Professional Documents
Culture Documents
COMPLAINT Plaintiff Hunter Douglas Window Designs, Inc., in support of its Complaint against Springs Window Fashions, LLC, alleges and states as follows:
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1. This is an action in law and equity for patent infringement in violation of
PARTIES
2. Plaintiff Hunter Douglas Window Designs, Inc. (Hunter Douglas) is a
Corporation formed in the State of Delaware with its principal place of business at 201 Southridge Parkway, Bessemer City, North Carolina 28016. Hunter Douglas manufactures and sells window treatments to consumers throughout the U.S. 3. Springs Window Fashions, LLC (Springs) is a Limited Liability
Corporation formed in the State of Delaware with its principal place of business at 7549 Graber Road, Middleton, WI 53562. Springs is a direct competitor of Hunter Douglas, and
manufactures and sells window treatments that are directly competitive with Hunter Douglass own products.
U.S.C. 1331, 1338(a) and 1367. 5. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Springs, because Springs is a
Delaware Corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware, and its products are distributed and sold in Delaware. 6. Springs has also placed its products into the stream of commerce through
established distribution channels expecting them to be shipped into and purchased by customers in this judicial district. 7. As a result, venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
8. On January 7, 2009, Mr. Ren Judkins filed an application for a design
patent entitled COMBINATION CELLULAR AND PLEATED WINDOW SHADE which was granted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on December 15, 2009, as U.S. Design Patent No. D605,885 (the 885 patent). A true and correct copy of the 885 patent is attached as Exhibit A. 9. Mr. Judkins assigned to Flexo Solutions LLC the entire right, title, and
interest to the 885 patent, including all rights to recover damages. Flexo Solutions LLC then assigned the 885 patent to Hunter Douglas, who is the current owner of the 885 patent. A copy of the assignment from Flexo Solutions LLC to Hunter Douglas is attached as Exhibit B. This assignment has been recorded with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and can be located at Reel 022075 Frame 0243.
-2-
10.
Springs manufactures, sells, uses, and/or offers for sale a window shade
product that uses, without authorization by Hunter Douglas, the design of the 885 patent (Accused Product). Springs sells its Accused Product through Budget Blinds, Inc. The Accused Product is marketed and sold by Budget Blinds as part of its SIGNATURE SERIES brand under the name ECLIPSE COMBINATION SHADES. A copy of a Budget Blinds sales brochure that identifies the Accused Product manufactured by Springs and sold by Budget Blinds is attached as Exhibit C. A photograph of the Accused Product (a SIGNATURE SERIES, ECLIPSE COMBINATION SHADE that was obtained from Budget Blinds franchisee) is included in Exhibit D. 11. Upon information and belief, Springs uses, manufactures, sells, and/or
offers for sale, Accused Products under other brands. 12. Upon information and belief, other third parties use, sell, and/or offer for
sale, Accused Products that are manufactured by Springs. 13. Upon information and belief, Springs continues to sell the Accused
Product through the National retailer Budget Blinds, Inc., as well as others. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (PATENT INFRINGEMENT, 28 U.S.C. 271) 14. Complaint. 15. To an ordinary observer, the design of the Accused Product is Hunter Douglas incorporates all of the preceding allegations of this
substantially the same as the 885 patent. A side by side comparison of Figure 1 from the 885 patent with the corresponding view of the Accused Product is attached as Exhibit D. 16. Springss unauthorized manufacture, use, offers to sell, and sales of the
17.
Springss continued actions of making, using, selling, offering for sale and
or distributing the Infringing Products has injured, is injuring, and will cause irreparable injury to Hunter Douglas and Hunter Douglass patent rights and exclusive market position if not permanently and preliminarily enjoined by this Court. PRAYER FOR RELIEF FOR THESE REASONS, Hunter Douglas prays for a judgment in its favor and against Springs as follows: 1. 2. 3. For judgment that Springs has infringed the 885 patent. For judgment that Springss infringement of the 885 patent is willful. For issuance of a preliminary and permanent injunction restraining and
enjoining Springs and its divisions, subsidiaries, officers, agents, employees, and attorneys, and all those persons in active concert or participation with it, from infringing, inducing others to infringe, or contributing to the infringement of the 885 patent, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 283. 4. For an award of damages to compensate Hunter Douglas for Springss
infringement, and an award of treble damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 284. 5. A finding that this case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. 285 and an award
of attorney fees incurred by Hunter Douglas in connection with this action. 6. damages awarded. 7. For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and equitable. JURY DEMAND Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Hunter Douglas demands a trial to a jury on all issues so triable. An award of pre-judgment interest and post-judgment interest on the
-4-
-5-