Anda di halaman 1dari 54

1 2 3 4 5

United States Patent No. 7,600,519 (the 519 patent; a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A). Plaintiff is the exclusive licensee of the 519 patent with respect to Defendant. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages.

JURISDICTION 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 method, in the United States, the State of California, and the Central District of California. Upon 23 24 25 26 27 28 _________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 2

2. This action arises under the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. 1 et seq., including 35 U.S.C. 271, 281, 283, 284, and 285. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case for patent infringement under 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1338(a). 3. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because the Defendant is present within or has minimum contacts with the State of California and the Central District of California; the Defendant has purposefully availed itself of the privileges of conducting business in the State of California and in the Central District of California; the Defendant has sought protection and benefit from the laws of the State of California; the Defendant regularly conducts business within the State of California and within the Central District of California; and Plaintiffs causes of action arise directly from Defendants business contacts and other activities in the State of California and in the Central District of California. 4. More specifically, the Defendant, directly and/or through authorized intermediaries, ships, distributes, offers for sale, sells, uses and/or advertises products and services containing Plaintiffs

information and belief, the Defendant has committed patent infringement in the State of California and in the Central District of California, has contributed to patent infringement in the State of California and in the Central District of California, and/or has induced others to commit patent infringement in the State of California and in the Central District of California. The Defendant solicits customers in

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

the State of California and in the Central District of California. The Defendant has paying customers who are residents of the State of California and the Central District of California and who each use Plaintiffs methods in the State of California and in the Central District of California. 5. Defendant Nguyen has used the accused product(s) in performances in this judicial district, and has either in-person or through other means of correspondence, provided instruction to persons residing in this judicial district concerning the methods of the 519 patent. 6. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the corporation as it is doing substantial business in this judicial district through its website www.evalash.com, which advertises, publicly displays, and offers for sale the accused product(s). The website offers an instructional video instructing others, including those in this judicial district, how to use Plaintiffs patented method. Defendants have sold the accused product(s) to persons in this judicial district. 7. Furthermore, Defendants, being on actual notice of Plaintiffs patent rights asserted herein since at least as early as January 2014, as well as being on notice that Plaintiff resides in this judicial district, are believed to have known that their making, using, importing, offering for sale, and/or selling of product(s) containing Plaintiffs method(s) would have substantial effects in this judicial district such that they are subject to personal jurisdiction in this judicial district.

VENUE 8. Venue is proper in the Central District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391 (b) (2)

23 24 25 26 27 28 _________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 3

and 1400(b) because a substantial part of the events giving rise to this action arose within this Judicial District. This Court has personal jurisdiction over all the Defendants by virtue of their transacting, doing and soliciting business in this District, and because a substantial part of the relevant events

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

occurred in this District and because a substantial part of the property that is the subject of this action is situated here. PARTIES 9. Plaintiff Daniel Phu Dinh is a citizen of the USA, a resident of California, is the creator and rights holder of the Intellectual Property Plaintiff is the exclusive licensee of the patent-in-suit with respect to the Defendant, and possesses the right to sue for infringement and recover past damages. 10. On information and belief, defendant Quyen Nguyen is an individual, and at all times relevant to this action, has owned and controlled, and continues to own and control Evalash Beauty Corporation, a beauty products and services company, with a principal place of business at 13103 Bay Hill Dr., Beltsville, Maryland 20705-5107. 11. Defendant Evalash Beauty Corporation, on information and belief, is organized under the laws of Maryland and believed to have a business address of 13103 Bay Hill Dr., Beltsville, Maryland 20705-5107. It is believed that the corporation is owned, operated, managed, and controlled by Defendant Quyen Nguyen. 12. In this complaint, Defendants shall refer to the two named defendants collectively,

unless expressly stated otherwise. 13. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, or otherwise, of the Defendants sued as Does 1 through 9 are unknown to Plaintiff, who, therefore, sues them by such

23 24 25 26 27 28 _________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 4

fictitious names. At such time as their true names and capacities have been ascertained, Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint accordingly. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that that each of Does 1 through 9 was a participant in the sale, sells, uses and/or advertising, development, production, promotion, and instruction of the 519 patent method , and was acting at all

1 2 3 4 5

times within the scope of his/her agency or representative capacity, with the knowledge and consent of the other Defendants, and that each of Does 1 through 9 are liable to Plaintiff in connection with one or more of the claims sued upon here and are responsible in some manner for the wrongful acts alleged here. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 purpose of the letter was to provide Defendants notice regarding Plaintiffs pending application 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 17. Thus, Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendants first learned about Plaintiffs 16. The specification of US Patent Application No. 12/454,957, in addition to including a description of the branched eyelash extensions, also describes the entire method as described in U.S. Patent Application No. 11/473,943, which later issued as US Patent No. 7,600,519 (the 519 Patent). directed to branched eyelash extensions. 15. Plaintiff first sent a letter on or about June 4, 2010 to Defendants regarding US Patent Application No. 12/454,957, which is directed to Branched Eyelash Extensions and entitled, EYELASH EXTENSIONS AND METHOD FOR APPLYING EYELASH EXTENSIONS. The selling and distributing Plaintiffs patented method for applying eyelash extensions at trade shows, on Defendants website and at classes offered by Defendants for remuneration around the United States, including in the Central District of California. 14. Defendants have utilized and continue to utilize systems devices or methods that infringe directly, by inducement and/or contributorily, one or more claims of the Patents-in-Suit. One such use of the patented method can be found on Defendants V-Lash Interlocking Technique and Single Section Technique Instructional DVD . Defendants have and continue exhibiting, offering to sell,

method on or about June 4, 2010. After receiving Plaintiffs notice, Defendant Nguyen later filed her _________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

own patent application for a branched eyelash extension and began performing an infringing technique that is illustrated in the DVD. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that she reviewed Daniels patent applications closely.

6.

Plaintiff was later informed by a student in mid-2013 that Defendant Nguyen may be

performing Plaintiffs method and Plaintiff witnessed Defendant Nguyen selling a DVD at a trade show in Philadelphia in October 2013 that included a method for applying eyelashes extensions. A DVD was purchased at that show to review and verify.

8.

Defendant Nguyen was notified in person at the show in Philadelphia, on or about

October 28, 2013, that her technique was infringing.

9. 2013.

Defendants infringing DVDs were ordered online and sent to California in November

15. On or about January 25-27, 2014, Plaintiff exhibited, broadcasted and sold the DVD containing Plaintiffs 519 patented method and/or technique at the PBA International Salon and Spa

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 _________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 6

EXPO (ISSE) in Long Beach, California. On information and belief, Plaintiff is also scheduled to exhibit, broadcast and sell Plaintiffs methods at the IECSC SHOW in New York for 3 days, from March 9, 2014 to March 11, 2014 and at The Face & Body Spa Conference & Expo Midwest in Chicago, IL for 3 days from, March 22, 2014- March 24, 2014. 16. Plaintiff has delivered multiple cease and desist notices to Defendants of its infringement of the 519 Patent. Defendants were provided with a copy of the 519 Patent for review. On or about January 27, 2014, Plaintiff hand delivered a letter to Defendant Nguyen, during the aforementioned trade show in Long Beach, California, advising her again of Defendants infringement of the 519

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Patent as the result of Defendants selling and exhibiting of a DVD which offers Plaintiffs 519 patented method to the public as their own. 17. Defendants have failed to cease and desist their infringing conduct, despite being put on notice. FIRST CLAIM (Patent Infringement)

35 U.S.C 101, et seq.


18. Plaintiff hereby repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation of paragraphs 117 of this Complaint. 19. The 519 Patent was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on October 13, 2009, after full and fair examination, for a method to apply eyelash extensions. Plaintiff is the exclusive licensee of the 519 Patent with respect to the Defendants, and possesses all rights of recovery under the 519 Patent with respect to the Defendants, including the right to sue for infringement and recover past damages. 20. Defendants have utilized and continue to utilize systems devices or methods that infringe directly, by inducement and/or contributorily, one or more claims of the Patents-in-Suit. Subsequent to the issuance of the 519 Patent, Defendants have infringed the patent by exhibiting, making, using, importing, offering to sell, and/or selling, and continuing to make, use, import, offer to sell and/or sell products and services that utilize the patented method and thus come within the scope of the claims of

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 519 Patent . Upon information and belief, Quyen Nguyen has infringed and continues to infringe one _________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 7

the patent, and that come within a range of equivalents of the claims of the patent, and/or contributing to and/or inducing the infringing activities of others. 21. Plaintiff is informed and believes that defendant Quyen Nguyen owns, operates, advertises, controls, sells, uses and otherwise provides training on eyelash extension application that infringes the

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

or more claims of the 519 patent by making, using, providing, exhibiting, offering to sell, selling and providing instruction of the patented method (directly or through intermediaries), in this district and elsewhere in the United States, an eyelash extension method. 22. The making, exhibiting, using, importing, offering to sell, and/or selling of infringing products by Defendants, and/or contributing to and/or inducing the infringing activities of others has been without authority or license from Plaintiff, and in violation of Plaintiffs rights, thereby infringing one or more of the claims of the 519 Patent. 23. Defendants infringement of the 519 Patent has been willful, with knowledge, and in objectively reckless disregard for the exclusive rights of Plaintiff set forth in its patents (and published patent application), and as set forth herein. 24. The amount of money damages that Plaintiff has suffered due to Defendants acts of infringement cannot be determined without an accounting, and it is thus subject to proof at trial. 25. The harm to Plaintiff arising from Defendants acts of infringement of the 519 Patent is not fully compensable by money damages. Rather, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer irreparable harm which has no adequate remedy at law and which will continue unless Defendants conduct is enjoined. 26. Plaintiff is therefore also entitled to a preliminary injunction, to be made permanent on entry of the judgment, preventing Defendants from further acts of infringement.

RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays: 1. For an order that Defendants and their agents and servants be enjoined during the pendency of this action and permanently from committing any further acts of infringement of the 519 Patent,

_________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

including but not limited to, making, using, importing, instructing, offering to sell, and selling, or aiding or abetting or assisting others in such infringing activities; 2. For an order that Defendants and their agents and servants be enjoined during the pendency of this action and permanently from distributing or displaying to any person, agency, organization or to the public any materials, videos, or other displays based upon, or derived from the 519 Patent. 3. For an order that Defendants be required to account for all gains, profits, and advantages derived by Defendants in connection with Plaintiff's patent rights, and that they be required to disclose to Plaintiff all actions taken and materials developed in relation to the 519 Patent. 4. For an order directing Defendants to file with this Court and to serve on the Plaintiff within thirty (30) days after service on Defendants of the injunction granted herein, or such extended period as the Court may direct, a report in writing, under oath, setting forth in detail the manner and form in which Defendants have fully complied with the injunction and order of the Court; 5. For an order seizing and impounding all accused products containing, exhibiting and instructing on the 519 patented method; 6. For a judgment to be entered for Plaintiff against Defendants in an amount equal to Plaintiffs lost profits, and/or the profits Defendant made, in connection with Defendants sales of products that infringe the 519 Patent or in the alternative, a reasonable royalty, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 284 and/or 289, and according to proof at trial;

23 24 25 26 27 28 _________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 9

7. For a judgment awarding to Plaintiff prejudgment and post-judgment interest until the award is fully paid; 8. For a judgment that Defendant has willfully and deliberately infringed Plaintiffs patent rights, such that Plaintiff is entitled to enhanced damages under the Patent Laws of the United States;

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

9. For a judgment that Defendants pay to Plaintiff his attorneys' fees and costs incurred in bringing this action; and 10. For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper under the circumstances. Date: March 7, 2014

COMPASS POINTE LAW FIRM

By:

_______________________________ MICHAEL J. HOLMES Attorney for Plaintiff, DANIEL PHU DINH

_________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 10

EXHIBIT A