Max Interactive v. Devicewear - Complaint

Case 3:16-cv-06626-JSC Document 1 Filed 11/15/16 Page 1 of 7
Peter J. Schulz, Esq., SBN 167646

pjs@gtlaw.cc
Scott A. Jalowiec, Esq., SBN 288570
saj@gtlaw.cc
GRECO TRAFICANTE SCHULZ & BRICK
600 West Broadway, Suite 960
San Diego, California 92101
Tel: (619) 234-3660
Fax: (619) 234-0626
Attorneys for Plaintiff MAX INTERACTIVE, INC.
2
3
4
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
MAX INTERACTIVE, INC.,
12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
15
Case No.:
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
INFRINGEMENT
DEVICEWEAR, LLC,
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Defendant.
16
17
18
Plaintiff MAX INTERACTIVE, INC. hereby complains against DEFENDANT

DEVICEWEAR, LLC as follows:
19
20
21
22
THE PARTIES
1.
Plaintiff MAX INTERACTIVE, INC. (MAX) is a California corporation with
its principal place of business in Costa Mesa, California.

2.
Upon information and belief, DEFENDANT DEVICEWEAR, LLC
23
(DEFENDANT) is a California limited liability company with its principal place of business
24
in Rocklin, California. DEFENDANT makes, imports, advertises, offers to sell, and/or sells
25
within the United States, including in the State of California and this judicial district, products
26
incorporating MAXs patented technology and design.
27
28
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3.
This action is for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the United
CMO-005 | Max Complaint 111516
-1COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
States, Title 35 of the United States Code. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this
action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1338.
4.
MAX seeks declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. 2201 and 2202.
5.
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 35 U.S.C. 1331,
5
6
7
8
9
10
1338, 2201, and 2202.

6.
This Court has personal jurisdiction over DEFENDANT because it resides in and is
domiciled in California.
7.
Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. 1400(b) because it is the
judicial district in which DEFENDANT resides and has committed acts of infringement and has a
regular and established place of business.
11
12
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
8.
MAX is the assignee and owner of all rights, title and interest in U.S. Design Patent
13
No. D763,856 S (the 856 patent), entitled Case for an Electronic Device. The 856 patent
14
was duly and legally issued on August 16, 2016, by the United States Patent and Trademark
15
Office. A true and correct copy of the 856 patent is attached as Exhibit 1. MAX has retained
16
all rights to enforce the 856 patent.
17
9.
18
a license.
19
10.
DEFENDANT does not have a license to the 856 patent and has never held such
DEFENDANT makes, uses, advertises, offers for sale or imports products that
20
infringe the 856 patent, including the KeepSAFE Shell product and any substantially similar
21
products under any product line or item number. The products infringe on one or more valid
22
claims of the 856 patent as set forth in more detail below.
23
11.
On information and belief, DEFENDANT had actual notice of the 856 patent, and
24
its infringement of that patent, at least as early as August 16, 2016. Nevertheless, DEFENDANT
25
continued to infringe the 856 patent.
26
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
27
(Infringement of U.S. Design Patent No. D763,856 S)
28
12.
MAX incorporates by reference the paragraphs above as if set forth herein.
13.
The 856 patent is valid and enforceable.
14.
MAX is the owner, by assignment from the inventors, of all right, title and interest
3
4
in and to the 856 patent.

15.
MAX invented, designed, and sells a novel and distinct product for protecting
electronic devices including laptop computers called the Case for an Electronic Device. The
Case for an Electronic Device is designed according to the design claimed in the 856 patent.
Images of the protected product known as Extreme Shell for Apple Macbook are attached
hereto as Exhibit 2.
16.
Through its website, DEFENDANT has advertised, offered for sale, sold, and/or
10
facilitated the sale of products that infringe on the 856 patent. The product lines sold through
11
the DEFENDANTs website include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following products:
12
13
by Caseiopeia;
14
15
KeepSAFE Shell Snap On Dual Layer case for Macbook 12 in.

by Caseiopeia; and
16
17
18

by Caseiopeia.
17.
DEFENDANT advertises, offers for sale, and/or facilitates the sale of its
19
KeepSAFE Shell Snap On Dual Layer case infringing products on its website by providing
20
detailed product descriptions, pricing information, and an online purchasing platform.
21
DEFENDANT further sells or facilitates the sale of infringing products by accepting payment
22
for these products directly from consumers. On information and belief, after receiving payment
23
from consumers DEFENDANT either packs and ships the infringing product itself or works with
24
a third party to pack and ship the infringing product. Images of the infringing product are attached
25
hereto as Exhibit 3.
26
18.
Through its website and using the procedures described above, DEFENDANT
27
has advertised, offered for sale, exposed for sale, sold, and/or facilitated the sale of products that
28
infringe the 856 patent, including but not limited to those listed in Paragraph 16.
19.
An ordinary observer would conclude that the design of the infringing products is
substantially similar to the design claimed in the 856 patent, because both contain slotted rows on
the bottom, rounded edges at the corners, slightly raised edges, and two small stands affixed to a
lever on the bottom rear.
20.
DEFENDANT had actual or constructive knowledge of MAXs patent rights, knew
or should have known that the advertisement, offer for sale, exposure for sale, sale, and facilitating
of sale of the infringing products would induce actual infringement, and/or acted with deliberate
indifference to MAXs patent rights because, inter alia, MAX informed DEFENDANT of the
infringement.
10
21.
DEFENDANT has infringed and continues to infringe on the 856 patent by direct
11
infringement, contributory infringement, and/or inducing others to infringe in violation of 35
12
U.S.C. 271 and 289, through the advertising, using, selling, offering for sale, exposing for
13
sale, facilitating of sale, and/or importation of the infringing products.
14
15
16
22.
As a direct result of DEFENDANTs infringement, MAX has suffered, and will
continue to suffer, damages, irreparable harm, and impairment of the value of its patent rights.
23.
MAX is entitled to enjoin DEFENDANTs infringing acts and to recover
17
from it the damages sustained by MAX as a result of DEFENDANTs infringement and/or
18
DEFENDANTs total profits as a result of its infringement, in an amount to be proven at trial.
19
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
20
(Unlawful Conduct and Fraudulent Business Practices,
21
California Business & Professions Code 17200, et seq.)
22
24.
MAX incorporates by reference the paragraphs above as if set forth herein.
23
25.
As alleged above, DEFENDANT has advertised, offered for sale, sold, and/or
24
25
facilitated the sale of its KeepSAFE Shell Snap On Dual Layer case product line (Exhibit 3).
26.
On information and belief, products sold under the KeepSAFE Shell Snap On
26
Dual Layer case product line are a direct copy, or knock-off, of MAXs patented case line and
27
were intentionally copied in an effort to profit from MAXs commercial success, good will, and
28
business reputation.
27.
These actions violate section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. section 1125(a),
and therefore constitute unlawful conduct within the meaning of California Business &
Professions Code 17200.
28.
These actions are also likely to deceive customers regarding the origins of the
KeepSAFE Shell Snap On Dual Layer case product line and the connection of these products
to MAX and its Extreme Shell for Apple Macbook product line (Exhibit 1), and therefore
constitute fraudulent business practices within the meaning of California Business & Professions
Code 17200.
29.
As a direct and proximate result of the willful acts and conduct of DEFENDANT,
10
MAX has been harmed and has suffered financial losses. Because each of the infringing products
11
competes directly with MAXs Extreme Shell for Apple product line, the unlawful and unfair sale
12
of these products has resulted in MAXs loss of sales of the Extreme Shell for Apple product
13
line, erosion in the marketplace for laptop protective cases, and/or damages to MAXs business
14
reputation from false customer belief that MAX is associated with the infringing products.
15
30.
As a direct an proximate result of the willful acts and conduct of DEFENDANT,
16
MAX has therefore been injured and will continue to suffer irreparable injury to its business and
17
reputation unless DEFENDANT is restrained by the Court from continuing such unlawful and
18
unfair business practices and acts of unfair competition.
19
20
31.
Pursuant to California Business & Professions Code 17203, MAX is entitled to
enjoin these practices.
21
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
22
WHEREFORE, MAX prays for the following relief:
23
1.
24
25
That judgment be entered in favor of MAX that the 856 patent is infringed by
DEFENDANT in violation of 35 U.S.C. 271 and 289;

2.
That permanent injunctions be issued pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 283 enjoining
26
DEFENDANT, its officers, agents, servants, employees, and all other persons acting in concert
27
or participation with it from further infringement of the 856 patent;
28
3.
That a permanent injunction be issued pursuant to California Business &
Professions Code 17203 enjoining DEFENDANT, its officers, agents, servants, and employees,
and all other persons acting in concert or participation with it, from engaging in the identified (and
any other) acts of unfair competition underlying California Business & Professions Code 17200;
4.
That MAX be awarded all compensatory, enhanced, special, and other damages,
with prejudgment interest, that it is entitled to under the patent statutes and Lanham Act according
to proof at trial;
5.
That this case be decreed an exceptional case under the patent statutes and
Lanham Act, and that MAX be awarded trebled damages, attorneys fees, costs, and any other
remedy to which it is entitled;
10
11
12
6.
That MAX be awarded attorneys fees and costs against DEFENDANT under
California Business & Professions Code 17200; and

7.
That MAX be awarded such further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
13
14
Dated: November 15, 2016
15
By: s/ Peter J. Schulz
Peter J. Schulz, Esq.
Scott A. Jalowiec, Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
MAX INTERACTIVE, INC.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff MAX INTERACTIVE, INC. hereby demands a jury trial on all issues so triable.
3
4
Dated: November 15, 2016
5
By: s/ Peter J. Schulz
Peter J. Schulz, Esq.
Scott A. Jalowiec, Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
MAX INTERACTIVE, INC.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case 3:16-cv-06626-JSC Document 1-1 Filed 11/15/16 Page 1 of 15
EXHIBIT A1@@
EXHIBIT A2@@
EXHIBIT A3@@

Max Interactive v. Devicewear - 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

Max Interactive v. Devicewear - Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 3:16-cv-06626-JSC Document 1 Filed 11/15/16 Page 1 of 7

Peter J. Schulz, Esq., SBN 167646

Attorneys for Plaintiff MAX INTERACTIVE, INC.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MAX INTERACTIVE, INC.,

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Plaintiff MAX INTERACTIVE, INC. hereby complains against DEFENDANT

Plaintiff MAX INTERACTIVE, INC. (MAX) is a California corporation with

its principal place of business in Costa Mesa, California.

Upon information and belief, DEFENDANT DEVICEWEAR, LLC

incorporating MAXs patented technology and design.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

CMO-005 | Max Complaint 111516

-1COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Case 3:16-cv-06626-JSC Document 1 Filed 11/15/16 Page 2 of 7

action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1338.

MAX seeks declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. 2201 and 2202.

1338, 2201, and 2202.

all rights to enforce the 856 patent.

claims of the 856 patent as set forth in more detail below.

continued to infringe the 856 patent.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Infringement of U.S. Design Patent No. D763,856 S)

MAX incorporates by reference the paragraphs above as if set forth herein.

CMO-005 | Max Complaint 111516

-2COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Case 3:16-cv-06626-JSC Document 1 Filed 11/15/16 Page 3 of 7

The 856 patent is valid and enforceable.

in and to the 856 patent.

KeepSAFE Shell Snap On Dual Layer case for Macbook 12 in.

KeepSAFE Shell Snap On Dual Layer case for Macbook 11 in.

KeepSAFE Shell Snap On Dual Layer case for Macbook 13 in.

detailed product descriptions, pricing information, and an online purchasing platform.

-3COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Case 3:16-cv-06626-JSC Document 1 Filed 11/15/16 Page 4 of 7

lever on the bottom rear.

DEFENDANT had actual or constructive knowledge of MAXs patent rights, knew

infringement, contributory infringement, and/or inducing others to infringe in violation of 35

sale, facilitating of sale, and/or importation of the infringing products.

As a direct result of DEFENDANTs infringement, MAX has suffered, and will

MAX is entitled to enjoin DEFENDANTs infringing acts and to recover

from it the damages sustained by MAX as a result of DEFENDANTs infringement and/or

DEFENDANTs total profits as a result of its infringement, in an amount to be proven at trial.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Unlawful Conduct and Fraudulent Business Practices,

California Business & Professions Code 17200, et seq.)

MAX incorporates by reference the paragraphs above as if set forth herein.

-4COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Case 3:16-cv-06626-JSC Document 1 Filed 11/15/16 Page 5 of 7

Professions Code 17200.

As a direct an proximate result of the willful acts and conduct of DEFENDANT,

unfair business practices and acts of unfair competition.

Pursuant to California Business & Professions Code 17203, MAX is entitled to

enjoin these practices.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, MAX prays for the following relief:

DEFENDANT in violation of 35 U.S.C. 271 and 289;

That permanent injunctions be issued pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 283 enjoining

or participation with it from further infringement of the 856 patent;

That a permanent injunction be issued pursuant to California Business &

CMO-005 | Max Complaint 111516

-5COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Case 3:16-cv-06626-JSC Document 1 Filed 11/15/16 Page 6 of 7