IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No.

___________ HUNTER DOUGLAS, INC., and RUSSELL L. HINCKLEY, SR. EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF ANDREW J. TOTI, ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE, Plaintiffs, v. NIEN MADE ENTERPRISE CO. LTD., NORMAN INTERNATIONAL, INC., NORMAN INTERNATIONAL COLORADO, LLC, RICHFIELD WINDOW COVERINGS, INC. d/b/a NIEN MADE U.S.A., and GLOBAL CUSTOM COMMERCE, INC. d/b/a BLINDS.COM, Defendants. ______________________________________________________________________ COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT ______________________________________________________________________ Plaintiffs Hunter Douglas, Inc. and Russell L. Hinckley, Sr. Executor of the Estate of Andrew J. Toti, on behalf of the Estate (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”), by and through their attorneys Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, file this Complaint for Patent Infringement against Nien Made Enterprise Co. Ltd., Norman International, Inc., Norman International Colorado, LLC, Richfield Window Coverings, Inc. d/b/a Nien Made USA, and Global Custom Commerce, Inc. d/b/a Blinds.com, stating as follows:

THE PARTIES 1. Hunter Douglas, Inc. (“Hunter Douglas) is a corporation organized and

existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, and has its principal place of business at 2 Park Way, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458. 2. Russell L. Hinckley, Sr. Executor of the Estate of Andrew J. Toti, on behalf

of the Estate (“Hinckley”) is a resident of the State of California. 3. Upon information and belief, Defendant Nien Made Enterprise Co. Ltd.

(“Nien Made”) is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Taiwan, and has its principal place of business at 19F, No. 236, Sec. 2, Wuchiuan West Road, Taichung, 408, Taiwan. 4. Upon information and belief, Defendant Norman International, Inc.

(“Norman International”) is a subsidiary of Nien Made, and is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California with its principal place of business at 12301 Hawkins Street, Sante Fe Springs, California 90670. 5. Upon information and belief, Defendant Norman International Colorado,

LLC (“Norman Colorado”) is a subsidiary of Norman International, and is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Colorado, with its principal place of business at 4701 Dahlia Street, Unit D, Denver, Colorado 80216. 6. Upon information and belief, Defendant Richfield Window Coverings, Inc.

d/b/a Nien Made USA (“Richfield”) is a subsidiary of Nien Made and is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California with its principal place of business at 13712 Alondra Boulevard, Cerritos, California 90703.

2

7.

Upon information and belief, Defendant Global Custom Commerce, Inc.

d/b/a Blinds.com (“Blinds.com”) is a corporation organized and existed under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business at 10255 Richmond Avenue, Houston, Texas 77042. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 8. This is an action for patent infringement arising under the Patent Laws of

the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., including but not limited to 35 U.S.C. §§ 271 and 281. 9. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28

U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). 10. Upon information and belief, Defendants have solicited business in the

State of Colorado, transacted business within the State of Colorado, and attempted to derive financial benefits from residents of the State of Colorado, including benefits directly related to the instant patent infringement cause of action set forth herein. 11. Upon information and belief, Defendants have placed infringing products

into the stream of commerce throughout the United States with the expectation that such products will be and have been used by consumers in this judicial district, including but not limited to through operation of an interactive website that is available to persons in this judicial district which advertises, markets, and/or offers for sale infringing products. 12. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants by virtue of, among

other things, Defendants’ sales of the infringing products in this District.

3

13.

Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c),

and § 1400(b). FACTUAL BACKGROUND 14. Hunter Douglas manufactures a full array of custom window covering

products, including roman shades, honeycomb or “cellular” shades, pleated shades, vertical blinds, miniblinds, woodblinds, shutters, and window shadings, and is known as an innovator in the custom window coverings industry. 15. Hunter Douglas owns and operates Hunter Douglas Window Fashions,

Inc. (“HD Window Fashions”), whose principal place of business is at One Duette Way, Broomfield, CO 80020. HD Window Fashions employs approximately 800 employees throughout the State of Colorado to design and manufacture a variety of Hunter Douglas window covering products. 16. U.S. Patent 6,283,192, entitled “Flat Spring Drive System and Window

Cover” (the “‘192 Patent”), was duly and legally issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on September 4, 2001. Andrew J. Toti is the sole inventor listed on the ‘192 Patent. A true and correct copy of the ‘192 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 17. Patent. 18. Hunter Douglas is the exclusive licensee of the ‘192 Patent in the field of Hinckley is the lawful owner of all right, title, and interest in and to the ‘192

window covering products.

4

19.

U.S. Patent No. 6,968,884, entitled “Modular Transport System For

Coverings For Architectural Openings” (the “‘884 Patent”), was duly and legally issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on November 29, 2005. A true and correct copy of the ‘884 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 20. Hunter Douglas is the owner by assignment of all right, title, and interest in

and to the ‘884 Patent, including the right to sue for and recover all past, present, and future damages for infringement of the ‘884 Patent. 21. U.S. Patent No. 8,230,896, entitled “Modular Transport System For

Coverings For Architectural Openings” (the “‘896 Patent”), was duly and legally issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on July 31, 2012. A true and correct copy of the ‘896 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit C. 22. Hunter Douglas is the owner by assignment of all right, title, and interest in

and to the ‘896 Patent, including the right to sue for and recover all past, present, and future damages for infringement of the ‘896 Patent. 23. Upon information and belief, Defendants, jointly and severally, make, use,

have made, offer for sale, sell, and/or import into the United States window coverings and ready-made window blinds, including a cordless lift cellular shade product with a spring drive/motor (the “Infringing Product”) that infringes one or more claims of the ‘192 Patent, ‘884 Patent, and ‘896 Patent. 24. Upon information and belief, Defendant Nien Made acts as the

manufacturer of Infringing Product, and Defendants Norman, Norman Colorado,

5

Richfield, and Blinds.com act as distributors of the Infringing Product in the United States. 25. On April 22, 2003, Nien Made filed U.S. Patent App. 10/419,795 (the “Nien

Application”). On or around July 19, 2004, during prosecution of the Nien Application before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), the ‘192 Patent, among others, was cited as prior art by the USPTO against the Nien Application. As a result, Nien Made abandoned the Nien Application. 26. Nien Made has thus known of the ‘192 Patent since at least as early as

July 19, 2004, and nevertheless has infringed the ‘192 Patent despite knowledge that its actions constituted infringement of the ‘192 Patent. COUNT I (Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,283,192) 27. herein. 28. Defendants, alone and in conjunction with others, have infringed, and Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth

continue to infringe, one or more claims of the ‘192 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271 by making, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or importing into the United States the Infringing Product and/or inducing or contributing to such infringement by others. 29. intentional. 30. Defendant has been and/or is now indirectly infringing one or more claims Nien Made’s infringement of the ‘192 Patent has been willful and

of the ‘192 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) by inducing end users of the

6

Infringing Products to directly infringe one or more claims of the ‘192 Patent through their use of the Infringing Products. Defendants engage in such inducement knowingly, and have done so with knowledge that such activity encourages end users of the Infringing Products to directly infringe one or more claims of the ‘192 Patent. 31. Patent. 32. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs have Unless enjoined by the Court, Defendants will continue to infringe the ‘192

suffered, and will continue to suffer, irreparable harm, for which they have no adequate remedy at law. 33. Unless this Court enjoins Defendants’ infringing conduct, Plaintiffs will

continue to be irreparably harmed by Defendants’ infringement of the ‘192 Patent. COUNT II (Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,968,884) 34. herein. 35. Defendants, alone and in conjunction with others, have infringed, and Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth

continue to infringe, one or more claims of the ‘884 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271 by making, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or importing into the United States the Infringing Product and/or inducing or contributing to such infringement by others. 36. Defendant has been and/or is now indirectly infringing one or more claims

of the ‘884 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) by inducing end users of the Infringing Products to directly infringe one or more claims of the ‘884 Patent through

7

their use of the Infringing Products. Defendants engage in such inducement knowingly, and have done so with knowledge that such activity encourages end users of the Infringing Products to directly infringe one or more claims of the ‘884 Patent. 37. Patent. 38. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs have Unless enjoined by the Court, Defendants will continue to infringe the ‘884

suffered, and will continue to suffer, irreparable harm, for which they have no adequate remedy at law. 39. Unless this Court enjoins Defendants’ infringing conduct, Plaintiffs will

continue to be irreparably harmed by Defendants’ infringement of the ‘884 Patent. COUNT III (Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,230,896) 40. herein. 41. Defendants, alone and in conjunction with others, have infringed, and Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth

continue to infringe, one or more claims of the ‘896 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271 by making, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or importing into the United States the Infringing Product and/or inducing or contributing to such infringement by others. 42. Defendant has been and/or is now indirectly infringing one or more claims

of the ‘896 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) by inducing end users of the Infringing Products to directly infringe one or more claims of the ‘896 Patent through their use of the Infringing Products. Defendants engage in such inducement knowingly,

8

and have done so with knowledge that such activity encourages end users of the Infringing Products to directly infringe one or more claims of the ‘896 Patent. 43. Patent. 44. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs have Unless enjoined by the Court, Defendants will continue to infringe the ‘896

suffered, and will continue to suffer, irreparable harm, for which they have no adequate remedy at law. 45. Unless this Court enjoins Defendants’ infringing conduct, Plaintiffs will

continue to be irreparably harmed by Defendants’ infringement of the ‘896 Patent. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray: A. For an injunction permanently restraining and enjoining Defendants (and their officers, directors, employees, agents, servants, successors, assigns, and any and all persons in privy or in concert with them, directly or indirectly) from infringing any of the claims of the ‘192 Patent, ‘884 Patent, and ‘896 Patent in any manner; B. For judgment that one or more of the claims of the ‘192 Patent, ‘884 Patent, and ‘896 Patent have been infringed by Defendants; C. For damages adequate to compensate Plaintiffs for Defendants’ infringement, including up to treble damages for willful infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty, together with interest thereon;

9

D.

For an assessment and award of interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees against Defendants; and

E.

For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38, Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury of all issues so triable.

DATED: May 31, 2013

Respectfully submitted, KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP

By:

s/ Kristopher L. Reed Kristopher L. Reed 1400 Wewatta Street, Suite 600 Denver, Colorado 80202 Telephone: (303) 571-4000 Facsimile: (303) 571-4321 Email: kreed@kilpatricktownsend.com Frederick L. Whitmer (pro hac vice application to be filed) 1114 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 775-8773 Facsimile: (212) 775-8821 Email: fwhitmer@kilpatricktownsend.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Hunter Douglas, Inc. and Russell L. Hinckley, Sr. Executor of the Estate of Andrew J. Toti, on behalf of the Estate

4613353V.3

10

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful