Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
10
11 Yung Tseng Chen, an individual,
dba as Origami Unicorn,
12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
Benjamin Taller, an individual,
15
Defendant.
16
17
18
19
Plaintiff, Yung Tseng Chen, an individual, for her Complaint for Declaratory Judgment
PARTIES
1.
23 individual doing business as Origami Unicorn, who maintains a principal place of business at 630
24 Joost Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94127, and does business within this Judicial District.
25
2.
26 Defendant or Defendant Taller) is an individual residing within the State of California, who
27 maintains a principal place of business in Berkeley, California and does business within this
PAGE 1
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE
Judicial District. Defendant Taller is the owner of Rolo Travel (Rolo), which sells a travel
accessory it alleges is covered by United States Design Patent D720,537 (the D537 Patent, a
copy of which is attached as Exhibit A) and does business within this Judicial District.
4
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5
1.
This Court has original jurisdiction over this action under the Federal Declaratory
Judgments Act, 28 U.S.C. 2201 and 2202, and the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C.
1 et seq. The Federal Courts are conferred exclusive subject matter jurisdiction over patents
10
2.
This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the tortious interference claim
3.
Venue is proper in this Court because Plaintiff is located within and/or doing
13 business within this state, and Defendant Taller is located within and/or doing business within this
14 state.
15
4.
16
5.
17
6.
An actual and justiciable controversy has arisen and now exists between Plaintiff
18 and Defendant as to whether the D537 Patent is infringed and whether the D537 Patent is valid.
19
INTRA-DISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
20
21
7.
Pursuant to the Civil Local Rule, Rule 3-2, subdivisions (c) and (d), this action is
22 properly assigned to either the San Francisco or Oakland division of this Court because a
23 substantial portion of the events giving rise to this dispute occurred in the County of San Francisco,
24 California.
25
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
26
27
8.
PAGE 2
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE
designer based in San Francisco. She started her industrial design career in the tech industry,
working for large corporations in Taiwan before moving to the Bay Area in 2005.
9.
Plaintiff Chen joined a program held by the Taipei Design Center (TDC) to
experience the design process in renowned design studios across the USA, joined One & Co (now
HTC) during the TDC program, and decided to stay in San Francisco. For almost 10 years she has
worked as a Senior Industrial Designer on medical devices and consumer products such as Pacific
Biosciences DNA Sequencer, Cutera Laser Systems, and Etymotic Headset at Zoe Design.
8
9
10.
Francisco, California. Plaintiff designs and develops products that improve everyday life and she
10 has the project of building a long lasting brand through great design and quality.
11
11.
Plaintiff Chen has always been passionate about designing and creating soft goods
12 and started developing a line of products to improve everyday life. A travel organizer, named
13 TUO, is her first product.
14
12.
The travel organizer idea came to her while she was going on a trip to France. She
15 made a prototype to put all her undergarments together. It was designed to allow travelers to
16 organize their undergarments or small items neatly in a foldable bag which acts as a portable closet
17 for their trip.
18
13.
After spending months perfecting the product, she finally created the finished look
19 of TUO. See the July 10, 2015 Press Release attached as Exhibit B.
20
14.
The TUO is made of a water resistant nylon fabric and features three see through
21 mesh zippered compartments to pack and organize undergarments, accessories and small clothing
22 items together. Its utilitarian and compact design is intended to be the ultimate in functionality.
23 To help save space in a suitcase, it unfolds. It also features a detachable handle to hang it from a
24 closet or a towel bar to access items easily.
25
15.
To improve its functionality there are also two sets of internal pockets to increase
26 privacy and separation of smaller items, and a mini dirty laundry bag with two pockets to help sort
27 items as needed. When travelers are ready to leave the hotel, they simply need to fold the bag in
PAGE 3
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE
thirds, snap the side buttons, and they are ready to go. Other, less functional versions, have been
16.
To finance her new TUO travel organizer project, Plaintiff Chen launched a
Kickstarter campaign in mid-July 2015. A Kickstarter campaign is a new way for filmmakers,
musicians, artists, and designers to crowd-fund creative projects by using the Kickstarter.com
internet site.
17.
Plaintiff Chens Kickstarter campaign was intended to raise an initial funding goal
of $15,000.00. As of the filing of this Complaint, the Kickstarter campaign has far exceeded that
initial goal and has over $85,000.00 committed. It is due to fund on Monday, August 24, 2015.
10
18.
Defendant is the owner of the D537 Patent, a Design Patent, and has hired counsel
11 to threaten Plaintiff with litigation if she does not stop her Kickstarter campaign or pay a 10%
12 royalty to him. A copy of his counsels initial cease and desist letter is attached as Exhibit C.
13
19.
14 claim, and rather that provide such an explanation, Defendants counsel finished the discussions
15 explaining why he would not respond to the merits of the inquiry, stating:
16
17
18
19
20
21
I am operating under instructions from my client, who is very interested in either quickly
reaching a licensing deal or filing suit to show we mean business. He reasonably believes
that he being harmed by every additional day your client offers her product for sale.
Any back-and-forth about what is covered by the patent and whether your clients
product infringes it is, in my clients opinion, just going to delay the resolution of this
matter. To the extent we are required to share our understanding of the patent and its
infringement as part of the normal pre-trial process, we will do that. However, we see no
benefit in doing that now.
22 [A true and correct copy of the underlying correspondence, following Exhibit C, is attached as
23 Exhibit D hereto.]
24
FIRST COUNT
25
26
27
20.
PAGE 4
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE
the scope and validity of the D537 Patent in that Defendant has alleged Plaintiff is infringing his
patent rights and has demanded royalties for Plaintiffs alleged infringement.
21.
As to the actual controversy regarding the scope of the D537 Patent, Defendant
has created an actual controversy by representing that as to the D537 Patent: The design has been
deemed protectable by the PTO even though it is for a useful article of manufacture, as is the case
22.
23.
As to the actual controversy regarding the scope of the D537 Patent, Defendants
position of infringement would render the D537 Patent invalid as Defendant is attempting to claim
10 patent protection for features beyond the scope of the D537 Patent. In other words, the manner
11 in which the Defendant is asserting its patent rights, being dictated primarily to the functionality
12 of the article, presents an interpretation of the D537 Patent that is not proper statutory subject
13 matter under 35 U.S.C. 171.
14
24.
Second, as to the actual controversy regarding the scope of the D537 Patent,
15 Defendants position of infringement raises the issue of whether the D537 Patent, as being
16 asserted, meets the requirements of patentability under 35 U.S.C. 171.
17
25.
Third, as to the actual controversy regarding the scope of the D537 Patent,
18 Defendants position of infringement raises the issue of whether the D537 Patent meets the
19 requirement of using a broken line disclosure to represent the utilitarian features contained therein.
20 In other words, Defendants position raises the issue of whether functional structure was intended
21 to be part of the claimed design such that a broken line disclosure should have been used to explain
22 to the Patent and Trademark Office what was intended by the Defendant to be part of the claimed
23 design. Thus, the controversy is ripe.
24
SECOND COUNT
25
26
26.
Plaintiff Chen repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference each and every
27 previous allegation.
PAGE 5
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE
27.
28.
Plaintiff has economic relationships and existing plans to develop her Origami
Unicorn business and launched a Kickstarter campaign to provide the necessary financing to allow
her business to proceed. Such economic relationships contain the probability and expectation of
current and future economic benefits to Plaintiff, which relationships and expectations are and at
all time have been known to Defendant as shown by the fact that Defendants August 10, 2015
letter
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1257838137/tuo-the-ultimate-travel-undergarment-
organizer. This website shows that the campaign is to be funded on Monday, August 24, 2015.
10
specifically
29.
references
the
Plaintiffs
Kickstarter
campaign,
at
Defendants August 10, 2015 letter set a five (5) business day deadline for Plaintiff
11 to pay or cease her activitiesa deadline selected to affect the Plaintiffs Kickstarter campaign.
12 Defendant set this deadline to scare off the Plaintiff from pursuing her financing to develop her
13 Origami Unicorn business. These tactics included threats of enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C.
14 284, pre-tax profits under 35 U.S.C. 289; and all costs of legal action including attorney fees.
15
30.
Defendants intent was to stop Plaintiff from transacting business with the
16 investors in her Kickstarter campaign, and to otherwise disrupt Plaintiff from developing her
17 Origami Unicorn business.
18
31.
Defendants intent was for Plaintiff to lose funding, credibility, and customers for
32.
21 suffered and continues to suffer great and irreparable injury, for which the Plaintiff has no adequate
22 remedy at law.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
23
24
25
1.
A declaration that Plaintiff is not infringing and has not infringed, either directly or
2.
PAGE 6
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE
1
2
3.
U.S.C. 285 and all other applicable statutes, rules, and common laws;
4.
5.
An award for damages, costs and attorneys fees to Plaintiff consistent with an
5
6
Order that Defendant has tortuously interfered with Plaintiffs business; and,
6.
An award to Plaintiff of such other relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
7
8
10
11
DOYLE LOW LLP
Respectfully submitted,
12
13
14
15 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
16
17
Respectfully submitted,
DOYLE LOW LLP
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
PAGE 7
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE
Chen v. Taller
can,
er eey
7,604,102
(21)
B2*
14 Years
Albritton
............. ..
190/107
133/299
133/299
13646,485 s
10/2011
6/2012 Torrellas
D673,769 S *
8,348,054 B2
1/2013 Dragan
*
13699,030 s *
2006/0086628 A1*
Appl.No.: 29/502,162
10/2009
D627,167 s *
13685,590 s
Term
Jan. 6, 2015
4*
US D720,537 S
7/2013
(Cont1nued)
(22) Filed:
(51)
(52)
.............................................. .. 03-01
US. Cl.
(58)
D3/287
Field of Classi?cation Search
CPC
A45C 3/004; A45C 3/00; A45C 2003/008;
A45C 11/26
DESCRIPTION
References Cited
(57)
CLAIM
organizer;
FIG. 2 is a back perspective vieW of the roll up clothing
organizer of FIG. 1;
FIG. 3 is a perspective vieW of the roll up clothing organizer
of FIG. 1 in a rolled state;
FIG. 4 is a front vieW of the roll up clothing organizer of FIG.
1;
1;
2,502,033 A *
3/1950
3,115,959 A
3,139,133 A *
12/1963 Jaffe
6/1964
4,655,343 A
4,735,246 A *
4/1988
D298,885 S
4,801,010 A
4,819,796 A
4,967,986 A *
5,651,455 A *
5,692,604 A *
D418,295 S *
Chen v. Taller
1/1989 Levitas
4/1989 Gerch et a1.
12/1997
1/2000
1;
FIG. 1; and,
7/1997 Garcia
12/1988 Cooper
11/1990
FIG. 1;
206/287.1
Houk
.... .. 206/278
Verhulst ....................... .. D3/283
US D720,537 S
Page 2
(56)
References Cited
2010/0155266 A1*
2013/0256159 A1*
2009/0127045 A1 *
Chen v. Taller
11/2006
2014/0158564 A1
* Cited by examiner
6/2014 Blasingame
U S. Patent
Sheet10f7
Jan.6,2015
3.
.15a.t: . 2.1.
FIG. 1
Chen v. Taller
US D720,537 S
US. Patent
Jan. 6, 2015
Sheet 2 0f7
FIG. 2
Chen v. Taller
US D720,537 S
US. Patent
Jan. 6, 2015
Sheet 3 0f7
FIG. 3
Chen v. Taller
US D720,537 S
US. Patent
Chen v. Taller
Jan. 6, 2015
Sheet 4 0f7
US D720,537 S
US. Patent
Jan. 6, 2015
Sheet 5 0f7
FIG. 5
Chen v. Taller
US D720,537 S
US. Patent
Jan. 6, 2015
Sheet 6 0f7
FIG. 7
Chen v. Taller
US D720,537 S
US. Patent
Jan. 6, 2015
Sheet 7 0f7
US D720,537 S
FIG. 9
Chen v. Taller
Chen v. Taller
Chen v. Taller
The Kickstarter campaign hopes to raise an initial funding goal of $15,000 USD and will offer Early Bird specials as well as
several stretch goals after the initial funding goal is met. During the 35-day campaign, pledgers will have the opportunity to
fund and pre-order items including the TUO and mini laundry bag as well as gift packages in a variety of colors and styles.
