Mobile Hi Tech Wheels v. TWM Wholesale - Complaint

Case 2:18-at-00173 Document 1 Filed 02/12/18 Page 1 of 9
1 THOMAS J. DALY, CA Bar No. 119684

TDaly@lrrc.com
2 DREW WILSON, CA Bar No. 283616
DWilson@lrrc.com
3 LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER CHRISTIE LLP
655 N. Central Avenue, Suite 2300
4 Glendale, CA 91203-1445
Telephone: (626) 795-9900
5 Facsimile: (626) 577-8800
6 Attorneys for Plaintiff

MOBILE HI-TECH WHEELS
7
9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
655 North Central Avenue
Glendale, CA 91203-1445
12 MOBILE HI-TECH WHEELS, Case No.
13 Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR PATENT

INFRINGEMENT
Suite 2300
14 vs.
15 TWM WHOLESALE, LLC and

TIRE & WHEEL MASTER, INC.;
16 TIRE & WHEEL MASTER, LLC;
USA WHEEL & TIRE OUTLET, INC.;
17 ASLAM PROPERTY, INC.;
HB COMMERCIAL LLC; NADEEM ASLAM;
18 and AMMAD HUSSAIN,
19 Defendants.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
101805372_3 COMPLAINT
1 I. JURISDICTION
2 1. This is an action for patent infringement in violation of the patent laws of the
3 United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq.
4 2. On information and belief, venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b),
5 1391(c)(2), and 1400(b) in that Defendants TWM Wholesale, LLC, Tire & Wheel Master,
6 LLC, Tire and & Wheel Master, Inc. and HB Commercial, LLC have their principle place of
7 business within this district, and Defendant Ammad Hussain is a resident of this district.
8 Defendant USA Wheel & Tire Outlet Inc. has a branch in California and regularly conducts
9 business in this district. A majority of the complained of acts occurred in this district.
10 II. PARTIES
11 3. Plaintiff Mobile Hi-Tech Wheels (“MHT”) is a corporation organized and
12 existing under the laws of the State of California having a principal place of business at
13 19200 South Reyes Avenue, Rancho Dominguez, California 90221.
Suite 2300
14 4. On information and belief, Defendant TWM Wholesale, LLC is a company

15 organized under the laws of the State of Delaware having a principal place of business at
16 3745 Petersen Rd., Stockton, CA 95215.
17 5. On information and belief, Defendant Tire & Wheel Master, Inc. is a
18 corporation organized under the laws of the State of California having a principal place of
19 business at 3745 Petersen Rd., Stockton, CA 95215.
20 6. On information and belief, Defendant Tire & Wheel Master, LLC is a company
21 organized under the laws of the State of California having a principal place of business at
22 3745 Petersen Rd., Stockton, CA 95215.
23 7. On information and belief, Defendant HB Commercial LLC is a company
24 organized under the laws of the State of Delaware having a principal place of business at
25 3532 Canyon Lands Rd, Stockton, CA 95209.
26 8. On information and belief, Defendant Ammad Hussain is a resident
27 of California.
28
-1-
1 9. On information and belief, Defendant USA Wheel & Tire Outlet, Inc. is a
2 corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Texas, having a principal
3 place of business in Mesquite, Texas.
4 10. On information and belief, Defendant Aslam Property, Inc. is a corporation
5 organized and existing under the laws of the state of Texas, having a principal place of business
6 in Mesquite, Texas.
7 11. On information and belief, Defendant Nadeem Aslam is a resident of Texas.
8 III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

