Anda di halaman 1dari 84

Case 2:19-cv-16248 Document 1 Filed 08/01/19 Page 1 of 29 PageID: 1

HODGSON RUSS LLP


605 Third Ave, Suite 2300
New York, New York 10158
Telephone: (646) 218-7605
Facsimile: (646) 218-7665
Neil B. Friedman
Attorneys for Plaintiff

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

JJ IMPORTS, LLC,
Hon.
Plaintiff
v. Civil No.

QINGDAO ECOPURE FILTER CO., LTD,


HONGKONG ECOAQUA CO., and
ECOLIFE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Defendants.

COMPLAINT

This dispute centers on two design patents that Defendants fraudulently obtained

by deliberately withholding material information from the USPTO, namely, that the subject

designs are directed to Samsung, Whirlpool, and/or Kenmore brand replacement water filters.

Even though Defendants’ design patents were fraudulently obtained, and Plaintiff had been

selling its replacement water filters for years before Defendants even filed the subject patent

applications, Defendants have successfully diverted customers to their products by making

baseless allegations of infringement against Plaintiff. These actions are consistent with the

Defendants’ long history of intellectual property abuses, including attempted trademark

hijacking of Samsung, Whirlpool, and Kenmore brand water filter model numbers/model

designations and, upon information and belief, hijacking Plaintiff’s own trademark in Canada.
Case 2:19-cv-16248 Document 1 Filed 08/01/19 Page 2 of 29 PageID: 2

Accordingly, JJ Imports, LLC (“JJ Imports” or “Plaintiff”) brings this action

against Qingdao Ecopure Filter Co., Ltd., HongKong Ecoaqua Co., and Ecolife Technologies,

Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) to seek relief from Defendants’ bad-faith use of United States

patent law to suppress competition.

The Parties

1. JJ Imports is a New Jersey limited liability company with a principal place

of business at 319 E 54 Street, Elmwood Park, New Jersey 07407. Plaintiff imports and sells

products, including replacement water filters for certain models of refrigerators, including for

Samsung, Whirlpool, and Kenmore brand refrigerators, throughout the United States. JJ Imports

has been selling its “PURELINE” and “Clear Drop” water filters since 2015.

2. Upon information and belief, Qingdao Ecopure Filter Co., Ltd.

(“Ecopure”) has its principal place of business and headquarters at No. 13, Yishengbai Road,

Environmental Protection Industrial Zone, Jimo, Quingdao, China. Ecopure has obtained a

number of patents related to refrigerator replacement water filters, including replacement water

filters for Samsung, Whirlpool, and Kenmore brand refrigerators. Upon information and belief,

Ecopure manufactures, distributes, exports, and sells refrigerator water filters, including

replacement water filters for Samsung, Whirlpool, and Kenmore brand refrigerators.

3. Upon information and belief, HongKong Ecoaqua Co., Limited

(“Ecoaqua”) has its principal place of business and headquarters at Hong Kong Rm 2105

JQD2732 Trend Centre, 29-31 Cheng Lee St. Wan Chai, Hong Kong, China. Upon information

and belief, Ecoaqua exports, imports, and sells refrigerator replacement water filters, including

replacement water filters for Samsung, Whirlpool, and Kenmore brand refrigerators, in the

-2-
Case 2:19-cv-16248 Document 1 Filed 08/01/19 Page 3 of 29 PageID: 3

United States under the brand names “AquaCrest,” “Waterdrop,” “MaxBlue,” “Filter Logic,”

“Water Specialist,” and “EcoAqua.”

4. Upon information and belief, Ecolife Technologies, Inc. (“Ecolife Inc.”) is

a California corporation with a principal place of business at 17910 Ajax Circle, City of Industry,

California 91748. Upon information and belief, Ecolife Inc. is an Ecoaqua distributor for the

import and sale of Ecoaqua’s refrigerator replacement water filters in the United States,

including replacement water filters for Samsung, Whirlpool, and Kenmore brand refrigerators.

5. Defendants’ AquaCrest and Waterdrop products compete directly with

Plaintiff’s PURELINE and Clear Drop products.

6. Upon information and belief, Defendants and/or their attorney, Mr. Joe

McKinney Muncy, committed fraud on the patent office in filing U.S. patent applications for

Samsung, Whirlpool, and Kenmore brand replacement water filters.

7. Upon information and belief, Defendants and/or their attorney, Mr. Joe

McKinney Muncy, committed fraud in filing U.S. trademark applications for Samsung,

Whirlpool, and/or Kenmore brand replacement water filter model numbers/model designations.

8. Upon information and belief, Defendants have brought baseless claims of

infringement against the Plaintiff based upon intellectual property rights that they knew or

should have known were fraudulently obtained.

9. As a result of Defendants’ baseless claims of infringement, Plaintiff’s

products have been removed from online marketplaces, resulting in a loss of customers and sales,

dilution of goodwill, and injury to Plaintiff’s reputation, among other things.

-3-
Case 2:19-cv-16248 Document 1 Filed 08/01/19 Page 4 of 29 PageID: 4

Jurisdiction and Venue

10. This is an action seeking a declaratory judgment that Ecopure’s patents are

invalid and not infringed by Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s claims arise under the patent laws of the United

States, 35 U.S.C. Section 101, et seq. and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. Sections

2201 and 2202.

11. This action further seeks to remedy the harm caused by Defendants’

actions in unfairly competing with Plaintiff in violation of the common law, the Lanham Act, 15

U.S.C. Section 1125, and the New Jersey Fair Trade Act, N.J.S.A. 56:4-1 et seq., through bad-

faith enforcement of patents they know to be invalid and making false accusations of

infringement by Plaintiff that resulted in a loss of customers and sales, dilution of goodwill, and

injury to Plaintiff’s reputation, among other things.

12. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sections 1331,

1338(a), and 2201(a).

13. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Ecopure and Ecoaqua under

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Rule 4(k)(2) which contemplates a foreign entity’s

contacts with the entire United States. For example, Ecopure applied for and obtained U.S.

patents that form the basis of this lawsuit. Ecopure and Ecoaqua also market and sell

replacement water filtration products to customers located in the United States, including in New

Jersey.

14. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Ecolife Inc. because Ecolife Inc.

markets and sells competing water filtration products to customers located in the United States,

including in New Jersey.

-4-
Case 2:19-cv-16248 Document 1 Filed 08/01/19 Page 5 of 29 PageID: 5

15. Additional allegations supporting the exercise of personal jurisdiction over

Defendants are set forth below.

16. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. Section 1391(b)(2) or, alternatively,

1391(b)(3).

Background and Facts

Plaintiff’s Water Filtration Products

17. Plaintiff sells PURELINE and Clear Drop water filtration products for

refrigerators, among other things. Once installed, Plaintiff’s replacement filters remove

pesticides, herbicides, lead, mercury, and chromium from the water that passes through them,

making water cleaner and safer to drink.

18. Plaintiff’s PURELINE and Clear Drop products have received

certifications from the Water Quality Association, the National Science Foundation, and the

International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials.

19. Plaintiff’s replacement water filters come in several models and are

compatible with many major refrigerator brands.

20. Plaintiff’s PL-200 model is a replacement water filter compatible with

Samsung’s Model DA29-00020A and DA29-00020B filters.

21. Plaintiff’s PL-600 model is a replacement water filter compatible with

Whirlpool’s model number 4396508, EDR5RXD1, W10186668, NLC240V, and WF285 filters

and with Kenmore’s model number 46-9010 and 46-9902 filters.

-5-
Case 2:19-cv-16248 Document 1 Filed 08/01/19 Page 6 of 29 PageID: 6

22. The PL-600 model design has not changed since 2012.

23. Plaintiff’s CD-200 model is compatible with Samsung’s model number

DA29-00020B filters.

24. The PL-200, PL-600, and CD-200 models are available for sale in

packages of one, two, three, or six filters.

25. Plaintiff sells its PL-200 and PL-600 water filtration products, among

others, on a dedicated website: https://PURELINEfilters.com/.

26. Since 2015, Plaintiff also has sold its PL-200 and PL-600 water filtration

products on Amazon.

27. Plaintiff has sold its CD-200 water filer products on Amazon since

December 2018.

28. Amazon is the largest online retailer in the world.

29. Plaintiff sells the vast majority of its PL-200, PL-600, and CD-200

products through Amazon.

Defendants’ Patents and Trademark Filings

30. On October 23, 2018, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (the

“USPTO”) issued U.S. Patent No. US D831,786 S (the “D’786 Patent”), entitled “FILTER

UNIT.” A copy of the D’786 Patent is attached as Exhibit A.

-6-
Case 2:19-cv-16248 Document 1 Filed 08/01/19 Page 7 of 29 PageID: 7

31. The D’786 Patent lists Zhibin Zou as the inventor and Ecopure as the

assignee.

32. The D’786 Patent is directed to replacement water filters for Whirlpool’s

model number 4396508, EDR5RXD1, W10186668, NLC240V, and WF285 and Kenmore’s

model number 46-9010 and 46-9902.

33. On April 9, 2019, the USPTO issued U.S. Patent No. US D845,434 S (the

“D’434 Patent”), entitled “FILTER UNIT.” A copy of the D’434 Patent is attached as Exhibit

B.

34. The D’434 Patent lists Zhibin Zou as the inventor and Ecopure as the

assignee.

35. The D’434 Patent is directed to replacement water filters for Whirlpool’s

model number 4396508, EDR5RXD1, W10186668, NLC240V and WF285 and Kenmore’s

model number 46-9010 and 46-9902.

36. Ecolife filed U.S. trademark application Serial Nos. 87684066, 87684059,

87684056, 87684051 and 87684048 for the marks DA29-00020B, DA29-00020, DA29-00003B,

DA29-00003G, and DA29, respectively, for air filtering installations and water filters. At the

time Ecolife filed such applications, Ecolife declared, after being warned that willful false

statements and the like are punishable by fine or imprisonment, “. . . that the applicant is the

owner of the trademark/service mark sought to be registered”; “that the applicant is entitled to

use the mark in commerce;” and that “to the best of its knowledge and belief . . . no other

persons have the right to use the mark in commerce, either in the identical form or in such near

-7-
Case 2:19-cv-16248 Document 1 Filed 08/01/19 Page 8 of 29 PageID: 8

resemblance as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods/services of such other

persons, to cause confusion or mistake, or to deceive.”

37. Upon information and belief, Defendants filed or caused to be filed a

Canadian trademark application for DA29-00003G.

38. DA29-00020B, DA29-00020, DA29-00003B, DA29-00003G, and DA29

are model numbers/model designations for Samsung water filters.

39. Ecolife filed U.S. trademark application Serial Nos. 87677872 and

87677869 for the marks 4396508 and 4396510, respectively, for air filtering installations and

water filters. At the time Ecolife filed such applications, Ecolife declared under after being

warned that willful false statements and the like are punishable by fine or imprisonment, . . . that

the applicant is the owner of the trademark/service mark sought to be registered; that the

applicant is entitled to use the mark in commerce; and that to the best of its knowledge and belief

. . . no other persons have the right to use the mark in commerce, either in the identical form or in

such near resemblance as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods/services of

such other persons, to cause confusion or mistake, or to deceive.

40. 4396508 and 4396510 are model numbers/model designations for

Whirlpool/Kenmore brand water filters.

41. Upon information and belief, Defendants filed or caused to be filed a

Canadian trademark application for PURE LINE on March 5, 2019.

42. Plaintiff has been selling its PURELINE products since 2014, and in

Canada since February 2017.

-8-
Case 2:19-cv-16248 Document 1 Filed 08/01/19 Page 9 of 29 PageID: 9

Allegations of Patent Infringement

43. Amazon Prime Day is Amazon’s largest, global shopping event exclusive

to Amazon Prime subscribers. The two-day event offers significant discounts to subscribers,

similar to Black Friday or Cyber Monday. Sellers, like Plaintiff, stand to make a high volume of

sales during this event.

44. On July 14, 2019, only one day before Amazon Prime Day, Plaintiff

learned that Defendants accused Plaintiff of patent infringement in intellectual property

complaints to Amazon.

45. Specifically, Defendants made at least seven complaints to Amazon

alleging that Plaintiff’s PL-200 and CD-200 filters infringed on the D’786 patent and that

Plaintiff’s PL-600 filters infringed on the D’434 Patent.

46. As a result of Defendants’ complaints, Plaintiff received notices from

Amazon that Amazon removed product listings for Plaintiff’s PL-200, PL-600, and CD-200

filters because “a rights owner . . . believes that the [products] . . . infringe their patent . . . .”

47. As a result of at least seven complaints by Defendants to Amazon between

July 11 and July 25, 2019, Amazon customers have been unable to view or purchase Plaintiff’s

PL-200, PL-600, and CD-200 filters.

48. Upon information and belief, Defendants’ complaints to Amazon were the

latest in Defendants’ pattern or practice of filing baseless intellectual property complaints against

Plaintiff and other competitors.

-9-
Case 2:19-cv-16248 Document 1 Filed 08/01/19 Page 10 of 29 PageID: 10

49. Before the takedowns, Plaintiff enjoyed sales in excess of approximately

$10,000.00 per day of PL-200 filters, in excess of $400.00 per day of PL-600 filters, and of

approximately $1,000.00 per day of CD-200 filters on Amazon.

50. Before Amazon took down Plaintiff’s sales listings for PL-200 filters as a

result of Defendants’ complaints, Plaintiff held the “Best Seller” designation on Amazon for

those filters. Plaintiff’s average customer rating for those products was 4.6 out of 5 stars.

51. In addition to the immediate stop to all PL-200, PL-600, and CD-200

sales, the takedowns caused irreparable damage to the market presence, reputation, and goodwill

associated with the PL-200, PL-600, and CD-200.

52. Upon information and belief, Amazon uses an algorithm to determine

product hierarchy—or the order in which products appear after an Amazon customer inputs

search terms—and which sellers receive the coveted “Best Seller” designation.

53. One factor upon which the algorithm depends is sales-related: sales

history, quantity of sales, and sales velocity. As sales history grows and quantity and velocity of

sales for a product increase, the likelihood of that product gaining a higher spot in Amazon’s

product hierarchy also increases.

54. Another factor that affects Amazon’s product hierarchy is customer

reviews and ratings. The greater the number of positive customer ratings or reviews a product

receives, the higher that product is likely to appear on Amazon’s product hierarchy.

55. Since Amazon took down listings for Plaintiff’s PL-200, PL-600, and CD-

200 filters, Plaintiff has not sold any of those water filtration products on Amazon.

- 10 -
Case 2:19-cv-16248 Document 1 Filed 08/01/19 Page 11 of 29 PageID: 11

56. Each day that Plaintiff’s PL-200, PL-600, and CD-200 filters are

unavailable on Amazon as a result of Defendants’ complaints, Plaintiff’s customers are diverted

to Defendants—including Plaintiff’s recurring customers who return to Plaintiff for new

replacement water filters every six months.

57. Each day that Plaintiff’s PL-200, PL-600, and CD-200 filters do not

appear on Amazon, Plaintiff loses the opportunity to increase the products’ sales history,

quantity, and velocity, and also loses the opportunity to receive customer ratings and reviews

based on sales of those products.

58. Plaintiff cannot regain these lost opportunities—all of which damage the

PL-200, PL-600, and CD-200’s market presence, reputation, and goodwill on Amazon. The only

way to stop this harm is to immediately reinstate the PL-200, PL-600, and CD-200 product

listings.

59. In addition, the takedown notices from Amazon inform Plaintiff that, if

Amazon “receive[s] more complaints about [Plaintiff’s] listing, [Amazon] may not allow

[Plaintiff] to sell on Amazon.”

Existence of a Justiciable Controversy

60. There is an actual justiciable controversy between the parties concerning

the validity, enforceability, and/or scope of the D’786 and D’434 patents, and Plaintiff’s alleged

infringement of those patents, as made clear by the multiple complaints Defendants have

submitted to Amazon.

- 11 -
Case 2:19-cv-16248 Document 1 Filed 08/01/19 Page 12 of 29 PageID: 12

First Claim for Relief


(Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of the D’786 Patent)

61. Plaintiff repeats the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 60.

62. Defendants have charged Plaintiff with infringement of the D’786 Patent.

63. Plaintiff has not infringed any valid claim of the D’786 Patent.

64. Unless Plaintiff is found to have not infringed the D’786 Patent,

Defendants will continue to harass Plaintiff in the sale of Plaintiff’s water filtration products.

65. As a result of Defendants’ baseless infringement accusations, Plaintiff has

sustained damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

66. Defendants’ baseless infringement accusations have caused, and will

continue to cause, Plaintiff irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law,

including, without limitation, damage to the hierarchy assigned to Plaintiff’s water filtration

products on Amazon and to Plaintiff’s ratings as a seller of water filtration products on Amazon,

as well as a resulting loss of customers.

