watson v. unique industries - complaint

8/10/2019 Watson v. Unique Industries - Complaint

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/watson-v-unique-industries-complaint 1/65

1

Plaintiff’s Original Complaint

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

HOUSTON DIVISION

JAMIE WATSON, §

§PLAINTIFF, §

§

V. § CIVIL ACTION NO._______________

§

UNIQUE INDUSTRIES, INC., § JURY

§

DEFENDANT. §

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Jamie Watson (“Mr s. Watson”) files this Original Complaint against Defendant

Unique Industries, Inc. (“Defendant”), and alleges as follows:

I. NATURE AND BASIS OF ACTION

1. This is an action in which Mrs. Watson asserts patent infringement of U.S. Patent

No. D509,725 (the “‘725 Patent”) arising under 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. Mrs. Watson seeks

monetary damages and permanent injunctive relief against Defendant.

II. PARTIES

2. Mrs. Watson is an individual, owner of the ‘725 patent, and she is a resident of

Houston, Harris County, Texas.

3. Upon information and belief, Defendant is a Pennsylvania corporation with its

principal place of business located at 4750 League Island Boulevard, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

19112. Defendant may be served with process to its Registered Agent, CT Corporation System,

1999 Bryan St., Ste. 900, Dallas, TX 75201-3136.

Case 4:14-cv-03098 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 10/29/14 of 7



2


III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject-matter of this action under 28 U.S.C.

§§ 1331 & 1338.

5. On information and belief, Defendant has transacted business within this district,

has committed tortious acts within this district, has committed tortious injury to Plaintiff in this

district, regularly does or solicits business in this district, derives revenue from goods used or

consumed in this judicial district, engages in other persistent courses of conduct in this district,

and is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court.

6. Venue in this Court is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 & 1400 because Defendant

is subject to personal jurisdiction in this district, and has committed acts of infringement in this

district. Plaintiff is also an individual who resides in this judicial district.

IV. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. U.S. PATENT NO. D509,725

7. On September 20, 2005, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued the

‘725 Patent, entitled “Balloon Tie,” to Mrs. Watson. A true and correct copy of the ‘725 Patent

is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

8. The ‘725 Patent is currently in full force and effect.

9. All right, title, and interest in and to the ‘725 Patent are owned by Mrs. Watson.

10. In accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 282, the ‘232 Patent, and the claim thereof is

presumed to be valid.

B. DEFENDANT’S CONDUCT

11. Upon information and belief, Defendant makes, uses, offers to sell, and/or sells

within the United States and this judicial district products, including but not limited to Water




3


Balloons with 200 Reusable Quick Knots”, which embody the design claimed in the ‘725 Patent.

See Exhibit B (A pdf copy of a photograph of Defendant’s Product).

12. Mrs. Watson and Defendant entered into a License Agreement whereby, in

exchange for royalty payments, Defendant was permitted to manufacture, have manufactured,

market, distribute, and sell the hexagonal-shaped balloon tying device that is the subject of the

‘725 Patent. See Exhibit C.

13. Defendant terminated the License Agreement by not renewing the license at the

expiration of the License Agreement’s first term. Defendant communicated and confirmed said

termination by email dated January 25, 2009. See Exhibit D.

14. Per the terms of the License Agreement, Defendant was permitted to “selloff ” its

remaining inventory for a period of one (1) year from the date of expiration or termination. See

Exhibit C, Pg. 6, Article VII.

15. Defendant was permitted to sell its remaining inventory until December 31, 2009.

16. Around August 2014, over four (4) years after Defendant was no longer permitted

to do so, Mrs. Watson discovered that Defendant was continuing to make, use, offer for sale

and/or sell the “Water Balloons with 200 Quick Knots” which embody the identical design

claimed in the ‘725 Patent as shown:




4


See Exhibit B (Screenshot of Defendant’s Internet website located at www.favors.com)

C. PLAINTIFF’S IRREPARABLE HARM

17. Plaintiff has been and continues to be irreparably harmed by Defendant’s

infringement of her patent rights. Specifically, Defendant’s unauthorized, infringing use of the

design claimed in the ‘725 Patent threatens the value of Mrs. Watson intellectual property

because Defendant’s conduct has resulted in Mrs. Watson’s loss of its lawful patent rights to

exclude others from making, using, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing products that

embody her patented design.

18. Defendant’s disregard for Plaintiff’s intellectual property rights similarly

threatens Plaintiff’s relationships with current and potential licensees of her intellectual property.

Defendant will derive a competitive advantage of any of Plaintiff’s current or future licensees by




5


using Plaintiff’s patented design without paying compensation for such use in this judicial

district and throughout the United States. Accordingly, unless and until Defendant’s acts of

infringement are enjoined, Plaintiff will continue to suffer irreparable harm for which there is no

adequate remedy at law.

V. CAUSE OF ACTION

INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘725 PATENT

19. Mrs. Watson realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of paragraphs

1 – 13 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

20. On September 20, 2005, the ‘725 Patent entitled “Balloon Tie” was duly and

legally issued. A true and correct copy of the ‘725 Patent is attached as Exhibit A.

21. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 282, the ‘725 Patent enjoys a presumption of validity.

22. Mrs. Watson is the named inventor of the ‘725 Patent and owns all right, title and

interest in and to the ‘725 Patent.

23. Upon information and belief, Defendant has infringed and continues to infringe

the claims of the ‘725 Patent by its manufacture, use, offer for sale and/or sale of the Infringing

Products.

24. As a result of Defendant’s actions, Mrs. Watson has suffered and continues to

suffer substantial injury, including irreparable injury, and will result in loss of sales and profits

which Mrs. Watson would have made but for the infringement by Defendant and those losses

will continue unless Defendant is enjoined by this Court.

25. In the alternative, as a result of Defendants’ infringement of the ‘725 Patent, Mrs.

Watson has suffered monetary damage and is entitled to recover those damages, including

Defendant’s profits, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 284 & 289.




6


VI. JURY DEMAND

26. Mrs. Watson respectfully demands a jury trial on all claims and issues.

VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Mrs. Watson prays for judgment and seeks relief as follows:

(1) The Court declare that Defendant has infringed the exclusive rights granted to

Plaintiff that are disclosed by the claim of the ‘725 Patent;

(2) The Court declare that the ‘725 Patent is valid and enforceable;

(3) That Defendant is permanently enjoined against further infringement of the ‘725

Patent by Defendant, its officers, agents, servants, employees, affiliates, subsidiaries,

licenses, successors and assigns and those persons acting in concert with each other

including related individuals and entities, customers, representatives, dealers, and

distributors;

(4) The Court award to Mrs. Watson damages, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, adequate to

compensate Mrs. Watson for Defendant’s infringement of the ‘725 Patent, which in

no event can be less than a reasonable royalty;

(5) The Court require Defendant to provide a verified accounting of all sales, revenues,

and profits of the infringing products;

(6) The Court award to Mrs. Watson damages that amount to Defendant’s profits

pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 289;

(7) The Court award to Mrs. Watson her costs, pre and post-judgment interest on her

damages, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284;

(8) That the Court declare this case to be exceptional and award Plaintiff her attorneys’

fees and costs under 35 U.S.C. § 285;




7


(9) That the Court declare that Defendant’s acts of infringement, inducement of

infringement and/or contr ibutory infringement of the ‘725 Patent has been knowing

and willful;

(10) That the Court increase all damages awarded to Mrs. Watson in this case to three

times the damages amount found by the jury or assessed by this Court pursuant to 35

U.S.C. § 284; and

(11) Award to Mrs. Watson such other and further relief as the Court may deem just

and proper.

Dated: October 29, 2014 Respectfully submitted,

/s/Paul S. Beik

Paul S. Beik

Attorney-in-ChargeTexas Bar No. 24054444

S.D. Tex. ID No. 642213

BEIK LAW FIRM, PLLC8100 Washington Avenue, Suite 1000

Houston, Texas 77007

Tel: (713) 869-6975

Fax: (713) 868-2262Email: [email protected]

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

JAMIE WATSON




Case 4:14-cv-03098 Document 1-1 Filed in TXSD on 10/29/14 Page 1 of 3

watson v. unique industries - complaint

Documents