Following the Kickstarter campaign, the first TUO organizers for direct consumer sales are expected to be available by Q4
2015.
ABOUT ORIGAMI UNICORN
Founded by Connie Yung Tseng Chen, Origami Unicorn specializes in design and development of lifestyle products.
Chen has a strong background in designing consumer and medical products and has taken her passion for sewing and
designing soft goods to create the TUO as her first Origami Unicorn product line. For more information, visit
www.origamiunicorn.us
###
Chen v. Taller
Chen v. Taller
Firm structure and detachable handle design for more hanging options
Chen v. Taller
Connie Yung Tseng Chen is a Taiwanese award winning industrial designer based in San Francisco. She started her
Industrial design career in the tech industry, working for large corporations in Taiwan before moving to the bay Area in
2005. Prior to her move to San Francisco she developed the desire to explore different culture and lifestyle, and went on a
trip to Canada, British Columbia that lasted 7 months.
She then joined a program held by the Taipei Design Center to experience the design process in renowned design studios
across the USA, joined One & Co (now HTC) during the TDC program and decided to stay in San Francisco.
For almost 10 years she worked as a senior Industrial designer on medical devices and consumer products such as
Pacific Biosciences DNA Sequencer, Cutera Laser systems, Etymotic headset at Zoe Design.
Connie has always been passionate about designing and creating soft goods. In 2014 she decided to turn her passion into
a job, and started developing a line of products to improve everyday life. Tuo is the first one.
The travel organizer idea came to her while she was going on a trip to France. She made a prototype to put all her undergarments together. The first prototype worked well and was fully functional but left a lot of room for improvement. She
started to iterate on the original concept and interviewed friends for feedback. After spending months perfecting the
product, she finally created the finished look of TUO.
Now she is the founder and designer at Origami Unicorn. She believes design and quality are the best ways to build a
brand. After years of working in the industrial design field, she is finally pursuing a lifelong dream to launch her own brand.
Chen v. Taller
Chen v. Taller
Chen v. Taller
Sincerely,
Chen v. Taller
Chen v. Taller
Via E-Mail
August 17, 2015
Michael Sullivan
Law Office of Michael J. Sullivan
111 N. Market St., Suite 300
San Jose, CA 95113
Telephone: (408)628-8882
Facsimile: (408)625-1148
msullivan@mikesullivanlaw.com
Re: U.S. Design Patent D720,537
Dear Mr. Sullivan:
We have been contacted by the owners of Origami Unicorn and asked to review your letter to
Ms. Chen dated August 10, 2015.
We have reviewed Rolo Travels patent, United States Design Patent D720,537 (the 537
Patent), which is directed to a roll-up clothing organizer. It is our clients intent to avoid any
protections provided by the 537 Patent. Thus we also reviewed your clients website which
discusses its invention as follows:
YOUR SUITCASE JUST SHRUNK.
Rolo is a lot of things: compression bag, suitcase, wardrobe, organizer but most of all,
its a brand new way of packing.
This clever invention maximizes space with four mesh compartmentstwo large and two
smallthat hold up to four days worth of clothing and toiletries. Simply put your stuff
into Rolos compartments, roll it up, buckle it, and youre on your way.
Made with strong fabric, brand name YKK zippers, military grade mesh, and patented
side-release buckles, Rolo is built to last. It comes with a convenient shoulder strap thats
perfect for hiking, camping, or backpacking and even short trips. (Heck, you may not
even need a suitcase.)
When you arrive, simply unroll it and hang it up in a closet, on a tree branch, or
wherever. Its easy to seeand accesswhats in each pocket. Theres no need to
unpack.
3640 M T . D IABLO B OULEVARD , S UITE 202
L AFAYETTE , CA 94549
925.295.1800 PHONE
Chen v. Taller
WWW.DOYLELOW. COM
COMPLAINT EXHIBIT PAGE 28
Jaime B. Herren
Chen v. Taller
Chen v. Taller
Via E-mail
August 19, 2015
Michael Sullivan
Law Office of Michael J. Sullivan
111 N. Market St., Suite 300
San Jose, CA 95113
Telephone: (408)628-8882
Facsimile: (408)625-1148
msullivan@mikesullivanlaw.com
Re: U.S. Design Patent D720,537
Dear Mr. Sullivan:
We have your letter dated August 18, 2015, and the first thing we did was to review your website
to see your background as your summary of the relevant law and the scope of a protection
attributed to a design patent is incorrect. We confirmed that you in fact represent yourself as
filing design patent applications, so you clearly are aware of the appropriate legal standards. In
an abundance of caution, and to confirm that my understanding of the law, I then went to the
United States Patent and Trademark Office website and found the following clarifications as to
the positions in your letter.
You state The design has been deemed protectable by the PTO even though it is for a useful article
of manufacture, as is the case for any other design patent. That statement is incorrect. The
protection provided by a design patent is just that, limited to a design. As you know, a design
consists of the visual ornamental characteristics embodied in, or applied to, an article of
manufacture. It does not protect a useful article of manufacture.
Since a design is manifested in appearance, the subject matter of a design patent application may
relate to the configuration or shape of an article, to the surface ornamentation applied to an
article, or to the combination of configuration and surface ornamentation. A design for surface
ornamentation is inseparable from the article to which it is applied and cannot exist alone. It
must be a definite pattern of surface ornamentation, applied to an article of manufacture. Again,
it does not protect a useful article of manufacture.
In the situation in which an article of manufacture possesses both functional and ornamental
characteristics, a design patent protects only the appearance of the article and not structural or
utilitarian features.
WWW.DOYLELOW. COM
COMPLAINT EXHIBIT PAGE 31
Chen v. Taller
Jaime B. Herren
Chen v. Taller
Chen v. Taller
Michael,
I am on this email chain. It was me who asked Jaime to follow up with you and to determine what was ornamental as opposed to
functional. For example, a strap would generally be considered functional. Zippers to seal compartments likewise functional, and
finally the two snaps which lock the fabric in rolled up fashion would also be considered functional. We are missing something and
would appreciate your assistance so that we can best advise our client.
Thank you
Rich
Chen v. Taller
Rich,
I am operating under instructions from my client, who is very interested in either quickly reaching
a licensing deal or filing suit to show we mean business. He reasonably believes that he being
harmed by every additional day your client offers her product for sale.
Any back-and-forth about what is covered by the patent and whether your clients product
infringes it is, in my clients opinion, just going to delay the resolution of this matter. To the
extent we are required to share our understanding of the patent and its infringement as part of the
normal pre-trial process, we will do that. However, we see no benefit in doing that now.
Regards,
Michael
___________________________
Law Office of Michael J. Sullivan
111 N. Market St., Ste. 300
San Jose, CA 95113
(408) 628-8882
www.mikesullivanlaw.com
From:!Richard!Doyle![mailto:rdoyle@jd4law.com]!On(Behalf(Of(Richard!P.!Doyle,!Jr.
Sent:!Wednesday,!August!19,!2015!4:01!PM
To:!Michael!Sullivan!<MSullivan@MikeSullivanLaw.com>
Cc:!Jaime!Herren!<jherren@doylelow.com>;!Francois!Laine!<francois.laine@gmail.com>
Subject:!Re:!United!States!Design!Patent!D720,537
Michael,
I am on this email chain. It was me who asked Jaime to follow up with you and to determine
what was ornamental as opposed to functional.
For example, a strap would generally be considered functional. Zippers to seal compartments
likewise functional, and finally the two snaps which lock the fabric in rolled up fashion would
also be considered functional.
We are missing something and would appreciate your assistance so that we can best advise our
client.
Thank you
Rich
Chen v. Taller
&,9,/&29(56+((7
7KH-6FLYLOFRYHUVKHHWDQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQFRQWDLQHGKHUHLQQHLWKHUUHSODFHQRUVXSSOHPHQWWKHILOLQJDQGVHUYLFHRISOHDGLQJVRURWKHUSDSHUVDVUHTXLUHGE\ODZH[FHSWDV
SURYLGHGE\ORFDOUXOHVRIFRXUW7KLVIRUPDSSURYHGE\WKH-XGLFLDO&RQIHUHQFHRIWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVLQ6HSWHPEHULVUHTXLUHGIRUWKHXVHRIWKH&OHUNRI&RXUWIRUWKH
SXUSRVHRILQLWLDWLQJWKHFLYLOGRFNHWVKHHW(SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
, D 3/$,17,))6
'()(1'$176
E&RXQW\RI5HVLGHQFHRI)LUVW/LVWHG3ODLQWLII
&RXQW\RI5HVLGHQFHRI)LUVW/LVWHG'HIHQGDQW
San Francisco
u )HGHUDO4XHVWLRQ
(U.S. Government Not a Party)
u 86*RYHUQPHQW
'HIHQGDQW
u 'LYHUVLW\
(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)
Alameda
Michael J. Sullivan
Law Office of Michael J. Sullivan
111 N. Market St. Ste. 300, San Jose, CA 95113
&LWL]HQRI$QRWKHU6WDWH
u
u
,QFRUSRUDWHGand3ULQFLSDO3ODFH
RI%XVLQHVV,Q$QRWKHU6WDWH
u
u
&LWL]HQRU6XEMHFWRID
)RUHLJQ&RXQWU\
u
u
)RUHLJQ1DWLRQ
u
u
72576
u
u
u
u
,QVXUDQFH
0DULQH
0LOOHU$FW
1HJRWLDEOH,QVWUXPHQW
5HFRYHU\RI2YHUSD\PHQW
(QIRUFHPHQWRI-XGJPHQW
0HGLFDUH$FW
5HFRYHU\RI'HIDXOWHG
6WXGHQW/RDQV
([FOXGHV9HWHUDQV
5HFRYHU\RI2YHUSD\PHQW
RI9HWHUDQV%HQHILWV
6WRFNKROGHUV6XLWV
2WKHU&RQWUDFW
&RQWUDFW3URGXFW/LDELOLW\
)UDQFKLVH
u
u
u
u
u
u
5($/3523(57<
/DQG&RQGHPQDWLRQ
)RUHFORVXUH
5HQW/HDVH (MHFWPHQW
7RUWVWR/DQG
7RUW3URGXFW/LDELOLW\
$OO2WKHU5HDO3URSHUW\
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
3(5621$/,1-85<
u $LUSODQH
u $LUSODQH3URGXFW
/LDELOLW\
u $VVDXOW/LEHO
6ODQGHU
u )HGHUDO(PSOR\HUV
/LDELOLW\
u 0DULQH
u 0DULQH3URGXFW
/LDELOLW\
u 0RWRU9HKLFOH
u 0RWRU9HKLFOH
3URGXFW/LDELOLW\
u 2WKHU3HUVRQDO
,QMXU\
u 3HUVRQDO,QMXU\
0HGLFDO0DOSUDFWLFH
&,9,/5,*+76
u 2WKHU&LYLO5LJKWV
u 9RWLQJ
u (PSOR\PHQW
u +RXVLQJ
$FFRPPRGDWLRQV
u $PHUZ'LVDELOLWLHV
(PSOR\PHQW
u $PHUZ'LVDELOLWLHV
2WKHU
