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

Kenneth J. Catanzarite (SBN 113570) kcatanzarite@catanzarite.com Nicole M. Catanzarite Woodward (SBN 205746) ncatanzarite@catanzarite.com CATANZARITE LAW CORPORATION 2331 West Lincoln Avenue Anaheim, California 92801 Tel: (714) 520-5544 Fax: (714) 520-0680 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA TRIPLE TEE GOLF, INC., a Florida Corporation Plaintiff, v. TAYLOR-MADE/ADIDAS, a Delaware Corporation Defendant. PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 7,128,660 AND 7,854,667 UNDER 35 U.S.C. 271(a); 35 U.S.C. 271(b); and 35 U.S.C. 271(c) (DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL) COMES NOW Plaintiff TRIPLE TEE GOLF, INC., by and through undersigned counsel, and hereby alleges as follows: NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. This is a patent infringement action to stop Defendants infringement of

'11CV2974 Case No. __________ WQHWVG _________

Plaintiffs United States Patent Nos. 7,128,660 (the 660 patent) and 7,854,667 (the 667 patent), both entitled Method of Golf Club Performance Enhancement and Articles Resultant Therefrom, copies of each of which are attached hereto as Exhibits A and B. The inventions of said patents allow golfers to change the center of gravity of a substantially hollow golf club head by moving selectable combinations of adjustable weights within the club head, thereby effecting different launch and flight conditions of the golf ball. //
Complaint
[WP\111219 Complaint (F).wpd]

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 7. 5. 2.

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AND VENUE This action arises under the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. 1

et seq., including 35 U.S.C. 271 and 281-285. 3. U.S.C. 271. 4. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(2), This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1338 (a), and 35

1391(c) and 1400(b) in that Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant is headquartered in, and regularly does business in, this judicial district, and it is therefore deemed to reside therein. THE PARTIES Plaintiff, TRIPLE TEE GOLF, INC. (Plaintiff) is a Florida corporation

situated in Pompano Beach, Florida 33069. 6. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and alleges on that basis, that Defendant

Taylor-Made/Adidas Golf Company Inc. (Defendant) is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Carlsbad, California and is a subsidiary of Adidas GmbH, in Germany. Various distributors and agents of Defendant are resident throughout California and the United States. Defendant therefore has at least minimum contacts with this District. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS plaintiff has advised Defendant of the 660 patent which it holds,

sufficiently to satisfy the notice requirements of 35 U.S.C. 287(a), and by expressly offering to Defendant a license under said patent and its related patents including the 667 patent. Defendant has declined such a license. 8. Plaintiff is the holder of all right, title and interest to said 660 and 667

patents (the Patents). 9. Upon information and belief, Defendant designs, assembles, markets,

distribute, makes, uses, imports, offers for sale and sells products that infringe on both of Plaintiffs patents. 2.
Complaint
[WP\111219 Complaint (F).wpd]

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

10.

Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant and its agents have

engaged in a long-standing course of dealings in supplying products in the golf industry which are sold, distributed and used in California and throughout the United States. 11. Plaintiff is informed and believes that the products alleged to be infringing

herein were and are distributed from and into this judicial district from abroad by Defendant, and were offered for sale and sold by Defendant from this judicial district since about the year 2005. 12. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant is subject to personal

jurisdiction of this Court under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. 13. Defendants infringements of Plaintiffs patent include, but are not limited

to, various models of Defendants award winning golf products known as the Taylor-Made R5, R7, R7 Super Quad, R7 Limited, R9, R9 TP, R11 drivers and related golf clubs including so-called MWT fairway woods, and Rescue clubs. Due largely to those products, Defendant, since about 2006, has held the largest share of the U.S. market in golf head driver sales, enabling Defendants golfing operations to exceed $1 billion per annum in revenue since 2006. 14. Defendant knew or should have known of Plaintiffs rights in the 660 and

667 patents, the earliest of which was published September 30, 2004. At the very least, a reasonable investigation would have revealed that the subject matter was and is proprietary to Plaintiff. 15. At least in light of Plaintiffs communications with Defendants in 2007

and 2008, its actions have been knowing and willful since that time. COUNT I (DIRECT PATENT INFRINGEMENT) 16. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 15 and

21, as though fully set forth herein. 17. Plaintiff is the owner said patents and has complied with the provisions of

the United States patent laws at 35 U.S.C. 1 et seq. with respect to them. // 3.
Complaint
[WP\111219 Complaint (F).wpd]

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

18.

Plaintiff has not authorized Defendant to make, use, offer for sale, sell or

import products infringing Plaintiffs patents. 19. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that Defendant

has infringed the Patents by, among other things, making, using, importing, advertising, offering for sale, selling products infringing Plaintiffs patent, including without limitation, said R5, R7, R9 and R11 golf clubs, without Plaintiffs permission or authority, and thereby has and is directly infringing the Patents under 35 U.S.C. 271(a). 20. Plaintiff has suffered damages in an amount subject to proof at trial, but in

no event less than a reasonable royalty relative to Defendants infringing sales revenues, under 35 U.S.C. 284. 21. On information and belief, Defendant knew or should have known of

Plaintiffs exclusive rights in the patented method and structure at the time the infringing activity occurred in that the 660 patent was published in 2004, and the 667 patent was published in 2007, Nevertheless, Defendant proceeded to knowingly and willfully disregard Plaintiffs rights and to infringe Plaintiffs Patents. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to an amount which is treble the amount of Plaintiffs damages found or assessed. 22. Based on Defendants willful infringement, Plaintiff believes this to be an

exceptional case which entitles Plaintiff to attorneys fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 285. 23. Defendants have caused, and continue to cause, irreparable injury to

Plaintiff by infringement of Plaintiffs Patents. COUNT II (INDUCEMENT OF PATENT INFRINGEMENT) 24. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 15,

and 21, as though fully set forth herein. 25. Plaintiff is the owner of the Patents. Plaintiff has complied with the

provisions of the United States patent laws at 35 U.S.C. 1 et seq. with respect to said patent. 26. Plaintiff has not authorized Defendant to induce others to make, use, offer

for sale, sell, or import products infringing Plaintiffs Patents. 4.

Complaint
[WP\111219 Complaint (F).wpd]

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

27.

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendant

has infringed the Patents by actively inducing its agents, distributors, and end users among others, to make, use, import, advertise, offer for sale, sell infringing products, without Plaintiffs permission or authority, in violation of 35 U.S.C. 271(b). 28. Plaintiff has suffered damages in an amount subject to proof at trial, but in

no event less than a reasonable royalty under 35 U.S.C.284 regarding revenues of Defendants infringing sales since the date of publication of the 660 patent in 2005. 29. On information and belief, Defendant knew or should have known of

Plaintiffs exclusive rights in the Patents at the time the infringing activity occurred. Nevertheless, Defendant proceeded knowingly and willfully without regard for Plaintiffs rights, to induce others downstream in commerce to infringe Plaintiffs patent. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to an amount up to treble the amount of Plaintiffs damages found or assessed due to such acts and Defendant should not be allowed to take any deductions from their revenue in computing damages which should be disgorged and awarded to Plaintiff. 30. Based on Defendants willful infringement, Plaintiff believes this to be an

exceptional case which entitles Plaintiff to attorneys fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 285. 31. Defendant has caused, and continues to cause, irreparable injury to Plaintiff

by inducement of others to infringe Plaintiffs patent. COUNT III (CONTRIBUTORY PATENT INFRINGEMENT ) 32. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 15,

and 21, as though fully set forth herein. 33. Plaintiff is the owner of the Patents. Plaintiff has complied with the

provisions of the United States patent laws at 35 U.S.C. 1 et seq. with respect to those patent. 34. Plaintiff has not authorized Defendant to make, use, offer for sale, sell or

import products infringing Plaintiffs patent. // 5.

Complaint
[WP\111219 Complaint (F).wpd]

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

35.

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendant

has infringed the Patents by, among other things, selling one or more articles which comprise a material part of the patented inventions especially adapted for use in an infringement of Plaintiffs Patents and not staple articles of commerce, without Plaintiffs permission or authority, this is violation of 35 U.S.C. 271). 36. Plaintiff has suffered damages in an amount subject to proof at trial, but in

no event less than a reasonable royalty under 35 U.S.C. 284 regarding Defendants infringing sales revenues. 37. On information and belief, Defendant knew of Plaintiffs exclusive rights in

the patent at the time the infringing activity occurred. Nevertheless, Defendant proceeded knowingly and willfully in disregard of Plaintiffs rights, to contribute to the infringement by others to infringe Plaintiffs Patents. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to an amount due to such acts up to treble the amount of Plaintiffs damages found or assessed and Defendant should not be allowed to take any deductions from their revenue in computing profits which should be disgorged and awarded to Plaintiff. 38. Based on Defendants willful infringement, Plaintiff believes this to be an

exceptional case which entitles Plaintiff to attorneys fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 285. 39. Defendant has caused, and continues to cause, irreparable injury to Plaintiff

by contributing to infringement of Plaintiffs Patents. PRAYER FOR RELIEF Plaintiff prays that judgment be entered in its favor and against Defendant as follows: 1. For damages in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 284, including actual damages,

and in no event less than a reasonable royalty regarding Defendants revenues and those of its agents from infringing sales revenues and of other revenue convoyed thereby, consequential of Defendants infringements under 35 U.S.C. 271(a), (b) and/or ). 2. For an award of up to treble the amount of damages found and assessed

under 35 U.S.C. 284; 6.

Complaint
[WP\111219 Complaint (F).wpd]

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

3.

That the Court find this to be an exceptional case and award Plaintiff its

attorneys fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 285; 4. For an accounting and injunctive relief prohibiting future patent

infringement by Defendant and its agents; 5. 6. 7. For interest from the date of commencement of infringement in 2005; For costs of this suit; For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff, TRIPLE TEE GOLF, INC., hereby demands a trial by jury as to any issue triable of right by a jury. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Kenneth J. Catanzarite Kenneth J. Catanzarite, Esq. Of Counsel: Melvin K. Silverman New Jersey Bar No. 236011970 Attorney for Plaintiff M. K. Silverman & Associates, P.C. One Gateway Center Suite 2600 Newark, NJ 07102 PH: 973.508.5033 FX: 888.545-6465 Email: mks@mkspc.com Exhibits _____________________________ 1. U.S. Patent No. 7,128,660 2. U.S. Patent No. 7,854,667

DATED: December 20, 2011.

CATANZARITE LAW CORPORATION

By:

__/s/ Kenneth J. Catanzarite_________________ Kenneth J. Catanzarite Attorneys for Plaintiff

7.
Complaint
[WP\111219 Complaint (F).wpd]

'11CV2974 WQHWVG