HIT Promotional Prods. V SolPals - Complaint

Case 8:18-cv-00336-CEH-JSS Document 1 Filed 02/08/18 Page 1 of 22 PageID 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
HIT Promotional Products, Inc.

Bench trial requested
Plaintiff, No injunctive relief sought
v.
SolPals, LLC
Defendant.
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
Plaintiff HIT Promotional Products, Inc. (“HIT”) through its undersigned
trial counsel, files this Complaint against SolPals, LLC (“SolPals”):

NATURE OF THE ACTION
This is an action for declaratory relief of noninfringement of U.S. Patent
Nos. D669,112 (“the D112 Patent”), D708,657 (“the D657 Patent”), D721,396
(“the D396 Patent”), D763,843 (“the D843 Patent”), and D782,562 (“the D562
Patent”) (collectively “the Patents”) under the Declaratory Judgment Act 28
U.S.C. §§ 2201–2202 and the patent laws of the United States 35 U.S.C. § 101
et seq. The Patents are attached as Exhibits A through E.

PARTIES
1. HIT is a Delaware Corporation with a principal business address of 7150
Bryan Dairy Road, Largo, FL 33777.
2. SolPals is a Utah limited liability company with a principal business
address of 1192 Draper Parkway, Suite 202 Draper, UT 84020.
1
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction because this litigation arises
under the Patent Laws, Title 35 United States Code, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal
question), 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a) (patents), and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201–2202
(Declaratory Judgment Act).
4. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) because the
alleged infringer HIT resides in the state of Florida and has committed the acts
of alleged infringement in the state of Florida.
5. 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) provides that “any civil action for patent
infringement may be brought in the judicial district where the [party accused of
infringement] . . . resides, or where the [party accused of infringement] . . . has
committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of
business.”
6. The United States Supreme Court construed the patent venue statute in
TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC holding that patent
venue is controlled exclusively by 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b).1
7. HIT’s regular and established place of business is in the state of Florida.
8. HIT makes, uses, sells, and offers for sale the accused webcam covers in
the state of Florida.
1 137 S.Ct. 1514, 1514 (2017).
2
9. Thus, under the second clause of 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), the Middle District
of Florida is the appropriate venue for a patent infringement action against
HIT.
FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS
10. Sliding covers for still cameras, or video cameras, have long existed.
11. Originally the function of a sliding cover was to protect the camera lens,
such as for a still camera that one may store in his pocket.
12. For example, U.S. Pat. No. 6,322,259 titled Camera provided with slide
cover, filed August 5, 1999 (‘259 Patent).
13. Here, the ‘259 Patent shows the slide cover 2 in its open position and its
closed position:
14. As technology moved forward, cameras were commonly embedded into
cellphones. Camera covers were then incorporated into cellphones to protect
3
the lenses.
15. For example, U.S. Pat. No. 7,950,859 titled Lens Cover and Portable
Electronic Device Using the Same. (‘859 Patent).
16. Here, the ‘859 Patent shows the camera cover (in orange) in a closed
position:
17. In parallel, cameras became common in computers for use in internet
video conferencing. Such web-enabled cameras, or webcams, created security
concerns because the user could not remove, or put away, the camera.
18. Such security concerns were highlighted by instances of hackers using
compromised webcams to blackmail computer users.
19. In response, inventors developed webcam covers as both an accessory for
use with a laptop, and or built into a laptop.
20. As an example of an accessory, U.S. Pat. No. 8,471,956 titled Closure
Device for an Image Capture Facility (‘956 Patent), filed October 29, 2010,
claims and describes a webcam cover for installation onto a computer.
4
21. The ‘956 patent shows the device in a closed position, with the closure 3
(in orange) covering a webcam:
22. The ‘956 patent further shows the webcam cover in an open position,
aligning aperture 4 (in orange) with a webcam:
23. As an example of a built-in webcam, U.S. Pat. No. 8,531,832, titled
Notebook Computer Device with Image Capture Module, filed January 20, 2011,
discloses a laptop with a built-in sliding cover 14 (in orange):
5
24. Figure 3 shows a close-up view of the sliding piece 14 (in orange) in
opened and closed positions:
25. HIT has responded to the market demand for webcam covers by
releasing its own series of webcam covers.
26. Specifically, HIT makes, uses, offers to sell, distributes, and sells a single
embodiment of a webcam cover (“the Accused Product”) that has been falsely
6
accused by SolPals of infringing the Patents.
27. The Accused Product is a webcam cover that positions over the webcam
lens of laptops, computers, external web cameras, and smart televisions. The
Accused Product includes a sliding piece that moves within a sheath, thereby
revealing or blocking the lens of a webcam.
28. The following photograph shows the Accused Product in an open
position, where the aperture would align with the lens of a webcam:
29. The following photograph shows the Accused Product in a closed
position, where the sliding piece would cover the lens of a webcam:
30. SolPals is the Assignee of the D112 Patent. Exhibit F attached.
31. SolPals is the Assignee of the D657 Patent. Exhibit G attached.
32. SolPals is the Assignee of the D396 Patent. Exhibit H attached.
33. SolPals is the Assignee of the D843 Patent. Exhibit I attached.
7
34. SolPals is the Assignee of the D562 Patent. Exhibit J attached.
35. A case or controversy exists between the Parties because SolPals has
threatened patent infringement litigation against HIT for each of the above
mentioned patents. Exhibit K attached.
36. SolPals’ threat of patent litigation is substantial, concrete, and injures
HIT because the allegations threaten HIT’s lawful right to sell the Accused
Product.
37. SolPals and HIT are competitors in the webcam cover industry and
declaratory relief is necessary to resolve the accusation of patent infringement
by SolPals.
COUNT ONE
Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of U.S. Pat. No. D669,112
38. HIT incorporates and re-alleges the allegations contained in paragraphs
1 through 37 of this Complaint and further alleges as follows:
39. HIT does not infringe and has not infringed the D112 Patent, either
directly, contributorily, or by inducement because HIT, either alone or in
combination with others, does not make, use, or sell a product that infringes
the D112 Patent under the ordinary observer test.
40. The D112 Patent provides no protection for the concept of a webcam
cover. Design patent protection is limited to the ornamental features of the
8
claimed design, and does not extend to the broader design concept.2
41. The test for design patent infringement is whether, “in the eye of an
ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, two
designs are substantially the same, if the resemblance is such as to deceive
such an observer, inducing him to purchase one supposing it to be the other,
the first one patented is infringed by the other.”3 Where the allegedly infringing
product and the patented design are “plainly dissimilar,” a court need look no
further than a side-by-side comparison of the design and accused device to
determine that no infringement has occurred.4
42. The D112 Patent claims a webcam cover having a long piece (in orange)
with rounded corners contained within a mounting track. The mounting track
has two opposing sides open to allow the long piece to slide back and forth
within the mounting track.
43. The image below shows Fig. 5 of the D112 Patent overlaid on the
2 OddzOn Products, Inc. v. Just Toys, Inc., 122 F.3d 1396, 1405 (Fed. Cir.
1997).
3 Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665, 670 (CAFC 2008) (citing
Gorham Co. v. White, 81 U.S. 511, 528 (1871)).
4 Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien, Inc., 796 F.3d 1312, 1335 (Fed. Cir.
2015).
9
Accused Product in an open state. Fig. 5 of the D112 Patent shows the webcam
cover in an open state. An aperture on the long piece is aligned with a window
on the mounting track.
Accused Product in a closed state:
45. If the D112 Patent were shown in a closed state, the long piece would be
pushed or slid all the way to the left in the picture above. The window would
then be blocked, or closed, by a solid portion of the long piece.
46. The Accused Product and the D112 Patent are plainly dissimilar.
47. The Accused Product does not include a long piece that slides within a
mounting track with two opposing sides open. Instead, the Accused Product
10
includes a cover that slides into and out from a rectangular sheath that is open
on one side.
48. The Accused Product does not infringe the D112 Patent because the
designs are not substantially similar such that an ordinary observer would be
deceived into buying the Accused Product thinking it to be the subject of the
D112 Patent.
49. SolPals has suffered no damages because HIT’s product does not infringe
the D112 Patent.
COUNT TWO
5 OddzOn Products, Inc., 122 F.3d at 1405.
11
54. The D657 Patent claims a webcam cover having a long piece (in orange)
with rounded corners contained within a mounting track. The mounting track
has two opposing sides open to allow the long piece to slide back and forth
within the mounting track.
Accused Product in an open state. Fig. 5 of the D657 Patent shows the webcam
cover in an open state. An aperture on the long piece is aligned with a window
on the mounting track.
6 Egyptian Goddess, Inc., 543 F.3d at 670.

7 Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., 796 F.3d at 1335.
12
Accused Product in a closed state:
57. If the D657 Patent were shown in a closed state, the long piece would be
pushed or slid all the way to the left in the picture above. The window would
then be blocked, or closed, by a solid portion of the long piece.
59. The Accused Product does not include a long piece that slides within a
mounting track with two opposing sides open. Instead, the Accused Product
includes a cover that slides into and out from a rectangular sheath that is open
on one side.
13
D657 Patent.
the D657 Patent.
COUNT THREE

14
66. The 396 Patent claims a round cover attached to a round base with an
opening in the middle. The round cover rotates at the attachment point about a
hinge to reveal or cover the opening.
67. The below image shows Fig. 1 of the D396 Patent:
15
69. The Accused Product is not round and does not have a rotatable hinge.
Instead, the Accused Product includes a cover that slides into and out from a
rectangular sheath that is open on one side.
D396 Patent.
the D396 Patent.
COUNT FOUR
16
the first one patented is infringed by the other.”12 Where the allegedly
infringing product and the patented design are “plainly dissimilar,” a court
need look no further than a side-by-side comparison of the design and accused
device to determine that no infringement has occurred.13
76. The D843 Patent claims multiple embodiments of a cover with an
adhesive side and a back side. The webcam cover of the D843 Patent is a solid
piece that adheres to a smart phone over a webcam lens.
77. The below images show Figs. 3 and 10 of the D843 Patent depicting
different embodiments above a photograph of the Accused Product:

17
79. The Accused Product is not a solid piece and does not have a textured
back side.
D843 Patent.
the D843 Patent.
COUNT FIVE
18
the first one patented is infringed by the other.”15 Where the allegedly
infringing product and the patented design are “plainly dissimilar,” a court
need look no further than a side-by-side comparison of the design and accused
device to determine that no infringement has occurred.16
86. The D562 Patent claims a webcam cover with a sliding piece and a
mounting piece. The overall shape of the webcam cover is ovular. The mounting
piece forms a closed sheath, is rounded on one end, and has a window through
which the webcam lens can be revealed. The mounting piece of the D562 Patent

19
does not have an open end. And the sliding piece includes a semicircle tab.
87. The below image shows Fig. 3 of the D562 Patent depicting the sliding
piece in an open position overlaid on the Accused Product in an open position:
88. The below image shows Fig. 8 of the D562 Patent depicting the cover in a
closed position overlaid on the Accused Product in a closed position:
90. The Accused Product is rectangular and lacks a semicircle tab.
91. Additionally, the D562 Patent is not open on one end. This is best
illustrated by a side by side comparison. See the green arrow in the image
below.
20
D562 Patent.
the D562 Patent.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, HIT prays for judgment in its favor and against SolPals
as follows:
1. That the Court declare and adjudicate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and
2202 that the Accused Product does not infringe any valid and enforceable
claim of U.S. Patent Nos. D669,112, D708,657, D721,396, D763,843, and
D782,562;
2. That HIT recover from SolPals all costs incurred in this action;
3. That HIT be awarded a reasonable attorney’s fee incurred in this action;
and
4. That HIT be awarded such other and further relief as the Court may
deem proper.
Dated: February 8, 2018 Respectfully submitted,
s/Patrick A. Reid
Patrick A. Reid, Esq.
Fla. Bar # 112708
patrick@larsonpatentlaw.com
Herbert W. Larson, Esq.

Fla. Bar # 969930
bill@larsonpatentlaw.com
21
Larson & Larson, P.A.

11199 69th Street
Largo, FL 33773
(727)-546-0660 tele
(727) 213-6922 fax
Trial Counsel for Plaintiff
22
Case 8:18-cv-00336-CEH-JSS Document 1-1 Filed 02/08/18 Page 1 of 5 PageID 23
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT D
EXHIBIT E
EXHIBIT F
EXHIBIT G
EXHIBIT H
EXHIBIT I
EXHIBIT J
EXHIBIT K
workman 60 East South Temple

Suite 1000
Matthew A. Barlow
(801) 321-8804
nydegger Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
(801) 533-9800
mbarlow@wnlaw.com
www.wnlaw.com
August 25, 2017
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
Christopher J. Schmidt, President

HIT PROMOTIONAL PRODUCTS
7150 Bryan Dairy Rd.
Largo, FL 33777
hitrequest@hitpromo.net
Re: Infringement ofSo/Pals, LLC Intellectual Property

Our File: 18800.16-6
To Whom It May Concern:
This firm represents SolPals, LLC ("SolPals") in connection with the protection and
enforcement of its intellectual property rights. SolPals holds various intellectual property rights
related to unique designs for webcam covers, and has obtained the following patents in the United
States related to webcam covers:
Patent Title Issue Date

U.S. Pat. No. D763,843 Webcam Cover 8/16/2016
The Advertising Specialty Institute ("ASI") forwarded to SolPals a July 25, 2017 letter
from H. William Larson, of Larson & Larson, regarding the HIT Promotional Products ("HIT")
webcam cover sold in connection with ASL 1 SolPals in turn forwarded the letter to us for our
review. Mr. Larson's letter is solely directed to an analysis of whether the HIT product infringes
SolPals' U.S. Patent No. D708,657. It is unclear whether you and/or Mr. Larson are aware of
SolPals' other patents; Mr. Larson did not address whether the HIT product infringes any of
SolPals' patents besides Patent No. D708,657. In any case, it is clear that you have been diligent
in copying SolPals' patented products.
For instance, the HIT product is substantially similar to the webcam cover of SolPals' U.S.
Pat. No. D669, 112 ("the '112 Patent"),2 as shown in the side-by-side comparison below:
1
https://www.hitpromo.net/product/show/265/security-webcam-cover
2
A copy of the' 112 Patent is attached hereto for your reference.
August 25, 2017
Page2
'112 Patent HIT Webcam Cover
~~MARSTON
~ SECURITY
(FIG. 2)
(FIG. 2)
(FIG. 1)
As you can see, the HIT product and the design of the '112 Patent share substantial
similarities. For instance, both comprise a rectangular webcam cover with a frame that holds a flat
cover that can be slid in place over the lens of a camera on a computer or other device.
35 U.S.C. § 271 prohibits making, using, offering to sell, selling, or importing "any
patented invention during the term of the patent" without authority from the patent owner. A patent
owner may recover an infringer's total profits for sales of a product that infringes a design patent.
See 35 U.S.C. § 289. The patent owner may recover the profits of the manufacturer and any seller
in the chain of distribution of the infringing article. See, e.g., Bergstrom v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.,
496 F. Supp. 476,496 (D. Minn. 1980).
A product design is said to infringe a patented design if the two designs are substantially
similar to an ordinary observer such that the observer would purchase one product supposing he
had purchased the other. Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665, 670-74, 677-79
August 25, 2017
Page 3
(Fed. Cir. 2008) (en bane) (relying on Gorham Co. v. White, 81 U.S. 511,528 (1871) ("[I]f, in the
eye of an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, two designs are
substantially the same, if the resemblance is such as to deceive such an observer, inducing him to
purchase one supposing it to be the other, the first one patented is infringed by the other."). Minor
differences between a patented design and a copy will not preclude a finding of infringement. Id.
at 670. As shown above, the HIT product is substantially similar to the design of the '112 Patent,
and an ordinary observer would easily confuse them.
SolPals is committed to protecting its intellectual property rights, including its unique
brands and designs. Given the striking similarity between the HIT product and the designs of
SolPals' patents, SolPals is confident it will prevail in an infringement action if HIT continues to
make, use, offer to sell, sell, or import its webcam covers in the United States. Before taking that
step, however, SolPals is interested in attempting to amicably resolve this matter. Therefore,
SolPals hereby demands that HIT immediately:
1. cease making, using, offering to sell, selling, and/or importing products in the United
States, including the HIT webcam covers, that infringe any of SolPals' patents;
2. provide an accounting of any HIT webcam cover made, used, offered for sale, sold, and/or
imported into the United States; and
3. identify the entity that manufactures the HIT webcam cover.
In addition, please do not destroy any documents, information, or things relating to the HIT
webcam cover (including its design, development, and manufacture) until this matter has been
resolved.
Please acknowledge receipt of this letter immediately and give us your written assurance
that you will comply with our demands on or before September 8, 2017. Although SolPals hopes
the parties can resolve this matter amicably, it reserves its rights under all applicable laws.
Sincerely,
WORKMAN NYDEGGER
MATTHEW A. BARLOW
Enclosure
MAB:pkw
6518060_1.docx
December 21, 2017
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL

Charles B. Machion
Advertising Specialty Institute
Bucks County Technology Park
4800 E Street Rd. Ste. 100A
Trevose, PA 19053-6659
RE: Infringement of SolPals, LLC Intellectual Property

Our File: 18800.16
Mr. Machion,
Thank you for your letter of November 30, 2017. We have reviewed Image Depot and
Howard Roe’s sites and have confirmed the removal of several infringing products.
Your letter references the HIT product (product number 265) available at
http://imagedepotph.espwebsite.com/ProductDetails/?productId=551548304&imageId=2860208
9&tab=Tile&referrerPage=ProductResults&refPgId=511643305&referrerModule=PRDREB.
We have been in communication with HIT regarding its product and have reiterated that the
product infringes SolPals’ registered patent. A copy of our letter to HIT laying out SolPals’
infringement position is enclosed. We intend to file a complaint against HIT on the grounds their
product infringes SolPals’ patent. If ASI wishes to avoid being named as a co-infringer in that
complaint, it should remove the HIT webcam cover from all ASI sites.
In addition, it appears that several additional infringing products have been added to ASI’s
database. For instance, the following webcam covers are substantially similar to the webcam cover
of Sol Pals’ U.S. Pat. No. D782,562 (“the ’562 Patent”), as shown below:
Charles B. Machion
December 21, 2017
Page 2
-------------------------------------------
’562 Patent WCC1001 Webcam Privacy Cover

GPCM2722
’562 Patent Webcam Privacy SS009 Webcam Metal Laptop

Cover Securty Cover4 Webcam Cover
BBPAD2193 APXF01735
1
Available at
http://imagedepotph.espwebsite.com/ProductDetails/?productId=551732072&imageId=28609119&tab=Tile&referre
rPage=ProductResults&refPgId=511643305&referrerModule=PRDREB;
http://www.howardroe.com/ProductDetails/?productId=551732072&imageId=28609119&tab=Tile&referrerPage=P
roductResults&refPgId=515994912&referrerModule=PRDREB.
2
Available at
rPage=ProductResults&refPgId=511643305&referrerModule=PRDREB.
3
Available at
4
Available at
5
Available at
Charles B. Machion
December 21, 2017
Page 3
-------------------------------------------
The ’562 Patent covers a webcam cover with an elongated frame that surrounds a webcam
and encloses a sliding door that can slide laterally to cover the webcam. (FIGS. 1–3, 8.) Similarly,
the webcam covers shown above have elongated frames that surround a webcam and enclose a
sliding door that can slide laterally to cover the webcam.
In addition to the patent referenced above, as we informed you previously, SolPals’ U.S.
Pat. App. No. 29/585,474 (“the ’474 Application”) is currently pending before the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office. The Office has issued a Notice of Allowance for this application, the issue fee
has been paid, and the patent should issue sometime in mid-January. Several webcam covers sold
through ASI will infringe this patent once issued, as shown below:
’474 Application Webcam Cover Webcam Cover7

CP1016
6
Available at
7
See Appendix A for product numbers and URLs.
Charles B. Machion
December 21, 2017
Page 4
-------------------------------------------
’474 Application Privacy Camera Blockers in Plastic Slide Webcam Cover

Case8 APXF01749
The ’474 Application covers a webcam cover with a rounded frame surrounding a webcam
and a rounded cover that can be slid to cover the webcam. (FIGS. 1–8). Similarly, the webcam
covers sold by Image Depot include a rounded frame surrounding a webcam and a rounded cover
that can be slid to cover the webcam. Upon information and belief, these products also infringe
SolPals’ U.S. Pat. No. 9,829,770, which is directed to a Camera Obstructing Device.
ASI has been repeatedly notified of SolPals’ intellectual property rights, yet continues to
sell and offer for sale products that infringe SolPals’ patents. If ASI will not remove these
infringing listings, SolPals will not hesitate to take further action to protect its intellectual property
rights. Please contact me at your earliest convenience to discuss this matter.
Sincerely,
WORKMAN NYDEGGER
MATTHEW A. BARLOW
8
Available at
http://imagedepotph.espwebsite.com/ProductDetails/?productId=551533510&tab=Tile&referrerPage=ProductResult
s&refPgId=511643305&referrerModule=PRDREB;
9
Available at
JS 44 (Rev. 11/15) CIVIL COVER SHEET
The 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 as
provided 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 the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS

HIT Promotional Products, Inc. SolPals, LLC
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Pinellas County County of Residence of First Listed Defendant Salt Lake 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)
Patrick A. Reid, Esq.
Larson & Larson, P.A.
11199 69th St. N., Largo, FL 33773 727-546-0660
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)
’ 1 U.S. Government ’ 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State ’ 1 ’ 1 Incorporated or Principal Place ’ 4 ’ 4
of Business In This State
’ 2 U.S. Government ’ 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State ’ 2 ’ 2 Incorporated and Principal Place ’ 5 ’ 5
Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State
Citizen or Subject of a ’ 3 ’ 3 Foreign Nation ’ 6 ’ 6

Foreign Country
IV. 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 ’ 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
’ 130 Miller Act ’ 315 Airplane Product Product Liability ’ 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729(a))
’ 140 Negotiable Instrument Liability ’ 367 Health Care/ ’ 400 State Reapportionment
’ 150 Recovery of Overpayment ’ 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS ’ 410 Antitrust
& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury ’ 820 Copyrights ’ 430 Banks and Banking
’ 151 Medicare Act ’ 330 Federal Employers’ Product Liability ’ 830 Patent ’ 450 Commerce
’ 152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability ’ 368 Asbestos Personal ’ 840 Trademark ’ 460 Deportation
Student Loans ’ 340 Marine Injury Product ’ 470 Racketeer Influenced and
(Excludes Veterans) ’ 345 Marine Product Liability LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY Corrupt Organizations
’ 153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY ’ 710 Fair Labor Standards ’ 861 HIA (1395ff) ’ 480 Consumer Credit
of Veteran’s Benefits ’ 350 Motor Vehicle ’ 370 Other Fraud Act ’ 862 Black Lung (923) ’ 490 Cable/Sat TV
’ 160 Stockholders’ Suits ’ 355 Motor Vehicle ’ 371 Truth in Lending ’ 720 Labor/Management ’ 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) ’ 850 Securities/Commodities/
’ 190 Other Contract Product Liability ’ 380 Other Personal Relations ’ 864 SSID Title XVI Exchange
’ 195 Contract Product Liability ’ 360 Other Personal Property Damage ’ 740 Railway Labor Act ’ 865 RSI (405(g)) ’ 890 Other Statutory Actions
’ 196 Franchise Injury ’ 385 Property Damage ’ 751 Family and Medical ’ 891 Agricultural Acts
’ 362 Personal Injury - Product Liability Leave Act ’ 893 Environmental Matters
Medical Malpractice ’ 790 Other Labor Litigation ’ 895 Freedom of Information
REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS ’ 791 Employee Retirement FEDERAL TAX SUITS Act
’ 210 Land Condemnation ’ 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: Income Security Act ’ 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff ’ 896 Arbitration
’ 220 Foreclosure ’ 441 Voting ’ 463 Alien Detainee or Defendant) ’ 899 Administrative Procedure
’ 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment ’ 442 Employment ’ 510 Motions to Vacate ’ 871 IRS—Third Party Act/Review or Appeal of
’ 240 Torts to Land ’ 443 Housing/ Sentence 26 USC 7609 Agency Decision
’ 245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations ’ 530 General ’ 950 Constitutionality of
’ 290 All Other Real Property ’ 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - ’ 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION State Statutes
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 Original ’ 2 Removed from ’ 3 Remanded from ’ 4 Reinstated or ’ 5 Transferred from ’ 6 Multidistrict
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District Litigation
(specify)
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202; 35 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:
Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement
VII. REQUESTED IN ’ CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. JURY DEMAND: ’ Yes ’ No
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER
DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
02/08/2018 /Patrick A. Reid/
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE
Print Save As... Reset

JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 11/15)
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44

Authority For Civil Cover Sheet
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as
required by law, except as provided 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 the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of
Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:
I.(a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use
only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and
then the official, giving both name and title.
(b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the
time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land
condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.)
(c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting
in this section "(see attachment)".
II. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X"
in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.
United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.
United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box.
Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment
to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes
precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked.
Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the
citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity
cases.)
III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this
section for each principal party.
IV. Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If the nature of suit cannot be determined, be sure the cause of action, in Section VI below, is
sufficient to enable the deputy clerk or the statistical clerk(s) in the Administrative Office to determine the nature of suit. If the cause fits more than
one nature of suit, select the most definitive.
V. Origin. Place an "X" in one of the six boxes.

Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.
Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441.
When the petition for removal is granted, check this box.
Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing
date.
Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.
Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or
multidistrict litigation transfers.
Multidistrict Litigation. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1407.
When this box is checked, do not check (5) above.
VI. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional
statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service
VII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.
Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.
Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.
VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket
numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.
Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.

HIT Promotional Prods. V SolPals - Complaint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

HIT Promotional Prods. V SolPals - Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 8:18-cv-00336-CEH-JSS Document 1 Filed 02/08/18 Page 1 of 22 PageID 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

HIT Promotional Products, Inc.

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

Plaintiff HIT Promotional Products, Inc. (“HIT”) through its undersigned

trial counsel, files this Complaint against SolPals, LLC (“SolPals”):

This is an action for declaratory relief of noninfringement of U.S. Patent

Patent”) (collectively “the Patents”) under the Declaratory Judgment Act 28

et seq. The Patents are attached as Exhibits A through E.

Bryan Dairy Road, Largo, FL 33777.

2. SolPals is a Utah limited liability company with a principal business

address of 1192 Draper Parkway, Suite 202 Draper, UT 84020.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

question), 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a) (patents), and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201–2202

(Declaratory Judgment Act).

4. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) because the

of alleged infringement in the state of Florida.

5. 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) provides that “any civil action for patent

infringement] . . . resides, or where the [party accused of infringement] . . . has

committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of

venue is controlled exclusively by 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b).1

7. HIT’s regular and established place of business is in the state of Florida.

the state of Florida.

1 137 S.Ct. 1514, 1514 (2017).

of Florida is the appropriate venue for a patent infringement action against

FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

cover, filed August 5, 1999 (‘259 Patent).

14. As technology moved forward, cameras were commonly embedded into

cellphones. Camera covers were then incorporated into cellphones to protect

Electronic Device Using the Same. (‘859 Patent).

17. In parallel, cameras became common in computers for use in internet

video conferencing. Such web-enabled cameras, or webcams, created security

18. Such security concerns were highlighted by instances of hackers using

compromised webcams to blackmail computer users.

19. In response, inventors developed webcam covers as both an accessory for

use with a laptop, and or built into a laptop.

20. As an example of an accessory, U.S. Pat. No. 8,471,956 titled Closure

claims and describes a webcam cover for installation onto a computer.

(in orange) covering a webcam:

aligning aperture 4 (in orange) with a webcam:

23. As an example of a built-in webcam, U.S. Pat. No. 8,531,832, titled

discloses a laptop with a built-in sliding cover 14 (in orange):

opened and closed positions:

releasing its own series of webcam covers.

accused by SolPals of infringing the Patents.

revealing or blocking the lens of a webcam.

28. The following photograph shows the Accused Product in an open

29. The following photograph shows the Accused Product in a closed

30. SolPals is the Assignee of the D112 Patent. Exhibit F attached.

31. SolPals is the Assignee of the D657 Patent. Exhibit G attached.

32. SolPals is the Assignee of the D396 Patent. Exhibit H attached.

33. SolPals is the Assignee of the D843 Patent. Exhibit I attached.

34. SolPals is the Assignee of the D562 Patent. Exhibit J attached.

mentioned patents. Exhibit K attached.

36. SolPals’ threat of patent litigation is substantial, concrete, and injures

declaratory relief is necessary to resolve the accusation of patent infringement

1 through 37 of this Complaint and further alleges as follows:

directly, contributorily, or by inducement because HIT, either alone or in

the D112 Patent under the ordinary observer test.

cover. Design patent protection is limited to the ornamental features of the

ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, two

designs are substantially the same, if the resemblance is such as to deceive

such an observer, inducing him to purchase one supposing it to be the other,