Global Allies v. JL Furnishings - Complaint

8/21/2019 Global Allies v. JL Furnishings - Complaint

1/23

ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND Case No. __________________

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

SPENCER HOSIE (CA Bar No. 101777)

[email protected] S. RICE (CA Bar No. 118303)[email protected] K. LEE (CA Bar No. 156018)[email protected]

DARRELL R. ATKINSON (CA Bar No. 280564)[email protected]

HOSIE RICE LLP600 Montgomery Street, 34

th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94111

(415) 247-6000 Tel.(415) 247-6001 Fax

Attorneys for Plaintiff

GLOBAL ALLIES, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GLOBAL ALLIES, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

JL FURNISHINGS LLC; JL FURNISHINGSEAST LLC; and LONE MEADOW, LLC

Defendants.

Case No. ___________________

ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Case3:15-cv-02751-HRL Document1 Filed06/18/15 Page1 of 13

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/23

ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND 1 Case No. __________________

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

Plaintiff Global Allies, LLC (“Global Allies” or “Plaintiff”) hereby files its complaint

against defendant JL Furnishings LLC (“JLF”), JL Furnishings East LLC (“JLF East”), and

Lone Meadow, LLC (“Lone Meadow”) (collectively “Defendants”) for patent infringement.

For its complaint, Plaintiff alleges on personal knowledge as to its own acts and on

information and belief as to all other matters, as follows:

PARTIES

1. Global Allies is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the

State of California, with its principal place of business in Lockeford, California.

2. JLF is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of

California, with its principal place of business in Los Angeles County, California.

3. JLF East is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State

of California, with its principal place of business in Los Angeles County, California. JLF

East is registered to do business in North Carolina and has a place of business there.

4. Lone Meadow is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the

State of California, with its principal place of business in Los Angeles County, California.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

5. This complaint asserts a cause of action for patent infringement under the

Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 271. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter by

virtue of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a).

6. This Court has personal jurisdiction over JLF, because JLF is incorporated in

California, has a place of business in California, has an agent for service of process in

California, and provides products and services in California.



3/23


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

7. This Court has personal jurisdiction over JLF East, because JLF East is

incorporated in California, has a place of business in California, has an agent for service of

process in California, and provides products and services in California.

8.

This Court has personal jurisdiction over Lone Meadow, because Lone

Meadow is incorporated in California, has a place of business in California, has an agent for

service of process in California, and provides products and services in California.

9. Venue is proper in this Court by virtue of 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c) and (d) and 35

U.S.C. §289, in that: Defendants do substantial and regular business in this district such that

Defendants reside here; Defendants may be found in this district and have committed acts of

infringement in this district; Defendants have introduced infringing products into the stream

of commerce with the expectation that they will be purchased and used in this district; and

this Court has jurisdiction over all the parties.

10. The website www.jlfurnishings.com offered/exposed for sale the infringing

product. See § I, B below. The website makes use of multiple business names. For

example, the website makes reference to “JLF/lone meadow (aka JL Furnishings),” “JLF

Lone Meadow LLC,” “JL Furnishings,” “Lone Meadow LLC,” and “JLF Collections.” All

three defendants use, operate and/or own the website www.jlfurnishings.com. The website

lists both addresses in California and North Carolina.

INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT

11. Pursuant to Civil LR 3-2(c), this case should be subject to district-wide

assignment because it is an Intellectual Property Action.

I. STATEMENT OF FACTS.

A. The Plaintiff Global Allies and Its Patented Task Chairs.



4/23


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

12. Plaintiff Global Allies is an innovative company that specializes in supplying

high-end, strikingly designed furniture to the hospitality (hotel) market, as described below.

13.

Over the past decade, Global Allies has invested significantly in product

research, design, and development to yield novel, market-defining designs. It owns a number

of important design patents, including the patent asserted here.

14. There are several important hospitality design shows held annually in the

domestic United States. These shows bring vendors and customers together, and give buyers

the opportunity to consider and review competing product lines. The three principal

hospitality design shows held annually are the Hospitality Design Show in Las Vegas, the

BDNY show in New York, and the BD West show in Southern California.

15. A corporate hotel owner may have various brands. These brands are

frequently referred to as “flags.” For example, Hilton Hotels has a brand/flag in Hilton, and

a separate brand/flag in Doubletree. The major domestic hotel corporations typically have

what is referred to as a “brand standard” for their various brands. For example, a particular

vendor’s furniture product selected and endorsed by the hotel corporation for use in

properties bearing a particular flag. The selection of a particular vendor and product as being

included in a hotel chain’s brand standard matters: it is a striking endorsement of quality and

novelty, and reflects the hotel buyer’s conviction that that vendor’s furnishings will support

and enhance the hotel brand.

16. Even absent selecting and publishing brand standards, hotel corporations

frequently recommend particular vendor’s products for flagged hotels.

17. Given its innovative and patented designs, and the underlying quality of its

products, Global Allies has met with considerable success in becoming part of the brand

standard for major domestic and international hotel chains. Global Allies’ “task chairs,” the



5/23


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

product at issue here, are part of the brand standard for several major domestic hotel chains.

For example, Hilton Hotels has numerous brands which identify Global Allies and its

products as constituting part of the brand standard, including the Hilton, Doubletree, and

Embassy Suites’ flagged hotels. To illustrate further, Starwood Hotels is and has been a

significant Global Allies’ customer, and Starwood identifies Global Allies’ task chairs as part

of the Starwood Brand Standards program, including for such top tier hotels as the Sheraton,

and Four Points by Sheraton, Aloft, and further recommended for their St Regis, Le

Meridian, Westin and W Hotels to name a few. In addition, Global Allies’ patented task

chairs are also recommended for use by other hotel corporations for their flagged properties.

18. Global Allies’ success in the hospitality market reflects, in significant part,

their products’ innovative design, a design that distinguishes and separates the Global Allies’

task chairs from competitive chairs in the hospitality industry.

19. One such innovative design is reflected in U.S. Design Patent No. D622,987,

filed April 8, 2010 and issued September 7, 2010 (the ‘987 Patent”). This patent is attached

hereto as Exhibit A. Global Allies refers to this design and task chair as the “Coronado Task

Chair” (herein “Coronado”).

20. Reproduced below is an exemplary figure describing the claimed Coronado

design:



6/23


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

‘987 Patent, Fig. 1.

21. In 2013 Global Allies filed suit in this district for infringement of the ‘987

Patent against Charter Furniture Corp. and Lodging by Liberty, Inc., dba Charter Furniture.

The prior suit on the ‘987 Patent was styled Global Allies, LLC. v. Charter Furniture Corp.

and Lodging by Liberty, Inc., Case No. 5:13-cv-00651-EJD (N.D. Cal.). This prior suit was

settled with Charter Furnitur e Corp. and Lodging by Liberty, Inc., taking a license to the ‘987

Patent. Global Allies has also secured other cease and desist agreements from other

infringing parties.

B. Defendants Knock Off the Coronado Task Chair.

22.

Defendants have either offered to sale or actually sold task chairs that infringe

Global Allies’ ‘987 Patent. Defendants infringing activities span the country and include

offering infringing products through their website, as illustrated, by example, below.

23. Defendants were awarded a project to produce chairs for the yet to open

Westin Denver International Airport Hotel. In obtaining this project, Defendants submitted a

visually identical copy of the Coronado Task Chair. Defendants intend to complete this

project through the production, delivery, and installation of chairs that knockoff Global

Allies’ Coronado task chair.



7/23


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

24. In 2014, Defendants presented this knockoff chair at the BD West show and in

fact stated to the Hilton Brand manager that Defendants could supply them this chair and at a

lower price. At this trade show, the president of Global Allies saw the infringing chair, and

approached the C.E.O. of the Defendants’ various companies. Through its president, Global

Allies informed the Defendants’ C.E.O. that their chair infringed the Coronado patent, and

was a direct knockoff. Global Allies demanded that the Defendants cease and desist making,

selling, and offering to sell the chair. In this conversation, the Global Allies president told

the Defendants’ C.E.O. that the Coronado chair was a patented design. The Defendants’

C.E.O. responded that the Defendants used different manufacturing mechanisms to make

their infringing chair, to which Global Allies responded that the means of construction were

immaterial, given that the Defendants’ was a replica of the patented Global Allies’ chair, and

so infringed the design patent. The chair design Defendants submitted is visually identical to

Global Allies’ patented design.

25. In 2015, Plaintiff learned that Defendants had produced, shipped and installed

chairs that apply Global Allies’ Coronado patented design at the Onyx Hotel Boston (a

Kimpton Hotel). Reproduced below are three images showing the knockoff chair installed at

the Onyx Hotel Boston. The last of the images shows a label affixed to the underside of the

chair that clearly identifies Defendants as the manufacturer.



8/23


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

26. Plaintiff also learned, in 2015, that Defendants were offering a knockoff that

applied Global Allies’ Coronado patented design on their website. An image of the website

page offering the knockoff chair is attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by

reference.

27. In every instance Defendants’ knockoff chairs are essentially indistinguishable

from the patented Coronado chair, such that an ordinary observer would confuse the two

visually.

C. Defendants Refuse to Cease and Desist From Knocking Off the

Coronado Task Chair.

28. Plaintiff tried to resolve the issue of Defendants’ infringing activity short of

litigation.

29. On March 13, 2015 Global Allies’ counsel sent Defendants’ founder and

President, Jeffery Lazar, a cease and desist letter. The March 13, 2015 letter enclosed both



9/23


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

am image of Defendants’ website with the infringing offering and a copy of the ‘987 Patent,

and both it and a follow-up April 2, 2015 letter requested that Defendants confirm their

cessation of all infringing activity.

30.

Mr. Lazar responded in writing on May 26, 2015. While Mr. Lazar claimed

that “JLF Collections does not copy Global Allies chairs, nor does [his] company have an

inter est or intent to do so,” and that “[a]s a courtesy to [the Global Allies’ managing partners]

as friends” he had the website image removed until he could investigate further, he

conspicuously failed to confirm that Defendants would cease and desist their infringing

activities.

31. On May 26, 2015 Global Allies’ counsel sent Defendants a letter pointing out

Mr. Lazar’s omission and again asking that they confirm that they would cease and desist

from infringing activity.

32. The next day, May 27, 2015, Mr. Lazar responded in writing with a reiteration

that “JLF Collections does not copy Global Allies chairs,” but without any commitment that

Defendants’ would cease and desist from infringing activity.

33. The fact is that Defendants have offered for sale, sold, produced and

manufactured chairs that apply the design protected by Global Allies’ 987 Patent and intend

to continue to do so. Faced with Defendants infringing activities and the inability to secure a

cease and desist assurance from Defendants, Global Allies brought this suit.

COUNT I

PATENT INFRINGEMENT

(The ’987 Patent)

34. Global Allies incorporates and realleges, as though fully set forth herein, the

allegations contained in paragraphs 1-33 above.



10/23


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

35. On September 7, 2010, United States Patent No. D622,987 S (the “‘987

Patent”) entitled “Task Chair” was duly and legally issued. A true and correct copy of the

ʼ987 Patent is attached as Exhibit A (and incorporated herein by reference).

36.

Isaac Kubr yk is the inventor of the ʼ987 Patent. The ʼ987 Patent has been

assigned to Plaintiff. Plaintiff Global Allies is the sole legal and rightful owner of the ʼ987

Patent.

37. Defendants make, use, import, expose for sale, offer to sell, and/or sell

products that infringe the ʼ987 Patent through applying the patented design and/or colorable

imitations thereof to articles of manufacture, as alleged above in paragraphs 22 through 27.

This conduct constitutes infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).

38. Defendants’ infringement of the ‘987 Patent is willful. Defendants were on

notice that their activities infringed Global Allies’ patented design since at least the 2014 BD

West show. Global Allies’ president informed Defendants’ C.E.O. that Defendants’ chair

was an infringing knockoff at the 2014 BD West show. Further, Defendants were provided

with a copy of the ‘987 Patent in March 2015 by Plaintiff’s counsel. Yet, Defendants

continue to make, use, expose for sale, offer for sale and/or sell chairs that infringe the ‘987

Patent.

39. As a result of the infringement by Defendants, Plaintiff has been damaged,

and will continue to be damaged, until Defendants are enjoined from further acts of

infringement.

40. Defendants will continue to infringe unless enjoined by this Court. Plaintiff

faces real, substantial and irreparable damage and injury of a continuing nature from

infringement for which Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.



11/23


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for entry of judgment:

A. that the patent-in-suit is valid and enforceable;

B. that Defendants have infringed the claim of the patent-in-suit;

C. that Defendants’ infringement of the claim of the patent-in-suit was willful;

D. that Defendants account for and pay to Plaintiff all damages caused by the

infringement of the patent-in-suit, which by statute can be Defendants’ total profits, but

which, also by statute, can be no less than reasonable royalties;

E. that the damage to Plaintiff be increased by three times the amount found or

assessed pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284 and that Defendants account for and pay to Plaintiff the

increased amount;

F. that this Court issue a preliminary and final injunction enjoining Defendants,

their officers, agents, servants, employees and attorneys, and any other person in active

concert or participation with them, from continuing the acts herein complained of, and more

particularly, that Defendants and such other persons be permanently enjoined and restrained

from further infringing the ‘987 Patent;

G. that Plaintiff be granted pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on the

damages caused to it by reason of Defendants’ infringement of the patent-in-suit;

H. that this Court require Defendants to file with this Court, within thirty (30)

days after entry of final judgment, a written statement under oath setting forth in detail the

manner in which Defendants have complied with the injunction;

I. that this be adjudged an exceptional case and the Plaintiff be awarded its

attorney’s fees in this action pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285;



12/23


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

J. that this Court award Plaintiff its costs and disbursements in this civil action,

including reasonable attorney’s fees; and

K. that Plaintiff be granted such other and further relief as the Court may deem

just and proper under the current circumstances.

Dated: June 18, 2015 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Spencer Hosie ___________________________

SPENCER HOSIE (CA Bar No. 101777)[email protected] S. RICE (CA Bar No. 118303)

[email protected] K. LEE (CA Bar No. 156018)[email protected] R. ATKINSON (CA Bar No. 280564)[email protected]

HOSIE RICE LLP

Transamerica Pyramid

600 Montgomery Street, 34th

FloorSan Francisco, CA 94111

(415) 247-6000 Tel.

(415) 247-6001 Fax


GLOBAL ALLIES, LLC




13/23


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, by its undersigned attorneys, demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

Dated: June 18, 2015 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Spencer Hosie ___________________________ SPENCER HOSIE (CA Bar No. 101777)

[email protected] S. RICE (CA Bar No. 118303)[email protected] K. LEE (CA Bar No. 156018)[email protected] R. ATKINSON (CA Bar No. 280564)[email protected]

HOSIE RICE LLP

Transamerica Pyramid600 Montgomery Street, 34th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94111

(415) 247-6000 Tel.(415) 247-6001 Fax


GLOBAL ALLIES, LLC




14/23

EXHIBIT A

Case3:15-cv-02751-HRL Document1-1 Filed06/18/15 Page1 of 7


15/23

I ll

USOOD622987S

c12 United States Design Patent

Kubryk

(10)

Patent No.:

(45)

Date of Patent:

US D622 987 S

** Sep. 7 2010

(54)

TASK CH IR

D493,642 S * 8/2004 Maran .................... ..... D6/500

(76) Inventor: Isaac Kubryk 18251 Hwy. 88,

Lockeford,

CA

(US) 95237

*

cited

by

examiner

Primary

Examiner Mimosa

De

(**)

Term:

14 Years

(74)

Attorney, Agent,

or

Firm Audrey

A. Millemann;

Weintraub Genshlea Chedial

(21) Appl. No.: 29/349 498

(57)

CL IM

(22) Filed: Apr. 8 2010

The ornamental design for a task chair, as shown and

described.

(51)

LOC

(9)

Cl.

..................................................

06-01

(52)

U.S. Cl.

.......................................................

D6/500

DESCRIPTION

(58)

Field of Classification Search

.......... D6/334-336,

FIG.

1

is a perspective view of a task chair, looking toward the

right front corner, showing

my

new design;

(56)

D6/364, 365, 366, 367, 374, 375, 376, 379,

D6/380, 500-502, 601; 297/411.2, 411.28,

297/452.19, 452.26, 452.29, 452.32, 452.35,

FIG. 2 is a front view thereof;

FIG. 3 is a back view thereof;

297/452.48

See application file for complete search history. FIG.

4

is a right side view thereof;

References Cited

FIG.

5

is a top view thereof; and,

U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS

FIG. 6 is a bottom view thereof.

D328,395 S * 8/1992 Neuser .......... .............. D6/366

D351,069 S * 10/1994 Orlandini et al. ........ ..... D6/366

D370,805 S * 6/1996 McDiarmid .................. D6/502

.

. ..

.....

The broken lines shown

in

the drawing are for illustrative

purposes only

and

form no part of the claimed design.

1 Claim 5 Drawing Sheets

I ;

I

L J LJ

- ___ - - - l _J - - - - - -

----

7

,___ ---

--

----

/

. '

--- ---

-

--

--

- - - - - - - . , . , '

',;---------

~

/

--

,

"

- - - \ : : l l_

:;AJ

' ' ~ ' ' ~

/,//

', " " \ y

- ' , , """'"' -

'// "

(;' ' ~

~

~



16/23

U.S.

Patent

::

.

,

i

Sep.7,2010

..

•.

.

~ - : ~ : · · ~ · · . ....

·: ....

. .

..

..

Sheet 1of5

VS

D622,987 S

FIG

- - - -


17/23

U.S. Patent

FIG.

2

Sep.7,2010

•"' ""- · - : ~ • o 0

o :

I 0 0 •

\' ·

' ."

.... :

;

..·

Sheet 2 of 5

•.

• • . • • " ••• - . · I . . . • . • • ..

..

•'

.. .

US D622,987 S

t

•;

.

.

..... .

.

..

.

..

·

.

'

..·

·'·

..

" .. ••

•

••• • • p • • ' •

·,

.

•.

.. . ..1·:

: .

• I ,· •

. .

..

• p •• •

· - ~ . • ...

.

.

·

"" ... :

:

.................

...

. .

· · : •• r

. '

"

I .. 0 0

,•

.

.......

·

....

. .

,

..

.

,

.._: ··;

·

·

..

.

.

.,.

.

. :·

,,.·

,



18/23

U.S. Patent

Sep.7,2010

FIG. 3

.··.·

-.: ..

'

..

::

' . ~ · -

. ,

.:

u

.. )

::

Sheet 3 of 5

US D622,987 S

·:.

..

.,. :

•.•

·· ,

..

•

.

..

- ~ · .

....

· :;

•••

¥

,.

·=·\

...

...

·.·.5

.....

• I

.

· ~ (

r:

.

..

;

~ · ~ ~ .

•

..

: - - ~ ~ - -

.·

..

··l

r

•

:_::./

..

x : ~ : : : ~ : t < :

e.:: .:::

f

: : : : ~ : ~ . ~ ~ ; } i : ; : ~ ~ - i \ ; ~

L = : ~ : . : < . ~ ~ ~ , : ~ ; : } ~ ~ ; { i 1



19/23

U.S. Patent

Sep.7,2010

Sheet 4 of 5

US D622,987 S

FIG 4



20/23

U.S. Patent

Sep.7,2010

Sheet 5 of 5

•• J

L

""'"-'·""'·

'""

,...,.....,......:. ......

__,...:...

......

"""'"..._....,.,:..,.._

......___ _ _ . . . . _ . . . . _ ~ · ·

I' ::.

.......,

....

.,

-.........

-

........

" .

...................

, ~ •

•1

• • '

,,.

• I • ••

•••

• -• •

;;

.:·...

. .

.

. .

.

......

. ... '··· ··

.....

• I

.

·

·'

:.i·

:::

.....

•\

{

.

;

•

·

.

.

.....

:

...

.

....

•:

.

...

'

'·:

..

.

' .,.,

. '"'

......

..

·.•...

.

\:.·

.

.

.

.•..

-

··.··.·.·····._:·· · . · . · . · : · , : : : _ ) o , i · · · ~ , · ... · ~ ~ . : ~ ·

: · = ~ : : : .":, · - . : ~ · , : > - ~ ; : . : , ~ · · . - ~ · ·: .-.. ~ ~ · ·

·· _

. : : ~ 7 -

•

. .

FIG 6

·. '

.........

.

..

US D622,987 S

FIG 5

. ...

.....

:.·.,,-,,

·

....

.

. ;



21/23

Exhibit B



22/23

12-40279SP -

JL

Furniture

AmPficon Made

world

RenoNned

RETURN TO THUMBNAILS

http://www.jlfurnishings.com/furniture/1620

12-40279SP : Desk Chairs

Dimensions US

W 19.75" x D 23.25" x H 24-28"

SH: 17-21"

SD: 19"

Dimensions Metric

W 501.65mm x D 590.55mm x H 609.6-711.2mm

SH: 431.8-533.4mm

SD: 482.6mm

PREVIOUS ITEM

Page 1of1

Downloads

View Hi-Res Color Image

View Hi-Res B&W Image

CREATE

A CHAR.RETTE

~ . O D TO EXISTING CHARRETTE

NEXT ITEM

© Copyright 2015 JLF Lone Meadow LLC

3/13/2015



23/23

(SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)

(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)

(Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) (If Known)

(Place an “X” in One Box Only) (Place an “X” in One Box for(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant

(U.S. Government Not a Party) or

and

(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)

(Place an “X” in One Box Only)

(Place an “X” in One Box Only)

(specify)

(Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity)

(See instructions):

Damages,injunction,etc.

Global Allies, LLC

San Joaquin, CA

Spencer Hosie, Anthony K. Lee, Darrell R. Atkinson, Diane S. RiceHosie Rice LLP600 Montgomery St., 34th Fl., San Francisco, CA 94111, 415.247.6000

JL Furnishings LLC; JL Furnishings East LLC; Lone Meadow, LL

35 U.S.C. § 271

Design patent infringement case

Edward J. Davila 5:13-cv-00651-EJD

06/18/2015 /s/ Spencer Hosie Spencer Hosie Attorneys for Plaintiff


Global Allies v. JL Furnishings - Complaint

Documents

Transcript of Global Allies v. JL Furnishings - Complaint