1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

LOCKE LORD LLP M. Taylor Florence, SBN 159695 tflorence@lockelord.com 500 Capitol Mall, Suite 1800 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: 916.930.2500 Facsimile: 916.930.2501 Attorneys for Plaintiffs PACIFIC COAST BUILDING PRODUCTS, INC., and PABCO BUILDING PRODUCTS, LLC IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SACRAMENTO DIVISION PACIFIC COAST BUILDING PRODUCTS, INC., and PABCO BUILDING PRODUCTS, LLC, Plaintiffs, DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL v. BUILDING MATERIALS CORPORATION OF AMERICA d/b/a GAF, Defendant. Civil Action No. _____________________ COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4. 1.

COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Plaintiffs, Pacific Coast Building Products, Inc. (“PAC COAST”) and PABCO Building Products, LLC (“PABCO”) (collectively, “Pacific”), by and through its undersigned attorneys, and for its Complaint against Defendant Building Materials Corporation of America d/b/a GAF (“GAF”), states as follows: THE NATURE OF THE ACTION PAC COAST is the owner of broad intellectual property protection for a variety of

innovative building products, including roof coverings such as its distinctive Cascade™ signature cut shingles (“Cascade™ Shingles”). PABCO sells and distributes roof coverings under license from PAC COAST, including the Cascade™ Shingles. 2. Defendant GAF recently introduced a roof covering product under the tradename

Sienna™ Lifetime Designer Shingles (“Sienna Shingles”). Instead of pursuing independent product development, GAF has chosen to slavishly copy Pacific’s innovative product design in violation of Pacific’s valuable intellectual property rights. As described in detail below, GAF has made its Sienna Shingles look like Pacific’s Cascade™ Shingles. 3. This Complaint seeks to put a stop to Defendant GAF’s illegal conduct and to obtain

compensation for the violations that have occurred thus far. Specifically, Pacific seeks a judgment that GAF has infringed and continues to infringe Pacific’s U.S. Patent No. D589,172 (“’D172 Patent”). The ’D172 Patent relates to a roof covering. A true and accurate copy of the ’D172 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A. PARTIES Plaintiff PAC COAST is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the

State of California. PAC COAST’s principal place of business is 10600 White Rock Road, Suite 100, Rancho Cordova, California 95670. 5. Plaintiff PABCO is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws

of the State of Nevada. PABCO’s principal place of business is 10600 White Rock Road, Suite 100, Rancho Cordova, California 95670. /////

-1-

COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

6.

On information and belief, Defendant GAF is a company organized under the laws of

the State of Delaware with its principal place of business at 1361 Alps Road, Wayne, New Jersey 07470. JURISDICTION 7. This Court has original and exclusive jurisdiction pursuant to Title 28 United States

Code, Sections 1331 (federal question) and 1338(a) (any Act of Congress relating to patents or trademarks), and under the Patent Laws of the United States (Title 35 United States Code, Section 1, et seq.). 8. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant GAF. On information and belief,

GAF has infringed and is infringing the ’D172 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271 in California and in this judicial district by making, using, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing into the United States its roof covering products that infringe the ’D172 Patent. 9. On information and belief, Defendant GAF places infringing products into the stream

of commerce, with the knowledge or understanding that such products are sold in California, including in this judicial district. GAF maintains a website (www.gaf.com) through which they promote their infringing products to customers including, on information and belief, customers in California and in this judicial district. Also, on information and belief, GAF offers to sell and sells its infringing products to third-party distributors, on-line retailers, and/or resellers for promotion, sales, and distribution to end users in California and in this judicial district. 10. The acts by Defendant GAF have caused and are continuing to cause injury to Pacific

within this judicial district. On information and belief, Defendant GAF derives substantial revenue from its sales of infringing products to customers and resellers in California and in this judicial district. Defendant GAF therefore purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities in California, thus invoking the benefits and protections of the laws of California. 11. On information and belief, GAF has been and is currently engaged in business, and

regularly and continually conducts business in the State of California and in this judicial district. ///// /////

-2-

COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 18. 13. 12.

VENUE Venue in this judicial district is proper pursuant to Title 28 United States Code,

Sections 1391(c) and 1400(b). On information and belief, GAF transacts business within this district and offers for sale in this district products that infringe Pacific’s patent. Pacific has suffered harm in this judicial district. In addition, PAC COAST’s and PABCO’s principal places of business are in this district. BACKGROUND PACIFIC’S INNOVATION Together, the Pacific family of companies are a leading provider of building products

and services designed for residential, industrial, and commercial projects of all sizes and complexity. It is a family business and its origins date back to February 17, 1953, when Mr. Fred Anderson opened the doors to the Anderson Lumber Company in Sacramento, California. 14. Pacific’s mission is to provide outstanding customer service, quality products, and to

nurture strong customer relationships. 15. Pacific continues to be a strong presence in the Sacramento area today. Their

corporate headquarters are here and they employ a significant number of people in this judicial district. 16. The Pacific family of companies provide many well-known building products. These

include PABCO gypsum, PABCO paper and PABCO roofing products. 17. Among the PABCO roofing products are the Cascade™ Shingles. These shingles

have an unmistakable diamond shape and are available in four distinctive colors that complement many classic architectural styles. PACIFIC’S DESIGN PATENT Pacific has protected its innovative building products through a broad range of Among those rights is the ’D172 Patent, which is entitled “Roof

intellectual property rights.

Covering,” and was duly and legally issued by the PTO on March 24, 2009. Specifically, Pacific filed an application for a design patent depicting a roof covering on May 29, 2008. After being reviewed and evaluated by the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (“PTO”), that application ripened

-3-

COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

into the ’D172 Patent. PAC COAST is the sole and exclusive owner of the ’D172 Patent. Under exclusive license from PAC COAST, PABCO manufactures and sells roofing products, including the Cascade™ Shingles. GAF’S INFRINGING PRODUCTS 19. Upon information and belief, Defendant GAF makes, uses, sells, offers to sell, and/or

imports into the United States roof coverings that infringe the ’D172 Patent. Specifically, Pacific recently became aware of a copy product being marketed by GAF under the tradename Sienna™ Lifetime Designer Shingles. The Sienna Shingles bear a striking resemblance to Pacific’s

Cascade™ Shingles. Rather than innovate and develop its own shingle design, GAF chose to copy Pacific’s design in these infringing products. The GAF Sienna Shingles are depicted in GAF’s product brochure attached hereto as Exhibit B. 20. GAF chose to infringe Pacific’s ’D172 Patent through the design of its Sienna

Shingles, and it did so willfully to trade upon the goodwill that Pacific has developed in connection with its Cascade™ Shingles. INFRINGEMENT OF PACIFIC’S PATENT 21. The GAF Sienna Shingles are duplicates of the roof covering design shown in the

’D172 Patent. As the side-by-side comparison below reveals, GAF misappropriated Pacific’s roof covering design in the accused Sienna Shingles products:

-4-

COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 /////

22.

On information and belief, Defendant GAF knows and has known that Pacific’s

ornamental design for its roof covering is protected by Pacific’s patent. Before the filing of this Complaint, Pacific has advised GAF of its concerns of the infringement of Pacific’s design patent. 23. On information and belief, Defendant GAF has not stopped infringing the

’D172 Patent despite these communications from Pacific. GAF has not told Pacific that it would cease its activities relating to the Sienna Shingles. COUNT I – INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. D589,172 24. Pacific incorporates by reference and realleges each and every allegation set forth in

paragraphs 1 through 23 of this Complaint as if fully set forth and restated herein. 25. Defendant GAF, without authority or consent of Pacific, has infringed and continues

to infringe the ’D172 Patent in violation of Title 35 United States Code, Section 271(a) by making, selling, or offering for sale within the United States the Sienna Shingles products identified in this Complaint, which embody the design covered by the ’D172 Patent. GAF has directly infringed and continues to directly infringe the ’D172 Patent. 26. The infringement by Defendant GAF has been willful, wanton, knowing, deliberate The willful nature of GAF’s

and without claim of right, license or permission from Pacific.

infringement is evidenced by at least its knowledge of the Pacific Cascade™ Shingles products embodying the patented design. 27. On information and belief, Defendant GAF will continue its infringing conduct unless

enjoined by this Court. 28. Defendant GAF’s infringement of Pacific’s patent rights will cause irreparable injury

to Pacific in the marketplace due to at least the confusion created by the infringing product and the harm done to Pacific’s status as the owner and exclusive provider and source of the patented design. PRAYER AND RELIEF WHEREFORE, Pacific respectfully petitions that this Court enter judgment in its favor and award the following relief against Defendant GAF: A. A judgment in favor of Pacific that Defendant GAF has infringed the ’D172 Patent;

-5-

COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ///// ///// /////

B.

A judgment in favor of Pacific that Defendant GAF’s infringement has been and

continues to be willful; C. An order and judgment permanently enjoining GAF, its officers, directors,

employees, attorneys, agents, licensees, representatives, affiliates, related companies, servants, successors and assigns, and all other persons acting in privity or in concert or participation with them from further acts of infringement of the ’D172 Patent; D. A judgment awarding Pacific all actual damages adequate to compensate for GAF’s

infringement of Pacific’s ’D172 Patent, and in no event less than a reasonable royalty for GAF’s acts of infringement, including all pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate permitted by law; E. A judgment awarding Pacific all damages, including treble damages, based on any

infringement found to be willful, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, together with prejudgment interest; F. A judgment finding this to be an exceptional case and awarding Pacific its costs of

suit and reasonable attorneys’ fees; and G. Any other remedy to which Pacific may be entitled, including such other and further

relief as this Court deems proper and just. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Pacific demands a jury trial on all matters triable to a jury.

Dated: February 7, 2013

LOCKE LORD LLP /s/ M. Taylor Florence M. Taylor Florence, CA SBN 159695 500 Capitol Mall, Suite 1800 Sacramento, CA 95814 tflorence@lockelord.com Telephone: 916.930.2500 Facsimile: 916.930.2501

-6-

COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Matthew K. Blackburn, CA SBN 261959 (admission to EDCA pending) U.S. Patent Attorney Reg. No. 47,428 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2400 San Francisco, CA 94104 mblackburn@lockelord.com Telephone: 415.318.8802 Facsimile: 415.680.2448 Jason E. Mueller, TX SBN 24047571 (pro hac vice pending) U.S. Patent Attorney Reg. No. 64,647 2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 2200 Dallas, TX 75201-6776 jmueller@lockelord.com Telephone: 214.740.8844 Facsimile: 214.756.8844 Attorneys for Plaintiffs PACIFIC COAST BUILDING PRODUCTS, INC., and PABCO BUILDING PRODUCTS, LLC

-7-

COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful