Gavrieli v. Lovie - Complaint

Case 2:22-cv-06112 Document 1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 1 of 48 Page ID #:1
1 Michael J. Lyons (SBN 202284)

michael.lyons@morganlewis.com
2 Ahren C. Hsu-Hoffman (SBN 250469)
3 ahren.hsu-hoffman@morganlewis.com
Ehsun Forghany (SBN 302984)
4 ehsun.forghany@morganlewis.com
Katerina Hora Jacobson (SBN 342384)
5 katerina.horajacobson@morganlewis.com
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
6 1400 Page Mill Road
7 Palo Alto, CA 94304
Telephone: 1.650.843.4000
8 Facsimile: 1.650.843.4001
9 Attorneys for Plaintiff Gavrieli Brands,
10 LLC
11
12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
13 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
14
15 GAVRIELI BRANDS, LLC, a Case No. 2:22-cv-6112
California Limited Liability Company,
16 COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
Plaintiff, INFRINGEMENT
17 v.
18 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
LOVIE PEARL GmbH, a German
19 Company,
20 Defendant.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP COMPLAINT
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SILICON VALLEY
1 COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

2 Plaintiff Gavrieli Brands, LLC (“Gavrieli”) for its complaint against
3 Defendant Lovie Pearl GmbH (“Lovie Pearl”), hereby alleges as follows:
4 NATURE OF THE ACTION
5 1. This is an action for patent infringement arising under the laws of the
6 United States, 35 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.
7 2. Gavrieli is the owner of all right, title, and interest in United States
8 Design Patents Nos. D686,812, D688,855, D943,897, D943,252, D846,259,
9 D903,279, D846,845, D885,018, D886,435, D846,849, D681,927, D888,380, and
10 D844,951 and United States Patents Nos. 8,745,893 and 9,398,786 (collectively,
11 the “Patents-in-Suit,” attached hereto as Exs. A-O).
12 3. Lovie Pearl has used and continues to use the claimed designs of the
13 Patents-in-Suit without Gavrieli’s permission, online and in its “Lovie Pearl” ballet
14 flats (the “Accused Products”), which Lovie Pearl has made, used, offered for sale,
15 and sold in, and/or imported into, the United States.
16 4. Gavrieli seeks, among other things, permanent injunctive relief to stop
17 Lovie Pearl from infringing the Patents-in-Suit; damages and/or disgorgement of
18 Lovie Pearl’s profits from its infringing activities; pre-judgment and post-judgment
19 interest; costs and attorneys’ fees; and all other relief the Court deems just and
20 proper.
21 THE PARTIES
22 5. Gavrieli is a California limited liability company with its principal
23 place of business at 5731 Buckingham Parkway, Culver City, California 90230.
24 6. Lovie Pearl is a company located in Germany. Upon information and
25 belief, its principal place of business, as listed on the Lovie Pearl’s German
26 business registration, is located at Asamstraße 134, 83026 Rosenheim, Germany.
27 Upon information and belief, Lovie Pearl may be served with process, under the
28 Hague Convention, at its address located in Rosenheim, Germany.
MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
2 COMPLAINT
SILICON VALLEY
1 7. Lovie Pearl offers for sale and sells the Accused Products through the
2 Lovie Pearl Amazon Web Store (https://www.amazon.com/stores/loviepearl/
3 page/71BCFDAC-D444-46AB-A639-637CBDF22D18?ref_=ast_bln).
4 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5 8. This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C.
6 § 1 et seq.
7 9. This Court has original jurisdiction over the subject matter of this
8 action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a) and (b), 2201, 2202, and the patent
9 laws of the United States, including 35 U.S.C. § 271 et seq.
10 10. This Court has general and specific personal jurisdiction over Lovie
11 Pearl, consistent with the Constitution of this state and the United States and/or the
12 California Long Arm Statute, Cal. Code Civ. Proc § 410.10, on information and
13 belief, due at least to its substantial business conducted in this District, including:
14 (i) having solicited business in the State of California and/or this District, transacted
15 business within the State of California and/or this District and attempted to derive
16 financial benefit from residents of the State of California and in this District,
17 including benefits directly related to the instant patent infringement causes of action
18 set forth herein; (ii) having placed its products and services into the stream of
19 commerce throughout the United States and having been actively engaged in
20 transacting business in California and in this District; and (iii) having committed
21 the complained of tortious acts in California and in this District.
22 11. Lovie Pearl, upon information and belief, directly and/or through
23 subsidiaries and agents (including distributors, retailers, wholesalers,
24 manufacturers, and others), makes, imports, ships, distributes, offers for sale, sells,
25 uses, and advertises (including offering products and services through its Amazon
26 Web Store) its products and/or services in the United States, the State of California
27 and the Central District of California.
28 12. Lovie Pearl, upon information and belief, directly and/or through its
MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
3 COMPLAINT
SILICON VALLEY
1 subsidiaries, agents, alter egos, agents and/or intermediaries (including distributors,

2 retailers, and others), has purposefully and voluntarily placed one or more of its
3 infringing products and/or services, as described below, into the stream of
4 commerce with the expectation that they will be purchased and used by consumers
5 in the Central District of California. These infringing products and/or services have
6 been purchased and used by consumers in the Central District of California. Lovie
7 Pearl has committed acts of patent infringement within the State of California and,
8 more particularly, within the Central District of California.
9 13. This Court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over Lovie Pearl is
10 consistent with the California Long Arm Statute, Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 410.10,
11 and traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
12 14. Venue is proper as to Lovie Pearl, which is organized under the law of
13 Germany, under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(3) that provides, “a defendant not resident in
14 the United States may be sued in any judicial district, and the joinder of such a
15 defendant shall be disregarded in determining where the action may be brought
16 with respect to other defendants.”
17 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
18 15. Gavrieli is well known around the world for its Tieks® by Gavrieli
19 line of footwear (“Tieks®”). Through Gavrieli’s significant investment in research,
20 design, development, and marketing, Tieks® has come to possess a distinctive
21 design, instantly recognizable by its many unique features, including, but not
22 limited to, a colored outsole that peeks out from under the upper portion while the
23 flats are being worn—known as the “Peekaboo” outsole. These design features are
24 essential to the Tieks® brand identity and are recognized in the marketplace as a
25 designator of the Tieks® brand. An example Tieks® shoe is shown below:
26
27
28
MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
4 COMPLAINT
SILICON VALLEY
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
16. Tieks® are available in over fifty (50) styles and patterns, and retail
9
for $185 to $345 per pair. Sold out styles and patterns of Tieks® are often resold
10
by consumers on secondary markets, such as Poshmark and eBay, for well-above
11
the retail price.
12
17. Tieks® has received extensive and favorable media coverage on its
13
innovative and stunning design. In the August 2011 issue of Oprah Winfrey’s O
14
Magazine, Tieks® was selected to be on the “O List,” and was again featured by
15
Oprah in Spring 2012, as an item on her list of “Mother’s Day Gifts She Really
16
Wants.” Oprah’s endorsement of Tieks® was so well known that E! News
17
published an article titled “Obsessions: Oprah’s Ultra-Comfy Ballet Flats.” In
18
2012, INC Magazine featured Tieks® on its “30 Under 30” list, praising the
19
founders for having “created a powerful brand as well as their own category of
20
footwear.” Similarly, in 2013, Forbes listed Tieks® on its list of the “25 Most
21
Innovative Consumer and Retail Brands” that “honor[s] . . . companies that are
22
starting to change the way we live our lives.” In 2013, Entrepreneur Magazine
23
wrote that Tieks® had “develop[ed] a cult status.”
24
18. The Tieks® brand has a strong and devoted fan base, including one of
25
the largest social media followings in the fashion world, with over 1.5 million
26
followers on Facebook. Fans of the Tieks® brand have even created Facebook Fan
27
Groups devoted to buying, selling, and trading second-hand pairs of Tieks® ballet
28
MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
5 COMPLAINT
SILICON VALLEY
1 flats.
2 19. Tieks® has been advertised and featured extensively throughout the
3 United States, including through Gavrieli’s own social media and advertising, as
4 well as dozens of feature stories in national publications and broadcast, such as
5 Forbes, INC, Essence, Travel + Leisure, O Magazine, and the Today Show, as well
6 as hundreds of blogs. The vast majority of the articles, broadcasts, and blog posts
7 about Tieks® focus on the novel Peekaboo outsole design.
8 20. Gavrieli has made significant investments, both in time and resources,
9 in developing Tieks® designs and securing the intellectual property rights that
10 protect it, including the patents asserted in this Complaint.
11 Gavrieli’s Design Patents
12 21. On July 30, 2013, the United States Patent & Trademark Office
13 (“USPTO”) issued U.S. Design Patent No. D686,812, titled “Sole Assembly For a
14 Split Sole Shoe” (“the ’812 patent”). A true and correct copy of the ’812 patent is
15 attached hereto as Exhibit A.
16 22. On September 3, 3013, the USPTO issued U.S. Design Patent No.
17 D688,855, titled “Split-Sole Shoe With Blue Soles” (“the ’855 patent”). A true and
18 correct copy of the ’855 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
19 23. On February 22, 2022, the USPTO issued U.S. Design Patent No.
20 D943,897, titled “Dual-Sole Shoe With Green Outsole Patch” (“the ’897 patent”).
21 A true and correct copy of the ’897 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
22 24. On February 15, 2022, the USPTO issued U.S. Design Patent No.
23 D943,252, titled “Ballet Shoe With Green Outsole Patch and Contrasting Upper”
24 (“the ’252 patent”). A true and correct copy of the ’252 patent is attached hereto as
25 Exhibit D.
26 25. On April 23, 2019, the USPTO issued U.S. Design Patent No.
27 D846,259, titled “Ballet Shoe” (“the ’259 patent”). A true and correct copy of the
28 ’259 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit E.
MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
6 COMPLAINT
SILICON VALLEY
1 26. On December 1, 2020, the USPTO issued U.S. Design Patent No.
3 ’279 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit F.
5 D846,845, titled “Shoe With Color Outpatch Soles” (“the ’845 patent”). A true and
6 correct copy of the ’845 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit G.
7 28. On May 26, 2020, the USPTO issued U.S. Design Patent No.
8 D885,018, titled “Ballet Shoe With Yellow Outpatch Sole and Contrasting Upper”
9 (“the ’018 patent”). A true and correct copy of the ’018 patent is attached hereto as
10 Exhibit H.
11 29. On June 9, 2020, the USPTO issued U.S. Design Patent No. D886,435,
12 titled “Shoe With Dual Outpatch Sole” (“the ’435 patent”). A true and correct copy
13 of the ’435 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit I.
16 ’849 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit J.
17 31. On May 14, 2013, the USPTO issued U.S. Design Patent No.
18 D681,927, titled “Split-Sole Shoe” (“the ’927 patent”). A true and correct copy of
19 the ’927 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit K.
20 32. On June 30, 2020, the USPTO issued U.S. Design Patent No.
22 ’380 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit L.
24 D844,951, titled “Shoe with Dual-Outpatch Sole” (“the ’951 patent”). A true and
25 correct copy of the ’951 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit M.
26 34. Gavrieli is the owner of all right, title, and interest in the ’812, ’855,
27 ’897, ’252, ’259, ’279, ’845, ’018, ’435, ’849, ’927, ’380, and ’951 patents
28 (“Asserted Design Patents”) with the full and exclusive right to bring suit to enforce
MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
7 COMPLAINT
SILICON VALLEY
1 the patents, including the right to recover for past infringement.

2 Gavrieli’s Utility Patents
3 35. On June 10, 2014, the USPTO issued U.S. Patent No. 8,745,893, titled
4 “Split-Sole Footwear” (“the ’893 patent”). A true and correct copy of the ’893
5 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit N.
6 36. On July 26, 2016, the USPTO issued U.S. Patent No. 9,398,786, titled
7 “Split-Sole Footwear” (“the ’786 patent”). A true and correct copy of the ’786
8 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit O.
9 37. Gavrieli is the owner of all right, title, and interest in the ’893 and ’786
10 patents (“Asserted Utility Patents”) with the full and exclusive right to bring suit to
11 enforce the patents, including the right to recover for past infringement.
12 Lovie Pearl’s Infringing Activities
13 38. Rather than create their own distinctive product design, Lovie Pearl
14 chose to embark on a campaign to systematically copy Gavrieli’s distinctive
15 footwear in order to improperly exploit the goodwill Gavrieli has spent years
16 building in the marketplace. Even a cursory comparison of Tieks® with the
17 Accused Products reveals the extent of this misappropriation of Gavrieli intellectual
18 property.
19
20 Exemplary Tieks® Exemplary Accused Product
21
22
23
24
25
26 39. Lovie Pearl offers for sale the Accused Products through its Amazon
27 Web Store with the name “loviepearl.” A pair of the Accused Products from Lovie
28
MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
8 COMPLAINT
SILICON VALLEY
1 Pearl’s Amazon store was purchased for delivery within this district to Inglewood,
2 CA. Attached as Ex. P is a screenshot of the order invoice from Lovie Pearl’s
3 Amazon Web Store for that purchase.
4 40. The above-referenced pair of the Accused Products were received in
5 Inglewood, CA.
6 41. The Accused Products, including the styles “Citron,” “Aquatic Elf,”
7 “Coconut,” “Green Python,” “Malachite,” “Mushroom,” “Grassland,” “Laterite,”
8 “Lava,” “Wheat Field,” “Starry Sky,” “Blooming Rose,” “Cloisonné,” “Deep Sea,”
9 “Emerald,” “Manjusaka,” “Fog,” “Cotton Candy,” “Magnolia,” “Milk Sugar,” and
10 “Shallow Bay” that are sold or offered for sale by Lovie Pearl on its Amazon Web
11 Store, unlawfully incorporate designs claimed by the Asserted Design Patents
12 including, but not limited to, the Peekaboo outsole design, and infringe the Asserted
13 Design Patents.
14 42. Upon information and belief, Lovie Pearl, without Gavrieli’s
15 authorization, has made, used, offered for sale, sold, and/or imported the Accused
16 Products into or in the United States, and continues to make, use, offer for sale, sell,
17 and/or import the Accused Products into or in the United States.
18 FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
19 (Infringement of the ’812 Patent – 35 U.S.C. § 271)
20 43. Paragraphs 1 through 42 are incorporated by reference as if fully stated
21 herein.
22 44. Gavrieli owns all rights, title, and interest in the ’812 patent.
23 45. Lovie Pearl, without authorization from Gavrieli, has made, used,
24 offered for sale, sold, and/or imported into or in the United States, and continues to
25 make, use, offer for sale, sell, and/or import into or in the United States, the
26 Accused Products having designs substantially similar to the ’812 patent, including,
27 but not limited to, the “Citron,” “Aquatic Elf,” “Coconut,” “Green Python,” and
28 “Malachite” Lovie Pearl ballet flats. Further discovery may reveal additional
MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
9 COMPLAINT
SILICON VALLEY
1 infringing products and/or models.

2 46. The excerpt from Table 1, reproduced below, compares an exemplary
3 figure from the ’812 patent with a photograph of an exemplary Accused Product
4 taken from a corresponding view. A complete version of Table 1 comparing all
5 figures from the ’812 patent to corresponding views of the Accused Products is
6 attached as Exhibit Q-1. The Accused Product pictured has been advertised,
7 marketed, promoted, and made available for purchase to all Lovie Pearl site
8 visitors. The Accused Product pictured is also available for sale currently on the
9 Lovie Pearl Amazon Web Store.
10
TABLE 1
11
The ’812 Patent Exemplary Accused Product
12
13
14
15
16
17 47. By the foregoing acts, Lovie Pearl has infringed, literally and/or under
18 the doctrine of equivalents, and continues to infringe, the ’812 patent in violation of
19 the 35 U.S.C. § 271.
20 48. Upon information and belief, Lovie Pearl’s infringement of the ’812
21 patent is, has been, and continues to be undertaken knowingly, willfully,
22 deliberately, maliciously, and in bad faith, entitling Gavrieli to enhanced damages
23 under 35 U.S.C. § 284 and to attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred in prosecuting
24 this action under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
25 49. Upon information and belief, Lovie Pearl has gained profits by virtue
26 of its infringement of the ’812 patent.
27 50. Upon information and belief, Lovie Pearl has obtained further
28
MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
10 COMPLAINT
SILICON VALLEY
1 investment by virtue of its infringement of the ’812 patent.

2 51. As a direct and proximate result of Lovie Pearl’s infringement of the
3 ’812 patent, Gavrieli has been and continues to be damaged in an amount yet to be
4 determined.
5 52. Gavrieli will suffer and is suffering irreparable harm from Lovie
6 Pearl’s infringement of the ’812 patent. Gavrieli has no adequate remedy at law
7 and is entitled to an injunction against Lovie Pearl’s infringement of the ’812
8 patent. Unless enjoined by this Court, Lovie Pearl will continue its infringing
9 conduct, thereby causing Gavrieli to further sustain irreparable damage, loss, and
10 injury, for which Gavrieli has no adequate remedy at law.
11 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Infringement of the ’855 Patent – 35 U.S.C. § 271)
12
53. Paragraphs 1 through 52 are incorporated by reference as if fully stated
13
herein.
14
54. Gavrieli owns all rights, title, and interest in the ’855 patent.
15
55. Lovie Pearl, without authorization from Gavrieli, has made, used,
16
offered for sale, sold, and/or imported into or in the United States, and continues to
17
make, use, offer for sale, sell, and/or import into or in the United States, the
18
Accused Products having designs substantially similar to the ’855 patent, including,
19
but not limited to, the “Citron,” “Aquatic Elf,” “Coconut,” “Green Python,” and
20
“Malachite” Lovie Pearl ballet flats. Further discovery may reveal additional
21
infringing products and/or models.
22
56. The excerpt from Table 2, reproduced below, compares an exemplary
23
figure from the ’855 patent with a photograph of an exemplary Accused Product
24
taken from a corresponding view. A complete version of Table 2 comparing all
25
figures from the ’855 patent to corresponding views of the Accused Products is
26
attached as Exhibit Q-2. The Accused Product pictured has been advertised,
27
marketed, promoted, and made available for purchase to all Lovie Pearl site
28
MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
11 COMPLAINT
SILICON VALLEY
3
TABLE 2
4
5
6
7
8
9
57. By the foregoing acts, Lovie Pearl has infringed, literally and/or under
10
the doctrine of equivalents, and continues to infringe, the ’855 patent in violation of
11
the 35 U.S.C. § 271.
12
58. Upon information and belief, Lovie Pearl’s infringement of the ’855
13
patent is, has been, and continues to be undertaken knowingly, willfully,
14
deliberately, maliciously, and in bad faith, entitling Gavrieli to enhanced damages
15
under 35 U.S.C. § 284 and to attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred in prosecuting
16
this action under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
17
59. Upon information and belief, Lovie Pearl has gained profits by virtue
18
of its infringement of the ’855 patent.
19
60. Upon information and belief, Lovie Pearl has obtained further
20
investment by virtue of its infringement of the ’855 patent.
21
61. As a direct and proximate result of Lovie Pearl’s infringement of the
22
’855 patent, Gavrieli has been and continues to be damaged in an amount yet to be
23
determined.
24
62. Gavrieli will suffer and is suffering irreparable harm from Lovie
25
Pearl’s infringement of the ’855 patent. Gavrieli has no adequate remedy at law and
26
is entitled to an injunction against Lovie Pearl’s infringement of the ’855 patent.
27
Unless enjoined by this Court, Lovie Pearl will continue its infringing conduct,
28
MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
12 COMPLAINT
SILICON VALLEY
1 thereby causing Gavrieli to further sustain irreparable damage, loss, and injury, for
2 which Gavrieli has no adequate remedy at law.
3 THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
6 herein.
23 TABLE 3
24 The ’855 Patent Exemplary Accused Product
25
26
27
28
MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
13 COMPLAINT
SILICON VALLEY
3 the 35 U.S.C. § 271.
15 determined.
17 Pearl’s infringement of the ’897 patent. Gavrieli has no adequate remedy at law and
18 is entitled to an injunction against Lovie Pearl’s infringement of the ’897 patent.
19 Unless enjoined by this Court, Lovie Pearl will continue its infringing conduct,
20 thereby causing Gavrieli to further sustain irreparable damage, loss, and injury, for
21 which Gavrieli has no adequate remedy at law.
22 FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
25 herein.
MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
14 COMPLAINT
SILICON VALLEY
14
TABLE 4
15
16
17
18
19
20
23 the 35 U.S.C. § 271.
MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
15 COMPLAINT
SILICON VALLEY
7 determined.
14 FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
17 herein.
MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
16 COMPLAINT
SILICON VALLEY
6
TABLE 5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
16 the 35 U.S.C. § 271.
28 determined.
MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
17 COMPLAINT
SILICON VALLEY
7 SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
10 herein.
27
28
MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
18 COMPLAINT
SILICON VALLEY
1 TABLE 6
3
4
5
6
9 the 35 U.S.C. § 271.
21 determined.
28
MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
19 COMPLAINT
SILICON VALLEY
1 SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

3 103. Paragraphs 1 through 102 are incorporated by reference as if fully
4 stated herein.
21
TABLE 7
22
23
24
25
26
27
MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
20 COMPLAINT
SILICON VALLEY
2 the 35 U.S.C. § 271.
14 determined.
21 EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
24 stated herein.
MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
21 COMPLAINT
SILICON VALLEY
2 but not limited to, the “Mushroom,” “Grassland,” “Laterite,” “Lava,” and “Wheat
3 Field” Lovie Pearl ballet flats. Further discovery may reveal additional infringing
4 products and/or models.
6 figure from the ’018 patent1 with a photograph of an exemplary Accused Product
13
TABLE 8
14
15
16
17
18
19
22 the 35 U.S.C. § 271.
27
1
The ’018 patent claims a yellow outpatch sole. The exemplary figure in Table 8
28 includes a yellow color as claimed by the ’018 patent.
MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
22 COMPLAINT
SILICON VALLEY

8 determined.
15 NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
18 stated herein.
24 but not limited to, the “Starry Sky,” “Blooming Rose,” “Cloisonné,” “Deep Sea,”
25 “Emerald,” and “Manjusaka” Lovie Pearl ballet flats. Further discovery may reveal
26 additional infringing products and/or models.
MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
23 COMPLAINT
SILICON VALLEY

7
TABLE 9
8
9
10
11
12
13
16 the 35 U.S.C. § 271.
28 determined.
MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
24 COMPLAINT
SILICON VALLEY
7 TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
10 stated herein.
16 but not limited to, the “Starry Sky,” “Blooming Rose,” “Cloisonné,” “Deep Sea,”
17 “Emerald,” and “Manjusaka” Lovie Pearl ballet flats. Further discovery may reveal
18 additional infringing products and/or models.
27
28
MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
25 COMPLAINT
SILICON VALLEY
1 TABLE 10
3
4
5
6
7
10 the 35 U.S.C. § 271.
22 determined.
MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
26 COMPLAINT
SILICON VALLEY
1 ELEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

4 stated herein.
10 but not limited to, the “Citron,” “Aquatic Elf,” “Coconut,” “Green Python,”
11 “Malachite,” “Mushroom,” “Grassland,” “Laterite,” “Lava,” “Wheat Field,” “Starry
12 Sky,” “Blooming Rose,” “Cloisonné,” “Deep Sea,” “Emerald,” “Manjusaka,”
13 “Fog,” “Cotton Candy,” “Magnolia,” “Milk Sugar,” and “Shallow Bay” Lovie Pearl
14 ballet flats. Further discovery may reveal additional infringing products and/or
15 models.
24
25
26
27
28
MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
27 COMPLAINT
SILICON VALLEY
1 TABLE 11
3
4
5
6
7
10 the 35 U.S.C. § 271.
22 determined.

MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
28 COMPLAINT
SILICON VALLEY
1 TWELFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

4 stated herein.
15 models.
24
25
26
27
28
MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
29 COMPLAINT
SILICON VALLEY
1 TABLE 12
3
4
5
6
7
10 the 35 U.S.C. § 271.
22 determined.
MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
30 COMPLAINT
SILICON VALLEY
1 THIRTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

4 stated herein.
15 models.
24
25
26
27
28
MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
31 COMPLAINT
SILICON VALLEY
1 TABLE 13
3
4
5
6
7
10 the 35 U.S.C. § 271.
22 determined.
MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
32 COMPLAINT
SILICON VALLEY
1 FOURTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

4 stated herein.
9 Accused Products including, but not limited to, the “Citron,” “Aquatic Elf,”
13 “Shallow Bay” Lovie Pearl ballet flats that infringe the ’893 patent. Further
14 discovery may reveal additional infringing products and/or models.
15 176. By the foregoing acts, Lovie Pearl has infringed and continues to
16 infringe each and every element of at least claim 33 of the ’893 patent, literally
17 and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271.
18 177. For example, claim 33 of the ’893 patent recites:
19 33. A shoe comprising:
20
21 [a] an upper, the upper forming an interior portion for receiving a foot of a
woman, the interior portion including a toe cavity and a heel cavity;
22
23 [b] a midsole, the midsole having (i) a toe end, (ii) a heel end, (iii) an inner
side, and (iv) an outer side, wherein a perimeter of the midsole is stitched to
24 the upper thereby forming a bottom to the interior portion that is bounded by
25 a first seam;
26 [c] a heel outsole patch stitched onto a heel portion of a first face of the
27 midsole;
28 [d] a toe outsole patch stitched onto a toe portion of the first face of the
MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
33 COMPLAINT
SILICON VALLEY
1 midsole;
2
[e] an insole that is affixed by glue to the bottom of the interior portion;
3
4 [f] wherein there is a spacing between (i) the heel outsole patch stitched onto
the heel portion of the first face of the midsole and (ii) the toe outsole patch
5 stitched onto the toe portion of the first face of the midsole, the spacing
6 extending from the inner side to the outer side and occupying a position
intermediate the toe end and the heel end thereby permitting the entire shoe
7 to fold about an axis in the spacing running between the inner side and outer
8 side;
9 [g] wherein the shoe is configured to fold between (i) an extended state
10 wherein the heel outsole patch and the toe outsole patch are coplanar and (ii)
a folded state in which the shoe is bent about the axis such that a portion of
11 the upper comprising the toe cavity is tucked into the heel cavity, and
12 wherein
13 [h] (i) the insole is not stitched to the upper, and
14
[i] (ii) a region of the shoe defined by the heel outsole patch and comprising
15 a corresponding portion of the midsole and the insole has a spring constant of
16 between 0.40 kilogram-force/inch and 0.70 kilogram-force/inch.
17 178. The Accused Products meet each and every element of claim 33.
18 179. With respect to element [a] of claim 33, for example, the Accused
19 Products include an upper (indicated by the arrow labeled “[a]”) that forms an
20 interior portion for receiving a foot of a woman and an interior portion that includes
21 a toe cavity and a heel cavity:
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
34 COMPLAINT
SILICON VALLEY
1 180. With respect to element [b] of claim 33, for example, the Accused
2 Products include a midsole (indicated by the arrows labeled “[b]”), having (i) a toe
3 end, (ii) a heel end, (iii) an inner side, and (iv) an outer side, wherein a perimeter of
4 the midsole is stitched to the upper thereby forming a bottom to the interior portion
5 that is bounded by a first seam:
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 181. With respect to element [c] of claim 33, for example, the Accused
21 Products include a heel outsole patch stitched onto a heel portion of a first face of
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
35 COMPLAINT
SILICON VALLEY
1 the midsole (indicated by the arrow labeled “[c]”):