9 12. Since 1986, MHT has been engaged and is presently engaged in the design and
10 distribution of custom wheels for automobiles. MHT’s products are sold to automobile dealers
11 and retail distributors of automobile wheels as well as to ultimate consumers throughout the
12 United States.
13 13. On February 2, 2015, MHT filed an application, Serial No. 29/516,462, with the
Suite 2300
14 PTO to obtain a design patent on a novel design for the front face of a wheel. The application
15 was filed in the name of Hale, the wheel design’s inventor, and was assigned to MHT.
16 A patent matured from this application entitled “Vehicle-Wheel Front Face,” Patent Number
17 D736,133, issued on August 11, 2015 (the “’133 Patent”). A copy of the ’133 Patent is
18 attached hereto as Exhibit A.
19 14. On February 2, 2015, MHT also filed an application, Serial No. 29/516,463 with
20 the PTO to obtain a design patent on a novel design for a spoke of the wheel claimed by the
21 ’133 Patent. The application was filed in the name of Hale, and was assigned to MHT.
22 A patent matured from this application entitled, “Spoke Segment of a Vehicle Wheel,” Patent
23 Number D736,138, issued on August 11, 2015 (the “’138 Patent”). A copy of the ’138 Patent
24 is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
25 15. On July 2, 2013, MHT filed an application, Serial No. 29/459,538, with the PTO
26 to obtain a design patent on a novel design for the front face of a wheel. The application was
27 filed in the name of Hale, the wheel design’s inventor, and was assigned to MHT. A patent
28 matured from this application entitled “Vehicle-Wheel Front Face,” Patent Number D741,241,
-2-
1 issued on October 20, 2015 (the “’241 Patent”). A copy of the ’241 Patent is attached hereto
2 as Exhibit C.
3 16. On July 1, 2013, MHT also filed an application, Serial No. 29/459,540 with the
4 PTO to obtain a design patent on a novel design for a spoke of the wheel claimed by the
5 ’241 Patent. The application was filed in the name of Hale, and was assigned to MHT.
6 A patent matured from this application entitled, “Spoke Segment of a Vehicle Wheel,” Patent
7 Number D736,136, issued on August 11, 2015 (the “’136 Patent”). A copy of the ’136 Patent
8 is attached hereto as Exhibit D.
9 17. Collectively the ’133, ’138, ’241, and ’136 Patents are referred to as
10 “MHT’s Patents.”
11 18. On information and belief, Ammad Hussain is the owner of TWM Wholesale,
12 LLC, Tire & Wheel Master, LLC, Tire & Wheel Master, Inc., and HB Commercial, LLC.
13 19. On information and belief, Tire & Wheel Master, Inc. is the parent of
Suite 2300
14 TWM Wholesale, LLC and directs the activities of TWM Wholesale LLC.
15 20. On information and belief HB Commercial, LLC owns the building which
16 TWM Wholesale, LLC, Tire & Wheel Master, LLC, Tire & Wheel Master, Inc. operate out of,
17 has knowledge of their operation, including what products they sell, and directly and materially
18 benefits from their operation.
19 21. On information and belief, Mr. Hussain directs the activities of these companies,
20 including what goods they buy and sell, and what content appears on their website.
21 22. On information and belief Nadeem Aslam is the president of defendant
22 USA Wheel & Tire Outlet, Inc. (“USA Wheel”).
23 23. On information and belief USA Wheel regularly conducts business in the state
24 of California, including this district, and has an office located at 10888 San Sevaine Way,
25 Mira Loma, CA 91752-3268.
26 24. On information and belief, Nadeem Aslam owns Aslam Property, Inc.
27
28
-3-
1 25. On information and belief, Aslam Property, Inc. owns the building where one of
2 the branches of USA Wheel operates, has knowledge of USA Wheel’s operation, including
3 what products it sells, and directly and materially benefits from its operations.
4 26. On information and belief Nadeem Aslam directs the activities of USA Wheels,
5 including what goods it buys and sells, and what content appears on its website.
6 27. On information and belief USA Wheel and TWM are related companies.
7 28. On information and belief both have an interest in the XTREME MUDDER
8 product line, as is evidenced by their listing in the “contact us” section of the XTREME
9 MUDDER website. The relevant portion of the XTREME MUDDER website is attached as
10 Exhibit E.
11 29. TWM Wholesale, LLC, Tire & Wheel Master, LLC, Tire & Wheel Master, Inc.,
12 USA Wheel & Tire Outlet, Inc., HB Commercial, LLC, Aslam Property, Inc., Nadeem Aslam,
13 and Ammad Hussain are collectively referred to as “TWM” or “Defendants.”

Suite 2300
14 30. Notwithstanding the rights of MHT in MHT’s Patents, TWM has offered for
15 sale and sold vehicle wheels which embody the patented designs claimed by MHT’s Patents.
16 As is demonstrated below, the infringing wheels are nearly identical to the designs claimed by
17 MHT’s Patents.
18 31. For example, TWM’s K9 5198 line of wheels infringe the claimed designs of the
19 ’241 and ’136 Patents.
20
21
22
23
24
25
K9 5198 ’241 Patent ’136 Patent
26
27 32. As another example, TWM/EXTREME MUDDER’s XM-318 line of wheels
28 infringe the claimed designs of the ’138 and ’133 Patents.

-4-
7 XM-318 ’133 Patent ’138 Patent

8
9 33. On February 10, 2017, counsel for MHT sent a letter to TWM demanding that it
10 cease its infringement of a number of MHT’s Patents. No response was received. By this letter
11 TWM was put on notice of MHT’s patent rights and TWM’s infringement of those rights, yet
12 TWM continued to sell the infringing wheels. A copy of this letter is attached as Exhibit F.
13 34. On information and belief, TWM received MHT’s February 10, 2017 letter.
Suite 2300
14 35. After receiving MHT’s letter, TWM’s continuing sales of the infringing wheels
15 was willful.
16 36. On June 12, 2017, after checking to determine if TWM had complied with the
17 demands of MHT’s February 10, 2017 letter, TWM sent a follow up letter, repeating those
18 demands and requesting that TWM cease its infringement of the above identified patents.
19 A copy of this letter is attached as Exhibit G.
20 37. MHT was finally contacted by TWM’s counsel in July of 2017.
21 38. After brief correspondence between the parties, TWM denied MHT’s
22 infringement allegations, and stated that it would continue to sell the infringing wheels.
23 39. MHT then made test purchases of the infringing wheels and, after comparing the
24 physical wheels against the designs claimed by MHT’s Patents, confirmed that they were
25 infringing. MHT incorporated the analysis in a letter to TWM’s counsel which was sent on
26 October 4, 2017. A copy of this letter is attached as Exhibit H.
27 40. Upon review of TWM’s websites, TWM is continuing to sell the infringing
28 wheels.
-5-
1 FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

2 (Patent Infringement)
3 41. Plaintiff repeats and realleges herein the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1
4 through 40 hereinabove.
5 42. TWM has offered for sale and sold in this district and elsewhere in the United
6 States, vehicle wheels which infringe the claims of MHT’s Patents.
7 43. By is aforesaid acts, TWM has violated 35 U.S.C. § 271 by its direct
8 infringement of MHT’s Patents and by its acts of inducing others to infringe MHT’s Patents.
9 44. MHT has been damaged by the aforesaid infringement of MHT’s Patents and
10 will be irreparably damaged unless TWM’s infringement is enjoined by this Court. Plaintiff
11 does not have an adequate remedy at law.

12 45. On information and belief, TWM’s infringement of the MHT’s Patents was
13 willful.
Suite 2300
14 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff MHT demands judgment as follows:
15 1. That this Court adjudge and declare:
16 a. that it has jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject matter of this
17 action;
18 b. that the ’133, ’138, ’241, and ’136 Patents are valid and owned by MHT;
19 c. that TWM has infringed MHT’s Patents;
20 d. that Ammad Hussain is individually liable for the infringing actions of
21 Tire & Wheel Master, Inc., Tire & Wheel Master, LLC and TWM Wholesale, LLC;
22 f. that HB Commercial, LLC is liable for the infringing actions of Tire &
23 Wheel Master, Inc., Tire & Wheel Master, LLC and TWM Wholesale, LLC;
24 g. that Nadeem Aslam is individually liable for the infringing actions of
25 USA Wheel & Tire Outlet, Inc.; and
26 h. that Aslam Property, Inc. is liable for the infringing actions of USA
27 Wheel & Tire Outlet, Inc.
28
-6-
1 2. That TWM be required by mandatory injunction to deliver to MHT for

2 destruction:
3 a. any and all wheels in TWM’s possession, custody or control embodying
4 unauthorized use of the designs shown in MHT’s Patents, as well as all promotional literature
5 and packaging which display either of the infringing designs; and
6 3. That TWM be permanently enjoined from selling the K9 5198 and XM-318 line
7 of wheels.
8 4. That Plaintiff be awarded damages covered by the acts of patent infringement of
9 TWM in an amount not less than a reasonable royalty pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 284 or in an
10 amount equal to TWM’s profits pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 289, whichever is greater, and that
11 such damages be trebled in accordance with the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 284.

12 5. That TWM pay Plaintiff prejudgment interest on all infringement damages.
13 6. That Plaintiff have and recover its costs in this action including attorney’s fees.
Suite 2300
14 7. That Plaintiff have such other or further relief as the Court may deem just
15 and proper.
16
Dated: February 12, 2018 Respectfully submitted,
17 LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER CHRISTIE LLP
18
By /s/ Thomas J. Daly
19 Thomas J. Daly
20 Attorneys for Plaintiff,

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-7-
1 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

2 Plaintiff hereby makes demand for a jury trial of this action.
3
Dated: February 12, 2018 Respectfully submitted,
4
LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER CHRISTIE LLP
5
By /s/ Thomas J. Daly
6 Thomas J. Daly
7 Attorneys for Plaintiff
8
10
11
12
13
Suite 2300
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-8-
Case 2:18-at-00173 Document 1-1 Filed 02/12/18 Page 1 of 42
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
-9-
Exhibit A
-10-
Exhibit A
-11-
Exhibit A
-12-
Exhibit B
Exhibit B
-13-
Exhibit B
-14-
Exhibit B
-15-
Exhibit C
Exhibit C
-16-
Exhibit C
-17-
Exhibit C
-18-
Exhibit C
-19-
Exhibit D
Exhibit D
-20-
Exhibit D
-21-
Exhibit D
-22-
Exhibit E
Exhibit E
-23-
Exhibit E
-24-
Exhibit E
-25-
Exhibit F
Exhibit F
-26-
Exhibit F
-27-
Exhibit F
-28-
Exhibit F
-29-
Exhibit F
-30-
Exhibit G
Thomas J. Daly
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP 655 North Central Avenue 626.795.9900 main Partner
Post Office Box 29001 Suite 2300 626.577.8800 fax Admitted in California
Glendale, CA 91209-9001 Glendale, CA 91203-1445 lrrc.com TDaly@lrrc.com
June 12, 2017
Via FedEx
Ammad Hussain
CEO of Tire & Wheel Master, Owner of TWM Wholesale, LLC
3745 Petersen Road
Stockton, CA 95215
Re: Infringement of Mobile Hi-Tech Wheels Corporation’s Intellectual Property

LRRC Ref. 408425-00574
Dear Mr. Hussain:
I write to follow up to my letter of February 10, 2017. As you know, we represent Mobile
Hi-Tech Wheels Corporation (“MHT”) with respect to its intellectual property prosecution and
enforcement.
As mentioned in my previous letter, you are offering for sale and selling a number of wheels that
infringe MHT’s intellectual property rights, including but not limited to the K9 6198 line of wheels:
The K9 6198 line of wheels infringines two of MHT’s design patents: U.S. Design Patent Nos.
D765,574, (the “’574 Patent”) and D770,353 (the “’353 Patent”). Copies of the ’574 Patent and
the ’353 Patent have been attached as Exhibits A and B for your reference.
As to the ’574 Patent, this patent covers the ornamental design of a wheel. As is demonstrated
below, your infringing K9 6198 wheel is identical or substantially similar to the ornamental
design claimed by the ’574 Patent.
Exhibit G
101511830_1 -31-
Albuquerque / Colorado Springs / Denver / Irvine / Las Vegas / Los Angeles / Phoenix / Reno / Silicon Valley / Tucson
Ammad Hussain
TWM Wholesale, LLC
June 12, 2017
Page 2
K9 6198 ’574 Patent
Similarly, the ’353 Patent claims an ornamental design for a wheel spoke. As is evident below,
your infringing K9 6198 wheel contains spokes that are identical to the ornamental design
claimed by the ’353 Patent.
K9 6198 ’574 Patent
* * *
Exhibit G
-32-
101511830_1
Ammad Hussain
TWM Wholesale, LLC
June 12, 2017
Page 3
Also as mentioned in my previous letter your A388 line of wheels infringe a number of MHT’s
design patents, including but not limited to United States Patent No. D701,811 (the “’811
Patent”) and. D701,812 (the “’812 Patent”). Copies of the ’811 Patent and the ’812 Patent are
attached as Exhibits C and D for your reference.
below, your infringing A338 wheels are identical or substantially similar to the ornamental design
claimed by the ’811 Patent.
A388 ’811 Patent
Similarly, the ’812 Patent claims an ornamental design for a wheel spoke. As is demonstrated
below, your infringing 6020 and A338 wheels contain spokes that are identical or substantially
similar to the ornamental design claimed by the ’812 Patent.
A388 6020 ’812 Patent
Exhibit G
-33-
101511830_1
Ammad Hussain
TWM Wholesale, LLC
June 12, 2017
Page 4
Also as mentioned in my previous letter, the 1103 line of wheels infringe a number of MHT’s
design patents, including but not limited to U.S. Design Patent No. D680,940S (the “’940
Patent”) and. D680,049S (the “’049 Patent”). Copies of the ’940 Patent and the ’049 Patent
have been attached as Exhibits E and F for your reference.
1103
below, your infringing 1103 line of wheels are identical or substantially similar to the ornamental
1103 ’940 Patent
Similarly, the ’049 Patent claims an ornamental design for a wheel spoke. As is demonstrated
below, your infringing 1103 wheel contains spokes that are identical or substantially similar to
the ornamental design claimed by the ’049 Patent.
1103 ’049 Patent

Exhibit G
-34-
101511830_1
Ammad Hussain
TWM Wholesale, LLC
June 12, 2017
Page 5
You were put on notice of your infringement MHT’s patents by your sales of the K9 6198, 6020,
A388 and 1103 lines of wheels as of the date of my first letter, February 10, 2017. Your
continued sales constitute willful infringement, and entitles MHT to your profits, treble damages,
and its attorney’s fees.
In addition to the aforementioned infringing products, it has recently come to our attention that
you have introduced a new line of wheels, the XM-318 series, that infringe two of MHT’s design
patents: U.S. Design Patent Nos. D736,133S, (the “133 Patent”) and D736,138S, (the “138
Patent”). Copies of the ’133 Patent and the ’138 Patent have been attached as Exhibits G
and H for your reference.
below, your infringing XM-318 wheels are identical or substantially similar to the ornamental
XM-318 ’133 Patent
Similarly, the ’138 Patent claims an ornamental design for a wheel spoke. As is evident below,
your infringing XM-318 wheels contain spokes that are identical or substantially similar to the
ornamental design claimed by the ’138 Patent.
Exhibit G
-35-
101511830_1
Ammad Hussain
TWM Wholesale, LLC
June 12, 2017
Page 6
XM-318 ’138 Patent
Given your willful infringement of MHT’s protected designs, your refusal to respond to MHT’s
correspondence, and your introduction of new infringing products, MHT hereby demands that
you:
• Immediately remove any listing, advertisement, or offer for sale for the infringing wheels.
• Identify all manufacturers, importers, vendors, or distributors of the infringing wheels.
• Identify the number of units of infringing wheels manufactured by you or on your behalf.
• Destroy your remaining inventory of infringing wheels and provide MHT with proof of
their destruction.
• Provide an accounting of all sales of infringing wheels identified by product number.
• Remit to MHT the gross profit you made selling the infringing wheels.
This is your last opportunity to resolve this matter without resort to litigation. You have 14 days
to comply with the above demands or MHT will seek to enforce its rights in Federal District
Court in California.
Nothing in this letter is intended to be a waiver of MHT’s rights, all of which are expressly
reserved.
Sincerely,
Thomas J. Daly
TJD/sdw
Enclosures
Exhibit G
-36-
101511830_1
Exhibit H
Thomas J. Daly
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP 655 North Central Avenue 626.795.9900 main Partner
Post Office Box 29001 Suite 2300 626.577.8800 fax Admitted in CA
Glendale, CA 91209-9001 Glendale, CA 91203-1445 lrrc.com tdaly@lrrc.com
October 4, 2017
Via Email With Confirmation by FedEx

aaron@apb-law.com
Aaron P. Bradford
Partner
BRADFORD, LTD
2701 Lawrence Street
Suite 104
Denver, CO 80205
Re: Tire & Wheel Masters’ Infringement of MHT’s Intellectual Property

LRRC Ref. 408425-00574
Dear Aaron:
I write to follow up to our various correspondence regarding Tire & Wheel Master’s (“TWM”)
infringement of Mobile Hi-Tech Wheels’ (“MHT”) intellectual property.
We have purchased a number of TWM’s infringing wheels, and in the interest of focusing
matters, we will direct our analysis to just two, the K9-5198 and the XM-318.
Starting with the K9-5198, the K9-5198 infringes U.S. Design Patent Nos. D741241S,
(the “’241 Patent”) and D736,136S (the “’136 Patent”). Copies of the ’241 Patent and the
’241 Patent have been attached as Exhibits A and B for your reference.
The ’241 Patent claims the ornamental design of a wheel. As is demonstrated below, your
infringing K9 5198 wheel is substantially similar to the ornamental design claimed by the
’241 Patent.
Exhibit H
102393697_1 -37-
Albuquerque / Colorado Springs / Denver / Irvine / Las Vegas / Los Angeles / Phoenix / Reno / Silicon Valley / Tucson
Aaron P. Bradford
BRADFORD, LTD
October 4, 2017
Page 2
’241 Patent K9-5198
As you can see from above, the K9-5198 wheel is nearly identical to the ornamental design
claimed by the ’241 Patent. The diameter, bevel, angle of the spokes and attachment points to
the rim are identical as is the concave hub where the wheel bolts to the car’s axel.
The attachment point between the spoke and the hub is the same, with the spoke overlapping
the outside of the rim slightly and the back of the spoke reinforced by a tapered backing that
runs along the inner portion of the rim:
’241 Patent K9-5198
Exhibit H
-38-
102393697_1
Aaron P. Bradford
BRADFORD, LTD
October 4, 2017
Page 3
The ’136 Patent claims the ornamental design of the spoke of the wheel claimed in the ’241
Patent. As the ’136 Patent only claims the spoke, the analysis is largely the same. Once again
the spokes in the K9-5198 are nearly identical to the spokes in the K9-5198 line.
Looking at just the spoke level, the diameter of the spokes are the same, the beveling is the
same, the way the spoke sits partially atop the rim is the same, and the reinforced connection
point along the back of the rim is the same:
’136 Patent K9-5198
’136 Patent K9-5198

Exhibit H
-39-
102393697_1
Aaron P. Bradford
BRADFORD, LTD
October 4, 2017
Page 4
The prior art contains significantly more differences from the designs claimed by the ’241 and
’136 Patents than the K9-5198. Also, the proper method of determining infringement of a
design patent is to compare the infringing wheels to the drawings contained within the
specification of the design patents. The K9-5198 line of wheels do not need to have every
single element match the drawings of the aforementioned patents in order for them to infringe.
Design patent infringement is determined through the “ordinary observer test” which requires
that the patented design be “substantially the same” to the ordinary observer.
Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665, 678 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
The same holds true for the XM-318 wheel as it relates to U.S. Patent Nos. D736,133S
(the “’133 Patent”) and D736,138S (the “’138 Patent”). Copies of the ’133 Patent and the
’138 Patent have been attached as Exhibits C and D for your reference. As to the ’133 Patent,
as discussed in my previous letters, the patent claims the ornamental design of a wheel. Also
as previously discussed, the ’138 Patent claims the ornamental design of the spoke of the wheel
claimed by the ’133 Patent. Again, the XM-318 is substantially similar to the design claimed by
the ‘138 and ’133 Patents:
’133 Patent XM-318
Exhibit H
-40-
102393697_1
Aaron P. Bradford
BRADFORD, LTD
October 4, 2017
Page 5
’138 Patent XM-318
As you can see from above the XM-318 is substantially similar to the ornamental design claimed
by the ’133 and ’138 Patents. The distinctive Y shaped of the spokes combined with their
concave curvature from the center of the hub conveys a substantially similar look and feel.
I understand from our previous correspondence that it is your contention that the bolts in the
inside of the Y on the XM-318 differentiate the XM-318 from the ’133 and ’138 Patents. While
the ’133 and ’138 Patents lack this feature, the overall look that the bolt gives is to convey the
impression that the area between the Y is hollow which is a feature expressly claimed by the
patents. Thus, the wheel and spoke still appear to be “substantially the same” as the designs
claimed by the ’133 and ’138 Patents. As for the hub and bolts around the outer rim, as is
obvious from the ’133 and ’138 Patents, they are in phantom and are not claimed. It does not
matter that the XM-318 lacks these bolts or has a different hub.
Here too, the prior art contains significantly more differences from the ’133 and ’138 Patents
than the XM-318 has from the Patents. While the prior art does claim some wheels with
Y-shaped spokes, the spokes lack the angularity, beveling, and concave nature of the XM-318
wheels.
Given your client’s willful infringement of MHT’s protected designs, MHT hereby demands
that TWM:
• Immediately remove any listing, advertisement, or offer for sale for the infringing wheels.
• Identify all manufacturers, importers, vendors, or distributors of the infringing wheels.
• Identify the number of units of infringing wheels manufactured by you or on your behalf.
• Destroy its remaining inventory of infringing wheels and provide MHT with proof of their
destruction.
• Provide an accounting of all sales of infringing wheels identified by product number.
• Remit to MHT the gross profit it made selling the infringing wheels.
Exhibit H
-41-
102393697_1
Aaron P. Bradford
BRADFORD, LTD
October 4, 2017
Page 6
Nothing in this letter is intended to be a waiver of MHT’s rights, all of which are expressly
reserved.
Sincerely,
Thomas J. Daly
SDW/sdw
Enclosures
Exhibits A-B
Exhibit H
-42-
102393697_1
JS 44 (Rev. 0&/16) 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 DEFENDANTS

TWM Wholesale, LLC and Tire & Wheel Master, Inc.; Tire & Wheel
Mobile Hi-Tech Wheels Master, LLC; USA Wheel & Tire Outlet, Inc.; Aslam Property, Inc.;
HB Commercial, LLC; Nadeem Aslam; and Ammad Hussain
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Los Angeles County of Residence of First Listed Defendant
(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)
Thomas J. Daly (CA Bar No. 119684); Drew Wilson (CA Bar No. 283616)
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP Tel. (626) 795-9900
655 N. Central Ave., Suite 2300, Glendale, CA 91203-1445
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (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 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State " 1 " 1 Incorporated or Principal Place " 4 " 4
of Business In This State
" 2 U.S. Government " 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State " 2 " 2 Incorporated and Principal Place " 5 " 5
Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State
Citizen or Subject of a " 3 " 3 Foreign Nation " 6 " 6

Foreign Country
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only) (8617 53>3 4<>' +/@A>3 <4 -A6@ (<23 )3?1>6=@6<;?$
CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES
" 110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY " 625 Drug Related Seizure " 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 " 375 False Claims Act
" 120 Marine " 310 Airplane " 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 " 423 Withdrawal " 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
" 130 Miller Act " 315 Airplane Product Product Liability " 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729(a))
" 140 Negotiable Instrument Liability " 367 Health Care/ " 400 State Reapportionment
" 150 Recovery of Overpayment " 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS " 410 Antitrust
& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury " 820 Copyrights " 430 Banks and Banking
" 151 Medicare Act " 330 Federal Employers’ Product Liability " 830 Patent " 450 Commerce
" 152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability " 368 Asbestos Personal " 840 Trademark " 460 Deportation
Student Loans " 340 Marine Injury Product " 470 Racketeer Influenced and
(Excludes Veterans) " 345 Marine Product Liability LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY Corrupt Organizations
" 153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY " 710 Fair Labor Standards " 861 HIA (1395ff) " 480 Consumer Credit
of Veteran’s Benefits " 350 Motor Vehicle " 370 Other Fraud Act " 862 Black Lung (923) " 490 Cable/Sat TV
" 160 Stockholders’ Suits " 355 Motor Vehicle " 371 Truth in Lending " 720 Labor/Management " 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) " 850 Securities/Commodities/
" 190 Other Contract Product Liability " 380 Other Personal Relations " 864 SSID Title XVI Exchange
" 195 Contract Product Liability " 360 Other Personal Property Damage " 740 Railway Labor Act " 865 RSI (405(g)) " 890 Other Statutory Actions
" 196 Franchise Injury " 385 Property Damage " 751 Family and Medical " 891 Agricultural Acts
" 362 Personal Injury - Product Liability Leave Act " 893 Environmental Matters
Medical Malpractice " 790 Other Labor Litigation " 895 Freedom of Information
REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS " 791 Employee Retirement FEDERAL TAX SUITS Act
" 210 Land Condemnation " 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: Income Security Act " 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff " 896 Arbitration
" 220 Foreclosure " 441 Voting " 463 Alien Detainee or Defendant) " 899 Administrative Procedure
" 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment " 442 Employment " 510 Motions to Vacate " 871 IRS—Third Party Act/Review or Appeal of
" 240 Torts to Land " 443 Housing/ Sentence 26 USC 7609 Agency Decision
" 245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations " 530 General " 950 Constitutionality of
" 290 All Other Real Property " 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - " 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION State Statutes
Employment Other: " 462 Naturalization Application
" 446 Amer. w/Disabilities - " 540 Mandamus & Other " 465 Other Immigration
Other " 550 Civil Rights Actions
" 448 Education " 555 Prison Condition
" 560 Civil Detainee -
Conditions of
Confinement
V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
" 1 Original " 2 Removed from " 3 Remanded from " 4 Reinstated or " 5 Transferred from " 6 Multidistrict " 8 Multidistrict
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District Litigation - Litigation -
(specify) Transfer Direct File
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
35 U.S.C. § 271
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:
Patent Infringement
VII. REQUESTED IN " CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. To be determined JURY DEMAND: " Yes " No
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER
DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
02/12/2018 /s/Thomas J. Daly
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

Mobile Hi Tech Wheels v. TWM Wholesale - Complaint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mobile Hi Tech Wheels v. TWM Wholesale - Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2:18-at-00173 Document 1 Filed 02/12/18 Page 1 of 9

1 THOMAS J. DALY, CA Bar No. 119684

6 Attorneys for Plaintiff

9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12 MOBILE HI-TECH WHEELS, Case No.

13 Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR PATENT

15 TWM WHOLESALE, LLC and

14 4. On information and belief, Defendant TWM Wholesale, LLC is a company

8 III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

24 is attached hereto as Exhibit B.

8 is attached hereto as Exhibit D.

18 benefits from their operation.

21 22. On information and belief Nadeem Aslam is the president of defendant

22 USA Wheel & Tire Outlet, Inc. (“USA Wheel”).

25 Mira Loma, CA 91752-3268.

13 and Ammad Hussain are collectively referred to as “TWM” or “Defendants.”

19 ’241 and ’136 Patents.

27 32. As another example, TWM/EXTREME MUDDER’s XM-318 line of wheels

28 infringe the claimed designs of the ’138 and ’133 Patents.

7 XM-318 ’133 Patent ’138 Patent

19 A copy of this letter is attached as Exhibit G.

20 37. MHT was finally contacted by TWM’s counsel in July of 2017.

26 October 4, 2017. A copy of this letter is attached as Exhibit H.

1 FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

11 does not have an adequate remedy at law.

14 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff MHT demands judgment as follows:

15 1. That this Court adjudge and declare:

19 c. that TWM has infringed MHT’s Patents;

20 d. that Ammad Hussain is individually liable for the infringing actions of

24 g. that Nadeem Aslam is individually liable for the infringing actions of

25 USA Wheel & Tire Outlet, Inc.; and

27 Wheel & Tire Outlet, Inc.

1 2. That TWM be required by mandatory injunction to deliver to MHT for

8 4. That Plaintiff be awarded damages covered by the acts of patent infringement of

11 such damages be trebled in accordance with the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 284.

12 5. That TWM pay Plaintiff prejudgment interest on all infringement damages.

20 Attorneys for Plaintiff,

1 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

June 12, 2017

Re: Infringement of Mobile Hi-Tech Wheels Corporation’s Intellectual Property

Dear Mr. Hussain:

K9 6198 ’574 Patent

K9 6198 ’574 Patent

A388 ’811 Patent

A388 6020 ’812 Patent

1103 ’940 Patent

1103 ’049 Patent

XM-318 ’133 Patent

XM-318 ’138 Patent

• Identify all manufacturers, importers, vendors, or distributors of the infringing wheels.

• Provide an accounting of all sales of infringing wheels identified by product number.

Via Email With Confirmation by FedEx

Re: Tire & Wheel Masters’ Infringement of MHT’s Intellectual Property

’241 Patent K9-5198

’241 Patent K9-5198

’136 Patent K9-5198

’136 Patent K9-5198

’133 Patent XM-318

’138 Patent XM-318

• Identify all manufacturers, importers, vendors, or distributors of the infringing wheels.

• Provide an accounting of all sales of infringing wheels identified by product number.

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS

Citizen or Subject of a " 3 " 3 Foreign Nation " 6 " 6