Multiple Documents

Part Description
1 16 pages
2 Cover Sheet
3 Exhibit(s) A, US Patent D689,798
4 Exhibit(s) B, MMB-80
5 Exhibit(s) C, Frame Comparison
6 Exhibit(s) D, Desert Magazine, 12/1961, Advertisement
7 Exhibit(s) E, 1960's-era Savage Minibike
8 Exhibit(s) F, Baja Doodlebug
9 Exhibit(s) G, Press Release
10 Report on Filing of an Action Regarding a Patent
Monster Moto, LLC v. APT Group, Inc. d/b/a MotoVox et al, Docket No. 3:14-cv-02625 (N.D. Tex. Jul 21, 2014), Court Docket
© 2014 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Service
// PAGE 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
MONSTER MOTO, LLC,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. ____________
v.
APT GROUP, INC. d/b/a MOTOVOX
and APT IP HOLDINGS, LLC,
Defendants.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Monster Moto, LLC (“Monster Moto” or “Plaintiff”), hereby files its Complaint
against Defendants APT Group, Inc. d/b/a MotoVox (“MotoVox”) and APT IP Holdings, LLC
(“APTIP”) (collectively, “Defendants”), stating as follows:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. This is an action for declaratory judgment of patent invalidity and non-
infringement, common law business disparagement, tortious interference with contract, tortious
interference with business expectancy, false advertising under the Lanham Act, and common law
unfair competition.
2. Monster Moto brings this action (a) to recover damages caused by Defendants’
tortious conduct, (b) to obtain preliminary and permanent injunctive relief prohibiting
Defendants from making false and defamatory statements regarding Monster Moto to Monster
Moto’s customers and the marketplace as a whole and from tortiously interfering with Monster
Moto’s existing and prospective contracts, and (c) to obtain a declaratory judgment of invalidity
Case 3:14-cv-02625-N Document 1 Filed 07/21/14 Page 1 of 16 PageID 1
2
and non-infringement regarding the design patent that Defendants have falsely accused Monster
Moto of infringing.
II. THE PARTIES
3. Plaintiff Monster Moto is a Texas limited liability company, with its principal
place of business at 1001 South Jupiter Road, Garland, Texas 75042.
4. Defendant MotoVox is a Missouri corporation, with its principal place of business
at 8844 Hillcrest Road, Kansas City, Missouri 64138.
5. Defendant APTIP is a Wyoming limited liability company, with its principal
place of business at 8844 Hillcrest Road, Kansas City, Missouri 64138.
III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
6. This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28
U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338 because it arises under the patent laws of the United States. This Court
further has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 15 U.S.C. § 1121. This Court also
has supplemental jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Further, and in the
alternative, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. §§
1332(a)(1) and (c)(1) because Plaintiff Monster Moto and Defendants MotoVox and APTIP are
citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, excluding interest and
costs.
7. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a
substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Monster Moto’s claims occurred in this
District.
8. Personal jurisdiction exists over Defendants due to their continuous and systemic
contacts with the State of Texas, including but not limited to their commission of torts in this
State as alleged in this Complaint. For example, Defendants have made several false disparaging
Case 3:14-cv-02625-N Document 1 Filed 07/21/14 Page 2 of 16 PageID 2
3
accusations regarding Monster Moto -- upon which numerous claims in this lawsuit are based –
to Texas residents. Moreover, Defendants have purposefully availed themselves of the privilege
of conducting business in the State of Texas. Monster Moto’s claims arise out of or relate to
Defendants’ forum-related activities, and it is reasonable for the Court to exercise personal
jurisdiction over Defendants.
IV. FACTS
9. Defendant APTIP claims to be the owner by assignment of U.S. Design Patent
No. D689,798 (the “‘798 patent”). Defendant MotoVox claims to be a licensee of the ‘798
patent. A true and correct copy of the ‘798 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
10. Defendants have falsely accused Monster Moto of infringing the ‘798 patent by
making, selling, using, importing and/or offering to sell the Monster Moto MMB-80 minibike
within the United States. A true and correct copy of a photograph of Monster Moto’s MMB-80
minibike is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
11. In particular, Defendants have pointed to the frame design of the MMB-80
minibike as a purported infringement of the ‘798 patent, despite the fact that the two designs are
plainly different. See Exhibit C hereto, a true and correct copy of a comparison of the frame of
Monster Moto’s MMB-80 with the frame of Defendants’ MBX10 minibike frame (which
purportedly embodies the ‘798 patent).
12. Defendants have also based their claims of design patent infringement on
purported similarities between the handlebars, fenders, foot pegs, engines, seat, and kickstands of
the MMB-80 minibike and the ‘798 patent, despite the fact that these are all functional
components of a minibike not entitled to design patent protection. Moreover, to the dubious
extent there is any protectable ornamental design with respect to these components, it differs
between the MMB-80 minibike and the ‘798 patent.
Case 3:14-cv-02625-N Document 1 Filed 07/21/14 Page 3 of 16 PageID 3
4
13. In any event, the ‘798 patent is itself invalid for a variety of reasons – namely,
lack of novelty, obviousness and functionality. The ‘798 patent improperly claims numerous
purely functional elements of a minibike and is invalid on that basis. See Exhibit A hereto
(claiming design patent protection for entirety of minibike).
14. In addition, as depicted below, the purportedly revolutionary teardrop frame
design as well as other design aspects of Defendants’ MBX minibikes were disclosed by the
Savage minibike as far as back as 1961:
A true and correct copy of an advertisement for the Savage minibike in the December 1961 issue
of Desert magazine is attached hereto as Exhibit D. True and correct copies of additional
photographs of the 1960’s-era Savage minibike are attached hereto as Exhibit E.
