Case 2:19-cv-00330-JRG Document 1 Filed 10/11/19 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 1

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION

2 DOGS DISTRIBUTION, LLC

Civil Action No. _______
Plaintiff,
vs. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

JACENT STRATEGIC MERCHANDISING,

LLC (d/b/a Jacent) and DOES 1 through 10,

Defendants.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Plaintiff 2 Dogs Distribution, LLC (“2-Dogs” or “Plaintiff”), for its Original Complaint

against Jacent Strategic Merchandising, LLC (d/b/a Jacent) (“JSM”) and DOES 1 through 10

(“Doe Defendants”) (collectively, “Jacent” or “Defendants”), hereby alleges as follows:

PARTIES

1. 2-Dogs is a Delaware limited liability company with a principal place of business

at 125 W. Gemini Dr., Suite E1-E2 in Tempe, Arizona 85283.

2. Upon information and belief, Defendant JSM is a limited liability company

organized and existing under the laws of Delaware, having a principal place of business at 860

Welsh Road, Huntington Valley, PA 19006. JSM may be served via its registered agent for service

of process:

Jacent Strategic Merchandising, LLC

c/o The Corporation Trust Company
Corporation Trust Center
1209 Orange St.
Wilmington, DE 19801

3. 2-Dogs is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Doe Defendants are other

-1-
 Case 2:19-cv-00330-JRG Document 1 Filed 10/11/19 Page 2 of 12 PageID #: 2

parties not yet identified who have infringed 2-Dogs’s intellectual property rights, have contributed

to and/or aided and abetted the infringement of 2-Dogs’s intellectual property rights, or have

engaged in one or more of the wrongful practices alleged herein. The true names, whether

corporate, individual or otherwise, of Does Defendants are presently unknown to 2-Dogs, which

therefore sues said Does Defendants by such fictitious names, and will seek leave to amend this

Complaint to show their true names and capacities when same have been ascertained.

4. 2-Dogs is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all times relevant hereto

each of the Doe Defendants was the agent, affiliate, officer, director, manager, principal, alter-ego,

and/or employee of JSM or another Doe Defendant so connected to JSM and was at all times acting

within the scope of such agency, affiliation, joint actor, co-conspirator, alter-ego relationship,

and/or employment; and actively participated in or subsequently ratified and/or adopted each of

the acts or conduct alleged, with full knowledge of all the facts and circumstances, including, but

not limited to, full knowledge of each violation of 2-Dogs’s rights and the damages to 2-Dogs

proximately caused thereby as discussed below.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

5. This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of the United

States Code, including 35 U.S.C. §§ 271 and 281. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).

6. On information and belief, Defendants are subject to this Court’s specific and

general personal jurisdiction pursuant to due process and/or the Texas Long Arm Statute, due at

least to their substantial business in this forum, including: (i) at least a portion of the infringements

alleged herein; and (ii) regularly doing or soliciting business, engaging in other persistent courses

of conduct, and/or deriving substantial revenue from goods and services provided to entities and

individuals in Texas and in the Eastern District of Texas (this “District”).

-2-
 Case 2:19-cv-00330-JRG Document 1 Filed 10/11/19 Page 3 of 12 PageID #: 3

7. Particularly, upon information and belief, Defendants and/or their agents and/or

intermediaries, offer for sale and/or sell their products in this District, including the products

accused of infringement in this action, through physical displays located at retail partners of

Defendants located within this District. In addition, on information and belief, Defendants and/or

their agents, intermediaries, and/or distributors offer for sale and/or sell their products in this

District for sale over the Internet and through other channels.

8. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c) and 28

U.S.C. § 1400(b). Upon information and belief, Defendants own, operate, control, maintain,

and/or lease physical displays located at their retail partners within this District that are used to

sell or offer to sell Infringing Products (defined below). In particular, the physical displays are

directly managed and maintained by Defendants’ employees and agents, who operate in this

District. In addition, on information and belief, Defendants maintain and control additional

physical locations in order to support their operations (e.g., maintaining warehousing and

distribution locations). As such, the physical displays, and support locations, constitute regular

and established places of business within this District where Defendants have committed acts of

infringement.

BACKGROUND

 2-Dogs and Its Intellectual Property

9. 2-Dogs manufactures and distributes various high quality products, including a

carabiner product called THE MOMMY HOOK (the “Mommy Hook® product(s)”). The Mommy

Hook® product has been sold commercially in one form or another since at least 2006, and has

gained widespread recognition among consumers. The Mommy Hook® product has been widely

successful due to its unique design, and has garnered a reputation as a high-quality, innovative,

and stylish product. A photo of the Mommy Hook® product is reproduced below:

-3-
 Case 2:19-cv-00330-JRG Document 1 Filed 10/11/19 Page 4 of 12 PageID #: 4

10. 2-Dogs has taken steps to protect its products and owns various United States

patents relating to its product designs. 2-Dogs is the exclusive owner of certain intellectual

property directed to innovative and quality carabiner products, including, without limitation,

United States Design Patent No. D613,583 (the “’583 Patent”) and United States Federal

Trademark Registration No. 3,306,126 for THE MOMMY HOOK. 2-Dogs owns all right, title,

and interest in, and has the right to sue and recover for past, present, and future infringement of,

the ’583 Patent, which issued on April 13, 2010. A copy of the ’583 Patent is attached as Exhibit

A. The ’583 Patent is entitled “Carabiner,” and claims the distinctive ornamental design for a

carabiner as shown in the Patent.

11. The ’583 Patent is presumed to be valid pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 282.

12. The Mommy Hook® product is covered by the ’583 Patent. 2-Dogs marks its

Mommy Hook® product with the ’583 Patent number in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 287.

-4-
 Case 2:19-cv-00330-JRG Document 1 Filed 10/11/19 Page 5 of 12 PageID #: 5

 Defendants / Jacent

13. Defendants, particularly, JSM, operate as a strategic merchandising partner to

various retailers. According to Defendant JSM, Defendants source, warehouse, ship, and stock

over 3,500 impulse items to 14,000 retail stores across the US, Canada, and Puerto Rico.

Defendants create a strategic merchandising plan for each store-then place the ideal impulse items

in the ideal locations and provide follow-up re-ordering and re-stocking. Generally speaking,

Defendants control and manage various fixture displays at their retail partners (e.g., clip-strips or

checkout-displays at grocery stores).1 In addition to managing fixture displays, on information

and belief, Defendants also sell their products through their website and product catalog directly

to consumers, through wholesalers, and other retailers.

14. Without 2-Dogs’s authorization, Defendants have made, used, imported, sold,

and/or offered to sell a product(s) that is the same or substantially similar to the design claimed in

the ’583 Patent (“the Infringing Products”), thus directly infringing the ’583 Patent. The Infringing

Products include at least Defendants’ product entitled “Aluminum Carabiner,” branded as being

produced by “Jacent,” and bearing “Item # 17156” and UPC code “8 52755 00528 7,” for example,

as shown:

1
See, e.g., http://jacentretail.com/solution-center/merchandising-solutions/fixture-displays/ (last
visited Oct. 1, 2019).

-5-
 Case 2:19-cv-00330-JRG Document 1 Filed 10/11/19 Page 6 of 12 PageID #: 6

15. Infringement is confirmed by the following side-by-side comparison of the claimed

design of the ’583 Patent v. the Mommy Hook® product v. a sample of the Infringing Products,

which shows the design of each to be substantially identical, as shown:

The ’583 Patent (Fig. 2) The Mommy Hook® Jacent Aluminum

product Carabiner

16. On information and belief, Defendants also import (or cause others to import) the

-6-
 Case 2:19-cv-00330-JRG Document 1 Filed 10/11/19 Page 7 of 12 PageID #: 7

Infringing Products into the United States, further infringing the ’583 Patent. In particular, certain

Infringing Products purport to have been “Made in China.”

17. Upon information and belief, Defendants have also induced and continue to induce

acts by third parties that Defendants know or should know constitute direct infringement of the

’583 Patent. Defendants actively induced infringement of the ’583 Patent by designing their

Infringing Products such that they infringe the ’583 Patent and by purposefully directing,

promoting, encouraging, and causing the manufacture, sale, advertisement for sale, use and/or

importation into the United States of their Infringing Products by third parties in ways that infringe

the ’583 Patent. In particular, Defendants induce their retail partners to sell and offer for sale the

Infringing Products by, inter alia, placing the Infringing Products at physical displays located

within Defendants’ retail partners’ stores.

 Defendants’ Conduct is Willful and Egregious

18. Upon information and belief, Defendants knew or should have known of Plaintiff’s

existing patent rights in the ’583 Patent because that Patent has been published since at least April

13, 2010.

19. Moreover, the Mommy Hook® product’s packaging is prominently marked with

the ’583 Patent number since its issuance in 2010.

20. On information and belief, Defendants obtained the Mommy Hook® product and

copied its design for their Infringing Products. Indeed, the fact that the Infringing Product is a

virtual carbon copy (including in both size and shape) (as shown by the above side-by-side

reproductions) evidences that Defendants intentionally copied the Mommy Hook® product. Given

that the ’583 Patent is prominently marked on the Mommy Hook® product, on information and

belief, Defendants had actual notice of 2-Dogs’s intellectual property rights at the time

infringement began.

-7-
 Case 2:19-cv-00330-JRG Document 1 Filed 10/11/19 Page 8 of 12 PageID #: 8

21. Defendants were therefore aware or should have been aware of Plaintiff’s rights in

the ’583 Patent.

22. Alternatively, Defendants willfully blinded themselves as to knowledge and

infringement of 2-Dogs’s intellectual property rights at the time infringement began.

23. On or around June 2017, representatives from 2-Dogs attended a tradeshow in an

effort to market the Mommy Hook® product. At this tradeshow, representatives from 2-Dogs met

with representatives of Defendants and Defendants’ retail partners, among others. Defendants’

retail partners expressed interest in 2-Dogs’s Mommy Hook® product. Defendants also expressed

interest in 2-Dogs’s Mommy Hook® product. After the tradeshow, 2-Dogs continued its attempts

to market its Mommy Hook® product to Defendants and Defendants’ customers.

24. However, unbeknown to 2-Dogs, Defendants had chosen not to have 2-Dogs supply

non-infringing product. Instead, Defendants had already been marketing their Infringing Products

to their retail partners.

25. Around July of 2017, 2-Dogs discovered that Defendants were marketing their

knock-off Infringing Products, specifically to entities that had expressed interest in the Mommy

Hook® product. On or around July 25, 2017, 2-Dogs informed Defendants of the benefits of 2-

Dogs’s Mommy Hook® product and also informed Defendants that their knock-off product

infringed. Instead of obtaining a license to 2-Dogs’s intellectual property, Defendants chose not

to respond.

26. On or around August 29, 2017, 2-Dogs again reached out to Defendants regarding

the same issues. Again, instead of obtaining a license to 2-Dogs’s intellectual property, Defendants

chose not to respond.

27. Defendants continued to engage in infringing conduct by, inter alia, continue

-8-
 Case 2:19-cv-00330-JRG Document 1 Filed 10/11/19 Page 9 of 12 PageID #: 9

selling their Infringing Products, without obtaining proper authorization.