67. Defendants’ baseless infringement allegations also raise an imminent risk,

as noted in takedown notices Plaintiff received from Amazon, that Plaintiff will be precluded

from selling any products on Amazon.

Second Claim for Relief


(Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of the D’786 Patent)

68. Plaintiff repeats the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 67.

69. Defendants have charged Plaintiff with infringement of the D’786 Patent.

- 12 -
Case 2:19-cv-16248 Document 1 Filed 08/01/19 Page 13 of 29 PageID: 13

70. The D’786 Patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. Sections 102, 103, and/or

112.

71. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 2201-2202, Plaintiff is entitled to judgment

declaring that the D’786 Patent is void, invalid, and/or unenforceable.

72. As a result of Defendants’ baseless infringement accusations, Plaintiff has

sustained damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

73. Defendants’ baseless infringement accusations have caused, and will

continue to cause, Plaintiff irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law,

including, without limitation, damage to the hierarchy assigned to Plaintiff’s water filtration

products on Amazon and to Plaintiff’s ratings as a seller of water filtration products on Amazon,

as well as a resulting loss of customers.

74. Defendants’ baseless infringement allegations also raise an imminent risk,

as noted in takedown notices Plaintiff received from Amazon, that Plaintiff will be precluded

from selling any products on Amazon.

Third Claim for Relief


(Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of the D’434 Patent )

75. Plaintiff repeats the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 74.

76. Defendants have charged Plaintiff with infringement of the D’434 Patent.

77. Plaintiff has not infringed any valid claim of the D’434 Patent.

78. Unless Plaintiff is found to have not infringed the D’434 Patent,

Defendants will continue to harass Plaintiff in the sale of Plaintiff’s water filtration products.

- 13 -
Case 2:19-cv-16248 Document 1 Filed 08/01/19 Page 14 of 29 PageID: 14

79. As a result of Defendants’ baseless infringement accusations, Plaintiff has

sustained damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

80. Defendants’ baseless infringement accusations have caused, and will

continue to cause, Plaintiff irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law,

including, without limitation, damage to the hierarchy assigned to Plaintiff’s water filtration

products on Amazon and to Plaintiff’s ratings as a seller of water filtration products on Amazon,

as well as a resulting loss of customers.

81. Defendants’ baseless infringement allegations also raise an imminent risk,

as noted in takedown notices Plaintiff received from Amazon, that Plaintiff will be precluded

from selling any products on Amazon.

Fourth Claim for Relief


(Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of the D’434 Patent )

82. Plaintiff repeats the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 81.

83. Defendants have charged Plaintiff with infringement of the D’434 Patent.

84. The D’434 Patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. Sections 102, 103, and/or

112.

85. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 2201-2202, Plaintiff is entitled to judgment

declaring that the D’434 Patent is void, invalid, and/or unenforceable.

86. As a result of Defendants’ baseless infringement accusations, Plaintiff has

sustained damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

- 14 -
Case 2:19-cv-16248 Document 1 Filed 08/01/19 Page 15 of 29 PageID: 15

87. Defendants’ baseless infringement accusations have caused, and will

continue to cause, Plaintiff irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law,

including, without limitation, damage to the hierarchy assigned to Plaintiff’s water filtration

products on Amazon and to Plaintiff’s ratings as a seller of water filtration products on Amazon,

as well as a resulting loss of customers.

88. Defendants’ baseless infringement allegations also raise an imminent risk,

as noted in takedown notices Plaintiff received from Amazon, that Plaintiff will be precluded

from selling any products on Amazon.

Fifth Claim for Relief


(Declaratory Judgment of Unenforceability of
the D’786 Patent Due to Inequitable Conduct)

89. Plaintiff repeats the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 88.

90. Mr. Joe McKinney Muncy, who prosecuted the D’786 Patent, failed to

comply with his absolute duty of candor and good faith under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 by his knowing

and deliberate failure to disclose Samsung model numbers DA29-00020A and DA29-00020B

water filters (the “Samsung Prior Art”) to the USPTO during prosecution of the D’786 Patent.

The Samsung Prior Art was described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or

otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the D’786 Patent.

91. Mr. Muncy filed trademark applications for AQUACREST, ECO AQU,

and AQUADROP on behalf of Ecoaqua with the USPTO.

92. Mr. Muncy filed trademark applications for DA29-00020B, DA29-00020,

DA29-00003B, DA29-00003G, DA29, and ECOLIFE on behalf of Ecolife with the USPTO.

- 15 -
Case 2:19-cv-16248 Document 1 Filed 08/01/19 Page 16 of 29 PageID: 16

93. DA29-00020B, DA29-00020, DA29-00003B, DA29-00003G, and DA29

are model numbers/model designations for Samsung water filters.

94. Mr. Muncy had personal knowledge of the Samsung Prior Art during the

pendency of the D’786 Patent at least from the specimen of use he filed on April 24, 2018 in the

AQUACREST trademark application. The specimen is a screenshot of an Amazon listing for an

AquaCrest replacement water filter, which states that the product is a “Water Filter Replacement

[f]or Samsung DA29-00020B, DA29-00020A, DA2900020A.” The listing depicts the claimed

design of the D’786 Patent. A copy of the specimen is attached as Exhibit C.

95. Mr. Muncy had personal knowledge of the Samsung Prior Art during the

pendency of the D’786 Patent at least from the specimen of use he filed on April 23, 2018 in the

ECOAQU trademark application. The specimen is a picture of an ECOAQU replacement filter,

which identifies itself as a replacement filter for Samsung DA29-00020B filters. The picture

depicts the claimed design of the D’786 Patent. A copy of the specimen is attached as Exhibit

D.

96. Mr. Muncy had personal knowledge of the Samsung Prior Art during the

pendency of the D’786 Patent at least from the specimen of use he filed on May 4, 2018 in the

AQUADROP trademark application. The specimen is a picture of an AQUADROP replacement

filter, which identifies itself as a replacement filter for Samsung DA29-00020B filters. The

picture depicts the claimed design of the D’786 Patent. A copy of the specimen is attached as

Exhibit E.

97. Upon information and belief, Mr. Muncy had personal knowledge of the

Samsung Prior Art during the pendency of the D’786 Patent at least from the website

- 16 -
Case 2:19-cv-16248 Document 1 Filed 08/01/19 Page 17 of 29 PageID: 17

www.water-filter.com, which depicted Defendants’ Waterdrop filter adjacent the Samsung Prior

Art. A screenshot of the website was submitted as part of a specimen of use by Mr. Muncy in

the ECOLIFE trademark application. The Waterdrop filter depicted in the screenshot embodies

the claimed design of the D’786 Patent. A copy of the specimen is attached as Exhibit F.

98. Upon information and belief, Mr. Muncy’s personal knowledge of the

Samsung Prior Art during the pendency of the D’786 Patent led to his filing of express

abandonments of the DA29-00020B, DA29-00020, DA29-00003B, DA29-00003G, and DA29

trademark applications after each application had been determined to be entitled to registration

by the USPTO.

99. The Samsung Prior Art teaches and/or suggests the claimed design of the

D’786 Patent, so the Samsung Prior Art was material to the patentability of the D’786 Patent.

100. Upon information and belief, Mr. Muncy withheld the Samsung Prior Art

from the USPTO with the specific intent to deceive the USPTO.

101. But for the failure to disclose the Samsung Prior Art, the USPTO would

not have allowed the D’786 Patent.

102. Second, Mr. Zhibin Zou, the inventor of the D’786 Patent, failed to

comply with his absolute duty of candor and good faith under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 by his knowing

and deliberate failure to disclose to the USPTO the Samsung Prior Art during prosecution of the

D’786 Patent.

103. Upon information and belief, Mr. Zou was aware of the Samsung Prior Art

as the inventor of a replacement water filter for the Samsung Prior Art. Mr. Zou had personal

- 17 -
Case 2:19-cv-16248 Document 1 Filed 08/01/19 Page 18 of 29 PageID: 18

knowledge of the Samsung Prior Art, and the overlap in subject matter between the Samsung

Prior Art and D’786 Patent, during the pendency of the D’786 Patent.

104. Upon information and belief, Mr. Zou withheld the Samsung Prior Art

from the USPTO with the specific intent to deceive the USPTO.

105. But for the failure to disclose the Samsung Prior Art, the USPTO would

not have allowed the D’786 Patent.

106. Third, Mr. Zhibin Zou, the inventor of the D’786 Patent, failed to comply

with his absolute duty of candor and good faith under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 by his knowing and

deliberate failure to disclose to the USPTO Chinese Design Registration No. 302416364 (the

“’364 Design Registration”), Chinese Utility Model No. 203620382U (the “’382 Utility Model”),

and products embodied by the ’364 Design Registration and ’382 Utility Model (collectively, the

“D’786 Chinese Prior Art”) during prosecution of the D’786 Patent. A copy of the ’364 Design

Registration is attached as Exhibit G, and a copy of the ’382 Utility Model is attached as

Exhibit H.

107. The D’786 Chinese Prior Art is owned, manufactured, and/or sold by

Tianjin Yunda Industry And Trade Co., Ltd. (“Yunda”). Yunda manufactures Plaintiff’s PL-200

and PL-600 filters, which compete directly with the filters manufactured, imported, and/or sold

by Defendants.

108. Upon information and belief, Mr. Zou was aware of the D’786 Chinese

Prior Art because Best Pure is a direct competitor of Mr. Zou’s employer, Ecopure. Mr. Zou had

- 18 -
Case 2:19-cv-16248 Document 1 Filed 08/01/19 Page 19 of 29 PageID: 19

personal knowledge of the D’786 Chinese Prior Art, and the overlap in subject matter between

the D’786 Chinese Prior Art and D’786 Patent, during the pendency of the D’786 Patent.

109. Upon information and belief, Mr. Zou withheld the D’786 Chinese Prior

Art from the USPTO with the specific intent to deceive the USPTO.

110. But for the failure to disclose the D’786 Chinese Prior Art, the USPTO

would not have allowed the D’786 Patent.

Sixth Claim for Relief


(Declaratory Judgment of Unenforceability of
the D’434 Patent Due to Inequitable Conduct)

111. Plaintiff repeats the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 110.

112. Mr. Joe McKinney Muncy, who prosecuted the D’434 Patent, failed to

comply with his absolute duty of candor and good faith under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 by his knowing

and deliberate failure to disclose Whirlpool/Kenmore model numbers 4396508 and 4396510

water filters (the “Whirlpool Prior Art”) to the USPTO during prosecution of the D’434 Patent.

The Whirlpool Prior Art was described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or

otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the D’434 Patent.

113. Mr. Muncy filed trademark applications for 4396508 and 4396510 on

behalf of Ecolife with the USPTO.

114. 4396508 and 4396510 are model numbers/model designations for

Whirlpool/Kenmore water filters.

115. Upon information and belief, Mr. Muncy had personal knowledge of the

Whirlpool Prior Art during the pendency of the D’434 Patent that led to his filing of express
- 19 -
Case 2:19-cv-16248 Document 1 Filed 08/01/19 Page 20 of 29 PageID: 20

abandonments of the 4396508 and 4396510 trademark applications after each application had

been determined to be entitled to registration by the USPTO.

116. The Whirlpool Prior Art teaches and/or suggests the claimed design of the

D’434 Patent, so the Whirlpool Prior Art was material to the patentability of the D’434 Patent.

117. Upon information and belief, Mr. Muncy withheld the Whirlpool Prior Art

from the USPTO with the specific intent to deceive the USPTO.

118. But for the failure to disclose the Whirlpool Prior Art, the USPTO would

not have allowed the D’434 Patent.

119. Second, Mr. Zhibin Zou, the inventor of the D’434 Patent, failed to

comply with his absolute duty of candor and good faith under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 by his knowing

and deliberate failure to disclose the Whirlpool Prior Art to the USPTO during prosecution of the

D’434 Patent.

120. Upon information and belief, Mr. Zou was aware of the Whirlpool Prior

Art as the inventor of a replacement water filter for the Whirlpool Prior Art. Mr. Zou had

personal knowledge of the Whirlpool Prior Art, and the overlap in subject matter between the

Whirlpool Prior Art and D’434 Patent, during the pendency of the D’786 Patent.

121. Upon information and belief, Mr. Zou withheld the Whirlpool Prior Art

from the USPTO with the specific intent to deceive the USPTO.

122. But for the failure to disclose the Whirlpool Prior Art, the USPTO would

not have allowed the D’434 Patent.

- 20 -
Case 2:19-cv-16248 Document 1 Filed 08/01/19 Page 21 of 29 PageID: 21

123. Third, Mr. Zhibin Zou, the inventor of the D’434 Patent, failed to comply

with his absolute duty of candor and good faith under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 by his knowing and

deliberate failure to disclose to the USPTO Chinese Design Registration No. 302362774 (the

“’774 Design Registration”), Chinese Utility Model No. 203612985U (the “’985 Utility Model”),

and products embodied by the ’774 Design Registration and ’985 Utility Model (collectively, the

“D’434 Chinese Prior Art”) during prosecution of the D’434 Patent. A copy of the ’774 Design

Registration is attached as Exhibit I, and a copy of the ’985 Utility Model is attached as Exhibit

J.

124. The D’434 Chinese Prior Art is owned, manufactured, and/or sold by

Yunda. Yunda manufactures Plaintiff’s PL-200 and PL-600 filters, which compete directly with

the filters manufactured, imported, and/or sold by Defendants.

125. Upon information and belief, Mr. Zou was aware of the D’434 Chinese

Prior Art because Best Pure is a direct competitor of Mr. Zou’s employer, Ecopure. Mr. Zou had

personal knowledge of the D’434 Chinese Prior Art, and the overlap in subject matter between

the D’434 Chinese Prior Art and D’786 Patent, during the pendency of the D’434 Patent.

126. Upon information and belief, Mr. Zou withheld the D’434 Chinese Prior

Art from the USPTO with the specific intent to deceive the USPTO.

127. But for the failure to disclose the D’434 Chinese Prior Art, the USPTO

would not have allowed the D’434 Patent.

Seventh Claim for Relief


(Unfair Competition from Bad-Faith Enforcement of Patent Rights)

128. Plaintiff repeats the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 127.

- 21 -
Case 2:19-cv-16248 Document 1 Filed 08/01/19 Page 22 of 29 PageID: 22

129. Defendants have made statements to, without limitation, Amazon that

Plaintiff’s PL-200 and CD-200 products infringe the D’786 Patent.

130. Defendants had actual or constructive knowledge that Plaintiff’s products

have been on sale prior to the earliest effective filing date of the D’786 patent.

131. Defendants made these statements to Amazon about Plaintiff’s PL-200

and CD-200 products in bad faith because Defendants had actual knowledge that prior art

invalidates the claimed design of the D’786 Patent and/or that Plaintiff’s products do not infringe

the D’786 Patent. Defendants made these statements with the intent to injure Plaintiff’s

business.

132. With full knowledge of the invalidating prior art and/or that Plaintiff’s

products do not infringe the D’786 Patent, Defendants have asserted the D’786 Patent against

Plaintiff in a bad-faith attempt to exclude competitive products, including, without limitation, the

PL-200 and CD-200, that Defendants are not legally entitled to exclude.

133. As a result of Defendants’ statements to Amazon that Plaintiff’s PL-200

and CD-200 products infringe the D’786 Patent, Amazon has taken down listings for Plaintiff’s

PL-200 and CD-200 water filtration products, resulting in diversion of Plaintiff’s customers to

Defendants and other competitors.

134. Defendants have made statements to, without limitation, Amazon, that

Plaintiff’s PL-600 products infringe the D’434 Patent.

135. Defendants had actual or constructive knowledge that Plaintiff’s products

have been on sale prior to the earliest effective filing date of the D’434 patent.

- 22 -
Case 2:19-cv-16248 Document 1 Filed 08/01/19 Page 23 of 29 PageID: 23

136. Defendants made these statements to Amazon about Plaintiff’s PL-600

products in bad faith because Defendants had actual knowledge that prior art invalidates the

D’434 Patent and/or that Plaintiff’s products do not infringe the D’434 Patent. Defendants made

these statements with the intent to injure Plaintiff’s business.

137. With full knowledge of the invalidating prior art and/or that Plaintiff’s

products do not infringe the D’434 Patent, Defendants have asserted the D’434 Patent against

Plaintiff in a bad-faith attempt to exclude competitive products, including, without limitation, the

PL-600, that Defendants are not legally entitled to exclude.

138. As a result of Defendants’ statements to Amazon that Plaintiff’s PL-600

products infringe the D’434 Patent, Amazon has taken down listings for Plaintiff’s PL-600 water

filtration products, resulting in diversion of Plaintiff’s customers to Defendants and other

competitors.

139. Defendants’ actions alleged here constitute acts of unfair competition

designed to affect United States commerce, including commerce in New Jersey, in violation of

Section 43 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1125.

140. Defendants’ actions alleged here have injured Plaintiff in the marketplace,

including, without limitation, damage to Plaintiff’s goodwill, loss of customers, and lost sales of

Plaintiff’s PL-200, CD-200, and PL-600 products.

Eighth Claim for Relief


(New Jersey Fair Trade Act)

141. Plaintiff repeats the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 140.

- 23 -
Case 2:19-cv-16248 Document 1 Filed 08/01/19 Page 24 of 29 PageID: 24

142. Defendants have made statements to, without limitation, Amazon that

Plaintiff’s PL-200 and CD-200 products infringe the D’786 Patent.

143. Defendants had actual or constructive knowledge that Plaintiff’s products

have been on sale prior to the earliest effective filing date of the D’786 patent.

144. Defendants made these statements to Amazon about Plaintiff’s PL-200

and CD-200 products in bad faith because Defendants had actual knowledge of the Samsung

Prior Art that invalidates the D’786 Patent. Defendants made these statements with the intent to

injure Plaintiff’s business.

145. With full knowledge of the invalidating prior art and/or that Plaintiff’s

products do not infringe the D’786 Patent, Defendants have asserted the D’786 Patent against

Plaintiff in a bad-faith attempt to exclude competitive products, including, without limitation, the

PL-200 and CD-200, that Defendants are not legally entitled to exclude.

146. As a result of Defendants’ statements to Amazon that Plaintiff’s PL-200

and CD-200 products infringe the D’786 Patent, Amazon has taken down listings for Plaintiff’s

PL-200 and CD-200 water filtration products, resulting in diversion of Plaintiff’s customers to

Defendants and other competitors.

147. Defendants have made statements to, without limitation, Amazon, that

Plaintiff’s PL-600 products infringe the D’434 Patent.

148. Defendants had actual or constructive knowledge that Plaintiff’s products

have been on sale prior to the earliest effective filing date of the D’434 patent.

- 24 -
Case 2:19-cv-16248 Document 1 Filed 08/01/19 Page 25 of 29 PageID: 25

149. Defendants made these statements to Amazon about Plaintiff’s PL-600

products in bad faith because Defendants had actual knowledge that the prior art invalidates the

D’434 Patent and/or that Plaintiff’s products do not infringe the D’434 Patent. Defendants made

these statements with the intent to injure Plaintiff’s business.

150. With full knowledge of the invalidating prior art and/or that Plaintiff’s

products do not infringe the D’434 Patent, Defendants have asserted the D’434 Patent against

Plaintiff in a bad-faith attempt to exclude competitive products, including, without limitation, the

PL-600, that Defendants are not legally entitled to exclude.

151. As a result of Defendants’ statements to Amazon that Plaintiff’s PL-600

products infringe the D’434 Patent, Amazon has taken down listings for Plaintiff’s PL-600 water

filtration products, resulting in diversion of Plaintiff’s customers to Defendants and other

competitors.

152. Defendants’ actions constitute a willful and knowing act of unfair

competition and unfair trade practice and interference with Plaintiff’s rights, in violation of the

New Jersey Fair Trade Act, N.J.S.A. 56:4-1 et seq.

Ninth Claim for Relief


(Common Law Unfair Competition)

153. Plaintiff repeats the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 152.

154. Upon information and belief, Defendants’ conduct is specially designed to

capitalize on the goodwill of Plaintiff and has injured, and threatens to injure, Plaintiff by, among

other things, loss of customers, dilution of goodwill, and injury to Plaintiff’s reputation.

- 25 -
Case 2:19-cv-16248 Document 1 Filed 08/01/19 Page 26 of 29 PageID: 26

155. Defendants have unfairly competed, and continue to unfairly compete,

with Plaintiff in violation of Plaintiff’s common-law rights.

156. Upon information and belief, Defendants’ conduct was and is willful and

intentional.

157. Specifically, as described above, Mr. Muncy and/or Mr. Zou knowingly

withheld the Samsung Prior Art from the USPTO when applying for the D’786 Patent.

158. Also as described above, Mr. Muncy and/or Mr. Zou knowingly withheld

the Whirlpool Prior Art from the USPTO when applying for the D’434 Patent.

159. Notwithstanding Mr. Muncy and/or Mr. Zou’s knowledge that the D’786

and D’434 patents were procured as a result of inequitable conduct, and therefore are invalid,

Defendants have enforced, and continue to enforce, their purported D’786 and D’434 patent

rights against Plaintiff.

160. Defendants had actual or constructive knowledge that Plaintiff’s products

have been on sale prior to the earliest effective filing date of the D’786 and/or D’434 patents.

161. Notwithstanding Defendants’ knowledge that Plaintiff’s products have

been on sale prior to the earliest effective filing date of the D’786 and/or D’434 patents,

Defendants have enforced, and continue to enforce, their purported D’786 and D’434 patent

rights against Plaintiff.

162. Defendants’ acts have damaged Plaintiff, and unless restrained,

Defendants will continue to cause irreparable damage to Plaintiff, including damage to Plaintiff’s

- 26 -
Case 2:19-cv-16248 Document 1 Filed 08/01/19 Page 27 of 29 PageID: 27

reputation and goodwill, in an amount that cannot now be determined. Plaintiff has no adequate

remedy at law.

Jury Demand

163. Plaintiff demands trial by jury on all matters triable by jury.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff is entitled to judgment for the following relief:

(1) a declaration that Plaintiff has not infringed the D’786 Patent;

(2) a declaration that Plaintiff has not infringed the D’434 Patent;

(3) a declaration that the D’786 Patent is void, invalid, and/or unenforceable;

(4) a declaration that the D’434 Patent is void, invalid, and/or unenforceable;

(5) an injunction precluding Defendants, their officers, directors, agents,

servants, employees, attorneys, subsidiaries, affiliates, and all those acting in concert with them,

from asserting the D’786 Patent and the D’434 Patent against Plaintiff;

(6) a finding that this is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. Section 285 and

awarding Plaintiff its costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees, incurred in pursuing this

lawsuit;

(7) compensatory, exemplary, and punitive damages, with interest; and

(8) such further relief as this Court deems proper.

- 27 -
Case 2:19-cv-16248 Document 1 Filed 08/01/19 Page 28 of 29 PageID: 28

Dated: August 1, 2019


HODGSON RUSS LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiff

By: s/Neil B. Friedman


Neil B. Friedman
605 Third Avenue, Suite 2300
New York, New York 10158
Telephone: (646) 218-7605
Facsimile: (646) 218-7665
nfriedma@hodgsonruss.com

- 28 -
Case 2:19-cv-16248 Document 1 Filed 08/01/19 Page 29 of 29 PageID: 29

RULE 11.2 CERTIFICATION

I certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the matter in controversy is not the

subject of any other pending or anticipated litigation in any court or arbitration proceeding, nor

are there any non-parties known to plaintiffs that should be joined to this action. In addition, I

recognize a continuing obligation during the course of this litigation to file and to serve on all

other parties and with the Court an amended certification if there is a change in the facts stated in

this original certification.

Dated: August 1, 2019

s/Neil B. Friedman
Neil B. Friedman

RULE 201.1 CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify that the above-captioned matter is not subject to compulsory

arbitration in that the plaintiffs seek, inter alia, injunctive relief.

Dated: August 1, 2019

s/Neil B. Friedman
Neil B. Friedman

- 29 -
090473.00000 Business 18679667v4
Case 2:19-cv-16248 Document 1-1 Filed 08/01/19 Page 1 of 9 PageID: 30

EXHIBIT A
Case 2:19-cv-16248 Document 1-1 Filed 08/01/19 Page 2 of 9 PageID: 31
USOOD831786S

(12 ) United States Design Patent ( 10) Patent No.: US D831 ,786 S
Zou (45) Date of Patent: * * Oct. 23 , 2018
(54) FILTER UNIT D760 , 868 S *
D764, 021 S
7 /2016 Lu ......
* 8/ 2016 Lu ..........
D23 /209
D23/209
(71 ) Applicant: Qingdao Ecopure Filter Co., Ltd , D770,011 S * 10 / 2016 Nelson . .... D23 /209
D773,608 S * 12 / 2016 Nelson . . . D23 /209
Qingdao , Shangdong Province (CN ) D774 ,623 S * 12 / 2016 Lu . . . .. . .. . .. . .. . D23 /209
D788, 879 S * 6 /2017 Zou .. D23 /209
(72) Inventor: Zhibin Zou , Qingdao (CN ) D792, 943
D794, 749
S
S
* 7 /2017 Zou ...........
* 8/ 2017 Zou
.. D23 / 209
... .. ... D23/209
(73 ) Assignee : QINGDAO ECOPURE FILTER CO ., D794 ,750 S * 8/ 2017 Zou ........................ BO1D 29 / 21
D23 /209
LTD ., Qingdao , Shangdong Province D794 ,751 S * 8 / 2017 Zou ... ... D23/ 209
(CN ) D795,995 S * 8 /2017 Zou ........................ BO1D 35 / 30
D23/209
(* * ) Term : 15 Years 9,868,081 B1 * 1/2018 Zhang ............... B01D 35 / 153
( 21) Appl. No.: 29 /600 ,746 * cited by examiner
(22 ) Filed : Apr. 14 , 2017 Primary Examiner — Robin V Webster
(51) LOC ( 11) CI. .... .................... ...... 23-01 (74 ) Attorney, Agent, or Firm — Muncy, Geissler, Olds &
(52) U .S . CI. Lowe, P . C .
USPC . . ... .. .. .. ... . . . .. . .. D23 /209
(58 ) Field of Classification Search (57) CLAIM
USPC .............. D23 /207 , 209 , 210 / 232 , 282, 493.2
CPC ... B01D 35 /30 ; B01D 35 / 153 ; B01D 29/ 111; The ornamental design for a filter unit , as shown and
CO2F 1/003; B29C 47 /682 described .
See application file for complete search history .
(56 ) References Cited DESCRIPTION
U .S . PATENT DOCUMENTS FIG . 1 is a Front elevational view of a filter unit showing my
new design;
D322 ,836 S * 12 / 1991 Petrucci .. · D23 / 209 FIG . 2 is a Rear elevational view thereof ;
D472 ,299 S * 3 /2003 Fritze ..................... BO1D 35 /30
D23/ 209 FIG . 3 is a Left side view thereof;
D494 ,654 S * 8 /2004 Macaulay D23 /209 FIG . 4 is a Right side view thereof;
D541, 371 S * 4 /2007 McKay .. D23 /209 FIG . 5 is a Top plan view thereof;
D547,821 S * 7 / 2007 Kennedy ...................... D23 /207 FIG . 6 is a Bottom plan view thereof; and ,
D599 ,880 S * 9 /2009 Rampen ....................... D23 /209 FIG . 7 is a Perspective view thereof .
D654,565 S * 2/ 2012 Kruckenberg .......... ..... D23/ 209 The broken lines in the drawing depict portions of the filter
D655 ,378 S * 3/2012 Kruckenberg . .. . . . .. . . .. D23/ 209
unit that form no part of the claimed design .
8 ,474 ,631 B2 * 7 /2013 Kocksch ............... B01D 29 /21
210 /450
D731 ,616 S * 6 /2015 Zou ..... D23 /209 1 Claim , 7 Drawing Sheets

13
Case 2:19-cv-16248 Document 1-1 Filed 08/01/19 Page 3 of 9 PageID: 32

atent Oct. 23, 2018 Sheet 1 of 7 US D831,786 S

Fig 1

YALM
i
'

Wil
'

-
'
Ver

ER'OWYwa
-
VREMLY
-
Case 2:19-cv-16248 Document 1-1 Filed 08/01/19 Page 4 of 9 PageID: 33

atent Oct. 23, 2018 Sheet 2 of 7 US D831,786 S

Fig 2

UV .VYF LA
,HAW4
Y

.
4

EYL

Mini
Case 2:19-cv-16248 Document 1-1 Filed 08/01/19 Page 5 of 9 PageID: 34

U . S . Patent Oct. 23, 2018 Sheet 3 of 7 US D831,786 S

Fig 3

L
to

have
W w
what w +
Case 2:19-cv-16248 Document 1-1 Filed 08/01/19 Page 6 of 9 PageID: 35

atent Oct. 23, 2018 Sheet 4 of 7 US D831,786 S

Fig 4

wwwvwwwvwwith

.
*

:
.
*

-

*
Case 2:19-cv-16248 Document 1-1 Filed 08/01/19 Page 7 of 9 PageID: 36

atent Oct. 23, 2018 Sheet 5 of 7 US D831,786 S

Fig . 5

-
-
-
Case 2:19-cv-16248 Document 1-1 Filed 08/01/19 Page 8 of 9 PageID: 37

atent Oct. 23 , 2018 Sheet 6 of 7 US D831 , 786 S

Fig . 6

/
//

?? \\\
\\\
???

- - - - - - - -
- -
????
-
??
?
?
Case 2:19-cv-16248 Document 1-1 Filed 08/01/19 Page 9 of 9 PageID: 38

atent Oct. 23, 2018 Sheet 7 of 7 US D831,786 S

Fig 7
Vaat

**

.
am. ww w

hite *
*

MAHL
Case 2:19-cv-16248 Document 1-2 Filed 08/01/19 Page 1 of 9 PageID: 39

EXHIBIT B
Case 2:19-cv-16248 Document 1-2 Filed 08/01/19 Page 2 of 9 PageID: 40
USOOD8454345

(12 ) Zou
United States Design Patent ( 10) Patent No.: US D845 ,434 S
(45) Date of Patent : * * Apr. 9 , 2019
(54) FILTER UNIT D768,814
D773 ,607
S * 10 /2016 Dong
S * 12/2016 Lu
D23 /209
D23 /209
(71) Applicant: Qingdao Ecopure Filter Co., Ltd ., D776 ,237 S * 1 /2017 Dong D23 /207
D788, 880 S * 6 / 2017 Zou D23 /209
Jimo, Qingdao (CN ) D792 , 943 S * 7 / 2017 Zou D23 /209
D794 ,749 S * 8 /2017 Zou ...... D23 /209
(72) Inventor: Zhibin Zou , Qingdao (CN ) D820 ,948
D822 ,155
S * 6 /2018 An . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D23 / 209
S * 7 /2018 Zou .................... · D23 /209
(73) Assignee : QINGDAO ECOPURE FILTER CO ., 10 ,040, 009 B1 * 8/ 2018 Krause ............ ..... BO1D 35 / 143
D831 , 786 S * 10 / 2018 Zou ........................ B01D 35 /30
LTD ., Jimo, Qingdao (CN ) D23 / 209
D831, 788 S * 10 / 2018 Zou ........... ... D23 /209
(* * ) Term : 15 Years 10 ,099 ,162 B2 * 10 /2018 Prince ................... BO1D 35/ 30
(21) Appl. No.: 29 /625,493 * cited by examiner
(22 ) Filed : Nov . 9, 2017 Primary Examiner — Robin V Webster
(74 ) Attorney, Agent, or Firm — Muncy, Geissler, Olds &
(51) LOC (11) Ci. ............................................ 23 -01 Lowe, P.C .
(52 ) U . S . CI. (57 ) CLAIM
USPC . ... . .. ... ... .... D23 /209 The ornamental design for a filter unit , as shown and
(58) Field of Classification Search described .
USPC . ................... D23/ 200 , 207, 209 , 210 /497 . 01
CPC .... BO1D 35 /30 ; BO1D 35 / 153 ; B01D 35 / 306 ; DESCRIPTION
B01D 2201/30 ; B01D 2201/29 ; BO1D
24 / 10 ; B01D 36 /02 ; B01D 29 /035 ; B01D FIG . 1 is a Front elevational view of a filter unit showing my
29/0009 ; CO2F 1 / 002 ; CO2F 1 / 003 new design ;
See application file for complete search history . FIG . 2 is a Rear elevational view thereof;
FIG . 3 is a Left side view thereof;
(56 ) References Cited FIG . 4 is a Right side view thereof;
FIG . 5 is a Top plan view thereof, enlarged for clarity ;
U . S . PATENT DOCUMENTS FIG . 6 is a Bottom plan view thereof, enlarged for clarity ;
and ,
D472 ,604 S * 4 /2003 Fritze ................... ..... D23 /209 FIG . 7 is a top Perspective view thereof.
D541,371 S * 4 /2007 I McKay
n dy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D23/209 The broken lines in the drawing depict portions of the filter
D599 ,880 S * 9 /2009 Rampen D23 /209
D750, 738 S * 3 / 2016 Baird ...... D23 /209 unit that form no part of the claimed design.
D750 ,739 S * 3 /2016 Baird ............ D23 /209
D764 ,626 S * 8 /2016 Lu ............... D23 / 209 1 Claim , 7 Drawing Sheets

- - - - - - - - 1

M
.
Case 2:19-cv-16248 Document 1-2 Filed 08/01/19 Page 3 of 9 PageID: 41

U . S . Patent Apr. 9 , 2019 Sheet 1 of 7 US D845 ,434 S

YrEERSEE

FIG . 1
Case 2:19-cv-16248 Document 1-2 Filed 08/01/19 Page 4 of 9 PageID: 42

U . S . Patent Apr. 9 , 2019 Sheet 2 of 7 US D845 ,434 S

A??????????????
**

- - T- T

-
-

FIG . 2
Case 2:19-cv-16248 Document 1-2 Filed 08/01/19 Page 5 of 9 PageID: 43

U . S . Patent Apr. 9 , 2019 Sheet 3 of 7 US D845 ,434 S

1 . 2 .. . ELL E . . . EL.

- -- - - -- - -- -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - -
-

-
-

. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . .

Ti - - - - - - - - 1?t
Histered
f - - - - - - - -

FIG . 3
Case 2:19-cv-16248 Document 1-2 Filed 08/01/19 Page 6 of 9 PageID: 44

U . S . Patent Apr. 9 , 2019 Sheet 4 of 7 US D845 ,434 S

+ + - + + - -- + + - 2
2 - -- 0 - - V

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
. . - - . - - .- - .- - . - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .- - .

44 _ vie2244422 * * *

FIG . 4
Case 2:19-cv-16248 Document 1-2 Filed 08/01/19 Page 7 of 9 PageID: 45

U . S . Patent Apr. 9 , 2019 Sheet 5 of 7 US D845 ,434 S

t
?
to
ot- - -

but
some Panm
comment
com ent
n
o

to
of

FIG . 5
Case 2:19-cv-16248 Document 1-2 Filed 08/01/19 Page 8 of 9 PageID: 46

U . S . Patent Apr. 9 , 2019 Sheet 6 of 7 US D845 ,434 S

-====

--

FIG . 6
Case 2:19-cv-16248 Document 1-2 Filed 08/01/19 Page 9 of 9 PageID: 47

U . S . Patent Apr. 9 , 2019 Sheet 7 of 7 US D845 ,434 S

-
-**
*

FIG . 7
Case 2:19-cv-16248 Document 1-3 Filed 08/01/19 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 48

EXHIBIT C
Case 2:19-cv-16248 Document 1-3 Filed 08/01/19 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 49
Case 2:19-cv-16248 Document 1-4 Filed 08/01/19 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 50

EXHIBIT D
Case 2:19-cv-16248 Document 1-4 Filed 08/01/19 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 51
Case 2:19-cv-16248 Document 1-5 Filed 08/01/19 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 52

EXHIBIT E
Case 2:19-cv-16248 Document 1-5 Filed 08/01/19 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 53
Case 2:19-cv-16248 Document 1-6 Filed 08/01/19 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 54

EXHIBIT F
Case 2:19-cv-16248 Document 1-6 Filed 08/01/19 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 55
Case 2:19-cv-16248 Document 1-6 Filed 08/01/19 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 56
Case 2:19-cv-16248 Document 1-7 Filed 08/01/19 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 57

EXHIBIT G
Case 2:19-cv-16248 Document 1-7 Filed 08/01/19 Page 2 of 4 PageID: 58

(19)中华人民共和国国家知识产权局
*CN302416364S*
(12)外观设计专利
(10)授权公告号 CN 302416364 S
(45)授权公告日 2013.04.24
(21)申请号 201230521382.4

(22)申请日 2012.10.30

(73)专利权人 天津市静海县远大工贸有限公司
地址 301603 天津市静海县王口镇郑庄村

(72)设计人 魏恩雨

(51)LOC(9)Cl.
23-01

图片或照片 7 幅 简要说明 1 页

(54) 使用外观设计的产品名称
冰箱过滤器的滤芯 (YD-29002C)

主视图
CN 302416364 S
Case 2:19-cv-16248 Document 1-7 Filed 08/01/19 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 59

CN 302416364 S 外观设计图片或照片 1/1 页

俯视图

主视图

仰视图

后视图

左视图 立体图

右视图
2
Case 2:19-cv-16248 Document 1-7 Filed 08/01/19 Page 4 of 4 PageID: 60

CN 302416364 S 简 要 说 明 1/1 页

1. 外观设计产品名称 :
冰箱过滤器的滤芯 (YD-29002C) ;
2. 外观设计产品用途 :
过滤带制冰机的冰箱中的水 ;
3. 外观设计的设计要点 :产品的形状 ;
4. 指定主视图用于出版专利公报。

3
Case 2:19-cv-16248 Document 1-8 Filed 08/01/19 Page 1 of 6 PageID: 61

EXHIBIT H
Case 2:19-cv-16248 Document 1-8 Filed 08/01/19 Page 2 of 6 PageID: 62
Case 2:19-cv-16248 Document 1-8 Filed 08/01/19 Page 3 of 6 PageID: 63
Case 2:19-cv-16248 Document 1-8 Filed 08/01/19 Page 4 of 6 PageID: 64
Case 2:19-cv-16248 Document 1-8 Filed 08/01/19 Page 5 of 6 PageID: 65
Case 2:19-cv-16248 Document 1-8 Filed 08/01/19 Page 6 of 6 PageID: 66
Case 2:19-cv-16248 Document 1-9 Filed 08/01/19 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 67

EXHIBIT I
Case 2:19-cv-16248 Document 1-9 Filed 08/01/19 Page 2 of 4 PageID: 68

(19)中华人民共和国国家知识产权局
*CN302362774S*
(12)外观设计专利
(10)授权公告号 CN 302362774 S
(45)授权公告日 2013.03.20
(21)申请号 201230492814.3

(22)申请日 2012.10.16

(73)专利权人 天津市静海县远大工贸有限公司
地址 301600 天津市静海县静海经济开发区
和山路

(72)设计人 魏恩雨

(74)专利代理机构 北京联瑞联丰知识产权代理
事务所 ( 普通合伙 ) 11411
代理人 郑自群
(51)LOC(9)Cl.
23-01

图片或照片 6 幅 简要说明 1 页

(54) 使用外观设计的产品名称
滤芯

主视图
CN 302362774 S
Case 2:19-cv-16248 Document 1-9 Filed 08/01/19 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 69

CN 302362774 S 外观设计图片或照片 1/1 页

主视图 右视图

俯视图

后视图

仰视图

左视图
2
Case 2:19-cv-16248 Document 1-9 Filed 08/01/19 Page 4 of 4 PageID: 70

CN 302362774 S 简 要 说 明 1/1 页

1. 产品名称 :
滤芯。
2. 产品用途 :
用于净水器、饮水机或水处理设备。
3. 设计要点 :
本产品设计要点在于滤芯的形状。
4. 本外观设计的主视图最能表明本设计要点。

3
Case 2:19-cv-16248 Document 1-10 Filed 08/01/19 Page 1 of 6 PageID: 71
Case 2:19-cv-16248 Document 1-10 Filed 08/01/19 Page 2 of 6 PageID: 72
Case 2:19-cv-16248 Document 1-10 Filed 08/01/19 Page 3 of 6 PageID: 73
Case 2:19-cv-16248 Document 1-10 Filed 08/01/19 Page 4 of 6 PageID: 74
Case 2:19-cv-16248 Document 1-10 Filed 08/01/19 Page 5 of 6 PageID: 75
Case 2:19-cv-16248 Document 1-10 Filed 08/01/19 Page 6 of 6 PageID: 76
Case 2:19-cv-16248 Document 1-11 Filed 08/01/19 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 77

AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


for the
DISTRICT
__________OF NEW of
District JERSEY
__________

)
)
)
JJ IMPORTS, LLC )
Plaintiff(s) )
)
v. Civil Action No.
)
)
QINGDAO ECOPURE FILTER CO., LTD, )
HONGKONG ECOAQUA CO., and )
ECOLIFE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., )
Defendant(s) )

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address) Qingdao Ecopure Filter Co., Ltd.
No. 13, Yishengbai Road
Environmental Protection Industrial Zone
Jimo, Quingdao, China

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you
are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,
whose name and address are:
Neil B. Friedman
Hodgson Russ, LLP
605 Third Avenue, Suite 2300
New York, New York 10158

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.
You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk
Case 2:19-cv-16248 Document 1-11 Filed 08/01/19 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 78

AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)


was received by me on (date) .

’ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)


on (date) ; or

’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)
, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

’ I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is


designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)
on (date) ; or

’ I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

’ Other (specify):
.

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ 0.00 .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:
Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

Print Save As... Reset


Case 2:19-cv-16248 Document 1-12 Filed 08/01/19 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 79

AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


for the
DISTRICT
__________OF NEW of
District JERSEY
__________

)
)
)
JJ IMPORTS, LLC )
Plaintiff(s) )
)
v. Civil Action No.
)
)
QINGDAO ECOPURE FILTER CO., LTD, )
HONGKONG ECOAQUA CO., and )
ECOLIFE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., )
Defendant(s) )

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address) HongKong Ecoaqua Co., Limited


Hong Kong Rm 2105
JQD2732 Trend Centre
29-31 Cheng Lee St.
Wan Chai, Hong Kong, China

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you
are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,
whose name and address are:
Neil B. Friedman
Hodgson Russ, LLP
605 Third Avenue, Suite 2300
New York, New York 10158

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.
You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk
Case 2:19-cv-16248 Document 1-12 Filed 08/01/19 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 80

AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)


was received by me on (date) .

’ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)


on (date) ; or

’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)
, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

’ I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is


designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)
on (date) ; or

’ I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

’ Other (specify):
.

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ 0.00 .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:
Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

Print Save As... Reset


Case 2:19-cv-16248 Document 1-13 Filed 08/01/19 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 81

AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


for the
DISTRICT
__________OF NEW of
District JERSEY
__________

)
)
)
JJ IMPORTS, LLC )
Plaintiff(s) )
)
v. Civil Action No.
)
)
QINGDAO ECOPURE FILTER CO., LTD, )
HONGKONG ECOAQUA CO., and )
ECOLIFE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., )
Defendant(s) )

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address) Ecolife Technologies, Inc.


17910 Ajax Circle
City of Industry, California 91748

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you
are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,
whose name and address are:
Neil B. Friedman
Hodgson Russ, LLP
605 Third Avenue, Suite 2300
New York, New York 10158

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.
You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk
Case 2:19-cv-16248 Document 1-13 Filed 08/01/19 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 82

AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)


was received by me on (date) .

’ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)


on (date) ; or

’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)
, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

’ I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is


designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)
on (date) ; or

’ I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

’ Other (specify):
.

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ 0.00 .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:
Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

Print Save As... Reset


Case 2:19-cv-16248 Document 1-14 Filed 08/01/19 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 83
JS 44 (Rev. 08/18) CIVIL COVER SHEET
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS


JJ IMPORTS, LLC QINGDAO ECOPURE FILTER CO., LTD, HONGKONG ECOAQUA
CO., AND ECOLIFE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Bergen County of Residence of First Listed Defendant N/A (China)
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.

(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)
Neil B. Friedman, Hodgson Russ LLP
605 Third Ave., Suite 2300 New York, New York 10158
646.218.7605

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
’ 1 U.S. Government ’ 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State ’ 1 ’ 1 Incorporated or Principal Place ’ 4 ’ 4
of Business In This State

’ 2 U.S. Government ’ 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State ’ 2 ’ 2 Incorporated and Principal Place ’ 5 ’ 5
Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State

Citizen or Subject of a ’ 3 ’ 3 Foreign Nation ’ 6 ’ 6


Foreign Country
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only) Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES
’ 110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY ’ 625 Drug Related Seizure ’ 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 ’ 375 False Claims Act
’ 120 Marine ’ 310 Airplane ’ 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 ’ 423 Withdrawal ’ 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
’ 130 Miller Act ’ 315 Airplane Product Product Liability ’ 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729(a))
’ 140 Negotiable Instrument Liability ’ 367 Health Care/ ’ 400 State Reapportionment
’ 150 Recovery of Overpayment ’ 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS ’ 410 Antitrust
& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury ’ 820 Copyrights ’ 430 Banks and Banking
’ 151 Medicare Act ’ 330 Federal Employers’ Product Liability ’ 830 Patent ’ 450 Commerce
’ 152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability ’ 368 Asbestos Personal ’ 835 Patent - Abbreviated ’ 460 Deportation
Student Loans ’ 340 Marine Injury Product New Drug Application ’ 470 Racketeer Influenced and
(Excludes Veterans) ’ 345 Marine Product Liability ’ 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations
’ 153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY ’ 480 Consumer Credit
of Veteran’s Benefits ’ 350 Motor Vehicle ’ 370 Other Fraud ’ 710 Fair Labor Standards ’ 861 HIA (1395ff) ’ 485 Telephone Consumer
’ 160 Stockholders’ Suits ’ 355 Motor Vehicle ’ 371 Truth in Lending Act ’ 862 Black Lung (923) Protection Act
’ 190 Other Contract Product Liability ’ 380 Other Personal ’ 720 Labor/Management ’ 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) ’ 490 Cable/Sat TV
’ 195 Contract Product Liability ’ 360 Other Personal Property Damage Relations ’ 864 SSID Title XVI ’ 850 Securities/Commodities/
’ 196 Franchise Injury ’ 385 Property Damage ’ 740 Railway Labor Act ’ 865 RSI (405(g)) Exchange
’ 362 Personal Injury - Product Liability ’ 751 Family and Medical ’ 890 Other Statutory Actions
Medical Malpractice Leave Act ’ 891 Agricultural Acts
REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS ’ 790 Other Labor Litigation FEDERAL TAX SUITS ’ 893 Environmental Matters
’ 210 Land Condemnation ’ 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: ’ 791 Employee Retirement ’ 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff ’ 895 Freedom of Information
’ 220 Foreclosure ’ 441 Voting ’ 463 Alien Detainee Income Security Act or Defendant) Act
’ 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment ’ 442 Employment ’ 510 Motions to Vacate ’ 871 IRS—Third Party ’ 896 Arbitration
’ 240 Torts to Land ’ 443 Housing/ Sentence 26 USC 7609 ’ 899 Administrative Procedure
’ 245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations ’ 530 General Act/Review or Appeal of
’ 290 All Other Real Property ’ 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - ’ 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION Agency Decision
Employment Other: ’ 462 Naturalization Application ’ 950 Constitutionality of
’ 446 Amer. w/Disabilities - ’ 540 Mandamus & Other ’ 465 Other Immigration State Statutes
Other ’ 550 Civil Rights Actions
’ 448 Education ’ 555 Prison Condition
’ 560 Civil Detainee -
Conditions of
Confinement
V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
’ 1 Original ’ 2 Removed from ’ 3 Remanded from ’ 4 Reinstated or ’ 5 Transferred from ’ 6 Multidistrict ’ 8 Multidistrict
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District Litigation - Litigation -
(specify) Transfer Direct File
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
35 U.S.C. Section 101
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:
Declaratory Judgment (non-infringement, invalidity, unenforceability)
VII. REQUESTED IN ’ CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. JURY DEMAND: ’ Yes ’ No
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER
DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
08/01/2019 /s/ Neil B. Friedman
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

Print Save As... Reset


Case 2:19-cv-16248 Document 1-14 Filed 08/01/19 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 84
JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 08/18)

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44


Authority For Civil Cover Sheet

The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as
required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is
required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of
Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:

I.(a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use
only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and
then the official, giving both name and title.
(b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the
time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land
condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.)
(c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting
in this section "(see attachment)".

II. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X"
in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.
United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.
United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box.
Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment
to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes
precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked.
Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the
citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity
cases.)

III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this
section for each principal party.

IV. Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If there are multiple nature of suit codes associated with the case, pick the nature of suit code
that is most applicable. Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.

V. Origin. Place an "X" in one of the seven boxes.


Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.
Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441.
When the petition for removal is granted, check this box.
Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing
date.
Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.
Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or
multidistrict litigation transfers.
Multidistrict Litigation – Transfer. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C.
Section 1407.
Multidistrict Litigation – Direct File. (8) Check this box when a multidistrict case is filed in the same district as the Master MDL docket.
PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE IS NOT AN ORIGIN CODE 7. Origin Code 7 was used for historical records and is no longer relevant due to
changes in statue.

VI. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional
statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service

VII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.
Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.
Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.

VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket
numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.

Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.