ZURU v. Ontel Prods - Complaint

Case 6:18-cv-00132 Document 1 Filed 03/20/18 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
_______________________________________
)
ZURU INC., )
) Civ. Action No. 6:18-cv-132
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
)
ONTEL PRODUCTS CORPORATION, )
)
Defendant. )
_______________________________________)
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
Plaintiff ZURU Inc. (“ZURU” or “Plaintiff”), by counsel, files this complaint against
defendant Ontel Products Corporation (“Ontel” or “Defendant”), and in support thereof, states as
follows:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. This is a patent infringement action arising under the United States patent laws, 35
U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq., in which Plaintiff asserts infringement of U.S. Design Patent D813,317 by
Defendant’s manufacture, use, offer for sale, sale, or import in/into the United States of the product
known as “Build Bonanza.” Plaintiff is seeking an injunction prohibiting further sales of the
infringing product, as well as monetary damages and related remedies.
THE PARTIES
2. Plaintiff ZURU Inc. is a corporation registered under the laws of the British Virgin
Islands and a Hong Kong registered company with its principal place of business in Kowloon,
Hong Kong.
3. Defendant Ontel is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of New
Jersey with its principal place of business at 21 Law Drive, Fairfield, New Jersey 07004. Ontel
distributes and sells products, such as the accused “Build Bonanza” product, through retail stores
throughout the country, including in “As Seen On TV” sections and pallet displays in retail stores.
Ashok “Chuck” Khubani is the founder and CEO of Ontel.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4. This is a civil action for patent infringement arising under the United States patent
statutes, 35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq.
5. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action under 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1331 and 1338(a).
6. Defendant is subject to this Court’s personal jurisdiction because it does and has
done substantial business in this judicial district. In addition, upon information and belief,
Defendant (directly and/or through a distribution network) has regularly placed (and/or intends to
regularly place) infringing products in the stream of commerce with the knowledge and/or
understanding that such products will be sold in Texas and in this District. Defendant is subject to
the general jurisdiction of this Court because it has regular and systematic contacts with this forum
such that the exercise of jurisdiction over it would not offend traditional notions of fair play and
substantial justice.
7. Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). Defendant Ontel
has committed one or more infringing acts in this District. Upon information and belief, Defendant
“resides” in this District because (1) there is a physical place in this District from which the
business of Defendant is carried out, including in the As Seen on TV sections in retail stores located
in this District, (2) Defendant’s business with these retail stores is regular and established, and (3)
2
Defendant has established the place of business by owning, leasing, and/or exercising other
attributes of possession or control over the place, including by owning, leasing, and/or controlling
the placement, sales, maintenance, and management of its products in at least the As Seen on TV
sections and pallet displays in retail stores located in this District. Upon information and belief,
Defendant also pays third-party agents to monitor and manage these As Seen on TV sections within
retail stores in this District.
THE PATENT-IN-SUIT
8. On March 20, 2018, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”)
duly and legally issued to assignee Chrome Cherry United States Patent No. D813,317 (“the ’317
Patent”), entitled “TAPE FORMING A TOY BUILDING BLOCK BASE.” A copy of the ’317
Patent is attached as Exhibit A.
9. As exclusive licensee of the ’317 Patent, ZURU Inc. has standing to sue for
infringement.
FACTS
10. Max Basler, Anine Kirsten, and Jaco Kruger (collectively, the “Inventors”)
invented an innovative toy product first marketed under the name “Nimuno Loops” and now called
“Mayka Toy Block Tape.
11. The Inventors are members of the South African company, Chrome Cherry.
12. Max Basler and Anine Kirsten are longtime friends and graduates of the B-Tech
School of Industrial Design at Cape Peninsula University of Technology. They work as industrial
product designers at Chrome Cherry.
3
13. In 2016, Mr. Basler and Ms. Kirsten visited the New York Toy Fair. Inspired by
the innovation they witnessed at the fair, they returned to South Africa with the goal of updating
the classic buildable block toy.
14. Mr. Basler’s and Ms. Kirsten’s efforts were encouraged by Jaco Kruger, CEO of
Chrome Cherry. Under Mr. Kruger’s leadership, Chrome Cherry had achieved industry
recognition and market success with products such as a creative redesign of a children’s push
bicycle sold as the “YBike.”
15. Mr. Basler’s and Ms. Kirsten’s final product consisted of rolls of flexible building
block tape compatible with the products of major toy lines such as Lego®, Mega Bloks®, and
Creo®. The product was initially marketed under the name “Nimuno Loops,” and is cuttable,
bendable, waterproof, and reuseable.
16. Upon finalizing the Nimuno Loops prototype, the Inventors documented the uses
of the innovative product and posted previews of the product prototype on Nimuno Loops’
Facebook page on February 9, 2017.
17. Aware that a full product launch would require a large expenditure of capital, the
Inventors turned to internet crowdfunding.
18. On March 7, 2017, the Inventors launched a campaign on the crowdfunding
platform, Indiegogo.com. See https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nimuno-loops-the-original-
toy-block-tape#/.
19. Their campaign sought an initial investment of $8,000. The campaign went viral,
and in less than a week, it secured over $1 million in contributions.
20. By April 12, 2017, the campaign was 20,050% funded.
21. To date, the Indiegogo campaign has raised $1,647,988.
4
22. With the wild success of the Indiegogo campaign, the Nimuno Loops product
secured extremely favorable press coverage in the United States and internationally.
23. USA Today touted the product as “2017’s best invention.” Huffington Post labeled
the product “genius,” Gizmodo called it “a game-changer,” and Inc.com lauded it as an “inventive
product that opens up an entirely new universe.”
24. On or about March 20, 2017, shortly after the Inventors launched their Indiegogo
campaign, the Inventors began negotiations to partner with ZURU to manufacture, market, and
sell the Nimuno Loops product. The parties subsequently agreed that ZURU would be the
exclusive worldwide licensee of Chrome Cherry’s intellectual property rights associated with the
Nimuno Loops product.
25. ZURU is a toy company owned by the Mowbray family of Cambridge, New
Zealand. From its grassroots beginnings in 2004, ZURU has grown to become an innovative leader
in the toy industry. ZURU designs, develops, manufactures, distributes, and markets a broad
catalog of children’s toys.
26. The written license agreement between ZURU and Chrome Cherry grants ZURU
an exclusive license to defend and enforce the intellectual property rights licensed to ZURU,
including patent rights, in the Nimuno Loops product.
27. Following execution of the license agreement, ZURU immediately began heavily
investing in the development, production, and marketing of the Nimuno Loops product, which
ZURU currently sells under the name “Mayka Toy Block Tape” (“Mayka Tape”). See
http://www.maykaworld.com/.
28. In addition, on March 30, 2017, Application No. 29/599,042 for a design patent
relating to the ornamental design of a toy building block tape was filed with the USPTO.
5
29. To date, ZURU has invested millions of U.S. dollars in marketing for the Mayka
Tape product and in production and facilities to expand product output.
30. ZURU’s Mayka Tape is the recipient of numerous industry awards, including the
2016 National Parenting Product Award, the 2017 Hot Diggity Award, the Oppenheim Toy
Portfolio Best Toy Award Gold Seal, the Parent’s Choice Foundation Parent’s Choice
Recommended commendation, a Highly Commended award in the 2017 Rainbow Toy Awards,
and a Finalist award in the 2018 Toy of the Year Awards.
31. As described below, Ontel has engaged in a scheme to deliberately copy the
extremely successful Mayka Tape product.
32. Ontel distributes and sells its products to retail stores across the country. Ontel’s
products are typically sold in the “As Seen On TV” sections in retail stores.
33. Ontel, which is run by CEO Ashok Khubani, is no stranger to litigation, as Ontel
has routinely been accused of intellectual property misappropriation.
34. As alleged in multiple other lawsuits against Ontel, Ontel’s business model
involves identifying popular products invented by others and then using inexpensive overseas
manufacturing and inferior materials to create low-priced knock-offs, in violation of the
intellectual property rights of others.
35. These practices have earned Ontel a disreputable name in the consumer goods
industry. In fact, in 2014, the Consumer Product Safety Commission issued a recall of Ontel’s
Isometric exercise devices.
36. Ontel was quick to rush to market with a knock-off of the highly popular Mayka
Tape product.
6
37. Immediately after the Inventors launched their successful March 2017 Indiegogo
campaign for Nimuno Loops, Ontel deliberately copied that unique product. And one month later
in April 2017, Ontel began offering for preorder its “Build Bonanza” product, a knock-off that
looks virtually identical to the Nimuno Loops/Mayka Tape product. Ontel’s Build Bonanza
product also functions in the exact same manner as ZURU’s Mayka Tape product. See
https://www.buildbonanza.com.
38. Ontel has never obtained a license from either ZURU or Chrome Cherry to
manufacture, market, or sell the Build Bonanza copy-cat product. Rather, Ontel simply chose to
knock off ZURU’s and Chrome Cherry’s successful product.
39. Below is a side-by-side comparison of ZURU’s Mayka Tape product and Ontel’s
Build Bonanza product:
Mayka Tape Build Bonanza
7
40. Ontel has not obtained permission from ZURU to use the designs in the asserted
design patent. By way of example only, as the side-by-side comparisons shown below reveal,
Ontel has misappropriated ZURU’s patented toy block tape design in the accused Build Bonanza
product.
’317 Patent Accused Build Bonanza
8
9
COUNT I
INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’317 PATENT
41. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs of this
complaint as if fully set forth herein.
42. Plaintiff is the exclusive licensee of the entire right, title, and interest in the ’317
Patent.
43. Ontel has infringed and continues to infringe the ’317 Patent by manufacturing,
using, importing, distributing, offering to sell, and/or selling in the United States the Build
Bonanza product, which embodies the design covered by the ’317 Patent. Ontel’s infringing
activities violate 35 U.S.C. § 271.
44. Ontel has had knowledge of the ’317 Patent at least as early as the date of service
of this complaint.
45. Ontel’s continued infringement of the ’317 Patent is willful.
10
46. Plaintiff is, and will continue to be, damaged and irreparably harmed by Ontel’s
infringement, which will continue unless Ontel is enjoined by this Court.
REQUEST FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests the following relief against Defendant:
A. A judgment holding Ontel liable for infringement of the ’317 Patent.
B. A temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and permanent injunction
against Defendant, its officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, parent and subsidiary
corporations, assigns and successors in interest, and those persons in active concert or participation
with them, enjoining them from continued acts of infringement of the ’317 Patent, including
without limitation, an injunction against offers for sale and future sales of the infringing product
or any colorable imitation thereof;
C. A judgment that the ’317 Patent is duly and legally issued, valid, and enforceable;
D. An accounting for damages and an award of damages adequate to compensate for
Ontel’s infringement of the ’317 Patent, and in no event less than a reasonable royalty for Ontel’s
acts of infringement, including all pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate
permitted by law;
E. Restitutionary relief against Ontel in favor of Plaintiff, including disgorgement of
wrongfully obtained profits pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 289 and any other appropriate relief;
F. A judgment holding that Defendant’s infringement of the ’317 Patent is willful and
a trebling of damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284;
G. A judgment holding that this action is an exceptional case and an award to Plaintiff
for its attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 and other authority;
H. A judgment that Plaintiff be awarded its costs incurred herein; and
11
I. Such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38, Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury.
Dated: March 20, 2018 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Eric H. Findlay

Eric H. Findlay
Texas State Bar No. 00789886
Debby Gunter
Texas State Bar No. 24012752
Findlay Craft, P.C.
102 N. College Ave, Ste. 900
Tyler, TX 75702
903-534-1100 (t)
903-534-1137 (f)
efindlay@findlaycraft.com
dgunter@findlaycraft.com
Thomas M. Dunlap (Admitted E.D. Tex./VA Bar

No. 44016)
David Ludwig (Admitted E.D. Tex./VA Bar No.
73157)
Eric Olavson (Admitted E.D. Tex./VA
Bar No. 87872)
Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig PLLC
211 Church Street, SE
Leesburg, Virginia 20175
(703) 777-7319 (t)
(703) 777-3656 (f)
tdunlap@dbllawyers.com
dludwig@dbllawyers.com
eolavson@dbllawyers.com
Cortland C. Putbrese (Admitted E.D. Tex./ VA Bar

No. 46419)
8003 Franklin Farms Drive
Suite 220
Richmond, Virginia 23229
(804) 977-2688 (t)
12
(804) 977-2680 (f)

cputbrese@dbllawyers.com
Jeff Ahdoot (admitted pro hac vice)

1717 Pennsylvania Avenue
Suite 1025
Washington, DC 20006
(202) 316-8558 (t)
(703) 777-3656 (f)
jahdoot@dbllawyers.com
Brian M. Koide
Admitted E.D. Tex/VA Bar No. 46,329
Kevin T. Streit
Admitted E.D. Tex/VA Bar No. 45024
8300 Boone Blvd #550
Vienna, VA 22182
703-442-3890 (t)
703-777-3656 (f)
bkoide@dbllawyers.com
kstreit@dbllawyers.com
Counsel for Plaintiff ZURU Inc.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on March 20, 2018, I electronically filed the foregoing document with
the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system. This document will be served on Defendant in
accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
/s/ Eric H. Findlay

Eric H. Findlay
13
Case 6:18-cv-00132 Document 1-1 Filed 03/20/18 Page 1 of 37 PageID #: 14
EXHIBIT A
JS 44 (Rev. 06/17) 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

ZURU Inc. Ontel Products Corporation
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff China County of Residence of First Listed Defendant Essex County, NJ
(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)
Eric H. Findlay, Findlay Craft, P.C.
102 N. College Ave., Suite 900, Tyler, TX 75702
903/534-1100
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) Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
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 ’ 835 Patent - Abbreviated ’ 460 Deportation
Student Loans ’ 340 Marine Injury Product New Drug Application ’ 470 Racketeer Influenced and
(Excludes Veterans) ’ 345 Marine Product Liability ’ 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations
’ 153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY ’ 480 Consumer Credit
of Veteran’s Benefits ’ 350 Motor Vehicle ’ 370 Other Fraud ’ 710 Fair Labor Standards ’ 861 HIA (1395ff) ’ 490 Cable/Sat TV
’ 160 Stockholders’ Suits ’ 355 Motor Vehicle ’ 371 Truth in Lending Act ’ 862 Black Lung (923) ’ 850 Securities/Commodities/
’ 190 Other Contract Product Liability ’ 380 Other Personal ’ 720 Labor/Management ’ 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) Exchange
’ 195 Contract Product Liability ’ 360 Other Personal Property Damage Relations ’ 864 SSID Title XVI ’ 890 Other Statutory Actions
’ 196 Franchise Injury ’ 385 Property Damage ’ 740 Railway Labor Act ’ 865 RSI (405(g)) ’ 891 Agricultural Acts
’ 362 Personal Injury - Product Liability ’ 751 Family and Medical ’ 893 Environmental Matters
Medical Malpractice Leave Act ’ 895 Freedom of Information
REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS ’ 790 Other Labor Litigation FEDERAL TAX SUITS Act
’ 210 Land Condemnation ’ 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: ’ 791 Employee Retirement ’ 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff ’ 896 Arbitration
’ 220 Foreclosure ’ 441 Voting ’ 463 Alien Detainee Income Security Act 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 ’ 8 Multidistrict
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District Litigation - Litigation -
(specify) Transfer Direct File
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
35 U.S.C. § 271
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:
Patent Infringement
VII. REQUESTED IN ’ CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, 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
03/20/2018 /s/ Eric H. Findlay
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE
Print Save As... Reset

JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 06/17)
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 there are multiple nature of suit codes associated with the case, pick the nature of suit code
that is most applicable. Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
V. Origin. Place an "X" in one of the seven 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 – Transfer. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C.
Section 1407.
Multidistrict Litigation – Direct File. (8) Check this box when a multidistrict case is filed in the same district as the Master MDL docket.
PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE IS NOT AN ORIGIN CODE 7. Origin Code 7 was used for historical records and is no longer relevant due to
changes in statue.
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.

ZURU v. Ontel Prods - Complaint

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

ZURU v. Ontel Prods - Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 6:18-cv-00132 Document 1 Filed 03/20/18 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

NATURE OF THE ACTION

infringing product, as well as monetary damages and related remedies.

Ashok “Chuck” Khubani is the founder and CEO of Ontel.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

statutes, 35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq.

§§ 1331 and 1338(a).

retail stores in this District.

Patent is attached as Exhibit A.

“Mayka Toy Block Tape.

product designers at Chrome Cherry.

the classic buildable block toy.

bicycle sold as the “YBike.”

bendable, waterproof, and reuseable.

Facebook page on February 9, 2017.

Inventors turned to internet crowdfunding.

18. On March 7, 2017, the Inventors launched a campaign on the crowdfunding

platform, Indiegogo.com. See https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nimuno-loops-the-original-

and in less than a week, it secured over $1 million in contributions.

20. By April 12, 2017, the campaign was 20,050% funded.

21. To date, the Indiegogo campaign has raised $1,647,988.

product that opens up an entirely new universe.”

Nimuno Loops product.

catalog of children’s toys.

including patent rights, in the Nimuno Loops product.

Tape product and in production and facilities to expand product output.

and a Finalist award in the 2018 Toy of the Year Awards.

extremely successful Mayka Tape product.

has routinely been accused of intellectual property misappropriation.

manufacturing and inferior materials to create low-priced knock-offs, in violation of the

intellectual property rights of others.

Isometric exercise devices.

knock off ZURU’s and Chrome Cherry’s successful product.

Build Bonanza product:

Mayka Tape Build Bonanza

’317 Patent Accused Build Bonanza

’317 Patent Accused Build Bonanza

’317 Patent Accused Build Bonanza

complaint as if fully set forth herein.

activities violate 35 U.S.C. § 271.

45. Ontel’s continued infringement of the ’317 Patent is willful.

infringement, which will continue unless Ontel is enjoined by this Court.

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests the following relief against Defendant:

A. A judgment holding Ontel liable for infringement of the ’317 Patent.

B. A temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and permanent injunction

or any colorable imitation thereof;

D. An accounting for damages and an award of damages adequate to compensate for

E. Restitutionary relief against Ontel in favor of Plaintiff, including disgorgement of

a trebling of damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284;

H. A judgment that Plaintiff be awarded its costs incurred herein; and

I. Such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Dated: March 20, 2018 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Eric H. Findlay

Thomas M. Dunlap (Admitted E.D. Tex./VA Bar

Cortland C. Putbrese (Admitted E.D. Tex./ VA Bar

(804) 977-2680 (f)

Jeff Ahdoot (admitted pro hac vice)

Counsel for Plaintiff ZURU Inc.

accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

/s/ Eric H. Findlay