Speculative v. Mattson - Amended Complaint

8/10/2019 Speculative v. Mattson - Amended Complaint

1/46

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

- 1 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

JOHNSON & PHAM, LLPChristopher D. Johnson, SBN: 222698

E-mail: [email protected] Q. Pham, SBN: 206697

E-mail: [email protected] F. Chaney, SBN: 245227

E-mail: [email protected] Q. Pham, SBN: 276613E-mail: [email protected]

6355 Topanga Canyon Boulevard, Suite 326Woodland Hills, California 91367Telephone: (818) 888-7540Facsimile: (818) 888-7544

Attorneys for PlaintiffSPECULATIVE PRODUCT DESIGN, LLCd/b/a SPECK PRODUCTS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WESTERN DIVISION

SPECULATIVE PRODUCT DESIGN,LLC d/b/a SPECK PRODUCTS, aCalifornia Limited Liability Company,

Plaintiff,

v.

PATRICK MATTSON, an Individual;STU DISTRIBUTION SERVICES,LLC, a Texas Limited LiabilityCompany; MD5 TECHNOLOGIES, aBusiness Entity of Unknown Status; andDOES 1-10, Inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No.: 2:14-cv-06465-ODW-PLAx

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINTFOR DAMAGES ANDDECLARATORY RELIEF:

(1) FEDERAL TRADEMARKINFRINGEMENT [15 U.S.C. 1114/Lanham Act 43(a)];

(2) FALSE DESIGNATION OFORIGIN/UNFAIRCOMPETITION/FALSE ORMISLEADING ADVERTISING[15 U.S.C. 1125(a)];

(3) TRADEMARK DILUTION [15U.S.C. 1125(c)];

(4) UNFAIR BUSINESS

PRACTICES [CALIFORNIABUSINESS & PROFESSIONSCODE 17200];

(5) FEDERAL COPYRIGHTINFRINGEMENT [17 U.S.C. 501(a)];and

(6) FEDERAL PATENTINFRINGEMENT [35 U.S.C. 271]

[DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL]

Case 2:14-cv-06465-ODW-PLA Document 29 Filed 11/25/14 Page 1 of 21 Page ID #:137


2/46


- 2 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

COMES NOW, Plaintiff SPECULATIVE PRODUCT DESIGN, LLC d/b/a

SPECK PRODUCTS (hereinafter Plaintiff and/or SPECK), and herebyalleges as follows:

PARTIES

1. Plaintiff, is now, and was at the time of the filing of the Complaint,

and at all intervening times, a California Limited Liability Company, duly

authorized and licensed to conduct business in the State of California with its

principal place of business located in San Mateo, California.

2. Plaintiff alleges, on information and belief, that Defendant PATRICK

MATTSON, is now, and was at the time of the filing of the Complaint an

individual residing in and doing business from McKinney, Texas.

3. Plaintiff further alleges, on information and belief, that Defendant

PATRICK MATTSON is the alter-ego, owner and operator of Defendants STU

DISTRIBUTION SERVICES, LLC and MD5 TECHNOLOGIES.

4.

Plaintiff further alleges, on information and belief, that Defendant

STU DISTRIBUTION SERVICES, LLC, is now, and was at the time of the filing

of the Complaint, a Texas Limited Liability Company, with its principal place of

business located in McKinney, Texas.

5. Plaintiff further alleges, on information and belief, that Defendant

MD5 TECHNOLOGIES, is now, and was at the time of the filing of the

Complaint, a business entity of unknown status doing business from McKinney,Texas.

6. Plaintiff further alleges, on information and belief, that at the time of

their creation, now, and at all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendants STU

DISTRIBUTION SERVICES, LLC and MD5 TECHNOLOGIES did not and do

not have sufficient funding to assume responsibility for their foreseeable and



3/46


- 3 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

actual liabilities.

7. Plaintiff further alleges, on information and belief, that since the time

of their creation, now, and at all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendants STU

DISTRIBUTION SERVICES, LLC and MD5 TECHNOLOGIES wereundercapitalized.

8. Plaintiff further alleges, on information and belief, that since the time

of their creation, now, and at all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendants STU

DISTRIBUTION SERVICES, LLC and MD5 TECHNOLOGIES have failed to

observe corporate formalities required by law.

9. Plaintiff further alleges, on information and belief, that Defendants

PATRICK MATTSON, STU DISTRIBUTION SERVICES, LLC, MD5

TECHNOLOGIES, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, conduct business within the

jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Central District of

California by offering counterfeit goods for sale and distributing said goods to

consumers within the Central District of California utilizing services provided by

third-party entities located in the State of California, that infringe upon Plaintiffs

federally registered trademarks, copyright, and design patent.

10. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate,

associate or otherwise, of defendants herein named as DOES 1-10, inclusive, are

unknown to Plaintiff. Plaintiff therefore sues said defendants by such fictitious

names. When the true names and capacities of said defendants have been

ascertained, Plaintiff will amend this pleading accordingly.

11.

Plaintiff further alleges, on information and belief, that DefendantsPATRICK MATTSON, STU DISTRIBUTION SERVICES, LLC, MD5

TECHNOLOGIES, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, sued herein by fictitious names are

jointly, severally and concurrently liable and responsible with the named

Defendants upon the causes of action hereinafter set forth.

/ / /



4/46


- 4 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

12. Plaintiff further alleges, on information and belief, that at all times

mentioned herein Defendants PATRICK MATTSON, STU DISTRIBUTION

SERVICES, LLC, MD5 TECHNOLOGIES, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, and each

of them, were the agents, servants and employees of every other Defendant andthe acts of each defendant, as alleged herein, were performed within the course

and scope of that agency, service or employment (hereinafter collectively

Defendants).

JURISDICTION / VENUE

13. This Court has Federal subject matter jurisdiction over this matter

pursuant to 28 U.S.C.1331 and 1338(a) and (b), in that the case arises out of

claims for trademark infringement, false designation of origin, unfair competition

and dilution under the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq.), copyright

infringement under the Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. 501(a)), and design patent

infringement under the U.S. Patent Act(35 U.S.C. 1 et seq.); and this Court has

supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367(a) and 1338 (a)(b).

14. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants since

Defendants have committed the tortious and illegal activities of trademark

infringement, copyright infringement, patent infringement, and unfair competition

in this district and/or Defendants have sufficient minimum contacts with this

district such that the exercise of jurisdiction over Defendants by this Court does

not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Among other

things, Defendants have advertised, offered to sell, sold, and distributed products

that infringe the trademarks, copyrights, and design patents of Plaintiff toconsumers within this judicial district. Defendants have also offered to sell, sold,

and distributed counterfeit products (described more fully below) using an

interactive internet website knowing or having reason to know that consumers

throughout the United States, including within this judicial district, would

purchase said counterfeit goods from Defendants, believing that they were



5/46


- 5 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

authentic goods manufactured and distributed by Plaintiff or its authorized

manufacturers.

15. Additionally, supplemental jurisdiction exists over Defendants

because, on information and belief, Defendants conduct business in California andin this judicial district, have purposefully directed action to California and this

district, or have otherwise availed themselves of the privileges and protections of

the laws of the State of California, such that this Courts assertion of jurisdiction

over Defendants does not offend traditional notions of fair play and due process.

16. Venue is proper, inter alia, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) because

on information and belief, a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise

to the claim occurred in this judicial district, and has caused damages to Plaintiff

in this district. The counterfeit Speck-branded products were purchased from

California and Defendants purposefully shipped these counterfeit products into

California. Defendants actions within this district directly interfere with and

damage Plaintiffs commercial efforts and endeavors and harm Plaintiffs

goodwill within this venue. Additionally, Plaintiff conducts substantial business

within this venue.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff and its Famous Speck-Branded Products

17. Plaintiff is a privately held U.S. corporation founded in Palo Alto

California in 2001 as a form fit cellular telephone case company. Plaintiff creates

cases for the mobile accessories market.

18.

Plaintiff is one of the leading companies in their industry and hasgained numerous awards and recognition for its innovative products and designs.

19. Plaintiff is one of the worlds leading manufacturers of protective

carrying cases for electronic devices, including but not limited to, portable

electronic listening devices and music players, namely, mp3 players, and for

portable computers, global positioning systems (GPS devices), mobile and cellular



6/46


- 6 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

telephones, portable media players, and personal digital assistants.

20. Plaintiff develops and manufactures protective carrying cases for

products such as the Apple iPhone, Apple iPad, Apple iPod, Apple

MacBook, Notebook bags and sleeves, Smartphones including Blackberry,HTC, Sharp, Samsung, and Motorola models, TomTom GPS navigation

devices, portable hard drives such as WD My Passport Elite/Essential, and the

Kindle 3.

21. Plaintiff is continually striving to discover and develop new,

advanced technologies and designs to meet the needs of the ever-advancing

consumer electronics industry. Plaintiff offers over 250 products which are sold

in over 75 countries worldwide.

22. Plaintiff has spent substantial time, money and effort in developing

consumer recognition and awareness of its marks. Through the extensive use of

the Plaintiffs marks, Plaintiff has built up and developed significant goodwill in

its entire product line. A wide array of newspapers, magazines and television

networks has included advertising of Plaintiffs products, which are immediately

identified by Plaintiffs marks.

23. Plaintiff is the exclusive owner of federally-registered and common

law trademarks. The following is a partial (non-exhaustive) list of the registered

trademarks owned by Plaintiff:

A. SPECK, registered trademark number 3,663,010, registered on

August 4, 2009, for use on or in connection with protective carrying cases for

portable electronic listening devices and music players, namely, mp3 players, andfor portable computers, global positioning systems (GPS devices), mobile and

cellular telephones, portable media players, and personal digital assistants, in

Class 9 (U.S. CLS. 21, 23, 26, 36 and 38);

B. [Design Mark], registered trademark number 3,666,082,

registered on August 11, 2009, consisting of an asterisk between parentheses



7/46


- 7 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

followed by the word SPECK in stylized letters; for use on or in co nnection

with protective carrying cases for portable electronic listening devices and music

players, namely, mp3 players, and for portable computers, global positioning

systems (GPS devices), mobile and cellular telephones, portable media players,and personal digital assistants, in Class 9 (U.S. CLS. 21, 23, 26, 36 and 38);

C. [Design Mark], registered trademark number 3,666,072,

registered on August 11, 2009, consisting of an asterisk between parentheses; for

use on or in connection with protective carrying cases for portable electronic

listening devices and music players, namely, mp3 players, and for portable

computers, global positioning systems (GPS devices), mobile and cellular

telephones, portable media players, and personal digital assistants, in Class 9 (U.S.

CLS. 21, 23, 26, 36 and 38); and

D. CANDYSHELL, registered trademark number 3,817,709,

registered on July 13, 2010, for use on or in connection with protective carrying

cases for mp3 players, mobile and cellular telephones, portable media players, and

personal digital assistants in Class 9 (U.S. CLS. 21, 23, 26, 36 and 38). Attached

hereto as Exhibits A-D are true and correct copies of the certificates of

registration for each of the above referenced federally-registered trademarks

owned by Plaintiff (hereinafter Plaintiffs Marks).

24. Plaintiff is also the owner of several international trademarks in the

following locations: Canada, New Zealand, Republic of Korea, Malaysia,

European Community, Hong Kong, Intl Registration Madrid Protocol, Taiwan,

Australia, Singapore, Japan, Russian Federation, Thailand, and the PeoplesRepublic of China.

25. Plaintiff is also the exclusive owner of federally-registered copyrights

related to and used in connection with the packaging of its SPECK-branded

products, with the following (non-exhaustive) copyright names, registration

numbers, and registration dates:



8/46


- 8 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

A. CANDYSHELL FOR iPHONE 4, VA1772394 (Registered

May 6, 2011);

B. iPhone 5 CandyShell Core2 Wedge2- Cardstock, VA1879028

(Registered November 20, 2012);C. iPhone 5 CandyShell FLIP Core2 Wedge2- Cardstock,

VA1879012 (Registered November 20, 2012);

D. iPhone 5 CandyShell GRIP Core2 Wedge2- Cardstock,


E. iPhone 5 CandyShell SATIN Core2 Wedge2- Cardstock,


F. iPhone 5 CandyShell Apple Packaging Milk Carton,

VA1879009 (Registered November 20, 2012); and

G. iPhone 5 CandyShell Card Apple Packaging Milk Carton,

VA1879036 (Registered November 20, 2012) (hereinafter Plaintiffs

Copyrights).

26. Additionally, Plaintiff owns a valid and lawfully issued United States

Patent, patent no. US 8,204,561 B2, for its one piece co-formed exterior hard

shell case with an elastomeric liner for mobile electronic devices. Attached

hereto as Exhibit Eis a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs registration certificate

for patent no. US 8,204,561 B2 (hereinafter Plaintiffs Patent).

Defendants Wrongful and Infringing Conduct

27. Defendants use, amongst other things, the Internet auction website

known as www.ebay.com (eBay) to sell and distribute products, includingcounterfeit hard goods bearing Plaintiffs Marks, embodying Plaintiffs

Copyrights, and utilizing Plaintiffs Patent described above, to consumers. At any

given time, there are millions of items listed on eBay.com for purchase by its

more than 200 million registered users.

/ / /



9/46


- 9 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

28. Beginning on a date that is currently unknown to Plaintiff and

continuing to the present, Defendants have, without the consent of Plaintiff,

offered to sell and sold within the United States (including within this judicial

district) goods that were neither made by Plaintiff nor by a manufacturerauthorized by Plaintiff (such goods are hereafter referred to as Counterfeit

Goods) using reproductions, counterfeits, copies and/or colorable imitations of

one or more of PlaintiffsMarks, Plaintiffs Copyrights, and PlaintiffsPatent.

29. On information and belief, Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants

imported said Counterfeit Goods into the United States, or encouraged others to

import said Counterfeit Goods into the United States, for the purpose of reselling

the Counterfeit Goods in the United States and within the Central District of

California.

30. Defendants own and operate at least two (2) known web stores on

eBay using the seller IDs drsmartphonesgroup and md5technologies.Through

these web stores, Defendants regularly and systematically used Plaintiffs Marks

in advertising and marketing and distributed and sold Counterfeit Goods bearing

Plaintiffs Marks, embodying Plaintiffs Copyrights, and comprised of Plaintiffs

Design Patent.

31. On or about January 29, 2013, Plaintiff purchased a purported

IPHONE 5 SPECK CANDYSHELL WHITE / BLUE COLOR. NEW, USA

SELLER (Item #300852917445) from Defendants, under eBay seller ID

drsmartphonesgroup, for a cost of $13.53, shipping inclusive, charged to the

PayPal electronic payment account of Plaintiff. Plaintiffs PayPal electronicpayment receipt clearly identifies Plaintiffs payment was made to STU

Distribution Serviceswith a Customer Service URL of http://www.md5tech.com,

and PayPal ID [email protected]. The Counterfeit Goods were

shipped by Defendants into Los Angeles, California within this Courts

jurisdiction and were received with a shipping label identifying the sender as



10/46


- 10 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Patrick Mattson. A true and correct copy of the PayPal electronic payment

receipt is attached hereto as Exhibit F.

32. The purported IPHONE 5 SPECK CANDYSHELL WHITE / BLUE

COLOR. NEW, USA SELLER (Item #300852917445) purchased fromDefendants was inspected by Plaintiff to determine authenticity. Plaintiffs

inspection of the purchased item using security measures confirmed that the item

Defendants sold to Plaintiff was, in fact, a counterfeit SPECK-branded

CANDYSHELL product.

33. On or about January 29, 2013, Plaintiff purchased a purported

IPHONE 5 SPECK CANDYSHELL DEEP VIOLET / AQUA COLOR. NEW,

USA SELLER (Item #271164615042) from Defendants, under eBay seller ID

md5technologies,for a cost of $18.75, shipping inclusive, charged to the PayPal

electronic payment account of Plaintiff. Plaintiffs PayPal electronic payment

receipt clearly identifies Plaintiffs payment was made to STU Distribution

Services, with a Customer Service URL of http://www.md5tech.com, and

PayPal ID [email protected]. The Counterfeit Goods were shipped

by Defendants into Los Angeles, California within this Courts jurisdiction and

were received with a shipping label identifying the sender as MD5

TECHNOLOGIES. A true and correct copy of the PayPal electronic payment

receipt is attached hereto as Exhibit G.

34. The purported IPHONE 5 SPECK CANDYSHELL DEEP VIOLET

/ AQUA COLOR. NEW, USA SELLER (Item #271164615042) purchased from

Defendants was inspected by Plaintiff to determine authenticity. Plaintiffsinspection of the purchased item using security measures confirmed that the item

Defendants sold to Plaintiff was, in fact, a counterfeit SPECK-branded

CANDYSHELL product.

35. Defendants intentionally and knowingly accepted Plaintiffs money

from a financial institution located in the State of California.



11/46


- 11 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

36. Defendants also intentionally and knowingly delivered the

Counterfeit Goods into the State of California.

37. Through such business activities, Defendants purposely derived

benefit from their interstate commerce activities by expressly targetingforeseeable purchasers in the State of California. But for Defendantsadvertising,

soliciting and selling of counterfeit SPECK-branded CANDYSHELL products

Plaintiff would not have been able to make a purchase of the subject products.

38. Defendants use images and names confusingly similar or identical to

PlaintiffsMarks to confuse consumers and aid in the promotion and sales of their

unauthorized and Counterfeit Goods. Defendants use Plaintiffs Marks, Plaintiffs

Copyrights, and Plaintiffs Patent, without authorization, to import, advertise,

display, offer to sell, sell, and distribute Counterfeit Goods.

39. Defendants use began long after Plaintiffs adoption and use of

Plaintiffs Marks, and after Plaintiff obtained trademark, copyright, and patent

registrations alleged above. Neither Plaintiff nor any authorized agents have

consented to Defendants use of Plaintiffs Marks, Plaintiffs Copyrights, or

Plaintiffs Patent.

40. Defendants actions have confused and deceived, or threatened to

confuse and deceive, the consuming public concerning the source and sponsorship

of the Counterfeit Goods sold and distributed by Defendants. By their wrongful

conduct, Defendants have traded upon and diminished Plaintiffs goodwill.

Furthermore, the sale and distribution of Counterfeit Goods by Defendants have

infringed upon Plaintiffs Marks, PlaintiffsCopyrights and/or Plaintiffs Patent.41. Defendants offering to sell, selling, importing and encouraging

others to import Counterfeit Goods in this manner was and is likely to cause

confusion or to cause mistake and/or to deceive consumers who purchase the

Counterfeit Goods. Defendants also offered to sell, sold, imported, and/or

encouraged others to import for purpose of resale within the United States



12/46


- 12 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Counterfeit Goods consisting of reproductions and/or copies of products bearing

Plaintiffs Marks, embodying Plaintiffs Copyrights, and utilizing Plaintiffs

Patent. Defendantsuse of such marks, copyrights, and patent was done without

Plaintiffs authorization.FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Trademark Infringement Against Defendants PATRICK MATTSON, STU

DISTRIBUTION SERVICES, LLC, MD5 TECHNOLOGIES, and DOES 1-

10, Inclusive)

[15 U.S.C. 1114/Lanham Act43(a)]

42. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each of the other

allegations set forth elsewhere in this First Amended Complaint as though fully

set forth in this cause of action.

43. Defendants actions as described herein constitute direct and/or

contributory trademark infringement in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1114(1)(a).

44. As a proximate result of Defendants trademark infringement,

Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial. Further, Plaintiff

alleges on information and belief that, as a proximate result of Defendants

trademark infringement, Defendants have unlawfully profited in an amount to be

proven at trial.

45. At all relevant times, Defendants acted intentionally and/or willfully

in using Plaintiffs Marks on the Counterfeit Goods, knowing that Plaintiffs

Marks belonged to Plaintiff, that the Counterfeit Goods were in fact counterfeit,

and that Defendants were not authorized to use Plaintiffs Marks on theCounterfeit Goods. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to recovery of treble damages

pursuant to 15 U.S.C.1117(a). Further, Defendantsknowing, intentional and/or

willful actions make this an exceptional case, entitling Plaintiff to an award of

reasonable attorney fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1117(a).

/ / /



13/46


- 13 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

46. Defendantsactions also constitute the use by Defendants of one or

more counterfeit marks as defined in 15 U.S.C. 1116(d)(1)(B). Plaintiff

therefore reserves the right to elect, at any time before final judgment is entered in

this case, an award of statutory damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C.1117(c)(1) and/or(2).

47. The acts of direct and/or contributory trademark infringement

committed by Defendants have caused, and will continue to cause, Plaintiff

irreparable harm unless they are enjoined by this Court.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(False Designation of Origin, False or Misleading Advertising Against

Defendants PATRICK MATTSON, STU DISTRIBUTION SERVICES, LLC,

MD5 TECHNOLOGIES, and DOES 1-10, Inclusive)

[15 U.S.C. 1125 (a)]


allegations set forth elsewhere in this First Amended Complaint as thought fully


49.

Defendants actions as described herein constitute direct and/or

contributory violation of 15 U.S.C. 1125(a)(1)(A), as such actions are likely to

cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation,

connection, or association of Defendants with Plaintiff and/or as to the origin,

sponsorship, and/or approval of such Counterfeit Goods by Plaintiff.

50. As a proximate result of Defendantsviolation as described herein,

Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial. Further, Plaintiffalleges on information and belief that, as a proximate result of defendants direct

and/or contributory trademark infringement, Defendants have unlawfully profited,

in an amount to be proven at trial.

51. Defendantsacts of violating, directly and/or contributorily 15 U.S.C.

1125 have caused, and will continue to cause, Plaintiff irreparable harm unless



14/46


- 14 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

they are enjoined by this Court.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(Trademark Dilution Against Defendants PATRICK MATTSON, STU


10, Inclusive)

[15 U.S.C. 1125(c)]




53. Plaintiffs Marks are distinctive and famous within the meaning of

theLanham Act.

54. Upon information and belief, Defendants unlawful actions began

long after Plaintiffs Marks became famous, and Defendants acted knowingly,

deliberately and willfully with the intent to trade on Plaintiffs reputation and to

dilute Plaintiffs Marks. Defendantsconduct is willful, wanton and egregious.

55. Defendants intentional sale of fake, pirated Counterfeit Goods

bearing Plaintiffs Marks is likely to cause confusion, mistake, or to deceive,

mislead, betray, and defraud consumers to believe that the substandard imitations

are genuine products manufactured by Plaintiff. The actions of Defendants

complained of herein have diluted and will continue to dilute Plaintiffs Marks,

and are likely to impair the distinctiveness, strength and value of Plaintiffs

Marks, and injure the business reputation of Plaintiff and its marks.

56.

Defendants acts have caused and will continue to cause Plaintiffirreparable harm. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law to compensate it fully

for the damages that have been caused and which will continue to be caused by

Defendantsunlawful acts, unless they are enjoined by this Court.

57. As the acts alleged herein constitute a willful violation of section

43(c) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(c), Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive



15/46


- 15 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

relief as well as monetary damages and other remedies provided by 15 U.S.C.

1116, 1117, 1118, and 1125(c), including Defendantsprofits, treble damages,

reasonable attorneys fees, costs and prejudgment interest.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Unfair Competition Against Defendants PATRICK MATTSON, STU


10, Inclusive)

Cali fornia Business & Professions Code17200 et seq.


allegations set forth elsewhere in this First Amended Complaint as thought fully


59. Defendants actions described herein constitute unlawful, unfair

and/or fraudulent business acts or practices. Defendants actions thus constitute

unfair competition pursuant to California Business & Professions Code 17200.

60. As a proximate result of Defendants actions, Plaintiff has suffered an

injury in fact, including without limitation, damages in an amount to be proven at

trial, loss of money or property, and diminution in the value of its trademarks,

copyrights, and patent. Plaintiff therefore has standing to assert this claim

pursuant to California Business & Professions Code 17204.

61. Defendants actions have caused, and will continue to cause Plaintiff

to suffer irreparable harm unless enjoined by this Court pursuant to California

Business & Professions Code 17203. In addition, Plaintiff requests that the

Court order that Defendants disgorges all profits wrongfully obtained as a result ofDefendants unfair competition, and order that defendant pay restitution to

Plaintiff in an amount to be proven at trial.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /



16/46


- 16 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Federal Copyright Infringement Against Defendants PATRICK

MATTSON, STU DISTRIBUTION SERVICES, LLC, MD5

TECHNOLOGIES, and DOES 1-10, Inclusive)

[17 U.S.C. 501(a)]


allegationsset forth elsewhere in this First Amended Complaint as thought fully


63. Plaintiff is the exclusive owner of copyrights in and related to the

packaging of SPECK-branded CANDYSHELL products, among others,

having numerous registrations and applications relating to the same pending with

the United States Copyright Office.

64. Defendants did not seek and failed to obtain Plaintiffs consent or

authorization to utilize, manufacture, reproduce, copy, display, prepare derivative

works, distribute, sell, transfer, rent, perform, and/or market packaging

embodying Plaintiffs Copyrights.

65.

Without permission, Defendants intentionally and knowingly

imported, reproduced, counterfeited, copied, displayed, and/or manufactured

Plaintiffs protected works by offering, advertising, promoting, retailing, selling,

and distributing counterfeit SPECK-branded CANDYSHELL products

contained within packaging which is at a minimum substantially similar to

Plaintiffs Copyrights.

66.

Defendants acts as alleged herein, constitute infringement ofPlaintiffs Copyrights, including Plaintiffs exclusive rights to reproduce,

distribute and/or sell such protected material.

67. Defendants knowing and intentional copyright infringement as

alleged herein has caused and will continue to cause substantial and irreparable

harm to Plaintiff and has and will continue to cause damage to Plaintiff. Plaintiff



17/46


- 17 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

is therefore entitled to injunctive relief, damages, Defendants profits, increased

damages, and reasonable attorneys fees and costs.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Federal Patent Infringement Against Defendants PATRICK MATTSON,

STU DISTRIBUTION SERVICES, LLC, MD5 TECHNOLOGIES, and

DOES 1-10, Inclusive)

[35 U.S.C. 71]




69. Plaintiff is the owner of the federally registered utility patent with the

USPTO Registration No.: US 8,204,561 B2.

70. Defendants have infringed and continue to infringe Plaintiffs Patent

by using, selling and/or offering to sell, in the United States and/or importing into

the United States, Counterfeit Goods which utilize Plaintiffs Patent. By their

conduct, Defendants have violated 35 U.S.C. 271 by direct infringement of

Plaintiffs Patent.

71. On the basis allege, Defendants have gained profits by virtue of its

infringement of PlaintiffsPatent.

72. As a direct and legal result of Defendants wrongful conduct,

Plaintiff has been and will be irreparably and permanently harmed; wherefore

Plaintiff is without an adequate remedy at law. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled

to, among other things, an order enjoining and restraining Defendants from furtherengaging in the infringement of PlaintiffsPatent.

73. Defendantsinfringement of PlaintiffsPatent is and has been willful.

Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to its monetary damages, in an amount to be

proven at trial, and award of treble damages, and its reasonable attorneys fees and

costs.



18/46


- 18 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff SPECULATIVE PRODUCT DESIGN, LLC

hereby respectfully requests the following relief against Defendants PATRICK

MATTSON, STU DISTRIBUTION SERVICES, LLC, MD5 TECHNOLOGIES,and DOES 1-10, inclusive, and each of them as follows:

1. For an award of Defendants profits and Plaintiffs damages in anamount

to be proven at trial for trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C.

1114(a);

2. For an award of Defendants profits and Plaintiffs damages in an amount

to be proven at trial for false designation of origin and unfair competition

under 15 U.S.C.1125(a);

3. For an award of Defendants profits and Plaintiffs damages in an amount

to be proven at trial for trademark dilution under 15 U.S.C. 1125(c);

4. For treble damages suffered by Plaintiff as a result of the willful and

intentional infringements and acts of counterfeiting engaged in by

Defendants, under 15 U.S.C. 1117(b);

5.

In the alternative to actual damages and Defendants profits for the

infringement and counterfeiting of Plaintiffs trademarks pursuant to the

Lanham Act, for statutory damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1117(c)

which election Plaintiff will make prior to the rendering of final

judgment;

6. For $2,000,000 per counterfeit mark, per type of goods sold, offered for

sale, or distributed under 15 U.S.C. 1117(c)(2);7. For an award of Defendants profitsand Plaintiffs damages in an amount

to be proven at trial for copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. 501(a);

8. In the alternative to actual damages and Defendants profits pursuant to

17 U.S.C. 504(b), for statutory damages pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 504(c)

which election Plaintiff will make prior to the rendering of final



19/46


- 19 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

judgment;

9. For $150,000 per work under 17 U.S.C. 504(c)(2);

10.For restitution in an amount to be proven at trial for unfair, fraudulent

and illegal business practices under Business and Professions Code17200;

11.For damages to be proven at trial for common law unfair competition;

12.For an injunction by this Court prohibiting Defendants from engaging or

continuing to engage in the unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts

or practices described herein, including the advertising and/or dealing in

any Counterfeit Goods; the unauthorized use of any mark, copyright or

other intellectual property right of Plaintiff; acts of trademark

infringement or dilution; acts of copyright infringement; false designation

of origin; unfair competition; patent infringement; and any other act in

derogation of Plaintiffs rights;

13.For an order from the Court requiring that Defendants provide complete

accountings and for equitable relief, including that Defendants disgorge

and return or pay their ill-gotten gains obtained from the illegal

transactions entered into and or pay restitution, including the amount of

monies that should have been paid if Defendants complied with their

legal obligations, or as equity requires;

14.For an order from the Court that an asset freeze or constructive trust be

imposed over all monies and profits in Defendants possession which

rightfully belong to Plaintiff;15.For destruction of the infringing articles in Defendants possession under

15 U.S.C. 1118 and 17 U.S.C. 503;

16.An order and judgment preliminary and permanently enjoining

Defendants and their officers, directors, agents, servants, employees,

affiliates, attorneys, and all others acting in privity or in concert with



20/46


- 20 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

them, and their parents, subsidiaries, divisions, successors and assigns

from further acts of infringement of Plaintiffs Patent;

17.For an award of Plaintiffs damages and Defendants profits adequate to

compensate Plaintiff for Defendants infringement of Plaintiffs Patent,and in no event less than a reasonable royalty for Defendants acts of

infringement, including all pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as

the maximum rate permitted by law;

18.For an award of all damages, including treble damages, based on any

infringement found to be willful, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 284, together

with prejudgment interest;

19.For an award of all profits, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 289 together with

prejudgment interest;

20.For damages in an amount to be proven at trial for unjust enrichment;

21.For an award of exemplary or punitive damages in an amount to be

determined by the Court;

22.For Plaintiffs reasonable attorneys fees;

23.

For all costs of suit; and

24.For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and

equitable.

DATED: November 25, 2014 JOHNSON & PHAM, LLP

By: __/s/Marcus F. Chaney__________Marcus F. Chaney, Esq.

Attorneys for PlaintiffSPECULATIVE PRODUCT DESIGN,LLC d/b/a SPECK PRODUCTS



21/46


- 21 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff SPECULATIVE PRODUCT DESIGN, LLC, dba SPECK

PRODUCTS, respectfully demands a trial by jury in this action pursuant to Local

Rule 38-1.DATED: November 25, 2014 JOHNSON & PHAM, LLP

By: __/s/Marcus F. Chaney__________Marcus F. Chaney, Esq.Attorneys for PlaintiffSPECULATIVE PRODUCT DESIGN,LLC d/b/a SPECK PRODUCTS



22/46

Exhibit A

Case 2:14-cv-06465-ODW-PLA Document 29-1 Filed 11/25/14 Page 1 of 25 Page ID #:158


23/46



24/46

Exhibit B



25/46



26/46

Exhibit C



27/46



28/46

Exhibit D



29/46



30/46

Exhibit E



31/46

llilflilIflrll ffi

illllulftilil

ffiil fl[lllll

fiIfl

flnffi

fiI

ilfl

lffi

l

us00820456182

(rD

{Jnited States Fatent

Mongrn

et

al,

0o)

Pslent

No,:

(4s)

Dotc oflatenl:

LJS 8,204,561 82

Jun.

I9,2012

(50

oNE PIiCE CO.lOlL]ltiD

It\TlitUOR

IIART)

SIELL C^SE

WITS.AN

EtnSTO

[ruC

LINER

FOR

IIIOBTLE ELECTRONIC

DEVICES

fi/1999 Al$au5c.ld.

6/ 000 KllchE .Eadi

Ue000 llosrrd,

t .

le00t

Yoncdct


32/46

us

E,204,s61

B2

PoBB

z

6,?71,25?

El

6J71,056

BI

65t4.7:2 Bl

6661,t74

EI

6,78J,566

Ur

6p14,?74 Hl

6,980,7?? R?

688t,589 R2

7,11ff,00{ BZ

7J,ll,lel

Fl

D5 1,319 S

D5 1.?46

S

7.551.r,tt

l]:

7,509,512 n:

7$2t,8rr

Bl

i,647,08?

82

D617,?E{ S

7.9t1,t2 BZ

3mt/0002003

Al

r00i/0(no[

Al

t00l/0068 15 At

1rJ03/00?0r5, At

Il0y00[]094

l

o0l/0r03c24

Al

Iqll/ol

t66

At

20{l,tr00l1l06

Al

?00t0151?t At

2@ 8t74727 it

?00t02?9661 l

?0n6/0040550

l

?u06/0t6t800

Al

t0{t?/00602:.1

A

?0t7/0181?81

A

?008,001 718

A

2008/0019t61 A

3008/00 6610 A

:rxr8/0t17507 A

:00&0Ix84

A

20D9IlOt?33t

A

00t/0080151

,1

:0091011ts'll

A

:{r t/o rr+11{

A

:0tq/0006.iIq

A

t0lu/00?gl.tl

A

?0lq0096t6rt Jl

?0lu/010.t814

A

r0l0/0tr618? A

l' rdell

ki:atry

lbeulnl

Ririllrkor

Hobbsg

fiolllbjlg

Rtchr soo 4al,

lllcluGoE cl nI.

l'l'r4lol

0uc$cl$ct 1.

Hu

Xenppi cr

Mclisnncl

il.

Chu,-.,.-."....---.." 455/5?5,{

Llc

ar

il.

,",..,,,.--.-

4i5/57J.s

'r8i

RictinLo

r

L

Chiincy

cl ol,

U.S. I',ATENT DOCIJMENTS

20t0/01{4411

At

2lt0/01477t5 ,1l

?0tqui:t515

r1l

64010

PcnirEill

612010

Yialioli

cr ol

9E010

vld

cr

al.

FOIIIICN I'IIIIjNL DOC:UMINTS

0zllt6t

At 22w?

OTIIBR PllBLlc/ ]ONS

&/200t

lly20D2

9t?og7

lz200l

84004

7T?oE5

113005

lt2.E6

7EW7

3/30 8

r':00t

('300t

6/?00t

97000

Itv:o0t

I

U 009

l/:010.

dlol0

4/:01r

r2001

?20[]

dlo0:t

4l]001

y 001

(irto0l

&3 01

tn00I

?/:Q05

8/1005

lv 005

1J2UA6

7t2006

x,.-pn1

8/ 007

z 000

z:0 H

,l/1008

t/t008

l0/ 008

teflr9

3/ tD

'v20w

vl l],

tEot0

4110r0

4/:010

,v 0r0

J/r0to

S 0cl

Folccdon

ofFotultu drcuDDic

lFdsctr:

Sl'o* td|loE

EpelrM, dlrE8u

boundry.4rFoEh

Bnd

blyond

ClotEl,

5

(RqrdDI)i

P.pabFoulur,

JMi sullivft ,

PIAT&T

Ildl lrbr, L c r

T.cb-ool,WlFls n EI b.600MlAYc,Itrt lb-zIalttumyllill,NJ,

0?974

(?Epri osh.clMdVbhdoa

199?,vol.4,

N..1,

F,

169-191,

ldpEltrB

lhrucl tolcec. ol

nDnol'lc

.lcctrctlc

t.qiEEi

cs

iluJyolcdlul

phonc.

S. Coyd, S.

UpuFiiDlil

D-V.

Lltlclt-l? d.

a' 01Mchsls Covs

Ddrc:

Ms. ,s,

lt9,

PubliEicc

SttiDls

BlsrorlSSNl0014485l

Sirbjcq;

f'rglBc.dn

shn

F.,[t

ElIlI

F

5]

vol,39

here

I

URL: hlF/,,(rdo1,oB/10.100711r02:l:tlu0

Dotr

I0.l007rBm2l?9300i l0

Fp,

Cindyshdl

Sours brF/

vch0nftivt.o'E/w$n00H

ll l80i5J09/

hfl

F,/1w1l*sFlhrEd

cts.com/nEducltct

dyrbell/rplolc.l ,,

16l,lide l&t008.I

F.

Rllu ol s o L EiInElc sptrugr

i

cllFAic

prD.ticr

r$pL$lor

dill

Cotd,

S.,

Ello'

CEry

w,,

BuErylltli, Elstd

X. l .

brs-

liri@l

JouEd

ofMilBilrliE

uld

El


33/46

{.LS. Fatent Jur,

19, 2012

Sheer

I

0f 6

10

us 8,204,561

B2

12

r5

16

13

23

17

18

z6

F[G" {

Case 2:14-cv-06465-ODW-PLA Document 29-1 Filed 11/25/14 Page 12 of 25 Page ID#:169


34/46

{1,S.

Fatent

Jun.

19, 2012 Sheet 2

0f

6

20

13

F$G" 2A

12

us 8,204561

92

20

12

20

13

n--"

"

FEG"

2B



35/46

U.S"lPatent

Jun.19,2012

Sheet3of6

12

20

FEG"

3

us

8,204,561

B2

21

23



36/46

U,S.

Fatent

Jun.

19, ?oI2 sheet 4 of

6

21

F[G.4

20

19

FEG" 6

us

8,204,561 B2

13

12

13

,12



37/46

{.LS.lPatent

Jun.19,2012 sheets016

IJS 8,204,561B2

21

n

19

13

22

12

F[G.5



38/46

U,S,lPatent Jun.19,201?

Sheet6of6

u.

us 8,204,561

82

12

lJ

F$G"

7A

FEG" 78

13

tt



39/46

us

8,204"561 82

72

ONE PII,:CE CO.FoINII|D

g-T{TERIOR

D.ilrD

Dsc 6

lilic

rhc

tdil ot

rs

o.iiBJ

pbodc

usd would

likc

lo

SIIELL

(:rsl;

rYlm, \

l,f,.ASToMEIUC

Elli

0h

dur

fctl

bm still

* l

llmrcsliod

for

rhcir dcdcc.

LINER 'oltMoBILEELECTRONIC ltebrdlmrccrivccxtcdnrshcllofdl'prcscotisv@0oob

-_ DEVICE.5

o

low

cocfficicntofllictior1

Tbis

alloNs

th

dcviccro cosily

bc

J

$lirpral

h

llod our of

poEkcc

catily wi$oul

bccdt{ng

IUifjUfD.^PUUCAIIONS

ollscLld or

wi$oul

Ercxt

rcsist&le.lo

clolhjoE

EDleri |s. r1

rrujor coElhiql.lioE

cuErtrl

(,'lilstc@criu

q.lsc

usJrs.

Tbis lpplication

i5

0 coMINUAIoN

of u.s.

pltctrt

lho

c.se

lmgl

by lbc

ltlccnl

iuvcrtioD

br's

trn

inlcrior

Dppticali;;

Scr,

No. U.,lf6,?69,

lllq.d

f.cb,

6

|

200r,

ll. ;

cD -

cla onc;c

lortior

lh l.

Frovid6.shork

Prclecliod

for lhc

d;b

of

which

is

iDcolronltb

l"r"ir

ry

'.roio*,

r0

da'icc f| D1

d'ofFr.E8;

ljrls'

or

olhcr

iftlnta

TlL

i te'io'

clustoncdc

loaion

nL

o

c{rsurcs thc dcvicc ond thD tasc Jit

'ILOIMCAI-

lil|jLD

OF TIIE INVLN]ION

rogerlrlrrviu o

guire

us

tho

q$c

is

singlc

pictc

ossetbly,

IIID

cre

b 3

0

vcry Eolid

mnorcliotl

lo Io

lhollc

DEd

fcEI6

1tc

prEstlr

iqvcotloE

rluca

$inoElly

ro

llldbrld

Eobilu

lalrcErly hilh

quDlily

ud

li8lnvciShl

elect$iic

drviujr.

sucll I|J{

pcr:onaldicitol

ossislopl, ccllu.

15

\{lul

mokcs

lLdr

cascdiJlcrc[l

ie lhcgcollclry

der u_

Ior

rdlcplouq

lab

top compirtcn nr

poiobl

rliBitr Ercdh

frcluritrgofthecsre Thcc](lcliorhltJdsll :llnsd

ic lorucd

to

plryv.

ttlorc

4ccifiirlly

llie

pnscoi iouurion nlotcs ro a

lil

lhc tlq.jrc cl0$sly wilh n lnnqll

olTFet

lmn

tho

dcviccs

'arulriph+oopincnr

pnxrcLivi:

crsc for mobilc

qlc{trcnic

curlsca

T[c cxlsrior

hard

sllcli rJls

lJotlnd Lha cd8cf oltltc

dEviar,

du'icc it is lbrmd for.

lo

lllow

*rc

6hcll

to

bc

ablc lo bc

:o

lDo olcd

on

d$

devlcc

tllc corluls

ot

lhc

blJtl Ehcll all, cur

opus-

Tlis

alloivs

coc)r

sidqf,all

10

fls

ovty whc d$,ie

is

i'$cncd

srd snlr bnEL

orcc

ir iE

io

CocllTtDuEiflc

r+nr

nr

th'E

crs is

rhnl

6c

elndomeriE

malrdd ls

formud

in

uddillon

lo Uru rlcriorhlrd cll

nn tll

inlcriorof tllEcncrior

hud

slcl, thu cl loolL=lE ltilluri l

lllls ir

Utc

goF

ctd(cd ol

ibe

corqcrs

ollbc srtcdor

hdrd

$cl)

L

rll'iw

dic

Ldrd

r[cl

to

Ilcx

for ]0untioB, Tlc chsllE

ric

roalcriul

is

Frovidcd

inl-hls

loEr ion

tc.auu it hll

mucl,

gE1rlst inlcrcrt fl$db:liry t0n

lhc

trhrlic

Drnul

lollic

cxlcdor blral shull

d

it slilctcs

sulEuicntly

to

.rlLrw

drc

sirlc*nlls ofdrc

qlctior

hard shcu

10

eljll

IL*

r]ray

on

mourtilg.Thk

cl(stcsa olc..pic'cc

c[scdrol

wtats

orDuld

phoru

oro rumobilc

clectronic dcvicc

crto

on

l,ollllrg Dod

plsvcds

difl md Ruid fmo cnrcrioE

whur'

cvlr bossible.

'l

be

clD5toharic lincrolso

can bo

ftmcd

olEr

uru

b'r:ttDns

0n

thc

drouu

whufti

u

us .simply

pirrll5

rbE

clnnofteric

linErmrEr nndils

lo

ll)c

Iloaioo

of

Gc

mb;lc

cbcrNDlc dLryhc lnput

dlol lrdcsircd.

BNEF DESCR]TTJON

OF'fHTi I)IT41VINCS

TIrc srrompDnyhg

dD$in8s, whjc

&c ircorloFlcd

hcrci

Ed

lbnn s pan

o[ 6c

slcsi]icolion.

illuslmt

dre

I'Il,rcol

irrslioo u d,

logrLbcr villl

Urc dr5cril,tion, fuihcr

Ecrvc

l$

uxtloin

d)c

nrinEinlc

ofdlc ilvcllioa

ud'l

ttr

crublc

o

prcon

slillc.t h tltc

Fdhcrt

irn

lo

m*

Erd uc Ib

i[vcrlio&

EIC.Ih

0

pcFpecrivE

vias

ofo bsDdlElddsviEcFml

rcrivc

m9c

delicllo

lhu o0crDll

hld

sLcll loycr

rvi6

cDlcoEcrr

Dod

unor

rlrnomcric lrycr

oftlru

prull.clivs

srrting

qlse

whcrc

illills

io

rc

crt co(llerg ofthc'etlertll

hrd 5Ic1l hyq;

fIGs.

s nnd 2j

lrE

scEriold

eiL.#

ofihDprulo4ivc6tc

ol thc

pnrcor

lnvmdon

slrnvi 8

rhu dcrcnl cr -lllcd by *t

inner cl0nancric

ldyF lor sccudsg

dsvice

in

ro c sc;

$lO,

r

:s

ll

lop

'.Elbes d

yls

of

a

budlcld

dcvicc

Iorcclirr-

cosc dcf,iclirg$c a(cmo) atd

EhcI

lsycrwilL

cu

concts

d irllcrc'dl1orEsic

luycroldLc

pNlelivc crdyiDg

ciro vhctc

is

filh i-o lhr cul comels

oI

l

cKcrnll L0td shcll

hycr dllllsddilionll

I

orBo cllstoDc[ic

ovcrltnd

tor

sccirn

ldg

o

dcvic ;

l;l(1, { iF

sl:cLiooul

vi w

oIUe

pmlEclivc

c 5c Ltftlc

pt tctr

hN'cndo

slowi 8

tlru

)urEc

closloEctic

ovsbrnd

for

s8 ur'

iog

r

duYicli

ljlc.5

is

n

pc$pLYlivc vlc? of

thc

FtDtrttivc

c05c oflhc

niE.icD

Invcnrion

brfurc dsviEc ir

su-Un:] dluI[in;

llC. 6 is Il

pc I 'cdvlt

vjcw ollhc

Irutuclivc

clls(tlllucbcd

lo

a

sompls

dcvic

shorv'irg

&c

dclcol

crslcd

by

lbc

iolcr

cl flomlric

la)'cr

Ior

$cclE irg u

devicc

in

lb', cnsq

md

BACKCIROIJND

OF 1'I

IJi

IIWENIION

Tlcru

ilro

m $y

sJscs for lEndheld

elcclrloic

dcviccs.

]l'ry tall iolD fuu

Elin

crlssedcr

F:hstolrutidtublcr

ekirs,

llJd

plarric

rhilk,

cu lld sLN

$rlctidls

lld

cobi-

lItjori

of fte5c, In

gcncn

l

lbRclaslomcd crscs

llc tiodc

ski

wUc ,

blx[usc

ofttc

flcxjhle lBlurE

ofdru nulcd0l, m

uu\ily

hc

sucrched ovu'

tlc

devico

rnd

dlfr

oncc

illndlql

collorm

closely

tu

tI(.

sbq,o

ol

Uo

qcvicc,

Tle rubtsry

rrurcriul

trrD

pr$vidclcry

EDorl

$o krEiiellucu.

ll)c do$'l-

sidc

offtesc

rypcq

ofc,acr

ii

lbal &c

dlnorcric

llllerial

lns

a

lriglr

.ftED

friclon

scmcilat. tt -c lruJils fiis ryFc oI

crse

dilficuk

lu

llE

io

Dsd

rEeovc

liom

pockcGltodolhci

righl

th@.

Whrris nrL{d is r

devicc

ltul

oncre

llerery

good

stoElirlj3;Irunccofu n

cft

Lelirflrtricerrcwi$oul

w hid]

slrlucc t iclior

.ocllicicot

mo$rs il morc

cowcqil.Ilcc for

Ijhrd

lloltic

rlulls

norDouy

Bro

Ennui0ctlfcd lls roorc

ElnonBplecelosllow

tlEdevircl0 Flideinln

thcc4qcfu loru

bElDgcloscd

jo\r,jlhrsEcoEdlrypllts,Additiunrllythcf

y,ill

a0

oftco llrvc s

lilcr

ofclllromcric

Eulfdul,

Nhldr

h l s

Io

cuslion

te

iLvicc.

Tb

.r

bo

co-mold.d,

Irlo

cldy

sluclEd

nrlloaliog

rrith

thc ne*:fibly. Cul

nad S "w ce{:s

&c

soEtlllly

d0dD

lloh

flli

rto [

matcrid,

wL]cfi k cut

jrlo

lalrenls

uod 0rs L'wtriDlo

u

Elups

lbrllhc

dLaie co

ilido

rr

futo.'ftc

dcaicc

lE

dl,n

llcld

iD

lluuo,

by friclion

or ll

dlrnl

of

soEc fDrE.'l-hc

downsids

o

ttlsc

dcviccs

isrhut it clln bc

difrlulr

ro

lulchcd

u dr{ic{

to

rigiLl

c$e, or+hrfli n casc

hls D sEcoodrry

llEcc

for $jcurlng

s

&vicc,

it

cln &i bull

Io

d'cmmbinndon oldrc dcvlcD

qrd

cIrE

mnkitrg

it imtnctic0l,

l0

AdditioEllt

Ur nni

ullcur

ofcarc'

which uc rlqul$tl

to

bc

cul

uod sc\rh togcthcr

gIthdy

hclcurcs

cosl wh (

is

lll.dlxl

G a

trrEu

tLat combinut bor lad slcli

cEscs oDd

closluEcric E

criul llr

ii

clry

lo

Floducc

ald ruqulrEs

minlor

raolcriDl ;n

lll

pnduclion.

55

SUMMTUTY OF

TIIP I}IWNTION

'[tu

llrtlrn

illvclrtion

is

un

implowncn

Dwr Oe exigllng

flscs bc{ausc il coEbioL.s ll:bcstfEaNftcoIbolhb dcusu 6

and

thc

duroEcriE

6cc \vhjlc tr-ilB ooly

r

siEsic

pln,

which

i5

lJrdicrlt,lrly

uscfbl

fro@ i

cnnsus]cr

vicrvpo_lll

lte

nrcscor

iovcrdon

pmvldcr

s

hld

prulcclivc

cxlcrior

sLtcil,

'Ilir

hld

Frutccdvc

cxlljrior

slrEll

allow3

$c dcvlcr

muxl-

rDuE

luolcclio

lrom idpacrs wiur slurp Dljclli

] e

bllfd d,

Fml{cdvccxlcdorrbcllEjD

cs

UicnnirholsEislirgphoncr,

MPt4

)nyc$.

d i.t

orlcr

Eobilc

clccBodc

dcvicca.

Mrlly



40/46

us 8,204,561

82

34

IICS. ?a

D[d

76 uc

ncrspcllivcvic{rs

oftlc

pnscrl

iqvco-

cur

\yould

bs torE

d

io Uc clostoEedc onlcriol bur thc lkr.

lion

dctlctil8

lhc c.dctDnl

lurd rbell hycr.q,irh

cut

Eolsun iEB

lo slloc o dcvicc tq

6

iNuded

lnto

$clmllcrivc co5c

aDd i (.I cLsrlotluric hycr olrhc

pDlecries

r rryiEEmsci

would('lacGomthDhfitcl.Ertcri

,osdtgrir,cullinglwry

a

rc$lrt,

-sccuring

posilinn

trnd

in

ar

c


41/46

us

8,204,s61

B?

56

lt

is

uffrEisrcd lb

dtc oldmurd

dirqcilsiolll

rclDlioo.

thDr

ir

suflicics

y

lsxiblc

lo

cnsblc

tha

co.qoldcd ole.Piecc

rhilE forific

pons

oflhc iovctri; ,

lo i0clude

vdriuli0n

h

sila

,

rsscEbly lo ddorm

ald tcrcby

accclt insstiDtr of 0I.

Irxr'

motcrirls,

Fc,

forr , fulclioo,

ood rn nnur ofolcrJtir)n,

sno'il clcctronic dcvic .

lslsubly

snd

usa,

ors dclmcd rEoaily

ollDnnt

lDd

obviuus

5.

lfi nnc.Iiocc

ctsc

ofchlm

1

,

whut(in

lh

a(lcdor

hlrd

|D dnc oiordirlry

llill

iotcurL urd di iquilElelt rEhlior.

t luyErircludL:r

ul

llrlrl

f0ur6:dc

surtaccslhll illeltEl Io form

shjpr

ro

tlosa illunElcd

jn

rhs

dFwh&s

qrd

dlscribcd

D llc

l

lurs

l

four comcr

Filt6

[[d

bvo

of

Lhc

.o'u.joi ls

coE'

t;va

dllcdltlon urc ittl d ] lo b;cacoEltoatd

hy lfic

] isc

c -m y

ponioDt

d$t

Lq,oec th cD'doldld flsdblc

pnscDr

iEvadion

i ct luyc

'

Flrthcrfloru,

orhcr Mca6 of da

lrloy

b.Dc6t fi$m

lhls

7-

Tlio

onGplccc.ntE

oldois I' wbqrEln lhc

co-EloldBl

rocdrod & d

ldjrsboEls

lo lbs alcsi8 nJr

0.lricilulcd

llos, ro oDE.FlEc usscEbly-iu;hdc

da ovtdunE

e)(EDNEg trum B

tLru

scolc

of ilu iavurrrion r}ouki be

d t @io d

by llta

toF

I

onioa

I

fone

oiinoreofbc

sid

surfDccs

ill

flil-Jlei

lo

lhE

ll'Fodcd

clnimi

fll

drcir lcgrl

quivdmE,

mlll'

dron hy bollom srrfucc oflhE

oocJ,iKc

c sE.

r6i


42/46

Exhibit F



43/46



44/46

Exhibit G



45/46



46/46

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

PROOF OF SERVICE

I am a resident of the State of California, over the age of eighteen years, andnot a party to the within action. My business address is Johnson & Pham, LLP6355 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 326, Woodland Hills, California 91367. OnNovember 25, 2014, I served the within document(s):

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES ANDDECLARATORY RELIEF

FACSIMILE - by transmitting via facsimile the document(s) listedabove to the fax number(s) set forth on the attached Telecommunications CoverPage(s) on this date before 5:00 p.m.

MAIL - by causing the document(s) listed above to be placed in asealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail atWoodland Hills, California addressed as set forth below.

PERSONAL SERVICE - by personally delivering the document(s)listed above to the person(s) at the address(es) set forth below.

OVERNIGHT COURIER - by placing the document(s) listed abovein a sealed envelope with shipping prepaid, and depositing in a collection box fornext day delivery to the person(s) at the address(es) set forth below via UNITEDPARCEL SERVICE.

BY E-MAIL/ELECTRONIC DELIVERY - by causing suchdocument(s) to be transmitted by electronic mail transmission to the appropriateelectronic mail address(es) set forth below.

Marina L. Lang, Esq. STU DISTRIBUTION SERVICES, LLC

[email protected] 6803 Preston Rd., Suite 138SoCal IP Law Group, LLP Frisco, TX 75034310 N. Westlake Blvd., Suite 120Westlake Village, CA 91362 MD5 TECHNOLOGIESPhone: (805) 230-1350 6803 Preston Rd., Suite 138Fax: (805) 230-1355 Frisco, TX 75034

Attorneys for DefendantPATRICK MATTSON

I declare that I am a member of the bar of this court.

Executed on November 25, 2014, at Woodland Hills, California.

By: __/s/Marcus F. Chaney__________

Marcus F. Chaney


Speculative v. Mattson - Amended Complaint

Documents

Transcript of Speculative v. Mattson - Amended Complaint