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 182. With respect to element [d] of claim 33, for example, the Accused
13 Products include a toe outsole patch stitched onto a toe portion of the first face of
14 the midsole (indicated by the arrow labeled “[d]”):
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
183. With respect to element [e] of claim 33, for example, the Accused
27
Products include an insole that is affixed by glue to the bottom of the interior
28
MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
36 COMPLAINT
SILICON VALLEY
1 portion:
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 184. With respect to element [f] of claim 33, for example, the Accused
12 Products include spacing between (i) the heel outsole patch stitched onto the heel
13 portion of the first face of the midsole and (ii) the toe outsole patch stitched onto
14 the toe portion of the first face of the midsole, the spacing extending from the inner
15 side to the outer side and occupying a position intermediate the toe end and the heel
16 end thereby permitting the entire shoe to fold about an axis in the spacing running
17 between the inner side and outer side (indicated by the arrow labeled “[f]”):
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
185. With respect to element [g] of claim 33, for example, the Accused
27
Products can be configured to fold between an extended state wherein the heel
28
MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
37 COMPLAINT
SILICON VALLEY
1 outsole patch and the toe outsole patch are coplanar and (ii) a folded state in which
2 the shoe is bent about the axis such that a portion of the upper comprising the toe
3 cavity is tucked into the heel cavity (as indicated by the below photographs):
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
186. With respect to element [h] of claim 33, for example, the Accused
24
Products contain insoles that are not stitched to the upper:
25
26
27
28
MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
38 COMPLAINT
SILICON VALLEY
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
187. With respect to element [i] of claim 33, upon information and belief,
11
the Accused Products contain a region of the shoe defined by a heel outsole patch
12
and comprising a corresponding portion of the midsole with the insole having a
13
spring constant of between 0.40 kilogram-force/inch and 0.70 kilogram-force/inch.
14
188. By the foregoing acts, Lovie Pearl has infringed and continues to
15
infringe each and every element of at least claim 33 of the ’893 patent, literally
16
and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, in violation of 35 U.S.C § 271.
17
189. Upon information and belief, Lovie Pearl’s infringement of the ’893
18
patent is, has been, and continues to be undertaken knowingly, willfully,
19
deliberately, maliciously, and in bad faith, entitling Gavrieli to enhanced damages
20
under 35 U.S.C. § 284 and to attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred in prosecuting
21
this action under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
22
190. Upon information and belief, Lovie Pearl has gained profits by virtue
23
of its infringement of the ’893 patent.
24
191. Upon information and belief, Lovie Pearl has obtained further
25
investment by virtue of its infringement of the ’893 patent.
26
192. As a direct and proximate result of Lovie Pearl’s infringement of the
27
’893 patent, Gavrieli has been and continues to be damaged in an amount yet to be
28
MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
39 COMPLAINT
SILICON VALLEY
1 determined.
2 193. Gavrieli will suffer and is suffering irreparable harm from
3 Lovie Pearl’s infringement of the ’893 patent. Gavrieli has no adequate remedy at
4 law and is entitled to an injunction against Lovie Pearl’s infringement of the ’893
8 FIFTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
11 stated herein.
16 Accused Products including, but not limited to, the “Citron,” “Aquatic Elf,”
20 “Shallow Bay” Lovie Pearl ballet flats that infringe the ’786 patent. Further
21 discovery may reveal additional infringing products and/or models.
24 and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271.
25 198. For example, claim 34 of the ’786 patent recites:
26 34. A shoe comprising:
27
28 [a] an upper, the upper forming an interior portion for receiving a foot of a
MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
40 COMPLAINT
SILICON VALLEY
1 woman, the interior portion including a toe cavity and a heel cavity;
2
[b] a midsole, the midsole having (i) a toe end, (ii) a heel end, (iii) an inner
3 side, and (iv) an outer side, wherein a perimeter of the midsole is stitched to
4 the upper thereby forming a bottom to the interior portion that is bounded by
a first seam;
5
6 [c] a heel outsole patch stitched onto a heel portion of a first face of the
midsole;
7
8 [d] a toe outsole patch stitched onto a toe portion of the first face of the
midsole;
9
10 [e] an insole that is affixed by glue to the bottom of the interior portion;
11 [f] wherein there is a spacing between (i) the heel outsole patch stitched onto
12 the heel portion of the first face of the midsole and (ii) the toe outsole patch
stitched onto the toe portion of the first face of the midsole, the spacing
13 extending from the inner side to the outer side and occupying a position
14 intermediate the toe end and the heel end thereby permitting the entire shoe
to fold about an axis in the spacing running between the inner side and outer
15 side; and
16
[g] wherein the shoe is configured to fold between (i) an extended state
17 wherein the heel outsole patch and the toe outsole patch are coplanar and (ii)
18 a folded state in which the shoe is bent about the axis such that a portion of
the upper comprising the toe cavity is tucked into the heel cavity, and
19
20 [h] wherein a back corner of the toe outsole patch is within ¼ of an inch of a
portion of the first seam.
21
199. The Accused Products meet each and every element of claim 34.
22
200. With respect to element [a] of claim 34, for example, the Accused
23
Products include an upper (indicated by the arrow labeled “[a]”) that forms an
24
interior portion for receiving a foot of a woman and an interior portion that includes
25
a toe cavity and a heel cavity:
26
27
28
MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
41 COMPLAINT
SILICON VALLEY
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 201. With respect to element [b] of claim 34, for example, the Accused
10 Products include a midsole (indicated by the arrows labeled “[b]”), having (i) a toe
11 end, (ii) a heel end, (iii) an inner side, and (iv) an outer side, wherein a perimeter of
12 the midsole is stitched to the upper thereby forming a bottom to the interior portion
13 that is bounded by a first seam:
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
42 COMPLAINT
SILICON VALLEY
1 202. With respect to element [c] of claim 34, for example, the Accused
2 Products include a heel outsole patch stitched onto a heel portion of a first face of
3 the midsole (indicated by the arrow labeled “[c]”):
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14 203. With respect to element [d] of claim 34, for example, the Accused
15 Products include a toe outsole patch stitched onto a toe portion of the first face of
16 the midsole (indicated by the arrow labeled “[d]”):
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
43 COMPLAINT
SILICON VALLEY
1 204. With respect to element [e] of claim 34, for example, the Accused
2 Products include an insole that is affixed by glue to the bottom of the interior
3 portion:
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
205. With respect to element [f] of claim 34, for example, the Accused
13
Products include spacing between (i) the heel outsole patch stitched onto the heel
14
portion of the first face of the midsole and (ii) the toe outsole patch stitched onto
15
the toe portion of the first face of the midsole, the spacing extending from the inner
16
side to the outer side and occupying a position intermediate the toe end and the heel
17
end thereby permitting the entire shoe to fold about an axis in the spacing running
18
between the inner side and outer side (indicated by the arrow labeled “[f]”):
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
44 COMPLAINT
SILICON VALLEY
1 206. With respect to element [g] of claim 34, for example, the Accused
2 Products can be configured to fold between an extended state wherein the heel
3 outsole patch and the toe outsole patch are coplanar and (ii) a folded state in which
4 the shoe is bent about the axis such that a portion of the upper comprising the toe
5 cavity is tucked into the heel cavity (as indicated by the below photographs):
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 207. With respect to element [h] of claim 34, for example, the Accused
23 Products include a back corner of the toe outsole patch within ¼ of an inch of a
24
25
26
27
28
MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
45 COMPLAINT
SILICON VALLEY
1 portion of the first seam (indicated by the arrow labeled “[h]”):

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
13 and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, in violation of 35 U.S.C § 271.
25 determined.
26 213. Gavrieli will suffer and is suffering irreparable harm from
27 Lovie Pearl’s infringement of the ’893 patent. Gavrieli has no adequate remedy at
28
MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
46 COMPLAINT
SILICON VALLEY
1 law and is entitled to an injunction against Lovie Pearl’s infringement of the ’893
5 REQUEST FOR RELIEF
6 WHEREFORE, Gavrieli prays for judgment against Lovie Pearl as follows:
7 A. A judgment and order adjudicating and declaring that Lovie Pearl has
8 infringed each of the Patents-in-Suit;
9 B. A judgment and order permanently enjoining Lovie Pearl, its officers,
10 agents, servants, employees, attorneys and all persons in active concert or
11 participation with Lovie Pearl from further infringement of the Patents-in-Suit.
12 D. A judgment and order that Lovie Pearl must account and pay actual
13 damages, including a disgorgement of Lovie Pearl’s profits and/or any lost profits
14 or other harm to Gavrieli (but no less than a reasonable royalty), to Gavrieli for
15 Lovie Pearl’s infringement of the Patents-in-Suit;
16 E. A judgment and order awarding Gavrieli the total profits realized by
17 Lovie Pearl from its infringement of the Patents-in-Suit pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §
18 289;
19 F. A judgment and order declaring that Lovie Pearl has willfully
20 infringed the Patents-in-Suit;
21 G. A judgment and order awarding Gavrieli damages adequate to
22 compensate for Lovie Pearl’s infringement together with enhanced damages up to
23 three times any amount ordered pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284;
24 H. A determination that this is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285;
25 I. A judgment and order awarding Gavrieli its reasonable attorneys’ fees;
26 J. A judgment and order awarding Gavrieli its costs, expenses, and
27 interest, including pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, as provided for by 35
28 U.S.C. § 284;
MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
47 COMPLAINT
SILICON VALLEY
1 L. A judgement and order awarding punitive or exemplary damages

2 where appropriate;
3 M. A judgment and order awarding Gavrieli both pre-judgment and post-
4 judgment interest on each and every monetary award; and
5 N. Granting Gavrieli such other and further relief as the Court deems just
6 and appropriate, or that Gavrieli may be entitled to as a matter of law or equity.
7 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
8 In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38 and Local Rule 38.1,
9 Gavrieli respectfully demands a jury trial of all issues triable to a jury in this action.
10 Dated: August 26, 2022 Respectfully submitted,
11
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
12
13
By /s/ Michael J. Lyons
14 Michael J. Lyons (SBN 202284)
Ahren C. Hsu-Hoffman (SBN 250469)
15 Ehsun Forghany (SBN 302984)
Katerina Hora Jacobson (SBN 342384)
16 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
1400 Page Mill Road
17 Palo Alto, CA 94304
Telephone: 1.650.843.4000
18 Facsimile: 1.650.843.4001
michael.lyons@morganlewis.com
19 ahren.hsu-hoffman@morganlewis.com
ehsun.forghany@morganlewis.com
20 katerina.horajacobson@morganlewis.com
21 Attorneys for Plaintiff Gavrieli Brands,
LLC
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
48 COMPLAINT
SILICON VALLEY

Gavrieli v. Lovie - Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gavrieli v. Lovie - Complaint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Gavrieli v. Lovie - Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2:22-cv-06112 Document 1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 1 of 48 Page ID #:1

1 Michael J. Lyons (SBN 202284)

13 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

1 COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

1 subsidiaries, agents, alter egos, agents and/or intermediaries (including distributors,

1 the patents, including the right to recover for past infringement.

1 infringing products and/or models.

1 investment by virtue of its infringement of the ’812 patent.

16 the 35 U.S.C. § 271.

18 patent is, has been, and continues to be undertaken knowingly, willfully,

19 deliberately, maliciously, and in bad faith, entitling Gavrieli to enhanced damages

21 this action under 35 U.S.C. § 285.

23 of its infringement of the ’259 patent.

25 investment by virtue of its infringement of the ’259 patent.

26 91. As a direct and proximate result of Lovie Pearl’s infringement of the

1 SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

1 this action under 35 U.S.C. § 285.

1 taken from a corresponding view. A complete version of Table 9 comparing all

1 ELEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

10 the 35 U.S.C. § 271.

12 patent is, has been, and continues to be undertaken knowingly, willfully,

13 deliberately, maliciously, and in bad faith, entitling Gavrieli to enhanced damages

15 this action under 35 U.S.C. § 285.

17 of its infringement of the ’927 patent.

19 investment by virtue of its infringement of the ’927 patent.

20 151. As a direct and proximate result of Lovie Pearl’s infringement of the

25 and is entitled to an injunction against Lovie Pearl’s infringement of the ’927

28 injury, for which Gavrieli has no adequate remedy at law.

1 TWELFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

1 THIRTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

1 FOURTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

21 a toe cavity and a heel cavity:

1 the midsole (indicated by the arrow labeled “[c]”):

16 the midsole (indicated by the arrow labeled “[d]”):

1 portion of the first seam (indicated by the arrow labeled “[h]”):

1 L. A judgement and order awarding punitive or exemplary damages

You might also like