Case 0:17-cv FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/28/2017 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.

Transcription

1 Case 0:17-cv FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/28/2017 Page 1 of 10 INTERNATIONAL DESIGNS CORPORATION, LLC, a Florida limited liability corporation and HAIRTALK GmbH, a limited liability company of Germany Plaintiffs, vs. QINGDAO SEAFOREST HAIR PRODUCTS CO., LTD., a Chinese company, Defendant. / UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. Complaint 1. Plaintiffs, International Designs Corporation, LLC, a Florida limited liability corporation (herein IDC ) and HAIRTALK GmbH, a limited liability company of Germany, (herein HAIRTALK )(IDC and HAIRTALK collectively referred to as Plaintiffs ) hereby sue Defendant, Qingdao Seaforest Hair Products Co., Ltd., a Chinese company (herein SeaForest ), for patent infringement under the Patent Act 35 U.S.C. Section 271, et. seq. Jurisdiction and Venue 2. This is an action for patent infringement pursuant to the Patent Act. 3. This Court has original jurisdiction over patent infringement cases under 28 U.S.C. Section 1338(a)(patent infringement) and 28 U.S.C. Section 1331(federal question) and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332(a)(4)(actions between plaintiffs doing business in the U.S. and foreign entities). Upon information and belief, the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, but inclusive of patent infringement damages and attorney s fees in accordance with the Patent Act. Plaintiff IDC does business in the Southern 1

2 Case 0:17-cv FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/28/2017 Page 2 of 10 District of Florida. Patent owner HAIRTALK granted plaintiff IDC an exclusive patent license for the U.S., including the right to sue for patent infringement. 4. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1400(b)(venue in patent actions), 28 U.S.C. Section 1391(b)(2) and (3)(venue generally) and 28 U.S.C. Section 1391(c)(3)(providing that when a defendant is not resident in the United States, such defendant may be sued in any judicial district). The Parties 5. Plaintiff International Designs Corporation, LLC, (IDC) is a Florida limited liability corporation having a place of business at 3500 W. Hallandale Beach Blvd., Pembroke Park, FL IDC is one of the largest and most diversified hair extension manufacturers in the beauty industry, supplying thousands of salons and cosmetologists as well as nationally known regional distributors with professional products. IDC, with HAIRTALK, are innovators of the most simple, fast, extraordinary yet non-damaging method of applying hair extensions. 6. Plaintiff HAIRTALK GmbH is a limited liability company in Germany having a place of business in Erlangen, Germany. HAIRTALK is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 8,434,500 (the patent in suit ) and this patent is valid and in force. 7. Since 1985, HAIRTALK has made and sold wigs and toupees. In 2008, Günter Alex filed an initial German patent application on his new invention, an adhesive hair extension. HAIRTALK s hair extensions are high quality, moderately priced products permitting professional stylists to apply HAIRTALK and IDC's hair extensions to the customer s head in less than one hour and, more importantly, enabling removal of these hair extensions without significant hair breakage and damage. HAIRTALK and IDC's products are now 2

3 Case 0:17-cv FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/28/2017 Page 3 of 10 sold in over 46 countries world-wide. 8. Defendant SeaForest, upon information and belief, is a company having a business address located in China at 12th Floor, Tower B, 3rd Building, Hisense Chuangzhigu, 20 Zhuzhou Road, Laoshan District, Qingdao, China SeaForest uses the following addresses to conduct business in the U.S.: and Upon information and belief, SeaForest does not have a regular place of business in the United States. 9. SeaForest has aggressively attempted to sell and has made numerous offers to sell the accused product to IDC and, in Germany, to HAIRTALK. These efforts include discussing the accused product with IDC at the CosmoProf Trade Show in Las Vegas, Nevada during July 24 26, 2016 and contacting representatives of IDC via regarding the accused product and the patent in suit during July SeaForest s inquiries continued through February In 2016, when confronted by IDC regarding the patent in suit, SeaForest stated that it respect[s] patent and will initiatively [sic] protect the patented product and creative ideas form [sic] our client.... We will surely protect your patent. 10. Upon information and belief, SeaForest has offered to sell, sold and imported the accused product in the United States. On several occasions, SeaForest has offered to sell product to IDC and independently to HAIRTALK. 11. Although SeaForest is a Chinese company, it has an English language website offering wigs and other hair extension products to businesses in the United States. See www. SeaForestHair.com. SeaForest s website shows a distribution point on the East Coast of the U.S. but does not list a U.S. business address. The website only lists the aforementioned Chinese office and addresses. 3

4 Case 0:17-cv FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/28/2017 Page 4 of An online marketing website highlights SeaForest s business and states: Seaforest Hair is one of the leading professional Hair Products manufacturers in China. We are dedicated to serving hair business by developing and manufacturing the high quality stylish products, including human hair extensions, ladies' wigs, training wigs, men's toupees, synthetic wigs, synthetic hairpieces, doll wigs, mannequins and eyelashes. See www. tohair.com/company. 13. SeaForest sells these hair care products and accessories to other U.S. businesses, such as Sally Beauty Supply LLC. (having a business address in Texas) which either operates or supplies these products to its related retail store chain using the tradename SALLY BEAUTY (see, for example, SALLY BEAUTY stores located in Fort Lauderdale, FL and Hollywood, FL). 14. SeaForest competes with IDC in the U.S. in connection with hair extensions and competes with HAIRTALK internationally in connection with hair extensions, wigs, toupees and synthetic hairpieces. Count for Patent Infringement 15. During the CosmoProf Trade Show (July 2016) representatives of SeaForest displayed and offered to sell a hair extension product to IDC which SeaForest identified as an invisible tape in extension (herein the accused product ). At that time, IDC informed SeaForest of its rights to the patent in suit. Earlier in June, SeaForest offered to sell the accused product to HAIRTALK, calling the product a machine inserted PU weft ( PU refers to a hair extension with a polyurethane carrier). 16. During the next two months, SeaForest attempted to sell and made offers to sell the accused product to IDC. IDC requested samples of the invisible tape in hair extension 4

5 Case 0:17-cv FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/28/2017 Page 5 of 10 product (the accused product) and SeaForest provided samples to IDC, identified as 2.5 g/p.c. and 4g/p.c. products. 17. On August 16, 2016, counsel for Plaintiffs sent SeaForest a cease and desist letter, which included a copy of the patent in suit, and demanded that SeaForest cease all sales efforts in the United States and all sales, offers to sell, importation and distribution of accused product in the United States. 18. On September 30, 2016, counsel for SeaForest responded to the cease-and-desist letter stating that the accused product did not infringe. 19. Subsequently, SeaForest continued to contact IDC and continued its efforts to sell IDC the accused product. In February 2017, SeaForest again extended its offer to sell accused product to IDC. SeaForest has maintained its position regarding the patent and the accused product. SeaForest provided Plaintiffs with samples of the accused product labeled 2.5 g/pc and 4 g/pc. 20. U.S. Patent No. 8,434,500 (the patent in suit) is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Marketing materials for IDC s hair extension products are attached as Exhibit B. Exhibits C and D show magnified photographs of portions of the accused products annotated to show that SeaForest infringes the patent in suit. 21. The patent in suit is entitled Hair Band but the product is marketed as a hair extension because consumers attach the patented hair extensions to their natural hair. For example, see IDC s website at The purpose and function of the patent in suit is to provide a thin, unobtrusive hair band for a hair extension that mimics the natural hair on a user s head without causing matting between the extension hair and the natural hair. The patent describes this matting problem 5

6 Case 0:17-cv FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/28/2017 Page 6 of 10 and the importance of an unobtrusive thin hair band extension at column 2, lines 1 45 (herein 2:1-45"). The objective or goal of the patented hair band extension is to provide an extension that blends with the natural look of the user s hair such that the hairs extending through the carrier look and act like natural hairs on the user s scalp. 3:67-4:1, 4:11, 4:33-35, 4:40-43, 4:50-52, 4:63-65, 5:1-3, and 6: The importance of a thin hair band is discussed at 4:1-5, 4:17-21, 5:6-7, and 6: The result is a thin hair band - hair extension that mimics the natural hair falling from the user's head by unobtrusively attaching the extension hair onto the natural hair without causing matting. 23. SeaForest s accused products literally infringe the patent in suit and also infringe the patent in suit under the doctrine of equivalents independent claims 1 and 18 and dependent claims As an example, with respect to independent patent claim 1 (see claim 1 at 6:39), the accused product is a hair band having a strip shaped carrier of elastic foil (which may be polyurethane foil (4:33)), and this strip has a length or main carrier direction which is perpendicular to the direction of the hair falling away from the carrier strip. For example, see Exhibit C, Figure 1a (showing the accused 2.5 g/pc product). Hair extension hairs are fixed to the carrier. Exhibit C, Figure 1b. These extension hairs run straight through the carrier in a main hair extension direction which is perpendicular to the length or main extension direction of the carrier. Exhibit C, Figure 1c. The hair extension hair direction in Figure 1c extends from the left side of the photo to the right side. 24. The accused product extension hair end or ends are stitched through the foil either as a single hair or as multiple hairs (1, 2, 3 or 4 hairs) at individual stitch-through points. Exhibit C, Figures 1d and 1e. These stitched through hair ends are fixed, attached and glued to carrier s back side. See Exhibit C, Figure 1f. Extension hairs run straight through 6

7 Case 0:17-cv FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/28/2017 Page 7 of 10 in the main hair extension direction from the back-glue-side to the front-side such that the length of the strip carrier is perpendicular to the extension hair falling from the carrier (the carrier length referred to as the main extension direction of the carrier). Exhibit C, Figure 1g. The infringement analysis for patent claim 1 and the 4 g/pc accused product is nearly identical to the above analysis. 25. The accused product provides a thin hair band or hair extension that mimics the natural hair on a user's head by unobtrusively attaching to the user s hair, retaining the extension hair in a natural-like manner and without causing matting or interference with the user s hair because (a) the accused product stitches 1, 2, 3 or 4 hairs through a single stitch-through point in the carrier; (b) glues the single or multiple 2, 3 or 4 hair group to the back side of the carrier foil; (c) the glued extension hair ends run in the same direction as the extension hair falling from the carrier; (d) the extension hairs run straight through the carrier in a single direction thereby reducing or eliminating matting or interference with the natural hairs on the user s head; (e) the appearance and usage of the accused product is identical or substantially similar to the appearance and usage of the hair extension product described in the patent in suit, resulting in an identical or substantially similar consumer appeal; and (f) as a result, the accused product is identical or substantially similar to the thin hair band - hair extension described in the patent in suit that mimics hair on a user s head and is unobtrusively attached to the user s natural hair. 26. SeaForest literally and equivalently infringes independent patent claim 18 (see patent at 8:1) because SeaForest s 4 g/pc accused product shown in Exhibit D has a feature, function and structure identical to the patented hair band set forth in claim 18. The accused product is a strip shaped carrier made of elastic plastic foil. Exhibit D, Figure 1a. 7

8 Case 0:17-cv FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/28/2017 Page 8 of The SeaForest extension hairs are fixed to the back-side of the carrier. Exhibit D, Figures 1b and 1f. These extension hairs run straight through the carrier in a main hair extension direction which is perpendicular to the carrier length or main direction. Exhibit D, Figure 1c. The ends of 1, 2, 3 or 4 extension hairs are stitched through the carrier foil. Exhibit D, Figure 1d. These extension hairs are stitched through at individual stitched points. Exhibit D, Figure 1e. The hair extension ends are fixed or glued to the backside of the carrier. Exhibit D, Figure 1f. The extension hairs run straight through the carrier foil in an extension hair direction from the glue bond and this extension hair direction is perpendicular to the length (the main direction) of the carrier. Exhibit D, Figure 1g. The glued hair ends are shortened to less than 3mm. Exhibit D, Figure 1h. The SeaForest hair extension carrier strip has a length less than 5cm. Exhibit D, Figure 1i. The width or height of the SeaForest hair extension carrier strip is less than 10mm. Exhibit D, Figure 1j. The ends of the hairs are covered with a single layer netting on the back side of the foil. Exhibit D, Figure 1k. The carrier has a glue strip (a removable adhesive layer) with adhesive on both sides. Exhibit D, Figure 1l. A removable cover layer is placed on this glue strip and the cover, when removed, exposes the glue strip. Exhibit D, Figure 1m. The infringement analysis for patent claim 18 and the 2.5 g/pc accused product is nearly identical to the above analysis. 28. The accused products infringe dependent claims 2-7, 10, 11, 12, (generally, see Exhibits C and D). Upon information and belief, the accused products infringe dependent claims 8, 9, 13 and SeaForest s acts of infringement are willful, warranting the assessment of increased damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 284, and warranting a finding that this is an exceptional 8

9 Case 0:17-cv FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/28/2017 Page 9 of 10 case pursuant to 35 U.S.C SeaForest s acts of infringement have occurred, are occurring and will continue to occur without the authority or license of Plaintiffs. 31. These infringing acts have caused, are causing and will continue to cause injury to Plaintiffs, including irreparable injury and damages, unless and until SeaForest is enjoined from doing so by this Court. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiffs request that all issues in this case be tried to a jury. RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that this Court: A. Enter judgment against SeaForest for patent infringement and permanently enjoin SeaForest, its principals, officers, directors, agents, employees, subsidiaries, affiliates and all other persons acting in active concert or participation with them, from further acts of infringement in the United States (namely, offering to sell, selling, using or importing the accused products in the United States) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 271(a) and 283; B. Enter judgment against SeaForest for damages arising from the infringement of the patent in suit, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 284; C. Enter judgment for Plaintiffs for an accounting as to all damages arising from SeaForest s infringement of the patent in suit; E. Enter judgment that this case is exceptional, and award treble damages, attorney fees and costs incurred in connection therewith, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 285; and F. Enter judgment granting Plaintiffs such other relief as this Court deems appropriate. 9

10 Case 0:17-cv FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/28/2017 Page 10 of 10 PLAINTIFFS DEMAND TRIAL BY JURY. Kain Spielman, P.A. By: /s/ RobertKain Robert C. Kain, Jr. Florida Bar No Nicole Valdivieso Florida Bar No S.E. Third Avenue Suite 205 Fort Lauderdale, FL (954) (telephone) (954) (facsimile) rkain@complexip.com nvaldivieso@complexip.com 10