You are on page 1of 11

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

Jeffrey G. Sheldon (SBN 67516) jgsheldon@usip.com Laura M. Lloyd (SBN 242224) laura.lloyd@usip.com William D. Bowen (SBN 254398) william.bowen@usip.com SHELDON MAK & ANDERSON PC 100 Corson Street, Third Floor Pasadena, California 91103-3842 Telephone: (626) 796-4000 Facsimile: (626) 795-6321 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Tre Milano, LLC and MM&R Products, Inc. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION TRE MILANO, LLC, a California limited liability company; and MM&R PRODUCTS, INCORPORATED, a California corporation, Plaintiffs, vs. CONAIR CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 110, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. COMPLAINT FOR: 1. INFRINGMENT OF UNITED STATES PATENT NOS. 8,342,191, 8,360,076, and 8,567,416 2. STATUTORY UNFAIR COMPETITION REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL

COMPLAINT; REQUEST 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

Plaintiffs Tre Milano, LLC, a California limited liability company, and MM&R Products, Incorporated, a California corporation, by their attorneys, Sheldon Mak & Anderson PC, for their complaint against Conair Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, allege as follows:

THE PARTIES 1. Plaintiff Tre Milano, LLC (Tre Milano), is a limited liability company organized under the laws of California, having a place of business in Culver City, California, within this judicial district. 2. Plaintiff MM&R Products Incorporated (MM&R), is a corporation organized under the laws of California, having a place of business in Calabasas, California, within this judicial district. Tre Milano and MM&R are collectively referred to as Plaintiffs. 3. On information and belief, Defendant Conair Corporation (Conair) is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, having a principal place of business at 1 Cummings Point Rd., Stamford, Connecticut. 4. 5. On information and belief, Conair does business in the Central The true names and capacities of the Defendants named herein as District of the State of California. DOES 1 through 10, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise, are unknown to Plaintiffs, who therefore sue said Defendants by said fictitious names. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that each of the Defendants designated herein as DOE is legally responsible for the events and happenings hereinafter alleged and legally caused injury and damages proximately thereby to Plaintiffs as alleged herein. Plaintiffs will seek leave to amend the Complaint when the true names and capacities of said DOE Defendants have been

COMPLAINT; REQUEST 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

ascertained. Conair and DOES 1 through 10 are hereinafter collectively referred to as Defendants. 6. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that each of the Defendants participated in and is in some manner responsible for the acts described in this Complaint and any damages resulting therefrom. 7. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that each of Conair and DOES 1-3 has acted in concert and participation with each other concerning the claim in this Complaint. 8. 9. Plaintiffs believe, and on that basis allege, that each of DOES 4-10 is Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that each a customer of Conair. of Conair and DOES 1-3 was empowered to act as the agent, servant and/or employees of each other, and that all the acts alleged to have been done by each of them were authorized, approved and/or ratified by each of them.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 10. Plaintiffs assert against Defendants claims for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of the United States Code. This Court, therefore, has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1338(a). 11. Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. 1391(c) and 1400(a) & (b). Defendants have sent infringing devices into this judicial district with the intent that they be sold in this judicial district.

THE PATENTS AT ISSUE 12. United States Patent No. 8,342,191 (the 191 Patent, a true and correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit A), entitled Hair Styling Tool with

COMPLAINT; REQUEST 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

Rotatable Cylinder, was duly and legally issued to MM&R Products, Inc. on January 1, 2013. 13. United States Patent No. 8,360,076 (the 076 Patent, a true and correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit B), entitled Hair Styling Tool with Rotatable Cylinder, was duly and legally issued to MM&R Products, Inc. on January 29, 2013. 14. United States Patent No. 8,567,416 (the 416 Patent, a true and correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit C), entitled Hair Styling Tool with Rotatable Cylinder, was duly and legally issued to MM&R Products, Inc. on October 29, 2013.

PLAINTIFFS INVENTION 15. 16. Tre Milano is the worldwide exclusive licensee of all patent rights Tre Milano sells a patented hairstyling product, particularly an electric under the 191 Patent, the 076 Patent, and the 416 Patent. iron, under the federally registered trademark INSTYLER, which is a breakthrough product that incorporates a motorized, heated, rotatable styling cylinder opposing a non-rotating styling arm that is effective for straightening, curling and styling hair (the InStyler). Prior to the introduction of the InStyler, conventional curling irons or straightening irons used stationary heated hair styling surfaces against which hair is pressed and heated to be styled. 17. The InStyler embodies certain federally protected patent rights according to the 191 Patent, the 076 Patent, and the 416 Patent, as well as United States Patent No. 7,481,228 (the 228 Patent) issued on January 27, 2009 and confirmed in reexamination, and United States Patent No. 7,631,646 issued on December 15, 2009 (the 646 Patent). Plaintiffs are not asserting that Defendants infringe claims of the 228 or 646 patents.

COMPLAINT; REQUEST 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

18.

Tre Milano introduced the InStyler in June 2008. Since then, the

InStyler has achieved widespread success in the United States and elsewhere. The InStyler has been embraced by the public, and has received awards and tribute by others. 19. The product has been reviewed and praised by hair stylists on television, including the ABC show The View and by an NBC station in Pennsylvania. 20. The InStyler has been awarded many marketing and product awards including the following: -Redbook MVP 2009 Most Valuable Product 2009 Beauty Award, Instyler Rotating Hot Iron Hair Straightener -2011-2012 Victoire de la Beaut Award -2011 Aurora Gold Award Perfect Lights -2011 YO DONA El Corte Ingles Award 21. 22. The InStyler is a resounding commercial success. Over six million In addition to the commercial success of the InStyler product in the units have been sold in the U.S. with gross revenue of over $450 million. United States, in excess of one million units have been sold worldwide with gross sales in excess of $100 million dollars. Sales are occurring in at least 20 countries, including France, Spain, Greece, Canada, Dubai, Israel, Australia, Taiwan, Thailand, the Philippines, New Zealand, Mexico, Brazil, El Salvador, Argentina, Italy, Eastern Europe, the United Kingdom, Japan, and Korea.

DEFENDANTS ACTIONS 23. 24. Conair sells and distributes many hair-care products under several Conair promotes itself as the number one company in the United different brands, including Infiniti. States in the hair care appliance and hair accessories industry. Plaintiffs are
4
COMPLAINT; REQUEST 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

informed and believe and based thereon allege that Conair has annual worldwide sales in excess of $1.5 billion. 25. In November 2008, representatives of Conair approached Tre Milano and proposed that Tre Milano license to Conair the exclusive rights to sell the InStyler to the retail market under the name Conair InStyler. The terms proposed by Conair were much less favorable than those available from other distributors. In an attempt to force Tre Milano to accept unfavorable and unreasonable terms, Conair threatened Tre Milano that if Tre Milano did not accept Conairs proposal, Conair would use its market power and resources to develop and distribute a knock-off of the InStyler at a lower price with the effect of damaging or destroying Tre Milanos market for the InStyler. 26. 27. Plaintiffs did not accept Conairs proposal. Conair has attempted to make good on its threat. Since about March

2010 Conair has been offering to sell and selling an inferior knock-off of the InStyler called the ProStyler under its Infiniti brand, at a price significantly lower than the customary price of the InStyler. 28. Conair initially copied the trade dress of the Instyler, but when sued, changed the appearance of its product. Conair continues to attempt to knock-off the functionality of the InStyler. 29. On information and belief, aside from selling its knockoffs at a significantly lower price than the InStyler, Conair, using its acknowledged market power, is attempting to foreclose competition in the market by having retailers sign exclusive distribution contracts with Conair that prevent them from selling the InStyler. 30. On information and belief, Conair has executed exclusive contracts with at least two chain retailers, including but not limited to CVS stores located in California, which prevent the InStyler from being sold in CVS stores in California.

COMPLAINT; REQUEST 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

31. 32.

On information and belief, Conair has plans to execute such exclusive On information and belief, Conairs exclusive contracts provide that

