Orange 21 North America v. Icon Eyewear et. al.

8/3/2019 Orange 21 North America v. Icon Eyewear et. al.

1/9

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

Case No. 1COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NOS. D584,758 AND D602,978

ST

E

TI

N

A

BR

U

N

D

A

G

A

R

R

E

D

&

BR

U

CK

E

R

KI

XFIN

XMF

JIJ

PHON

E:

(949)855-1246;FACSIMILE:

(949)855-637

1

Kit M. Stetina (SBN 82,977)William J. Brucker (SBN 152,551)Stephen Z. Vegh (SBN 174,713)STETINA BRUNDA GARRED & BRUCKER75 Enterprise, Suite 250

Aliso Viejo, CA 92656Email: [email protected]: (949) 855-1246Fax: (949) 855-6371

Attorneys for PlaintiffORANGE 21 NORTH AMERICA INC.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ORANGE 21 NORTH AMERICA INC., a

California corporation,

Plaintiff

vs.

ICON EYEWEAR, INC., a New York

Corporation; ZOO YORK, LLC, a New

Jersey Limited Liability Company; ZY

HOLDINGS, LLC, a Delaware limited

liability company; and DOES 1-10,inclusive,

Defendants

Case No.

COMPLAINT FOR PATENTINFRINGEMENT OF U.S.

PATENT NOS. D584,758 and

D602,978

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Orange 21 North America Inc., for its Complaint against Icon

Eyewear, Inc., Zoo York, LLC and ZY Holdings, LLC states and alleges as follows:

PARTIES

'12CV0205 NLSJAH


2/9

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28


ST

E

TI

N

A

BR

U

N

D

A

G

A

R

R

E

D

&

BR

U

CK

E

R

KI

XFIN

XMF

JIJ

PHON

E:

(949)855-1246;FACSIMILE:

(949)855-637

1

1. Plaintiff, Orange 21 North America Inc. (hereinafter Orange 21 oPlaintiff) is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state o

California, and having a principal place of business at 2070 Las Palmas Drive

Carlsbad, California 92011.2. Upon information and belief, Defendant Icon Eyewear, Inc. is

corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of New York

(hereinafter Icon), and having a principal place of business at 70 Moonachie Ave

Moonachie, NJ 07074 and/or 75 Seaview Dr., Secaucus, New Jersey 07094.

3. Upon information and belief, Zoo York, LLC is a limited liabilitycompany organized and existing under the laws of the state of New Jersey

(hereinafter Zoo York), and having a principal place of business at 40 West 23r

Street, New York, NY 10010 and/or 425 W. 13th

Street, Suite 603, New York, NY

10014.

4. Upon information and belief, ZY Holdings, LLC is a limited liabilitycompany organized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware (hereinafte

ZY), and having a principal place of business at 1450 Broadway, 3rd

Floor, New

York, NY 10018.

5. The true names and capacities of the Defendants named herein as DOES1 through 10, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise, are unknown to

Plaintiff, who therefore sues said Defendants by said fictitious names. Plaintiff i

informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each of the Defendants designated

herein as DOE is legally responsible for the events and happenings hereinafte

alleged and legally caused injury and damages proximately thereby to Plaintiff aherein alleged. Plaintiff will seek leave to amend the Complaint when the true name

and capacities of said DOE Defendants have been ascertained. Icon, Zoo York, ZY

and DOES 1 through 10 are hereinafter collectively referred to as Defendants.

6. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that each othe Defendants participated in and is in some manner responsible for the act


3/9

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28


ST

E

TI

N

A

BR

U

N

D

A

G

A

R

R

E

D

&

BR

U

CK

E

R

KI

XFIN

XMF

JIJ

PHON

E:

(949)855-1246;FACSIMILE:

(949)855-637

1

described in this Complaint and any damages resulting therefrom.

7. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that each othe Defendants has acted in concert and participation with each other concerning each

of the claims in this Complaint.8. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that each o

the Defendants were empowered to act as the agent, servant and/or employees of each

of the other Defendants, and that all the acts alleged to have been done by each o

them were authorized, approved, and/or ratified by each of the other Defendants.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

9. This action, as hereinafter more fully appears, arises under the patenlaws of the United States of America (35 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), and is for paten

infringement. Jurisdiction for all counts is based upon 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1338(a).

10. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) as Defendants havecommitted acts of infringement in this judicial district.

BACKGROUND OF THE CONTROVERSY

11. Plaintiff is the owner of all right, title and interest in and to United StateDesign Patent No. D584,758 entitled Sunglass (hereinafter the 758 patent). A

true and correct copy of the 758 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. The 75

patent was duly and lawfully issued on January 13, 2009 and is presently valid and in

full effect.

12. Plaintiff is the owner of all right, title and interest in and to United StateDesign Patent No. D602,978 entitled Sunglass (hereinafter the 978 patent). A

true and correct copy of the 978 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. The 97patent was duly and lawfully issued on October 27, 2009 and is presently valid and in

full effect. (hereinafter the 758 and 978 patents collectively referred to as th

patents-in-suit).

13. Upon information and belief, Defendants have been and are infringingthe patents-in-suit within this district and elsewhere in the United States by making


4/9

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28


ST

E

TI

N

A

BR

U

N

D

A

G

A

R

R

E

D

&

BR

U

CK

E

R

KI

XFIN

XMF

JIJ

PHON

E:

(949)855-1246;FACSIMILE:

(949)855-637

1

using, selling, importing, distributing and/or offering for sale products that infring

the claims of the patents-in-suit.

14. Upon information and belief, Defendants infringing sunglass productare identified as Style Nos. 20105 and 20101. A copy of Defendants products arattached hereto as Exhibit 2.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Patent Infringement of U.S. Patent No. D584,758)

15. Plaintiff realleges and repeats the allegations of paragraphs 1-14 above.16. Plaintiff is the owner of all right, title and interest in and to United State

Design Patent No. D584,758 entitled Sunglass. A true and correct copy of the 75

patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. The 758 patent was duly and lawfully issue

on January 13, 2009 and is presently valid and in full effect.

17. Upon information and belief, Defendants have been and are infringingthe 758 patent within this district and elsewhere in the United States by making


the claims of the 758 patent.

18. Upon information and belief, by the acts of patent infringement hereincomplained of, the Defendants have made substantial profits to which they are no

equitably entitled.

19. By reason of the aforementioned acts of the Defendants, the Plaintiff hasuffered great detriment in a sum which exceeds this Courts jurisdictional amount

but which cannot be ascertained at this time.

20.

Upon information and belief, Defendants continue to infringe Plaintiff758 patent, and will continue to infringe Plaintiffs 758 patent, and will continue to

infringe Plaintiffs patent-in-suit to Plaintiffs irreparable harm, unless enjoined by

this Court.

21. Upon information and belief, Defendants were aware of the patent-insuit and the past and continuing infringement of the 758 patent by Defendants ar


5/9

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28


ST

E

TI

N

A

BR

U

N

D

A

G

A

R

R

E

D

&

BR

U

CK

E

R

KI

XFIN

XMF

JIJ

PHON

E:

(949)855-1246;FACSIMILE:

(949)855-637

1

willful, entitling Plaintiff to enhanced damages.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Patent Infringement of U.S. Patent No. D602,978)

1. Plaintiff realleges and repeats the allegations of paragraphs 1-21 above.2. Plaintiff is the owner of all right, title and interest in and to United State

Design Patent No. D602,978 entitled Sunglass. A true and correct copy of the 97

patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. The 978 patent was duly and lawfully issue

on October 27, 2009 and is presently valid and in full effect.

3. Upon information and belief, Defendants have been and are infringingthe 978 patent within this district and elsewhere in the United States by making


the claims of the 978 patent.

4. Upon information and belief, by the acts of patent infringement hereincomplained of, the Defendants have made substantial profits to which they are no

equitably entitled.

5. By reason of the aforementioned acts of the Defendants, the Plaintiff hasuffered great detriment in a sum which exceeds this Courts jurisdictional amount

but which cannot be ascertained at this time.

6. Upon information and belief, Defendants continue to infringe Plaintiff978 patent, and will continue to infringe Plaintiffs 978 patent, and will continue to

infringe Plaintiffs patent-in-suit to Plaintiffs irreparable harm, unless enjoined by

this Court.

7.

Upon information and belief, Defendants were aware of the patent-insuit and the past and continuing infringement of the 978 patent by Defendants ar

willful, entitling Plaintiff to enhanced damages.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against the Defendants as follows

A. A judgment that Defendants have infringed the patents-in-suit.


6/9

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28


ST

E

TI

N

A

BR

U

N

D

A

G

A

R

R

E

D

&

BR

U

CK

E

R

KI

XFIN

XMF

JIJ

PHON

E:

(949)855-1246;FACSIMILE:

(949)855-637

1

B. A judgment that Defendants infringement of the patents-in-suit has beenwillful.

C. A preliminary and permanent injunction, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 283enjoining Defendants, and all persons in active concert or participationwith them, from any further acts of infringement of the patents-in-suit.

D. An order, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 284, awarding Plaintiff damageadequate to compensate Plaintiff for Defendants infringement of th

patents-in-suit, in an amount to be determined at trial, but in no even

less than a reasonable royalty.

E. An order, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 284, trebling all damages awarded toPlaintiff based on Defendants willful infringement of the patents-in-suit

F. An order, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 285, finding that this is an exceptionacase and awarding to Plaintiff its reasonable attorneys fees incurred in

this action.

G. That Plaintiff have such other and further relief that the court may deemjust and proper.

Dated: January 25, 2012 STETINA BRUNDA GARRED & BRUCKER

By: s/Kit M. Stetina

Kit M. Stetina

William J. Brucker

Stephen Z. Vegh

Attorneys for Plaintiff

ORANGE 21 NORTH AMERICA INC.


7/9

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28


ST

E

TI

N

A

BR

U

N

D

A

G

A

R

R

E

D

&

BR

U

CK

E

R

KI

XFIN

XMF

JIJ

PHON

E:

(949)855-1246;FACSIMILE:

(949)855-637

1

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, Orange 21 North America Inc., hereby demands a jury trial in thi

action.

Dated: January 25, 2012 STETINA BRUNDA GARRED & BRUCKER

By: s/Kit M. Stetina

Kit M. Stetina

William J. Brucker

Stephen Z. Vegh

Attorneys for Plaintiff

ORANGE 21 NORTH AMERICA INC.

T:\Client Documents\SPYNO\392L\Complaint.doc


8/9

'12CV0205 NLSJAH

35:0145


9/9