Case 2:18-cv-04810-DWL Document 1 Filed 12/19/18 Page 1 of 9

1 Larry J. Wulkan (#021404)

STINSON LEONARD STREET LLP
2 1850 North Central Avenue, Suite 2100
Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4584
3 Tel: (602) 212-8511
Fax: (602) 586-5275
4 Email: larry.wulkan@stinson.com
5 Scott Eidson (Pro Hac Vice Application
Forthcoming)
6 Julie C. Scheipeter (Pro Hac Vice
Application Forthcoming)
7 STINSON LEONARD STREET LLP
7700 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1100
8 St. Louis, Missouri 63105-1821
Tel: (314) 683.0800
9 Fax: (314) 863.9388
Email: scott.eidson@stinson.com
10 julie.scheipeter@stinson.com

11 Attorneys for Plaintiff

12
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
13
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
14
Anchor Packaging Inc., No.
15
Plaintiffs, COMPLAINT AND DEMAND
16 FOR JURY TRIAL
v.
17
Phoenix Packaging Operations, LLC
18
Defendants.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
 Case 2:18-cv-04810-DWL Document 1 Filed 12/19/18 Page 2 of 9

1 For its complaint, Plaintiff Anchor Packaging, Inc. alleges as follows:

2 Parties
3 1. Plaintiff Anchor Packaging, Inc. (“Anchor Packaging”) is a Missouri
4 corporation with its principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri.
5 2. Defendant Phoenix Packaging Operations, LLC (“Phoenix Packaging”) is
6 a Delaware limited liability company with operations in Chandler, Arizona, and Dublin,
7 Virginia. Specifically, Phoenix Packaging has physical offices and manufacturing
8 plants in those locations. Phoenix Packaging manufactures products including food
9 packaging products at the Chandler, Arizona plant.
10 Jurisdiction and Venue
11 3. This is an action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of
12 the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.
13 4. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and
14 1338(a).
15 5. Phoenix Packaging is subject to personal jurisdiction in this district
16 because: (1) it has purposefully directed its activities to the forum by owning and
17 operating a manufacturing plant in Arizona that is regularly used for the manufacture of
18 products, including consumer food packaging products, and registering as a foreign
19 limited liability company with the Arizona Secretary of State; and (2) Anchor
20 Packaging’s claim for patent infringement arises out of and relates to Phoenix
21 Packaging’s infringing activities within Arizona in that Phoenix Packaging has made,
22 used, imported, offered for sale, and/or sold products that infringe Anchor Packaging’s
23 patent within Arizona. As a result, the assertion of jurisdiction is reasonable and fair.
24 6. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) because Phoenix
25 Packaging has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of
26 business in this district. Specifically, Phoenix Packaging has made, used, imported,
27 offered for sale, and/or sold products that infringe Anchor Packaging’s patent within
28 Arizona, and owns and operates a manufacturing plant with an address of 464 E Chilton
2
 Case 2:18-cv-04810-DWL Document 1 Filed 12/19/18 Page 3 of 9

1 Drive, Chandler, Arizona 85225, where Phoenix Packaging manufactures products

2 including consumer food packaging products, such as and/or including, the accused
3 product.
4 Anchor Packaging’s Design Patent
5 7. Anchor Packaging is a global designer, manufacturer, and supplier of food
6 packaging products and systems, including polypropylene and polyethylene
7 terephthalate (“PET”) containers, food-service films, and aluminum foil products.
8 8. Anchor Packaging owns numerous U.S. patents that protect aspects of its
9 packaging business.
10 9. On June 10, 2008, the United States Patent Office duly and legally issued
11 U.S. Design Patent No. D570,681 (“the ’681 Patent”), titled Polypropylene Tray. A
12 copy of the ’681 Patent is attached as Exhibit A.
13 10. Anchor Packaging owns by assignment all rights, title, and interest in and
14 to the ’681 Patent and has the right to sue and recover for past, present, and future
15 infringement.
16 11. The ’681 Patent is valid and enforceable.
17 The Accused Product
18 12. Phoenix Packaging has made, used, imported, sold, and/or offered for sale
19 in the United States—and continues to make, use, import, sell, and/or offer for sale in the
20 United States—a polypropylene tray used as packaging for food products (the “Accused
21 Product”), the design of which is covered by the claims of the ‘681 Patent.
22 13. The design of the Accused Product and the design covered by the claims of
23 the ‘681 Patent are so similar that an ordinary observer would perceive the overall
24 appearance of the two designs as substantially the same.
25 14. Table 1 below illustrates Phoenix Packaging’s infringement by comparing
26 figures from the ‘681 Patent with exemplary images of the Accused Product.
27
28
3
 Case 2:18-cv-04810-DWL Document 1 Filed 12/19/18 Page 4 of 9

1
2 Table 1: Comparison of ‘681 Patent with Accused Product

3 ‘681 Patent Figures Images of Accused Product

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
4
 Case 2:18-cv-04810-DWL Document 1 Filed 12/19/18 Page 5 of 9

1 15. Phoenix Packaging is selling the Accused Product to at least The Kroger
2 Company (“Kroger”), who is using the tray in its “Meals Made Simple—Homestyle
3 Mashed Potatoes” product. Images of the Accused Product as used by Kroger are shown
4 in Table 2 below:
5
Table 2: Images of Accused Product as Used By The Kroger Company
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 16. Before Phoenix Packaging began selling the Accused Product to Kroger,
21 Anchor Packaging supplied Kroger with a nearly identical polypropylene tray (the
22 “Anchor Packaging Tray”) designed in conformance with the claims of the ‘681 Patent
23 for use in the same Homestyle Mashed Potatoes product.
24 17. The substantial similarity between the Anchor Packaging Tray and the
25 Accused Product is shown in Table 3 below:
26
27
28
5
 Case 2:18-cv-04810-DWL Document 1 Filed 12/19/18 Page 6 of 9

1 Table 3: Comparison of Anchor Packaging Tray and Accused Product

2 Images of Anchor Packaging Tray Images of Accused Product
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 18. Kroger began purchasing the Accused Product based upon its substantial
20 similarity to Anchor Packaging’s product.
21 The Accused Product Infringes the ‘681 Patent
22 19. Anchor Packaging restates and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 18 as
23 though fully forth herein.
24 20. As a direct and proximate result of Phoenix Packaging’s infringement of
25 the ’681 Patent, Anchor Packaging has suffered damages in an amount to be proven at
26 trial.
27
28
6
 Case 2:18-cv-04810-DWL Document 1 Filed 12/19/18 Page 7 of 9

1 21. Phoenix Packaging’s manufacture, use, import, sale, and/or offer for sale
2 of the Accused Product in the United States infringes the ’681 Patent literally or under
3 the doctrine of equivalents.
4 22. Phoenix Packaging’s infringing acts will continue unless restrained by the
5 Court.
6 23. Anchor Packaging is without an adequate remedy at law and will be
7 irreparably injured if the Court does not enter an order enjoining Phoenix Packaging
8 from committing the acts of infringement complained of herein.
9 Prayer for Relief
10 WHEREFORE, Anchor Packaging, Inc. requests that the Court enter judgment in
11 its favor and against Phoenix Packaging Operations, LLC and grant the following relief:
12 A. Enter judgment that Phoenix Packaging has infringed U.S. Design Patent
13 No. D570,681;
14 B. Award Anchor Packaging monetary damages in an amount sufficient to
15 compensate Anchor Packaging for the harm caused by Phoenix Packaging’s
16 infringement;
17 C. Award Anchor Packaging pre-judgment and post-judgment interest;
18 D. Enter a permanent injunction enjoining Phoenix Packaging, its officers,
19 directors, servants, managers, employees, agents, attorneys, successors, and assignees,
20 and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from further infringement of
21 U.S. Design Patent No. D570,681;
22 E. Award Anchor Packaging applicable supplemental monetary damages as
23 an accounting for infringing sales not presented at trial;
24 F. Award Anchor Packaging its reasonable attorneys’ fees, expenses, and
25 costs incurred in prosecuting this action; and
26 G. Grant Anchor Packaging any additional or further relief that the Court
27 finds just and proper.
28
7
 Case 2:18-cv-04810-DWL Document 1 Filed 12/19/18 Page 8 of 9

1 Demand for Jury Trial

2 Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
3 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 19th day of December, 2018.
4
STINSON LEONARD STREET LLP
5
6 By: /s/ Larry J. Wulkan
Larry J. Wulkan
7 1850 North Central Avenue, Suite 2100
Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4584
8 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
9 Scott Eidson (Pro Hac Vice Application
Forthcoming)
10 Julie C. Scheipeter (Pro Hac Vice
Application Forthcoming)
11 7700 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1100
St. Louis, Missouri 63105-1821
12 Tel: (314) 683.0800
Fax: (314) 863.9388
13
Attorneys for Plaintiff
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
 Case 2:18-cv-04810-DWL Document 1 Filed 12/19/18 Page 9 of 9

1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
2 I hereby certify that on December 19, 2018, I electronically filed the foregoing
3 with the Clerk of the Court for the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona by
4 using the CM/ECF System
5
6 By: /s/ Kathleen Kaupke

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9
 Case 2:18-cv-04810-DWL Document 1-1 Filed 12/19/18 Page 1 of 2
012345738347527392
3
093
527392
3892 18


7
!"#$%%&'()*')++,'+"#$%%--).!/,"!&+0'()'&(1'!#'#-/)
234%5!)6)!()(0+)7(0)()-)-(''*&.+!&7 5'()'&''!
)''))-+&')--+ '(+'*'!).&(-+!'*))--))6)!/,+85())9!()
'+,':)&(;)9'5
3<=>?<@=A@B>C??<DE5FC?G?F@FCFF<=C

=>FC1<G9=FH
EFCGGIJK8C<EF<LFMCMN2C<H 5GC?FCIJKECOEF<LFMCM>FC@NPP

0',(Q !'&KR!#(;)9' 0',(Q !'&KS)&-

0',T)0+U)Q +(;)KS)&- 

V+'((W;,IJK : ('!'W;,IJK
PFDXALFC
7C@CPCF?7NPPE
YZ[\1H
CF8H 
ECON8]CFZ[\\^
_\``abY_\\

cc5d(")!&'K eH?FfA@Cg0H7HCF>FDh

ccc509'-(V)'&-+
V)g5@D
F@@CDh
V+'((K$1i8
: ('!'K$1i8

cj5R)*'K YHMCFE<?CM

j5k)(#K Ze\EFC

jc50(;&'K 3@@FCF<CG>FCCGCM=CNFC?8C<l@<F=@C@
 F<CF@AC?>FCFm@G0C?7F@Ne[0H7H
HnY
@oH
jcc5Q 6!'0-+'
0+;&'K1
:++): '!K
"),: '!Kp@

jccc5&@CF?')&5
7MCFAqPFDXALFC
 Case 2:18-cv-04810-DWL Document 1-1 Filed 12/19/18 Page 2 of 2
123456786987
69
2 3 23  4342423344443 3 34 !"#33  $4
2 %2 43&' 44324322(1)2 % %4322 23324 33244  %4 3&
*44%5
687
6+
Case 2:18-cv-04810-DWL Document 1-2 Filed 12/19/18 Page 1 of 17

Exhibit A
 Case 2:18-cv-04810-DWL Document 1-2 Filed 12/19/18 Page 2 of 17
USOOD570681 S

(12) United States Design Patent (10) Patent No.:

Hussain et al.
US D570,681 S
(45) Date of Patent: Jun. 10, 2008
(54) POLY PROPYLENE TRAY 7,228.986 B2 * 6/2007 Hayes et al. ................ 220,675
D553,490 S * 10/2007 Yang ........................... D9/425
(75) Inventors: Atiff Hussain, Jonesboro, AR (US);
Tim Cimmerer, Paragould, AR (US); * cited by examiner
Brent Riales, Paragould, AR (US) Primary Examiner Robert M. Spear
Assistant Examiner Susan E. Krakower
(73) Assignee: Anchor Packaging, Inc. (74) Attorney, Agent, or Firm Gallop Johnson & Neuman
(**) Term: 14 Years
(57) CLAM
(21) Appl. No.: 29/270,376 The ornamental design for a polypropylene tray, as shown
and described.
(22) Filed: Dec. 21, 2006
DESCRIPTION
(51) LOC (8) Cl. ................................................. O9-03
(52) U.S. Cl. ....................................................... D9/425 FIG. 1 is a perspective view of a polypropylenetray showing
(58) Field of Classification Search ......... D9/414–424, a first embodiment of our new design;
D9/428,430 435, 450, 456, 503, 523-525, FIG. 2 is a top plan view thereof;
D9/715, 719, 737; D3/203.1-203.4, 206, FIG. 3 is a left side elevation view thereof, the right side
D3/270, 294; D19/51, 84-85; D30/101; elevation view being an identical image thereof;
220/253,254.2,326,507, 825, 835; 206/497, FIG. 4 is a front elevation view thereof, the rear elevation
206/533–534,538,583,783; 229/120.12, view being an identical image thereof;
229/123.2–123.3, 125.13-125.14; D7/360,
D7/538 FIG. 5 is a bottom plan view thereof;
See application file for complete search history. FIG. 6 is a perspective view of a polypropylenetray showing
a second embodiment of our new design;
(56) References Cited
FIG. 7 is a top plan view thereof;
U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS FIG. 8 is a left side elevation view thereof, the right side
3.253,762 A * 5, 1966 Thomas ................... 206,521.1 elevation view being an identical image thereof;
D224,587 S * 8, 1972 Jewell ......................... D9/425 FIG. 9 is a front elevation view thereof, the rear elevation
D276,216 S 11, 1984 Michaud...................... D9/425 view being an identical image thereof;
4,535,889 A 8, 1985 Terauds ...................... 206,527 FIG. 10 is a bottom plan view thereof;
D280,590 S * 9/1985 Schrage ....... ... D7/360
D312,024 S * 11/1990 Antoni et al. ................ D7,545 FIG. 11 is a perspective view of a polypropylene tray
4,974,738 A * 12/1990 Kidd et al. ..... ... 220/4.24 showing a third embodiment of our new design;
5,423,453 A * 6/1995 Fritz .......................... 220,608 FIG. 12 is a top plan view thereof;
D376,314 S * 12/1996 Krupa ..... ... D9,425
D382,796 S * 8/1997 Mangla ....... ... D9,429 FIG. 13 is a left side elevation view thereof, the right side
D389,056 S * 1/1998 Hayes et al. ... ... D9? 435 elevation view being an identical image thereof;
D392,881 S * 3/1998 Bulcher et al. .............. D9/425 FIG. 14 is a front elevation view thereof, the rear elevation
5,730,313 A * 3/1998 Hayes et al. ................ 220,526 view being an identical image thereof, and,
D446,719 S * 8/2001 Garraway .................... D9/425
D461,123 S * 8/2002 Hayes et al. ........ ... D9.429 FIG. 15 is a bottom plan view thereof.
D470,048 S * 2/2003 Buchalski et al. .. ... D9.425
D514,443 S 2/2006 Sarnoff ........................ D9,434 1 Claim, 15 Drawing Sheets
 Case 2:18-cv-04810-DWL Document 1-2 Filed 12/19/18 Page 3 of 17

U.S. Patent Jun. 10, 2008 Sheet 1 of 15 US D570,681 S

 Case 2:18-cv-04810-DWL Document 1-2 Filed 12/19/18 Page 4 of 17

U.S. Patent Jun. 10, 2008 Sheet 2 of 15 US D570,681 S

 Case 2:18-cv-04810-DWL Document 1-2 Filed 12/19/18 Page 5 of 17

U.S. Patent Jun. 10, 2008 Sheet 3 of 15 US D570,681 S

4
0|
2
 Case 2:18-cv-04810-DWL Document 1-2 Filed 12/19/18 Page 6 of 17

U.S. Patent Jun. 10, 2008 Sheet 4 of 15 US D570,681 S

| |\
 Case 2:18-cv-04810-DWL Document 1-2 Filed 12/19/18 Page 7 of 17

U.S. Patent Jun. 10, 2008 Sheet 5 Of 15 US D570,681 S

 Case 2:18-cv-04810-DWL Document 1-2 Filed 12/19/18 Page 8 of 17

U.S. Patent Jun. 10, 2008 Sheet 6 of 15 US D570,681 S

 Case 2:18-cv-04810-DWL Document 1-2 Filed 12/19/18 Page 9 of 17

U.S. Patent Jun. 10, 2008 Sheet 7 Of 15 US D570,681 S

N
W
S&
N
ba
tE Pl

- N
3.
 Case 2:18-cv-04810-DWL Document 1-2 Filed 12/19/18 Page 10 of 17

U.S. Patent Jun. 10, 2008 Sheet 8 of 15 US D570,681 S

||
 Case 2:18-cv-04810-DWL Document 1-2 Filed 12/19/18 Page 11 of 17

U.S. Patent Jun. 10, 2008 Sheet 9 Of 15 US D570,681 S

|||
 Case 2:18-cv-04810-DWL Document 1-2 Filed 12/19/18 Page 12 of 17

U.S. Patent Jun. 10, 2008 Sheet 10 of 15 US D570,681 S

2)
Cl
<3)
DI
C) )
D6)

-
H
 Case 2:18-cv-04810-DWL Document 1-2 Filed 12/19/18 Page 13 of 17

U.S. Patent Jun. 10, 2008 Sheet 11 of 15 US D570,681 S

 Case 2:18-cv-04810-DWL Document 1-2 Filed 12/19/18 Page 14 of 17

U.S. Patent Jun. 10, 2008 Sheet 12 of 15 US D570,681 S

-A
45
E.
2-
St
De
Ct. 1
E.
E.
 Case 2:18-cv-04810-DWL Document 1-2 Filed 12/19/18 Page 15 of 17

U.S. Patent Jun. 10, 2008 Sheet 13 of 15 US D570,681 S

s
 Case 2:18-cv-04810-DWL Document 1-2 Filed 12/19/18 Page 16 of 17

U.S. Patent Jun. 10, 2008 Sheet 14 of 15 US D570,681 S

 Case 2:18-cv-04810-DWL Document 1-2 Filed 12/19/18 Page 17 of 17

U.S. Patent Jun. 10, 2008 Sheet 15 Of 15 US D570,681 S