m, I?,.i," I,w. _,",p.

'id"
by local rules of court. This form, Conference of the United States inSeptember 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
SUE WILLIAMSON VALERI
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plainti
(EXCEPT IN u.s. PLAINT
(C) AttQrneys (l-lrm Name, Address, and TeleellOne N.umber)
Davrd L. Braverman, Esq. & Richard Julie Esq.
Braverman Kaskey, PC., 1650 Market Street, 56th Floor, Philadelphia,
PA 19103 215 575-380
o I
o 2
DEFENDANTS
MYSTIC INDUSTRIES CORPORATION
County of Residence ofFirst Listed Defendant
NOTE:
(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
IN LAND CONDElvlNATlON CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
Attorneys (I[Known)
II. BASIS OF JURISDI TI (placean "X" in One Box Only)
u.s. Government
Plaintiff
U.S. Government
Defendant
ederal Question
(U.S. Government Not a Parly)
Diversity
(Indicate Citizenship o[Parties in Item lII)
Citizen ofThis State
Citizen ofAoother Stat
DEF
o I Incorporated or Principal Place
of Business In This State
Incorporated and Principal Place
ofBusiness In Another State
Foreign Nation
a 5 0 5
a 6 0 6
IV NATURE OF SUIT (place an ''){'' in One Box Only)
o 110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY a 625 Drug Related Seizure 0 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 0 375 False Claims Act
a 120 Marine 0310 Airplane a 365 Personal Injury ofPropetty 21 USC 881 0 423 Withdrawal 0 400 State Reapportionment
o 130 Miller Act o 315 Airplane Product Product Liability o 6900tner 28 USC 157 o 410 Antitrust
a 140 Negotiable Instrument Liability 0 367 Health Carel 0 430 Banks and Banking
o 150 Recovery ofOverpayment 0320 Assault. Libel & Pharmaceutical , !fS- 0 450 Commerce
& Enforcement ofJudgment Slander Personal Injury f 1!;J 820 Copyrights 0 460 Deportation
o 151 Medicare Act 0330 Federal Employers' Product Liability Patent 0 470 Racketeerlufluenced and
o 152 Recovery ofDefilulted Liability 0 368 Asbestos Personal OJ 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations
Student Loans 0 340 Marine Injury Product iiii!!&id!iii!iiDiliiiiiilW[lfii]1j1 0 480 Consumer Credit
(Exc!. Veterans) 0 345 Marine Product Liability 12' ,1 I 0 490 Cable/Sat TV
o 153 Recovery ofOverpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY 0 710 Fair Labor Standards 0 861 HlA (l395ft) 0 850 Securities!Commodities!
of Veteran's Benefits a 350 Motor Vehicle 0 370 Other Fraud Act 0 862 Black Lung (923) Exchange
o 160 Stockholders' Suits a 355 Motor Vehicle 0 371 Truth in Lending 0 720 LaborlMgmt. Relations 0 863 DIWCiDlWW (405(g)) 0 890 Other Statutory Actions
o 190 Otner Contract Product Liability a 380 Other Personal a 740 Railway Labor Act 0 864 SSID Title XVI 0 891 Agricultural Acts
o 195 Contract Product Liability 0 360 Other Personal Property Damage a 751 Family and Medical 0 865 RSI (405(g)) 0 893 Environmental Matters
o 196 Franchise Injury 0 385 Property Damage Leave Act 0 895 Freedom oflnformation
o 362 Personal Injury Product Liability 0 790 OdIeI' Labor Litigation Act
o 896 Arbitration
791 0 &99 Administrative Procedure .. Ii.
O
o 210 Land Condemnation a 440 Other Civil Rights a 510 Motions to Vacate
o 220 Foreclosure o 441 Voting Sentence
o 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment a 442 Employment Habeas Corpus:
o 240 Torts to Land o 443 Housingl 0 530 General
o 245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations 0 535 Death Penalty .#'JJ'''
o 290 All Odler Real Property o 445 Arner. wiDisabilities a 540 Mandamus & Other o 462 Naturalization Application
Employment 0 550 Civil Rights o 463 Habeas Corpus.
o 446 Amer. wiDisabilities 0 555 Prison Condition Alien Detainee
Other 0 560 Civil Detainee (Prisoner Petition)
r'\
o 448 Education Conditions of o 465 Other Immigration
Confinement Actions
o 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff ActIReview or Appeal of
or Defendant) Agency Decision
o 871 IRS-Third Party 0 950 Constitutionality of
26 USC 7609 State Statutes
V. {l}RI]GIN (place an "X" in One Box Only)
O
Transferred from
I 0 2 Removed from 0 3 Remanded from 0 4 Reinstated or 5 another dIstrict 0 6 Multidistrict
I'roceedmg State Court Appellate Court Reopened fsnedjfi,i Litigation
Cite the U.S. Statute under which you are filing (Do not clteju,lsdlctJonal statutes unless diversity):

. CAUSE OF ACTION 35 U.S.C. 281,289, & 297

Brief description of cause:
Claims for damages, injunction, and declaratorv relief relatina to oatent infrinaement and license agreelJKilnt
VII. REQUESTED IN o CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in
COMPLAINT:
UNDER F.KCP. 23 In excess of $75,000.00 JURY DEMAND: 0 Yes /IX>/o
v
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY
JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER
DATE
05/07/2012
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
SIGNATURE Of ATTORNEY OF RECORD
IslRichard S. Julie (RSJ8335)
MAY 8 2012
RECEIPf# AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE
----
MAG. JUDGE
Case 2:12-cv-02526-GP Document 1 Filed 05/08/12 Page 1 of 34
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
GPoSTATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTER:'" DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA - DESIGNATION FORM to be used by counsel to indicate the category of the case for the purpose of
assignment to appropriate calendar. 11'.' 0,
520 King of Prussia Road, Wayne, Pennsylvania 19087 '
Address ofPlaintiff: ________________________________________.....!
+: da t 474 Main Street, Wakefield, Massachusetts 01880
resso e.cn n:___________________________________________________
Add fD
Massachusetts and Pennsylvania
Place of Accident, Incident or Transaction: _________--:-':':'"'--::'__-::::-;-;::;---;-;-::-:_-:-:::_--:-_____________________
(Use Reverse Side For Additional Space)
Does this case involve multidistrict litigation possibilities? YesD N
RELATED CASE. IF ANY:
Docs this civil action involve a nongovernmental corporate party with any parent corporation and any publicly held corporation owning 10
(Attach two copies of the Disclosure Statement Fonn in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 7.1(a)) Yes
D
N []l
Case Number: __--_.....,._----Judgc---_____________ Date Tenninated: _____________________
Civil cases are deemed related when yes is answered to any of the following questions:
1. Is this case related to property included in an earlier numbered suit pending or within one year previously tenninated action in this court?
