DALLAS DIVISION MONSTER MOTO, LLC, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. ____________ v. APT GROUP, INC. d/b/a MOTOVOX and APT IP HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT Plaintiff Monster Moto, LLC (Monster Moto or Plaintiff), hereby files its Complaint against Defendants APT Group, Inc. d/b/a MotoVox (MotoVox) and APT IP Holdings, LLC (APTIP) (collectively, Defendants), stating as follows: I. INTRODUCTION 1. This is an action for declaratory judgment of patent invalidity and non- infringement, common law business disparagement, tortious interference with contract, tortious interference with business expectancy, false advertising under the Lanham Act, and common law unfair competition. 2. Monster Moto brings this action (a) to recover damages caused by Defendants tortious conduct, (b) to obtain preliminary and permanent injunctive relief prohibiting Defendants from making false and defamatory statements regarding Monster Moto to Monster Motos customers and the marketplace as a whole and from tortiously interfering with Monster Motos existing and prospective contracts, and (c) to obtain a declaratory judgment of invalidity Case 3:14-cv-02625-N Document 1 Filed 07/21/14 Page 1 of 16 PageID 1 2 and non-infringement regarding the design patent that Defendants have falsely accused Monster Moto of infringing. II. THE PARTIES 3. Plaintiff Monster Moto is a Texas limited liability company, with its principal place of business at 1001 South Jupiter Road, Garland, Texas 75042. 4. Defendant MotoVox is a Missouri corporation, with its principal place of business at 8844 Hillcrest Road, Kansas City, Missouri 64138. 5. Defendant APTIP is a Wyoming limited liability company, with its principal place of business at 8844 Hillcrest Road, Kansas City, Missouri 64138. III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 6. This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1338 because it arises under the patent laws of the United States. This Court further has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 15 U.S.C. 1121. This Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. 1367. Further, and in the alternative, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. 1332(a)(1) and (c)(1) because Plaintiff Monster Moto and Defendants MotoVox and APTIP are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, excluding interest and costs. 7. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Monster Motos claims occurred in this District. 8. Personal jurisdiction exists over Defendants due to their continuous and systemic contacts with the State of Texas, including but not limited to their commission of torts in this State as alleged in this Complaint. For example, Defendants have made several false disparaging Case 3:14-cv-02625-N Document 1 Filed 07/21/14 Page 2 of 16 PageID 2 3 accusations regarding Monster Moto -- upon which numerous claims in this lawsuit are based to Texas residents. Moreover, Defendants have purposefully availed themselves of the privilege of conducting business in the State of Texas. Monster Motos claims arise out of or relate to Defendants forum-related activities, and it is reasonable for the Court to exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendants. IV. FACTS 9. Defendant APTIP claims to be the owner by assignment of U.S. Design Patent No. D689,798 (the 798 patent). Defendant MotoVox claims to be a licensee of the 798 patent. A true and correct copy of the 798 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 10. Defendants have falsely accused Monster Moto of infringing the 798 patent by making, selling, using, importing and/or offering to sell the Monster Moto MMB-80 minibike within the United States. A true and correct copy of a photograph of Monster Motos MMB-80 minibike is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 11. In particular, Defendants have pointed to the frame design of the MMB-80 minibike as a purported infringement of the 798 patent, despite the fact that the two designs are plainly different. See Exhibit C hereto, a true and correct copy of a comparison of the frame of Monster Motos MMB-80 with the frame of Defendants MBX10 minibike frame (which purportedly embodies the 798 patent). 12. Defendants have also based their claims of design patent infringement on purported similarities between the handlebars, fenders, foot pegs, engines, seat, and kickstands of the MMB-80 minibike and the 798 patent, despite the fact that these are all functional components of a minibike not entitled to design patent protection. Moreover, to the dubious extent there is any protectable ornamental design with respect to these components, it differs between the MMB-80 minibike and the 798 patent. Case 3:14-cv-02625-N Document 1 Filed 07/21/14 Page 3 of 16 PageID 3 4 13. In any event, the 798 patent is itself invalid for a variety of reasons namely, lack of novelty, obviousness and functionality. The 798 patent improperly claims numerous purely functional elements of a minibike and is invalid on that basis. See Exhibit A hereto (claiming design patent protection for entirety of minibike). 14. In addition, as depicted below, the purportedly revolutionary teardrop frame design as well as other design aspects of Defendants MBX minibikes were disclosed by the Savage minibike as far as back as 1961: A true and correct copy of an advertisement for the Savage minibike in the December 1961 issue of Desert magazine is attached hereto as Exhibit D. True and correct copies of additional photographs of the 1960s-era Savage minibike are attached hereto as Exhibit E. 15. Indeed, all of the purported ornamental elements of the 798 patent are in the prior art. For example, the design of the Baja Doodlebug minibike, which has been on sale since at least 2004, includes design elements, such as the fenders, that are substantially similar, if not identical, to the 798 patent. A true and correct copy of a photograph of the Baja Doodlebug minibike is attached hereto as Exhibit F. 16. A cursory comparison of the 798 patent, Defendants MBX series of minibikes (which purport to embody the 798 patent), the Monster Moto MMB-80, and a number of other Case 3:14-cv-02625-N Document 1 Filed 07/21/14 Page 4 of 16 PageID 4 5 competing minibikes in the marketplace demonstrates nothing more than the fact that minibikes all share a number of similar characteristics for obvious and unavoidable functional reasons. To the extent that the 798 patent includes any ornamental aspects, such aspects are disclosed in the prior art and/or differ from the Monster Moto MMB-80. 17. Further, Defendants have falsely accused Monster Moto of misappropriating their purported trade secrets, tortiously interfering with their contracts and business expectancy, and violating their alleged trade dress and trademark rights under the Lanham Act. 18. Among other things, Defendants contend that the identity of their customers -- namely, retailers such as Sears, Kmart, Costco, and Alco -- is somehow a trade secret that belongs to them, despite the fact that the identity of these extraordinarily well-known companies (and the fact that they sell minibikes) is a secret to no one. 19. Similarly, Defendants contend that the identity of their (former) Chinese manufacturer is somehow a trade secret, despite the fact that such information is readily available to anyone in the industry. 20. In addition, Defendants have asserted that they have trade secrets in the design or manufacture of their minibikes, despite the fact that there is nothing novel in the design or manufacture of Defendants minibikes. 21. All of Defendants false accusations against Monster Moto revolve around the Monster Moto MMB-80, which was independently developed by Monster Moto and its employees and contractors, based on their years of experience in the minibike industry. The MMB-80 was developed without reference to any of Defendants alleged trade secrets. Indeed, no trade secrets were necessary as the information necessary to design, manufacture, and sell the MMB-80 was well within the knowledge of Monster Moto, its employees and contractors. Case 3:14-cv-02625-N Document 1 Filed 07/21/14 Page 5 of 16 PageID 5 6 While certain of Defendants former employees or contractors 1 have worked on behalf of Monster Moto, each of these individuals signed a document pledging that they would not use any confidential or proprietary information obtained from Defendants in their work on behalf of Monster Moto (and, as set forth above, there is nothing novel, confidential or secret regarding Defendants minibikes in any event). 22. Defendants also contend that their trade dress is infringed by Monster Moto because, among other things, the box in which the Monster Moto MMB-80 is packaged includes instructions that read DO NOT LAY FLAT and THIS SIDE UP. The absurdity of this claim is apparent as similar instructions appear on virtually all boxes of this type. 23. Despite the above incontrovertible facts, Defendants have knowingly and with malice made numerous false accusations about Monster Moto to Monster Motos customers. For example, Defendants have contacted Monster Motos current and potential customers and made false allegations of intellectual property infringement against Monster Moto. Defendants false accusations have caused Monster Motos customers to stop or delay doing business with Monster Moto, causing Monster Moto to lose sales. 24. Defendants have made these accusations, knowing that they are false, with malice and intent to unfairly injure Monster Motos standing with its customers and the marketplace as a whole. Such statements have been designed expressly to damage Monster Moto and its business. 25. Moreover, on June 17, 2014, Defendants filed a lawsuit against Monster Moto and several other Defendants in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Case No. 4:14-cv-546, accusing Monster Moto of, inter alia, infringement of the 798 1 A number of Defendants former employees and contractors left their employ because Defendants failed to pay them. In fact, one former contractor, Olen Rice and his company, Northern Group, Inc., have sued MotoVox in Wisconsin State Court on June 26, 2013, for failure to pay compensation and commissions owed. See Olen Rice v. APT Powersport and Utility Products, LLC and American Performance Technologies, LLC, Wisconsin Circuit Court Case No. 13-CV-1031, and Northern Group, Inc. v. APT Powersport and Utility Products, LLC, Wisconsin Circuit Court Case No. 13-CV-1032. Case 3:14-cv-02625-N Document 1 Filed 07/21/14 Page 6 of 16 PageID 6 7 patent, trade secret misappropriation, trade dress infringement, trademark infringement, tortious interference with business expectancies, and intentional interference with contract. 26. Defendants have cited to this filing in communications to Monster Motos current and potential customers, and the marketplace as a while, in a transparent bid to steal Monster Motos business. See, e.g., Exhibit G hereto, a true and correct copy of Defendants July 15, 2014 press release regarding Defendants filing of a lawsuit and motion for preliminary injunction. Further, Defendants have mischaracterized the Court documents they have forwarded to Monster Motos customers. 27. However, although Defendants purport to seek preliminary injunctive relief, they have not even served summons and complaint on Monster Moto as of July 18, 2014 over a month after filing suit. Yet, as set forth above, Defendants have trumpeted their filing of the suit to the marketplace and Monster Motos customers for the purpose of interfering with Monster Motos business relationships. This further demonstrates that Defendants have not made their accusations against Monster Moto with any basis or proper purpose, but, instead, seek to smear Monster Motos reputation without foundation or accountability. Count I: Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of the 798 Patent 28. Plaintiff Monster Moto repeats, reiterates, and re-alleges the allegations set forth in the preceding Paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 29. Defendants contend that Monster Moto infringes the 798 patent by making, using, selling, offering for sale, and/or offering for sale the MMB-80 minibike within the United States. 30. Monster Motos making, using, selling, offering for sale, and/or offering for sale of the MMB-80 minibike does not, has not, and will not infringe any valid and enforceable claim of the 798 patent. By way of example and not limitation, there is no substantial similarity Case 3:14-cv-02625-N Document 1 Filed 07/21/14 Page 7 of 16 PageID 7 8 between the MMB-80 minibike and the 798 patent such that the ordinary observer with knowledge of the prior art would be deceived, inducing him to purchase one supposing it to be the other. Rather, any similarities are merely a function of the fact that both are minibikes. In fact, cursory review of the minibike market reveals that there are a plethora of minibikes that have somewhat similar designs, as minibike design is necessarily limited to a great degree by functional considerations. Viewed properly in context, any allegedly protectable ornamental aspects of the MMB-80 minibike design -- in particular, its frame design -- are entirely dissimilar from the 798 patent, in whole and in part. 31. An actual and justiciable controversy exists between Monster Moto and Defendants regarding noninfringement of the 798 Patent. 32. Monster Moto is entitled to a declaratory judgment that it has not infringed and does not infringe any valid and/or enforceable claim of the 798 Patent. 33. This is an exceptional case entitling Monster Moto to an award of attorneys fees incurred in connection with this action under 35 U.S.C. 285. Count II: Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of the 798 Patent 34. Plaintiff Monster Moto repeats, reiterates, and re-alleges the allegations set forth in the preceding Paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 35. The claims of the 798 patent are invalid for failing to meet the conditions of patentability set forth in 35 U.S.C. 101 et seq., including but not limited to sections 102, 103 and 171. 36. The claims of the 798 patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 because, at a minimum and without limitation, they are neither novel nor nonobvious in light of existing prior art. Case 3:14-cv-02625-N Document 1 Filed 07/21/14 Page 8 of 16 PageID 8 9 37. Further, the claims of the 798 patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. 171 because they are primarily functional, not ornamental, in nature, and, therefore, are not new, original, and ornamental, as required by the statute. 38. An actual case or controversy exists between Monster Moto and Defendants as to whether the 798 patent is invalid. 39. A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate so that Monster Moto may ascertain its rights as to whether the 798 patent is invalid. 40. Monster Moto is entitled to a declaratory judgment that the 798 patent is invalid. 41. This is an exceptional case entitling Monster Moto to an award of attorneys fees incurred in connection with this action under 35 U.S.C. 285. Count III: Common Law Business Disparagement 42. Plaintiff Monster Moto repeats, reiterates, and re-alleges the allegations set forth in the preceding Paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 43. As set forth above, Defendants have published disparaging words regarding Monster Moto and its business to Monster Motos customers, potential customers and to the market at large. 44. Defendants disparaging words regarding Monster Moto have been false. Defendants have known that their disparaging words were false, and made such statements in bad faith. 45. Defendants published disparaging words regarding Monster Moto with malice, intent to harm Monster Moto, and in a manner calculated to prevent others from dealing with Monster Moto. 46. Defendants lacked any privilege or justification to make the disparaging statements regarding Monster Moto. Case 3:14-cv-02625-N Document 1 Filed 07/21/14 Page 9 of 16 PageID 9 10 47. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants publication of false, disparaging words regarding Monster Moto, Monster Moto has suffered special damages in the form of actual economic harm. Among other things, Monster Moto has been forced to expend resources to defend itself and correct Defendants false statements, has lost business, and has suffered damaged to its good will and reputation. 48. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants disparagement, Monster Moto has sustained actual damages in an amount to be proven at trial. 49. In addition, Monster Moto has suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable harm as a proximate result of Defendants conduct. Monster Moto has no adequate remedy at law to protect it from such irreparable harm. Such irreparable harm will continue and increase unless Defendants are preliminarily and permanently enjoined from their unlawful conduct. 50. Defendants have engaged in outrageous, aggravated, malicious and/or fraudulent conduct, thereby entitling Monster Moto to punitive damages. Count IV: Tortious Interference with Contract 51. Plaintiff Monster Moto repeats, reiterates, and re-alleges the allegations set forth in the preceding Paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 52. Plaintiff Monster Moto is a party to a number of contracts with its customers which are subject to interference. 53. By making false statements regarding Monster Moto and its business, Defendants have engaged in willful and intentional acts of interference. 54. Defendants tortious interference has proximately caused damages to Monster Moto. 55. Monster Moto has suffered actual damage and loss due to Defendants interference. As set forth above, Monster Moto has been forced to expend resources to defend Case 3:14-cv-02625-N Document 1 Filed 07/21/14 Page 10 of 16 PageID 10 11 itself and correct Defendants false statements, has lost business, and has suffered damaged to its good will and reputation. 56. In addition, Monster Moto has suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable harm as a proximate result of Defendants conduct. Monster Moto has no adequate remedy at law to protect it from such irreparable harm. Such irreparable harm will continue and increase unless Defendants are preliminarily and permanently enjoined from their unlawful conduct. 57. Defendants have engaged in outrageous, aggravated, malicious and/or fraudulent conduct, thereby entitling Monster Moto to punitive damages. Count V: Tortious Interference with Business Expectancy 58. Plaintiff Monster Moto repeats, reiterates, and re-alleges the allegations set forth in the preceding Paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 59. Monster Moto has had a reasonable probability that it would enter into a business relationship with potential customers and additional business relationships with its current customers. 60. Defendants have performed intentional, malicious interventions and engaged in independently tortious or unlawful actions, including the making of false and/or fraudulent statements, with a conscious desire to prevent Monster Motos business relationships from occurring and/or with knowledge that the interference was certain or substantially likely to occur as a result of their conduct. 61. Defendants have lacked any privilege or justification for their actions in this regard. 62. Monster Moto has suffered actual harm or damages as a result of the Defendants interference. As set forth above, Monster Moto has been forced to expend resources to defend Case 3:14-cv-02625-N Document 1 Filed 07/21/14 Page 11 of 16 PageID 11 12 itself and correct Defendants false statements, has lost business, and has suffered damaged to its good will and reputation. 63. In addition, Monster Moto has suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable harm as a proximate result of Defendants conduct. Monster Moto has no adequate remedy at law to protect it from such irreparable harm. Such irreparable harm will continue and increase unless Defendants are preliminarily and permanently enjoined from their unlawful conduct. 64. Defendants have engaged in outrageous, aggravated, malicious and/or fraudulent conduct, thereby entitling Monster Moto to punitive damages. Count VI: False Advertising Under Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. 1125(a)) 65. Plaintiff Monster Moto repeats, reiterates, and re-alleges the allegations set forth in the preceding Paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 66. Defendants made false or misleading statements of fact in a commercial advertisement and promotion about their own products and/or Monster Motos products. 67. These statements actually deceived and/or had the tendency to deceive a substantial segment of its audience: the audience being potential customers of minibikes. 68. Defendants deception was material, in that it was likely to influence purchasing decisions. 69. Defendants caused the statements to enter interstate commerce. 70. Monster Moto has been and is likely to continue to be injured as a result of the statements by loss of sales and profits, damage to its reputation, expenditures incurred to correct the false and/or misleading statements made, and by lessening of goodwill associated with Monster Motos products. 71. As a result of Defendants acts alleged herein, Monster Moto has suffered and continues to suffer irreparable harm as a proximate result of Defendants false and deceptive Case 3:14-cv-02625-N Document 1 Filed 07/21/14 Page 12 of 16 PageID 12 13 advertising. Monster Moto has no adequate remedy at law to protect it from such irreparable harm. Such irreparable harm will continue and increase unless Defendants are preliminarily and permanently enjoined from their unlawful conduct. 72. Monster Moto is entitled to damages to be proven at trial. 73. Under the Lanham Act, Monster Moto is entitled to trebled damages, the cost of the action, and injunctive relief. 74. This case is exceptional warranting an award of attorneys fees under 15 U.S.C. 1117(a). Count VII: Common Law Unfair Competition 75. Plaintiff Monster Moto repeats, reiterates, and re-alleges the allegations set forth in the preceding Paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 76. Defendants have engaged in business conduct which is contrary to honest practice in commercial matters. Defendants unfair and illegal facts have interfered with Monster Motos ability to conduct its business. 77. Defendants have made false or misleading statements of fact to Monster Motos customers and potential customers in order to promote its products and to disparage Monster Moto and its products. 78. Defendants made these statements without a reasonable factual or legal basis in an effort to undermine Monster Motos position in the marketplace and to unfairly gain a competitive advantage over Monster Moto. 79. These statements actually deceived and/or had the tendency to deceive a substantial segment of its audience; the audience being customers and potential customers of minibikes. Case 3:14-cv-02625-N Document 1 Filed 07/21/14 Page 13 of 16 PageID 13 14 80. Defendants deception was material, in that it was likely to influence purchasing decisions. 81. Monster Moto has been and is likely to continue to be injured as a result of the statements by loss of sales and profits, damage to its reputation, expenditures incurred to correct the false and/or misleading statements, and by lessening of goodwill associated with its products. 82. Upon information and belief, as a result of Defendants acts alleged herein, minibike customers and potential customers are suffering harm because fewer options will be available in the marketplace and prices will be artificially high if Defendants are allowed to exclude others such as Monster Moto from the marketplace through its unfair competition. 83. Monster Moto is entitled to damages to be proven at trial. 84. In addition, Monster Moto has suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable harm as a proximate result of Defendants unfair competition. Monster Moto has no adequate remedy at law to protect it from such irreparable harm. Such irreparable harm will continue and increase unless Defendants are preliminarily and permanently enjoined from their unlawful conduct. 85. Defendants have engaged in outrageous, aggravated, malicious and/or fraudulent conduct, thereby entitling Monster Moto to punitive damages. V. JURY DEMAND 86. Plaintiff Monster Moto demands a jury trial. Case 3:14-cv-02625-N Document 1 Filed 07/21/14 Page 14 of 16 PageID 14 15 VI. REQUEST FOR RELIEF For all the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Monster Moto prays this Honorable Court issue citation for the Defendants MotoVox and APTIP to appear and answer, and that this Court enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff Monster Moto against Defendants MotoVox and APTIP for: 1. actual damages; 2. punitive damages; 3. trebled damages under the Lanham Act; 4. declaratory judgment that Monster Moto has not infringed the 798 patent; 5. declaratory judgment that the 798 patent is invalid; 6. preliminary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining Defendants from (a) making false disparaging statements regarding Monster Moto, its business and products; (b) tortiously interfering with Monster Motos existing or future contracts; (c) engaging in false advertising regarding Defendants and Monster Motos products; and (d) unfairly competing with Monster Moto. 7. attorneys' fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 285 and 15 U.S.C. 1117(a); 8. costs of suit; 9. pre- and post-judgment interest; and 10. such other and further relief, general or special, at law or in equity, to which Plaintiff Monster Moto may show itself justly entitled. Case 3:14-cv-02625-N Document 1 Filed 07/21/14 Page 15 of 16 PageID 15 16 Date: July 21, 2014 /s/ Keith J. Grady Keith J. Grady (46757MO) Polsinelli PC 100 S. Fourth Street Suite 1000 St. Louis, MO 63102 (p) 314-889-8000 (f) 314-231-1776 kgrady@polsinelli.com William H. Church, Jr. (04248020TX) Polsinelli PC 2501 N. Harwood Suite 1900 Dallas, TX 75201 (p) 214-397-0030 (f) 214-853-5248 bchurch@polsinelli.com Graham L.W. Day Polsinelli PC 100 S. Fourth Street Suite 1000 St. Louis, MO 63102 (p) 314-889-8000 (f) 314-231-1776 gday@polsinelli.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF MONSTER MOTO, LLC 48430427 Case 3:14-cv-02625-N Document 1 Filed 07/21/14 Page 16 of 16 PageID 16 JS 44 (Rev. #%"$$) CIVIL COVER SHEET The JS 44 civiI coversheet and the inIormation contained herein neither repIace nor suppIement the IiIing and service oI pIeadings or other papers as required by Iaw, except as provided by IocaI ruIes oI court. This Iorm, approved by the JudiciaI ConIerence oI the United States inSeptember 1974, is required Ior the use oI the CIerk oI Court Ior the purpose oI initiating the civiI docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.) I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS (b) County oI Residence oI First Listed PIaintiII County oI Residence oI First Listed DeIendant (EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY) NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED. (c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known) II. BASIS OF 1URISDICTION (Place an X in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an X in One Box for Plaintiff) (For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant) " 1 U.S. Government " 3 FederaI Question PTF DEF PTF DEF PIaintiII (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen oI This State " 1 " 1 