seoul laser dieboard system v. serviform, s.l.r. et. al

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

COMPLAINT 113764/00LIT3/1592028.03

Lisel M. Ferguson, Esq. (Bar No. 207637) Heather A. Camron, Esq. (Bar No. 265310) PROCOPIO, CORY, HARGREAVES

& SAVITCH LLP 525 B Street, Suite 2200 San Diego, California 92101 Tel: (619) 238-1900 [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff Seoul Laser Dieboard System Co., Ltd.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SEOUL LASER DIEBOARD SYSTEM CO., LTD., a South Korean corporation, Plaintiff, v. SERVIFORM, S.L.R., an Italian company; CARTON CRAFT SUPPLY, INC., a Georgia corporation and DIE SUPPLY GUYS, INC., a Canadian company, Defendants.

Case No.: COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT; UNFAIR COMPETITION; INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; TORTUOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT; AND INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS RELATIONS [PLAINTIFF DEMANDS JURY TRIAL PURSUANT TO F.R.Civ.P. 38]

Plaintiff SEOUL LASER DIEBOARD SYSTEM CO., LTD. also known as SDS KOREA

CO., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff” or “SDS”) alleges as follows:

JURISDICTION

1. This action arises under the Patent Laws of the United States 35 U.S.C. §§ 271 et

seq. and related claims and seeks damages, injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C.

§§ 283, 284, and 285. Accordingly, this Court has jurisdiction of this civil action under and by

virtue of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a), 1338(b), 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq. and pursuant to the

doctrines of supplemental and pendent jurisdiction.

2. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because Defendants do

business in this judicial district, have purposely availed themselves of the privileges and benefits

of the laws of the State of California, have directed continuous and systematic activities at this

'12CV2427 JMAAJB

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

COMPLAINT 113764/00LIT3/1592028.03

judicial district, and have, on information and belief, committed acts of patent infringement

during the course of their business within this judicial district.

3. This Court also has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 as there is complete

diversity between Plaintiff SDS and Defendants SERVIFORM, S.r.l., CARTON CRAFT

SUPPLY, INC., and DIE SUPPLY GUYS, INC. and the amount in controversy exceeds the sum

of $75,000.

VENUE

4. Venue in this action properly lies in the Southern District of California under 28

U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400(a) as the Defendants have sold and sell products to customers within

California and this judicial district, several of the Defendants have conducted business in this

judicial district, published websites and derived significant income from the sale of products to

the public within this judicial district.

THE PARTIES

5. SDS is a corporation organized under, and existing by virtue of, the laws of the

nation of the Republic of Korea, also known as South Korea, with a place of business located at

1029-30 Hogae-Dong, Dongan-Ku, Anyang City, Kyunggido, Korea, it is registered to do

business in California and has a place of business in the United States in San Diego, California.

6. Defendant SERVIFORM, S.r.l. (“SERVIFORM” and/or “Defendant”) is, and all

times herein mentioned was, a company duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the

laws of the nation of Italy and which conducts and has conducted business in the State of

California as well as in interstate commerce.

7. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereupon alleges, that Defendant

CARTON CRAFT SUPPLY, INC. (“CARTON CRAFT” and/or “Defendant”) is, and all times

herein mentioned was, a Georgia corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the

laws of the State of Georgia and which regularly conducts and has regularly conducted business

in the State of California as well as in interstate commerce.

8. Upon information and belief, Defendant DIE SUPPLY GUYS, INC. (“DIE

SUPPLY” and/or “Defendant”) is, and all times herein mentioned was, a company duly

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

COMPLAINT 113764/00LIT3/1592028.03

organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the nation of Canada and which

regularly conducts and has regularly conducted business in the State of California as well as in

interstate commerce.

9. Defendants SERVIFORM, S.r.l., CARTON CRAFT SUPPLY, INC., and DIE

SUPPLY GUYS, INC. are hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Defendants”.

10. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that each of the

Defendants, at all times mentioned herein, acted as and were the agents of the other Defendants

and acted in concert with the other Defendants to commit the unlawful acts alleged herein and are

jointly and severally liable for the damages suffered by the Plaintiff and proximately caused

thereby.

FACTS

11. In 1987, SDS was formed to engage in the machine tooling business in Korea.

12. In the years that followed SDS invented a pioneering line of machine tools used

for bending and cutting metallic and other materials (“Products”).

13. SDS’s Products comprise machines for use in manufacture of die boards, which

machines automatically bend ribbon stocks, and for use in manufacture of signs, cards and other

goods, which machines automatically bend channel letters.

14. Beginning shortly after its formation, SDS developed a number of valuable

intellectual property assets associated with its business and the Products including, but not

limited to trademarks, patents, copyrights and trade-secrets.

15. In 1996 SDS started selling dieboard machines in the United States.

16. Beginning in the 1990’s (with a priority date in 1995), over a half-dozen patent

applications were filed. SDS received and was assigned a number of issued patents which protect

their dieboard bending and cutting machines which include the following United States Patents.

(collectively, the “SDS Patents”):

(a) U.S. Patent 5,870,919 (the “‘919 Patent”) entitled “Folding System for a

Cutting Blade” issued February 16, 1999. (A copy of the patent is attached as

Exhibit A.)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

COMPLAINT 113764/00LIT3/1592028.03

(b) U.S. Patent 6,128,940 (the “‘940 Patent”) entitled “Folding System for a

Cutting Blade” issued October 10, 2000. (A copy of the patent is attached as

Exhibit B.)

(c) U.S. Patent 6,405,574 (the “‘574 Patent”) entitled “Folding System for a

Cutting Blade” issued June 18, 2002. (A copy of the patent is attached as Exhibit

C.)

(d) U.S. Patent 7,694,543 (the “‘543 Patent”) entitled “Folding System” issued

April 13, 2010. (A copy of the patent is attached as Exhibit D.)

(e) U.S. Patent 5,749,276 (the “‘276 Patent”) entitled “Cutting Apparatus and

Automatic Cutting System of Blade’s Raw Material of Blanking Die” issued May

12, 1998. (A copy of the patent is attached as Exhibit E.)

(f) U.S. Patent 6,324,950 (the “‘950 Patent”) entitled “Cutting Apparatus and

Automatic Cutting System of Blade’s Raw Material of Blanking Die” issued

December 4, 2001. (A copy of the patent is attached as Exhibit F.)

(g) U.S. Patent 6,675,682 (the “‘682 Patent”) entitled “Cutting Apparatus and

Automatic Cutting System of Blade’s Raw Material of Blanking Die” issued

January 13, 2004. (A copy of the patent is attached as Exhibit G.)

17. SDS is the owner of the SDS Patents and has all legal and equitable rights to

enforce these patents, to bring and maintain this action, and to make, have made, use, import,

offer to sell products or services covered by the SDS Patents.

18. Defendant SERVIFORM has manufactured and imported into the United States

dieboard machines knowing that they infringe upon all of the claims of the SDS Patents. One

model of these machines is branded as the IDEA (“Infringing Machines”).

19. Defendant SERVIFORM sells the Infringing Machines to Defendants CARTON

CRAFT and DIE SUPPLY GUYS for resale in the United States.

20. Defendant CARTON CRAFT has marketed and sold Infringing Machines

knowing that they infringe upon all of the claims of the SDS Patents.

21. Defendant DIE SUPPLY GUYS has marketed and sold Infringing Machines

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

COMPLAINT 113764/00LIT3/1592028.03

knowing that they infringe upon all of the claims of the SDS Patents.

22. In 2007 Defendants were sent a letter putting them on notice that they were

infringing upon the SDS Patents through the sale of their dieboard bending and cutting machines.

Defendants failed to cease their sales of Infringing Machines.

23. The natural, probable and foreseeable result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct has

been to deprive, SDS of the benefits of selling its Products and related services and to deprive

SDS of its goodwill and the value and benefit of the SDS Patents, and to injure SDS’s relations

with its suppliers, distributors, customers and prospective customers.

24. SDS is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that it has lost, and will

continue to lose, substantial sales and profits as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’

unlawful conduct.

25. SDS is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that unless and until

enjoined by this Court, Defendants will continue their unlawful conduct and further damage SDS.

26. As a direct and proximate result of the acts alleged above, SDS has already

suffered irreparable damage and will, unless and until enjoined by this Court, continue to suffer

such irreparable harm.

27. SDS has no adequate remedy at law.

28. The unlawful conduct of the Defendants is willful and malicious as the Defendants

have engaged in such conduct with the knowledge and intention that it damage SDS.

29. SDS believes that, as a result of the conduct of Defendants, many of the customers

and prospective customers of SDS have been confused as to the difference between the Products

and the products marketed, sold and serviced by Defendants, the source of the products and the

quality of the products marketed, sold and serviced by Defendants.

CAUSES OF ACTIONS

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,128,940)

30. SDS incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 29 herein above as though

the same were set forth in full herein.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

COMPLAINT 113764/00LIT3/1592028.03

31. Defendants have infringed and continue to infringe one or more of the claims of

the ‘940 Patent by making, imparting, using, selling and offering to sell, and by inducing and

contributing to others’ infringement through their manufacture, importation, sales, offers for sale,

and use of certain machine tools for bending and cutting metallic material, all without

authorization or license from SDS.

32. Defendant SERVIFORM has intentionally induced and contributed to the

infringement of Defendants CARTON CRAFT and DIE SUPPLY.

33. Defendants have been, and are currently, infringing the ‘940 patent in violation of

35 U.S.C. §271. Defendants’ acts of infringement include direct infringement and/or

infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.

34. Defendants have continued their infringement despite having notice of the ‘940

patent. Defendants have committed and are committing willful and deliberate patent

infringement. On information and belief SDS alleges Defendants’ acts of willful and deliberate

infringement will continue after service of this Complaint, rendering this case appropriate for

treble damages under 35 U.S.C. §284 and making this an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285.

35. As a result of Defendants’ infringement, SDS has, and will suffer, monetary

damages and irreparable injury. SDS’s monetary damages include, without limitation, lost

profits, or at a minimum, the right to recover a reasonable royalty. Furthermore, unless

Defendants are enjoined by this Court from continuing its infringement of the ‘940 patent, SDS

has, and will suffer, additional irreparable damages and impairment of the value of its patent

rights. Thus, an injunction against further infringement is appropriate.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,870, 919)






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

COMPLAINT 113764/00LIT3/1592028.03

and use of certain machine tools for bending metallic material, all without authorization or

license from SDS.



39. On information and belief, SDS alleges Defendants have been, and are currently,

infringing the ‘919 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271. Defendant’s acts of infringement

include direct infringement and/or infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.





treble damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 and making this an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C.

§ 285.







THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION







and use of certain machine tools for bending metallic material, all without authorization or

license from SDS.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8

COMPLAINT 113764/00LIT3/1592028.03


infringing the ‘574 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271. Defendants’ acts of infringement





Patent. Defendants have committed and are committing willful and deliberate patent

infringement. On information and belief SDS alleges the Defendants’ acts of willful and

deliberate infringement will continue after service of this Complaint, rendering this case

appropriate for treble damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 and making this an exceptional case under

35 U.S.C. § 285.




Defendants are enjoined by this Court from continuing its infringement of the ‘574 Patent, SDS



FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Infringement of Patent No. 7,694,543)



49. Defendants have infringed and continues to infringe one or more of the ‘543

Patent by making, using, selling and offering to sell, certain machine tools for bending metallic

material, all without authorization or license from SDS.




infringing the ‘543 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271. Defendants’ acts of infringement

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

9

COMPLAINT 113764/00LIT3/1592028.03






treble damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 and making this an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C.

§ 285.







FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION










infringing the ‘276 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271. Defendants’ acts of infringement





1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

10

COMPLAINT 113764/00LIT3/1592028.03





35 U.S.C. § 285.







SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

















1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

11

COMPLAINT 113764/00LIT3/1592028.03



35 U.S.C. § 285.







SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION



















1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

12

COMPLAINT 113764/00LIT3/1592028.03

35 U.S.C. § 285.







EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Unfair Competition Under Lanham Act [15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)])



73. SDS produces high quality bending and cutting machines for bending and

dieboards cutters and channel letters.

74. Defendants provide Infringing Machines in an attempt to obtain customers.

Defendants’ sale of these Infringing Machines will confuse and deceive the public into thinking

that the products sold by Defendants are Plaintiff’s products.

75. Defendants have placed infringing goods and services in interstate commerce.

76. As a result of Defendants’ acts, SDS will suffer harm as they have and will

experience a loss of income from the sale of their products and they did not and will not benefit

from the sale of Defendants’ products. Further, SDS will lose goodwill since the potential poor

quality of the products produced and advertisements designed for Defendants’ Infringing

Products may be far below SDS’s standards which could reflect negatively on SDS’s Products,

thus harming SDS’s business reputation. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’

unlawful conduct SDS will be damaged, and is thus entitled to relief in an amount to be

determined according to proof at the time of trial.

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Injunctive Relief Under Lanham Act [15 U.S.C. § 1116])


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

13

COMPLAINT 113764/00LIT3/1592028.03


78. SDS is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendants

knowingly and willfully copied and are using the SDS Patents and product likeness. SDS is

further informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendants copied the Patents for

the specific purposes of infringing upon SDS’s Patents and falsely designating SDS’s products as

their own.

79. Unless enjoined by this Court, Defendants intend to and will continue their course

of conduct and to wrongfully, use, infringe upon, sell and otherwise profit from the SDS Patents

and product likeness. As a direct and proximate result of the acts of Plaintiffs, SDS will suffer

irreparable damage and will sustain lost profits. SDS will lose the benefit of the advertising and

goodwill for which Plaintiff has spent large sums of money for the last 17 years promoting, and

Plaintiff will also lose large sums of money in diverted business.

80. SDS has no adequate remedy at law to address all of the injuries Defendants have

caused, and intends to cause by their conduct. SDS will suffer irreparable damage and sustain

loss of profits until Defendants’ actions alleged herein are enjoined by this Court.

TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Tortious Interference with Contract)



82. By engaging in the aforesaid conduct, the Defendants intentionally and tortiously

interfered with the contractual relations between SDS and its suppliers, distributors and

customers.

83. Defendants have acted willfully and wantonly in so doing, with the intention and

expectation that SDS would be damaged by his actions.

84. SDS has been damaged as a result of Defendants’ conduct and is entitled to collect

compensatory, exemplary and punitive damages.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

14

COMPLAINT 113764/00LIT3/1592028.03

ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Tortious Interference with Prospective Business Advantage)



86. By engaging in the aforesaid conduct, the Defendants intentionally and tortiously

interfered with the prospective business advantage that SDS enjoyed with its suppliers,

distributors and customers.

87. Defendants have acted willfully and wantonly in so doing, with the intention and

expectation that SDS would be damaged by his actions.

88. SDS has been damaged as a result of Defendants’ conduct and is entitled to collect

compensatory, exemplary and punitive damages.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, SDS prays for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as

follows:

ON THE FIRST TO SEVENTH CAUSES OF ACTION:

I. That judgment be entered against Defendants concluding that Defendants are

willfully infringing Plaintiff SDS’s United States Letters Patent Nos. 5,870,919, 6,128,940,

6,405,574 , 7,694,543, 5,749,276, 6,324,940 and 6,675,682;

II. That Defendants, their agents, servants, employees, successors and assignors,

and all those acting under the authority of, or in privity or concert with it, and each of them, be

permanently enjoined from directly or indirectly infringing United States Letters Patent Nos.

5,870,919, 6,128,940, 6,405,574, 7,694,543, 5,749,276, 6,324,940 and 6,675,682;

III. That judgment be entered for damages, together with prejudgment interest, to

compensate Plaintiff SDS for Defendants’ infringement of United States Letters Patent Nos.

5,870,919, 6,128,940, 6,405,574, 7,694,543, 5,749,276, 6,324,940 and 6,675,682;

IV. That judgment be entered for treble damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284;

V. That judgment be entered that this case is an exceptional case within the

meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285, and for an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees to Plaintiff SDS;

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

15

COMPLAINT 113764/00LIT3/1592028.03

VI. That judgment be entered for costs to be awarded to Plaintiff SDS; and

VII. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper under

the circumstances.

ON THE EIGHTH THROUGH ELEVENTH CAUSES OF ACTION:

VIII. For compensatory, exemplary, special and punitive damages in a sum according

to proof at trial;

IX. For an award of damages equal to the profit realized from Defendants’ conduct,

as alleged;

X. For prejudgment interest thereon according to law;

XI. That judgment be entered for costs to be awarded to Plaintiff SDS; and

XII. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper under

the circumstances.

JURY DEMAND REQUESTED

DATED: October 8, 2012 Respectfully submitted, s/Lisel M. Ferguson Lisel M. Ferguson (Bar No. 207637) Heather A. Cameron (Bar No. 265310) PROCOPIO, CORY, HARGREAVES & SAVITCH LLP 525 B Street, Suite 2200 San Diego, California 92101 (619) 238-1900 [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff Seoul Laser Dieboard System Co., Ltd.

seoul laser dieboard system v. serviform, s.l.r. et. al

Documents