Laurmark Enterprises v. Kinderhook Industries Et. Al.

Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1
Filed 05/30/12 Page 1 of 74 Page ID #:3
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
291364
Plaintiff LAURMARK ENTERPRISES INC., by its undersigned attorneys, states for its Complaint against Defendants Kinderhook Industries, THIUnderCover Holdings, LLC, Tectum Holdings, Inc., Extang Corporation, and UnderCover, Inc., and Does 1-50 as follows: THE PARTIES 1. Plaintiff LAURMARK ENTERPRISES INC. (hereinafter LAURMARK) is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business located at 720 Jessie Street, San Fernando, California 91340. LAURMARK does business under the fictitious business name of BAK Industries. 2. Upon information and belief, Defendant Extang Corporation (hereinafter "Extang") is a Michigan corporation with its principal place of business located at 1901 East Ellsworth Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48108. Extang is one of the two leading manufacturers of tonneau covers for the automotive aftermarket and is a direct competitor of LAURMARK in the tonneau truck bed covers industry. 3. Upon information and belief, Defendant UnderCover, Inc. (hereinafter UnderCover") is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located at 59 Absolute Drive, Rogersville, Missouri 65742. UnderCover is the leading manufacturer of one-piece ABS composite truck bed covers and is a direct competitor of LAURMARK in the tonneau truck bed covers industry. 4. Upon information and belief, both Extang and UnderCover are subsidiaries of Defendant Tectum Holdings, Inc., which is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located at 888 7th Avenue, 16th Floor, New York, N.Y. 10106, which is itself a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant THIUnderCover Holdings, LLC, also a Delaware corporation and also with its principal place of business located at 888 7th Avenue, 16th Floor, New York, N.Y. 10106. Defendant Tectum Holdings, Inc. and Defendant THI-UnderCover Holdings, LLC, either together or individually, own or have a controlling interest
1
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
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
291364
in five of the premier brand names in the tonneau truck bed covers industry to create a significant player in truck aftermarket. 5. Upon information and belief, each of the aforementioned Defendants are then part of the investment portfolio of the private equity firm Defendant Kinderhook Industries, a licensed Small Business Investment Company located in New York with its principal place of business at 521 Fifth Avenue, 34th Floor, New York, N.Y. 10175 (hereinafter all of the Defendants are collectively referred to as THI). NATURE OF THE ACTION 6. This is an action for patent infringement and wrongful inducement of infringement arising under the patent laws of the United States of America, Title 35, United States Code 1, et seq., and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. 2201-2201. 7. LAURMARK charges THI with patent infringement with respect to certain LAURMARKs patents and seeks a permanent injunction under 35 U.S.C. 283 against continued infringement by THI, its subsidiaries, and all those acting in concert with THI. 8. LAURMARK seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of certain THI patents. Plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relieve and unfair competition as plead below. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 9. This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1338(a) and (b), as patent infringement claims arise under the patent laws of the United States. 10. This Court has jurisdiction under 15 U.S.C. 1121 and 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1338. The Court also has jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28
2
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
291364
U.S.C. 1332(a)(1) as the action is between citizens of different States and the amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367(a). 11. This Court has personal jurisdiction over THI. Upon information and belief, THI is subject to this Courts specific and general personal jurisdiction pursuant to due process and/or due, at least, to its substantial business in this forum, including (a) at least a portion of the infringements alleged herein; and (b) regularly doing or soliciting business and/or deriving revenue from goods and/or services provided to individuals and companies in California and in this judicial district. 12. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b), (c) and 1400(b) because, upon information and belief, THI has transacted business in this judicial district and committed patent infringement in this judicial district. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS AS TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION 13. LAURMARK is the licensee of all rights to and in, including the right to bring the present suit, U.S. Patent Nos. 7,537,264 (hereinafter the 264 Patent), 8,061,758 (hereinafter the 758 Patent) and 8,182,021 (hereinafter the 021 Patent), copies of which are attached as Exhibits A, B and C respectively (hereinafter collectively the LAURMARK Patents). The LAURMARK Patents relate generally to tonneau truck bed covers. 14. Upon information and belief, Extang manufactures, imports, offers for sale, and sells tonneau truck bed covers, including, but not limited to, those sold under the Encore and Solid Fold tradenames, through a network of national and local distributors and retailers.
3
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
291364
15.
Upon information and belief, UnderCover manufactures, imports,
offers for sale, and sells tonneau truck bed covers, including, but not limited to, those sold under the Flex tradename, through a network of national and local distributors and retailers. 16. Upon information and belief, for a period of time, the length of which is unknown to Plaintiff prior to discovery, THI has operated a business, for profit, that uses LAURMARKs technology claimed and described in the LAURMARK Patents in connection with the sale of products manufactured and sold by or on behalf of THI or its subsidiaries. 17. LAURMARK is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all times mentioned herein, that THI and its subsidiaries had actual knowledge of the LAURMARK Patents and LAURMARKs patent rights there under prior to the filing of this complaint. 18. The manufacture, importation, offers for sale, and sale of the tonneau truck bed covers by Extang under the Encore and Solid Fold tradenames is in direct competition to the tonneau truck bed covers manufactured, offered for sale, and sold by LAURMARK. 19. The manufacture, importation, offers for sale, and sale of the tonneau truck bed covers by UnderCover under the Flex tradename is in direct competition to the tonneau truck bed covers manufactured, offered for sale, and sold by LAURMARK. 20. The manufacture, importation, offers for sale, and sale of infringing products by THI or its subsidiaries has not been under license or authority of LAURMARK. 21. By infringing the LAURMARK Patents, THI and its subsidiaries has unfairly reaped a substantial commercial advantage and savings in research and development time and cost, all to LAURMARKs detriment.
4
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
291364
22.
Upon information and belief, THI has not ceased its infringing
activity but instead continues to intentionally and knowingly market and sell its products to various distributor and retail store customers, and to induce those distributors and retailers to violate the LAURMARKs Patents by selling THIs infringing products. The infringement and inducement to infringe is therefore willful, deliberate and intentional and will continue unless enjoined by this Court. 23. Upon information and belief, THI has a significant portion of the market share of the tonneau truck bed covers market. In addition to owning and or having a controlling interest in Extang and UnderCover, it seeks to create and systemically maintain a monopoly on the tonneau truck bed covers market. Via the Defendant Kinderhook Industries, it owns or has a controlling interest in TruXedo, Inc., BedRug, Inc, and Advantage Truck Accessories, Inc. Extang and TruXedo, Inc. are two of the leading manufacturers of tonneau covers for the automotive aftermarket. UnderCover is one of the leading manufacturers of onepiece ABS composite truck bed covers. BedRug, Inc. is a leading manufacturer of high-end cushioned and carpeted protective liners for the bed of a pickup truck. Advantage Truck Accessories, Inc. is an ISO-certified manufacturer and distributor of soft tonneau covers to OEM and aftermarket customers. Accordingly, THI owns or has a controlling interest in five of the premier brand names in the industry thereby creating an effective monopoly in the tonneau truck bed covers market. 24. Upon information and belief, THI has engaged in a series of anticompetitive activities to protect and extend its valuable monopoly against potential competitive threats and to eliminate the competitor from the market. 25. Upon information and belief, THI has threatened to file and filed numerous frivolous lawsuits against competitors in the tonneau truck bed covers market after such competitor refused to be purchased or bought out by THI at below market value.
5
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
291364
26.
Upon information and belief, THI or those acting in concert with THI
have provided monetary inducement to distributors and retailers to remove LAURMARKs displays and advertising materials from the distributors and retailers showroom floors. 27. Upon information and belief, THI or those acting in concert with THI have required distributors and retailers to agree to exclusively sell THI products to control prices and eliminate competitors under a threat that if the exclusivity agreements were not agreed to and the distributors and retailers continued to sell competitors products, they would not then be allowed to market and sell THI products. 28. THIs conduct with respect to tonneau truck bed covers is a prominent and immediate example of the pattern of anticompetitive practices undertaken by THI with the purpose and effect of attempting to obtain and maintain its monopoly and extending that monopoly to other related markets. 29. 30. The relevant product market is the United States. During the relevant time period alleged herein, LAURMARK has
manufactured, marketed, and distributed the tonneau truck bed covers in a continuous and uninterrupted flow of intrastate and interstate commerce throughout the United States. 31. Through the unlawful acts and practices described above, THI has harmed competition, consumers and innovations by decreasing, and seeking to eliminate competitors and cause consumers to pay supra-competitive prices for the tonneau truck bed covers. Those practices, described herein, have also allowed THI to obtain and maintain illegal monopolies in the tonneau truck bed cover market. 32. LAURMARK is in the business of manufacturing and selling a variety of tonneau truck bed covers and related products for pick-up trucks under the LAURMARK Patents.
6
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
291364
COUNT ONE Patent Infringement (35 U.S.C. 271(a)) of the 264 Patent 33. 34. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each of the THI makes, uses, sells, offers for sale, and/or induces others to use in
allegations set forth above. the United States methods and/or related devices covered by one or more claims of the 264 Patent, including THIs tonneau covers. 35. 36. THIs actions thus constitute infringement of the 264 Patent in By reason of THIs acts of infringement, LAURMARK has suffered violation of 35 U.S.C. 271(a). and will continue to suffer monetary damages and irreparable harm. COUNT TWO Patent Infringement (35 U.S.C. 271(a)) of the 758 Patent 37. 38. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each of the THI makes, uses, sells, offers for sale, and/or induces others to use in
allegations set forth above. the United States methods and/or related devices covered by one or more claims of the 758 Patent, including THIs tonneau covers. 39. 40. THIs actions thus constitute infringement of the 758 Patent in By reason of THIs acts of infringement, LAURMARK has suffered violation of 35 U.S.C. 271(a). and will continue to suffer monetary damages and irreparable harm. ///
7
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
291364
COUNT THREE Patent Infringement (35 U.S.C. 271(a)) of the 021 Patent 41. 42. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each of the THI makes, uses, sells, offers for sale, and/or induces others to use in
allegations set forth above. the United States methods and/or related devices covered by one or more claims of the 021 Patent, including THIs tonneau covers. 43. 44. THIs actions thus constitute infringement of the 021 Patent in By reason of THIs acts of infringement, LAURMARK has suffered violation of 35 U.S.C. 271(a). and will continue to suffer monetary damages and irreparable harm. COUNT FOUR Inducement to Patent Infringement (35 U.S.C. 271(b)) of the 264 Patent 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each of the Based upon the foregoing, THI has knowingly induced and Various retailers and distributors have infringed Plaintiffs 264 THIs actions thus constitute infringement of the 264 Patent in Plaintiff has been damaged as a result of THIs wrongful acts in allegations set forth above. encouraged various retailers and/or distributors to infringe Plaintiffs 264 Patent. Patent as a consequence of THIs knowing inducement and encouragement. violation of 35 U.S.C. 271(b). inducing infringement of the 264 Patent. ///
8
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
291364
COUNT FIVE Inducement to Patent Infringement (35 U.S.C. 271(b)) of the 758 Patent 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each of the Based upon the foregoing, THI has knowingly induced and Various retailers and distributors have infringed Plaintiffs 758 THIs actions thus constitute infringement of the 758 Patent in Plaintiff has been damaged as a result of THIs wrongful acts in
allegations set forth above. encouraged various retailers and/or distributors to infringe Plaintiffs 758 Patent. Patent as a consequence of THIs knowing inducement and encouragement. violation of 35 U.S.C. 271(b). inducing infringement of the 758 Patent. COUNT SIX Inducement to Patent Infringement (35 U.S.C. 271(b)) of the 021 Patent 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each of the Based upon the foregoing, THI has knowingly induced and Various retailers and distributors have infringed Plaintiffs 021 THIs actions thus constitute infringement of the 021 Patent in Plaintiff has been damaged as a result of THIs wrongful acts in
allegations set forth above. encouraged various retailers and/or distributors to infringe Plaintiffs 021 Patent. Patent as a consequence of THIs knowing inducement and encouragement. violation of 35 U.S.C. 271(b). inducing infringement of the 021 Patent.
9
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
291364
COUNT SEVEN Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage 60. 61. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each of the Plaintiff had and has valid business relationships and business
allegations set forth above. expectancies with its customers and distributors and a reasonable expectation that such relationships would continue into the future and beyond based on a long and consistent business relationship. 62. Knowing of and about these customer and distributor relationships, and business expectancies, Defendants have intentionally intervened and are interfering with same, including but not limited to soliciting customers away from Plaintiff through unlawful means, diverting these customers for themselves through improper and illegal means, and otherwise causing termination and disruption of and/or interference with Plaintiff's relationships and expectancies with its customers, all resulting in the deprivation of future business opportunities and the deprivation of prospective economic advantage to be gained from these future business opportunities with Plaintiffs customers. 63. As a result of Defendants' intentional interference with these relationships and business expectancies, Plaintiff will be injured irreparably and otherwise by reason of the deprivation of future business opportunities and the deprivation of prospective economic advantage to be gained from these future business opportunities with Plaintiffs customers and distributors, and which will result in Defendants being unjustly enriched. 64. If Defendants are not enjoined from interfering with Plaintiffs prospective economic opportunities, Plaintiff will continue to be injured irreparably and otherwise as this will result in the deprivation of future business
10
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
291364
opportunities and the deprivation of prospective economic advantage to be gained from these future business opportunities with Plaintiffs customers. 65. Each of these acts was done willfully and maliciously by Defendants, with the deliberate intent to injure Plaintiff's business and improve their own business and for financial gain, thereby entitling Plaintiff to exemplary damages and/or attorneys' fees to be proved at trial. COUNT EIGHT Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage 66. 67. 68. 69. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each of the Plaintiff had and has valid business relationships and business Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiff had these Defendants have negligently intervened and interfered with and
allegations set forth above. expectancies with its customers. existing customer relationships. appropriated Plaintiffs customer relationships, by soliciting customers away from Plaintiff, diverting these customers for themselves, sending improper notices to Plaintiffs customers, by contacting Plaintiffs customers, and otherwise causing termination and disruption of and/or interference with Plaintiff's relationships with its customers. 70. 71. enriched. 72. If Defendants are not enjoined, Plaintiff will continue to be injured irreparably and otherwise
11
Defendants actions were negligent in that they induced a breach or As a result of Defendants' interference with these relationships,
disruption of the Plaintiff's contractual relationships with its customers. Plaintiff has been injured irreparably and otherwise, while Defendants are unjustly
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
291364
COUNT NINE Unfair Competition under Calif. Bus. & Prof. Codes sec 17200, et seq. 73. 74. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each of the Defendants intentional, purposeful, and unlawful conduct and
allegations set forth above. actions as alleged herein and above constitute unfair competition and/or deceptive or unfair trade or business practices on the part of Defendant in violation of Californias Business and Professions Code 17200 et seq. 75. As a result of Defendants unlawful acts of unfair competition and infringement or business practices Defendants have suffered injuries in fact, including those alleged herein and above entitling Plaintiff to restitution and/or injunctive relief as permitted under the statute.. 76. Defendants actions have and are causing irreparable harm to Plaintiff entitling Plaintiff to injunctive relief barring Defendants from their conduct in violation of California Business and Professions Code 17200 et seq. 77. As a direct and proximate result of the acts described in this Complaint, Defendants have been and continue to seek to be unjustly enriched, therefore, Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Defendants wrongful conduct, and to obtain an order for restitution. 78. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that at all times mentioned that the conduct of Defendants, as described herein, was malicious, oppressive and fraudulent within the meaning of California Civil Code 3294 and done without justification of privilege, thus entitling Plaintiff to an award of punitive and exemplary damages in the amount appropriate to punish Defendants and to make an example of them in an amount to be determined at trial.
12
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
291364
79. 80.
Plaintiff further seeks attorneys fees and costs pursuant Code of Plaintiffs further request, pursuant to Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17203
Civil Procedure 1021.5. such orders and judgments, including the appointment of a receiver, as may be necessary to prevent the continued use or employment by Defendants of the aforementioned unfair and unlawful business practices which, unless and until enjoined and restrained by order of this Court, will continue to cause great and irreparable injury to Plaintiff, competitors and consumers, including orders to Defendants to restore to any person in interest any money or property, real or personal, which may have been acquired by means of such unfair competition. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff LAURMARK prays for judgment as set forth below: i. ii. iii. iv. v. That THI be declared to have infringed the claims of the 264 Patent That THI be declared to have infringed the claims of the 758 Patent That THI be declared to have infringed the claims of the 021 Patent That THI be declared to have induced the infringement of retailers That, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 283, THI and its subsidiaries, and their as alleged above; as alleged above; as alleged above; under the LAURMARK Patents as alleged above; respective officers, agents, servants, employees and assigns, and all those persons acting in concert or in participation with THI or acting on its behalf, be immediately, preliminarily, and permanently enjoined and restrained from its wrongful conduct, as outlined above;
13
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
291364
vi.
That, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 284, THI be ordered to account for and
pay to LAURMARK all monetary damages caused to LAURMARK by reason of THIs wrongful conduct, including interest, costs, and trebled damages; vii. and costs; viii. ix. x. xi. xii. xiii. xiv. That LAURMARK be granted pre-judgment and post-judgment For compensatory damages according to proof; For punitive damages according to proof; For Preliminary and permanent injunction; That Defendants be ordered to pay restitution; That Plaintiff be awarded attorneys fees and costs of suit herein That the Court grant such other and further relief as the Court deems interest on the damages caused to it by reason of THIs wrongful conduct; That, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 285, this action be declared an exceptional case and that THI be ordered to pay LAURMARKs attorney fees
incurred; and just and proper under the circumstances. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff LAURMARK ENTERPRISES, INC. hereby demands trial by jury of all claims and issues for which such a trial is available. MICHELMAN & ROBINSON, LLP
DATED: May 30, 2012
BY: __________________________ Sanford L. Michelman, Esq. Mona Z. Hanna, Esq. John J. Skinner, Jr., Esq. (To be admitted Pro Hac Vice) Attorneys for Plaintiff Laurmark Enterprises Inc.
14
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A Page 15
EXHIBIT A Page 16
EXHIBIT A Page 17
EXHIBIT A Page 18
EXHIBIT A Page 19
EXHIBIT A Page 20
EXHIBIT A Page 21
EXHIBIT A Page 22
EXHIBIT A Page 23
EXHIBIT A Page 24
EXHIBIT A Page 25
EXHIBIT A Page 26
EXHIBIT A Page 27
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT B Page 28
EXHIBIT B Page 29
EXHIBIT B Page 30
EXHIBIT B Page 31
EXHIBIT B Page 32
EXHIBIT B Page 33
EXHIBIT B Page 34
EXHIBIT B Page 35
EXHIBIT B Page 36
EXHIBIT B Page 37
EXHIBIT B Page 38
EXHIBIT B Page 39
EXHIBIT B Page 40
EXHIBIT B Page 41
EXHIBIT B Page 42
EXHIBIT B Page 43
EXHIBIT B Page 44
EXHIBIT B Page 45
EXHIBIT B Page 46
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT C Page 47
EXHIBIT C Page 48
EXHIBIT C Page 49
EXHIBIT C Page 50
EXHIBIT C Page 51
EXHIBIT C Page 52
EXHIBIT C Page 53
EXHIBIT C Page 54
EXHIBIT C Page 55
EXHIBIT C Page 56
EXHIBIT C Page 57
EXHIBIT C Page 58
EXHIBIT C Page 59
EXHIBIT C Page 60
EXHIBIT C Page 61
EXHIBIT C Page 62
EXHIBIT C Page 63
EXHIBIT C Page 64
EXHIBIT C Page 65
EXHIBIT C Page 66

Laurmark Enterprises v. Kinderhook Industries Et. Al.

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

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

Laurmark Enterprises v. Kinderhook Industries Et. Al.

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1

Filed 05/30/12 Page 1 of 74 Page ID #:3

Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1

Filed 05/30/12 Page 2 of 74 Page ID #:4

Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1

Filed 05/30/12 Page 3 of 74 Page ID #:5

Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1

Filed 05/30/12 Page 4 of 74 Page ID #:6

Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1

Filed 05/30/12 Page 5 of 74 Page ID #:7

Upon information and belief, UnderCover manufactures, imports,

Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1

Filed 05/30/12 Page 6 of 74 Page ID #:8

Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1

Filed 05/30/12 Page 7 of 74 Page ID #:9

Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1

Filed 05/30/12 Page 8 of 74 Page ID #:10

Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1

Filed 05/30/12 Page 9 of 74 Page ID #:11

Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1

Filed 05/30/12 Page 10 of 74 Page ID #:12

Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1

Filed 05/30/12 Page 11 of 74 Page ID #:13

Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1

Filed 05/30/12 Page 12 of 74 Page ID #:14

Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1

Filed 05/30/12 Page 13 of 74 Page ID #:15

Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1

Filed 05/30/12 Page 14 of 74 Page ID #:16

Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1

Filed 05/30/12 Page 15 of 74 Page ID #:17

That, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 284, THI be ordered to account for and

DATED: May 30, 2012

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1

Filed 05/30/12 Page 16 of 74 Page ID #:18

Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1

Filed 05/30/12 Page 17 of 74 Page ID #:19

Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1

Filed 05/30/12 Page 18 of 74 Page ID #:20

Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1

Filed 05/30/12 Page 19 of 74 Page ID #:21

Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1

Filed 05/30/12 Page 20 of 74 Page ID #:22

Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1

Filed 05/30/12 Page 21 of 74 Page ID #:23

Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1

Filed 05/30/12 Page 22 of 74 Page ID #:24

Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1

Filed 05/30/12 Page 23 of 74 Page ID #:25

Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1

Filed 05/30/12 Page 24 of 74 Page ID #:26

Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1

Filed 05/30/12 Page 25 of 74 Page ID #:27

Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1

Filed 05/30/12 Page 26 of 74 Page ID #:28

Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1

Filed 05/30/12 Page 27 of 74 Page ID #:29

Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1

Filed 05/30/12 Page 28 of 74 Page ID #:30

Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1

Filed 05/30/12 Page 29 of 74 Page ID #:31

Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1