distribution contracts throughout the market where Tre Milano sells its products. retailers are not to sell competing products by Tre Milano even if they do not carry Conairs products in particular stores. 33. On information and belief, Conairs exclusive contracts were drafted and developed with conscious intent to lock up the market for Conair and ensure that Tre Milano could not compete with it, and not to serve any legitimate business need. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (For Patent Infringement, 35 U.S.C. 281, Against All Defendants) 34. 35. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through Defendants have, without authorization, imported, made, used, offered 33 of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. for sale and sold devices that infringe claims 5, 6/5 (the terminology a/b means claim a dependent from claim b), 9/5, 10/5, 11/5, 13/5, 27/5, 28/5, 29/5, 30/5, 31/5, 32/5, 32, 35/5, and 36 of the 191 Patent. Plaintiffs are not asserting that Defendants infringe claims of the 191 Patent that are not listed above. 36. Defendants have, without authorization, imported, made, used, offered for sale and sold devices that infringe at least claims 1, 3, 4, 5/1, 5/3, 6/1, 6/3, 6/4, 8/1, 8/3, 9/1, 9/3, 9/4, 11-13, 14/1, 14/3, 14/4, 15, 23/1, 23/3, 23/4, 24/1, 24/3, 24/4, 25/1, 25/3, 25/4, and 26-32 of the 076 Patent. Plaintiffs are not asserting that Defendants infringe claims of the 076 patent that are not listed above. 37. Defendants have, without authorization, imported, made, used, offered for sale and sold devices that infringe at least claims 1, 4-6, and 8-12 of the 416 Patent. Plaintiffs are not asserting that Defendants infringe claims of the 416 patent that are not listed above.

COMPLAINT; REQUEST 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

38.

On information and belief, by the acts of patent infringement herein

complained of, Defendants have made substantial profits to which they are not equitably entitled. 39. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from Defendants all damages they have sustained as a result of Defendants infringement, inducement of infringement and contributory infringement of the 191, 076, and 416 Patents. 40. On information and belief, Defendants infringement, induced infringement and contributory infringement of the Patents will continue and will cause Plaintiffs irreparable harm unless enjoined by this Court. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law. 41. On information and belief, this is an exceptional case as to Defendants under 35 U.S.C. 285 because Defendants infringement was willful. The patent application that matured into the 191 Patent was cited by Conair during prosecution of its US patent application S/N 13/041,758 for the ProStyler product, and thus it is highly likely that Conair had knowledge of at least one of the patents being asserted herein. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (For Unfair Competition, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17200, Against Conair and Does 1-3) 42. 43. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through Conairs and Does 1-3s actions, as described above, are inherently 41 of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. unfair, offend established public policy, are immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous and substantially injurious to consumers on their face, and violate the fundamental rules of honesty and fair dealing. 44. These actions, as described above, threaten an incipient violation of the antitrust laws, violate the policy and spirit of the antitrust laws, have effects

COMPLAINT; REQUEST 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

comparable to or the same as a violation of the antitrust laws, and otherwise significantly threaten and harm competition. 45. On information and belief, the acts of unfair competition of Conair and Does 1-3 will continue and will cause Plaintiffs irreparable harm unless enjoined by this Court. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request judgment as follows: A. Preliminary and then permanent injunctions restraining all Defendants from further infringement, inducement of infringement or contributory infringement of the specified claims of the 191, 076, and 416 Patents. B. Preliminary and then permanent injunctions restraining Conair and Does 1 -3 from further acts of unfair competition with Plaintiffs, including but not limited to the use of contracts that foreclose retailers from carrying Plaintiffs products; C. An award in favor of Plaintiffs holding Defendants jointly and severally liable for three times the damages sustained as a consequence of Defendants infringement of the 191 Patent, the 076 Patent and the 416 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 284; D. E. An award to Plaintiffs of their attorneys fees, as provided by 35 An award to Plaintiffs of interest and costs as fixed by the Court; and U.S.C. 285, Defendants being liable for such fees;

COMPLAINT; REQUEST 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
9
COMPLAINT; REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL

F.

An award to Plaintiffs of such other and further relief as this Court

deems proper. Dated: April 10, 2014 Respectfully submitted, SHELDON MAK & ANDERSON PC

By: _/s/Jeffrey G. Sheldon___________________ Jeffrey G. Sheldon Laura M. Lloyd William D. Bowen Attorneys for Plaintiffs Tre Milano, LLC and MM&R Products, Inc.

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 Dated: April 10, 2014

REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 38(b), Plaintiffs hereby request a trial by jury of all issues raised by the complaint that are properly triable to a jury. Respectfully submitted, SHELDON MAK & ANDERSON PC

By: _/s/Jeffrey G. Sheldon___________________ Jeffrey G. Sheldon Laura M. Lloyd William D. Bowen Attorneys for Plaintiffs Tre Milano, LLC and MM&R Products, Inc.

10

COMPLAINT; REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL

You might also like