EZSTAX v. Aldi - Complaint

Case 8:20-cv-02652 Document 1 Filed 11/12/20 Page 1 of 49 PageID 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
EZSTAX LLC,
Plaintiff,
Case No.
v.
ALDI, INC. COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR

JURY TRIAL
Defendant.
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
REQUESTED
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff, EZSTAX LLC (“Plaintiff”) brings the following Complaint against
Defendant ALDI, Inc. (“Defendant”).
NATURE OF THE SUIT
1. This is a civil action arising out of Defendant’s patent infringement in
violation of the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 271, 281-285, and
289.
2. Defendant has purposefully imported and distributed clothes organizer
systems, specifically the Huntington Home® 10 Pk. T-Shirt Organizer (the
“Accused Products”), and made those products available for sale in its retail stores.
3. Defendant’s Accused Products infringe the claims of U.S. Patent. No.
10,040,612 (the ’612 Patent) and the sole claim of U.S. Patent No. D824,705 (the
’705 Patent) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). Photos of a sample of the
Accused Product are shown below – with and without packaging:
4. A sample of the Accused Product indicates: “DIST. & SOLD
EXCLUSIVELY BY: ALDI BATAVIA, IL 60510.”
5. According to the United States Patent & Trademark Office, the
HUNTINGTON HOME U.S. Trademark Reg. Nos. 6037318, 6037227, 5902553,
5545026, 5476318, 5453650, 5355265, 5250370, 5769934, 5476079, 5343777,
5101541, and 4837358, are owned by Defendant.
2
PARTIES
6. Plaintiff is a Florida limited liability company, with a principal place
of business in Nokomis, Florida.
7. Plaintiff makes and sells the EZSTAX® organization system
throughout the United States.
8. Plaintiff’s EZSTAX® organization system can be purchased through
multiple retailers, including Walmart, Bed Bath & Beyond, and Amazon.
9. On information and belief, Defendant is a privately held corporation
organized under the laws of the State of Illinois, with a principal place of business
in Batavia, Illinois.
10. On information and belief, Defendant operates more than 2000 retail
stores nationwide, including in this District.
11. Defendant has distributed and sold the Accused Products in its retail
stores in the Tampa division of this District.
JURISDICTION, VENUE, CONDITIONS PRECEDENT
12. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to
28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
13. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant. On information
and belief, Defendant has conducted, and does regularly conduct, business within
the State of Florida and the Middle District of Florida.
3
14. Defendant’s website (aldi.us) includes a Find A Store feature
(https://www.aldi.us/stores/) that shows Defendant operates more than 20 retail
stores in the Tampa Division of this District (last accessed on November 10,
2020).
15. On information and belief, each of the retail stores operated by
Defendant in this District features the ALDI mark on the storefront.
16. According to the United States Patent & Trademark Office, the ALDI
mark, U.S. Trademark Reg. No. 3400731, is owned by Defendant.
17. On information and belief, Defendant, directly and/or through
intermediaries, has made, used, offered to sell, sold, and/or imported into the
United States, including to customers located within the State of Florida and this
District, the Huntington Home® 10 Pk. T-Shirt Organizer.
18. On information and belief, Defendant has also purposefully and
voluntarily placed the Huntington Home® 10 Pk. T-Shirt Organizer into the stream
of commerce with the awareness and/or intent that they will be purchased by
consumers in the state of Florida and in this District.
4
19. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) because
Defendant has regular and established places of business in this District, including
retail stores at 1235 N. Tamiami Trail, Nokomis, FL 34275 and 8521 W.
Hillsborough Avenue, Tampa FL 33615, and has committed certain acts of
infringement complained herein in this District.
20. All conditions precedent to this lawsuit have occurred, been satisfied,
or been waived.
21. Plaintiff has retained the below listed counsel to represent it in the
case, and agreed to pay counsel a reasonable fee for their services.
THE ASSERTED PATENTS
22. The ’612 Patent is titled “Separator System for Organizing Items” and
was issued on August 7, 2018. A true and correct copy of the ’612 Patent is
attached as Exhibit A.
23. The ’612 Patent was filed on December 12, 2015, as U.S. Patent
Application No. 14/976,763.
24. The ’612 Patent claims priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application
No. 62/095,949, which was filed on December 22, 2014.
25. The ’612 Patent is valid and enforceable.
5
26. Plaintiff is the owner of all right, title, and interest in and to the ’612
Patent, with the exclusive right to bring suit to enforce the ’612 Patent including
the right to recover for past infringement.
27. The ’705 Patent is titled “Separator” and was issued on August 7,
2018. A true and correct copy of the ’705 Patent is attached as Exhibit B.
28. The ’705 Patent was filed on December 21, 2015, as U.S. Patent
Application 29/549,307.
29. The ’705 Patent is valid and enforceable.
30. Plaintiff is the owner of all right, title, and interest in and to the ’705
Patent, with the right to bring suit to enforce the ’705 Patent including the
exclusive right to recover for past infringement.
COUNT I: INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’612 PATENT
31. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges paragraphs 1-26, as if fully set herein.
32. Defendant has infringed and is infringing, either literally or under the
doctrine of equivalents, the ’612 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), directly
and/or indirectly, by importing, making, using, offering for sale, and/or selling in
the United States through its retail stores, the Accused Products.
33. The example below shows how a sample Accused Product infringes
Claim 1 of the ’612 Patent. The photos and descriptions are based on a sample
6
Accused Product that was purchased at Defendant’s retail store located at 8521 W.
Hillsborough Avenue, Tampa FL 33615.
34. The Accused Products include “[a] separator system for organizing
and separating a first and second item” as shown in the sample Accused Product’s
instructions on how to use the organizers to support items:
35. The Accused Products comprise “a first planar member having a first
hollow projection formed in an outer portion of said first planar member”:
7
36. The Accused Products comprise a “first hollow projection defining a
first hollow recess within an interior of said first hollow projection”:
8
37. The Accused Products comprise a “first planar member configured to
support the first item” as shown in the sample Accused Product instructions on
how to use the organizers to support items, and an example of a first item and
second item supported by a first planar member and second planar member from
two of the ten organizers provided in the sample Accused Product:
9
38. The Accused Products comprise a “a second planar member having a
second hollow projection formed in an outer portion of said second planar
member” as shown by two of the ten organizers provided in the sample Accused
Product:
39. The Accused Products comprise a “second hollow projection defining
a second hollow recess within an interior of said second hollow projection”:
10
40. The Accused Products comprise a “second planar member configured
to support the second item” as shown in the sample Accused Product instructions
on how to use the organizers to support items, and an example of a first item and
11
41. The Accused Products comprise a first planar member that is identical
to a second planar member as shown by two of the ten organizers provided in the
sample Accused Product:
12
42. The Accused Products comprise a first hollow projection extending
above the first item for interlocking with said second hollow recess of said second
planar member located above the first item as shown by two of the ten organizers
provided in the sample Accused Product with first and second items placed on the
first and second planar members:
13
43. The Accused Products comprise a first hollow projection of said first
planar member and said second hollow recess of said adjacent second planar
member being configured for inhibiting horizontal rotation of said second planar
member relative to said first planar member while permitting vertical tilting of said
second planar member relative to said first planar member as shown by two of the
ten organizers provided in the sample Accused Product with first and second items
placed on the first and second planar members:
14
44. Turning now to Claim 2, below is an example showing how a sample
Accused Product infringes the ’612 Patent. The photos and descriptions are also
based on a sample Accused Product that was purchased at Defendant’s retail store
located at 8521 W. Hillsborough Avenue, Tampa FL 33615.
45. The Accused Products include a first hollow projection that comprises
a major dimension and a minor dimension for inhibiting horizontal rotation of said
second planar member relative to said first planar member while permitting
vertical tilting of said second planar member relative to said first planar member,
as shown by organizers provided in the sample Accused Product:
15
46. Turning now to Claim 3, below is an example showing how a sample
Accused Product infringes the ’612 Patent. The photos and descriptions are also
based on a sample Accused Product that was purchased at Defendant’s retail store
located at 8521 W. Hillsborough Avenue, Tampa FL 33615.
47. The Accused Products include a “separator system for organizing and
separating a first and second item” as shown in the sample Accused Product
instructions on how to use the organizers to support items:
16
48. The Accused Products comprise “a first planar member having a first
hollow projection formed in an outer portion of said first planar member”:
17
49. The Accused Products comprise a “first hollow projection defining a
first hollow recess”:
50. The Accused Products comprise a “first planar member configured to
support the first item” as shown in the sample Accused Product instructions on
how to use the organizers to support items, and an example of a first item and
18
51. The Accused Products comprise “a second planar member having a
second hollow projection formed in an outer portion of said second planar
member” as shown by two of the ten organizers provided in the sample Accused
Product:
19
52. The Accused Products comprise a “second hollow projection defining
a second hollow recess”:
20
53. The Accused Products comprise a “second planar member configured
to support a second item” as shown in the sample Accused Product instructions on
how to use the organizers to support items, and an example first item and second
item supported by a first planar member and second planar member from two of
the ten organizers provided in the sample Accused Product:
21
54. The Accused Products comprise a first planar member that is identical
to a second planar member as shown by two of the ten organizers provided in the
sample Accused Product:
55. The Accused Products comprise a “first hollow projection of said first
planar member extending above the first item”:
22
56. The Accused Products comprise a first planar member with “plural
first hollow projections and plural first hollow recesses”:
23
57. The Accused Products comprise a second planar member with plural
second hollow projections and plural second hollow recesses as shown by two of
ten organizers from a sample Accused Product:
58. The Accused Products comprise said first plural hollow projections
extending above the first item for interlocking with said second plural hollow
recess of said second planar member located above the first item inhibiting
horizontal rotation of said second planar member relative to said first planar
member while permitting vertical tilting of said second planar member relative to
said first planar member as shown by two of the ten organizers from a sample
Accused Product:
24
59. Turning now to Claim 4, below is shown how a sample Accused
Product infringes the ’612 Patent. The photos and descriptions are also based on a
sample Accused Product that was purchased at Defendant’s retail store located at
8521 W. Hillsborough Avenue, Tampa FL 33615.
60. The Accused Products comprise first and second planar members that
are defined by a generally rectangular portion as shown by two of the ten
organizers from a sample Accused Product:
25
61. The Accused Products comprise a lip extending along multiple sides
of said generally rectangular portion of said first planar member and a lip
extending along multiple sides of said generally rectangular portion of said second
planar member for inhibiting horizontal rotation of said second planar member
relative to said first planar member while permitting vertical tilting of said second
planar member as shown by two of the ten organizers from an sample Accused
Product.
26
62. As shown above, Defendant has been and continues to infringe the
claims of the ’612 Patent.
63. The Accused Products are identical to Plaintiff’s products, except for
the replacement of Plaintiff’s trademark, EZSTAX® with Defendant’s house brand
EASY HOME.
64. For example, a sample Accused Product is shown side by side with
Plaintiff’s EZSTAX® organizer. The Accused Product contains identical
dimensions and features as Plaintiff’s EZSTAX® organizer, with the exception of
27
the imprinted mark EASY HOME, which replaces Plaintiff’s EZSTAX mark. The
sample Accused Product also features the identical ornamental design (the boxed,
three line design shown below) as Plaintiff’s EZSTAX® organizer:
65. The copying of Plaintiff’s EZSTAX® organizer allows for the
Accused Products to be used together with (i.e., stacked and tilted) Plaintiff’s
EZSTAX® organizer system.
28
66. On information and belief, the thoroughness of the copying of
Plaintiff’s EZSTAX® organizers—including the ornamental features and specific
product dimensions—can lead to only one reasonable inference: that the Accused
Product was directly copied by Defendant from Plaintiff’s EZSTAX® organizer
system.
67. Notice of Plaintiff’s patents is marked on Plaintiff’s EZSTAX®
organizer system in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 287. Pictures, including a picture
of the marking of the ’612 Patent, from a sample of Plaintiff’s 20 pack -
EZSTAX® T-Shirt Organizing System, are shown below:
29
68. On information and belief, the clear copying, by Defendant and/or
parties directed and controlled by Defendant, of Plaintiff’s EZSTAX®
organization system, which was clearly marked with the ’612 Patent, leads to the
30
conclusion that Defendant had actual knowledge of the ’612 Patent when it made,
sold, offered to sell, and/or imported, the Accused Products that infringe the ’612
Patent.
69. A sample of the Accused Product states that it was “Made in China”
and “DIST. & SOLD EXCLUSIVELY BY: ALDI BATAVIA, IL 60510”.
70. On information and belief, to the extent a supplier provided Defendant
with the design for the Accused Product, the supplier would have used Defendant’s
supplier process described on Defendant’s website at
https://corporate.aldi.us/en/suppliers/ and
https://corporate.aldi.us/en/suppliers/become-a-supplier/ (last accessed November
10, 2020).
71. Defendant’s website (https://corporate.aldi.us/en/suppliers/become-a-
supplier/, last accessed November 10, 2020) states: “If this is the partnership you
are looking for, please complete our New Merchandise Supplier Application or
New Non-Merchandise Supplier Application. The document must be completed in
its entirety in order to be considered.”
supplier/, last accessed November 10, 2020) also states: “You are welcome to
complete up to four (4) Supplemental Submission Forms.”
31
73. Defendant’s website further states
(https://corporate.aldi.us/en/suppliers/become-a-supplier/, last accessed November
10, 2020): “Completed documents can be returned to ALDI as attachments via
email to supplierinfo(at)aldi.us, or via post…Upon receipt, your information will
be reviewed and provided to our buying team for consideration; please allow up to
three weeks for a response.”
74. On information and belief, Defendant received a New Merchandise
Supplier Application or Supplemental Submission form from a supplier for the
Accused Products.
75. On information and belief, Defendant reviewed and considered the
Application or Supplemental Submission from the supplier of the Accused
Products.
76. On information and belief, Defendant’s “principle of corporate
responsibility”, described on its website at https://corporate.aldi.us/fileadmin/fm-
dam/Corporate_Responsibility/CR_NewDocuments/CR_Principles_US_Impressu
m_neu.pdf (last accessed November 10, 2020), which it applies “throughout the
areas of our business operations: Customers, Supply Chain, People, Community,
Environment.” includes routine intellectual property diligence.
32
77. On information and belief, during Defendant’s review and
consideration of the Application or Supplemental Submission from the supplier of
the Accused Products, Defendant acquired knowledge of the ’612 Patent through
routine intellectual property diligence.
78. On information and belief, Defendant had knowledge of ’612 Patent,
through its review and consideration process of the supplier of the Accused
Products, when it made, sold, offered to sell, and/or imported, the Accused
Products that infringe the ’612 Patent.
79. A search on Amazon for “T-Shirt Organizer” (last accessed on
November 10, 2020), the name of Defendant’s Accused Products, returns the
EZSTAX® Organization System, which is marked with the ’612 Patent, as the top
hit.
80. On information and belief, to the extent Defendant’s review and
the Accused Product did not include routine intellectual property diligence,
Defendant was willfully blind to the ’612 Patent, which is marked on Plaintiff’s
EZSTAX® Organization System.
33
81. On information and belief, Defendant was willfully blind to the ’612
Patent when it made, sold, offered to sell, and/or imported, the Accused Products
that infringe the ’612 Patent.
82. On information and belief, Defendant has, and continues to,
knowingly and intentionally, directly infringe the ’612 Patent, and/or has directed
or controlled, and continues to direct or control parties to directly infringe the ’612
Patent.
83. On information and belief, Defendant’s infringement of the ’612
Patent has been, and continues to be, intentional, willful, and without regard to
Plaintiff’s rights, entitling Plaintiff to enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
84. Defendant’s infringement of the ’612 Patent is exceptional and
entitles Plaintiff to attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in maintaining this action
under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
85. Plaintiff has sustained damages as a direct and proximate result of
Defendant’s infringement of the ’612 Patent.
86. Plaintiff is entitled to recover from Defendant all damages that
Plaintiff has sustained as a result of Defendant’s infringement of the ’612 Patent.
34
87. Plaintiff has suffered irreparable harm from Defendant’s infringement
of the ’612 Patent, and will continue to suffer irreparable harm in the future if
Defendant’s infringement continues.
88. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law and is entitled to an injunction
against Defendant’s continuing infringement of the ’612 Patent.
89. Any harm to Defendant from the granting of an injunction preventing
current and future infringement is outweighed by the harm to Plaintiff should no
injunction be granted.
90. The public interest will be served by an injunction against
infringement of Plaintiff’s valid patent.
91. Unless enjoined, Defendant will continue its infringing conduct.
COUNT II: INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’705 PATENT
92. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges paragraphs 1-21, and 27-30, as if fully
set herein.
93. Defendant has infringed and is infringing, directly and/or indirectly,
Claim 1 of the ’705 Patent by using, making, selling, offering to sell, and/or
importing into the United States, the Accused Products, in violation of 35 U.S.C.
§§ 271(a) and 289.
35
94. For example, below shows how a sample Accused Product infringes
Claim 1 of the ’705 Patent in connection with the Accused Products. The photos
are also based on a sample Accused Product that was purchased at Defendant’s
retail store located at 8521 W. Hillsborough Avenue, Tampa FL 33615.
’705 Patent Figures Accused Product
36
37
38
95. As shown above, Defendant has been and continues to infringe the
claim of the ’705 patent.
96. The Accused Products are identical to Plaintiff’s products, except for
the replacement of Plaintiff’s trademark, EZSTAX®, with Defendant’s house
brand EASY HOME.
97. For example, a sample Accused Product is shown side by side with
Plaintiff’s EZSTAX® organizer. The Accused Product contains identical
dimensions and features as Plaintiff’s EZSTAX® organizer, with the exception of
39
the imprinted mark EASY HOME, which replaces Plaintiff’s EZSTAX mark. The
sample Accused Product also features the identical ornamental design (the boxed,
three line design shown below) as Plaintiff’s EZSTAX® organizer:
98. The copying of Plaintiff’s EZSTAX® organizer allows for the
Accused Products to be used together with (i.e., stacked and tilted) Plaintiff’s
EZSTAX® organizer system.
40
99. On information and belief, the thoroughness of the copying of
Plaintiff’s EZSTAX® organizers—including the ornamental features and specific
product dimensions—can lead to only one reasonable inference: that the Accused
Product was directly copied by Defendant from Plaintiff’s EZSTAX® organizer.
100. Notice of Plaintiff’s patents is marked on Plaintiff’s EZSTAX®
organizer system in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 287. Pictures, including a picture
of the marking of the ’705 Patent, from a sample of Plaintiff’s 20 pack -
EZSTAX® T-Shirt Organizing System, are shown below:
41
42
101. On information and belief, the clear copying, by Defendant and/or
parties directed and controlled by Defendant, of Plaintiff’s EZSTAX®
organization system, which was clearly marked with the ’705 Patent, leads to the
conclusion that Defendant had actual knowledge of the ’705 Patent when it made,
sold, offered to sell, and/or imported, the Accused Products that infringe the ’705
Patent.
102. A sample of the Accused Product states that it was “Made in China”
and “DIST. & SOLD EXCLUSIVELY BY: ALDI BATAVIA, IL 60510”.
103. On information and belief, to the extent a supplier provided Defendant
with the design for the Accused Product, the supplier would have used Defendant’s
supplier process described on Defendant’s website at
https://corporate.aldi.us/en/suppliers/ and
https://corporate.aldi.us/en/suppliers/become-a-supplier/ (last accessed November
10, 2020).
supplier/, last accessed November 10, 2020) states: “If this is the partnership you
are looking for, please complete our New Merchandise Supplier Application or
New Non-Merchandise Supplier Application. The document must be completed in
its entirety in order to be considered.”
43
supplier/, last accessed November 10, 2020) also states: “You are welcome to
complete up to four (4) Supplemental Submission Forms.”
106. Defendant’s website further states
(https://corporate.aldi.us/en/suppliers/become-a-supplier/, last accessed November
10, 2020): “Completed documents can be returned to ALDI as attachments via
email to supplierinfo(at)aldi.us, or via post…Upon receipt, your information will
be reviewed and provided to our buying team for consideration; please allow up to
three weeks for a response.”
107. On information and belief, Defendant received a New Merchandise
Supplier Application or Supplemental Submission form from a supplier for the
Accused Products.
108. On information and belief, Defendant reviewed and considered the
Application or Supplemental Submission from the supplier of the Accused
Products.
109. On information and belief, Defendant’s “principle of corporate
responsibility”, described on its website at https://corporate.aldi.us/fileadmin/fm-
dam/Corporate_Responsibility/CR_NewDocuments/CR_Principles_US_Impressu
m_neu.pdf (last accessed November 10, 2020), which it applies “throughout the
44
areas of our business operations: Customers, Supply Chain, People, Community,
Environment.” includes routine intellectual property diligence.
110. On information and belief, during Defendant’s review and
the Accused Products, Defendant acquired knowledge of the ’705 Patent through
routine intellectual property diligence.
111. On information and belief, Defendant had knowledge of the ’705
Patent, through its review and consideration process of the supplier of the Accused
Products, when it made, sold, offered to sell, and/or imported, the Accused
Products that infringe the ’705 Patent.
112. A search on Amazon for “T-Shirt Organizer” (last accessed on
November 10, 2020), the name of Defendant’s Accused Products, returns the
EZSTAX® Organization System, which is marked with the ’705 Patent, as the top
hit.
113. On information and belief, to the extent Defendant’s review and
the Accused Product did not include routine intellectual property diligence,
Defendant was willfully blind to the ’705 Patent which is marked on Plaintiff’s
EZSTAX® Organization System.
45
114. On information and belief, Defendant was willfully blind to the ’705
Patent when it made, sold, offered to sell, and/or imported, the Accused Products
that infringe the ’705 Patent.
115. On information and belief, Defendant has, and continues to,
knowingly and intentionally, directly infringe the ’705 Patent, and/or has directed
or controlled, and continues to direct or control, parties to directly infringe the ’705
Patent.
116. On information and belief, Defendant’s infringement of the ’705
Patent has been and continues to be intentional, willful, and without regard to
Plaintiff’s rights, entitling Plaintiff to enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
117. Defendant’s infringement of the ’705 Patent is exceptional and
entitles Plaintiff to attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in maintaining this action
under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
118. Plaintiff has sustained damages as a direct and proximate result of
Defendant’s infringement of the ’705 Patent.
119. Plaintiff is entitled to recover from Defendant all damages that
Plaintiff has sustained as a result of Defendant’s infringement of the ’705 Patent.
46
120. Plaintiff has suffered irreparable harm from Defendant’s infringement
of the ’705 Patent, and will continue to suffer irreparable harm in the future if
Defendant’s infringement continues.
121. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law and is entitled to an injunction
against Defendant’s continuing infringement of the ’705 Patent.
122. Any harm to Defendant from the granting of an injunction preventing
current and future infringement is outweighed by the harm to Plaintiff should no
injunction be granted.
123. The public interest will be served by an injunction against
infringement of Plaintiff’s valid patent.
124. Unless enjoined, Defendant will continue its infringing conduct.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests entry of judgment against Defendant as
follows:
A. Adjudging that Defendant has infringed each of the Asserted Patents,
in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a);
B. Granting an injunction permanently enjoining Defendant, its
employees, agents, officers, directors, attorneys, successors, affiliates, subsidiaries,
and assigns and all of those in active concert and participation with any of the
47
foregoing persons or entities from infringing, or inducing infringement of the
Asserted Patents;
C. Ordering Defendant to account and pay damages adequate to
compensate Plaintiff for Defendant’s infringement of the Asserted Patents,
including for pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and costs, pursuant to 35
U.S.C. § 284;
D. Ordering that the damages award be increased up to three times the
actual amount assessed, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284;
E. Ordering an accounting for any infringing sales not presented at trial
and an award by the Court of additional damages for any such infringing sales;
F. Awarding Plaintiff all of Defendant’s profits pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §
289;
G. Declaring this case exceptional and awarding Plaintiff its reasonable
attorneys’ fees, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285; and
H. Awarding such other and further relief as this Court may deem just
and proper.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Plaintiff respectfully demands a trial by jury for all issues so triable.
Respectfully submitted,
CARLTON FIELDS, P.A.
48
Date: November 12, 2020 By: /s/ J. Coy Stull
J. Coy Stull
Trial Counsel
Florida Bar No. 15764
Eleanor M. Yost
William (Ty) Giltinan
4221 W. Boy Scout Boulevard
Suite 1000
Tampa, Florida 33607-5780
Tel. No.: (813) 223-7000
Fax No.: (813) 229-4133
Email:jstull@carltonfields.com
eyost@carltonfields.com
wgiltinan@carltonfields.com
IPLit@carltonfields.com
Counsel for Plaintiff EZSTAX LLC.
49
Case 8:20-cv-02652 Document 1-1 Filed 11/12/20 Page 1 of 25 PageID 50
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B
JS 44 (Rev. 10/20) Case 8:20-cv-02652 Document 1-3 FiledSHEET
CIVIL COVER 11/12/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID 80
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
EZSTAX LLC, ALDI, INC.
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff County of Residence of First Listed Defendant Kane, IL
(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)
Carlton Fields, PA
4221 W. Boy Scout Blvd. Suite 1000
Tampa, FL 33607
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 880 Defend Trade Secrets 480 Consumer Credit
of Veteran’s Benefits 350 Motor Vehicle 370 Other Fraud 710 Fair Labor Standards Act of 2016 (15 USC 1681 or 1692)
160 Stockholders’ Suits 355 Motor Vehicle 371 Truth in Lending Act 485 Telephone Consumer
190 Other Contract Product Liability 380 Other Personal 720 Labor/Management SOCIAL SECURITY Protection Act
195 Contract Product Liability 360 Other Personal Property Damage Relations 861 HIA (1395ff) 490 Cable/Sat TV
196 Franchise Injury 385 Property Damage 740 Railway Labor Act 862 Black Lung (923) 850 Securities/Commodities/
362 Personal Injury - Product Liability 751 Family and Medical 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) Exchange
Medical Malpractice Leave Act 864 SSID Title XVI 890 Other Statutory Actions
REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS 790 Other Labor Litigation 865 RSI (405(g)) 891 Agricultural Acts
210 Land Condemnation 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: 791 Employee Retirement 893 Environmental Matters
220 Foreclosure 441 Voting 463 Alien Detainee Income Security Act FEDERAL TAX SUITS 895 Freedom of Information
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 442 Employment 510 Motions to Vacate 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff Act
240 Torts to Land 443 Housing/ Sentence or Defendant) 896 Arbitration
245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations 530 General 871 IRS—Third Party 899 Administrative Procedure
290 All Other Real Property 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION 26 USC 7609 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 U.S.C. §§ 271, 281-285, and 289.
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
November 12, 2020 /s/ J. Coy Stull
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

EZSTAX v. Aldi - Complaint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

EZSTAX v. Aldi - Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 8:20-cv-02652 Document 1 Filed 11/12/20 Page 1 of 49 PageID 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

ALDI, INC. COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, EZSTAX LLC (“Plaintiff”) brings the following Complaint against

Defendant ALDI, Inc. (“Defendant”).

NATURE OF THE SUIT

1. This is a civil action arising out of Defendant’s patent infringement in

2. Defendant has purposefully imported and distributed clothes organizer

systems, specifically the Huntington Home® 10 Pk. T-Shirt Organizer (the

3. Defendant’s Accused Products infringe the claims of U.S. Patent. No.

’705 Patent) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). Photos of a sample of the

Accused Product are shown below – with and without packaging:

4. A sample of the Accused Product indicates: “DIST. & SOLD

EXCLUSIVELY BY: ALDI BATAVIA, IL 60510.”

5. According to the United States Patent & Trademark Office, the

HUNTINGTON HOME U.S. Trademark Reg. Nos. 6037318, 6037227, 5902553,

5545026, 5476318, 5453650, 5355265, 5250370, 5769934, 5476079, 5343777,

5101541, and 4837358, are owned by Defendant.

6. Plaintiff is a Florida limited liability company, with a principal place

of business in Nokomis, Florida.

7. Plaintiff makes and sells the EZSTAX® organization system

throughout the United States.

8. Plaintiff’s EZSTAX® organization system can be purchased through

9. On information and belief, Defendant is a privately held corporation

stores nationwide, including in this District.

stores in the Tampa division of this District.

JURISDICTION, VENUE, CONDITIONS PRECEDENT

28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).

13. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant. On information

the State of Florida and the Middle District of Florida.

14. Defendant’s website (aldi.us) includes a Find A Store feature

(https://www.aldi.us/stores/) that shows Defendant operates more than 20 retail

15. On information and belief, each of the retail stores operated by

Defendant in this District features the ALDI mark on the storefront.

mark, U.S. Trademark Reg. No. 3400731, is owned by Defendant.

17. On information and belief, Defendant, directly and/or through

District, the Huntington Home® 10 Pk. T-Shirt Organizer.

18. On information and belief, Defendant has also purposefully and

consumers in the state of Florida and in this District.

19. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) because

retail stores at 1235 N. Tamiami Trail, Nokomis, FL 34275 and 8521 W.

Hillsborough Avenue, Tampa FL 33615, and has committed certain acts of

infringement complained herein in this District.

THE ASSERTED PATENTS

Application No. 14/976,763.

No. 62/095,949, which was filed on December 22, 2014.

25. The ’612 Patent is valid and enforceable.

the right to recover for past infringement.

29. The ’705 Patent is valid and enforceable.

exclusive right to recover for past infringement.

COUNT I: INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’612 PATENT

doctrine of equivalents, the ’612 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), directly

Hillsborough Avenue, Tampa FL 33615.

instructions on how to use the organizers to support items:

hollow projection formed in an outer portion of said first planar member”:

36. The Accused Products comprise a “first hollow projection defining a

first hollow recess within an interior of said first hollow projection”:

37. The Accused Products comprise a “first planar member configured to

two of the ten organizers provided in the sample Accused Product:

38. The Accused Products comprise a “a second planar member having a

second hollow projection formed in an outer portion of said second planar

39. The Accused Products comprise a “second hollow projection defining

a second hollow recess within an interior of said second hollow projection”: