seville classics v. neatfreak - complaint

8/20/2019 Seville Classics v. Neatfreak - Complaint

1/89

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

LEE TRAN & LIANG LLPEnoch H. Liang (Bar No. 212324)

[email protected] C. Sliger (Bar. No. 213880)

[email protected] F. Auyang (Bar No. 191776)

[email protected] J. Chin (Bar No. 259793)

[email protected] South Figueroa Street, Suite 3900Los Angeles, CA 90017Tel: 213-612-8900Fax: 213-612-3773

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIAWESTERN DIVISION

SEVILLE CLASSICS, INC., aCalifornia Corporation,

Plaintiff,v.

NEATFREAK GROUP, INC., anOntario, Canada corporation;

NEATFREAK GROUP CORP., aDelaware corporation; TARGETCORPORATION, a Minnesotacorporation; and DOES 1-10,

Defendants.

))))))))))))))))))

Case No: 2:15-CV-06237

COMPLAINT FOR PATENTINFRINGEMENT

REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL

Case 2:15-cv-06237 Document 1 Filed 08/17/15 Page 1 of 9 Page ID #:1


2/89

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT-1-

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

Plaintiff Seville Classics, Inc. (“Seville Classics”), by its undersigned

attorneys, files this Complaint against Neatfreak Group, Inc., Neatfreak Group

Corp. (collectively, “Neatfreak”), Target Corporation (“Target”), and Does 1-10

(collectively, “Defendants”) as follows:

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This is an action for willful infringement of design patents in

violation of Patent Laws set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. Defendants infringe

the patents by making, using, offering to sell, selling and importing certain

stackable shelving products in the Central District of California and throughout

the United States as more fully described herein

2. Seville Classics previously filed a lawsuit against Defendants in

this District on December 3, 2013 (Case No. 2:13-cv-08896-JVS-AGRx) for

infringement of Seville Classics’ design patents through their making, using,

importing, providing, offering to sell, and selling of a stackable shelf under the

Threshold brand. After the parties entered into a confidential settlement

agreement, Seville Classics dismissed the prior action. The current action is

necessary because Defendants continue to infringe Seville Classics’ design patents by way of their making, using, importing, providing, offering to sell, and

selling of a “redesigned” version of the stackable shelving product.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 1338(a) as it involves substantial claims arising

under the Patent Laws of the United States.

4. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and

1400(b) because Defendants have transacted business and committed acts of

infringement within the State of California, and the Central District of California,

and are subject to the personal jurisdiction of this Court.



3/89

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

THE PARTIES

5. Plaintiff Seville Classics, Inc. is a corporation organized under the

laws of the State of California with its principal place of business located in

Torrance, California.

6. On information and belief, Defendant Neatfreak Group Inc. is a

company incorporated under the laws of the Province of Ontario, Canada,

having its registered office located at 5320 Timberlea Boulevard, Mississauga,

Ontario L4W256.

7. On information and belief, Defendant Neatfreak Group Corp. is a

corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware, having its

principal place of business located at 2 Bristol Terrace, Long Valley, New

Jersey 07853.

8. Defendant Target Corporation is a corporation organized and

existing under the laws of the state of Minnesota with its principal place of

business at 1000 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55403. Target

operates over 50 retail stores located within this District.

9. Neatfreak is a designer, manufacturer and distributor of homeorganization products. Neatfreak has head offices in Mississuaga, Ontario and

Long Valley, New Jersey. Neatfreak operates an 110,000 square foot

distribution center in Long Beach, Los Angeles County, California, which is

located within this District.

10. Neatfreak competes directly with Seville Classics in the market for

home organization products. Neatfreak supplies its products to numerous

retailers in the United States and this District, including Target.

11. Seville Classics is informed and believes and based thereon

alleges that the Defendants sued herein as Does 1-10 are individuals and

entities who are customers or suppliers of Neatfreak or Target whose names

and identities are currently unknown to Seville Classics and who are engaged



4/89

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

in the acts described below. Seville Classics will amend the Complaint to

identify these individuals or entities as soon as their identities become known.

SEVILLE CLASSICS’ PATENTS

12. On November 2, 2010, the United States Patent and Trademark

Office (“USPTO”) duly and legally issued U.S. Patent No. D626,356 (“the

’356 Patent”) to the named inventor Edwin Ho. Plaintiff Seville Classics is the

assignee and owner of all right, title and interest in and to the ’356 Patent, has

the right to assert causes of action arising under the ’356 Patent and the right to

any remedies for infringement thereof. A true and correct copy of the ’356

Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. The ’356 Patent claims a “modular

utility rack” as shown in the drawings in the ’356 Patent.

13. On March 17, 2015, the USPTO duly and legally issued U.S.

Patent No. D724,357 (“the ’357 Patent”) to the named inventor Gary Lim.

Plaintiff Seville Classics is the assignee and owner of all right, title and

interest in and to the ’357 Patent, has the right to assert causes of action arising

under the ’357 Patent and the right to any remedies for infringement thereof.

A true and correct copy of the ’357 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. The’357 Patent claims a “storage rack” as shown in the drawings in the ’357

Patent.

14. On January 29, 2014, Seville Classics filed U.S. Utility Patent

Application No. 14/167,787, titled “Storage Rack,” which claims a rack for

holding articles (“the ’787 Application”). A true and correct copy of the ‘787

Application is attached hereto as Exhibit 3. On July 21, 2015, the USPTO

issued a notice of allowance and Plaintiff Seville Classics expects the patent to

issue shortly. Upon issuance, Seville Classics intends to amend this Complaint

to assert additional claims for infringement of this patent as well.

DEFENDANTS’ UNLAWFUL CONDUCT

15. Defendants have infringed and are currently infringing the ’356 and



5/89

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

’357 Patents in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271 by making, having made, using,

selling and/or offering for sale, within the United States, products embodying the

designs claimed in the ’356 and ’357 Patents, including, without limitation,

stackable shelves under the “Threshold” brand.

16. Target has offered to sell and has sold in the Central District of

California stackable shelf products (sometimes known as “Threshold 3 Tier

Stackable Shelf”) depicted in Exhibit 4 attached hereto and incorporated herein.

A true and correct copy of Target’s weekly advertisement dated August 9-August

15, 2015 for its Los Angeles, California locations is attached hereto as Exhibit 5

and contains an advertisement for the infringing Threshold product at page 6.

17. Neatfreak manufactured and/or imported, and sold the products

identified in Paragraph 16 to Target.

18. The Threshold 3 Tier Stackable Shelf infringes upon the ’356 and

’357 Patents include as evidenced by the following side-by-side comparison:

’356 Patent Threshold 3 Tier Stackable Shelf



6/89

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

’357 Patent Threshold 3 Tier Stackable Shelf

COUNT I

Infringement of U.S. Patent No. D626,356

(Against All Defendants)

19. Seville Classics hereby repeats and re-alleges all of the preceding

paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.20. Defendants have infringed and continue to infringe one or more

claims of the ’356 Patent by making, using, importing, providing, offering to

sell, and selling (directly or through intermediaries) infringing products, in this

District and elsewhere in the United States.

21. On information and belief, a true and correct copy of photographs

showing an infringing product manufactured by Neatfreak and sold by Target

are attached hereto as Exhibit 4.

22. Seville Classics is entitled to recover from the Defendants the

damages sustained by Seville Classics as a result of the Defendants’ wrongful

acts.

23. Defendants’ infringement of the ’356 Patent continued after



7/89

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

Seville Classics notified Defendants of the infringement (including, but not

limited to, notice through the prior lawsuit referenced in Paragraph 2) and has

been and is willful, wanton and deliberate, without license and with full

knowledge of Seville Classics’ rights in the ’356 Patent.

24. Defendants’ infringing activities have damaged Seville Classics.

Unless this Court enjoins Defendants’ acts of infringement, Seville Classics

will continue to suffer irreparable injury.

COUNT II

Infringement of U.S. Patent No. D724,357

(Against All Defendants)

25. Seville Classics hereby repeats and re-alleges all of the preceding

paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

26. Defendants have infringed and continue to infringe one or more

claims of the ’357 Patent by making, using, importing, providing, offering to

sell, and selling (directly or through intermediaries) infringing products, in this

District and elsewhere in the United States.

27. On information and belief, a true and correct copy of photographsshowing an infringing product manufactured by Neatfreak and sold by Target

are attached hereto as Exhibit 4.

28. Seville Classics is entitled to recover from the Defendants the

damages sustained by Seville Classics as a result of the Defendants’ wrongful

acts.

29. Defendants’ infringement of the ’357 Patent continued after

Seville Classics notified Defendants of the infringement and has been and is

willful, wanton and deliberate, without license and with full knowledge of

Seville Classics’ rights in the ’357 Patent.

30. Defendants’ infringing activities have damaged Seville Classics.

Unless this Court enjoins Defendants’ acts of infringement, Seville Classics



8/89

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

will continue to suffer irreparable injury.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Seville Classics prays that the Court grant the following

relief:

A. A judgment that Defendants Neatfreak and Target have infringed

U.S. Patent Nos. D626,356 and D724,357;

B. A permanent injunction against Defendants Neatfreak and Target

and their owners, officers, agents, employees, parent and subsidiary companies

and operations, assigns, successors in interests and all persons in active

participation or concert with them or any of them, enjoining them from

continuing infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. D626,356 and D724,357;

C. A judgment requiring Defendants Neatfreak and Target to pay

damages to compensate Seville Classics for the infringement, including, but not

limited to, Defendants’ profits from infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. D626,356

and D724,357, together with pre-judgment and post-judgment interest;

D. A judgment against Defendants Neatfreak and Target awarding

costs to Seville Classics;E. A judgment that Defendants Neatfreak and Target’s infringement

has been willful, and awarding Seville Classics its reasonable attorney fees under

35 U.S.C. §285; and

F. Such other and further relief which this Court deems just and

equitable.

Dated: August 17, 2015

LEE TRAN & LIANG LLPBy: /s/ Enoch H. Liang______________.

Enoch H. Liang

Lauren Sliger Heather F. Auyang

Lisa J. ChinCounsel for Plaintiff Seville Classics, Inc.



9/89

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b), Seville Classics hereby requests a trial by

jury of all issues raised by the complaint which are properly triable to a jury.

Dated: August 17, 2015

LEE TRAN & LIANG LLPBy: /s/ Enoch H. Liang______________.

Enoch H. LiangLauren Sliger

Heather F. AuyangLisa J. Chin

Counsel for Plaintiff Seville Classics, Inc.



10/89

EXHIBIT 1

Case 2:15-cv-06237 Document 1-1 Filed 08/17/15 Page 1 of 16 Page ID #:10


11/89



12/89



13/89



14/89



15/89



16/89



17/89



18/89



19/89



20/89



21/89



22/89



23/89



24/89



25/89



26/89

EXHIBIT 2



27/89



28/89



29/89



30/89



31/89



32/89



33/89

EXHIBIT 3



34/89



35/89



36/89



37/89



38/89



39/89



40/89



41/89



42/89



43/89



44/89



45/89



46/89



47/89



48/89



49/89



50/89

EXHIBIT 4



51/89



52/89



53/89



54/89



55/89

EXHIBIT 5



56/89



57/89



58/89



59/89



60/89



61/89



62/89



63/89



64/89



65/89



66/89



67/89



68/89



69/89



70/89



71/89



72/89



73/89



74/89



75/89



76/89



77/89



78/89



79/89



80/89



81/89



82/89



83/89



84/89



85/89



86/89



87/89



88/89



89/89


seville classics v. neatfreak - complaint

Documents