iOttie Et. Al. v. Bestek Group

8/12/2019 iOttie Et. Al. v. Bestek Group

1/9

FILED

Q U M R P 3: 01CLERK US DISTRICT COURTALEXANDRIA VIRGINIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTR ICT COURT

FOR T H E E AS TE RN DISTR ICT OF V IRG IN IAALEXANDR IA DIVIS ION

I O T T I E I N C. and H S M C o ., L td .

Plaintiffs, j _> i v .

v

BESTEK GROUP LTD.,D e f e n d a n t .

Civil A c t i o n

No 3 ^ oV ^

COMPLA I N T FOR PATENTINFRINGEMENT;DEMAND FORJ UR Y T R IA L

Plaintiffs iOttie, Inc. and HSMCo., Ltd. (respectively, iOttie or HSM , collectivelyPlaintiffs ), for their complaintagainstDefendantBestekGroupLtd. ( Bestek ) forpreliminarand permanent injunctive and declaratory relief and for damages, including treble or multipledamages, for patent infringement, states and alleges as follows:


2/9

NATURE OF T H E A C TIO N

1. Plaintiffs allege that Bestek has infringed and continues to infringe one or morclaims of the United States Patent No. 8,627,953 ( the 953 Patent or Patent-in-Suit ). This ia civil action for the patent infringement of the '953 Patent, including the willful infringement othe '953 Patent by Bestek.

2. The technology at issue involves the holding mechanism and, more particularlyto a holder for a portable device.

T H E P A R TIE S

3. HSM is a corporation organized under the laws of the Republic of Korea, havina place o f business located in Seoul, Korea. It is the owner o f the '953 Patent.

4. iOttie is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York anmaintains its principal place of business at 214 State Street 102, Hackensack, New Jersey07601. iOttie is th e exclusive licensee, from HSM, o f th e 9 53 Patent.

5. On information and belief, Bestek is a California corporation with its principaplace of business at 19295 E, WalnutDrive North City of Industry, California 91748.

JUR ISD ICT ION AND VENUE

6. This action is based upon and arises under the Patent Laws of the United State35 U.S.C. 100 t s q In particular 271, 281, 283, 284 and 285 is intended to redresinfringement of the '953 Patent owned and exclusively licensed by Plaintiffs.

7. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 2U.S.C. 1331 and 1338(a).


3/9

8. B e st ek h as t ra ns ac te d an d continues to t ra n sa c t b u si n es s i n th e U ni te d S ta te s a n

in this judicial district and division by: using or causing to be used; making; importing or causinto be imported; offering to sell or causing to be offered for sale; and/or selling or causing to bsold directly, through intermediaries and/or as an intermediary, a variety of products that infringthe '953 Patent to customers in the United States, including customers in this judicial district andivision, and Defendant will continue to do so unless enjoined by this Court.

9. Upon information and belief, Bestek is subject to this Court's general and/ospecific personal jurisdiction, because it has committed acts of infringement in thCommonwealth of Virginia as alleged below; and/or Bestek is engaged in continuous activitiein the Commonwealth of Virginia. Bestek acts caused injury to Plaintiffs in the Commonwealthand Bestek regularly does or solicits business, or engages in a course of conduct, or derivesubstantial revenue from goods used or consumed or services rendered in this CommonwealthTherefore, this Court has personal jurisdiction over Bestek.

10. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C 9 and 1400(b).

THE PATENT - IN - SU IT

11 On January 14, 2014, the '953 Patent, entitled Holder for portable device waduly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. HS M is the owner oall rights, title, and interest in and to the '953 Patent. A copy of the '953 Patent is attached aE x h i b i t A .

12. iOttie is an exclusive licensee of the '953 Patent and possesses the right to sue anto recover for infringement of the 9 53 Patent.

j


4/9

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

13. HSM is the o wner of th e 9 53 Patent, an d ha s invested substantial time anmoney in designing, developing, manufacturing and producing holder products that incorporatthe patented technology HSM, e.g., developed the Easy One Touch Car Mount Holder forportable device.

14. HSM has granted to iOttie the exclusive right to sell, re-sell and distribute thproducts under iOttie's own brand name. iOttie has purchased and is purchasing the productfrom HSM. iOttie has sold and is selling the product in the United States.

15. iOttie holds full power and authority to bring and prosecute lawsuits against thirparties for infringement o f the '953 Patent.

16. Bestek at least uses, causes to be used, makes, imports, causes to be importedoffers for sale, causes to be offered for sale, sells, and/or causes to be sold in the United Stateand in this judicial district a product (e.g., the Bestek Holder such as model no. BTCM01) foholding a portable device that incorporatesthe technology claimed in the '953 Patent.

17. Bestek has induced and continues to induce infringement of the '953 Patent in thUnited States and in this judicial district.

18. Bestek actively sells to and solicits business from customers and distributorlocated in t h e U n it e d S ta te s. Bestek will continue to do so.

COUNT I

CLAIM FOR DIRECT INFRINGEMENT OF THE 95 PATENT

19. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference as if fully set forth herein thallegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 18.


5/9

20. On January 14, 2014, United States Letters Patent No. 8,627,953 wa s issued to thHSM for an invention in a holder for a portable device. The HS M owned the patent throughouthe period of Bestek's infringing acts and still owns the '953 Patent.

21. Bestek has used, made, sold, imported or offered a Car Mount Holder (e.g., thBestek Holder such as model no. BTCMOl) for sale in the United States, and has used the CaMount Holder (e.g., the Bestek Holder such as model no. BTCMOl) in conjunction withportable device in the United States. Such sales and offers for sale are in this judicial district andivision.

22. Bestek has infringed and is still infringing the Letters Patent by making, sellingand using the Car Mount Holder (e.g., the Bestek Holder such as model no. BTCMOl) forportable device that embodies the patented invention, and Bestek will continue to do so unlesenjoined by this court.

23. Plaintiffs have complied with the statutory requirement of placing a notice of thLetters Patent on the Car Mount Holder (e.g., the Bestek Holder such as model no. BTCMOl) foa portable device it manufactures and sells and has given Defendant written notice of thinfringement.

24. For at least some period of time, Bestek has known that the Car Mount Holde(e.g., the Bestek Holder such as model no. BTCMOl), and the Car Mount Holder (e.g., thBestek Holder such as model no. BTCMOl) used in conjunction with portable devices, infringcertain claims of the 9 53 patent.

25. Bestek s actions constitute direct patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271(a).26. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Bestek's infringement of the '953 paten

will continue unless enjoined by this Court.


6/9

27. Bestek s direct infr ingement has been intentional, willful, and with a recklesdisregard for the rights of Plaintiffs.

28. Bestek has caused Plaintiffs substantial injury, including lost profits, for whicPlaintiffs are entitled to damages adequate to compensate them for direct infringement.

29. Bestek's direct infringement warrants the assessment of increased damagepursuant to 35 U.S.C. 284, and an award of attorneys' fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 285.

COUNT I I

CLAIM FOR CONTR IBUTORY INFRINGEMENT OF THE 95 PATENT


31. Bestek has made, sold, imported or offered the Car Mount Holder (e.g., thBestek Holder such as model no. BTCMOl) for sale in the United States.

32. The Bestek Car Mount Holder (e.g., the Bestek Holder such as model noBTCMOl) is especially made, or especially adapted, for use in the making of device that infringcertain claims of the '953 patent.

33. The Bestek Car Mount Holder (e.g., the Bestek Holder, such as model noBTCMOl) has no substantial non-infringing use.

34. For at least some period of time, Bestek has known that the Car Mount Holde(e.g., the Bestek Holder such as model no. BTCMOl) is especially made to infringe certaiclaims of the '953 patent.

35. Bestek's actions constitute contributory patent infringement under 35 U.S.C271 c).

6


7/9

36. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Bestek's contributory infringement of th'953 patent will continue unless enjoined by this Court.

37. Bestek's contributory infringement has been intentional, willful, and withreckless disregard for the rights of Plaintiffs.

38. Bestek has caused Plaintiffs substantial injury, including lost profits, for whicPlaintiffs are entitled to damages adequate to compensate them for contributory infringement.

39. Bestek's contributory infringement warrants the assessment of increased damagepursuant to 35 U.S.C. 284, and an award of attorneys' fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 285.

OUNT I

L IM FOR TIVE INDU EMENT OF INFRINGEMENT

O F T HE 95 P TENT


41. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that third party users of the Bestek Car MouHolder (e.g., the Bestek Holder such as model no. BTCMOl) are directly infringing certaclaims of the '953 patent.

42. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that by advertising, offering for sale, sellinand supporting the Bestek Car Mount Holder (e.g., the Bestek Holder such as model noBTCMOl), Bestek has knowingly and intentionally caused third party users of the Bestek CaMount Holder (e.g., the Bestek Holder such as model no. BTCMOl) to infringe certain claims othe 9 53 patent.

43. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that, after having been put on notice of thexistence of the '953 patent and the infringing use of the Bestek Car Mount Holder (e.g., thBestek Holder such as model no. BTCMOl), Bestek has continued to advertise, offer for sale

7


8/9

sell and support the Bestek Ca r Mount Holder (e.g., the Bestek Holder such as model noBTCMOl) to third party users with the intent to induce third party users to infringe the '95patent.

44. Bestek 's actions constitute active inducement of patent infringement under 3U.S.C. 271(b).

45 . Plain tiffs a re in fo rm e d a n d b e lie v e th at B e s t e k s a ctiv e in du ce me nt o

infringement of the '953 patent will continue unless enjoined by this Court.46. Bestek s active inducement of infringement has been intentional, willful, and wit

a reckless disregard for the rights of Plaintiffs.47. Bestek has caused Plaintiffs substantial injury, including lost profits, for whic

Plaintiffs are entitled to damages adequate to compensate them for direct infringement.48. Bestek s active inducement of infringement warrants the assessment of increase

damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 284, and an award of attorneys' fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C.2 8 5 .

PRAYER FOR REL IEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment and seek relief against Defendant as follows:A. An adjudication that one or more claims of th e Patent-in-Suit has bee

infringed, either literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, by the Defendant and/or thDefendant in conjunction with its customers;

B. An adjudication that Defendant has induced infringement of one or morclaims o f the Patent-in-Suit;

C. An adjudication that Defendant has contributed to the infringement of onor more claims o f the Patent-in-Suit;

8


9/9

D. An award to Plaintiff of damages adequate to compensate Plaintiff for thDefendant's acts of infringement together with prejudgment interest pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 284

E. That, should Defendant's acts of infringement be found to be willful fromthe time that Defendant became aware of the infringing nature of its actions, that the Court awardtreble damages for the period of such willful infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 284;

F. A grant of permanent injunction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 283, enjoininthe Defendant from further acts of infringement with respect to the claims o f the Patent-in-Suit;

G. That this Court declare this to be an exceptional case and award Plaintiits reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 285;

H. A preliminary and final injunction against the continuing infringement;I. An accounting for damages;J. Interests an d costs; an dK. Any further reliefthat this Court deems just and proper.

Dated: March 11,2014Respectfully submitted,a^

iOttie Et. Al. v. Bestek Group

Documents

Transcript of iOttie Et. Al. v. Bestek Group