u (GXFDWLRQ
)25)(,785(3(1$/7<
3(5621$/,1-85<
u 3HUVRQDO,QMXU\
3URGXFW/LDELOLW\
u +HDOWK&DUH
3KDUPDFHXWLFDO
3HUVRQDO,QMXU\
3URGXFW/LDELOLW\
u $VEHVWRV3HUVRQDO
,QMXU\3URGXFW
/LDELOLW\
3(5621$/3523(57<
u 2WKHU)UDXG
u 7UXWKLQ/HQGLQJ
u 2WKHU3HUVRQDO
3URSHUW\'DPDJH
u 3URSHUW\'DPDJH
3URGXFW/LDELOLW\
35,621(53(7,7,216
+DEHDV&RUSXV
u $OLHQ'HWDLQHH
u 0RWLRQVWR9DFDWH
6HQWHQFH
u *HQHUDO
u 'HDWK3HQDOW\
2WKHU
u 0DQGDPXV 2WKHU
u &LYLO5LJKWV
u 3ULVRQ&RQGLWLRQ
u &LYLO'HWDLQHH
&RQGLWLRQVRI
&RQILQHPHQW
u 'UXJ5HODWHG6HL]XUH
RI3URSHUW\86&
u 2WKHU
%$1.5837&<
u $SSHDO86&
u :LWKGUDZDO
86&
3523(57<5,*+76
u &RS\ULJKWV
u 3DWHQW
u 7UDGHPDUN
u
u
u
u
u
u
/$%25
)DLU/DERU6WDQGDUGV
$FW
/DERU0DQDJHPHQW
5HODWLRQV
5DLOZD\/DERU$FW
)DPLO\DQG0HGLFDO
/HDYH$FW
2WKHU/DERU/LWLJDWLRQ
(PSOR\HH5HWLUHPHQW
,QFRPH6HFXULW\$FW
u
u
u
u
u
62&,$/6(&85,7<
+,$II
%ODFN/XQJ
',:&',::J
66,'7LWOH;9,
56,J
)('(5$/7$;68,76
u 7D[HV863ODLQWLII
RU'HIHQGDQW
u ,567KLUG3DUW\
86&
27+(567$787(6
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
)DOVH&ODLPV$FW
6WDWH5HDSSRUWLRQPHQW
$QWLWUXVW
%DQNVDQG%DQNLQJ
&RPPHUFH
'HSRUWDWLRQ
5DFNHWHHU,QIOXHQFHGDQG
&RUUXSW2UJDQL]DWLRQV
&RQVXPHU&UHGLW
&DEOH6DW79
6HFXULWLHV&RPPRGLWLHV
([FKDQJH
2WKHU6WDWXWRU\$FWLRQV
$JULFXOWXUDO$FWV
(QYLURQPHQWDO0DWWHUV
)UHHGRPRI,QIRUPDWLRQ
$FW
$UELWUDWLRQ
$GPLQLVWUDWLYH3URFHGXUH
$FW5HYLHZRU$SSHDORI
$JHQF\'HFLVLRQ
&RQVWLWXWLRQDOLW\RI
6WDWH6WDWXWHV
,00,*5$7,21
u 1DWXUDOL]DWLRQ$SSOLFDWLRQ
u 2WKHU,PPLJUDWLRQ
$FWLRQV
u 5HPRYHGIURP
6WDWH&RXUW
u
5HPDQGHGIURP
$SSHOODWH&RXUW
u 5HLQVWDWHGRU
5HRSHQHG
u 7UDQVIHUUHGIURP
$QRWKHU'LVWULFW
u 0XOWLGLVWULFW
/LWLJDWLRQ
(specify)
9,&$86(2)$&7,21
Declaratory Judgment for non-infringment of design patent and patent invalidity; and Tortious Interference
u &+(&.,)7+,6,6$&/$66$&7,21
9,,5(48(67(',1
81'(558/()5&Y3
&203/$,17
9,,,5(/$7('&$6(6
(See instructions):
,)$1<
-8'*(
'$7(
08/20/2015
&+(&.<(6RQO\LIGHPDQGHGLQFRPSODLQW
u <HV
u 1R
-85<'(0$1'
'(0$1'
'2&.(7180%(5
6,*1$785(2)$77251(<2)5(&25'
/s/Jaime B. Herren