15. Indeed, all of the purported ornamental elements of the ‘798 patent are in the prior
art. For example, the design of the Baja Doodlebug minibike, which has been on sale since at
least 2004, includes design elements, such as the fenders, that are substantially similar, if not
identical, to the ‘798 patent. A true and correct copy of a photograph of the Baja Doodlebug
minibike is attached hereto as Exhibit F.
16. A cursory comparison of the ‘798 patent, Defendants’ MBX series of minibikes
(which purport to embody the ‘798 patent), the Monster Moto MMB-80, and a number of other
Case 3:14-cv-02625-N Document 1 Filed 07/21/14 Page 4 of 16 PageID 4
5
competing minibikes in the marketplace demonstrates nothing more than the fact that minibikes
all share a number of similar characteristics for obvious and unavoidable functional reasons. To
the extent that the ‘798 patent includes any ornamental aspects, such aspects are disclosed in the
prior art and/or differ from the Monster Moto MMB-80.
17. Further, Defendants have falsely accused Monster Moto of misappropriating their
purported trade secrets, tortiously interfering with their contracts and business expectancy, and
violating their alleged trade dress and trademark rights under the Lanham Act.
18. Among other things, Defendants contend that the identity of their customers --
namely, retailers such as Sears, Kmart, Costco, and Alco -- is somehow a trade secret that
belongs to them, despite the fact that the identity of these extraordinarily well-known companies
(and the fact that they sell minibikes) is a secret to no one.
19. Similarly, Defendants contend that the identity of their (former) Chinese
manufacturer is somehow a trade secret, despite the fact that such information is readily
available to anyone in the industry.
20. In addition, Defendants have asserted that they have trade secrets in the design or
manufacture of their minibikes, despite the fact that there is nothing novel in the design or
manufacture of Defendants’ minibikes.
21. All of Defendants’ false accusations against Monster Moto revolve around the
Monster Moto MMB-80, which was independently developed by Monster Moto and its
employees and contractors, based on their years of experience in the minibike industry. The
MMB-80 was developed without reference to any of Defendants’ alleged trade secrets. Indeed,
no trade secrets were necessary as the information necessary to design, manufacture, and sell the
MMB-80 was well within the knowledge of Monster Moto, its employees and contractors.
Case 3:14-cv-02625-N Document 1 Filed 07/21/14 Page 5 of 16 PageID 5
6
While certain of Defendants’ former employees or contractors
1
have worked on behalf of
Monster Moto, each of these individuals signed a document pledging that they would not use any
confidential or proprietary information obtained from Defendants in their work on behalf of
Monster Moto (and, as set forth above, there is nothing novel, confidential or secret regarding
Defendants’ minibikes in any event).
22. Defendants also contend that their trade dress is infringed by Monster Moto
because, among other things, the box in which the Monster Moto MMB-80 is packaged includes
instructions that read “DO NOT LAY FLAT” and “THIS SIDE UP.” The absurdity of this claim
is apparent as similar instructions appear on virtually all boxes of this type.
23. Despite the above incontrovertible facts, Defendants have knowingly and with
malice made numerous false accusations about Monster Moto to Monster Moto’s customers. For
example, Defendants have contacted Monster Moto’s current and potential customers and made
false allegations of intellectual property infringement against Monster Moto. Defendants’ false
accusations have caused Monster Moto’s customers to stop or delay doing business with Monster
Moto, causing Monster Moto to lose sales.
24. Defendants have made these accusations, knowing that they are false, with malice
and intent to unfairly injure Monster Moto’s standing with its customers and the marketplace as a
whole. Such statements have been designed expressly to damage Monster Moto and its business.
25. Moreover, on June 17, 2014, Defendants filed a lawsuit against Monster Moto
and several other Defendants in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Missouri, Case No. 4:14-cv-546, accusing Monster Moto of, inter alia, infringement of the ‘798
1
A number of Defendants’ former employees and contractors left their employ because Defendants
failed to pay them. In fact, one former contractor, Olen Rice and his company, Northern Group, Inc.,
have sued MotoVox in Wisconsin State Court on June 26, 2013, for failure to pay compensation and
commissions owed. See Olen Rice v. APT Powersport and Utility Products, LLC and American
Performance Technologies, LLC, Wisconsin Circuit Court Case No. 13-CV-1031, and Northern Group,
Inc. v. APT Powersport and Utility Products, LLC, Wisconsin Circuit Court Case No. 13-CV-1032.
Case 3:14-cv-02625-N Document 1 Filed 07/21/14 Page 6 of 16 PageID 6
7
patent, trade secret misappropriation, trade dress infringement, trademark infringement, tortious
interference with business expectancies, and intentional interference with contract.
26. Defendants have cited to this filing in communications to Monster Moto’s current
and potential customers, and the marketplace as a while, in a transparent bid to steal Monster
Moto’s business. See, e.g., Exhibit G hereto, a true and correct copy of Defendants’ July 15,
2014 press release regarding Defendants’ filing of a lawsuit and motion for preliminary
injunction. Further, Defendants have mischaracterized the Court documents they have
forwarded to Monster Moto’s customers.
27. However, although Defendants purport to seek preliminary injunctive relief, they
have not even served summons and complaint on Monster Moto as of July 18, 2014 – over a
month after filing suit. Yet, as set forth above, Defendants have trumpeted their filing of the suit
to the marketplace and Monster Moto’s customers for the purpose of interfering with Monster
Moto’s business relationships. This further demonstrates that Defendants have not made their
accusations against Monster Moto with any basis or proper purpose, but, instead, seek to smear
Monster Moto’s reputation without foundation or accountability.
Count I: Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of the ‘798 Patent
28. Plaintiff Monster Moto repeats, reiterates, and re-alleges the allegations set forth
in the preceding Paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
29. Defendants contend that Monster Moto infringes the ‘798 patent by making,
using, selling, offering for sale, and/or offering for sale the MMB-80 minibike within the United
States.
30. Monster Moto’s making, using, selling, offering for sale, and/or offering for sale
of the MMB-80 minibike does not, has not, and will not infringe any valid and enforceable claim
of the ’798 patent. By way of example and not limitation, there is no substantial similarity
Case 3:14-cv-02625-N Document 1 Filed 07/21/14 Page 7 of 16 PageID 7
8
between the MMB-80 minibike and the ‘798 patent such that the ordinary observer with
knowledge of the prior art would be deceived, inducing him to purchase one supposing it to be
the other. Rather, any similarities are merely a function of the fact that both are minibikes. In
fact, cursory review of the minibike market reveals that there are a plethora of minibikes that
have somewhat similar designs, as minibike design is necessarily limited to a great degree by
functional considerations. Viewed properly in context, any allegedly protectable ornamental
aspects of the MMB-80 minibike design -- in particular, its frame design -- are entirely dissimilar
from the ‘798 patent, in whole and in part.
31. An actual and justiciable controversy exists between Monster Moto and
Defendants regarding noninfringement of the ‘798 Patent.
32. Monster Moto is entitled to a declaratory judgment that it has not infringed and
does not infringe any valid and/or enforceable claim of the ’798 Patent.
33. This is an exceptional case entitling Monster Moto to an award of attorneys’ fees
incurred in connection with this action under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
Count II: Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of the ‘798 Patent
34. Plaintiff Monster Moto repeats, reiterates, and re-alleges the allegations set forth
in the preceding Paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
35. The claims of the ‘798 patent are invalid for failing to meet the conditions of
patentability set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 101 et seq., including but not limited to sections 102, 103
and 171.
36. The claims of the ‘798 patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103
because, at a minimum and without limitation, they are neither novel nor nonobvious in light of
existing prior art.
Case 3:14-cv-02625-N Document 1 Filed 07/21/14 Page 8 of 16 PageID 8
9
37. Further, the claims of the ‘798 patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 171 because
they are primarily functional, not ornamental, in nature, and, therefore, are not “new, original,
and ornamental,” as required by the statute.
38. An actual case or controversy exists between Monster Moto and Defendants as to
whether the ‘798 patent is invalid.
39. A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate so that Monster Moto may
ascertain its rights as to whether the ‘798 patent is invalid.
40. Monster Moto is entitled to a declaratory judgment that the ‘798 patent is invalid.
41. This is an exceptional case entitling Monster Moto to an award of attorneys’ fees
incurred in connection with this action under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
Count III: Common Law Business Disparagement
42. Plaintiff Monster Moto repeats, reiterates, and re-alleges the allegations set forth
in the preceding Paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
43. As set forth above, Defendants have published disparaging words regarding
Monster Moto and its business to Monster Moto’s customers, potential customers and to the
market at large.
44. Defendants’ disparaging words regarding Monster Moto have been false.
Defendants have known that their disparaging words were false, and made such statements in
bad faith.
45. Defendants published disparaging words regarding Monster Moto with malice,
intent to harm Monster Moto, and in a manner calculated to prevent others from dealing with
Monster Moto.
46. Defendants lacked any privilege or justification to make the disparaging
statements regarding Monster Moto.
Case 3:14-cv-02625-N Document 1 Filed 07/21/14 Page 9 of 16 PageID 9
10
47. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ publication of false, disparaging
words regarding Monster Moto, Monster Moto has suffered special damages in the form of
actual economic harm. Among other things, Monster Moto has been forced to expend resources
to defend itself and correct Defendants’ false statements, has lost business, and has suffered
damaged to its good will and reputation.
48. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ disparagement, Monster Moto has
sustained actual damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
49. In addition, Monster Moto has suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable
harm as a proximate result of Defendants’ conduct. Monster Moto has no adequate remedy at
law to protect it from such irreparable harm. Such irreparable harm will continue and increase
unless Defendants are preliminarily and permanently enjoined from their unlawful conduct.
50. Defendants have engaged in outrageous, aggravated, malicious and/or fraudulent
conduct, thereby entitling Monster Moto to punitive damages.
Count IV: Tortious Interference with Contract
51. Plaintiff Monster Moto repeats, reiterates, and re-alleges the allegations set forth
in the preceding Paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
52. Plaintiff Monster Moto is a party to a number of contracts with its customers
which are subject to interference.
53. By making false statements regarding Monster Moto and its business, Defendants
have engaged in willful and intentional acts of interference.
54. Defendants’ tortious interference has proximately caused damages to Monster
Moto.
55. Monster Moto has suffered actual damage and loss due to Defendants’
interference. As set forth above, Monster Moto has been forced to expend resources to defend
Case 3:14-cv-02625-N Document 1 Filed 07/21/14 Page 10 of 16 PageID 10
11
itself and correct Defendants’ false statements, has lost business, and has suffered damaged to its
good will and reputation.
56. In addition, Monster Moto has suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable
harm as a proximate result of Defendants’ conduct. Monster Moto has no adequate remedy at
law to protect it from such irreparable harm. Such irreparable harm will continue and increase
unless Defendants are preliminarily and permanently enjoined from their unlawful conduct.
57. Defendants have engaged in outrageous, aggravated, malicious and/or fraudulent
conduct, thereby entitling Monster Moto to punitive damages.
Count V: Tortious Interference with Business Expectancy
58. Plaintiff Monster Moto repeats, reiterates, and re-alleges the allegations set forth
in the preceding Paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
59. Monster Moto has had a reasonable probability that it would enter into a business
relationship with potential customers and additional business relationships with its current
customers.
60. Defendants have performed intentional, malicious interventions and engaged in
independently tortious or unlawful actions, including the making of false and/or fraudulent
statements, with a conscious desire to prevent Monster Moto’s business relationships from
occurring and/or with knowledge that the interference was certain or substantially likely to occur
as a result of their conduct.
61. Defendants have lacked any privilege or justification for their actions in this
regard.
62. Monster Moto has suffered actual harm or damages as a result of the Defendants’
interference. As set forth above, Monster Moto has been forced to expend resources to defend
Case 3:14-cv-02625-N Document 1 Filed 07/21/14 Page 11 of 16 PageID 11
12
itself and correct Defendants’ false statements, has lost business, and has suffered damaged to its
good will and reputation.
63. In addition, Monster Moto has suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable
harm as a proximate result of Defendants’ conduct. Monster Moto has no adequate remedy at
law to protect it from such irreparable harm. Such irreparable harm will continue and increase
unless Defendants are preliminarily and permanently enjoined from their unlawful conduct.
64. Defendants have engaged in outrageous, aggravated, malicious and/or fraudulent
conduct, thereby entitling Monster Moto to punitive damages.
Count VI: False Advertising Under Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a))
65. Plaintiff Monster Moto repeats, reiterates, and re-alleges the allegations set forth
in the preceding Paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
66. Defendants made false or misleading statements of fact in a commercial
advertisement and promotion about their own products and/or Monster Moto’s products.
67. These statements actually deceived and/or had the tendency to deceive a
substantial segment of its audience: the audience being potential customers of minibikes.
68. Defendants’ deception was material, in that it was likely to influence purchasing
decisions.
69. Defendants caused the statements to enter interstate commerce.
70. Monster Moto has been and is likely to continue to be injured as a result of the
statements by loss of sales and profits, damage to its reputation, expenditures incurred to correct
the false and/or misleading statements made, and by lessening of goodwill associated with
Monster Moto’s products.
71. As a result of Defendants’ acts alleged herein, Monster Moto has suffered and
continues to suffer irreparable harm as a proximate result of Defendants’ false and deceptive
Case 3:14-cv-02625-N Document 1 Filed 07/21/14 Page 12 of 16 PageID 12
13
advertising. Monster Moto has no adequate remedy at law to protect it from such irreparable
harm. Such irreparable harm will continue and increase unless Defendants are preliminarily and
permanently enjoined from their unlawful conduct.
72. Monster Moto is entitled to damages to be proven at trial.
73. Under the Lanham Act, Monster Moto is entitled to trebled damages, the cost of
the action, and injunctive relief.
74. This case is exceptional warranting an award of attorneys’ fees under 15 U.S.C. §
1117(a).
Count VII: Common Law Unfair Competition
75. Plaintiff Monster Moto repeats, reiterates, and re-alleges the allegations set forth
in the preceding Paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
76. Defendants have engaged in business conduct which is contrary to honest practice
in commercial matters. Defendants’ unfair and illegal facts have interfered with Monster Moto’s
ability to conduct its business.
77. Defendants have made false or misleading statements of fact to Monster Moto’s
customers and potential customers in order to promote its products and to disparage Monster
Moto and its products.
78. Defendants made these statements without a reasonable factual or legal basis in an
effort to undermine Monster Moto’s position in the marketplace and to unfairly gain a
competitive advantage over Monster Moto.
79. These statements actually deceived and/or had the tendency to deceive a
substantial segment of its audience; the audience being customers and potential customers of
minibikes.
Case 3:14-cv-02625-N Document 1 Filed 07/21/14 Page 13 of 16 PageID 13
14
80. Defendants’ deception was material, in that it was likely to influence purchasing
decisions.
81. Monster Moto has been and is likely to continue to be injured as a result of the
statements by loss of sales and profits, damage to its reputation, expenditures incurred to correct
the false and/or misleading statements, and by lessening of goodwill associated with its products.
82. Upon information and belief, as a result of Defendants’ acts alleged herein,
minibike customers and potential customers are suffering harm because fewer options will be
available in the marketplace and prices will be artificially high if Defendants are allowed to
exclude others such as Monster Moto from the marketplace through its unfair competition.
83. Monster Moto is entitled to damages to be proven at trial.
84. In addition, Monster Moto has suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable
harm as a proximate result of Defendants’ unfair competition. Monster Moto has no adequate
remedy at law to protect it from such irreparable harm. Such irreparable harm will continue and
increase unless Defendants are preliminarily and permanently enjoined from their unlawful
conduct.
85. Defendants have engaged in outrageous, aggravated, malicious and/or fraudulent
conduct, thereby entitling Monster Moto to punitive damages.
V. JURY DEMAND
86. Plaintiff Monster Moto demands a jury trial.
Case 3:14-cv-02625-N Document 1 Filed 07/21/14 Page 14 of 16 PageID 14
15
VI. REQUEST FOR RELIEF
For all the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Monster Moto prays this Honorable Court issue
citation for the Defendants MotoVox and APTIP to appear and answer, and that this Court enter
judgment in favor of Plaintiff Monster Moto against Defendants MotoVox and APTIP for:
1. actual damages;
2. punitive damages;
3. trebled damages under the Lanham Act;
4. declaratory judgment that Monster Moto has not infringed the ‘798 patent;
5. declaratory judgment that the ‘798 patent is invalid;
6. preliminary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining Defendants from (a)
making false disparaging statements regarding Monster Moto, its business and products; (b)
tortiously interfering with Monster Moto’s existing or future contracts; (c) engaging in false
advertising regarding Defendants’ and Monster Moto’s products; and (d) unfairly competing
with Monster Moto.
7. attorneys' fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 and 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a);
8. costs of suit;
9. pre- and post-judgment interest; and
10. such other and further relief, general or special, at law or in equity, to which
Plaintiff Monster Moto may show itself justly entitled.
Case 3:14-cv-02625-N Document 1 Filed 07/21/14 Page 15 of 16 PageID 15
16
Date: July 21, 2014
/s/ Keith J. Grady
Keith J. Grady (46757MO)
Polsinelli PC
100 S. Fourth Street
Suite 1000
St. Louis, MO 63102
(p) 314-889-8000
(f) 314-231-1776
kgrady@polsinelli.com
William H. Church, Jr. (04248020TX)
Polsinelli PC
2501 N. Harwood
Suite 1900
Dallas, TX 75201
(p) 214-397-0030
(f) 214-853-5248
bchurch@polsinelli.com
Graham L.W. Day
Polsinelli PC
100 S. Fourth Street
Suite 1000
St. Louis, MO 63102
(p) 314-889-8000
(f) 314-231-1776
gday@polsinelli.com
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
MONSTER MOTO, LLC
48430427
Case 3:14-cv-02625-N Document 1 Filed 07/21/14 Page 16 of 16 PageID 16
JS 44 (Rev. #%"$$)
CIVIL COVER SHEET
The JS 44 civiI coversheet and the inIormation contained herein neither repIace nor suppIement the IiIing and service oI pIeadings or other papers as required by Iaw, except as provided
by IocaI ruIes oI court. This Iorm, approved by the JudiciaI ConIerence oI the United States inSeptember 1974, is required Ior the use oI the CIerk oI Court Ior the purpose oI initiating
the civiI docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS
(b) County oI Residence oI First Listed PIaintiII County oI Residence oI First Listed DeIendant
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)
II. BASIS OF 1URISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff)
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
" 1 U.S. Government " 3 FederaI Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
PIaintiII (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen oI This State " 1 " 1 Incorporated or PrincipaI PIace " 4 " 4
oI Business In This State
" 2 U.S. Government " 4 Diversity Citizen oI Another State " 2 " 2 Incorporated and PrincipaI PIace " 5 " 5
DeIendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) oI Business In Another State
Citizen or Subject oI a " 3 " 3 Foreign Nation " 6 " 6
Foreign Country
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES
" 110 Insurance PERSONAL IN1URY PERSONAL IN1URY " 625 Drug ReIated Seizure " 422 AppeaI 28 USC 158 " 375 FaIse CIaims Act
" 120 Marine " 310 AirpIane " 365 PersonaI Injury - oI Property 21 USC 881 " 423 WithdrawaI " 400 State Reapportionment
" 130 MiIIer Act " 315 AirpIane Product Product LiabiIity " 690 Other 28 USC 157 " 410 Antitrust
" 140 NegotiabIe Instrument LiabiIity " 367 HeaIth Care/ " 430 Banks and Banking
" 150 Recovery oI Overpayment " 320 AssauIt, LibeI & PharmaceuticaI PROPERTY RIGHTS " 450 Commerce
& EnIorcement oI Judgment SIander PersonaI Injury " 820 Copyrights " 460 Deportation
" 151 Medicare Act " 330 FederaI EmpIoyers` Product LiabiIity " 830 Patent " 470 Racketeer InIIuenced and
" 152 Recovery oI DeIauIted LiabiIity " 368 Asbestos PersonaI " 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations
Student Loans " 340 Marine Injury Product " 480 Consumer Credit
(ExcI. Veterans) " 345 Marine Product LiabiIity LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY " 490 CabIe/Sat TV
" 153 Recovery oI Overpayment LiabiIity PERSONAL PROPERTY " 710 Fair Labor Standards " 861 HIA (1395II) " 850 Securities/Commodities/
oI Veteran`s BeneIits " 350 Motor VehicIe " 370 Other Fraud Act " 862 BIack Lung (923) Exchange
" 160 StockhoIders` Suits " 355 Motor VehicIe " 371 Truth in Lending " 720 Labor/Mgmt. ReIations " 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) " 890 Other Statutory Actions
" 190 Other Contract Product LiabiIity " 380 Other PersonaI " 740 RaiIway Labor Act " 864 SSID TitIe XVI " 891 AgricuIturaI Acts
" 195 Contract Product LiabiIity " 360 Other PersonaI Property Damage " 751 FamiIy and MedicaI " 865 RSI (405(g)) " 893 EnvironmentaI Matters
" 196 Franchise Injury " 385 Property Damage Leave Act " 895 Freedom oI InIormation
" 362 PersonaI Injury - Product LiabiIity " 790 Other Labor Litigation Act
Med. MaIpractice " 791 EmpI. Ret. Inc. " 896 Arbitration
REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS Security Act FEDERAL TAX SUITS " 899 Administrative Procedure
" 210 Land Condemnation " 440 Other CiviI Rights " 510 Motions to Vacate " 870 Taxes (U.S. PIaintiII Act/Review or AppeaI oI
" 220 ForecIosure " 441 Voting Sentence or DeIendant) Agency Decision
" 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment " 442 EmpIoyment Habeas Corpus: " 871 IRS÷Third Party " 950 ConstitutionaIity oI
" 240 Torts to Land " 443 Housing/ " 530 GeneraI 26 USC 7609 State Statutes
" 245 Tort Product LiabiIity Accommodations " 535 Death PenaIty IMMIGRATION
" 290 AII Other ReaI Property " 445 Amer. w/DisabiIities - " 540 Mandamus & Other " 462 NaturaIization AppIication
EmpIoyment " 550 CiviI Rights " 463 Habeas Corpus -
" 446 Amer. w/DisabiIities - " 555 Prison Condition AIien Detainee
Other " 560 CiviI Detainee - (Prisoner Petition)
" 448 Education Conditions oI " 465 Other Immigration
ConIinement Actions
V. ORIGIN
TransIerred Irom
another district
(specify)
(Place an “X” in One Box Only)
" 1 OriginaI
Proceeding
" 2 Removed Irom
State Court
" 3 Remanded Irom
AppeIIate Court
" 4 Reinstated or
Reopened
" 5 " 6 MuItidistrict
Litigation
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION
Cite the U.S. CiviI Statute under which you are IiIing (Donot citejurisdictional statutesunlessdiversity):
BrieI description oI cause:
VII. REQUESTED IN
COMPLAINT:
" CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION
UNDER F.R.C.P. 23
DEMAND $ CHECK YES onIy iI demanded in compIaint:
1URY DEMAND: " Yes " No
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
PENDING OR CLOSED:
(See instructions):
JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER
DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE
Action for declaratory judgment for patent invalidity and non-infringement, common law business disparagement,
tortious interference with contract, tortious interference with business expectancy, common law unfair competition, and false advertising under
Lanham Act
Monster Moto LLC
Dallas
Keith J. Grady, Polsinelli PC, 100 S. 4th Street, Suite 1000,
St. Louis, MO 63102 (314) 889-8000
APT Group, Inc. d/b/a MotoVox and APT IP Holdings, LLC
28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338, 1367
75,000.00
07/21/2014 /s/ Keith J. Grady
Case 3:14-cv-02625-N Document 1-1 Filed 07/21/14 Page 1 of 2 PageID 17
JS 44 Reverse (Rev. #%"$$)
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM 1S 44
Authority For CiviI Cover Sheet
The JS 44 civiI cover sheet andthe inIormation contained herein neither repIaces nor suppIements the IiIings and service oI pIeading or other papers as required
by Iaw, except as provided by IocaI ruIes oI court. This Iorm, approved by the JudiciaI ConIerence oI the United States in September 1974, is required Ior the
use oI the CIerk oI Court Ior the purpose oI initiating the civiI docket sheet. ConsequentIy, a civiI cover sheet is submitted to the CIerk oI Court Ior each civiI
compIaint IiIed. The attorney IiIing a case shouId compIete the Iorm as IoIIows:
I. (a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (Iast, Iirst, middIe initiaI) oI pIaintiII and deIendant. II the pIaintiII or deIendant is a government agency, use onIy
the IuII name or standard abbreviations. II the pIaintiII or de Iendant is an oIIiciaI within agovernment agency, identiIy Iirst the agencyand then the oIIiciaI, giving
both name and titIe.
(b) County oI Residence. For each civiI case IiIed, except U.S. pIaintiII cases, enter the name oI the county where the Iirst Iisted pIaintiII resides at the
time oI IiIing. In U.S. pIaintiII cases, enter the name oI the county in which the Iirst Iisted deIendant residesat the time oI IiIing. (NOTE: In Iand condemnation
cases, the county oI residence oI the deIendant¨ is the Iocation oI the tract oI Iand invoIved.)
(c) Attorneys. Enter the Iirm name, address, teIephone number, and attorney oI record. II there are severaI attorneys, Iist them on an attachment, noting
in this section (see attachment)¨.
II. 1urisdiction. The basis oI jurisdiction is set Iorth under RuIe 8(a), F.R.CP. ., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pIeadings. PIace an X¨ in one
oI the boxes. II there is more than one basis oI jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown beIow.
United States pIaintiII. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and oIIicers oI the United States are incIuded here.
United States deIendant. (2) When the pIaintiII is suing the United States, its oIIicers or agencies, pIace an X¨ in this box.
FederaI question. (3) This reIers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdicti on arises under the Constitution oI the Unite d States, an amendment to the
Constitution, an act oI Congress or a treatyoI the United States. In cases where the U.S. is aparty, the U.S. pIaintiII or deIendant code takes precedence, and box
1 or 2 shouId be marked.
Diversity oI citizenship. (4) This reIers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens oI diIIerent states. When Box 4 is checked, the citizenship oI
the diIIerent parties must be checked. (See Section III beIow; IederaI question actions take precedence over diversity cases.)
III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section oI the JS 44 is to be compIeted iI divers ity oI citizenship was indicated above.Mark this section
Ior each principaI party.
IV. Nature of Suit. PIace an X¨ in the appropri ate box. II the nature oI s uit cannot be determined, be sure the cause oI action, in Section VI beIow, is
suIIicient to enabIe the deputy cIerk or the statisticaI cIerks in the Administrative OIIice to determine the nature oI suit. II the cause Iits more than one nature oI
suit, seIect the most deIinitive.
V. Origin. PIace an X¨ in one oI the seven boxes.
OriginaI Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.
Removed IromState Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under TitIe 28U.S.C., Section 1441. When the petition
Ior removaI is granted, check this box.
Remanded Irom AppeIIate Court. (3) Check this box Ior cases remanded to the district court Ior Iurther action. Use the date oI remand as the IiIing date.
Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box Ior cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the IiIing date.
TransIerred Irom Another District. (5) For cases transIerred under TitIe 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this Ior within district transIers or muItidistrict
Iitigation transIers.
MuItidistrict Litigation. (6) Check this box when a muItidistrict case is transIerred into the district under authority oI TitIe 28 U.S.C. Section 1407. When this
box is checked, do not check (5) above.
AppeaI to District Judge Irom Magistrate Judgment. (7) Check this box Ior an appeaI Irom a magistrate judge`s decision.
VI. Cause of Action. Report the civiI statute directIyreIated to the cause oI action and give a brieI description oI the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional statutes
unless diversity. ExampIe: U.S. CiviI Statute: 47 USC 553
BrieI Description: Unauthorized reception oI cabIe service
VII. Requested in Complaint. CIass Action. PIace an X¨ in this box iI you are IiIing a cIass action under RuIe 23, F.R.Cv.P.
Demand. In this space enter the doIIar amount (in thousands oI doIIars) being demanded or indicate other demand such as a preIiminary injunction.
Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.
VIII. Related Cases. This section oI the JS 44 is used toreIerence cases that are reIated to this IiIing, iI any. II a reaIted case exists, whether pending or
cIosed, insert the docket numbers and the corresponding judge names Ior such cases. A case is "reaIted" to this IiIing iI the case: (1) invoIves some or aII
oI the same parties and is based on the same or simiIar cIaim; (2) invoIves the same property, transaction, or event; (3) invoIves substantiaIIy simiIar
issues oI Iaw and Iact; and/or (4) invoIves the same estate in a bankruptcy appeaI.
Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civiI cover sheet.
Case 3:14-cv-02625-N Document 1-1 Filed 07/21/14 Page 2 of 2 PageID 18
A
Case 3:14-cv-02625-N Document 1-2 Filed 07/21/14 Page 1 of 8 PageID 19
Case 3:14-cv-02625-N Document 1-2 Filed 07/21/14 Page 2 of 8 PageID 20
Case 3:14-cv-02625-N Document 1-2 Filed 07/21/14 Page 3 of 8 PageID 21
Case 3:14-cv-02625-N Document 1-2 Filed 07/21/14 Page 4 of 8 PageID 22
Case 3:14-cv-02625-N Document 1-2 Filed 07/21/14 Page 5 of 8 PageID 23
Case 3:14-cv-02625-N Document 1-2 Filed 07/21/14 Page 6 of 8 PageID 24
Case 3:14-cv-02625-N Document 1-2 Filed 07/21/14 Page 7 of 8 PageID 25
Case 3:14-cv-02625-N Document 1-2 Filed 07/21/14 Page 8 of 8 PageID 26
B
Case 3:14-cv-02625-N Document 1-3 Filed 07/21/14 Page 1 of 1 PageID 27
C
Case 3:14-cv-02625-N Document 1-4 Filed 07/21/14 Page 1 of 1 PageID 28
D
Case 3:14-cv-02625-N Document 1-5 Filed 07/21/14 Page 1 of 2 PageID 29
Case 3:14-cv-02625-N Document 1-5 Filed 07/21/14 Page 2 of 2 PageID 30
E
Case 3:14-cv-02625-N Document 1-6 Filed 07/21/14 Page 1 of 2 PageID 31
Case 3:14-cv-02625-N Document 1-6 Filed 07/21/14 Page 2 of 2 PageID 32
F
Case 3:14-cv-02625-N Document 1-7 Filed 07/21/14 Page 1 of 1 PageID 33
U.S. EDITION Tuesday, July 15, 2014 As of 10:20 AM EDT
The WaII Street JournaI news department was not invoIved in the creation of this content.
PRESS RELEASE @cZg +/& ,*+.& +*3,* O([( ;I
APT MotoVox Group, Inc. FiIes Patent
Infringement Lawsuit Against Monster Moto;
Seeks PreIiminary Injunction
A6DH6H 8?IN& C](& @cZg +/& ,*+. )FGDSeaeW`S) '' 6FI C]b]K]f =`]c^& ?\Q( $!C]b]K]f!%&
O\\]c\QSR bVOb Wb TWZSR O []bW]\ gSabS`ROg T]` O ^`SZW[W\O`g W\Xc\QbW]\ OUOW\ab C]\abS` C]b] O\R
T]`[S` S[^Z]gSSa ]T C]b]K]f W\ bVS J\WbSR HbObSa 9Wab`WQb 8]c`b T]` bVS LSabS`\ 9Wab`WQb ]T CWaa]c`W(
6FI C]b]K]f =`]c^ Wa `S_cSabW\U bVOb bVS 8]c`b S\bS` O F`SZW[W\O`g ?\Xc\QbW]\ b] S\X]W\ C]\abS`
C]b]& BB8& EZS\ GWQS& G]PS`b 6( GWQS& H`(& @]\ J[abSR& O\R AS\\SbV <`O\QWa $!9STS\RO\ba!% T`][ $+%
]\U]W\U W\T`W\US[S\b ]T RSaWU\ ^ObS\ba4 $,% [WaO^^`]^`WObW]\ ]T b`ORS aSQ`Sba4 $-% P`SOQV ]T Q]\b`OQb4
O\R $.% b]`bW]ca W\bS`TS`S\QS eWbV PcaW\Saa Sf^SQbObW]\a(
6FI =`]c^ aSSYa bVS `S_cSabSR W\Xc\QbW]\ b] $+% ^`SQZcRS 9STS\RO\ba T`][ [OYW\U O\g Tc`bVS` aOZSa ]T
^ObS\b ?\T`W\UW\U F`]RcQba& $,% ]`RS` 9STS\RO\ba b] Q]\bOQb C]\abS` C]b]#a `SbOWZ Qcab][S`a O\R
W\ab`cQb bVS[ b] ab]^ bVSW` aOZSa O\R `Sbc`\ OZZ ?\T`W\UW\U F`]RcQba b] C]\abS` C]b]& $-% ]`RS`
9STS\RO\ba b] ab]^ OZZ ORdS`bWaW\U& W\QZcRW\U OZZ ?\bS`\Sb ORdS`bWaW\U& bVOb RS^WQb& ^`][]bS& ]`
]bVS`eWaS [S\bW]\ bVS OP]dS'ZWabSR ?\T`W\UW\U F`]RcQba4 $.% ]`RS` 9STS\RO\ba b] `ST`OW\ T`][ caW\U
O\g ]T C]b]K]f#a b`ORS aSQ`Sba W\ bVS RSaWU\ ]` [O\cTOQbc`S ]T O\g ?\T`W\UW\U F`]RcQba ]` T]` O\g
^c`^]aS eVObSdS`4 $/% ]`RS` 9STS\RO\ba b] Q][^Zg eWbV bVSW` Q]\b`OQbcOZ ]PZWUObW]\a aSb T]`bV W\ bVSW`
HS`dWQS O\R ;[^Z]g[S\b 6U`SS[S\ba4 O\R $0% ]`RS` 9STS\RO\ba b] `ST`OW\ T`][ [OYW\U Q]\bOQb eWbV
O\g ]T C]b]K]f#a SfWabW\U `SbOWZ Qcab][S`a& eWbV `Sa^SQb b] ORdS`bWaW\U ]` aSZZW\U O\g ?\T`W\UW\U
F`]RcQba(
!C]b]K]f eWZZ \]b abO\R Pg O\]bVS` [W\cbS O\R OZZ]e bVWa W\XcabWQS b] Q]\bW\cS&! aOWR LOg\S
FObbS`a]\& 8;E ]T 6FI C]b]K]f =`]c^& ?\Q( !LS O`S OPa]ZcbS W\ ]c` `Sa]ZcbW]\ b] dWU]`]caZg RSTS\R
O\R ^`]bSQb ]c` W\bSZZSQbcOZ ^`]^S`bg( LS eWZZ TWUVb bVWa PObbZS b] bVS S\R PSQOcaS eS VOdS e]`YSR a]
VO`R b] [OYS bVS PSab ^`]RcQba W\ bVS [O`YSb^ZOQS( Ec` Qcab][S`a& S[^Z]gSSa O\R aVO`SV]ZRS`a
RSaS`dS \]bVW\U ZSaa(!
IVS ZOeacWb TWZSR SO`ZWS` bVWa []\bV& 6FI =`]c^& ?\Q( R)P)O C]b]K]f O\R 6FI ?F >]ZRW\Ua& BB8 d(
C]\abS` C]b]& BB8& EZS\ GWQS& G]PS`b 6( GWQS& H`(& @]\ J[abSR& AS\\SbV <`O\QWa& O\R 7SQY HOZO\RS`&
G
Case 3:14-cv-02625-N Document 1-8 Filed 07/21/14 Page 1 of 2 PageID 34
Q]\bS\Ra bVOb T]`[S` S[^Z]gSSa ]T ]` Q]\acZbO\ba b] 6FI =`]c^ ZSTb bVS 8][^O\g b] e]`Y T]` ]`
]bVS`eWaS OaaWab C]\abS` C]b] b] [O\cTOQbc`S O\R aSZZ [W\WPWYSa WRS\bWQOZ W\ \SO`Zg OZZ `Sa^SQba b]
C]b]K]f ^`]RcQba Pg RWaQZ]aW\U b`ORS aSQ`Sba O\R Q]\TWRS\bWOZ W\T]`[ObW]\ ZSO`\SR bV`]cUV bVSW`
Oaa]QWObW]\ eWbV C]b]K]f& P`SOQVW\U Q]\b`OQba eWbV C]b]K]f& O\R P`SOQVW\U TWRcQWO`g RcbWSa b]
C]b]K]f Oa S_cWbg V]ZRS`a(
6P]cb 6FI C]b]K]f =`]c^& ?\Q(
6FI C]b]K]f =`]c^& ?\Q( $EI8 773 CIKM% Wa O 9SZOeO`S `SUWabS`SR Q]`^]`ObW]\ VSOR_cO`bS`SR W\
AO\aOa 8Wbg O\R Wa bVS V]ZRW\U Q][^O\g T]` bVS C]b]K]f$G% []b]`a^]`b ^`]RcQb ZW\S& H[O`b8O`P$G%
^ObS\bSR TcSZ agabS[& O\R bVS H]\WQ <Z]e a[OZZ S\UW\S bSQV\]Z]Ug ZW\Sa $Vbb^3))eee([]b]d]f(Q][)&
O\R Vbb^3))eee(^]eS`O^b(Q][)%(
8]\bOQb
LWZZWO[ COVS`& HKF
6FI =`]c^& ?\Q&
?\dGSZ5[]b]d]f(Q][
FOcZ A\]^WQY
; " ; 8][[c\WQObW]\a
2.*(,0,(-/1.
^Y\]^WQY5SO\RSQ][[c\WQObW]\a(Q][
HEJG8; 6FI C]b]K]f =`]c^& ?\Q(
)LSP aWbS3 Vbb^3))eee([]b]d]f(Q][
)LSP aWbS3 Vbb^3))eee(^]eS`O^b(Q][
The WaII Street JournaI news department was not invoIved in the creation of this content.
Case 3:14-cv-02625-N Document 1-8 Filed 07/21/14 Page 2 of 2 PageID 35
AO 120 (Rev. 08/10)
TO:
Mail Stop 8
Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
REPORT ON THE
FILING OR DETERMINATION OF AN
ACTION REGARDING A PATENT OR
TRADEMARK
In Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 290 and/or 15 U.S.C. § 1116 you are hereby advised that a court action has been
filed in the U.S. District Court on the following
G
Trademarks or
G
Patents. (
G
the patent action involves 35 U.S.C. § 292.):
DOCKET NO. DATE FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT
PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT
PATENT OR
TRADEMARK NO.
DATE OF PATENT
OR TRADEMARK
HOLDER OF PATENT OR TRADEMARK
1
2
3
4
5
In the above—entitled case, the following patent(s)/ trademark(s) have been included:
DATE INCLUDED INCLUDED BY
G
Amendment
G
Answer
G
Cross Bill
G
Other Pleading
PATENT OR
TRADEMARK NO.
DATE OF PATENT
OR TRADEMARK
HOLDER OF PATENT OR TRADEMARK
1
2
3
4
5
In the above—entitled case, the following decision has been rendered or judgement issued:
DECISION/J UDGEMENT
CLERK (BY) DEPUTY CLERK DATE
Copy 1—Upon initiation of action, mail this copy to Director Copy 3—Upon termination of action, mail this copy to Director
Copy 2—Upon filing document adding patent(s), mail this copy to Director Copy 4—Case file copy
Case 3:14-cv-02625-N Document 1-9 Filed 07/21/14 Page 1 of 1 PageID 36
Northern District of Texas

Northern District of Texas
Monster Moto, LLC
APT Group, Inc. d/b/a MotoVox
and APT IP Holdings, LLC
D689,798 9/17/2013 APT IP Holdings, LLC
Karen Mitchell
Print Save As... Reset

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful