Metrotile Mfg. v. Metstar - Complaint
-
Upload
sarah-burstein -
Category
Documents
-
view
227 -
download
0
Transcript of Metrotile Mfg. v. Metstar - Complaint
-
8/9/2019 Metrotile Mfg. v. Metstar - Complaint
1/31
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2324
25
26
27
28
Case No. 1 COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NOS:
S T E T I
N A
B R
U
N
D
A
G
A
R
R E D
&
B R
U
C K
E R
7 5
E N T E R P R I S E , S U I T E
2 5 0
A L I S O
V I E J O , C A L I F O R N I A 9
2 6 5 6
P H O N
E :
( 9 4 9 ) 8 5 5 - 1 2 4 6 ; F A C S I M I L E :
( 9 4 9 ) 8 5 5 - 6 3 7
1
Bruce B. Brunda (SBN 108,898)STETINA BRUNDA GARRED & BRUCKER75 Enterprise, Suite 250Aliso Viejo, CA 92656Email: [email protected]
Tel: (949) 855-1246Fax: (949) 855-6371
Attorney for PlaintiffMETROTILE MANUFACTURING d/b/aMETRO ROOF PRODUCT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
METROTILE MANUFACTURING, a
California general partnership d/b/a
METRO ROOF PRODUCTS,
Plaintiff
vs.
METSTAR USA, INC, a Delaware
Corporation; METSTAR BUILDING
PRODUCTS, INC., a Canadian corporation,
and VINCE GUERRA, Individual, and
DOES 1-10, inclusive
Defendants
Case No.
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
INFRINGEMENT OF U.S.
PATENT NOS:
1.
D526,727; AND2.
D527,835
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, Metrotile Manufacturing d/b/a Metro Roof Products for its Complain
against Metstar USA, Inc, and Vince Guerra, states and alleges as follows:
Case 2:15-cv-01305 Document 1 Filed 02/24/15 Page 1 of 9 Page ID #:1
-
8/9/2019 Metrotile Mfg. v. Metstar - Complaint
2/31
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2324
25
26
27
28
Case No. 2 COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NOS:
S T E T I
N A
B R
U
N
D
A
G
A
R
R E D
&
B R
U
C K
E R
7 5
E N T E R P R I S E , S U I T E
2 5 0
A L I S O
V I E J O , C A L I F O R N I A 9
2 6 5 6
P H O N
E :
( 9 4 9 ) 8 5 5 - 1 2 4 6 ; F A C S I M I L E :
( 9 4 9 ) 8 5 5 - 6 3 7
1
PARTIES
1. Plaintiff, Metrotile Manufacturing d/b/a Metro Roof Product
(hereinafter “Metrotile” or “Plaintiff”) is a general partnership organized and existing
under the laws of the State of California, and having a principal place of business a3093 “A” Industry Street, Oceanside, California 92054. The partners of Metrotile
include Structure Solutions, LLP, a California limited liability partnership, an
Probuild Capital Group LLC, a California limited liability corporation.
2.
Upon information and belief Defendant Metstar USA, Inc. (hereinafte
“Metstar USA”), is a Delaware corporation having a place of business at 300
International Drive, Suite 100, Buffalo, New York 14221.
3.
Upon information and belief Defendant Metstar Building Products, Inc
(hereinafter “Metstar Canada”), is a Canadian corporation having a place of busines
at 340 Main Street East, Hamilton, Ontario Canada L8N1J1.
4.
Upon information and belief, Defendant Vince Guerra (hereinafte
“Guerra”) is a Canadian citizen, residing in the Province of Ontario Canada.
5.
Upon information and belief, Guerra is the primary owner of Metsta
USA.
6.
Upon information and belief, Guerra is the principal officer of Metsta
USA.
7.
Upon information and belief, Guerra directs and controls the operation
of Metstar USA.
8.
Upon information and belief, Guerra is the primary owner of Metsta
Canada.9. Upon information and belief, Guerra is the principal officer of Metsta
Canada.
10.
Upon information and belief, Guerra directs and controls the operation
of Metstar Canada.
11.
The true names and capacities of the Defendants named herein as DOES
Case 2:15-cv-01305 Document 1 Filed 02/24/15 Page 2 of 9 Page ID #:2
-
8/9/2019 Metrotile Mfg. v. Metstar - Complaint
3/31
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2324
25
26
27
28
Case No. 3 COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NOS:
S T E T I
N A
B R
U
N
D
A
G
A
R
R E D
&
B R
U
C K
E R
7 5
E N T E R P R I S E , S U I T E
2 5 0
A L I S O
V I E J O , C A L I F O R N I A 9
2 6 5 6
P H O N
E :
( 9 4 9 ) 8 5 5 - 1 2 4 6 ; F A C S I M I L E :
( 9 4 9 ) 8 5 5 - 6 3 7
1
1 through 10, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise, are unknown to
Plaintiff, who therefore sues said Defendants by said fictitious names. Plaintiff i
informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each of the Defendants designated
herein as DOE is legally responsible for the events and happenings hereinaftealleged and legally caused injury and damages proximately thereby to Plaintiff a
herein alleged. Plaintiff will seek leave to amend the Complaint when the true name
and capacities of said DOE Defendants have been ascertained. Metstar USA, Metsta
Canada, Guerra and DOES 1 through 10 are hereinafter collectively referred to a
“Defendants or Metstar Group.”
BACKGROUND OF THE CONTROVERSY
1.
Plaintiff is the owner of United States Design Patent Nos. D526,727 and
D527,835 has the right to sue for infringement of United States Letters. Copies o
such patents are attached hereto as Exhibits 1-2, respectively.
2.
Upon information and belief, Defendants have been making, selling
importing and/or offering for sale the products identified as “Davinci FV”, and “Tile
FR”. A copy of Metstar Group’s webpage (www.metstar.com
advertisement/brochure illustrating Defendants’ products (hereinafter “the Accused
Products”) is attached hereto as Exhibit 3. The Accused Products infringe Plaintiff’
Patent Nos. D526,727 and D527,835.
3.
Upon information and belief, Metstar Canada promotes, markets
imports, and sells metal roofing products in the United States.
4.
Upon information and belief, Metstar USA promotes, markets, imports
and sells metal roofing products, including the Accused Products, in the UnitedStates.
5.
Upon information and belief, Metstar Canada imports metal roofing
products, including the Accused Products, into the United States, through a shipping
terminal located in this district, for sale in the United States, including this judicia
district.
Case 2:15-cv-01305 Document 1 Filed 02/24/15 Page 3 of 9 Page ID #:3
-
8/9/2019 Metrotile Mfg. v. Metstar - Complaint
4/31
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2324
25
26
27
28
Case No. 4 COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NOS:
S T E T I
N A
B R
U
N
D
A
G
A
R
R E D
&
B R
U
C K
E R
7 5
E N T E R P R I S E , S U I T E
2 5 0
A L I S O
V I E J O , C A L I F O R N I A 9
2 6 5 6
P H O N
E :
( 9 4 9 ) 8 5 5 - 1 2 4 6 ; F A C S I M I L E :
( 9 4 9 ) 8 5 5 - 6 3 7
1
6.
Upon information and belief, Metstar USA imports metal roofing
products, including the Accused Products, into the United States, through a shipping
terminal located in this district, for sale in the United States, including this judicia
district.7.
Upon information and belief, Defendants Metstar USA and Metsta
Canada promote metal roofing products, including the Accused Products a
tradeshows, including the International Roofing Expo in New Orleans, currently
being held on February 24, 2015 – February 26, 2015.
8. Upon information and belief, Defendants Metstar USA and Metsta
Canada market, and has offered to sell metal roofing products, including the Accused
Products, to customers within the state of California and within this judicial District.
9.
Upon information and belief Defendant Guerra, in cooperation with
Metstar USA andor Metstar Canada, operates the following the domain name
www.metstar.com and www.metalbythebundle.com (hereinafter “the Websites”).
10.
Upon information and belief, each of the Defendants participated in and
is in some manner responsible for the acts described in this Complaint and th
damage resulting therefrom.
11.
Upon information and belief, Defendants have acted in concert and
participation with each other concerning each of the claims in this Complaint.
12.
Upon information and belief, Defendants’ concerted actions an
participation concerning these claims constitutes a conspiracy to unfairly compete
with Metrotile and to violate Metrotile’s rights as alleged herein.
13.
Metrotile is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that each othe Defendants were empowered to act as the agent, servant and/or employees of each
of the other Defendants, and that all the acts alleged to have been done by each o
them were authorized, approved and/or ratified by each of the other Defendants.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
14.
This action, as hereinafter more fully appears, arises under the paten
Case 2:15-cv-01305 Document 1 Filed 02/24/15 Page 4 of 9 Page ID #:4
-
8/9/2019 Metrotile Mfg. v. Metstar - Complaint
5/31
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2324
25
26
27
28
Case No. 5 COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NOS:
S T E T I
N A
B R
U
N
D
A
G
A
R
R E D
&
B R
U
C K
E R
7 5
E N T E R P R I S E , S U I T E
2 5 0
A L I S O
V I E J O , C A L I F O R N I A 9
2 6 5 6
P H O N
E :
( 9 4 9 ) 8 5 5 - 1 2 4 6 ; F A C S I M I L E :
( 9 4 9 ) 8 5 5 - 6 3 7
1
laws of the United States of America (35 U.S.C. §§1 et seq.), and is for paten
infringement. Jurisdiction for all counts is based upon 28 U.S.C. §§1331, 1338(a
and (b).
15.
Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§1391(b) and (c) as Defendants havcommitted acts of infringement in this judicial district. With respect to Defendant
Metstar Canada and Guerra, venue is also proper under 28 U.S.C. §1391(d), a
Defendants Metstar Canada and Guerra are aliens.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Patent Infringement of U.S. Design Patent No. D526,727)
16. Plaintiff realleges and repeats the allegations of paragraphs 1-10 above.
17.
Plaintiff is the owner of all right, title and interest in and to United State
Design Patent No. D526,727 entitled “Metal Roof Tile” (hereinafter “the ’72
patent”). A true and correct copy of the ‘727 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 1
The ‘727 patent was duly and lawfully issued on August 15, 2006 and is presently
valid and in full effect.
18.
Upon information and belief, Defendants have been and ar
infringement the ‘727 patent within the United States and within this district by
importing, distributing, selling, and/or offering for sale products, including product
identified as DaVinci FV that infringe the ‘727 patent.
19.
Upon information and belief, Defendants are indirectly infringing th
‘727 patent within the United States and within this by importing, distributing, sellin
and/or offering for sale in the United States materials and/or apparatus, the use o
which infringes the invention set forth in the ‘727 patent. Upon information andbelief, these materials and/or apparatus have no substantial non-infringement use in
commerce.
20.
Upon information and belief, Defendants are inducing infringement o
the ‘727 patent within the United States and within this district by instructing in th
use of materials and/or apparatus that infringe one or more of the claims of the ‘727
Case 2:15-cv-01305 Document 1 Filed 02/24/15 Page 5 of 9 Page ID #:5
-
8/9/2019 Metrotile Mfg. v. Metstar - Complaint
6/31
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2324
25
26
27
28
Case No. 6 COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NOS:
S T E T I
N A
B R
U
N
D
A
G
A
R
R E D
&
B R
U
C K
E R
7 5
E N T E R P R I S E , S U I T E
2 5 0
A L I S O
V I E J O , C A L I F O R N I A 9
2 6 5 6
P H O N
E :
( 9 4 9 ) 8 5 5 - 1 2 4 6 ; F A C S I M I L E :
( 9 4 9 ) 8 5 5 - 6 3 7
1
patent.
21. Upon information and belief, by the acts of patent infringement herein
complained of, the Defendants have made substantial profits to which they are no
equitably entitled.22.
By reason of the aforementioned acts of the Defendants, the Plaintiff ha
suffered great detriment, but which cannot be quantified at this time.
23.
Upon information and belief, Defendants continue to infringe Plaintiff’
‘727 patent, and will continue to infringe Plaintiff’s ‘727 patent, and will continue to
infringe Plaintiff’s ‘727 patent to Plaintiff’s irreparable harm, unless enjoined by thi
Court.
24.
Any continuing infringement of the ‘727 patent by Defendants afte
receiving notice of the ‘727 patent will be willful, entitling Plaintiff to enhanced
damages.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Patent Infringement of U.S. Design Patent No. D527,835)
25.
Plaintiff realleges and repeats the allegations of paragraphs 1-19 herein.
26.
Plaintiff is the exclusive licensee with the right to sue for infringemen
of United States Patent Design No. D527,835 entitled “Metal Roof Tile” (hereinafte
“the ‘835 patent”). A true and correct copy of the ‘835 patent is attached hereto a
Exhibit 2. The ‘835 patent was duly and lawfully issued on September 5, 2006, an
is presently valid and in full effect.
27.
Upon information and belief, Defendants have been and are infringing
the ‘835 patent within the United States and within this district by importingdistributing, selling, and/or offering for sale products, including products identified a
Tile FR that infringe the ‘835 patent.
28.
Upon information and belief, Defendants are indirectly infringing th
‘835 patent within this district and elsewhere in the United States by importing
distributing, selling and/or offering for sale in the United States materials and/o
Case 2:15-cv-01305 Document 1 Filed 02/24/15 Page 6 of 9 Page ID #:6
-
8/9/2019 Metrotile Mfg. v. Metstar - Complaint
7/31
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2324
25
26
27
28
Case No. 7 COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NOS:
S T E T I
N A
B R
U
N
D
A
G
A
R
R E D
&
B R
U
C K
E R
7 5
E N T E R P R I S E , S U I T E
2 5 0
A L I S O
V I E J O , C A L I F O R N I A 9
2 6 5 6
P H O N
E :
( 9 4 9 ) 8 5 5 - 1 2 4 6 ; F A C S I M I L E :
( 9 4 9 ) 8 5 5 - 6 3 7
1
apparatus, the use of which infringes the invention set forth in the ‘835 patent. Upon
information and belief, these materials and/or apparatus have no substantial non
infringing use in commerce.
29.
Upon information and belief, Defendants are inducing infringement othe ‘835 patent within the United States and within this district by instructing in th
use of materials and/or apparatus that infringe one or more of the claims of the ‘835
patent.
30.
Upon information and belief, by the acts of patent infringement herein
complained of, the Defendants have made substantial profits to which they are no
equitably entitled.
31.
By reason of the aforementioned acts of the Defendants, the Plaintiff ha
suffered great detriment, but which cannot be quantified at this time.
32.
Upon information and belief, Defendants continue to infringe Plaintiff’
‘835 patent, and will continue to infringe Plaintiff’s ‘835 patent to Plaintiff’
irreparable harm, unless enjoined by this Court.
33.
Any continuing infringement of the ‘835 patent by Defendants afte
receiving notice of the ‘835 patent will be willful, entitling Plaintiff to enhanced
damages.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against the Defendants as follows
A.
A judgment that Defendants have infringed, indirectly infringed, and/o
induced infringement of the patents in suit.
B.
A judgment that Defendants’ infringement of the patents in suit has beenwillful.
C.
A preliminary and permanent injunction, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §283
enjoining Defendants, and all persons in active concert or participation with them
from any further acts of direct infringement, indirect infringement or inducement o
infringement of the patents in suit.
Case 2:15-cv-01305 Document 1 Filed 02/24/15 Page 7 of 9 Page ID #:7
-
8/9/2019 Metrotile Mfg. v. Metstar - Complaint
8/31
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2324
25
26
27
28
Case No. 8 COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NOS:
S T E T I
N A
B R
U
N
D
A
G
A
R
R E D
&
B R
U
C K
E R
7 5
E N T E R P R I S E , S U I T E
2 5 0
A L I S O
V I E J O , C A L I F O R N I A 9
2 6 5 6
P H O N
E :
( 9 4 9 ) 8 5 5 - 1 2 4 6 ; F A C S I M I L E :
( 9 4 9 ) 8 5 5 - 6 3 7
1
D.
An order, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §284, awarding Plaintiff damage
adequate to compensate Plaintiff for Defendants’ infringement of the patents in suit
in an amount to be determined at trial, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty.
E.
An order, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §284, trebling all damages awarded toPlaintiff based on Defendants’ willful infringement of the patents-in-suit.
F.
An order, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §285, finding that this is an exceptiona
case and awarding to Plaintiff its reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in this action.
G. That Plaintiff have such other and further relief that the court may deem
just and proper.
Dated: February 24, 2015 STETINA BRUNDA GARRED & BRUCKER
By: /s/Bruce B. Brunda
Bruce B. Brunda
Attorneys for PlaintiffMETROTILE MANUFACTURING d/b/aMETRO ROOF PRODUCTS
Case 2:15-cv-01305 Document 1 Filed 02/24/15 Page 8 of 9 Page ID #:8
-
8/9/2019 Metrotile Mfg. v. Metstar - Complaint
9/31
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2324
25
26
27
28
Case No. 9 COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NOS:
S T E T I
N A
B R
U
N
D
A
G
A
R
R E D
&
B R
U
C K
E R
7 5
E N T E R P R I S E , S U I T E
2 5 0
A L I S O
V I E J O , C A L I F O R N I A 9
2 6 5 6
P H O N
E :
( 9 4 9 ) 8 5 5 - 1 2 4 6 ; F A C S I M I L E :
( 9 4 9 ) 8 5 5 - 6 3 7
1
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff, Metrotile Manufacturing d/b/a Metro Roof Products hereby demand
a jury trial in this action.
Dated: February 24, 2015 STETINA BRUNDA GARRED & BRUCKER
By: /s/Bruce B. Brunda
Bruce B. Brunda
Attorneys for Plaintiff
METROTILE MANUFACTURING d/b/a
METRO ROOF PRODUCTS
T:\Client Documents\MROOF\026L\complaint-patent infringement.doc
Case 2:15-cv-01305 Document 1 Filed 02/24/15 Page 9 of 9 Page ID #:9
-
8/9/2019 Metrotile Mfg. v. Metstar - Complaint
10/31
EXHIBIT 1
Case 2:15-cv-01305 Document 1-1 Filed 02/24/15 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #:10
-
8/9/2019 Metrotile Mfg. v. Metstar - Complaint
11/31Exhibit 1 Page 1 of 5
Case 2:15-cv-01305 Document 1-1 Filed 02/24/15 Page 2 of 6 Page ID #:11
-
8/9/2019 Metrotile Mfg. v. Metstar - Complaint
12/31Exhibit 1 Page 2 of 5
Case 2:15-cv-01305 Document 1-1 Filed 02/24/15 Page 3 of 6 Page ID #:12
-
8/9/2019 Metrotile Mfg. v. Metstar - Complaint
13/31Exhibit 1 Page 3 of 5
Case 2:15-cv-01305 Document 1-1 Filed 02/24/15 Page 4 of 6 Page ID #:13
-
8/9/2019 Metrotile Mfg. v. Metstar - Complaint
14/31Exhibit 1 Page 4 of 5
Case 2:15-cv-01305 Document 1-1 Filed 02/24/15 Page 5 of 6 Page ID #:14
-
8/9/2019 Metrotile Mfg. v. Metstar - Complaint
15/31Exhibit 1 Page 5 of 5
Case 2:15-cv-01305 Document 1-1 Filed 02/24/15 Page 6 of 6 Page ID #:15
-
8/9/2019 Metrotile Mfg. v. Metstar - Complaint
16/31
EXHIBIT 2
Case 2:15-cv-01305 Document 1-2 Filed 02/24/15 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #:16
-
8/9/2019 Metrotile Mfg. v. Metstar - Complaint
17/31Exhibit 2 Page 1 of 6
Case 2:15-cv-01305 Document 1-2 Filed 02/24/15 Page 2 of 7 Page ID #:17
-
8/9/2019 Metrotile Mfg. v. Metstar - Complaint
18/31Exhibit 2 Page 2 of 6
Case 2:15-cv-01305 Document 1-2 Filed 02/24/15 Page 3 of 7 Page ID #:18
-
8/9/2019 Metrotile Mfg. v. Metstar - Complaint
19/31Exhibit 2 Page 3 of 6
Case 2:15-cv-01305 Document 1-2 Filed 02/24/15 Page 4 of 7 Page ID #:19
-
8/9/2019 Metrotile Mfg. v. Metstar - Complaint
20/31Exhibit 2 Page 4 of 6
Case 2:15-cv-01305 Document 1-2 Filed 02/24/15 Page 5 of 7 Page ID #:20
-
8/9/2019 Metrotile Mfg. v. Metstar - Complaint
21/31Exhibit 2 Page 5 of 6
Case 2:15-cv-01305 Document 1-2 Filed 02/24/15 Page 6 of 7 Page ID #:21
-
8/9/2019 Metrotile Mfg. v. Metstar - Complaint
22/31Exhibit 2 Page 6 of 6
Case 2:15-cv-01305 Document 1-2 Filed 02/24/15 Page 7 of 7 Page ID #:22
-
8/9/2019 Metrotile Mfg. v. Metstar - Complaint
23/31
EXHIBIT 3
Case 2:15-cv-01305 Document 1-3 Filed 02/24/15 Page 1 of 9 Page ID #:23
-
8/9/2019 Metrotile Mfg. v. Metstar - Complaint
24/31
Exhibit 3 Page 1 of 8
Case 2:15-cv-01305 Document 1-3 Filed 02/24/15 Page 2 of 9 Page ID #:24
-
8/9/2019 Metrotile Mfg. v. Metstar - Complaint
25/31
Tile FR
Red
Tile FRSpec
System 1
Batten St rapping
Exhibit 3 Page 2 of 8
Case 2:15-cv-01305 Document 1-3 Filed 02/24/15 Page 3 of 9 Page ID #:25
-
8/9/2019 Metrotile Mfg. v. Metstar - Complaint
26/31
Shake FW
Shake FW
Brown
System1
Batten St rapping
System 2
Built-in Batten
OR
Exhibit 3 Page 3 of 8
Case 2:15-cv-01305 Document 1-3 Filed 02/24/15 Page 4 of 9 Page ID #:26
-
8/9/2019 Metrotile Mfg. v. Metstar - Complaint
27/31
Slate FDSpec
Slate FD
Sand
System 1
Batten
Strapping
System 2
Built-in Batten
OR
Exhibit 3 Page 4 of 8
Case 2:15-cv-01305 Document 1-3 Filed 02/24/15 Page 5 of 9 Page ID #:27
-
8/9/2019 Metrotile Mfg. v. Metstar - Complaint
28/31
DaVinci FVSpec
DaVinci FV Tuscany
System 2
Built- in
Batten
Exhibit 3 Page 5 of 8
Case 2:15-cv-01305 Document 1-3 Filed 02/24/15 Page 6 of 9 Page ID #:28
-
8/9/2019 Metrotile Mfg. v. Metstar - Complaint
29/31
Tile 2 FZ
Spec
Tile 2 FZ
Green
System 1
Batten Strapping
Exhibit 3 Page 6 of 8
Case 2:15-cv-01305 Document 1-3 Filed 02/24/15 Page 7 of 9 Page ID #:29
-
8/9/2019 Metrotile Mfg. v. Metstar - Complaint
30/31
System 2
Built-in Batten
ANDSystem1
Batten Strapping
System2
Built-in
Batten
Exhibit 3 Page 7 of 8
Case 2:15-cv-01305 Document 1-3 Filed 02/24/15 Page 8 of 9 Page ID #:30
-
8/9/2019 Metrotile Mfg. v. Metstar - Complaint
31/31
System 1
Batten Strapping
Case 2:15-cv-01305 Document 1-3 Filed 02/24/15 Page 9 of 9 Page ID #:31