You are on page 1of 6

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

John B. Scherling (CA Bar No. 122234) jscherling@sughrue.com SUGHRUE MION, PLLC 4250 Executive Square, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92037 Tel.: (858) 795-1180 Fax.: (858) 795-1199 Attorneys for Plaintiffs MT. DERM GmbH and Nouveau Cosmetique USA, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MT. DERM GmbH and NOUVEAU COSMETIQUE USA, Inc. v. Plaintiff, Case No.
8:14-cv-00483

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

MEI-CHA INTERNATIONAL, Inc. and MEI-CHA BEAUTY INTERNATIONAL Inc. Defendants. NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. This is an action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of

the United States (Title 35 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) based upon Mei-Cha International, Inc.s and Mei-Cha Beauty International Inc.s (collectively Defendants) infringement of United States Patent Nos. 6,345,553 and 6,505,530. PARTIES 2. Plaintiff MT. DERM is a corporation organized under the laws of

Germany having its principal place of business at Gustav-Krone-Str. 3, 14167 Berlin, Germany. 3. Plaintiff NOUVEAU COSMETIQUE is a corporation having a corporate

office and principal place of business at 111 North Orange Avenue, Suite 775 South Tower, Orlando, Florida, 32801.
Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial

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

4.

Upon information and belief, Defendant MEI-CHA International, Inc. is

a California corporation having a principal place of business at 15441 Red Hill Avenue, Suite E, Tustin, California 92780-7304. 5. Upon information and belief, Defendant MEI-CHA Beauty International

Inc. is a California corporation having a principal place of business at 15441 Red Hill Avenue, Suite E, Tustin, California 92780-7304. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 6. This is an action for patent infringement. The applicable laws are the

patent laws of the United States, title 35 U.S.C. 1 et seq. 7. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to

28 U.S.C. 1331 (federal question jurisdiction) and 1338(a) (original jurisdiction under patent laws). 8. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because, on

information and belief, Defendants reside in and transact business within this district and has committed acts of patent infringement, including, without limitation, the importation, offer for sale and/or sale of the infringing products described herein. 9. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b), 1391(c),

and 1400(b), because Defendants reside in and have a regular and established place of business within this district and because Defendants have conducted regular acts of infringement within this district by selling, offering to sell, and, importing the infringing products in this district. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND BACKGROUND 10. Plaintiff MT. DERM sells tattoo and permanent make-up application

devices as well as needle cartridges used with these devices through a chain of distributors in the United States. It has all rights, title, and interest in United States Patent Nos. 6,345,553 and 6,505,530. 11. On September 28, 2000, Application No. 09/671,650 was filed before the

United States Patent Office (USPTO), and on February 12, 2002, the USPTO duly 2
Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial

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

and legally issued U.S. Patent No. 6,345,553 (hereinafter the 553 Patent) entitled Ink Application Device for Tattooing or for Making Permanent Make-Up. A true and correct copy of the 553 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 12. The named inventors of the 553 Patent are Frank Adler, Walter Lisee

and Gerhard Trk. 13. The inventors assigned all right, title, and interest in the 553 Patent to

Plaintiff MT. DERM. 14. Plaintiff NOUVEAU COSMETIQUE is the exclusive licensee of rights

to the 553 Patent in the United States in the permanent make-up field. 15. The 553 Patent is now and has been at all times since its date of

issuance, valid and enforceable. 16. On February 12, 2002, Application No. 10/072,991 was filed before the

United States Patent Office (USPTO) as a continuation of Application No. 09/671,650. On January 14, 2003 the USPTO duly and legally issued U.S. Patent No. 6,505,530 (hereinafter the 530 Patent) entitled Ink Application Device for Tattooing or for Making Permanent Make-Up. A true and correct copy of the 530 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 17. The named inventors of the 530 Patent are Frank Adler, Walter Lisee and

Gerhard Trk. 18. The inventors assigned all right, title, and interest in the 530 Patent to

Plaintiff MT. DERM. 19. Plaintiff NOUVEAU COSMETIQUE is the exclusive licensee of rights

to the 530 Patent in the United States in the permanent make-up field. 20. The 530 Patent is now and has been at all times since its date of

issuance, valid and enforceable. 21. Upon information and belief, Defendants maintain an internet website at

www.mei-cha.com that has advertised and sold infringing permanent make-up (PMU) application devices and needle cartridges for use with PMU application 3
Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial

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

devices including, without limitation, products described and advertised as SQ3 MicroPigmentation Device and the Microstream HDTM Needles, including without limitation single prong needle, double prong need, triple prong needle, four prong flat needle, five prong needle, six prong flat needle, eight prong needle, nine prong magnum needle, and eleven prong magnum needle. 22. Defendants marketed and sold devices for applying PMU and/or tattoos

and needle cartridges for use with such devices that competed with products manufactured, marketed, and sold by Plaintiffs and that are the subject of this action. COUNT I (Infringement of the 553 Patent) 23. The allegations of paragraphs 1-22 are repeated and re-alleged as if set

forth fully herein. 24. Defendants have infringed one or more claims of the 553 Patent in

violation of 35 U.S.C. 271 by importing, selling, and offering for sale, PMU devices and/or needle cartridges for use with PMU devices embodying the invention claimed in the 553 Patent, including (but not limited to) the SQ3 MicroPigmentation Device and the Microstream HDTM Needles. 25. The infringing actions of Defendants are and at all times have been

without the consent of, authority of, or license from Plaintiffs. 26. As a direct and proximate result of the infringement of the 553 Patent by

Defendants, Plaintiffs have suffered damages in an amount which cannot yet be fully ascertained, which will be proven at trial. 26. Upon information and belief, Defendants have had knowledge of the

infringement of the 553 patent, yet Defendants continue to infringe the 553 patent. The infringement of the 553 patent by Defendants is knowing and willful, entitling Plaintiffs to increased damages under 35 U.S.C. 284 and to attorneys fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this action under 35 U.S.C. 285. 28. The infringement of the 553 patent by Defendants has caused and 4
Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial

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

continues to cause Plaintiffs to suffer irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law, and for which Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief. COUNT 2 (Infringement of the 530 Patent) 29. The allegations of paragraphs 1-28 are repeated and re-alleged as if set

forth fully herein. 30. Defendants have infringed one or more claims of the 530 Patent in

violation of 35 U.S.C. 271(a), (b), and/or (c) by importing, selling, and offering for sale, PMU devices and/or needle cartridges for use with PMU devices embodying the invention claimed in the 530 Patent, including (but not limited to) the SQ3 MicroPigmentation Device and the Microstream HDTM Needles. 31. The infringing actions of Defendants are and at all times have been

without the consent of, authority of, or license from Plaintiffs. 32. As a direct and proximate result of the infringement of the 530 Patent by

Defendants, Plaintiffs have suffered damages in an amount which cannot yet be fully ascertained, which will be proven at trial. 33. Upon information and belief, Defendants have had knowledge of the

infringement of the 530 patent, yet Defendants continue to infringe the 530 patent. The infringement of the 530 patent by Defendants is knowing and willful, entitling Plaintiffs to increased damages under 35 U.S.C. 284 and to attorneys' fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this action under 35 U.S.C. 285. 34. The infringement of the 530 patent by Defendants has caused and

continues to cause Plaintiffs to suffer irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law, and for which Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs MT. DERM and NOUVEAU COSMETIQUE respectfully request that the Court grant the following relief: a) enter judgment that Defendants infringe and have directly, indirectly, 5
Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial

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

contributorily and/or by inducement, infringed the 553 Patent and 530 Patent under 35 U.S.C. 271(a), (b), and/or (c); b) enter judgment that the infringement of the 553 Patent and 530 Patent

by Defendants has been willful and award Plaintiffs treble damages under 35 U.S.C. 284; c) order Defendants to pay damages adequate to compensate Plaintiffs for

Defendants infringement of the 553 Patent and 530 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 284, together with prejudgment and post-judgment interest, in an amount according to proof; d) permanently enjoin Defendants, their officers, agents, servants,

employees, and attorneys, and all other persons and entities acting in concert or participation with them, from infringing, inducing others to infringe or contributing to the infringement of the 553 Patent and 530 Patent; e) in the event a permanent injunction is not grant, determine the conditions

for future infringement or grant such other relief as the court deems appropriate; f) enter judgment that this case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. 285 and

award Plaintiffs reasonable attorneys fees and costs; and g) award Plaintiffs such further relief as this court deems just and proper. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff respectfully requests a trial by jury on all issues so triable, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38. DATED: March 31, 2014 Respectfully submitted,

By:

/s/ John B. Scherling John B. Scherling Attorneys for Plaintiffs MT. DERM GmbH and Nouveau Cosmetique USA, Inc.

Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial

You might also like