Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1
ARI LAW, P.C.
2 ALI A. AALAEI, State Bar No. 254713
E-mail: ali@arilaw.com
3 ALEXANDER CHEN, State Bar No. 245798
E-mail: alex@arilaw.com
4 90 New Montgomery St., Suite 900
San Francisco, CA 94105
5 Tel: 415-830-9968
Fax: 415-520-9456
6
Attorneys for Plaintiff
7 SANHO CORPORATION
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT
Case No.
Case 3:18-cv-03150-MEJ Document 1 Filed 05/25/18 Page 2 of 10
4
INTRODUCTION
5
1. This action arises from the unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent acts and practices of
6
defendant Kaijet Technology International Limited, Inc. (“Defendant”). Defendant has, to the
7 detriment of the plaintiff in this case, Sanho Corporation (“Plaintiff”), as set forth below,
8 unlawfully infringed, copied, and trampled on Plaintiff’s intellectual property rights and has
9 injured plaintiff as a result of unfair competition. Defendants’ unlawful and unfair conduct is
10 comprised of violations of the California Unfair Business Practices Act, the False Advertising
11 Law, the Patent Act, the Lanham Act, and the Copyright Act. Defendants’ conduct was willful,
12 and is causing Plaintiff to suffer irreparable harm.
13
JURISDICTION
14
2. This is a civil action seeking damages and injunctive relief for patent and copyright
15
infringement under the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 101, et seq., and the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §
16
101, et seq.
17
3. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
18
1331, and 1338.
19 4. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendant because they are doing business in
20 the State of California and in this judicial district, the acts of infringement complained of herein
21 occurred in the State of California. Defendants have intended to cause and have caused injury to
22 Plaintiff and its economic advantage and goodwill in the State of California.
23
INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
24
5. Pursuant to Civil L.R. 3-2(c), this case should be subject to district-wide assignment
25
because it is an Intellectual Property Action.
26
27
28 –1–
COMPLAINT
CASE NO.
Case 3:18-cv-03150-MEJ Document 1 Filed 05/25/18 Page 3 of 10
1 VENUE
2 6. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b), (c), and 1400(b).
3 THE PARTIES
4 7. Plaintiff is a Delaware corporation, with its headquarters located in Fremont, CA.
5 Plaintiff does business in California and across the United States.
6 8. Defendant Kaijet Technology International Limited, Inc., aka j5Create, is a business entity
7 doing business in CA.
8 9. Plaintiff does not know the true names and capacity of defendants sued herein as DOES 1-
9 100, and therefore sues these defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff is informed and
10 believes, and on the basis of that information and belief, alleges, that each of the defendants was
11 in some manner legally responsible for the events and happenings alleged in this complaint and
12 for Plaintiff’s damages. DOES 1-100 have sold, offered for sale, and are selling the infringing
13 products online on various websites including but not limited to at eBay.com and Amazon.com,
14 although the true identities of DOES 1-100 remains unknown. Defendant Kaijet and Does 1-100
15 may be hereinafter referred to as “Defendants.” Plaintiff will amend this complaint to allege their
17
GENERAL AVERMENTS
18
10. Plaintiff Sanho Corporation is a company based in Fremont, CA.
19
11. Plaintiff, on or around December 5, 2016, released the HyperDrive multi-function docking
20
station. Notably, the HyperDrive multi-function docking station has a novel ornamental design.
21
The invention was displayed publicly at the Consumer Electronics Show in January of 2017.
22
Plaintiff’s product had been widely hailed in the media as Plaintiff went on to raise over $3.1M
23
on Kickstarter and Indigogo. Thereafter, Plaintiff became the lawful assignee of United States
24
Patent No. US D813,875 S, (the “875 Patent”), which describes the multi-function docking
25
station. Sanho began shipping the product in or around January 2017.
26
12. Notably, Plaintiff has built goodwill and customer reputation having been operating for
27
more than 12 years, and its packaging, trademarks, tradenames, as well as the HyperDrive
28 –2–
COMPLAINT
CASE NO.
Case 3:18-cv-03150-MEJ Document 1 Filed 05/25/18 Page 4 of 10
1 branding have gained secondary meaning, well before Kaijet ever began its unlawful scheme.
2 Sanho’s trademarks, tradenames, and goodwill, also carry secondary meaning with respect to the
quality, warranty guarantees, and brand reputation affiliated with Plaintiff’s products and its
3
customers’ expectations of the same.
4
13. On or around October 2017, Kaijet, or j5create, copied and began using, making, and
5
selling, Plaintiff’s invention and called it the “UltraDrive” solely to counterfeit and
6
misappropriate Plaintiff’s HyperDrive multi-function docking station. To make matters worse,
7
Kaijet named and labeled its product the “UltraDrive” intentionally to confuse Sanho’s customers
8
when purchasing the HyperDrive. Defendant blatantly copied the packaging of Plaintiff’s
9
product (Exhibit A), clearly intending to create confusion by consumers in misappropriating
10
Sanho’s product and ideas, infringed on Plaintiff’s intellectual property and copyrights, and
11
interfere with Plaintiff’s economic advantage engaging in unfair competition. Defendants copied
12
the product and packaging, including, but not limited to, the following:
13
On the front of Packaging
14
Similar sounding product name "UltraDrive" vs "HyperDrive"
15
Same product brand name placement on top left corner
16
Similar product window cutout on the front left of the box
17
Similar product description below the product window cutout
18 Same image of MacBook Pro on the front right of the box
19 Same call outs to "4K HDMI" and "50Gbps" speed
20 Similar orange color highlights
21 On the back of Packaging
22 Similar product image with MacBook Pro on the back top of the box
23 Similar product description below the product image
24 See Exhibit B to this Complaint.
25 14. Defendants intentionally copied the image, form, and design of Plaintiff’s product
26 including its packaging in order to misappropriate Plaintiff’s ideas, inventions, efforts, marks, and
28 –3–
COMPLAINT
CASE NO.
Case 3:18-cv-03150-MEJ Document 1 Filed 05/25/18 Page 5 of 10
1 15. Prior to December 2016, Defendant Kaijet did not sell the product herein at issue. It was
2 only after Kaijet copied the product and misappropriated the idea from Sanho that it began the
3 infringing conduct.
4 16. It is undisputed that Plaintiff is the assignee of the ‘875 Patent. Plaintiff owns all right,
title and interest in the ‘875 Patent. A true and correct copy of the ‘875 Patent is attached to the
5
complaint as Exhibit C.
6
17. The ‘875 Patent claims a multi-function docking station.
7
18. Plaintiff submitted an application for copyright registration with the United States
8
Copyright Office relating to its images, advertising, and packaging for the multi-function docking
9
station on May 4, 2018, which was approved, as Registration Number VA0002103336. The
10
registration included the relevant image at Exhibit A hereto.
11
19. As set forth herein, after Plaintiff begin advertising and selling its product, Plaintiff
12
discovered that Defendant and/or its agents had made, used, advertised, sold, and offered for sale
13
products embodying the ‘875 Patent and furthermore that Defendant and/or its agents had copied
14
Plaintiff’s packaging with respect to Plaintiff’s multi-function docking station product the
15
HyperDrive.
16
20. Notably, Defendant does not have any license, authorization, permission or consent to use
17
Plaintiff’s packaging, copyrights, patents, or intellectual property.
18 21. Defendants continued to copy Plaintiff’s business. For example, after Plaintiff released
19 the product Defendant copied the product. After Plaintiff began selling its product online
20 Defendant started selling the product online. After Plaintiff started selling its product in stores at
21 Best Buy then Defendant subsequently began selling its inferior product adjacent therewith in a
22 manner that was likely to deceive a reasonable person.
23 22. On or around November 20, 2017, Plaintiff sent written notice to Defendant regarding
24 Defendant’s infringement and demanded that Defendant immediately cease and desist.
25 Defendant refused to cease and desist and has continued its unfair and unlawful scheme. As a
26 result of Defendant’s unfair scheme, Plaintiff suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable
27 harm. Plaintiff has suffered and will also suffer losses in excess of $1,000,000.00.
28 –4–
COMPLAINT
CASE NO.
Case 3:18-cv-03150-MEJ Document 1 Filed 05/25/18 Page 6 of 10
1 23. Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief and redress for Defendant’s willful, intentional and
2 purposeful use and exploitation of Plaintiff’s intellectual property with full knowledge that such
3 use constituted unlawful infringement of, and was in disregard of, Plaintiff’s rights, also
5 COUNT I
6 (Patent Infringement)
7 (35 U.S.C. § 271)
8 24. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all paragraphs of this Complaint.
9 25. Defendant has and continues to infringe the ‘875 Patent by using, selling, and offering for
10 sale products embodying the patent-in-suit, including the Ultradrive or UltraDrive products sold
11 by Defendant.
12 26. Defendants have used, sold, and offered to sell products infringing the patent-in-suit by
13 copying the patented article and specifically targeting consumers in California and on the West
14 Coast, including Plaintiff’s customers, through online websites, including Defendant’s own
15 website and on other websites, as well as selling the infringing product in stores located in
28 –5–
COMPLAINT
CASE NO.
Case 3:18-cv-03150-MEJ Document 1 Filed 05/25/18 Page 7 of 10
1 COUNT II
2 (Copyright Infringement)
4 30. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all paragraphs of this Complaint.
31. Through their conduct averred herein, Defendant has infringed Plaintiff’s copyright in
5
violation of Sections 106 and 501 of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 106 and 501.
6
32. Defendants’ acts of infringement are willful, intentional and purposeful, in disregard of
7
and with indifference to Plaintiff’s rights.
8
33. As a direct and proximate result of said infringement by Defendants, Plaintiff is entitled to
9
damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
10
34. Plaintiff is also entitled to Defendants’ profits attributable to the infringement, pursuant to
11
17 U.S.C. § 504(b), including an accounting of and a constructive trust with respect to such
12
profits.
13
35. Plaintiff further is entitled to its attorneys’ fees and full costs pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505
14
and otherwise according to law.
15
36. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing acts and conduct, Plaintiff has sustained
16
and will continue to sustain substantial, immediately, and irreparable injury, for which there is no
17
adequate remedy at law. Plaintiff is informed and believes and on that basis avers that unless
18 enjoined and restrained by this Court, Defendants will continue to infringe Plaintiff’s rights.
19 Plaintiff is entitled to preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to restrain and enjoin
20 Defendants’ continuing infringing conduct.
21
COUNT III
22
(Violation of California Unfair Business Practices Act)
23
(Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200)
24
29. Plaintiff herein re-alleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation
25
contained in the instant pleading.
26
30. Defendants unlawfully, unfairly, and fraudulently copied the packaging of Plaintiff’s
27
product and the product itself, in contravention of Plaintiff’s rights.
28 –6–
COMPLAINT
CASE NO.
Case 3:18-cv-03150-MEJ Document 1 Filed 05/25/18 Page 8 of 10
1 31. Defendants’ conduct was a deliberate attempt to create confusion with Plaintiff’s product
2 and unfairly divert Plaintiff’s ideas, customers, and economic advantage, unfairly to Defendants.
3 32. Defendants have misled, and has attempted to mislead, consumers into believing that the
5 33. Defendants’ conduct, including but not limited to, violations of applicable statutes and
6 laws, constitutes unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices in violation of, inter alia,
9 35. Defendants’ conduct was immoral, unethical, oppressive, and unscrupulous constituting
10 unfair business practices under California Business and Professions Code § 17200.
11 36. Plaintiff lost money and/or property as a result of Defendant’s unlawful, unfair, and
12 fraudulent acts.
14 38. Pursuant to California Business and Professions Code § 17203, Plaintiff seek an order
15 enjoining Defendants from engaging in further unlawful, unfair, and/or fraudulent business acts,
16 and restitution of money and/or property Plaintiff has lost on account of such acts.
17 COUNT IV
18 UNJUST ENRICHMENT
19 39. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates each and every paragraph of this complaint as if fully
21 40. Defendants have engaged in unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent acts and practices, within the
22 meaning of California Business & Professions Code § 17200, et seq., and in violation of the laws
23 set forth in this complaint. As a result, Defendants have been unjustly enriched, at the expense of
24 Plaintiff.
25 41. Under the circumstances, it would be against equity and good conscience to permit
26 Defendants to retain the ill-gotten benefits that were received from and to the detriment of
27 Plaintiff. It would be unjust and/or inequitable for Defendants to retain such benefits without
28 –7–
COMPLAINT
CASE NO.
Case 3:18-cv-03150-MEJ Document 1 Filed 05/25/18 Page 9 of 10
1 restitution to Plaintiff.
2 42. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks an order establishing Defendant(s), and any agents or sellers
3 of Defendants as constructive trustees of the profits received by collecting the unfair amounts that
4 served to unjustly enrich them, together with interest during the period in which defendants have
5 retained such funds, and requiring Defendants to disgorge those funds to Plaintiff in a manner to
11
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
12
1. That judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiff against Defendant;
13
2. That Defendants be preliminarily and permanently enjoined from infringement;
14
3. That Plaintiff be awarded compensatory, lost profits, and special damages for the
15
infringement in an amount to be determined at trial;
16
4. That the Court award Plaintiff enhanced damages and attorneys’ fees;
17
5. That Plaintiff be awarded additional costs, attorney’s fees, and damages, based on
18
Defendant’s knowing and willful infringement;
19
6. That Plaintiff be awarded costs of this suit, including but not limited to attorney’s fees;
20
7. That Plaintiff be awarded pre-judgment interest;
21
8. That Plaintiff be awarded statutory damages or penalties;
22
9. For an accounting of, and the imposition of a constructive trust with respect to,
23
Defendants’ profits attributable to their infringements of Plaintiff’s intellectual property;
24
10. For reasonable and statutory attorneys’ fees;
25 11. For costs;
26 12. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
27 WHEREFORE, a demand for jury trial is made.
28 –8–
COMPLAINT
CASE NO.
Case 3:18-cv-03150-MEJ Document 1 Filed 05/25/18 Page 10 of 10
1 Respectfully submitted,
5
By: /s/ Ali A. Aalaei
6
ARI LAW, P.C.
7 ALI A. AALAEI, State Bar No. 254713
E-mail: ali@arilaw.com
ALEXANDER CHEN, State Bar No. 245798
8 E-mail: alex@arilaw.com
90 New Montgomery St., Suite 900
9 San Francisco, CA 94105
Tel: 415-830-9968
10 Fax: 415-520-9456
11 Attorneys for Plaintiff,
SANHO CORPORATION
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 –9–
COMPLAINT
CASE NO.
Case 3:18-cv-03150-MEJ Document 1-1 Filed 05/25/18 Page 1 of 16
Exhibit A
Case 3:18-cv-03150-MEJ Document 1-1 Filed 05/25/18 Page 2 of 16
Case 3:18-cv-03150-MEJ Document 1-1 Filed 05/25/18 Page 3 of 16
Exhibit B
Case 3:18-cv-03150-MEJ Document 1-1 Filed 05/25/18 Page 4 of 16
Case 3:18-cv-03150-MEJ Document 1-1 Filed 05/25/18 Page 5 of 16
Case 3:18-cv-03150-MEJ Document 1-1 Filed 05/25/18 Page 6 of 16
Exhibit C
Case 3:18-cv-03150-MEJ Document 1-1 Filed 05/25/18 Page 7 of 16
Case 3:18-cv-03150-MEJ Document 1-1 Filed 05/25/18 Page 8 of 16
Case 3:18-cv-03150-MEJ Document 1-1 Filed 05/25/18 Page 9 of 16
Case 3:18-cv-03150-MEJ Document 1-1 Filed 05/25/18 Page 10 of 16
Case 3:18-cv-03150-MEJ Document 1-1 Filed 05/25/18 Page 11 of 16
Case 3:18-cv-03150-MEJ Document 1-1 Filed 05/25/18 Page 12 of 16
Case 3:18-cv-03150-MEJ Document 1-1 Filed 05/25/18 Page 13 of 16
Case 3:18-cv-03150-MEJ Document 1-1 Filed 05/25/18 Page 14 of 16
Case 3:18-cv-03150-MEJ Document 1-1 Filed 05/25/18 Page 15 of 16
Case 3:18-cv-03150-MEJ Document 1-1 Filed 05/25/18 Page 16 of 16
JS-CAND 44 (Rev. 06/17) Case 3:18-cv-03150-MEJ Document 1-2 Filed 05/25/18 Page 1 of 1
CIVIL COVER SHEET
The JS-CAND 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law,
except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved in its original form by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the Clerk of
Court to initiate the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS
Sanho Corporation Kaijet Technology International Limited, Inc., a company, doing business as
j5create
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff : Alameda County of Residence of First Listed Defendant Cobb County
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)
ARI LAW, P.C., Ali Ari Aalaei, Esq. 90 New Montgomery St, #900
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
PTF DEF PTF DEF
1 U.S. Government Plaintiff 3 Federal Question Citizen of This State 1 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4
(U.S. Government Not a Party)
of Business In This State
Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5 5
2 U.S. Government Defendant 4 Diversity of Business In Another State
(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)
Citizen or Subject of a 3 3 Foreign Nation 6 6
Foreign Country
VI. CAUSE OF Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
35 USC 271; 17 USC 106, 501
ACTION
Brief description of cause:
patent; copyright; unfair competition
VII. REQUESTED IN CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, Fed. R. Civ. P. JURY DEMAND: Yes No
DATE 05/25/2018 SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD /s/ ALI A. AALAEI (SBN 254713)