Restoration Hardware v. Target - Complaint
Restoration Hardware v. Target - Complaint
Restoration Hardware v. Target - Complaint
13 company,
COMPLAINT
14 Plaintiffs,
15 vs.
16 TARGET CORPORATION,
a Minnesota corporation,
17
Defendant.
18
103256202_1 1
Case 3:18-cv-00770 Document 1 Filed 02/05/18 Page 2 of 11
1 PARTIES
2 2. Plaintiff Restoration Hardware, Inc. is a Delaware corporation
3 whose principal place of business is located at 15 Koch Road, Corte Madera,
4 California 94925. Restoration Hardware, Inc. is the exclusive licensee of the
5 patents in suit.
6 3. Plaintiff RH US, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company
7 whose principal place of business is located at 15 Koch Road, Corte Madera,
8 California 94925. RH US, LLC is the owner of the patents in suit.
9 4. Defendant Target Corporation is a Minnesota corporation with its
10 principal place of business at 1000 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, Minnesota
11 55403.
12 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4300 Bohannon Drive, Suite 230
Menlo Park, California 94025
13 5. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant
14 to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338 because this action involves claims for patent
15 infringement in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq.
16 6. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because,
17 among other things, Defendant has purposefully directed its activities at
18 residents of the forum, including, upon information and belief, by offering for
19 sale and selling the infringing products to residents of this district. Plaintiff’s
20 claims for patent infringement claim arise out of or relate to Defendant’s
21 offering for sale and sales of the infringing products in this district. The
22 assertion of personal jurisdiction over Defendant in this district is fair and
23 reasonable.
24 7. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. §1400(b) because
25 Target has committed acts of infringement in this district through the sale and
26 offering for sale of infringing products, and has a regular and established place
27 of business in this district. Venue is proper in the Northern District of this
28 court, San Francisco division.
103256202_1 2
Case 3:18-cv-00770 Document 1 Filed 02/05/18 Page 3 of 11
1 INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
2 8. Pursuant to Civil Rule 3-2(c), this is an Intellectual Property
3 Action assignable on a district-wide basis.
4 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
5 9. RH is an innovative and popular luxury brand in the home
6 furnishings marketplace. RH designs, manufactures, and sells a wide variety of
7 home furnishings, including outdoor furniture. One of RH’s most popular
8 outdoor collections is known as “Provence.” Pieces in the Provence collection
9 embody the design in the RH Patents identified in Paragraphs 13-16.
10 10. RH owns four (4) design patents registered with the United States
11 Patent and Trademark Office for products in its Provence collection including:
12 (a) US D663,966 (“D’966 Patent”) for the ornamental design of a lounge chair;
4300 Bohannon Drive, Suite 230
Menlo Park, California 94025
13 (b) US D663,967 (the “D’967 Patent”) for the ornamental design of a sofa;
14 (c) US D664,782 (the “D’782 Patent”) for the ornamental design of an
15 armchair; and (d) US D651,012 (the “D’012 Patent”) for the ornamental design
16 of a chaise (collectively, “RH Patents”).
17 11. The RH Patents are valid and subsisting.
18 12. RH has practiced the RH Patents in connection with
19 commercialization of the Provence collection.
20 LOUNGE CHAIR DESIGN
21 13. The D’966 Patent claims the ornamental design of a lounge chair
22 as shown in the figures below.
23
24
25
26
27
28
103256202_1 3
Case 3:18-cv-00770 Document 1 Filed 02/05/18 Page 4 of 11
6 SOFA DESIGN
7 14. The D’967 Patent claims the ornamental design of a sofa as shown
8 in the figures below.
9
10
11
12
4300 Bohannon Drive, Suite 230
Menlo Park, California 94025
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 ///
28 ///
103256202_1 4
Case 3:18-cv-00770 Document 1 Filed 02/05/18 Page 5 of 11
1 ARMCHAIR DESIGN
2 15. The D’782 Patent claims the ornamental design of an armchair as
3 shown in the figures below.
4
10
11
12
4300 Bohannon Drive, Suite 230
Menlo Park, California 94025
13
14 CHAISE DESIGN
15 16. The D’012 Patent claims the ornamental design of a chaise as
16 shown in the figures below.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
103256202_1 5
Case 3:18-cv-00770 Document 1 Filed 02/05/18 Page 6 of 11
103256202_1 6
Case 3:18-cv-00770 Document 1 Filed 02/05/18 Page 7 of 11
8
D’966
9
10
11
12
4300 Bohannon Drive, Suite 230
Menlo Park, California 94025
13
14
D’967
15
16
17
18
19
20 D’782
21
22
23
24
25
26 D’012
27
28
103256202_1 7
Case 3:18-cv-00770 Document 1 Filed 02/05/18 Page 8 of 11
1 24. The design of the Infringing Products and the design of RH’s
2 Provence sofa and lounge are so similar that it is highly unlikely that Defendant
3 used the design of the Infringing Products without prior knowledge of the
4 Provence designs set forth in the RH Patents.
5 25. Upon information and belief and despite RH’s demands,
6 Defendant has continued to manufacture, use, offer to sell, sell, and/or import
7 into the United States, outdoor furniture that infringes upon the designs set forth
8 in the RH Patents.
9
COUNT I
10 (Patent Infringement
under 35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq.
11 D’966 Patent)
103256202_1 8
Case 3:18-cv-00770 Document 1 Filed 02/05/18 Page 9 of 11
103256202_1 9
Case 3:18-cv-00770 Document 1 Filed 02/05/18 Page 10 of 11
13 with them from directly or indirectly infringing RH’s rights in the RH Patents,
14 including, without limitation, Defendant’s manufacturers and suppliers;
15 B. Judgment in favor of RH and against Defendant for damages
16 adequate to compensate RH for Defendant’s infringment of the RH Patents,
17 which shall be trebled as a result of Defendant’s willful patent infringement,
18 pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, or an award of Defendant’s profits from its
19 infringements pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 289, whichever is greater, together with
20 prejudgement interest and costs;
21 C. Judgment in favor of RH and against Defendant for RH’s costs and
22 attorneys’ fees incurred in this action, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285; and
23 D. Judgment in favor of RH and against Defendant for such other
24 relief as the Court deems just, equitable, and proper.
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
103256202_1 10
Case 3:18-cv-00770 Document 1 Filed 02/05/18 Page 11 of 11
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
103256202_1 11
JS-CAND 44 (Rev. 06/17) Case 3:18-cv-00770 Document 1-1 Filed 02/05/18 Page 1 of 1
CIVIL COVER SHEET
The JS-CAND 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law,
except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved in its original form by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the Clerk of
Court to initiate the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS
RESTORATION HARDWARE, INC. a Delaware corporation, TARGET CORPORATION, a Minnesota corporation
and RH US,LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Marin County County of Residence of First Listed Defendant Hennepin County
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)
Michael McCue, Aaron Johnson and Terry Ahearn
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie, LLP
4300 Bohannon Drive, Suite 230, Menlo Park, CA 94025 T: 650.391.1380
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
PTF DEF PTF DEF
1 U.S. Government Plaintiff 3 Federal Question Citizen of This State 1 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4
(U.S. Government Not a Party)
of Business In This State
Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5 5
2 U.S. Government Defendant 4 Diversity of Business In Another State
(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)
Citizen or Subject of a 3 3 Foreign Nation 6 6
Foreign Country
VI. CAUSE OF Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338; 35 U.S.C. § 1
ACTION
Brief description of cause:
Patent Infringement
VII. REQUESTED IN CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, Fed. R. Civ. P. JURY DEMAND: Yes No