1 Gregg A.

Rapoport (SBN 136941)

Law Offices orGregg A. Rapoport, APLC
2 135 West Green Street, Suite 100
Pasadena, California 91105
3 Tel. 626-585-0155; Fax 626-585-0355
gar@garlaw .us
4
0
Constance R. Lindman (pro hac vice application pending)
SmithAmundsen LLC
13
201 North Illinois Street
South Tower, 16th Floor
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
Tel. 317-927-3602; Fax 312-997-1872
CLindman@salawus.com
Attorney for Plaintiffs
SPICY BEER INC., GREGORY
MURKIJANIAN, and
PREMIER FOODS, LLC
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION
14
SPICY BEER MIX, INC. a California
comoration, GREGORY
15
MURKIJANIAN, SR., an individual, and
caCVJ 4 -7 20 oolu(J
16
17
PREMIER FOODS, LLC, COMPLAINT FOR:
vs.
Plaintiffs, (1) DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
FOR PATENT INVALIDITY
18
NEW CASTLE BEVERAGE, INC., a
19
California co!Poration, and RICKY D.
MONUGIAN, an individual,
(2) DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
FOR INEQUITABLE
CONDUCT;
20
21
(,/ 22
Defendants.
(3) VIOLATION OF THE UNFAIR
COMPETITION LAW; AND
(4) DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
RE TRADE SECRETS
MISAPPROPRIATION
23
Plaintiffs Spicy Beer Mix, Inc. ("SBMI"), Gregory Murkijanian, Sr.
("Murkijanian"), and Premier Foods, LLC ("Premier") aver the following for their
claims against Defendants Ricky D. Monugian ("Monugian") and New Castle
Beverage, Inc. ("NCBI"):
-I-
COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
. '
.JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over certain of these claims
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1338 and 1367; in that, certain claims arise under
the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. 1 et seq., and supplemental
jurisdiction exists because other claims are so related to claims as to which the
District Court has original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or
7
controversy under Article III ofthe United States Constitution, as alleged below.
8
2. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b); in that
9
Defendant Monugian resides in this district and Defendant NCBI has its principal
10 place of business within this district.
11
THE PARTIES
12
3. Plaintiff SBMI is a California corporation with its principal place of
13 business in the City of Whittier, California.
14
4. Plaintiff Murkijanian is an individual with his residence in the City of
15 Whittier, California.
16 5. Plaintiff Premier is a California limited liability company with its
17 principal place of business in the City of Santa Fe Springs, California.
18 6. On information and belief, Defendant Monugian is an individual
19 residing in the State of California.
20 7. On information and belief, Defendant NCBI is a California
21 corporation with its principal place of business at 1115 Centre Drive, City of
22 Industry, California 91789.
23 8. Monugian is the named "inventor" ofU.S. Patent Nos. D652,681 (the
24 "'681 Patent") and D682,035 (the "'035 Patent"). True and correct copies of these
25 patents are attached hereto.
26
9. On information and belief, Monugian asserts that he is the licensor of
27 the '681 Patent and that NCBI is the exclusive licensee of the '681 Patent.
28
-2-
COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
. '
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Declaratory Judgment For Patent Invalidity)
10. Plaintiffs incorporate the averments set forth in the preceding
paragraphs as though set forth fully in this paragraph.
5
11. On information and belief, Monugian filed the original application for
6
the '681 Patent on October 6, 2010, and filed the original application for the'035
7
Patent on November 10,2011.
8
12. On information and belief, products bearing the trademarks
9
ANTRO'S MIX, MICHELADAS ANTRO'S MIX and MICHELADAS
10 ANTRO'S MIX HOT (collectively, the "ANTRO'S MIX Products") were in
11 public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing
12 date of the claimed inventions, and at least as early as July 1, 2009.
13 13. The ANTRO' S MIX Products are substantially the same as the
14 inventions claimed in the '681 Patent and the'035 Patent to the ordinary observer.
15 14. On information and belief, the product shown in the video "HOW to
16 make a 'Michelada' Mexican Beer Drink" at
17 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrPSHxD89CU (the "Michelada Video
18 Product") was in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the
19 effective filing date of the claimed inventions, and at least as early as February 25,
20 2007.
21 15. The Michelada Video Product is substantially the same as the
22 inventions claimed in the '681 Patent and the'035 Patent to the ordinary observer.
23 16. On information and belief, Monugian was aware that the ANTRO'S
24 MIX Products, the Michelada Video Product, or other similar products were in
25 public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing
26 date ofthe claimed inventions during the prosecution ofthe '681 Patent and the
27 '035 Patent.
28
-3-
COMPLAINT
1
17. On information and belief, one or more cups similar to the cups
2
shown in the '681 Patent and the '035 Patent were in public use, on sale, or
3
otherwise available to the public in this country by Dart Container (the "Prior Art
4
Cups") at least as early as January 12, 2006. The Prior Art Cups are substantially
5
the same as the cup portion of the invention claimed in the '681 Patent and the
6
7
'03 5 Patent to the ordinary observer.
18. On information and belief, one or more lids similar to the lid shown in
8
the '681 Patent and the '035 Patent (the "Prior Art Lids") were in public use, on
9 sale, or otherwise available to the public in this country at least as early as March
10 30, 2005. The Prior Art Lids are substantially the same as the lid portion of the
11
12
inventions claimed in the '681 Patent and the '035 Patent to the ordinary observer.
19. On information and belief, Monugian was aware that the Prior Art
13 Cups and the Prior Art Lids or other similar products were in public use, on sale, or
14 otherwise available to the public in this country during the prosecution of the '681
15 Patent and the '035 Patent.
16 20. On information and belief, the '681 Patent and the '035 Patent are
17 each invalid under the United States patent laws for one or more of the following
18 reasons:
19 (a) The alleged inventions claimed in the '681 Patent and the '035
20 Patent were known or used by others in this country or patented or described in a
21 printed publication in this or a foreign country before the alleged invention thereof
22 by the applicant for the patents, in violation of 35 U.S.C. 102(a).
23 (b) The alleged inventions claimed in the '681 Patent and '035
24 Patent were patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign
25 country or was in public use or on sale in this country more than one year prior to
26 the date the original applications for patents were filed in the United States, in
27 violation of 35 U.S.C. 102(b ).
28
-4-
COMPLAINT
1
(c) The applicant for the '681 Patent and the '035 Patent did not
2
himself invent the inventions claimed in the patents, as required by 35 U.S.C.
3
102(t).
4
(d) The alleged inventions claimed in the '681 Patent and '035
5
Patent were made in this country by another who had not abandoned, suppressed or
6
concealed it in violation of 35 U.S.C. 102(g).
7
(e) The differences between the alleged inventions claimed in the
8
'681 Patent and '035 Patent and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a
9
whole would have been obvious at the time the alleged invention was made to a
10
person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains in
11
violation of 35 U.S.C. 103.
12
(f) The applicant failed to disclose material prior art in violation of
13
37 CFR 1.56.
14
(g) The inventions claimed in the '681 Patent and '035 Patent are
15
functional and not entitled to patent protection under 35 U .S.C. 171.
16
21. An actual and justiciable controversy, within the meaning of 28
17
U.S.C. 2201, exists between Plaintiffs on the one hand and Defendants on the
18
other hand concerning the validity ofthe '681 Patent and the '035 Patent; in that
19
Defendants have previously alleged patent infringement claims in this Court
20
against Plaintiffs (in Case No 13-CV-02055 SJO(JEMx)), dismissing those claims
21
without prejudice only when confronted with the above-alleged grounds for
22
invalidity, and nevertheless have continued to assert to beverage distributors and
23
retailers in the market for spicy beverage cup products, such as those produced by
24
SBMI, that Plaintiffs have exclusive rights to produce, advertise, and sell spicy
25 beverage cups based upon these patents, and have thereby continued to injure
26 Plaintiffs by hindering SBMI's ability to generate sales of its product, by damaging
27 Plaintiffs' reputations, and by reducing Premier's production revenues.
28
-5-
COMPLAINT
1
22. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment that the '681 Patent
2
and the '035 Patent are each invalid under the United States patent laws.
3
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
4
(Declaratory Judgment For Ineguitable Conduct)
5
23. Plaintiffs incorporate the averments set forth in the preceding
6
paragraphs as though set forth fully in this paragraph.
7
24. On information and belief, Monugian was aware that the ANTRO'S
8
MIX Products, the Michelada Video Product, or other similar products were in
9
public use and on sale in this country during the prosecution of the '681 Patent and
10
the '035 Patent.
11
25. On information and belief, Monugian was aware that the Prior Art
12 Cups and the Prior Art Lids or other similar products were in public use and on
13 sale in this country during the prosecution of the '681 Patent and the '035 Patent.
14 26. On information and belief, the Prior Art constitutes non-cumulative
15 material prior art relevant to the claims of the '681 Patent and the '035 Patent
16 because they embody the inventions shown in the '681 Patent and the '035 Patent.
17 Alternatively, the Prior Art makes the combination of elements claimed in the '681
18 Patent and the '035 Patent obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
19 27. On information and belief, Monugian was associated with the filing
20 and prosecution ofthe '681 Patent application and the '035 Patent application as a
21 result ofhis position as the named inventor of the invention claimed in the '681
22 Patent and the '035 Patent.
23 28. On information and belief, Monugian did not disclose the Prior Art to
24 the United States Patent Office during the prosecution of the '681 Patent and the
25 '035 Patent, as required by 37 C.F.R. 1.56.
26 29. On information and belief, the '681 Patent and the '035 Patent are
27 each unenforceable because Monugian engaged in inequitable conduct by failing to
28 comply with his duty to disclose to the United States Patent Office all non-
-6-
COMPLAINT
1
cumulative material prior art of which he was aware during the prosecution of the
2
'681 Patent and the '035 Patent.
3
30. On information and belief, had Monugian disclosed the Prior Art, the
4
United States Patent Office would have rejected the claimed inventions as obvious
5
over the Prior Art alone or in combination.
6
31. An actual and justiciable controversy, within the meaning of28
7
U.S.C. 2201, exists between Plaintiffs on the one hand and Defendants on the
8
other hand concerning the enforceability ofthe '681 Patent and the '035 Patent; in
9 that Defendants have previously alleged patent infringement claims in this Court
10 against Plaintiffs (in Case No 13-CV-02055 SJO(JEMx)), dismissing those claims
11 without prejudice only when confronted with the above-alleged grounds for
12 invalidity, and nevertheless have continued to assert to beverage distributors and
13 retailers in the market for spicy beverage cup products, such as those produced by
14 SBMI, that Plaintiffs have exclusive rights to produce, advertise, and sell spicy
15 beverage cups based upon these patents, and have thereby continued to injure
16 Plaintiffs by hindering SBMI's ability to generate sales of its product and by
17 reducing Premier's production revenues.
18 32. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment that the '681 Patent
19 and the '035 Patent are each unenforceable under the United States patent laws.
20
21
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Violation of the Unfair Competition Law)
22 33. Plaintiffs incorporate the averments set forth in the preceding
23 paragraphs as though set forth fully in this paragraph.
24 34. Subject matter jurisdiction over this claim exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
25 1367; in that, this Court has supplemental jurisdiction this claim because it is so
26 related to claims in this action within this Court's original jurisdiction that they
27 form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States
28
-7-
COMPLAINT
1
Constitution, based upon a common nucleus of operative facts such that a plaintiff
2
would ordinarily be expected to try them all in a single judicial proceeding.
3
35. On information and belief, Defendants are engaged in a campaign to
4
drive out competition in the spicy beverage cup market by threatening to sue
5
Plaintiffs' distributors, retailers and suppliers, as well as those of other makers of
6
similar products, for patent infringement, citing exclusive rights under the invalid
7
'681 Patent and/or '035 Patent, and thereby unjustifiably are interfering with
8
competitors' actual and prospective economic relationships with their distributors,
9 customers, and suppliers.
10 36. Based on the conduct alleged above, Defendants have engaged in
11
unfair business practices in violation of Sections 17200 et seq. of the California
12 Business & Professions Code.
13 37. Defendants' conduct, as alleged above, is unfair, illegal, immoral,
14 unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous and substantially injurious to consumers and to
15 competitors in the spicy beverage cup market.
16 38. Defendants' conduct should be enjoined to prevent further losses and
17 damages at the hands of such conduct.
18 39. Defendants should be made to pay Plaintiffs' reasonable attorneys'
19 fees and costs incurred in prosecuting the action.
20
21
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Declaratory Judgment Re Trade Secrets Misappropriation)
22 40. Plaintiff incorporates the averments set forth in the preceding
23 paragraphs as though set forth fully in this paragraph.
24 41. Subject matter jurisdiction over this claim exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
25 1367; in that, this Court has supplemental jurisdiction this claim because it is so
26 related to claims in this action within this Court's original jurisdiction that they
27 form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States
28
-8-
COMPLAlNT
1
Constitution, based upon a common nucleus of operative facts such that a plaintiff
2
would ordinarily be expected to try them all in a single judicial proceeding.
3
42. On information and belief, Defendant NCBI manufactures and sells
4
within the United States a product known as a "spicy beverage cup," which is a
5
disposable cup containing a dry chile-powder mixed substance, some of which is
6
affixed to the rim area of the cups. A consumer will pour beer into the cup,
7
creating a Mexican-style beverage commonly known as a "Michelada" drink.
8
43. On information and belief, Defendants NCBI and Monugian claim
9
exclusive rights to make, use, sell, and offer to sell NCBI's spicy beverage cup as a
10 matter of trade secrets laws.
11
44. Plaintiff SBMI manufactures and sells a "spicy beverage cup" product
12 within the United States.
13
45. On information and belief, Defendants NCBI and Monugian have
14 asserted a claim against SBMI and others pursuant to the California Uniform Trade
15 Secrets Act, California Civil Code sections 3426 et seq., including but not limited
16 to within Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. GC051058 (the "State
17 Court Trade Secrets Action"), alleging that NCBI's spicy beverage cup product is
18 made using the following alleged trade secrets, which are owned by Monugian and
19 exclusively licensed to NCBI: ( 1) a "process of applying a secret solution to the
20 inner and outer surfaces adjacent the lip of a beverage cup to permit a first mixture
21 of spices to adhere to those surfaces;" (2) an "apparatus ... that distributes the
22 secret solution to the inner and outer surfaces adjacent the lip of a beverage cup;"
23 and (3) a "sequence in which pre-determined quantities of the ingredients of a
24 second mixture are blended." (These are referred to herein as the "Alleged Trade
25 Secrets.")
26 46. On information and belief, in the State Court Trade Secrets Action,
27 NCBI and Monugian assert, inter alia, that the alleged trade secret "apparatus" is
28
-9-
COMPIAINT
1
valuable and not commonly known, by virtue of its patentability, as alleged
2
therein.
3
4 7. On information and belief, in the State Court Trade Secrets Action,
4
NCBI and Monugian assert that they have protected the secrecy of the Alleged
5
Trade Secrets by "a variety of reasonable means."
6
48. On information and belief, in the State Court Trade Secrets Action,
7
NCBI and Monugian assert that Plaintiffs have misappropriated and continue to
8
misappropriate the Alleged Trade Secrets in connection with the manufacture and
9
sale ofSBMI's spicy beverage product, and seek damages and injunctive relief.
10 49. In the State Court Trade Secrets Action, SBMI, Murkijanian, and
11
Premier, have denied the material allegations made by NCBI and Monugian.
12
50. An actual and justiciable controversy, within the meaning of 28
13 U.S.C. 2201, exists between Defendants NCBI and Monugian on the one hand
14 and Plaintiffs on the other hand concerning the merits ofDefendants' claim of
15 trade secrets misappropriation and Plaintiffs' defenses thereto, including but not
16 limited to within the State Court Trade Secrets Action.
17 51. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment that they are not liable
18 for trade secret misappropriation.
19 PRAYERFORRELIEF
20 Plaintiffs respectfully request judgment in their favor and against Defendants
21 as follows:
22
23
24
1.
2.
3.
Declaring that the claim of the '681 Patent is invalid;
Declaring that the claim of the '035 Patent is invalid;
Declaring that the claim of the '681 Patent is unenforceable as a result
25 of inequitable conduct;
26 4. Declaring that the claim of the '035 Patent is unenforceable as a result
27 of inequitable conduct;
28
-10-
COMPLAlNT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0
0
5.
Finding this an "exceptional" case under 35 U.S.C. 285 and
awarding Plaintiffs their expenses, costs and attorneys' fees;
6.
For an injunction barring Defendants from asserting exclusive rights
to manufacture and sell spicy beverage cups based Defendants' claims under upon
the '681 Patent and the '035 Patent.
7.
8.
9.
Declaring that Plaintiff is not liable for trade secret misappropriation.
For an award of costs and attorney's fees as allowed by law.
Awarding Plaintiffs such other and further relief as the Court deems
Gregg A. Rapoport
Attorney For Plaintiffs
SPICY BEER MIJS, INC., GREGORY
MURKIJANIAN, ~ R . and
PREMIER FOODS, LLC
-11-
COMPLAINT
. '
I IIIII 111111111 h1111!111 l I
USOOD652681 S
c12) United States Design Patent
Monugian
(10) Patent No.:
(45) Date of Patent:
US D652,681 S
** Jan.24,2012
(54) BEVERAGE BOLDER
(76) Inventor: Ricky D. Monuglan, Ontario, CA (US)
(**) Term: 14 Yean
(21) Appl. No.: 29/372,035
(22) Filed: Oct. 6, 2010
(51) LOC (9) Cl . .................................................. 07-01
(52) U.S. Cl . ........................................................ D7/510
(58) Field ofClassifieadon Search ................... D7/510,
D7/511, 500, 532, 900; 215/121, 382, 388,
215/387; 220/674,715,713, 718, 592.16,
220/592.17, 709, 708; D9/551, 529
See application file for complete search history.
(56) References Cited
U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS
2,782,614 A 2/1957 Currie .......................... 2201718
6,202,877 Bl 3/2001 La Torre et al. ............ 220/254.1
D466,371 S 12/2002 Parker ............................ 07/510
D472,101 s .. 3!2003 Janky ............................. 071532
0535,151 s
..
l/2007 Sewnetat .................... 07/510
0586,182 s 2/2009 Trombly ................... . . 07/510
0622,546 s 8/2010 Bodum .......................... 07/510
0639,166 s 6/2011 Carreno .............. .,.,,.,,.,, 09/504
cited by examiner
Primary Examiner Cynthia Underwood
(57) CLAIM
The ornamental design for a beverage holder, as shown and
described.
DESCRIPTION
FIG. 1 is a Perspective view of a beverage holder showing my
new design;
FIG. 2 is a front view of my new design illuslrated in FIG.l;
the rear view of my new design is the mirrorimage of the front
view;
FIG. 3 is a top view thereof; and,
FIG. 4 is a bottom view thereof.
The broken lines represent portions of the environment and
form no part of the claim.
1 Claim, 4 Drawing Sheets
US D652,681 S
U.S. Patent
Jan.24,2012
Sbeet 1 of4
FIG.1
..
U.S. Patent Jan.24,2012 Sheet 2 of 4 US D652,681 S
FIG.2
..

U.S. Patent Jan.24,2012 Sheet 3 of 4 US D652,681 S
FIG.3
(--'\ (--,
\ I \ I
' ,. ' /
.............. ..............
/ . : ~
// ''
// \ \
(,' \\
l\ II
\ "
\_, //
<::-- : . ~
. '
..
U.S. Patent Jan.24,2012 Sheet 4 of 4 US D652,681 S
FIG.4
I IIIII
(12) United States Design Patent
Monugian
(to) Patent No.:
(45) Date of Patent:
US D682,035 S
** May 14, 2013
(54) BEVERAGE HOLDER
(76) Inventor: Ricky D. Monugian, Ontario, CA (US)
(**) Term: 14 Years
(21) Appl. No.: 29/395.023
(22) Filed: Nov. 10. 2011
(51) LOC (9) Cl .................................................. 07-01
(52) U.S. Cl.
USPC ........................................................... D7/523
(58) Field of Classification Search ................... 07/528,
07/526, 525, 530, 531, 532, 300, 300.2, 533,
07/510,523,507,511, 509; 220/592.17,
220/592.16, 495.03; 426/88
See application file for complete search history.
(56) References Cited
U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS
D488,672 S 4/2004 Oas ................................ 07/507
D489,501 S 5/2004 Oretzka ........................... 034/1
0554,822 S 1112007 Oretzka ........................... 034/1
0561,535 S 212008 Jin ................................. 07/531
0581,738 S 12/2008 Bodurn .......................... 07/523
0582,724 S * 12/2008 Oretzka ......................... 071523
0640,094 S 6/20 II Carlson et al .................. 07/510
0648,985 S " 1112011 Chiuetal. ................ 071510
0652,681 S 112012 Monugian ...................... 071510
0655,982 S 3/2012 Liu ................................ 011509
* cited by examiner
Primary Examiner George D Kirschbaum
Assistant Examiner Janice Hallmark
(57) CLAIM
The ornamental design for a beverage holder, as shown and
described.
DESCRIPTION
FIG. 1 is a perspective view of a beverage holder showing my
new design;
FIG. 2 is a front view of my new design illustrated in FIG. 1;
the rear view of my new design is the mirror image of the front
view;
FIG. 3 is a top view thereof; and,
FIG. 4 is a bottom view thereof.
The broken line showing in FIG. 4 of the bottom of the
beverage holder is included for the purpose of illustrating
portions of the Beverage Holder and forms no part of the
claimed design.
1 Claim. 4 Drawing Sheets
" .
" ..
\JS D682,035 S
Sheet 1 of4
U.S. Patent
FJG.1
. .

U.S. Patent May 14,2013 Sheet 2 of 4 US D682,035 S
FIG.2
'
..
U.S. Patent May 14,2013 Sheet 3 of 4 US D682,035 S
FJG.3
""' I lllfl
,. . ' ._ ..
U.S. Patent May 14,2013 Sheet 4 of 4 US D682,035 S
FJG.4
UNITED .TES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT
CIVIL COVER SHEET
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS ( Check box if you are representing yourself D ) DEFENDANTS ( Check box if you are representing yourself D )
SPICY BEER MIX, INC. a California corporation, GREGORY MURKUANIAN, SR., an
individual, and PREMIER FOODS, LLC
NEW CASTLE BEVERAGE, INC.. a California corporation, and RICKY D. MONUGIAN, an
individual
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Los Angeles
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)
(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address and Telephone Number) If you are
representing yourself, provide the same information.
County of Residence of First Listed Defendant Los Angeles
(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
Attorneys (Firm Name, Address and Telephone Number) If you are
representing yourself, provide the same information.
Gregg A. Rapoport, Law Offices of Gregg A. Rapoport, APLC, 135 W. Green St., Ste.
100, Pasadena, CA 91105, (626) 585-0155
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an X in one box only.)
Ill. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES-For Diversity Cases Only
(Place an X in one box for plaintiff and one for defendant}
D 1. U.S. Government
Plaintiff
[g) 3. Federal Question (U.S.
Citizen ofThis State
PTF DEF PTF
0
1
0
1
Incorporated or Principal Place [E]
4
of Business in this State
DEF
[E]4
Government Not a Party)
Citizen of Another State D 2 D 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 0 5 0 5
D 2. U.S. Government
Defendant
04. Diversity (Indicate Citizenship
of Parties in Item Ill)
Citizen or Subject of a
Foreign Country
3 D 3
of Business in Another State
Foreign Nation 0 6
IV. ORIGIN (Place an X in one box only.)
[g) 1. Original D 2. Removed from D 3. Remanded from R
d 6. Multi-
D
4. emstate or D 5. Transferred fr?m Another D District
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened District (Spec1fy) Litigation
V. REQUESTED IN COMPLAINT: JURY DEMAND: 0 Yes [g) No (Check "Yes" only if demanded in complaint.)
CLASS ACTION under F.R.Cv.P. 23: 0 Yes 0 MONEY DEMANDED IN COMPLAINT: $
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION (Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing and write a brief statement of cause. Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity.)
Declaratory Judgment- 28 U.S.C. 2201 for Patent Invalidity, Inequitable Conduct (patent), Trade Secret Misappropriation (Cal. Civ. Code 3426 et seq.,
lnjuntive Relief- Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17200
VII. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an X in one box only).
D
400 State
Reapportionment
41 0 Antitrust
0 430 Banks and Banking
0
450 Commerce/ICC
Rates/Etc.
460 Deportation
470 Racketeer Influ-
enced & Corrupt Org.
D 480 Consumer Credit
0 490 Cable/Sat TV
0
850 Securities/Com-
modities/Exchange
D
890 Other Statutory
Actions
0 891 Agricultural Acts
D
893 Environmental
Matters
0
895 Freedom of Info.
Act
0 896 Arbitration
899 Admin. Procedures
Act/Review of Appeal of
Agency Decision
0
950 Constitutionality of
State Statutes
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY:
120 Marine
[] 130 Miller Act
D
140 Negotiable
Instrument
150 Recovery of
D
Overpayment &
Enforcement of
Judgment
0
151 Medicare Act
D
1 52 Recovery of
Defaulted Student
Loan (Excl. Vet.)
153 Recovery of
0 Overpayment of
Vet. Benefits
O 160 Stockholders'
Suits
0 1900ther
Contract
O 210 Land
Condemnation
D 220 Foreclosure
O 230 Rent Lease &
D
D
D
D
0
D
D
D
315 Airplane
Product Liability
320 Assault, Libel &
Slander
330 Fed. Employers'
Liability
340 Marine
345 Marine Product
Liability
350 Motor Vehicle
355 Motor Vehicle
Product Liability
360 Other Personal
Injury
362 Personallnjury-
Med Malpratice
365 Personal Injury-
Product Liability
367 Health Care/
0 Pharmaceutical
Personal Injury
Product Liability
D
368 Asbestos
Personal
Case Number:
D
D
D 441 Voting
0 442 Employment
443 Housing/
Accommodations
445 American with
0 Disabilities-
Employment
D
446 American with
Disabilities-Other
D
CV-71 (11/13) CIVIL COVER SHEET
720 Labor/Mgmt.
Relations
0 740 Railway Labor Act
D
751 Family and Medical
Leave Act
D
790 Other Labor
Litigation
791 Employee Ret. Inc.
Act
0 862 Black lung (923)
D 863 DIWC/DIWW (405 (g))
870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff or
Defendant)
871 IRS-Third Party 26 USC
7609
Pagel of3
6
UNITED .TES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT oOALIFORNIA
CIVIL COVER SHEET
VIII. VENUE: Your answers to the questions below will determine the division of the Court to which this case will most likely be initially assigned. This initial assignment
is subject to change, in accordance with the Court's General Orders, upon review by the Court of your Complaint or Notice of Removal.
A: Was this case removed from
state court?
D Yes IB] No D Los Angeles
Western
If "no," go to Question B. If "yes," check the
box to the right that applies, enter the
1corremr>nn1nn division in response to
D Ventura, Santa Barbara, or San Luis Obispo
Western
D Orange
Southern
D, below, and skip to Section IX.
D Riverside or San Bernardino
Eastern
Is the United States, or one
ag,n,:.esor employees, a party to this
D Yes IB] No
D
D
D
D
Los Angeles
D
Santa Barbara, or San Luis
D
Orange
D
Riverside or San Bernardino
Los Angeles Western
or San Luis
Western
Orange Southern
Riverside or San Bernardino Eastern
Western
C.1. Is either of the following true? If so, check the one that applies: C.2. Is either of the following true? If so, check the one that applies:
D 2 or more answers in Column C
D only 1 answer in Column C and no answers in Column D
Your case will initially be assigned to the
SOUTHERN DIVISION.
Enter "Southern" in response to Question D, below.
If none applies, answer question C2 to the right. .....
D 2 or more answers in Column D
D only 1 answer in Column D and no answers in Column C
Your case will initially be assigned to the
EASTERN DIVISION.
Enter "Eastern" in response to Question D, below.
If none applies, go to the box below. '
Your case will initially be assigned to the
WESTERN DIVISION.
Enter "Western" in response to Question D below.
CV-71 (11/13) CIVIL COVER SHEET Page 2 of3
UNITED AEs DISTRICT couRT, CENTRAL DISTRICT oQLIFORNIA
CIVIL COVER SHEET
IX(a). IDENTICAL CASES: Has this action been previously filed in this court and dismissed, remanded or dosed? D YES
If yes, list case number{s):
IX(b). RELATED CASES: Have any cases been previously filed in this court that are related to the present case? D NO
If yes, list case number(s): 13-CV-02055 SJO{JEMx)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Civil cases are deemed related if a previously filed case and the present case:
(Check all boxes that apply) A. Arise from the same or closely related transactions, happenings, or events; or
B. Call for determination of the same or substantially related or similar questions of law and fact; or
C. For other reasons would entail substantial duplication of labor if heard by different judges; or
D. Involve the same patent, trademark or one of the factors identified above in a, b or c also is present.
X. SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY
(OR SELF-REPRESENTED
DATE: 30,2014
Notice to Counsel/Parties: The CV-71 (JS-44) Civil Cover Sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or
other papers as required by law. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required pursuant to local Rule 3-1 is not filed
but is used by the Clerk of the Court for the purpose of statistics, venue and initiating the civil docket sheet. (For more detailed instructions, see separate instructions sheet).
Key to Statistical codes relating to Social Security Cases:
Nature of Suit Code Abbreviation
861 HIA
862 Bl
863 DIWC
863 DIWW
864 SSID
865 RSI
CV-71 (11113)
Substantive Statement of Cause of Action
All claims for health insurance benefits (Medicare) under Title 18, Part A, of the Social Security Act, as amended. Also,
include claims by hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, etc., for certification as providers of services under the program.
(42 U.S.C. 1935FF{b))
All claims for "Black lung" benefits under Title 4, Part B, of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969. {30 U.S. C.
923)
All claims filed by insured workers for disability insurance benefits under Title 2 of the Social Security Act, as amended; plus
all claims filed for child's insurance benefits based on disability. (42 U.S.C. 405 (g))
All claims filed for widows or widowers insurance benefits based on disability under Title 2 of the Social Security Act, as
amended. (42 U.S.C. 405 (g))
All claims for supplemental security income payments based upon disability filed under Title 16 of the Social Security Act, as
amended.
All claims for retirement (old age) and survivors benefits under Title 2 of the Socia I Security Act, as amended.
(42 u.s.c. 405 (g))
CIVIL COVER SHEET Page3of3