Jacent Strategic Merch. v. 2 Dogs Distrib. - Complaint

Case 1:19-cv-02209-UNA Document 1 Filed 11/27/19 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 1
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
JACENT STRATEGIC MERCHANDISING, LLC, )

)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) C.A. No. __________________
)
2 DOGS DISTRIBUTION, LLC, ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
)
Defendant. )
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
Plaintiff, Jacent Strategic Merchandising, LLC (“Jacent”), through the undersigned
counsel, for its complaint against Defendant 2 Dogs Distribution, LLC (“2 Dogs”), alleges as
follows:
NATURE OF ACTION AND RELIEF SOUGHT
1. This is an action under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, et seq.,
for a declaratory judgment of patent invalidity, unenforceability, and non-infringement of United
States Design Patent No. D613,583 (the “’583 Patent,” copy attached as Exhibit A) and the non-
infringement of United States Trademark Registration No. 3306126 (“The Mommy Hook mark”)
and associated trade dress. The accused product as to which Plaintiff seeks a declaration of
patent and trademark/trade dress non-infringement is called the “Aluminum Carabiner.”
2. This action arises out of 2 Dogs demands that Jacent cease and desist from selling
the Aluminum Carabiner based upon 2 Dogs’ claimed ownership of the ’583 Patent and The
Mommy Hook mark and its claim that the Aluminum Carabiner infringes the ’583 Patent,
infringes on The Mommy Hook mark and dilutes 2 Dogs’ trade dress rights in the same.
3. Jacent seeks a declaratory judgment from this Court declaring that the ’583 Patent
is invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, and/or 171 and that Jacent’s conduct, including its
marketing and sale of the Aluminum Carabiner, does not constitute infringement of either the
’583 Patent or The Mommy Hook mark and does not dilute any trade dress rights of 2 Dogs
under the Lanham Act.
PARTIES
4. Jacent is a Delaware limited liability company with its headquarters and principal
place of business located at 860 Welsh Road, Huntingdon Valley, Pennsylvania 19006.
5. Upon information and belief, Defendant 2 Dogs Distribution, LLC (“2 Dogs”) is a
Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business located at 125 West
Gemini Drive, Suite E1-E2 in Tempe, Arizona 85283. 2 Dogs’ registered agent for service of
process is:
Harvard Business Services, Inc.

16192 Coastal Highway
Lewes, DE 19958
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
6. This Court has jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 and
1338(a).
7. Venue is proper in the District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c).
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
The Aluminum Carabiner Sold by Jacent
8. Jacent is a retail merchandiser that sources, warehouses, ships and sells retail
“impulse” items, which are products store owners commonly place near the checkout counters
and on shelf hangers along store aisles of retail stores that people buy on impulse, i.e., without
planning in advance to do so.
2
9. Prior to Jacent’s receipt of an August 2, 2019 cease and desist letter from 2 Dogs’
counsel (the “Cease and Desist Letter”), one of the products that Jacent marketed and sold to
retail stores was the Aluminum Carabiner. A true and correct copy of sample packaging for the
Aluminum Carabiner sold by Jacent is attached as Exhibit B.
10. The product packaging for the Aluminum Carabiner sold by Jacent does not
include or use the words “Mommy,” “Mom,” “Mother,” or any other form of those words.
11. The product packaging for the Aluminum Carabiner sold by Jacent does not
include or use the word “Hook” or any form of that word.
2 Dogs’ Patent, Trademark and Trade Dress
12. The ’583 Patent is a “design patent” and, as a result, is a patent that encompasses
only the “ornamental design” of a product under 35 U.S.C. § 171, as opposed to a utility patent
under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
13. The’583 Patent contains exactly one claim, which in its entirety states, “The
ornamental design for a carabiner, as shown and described.” (Emphasis added.)
14. The ornamentation of the accused Aluminum Carabiner sold by Jacent differs
from the claim of the ’583 Patent.
15. Multiple competitors sell into commerce carabiners similar in appearance to the
Aluminum Carabiner that do not infringe the ’583 Patent.
16. 2 Dogs has represented to Jacent in writing that 2 Dogs is the current owner of the
’583 Patent.
17. The ’583 Patent shows that the application for the patent was filed on May 4,
2009. Under the heading “Related U.S. Application Data,” the ’583 Patent purports to claim
priority as a continuation of patent application No. 12/106,275, filed on January 18, 2008. Thus,
3
January 18, 2007, is the earliest possible “critical date” for purposes of the statutory bar for
public use, commercial sales and offers for sale under 35 U.S.C. 102(b).
18. Priority application No. 12/106,275 originally claimed priority to provisional
application No. 60/880,558, which was filed on January 16, 2007. Ex. H (Application No.
12/106,275 File History) at H-3. During the course of prosecuting application No. 12/106,275,
the applicant acknowledged that its priority claim to provisional application No. 60/880,558 was
improper and withdrew it because the provisional application was filed more than one year prior
to application No. 12/106,275. Id. at H-316. In turn, applicant admitted through Information
Disclosure Statements and further correspondence with the examiner that it had publicly used
and imported for sale in the United States The Mommy Hook® more than one year priority to
the January 18, 2008 filing date of application No. 12/106,275. See, e.g., id. at H-364. Upon
consideration of applicant’s prior use and sale of The Mommy Hook®, the examiner rejected all
pending claims as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in
view of the prior use and sale of The Mommy Hook® alone or in combination with several other
prior art references. Id. at H-424-449. Applicant did not respond to this rejection, allowing the
application to go abandoned. Id. at H-457.
19. Because the ’583 Patent never claimed priority to provisional application No.
60/880,558, at no time during its prosecution was the claimed priority date in flux. At no time
during prosecution of the ’583 Patent, however, did applicant disclose its own prior use and sale
of The Mommy Hook®, which was known by the applicant to have occurred more than one year
prior to the earliest claimed priority date of the ’583 Patent.
20. Only in its enforcement of the ’583 Patent has 2 Dogs acknowledged that
products covered by the ’583 Patent were publicly used and sold commercially more than one
4
year prior to the ’583 Patent’s priority date. Specifically, 2 Dogs made the following judicial
admissions in pleadings filed by 2 Dogs in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas on October 11, 2019:
9. 2-Dogs manufactures and distributes various high

quality products, including a carabiner product call THE MOMMY
HOOK (the “Mommy Hook® product(s)”.) The Mommy Hook®
product has been sold commercially in one form or another since
at least 2006, and has gained widespread recognition among
consumers. . . .
...
12. The Mommy Hook® product is covered by the ’583
Patent. . . .
Plaintiff’s Original Complaint (filed by 2 Dogs), ¶¶ 9 and 12 (copy attached as Exhibit C)
(emphasis added).
21. Likewise, on August 11, 2017, 2 Dogs filed a Complaint in the United States
District Court for the District of Arizona asserting infringement of the ’583 Patent in a matter
styled 2 Dogs Distribution, LLC v. Cyberush Products, Ltd. d/b/a Toogli, Case No. 2:17-cv-
02725-DJH. A true and correct copy of that Complaint is attached as Exhibit D.
22. In 2 Dogs’ Complaint against Cyberush, 2 Dogs alleges:
10. 2 DOGS is the exclusive owner of certain

intellectual property directed to innovative and quality carabiner
products, including without limitation, United States Design Patent
Nos. D613,583 and United States Federal Trademark Registration
No. 3,306,126 for THE MOMMY HOOK. The Mommy Hook®
product has been sold commercially in one form or another since
at least 2006, and has gained widespread recognition among
consumers. A photo of the authentic Mommy Hook is below.
5
Ex. D, ¶ 10 (emphasis added). 2 Dogs’ Complaint against Cyberush further alleges that “the
authentic Mommy Hook® product is marked with the ’583 Patent number.” Id., ¶ 26.
23. 2 Dogs advertises and markets its The Mommy Hook® product on the basis of
functionality and not mere ornamentation. For example, 2 Dogs’ website, themommyhook.com,
describes the product as:
a. “Perfect for strollers and shopping carts”;
b. “Heavy-duty aluminum”;
c. “Comfortable foam grip”;
d. “Gives you hands-free control”;
e. “Its foam grip keeps it from slipping or sliding” and
f. “The Mommy Hook is even handy for taking bags from your car to your
home.”
6
Exhibit F contains printouts of excerpts of 2 Dogs’ website (as of November 23, 2019)
containing the quotes above, and includes a printout of the “Contact Us” page of the website
which gives the name, address, email address and telephone number of 2 Dogs.
24. As it did in the Cyberush Complaint, 2 Dogs has likewise represented to Jacent in
writing that it is the owner of the Trademark “The Mommy Hook” and associated rights under
U.S. Trademark Registration No. 3306126.
25. U.S. Trademark Registration No. 3306126, which was filed on January 27, 2007,
represents that the date of first use in commerce for The Mommy Hook mark was April 3, 2006.
A copy of U.S. Trademark Registration No. 3306126 is attached as Exhibit E.
26. In connection with the application for The Mommy Hook mark, the applicant for
Registration 3306126 submitted a photograph of a specimen of the product bearing The Mommy
Hook mark to evidence first use of the mark, which shows that the product was, as of April 3,
2006, of a design disclosing all and/or rendering obvious the aesthetic features of the patented
design. See id.
27. Despite its own acknowledgement made in January 2007 to the Trademark
Division of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office that The Mommy Hook was used in commerce
in the United States as early as April 3, 2006, upon information and belief, during prosecution of
the application that led to the ’583 Patent, applicant intentionally withheld and failed to disclose
to the Patent Division of the United States Patent and Trademark Office the public use and sales
of the Mommy Hook® product that qualified as prior art to the ’583 Patent.
28. On information and belief, the applicant for the ’583 Patent intentionally withheld
and failed to disclose to the United States Patent and Trademark Office the prior art descriptions
of the Mommy Hook® product available prior to the critical date of the ’583 Patent, including
7
but not limited to the description submitted with the 2007 application for Trademark Registration
3306126 and the prior-use-and-sales admissions made during prosecution of priority application
No. 12/106,275, which were made during that prosecution only after the ’583 Patent issued in
2010. These prior art Mommy Hook products each embody and/or render obvious the aesthetic
features and design claimed in the ’583 Patent.
Patent Marking
29. On information and belief, after the ’583 Patent was issued, 2 Dogs and/or the
predecessor owner(s) of the ’583 Patent made and sold into commerce products covered by the
’583 Patent and, for at least some time between April 13, 2010, to the present, did so without
marking all such products with patent markings consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C.
§ 287.
30. On information and belief, 2 Dogs and/or its predecessor owner(s) of the ’583
Patent have licensed other persons (“Licensees”) to make and sell products covered by the ’583
Patent, and such Licensees have made and sold into commerce products covered by the ’583
Patent and, for at least some time between April 13, 2010, to the present, did so without marking
all such products with patent markings consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 287.
Actual Controversy
31. In 2 Dogs’ August 19, 2019 Cease and Desist Letter, it stated that 2 Dogs owns
intellectual property rights with respect to the ’583 Patent and United States Trademark
Registration No. 3306126 (i.e., The Mommy Hook mark), and asserted that “Jacent has been
infringing intellectual property rights of 2 Dogs.” A true and correct copy of the August 29, 2019
letter is attached as Exhibit G.
8
32. The Cease and Desist Letter is the first actual notice Jacent received from 2 Dogs
of its claim of infringement of ’583 Patent.
33. The Cease and Desist Letter expressly threatens legal action against Jacent if
Jacent does not comply with the demands of the letter.
34. Upon receipt of the Cease and Desist Letter, Jacent ceased shipments of the
Aluminum Carabiner and has lost sales of the same as a result.
35. On October 11, 2019, 2 Dogs filed a complaint in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas (the “Texas Action”) alleging, among other things, that Jacent
infringed the ’583 Patent.
36. Jacent has filed a motion to dismiss the Texas Action or, in the alternative, to
transfer venue to this Court (where both parties are residents) on the grounds that Jacent is not a
resident of Texas and that it has no regular and established place of business within the Eastern
District of Texas.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Declaratory Action for Determination of Invalidity of the ’583 Patent)
37. Jacent incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth herein, all preceding
paragraphs of this Complaint.
38. As a result of the actions and accusations detailed above, an actual and present
controversy exists between Jacent and 2 Dogs with respect to the validity of the ’583 Patent.
39. The single claim of the ’583 Patent is invalid for failure to comply with 35 U.S.C.
§§ 102, 103, and/or 171.
40. For example, for substantially the same reasons the examiner concluded that the
claims of priority application No. 12/106,275 are anticipated and/or rendered obvious in view of
9
the prior use and sales of The Mommy Hook® product alone or in combination with other prior
art references, the single claim of the ’583 Patent is likewise invalid.
41. Jacent is entitled to a judgment declaring that the claim of the ’583 Patent is
invalid.
42. Jacent has suffered damage, injury and harm from 2 Dogs’ conduct and will suffer
further damage, injury and harm unless the Court adjudicates the controversy between the parties
and issues a declaratory judgment of invalidity of the ’583 Patent.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Declaratory Action for Determination of Unenforceability of the ’583 Patent)
controversy exists between Jacent and 2 Dogs with respect to the enforceability of the ’583
Patent.
45. The single claim of the ’583 Patent is unenforceable because of the applicant’s
inequitable conduct before the United States Patent and Trademark Office in failing to disclose
the public use and commercial sales prior to the critical date of the patent and its own prior art.
46. The applicant to the ’583 Patent had knowledge of its own prior use and sales that
qualified as prior art to the ’583 Patent at least as early as April 2006, and upon information and
belief, intentionally withheld disclosure of this prior art to the examiner during the prosecution of
the ’583 Patent. As evidenced by, e.g., the Patent Office’s rejection of all pending claims in
priority application No. 12/106,275 in view of the prior use and sales of The Mommy Hook®
product alone or in combination with other prior art references, the disclose of this prior art to the
Patent Office would have been but-for material to the patentability of the ’583 Patent.
10
47. Jacent is entitled to a judgment declaring that the claim of the ’583 Patent is
unenforceable.
48. Jacent has suffered damage, injury and harm from 2 Dogs’ conduct and will suffer
further damage, injury and harm unless the Court adjudicates the controversy between the parties
and issues a declaratory judgment of invalidity of the ’583 Patent.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Declaratory Action for Determination of Non-Infringement of the ’583 Patent)
controversy exists between Jacent and 2 Dogs with respect to whether the accused Aluminum
Carabiner infringes the ’583 Patent owned by 2 Dogs.
51. The accused Aluminum Carabiner does not infringe the one and only claim in the
’583 Patent.
52. Jacent is entitled to a judgment declaring that the Aluminum Carabiner does not
infringe the’583 Patent.
53. Jacent has suffered damage, injury and harm from 2 Dogs’ conduct, including but
not limited to 2 Dogs’ claim of infringement, and will continue to suffer further damage, injury
and harm unless the Court adjudicates the controversy between the parties and issues a
declaratory judgment of non-infringement of the ’583 Patent.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Declaratory Action for Determination of Trademark and Trade Dress Non-Infringement)
11
55. As a result of the actions and accusations detailed above, and actual and present
controversy exists between Jacent and 2 Dogs with respect to whether the accused Aluminum
Carabiner infringes The Mommy Hook mark or dilutes any trade dress rights of 2 Dogs under the
Lanham Act.
56. The accused Aluminum Carabiner does not infringe The Mommy Hook mark or
dilute any trade dress rights of 2 Dogs under the Lanham Act.
57. Jacent is entitled to a judgment declaring that the Aluminum Carabiner does not
infringe The Mommy Hook mark or dilute any trade dress rights of 2 Dogs under the Lanham
Act.
58. Jacent has suffered damage, injury and harm from 2 Dogs’ conduct, including but
not limited to 2 Dogs’ claim of infringement of The Mommy Hook mark and associated trade
dress, and will continue to suffer further damage, injury and harm unless the Court adjudicates
the controversy between the parties and issues a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of
The Mommy Hook Mark trade dress rights of 2 Dogs.
WHEREFORE, Jacent prays for judgment as follows:
A. On its First Claim for Relief, for declaratory judgment that the claim of the ’583
Patent is invalid and that the applicant engaged in inequitable conduct is obtaining the patent;
B. On its Second Claim for Relief, for declaratory judgment that the claim of the
’583 Patent is unenforceable;
C. On its Third Claim for Relief, for declaratory judgment that Jacent has not
infringed the ’583 Patent by sale of the Aluminum Carabiner;
12
D. On its Fourth Claim for Relief, for declaratory judgment that Jacent has not
infringed The Mommy Hook registered trademark or diluted any trade dress rights owned by
2 Dogs;
E. That the Court find this case exceptional and award Jacent its attorney fees, costs
and expenses paid against 2 Dogs pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285; and
F. That this Court award Jacent such other and further relief as the Court deems just
and proper.
JURY DEMAND
Jacent hereby demands trial by jury in this action on all issues so triable.
MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
/s/ Brian P. Egan

__________________________________
Brian P. Egan (#6227)
1201 North Market Street
P.O. Box 1347
Wilmington, DE 19899
(302) 658-9200
began@mnat.com
OF COUNSEL:
Attorneys for Plaintiff Jacent Strategic
David M. Bennion Merchandising, LLC
Zack L. Winzeler
PARSONS BEHLE & LATIMER
201 South Main Street, Suite 1800
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
(801) 532-1234
November 27, 2019
13
Case 1:19-cv-02209-UNA Document 1-1 Filed 11/27/19 Page 1 of 508 PageID #: 14
EXHIBIT A
USOOD613583S
(12) United States Design Patent (10) Patent No.: US D613,583 S

Abels (45) Date of Patent: . * Apr. 13, 2010
(54) CARABNER 4,785,495 A 11/1988 Dellis
4,811,467 A 3, 1989 Lowe
(76) Inventor: David L. Abels, 112 Yeargen Pl., Chapel
Hill, NC (US) 27516 (Continued)
(**) Term: 14 Years FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS
DE 2945831. A * 5, 1980
(21) Appl. No. 29/336,431
Continued
(22) Filed: May 4, 2009 (Continued)
OTHER PUBLICATIONS
Related U.S. Application Data
Absorbent, Ink. “Jumbo Carry-All Carabiner'. Jun. 3, 2008, Pub
(63) Continuation of application No. 12/016.275, filed on lisher: Accessed online via http://www.absorbentprinting.com/tools
Jan. 18, 2008. and-knives/carabiners/carabiners jumbo-carry-all-carabiner.
(51) LOC (9) Cl. .................................................. O8-05 (Continued)
(52) ... D8/356 Primary Examiner Susan Bennett Hattan
(58) Field of Classification Search .................. D8/105, Assistant Examiner—Karen Acker
D8/107,333,349,356,358,357, 373,383; (74) Attorney, Agent, or Firm Vincent K. Gustafson;
D11/200, 215: 24/573.11,579.09, 579.11, Intellectual Property, Technology Law
24/592.11,599.1,599.9, 600.1; 182/5
See application file for complete search history. (57) CLAM
(56) References Cited The ornamental design for a carabiner, as shown and
U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS described.
1,219,199 A 3/1917 Troop DESCRIPTION
1,263,745 A 4, 1918 Craven
2,412,895. A 12/1946 Lewis FIG. 1 is a perspective view of the carabiner of the invention.
2.492.991 A 1/1950 Hanna
2,550,038 A 4, 1951 Brown FIG. 2 is a front elevation view of the carabiner of FIG. 1;
2,833,454. A 5, 1958 McGee FIG. 3 is a top plan view of the carabiner of FIGS. 1-2;
2.983,980 A 5, 1961 Hamel
3,120,403 A 2f1964 Molzan et al. 4 is a left side elevation view of the carabiner of FIGS.
3,358,340 A 12/1967 Higuchi a
3,563,430 A 2f1971 Forrest FIG. 5 is a right side elevation view of the carabiner of FIGS.
4,095.316 A 6, 1978 Gabriel 1-4; and,
4,380,093
A 4/1983 Morgan
D271466 S 11, 1983 Boissonnet FIG. 6 is a bottom plan view of the carabiner of FIGS. 1–5.
4,556,245 A * 12/1985 Gruenwald ................ 294,312
D282,904 S 3, 1986 Faidide 1 Claim, 4 Drawing Sheets
US D613,583 S
Page 2
U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS D528,406 S 9, 2006 Kramer

7,114,196 B1 10/2006 Cicio
4,835,823 6, 1989 Contat 7,140,326 B2 11/2006 Jenny et al.
4,890,355 1, 1990 Schulten 7,228,600 B1 6/2007 Selby et al.
4,930, 194 6, 1990 Frechin 7,322,624 B2 1/2008 Murphy
4,964,192 10, 1990 Marui D565,392 S * 4/2008 Shetler ........................ D8,356
5,005,266 4, 1991 Fister et al. D572,573 S 7, 2008 Abels
5,010,850 4, 1991 Sailer 2001 0037542 A1 11, 2001 Elliott
5,155,878 10, 1992 Dellis 2002/0092142 A1 7/2002 Schoen
D334,888 4, 1993 Merritt ........................ D9/455 2003/0047953 A1 3/2003 Hechimovich et al.
5,210,914 5, 1993 Katsma 2003/0106190 A1 6/2003 Christianson
5,263,755 11, 1993 Thompson 2003/0110604 A1 6/2003 Kennard
5,329,675 T. 1994 McLean et al. 2003/O127477 A1 7, 2003 Williams
5,357,657 10, 1994 Petzl 2004.0143945 A1 7/2004 Christianson
5,361,726 11, 1994 Harris et al. 2004/02311 16 A1 1 1/2004 Goldberg
5,441,323 8, 1995 Goddard 2004/0250386 Al 12/2004 Goldberg
D369,549 5, 1996 Meyers et al. 2005, 0028331 A1 2, 2005 Axel
5,517,949 5, 1996 Harris et al. 2005/0057056 A1 3, 2005 Davis
D371,023 6, 1996 Higgins ....................... D6,462 2005/0081347 A1 4/2005 Goldberg
D375,252 11, 1996 Serra Fabregas 2005/0229367 A1 10/2005 Thompson
5,577,304 11, 1996 Simond ..................... 24,588.1 2005.0246874 A1 11/2005 HSu
5,729,864 3, 1998 Lie et al. 2005/0275230 A1 12/2005 Barrett
5,738,401 4, 1998 Fan 2005/0278907 A1 12/2005 DiMarchi et al.
D406,250 3, 1999 Luket al. 2006, 0087139 A1 4/2006 Ayres
5,878,834 3, 1999 Brainerd et al. 2006, O137151 A1 6/2006 Thompson
5,882,022 3, 1999 Convertini et al. 2006,0162138 A1 7/2006 Kimura
5,940,943 8, 1999 Kloster ...................... 24,588.1 2006, O168781 A1 8, 2006 Axel
6,000, 108 12, 1999 Roan 2006/0261618 A1 11/2006 Schleucher
6,042,164 3, 2000 Merritt ........................ 294, 28 2006/0273600 A1 12/2006 Rohlf
D432,027 10, 2000 Fox et al. 2007, OO18467 A1 1/2007 Schwartz
D433,312 11, 2000 Luquire ....................... D8,333 2007/0062013 A1 3/2007 Mueller ..................... 24,599.1
6,148,483 11, 2000 DeGraff 2008/0022497 A1 1/2008 Thompson
D448,276 9, 2001 Kelleghan 2008. O1854.09 A1 8/2008 Kellenberger
6,338,463 1/2002 Babitz et al.
D474,095 5/2003 Luquire ........................ D8/99 FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS
D475,591 6, 2003 Luquire EP 1849502 A1 * 10, 2007
6,606,769 8, 2003 Harris
6,622,354
D483,647
6,688,259
s 9, 2003
12, 2003
2, 2004
Klingier
Lo
Axel .......................... 119,792
WO WO98O2668 A1 * 1, 1998
OTHER PUBLICATIONS
6,715,898 4, 2004 Huang Ebay Online Auction, “Lightweight Green Carabiner with Foam
6,802.480 10, 2004 Martello Handle', Feb. 14, 2007. Publisher: Accessed Online at: http://cgi.
6,923,356 8, 2005 Reynolds .................... 224,585 ebay.com/LIGHTWEIGHT-GREEN-CARABINER-WITH
D513,964 1, 2006 Overthun et al. FOAM-HANDLE WOQQitemZ220092256791QQihz012QQ
D519,410 4, 2006 Luket al. categoryZ50814OQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem.
7,047,604 B2 5, 2006 Axel Home Depot, “Workforce Hangalls Jumbo Carabiner'. May 15,
2008.
7,097,223 B1 8, 2006 Bradford
D527,988 S ck 9, 2006 Shetler ........................ D8,356 * cited by examiner
U.S. Patent Apr. 13, 2010 Sheet 1 of 4 US D613,583 S
FIG.1
FIG.3

EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT D
Case 1:19-cv-02209-UNA
Case 2:17-cv-02725-DJH
Document
Document
1-1 Filed1 11/27/19
Filed 08/11/17
Page 24
Page
of 508
1 ofPageID
15 #: 37
1 Shane E. Olafson (Bar No. 024605)

LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER CHRISTIE LLP
2 201 East Washington Street, Suite 1200
Phoenix, Arizona 85004
3 Phone: (602) 262-5327
Fax: (602) 734-3756
4 solafson@lrrc.com
5 Attorneys for Plaintiff 2 Dogs Distribution, LLC

6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8 2 Dogs Distribution, LLC, No.

9 Plaintiff,
COMPLAINT
10 v.
Cyberush Products Ltd. d/b/a Toogli, (Jury Trial Demanded)
11
12 Defendant.
13
14 Plaintiff 2 DOGS Distribution, LLC (“2 DOGS” or “Plaintiff”), for its Complaint
15 against Cyberush Products Ltd. d/b/a Toogli (“Toogli” or “Defendant”), hereby alleges as
16 follows:
17 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
18 1. This is an action for patent infringement, trademark infringement, and
19 unfair competition arising under 35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq., 15 U.S.C. § 1051, et seq., and
20 applicable state and common laws.
21 2. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to at
22 least 35 U.S.C. § 100 et seq., including 35 U.S.C. §§ 271 and 281, 15 U.S.C. § 1121, and
23 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338 because this action arises under the patent and trademark
24 laws of the United States. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining
25 claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1367.
26 3. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because it has, directly
27 or through its agents and/or intermediaries, committed acts within, and directed to, this
28 District giving rise to this action and/or has established such minimum contacts with this
-1-
Document
Document
1-1 Filed1 11/27/19
Filed 08/11/17
Page 25
Page
of 508
2 ofPageID
15 #: 38
1 District such that the exercise of jurisdiction would not offend traditional notions of fair
2 play and substantial justice.
3 4. Particularly, upon information and belief, Defendant and/or its agents
4 and/or intermediaries, offers for sale and/or sells its products in Arizona, including the
5 products accused of infringement in this action, through several distributors in the United
6 States, without geographical limitation or restriction as to the method of sale, including
7 through distributors who offer such products for sale over the Internet with free
8 nationwide shipping, including products for sale within or into this judicial district, in
9 direct competition Plaintiff within this judicial district. Defendant also sells and offers its
10 products for sale through Internet-based distributors, including Amazon and its own
11 internet store at toogli.com. Defendant’s accused product is also offered for sale on
12 Bonanza.com, OlivesMall, The Newish Warehouse, and Chickadee Solutions.
13 5. Upon information and belief, and as further described herein, Defendant
14 has committed patent infringement in Arizona that has led to foreseeable harm and injury
15 to Plaintiff. On information and belief, Defendant derives substantial revenue from the
16 sale of its infringing products distributed within this District and/or should reasonably
17 expect its actions to have consequences in this District.
18 6. Additionally, Defendant is subject to jurisdiction in the United States and
19 specifically in this District, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(2). Defendant has contacts
20 within the United States that include, inter alia, offering to sell and/or selling infringing
21 products within this Judicial District and/or having infringing products imported into the
22 United States.
23 7. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c) and
24 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b).
25 PARTIES
26 8. 2 DOGS is a Delaware limited liability company with a principal place of
27 business at 125 W. Gemini Dr., Suite E1-E2 in Tempe, Arizona 85283.
28
-2-
Document
Document
1-1 Filed1 11/27/19
Filed 08/11/17
Page 26
Page
of 508
3 ofPageID
15 #: 39
1 9. Upon information and belief, Defendant is a corporation organized and

2 existing under the laws of the Province of Manitoba, Canada, having a principal place of
3 business at 198 Carroll Road, Winnipeg, MB, R3K 1H6 Canada.
4 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
5 10. 2 DOGS is the exclusive owner of certain intellectual property directed to
6 innovative and quality carabiner products, including, without limitation, United States
7 Design Patent Nos. D613,583 and United States Federal Trademark Registration No.
8 3,306,126 for THE MOMMY HOOK. The Mommy Hook® product has been sold
9 commercially in one form or another since at least 2006, and has gained widespread
10 recognition among consumers. A photo of the authentic Mommy Hook product is below:
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 11. 2 DOGS seeks to exploit the reach of THE MOMMY HOOK brand and
23 product through a successful and profitable licensing and merchandising program. 2
24 DOGS is very selective in the choice of its licensees and carefully controls and monitors
25 the quality of the licensed products. The intent of the licensing program is to build brand
26 equity on THE MOMMY HOOK trademark by licensing quality products, and
27 strengthening THE MOMMY HOOK experience for both core and non-traditional
28 customers.
-3-
Document
Document
1-1 Filed1 11/27/19
Filed 08/11/17
Page 27
Page
of 508
4 ofPageID
15 #: 40
1 12. The Mommy Hook® has been widely successful due to its unique design,
2 and has garnered a reputation as a high-quality, innovative and stylish product.
3 A. Plaintiff’s Patent Rights
4 13. 2 DOGS has taken steps to protect its products and owns various United
5 States patents relating to its product designs. Relevant to this dispute, 2 DOGS owns all
6 right, title, and interest in, and has the right to sue and recover for past, present, and
7 future infringement of, United States Patent No. D613,583 (“the ’583 Patent”), which
8 issued on April 13, 2010. A copy of the ’583 Patent is attached as Exhibit A.
9 14. The ’583 patent is entitled “Carabiner,” and claims the distinctive
10 ornamental design for a carabiner as shown in the Patent.
11 15. The ’583 patent is presumed to be valid.
12 B. Plaintiff’s Trademark Rights
13 16. 2 DOGS is also the owner of common law and statutory rights to THE
14 MOMMY HOOK trademark, including United States federal trademark Registration No.
15 3,306,126 for THE MOMMY HOOK (“the Trademark”). The Trademark covers goods
16 and services in Class 6, including “Fasteners, namely, metal clips and metal hooks, for
17 use on strollers, shopping carts and other carrier structures.” A true and accurate copy of
18 the Trademark registration is attached as Exhibit B.
19 17. As a result of continuous and long-standing promotion, substantial sales,
20 high quality, and consumer recognition, THE MOMMY HOOK has developed powerful
21 good will that others want to copy.
22 18. THE MOMMY HOOK trademark is presumed valid and is incontestable
23 pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1065.
24 C. Defendant’s Infringing Activities
25 19. Without 2 DOGS’ authorization, Defendant has made, used, sold, and/or
26 offered to sell a product that is the same or substantially similar to the design claimed in
27 the ’583 Patent (“the Infringing Product”), thus directly infringing the ’583 Patent.
28
-4-
Document
Document
1-1 Filed1 11/27/19
Filed 08/11/17
Page 28
Page
of 508
5 ofPageID
15 #: 41
1 20. On information and belief, Defendant also imports (or causes others to
2 import) the Infringing Product into the United States, further infringing the’583 Patent.
3 21. According to Defendant’s website, Defendant is based in Canada, but has
4 partnered with fulfillment centers “strategically placed in warehouses across the United
5 States.” See https://toogli.com/pages/why-buy-from-us (last visited Aug. 8, 2017).
6 22. Defendant also boasts having “thousands” of customers, and that “[a]ll of
7 our items are in stock & ready to ship immediately.” Id. Defendant offers free shipping
8 throughout the United States, including into Arizona.
9 23. Upon information and belief, Defendant has also induced and continues to
10 induce acts by third parties that Defendant knows or should know constitute direct
11 infringement of the ’583 Patent. Defendant actively induced infringement of the ’583
12 Patent by designing its Infringing Product such that it infringes the ’583 Patent and by
13 purposefully directing, promoting, encouraging, and causing the manufacture, sale,
14 advertisement for sale, use and/or importation into the United States of its Infringing
15 Product by third parties in ways that infringe the ’583 Patent.
16 24. A side-by-side comparison of the patented design and Defendant’s
17 Infringing Product is shown below:
18
Patented Design Infringing Product
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-5-
Document
Document
1-1 Filed1 11/27/19
Filed 08/11/17
Page 29
Page
of 508
6 ofPageID
15 #: 42
1 25. On its Amazon.com product page, Defendant compares the design of the
2 Infringing Product with that of “Competing Brand’s Stroller Hook,” and markets the
3 infringing design as being advantageous over other products having a non-infringing
4 design:
5
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 26. Upon information and belief, Defendant knew or should have known of
17 Plaintiff’s existing patent rights in the ’583 Patent because that Patent has been published
18 since at least April 13, 2010. Moreover, the authentic Mommy Hook® product is marked
19 with the ’583 Patent number. Defendant was therefore aware or should have been aware
20 of Plaintiff’s rights in the ’583 patent.
21 27. Plaintiff also, through counsel, expressly informed Defendant of the ’583
22 Patent on or about July 14, 2017, demanding, inter alia, that Defendant cease
23 infringement of the ’583 Patent and confirm so in writing. Thus, Defendant’s violation of
24 Plaintiffs’ patent rights has been and continues to be willful.
25 28. Upon information and belief, Defendant also knew or should have known
26 of Plaintiff’s trademark rights in THE MOMMY HOOK. The application for THE
27 MOMMY HOOK trademark published in July 24, 2007, and registration issued in
28 October 2007. On information and belief, Defendant also had notice of THE MOMMY
-6-
Document
Document
1-1 Filed1 11/27/19
Filed 08/11/17
Page 30
Page
of 508
7 ofPageID
15 #: 43
1 HOOK trademark via display of the circle R on product packaging and other advertising
2 in accordance with 15 U.S.C. § 1111.
3 29. Defendant is seeking to improperly trade off THE MOMMY HOOK name
4 and brand by advertising its infringing product as HOOKS FOR MOMMY and a HOOK
5 SET FOR MOMMY. For example, the following text appears on Defendant’s web page
6 for the Infringing Product:
7
10
11 30. Defendant uses the terms MOMMY and HOOK in direct proximity to one
12 another despite there being no commercial need for Defendant to do so. On information
13 and belief, Defendant is seeking to trade off the well-known THE MOMMY HOOK
14 trademark and brand name.
15 31. Defendant was also expressly informed by Plaintiff, through counsel, of
16 Plaintiff’s rights in THE MOMMY HOOK trademark on or about July 14, 2017. In that
17 correspondence, Plaintiff demanded, inter alia, that Defendant cease infringement of
18 THE MOMMY HOOK trademark. Defendant’s violation of Plaintiffs’ trademark rights
19 has been and continues to be willful.
20 32. By selling and importing into the United States its Infringing Product, and
21 by marketing that product as a “hook for mommy” for use on strollers, shopping carts and
22 other carrier structures, Defendant is infringing Plaintiff’s patent and trademark rights,
23 diluting Plaintiff’s trademark rights, and causing Plaintiff irreparable harm.
24 33. Defendants are also inducing others to infringe THE MOMMY HOOK
25 trademark by intentionally supplying the Infringing Product to, and by inducing and
26 encouraging others to advertise, promote and sell the Infringing Product, using the terms
27 MOMMY and HOOK in proximity to each other, knowing that such use infringes THE
28 MOMMY HOOK trademark.
-7-
Document
Document
1-1 Filed1 11/27/19
Filed 08/11/17
Page 31
Page
of 508
8 ofPageID
15 #: 44
1 34. Defendant’s infringement is further damaging Plaintiff via negative

2 association with Defendant’s Infringing Product, which has received dozens of negative
3 reviews on Amazon.com, including the following customer comments:
4 • “Poor quality,”
5 • “as I was trying to open the clasp it just broke in my hands”
6 • “very poor quality and cheaply made”
7 • “Broke on the very first use. Really disappointed”
8 • “Used it twice and it simply broke.”
9 • “Useless. Get something else.”
10 • “broke pretty quickly. Pretty disappointed.”
11 • “broke before I even hooked it onto the stroller.”
12 • “Broke in 2 days.”
13 • “Just got them in the mail and they arrived broken. . . . Disappointing.”
14 • “the sides of the metal clips . . . are so sharp they could cut my fingers.”
15 • “broke after just 1 or 2 uses . . . . DO NOT BUY.”
16 • “These things are cheap and not worth the $”
17 • “Very Poor Material”
18 • “Disappointed it showed up broken.”
19 • “it broke immediately”
20 • “arrived defective. Don’t waste your money.”
21 • “Don’t by [sic] this product, it is a waste of money!”
22 35. As evidenced by these and other comments from Defendant’s customers
23 regarding the Infringing Product, confusion among consumers between the Infringing
24 Product and the authentic Mommy Hook® is likely to harm 2 DOGS’ and The Mommy
25 Hook®’s reputation.
26 36. Defendant’s infringing conduct is causing Plaintiff irreparable harm.
27
28
-8-
Document
Document
1-1 Filed1 11/27/19
Filed 08/11/17
Page 32
Page
of 508
9 ofPageID
15 #: 45
1 COUNT I
2 Direct Infringement of the ’583 Patent
3 37. 2 DOGS repeats, realleges, and incorporates by reference the allegations set
4 forth in the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.
5 38. Upon information and belief, Defendant’s Infringing Product is covered by
6 the design set forth in claim 1 of the ’583 Patent.
7 39. Defendant has sold in the United States, offered for sale in the United
8 States and imported into the United States, the Infringing Product. These acts constitute
9 direct infringement of the ’583 patent.
10 40. As a direct and proximate result of these actions, Defendant has unlawfully
11 derived and will continue to derive, income, profits and goodwill from its infringing
12 activities.
13 41. 2 DOGS has been and will continue to be damaged irreparably by
14 Defendant’s direct infringement of the ’583 patent. 2 DOGS has no adequate remedy at
15 law for these wrongs and injuries. The damage to 2 DOGS includes harm to its
16 intellectual property that money cannot compensate.
17 42. Defendant’s infringing conduct makes this an exceptional case under
18 35 U.S.C. § 285, due in part to Defendant’s wanton disregard for Plaintiffs’ patent rights.
19 COUNT II
20 Induced Infringement of the ’583 patent
23 44. Upon information and belief, Defendant has induced others to make, use,
24 sell, and offer for sale in the United States, and to import into the United States,
25 Defendant’s Infringing Product. Such third parties include online retailers and
26 distributors throughout the United States who sell, offer for sale, distribute and/or import
27 the Infringing Product in the United States.
28
-9-
Document
Document
1-1 Filed
1 11/27/19
Filed 08/11/17
Page 33
Page
of 508
10 of
PageID
15 #: 46
1 45. Upon information and belief, Defendant knew of the ’583 Patent as
2 described above, and knew that third parties’ actions constitute infringement of the ’583
3 Patent.
4 46. Upon information and belief, the actions of Defendant described above
5 have at all times relevant to this action been willful.
6 47. 2 DOGS has been and will continue to be damaged irreparably by
7 Defendant’s induced infringement the ’583 Patent. 2 DOGS has no adequate remedy at
8 law for these wrongs and injuries. The damage to 2 DOGS includes harm to its
9 intellectual property that money cannot compensate.
10 48. Defendant’s infringing conduct makes this an exceptional case under
11 35 U.S.C. § 285, due in part to Defendant’s wanton disregard for Plaintiffs’ patent rights.
12 COUNT III
13 Trademark Infringement Under the Lanham Act
16 50. Defendant has knowingly used and continues to use in commerce
17 advertising that is designed to, and likely to, cause consumer confusion with regard to
18 THE MOMMY HOOK trademark. Defendant has done so with the knowledge of, and
19 the intent to call to mind and create a likelihood of confusion with regard to, and/or trade
20 off the fame and goodwill associated with THE MOMMY HOOK product.
21 51. 2 DOGS has given notice of its registrations and claimed trademark rights
22 pursuant to section 29 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1111. Nevertheless, Defendant
23 continues to infringe Plaintiff’s registered trademark.
24 52. Defendant’s actions (A) constitute trademark infringement, (B) are likely to
25 confuse, mislead, or deceive customers, purchasers, and members of the general public as
26 to the origin, source, sponsorship, or affiliation of Defendant and 2 DOGS and/or
27 Defendant’s products and 2 DOGS’ products, and (C) is likely to cause such people to
28 believe in error that Defendant's products have been authorized, sponsored, approved,
- 10 -
Document
Document
1-1 Filed
1 11/27/19
Filed 08/11/17
Page 34
Page
of 508
11 of
PageID
15 #: 47
1 endorsed, or licensed by 2 DOGS, or that the Defendant is in some way affiliated with 2
2 DOGS.
3 53. 2 DOGS has no control over the nature and quality of the goods or services
4 Defendant offers, and 2 DOGS’ reputation and goodwill will be damaged – and the value
5 of THE MOMMY HOOK trademark jeopardized – by Defendant’s continued
6 infringement of Plaintiff’s trademark. Because of the likelihood of confusion between
7 the Infringing Product and The Mommy Hook® product, any defects, objections, or
8 faults found with Defendant’s products will negatively reflect upon and injure the
9 reputation that The Mommy Hook® product has gained. As such, Defendant is liable to
10 2 DOGS for infringement of its registered mark under 15 U.S.C. §1114.
11 54. Defendant’s acts alleged above have caused, and if not enjoined will
12 continue to cause, irreparable and continuing harm to 2 DOGS’ trademarks, business,
13 reputation, and goodwill. 2 DOGS has no adequate remedy at law as monetary damages
14 are inadequate to compensate 2 DOGS for the injuries caused by Defendant.
15 55. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s conduct, 2 DOGS has
16 suffered damages to the THE MOMMY HOOK trademark, and other damages in an
17 amount to be proved at trial.
18 56. Defendant’s infringement of 2 DOGS’ registered trademark is deliberate,
19 willful, fraudulent and without any extenuating circumstances, and constitutes a knowing
20 use of Plaintiff’s trademark, and an exceptional case within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. §
21 1117(a).
22 57. 2 DOGS is entitled to injunctive relief, and to recover Defendant’s profits,
23 actual damages, enhanced profits and damages, costs, and reasonable attorney fees under
24 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1116, and 1117.
25
26
27
28
- 11 -
Document
Document
1-1 Filed
1 11/27/19
Filed 08/11/17
Page 35
Page
of 508
12 of
PageID
15 #: 48
1 COUNT IV
2 False Designation of Origin/Unfair Competition
3 Under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act
6 59. Defendant’s aforementioned acts constitute direct and/or indirect trademark
7 infringement, false designation of origin, passing off and unfair competition in violation
8 of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), et seq.
9 60. THE MOMMY HOOK trademark has been used in commerce for over a
10 decade, is federally registered, is legally incontestable, and is entitled to protection under
11 both federal and common law. Through that extensive and continuous use, THE
12 MOMMY HOOK trademark has become a well-known indicator of the origin and quality
13 of The Mommy Hook® product.
14 61. Defendant’s use of colorable imitations of THE MOMMY HOOK
15 trademark constitutes a false designation of origin that is likely to cause consumer
16 confusion, mistake, or deception as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of the
17 Infringing Product by creating the false and misleading impression that the Infringing
18 Product is manufactured by, authorized by, or otherwise associated with 2 DOGS.
19 62. Defendant’s use of colorable imitations of THE MOMMY HOOK
20 trademark has caused, and unless enjoined, will continue to cause substantial and
21 irreparable injury to 2 DOGS for which 2 DOGS has no adequate remedy at law,
22 including at least substantial and irreparable injury to the goodwill and reputation for
23 quality associated with 2 DOGS’ trademark rights.
24 63. On information and belief, Defendant’s use of colorable imitations of THE
25 MOMMY HOOK trademark has been intentional and willful. Defendant’s bad faith is
26 evidenced at least by the similarity of the Infringing Product to the authentic “Mommy
27 Hook” product and THE MOMMY HOOK trademark, as well as by Defendant’s failure
28 to abide by Plaintiff’s infringement notices.
- 12 -
Document
Document
1-1 Filed
1 11/27/19
Filed 08/11/17
Page 36
Page
of 508
13 of
PageID
15 #: 49
1 64. 2 DOGS is entitled to injunctive relief, and 2 DOGS is also entitled to

2 recover Defendant’s profits, actual damages, enhanced profits and damages, costs, and
3 reasonable attorney fees under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1125(a), 1116, and 1117.
4 COUNT V
5 Common Law Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition
7 forth in the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully here.
8 66. As a result of long-time sales of The Mommy Hook® and use of THE
9 MOMMY HOOK brand, The Mommy Hook® product has become widely known and
10 has acquired a reputation for quality and excellence.
11 67. Defendant, with knowledge of and with intentional disregard of 2 DOGS’
12 rights, continues to advertise, promote, sell, and import Infringing Products into the
13 United States and this District, and to intentionally infringe THE MOMMY HOOK
14 trademark.
15 68. Defendant’s acts are likely to cause confusion as to the source and/or
16 sponsorship of 2 DOGS, and Defendant’s acts constitute common law trademark
17 infringement and misappropriation of the goodwill associated with THE MOMMY
18 HOOK mark, and constitute unfair competition in violation of Arizona common law.
19 69. Defendant’s acts alleged above have caused, and if not enjoined will
20 continue to cause, irreparable and continuing harm to 2 DOGS’ trademarks, business,
21 reputation, and goodwill. 2 DOGS has no adequate remedy at law because monetary
22 damages are inadequate to compensate 2 DOGS for the injuries caused by Defendant.
23 70. On information and belief, Defendant’s aforementioned conduct has been
24 intentional and willful.
25 71. 2 DOGS is entitled to injunctive relief, and to recover Defendant’s profits,
26 actual damages, punitive damages, costs, and reasonable attorney fees.
27
28
- 13 -
Document
Document
1-1 Filed
1 11/27/19
Filed 08/11/17
Page 37
Page
of 508
14 of
PageID
15 #: 50
1 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

2 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff 2 DOGS Distribution, LLC respectfully request that this
3 Court enter judgment on each and every claim for relief set forth above and award relief,
4 including, but not limited to, the following:
5 A. Granting judgment that Defendant has directly infringed the ’583 patent;
6 B. Granting judgment that Defendant has indirectly infringed the ’583 patent
7 by inducing the infringement of the ’583 patent;
8 C. Issuing a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant, and its agents,
9 employees, attorneys, successors and assigns, and all persons, firms, and corporations
10 acting in concert with them, from directly or indirectly infringing the ʼ583 patent,
11 including inducing the infringement of, or contributing to the infringement of, the ʼ583
12 patent.
13 D. Entering judgment for Plaintiff against Defendant for damages suffered by
14 Plaintiff as a result of such infringement, including, but not limited to lost profits and/or a
15 reasonable royalty pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284;
16 E. Awarding Plaintiff enhanced damages as a result of Defendant’s willful
17 patent infringement;
18 F. Awarding Plaintiff the costs and disbursements of this action, and
19 reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285;
20 G. A preliminary and permanent injunction against further infringement, direct
21 and indirect, of THE MOMMY HOOK trademark and colorable imitations thereof by
22 Defendant, its officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and all others in active
23 concert or participation with any of them;
24 H. An order directing the destruction of all Infringing Products in Defendant’s
25 possession or control, including the destruction of all advertising materials related to the
26 Infringing Product in Defendant’s possession or control, including on the Internet
27
28
- 14 -
Document
Document
1-1 Filed
1 11/27/19
Filed 08/11/17
Page 38
Page
of 508
15 of
PageID
15 #: 51
1 I. An award of Defendant’s profits, actual damages, enhanced profits and

2 damages, costs, and reasonable attorney fees under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1116, and 1117
3 for Defendant’s trademark infringement;
4 J. Awarding Plaintiff pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, to the fullest
5 extent available, on the foregoing; and
6 K. Granting such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
7 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
8 2 DOGS hereby demands a jury trial on all of its claims.
9
10 DATED this 11th day of August, 2017.

11 LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER CHRISTIE LLP
12
By: s/Shane E. Olafson
13 Shane E. Olafson
201 East Washington Street, Suite 1200
14 Phoenix, AZ 85004
Attorneys for Plaintiff 2 DOGS
15 DISTRIBUTION, LLC
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 15 -
EXHIBIT E
EXHIBIT F
TheCase 1:19-cv-02209-UNA
Mommy Hook Document 1-1 Filed 11/27/19 Page 42 of 508 PageID 1 of 1
#: 55
Page
BENEFITS COLLECTION WHERE TO BUY PRESS CONTACT
THE
MOMMY
NOOK:,
STROI FR ASSISTANT
THE MUST-HAVE
MOMMY ACCESSORY
• Perfect for strollers and shopping carts
• Heavy-duty aluminum
• Comfortable foam grip
• Gives you hands-free control
https://www.themommyhook.com/ 11/23/2019
TheCase
Mommy1:19-cv-02209-UNA
Hook - Benefits Document 1-1 Filed 11/27/19 Page 43 of 508 PageID
Page of 1
#: 156
THE MOMMY HOOK. BENEFITS COLLECTION WHERE TO BUY PRESS CONTACT
THE MUST-HAVE
MOMMY ACCESSORY
Do you struggle to find space to carry all of your bags when
shopping or out for a stroll with the baby? The Mommy
Hook® fits virtually any stroller or shopping cart handle,
and is made from durable, heavy-duty aluminum. Its foam
grip keeps it from slipping or sliding. Just snap it on and
you're ready to roll! The Mommy Hook is even handy for
taking bags from your car to your home.
THE MOMMY HOOK BENEFITS

• Perfect for strollers and shopping carts
• Heavy-duty aluminum
• Comfortable foam grip
• Gives you hands-free control
SHOPPING BABY GROCERY
THE MOMMY HOOK COMES IN

A VARIETY OF COLORS
VIEW COLLECTION
https://www.themommyhook.com/benefits.php 11/23/2019
TheCase
Hook - Gallery Document 1-1 Filed 11/27/19 Page 44 of 508 PageID #: 157of 1
Page
THE MOMMY HOOK. BENEFITS COLLECTION WHERE TO BUY PRESS CONTACT
SEE THE MOMMY HOOK IN

ACTION
https://www.themommyhook.com/collection.php 11/23/2019
TheCase 1:19-cv-02209-UNA
Mommy Hook - Contact Us Document 1-1 Filed 11/27/19 Page 45 of 508 PageID #: 58
Page 1 of 2
THE MOMMY HOOK, BENEFITS COLLECTION WHERE TO BUY PRESS CONTACT
C NTA T IIS
For U.S. sales and general inquiries, please contact:
2 Dogs Distribution
125 W Gemini Drive, Suite E2
Tempe, AZ 85283
Email: info@themommyhook.com
Tel:(480)865-2621
For Canadian sales inquiries, please contact:

5514 Km Corporation
201 Wicksteed Avenue, Unit 2
Toronto, Ontario
Canada M4G 081
Email: info@5514km.ca
Tel:(888) 502-5514
We are always looking for feedback to help improve our website, products
and services. Please use this form to send us your comments and
questions.
Please note that we will never share your information with anyone. By completing our online
contact form, you will not be added to any mailing list. All fields marked with an asterisk (*)
are required.
Contact Information
*Name
Company Name
*Address 1
Address 2
*City
*State/Province/Region
*Zip/Postal Code
*Country ,Select One
*Email Address email@dornain.com
Telephone j xxx-xxx-xxxx
Message
*Subject
https://wwvv.themommyhook.com/contact.php 11/23/2019
TheCase
Hook - Contact Us Document 1-1 Filed 11/27/19 Page 46 of 508 PageID 59of2
#: 2
Page
*Message
vi
Submit
https://www.themommyhook.com/contact.php 11/23/2019
EXHIBIT G
LE1
SpencerFane-
JASPAL S. HARE
+1 214.750.3623(DIRECT) File No. 5030206-3
jhareasoencedane.c9ju
August 29, 2019
VIA FEDEX1
Attn: Managing Member or Chief Legal Officer

Jacent Strategic Merchandising, LLC
860 Welsh Road
Huntington Valley, PA 19006
Attn: Managing Member or Chief Legal Officer

Jacent Strategic Merchandising, LLC
cio The Corporation Trust Company
Corporation Trust Center
1209 Orange St
Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: Demand to Jacent Strategic Marketing, LLC,Jacent Inc., and Affiliates (collectively
"Jacent" or "you")to Cease and Desist Infringement of U.S. Patent No. D613,583 and
Other Intellectual Property of 2 Dogs Distribution, LLC
Dear Jacent:
This firm has been retained by 2 Dogs Distribution, LLC ("2 Dogs" or''our client") with respect to
protecting its intellectual property rights. It has come to our attention that Jacent has been infringing
intellectual property rights of 2 Dogs as discussed in more detail below.
2 Dogs is the owner of the trademark and associated rights to a product well-known as The Mommy
Hook. The Mommy Hook is protected by U.S. Trademark Registration No:3306126. The Mommy Hook
is also protected by U.S. Patent No. 0613,583(the'583 patent)(a copy of which is enclosed). 2 Dogs is
the owner of these intellectual property rights.
Jacent's activities constitute a violation of 2 Dogs' exclusive rights. In particular, your sales of various
products, including your product marketed as "Aluminum Carabiner"(UPC 5275500528)and similar
products (collectively, the "Accused Products"), constitutes infringement of the '583 patent. The
packaging and marketing for the Accused Products also infringes on and dilutes 2 Dogs'trademark and
trade dress rights.
FedEx Tracking Nos: 8138 6802 4383 and 8138 6802 4372
SPENCER FANE LLP 15700 GRANITE PKWY,SUITE 65D, PLANO, TX 75024 I 972.324.0300 I FAX 972.324.0301 I spencerfane.com
Jacent
L1
August 29, 2019
Page 2 SpencerFane
This correspondence shall further serve as our client's demand for an accounting of the following
information:
1. The total quantity of the Accused Products purchased, manufactured, imported at any
time up to and including the present, and the identity of each and every supplier,
wholesaler, manufacturer, importer, and distributor involved;
2. The total quantity of the Accused Products Jacent sold at any time up to and including the
present, and the identity of each and every wholesaler, distributor, or retail store that
purchased said product;
3. An accounting of your total revenues and gross profits relating to the manufacture and/or
sale of the Accused Products, including a breakdown of the cost of manufacturing said
product and the revenues generated from their sale;
4. The total number of the Accused Product you have in inventory.
This Information must be provided with accompanying documentation, including financial and other
business records, supporting the responses given to these questions.
Request for the Preservation of Evidence
In addition to providing the information requested above, please preserve all documents, tangible things
and electronically stored information ("ESE') potentially relevant to the issues in this matter, including but
not limited to the following:
• marketing materials related to the Accused Products;

• digital communications (e.g., e-mail, voice mail, instant messaging)concerning the Accused
Products;
• financial and accounting data related to the Accused Products and its sales and manufacture;
and
all other Information relevant to the Accused Products and this matter.
* *
This correspondence shall serve as our client's formal demand that Jacent immediately cease and desist
from all sales of the Accused Products. Within seven (7) days from the date of this letter, please confirm
that you have ceased and desisted by signing and returning this letter. At that time, we also request that
you produce the documentation requested herein. Should you fail or refuse to fully comply with this
letter, our client has authorized us to pursue legal action.
It is our understanding that 2 Dogs has previously contacted you regarding this matter. And, to date,
Jacent has not taken a license, but instead, chooses to continue to engage in Infringing conduct. 2 Dogs
will consider any further sates of the Accused Products to be additional evidence of willful intent, which
will subject Jacent to enhanced damages and attorneys' fees.
Nothing in this letter is meant to or should be construed to waive any rights, claims, or remedies. Your
prompt attention to this letter is strongly advised.
Jacent 71
14,
August 29, 2019
Page 3 SpencerFane
Please direct all future communications to the undersigned. If you have any questions, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
SPENCER FANE LLP
By:
Jaspal S. Hare
Enclosure
* * *
AGREED:
Jacent Strategic Marketing, LLC, Jacent Inc., and Affiliates:
By:
Name:
Title:
Dated:
EXHIBIT H
H-1
H-2
H-3
H-4
H-5
H-6
H-7
H-8
H-9
H-10
H-11
H-12
H-13
H-14
H-15
H-16
H-17
H-18
H-19
H-20
H-21
H-22
H-23
H-24
H-25
H-26
H-27
H-28
H-29
H-30
H-31
H-32
H-33
H-34
H-35
H-36
H-37
H-38
H-39
H-40
H-41
H-42
H-43
H-44
H-45
H-46
H-47
H-48
H-49
H-50
H-51
H-52
H-53
H-54
H-55
H-56
H-57
H-58
H-59
H-60
H-61
H-62
H-63
H-64
H-65
H-66
H-67
H-68
H-69
H-70
H-71
H-72
H-73
H-74
H-75
H-76
H-77
H-78
H-79
H-80
H-81
H-82
H-83
H-84
H-85
H-86
H-87
H-88
H-89
H-90
H-91
H-92
H-93
H-94
H-95
H-96
H-97
H-98
H-99
H-100
H-101
H-102
H-103
H-104
H-105
H-106
H-107
H-108
H-109
H-110
H-111
H-112
H-113
H-114
H-115
H-116
H-117
H-118
H-119
H-120
H-121
H-122
H-123
H-124
H-125
H-126
H-127
H-128
H-129
H-130
H-131
H-132
H-133
H-134
H-135
H-136
H-137
H-138
H-139
H-140
H-141
H-142
H-143
H-144
H-145
H-146
H-147
H-148
H-149
H-150
H-151
H-152
H-153
H-154
H-155
H-156
H-157
H-158
H-159
H-160
H-161
H-162
H-163
H-164
H-165
H-166
H-167
H-168
H-169
H-170
H-171
H-172
H-173
H-174
H-175
H-176
H-177
H-178
H-179
H-180
H-181
H-182
H-183
H-184
H-185
H-186
H-187
H-188
H-189
H-190
H-191
H-192
H-193
H-194
H-195
H-196
H-197
H-198
H-199
H-200
H-201
H-202
H-203
H-204
H-205
H-206
H-207
H-208
H-209
H-210
H-211
H-212
H-213
H-214
H-215
H-216
H-217
H-218
H-219
H-220
H-221
H-222
H-223
H-224
H-225
H-226
H-227
H-228
H-229
H-230
H-231
H-232
H-233
H-234
H-235
H-236
H-237
H-238
H-239
H-240
H-241
H-242
H-243
H-244
H-245
H-246
H-247
H-248
H-249
H-250
H-251
H-252
H-253
H-254
H-255
H-256
H-257
H-258
H-259
H-260
H-261
H-262
H-263
H-264
H-265
H-266
H-267
H-268
H-269
H-270
H-271
H-272
H-273
H-274
H-275
H-276
H-277
H-278
H-279
H-280
H-281
H-282
H-283
H-284
H-285
H-286
H-287
H-288
H-289
H-290
H-291
H-292
H-293
H-294
H-295
H-296
H-297
H-298
H-299
H-300
H-301
H-302
H-303
H-304
H-305
H-306
H-307
H-308
H-309
H-310
H-311
H-312
H-313
H-314
H-315
H-316
H-317
H-318
H-319
H-320
H-321
H-322
H-323
H-324
H-325
H-326
H-327
H-328
H-329
H-330
H-331
H-332
H-333
H-334
H-335
H-336
H-337
H-338
H-339
H-340
H-341
H-342
H-343
H-344
H-345
H-346
H-347
H-348
H-349
H-350
H-351
H-352
H-353
H-354
H-355
H-356
H-357
H-358
H-359
H-360
H-361
H-362
H-363
H-364
H-365
H-366
H-367
H-368
H-369
H-370
H-371
H-372
H-373
H-374
H-375
H-376
H-377
H-378
H-379
H-380
H-381
H-382
H-383
H-384
H-385
H-386
H-387
H-388
H-389
H-390
H-391
H-392
H-393
H-394
H-395
H-396
H-397
H-398
H-399
H-400
H-401
H-402
H-403
H-404
H-405
H-406
H-407
H-408
H-409
H-410
H-411
H-412
H-413
H-414
H-415
H-416
H-417
H-418
H-419
H-420
H-421
H-422
H-423
H-424
H-425
H-426
H-427
H-428
H-429
H-430
H-431
H-432
H-433
H-434
H-435
H-436
H-437
H-438
H-439
H-440
H-441
H-442
H-443
H-444
H-445
H-446
H-447
H-448
H-449
H-450
H-451
H-452
H-453
H-454
H-455
H-456
H-457
JS 44 (Rev. 06/17) 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 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 of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS

JACENT STRATEGIC MERCHANDISING, LLC 2 DOGS DISTRIBUTION, LLC
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff County of Residence of First Listed Defendant
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)
Brian P. Egan, Esquire; Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP
1201 North Market Street, Wilmington, DE 19801
(302) 658-9200
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
u 1 U.S. Government u 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State u 1 u 1 Incorporated or Principal Place u 4 u 4
of Business In This State
u 2 U.S. Government u 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State u 2 u 2 Incorporated and Principal Place u 5 u 5
Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State
Citizen or Subject of a u 3 u 3 Foreign Nation u 6 u 6

Foreign Country
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only) Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES
u 110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY u 625 Drug Related Seizure u 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 u 375 False Claims Act
u 120 Marine u 310 Airplane u 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 u 423 Withdrawal u 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
u 130 Miller Act u 315 Airplane Product Product Liability u 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729(a))
u 140 Negotiable Instrument Liability u 367 Health Care/ u 400 State Reapportionment
u 150 Recovery of Overpayment u 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS u 410 Antitrust
& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury u 820 Copyrights u 430 Banks and Banking
u 151 Medicare Act u 330 Federal Employers’ Product Liability u 830 Patent u 450 Commerce
u 152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability u 368 Asbestos Personal u 835 Patent - Abbreviated u 460 Deportation
Student Loans u 340 Marine Injury Product New Drug Application u 470 Racketeer Influenced and
(Excludes Veterans) u 345 Marine Product Liability u 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations
u 153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY u 480 Consumer Credit
of Veteran’s Benefits u 350 Motor Vehicle u 370 Other Fraud u 710 Fair Labor Standards u 861 HIA (1395ff) u 490 Cable/Sat TV
u 160 Stockholders’ Suits u 355 Motor Vehicle u 371 Truth in Lending Act u 862 Black Lung (923) u 850 Securities/Commodities/
u 190 Other Contract Product Liability u 380 Other Personal u 720 Labor/Management u 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) Exchange
u 195 Contract Product Liability u 360 Other Personal Property Damage Relations u 864 SSID Title XVI u 890 Other Statutory Actions
u 196 Franchise Injury u 385 Property Damage u 740 Railway Labor Act u 865 RSI (405(g)) u 891 Agricultural Acts
u 362 Personal Injury - Product Liability u 751 Family and Medical u 893 Environmental Matters
Medical Malpractice Leave Act u 895 Freedom of Information
REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS u 790 Other Labor Litigation FEDERAL TAX SUITS Act
u 210 Land Condemnation u 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: u 791 Employee Retirement u 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff u 896 Arbitration
u 220 Foreclosure u 441 Voting u 463 Alien Detainee Income Security Act or Defendant) u 899 Administrative Procedure
u 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment u 442 Employment u 510 Motions to Vacate u 871 IRS—Third Party Act/Review or Appeal of
u 240 Torts to Land u 443 Housing/ Sentence 26 USC 7609 Agency Decision
u 245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations u 530 General u 950 Constitutionality of
u 290 All Other Real Property u 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - u 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION State Statutes
Employment Other: u 462 Naturalization Application
u 446 Amer. w/Disabilities - u 540 Mandamus & Other u 465 Other Immigration
Other u 550 Civil Rights Actions
u 448 Education u 555 Prison Condition
u 560 Civil Detainee -
Conditions of
Confinement
V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
u 1 Original u 2 Removed from u 3 Remanded from u 4 Reinstated or u 5 Transferred from u 6 Multidistrict u 8 Multidistrict
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District Litigation - Litigation -
(specify) Transfer Direct File
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
28 U.S.C. § 2201, et seq.
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:
Declaratory Judgment
VII. REQUESTED IN u CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. JURY DEMAND: u Yes u No
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY JUDGE Gilstrap DOCKET NUMBER 19-330 (JRG) (E.D. Tex.)
DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
11/27/2019 /s/ Brian P. Egan
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

Jacent Strategic Merch. v. 2 Dogs Distrib. - Complaint

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Jacent Strategic Merch. v. 2 Dogs Distrib. - Complaint

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Case 1:19-cv-02209-UNA Document 1 Filed 11/27/19 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 1

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

JACENT STRATEGIC MERCHANDISING, LLC, )

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

Plaintiff, Jacent Strategic Merchandising, LLC (“Jacent”), through the undersigned

NATURE OF ACTION AND RELIEF SOUGHT

for a declaratory judgment of patent invalidity, unenforceability, and non-infringement of United

patent and trademark/trade dress non-infringement is called the “Aluminum Carabiner.”

under the Lanham Act.

Harvard Business Services, Inc.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

7. Venue is proper in the District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c).

The Aluminum Carabiner Sold by Jacent

planning in advance to do so.

Aluminum Carabiner sold by Jacent is attached as Exhibit B.

include or use the word “Hook” or any form of that word.

2 Dogs’ Patent, Trademark and Trade Dress

under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

ornamental design for a carabiner, as shown and described.” (Emphasis added.)

from the claim of the ’583 Patent.

Aluminum Carabiner that do not infringe the ’583 Patent.

18. Priority application No. 12/106,275 originally claimed priority to provisional

application to go abandoned. Id. at H-457.

prior to the earliest claimed priority date of the ’583 Patent.

District of Texas on October 11, 2019:

9. 2-Dogs manufactures and distributes various high

Plaintiff’s Original Complaint (filed by 2 Dogs), ¶¶ 9 and 12 (copy attached as Exhibit C)

02725-DJH. A true and correct copy of that Complaint is attached as Exhibit D.

22. In 2 Dogs’ Complaint against Cyberush, 2 Dogs alleges:

10. 2 DOGS is the exclusive owner of certain

describes the product as:

a. “Perfect for strollers and shopping carts”;

c. “Comfortable foam grip”;

d. “Gives you hands-free control”;

e. “Its foam grip keeps it from slipping or sliding” and

U.S. Trademark Registration No. 3306126.

A copy of U.S. Trademark Registration No. 3306126 is attached as Exhibit E.

design. See id.

features and design claimed in the ’583 Patent.

letter is attached as Exhibit G.

of its claim of infringement of ’583 Patent.

Jacent does not comply with the demands of the letter.

Aluminum Carabiner and has lost sales of the same as a result.

infringed the ’583 Patent.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

paragraphs of this Complaint.

§§ 102, 103, and/or 171.

and issues a declaratory judgment of invalidity of the ’583 Patent.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

paragraphs of this Complaint.

and issues a declaratory judgment of invalidity of the ’583 Patent.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

paragraphs of this Complaint.

Carabiner infringes the ’583 Patent owned by 2 Dogs.

infringe the’583 Patent.

declaratory judgment of non-infringement of the ’583 Patent.

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

paragraphs of this Complaint.

The Mommy Hook Mark trade dress rights of 2 Dogs.

WHEREFORE, Jacent prays for judgment as follows:

’583 Patent is unenforceable;

infringed the ’583 Patent by sale of the Aluminum Carabiner;

and expenses paid against 2 Dogs pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285; and

MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP