Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 120

Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1 Filed 09/09/19 Page 1 of 57 PageID #: 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION

BAYCO PRODUCTS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action No.:__________________

PROTORCH COMPANY, INC.,


SUZHOU PROTORCH CO., LTD., TIM JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
GOETZ & ASSOCIATES LLC, and
HONG HUANG a/k/a HENRY HUANG

Defendants.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Plaintiff BAYCO PRODUCTS, INC. (“Plaintiff” or “Bayco”), for its Complaint against

Defendants PROTORCH COMPANY, INC., SUZHOU PROTORCH CO., LTD., TIM GOETZ

& ASSOCIATES LLC, and HONG HUANG a/k/a HENRY HUANG (collectively, the

“Defendants”), hereby demands a jury trial and alleges as follows:

NATURE OF THE ACTION

This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq.,

including §§ 271, 281, 282(a), 283, 284, 285, and 295, federal trademark and unfair competition

pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1114 and § 1125(a)(1)(A), and additional claims of trade secret

misappropriation under 18 U.S.C. § 1836, as well as related Texas and common law claims and

breach of contract.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 1 OF 57


#416527
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1 Filed 09/09/19 Page 2 of 57 PageID #: 2

PARTIES

1. Plaintiff Bayco Products, Inc. (“Bayco”) is a corporation organized under the laws

of the State of Texas, having its principal place of business at 640 South Sanden Blvd., Wylie,

Texas 75098.

2. Pleading as being likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity

for further investigation and discovery under Rule 11(b)(3), ProTorch Company, Inc. (“ProTorch

U.S.”) is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Texas, having its principal place

of business at 2115 Grassland Dr, Allen, TX, 75013. Service of process may be accomplished by

serving its Registered Agent, Rou Wen, at 2115 Grassland Dr, Allen, TX, 75013.

3. Pleading as being likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity

for further investigation and discovery under Rule 11(b)(3), Suzhou ProTorch Co., Ltd.

(“ProTorch China”) is a corporation organized under the laws of the People’s Republic of China,

having its principal place of business at Changkun Industrial Park, Section E, Shajiabang Town,

Changshu Jiangsu, Peoples Republic of China. Pleading as being likely to have evidentiary support

after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation and discovery under Rule 11(b)(3),

ProTorch China is a foreign entity having no place of business in the United States. Accordingly,

per 28 U.S.C. §1391(c)(3), ProTorch China may be sued anywhere in the United States. ProTorch

China may be served at the U.S. domicile of Hong Huang, the owner of ProTorch China, 2115

Grassland Dr, Allen, TX, 75013.

4. Pleading as being likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity

for further investigation and discovery under Rule 11(b)(3), Hong Huang a/k/a Henry Huang

(“Huang”) is a citizen of the People’s Republic of China and is an owner of ProTorch U.S. and

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 2 OF 57


#416527
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1 Filed 09/09/19 Page 3 of 57 PageID #: 3

ProTorch China. Huang may be served at his U.S. domicile at 2115 Grassland Dr, Allen, TX,

75013. Huang’s wife, Rou Wen, is also domiciled at this address.

5. Pleading as being likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity

for further investigation and discovery under Rule 11(b)(3), Tim Goetz & Associates LLC

(“Goetz”) is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of Wisconsin, having

its principal place of business, at W278 N7165 Mill Pond Way, Hartland, WI, 53029. Service of

process may be accomplished by serving its Registered Agent, Tim Goetz, at W278 N7165 Mill

Pond Way, Hartland, WI, 53029.

JURISDICTION

6. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this patent infringement action

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).

7. This is also an action for infringement of a federally registered trademark and

federal unfair competition arising under the Trademark Act of 1946, as amended (the “Lanham

Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 1051, et seq., and infringement of common law trade dress and common law

trademark. This Court also has jurisdiction over federal unfair competition pursuant to 15 U.S.C.

§ 1125(a)(1)(A). This Court has jurisdiction over the related common law claims pursuant to the

Court’s pendent jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1338(b). This Court has original jurisdiction for

the alleged federal trade secret violations under 18 U.S.C. § 1836(c), and Supplemental

Jurisdiction of Plaintiff’s claims under Texas Law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

8. Furthermore, this civil action is between Bayco, a citizen of the State of Texas, and

citizens of the state of Wisconsin and the People’s Republic of China, and the amount in

controversy substantially exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, so jurisdiction is proper

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2).

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 3 OF 57


#416527
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1 Filed 09/09/19 Page 4 of 57 PageID #: 4

9. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants ProTorch U.S., ProTorch

China, and Huang, for at least the following reasons:

(a) Huang is a resident of this State and Judicial District;

(b) ProTorch U.S. is incorporated in this State and has its principal place of

business in this Judicial District.

(c) ProTorch China is principally owned by Huang. Pleading as being likely to

have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation and discovery

under Rule 11(b)(3), ProTorch China manufactures goods (including, as will be developed below,

and which substantive allegations as to the causes of action are hereby incorporated herein by

reference, which infringe on Bayco’s patents and intellectual property) which it exports from China

for importation by ProTorch U.S. with the specific purpose and intent that they will be sold to

residents of this State and Judicial District. Such goods are in fact sold and distributed in this State

and District for substantial sums of money. The causes of action alleged against ProTorch China

arise in substantial part from the importation, offers to sell and sales of such goods in this State and

Judicial District.

10. Further as to Huang, ProTorch U.S., and ProTorch China, these Defendants have

regularly conducted and continue to conduct business in the State of Texas and in this Judicial

District. Pleading as being likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for

further investigation and discovery under Rule 11(b)(3), Defendants have committed infringing

activities in the United States, in Texas, and in this Judicial District by, at a minimum, importing,

using, offering for sale, and/or selling products and/or services that infringe the Patents-In-Suit (as

defined below), and/or by placing such infringing products into the stream of commerce with the

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 4 OF 57


#416527
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1 Filed 09/09/19 Page 5 of 57 PageID #: 5

awareness, knowledge, and intent that they would be provided, used, offered for sale, and/or sold

by others in this Judicial District and/or purchased by consumers in this Judicial District. Further,

this Court has personal jurisdiction over these Defendants because these Defendants have

numerous contacts, including infringing acts, with Texas, namely actively operating its interactive

website, http://v0071588.11288.28la.com.cn/, in the State of Texas, and actively seeking and

participating in acts of trade dress infringement complained of herein. As such, these Defendants

have ties to and are actively involved in this Judicial District and Texas. All of these activities of

these Defendants are such that the exercise of jurisdiction over Defendants does not offend

traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

11. With regard to Defendant Goetz, a Manufacturer’s Representative Agreement

between Bayco and Goetz includes a forum selection clause stating that the parties “agree that any

legal action brought hereunder shall be brought in a state or federal court located in Texas.” The

causes of action pled against Goetz (which do not include the patent infringement claims) are all

brought under the Representative Agreement and the obligations of Goetz thereunder.

12. Finally, all State law claims are inextricably intertwined with the federal law claims

that are subject to the jurisdiction of the Eastern District of Texas, as stated hereinabove.

VENUE

13. Venue is proper as to the patent law claims against Defendants Huang, ProTorch

U.S., and ProTorch China pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) because (1) Huang is a resident of this

District; (2) ProTorch U.S. is incorporated in Texas and has a regular and established place of

business in this District, and further, pleading as being likely to have evidentiary support after a

reasonable opportunity for further investigation and discovery under Rule 11(b)(3), has committed

infringing acts in this District; (3) ProTorch China is a foreign corporation and therefore may be

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 5 OF 57


#416527
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1 Filed 09/09/19 Page 6 of 57 PageID #: 6

sued for patent infringement in any District. Venue is also proper as to all other claims as being

pendent to the patent infringement claims. Moreover, pleading as being likely to have evidentiary

support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation and discovery under Rule 11(b)(3),

Defendants (1) have committed infringing acts in this Judicial District by, at a minimum,

importing, using, offering for sale, and/or selling products and/or services that infringe the Patents-

In-Suit; (2) maintain a “regular and established” place of business in this District by maintaining

a corporate presence in this District, where the accused products are provided and/or sold; and/or

other places of business where research and development and sales are conducted; (3) Defendants

ProTorch U.S. and Huang are domiciled in this District and Division; (4) Defendant Goetz has

agreed to be sued in Texas; and (5) Defendant ProTorch China has no legal presence in the United

States, yet its owner, Huang, is domiciled in this District and Division. Finally, because Defendants

have committed acts of misappropriation in the Eastern District of Texas, venue is proper in this

District.

14. Venue is also proper in this district because (i) a substantial part of the events giving

rise to the claims occurred in this District and in this Division (28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2)) and because

(ii) the Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in the Eastern District of Texas because they

have taken tortious actions and entered into contracts and sold goods in this District and Division

and this cause of action arises out of such actions, contracts and sales (28 U.S.C. § 1391(d)(3) and

(c)(2)).

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 6 OF 57


#416527
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1 Filed 09/09/19 Page 7 of 57 PageID #: 7

BACKGROUND FACTS – COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

Bayco

15. Beginning in 1984, Bayco has now grown into the business of providing a vast

array of portable & corded lighting products.

16. Headquartered in Wylie, Texas, Bayco’s 110,000 square foot facility is the

international headquarters for R&D, engineering, marketing, sales, and distribution.

17. Bayco’s BAYCO brand of lighting products and cord solutions including

fluorescent, halogen and incandescent lights as well as extension cords and reels, exceed the

industry standards in performance, quality, user-safety and value.

18. The Bayco BAYCO brand is recognized nationwide and elsewhere as high-

performance, high-quality, high-value lighting solutions across virtually every industry. Examples

of these various BAYCO branded products are shown in Exhibit A attached hereto.

Bayco’s Intellectual Property

19. Bayco is the owner of all right, title, and interest in and to United States Design

Patent No. D523,577, entitled Flourescent Task Lamp, issued on June 20, 2006 (the “’577 Patent”),

A true and accurate copy of the ’577 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit B.

20. Bayco is the owner of all right, title, and interest in and to United States Design

Patent No. D672,894, entitled Dual Function Rechargeable Work Light, issued on December 18,

2012 (the “’894 Patent”), A true and accurate copy of the ’894 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit

C. The ’577 Patent and the ’894 Patent are collectively referred to as the “Patents-in-Suit.”

21. Each of Bayco’s products, such as its retractable reels and clamp lights, is identified

by a specific number or number and letter combination (the “Part Numbers”), which by virtue of

widespread national marketing, promotion, and sales are Bayco common law trademarks. By way

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 7 OF 57


#416527
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1 Filed 09/09/19 Page 8 of 57 PageID #: 8

of example, a retractable cord reel with a 20’ 18/3 SJT cord, having a single grounded outlet and

a 7-amp circuit breaker, is identified as “FL-700”, or a retractable cord reel with a 30’ 16/3 SJT

cord, having a three separate grounded outlet and a 10-amp circuit breaker, is identified as “FL-

800”. Similarly, an 8 1/2” clamp light with “Grip-Tite Super Clamp” is identified as “SL-301.”

These unique Part Numbers and markings are known throughout the industry and serve to confirm

that these products are sourced by Bayco. This is an integral part of Bayco’s business.

22. Bayco maintains certain trade secrets, such as sales volume, pricing, margins,

revenue, profits, third-party agreement terms, third-party contact lists, technical information,

Original Equipment Manufacturer (“OEM”) products, manufacturing specifications, drawings,

quality standards, outward design, function design, purchase orders, OEM products shipping

practices, OEM Products costs, production numbers and goals, testing data, customer data,

customer identity, supplier data, supplier identity, and business plans, among others (collectively,

“Trade Secrets”), all of which are information from which economic benefit can be derived, and

all of which have been the subject of Bayco’s efforts to maintain their secrecy.

23. For example, Bayco’s Trade Secrets include nested light shipping methods,

financial information for bids (Lowe’s, etc.), Bayco’s business model, and Bayco’s product

specifications, component molds, and related documentation for its clamp light and cord

management reels, among other products.

24. Bayco is the owner of all right, title, and interest in and to United States Registration

No. 3,054,986 (the “’986 Registration”) and the mark “BAYCO” for “Portable electric and battery

operated task lighting products, namely, work lights, utility lights.” (the “BAYCO” Mark), and all

goodwill associated therewith. This registration is incontestable per 15 U.S.C. § 1065. A true and

accurate copy of this “BAYCO” Registration Certificate is attached hereto as Exhibit D.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 8 OF 57


#416527
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1 Filed 09/09/19 Page 9 of 57 PageID #: 9

25. Bayco is the owner of all right, title, and interest in and to United States Registration

No. 3,191,165 (the “’165 Registration”) and the mark “BAYCO” for “Hand-operated plastic

storage reels for electrical cords.” (the “BAYCO” Mark), and all goodwill associated therewith.

This registration is incontestable per 15 U.S.C. § 1065. A true and accurate copy of this “BAYCO”

Registration Certificate is attached hereto as Exhibit E.

26. In addition to the above “BAYCO” registrations, Bayco owns related common law

rights in and to the mark “BAYCO” as associated with its widespread product offerings and related

services, along with all appertaining goodwill. Plaintiff Bayco has extensively promoted and

marketed its “BAYCO” branded products throughout the United States, including through its

website at www.baycoproducts.com, various trade publications, and by its attendance at

widespread national and regional industry trade shows held at locations throughout the United

States.

27. Bayco markets and promotes its “BAYCO” branded products and services through

its website, available at www.baycoproducts.com (“Bayco Website”):

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 9 OF 57


#416527
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1 Filed 09/09/19 Page 10 of 57 PageID #: 10

28. Through its promotional efforts (including social media such as Facebook, Twitter,

LinkedIn and YouTube), business conduct, continuous use of the Bayco Website, and its associated

trade dress, Bayco’s “BAYCO” brand has developed and maintained clients throughout the United

States, including in Texas. By the widespread and favorable acceptance and recognition by the

consuming public, the “look and feel” of Bayco’s website has become an asset of substantial value

as a symbol of Bayco, its high quality products and services, and its goodwill.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 10 OF 57


#416527
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1 Filed 09/09/19 Page 11 of 57 PageID #: 11

29. Through the nationwide expenditure of significant resources in such advertising,

marketing, and promotion, Bayco enjoys market place presence and good will associated with its

high quality lighting products. As such, Plaintiff Bayco has earned a fine reputation in association

with its “BAYCO” branded products in a widespread number of industries.

Minghui

30. Beginning in 2003, Bayco established a relationship with Changshu Minghui

Appliance Co., Ltd. (“Minghui”), a manufacturer based in Changshu, Jiangsu, People’s Republic

of China, to manufacture various electronic portable lighting products (“OEM Products”) for

Bayco as an OEM.

31. As the OEM for Bayco OEM Products, Minghui is privy to certain Bayco Trade

Secrets, including as OEM Products manufacturing specifications, OEM Products shipping

practices, OEM Products costs, and Bayco production numbers, among others.

32. Since 2003, Minghui has been the recipient of over $110,000,000 in business from

Bayco.

33. On March 31, 2010, Bayco and Minghui memorialized their OEM cooperation that

began in 2003 in an OEM Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit F.

34. The OEM Agreement expressly stated that Minghui’s (or Minghui’s Affiliates) will

not sell, market, or solicit orders regarding the OEM Products in any market, worldwide, and the

selling or provision of OEM Products by Minghui’s (or Minghui’s Affiliates) to any third party

are unauthorized sales or marketing, especially any sale of similar products to Bayco’s existing or

prospective customers.

35. The President and owner of Minghui is Mr. Henry Huang (“Huang”).

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 11 OF 57


#416527
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1 Filed 09/09/19 Page 12 of 57 PageID #: 12

36. Huang, through Minghui, is also privy to Bayco’s Trade Secret information,

including OEM Products manufacturing specifications, processes, OEM Products shipping

practices, OEM Products costs, and Bayco production numbers, among others.

ProTorch China

37. Huang is a majority owner of ProTorch China. The remaining ownership is with

Huang’s daughter, Huang Yi (“Yi”), who is also its president.

38. Pleading as being likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity

for further investigation and discovery under Rule 11(b)(3), ProTorch China receives

manufactured goods from Minghui and then represents itself as the OEM for products used, sold,

imported, and offered for sale by ProTorch U.S.

39. Pleading as being likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity

for further investigation and discovery under Rule 11(b)(3), ProTorch China has a publicly-

available website accessible at http://www.protorchcompany.com/html/products/ (ownership of

this website is shown in the copyright notice at the bottom of the page as ProTorch China and

under the ProTorch logo at the upper left hand portion of the webpage), as shown below:

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 12 OF 57


#416527
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1 Filed 09/09/19 Page 13 of 57 PageID #: 13

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 13 OF 57


#416527
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1 Filed 09/09/19 Page 14 of 57 PageID #: 14

ProTorch U.S.

40. ProTorch U.S. was formed on December 22, 2016, by Huang (ProTorch U.S. CEO)

and his spouse, Rou Wen (ProTorch U.S. President), who collectively own ProTorch U.S.

41. On its website, regarding its ProTorch Brand, ProTorch states:

Mission: To eliminate the middleman in the distribution model and


bring quality products, exceptional value directly to Retailers and
Professional Distributors in the U.S. and Canada markets.

Business Description: Manufacturer and Distributor of quality


extension cord storage products, work lights, retractable cord reels
and light bulb changers.

42. ProTorch U.S. sells various electronic portable lighting products, retractable cord

reels/reels and lightbulb changer kits in the U.S., particularly to Lowe's Companies, Inc.

(“Lowe’s”).

43. Pleading as being likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity

for further investigation and discovery under Rule 11(b)(3), ProTorch U.S. has a publicly-available

website accessible at http://v0071588.11288.28la.com.cn/ (ownership of this website is shown in

the copyright notice at the bottom of the page as ProTorch U.S. and under the ProTorch logo at

the upper left hand portion of the webpage) (this website interestingly points to ProTorch China’s

protorchcompany.com URL), as shown below:

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 14 OF 57


#416527
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1 Filed 09/09/19 Page 15 of 57 PageID #: 15

Goetz

44. Bayco previously employed Mr. Tim Goetz (“Mr. Goetz”) as Bayco’s National

Accounts Manager during July 1998 through December 2005, with Lowe’s being one of his key

accounts. As such, Mr. Goetz was privy to certain Bayco Trade Secrets.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 15 OF 57


#416527
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1 Filed 09/09/19 Page 16 of 57 PageID #: 16

45. Upon termination of Mr. Goetz’ employment with Bayco, Bayco retained Mr.

Goetz via his company, Tim Goetz & Associates LLC (“Goetz”), as a Lowe’s account

representative in a Manufacturer’s Representative Agreement (“MRA”), effective January 1, 2006.

The MRA is attached hereto as Exhibit H. As a manufacturer’s representative for Bayco, Goetz

was responsible for selling BAYCO branded portable lighting products including clamp lights and

cord reels to Lowe’s. Pleading as being likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable

opportunity for further investigation and discovery under Rule 11(b)(3), Mr. Goetz is the sole

owner of Tim Goetz & Associates LLC. Mr. Goetz has failed to follow applicable laws and rules

and as such is the alter ego of Goetz and is individually liable for the acts of the LLC.

46. Section 11 of the MRA includes an Agreement Not to Disclose (“NDA”) to any

third party any of Bayco’s proprietary information, trade secrets, or confidential information.

47. The MRA NDA expressly recites that the NDA shall survive the cancellation or

termination of the MRA. Goetz ceased being Bayco’s manufacturer representative in about June

2013.

48. Pleading as being likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity

for further investigation and discovery under Rule 11(b)(3), around late 2017, Mr. Goetz was hired

by ProTorch U.S. as its sales representative.

49. Pleading as being likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity

for further investigation and discovery under Rule 11(b)(3), at some point in the first half of 2018,

Goetz secured a sales contract between ProTorch U.S. and Lowe’s related to ProTorch products,

including clamp lights and cord reels.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 16 OF 57


#416527
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1 Filed 09/09/19 Page 17 of 57 PageID #: 17

ACTS OF DEFENDANTS

50. ProTorch U.S., ProTorch China, and Huang, are collectively referred to as the

“ProTorch Defendants.”

51. Huang has a history of stealing Bayco’s intellectual property and arrogantly

flouting the law. By way of example, Bayco discovered (and Minghui acknowledged after

questioning by Bayco) that from 2006, Huang (through Minghui) applied for and received nine

design patents on Bayco’s OEM Products from the Chinese Patent Office (“SIPO”). Huang

(through Minghui) applied for a tenth Chinese patent on another product that never issued, only

because Minghui did not pay the patent fees.

52. On April 26, 2010, Bayco and Minghui entered into a Memorandum of

Understanding (“MOU”) related to Bayco’s findings related to Huang’s (through Minghui)

Chinese patenting activities, in an effort to avoid similar problems from arising again. The MOU

is attached hereto as Exhibit G.

53. The MOU states as a “Fact” that as it relates to OEM Products, Bayco owns all of

the rights thereto, including those related to patents, trademarks, authorizing the manufacturing,

and selling of products. Specifically, the MOU states that such rights relate to the outward designs,

function designs, safety approvals, drawings, pictures, samples, prototypes, tools (which Bayco

has paid for), specifications, and related documents, etc.

54. In the MOU, Minghui agreed that its patenting of Bayco’s products infringed

Bayco’s patent rights.

55. The MOU was executed by Huang on behalf of Minghui.

56. However, Huang’s contempt for the law and Bayco’s IP carried over to ProTorch

China. In particular, ProTorch China filed a U.S. trademark application, Ser. No. 87/223,352, in

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 17 OF 57


#416527
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1 Filed 09/09/19 Page 18 of 57 PageID #: 18

International Class 11, for “Lamps; Lighting apparatus, namely, lighting installations; Lighting

installations for air vehicles; Searchlights; LED (light emitting diode) lighting fixtures.” ProTorch

China submitted specimens of use that included Bayco product designs, some of which appear to

be identical to certain Bayco design patents. The specimens of use are attached hereto as Exhibit

I.

57. In its trademark application, ProTorch China declared, under penalty of perjury,

that “the applicant is using the mark in commerce on or in connection with the identified

goods/services.” Additionally, the trademark application declaration states that “[t]he signatory

[Huang Yi – Huang’s daughter] believes that: . . . the applicant is using the mark in commerce on

or in connection with the goods/services in the application; the specimen(s) shows the mark as

used on or in connection with the goods/services in the application . . . .”

58. ProTorch China signed the trademark application with fully knowledge that: “The

signatory being warned that willful false statements and the like are punishable by fine or

imprisonment, or both, under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, and that such willful false statements and the like

may jeopardize the validity of the application or any registration resulting therefrom, declares that

all statements made of his/her own knowledge are true and all statements made on information and

belief are believed to be true.”

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 18 OF 57


#416527
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1 Filed 09/09/19 Page 19 of 57 PageID #: 19

ProTorch Defendants’ Design Patent Infringement

59. The ProTorch Defendants have adopted ornamental designs that are virtually

identical to those used by Bayco. The ProTorch Defendants are currently selling the PT3214 Slim

Rechargable Work Light (“PT3214”) in the U.S. that bear a non-functional, ornamental design that

an ordinary observer would find to be substantially the same as the ornamental design covered by

the ’894 Patent:

Bayco’s ’894 Patent ProTorch’s PT3214

Indeed, Bayco believes that the ProTorch Defendants are using Bayco’s molds to produce this

product.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 19 OF 57


#416527
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1 Filed 09/09/19 Page 20 of 57 PageID #: 20

60. The ProTorch Defendants have adopted ornamental designs that are virtually

identical to those used by Bayco. The ProTorch Defendants, via their use-based trademark

application, have declared that they are using the mark in commerce on or in connection with the

goods/services in the application and that the specimens shows the mark as used on or in

connection with the goods/services in the ProTorch trademark application. The ProTorch

Defendants show use in commerce of their task lamp (“Task Lamp”) that bear a non-functional,

ornamental design that an ordinary observer would find to be substantially the same as the

ornamental design covered by the ’577 Patent:

Bayco’s ’577 Patent ProTorch’s Task Lamp

Indeed, Bayco believes that the ProTorch Defendants are using Bayco’s molds to produce this
product.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 20 OF 57


#416527
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1 Filed 09/09/19 Page 21 of 57 PageID #: 21

ProTorch Defendants’ Federal Unfair Competition and Trademark Infringement

61. While blatantly copying Bayco’s website, ProTorch China did not even put forth

the requisite effort to change the names in the content. In fact ProTorch China also includes

Bayco’s federally protected name in the “About Us” webpage on its website, and includes Bayco-

branded products in the product pages of its website.

62. Shockingly, ProTorch China’s “About Us” webpage uses copy from Bayco’s

website. In particular, see “Bayco Lights The Way” in the two webpages

(http://www.protorchcompany.com/html/about/ and https://www.baycoproducts.com/about-

bayco) shown below:

ProTorch China Webpage

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 21 OF 57


#416527
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1 Filed 09/09/19 Page 22 of 57 PageID #: 22

Bayco Webpage

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 22 OF 57


#416527
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1 Filed 09/09/19 Page 23 of 57 PageID #: 23

63. Further, ProTorch China shows Bayco-branded products in its product listing for

LED lights on its website available at http://www.protorchcompany.com/html/products/led_lights/:

Such action of the ProTorch Defendants is not authorized by Bayco.

64. Looking at the totality of the circumstances, including similar website appearance,

product “look and feel,” and use of Bayco on ProTorch China’s website, it is clear that a consumer

would likely be confused as to the source of the ProTorch Defendants’ goods, with a strong

possibility of actual confusion already having occurred.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 23 OF 57


#416527
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1 Filed 09/09/19 Page 24 of 57 PageID #: 24

ProTorch Defendants’ Common Law Trademark Infringement

65. Given its widespread, long term, nationwide marketing, promotion and sales,

Bayco has nationwide common law trademark rights in the Bayco Part Numbers. The ProTorch

Defendants use identical or confusingly similar part numbers for their products as well.

66. For example, Bayco’s retractable cord reel with a 20’ 18/3 SJT cord has a part

number of “FL-700.” Similarly, the ProTorch Defendants’ retractable cord reel with a 20’ 18/3

SJT cord has a part number of “PTC700.” The two are shown side-by-side below:

Bayco’s FL-700 ProTorch Defendants’ PTC700

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 24 OF 57


#416527
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1 Filed 09/09/19 Page 25 of 57 PageID #: 25

67. Further, Bayco’s retractable cord reel with a 30’ 16/3 SJT cord is identified as “FL-

800”. The ProTorch Defendants’ retractable cord reel with a 30’ 16/3 SJT cord is identified as

“PTC800.” The two are shown side-by-side below:

Bayco’s FL-800 ProTorch Defendants’ PTC800

68. Yet again, Bayco’s 8 1/2” clamp light with “Grip-Tite Super Clamp” is identified

as “SL-301.” Similarly, the ProTorch Defendants’ 8 1/2” clamp light with a “Clamp Light with

Tight Grip” is identified as “PTC301.” The two are shown side-by-side below:

Bayco’s SL-301 ProTorch Defendants’ PTC301

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 25 OF 57


#416527
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1 Filed 09/09/19 Page 26 of 57 PageID #: 26

69. Such similarity in part numbers causes customer confusion and eases a consumer’s

confusion with copied ProTorch Defendant products. Ostensibly, the “PTC” prefix in the ProTorch

Defendants’ product numbers stands for “ProTorch Company.”

ProTorch Defendants’ Further Acts of Unfair Competition

70. The ProTorch Defendants utilize Bayco’s federally registered trademarks (such as

the BAYCO mark) on their webpages.

71. The ProTorch Defendants utilize Bayco’s common law trademarks (such as the

Bayco Part Numbers) on their webpages.

Defendants’ Violation of the Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act


and Defend Trade Secrets Act

72. The Defendants, with Defendant Huang and Defendant Goetz acting as agents of

Defendant ProTorch U.S. and ProTorch China, specifically acquired by improper means, used,

and disclosed Bayco’s Trade Secrets.

73. The ProTorch Defendants hired Goetz for Bayco’s Trade Secrets after Goetz’

termination by Bayco, when the ProTorch Defendants knew or had reason to know that Goetz was

in possession of other Bayco Trade Secrets inaccessible to the ProTorch Defendants.

74. Goetz, acting as an agent of the ProTorch Defendants, used and disclosed to the

ProTorch Defendants Bayco’s Trade Secrets learned through its principal’s, Mr. Goetz, previous

employment with Bayco, and subsequent consulting engagement as a sales representative for

Bayco, in a manner that constitutes misappropriation.

75. Goetz’ familiarity with Bayco’s business, financial information, client information,

and other trade secret information uniquely postured the ProTorch Defendants to rapidly enter the

lighting market and under-cut Bayco’s product sales.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 26 OF 57


#416527
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1 Filed 09/09/19 Page 27 of 57 PageID #: 27

76. The ProTorch Defendants are held together by a common link – ownership by

Huang and his family (wife Rou Wen and daughter Huang Yi).

77. Huang, acting as an agent of ProTorch U.S. and ProTorch China, acquired Bayco’s

Trade Secrets through improper means and under false pretenses, and he breached his duty to

maintain the secrecy of Bayco’s Trade Secrets.

78. Huang’s familiarity with Bayco’s business, manufacturing information, cost

information, sourcing information, and other trade secret information, including possession of

Bayco’s tools (such as molds, assembly equipment, and assembly personnel, among others)

uniquely postured the ProTorch Defendants to rapidly enter the lighting and cord reel market with

products nearly identical to Bayco’s without the cost of design personnel or a research and

development budget, which further enabled the ProTorch Defendants to under-cut Bayco’s efforts

to sell it products.

79. In fact, the ProTorch Defendants’ products are so similar to Bayco’s products that

they appear to come from the same molds. See non-limiting examples below:

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 27 OF 57


#416527
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1 Filed 09/09/19 Page 28 of 57 PageID #: 28

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 28 OF 57


#416527
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1 Filed 09/09/19 Page 29 of 57 PageID #: 29

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 29 OF 57


#416527
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1 Filed 09/09/19 Page 30 of 57 PageID #: 30

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 30 OF 57


#416527
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1 Filed 09/09/19 Page 31 of 57 PageID #: 31

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 31 OF 57


#416527
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1 Filed 09/09/19 Page 32 of 57 PageID #: 32

ProTorch Defendants’ Trade Dress Infringement

80. The ProTorch Defendants, without permission or approval, are using Bayco’s

website trade dress on both the ProTorch U.S. website and the ProTorch China website to offer

and sell its products and services in the United States, including in Texas.

81. Below is a screen capture of the “Products” page from the Bayco Website:

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 32 OF 57


#416527
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1 Filed 09/09/19 Page 33 of 57 PageID #: 33

82. Below is a screen capture of the “Products” page from the ProTorch China website,

having the same black and red color scheme, identical categories, identical pictures related to each

category, with a red banner for each category at the top of each picture, a logo on the top left next

to a search bar on the top right, a banner at the bottom with social media icons, and a red banner

beneath the logo having the same links, save two that were removed from the ProTorch China

webpage:

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 33 OF 57


#416527
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1 Filed 09/09/19 Page 34 of 57 PageID #: 34

83. The ProTorch Defendants, without permission or approval, are using Bayco’s

packaging trade dress on their product packages to offer and sell their products and services in the

United States, including in Texas.

84. Below are shown images of Bayco and ProTorch Defendants’ products (literally on

top of each other) taken in a Lowe’s store located in this District (McKinney, TX) in August 2019,

as presented to a purchasing consumer walking down a store aisle:

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 34 OF 57


#416527
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1 Filed 09/09/19 Page 35 of 57 PageID #: 35

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 35 OF 57


#416527
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1 Filed 09/09/19 Page 36 of 57 PageID #: 36

85. The ProTorch Defendants’ trade dress infringement includes using Bayco

Packaging associated with retractable cord reels (by way of example), as seen below:

86. The Bayco Packaging includes the box labeling. In particular, the box labeling is a

gray color with an image of the product at its center. A color lightening (or halo) is shown behind

the product image to highlight the product. Importantly, a red strip runs the length of the package,

with the Bayco logo on one side, oriented along the length of the red strip. Bayco’s packaging has

had widespread national use and exposure in the marketplace. As such, it has become a distinctive

indicator the product’s source – Bayco and all of its appertaining goodwill.

87. Without authorization, the ProTorch Defendants use a confusingly similar

packaging in association with their like cord reel product. As a result of the ProTorch Defendants’

unauthorized use of Bayco’s trade dress, there is a likelihood of marketplace confusion in

connection with often identical products and services.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 36 OF 57


#416527
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1 Filed 09/09/19 Page 37 of 57 PageID #: 37

Defendant Huang and Goetz’ Breach of Contract

88. Huang has breached his duty under the “Business Secret” Section of the March 31,

2010, OEM Agreement between Minghui and Bayco.

89. The “Business Secret” Section of the OEM Agreement obliges Minghui (and its

agents, such as Huang) to “[a]t all times, confidential business information about OEM Products

shall remain secret. [Mingui] shall keep the confidential business information confidential, limit

its staff, agent, supplier to take the information, and may not share any information regarding

[Bayco’s] products or designs with anyone.” See Exhibit F.

90. The ProTorch Defendants used Bayco’s confidential information related to Bayco’s

customers in an unauthorized manner. The ProTorch Defendants used information related to

Bayco’s customer, Lowe’s, to solicit orders from Lowe’s by undercutting Bayco’s prices.

91. Goetz at least breached his duty under the “Confidential Information” Section of

the January 1, 2006, Manufacturers Representative Agreement between Goetz and Bayco.

92. The “Confidential Information” Section of the MRA obliges Goetz to “not disclose

to any third party any proprietary, trade secrets, or confidential information provided to it by

[Bayco].” This Section specifically called out that “[Bayco’s] information including but not limited

to costing and customer pricing is highly damaging to [Bayco] and [Goetz] assumes liability

associated with such actions.” See Exhibit H.

93. The “Confidential Information” (Section 11) of the MRA goes on to state that

“[t]his agreement not to disclose shall survive the cancellation or termination of this Agreement.”

94. Mr. Goetz was Bayco’s sales representative to Lowe’s, while employed by Bayco.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 37 OF 57


#416527
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1 Filed 09/09/19 Page 38 of 57 PageID #: 38

95. Pleading as being likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity

for further investigation and discovery under Rule 11(b)(3), Mr. Goetz was Goetz’ sales

representative to Lowe’s, while associated with the ProTorch Defendants.

CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT I
(‘894 Patent Infringement - 35 U.S.C. § 271)

96. Bayco repeats, realleges, and incorporates the above allegations as if fully set forth

herein.

97. The ProTorch Defendants have infringed and continue to infringe all elements of the

claim in Bayco’s ‘894 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271 by, among other things, making, selling,

offering for sale and importing the PT3214 Slim Rechargable Work Light embodying Bayco’s

patented design for such work lights (the “ornamental design for a dual function rechargeable work

light”), and will continue to do so unless enjoined by this Court.

98. The ProTorch Defendants’ infringing acts include making, using, selling, offering to

sell, and importing into the United States products covered by the ‘894 Patent including, but not

limited to, the PT3214 Slim Rechargable Work Light and other work lights and/or actively inducing

infringement by assisting, overseeing, directing, and personally participating in the design, marketing,

advertising, and sales of the PT3214 Slim Rechargable Work Light and other infringing work lights.

99. Pleading as being likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity

for further investigation and discovery under Rule 11(b)(3), the ProTorch Defendants have sold

and/or made offers to sell, and continue to sell and/or offer to sell and/or import products infringing

the ‘894 Patent throughout the United States and elsewhere, and within the Eastern District of Texas.

100. The ProTorch Defendants’ acts of infringement have been without express or implied

license by Bayco, are in violation of Bayco’s rights, and will continue unless enjoined by this Court.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 38 OF 57


#416527
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1 Filed 09/09/19 Page 39 of 57 PageID #: 39

101. Pleading as being likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity

for further investigation and discovery under Rule 11(b)(3), the ProTorch Defendants have been

made aware of and had knowledge of the ‘894 Patent, and the ProTorch Defendants’ infringement of

the ‘894 Patent has been, and continues to be, a deliberate and willful infringement thereof, having

full knowledge of the ‘894 Patent.

102. Bayco expressly reserves the right to assert additional patents and additional claims

and to identify additional infringing products and additional entities who operate in concert with

the ProTorch Defendants, in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court’s

scheduling order and the Court’s local rules.

103. This is an exceptional case in view of the ProTorch Defendants’ activities and blatant

infringement. Under the circumstances of this case, Bayco seeks trebling of the actual damages and

its reasonable attorneys’ fees.

104. Bayco has been, is being, and will continue to be injured and has suffered, is suffering,

and will continue to suffer injury and damages for which it is entitled to relief under at least 35 U.S.C.

§§ 281, 284, 285, and 289.

105. The ProTorch Defendants have caused, are causing, and will continue to cause

irreparable harm to Bayco, for which there is no adequate remedy at law and for which Bayco is

entitled to injunctive relief under at least 35 U.S.C. § 283.

106. Accordingly, upon finding for Bayco, the Court should award Bayco damages

adequate to compensate for the infringement, in an amount to be determined at trial, but in no

event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by the infringer, together

with interest and costs as fixed by the Court. Further, upon judgment in favor of Bayco, the Court

should permanently enjoin the ProTorch Defendants from committing the infringing acts.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 39 OF 57


#416527
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1 Filed 09/09/19 Page 40 of 57 PageID #: 40

COUNT II
(‘577 Patent Infringement - 35 U.S.C. § 271)

107. Bayco repeats, realleges, and incorporates the above allegations as if fully set forth

herein.

108. The ProTorch Defendants have infringed and continue to infringe all elements of the

claim in Bayco’s ‘577 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271 by, among other things, making, selling,

offering for sale, and importing a Task Lamp, as indicated in Defendant ProTorch U.S.’ Specimen of

Use, embodying Bayco’s patented design for such task lamps (the “ornamental design for a

flourescent task lamp”), and will continue to do so unless enjoined by this Court.

109. The ProTorch Defendants’ infringing acts include making, using, selling, offering to

sell, and importing into the United States products covered by the ‘577 Patent including, but not

limited to, the Task Lamp and other task lamps, and/or actively inducing infringement by assisting,

overseeing, directing, and personally participating in the design, marketing, advertising, and sales of

the Task Lamp and other infringing task lamps.

110. Pleading as being likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity

for further investigation and discovery under Rule 11(b)(3), the ProTorch Defendants have sold

and/or made offers to sell, and continue to sell and/or offer to sell and/or import products infringing

the ‘577 Patent throughout the United States and elsewhere, and within the Eastern District of Texas.

111. The ProTorch Defendants’ acts of infringement have been without express or implied

license by Bayco, are in violation of Bayco’s rights, and will continue unless enjoined by this Court.

112. Pleading as being likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity

for further investigation and discovery under Rule 11(b)(3), the ProTorch Defendants have been

made aware of and had knowledge of the ‘577 Patent, and the ProTorch Defendants’ infringement of

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 40 OF 57


#416527
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1 Filed 09/09/19 Page 41 of 57 PageID #: 41

the ‘577 Patent has been, and continues to be, a deliberate and willful infringement thereof, having

full knowledge of the ‘577 Patent.

113. Bayco expressly reserves the right to assert additional patents and additional claims

and to identify additional infringing products and additional entities who operate in concert with

the ProTorch Defendants, in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court’s

scheduling order and the Court’s local rules.

114. This is an exceptional case in view of the ProTorch Defendants’ activities and blatant

infringement. Under the circumstances of this case, Bayco seeks trebling of the actual damages and

its reasonable attorneys’ fees.

115. Bayco has been, is being, and will continue to be injured and has suffered, is suffering,

and will continue to suffer injury and damages for which it is entitled to relief under at least 35 U.S.C.

§§ 281, 284, 285, and 289.

116. The ProTorch Defendants have caused, are causing, and will continue to cause

irreparable harm to Bayco, for which there is no adequate remedy at law and for which Bayco is

entitled to injunctive relief under at least 35 U.S.C. § 283.

117. Accordingly, upon finding for Bayco, the Court should award Bayco damages

adequate to compensate for the infringement, in an amount to be determined at trial, but in no

event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by the infringer, together

with interest and costs as fixed by the Court. Further, upon judgment in favor of Bayco, the Court

should permanently enjoin the ProTorch Defendants from committing the infringing acts.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 41 OF 57


#416527
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1 Filed 09/09/19 Page 42 of 57 PageID #: 42

COUNT III
(Federal Trademark Infringement)

118. Bayco repeats, realleges, and incorporates the above allegations as if fully set forth

herein.

119. Under 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1)(a), the ProTorch Defendants have, without the consent

of Plaintiff Bayco, used in commerce a reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of

the “BAYCO” marks in connection with the use, sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising

of goods or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or

to deceive.

120. Under 15 U.S.C. § 1117, Bayco seeks the ProTorch Defendants’ profits, damages

sustained by Bayco, and costs of this action. Further, under the circumstances of this case, Bayco

seeks trebling of the actual damages. Further, if the Court should find that the recovery based on

profits is inadequate, Bayco prays that the Court will in its discretion enter judgment for such a

sum as the Court shall find to be just.

121. Because of the blatant and willful nature of the ProTorch Defendants’ infringement,

Bayco submits that this is an exceptional case and seeks its reasonable attorneys’ fees, per 15

U.S.C. § 1117.

COUNT IV
(Common Law Trademark Infringement)

122. Bayco repeats, realleges, and incorporates the above allegations as if fully set forth

herein.

123. Under Texas common law, the ProTorch Defendants have, without the consent of

Plaintiff Bayco, used in commerce a reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of

Bayco’s “BAYCO” marks and Bayco’s Part Number marks in connection with the use, sale,

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 42 OF 57


#416527
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1 Filed 09/09/19 Page 43 of 57 PageID #: 43

offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of goods or in connection with which such use is

likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive.

124. Bayco seeks the ProTorch Defendants’ profits, damages sustained by Bayco, and

costs of this action. Further, under the circumstances of this case, Bayco seeks trebling of the

actual damages. Further, if the Court should find that the recovery based on profits is inadequate,

Bayco prays that the Court will in its discretion enter judgment for such a sum as the Court shall

find to be just.

125. Because of the blatant and willful nature of the ProTorch Defendants’ infringement,

Bayco submits that this is an exceptional case and seeks its reasonable attorneys’ fees.

COUNT V
(Federal Unfair Competition)

126. Bayco repeats, realleges, and incorporates the above allegations as if fully set forth

herein.

127. Under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), the ProTorch Defendants have, in connection with

goods, used in commerce false or misleading description of facts, or false or misleading

representations of facts, which are likely to cause confusion as to the origin, sponsorship, or

approval of its goods by another person; or, in commercial advertising or promotion,

misrepresented the nature, characteristics, or qualities of its or Bayco’s goods or commercial

activities. Bayco believes that it is, or is likely to be, damaged by such acts. Also, the ProTorch

Defendants have made false designations of origins of its product with respect to using “BAYCO”

or Bayco’s Part Numbers as a trademark, thereby identifying its product with Bayco as a source.

128. Under 15 U.S.C. § 1117, Bayco seeks the ProTorch Defendants’ profits, damages

sustained by Bayco, and costs of this action. Under the circumstances of this case, Bayco also

seeks trebling of the actual damages. Further, if the Court should find that the recovery based on

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 43 OF 57


#416527
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1 Filed 09/09/19 Page 44 of 57 PageID #: 44

profits is inadequate, Bayco prays that the Court will in its discretion enter judgment for such a

sum as the Court shall find to be just.

129. Because of the blatant and willful nature of the ProTorch Defendants’

misrepresentations, Plaintiff Bayco submits this is an exceptional case and seeks its reasonable

attorneys’ fees, per 15 U.S.C. § 1117.

COUNT VI
(Common Law Unfair Competition)

130. Bayco repeats, realleges, and incorporates the above allegations as if fully set forth

herein.

131. Pleading as being likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity

for further investigation and discovery under Rule 11(b)(3), the ProTorch Defendants have

engaged in commerce in Texas and this Judicial District by marketing, offering to sell, and selling

Defendants’ competing goods. Bayco created its products referenced hereinabove through

extensive time, labor, and money. Pleading as being likely to have evidentiary support after a

reasonable opportunity for further investigation and discovery under Rule 11(b)(3), the ProTorch

Defendants are making their products, the development of which made use of Bayco’s extensive

technology, without the necessity of development that Bayco invested heavily in, thereby

benefitting from a “free ride.” Bayco has suffered commercial damage as a result thereof.

132. The Defendants’ actions have been actuated by fraud and/or malice.

133. Bayco seeks an award of exemplary damages under the provisions of Chapter 41,

Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 44 OF 57


#416527
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1 Filed 09/09/19 Page 45 of 57 PageID #: 45

COUNT VII
(Violation of the Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act)

134. Bayco repeats, realleges and incorporates the above allegations as if fully set forth

herein. The Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act prohibits misappropriation of trade secrets. In

addition to allowing monetary damages for violations, it allows for injunctive relief to prevent

actual or threatened misappropriation.

135. Bayco owns trade secrets and confidential business information, including those

identified in this Complaint. Bayco’s Trade Secrets include the proprietary technical, sales,

sourcing, and financial information that Bayco uses to build and sell its products in the

marketplace.

136. Bayco’s Trade Secrets include its compilations of client information, including, but

not limited to, sales volume, pricing, margins, revenue, profits, third-party agreement terms, third-

party contact lists, technical information, OEM Products manufacturing specifications, drawings,

quality standards, outward design, function design, purchase orders, OEM Products shipping

practices, OEM Products costs, production numbers and goals, testing data, customer data,

customer identity, supplier data, supplier identity, and business plans, among others, as well as

Bayco’s methods, techniques, processes, and procedures.

137. Bayco took reasonable measures to protect the secrecy of its Trade Secrets,

including, but not limited to, limiting access to financial information, technical specifications for

the manufacture of Bayco’s products, sales volume and information, and the shipping

specifications for all Bayco products manufactured by Minghui. Access was limited for each of

the above categories to Bayco’s officers and to selected employees in each area of the business

that had a “need to know.” Additionally, Bayco maintains the Trade Secrets, including, but not

limited to, the technical specifications for its products, in a secure network location with access

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 45 OF 57


#416527
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1 Filed 09/09/19 Page 46 of 57 PageID #: 46

restricted to officers of the company and specific individuals with a “need to know.” Both Huang

(through Minghui) and Mr. Goetz (through at least Goetz) had contractual non-disclosure

obligations to maintain any Bayco Trade Secret information in confidence.

138. The Defendants, with Defendant Huang and Defendant Goetz acting as agents of

Defendant ProTorch U.S. and ProTorch China, specifically acquired by improper means, used,

and disclosed Bayco’s Trade Secrets. The ProTorch Defendants hired Goetz for Bayco’s Trade

Secrets after Goetz’ termination by Bayco, when it knew or had reason to know that Goetz was in

possession of those other Bayco Trade Secrets inaccessible to the ProTorch Defendants.

139. Goetz, acting as an agent of the ProTorch Defendants, used and disclosed to the

ProTorch Defendants Bayco’s Trade Secrets learned through its principal’s, Mr. Goetz, previous

employment with Bayco, and subsequent consulting engagement as a sales representative for

Bayco, in a manner that constitutes misappropriation.

140. The Trade Secret information in possession of Huang and Mr. Goetz, acting as

agents of ProTorch U.S. and ProTorch China, derives independent economic value, both actual

and potential, from not being generally known to, and not readily ascertainable through proper

means by, another person who can obtain economic value from the disclosure or use of the

information.

141. Huang and Mr. Goetz, acting as agents of ProTorch U.S. and ProTorch China,

misappropriated Bayco’s Trade Secrets, and used Bayco’s Trade Secrets without any consent –

express or implied. The Bayco Trade Secrets were acquired under circumstances giving rise to a

duty to maintain the secrecy of the Trade Secrets and to limit the use of the Trade Secrets. In the

case of information obtained from Goetz, the information was derived from or through an entity

who owed a duty to Bayco to maintain the secrecy of the Trade Secrets and to limit the use of the

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 46 OF 57


#416527
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1 Filed 09/09/19 Page 47 of 57 PageID #: 47

Trade Secrets. In the case of information obtained from Huang, the information was derived from

or through an entity (Minghui) who owed a duty to Bayco to maintain the secrecy of the Trade

Secrets and to limit the use of the Trade Secrets.

142. Pleading as being likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity

for further investigation and discovery under Rule 11(b)(3), Huang and Goetz, acting as agents of

ProTorch U.S. and ProTorch China, remain in possession of Bayco’s Trade Secrets and are

attempting to use them in a way that is harmful to Bayco and for their own financial gain.

143. Huang, acting as an agent of ProTorch U.S. and ProTorch China, acquired Bayco’s

Trade Secrets through improper means and under false pretenses, and he breached his duty to

maintain the secrecy of Bayco’s Trade Secrets. Huang, acting as an agent of ProTorch U.S. and

ProTorch China, at least breached its duty under the “Business Secret” Section of the March 31,

2010, OEM Agreement between Minghui and Bayco. As the OEM Agreement is still active,

however, the confidentiality obligations remain in place for a period of three years following the

termination of the OEM Agreement.

144. Goetz, acting as an agent of ProTorch U.S. and ProTorch China, acquired Bayco’s

trade secrets through improper means and under false pretenses, and it breached its duty to

maintain the secrecy of Bayco’s Trade Secrets. Goetz, acting as an agent of ProTorch U.S. and

ProTorch China, at least breached its duty under the “Confidential Information” (Section 11) of

the January 1, 2006, MRA between Goetz and Bayco. Pursuant to this Section of the MRA, such

confidentiality obligations survive termination of the MRA.

145. Huang, acting as an agent of ProTorch U.S. and ProTorch China, misappropriated

Bayco’s trade secrets by paying Goetz for information about Bayco Trade Secret technology,

processes, and information.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 47 OF 57


#416527
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1 Filed 09/09/19 Page 48 of 57 PageID #: 48

146. Bayco has been harmed by Huang and Goetz, acting as agents of ProTorch U.S.

and ProTorch China, and their misappropriation of Bayco’s Trade Secrets, and Bayco is entitled

to both monetary and injunctive relief, including damages for actual loss by Bayco, damages –

including disgorgement – for unjust enrichment caused by the misappropriation that is not included

in a claim for actual loss, or, at a minimum, a reasonable royalty for the misappropriation.

147. Huang and Goetz, acting as agents of ProTorch U.S. and ProTorch China, willfully

and maliciously misappropriated Plaintiff’s trade secrets.

COUNT VIII
(Violation of the Defend Trade Secrets Act)

148. Bayco repeats, realleges and incorporates the above allegations as if fully set forth

herein.

149. The Defendants specifically acquired by improper means, used, and/or disclosed

Bayco’s Trade Secrets. For example, Huang, either individually or on behalf of ProTorch U.S. or

ProTorch China, paid former Bayco employee and consultant Goetz for Bayco’s Trade Secrets in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1836, et seq., through misappropriation as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1839

(5)(A).

150. Additionally, Huang, either individually or on behalf of ProTorch U.S. or ProTorch

China, acquired and used or disclosed Bayco’s Trade Secrets, acquired through Minghui, in a

manner that constitutes misappropriation as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1839(5)(B). Alternatively,

Huang, either individually or on behalf of ProTorch U.S. or ProTorch China, obtained access to

Bayco’s Trade Secrets through false pretenses using the OEM Agreement as a vehicle for Trade

Secret disclosure, such that Bayco was led to believe that Huang or Minghui were solely interested

in manufacturing Bayco’s products.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 48 OF 57


#416527
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1 Filed 09/09/19 Page 49 of 57 PageID #: 49

151. Bayco’s Trade Secrets include the proprietary technical, sales, process, and

financial information that Bayco uses to build and sell its products in the marketplace.

152. Bayco’s Trade Secrets include its compilations of client information, including, but

not limited to, data regarding Bayco’s sales history (both as a whole and to individual customers),

Bayco’s sales of individual products, Bayco’s technical product specifications, including

tolerances, manufacturing data, molds, and Bayco’s methods, techniques, processes, and

procedures, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1839(3), among others.

153. Bayco has taken reasonable measures to protect the secrecy of its trade secrets,

including, but not limited to, limiting access to financial information, technical specifications for

the manufacture of Bayco’s products, sales volume, and other sensitive information. Access was

limited for each of the above categories to the officers of the company and to selected employees

in each area of the business that had a “need to know.” Bayco’s officers and the select employees

with a “need to know” could only access electronic versions of the proprietary information with

their own specific passwords. Additionally, Bayco maintains the Trade Secrets, including, but not

limited to, the product specifications, in a secure network location with access restricted to officers

of the company and specific individuals with a “need to know.”

154. Bayco is the “owner,” as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1839(4), of the Trade Secrets now

in the possession of ProTorch U.S. and ProTorch China.

155. Bayco’s information in Huang, Goetz, ProTorch U.S., and ProTorch China’s

possession, as described herein, derives independent economic value, both actual and potential,

from not being generally known to, and not readily ascertainable through proper means by, another

person who can obtain economic value from the disclosure or use of the information, pursuant to

18 U.S.C. § 1839(3)(B).

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 49 OF 57


#416527
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1 Filed 09/09/19 Page 50 of 57 PageID #: 50

156. Huang, Goetz, ProTorch U.S., and ProTorch China misappropriated Bayco’s Trade

Secrets, using them without express or implied consent, and the Bayco Trade Secrets were

acquired under circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain the secrecy of the Trade Secrets

and to limit the use of the trade secrets. In the case of information obtained from Huang or Goetz,

the Trade Secrets were obtained from those who owed a duty to Bayco to maintain the secrecy of

Bayco’s Trade Secrets and to limit the use of the Trade Secrets.

157. Huang, Goetz, ProTorch U.S., and ProTorch China remain in possession of Bayco’s

Trade Secrets and are attempting to use them in a way that is harmful to Bayco and for their own

financial gain.

158. Huang, Goetz, ProTorch U.S., and ProTorch China breached their duty under the

March 31, 2010, OEM Agreement between Minghui and Bayco and the January 1, 2006, MRA

between Goetz and Bayco to maintain the confidentiality of Bayco’s Trade Secrets.

159. ProTorch U.S., and ProTorch China misappropriated Bayco’s Trade Secrets by

paying Goetz and Huang for information about Bayco products and Trade Secret technology and

information.

160. Bayco has been harmed by Huang, Goetz, ProTorch U.S., and ProTorch China’s

misappropriation of its Trade Secrets and is entitled to both monetary and injunctive relief.

161. Huang, Goetz, ProTorch U.S., and ProTorch China’s misappropriation of Bayco’s

Trade Secrets was willful and malicious.

COUNT IX
(Federal Trade Dress Infringement)

162. Bayco repeats, realleges and incorporates the above allegations as if fully set forth

herein.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 50 OF 57


#416527
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1 Filed 09/09/19 Page 51 of 57 PageID #: 51

163. Consumers have come to associate the distinctive “look and feel” of the Bayco

Website and Bayco Packaging with Bayco’s products and services.

164. Through its promotional efforts, business conduct, and continuous use of the Bayco

Website and Bayco Packaging and their associated trade dress, Bayco has developed and

maintained clients throughout the United States, including in Texas. Through its widespread and

favorable acceptance and recognition by the consuming public, the “look and feel” of the Bayco

Website and the Bayco Packaging have become an asset of substantial value as a symbol of Bayco,

its high quality products and services, and its goodwill.

165. Accordingly, Bayco has established valid and enforceable rights in the “look and

feel” of the Bayco Website and the Bayco Packaging, as described above.

166. Notwithstanding Bayco’s preexisting valid and enforceable rights in the “look and

feel” of the Bayco Website, the ProTorch Defendants, without permission or approval, are using

Bayco’s website trade dress on both the ProTorch U.S. website and the ProTorch China website

to offer and sell its competing products and services in the United States, including in Texas.

167. Notwithstanding Bayco’s preexisting valid and enforceable rights in the “look and

feel” of the Bayco Packaging, the ProTorch Defendants, without permission or approval, are using

Bayco’s packaging trade dress on both the ProTorch U.S. and the ProTorch China product

packages to offer and sell its competing products and services in the United States, including in

Texas.

168. As a result of the ProTorch Defendants’ unauthorized use of Bayco’s trade dress,

Bayco and the ProTorch Defendants use (and have used) Bayco’s trade dress in connection with

often identical products and services.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 51 OF 57


#416527
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1 Filed 09/09/19 Page 52 of 57 PageID #: 52

169. Bayco and the ProTorch Defendants offer (and have offered) their respective

products and services to customers and clients and/or the relevant consumer base in the same

stores, in the same geographical locations, and through the same trade channels.

170. The ProTorch Defendants are direct competitors of Bayco.

171. The ProTorch Defendants’ unauthorized use of the “look and feel” of the Bayco

Website and the Bayco Products, in connection with offering related and competing products and

services, is not authorized by Bayco and is likely to cause consumer confusion and mistake, and to

deceive consumers as to the source, origin, or affiliation of the ProTorch Defendants’ products and

services.

172. The acts by the ProTorch Defendants described above constitute an infringement

and misappropriation of Bayco’s rights in and to the use of the “look and feel” of the Bayco

Website and Bayco Packaging, with consequent damages to Bayco and the business and goodwill

associated with and symbolized by Bayco’s trade dress, and, specifically, give rise to this claim

under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(A)(1).

173. Bayco seeks the ProTorch Defendants’ profits, damages sustained by Bayco, and

costs of this action. Further, under the circumstances of this case, Bayco seeks trebling of the

actual damages. Further, if the Court should find that the recovery based on profits is inadequate,

Bayco prays that the Court will in its discretion enter judgment for such a sum as the Court shall

find to be just.

174. Because of the blatant and willful nature of the ProTorch Defendants’ infringement,

Bayco submits that this is an exceptional case and seeks its reasonable attorneys’ fees.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 52 OF 57


#416527
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1 Filed 09/09/19 Page 53 of 57 PageID #: 53

COUNT X
(Breach of Contract)

175. Bayco repeats, realleges and incorporates the above allegations as if fully set forth

herein.

176. Huang breached his duty under the “Business Secret” Section of the March 31,

2010, OEM Agreement between Minghui and Bayco.

177. Pleading as being likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity

for further investigation and discovery under Rule 11(b)(3), Huang breached the OEM Agreement

by using Bayco’s Trade Secret information in direct competition with Bayco for his own financial

advantage, and to the exclusion of Bayco.

178. The ProTorch Defendants used Bayco’s confidential information related to Bayco’s

customers in an unauthorized manner. The ProTorch Defendants used information related to

Bayco’s customer, Lowe’s, to solicit orders from Lowe’s by undercutting Bayco’s prices.

179. Goetz breached his duty under the “Confidential Information” Section of the

January 1, 2006, MRA between Goetz and Bayco.

180. Pleading as being likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity

for further investigation and discovery under Rule 11(b)(3), Goetz breached the MRA by using

Bayco’s Trade Secret information in direct competition with Bayco for its own financial

advantage, and to the exclusion of Bayco.

181. The ProTorch Defendants used Bayco’s confidential information related to Bayco’s

customers in an unauthorized manner. The ProTorch Defendants used information related to

Bayco’s customer, Lowe’s, to solicit orders from Lowe’s by undercutting Bayco’s prices.

182. Mr. Goetz was Bayco’s manufacturer’s sales representative to Lowe’s.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 53 OF 57


#416527
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1 Filed 09/09/19 Page 54 of 57 PageID #: 54

183. Pleading as being likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity

for further investigation and discovery under Rule 11(b)(3), Mr. Goetz was Goetz’ sales

representative to Lowe’s, while associated with the ProTorch Defendants.

184. As a direct and proximate effect of these breaches, Bayco has been injured. Bayco

therefore seeks all remedies to which they may be entitled at law or in equity, including but not

limited to injunctive relief and money damages.

CONDITIONS PRECEDENT

185. All conditions precedent to Bayco’s recovery have occurred or have been

performed, as required by law.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Bayco respectfully prays that the Court enter judgment against

Defendants for all of the following:

A. That this Court enter judgment that: (i) Defendants have infringed the Patents-in-

Suit, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271; (ii) Defendants have infringed the “BAYCO” Marks and

Bayco Trade Dress, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1114; (iii) Defendants’ use of the “BAYCO” Marks

and Bayco Trade Dress constitute false designation of origin in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125; (iv)

Defendants unlawful actions described herein constitute unfair competition and/or unfair or

deceptive acts or practices; (v) Defendants have misappropriated Plaintiff’s Trade Secrets; (vi)

Defendants Huang and Goetz have breached contracts with Bayco; and (vii) that all of the

foregoing wrongful acts by Defendants were willful;

B. That this Court enjoin Defendants, their employees, agents, servants, and all in

privity or acting in concert with any of them, from using Bayco Trade Secrets, the “BAYCO”

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 54 OF 57


#416527
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1 Filed 09/09/19 Page 55 of 57 PageID #: 55

Marks, Bayco Trade Dress or any derivative(s) thereof or any design(s) confusingly similar

thereto, in commerce, and from engaging in any unfair competition;

C. Preliminary and permanent injunction against further violations of 15 U.S.C. §§

1114 and 1125(a) by Defendants, as well as enjoining any future acts of unfair competition by

Defendants against Plaintiff, including but not limited to ordering Defendants not to further use

“BAYCO,” or any name or mark deceptively similar to “BAYCO,” Bayco Trade Secrets, or Bayco

Trade Dress;

D. That this Court enter an order recalling all of Defendants’ products incorporating

Bayco’s Trade Secrets, Bayco Trade Dress, or bearing the “BAYCO” Marks, or any derivative(s)

thereof or any design(s) confusingly similar thereto, presently manufactured, sold, and/or

distributed, and providing for a full refund to their customers for all recalled infringing products;

E. That this Court enter an order directing the destruction of: (i) all infringing

products, including all recalled infringing products; (ii) any other lighting products that use a copy,

reproduction, or colorable imitation of the “BAYCO” Marks or Bayco Trade Dress in Defendants’

possession or control; (iii) all advertising materials related to the marketing and promotion of their

infringing products in Defendants’ possession, custody, or control, including on the Internet,

pursuant to at least 15 U.S.C. § 1118;

F. That this Court require an accounting of profits by Defendants;

G. That this Court award Plaintiff damages adequate to compensate Plaintiff for

Defendants’ patent infringement that has occurred pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, or an award of

Defendants’ profits from its patent infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 289, together with

prejudgment interest and costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees;

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 55 OF 57


#416527
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1 Filed 09/09/19 Page 56 of 57 PageID #: 56

H. That this Court award Plaintiff Defendants’ profits, Plaintiff’s actual damages,

enhanced damages, exemplary damages, costs, prejudgment and post judgment interest, and

reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to at least 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114(1), 1125(a), 1125(c), 1116, and/or

1117;

I. That this Court award Plaintiff damages adequate to compensate Plaintiff for

Defendants’ misappropriation of Plaintiff’s Trade Secrets and breach of contract;

J. That this Court award Plaintiff pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the

maximum legal rate on its damages and its reasonable attorneys’ fees as provided for by Chapter

38 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code;

K. That this Court award Plaintiff its reasonable attorneys’ fees under Section

134A.005 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code and the Defend Trade Secrets Act for

bad faith, willful, and malicious misappropriation of Plaintiff’s Trade Secrets;

L. That this Court award Plaintiff its reasonable attorneys’ fees under Section 38.001

of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code for Defendants’ breach of contract;

M. That this case is exceptional and that Plaintiff therefore shall recover from

Defendants its attorneys’ fees and other recoverable expenses; and

N. That Plaintiff shall recover from Defendants such other and further relief as the

Court may deem appropriate.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 38(b), Plaintiff Bayco hereby demands

a trial by jury on all issues in the above-identified action.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 56 OF 57


#416527
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1 Filed 09/09/19 Page 57 of 57 PageID #: 57

Dated: September 9, 2019 Respectfully submitted,


WHITAKER CHALK SWINDLE
& SCHWARTZ PLLC
/s/ Richard L. Schwartz
Richard L. Schwartz
Texas Bar No. 17869500
rschwartz@whitakerchalk.com
Enrique Sanchez, Jr.
Texas Bar No. 24068961
rsanchez@whitakerchalk.com
Thomas F. Harkins, Jr.
State Bar No. 09000990
tharkins@whitakerchalk.com
301 Commerce Street, Suite 3500
Fort Worth, Texas 76102
Phone: (817) 878-0500
Fax: (817) 878-0501
Counsel for Plaintiff Bayco Products, Inc.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 57 OF 57


#416527
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1-1 Filed 09/09/19 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 58

EXHIBIT A
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1-1 Filed 09/09/19 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 59
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1-1 Filed 09/09/19 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: 60
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1-1 Filed 09/09/19 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: 61
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1-1 Filed 09/09/19 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: 62
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1-1 Filed 09/09/19 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: 63
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1-1 Filed 09/09/19 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: 64
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1-2 Filed 09/09/19 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 65

EXHIBIT B
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1-2 Filed 09/09/19 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 66
USOOD523577S

(12) United States Design Patent (10) Patent No.: US D523,577 S


Bayat et al. (45) Date of Patent: Jun. 20, 2006
(54) FLOURESCENT TASK LAMP OTHER PUBLICATIONS
(75) Inventors: Bijan Bayat, Dallas, TX (US); James 2005 Catalog, Lighting and Cord Products, Bayco Products,
Newton, Dallas, TX (US) Ltd., Nov. 2004, pp. 2, 3, 4.
2005 Catalog, Task Lighting for Industry, Bayco Products,
(73) Assignee: Bayco Products, Ltd., Wylie, TX (US) Ltd., Nov. 2004, pp. 1, 2, 3.
(**) Term: 14 Years
* cited by examiner
Primary Examiner Marcus A. Jackson
(21) Appl. No.: 29/227,162 (74) Attorney, Agent, or Firm—Stephen S. Mosher
(57) CLAM
(22) Filed: Apr. 7, 2005
The ornamental design for a flourescent task lamp, as shown
3. LOC (8) Cl. ................................................... E. and described.
(58) Field of Classification Search ............ D26/37–50; DESCRIPTION
362/157, 158, 171-174, 183 208 FIG. 1 is a first perspective view of a flourescent task lamp:
See application file for complete search history. FIG. 2 is a front view of the flourescent task lamp, with the
cord broken away to indicate indeterminate length;
(56) References Cited FIG. 3 is a first side view of the flourescent task lamp:
FIG. 4 is a second side view of the flourescent task lamp:
U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS FIG. 5 is a back side view of the flourescent task lamp:
D409,776 S * 5/1999 Ghode et al. ................ D26/42 FIG. 6 is a top side view of the flourescent task lamp; and,
D421,143 S * 2/2000 Kovacik et al. ............. D26/42 FIG. 7 is a bottom side view of the flourescent task lamp.
6,534,926 B1 3/2003 Miller et al. ................ 315,224 The broken line showing is for illustrative purposes only and
D501,687 S * 2/2005 Kovacik et al. ............. D26/42 forms no part of the claimed design.
D501,688 S * 2/2005 Kovacik et al. .... ... D26/42
D504,968 S * 5/2005 Bayat et al. ................. D26/42 1 Claim, 4 Drawing Sheets
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1-2 Filed 09/09/19 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 67

U.S. Patent Jun. 20, 2006 Sheet 1 of 4 US D523,577 S


Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1-2 Filed 09/09/19 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 68

U.S. Patent Jun. 20, 2006 Sheet 2 of 4 US D523,577 S


Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1-2 Filed 09/09/19 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 69

U.S. Patent Jun. 20, 2006 Sheet 3 of 4 US D523,577 S


Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1-2 Filed 09/09/19 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 70

U.S. Patent Jun. 20, 2006 Sheet 4 of 4 US D523,577 S


Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1-3 Filed 09/09/19 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 71

EXHIBIT C
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1-3 Filed 09/09/19 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: 72
USOOD672894S

(12) United States Design Patent (10) Patent No.: US D672,894 S


Bayat et al. (45) Date of Patent: . Dec. 18, 2012
(54) DUAL FUNCTION RECHARGEABLE WORK Primary Examiner — Stella Reid
LIGHT Assistant Examiner — Carissa C Fitts
(75) Inventors: Bijan Bayat, Plano, TX (US); Gordon (74) Attorney, Agent, or Firm — Whitaker Chalk Swindle &
L. Treichler, Wylie, TX (US) Schwartz PLLC; Stephen S. Mosher
(73) Assignee: Bayco Products, Inc., Wylie, TX (US)
(57) CLAM
(**) Term: 14 Years The ornamental design for a dual function rechargeable work
(21) Appl. No. 29/378,022 light, as shown and described.
(22) Filed: Oct. 28, 2010
DESCRIPTION
(51) LOC (9) Cl. .................................................. 26-02
(52) U.S. Cl. ........................................................ D26/42 FIG. 1 is a perspective view of a top side of the dual function
(58) Field of Classification Search ................... D26/37, rechargeable work light;
D26/38, 40 42, 46; 362/157, 158, 171-174,
362/184, 186, 194-196, 200 208 FIG. 2 is a perspective view of a bottom side of the embodi
See application file for complete search history. ment of FIG. 1;
FIG. 3 is a first end view of the dual function rechargeable
(56) References Cited work light;
FIG. 4 is a first side view of the dual function rechargeable
U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS work light;
3,383,675 A 5, 1968 Allardice et al. FIG. 5 is a second side view of the dual function rechargeable
D473,332 S * 4/2003 Lam ............................... D26/49 work light;
D505,217 S * 5/2005 Bayat et al. ... D26/42 FIG. 6 is a top side view of the dual function rechargeable
D521,168 S * 5/2006 Waters ......... ... D26/42
D530,843 S * 10/2006 Yamamoto ....... ... D26/42 work light;
D538,456 S * 3/2007 Trigiani et al. .. ... D26/42 FIG. 7 is a bottom side view of the dual function rechargeable
D548,382 S * 8/2007 Akerberg ..... ... D26/42 work light;
D567,977 S * 4/2008 Jianwei ... ... D26/42 FIG. 8 is a second end view of the dual function rechargeable
D567,978 S * 4/2008 Jianwei .......................... D26/42 work light; and,
D574,741 S * 8/2008 Gadsden . D10/114.9
D598,150 S * 8/2009 Bertken ......................... D26/38 FIG. 9 is a perspective view of a top side of an alternate
D606,218 S * 12/2009 Jiang ... ... D26/42 embodiment of the embodiment of FIG. 1, the only difference
7,703,966 B2 * 4/2010 Waters ......... 362,577 being the gap in the elongated illuminating portion of the dual
D620,627 S * 7/2010 Kovacik et al. ................ D26/42 function rechargeable work light, it being understood that all
D622.438 S * 8/2010 Sasada et al. ................ D26,113 other surfaces are the same as those of the embodiment of
(Continued) FIG 1.
OTHER PUBLICATIONS The broken line showing is for environmental purposes only
and forms no part of the claimed design.
Bayco, Profession Task Lighting for Industry, catalog, 08/04, front
cover/title page, p. 4 (Cordless LED Worklights, back cover page. 1 Claim, 5 Drawing Sheets
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1-3 Filed 09/09/19 Page 3 of 8 PageID #: 73

US D672,894 S
Page 2

U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS D648.466 S 1 1/2011 Hickman ....................... D26/42


2002fO191396 A1 12/2002 Reiffetal.
R26 S : 19299 Berken .................. D26/37
D625,861 S * 10/2010 Bertken ... D26/37
2006/0198132 A1* 9/2006 Trigiani et al. ............... 362/183
2010. O157582 A1* 6, 2010 Bertken ........................ 362,158
D626,671 S * 1 1/2010 Bertken ......................... D26/37
D638,560 S * 5/2011 Steenstra ....................... D26/38 * cited by examiner
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1-3 Filed 09/09/19 Page 4 of 8 PageID #: 74

U.S. Patent Dec. 18, 2012 Sheet 1 of 5 US D672,894 S


Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1-3 Filed 09/09/19 Page 5 of 8 PageID #: 75

U.S. Patent Dec. 18, 2012 Sheet 2 of 5 US D672,894 S


Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1-3 Filed 09/09/19 Page 6 of 8 PageID #: 76

U.S. Patent Dec. 18, 2012 Sheet 3 of 5 US D672,894 S


Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1-3 Filed 09/09/19 Page 7 of 8 PageID #: 77

U.S. Patent Dec. 18, 2012 Sheet 4 of 5 US D672,894 S

8"OI-I
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1-3 Filed 09/09/19 Page 8 of 8 PageID #: 78

U.S. Patent Dec. 18, 2012 Sheet 5 of 5 US D672,894 S


Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1-4 Filed 09/09/19 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 79

EXHIBIT D
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1-4 Filed 09/09/19 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 80
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1-5 Filed 09/09/19 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 81

EXHIBIT E
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1-5 Filed 09/09/19 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 82
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1-6 Filed 09/09/19 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 83

EXHIBIT F
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1-6 Filed 09/09/19 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 84
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1-6 Filed 09/09/19 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 85
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1-6 Filed 09/09/19 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 86
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1-6 Filed 09/09/19 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 87
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1-7 Filed 09/09/19 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 88

EXHIBIT G
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1-7 Filed 09/09/19 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 89
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1-7 Filed 09/09/19 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 90
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1-7 Filed 09/09/19 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 91
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1-8 Filed 09/09/19 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 92

EXHIBIT H
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1-8 Filed 09/09/19 Page 2 of 11 PageID #: 93
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1-8 Filed 09/09/19 Page 3 of 11 PageID #: 94
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1-8 Filed 09/09/19 Page 4 of 11 PageID #: 95
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1-8 Filed 09/09/19 Page 5 of 11 PageID #: 96
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1-8 Filed 09/09/19 Page 6 of 11 PageID #: 97
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1-8 Filed 09/09/19 Page 7 of 11 PageID #: 98
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1-8 Filed 09/09/19 Page 8 of 11 PageID #: 99
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1-8 Filed 09/09/19 Page 9 of 11 PageID #: 100
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1-8 Filed 09/09/19 Page 10 of 11 PageID #: 101
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1-8 Filed 09/09/19 Page 11 of 11 PageID #: 102
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1-9 Filed 09/09/19 Page 1 of 16 PageID #: 103

EXHIBIT I
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1-9 Filed 09/09/19 Page 2 of 16 PageID #: 104
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1-9 Filed 09/09/19 Page 3 of 16 PageID #: 105
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1-9 Filed 09/09/19 Page 4 of 16 PageID #: 106
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1-9 Filed 09/09/19 Page 5 of 16 PageID #: 107
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1-9 Filed 09/09/19 Page 6 of 16 PageID #: 108
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1-9 Filed 09/09/19 Page 7 of 16 PageID #: 109
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1-9 Filed 09/09/19 Page 8 of 16 PageID #: 110
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1-9 Filed 09/09/19 Page 9 of 16 PageID #: 111
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1-9 Filed 09/09/19 Page 10 of 16 PageID #: 112
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1-9 Filed 09/09/19 Page 11 of 16 PageID #: 113
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1-9 Filed 09/09/19 Page 12 of 16 PageID #: 114
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1-9 Filed 09/09/19 Page 13 of 16 PageID #: 115
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1-9 Filed 09/09/19 Page 14 of 16 PageID #: 116
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1-9 Filed 09/09/19 Page 15 of 16 PageID #: 117
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1-9 Filed 09/09/19 Page 16 of 16 PageID #: 118
Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1-10 Filed 09/09/19 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 119
JS 44 (Rev. 02119) CIVIL COVER SHEET
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as reguired by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, IS reqlllred for the lise of the Clerk ofColirt for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSnWC7JONS ON NEXT PAGE OF 7HIS FORM.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS

BAYCO PRODUCTS, INC, PROTORCH COMPANY, INC" SUZHOU PROTORCH CO" LTD"
TIM GOETZ & ASSOCIATES LLC and HONG HUANG

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff County of Residence of First Listed Defendant a/k/a HENRY HUANG
(EXCEPT IN (J.S I'LAINIlFF CASh'S) (IN u.s. I'I.AINIlFF CASh'S ONLY)

NOTE' IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF


THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.

(c) Attorneys (Fir/II Nallle, Address, and Telephone Numher) Attorneys (If f.:noll'n)
RicHard L. Schwartz
Whitaker Chalk Swindle & Schwartz PLLC
301 Commerce Street, Suite 3500, Fort Worth, TX 76102 / 817-878-0500

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an ".\" III One Box Onlv) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an ".'("inOneBox(vrPla/l1{/ff
(For lJiversily Cases Ollly) and One Box for Defendanl)
o I U.S. Govemment ~ 3 Federal Question PTF OEF PTF OEf
Plaintiff (U.\. Gm'ermnenl Nol a I_)ar~l') Citizen of This State 01 o Incorporated or Principal Place o 4 04
of Business In This State

o 2 U.S. Govemment o 4 DiversitY Citizen of Another State o 2 o 2 Incorporated alld Principal Place o o
Defendant (Im.hcale ('III=enslup o/I'arlle.\" In /Iem III) of Business In Another State

Citizen or Subject of a o o 3 Foreign Nation o 6 06


Forei n CountlV

IV NATURE OF SUIT (Place an "X" In Olle Box Onl») Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descrintions.
I CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITUREIPENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES I
0 110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY o 625 Dlllg Related Seizure o 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 o 375 False Claims Act
0 120 Marine o 310 Airplane o 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 o 423 Withdrawal o 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
0 130 Miller Act o 315 Airplane Product Product Liability o 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729(a»
0 140 Negotiable Instnllnent Liability o 367 Health Carel o 400 State Reapportionment
0 150 Recovery of Overpayment o 320 Assault, Libel & Pharnlaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS o 410 Antitrust
& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury ~ 820 Copyrights o 430 Banks and Banking
0 151 Medicare Act o 330 Federal Employers' Product Liability 830 Patent o 450 Commerce
0 152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability o 368 Asbestos Personal o 835 Patent - Abbreviated o 460 Deportation
Student Loans o 340 :vIarine injury Product New Drug Appl ication o 470 Racketeer Intluenced and
(Excludes Veterans) o 345 Marine Product Liability o 840 Trademark COITupt Organizations
0 153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY I~ABOR SOCIAL SECURITY o 480 Consumer Credit
ofYeteran's Benefits o 350 :vIotor Vehicle o 370 Other Fraud o 710 Fair Labor Standards 0861 HIA (1395ff) o 485 Telephone Consumer
0 160 Stockholders' Suits o 355 \1otor Vehicle a 37\ Truth in Lending Act o 862 Black LUllg (923) Protection Act
0 190 Other Contract Product Liability o 380 Other Personal o 720 LaborlManagement o 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g» o 490 CablelSat TV
0 195 Contract Product Liability o 360 Other Personal Property Damage Relations o 864 SSID Title XVI o 850 Securities/Commodities!
0 196 Franchise Injury o 385 Propel1y Damage o 740 Railway Labor Act o 865 RSI (405(g») Exchange
o 362 Personal Injwy - Product Liability o 751 Family and Medical o 890 Other Statutory Actions
Medical Malpractice Leave Act o 891 Ab'Ticulnu'al Acts
I REAL PROPERTY ClVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS o 790 Other Labor Litigation FEDERAL TAX SUITS o 893 Environmental Matters
o 210 Land Condemnation o 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: o 791 Employee Retirement o 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff o 895 Freedom of Information
o 220 Foreclosure 0441 Voting o 463 Alien Detainee Income Security Act or Defendant) Act
o 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment o 442 Employment o 5 10 Motions to Vacate o 871 IRS-Third PaJ1y o 896 Arbitration
o 240 Torts to Land o 443 Housingl Sentence 26 USC 7609 o 899 Administrative Procedure
o 245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations 0 530 General Act/Review or Appeal of
o 290 All Other Real Propeny o 445 Amer. w/Disabilities- 0 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION Agency Decision
Employment Other: o 462 Naturalization Application o 950 Constitutionality of
o 446 Amer. wlDisabilities- o 540 Mandamus & Olher o 465 Other Immigration State Statutes
Other o 550 Civil Rights Actions
o 448 Education o 555 Prison Condition
o 560 Civil Detainee-
Conditions of
Confinement

V. ORIGIN (Place an "x" in One Box Onlv)


~ I Original 0 2 Removed from o 3 Remanded trom o 4 Reinstated or o Transferred from o 6 Multidistrict o 8 Multidistrict
Proceeding State Court Appellate COllrt Reopened Another District Litigation - Litigation -
(Ipecifi) Transfer Direct File
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under whichC'0ll are filin~J/){} ItOICile('ltrisdiCli()fWlst(/llIleS IIlth'Ss diver,\';ty):
VI. CAUSEOFACTION~3_5_U_._S_.C_.~§_1~,e_t_s_eq~.~,1_5_U_._S_, _.~§_1_11_4~,~S_1_12_5~(a~)~1~)(~A~)_an_d_1_8_U_._S_.C_,~§_1_83_6 _
Brief descril?tion of cause:
Patent infringement, federal trademark, unfair competition, trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract
VII. REQUESTED IN o CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND S CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, F RCv P In Excess of$75,000 JURY DEMAND: ~ Yes ONo

VIII. RELATED CASE(S)


(See msrrUClJom):
IF ANY TNUMBER
DATE
09/09/2019
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP MAG. JUDGE


Case 4:19-cv-00648-ALM Document 1-10 Filed 09/09/19 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 120
JS 44 Reverse (Rev, 02119)

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44


Authority For Civil Cover Sheet

The .IS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as
required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is
required for the use of the Clerk ofComt for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of
Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the lorm as follows:

I.(a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use
only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identity first the agency and
then the official, giving both name and title.
(b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed. except U.S. plaintiff cases. enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiffresides at the
time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land
condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.)
(c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address. telephone number. and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting
in this section "(see attachment)".

II. ,Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P .. which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X"
in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.
United States plaintiff. (I) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and oflicers of the United States are included here.
United States defendant. (2) When the plainti ff is suing the United States. its ofticers or agencies, place an "X" in this box.
Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.s.c. 1331. where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment
to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiffor defendant code takes
precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked.
Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.s.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of dille rent states. When Box 4 is checked, the
citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section IiI below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity
cases.)

Ill. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the .IS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this
section tor each principal party.

IV. Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If there are multiple nature of suit codes associated with the case, pick the nature of suit code
that is most applicable. Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.

V. Origin. Place an "X" in one of the seven boxes.


Original Proceedings. (I) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.
Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.c., Section 1441.
Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing
date.
Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.
Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.c. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or
multidistrict litigation transfers.
Multidistrict Litigation- Transfer. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the distTict under authority of Title 28 U.S.c.
Section 1407.
Multidistrict Litigation - Direct File. (8) Check this box when a multidistrict case is filed in the same district as the Master MDL docket. PLEASE
NOTE THAT THERE IS NOT AN ORIGIN CODE 7. Origin Code 7 was used for historical records and is no longer relevant due to changes in
statue.

VI. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional
statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service

VII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.
Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.
Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not ajury is being demanded.

VIII. Related Cases. This section of the .IS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, ifany. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket
numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.

Date and Attorney Signature. Dale and sign the civil cover sheet.

Похожие интересы