Classic Brands v. Woodstream - Complaint

Case 1:16-cv-02866 Document 1 Filed 11/23/16 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 24
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. ________________
CLASSIC BRANDS, LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company,
Plaintiff,
v.
WOODSTREAM CORPORATION, a Pennsylvania Corporation,
Defendant.
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Classic Brands, LLC, by and through its undersigned counsel, for its complaint
against Woodstream Corporation states and alleges as follows:
THE PARTIES
1.
Classic Brands, LLC (Classic Brands) is a Colorado limited liability company
with its principal place of business located at 3600 S. Yosemite, Suite 1000, Denver, CO 80237.
2.
Woodstream Corporation (Woodstream) is a Pennsylvania corporation having
its principal place of business at 69 North Locust Street, Lititz, Pennsylvania 17543.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3.
This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35, United
States Code. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action under 28 U.S.C.
1331 and 1338(a).
4.
Personal jurisdiction and venue are proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
1391(b)-(c) and 1400(b) because Defendant resides in this District and the acts of
infringement which form the basis of this action occurred within this District. Defendant has
engaged in activities such as attending trade shows in this District, promoting and/or selling its
products in this District, and otherwise directing its sales and marketing activities to those
residing in this District. For example, Defendant attended True Value and Ace Hardware fall
conventions in this District, wherein they actively promoted and sold their products.
5.
Defendant distributes its infringing products in Colorado through its distributors
Home Depot, Ace Hardware and True Value. Defendant has maintained an office within this
district, located at 2200 S. Valencia, Denver, Colorado 80231.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
A.
Classic Brands Rotating Perch Patents

6.
Classic Brands is a local Colorado company that researches, develops and
manufactures quality bird feeders for a variety of applications.

7.
Classic Brands has spent countless hours and significant money studying
consumer habits with respect to both purchasing bird feeders and bird feeding. Those studies
have revealed a variety of interesting innovations that improve the experience of bird feeding,
increase the versatility of various bird feeders, and otherwise create products that are much more
desirable to the consuming public. One example of such an innovation is the rotating perch
(Rotating Perch), which is articulated in the patents described in this section (together referred
to as the Rotating Perch Patents).
8.
The Rotating Perch provides a great benefit to those who seek to feed more than
one kind of bird. Birds feed in a variety of positions, especially those of differing species. For
example, the goldfinch can feed hanging upside down, while the house finch is unable to feed
upside down. Therefore, if an owner wants to attract goldfinches, but not house finches, the
owner generally must purchase a feeder having feeding openings positioned below each perch.
However, if the owner changes his or her mind, and decides to attract house finches, then the
owner must generally purchase another feeder with openings placed above each perch.
9.
As a result of its research and development, Classic Brands invented the Rotating
Perch to provide different perch positions for different kinds of feeding birds. With that feature,
an owner could position the perch above the opening in order to attract goldfinches, or below the
opening to attract other kinds of finches all with the same feeder.
10.
The Rotating Perch is meaningful to consumers for many reasons, including the
convenience of having one feeder and saving the expense of having two feeders.
This
advancement is also meaningful to retailers, because not only is the product more attractive to
potential buyers, but they can save shelf space by offering only one feeder to perform multiple
functions, rather than two feeders that each serve a singular function.
11.
The Rotating Perch Patents generally cover apparatuses and methods for
providing different perch positions for feeding birds (a Rotating Perch). See Figures 7A-C
from each Rotating Perch Patent Below.
The 301 Patent

12.
On April 2, 2012, Classic Brands filed a provisional patent application,
Provisional Application No. 61/619,414 and then filed a non-provisional patent application on
April 2, 2013.
The non-provisional patent application matriculated into U.S. Patent No.
8,833,301 entitled Bird Feeder with Rotating Perch on September 16, 2014 (the 301
Patent).
13.
The 301 Patent includes one independent claim:

