1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Steven A. Nielsen, Esq., CSB #133864 steve@nielsenpatents.com ALLMAN & NIELSEN, P.C. 100 Larkspur Landing Circle, Suite 212 Larkspur, CA 94939-1743 Telephone: (415) 461-2700 Facsimile: (415) 461-2726 Attorneys for Plaintiff Sausalito Craftworks, Inc. a California Corporation, dba Omnirax IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

SAUSALITO CRAFTWORKS, Inc. dba OMNIRAX Plaintiff, vs.

Case No. PATENT COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT AND INVALIDITY OF PATENT 7,438,002 1ST CAUSE OF ACTION: For Declaratory Judgment of NonInfringement of Patent (Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. 2201) 2ND CAUSE OF ACTION: For Declaratory Judgment of Patent Invalidity (Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. 2201) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

14

DAVID M. MURRAY, an individual

15

Defendant and Roes 1 to 30.

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Plaintiff, SAUSALITO CRAFTWORKS, INC. dba Omnirax (SAUSALITO CRAFTWORKS) by their undersigned attorneys, for their Complaint against Defendant

-1-

100 Larkspur Landing Circle Suite 212 Larkspur, CA 94939 Telephone: (415) 461-2700 Facsimile: (415) 461-2726

ALLMAN & NIELSEN, P.C.

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT RE PATENT Case 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

David M. Murray, an individual (Murray) and Roes 1 to 30 allege on personal knowledge as to its own acts and on information and belief as to the actions of others, as follows:

THE PARTIES
1. Plaintiff SAUSALITO CRAFTWORKS, INC. (dba OMNIRAX) is a

California Corporation, in good standing, with a principal place of business in Sausalito, California.

2.

Defendant David M. Murray. appears to be an individual sometimes doing

business as edesk having a principal place of business at 39 Cross Highway, Westport, CT, 06880.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. This action arises under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C 2201, et

seq., and under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. 1, et seq. 4. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to

28 U.S.C. 1331, 1338(a). 5. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b), (c) and (d), and

1400(b), because Defendant Murray is subject to general personal jurisdiction and/or specific personal jurisdiction in this district, conducts systematic and continuous business in this district, and a substantial part of the alleged events or omissions giving rise to this action occurred in this district. 6. 7. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the parties to this lawsuit. This Court has personal jurisdiction and/or specific personal jurisdiction over

Defendant Murray because, among other reasons, Murray has purposefully directed

-2-

100 Larkspur Landing Circle Suite 212 Larkspur, CA 94939 Telephone: (415) 461-2700 Facsimile: (415) 461-2726

ALLMAN & NIELSEN, P.C.

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT RE PATENT Case 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

activities to this district by, inter alia, offering for sale desks specifically within California by use of his website www.edesk.us. 8. Upon Murrays above referenced website, in the Contact / Where to Buy

section, there is a specific hyperlink on a map of California, as shown herein in Exhibit A. The California hyperlink leads to a display of Murrays contact information in Connecticut. 9. Not all states on Murrays website map have hyperlinks and not all

hyperlinks lead to the contact information of Murray. Thus, Murray has specifically and intentionally made offers of desk sales within the Courts jurisdiction. 10. An immediate, real and justiciable controversy exists between SAUSALITO

CRAFTWORKS and Murray as to whether the Desktops at Issue, as shown in Exhibit C, infringe upon U.S. Patent 7,438,002 (sometimes referred to as the Patent-in-Suit or the 002 Patent). 11. An immediate, real and justiciable controversy exists between SAUSALITO

CRAFTWORKS and Murray as to whether the Patent-in-Suit is valid and enforceable. 12. The various actions of Murray have created uncertainty as to SAUSALITO

CRAFTWORKS exposure to liability for patent infringement, costs of patent litigation and current plans to sell the Desktops at Issue on a national basis. Pictures of the Desktops at Issue may be found within Exhibit C. 13. 14. A copy of the Patent-in-Suit is attached hereto as Exhibit B. On or about November of 2012 Murray and SAUSALITO CRAFTWORKS

entered into an agreement comprising a non-exclusive license, but exclusive as to 13 states, to the Patent-in-Suit, manufacturing and marketing agreements, proprietary information agreements and an agreement for SAUSALITO CRAFTWORKS to receive a percentage of Murrays future sale of certain rights.

-3-

100 Larkspur Landing Circle Suite 212 Larkspur, CA 94939 Telephone: (415) 461-2700 Facsimile: (415) 461-2726

ALLMAN & NIELSEN, P.C.

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT RE PATENT Case 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

15.

Murray has been harassing SAUSALITO CRAFTWORKS, see Exhibit E, in

an attempt to pressure SAUSALITO CRAFTWORKS into entering into a cancellation agreement. 16. Based upon information available, Murray has allegedly filed and served a

one page pro per complaint in a Connecticut state court, alleging, inter alia, that SAUSALITO CRAFTWORKS has failed to produce sales, contribute to manufacturing expertise and has engaged in other acts of omission. While Murrays state court complaint does not allege patent infringement, Murrays aggressive action(s) raise the possibility of cancelation of the license agreement, subjecting SAUSALITO CRAFTWORKS to liability for patent infringement, to loss of sales due to customer insecurity and to loss of financing due to business uncertainty. 17. Under the case of Medimmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc, (2007) 549 U.S. 118

the dilemma and uncertainty now faced by SAUSALITO CRAFTWORKS gives rise to an actual controversy under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. 2201(a). 18. SAUSALITO CRAFTWORKS is a locally owned and operated office furniture

maker, with a work shop in Sausalito. 19. SAUSALITO CRAFTWORKS has not done business in Connecticut and has

no contacts with Connecticut.

INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
20. Francisco. As a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred near San

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
21. SAUSALITO CRAFTWORKS makes custom office furniture.

-4-

100 Larkspur Landing Circle Suite 212 Larkspur, CA 94939 Telephone: (415) 461-2700 Facsimile: (415) 461-2726

ALLMAN & NIELSEN, P.C.

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT RE PATENT Case 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

22.

SAUSALITO CRAFTWORKS locally offers for sale the Desktops at Issue,

which are shown in Exhibit C. 23. SAUSALITO CRAFTWORKS, has expended considerable resources in

preparation for a national campaign to sell the Desktops at Issue and other products that may arguably infringe upon the Patent-in-Suit. 24. 25. The Desktops at Issue do not infringe upon the Patent-in-Suit. A Claim Chart, attached as Exhibit G, maps claim limitations to the 16 desks

configurations of the Desktops at Issue. 26. Every desk configuration of the Desktops at Issue fail to read upon all of the

claim limitations of either independent claim. 27. The Claim Chart of Exhibit G in not an exhaustive analysis of non-

infringement, and SAUSALITO CRAFTWORKS reserves all of its rights to conduct full discovery and to product alternative claims charts during the course of this action.

I.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF PATENT (DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT, 28 U.S.C. 2201)
SAUSALITO CRAFTWORKS restates and incorporates by reference each

28.

and every allegation previously set forth in the Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 29. Murray has created a substantial, immediate and real controversy between

the parties as to the non-infringement and/or invalidity of the Patent-in-Suit. 30. SAUSALITO CRAFTWORKS is not infringing and has not infringed any valid

claim of the Patent-in-Suit by making, using, or selling any of its products and/or the Desktops at Issue as shown on Exhibit C, and Murray is not entitled to any relief arising under or relating to his purported rights in the Patent-in-Suit.

-5-

100 Larkspur Landing Circle Suite 212 Larkspur, CA 94939 Telephone: (415) 461-2700 Facsimile: (415) 461-2726

ALLMAN & NIELSEN, P.C.

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT RE PATENT Case 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

II.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY OF PATENT (DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT, 28 U.S.C. 2201)

31.

SAUSALITO CRAFTWORKS restates and incorporates by reference each

and every allegation previously set forth in the Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 32. The limitations of the two independent claims of the Patent-in-Suit present an

obvious combination of known components making the patent invalid under 35 U.S.C. Section 103 et seq. 33. For example, in rejecting the original claim set of the underlying patent

application, the patent examiner pointed out that the use of a first section and a diagonal section was anticipated and/or made obvious by ,inter alia, three prior art patents, as illustrated on Exhibit D. 34. Exhibit D presents three office action attachments that appear to have

annotations made by the patent examiner. The contents of Exhibit D are available to the public by viewing the file wrapper of the Patent-in-Suit. 35. return. 36. Prior art desk returns do not appear to have been actually considered and/or Claim rejections were overcome by, inter alia, adding the limitation of a desk

found by the patent examiner. 37. Suit. 38. Exhibit E presents prior art desk returns. Desk returns were well known in the art before the priority date of the Patent-in-

-6-

100 Larkspur Landing Circle Suite 212 Larkspur, CA 94939 Telephone: (415) 461-2700 Facsimile: (415) 461-2726

ALLMAN & NIELSEN, P.C.

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT RE PATENT Case No.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

39.

One reasonably skilled in the art would quickly add a desk return to a desk

system to comport with design needs. 40. Adding a desk return to a desk is an obvious design choice not requiring any

inventive insight. 41. Adding a desk return to a desk and the other claim limitations of the Patent-

in-Suit present an obvious combination of known components in light of KSR Intl Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

42. 43. Plaintiff SAUSALITO CRAFTWORKS prays for relief as follows: For an order declaring that Plaintiff SAUSALITO CRAFTWORKS has not

and does not infringe upon the Patent-in-Suit. 44. For an order declaring that the Desktops at Issue, of Exhibit C, have not and

do not infringe upon the Patent-in-Suit. 45. unenforceable. 46. That the Court find this an exceptional case and award Plaintiff SAUSALITO For an order declaring that U.S. Patent 7,438,002 is invalid and

CRAFTWORKS its costs and attorneys fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 285 or otherwise; and 47. That the Court grant Plaintiff SAUSALITO CRAFTWORKS such other and

further relief as the Court deems just and Proper.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

22 23 24 25

-7-

100 Larkspur Landing Circle Suite 212 Larkspur, CA 94939 Telephone: (415) 461-2700 Facsimile: (415) 461-2726

ALLMAN & NIELSEN, P.C.

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT RE PATENT Case 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

Plaintiff SAUSALITO CRAFTWORKS hereby demands a trial by jury.

Dated: March 14, 2014

By:

ALLMAN & NIELSEN, P.C.

/S/ Steven A. Nielsen Steven A. Nielsen, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff, SAUSALITO CRAFTWORKS, a California Corporation, dba OMNIRAX

-8-

100 Larkspur Landing Circle Suite 212 Larkspur, CA 94939 Telephone: (415) 461-2700 Facsimile: (415) 461-2726

ALLMAN & NIELSEN, P.C.

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT RE PATENT Case No.