Restoration Hardware v. Chicago Wicker - Complaint
-
Upload
sarah-burstein -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
0
Transcript of Restoration Hardware v. Chicago Wicker - Complaint
-
8/9/2019 Restoration Hardware v. Chicago Wicker - Complaint
1/34
15512076_1
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
3 9 9 3 H o w a r d H u g h e s P a r k w
a y
S u i t e 6 0 0
L a s V e g a s ,
N V
8 9 1 6 9
‐ 5 9 9 6
MICHAEL J. MCCUE (SBN: 296425)Email: [email protected] D. JOHNSON (SBN: 261747)Email: [email protected] Roca Rothgerber LLP4300 Bohannon Drive
Menlo Park, CA 94025(650) 391-1380 (Tel.)(702) 391-1395 (Fax)
Attorneys for PlaintiffsRESTORATION HARDWARE, INC.RH US, LLC
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
RESTORATION HARDWARE, INC.,a Delaware corporation, and RH US,LLC, a Delaware limited liabilitycompany,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
CHICAGO WICKER & TRADINGCOMPANY, an Illinois corporation,
Defendant.
C v Case No.: 3:15-cv-00894
COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs Restoration Hardware, Inc. and RH US, LLC (together, “RH”)
allege the following:
NATURE OF THIS ACTION
1.
This is an action for design patent infringement under the Patent Act35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq., and for trademark infringement and unfair competition under
the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq., arising out of Defendant Chicago Wicker
& Trading Company’s (“Defendant’s”) infringement of RH’s patented furniture
designs and trademarks.
///
Case3:15-cv-00894 Document1 Filed02/26/15 Page1 of 12
-
8/9/2019 Restoration Hardware v. Chicago Wicker - Complaint
2/34
25512076_1
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
3 9 9 3 H o w a r d H u g h e s P a r k w
a y
S u i t e 6 0 0
L a s V e g a s ,
N V
8 9 1 6 9
‐ 5 9 9 6
PARTIES
2. Plaintiff Restoration Hardware, Inc. is a Delaware corporation whose
principal place of business is located at 15 Koch Road, Corte Madera, California
94925. Prior to January 30, 2015, Restoration Hardware, Inc. was the owner o
United States Design Patents D663,967 (the “D’967 Patent”) and D663,966 (the
“D’966 Patent) (together, the “RH Patents”). True and accurate copies of the RH
Patents are attached hereto as Exhibit A. On January 30, 2015, Restoration
Hardware, Inc. assigned all right, title, and interest in and to the RH Patents to
Plaintiff RH US, LLC, which granted a license back to Restoration Hardware, Inc..
3. Plaintiff RH US, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company whose
principal place of business is located at 15 Koch Road, Corte Madera, California
94925.
4.
Defendant Chicago Wicker & Trading Company is an Illinois
corporation whose principal place of business is located at 5625 W. 115th Street
Suite B, Alsip, Illinois, 60603. Upon information and belief, Defendant conducts
business under a variety of names, including, without limitation, “Forever Patio,”
“Chicago Wicker – NCI,” “Northcape International,” “Northcape Outdoor,” and
“Northcape.”
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5.
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to
28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338 because this action involves claims for paten
infringement in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq.
6.
This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendan purposefully, willfully, and/or intentionally infringed upon RH’s design patents and
trademarks by using RH’s patented designs and trademarks with the knowledge tha
RH is located in California and that RH would likely suffer injury or harm resulting
from the infringement in California. Indeed, Defendant continued its infringing
conduct despite notice from RH. Upon information and belief, Defendant conducts
Case3:15-cv-00894 Document1 Filed02/26/15 Page2 of 12
-
8/9/2019 Restoration Hardware v. Chicago Wicker - Complaint
3/34
3 9 9 3 H o w a r d H u g h e s P a r k w
a y
S u i t e 6 0 0
L a s V e
a s N V
8 9 1 6 9
‐ 5 9 9 6
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
bu
an
R
D
A
be
su
pa
pr
as
m
fu
de
U
siness fro
d has pur
’s claims
fendant h
cordingly
7.
cause jur
stantial
tented de
per in the
8.
ignable o
9.
rketplace.
nishings,
10.
sign paten
D663,96
11.
12.
The o
, among
osefully
arise out
as sold o
, the exerc
Venue is
sdiction
art of the
igns and
Northern
Pursuant
a district
RH is an
RH de
ncluding
RH also p
ts, each re
6 (the “D’
The RH P
The D’96
namental
other loca
irected it
of such c
distribut
ise of pers
proper in
s not fo
property
trademar
District o
INTRA
o Civil
-wide basi
GEN
nnovative
igns, ma
urniture, l
ossesses s
gistered
66 Patent
atents are
Patent cl
design for
tions, a w
tortious
nduct an
d the inf
onal juris
this judic
nded sol
that is t
s—is situ
this court
ISTRIC
ule 3-2(c
s.
RAL AL
and popu
ufactures
ighting, b
bstantial
ith the U
) and US
alid and
aims, with
a sofa, as
arehouse
conduct a
activitie
inging pr
iction ove
al district
ely on d
e subject
ated in t
, San Fran
ASSIG
, this is
LEGATI
lar luxury
, and se
d, bath, h
patent rig
ited State
663,967
ubsisting.
out limita
shown an
ocated in
nd activit
. Upon in
oducts in
r Defenda
under 28
iversity o
of this a
is judicia
cisco divi
MENT
n Intellec
NS
brand in
ls a wi
rdware, a
ts, includ
s Patent a
(the “D’9
ion, as fol
describe
5512
Fullerton,
es at Cali
formation
this judic
nt is reaso
U.S.C. §
f citizens
tion—na
l district.
ion.
tual Prop
the home
e variety
nd other p
ng the fol
d Trade
7 Patent”
lows:
.
76_1
Californi
fornia, an
and belie
ial distric
able.
1391(b)(
hip and
ely, RH’
Venue i
rty Actio
furnishing
of hom
roducts.
lowing tw
ark Offic
.
s
s
s
Case3:15-cv-00894 Document1 Filed02/26/15 Page3 of 12
-
8/9/2019 Restoration Hardware v. Chicago Wicker - Complaint
4/34
3 9 9 3 H o w a r d H u g h e s P a r k w
a y
S u i t e 6 0 0
L a s V e
a s N V
8 9 1 6 9
‐ 5 9 9 6
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
R
sh
el
si
levant De
wing my
vational
e elevatio
13.
The o
criptions:
new desi
iew there
nal view b
The D’96
namental
FIG
FIG. 1 is
n; FIG. 2
f; and FI
eing the s
Patent cl
design for
. 1
perspect
is a front
. 6 is a ri
me there
aims, with
a lounge,
ve view o
elevation
ght side e
f).
out limita
as shown
f a first e
l view the
evational
ion, as fol
and descri
5512
bodiment
reof; FIG.
view ther
lows:
bed.
76_1
of a sofa
3 is a rea
of (the le
r
Case3:15-cv-00894 Document1 Filed02/26/15 Page4 of 12
-
8/9/2019 Restoration Hardware v. Chicago Wicker - Complaint
5/34
55512076_1
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
3 9 9 3 H o w a r d H u g h e s P a r k w
a y
S u i t e 6 0 0
L a s V e g a s ,
N V
8 9 1 6 9
‐ 5 9 9 6
Relevant Description: FIG. 1 is a perspective view of a lounge showing my new
design.
14. Together, the D’967 Patent and the D’966 Patent are referred to herein
as the “RH Patents.”
15.
RH sells furniture products embodying the designs set forth in the RH
Patents as part of its “Provence” collection.
16.
In addition to the foregoing, RH is the owner of United States
Tramemark Registration No. 4,231,598 for the PROVENCE mark for use in
connection with, “Furniture, namely, chaise lounges, sofas, loveseats, lounge chairs
arm chairs, side chairs, ottomans, coffee tables, side tables, dining tables, console
tables, cushions.” RH’s federal registration for the PROVENCE mark is valid and
subsisting.
17.
Upon information and belief, Defendant owns and operates a web
based furniture manufacturing business based in Illinois with facilities in California
Florida, New Jersey, and Ontario, Canada, , that sells goods to retailers and
customers across the United States.
18.
In or about February, 2015, RH learned that Defendant is advertising
and selling, through the http://www.www.foreverpatio.com website and, upon
information and belief, other websites and distribution channels, a sofa, lounge
chair, loveseat, and sectional sofa components as part of its “Bayside” collection tha
each include designs that are nearly identical to the design of RH’s sofa and lounge
chair set forth in the RH Patents.
19.
For instance, a side-by-side comparison of RH’s sofa and lounge chairand Defendant’s sofa and lounge chair shows that Defendant’s designs are
substantially the same as RH’s:
///
///
///
Case3:15-cv-00894 Document1 Filed02/26/15 Page5 of 12
-
8/9/2019 Restoration Hardware v. Chicago Wicker - Complaint
6/34
65512076_1
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
3 9 9 3 H o w a r d H u g h e s P a r k w
a y
S u i t e 6 0 0
L a s V e g a s ,
N V
8 9 1 6 9
‐ 5 9 9 6
RH’s Patented Design Defendant’s Infringing Products
Provence Sofa Bayside Sofa
Provence Lounge Chair Bayside Lounge Chair
20.
RH has also learned that Defendant is advertising and selling, through
the http://www.northcapeinternational.com website, and upon information and
belief, other websites and distribution channels, a sofa, lounge chair, loveseat, and
sectional sofa components as part of its “Geneva” collection that each include
designs that are nearly identical to the design of RH’s sofa and lounge chair set forth
in the RH Patents.
Case3:15-cv-00894 Document1 Filed02/26/15 Page6 of 12
-
8/9/2019 Restoration Hardware v. Chicago Wicker - Complaint
7/34
75512076_1
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
3 9 9 3 H o w a r d H u g h e s P a r k w
a y
S u i t e 6 0 0
L a s V e g a s ,
N V
8 9 1 6 9
‐ 5 9 9 6
21. For instance, a side-by-side comparison of RH’s sofa and lounge chair
and Defendant’s sofa and lounge chair shows that Defendant’s designs are
substantially the same as RH’s:
RH’s Patented Design Defendant’s Infringing Products
Provence Sofa Geneva Sofa
Provence Lounge Chair Geneva Lounge Chair
22.
The design of Defendant’s sofa, lounge chair, loveseat, and sectional
sofa components and the design of RH’s Provence sofa and lounge are so similar
that it is highly unlikely that Defendant adopted its designs without prior knowledge
of the Provence designs set forth in the RH Patents.
Case3:15-cv-00894 Document1 Filed02/26/15 Page7 of 12
-
8/9/2019 Restoration Hardware v. Chicago Wicker - Complaint
8/34
85512076_1
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
3 9 9 3 H o w a r d H u g h e s P a r k w
a y
S u i t e 6 0 0
L a s V e g a s ,
N V
8 9 1 6 9
‐ 5 9 9 6
23. Upon information and belief and despite RH’s demands, Defendant has
continued to manufacture, use, offer to sell, sell, and/or import into the United
States, furniture products that infringe upon the designs set forth in the RH Patents
including sales to consumers and to numerous retailers.
24.
In addition to the foregoing, RH has learned that Defendant has adopted
the “Provance” designation for a line of outdoor furniture, known as “The Provance
Collection,” that Defendant advertises on its website
http://www.northcapeinternational.com/collections/the-provance-collection and
upon information and belief, other websites as well. A screenshot of the webpage i
set forth below:
///
Case3:15-cv-00894 Document1 Filed02/26/15 Page8 of 12
-
8/9/2019 Restoration Hardware v. Chicago Wicker - Complaint
9/34
95512076_1
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
3 9 9 3 H o w a r d H u g h e s P a r k w
a y
S u i t e 6 0 0
L a s V e g a s ,
N V
8 9 1 6 9
‐ 5 9 9 6
COUNT I
(Patent Infringement
under 35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq.)
25. RH incorporates the allegations in foregoing paragraphs as though fully
set forth herein.
26. RH owns the D’967 Patent.
27. Defendant infringed the D’967 Patent by making, using, offering to
sell, selling, and/or importing into the United States products that embody or use the
designs claimed in the D’967 Patent.
28.
RH did not authorize Defendant’s conduct.
29. Defendant’s conduct was knowing, intentional, and willful, making this
an exceptional case.
30. RH incorporates the allegations in foregoing paragraphs as though fully
set forth herein.
COUNT II
(Patent Infringement
under 35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq.)
31.
RH incorporates the allegations in the foregoing paragraphs as though
fully set forth herein.
32.
RH owns the D’966 Patent.
33. Defendant infringed the D’966 Patent by making, using, offering to sell
selling, and/or importing into the United States products that embody or use the
designs claimed in the D’966 Patent.
34. RH did not authorize Defendant’s conduct.
35.
Defendant’s conduct was knowing, intentional, and willful, making thisan exceptional case.
COUNT III
(Trademark Infringement
under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114)
36.
RH incorporates the allegations in the foregoing paragraphs as though
fully set forth herein.
Case3:15-cv-00894 Document1 Filed02/26/15 Page9 of 12
-
8/9/2019 Restoration Hardware v. Chicago Wicker - Complaint
10/34
105512076_1
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
3 9 9 3 H o w a r d H u g h e s P a r k w
a y
S u i t e 6 0 0
L a s V e g a s ,
N V
8 9 1 6 9
‐ 5 9 9 6
37. RH has been using the PROVENCE trademark in commerce in
connection with the advertising and sale of furniture products since at least as early
as April, 2010. RH’s use of the PROVENCE mark in commerce predate
Defendants use of the confusingly similar “Provance” mark.
38.
Given RH’s longstanding use of its PROVENCE mark in commerce in
connection with furniture products including sofas and lounge chairs, Defendant’s
use of the confusingly similar “Provance” mark in connection with furniture
products, including sofas, lounge chairs, and loveseats, constitutes a reproduction
copying, counterfeit, and/or colorable imitation of RH’s PROVENCE mark in a
manner that is likely to cause confusion or mistake or is likely to deceive consumers
39. Defendants’ unlawful use of RH’s PROVENCE mark in commerce has
at all times, been willful, deliberate, and intentional. Defendant’s use of RH’
PROVENCE mark in commerce was designed to usurp and wrongfully trade off of
the substantial investment and goodwill RH has developed in its PROVENCE mark.
40.
Defendant’s unlawful use of RH’s PROVENCE mark in commerce
constitutes trademark infringement in violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §
1114.
41. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s conduct, RH has
suffered, and will continue to suffer, monetary loss and irreparable injury to its
business, reputation, and goodwill.
COUNT IV
(Unfair Competition
under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125)
42.
RH incorporates the allegations in the foregoing paragraphs as thoughfully set forth herein.
43.
Defendant is selling, and/or offering to sell, furniture in commerce
including, without limitation, sofas, chairs, and loveseats using the designation
“Provance,”– a designation that is confusingly similar to RH’s federally registered
PROVENCE mark.
Case3:15-cv-00894 Document1 Filed02/26/15 Page10 of 12
-
8/9/2019 Restoration Hardware v. Chicago Wicker - Complaint
11/34
115512076_1
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
3 9 9 3 H o w a r d H u g h e s P a r k w
a y
S u i t e 6 0 0
L a s V e g a s ,
N V
8 9 1 6 9
‐ 5 9 9 6
44.
Defendant’s use of the confusingly similar “Provance” designation is a
false designation of origin which is likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to
deceive consumers as to the existence of an affiliation, connection or association
between Defendant and RH, and/or is likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or
to deceive consumers as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of Defendant’s
furniture products by RH.
45. Defendant’s use of the confusingly similar “Provance” designation in
commerce has, at all times, been willful, deliberate, and intentional. The
Defendant’s use of the confusingly similar “Provance” designation in commerce was
designed to usurp and wrongfully trade off of the substantial investment and
goodwill RH has developed in its PROVENCE mark.
46. Defendant’s use of the confusingly similar “Provance” mark in
commerce constitutes unfair competition in violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C
§ 1125(a), in that Defendant has used in connection with goods a false designation
of origin, a false or misleading description and representation of fact which is likely
to cause confusion, and to cause mistake, and to deceive as to the affiliation
connection, or association of Defendant with RH and as to the origin, sponsorship
and approval of Defendant’s furniture products and commercial activities by RH.
47. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s conduct, RH has
suffered, and will continue to suffer, monetary loss and irreparable injury to its
business, reputation, and goodwill.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, RH requests that the Court enter:A. A preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting Defendant and its
officers, agents, servants, and those persons in active concert or participation with
them from directly or indirectly infringing RH’s rights in the RH Patents, including
without limitation, Defendant’s manufacturers, suppliers, and retailers;
B.
A preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting Defendant and its
Case3:15-cv-00894 Document1 Filed02/26/15 Page11 of 12
-
8/9/2019 Restoration Hardware v. Chicago Wicker - Complaint
12/34
125512076_1
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
3 9 9 3 H o w a r d H u g h e s P a r k w
a y
S u i t e 6 0 0
L a s V e g a s ,
N V
8 9 1 6 9
‐ 5 9 9 6
officers, agents, servants, and those persons in active concert or participation with
them from using the PROVENCE mark or any confusingly similar variations
thereof, in commerce;
C.
Judgment in favor of RH and against Defendant for damages adequate
to compensate RH for Defendant’s infringment of the RH Patents, wich shall be
trebled as a result of Defendant’s willful patent infringement, pursuant to 35 U.S.C
§ 284, or an award of Defendant’s profits from its infringements pursuant to 35
U.S.C. § 289, whichever is greater, together with prejudement interest and costs;
D. Judgment in favor of RH and against Defendant for damages adequate
to compensate RH for Defendant’s infringment of the PROVENCE mark, including
but not limited to RH’s actual damages, Defendant’s profits, and the costs of the
action, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117;
E.
Judgment in favor of RH and against Defendant for RH’s costs and
attorneys’ fees incurred in this action, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 and 15 U.S.C
1117; and
F. Judgment in favor of RH and against Defendant for such other relief as
the Court deems just, equitable, and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: February 26, 2015 By: /s/ Michael J. McCue
MICHAEL J. MCCUEAARON D. JOHNSONLewis Roca Rothgerber LLP3993 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 600Las Vegas, Nevada 89169-5996(702) 949-8200 (Tel.)(702) 949-8398 (Fax)
Attorneys for PlaintiffsRESTORATION HARDWARE, INC.RH US, LLC.
Case3:15-cv-00894 Document1 Filed02/26/15 Page12 of 12
-
8/9/2019 Restoration Hardware v. Chicago Wicker - Complaint
13/34
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Case3:15-cv-00894 Document1-1 Filed02/26/15 Page1 of 21
-
8/9/2019 Restoration Hardware v. Chicago Wicker - Complaint
14/34
Case3:15-cv-00894 Document1-1 Filed02/26/15 Page2 of 21
-
8/9/2019 Restoration Hardware v. Chicago Wicker - Complaint
15/34
Case3:15-cv-00894 Document1-1 Filed02/26/15 Page3 of 21
-
8/9/2019 Restoration Hardware v. Chicago Wicker - Complaint
16/34
Case3:15-cv-00894 Document1-1 Filed02/26/15 Page4 of 21
-
8/9/2019 Restoration Hardware v. Chicago Wicker - Complaint
17/34
Case3:15-cv-00894 Document1-1 Filed02/26/15 Page5 of 21
-
8/9/2019 Restoration Hardware v. Chicago Wicker - Complaint
18/34
Case3:15-cv-00894 Document1-1 Filed02/26/15 Page6 of 21
-
8/9/2019 Restoration Hardware v. Chicago Wicker - Complaint
19/34
Case3:15-cv-00894 Document1-1 Filed02/26/15 Page7 of 21
-
8/9/2019 Restoration Hardware v. Chicago Wicker - Complaint
20/34
Case3:15-cv-00894 Document1-1 Filed02/26/15 Page8 of 21
-
8/9/2019 Restoration Hardware v. Chicago Wicker - Complaint
21/34
Case3:15-cv-00894 Document1-1 Filed02/26/15 Page9 of 21
-
8/9/2019 Restoration Hardware v. Chicago Wicker - Complaint
22/34
Case3:15-cv-00894 Document1-1 Filed02/26/15 Page10 of 21
-
8/9/2019 Restoration Hardware v. Chicago Wicker - Complaint
23/34
Case3:15-cv-00894 Document1-1 Filed02/26/15 Page11 of 21
-
8/9/2019 Restoration Hardware v. Chicago Wicker - Complaint
24/34
Case3:15-cv-00894 Document1-1 Filed02/26/15 Page12 of 21
-
8/9/2019 Restoration Hardware v. Chicago Wicker - Complaint
25/34
Case3:15-cv-00894 Document1-1 Filed02/26/15 Page13 of 21
-
8/9/2019 Restoration Hardware v. Chicago Wicker - Complaint
26/34
Case3:15-cv-00894 Document1-1 Filed02/26/15 Page14 of 21
-
8/9/2019 Restoration Hardware v. Chicago Wicker - Complaint
27/34
Case3:15-cv-00894 Document1-1 Filed02/26/15 Page15 of 21
-
8/9/2019 Restoration Hardware v. Chicago Wicker - Complaint
28/34
Case3:15-cv-00894 Document1-1 Filed02/26/15 Page16 of 21
-
8/9/2019 Restoration Hardware v. Chicago Wicker - Complaint
29/34
Case3:15-cv-00894 Document1-1 Filed02/26/15 Page17 of 21
-
8/9/2019 Restoration Hardware v. Chicago Wicker - Complaint
30/34
Case3:15-cv-00894 Document1-1 Filed02/26/15 Page18 of 21
-
8/9/2019 Restoration Hardware v. Chicago Wicker - Complaint
31/34
Case3:15-cv-00894 Document1-1 Filed02/26/15 Page19 of 21
-
8/9/2019 Restoration Hardware v. Chicago Wicker - Complaint
32/34
Case3:15-cv-00894 Document1-1 Filed02/26/15 Page20 of 21
-
8/9/2019 Restoration Hardware v. Chicago Wicker - Complaint
33/34
Case3:15-cv-00894 Document1-1 Filed02/26/15 Page21 of 21
-
8/9/2019 Restoration Hardware v. Chicago Wicker - Complaint
34/34
S 44 (Rev. 12/12) cand rev (1/15/13) CIVIL COVER SHEETThe JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except
rovided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for theurpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff County of Residence of First Listed Defendant
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OFTHE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)
I. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant
’ 1 U.S. Government ’ 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF D
Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State ’ 1 ’ 1 Incorporated or Principal Place ’ 4
of Business In This State
’ 2 U.S. Government ’ 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State ’ 2 ’ 2 Incorporated and Principal Place ’ 5
Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State
Citizen or Subject of a ’ 3 ’ 3 Foreign Nation ’ 6
Foreign Country
V. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only)CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES
’ 110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY ’ 625 Drug Related Seizure ’ 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 ’ 375 False Claims Act
’ 120 Marine ’ 310 Airplane ’ 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 ’ 423 Withdrawal ’ 400 State Reapportionm
’ 130 Miller Act ’ 315 Airplane Product Product Liability ’ 690 Other 28 USC 157 ’ 410 Antitrust
’ 140 Negotiable Instrument Liability ’ 367 Health Care/ ’ 430 Banks and Banking
’ 150 Recovery of Overpayment ’ 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS ’ 450 Commerce
& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury ’ 820 Copyrights ’ 460 Deportation
’ 151 Medicare Act ’ 330 Federal Employers’ Product Liabi lity ’ 830 Patent ’ 470 Racketeer Influence
’ 152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability ’ 368 Asbestos Personal ’ 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizatio
Student Loans ’ 340 Marine Injury Product ’ 480 Consumer Credit
(Excludes Veterans) ’ 345 Marine Product Liability LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY ’ 490 Cable/Sat TV
’ 153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY ’ 710 Fair Labor Standards ’ 861 HIA (1395ff) ’ 850 Securities/Commod
of Veteran’s Benefits ’ 350 Motor Vehicle ’ 370 Other Fraud Act ’ 862 Black Lung (923) Exchange
’ 160 Stockholders’ Suits ’ 355 Motor Vehicle ’ 371 Truth in Lending ’ 720 Labor/Management ’ 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) ’ 890 Other Statutory Acti
’ 190 Other Contract Product Liability ’ 380 Other Personal Relations ’ 864 SSID Title XVI ’ 891 Agricultural Acts
’ 195 Contract Product Liability ’ 360 Other Personal Property Damage ’ 740 Railway Labor Act ’ 865 RSI (405(g)) ’ 893 Environmental Matt
’ 196 Franchise Injury ’ 385 Property Damage ’ 751 Family and Medical ’ 895 Freedom of Informa
’ 362 Personal Injury - Product Liability Leave Act Act Medical Malpractice ’ 790 Other Labor Litigation ’ 896 Arbitration
REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS ’ 791 Employee Retirement FEDERAL TAX SUITS ’ 899 Administrative Proc
’ 210 Land Condemnation ’ 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: Income Security Act ’ 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff Act/Review or Appe
’ 220 Foreclosure ’ 441 Voting ’ 463 Alien Detainee or Defendant) Agency Decision
’ 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment ’ 442 Employment ’ 510 Motions to Vacate ’ 871 IRS—Third Party ’ 950 Constitutionality of
’ 240 Torts to Land ’ 443 Housing/ Sentence 26 USC 7609 State Statutes
’ 245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations ’ 530 General
’ 290 All Other Real Property ’ 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - ’ 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION
Employment Other: ’ 462 Naturalization Application’ 446 Amer. w/Disabilities - ’ 540 Mandamus & Other ’ 465 Other Immigration
Other ’ 550 Civil Rights Actions
’ 448 Education ’ 555 Prison Condition
’ 560 Civil Detainee -
Conditions of
Confinement
V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
’ 1 OriginalProceeding
’ 2 Removed fromState Court
’ 3 Remanded fromAppellate Court
’ 4 Reinstated or Reopened
’ 5 Transferred fromAnother District(specify)
’ 6 MultidistrictLitigation
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
Brief description of cause:
VII. REQUESTED IN
COMPLAINT:
’ CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION
UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P.
DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint
JURY DEMAND: ’ Yes ’ No
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
IF ANY(See instructions):
JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER
Case3:15-cv-00894 Document1-2 Filed02/26/15 Page1 of 1
RESTORATION HARDWARE, INC., RH US, LLC
Marin
Michael J. McCue, Aaron D. Johnson, LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER LLP4300 Bohannon Drive, Menlo Park, CA 94025Tele: (650) 391-1380
CHICAGO WICKER & TRADING COMPANY
35 U.S.C. § 271
patent infringement