Restoration Hardware v. Target - Complaint

Case 3:18-cv-00770 Document 1 Filed 02/05/18 Page 1 of 11
1 MICHAEL J. MCCUE (SBN: 296425)

Email: MMcCue@LRRC.COM
2 TERRY W. AHEARN (SBN: 216543)
Email: TAhearn@LRRC.COM
3 AARON D. JOHNSON (SBN: 261747)
Email: ADJohnson@LRRC.com
4 Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
4300 Bohannon Drive
5 Menlo Park, CA 94025
(650) 391-1380 (Tel.)
6 (650) 391-1395 (Fax)
7 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
RESTORATION HARDWARE, INC.
8 and RH US, LLC
9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
RESTORATION HARDWARE, INC.,
12 a Delaware corporation, and RH US, Case No.: 3:18-cv-00770
4300 Bohannon Drive, Suite 230
LLC, a Delaware limited liability

Menlo Park, California 94025
13 company,
COMPLAINT
14 Plaintiffs,
15 vs.
16 TARGET CORPORATION,
a Minnesota corporation,
17
Defendant.
18
19 Plaintiffs Restoration Hardware, Inc. and RH US, LLC (together, “RH”)

20 allege the following:
21 NATURE OF THIS ACTION
22 1. This is an action by RH against Target Corporation (“Target”) for
23 patent infringement arising out of Target’s infringement of RH’s patented
24 furniture designs. Specifically, Target is selling lounge chairs, sofas, armchairs
25 and chaises that infringe four (4) of RH’s design patents. RH seeks injunctive
26 relief and damages, including all of Target’s profits generated from the sale of
27 the infringing products.
28 ///
103256202_1 1
1 PARTIES
2 2. Plaintiff Restoration Hardware, Inc. is a Delaware corporation
3 whose principal place of business is located at 15 Koch Road, Corte Madera,
4 California 94925. Restoration Hardware, Inc. is the exclusive licensee of the
5 patents in suit.
6 3. Plaintiff RH US, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company
7 whose principal place of business is located at 15 Koch Road, Corte Madera,
8 California 94925. RH US, LLC is the owner of the patents in suit.
9 4. Defendant Target Corporation is a Minnesota corporation with its
10 principal place of business at 1000 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, Minnesota
11 55403.
12 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
13 5. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant
14 to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338 because this action involves claims for patent
15 infringement in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq.
16 6. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because,
17 among other things, Defendant has purposefully directed its activities at
18 residents of the forum, including, upon information and belief, by offering for
19 sale and selling the infringing products to residents of this district. Plaintiff’s
20 claims for patent infringement claim arise out of or relate to Defendant’s
21 offering for sale and sales of the infringing products in this district. The
22 assertion of personal jurisdiction over Defendant in this district is fair and
23 reasonable.
24 7. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. §1400(b) because
25 Target has committed acts of infringement in this district through the sale and
26 offering for sale of infringing products, and has a regular and established place
27 of business in this district. Venue is proper in the Northern District of this
28 court, San Francisco division.
103256202_1 2
1 INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
2 8. Pursuant to Civil Rule 3-2(c), this is an Intellectual Property
3 Action assignable on a district-wide basis.
4 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
5 9. RH is an innovative and popular luxury brand in the home
6 furnishings marketplace. RH designs, manufactures, and sells a wide variety of
7 home furnishings, including outdoor furniture. One of RH’s most popular
8 outdoor collections is known as “Provence.” Pieces in the Provence collection
9 embody the design in the RH Patents identified in Paragraphs 13-16.
10 10. RH owns four (4) design patents registered with the United States
11 Patent and Trademark Office for products in its Provence collection including:
12 (a) US D663,966 (“D’966 Patent”) for the ornamental design of a lounge chair;
13 (b) US D663,967 (the “D’967 Patent”) for the ornamental design of a sofa;
14 (c) US D664,782 (the “D’782 Patent”) for the ornamental design of an
15 armchair; and (d) US D651,012 (the “D’012 Patent”) for the ornamental design
16 of a chaise (collectively, “RH Patents”).
17 11. The RH Patents are valid and subsisting.
18 12. RH has practiced the RH Patents in connection with
19 commercialization of the Provence collection.
20 LOUNGE CHAIR DESIGN
21 13. The D’966 Patent claims the ornamental design of a lounge chair
22 as shown in the figures below.
23
24
25
26
27
28
103256202_1 3
6 SOFA DESIGN
7 14. The D’967 Patent claims the ornamental design of a sofa as shown
8 in the figures below.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 ///
28 ///
103256202_1 4
1 ARMCHAIR DESIGN
2 15. The D’782 Patent claims the ornamental design of an armchair as
3 shown in the figures below.
4
10
11
12
13
14 CHAISE DESIGN
15 16. The D’012 Patent claims the ornamental design of a chaise as
16 shown in the figures below.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
103256202_1 5
1 Target’s Infringing Conduct

2 17. Target owns and operates 1,834 stores in the United States and an
3 ecommerce store at <Target.com>.
4 18. In or around November 2017, RH learned that Target was selling
5 outdoor furniture under the brand “Smith & Hawken” and the product name
6 “Premium Edgewood” (the “Infringing Products”) that are nearly identical to
7 the designs of RH’s outdoor furniture covered by the RH Patents.
8 19. On November 10, 2017, RH sent a cease and desist letter to Target
9 identifying each of the Infringing Products, identifying the RH Patents at issue,
10 and providing a side-by-side comparison of RH’s Provence products
11 embodying the designs at issue and the Infringing Products with a link to each
12 listing for the Infringing Products on Target.com.
13 20. On November 28, 2017, Target responded in a summary manner

14 denying that it was not able to respond because RH “did not explain how any
15 Smith & Hawken product allegedly infringes any of the design patents.”
16 21. On November 29, 2017, RH responded and explained that Target
17 had sufficient information to evaluate RH’s claims.
18 22. On December 8, 2017, Target responded and claimed that RH
19 “provided no reason to believe that an ordinary observer would consider the
20 Smith & Hawken furniture collection and the allegedly patented designs to be
21 substantially the same,” did not provide a comparison of the claimed and
22 accused designs with the prior art, and “offered no reason to doubt” that the
23 designs are primarily functional rather than ornamental. Again, Target did not
24 substantively address RH’s infringement claims.
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
103256202_1 6
1 23. A side-by-side comparison of select figures from the RH Design

2 Patents and Target’s Infringing Products is shown in the table below.
3
RH’s Patented Designs Infringing Products
4
8
D’966
9
10
11
12
13
14
D’967
15
16
17
18
19
20 D’782
21
22
23
24
25
26 D’012
27
28
103256202_1 7
1 24. The design of the Infringing Products and the design of RH’s
2 Provence sofa and lounge are so similar that it is highly unlikely that Defendant
3 used the design of the Infringing Products without prior knowledge of the
4 Provence designs set forth in the RH Patents.
5 25. Upon information and belief and despite RH’s demands,
6 Defendant has continued to manufacture, use, offer to sell, sell, and/or import
7 into the United States, outdoor furniture that infringes upon the designs set forth
8 in the RH Patents.
9
COUNT I
10 (Patent Infringement
under 35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq.
11 D’966 Patent)
12 26. RH incorporates the allegations in foregoing paragraphs as though

13 fully set forth herein.

14 27. RH owns the D’966 Patent.
15 28. Defendant infringed the D’966 Patent by making, using, offering to
16 sell, selling, and/or importing into the United States products that embody or
17 use the designs claimed in the D’966 Patent.
18 29. RH did not authorize Defendant’s conduct.
19 30. Defendant’s conduct was knowing, intentional, and willful, making
20 this an exceptional case.
21 31. RH has suffered and continues to suffer actual damages and
22 irreparable injury as the result of Defendant’s conduct.
23 COUNT II
(Patent Infringement
24 under 35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq.
D ‘967 Patent)
25

103256202_1 8
1 34. Defendant infringed the D’967 Patent by making, using, offering

2 to sell, selling, and/or importing into the United States products that embody or
9
COUNT III
10 (Patent Infringement
under 35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq.
11 D’782 Patent)


23 COUNT IV
(Patent Infringement
24 under 35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq,
D’012 Patent)
25

103256202_1 9

9 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
10 WHEREFORE, RH requests that the Court enter:
11 A. A preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting Defendant and
12 its officers, agents, servants, and those persons in active concert or participation
13 with them from directly or indirectly infringing RH’s rights in the RH Patents,
14 including, without limitation, Defendant’s manufacturers and suppliers;
15 B. Judgment in favor of RH and against Defendant for damages
16 adequate to compensate RH for Defendant’s infringment of the RH Patents,
17 which shall be trebled as a result of Defendant’s willful patent infringement,
18 pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, or an award of Defendant’s profits from its
19 infringements pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 289, whichever is greater, together with
20 prejudgement interest and costs;
21 C. Judgment in favor of RH and against Defendant for RH’s costs and
22 attorneys’ fees incurred in this action, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285; and
23 D. Judgment in favor of RH and against Defendant for such other
24 relief as the Court deems just, equitable, and proper.
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
103256202_1 10
1 DATED February 5, 2018

2 Respectfully submitted,
3 By: /s/ Michael J. McCue
4 MICHAEL J. MCCUE
TERRY W. AHEARN
5 AARON D. JOHNSON
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
6 4300 Bohannon Drive, Suite 230
Menlo Park, CA 94025
7 (650) 391-1380 (Tel.)
(650) 391-1395 (Fax)
8 E-mails: MMcCue@LRRC.com
TAhearn@LRRC.com
9 ADJohnson@LRRC.com
10 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
RESTORATION HARDWARE, INC.
11 and RH US, LLC
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
103256202_1 11
JS-CAND 44 (Rev. 06/17) Case 3:18-cv-00770 Document 1-1 Filed 02/05/18 Page 1 of 1
CIVIL COVER SHEET
The JS-CAND 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,
except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved in its original form by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the Clerk of
Court to initiate the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS
RESTORATION HARDWARE, INC. a Delaware corporation, TARGET CORPORATION, a Minnesota corporation
and RH US,LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Marin County County of Residence of First Listed Defendant Hennepin County
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)
Michael McCue, Aaron Johnson and Terry Ahearn
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie, LLP
4300 Bohannon Drive, Suite 230, Menlo Park, CA 94025 T: 650.391.1380
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
PTF DEF PTF DEF
1 U.S. Government Plaintiff 3 Federal Question Citizen of This State 1 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4
(U.S. Government Not a Party)
of Business In This State
Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5 5
2 U.S. Government Defendant 4 Diversity of Business In Another State
(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)
Citizen or Subject of a 3 3 Foreign Nation 6 6
Foreign Country
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only)

CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES
110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 625 Drug Related Seizure of 422 Appeal 28 USC § 158 375 False Claims Act
120 Marine Property 21 USC § 881 423 Withdrawal 28 USC 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
310 Airplane 365 Personal Injury – Product
130 Miller Act Liability 690 Other § 157 § 3729(a))
315 Airplane Product Liability
140 Negotiable Instrument 367 Health Care/ 400 State Reapportionment
320 Assault, Libel & Slander LABOR PROPERTY RIGHTS
150 Recovery of Pharmaceutical Personal 410 Antitrust
330 Federal Employers’ 710 Fair Labor Standards Act 820 Copyrights
Overpayment Of Injury Product Liability 430 Banks and Banking
Liability 720 Labor/Management 830 Patent
Veteran’s Benefits 368 Asbestos Personal Injury 450 Commerce
340 Marine Relations 835 Patent─Abbreviated New
151 Medicare Act Product Liability
345 Marine Product Liability 740 Railway Labor Act Drug Application 460 Deportation
152 Recovery of Defaulted PERSONAL PROPERTY 470 Racketeer Influenced &
350 Motor Vehicle 751 Family and Medical 840 Trademark
Student Loans (Excludes 370 Other Fraud Corrupt Organizations
355 Motor Vehicle Product Leave Act
Veterans) 371 Truth in Lending SOCIAL SECURITY
Liability 790 Other Labor Litigation 480 Consumer Credit
153 Recovery of 380 Other Personal Property 861 HIA (1395ff)
360 Other Personal Injury 791 Employee Retirement 490 Cable/Sat TV
Overpayment Damage Income Security Act 862 Black Lung (923) 850 Securities/Commodities/
of Veteran’s Benefits 362 Personal Injury -Medical
Malpractice 385 Property Damage Product 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) Exchange
160 Stockholders’ Suits Liability IMMIGRATION
864 SSID Title XVI 890 Other Statutory Actions
190 Other Contract 462 Naturalization
CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS 865 RSI (405(g)) 891 Agricultural Acts
195 Contract Product Liability Application
440 Other Civil Rights HABEAS CORPUS 893 Environmental Matters
196 Franchise 465 Other Immigration FEDERAL TAX SUITS
441 Voting 463 Alien Detainee Actions 895 Freedom of Information
870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff or
REAL PROPERTY 442 Employment Act
510 Motions to Vacate Defendant)
210 Land Condemnation Sentence 896 Arbitration
443 Housing/ 871 IRS–Third Party 26 USC
220 Foreclosure Accommodations 530 General § 7609 899 Administrative Procedure
445 Amer. w/Disabilities– Act/Review or Appeal of
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 535 Death Penalty
Employment Agency Decision
240 Torts to Land OTHER
446 Amer. w/Disabilities–Other 950 Constitutionality of State
245 Tort Product Liability 540 Mandamus & Other Statutes
290 All Other Real Property 448 Education
550 Civil Rights
555 Prison Condition
560 Civil Detainee–
Conditions of
Confinement
V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)

1 Original 2 Removed from 3 Remanded from 4 Reinstated or 5 Transferred from 6 Multidistrict 8 Multidistrict
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District (specify) Litigation–Transfer Litigation–Direct File
VI. CAUSE OF Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338; 35 U.S.C. § 1
ACTION
Brief description of cause:
Patent Infringement
VII. REQUESTED IN CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, Fed. R. Civ. P. JURY DEMAND: Yes No
VIII. RELATED CASE(S), JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER

IF ANY (See instructions):
IX. DIVISIONAL ASSIGNMENT (Civil Local Rule 3-2)
(Place an “X” in One Box Only) SAN FRANCISCO/OAKLAND SAN JOSE EUREKA-MCKINLEYVILLE
DATE 02/05/2018 SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD /s/ Michael J. McCue
Print Save As... Reset

Restoration Hardware v. Target - Complaint

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

Restoration Hardware v. Target - Complaint

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Case 3:18-cv-00770 Document 1 Filed 02/05/18 Page 1 of 11

1 MICHAEL J. MCCUE (SBN: 296425)

LLC, a Delaware limited liability

19 Plaintiffs Restoration Hardware, Inc. and RH US, LLC (together, “RH”)

1 Target’s Infringing Conduct

13 20. On November 28, 2017, Target responded in a summary manner

1 23. A side-by-side comparison of select figures from the RH Design

12 26. RH incorporates the allegations in foregoing paragraphs as though

13 fully set forth herein.

26 32. RH incorporates the allegations in foregoing paragraphs as though

1 34. Defendant infringed the D’967 Patent by making, using, offering

12 38. RH incorporates the allegations in foregoing paragraphs as though

13 fully set forth herein.

26 44. RH incorporates the allegations in foregoing paragraphs as though

1 46. Defendant infringed the D’012 Patent by making, using, offering to

1 DATED February 5, 2018

IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only)

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

VIII. RELATED CASE(S), JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER

DATE 02/05/2018 SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD /s/ Michael J. McCue

Print Save As... Reset

Você também pode gostar