YSN Imports v. Mathews Outdoor Prods. - Complaint

Case 2:19-cv-08073 Document 1 Filed 09/18/19 Page 1 of 61 Page ID #:1
1 TODD M. LANDER (BAR NO. 173031)

todd.lander@ffslaw.com
2 MARK B. MIZRAHI (BAR NO. 179384)
mark.mizrahi@ffslaw.com
3 FREEMAN, FREEMAN &thSMILEY, LLP
1888 Century Park East, 15 Floor
4 Los Angeles, California 90067
Telephone: (310) 255-6100
5 Facsimile: (310) 255-6200
6 Attorneys for Plaintiff
YSN IMPORTS, INC.
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 YSN IMPORTS, INC., a Nevada ) CASE NO.: 2:19-cv-08073

corporation dba Flame King, )
12 ) COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
Plaintiff, ) JUDGMENT OF PATENT NON-
13 ) INFRINGEMENT, PATENT
v. ) INVALIDITY, AND PATENT
14 ) UNENFORCEABILITY
MATHEWS OUTDOOR PRODUCTS )
15 LLC, a Louisiana limited liability ) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
company, )
16 )
Defendant. )
17 )
18
Plaintiff YSN IMPORTS, INC. doing business as Flame King (“YSN” or
19
“Plaintiff”), for its claims for relief against Defendant Mathews Outdoor Products
20
LLC (“Defendant”), hereby avers as follows:
21
AVERMENTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
22
The following averments are common to, and are incorporated by reference in,
23
all claims for relief which follow:
24
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
25
1. This is a civil action arising under the declaratory judgments act pursuant
26
to Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202, and the Patent Act, Title 35 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.
27
Jurisdiction lies in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, 1338(a), 2201, and
28
4294212.1
COMPLAINT
1 2202. On information and belief, Defendant regularly and continuously conducts

2 business in and/or has maintained continuous and substantial contacts with the State
3 of California so that requiring Defendant to respond to this action will not violate due
4 process. Indeed, YSN is informed and believes that Defendant distributes goods
5 allegedly covered by the patent-in-suit throughout the state of California and this
6 District. In addition, Defendant has sent numerous threatening letters and demands to
7 YSN in the state of California, knowing that YSN is a California resident, and thereby
8 purposefully directed its activities towards California. Defendant is subject to the
9 personal jurisdiction in this Court and is amenable to service of process pursuant to
10 California long-arm statute, Cal. Code of Civ. Procedure § 415.40, and Fed. R. Civ. P.
11 4(e).
12 2. Venue lies in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) and 1391.
13 3. This is an action for declaratory judgment of patent non-infringement,
14 patent invalidity, and patent unenforceability, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, for the
15 purpose of resolving a question of actual controversy between the parties, as stated in
16 greater detail hereinbelow.
17 THE PARTIES
18 4. Plaintiff, YSN IMPORTS, INC., doing business as Flame King (“YSN”
19 or “Plaintiff”), is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of
20 Nevada, having a principal place of business in Los Angeles County, California.
21 5. Upon information and belief, Defendant MATHEWS OUTDOOR
22 PRODUCTS LLC (“Defendant”) is a Louisiana limited liability company with an address
23 at 301 Lancaster Dr., Houma, LA 70360.
24 6. Plaintiff, YSN is in the business of, inter alia, making, using, advertising
25 for sale, and selling grill and barbecue related goods.
26 7. Defendant is in the business of, inter alia, making, using, advertising for
27 sale, and selling propane firestarters.
28
4294212.1 2
COMPLAINT
1 8. Defendant alleges that it is the owner of U.S. Design Patent No. D851,763
2 S issued on June 18, 2019 (the “‘763 patent”) entitled “File Starter Lance.” A true and
3 copy of the ‘763 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
4 FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
5 (Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of Patent)
6 9. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 8, inclusive, herein by
7 this reference.
8 10. In response to prior threats by Defendant concerning one of YSN’s prior
9 firestarter designs, Defendant has conceived of a new modified firestarter design of
10 depicted below (the “YSN Modified Firestarter”):
11
12
13
14 11. YSN intends to release the YSN Modified Firestarter into the
15 marketplace imminently, and informed Defendant as much in a detailed letter,
16 including why the YSN Modified Firestarter does not infringe the ‘763 patent
17 together with why the ‘763 patent is invalid. A true and correct copy of the
18 aforedescribed letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
19 12. Defendant asserts that the YSN Modified Firestarter infringes the ‘763
20 patent and has directly threatened to sue YSN for infringement of the ‘763 patent upon
21 its offer for sale and/or sale in the marketplace by YSN and its customers. Such
22 assertions and threats were made directly to YSN representatives in the form of
23 Defendant’s written allegations of infringement.
24 13. On information and belief, Defendant also asserts that its ‘763 patent is
25 not invalid and will be enforced. These assertions by Defendant, combined with
26 Defendant’s charge of patent infringement, have put YSN in reasonable apprehension
27 of being sued by Defendant for YSN’s making, importing, using, selling, and offering
28 for sale of the YSN Modified Firestarter by YSN and its customers. A true and correct copy
4294212.1 3
COMPLAINT
1 of Defendant’s written threats to YSN concerning the YSN Modified Firestarter are attached
2 hereto as Exhibit 3.
3 14. Upon information and belief, Defendant’s assertion that the YSN
4 Modified Firestarter infringes the ‘763 patent has no basis in law. Accordingly, YSN
5 seeks a declaration from this Court stating that the YSN Modified Firestarter does not
6 infringe any claim of the ‘763 patent.
7 15. In view of Defendant’s charge of patent infringement and direct threats to
8 sue YSN for patent infringement, YSN has been brought into an adversarial conflict
9 with Defendant regarding YSN’s rights to make, import, use, sell, and advertise for
10 sale the YSN Modified Firestarter, and YSN has a real and reasonable apprehension of
11 litigation being brought by Defendant. Accordingly, the aforesaid actions,
12 accusations, and demands have given rise to a cause of actual and justiceable
13 controversy within the jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and
14 2202.
15 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
16 (Declaratory Judgment of Patent Invalidity)
17 16. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 15, inclusive herein by
18 reference.
19 17. YSN seeks a declaration from this Court stating that the ‘763 patent is
20 invalid for failure to comply with one or more of the requirements of 35 U.S.C. §§
21 102, 103 and/or 112. By way of example only, true and correct copies of prior references
22 that render the ‘763 patent invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and/or 103 are attached hereto
23 collectively as Exhibit 4. By way of example only, YSN sets forth immediately below
24 depictions of one of many burners in the prior art that is nearly identical to the claimed
25 design of the the ‘763 patent.
26 ///
27 ///
28
4294212.1 4
COMPLAINT
1 Weber Q100 Gas Grill Tube the ‘763 patent

Burner Kit
2
8
Published September 6, 2015 Priority = December 29, 2016
9
10 18. Defendant asserts that its ‘763 patent is not invalid, while YSN contends
11 that the patent is invalid and cannot be properly asserted against YSN. Defendant’s
12 assertions of validity, combined with its charge of patent infringement and direct
13 threats to sue YSN for patent infringement unless YSN refrains from making, selling,
14 using, and offering for sale the YSN Modified Firestarter, have given YSN a
15 reasonable apprehension that Defendant will sue YSN for infringement of the ‘763
16 patent. Accordingly, the aforesaid actions, accusations and demands by Defendant
17 have given rise to a case of actual and justiceable controversy concerning the
18 invalidity and enforceability of the ‘763 patent within the jurisdiction of this Court
19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.
20 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
21 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the following relief:
22 a. A declaration that through its making, importing, using, selling, or
23 offering for sale the YSN Modified Firestarter, YSN does not infringe, does not
24 contributorily infringe, and does not induce acts of infringement by others of any valid
25 and enforceable claim of U.S. Design Patent No. D851,763 S;
26 b. A declaration that of U.S. Design Patent No. D851,763 S is invalid and
27 unenforceable;
28
4294212.1 5
COMPLAINT
1 c. That Defendant be enjoined from asserting U.S. Design Patent No.

2 D851,763 S against YSN or taking any action to prevent YSN or its customers from
3 importing, selling, using, making, or offering for sale the YSN Modified Firestarter in
4 the United States;
5 d. That Defendant pay to YSN the cost of this action and the reasonable
6 attorneys’ fees to be allowed to YSN by the Court;
7 e. That this is an exceptional case under 35 USC § 285;
8 f. That YSN have such other, further, and different relief as the Court
9 deems proper and just under the circumstances.
10 Respectfully submitted,
11 DATED: September 18, 2019 FREEMAN, FREEMAN & SMILEY, LLP
12
13 By: / s / Mark B. Mizrahi

14
TODD M. LANDER
MARK B. MIZRAHI
15 Attorneys for Plaintiff,
16 KELLYTOY WORLDWIDE, INC.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4294212.1 6
COMPLAINT
1 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

2 Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial of all issues triable by a jury.
3 Respectfully submitted,
4 DATED: September 18, 2019 FREEMAN, FREEMAN & SMILEY, LLP
5
6 By: / s / Mark B. Mizrahi

7 TODD M. LANDER
MARK B. MIZRAHI
8 Attorneys for Plaintiff,
9 KELLYTOY WORLDWIDE, INC.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4294212.1 7
COMPLAINT
EXHIBIT 1
EXHIBIT 1
8
EXHIBIT 1
9
EXHIBIT 1
10
EXHIBIT 1
11
EXHIBIT 1
12
EXHIBIT 1
13
EXHIBIT 1
14
EXHIBIT 2
EXHIBIT 2
15
DIRECT DIAL: (310) 255-6129

EMAIL: mark.mizrahi@ffslaw.com
REPLY TO:
Los Angeles
FILE NO.:
September 17, 2019
VIA E-MAIL AND U.S. MAIL
Tyson David Mathews

Mathews Outdoor Products LLC
301 Lancaster Dr.
Houma, LA 70360
Re: Alleged Infringement of United States Design Patent No. D851,763 S

Our Ref.: 27296-201
Dear Mr. Mathews:
This firm represents Flame King in connection with its intellectual property matters. We
understand that you have made allegations that Flame King’s prior design for its YSNFS-01
Propane Fire Starter Log Lighter infringed upon your company’s U.S. Design Patent No.
D851,763 (the “Asserted Patent”). Without admitting liability, but instead to avoid unnecessary
disputes over a trivial matter as an ornamental design for functional product, my client
redesigned its YSNFS-01 Propane Fire Starter Log Lighter (the “Modified Firestarter”), as
depicted below:
Modified Firestarter
In our view, the only features the Asserted Patent and the Modified Firestarter share in
common are that they are both gas tube burners with a linearly straight portion and closed loop
end portion – features which are replete throughout the prior art. Ultimately, based in part on our
preliminary analysis below, it is clear that the Asserted Patent is invalid and that our client’s
Modified Firestarter does not infringe the Asserted Patent.
We trust that in light of this letter and analysis, you will refrain from making any further
allegations of infringement directly to my client or any online marketplace through which it sells
its wares.
EXHIBIT 2
LOS ANGELES
16
1888 CENTURY PARK EAST SUITE 1500 LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA 90067 T 310/255-6100 F 310/255-6200
IRVINE 1920 MAIN STREET SUITE 1050 IRVINE CALIFORNIA 92614 T 949/252-2777 F 949/252-2776 ffslaw.com
Tyson David Mathews

September 17, 2019
Page 2
For your reference, we set forth below our preliminary analysis concerning the invalidity
of the designs claimed in the Asserted Patent and non-infringement by the Modified Firestarter.
These are not our client’s final positions and my client reserves the right to amend, modify,
and/or supplement these analyses in the future. Additional prior art searches may also reveal
additional prior art. This is a preliminary analysis, being provided to you under Federal Rule of
Evidence § 408.
I. INVALIDITY
At the outset, we note that there are numerous prior art gas tube burners with linearly
straight portions and looped end portions in the marketplace 1 that, in the eye of an ordinary
observer, are substantially the same as the designs claimed in the Asserted Patent. We enclose
herewith, as Exhibit 1, various prior art references, together with materials at least preliminarily
dating these references, where applicable.
A. Anticipation
The claimed designs in the Asserted Patent are anticipated in light of the fact that these
designs and the below identified prior art references, when viewed as a whole, are identical in all
material respects. See, e.g., International Seaway Trading Corporation v. Walgreens
Corporation, et al., 589 F.3d 1233 (Fed. Cir. 2009). By way of example only, please see the
Centro Curved Burner, Uniflame “P” Burner, Uberhaus Stainless Steel Burner, Weber Q100 Gas
Grill Tube Burner Kit, Vossen and Weber Q200, Q220 Burner Tube prior art designs set forth
below. Minor differences cannot preclude a finding of anticipation. Id.
Any one of the below references, especially the Weber burners, would qualify as
anticipatory prior art vis-à-vis the Asserted Patent.
1
Indeed, as can be seen from the enclosed exhibits, many of these prior art burners were
exhibited through channels widely available in the marketplace, such that you must have had
access to and been aware of them. Yet, we note, that none of these burners appear to have been
disclosed to the USPTO by you in connection with the prosecution of the Asserted Patent.
2615887.1
EXHIBIT 2
17
Tyson David Mathews

September 17, 2019
Page 3
Centro Curved Uniflame Uberhaus Weber Q100 Gas Weber Q200, Q220
Burner “P” Burner Stainless Steel Grill Tube Burner Tube
Burner Burner Kit
Published May 11, Published Published May Published Published April 3,

2015 May 11, 11, 2015 September 6, 2015 2015
2015
The gas tube burners in all five of these references share basically the same design
characteristics with Asserted Patent, such as gas tube burners having: (a) a tubular body, (b) a
linearly-straight portion, (c) a looped end portion, (d) the looped end portion being laterally
asymmetric with respect to the linearly straight portion, and (e) gas outlet holes disposed on the
face of the looped end portion. If anything, to the extent that there are any differences between
any one of these primary references and the designs claimed in the Asserted Patent, they are
minor and insubstantial differences.
Moreover, the Centro Curved Burner and Uberhaus Stainless Steel Burner are examples
of prior art gas tube burners in which the looped end portion features a radiused outboard portion
and an angled (faceted) inboard portion. Thus, the Asserted Patent’s inclusion of such features
does nothing to render its claimed designs novel.
Regardless, Flame King contends that any one of the prior art gas burner tubes depicted
above, and many others in the prior art, would anticipate the Asserted Patent, being that they
would be perceived as essentially the same in the eye of the ordinary observer.
B. Obviousness
Even if it were determined that the claimed designs in the Asserted Patent were not
anticipated, at the very least, they would be found to be obvious in light of the combination of
two or more of prior art references identified, above.
For the obviousness analysis of design patents, the question “is whether the claimed
design would have been obvious to a designer of ordinary skill who designs articles of the type
2615887.1
EXHIBIT 2
18
Tyson David Mathews

September 17, 2019
Page 4
involved.” MRC Innovations, Inc. v. Hunter Mfg., LLP, 747 F.3d 1326, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
The obviousness test consists of two steps. Id. at 1331. In the first step, a primary reference
(sometimes referred to as a “Rosen reference”) must be found, “the design characteristics of
which are basically the same as the claimed design.” Id. This first step consists of two-part
inquiry under which a court must both (1) discern the correct visual impression created by the
patented design as a whole; and (2) determine whether there is a single reference that creates
“basically the same” visual impression. Id. The second step consists of modifying the primary
reference with secondary references “to create a design that has the same overall visual
appearance as the claimed design.” Id. The secondary reference(s) must be “so related [to the
primary reference] that the appearance of certain ornamental features in one would suggest the
application of those features to the other.” Id. In other words, the mere similarity in appearance
itself provides the suggestion that one should apply certain features to another design. Id.
Here, anyone of many of the prior art designs could serve as the “primary reference.” For
sake of discussion, here, we have selected the Centro Curved Burner, Uniflame “P” Burner,
Uberhaus Stainless Steel Burner, Weber Q100 Gas Grill Tube Burner Kit, Vossen and Weber
Q200, Q220 Burner Tube prior art designs set forth below, depicted above, as primary
references, as they each create basically the same visual impression as the claimed designs in the
Asserted Patent.
Further, ornamental designs for gas tube fire-starters have long included a linearly-
straight portion and a broadened burner portion. The table below illustrates a sample of prior art
patents illustrating such design features.
US 1802626 US 109324 US 3589312
Issued Issued 11/15/1870 Issued

04/ 28/1931 06/29/1971
2615887.1
EXHIBIT 2
19
Tyson David Mathews

September 17, 2019
Page 5
Moreover, as noted above, the Centro Curved Burner and Uberhaus Stainless Steel
Burner are examples of prior art gas tube burners in which the looped end portion features a
radiused outboard portion and an angled (faceted) inboard portion. Thus, the Asserted Patent’s
inclusion of such features does nothing to render its claimed designs non-obvious.
Accordingly, because all of the claimed features of the Asserted Patent are present within
one or more of the primary references, the claimed designs in the Asserted Patent are invalid on
obviousness grounds. If anything, to the extent that there are any differences between any one of
these primary references and the designs claimed in the Asserted Patent, they are minor and
insubstantial differences.
Even if it were determined that none of the primary references alone or in combination
contain all of these features, when the primary references are viewed in combination with one or
more of the secondary references a finding of obviousness is inescapable.
In any event, even putting aside whether or not the Asserted Patent will ultimately be
deemed invalid, as set forth below, the fact remains that the claimed designs in the Asserted
Patent bear greater similarity to many of the above-identified prior art designs than they do to my
client’s Modified Firestarter.
NON-INFRINGEMENT
The sole test for design patent infringement analysis is the ordinary observer test that
originates from Egyptian Goddess. Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665 (Fed.
Cir. 2008) (en banc). This test involves two steps. In the first step, the patented design and the
accused design are compared to determine if they appear “substantially the same,” such that an
ordinary observer would confuse one product for the other. If after the first step, the factfinder
determines that the designs are not “plainly dissimilar,” the factfinder moves onto the second
step. In the second step, the patented and accused designs are compared with art from prior
patents to allow the factfinder to attach importance to differences between the claimed design
and the prior patent depending on the overall effect of those differences on the design. This
comparison to prior art allows the ordinary observer to attach significance to “differences
between the claimed and accused designs that might not be noticeable in the abstract.” Egyptian
Goddess, 543 F.3d at 678. As a result, if the patent and the prior art are particularly close, the
scale of comparison between the accused and patented designs shrinks. See id. at 676 ("When the
differences between the claimed and accused design are viewed in light of the prior art, the
attention of the hypothetical ordinary observer will be drawn to those aspects of the claimed
design that differ from the prior art. And when the claimed design is close to the prior art
designs, small differences between the accused design and the claimed design are likely to be
important ...").
Even if comparing the designs in the Asserted Patent and the Modified Firestarter “in
isolation” under the first part of the test could lead a reasonable jury to find substantial similarity
2615887.1
EXHIBIT 2
20
Tyson David Mathews

September 17, 2019
Page 6
– something that Flame King does not concede – “once the prior art informs the comparison” as
required by the second part of the Egyptian Goddess test, the differences between the designs in
the Asserted Patent and the Modified Firestarter stand out inescapably.
In connection with the second step, when the claimed design is close to prior art, small
differences between the accused design and the claimed design are important to the hypothetical
ordinary observer. See, e.g., Weber-Stephen Prods. LLC v. Sears Holding Corp., 2015 WL
9304343 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 22, 2015). Here, as set forth above in connection with our invalidity
discussion, above, the prior art references are extremely close in appearance to the claimed
designs in the Asserted Patent.
The differences between the claimed designs in the Asserted Patent and the Modified
Firestarter, here, are significant – well beyond the “small differences” sufficient to avoid a
finding of infringement. Most notably, the looped end portion of the Modified Firestarter is
laterally symmetrical with respect to the linearly-straight portion.
As we see it, the similarities between the designs claimed in the Asserted Patent, and the
design embodied by the Modified Firestarter bear similarities only at a high level of abstraction,
e.g., they represent a gas tube burner with an elongated straight portion and a looped end portion
– features which are replete throughout the prior art, in part, as set forth above. Indeed, no
reasonable observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into believing the Modified
Firestarter are the same as the claimed designs of the Asserted Patent. At the very least, the
Modified Firestarter and the claimed designs in the Asserted Patent differ more significantly vis-
à-vis each other than the claimed designs in the Asserted Patent differ from the prior art gas tube
burners.
///
///
2615887.1
EXHIBIT 2
21
Tyson David Mathews

September 17, 2019
Page 7
Modified US 3589312 US 1802626 US 109324 Weber Q200,

Firestarter Q220 Burner Tube
Modified Issued Issued Issued 11/15/1870 Published April 3,

Firestarter 06/29/1971 04/ 28/1931 2015
Uniflame “P” Uberhaus Centro Curved Weber Q100 Gas Asserted Patent
Burner Stainless Steel Burner Grill Tube Burner
Burner Kit
Published May Published May Published May 11, Published Priority =

11, 2015 11, 2015 2015 September 6, 2015 December 29,
2016
2615887.1
EXHIBIT 2
22
Tyson David Mathews

September 17, 2019
Page 8
The close prior art draws attention to the significant differences between the Modified
Firestarter and the claimed designs in the Asserted Patent, so much so that it would not be
reasonable to conclude that an ordinary observer familiar with that prior art would be deceived
into thinking the Modified Firestarter the "same as" the claimed designs in the Asserted Patent.
Egyptian Goddess, 543 F.3d at 676.
We trust that, in light of the numerous close prior art references discussed herein – some
of the most relevant of which were not disclosed by you in connection with the filing and
prosecution of the Asserted Patent – you will agree that Flame King’s Modified Firestarter is
significantly different from the design set forth in the Asserted Patent and therefore does not
infringe the Asserted Patent.
This letter is not intended as a full statement of all facts relating to this matter, nor should
anything herein be construed as a waiver, release or relinquishment of any rights, remedies,
claims or causes of action available to my clients, all of which are reserved.
Sincerely,
Mark B. Mizrahi
FREEMAN, FREEMAN & SMILEY, LLP
Enclosures
2615887.1
EXHIBIT 2
23
Tyson David Mathews

September 17, 2019
Page 9
EXHIBIT 1
2615887.1
EXHIBIT 2
24
EXHIBIT 2
25
EXHIBIT 2
26
EXHIBIT 2
27
EXHIBIT 2
28
EXHIBIT 2
29
EXHIBIT 2
30
EXHIBIT 2
31
EXHIBIT 2
32
EXHIBIT 2
33
EXHIBIT 2
34
EXHIBIT 2
35
EXHIBIT 2
36
EXHIBIT 2
37
EXHIBIT 2
38
EXHIBIT 2
39
EXHIBIT 2
40
EXHIBIT 2
41
EXHIBIT 3
EXHIBIT 3
42
From: Sales <sales@mathewsoutdoorproducts.com>

Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2019 1:38 PM
To: Mark B. Mizrahi
Cc: tmathews@mathewsoutdoorproducts.com; Lance M. Pritikin
Subject: Re: Alleged Infringement of United States Design Patent No. D851,763 S
That is absolute infringement! Have seen our design patent? If you manufacture and sell this product we will see you in
court!
Thanks,
Dave Mathews CEO
Mathews Outdoor Products
985-312-1644
mathewsoutdoorproducts.com
On Sep 17, 2019, at 2:47 PM, Mark B. Mizrahi <Mark.Mizrahi@ffslaw.com> wrote:
Dear Mr. Matthews,
Please see my enclosed letter concerning the above matter.
Very truly yours,
Mark B. Mizrahi | Attorney At Law

<image001.gif>
1888 Century Park East | Suite 1500 | Los Angeles | CA 90067
Tel: 310.255.6129 | Fax: 310.255.6229
website | bio | map | email | <image002.gif>
<image003.jpg>
This email and any files transmitted with it are the property of Freeman, Freeman & Smiley, LLP and contains information that is confidential and/or
protected from disclosure under the attorney-client privilege, joint defense privilege, the attorney work product doctrine or other applicable law. It is
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
distribution, copying, use or retention of this email is prohibited. If you received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete
all copies from your computer system. You should check this email and any attachments for the presence of computer viruses. Email transmission
cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free. Freeman, Freeman & Smiley, LLP accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus
transmitted by this email, or for any errors or omissions in the contents of this email which arise as a result of email transmission.
<Tyson David Mathews 09-17-19 re non-infringement of USD851763.pdf>
EXHIBIT
1 3
43
EXHIBIT 4
EXHIBIT 4
44
EXHIBIT 4
45
EXHIBIT 4
46
EXHIBIT 4
47
EXHIBIT 4
48
EXHIBIT 4
49
EXHIBIT 4
50
EXHIBIT 4
51
EXHIBIT 4
52
EXHIBIT 4
53
EXHIBIT 4
54
EXHIBIT 4
55
EXHIBIT 4
56
EXHIBIT 4
57
EXHIBIT 4
58
EXHIBIT 4
59
EXHIBIT 4
60
EXHIBIT 4
61

YSN Imports v. Mathews Outdoor Prods. - 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

YSN Imports v. Mathews Outdoor Prods. - Complaint

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Case 2:19-cv-08073 Document 1 Filed 09/18/19 Page 1 of 61 Page ID #:1

1 TODD M. LANDER (BAR NO. 173031)

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11 YSN IMPORTS, INC., a Nevada ) CASE NO.: 2:19-cv-08073

1 2202. On information and belief, Defendant regularly and continuously conducts

1 Weber Q100 Gas Grill Tube the ‘763 patent

1 c. That Defendant be enjoined from asserting U.S. Design Patent No.

13 By: / s / Mark B. Mizrahi

1 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

6 By: / s / Mark B. Mizrahi

DIRECT DIAL: (310) 255-6129

September 17, 2019

VIA E-MAIL AND U.S. MAIL

Tyson David Mathews

Re: Alleged Infringement of United States Design Patent No. D851,763 S

Dear Mr. Mathews:

Tyson David Mathews

Tyson David Mathews

Published May 11, Published Published May Published Published April 3,

Tyson David Mathews

US 1802626 US 109324 US 3589312

Issued Issued 11/15/1870 Issued

Tyson David Mathews

Tyson David Mathews

Tyson David Mathews

Modified US 3589312 US 1802626 US 109324 Weber Q200,

Modified Issued Issued Issued 11/15/1870 Published April 3,

Published May Published May Published May 11, Published Priority =

Tyson David Mathews

Tyson David Mathews

From: Sales <sales@mathewsoutdoorproducts.com>

On Sep 17, 2019, at 2:47 PM, Mark B. Mizrahi <Mark.Mizrahi@ffslaw.com> wrote:

Dear Mr. Matthews,

Please see my enclosed letter concerning the above matter.

Very truly yours,

Mark B. Mizrahi | Attorney At Law

<Tyson David Mathews 09-17-19 re non-infringement of USD851763.pdf>

Você também pode gostar