YesD Nol21]
2. Does this case involve the same issue of fact or grow out of the same transaction as a prior suit pending or within one year previously tenninated
action in this court?
YesD Nol:il
3. Docs this case involve the validity or infringement of a patent already in suit or any earlier numbered case pending or within one year previously
tenninated action in this court? YesD NoGl
4. Is this case a second or successive habeas corpus, social security appeal, or pro se civil rights case filed by the same individual?
YesD Nol21]
CIVIL: (place t/ in ONE CATEGORY ONLY)
A Federal Question Cases: B. Diversity Jurisdiction Cases:
1. 0 Indemnity Contract, Marine Contract, and All Other Contracts 1. 0 Insurance Contract and Other Contracts
2. 0 FELA 2. 0 Airplane Personal Injury
3. 0 Jones Act-Personal Injury 3. 0 Assault, Defamation
4. 0 Marine Personal Injury

5. tent 5. 0 Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
6. bor-Management Relations 6. 0 Other Personal Injury (Please
specify)
7. 0 Civil Rights 7. 0 Products Liability
8. 0 Habeas Corpus 8. 0 Products Liability -- Asbestos
9. 0 Securities Act(s) Cases 9. 0 All other Diversity Cases
lO. 0 Social Security Review Cases (please specity)
&
II. 0 All other Federal Question Cases
(Please specity)
ARBITRATION CERTIFICATION
(Check Appropriate Category)
I, Richard S. Julie ,counsel of record do hereby certity:
rsuant to Local Civil Rule 53.2, Section 3(c)(2), that to the best of my knowledge and behef, the damages recoverable In this civil action case cxceed the sum of
150, 0.00 exclusive of interest and costs;
I:lI. Reltef other than monetary damages is sought.
DATE: May 8, 2012 IsIRichard S. Julie (RSJ8335) RSJ83351 PA Bar #205384
Attorney-at-Law Attorney I.D.#
NOTE: A trial de novo will be a trial by jury only if there has been compliance with F.R.C.P. 38. MAY
8 2012
I certify that, to my knowledge, the within case is not related to any case now pending or within one year previously terminated action in this court
exceptas noted above.
DATE: May 7, 2012
IslRichard S. Julie (RSJ8335) RSJ83351 PA Bar #205384
Attorney-at-Law Attorney I.D.#
CIV. 609 (6108)
Case 2:12-cv-02526-GP Document 1 Filed 05/08/12 Page 2 of 34
G
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CASE MANAGEMENT TRACK DESIGNATION FORM
CIVIL ACTION
SUE WILLIAMSON VALERI
v.
12
2526
NO.
MYSTIC INDUSTRIES CORPORATION
In accordance with the Civil Justice Expense and Delay Reduction Plan of this court, counsel for
plaintiff shall complete a Case Management Track Designation Form in all civil cases at the time of
filing the complaint and serve a copy on all defendants. (See 1:03 ofthe plan set forth on the reverse
side of this form.) In the event that a defendant does not agree with the plaintiff regarding said
designation, that defendant shall, with its first appearance, submit to the clerk of court and serve on
the plaintiff and all other parties, a Case Management Track Designation Form specifying the track
to which that defendant believes the case should be assigned.
SELECT ONE OF THE FOLLOWING CASE MANAGEMENT TRACKS:
(a) Habeas Corpus - Cases brought under 28 U.S.c. 2241 through 2255. ( )
(b) Social Security - Cases requesting review of a decision of the Secretary of Health
and Human Services denying plaintiff Social Security Benefits. ( )
(c) Arbitration - Cases required to be designated for arbitration under Local Civil Rule 53.2. ( )
(d) Asbestos - Cases involving claims for personal injury or property damage from
exposure to asbestos.
( )
(e) Special Management - Cases that do not fall into tracks (a) through (d) that are
commonly referred to as complex and that need special or intense management by
the court. (See reverse side of this form for a detailed explanation of special
management cases.)
(f) Standard Management Cases that do not fall into anyone of the other tracks.
May 8, 2012 Richard S. Julie (RSJ8335) Plaintiff Sue Williamson Valeri
Date Attorney-at-law Attorney for
(215) 5753800 (215) 5753801 rjulie@braverlaw.com
Telephone FAX Number E-Mail Address
(Civ. 660) 10/02
MAY 8 2012
Case 2:12-cv-02526-GP Document 1 Filed 05/08/12 Page 3 of 34
G
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
SUE WILLIAMSON VALERI CIVIL ACTION
520 King of Prussia Road
12
2526
Wayne, Pennsylvania 19087,
Plaintiff,
v.
FILED
MYSTIC INDUSTRIES CORPORATION
MAY 82012 .
474 Main Street
:;'-EliIlA-':/
Wakefield, Massachusetts 01880,
~ ~
Defendant.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Plaintiff Sue Williamson Valeri ("Mrs. Valeri"), through undersigned counsel, brings this
Complaint against defendant Mystic Industries Corporation ("Mystic") and avers in support
thereof as follows:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. This is an action for damages arising out of (i) Mystic's infringement of a number
of United States Letters Patent issued to and owned by Mrs. Valeri (the "Patents"), (ii) Mystic's
breach of a license agreement relating to some of the Patents (the"Agreement"), (iii) for
declaratory relief relating to the invalidity and/or termination of such Agreement, (iv) for an
injunction barring Mystic from continuing to infringe the Patents, and (v) for other and related
claims arising out of Mystic's patent infringement and wrongful conduct in connection with the
Agreement.
Case 2:12-cv-02526-GP Document 1 Filed 05/08/12 Page 4 of 34
2. As set forth below, Mrs. Valeri contends that the Agreement was void ab initio
(or is voidable or terminable) because Mystic failed to make the disclosures required by the
American Inventors Protection Act, 35 U.S.C. 297 CAIPAn), prior (or subsequent) to Mrs.
Valeri's execution of the Agreement. Mystic is therefore liable to Mrs. Valeri for its violations
of the AIP A and for infringing the Patents.
3. Even if the Agreement were not void (or voidable), Mystic has repeatedly
breached the Agreement by, as set forth below, failing to pay royalties, stopping payment on a
royalty check without cause, failing to send a royalty report, failing to use commercially
reasonable marketing efforts, failing to keep Mrs. Valeri apprised of Mystic's customers, failing
to mark the patented goods with Mrs. Valeri's registered trademark, and breaching the duty of
good faith and fair dealing by, inter alia, infringing Mrs. Valeri's Patents (including Patents
which were never licensed to Mystic), failing to identify known third-party infringers of the
Patents, and violating the AlP A.
4. On account of these and other breaches of the Agreement, Mrs. Valeri terminated
the Agreement (to the extent it was not otherwise void ab initio for violating the AlP A), pursuant
to its terms, in 2007. Mystic has nevertheless continued to practice the patented inventions
covered by Mrs. Valeri's Patents.
5. Thus, should the Court find that the Agreement is not void, voidable, or
terminable - notwithstanding Mystic's violations of the AlP A - Mystic is nevertheless liable to
Mrs. Valeri for its violations of the AlP A, for infringing the Patents (both before and after the
Agreement was terminated), and for breaching the Agreement.
2
Case 2:12-cv-02526-GP Document 1 Filed 05/08/12 Page 5 of 34
6. Even ifthe Court were to find that Mrs. Valeri's termination of the Agreement
(for whatever reason) was ineffective, Mystic would nevertheless be liable to Mrs. Valeri for its
violations of the AIPA, for infringement of those Patents which were never licensed to Mystic,
and for its breaches ofthe Agreement.
7. In any event whether the Agreement was void, voidable, or terminable, and
regardless of whether Mrs. Valeri's termination of the Agreement was effective Mrs. Valeri is
entitled to damages under the Uniform Commercial Code for Mystic's stopping payment on her
January 2012 royalty check without cause. She is also entitled to an accounting for all of
Mystic's sales (and related expenses) of products covered by her Patents, as well as a judicial
declaration that the Agreement was void ab initio or voidable and/or that the Agreement has
been rescinded, terminated, or otherwise rendered unenforceable.
PARTIES
8. Plaintiff Mrs. Valeri is an individual domiciliary and citizen of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, residing at 520 King of Prussia Road, Wayne, Pennsylvania.
9. Defendant Mystic is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts with its principal place of business located at 474 Main Street,
Wakefield, Massachusetts. Mystic is therefore a citizen of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
and of no other state.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
10. Jurisdiction is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1338(a) in
that this is, in part, an action for patent infringement arising under an Act of Congress relating to
patents (35 U.S.C. 281).
3
Case 2:12-cv-02526-GP Document 1 Filed 05/08/12 Page 6 of 34
11. Jurisdiction is proper in this Court pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 289, in that this is, in
part, an action for infringement of a number of United States design patents.
12. Jurisdiction is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332 in that the matter
in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs, and is
between citizens of different states.
13. Jurisdiction is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367(a) in that any and
all claims asserted by Mrs. Valeri over which this Court may lack original jurisdiction are so
related to Mrs. Valeri's claims over which this Court has original jurisdiction that they form part
of the same case or controversy under Article III ofthe United States Constitution.
14. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.c. 1391(a) in that a
substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Mrs. Valeri's claims occurred in this
District.
15. Mystic, a corporation, "resides" in this District within the meaning of 28 U .S.C.
1391(c)(2), in that it is subject to this Court's personal jurisdiction with respect to this action.
Venue is therefore also proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1400(b), in that this is an
action for patent infringement brought in a judicial district in which the defendant "resides.!l
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
I. The Patents
16. Mrs. Valeri, a housewife and mother of six children, is an independent inventor
and creator of a number of innovative consumer products, including the "Reindeer Decoration
for Cars" (the "Reindeer Kit"), a decorative kit consisting of two fabric "antlers" and a plush red
4
Case 2:12-cv-02526-GP Document 1 Filed 05/08/12 Page 7 of 34
"nose. II An image of an automobile, decorated with Mrs. Valeri's Reindeer Kit, is reproduced
below.
17. The Reindeer Kit is a seasonal item, most commonly purchased (and used) by
consumers during the Christmas holiday season.
18. Mrs. Valeri has invented a number of other seasonal, holiday-themed decorative
kits for motor vehicles, similar in concept to the Reindeer Kit, including a pair of rabbit ears with
a plush rabbit nose (sold at Easter), a pair of bat wings with a bat nose (sold at Halloween), a set
of shamrocks (sold at St. Patrick's Day), a set of hearts (sold at Valentine's Day), and a set of
candy canes (sold at Christmas).
19. Mrs. Valeri has protected her innovative designs by obtaining design patents
issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (the "PTO"). The following table lists
some of the patents issued to Mrs. Valeri by the PTO by patent number, issuance date, and
description; true and correct copies of these patents are attached hereto as Exhibits, as reflected
in the table.
5
Case 2:12-cv-02526-GP Document 1 Filed 05/08/12 Page 8 of 34
. Patent #: Patent Date: Description: Exhibit:
D521,924 (the "Easter Bunny Patent") May 30, 2006 Easter Bunny Kit A
D522,956 (the "Bat Wing Patent") June 13, 2006 Bat Wing Kit B
I
D534,476 (the "Reindeer Patent")
~ ....
January 2, 2007 Reindeer Kit C I
D534,477 (the !1Shamrock Patent") January 2, 2007 Shamrock Kit D

D534,478 (the "Heart Patent") January 2, 2007 Heart Kit E

,..-.........................
D534,479 (the "Candy Cane Patent") January 2, 2007 Candy Cane Kit F
C-..-.........
20. Mrs. Valeri has been the sole owner of each of the Easter Bunny Patent, the Bat
Wing Patent, the Reindeer Patent, the Shamrock Patent, the Heart Patent, and the Candy Cane
Patent (collectively, the "Patents") at all times from the date of the invention of each patented
design, through the date each patent application was filed, through the date each such patent was
issued, through and including the date ofthis Complaint.
II. The Trademark
21. Mrs. Valeri is the owner of the federally registered trademark "Car Get-Ups"
(the "Car Get-Ups Trademark"), which was registered on the Principal Register of the PTa on
March 14, 2006, Registration Number 3,068,796.
III. The Agreement
22. On or about February 28,2006, Mrs. Valeri and Mystic each executed a purported
license agreement (the "Agreement," a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as
Exhibit G), pursuant to which Mrs. Valeri licensed the Easter Bunny Patent, the Bat Wings
Patent, and the Reindeer Patent to Mystic on a non-exclusive basis for the remaining life of each
such patent (the "Term"). See id., 2 & 7.1. The Agreement permitted Mystic to manufacture
and sell Easter Bunny Kits, Bat Wing Kits, and Reindeer Kits (the "Licensed Product")
throughout the world during such Term. See id., 2.
6
Case 2:12-cv-02526-GP Document 1 Filed 05/08/12 Page 9 of 34
23. Mrs. Valeri has never licensed any ofthe Shamrock Patent, the Heart Patent, or
the Candy Cane Patent to Mystic.
24. Mystic did not make any of the disclosures required by the AlPA prior (or
subsequent) to Mrs. Valeri's execution ofthe Agreement.
25. In connection with the license ofthe Easter Bunny Patent, Bat Wings Patent, and
Reindeer Patent, Mrs. Valeri disclosed and licensed to Mystic certain "Product Know-How,"
consisting of certain
confidential, technical, or proprietary information and knowledge
not generally known to the public ... that relates, directly or
indirectly to (i) [the Easter Bunny Patent, Bat Wing Patent, and
Reindeer Patent] or any product, process, design or other matter
covered by any [of those three patents], or (ii) the design,
development, manufacture, testing, use or sale of any Licensed
Product contemplated under [the] Agreement.
Id., 1.11; see also id, 2, 1.5, & 1.13. Among the confidential "Product Know-How" which
Mrs. Valeri disclosed and licensed to Mystic pursuant to the Agreement was confidential
information concerning the manufacturing process of the Licensed Product and confidential sales
contacts which Mrs. Valeri had made.
26. Pursuant to the Agreement, Mrs. Valeri granted Mystic an exclusive license to the
Car Get-Ups Trademark "to use and practice throughout the [world] during the Term of [the]
Agreement." !d., 2.
27. The Agreement required Mystic to mark all Licensed Product (or its packaging)
with the relevant patent number and the Car Get-Ups Trademark. See Agreement, ] 3. Mystic
had the option, under the Agreement, of omitting the Car Get-Ups Trademark from the
packaging of the Licensed Product, but not from the Licensed Product itself. See id.
7
Case 2:12-cv-02526-GP Document 1 Filed 05/08/12 Page 10 of 34
28. Mystic was required during the Tenn to "use it [sic] commercially reasonable
efforts to market the" Licensed Product. Id, 4.1 (emphasis added).
29. Under the Agreement, and in consideration of the license of the Easter Bunny
Patent, the Bat Wing Patent, the Reindeer Patent, the Product Know-How, and the Car Get-Ups
Trademark, Mystic was required to pay Mrs. Valeri a royalty equal to 7.5% of Mystic's Net Sales
of Licensed Product during the Tenn, payable in full within 30 days after the end of each
calendar quarter. See id, 2, 3.1 & 3.2. "Net Sales" were defined as Mystic's total gross
compensation received for the sale of the Licensed Product, less shipping and transport expenses,
duties and taxes from the manufacturer to Mystic, discounts and allowances given for volume
purchases, and allowances for returns. See id, 1.7.
30. Mystic was required under the Agreement to "use commercially reasonable
efforts to keep [Mrs. Valeri] regularly apprised of new customers of Licensed Product." Id,
4.3.
31. Mystic was required under the Agreement to provide Mrs. Valeri with a royalty
report within thirty (30) days after the end of each calendar quarter, setting forth, inter alia, the
total of Mystic's gross sales and Net Sales during the quarter and the royalties and fees payable
under the Agreement. See id., 3.2.
32. Pursuant to the Agreement, any royalty payment that was more than 30 days late
accrued interest at the Prime Rate. See id., 3.3.
33. The Agreement gave Mrs. Valeri the right, at her own expense and not more than
once per year, to have an independent CPA audit Mystic's books and records to detennine the
correctness of any payments due under the Agreement. See id, 6.2.
8
Case 2:12-cv-02526-GP Document 1 Filed 05/08/12 Page 11 of 34
34. The Agreement, by its terms, could be terminated by either party upon the other
party's breach or failure to perform any provision thereof. In the event of such a breach or non
performance, the non-breaching party was entitled to send a written notice of such default. The
party receiving such notice was required to cure the default within forty-five (45) days of
receiving the notice. If it failed to do so, the non-breaching party was entitled to send a second
written notice (a "Notice of Termination"), which would automatically and immediately
terminate the Agreement seven days after the Notice of Termination was received, unless the
receiving party notified the other party, within those seven days, of its intent to seek mediation or
arbitration. See id., 8.2.
35. Mystic was required to "indemnify and hold harmless" Mrs. Valeri against and
from any losses incurred by Mrs. Valeri arising from or relating to any material breach of the
Agreement by Mystic. Id., 15.1.
36. Mystic expressly acknowledged in the Agreement that irreparable il1iury would
result from any breach of the Agreement, and expressly agreed that Mrs. Valeri would be entitled
(in addition to damages and other remedies provided by law) to an injunction or other equitable
remedy with respect to any such violation. See id., 26.
37. The Agreement was fully integrated, contained the entire understanding of the
parties, and could not be amended except in a writing signed by both parties. See id., 23.
38. The Agreement, by its terms, was governed by New York law. See id., 22.
9
Case 2:12-cv-02526-GP Document 1 Filed 05/08/12 Page 12 of 34
IV. Mystic's Breaches of the Agreement
39. Assuming arguendo that the Agreement was valid, Mystic repeatedly breached
the Agreement in a variety ofways, some of which are set forth below. Mrs. Valeri has been and
continues to be damaged by Mystic's breaches of the Agreement as detailed herein.
A. Mystic's Failure to Pay Any Royalties for the
Fourth Quarter of 2011 and First Quarter of 2012
40. On or about January 30,2012, Mystic sent Mrs. Valeri a royalty report and a
check, purportedly representing the royalty payment for the fourth quarter of 2011.
41. The fourth quarter is generally the most profitable quarter for exploitation of Mrs.
Valeri's Patents, given that the Reindeer Kit (which is sold during the Christmas holiday season)
is, by far, the most popular of the Licensed Products.
42. The royalty check sent by Mystic on or about January 30,2012 (the "Check") was
in the amount of $23,418.41. It was, by far, the largest royalty payment Mystic has ever sent to
Mrs. Valeri.
43. Mrs. Valeri promptly deposited the Check in her bank account upon receiving it.
44. Unbeknownst to Mrs. Valeri, however, Mystic had, without prior notice, stopped
payment on the Check, causing the Check to "bounce" and causing Mrs. Valeri's bank to impose
fees and other charges on Mrs. Valeri for depositing a bad check. A true and correct copy of the
Check, in the form in which it was returned to Mrs. Valeri by her bank, appears below.
10
Case 2:12-cv-02526-GP Document 1 Filed 05/08/12 Page 13 of 34
01/30/12
.....$23,418.41
MYSTIC ,"DUSTftlts CORP.
".0. fIOlI 2!1&
\\MI(EeD, ~ CJlf18) 53-179-U' CHECK NO. 6944
t - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - ............------I
..woutfr
I'.IIIl1;
45. Mrs. Valeri has repeatedly demanded that Mystic reissue a check for the royalties
to which she is entitled for the fourth quarter of2011 (together with interest and compensation
for the charges imposed by Mrs. Valeri's bank). Mystic has failed and refused to do so.
46. Pursuant to Section 3.2 of the Agreement, Mystic was required to send Mrs.
Valeri a royalty report and royalty payment for the first quarter of 2012 on or before April 30,
2012. As of May 8, 2012, Mrs. Valeri has not received such royalty report or royalty payment.
Upon information and belief, Mystic failed to send the royalty report or royalty payment for the
first quarter of2012 on or before April 30, 2012.
B. Mystic's Failure to Apprise Mrs. Valeri of its Customers
47. As set forth above, Mystic was required, under Section 4.3 of the Agreement, to
"use commercially reasonable efforts to keep [Mrs. Valeri] regularly apprised of new customers
of the Licensed Product." Other than a single list of customers which was provided to Mrs.
Valeri in October 2006 - and which is now more than five years out of date - Mystic has never
complied with this obligation.
11
Case 2:12-cv-02526-GP Document 1 Filed 05/08/12 Page 14 of 34
48. Beginning in 2006, Mrs. Valeri repeatedly asked Mystic for a list of its customers
and of the retailers to which Mystic was marketing the Licensed Product. Mystic refused to
provide this information.
49. By letter dated March 7,2011, Mrs. Valeri requested details of Mystic's
marketing efforts, a complete customer list from the beginning of the Agreement to the present,
and a complete accounting for all sales since the commencement of the Agreement.
50. By letter dated March 18, 2011, Mystic stated "We are not compelled by our
agreement to furnish you with a customer list." This is a breach of Section 4.3 of the Agreement.
51. By letter dated January 27, 2012, Mrs. Valeri declared Mystic in default (under
Section 8.2 of the Agreement) due to Mystic's failure to apprise Mrs. Valeri of the identities of
its customers.
52. More than 45 days have elapsed since such declaration of default, during which
time Mystic has not cured (or even attempted or begun to cure) its default.
C. Mystic's Failure to Use Commercially Reasonable Marketing Efforts
53. Mystic has failed to use "commercially reasonable efforts to market the" Licensed
Product, as required under 4.1 of the Agreement. While Mystic has occasionally made sales to
major retailers, Mystic's incompetence and repellent demeanor has caused those retailers to
refuse to work with Mystic and, therefore, to refuse to re-order Mrs. Valeri's products.
54. For example, in 2006, Mrs. Valeri was contacted by representatives of a number
of major retailers, including Home Depot, Wal-Mart, Sears, Party City, CVS, Target, Ace
Hardware, Tru-Value, and The Christmas Tree Shops, all of whom expressed interest in
purchasing her Reindeer Kits for resale. Mrs. Valeri disclosed these contacts to Mystic (as part
12
Case 2:12-cv-02526-GP Document 1 Filed 05/08/12 Page 15 of 34
of her licensing of the Product Know-How pursuant to the Agreement). Mystic only managed to
make sales to Party City and The Christmas Tree Shops, the two smallest of the retailers.
55. Although Party City and The Christmas Tree Shops sold out their entire
respective orders of the Reindeer Kits within one week of receiving them, Mystic failed to make
sales to either retailer for the following Christmas season in 2007. Both retailers informed Mrs.
Valeri that they had a variety of problems with Mystic and were unwilling to order any product
no matter how popular or successful - from Mystic.
56. After the debacle of2007 - when Party City and The Christmas Tree Shops
declined to reorder Licensed Product from Mystic - Mrs. Valeri herself obtained an order from
Target, one of the largest retail chains in the United States. Mystic fulfilled that order for 2008,
but Target did not re-order Licensed Product for 2009 (from Mystic or any other licensee of the
Patents). Mrs. Valeri contacted Target to find out why the product was not re-ordered, and was
told by Kelly Funk, a seasonal merchandise buyer for Target, that Target would never work with
Mystic. Upon information and belief, Target refuses to do business with Mystic due to Mystic's
gross incompetence, apparent lack of business acumen, and the repellent demeanor ofits
executives.
57. Similarly, in 2009, a representative ofWalgreens (another major national retail
chain) informed Mrs. Valeri that Walgreens, which had previously had discussions with Mystic
about purchasing Licensed Product, would never work with Mystic due to Mystic's
incompetence, apparent lack of business acumen, and repellent demeanor.
58. Mystic similarly sold the Reindeer Kits to Rite-Aid (another major national retail
chain) in 2008, but failed to obtain a renewed order for 2009. Upon information and belief,
13
Case 2:12-cv-02526-GP Document 1 Filed 05/08/12 Page 16 of 34
Mystic failed to obtain a renewed order from Rite-Aid for the same reasons that Target and
Walgreens declined to work with Mystic.
59. In 2007, Mrs. Valeri contacted a representative of CVS, having heard that CVS
was interested in carrying the Reindeer Kits. CVS (another large national retail chain) confirmed
its interest, but asked that the packaging of the product be reconfigured to better fit on their store
shelves. Mrs. Valeri designed a new package in accordance with CVS's specifications and sent
it, along with the CVS contact information, to Mystic, so that Mystic could complete the sale.
Mystic's representatives expressed fury at Mrs. Valeri's contact with CVS, claiming that CVS
was "their" customer. Mystic failed to sell any Licensed Product to CVS, and, to this day, has
never sold any Licensed Product to CVS (although CVS remains interested in carrying the
Reindeer Kits).
60. In 2008, Wal-Mart expressed interest to Mrs. Valeri in carrying the Reindeer Kits.
Mrs. Valeri sent the Wal-Mart representative's contact information to Mystic, but Mystic failed
to sell any Licensed Product to Wal-Mart, which is the largest retail chain in the United States.
61. In short, Mystic has had myriad opportunities to sell Mrs. Valeri's Licensed
Product to a variety of large national retail chains. Mystic has squandered each and everyone of
these opportunities, either by failing to make any sales or by making sales for a single year and
handling those orders so incompetently and/or with such repellent demeanor that the retail chains
refused to do business with Mystic again.
62. Mrs. Valeri's products, particularly the Reindeer Kits, are in high demand.
Consumers want to buy them, but are unable to buy Licensed Product due to Mystic's repeated
failure to use commercially reasonable efforts to market the products. Mystic's failure to meet
14
Case 2:12-cv-02526-GP Document 1 Filed 05/08/12 Page 17 of 34
consumer demand has thus created an opportunity for counterfeiters to rush into the market with
cheap knock-offs that are damaging both Mrs. Valeri's reputation and her pocketbook and are
jeopardizing the years of work and hundreds of thousands of dollars which Mrs. Valeri has
invested in developing her patented inventions.
63. Mystic has informed Mrs. Valeri in writing that it is aware ofthe identities a
number of third parties who are infringing Mrs. Valeri's Patents. Despite Mrs. Valeri's repeated
written requests, Mystic has refused to disclose the identities of these infringers to Mrs. Valeri,
thus interfering with and ultimately stymieing Mrs. Valeri's efforts to enforce her Patents.
D. Mystic's Failure to Mark Licensed Product With the Car Get-Ups Trademark
64. As set forth above, the Agreement required Mystic to mark all Licensed Product
with the Car Get-Ups Trademark. See Agreement, 13.
65. In breach of that obligation, Mystic has consistently failed and refused to mark the
Licensed Product (or its packaging) with the Car Get-Ups Trademark.
66. While the Agreement purported to grant Mystic an exclusive license to the Car
Get-Ups Trademark (subject to certain rights in the Trademark retained by Mrs. Valeri pursuant
to Section 2 of the Agreement), all rights in the Car Get-Ups Trademark reverted (or will
revert) to Mrs. Valeri upon the expiration, temlination, or declaration of invalidity of the
Agreement. See id., 7.
67. Mystic's failure to mark the Licensed Product with the Car Get-Ups Trademark
has permanently diminished the value of such Trademark, causing Mrs. Valeri substantial
damages.
15
Case 2:12-cv-02526-GP Document 1 Filed 05/08/12 Page 18 of 34
E. Mystic's Breaches of the Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
68. Mystic has breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing, implied in every
contract under New York law, through the patent infringement (including manufacture and sale
of decorative kits which infringe Patents which were never licensed to Mystic), violations of the
AlP A, refusal to identify known infringers, and other wrongful conduct described elsewhere in
this Complaint.
69. Mrs. Valeri has been and continues to be damaged by Mystic's breaches of the
Agreement as detailed herein.
V. Mrs. Valeri's Termination of the Agreement
70. By written correspondence dated and sent on March 20,2007, Mrs. Valeri
declared Mystic in default under the Agreement (pursuant to Section 8.2 thereof) on account of,
inter alia, Mystic's failure (despite repeated requests) to apprise Mrs. Valeri of new customers of
the Licensed Product (in violation of Section 4.3 of the Agreement).
71. Mystic did not cure (or attempt to cure) this default within 45 days after receiving
Mrs. Valeri's Notice of Default. To the contrary, Mystic has failed and refused, to this day, to
apprise Mrs. Valeri of its customers who purchase the Licensed Product.
72. Accordingly, on May 10,2007, Mrs. Valeri sent Mystic a Notice of Termination
(a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit H), terminating the Agreement
pursuant to Section 8.2 thereof.
73. Mystic did not, within seven days thereafter (or at any time thereafter) notify Mrs.
Valeri of its intent to seek mediation or arbitration pursuant to the Agreement.
16
Case 2:12-cv-02526-GP Document 1 Filed 05/08/12 Page 19 of 34
74. The Agreement therefore automatically terminated as of seven days after Mystic
received Mrs. Valeri's Notice of Termination. See Agreement, 8.2.
VI. Mystic's Patent Infringement
75. Assuming that the Agreement was void or voidable, all of Mystic's
manufacturing, importing, using, selling, and offering to sell products covered by Mrs. Valeri's
Patents constitutes infringement of those Patents.
76. Assuming that the Agreement was valid when executed, but was lawfully
terminated pursuant to its terms, all of Mystic's manufacturing, importing, using, selling, and
offering to sell products covered by Mrs. Valeri's Patents constitutes infringement of those
Patents to the extent that such conduct has occurred post-termination.
77. Regardless of whether the Agreement was valid or whether it has been terminated
effectively, Mystic's manufacturing, importing, using, selling, and offering to sell products
covered by Mrs. Valeri's Patents which were never licensed (including the Shamrock Patent, the
Heart Patent, and the Candy Cane Patent) constitutes infringement of those unlicensed Patents.
78. For the last several years, continuing to the present day, Mystic has been
manufacturing and/or having manufactured products which infringe at least six (6) of Mrs.
Valeri's Patents (the "Infringing Products").
79. Upon information and belief, such manufacturing is taking place in the Peoples
Republic of China. Mrs. Valeri holds a number of Chinese Patents which protect the Reindeer
Kit, none of which has ever been licensed to Mystic (in the Agreement or otherwise).
17
Case 2:12-cv-02526-GP Document 1 Filed 05/08/12 Page 20 of 34
80. Mystic is currently importing the Infringing Products, is using them and offering
them for sale through the cargetups.com website and otherwise, and is in fact making sales ofthe
Infringing Products in the United States.
81. For example, the Reindeer Patent covers a decorative kit for vehicles consisting of
two antlers and a plush nose, as seen in the following drawing contained in the Reindeer Patent:
82. Mystic is making (or having made), importing, using, selling, and offering to sell
an Infringing Product, which is advertised (and offered for sale) on its cargetups.com website
with the following photograph:
18
Case 2:12-cv-02526-GP Document 1 Filed 05/08/12 Page 21 of 34
83. The following table shows other Infringing Products which Mystic is making (or
having made), importing, using selling, and offering to sell through, inter alia, advertisements
(and offers for sale) on its cargetups.com website. Each ofthe images on the left is taken from
one of Mrs. Valeri's Patents (namely, the Easter Bunny Patent, the Bat Wing Patent, the
Shamrock Patent, and the Candy Cane Patent). Each ofthe images on the right is taken from the
advertisements and offers for sale on Mystic's cargetups.com website:
Patent
Easter
Bunny
Patent
BatWing
Patent
BatWing
Patent
19
Case 2:12-cv-02526-GP Document 1 Filed 05/08/12 Page 22 of 34
Patent
Candy
Cane
Patent
Valeri Patent
,
".'
v. ;>
\,-,
~
84. Another Infringing Product which Mystic is making (or having made), importing,
using, selling, and offering to sell is a "Mystic Industries Valentine's Day Vehicle Costume,"
which is not offered for sale through the cargetups.com website, but is offered for sale elsewhere,
including through Amazon.com. The following table shows, as above, an image from Mrs.
Valeri's Heart Patent on the left and a photograph of the Mystic Industries Valentine's Day
Vehicle Costume (as advertised on Amazon.com) on the right:
20
Case 2:12-cv-02526-GP Document 1 Filed 05/08/12 Page 23 of 34
Valeri Patent Drawin Mystic Product Patent
~ ~ = = ~ - - - - ~ - - - - -
Heart
Patent
85. Mrs. Valeri has never licensed the Shamrock Patent, the Candy Cane Patent, or
the Heart Patent to Mystic.
86. Another Infringing Product which Mystic is making (or having made), importing,
using, selling, and offering to sell through, inter alia, its cargetups.com website is a decorative
kit featuring two bat wings which infringes Mrs. Valeri's Bat Wing Patent (the "Mystic Vampire
Bat Kit"). The following table shows, as above, an image from Mrs. Valeri's Bat Wing Patent on
the left and a photograph ofthe Mystic Vampire Bat Kit (as advertised on the cargetups.com
website) on the right:
Patent Valeri Patent Drawin M stic Product
Bat Wing
Patent
(1\ ....1
~
21
Case 2:12-cv-02526-GP Document 1 Filed 05/08/12 Page 24 of 34
87. Mystic has never paid Mrs. Valeri any royalties for any sales of the Mystic
Vampire Bat Kit. This failure constitutes, among other things, yet another breach of the
Agreement (assuming the Agreement is or ever was valid).
88. While the Agreement purported to grant Mystic a non-exclusive license to the
Reindeer Patent, the Easter Bunny Patent, and the Bat Wing Patent, the Agreement has been
terminated and/or rescinded and/or is void and/or voidable, as set forth herein.
89. Each ofthe Infringing Products (as shown in the images above) embodies one of
Mrs. Valeri's patented designs and/or a colorable imitation of one of Mrs. Valeri's patented
designs.
90. An ordinary wholesale or retail purchaser seeing one of the Infringing Products
would be misled into thinking she was purchasing (or being offered) one of Mrs. Valeri's
patented designs.
91. Mystic's infringement of Mrs. Valeri's Patents is willful, in that, inter alia, Mystic
has (and at all relevant times has had) actual knowledge of each of Mrs. Valeri's Patents and
Mystic intentionally copied Mrs. Valeri's patented designs.
92. Mystic has not paid Mrs. Valeri royalties with respect to its sales of the Infringing
Products.
COUNT I
Violation of the American Inventors Protection Act, 35 U.S.C. 297
93. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1
through 92 of this Complaint as if set forth at length herein.
94. Congress enacted the American Inventors Protection Act, 35 U.S.C. 297
(nAIP A") for the purpose of protecting independent inventors like Mrs. Valeri from improper
22
Case 2:12-cv-02526-GP Document 1 Filed 05/08/12 Page 25 of 34
and deceptive practices which have historically been used by invention promotion firms like
Mystic.
95. The AlP A requires an invention promoter to make certain written disclosures to
the inventor, in writing, prior to entering into a contract for invention promotion services. The
promoter must disclose:
a. The total number of inventions evaluated by the promoter for commercial
potential in the past five years, as well as the number of such inventions that have
received positive evaluations and the number that have received negative
evaluations;
b. The total number of customers who have contracted with the promoter in the past
five years;
c. The total number of customers who have received a net financial profit as a direct
result of the promoter's services;
d. The total number of customers who have received license agreements for their
inventions as a direct result ofthe promoter's services; and
e. The names and addresses of all previous invention promotion companies with
which the promoter or its officers have collectively or individually been affiliated
in the previous ten years.
See 35 U.S.C. 297(a).
96. At all material times, Mystic is and has been an invention promoter within the
meaning of35 U.S.C. 297(c)(3).
97. Mrs. Valeri was a customer of Mystic within the meaning of35 U.S.C.
297(c)(2).
98. Mrs. Valeri and Mystic entered into a contract (the Agreement) whereby Mystic
was to provide invention promotion services to Mrs. Valeri within the meaning of35 U.S.C.
297(c)(4).
99. Prior to entering into the contract for invention promotion services (i.e., the
Agreement), Mystic did not disclose to Mrs. Valeri in writing the total number of inventions
23
Case 2:12-cv-02526-GP Document 1 Filed 05/08/12 Page 26 of 34
evaluated by Mystic for commercial potential in the previous five years, nor did it disclose the
number of those inventions that received positive evaluations, nor the number of those inventions
that received negative evaluations.
100. Prior to entering into the Agreement, Mystic did not disclose to Mrs. Valeri in
writing the total number of customers who had contracted with Mystic during the previous five
years.
101. Prior to entering into the Agreement, Mystic did not disclose to Mrs. Valeri in
writing the total number of customers known by Mystic to have received a net financial profit as
a direct result of the invention promotion services provided by Mystic.
102. Prior to entering into the Agreement, Mystic did not disclose to Mrs. Valeri in
writing the total number of customers known by Mystic to have received license agreements for
their inventions as a direct result of the invention promotion services provided by Mystic.
103. Prior to entering into the Agreement, Mystic did not disclose to Mrs. Valeri in
writing the names and address of all previous invention promotion companies with which Mystic
or its officers had collectively or individually been affiliated during the previous ten years.
104. As a direct and proximate result of Mystic's failure to make the disclosures
required by the AlP A, Mrs. Valeri executed the Agreement, which has resulted in substantial
direct and consequential damages to Mrs. Valeri.
105. Mystic undertook the actions and omissions discussed herein intentionally,
willfully, and with the purpose of deceiving Mrs. Valeri.
106. Mrs. Valeri is therefore entitled to treble damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
297(b)(2).
24
Case 2:12-cv-02526-GP Document 1 Filed 05/08/12 Page 27 of 34
107. Mystic's failure to make the disclosures required by the AlP A renders the
Agreement void ab initio.
108. In the alternative, Mystic's failure to make the disclosures required by the AlP A
renders the Agreement voidable at Mrs. Valeri's option and/or gives Mrs. Valeri the right to
rescind the Agreement.
Count II
Patent Infringement
109. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs I
through 108 ofthis Complaint as if set forth at length herein.
110. Mystic has infringed and is still infringing each of the Easter Bunny Patent, the
Bat Wing Patent, the Reindeer Patent, the Shamrock Patent, the Heart Patent, and the Candy
Cane Patent by making, selling, offering for sale, having made, importing, and using decorative
kits for motor vehicles (the Infringing Products, as described above) that embody the patented
inventions.
111. Mystic will continue to do so unless enjoined by this Court.
112. Mrs. Valeri has suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable harm - for which
there is no adequate remedy at law - as a direct and proximate result of such unlawful infringing
activity unless Mystic is enjoined by this Court.
113. Mystic has profited through infringement of Mrs. Valeri's Patents.
114. Mrs. Valeri has complied with the statutory requirement of placing a notice of her
Patents on all decorative kits for motor vehicles she has manufactured, sold, or offered for sale
since the date of issuance of each relevant Patent.
25
Case 2:12-cv-02526-GP Document 1 Filed 05/08/12 Page 28 of 34
115. Mrs. Valeri placed notices of "Patent Pending" on all decorative kits for motor
vehicles which she manufactured, sold, or offered for sale prior to the issuance of each relevant
Patent.
116. Mrs. Valeri has given Mystic written notice of the existence of each ofthe
Patents. Mystic is aware of each of Mrs. Valeri's relevant Patents and has nonetheless continued
to make, sell, offer for sale, have made, import, and use decorative kits for motor vehicles that
embody the patented inventions and the designs disclosed in the Patents
117. Mrs. Valeri has given Mystic written notice of the infringement.
118. Mrs. Valeri has suffered substantial direct and consequential damages as a result
of Mystic's infringement ofthe Patents.
119. On account of Mystic's infringement, Mrs. Valeri is entitled to "damages adequate
to compensate for the infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty" pursuant to 35
U.S.C. 284.
120. Mrs. Valeri is also entitled to recover Mystic's "total profit" on the Infringing
Products pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 289.
Because Mystic's infringement of Mrs. Valeri's Patents was and is willful and deliberate, Mrs.
Valeri is entitled to treble damages pursuant to 35 U.S.c. 284 and to reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 285.
COUNT III
Breach of Contract
121. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1
through 120 ofthis Complaint as if set forth at length herein.
26
Case 2:12-cv-02526-GP Document 1 Filed 05/08/12 Page 29 of 34
122. Mrs. Valeri and Mystic entered into the written Agreement on or about February
28,2006.
123. Mrs. Valeri has performed all of her obligations under the Agreement.
124. Mystic breached the Agreement by, inter alia, failing to pay Mrs. Valeri any
royalties for the fourth quarter of 2011, failing to pay Mrs. Valeri any royalties for the first
quarter of2012, failing to pay Mrs. Valeri any royalties for sales of the Mystic Vampire Bat Kit,
failing to send Mrs. Valeri a royalty report for the first quarter of 2012, stopping payment on the
royalty check sent in January 2012, failing to apprise Mrs. Valeri of its customers, failing to use
commercially reasonable marketing efforts, failing to mark Licensed Product with the Car Get-
Ups Trademark, and breaching its duty of good faith and fair dealing through the patent
infringement, violations of the AIPA, refusal to identify known infringers of Mrs. Valeri's
Patents, and other wrongful conduct detailed in this Complaint.
125. Mrs. Valeri has suffered substantial direct and consequential damages, in an
amount in excess of $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs, as a direct and proximate result
of Mystic's breaches of the Agreement.
COUNT IV
Enforcement of Instrument
126. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1
through 125 of this Complaint as if set forth at length herein.
127. On or about January 30, 2012, Mystic sent Mrs. Valeri a check drawn on Eastern
Bank in the amount of$23,418.41, purportedly representing its royalty payment for the fourth
quarter of2011 (the "Check"). The Check constitutes an "instrument" within the meaning of
27
Case 2:12-cv-02526-GP Document 1 Filed 05/08/12 Page 30 of 34
Article 3 of the Unifonn Commercial Code (as adopted in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and
New York (the "UCC").
128. Mrs. Valeri promptly deposited the Check in her bank account upon receiving it.
129. Unbeknownst to Mrs. Valeri, however, Mystic had, without prior notice, stopped
payment on the Check, causing the Check to "bounce" and causing Mrs. Valeri's bank to impose
fees and other charges on Mrs. Valeri for depositing a bad check.
130. Mrs. Valeri is a "person entitled to enforce" the Check within the meaning of
Article 3 of the UCC.
131. The Check was "taken for an obligation" within the meaning of Article 3 of the
UCC, in that it was sent to Mrs. Valeri by Mystic as payment for an antecedent debt (Mystic's
royalty obligations for the fourth quarter of 20 11).
132. Mrs. Valeri is entitled to enforcement ofthe Check pursuant to Article 3 of the
UCC.
COUNT V
Declaratory Judgment
133. Plaintiff repeats and real leges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1
through 132 of this Complaint as if set forth at length herein.
134. An actual and justiciable controversy has arisen and presently exists with regard
to the enforceability and continuing effect of the Agreement.
135. Mrs. Valeri contends, as set forth herein, that the Agreement was void ab initio,
and/or that the Agreement is voidable, and/or that the Agreement has been rescinded, tenninated,
or is otherwise unenforceable.
28
Case 2:12-cv-02526-GP Document 1 Filed 05/08/12 Page 31 of 34
136. Mystic, on the other hand, contends that the Agreement was and remains valid
and in force.
137. Mrs. Valeri is entitled to ajudicial declaration that the Agreement was void ab
initio and/or that the Agreement is voidable and/or that the Agreement has been rescinded,
terminated, or is otherwise unenforceable.
138. A declaratory judgment is necessary and proper to set forth the rights and
obligations that exist among the parties with respect to the Agreement. In the absence of such a
declaration, Mrs. Valeri has been and will continue to be harmed and damaged substantially in
an amount exceeding $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs.
Count VI
For an Accounting
139. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1
through 138 of this Complaint as if set forth at length herein.
140. Mystic has a duty to account to Mrs. Valeri for all sales ofInfringing Products
and all sales of Licensed Product, including, without limitation, a full and detailed accounting for
all gross sales, all shipping and transport expenses actually incurred and paid by Mystic, all
duties and taxes from any manufacturer to Mystic, all discounts and allowances given by Mystic
for volume purchases, all returns, and all allowances for any returns.
141. Mrs. Valeri respectfully requests that this Court issue an Order compelling and
requiring Mystic to provide such detailed accounting, in writing, and to provide regular updates
of same on a timely basis (to the extent that Mystic may not be enjoined from any future sales of
products which infringe the Patents).
29
Case 2:12-cv-02526-GP Document 1 Filed 05/08/12 Page 32 of 34
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, plaintiff Sue Williamson Valeri respectfully requests that judgment be
entered in her favor and against defendant Mystic Industries Corporation as follows:
(a) For compensatory damages in an amount in excess of$75,000 (exclusive of
interest and costs), together with interest, costs, and attorneys' fees;
(b) For additional damages on account of pecuniary and consequential losses suffered
by plaintiff in an appropriate amount to be determined;
(c) For treble damages pursuant to statute;
(d) For punitive damages on account of Mystic's willful violations of 35 U.S.C. 297
and other willful and deliberate unlawful conduct;
(e) For a preliminary and final injunction against Mystic's continuing acts of
infringement of Mrs. Valeri's Patents and the Car Get-Ups Trademark;
(f) For enforcement ofMystic's Check in the amount of$23,418.41 pursuant to
Article 3 of the UCC;
(g) For ajudicial declaration that the "License Agreement" dated February 28,2006,
between Mrs. Valeri and Mystic is rescinded and/or terminated;
(h) For costs of suit (including attorneys' fees pursuant to contract and/or statute) and
interest;
0) F or an accounting; and
30
Case 2:12-cv-02526-GP Document 1 Filed 05/08/12 Page 33 of 34
G) For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
BRAVERMAN KASKEY P.C.
BY: /s/ Richard S. Julie
David L. Braverman (Signature Code DLB2408)
Richard S. Julie (Signature Code RSJ8335)
One Liberty Place
1650 Market Street, 56th Floor
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103
(215) 575-3800
Attorneysfor P laintifJ Sue Williamson Valeri
Dated: May 8, 2012
31
Case 2:12-cv-02526-GP Document 1 Filed 05/08/12 Page 34 of 34