1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

business at 42306 Remington Avenue, Temecula, CA 92590. 3. Upon information and belief, Defendant Jess Hetzner (Jess Hetzner) is an individual residing in the State of California, with a principal place of business at 42306 Remington Avenue, Temecula, CA 92590. Upon further information and belief, Jess Hetzner is the son of Ron Hetzner. As used herein, "Hetzners" is intended to include both Ron and Jess Hetzner, as well as any and all agents and/or other persons and/or entities acting in concert with them and/or on their behalf. 4. Upon information and belief, Defendant Oreq Corporation (Oreq) is a corporation existing under the laws of the State of California, with a principal place of business at 42306 Remington Avenue, Temecula, CA 92590. Upon further information and belief, Oreq is owned and/or controlled by the one or both of the Hetzners, and any and all actions complained of herein were undertaken at the direction and under the control of the Hetzners (or one of them) regardless of whether the action was ostensibly carried out by Oreq or one of its agents other than the Hetzners. 5. The true names and capacities of Doe Defendants 1 through 5 are not known to Resh at this time, and Resh therefore sues them under fictitious names. When the actual identities of Does 1 through 5 are determined, Resh intends to seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to name such persons as Doe Defendants. Resh is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Does 1 through 5 participated in the wrongful acts described herein, and are responsible in some way for the wrongful acts and resulting damages alleged herein. Accordingly, as indicated above and depending on the context in which it is used herein, the term Defendants is intended to include not only Oreq" and/or the "Hetzners, but also any other Defendants or any individuals or other entities acting on behalf of or in coordination with the named Defendants regarding the
COMPLAINT Civ. Action No.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

matters discussed herein. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 6. This complaint is for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35, United States Code. 7. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1338(a). 8. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants consistent with the principles of due process, by virtue of one or more of the following: the Defendants transacting and doing business in this District, because a substantial part of the relevant events occurred in this District, because a substantial part of the property that it is the subject of this action is situated here, because the Defendants have committed and/or induced acts of patent infringement in this District, and/or the Defendants have placed infringing products into the stream of commerce District. 9. Venue is proper in this judicial District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b), (c), and (d), and 1400(b). through established distribution channels with the expectation that such products will be purchased by residents of this

COUNT I INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,473,786 10. Resh realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-9. 11. Resh is the owner of all right, title, and interest in U.S. Patent No. 5,473,786 (the '786 Patent), entitled Swimming Pool Cleaning Tool, and Related
COMPLAINT Civ. Action No.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Method, duly and properly issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on December 12, 1995. In swimming pool cleaning terminology, tools of the type described in the 786 patent are commonly referred to as leaf nets or similar terms, as they are useful for gathering and removing leaves and other debris from swimming pools. 12. As further explained below, Defendants are infringing and/or inducing others to infringe by making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling in the United States, and/or importing into the United States, products or processes that practice one or more inventions claimed in the '786 Patent. On information and belief, those products are covered by at least claims 1 and 8 of the 786 patent, and they include, by way of example and not limitation, at least three of the Defendants leaf net product lines: the Gorilla (which has a dark green net-retaining lip), the Animal (which has a light green net-retaining lip), and the Mako (which has a white net-retaining lip). On information and belief, those three leaf net product lines are virtually identical, except for color. 13. Defendants have profited through infringement of the '786 Patent. As a result of Defendants unlawful infringement of the '786 Patent, Resh has suffered and will continue to suffer damage. Resh is entitled to recover from Defendants the damages suffered by Resh as a result of Defendants unlawful acts. 14. On information and belief, Defendants infringement of the '786 Patent is willful and deliberate, entitling Resh to enhanced damages and reasonable attorney fees and costs. 15. On information and belief, Defendants intend to continue their unlawful infringing activity, and Resh continues to and will continue to suffer irreparable harmfor which there is no adequate remedy at lawfrom such unlawful infringing activity unless Defendants are enjoined by this Court.

COMPLAINT Civ. Action No.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 COMPLAINT Civ. Action No.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND 16. Among other things, the facts set forth here help put into context the Defendants infringing activities, and demonstrate Defendants' willful and intentional infringement of the 786 patent, including by describing Defendants previous and repeated efforts to infringe. Rather than wait the remaining approximately two more years that are left in the life of the Reshes 786 patent (after which the patent will expire), Defendants recently have renewed their efforts to infringe that patent, resulting in the need for the Reshes to seek relief from this Court. 17. More specifically, and as set forth in more detail below, the parties are based near each other in the area of Temecula and Murrieta, California, and have known each other and have had numerous interactions for more than 15 years. During that time, the Defendants have repeatedly attempted to copy the Reshes products and to infringe upon the Reshes patent, but the Reshes have been able to effectively stop those efforts by alerting the third parties who were involved. Up until just a few weeks ago, those various third parties have opted to NOT buy or sell the Defendants infringing products. 18. Very recently, however, Defendants persuaded the largest swimming pool cleaning supply company in the world (Leslies Swimming Pool Supply) to carry Defendants infringing products. Prior management at Leslies had declined to carry Defendants infringing products, but Defendants apparently were able to persuade new Leslies management to do so. 19. The facts set forth herein include past communications and actions by Defendants, including numerous past interactions witnessed by both with Mr. Resh and his wife, Jenel. Thus, many of the interactions described below are based on the personal knowledge of Resh and/or his wife, Jenel. As may be indicated by the context, however, other of the following facts are stated and

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

alleged upon information and belief. 20. As used herein, the term pool men refers to swimming pool maintenance and repair professionals. Pool men make up a significant portion of the end users of the leaf nets at issue in this lawsuit. Typically, pool men are independent contractors who work for themselves or may have up to several employees. They typically provide services on residential pools, but also on commercial pools such as in condominium and apartment complexes, hotels, and the like. They usually clean each pool at least weekly, and they typically use a leaf net as a primary cleaning tool, perhaps one of the most important tools they use. 21. Mr. Resh has been involved in the swimming pool industry throughout nearly all of his adult life. In 1988, at the age of 23, he began as a warehouse worker and counter salesman at a wholesale distributor of swimming pool products (the Santa Ana, CA, branch of Pool Water Products). In that job, he became extremely familiar with a wide variety of swimming pool products, parts, and cleaning tools, and he personally sold them to scores of pool men on a daily basis. 22. After working at Pool Water Products for approximately one year, Mr. Resh decided to become a pool man himself, and he opened his own small business cleaning and repairing swimming pools in Orange County, CA. Shortly after he opened that business, Eric and Jenel Resh got married. Together they ran their small pool business from the apartments they lived in. They depended upon their single income (that pool man business) to put Mr. Resh through graduate school, raise two babies, and save money to buy a house. 23. As is probably common among pool men, the Reshes established a steady base of clients and pools that they serviced. Their companys pool route was primarily located in western Orange County, in the cities of Orange, Anaheim Hills, Placentia, Brea, and Yorba Linda. As indicated above, pool men need leaf
COMPLAINT Civ. Action No.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

nets and other supplies in order to clean and maintain the swimming pools that they service, and the Reshes bought their supplies primarily from two wholesale distributors: ORCAL (located in Orange, CA); and Superior Pool Products (located in Anaheim, CA). The Reshes were in the ORCAL store on average at least once a week. 24. At the time, the Defendants Hetzners owned ORCAL and were very involved in the swimming pool cleaning industry. As explained below, this led to some of the first interactions between the parties. ORCAL was a large company that was primarily distributing wholesale pool products, through approximately six to twelve branches (locations) throughout Southern California. Defendant Ron Hetzner was intimately involved in Defendants ORCAL business and could be regularly seen at his stores. He was well-known in the regional pool industry, and often would visit with pool men at his stores, and even would speak to groups of pool men at meetings (such as those held monthly by the Independent Pool and Spa Service Association, or IPSSA). Mr. Resh became a member of the IPSSA in 1989, and between the monthly IPSSA meetings (at which he sometimes saw Defendant Ron Hetzner) and the Reshes weekly visits to ORCAL (at which he regularly saw Defendant Ron Hetzner), he saw and met Defendant Ron Hetzner countless times over the years. 25. As indicated above, Mr. Resh was intimately familiar with swimming pool cleaning tools by virtue of his work at the supply-company sales counter, and by virtue of using them all day every day to support his family in his pool cleaning business. In approximately 1992, Mr. Resh began focusing his thinking on ways to improve pool cleaning tools. This eventually led to him filing, in August 1994, the patent application that issued (in December 1995) as his 786 patent. Also by 1994, the Reshs had moved to Temecula, CA, and were running their pool cleaning business from their tiny 1100 sq. ft. home in Temecula. In addition to
COMPLAINT Civ. Action No.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

inventing the broad concept of his improved pool net, Mr. Resh spent countless hours refining the specific commercial designs for that invention, into products that he wanted to sell to the pool industry. His efforts (mostly after filing his patent application) included over at least a years time researching materials, sewing fabric, creating assembly fixtures, and assembling leaf net prototypes in their tiny garage and living room. 26. Early contacts between the parties were civil and not unusual among persons who are involved in the same industry in the same geographic area. For example, as the Reshes were preparing to bring their first products to market, on one of Mr. Reshs visits to the Defendants Hetzners ORCAL branch store in Orange, CA, Mr. Resh saw Defendant Ron Hetzner and mentioned that Mr. Resh was trying to get a new swimming pool cleaning product into the market, and Mr. Resh asked Defendant Ron Hetzner directly about the steps required to get a product into wholesale distribution. Defendant Ron Hetzner replied that it was possible to do it, but that it was a long road to hoe. 27. In 1995, after considerable effort, the Reshes were finally able to produce and sell their first pool cleaning tool, a pool leaf net covered by the 786 patent and called The Smart! Net. They presented The Smart! Net to their friends at the stores mentioned above (Superior Pool Products of Anaheim and Orcal of Orange, from whom the Reshes had been buying supplies for years). These friends included the managers and purchasers at each store whom the Reshes knew through their pool maintenance business. Bob Heath, manager of Superior of Anaheim, was the first to take the Smart! Net into his store and offer it for sale. The first order consisted of approximately two dozen Smart! Nets and Mr. Resh dropped them off while buying supplies between stops of Mr. Reshs service route. 28. The Smart! Net was different from the other leaf nets being sold at that
COMPLAINT Civ. Action No.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

time. As discussed throughout this Complaint, it included a patented scooping edge that helped urge the leaves and other debris into the net, better than occurred with prior art products. The Reshes also had decided to make their product much more rugged than those existing products. Their Smart! Net frames were made entirely out of stainless steel, which made them several times more expensive than competitors nets. While a typical competitors net was selling for approximately $13.00 to $15.00, the Reshes Smart! Net were priced at approximately $36.00 to $40.00, a price unheard of at the time. The Reshes were uncertain whether the relatively high price on their products would keep them from selling, but in any case Mr. Resh delivered the first order of Smart! Nets to the Superior store in Anaheim, talked to the manager Bob Heath and the counter salesmen about where they could hang one a sample on their wall display, and then left to finish his day of cleaning pools. 29. It was not until some eight or nine days later that Mr. Resh returned to Superior Anaheim to pick up some cleaning supplies. When he arrived, Mr. Resh learned that Mr. Heath and the counter sales people had been trying to contact Mr. Resh for nearly a week, because the Smart! Nets had sold out in less than three days! 30. This was an indication of the great success that was to come for the patented product. The Reshes and their newborn business, the Smart! Company, were immediately known within the pool industry as the makers of the 40 dollar net. Bob Heath at Superior Anaheim placed a second order for Smart! Nets and, upon receiving those, immediately sent some out to all the other 11 or so Superior stores throughout Southern California and Arizona. Again, the patented product sold out immediately; some stores sold all they had in the first day. 31. Within the same month as those first sales, the Reshes approached their friends (principally one of the ORCAL store managers, Don White) at Defendants
COMPLAINT Civ. Action No.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Hetzners ORCAL store in Orange, and through Mr. White persuaded that store to become the Reshes second customer. As with the sales success at the Superior store in Anaheim, the Smart! Nets were sold out in the ORCAL Orange store within a matter of days. 32. That same month, the Reshes also presented their new Smart! Net and its replacement parts to their IPSSA chapter meeting, and the pool men at the meeting loved it. Some had already purchased Smart! Nets at ORCAL Orange and Superior Anaheim, and the consumer response was highly favorable. 33. During this time, the Reshes were still assembling their products in the garage and living room of their small home. The popularity of their patented product and the demand for it caused the Reshes to be unable to fill all of the orders that they received, and they were backordered for weeks - sometimes even months - at a time. In addition to being extremely busy trying to make nets to keep up with sales, the Reshes were still a small and new company, and they suffered all the difficulties and cash flow problems that come with a small business experiencing growth. Furthermore, the Reshes were still operating their pool route full time and raising a family. In late 1996, they began making a new leaf net called The Piranha (which also incorporated the patented scooping edge of the 786 patent). The Piranha was priced lower than the Smart! Net, and the Piranha immediately became a best-selling pool leaf net and remains so today (as discussed elsewhere herein, the Reshes Piranha net is a professional line that is more popular among pool men; the Reshes eventually also introduced their Stingray model of their patented nets, and the Stingrays are the most popular net in the Leslies retail stores). 34. As sometimes happens with successful new products and businesses, the market success did not translate into instant wealth for the Reshes. Among other things, the steady growth of the Reshes pool net business created related
COMPLAINT Civ. Action No.

10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

growth in their cash flow problems they had to buy materials and packaging and ship the products PRIOR to getting paid for them, so as the volume of those orders increased, the amount of inventory/etc. that the Reshes had to finance increased. In approximately 1998, and also related to the success of their products, the Reshes moved their business from their home to a small warehouse unit in Murrieta, California, incurring the expenses and stresses associated with such an undertaking. In an effort to keep their pool net business afloat, Mrs. Resh assumed a wide variety of business duties (along with raising the Reshes two children), including sales, customer service, purchasing, bookkeeping, assembly, packaging, shipping, receiving, and much more. 35. Also despite the success of their pool net products, other random life events complicated the Reshes business efforts. For example, in July of 1997, while driving between stops on his pool route, Mr. Resh was broadsided by a SUV that ran a red light; he was injured and was never again able to work his pool route as productively as before the car accident. As a consequence, the Reshes poolcleaning business income was reduced. Mr. Resh was unable to run his pool route as profitably as before his car accident; and so he sold the route in 1999 and was forced to find work that was less physically demanding. Mr. Resh began selling real estate, substitute teaching, and even trying other small businesses to supplement their income. In 2001, he finally landed a full-time job as a 3rd grade teacher. For several months, Mr. Resh struggled make and sell pool nets, sell real estate in both Orange County and Temecula, teach school full-time in the city of Perris, CA, and attend nighttime Teacher Credential Classes at Cal State University in San Bernardino. Mrs. Resh managed more and more of the business to compensate for the time that Mr. Resh was away working. 36. Throughout these years of struggling, however, the Reshes patented pool nets were becoming increasingly popular among pool men across the country.
COMPLAINT Civ. Action No.

11

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

The combination of the large demand for the Reshes patented products and the struggles of a small mom and pop business trying to meet that demand meant that it was not until approximately 2003- some seven years after they introduced their first products - that the Reshes were finally able to resolve their growthrelated cash flow problems and stop having to backorder products. Instead of back-ordering, the Reshes finally were able to keep up with the net orders they received. 37. In the mid 2000s, and after so many difficult years of hard work, the Reshes business was finally stable enough for them to approach large retailers such as Leslies Swimming Pool Supplies (the largest retail swimming pool cleaning supply company in the world, as mentioned above) with a line of pool nets. The Reshes ultimately succeeded in creating a retail version of their patented product for homeowners, and they called it the Stingray. After various test runs in Leslies stores throughout California, Leslies placed the Stingray line in its stores across the United States, where it quickly became the most-purchased leaf net of Leslies customers and store managers alike (according to Leslies sales figures). 38. Mr. Resh filed his patent application on August 25, 1994, and the 786 patent issued on December 12, 1995. Since that time, Mr. Resh has marked his products with notice of the 786 patent. An example of that marking includes notices on his companys website, such as the screenshots below of that homepage and the Features page (red markings have been added to highlight some of the patent notices/emphasis):

COMPLAINT Civ. Action No.

12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

39. The Reshes successes with their patented products was definitely
COMPLAINT Civ. Action No. 13

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

noticed by Defendants, even beginning shortly after the Reshes first introduced their patented products to the market. At that time, Defendants already had been in the industry for decades and had a good basis of experience upon which to determine that the Reshes products were a valuable improvement. From approximately the 1960s until approximately 1997, the Defendants Hetzners and/or their family had been in the swimming pool product distribution business. For many or all of those years, and as mentioned above, the Defendants Hetzners owned a chain of swimming pool supply wholesale distribution stores named ORCAL. Defendants based their ORCAL business in Orange, California, and they had about 11 branches throughout southern California. 40. Around 1997, the Defendants Hetzners sold ORCAL and left the distribution business, and then began purchasing small pool-product-related companies. Examples of such companies include Pool Pals (a cleaning line including various pool nets), and Ziffco (a pool toy line). As noted above, Mr. Resh had only recently brought to market his first product under his '786 patent, but because the products short history had been so successful and because the patented product was so valuable, Defendants in 1997 made several offers to buy the Resh's company and/or license its patented technology. First, Defendant Jess Hetzner invited Mr. and Mrs. Resh to breakfast and offered to buy their pool net product business. Even before Defendant Jess Hetzner mentioned a dollar amount for the purchase, the Reshes refused the offer. When they did so, Defendant Jess Hetzner became visibly angry (his eye began twitching uncontrollably, increasing in frequency as he became more angry) and he told the Reshes that your patent is only as good as your patent attorney. 41. Some months later, Defendant Jess Hetzner went to the Reshes small shop in Murrieta, and this time asked about licensing the 786 patent. Under his proposal, the Reshes would continue using the patent in their own business, but
COMPLAINT Civ. Action No.

14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Defendants Hetzners would be authorized (licensed) to sell a competing product, presumably by paying a royalty to the Reshes. Again, the Reshes said no to Defendant Hetzners proposal. During that same meeting, Defendant Jess Hetzner offered $15,000 for the Reshes business, and when the Reshes also declined that offer, Defendant Jess Hetzner said he would raise his offer up to $30,000 for the Reshes business. The Reshes declined yet again. Before leaving the Reshes office, Defendant Jess Hetzner suggested that the Reshes think about it further. 42. Defendant Jess Hetzner was attracted to more than just the Reshes 786 patent. On yet another occasion in 1997, Defendant Jess Hetzner visited the Resh's business office. Mr. Resh was working in Orange County that day and was not at the office at the time, but Mrs. Resh was in the office. During his visit, Defendant Jess Hetzner propositioned Mrs. Resh, suggesting that Mrs. Resh should leave her husband and have an affair with Jess Hetzner. declined the proposition and Jess Hetzner left the Resh's office. 43. Thus, the parties have known each other for almost 20 years, since before Mr. Resh invented his patented swimming pool cleaning tool. Since at least 1997 and continuing to the present time, the Reshes and the Hetzners have both been selling products to the pool industry. Independently of each other, during those many years they have attended virtually every minor and major trade show in the southern California area as well as several larger national shows, and normally each has had a booth displaying and promoting their products. Sometimes their trade show booths were side by side. Although sometimes the tradeshows lasted only a few hours (such as tabletops held at distribution warehouses), others lasted two or three days. 44. At one particular tradeshow, the Pool Industry Expo in Monterey, CA, around 1998, the Reshes and the Hetzners literally had side-by-side booths with only a 30-inch or so high barrier between them. The Reshes and the Hetzners
COMPLAINT Civ. Action No.

Mrs. Resh

15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

conversed over the low barrier a number of times throughout the show, and both Defendants Ron and Jess Hetzner introduced their wives to the Reshes. All the conversations remained cordial and all six persons (the Reshes, the two Hetzners and their wives) had ample opportunity to discuss their products and the pool industry in general. In fact, Defendant Jess Hetzner even told the Reshes about a distribution chain in Florida called Pinch-A-Penny, a company that the Reshes did not know about, and recommended that the Reshes approach Pinch-A-Penny and offer to sell them the Reshes Piranha nets. 45. Because the Hetzners have participated in nearly all of the trade shows that the Reshes have attended over the last 16 years, and even just considering those many trade shows, cumulatively the parties have seen each others products and each other many, many times over the past decade and a half. 46. Over the years, the parties also crossed paths in situations other than trade shows. For example, in approximately 2000, the Reshes started doing business with Jay Patel, a plastic extruder in Riverside, CA. The Reshes used Mr. Patels company to extrude the plastic lip used in the Reshes patented products. At that time, many plastic extruders had stopped manufacturing in the U.S., and there were not a lot of extruding companies left from which to choose, at least in the southern California area in which the parties were located. As a consequence, it was not unusual for competitors to have their respective parts manufactured by the same company and even at the same plants. In that regard, Mr. Patel also extruded plastic parts for the Hetzners, as well parts for another (third party) competitor called Purity Pool Products. Sometimes when the Reshes went to pick up product from Mr. Patels warehouse, they saw Jess Hetzner leaving with the Hetzners order. Also at the time, Mr. Patels warehouse was set up made in a way that made it easy to see everything he was making, for the Reshes, for the Hetzners, and/or for third parties. People coming into the Patel warehouse could
COMPLAINT Civ. Action No.

16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

see the Hetzners (Oreqs) orders, Puritys orders, and the Reshes orders. This situation with Mr. Patel continued for about eight years, so that from about 2000 until about 2008, the parties also saw each other and/or each others products many times at Mr. Patels warehouse. 47. During approximately 1997-2008, although the Hetzners/Oreq were at all of the usual tradeshows attended by the Reshes, the Hetzners/Oreq were more involved in selling to the building and construction side of the pool industry (in contrast to the Reshes, who sold to the maintenance side of the industry). The Hetzners/Oreq produced patented water features (fountains, etc.) which they sold during the housing and construction boom. Although during this time, the Hetzners/Oreq also were selling their Excalibur line of swimming pool cleaning products (skimmer nets, brushes, poles, etc.), that line did not do very well. Among other things, their Excalibur line of products was quite antiquated. It was not until well after the economic collapse (including the collapse of the construction industry) that the Hetzners/Oreq redirected their efforts towards the cleaning side of the swimming pool industry. Presumably, they did so because the construction side of the industry came to a complete halt. In this industry, the cleaning side is the safest place to focus during a recession because people (and banks/repossessors) who own homes still need to maintain their investments (including the swimming pools that may be part of those homes). 48. For most if not all of the times relevant to this Complaint, Leslies Swimming Pool Supply has been the largest swimming pool retailer in the world. In approximately 2007, the Reshes succeeded in getting Leslies to distribute the Reshes patented product. Due to Leslies size, this was and remains a very valuable business relationship and opportunity for the Reshes and their business. 49. In 2008, the Reshes were in their second year of doing business with Leslies, but were still operating out of their small warehouse unit in Murrieta,
COMPLAINT Civ. Action No.

17

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

California. Leslies orders were so large that the Reshes warehouse could not contain all of the pallets of product that Leslies had ordered, so the Reshes had to use their warehouse parking lot during the day to store the Leslies orders. Mrs. Reshs brother operated an auto mechanic business two units down from the Reshes warehouse, and one day her brother came to tell her that Jess Hetzner had come to her brothers shop to get his car worked on, but while there, Jess Hetzner had been snooping around, trying to get information about the Reshes deal with Leslies. Among other things, Mr. Hetzner was looking at the Reshes pallets out in the parking lot and was asking questions of Mrs. Reshs brother. Upon learning of the incident, Mrs. Resh became very upset with her brother for giving out such information to Mr. Hetzner. 50. Beginning in about 2010, Defendants began copying and selling the two pool nets that were most popular among professional pool men (who typically purchase through distributors, as noted above): the Reshes patented Piranha line of products, and a third party (Puritys Red Baron) line. Rather than come up with their own distinct products and innovations, the Hetzners tried to unfairly compete with the Reshes and with Purity by knocking-off those products. 51. On information and belief, Defendants knock-off product in the 2010 time frame was at least slightly different from the one that Defendants introduced within the last few weeks (although both are infringements of the Reshes 786 patent). The Defendants 2010 version had a scooping edge that was virtually identical to the net products that the Reshes sell. As discussed below, Defendants apparently were unable to persuade people to purchase that direct knock-off design, so a few weeks ago they introduced product with a scooping edge of a slightly different shape, but the revisions still include the patented scooping edge concept. In any case, the relief sought herein by the Reshes is against both the Defendants 2010 design and the Defendants more recent (circa 2013) variation.
COMPLAINT Civ. Action No.

18

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

52. Specifically, in January 2010, at the Hott Show (an industry trade show) in Anaheim, California, Mrs. Resh walked by the Hetzners booth and said Hi, and as she did so she saw that one of the Hetzners nets looked exactly like one of the Reshes patented products (the Reshes Piranha net). Before Mrs. Resh could look more closely or ask the Hetzners any questions about this net, the showroom filled with customers, which made it inappropriate to raise the issue with the Hetzners at that time. 53. In February 2010, at the Southwest tradeshow in Texas, one of the Hetzners sales reps came to the Reshes booth to tell Mrs. Resh that (a) Jess Hetzner was making his way back into the cleaning side of the industry and (b) Jess wanted to be king of the nets. 54. In approximately April 2010, Mrs. Resh received a call from a long time customer (a pool man) alerting her that a northern California chain of distribution stores, General Pool Supply, started to stock a net that was identical to the Reshes patented product. The net was Defendants Animal net (as mentioned above, it was a copy of the Reshes Piranha net, so the Defendants choice of a parallel name Piranha/Animal itself confirms Defendants intention to copy and confuse consumers).1 Just prior to that time, Pool Corp. (the same company to whom in 1997 the Hetzners had sold their distribution business ORCAL) had purchased General Pool Supply, and the Reshes were uncertain as to whether the infringing product had been ordered by General Pool Supply (prior to the Pool Corp acquisition) or by Pool Corp itself. Mrs. Resh has a great relationship with Pool Corp, and she notified them that the Animal net they were selling was infringing on the Reshes patent rights. The main purchaser for Pool Corp asked Mrs. Resh to send a written notice about the infringement to their in- house legal 1 At this time, the Reshes are electing to not assert their claims for trademark and/or trade dress infringement or other unfair competition, but instead are expressly reserving their rights in that regard.
COMPLAINT Civ. Action No. 19

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

team. The undersigned Resh attorney (Mark Holland) sent to Pool Corps lawyer a letter and a copy of the Reshes 786 patent. The next day Pool Corp had all of Oreqs Animal nets removed from Pool Corps shelves. 55. Although the Reshes were successful in shutting off Defendants knockoff Animal products, even the few that got sold really confused a lot of customers, including distribution companys employees. In fact, Defendants Animal net was so similar to the Reshes in color and shape that, when Defendants introduced their Animal products, the Reshes began experiencing a high volume of warranty calls. Prior to the Defendants Animal net introduction, it had been very unusual for the Reshes to receive many warranty claims. Due to the Reshes hard work and efforts at quality control and maintaining valuable relationships with manufacturers and suppliers, the Reshes have had minimal issues with defective materials and warranty claims. In contrast to the Reshes high-quality goods, however, Defendants Animal nets were and are cheaply made and therefore generated a lot of warranty claims. Accordingly, the Reshes were confident that the surge in warranty claims that followed Defendants Animal product introduction were not based on the Reshes genuine products being defective, but instead were actually claims related to Defendants defective Animal products. The surge in warranty claims was short-lived, in large part because of the Reshes success in stopping Pool Corp from selling Defendants Animal products. 56. As indicated above, in this same time period, Defendants also started knocking off another manufacturers nets as well. Specifically, Defendants copied Puritys Red Baron net almost exactly they even named their knock-off the Red Knight net. Purity did not hold any patents on its net and did not stop Defendants from selling the knock-off Red Knight nets. 57. During 2010 and 2011, Defendants efforts to sell their knock off nets were frustrated not only by the Reshes aggressive assertion of the Reshes patent
COMPLAINT Civ. Action No.

20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

rights, but also by the Hetzners habitually bad business practices that were making the Hetzners distributors angry. In the swimming pool products industry, the large chain distributors such as Pool Corp do not want their product manufacturers to sell their products directly to the distributors customers. Such sales obviously cut out the distributors involvement in the sales pipeline, and therefore make it less desirable to the distributor to continue marketing that product. This is a huge breach of the understood standards in wholesale In other distribution chains, because it not only pits distributors against their own customers, but it makes distributors compete with their own vendors. words, vendors such as Oreq who take advantage of retail and wholesale distributors for the mere purpose of stealing those distributors customers undermine the distribution network and actually make products more difficult for a broad consumer base to be serviced. Distributors will sometimes even discontinue carrying product lines of manufacturers who violate these standard practices by selling directly to the distributors customers. On information and belief, during this time of introducing the Animal and the Red Knight knock-off products, Jess Hetzner felt that his distribution channel was not selling Defendants items satisfactorily and, therefore, Defendants began selling directly to the distributors customers and have subsequently lost much of their distribution. 58. In addition to having sent letters to Pool Corp and others, the Reshes saw Defendants were killing Defendants own business by those direct sales that bypassed the normal distribution chain. Although the swimming pool industry is a nationwide group, it actually is a small industry in which most players know each other or at least have knowledge of each other. With Defendants bad business practices and the poor product quality and related warranty issues, Defendants themselves were creating a very bad reputation for themselves and
COMPLAINT Civ. Action No.

21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

ruining any opportunity for the Defendants infringing products to gain traction in the market, and the Reshes nationwide sales contacts were reporting that regular distribution channels were not carrying the Defendants products anymore. 59. Defendants other main outlet for their infringing products (besides the normal channels via distributors) was the retail side of the industry. In this industry, retail sales from a product manufacturer include sales from that manufacturer to a retail store (or to a chain of retail stores such as Leslies); the distributor chain inserts a third party the distributor between the manufacturer and the retail store. In September 2010, Mrs. Resh met with the Reshes purchaser at Leslies, Doug Moen, for their annual sales meeting. This meeting is to discuss the previous years sales and the upcoming forecast for the Reshes products. Mr. Moen candidly informed Mrs. Resh that, just days before her arrival for that meeting, Oreq had contacted him and sent him a sample product that was very similar to the Reshes patented products. Mr. Moen really wanted Mrs. Resh to explain to him the difference between Oreqs sample product and the Reshes patented Stingray net. The Stingray (covered by three of the Resh patents, including the 786 patent) is the consumer line of the Reshes products, as compared to the Reshes Piranha line mentioned above sold through distributors; both stingrays and piranhas are animals and thus led Defendants to adopt the name Animal for Defendants infringing net. 60. Mrs. Resh explained her understanding of the Reshes intellectual property rights to Mr. Moen. Coincidentally, she had a copy of the 786 patent and of the above-described recent legal correspondence between the Reshes and Pool Corp right in her attach case, and though she had not planned on showing it to Mr. Moen, she did so in response to his question. A few days after that meeting, Mrs. Resh called Mr. Moen to follow up on the points from their meeting, and Mr. Moen indicated that he had read through that paperwork and was
COMPLAINT Civ. Action No.

22

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

not going to purchase any of those products from the Defendants. 61. Apparently these efforts by the Reshes were effective, because in November 2010, Defendants filed a lawsuit against the Reshes, seeking to coerce the Reshes into changing their position and to write to Pool Corp. and state that Defendants' Animal product did NOT infringe the '786 patent. As shown in the letter below dated November 18, 2010, Defendants instructed their attorneys at that time to NOT serve the lawsuit, but instead simply make the demand upon the Reshes (emphasis added by circling text):

COMPLAINT Civ. Action No.

23

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 COMPLAINT Civ. Action No. 24

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

62. The Reshes did NOT capitulate to Defendants' demands, and never wrote any letter to Pool Corp. or took any other action in response to Defendants' lawsuit. The Reshes certainly did not change their position about Defendants' infringement of the '786 patent. Defendants' never served their lawsuit, and the Court dismissed it. Among other things, Defendants' actions in NOT pursuing their position at that time confirm that there is no merit to Defendants' noninfringement or other defenses to the '786 patent. Had there been any merit to those positions, Defendants would have pursued the matter at that time. By waiting nearly three further years without having raised the issue, Defendants are precluded by the Reshes' detrimental reliance or other equitable principles from raising any of those issues or any related defenses in response to the present lawsuit. In effect, Defendants' failure to prosecute that 2010 lawsuit is an admission against interest, and is at the very least strong (and perhaps controlling) evidence as to any defenses that Defendants had against the '786 patent at that time. Having allowed the Reshes to proceed with their business and other efforts for nearly three years, Defendants should not be permitted to raise those same defenses now. 63. In contrast to the Hetzners continuing efforts to infringe and unfairly compete with the Reshes, other companies have introduced competing net products that do NOT infringe. On information and belief, only the Defendants feel compelled to copy and infringe the 786 patent; other parties have chosen non-infringing designs. For example, in approximately February 2011, Leslies had their Annual Vendor Meeting to which the Reshes were invited. At this show, Leslies had a special room where they were featuring new products. Mr. Moen approached the Reshes and asked them to go look at Leslies new line of pool cleaning nets. Mr. Moen specifically and reassuringly told the Reshes that Leslies new nets were not infringing on the Reshes patents. Although it was
COMPLAINT Civ. Action No.

25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

stressful to learn that Leslies was introducing its own net product of any type, the Reshes also knew that Leslies was not in the practice of carrying knock off products. In that regard, the Reshes had spent a lot of time in different Leslies stores and, although many knock off products existed elsewhere in the marketplace for a variety of swimming pool products, the Reshes had never seen any of them in a Leslies store. The Reshes made their way to the special room to examine Leslies new net and could see that although Leslies had lengthened the tip of the lip that contacts the pool surface, Leslies did not incorporate the smooth transition feature of the 786 patent. Instead, Leslies designed continued to include the bump that is typical for the way old nets (prior to the 786 invention) were made and still are made. The Reshes expressed to Mr. Moen that they were very thankful to Leslies for respecting the Reshes intellectual property rights, and Mr. Moen in response was very reassuring on this matter. 64. In 2012, Leslies moved Mr. Moen to a different department, and made Rich Estabrook the new purchaser for the Reshes products. Among other actions by the new buyer Mr. Estabrook, he agreed to carry in Leslies stores Defendants Gorilla pool cleaning pole. Apparently Leslies sold a substantial number of those poles, because in September 2012, the Reshes attended the Annual Vendor Meeting and Defendant Jess Hetzner was awarded with Leslies Rising Star award (because Leslies had sold a large amount of Defendants Gorilla poles). 65. In February 2013, Mr. Resh again attended Leslies Annual Vendor Meeting, and was informed by many different Leslies managers that Leslies was including a new net in the Leslies store planograms for the 2013 swim season. Mr. Resh learned that this net was an Oreq net called the Gorilla net. Mr. Resh immediately reported that news to Mrs. Resh, and that same day she drove over to the nearest Leslies and inquired about it. The Leslies store manager showed her the planogram; and it included the Gorilla net positioned at the highly desirable
COMPLAINT Civ. Action No.

26

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

eye level to try to catch the attention of Leslies customers. When Mr. Resh spoke to Leslies Mr. Estabrook at the tradeshow and told him that the Reshes had had problems with Oreq in the past, Mr. Estabrook seemed a little caught off guard, and respectfully asked Mr. Resh to explain some of the differences between the Stingray and other nets on the market. 66. At the time of this 2013 tradeshow, the Gorilla net was not yet in stock at any of the Leslies stores. Mr. and Mrs. Resh confirmed this by visiting and calling various stores in the Southern California region. The Reshes were hopeful that the Hetzners would respect the Reshes intellectual property rights granted by the 786 patent, and therefore the Reshes decided to wait until the time, if any, that the Gorilla product reached the shelves before taking any type of legal action. At the same time, the Reshes were also very concerned that the Defendants Gorilla net would be an infringing knock-off in the same way that Defendants Animal net had been in 2010. On more than one occasion around Defendants introduction in 2010 of the infringing Animal product, wholesale distribution store personnel had explained to the Reshes that Defendant Ron Hetzner had gone to their stores to sell them the Animal net and made statements such as, If you go out to the parking lot, youll see the Animal net in all the pool mens trucks, and People buy based on color (in addition to infringing the Reshes patents with those 2010 knock-offs, the Defendants had copied the Reshes products distinct color scheme). The store personnel replied to Ron Hetzners statements by saying, Ron, you know thats a lie. All the pool men use [the Reshes] Piranha nets! The salespeople also reported to the Reshes that they saw through Mr. Hetzners deceitful sales tactics and were disgusted by them. 67. By using these and other similarly dishonest sales pitches, Defendants have actually tried to pit the Reshes against the Reshes own customers and damage the Reshes hard-earned and valuable relationships with those customers.
COMPLAINT Civ. Action No.

27

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

The Reshes strive to build lasting business relationships with their customers, yet over and over again Defendants have tried to damage the Reshes good relationships with Pool Corp, General Pool Supply, and now Leslies (again!) by enticing those customers into buying and selling the Defendants infringing products. Such actions clearly demonstrate that as long as they think it will make money for them, Defendants Ron and Jess Hetzner do not respect intellectual property rights, nor do they care if their company Oreq recklessly induces Leslies and others into infringement. 68. Defendants appear to have adopted this same course of conduct (of ignoring the patent rights of others) in other situations. . In January 2013, Defendants were accused of infringing another patent on a pool-cleaning tool (a swimming pool and deck brush; U.S. Pat. No. 8,024,833). As presently advised, Defendants have chosen to NOT respond to those allegations, despite a follow-up demand letter dated February 20, 2013. Although not directly relevant to the merits of the present dispute between the parties, this does illustrate a pattern of behavior by Defendants, including a general disregard for the patent rights of others. Here is a copy of the first portion of that February 20 letter addressed to Defendant Ron Hetzner:

COMPLAINT Civ. Action No.

28

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 COMPLAINT Civ. Action No. 29

69. Defendants further actions indicate that they are aware that they are infringing the rights of the Reshes and/or others. Just a few days ago (on April 30, 2013), a driver for Leslie's came to pick up several orders from the Reshes. Mrs. Resh has known this driver for several years now and he is very friendly with the

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Reshes. The driver also picks up orders from Defendant Oreq. On April 30, the driver told Mrs. Resh that Defendants had changed their policy about him picking up Oreq products. Unlike the practice that had always involved the Leslies driver coming into the Oreq warehouse to pick up the order (just as the driver comes into the Reshes warehouse), Oreq now would not allow the driver to put even one foot into the Oreq warehouse!! Mrs. Resh asked the driver how he was able to pick up without entering the Oreq warehouse, and he said that Oreq made him sit in the truck while Oreq personnel loaded his 40-ft truck. On information and belief, this is not a practice followed by any other party who sells products to/through Leslies, and even the Leslies driver said that it was ridiculous. Mrs. Resh asked the driver why he thinks that Oreq had started doing that, and he told Mrs. Resh that Oreq is very secretive and that he thinks it is because Oreq is "knocking" people off (like the Reshes) and that Oreq does not want anyone to see the knockoff products and pass information as to what they are doing. Obviously, the Oreq products can be viewed by Leslies and its customers after Oreq has loaded those products onto the Leslies truck, but this new practice reduces the possibility that any outsider might view the other products and activities inside the Oreq warehouse. 70. This new practice by Defendants is particularly worrisome for the Reshes. Over the past couple of years, the Reshes have made considerable efforts to invent several new products for the swimming pool industry and have dutifully filed patent applications for each of those inventions. The Reshes fear that since Defendants have now shown that they are continuing their long history of knocking off the Reshes patented net products, Defendants will begin the entire cycle yet again by knocking off the Reshes newly invented products.

COMPLAINT Civ. Action No.

30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 COMPLAINT Civ. Action No.

PRAYER WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Resh prays for relief as follows: A. B. For a judgment declaring that Defendants have infringed the '786 Patent; For a judgment awarding Resh compensatory damages as a result of Defendants infringement of the '786 Patent, together with interest and costs, and in no event less than a reasonable royalty; C. D. For a judgment declaring that Defendants infringement of the '786 Patent has been willful and deliberate; For a judgment awarding Resh treble damages and pre-judgment interest under 35 U.S.C. 284 as a result of Defendants willful and deliberate infringement of the '786 Patent; E. For a judgment declaring that this case is exceptional and awarding Resh his expenses, costs, and attorneys fees in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 284 and 285 and Rule 54(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; F. G. For a grant of a permanent injunction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 283, enjoining the Defendants from further acts of infringement; and For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

31