SkyHawke Techs. v. GolfzonDeca - Complaint

Case 2:19-cv-07667 Document 1 Filed 09/04/19 Page 1 of 21 Page ID #:1
1 Kunal Jain, SBN 266642

JAIN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
2 10866 Wilshire Blvd.,
STE 400-#777
3
Los Angeles, California 90024
4 Phone: 310.957.2214
Facsimile: 424.313.7123
5 Kunal@JainLawOffices.com
6
ROBERT M. FREY (pro hac vice)
7 BUTLER SNOW, LLP
1020 Highland Colony Parkway
8 STE 1400
Ridgeland, MS 39157
9
Phone: 601.985.4524
10 Facsimile: 601.985.4500
Bob.frey@butlersnow.com
11
Attorneys for Plaintiffs,
12
SkyHawke Technologies, LLC
13 SkyHawke Licensing, LLC
14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
15
16
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
17
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
18 SKYHAWKE TECHNOLOGIES, LLC a ) Case No.:

Mississippi limited liability company, )
19 SKYHAWKE LICENSING, LLC, a ) COMPLAINT FOR:
Mississippi limited liability company, ) 1. Sherman Act Violations Under 35
20
) U.S.C. § 2
21 Plaintiffs, ) 2. Intentional Interference with
) Prospective Economic Advantage
22 vs. ) 3. Negligent Interference with
) Prospective Economic Advantage
23
GOLFZONDECA, INC., a Korean ) 4. Business and Professions Code
24 Corporation., DECA INTERNATIONAL ) 17500: False or Deceptive
CORP. a California Corporation, ) Advertising
25 ) 5. Declaratory Relief for the Invalidity
Defendants. ) of the ‘162, ‘842, and ‘448 patents.
26
)
27 ) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
)
28
-1-
COMPLAINT
1 ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR ANTI TRUST VIOLATIONS
2 This is an action for declaratory relief and various violations of anti-trust and other state laws
3
in which SkyHawke Licensing, LLC (“SHL”) and SKYHAWKE TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
4
(“SkyHawke”), (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) make the following allegations against GOLFZON DECA
5
(“Golfzon”) and DECA INTERNATIONAL (“DECA”) (collectively, “Defendants”):
6
7 PARTIES
8 1. Plaintiff SkyHawke is a Mississippi Limited Liability Company, having a principal

9
place of business at Rigdeland Technology Center, 274 Commerce Park Drive, Suite M, Ridgeland,
10
MS 39157.
11
2. Plaintiff SHL is a Mississippi Limited Liability Company, having a principal place of
12
13 business at Ridgeland Technology Center, 274 Commerce Park Drive, Suite M, Ridgeland, MS 39157.
14 3. Defendant GolfzonDeca Inc. (“GolfzonDeca”) is a company organized under the laws

15
of Korea, having a principal place of business at A-2410 Poonlim I-Want Plus, 255-1 Seohyeong-dong,
16
Bongdang-gu, Seongam-si, Geyonggi-do, 463-824 Korea 82031-783793.
17
4. Defendant DECA International Corp. (“DECA International”) is a California
18
19 corporation having a principal place of business at 20 Centerpointe Drive, Suite 140, La Palma,
20 California.
21
5. DECA International, and GolfzonDECA are referred to collectively herein as
22
“Defendants.”
23
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
24
25 6. This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of the United
26 States Code. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
27
28
-2-
COMPLAINT
1 7. Venue is proper in this district under 15 U.S.C. § 2. Defendants have committed acts of
2 monopolizing trade in this Judicial District. In addition, upon information and belief, DECA
3
International is a wholly owned subsidiary of GolfzonDECA and has a regular place of business in La
4
Palma, CA.
5
8. This Court has personal jurisdiction over each Defendant because, on information and
6
7 belief, Defendants have made, caused to be made, imported, caused to be imported, used, caused to be
8 used, offered to sell, sold, and/or caused to be sold products and/or systems (in the State of California
9
and/or within the United States. These products practice patents that were fraudulently procured by
10
Defendants when they copied SkyHawke’s original patents. Shockingly, Defendants even threatened
11
litigation against SkyHawke with these patents in the state of California.
12
13 9. On information and belief, Defendant is subject to this Court’s specific and general
14 personal jurisdiction pursuant to due process and/or the California Long Arm Statute, due at least to its
15
substantial business in this forum, including: (i) at least a portion of the infringements alleged herein;
16
and (ii) regularly doing or soliciting business, engaging in other persistent courses of conduct, and/or
17
deriving substantial revenue from goods and services provided to individuals in California and in this
18
19 Judicial District.
20 BACKGROUND
21 10. On or around March 7, 2019, SkyHawke was preparing, in good faith, to attend
22
mediation with respect to the related lead case that this docket is now consolidated with.
23
11. In anticipation of the mediation, Defendants’ counsel indicated to SkyHawke that
24
absent a resolution, Defendants would be bringing their own complaint against SkyHawke for patent
25
26 infringement.
27 12. In addition, Defendants counsel attached a draft of the complaint to give to

28
SkyHawke. A copy of that complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
-3-
COMPLAINT
1 13. On information and belief, Defendants provided SkyHawke with that draft complaint
2 in order to show their seriousness in bringing infringement claims. A controversy with respect to
3
DECA’s claim for patent infringement now exists.
4
14. Having been threatened with infringement, SkyHawke reasonably began conducting
5
its due diligence with respect to those patents any accused devices.
6
7 15. The draft complaint asserts infringement based on three patents—U.S. Patent
8 9,535,162, U.S. Patent 10,151,842, and U.S. Patent 9,383,448. The ‘162 Patent and the ‘842 Patent
9
claim a priority date to provisional application 61/872,623, filed August 30, 2013. The ‘448 Patent
10
claims a priority date to provisional 61/668,332, filed on July 5, 2012. Each of these claimed priority
11
dates is well after the dates the Barnard ‘938 Patent and Meadows ‘498 Patent re-examinations were
12
13 filed.
14 16. SkyHawke was troubled to learn that a majority of the text found in the asserted
15
patents copied directly from SkyHawke’s previously published and registered patents.
16
17. More importantly, Defendants’ asserted patents failed to disclose the SkyHawke
17
registrations that they plagiarized as prior art.
18
19 18. Even more troubling is the fact that All three of these patents were prosecuted by the
20 Knobbe, Martens law firm. The Knobbe, Martens law firm was also DECA’s attorney in the Barnard
21
and Meadows re-examinations filed by DECA. In fact, the same attorney at the Knobbe, Martens
22
law firm, Mincheol Kim, was the attorney of record in the Meadows and Barnard re-exams and
23
was the prosecuting attorney in the three DECA patents. The Meadows re-exam was filed on
24
25 September 9, 2011, the Barnard re-exam was filed on March 30, 2012.
26
27
28
-4-
COMPLAINT
1 U.S. Patent 9,535,162 (Jun Ha Park)
2
19. On information and belief, during prosecution of the ‘162 Patent, neither DECA nor
3
its attorneys, Knobbe, Martens, cited a single prior art reference. Based on the prosecution history, it
4
appears that the only reference cited, the Barnard 6,456,938 Patent, was cited by the examiner.
5
6 20. It is important to note that (1) Knobbe prosecuted the Meadows and Barnard re-exams
7 and was DECA’s attorneys in the Meadows/Barnard litigation and (2) by September 2014 when the
8 ‘162 Patent was filed, there were many published and issued golf GPS patents.
9
21. On information and belief, both DECA and its prosecuting attorneys, Knobbe,
10
Martens, were aware of the Meadows ‘498 Patent, the Barnard ‘938 Patent, the SkyCaddie line of
11
12
products, and the many other golf GPS patents when Knobbe filed the Park ‘162 Patent application.
13 No disclosure statement was filed in connection with this application.
14 22. The Park ‘162 Patent claims (see Claim 1) a golf GPS device that measures distances
15
to “selectable features” on a green. Selectable features are points, or areas, on a green that have been
16
pre-defined and are available for use by the GPS program of the device. (In some claims, the ‘162
17
Patent, no doubt in a feeble attempt to distinguish itself from the prior art that DECA fails to disclose
18
19 but clearly knows of, makes a distinction between where and when these selectable features are
20 stored in the memory of the device, but this is a distinction without a difference.) These selectable
21
features, however, are just another defined target, to which a distance is determined using GPS.
22
23. Defining targets and measuring a distance to those targets is clearly disclosed in the
23
Meadows ‘498 Patent, and, indeed, in many other golf GPS patents, as well as the SkyCaddie
24
25 products in existence in 2014 and even 2013 and 2012. (The inventive feature of the Meadows ‘498
26 Patent lies elsewhere, e.g., the unique rotation of an object to the line of sight of the golfer and
27
measuring a distance to the rotated object, as one example.)
28
-5-
COMPLAINT
1
Examples of similarities between the Park ‘162 Patent and the Meadows ‘498 Patent.
2
3 24. ‘162 Patent Figure 1 (showing distances to targets using icons):
10
11
12
25. ‘498 Figure 18 (showing distances to targets using words instead of icons):
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 26. The SkyCaddie devices, of which Knobbe, Martens and DECA were well aware of
21 because of the litigation if nothing else, display distances to targets and use both words and icons:
22
SkyCaddie SG3:
23
24
25
26
27
28
-6-
COMPLAINT
1 27. The Park ‘162 Patent also uses the same cross hair feature to determine distances to
2 the front, center, and back of the green:

3
5
28. Park ‘162 Patent:
6
10
11
12
13
14
29. Meadows ‘498 Patent:
15
16
17
18
19
U.S. Patent 10,151,842 (Jun Ha Park)
20
30. Upon information and belief, this patent appeared similar to the Park ‘162 Patent and
21
22 contains the same fatal deficiencies. It appears this patent has slightly alternative claim language as
23 the Park ‘162 Patent.

24
31. The Park ‘842 Patent was filed November 21, 2016. The ‘842 Patent has twice the
25
disclosure as the Park ‘162 Patent. The prosecution history shows that it discloses two prior
26
references, though once again the new reference is cited by the examiner and not by the patentee.
27
28
-7-
COMPLAINT
1 The patentee at least disclosed the Barnard Patent, which the examiner disclosed in the earlier ‘162
2 Patent.
3
4 DEFENDANTS’ IN DEPTH KNOWLEDGE OF SKYHAWKE’S PATENTS GAINED DURING REEXAM

5
32. Re-examination was instituted by DECA on both the Meadows patent and the Barnard
6
patent. As noted, Knobbe, Martens represented DECA in both re-exams, with Mincheol Kim, the
7
attorney who prosecuted the DECA patents, being the attorney of record. The Meadows re-exam was
8
9 filed by DECA on September 9, 2011, and the Barnard re-exam was filed on March 30, 2012, each
10 substantially before even the provisionals associated with the DECA patents were filed. The re-
11 exams were filed in connection with litigation filed by SkyHawke against DECA, then pending in the
12
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.
13
33. Given that DECA had been sued for patent infringement in December 2010 by
14
15
SkyHawke and because DECA and SkyHawke are close competitors in the relatively small golf GPS
16 market, DECA clearly knew of the SkyHawke SkyCaddie line of products. Moreover, DECA was
17 quite familiar with the SkyCaddie features and capabilities and, most importantly, that the SkyCaddie
18
devices were on sale before DECA filed its three patent applications. That the SkyCaddie products
19
were on sale before the DECA patent applications were filed is obviously material to patentability.
20
See, 35 U.S.C. § 102(a).
21
22 34. In the Meadows re-exam, DECA disclosed the following prior art references, asserting
23 that these references rendered the Meadows patent either anticipated or obvious (all of which relate to
24
golf GPS): 1. Reeves, 7,121,962; 2. Barnard 6,456,938; 3. Johnson 6,366,856; 4. Rudow, et al
25
6,236,940; and 5. Fisher 5,507,485.
26
27
28
-8-
COMPLAINT
1 35. DECA also disclosed the following related Meadows applications: 6. Meadows, et al
2 2002/0082775; 7. Meadows, et al 60/442,415; Meadows, et al 60/223,152; and9.Meadows, et al

3
60/212,036.
4
5
36. During Reexam, DECA argued that these prior art references, either alone or in
6
7 various combinations, rendered the Meadows patent invalid. These references (and Meadows itself)
8 and the three DECA patents contain similar golf GPS elements, though Meadows claims, among
9
other things, a unique rotation of an object and measurement to the rotated object, which the DECA
10
patents do not claim and which distinguish Meadows over the prior art.
11
37. At the same time that DECA was arguing to the Patent Office that these prior art
12
13 references rendered invalid the Meadows patent, DECA did not cite in its on-going prosecution of its
14 patent applications a single one of these prior art references, despite some common golf GPS
15
elements. In fact, DECA did not cite a single prior art reference in the prosecution of its first patent,
16
the ‘162 Patent, and only cited one prior art reference in its ‘842 Patent, the Barnard patent, because
17
the examiner cited Barnard in prosecution of the ‘162 Patent.
18
19 38. Thus, while DECA was challenging the Meadows patent in contentious litigation, it
20 failed to cite either Meadows, or the prior art references it claimed rendered Meadows obvious, even
21
though what would become DECA’s ‘162 Patent is wholly anticipated by Meadows.
22
39. Similarly, in the Barnard re-exam, DECA asserted the following prior art references,
23
which it claimed rendered the Barnard patent either anticipated or obvious (again each relates to golf
24
25 GPS): 1. Pippin 6,278,402; 2. Kawabe JP 06-075541 U; 3. Rudow, et al 6,236,940; 4. Roy, et al
26 5,966,135; and 5. Lobb, et al 5,810,680.

27
28
-9-
COMPLAINT
1 40. As in the Meadows re-exam, DECA argued that these prior art references, either alone
2 or in various combinations, rendered the Barnard patent invalid. As with the references cited in
3
connection with Meadows, these references and the three DECA patents contain common golf GPS
4
elements, though, as with Meadows, Barnard claims additional elements that distinguish it over the
5
prior art.
6
7 41. Like it did with the Meadows re-exam, at the same time that DECA was arguing to the
8 Patent Office that these prior art references rendered invalid the Barnard patent, DECA did not cite in
9
prosecution of its patent applications a single one of these prior art references, despite common golf
10
GPS elements, until the examiner cited Barnard, after which DECA cited only Barnard in its ‘842
11
Patent application.
12
13 42. Furthermore, DECA was well aware when it filed its patent applications, and even
14 when it filed its provisionals, of the SkyCaddie line of products. In fact, at the time DECA filed its
15
applications, it had been mired in litigation over golf GPS patents for several years, with SkyHawke
16
having sued DECA in December 2010 for infringement of the Meadows and Barnard patents. That
17
litigation spawned multiple re-exams, appeals to the PTAB and even the Federal Circuit. DECA was,
18
19 thus, well aware that the SkyCaddie products were on sale before the DECA applications and that
20 these products were material to patentability.

21
43. For instance, the Park ‘162 Patent claims determining a distance to selectable features
22
on the green, which, as noted above, are simply pre-defined targets on the green, and one skilled in
23
the art would clearly know that these selectable features are the same as the Meadows’ targets. (The
24
25 “plus” marks in the above figure are the selectable features.) Indeed, the User Manual of the
26 SkyCaddie SGX, which product was readily on public sale before August 30, 2013 or even July 5,
27 2012, discloses mapping and determining distances to targets on the green. See, e.g., SGX User
28
-10-
COMPLAINT
1 Manual, Section 2.3.1 Intelligreen® Pro description, Section 3.3.3 Intelligreen® Pro description,
2 Section 4.2.5 Targets, Green Targets description, and 5.2 Recording Green Targets, among others.
3
44. The timing of DECA filings is also indicative of DECA’s bad faith. DECA filed its
4
applications in the heat of the SkyHawke litigation. Furthermore, after having the patents issue on
5
July 5, 2016, January 3, 2017, and December 11, 2018, respectively, DECA did not assert the patents
6
7 against SkyHawke until just before mediation of the litigation in March 2019. Clearly, DECA
8 developed a litigation strategy of (i) obtaining patents it claims covers the previously on-sale
9
SkyCaddie products through fraud and deception by not citing a single material prior art reference of
10
which DECA not only was aware but was actively asserting in other Patent Office proceedings and
11
then (ii) using these fraudulently obtained patents to coerce a favorable settlement of the litigation.
12
13 45. But the ultimate demonstration of DECA’s fraud on the Patent Office and the federal
14 courts is found in the draft complaint asserting these patents against the SkyCaddie products. As
15
noted, the SkyCaddie products have not materially changed in feature or functionality from those that
16
were on sale for years before DECA filed its patent applications. The IntelliGreen Pro and other
17
features, for example, noted above were released by at least 2009. The use of targets has been
18
19 employed in SkyCaddie products since inception and are prominently disclosed in the Meadows
20 patent.
21
46. DECA clearly had knowledge of these products and just as clearly had knowledge that
22
these products were on sale long before the DECA applications were filed. Thus, if DECA believes
23
these products infringe the DECA patents, DECA would have known that BEFORE it filed its
24
25 applications. These products would, therefore, be material to patentability, and DECA had an
26 obligation to disclose them during prosecution of its patents. Furthermore, since these products,
27 according to DECA’s allegations, allegedly infringe the DECA patents, they must practice each and
28
-11-
COMPLAINT
1 every limitation of the DECA patents. If these products, which had been on sale before the DECA
2 applications, practice each and every limitation of the DECA patents, they BY DEFINITION render
3
the DECA patents non-patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a). In other words, by asserting these
4
patents against SkyCaddie products that DECA knew to be on sale before the relevant applications
5
were filed, DECA admits the patents are invalid.
6
7 COUNT I
(Violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 2, against GolfzonDECA)
8
9 47. Plaintiffs repeats and realleges every allegation set forth above.
10
48. Defendant GolfzonDECA’s intentionally and fraudulently failed to disclose and
11
concealed prior art from the Patent Office that was material to the ‘162, ‘448, and ‘842 (collectively,
12
“Fraudulent Patents”) patent applications as more fully set forth above.
13
14 49. As described above, Defendant GOLFZONDECA has been, and is currently engaged
15 in enforcing the Fraudulent Patents against Plaintiffs. The information withheld from the USPTO
16
was material to the patentability of the invention claimed in the Fraudulent Patents.
17
50. Had the USPTO learned of the prior art, it would not have issued the Fraudulent
18
Patents.
19
20 51. GolfzonDECA’s scheme to fraudulently induce the Patent Office into issuing the
21 Fraudulent Patents was specifically intended to support its attempt to monopolize the relevant market.
22
52. GoflzonDECA’s scheme to enforce the Fraudulent Patents was intended to
23
monopolize the relevant market.
24
53. GoflzonDECA’s obtained market power in the relevant market by obtaining and by
25
26 wrongful threats of enforcement of the Fraudulent Patents.
27 54. GolfzonDECA’s anticompetitive acts violate the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. § 2).
28
-12-
COMPLAINT
1 55. As a result of GolfzonDECA’s improper attempts to maintain and enlarge its market
2 power through enforcement of the Fraudulent Patents, Plaintiffs’ attempts to compete in the market
3
are hindered and delayed resulting in damages not limited to lost profits.
4
56. Plaintiffs are entitled to recovery of damages, as well as treble damages and costs of
5
suit and attorneys fees according to the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 15, 26).
6
7 57. Plaintiffs are further entitled to fees and costs, including attorneys’ fees under 35
8 U.S.C. § 1927.
9
COUNT II
10
11 (INTENTIONAL INFERERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC
12 ADVANTAGE- AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)

13
58. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege every allegation set forth above.
14
15 59. Defendants have engaged in wrongful conduct that has resulted in interrupting
16 Plaintiff’s economic relationships with potential distributors including, but not limited to Samsung
17
Electronics.
18
60. Prior to Defendants’ interference, Plaintiffs had dealings with various distributors with
19
high probability of future economic benefit, including but not limited to adding important distribution
20
21 and sales channels for increasing Plaintiffs’ sales of handheld GPS devices for golf.
22 61. Defendants were aware at all times of the prospective economic relationships between
23
Plaintiffs and their business partners.
24
62. Defendants intended to interfere with Plaintiffs’ economic prospective and business
25
relationships by making false and misleading statements and threats to Plaintiffs regarding their
26
27 ownership of the Fraudulent Patents. In addition, Plaintiffs continue to make statements regarding
28 the purported accuracy of their technology, when in fact their technology has been copied for
-13-
COMPLAINT
1 Plaintiffs’ patents and various devices. Such copying is evidenced from the Fraudulent Patents and
2 the products bearing markings of those Fraudulent Patents alongside marketing regarding the
3
purported accuracy of those products.
4
63. By making these false misrepresentations, Defendants have usurped and continue to
5
usurp prospective economic relationships with Plaintiffs’ perspective economic relationships. Due to
6
7 these inaccurate and false statements, coupled with Defendants blatant acquisition and use of
8 Plaintiffs’ intellectual property in connection with these statements, Plaintiffs have been harmed in an
9
amount to be proven at trial. This harm includes, but is not limited to, lost profits and damages caused
10
by disruption of the economic relationship between Plaintiffs and their prospective business partners.
11
64. As a direct and proximate result of the actions taken by Defendants in interfering with
12
13 or disrupting Plaintiffs’ perspective economic relationships, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to
14 suffer irreparable harm, including but not limited to harm to its business reputation and goodwill.
15
65. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and, on that basis, allege that Defendants will
16
continue their wrongful actions, and unless restrained and enjoined, will continue to dos o. Plaintiffs’
17
remedy at law is not by itself adequate to compensate Plaintiffs for the harm caused by Defendants.
18
19 Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to preliminary and permanent injunctive relief whereby Plaintiffs are
20 ordered to cease and relinquish the improper Intellectual Property and false statements associated
21
with the products marked with the registration numbers of the Fraudulent Patents.
22
23 COUNT III
24 (NEGLIGENT INFERERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE-

25
AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)
26
27 66. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege every allegation set forth above.
28
-14-
COMPLAINT
1 67. Defendants have engaged in wrongful conduct that has resulted in interrupting
2 Plaintiff’s economic relationships with potential distributors including, but not limited to Samsung
3
Electronics.
4
68. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and, on that basis, allege that Defendants’ false and
5
misleading representations and improper statements regarding the ownership of certain Intellectual
6
7 Property rights in connection with its products, and threatening Plaintiffs with the Fraudulent Patents.
8 These acts have caused were a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs to lose their prospective
9
economic advantage with prospective business partners.
10
69. In making these threatening and false and misleading statements, Defendants failed to
11
act with reasonable care. At the time these statements were made, Defendants were aware that the
12
13 statements were false and misleading given the clear language of the claims in the draft complaint
14 Defendants provided Plaintiffs, and in the markings on products owned by Defendants. If was
15
reasonably foreseeable that these statements would disrupt prospective economic relationships for
16
Plaintiffs.
17
70. As a direct and proximate result of the actions taken by Defendants in interfering with
18
19 or disrupting Plaintiffs’ perspective economic relationships, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to
20 suffer irreparable harm, including but not limited to harm to its business reputation and goodwill.
21
COUNT IV
22
23 (VIOLATION OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE § 17200 AGAINST ALL
24 DEFENDANTS)
25
71. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege every allegation set forth above.
26
27
28
-15-
COMPLAINT
1 72. By and through Defendants’ conduct, including the actions alleged above, Defendants
2 have engaged in activities that constitute unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent business practices
3
prohibited by the California Business and Professions Code § 17200, et. seq.
4
73. In addition to the conduct described above, Defendants made false and misleading
5
statements to the consuming public regarding ownership of various Intellectual Property rights that
6
7 were acquired through Fraud Upon the USPTO. These statements were made to mislead the public
8 regarding the characteristics and accuracy of Defendants handheld GPS products, including those
9
products containing markings of the Fraudulent Patents.
10
74. Consumers of handheld GPS products were actually mislead by the false and
11
misleading statements made by Defendants. Defendants’ statements were material in that they
12
13 influenced the procurement and decisions of the experts, deale3rs, contractors, influencers, and
14 consumers in the relevant markets.

15
75. As a result of these statements, a large segment of the buyers, or potential buyers, or
16
users of handheld GPS devices were deceived into believing that they could not purchase use, or sell,
17
certain handheld GPS devices from anyone other than Defendants, and that Defendants products
18
19 contained a proprietary technology that allowed their products to be more accurate than Plaintiffs’
20 products.
21
76. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions in violation of California
22
Business and Professions Code § 17200, Defendants have been unjustly enriched at the expense of
23
Defendants and others in the relevant market.
24
25 77. Defendants unfair competition has also caused adverse impact on competition,
26 including limitation of supply and increased price of Handheld GPS distance finders for golf in the
27 relevant market.
28
-16-
COMPLAINT
1 78. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and, on that basis, allege that Defendants will
2 continue their wrongful actions, and unless restrained and enjoined, will continue to dos o. Plaintiffs’
3
remedy at law is not by itself adequate to compensate Plaintiffs for the harm caused by Defendants.
4
Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to preliminary and permanent injunctive relief whereby Plaintiffs are
5
ordered to cease and relinquish the improper Intellectual Property and false statements associated
6
7 with the products marked with the registration numbers of the Fraudulent Patents.
8 79. Pursuant to California Business and Professions Code §17203, Plaintiffs are entitled to
9
preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, whereby Defendants are ordered to cease this unfair
10
competition, as well as to pay restitution for damage resulting from Defendants’ unfair competition.
11
80. Plaintiffs bring this action to enforce an important right affecting the public interest
12
13 and therefore should be awarded costs and expenses incurred in the filing and prosecution of this
14 action and attorneys’ fees under California Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5
15
COUNT V
16
(FOR A DECLARATRION OF INVLAIDITY OF THE ‘162 PATENT)
17
Against Defendant GolfzonDECA
18
19 81. Plaintiffs incorporates all the above paragraphs by reference herein.
20 82. GolfzonDECA has threatened an infringement action to enforce the ‘162 patent against
21
Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs deny that they have infringed any claim of the ‘162 patent. An actual controversy
22
exists between the parties.
23
83. Each claim of the ‘162 patent is invalid for failure to satisfy one or more of the statutory
24
25 requirements of 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 et. seq. including without limitation sections 102, and 103.
26 84. Thus, the claims of the ‘162 patent are invalid under section 102 at least because they have been
27 known, used, and disclosed by several patents owned by Plaintiffs.
28
-17-
COMPLAINT
1 85. Even if the ‘162 patent contains any small differences between any Patent previously registered
2 by Plaintiffs, such disclosures render the ‘162 patent invalid under § 103.
3
86. Plaintiffs seek a declaration from this Court that the ‘162 patent is invalid.
4
87. Plaintiff further seeks an order to the director of the USPTO directing the USPTO cancel the
5
‘162 registration.
6
7 88. This is an exceptional case for which Plaintiffs are entitled to attorneys’ fees, as provided for
8 in 35 U.S.C. §285.
9
COUNT VI
10 (FOR A DECLARATRION OF INVLAIDITY OF THE ‘842 PATENT)
11 Against Defendant GolfzonDECA

12
89. Plaintiffs incorporates the above paragraphs by reference as if set fort here in full.
13
90. GolfzonDECA has threatened an infringement action to enforce the ‘842 patent against
14
Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs deny that they have infringed any claim of the ‘842 patent. An actual
15
16 controversy exists between the parties.
17 91. Each claim of the ‘842 patent is invalid for failure to satisfy one or more of the statutory
18
requirements of 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 et. seq. including without limitation sections 102, and 103
19
92. Thus, the claims of the ‘842 patent are invalid under section 102 at least because they have been
20
known, used, and disclosed by several patents owned by Plaintiffs.
21
22 93. Even if the ‘842 patent contains any small differences between any Patent previously registered
23 by Plaintiffs, such disclosures render the ‘842 patent invalid under § 103.
24 94. Plaintiffs seek a declaration from this Court that the ‘842 patent is invalid.
25
95. Plaintiff further seeks an order to the director of the USPTO directing the USPTO cancel the
26
‘842 registration.
27
28
-18-
COMPLAINT
1 96. This is an exceptional case for which Plaintiffs are entitled to attorneys’ fees, as provided for
2 in 35 U.S.C. §285.
3
COUNT VII
4 (FOR A DECLARATRION OF INVLAIDITY OF THE ‘448 PATENT)
5 Against Defendant GolfzonDECA

6
97. Plaintiffs incorporates the above paragraphs by reference as if set fort here in full.
7
98. GolfzonDECA has threatened an infringement action to enforce the ‘448 patent against
8
Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs deny that they have infringed any claim of the ‘448 patent. An actual
9
10 controversy exists between the parties.
11 99. Each claim of the ‘448 patent is invalid for failure to satisfy one or more of the statutory
12
requirements of 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 et. seq. including without limitation sections 102, and 103.
13
100. Thus, the claims of the ‘448 patent are invalid under section 102 at least because they
14
have been known, used, and disclosed by several patents owned by Plaintiffs.
15
16 101. Even if the ‘448 patent contains any small differences between any Patent previously
17 registered by Plaintiffs, such disclosures render the ‘448 patent invalid under § 103.
18
102. Plaintiffs seek a declaration from this Court that the ‘448 patent is invalid.
19
103. Plaintiff further seeks an order to the director of the USPTO directing the USPTO cancel
20
the ‘448 registration.
21
22 104. This is an exceptional case for which Plaintiffs are entitled to attorneys’ fees, as
23 provided for in 35 U.S.C. §285.

24 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
25
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully requests that this Court enter:
26
27
28
-19-
COMPLAINT
1 105. Any and all other relief, at law or equity, to which Plaintiffs may show itself to be
2 entitled;
3
106. A declaration that the ‘162 patent, the ‘842 patent, and the ‘448 patent are each invalid
4
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and/or 35 U.S.C. § 103. An order directing the director of the USPTO
5
to cancel registrations for the same;
6
7 107. That Defendants be enjoined from making or distributing further false advertisements.
8 108. An order to the Director to cancel registrations for the Fraudulent Patents;
9
109. An order that Defendants be enjoined from making products marked by registration
10
numbers of Defendants’ Fraudulent Patents;
11
110. An Order that Plaintiffs be awarded damages in the form of damages, lost profits,
12
13 punitive damages, according to proof at trial;
14 111. An order that Plaintiffs are entitled to damage and exemplary damages stemming from
15
intentional interference with perspective advantage in an amount to determined at trial and
16
permanent injunctive relief;
17
112. Damages for Defendants violations of 15 U.S.C. § 2, Negligent interference with
18
19 perspective economic advantage, and intentional interference with perspective economic
20 advantage.
21
113. That Plaintiffs be awarded its interest, fees, and costs of suit incurred int his action as
22
authorized by law;
23
114. Restitution as well as attorneys’ fees under CCP § 1021.5;
24
25 115. Any further relief that the Court may deem just and proper.
26
27
28
-20-
COMPLAINT
1 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
2 Plaintiff, under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, requests a trial by jury of any
3
issues so triable by right.
4
5 Dated: August 23, 2019 Respectfully Submitted,

JAIN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
6
7
By:________________________________
8 KUNAL JAIN,
Attorney for Plaintiff
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-21-
COMPLAINT
Case 2:19-cv-07667 Document 1-1 Filed 09/04/19 Page 1 of 21 Page ID #:22
EXHIBIT A
1 Joseph S. Cianfrani (Bar No. 196186)

joe.cianfrani@knobbe.com
2 Cheryl T. Burgess (Bar No. 250101)
cheryl.burgess@knobbe.com
3 KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
2040 Main Street
4 Fourteenth Floor
Irvine, CA 92614
5 Phone: (949) 760-0404
Facsimile: (949) 760-9502
6
Daniel P. Hughes (Bar No. 299695)
7 daniel.hughes@knobbe.com
KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
8 12790 El Camino Real
San Diego, CA 92130
9 Phone: (858) 707-4000
Facsimile: (858) 707-4001
10
Attorneys for Plaintiff
11 GOLFZONDECA, INC
12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
13 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
14
) No.
15 GOLFZONDECA, INC., a Korean )
corporation, )
16 ) COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
Plaintiff, ) INFRINGEMENT
17 )
v. )
18 ) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
SKYHAWKE TECHNOLOGIES, )
19 LLC, a Mississippi limited liability )
company, )
20 )
Defendant. )
21 )
)
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 Plaintiff GolfzonDeca Inc. (“GolfzonDeca” or “Plaintiff”), by and

2 through its undersigned attorneys, files this complaint against Defendant
3 SkyHawke Technologies, LLC (“SkyHawke” or “Defendant”) for infringement
4 of the United States Patents identified herein, and alleges as follows:
5 PARTIES
6 1. GolfzonDeca is a corporation organized under the laws of South

7 Korea, with its principal place of business at 8th Fl., 98 Yatap-ro, Bongdang-gu,
8 Seongam-si, Geyonggi-do, Korea.
9 2. Upon information and belief, Defendant SkyHawke Technologies,
10 LLC is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of
11 Mississippi, having a principal place of business at 274 Commerce Park Drive,
12 Suite M, Ridgeland, MS 39157.
13 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
14 3. Jurisdiction and venue are proper over SkyHawke Technologies in

15 this district for the reasons set forth in this complaint.
16 4. This is an action for patent infringement arising under the patent
17 laws of the United States, Title 35, United States Code, and more particularly 35
18 U.S.C. §§ 271 and 281.
19 5. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant
20 to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
21 6. Upon information and belief, SkyHawke Technologies is in the
22 business of manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing golf
23 distance measuring devices in the United States, including within this district.
24 These devices include the following SkyCaddie products: SkyCaddie SW2,
25 SkyCaddie Touch, SkyCaddie Aire2, SkyCaddie LinxGT, SkyCaddie LinxGT
26 wTags, SkyCaddie LX3 and SkyCaddie SX500 (the “Accused Products”).
27 7. This Court has personal jurisdiction over SkyHawke Technologies.
28 Upon information and belief, SkyHawke Technologies is a resident of this
-1-
1 judicial district, and has a continuous, systematic, and substantial presence

2 within this judicial district, including by engaging in the business of
3 manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing the Accused Products
4 in the United States, including within this district. Upon information and belief,
5 SkyHawke Technologies derives substantial revenues from sales in this district.
6 8. Upon information and belief, venue is proper in this judicial district
7 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c), and 1400(b) because SkyHawke
8 Technologies has committed acts of infringement in this district and has a
9 regular and established place of business in this district.
10 THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT
11 9. On January 3, 2017, the United States Patent and Trademark Office

12 issued United States Patent No. 9,535,162 (“the ’162 Patent”) entitled “Golf
13 GPS device with approximate hole cup location selection,” a true and correct
14 copy of which is attached as Exhibit 1.
15 10. GolfzonDeca Inc. is the assignee of all rights to the ’162 Patent,
16 including the exclusive right to sue for and recover all past and present damages
17 for infringement of the ’162 Patent.
18 11. On December 11, 2018, the United States Patent and Trademark
19 Office issued United States Patent No. 10,151,842 (“the ’842 Patent”) entitled
20 “Golf GPS device with approximate hole cup location selection,” a true and
21 correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit 2.
25 13. On July 5, 2016, the United States Patent and Trademark Office
26 issued United States Patent No. 9,383,448 (“the ’448 Patent”) entitled “Golf
27 GPS device with automatic hole recognition and playing hole selection,” a true
28 and correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit 3.
-2-
4 15. On September 1, 2015, the United States Patent and Trademark
5 Office issued United States Design Patent No. D737,708 (“the D708 Patent”)
6 entitled “Golf GPS Device,” a true and correct copy of which is attached as
7 Exhibit 4.
8 16. GolfzonDeca is the assignee of all rights to the D708 Patent,
10 for infringement of the D708 Patent.
11 17. The ’162 Patent, the ’842 Patent, the ’448 Patent, and the D708
12 Patent are collectively referred to herein as the Asserted Patents.
13 COUNT 1 – DIRECT INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’162 PATENT
14 18. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 17 as though fully set

15 forth herein.
16 19. Upon information and belief, Defendant has made, used, sold,
17 offered for sale, and/or imported the Accused Products in the United States
18 since at least 2016, including within this District.
19 20. Upon information and belief, Defendant has in the past infringed
20 and is currently infringing, both literally and under the doctrine of equivalents,
21 at least Claim 26 of the ’162 Patent by manufacturing, selling, offering for sale,
22 and/or importing one or more of the Accused Products, in violation of 35 U.S.C.
23 § 271(a).
24 21. Claim 26 of the ’162 Patent states:
25 A golf GPS device comprising:
26 a display for displaying a golf course map; and
27 a memory storing golf course data representing images and
28 information relating to a plurality of golf courses comprising
-3-
1 a first golf course comprising a hole, the golf course data

2 comprising a plurality of selectable features, each of which is
3 associated with a corresponding point within a boundary of a
4 green of the hole,
5 wherein the display is configured to display an image of the green
6 with the plurality of selectable features such that each of the
7 plurality of selectable features visually indicates a location or
8 area on the image of the green, wherein the device is
9 configured to receive a user’s selection of a first selectable
10 feature that visually indicates a first location or a first area on
11 the image of the green among the plurality of selectable
12 features, wherein when the user’s selection of the first
13 selectable feature is received, the device is configured to
14 display a distance between the device and a first
15 corresponding point associated with the first selected feature.
16 22. By way of example, and not limitation, the SkyCaddie LINX GT’s
17 direct infringement of Claim 26 of the ’162 Patent literally and under the
18 doctrine of equivalents is described below.
19 23. The SkyCaddie LINX GT is a golf GPS device.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-
1 24. The SkyCaddie LINX GT has a display for displaying a golf course
2 map. Using the Intelligreen View, the SkyCaddie LINX GT display shows the
3 outline of a green on a golf course.
4
10
11
12
25. The SkyCaddie LINX GT has a memory for storing golf course
13
data representing images and information relating to a plurality of golf courses
14
comprising a first golf course comprising a hole. The SkyCaddie LINX GT
15
comes preloaded with front, center, and back distances for golf courses
16
worldwide.
17
26. The SkyCaddie LINX GT golf course data comprises a plurality of
18
selectable features, each of which is associated with a corresponding point
19
within a boundary of a green of the hole, wherein the display is configured to
20
display an image of the green with the plurality of selectable features such that
21
each of the plurality of selectable features visually indicates a location or area
22
on the image of the green. Using the Intelligreen View, the SkyCaddie LINX
23
GT displays the shape of the green from the user’s angle of approach. The
24
display includes an outline of the green and two dots indicating selectable points
25
within the front and back boundary the green.
26
27
28
-5-
9
27. The SkyCaddie LINX GT is configured to receive a user’s
10
selection of a first selectable feature that visually indicates a first location or a
11
first area on the image of the green among the plurality of selectable features.
12
Using the Intelligreen View, the SkyCaddie LINX GT displays a pin location in
13
the middle of the green. The user can use the UP button to adjust the pin
14
location up or down and use the DOWN button to adjust the pin location left or
15
right. When adjusting the pin, the icon is replaced with a cross hair. The user
16
can navigate the cross hair to evaluate the distance from the SkyCaddie LINX
17
GT to one of the dots representing the front and back of the green to select that
18
point.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-6-
10
11
12
13
14
28. When the user’s selection of the first selectable feature is received,
15
The SkyCaddie LINX GT is configured to display a distance between the device
16
and a first corresponding point associated with the first selected feature. Using
17
the Intelligreen View, after navigating the cross hair to select one of the two
18
dots, the SkyCaddie LINX GT will display a distance between the device and
19
the selected point.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-7-
1 29. Any limitation not met literally is met under the doctrine of
2 equivalents.
3 30. Plaintiff has been damaged by Defendant’s infringing activities in
4 an amount to be determined at trial, but in no event less than a reasonable
5 royalty.

8 forth herein.
13 § 271(a)
15 A golf GPS device comprising:
16 a display for displaying a map of a golf course; and
17 a memory storing golf course data comprising first data representing a
18 green of a hole of the golf course, the golf course data further
19 comprising second data representing a plurality of selectable
20 features, wherein a first one of the plurality of selectable
21 features corresponds to a first geographical location within a
22 boundary of the green of the hole, and a second geographical
23 location within the boundary of the green of the hole,
24 wherein the display is configured to display, based on the first data, a
25 graphical element depicting the boundary of the green of the
26 hole, wherein the display is further configured to display the
27 plurality of selectable features along with the graphical element
28 depicting the boundary of the green such that the first selectable
-8-
1 feature (i) visually indicates a first graphical location or area

2 within the depicted boundary of the green and (ii) is displayed
3 along with the second selectable feature that visually indicates a
4 second graphical location or area within the depicted boundary
5 of the green, wherein the second graphical location or area is
6 different from the first graphical location or area,
7 wherein the device is configured to receive a user’s selection among
8 the plurality of selectable features,
9 wherein in response to the user’s selection of the first selectable
10 feature, the device is configured to determine a first distance
11 between the first geographical location corresponding to the
12 first selectable feature and the current geographical location of
13 the device, and
14 wherein in response to the user’s selection of the second selectable
15 feature, the device is configured to determine a second distance
16 between the second geographical location corresponding to the
17 second selectable feature and the current geographical location
18 of the device.
19 34. By way of example, and not limitation, the SkyCaddie LINX GT’s
20 direct infringement literally and under the doctrine of equivalents of Claim 26 of
21 the ’842 Patent is described below.
22 35. The SkyCaddie LINX GT is a golf GPS device.
23
24
25
26
27
28
-9-
1 36. The SkyCaddie LINX GT has a display for displaying a golf course
2 map. Using the Intelligreen View, the SkyCaddie LINX GT display shows the
3 outline of a green on a golf course.
4
10 37. The SkyCaddie LINX GT has a memory for storing golf course
11 data comprising first data representing a green of a hole of the golf course. The
12 SkyCaddie LINX GT comes preloaded with front, center, and back distances for
13 golf courses worldwide.
14 38. The SkyCaddie LINX GT golf course data comprises second data
15 representing a plurality of selectable features, wherein a first one of the plurality
16 of selectable features corresponds to a first geographical location within a
17 boundary of the green of the hole, and a second geographical location within the
18 boundary of the green of the hole. The SkyCaddie LINX GT comes preloaded
19 with front, center, and back distances for golf courses worldwide.
20 39. The SkyCaddie LINX GT display is configured to display, based
21 on the first data, a graphical element depicting the boundary of the green of the
22 hole, wherein the display is further configured to display the plurality of
23 selectable features along with the graphical element depicting the boundary of
24 the green such that the first selectable feature (i) visually indicates a first
25 graphical location or area within the depicted boundary of the green and (ii) is
26 displayed along with the second selectable feature that visually indicates a
27 second graphical location or area is different from the first graphical location or
28 area. Using the Intelligreen View, the SkyCaddie LINX GT displays the shape
-10-
1 of the green from the user’s angle of approach. The display includes an outline
2 of the green and two dots indicating selectable points within the front and back
3 boundary of the green.
4
10
11
12
40. The SkyCaddie LINX GT is configured to receive a user’s
13
selection among the plurality of selectable features. Using the Intelligreen
14
View, the SkyCaddie LINX GT displays a pin location in the middle of the
15
green. The user can use the UP button to adjust the pin location up or down and
16
use the DOWN button to adjust the pin location left or right. When adjusting
17
the pin, the pin icon is replaced with a cross hair. The user can navigate the
18
cross hair to evaluate the distance from the SkyCaddie LINX GT to one of the
19
dots representing the front and back of the green to select that point.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-11-
8
41. In response to the user’s selection of the first selectable feature, the
9
SkyCaddie LINX GT is configured to determine a first distance between the
10
first geographical location corresponding to the first selectable feature and the
11
current geographical location of the device. Using the Intelligreen View, after
12
navigating the cross hair to select one of the two dots, the SkyCaddie LINX GT
13
will display a distance between the device and the selected point.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
42. In response to the user’s selection of the second selectable feature,
22
the SkyCaddie LINX GT is configured to determine a second distance between
23
the second geographical location corresponding to the second selectable feature
24
and the current geographical location of the device. Using the Intelligreen
25
View, after navigating the cross hair to select the second of the two dots, the
26
SkyCaddie LINX GT will display a distance between the device and the
27
selected point.
28
-12-
1 43. Any limitation not met literally is met under the doctrine of
2 equivalents.
3 44. Plaintiff has been damaged by Defendant’s infringing activities in
4 an amount to be determined at trial, but in no event less than a reasonable
5 royalty.

8 forth herein.
13 § 271(a).
15 A portable information processing and viewing device for use in a golf
16 course comprising a plurality of holes, each of which is pre-
17 assigned a particular hole number, the device comprising:
18 a GPS receiver configured to receive GPS information;
19 one or more memory devices configured to store data;
20 map data stored in the one or more memory devices, the map data
21 comprising map information of each one of the plurality of holes;
22 a display screen configured to display hole information and distance
23 infoiniation (sic);
24 one or more processors configured:
25 to repeatedly determine in which one of the plurality of holes the
26 device is located,
27 to repeatedly compute a distance between the device and a feature
28 of the determined hole, and
-13-
1 to cause to display the hole number of the determined hole and the
2 computed distance on the display screen,
3 wherein the one or more processors are further configured:
4 to determine if the device has moved from one of the plurality of
5 holes to another of the plurality of holes,
6 once determined that the device has moved from a first one of the
7 plurality of holes to a second of the plurality of holes without
8 passing another hole of the golf course, to determine whether
9 or not the second hole is immediately subsequent to the first
10 hole in terms of the pre-assigned hole numbers of the first
11 and second holes in the golf course, and
12 when determined that the second hole is not immediately
13 subsequent to the first hole in terms of the preassigned hole
14 numbers of the first and second holes in the golf course, to
15 cause to display for selection by a user the hole numbers of
16 the first and second holes on the display screen;
17 upon the user’s selection of the hole number of the first hole, to
18 compute a first distance between the device and a feature of
19 the first hole and cause to display the computed first distance
20 on the display screen.
21 48. By way of example, and not limitation, the SkyCaddie Touch’s
22 direct infringement of Claim 1 of the ’448 Patent literally and under the doctrine
23 of equivalents is described below.
24 49. The SkyCaddie Touch is a golf course viewing device having pre-
25 assigned hole numbers that correspond to a plurality of holes.
26 50. The SkyCaddie Touch has GPS capability and stores map data
27 from a variety of golf courses having information regarding a plurality of holes.
28
-14-
10
11 51. The “Hole in Play” feature in the SkyCaddie Touch allows it to

12 “change holes automatically.” [User Manual Page 17] The “Hole in Play”
13 feature additionally allows user to “advance or reverse manually” by pressing an
14 new hole number. Id.
15 52. The SkyCaddie Touch repeatedly computes a distance between the
16 device and a feature of the determined hole while displaying the hole number on
17 the display screen.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-15-
2
53. Finally, the SkyCaddie Touch allows a user to choose a particular
3
golf hole, which prompts the device to display the distance between the user and
4
a feature of the selected hole on the display screen.
5
54. Plaintiff has been damaged by Defendant’s infringing activities in
6
an amount to be determined at trial, but in no event less than a reasonable
7
royalty.
COUNT 4 – DIRECT INFRINGEMENT OF THE D708 PATENT
8
9
55. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 54 of this Complaint as
10
if set forth fully herein.
11
56. Upon information and belief, Defendant has in the past infringed
12
and is currently infringing, the D708 Patent by making, using, selling, offering
13
for sale, and/or importing devices, such as the SkyCaddie Linx GT and
14
SkyCaddie Linx, having a design that would appear to an ordinary observer to
15
be substantially similar to the claim of the D708 Patent. By way of example,
16
and not limitation, the SkyCaddie LINX GT device infringement of the D708
17
Patent is shown below.
18
///
19 SkyCaddie LINX GT GolfzonDeca’s D708 Patent
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-16-
7 57. Defendant’s acts of infringement of the D708 Patent were

8 undertaken without permission or license from GolfzonDeca.
9 58. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s acts of
10 infringement, Defendant has derived and received gains, profits, and advantages
11 in an amount to be determined at trial.
12 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
13 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment in its favor and against
14 Defendant, including but not limited to, the following relief:
15 1. For an Order adjudging Defendant to have infringed the Asserted
16 Patents under 35 U.S.C. § 271;
17 2. A preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendant, its
18 respective officers, directors, agents, servants, employees and attorneys, and
19 those persons in active concert or participation with Defendant, from infringing
20 the Asserted Patents in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271;
21 3. That the Court award Plaintiff damages to compensate it for
22 Defendant’s infringement of the Asserted Patents through payment of not less
23 than a reasonable royalty on Defendant’s sale of infringing products, including
24 pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and Plaintiff’s costs of suit herein
25 pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284; and
26 4. That the Court award Plaintiff such other and further relief as this
27 Court may deem just.
28 Respectfully submitted,
-17-

2
3 Dated: By: s/
Joseph S. Cianfrani
4 Cheryl T. Burgess
Daniel P. Hughes
5
6 GOLFZONDECA, INC
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-18-
1 JURY DEMAND
2 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b), Plaintiff GolfzonDeca Inc. demands a

3 trial by jury of all issues raised by this Complaint that are triable by jury.
4 Respectfully submitted,
6
7 Dated: By: s/
Joseph S. Cianfrani
8 Cheryl T. Burgess
Daniel P. Hughes
9
10 GOLFZONDECA, INC
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-19-

SkyHawke Techs. v. GolfzonDeca - Complaint

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

SkyHawke Techs. v. GolfzonDeca - Complaint

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Case 2:19-cv-07667 Document 1 Filed 09/04/19 Page 1 of 21 Page ID #:1

1 Kunal Jain, SBN 266642

14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

18 SKYHAWKE TECHNOLOGIES, LLC a ) Case No.:

1 ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR ANTI TRUST VIOLATIONS

8 1. Plaintiff SkyHawke is a Mississippi Limited Liability Company, having a principal

14 3. Defendant GolfzonDeca Inc. (“GolfzonDeca”) is a company organized under the laws

27 12. In addition, Defendants counsel attached a draft of the complaint to give to

1 U.S. Patent 9,535,162 (Jun Ha Park)

13 No disclosure statement was filed in connection with this application.

3 24. ‘162 Patent Figure 1 (showing distances to targets using icons):

2 the front, center, and back of the green:

23 the Park ‘162 Patent.

4 DEFENDANTS’ IN DEPTH KNOWLEDGE OF SKYHAWKE’S PATENTS GAINED DURING REEXAM

2 2002/0082775; 7. Meadows, et al 60/442,415; Meadows, et al 60/223,152; and9.Meadows, et al

25 GPS): 1. Pippin 6,278,402; 2. Kawabe JP 06-075541 U; 3. Rudow, et al 6,236,940; 4. Roy, et al

26 5,966,135; and 5. Lobb, et al 5,810,680.

20 these products were material to patentability.

26 wrongful threats of enforcement of the Fraudulent Patents.

11 (INTENTIONAL INFERERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC

12 ADVANTAGE- AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)

24 (NEGLIGENT INFERERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE-

23 (VIOLATION OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE § 17200 AGAINST ALL

14 consumers in the relevant markets.

19 81. Plaintiffs incorporates all the above paragraphs by reference herein.

11 Against Defendant GolfzonDECA

16 controversy exists between the parties.

5 Against Defendant GolfzonDECA

10 controversy exists between the parties.

23 provided for in 35 U.S.C. §285.

13 punitive damages, according to proof at trial;

19 perspective economic advantage, and intentional interference with perspective economic

1 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

5 Dated: August 23, 2019 Respectfully Submitted,

1 Joseph S. Cianfrani (Bar No. 196186)

1 Plaintiff GolfzonDeca Inc. (“GolfzonDeca” or “Plaintiff”), by and

6 1. GolfzonDeca is a corporation organized under the laws of South

14 3. Jurisdiction and venue are proper over SkyHawke Technologies in

1 judicial district, and has a continuous, systematic, and substantial presence

11 9. On January 3, 2017, the United States Patent and Trademark Office

14 18. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 17 as though fully set

1 a first golf course comprising a hole, the golf course data

7 31. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 30 as though fully set

1 feature (i) visually indicates a first graphical location or area

13 golf courses worldwide.

15 representing a plurality of selectable features, wherein a first one of the plurality

16 of selectable features corresponds to a first geographical location within a

20 39. The SkyCaddie LINX GT display is configured to display, based

22 hole, wherein the display is further configured to display the plurality of

7 45. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 44 as though fully set

11 51. The “Hole in Play” feature in the SkyCaddie Touch allows it to

19 SkyCaddie LINX GT GolfzonDeca’s D708 Patent

7 57. Defendant’s acts of infringement of the D708 Patent were

1 KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP

2 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b), Plaintiff GolfzonDeca Inc. demands a

Anda mungkin juga menyukai