PDP v. Mad Catz - Complaint

8/19/2019 PDP v. Mad Catz - Complaint

1/15

-1-

COMPLAINT

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

SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP A Limited Liability PartnershipIncluding Professional Corporations

DANIEL N. YANNUZZI (Cal. Bar No. 196612)[email protected]

MICHAEL MURPHY (Cal. Bar No. 234695)[email protected] Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP12275 El Camino Real, Suite 200San Diego, California 92130Telephone: (858) 720-8900Facsimile: (858) 509-3691

Attorney for PlaintiffPERFORMANCE DESIGNEDPRODUCTS LLC.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PERFORMANCE DESIGNEDPRODUCTS LLC,a California limited liability company,

Plaintiff,

v.

MAD CATZ, INC.,a Delaware corporation, and

DOES 1–10, inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No. COMPLAINT FOR PATENTINFRINGEMENT

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

'16 CV0629 RBBGPC

Case 3:16-cv-00629-GPC-RBB Document 1 Filed 03/11/16 Page 1 of 8


2/15

-1- COMPLAINT

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 Performance Designed Products LLC (“PDP”) complains and alleges

as follows against Defendant Mad Catz, Inc. (“Mad Catz”).

THE PARTIES

1.

Plaintiff PDP is a California limited liability company, having a

principal place of business at 2300 West Empire Avenue, Suite 600, Burbank,

California 91504.

2. On information and belief, Defendant Mad Catz, Inc. (“Mad Catz”) is a

Delaware corporation, having a principal place of business at 10680 Treena Street,

Suite 500, San Diego, California 92131.

3.

The true names, identities and capacities, whether individual, associate,

corporate or otherwise, of Defendants DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, and each of them

(“the DOE Defendants”), are unknown to PDP at this time, who therefore sues the

DOE Defendants by such fictitious names. When the true names and capacities or

participation of the DOE Defendants are ascertained, PDP will amend this complain

to assert the true names, identities and capacities. PDP is informed and believes and

thereon alleges that each of the DOE Defendants sued herein is responsible for the

wrongful acts alleged herein, and is therefore liable to PDP in some manner for the

events and happenings alleged in this complaint. PDP is informed and believes and

thereon alleges that at all times herein mentioned, the DOE Defendants were and are

doing business and/or residing in this District.

NATURE OF THE ACTION

4. This is a civil action against Defendants for infringement of United

States Design Patent Numbers D624,078 (“the ’D078 Patent”) arising under the

patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of the United States Code.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

5. This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction of this action under

28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question), and 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a) and (b) (any Act of

Congress relating to patents).



3/15

-2-

COMPLAINT

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.

This Court has specific and general personal jurisdiction over

Defendants pursuant to due process and/or the California Long Arm Statute because

Defendants are California entities with their principal place of business in California

and within this judicial district, have committed and continue to commit acts of

infringement in violation of 35 U.S.C. §§ 271(a), (b), and (c), and place infringing

products into the stream of commerce, with the knowledge or understanding that

such products are sold in the State of California, including in this judicial district.

On information and belief, Defendants derive substantial revenue from the sale of

infringing products within this judicial district, expect their actions to have

consequences within this judicial district, and derive substantial revenue from

interstate and international commerce, including within this judicial district.

7. Venue is proper within this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)

because a substantial portion of the events giving rise to the claims for relief stated

in this Complaint arose in this judicial district. Specifically, Defendants have sold

or offered for sale infringing products in this district. Furthermore, Plaintiff PDP

maintains a business office within this district and has suffered harm within this

district.

BACKGROUND FACTS

8. Plaintiff PDP is a Burbank-based company that designs and

manufactures video game accessories. PDP has been supplying video game

accessories to the market for over a decade and has additional offices and facilities

in San Diego, California, China, Hong Kong, France and the United Kingdom.

Customers use PDP’s high quality products in many places throughout the world,

including the United States, Canada, Mexico, Europe, and Asia. PDP is an

innovator in the field of video game accessories and holds multiple patents,

including the ‘D078 Patent. Attached as Exhibit A is a copy of the ‘D078 Patent.

9. On information and belief, Defendant Mad Catz is a worldwide

provider of video game accessories. On information and belief, Mad Catz’s



4/15

-3-

COMPLAINT

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

products are on sale and in use throughout the United States, including in the State

of California and this district. Mad Catz offers for sale the “Fight Pad Pro

Controller” in this district and throughout the United States1.

10.

On information and belief, Mad Catz has used, imported into, sold, or

offered for sale in the United States its accused controllers, which infringe the

‘D078 Patent. Mad Catz has not obtained permission from PDP to use, import, sell,

or offer PDP’s designs claimed in the ‘D078 Patent. Mad Catz had many options in

developing the accused controller. Nevertheless, Mad Catz chose to willingly

infringe PDP’s designs claimed in the ‘D078 Patent by making, using, selling or

offering for sale, and/or importing its Fight Pad Pro Controller product during theterm of PDP’s ‘D078 Patent.

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

1 Mad Catz’s marketing materials inconsistently refer to the accused product as the Fight

Pad Pro Controller and the FightStick TE2. For removal of doubt, PDP accuses te productshown in the picture attached to Paragraph 11 of infringement.



5/15

-4-

COMPLAINT

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. Mad Catz’s Fight Pad Pro Controller has an overall appearance that is

confusingly similar and substantially the same, in view of the prior art and in the

eyes of an ordinary observer, as PDP’s Fight Pad for Xbox One controller (and the

designs claimed in the ‘D078 Patent), as demonstrated by the side-by-side

comparison below:

PDP Patented Design Mad Catz Product

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

Infringement of Design Patent ’D078

12. PDP incorporates and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 20 of this

Complaint.

13. Under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), Defendants have infringed and continue to

infringe, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, the ’D078 Patent by making,

using, selling, and/or offering to sell in the United States, and/or importing into the

United States the Fight Pad Pro Controller identified in this Complaint, which

controller embodies the design covered by the ’D078 Patent.



6/15

-5-

COMPLAINT

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.

On information and belief, Defendants have gained profits by virtue of

their infringement of the ’D078 Patent.

15.

On information and belief, PDP has sustained damages as a direct and

proximate result of Defendants’ infringement of the ’D078 Patent, and, as such,

PDP is entitled to damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 284 and/or 289.

16. Moreover, PDP is informed and believes that Defendants’ infringement

of the ’D078 Patent is and has been willful. On information and belief, Defendants

have acted and continue to act with objective recklessness by proceeding despite an

objectively high likelihood that their actions constitute infringement of PDP’s valid

patents, and Defendants are aware of PDP’s patents, including the ’D078 Patent, and

know of the high likelihood that they cover Defendants’ products.

17. This is an exceptional case warranting an award of treble damages to

PDP under 35 U.S.C. § 284, and an award of attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285.

18. On information and belief, PDP will suffer and is suffering irreparable

harm from Defendants’ infringement of the ’D078 Patent. PDP has no adequate

remedy at law and is, under 35 U.S.C. § 283, entitled to an injunction against

Defendants’ continuing infringement of the ’D078 Patent. Unless enjoined,

Defendants will continue their infringing conduct.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PDP prays:

(a) For a judgment that Defendants have infringed PDP’s ‘D078

Patent;

(b)

For an order and judgment preliminarily and permanently

enjoining Defendants and their officers, directors, agents, servants, employees,

affiliates, attorneys, and all others acting in privity, active concert, or participation

with any of them, and their parents, subsidiaries, divisions, successors and assigns,



7/15

-6-

COMPLAINT

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

who receive actual notice of the judgment by personal service or otherwise, from

further acts of infringement of PDP’s ‘D078 Patent;

(c)

That Defendants be directed to file with this court, within thirty

(30) days after entry of any injunction in this case, a written statement, under oath,

setting forth in detail the manner in which Defendants have complied with the

injunction;

(d) For a judgment awarding PDP all damages, in an as yet

undetermined amount, adequate to compensate for Defendants’ infringement of

PDP’s ‘D078 Patent, and in no event less than a reasonable royalty for Defendants’

acts of infringement, including all pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the

maximum rate permitted by law;

(e) For a judgment awarding PDP all damages, including treble

damages, based on any infringement found to be willful, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §

284, together with prejudgment interest;

(f)

For costs of suit and reasonable attorneys’ fees; and

(g)

For any other remedy to which PDP may be entitled under the

law, and any other further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: March 11, 2016

SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER

& HAMPTON LLP

By /s/ Daniel N. Yannuzzi

DANIEL N. YANNUZZIMICHAEL MURPHY

Attorneys for Plaintiff

PERFORMANCE DESIGNED

PRODUCTS LLC.



8/15

-7-

COMPLAINT

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

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

PDP requests a trial by jury on all issues so triable in this action.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: March 11, 2016

SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER

& HAMPTON LLP

By /s/ Daniel N. Yannuzzi

DANIEL N. YANNUZZI

MICHAEL MURPHY

Attorneys for PlaintiffPERFORMANCE DESIGNED

PRODUCTS LLC.



9/15

CIVIL COVER SHEET

(SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)

. (a) PLAINTIFFS

(b)

(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)

(c) (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) (If Known)

I. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendan

PTF DEF PTF

(U.S. Government Not a Party) or

and

(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)

V. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only)CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTE

PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY

PROPERTY RIGHTS

LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY PERSONAL PROPERTY

REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS FEDERAL TAX SUITS

Habeas Corpus:

IMMIGRATION

Other:

V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)

(specify)

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION

(Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity)

VII. REQUESTED INCOMPLAINT:

CLASS ACTION

DEMAND $

JURY DEMAND:

VIII. RELATED CASE(S)IF ANY

(See instructions):

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

Performance Designed Products LLC, a California limited liabilitycompany

Los Angeles

Daniel N. Yannuzzi (SBN 196612/Michael Murphy (SBN 234695)Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP12275 El Camino Real, Ste. 200, San Diego, CA 92130 858-720-8900

DEFENDANTS Mad Catz, Inc., a Delaware corporation

San Diego

Title 35 - United States Code

Patent infringement

03/11/2016 s/Daniel N. Yannuzzi

'16 CV0629 RBBGPC

Case 3:16-cv-00629-GPC-RBB Document 1-1 Filed 03/11/16 Page 1 of 1


10/15

Exhibit A



11/15

USO0D624078S

1 2 ) United States Design

Patent

1 0 ) P a t e n t N o . : US D 6 2 4 , 0 7 8

S

J e n n i n g s e t a l .

4 5 )

Date

o f

P a t e n t : 4 4 S e p . 2 1 , 2010

(54) SYMMETRIC L

G ME

CONTROLLER

5,923,317

A

*

7/1999 S a y l e r

e t a l .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

345/156

D416 ,247 S *

1 1 / 1 999

Flender e t a l . . . D14/401

(75) Inventors:

Alice

Sebastian Minchella

Jennings, 13424946 5 *

5/2000 S W ? I l S O I l et 3 1 - - - - - -

- - Dl4/401

L05

Angeles

C

Us).

Nicholas

1 3435551 s

*

1 2 / 2 0 0 0

Hayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.

1 3 1 4 / 4 0 1

i

’

13471,552 s *

3/2003

Loughnane t a 1 .

. . . . . .

.. 1 3 1 4 / 40 1

2323mm“ slmmons ’ Smdlo CIW’CA

1 3 5 8 5 , 9 3 1 s *

2 / 2 0 0 9 P a l m e r

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. .

1 3 1 8 / 7

* c i t e d by

examiner

( 7 3 ) Assignee:

Performance

Designed Products LLC,

S h e r m a n O a k s ’

CA

U s ) P r i m a r y ExammeriPrabhakar

Deshmukh

( 7 4 ) A t t o r n e y ,

A g e n t , o r FirmiSheppard M u l l i n

R i c h t e r

( * * )

T e r m : 1 4

Y e a r s Hampton

LLP

2 1 ) A p p 1 . N o . :

2 9 / 3 5 4 , 2 0 6

5 7 ) CLAIM

-

eornamenta esi oranas

mmetrica

ame contro er,

( 2 2 )

F i l e d . J a n .

2 0 ,

2010

Th

1d

g n f

y 1g 1 1

a s shown

and d e s c r i b e d .

(51) LOC 9 )

Cl. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.

14-03

(52) us.

l.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. .

1 314/401;1321/333 DESCRIPTION

( 5 8 )

Field of

Classi?cation

Search

. . . . . . . .

D14/399*401 ,

FIG-

1

i s

a

p e r s p e c t i v e

View Of an asymmetrical

game 0 0 1 1

1 3 1 4 / 4 1 2 4 4 1 6 ;

1 3 2 1 / 3 2 4 ,

3 3 3 ;

2 7 3 / 1 4 8 B ;

r r o l l e r

s h o w i n g o u r

new

d e s i g n ;

4 6 3 / 1 ,

2 9 * 3 9 ,

4 6 , 4 7 ; 345/156461, 9 0 5

F I G .

2 i s a

f r o n t

e l e v a t i o n a l V i e w

t h e r e o f ;

S e e

a p p l i c a t i o n ? l e f o r

c o m p l e t e

s e a r c h h i s t o r y . F I G ‘ 3

i s

a

r e a r

e l e v a t i o n a l View t h e r e o f ;

( 5 6 ) R e f e r e n c e s

C i t e d F I G .

4

i s

a l e f t

s i d e

e l e v a t i o n a l View

t h e r e o f ;

U _ S _

PATENTDOCUMENTS F I G .

5

i s

a

r i g h t

s i d e e l e va t i o n a l

View t h e r e o f ;

D341,164 s * 1 1 / 1 9 9 3 Chan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.

1 3 1 4 / 4 0 1 MG 1 5 ato p Plan vl ewthereof; a n d ’

5,297,426

A * 3/1 994 Kane

t

a 1 . . . . . .

. .

73/202 F I G . 7

s

a bottom plan View t h e r e o f .

5,394,168

2/1995

Smith

t

a 1 .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 345/156

- - -

5 , 5 0 1 , 4 5 8

A

* 3 /

1 9 9 6 M a l l o r y

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . 2 7 3 / 1 4 8 B

T 2 3

3 1 5 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . “

a é e d f o r .

l n u s t r a n v e

p u r p o s e

o n l y

a n d f o r m

n o

1 3 3 7 3 , 1 4 9 s * 8 / 1 9 9 6 Kawasaki

. . . . . . . 1314/401

P 0 e

C

alme

eslgn'

D376,18O

S

*

12/1996 Takahata t

a 1 . D14/401

5,759,100

A

* 6/1998 Nakanishi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.

463/37 1 Claim , 4 Drawing heets

Exhibit A - Page 8

111111

1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

(12) United States Design Patent

Jennings et al.

(54)

ASYMMETRICAL

GAME CONTROLLER

(75) Inventors: Alice

Sebastian

Minchella Jennings,

Los Angeles,

CA

(US); Nicholas

Raymond Simmons, Studio City,

CA

(US)

(73)

(**)

Assignee: Performance Designed Products LLC

Shennan Oaks, CA (US)

Term: 14 Years

(21) Appl. No.: 29/354,206

(22) Filed: Jan.

20, 2010

(51) LOC (9) Cl. ................ ............... ................ ... 14-03

(52) U.S. Cl. ...... ................... ............ D14/401; D211333

(58) Field of Classification Search ........ DI4/399-401,

(56)

D14/412-416; D211324,333; 2731148 B;

46311 29-39 46 47;

3451156-161,905

See application file for complete search history.

References Cited

U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS

D341,164 S *

5,297,426 A *

5,394,168 A *

5,501,458 A *

D373,149 S *

D376,180 S

*

5,759,100 A

*

1111993 Chan ........................ .

D14/401

311994 Kane et al. ...... ..... ..... ....

73/202

211995 Smith et al. ..... ..... ..... ..

345/156

311996 Mallo ry ........ ..... ..... 2731148 B

811996 Kawasaki ..................

D14/401

1211996 Takahata et al. ..... ...... D14/401

611998 Nakanishi ..... .... ..... ..... . 463/37

USOOD624078S

(10) Patent No.: US D624,078 S

**

Sep. 21, 2010

45) Date of Patent:

5,923,317 A *

D416,247 S *

D424,046 S *

D435,551 S

*

D471,552 S *

D585,931 S *

* cited by examiner

7/1999 Sayler et al ................. 345/156

1111999 Flender et al. ..... ..... ... D14/401

5/2000

Swanson et al. ...........

D14/401

1212000

Hayes .......................

D14/401

3/2003

Loughnane et al. ....... .

D14/401

212009

Palmer ......................... D18/7

Primary Examiner-Prabhakar Deshmukh

74) Attorney, Agent, or Firm Sheppard Mullin Richter &

HamptonLLP

(57) CLAIM

The ornamental design for an asymmetrical game controller,

as shown and described.

DESCRIPTION

FIG. 1

is

a perspective view of an asymmetrical game con

troller showing our new design;

FIG. 2 is a front elevational view thereof;

FIG. 3 is a rear elevational view thereof;

FIG. 4 is a left side elevational view thereof;

FIG. 5 is a right side elevational view thereof;

FIG. 6 is a top plan view thereof; and,

FIG. 7

is

a bottom plan view thereof.

The broken lines are for illustrative purpose only and form no

part

of

the claimed design.

1 Claim, 4 Drawing Sheets



12/15

US. atent S e p . 2 1 ,

2 0 1 0

S h e e t

1

0 1 4

US D624,078

S

Exhibit A - Page 9

u.s. Patent Sep.21 2010 Sheet 1 of 4

~

,

I ,

I I

J ---.

J ---

I ,

,

1

I

\

1

,

\ '

... -

: . )

' - - ~ I

I ,

, I

. '

,

"

--'

FIG. 1

]

.

,

I I

I I

,

,

\ ,

"

:.)

--'.

I I

, I

I '

,

"

-'

US D624 078 S



13/15

U Patent S e p . 2 1 , 2 0 1 0 S h e e t 2 o f 4 US D624,078 S

F I G . 2

Exhibit A - Page 10

u.s. Patent Sep.21 2010

---


14/15

US.

atent

S e p . 2 1 ,

2 0 1 0

S h e e t 3 o f 4

US D624,078

S

F I G .

5

Exhibit A - Page 11

u.s.

Patent

Sep.21,2010

Sheet 3 of 4

US D624,078 S

FIG.

4

~

11- 1 7 \

,

'

, '

,

'

, '

,

'

,

,

FIG. 5



15/15

US. atent S e p . 2 1 ,

2 0 1 0

S h e e t 4 o f 4

US D624,078

S

u.s. Patent

Sep.21,2010

Sheet 4 of 4

US D624,078 S

r

, ,

========

FIG.

6

, ,

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

FIG.

7


Date post:	08-Jul-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	sarah-burstein
View:	219 times
Download:	0 times

PDP v. Mad Catz - Complaint

Documents