Anda di halaman 1dari 9

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION

LUND, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

FICHTER DESIGNS, LLC,

Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)



Civil Action No. __________________


JURY TRIAL DEMANDED


COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE

For its Complaint against Defendant Fichter Designs, LLC (Fichter or Defendant),
Plaintiff Lund, Inc. (Lund) alleges as to its own acts, and on information and belief as to the
acts of others, as follows:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. These claims arise under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. 2201 and
2202, and the United States Patent Laws, 35 U.S.C. 101 et seq. Specifically, these claims are
based on an actual controversy between the parties regarding Fichters false allegations that
Lunds Rock Rail automotive accessory products infringe one more claims of U.S. Patent Nos.
6,874,801 (the 801 patent); 7,416,202 (the 202 patent); and 7,717,444 (the 444 patent),
and Lunds well-founded assertions that each and every claim of the 801 patent, 202 patent and
444 patent is invalid and/or unenforceable.
2. Lund also alleges that Fichters false allegations of patent infringement to Lunds
suppliers and manufacturers have resulted in tortious interference with business relationships,

2
which is actionable under Georgia law. See Northeast Georgia Cancer Care, LLC v. Blue Cross
& Blue Shield of Georgia, Inc., 297 Ga. App. 28; 676 S.E.2d 428 (Ga. App. 2009).
THE PARTIES
3. Lund designs, manufactures and markets branded automotive aftermarket
accessories primarily for light and heavy trucks, sport utility vehicles (SUVs), crossover utility
vehicles (CUVs), vans and passenger cars. Lund is a corporation organized and existing under
the laws of the State of Delaware with a principal place of business at 4325 Hamilton Mill Road,
Buford, Georgia 30518.
4. On information and belief, Fichter is a limited liability corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the State of Texas with a principal place of business at 19003 Oakway
Drive, Spring, Texas 77388.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this controversy under 28 U.S.C.
1331, 1338(a), 2201 and 2202, and supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1367.
6. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Fichter because, upon information and
belief, Fichter continuously, systematically and purposefully conducts business within this
District, including but not limited to the business of selling various automotive products, many of
which are marketed, distributed and sold in Georgia, including the step rail products at issue in
the patents listed above.
7. Venue is proper in this judicial district based on 28 U.S.C. 1391 and 1400(b).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
8. The 801 patent is entitled Apparatus For Assisting Entry Into High Road
Clearance Vehicles. Upon information and belief, the 801 patent issued on April 5, 2005, and

3
Fichter has been assigned right, title and interest to enforce the 801 patent in the United States.
A copy of the 801 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
9. The 202 patent is entitled Apparatus For Assisting Entry Into High Road
Clearance Vehicles. Upon information and belief, the 202 patent issued on August 26, 2008,
and Fichter has been assigned right, title and interest to enforce the 202 patent in the United
States. A copy of the 202 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
10. The 444 patent is entitled Apparatus For Assisting Entry Into High Road
Clearance Vehicles. Upon information and belief, the 444 patent issued on May 18, 2010, and
Fichter has been assigned right, title and interest to enforce the 444 patent in the United States.
A copy of the 444 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
11. Lund offers for sale and sells in the United States certain step automotive
accessory products, including a product known as the Rock Rail, that attach to a vehicle to
help an individual step into and out of the vehicle. An example picture of the Rock Rail is
attached hereto as Exhibit D.
12. Rock Rails are manufactured for Lund by Winbo Dongjian Auto Accessories
Manufacuring Co., Ltd. (Winbo China).
13. Lund designed the Rock Rail in a manner that was not and is not infringing any of
the claims of the 801 patent, 202 patent or 444 patent.
14. Nonetheless, Fichter contacted Lund in February 2014, alleging that the Rock
Rail infringes one or more claims of the 801 patent, 202 patent and 444 patent.
15. Lund subsequently had a meeting with representatives of Fichter in March 2014,
and explained in detail that the Rock Rail was not and is not infringing any claims of the 801
patent, 202 patent or 444 patent.

4
16. Fichter contacted at least two Lund customers and falsely alleged that Lunds
Rock Rail infringes the patents above listed.
17. Fichter then filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the Southern District of Texas
on May 5, 2014, alleging that Winbo USA, Inc. (Winbo US), is infringing 801 patent, 202
patent and 444 patent by making Lunds Rock Rail product. That lawsuit is styled Fichter
Designs, LLC v. Winbo USA, Inc., Civ. Act. No. 4:14-cv-01227 (S.D. Tex.).
18. Upon information and belief, Fichter chose to file the lawsuit against Winbo US
because Fichter incorrectly believed Winbo US was making Lunds Rock Rail and to discourage
and disrupt Winbo US from manufacturing the Rock Rail or other step automotive accessory
products for Lund, and disrupt the business relationship between Lund and Winbo US or Winbo
China, or both, even though Lund previously explained to Fichter that the Rock Rail was not and
is not infringing any claims of the 801 patent, 202 patent and 444 patents.
COUNT I
(Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of the 801 Patent)
19. Lund incorporates by reference the allegations contained in Paragraphs 118 of
the Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
20. Lund has not infringed and is not infringing, either literally or under the doctrine
of equivalents, any valid claims of the 801 patent, either directly, contributorily or by
inducement, as a result of the manufacture, use, offer for sale, sale and/or importation into the
United States of the Rock Rail or any other Lund step automotive accessory products.
21. As Lund has not and is not infringing any valid claims of the 801 patent, Lund
has not committed and is not committing willful infringement of the 801 patent.

5
22. The filing of Fichters lawsuit against Winbo US demonstrates that Fichter is
attempting to prevent Lund from obtaining and selling non-infringing step automotive accessory
products, including the Rock Rail.
23. Declaratory relief is both appropriate and necessary to establish that the 801
patent is not infringed by the manufacture, use, offer for sale, sale and/or importation into the
United States of the Rock Rail or any other Lund step automotive accessory products, and thus
the 801 patent cannot be asserted against Lund.
COUNT II
(Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of the 202 Patent)
24. Lund incorporates by reference the allegations contained in Paragraphs 123 of
the Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
25. Lund has not infringed and is not infringing, either literally or under the doctrine
of equivalents, any valid claims of the 202 patent, either directly, contributorily or by
inducement, as a result of the manufacture, use, offer for sale, sale and/or importation into the
United States of the Rock Rail or any other Lund step automotive accessory products.
26. As Lund has not and is not infringing any valid claims of the 202 patent, Lund
has not committed and is not committing willful infringement of the 202 patent.
27. The filing of Fichters lawsuit against Winbo US demonstrates that Fichter is
attempting to prevent Lund from obtaining and selling non-infringing step automotive accessory
products, including the Rock Rail.
28. Declaratory relief is both appropriate and necessary to establish that the 202
patent is not infringed by the manufacture, use, offer for sale, sale and/or importation into the
United States of the Rock Rail or any other Lund step automotive accessory products, and thus
the 202 patent cannot be asserted against Lund.

6
COUNT III
(Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of the 444 Patent)
29. Lund incorporates by reference the allegations contained in Paragraphs 128 of
the Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
30. Lund has not infringed and is not infringing, either literally or under the doctrine
of equivalents, any valid claims of the 444 patent, either directly, contributorily or by
inducement, as a result of the manufacture, use, offer for sale, sale and/or importation into the
United States of the Rock Rail or any other Lund step automotive accessory products.
31. As Lund has not and is not infringing any valid claims of the 444 patent, Lund
has not committed and is not committing willful infringement of the 444 patent.
32. The filing of Fichters lawsuit against Winbo US demonstrates that Fichter is
attempting to prevent Lund from obtaining and selling non-infringing step automotive accessory
products, including the Rock Rail.
33. Declaratory relief is both appropriate and necessary to establish that the 444
patent is not infringed by the manufacture, use, offer for sale, sale and/or importation into the
United States of the Rock Rail or any other Lund step automotive accessory products, and thus
the 444 patent cannot be asserted against Lund.
COUNT IV
(Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of the 801 Patent)
34. Lund incorporates by reference the allegations contained in Paragraphs 133 of
the Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
35. One or more claims of the 801 patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. 101 et seq.,
including, without limitation, 102, 103 and/or 112.

7
36. Declaratory relief is both appropriate and necessary to establish that the 801
patent is invalid, and thus the 801 patent cannot be asserted against Lund.
COUNT V
(Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of the 202 Patent)
37. Lund incorporates by reference the allegations contained in Paragraphs 136 of
the Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
38. One or more claims of the 202 patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. 101 et seq.,
including, without limitation, 102, 103 and/or 112.
39. Declaratory relief is both appropriate and necessary to establish that the 202
patent is invalid, and thus the 202 patent cannot be asserted against Lund.
COUNT VI
(Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of the 444 Patent)
40. Lund incorporates by reference the allegations contained in Paragraphs 139 of
the Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
41. One or more claims of the 444 patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. 101 et seq.,
including, without limitation, 102, 103 and/or 112.
42. Declaratory relief is both appropriate and necessary to establish that the 444
patent is invalid, and thus the 444 patent cannot be asserted against Lund.
COUNT VII
(Tortious Interference With Business Relationships)
43. Lund incorporates by reference the allegations contained in Paragraphs 142 of
the Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
44. Fichter improperly and wrongfully contacted Lunds customers and suppliers
falsely alleging that the Rock Rail infringes the patents set forth above.

8
45. Fichter, as above described, acted purposely and with malice with the intent to
injure Lund by contacting Lunds customers and even suing Winbo US, who Fichter incorrectly
alleges makes the Rock Rail for Lund, to discourage and disrupt Lunds business with its
customers and suppliers.
46. Fichters actions, above described, induced one or more Lund customers or
suppliers or potential customers to reduce or discontinue a business relationship or fail to enter
into an anticipated business relationship.
47. Fichters tortious conduct proximately caused damage to Lund in an amount to be
proven at trial.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Lund respectfully requests the following relief:
(a) A Judgment declaring that Lund has not infringed and is not infringing any valid
claim of the 801 patent;
(b) A Judgment declaring that Lund has not infringed and is not infringing any valid
claim of the 202 patent;
(c) A Judgment declaring that Lund has not infringed and is not infringing any valid
claim of the 444 patent;
(d) A Judgment declaring that each and every claim of the 801 patent is invalid;
(e) A Judgment declaring that each and every claim of the 202 patent is invalid;
(f) A Judgment declaring that each and every claim of the 444 patent is invalid;
(g) A temporary and permanent injunction preventing Fichter, its affiliates, and its
agents from contacting any of Lunds customers or suppliers with a claim that the Rock Rail is or
may be infringing any of the 801, 202, or 444 patents.

9
(h) Damages in an amount to be proven at trial for Fichters tortious interference with
Lunds business relationships.
(i) Judgment declaring that this is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. 285 and
awarding Lund its attorneys fees, costs, and expenses; and
(j) A Judgment granting Lund such other and further relief as this Court deems just,
proper, and equitable.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Lund respectfully demands a jury trial on all issues so triable.
May 22, 2014 s/ Jeffrey D. Blake, Esq.
Jeffrey D. Blake
Georgia Bar Number 253018
MERCHANT & GOULD, P.C.
191 Peachtree Street, NE
Suite 4300
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-1740
Telephone: 404-954-5100
Facsimile: 404-954-5099
E-mail: JBlake@merchantgould.com

Anthony R. Zeuli
MERCHANT & GOULD, P.C.
3200 IDS Center
80 South Eighth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: 612-332-5300
Facsimile: 612-332-9081
E-mail: TZeuli@merchantgould.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff
Lund, Inc.