UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY TRENTON DIVISION Noam J. Kritzer (nkritzer@bakoskritzer.

com) Edward P. Bakos (ebakos@bakoskritzer.com) Bakos & Kritzer 147 Columbia Turnpike Florham Park, New Jersey 07932 Telephone: 908-273-0770 Facsimile: 973-520-8260 Attorneys for Plaintiff: Tristar Products, Inc.

TRISTAR PRODUCTS, INC. (a Pennsylvania corporation), Plaintiff,

Civil Action Number:

COMPLAINT v. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CHOON’S DESIGN LLC (a Michigan limited liability company), Defendant. Document Filed Electronically

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF PATENT NONINFRINGEMENT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL This is an action brought under the Declaratory Judgment Act by Plaintiff Tristar Products, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation (hereinafter “Tristar Products”), against Defendant Choon’s Design LLC, a Michigan limited liability company (hereinafter “Choon’s Design” or “Defendant”). Upon actual knowledge with respect to itself and its acts, and upon information and belief as to all other matters, Tristar Products alleges as follows:

1

THE PARTIES 1. Plaintiff Tristar Products is a Pennsylvania corporation having its corporate

headquarters and principal place of business at 492 Route 46 East, Fairfield, New Jersey 07004. 2. Upon information and belief, Choon’s Design LLC is a Michigan limited liability

company with its principal place of business at 48813 West Road, Wixom, Michigan 48393. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. This is a civil action for declaratory judgment brought under the Declaratory

Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, and arises under the Patent Laws of the United States, Title 35 of the United States Code (35 U.S.C. §§ 100 et seq.). This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a), as it involves substantial claims arising under the Patent Laws of the United States together with related claims for patent infringement. 4. Upon information and belief, personal jurisdiction is proper in this Court as to

Defendant Choon’s Design because Choon’s Design solicits business and conducts business within the State of New Jersey, including but limited to maintaining a website with access in New Jersey, marketing to customers in the State of New Jersey, and having commercial and residential sales in the State of New Jersey through its website and its authorized retailers. A copy of printouts from the website http://www.rainbowloom.com/products depicting a webbased offer for sale (attached as Exhibit A) demonstrates that Choon’s Design products are marketed to customers within the state of New Jersey. Choon’s Design has further availed itself of this Court, filing a patent infringement action captioned Choon’s Design LLC v. A.C. Moore Incorporated, Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-00980-RBK-KMW. Therefore, the Court has personal 2

jurisdiction over Choon’s Design pursuant to N.J. Ct. R. 4:4-4, and venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c), and 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). 5. Tristar Products is a resident of this district and is alleged to have committed the

allegedly infringing activities at issue within this district. BACKGROUND 6. Tristar Products is a developer, manufacturer, and marketer of various consumer

products including, but not limited to, home appliances, fitness equipment, health and beauty articles, and hardware. 7. Among the products sold by Tristar Products is the “Bandaloom,” “Bandaloom

Mini Loom,” and “Bandaloom Hook” (hereinafter the “Accused Products”). 8. Upon information and belief, Choon’s Design markets and offers for sale a rubber

band bracelet making kit named the “Rainbow Loom.” 9. Upon information and belief, Choon’s Design is the owner of Ng U.S. Patent No.

8,485,565 issued July 16, 2013 and entitled “Brunnian link making device and kit” (hereinafter “the ‘565 Patent”), a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 10. The ‘565 Patent claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/410,399,

filed on November 5, 2010. 11. In the first substantive Office Action of the ‘565 Patent, a true and correct copy of

which is attached hereto as Exhibit C, the Examiner stated: “Claims 1 and 12 . . . are found to be allowable because the prior art of record neither teaches nor reasonably suggests the recitations found therein, including pins having a top flared portion and opening in the front as well as the method of using the pin bars/base to stretch, capture and pull elastic bands.” (Ex. C, at ¶5). 3

12.

When the Examiner made this statement, the Examiner was not aware of multiple

prior art references which anticipate or make obvious the point of novelty of the ‘565 Patent. 13. Upon information and belief, Choon’s Design is the owner of Ng U.S. Patent No.

8,622,441 issued January 04, 2013 and entitled “Hand Held Link Making Device and Kit” (hereinafter “the ‘441 Patent”), a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit D. 14. The ‘441 Patent claims priority to U.S. Patent Application No. 13/626,057, filed

on September 25, 2012, and U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/846,270, filed on July 15, 2013. 15. Upon information and belief, Choon’s Design is the owner and/or licensee of the

‘565 Patent and ‘441 Patent (hereinafter “Patents-in-suit”), with the ability to enforce the Patents-in-suit. THE CONFLICT 16. Without prior warning or notice, Choon’s Design filed a Complaint against Tristar

Products on February 24, 2014 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, No. 14-CV-10848-VAR-MAR, alleging that Tristar Products’ manufacture, use, sale, offer to sell, and/or importation of the Accused Products in the United States infringe the Patents-in-suit. 17. Tristar Products has been injured and damaged by Defendant filing a Complaint

asserting infringement against the Accused Products, which do not contain each and every element of the Patents-in-suit. 18. Defendant, through its actions, has impeded the activities of Tristar Products and

Tristar Products has been injured and damaged by Defendant filing a Complaint asserting 4

infringement of invalid patent claims. Under the circumstances, there is a substantial controversy over infringement of the Patents-in-suit by the Accused Products, between Tristar Products and the Defendant, parties having adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF Declaration of Non-Infringement (‘565 Patent) 19. Tristar Products repeats and realleges each of the foregoing paragraphs by

reference as if fully set forth herein. 20. An actual case or controversy exists between Tristar Products and Defendant,

based on Defendant’s claim that Tristar Products allegedly infringes one or more claims of the ‘565 patent. 21. Tristar Products does not infringe, induce infringement of, and/or contributorily

infringe, and has not infringed, induced infringement of, and/or contributorily infringed any valid and enforceable claim of the ‘565 Patent. 22. damaged. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF Declaration of Invalidity (‘565 Patent) 23. Tristar Products repeats and realleges each of the foregoing paragraphs by Without declaratory relief, Tristar Products will be irreparably harmed and

reference as if fully set forth herein.

5

24.

Tristar Products believes that the ‘565 Patent is invalid and void for failure to

comply with one or more sections of Title 35 of the United States Code, including, without limitation, 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and/or 112, and/or for failure to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 1.56. 25. An actual controversy exists between Tristar Products and Choon’s Design

regarding whether or not each claim of the ‘565 Patent is valid. 26. damaged. 27. Tristar Products is entitled to a judgment declaring that each claim of the ‘565 Without declaratory relief, Tristar Products will be irreparably harmed and

Patent is invalid for failure to satisfy one or more conditions of patentability set forth in 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and/or 112. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF Declaration of Unenforceability (‘565 Patent) 28. Tristar Products repeats and realleges each of the foregoing paragraphs by

reference as if fully set forth herein. 29. An actual controversy exists between Tristar Products and Choon’s Design

regarding whether or not each claim of the ‘565 Patent is enforceable. 30. Tristar Products is entitled to a judgment declaring that each claim of the ‘565

Patent is unenforceable.

6

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Declaration of Non-Infringement (‘441 Patent) 31. Tristar Products repeats and realleges each of the foregoing paragraphs by

reference as if fully set forth herein. 32. An actual case or controversy exists between Tristar Products and Defendant,

based on Defendant’s claim that Tristar Products allegedly infringes one or more claims of the ‘441 patent. 33. Tristar Products does not infringe, induce infringement of, and/or contributorily

infringe, and has not infringed, induced infringement of, and/or contributorily infringed any valid and enforceable claim of the ‘441 Patent. 34. damaged. FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Declaration of Invalidity (‘441 Patent) 35. Tristar Products repeats and realleges each of the foregoing paragraphs by Without declaratory relief, Tristar Products will be irreparably harmed and

reference as if fully set forth herein. 36. Tristar Products believes that the ‘441 Patent is invalid and void for failure to

comply with one or more sections of Title 35 of the United States Code, including, without limitation, 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and/or 112, and/or for failure to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 1.56. 37. An actual controversy exists between Tristar Products and Choon’s Design

regarding whether or not each claim of the ‘441 Patent is valid. 7

38. damaged. 39.

Without declaratory relief, Tristar Products will be irreparably harmed and

Tristar Products is entitled to a judgment declaring that each claim of the ‘441

Patent is invalid for failure to satisfy one or more conditions of patentability set forth in 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and/or 112. SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Declaration of Unenforceability (‘441 Patent) 40. Tristar Products repeats and realleges each of the foregoing paragraphs by

reference as if fully set forth herein. 41. An actual controversy exists between Tristar Products and Choon’s Design

regarding whether or not each claim of the ‘441 Patent is enforceable. Tristar Products is entitled to a judgment declaring that each claim of the ‘441 Patent is unenforceable. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Tristar Products prays that the Court enter judgment against Choon’s Design as follows: A. A declaration that Tristar Products has not infringed, induced infringement of, or

contributorily infringed, and does not infringe, induce infringement of, and/or contributorily infringe, any valid or enforceable claim of Ng U.S. Patent No. 8,485,565 and Ng U.S. Patent No. 8,622,441; B. A declaration that Ng U.S. Patent No. 8,485,565 and Ng U.S. Patent No.

8,622,441 are unenforceable and/or invalid and void for failure to comply with one or more 8

sections of Title 35 of the United States Code, including, without limitation, 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and/or 112, and/or failure to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 1.56; C. 285; D. An award to Tristar Products of its costs, attorney fees, and expenses pursuant to A declaration that this case is “exceptional” within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. §

35 U.S.C. § 285; and E. That Tristar Products be awarded such other and further relief as this Court deems

proper and just. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Tristar Products hereby demands a trial by jury of all issues properly triable to a jury in this case.

Respectfully submitted this 25th day of FEBRUARY, 2014 Attorneys for the Plaintiff, Tristar Products, Inc. By: /s/ Noam J. Kritzer Noam J. Kritzer Noam J. Kritzer (nkritzer@bakoskritzer.com) Edward P. Bakos (ebakos@bakoskritzer.com) Bakos & Kritzer 147 Columbia Turnpike Florham Park, New Jersey 07932 Telephone: 908-273-0770 Facsimile: 973-520-8260

9

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO LOCAL CIVIL RULE 11.2 Tristar Products, by its undersigned counsel, hereby certifies pursuant to Local Civil Rule 11.2 that the matters in controversy relate to an action filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan entitled Choon’s Design, LLC v. Tristar Products, Inc., Case No. 14-CV-10848-VAR-MAR. Tristar Products, by its undersigned counsel, hereby further certifies that the matters in controversy are not related to any other pending arbitration or administrative proceeding.

Respectfully submitted this 25th day of FEBRUARY, 2014, Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Tristar Products, Inc. By: /s/ Noam J. Kritzer Noam J. Kritzer Noam J. Kritzer (nkritzer@bakoskritzer.com) Edward P. Bakos (ebakos@bakoskritzer.com) Bakos & Kritzer 147 Columbia Turnpike Florham Park, New Jersey 07932 Telephone: 908-273-0770 Facsimile: 973-520-8260

10

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful