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

Plaintiff,

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION PC Tables, Inc., 15583 E. Golden Eagle Blvd. Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No. Judge Magistrate COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT (Jury Demand Endorsed Hereon)

Pacific Digital Electronics, 9207 Eton Avenue Chatsworth, California 91311, and, International Ally Incorporation, 9736 Eton Avenue Chatsworth, California 91311, and, Pacific Shore Holdings, Inc., 9736 Eton Avenue Chatworth, California 91311, Defendants.

NOW COMES the Plaintiff, PC Tables, Inc., and for its Complaint against the Defendants hereby alleges as follows: THE PARTIES 1. The Plaintiff, PC Tables, Inc., is a corporation organized under the laws of Arizona, and has its principal place of business in Arizona. 2. The Defendant, Pacific Digital Electronics, is a business entity of unknown type that appears

25 26 to have its principal place of business located in California. The allegedly infringing product

Plaintiff’s Complaint - 1

1-1-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

at issue in this lawsuit appears to be manufactured and/or marketed by Pacific Digital Electronics. product. 3. The Defendant, International Ally Incorporation, is a business entity of unknown type that appears to have its principal place of business located in California. Plaintiff possesses evidence that on or about May 14, 2008, allegedly infringing product was shipped to International Ally Incorporation of 1,000 pieces of laptop tables. 4. The Defendant, Pacific Shore Holdings, Inc., is a business entity of unknown type that appears to have its principal place of business located in California. Plaintiff possesses evidence that on or about October 28, 2008, allegedly infringing product was shipped to Pacific Shore Holdings, Inc. of 174 cartons of laptop tables (12 pieces per carton = 2,088 The name “Pacific Digital Electronics” is found on the packaging of the

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 6. In addition or in the alternative to this Court’s federal question jurisdiction, this Court also 21 22 23 24 25 26 has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to diversity of citizenship principles as the parties are from different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. pieces of laptop tables). JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. This is an action for patent infringement. The patent claims arise under the patent laws of the United States, specifically 35 U.S.C. § 281. This Court has federal question subject matter jurisdiction in this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338, and 35 U.S.C. § 281 because this action arises under the patent laws of the United States.

Plaintiff’s Complaint - 2

2-2-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

7. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants by virtue of their sale of products, transaction of business, and solicitation of business within the State of Ohio, within this judicial district and elsewhere. 8. Venue is proper in the Northern District of Ohio pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) and/or 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in this judicial district, the Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in this district, and an infringement occurred within this judicial district and elsewhere. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 9. The Plaintiff markets laptop computer stands known as Table Tote® products. The Plaintiff markets its products through the website located at http://www.pctabletote.com and elsewhere.

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 12. The ‘350 patent teaches a portable, compactable computer and projector stand. 21 22 23 24 25 26 13. The Plaintiff markets its patented product under the Table Tote® registered trademark. (A true and accurate copy of the trademark is attached hereto as “Exhibit 2.”) 14. The Plaintiff has widely and continuously promoted and sold its patented products under the Table Tote® brand, which products embody the ‘350 patent. 10. On October 28, 2003, United States Utility Patent No. 6,637,350, entitled “Portable, Compact Computer and Projector Stand” (hereinafter referred to as the ‘350 patent) duly and legally issued to Mark McKsymick, as inventor, for the aforementioned invention. (A true and accurate copy of the ‘350 patent as issued is attached hereto as “Exhibit 1.”) 11. All rights to the ‘350 patent, including but not limited to, the right to recover for infringement thereunder, have been assigned to the Plaintiff, PC Tables, Inc.

Plaintiff’s Complaint - 3

3-3-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

15. The Plaintiff has invested considerable time and resources in marketing and advertising their patented products. 16. Upon information and belief, the Defendants have had actual knowledge of the Plaintiff’s intellectual property rights in the Plaintiff’s Table Tote® product line by virtue of the Plaintiff’s marking of its products as patented and/or patent pending. 17. The Defendants have been and are currently making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing products that infringe the ‘350 patent. 18. The Defendants’ products infringe the ‘350 utility patent, as evidenced by the attached claims chart. (A claims chart comparing the Defendants’ product to the noted claims in the

Plaintiff’s ‘350 utility patent is attached hereto as “Exhibit 3.”) (The inclusion of the attached claims chart is for illustrative purposes only, and the Plaintiff reserves the right to

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 20. On or about May 14, 2008, the Defendant, International Ally Incorporation, imported at least 21 22 23 24 25 26 1,000 pieces of infringing laptop tables. (See a copy of the import data attached as “Exhibit 7.”) amend and modify its claim assertions, allegations, and construction pursuant to the local patent rules.) 19. The Defendants have sold their infringing product in this judicial district in Ohio and elsewhere. The products are offered and sold on numerous websites over the internet in this jurisdiction and elsewhere. (See examples of offers for sale attached as “Exhibits 4, 5, and 6.”)

Plaintiff’s Complaint - 4

4-4-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

21. On or about October 28, 2008, the Defendant, Pacific Shore Holdings, Inc., imported at least 174 cartons of laptop tables (12 pieces per carton = 2,088 pieces of laptop tables). (See a copy of the import data attached as “Exhibit 8.”) 22. The aforementioned activities of the Defendants have also injured and threaten future injury to the Plaintiff. More specifically, the Defendants’ activities have diminished the Plaintiff’s goodwill and caused the Plaintiff to lose sales that it otherwise would have made but for the sales of the Defendants. 23. The Defendants are not authorized in any way to sell their infringing products or to use the patent owned by the Plaintiff. 24. The Plaintiff is entitled to an award of damages against Defendants, and is entitled to injunctive relief.

13 14 15 16 below, as if each is fully re-written herein. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 26. The Defendants have been and are currently making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing products that infringe the ‘350 utility patent. (See Ex 3.) 27. The Defendants’ conduct is an infringement of the ‘350 patent, and in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271 within this judicial district and elsewhere. 28. The Defendants will continue to make, use, offer for sale, sell, and import their infringing products unless enjoined by this Court. CLAIM NO. 1 (Patent Infringement 35 U.S.C. § 271 et seq.) 25. The Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each statement, whether written above or

Plaintiff’s Complaint - 5

5-5-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

29. The Defendants have been, and are, actively inducing infringement of the ‘350 patent, by offering for sale and selling their infringing products to dealers who have, and will continue to, offer them for sale and sell them to end users. 30. The Defendants’ infringement is, and at all times has been, deliberate, willful, with full knowledge of the Plaintiff’s rights, and wanton, and as a result, the Plaintiff is entitled to treble damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284. 31. This is an exceptional case within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285, and the award of appropriate attorney’s fees is justified PRAYER FOR RELIEF / REQUEST FOR REMEDIES WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays that this Court enter an Order against the Defendants, jointly and severally, as follows:

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 conduct; 21 22 23 24 25 26 D) An assessment of interest on the damages so computed; E) An award of attorney’s fees and costs in this action under 35 U.S.C. § 285; F) Judgment against Defendants indemnifying the Plaintiff from any claims brought against the Plaintiff for negligence, debts, malpractice, product liability, or other breaches of any duty A) A preliminary injunction enjoining the Defendants from making, using, selling, or importing any product that infringes upon the ‘350 patent; B) A permanent injunction enjoining the Defendants from making, using, selling, or importing any product that infringes upon the ‘350 patent; C) An accounting for damages resulting from Defendants’ patent infringement and the trebling of such damages because of the knowing, willful, and wanton nature of the Defendants’

Plaintiff’s Complaint - 6

6-6-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

owed by the Defendants to any person who was confused as to some association between the Plaintiff and Defendants as alleged in this Complaint; G) Judgment against Defendants for an accounting and monetary award in an amount to be determined at trial; H) Requiring Defendants to account to the Plaintiff for all sales and purchases that have occurred to date, and requiring the Defendants to disgorge any and all profits derived by Defendants for selling infringing product; I) Requiring Defendants to provide full disclosure of any and all information relating to its supplier or suppliers of infringing product; J) Requiring Defendants to provide the location of any and all manufacturing equipment, including but not limited to, molds used to manufacture infringing product;

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 email, mail, and advertising lists; 21 22 23 24 25 26 O) Damages according to each cause of action herein; P) Prejudgment interest; and Q) Any such other relief in law or equity that this honorable Court deems just. K) Requiring Defendants to destroy any and all manufacturing equipment used to manufacture infringing product or to deliver said equipment to the Plaintiff; L) Ordering a product recall of infringing product for destruction; M) Requiring Defendants to file with this Court and serve on the Plaintiff within thirty (30) days of this Court’s order a report setting forth the manner in which they complied with the order; N) Requiring Defendants to provide to Plaintiff all sales records, including but not limited to,

Plaintiff’s Complaint - 7

7-7-

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

JURY DEMAND WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff requests a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

Most Respectfully Submitted,

___/s/ David A. Welling______________________ DAVID A. WELLING (0075934) C. VINCENT CHOKEN (0070530) Choken Welling LLP 3020 West Market Street Akron, Ohio 44333 Tel. (330) 865 – 4949 Fax (330) 865 – 3777 davidw@choken-welling.com vincec@choken-welling.com JOHN D. GUGLIOTTA, P.E., ESQ. (0062809) Law Offices of John D. Gugliotta, P.E., Esq., LPA 3020 W. Market Street Akron, Ohio 44333 Tel. (330) 253 – 2225 Fax (330) 253 – 6658 johng@inventorshelp.com Counsel for the Plaintiff

Plaintiff’s Complaint - 8

8-8-

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful