Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Plaintiff,
v.
Defendants.
Plaintiff AMSA, Inc. d/b/a Versacart Systems, Inc. (hereinafter "Plaintiff" or "Versacart
Systems"), by and through its undersigned counsel, for its Complaint against Defendants Advance
Carts, Inc. (“Advance”) and SuperBasket Americas, Inc. (“SuperBasket”), states as follows:
JURISDICTION
1. This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 101 et
seq., for unfair competition arising under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), and for violation
of state and common law. The Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over this case and the
parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a), and 15 U.S.C. §1221, and supplemental
2. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants as Defendants have a principal
place of business in this District, conduct business in this District, sell their infringing products in
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 2 of 66
this District, and as Versacart Systems' claims arise from tortious acts occurring in this District,
3. The Court has jurisdiction over Defendant SuperBasket under the state of Florida
Long Arm Statute, Fla. Stat. 48.193, as Defendant SuperBasket operates, conducts, engages in,
VENUE
4. Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
THE PARTIES
5. Plaintiff Versacart Systems is, and at all relevant times herein was, a corporation
duly organized and existing under the laws of the state of Colorado, having a principal place of
business at 4720 Walnut Street, Suite 105, Boulder, Colorado 80301. Plaintiff designs, imports,
exports, and distributes shopping carts and ancillary items through multiple channels throughout
6. Mr. Ivor Michael Walter and Mr. Jeroen Engel are, and at all relevant times herein
were, the inventors of the "Shopping Cart," protected by U.S. Design Patent No. D538,501, which
issued on March 13, 2007 (the "'501 Patent"). Mr. Walter and Mr. Engel have duly assigned the
7. Mr. Walter and Mr. Engel are, and at all relevant times herein were, the inventors
of the "Shopping Cart," protected by U.S. Design Patent No. D566,372, which issued on April 8,
2008 (the "'372 Patent"). Mr. Walter and Mr. Engel have duly assigned the '372 Patent to Versacart
Systems.
2
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 3 of 66
8. Mr. Walter is, and at all relevant times herein was, the inventor of the "Cart,"
protected by U.S. Design Patent No. D580,619, which issued on November 11, 2008 (the "'619
Patent"). Mr. Walter has duly assigned the '619 Patent to Versacart Systems.
9. Mr. Walter is, and at all relevant times herein was, the inventor of the "Cart,"
protected by U.S. Design Patent No. D633,269, which issued on February 22, 2011 (the "'269
Patent"). Mr. Walter has duly assigned the '269 Patent to Versacart Systems.
10. Mr. Walter and Mr. Engel are, and at all relevant times herein were, the inventors
of the "Cart," protected by U.S. Design Patent No. D638,602, which issued on May 24, 2011 (the
"'602 Patent"). Mr. Walter and Mr. Engel have duly assigned the '602 Patent to Versacart Systems.
11. Mr. Walter is, and at all relevant times herein was, the inventor of the "Cart,"
protected by U.S. Design Patent No. D639,521, which issued on June 7, 2011 (the "'521 Patent").
Mr. Walter has duly assigned the '521 Patent to Versacart Systems.
12. Mr. Walter and Mr. Ning Siu Sin are, and at all relevant times herein were, the
inventors of the "Cart," protected by U.S. Design Patent No. D644,809, which issued on September
6, 2011 (the "'809 Patent"). Mr. Walter and Mr. Sin have duly assigned the '809 Patent to Versacart
Systems.
13. Mr. Walter, Mr. Engel and Mr. Wilson Zeng are, and at all relevant times herein
were, the inventors of the "Set of Cart Baskets," protected by U.S. Design Patent No. D656,288,
which issued on March 20, 2012 (the "288 Patent"). Mr. Walter, Mr. Engel, and Mr. Zeng have
14. Mr. Walter is, and at all relevant times herein was, the inventor of the "Combined
Child Seat and Retention Flap for use with a Shopping Cart," protected by U.S. Design Patent No.
3
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 4 of 66
D658,841, which issued on May 1, 2012 (the "'841 Patent"). Mr. Walter has duly assigned the
15. Mr. Walter and Mr. Engel are, and at all relevant times herein were, the inventors
of the "Set of Cart Baskets," protected by U.S. Design Patent No. D663,091, which issued on July
3, 2012 (the "'091 Patent"). Mr. Walter and Mr. Engel have duly assigned the ‘091 Patent to
Versacart Systems.
16. Mr. Walter is, and at all relevant times herein was, the inventor of the "Cart,"
protected by U.S. Design Patent No. D700,762, which issued on March 4, 2014 (the "'762 Patent").
Mr. Walter has duly assigned the '762 Patent to Versacart Systems.
17. Mr. Walter is, and at all relevant times herein was, the inventor of the "Cart,"
protected by U.S. Design Patent No. D751,264, which issued on March 8, 2016 (the "'264 Patent").
Mr. Walter has duly assigned the '264 Patent to Versacart Systems.
18. Mr. Walter, Mr. Engel, and Mr. Zeng are, and at all relevant times herein were, the
inventors of the "Cart Basket," protected by U.S. Design Patent No. RE45,961, which issued on
April 5, 2016 (the "'’961 Reissued Patent" or “’961 Patent”). Mr. Walter, Mr. Engel, and Mr. Zeng
19. Mr. Walter, Mr. Zeng, and Mr. Paul Jensen are, and at all relevant times herein
were, the inventors of the "Cart," protected by U.S. Design Patent No. D763,536, which issued on
August 9, 2016 (the "'536 Patent"). Mr. Walter, Mr. Zeng, and Mr. Jensen have duly assigned the
20. Mr. Walter is, and at all relevant times herein was, the inventor of the "Shopping
Cart," protected by U.S. Design Patent No. RE46,268, which issued on January 10, 2017 (the "'268
4
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 5 of 66
Reissued Patent" or “’268 Patent”). Mr. Walter has duly assigned the '268 Reissued Patent to
Versacart Systems.
21. Mr. Walter, Mr. Engel, and Mr. Zeng are, and at all relevant times herein were, the
inventors of the "Set of Cart Baskets," protected by U.S. Design Patent No. RE46,281, which
issued on January 24, 2017 (the "'281 Reissued Patent" or “’281 Patent”). Mr. Walter, Mr. Engel,
and Mr. Zeng have duly assigned the ‘281 Reissued Patent to Versacart Systems.
22. Upon information and belief, Defendant Advance is, and at all relevant times herein
was, a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the state of Florida with a
principal place of business located at 2799 NW 2nd Avenue, Boca Raton, Florida 33431. Advance
conducts business in this District and has sold and presently sells infringing products in this
District.
23. Upon information and belief, Defendant Advance is an operating entity owned
100% by Defendant SuperBasket, a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the
state of Connecticut, with a principal place of business at 129 Church St., New Haven, Connecticut
06510.
24. Upon information and belief, Defendant Advance conducts business in Florida on
25. On information and belief, Defendants employ at least one common corporate
officer who resides in this district. Marcus Magnusson is identified in state corporate records as
the President of Advance and the Vice President and Secretary of SuperBasket, and lists his
residence address in Boca Raton, Florida. Mr. Magnusson is also identified as the registered agent
for Advance.
5
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 6 of 66
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
27. Beginning on or about October 2004, Versacart Systems began to market and sell
a novel cart, which is set forth and described in the '501 Patent, in the United States of America.
28. On September 7, 2005, Mr. Walter filed a United States Patent Application with
the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) to protect the ornamental design of
29. Mr. Walter assigned the subject matter of the '501 Patent to Versacart Systems in
an Assignment dated September 2, 2005. The Assignment was recorded at the USPTO on October
4, 2005.
30. On March 13, 2007, the USPTO duly and legally issued to Ivor Michel Walter U.S.
Design Patent No. D538,501. A true copy of the '501 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
31. Mr. Walter was and continues to be the first and original inventor of the invention
claimed in the '501 Patent, which is sold as Versacart Systems' EXpress6000-B (also referred to
as “EXpress 6000”). The EXpress6000-B is made of steel using round and/or oval tubing and/or
wire and molded plastic. True and correct copies of digital photographs of Versacart’s
EXpress6000-B cart and a specification sheet of the EXpress6000-B cart are attached and
32. Mr. Engel was subsequently identified as an inventor of the invention claimed in
the ‘501 Patent and assigned all right, title, and interest in the ‘501 Patent to Versacart Systems in
33. Plaintiff is, and at all relevant times mentioned herein was, the lawful assignee of
6
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 7 of 66
34. Plaintiff has not licensed nor assigned any rights under the '501 Patent to
35. Pursuant to Versacart Systems' standard business practice of marking products, the
EXpress6000-B and/or packaging was marked with notice of "patent pending" beginning in or
about September 2005, after Versacart Systems filed the application that became the '501 Patent.
36. Upon information and belief, at least as early as June, 2014 and continuing through
the present, Defendant Advance designed, manufactured, and sold its own versions of Plaintiff's
novel cart, referred to as “Xpress 90x”, as set forth and described in the '501 Patent. Defendant
Advance's Xpress 90x cart is identical or at least substantially similar in design and shape to the
cart depicted in the '501 Patent. True and correct copies of digital photographs of Defendant
Advance's imitation Xpress 90x cart are attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit 26.
37. Upon information and belief, Defendant Advance's imitation Xpress 90x cart is
marketed, sold, and offered for sale throughout the United States by Defendants, including but not
38. Beginning on or about January 2006, Versacart Systems began to market and sell a
novel cart, which is set forth and described in the '372 Patent, in the United States of America.
39. On December 14, 2006, Mr. Walter filed a United States Patent Application with
the USPTO to protect the ornamental design of the novel cart, which was entitled "Shopping Cart."
40. On January 3, 2007, Mr. Walter assigned the '372 Patent to Versacart Systems. The
41. On April 8, 2008, the USPTO duly and legally issued to Ivor Michel Walter U.S.
Design Patent No. D566,372. A true copy of the '372 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
7
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 8 of 66
42. Mr. Walter was and continues to be the first and original inventor of the invention
claimed in the ‘372 Patent, which is sold as Versacart Systems' "EXpress 3500-B" and “EXpress
3500-B-C (also referred to as “EXpress 3500”). The EXpress3500-B and EXpress 3500-B-C are
made of steel using round and/or oval tubing and/or wire and molded plastic. True and correct
copies of digital photographs of Versacart’s EXpress3500-B and EXpress 3500-B-C carts and
specification sheets thereof are attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit 18.
43. Mr. Engel was subsequently identified as an inventor of the invention claimed in
the ‘372 Patent and assigned all right, title, and interest in the ‘372 Patent to Versacart Systems in
44. Plaintiff is, and at all relevant times mentioned herein was, the lawful assignee of
45. Plaintiff has not licensed nor assigned any rights under the '372 Patent to
46. Pursuant to Versacart Systems' standard business practice of marking products, the
EXpress3500-B and/or packaging was marked with notice of "patent pending" beginning in or
about December, 2006, after Versacart Systems filed the application that became the '372 Patent.
47. Upon information and belief, at least as early as June, 2014 and continuing through
the present, Defendant Advance designed, manufactured, and sold its own versions of Plaintiff's
novel cart, referred to as “Xpress 55x,” “Xpress 65x,” and “Xpress 65xc,” as set forth and
described in the '372 Patent. Defendant Advance's Xpress 55x, 65x, and 65xc carts are identical
or at least substantially similar in design and shape to the cart depicted in the '372 Patent. True
and correct copies of digital photographs of Defendant Advance's imitation Xpress 55x, 65x, and
65xc carts and specification sheets thereof are attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit 27.
8
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 9 of 66
48. Upon information and belief, Defendant Advance's imitation Xpress 55x, 65x, and
65xc carts are marketed, sold, and offered for sale throughout the United States by Defendants,
49. Beginning on or about February, 2007, Versacart Systems began to market and sell
a novel cart, which is set forth and described in the '619 Patent, in the United States of America.
50. On January 30, 2008, Mr. Walter filed a United States Patent Application with the
United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") to protect the ornamental design of this
51. Mr. Walter assigned the subject matter of the '619 Patent to Versacart Systems in
an Assignment dated January 29, 2008. The Assignment was recorded at the USPTO on January
30, 2008.
52. On September 6, 2011, the USPTO duly and legally issued to Ivor Michel Walter
U.S. Design Patent No. D580,619. A true copy of the '619 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 3.
53. Mr. Walter was and continues to be the first and original inventor of the invention
claimed in the '619 Patent, which is sold as Versacart Systems' "EXpress5050-B" (also referred to
as “EXpress5050”). The EXpress5050-B is made of steel using round and/or oval tubing and/or
wire and molded plastic. True and correct copies of digital photographs of Versacart’s
EXpress5050-B cart and a specification sheet of the EXpress5050-B cart are attached and
54. Plaintiff is, and at all relevant times mentioned herein was, the lawful assignee of
9
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 10 of 66
55. Plaintiff has not licensed nor assigned any rights under the '619 Patent to
56. Pursuant to Versacart Systems' standard business practice of marking products, the
EXpress5050-B and/or packaging was marked with notice of "patent pending" beginning in or
about January, 2008 after Versacart Systems filed the application that became the '619 Patent.
57. Upon information and belief, at least as early as June, 2014 and continuing through
the present, Defendant Advance designed, manufactured, and sold its own versions of Plaintiff's
novel cart, referred to as “Xpress 100x”, as set forth and described in the '619 Patent. Defendant
Advance's Xpress 100x cart is identical or at least substantially similar in design and shape to the
cart depicted in the '619 Patent. True and correct copies of digital photographs of Defendant
Advance's Xpress 100x imitation of Plaintiff's novel cart, and a specification sheet of the Xpress
100x cart, taken directly from Defendant’s website, are attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit
28.
58. Upon information and belief, Defendant Advance's imitation Xpress Series 100x
cart is used, marketed, sold, and offered for sale by Defendants throughout the United States,
59. Beginning on or about November, 2008, Versacart Systems began to market and
sell a novel cart, which is set forth and described in the '269 Patent, in the United States of America.
60. On October 22, 2009, Mr. Walter filed a United States Patent Application with the
USPTO to protect the ornamental design of this cart, which was entitled "Cart."
10
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 11 of 66
61. Mr. Walter assigned the subject matter of the '269 Patent to Versacart Systems in
an Assignment dated October 22, 2009. The Assignment was recorded at the USPTO on October
22, 2009.
62. On February 22, 2011, the USPTO duly and legally issued to Ivor Michel Walter
U.S. Design Patent No. D633,269. A true copy of the '269 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 4.
63. Mr. Walter was and continues to be the first and original inventor of the invention
claimed in the '269 Patent, which is sold as Versacart Systems' EXpress6000-B. See Exhibit 17.
64. Plaintiff is, and at all relevant times mentioned herein was, the lawful assignee of
65. Plaintiff has not licensed nor assigned any rights under the '269 Patent to
66. Pursuant to Versacart Systems' standard business practice of marking products, the
EXpress6000-B and/or packaging was marked with notice of "patent pending" beginning in or
about October 2006, after Versacart Systems filed the application that became the '269 Patent.
67. Upon information and belief, at least as early as June 2014 and continuing through
the present, Defendant Advance designed, manufactured, and sold its own versions of Plaintiff's
novel cart, referred to as “Xpress 110x”, as set forth and described in the '542 Patent. Defendant
Advance's Xpress 110x cart is identical or at least substantially similar in design and shape to the
cart depicted in the '269 Patent. True and correct copies of digital photographs of Defendant
Advance's imitation Xpress 110x cart of Plaintiff's novel cart, taken directly from Plaintiff’s
website, and a specification sheet of the Xpress 110x cart, are attached and incorporated herein as
Exhibit 29.
11
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 12 of 66
68. Upon information and belief, Defendant Advance's imitation Xpress 110x cart is
marketed, sold, and offered for sale by Defendants throughout the United States, including but not
69. Beginning on or about November, 2009, Versacart Systems began to market and
sell a novel cart, which is set forth and described in the '602 Patent, in the United States of America.
70. On October 27, 2010, Mr. Walter filed a United States Patent Application with the
United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") to protect the ornamental design of this
71. Mr. Walter assigned the subject matter of the '602 Patent to Versacart Systems in
an Assignment dated October 27, 2010. The Assignment was recorded at the USPTO on
November, 2010.
72. On May 24, 2011, the USPTO duly and legally issued to Ivor Michel Walter U.S.
Design Patent No. D638,602. A true copy of the '602 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 5.
73. Mr. Walter was and continues to be the first and original inventor of the invention
claimed in the '602 Patent, which is sold as Versacart Systems' "EXpress5050-B". The
EXpress5050-B is made of steel using round and/or oval tubing and/or wire and molded plastic.
74. Mr. Engel was subsequently identified as an inventor of the invention claimed in
the ‘602 Patent and assigned all right, title, and interest in the ‘602 Patent to Versacart Systems in
an Assignment dated February 15, 2016 and recorded on April 25, 2016.
75. Plaintiff is, and at all relevant times mentioned herein was, the lawful assignee of
12
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 13 of 66
76. Plaintiff has not licensed nor assigned any rights under the '602 Patent to
77. Pursuant to Versacart Systems' standard business practice of marking products, the
EXpress5050-B and/or packaging was marked with notice of "patent pending" beginning in or
about October, 2010 after Versacart Systems filed the application that became the '602 Patent.
78. Upon information and belief, at least as early as June, 2014 and continuing through
the present, Defendant Advance designed, manufactured, and sold its own versions of Plaintiff's
novel cart, referred to as “Xpress 100x”, as set forth and described in the '602 Patent. Defendant
Advance's Xpress 100x cart is identical or at least substantially similar in design and shape to the
cart depicted in the '602 Patent. True and correct copies of digital photographs of Defendant
Advance's Xpress 100x imitation of Plaintiff's novel cart, and a specification sheet of the Xpress
100x cart, taken directly from Defendant’s website, are attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit
28.
79. Upon information and belief, Defendant Advance's imitation Xpress 100x cart is
used, marketed, sold, and offered for sale by Defendants throughout the United States, including
80. Beginning on or about December, 2009, Versacart Systems began to market and
sell a novel cart, which is set forth and described in the '521 Patent, in the United States of America.
81. On November 15, 2010, Mr. Walter filed a United States Patent Application with
the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") to protect the ornamental design of this
13
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 14 of 66
82. Mr. Walter assigned the subject matter of the '521 Patent to Versacart Systems in
an Assignment dated November 15, 2010. The Assignment was recorded at the USPTO on
83. On June 7, 2011, the USPTO duly and legally issued to Ivor Michel Walter U.S.
Design Patent No. D639,521. A true copy of the '521 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 6.
84. Mr. Walter was and continues to be the first and original inventor of the invention
claimed in the '521 Patent, which is sold as Versacart Systems' "EXpress7050". The EXpress7050
is made of steel using round and/or oval tubing and/or wire and molded plastic. True and correct
copies of digital photographs of Versacart’s EXpress7050 cart and a specification sheet for the
85. Plaintiff is, and at all relevant times mentioned herein was, the lawful assignee of
86. Plaintiff has not licensed nor assigned any rights under the '521 Patent to
87. Pursuant to Versacart Systems' standard business practice of marking products, the
EXpress7050 and/or packaging was marked with notice of "patent pending" beginning in or about
November, 2010 after Versacart Systems filed the application that became the '521 Patent.
88. Upon information and belief, at least as early as June, 2014 and continuing through
the present, Defendant Advance designed, manufactured, and sold its own versions of Plaintiff's
novel cart, referred to as “Xpress 130xc,” as set forth and described in the '521 Patent. Defendant
Advance's Xpress 130xc cart is identical or at least substantially similar in design and shape to the
cart depicted in the '521 Patent. True and correct copies of digital photographs of Defendant
14
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 15 of 66
Advance's Xpress 130xc imitation of Plaintiff's novel cart, and a specification of the Xpress 130xc
cart, taken directly from Defendant’s website, are attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit 30.
89. Upon information and belief, Defendant Advance's imitation Xpress 130xc cart is
used, marketed, sold, and offered for sale by Defendants throughout the United States, including
90. Beginning on or about December, 2009, Versacart Systems began to market and
sell a novel cart, which is set forth and described in the '809 Patent, in the United States of America.
91. On December 1, 2010, Mr. Walter filed a United States Patent Application with the
United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") to protect the ornamental design of this
92. Mr. Walter assigned the subject matter of the '809 Patent to Versacart Systems in
an Assignment dated November 30, 2010. The Assignment was recorded at the USPTO on
December 1, 2010. Subsequently, Mr. Ning Siu Sin was identified as an inventor of the invention
claimed in the ‘809 Patent, and he then assigned the subject matter of the ‘809 patent to Versacart
93. On September 6, 2011, the USPTO duly and legally issued to Ivor Michel Walter
U.S. Design Patent No. D644,809. A true copy of the '809 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 7.
94. Mr. Walter was and continues to be the first and original inventor of the invention
claimed in the '809 Patent, which is sold as Versacart Systems' "EXpress6000-C" (also referred to
oval tubing and/or wire and molded plastic. True and correct copies of digital photographs of
15
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 16 of 66
Versacart’s EXpress6000-C cart and a specification sheet of the EXpress6000-C cart are attached
95. Plaintiff is, and at all relevant times mentioned herein was, the lawful assignee of
96. Plaintiff has not licensed nor assigned any rights under the '809 Patent to
97. Pursuant to Versacart Systems' standard business practice of marking products, the
EXpress6000-C and/or packaging was marked with notice of "patent pending" beginning in or
about December, 2010 after Versacart Systems filed the application that became the '809 Patent.
98. Upon information and belief, at least as early as June, 2014 and continuing through
the present, Defendant Advance designed, manufactured, and sold its own versions of Plaintiff's
novel cart, referred to as “Xpress 110xc”, as set forth and described in the '809 Patent. Defendant
Advance's Xpress 110xc cart is identical or at least substantially similar in design and shape to the
cart depicted in the '809 Patent. True and correct copies of digital photographs of Defendant
Advance's Xpress 110xc imitation of Plaintiff's novel cart, and a specification sheet of the Xpress
110xc cart, taken directly from Plaintiff’s website, are attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit
31.
99. Upon information and belief, Defendant Advance's imitation Xpress 110xc cart is
used, marketed, sold, and offered for sale by Defendants throughout the United States, including
100. Beginning on or about April 2010, Versacart Systems began to market and sell a
novel cart, which is set forth and described in the '288 Patent, in the United States of America.
16
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 17 of 66
101. On March 23, 2011, Mr. Walter filed a United States Patent Application with the
United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") to protect the ornamental design of this
102. Mr. Walter assigned the subject matter of the '288 Patent to Versacart Systems in
an Assignment dated March 23, 2011. The Assignment was recorded at the USPTO on March 23,
2011.
103. On March 20, 2012, the USPTO duly and legally issued to Ivor Michel Walter U.S.
Design Patent No. D656,288. A true copy of the '288 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 8.
104. Mr. Walter was and continues to be the first and original inventor of the invention
claimed in the '288 Patent, which is sold as Versacart Systems' "TT-100-S-T". The TT-100-S-T
baskets are made of molded plastic having a plurality of holes on each of the sides. True and correct
copies of digital photographs of Versacart’s TT-100-S-T cart are attached and incorporated herein
as Exhibit 22.
105. Mr. Engel and Mr. Zeng were subsequently identified as inventors of the invention
106. Mr. Zeng assigned all right, title, and interest in the ‘288 Patent to Versacart
Systems in an Assignment dated February 15, 2016 and recorded on April 18, 2016.
107. Mr. Engel assigned all right, title, and interest in the ‘288 Patent to Versacart
108. Plaintiff is, and at all relevant times mentioned herein was, the lawful assignee of
109. Plaintiff has not licensed nor assigned any rights under the '288 Patent to
17
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 18 of 66
110. Pursuant to Versacart Systems' standard business practice of marking products, the
TT-100-S-T and/or packaging was marked with notice of "patent pending" beginning in or about
March, 2011 after Versacart Systems filed the application that became the '288 Patent.
111. Upon information and belief, at least as early as June, 2014 and continuing through
the present, Defendant Advance designed, manufactured, and sold its own versions of Plaintiff's
novel cart baskets, referred to as “105px”, as set forth and described in the '288 Patent. Defendant
Advance's 105px cart baskets are identical or at least substantially similar in design and shape to
the cart baskets depicted in the '288 Patent. True and correct copies of digital photographs of
Defendant Advance's 105px imitation of Plaintiff's novel cart, and a specification sheet of the
Xpress 105px cart, taken directly from Defendant’s website, are attached and incorporated herein
as Exhibit 32.
112. Upon information and belief, Defendant Advance's imitation 105px cart baskets are
used, marketed, sold, and offered for sale by Defendants throughout the United States, including
113. Beginning on or about October, 2010, Versacart Systems began to market and sell
a novel cart, which is set forth and described in the '841 Patent, in the United States of America.
114. On September 21, 2011, Mr. Walter filed a United States Patent Application with
the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") to protect the ornamental design of this
cart, which was entitled "Combined Child Seat and Retention Flap for Use with a Shopping Cart.”
115. Mr. Walter assigned the subject matter of the '841 Patent to Versacart Systems in
an Assignment dated September 21, 2011. The Assignment was recorded at the USPTO on
18
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 19 of 66
116. On May 1, 2012, the USPTO duly and legally issued to Ivor Michel Walter U.S.
Design Patent No. D658,841. A true copy of the '841 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 9.
117. Mr. Walter was and continues to be the first and original inventor of the invention
claimed in the '841 Patent, which is sold as Versacart Systems' "EXpress7050". The EXpress7050
is made of steel using round and/or oval tubing and/or wire and molded plastic and has a child seat
and retention flap as set forth in the ‘841 Patent. See Exhibit 20.
118. Plaintiff is, and at all relevant times mentioned herein was, the lawful assignee of
119. Plaintiff has not licensed nor assigned any rights under the '841 Patent to
120. Pursuant to Versacart Systems' standard business practice of marking products, the
EXpress7050 and/or packaging was marked with notice of "patent pending" beginning in or about
September, 2011 after Versacart Systems filed the application that became the '841 Patent.
121. Upon information and belief, at least as early as June, 2014 and continuing through
the present, Defendant Advance designed, manufactured, and sold its own versions of Plaintiff's
novel cart, referred to as “Xpress 130xc,” having the child seat and retention flap as set forth and
described in the '841 Patent. Defendant Advance's Xpress 130xc cart’s child seat and retention
flap is identical or at least substantially similar in design and shape to the child seat and retention
122. Upon information and belief, Defendant Advance's imitation Xpress 130xc cart
with child seat and retention flap is used, marketed, sold, and offered for sale by Defendants
throughout the United States, including but not limited to within the state of Florida.
19
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 20 of 66
123. Beginning on or about April, 2011, Versacart Systems began to market and sell a
novel cart, which is set forth and described in the '091 Patent, in the United States of America.
124. On March 19, 2012, Mr. Walter filed a United States Patent Application with the
United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") to protect the ornamental design of this
125. Mr. Walter assigned the subject matter of the '091 Patent to Versacart Systems in
an Assignment dated November 30, 2010. The Assignment was recorded at the USPTO on
December 1, 2010.
126. On July 3, 2012, the USPTO duly and legally issued to Ivor Michel Walter U.S.
Design Patent No. D633,091. A true copy of the '091 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 10.
127. Mr. Walter was and continues to be the first and original inventor of the invention
claimed in the '091 Patent, which is sold as Versacart Systems' "TT-100-S-T". The Express TT-
100-S-T baskets are made of molded plastic having a plurality of holes on each of the sides. See
Exhibit 22.
128. Mr. Engel was subsequently identified as an inventor of the invention claimed in
129. Mr. Engel assigned all right, title, and interest in the ‘091 Patent to Versacart
130. Plaintiff is, and at all relevant times mentioned herein was, the lawful assignee of
131. Plaintiff has not licensed nor assigned any rights under the '091 Patent to
20
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 21 of 66
132. Pursuant to Versacart Systems' standard business practice of marking products, the
TT-100-S-T and/or packaging was marked with notice of "patent pending" beginning in or about
March, 2012 after Versacart Systems filed the application that became the '091 Patent.
133. Upon information and belief, at least as early as June, 2014 and continuing through
the present, Defendant Advance designed, manufactured, and sold its own versions of Plaintiff's
novel cart, referred to as “105px”, as set forth and described in the '091 Patent. Defendant
Advance's 105px cart is identical or at least substantially similar in design and shape to the cart
depicted in the '091 Patent. True and correct copies of digital photographs of Defendant Advance's
Xpress 105px imitation of Plaintiff's novel cart, and a specification of the Advance 105px cart,
taken directly from Defendant’s website, are attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit 32.
134. Upon information and belief, Defendant Advance's imitation 105px cart is used,
marketed, sold, and offered for sale by Defendants throughout the United States, including but not
135. Beginning on or about November, 2011, Versacart Systems began to market and
sell a novel cart, which is set forth and described in the '762 Patent, in the United States of America.
136. On October 18, 2012, Mr. Walter filed a United States Patent Application with the
United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") to protect the ornamental design of this
137. Mr. Walter assigned the subject matter of the '762 Patent to Versacart Systems in
an Assignment dated October 17, 2012. The Assignment was recorded at the USPTO on
21
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 22 of 66
138. On March 4, 2014, the USPTO duly and legally issued to Ivor Michel Walter U.S.
Design Patent No. D700,762. A true copy of the '762 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 11.
139. Mr. Walter was and continues to be the first and original inventor of the invention
claimed in the '762 Patent, which is sold as Versacart Systems' "TT-150" and “TT-175.” The TT-
150 and TT-175 each have a top basket made of colorful molded plastic and having rounded
corners and a plurality of holes on its sides. They also have a lower grated platform made of
rounded steel tubing. True and correct copies of digital photographs and specification sheets of
Versacart’s TT-150 and TT-175 carts are attached and incorporated herein as Exhibits 23 and 24.
140. Plaintiff is, and at all relevant times mentioned herein was, the lawful assignee of
141. Plaintiff has not licensed nor assigned any rights under the '762 Patent to
142. Pursuant to Versacart Systems' standard business practice of marking products, the
TT-150 and TT-175 and/or packaging was marked with notice of "patent pending" beginning in
or about October, 2012 after Versacart Systems filed the application that became the '762 Patent.
143. Upon information and belief, at least as early as June, 2014 and continuing through
the present, Defendant Advance designed, manufactured, and sold its own versions of Plaintiff's
novel carts, referred to as “55px” and “105px,” as set forth and described in the '762 Patent.
Defendant Advance's 55px and 105px carts are identical or at least substantially similar in design
and shape to the cart depicted in the '762 Patent. See Exhibits 33 and 32.
144. Upon information and belief, Defendant Advance's imitation 55px and 105px carts
are used, marketed, sold, and offered for sale by Defendants throughout the United States,
22
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 23 of 66
145. Beginning on or about December 2013, Versacart Systems began to market and sell
a novel cart, which is set forth and described in the '264 Patent, in the United States of America.
146. On November 19, 2014, Mr. Walter filed a United States Patent Application with
the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") to protect the ornamental design of this
147. Mr. Walter assigned the subject matter of the '264 Patent to Versacart Systems in
an Assignment dated November 19, 2014. The Assignment was recorded at the USPTO on
148. On March 8, 2016, the USPTO duly and legally issued to Ivor Michel Walter U.S.
Design Patent No. D751,264. A true copy of the '264 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 12.
149. Mr. Walter was and continues to be the first and original inventor of the invention
claimed in the '264 Patent, which is sold as Versacart Systems' "C-160". The C-160 is made of
steel using round and/or oval tubing and/or wire and molded plastic. True and correct copies of
digital photographs of Versacart’s C-160 cart and a specification sheet of the C-160 cart are
150. Plaintiff is, and at all relevant times mentioned herein was, the lawful assignee of
151. Plaintiff has not licensed nor assigned any rights under the '264 Patent to
152. Pursuant to Versacart Systems' standard business practice of marking products, the
C-160 and/or packaging was marked with notice of "patent pending" beginning in or about
November, 2014 after Versacart Systems filed the application that became the '264 Patent.
23
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 24 of 66
153. Upon information and belief, at least as early as June, 2014 and continuing through
the present, Defendant Advance designed, manufactured, and sold its own versions of Plaintiff's
novel cart, referred to as “100Z,” “140Z” “160Z,” “180Z” and “210Z,” as set forth and described
in the '264 Patent. Defendant Advance's 100Z, 140Z, 160Z, 180Z, and 210Z carts are identical or
at least substantially similar in design and shape to the cart depicted in the '264 Patent. True and
correct copies of digital photographs and/or specification sheets of Defendant Advance's imitations
of Plaintiff's novel cart, taken directly from Defendant’s website, are attached and incorporated
154. Upon information and belief, Defendant Advance's imitation 100Z, 140Z, 160Z,
180Z, and 210Z carts are used, marketed, sold, and offered for sale by Defendants throughout the
United States, including but not limited to within the state of Florida.
155. Beginning on or about April, 2010, Versacart Systems began to market and sell a
novel cart, which is set forth and described in the '961 Reissued Patent, in the United States of
America.
156. On March 24, 2011, Mr. Walter filed a United States Patent Application with the
USPTO to protect the ornamental design of the novel cart, which was entitled "Set of Cart
Baskets."
157. On March 24, 2011, Mr. Walter assigned the Patent Application that would become
the '700 Patent to Versacart Systems. The Assignment was recorded at the USPTO on March 24,
2011.
158. On March 27, 2012, the USPTO duly and legally issued to Ivor Michel Walter U.S.
24
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 25 of 66
159. On April 5, 2016, the USPTO duly and legally reissued the ’700 patent as U.S.
Design Patent No. RE45,961. A true copies of the ‘961 Reissued Patent is attached hereto as
Exhibit 13.
160. Mr. Walter was and continues to be the first and original inventor of the novel cart,
which is sold as Versacart Systems' "TT-100-S-T". The TT-100-S-T has a top basket made of
plastic and having rounded corners and a plurality of holes on its sides. See Exhibit 22.
161. Mr. Engel and Mr. Zeng were subsequently identified as inventors of the invention
claimed in the ‘961 Patent and assigned all right, title, and interest in the ‘961 Patent to Versacart
162. Plaintiff is, and at all relevant times mentioned herein was, the lawful assignee of
163. Plaintiff has not licensed nor assigned any rights under the ‘700 or '961 Patents to
164. Pursuant to Versacart Systems' standard business practice of marking products, the
TT-100-S-T and/or packaging was marked with notice of "patent pending" beginning in or about
March 2011, after Versacart Systems filed the application that became the '700 and ‘961 Patents.
165. Upon information and belief, at least as early as June, 2014 and continuing through
the present, Defendant Advance designed, manufactured, and sold its own versions of Plaintiff's
novel cart, referred to as “55px,” and “55pxc” as set forth and described in the '’700 and ‘961
Patents. Defendant Advance's 55px and 55pxc carts are identical or at least substantially similar
in design and shape to the cart depicted in the '700 and ‘961 Patents. See Exhibits 33 and 36.
25
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 26 of 66
166. Upon information and belief, Defendant Advance's imitation 55px and 55pxc carts
are marketed, sold, and offered for sale throughout the United States by Defendants, including but
167. Beginning on or about February 2014, Versacart Systems began to market and sell
a novel cart, which is set forth and described in the '536 Patent, in the United States of America.
168. On January 12, 2015, Mr. Walter, Mr. Paul Jensen, and Mr. Zeng filed a United
States Patent Application with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") to
protect the ornamental design of this cart, which was entitled "Cart."
169. Mr. Walter, Mr. Jensen, and Mr. Zeng assigned the subject matter of the '536 Patent
to Versacart Systems in Assignments dated February 18, 2015. The Assignments were recorded
170. On August 9, 2016, the USPTO duly and legally issued to Ivor Michel Walter, Paul
Jensen and Wilson Zeng U.S. Design Patent No. D763,536. A true copy of the '536 Patent is
171. Mr. Walter, Mr. Jensen, and Mr. Zeng were and continue to be the first and original
inventors of the invention claimed in the '536 Patent, which is sold as Versacart Systems' "C-160".
The C-160 is made of steel using round and/or oval tubing and/or wire and molded plastic. See
Exhibit 25.
172. Plaintiff is, and at all relevant times mentioned herein was, the lawful assignee of
173. Plaintiff has not licensed nor assigned any rights under the '536 Patent to
26
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 27 of 66
174. Pursuant to Versacart Systems' standard business practice of marking products, the
Express C-160 and/or packaging was marked with notice of "patent pending" beginning in or about
January, 2015 after Versacart Systems filed the application that became the ‘536 Patent.
175. Upon information and belief, at least as early as June, 2014 and continuing through
the present, Defendant Advance designed, manufactured, and sold its own versions of Plaintiff's
novel cart, referred to as “100Z,” “140Z” “160Z,” “180Z,” and “210Z,” as set forth and described
in the '536 Patent. Defendant Advance's 100Z, 140Z, 160Z, 180Z, and 210Z carts are identical or
at least substantially similar in design and shape to the cart depicted in the '536 Patent. See Exhibit
35.
176. Upon information and belief, Defendant Advance's imitation 100Z, 140Z, 160Z,
180Z, and 210Z carts are used, marketed, sold, and offered for sale by Defendants throughout the
United States, including but not limited to within the state of Florida.
177. Beginning on or about April, 2011, Versacart Systems began to market and sell a
novel cart, which is set forth and described in the '268 Reissued Patent, in the United States of
America.
178. On April 3, 2012, Mr. Walter filed a United States Patent Application with the
USPTO to protect the ornamental design of the novel cart, which was entitled "Shopping Cart.”
179. On April 2, 2012, Mr. Walter assigned the Patent Application that would become
the '972 Patent to Versacart Systems. The Assignment was recorded at the USPTO on October 8,
2015.
180. On July 9, 2013, the USPTO duly and legally issued to Ivor Michel Walter U.S.
27
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 28 of 66
181. On January 10, 2017, the USPTO duly and legally reissued the ’972 patent as U.S.
Design Patent No. RE46,268. A true copy of the ‘268 Reissued Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit
15.
182. Mr. Walter was and continues to be the first and original inventor of the novel cart,
which is sold as Versacart Systems' "EXpress6000-C". The EXpress6000-C is made of steel using
round and/or oval tubing and/or wire and molded plastic, and has a top and bottom basket
183. Plaintiff is, and at all relevant times mentioned herein was, the lawful assignee of
184. Plaintiff has not licensed nor assigned any rights under the ‘972 or '268 Patents to
185. Pursuant to Versacart Systems' standard business practice of marking products, the
EXpress6000-C and/or packaging was marked with notice of "patent pending" beginning in or
about April 2012, after Versacart Systems filed the application that became the '972 and ‘268
Patents.
186. Upon information and belief, at least as early as June, 2014 and continuing through
the present, Defendant Advance designed, manufactured, and sold its own versions of Plaintiff's
novel cart, referred to as “Xpress 110x,” and “Xpress 110xc” as set forth and described in the '972
and ‘268 Patents. Defendant Advance's Xpress 110x and 110xc carts are identical or at least
substantially similar in design and shape to the cart depicted in the '972 and ‘268 Patents. See
28
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 29 of 66
187. Upon information and belief, Defendant Advance's imitation Xpress 110x and
110xc carts are marketed, sold, and offered for sale throughout the United States by Defendants,
188. Beginning on or about April, 2010, Versacart Systems began to market and sell a
novel cart, which is set forth and described in the '281 Reissued Patent, in the United States of
America.
189. On March 24, 2011, Mr. Walter filed a United States Patent Application with the
USPTO to protect the ornamental design of the novel cart, which was entitled "Set of Cart
Baskets".
190. On March 24, 2011 Mr. Walter assigned the Patent Application that would become
the '700 Patent to Versacart Systems. The Assignment was recorded at the USPTO on March 24,
2011.
191. On March 27, 2012, the USPTO duly and legally issued to Ivor Michel Walter U.S.
192. On January 24, 2017, the USPTO duly and legally reissued the ’700 patent as U.S.
Design Patent No. RE46,281. A true copy of the ‘281 Reissued Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit
16.
193. Mr. Walter was and continues to be the first and original inventor of the novel cart,
which is sold as Versacart Systems' "TT-100-S-T". The TT-100-S-T has a top basket made of
plastic and having rounded corners and a plurality of holes on its sides. See Exhibit 22.
194. Mr. Engel and Mr. Zeng were subsequently identified as inventors of the invention
29
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 30 of 66
195. Mr. Engel assigned all right, title, and interest in the ‘281 Patent to Versacart
Systems in an Assignment dated May 22, 2016 and recorded on May 27, 2016.
196. Mr. Zeng assigned all right, title, and interest in the ‘281 Patent to Versacart
Systems in an Assignment dated May 26, 2016 and recorded on May 27, 2016.
197. Plaintiff is, and at all relevant times mentioned herein was, the lawful assignee of
198. Plaintiff has not licensed nor assigned any rights under the ‘700 or '281 Patents to
199. Pursuant to Versacart Systems' standard business practice of marking products, the
TT-100-S-T and/or packaging was marked with notice of "patent pending" beginning in or about
March 2011, after Versacart Systems filed the application that became the '700 and ‘281 Patents.
200. Upon information and belief, at least as early as June, 2014 and continuing through
the present, Defendant Advance designed, manufactured, and sold its own versions of Plaintiff's
novel cart, referred to as “55px,” and “55pxc” as set forth and described in the '’700 and ‘281
Patents. Defendant Advance's 55px and 55pxc carts are identical or at least substantially similar
in design and shape to the cart depicted in the '700 and ‘281 Patents. See Exhibits 33 and 35.
201. Upon information and belief, Defendant Advance's imitation 55px and 55pxc carts
are marketed, sold, and offered for sale throughout the United States by Defendants, including but
202. Plaintiff is, and at all relevant times mentioned herein was, the lawful owner of the
valid and protectable trade dress associated with its novel shopping cart, which includes features
30
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 31 of 66
in the size, colors, texture, finish, and choice of material, associated with Versacart Systems'
EXpress6000-B. The EXpress6000-B trade dress includes, by way of example, the composite
image created by the carts in the EXpress6000 series, the frame made of steel, the use of
rectangular steel tubing in the frame, the use of coated metal wire in the basket, the use of round
and/or oval tubing and/or wire, the use of molded plastic on portions of the frame, and the
203. Defendant Advance’s Xpress 90x and 110x carts closely resemble the
characteristics of visual appearance of the Plaintiff’s EXpres 6000 series through the resemblance
of the composite image created by the carts in the EXpress6000 series, the use of a frame made of
steel, the use of rectangular steel tubing in the frame, the use of coated metal wire in the basket,
the use of round and/or oval tubing and/or wire, the use of molded plastic on portions of the frame,
and the resemblance of the ornamental design of the novel cart. See Exhibits 26 and 28.
204. Plaintiff is, and at all relevant times mentioned herein was, the lawful owner of the
valid and protectable trade dress associated with its novel cart, which includes features in the size,
colors, texture, finish, and choice of material associated with Versacart Systems' EXpress3500-B
and EXpress3500-B-C, which are also sold with Plaintiff's other product offerings. The
EXpress3500-B and EXpress3500-B-C trade dress includes, by way of example, the composite
image created by the EXpress3500-B and EXpress3500-B-C, the frame made of steel, the use of
round and/or oval tubing and/or wire, the use of molded plastic on portions of the frame, and the
205. Defendant Advance’s Xpress 55x, 65x, and 65xc carts closely resemble the
31
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 32 of 66
through the resemblance of the composite image created by the carts in the EXpress3500-B and
EXpress3500-B-C, the use of a frame made of steel, the use of rectangular steel tubing in the
frame, the use of coated metal wire in the basket, the use of round and/or oval tubing and/or wire,
the use of molded plastic on portions of the frame, and the resemblance of the ornamental design
206. Plaintiff is, and at all relevant times mentioned herein was, the lawful owner of the
valid and protectable trade dress associated with its novel cart, which includes features in the size,
colors, texture, finish, and choice of material associated with the frame of Versacart Systems'
EXpress5050-B, which is also sold with Plaintiff's other product offerings. The EXpress5050-B
trade dress includes, by way of example, the composite image created by the EXpress5050-B, the
frame made of steel, the use of round and/or oval tubing and/or wire, the use of molded plastic on
portions of the frame, and the ornamental design of the novel cart. See Exhibit 19.
207. Defendant Advance’s Xpress 100x carts closely resemble the characteristics of
visual appearance of the Plaintiff’s EXpress5050-B through the resemblance of the composite
image created by the carts in the EXpress5050-B, the use of a frame made of steel, the use of
rectangular steel tubing in the frame, the use of coated metal wire in the basket, the use of round
and/or oval tubing and/or wire, the use of molded plastic on portions of the frame, and the
resemblance of the ornamental design of the novel cart. See Exhibit 28.
208. Plaintiff is, and at all relevant times mentioned herein was, the lawful owner of the
valid and protectable trade dress associated with its novel cart, which includes features in the size,
colors, texture, finish, and choice of material associated with the frame of Versacart Systems'
32
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 33 of 66
EXpress7050, which is also sold with Plaintiff's other product offerings. The EXpress7050 trade
dress includes, by way of example, the composite image created by the EXpress7050, the frame
made of steel, the use of round and/or oval tubing and/or wire, the use of molded plastic on portions
of the frame, the proportional dimensions of the bottom and top baskets, and the ornamental design
209. Defendant Advance’s Xpress 110x carts closely resemble the characteristics of
visual appearance of the Plaintiff’s EXpress7050 through the resemblance of the composite image
created by the carts in the EXpress7050, the use of round and/or oval tubing and/or wire, the use
of molded plastic on portions of the frame, the proportional dimensions of the bottom and top
baskets, and the ornamental design of the novel cart. See Exhibit 30.
210. Plaintiff is, and at all relevant times mentioned herein was, the lawful owner of the
valid and protectable trade dress associated with its novel cart, which includes features in the size,
colors, texture, finish, and choice of material associated with the frame of Versacart Systems'
EXpress6000-C, which is also sold with Plaintiff's other product offerings. The EXpress6000-C
trade dress includes, by way of example, the composite image created by the EXpress6000-C, the
frame made of steel, the use of round and/or oval tubing and/or wire, the use of molded plastic on
portions of the frame, and the ornamental design of the novel cart. See Exhibit 21.
211. Defendant Advance’s Xpress 110xc carts closely resemble the characteristics of
visual appearance of the Plaintiff’s EXpress6000-C through the resemblance of the composite
image created by the carts in the EXpress6000-C, the use of round and/or oval tubing and/or wire,
the use of molded plastic on portions of the frame, and the ornamental design of the novel cart.
33
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 34 of 66
212. Plaintiff is, and at all relevant times mentioned herein was, the lawful owner of the
valid and protectable trade dress associated with its novel cart, which includes features in the size,
colors, texture, finish, and choice of material associated with the frame of Versacart Systems' TT-
100-S-T, which is also sold with Plaintiff's other product offerings. The TT-100-S-T trade dress
includes, by way of example, the composite image created by the TT-100-S-T, the frame made of
colorful molded plastic, the use of holes on each of the sides of the baskets, the angle of the baskets,
the rounded corners, and the ornamental design of the novel cart. See Exhibit 22.
213. Defendant Advance’s 105px and 55px and 55pxc carts closely resemble the
characteristics of visual appearance of the Plaintiff’s TT-100-S-T through the resemblance of the
composite image created by the carts in the TT-100-S-T, the frame made of colorful molded
plastic, the use of holes on each of the sides of the baskets, the angle of the baskets, the rounded
corners, and the ornamental design of the novel cart. See Exhibits 32, 33, and 36.
214. Plaintiff is, and at all relevant times mentioned herein was, the lawful owner of the
valid and protectable trade dress associated with its novel cart, which includes features in the size,
colors, texture, finish, and choice of material associated with the frame of Versacart Systems' TT-
150, which is also sold with Plaintiff's other product offerings. The TT-150 and trade dress
includes, by way of example, the composite image created by the TT-150, the top basket made of
plastic and having rounded corners and a plurality of holes on its sides, its bright color, the lower
platform made of round steel tubing, and the ornamental design of the novel cart. See Exhibit 23.
215. Defendant Advance’s 55px carts closely resemble the characteristics of visual
appearance of the Plaintiff’s TT-150 through the resemblance of the composite image created by
34
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 35 of 66
the carts in the TT-150, the top basket made of plastic and having rounded corners and a plurality
of holes on its sides, its bright color, the lower platform made of round steel tubing, and the
216. Plaintiff is, and at all relevant times mentioned herein was, the lawful owner of the
valid and protectable trade dress associated with its novel cart, which includes features in the size,
colors, texture, finish, and choice of material associated with the frame of Versacart Systems' TT-
175, which is also sold with Plaintiff's other product offerings. The TT-175 and trade dress
includes, by way of example, the composite image created by the TT-175, the top basket made of
plastic and having rounded corners and a plurality of holes on its sides, its bright color, the lower
platform made of round steel tubing, and the ornamental design of the novel cart. See Exhibit 24.
217. Defendant Advance’s 55pxc carts closely resemble the characteristics of visual
appearance of the Plaintiff’s TT-175 through the resemblance of the composite image created by
the carts in the TT-175, the top basket made of plastic and having rounded corners and a plurality
of holes on its sides, its bright color, the lower platform made of round steel tubing, and the
218. Plaintiff is, and at all relevant times mentioned herein was, the lawful owner of the
valid and protectable trade dress associated with its novel cart, which includes features in the size,
colors, texture, finish, and choice of material associated with the frame of Versacart Systems' C-
160, which is also sold with Plaintiff's other product offerings. The C-160 trade dress includes, by
way of example, the composite image created by the C-160, the frame made of steel, the use of
round and/or oval tubing and/or wire, the use of molded plastic on portions of the frame, the
35
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 36 of 66
horizontal and parallel design of the tubing, the design and angle of the lower platform, and the
219. Defendant Advance’s 100Z, 140Z, 160Z, 180Z, and 210Z carts closely resemble
the characteristics of visual appearance of the Plaintiff’s C-160 through the resemblance of the
composite image created by the carts in the C-160, the frame made of steel, the use of round and/or
oval tubing and/or wire, the use of molded plastic on portions of the frame, the horizontal and
parallel design of the tubing, the design and angle of the lower platform, and the ornamental design
Trademark Rights
220. In addition, since at least as early as March 30, 2005, Versacart Systems has
provided shopping carts throughout the United States through multiple distribution channels.
221. Since at least as early as March 30, 2005, Versacart has continuously used the mark
EXPRESS in connection with its carts in interstate commerce (hereafter referred to as “EXPRESS
Trademark”).
222. On February 8, 2018, Versacart filed U.S. Trademark Application Serial No.
87/785119 for the EXPRESS Trademark for “metal storage corrals in the nature of a storage shed
for shopping carts” in International Class 6, and “shopping carts; shopping carts designed to hold
a separate basket or crate” in International Class 12, based on use in interstate commerce as early
as March 30, 2005. A true and correct copy of U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 87/785119
223. Among other goods, Versacart uses the EXPRESS Trademark in relation to a line
36
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 37 of 66
224. Versacart also operates a website hosted at www.versacart.com that promotes the
EXpress line of shopping carts. A true and correct copy of the web page for the EXpress line of
has acquired substantial common law rights in the EXPRESS Trademark, which has become
widely and favorably known among Versacart’s customers and potential customer base, including
national retail outlets and grocery stores, for designating a single source of shopping carts.
General Allegations
226. On or about June 25, 2014, Versacart Systems, by and through counsel, notified
Systems' intellectual property rights (the "Notice Letter"). In the Notice Letter, Versacart Systems
asked Defendant Advance to discontinue the sale and offer for sale of Versacart Systems' product
designs and corresponding intellectual property, including patent, trademark, trade dress, and
copyrights. A true and correct copy of the Notice Letter and accompanying Exhibits are attached
227. On or about July 11, 2014, Defendant Advance, via its Co-Owner Peter Olausson,
wrote a response letter (“Response Letter”) to counsel for Versacart Systems representing that it
had ceased using certain materials on its website, and that Advance needed more time to evaluate
and respond to certain other infringement matters. A true and correct copy of the Response Letter
228. Versacart Systems has not received any further communications from Defendant
37
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 38 of 66
229. Defendant Advance continues to copy product designs identified in the Notice
Letter and continues to make, sell, and offer for sale such copied products.
230. Defendant Advance copied existing and new designs made by Versacart Systems
after the date of the Notice Letter, and proceeded to make, sell, and offer for sale such copied
products.
231. Upon information and belief, Advance operates a website hosted at the domain
www.advancecarts.com that promotes shopping carts under the designation “Xpress” (“Advance’s
Shopping Carts”). A true and correct copy of the web page for the Xpress line of shopping carts
233. Defendant Advance’s “Xpress” designation for Advance’s Shopping Carts and
Versacart’s EXPRESS Trademark used in connection with its shopping carts are nearly identical.
Defendant Advance’s “Xpress” designation removes the letter “e” from EXPRESS, but sounds
234. Upon information and belief, Versacart and Defendants market and sell their goods
in the same channels of trade, including at trade shows, online, and directly to potential consumers.
235. Upon information and belief, Versacart and Defendants market and sell their goods
to the same potential customers, including large consumer retail chains in which shopping carts
are used.
236. Defendant Advance’s use of the “Xpress” designation for Advance’s Shopping
Carts is likely to cause consumer confusion with Versacart’s EXPRESS Trademark used in
38
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 39 of 66
237. Upon information and belief, Defendant Advance adopted the “Xpress” designation
for its shopping carts knowingly, with an intent to derive benefit from the reputation of Versacart’s
EXPRESS Trademark. Even after receiving and responding to Versacart’s Notice Letter,
Defendant Advance continued using the “Xpress” designation for Advance’s Shopping Carts.
238. Upon information and belief, Defendants market and distribute Defendant
239. Defendant Advance’s Shopping Carts are identical to the shopping carts supplied
240. Defendant Advance manufactures, distributes, and sells its own version of
241. Upon information and belief, at least as early as June, 2014, Defendant Advance
has been manufacturing, importing, selling and/or distributing products which infringe Plaintiff's
242. Upon information and belief, Defendant Advance’s infringing activities occurred
and are occurring under the direction and control of Defendant SuperBasket.
including Defendant Advance's Xpress 110c, Xpress 110x, Xpress 90x, Xpress 55x,, Xpress 65x,
Xpress 65xc, Flavor Series 105x and 105px, and 160Z, Defendants are infringing the trade dress
39
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 40 of 66
T, TT-150, TT-175, and/or C-160 shopping carts to third parties as the products that are marketed,
sold, and offered for sale throughout the United States by Versacart Systems.
246. Defendants' infringing and confusingly similar trade dress is likely to cause
confusion with Plaintiff's distinctive trade dress associated with Plaintiff's EXpress6000-C,
T, TT-150, TT-175, and/or C-160, and upon information and belief, has caused confusion among
actual consumers.
249. Defendants’ use of the same or confusingly similar trade dress to the distinctive
demonstrates copying and intent to confuse both potential and actual consumers, which constitutes
unfair competition.
250. The additional acts of Defendants complained of herein further constitute unfair
competition.
40
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 41 of 66
251. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation
252. Defendants, and each of them, have infringed and continue to infringe the claims
of Plaintiff's '501 Patent by applying patented designs, or a colorable imitation thereof, to an article
of manufacture, and thereafter using, selling or distributing said products within this District and
253. Upon information and belief, Defendants are inducing direct infringement of the
'501 Patent by others by actively instructing, assisting, and/or encouraging others to practice one
or more of the inventions claimed in the '501 Patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).
254. Upon information and belief, Defendants are contributing to direct infringement of
the '501 Patent by others by directing others to manufacture one or more components which
constitute a material part of the invention defined by the claims of the '501 Patent, knowing the
same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of the '501 Patent, and
which components are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial non-
255. Defendants' actions of making, having made, importing, using or selling products
which infringe the '501 Patent have been, and are, willful, deliberate and/or in conscious disregard
of Plaintiff's rights, making this an exceptional case within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285 and
256. Unless restrained and enjoined, Defendants' acts of infringement as alleged above,
will cause Plaintiff irreparable injury, to which Plaintiff has no adequate remedy.
41
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 42 of 66
257. Defendants' infringement of the '501 Patent has caused damage to Plaintiff in an
258. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation
259. Defendants, and each of them, have infringed and continue to infringe the claims
of Plaintiff's '372 Patent by applying patented designs, or a colorable imitation thereof, to an article
of manufacture, and thereafter using, selling or distributing said products within this District and
260. Upon information and belief, Defendants are inducing direct infringement of the
'372 Patent by others by actively instructing, assisting, and/or encouraging others to practice one
or more of the inventions claimed in the '372 Patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).
261. Upon information and belief, Defendants are contributing to direct infringement of
the '372 Patent by others by directing others to manufacture one or more components which
constitute a material part of the invention defined by the claims of the '372 Patent, knowing the
same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of the '372 Patent, and
which components are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial non-
262. Defendants' actions of making, having made, importing, using or selling products
which infringe the '372 Patent have been, and are, willful, deliberate and/or in conscious disregard
of Plaintiff's rights, making this an exceptional case within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285 and
42
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 43 of 66
263. Unless restrained and enjoined, Defendants' acts of infringement as alleged above,
will cause Plaintiff irreparable injury, to which Plaintiff has no adequate remedy.
264. Defendants' infringement of the '372 Patent has caused damage to Plaintiff in an
265. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation
266. Defendants, and each of them, have infringed and continue to infringe the claims
of Plaintiff's '619 Patent by applying patented designs, or a colorable imitation thereof, to an article
of manufacture, and thereafter using, selling or distributing said products within this District and
267. Upon information and belief, Defendants are inducing direct infringement of the
'619 Patent by others by actively instructing, assisting, and/or encouraging others to practice one
or more of the inventions claimed in the '619 Patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).
268. Upon information and belief, Defendants are contributing to direct infringement of
the '619 Patent by others by directing others to manufacture one or more components which
constitute a material part of the invention defined by the claims of the '619 Patent, knowing the
same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of the '619 Patent, and
which components are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial non-
269. Defendants' actions of making, having made, importing, using or selling products
which infringe the '619 Patent have been, and are, willful, deliberate and/or in conscious disregard
43
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 44 of 66
of Plaintiff's rights, making this an exceptional case within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285 and
270. Unless restrained and enjoined, Defendants' acts of infringement as alleged above,
will cause Plaintiff irreparable injury, to which Plaintiff has no adequate remedy.
271. Defendants' infringement of the '619 Patent has caused damage to Plaintiff in an
272. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation
273. Defendants, and each of them, have infringed and continue to infringe the claims
of Plaintiff's '269 Patent by applying patented designs, or a colorable imitation thereof, to an article
of manufacture, and thereafter using, selling or distributing said products within this District and
274. Upon information and belief, Defendants are inducing direct infringement of the
'269 Patent by others by actively instructing, assisting, and/or encouraging others to practice one
or more of the inventions claimed in the '269 Patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).
275. Upon information and belief, Defendants are contributing to direct infringement of
the '269 Patent by others by directing others to manufacture one or more components which
constitute a material part of the invention defined by the claims of the '269 Patent, knowing the
same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of the '269 Patent, and
which components are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial non-
44
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 45 of 66
276. Defendants' actions of making, having made, importing, using or selling products
which infringe the '269 Patent have been, and are, willful, deliberate and/or in conscious disregard
of Plaintiff's rights, making this an exceptional case within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285 and
277. Unless restrained and enjoined, Defendants' acts of infringement as alleged above,
will cause Plaintiff irreparable injury, to which Plaintiff has no adequate remedy.
278. Defendants' infringement of the '269 Patent has caused damage to Plaintiff in an
279. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation
280. Defendants, and each of them, have infringed and continue to infringe the claims
of Plaintiff's '602 Patent by applying patented designs, or a colorable imitation thereof, to an article
of manufacture, and thereafter using, selling or distributing said products within this District and
281. Upon information and belief, Defendants are inducing direct infringement of the
'602 Patent by others by actively instructing, assisting, and/or encouraging others to practice one
or more of the inventions claimed in the '602 Patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).
282. Upon information and belief, Defendants are contributing to direct infringement of
the '602 Patent by others by directing others to manufacture one or more components which
constitute a material part of the invention defined by the claims of the '602 Patent, knowing the
same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of the '602 Patent, and
45
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 46 of 66
which components are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial non-
283. Defendants' actions of making, having made, importing, using or selling products
which infringe the '602 Patent have been, and are, willful, deliberate and/or in conscious disregard
of Plaintiff's rights, making this an exceptional case within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285 and
284. Unless restrained and enjoined, Defendants' acts of infringement as alleged above,
will cause Plaintiff irreparable injury, to which Plaintiff has no adequate remedy.
285. Defendants' infringement of the '602 Patent has caused damage to Plaintiff in an
286. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation
287. Defendants, and each of them, have infringed and continue to infringe the claims
of Plaintiff's '521 Patent by applying patented designs, or a colorable imitation thereof, to an article
of manufacture, and thereafter using, selling or distributing said products within this District and
288. Upon information and belief, Defendants are inducing direct infringement of the
'521 Patent by others by actively instructing, assisting, and/or encouraging others to practice one
or more of the inventions claimed in the '521 Patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).
289. Upon information and belief, Defendants are contributing to direct infringement of
the '521 Patent by others by directing others to manufacture one or more components which
46
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 47 of 66
constitute a material part of the invention defined by the claims of the '521 Patent, knowing the
same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of the '521 Patent, and
which components are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial non-
290. Defendants' actions of making, having made, importing, using or selling products
which infringe the '521 Patent have been, and are, willful, deliberate and/or in conscious disregard
of Plaintiff's rights, making this an exceptional case within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285 and
291. Unless restrained and enjoined, Defendants' acts of infringement as alleged above,
will cause Plaintiff irreparable injury, to which Plaintiff has no adequate remedy.
292. Defendants' infringement of the '521 Patent has caused damage to Plaintiff in an
293. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation
294. Defendants, and each of them, have infringed and continue to infringe the claims
of Plaintiff's '809 Patent by applying patented designs, or a colorable imitation thereof, to an article
of manufacture, and thereafter using, selling or distributing said products within this District and
295. Upon information and belief, Defendants are inducing direct infringement of the
'809 Patent by others by actively instructing, assisting, and/or encouraging others to practice one
or more of the inventions claimed in the '809 Patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).
47
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 48 of 66
296. Upon information and belief, Defendants are contributing to direct infringement of
the '809 Patent by others by directing others to manufacture one or more components which
constitute a material part of the invention defined by the claims of the '809 Patent, knowing the
same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of the '809 Patent, and
which components are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial non-
297. Defendants' actions of making, having made, importing, using or selling products
which infringe the '809 Patent have been, and are, willful, deliberate and/or in conscious disregard
of Plaintiff's rights, making this an exceptional case within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285 and
298. Unless restrained and enjoined, Defendants' acts of infringement as alleged above,
will cause Plaintiff irreparable injury, to which Plaintiff has no adequate remedy.
299. Defendants' infringement of the '809 Patent has caused damage to Plaintiff in an
300. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation
301. Defendants, and each of them, have infringed and continue to infringe the claims
of Plaintiff's '288 Patent by applying patented designs, or a colorable imitation thereof, to an article
of manufacture, and thereafter using, selling or distributing said products within this District and
48
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 49 of 66
302. Upon information and belief, Defendants are inducing direct infringement of the
'288 Patent by others by actively instructing, assisting, and/or encouraging others to practice one
or more of the inventions claimed in the '288 Patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).
303. Upon information and belief, Defendants are contributing to direct infringement of
the '288 Patent by others by directing others to manufacture one or more components which
constitute a material part of the invention defined by the claims of the '288 Patent, knowing the
same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of the '288 Patent, and
which components are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial non-
304. Defendants' actions of making, having made, importing, using or selling products
which infringe the '288 Patent have been, and are, willful, deliberate and/or in conscious disregard
of Plaintiff's rights, making this an exceptional case within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285 and
305. Unless restrained and enjoined, Defendants' acts of infringement as alleged above,
will cause Plaintiff irreparable injury, to which Plaintiff has no adequate remedy.
306. Defendants' infringement of the '288 Patent has caused damage to Plaintiff in an
307. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation
308. Defendants, and each of them, have infringed and continue to infringe the claims
of Plaintiff's ‘841 Patent by applying patented designs, or a colorable imitation thereof, to an article
49
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 50 of 66
of manufacture, and thereafter using, selling or distributing said products within this District and
309. Upon information and belief, Defendants are inducing direct infringement of the
'841 Patent by others by actively instructing, assisting, and/or encouraging others to practice one
or more of the inventions claimed in the '841 Patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).
310. Upon information and belief, Defendants are contributing to direct infringement of
the '841 Patent by others by directing others to manufacture one or more components which
constitute a material part of the invention defined by the claims of the '841 Patent, knowing the
same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of the '841 Patent, and
which components are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial non-
311. Defendants' actions of making, having made, importing, using or selling products
which infringe the '841 Patent have been, and are, willful, deliberate and/or in conscious disregard
of Plaintiff's rights, making this an exceptional case within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285 and
312. Unless restrained and enjoined, Defendants' acts of infringement as alleged above,
will cause Plaintiff irreparable injury, to which Plaintiff has no adequate remedy.
313. Defendants' infringement of the '841 Patent has caused damage to Plaintiff in an
314. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation
50
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 51 of 66
315. Defendants, and each of them, have infringed and continue to infringe the claims
of Plaintiff's '091 Patent by applying patented designs, or a colorable imitation thereof, to an article
of manufacture, and thereafter using, selling or distributing said products within this District and
316. Upon information and belief, Defendants are inducing direct infringement of the
'091 Patent by others by actively instructing, assisting, and/or encouraging others to practice one
or more of the inventions claimed in the '091 Patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).
317. Upon information and belief, Defendants are contributing to direct infringement of
the '091 Patent by others by directing others to manufacture one or more components which
constitute a material part of the invention defined by the claims of the '091 Patent, knowing the
same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of the '091 Patent, and
which components are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial non-
318. Defendants' actions of making, having made, importing, using or selling products
which infringe the '091 Patent have been, and are, willful, deliberate and/or in conscious disregard
of Plaintiff's rights, making this an exceptional case within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285 and
319. Unless restrained and enjoined, Defendants' acts of infringement as alleged above,
will cause Plaintiff irreparable injury, to which Plaintiff has no adequate remedy.
320. Defendants' infringement of the '091 Patent has caused damage to Plaintiff in an
51
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 52 of 66
321. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation
322. Defendants, and each of them, have infringed and continue to infringe the claims
of Plaintiff's '762 Patent by applying patented designs, or a colorable imitation thereof, to an article
of manufacture, and thereafter using, selling or distributing said products within this District and
323. Upon information and belief, Defendants are inducing direct infringement of the
'762 Patent by others by actively instructing, assisting, and/or encouraging others to practice one
or more of the inventions claimed in the '762 Patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).
324. Upon information and belief, Defendants are contributing to direct infringement of
the '762 Patent by others by directing others to manufacture one or more components which
constitute a material part of the invention defined by the claims of the '762 Patent, knowing the
same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of the '762 Patent, and
which components are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial non-
325. Defendants' actions of making, having made, importing, using or selling products
which infringe the '762 Patent have been, and are, willful, deliberate and/or in conscious disregard
of Plaintiff's rights, making this an exceptional case within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285 and
326. Unless restrained and enjoined, Defendants' acts of infringement as alleged above,
will cause Plaintiff irreparable injury, to which Plaintiff has no adequate remedy.
52
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 53 of 66
327. Defendants' infringement of the '762 Patent has caused damage to Plaintiff in an
328. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation
329. Defendants, and each of them, have infringed and continue to infringe the claims
of Plaintiff's '264 Patent by applying patented designs, or a colorable imitation thereof, to an article
of manufacture, and thereafter using, selling or distributing said products within this District and
330. Upon information and belief, Defendants are inducing direct infringement of the
'264 Patent by others by actively instructing, assisting, and/or encouraging others to practice one
or more of the inventions claimed in the '264 Patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).
331. Upon information and belief, Defendants are contributing to direct infringement of
the '264 Patent by others by directing others to manufacture one or more components which
constitute a material part of the invention defined by the claims of the '264 Patent, knowing the
same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of the '264 Patent, and
which components are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial non-
332. Defendants' actions of making, having made, importing, using or selling products
which infringe the '264 Patent have been, and are, willful, deliberate and/or in conscious disregard
of Plaintiff's rights, making this an exceptional case within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285 and
53
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 54 of 66
333. Unless restrained and enjoined, Defendants' acts of infringement as alleged above,
will cause Plaintiff irreparable injury, to which Plaintiff has no adequate remedy.
334. Defendants' infringement of the '264 Patent has caused damage to Plaintiff in an
335. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation
336. Defendants, and each of them, have infringed and continue to infringe the claims
of Plaintiff's '961 Patent by applying patented designs, or a colorable imitation thereof, to an article
of manufacture, and thereafter using, selling or distributing said products within this District and
337. Upon information and belief, Defendants are inducing direct infringement of the
'961 Patent by others by actively instructing, assisting, and/or encouraging others to practice one
or more of the inventions claimed in the '961 Patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).
338. Upon information and belief, Defendants are contributing to direct infringement of
the '961 Patent by others by directing others to manufacture one or more components which
constitute a material part of the invention defined by the claims of the '961 Patent, knowing the
same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of the '961 Patent, and
which components are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial non-
339. Defendants' actions of making, having made, importing, using or selling products
which infringe the '961 Patent have been, and are, willful, deliberate and/or in conscious disregard
54
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 55 of 66
of Plaintiff's rights, making this an exceptional case within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285 and
340. Unless restrained and enjoined, Defendants' acts of infringement as alleged above,
will cause Plaintiff irreparable injury, to which Plaintiff has no adequate remedy.
341. Defendants' infringement of the '961 Patent has caused damage to Plaintiff in an
342. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation
343. Defendants, and each of them, have infringed and continue to infringe the claims
of Plaintiff's '536 Patent by applying patented designs, or a colorable imitation thereof, to an article
of manufacture, and thereafter using, selling or distributing said products within this District and
344. Upon information and belief, Defendants are inducing direct infringement of the
'536 Patent by others by actively instructing, assisting, and/or encouraging others to practice one
or more of the inventions claimed in the '536 Patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).
345. Upon information and belief, Defendants are contributing to direct infringement of
the '536 Patent by others by directing others to manufacture one or more components which
constitute a material part of the invention defined by the claims of the '536 Patent, knowing the
same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of the '536 Patent, and
which components are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial non-
55
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 56 of 66
346. Defendants' actions of making, having made, importing, using or selling products
which infringe the '536 Patent have been, and are, willful, deliberate and/or in conscious disregard
of Plaintiff's rights, making this an exceptional case within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285 and
347. Unless restrained and enjoined, Defendants' acts of infringement as alleged above,
will cause Plaintiff irreparable injury, to which Plaintiff has no adequate remedy.
348. Defendants' infringement of the '536 Patent has caused damage to Plaintiff in an
349. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation
350. Defendants, and each of them, have infringed and continue to infringe the claims
of Plaintiff's '268 Patent by applying patented designs, or a colorable imitation thereof, to an article
of manufacture, and thereafter using, selling or distributing said products within this District and
351. Upon information and belief, Defendants are inducing direct infringement of the
'268 Patent by others by actively instructing, assisting, and/or encouraging others to practice one
or more of the inventions claimed in the '268 Patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).
352. Upon information and belief, Defendants are contributing to direct infringement of
the '268 Patent by others by directing others to manufacture one or more components which
constitute a material part of the invention defined by the claims of the '268 Patent, knowing the
same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of the '268 Patent, and
56
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 57 of 66
which components are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial non-
353. Defendants' actions of making, having made, importing, using or selling products
which infringe the '268 Patent have been, and are, willful, deliberate and/or in conscious disregard
of Plaintiff's rights, making this an exceptional case within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285 and
354. Unless restrained and enjoined, Defendants' acts of infringement as alleged above,
will cause Plaintiff irreparable injury, to which Plaintiff has no adequate remedy.
355. Defendants' infringement of the '268 Patent has caused damage to Plaintiff in an
356. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation
357. Defendants, and each of them, have infringed and continue to infringe the claims
of Plaintiff's '281 Patent by applying patented designs, or a colorable imitation thereof, to an article
of manufacture, and thereafter using, selling or distributing said products within this District and
358. Upon information and belief, Defendants are inducing direct infringement of the
'281 Patent by others by actively instructing, assisting, and/or encouraging others to practice one
or more of the inventions claimed in the '281 Patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).
359. Upon information and belief, Defendants are contributing to direct infringement of
the '281 Patent by others by directing others to manufacture one or more components which
57
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 58 of 66
constitute a material part of the invention defined by the claims of the '281 Patent, knowing the
same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of the '281 Patent, and
which components are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial non-
360. Defendants' actions of making, having made, importing, using or selling products
which infringe the '281 Patent have been, and are, willful, deliberate and/or in conscious disregard
of Plaintiff's rights, making this an exceptional case within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285 and
361. Unless restrained and enjoined, Defendants' acts of infringement as alleged above,
will cause Plaintiff irreparable injury, to which Plaintiff has no adequate remedy.
362. Defendants' infringement of the '281 Patent has caused damage to Plaintiff in an
363. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation
364. Defendants’ promotion, advertising, marketing, distribution, offer for sale and sale
throughout the United States of shopping carts under the designation “Xpress” constitutes
infringement of an unregistered trademark and use of a false designation of origin which is likely
Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). This conduct constitutes an attempt to
trade on the goodwill which Versacart Systems has developed in the EXPRESS Trademark, all to
58
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 59 of 66
irreparable harm and injury and will continue to do so unless Defendants are restrained and
367. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation
368. Defendants’ promotion, advertising, marketing, distribution, offer for sale and sale
throughout the United States of shopping carts under the designation “Xpress” is likely to cause
confusion, or to deceive potential purchasers and others, whereby they would be led to mistakenly
believe that Defendants are affiliated with, related to, sponsored by, or connected with Versacart
369. This conduct also constitutes an attempt to trade on the goodwill which Versacart
Systems has developed in the EXPRESS Trademark, all to the damage of Versacart Systems.
370. Upon information and belief, the acts of Defendants were willful and malicious and
done with the intent to injure Plaintiff. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to recover, and hereby
371. As a result of this conduct, Defendants, have caused and, unless restrained and
enjoined by this Court, will continue to cause irreparable harm, damage, and injury to Versacart
Systems.
59
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 60 of 66
373. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation
374. Defendants have infringed and continue to infringe the trade dress associated with
175, TT-100-S-T, and/or C-160 shopping carts by applying their designs, or a colorable imitation
thereof, to an article of manufacture, and thereafter using, selling or distributing said products
within this District and elsewhere throughout the United States. Plaintiff’s trade dress is distinctive
375. Upon information and belief, the designs of Defendants' products are substantially
the same as Plaintiff's trade dress, such as to cause confusion and deceive purchasers into
376. The acts of Defendants, as alleged herein, constitute trade dress infringement and
377. Unless restrained and enjoined, Defendants' acts of trade dress infringement will
378. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid conduct, Plaintiff has sustained
379. Plaintiff has incurred and will continue to incur attorneys' fees and court costs
arising from the acts of Defendants as alleged herein. Plaintiff seeks the recovery of attorneys'
60
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 61 of 66
380. The wrongful acts of Defendants, as alleged herein, unless restrained and enjoined
by order of this Court, will cause irreparable harm to Plaintiff and its goodwill. Plaintiff has no
adequate remedy at law for the injuries that have been, and will continue to be, sustained as a result
of Defendants' conduct.
381. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation
382. The acts of Defendants, as alleged herein, constitute unfair competition in violation
383. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid conduct, Plaintiff has sustained
384. Plaintiff has incurred, and will continue to incur attorneys' fees and court costs
arising from the acts of Defendants as alleged herein. Plaintiff seeks the recovery of attorneys'
385. Upon information and belief, the actions of the Defendants were willful and
malicious and done with the intent to injure Plaintiff. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to recover,
386. The wrongful acts of Defendants, as alleged herein, unless restrained and enjoined
by order of this Court, will cause irreparable injury to Plaintiff and its goodwill. Plaintiff has no
adequate remedy at law for the injuries that have been, and will continue to be, sustained as a result
of Defendants' conduct.
61
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 62 of 66
387. Declaring that Defendants have infringed Plaintiff's '809, '269, '501, '372, '961,
'091, ‘281, ‘762, ‘264, ‘268, ‘619, ‘602, ‘521, ‘841, ‘536, ‘700, and ‘288 Patents;
388. Issuing temporary and preliminary injunctions enjoining Defendants, their officers,
agents, subsidiaries, and employees, and those in privity with or that act in concert with any of the
foregoing, from further activities that constitute infringement of Plaintiff's '809, '269, '501, '372,
'961, '091, ‘281, ‘762, ‘264, ‘268, ‘619, ‘602, ‘521, ‘841, ‘536, and ‘288 Patents, pursuant to 35
U.S.C. § 283;
389. For an award against Defendants, jointly and severally, for actual damages,
390. For an award of all gains, profits, and advantages derived by Defendants by their
infringement of Plaintiff's '809, '269, '501, '372, '961, '091, ‘281, ‘762, ‘264, ‘268, ‘619, ‘602, ‘521,
391. For enhanced statutory damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, together with costs
392. For injunctive relief in the form of a permanent injunction, enjoining Defendants
from manufacturing, importing, selling, marketing and/or distributing any products that infringe
on Plaintiff's '809, '269, '501, '372, '961, '091, ‘281, ‘762, ‘264, ‘268, ‘619, ‘602, ‘521, ‘841, ‘536,
62
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 63 of 66
396. For interest at the maximum legal rate on all damages from the date first incurred
397. Issuing preliminary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining Defendants and any
principals, agents, servants, employees, successors, and assigns of Defendants, and all those in
EXPRESS Trademark, and or any mark confusingly similar to the EXPRESS Trademark,
disposing of any printed material which bears any copy or colorable imitation of the
EXPRESS Trademark;
Systems;
(iv) using any false designation of origin or false description which can or is likely
to lead the trade or public, or individual members thereof, to believe mistakenly that any
63
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 64 of 66
of the EXPRESS Trademark or Versacart Systems' rights in, or to use, or to exploit the
same; and
performing any of the activities enumerated in subparagraphs (i) through (vi) above.
federal law and have damaged Versacart Systems' goodwill by Defendants' conduct,
C. Finding that Defendants have unfairly competed with Versacart Systems by the acts
E. Finding that the acts of Defendants constitute unfair competition in violation of the
in an amount to be fixed by the Court in its discretion as just, including all of the Defendants'
profits or gains of any kind resulting from their willful infringement and/or acts of unfair
competition, said amount to be trebled, and exemplary damages in view of the intentional nature of
64
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 65 of 66
H. Granting to Versacart Systems such other and further relief as the Court may deem
398. For restitution of all revenue and profits from Defendants' unfair business practices,
including an award of damages available under 15 U.S.C. § 1117, including for willful violation
of § 1125(a);
401. For injunctive relief in the form of a preliminary and permanent injunction
enjoining Defendants from engaging the future acts of consumer confusion and unfair or deceptive
business practices;
402. For attorneys’ fees, costs, and pre- and post-judgment interest as permitted by law;
404. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
JURY DEMAND
65
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 66 of 66
Of counsel:
Carolyn Juarez, Esq.
NEUGEBOREN O’DOWD, PC
1227 Spruce Street, Suite 200
Boulder, Colorado 80302
Telephone: (720)536-4904
Email: Carolyn@nodiplaw.com
66