1.
A bird feeder comprising:

a reservoir configured to hold bird food, the reservoir having
an opening in a wall to provide access to the bird food;
a port mounted on the wall providing access to the opening in
the wall; and
a perch from which a bird may access the port, the perch
connected such that the perch is movable to a plurality of
positions around the port, wherein the perch is moved to the
plurality of positions by rotating the perch about an axis line
extending through the opening in the wall.
The 302 Patent

14.
On April 2, 2012, Classic Brands filed Provisional Application No. 61/619,414.
On April 2, 2013, Classic Brands filed a non-provisional application and, on September 16,
2014, that application matriculated into U.S. patent No. 8,833,302 entitled Bird Feeder with
Rotating Perch (the 302 Patent).
15.
The 302 Patent has two independent claims, including Claims 1 and 7 which are
articulated below:
1.

a reservoir having an interior configured to hold bird food, the
reservoir having an opening in a wall to provide access to the
interior of the reservoir; and
a perch connected to the wall using a port such that the perch
is moveable to a plurality of positions around the opening in
the wall, the port including a protruding portion extending
from a surface, the protruding portion defining an opening
providing access to the opening in the wall.
***
7.
A bird feeding station comprising:

a perch having a projecting portion extending from a surface,
the perch configured to be connected to a wall on a reservoir
such that the perch is movable to a plurality of positions
around an opening in the wall of the reservoir, wherein the
perch is moved to the plurality of positions by rotating the
perch about an axis line extending through the opening in the
wall.
The 235 Patent

16.
On September 15, 2014, Classic Brands filed patent Application No. 14/486,795,
which matriculated into U.S. Patent No. 9,295,235 entitled Bird Feeder With Rotating Perch
on March 29, 2016 (the 235 Patent). The 235 Patent claims priority to a provisional patent
application filed on April 2, 2012.
17.
The 235 Patent has three independent claims, including Claims 1, 10, and 14
which are articulated below:

1.

a ring defining an opening;
a surface extending over the ring and covering the opening,
the surface having one or more holes positioned over the
opening; and
a projecting portion extending from the surface, the ring
configured to engage a wall on a reservoir, such that the
projecting portion is moveable to a plurality of positions
relative to an axis line extending through a center of the
opening.
***
10. A bird feeder comprising:

a ring defining an opening; and
a projecting portion extending from the ring, the ring
configured to be mounted a wall of a reservoir, such that an
end of the projecting portion is moveable to a plurality of
positions relative to an axis line extending through a center of
the opening.
***
14. A bird feeder comprising:
a ring defining an opening, the ring configured to be
rotationally mounted on a wall of a reservoir; and
a projecting portion extending from the ring to an end, the
projecting portion configured to rotate about an axis line
extending through the opening between a first position and a
second position, the first position including the end of the
projecting portion above the opening and the second position
including the end of the projecting portion below the opening.
The 765 Patent
18.
On September 15, 2014, Classic Brands filed U.S. Patent No. 9,380,765 (the
765 Patent) entitled Bird Feeder with Rotating Perch, dated July 5, 2016. The 765 Patent
claims priority to a provisional patent application filed on April 2, 2012.
19.
The 765 Patent has three independent claims, including Claims 1, 8 and 15 which
are articulated below:

1.
A method for converting a bird feeder for exclusive goldfinch

feeding comprising:
providing a bird feeder having a plurality of feeding stations
mounted to a wall of a reservoir, each of the feeding stations
including a port and a perch, the port including a protruding
portion defining an opening providing access to an interior
defined by the wall, the perch having a projecting portion
extending from a surface; and
moving the projecting portion of each of the perches around
an axis line extending through a center of the openings
defined by the protruding portions from a first position to a
second position.
***
8.
A method for selecting a desired bird for feeding comprising:

providing a bird feeder having perch mounted on a wall of a
reservoir having an interior configured to hold bird food, the
reservoir having a wall opening to provide access to the
interior; and
7
rotating the perch about an axis line extending through a

center of the wall opening to one of a plurality of positions.
***
15. A method for selecting a desired bird for feeding comprising:
mounting a port to a wall of a reservoir, the wall defining an
interior and having a wall opening providing access to the
interior, the port having a protruding portion defining an
opening, the port mounted to the wall such that the opening
defined by the protruding portion provides access to the wall
opening;
mounting a perch to the port, the perch including a projecting
portion extending from a surface; and
moving the projecting portion of the perches around an axis
line extending through a center of the opening defined by the
protruding portion to one of a plurality of positions.
The Woodstream Infringing Products
20.
Woodstream markets and sells bird feeders under the Perky-Pet brand name.
Without regard to the claims of the Rotating Perch Patents described above, Woodstream
introduced Perky-Pet feeders with rotating perches (the Perky-Pet Rotating Perch Feeders) that
each infringe the Rotating Perch Patents.
21.
As described on its label, the Perky-Pet Rotating Perch Feeder perches can be
rotated around an opening to change their locations with respect to the openings of the reservoir
in order to accommodate different birds, such as goldfinches and house finches. With this
infringing feature, Woodstream can use the benefit of Classic Brands Rotating Perch invention
to attract retail and end-use customers.
22.
Woodstream actively promotes the infringing rotating perch features of its tube
feeders:
The Perky-Pet Perch Rotated Above

the Opening
23.
The Perky-Pet Perch Rotated Below

the Opening
The Perky-Pet Rotating Perch Feeders include, but are not limited to, the
following:
Perky-Pet Select-A-Finch Tube

Feeder Model No. 360
Perky-Pet Copper Select-A-Finch

Tube Feeder Model No. 361
10
Perky-Pet All-In-One Finch

Feeder Model No. 400
24.
On its website, Woodstream similarly boasts about the infringing Rotating Perch
feature:
11
25.
As is evident from the photographs above, each of the Perky-Pet Rotating Perch
Feeders infringe Classic Brands patented Rotating Perch Patents.

26.
On September 14, 2012, five months after the priority date of the Classic Brands
Rotating Perch Patents, Woodstream filed its own patent application, U.S. Patent Application
No. 13/619,008, on the rotating perch feature. On December 26, 2014, the USPTO issued a final
rejection of the claims in the Woodstream application, citing the 301 Patent as prior art. On
July 30, 2015, Woodstream abandoned this application for failure to respond to this final
rejection. Despite being specifically informed of the 301 Patent, and the examiners findings,
Woodstream continues to infringe that patent.
B.
Classic Brands Ant Moat Patents

The 482 and Reissue 837 Patents
27.
On March 28, 2012, Brian Krueger invented a new, original and ornamental
design for an article of manufacture and, accordingly, was granted U.S. Patent No. D682,481
(the 481 Patent) on May 14, 2013 entitled Screw-On Ant Moat for a Bird Feeder.
28.
Krueger assigned the 481 Patent to Classic Brands.
12
29.
On March 14, 2014, Classic Brands filed a reissue patent application for the
reissue of the 481 Patent. On January 12, 2016, that application matriculated into U.S. Reissue
Patent No. RE45,837 (the 837 Patent), also entitled Screw-On Ant Moat for a Bird Feeder).
30.
The 481 Patent and 837 Patent (together referred to as the Ant Moat Patents)
each protect an ornamental design for a screw-on ant moat for a bird feeder, as shown and
described in the drawings contained in each of those patents. An example of figures from the
Ant Moat Patents are depicted below:
13
The Infringing Woodstream Products

31.
Woodstream has, and continues to, use, make, sell, offer for sale, and/or import a
variety of hummingbird feeders that infringe the Ant Moat Patents (the Perky-Pet Ant Moat
Feeders).
32.
At least the following Perky-Pet Ant Moat Feeders infringe the Ant Moat Patents:
Perky-Pet Our Best Glass
Hummingbird Feeder with Free
Nectar Model #: 209B
14
Perky-Pet Pinch-Waist Glass

Nectar Model #: 203CPBN
15
Perky-Pet Pinch Waist Glass

Nectar Model #: 210PB
Perky-Pet Pinch Waist Plastic

Nectar Model #: 403CP
16
Perky-Pet Pinch Waist Plastic

Nectar Model #: 410P
Perky-Pet Hummers Favorite

Plastic Hummingbird Feeder
with Free Nectar Model #: 409
17
33.
Woodstream actively marketed the infringing ant moat design of its products:
34.
In addition, Woodstream has displayed, and continues to display, images with its
feeders, featuring Classic Brands patented ant moat feature, and offering free Ant Guard.
This provided a conscious connection in the minds of the consuming public between the
infringing ant moat features and its infringing products.
18
35.
These and other similar acts indicate that Woodstream knew of the patented ant
moat feature of the Classic Brands Ant Moat Patents, and chose to copy its design.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Patent Infringement: Rotating Perch Utility Patents
36.
Classic Brands repeats the allegations in the preceding paragraphs as though fully
set forth herein.

37.
Classic Brands is the rightful owner of the Rotating Perch Patents and has
consistently marked its products as either patented or patent pending, as the case may be.
38.
Woodstream manufactures, promotes, offers for sale, distributes, ships and sells a
full range of wild bird feeders, including hummingbird feeders, under its Perky-Pet house brand
and other brands such as Garden Song.
19
39.
The Perky-Pet wild bird feeders are promoted, offered for sale, distributed,
shipped and sold through its e-commerce website; mass merchandise retailers such as Wal-Mart,
Target, Home Depot and Ace Hardware; and numerous specialty retailers.
40.
The Perky-Pet bird feeders offered by Woodstream include the Perky-Pet
Rotating Perch Feeders.

41.
By making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing its infringing Perky-
Pet Rotating Perch Feeders, Woodstream has infringed, and continues to infringe, at least claims
1, 2, 3, 7, and 8 of the 301 Patent, claims 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7 of the 302 Patent, claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 of the 235 Patent, and claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13,
14, 15, 17, 18, and 19 of the 765 Patent.
42.
Woodstream has also infringed, and continues to infringe, the Rotating Perch
Patents by inducing others to directly infringe those patents. For example, True Value and Ace
Hardware each infringe the Rotating Perch Patents by selling and offering for sale Perky-Pet
Rotating Perch Feeders. Woodstream sells its infringing Perky-Pet Rotating Perch Feeders to
retailers such as Home Depot, True Value and Ace Hardware, and otherwise induces their
infringing acts with specific intent to encourage their infringement.
Such infringing sales
occurred throughout the District of Colorado.

43.
Classic Brands is being irreparably harmed by Woodstreams continued
infringement and, unless it and its agents, employees, representatives, and affiliates and all others
acting in concert with it are enjoined from infringing each of the Rotating Perch Patents, Classic
Brands will continue to be irreparably harmed.
44.
Classic Brands has no adequate remedy at law.
20
45.
Woodstreams continued infringement of the Rotating Perch Patents is causing
Classic Brands injury, and Classic Brands is entitled to recover damages in an amount to be
proven at trial. Among other remedies, Classic Brands is entitled to lost profits or, in the
alternative, no less than a reasonable royalty.
46.
Any future use, sale, offer for sale, importation, or manufacture of infringing
products will demonstrate objectively reckless conduct with respect to Classic Brands patent
rights. As a result, any such continued infringement constitutes willful infringement of the
Rotating Perch Patents and entitles Classic Brands to treble damages and attorneys fees as well
as costs incurred in this action along with prejudgment interest under 35 U.S.C. 284 and 285.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Patent Infringement: Ant Moat Design Patents
47.
Classic Brands repeats the allegations in the preceding paragraphs as though fully
set forth herein.

48.
Classic Brands is the rightful owner of the 481 Patent and the 837 Patent and
has consistently marked its products as either patented or patent pending, as the case may be.
49.
Pet Ant Moat Feeders prior to January 12, 2016, Woodstream has infringed all of the claims of
Classic Brands481 Patent.
50.
Pet Ant Moat Feeders on or after January 12, 2016, Woodstream has infringed, and continues to
infringe, all of the claims of Classic Brands 837 Patent.
51.
Woodstream has also infringed the 481 Patent, and has infringed and continues
to infringe the 837 Patent by inducing others to directly infringe those patents. For example,
21
True Value and Ace Hardware each infringe the Ant Moat Patents by selling and offering for
sale Perky-Pet Ant Moat Feeders. Woodstream sells its infringing Perky-Pet Ant Moat Feeders
to retailers such as True Value and Ace Hardware, and otherwise induces their infringing acts
with specific intent to encourage their infringement. Such infringing sales occurred within the
District of Colorado.
52.
Classic Brands is being irreparably harmed by Woodstreams continued
infringement and, unless it and its agents, employees, representatives, and affiliates and all others
acting in concert with it are enjoined from infringing the 837 Patent, Classic Brands will
continue to be irreparably harmed.
53.
Classic Brands has no adequate remedy at law.
54.
Woodstreams continued infringement of 837 Patent is causing Classic Brands
injury, and Classic Brands is entitled to recover damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
Among other remedies, Classic Brands is entitled to lost profits or, in the alternative, no less than
a reasonable royalty.
55.
Any future use, sale, offer for sale, importation, or manufacture of infringing
products will demonstrate objectively reckless conduct with respect to Classic Brands patent
rights. As a result, any such continued infringement constitutes willful infringement of the 837
Patent and entitles Classic Brands to treble damages and attorneys fees as well as costs incurred
in this action along with prejudgment interest under 35 U.S.C. 284, 285 and 289.
JURY DEMAND
Classic Brands demands a trial by jury on all claims and issues so triable.
22
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Classic Brands requests that this Court enter judgment in its favor and
against Woodstream on all claims as follows:
A.
Finding, declaring and adjudging that Woodstream has infringed the 301 Patent,
the 302 Patent, the 235 Patent, the 765 Patent, the 481 Patent, and the 837 Patent;
B.
Awarding Classic Brands damages against Woodstream in an amount adequate to
compensate Classic Brands for the patent infringement that has occurred, but in no event less
than a reasonable royalty as permitted by 35 U.S.C. 284;
C.
Awarding Classic Brands the total profits that Woodstream has made from the
sale of its infringing Perky-Pet Ant Moat Feeders and Rotating Perch Feeders, as provided for
under 35 U.S.C. 289.
D.
Enjoining Woodstream, and its respective officers, directors, members, managers,
agents, employees, shareholders and/or affiliates, and all others acting in concert with
Woodstream from any further manufacture, use, sale, offering for sale, importing, or marketing
of its infringing products, including the Perky-Pet Rotating Perch Feeders, the Perky-Pet Ant
Moat Feeders, and any other products that infringe the 301 Patent, the 302 Patent, the 235
Patent, the 765 Patent, and the 837 Patent;
E.
Finding Woodstreams infringement to be willful and awarding Classic Brands
three times the amount of Woodstreams actual damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 284;
F.
Finding this to be an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. 285 and awarding
Classic Brands its costs (including expert witness fees), disbursements, and reasonable attorney
fees incurred in this action, and such other relief as may be appropriate;
23
G.
An accounting of all revenue generated by Woodstream through its promotion
and sale of infringing products;

H.
Awarding Classic Brands pre-judgment interest and post-judgment interest as
allowed by law; and

I.
Granting such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
DATED this 23rd day of November, 2016.
s/ Michael P. Dulin
Michael P. Dulin
POLSINELLI PC
1515 Wynkoop, Suite 600
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: 303-572-9300
FAX: 303-572-7883
E-mail: mdulin@polsinelli.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff Classic Brands, LLC
Address of Plaintiff:
3600 S. Yosemite, Suite 1000
Denver, CO 80237
24
Case 1:16-cv-02866 Document 1-1 Filed 11/23/16 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
CIVIL COVER SHEET
JS 44 (Rev. 08/16)
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS
DEFENDANTS
CLASSIC BRANDS, LLC
WOODSTREAM CORPORATION
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff
Denver
County of Residence of First Listed Defendant
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)

NOTE:
(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number)
Attorneys (If Known)
Harvey Jacobson, Jacobson Holman PLLC

400 Seventeenth Street, N.W, Suite 700
Washington, D.C. 20004
Michael P. Dulin, Polsinelli PC

1515 Wynkoop Street, Suite 600, Denver, CO 80202
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an X in One Box Only)

1
U.S. Government
Plaintiff
Federal Question
(U.S. Government Not a Party)
U.S. Government
Defendant
Diversity
(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)
III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an X in One Box for Plaintiff

(For Diversity Cases Only)
PTF
Citizen of This State
1
REAL PROPERTY
210 Land Condemnation
220 Foreclosure
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment
240 Torts to Land
245 Tort Product Liability
290 All Other Real Property
PERSONAL INJURY
310 Airplane
315 Airplane Product
Liability
320 Assault, Libel &
Slander
330 Federal Employers
Liability
340 Marine
345 Marine Product
Liability
350 Motor Vehicle
355 Motor Vehicle
Product Liability
360 Other Personal
Injury
362 Personal Injury Medical Malpractice
CIVIL RIGHTS
440 Other Civil Rights
441 Voting
442 Employment
443 Housing/
Accommodations
445 Amer. w/Disabilities Employment
446 Amer. w/Disabilities Other
448 Education
and One Box for Defendant)

PTF
DEF
Incorporated or Principal Place
4
4
of Business In This State
Incorporated and Principal Place

of Business In Another State
Citizen or Subject of a
Foreign Country
Foreign Nation
Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
TORTS
110 Insurance
120 Marine
130 Miller Act
140 Negotiable Instrument
150 Recovery of Overpayment
& Enforcement of Judgment
151 Medicare Act
152 Recovery of Defaulted
Student Loans
(Excludes Veterans)
153 Recovery of Overpayment
of Veterans Benefits
160 Stockholders Suits
190 Other Contract
195 Contract Product Liability
196 Franchise
DEF
1
Citizen of Another State
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an X in One Box Only)

CONTRACT
Lancaster
(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)

IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
FORFEITURE/PENALTY
PERSONAL INJURY
365 Personal Injury Product Liability
367 Health Care/
Pharmaceutical
Personal Injury
Product Liability
368 Asbestos Personal
Injury Product
Liability
PERSONAL PROPERTY
370 Other Fraud
371 Truth in Lending
380 Other Personal
Property Damage
385 Property Damage
Product Liability
PRISONER PETITIONS
Habeas Corpus:
463 Alien Detainee
510 Motions to Vacate
Sentence
530 General
535 Death Penalty
Other:
540 Mandamus & Other
550 Civil Rights
555 Prison Condition
560 Civil Detainee Conditions of
Confinement
625 Drug Related Seizure

of Property 21 USC 881
690 Other
BANKRUPTCY
422 Appeal 28 USC 158
423 Withdrawal
28 USC 157
PROPERTY RIGHTS
820 Copyrights
830 Patent
840 Trademark
LABOR
710 Fair Labor Standards
Act
720 Labor/Management
Relations
740 Railway Labor Act
751 Family and Medical
Leave Act
790 Other Labor Litigation
791 Employee Retirement
Income Security Act
SOCIAL SECURITY
861 HIA (1395ff)
862 Black Lung (923)
863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
864 SSID Title XVI
865 RSI (405(g))
FEDERAL TAX SUITS

870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff
or Defendant)
871 IRSThird Party
26 USC 7609
IMMIGRATION
462 Naturalization Application
465 Other Immigration
Actions
OTHER STATUTES
375 False Claims Act
376 Qui Tam (31 USC
3729(a))
400 State Reapportionment
410 Antitrust
430 Banks and Banking
450 Commerce
460 Deportation
470 Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations
480 Consumer Credit
490 Cable/Sat TV
850 Securities/Commodities/
Exchange
890 Other Statutory Actions
891 Agricultural Acts
893 Environmental Matters
895 Freedom of Information
Act
896 Arbitration
899 Administrative Procedure
Act/Review or Appeal of
Agency Decision
950 Constitutionality of
State Statutes
V. ORIGIN (Place an X in One Box Only)

1 Original
Proceeding
2 Removed from
State Court
6 Multidistrict
Litigation Transfer
(specify)
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
Remanded from
Appellate Court
4 Reinstated or
Reopened
5 Transferred from
Another District
8 Multidistrict
Litigation Direct File
35 USC 271
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:

Patent Infringement
CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION

VII. REQUESTED IN
UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P.
COMPLAINT:
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY
JUDGE
DATE
CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:

Yes
No
JURY DEMAND:
DEMAND $
DOCKET NUMBER
SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
s/ Michael P. Dulin
11/23/2016
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT #
AMOUNT
APPLYING IFP
JUDGE
MAG. JUDGE

AO 120 (Rev. 08/10)
REPORT ON THE
FILING OR DETERMINATION OF AN
ACTION REGARDING A PATENT OR
TRADEMARK
Mail Stop 8
Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
TO:
In Compliance with 35 U.S.C. 290 and/or 15 U.S.C. 1116 you are hereby advised that a court action has been
for the District of Colorado
filed in the U.S. District Court
on the following
G Trademarks or
Patents.
G
DOCKET NO.
the patent action involves 35 U.S.C. 292.):
DATE FILED
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
11/23/2016
for the District of Colorado
PLAINTIFF
DEFENDANT
CLASSIC BRANDS, LLC
PATENT OR
TRADEMARK NO.
DATE OF PATENT
OR TRADEMARK
HOLDER OF PATENT OR TRADEMARK
1 US D682,481
5/14/2013
Classic Brands, LLC
2 US RE45,837
1/12/2016
Classic Brands, LLC
3 US 8,833,301
9/16/2014
Classic Brands
4 US 8,833,302
9/16/2014
Classic Brands
5 US 9,295,235
3/29/2016
Classic Brands
In the aboveentitled case, the following patent(s)/ trademark(s) have been included:
DATE INCLUDED
INCLUDED BY
PATENT OR
TRADEMARK NO.
1 US 9,380,765
Amendment
DATE OF PATENT
OR TRADEMARK
7/5/2016
Answer
Cross Bill
Other Pleading
HOLDER OF PATENT OR TRADEMARK
Classic Brands, LLC
2
3
4
5
In the aboveentitled case, the following decision has been rendered or judgement issued:
DECISION/JUDGEMENT
CLERK
(BY) DEPUTY CLERK
DATE
Copy 1Upon initiation of action, mail this copy to Director Copy 3Upon termination of action, mail this copy to Director
Copy 2Upon filing document adding patent(s), mail this copy to Director Copy 4Case file copy
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the
__________ District of __________

CLASSIC BRANDS, LLC
Plaintiff(s)
v.
Defendant(s)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No.
SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendants name and address)
C/O Registered Agent C T Corporation System
116 Pine Street, Suite 320
Harrisburg, PA 17101
A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) or 60 days if you
are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiffs attorney,
whose name and address are:
If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.
You also must file your answer or motion with the court.
CLERK OF COURT
Date:
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)
Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))
This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)
was received by me on (date)
I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date)
; or
I left the summons at the individuals residence or usual place of abode with (name)
, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
on (date)
, and mailed a copy to the individuals last known address; or
I served the summons on (name of individual)
, who is
designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date)
; or
I returned the summons unexecuted because
; or
Other (specify):
.
My fees are $
for travel and $
for services, for a total of $
I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.
Date:
Servers signature
Printed name and title
Servers address
Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:
0.00

Classic Brands v. Woodstream - 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

Classic Brands v. Woodstream - Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:16-cv-02866 Document 1 Filed 11/23/16 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 24

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Classic Brands, LLC (Classic Brands) is a Colorado limited liability company

Woodstream Corporation (Woodstream) is a Pennsylvania corporation having

Case 1:16-cv-02866 Document 1 Filed 11/23/16 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 24

Defendant distributes its infringing products in Colorado through its distributors

Classic Brands Rotating Perch Patents

Classic Brands is a local Colorado company that researches, develops and

manufactures quality bird feeders for a variety of applications.

Case 1:16-cv-02866 Document 1 Filed 11/23/16 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 24

Case 1:16-cv-02866 Document 1 Filed 11/23/16 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 24

The 301 Patent

On April 2, 2012, Classic Brands filed a provisional patent application,

The non-provisional patent application matriculated into U.S. Patent No.

Case 1:16-cv-02866 Document 1 Filed 11/23/16 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 24

The 301 Patent includes one independent claim:

A bird feeder comprising:

The 302 Patent

On April 2, 2012, Classic Brands filed Provisional Application No. 61/619,414.

A bird feeder comprising:

Case 1:16-cv-02866 Document 1 Filed 11/23/16 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 24

A bird feeding station comprising:

The 235 Patent

which are articulated below:

A bird feeder comprising:

10. A bird feeder comprising:

Case 1:16-cv-02866 Document 1 Filed 11/23/16 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 24

are articulated below:

A method for converting a bird feeder for exclusive goldfinch

A method for selecting a desired bird for feeding comprising:

Case 1:16-cv-02866 Document 1 Filed 11/23/16 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 24

rotating the perch about an axis line extending through a

Case 1:16-cv-02866 Document 1 Filed 11/23/16 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 24

The Perky-Pet Perch Rotated Above

The Perky-Pet Perch Rotated Below

Case 1:16-cv-02866 Document 1 Filed 11/23/16 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 24

Perky-Pet Select-A-Finch Tube

Perky-Pet Copper Select-A-Finch

Case 1:16-cv-02866 Document 1 Filed 11/23/16 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 24

Perky-Pet All-In-One Finch

Case 1:16-cv-02866 Document 1 Filed 11/23/16 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 24

Feeders infringe Classic Brands patented Rotating Perch Patents.

Classic Brands Ant Moat Patents

Krueger assigned the 481 Patent to Classic Brands.

Case 1:16-cv-02866 Document 1 Filed 11/23/16 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 24

Case 1:16-cv-02866 Document 1 Filed 11/23/16 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 24

The Infringing Woodstream Products

Case 1:16-cv-02866 Document 1 Filed 11/23/16 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 24

Perky-Pet Pinch-Waist Glass

Case 1:16-cv-02866 Document 1 Filed 11/23/16 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 24

Perky-Pet Pinch Waist Glass

Perky-Pet Pinch Waist Plastic

Case 1:16-cv-02866 Document 1 Filed 11/23/16 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 24

Perky-Pet Pinch Waist Plastic

Perky-Pet Hummers Favorite

Case 1:16-cv-02866 Document 1 Filed 11/23/16 USDC Colorado Page 18 of 24

Case 1:16-cv-02866 Document 1 Filed 11/23/16 USDC Colorado Page 19 of 24

set forth herein.

Case 1:16-cv-02866 Document 1 Filed 11/23/16 USDC Colorado Page 20 of 24

The Perky-Pet bird feeders offered by Woodstream include the Perky-Pet

Rotating Perch Feeders.

Such infringing sales

occurred throughout the District of Colorado.

Classic Brands is being irreparably harmed by Woodstreams continued

District of