Incorporated or PrincipaI PIace " 4 " 4 oI Business In This State " 2 U.S. Government " 4 Diversity Citizen oI Another State " 2 " 2 Incorporated and PrincipaI PIace " 5 " 5 DeIendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) oI Business In Another State Citizen or Subject oI a " 3 " 3 Foreign Nation " 6 " 6 Foreign Country IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an X in One Box Only) CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES " 110 Insurance PERSONAL IN1URY PERSONAL IN1URY " 625 Drug ReIated Seizure " 422 AppeaI 28 USC 158 " 375 FaIse CIaims Act " 120 Marine " 310 AirpIane " 365 PersonaI Injury - oI Property 21 USC 881 " 423 WithdrawaI " 400 State Reapportionment " 130 MiIIer Act " 315 AirpIane Product Product LiabiIity " 690 Other 28 USC 157 " 410 Antitrust " 140 NegotiabIe Instrument LiabiIity " 367 HeaIth Care/ " 430 Banks and Banking " 150 Recovery oI Overpayment " 320 AssauIt, LibeI & PharmaceuticaI PROPERTY RIGHTS " 450 Commerce & EnIorcement oI Judgment SIander PersonaI Injury " 820 Copyrights " 460 Deportation " 151 Medicare Act " 330 FederaI EmpIoyers` Product LiabiIity " 830 Patent " 470 Racketeer InIIuenced and " 152 Recovery oI DeIauIted LiabiIity " 368 Asbestos PersonaI " 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations Student Loans " 340 Marine Injury Product " 480 Consumer Credit (ExcI. Veterans) " 345 Marine Product LiabiIity LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY " 490 CabIe/Sat TV " 153 Recovery oI Overpayment LiabiIity PERSONAL PROPERTY " 710 Fair Labor Standards " 861 HIA (1395II) " 850 Securities/Commodities/ oI Veteran`s BeneIits " 350 Motor VehicIe " 370 Other Fraud Act " 862 BIack Lung (923) Exchange " 160 StockhoIders` Suits " 355 Motor VehicIe " 371 Truth in Lending " 720 Labor/Mgmt. ReIations " 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) " 890 Other Statutory Actions " 190 Other Contract Product LiabiIity " 380 Other PersonaI " 740 RaiIway Labor Act " 864 SSID TitIe XVI " 891 AgricuIturaI Acts " 195 Contract Product LiabiIity " 360 Other PersonaI Property Damage " 751 FamiIy and MedicaI " 865 RSI (405(g)) " 893 EnvironmentaI Matters " 196 Franchise Injury " 385 Property Damage Leave Act " 895 Freedom oI InIormation " 362 PersonaI Injury - Product LiabiIity " 790 Other Labor Litigation Act Med. MaIpractice " 791 EmpI. Ret. Inc. " 896 Arbitration REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS Security Act FEDERAL TAX SUITS " 899 Administrative Procedure " 210 Land Condemnation " 440 Other CiviI Rights " 510 Motions to Vacate " 870 Taxes (U.S. PIaintiII Act/Review or AppeaI oI " 220 ForecIosure " 441 Voting Sentence or DeIendant) Agency Decision " 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment " 442 EmpIoyment Habeas Corpus: " 871 IRSThird Party " 950 ConstitutionaIity oI " 240 Torts to Land " 443 Housing/ " 530 GeneraI 26 USC 7609 State Statutes " 245 Tort Product LiabiIity Accommodations " 535 Death PenaIty IMMIGRATION " 290 AII Other ReaI Property " 445 Amer. w/DisabiIities - " 540 Mandamus & Other " 462 NaturaIization AppIication EmpIoyment " 550 CiviI Rights " 463 Habeas Corpus - " 446 Amer. w/DisabiIities - " 555 Prison Condition AIien Detainee Other " 560 CiviI Detainee - (Prisoner Petition) " 448 Education Conditions oI " 465 Other Immigration ConIinement Actions V. ORIGIN TransIerred Irom another district (specify) (Place an X in One Box Only) " 1 OriginaI Proceeding " 2 Removed Irom State Court " 3 Remanded Irom AppeIIate Court " 4 Reinstated or Reopened " 5 " 6 MuItidistrict Litigation VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Cite the U.S. CiviI Statute under which you are IiIing (Donot citejurisdictional statutesunlessdiversity): BrieI description oI cause: VII. REQUESTED IN COMPLAINT: " CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION UNDER F.R.C.P. 23 DEMAND $ CHECK YES onIy iI demanded in compIaint: 1URY DEMAND: " Yes " No VIII. RELATED CASE(S) PENDING OR CLOSED: (See instructions): JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD FOR OFFICE USE ONLY RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE Action for declaratory judgment for patent invalidity and non-infringement, common law business disparagement, tortious interference with contract, tortious interference with business expectancy, common law unfair competition, and false advertising under Lanham Act Monster Moto LLC Dallas Keith J. Grady, Polsinelli PC, 100 S. 4th Street, Suite 1000, St. Louis, MO 63102 (314) 889-8000 APT Group, Inc. d/b/a MotoVox and APT IP Holdings, LLC 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1338, 1367 75,000.00 07/21/2014 /s/ Keith J. Grady Case 3:14-cv-02625-N Document 1-1 Filed 07/21/14 Page 1 of 2 PageID 17 JS 44 Reverse (Rev. #%"$$) INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM 1S 44 Authority For CiviI Cover Sheet The JS 44 civiI cover sheet andthe inIormation contained herein neither repIaces nor suppIements the IiIings and service oI pIeading or other papers as required by Iaw, except as provided by IocaI ruIes oI court. This Iorm, approved by the JudiciaI ConIerence oI the United States in September 1974, is required Ior the use oI the CIerk oI Court Ior the purpose oI initiating the civiI docket sheet. ConsequentIy, a civiI cover sheet is submitted to the CIerk oI Court Ior each civiI compIaint IiIed. The attorney IiIing a case shouId compIete the Iorm as IoIIows: I. (a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (Iast, Iirst, middIe initiaI) oI pIaintiII and deIendant. II the pIaintiII or deIendant is a government agency, use onIy the IuII name or standard abbreviations. II the pIaintiII or de Iendant is an oIIiciaI within agovernment agency, identiIy Iirst the agencyand then the oIIiciaI, giving both name and titIe. (b) County oI Residence. For each civiI case IiIed, except U.S. pIaintiII cases, enter the name oI the county where the Iirst Iisted pIaintiII resides at the time oI IiIing. In U.S. pIaintiII cases, enter the name oI the county in which the Iirst Iisted deIendant residesat the time oI IiIing. (NOTE: In Iand condemnation cases, the county oI residence oI the deIendant is the Iocation oI the tract oI Iand invoIved.) (c) Attorneys. Enter the Iirm name, address, teIephone number, and attorney oI record. II there are severaI attorneys, Iist them on an attachment, noting in this section (see attachment). II. 1urisdiction. The basis oI jurisdiction is set Iorth under RuIe 8(a), F.R.CP. ., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pIeadings. PIace an X in one oI the boxes. II there is more than one basis oI jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown beIow. United States pIaintiII. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and oIIicers oI the United States are incIuded here. United States deIendant. (2) When the pIaintiII is suing the United States, its oIIicers or agencies, pIace an X in this box. FederaI question. (3) This reIers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdicti on arises under the Constitution oI the Unite d States, an amendment to the Constitution, an act oI Congress or a treatyoI the United States. In cases where the U.S. is aparty, the U.S. pIaintiII or deIendant code takes precedence, and box 1 or 2 shouId be marked. Diversity oI citizenship. (4) This reIers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens oI diIIerent states. When Box 4 is checked, the citizenship oI the diIIerent parties must be checked. (See Section III beIow; IederaI question actions take precedence over diversity cases.) III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section oI the JS 44 is to be compIeted iI divers ity oI citizenship was indicated above.Mark this section Ior each principaI party. IV. Nature of Suit. PIace an X in the appropri ate box. II the nature oI s uit cannot be determined, be sure the cause oI action, in Section VI beIow, is suIIicient to enabIe the deputy cIerk or the statisticaI cIerks in the Administrative OIIice to determine the nature oI suit. II the cause Iits more than one nature oI suit, seIect the most deIinitive. V. Origin. PIace an X in one oI the seven boxes. OriginaI Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts. Removed IromState Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under TitIe 28U.S.C., Section 1441. When the petition Ior removaI is granted, check this box. Remanded Irom AppeIIate Court. (3) Check this box Ior cases remanded to the district court Ior Iurther action. Use the date oI remand as the IiIing date. Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box Ior cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the IiIing date. TransIerred Irom Another District. (5) For cases transIerred under TitIe 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this Ior within district transIers or muItidistrict Iitigation transIers. MuItidistrict Litigation. (6) Check this box when a muItidistrict case is transIerred into the district under authority oI TitIe 28 U.S.C. Section 1407. When this box is checked, do not check (5) above. AppeaI to District Judge Irom Magistrate Judgment. (7) Check this box Ior an appeaI Irom a magistrate judge`s decision. VI. Cause of Action. Report the civiI statute directIyreIated to the cause oI action and give a brieI description oI the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity. ExampIe: U.S. CiviI Statute: 47 USC 553 BrieI Description: Unauthorized reception oI cabIe service VII. Requested in Complaint. CIass Action. PIace an X in this box iI you are IiIing a cIass action under RuIe 23, F.R.Cv.P. Demand. In this space enter the doIIar amount (in thousands oI doIIars) being demanded or indicate other demand such as a preIiminary injunction. Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded. VIII. Related Cases. This section oI the JS 44 is used toreIerence cases that are reIated to this IiIing, iI any. II a reaIted case exists, whether pending or cIosed, insert the docket numbers and the corresponding judge names Ior such cases. A case is "reaIted" to this IiIing iI the case: (1) invoIves some or aII oI the same parties and is based on the same or simiIar cIaim; (2) invoIves the same property, transaction, or event; (3) invoIves substantiaIIy simiIar issues oI Iaw and Iact; and/or (4) invoIves the same estate in a bankruptcy appeaI. Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civiI cover sheet. Case 3:14-cv-02625-N Document 1-1 Filed 07/21/14 Page 2 of 2 PageID 18 A Case 3:14-cv-02625-N Document 1-2 Filed 07/21/14 Page 1 of 8 PageID 19 Case 3:14-cv-02625-N Document 1-2 Filed 07/21/14 Page 2 of 8 PageID 20 Case 3:14-cv-02625-N Document 1-2 Filed 07/21/14 Page 3 of 8 PageID 21 Case 3:14-cv-02625-N Document 1-2 Filed 07/21/14 Page 4 of 8 PageID 22 Case 3:14-cv-02625-N Document 1-2 Filed 07/21/14 Page 5 of 8 PageID 23 Case 3:14-cv-02625-N Document 1-2 Filed 07/21/14 Page 6 of 8 PageID 24 Case 3:14-cv-02625-N Document 1-2 Filed 07/21/14 Page 7 of 8 PageID 25 Case 3:14-cv-02625-N Document 1-2 Filed 07/21/14 Page 8 of 8 PageID 26 B Case 3:14-cv-02625-N Document 1-3 Filed 07/21/14 Page 1 of 1 PageID 27 C Case 3:14-cv-02625-N Document 1-4 Filed 07/21/14 Page 1 of 1 PageID 28 D Case 3:14-cv-02625-N Document 1-5 Filed 07/21/14 Page 1 of 2 PageID 29 Case 3:14-cv-02625-N Document 1-5 Filed 07/21/14 Page 2 of 2 PageID 30 E Case 3:14-cv-02625-N Document 1-6 Filed 07/21/14 Page 1 of 2 PageID 31 Case 3:14-cv-02625-N Document 1-6 Filed 07/21/14 Page 2 of 2 PageID 32 F Case 3:14-cv-02625-N Document 1-7 Filed 07/21/14 Page 1 of 1 PageID 33 U.S. EDITION Tuesday, July 15, 2014 As of 10:20 AM EDT The WaII Street JournaI news department was not invoIved in the creation of this content. PRESS RELEASE @cZg +/& ,*+.& +*3,* O([( ;I APT MotoVox Group, Inc. FiIes Patent Infringement Lawsuit Against Monster Moto; Seeks PreIiminary Injunction A6DH6H 8?IN& C](& @cZg +/& ,*+. )FGDSeaeW`S) '' 6FI C]b]K]f =`]c^& ?\Q( $!C]b]K]f!%& O\\]c\QSR bVOb Wb TWZSR O []bW]\ gSabS`ROg T]` O ^`SZW[W\O`g W\Xc\QbW]\ OUOW\ab C]\abS` C]b] O\R T]`[S` S[^Z]gSSa ]T C]b]K]f W\ bVS J\WbSR HbObSa 9Wab`WQb 8]c`b T]` bVS LSabS`\ 9Wab`WQb ]T CWaa]c`W( 6FI C]b]K]f =`]c^ Wa `S_cSabW\U bVOb bVS 8]c`b S\bS` O F`SZW[W\O`g ?\Xc\QbW]\ b] S\X]W\ C]\abS` C]b]& BB8& EZS\ GWQS& G]PS`b 6( GWQS& H`(& @]\ J[abSR& O\R AS\\SbV <`O\QWa $!9STS\RO\ba!% T`][ $+% ]\U]W\U W\T`W\US[S\b ]T RSaWU\ ^ObS\ba4 $,% [WaO^^`]^`WObW]\ ]T b`ORS aSQ`Sba4 $-% P`SOQV ]T Q]\b`OQb4 O\R $.% b]`bW]ca W\bS`TS`S\QS eWbV PcaW\Saa Sf^SQbObW]\a( 6FI =`]c^ aSSYa bVS `S_cSabSR W\Xc\QbW]\ b] $+% ^`SQZcRS 9STS\RO\ba T`][ [OYW\U O\g Tc`bVS` aOZSa ]T ^ObS\b ?\T`W\UW\U F`]RcQba& $,% ]`RS` 9STS\RO\ba b] Q]\bOQb C]\abS` C]b]#a `SbOWZ Qcab][S`a O\R W\ab`cQb bVS[ b] ab]^ bVSW` aOZSa O\R `Sbc`\ OZZ ?\T`W\UW\U F`]RcQba b] C]\abS` C]b]& $-% ]`RS` 9STS\RO\ba b] ab]^ OZZ ORdS`bWaW\U& W\QZcRW\U OZZ ?\bS`\Sb ORdS`bWaW\U& bVOb RS^WQb& ^`][]bS& ]` ]bVS`eWaS [S\bW]\ bVS OP]dS'ZWabSR ?\T`W\UW\U F`]RcQba4 $.% ]`RS` 9STS\RO\ba b] `ST`OW\ T`][ caW\U O\g ]T C]b]K]f#a b`ORS aSQ`Sba W\ bVS RSaWU\ ]` [O\cTOQbc`S ]T O\g ?\T`W\UW\U F`]RcQba ]` T]` O\g ^c`^]aS eVObSdS`4 $/% ]`RS` 9STS\RO\ba b] Q][^Zg eWbV bVSW` Q]\b`OQbcOZ ]PZWUObW]\a aSb T]`bV W\ bVSW` HS`dWQS O\R ;[^Z]g[S\b 6U`SS[S\ba4 O\R $0% ]`RS` 9STS\RO\ba b] `ST`OW\ T`][ [OYW\U Q]\bOQb eWbV O\g ]T C]b]K]f#a SfWabW\U `SbOWZ Qcab][S`a& eWbV `Sa^SQb b] ORdS`bWaW\U ]` aSZZW\U O\g ?\T`W\UW\U F`]RcQba( !C]b]K]f eWZZ \]b abO\R Pg O\]bVS` [W\cbS O\R OZZ]e bVWa W\XcabWQS b] Q]\bW\cS&! aOWR LOg\S FObbS`a]\& 8;E ]T 6FI C]b]K]f =`]c^& ?\Q( !LS O`S OPa]ZcbS W\ ]c` `Sa]ZcbW]\ b] dWU]`]caZg RSTS\R O\R ^`]bSQb ]c` W\bSZZSQbcOZ ^`]^S`bg( LS eWZZ TWUVb bVWa PObbZS b] bVS S\R PSQOcaS eS VOdS e]`YSR a] VO`R b] [OYS bVS PSab ^`]RcQba W\ bVS [O`YSb^ZOQS( Ec` Qcab][S`a& S[^Z]gSSa O\R aVO`SV]ZRS`a RSaS`dS \]bVW\U ZSaa(! IVS ZOeacWb TWZSR SO`ZWS` bVWa []\bV& 6FI =`]c^& ?\Q( R)P)O C]b]K]f O\R 6FI ?F >]ZRW\Ua& BB8 d( C]\abS` C]b]& BB8& EZS\ GWQS& G]PS`b 6( GWQS& H`(& @]\ J[abSR& AS\\SbV <`O\QWa& O\R 7SQY HOZO\RS`& G Case 3:14-cv-02625-N Document 1-8 Filed 07/21/14 Page 1 of 2 PageID 34 Q]\bS\Ra bVOb T]`[S` S[^Z]gSSa ]T ]` Q]\acZbO\ba b] 6FI =`]c^ ZSTb bVS 8][^O\g b] e]`Y T]` ]` ]bVS`eWaS OaaWab C]\abS` C]b] b] [O\cTOQbc`S O\R aSZZ [W\WPWYSa WRS\bWQOZ W\ \SO`Zg OZZ `Sa^SQba b] C]b]K]f ^`]RcQba Pg RWaQZ]aW\U b`ORS aSQ`Sba O\R Q]\TWRS\bWOZ W\T]`[ObW]\ ZSO`\SR bV`]cUV bVSW` Oaa]QWObW]\ eWbV C]b]K]f& P`SOQVW\U Q]\b`OQba eWbV C]b]K]f& O\R P`SOQVW\U TWRcQWO`g RcbWSa b] C]b]K]f Oa S_cWbg V]ZRS`a( 6P]cb 6FI C]b]K]f =`]c^& ?\Q( 6FI C]b]K]f =`]c^& ?\Q( $EI8 773 CIKM% Wa O 9SZOeO`S `SUWabS`SR Q]`^]`ObW]\ VSOR_cO`bS`SR W\ AO\aOa 8Wbg O\R Wa bVS V]ZRW\U Q][^O\g T]` bVS C]b]K]f$G% []b]`a^]`b ^`]RcQb ZW\S& H[O`b8O`P$G% ^ObS\bSR TcSZ agabS[& O\R bVS H]\WQ <Z]e a[OZZ S\UW\S bSQV\]Z]Ug ZW\Sa $Vbb^3))eee([]b]d]f(Q][)& O\R Vbb^3))eee(^]eS`O^b(Q][)%( 8]\bOQb LWZZWO[ COVS`& HKF 6FI =`]c^& ?\Q& ?\dGSZ5[]b]d]f(Q][ FOcZ A\]^WQY ; " ; 8][[c\WQObW]\a 2.*(,0,(-/1. ^Y\]^WQY5SO\RSQ][[c\WQObW]\a(Q][ HEJG8; 6FI C]b]K]f =`]c^& ?\Q( )LSP aWbS3 Vbb^3))eee([]b]d]f(Q][ )LSP aWbS3 Vbb^3))eee(^]eS`O^b(Q][ The WaII Street JournaI news department was not invoIved in the creation of this content. Case 3:14-cv-02625-N Document 1-8 Filed 07/21/14 Page 2 of 2 PageID 35 AO 120 (Rev. 08/10) TO: Mail Stop 8 Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, VA 22313-1450 REPORT ON THE FILING OR DETERMINATION OF AN ACTION REGARDING A PATENT OR TRADEMARK In Compliance with 35 U.S.C. 290 and/or 15 U.S.C. 1116 you are hereby advised that a court action has been filed in the U.S. District Court on the following G Trademarks or G Patents. ( G the patent action involves 35 U.S.C. 292.): DOCKET NO. DATE FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT PATENT OR TRADEMARK NO. DATE OF PATENT OR TRADEMARK HOLDER OF PATENT OR TRADEMARK 1 2 3 4 5 In the aboveentitled case, the following patent(s)/ trademark(s) have been included: DATE INCLUDED INCLUDED BY G Amendment G Answer G Cross Bill G Other Pleading PATENT OR TRADEMARK NO. DATE OF PATENT OR TRADEMARK HOLDER OF PATENT OR TRADEMARK 1 2 3 4 5 In the aboveentitled case, the following decision has been rendered or judgement issued: DECISION/J UDGEMENT CLERK (BY) DEPUTY CLERK DATE Copy 1Upon initiation of action, mail this copy to Director Copy 3Upon termination of action, mail this copy to Director Copy 2Upon filing document adding patent(s), mail this copy to Director Copy 4Case file copy Case 3:14-cv-02625-N Document 1-9 Filed 07/21/14 Page 1 of 1 PageID 36 Northern District of Texas
Northern District of Texas
Monster Moto, LLC APT Group, Inc. d/b/a MotoVox and APT IP Holdings, LLC D689,798 9/17/2013 APT IP Holdings, LLC Karen Mitchell Print Save As... Reset