Peter M. de Jonge Jed H.

Hansen THORPE NORTH & WESTERN, LLP 8180 South 700 East, Suite 350 Sandy, Utah 84070-0562 Telephone: (801) 566-6633 Facsimile: (801) 566-0750 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Alliance Sports Group, L.P. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

ALLIANCE SPORTS GROUP, L.P., a Texas limited partnership, Plaintiff, vs. LB MARKETING, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-10, Defendants.

Case Number 2:12-cv-01044-EJF

COMPLAINT JURY DEMANDED Judge Evelyn J. Furse

Plaintiff Alliance Sports Group, L.P., (hereinafter “Alliance”), by and through its counsel, hereby files this Complaint with Jury Demand against LB Marketing, Inc. (“LB Marketing”). COMPLAINT Alliance Sports complains and alleges as follows: PARTIES, J URISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Plaintiff Alliance Sports is a Texas limited partnership having a principal place of

business at 602 Fountain Parkway, Grand Prairie, Texas 75050. 2. Upon information and belief, LB Marketing is a Delaware corporation having a business

address of 8460 Holcomb Bridge, Rd., Suite 110, Alpharetta, Georgia, 30022. 1

3.

Upon information and belief, DOES 1-10 are retailers and/or manufacturers of accused

devices described herein that have acted in concert with LB Marketing or who are otherwise liable to Alliance Sports for patent infringement as alleged herein, and leave will be sought hereafter to bring them into this action as deemed necessary or appropriate and/or their identities become known. 4. Plaintiff brings this action under Title 35, United States Code §§1 et seq., Utah Code

Ann. § 13-5a-102, 103, and Utah Common Law. 5. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1331,

1338, 1367 and 35 U.S.C. §§1 et seq. including, without limitation, 35 U.S.C. §§101-103, 171, and 271. 6. 7. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391. Upon information and belief, this Court has general personal jurisdiction over the

Defendant since its contacts with the state of Utah are substantial, continuous, and systematic. 8. Upon information and belief, this Court also has specific personal jurisdiction over the

Defendant since it introduced an infringing product into the national stream of commerce and that product was sold in the state of Utah. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 9. For numerous years, Alliance Sports has been in the business of design, manufacturing

and marketing various products to consumers across the country. Alliance Sports has invested significant resources in the development and design of its innovative products. 10. Among the products offered by Alliance Sports is an innovative flashlight with a unique

configuration and ornamental design currently marketed under its popular REDLINE® brand.

2

11.

As part of its effort to protect its investment in its innovation and creativity, Alliance

Sports’ has invested in and secured a design patent associated with its REDLINE® flashlight product. 12. Alliance Sports is the owner of all right, title, and interest in and to U.S. Patent No.

D659,869 (the “‘869 Patent”) entitled “Flashlight.” A copy of the ‘869 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 13. Through its various sales and promotional activities, Alliance Sports has acquired

substantial goodwill in the marketplace in connection with its REDLINE® branded flashlight products. DEFENDANTS’ M ISCONDUCT 14. Upon information and belief, the Defendants have targeted Alliance Sports and its

popular REDLINE® flashlight in an effort to benefit from the goodwill Alliance Sports has labored diligently to develop in the marketplace. 15. Specifically, the Defendants have marketed and sold a flashlight product throughout the

United States that is virtually identical to the patented REDLINE® flashlight design shown in the ‘869 Patent. Images of the LB Marketing product is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 16. Upon information and belief, giving such attention as an ordinary purchaser of these

goods usually gives, the resemblance between the two products is such as to deceive an ordinary observer inducing him to believe they are substantially the same. 17. A simple side-by-side comparison of the LB Marketing product with the ‘869 Patent

shows the similarity between the two designs.

3

LB Marketing design

REDLINE® design

18.

Upon information and belief, due to the popularity of Alliance Sports’ REDLINE®

branded flashlight products, the Defendants knew and have known about Alliance Sports’ patent rights but have chosen to willfully infringe those rights. 19. Upon information and belief, DOES 1-10 have acted in concert with Alliance Sports in

making, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or importing in the United States LB Marketing’s flashlight products. 20. Upon information and belief, Alliance Sports has suffered actual damages, including lost

profits, as a result of the Defendants’ misconduct in an amount to be proven at trial. Additionally, the harm to Alliance Sports arising from the Defendants’ acts is not fully compensable by money damages. Alliance Sports has suffered, and continues to suffer, irreparable harm that has no adequate remedy at law and that will continue unless the infringing conduct by the Defendants is preliminarily and permanently enjoined. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Patent Infringement of the ‘869 Patent - 35 U.S.C. § 271) 21. Alliance Sports hereby incorporates by reference each and every preceding allegation of

this complaint as if set forth fully herein. 4

22. 23.

Alliance Sports owns all right, title, and interest in and to the ‘869 Patent. Defendants make, use, sell, offer for sale, and/or import into the Unites States a flashlight

product that infringes the claims of the ‘869 Patent. 24. At no time, has Alliance Sports granted the Defendants permission, license, or

authorization to use the design claimed in the ‘869 Patent. 25. Defendants’ infringing activities have damaged Alliance Sports in an amount to be

proven at trial. Among other remedies, Alliance Sports is entitled to its lost profits or, in the alternative a reasonable royalty to adequately compensate Alliance Sports for Defendants’ infringing activities under 35 U.S.C. §284. Additionally, the harm to Alliance Sports arising from the acts of Defendants is not fully compensable by money damages. Alliance Sports has suffered and continues to suffer irreparable harm that has no adequate remedy at law and that will continue unless Defendants’ infringing conduct is preliminarily and permanently enjoined. 26. Upon information and belief, Defendants acted in an objectively reckless manner with

respect to Alliance Sports’ patent rights. Upon information and belief, Defendants made, used, sold, or offered for sale LB Marketing’s infringing flashlight products knowing that it was highly likely that its acts would constitute infringement of a valid patent. As a consequence, Defendants have engaged in willful infringement of the ‘869 Patent and Alliance Sports is therefore entitled to treble damages and attorneys’ fees as well as costs incurred in this action along with prejudgment interest under 35 U.S.C. §§ 284 and 285. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Unfair Competition – U.C.A. § 13-5a-102, 103 and Utah Common Law) 27. Alliance Sports hereby incorporates by reference each and every preceding allegation of

this complaint as if set forth fully herein. 5

28. 29.

Alliance Sports owns all right, title, and interest in and to the ‘869 Patent. Upon information and belief, Defendants make, use, sell, offer for sale, and/or import into

the Unites States a flashlight product that infringes the claims of the ‘869 Patent. 30. At no time, has Alliance Sports granted Defendants permission, license, or authorization

to use the design claimed in the ‘869 Patent. 31. Upon information and belief, Defendants’ infringing activities described herein are

unlawful and unfair. 32. Upon information and belief, Defendants’ acts have led to a material diminution in value

of Alliance Sports’ intellectual property. 33. By engaging in the above-described activities, Defendants and have engaged in unfair

competition under Utah Code Ann. §13-5a-102, 103. 34. Upon information and belief, Alliance Sports has suffered actual damages as a result of

unfair business practices by the Defendants in an amount to be proven at trial. Additionally, the harm to Alliance Sports arising from the acts of Defendants is not fully compensable by money damages. Alliance Sports has suffered and continues to suffer irreparable harm that has no adequate remedy at law and that will continue unless Defendants’ conduct is preliminarily and permanently enjoined. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Unjust Enrichment – Utah Common Law) 35. Alliance Sports hereby incorporates by reference each and every preceding allegation of

this complaint as if set forth fully herein. 36. LB Marketing has benefited from the improper, unfair, and unauthorized sale of products

that infringe the ‘869 Patent. 6

37.

LB Marketing has, or should have knowledge of, and fully appreciates the benefits it has

received from Alliance Sports as a result of its actions. 38. LB Marketing would be unjustly enriched if it was permitted to retain the proceeds

obtained from such actions. 39. Equity and good conscience require that LB Marketing be required to account for and pay

Alliance Sports an amount equal to the value of the benefits conferred upon it.

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that the Court enter a judgment in favor of Alliance Sports as follows: A. Patent. B. That the Court enter judgment that Defendants’ acts complained of herein constitute That the Court enter judgment that LB Marketing and DOES 1-10 have infringed the ‘869

unfair competition pursuant to U.C.A. § 13-5a-102, 103; C. That the Court preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants, or any subsidiaries,

agents, or affiliates of Defendants, from making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing into the United States any product that infringes the ‘869 Patent, including the LB Marketing flashlight identified herein; D. That Defendants be ordered to pay monetary damages to Alliance Sports in an amount to

be determined by this Court; E. That the Defendants be ordered to pay treble damages pursuant to the 35 U.S.C. §1 et seq.

and U.C.A. §13-5a-102, 103. F. That Defendants be ordered to pay Alliance Sports’ reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs

associated with this action pursuant to the 35 U.S.C. §1 et seq. and U.C.A. §13-5a-102, 103; 7

G.

That Defendants be ordered to pay punitive damages in an amount to be determined by

this Court. H. That Defendants be required to pay prejudgment and post-judgment interest until such

awards are paid; and I. That Alliance Sports have such other and further relief as shall seem just and proper to

the Court. Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Alliance Sports hereby demands a jury trial on all claims and issues so triable.

DATED: November 8th, 2012.

THORPE NORTH & WESTERN, LLP

/Jed H. Hansen/ Peter M. de Jonge Jed H. Hansen Attorneys for Plaintiff, Alliance Sports Group, L.P.

8

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful