Chen v. Taller - Complaint

Case3:15-cv-03821-SK Document1 Filed08/20/15 Page1 of 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Jaime B. Herren (SBN 271680)

jherren@doylelow.com
Richard P. Doyle, Jr. (SBN 112459)
rdoyle@doylelow.com
DOYLE LOW LLP
3640 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Suite 202
Lafayette, CA 94549
925.295.1800 telephone
925.298.5944 fax
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Yung Tseng Chen
dba Origami Unicorn
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DOYLE LOW LLP
10
11 Yung Tseng Chen, an individual,
dba as Origami Unicorn,
12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
Benjamin Taller, an individual,
15
Defendant.
16
Case No. Case No.

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
JUDGMENT AND TORTIOUS
INTERFERENCE
Declaratory Judgment Act,
28 U.S.C. 2201-2202
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
17
18
19
Plaintiff, Yung Tseng Chen, an individual, for her Complaint for Declaratory Judgment
20 and Tortious Interference against Benjamin Taller, an individual, alleges as follows:

21
22
PARTIES
1.
Plaintiff, Yung Tseng Chen, (hereafter Plaintiff or Plaintiff Chen) is an
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.
On information and belief, Defendant Benjamin Taller, an individual, (hereafter
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
under 28 U.S.C. 1338.
10
2.
This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the tortious interference claim
DOYLE LOW LLP
11 under 28 U.S.C. 1367(a).

12
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.
Defendant alleges he is the owner of the D537 Patent.
16
5.
Defendant alleges that Plaintiff is infringing the D537 Patent.
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.
Plaintiff, Connie Yung Tseng Chen, is a Taiwanese award winning industrial
PAGE 2
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.
Plaintiff is doing business as ORIGAMI UNICORN, a design studio based in San
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.
DOYLE LOW LLP
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
thirds, snap the side buttons, and they are ready to go. Other, less functional versions, have been
around for many years.
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
DOYLE LOW LLP
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.
Correspondence continued in an attempt to understand the merits of Defendants
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
(Declaratory Relief for Non-Infringement)
26
(Declaratory Relief regarding Defendants U.S. Design Patent Rights)
27
20.
As explained above, an actual controversy exists between the parties concerning
PAGE 4
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
for any other design patent. See Exhibit C.
22.
Thus there is a controversy as to the protectable features of the D537 Patent.
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
DOYLE LOW LLP
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
(Tortious Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage)
26
26.
Plaintiff Chen repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference each and every
27 previous allegation.
PAGE 5
27.
Plaintiff designed a travel organizer, named TUO.
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
DOYLE LOW LLP
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
19 her Origami Unicorn business because of the acts of Defendant.

20
32.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants tortious interference, Plaintiff has
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
Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for relief as follows:
25
1.
A declaration that Plaintiff is not infringing and has not infringed, either directly or
26 indirectly, any valid design covered by U.S. Design Patent D720,537;

27
2.
A declaration that U.S. Design Patent D720,537 is invalid;
PAGE 6
1
2
3.
An award to Plaintiff of her costs, expenses, and attorneys fees pursuant to 35
U.S.C. 285 and all other applicable statutes, rules, and common laws;
4.
An Order that Defendant has tortuously interfered with Plaintiffs business;
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
Dated: August 20, 2015
DOYLE LOW LLP
10
By: /s/ Jaime B. Herren

Jaime B. Herren
Yung Tseng Chen
dba Origami Unicorn
11
DOYLE LOW LLP
Respectfully submitted,
12
13
14
15 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
16
17
Dated: August 20, 2015
Respectfully submitted,
DOYLE LOW LLP
18
19
20
21
By: /s/ Jaime B. Herren

Jaime B. Herren
Yung Tseng Chen
dba Origami Unicorn
22
23
24
25
26
27
PAGE 7
Case3:15-cv-03821-SK Document1-1 Filed08/20/15 Page1 of 29
EXHIBIT A TO THE COMPLAINT
Chen v. Taller
COMPLAINT EXHIBIT PAGE 8

USO0D720537S
(12) United States Design Patent (10) Patent N0.2

Taller et al.
(54)
ROLL UP CLOTHING ORGANIZER

-
can,
er eey
7,604,102
(72) Inventors: Benjamin Taller, Berkeley, CA (US);

_
(21)
B2*
14 Years
Albritton
............. ..
190/107
133/299
11/2010 Kittrell ..... ..
133/299
13646,485 s
10/2011
Mason ......................... ..133/299
6/2012 Torrellas
D673,769 S *
1/2013 Gorman .................... .. D3/203.3
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
13603,165 s * 11/2009 Losiewicz

8,201,684 B2
Cheryl Mascari, Berkeley, CA (US)

**
4*
D471,011 s * 3/2003 Kowalsky .................... ..133/299

D499,548 S * 12/2004 Deutschendorfet a1.
D3/278
(71) Apphcams'gilnjalln? Tallefgerliileyccf
US D720,537 S
(45) Date of Patent:
7/2013
Hale etal. .................... .. D6/514
2/2014 Etzler .......................... .. 133/206

4/2006 13 1 h d f 1 1. .. 206/287.1
_ en en M e a
(Cont1nued)
(22) Filed:
(51)
(52)
Sep. 12, 2014
LOC (10) Cl.
.............................................. .. 03-01
US. Cl.
Primary Examiner * Jennifer Rivard

Assistant Examiner * April Rivas
(74) Attorney, Agent, or Firm * Michael J. Sullivan
USPC .............. .. D3/299; D3/285; D3/293; D3/290;
(58)
D3/287
Field of Classi?cation Search
CPC
A45C 3/004; A45C 3/00; A45C 2003/008;
A45C 11/26
The ornamental design for a roll up clothing organizer, as

shown and described.
USPC ........ .. D3/273, 293, 289, 299, 301, 300, 303,
DESCRIPTION
D3/900, 245, 201, 283, 276, 285, 286,

D3/287; D6/513, 315, 514, 566, 563, 316,
D6/371; 190/111, 107, 112,901,11, 113;
206/2844291, 278, 6.1, 279; 211/113,
211/85.2, 72
See application ?le for complete search history.
(56)
References Cited
(57)
CLAIM
FIG. 1 is a front perspective vieW of the roll up clothing
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;
U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS
FIG. 5 is a back vieW of the roll up clothing organizer of FIG.

2,154,630 A
4/1939 Marbury et a1.
1;
2,502,033 A *
3/1950
FIG. 6 is a bottom vieW of the roll up clothing organizer of
3,115,959 A
3,139,133 A *
Bohn .......................... .. 206/293
12/1963 Jaffe
6/1964
Spector ....................... .. 190/111
4,655,343 A
4/1987 Lane et a1.
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
Niehaus ....................... .. 206/6.1
1/1989 Levitas
4/1989 Gerch et a1.
12/1997
1/2000
1;
FIG. 1; and,
Schildkraut ................. .. 224/250
7/1997 Garcia
FIG. 7 is a top vieW of the roll up clothing organizer of FIG.
FIG. 8 is a right side vieW of the roll up clothing organizer of
12/1988 Cooper
11/1990
FIG. 1;
206/287.1
FIG. 9 is a left side vieW of the roll up clothing organizer of

FIG. 1.
Houk
.... .. 206/278
Verhulst ....................... .. D3/283
1 Claim, 7 Drawing Sheets
US D720,537 S
Page 2
(56)
References Cited
2010/0155266 A1*
2013/0256159 A1*
US. PATENT DOCUMENTS

2006/0260046 A1*
2009/0127045 A1 *
Chen v. Taller
11/2006
2014/0158564 A1
Landay ....................... .. 5/413R
5/2009 Williams et al. ,,,,,,,,,,,, ,, 190/107
* Cited by examiner
6/2010 Nicholson .................... .. 206/6.1

10/2013
Walsh .......................... .. 206/61
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
EXHIBIT B TO THE COMPLAINT
Chen v. Taller
Case3:15-cv-03821-SK Document1-1 Filed08/20/15 Page12 of 29 Press Release

Date: 07 / 10 / 2015
Company: Origami Unicorn
Contact: Connie Chen
Telephone: 1-415-715-9064
Email: contact@origamiunicorn.us
website: www.origamiunicorn.us
ORIGAMI UNICORN BRINGS THE ULTIMATE TRAVEL ORGANIZER TO KICKSTARTER

The new TUO travel organizer proves that it is possible
to pack better
July 2015 On average, only half of travelers unpack their
luggage at a hotel while on vacation or a business trip
causing clothing and small items to become unorganized as
they are rifled through each morning. Personal items like
undergarments can quickly disappear among the chaos
resulting in stress and delays. The new TUO ultimate travel
undergarment organizer will allow travelers to organize their
undergarments or small items neatly in a foldable bag which
acts as a portable closet for their trip.
Launching on Kickstarter in mid-July 2015, the TUO is made
of a water resistant nylon fabric and features three seethrough mesh zippered compartments to pack and organize
undergarments, accessories and small clothing items
together. Its compact design helps save space in the
suitcase, unfolds and features a detachable handle to hang it
from the closet or towel bar to access items easily. There
are also two sets of internal pockets to increase privacy and
separation of smaller items and a mini dirty laundry bag with
two pockets to help sort items as needed. When travelers
are ready to leave the hotel, they simply need to fold the bag
in thirds, snap the side buttons, and theyre ready to go
The TUO is an ideal solution when a family or a couple are
sharing a suitcase to keep small clothing items organized as
well as perfect for showering in a gym or spa locker room as
it can be secured to the shower bar and keep clothing items
dry and off the floor. In addition, it can help save the embarrassment of undergarments falling out of the suitcase in
airport security or customs.
Packing for a vacation or business trip can be extremely
stressful trying to organize essential items and optimizing luggage space without exceeding airline luggage weight or size
restrictions, said Connie Chen, the designer and founder of Origami Unicorn. I designed the TUO to be lightweight and
allow travelers to keep small items organized throughout their vacation or business trip with minimal effort.
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
TUO Travel Undergarment Organizer design and features
Water resistant nylon fabric
Three mesh zipper pockets easy content visibility
Two sets of internal pockets - provide separate

compartments for smaller items
Snap button to keep the bag closed
Chen v. Taller
TUO Travel Undergarment Organizer design and features
Firm structure and detachable handle design for more hanging options
Graphic print design
Mini laundry bag with divider
Includes one mini laundry bag
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
EXHIBIT C TO THE COMPLAINT
Chen v. Taller
LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL J. SULLIVAN

111 N. MARKET ST., SUITE 300, SAN JOSE, CA 95113
TEL: (408) 6288882
FAX: (408) 6251148
August 10, 2015

Yung Tseng Chen
Origami Unicorn
San Francisco, CA
Re: Infringement of United States Patent D720,537
Dear Ms. Chen:
I am a patent attorney representing Benjamin Taller, the owner of Rolo Travel (Rolo), which
sells a travel accessory protected by United States Patent D720,537 (the D720 patent).
Your webpages for your product, TUO: The Ultimate Travel Undergarment Organizer (the
bag), seen at https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1257838137/tuo-the-ultimate-travelundergarment-organizer and at http://www.origamiunicorn.us, show a bag that is substantially
identical to the product sold by Rolo at http://www.rolotravel.com that is protected by the D720
patent.
To infringe the D720 patent, it does not matter whether your bag is exactly identical to the
design in the D720 patent. It also does not matter whether you came up with the bag
independently or simply copied it from Rolos design. Rolos D720 patent will protect Rolos
design from any similar designs regardless of minor design differences or how the infringing
design was created.
By offering to sell a bag substantially identical to Rolos patented design, you are already
injuring Rolos business. Rolo must protect its business. By hiring me as its attorney, Rolo is
committed to pursuing this matter until you obtain a license to their patent or cease selling your
infringing bag. We are willing to offer you a license to the D720 patent at a reasonable royalty
rate and strongly encourage you to contact us immediately to obtain a license.
If you promptly cease offering to sell the bag or obtain a license to the D720 patent, we will not
pursue litigation against you or seek monetary damages.
If you continue offering to sell the bag without a license, we will sue you and seek the following:
1. Injunctive relief barring you from continuing to sell and offer to sell the infringing bag;
2. The greater of enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. 284 or your pre-tax profits under 35
U.S.C. 289; and
3. All costs of legal action against you, including attorney fees.
Please respond by letter within five (5) business days indicating that you have ceased offering to
sell the bag or will agree to license the D720 patent.
Chen v. Taller
Sincerely,
Michael Sullivan, Esq.
Chen v. Taller
EXHIBIT D TO THE COMPLAINT
Chen v. Taller
DOYLE LOW LLP

A T T O R N E Y S A T L AW
925.295.1803 DIRECT
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
505 S ANSOME S TREET , S UITE 1475

S AN F RANCISCO, CA 94111
925.298.5944 FACSIMILE
DOYLE LOW LLP

Michael Sullivan
August 17, 2015
Page 2 of 2

The idea for Rolo came to Founders Benjamin Taller and Cheryl Mascari while
backpacking through Europe. Unpacking and packing their bag constantly was a pain.
They thought, Wouldnt it be great to simply roll all our stuff together?
That epiphany became Rolo. Carry less, travel smarter, and enjoy yourself more when
youre away.
We are having trouble distinguishing the ornamental features of the 537 Patent, for which a
design patent provides protections, from the utilitarian aspects that are described above on your
clients website.
Please get back to us and help us to understand the ornamental features embodying the patented
design that you believe are being infringed by our clients product, TUO.
We appreciate your assistance in finding a prompt resolution to this matter.
Very truly yours,
DOYLE LOW LLP
Jaime B. Herren

Chen v. Taller

TEL: (408) 6288882
FAX: (408) 6251148
August 18, 2015

Jaime B. Herren
Doyle Low LLP
3640 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Ste. 202
Lafayette, CA 94549
Re: Origami Unicorn Infringement of United States Patent D720,537
Dear Ms. Herren:
This letter is a reply to your letter dated August 17, 2015 Re: U.S. Design Patent D720,537 (the
D537 patent).
I am not sure why your main response to our letter is to quote my clients website and then ask
us to distinguish the ornamental from the utilitarian aspects of my clients product. My clients
product and website description are irrelevant to whether your client is infringing the D537
patent. It is also irrelevant whether you are having trouble distinguishing the ornamental
features of the D537 Patent, for which a design patent provides protections, from the utilitarian
aspects that are described above on your clients website. 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.
As far as the visual similarities between the D537 patent and your clients product, we have
impartial third parties who consider the designs to be very similar, and we believe any judge or
jury would find the same.
Given this round of correspondence between counsel, we are willing to extend by one day until
Thursday, August 20 our deadline for notifying us whether your client intends to pay a 10%
royalty to license the D537 patent.
Sincerely,
Chen v. Taller
DOYLE LOW LLP

A T T O R N E Y S A T L AW
925.295.1803 DIRECT
Via E-mail
August 19, 2015
Michael 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.
3640 M T . D IABLO B OULEVARD , S UITE 202

L AFAYETTE , CA 94549
925.295.1800 PHONE
Chen v. Taller
WWW.DOYLELOW. COM
505 S ANSOME S TREET , S UITE 1475

S AN F RANCISCO, CA 94111
925.298.5944 FACSIMILE
DOYLE LOW LLP

Michael Sullivan
August 19, 2015
Page 2 of 3

That is the difference between design and utility patents. In general terms, a utility patent
protects the way an article is used and works (35 U.S.C. 101), while a design patent protects
the way an article looks (35 U.S.C. 171). Both design and utility patents may be obtained on a
single article if invention resides both in its utility and ornamental appearance. That is because
utility and design patents afford legally distinct protections.
In fact, the manner in which you define your clients rights, being dictated primarily by the
function of the article and not its ornamentality, is not proper statutory subject matter under 35
U.S.C. 171. Specifically, if at the time the design was created, there was no unique or
distinctive shape or appearance to the article that was not dictated by the function that it
performs, then the design lacks ornamentality and is not proper subject matter.
In addition, 35 U.S.C. 171 requires that a design must be original. Clearly a design that
simulates a well-known or naturally occurring object or person is not original as required by the
statute. A quick review through an internet search engine reveals hundreds of similar type
products.
Finally, the 537 Patent appears violative of the statute in that a broken line disclosure is
supposed to be used in the drawings of a design patent to represent the utilitarian features. In
other words, structure that is not part of the claimed design, but is considered necessary to show
the environment in which the design is used, should be represented in the drawing by broken
lines. This includes any portion of an article in which the design is embodied or applied that is
not considered part of the claimed design. When the claim is directed to just surface
ornamentation for an article, the article in which it is embodied must be shown in broken lines.
Your client has not perfected its prosecution in this manner, contrary to the position you have
taken in your letter. Your clients position invalidates its patent.
Once again, we are having trouble distinguishing the ornamental features of the 537 Patent, for
which a design patent provides protections, from the utilitarian aspects which are described on
your clients website and are referenced in your letter.
Please get back to us and help us to understand the ornamental features embodying the patented
design that you believe are being infringed by our clients product, TUO. My client has every
intention of respecting your clients properly issued design patent rights.
Chen v. Taller
DOYLE LOW LLP

Michael Sullivan
August 19, 2015
Page 3 of 3

We appreciate your assistance in finding a prompt resolution to this matter.
Very truly yours,
DOYLE LOW LLP
Jaime B. Herren
Chen v. Taller

TEL: (408) 6288882
FAX: (408) 6251148
August 19, 2015

Jaime B. Herren
Doyle Low LLP
3640 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Ste. 202
Lafayette, CA 94549
Re: Origami Unicorn Infringement of United States Patent D720,537
Dear Ms. Herren:
This letter is a reply to your letter dated August 19, 2015 Re: U.S. Design Patent D720,537.
As the quoted language in your second paragraph states, I said that the design [is] protectable
even though it is for a useful article of manufacture. I did not say that the useful article of
manufacture is itself protectable or that any functionality of my clients product was protected by
the design patent.
Thank you for stating that you checked my background as a patent attorney and for your
extended exposition on the law. Our deadline is unchanged. If this is how your firm seeks to
avoid litigation for your clients, it is not working.
Sincerely,
Chen v. Taller

From:
Subject:
Date:
To:
Cc:
Richard P. Doyle, Jr. rdoyle@doylelow.com

Re: United States Design Patent D720,537
August 19, 2015 at 4:00 PM
Michael Sullivan MSullivan@MikeSullivanLaw.com
Jaime Herren jherren@doylelow.com, Francois Laine francois.laine@gmail.com
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
Richard P. Doyle, Jr., DOYLE LOW LLP

3640 Mt. Diablo Boulevard, Lafayette, CA 94549
Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 460, San Francisco, CA 94111
925.295.1805 direct, www.doylelow.com
NOTICE: This E-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, is
confidential and may contain attorney-client materials and/or attorney work product, legally privileged and protected from disclosure. This email is intended only for the addressee named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any retention,
dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Please reply to the sender that you have received the
message in error, then delete it and any and all copies of it.
Chen v. Taller

From:
Subject:
Date:
To:
Cc:
Michael Sullivan msullivan@mikesullivanlaw.com

RE: United States Design Patent D720,537
August 19, 2015 at 5:47 PM
Richard P. Doyle, Jr. rdoyle@doylelow.com
Jaime Herren jherren@doylelow.com, Francois Laine francois.laine@gmail.com
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
___________________________
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
-65HYFDQGUHY
&,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'$176
Yung Tseng Chen, an individual, dba as Origami Unicorn
E&RXQW\RI5HVLGHQFHRI)LUVW/LVWHG3ODLQWLII
Benjamin Taller, an individual
&RXQW\RI5HVLGHQFHRI)LUVW/LVWHG'HIHQGDQW
San Francisco
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)
F$WWRUQH\V(Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number)

Jaime B. Herren and Richard P. Doyle, Jr.
DOYLE LOW LLP
3640 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Ste. 202, Lafayette,CA 94549
,,%$6,62)-85,6',&7,21(Place an X in One Box Only)

u 86*RYHUQPHQW
3ODLQWLII
u )HGHUDO4XHVWLRQ
(U.S. Government Not a Party)
u 86*RYHUQPHQW
'HIHQGDQW
u 'LYHUVLW\
(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)
Alameda
(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)

127( ,1/$1'&21'(01$7,21&$6(686(7+(/2&$7,212)
7+(75$&72)/$1',192/9('

$WWRUQH\V(If Known)
Michael J. Sullivan
111 N. Market St. Ste. 300, San Jose, CA 95113
,,,&,7,=(16+,32)35,1&,3$/3$57,(6 (Place an X in One Box for Plaintiff

(For Diversity Cases Only)
37) '()
&LWL]HQRI7KLV6WDWH
u
u
and One Box for Defendant)

37)
'()
,QFRUSRUDWHGor3ULQFLSDO3ODFH
u
u
RI%XVLQHVV,Q7KLV6WDWH
&LWL]HQRI$QRWKHU6WDWH
u
u
,QFRUSRUDWHGand3ULQFLSDO3ODFH
RI%XVLQHVV,Q$QRWKHU6WDWH
u
u
&LWL]HQRU6XEMHFWRID
)RUHLJQ&RXQWU\
u
u
)RUHLJQ1DWLRQ
u
u
,91$785(2)68,7(Place an X in One Box Only)

&2175$&7
72576
u
u
u
u
,QVXUDQFH
0DULQH
0LOOHU$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
925,*,1(Place an X in One Box Only)

u 2ULJLQDO
3URFHHGLQJ
u 5HPRYHGIURP
6WDWH&RXUW
u
5HPDQGHGIURP
$SSHOODWH&RXUW
u 5HLQVWDWHGRU
5HRSHQHG
u 7UDQVIHUUHGIURP
$QRWKHU'LVWULFW
u 0XOWLGLVWULFW
/LWLJDWLRQ
(specify)
9,&$86(2)$&7,21
&LWHWKH86&LYLO6WDWXWHXQGHUZKLFK\RXDUHILOLQJ(Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity)

28 U.S.C. S 2201-2202; 35 U.S.C. 1 et seq.
%ULHIGHVFULSWLRQRIFDXVH
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
IX. DIVISIONAL ASSIGNMENT (Civil L.R. 3-2)

3ODFHDQ;LQ2QH%R[2QO\6$1)5$1&,6&22$./$1'6$1-26((85(.$

Chen v. Taller - Complaint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chen v. Taller - Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case3:15-cv-03821-SK Document1 Filed08/20/15 Page1 of 7

Jaime B. Herren (SBN 271680)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DOYLE LOW LLP

Case No. Case No.

20 and Tortious Interference against Benjamin Taller, an individual, alleges as follows:

Plaintiff, Yung Tseng Chen, (hereafter Plaintiff or Plaintiff Chen) is an

On information and belief, Defendant Benjamin Taller, an individual, (hereafter

Case3:15-cv-03821-SK Document1 Filed08/20/15 Page2 of 7

under 28 U.S.C. 1338.

DOYLE LOW LLP

11 under 28 U.S.C. 1367(a).

Defendant alleges he is the owner of the D537 Patent.

Defendant alleges that Plaintiff is infringing the D537 Patent.

Plaintiff, Connie Yung Tseng Chen, is a Taiwanese award winning industrial

Case3:15-cv-03821-SK Document1 Filed08/20/15 Page3 of 7

Plaintiff is doing business as ORIGAMI UNICORN, a design studio based in San

DOYLE LOW LLP

Case3:15-cv-03821-SK Document1 Filed08/20/15 Page4 of 7

around for many years.

DOYLE LOW LLP

Correspondence continued in an attempt to understand the merits of Defendants

(Declaratory Relief for Non-Infringement)

(Declaratory Relief regarding Defendants U.S. Design Patent Rights)

As explained above, an actual controversy exists between the parties concerning

Case3:15-cv-03821-SK Document1 Filed08/20/15 Page5 of 7

for any other design patent. See Exhibit C.

Thus there is a controversy as to the protectable features of the D537 Patent.

DOYLE LOW LLP

(Tortious Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage)

Case3:15-cv-03821-SK Document1 Filed08/20/15 Page6 of 7

Plaintiff designed a travel organizer, named TUO.

DOYLE LOW LLP

19 her Origami Unicorn business because of the acts of Defendant.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants tortious interference, Plaintiff has

Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for relief as follows:

26 indirectly, any valid design covered by U.S. Design Patent D720,537;

A declaration that U.S. Design Patent D720,537 is invalid;

Case3:15-cv-03821-SK Document1 Filed08/20/15 Page7 of 7

An award to Plaintiff of her costs, expenses, and attorneys fees pursuant to 35

An Order that Defendant has tortuously interfered with Plaintiffs business;

Dated: August 20, 2015

DOYLE LOW LLP

By: /s/ Jaime B. Herren

Dated: August 20, 2015

By: /s/ Jaime B. Herren

Case3:15-cv-03821-SK Document1-1 Filed08/20/15 Page1 of 29

EXHIBIT A TO THE COMPLAINT

COMPLAINT EXHIBIT PAGE 8

Case3:15-cv-03821-SK Document1-1 Filed08/20/15 Page2 of 29

(12) United States Design Patent (10) Patent N0.2

ROLL UP CLOTHING ORGANIZER

(72) Inventors: Benjamin Taller, Berkeley, CA (US);

11/2010 Kittrell ..... ..

Mason ......................... ..133/299

1/2013 Gorman .................... .. D3/203.3

13603,165 s * 11/2009 Losiewicz

Cheryl Mascari, Berkeley, CA (US)

D471,011 s * 3/2003 Kowalsky .................... ..133/299

(71) Apphcams'gilnjalln? Tallefgerliileyccf

(45) Date of Patent:

Hale etal. .................... .. D6/514

2/2014 Etzler .......................... .. 133/206