and will

continue to cause irreparable harm to Enwork unless and until such infringing conduct is enjoined

pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 283 and/or the equitable powers of this Court.

41. Upon information and belief, Surface Technologies’ acts of infringement have been

or will be undertaken with knowledge of the D’474 patent. Such acts constitute willful

infringement and make this case exceptional pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 284 and 285, and entitle

Enwork to enhanced damages and reasonable attorney fees.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests the following relief:

A. Entry of a judgment in favor of Plaintiff on all Counts of the Complaint;

B. Entry of a judgment that Defendant has directly and/or indirectly infringed the

D’474 patent and that such infringement has been willful;

C. Entry of a judgment that Defendant has directly and/or indirectly infringed the

D’968 patent and that such infringement has been willful;

D. Entry of a permanent injunction against Defendant, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 283

and/or the equitable powers of this Court, to prevent further direct and/or induced infringement of

the D’474 patent;

E. Entry of a permanent injunction against Defendant, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 283

10
 Case 1:19-cv-00366 ECF No. 1 filed 05/08/19 PageID.11 Page 11 of 12

and/or the equitable powers of this Court, to prevent further direct and/or induced infringement of

the D’968 patent;

F. An award damages, in an amount to be determined, adequate to compensate

Plaintiff for the infringement that has occurred, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284;

G. An Order requiring Defendant to account for and pay to Plaintiff any and all profits

made by Defendant from sales of its infringing products pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 289;

H. An Order requiring Defendant to pay Plaintiff its costs and attorneys’ fees in this

action pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 and/or other applicable laws; and

I. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Dated: May 8, 2019 /s/ David L. Oppenhuizen

David L. Oppenhuizen (P70219)
OPPENHUIZEN LAW PLC
146 Monroe Center St NW
McKay Tower, Suite 730
Grand Rapids, MI 49503
(T) (616) 242-9550
david@oppenhuizen.com

Attorney for Plaintiff Assa Group, Inc.

11
 Case 1:19-cv-00366 ECF No. 1 filed 05/08/19 PageID.12 Page 12 of 12

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury of all issues so triable.

Dated: May 8, 2019 /s/ David L. Oppenhuizen

David L. Oppenhuizen (P70219)
OPPENHUIZEN LAW PLC
146 Monroe Center St NW
McKay Tower, Suite 730
Grand Rapids, MI 49503
(T) (616) 242-9550
david@oppenhuizen.com

12
Case 1:19-cv-00366 ECF No. 1-1 filed 05/08/19 PageID.13 Page 1 of 9

Exhibit A
Case 1:19-cv-00366 ECF No. 1-1 filed 05/08/19 PageID.14 Page 2 of 9
Case 1:19-cv-00366 ECF No. 1-1 filed 05/08/19 PageID.15 Page 3 of 9
Case 1:19-cv-00366 ECF No. 1-1 filed 05/08/19 PageID.16 Page 4 of 9
Case 1:19-cv-00366 ECF No. 1-1 filed 05/08/19 PageID.17 Page 5 of 9
Case 1:19-cv-00366 ECF No. 1-1 filed 05/08/19 PageID.18 Page 6 of 9
Case 1:19-cv-00366 ECF No. 1-1 filed 05/08/19 PageID.19 Page 7 of 9
Case 1:19-cv-00366 ECF No. 1-1 filed 05/08/19 PageID.20 Page 8 of 9
Case 1:19-cv-00366 ECF No. 1-1 filed 05/08/19 PageID.21 Page 9 of 9
Case 1:19-cv-00366 ECF No. 1-2 filed 05/08/19 PageID.22 Page 1 of 9

Exhibit B
Case 1:19-cv-00366 ECF No. 1-2 filed 05/08/19 PageID.23 Page 2 of 9
Case 1:19-cv-00366 ECF No. 1-2 filed 05/08/19 PageID.24 Page 3 of 9
Case 1:19-cv-00366 ECF No. 1-2 filed 05/08/19 PageID.25 Page 4 of 9
Case 1:19-cv-00366 ECF No. 1-2 filed 05/08/19 PageID.26 Page 5 of 9
Case 1:19-cv-00366 ECF No. 1-2 filed 05/08/19 PageID.27 Page 6 of 9
Case 1:19-cv-00366 ECF No. 1-2 filed 05/08/19 PageID.28 Page 7 of 9
Case 1:19-cv-00366 ECF No. 1-2 filed 05/08/19 PageID.29 Page 8 of 9
Case 1:19-cv-00366 ECF No. 1-2 filed 05/08/19 PageID.30 Page 9 of 9
Case 1:19-cv-00366 ECF No. 1-3 filed 05/08/19 PageID.31 Page 1 of 2

Exhibit C
Case 1:19-cv-00366 ECF No. 1-3 filed 05/08/19 PageID.32 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:19-cv-00366 ECF No. 1-4 filed 05/08/19 PageID.33 Page 1 of 2

Exhibit D
Case 1:19-cv-00366 ECF No. 1-4 filed 05/08/19 PageID.34 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:19-cv-00366 ECF No. 1-5 filed 05/08/19 PageID.35 Page 1 of 2

Exhibit E
Case 1:19-cv-00366 ECF No. 1-5 filed 05/08/19 PageID.36 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:19-cv-00366 ECF No. 1-6 filed 05/08/19 PageID.37 Page 1 of 2

Exhibit F
 moz-extension://6a30b71c-c15c-442e-b426-87d70a0ab6df/fsCaptured.html
Case 1:19-cv-00366 ECF No. 1-6 filed 05/08/19 PageID.38 Page 2 of 2

Webpage: https://www.surfacetech.com/axis
Date Captured: 5/7/2019

1 of 1 5/7/2019, 3:41 PM