cbb asset managment et. al. v. docking master et. al

8/12/2019 CBB Asset Managment et. al. v. Docking Master et. al.

1/24

Page 1 of 24

))

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

))

)

)

)

_________________________________________)

CBB ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC, aFlorida Limited Liability Company, andGIUSEPPE BRIANZA,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DOCKING MASTER, LLC, a FloridaLimited Liability Company, JOSERODRIGUEZ, an individual, and JOHN

DOES et al., all whose true names presentlyunknown,

Defendants.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 1:14cv21026

COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT, INDUCING PATENT

INFRINGEMENT, CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT, AND FLORIDA DECEPTIVE

AND UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES

The Plaintiffs, CBB ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC and GIUSEPPE BRIANZA, sues

for causes of action against Defendants, DOCKING MASTER, LLC, JOSE RODRIGUEZ, and

JOHN DOES et al., and complains as follows:

THE PARTIES

1. Plaintiff, CBB ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC (Plaintiff CBB), is a FloridaLimited Liability Company having its principal place of business located at 540 Brickell Key

Dr., No. 727, Miami, FL 33131.

2. Plaintiff, Giuseppe Brianza (Plaintiff Brianza), is an individual residing at ViaPastura 1, 6983 Magliaso, Switzerland.


2/24

Page 2 of 24

3. Defendant, DOCKING MASTER, LLC (DOCKING MASTER orDefendant), is a Florida Limited Liability Company having its principal business address

located at 1160 N.E. 185thStreet, North Miami Beach, FL 33179 and/or 2700 S.W. 25thTerrace,

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33312. It is in the business of selling a wireless remote control system for

controlling shifters, thrusters, anchor windlass and steering pumps.

4. Defendant, Jose Rodriguez (Mr. Rodriguez), upon information and belief, is anindividual residing in the Southern District of Florida. Mr. Rodriguez has owned and controlled

a plurality of companies, including DOCKING MASTER, from which have been in the business

of selling a wireless remote control system for controlling shifters, thrusters, anchor windlass and

steering pumps. DOCKING MASTER and Mr. Rodriguez when referred together hereafter shall

be referenced as the Defendants.

5. Upon information and belief, JOHN DOES et al. includes one or more ofIndividual Defendants, Corporate Defendants, and Other Entity Defendants, the total number of

JOHN DOES presently unknown, whereby said Individual Defendants, Corporate Defendants,

and Other Entity Defendants shall be referred hereafter collectively as JOHN DOE Defendants

and shall be identified and numbered sequentially. JOHN DOE Defendants names are presently

unknown and Plaintiffs have been unable to discover said names. Plaintiff will amend this

Complaint to allege JOHN DOES sequentially the true names, capacities and locations when

ascertained.

6. Upon information and belief, Defendants DOCKING MASTER and Mr.Rodriguez can identify the JOHN DOE Defendants through the course of discovery.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE


3/24

Page 3 of 24

1. This is an action arising under the Patent Laws and Statutes of the United States,35 U.S.C. 101, et seq.

2. This Court has exclusive subject matter jurisdiction of this action pursuant to 28U.S.C. 1331, and 1338.

3. This Court additionally has exclusive subject matter jurisdiction of this actionpursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332, as there is diversity of citizenship between Defendant Brianza,

residing in Switzerland, and the Defendants, located in Florida, and the amount in controversy,

exclusive of interest and costs, is greater than $75,000.00.

4.

Upon information and belief, this Court has personal jurisdiction over the

Defendants in that:

a. Defendants have operated, conducted, engaged in, carried on a business orbusiness venture in Florida, pursuant to and within the meaning of 48.193(1)(a),

Fla. Stat. and from which this action arises; or

b. Defendants have committed a tortuous act within the state, pursuant to and withinthe meaning of 48.193(1)(b), Fla. Stat. and from which this action arises; or

c. Defendants have engaged in substantial and not isolated activity within this state,including the Southern District of Florida, pursuant to and within the meaning of

48.193(2), Fla. Stat. and from which this action arises, at least by virtue of

Defendants transaction of business within the State of Florida, including making,

using, selling, and offering to sell the infringing products, as well inducing others

to infringe the same.

5. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1400(b) and also pursuantto 28 U.S.C. 1391.


4/24

Page 4 of 24

PLAINTIFFS PATENTS

6. Plaintiff CBB is the owner of United States Patent No. 6,655,309 (the 309Patent). On December 2, 2003, United States Letters Patent Number 6,655,309 was duly and

legally issued to James Michael Stephens. On June 16, 2010, James Michael Stephens assigned

the rights to SKJC Holdings, LLC. On July 23, 2010, SKJC Holdings, LLC assigned the rights

to Condatis, LLC. On September 17, 2012, Condatis, LLC assigned the rights to SKJC

Holdings, LLC. On December 4, 2012, SKJC Holdings, LLC assigned the rights to

RealDevelopment, LLC. On May 19, 2013, RealDevelopment, LLC assigned the rights to CBB

Asset Management, LLC. The 309 patent embodies a vessel configuration having a hydraulic

pump and/or hydraulic motor. A true and correct copy of the 309 Patent is attached hereto as

Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference.

7. Plaintiff CBB is the owner of United States Patent No. 6,865,997 (the 997Patent) which was duly issued on March 15, 2005. On June 16, 2010, James Michael Stephens

assigned the rights to SKJC Holdings, LLC. On July 23, 2010, SKJC Holdings, LLC assigned

the rights to Condatis, LLC. On September 17, 2012, Condatis, LLC assigned the rights to SKJC

Holdings, LLC. On December 4, 2012, SKJC Holdings, LLC assigned the rights to

RealDevelopment, LLC. On May 19, 2013, RealDevelopment, LLC assigned the rights to CBB

Asset Management, LLC. The 997 patent embodies a vessel configuration having an electric

motor. A true and correct copy of the 997 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit B and

incorporated herein by this reference.


5/24

Page 5 of 24

8. Plaintiff Brianza is the owner of United States Patent No. 7,104,212 (the 212Patent), which was duly issued on September 12, 2006. A true and correct copy of the 212

Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by this reference.

9. The 309 Patent, the 997 Patent, and the 202 Patent (collectively the Patents),concern inter aliaembodiments for a remote control system for use with a yacht or other marine

vessel.

ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS

10.

Upon information and belief, DOCKING MASTER is owned and operated under

the direction of Jose Rodriguez. A copy of the Sunbiz recordation is attached hereto as Exhibit

I.

11. Upon information and belief, many of the Defendants acts of infringement thatgive rise to relief requested herein occurred out of the same transaction, occurrence or series of

transactions or occurrences relating to the infringement, and the right is based on common

questions of fact, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a). Upon further information and belief, Mr.

Rodriguez acted in concert with DOCKING MASTER as the owner and operator of DOCKING

MASTER and other companies, of which concerns the same or similar ultimate products thereof.

Upon yet further information and belief, Mr. Rodriguez maintained direction or control of

DOCKING MASTERs infringing activities.

12. Upon information and belief, Mr. Rodriguez is a former employee of a Company,the Company of which marks products with one or more of the Patents complained of herein.

Upon further information and belief, Mr. Rodriguez learned of the patents as early as his employ

with the Company.


6/24

Page 6 of 24

13. DOCKING MASTER states on its Comparison website page that it produces andowns a wireless maneuvering remote controller, which was intended to induce consumers to

enter into transactions with Defendants. A copy of the website page is attached hereto as Exhibit

D.

14. DOCKING MASTER states on its website page that Unlesse Americas, MarlowMarine, Altima Yachts, and Sun Seeker USA are customers. See Exhibit D.

15. Upon information and belief, at least certain customers utilizing the remotedocking system directly infringe on the 212 Patent and directly infringe on the 309 Patent

and/or the 997 Patent, depending on whether the particular yacht/boat utilizes hydraulic motors

or electric motors.

16. DOCKING MASTER states on its FAQ website page that it has over 1600installations of its Docking Master wireless palm sized remote control device used to help in the

docking or departing of a Vessel from a Marina or private dock in around 14 countries. A copy

of the FAQ website page is attached hereto as Exhibit E.

17. DOCKING MASTER states on its FAQ website page that Docking Master isdesigned to work with all the electronic controlson the market today and proudly states that

Docking Master works on anyvessel configuration (emphasis added). See Exhibit E.

18. DOCKING MASTER states on its FAQ website page that Docking Master wasdesigned and manufactured entirely in the USA and DOCKING MASTER, LLC is located in

South Florida. See Exhibit E.

19. DOCKING MASTER states on its FAQ website page that the entire system canbe installed 2 days after purchase. See Exhibit E.


7/24

Page 7 of 24

20. DOCKING MASTER states on its Installation website page that a Yacht EnergyUS technician must install the system. A copy of the Installation website page is attached hereto

as Exhibit F. The Defendants further state that necessary hardware is run to subsidiary

systems, connected, and tested. Id.

21. Upon information and belief, DOCKING MASTER has and continues to damagethe reputation of the embodiments found in the Patents, and in particular, DOCKING

MASTERs system has caused damage to yachts, resulting in the industrys loss of faith and trust

for remote maneuvering for boats and yachts.

22.

DOCKING MASTER states on its FAQ page that the remote control is

ergonomically shaped. See Exhibit E. Its appearance resembles a diagram of a yacht or boat

hull and its associated engines, thrusters, and anchors.

23. DOCKING MASTER placed a competing Yacht Controller product on itsComparison website page, the body of the competing product marks with one or more of the

Patents. See Exhibit D. DOCKING MASTER not only compares the competing product, but

has disassembled and thoroughly analyzed the competing product. And, DOCKING MASTER

allegedly submitted the competing product to a spectrum analyzer. See Exhibit D.

24. Upon information and belief, DOCKING MASTERs detailed interrogation of thecompeting product placed DOCKING MASTER on notice of the markings.

25. Upon information and belief, notwithstanding Defendants knowledge of thePatents, Defendants have engaged in, and it is believed that Defendants will continue to engage

in, without Plaintiffs consent, a deliberate and willful scheme to infringe upon and utilize the

embodiments found in the Patents.


8/24

Page 8 of 24

26. Upon information and belief, and in an attempt to lure unsuspecting customerswith a product of poor quality, DOCKING MASTER states repeatedly on its website pages,

including the Product page, the FAQ page, and the Comparison page, that installation is

performed by Yacht Energy US and is the owner of the product. A copy of the Product website

page is attached hereto as Exhibit G. A copy of the Comparison website page is attached

hereto as Exhibit D.

27. DOCKING MASTER states on its System Specification website page that thedocking master system utilizes a remote control transmitter, a thruster controller, and an engine

controller. A copy of the website page is attached hereto as Exhibit H.

28. A search of Sunbiz records indicates that Yacht Energy US Corp wasadministratively dissolved on September 23, 2011. See Exhibit I.

29. Upon information and belief, Defendants have directly solicited customers andpotential customers for utilizing the Docking Master system.

30. Upon information and belief, Defendants commenced their infringing activities ina deliberate, knowing, and wanton disregard of the Patent rights of the Plaintiffs and to the

Plaintiffs irreparable damage, and will continue unless enjoined by this Court.

31. On information and belief, and on that basis alleges, formed after an inquiryreasonable under the circumstances, Defendants aforesaid acts have harmed the trustworthiness

of the embodiments found in the Patents.

32. The Plaintiffs have complied with the statutory requirement of placing a notice ofthe Letter Patents and/or have given Defendants written notice of the infringement, pursuant to

35 U.S.C 287.


9/24

Page 9 of 24

33. Upon information and belief, Defendants have received at least one cease anddesist letter identifying one or more of the Patents, which has been otherwise ignored or denied.

A copy of at least one the cease and desist letter is attached hereto (without attachments) as

Exhibit J.

34. Upon information and belief, JOHN DOE Defendants have used, and continue touse the Docking Master system.

COUNT I

(Defendants Direct Infringement

of the 309 Patent, in Violation of 35 U.S.C. 271(a))

35. This COUNT I is instituted against Defendants and one or more JOHN DOEDefendants for direct patent infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 271(a).

36. The Plaintiffs repeat and reallege Paragraphs 1-34 above.37. On information and belief, and on that basis alleges, formed after an inquiry

reasonable under the circumstances, that Defendants and JOHN DOE Defendants by the acts

complained of herein, and by making, using, selling, or offering for sale in the United States,

including the Southern District of Florida, products, methods, and/or services embodying the

invention, have in the past and now continues to infringe the 309 Patent, either literally or under

the doctrine of equivalents, in violation of 35 U.S.C. 271(a).

38. On information and belief, and on that basis alleges, formed after an inquiryreasonable under the circumstances, that Defendants and JOHN DOE Defendants acts have

deprived Plaintiffs of intellectual property rights and patented work.

39. On information and belief, and on that basis alleges, formed after an inquiryreasonable under the circumstances, that Defendants acts have been committed in a willful,


10/24

Page 10 of 24

deliberate, and bad faith manner, thus warranting an increase of the damages recoverable by

Plaintiffs under the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 284 with up to three times the amount of actual

damages sustained by Plaintiff, and also making this an exceptional case within the meaning of

35 U.S.C. 285.

40. By reason of the acts of Defendants and JOHN DOE Defendants alleged herein,Plaintiffs have suffered damage in an amount to be proven at trial.

41. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law.

COUNT II

(Inducing Infringement of the 309 Patent,

in Violation of 35 U.S.C. 271(b))

42. This COUNT II is instituted against Defendants for inducing patent infringementpursuant to 35 U.S.C. 271(b).


reasonable under the circumstances, that Defendants have actively and knowingly induced the

infringement of the 309 Patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. 271(b), by intentionally inducing its

customers to use the embodiments in such a way to infringe the 309 Patent.

45. On information and belief, and on that basis alleges, formed after an inquiryreasonable under the circumstances, that Defendants will continue to engage in the acts

complained of herein and, unless restrained and enjoined, will continue to do so, all to Plaintiffs

irreparable injury.


11/24

Page 11 of 24

46. On information and belief, and on that basis alleges, formed after an inquiryreasonable under the circumstances, that Defendants acts have been committed in willful,




35 U.S.C. 285.

47. By reason of the acts of Defendants alleged herein, Plaintiffs have suffereddamage in an amount to be proven at trial.

48.

Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law.

COUNT III


in Violation of 35 U.S.C. 271(f))

49. This COUNT III is instituted against Defendants for patent infringement pursuantto 35 U.S.C. 271(f)(1).



infringement of the 309 Patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. 271(f), by intentionally inducing its


52. On information and belief, and on that basis alleges, formed after an inquiryreasonable under the circumstances, that Defendants supplies or causes to be supplied in or from

the United States all or a substantial portion of the components of a patented invention, whether


12/24

Page 12 of 24

such components are uncombined in whole or in part, in such manner as to actively induce the

combination of such components outside of the United States in a manner that would infringe the

patent if such combination occurred within the United States.



irreparable injury.





35 U.S.C. 285.



COUNT IV

(Direct Infringement of the 997 Patent,

in Violation of 35 U.S.C. 271(a))

57. This COUNT IV is instituted against Defendants and JOHN DOE Defendants fordirect patent infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 271(a).

58. The Plaintiffs repeat and reallege Paragraphs 1-34 above.


13/24

Page 13 of 24

59. On information and belief, and on that basis alleges, formed after an inquiryreasonable under the circumstances, that Defendants and JOHN DOE Defendants by the acts









35 U.S.C. 285.



COUNT V



63. This COUNT V is instituted against Defendants for inducing patent infringementpursuant to 35 U.S.C. 271(b).

64. The Plaintiffs repeat and reallege Paragraphs 1-34 above.


14/24

Page 14 of 24

65. On information and belief, and on that basis alleges, formed after an inquiryreasonable under the circumstances, that Defendants have actively and knowingly induced the





irreparable injury.

67.

On information and belief, and on that basis alleges, formed after an inquiry

reasonable under the circumstances, that Defendants acts have been committed in a willful,




35 U.S.C. 285.



COUNT VI



70. This COUNT VI is instituted against Defendants for inducing patent infringementpursuant to 35 U.S.C. 271(f)(1).


15/24

Page 15 of 24


reasonable under the circumstances, that Defendants have actively and knowingly contributed to

the infringement of the 997 Patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. 271(f), by intentionally inducing

its customers to use the embodiments in such a way to infringe the 997 Patent.





patent if such combination occurred within the United States.



irreparable injury.





35 U.S.C. 285.



16/24

Page 16 of 24


COUNT VII

(Direct Infringement of the 212 Patent,

in Violation of 35 U.S.C. 271(a))

78. This COUNT VII is instituted against Defendants and JOHN DOE Defendants fordirect patent infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 271(a).

79. The Plaintiffs repeat and reallege Paragraphs 1-34 above.80.


reasonable under the circumstances, that Defendants and JOHN DOE Defendants by the acts









35 U.S.C. 285.




17/24

Page 17 of 24

COUNT VIII



84. This COUNT VIII is instituted against Defendants for inducing patentinfringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 271(b).







irreparable injury.





35 U.S.C. 285.



18/24

Page 18 of 24


COUNT IX



91. This COUNT IX is instituted against Defendants for patent infringement pursuantto 35 U.S.C. 271(f)(1).

92. The Plaintiffs repeat and reallege Paragraphs 1-34 above.93.



the infringement of the 212 Patent, , in violation of 35 U.S.C. 271(f), by intentionally inducing

its customers to use the embodiments in such a way to infringe the 212 Patent.





patent if such combination occurred with the United States.



irreparable injury.


19/24

Page 19 of 24





35 U.S.C. 285.


98.

Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law.

COUNT X

(Contributory Infringement of the 212 Patent,

in Violation of 35 U.S.C. 271(c))

99. This COUNT X is instituted against Defendants for contributory patentinfringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 271(c).

100. The Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1-34 above.101. On information and belief, and on that basis alleges, formed after an inquiry


the infringement of the 212 Patent.



irreparable injury.


20/24

Page 20 of 24

103. On information and belief, and on that basis alleges, formed after an inquiryreasonable under the circumstances, that Defendants offer to sell or sells within the United States

or imports into the United States a component of a patented machine, manufacture, combination

or composition, or a material or apparatus for use in practicing a patented process, constituting a

material part of the invention, knew or knows the same to be especially made or especially

adapted for use in infringement of the 212 Patent, and that the embodiments of the invention

were and are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial non-

infringing use.

104.


reasonable under the circumstances, that Defendants have contributory infringed, and/or is

contributory infringing, in this Judicial District and elsewhere in the United States the 212

Patent.





35 U.S.C. 285.


107. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.

COUNT XI


21/24

Page 21 of 24

(Violation of Florida Deceptive and Unfair

Trade Practices Act ( 501.201 Fla. Stat., et seq.))

108. This COUNT XI is instituted against Defendants for violation of FloridasDeceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act pursuant to 501.201 Fla. Stat., et seq.


reasonable under the circumstances, that Defendants aforesaid acts constitute unfair methods of

competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the

conduct of trade in commerce in violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices

Act, 501.201 Fla. Stat., et seq.

111. Defendants aforesaid acts have caused and will continue to cause great andirreparable injury to Plaintiff, and unless restrained by this Court, they will be continued and

Plaintiffs will continue to suffer great and irreparable injury.


PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for the following relief:

A. That the Court render judgment declaring that each of the 309 Patent, the 997Patent, and the 212 Patent are valid, enforceable, in violation of Plaintiffs rights pursuant to 35

U.S.C. 271, et seq.;

B. That the Court render judgment declaring that Defendants have infringed, andinduced the infringement, of each of the 309 Patent, the 997 Patent, and the 212 Patent, and


22/24

Page 22 of 24

continues to infringe, and induce the infringement, of each of the 309 Patent, the 997 Patent,

and the 212 Patent;

C. That the Court render judgment declaring that JOHN DOE Defendants haveinfringed one or more of the 309 Patent, the 997 Patent, and the 212 Patent, and continues to

infringe one or more of the 309 Patent, the 997 Patent, and the 212 Patent;

D. That the Court render judgment declaring that Defendants infringement for eachof the 309 Patent, the 997 Patent, and the 212 Patent is willful, deliberate, and in a bad faith

manner;

E.

That the Court require Defendants and JOHN DOE Defendants to deliver all

infringing products in the possession and/or control of Defendants for destruction;

F. That the Court permanently enjoin Defendants and JOHN DOE Defendants, theirsuccessors, assigns, subsidiaries and transferees, officers, directors, attorneys, agents, employees,

and all persons in active concert or participation therewith, as follows:

a. from selling or offering for sale any product falling within the scope of the309 Patent, the 997 Patent, and/or the 212 Patent;

b. from importing any product into the United States that falls within thescope of the 309 Patent, the 997 Patent, and/or the 212 Patent;

c. from manufacturing any product falling within the scope of the claims ofthe 309 Patent, the 997 Patent, and/or the 212 Patent;

d. from using any product or method falling within the scope of any of theclaims of the 309 Patent, the 997 Patent, and/or the 212 Patent;

e. from inducing others to infringe any of the claims of the 309 Patent, the997 Patent, and/or the 212 Patent;


23/24

Page 23 of 24

f. from engaging in acts constituting contributory infringement of any of theclaims of the 309 Patent, the 997 Patent, and/or the 212 Patent; and

g. from all other acts of infringement of any of the claims of the 309 Patent,the 997 Patent, and/or the 212 Patent;

G. That that Court require Defendants and JOHN DOE Defendants file writtendocumentation under oath with this Court and to serve upon Plaintiffs within twelve days (12)

days after service of the injunction issued in this action, setting forth the manner in which

Defendants and JOHN DOE Defendants have complied with the Order.

H.

That the Court render judgment declaring this to be an exceptional case;

I. That the Court award a full amount of damages sustained, including all availableremedies pursuant to the 35 US.C. 271, et seq., including without limitation, a reasonable

royalty, disgorgement of the profits received by Defendants, treble damages, and costs;

J. That the Court award pre and post judgment interest at the maximum allowablerate on each and every damage award;

K. That Plaintiffs be awarded all remedies pursuant to 35 U.S.C 285, and 501.2105, Fla. Stat., including without limitation, its costs of suit, including reasonable

attorneys fees; and

L. That the Court enter judgment against Defendants and JOHN DOE Defendantsfor the maximum penalties determined by the Court to be just and proper; and

M. That Plaintiffs be awarded such other and further relief as the Court deems justand proper.


24/24

Page 24 of 24

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs, CBB ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC and GIUSEPPE BRIANZA, hereby demand

trial by jury as to all issues so triable as a matter of law.

March 20, 2014 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Matthew Sean Tucker

Matthew Sean Tucker

Tucker IP

Patents|Trademarks|Civil Litigation

Florida Bar No. 90047

2515 Marina Bay Drive West, No. 202

Fort Lauderdale, FL [email protected]

www.tuckeriplaw.com

Telephone: (954) 204-0444

Attorney for Plaintiff
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.tuckeriplaw.com/http://www.tuckeriplaw.com/http://www.tuckeriplaw.com/mailto:[email protected]

cbb asset managment et. al. v. docking master et. al

Documents