Case 1:13-cv-02976-MSK Document 2 Filed 10/31/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 40 2:13-cv-10065-AJT-PJK Doc # 1 Filed 01/08/13 Pg 1 of 16 Pg ID 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

CEQUENT PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC., Plaintiff, v. WYERS PRODUCTS GROUP, INC., and PHILIP W. WYERS, Defendants. ________________________________________/ David B. Cupar (OH 0071622) Matthew J. Cavanagh (OH 0079522) MCDONALD HOPKINS LLC 600 Superior Avenue, East, Ste. 2100 Cleveland, Ohio 44114 t 216.348.5400 │ f 216.348.5474 dcupar@mcdonaldhopkins.com mcavanagh@mcdonaldhopkins.com and Timothy J. Lowe (P68669) MCDONALD HOPKINS LLC 39533 Woodward Ave., Suite 318 Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48304 t 248.646.5070 │ f 248.646.5075 tlowe@mcdonaldhhopkins.com Attorneys for Cequent Performance Products, Inc. ________________________________________/

Case No. 2:13-cv-10065 Judge

Demand For Jury Trial

{4130683:}

Case 1:13-cv-02976-MSK Document 2 Filed 10/31/13 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 40 2:13-cv-10065-AJT-PJK Doc # 1 Filed 01/08/13 Pg 2 of 16 Pg ID 2

Complaint For its complaint against defendants Wyers Products Group, Inc. (“Products Group”) and Philip W. Wyers (“Wyers”), plaintiff Cequent Performance Products, Inc. (“Cequent”) states: Summary Of Case 1. This is an action for damages and injunctive relief to remedy the

infringement by Products Group and Wyers (collectively, the “Defendants”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,722,686 (“the ‘686 Patent”), which is assigned to and owned by Cequent. The ‘686 Patent is directed to a coupler lock that closes around the socket of an unhitched trailer hitch coupler to prevent theft. A copy of the ‘686 Patent is attached as Exhibit A. 2. Cequent also seeks declaratory judgments that two patents that are

owned by Wyers, which he and Products Group have accused Cequent of infringing, are: (a) not infringed by Cequent; and (b) not valid and thus not enforceable against Cequent. Those two patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 6,672,115 (“the ‘115 Patent”) and 7,121,121 (“the ‘121 Patent”). The Parties 3. Michigan. 4. Products Group is a Colorado corporation with a principal place of Cequent is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in

business in Colorado. 5. Wyers is an individual who resides in Colorado.

{4130683:}

2

Case 1:13-cv-02976-MSK Document 2 Filed 10/31/13 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 40 2:13-cv-10065-AJT-PJK Doc # 1 Filed 01/08/13 Pg 3 of 16 Pg ID 3

Jurisdiction And Venue 6. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Cequent’s patent

infringement claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and § 1338 because it arises under federal law and under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because the parties are diverse. 7. This Court also has subject matter jurisdiction over Cequent’s

declaratory judgment claims because they too arise under federal law, because the parties are diverse, and because the Defendants have created a judiciable controversy by each accusing Cequent of infringing the ‘115 and ‘121 Patents. 8. This Court has specific personal jurisdiction over Products Group on

various grounds, including (without limitation) because it has accused Michiganbased Cequent of infringing the ‘115 and ‘121 Patents; it has derived benefit from the sale of products allegedly covered by the ‘115 and ‘121 Patents throughout the U.S. and, upon information and belief, in Michigan; it and Wyers have worked together to exclude others from selling products covered by the ‘115 and ‘121 Patents in the United States, including in Michigan; its infringement of the ‘686 Patent has caused tortious harm to Cequent in Michigan; and it offers to sell products in Michigan that infringe the ‘686 Patent and, upon information and belief, has actually sold infringing products in Michigan. 9. This Court also has specific personal jurisdiction over Wyers on

various grounds, including (without limitation) because he has accused Michiganbased Cequent of infringing the ‘115 and ‘121 Patents; he has derived personal benefit from the sale of products allegedly covered by the ‘115 and ‘121 Patents

{4130683:}

3

Case 1:13-cv-02976-MSK Document 2 Filed 10/31/13 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 40 2:13-cv-10065-AJT-PJK Doc # 1 Filed 01/08/13 Pg 4 of 16 Pg ID 4

throughout the U.S. and, upon information and belief, in Michigan; he and Products Group have worked together to exclude others from selling products covered by the ‘115 and ‘121 Patents in the United States, including in Michigan; his infringement of the ‘686 Patent has caused tortious harm to Cequent in Michigan; and because, upon information and belief, he has personally directed Products Group to offer for sale, ship, and sell products that infringe the ‘686 Patent in Michigan, and Wyers has personally profited by having Products Group do so. 10. This Court further has general personal jurisdiction over Defendants

because, upon information and belief, Wyers and his Products Group business have regularly solicited business in Michigan, engaged in a persistent course of conducting business in Michigan, and derived substantial revenue from goods sold in Michigan. 11. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because the Defendants are

each subject to personal jurisdiction in this district under Michigan law and, therefore, each “resides” in the Eastern District of Michigan according to federal law. Relevant Facts I. The ‘686 Patent 12. Since around 1950, Cequent and its predecessors have continually

designed, produced, manufactured, and marketed a wide array of towing and trailer hitch products and accessories for trailer equipment manufacturers, wholesalerdistributors, and retail markets.

{4130683:}

4

Case 1:13-cv-02976-MSK Document 2 Filed 10/31/13 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 40 2:13-cv-10065-AJT-PJK Doc # 1 Filed 01/08/13 Pg 5 of 16 Pg ID 5

13. ‘686 Patent. 14.

On April 20, 2004, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued the

The ‘686 Patent claims an innovative coupler lock that closes around

the socket of an unhitched trailer hitch coupler, as shown in Figure 3 of the patent:

Hitch Coupler

15.

As the ‘686 Patent explains, the lock blocks a would-be thief from

engaging his vehicle’s hitch ball with the coupler and towing the trailer away. 16. By assignment from the inventor, Cequent has owned the ‘686 patent

since it issued and still owns it today. 17. Cequent sells a universal coupler lock that is a commercial

embodiment of the ‘686 Patent.

{4130683:}

5

Case 1:13-cv-02976-MSK Document 2 Filed 10/31/13 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 40 2:13-cv-10065-AJT-PJK Doc # 1 Filed 01/08/13 Pg 6 of 16 Pg ID 6

18.

Cequent marks its universal coupler lock with the number of the ‘686

Patent in accordance with the patent marking statute, 35 U.S.C. § 287(a). II. Defendants’ Infringement Of The ‘686 Patent 19. Wyers is the founder, owner, President, and decision-maker of

Products Group. 20. In accordance with Wyers’ directions, Products Group is making or

importing, selling, and offering to sell coupler locks in the United States that are covered by one or more claims of the ‘686 Patent, including, without limitation, Trimax model nos. UMAX50 and UMAX100, (collectively, the “Accused Products”). 21. Products Group sells and offers to sell the Accused Products

throughout the United States, including in Michigan, in various ways, including (without limitation) through its online store at www.trimaxlocks.com, through online retailers (such as Amazon.com), through dealers around the United States, and (upon information and belief) through brick-and-mortar retailers. III. The Parties’ 2004 Encounter 22. In July 2004, through its outside counsel, Cequent sent a letter to

Wyers in which it notified him that Products Group’s universal trailer coupler lock (model no. UMAX100) infringed the ‘686 Patent. 23. In an August 3, 2004 letter, attorney Timothy J. Martin acknowledged

receipt of Cequent’s July 2004 letter on behalf of Products Group and Wyers, individually. Wyers was copied on Martin’s letter.

{4130683:}

6

Case 1:13-cv-02976-MSK Document 2 Filed 10/31/13 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 40 2:13-cv-10065-AJT-PJK Doc # 1 Filed 01/08/13 Pg 7 of 16 Pg ID 7

24.

In his letter, Martin stated that Wyers had a pending patent

application “for the UMAX100.” Wyers patent application eventually ripened into the ‘121 Patent, which issued on October 17, 2006. 25. The parties exchanged more correspondence, but litigation did not

ensue until Products Group sued Cequent on October 5, 2012, in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. That case is entitled Wyers Products Group v. Cequent Performance Products, Inc., Case No. 1:12-cv-02640-REB (the “Colorado Action”). IV. Products Group Sues Cequent In Colorado, Without Standing 26. In the Colorado Action, Products Group alleged that Cequent infringed

the ‘115 and ‘121 Patents. 27. Products Group filed the Colorado Action as the sole plaintiff. Wyers

was not named as a plaintiff because, according to Product Group’s amended complaint, the ‘115 and ‘121 Patents had “been exclusively assigned to Wyers Products” by Wyers. (Am. Compl. ¶ 5.) 28. On December 13, 2012, Cequent moved to dismiss the amended

complaint in the Colorado Action, in part, because the ‘115 Patent is entirely invalid as a matter of law based upon the collateral estoppel effect of a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In that decision, Wyers v. Master Lock Co., the Federal Circuit declared the claims of the ‘115 Patent invalid as obvious. 616 F.3d 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

{4130683:}

7

Case 1:13-cv-02976-MSK Document 2 Filed 10/31/13 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 40 2:13-cv-10065-AJT-PJK Doc # 1 Filed 01/08/13 Pg 8 of 16 Pg ID 8

29.

Cequent’s motion to dismiss also sought to dismiss Products Group’s

claim for induced infringement of the ‘115 Patent for failure to plausibly allege several essential elements of such a claim. 30. 31. Cequent’s motion to dismiss remains pending. On December 28, 2012, Products Group’s attorney e-mailed Cequent’s

attorney to advise that Products Group would be seeking leave to amend the complaint in the Colorado Action a second time to add Philip Wyers, individually, as a plaintiff. 32. On January 2, 2013, Cequent’s attorney spoke with Products Group’s

attorney about Products Group’s desire to add Wyers as a plaintiff. 33. During that call, Products Group’s attorney stated that Wyers needs to

be added as a plaintiff because Products Group is Wyers’ business and he and Products Group enforce Wyers’ patents together. 34. Products Group’s attorney also stated that, although Wyers and

Products Group do not have a written instrument granting an assignment or license of the ‘115 and ‘121 Patents to Products Group, Wyers implicitly transferred his rights to those patents to Products Group. 35. In the past, Wyers and Products Group have filed lawsuits asserting

patents, including the ‘115 Patent, together as co-plaintiffs against other businesses, including Master Lock Company and Valley Industries, Inc. 36. In the Master Lock case, Products Group alleged that it “is the

exclusive licensee to the ‘115 Patent by virtue of an oral license from P. Wyers.”

{4130683:}

8

Case 1:13-cv-02976-MSK Document 2 Filed 10/31/13 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 40 2:13-cv-10065-AJT-PJK Doc # 1 Filed 01/08/13 Pg 9 of 16 Pg ID 9

37. 38.

By statute, a patent assignment must be in writing. Because Products Group does not have a written assignment of the

‘115 or ‘121 Patents from Wyers, it has no ownership of the patents it asserts, the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the Colorado Action, and Wyers lacks standing to proceed in that case against Cequent—a deficiency that cannot be cured by adding Wyers by amendment. 39. Accordingly, Cequent will be moving to dismiss the entire Colorado

Action for lack of standing. Count One Infringement Of The ‘686 Patent 40. Cequent incorporates by reference all allegations in all preceding

paragraphs of this complaint as if fully rewritten herein. 41. Each of the Accused Products is covered by one or more claims of the

‘686 Patent, under any reasonable construction of the patent’s claim terms. 42. Products Group has directly infringed, and continues to directly

infringe, the ‘686 patent by making or importing, offering for sale, and selling the Accused Products in the United States. 43. Upon information and belief, Wyers controls the day-to-day operations

of Products Group, and he makes all of the management decisions for the company. 44. Upon information and belief, Wyers is the individual within Products

Group most responsible for, and most involved in, the design, manufacture, marketing, and sales of the Accused Products.

{4130683:}

9

Case 1:13-cv-02976-MSK Document 2 Filed 10/31/13 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 40 2:13-cv-10065-AJT-PJK Doc # 1 Filed 01/08/13 Pg 10 of 16 Pg ID 10

45.

Upon information and belief, Wyers created and approved of the final

designs of the Accused Products, and he made the final decision that Products Group would continue to sell the Accused Products after receiving Cequent’s 2004 notice that such sales infringed the ‘686 Patent. 46. Upon information and belief, Wyers is the sole or majority owner of

Products Group, and thus benefits most from Products Group’s infringing sales of the Accused Products. 47. Wyers is personally liable for direct infringement of the ‘686 Patent

because, upon information and belief, he personally authorized, participated in, directed, and is responsible for the infringing conduct complained of herein. 48. As demonstrated by its product packaging (a true copy of which is

attached as Exhibit B) and its online store advertisements for the Accused Products (a true copy of which is attached as Exhibit C), Products Group markets its Accused Products for one use: as a lock for unhitched trailer couplers. 49. Any use of the Accused Products as a lock for unhitched trailer

couplers is an act of direct infringement of the ‘686 Patent. 50. Because the sole intended consumer use of the Accused Products is an

infringing use, the Accused Products have no substantial non-infringing uses. 51. Products Group has induced infringement of the ‘686 Patent because,

with knowledge of the ‘686 Patent, it induced end users of the Accused Products to use them to lock unhitched trailers couplers—a use that infringes the ‘686 Patent.

{4130683:}

10

Case 1:13-cv-02976-MSK Document 2 Filed 10/31/13 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 40 2:13-cv-10065-AJT-PJK Doc # 1 Filed 01/08/13 Pg 11 of 16 Pg ID 11

52.

Products Group has contributed to infringement of the ‘686 Patent by

selling the Accused Products, which have no substantial use other than the infringing use as a lock for unhitched trailer couplers. 53. Wyers has actively induced infringement of the ‘686 Patent by

directing Products Group to make or import, sell, and offer to sell the Accused Products with knowledge that such actions would infringe the ‘686 Patent. 54. Defendants’ infringement of the ‘686 patent was, and continues to be,

willful and deliberate and, upon information and belief, both will continue their infringing activities unless restrained by this Court. 55. Upon information and belief, Defendants’ infringement of the ‘686

patent is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285. 56. Upon information and belief, Defendants’ activities were done with an

intent to, and in fact did allow them to, derive benefit from unauthorized use of Cequent’s ‘686 patent. 57. Defendants have enriched themselves, and will continue to enrich

themselves, by their infringing activities. 58. Cequent has been damaged by Defendants’ infringing activities, and it

will continue to be irreparably injured unless the infringing activities are enjoined by this Court.

{4130683:}

11

Case 1:13-cv-02976-MSK Document 2 Filed 10/31/13 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 40 2:13-cv-10065-AJT-PJK Doc # 1 Filed 01/08/13 Pg 12 of 16 Pg ID 12

Count Two Declaratory Relief Non-Infringement of the ‘115 and ‘121 Patents 59. Cequent incorporates by reference all allegations in all preceding

paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully rewritten herein. 60. Each defendant has accused Cequent of infringing the ‘115 and ‘121

Patents through the ongoing sales of existing Cequent products, and each has claimed to have been damaged as a result. 61. Patents. 62. There is a substantial controversy between Cequent and the Cequent has not infringed, and is not infringing, the ‘115 or ‘121

Defendants, which have adverse legal interests, regarding Cequent’s ongoing sale of products vis-à-vis the ‘115 and ‘121 Patents of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. 63. In accordance with the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201,

Cequent asks the Court to declare that Cequent has not infringed the ‘115 or ‘121 Patents. Count Three Declaratory Relief Invalidity of the ‘115 and ‘121 Patents 64. Cequent incorporates by reference all allegations in all preceding

paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully rewritten herein.

{4130683:}

12

Case 1:13-cv-02976-MSK Document 2 Filed 10/31/13 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 40 2:13-cv-10065-AJT-PJK Doc # 1 Filed 01/08/13 Pg 13 of 16 Pg ID 13

65.

Each defendant has accused Cequent of infringing the ‘115 and ‘121

Patents through the ongoing sales of existing Cequent products, and each has claimed to have been damaged as a result. 66. The ‘115 Patent is invalid, and therefore unenforceable against

Cequent, because, among other reasons, the Federal Circuit declared the claims of the ‘115 Patent that Defendants previously asserted against Master Lock Company as invalid for obviousness in Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The collateral estoppel effect of the Master Lock decision renders invalid all of the claims of the ‘115 Patent, including the claims that Defendants now accuse Cequent of infringing. 67. The ‘121 Patent is invalid, and therefore unenforceable against

Cequent, under 35 U.S.C. § 102 because, among other reasons, Cequent engineer Tim Vander Koy invented what Wyers claimed to have invented in the ‘121 Patent before Wyers claims to have done so. 68. There is a substantial controversy between Cequent and the

Defendants, which have adverse legal interests, regarding Cequent’s ongoing sale of products vis-à-vis the ‘115 and ‘121 Patents of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment of invalidity. 69. In accordance with the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201,

Cequent asks the Court to declare that the ‘115 and ‘121 Patents are each invalid and unenforceable against Cequent.

{4130683:}

13

Case 1:13-cv-02976-MSK Document 2 Filed 10/31/13 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 40 2:13-cv-10065-AJT-PJK Doc # 1 Filed 01/08/13 Pg 14 of 16 Pg ID 14

Prayer for Relief WHEREFORE, Cequent prays for judgment against Defendants as follows: (A) A finding that Defendants have each directly infringed one or more

claims of the ‘686 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). (B) A finding that Defendants have each induced infringement of one or

more claims of the ‘686 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). (C) A finding that Products Group has contributed to the infringement of

one or more claims of the ‘686 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c). (D) Preliminary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining Wyers, Products

Group, and its officers, directors, managers, employees, affiliates, agents, representatives, parents, subsidiaries, successors, assigns, those in privity with them, and all others aiding, abetting, or acting in concert or active participation therewith, from: (1) making, using, selling, offering to sell, or importing into the U.S. any device covered by the ‘686 patent, including Trimax model nos. UMAX50 and UMAX100; or (2) otherwise directly or indirectly infringing the ‘686 patent. (E) (F) (G) Compensatory damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284. Treble damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284. An order that Defendants account to Cequent for all sales, revenues,

and profits derived from their infringing activities and that three times those profits be disgorged and paid to Cequent under 35 U.S.C. § 284. (H) (I) Attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.

{4130683:}

14

Case 1:13-cv-02976-MSK Document 2 Filed 10/31/13 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 40 2:13-cv-10065-AJT-PJK Doc # 1 Filed 01/08/13 Pg 15 of 16 Pg ID 15

(J) (K)

Costs of the action. A declaration that: (1) Cequent has not infringed the ‘115 or ‘121

Patents; and (2) the ‘115 and ‘121 Patents are each invalid and thus not enforceable against Cequent. (L) Such other and further relief as allowed at law or in equity that the

Court deems to be appropriate. Dated: January 8, 2013 s/ David B. Cupar David B. Cupar (OH 0071622) Matthew J. Cavanagh (OH 0079522) MCDONALD HOPKINS LLC 600 Superior Avenue, East, Ste. 2100 Cleveland, Ohio 44114 t 216.348.5400 │ f 216.348.5474 dcupar@mcdonaldhopkins.com mcavanagh@mcdonaldhopkins.com and Timothy J. Lowe (P68669) MCDONALD HOPKINS LLC 39533 Woodward Ave., Suite 318 Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48304 t 248.646.5070 │ f 248.646.5075 tlowe@mcdonaldhhopkins.com Counsel for Cequent Performance Products, Inc.

{4130683:}

15

Case 1:13-cv-02976-MSK Document 2 Filed 10/31/13 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 40 2:13-cv-10065-AJT-PJK Doc # 1 Filed 01/08/13 Pg 16 of 16 Pg ID 16

Jury Demand Plaintiff Cequent Performance Products, Inc. hereby demands a jury trial for all issues so triable. s/ David B. Cupar Counsel for Cequent Performance Products, Inc.

{4130683:}

Case 1:13-cv-02976-MSK Document 2 Filed 10/31/13 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 40 2:13-cv-10065-AJT-PJK Doc # 1-1 Filed 01/08/13 Pg 1 of 10 Pg ID 17

Exhibit A

Case 1:13-cv-02976-MSK Document 2 Filed 10/31/13 USDC Colorado Page 18 of 40 2:13-cv-10065-AJT-PJK Doc # 1-1 Filed 01/08/13 Pg 2 of 10 Pg ID 18

Case 1:13-cv-02976-MSK Document 2 Filed 10/31/13 USDC Colorado Page 19 of 40 2:13-cv-10065-AJT-PJK Doc # 1-1 Filed 01/08/13 Pg 3 of 10 Pg ID 19

Case 1:13-cv-02976-MSK Document 2 Filed 10/31/13 USDC Colorado Page 20 of 40 2:13-cv-10065-AJT-PJK Doc # 1-1 Filed 01/08/13 Pg 4 of 10 Pg ID 20

Case 1:13-cv-02976-MSK Document 2 Filed 10/31/13 USDC Colorado Page 21 of 40 2:13-cv-10065-AJT-PJK Doc # 1-1 Filed 01/08/13 Pg 5 of 10 Pg ID 21

Case 1:13-cv-02976-MSK Document 2 Filed 10/31/13 USDC Colorado Page 22 of 40 2:13-cv-10065-AJT-PJK Doc # 1-1 Filed 01/08/13 Pg 6 of 10 Pg ID 22

Case 1:13-cv-02976-MSK Document 2 Filed 10/31/13 USDC Colorado Page 23 of 40 2:13-cv-10065-AJT-PJK Doc # 1-1 Filed 01/08/13 Pg 7 of 10 Pg ID 23

Case 1:13-cv-02976-MSK Document 2 Filed 10/31/13 USDC Colorado Page 24 of 40 2:13-cv-10065-AJT-PJK Doc # 1-1 Filed 01/08/13 Pg 8 of 10 Pg ID 24

Case 1:13-cv-02976-MSK Document 2 Filed 10/31/13 USDC Colorado Page 25 of 40 2:13-cv-10065-AJT-PJK Doc # 1-1 Filed 01/08/13 Pg 9 of 10 Pg ID 25

Case 1:13-cv-02976-MSK Document 2 Filed 10/31/13 USDC Colorado Page 26 of 40 2:13-cv-10065-AJT-PJK Doc # 1-1 Filed 01/08/13 Pg 10 of 10 Pg ID 26

Case 1:13-cv-02976-MSK Document 2 Filed 10/31/13 USDC Colorado Page 27 of 40 2:13-cv-10065-AJT-PJK Doc # 1-2 Filed 01/08/13 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 27

Exhibit B

Case 1:13-cv-02976-MSK Document 2 Filed 10/31/13 USDC Colorado Page 28 of 40 2:13-cv-10065-AJT-PJK Doc # 1-2 Filed 01/08/13 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 28

Case 1:13-cv-02976-MSK Document 2 Filed 10/31/13 USDC Colorado Page 29 of 40 2:13-cv-10065-AJT-PJK Doc # 1-2 Filed 01/08/13 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 29

Case 1:13-cv-02976-MSK Document 2 Filed 10/31/13 USDC Colorado Page 30 of 40 2:13-cv-10065-AJT-PJK Doc # 1-3 Filed 01/08/13 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 30

Exhibit C

1/8/13

Case 1:13-cv-02976-MSK Document 2 Filed 10/31/13 USDC Colorado Page 31 of 40 UMAX 50 Universal Trailer 01/08/13 Lock 2:13-cv-10065-AJT-PJK Doc Unattended # 1-3 Filed Pg 2 of 5 Pg ID 31

GO

Items in cart: 0

Current Total: $0.00

| HOME PAGE | FREQUENTLY ASKED Q'S | FULL LIFETIME WARRANTY | PRODUCT INSTRUCTIONS | TESTIMONIALS | PRIVACY | CONTACT US | ABOUT US |

ADJUSTABLE TOW H ITCH ES TOW BALLS RECEIV ER LOCKIN G PIN S N ON - LOCKIN G RECEIV ER PIN S UN IV ERSAL UN ATTEN DED COUPLER LOCKS COUPLER LEV ER LOCKS KEYED- ALIKE RECEIV ER & COUPLER LOCK SETS SPARE TIRE LOCKS MULTI- USE CABLE LOCK SYSTEMS ULTRA- MAX U LOCKS MOTORCYCLE ROTOR / DISC LOCKS ULTRA- MAX CH AIN LOCKS ALARM LOCKS MAGN UM PADLOCKS & DOOR LOCKS SPECIALTY LOCKS WH EEL LOCKS Bugzook a KEYS

UMAX 50 Universal Unattended Trailer Lock
UNIVERSAL die cast dual purpose coupler lock (fits ALL couplers). Sku # Our Price
Qty

: UMAX50 : $39.99

: 1

Product Detail
UNIVERSAL die cast dual purpose coupler lock (fits ALL couplers).

Normally ships same business day or next business day. Call us for expedited shipping. The UMAX 50 features a rugged corrosion resistant finish. Provides instant security for your camper, boat or trailer when they are not hooked up to your vehicle. Features 1/2 turn technology that cannot be false locked. For dual force security add a TRIMAX chain or cable secured to an anchor point! Also, add a TRIMAX coupler lever lock for additional protection. Easy Installation. Slide ball up into coupler and replace u-shackle. Fits all of the following couplers and more... 1 7/8" or 2" Fulton Atwood 2" UFP Bulldog 2 5/16" couplers Fulton Heavy Duty Surge Brake (Reverse Mount)

trimaxlocks.com/_e/…/UMAX_50_Universal_Unattended_Trailer_Lock.htm

1/2

1/8/13

Case 1:13-cv-02976-MSK Document 2 Filed 10/31/13 USDC Colorado Page 32 of 40 UMAX 50 Universal Trailer 01/08/13 Lock 2:13-cv-10065-AJT-PJK Doc Unattended # 1-3 Filed Pg 3 of 5 Pg ID 32
One size fits all (from 1 7/8", 2", to 2 5/16", all coupler types) Key hole cover slides up to seal out dirt and grime Type A key w hich is a spring loaded, 7 pin, high security key. Resists attempted drill outs. Rugged and durable, the key w ill not bend or break.

Specifications: LIFETIME WARRANTY Huge 6 tooth, 3/8" dual ratchet locking system Hardened 5/8" 16mm steel shackle

TRIMAX makes the worlds toughest locks. Through value added engineering design, TRIMAX is committed to product innovation that holds up to the highest quality standards. TRIMAX provides maximum security for marine, trailer and tow, RV, performance truck, power sports and bicycle applications. Tested. Tough. TRIMAX. TRIMAX offers a lifetime warranty on all of their products.

Average Customer Review:
Sort by : 0 of 0 people found the following review helpful: Review Reviewer: George L.

Based on 1 Reviews.
Most Recent Date
[Write Review]

March, 2011

Just purchased this lock at my local RV dealer. Installs quickly. I love the added protection that it gives versus a standard padlock that I was using before. Great product. I highly recommend. George Was this review helpful to you? [Yes] [No]

| HOM E PAGE | FREQUENTLY ASKED Q'S | FULL LIFETIM E WARRANTY | PRODUCT INSTRUCTIONS | TESTIM ONIALS | PRIVACY | CONTACT US | ABOUT US |

trimaxlocks.com/_e/…/UMAX_50_Universal_Unattended_Trailer_Lock.htm

2/2

1/8/13

Case 1:13-cv-02976-MSK Document 2 Filed 10/31/13 USDC Colorado Page 33 of 40 UMAX 100 Universal Unattended Trailer01/08/13 Lock 2:13-cv-10065-AJT-PJK Doc # 1-3 Filed Pg 4 of 5 Pg ID 33

GO

Items in cart: 0

Current Total: $0.00

| HOME PAGE | FREQUENTLY ASKED Q'S | FULL LIFETIME WARRANTY | PRODUCT INSTRUCTIONS | TESTIMONIALS | PRIVACY | CONTACT US | ABOUT US |

ADJUSTABLE TOW H ITCH ES TOW BALLS RECEIV ER LOCKIN G PIN S N ON - LOCKIN G RECEIV ER PIN S UN IV ERSAL UN ATTEN DED COUPLER LOCKS COUPLER LEV ER LOCKS KEYED- ALIKE RECEIV ER & COUPLER LOCK SETS SPARE TIRE LOCKS MULTI- USE CABLE LOCK SYSTEMS ULTRA- MAX U LOCKS MOTORCYCLE ROTOR / DISC LOCKS ULTRA- MAX CH AIN LOCKS ALARM LOCKS MAGN UM PADLOCKS & DOOR LOCKS SPECIALTY LOCKS WH EEL LOCKS Bugzook a KEYS

UMAX 100 Universal Unattended Trailer Lock
Premium UNIVERSAL 360 degrees of "solid hardened steel" dual purpose coupler lock (fits ALL couplers). Sku # Our Price
Qty

: UMAX100 : $79.95

: 1

Product Detail
Premium UNIVERSAL 360 degrees of "solid hardened steel" dual purpose coupler lock (fits ALL couplers).

Normally ships same business day or next business day. Call us for expedited shipping. The UMAX 100 features an exclusive design that provides 360 degrees of hardened steel protection for your unattended trailer. Provides instant security for your camper, boat or trailer when they are not hooked up to your vehicle. Features 1/2 turn technology that cannot be false locked. For dual force security add a TRIMAX chain or cable secured to an anchor point! Also, add a TRIMAX coupler lever lock for additional protection. Easy Installation. Slide ball up into coupler and replace u-shackle. Fits all of the following couplers and more... 1 7/8" or 2" Fulton Atwood 2" UFP Bulldog 2 5/16" couplers Fulton Heavy Duty Surge Brake (Reverse Mount)

One size fits all (from 1 7/8", 2", to 2 5/16", all coupler types) Key hole cover slides up to seal out dirt and grime Attractive ballistic grade nylon housing absorbs hammer blows and protects against weather

trimaxlocks.com/_e/…/UMAX_100_Universal_Unattended_Trailer_Lock.htm

1/2

1/8/13

Case 1:13-cv-02976-MSK Document 2 Filed 10/31/13 USDC Colorado Page 34 of 40 UMAX 100 Universal Unattended Trailer01/08/13 Lock 2:13-cv-10065-AJT-PJK Doc # 1-3 Filed Pg 5 of 5 Pg ID 34
Type A key which is a spring loaded, 7 pin, high security key. Resists attempted drill outs. Rugged and durable, the key will not bend or break. Specifications: LIFETIME WARRANTY Weighs 6 pounds Huge 6 tooth, 3/8" dual ratchet locking system Hardened 5/8" 16mm steel shackle

TRIMAX makes the worlds toughest locks. Through value added engineering design, TRIMAX is committed to product innovation that holds up to the highest quality standards. TRIMAX provides maximum security for marine, trailer and tow, RV, performance truck, power sports and bicycle applications. Tested. Tough. TRIMAX. TRIMAX offers a lifetime warranty on all of their products.

| HOM E PAGE | FREQUENTLY ASKED Q'S | FULL LIFETIM E WARRANTY | PRODUCT INSTRUCTIONS | TESTIM ONIALS | PRIVACY | CONTACT US | ABOUT US |

trimaxlocks.com/_e/…/UMAX_100_Universal_Unattended_Trailer_Lock.htm

2/2

JS 44

Case 1:13-cv-02976-MSK Document 2 Filed 10/31/13 USDC Colorado Page 35 of 40 2:13-cv-10065-AJT-PJK Doc # 1-4 Filed 01/08/13 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 35 (Rev. 09/11) Wayne County in which action arose __________________

CIVIL COVER SHEET

The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 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
Cequent Performance Products, Inc. (b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Wayne, Michigan
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)

DEFENDANTS Wyers Products Group, Inc., and Philip W. Wyers
County of Residence of First Listed Defendant
NOTE:

Arapahoe, Colorado

(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY) IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.

Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) David B. Cupar, McDonald Hopkins LLC, 600 Superior Ave.,

(c)

Aaron Bradford, Lathrop & Gage, 950 17th
Attorneys (If Known)

St., Ste. 2400, Denver, CO 80202, t 720.931.3200

East, Ste. 2100, Cleveland, Ohio 44114, t 216.348.5400

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION
1 U.S. Government Plaintiff

(Place an “X” in One Box Only)

III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff)
(For Diversity Cases Only) PTF Citizen of This State 1 DEF 1 and One Box for Defendant) PTF DEF Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4 of Business In This State 5

X3

Federal Question (U.S. Government Not a Party)

2

U.S. Government Defendant

4 Diversity (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)

Citizen of Another State

2

2

Incorporated and Principal Place of Business In Another State Foreign Nation

5

Citizen or Subject of a Foreign Country

3

3

6

6

IV. NATURE OF SUIT
CONTRACT 110 Insurance 120 Marine 130 Miller Act 140 Negotiable Instrument 150 Recovery of Overpayment & Enforcement of Judgment 151 Medicare Act 152 Recovery of Defaulted Student Loans (Excl. Veterans) 153 Recovery of Overpayment of Veteran’s Benefits 160 Stockholders’ Suits 190 Other Contract 195 Contract Product Liability 196 Franchise REAL PROPERTY 210 Land Condemnation 220 Foreclosure 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 240 Torts to Land 245 Tort Product Liability 290 All Other Real Property

(Place an “X” in One Box Only) TORTS PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 310 Airplane 365 Personal Injury 315 Airplane Product Product Liability Liability 367 Health Care/ 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical Slander Personal Injury 330 Federal Employers’ Product Liability Liability 368 Asbestos Personal 340 Marine Injury Product 345 Marine Product Liability Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY 350 Motor Vehicle 370 Other Fraud 355 Motor Vehicle 371 Truth in Lending Product Liability 380 Other Personal 360 Other Personal Property Damage Injury 385 Property Damage 362 Personal Injury Product Liability Med. Malpractice CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS 440 Other Civil Rights 510 Motions to Vacate 441 Voting Sentence 442 Employment Habeas Corpus: 443 Housing/ 530 General Accommodations 535 Death Penalty 445 Amer. w/Disabilities 540 Mandamus & Other Employment 550 Civil Rights 446 Amer. w/Disabilities 555 Prison Condition Other 560 Civil Detainee 448 Education Conditions of Confinement

FORFEITURE/PENALTY 625 Drug Related Seizure of Property 21 USC 881 690 Other

BANKRUPTCY 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 423 Withdrawal 28 USC 157 PROPERTY RIGHTS 820 Copyrights 830 Patent 840 Trademark SOCIAL SECURITY 861 HIA (1395ff) 862 Black Lung (923) 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) 864 SSID Title XVI 865 RSI (405(g))

X
LABOR 710 Fair Labor Standards Act 720 Labor/Mgmt. Relations 740 Railway Labor Act 751 Family and Medical Leave Act 790 Other Labor Litigation 791 Empl. Ret. Inc. Security Act

FEDERAL TAX SUITS 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff or Defendant) 871 IRS—Third Party 26 USC 7609

OTHER STATUTES 375 False Claims Act 400 State Reapportionment 410 Antitrust 430 Banks and Banking 450 Commerce 460 Deportation 470 Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations 480 Consumer Credit 490 Cable/Sat TV 850 Securities/Commodities/ Exchange 890 Other Statutory Actions 891 Agricultural Acts 893 Environmental Matters 895 Freedom of Information Act 896 Arbitration 899 Administrative Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision 950 Constitutionality of State Statutes

IMMIGRATION 462 Naturalization Application 463 Habeas Corpus Alien Detainee (Prisoner Petition) 465 Other Immigration Actions

V. ORIGIN X 1 Original
Proceeding

(Place an “X” in One Box Only)

Transferred from 2 Removed from 3 Remanded from 4 Reinstated or 5 another district 6 Multidistrict State Court Appellate Court Litigation Reopened (specify) Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION VII. REQUESTED IN COMPLAINT: VIII. RELATED CASE(S) IF ANY
DATE

35 USC 281

Brief description of cause:

Patent infringement and declaratory judgment action
DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint: JURY DEMAND:

CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION UNDER F.R.C.P. 23
(See instructions):

X Yes

No

JUDGE

Robert E. Blackburn

U.S. Dist. of Colorado, DOCKET NUMBER Case No. 1:12-cv-2640

SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD

January 8, 2013
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY RECEIPT # AMOUNT

s/ David B. Cupar
APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 83.11
1.

Case 1:13-cv-02976-MSK Document 2 Filed 10/31/13 USDC Colorado Page 36 of 40 2:13-cv-10065-AJT-PJK Doc # 1-4 Filed 01/08/13 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 36

Is this a case that has been previously dismissed? If yes, give the following information: Court: Case No.: Judge:

Yes X No

2.

Other than stated above, are there any pending or previously discontinued or dismissed companion cases in this or any other court, including state court? (Companion cases are matters in which it appears substantially similar evidence will be offered or the same or related parties are present and the cases arise out of the same transaction or occurrence.) If yes, give the following information: Court: U.S. Dist. Court for District of Colorado 1:12-cv-02640-REB

X Yes No

Case No.:

Judge: Robert E. Blackburn The Colorado case should be dismissed and not proceed because the sole plaintiff in that case, Wyers Products Group, lacks standing Notes : due to lack of ownership of the patents it asserts in that action.

Case 1:13-cv-02976-MSK Document 2 Filed 10/31/13 USDC Colorado Page 37 of 40 2:13-cv-10065-AJT-PJK Doc # 1-5 Filed 01/08/13 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 37
AO 440 (Rev. 12/09) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the

Eastern District of Michigan

Cequent Performance Products, Inc.,
Plaintiff,

v.

Wyers Products Group, Inc., and Philip W. Wyers
Defendant.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-10065

Hon.

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION To:

Philip W. Wyers 14705 East Aberdeen Avenue Centennial, Colorado 80016
A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney, whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default may be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

DAVID J. WEAVER, CLERK OF COURT

By:
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Date of Issuance:

Case 1:13-cv-02976-MSK Document 2 Filed 10/31/13 USDC Colorado Page 38 of 40 2:13-cv-10065-AJT-PJK Doc # 1-5 Filed 01/08/13 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 38
AO 440 (Rev. 12/09) Summons in a Civil Action

Summons and Complaint Return of Service
Case No. Hon. A copy of the Summons and Complaint has been served in the manner indicated below: Name of Party Served: Date of Service:

Method of Service
Personally served at this address:

Left copies at the usual place of abode with (name of person):

Other (specify):

Returned unexecuted (reason):

Service Fees:

Travel $

Service $

Total $

Declaration of Server
I declare under the penalty of perjury that the information contained in this Return of Service is true and correct. Name of Server: Signature of Server: Date: Server’s Address:

Case 1:13-cv-02976-MSK Document 2 Filed 10/31/13 USDC Colorado Page 39 of 40 2:13-cv-10065-AJT-PJK Doc # 1-6 Filed 01/08/13 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 39
AO 440 (Rev. 12/09) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the

Eastern District of Michigan

Cequent Performance Products, Inc.,
Plaintiff,

v.

Wyers Products Group, Inc., and Philip W. Wyers
Defendant.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-10065

Hon.

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION To:

Wyers Products Group, Inc. 6770 South Dawson Circle, Ste. 200 Centennial, Colorado 80112
A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney, whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default may be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

DAVID J. WEAVER, CLERK OF COURT

By:
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Date of Issuance:

Case 1:13-cv-02976-MSK Document 2 Filed 10/31/13 USDC Colorado Page 40 of 40 2:13-cv-10065-AJT-PJK Doc # 1-6 Filed 01/08/13 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 40
AO 440 (Rev. 12/09) Summons in a Civil Action

Summons and Complaint Return of Service
Case No. Hon. A copy of the Summons and Complaint has been served in the manner indicated below: Name of Party Served: Date of Service:

Method of Service
Personally served at this address:

Left copies at the usual place of abode with (name of person):

Other (specify):

Returned unexecuted (reason):

Service Fees:

Travel $

Service $

Total $

Declaration of Server
I declare under the penalty of perjury that the information contained in this Return of Service is true and correct. Name of Server: Signature of Server: Date: Server’s Address:

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful