thingcharger v. viatek - complaint
TRANSCRIPT
8/9/2019 ThingCharger v. Viatek - Complaint
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thingcharger-v-viatek-complaint 1/36
..
UNITED STATES D I S i t 1 1 ~
C O
T
SOUTHERN DISTRICT
i _ F ~ W
~ i t
00799
THINGCHARGER, INC. and
P3 INTERNATIONAL CORP.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
VIATEK CONSUMER PRODUCTS GROUP, INC., )
VIATEK INTERNATIONAL, LLC, and )
FOSHAN UM ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., )
Defendants.
)
)
-_..
Case No.
r
- ·-·
COMPL INT
Plaintiffs Thingcharger, Inc. and P3 International Corp. assert the following as their
complaint against defendants.
The Parties
1 Plaintiff P3 International Corp. is a corporation organized and existing under the
laws
of
the State
of
New York having its principal place
of
business at 132 Nassau Street, New
York,
ew
York ( P3 ).
2 Plaintiff Thingcharger, Inc. Is a corporation organized and existing under the
laws of State
of
New York having its principal place of business
at
1 Grandview Avenue,
Cornwall-on-Hudson, New York, New York ( Thingcharger ) .
3
Upon information and belief, defendant Viatek Consumer Products Group, Inc. is
a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State
of
Florida having its principal
office at 6011 Century Oaks Drive, Chattanooga, Tennessee ( Viatek CPG ).
4. Upon information and belief, defendant Viatek International LLC is a limited
liability
company organized and existing under the laws of the State
of
Florida having its
principal office at 6011 Century Oaks Drive, Chattanooga, Tennessee ( Viatek lnt'l ).
c
( . )
0
A
8/9/2019 ThingCharger v. Viatek - Complaint
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thingcharger-v-viatek-complaint 2/36
5. Upon information and belief, defendant Foshan UM Electronics Co., Ltd. is a
company organized and existing under the laws of China having its principal office at Room
228, Daxan Business Plaza, Luopo Street, Panyu, Guanzhou, China ( Foshan ).
Jurisdiction and Venue
6. This
is
an action for infringement arising under the patent laws of the United
States, 35 U.S.C.
§
100,
et seq.
for trade dress infringement and false designation of origin
under the trademark laws of the United States, 15 U.S.C.
§
1051 et seq. and for unfair
competition, misappropriation, and deceptive trade practices under the laws of the State of New
York. This Court has jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§§
1331, 1338(a) and b)
and 1367, insofar as it arises under the laws of the United States and joins substantial claims of
unfair competition and other related claims forming part of the same case or controversy, and
under 28 U.S.C.
§
1332 insofar as the parties are citizens of different states and the matter in
controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs. Venue
is
proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391 b) and c) and 1400(b).
Claim I
Design Patent Infringement
7.
This is a claim for infringement of a design patent in violation of 35 U.S.C.
271
and 289.
8. Plaintiff Thingcharger is the owner of all right title and interest in United States
Design Patent
No.
D700,892S for Auxiliary Port and Outlet Extender, issued March
11,
2014 to
Thingcharger
on
assignment from its inventor, Seymour Segnit, a copy which
is
annexed as
Exhibit A to this complaint ( the Segnit patent ).
9. In September 2013, Thingcharger and its founder, Seymour Segnit, launched a
product start-up funding campaign, first on the website thingcharger.com and then, beginning
October 2013, on the crowd funding site indiegogo.com, for the promotion of a low profile
8/9/2019 ThingCharger v. Viatek - Complaint
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thingcharger-v-viatek-complaint 3/36
electrical outlet extender with ports for charging personal electronic devices such as cell
phones, smart phones and tablets without a cable and leaving the extended outlet accessible.
The
thingcHARGER
quickly became the most successful crowd funded mobile device accessory
ever, raising nearly 650,000.00 by the end of the first lndiegogo campaign in January 2014
and over 700,000.00 in customer contributions to date, over 25 times the initial goal. The
thingCHARGER has been promoted on Facebook and other social media, as well as the online
advertising network, Taboola, and
is
the first product of its kind. Its design is unique
in
its low
profile, both physically as a minimum dimension extending out from the wall, as well as visually
in that it matches what it plugs into physically and covers visually. Its smooth and unintrusive
lines, contours and silhouette blend seamlessly into the home or office wall environment,
virtually invisible when viewed from the front, with a slim profile that means its visual impact is
assimilated from all angles. The design is striking
in
its simplicity as promoted and at the point
of sale, whether
in
a crowd funding campaign, internet promotion or displayed in a retail store.
10. Plaintiff P3 is the exclusive licensee of the Segnit patent and the exclusive
distributor of the thingCHARGER for delivery to the lndiegogo campaign contributors as well as
for distribution for sale to the general retail market.
11. Upon information and belief, defendants have manufactured or have had
manufactured for them, have imported into the United States, have sold to or in privity with
Telebrands Corp., and have promoted and advertised on viatekproducts.com, at the 2015
Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, Nevada, on their Facebook page, on the web site
buysocketdock.com and elsewhere, the SocKET DOCK and the SocKET
GENIE
electrical outlet
extenders with ports for charging personal electronic devices such as cell phones, smart
phones and tablets without a cable and leaving the extended outlet accessible, which are
copies or colorable imitations of the thingcHARGER and the design claimed and depicted in the
Segnit patent, have advertised and offered those products for sale and have sold them
throughout the United States and
in
this judicial district, all
in
direct competition with the
8/9/2019 ThingCharger v. Viatek - Complaint
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thingcharger-v-viatek-complaint 4/36
thingcHARGER. The
SOCKET
DocK, as advertised and sold
on
viatekproducts.com,
buysocketdock.com and elsewhere, is depicted
in t h ~
images annexed as Exhibit B to this
Complaint. The SocKETGENIE as sold, advertised and offered for sale with media depicting
the
SocKET
DocK
on
viatekproducts.com,
is
depicted
in
Exhibit C annexed to this Complaint.
12. Defendants, by their promotion, advertising, depiction, importation, sale and offer
for sale of the SOCKET DocK outlet extension charging devices in the United States, have
infringed the Segnit patent
in
violation of 35 U.S.C.
271
and 289.
13. Defendants infringement has been deliberate and willful, with full knowledge of
the Segnit patent and in wrongful disregard of plaintiffs rights thereunder.
14.
Upon information and belief, defendants infringement
is
ongoing and will
continue unless enjoined by this Court.
15. Plaintiffs have been and will continue to be irreparably harmed by defendants
infringing acts, which cannot
be
remedied by monetary damages alone.
Claim II
False Designation of Origin
16. This
is
a claim for trade dress infringement, unfair competition and false
designation of origin
in
violation of section 43(a) the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).
17. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations made in paragraphs 1 through 15 of
this Complaint as though fully set out here.
18. The thingCHARGER design constitutes a distinctive, minimalist trade dress
comprised of the following decorative, non-functional design features:
a. a rectangular frontal shape approximating the size and shape of a
standard electrical wall outlet that, when viewed from the front, renders it nearly unnoticeable
when plugged into a wall outlet;
b.
a slim profile creating a silhouette that aesthetically minimizes its visual
impact from all angles;
8/9/2019 ThingCharger v. Viatek - Complaint
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thingcharger-v-viatek-complaint 5/36
c
minimal variation
in
direction and angle of its straight contour lines
resulting
in
a smooth and uncomplicated silhouette;
d a narrow, elongated slot at the top for insertion of, or having inserted
therein with tip exposed, a vertically oriented ovoid cylindrical charging adaptor;
e
two electrical sockets vertically oriented
on
the front, and
f a series of vertically oriented rectangular slots
on
the rear, each slot
being integral with a curved indentation.
The
thingCHARGER is
depicted
in
the images annexed as Exhibit D to this Complaint.
19. The unique and pleasingly distinctive design of the
thingCHARGER
has been
promoted by plaintiff Thingcharger since long prior to the acts of defendants complained of
herein. The advertising and promotion of the thingCHARGER has consistently featured that
design throughout the United States, during which time the design has become identified
among consumers and
in
the trade with the exclusive source of the
thingCHARGER
and a symbol
of valuable good will inuring exclusively to the benefit of Thing charger and P3
20. In the course of a little over a year, Thingcharger has raised funds of over
700,000.00 in the promotion of thingCHARGER outlet extensions since their introduction
in
September 2013. During this time, and long prior to defendants' acts alleged herein, the
thingcHARGER
design had come to
be
relied upon
in
the trade and among consumers as
identifying the original outlet extension charging devices exclusively available from
Thingcharger and distinguishing them from the goods of others as a trademark that represents
and symbolizes a valuable business and good
will belonging exclusively to Thingcharger.
21 Defendants are aware and, since long prior to the acts complained of herein,
have been aware of the
thingcHARGER
trade dress design and the valuable good will
represented and symbolized thereby.
22. Notwithstanding defendants' awareness and, indeed, because of their
awareness, defendants embarked upon a deliberate and willful scheme to cause confusion
8/9/2019 ThingCharger v. Viatek - Complaint
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thingcharger-v-viatek-complaint 6/36
among consumers and the trade by adopting and using a confusingly similar imitation of the
widely recognized thingCHARGER trade dress design as the product designation
in
connection
with defendants sale o their Socket Dock chargers, thereby falsely suggesting that their
products are manufactured or sponsored by the exclusive source of the
thingCHARGER
for the
purpose of unfairly competing with plaintiffs.
23. Defendants advertising and sale of the SocKET DocK
in
direct competition with
plaintiffs thingCHARGER constitutes false designation of origin and/or false or misleading
description or misrepresentation of fact, which is likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake
or
to deceive the relevant public as to the source, origin, sponsorship, quality and/or approval of
defendants goods
in
violation of section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.
§
1125(a).
24. Defendants aforesaid acts of unfair competition and false designation o origin
have caused and will continue to cause great and irreparable injury to plaintiffs for which
plaintiffs no adequate remedy at
law
Unless such acts are restrained and enjoined by this
Court, they will continue to cause plaintiffs great harm and irreparable injury.
Claim Ill:
Unfair Competition
25. This
is
a claim for unfair competition under New York common law.
26. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 24 above
as though fully set out here.
27. Defendants were aware of plaintiffs thingCHARGER and its distinctive design
when they embarked upon their willful and deliberate scheme to cause confusion, mistake and
to deceive in directly competing with plaintiffs in the marketing and sale of wall outlet extension
chargers, willfully, in bad faith and without authorization, and have misappropriated plaintiffs
good will for their own benefit, with full knowledge of and
in
intentional disregard of plaintiffs
rights.
8/9/2019 ThingCharger v. Viatek - Complaint
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thingcharger-v-viatek-complaint 7/36
28. Defendants, in furtherance of their unlawful scheme to defraud the trade and the
public and to unfairly compete with plaintiffs, to pass-off their goods as those of plaintiffs and to
wilfully deceive consumers, including plaintiffs customers, through their misrepresentations and
other acts complained of herein, intentionally caused confusion and misunderstandings among
wholesalers, importers, mail order merchandisers, plaintiffs customers and the public that
defendants SOCKET DocK is a genuine product of or sponsored by plaintiffs.
29. Defendants unauthorized misappropriation of the design and trade dress of
plaintiffs thingCHARGER and other aforesaid acts constitute copying, infringement and
misappropriation of plaintiffs rights and unfair competition under common law.
30. Defendants aforesaid acts of unfair competition have caused and will continue to
cause great and irreparable injury to plaintiffs, for which plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at
law. Unless such acts are restrained and enjoined by this Court, they will continue to cause
plaintiffs great harm and irreparable injury.
Claim IV:
Deceptive Trade Practices
31
. This is a claim for deceptive trade practices
in
violation of laws of the State of
New York, N.Y.GEN.Bus.LAw § 349.
32. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 30 above
as though fully set out here.
33. Defendants aforesaid acts constitute deceptive trade practices within the State
of New York and this judicial district in violation of section 349 of the General Business Law of
the State of New York,
N Y GEN BUS LAW
§ 349.
34. Defendants deceptive acts have caused and will continue to cause great harm
and irreparable injury to plaintiffs, for which plaintiffs have
no
adequate remedy at law and,
unless such acts are restrained and enjoined by this Court, will continue to cause plaintiffs to
suffer great harm and irreparable injury.
8/9/2019 ThingCharger v. Viatek - Complaint
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thingcharger-v-viatek-complaint 8/36
ClaimV:
False and Misleading Advertising
35. This is a claim for false and misleading advertising
in
violation of
N Y GEN BUS LAW
§
350.
36. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 34 above
as though fully set out here.
37. Defendants aforesaid acts constitute false and misleading advertising within the
State of New York and this judicial district in violation of section 350 of the General Business
Law of the State of New York,
N Y GEN BUS LAW
§ 350.
38. Defendants false and deceptive advertising has caused and will continue
to
cause great harm and irreparable injury to plaintiffs, for which plaintiffs have no adequate
remedy at
law and, unless such acts are restrained and enjoined by this Court, will continue to
cause plaintiffs to suffer great harm and irreparable injury.
Claim VI:
Unjust Enrichment
39. This is a claim for unjust enrichment under New York common law.
40. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 38 above
as though fully set forth here.
41. Defendants benefitted financially and gained an unfair market advantage by their
aforesaid wrongful acts of unfair competition and are therefore liable to plaintiffs
in
the amount
and value of the benefits by which it
was
unjustly enriched.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray that this Court enter judgment:
A
preliminarily and permanently enjoining defendants, their officers, directors,
agents, employees, affiliates, and all those acting in concert or privity with any of them, from
infringing the Segnit patent;
8/9/2019 ThingCharger v. Viatek - Complaint
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thingcharger-v-viatek-complaint 9/36
B awarding plaintiffs damages sufficient to compensate them for defendants
patent infringement, in no event less than the greater of a reasonable royalty for or the total
profit from defendants infringing sales, with interest and costs;
C
awarding plaintiffs three times the amount of damages assessed, together with
their attorneys fees in prosecuting this action, pursuant to 35 U.S.C §§ 284 and 285;
D preliminarily and permanently enjoining defendants, their officers, directors,
agents, employees, affiliates, and all those acting in concert or privity with any of them, from
advertising, promoting, importing, manufacturing, distributing, offering to
sell and/or selling the
SOCKET
DocK
or any product applying a colorable imitation of the design claimed and depicted
in the Segnit patent;
E
awarding plaintiffs damages sufficient to compensate them for defendants unfair
competition, false designations of origin, false and misleading descriptions, misrepresentations
of fact, decept ive trade practices, false and misleading advertising, and the confusion and harm
resulting therefrom;
F
preliminarily and permanently enjoining defendants, their officers, directors,
agents, employees, affiliates, and all those acting in concert or privity with any of them, from
advertising, promoting, importing, manufacturing, distributing, offering to sell and/or selling the
SOCKET
DocK or any product the design
of
which is a copy or colorable imitation
of
the
thingCHARGER trade dress or the
SOCKET
DocK or incorporating any design that is likely to
cause confusion with the
thingcHARGER as to source or as to sponsorship by either plaintiff;
G awarding plaintiffs the value of the benefits by which defendants were unjustly
enriched; and
H
awarding plaintiffs such other and further relief as this Court deems just and
proper.
8/9/2019 ThingCharger v. Viatek - Complaint
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thingcharger-v-viatek-complaint 10/36
New York New York
January 30 2015
THINGCHARGER INC. and
P31NTERNATIONAL CORP.
y ~ V
James A Power
r
Marguerite Del Valle
POWER
DEL
VALLE LLP
233 West 72nd Street
New York New York 10023
212-877-0100
jp@powerdel
om
10
8/9/2019 ThingCharger v. Viatek - Complaint
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thingcharger-v-viatek-complaint 11/36
c12) United States Design Patent
Segnit
(54) AUXILIARY
PORT
AND OUTLET EXTENDER
(71) Applicant:
Seymou r Segnlt
, Cornwall
on
Hudson,
NY (US)
(72) Inventor:
Seymour
Segnit, Cornwall on Hudson,
NY (US)
(**) Term: 14
Years
(21) Appl. No : 29/457,017
(22) Filed:
Jun. 6,
2013
(51) LOC (10)
CI ......
......
.................
.... .
13-03
(52) U.S. CI.
USPC ......................................... .........
013/137.2
(58)
Field
of
Classification Search
(56)
USPC ........ D13/152, 164, 184, 137.1, 139.1, 153,
D131137.2, 133, 137.4, 139.7, 130, 128,
D13/132, 138.2, 139.3, 139.4, 139.8, 139.6,
DB /123, 160, 107, 137.3, 138.1, 139.2,
Dl31139.5, 162, 178, 199; 361/683, 118,
3611119; )9/416, 423; 52/ 173.1 , 656 .
2;
248/231.91
See applicat ion file for complete search history.
References Cited
U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS
5,539,821 A 7/1996 Blonder
04 69,402 S 1/2003 Bukiri .......
Dl3
/ l37
1
(Continued)
OTHER PUBLICATIONS
http://www.ebay.com/itm RCA-WP2UWR-Wall-Plate-Outlet-with-
2-USB-White-Chargin
(Continued)
Primary Examiner - Robert M Spear
Assistant Examiner Rhea Shields
(74)
Attorney
Ag
e
nt
or
Firm -
Andrew
F
Young, Esq ;
Lackenbach Siegel, LLP
(57) CLAIM
I claim the ornamental design for an auxiliary port and outlet
extender, as shown and described.
USOOD700892S
(10)
Patent No.:
(45)
Date
of
Patent:
US D700,892 S
Mar.
11, 2014
DESCRIPTION
FIG. 1 is a top perspective view
of
an auxiliary port
and
outlet
extender, showing a first embodiment of my new design;
FIG. 2
is
a bottom perspective view of FIG. 1;
FIG. 3
is
a front elevational view
of
FIG. 1;
FIG. 4 is a rear elevational view of FIG. 1;
FIG. 5 is a left-side elevational view of FIG. I , the right-side
eleva iona view being a mirror image thereof;
FIG. 6 is a top plan view of FIG. 1;
FIG.
7 is a bottom plan view
of
FIG. 1;
FIG. 8 is a top perspective view of a second embodiment
thereof;
FIG. 9 is a bottom perspective view
of
FIG. 8;
FIG. 10 is a front elevational view of FIG. 8;
FIG. 11 is a rear elevational view of FIG. 8;
FIG. 12 is a left-sideelevational view ofFIG. 8 , the right-side
elevational view being a mirror image
thereof
;
FIG. 13 is a top plan view of FIG. 8;
FIG.
14
is a bottom plan view of FIG. 8;
FIG. 15 is a top perspective view of a third embodiment
thereof;
FIG.
16
is a bottom perspective view of FIG. 15 ;
FIG. 17 is a front elevational view ofFIG. 15;
FIG.
18
is a rear elevational view of FIG. IS ;
FIG.
19 is
a left-side elevational view of FIG. 15, the right
side elevational view being a mirror imag e thereof;
FIG. 20 is a top plan view
of FIG
. 15;
FIG. 21 is a bottom plan view of FIG. 15;
FIG. 22 is a top perspective view of a fourth embodiment
there
of
;
FIG. 23 is a bottom perspective view
of
FIG. 22;
FIG. 24 is a front elevational view of FIG. 22;
FIG. 25 is a rear elevational view
of
FIG. 22;
FIG. 26 is a left-side elevational view
of FIG. 22, the right
side elevational view being a mirror image thereof;
FIG.
27
is a top plan view
of
FIG .
22
; and ,
FIG. 28 is a bottom plan view of FlU. 22.
The broken lines showing a wall, a portable electronic device,
a top port adapter, power plugs, power sockets a
nd
outlet
borders
in the
figures depict environmental matter and form
no part of the claimed design.
1
Claim,
12
Drawing
Sheets
8/9/2019 ThingCharger v. Viatek - Complaint
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thingcharger-v-viatek-complaint 12/36
56) References Cited
U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS
3/2005 Janik
6/2006 Maglionico et al.
6/2007 Lee
et a .
..
...... .
7/2007
Ng
................... .
8/2007 Sbordon
12/2007 Ahlgren
US D700 892 S
Page
0627,729 s
0638,792
s
0653,614 s
D653,615
s
D664,091 s
0665,354
s
2004/0218411
A1
11/20 lO Smith
5/2011 Lu
2/2012 Au
2/2012
Au
7/2012 Pliner
8/2012 Chen
ct
al.
11/2004 Luu
13/137.2
013/139.3
0\3/137.2
OTHER PUBLICATIONS
013/138.1
http:/ eshop mac sales. com/shop/Apple/iPod_Accessories.
6,864,798 8
0523,397
s
+
0545,273 s
0547,272
s *
0549,171 s
0556,682 s
0595,229
s
7,756,268 8
6/2009 LaGrotta ................... 013/137.2
7/2010 Hazani
cited by examiner
8/9/2019 ThingCharger v. Viatek - Complaint
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thingcharger-v-viatek-complaint 13/36
U.S. Patent
Mar 11, 2014
. .
.
-
_-.--· ·__-
_____
.
I • • • •
: -
. - .
•
,
•
•,
___
. ,
FIG. 1
Sheet of 12
US D700,892 S
FIG.2
8/9/2019 ThingCharger v. Viatek - Complaint
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thingcharger-v-viatek-complaint 14/36
U.S. Patent Mar. 11, 2014 Sheet 2
of
12
- .l-
-
}
:I
'
'
'
'
i
/ 1 . - , \
'
.
'
-
J -
I
'
l
I I
11 ;
11
1
6:
US D700,892 S
11
'
1:
i:
,,
'
i ;
'
II
0
I
0
II
6:
,
I ll
II
,
1
l l1
, •
-- - - - - -- - -- -- -- -
FIG. 3
<
---
=
. -
< -
= -
- -
-
-
FIG. 5
FIG. 4
8/9/2019 ThingCharger v. Viatek - Complaint
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thingcharger-v-viatek-complaint 15/36
U.S. Patent
Mar. 11 2014 Sheet 3 o
2
US
D700 892 S
\
I
II
l lt
i
tt
; _ . : ; _ _ ~ ; _ _
FIG 6
I
"'
l
lll l
l
lll
ll
l
lll
l
l
l
ll
ll ll
lt
I
l
FIG 7
8/9/2019 ThingCharger v. Viatek - Complaint
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thingcharger-v-viatek-complaint 16/36
U.S. Patent Mar. 11 2014
Sheet 4 of 2
US D700 892 S
. . -
FIG 8
FIG. 9
8/9/2019 ThingCharger v. Viatek - Complaint
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thingcharger-v-viatek-complaint 17/36
U.S. Patent
Mar. 11 2014 Sheet 5
o 2
}
-
- J - - L-
1 1 1 1 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
,
I
/ / ,-, ,
I I I I \
I I
-
\
1
I I ,-,
-
,-,
' 1
I I I I I I I I I
' - ""
, _ ,
f
\\ 1 I
\ \
1 I
\ '
I I
/ /
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ : ;
l
/
/ ' '
/
,-, ' ,
I ~ _ /
\ \
,
I 1
,-,
,-,
I \
: I
I G I '
I
\ \ ,_ , ,_ ,
1
\
I I
\ \ I I
< ..._
'
----///
. ...
.I
1111111 11111111 1
1
1
FIG 10
,,-------
- -
-
.... - - - - -- .=::::::=
::=:
I
=
~
FIG 12
I
- .l - - - - -
L -
,-,
• '
US D700 892 S
:j',
I c c Ill·
. II IL llillllllll i
I
;Il
FIG
8/9/2019 ThingCharger v. Viatek - Complaint
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thingcharger-v-viatek-complaint 18/36
U S Patent
Mar. 11 2014 Sheet 6 of 12
,
I
I
I I
I I
I I
I I
: I
,
I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
FIG. 13
1111l m
·11
. l i l l l i l l l i l l i l l l l l l l l : ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,
FIG. 14
US D700 892 S
8/9/2019 ThingCharger v. Viatek - Complaint
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thingcharger-v-viatek-complaint 19/36
U s atent
, ,
,,
,,
•
,,
, :
•
.,
•
,
,,
,,
/I_
FIG. 15
Mar. 11,2014
- · .
Sheet 7 o£12
V D700 892 S
FIG.
16
8/9/2019 ThingCharger v. Viatek - Complaint
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thingcharger-v-viatek-complaint 20/36
U.S. Patent
Mar. 11,2014
Sheet 8 o
12
. ·
• ·
r j
I I
I I
I I
1 1
I 1,- - - - -1 -
1 \
.J
1 -
FIG 17
J T \
_ - _______
-
.. .
• ·
..-.
•--
FIG 18
r j
I I
_
•
I I
· ·
-
- -
-
--
r - ==-======
• ·
-
US D700,892 S
8/9/2019 ThingCharger v. Viatek - Complaint
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thingcharger-v-viatek-complaint 21/36
U.S.
atent
-
Mar.11,2014
Sheet 9 of12
---------- -
I
...
_________
_
,.-------
·--------
: \
--
I I --
1 I I I I l
I I I I I I
I I I I
1 :
: I : : : I
I I I I I I
I : : : I :
FIG 19
1
I
- - ~
I I
- - ~
t I I I I
1
I : : : I
: I I 1 :
I I I 1 I
I I I I I
I : : : I
FIG
2
illllllll11,111illii11
1
HH illlllllilill ~ ~
Ill
1:111 11
, ", ' "',,
1111111111111111
11
' ~ ' ' ' 11111
ollllililllllllllllllllllllll,
i
tllll1l
I : : : I :
: : : : :
I I I 1 I I
I I I 1 I I
I I I I I
1
~ _ J : :
_
J
FIG
21
I I
_
US D700,892 S
8/9/2019 ThingCharger v. Viatek - Complaint
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thingcharger-v-viatek-complaint 22/36
8/9/2019 ThingCharger v. Viatek - Complaint
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thingcharger-v-viatek-complaint 23/36
U.S. Patent
Mar. 11 2014 Sheet of
2
US D700 892 S
{- l1
I I
_J
._
Ill 1 1111
I
'II"_ I l l ~ 1 1 ~ 1 1 1 , 1 1 1 ~ ~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 ,
111111111
11'1,111 <,c:
0
c>
1
lllil
I
I l'' / II I
I
1.• r i f i ) · D l i ~ ~ = = - - : ,
Ill'
, I ,. ,,
II'
I
< : ~ ~ - - ~ - ~ :
:>,>
I
I
ill
11:111111111
lllllllllllliidllllllllllllil
1
illill
FIG 24
=======
t::::::::
,--------
=====
... --------
:::::::::::::::
I
=
..
________
-=
FIG 26
1
1 ::. l111
1
illllll''ul·llllllllllllllll"''.ll lli' J'I
1
II IIJ
II ·_
11
11
1
1 'l[l
tll I 0 ~ ~ ~ 0
11)11
I
I - , , -
II·
ir··· \
-
\
I d
I II \
\
i II
ill
II
- . -
I
IIIIi
I
'
:,,
illln lllllli llllllllll" 11111111111
FIG 25
8/9/2019 ThingCharger v. Viatek - Complaint
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thingcharger-v-viatek-complaint 24/36
U S Patent
Mar. 11 2014
Sheet
12
of
12
- -
-
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
FIG. 27
·
1
1
1 1 1 1
l i l l l l l l l l l l - ~
ll 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
lilli iill
liilllilllllll llillllllllllllllllllllllllllill
I I I I t I
I I I I I I
f
I I I I I
I I I I
t
I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I t I
I I I I I I
'-
_
_
FIG. 28
US D700 892 S
8/9/2019 ThingCharger v. Viatek - Complaint
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thingcharger-v-viatek-complaint 25/36
CH RGE Y UR
8/9/2019 ThingCharger v. Viatek - Complaint
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thingcharger-v-viatek-complaint 26/36
8/9/2019 ThingCharger v. Viatek - Complaint
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thingcharger-v-viatek-complaint 27/36
FA..Q.
IN NEWS CONTACT
US
I
TLET
EE
ng your bonel
Order ow
- -
IV
ISA
. 1
::J
OR LL 3 1 800 592 0455
8/9/2019 ThingCharger v. Viatek - Complaint
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thingcharger-v-viatek-complaint 28/36
8/9/2019 ThingCharger v. Viatek - Complaint
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thingcharger-v-viatek-complaint 29/36
8/9/2019 ThingCharger v. Viatek - Complaint
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thingcharger-v-viatek-complaint 30/36
YIAJiiV
ONSIJMEII PRODUCTS Got OIIP
• Mt WIUC - . ~ ~ D e U T M I I I I
Nil& • Nl ' f iCWIUl .. • l l i t t l rMI II
- - ... 41
(
-.·
- J
PRODUCT DESCRIPTION
. @ ·'
R L.IM<
..
-J._
SOCKET CEIUE
- -
lUt
JIU
9DJI1
•
Joodl
....
. .
. . . . . -
ov..
. .
..,-10<z,...
~ .....
l i l
. . .
-
.. .._
S o x l o d C O I I I I O < > l i M l l i l f t , . , . . . . , . , . . I I I I _
. . . , . < U r g l r g i O d < ~
G J " ' i V C < J ~ _ , . . , . . ~ I n ' l l l l l
- . o y w r O I > l f Q r
llf
rooma11ll:
fDt.
SIIJ
r . . a
a ~ t
cntromJ•
pw
to:r. .
WMJ
;asa
Cf\IJDI
,al atflnrt "fiNIIISi c r 1 D t ~ Mtlillti.l'f.lldlra. tT IlrRI
.414
n
lWft
l t«Ufkl l i iCMBi' l
tNM:i i Thil: SodaltCiftl.iiJOhUtJSioi\IDI
Gri11C
alllltDChrQt l:ld.uoN I f,tl.l'\'1: IIIGIIII: DMtM,
-t1U
1\Md N:
Dc;;atC.Nt.
ICEB'
vtiUA
ourt..E1S Fl& WHILE
VIIIIA CE\IICB
· U IIDMCG
· PHcm:i
·HLI.CERS
-T.w..£TS
8/9/2019 ThingCharger v. Viatek - Complaint
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thingcharger-v-viatek-complaint 31/36
8/9/2019 ThingCharger v. Viatek - Complaint
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thingcharger-v-viatek-complaint 32/36
YI HIV
ONSUMER PROOOCTS GltOIJP
>OR
T <;
HOM£ I >[R$'- IW.
CAR£
I PIST CJNTROL I P[l
PQODUCT>
I RtfllLS 1
R£;>L A CI:
MW T
>
I GinS 0 1 ~ SI.L[
lflliiO
•
Jll ftCMIUC
•MeiSTIDI
I
* l i • ~ l ' t l C I I I U C •
•I6C:tlr. IDII5
<
...
- :;;
- ,_
..
,
m
.
..
PRODUCT DESCRIPTION
SOCKET GENIE
- -
1U9
-
nao-
·-2 ..
, -
0 U -
~
- '
2 . . .
0
No,
netll1JIIotmo
-
l k S O < l o J I
C O & I I '
t h a t i l t t , ' ' ' - · • a o l l l l h D - r \ J I C O I I O O f \ ' W o o • - ' I I D l o ~ l l l l Q I O d l n - 1 1 1 1 < ' - J U l l t / > 0 1 * 1 •
'fiO<WTI
a IU '-1 l<dllnQ-W(IIInontDflli7N ·
riiiJ
ID
•-0<11...
-OIId Nf'III • IOit lwl l
t l l l t I
O O- >11<
. . . .
' ' .t.ldn
~
J10rU
aa
DI(JIIf i
_,tnt
n t
So:ldalt
C.r•t
..
0
tw
US8
tNQI
or
Slldll
to
~
21011110n1
1
,.a.a·\ 8
OX
1
riDIIt : A U t ~ .
pt lU
11M1S
lit
SCde8tWiHt
I(IEP 'lll
UA ot/TIETS miE W141L.E CHMQtf; YIIIIA
O£VICES
•
S B D ~ I C E S
• Ptli:14ES
•
HI£OI:ERS
•
TAIIUTS
8/9/2019 ThingCharger v. Viatek - Complaint
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thingcharger-v-viatek-complaint 33/36
,.-, ·:
I
I
•
I
I
;<..; :;_. :._
•
n
8/9/2019 ThingCharger v. Viatek - Complaint
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thingcharger-v-viatek-complaint 34/36
@thingCHARGER
Home Design Story FAQs GET YOURS
Share this:
Follow
Us: j
0
II
Will it Charge All y Things?
708,221
USD
2,833
GET YOURS
II
1 Awesome th ingCH RGER $29.95
'
Choose Get 1
Free '
• •
-
Choose 5 Get 2 Free
'
Choose 7 Get Free
'
8/9/2019 ThingCharger v. Viatek - Complaint
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thingcharger-v-viatek-complaint 35/36
JS 44C/SDNY
REV. 4/2014
~ ~ ~ r
·
CIVILCOVERSHt
C V
~ § J s
The JS-44
c v
cover sheet and the mformallon
conta1ned
herein neither replace nor supplement the filing
~ i ' ? r
,
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 use
of
the Clerk
of
Court for the purpose
of
initiating the civil docket sheet.
PLAINTIFFS
THINGCHARGER. INC. and
P3
INTERNATIONAL CORP.
ATTORNEYS (FIRM NAME, ADDRESS, AND TELEPHONE NUMBER
James A. Power Jr
Power Del Valle LLP
233 W 72nd St, New York, NY 10023
212,877-0100
a
DEFENDANTS
VIATEK CONSUMER PRODUCTS GROUP, INC.,
VIATEK INTERNATIONAL, LLC, and
FOSHAN UM ELECTRONICS CO., LTO
ATTORNEYS (IF KNOWN)
CAUSE OF ACTION
CITE
THE
U.S
. CIVIL
STATUTE UNDER
WHICH YOU ARE
FILING AND
WRITE A
BRIEF STATEMENT
OF CAUSE)
DO NOT CITE JURISDICTIONAL STATUTES
UNLESS
DIVERSITY)
Design patent infringement 35 USC 271, 289; False designationor origin, 15 USC 1125(a)
Has this action. case, or proceeding, or one essentially the same been previously filed in SONY at any time? Nil lesiJJudge Previously Assigned
If yes, was this case Vol. D lnvol. D Dismissed. No Yes D If yes, g ive date & Case No.
Is THIS AN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CASE7
No
Yes D
PLACEAN {x} IN
ONE
BOXONLY)
CONTRACT
I
1110
I 1120
I
1130
I
1140
[ 1150
[ 1151
[ 1152
I 1153
[
11
60
[ 1190
[ 1195
INSURANCE
MARINE
MILLER ACT
NEG
OT
IABLE
INSTRUMENT
RECOVERY OF
OVERPAYMENT
&
ENFORCEMENT
OF JUDGMENT
MEDICARE ACT
RECOVERY OF
DEFAULTED
STUDENT LOANS
(EXCL VETERANS)
RECOVERY OF
OVERPAYMENT
OF VETERAN'S
BENEFITS
STOCKHOLDERS
SUITS
OTHER
CONTRACT
CONTRACT
PRODUCT
LIABILITY
I 11
96 FRANCHISE
REAL PROPERTY
I
1210 LAND
CONDEMNATION
[ 1220 FORECLOSURE
[ 1230 RENT LEASE
&
EJECTME
NT
I
1240 TORTS
TO
LAND
[ 1245 TORT PRODUCT
LI
AB
ILI
TY
I
1290
ALL OTHER
REAL PROPERTY
TORTS
PERSONAL INJURY
[ 1310 AIRPLANE
[ I 315 AIRPLANE PRODUCT
LIABILITY
[ 1320 ASSAULT, LIBEL
&
SLANDER
[ I 330 FEDERAL
EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY
[ ] 340 MARINE
[ ] 345 MARINE PRODUCT
LIABILITY
[ ] 350
MOT
OR VEHICLE
[ ] 355 MOTOR VEHICLE
PRODUCT LIABILITY
[ ] 360 OTHER PERSONAL
INJURY
[ 1362 PERSONAL INJURY
MED
MALPRACTICE
ACTIONS UNDER STATIJTES
CIVIL
RIGHTS
[ ] 440 OTHER C
NIL
RIGHTS
(Non-Prisoner)
[ 1441 VOTING
[ ]
44
2 EMPLOYMENT
[ ] 443 HOUSING/
ACCOMMODATIONS
[ ] 445 AMERICANS WITH
DISABILITIES -
EMPLOYMENT
[ 1446 AMER ICANS WITH
DISAB ILITIES -OTHER
[ ] 448 EDUCATION
Check i demanded in comp laint:
D
CHECK IF TH IS IS A CLASS ACTION
UNDER F.R.C.P. 23
NATURE OF SUIT
PERSONAL INJURY
FORFEITURE
/PENALTY
I ]
367 HEALTHCAREI
PHARMACEUTICAL PERSONAL [ 1625 DRUG RE LATED
INJURY/PRODUCT LIABILITY SEIZURE OF PROPERTY
[ 1365 PERSONAL INJURY 21 USC 881
PRODUCT LIABILITY
[ ] 368 ASBESTOS PERSONAL [ ]
690
OTH
ER
INJURY PRODUCT
LIABILITY
PERSONAL PROPERTY
I ] 370 OTHER FRAUD
I ] 371 TRUTH IN LENDING
[ ] 380 OTHER PERSONAL
PROPERTY DAMAGE
I ]
385 PROPERTY DAMAGE
PRODUCT LIABILITY
PRISONER
PETITIONS
[ ] 463 ALIEN DETAINEE
[ ] 510 MOTIONS TO
VACATE SENTENCE
28 usc 2255
[ I
530 HABEAS CORPUS
[ 1535 DEATH PENALTY
[ 1540 MANDAMUS & OTHER
PRISONER
CIVIL RIGHTS
[ I 550 CIVIL RIGHTS
[ ] 555 PRISON
CO
NDITION
[ 1560 CIVIL DETAINEE
LABOR
[ 1710 FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT
[ ] 720 LABORIMGMT
RELATIONS
[ 1740 RAILWAY LABOR ACT
[ I 751 FAMILY MEDICAL
LEAVE ACT (FMLA)
[ ] 7
90
OTHER LABOR
LITIGATION
[ ] 791 EMPL RET INC
SECURITY ACT
IMMIGRATION
[ 1462 NATURALIZAT ION
APPLICATION
I 1
465 OT
H
ER
IMMI
GRAT
ION
ACTIONS
CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT
ACTIONS UNDER
STATIJTES
BANKRUPTCY
[ 14
22
APPEAL
28 usc 158
[ ] 423 WITHDRAWAL
28 usc 157
PROPERTY RIGHTS
[ ] 820 COPYRIGHTS
[) l830
PATENT
[ ] 840 TRADEMARK
SOCIAL SECURITY
[ 1861 HIA (
13
95ff)
[ ] 862 BLACK LUNG (923)
[ ] 863 DIW
C/DIWW
(405(g))
[ ] 884 SSID TITLE XVI
[ ] 865 RSI (405(g))
FEDERAL
TAX
SUITS
[ 1870 TAXES (U.S. Plaintiffor
Defendant)
[ ] 871
IR
S-THIRD PARTY
26
usc
7609
OTHER
STATUTES
375 FALSE CLAIMS
400 STATE
REAPPORTIONME
[ 1410 ANTITRUST
[ 1430 BANKS
&
BANKING
[ 1450 COMMERCE
[ 1460 DEPORTATION
[ I
470 RACKETEER INFLU
ENCED & CORRU
ORGANIZATION A
(RICO)
[ 1480 CONSUMER CRED
I
1490 CABLE/SATELLITE
[ 1850 SECURITIES/
COMMODITIES/
EXCHANGE
[
189
0 OTHER STATUTOR
ACTIONS
[ 1891 AGRICULTURAL AC
[ 1893 ENVIRONMENTAL
M
ATT
E
RS
[ 1895 FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION AC
[ I
896 ARBITRATION
[ I
899 ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEDURE ACT/REV
APPEAL OF AGENCY D
I
I 950 CON
ST
ITUTIONA
STATE STAT
UT
ES
~ O s b ? ~ T _ ~ M THIS CASE IS RELATED TO A CIVIL CASE
NOW
PENDING IN S.D. N.Y
DEMAND . 0THER JUDGE _____________________ DOCKETNUMBER
Check
Y S
only i demanded in CO; .flaint
JURY DEMAND:
D
YES
LNO
NOTE: You must also submit at the time offiling the Statement of Relatedness form (Form
8/9/2019 ThingCharger v. Viatek - Complaint
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thingcharger-v-viatek-complaint 36/36
PLACE AN
x IN ONE BOX ONLY)
[R]
1 Original
Proceeding
D 2 Removed from D 3
State Court
D
a. au parties represented
Remanded
from
Appellate
Court
ORIGIN
0
4 Reinstated or
Reopened
0 5
Transferred from
D 6
Multidistrict
(Specify District) Litigation
D 7 Appeal to Dis
Judge from
Magistrate Ju
Judgment
0 b. At least one
party
is
pro
se
PLACE AN
x
IN
ONE BOX ONLY) BASIS OF JURISDICTION
0
1
U.S.
PLAINTIFF
0
2 U.
S.
DEFENDANT
[R
3
FEDERAL QUESTION
4
DIVERSITY
U .S. NOT A PARTY)
IFDIVERSITY,
INDICATE
CITIZENSHIP
BELOW.
CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES FOR DIVERSITY CASES ONLY)
(Place
an
[X]
in one
box for Plaintiff
and one
box for Defendant)
PTF DEF
PTF DEF
CITIZEN OF THIS STATE
[ ]1 [ ]1
CITIZEN
OR
SUBJECT OF A
FOREIGN COUNTRY
PTF DEF
[ ]3 [ ]3
INCORPORATED and PRINCIPAL PLACE [
]5
[
]5
OF BUSINESS
IN
ANOTHER STATE
CITIZEN OF ANOTHER STATE [ ]2 [ ]2 INCORPORATED or PRINCIPAL PLACE [ ]4 [ ]4
FOREIGN NATION
OF BUSINESS IN THIS STATE
PLAINTIFF(S) ADDRESS(ES) AND COUNTY(IES)
P3 International Corp., 132 Nassau
St,
New York (New York Co), New York 10038
ThingCHARGER, Inc., 1 Grandview Avenue, Cornwall-on-Hudson (Orange Co), New York, NY
DEFENDANT(S) ADDRESS(ES) AND COUNTY(IES)
Viatek Consumer Products Group, Inc.,
6011
Century Oaks Drive, Chattanooga, Tennessee
Viatek International LLC, 6011 Century Oaks Drive, Chattanooga, Tennessee
[ ]6 [ ]6
Fashan UM Electronics Co., Ltd., Rm 228, Daxan Business Plaza, Luopo St, Panyu, Guanzhou, China
DEFENDANT(S) ADDRESS UNKNOWN
REPRESENTATION
IS
HEREBY
MADE THAT,
AT
THIS
TIME, I HAVE
BEEN
UNABLE,
WITH
REASONABLE DILIGENCE,
TO
ASCERTAIN
RESit:tENCE ADDRESSES OF
THE
FOLLOWING DEFENDANTS:
Check
one: THIS ACTION
SHOULD
BE
ASSIGNED
TO: 0
WHITE PLAINS
DO
NOT check either box if this a PRISONER PETITION/PRISONER CIVIL RIGHTS
~ M A N H A T T A N
COMPLAINT.)
D A T E J a n 8 ~ U R ~ 8 F A T T ~ Y O F R E C O R D
l ~ ~
__
RECEIPT
ADMITIED
TO
PRACTICE IN THIS DISTRICT
[ ] O
[X]
YES (DATE ADMITTED
Mo
.
O_c_t Yr.
1984
Attorney Bar Code JP8491
Magistrate Judge is to be designated by
the
Clerk of the
Co
l{
1 , : ;
- ~ : : ;
·,
i , C ~
.
. ~ ;
'_.
:
•
•• ~
-
Magistrate J u d g e ~ ~
is
so Designated.