Case 2:11-cv-00703-CW Document 2

Filed 08/02/11 Page 1 of 6

Todd E. Zenger (5238) Dax D. Anderson (10168) KIRTON & McCONKIE 1800 Eagle Gate Tower 60 East South Temple Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Phone: (801) 328-3600 Fax: (801) 321-4893 Email: tzenger@kmclaw.com Email: danderson@kmclaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH

HIGH COUNTRY CONCEPTS, LLC, a Utah entity, Plaintiff, vs. GANDER MOUNTAIN COMPANY of Minnesota, GANDERMOUNTAIN.COM of North Carolina and OVERTONS.COM of North Carolina , AND JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants. COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND Civil Action No. 2:11-CV-703 CW Judge Clark Waddoups

Plaintiff, High Country Concepts, LLC by and through their attorneys, complaining of Gander Mountain Company, Gandermountain.com and Overtons.com, seeks judgment and other relief and alleges:

Case 2:11-cv-00703-CW Document 2

Filed 08/02/11 Page 2 of 6

JURISDICTION, VENUE 1. This action arises under the patent laws of the United States. 35 U.S.C. 1 et.

seq. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court by 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1338. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. 1391 and 1400. PARTIES 2. Plaintiff, High Country Concepts, LLC is a Utah entity organized and operating

under the laws of the State of Utah with a principal place of business at 4544 Cambridge Drive, Cedar Hills, Utah 84062 (High Country). By assignment and agreement, High Country has all necessary legal right to bring this action. 3. Gander Mountain Company is business entity having it corporate offices at 180

East Fifth St Suite 1300, St. Paul, MN 55101, and doing business at 111 Red Banks Road, Greenville, NC, 27835 and doing business in Utah. 4. Gandermountain.com is business entity doing business at 111 Red Banks Road,

Greenville, NC, 27835 and doing business in Utah. 5. Overtons.com is North Carolina entity having a place of business at 111 Red

Banks Road, Greenville, NC, 27835 and doing business in Utah. 6. John Does 1-10 manufacture, distribute and/or import the infringing product into

the United States and/or into Utah for other defendants. 7. Gander Mountain Company, Gandermountain.com, Gander Direct and

Overtons.com are collectively referred to as Defendants. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 8. This case relates to United States Patent No. 6,553,586 (the 586 Patent) for a

folding bed frame.

Case 2:11-cv-00703-CW Document 2

Filed 08/02/11 Page 3 of 6

9.

High Country designs, develops, produces, manufactures, markets, sells and

distributes folding bed frames in particular associated with camping-type cots. 10. High Countrys business is throughout the United States, including the state of

Utah and this judicial District. 11. Without authorization from High Country, Defendants sell folding bed frames in

this judicial District and in the United States. 12. In particular, Defendants manufacture, have manufactured, sell or offer for sale,

use and/or import into the United States a folding bed frame cot product branded Gander Mountain Tracker Extreme Cot (Infringing Product). 13. Claim(s)). 14. Without authorization from High Country, Defendants have actively induced The Infringing Products infringes one or more of claims 1-4 (Asserted

and/or is actively inducing customers and/or third parties to use Infringing Products and to buy and sell Infringing Products protected by one or more of the Asserted Claim(s) in the United States, including in this judicial district. 15. 16. Defendants conduct constitutes infringement of the 586 Patent. The forgoing conduct of Defendants has caused and will continue to cause

irreparable harm to High Country. 17. The conduct of Defendants is knowing and willful and will continue to be

knowing and willful unless enjoined by this Court. 18. The forgoing conduct of Defendants has caused and will continue to cause

damage to High Country.

Case 2:11-cv-00703-CW Document 2

Filed 08/02/11 Page 4 of 6

19.

Because the conduct of Defendants has been and continues to be knowing and

willful, this is a case in which Defendants should be required to pay High Countrys attorneys fees. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Judgment of Direct Infringement of the 586) 20. High Country incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 20 of this

Complaint as though set forth here in full. 21. Pursuant to patent laws of the United States, the forgoing acts of Defendants

constitute direct infringement of one or more claims of the 586 Patent. 22. High Country requests the Court to find that the acts of Defendants constitute

direct infringement of one or more of the claims of the 586 Patent. 23. High Country requests the Court to find the direct infringement of Defendants has

been willful, in bad faith and/or in reckless disregard of the rights of High Country. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Judgment of Inducing Infringement of the 586 Patent) 24. High Country incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 24 of this

Complaint as though set forth here in full. 25. Pursuant to patent laws of the United States, the forgoing acts of Defendants

constitute inducing infringement of one or more claims of the 586 Patent. 26. High Country requests the Court to find that the acts of Defendants constitute

inducing infringement of one or more of the claims of the 586 Patent 27. High Country requests the Court to find that the induced infringement of

Defendants has been willful, in bad faith and/or in reckless disregard of the rights of High Country. 4

Case 2:11-cv-00703-CW Document 2

Filed 08/02/11 Page 5 of 6

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Judgment for Contributory Infringement of the 586 Patent) 28. High Country incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 28 of this

Complaint as though set forth here in full. 29. Pursuant to patent law of the United States, the foregoing acts of John Does 1-10

constitute contributory infringement of one or more of the Asserted Claim(s) of the 586 patent. 30. High Country requests the Court to find that the acts of John Does 1-10 constitute

contributory infringement of one ore more claims of the 586 patent. 31. High Country requests the Court to find that the contributory infringement of John

Does 1-10 has been willful, in bad faith and/or in reckless disregard of the rights of High Country. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, High Country, prays for judgment and relief as follows: 32. Judgment in favor of High Country finding that Defendants are liable for direct

infringement of the 586 Patent. 33. Judgment in favor of High Country finding that Defendants are liable for inducing

infringement of the 586 Patent. 34. Judgment in favor of High Country finding that John Does 1-10 are liable for

contributory infringement of the 586 patent. 35. An accounting for and an award of any and all ascertainable damages, to be

determined at trial, related to the unlawful acts of Defendants. 36. times. Judgment in favor of High Country that damages should be increased up to three

Case 2:11-cv-00703-CW Document 2

Filed 08/02/11 Page 6 of 6

37.

For temporary, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief ordering Defendants

to refrain from further infringing any claims of the 586 Patent. 38. 39. 40. For reasonable attorney's fees. For costs of suit incurred in his action. For such further relief as the Court may deem proper.

JURY DEMAND A demand is hereby made for trial by jury. DATED this 2nd day of August, 2011. KIRTON & McCONKIE

By:

s/Todd E. Zenger Todd E. Zenger Dax D. Anderson

Attorney for Plaintiff HIGH COUNTRY CONCEPTS, INC.

4842-3949-7482.1