28. 2-Dogs also, through counsel, expressly informed Defendants of the ’583 Patent on

or about August 29, 2019, demanding, inter alia, that Defendant JSM cease infringement of the

’583 Patent and confirm so in writing. Although Defendant JSM ambiguously indicated that it

would “put a hold on its sale of its Aluminum Carabiners in the US” pending its investigation, it

is unclear if Defendant JSM in fact ever ceased sales of Infringing Products. Indeed, on

information and belief, Defendants have not taken any affirmative steps to avoid continued

infringement, such as destroying inventory and recalling inventory in the possession of their

retailer partners.

29. Additionally, Defendants have acknowledged their need to take a license to the

’583 Patent. However, Defendants have refused to comply with 2-Dogs’s reasonable demands for

an accounting, inter alia, of Defendants’ past infringing sales. This is further indicative of

knowledge and bad faith on the part of Defendants.

30. Thus, Defendants’ violation of 2-Dogs’s patent rights has been and continues to be

egregious and willful.

COUNT I
DIRECT INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’583 PATENT

31. 2-Dogs repeats, realleges, and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in

the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.

32. Upon information and belief, Defendants’ Infringing Products are covered by the

design set forth in claim 1 of the ’583 Patent.

33. Defendants have sold in the United States, offered for sale in the United States and

imported into the United States, the Infringing Products. These acts constitute direct infringement

of the ’583 Patent.

-9-
 Case 2:19-cv-00330-JRG Document 1 Filed 10/11/19 Page 10 of 12 PageID #: 10

34. As a direct and proximate result of these actions, Defendants have unlawfully

derived and will continue to derive income, profits and goodwill from their infringing activities.

35. 2-Dogs has been and will continue to be damaged irreparably by Defendants’ direct

infringement of the ’583 Patent. 2-Dogs has no adequate remedy at law for these wrongs and

injuries. The damage to 2-Dogs includes harm to its intellectual property and reputation as an

innovator, among other things, that money cannot compensate.

36. Defendants’ infringing conduct makes this an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. §

285, due in part to Defendants’ egregious, willful, and wanton disregard for 2-Dogs’s patent rights.

COUNT II
INDUCED INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’583 PATENT

37. 2-Dogs repeats, realleges, and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in

the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.

38. Upon information and belief, Defendants have induced others to make, use, sell,

and offer for sale in the United States, and to import into the United States, Defendants’ Infringing

Products. Such third parties include, e.g., Defendants’ retail partners and distributors throughout

the United States who sell, offer for sale, distribute and/or import the Infringing Products in the

United States.

39. Upon information and belief, Defendants knew of the ’583 Patent as described

above, and knew that third parties’ actions constitute infringement of the ’583 Patent.

40. Upon information and belief, the actions of Defendants described above have at all

times relevant to this action been willful.

41. 2-Dogs has been and will continue to be damaged irreparably by Defendants’

induced infringement the ’583 Patent. 2-Dogs has no adequate remedy at law for these wrongs

and injuries. The damage to 2-Dogs includes harm to its intellectual property and reputation as an

- 10 -
 Case 2:19-cv-00330-JRG Document 1 Filed 10/11/19 Page 11 of 12 PageID #: 11

innovator, among other things, that money cannot compensate.

42. Defendants’ infringing conduct makes this an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. §

285, due in part to Defendants’ egregious, willful, and wanton disregard for 2-Dogs’s patent rights.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

43. WHEREFORE, 2-Dogs respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment on

each and every claim for relief set forth above and award relief, including, but not limited to, the

following:

A. Granting judgment that Defendants have directly infringed the ’583 Patent;

B. Granting judgment that Defendants have indirectly infringed the ’583 Patent by

inducing and contributing to the infringement of the ’583 Patent by others;

C. Issuing a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants, and their agents, employees,

attorneys, successors and assigns, and all persons, firms, and corporations acting in

concert with them, from directly or indirectly infringing the ʼ583 Patent, including

inducing the infringement of, or contributing to the infringement of, the ʼ583 Patent.

D. Entering judgment for 2-Dogs against Defendants for damages suffered by 2-Dogs

as a result of such infringement, including, but not limited to lost profits and/or a

reasonable royalty pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284;

E. Awarding 2-Dogs enhanced damages as a result of Defendants’ egregious and

willful patent infringement;

F. Awarding 2-Dogs the costs and disbursements of this action, and reasonable

attorneys’ fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285;

G. An order directing the destruction of all Infringing Products in Defendants’

possession or control, including the destruction of all advertising materials related

to the Infringing Products in Defendants’ possession or control;

- 11 -
 Case 2:19-cv-00330-JRG Document 1 Filed 10/11/19 Page 12 of 12 PageID #: 12

H. Awarding 2-Dogs pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, to the fullest extent

available, on the foregoing; and

I. Granting such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

44. 2-Dogs specifically requests a trial by jury on all issues so triable, pursuant to Rule

38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

DATED: October 11, 2019 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Jaspal S. Hare

SPENCER FANE, LLP

Jaspal S. Hare (lead counsel)

Texas Bar No. 24083135
jhare@spencerfane.com
5700 Granite Parkway, Suite 650
Plano, TX 75024
Telephone: (214) 750-3623
Facsimile: (972) 324-0301

Kyle L. Elliott (pro hac vice to be filed)

Missouri Bar No. 49145
kelliott@spencerfane.com
1000 Walnut Street, Suite 1400
Kansas City, Missouri 64106
Telephone: (816) 474-8100
Facsimile: (816) 474-3216

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF 2 DOGS

DISTRIBUTION, LLC

- 12 -
Case 2:19-cv-00330-JRG Document 1-1 Filed 10/11/19 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 13

Exhibit A
Case 2:19-cv-00330-JRG Document 1-1 Filed 10/11/19 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 14
USOOD613583S

(12) United States Design Patent (10) Patent No.: US D613,583 S

Abels (45) Date of Patent: . * Apr. 13, 2010
(54) CARABNER 4,785,495 A 11/1988 Dellis
4,811,467 A 3, 1989 Lowe
(76) Inventor: David L. Abels, 112 Yeargen Pl., Chapel
Hill, NC (US) 27516 (Continued)
(**) Term: 14 Years FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS
DE 2945831. A * 5, 1980
(21) Appl. No. 29/336,431
Continued
(22) Filed: May 4, 2009 (Continued)
OTHER PUBLICATIONS
Related U.S. Application Data
Absorbent, Ink. “Jumbo Carry-All Carabiner'. Jun. 3, 2008, Pub
(63) Continuation of application No. 12/016.275, filed on lisher: Accessed online via http://www.absorbentprinting.com/tools
Jan. 18, 2008. and-knives/carabiners/carabiners jumbo-carry-all-carabiner.
(51) LOC (9) Cl. .................................................. O8-05 (Continued)
(52) ... D8/356 Primary Examiner Susan Bennett Hattan
(58) Field of Classification Search .................. D8/105, Assistant Examiner—Karen Acker
D8/107,333,349,356,358,357, 373,383; (74) Attorney, Agent, or Firm Vincent K. Gustafson;
D11/200, 215: 24/573.11,579.09, 579.11, Intellectual Property, Technology Law
24/592.11,599.1,599.9, 600.1; 182/5
See application file for complete search history. (57) CLAM
(56) References Cited The ornamental design for a carabiner, as shown and
U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS described.
1,219,199 A 3/1917 Troop DESCRIPTION
1,263,745 A 4, 1918 Craven
2,412,895. A 12/1946 Lewis FIG. 1 is a perspective view of the carabiner of the invention.
2.492.991 A 1/1950 Hanna
2,550,038 A 4, 1951 Brown FIG. 2 is a front elevation view of the carabiner of FIG. 1;
2,833,454. A 5, 1958 McGee FIG. 3 is a top plan view of the carabiner of FIGS. 1-2;
2.983,980 A 5, 1961 Hamel
3,120,403 A 2f1964 Molzan et al. 4 is a left side elevation view of the carabiner of FIGS.
3,358,340 A 12/1967 Higuchi a
3,563,430 A 2f1971 Forrest FIG. 5 is a right side elevation view of the carabiner of FIGS.
4,095.316 A 6, 1978 Gabriel 1-4; and,
4,380,093
A 4/1983 Morgan
D271466 S 11, 1983 Boissonnet FIG. 6 is a bottom plan view of the carabiner of FIGS. 1–5.
4,556,245 A * 12/1985 Gruenwald ................ 294,312
D282,904 S 3, 1986 Faidide 1 Claim, 4 Drawing Sheets
Case 2:19-cv-00330-JRG Document 1-1 Filed 10/11/19 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: 15

US D613,583 S
Page 2

U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS D528,406 S 9, 2006 Kramer

7,114,196 B1 10/2006 Cicio
4,835,823 6, 1989 Contat 7,140,326 B2 11/2006 Jenny et al.
4,890,355 1, 1990 Schulten 7,228,600 B1 6/2007 Selby et al.
4,930, 194 6, 1990 Frechin 7,322,624 B2 1/2008 Murphy
4,964,192 10, 1990 Marui D565,392 S * 4/2008 Shetler ........................ D8,356
5,005,266 4, 1991 Fister et al. D572,573 S 7, 2008 Abels
5,010,850 4, 1991 Sailer 2001 0037542 A1 11, 2001 Elliott
5,155,878 10, 1992 Dellis 2002/0092142 A1 7/2002 Schoen
D334,888 4, 1993 Merritt ........................ D9/455 2003/0047953 A1 3/2003 Hechimovich et al.
5,210,914 5, 1993 Katsma 2003/0106190 A1 6/2003 Christianson
5,263,755 11, 1993 Thompson 2003/0110604 A1 6/2003 Kennard
5,329,675 T. 1994 McLean et al. 2003/O127477 A1 7, 2003 Williams
5,357,657 10, 1994 Petzl 2004.0143945 A1 7/2004 Christianson
5,361,726 11, 1994 Harris et al. 2004/02311 16 A1 1 1/2004 Goldberg
5,441,323 8, 1995 Goddard 2004/0250386 Al 12/2004 Goldberg
D369,549 5, 1996 Meyers et al. 2005, 0028331 A1 2, 2005 Axel
5,517,949 5, 1996 Harris et al. 2005/0057056 A1 3, 2005 Davis
D371,023 6, 1996 Higgins ....................... D6,462 2005/0081347 A1 4/2005 Goldberg
D375,252 11, 1996 Serra Fabregas 2005/0229367 A1 10/2005 Thompson
5,577,304 11, 1996 Simond ..................... 24,588.1 2005.0246874 A1 11/2005 HSu
5,729,864 3, 1998 Lie et al. 2005/0275230 A1 12/2005 Barrett
5,738,401 4, 1998 Fan 2005/0278907 A1 12/2005 DiMarchi et al.
D406,250 3, 1999 Luket al. 2006, 0087139 A1 4/2006 Ayres
5,878,834 3, 1999 Brainerd et al. 2006, O137151 A1 6/2006 Thompson
5,882,022 3, 1999 Convertini et al. 2006,0162138 A1 7/2006 Kimura
5,940,943 8, 1999 Kloster ...................... 24,588.1 2006, O168781 A1 8, 2006 Axel
6,000, 108 12, 1999 Roan 2006/0261618 A1 11/2006 Schleucher
6,042,164 3, 2000 Merritt ........................ 294, 28 2006/0273600 A1 12/2006 Rohlf
D432,027 10, 2000 Fox et al. 2007, OO18467 A1 1/2007 Schwartz
D433,312 11, 2000 Luquire ....................... D8,333 2007/0062013 A1 3/2007 Mueller ..................... 24,599.1
6,148,483 11, 2000 DeGraff 2008/0022497 A1 1/2008 Thompson
D448,276 9, 2001 Kelleghan 2008. O1854.09 A1 8/2008 Kellenberger
6,338,463 1/2002 Babitz et al.
D474,095 5/2003 Luquire ........................ D8/99 FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS
D475,591 6, 2003 Luquire EP 1849502 A1 * 10, 2007
6,606,769 8, 2003 Harris
6,622,354
D483,647
6,688,259
s 9, 2003
12, 2003
2, 2004
Klingier
Lo
Axel .......................... 119,792
WO WO98O2668 A1 * 1, 1998
OTHER PUBLICATIONS
6,715,898 4, 2004 Huang Ebay Online Auction, “Lightweight Green Carabiner with Foam
6,802.480 10, 2004 Martello Handle', Feb. 14, 2007. Publisher: Accessed Online at: http://cgi.
6,923,356 8, 2005 Reynolds .................... 224,585 ebay.com/LIGHTWEIGHT-GREEN-CARABINER-WITH
D513,964 1, 2006 Overthun et al. FOAM-HANDLE WOQQitemZ220092256791QQihz012QQ
D519,410 4, 2006 Luket al. categoryZ50814OQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem.
7,047,604 B2 5, 2006 Axel Home Depot, “Workforce Hangalls Jumbo Carabiner'. May 15,
2008.
7,097,223 B1 8, 2006 Bradford
D527,988 S ck 9, 2006 Shetler ........................ D8,356 * cited by examiner
Case 2:19-cv-00330-JRG Document 1-1 Filed 10/11/19 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: 16

U.S. Patent Apr. 13, 2010 Sheet 1 of 4 US D613,583 S

FIG.1
Case 2:19-cv-00330-JRG Document 1-1 Filed 10/11/19 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: 17
Case 2:19-cv-00330-JRG Document 1-1 Filed 10/11/19 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: 18

U.S. Patent Apr. 13, 2010 Sheet 3 of 4 US D613,583 S

FIG.3
Case 2:19-cv-00330-JRG Document 1-1 Filed 10/11/19 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: 19

U.S. Patent Apr. 13, 2010 Sheet 4 of 4 US D613,583 S

 Case 2:19-cv-00330-JRG Document 1-2 Filed 10/11/19 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 20
JS 44 (Rev. 09/19) CIVIL COVER SHEET
The 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, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS

2 DOGS DISTRIBUTION, LLC JACENT STRAGETIC MERCHANDISING, LLC (D/B/A JACENT)
AND DOES 1 THROUGH 10
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff County of Residence of First Listed Defendant
(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)
SPENCER FANE, LLC
5700 GRANITE PARKWAY, SUITE 650, PLANO, TX 775024
TELEPHONE: 972-324-0300

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)
’ 1 U.S. Government ’ 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State ’ 1 ’ 1 Incorporated or Principal Place ’ 4 ’ 4
of Business In This State

’ 2 U.S. Government ’ 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State ’ 2 ’ 2 Incorporated and Principal Place ’ 5 ’ 5
Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State

Citizen or Subject of a ’ 3 ’ 3 Foreign Nation ’ 6 ’ 6

Foreign Country
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only) Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES
’ 110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY ’ 625 Drug Related Seizure ’ 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 ’ 375 False Claims Act
’ 120 Marine ’ 310 Airplane ’ 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 ’ 423 Withdrawal ’ 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
’ 130 Miller Act ’ 315 Airplane Product Product Liability ’ 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729(a))
’ 140 Negotiable Instrument Liability ’ 367 Health Care/ ’ 400 State Reapportionment
’ 150 Recovery of Overpayment ’ 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS ’ 410 Antitrust
& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury ’ 820 Copyrights ’ 430 Banks and Banking
’ 151 Medicare Act ’ 330 Federal Employers’ Product Liability ’ 830 Patent ’ 450 Commerce
’ 152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability ’ 368 Asbestos Personal ’ 835 Patent - Abbreviated ’ 460 Deportation
Student Loans ’ 340 Marine Injury Product New Drug Application ’ 470 Racketeer Influenced and
(Excludes Veterans) ’ 345 Marine Product Liability ’ 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations
’ 153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY ’ 480 Consumer Credit
of Veteran’s Benefits ’ 350 Motor Vehicle ’ 370 Other Fraud ’ 710 Fair Labor Standards ’ 861 HIA (1395ff) (15 USC 1681 or 1692)
’ 160 Stockholders’ Suits ’ 355 Motor Vehicle ’ 371 Truth in Lending Act ’ 862 Black Lung (923) ’ 485 Telephone Consumer
’ 190 Other Contract Product Liability ’ 380 Other Personal ’ 720 Labor/Management ’ 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) Protection Act
’ 195 Contract Product Liability ’ 360 Other Personal Property Damage Relations ’ 864 SSID Title XVI ’ 490 Cable/Sat TV
’ 196 Franchise Injury ’ 385 Property Damage ’ 740 Railway Labor Act ’ 865 RSI (405(g)) ’ 850 Securities/Commodities/
’ 362 Personal Injury - Product Liability ’ 751 Family and Medical Exchange
Medical Malpractice Leave Act ’ 890 Other Statutory Actions
REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS ’ 790 Other Labor Litigation FEDERAL TAX SUITS ’ 891 Agricultural Acts
’ 210 Land Condemnation ’ 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: ’ 791 Employee Retirement ’ 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff ’ 893 Environmental Matters
’ 220 Foreclosure ’ 441 Voting ’ 463 Alien Detainee Income Security Act or Defendant) ’ 895 Freedom of Information
’ 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment ’ 442 Employment ’ 510 Motions to Vacate ’ 871 IRS—Third Party Act
’ 240 Torts to Land ’ 443 Housing/ Sentence 26 USC 7609 ’ 896 Arbitration
’ 245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations ’ 530 General ’ 899 Administrative Procedure
’ 290 All Other Real Property ’ 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - ’ 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION Act/Review or Appeal of
Employment Other: ’ 462 Naturalization Application Agency Decision
’ 446 Amer. w/Disabilities - ’ 540 Mandamus & Other ’ 465 Other Immigration ’ 950 Constitutionality of
Other ’ 550 Civil Rights Actions State Statutes
’ 448 Education ’ 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 Litigation - Litigation -
(specify) Transfer Direct File
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
35 USC 1, et seq; 35 USC 271, 281, 282, 284, 285 and 287
VI. CAUSE OF 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, F.R.Cv.P. JURY DEMAND: ’ Yes ’ No
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER
DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
10/11/2019 /s/ Jaspal S. Hare
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

Print Save As... Reset

 Case 2:19-cv-00330-JRG Document 1-2 Filed 10/11/19 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 21
JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 09/19)

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44

Authority For Civil Cover Sheet

The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as
required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is
required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of
Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:

I.(a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use
only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and
then the official, giving both name and title.
(b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the
time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land
condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.)
(c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting
in this section "(see attachment)".

II. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X"
in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.
United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.
United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box.
Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment
to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes
precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked.
Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the
citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity
cases.)

III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this
section for each principal party.

IV. Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If there are multiple nature of suit codes associated with the case, pick the nature of suit code
that is most applicable. Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.

V. Origin. Place an "X" in one of the seven boxes.

Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.
Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441.
Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing
date.
Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.
Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or
multidistrict litigation transfers.
Multidistrict Litigation – Transfer. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C.
Section 1407.
Multidistrict Litigation – Direct File. (8) Check this box when a multidistrict case is filed in the same district as the Master MDL docket.
PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE IS NOT AN ORIGIN CODE 7. Origin Code 7 was used for historical records and is no longer relevant due to
changes in statue.

VI. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional
statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service

VII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.
Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.
Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.

VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket
numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.

Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.