You are on page 1of 13

Case 5:19-cv-02775-NC Document 1 Filed 05/21/19 Page 1 of 6

Steven A. Nielsen
1 CA Bar No. 133864
100 Larkspur Landing Circle, Suite 216
2 Larkspur, CA 94939
415-272-8210
3 Steve@NielsenPatents.com
4 Isaac Rabicoff
(Pro Hac Vice Motion to be Filed)
5
RABICOFF LAW LLC
6 73 W Monroe St
Chicago, IL 60603
7 773-669-4590
isaac@rabilaw.com
8
Attorneys for Plaintiff
9 Jezign Licensing, LLC
10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
12
13
Jezign Licensing, LLC,
14 Case No. ________________
Plaintiff,
15 Patent Case
v.
16 Jury Trial Demanded
Electric Styles LLC
17
18 Defendant.

19
20 Plaintiff Jezign Licensing, LLC (“Jezign”), through its attorney, Isaac Rabicoff, complains

21 against Electric Styles LLC (“Electric Styles” or “Defendant”) and alleges the following:
22
PARTIES
23
1. Plaintiff Jezign Licensing, LLC is a limited liability company organized and
24
existing under the laws of New York with its principal place of business at 287 Bowman Avenue,
25
Purchase, NY 10577.
26
27
28
1
Complaint with Jury Demand
Case 5:19-cv-02775-NC Document 1 Filed 05/21/19 Page 2 of 6

2. Defendant Electric Styles LLC is a corporation organized and existing under the
1
2 laws of California with its principal place of business at 600 B Street, Suite 300, San Diego, CA

3 92101.

4 JURISDICTION
5 3. This is an action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the
6
United States, Title 35 of the United States Code.
7
4. This Court has exclusive subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and
8
1338(a).
9
10 5. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Electric Styles because it has engaged

11 in systematic and continuous business activities in the Northern District of California.

12 Specifically, Electric Styles provides its full range of services to residents in this District and are
13
incorporated in California. As described below, Electric Styles has committed acts of patent
14
infringement giving rise to this action within this District.
15
VENUE
16
6. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) because Electric Styles
17
18 has committed acts of patent infringement in this District and is incorporated in California. In

19 addition, Jezign has suffered harm in this District.


20 PATENT-IN-SUIT
21
7. Jezign is the assignee of all right, title, and interest in United States Design Patent
22
No. 554,848 (the “’848 Patent,” or the “Patent-in-Suit”), including all rights to enforce and
23
prosecute actions for infringement and to collect damages for all relevant times against infringers
24
25 of the Patent-in-Suit. Accordingly, Jezign possesses the exclusive right and standing to prosecute

26 the present action for infringement of the Patent-in-Suit by Electric Styles.

27
28
2
Complaint with Jury Demand
Case 5:19-cv-02775-NC Document 1 Filed 05/21/19 Page 3 of 6

8. On November 13, 2007, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued the
1
2 ’848 Patent. The ’848 Patent is titled “Illuminated Shoe Lower.” The application leading to the

3 ’848 Patent was filed on November 15, 2004, which was a continuation of U.S. Application No.

4 10/386,509; which was a continuation-in-part of U.S. Application No. 09/963,787. A true and
5 correct copy of the ’848 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by
6
reference.
7
COUNT I: INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’848 PATENT
8
9. Jezign owns the exclusive rights in the ornamental designs claimed in the ’848
9
10 Patent.

11 10. The ’848 Patent is valid and enforceable.

12 11. Without Jezign’s authorization, Electric Styles made, used, offered for sale, sold
13
and/or imported into the United States having designs that infringe the ’848 Patent (the “Infringing
14
Shoes”). The Infringing Shoes include at least the models named Apollo Black & White, Poseidon
15
Blue and shoes bearing the same or substantially similar infringing designs, regardless of model
16
name.
17
18 12. The overall appearance and placement of the Infringing Shoes’ illumination system

19 within the sole is substantially the same as the design claimed in the ’848 Patent.
20 13. The overall appearance and placement of the Infringing Shoes’ illumination system
21
within the sole is substantially the same as the design claimed in the ’848 Patent.
22
14. An ordinary observer will perceive the substantial similarity of Jezign’s ’848 Patent
23
and the corresponding design of Electric Styles’ Infringing Shoes.
24
25 15. The table below illustrates Electric Styles’ infringement by comparing a figure from

26 the ‘848 Patent with an exemplary image of Electric Styles’ Infringing Shoes.

27 ’848 Patent Figures Evidence


Electric Styles’ Apollo Black & White design is
28
3
Complaint with Jury Demand
Case 5:19-cv-02775-NC Document 1 Filed 05/21/19 Page 4 of 6

substantially similar to the Shoe Design in the


1 ’848 Patent.
2
See, e.g.,
3 https://www.electricstyles.com/collections/light-
up-originals-1/products/apollo-black-white-high-
4 top-led-shoes
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Electric Styles’ Poseidon Blue is substantially
13 similar to the Shoe Design in the ’848 Patent.
14 See, e.g.,
https://www.electricstyles.com/collections/light-
15 up-originals-1/products/poseidon-blue-high-top-
led-shoes
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
16. Jezign has been and will continue to be irreparably harmed by Electric Styles’
25
26 infringement of the ’848 Patent.

27
28
4
Complaint with Jury Demand
Case 5:19-cv-02775-NC Document 1 Filed 05/21/19 Page 5 of 6

PRAYER FOR RELIEF


1
2 WHEREFORE, Jezign respectfully requests the following relief:

3 A. A judgment that Electric Styles has infringed the ornamental designs claimed in the

4 ’848 Patent;
5 B. A judgment that the ’848 Patent is valid and enforceable.
6
C. An accounting of all damages not presented at trial;
7
D. A judgment that awards Jezign Licensing all appropriate damages under 35 U.S.C. §
8
284 for Electric Styles’ past infringement, and any continuing or future infringement
9
10 of the ’848 Patent, up until the date such judgment is entered, including pre- or post-

11 judgment interest, costs, and disbursements as justified under 35 U.S.C. § 284 and,

12 if necessary, to adequately compensate Jezign Licensing for Electric Styles’


13
infringement, an accounting:
14
i. that this case be declared exceptional within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285 and
15
that Jezign Licensing be awarded its reasonable attorneys’ fees against Electric
16
Styles that it incurs in prosecuting this action;
17
18 ii. that Jezign Licensing be awarded costs, and expenses that it incurs in

19 prosecuting this action; and


20 iii. that Jezign Licensing be awarded such further relief at law or in equity as the
21
Court deems just and proper.
22
23
24 Respectfully submitted,

25 /s/ Steven A. Nielsen


Steven A. Nielsen
26 CA Bar No. 133864
100 Larkspur Landing Circle, Suite 216
27 Larkspur, CA 94939
415-272-8210
28
5
Complaint with Jury Demand
Case 5:19-cv-02775-NC Document 1 Filed 05/21/19 Page 6 of 6

Steve@NielsenPatents.com
1
/s/ Isaac P. Rabicoff
2
Isaac P. Rabicoff
3 (Pro Hac Vice Motion to be Filed)
Rabicoff Law LLC
4 73 W. Monroe St.
Chicago, IL 60603
5 (773) 669-4590
isaac@rabilaw.com
6
7 Counsel for Plaintiff

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
Complaint with Jury Demand
Case 5:19-cv-02775-NC Document 1-1 Filed 05/21/19 Page 1 of 7

Exhibit A
Case 5:19-cv-02775-NC Document 1-1 Filed 05/21/19 Page 2 of 7
Case 5:19-cv-02775-NC Document 1-1 Filed 05/21/19 Page 3 of 7
Case 5:19-cv-02775-NC Document 1-1 Filed 05/21/19 Page 4 of 7
Case 5:19-cv-02775-NC Document 1-1 Filed 05/21/19 Page 5 of 7
Case 5:19-cv-02775-NC Document 1-1 Filed 05/21/19 Page 6 of 7
Case 5:19-cv-02775-NC Document 1-1 Filed 05/21/19 Page 7 of 7