sofpool v. academy

8/3/2019 Sofpool v. Academy

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sofpool-v-academy 1/15

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

PLAINTIFF‟S COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Jack Slobodin, Esq. (CA State Bar No. 34203)LAW OFFICE OF JACK SLOBODIN3527 MT Diablo Blvd., #280Lafayette, CA 94549

Telephone: (510) 847-9986

John P. Costello. Esq. (CA State Bar No. 161511)COSTELLO LAW CORPORATION331 J Street, Suite 200Sacramento, CA 95814Telephone: (916) 441-2234Facsimile: (916) 441-4254

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SOFPOOL LLC, a Limited Liability

Company,

Plaintiff,vs.

ACADEMY, LTD., a Domestic LimitedPartnership

Defendants.

Case No.

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR

PATENT INFRINGEMENT

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Plaintiff Sofpool LLC (“Sofpool”) files this initial Complaint against Defendant Academ

Sports & Outdoors dba ACADEMY, LTD. (“Academy”) and alleges as follows:

THE PARTIES

1. Sofpool LLC is a California limited liability company located in Rancho Cordova

California.

2. Academy is a Texas Domestic Limited Partnership located in Katy, Texas.

JURISDICTION

3. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a

because this action arises under the patent laws of the United States, including 35 U.S.C. § 271, e

seq. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because they have committed acts within



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

PLAINTIFF‟S COMPLIANT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

California and this judicial district giving rise to this action and have established minimum contact

with the forum such that the exercise of jurisdiction over Defendants would not offend traditiona

notions of fair play and substantial justice.

VENUE

6. Defendant has committed acts within this judicial district giving rise to this action and

has done business in this district, including one or more of the infringing acts of offering for sale

selling and using infringing products and providing service and support to its customers in this

district. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c) and 1400(b). In

addition, this matter involves the same design patent and same issues present in the currently

pending case before this Court, civil case no. 2:10-CV-03333-LKK (JFM). In the interest of judicia

economy, efficiency and consistency, this case should remain in this district to be decided.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

7. On October 14, 2003, United States Patent No. D480,817 (the “817 Patent”) was duly

and legally issued for an invention entitled “Above-Ground Swimming Pool.” Sofpool currently

holds all rights, title, and interest in the „817 Patent, as the assignee. A true copy of the „817 Patent i

attached as Exhibit 1, hereto.

8. Plaintiff is a manufacturer and seller of above-ground swimming pools which ar

covered under the „817 patent.

9. On information and belief, Defendant manufactures, has manufactured, markets, uses

sells, offers for sale, and/or imports oval above-ground pools covered by the „817 Patent.

10. The “Summer Escapes™” brand of oval above-ground pools constitute exemplary

products which infringe the „817 patent; more specifically, the Summer Escapes™ pools having

dimensions of 12‟ x 20‟ x 48” constitute a direct infringement of the „817 patent.

12. An offer to sell said Summer Escapes product in this district from Defendant‟

website is attached as Exhibit 2, hereto.

12. On information and belief, the Summer Escapes™ brand of oval above-ground pool

is sold to Defendant‟s customers in an unassembled condition along with instructions for assembly

Upon assembly of the Summer Escapes™ products by Defendant‟s customers, an oval above-groun



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


pool is created which is an infringement of the „817 patent.

13. Attached as Exhibit 3, hereto is an invoice for sale of a Summer Escapes produc

which is an infringement of the „817 patent, this sale having been made in this district.

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

COUNT 1

INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. D480,817 S

14. Sofpool hereby incorporates the allegations in paragraphs 1-13 above, as if fully se

forth herein.

15. Defendant has directly infringed and continues to directly infringe the „817 Patent by

manufacturing, having manufactured, using, marketing, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing

oval above ground pools covered by the „817 Patent. Defendant is liable for direct infringement o

the „817 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 271 and 289.

16. Defendant‟s acts of infringement have caused damage to Sofpool, and Sofpool i

entitled to recover the damages sustained as a result of Defendant ‟s wrongful acts in an amoun

subject to proof at trial. Defendant‟s infringement of Sofpool‟s exclusive rights under the „817

Patent will continue to damage Sofpool, causing irreparable harm for which there is no adequat

remedy at law.

WHEREFORE, Sofpool prays for judgment and seeks relief against Defendant as follows:

a. For judgment that Defendant has infringed and will continue to infringe the

„817 Patent;

b. For an accounting by Defendant;

c. For preliminary and permanent injunctions enjoining the aforesaid acts o

infringement by Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees

subsidiaries, and attorneys, and those persons in privity or acting in concer

with them, including related individuals and entities, customers

representatives, OEMs, dealers, and distributors;

d. For actual damages together with pre- and post-judgment interest;

e. For the additional remedy for infringement of Plaintiff‟s „817 design patent 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


enumerated in 35 U.S.C. § 289.

f. For all costs of suit; and

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

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Under Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by

jury of all issues properly triable by jury.

DATED: November 8, 2011 LAW OFFICE OF JACK SLOBODIN

By: /s/ Jack Slobodin

JACK SLOBODIN

Attorney for Plaintiff

Sofpool LLC

DATED: November 8, 2011 COSTELLO LAW CORPORATION

By: /s/ John P. Costello

JOHN P. COSTELLO

Attorney for Plaintiff

Sofpool LLC

sofpool v. academy

Documents