Adidas Springblade Lawsuit

Case 3:14-cv-01586-MO
Document 1
Filed 10/08/14
Page 1 of 54
Robert M. Lyden
ProSe
18261 S.W. Fallatin Loop
Aloha, OR 97007
E-mail: robertlyden@comcast.net
Phone: (971) 219-1200
FILEI030CT '1413(3)JSOC-(RP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON
Portland Division
Robert M. Lyden,
an individual,
Plaintiff,
No.
3 't 4 - cv - 1 58 6
COMPLAJNTFORTRADEMARK
AND PATENT INFRINGEMENT
v.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
adidas America, Inc., a Delaware corporation,

adidas AG, a German entity,
adidas International Marketing B.V., a Dutch entity,
The Finish Line, Inc., an Indiana corporation,
Foot Locker, Inc., a New York corporation, and,
Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc., a Delaware corporation,
Defendants.
Case 3:14-cv-01586-MO
Document 1
Filed 10/08/14
Page 2 of 54
For his Complaint against adidas America, Inc., adidas AG, and adidas
International Marketing B.V. (hereinafter the adidas entities collectively "adidas" or
"adidas Defendants"), and also The Finish Line, Inc., Foot Locker, Inc., and Dick' s
Sporting Goods, Inc. (hereinafter "Retailer Defendants," and in combination with the
adidas Defendants collectively the "Defendants"), the plaintiff Robert M. Lyden
("Lyden") alleges as follows:
NATURE OF THE CASE
1.
This is an action at law and in equity for trademark infringement and
dilution, unfair competition, and unfair business practices, arising under the Trademark
Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq. (2009) ("Lanham Act"); the anti-dilution laws of
several states; the unfair business practices and unfair and deceptive trade practices acts
of several states; and the common law.
2.
Further, this is also a patent infringement action brought under the patent
laws of the United States, including 35 U.S.C. 271 , 281 , and 283-85 .
PARTIES
3.
In connection with previous Case No. 3:10-CV-1249-BR which was filed
by Lyden v. adidas AG and adidas America, Inc. on October 12, 2010 in this venue, the
Defendant adidas AG did not initially wish to accept service and responsibility as a party
to the compliant, and for this reason the information contained in Paragraphs 4-22 below
is being provided to this Court. Lyden and the adidas Defendants later reached an
COMPLAINT FOR TRADEMARK AND PATENT INFRINGEMENT
Case 3:14-cv-01586-MO
Document 1
Filed 10/08/14
Page 3 of 54
agreement in previous case No. 3:1 0-CV -1249-BR and caused to be filed "Stipulation re:
Dismissal of Defendant adidas International B.V. and Related Discovery Issues," as
shown in Exhibit 26 attached hereto.
4.
On information and belief, Defendant adidas AG is a joint stock company
organized and existing under the laws of the Federal Republic of Germany, having its
office and principal place ofbusiness at Postach 11230, D-91072 Herzogenaurach
Federal Republic of Germany.
5.
On information and belief, Defendant adidas America, Inc. is a
corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, having its
principal place ofbusiness at 5055 N. Greeley Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97217. In this
regard, adidas America, Inc. manages U.S.-based operations on behalf of adidas AG,
including sales, brand marketing, product marketing, product design, public relations,
distribution, enforcement, and licensing of and for adidas-branded merchandise.
6.
On information and belief, Defendant adidas International Marketing
B.V. is a limited liability company that operates as a subsidiary of adidas AG with a

principal place ofbusiness at Atlas Complex, Africa Building, Hoogoorddreef9a, 1101
BA Amsterdam Z-0, The Netherlands.
7.
On information and belief, Defendant adidas AG is the parent company to
adidas America, Inc. and adidas International Marketing B.V. and substantially controls
the relevant acts of these and other adidas entities. In particular, adidas AG controls the
material decisions relating to research, development, and introduction of product lines
into the United States marketplace, including over the adidas Springblade, and also the
adizeo Primeknit Boost athletic shoes.
Case 3:14-cv-01586-MO
8.
Document 1
Filed 10/08/14
Page 4 of 54
On information and belief, during all relevant times, Defendant adidas AG
has had and continues to have substantial, systematic and continuing business operations
in the United States, and in particular, using as a place of business at least the
headquarters of adidas America, Inc. in Portland, Oregon.
9.
On information and belief, Defendants adidas AG and adidas International
Marketing B.V.'s officers, directors and executive management personnel have regularly
traveled to the United States and some have been stationed for extended periods of time
at the offices of adidas America, Inc. here in Portland, Oregon, during the period of
infringement complained of herein.
10.
On information and belief, Defendant adidas AG has used its and adidas
America, Inc.'s staff and facilities in Portland, Oregon, to design, develop, and test the
adidas Springblade and adizero Primeknit Boost athletic shoes.
11.
Defendant adidas AG has been and is a plaintiff in intellectual property
suits filed and pending in the district courts of the United States, and including the
District of Oregon. In particular, adidas AG and adidas America, Inc. have been
plaintiffs in numerous trademark suits filed in this Court.
12.
Defendant adidas International Marketing B.V. holds intellectual property
rights in its own name, including the adidas patents identified below. On information and
belief, adidas International Marketing B.V. directly or indirectly licenses those rights,
including the rights to the adidas patents identified herein to other adidas AG group
companies, including to adidas America, Inc.
13.
Defendant adidas International Marketing B.V. has at relevant times
managed the procurement, maintenance, licensing and/or enforcement of its intellectual
Case 3:14-cv-01586-MO
Document 1
Filed 10/08/14
Page 5 of 54
property rights via facilities and personnel located in Portland, Oregon and such activities
have been directed at benefitting adidas America, Inc. and its market in Oregon and the
United States.
14.
On information and belief, Defendant adidas International B.V. has
continuous and systematic activities in the United States and particularly in Portland,
Oregon. It regularly provides legal advice and assistance to adidas America, Inc.,
including advice relating to the relevant Lyden footwear patents and trademarks
identified herein and before the present suit.
15.
On information and belief, Defendant adidas International B.V. controls
and directs the actions of adidas staff located at facilities in Portland, Oregon, including
Miss Sara Vanderhoff stationed at adidas America, Inc., who reports to legal counsel for
adidas International B.V. and adidas AG, and in particular, Mr. Tim Behean.
16.
On information and belief, the adidas Defendants' in-house counsel for
adidas International B. V. and adidas AG, Behean, is believed to be working for at least
adidas International Marketing B. V ., and have made repeated trips to the United States,
and particularly to Portland, Oregon, from at least year 2000 to the present in order to
attend to matters related to the acquisition, procurement, licensing and/or enforcement of
intellectual property rights for adidas International Marketing B. V ., adidas America, Inc.,
and/or adidas AG.
17.
In 2004, Lyden negotiated an out of court settlement from Portland,
Oregon with Behean regarding adidas AG and adidas America, Inc. ' s infringement of
Lyden' s U.S. 6,243,880 relating to athletic shorts.
Case 3:14-cv-01586-MO
18.
Document 1
Filed 10/08/14
Page 6 of 54
In 2010, adidas AG become unresponsive to Lyden' s efforts to negotiate
and resolve a different patent infringement matter relating to the adidas Tunit soccer
shoe, and Lyden was forced to bring a patent suit regarding adidas Defendants'
infringement of four ofhis patents: U.S. 6,601 ,042, U.S. 7,016,86, U.S. 7,107,235, and
U.S. 7,752,775 in case no. 3:10-CV-1249-BR filed on October 12, 2010. Lyden and
adidas' legal representatives were later able to negotiate a settlement out of court in the
State of Oregon, and the case was dismissed on October 19, 2011.
19.
In 2012 and continuing to the present, Lyden has been defending in the
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (hereinafter "USPTO") his U.S. 8,209,883 which has
claims for knitted shoe uppers because adidas AG wished to launch its Primeknit athletic
shoe in the United States to compete with Nike, Inc.' commercially successful Flyknit
athletic shoes. In this regard, adidas AG requested on August 21 , 2012 and still continues
to sponsor an inter-partes reexamination of Lyden' s U.S. 8,209,883 which can be viewed
by using the USPTO PAIR system, and then searching Serial No. 95/ 002,094. A copy
ofthe "Patent Owner' s Rebuttal Brief' is provided and attached hereto as Exhibit 27.
20.
Lyden' s U.S. 8,209,883 is also presently being infringed by certain Nike,
Inc. "Flyknit" athletic shoe products as disclosed in pending case no. 3: 13-CV-00662-HZ
in this Court, which has been stayed pending the conclusion of the on-going
reexamination sponsored by adidas AG.
21.
On information and belief, in various other matters, in-house legal counsel
working for adidas International Marketing B.V. and business persons working for adidas
AG and/or adidas America, Inc. have negotiated various matters related to
intellectual property in whole or part in Portland, Oregon.
Case 3:14-cv-01586-MO
22.
Document 1
Filed 10/08/14
Page 7 of 54
On information and belief, the control over the relevant business affairs
and operations of adidas AG and/or adidas International Marketing B.V., and adidas
America, Inc., have been so blurred, intertwined, and indistinct that these entities may
be regarded as a single entity or actor largely under the control of adidas AG.
23.
On information and belief, Defendant The Finish Line, Inc. is a
corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Indiana, having its
principal place of business at 3308 N. Mitthoeffer Road, Indianapolis, Indiana 46235. In
this regard, The Finish Line, Inc. owns Finish Line, and also a Running Speciality Group
of retail stores.
24.
On information and belief, Defendant Foot Locker, Inc. is a corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the State ofNew York, having its principal
place ofbusiness at 112 West 34th Street, New York, NY 10120. In this regard, Foot
Locker, Inc owns not only various Foot Locker stores, but also subsidiaries including
Champs Sports, Footaction, and Eastbay retailers and/or online stores.
25.
On information and belief, Defendant Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. is a
corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, having its
principal place ofbusiness at 345 Court Street, Corapolis, PA 15108.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
26.
Plaintiff realleges and incorporates all of the factual allegations of the
preceding paragraphs 1-25.

27.
This action arises in part under the trademark laws ofthe United States,
and this Court has subject matter jurisdiction under section 39 of the Lanham Act, 15
Case 3:14-cv-01586-MO
Document 1
Filed 10/08/14
Page 8 of 54
U.S.C. 1121, and under 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1338. Subject matter jurisdiction over
Lyden's related state and common law claims is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1338
and 1367.
28.
This action also arises in part under the patent laws of the United States,
Title 35 of the United States Code. Accordingly, this Court has subject matter
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1338 (a), 2201 and 2202. The District of
Oregon is the proper venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b), 1391(c) and 1400(b)
because a substantial part of the acts or omissions giving rise to Lyden's claims occurred
in this District.
29.
This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because the
Defendants have and continue to conduct substantial business in this forum including: (i)
regularly doing or soliciting business, engaging in other persistent courses of conduct,
and /or deriving substantial revenue from goods and services provided to individuals in
the State of Oregon and in this Judicial District; and (ii) committing acts of trademark
and patent infringement and/or contributing to or inducing acts of trademark and patent
infringement by others in this Judicial District (and elsewhere in Oregon and the United
States); or, have otherwise made or established contacts within the State of Oregon
sufficient to permit the exercise of personal jurisdiction over Defendants.
BACKGROUND FACTS
30.
Plaintiffrealleges and incorporates all ofthe factual allegations ofthe
Case 3:14-cv-01586-MO
31.
Document 1
Filed 10/08/14
Page 9 of 54
The Plaintiff, Robert M. Lyden ("Lyden") has a history as an athlete,
coach, educator, and innovator. After receiving dual Masters' Degrees in History and
Public Administration from the University of Minnesota in 1982 and 1988, and being
certified as an educator to teach and coach K-12, he went on to coach and advise a
member of two U.S. Olympic teams in Track & Field. Lyden also authored a 464 page
book entitled "Distance Running," published in 2003. In connection with his work as an
innovator over several decades, Lyden is a named inventor on fifty-one issued U.S.
Patents, and has four patent applications pending. In order to provide some background
information, the resume of Lyden is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
32.
Lyden worked for Nike, Inc. between May, 1990 - September, 1998 as an
employee and consultant. He is a named inventor on eighteen Nike, Inc. patents, and
then contributed to the research and development of numerous successful footwear
products.
33.
Lyden has worked independently as an inventor and consultant from
September, 1998- present. During this period, Lyden was granted, e.g., U.S. 7,770,306,
U.S. 7,752,775, U.S. 7,107,235, U.S. 7,016,867, U.S. 6,601 ,042, and U.S. 6,449,878
which is attached hereto as Exhibit 2, and U.S. D507,094 which is attached hereto as
Exhibit 15, and filed pending U.S. Patent Application serial no. 13/465,021 which also
discloses and claims spring elements for use in articles of footwear (hereinafter
collectively referred to as the "Springshoe Patents"). Further, Lyden has been granted
Trademark Registration No. 3,629,011 for a spring element in the rearfoot area of
footwear and a copy is attached hereto as Exhibit 3, and also Trademark Registration No.
3,633,365 for a heel counter and spring element in the rearfoot area of footwear and a
Case 3:14-cv-01586-MO
Document 1
Filed 10/08/14
Page 10 of 54
copy is attached hereto as Exhibit 4 (hereinafter collectively referred to as the

"Springshoe Marks"). In addition, Lyden has been granted U.S. 8,209,883 attached
hereto as Exhibit 16, and a brief relevant excerpt is provided for convenience as Exhibit
19, and filed pending U.S. Patent Application serial no. 13/465,020 which also discloses
and claims knitted uppers for articles of footwear (hereinafter collectively referred to as
the "Knitted Upper Patents.")
34.
The present infringement of Lyden's U.S. 6,449,878, Exhibit 2, and
Springshoe Marks Nos. 3,629,011, and 3,633,365, Exhibits 3-4, and U.S. D507,094,
Exhibit 15, and U.S. 8,209,883, Exhibits 16 and 19, constitutes the latest twist in what
has become a pattern of improper conduct by adidas over the last decade. In this regard,
adidas has as a predatory method of doing business repeatedly chosen to willfully
infringe upon Lyden's patent and trademark rights and also interfered with his business
efforts.
35.
In 1999-2002, Lyden first disclosed to adidas his pending and issued
apparel and footwear patents including U.S. 6,449,878, and the company indicated that it
had no interest in his intellectual property.
36.
However, adidas began making athletic shorts in the Spring of2004 which
infringed upon Lyden's U.S. 6,243,880. Lyden contacted adidas in-house legal counsel
Mr. Tim Behean, and the matter was settled out of court in September, 2004. In the
course of Lyden's discussions and negotiations with adidas, Lyden disclosed his most
recently filed and issued footwear patents including U.S. 6,449,878, and a business plan
for his start-up company Q Branch, Inc. Lyden was then informed that adidas had no
interest in purchasing or licensing his intellectual property.
10
Case 3:14-cv-01586-MO
37.
Document 1
Filed 10/08/14
Page 11 of 54
On November 24, 2004, Lyden' s work on footwear was featured in the
article entitled "If The Shoe Fits" by Dave Fitzpatrick published in the Willamette Week
newspaper which included a photo showing Lyden holding a Springshoe, attached hereto
as Exhibit 5.
38.
In January 2005, Lyden was featured in the "SIJ Profile" article in the
Sustainable Industries Journal, attached hereto as Exhibit 17. This article included a
photo showing a point of purchase display that was designed and made by Lyden and
also his innovative Springshoes.
39.
Also in early 2005, adidas America Inc. ' s former CEO and worldwide
creative director of adidas AG, Mr. Peter Moore, visited Lyden at his home in Aloha,
Oregon, and tested several prototype walking and running shoes. Lyden provided Moore
with a copy of his business plan and also copies of his patents relating to athletic
footwear for review and a presentation to the acting CEO of adidas America, Inc.
However, Moore' s efforts proved unsuccessful and he later reported to Lyden that adidas
was not interested in purchasing or licensing Lyden' s intellectual property.
40.
On February 11 , 2005, Lyden' s work on footwear was featured in the
article entitled, "Dressed for Innovation" in the Portland Business Journal, attached
hereto as Exhibit 6. In this article, former adidas America Inc. ' s CEO Moore made
favorable comments about Lyden' s prototype shoes which he had viewed and tested. The
article indicated that Lyden was seeking investors for his start up company.
41.
In November 2005, approximately fourteen months after being told by
adidas' s legal counsel that the company had no interest in his footwear patents, and
nearly five years after the priority date ofthe relevant Lyden footwear patents, Lyden
11
Case 3:14-cv-01586-MO
Document 1
Filed 10/08/14
Page 12 of 54
learned that adidas was attempting to patent substantially some of the same subject matter
that Lyden previously offered to sell or license to adidas. The adidas patent application
of concern was U.S. patent application serial number 11/064,439, now U.S. 7,406,781 ,
filed February 23, 2005.
42.
After discovering the adidas' patent application, Lyden called the legal
counsel for adidas, Mr. Behean, and reminded him of the Lyden patents that contained
essentially the same subject matter. Lyden once again offered to license or sell his
intellectual property to adidas, but was informed that the company had no interest in
purchasing or licensing Lyden' s intellectual property.
43 .
Less than a year later, adidas starting making and selling the Tunit soccer
shoe which conflicted and/or infringed upon several of Lyden' s footwear patents and
patent applications which had previously been disclosed to adidas, and in particular, the
subject matter disclosed in Lyden' s U.S. 6,601 ,042, and later issued U.S. 7,016,867, and
u.s. 7,107,235.
44.
As shown on page 11 of the third amended complaint styled Lyden v.
adidas America, Inc. and adidas AG filed in this Court, case no. 3:10-CV-1249-BR on
October 12, 2010, attached hereto as Exhibit 7, the adidas Tunit soccer shoe as
commercialized was strikingly similar to Figure 38 in the relevant Lyden footwear
patents and which mapped one-to-one, in all material respects, to a cross-section of
adidas' model +F50.7 Tunit soccer shoe.
45.
adidas also continued to file and prosecute conflicting patents by
Wolfgang Scholz relating to the Tunit soccer shoe with the USPTO such as U.S.
7,406,781 and U.S. 7,730,637. In response, Lyden filed three protests against these two
12
Case 3:14-cv-01586-MO
Document 1
Filed 10/08/14
Page 13 of 54
adidas patents under 37 C.F.R. 1.291. However, only one of these three protests was
entered by the PTO during the prosecution of the two issued adidas patents, and it was
then the prerogative of adidas to enter the two protests. Despite Lyden's efforts to
convince adidas to be candid with the PTO, the company withheld and did not make
these two protests of record during the prosecution ofU.S. 7,406,781 and U.S. 7,730,637
in blatant violation of35 U.S.C. 111, and 37 C.F.R. 1.56.
46.
In 2007, Lyden had a conversation with Mr. AlVan Noy and Mr. Steve
Vincent who are directors of the adidas innovation team at adidas America, Inc. outside
the Blue Hour restaurant in Portland, Oregon. Lyden then discussed the merits of his
patents relating to the adidas Tunit soccer shoe, but also the Lyden Springshoe and the
possibility of making a formal presentation to adidas America, Inc. However, Lyden
was informed by VanNoy that adidas had an internal policy of not licensing or
purchasing intellectual property from outside the company.
47.
In April2008, Mr. Mikal Peveto, a former employee of adidas AG
presented Lyden's intellectual property portfolio to adidas AG' s Chief Marketing Officer
in charge of global footwear marketing Mr. Bernd Wahler and offered to license or sell
Lyden' s intellectual property to adidas AG. Peveto also later met personally with adidas
America Inc.'s President, Mr. Patrik Nilsson to present Lyden's patent portfolio and
discuss business opportunities. However, adidas did not wish to purchase or license
Lyden's intellectual property, but instead the company later hired Peveto as its own
Director of Running.
48.
Between 2005-2010, and with explicit knowledge of Lyden' s patents
covering the same subject matter, adidas heavily marketed in the United States and
13
Case 3:14-cv-01586-MO
Document 1
Filed 10/08/14
Page 14 of 54
globally the "revolutionary" technology of the Tunit soccer shoe during several World
and Euro Cups, and the 2008 Olympic Games.
49.
By September, 2010, adidas legal counsel had become completely
unresponsive to Lyden's efforts to sell or license his relevant footwear patents, and the
adidas Tunit soccer shoe was infringing upon four of Lyden' s utility patents, namely,
U.S. 6,601 ,042, U.S. 7,016,86, U.S. 7,107,235, and U.S. 7,752,775.
50.
Lyden then filed a complaint for patent infringement in the United States
District Court, District of Oregon, Portland Division case no. 3:10-CV-1249-BR on

October 12, 2010, and the third amended complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit 7. This
patent lawsuit was eventually settled out of court by the legal representatives of adidas
and Lyden, and the case was dismissed on October 19, 2011. However, Lyden later
discovered that at the very same time the Complaint over the adidas Tunit soccer shoe
was being negotiated and settled, adidas was already at work. .. on the next and several
potential patent infringements.
51.
On December 14, 2010, adidas had filed a conflicting patent application
Serial No. 12/967,974 by Lucas et al. for an article of footwear having spring elements
published by the USPTO as U.S. 2011/0138652 on June 16, 2011 , and a copy is attached
hereto as Exhibit 8. Further, consistent with adidas' previous improper behavior in
filing for patents knocking off the earlier Lyden patents relating to adidas' infringing
Tunit soccer shoes, the company again failed to disclose to the examiner handling the
Lucas et al. patent application the prior art patents of Lyden. Instead, the patent
examiner found some of Lyden's patents and made them of record. At this time, the
patent application by Lucas et al. has received a final rejection, and although a
14
Case 3:14-cv-01586-MO
Document 1
Filed 10/08/14
Page 15 of 54
continuation application has been filed, it has also received a non-final rejection, as
shown in the provided copy of the relevant file wrapper history, attached hereto as
Exhibit 9.
52.
In February, 2012, Nike, Inc. launched the Flyknit shoe upper in New
York City. An excerpt ofNike's presentation on February 21, 2012 can be found on
YOUTUBE in the video entitled ''Nike Innovation Summit NYC 2012":
http://youtu.be/WSLrHo3BHVO
53.
adidas countered this Nike, Inc. initiative by introducing the Primeknit
shoe upper in June, 2012. In this regard, the Court's attention is respectfully directed to
the article entitled: "It's a Seamless Revolution: Adidas Follows Nike Flyknit with
Primeknit'' by Eric Siemers, Portland Business Journal, July 26, 2012, a copy being
attached hereto as Exhibit 10.
54.
In contrast with the "first-of-its-kind running shoe" misrepresentation
found in the adidas press statement quoted in Exhibit 10, the company had prior
knowledge and possession of Lyden relevant patent information relating to knitted shoe
uppers which Lyden had earlier filed with the USPTO. For example, Lyden's pending
patent application serial no. 10/279,626 filed on October, 24, 2002 which later matured as
U.S. 7,107,235 contained relevant information on knitted shoe uppers and it had been
provided to adidas for review at least as early as September, 2004.
55.
Furthermore, the intellectual property portfolio of Lyden including the
relevant disclosure of knitted shoe uppers had been pitched by Mr. Peveto to several
adidas executives in April, 2008, as recited in the previous Lyden complaint case no.
3:10-CV-1249-BR, Exhibit 7, on pages 11-12. In this regard, the knitted shoe upper
15
Case 3:14-cv-01586-MO
Document 1
Filed 10/08/14
Page 16 of 54
component was a key part of the Lyden' s plans to make customizable shoes on demand
and to bring footwear manufacturing back to the United States.
56.
Accordingly, it is not the case that individuals working in research and
development at adidas were the first to spontaneously and independently come up with
the knitted footwear upper concept behind the so-called Primeknit shoe "about three
years ago" as represented in the Portland Business Journal article, Exhibit 10.
57.
Lyden had previously entered into an "Intellectual Property and Prototype
Agreement" with Nike, Inc. on March 4, 2002, a copy being attached hereto as Exhibit
11. In accordance with the terms of the Agreement, Lyden disclosed his Patent
Application serial no. 10/279,626 which contained information on knitted uppers and
later matured as U.S. 7,107,235 to Nike, Inc. shortly after it was filed on October 24,
2002. In this regard, Lyden' s patents and patent applications were provided to Nike, Inc.
between March and October, 2002 on a non-confidential basis, thus the information was
in effect published. Accordingly, the Lyden patents and patent applications would then
constitute relevant prior art regarding any later filed patent applications ofNike, Inc. or
adidas which could be directed to like subject matter.
58.
On December 11 , 2002, Lyden was informed that Nike, Inc. was not
interested in purchasing or licensing his intellectual property.

59.
However, several years later Lyden discovered that Nike, Inc. had actually
filed a patent application directed to the same subject matter one week later on December
18, 2002 which later matured as U.S. 6,931,762, as well as other patents directed to
knitted shoe uppers.
16
Case 3:14-cv-01586-MO
60.
Document 1
Filed 10/08/14
Page 17 of 54
Aware ofNik:e, Inc. ' s many later filed and conflicting patent applications,
Lyden has maintained a priority claim to his earlier parent patent applications, and was
granted U.S. 8,209,883 with Claims 1-42 directed to certain knitted upper structures on
July 3, 2012.
61.
Given Lyden' s awareness of the numerous later filed patents by Nike, Inc.
directed to the subject of knitted shoe uppers, he attempted to warn adidas about their
existence. Further, given the fact that adidas does not have any pending or issued patents
relating to the company's Primeknit competitive response to Nike, Inc.'s Flyknit athletic
shoe, Lyden felt that it could be in the mutual interest of adidas and himself to enter into
a business relationship. Accordingly, Lyden offered to sell or license his relevant
footwear patents to adidas in May, 2012.
62.
Apparently unwilling to enter into a business agreement and/or afraid of
the possibility that Lyden might sue adidas over the Primeknit shoe, which is something
he had not threatened to do, adidas then responded by filing on August 21 , 2012 and then
sending to Lyden by U.S. mail a copy of an inter partes request for a reexamination of
his U.S. 8,209,883.
63 .
As Lyden had predicted and warned adidas, Nike, Inc. filed a patent
lawsuit against adidas over the Primeknit shoe and was granted a preliminary injunction
by a German court on September 24, 2012, but the decision was later reversed. At this
time, the present status of the Nike, Inc. v. adidas AG case is unknown to the Plaintiff.
64.
In response to Nike, Inc. ' s lawsuit over the Primeknit shoe in Germany,
adidas filed for a reexamination ofNike, Inc. ' s U.S. 7,347,011 by Dua et al. in the United
17
Case 3:14-cv-01586-MO
Document 1
Filed 10/08/14
Page 18 of 54
States, that is, in addition to the present ongoing inter partes reexamination of Lyden' s
U.S. 8,209,883.
65.
The adidas sponsored reexamination ofNike' s U.S. 7,347,011 by Dua et
al. has resulted in the Dua et al. patent being invalidated by the Patent Trial And Appeal
Board in the final written decision on April 28, 2014, and this can be seen by reviewing
the case which is identified as IPR 2013-00067 filed on November 29, 2012.
66.
With the Nike, Inc. patent by Dua et al. out of the way, adidas did not
wait for the outcome of the pending reexamination of Lyden' s U.S. 8,209,883, but
instead offered and began to sell its adizero Primeknit Boost athletic shoe here in
Portland, Oregon sometime between July 13, 2014 and August 1, 2014.
In this regard,
adidas' s adizero Primeknit Boost can be seen on their website: www.adidas.com by

searching for "adizero Primeknit Boost," and an image of the shoe is provided below:
18
Case 3:14-cv-01586-MO
67.
Document 1
Filed 10/08/14
Page 19 of 54
On August 1, 2013, adidas had previously begun to sell the Springblade
shoe in the United States, and information on the Springblade shoe can been seen on the
www.adidas.com website by searching for "Springblade, and relevant information and
images are attached hereto as Exhibit 12.
68.
A lateral side view image of the adidas Springblade shoe is provided
69.
The significance of adidas' commercialization of the Springblade shoe has
below:
been widely discussed in the news media, e.g., "Springblade Is adidas' Single Most
Important Running Shoe," by Daren Heitner, www.forbes.com, July 29, 2013, attached
hereto as Exhibit 13. In this article, Mr. Peveto who is the Director of Running for
adidas is quoted as saying:
"It is the single most important thing we' ve done."
19
Case 3:14-cv-01586-MO
Document 1
Filed 10/08/14
Page 20 of 54
"We are relying on these shoes beyond just the fmancials. It is

important because every single employee will know what our
platform and future is. It gives us a sense of purpose, a future: we
don't have to worry what the next thing will be. We have our thing
and that' s energy running."
"3 out of every 10 pairs of shoes sold are running shoes .. .it is the
cash cow for the industry as far as reach and depth."
"Unlike other categories that are very icon driven, we don't have
that same formula in running. What drives the running business is
innovation-what you uniquely bring to runner has a benefit."
70.
However, as discussed above certain innovative footwear structures
associated with the adidas Springblade shoe had been previously disclosed to adidas by
Lyden, and several other individuals who had acted on his behalf including former adidas
America, Inc. CEO, Peter Moore, and Mikal Peveto between 2005-2009. In this regard,
the information that was disclosed to adidas included, but was not limited to: the pending
patent application which matured as U.S. 7,770,306; the pending patent application
which matured as U.S. 7,752,775; U.S. 6,449,878 (Exhibit 2); D507,094 (Exhibit 15);
images consistent with Trademark Registration No. 3,629,011 (Exhibit 3); images
consistent with Trademark Registration No. 3,633,365 (Exhibit 4); images of two
Springshoe point of purchase displays made by Lyden which are attached hereto as
Exhibit 18; images of many Springshoe concept drawings, prototypes, shoes, and various
components which are attached hereto as Exhibit 20; an earlier version of the business
plan written by Lyden for his small business start-up company Q Branch, Inc. similar to
the one dated October 21 , 2010 which is provided and attached hereto as Exhibit 21 ; and,
three Springshoe ads that were created by Peveto on Lyden's behalf prior to his becoming
the Director of Running for adidas, which are attached hereto as Exhibit 22.
20
Case 3:14-cv-01586-MO
71.
Document 1
Filed 10/08/14
Page 21 of 54
Lyden has offered to sell or license his relevant intellectual property to
adidas repeatedly over the past decade and earlier this year in 2014. However, adidas has
become completely non-responsive on this subject.
72.
As discussed herein, adidas has intimate knowledge of Lyden' s
intellectual property, and so adidas' infringement of Lyden' s intellectual property has

been and continues to be a willful.
73.
On information and belief, adidas' legal counsel Mr. Behean, is not a
licensed or registered patent agent or patent attorney of the United States or any other
country and so he was not competent to render legal opinion regarding infringement of
Lyden' s U.S. 6,449,878, U.S. D507,094, and U.S. 8,209,883. Further, upon information
and belief, Behean is not a licensed or registered trademark attorney of the United States,
and so he was not competent to render a legal opinion regarding infringement of the
Lyden Springshoe Marks. On information and belief, Behean would have need to rely on
the opinion of Mr. Stephen Feldman of the firm Perkins Coie located in Portland, Oregon
who serves as legal counsel on matters relating to trademarks for adidas in the United
States, and other legal counsel.
74.
A brief overview of adidas' conduct regarding Lyden's intellectual
property between 2004-2014 is provided in the concluding paragraph of this factual

background section for the sake of convenience. adidas began infringing Lyden' s U.S.
6,243,880 for athletic shorts, but settled the matter out of court in September, 2004.
Between 2005-2010, adidas willfully infringed upon Lyden' s U.S. 6,601 ,042, U.S.
7,016,86, U.S. 7,107,235, and U.S. 7,752,775, but refused to purchase or license Lyden' s
patents. When adidas became completely unresponsive, Lyden filed case no. 3:10-CV-
21
Case 3:14-cv-01586-MO
Document 1
Filed 10/08/14
Page 22 of 54
1249-BR in this Court on October 12, 2010. Lyden and adidas' legal representatives later
negotiated a settlement out of court, and the case was dismissed on October 19, 2011.
However, given the lead time associated with the development of commercial products
adidas was then already busy with making preparations for the next infringement of
Lyden' s intellectual property rights in connection with the Springblade shoe that was
launched in August, 2013. In this regard, the adidas Springblade shoe is believed to
infringe upon Lyden's U.S. 6,449,878 and U.S. D507,094, but also his Trademark
Registration No. 3,629,011 for a spring element in the rearfoot area of footwear, and
Trademark Registration No. 3,633,365 for a heel counter and spring element in the
rearfoot area of footwear (the "Springshoe Marks"). Moreover, adidas began selling the
adizero Prime Boost in the United States on or before August 1, 2014 which is believed
to infringe upon Lyden' s U.S. 8,209,883. Accordingly, this comes to a grand total of
eight patent and two trademark infringements by adidas regarding Lyden' s intellectual
property over the past decade. On information and belief, the willful and repeated
predatory actions of the adidas Defendants constitutes a pattern of activity and the
company has infringed upon Lyden' s intellectual property ...as a way of doing business.
TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT
75.

76.
For over a decade, Lyden has made, sold, and promoted footwear bearing
his own Federal Trademark Registration No. 3,629,011 for a spring element in the
22
Case 3:14-cv-01586-MO
Document 1
Filed 10/08/14
Page 23 of 54
rearfoot area of footwear, and also Trademark Registration No. 3,633,365 for a heel
counter and spring element in the rearfoot area of footwear (the "Springshoe Marks").
77.
Lyden has also offered his intellectual property relating to footwear and
including the Springshoe Marks for licensing or sale to existing companies in the
footwear industry. In this regard, Lyden has offered to license or sell his footwear
patents and the Springshoe Marks to adidas many times over the past decade and earlier
this year in 2014.
78.
The efforts of Lyden to sell his Springshoe Marks to adidas and other
members of the footwear industry constitutes a commercial use of the trademarks. For
example, in Panavision Int'l, L.P. v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316, 1325, (9th Cir. 1998) the
court held that Toeppen's commercial use was his attempt to sell the trademarks
themselves, and see also in Intermatic Inc. v. Teoppen, 947 F.Supp. 1227, 1230, (N.D. Ill.
1996).
79.
Mr. Toeppen was an opportunist who purchased domain names
corresponding to existing companies, and then offered to sell the internet domains to the
affected businesses.
80.
In contrast, Lyden coached an Olympian in track & field, wrote a book
entitled "Distance Running," and has worked in the footwear and sporting goods industry
for over 25 years. He was associated with 18 patents for advanced articles of footwear
as an employee and consultant to Nike, Inc. between 1990-1998. Lyden has since
worked independently and is presently a named inventor on 51 patents. He has sought to
obtain investors for his own a start-up company, but an alternative, and in particular,
when infringement of his intellectual property has taken place, Lyden has offered to
23
Case 3:14-cv-01586-MO
Document 1
Filed 10/08/14
Page 24 of 54
license or sell his intellectual property to other existing members of the footwear industry
and including adidas.
81.
adidas has responded to Lyden' s business efforts by repeatedly infringing
his patents and/or trademarks over the past decade, and Nike, Inc. is also infringing
Lyden's U.S. 8,209,883 as disclosed in case no. 3:13-CV-00662-HZ in this Court.
82.
Lyden has on more than on occasion been informed by adidas' in-house
legal counsel Behean that the company does not have an interest in his intellectual
property, and has instead adopted a policy to generate innovation inside of the company
rather than to license or purchase outside inventions. Lyden has no issue with adidas
having such a policy. However, the actual conduct and pattern of adidas over the past
decade has been to repeatedly knock off Lyden' s patents and/or trademarks, and to
infringe ... as a predatory method of doing business.
83.
In blatant disregard and in despite adidas' knowledge of Lyden's rights in
the Springshoe Marks, adidas is designing, sourcing, manufacturing, importing,

distributing, marketing, promoting, offering for sale, and selling through its own website
www.adidas.com and retail stores, but also via other third party Retail Defendants, e.g.,
The Finish Line, Inc., Foot Locker, Inc. and Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc., the infringing
Springblade footwear which include confusingly similar imitations of Lyden's Springshoe
Marks. An image of the adidas Springblade has been provided above on page 19, and the
aforementioned Lyden Springshoe Marks are shown on pages 26 and 27 below, and also
attached as Exhibits 3 and 4.
84.
Defendants' footwear is not manufactured by Lyden, nor are Defendants
connected, affiliated, or associated with, or authorized by Lyden in any way. Defendants'
24
Case 3:14-cv-01586-MO
Document 1
Filed 10/08/14
Page 25 of 54
merchandise is likely to cause conswner confusion, deceive the public regarding its
source, and dilute and tarnish the distinctive quality of Lyden's Springshoe Marks.
85.
Accordingly, this is an action at law and in equity for trademark infringement
and dilution, unfair competition, and unfair business practices, arising under the Trademark
Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq. (2009) ("Lanham Act"); the anti-dilution laws of
several states; the unfair business practices and unfair and deceptive trade practices acts of
several states; and the common law.
86.
At least as early as 2002, Lyden began using the Springshoe Marks on
footwear made and sold in the United States. The Springshoe Marks are associated with
the source, quality and reputation of Lyden' s footwear. In this regard, a newspaper
article entitled "If The Shoe Fits," by Dave Fitzpatrick published by the Willamette Week
on November 24, 2004 showing Lyden holding an article of footwear incorporating a
Springshoe Mark is attached hereto as Exhibit 5. Lyden' s work on Springshoe footwear
was also featured in the article entitled, "Dressed for Innovation," in the Portland
Business Journal, on February 11 , 2005, which includes a photo showing a point of
purchase display with several Springshoes, attached hereto as Exhibit 6.
87.
On information and belief, there are no articles of footwear for sale in the
United States that can even remotely be held to resemble the Springshoes and
Springshoe Marks of Lyden with the exception of the infringing Springblade shoes of the
adidas Defendants.
88.
Lyden is the owner ofFederal Trademark Registration No. 3,629,011
issued by the PTO on May 26, 2009 for a spring element in the rearfoot area of footwear
depicted below covering articles of footwear, and a copy of the Certificate of Registration
for this mark is attached hereto as Exhibit 3.
25
Case 3:14-cv-01586-MO
Document 1
Filed 10/08/14
Page 26 of 54
Int. Cl.: 25
Prior
u.s. as.: 22 and 39
Reg. No. 3,629,011
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Registered i\'l.ay 26. 2009
TRADEIVIARK
SUPPLEiVlE!VfAL REGISTER
LYDEN. ROBERT M. (UNITED STATES IN DIVIDUAL)
18261 S.W. FALLATIN LOOP
T HE 0\.L-\RK CO);SISTS OF .-'< HEEL COL");TER

Ai\: D SP RJ );G ELnJE);T I:-: THE RE.\RFOOT
AREA OF FOOTWEAR.
A LOHA. OR 97007
FOR: FOOT\VEA R, IN CLASS 25 (V .S. CLS. 21 AND
39}.
FIRST l:SE 12-3 1-2002.; 11': COM\IERCE
89.
SER. ::--:0.
-7-.310.9:'~.
FILED P.R. !f;-:3-:007: .-\:-.1.
S.R. 3-25-2009.
1~-31 -2002.
Lyden is also the owner of Federal Trademark Registration No. 3,633,365
issued by the PTO on June 2, 2009 for a heel counter and spring element in the rearfoot
area of footwear depicted below covering articles of footwear, and a copy of the
Certificate of Registration for this mark is attached as Exhibit 4.
26
Case 3:14-cv-01586-MO
Document 1
Filed 10/08/14
Page 27 of 54
Int. 0.: 25
Prior U.S. Cis.: 22 and 39
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Reg. No. 3,633,365

Registered June 2, 2009
TRADEMARK
SUPPLEMEl\lJ'AL REGISTER
'
\
' t.'~- ,,-' -.:. .--. -: -;;

- ---' --- -.1
I
'----~--
LYDEN , ROBERT M. {UNITED STATES lNDJVIDUAL)

18261 S.W. FALLAT11\ LOOP
ALOHA. OR 97007
fO R: FOOTWEAR, TN CLASS 25 (C.S. CLS. 22 AND
39).
FIRST CSE 12-31-2002; TN COMMERCE 12-31-2002.
90.
THE MARK CO:-:STSTS OF A SPRDiG ELEMENT

fN THE RE.->..RFOOT ARE-\ OF FOOTWEAR.
SER. }10_77-310.939. FILED P.R.

S.R. 4-.27-2009.
SU 1G rN.
10-~3-:!007:
AM .
EXA~IJ?\J:'(G ATTOR~"EY
Lyden has offered to license and sell his intellectual property relating to
the sporting goods industry and including the Springshoe Marks to adidas and other
companies in the footwear industry numerous times over the last decade, and including
earlier this year in 2014.
91.
Accordingly, Lyden's Springshoe Marks have been known to adidas, as
well as other companies doing business in the footwear industry, and members of the
general public for many years.
92.
The Springshoe Marks are nonfunctional, and members of the public and
footwear industry recognize and understand that the Springshoe Marks distinguish and
identify Lyden's merchandise. Indeed, the media coverage provided in the article entitled
27
Case 3:14-cv-01586-MO
Document 1
Filed 10/08/14
Page 28 of 54
"Dressed for Innovation" published in the Portland Business Journal, February 11 , 2005,
attached hereto as Exhibit 6, referred to Lyden's Springshoe on the second page of the
article with the bolded highline: "Unique look could help sell new products." The article
quoted Mr. Peter Moore, the former CEO of adidas America, Inc. who stated:
"One thing about Rob' s shoes is that they have a unique look.
It may or may not be fash ionable, but at least its different."
The same article also quoted E. C. (''Ned") Frederick who was the first lab director for Nike,
Inc. and who also served as an expert witness for adidas in the recent reexamination ofNike,
Inc. ' s U.S. 7,347,011 by Dua et al. (discussed
above, ~
64-65) who stated:
"Lyden' s shoes are dramatically different...

They look different, feel different."
93.
As a result of Lyden's use, promotion, and offering for sale of the
Springshoe Marks, Lyden has built up and now owns valuable goodwill that is
symbolized by the mark. In this regard, members of the footwear industry and the public
have come to associate the Springshoe Marks with Lyden.
94.
adidas was familiar with Lyden's Springshoe Marks when it began
designing, manufacturing, sourcing, importing, distributing, marketing, promoting,

offering for sale, and/or selling the Springshoe footwear identified in this Complaint. On
further information and belief, the adidas Defendants intentionally adopted and used
confusingly similar imitations of the Springshoe Marks knowing that they would mislead
and deceive others into believing that the infringing footwear was produced, authorized,
or licensed by Lyden who is known by members of the footwear industry and public to
hold numerous Springshoe Patents and related Springshoe Marks. Accordingly, the
Defendants have obtained and will continue to enjoy a "scarecrow" free-rider advantage
28
Case 3:14-cv-01586-MO
Document 1
Filed 10/08/14
Page 29 of 54
in the competitive marketplace at the expense of Lyden' s prior inventive efforts and the
time and expense he has invested in obtaining his intellectual property portfolio including
the relevant Springshoe Patents and Springshoe Marks. Obviously, this is not how the
patent and trademark systems, and body of laws for protecting intellectual property is
supposed to work in the United States.
95.
The infringing Springblade footwear designed, manufactured, sourced,
imported, distributed, marketed, promoted, offered for sale, and/or sold by Defendants is
not manufactured by Lyden. Nor are Defendants associated or connected with Lyden, or
licensed, authorized, sponsored, endorsed, or approved by Lyden in any way.
96.
Lyden used the Springshoe Marks continuously before the adidas
Defendants began designing, manufacturing, sourcing, importing, distributing, marketing,

promoting, offering for sale, and/or selling confusingly similar imitations of Lyden's
footwear, and also before the other Retail Defendants The Finish Line, Inc., Foot Locker,
Inc., and Dick' s Sporting Goods, Inc. began distributing, marketing, promoting, offering
for sale, and/or selling adidas' infringing Springblade footwear.
97.
The infringing Springblade footwear sold by Defendants is similar to, and
competes with the Springshoe made, sold, and being offered for sale by Lyden, and the
parties' products are offered in overlapping channels of trade.
98.
Defendants' use, offer for sale, and sale of confusingly similar imitations of
Lyden' s Springshoe Marks is likely to deceive, confuse, and mislead purchasers and
prospective purchasers into believing that the infringing Springblade footwear sold by
Defendants is manufactured by, authorized by, or in some manner associated with Lyden,
which it is not. The likelihood of confusion, mistake, and deception engendered by
Defendants' misappropriation ofLyden's Springshoe Marks is causing irreparable harm to
29
Case 3:14-cv-01586-MO
Document 1
Filed 10/08/14
Page 30 of 54
the goodwill symbolized by the Springshoe Marks and the reputation for quality and
related intellectual property protection that they embody.
99.
Defendants' activities are likely to cause confusion before, during, and
after the time of purchase because purchasers, prospective purchasers, and others viewing
the infringing Springblade footwear at the point of sale or on a wearer are likely - due to
the use of confusingly similar imitations of the Springshoe Marks - to mistakenly
attribute the product to Lyden. This is damaging with respect to those people who
perceive a defect or lack of quality in Defendants' products. By causing such a likelihood
of confusion, mistake, and deception, Defendants are inflicting irreparable harm on the
goodwill symbolized by the Springshoe Marks and the reputation for quality they
embody.
100.
On information and belief, Defendants continue to use, offer for sale, and
sell confusingly similar imitations of Lyden's Springshoe Marks in connection with the
sale of footwear that compe~es with footwear manufactured and sold by Lyden.
Defendants began using, offering for sale, and selling the Infringing Footwear well after
Lyden had established protectable rights in his Springshoe Marks and well after the
Springshoe Marks had become known to members of the footwear industry and public.
101.
On information and belief, adidas Defendants knowingly, willfully,
intentionally, and maliciously adopted and used confusingly similar imitations of Lyden's
Springshoe Marks.
102.
On information and belief, the Retail Defendants The Finish Line, Inc., Foot
Locker, Inc., and Dick' s Sporting Goods, Inc. have and continue to offer for sale and sell
confusingly similar imitations ofLyden' s Springshoe Marks manufactured by adidas.
30
Case 3:14-cv-01586-MO
Document 1
Filed 10/08/14
Page 31 of 54
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Federal Trademark Infringement)
103.
Plaintiffrealleges and incorporates all ofthe factual allegations ofthe

104.
adidas Defendants are designing, manufacturing, sourcing, importing,
distributing, marketing, promoting, offering for sale, and/or selling footwear in interstate
commerce bearing confusingly similar imitations of Lyden's Springshoe Marks, and Retail
Defendants The Finish Line, Inc., Foot Locker, Inc., and Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc., on
information and belief, are distributing, marketing, promoting, offering for sale, and/or
selling in interstate commerce adidas Defendants' infringing Springblade footwear
bearing confusingly similar imitations of Lyden' s Springshoe Marks.
105.
Defendants' use, offer for sale, and sale in commerce of confusingly
similar imitations of Lyden's Springshoe Marks, as described in this Complaint, is likely

to cause confusion, deception, and mistake by creating the false and misleading
impression that Defendants' products are manufactured, produced, distributed, endorsed,
sponsored, approved, or licensed by Lyden, or are otherwise associated or connected with
Lyden.
106.
Defendants have used a mark confusingly similar to Lyden's federally
registered Springshoe Marks in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1114. Defendants' activities

have caused and, unless enjoined by this Court, will continue to cause a likelihood of
confusion and deception of members of the trade and public, and, additionally, injury to
Lyden's goodwill and reputation as symbolized by the registered Springshoe Marks, for
which Lyden has no adequate remedy at law.
31
Case 3:14-cv-01586-MO
107.
Document 1
Filed 10/08/14
Page 32 of 54
adidas Defendants' actions demonstrate an intentional, willful, and
malicious intent to trade on the goodwill associated with Lyden's federally registered
Springshoe Marks to Lyden's great and irreparable injury.
108.
Defendants have caused and are likely to continue causing substantial
injury to the public and to Lyden, and Lyden is entitled to injunctive relief and to recover
Defendants' profits, actual damages, enhanced profits and damages, costs, and reasonable
attorneys' fees under 15 U.S.C. 1114, 1116, and 1117.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Federal Unfair Competition)
109.
preceding paragraphs 1-1 08.

110.
Defendants' use, offer for sale, and sale of confusingly similar imitations
of Lyden's Springshoe Marks, as described in this Complaint, has caused and is likely to
cause confusion, deception, and mistake by creating the false and misleading impression
that the infringing Springblade footwear is manufactured or distributed by Lyden, is
affiliated, connected, or associated with Lyden, or has the sponsorship, endorsement, or
approval of Lyden.
111 .
Defendants have made false representations, false descriptions, and false
designations of Defendants' goods in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1125(a). Defendants'

activities have caused and, unless enjoined by this Court, will continue to cause a
likelihood of confusion and deception of members of the trade and public, as well as
32
Case 3:14-cv-01586-MO
Document 1
Filed 10/08/14
Page 33 of 54
injury to Lyden's goodwill and reputation as symbolized by the Lyden Springshoe Marks,
for which Lyden has no adequate remedy at law.
112.
malicious intent to trade on the goodwill associated with Lyden's Springshoe Marks to
the great and irreparable injury of Lyden.
113.
Defendants' conduct has caused, and is likely to continue causing,
substantial injury to the public and to Lyden. Lyden is entitled to injunctive relief and to
recover Defendants' profits, actual damages, enhanced profits and damages, costs, and
reasonable attorneys' fees under 15 U.S.C. 1125(a), 1116, and 1117.
TillRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices)
114.

115.
adidas Defendants have been, and currently are, passing offLyden's goods
as those of Defendants', causing a likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding as to the

source, sponsorship, or approval of Defendants' goods, causing a likelihood of confusion
as to Defendants' affiliation, connection, or association with Lyden, and otherwise
damaging Lyden and the consuming public. adidas Defendants' conduct and contribution
and inducement of Retail Defendants' conduct constitutes unfair and deceptive acts or
practices in the course of a business, trade, or commerce in violation of the unfair and
deceptive trade practices statutes of several states, including California, CAL. BUS. &
PROF. CODE 17200, et seq. (West 2009); Colorado, COLO. REV. STAT. ANN. 6-1-
33
Case 3:14-cv-01586-MO
Document 1
Filed 10/08/14
Page 34 of 54
101 to 6-1-115 (West 2009); Delaware, DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 6, 2531 to 2536 (2009);
Georgia, GA. CODE ANN. 10-1-370 to 10-1-375 (2009); Hawaii, HAW. REV. STAT.
481A-1 to 481A-5 (2009); Illinois, ILL. COMP. STAT. ANN. ch. 815,510/1 to 510/7
(2009); Maine, ME. REV. STAT. ANN. tit. 10, 1211 to 1216 (West 2009); Minnesota,
MINN. STAT. ANN. 325D.43 to .48 (West2009); Nebraska, NEB. REV. STAT. 87301 to 87-306 (2009); New Mexico, N.M. STAT. ANN. 57-12-1 to 57-12-22 (Michie
2009); New York, N.Y. GEN. BUS. Law 349 (McKinney 2009); Ohio, OHIO REV.
CODE ANN. 4165.01 to 4165.04 (Baldwin 2009); and Oklahoma, OKLA. STAT.
ANN. tit. 78, 51 to 55 (West 2009).
116.
Defendants' unauthorized use, offer for sale, and sale of confusingly
similar imitations of Lyden's Springshoe Marks has caused and is likely to cause
substantial injury to the public and to Lyden. Lyden is entitled to injunctive relief and to
recover damages, and, if appropriate, punitive damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys'
fees.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Common Law Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition)
117.

118.
Defendants' acts constitute common law trademark infringement and
unfair competition, and have created and will continue to create, unless restrained by this
Court, a likelihood of confusion to the irreparable injury of Lyden. Lyden has no
adequate remedy at law for this injury.
34
Case 3:14-cv-01586-MO
119.
Document 1
Filed 10/08/14
Page 35 of 54
On information and belief, adidas Defendants acted with full knowledge
of Lyden's use of, and statutory and common law rights to, the Springshoe Marks, and
without regard to the likelihood of confusion of the public created by adidas Defendants'
activities.
120.
malicious intent to trade on the goodwill associated with Lyden's Springshoe Marks to
the great and irreparable injury of Lyden.
121.
As a result ofDefendants' acts of trademark infringement, Lyden has been
damaged in an amount not yet determined or ascertainable. At a minimum, however,

Lyden is entitled to injunctive relief, an accounting of Defendants' profits, damages, and
costs. Further, in light of the deliberately fraudulent and malicious use of confusingly
similar imitations of Lyden's Springshoe Marks, and the need to deter adidas Defendants
from engaging in similar conduct in the future, adidas Defendants merit the imposition of
punitive damages.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Federal Trademark Dilution)
122.

123.
For over a decade, Lyden has exclusively and continuously promoted and
used the registered Springshoe Marks both in the United States and throughout the world.
The Springshoe Marks, therefore, had become a well-known symbol of Lyden and his
product in the footwear industry and to other members of the public well before the
35
Case 3:14-cv-01586-MO
Document 1
Filed 10/08/14
Page 36 of 54
adidas Defendants designed, sourced, manufactured, imported, distributed, marketed,

promoted, offered for sale, and/or sold the footwear identified in this Complaint, and,
additionally, well before the Retail Defendants The Finish Line, Inc., Foot Locker, Inc.,
and Dick' s Sporting Goods, Inc. distributed, marketed, promoted, offered for sale, and/or
sold adidas' infringing Springblade footwear.
124.
Defendants are making use of, offering for sale, and selling in commerce a
mark that dilutes and is likely to dilute the distinctiveness of Lyden' s Springshoe Marks
by eroding the public's exclusive identification of the Springshoe Marks with Lyden,
tarnishing and degrading the positive associations and connotations of the Springshoe
Marks, and otherwise lessening the capacity of the Springshoe Marks to identify and
distinguish Lyden' s goods.
125.
adidas' actions demonstrate an intentional, willful, and malicious intent to
trade on the goodwill associated with Lyden's Springshoe Marks or to cause dilution of
the Springshoe Marks to the great and irreparable injury of Lyden.
126.
Defendants have caused and will continue to cause irreparable injury to
Lyden's goodwill and business reputation, and dilution of the distinctiveness and value of
Lyden's Springshoe Marks in violation of 15 U.S .C. 1125(c). Lyden therefore is entitled
to injunctive relief and to Defendants' profits, actual damages, enhanced profits and
damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees under 15 U.S.C. 1125(c), 1116, and 1117.
36
Case 3:14-cv-01586-MO
Document 1
Filed 10/08/14
Page 37 of 54
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(State Trademark Dilution and Injury to Business Reputation)
127.
Plaintiffrealleges and incorporates all ofthe factual allegations of the

128.
Lyden has continuously promoted and used the registered Lyden
Springshoe Marks both in the United States and throughout the world, and the Springshoe
Marks had thereby become a distinctive, and well-known symbol of Lyden's goods and
services well before adidas Defendants designed, sourced, manufactured, imported,
distributed, marketed, promoted, offered for sale, and/or sold the footwear identified in
this Complaint, and, additionally, well before Retail Defendants The Finish Line, Inc.,
Foot Locker, Inc. , and Dick' s Sporting Goods, Inc. distributed, marketed, promoted,
offered for sale, and/or sold adidas Defendants' infringing Springblade footwear.
129.
Defendants' unauthorized imitations of Lyden' s Springshoe Marks, and
offer for sale and sale of the same, dilute and are likely to dilute the distinctiveness of
Lyden's Springshoe Marks by eroding the public's identification of this known mark with
Lyden, and tarnishing and degrading the positive associations and connotations of the
Marks, and otherwise lessening the capacity of the Marks to identify and distinguish
Lyden's goods and services.
130.
Defendants are causing and will continue to cause irreparable injury to
Lyden's goodwill and business reputation, and dilution ofthe distinctiveness and value of
Lyden's Springshoe Marks in violation ofthe Oregon anti-dilution statute, O.R.S. 647.107
(2009), as well as the anti-dilution laws of several other states, including Alabama, ALA.
CODE 8-12-17 (2009); Alaska, ALASKA STAT. 45.50.180 (Michie 2009); Arizona,
37
Case 3:14-cv-01586-MO
Document 1
Filed 10/08/14
Page 38 of 54
ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. 44-1448.01 (West 2009); Arkansas, ARK. CODE ANN. 4-71213 (2009); California, CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE 14247 (West 2009); Connecticut,
CONN. GEN. STAT. ANN 35-11i(c) (West 2009); Delaware, DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 6,
3313 (2009); Florida, FLA. STAT. ANN. 495.151 (West 2007); Georgia, GA. CODE
ANN. 10-1-451 (2009); Hawaii, HAW. REV. STAT. ANN. 482-32 (Michie 2009);
Idaho, IDAHO CODE 48-513 (Michie 2009); Illinois, 765 ILL. COMP. STAT. ANN.
1036/65 (2009); Iowa, IOWA CODE ANN. 548.113 (West 2009); Indiana, IN. CODE
24-2-13.5 (West 2009); Kansas, KAN. STAT. ANN. 81-214 (2009); Louisiana, LA.
REV. STAT. ANN. 51:223.1 (West 2009); Maine, ME. REV. STAT. ANN. tit. 10,
1530 (West 2000); Massachusetts, MASS. GEN. LAWS. ANN. ch. 110H, 13 (West
2009); Minnesota, MINN. STAT. ANN. 333.285 (West 2009); Mississippi, MISS. CODE.
ANN. 75-25-25 (2009); Missouri, MO. ANN. STAT. 417.061(1) (West 2009); Montana,
MONT. CODE ANN. 30-13-334 (2009); Nebraska, NEB. REV. STAT. ANN. 87-140
(Michie 2009); Nevada, NEV. REV. STAT. 600.435 (2007); New Hampshire, N.H. REV.
STAT. ANN. 350-A:12 (2009); New Jersey, N.J. STAT. ANN. 56:3-13.20 (West 2009);
New Mexico, N.M. STAT. ANN. 57-3B-15 (Michie 2009); New York, N.Y. GEN. BUS.
Law 360-1 (2009); Pennsylvania, 54 PA. CONS. STAT. ANN. 1124 (West 2009);
Rhode Island, R.I. GEN. LAWS 6-2-12 (2009); South Carolina, S.C. CODE ANN.
39-15-1165 (2009); Tennessee, TENN. CODE ANN. 47-25-513 (2009); Texas, TEX.
BUS. & COM. CODE ANN. 16.29 (Vernon 2009); Utah, UT. CODE ANN. 70-3a403 (2009); Washington, WASH. REV. CODE ANN. 19.77.160 (West 2009); West
Virginia, W.V. STAT. ANN. 47-2-13 (Michie 2009); and Wyoming, WYO. STAT.
ANN. 40-1-115 (Michie 2009). Lyden therefore is entitled to injunctive relief,
38
Case 3:14-cv-01586-MO
Document 1
Filed 10/08/14
Page 39 of 54
damages, and costs, as well as, if appropriate, enhanced damages and reasonable
attorneys' fees.
SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Patent Infringement of Lyden's U.S. 6,449,878)

131.

132.
On August 1, 2013, Defendants began selling the Springblade shoe in the
United States, as shown in the adidas press release entitled "adidas Unleashes Explosive
Energy with Springblade," published on http://news.adidas.com on June 24, 2013,
attached hereto as Exhibit 14, and Lyden purchased a pair of the Springblade shoes at the
adidas Village Employee Store located at 5055 N. Greeley Ave., Portland, Oregon 97217
on September 15, 2014, as shown by the receipt, Exhibit 24. A lateral side view photo of
an adidas Springblade shoe is provided on page 19 above.
133.
adidas has become unresponsive to Lyden's offers to sell or license his
relevant intellectual property.

134.
Lyden is the owner ofU.S. Patent 6,449,878 ("the '878 patent") entitled
"Article Of Footwear Having A Spring Element And Selectively Removable

Components" including allowed Claims 1-30 which issued on September 17, 2000
135.
Defendants have been and now are directly infringing the '878 patent in
Oregon, in this judicial district, and elsewhere in the United States by, among other
things, making, using, selling, importing and /or offering for sale footwear that infringe
39
Case 3:14-cv-01586-MO
Document 1
Filed 10/08/14
Page 40 of 54
one or more claims of the '878 patent, to the injury of Lyden. adidas has also directly
infringed by using their website http://www.adidas.com to offer for sale and sell
Springblade shoes in Oregon and the United States that are covered by one or more
of the Lyden '878 patents' claims. On information and belief, adidas' website serves
adidas America, Inc. here in Oregon and the United States, and also the parent company
adidas AG.
136.
Lyden owned the '878 patent throughout the period of the Defendants'
infringing acts and still owns the patent.

13 7.
As the formal process of discovery has not begun in this case, all of the
possibly infringing adidas shoes which have been commercialized and sold in the United
States may not be known to Lyden. However, upon information and belief, the adidas
Springblade running shoes infringe upon the '878 patent. Several images of the
infringing adidas Springblade shoes are disclosed on the http://www.adidas.com website,
as shown in the attached Exhibit 12, and a lateral side view image is provided above on
page 19.
138.
adidas Defendants have been and are actively inducing infringement and
has contributed to infringement of the Lyden '878 patent by retailers, customers,

sponsored teams, promotional athletes, and sales personnel by their making, using,
selling, and offering for sale the Springblade shoes. adidas Defendants are thus liable for
infringement of the '878 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 271.
139.
On information and belief, the adidas Springblade shoe shown above on
page 19 and also in Exhibit 12, directly and indirectly infringes (e.g., by contributory and
inducement) independent Claim 27, and dependant Claims 28-29 thereto, and also
40
Case 3:14-cv-01586-MO
Document 1
Filed 10/08/14
Page 41 of 54
independent Claim 30 of the Lyden ' 878 patent. In this regard, the adidas Springblade
shoe infringes the ' 878 patent because it includes a superior spring element extending
substantially between the posterior and anterior side, and at least one inferior spring
element affixed in functional relation thereto and positioned within 50 percent of the
length between the posterior and anterior side and projecting rearward and downward
therefrom forming a V -shape, and at least one inferior spring element also comprises
greater length on its lateral side relative to its medial side and greater concavity
downwards on its medial side than on its lateral side as recited and claimed in
independent Claims 27 and 30.
140.
At least after the adidas Defendants have had actual notice of the ' 878
patent and over Lyden' s continued objections, the adidas Defendants have willfully
infringed, and knowingly induced infringing acts with the specific intent to induce
another' s infringement. Adidas Defendants continue to willfully infringe the ' 878 patent
without justification.
141.
Defendants have been and now are directly infringing the ' 878 patent in
Oregon, and Defendants' infringement has damaged or impaired the value of the ' 878
patent.
142.
As a result of the Defendants' infringement of the ' 878 patent, Lyden has
suffered monetary damages that are compensable under 35 U.S.C. 284 in an amount not
yet determined but believed to be in excess of3 million dollars ($3 ,000,000.00), and
Lyden will continue to suffer such monetary damages in the future unless Defendants'
infringing activities are permanently enjoined by this Court.
41
Case 3:14-cv-01586-MO
143.
Document 1
Filed 10/08/14
Page 42 of 54
Unless permanent injunctions are issued enjoining Defendants and their
agents, servants, employees, representatives, affiliates, and all others acting on their
behalf from infringing the ' 878 patent, Lyden will be greatly and irreparably harmed.
144.
This case presents exceptional circumstances within the meaning of 35
U.S.C. 285 and Lyden is thus entitled to an award of his reasonable attorneys ' fees.
EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Patent Infringement of Lyden' s U.S. 8,209,883)

14 5.

146.
On July 13, 2014, adidas began selling the adizero Primeknit Boost shoe
in the United States as shown in news article entitled "adidas adizero US Release Info,
published by the http://www.nicekicks.com website, Exhibit 23, and Lyden purchased a
pair at the adidas Village Employee Store located at 5055 N. Greeley Ave., Portland,
Oregon 97217 on September 15, 2014, as shown by the receipt, Exhibit 24. A lateral
side view photo of the adizero Prime Boost athletic shoe is provided on page 18 above,
and it is also shown in the provided and attached Exhibits 23 and 25.
14 7.
adidas has become unresponsive to Lyden's offers to sell or license his
relevant intellectual property.

148.
Lyden is the owner ofU.S. Patent 8,209,883 ("the ' 883 patent") entitled
"Custom Article of Footwear and Method of Making the Same" including allowed claims
1-42 which issued on July 3, 2012, attached hereto as Exhibit 16, and also a brief
relevant excerpt is attached hereto for convenience as Exhibit 19.
42
Case 3:14-cv-01586-MO
149.
Document 1
Filed 10/08/14
Page 43 of 54
things, making, using, selling, importing and /or offering for sale footwear that infringe
one or more claims of the ' 883 patent, to the injury of Lyden. adidas Defendants have
also directly infringed by using their websites, including http://www.adidas.com to offer
for sale and sell adizero Prime Boost shoes in Oregon and the United States that are
covered by one or more of the Lyden ' 883 patents' claims. On information and belief,
adidas' websites serve adidas America, Inc. here in Oregon and the United States, and
also the parent company adidas AG.
150.
Lyden owned the ' 883 patent throughout the period of the Defendants'

151.
adizero Prime Boost running shoes infringe upon the ' 883 patent, and several images of
the shoes are disclosed on the http://www.adidas.com website, but also above on page 18,
and in the attached Exhibits 23 and 25.
152.
have contributed to infringement of the Lyden ' 883 patent by retailers, customers,
selling, and offering for sale the adizero Prime Boost shoes. adidas Defendants are thus
liable for infringement of the ' 883 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 271.
43
Case 3:14-cv-01586-MO
153.
Document 1
Filed 10/08/14
Page 44 of 54
On information and belief, the adizero Prime Boost shown above on page
18, and in the attached Exhibits 23 and 25, and presently being sold by the Defendants
directly and indirectly infringes (e.g., by contributory and inducement) independent
Claims 1, and dependent Claims 2-5, 7-9, 11 , 14-15, 17-19, 24-32, 34-35, and 37-40, but
also independent Claim 42 of the Lyden ' 883 patent. In this regard, the adizero Prime
Boost infringes the ' 883 patent because the shoe includes a knitted upper having tip,
vamp, dorsal, collar, quarter and posterior sections as recited in independent Claims 1 and
42, and these sections also comprise "different knit textile structure having different
elongation characteristics" as defmed in independent Claim 1, or "different knit textile
structure having different mechanical properties" as recited in Claim 42.
154.
At least after adidas Defendants have had actual notice ofthe ' 883 patent
and over Lyden' s continued objections, adidas Defendants have willfully infringed, and
knowingly induced infringing acts with the specific intent to induce another' s
infringement. adidas Defendants continue to willfully infringe the ' 883 patent without
justification.
155.
Defendants have been and now are directly infringing the '883 patent in
Oregon, Defendants' infringement has damaged or impaired the value of the ' 883 patent.
156.
yet determined, and Lyden will continue to suffer such monetary damages in the future
unless Defendants' infringing activities are permanently enjoined by this Court.
44
Case 3:14-cv-01586-MO
157.
Document 1
Filed 10/08/14
Page 45 of 54
agents, servants, employees, representatives, affiliates, and all others acting on its behalf
from infringing the ' 883 patent, Lyden will be greatly and irreparably harmed.
158.
This case presents exceptional circumstances within the meaning of35
U.S.C. 285 and Lyden is thus entitled to an award of his reasonable attorneys' fees.
NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Patent Infringement of Lyden' s U.S. D507,094)

159.

160.
On August 1, 2013, Defendants began selling the adidas Springblade shoe
in the United States, as shown in the adidas press release entitled "adidas Unleashes
Explosive Energy with Springblade," published on http://news.adidas.com on June 24,
2013, attached hereto as Exhibit 14, and Lyden purchased a pair of the Springblade shoes
at the adidas Village Employee Store located at 5055 N. Greeley Ave., Portland, Oregon
97217 on September 15, 2014, as shown by the receipt, Exhibit 24. A lateral side view
photo of the adidas Springblade shoe is provided on page 19 above.
161.
Lyden is the owner of U.S. Design Patent D507,094 S ("the ' 094 patent")
entitled "Spring Element For An Article Of Footwear" which issued on July 12, 2005,
162.
things, making, using, selling, importing and /or offering for sale footwear having designs
45
Case 3:14-cv-01586-MO
Document 1
Filed 10/08/14
Page 46 of 54
that infringe the ' 094 patent, to the injury of Lyden. Further, adidas has directly infringed
by using its retail stores and website http://www.adidas.com to offer for sale and sell
Springblade shoes in Oregon and the United States. On information and belief, the
adidas' website serves adidas America, Inc. here in Oregon and the United States, and
also the parent company adidas AG.
163.
Lyden owned the ' 094 patent throughout the period of the Defendants'

164.
Springblade running shoe design infringes upon the ' 094 patent. Several images of the
infringing adidas Springblade shoes are disclosed on the http://www.adidas.com website,
as shown in the attached Exhibit 12, and a lateral side view is shown above on page 19.
For the record, many of Lyden' s other footwear patents disclose the use of spring
elements, and some of these having partial slits and/or multiple spring elements
positioned side by side, and not only in the rearfoot area, but also the midfoot and
forefoot areas, as shown, e.g., in U.S. 8,209,883, Exhibit 16, drawing Figures 36-37, 6566, 203, 214, 249, 344, 355, and 464, and in U.S. 7,770,306, e.g., drawing Figures 20, 6470, and 72-73. Provided below is drawing Figure 6 of U.S. D507,094 which shows a
curved spring element design which may be compared with at least one of the adidas
Springblade product. In particular, the asymmetric design of the rear spring element of
the infringing adidas Springblade can be compared side by side with drawing Figure 9 of
U.S. D507,094, as shown below:
46
Case 3:14-cv-01586-MO
Document 1
Filed 10/08/14
Page 47 of 54
Drawing Figure 6
U.S. Patent
Jul. 12, 2005
Sheet 3 of 7
US DS07,094 S
F/G.6
/--
- --
--- ______
...__ -..J\.
r
_,\
Drawing Figure 9
adidas Springblade
FIG. 9
,-- -- ,
.......
I
I I ...- -
\
\
- -
/.,-'
I
I
I
I
- -...., \ \
'~
\
\
'\
I
r:==
,.
.~
:;ll
~o
47
Case 3:14-cv-01586-MO
165.
Document 1
Filed 10/08/14
Page 48 of 54
have contributed to infringement of the Lyden ' 094 patent by retailers, customers,
selling, and offering for sale the Springblade shoes. adidas Defendants are thus liable for
infringement of the ' 094 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 271.
166.
At least after the adidas Defendants have had actual notice of the ' 094
patent and over Lyden's continued objections, the adidas Defendants have willfully
infringed, and knowingly induced infringing acts with the specific intent to induce
another' s infringement. Adidas Defendants continue to willfully infringe the ' 094 patent
without justification.
167.
Oregon, and Defendants' infringement has damaged or impaired the value of the ' 094
patent.
168.
yet determined but believed to be in excess of 3 million dollars ($3 ,000,000.00), and
Lyden will continue to suffer such monetary damages in the future unless Defendants'
infringing activities are permanently enjoined by this Court.
169.
agents, servants, employees, representatives, affiliates, and all others acting on their
behalf from infringing the ' 094 patent, Lyden will be greatly and irreparably harmed.
170.
This case presents exceptional circumstances within the meaning of 35
U.S.C. 285 and Lyden is thus entitled to an award of his reasonable attorneys' fees.
48
Case 3:14-cv-01586-MO
Document 1
Filed 10/08/14
Page 49 of 54
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Lyden prays that regarding Defendants' Trademark Infringement

ofthe Lyden' s Springshoe Marks:
1.
Defendants and all of their respective agents, officers, employees
representatives, successors, assigns, attorneys, and all other persons acting for, with, by,
through, or under authority from Defendants, or in concert or participation with
Defendants, and each of them, be enjoined preliminarily and permanently, from:
a.
using, offering for sale, or selling, Lyden' s Springshoe Marks or any other
copy, reproduction, colorable imitation, or simulation of Lyden' s Springshoe Marks on or

in connection with Defendants' products;
b.
using, offering for sale, or selling, any trademark, logo, design, or source
designation of any kind on, or in connection with, Defendants' goods that is a copy,
reproduction, colorable imitation, or simulation of, or confusingly similar to Lyden' s
Springshoe Marks;
c.
designation of any kind on or in connection with Defendants' goods that is likely to cause
confusion, mistake, deception, or public misunderstanding that such goods are produced
or provided by Lyden, are sponsored or authorized by Lyden, or are in any way
connected or related to Lyden;
d.
designation of any kind on or in connection with Defendants' goods that dilutes or is

likely to dilute the distinctiveness of the trademarks or logos of Lyden; and
49
Case 3:14-cv-01586-MO
e.
Document 1
Filed 10/08/14
Page 50 of 54
passing off, palming off, or assisting in passing off or palming off
Defendants' goods as those of Lyden, or otherwise continuing any and all acts of unfair
competition as alleged in this Complaint;
2.
Defendants be ordered to cease offering for sale, marketing, promoting,
and selling, to remove from retail stores, and to recall and retrieve all products bearing
Lyden's Springshoe Marks or any other confusingly similar variation, which are in
Defendants' possession or have been shipped by Defendants or under their authority, to
any store or customer, including, but not limited to, any wholesaler, distributor,
distribution center, retail store, consignor, or marketer, and also to deliver to each such
store or customer a copy of this Court's order as it relates to said injunctive relief against
Defendants;
3.
Defendants be ordered to deliver up for impoundment and for destruction,
all footwear, bags, boxes, labels, tags, signs, packages, receptacles, advertising, sample
books, promotional material, stationary, or other materials in the possession, custody, or
under the control of Defendants that are found to adopt, use, infringe, or dilute any of
Lyden's Springshoe Marks, or that otherwise unfairly compete with Lyden and Lyden's
products;
4.
Defendants be compelled to account to Lyden for any and all profits
derived by Defendants from the sale or distribution of infringing goods as described in

this Complaint;
5.
Lyden be awarded all damages caused by the acts forming the basis of this
Complaint;
50
Case 3:14-cv-01586-MO
6.
Document 1
Filed 10/08/14
Page 51 of 54
Based on adidas Defendants' knowing and intentional use and sale of
confusingly similar imitations of Lyden' s Springshoe Marks, the damages awarded be

trebled and the award of adidas Defendants' profits be enhanced as provided for by 15
U.S.C. 1117(a) and (b);
7.
Defendants be required to pay to Lyden the costs and reasonable attorneys'
fees incurred by Lyden in this action pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1117(a) and the state
statutes cited in this Complaint;
8.
Based on adidas Defendants' willful and deliberate infringement and/or
dilution ofLyden's marks, and to deter such conduct in the future, Lyden be awarded punitive
damages;
9.
Defendants be required to pay prejudgment and post-judgment interest on
the damages and profits awards; and

10.
Lyden have such other and further relief as the Court may deem just.
WHEREFORE, Lyden prays that regarding Defendants' Patent Infringement of

the Lyden's U.S. 6,449,878:
11.
A judgment declaring that Defendants' have infringed one or more claims
of the ' 878 patent literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents;
12.
A judgment declaring that adidas Defendants have willfully infringed one
or more claims of the ' 878 patent literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents;
13.
A preliminary and/or permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants and
their officers, directors, employees, agents, affiliates, divisions, branches, subsidiaries,

and all others acting in concert with Defendants or on its behalf from further infringing
the ' 878 patent;
51
Case 3:14-cv-01586-MO
14.
Document 1
Filed 10/08/14
Page 52 of 54
An award to Lyden of damages to compensate for Defendants' past and
present acts of infringement of the '878 patent, including costs, and prejudgment and
post-judgment interest;
15.
An award to Lyden of enhanced damages due to adidas Defendants'
willful infringement of the '878 patent as provided under 35 U.S.C. 284;

16.
A judgment and order finding that this is an exceptional case within the
meaning of35 U.S.C. 285 and awarding to Lyden his reasonable attorneys' fees; and,
17.
For any other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper
under the circumstances.

the Lyden's U.S. 8,209,883:
18.
A judgment declaring that Defendants' have infringed one or more claims
of the '883 patent literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents;

19.
A judgment declaring that adidas Defendants have willfully infringed one
or more claims of the '883 patent literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents;
20.

the '883 patent;
21.
present acts of infringement of the '883 patent, including costs, and prejudgment and
52
Case 3:14-cv-01586-MO
22.
Document 1
Filed 10/08/14
Page 53 of 54
An award to Lyden of enhanced damages due to adidas Defendants'
willful infringement of the ' 883 patent as provided under 35 U.S.C. 284;
23 .
meaning of 35 U.S.C. 285 and awarding to Lyden his reasonable attorneys' fees; and,
24.

Lyden' s design patent U.S. D507,094:
25.
A judgment declaring that Defendants' have infringed the Lyden ' 094
patent in violation of35 U.S.C. 27l(a);

26.
A judgment declaring that adidas Defendants have willfully infringed the
Lyden ' 094 patent in violation of35 U.S.C. 271(a);

27.

the '094 patent;
28.
present acts of infringement of the ' 094 patent, including costs, and prejudgment and
29.
An award of damages adequate to compensate Lyden for the patent
infringement that has occurred pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 284, which shall be trebled as a
result of the adidas Defendants' willful patent infringement, or an award of Defendant' s
53
Case 3:14-cv-01586-MO
Document 1
Filed 10/08/14
Page 54 of 54
profits from its infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 289, which is greater, together with
prejudgment interest and costs;
30.
meaning of35 U.S.C. 285 and awarding to Lyden his reasonable attorneys' fees; and,
31.
JURY TRIAL DEMAND

Plaintiff Robert M. Lyden respectfully requests a trial by jury of any and all issues
so triable that are raised herein or which hereinafter may be raised in this action.
DATED: October 9, 2014

Respectfully Submitted,
By:
~~/.~
Robert M. Lyden
18261 S.W. Fallatin Loop
Aloha, OR 97007
ro bertlyden@comcast.net
(971) 219-1200
54

Adidas Springblade Lawsuit

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Adidas Springblade Lawsuit

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Case 3:14-cv-01586-MO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

adidas America, Inc., a Delaware corporation,

NATURE OF THE CASE

This is an action at law and in equity for trademark infringement and

In connection with previous Case No. 3:10-CV-1249-BR which was filed

COMPLAINT FOR TRADEMARK AND PATENT INFRINGEMENT

On information and belief, Defendant adidas AG is a joint stock company

On information and belief, Defendant adidas America, Inc. is a

On information and belief, Defendant adidas International Marketing

B.V. is a limited liability company that operates as a subsidiary of adidas AG with a

On information and belief, Defendant adidas AG is the parent company to

COMPLAINT FOR TRADEMARK AND PATENT INFRINGEMENT

On information and belief, during all relevant times, Defendant adidas AG

On information and belief, Defendants adidas AG and adidas International

Defendant adidas AG has been and is a plaintiff in intellectual property

Defendant adidas International Marketing B.V. holds intellectual property

Defendant adidas International Marketing B.V. has at relevant times

managed the procurement, maintenance, licensing and/or enforcement of its intellectual

COMPLAINT FOR TRADEMARK AND PATENT INFRINGEMENT

On information and belief, Defendant adidas International B.V. has

On information and belief, Defendant adidas International B.V. controls

On information and belief, the adidas Defendants' in-house counsel for

In 2004, Lyden negotiated an out of court settlement from Portland,

COMPLAINT FOR TRADEMARK AND PATENT INFRINGEMENT

In 2010, adidas AG become unresponsive to Lyden' s efforts to negotiate

Lyden' s U.S. 8,209,883 is also presently being infringed by certain Nike,

On information and belief, in various other matters, in-house legal counsel

COMPLAINT FOR TRADEMARK AND PATENT INFRINGEMENT

On information and belief, Defendant The Finish Line, Inc. is a

On information and belief, Defendant Foot Locker, Inc. is a corporation

On information and belief, Defendant Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. is a

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

Plaintiff realleges and incorporates all of the factual allegations of the

preceding paragraphs 1-25.

COMPLAINT FOR TRADEMARK AND PATENT INFRINGEMENT

This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because the

Plaintiffrealleges and incorporates all ofthe factual allegations ofthe

preceding paragraphs 1-29.

COMPLAINT FOR TRADEMARK AND PATENT INFRINGEMENT

The Plaintiff, Robert M. Lyden ("Lyden") has a history as an athlete,

Lyden has worked independently as an inventor and consultant from

COMPLAINT FOR TRADEMARK AND PATENT INFRINGEMENT

copy is attached hereto as Exhibit 4 (hereinafter collectively referred to as the

The present infringement of Lyden's U.S. 6,449,878, Exhibit 2, and

In 1999-2002, Lyden first disclosed to adidas his pending and issued

COMPLAINT FOR TRADEMARK AND PATENT INFRINGEMENT

On November 24, 2004, Lyden' s work on footwear was featured in the

On February 11 , 2005, Lyden' s work on footwear was featured in the

In November 2005, approximately fourteen months after being told by

COMPLAINT FOR TRADEMARK AND PATENT INFRINGEMENT

As shown on page 11 of the third amended complaint styled Lyden v.

adidas also continued to file and prosecute conflicting patents by

COMPLAINT FOR TRADEMARK AND PATENT INFRINGEMENT

In April2008, Mr. Mikal Peveto, a former employee of adidas AG

Between 2005-2010, and with explicit knowledge of Lyden' s patents

COMPLAINT FOR TRADEMARK AND PATENT INFRINGEMENT

By September, 2010, adidas legal counsel had become completely

District Court, District of Oregon, Portland Division case no. 3:10-CV-1249-BR on

On December 14, 2010, adidas had filed a conflicting patent application

COMPLAINT FOR TRADEMARK AND PATENT INFRINGEMENT

adidas countered this Nike, Inc. initiative by introducing the Primeknit

In contrast with the "first-of-its-kind running shoe" misrepresentation

Furthermore, the intellectual property portfolio of Lyden including the