Xstatic v. Hsiao & Montano - Complaint

!
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW
XSTATIC PRO INC., a New York corporation

dba XSTATIC PRO LIGHTING dba PRO X dba
PROX dba PRO X DIRECT dba PROX DIRECT
Tl CV
9890
Case No:
dba PRO X CASES dba PROX CASES,

COMPLAINT
Plaintiff,
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
v.
HSIAO & MONTANO, INC., a California
corporation dba
ODYSSEY INNOVATIVE DESIGNS,
r .1
' !
CO
Defendant.
>-r\
PlaintiffXstatic Pro Inc. dba Xstatic Pro Lighting dba Pro X dba ProXdba Pro X, S
Direct dba ProX Direct dba Pro X Cases dba ProX Cases ("ProX Cases"), for its ~<;
r?
Complaint against Defendant Hsiao & Montano, Inc. dba Odyssey Innovative Designs
("Odyssey"), alleges as follows:
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
v
1.
This is an action for false advertising under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.
1051 et seq., and trade libel, tortious interference with contractual relations and unfair
competition, all pursuant to New York law, by reason of Odyssey's wrongful threats to
ProX Cases' customers concerning alleged patent infringement, leading to loss of
economic opportunity, customers and revenue by ProX Cases. This Court possesses
subject matter jurisdiction over the Lanham Act claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and
1338, and possesses supplemental jurisdiction over the New York state law claims
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367. Alternatively, this Court possesses subject matter

jurisdiction over the New York state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332(a)(1). Each
<
of ProX Cases and Odyssey are citizens of different states, and the amount in controversy
exceeds, $75,000, exclusive of interests and costs.
2.
This Court possesses general personal jurisdiction over Defendant Hsiao
& Montano, Inc. dba Odyssey Innovative Designs ("Odyssey"), pursuant to N.Y.
C.P.L.R. 301, because Odyssey is engaged in such a continuous and systematic course
of "doing business" in New York as to warrant finding it "present" in the jurisdiction. In
addition, this Court possesses personal jurisdiction over Odyssey, pursuant to N.Y.
C.P.L.R. 302(a)(1), because Odyssey transacts business within this state, including in
this judicial district, and contracts to supply goods or services in the state, including in
this judicial district. Without limitation, Odyssey sells and distributes DJ cases and
related products through authorized dealers in New York and throughout the United
States. This Court also possesses personal jurisdiction over Odyssey, pursuant to N.Y.
C.P.L.R. 302(a)(2) and/or (3), as Odyssey's tortious acts enumerated herein have been
committed in the State of New York, or have been committed outside of New York but
caused injury to person or property within the State of New York. That is, the result of
Odyssey's tortious acts has caused injury to plaintiff ProX Cases in New York.
3.
Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. Sections 1391(a) and (b)
and 1400(a), since Odyssey resides or may be found in this District and a substantial
portion of the misconduct by Odyssey here alleged occurred in this District.
THE PARTIES
4.
PlaintiffXstatic Pro Inc. dba Xstatic Pro Lighting dba Pro X dba ProX dba
Pro X Direct dba ProX Direct dba Pro X Cases dba ProX Cases ("ProX Cases") is a New
York corporation having a place of business at 901 Essex St, Brooklyn, New York
11208.
5.
ProX Cases is a manufacturer and distributor of DJ cases and related DJ
equipment. ProX Cases displays its products at trade shows, and distributes its products
via a network of customers/retailers.
6.
Defendant Hsiao & Montano, Inc. dba Odyssey Innovative Designs
("Odyssey") is a California corporation with a business address at 809 W. Santa Anita

St., San Gabriel, California 91776.
7.
Odyssey manufactures and distributes DJ cases and related DJ products in
direct competition with ProX Cases. Odyssey distributes its DJ cases and related products
through authorized dealers located throughout the United States, including in New York.
FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS
8.
Odyssey claims to be the owner by assignment of United States Patent No.
7,614,521 ("the '521 patent).
9.
Odyssey also claims to be the owner by assignment of United States
Design Patent No. D643,213 ("the '213 design patent").

10.
Odyssey has asserted to various entities, including ProX Cases and its
customers/retailers, that certain of ProX Cases' products infringe one or more claims of
the '521 patent and/or the '213 design patent.
11.
In particular, Odyssey caused the removal of all of ProX Cases' products
from the DJ Expo 2012 trade show in August 2012 in Atlantic City, New Jersey by
communicating its false allegations of patent infringement of the '521 patent and/or the
'213 design patent to DJ Expo 2012 personnel who subsequently expelled ProX Cases
from the trade show.
12.
Even before the removal of all of ProX Cases' products, Odyssey's false
allegations of patent infringement forced ProX Cases to use the time it would have spent
answering customer questions about its products, instead fending off Odyssey's false
allegations. The result of all thisOdyssey's false allegations and ProX Cases having to
address themresulted in a bad impression of ProX Cases among show attendees.
13.
In addition, Odyssey contacted certain ProX Cases' customers/retailers
advising them that certain of ProX Cases' products infringe the '521 patent and/or the
'213 design patent, thereby causing those ProX Cases' customers/retailers to cease
purchasing and/or offering for sale ProX Cases' products.
14.
Odyssey not only disparaged ProX Cases' products but also threatened
ProX Cases' customers/retailers with infringement actions if those ProX Cases'
customers/retailers sold ProX Cases' allegedly infringing products and even refused to
provide Odyssey products to those ProX Cases' customers/retailers for sale to end users
if those ProX Cases' customers/retailers were also stocking or advertising ProX Cases'
products.
15.
By letter dated December 18, 2012, counsel for ProX Cases provided
counsel for Odyssey with a detailed non-infringement analysis for the '521 patent, clearly
showing that ProX Cases' products do not infringe any claim of the '521 patent, either
literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. (A copy of the December 18, 2012 letter is
attached as Exhibit A).
16.
By letter dated July 9, 2013, in response to a February 3, 2013 letter from
Odyssey's counsel to ProX Cases, counsel for ProX Cases provided counsel for Odyssey
with a non-infringement analysis for the '213 design patent, clearly showing that the
accused ProX Cases' products do not infringe the '213 design patent. Counsel for ProX
Cases also provided an invalidity analysis for the '213 design patent, clearly showing that
the '213 design patent is invalid as anticipated by or obvious over prior art designs. (A
copy of the July 9, 2013 letter is attached as Exhibit B).
17.
Moreover, no good faith analysis could have provided Odyssey a basis for
believing that ProX Cases' products infringe the '521 or '213 patents.
18.
Certainly, after seeing ProX Cases' non-infringement analysis, Odyssey
could not have a good faith belief that ProX Cases' products infringe any claim of the
'521 patent.
19.
Certainly, after seeing ProX Cases' non-infringement and invalidity
analyses, Odyssey could not have a good faith belief that ProX Cases' products infringe
the '213 design patent.
20.
Indeed, in light of the extent of ProX Cases' non-infringement positions as
set forth in the December 18, 2012 and July 9, 2013 letters, respectively, no reasonable
reading of the '521 patent and the '213 design patent could lead one to believe that ProX
Cases' products infringed either of Odyssey's patents.
21.
Importantly, at no point did Odyssey or its counsel respond to either the
December 18, 2012 letter or the July 9, 2013 letter. That is, neither Odyssey nor its
counsel ever attempted to refute ProX Cases' proof of patentnon-infringement and (in
the case of the '213 design patent) invalidity.
22.
Both before and subsequent to the December 18, 2012 and July 9, 2013
letters, Odyssey threatened ProX Cases' customer/retailers that Odyssey would not allow
those customers/retailers to stock Odyssey's products if they continued to sell ProX
Cases' products, which Odyssey continues to assert infringe the '521 patent and/or the
'213 design patent.
23.
In addition, at least one customer/retailer of ProX Cases was "cut off' by
Odyssey for refusing to comply with Odyssey's demand to stop selling ProX Cases
products.
24.
On July 8, 2013, after Odyssey had been provided with the December
2012 non-infringement analysis for the '521 patent, Carlos Gonzalez of Odyssey emailed
one of ProX Cases' customers/retailers, KPODJ, advising it to remove links to three of
ProX Cases' products from its website, saying "I prefer you hearing this from me before
our legal team get involved. Please remove the following links from your website as they
are patent infringement products." When ProX Cases' customer/retailer asked why ProX
Cases' products allegedly infringed Odyssey's (unidentified) patent, Gonzalez (on behalf
of Odyssey) replied, "Anything that has a slide mechanism on their case is a patent
infringement." (Copy of July 8, 2013 email string at Exhibit C).
25.
As set forth in the December 2012 non-infringement analysis, the presence
of a slide mechanism, alone, in the claims of the '521 patent the only one of the
Odyssey patents claiming anything relating to a "slide mechanism" is insufficient to
give rise to a claim for patent infringement.
26.
As set forth in the December 2012 analysis, and as shown in the claims of
the '521 patent itself (copy at Exhibit D), independent claim 1 of the '521 patent requires,
inter alia:
"a slider member channel assembly.. .having at least one safety stop hole
positioned nearest to the terminal end of the upper slider member channel
therein, said hole disposed below and opposing said continuous flange..."
(Exhibit D, col. 6, lines 7-11).
27.
Independent claim 23 of the '521 patent includes the steps of, inter alia:
"providing a lower box having a lower slider member channel fastened to

each upper side edge thereof, said member having a continuous flange
projecting therefrom and a recessed hole positioned therein, said spring
loaded metal ball extending there-through said lower slider member
channel in stationary and transitional positions, a stop hole positioned
therein near the extreme end of said member, said cantilever spring lever
extending there-through said slider member channel when in use;" and
"providing an upper platform contained within the enclosure box having

an upper slider member channel fastened to side thereof, said upper slider
member channel having a continuous web channel projecting downward
therefrom and a stop hole positioned therein, said spring loaded metal ball
frictionally engaged with said upper slider member channel when in
stationary and transitional positions". (Exhibit D, col. 8, lines 27-43).
28.
However, as set forth in the December 2012 non-infringement analysis,
ProX Cases' products do not infringe claim 1 of the '521 patent because:
"while [ProX Cases'] Products may arguably be said to have a slider
member channel assembly comprising at least a first or upper slider
member channel and a second or lower slider member channel which
telescopically slides in the lower slider member channel in a longitudinal

axial direction, there can be no dispute that [ProX Cases'] Products lack
"at least one safety stop hole positioned nearest to the terminal end of the
upper slider member channel therein, said hole disposed below and
opposing said continuous flange". As clearly seen in attached Exhibits A
and B, [ProX Cases'] Products do not have any such safety stop holes
disposed in an upper slider member." (Exhibit A at p. 3).
29.
Likewise, as set forth in the December 2012 analysis, ProX Cases'
products do not infringe claim 23 of the '521 patent because:
[w]hile [ProX Cases'] Products may arguably be said to have lower and
upper slider member channels, there can be no dispute that [ProX Cases']
Products lack a "spring loaded metal ball" extending through the lower
slider member channel, "a stop hole positioned" in the lower slider
member channel, a "cantilever spring lever" extending through the lower
slidermember channel", and "a stop hole positioned" in the upper slider
member channel. As clearly seen in attached Exhibits A and B, [ProX
Cases'] do not have any such features in their lower or upper slider
member channels.
"Further, the purpose of these structures, as described in the '521 patent, is

to lock the upper platform to the lower box and to provide stop positions
of the upper platform relative to the lower box. However, none of [ProX
Cases'] Products have any such stop positions or any such means of
locking the upper platform relative to the lower box. In fact, in [ProX
Cases'] Products, the upper platform is not locked relative to the lower
box. Since each of the Accused Products is missing an identical or

equivalent part or step to even one requirement of one of the independent
claims of the '521 patent, none of [ProX Cases'] Products can infringe
such claims underthe doctrine of equivalents. See, e.g., Kustom Signals
Inc. v. Applied Concepts, Inc., 264 F.3d 1326, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ("No
claimed [limitation], or an equivalent thereof, can be absent if the doctrine
of equivalents is invoked.")." (Exhibit A at p. 4).
30.
Accordingly, when Odyssey's representative contacted ProX Cases'
customer/retailer on July 8, 2013, Odyssey could not have had a good faith beliefthat
ProX Cases' products infringe any claim of the '521 patent.
31.
In fact, as set forth above, in light of ProX Cases' extensive non
infringement analysis, no reasonable reading of the '521 patent at any time could have
led to the conclusion that any of ProX Cases' products infringe one or more of the
patent's claims.
32.
As set forth above, Odyssey has made the sale of its products conditional
onthe buyer ProX Cases' customers/retailers not dealing in the goods of Odyssey's
competitor, specifically ProX Cases.
33.
In addition, on information and belief, Odyssey has also told its own
customers/retailers that it owns one or more patents allegedly covering its own, as well as
8
ProX Cases', products. As a result, Odyssey's customers have refused to market and sell
ProX Cases' products, resulting in the loss ofseveral potential new customers/retailers by
ProX Cases.
34.
Odyssey's requirement has the effect of substantially lessening
competition in the relevant market.
35.
ProX Cases is injured in its business as a result of the Odyssey's anti
competitive actions.
36.
Importantly, although Odyssey has spent considerable time and expense
telling ProX Cases' customers/retailers, and others, that certain of ProX Cases' products
infringe Odyssey's patents, and although on August 11, 2014 Odyssey commenced an
action in Federal court against ProX Cases for, inter alia, trademark infringement,
Odyssey has never sued ProX Cases for patent infringement.
37.
Odyssey's actions above alleged, interfering with ProX Cases' business
relationships with its customers/retailers, were solely outof malice or through dishonest,
unfair, or improper means, causing injury to those business relationships.
38.
Odyssey's improper activities have directly and proximately caused harm
to ProX Cases.
39.
Odyssey's improper activities are likely to continue unless and until
enjoined by this Court.
COUNT I
(VIOLATION OF SECTION 43(a) OF THE LANHAM ACT, 15U.S.C. 1125(a))

(FALSE ADVERTISING)
40.
ProX Cases repeats and realleges each allegation set forth above in
Paragraphs 1-39 as though fully set forth herein.
41.
This claim arises under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq.
42.
In light of the foregoing, Odyssey's statements to ProX Cases'
customers/retailers and others, that certain of ProX Cases' products infringe Odyssey's
patents, constitute a false or misleading description of fact or a false or misleading
representation of fact about ProX Cases' products.
43.
Odyssey's false or misleading descriptions or representations of fact were
made in commercial advertising or promotion, including to ProX Cases'
customers/retailers as well as to persons involved with the DJ Expo 2012. Odyssey's

false or misleading descriptions or representations of fact, namely, that certain of ProX
Cases' products infringe Odyssey's patents, misrepresent the nature, characteristics and
qualities of ProX Cases' goods and commercial activities.
44.
Odyssey's statements relating to patent infringement were literally false.
45.
In addition, Odyssey's statements actually deceived or hadthe tendency to
deceive a substantial segment of their intended audience, namely, ProX Cases'

customers/retailers.
46.
Odyssey's deception was material, in that it was likelyto influence the
purchasing decision, including specifically whether to continue to purchase and/or offer

for sale ProX Cases' products.
47.
Odyssey caused the false statements to enter interstate commerce.
10
48.
ProX Cases has been and continues to be damaged as a result of
Odyssey's false statements, including at least by a lessening of the goodwill associated

with ProX Cases' products.
COUNT II
(TRADE LIBEL)
49.

50.
This claim arises under the common law of the State of New York.
51.
As set forth above, Odyssey published statements, namely,
communications with specific customers/retailers of ProX Cases, that certain products of
ProX Cases infringe one or more claims of the '521 patent and/or the '213 design patent.
52.
Odyssey's statements tended to disparage the ProX Cases products,
namely, that they allegedly infringe one or more of Odyssey's patents.
53.
Odyssey's allegations of infringement were provably false.
54.
In making the statements to ProX Cases' customers/retailers, Odyssey
acted with malice, with knowledge that the statement of alleged infringement was false or
with reckless disregard for its falsity.
55.
Odyssey's malicious, false allegations of infringement were knowingly
published to ProX Cases' customers, were derogatory to ProX Cases' business, and were
of a kind calculated to prevent others namely, ProX Cases' customers/retailers
from selling and marketing ProX Cases or otherwise interfering with ProX Cases'
relations with others, to ProX Cases' detriment.
11
56.
As a direct result of Odyssey's false statements, ProX Cases
customer/retailers ceased selling and marketing ProX Cases' products, and ProX Cases
suffered damages.
COUNT III
(TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS)

57.

58.
59.
A valid contract existed between ProX Cases and the proprietors of the DJ
Expo 2012 trade show ("DJ Expo 2012") in August 2012 in Atlantic City, New Jersey.
60.
Odyssey had actual or constructive knowledge of this contract.
61.
Odyssey acted intentionally with the design to induce a breach of ProX
Cases' contract with DJ Expo 2012, without justification.

62.
ProX Cases' contract with DJ Expo 2012 was breached as a result of
Odyssey's improper acts. Namely, DJ Expo 2012 evicted ProX Cases from the trade
show because of Odyssey's false patent infringement claims.
63.
ProX Cases' contract with DJ Expo 2012 would have otherwise been
performed except for the wrongful intentional acts of Odyssey, which were the direct and
proximate cause of the breach.
64.
As a result of Odyssey's wrongful conduct, ProX Cases lost the
opportunity to show and promote its products, to form business relationship and to obtain
orders for its products at the DJ Expo 2012 trade show.
12
65.
Odyssey's intentional improper acts were the direct and proximate cause
of damage to ProX Cases in an amount to be determined at trial.
COUNT IV
(COMMON LAW UNFAIR COMPETITION)
66.

67.
68.
Odyssey knowingly made false allegations of patent infringement to ProX
Cases' customer/retailers with malice and with the intent to cause ProX Cases to be
harmed by loss of sales and revenues and by preventing ProX Cases from securing orders
for the sale of its products.
69.
Odyssey intended to profit at ProX Cases' expense by reducing
competition in the market place for DJ equipment by making false allegations of patent
infringement and causing ProX Cases to lose sales.
70.
Odyssey's acts were committed in bad faith.
71.
Odyssey's intentional improper acts were the direct and proximate cause
of damage to ProX Cases in an amount to be determined at trial.
JURY TRIAL DEMAND
1.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38, ProX Cases hereby demands a trial
by jury of all issues so triable in this matter.
13
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Xstatic Pro Inc. dba Xstatic Pro Lighting dba Pro X dba
ProX dba Pro X Direct dba ProX Direct dba Pro X Cases dba ProX Cases ("ProX Cases")
requests that this Court enter judgment in their favor and providing the following relief:
A.
Entry of a permanent injunction against Odyssey and anyone working in

concert with Odyssey from contacting, writing, e-mailing, advising or
otherwise contacting any customer or retailer of ProX Cases', whether
electronically or otherwise, alleging that any of ProX Cases' products

infringe either the '521 patent or the '213 design patent;
B.

otherwise contacting any trade showrepresentative demanding that ProX
Cases' products be removed from display on the basis that ProX Cases'
products infringe either the '521 patent or the '213 design patent;
C.

otherwise contacting any customer or retailer of ProX Cases', whether
electronically or otherwise, and refusing to allow such customer or retailer
to stock Odyssey'sproducts unless suchcustomer or retailer stops

stocking ProX Cases' products;
D.
An award to ProX Cases of all damages incurred in connection with
Odyssey's unfair competition/false advertising under the Lanham Act;
14
E.

Odyssey's trade libel;
F.
Odyssey's tortious interference with contractual relations;

G.
Odyssey's unfair competition under New York law;

H.
A finding that this is an exceptional case under 15 U.S.C. 1117, and

awarding ProX Cases its attorney's fees as the prevailing party;
I.
An award of ProX Cases' full costs, including litigation expenses, expert
witness fees, interest, and any other amounts authorized by law, and
attorneys' fees incurred in connection with this lawsuit;

J.
An award of punitive and/or exemplary damages and any other relief

authorized by law; and
K.
Such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
Dated: November 25, 2014
Respectfully submitted:
XSTATIC PRO INC.,
By its attorney;
Veronica Mullally Mufioz (MM-9985)

Clyde A. Shuman (CS-6351)
PEARL COHEN ZEDEK LATZER BARATZ LLP
1500 Broadway, 12th Floor

New York, New York 10036
(646) 878-0800
15
(646) 878-0801 fax

vmunoz@pearlcohen,com
cshuman@pearlcohen.com
16
EXHIBIT A
mS PEARL COHEN ZEDEK LATZER llp

NEW YORK
BOSTON
December 18, 2012
VIA E-MAIL: cchwu@wclawyers.com

COPY VIA FACSIMILE TO (949) 251-1588
Charles C.H. Wu, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF WU & CHEUNG, LLP
98 Discovery
Irvine, CA 92618-3105
Re:
Alleged Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,614,521; Demand to Cease and Desist;
Our ref. 700716-25-01
Dear Mr. Wu:
This firm represents XSTATIC PRO, INC. dba PRO X CASES (hereinafter, "XSTATIC"). We
write in response to your letter of July 18, 2012 to XSTATIC asserting infringement of U.S. Patent
No. 7,614,521 (hereinafter, "the '521 patent") by various of XSTATIC's products (hereinafter, "the
Accused Products").
For the reasons set forth below, there is no genuine, good faith basis for you or your client, Odyssey
Innovative Designs (hereinafter, "Odyssey") to assert that any of the Accused Products infringes any
claim of the '521 patent. Moreover, as explained below, any further efforts by you or Odyssey to
prevent XSTATIC from displaying its products (includingwithout limitation, the Accused Products)
at trade shows, and any further interference with XSTATIC's customer relations, will result in
litigation, with XSTATIC seeking any and all remedies available to it in law and in equity.
I.
Non-Infringement Analysis
In your letter of July 18, 2012, you allege that all of the Accused Products, which comprise a list of
forty-eight (48) products, incorporate a sliding top shelf or panel for a laptop that is covered under
the claims of Odyssey's '521 patent.
However, there is no genuine dispute that the Accused Products do not infringe any independent
claim of the '521 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. As set forth below,
none of the Accused Products literally includes each and every element or method step in that patent
claim. See, e.g., Frank's Casing Crew <& Rental Tools, Inc. v. Weatherford Int'l, Inc., 389 F.3d 1370, 1378
(Fed. Cir. 2004) (citation omitted) ("Literal infringement requires that each and every limitation set
forth in a claim appear in an accused product.").
The '521 patent includes 23 claims, of which claims 1 and 23 are independent. Claims 1 and 23
recite:
1.
A platform and multiple box combination case and multiple box combination
case for housing audio and electronic equipments in stationary and transitional
modes, said platform having a forward and rearward aspect and comprising:
a lower box having an open top and side edge defining a border of said top on
each of two side surfaces, said box containing at least one audio or electronic device;
1500 Broadway, New York, NY 10036, Tel 646.878.0800, Fax 646.878.0801

www.pczlaw.com
PEARL COHEN ZEDEK LATZER llp

NFW YORK
BOSTON
December 6, 2012
Page 2
at least one upper platform having a bottom surface and a side edge defining a
border of said bottom surface on each of two side surfaces of said upper platform,
said upper platform containing at least one electronic or accessory device capable of
operating with said lower box device;
an upper box having an open bottom and side edge defining a border of said
bottom on each of two side surfaces, said box contains a concave space for housing
at least one audio or electronic device when in a closed position;
a slider member channel assembly comprising at least a first or upper shder

member channel and second or lower slider member channel which telescopically
slides in the lower slider member channel in a longitudinal axial direction which the
upper slider member channel includes a center span or web and the lower slider
member channel includes an outwardly projecting angled flange being formed along
and in an acute angle relationship with an upper rim thereof, and having at least one
safety stop hole positioned nearest to the terminal end of the upper slider member
channel therein, said hole disposed below and opposing said continuous flange;
wherein the upper platforms is held securely together with the lower box as a result
of the upper slider member of the slider member channel assembly being fastened to
the upper platform and the lower slider member of the slider member channel
assembly being fastened to the lower box, and the upper slider member and the
lower slider member being engaged with each other while the upper platform is in
the stationary or transitional mode; and
at least one latch fastened adjacent to each said upper box side edge and
extending downward to releasably engage a respective one of said lower box latch
receptacles.
23.
For platform and box combination case having an upper and lower boxes
with an upper platform, said case housing audio and electronic equipments, a method
for providing in said case variably adjustable upper platform for the placement of
additional gears or electronic devices without occupying additional space than in the
typicalDJ boxes, said method comprising the steps of:
providing a lower box having an open top and side edge defining a border of said
top of each of two side surfaces, said box containing at least one audio equipment
device;
providing at least one upper platform having a bottom surface and a side edge
defining a border of said bottom surface on each of two side surfaces of said upper
platform, said upper platform containing at least one electronic device capable of
operating with said lower box device;
providing an upper box having an open bottom and side edge defining a border
of said bottom on each of two side surfaces, said box contains a concave space for
housing at least one electronic device when in a closed position;

NEW YORK - BOSTON
December 6, 2012
Page 3
providing at least one latch fastened adjacent to each said upper box side edge
and extending downward to releasably engage a respective one of said lower box
latch receptacles;
providing a lower box having a lower shder member channel fastened to each
upper side edge thereof, said member having a continuous flange projecting
therefrom and a recessed hole positioned therein, said spring loaded metal ball
extending there-through said lower slider member channel in stationary and
transitional positions, a stop hole positioned therein near the extreme end of said
member, said cantilever spring lever extending there-through said slider member
channel when in use;
providing an upper platform contained within the enclosure box having an upper
slider member channel fastened to side thereof, said upper slider member channel
having a continuous web channel projecting downward therefrom and a stop hole
positioned therein, said spring loaded metal ball frictionally engaged with said upper
slider member channel when in stationary and transitional positions;
means for shifting said upper platform along said lower box in a rearward or
forward direction in a continuously variable path within a limit of travel determined
by said safety cantilever spring stop member until said audio or electronic equipment
in said lower box is exposed to the satisfaction of said operator and simultaneously
allow the placement of computers or other accessories on the upper platform to
constitute an operating mode position; and
means for frictionally engaging said upper and lower slider member channels,
thereby securing said upper platform in said operating position.
Each of the Accused Products does not infringe claim 1 of the '521 patent because it does not
include "at least one safety stop hole positioned nearest to the terminal end of the upper slider
member channel therein, said hole disposed below and opposing said continuous flange". This
safety stop hole feature is described in the '521 patent at column 5, lines 8-16 and shown in Figs 8
and 9.
Attached as Exhibits Aand Bare photographs ofthe container bottom sliding attachment assembly
and container top sliding attachment assembly, respectively, of one of the Accused Products, which
are representative of those same structures in all of the Accused Products.
Specifically, while the Accused Products may arguably be said to have a slider member channel
assembly comprising at least a first or upper slider member channel and a second or lower slider
member channel which telescopically slides in the lower slider member channel in alongitudinal axial
direction, there can be no dispute that the Accused Products lack "at least one safety stop hole
positioned nearest to the terminal end of the upper slider member channel therein, said hole
disposed below and opposing said continuous flange". As clearly seen in attached Exhibits Aand B,
the Accused Products do not have any such safety stop holes disposed in an upper shder member.
Likewise, each ofthe Accused Products does not infringe claim 23 ofthe '521 patent because itdoes
not perform the method steps of:
^, i ^Tiwr tCharles C.H. wu, Esq.

December 6, 2012
NEW YORK - BOSTON
Page 4
"providing a lower box having a lower shder member channel fastened to each upper side
edge thereof, said member having a continuous flange projecting therefrom and a recessed
hole positioned therein, said spring loaded metal ball extending there-through said lower
slider member channel in stationary and transitional positions, a stop hole positioned therein
near the extreme end of said member, said cantilever spring lever extending there-through
said slider member channel when in use;" and
"providing an upper platform contained within the enclosure box having an upper shder
member channel fastened to side thereof, said upper shder member channel having a
continuous web channel projecting downward therefrom and a stop hole positioned therein,
said spring loaded metal ball frictionally engaged with said upper shder member channel
when in stationary and transitional positions".
The spring loaded metal ball, stop hole and cantilever spring lever features of the lower shder
member channel and the stop hole feature of the upper slider member channel, as well as the
interaction between them, are described in the '521 patent at column 3, lines 13-27, at column 4,
lines 36-48 and at column 5, lines 8-32, and are shown in Figs. 8, 9, 10 and 11.
While the Accused Products may arguably be said to have lower and upper slider member channels,
there can be no dispute that the Accused Products lack a "spring loaded metal ball" extending
through the lower slider member channel, "a stop hole positioned" in the lower shder member
channel, a "cantilever springlever" extending through the lower shder member channel", and "a stop
hole positioned" in the upper shder member channel. As clearly seen in attached Exhibits A and B,
the Accused Products do not have any such features in their lower or upper shder member channels.
Further, the purpose of these structures, as described in the '521 patent, is to lock the upper platform
to the lower box and to provide stop positions of the upper platform relative to the lower box.
However, none of the Accused Products have any such stop positions or any such means of locking
the upper platform relative to the lower box. In fact, in the Accused Products, the upper platformis
not locked relative to the lower box. Since each of the Accused Products is missing an identical or
equivalent part or step to even one requirement of one of the independent claims of the '521 patent,
none of the Accused Products can infringe such claims under the doctrine of equivalents. See, e.g.,
Kustom Signals Inc. v. Applied Concepts, Inc., 264 F.3d 1326, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ("No claimed
[limitation], or an equivalent thereof, can be absentif the doctrine of equivalents is invoked.").
Still further, since the Accused Products do not infringe any independent claim, they also do not
infringe any dependent claim. See, e.g., Wolverine World Wide, Inc. v. Nike, Inc., 38 F.3d 1192, 1199
(Fed. Cir. 1994); Wahpeton Canvas Co., Inc. v. Frontier, Inc., 870 F.2d 1546, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
It is clear, based upon your clearly factually-incorrect allegation of infringement, that you have not
actually reviewed a physical sample of any of the Accused Products but rather only viewed them in
XSTATIC's product catalog. Had you actually reviewed a physical sample of any of the Accused
Products, you would immediately have seen the construction as shown in attached Exhibits A and B,
and immediately realized that there is at least one crucial physical hmitation of each of claim of the
'521 patent that is not present in any of the Accused Products, such that there can be no
infringement.
" PEARL COHEN ZEDEK LATZER llp

NEW YORK - BOSTON
December 6, 2012
Page 5
II.
Tortious Interference
We are informed by XSTATIC that Odyssey forced removal of XSTATIC's products from the DJ
Expo 2012 trade show in August 2012 in Atlantic City, New Jersey by communicating its allegations
of infringement of the '521 patent to DJ Expo 2012 personnel. We also are informed that you
and/or Odyssey presently is/are contacting XSTATIC's customers and advising them that
XSTATIC's products infringe the '521 patent, causing them to cease purchasing XSTATIC's
products. While you and Odyssey heretofore arguably may have had a good faith belief that
XSTATIC's products infringed one or more claims of the '521 patent, in hght of the foregoing
infringement analysis, any such good faith belief clearly is overcome, and you no longer have any
such good faith belief.
Accordingly, any further efforts by you and/or Odyssey to prevent XSTATIC from displaying its
products at future trade shows (including widiout limitation, the 2013 NAMM trade show that is
scheduled to take place in Anaheim, California in January 2013), and any further contact with
XSTATIC's actual or prospective customers by you or your client, alleging infringement of the '521
patent by any of its products (including without limitation, the Accused Products), will constitute at
least tortious interference with contractual relations under California law, as well as tortious
interference with business relations and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage
under New York law.
By way of example only, with respect specifically to the second cause of action, any future bad faith,
unwarranted and intentional efforts by you and/or Odyssey to prevent XSTATIC from displaying its
products at any future trade shows, or any direct or indirect contact with XSTATIC's actual
customers to advise them of (non-existent) infringement of the '521 patent, will be deemed to
constitute knowing and intentional interference by Odyssey in a known business relationship of
XSTATIC's, either solely out of malice or through dishonest, unfair, or improper means, causing
injury to the relationship. See, e.g., Carvel Corp. v. Noonan, 350 F.3d 6, 17 (2d Cir. 2003).
Such improper activities by Odyssey clearly will result in harm to XSTATIC and will leave XSTATIC
no choice but to pursue the legal and equitable remedies available to it, in the appropriate United
States District Court.
Please note that XSTATIC would like an amicable resolution to this matter. However, should you
persist in your baseless allegations of infringement, my chent will have no choice but to aggressively
and vigorously defend its position.
Please be advised that nothing in this letter shall constitute a waiver of any of XSTATIC's rights or
remedies to which XSTATIC may be entitled in law and/or equity, including the right to institute
suit for tortious interference.
Sincerely Yours,
iMû^X
Morey B. Wildes
Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer, LLP
Cc:
Vikram M. Reddy, Esq. (vreddy@wclawyers.com)
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B
V
%.
EXHIBIT B

NEW YORK
BOSTON
July 9, 2013
Direct Dial: 646-878-0849
Direct E-mail: MoreyW@pczlaw.com

VIA E-MAIL: cchwu@wclawyers.com
COPY VIA FACSIMILE TO (949) 251-1588
LAW OFFICES OF WU & CHEUNG, LLP
98 Discovery
Irvine, CA 92618-3105
Re:
Alleged Infringement of U.S. Design Patent No. D643,213;

Ourref. 700716-25-01
Dear Mr. Wu:
As you know from myletter of December 18, 2012, we represent XSTATIC PRO, INC. dba PRO X
CASES (hereinafter, "XSTATIC"), and we now write in response to your February 3, 2012 letter to
XSTATIC asserting infringement ofU.S. Design Patent No. D643,213 (hereinafter, "the '213 design
patent") by various ofXSTATIC's products (hereinafter, "the Accused Products").
For the reasons set forth below, there is no genuine, good faith basis for you oryour client, Odyssey
Innovative Designs (hereinafter, "Odyssey") to assert that any of the Accused Products infringes the
'213 design patent. In addition, as set forth below, it is also likely that the '213 design patent is
invalid over the prior art. Moreover, as explained below, any further efforts by you or Odyssey to
prevent XSTATIC from displaying its products (including without limitation, the Accused Products)
at trade shows, and any further interference with XSTATIC's customer relations, will result in
litigation, with XSTATIC seeking any and all remedies available to itin law and in equity.
I.
Non-Infringement of U.S. Design Patent No. D643,213

A. Elements of the Claimed Design
The '213 design patent consists of one claim and seven (7) drawings. The perspective, front and rear
view figures, respectively, are as follows:
1500 Broadway, NewYork, NY 10036, Tel 646.878.0800, Fax 646.878.0801

www.pczlaw.com

Charles C.H. Wru, Esq.
July 9, 2013
Page 2
NEW YORK
BOSTON
During the prosecution of the '213 design patent, the Examiner cited several patents with various
arrangements of edge pieces, corner pieces, screws, locks and handles, and allowed the audio
equipment case design as depicted in the '213 design patent, having the specific arrangement of the
edge pieces, comer pieces, screws, locks and handle, to issue over these references. The patented
audio equipment case includes two locking mechanisms and a handle between them on its front
surface (see Figures 1 and 7), two hinge mechanisms on its back surface (see Figure 2), and
unadorned side surfaces (i.e., no such locking or hinge mechanisms on the side surfaces) (see Figures
5 and 6), and a corner piece on each corner. The locking mechanisms, handle, hinge mechanisms
and corner pieces each show a specific ornamental aspect. That is, the claim of the '213 design
patent does not cover the combination of locking mechanisms, handle, hinge mechanisms and
corner pieces shown in the drawings, but rather is limited to the combination of locking
mechanisms, handle, hinge mechanisms and corner pieces having the specific ornamental features
shown in the drawings.
In addition, by filing replacement drawings as depicted above, the apphcant made clear that an audio
equipment case with a black body and black edge pieces, corner pieces, screws, locks and handles
was claimed.
Therefore, the patented ornamental design of an audio equipment case as claimed in the '213 design
patent requires both the specific arrangement and ornamental design of the edge pieces, corner
pieces, screws, locks and handle on the audio equipment case as shown, as well as a black-on-black
color scheme of the audio equipment case.
B. Non-Infringement Analysis
In your letter of February 3, 2012, you allege that all of the Accused Products, which comprise a list
of thirty (30) of XSTATIC's products, as shown in printouts from XSTATIC's catalog or web site,
incorporate a black-on-black ornamental design that is covered under the claim of Odyssey's '213
design patent. You state that "Odyssey's position is that ProX' manufacture, sale and marketing of
DJ equipment cases with a black on black design ... infringes Odyssey's '213 Patent."
However, we point out that a black-on-black ornamental design is not the only claimed feature of
the '213 design patent. In fact, the '213 design patent also requires the specific ornamental
arrangement of edge pieces, corner pieces, screws, locks and handle on the audio equipment case as
depicted therein, namely two locking mechanisms and a handle on the front surface, a hinge
mechanism on the back surface, a corner piece on each of the eight corners, and unadorned side
surfaces, all with the specifically-depicted ornamental design.
It is understood that the scope of a design patent is limited to its ornamental aspects alone and does
not extend to any functional elements of the claimed article. See, e.g., Richardson v. Stanley Works, Inc.,
597 F.3d 1288 (Fed.Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). In order for the Accused Products to infringe the
design claim of the '213 design patent, an ordinary observer must be deceived as to whether the
PEARL GOHEN ZEDEK LATZER llp

NEW YORK - BOSTON
July 9, 2013
Page 3
Accused Products are the same as the patented design, or the Accused Products must embody the
patented design or any colorable imitation thereof. See, e.g., Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543
F.3d 665, 680 (Fed.Cir. 2008); GorhamMjg. Co. v. White, 81 U.S. 511, 528 (1871). SpecificaUy, each of
these Accused Products must incorporate both a black-on-black surface color design and the specific
ornamental arrangement of edge pieces, corner pieces, screws, locks and handle shown in the '213
design patent, which together would lead an ordinary observer to be deceived as to whether the
Accused Products are the same as the patented design, or embody a colorable imitation thereof.
We have reviewed each of the Accused Products, and have determined that, while most (but not ah)
of the Accused Products have a black-on-black exterior surface color design, none of the Accused
Products has both a black-on-black exterior surface color design and the specific ornamental
arrangement of edge pieces, corner pieces, screws, locks and handle as claimed in the '213 design
patent. In fact, none of the Accused Products has two locking mechanisms and a handle on the
front surface, a hinge mechanism on the back surface, unadorned side surfaces and eight corner
pieces, as depicted in the '213 design patent.
Each of the Accused Products has an ornamental arrangement of edge pieces, corner pieces, screws,
locks and handle that makes that Accused Product appear substantially different from the audio
equipment case claimed in the '213 design patent. Thus, each of the Accused Products is missing an
important aspect of the ornamental design claimed in the '213 design patent and does not appear
similar to the claimed design. As such, an ordinary observer would not be deceived into believing
that the design of any of the Accused Products is the same as the patented design embodied in the
'213 design patent,or a colorable imitation thereof. See Egyptian Goddess, Inc., 543 F.3d at 682-683.
Accordingly, there is no genuine dispute that the Accused Products do not infringe the '213 design
patent.
It is clear, based upon your factually-incorrect allegation of infringement, that you have not actually
reviewed a physical sample of any of the Accused Products but rather only viewed them in
XSTATIC's product catalog or web site. Had you actually reviewed a physical sample of any of the
Accused Products, you would immediately have realized that each has a different arrangement of
ornamental features than claimed in the '213 design patent, such that there can be no infringement.
II.
Invalidity of U.S. Design Patent No. D643,213
Furthermore, during our research concerning the Accused Products, we discovered that XSTATIC
(through its affiliate TOV USA) had been selling an audio equipment case with the exact same
arrangement of ornamental features as claimed in the '213 design patent as far back as 2006.
See, for example, the attached Exhibit A, which shows photocopies of a TOV USA DJ
EQUIPMENT CASES catalog, 2006 edition, showing on pages 4 and 5 audio equipment cases
model nos. T-CD4 (4 Row CD Case) and T-MC (Mixer Case) that have the identical arrangement of
ornamental features as claimed in the '213 design patent, namely two locking mechanisms and a
handle on the front surface, a hinge mechanism on the back surface, a corner piece on each of the
eight corners, and unadorned side surfaces. While this catalog shows these items in a silver-on-black
design, the arrangement of ornamental features is identical to that claimed.
According to 35 U.S.C. 102(a), "A person shall be entitled to a patent unless (1) the claimed
invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise
available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention". The ordinary
m* PEARL COHEN ZEDEK LATZER llp

NEW YORK - BOSTON
July 9, 2013
Page 4
observer test is the sole test for design patent anticipation. Int'I Seaway Trading Corp. v. Walgreens Cop.,
589 F.3d 1233, 1240 (Fed.Cir. 2009).
The portion of the design relating to the arrangement of ornamental features claimed in the '213
design patent was clearly described in the publicly available 2006 edition TOV USA catalog, and thus
on sale, well before the July 28, 2009 filing date of the application for the '213 design patent.
Moreover, XSTATIC is in possession of invoices proving actual sales of the audio equipment cases
model nos. T-CD4 andT-MC in 2006, well before July 28, 2009. Accordingly, at least the portion of
the '213 design relating to the arrangement of ornamental features, if not portion relating to the
black-on-black surface design, was well known before the filing of the '213 design patent application.
Otherwise stated, an ordinary observer, seeing the publicly available 2006 TOV USA catalog and the
claimed design of the '213 design patent, would be deceived into believing that the design embodied
in the '213 design patentis the same as the designs in the TOV USA catalog, or a colorable imitation
thereof. See Egyptian Goddess, Inc., 543 F.3d at 682-683.
Alternatively, the claimed design of the '213 design patent is invahd as obvious over the 2006 TOV
USA catalog designs.
A design patent may be held invahd as "obvious" under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) "if the differences
between the subject mattersought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as
a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary
skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains."
In addressing a claim of obviousness, the ultimate inquiry is whether a claimed design would have
been obvious to a designer of ordinary skill who designs articles of the type involved. Apple, Inc. v.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., 678 F.3d 1314, 1329 (Fed.Cir. 2012). The Federal Circuit has explained
that:
[t]o determine whether "one of ordinary skill would have combined teachings of the
prior art to create the same overall appearance of the same design," the finder of fact
must employ a two-step process. First, "one must find a single reference, 'a
something in existence, the design characteristics of which are basically the same as
the claimed design.' " Second, "other references may be used to modify [the primary
reference] to create a design that has the same overall visual appearance as the
claimed design....[T]he "secondary references may only be used to modify the primary
reference if they are 'so related to the primary reference that the appearance of
certain ornamental features in one would suggest the application of those features to
another.' "
Id. (citations omitted). Once a piece of prior art has been constructed, the determination of invalidity
for "obviousness," like the determination of infringement, "requires application of the ordinary
observer test." A patented design is obvious if the patented design as whole is substantially the same,
or has the same "overall" visual appearance, as the prior art. See Int7 Seaway at 1240.
Here, the 2006 TOV USA catalog constitutes the "single reference, 'a something in existence, the
design characteristics of which are basically the same as the claimed design.' " Given that the sole
difference between the designs depicted in the catalog and the claimed design of the '213 design
patent is the black on black color scheme, it is clear that the claimed design would have been obvious
to a designer of ordinary skill who designs articles of the typeinvolved.
CC
"" PEARL COHEN
ZEDEK LATZER llp
July 9, 2013
Page 5
NEW YORK
BOSTON
Therefore, in view of this prior art, it is highly likely that the Examiner of the application for the '213
design patent would not have allowed that application to issue as a design patent. As such, we
believe that the '213 design patent is invahd over the prior art.
III.
Tortious Interference
We are informed by XSTATIC that Odyssey forced removal of XSTATIC's products from the DJ
Expo 2012 trade show in August 2012 in Atlantic City, New Jersey by communicating its allegations
of infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,614,521 ("the '521 patent") to DJ Expo 2012 personnel. We
also are informed thatyou and/or Odyssey has been contacting XSTATIC's customers and advising
them that XSTATIC's products infringe either the '521 patent or the '213 design patent, causing
them to cease purchasing XSTATIC's products. The issues relating to the '521 patent have been
addressed in our letter of December 18, 2012. While you and Odyssey heretofore arguably may have
had a good faidi belief that XSTATIC's products infringed one or more claims of the '213 design
patent, in hght of the foregoing infringement analysis, any such good faidi behefclearly is overcome.
Accordingly, any further efforts by you and/or Odyssey to prevent XSTATIC from displaying its
products at future trade shows (including without hmitation, the DJ Expo 2013 trade show
scheduled to take place in Atlantic City, NewJersey in August 2013), and any further contact with
XSTATIC's actual or prospective customers by you or your client, alleging infringement of the '213
design patent by any of its products (including without limitation, the Accused Products), will
constitute at least tortious interference with contractual relations under California law, as well as
tortious interference with business relations and tortious interference with prospective economic
advantage under New York law.
By way of example only, with respect specifically to the second cause of action, any future bad faith,
unwarranted and intentional efforts byyou and/or Odyssey to prevent XSTATIC from displaying its
products at any future trade shows, or any direct or indirect contact with XSTATIC's actual
customers to advise them of (non-existent) infringement of the '213 design patent, will be deemed to
constitute knowing and intentional interference by Odyssey in a known business relationship of

XSTATIC's, either solely out of malice or through dishonest, unfair, or improper means, causing
injury to the relationship. See, e.g., Carvel Corp. v. Noonan, 350 F.3d 6, 17 (2d Cir. 2003).
Such improper activities by Odysseyclearly will result in harm to XSTATIC and willleaveXSTATIC
no choice but to pursue the legal and equitable remedies available to it, in the appropriate United
States District Court.
Please note that XSTATIC would like an amicable resolution to this matter. However, should you
persist in your baseless allegations of infringement, my client will have no choice but to aggressively
and vigorously defend its position.
Please be advised that nothing in this letter shall constitute a waiver of any of XSTATIC's rights or
remedies to which XSTATIC may be entitled in law and/or equity, including the right to institute
suit for tortious interference.
Sincerely Yours,
tide
Pearl Cohea Zedek Latzer, LLP
Cc:
Vikram M. Reddy, Esq. (vreddy@wclawyers.com)
. *
,11s::
sfc'*
3,-* -** -"KfJZ i 3* 20 CAS- 006 AWL 303OJ'

" s 'Js? *Ws;T ,*>"<>:*. ?' tO>.S HC_UDE.'Jj STACKING
T-CD4
4 Row CD Case
Externa* (SmwraSw-w
3*-3*ar liLT** T.7*
4 Jr*
**-jr
;.; j __i jrij ^--'
',
i
&tsaw>
1fiWaflyiQIWIN]D04flOMraCI&HOU)SAiPR(K4aO^
.wmsiBjy^ tBB%fsjato. cases. fwyR^fiaowBiMi}-.
mui ecmstOH. plasbc uuunue mmmmm urnm
m Btti. ewees. wr puwood/Amine, water t ibsl'
3MRD4
4 Sow CD Case
this sffiOFeai gmt im mm

jt;j :j*ff
&#?<
'' W JMB. CASS. ffiSUBBS'"
mmm mmmm Bsmmm,

,
j<V
-^ " j>.^
mm iMrajE mbwim
i --,> " -.'^v$fjii^
-^^'-'"-^
3:;?'<;i
:it? ''^
fft^
T-TT
Turntable Cas#
Outer QsmRsk!os: 20 S7"xl7.tTsS.48*

Intwiof Dtmepsaos 188,xi5Hr>t4.25'
'
IS"
. '.
*1
iI
J
I
4X
, -
;.
Sap
hcawDUW FOAM PftDOEO 1URM1A8LE CASE WILL FIT A1200 TURMTAKJ:
SwECTlY AS WELL AS MOST POPULAR WMfOBlES MATURES Q^MMD

AtuSiUM EXTRUSION. PLASTIC LAMINATE RECESSED SPRN6LODH-
dl?hxesseorflv twist lathes imlocks mmmi SBWXmcwacmiess. r-r PcYW00/AP?cwEtaiTt6iM
>^^^^îi^^.'t^fe-; -
nil
#*
,gl
EXHIBIT C
Carlos Gonzalez
will not be able to ship out any until these links are removed and
management gives me the green light.
Anything that has a slide mechanism on their case is a patent

infringement. I do not show any Pioneer cases on back order for you aside
of the Flight FX which is currently going through some changes. I might be
receiving a few of the FZGSPIDDJSX cases in the next couple of days, but
Cc: Joe Capo <ioe@kpodj.corn>. Vince Martin <vince@thehorizongrp.com>
Subject: RE: website

To: Tom Capo <tom(g>kpodi.com>
Date: Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 2:59 PM
From: Carlos Gonzalez <CarlosG@odvsseygear.corn>
Odyssey Innovative Designs

809 W. Santa Anita St
San Gabriel, CA 91776

P: 626.5^8-2528 ext: 109
F: 626.588-2525
www.odvsseygear.com
Original Message
From: info@kpodj.com [mailto:info@kpodj.com] On Behalf Of Tom Capo

Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 11:44 AM
To: Carlos Gonzalez
Cc: Joe Capo; Vince Martin

Subject: Re: website
I did not know that. Can you give me a little more information about
why they are patent infringement? I thought that ProX changed their
laptop glide so it wouldn't be a patent infringement.
Also, can you tell me when we will be getting our order of DDJ-SX
cases in? We have been waiting for months.
Thank you,
Tom Capo
KPODJ Sales Manager
http://www.kpodi .com/
Phone: 877-775-7635 x777
Text: 201-204-0557
email: tom@kpodj.com
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 1:57 PM, Carlos Gonzalez <CarlosG@odysseygear.com>

wrote:
>
Hello Tom,
>
>
>
> I prefer you hearing this from me before our legal team get involved.
> Please remove the following links from your website as they are patent
> infringement products.
>
>
>
> http://www.kpodi.com/prox-xs-ddisx-wlt-bl-for-ddi-sx-p-103410/
>
>
>
> http://www.kpodj.com/prox-xs-ddisx-wlt-for-ddi-sx-p-103395/
>
>
>
> http://www.kpodi.com/prox-x-apc40-ltbl-p-103120/
>
>
>
> If you have any questions please contact me at any moment.

>
>
>
> Carlos Gonzalez

>
> Odyssey Innovative Designs

>
> 809 W. Santa Anita St

>
> San Gabriel, CA 91776

>
>P: 626.588-2528 ext: 109

>
>F: 626.588-2525
>
> www.odyssevgear.com
>
>
<Carlos Gonzalez.vcf>
EXHIBIT D
US007614521B2
d2) United States Patent
(to) Patent No.:

(45) Date of Patent:
Hsiao et al.
(54)
PLATFORM AND MULTIPLE BOX CASE
4,014,457
5,004,105
5,353,947
5,975,334
6,129,231
6,193,062
6,817,623
(75) Inventors: John Hsiao, Azusa, CA(US); Mario

Montano, Azusa, CA (US)
(73)
(*)
Notice:
3/1977
Hodge
220/812
4/1991
Freadman
206/576
10/1994
Zinnbauer et al
11/1999
Mayo
10/2000
2/2001
Bl*
11/2004
2005/0092763 Al*
5/2005
(US)
Nov. 10, 2009
Bl*
Assignee: Hsiao and Montano, Inc., Azusa, CA
US 7,614,521 B2
Hsiao etal
Rysgaardetal
Gerutto
Haggertyetal
220/812
220/592.03
220/345.2
206/315.11
280/655.1
220/912
Subject to any disclaimer, the term of this

patent is extended or adjusted under 35
* cited by examiner
U.S.C. 154(b) by 820 days.

(21)
Appl.No.: 11/336,670
(22)
Filed:
PrimaryExaminerAnthony D Stashick
Assistant ExaminerNikiM Eloshway
(74) Attorney, Agent, or FirmCharles C. H. Wu; Wu &
Cheung, LLP
Jan. 20, 2006
(65)
Prior Publication Data

US 2007/0170181 Al
(51)
Int. CI.
(52)
B65D 43/20
B65D 43/22
B65D6/28
B65D1/24
U.S.C1
(57)
(2006.01)
(2006.01)
(2006.01)
(2006.01)
220/345.2; 206/745; 220/4.27;
220/23.83; 220/812; 220/324
(58) Field of Classification Search
220/345.1,
220/4.27, 23.83, 5.4, 812, 324, 811, 522,

220/540; 206/749,745
See application file for complete search history.

(56)
ABSTRACT
Jul. 26, 2007
References Cited
The present invention relates generally a platform and mul

tiple box case for housing electronic and acoustical equip
ment for stationary and transitional operations, and more
particularly to offer an apparatus for safely and adjustably
providing an upper platform mated to the upper and lower
boxes of the multiple box case. Traditionaltypes of cases and
racks are suitable for typical audio gears in the DJ field.
However, more users of such boxes are using laptop comput
ers and other accessories.Yet,suchusers are discoveringthat
traditionalboxeslackthe spacefor suchdeviceson the typical
cases that they are currently utilizing. The present invention
providesa solutionfor the placementof additional gears in a
variablyslidableplatformwithouttakinganymore spacethan
in typical DJ boxes.
U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS

3,961,723 A *
6/1976 Eckel
220/812
23 Claims, IS Drawing Sheets
U.S. Patent
Nov. 10, 2009
Sheet 1 of 15
12
Top View
FIG. 1
US 7,614,521 B2
U.S. Patent
Nov. 10, 2009
Sheet 2of 15
% ODYSSEY
13-
FIG. 2
US 7,614,521 B2
U.S. Patent
Nov. 10,2009
Sheet 3of 15
US 7,614,521 B2
e*
-12
o,
.13
^
Front View
FIG. 3
U.S. Patent
Nov. 10,2009
Sheet 4of 15
US 7,614,521 B2
.13
USh
Side View
FIG. 4
U.S. Patent
Nov. lO, 2009
Sheet 5of 15
Top View
FIG. 5
US 7,614,521 B2
U.S. Patent
TZ7
Nov. 10, 2009
Sheet 6of 15
Front View
FIG. 6
US 7,614,521 B2
IZT
U.S. Patent
Nov. 10,2009
Sheet 7of 15
Side View
FIG. 7
US 7,614,521 B2
C~T
U.S. Patent
28
Nov. 10,2009
Sheet 8of 15
28
FIG. 8
US 7,614,521 B2
28
U.S. Patent
Nov. 10,2009
Sheet 9of 15
US 7,614,521 B2
34
FIG. 9
/30 .17
U.S. Patent
Nov. 10,2009
Sheet 10 of 15
US 7,614,521 B2
32\
-16
31-
s35
33
FIG. 10
U.S. Patent
Nov. 10, 2009
Sheet 11 of 15
FIG. 11
US 7,614,521 B2
U.S. Patent
Nov. 10, 2009
Sheet 12 of 15
:;.-.>.
ML
&
' i n i iiii-tX
Top View
FIG. 12
US 7,614,521 B2
U.S. Patent
Nov. 10, 2009
l~Z7
Sheet 13 of 15
Right View
FIG. 13
US 7,614,521 B2
CZJ
U.S. Patent
Nov. 10, 2009
Sheet 14 of15
FIG. 14
US 7,614,521 B2
U.S. Patent
Nov. 10,2009
Sheet 15 of 15
US 7,614,521 B2
10
<H3
VL.
ttt
-tt-t
Front View
FIG. 15
US 7,614,521 B2
1
PLATFORM AND MULTIPLE BOX CASE
BACKGROUND OF INVENTION
2
used in conjunction with the present invention without manu
ally resetting the balance position of the upper and lower
boxes.
A more versatile arrangement, allowing for enhanced flex-
1 Field of theInvention
5 ibility intheloca,ion oftheuPPer box inmeoperating mode,
is embodied in, for example, the Odyssey SS-1702 DJ case
The present invention relates generally aplatform and multiple box case for housing electronic and acoustical equip-
sddby odyssey Designs ofAzusa, Calif. Achannel orslider

member channel is mounted along the top ofeach ofthe sides
ment for stationary and transitional operations, and more
ofthelower box, essentially extending over most ofthedepth
particularly to offer an apparatus for safely and adjustably 10 of each side. The slidermember channel, which serves as a
providing an upper platform mated to the upper and lower
continuous "hook"for bothtransport and operation, permits
boxesof the multiplebox case. Traditionaltypesofcases and
the operator to choose a variety of operating positions by
racks are suitable for typical audio gears in the DJ field.
positioning the frontmost ofthe latches on the upper box to
However, more users of such boxes are using computers

engage the lower box member anywhere along its entire
laptop and other accessories. Yet, such users are discovering 15 length. The operator may thus adjust the position ofthe upper
that traditional boxes lack the space for such devices on the
box to suit his or her personal preference. However, as in the
typical cases that they are currently utilizing. The present
Genesis design described above, only a single point of coninvention provides a solution for the placement of additional
tact, viz., the frontmost latch on each side ofthe uppercase, is
gears in a variably slidable platform without taking any more
being relied on for securing the boxes to each other. Morespace than in typical DJ boxes.
20 over, the greatly extended length ofthe slider member chan-
2. Description ofthe Related Art
ne' mav m fact contribute to an increased likelihood of the
Equipment cases that transport, for example, audio devices

have long been designed to permit full operation ofsuch
devices without removing a device from its case. This is
fse tiPPing ovel s^ld the operator offset the upper box too
far *> *e rear ofthe lower box Furthermore, this invention
^s the disadvantage of not allowing the user to operate a
an operating position to reveal the elements ofsaid devices or
adjustable platform for such use is not provided,
accomplished by structuring the case in, say, two device- 25 laPjP or other accessories in tandem with the operation of
conta.mngboxes,oneofwhichisthenoffsetfromtheother.n audl foments while in the field, because a variably
equipment for access by an operator.
0tLher devlces related to movmf abox-like article relative
to other parts m an assembly include a variety of complex
Widely used in the field of the personal delivery of 30 devices employing roller bearings and races. For example,
recorded music toaudiences by for example, on-location disc

jockeys suchboxcaseshavetraditionallypermmedanopera-
y g pat No 5 275 492 toShirai teaches aslide unit mounted

Qn & -^ ^ fe ro]H members and
irf
tor the choice between two and only two stable modes. In the
first ofthese, the transport mode, the upper box ofthe case is
nj ks for lubrication similariy, U.S. Pat. No. 5,344,228 to

Kovadk e, a) teaches m ament ofchannel members,
mated with the lower box, usually asmall number ofhook and 35 for
(sets ofba^^
m inlermediate shde memlatch fasteners, typically two on each of the two opposing
ber ^ fifst and SCond ^
s tofaciHtate movement ofa
s,des, each latch engaging only one transport hook. The
dnJwer re]ative tQ g stati
base
llwZdlihTebm^ Prolected forâns Portaetiony
Accordingly, it is an object of the present invention to
provide a casefor transporting and operating electronic and

Intheother ofthe two states, viz., theoperating mode, the 40 acoustic equipment thatovercomes thecostandsafety prob-
latches onthe upper box ofthebase are disengaged from the

lower box transport hooks, and theupper box isremoved and
]ems mat arecharacteristic of the prior art.

A seCond object ofthis invention to provide anequipment
thus exposing the equipment in the lower box for operation.

case that is more multi-functional than conventional cases
An example of the foregoing traditional box case is the
when in field use, and which permits the operator a comfortGenesis ST-17A, a 17 space DJ case sold by Genesis of Los 45 able degree of continuous adjustment of a platform for comAngeles, Calif. An upper box ofthe case is offset by approxiputers and other accessories in an operating position that suits
mately one-halfits depth to achieve an operating position that
his or her own preference, while maintaining an ergonomic
is limited to the discrete location allowed by the placement of
and stable arrangement of the case in the operating mode,
the operating hooks. These hooks are fastened, one on each
side of the lower box, approximately midway between the 50
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
two transport hooks. For each side, the frontmost latch, the
one that had engaged the frontmost transport hook in the

A case for housing audio and electronic equipment during
transport mode, now engages the operating hook, while the
stationary and transitional operations having lower and upper
other (rearmost) latch has nothing to engage, being located on
boxes with an upper platform that may be variably shifted
that portion ofthe upper box that is cantilevered out from the 55 rearward or forward along the lower box to expose the equiplower box. The operator is thus restricted to a single, fixed
ment devices in the lower box for operation and to provide a
operating position. Moreover, relying on such a single point
platform for electronic devices and other accessories. A lower
of contact on each side of a case to secure a heavy case box
slider member channel having an outwardly projecting
may result in undesirable and potentially dangerous loss of
angled flange is mounted along the upper edge of each side
stability should any such contact point fail. Conversely, the 60 surface ofthe lower box. Additionally, an upper slider mempresent invention allows the placement of laptop or other
ber channel having a protruding longitudinally extending
accessories on a platform capable of variable sliding moveweb is mounted along the lower edge of each side surface of
ment resulting in multiple horizontal adjustment points in
the upper platform.
accordance with user selected comfort level while still allowWhen the latches are disengaged and upper box removed,
ing access to the lower box area. Additionally, the user will 65 the upper platform could be shifted rearward or forward in a
not be constrained with only one selected point position so
variable horizontal movement. The continuity of the upper
that multiple sizes of computers or other accessories may be
and lower slider member channels attached to said platform
US 7,614,521 B2
and lower box isfrictionally engaged along its length, thereby
to each other in their unassembledstate for ease of illustration
permitting an operator to select variable positions to suithis
in the first and second embodiments.
or her preference. Therefore, the slider member channel
FIG. 12 isatop plan view ofthe platform and multiple box
assembly will include at least a first or upper slider member
case in the second embodiment.
channel and second or lower slider member channel which 5

FIG. 13 is a right side elevation view of the platform and
telescopically slides in the lower slider member channel in a
multiple box case in the second embodiment.
longitudinal axial direction. Theupperslider member chan
FIG. 14is a right side elevation view ofthe platform and
nel includes a center span or web.The lowerslider member
multiple box case exposing the upper platform with the upper
channel includes anoutwardly projecting angled flange. The

box raised for ease of illustration in the secondembodiment.
center web and angled flange arein opposed, generally par 10 FIG. 15is a front elevation view ofthe platform andmul
allel relation to one another and slide longitudinally with
tiple box case in the second embodiment.
respect to each other as the channels slide.
According to another aspect ofthe invention, the upper
DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED
slidermemberchannelhas a linear series of shallowconcave
EMBODIMENTS
safety stop holes pre-drilled below and parallel tothe flange

portion of the member. A spring loaded metal ball tightly
fitted inahole sufficient tohold said spring inthe edge top of
the box sides isrecessed but slightly protruding there-through
the lower slider member channel to frictionally engage said
An improved equipment case 10for transporting and oper

ating audio and electronic devices for disc jockeys and the
like is shown in FIG. 1. The present invention relates to

apparatus for securely closing the equipment case 10 in a
safety stop holes andthe bottom flange portion of saidlower 20 transportmode,and for safelyexposingthe devicesin a lower
slider member channel to allow a smooth and fluidmovement
ofthe upper platform.
box in an operating mode. Access to devices on an upper

platform 11 istypically gained through one ormore panels on
thesurfaces oftheupper box 12asiswell known inthe art, the
placement of which doors is not critical with respect to the
According toanother aspect ofthe invention, a safety stop

angularhole is substantially near one ofthe terminal ends of
the upper slider member channel and is sufficiently close to

said member flange that acantilever biased lever will engage
25 present invention.
said angular hole at themost extended outward position.

These and other features of the present invention will
become apparent from the following Description and an
Exemplary Embodiments when taken inconjunction withthe 30
claims and drawingfigures herein described.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWING
FIGURES
Referringnow toFIG. 4,the upper platform 11 issupported

abovethe lowerbox 13 in a stationary or transitional mode.
Theupper platform is held securely together with thelower

box when being transported from place toplace bythe frictional engagement of the upper slider member 14(shown in
FIG. 11) fastened to the upper platform 11 with the lower
slidermember 15 (shown in FIG. 11) fastened to the lower
box 13. While the upper platform 11 is in the stationary or

transitional mode, the upper slider member channel 14
35 (shown in FIG. 11) is in engagement with the lower slider
FIG. 1 is a topview ofa platform andmultiple boxcasein
member channel 15 (shown in FIG. 11). Bysliding outward

into the cantilever spring lever member 16 (shown in FIG.
FIG. 2 is a back view illustrating the lower box with the
10), thesaid lever member engage in a tight secure position
upperbox removed in the firstpreferredembodiment.
with the upper slider member channel 14(shown inFIG. 11).
FIG. 3 is a front view illustrating the lowerbox and the 40 Thus, thecantilever spring lever member 16(shown in FIG.
10) locks the upper platform 11 (shown in FIG. 11) to the
upper box initsassembled statein thefirst preferred embodi
ment.
lower box 13. By sliding inward, the cantilever spring lever
members 16 (shown in FIG. 10) are moved away from the
FIG. 4 is a side view illustrating theplatform, lower box,
slider member channel. Thus, the cantilever spring lever
andupper boxinitsassembled state with theupper boxraised
to expose the complete platform for ease ofillustration in the 45 members 16(shown in FIG. 10)arenolonger in contact with
first preferred embodiment.
the safety angular stopping hole 17 (shown in FIG. 9) and
therefore, slides freely engaged to theupper slider member
FIG. 5 is a topview ofa platform andmultiple boxcasein
the first preferred embodiment.
the second preferred embodiment.
FIG. 6 is a front view illustrating the lowerbox with the
channel14 (shownin FIG. 11).
Although right side surfaces 18and 19(shown inFIG. 4)of
upper box in an offset position for ease of illustration in the 50 the upper and lower boxes, respectively, are shown for pur
second preferred embodiment.
FIG. 7 is a side view illustrating theplatform, lower box,

and upper box initsassembled state with theupper box raised
to expose the complete platform for ease ofillustration in the
second preferred embodiment.
FIG. 8 is a bottom planview ofthe upperslider element in

its unassembled state in the first and second embodiments.
FIG. 9 is a bottom plan view ofthe lower slider element in
its unassembled state in the first and second embodiments.
poses of illustration, thediscussion herein applies equally to
thelatchesand slidermemberchannelthatare mountedon the

left side surfaces (not shown)ofthe boxes.
Now referring to FIG. 13,first latch 20, the side latch, is

55 disposed in close proximity to second latch 21, both latches
beinglocatedinengagementnearthe slidermemberchannels
14,15 (shown inFIG. 11). Third latch 22(shown inFIG. 7)is

remotefromfirstand secondlatches20,21 nearthe centerof
the side box. All ofthelatches 20, 21, 22 (shown inFIG. 7)
60 andthe corresponding latches (notshown) mounted on the

FIG. 10isaside elevation view ofthetopside portion ofthe
left side surfaces are in a locked or engaging condition as
lowerbox with the spring, metal ball, and cantilever lever
illustrated inFIG. 13. When the latches 20, 21,22, (shown in
positioned adjacent to each other in their unassembled state

for ease of illustrationin the first and second embodiments.
FIG. 7) are thus positioned as shown inFIG. 13, the equip
ment case 23 is thereby locked in the transitional mode.
FIG. 11isa perspective view ofthetopside portion ofthe 65 Now referring toFIG. 11, theconfiguration ofupper slider
lower box with thespring, metal ball, cantilever level, lower
member channel 14 and lower slider member channel 15 is
slider element, and upper slider element positioned adjacent
more clearly seen in FIGS. 10 and 11. The material of lower
US 7,614,521 B2
slider member channel 15 may consist ofextruded aluminum
or other light, strong material that can be affixed to the top 24
ofthe lower box 25 by mounting fasteners. The material of
upper slider member channels 14 may consist of extruded
aluminum or other light, strong material that can be affixed to
the sides of the upper platform 36 (shown in FIG. 7) by
mounting fasteners.
Still referring to FIG. 11, the continuous flange 26 projects
upwardly from the upper edge 27 ofthe lower slider member
channel 15. A linear series of pre-drilled holes 28 (shown in
FIG. 8), either blind or, if more economical, drilled through
the upper slider member channel 14, is disposed parallel to
the continuous web 29. The series ofholes 28 (shown in FIG.
8) is arranged along a two-third length of said upper slider
member channel 14 nearest to the terminal end containing the
angular hole 30 (shown in FIG. 9).
Now referring to FIG. 10, the spring 31 and metal ball 32
assembly is recessed within a bore 33 in the top of each side
24 (shown in FIG. 11) ofthe lower box and extended there
through the lower slider member channel 15 (shown in FIG.
11) via pre-drilled hole 34 (shown in FIG. 9) with the metal
ball 32 situated slightly above the planar surface 27 (shown in
FIG. 11) ofthe lower slider member channel 15 (shown in
FIG. 11). The cantilever spring lever 16 is situated within an
angular depression 35 in the upper planar surface ofeach side
ofthe upper portion 24 (shown in FIG. 11) ofthe lower box
and upper free end of said cantilever spring level 16 is
extended there-through the lower slider member channel 17
(shown in FIG. 9) via angular hole 30 (shown in FIG. 9) so
that when in extended position said cantilever lever 16 will
engage the safety stop hole 35 (shown in FIG. 11) in the upper
slider member channel 14 (shown in FIG. 11).
Now referring to FIG. 14, to quickly and easily position a
laptop or accessories in the case 10 for performance, the
10
15
slider member channel which telescopically slides in the

lower slider member channel in a longitudinal axial
direction which the upper slider member channel
includes a center span or web and the lower slider mem
ber channel includes an outwardly projecting angled
flange being formed along and in an acute angle rela
tionship with an upper rim thereof, and having at least
one safety stop hole positioned nearest to the terminal
end of the upper slider member channel therein, said
hole disposed below and opposing said continuous
flange; wherein the upper platforms is held securely
together with the lower box as a result ofthe upper slider
member ofthe slider member channel assembly being
fastened to the upper platform and the lower slider mem
ber of the slider member channel assembly being fas
tened to the lower box, and the upper slider member and
the lower slider member being engaged with each other
while the upper platform is in the stationary or transi
tional mode; and
20
at least one latch fastened adjacent to each said upper box

side edge and extending downward to releasably engage
a respective one of said lower box latch receptacles.
2. The case of claim 1 wherein the slider assembly com
prises a first or upper slider member channel telescopically
25 and frictionally engaged in the second or lower slider member
channel opposed to the inside surface, said upper slider mem
ber channel slidable between a retracted position and an
extended position, said lower slider member channel includ
ing a biased stop member mounted on the top planar surface
30 of sides of the lower box extending there-through the lower
slider member channel in proximity to provide contact with
upper slider member channel when the upper slider member
channel is in an extended position by telescopic movement
and thereby resist return movement ofthe upper slider mem
operator merely disengages the latches and extends the upper 35 ber channel toward the retracted position.
platform 36 (shown in FIG. 7) to the user's desired extended
3. The case of claim 2 wherein the upper slider member
position for supporting a wide variety of shapes and sizes of
channel comprises a plurality of said safety stop concave
computers and accessories.
holes which are arranged linearly andparallel to said continu
Other embodiments of the invention will appear to those
ous flange within each respective said upper slider member
skilled in the art from consideration ofthe specification and 40 channel.
practice ofthe invention disclosed herein. Possible applica
4. The case ofclaim 3 wherein a plurality ofsaid safety stop
tions of the platform and multiple box case include, but are
concave holes are arranged linearly and parallel to said con
not limited to, case for travel, case for office use, case for
tinuous flange within each respective slider member channel.
home use, and case for educational use. It is intended that the
5. The case ofclaim 4 wherein said linearly arranged safety
specification and examples are to be considered as exemplary 45 stop concave holes are distributed along a two-third length of
only, with a true scope and spirit of the invention being
said slider member channel nearest to the terminal end con
indicated by the following claims.
taining the stop hole.
What is claimed is:
6. The case of claim 2 wherein lower slider member chan
1. A platform and multiple box combination case and mul

nels comprise a generally planar center web with an outside
tiple box combination case for housing audio and electronic 50 surface and an inside surface, said center web having an end
equipments in stationary and transitional modes, said plat
comprising a stop.
form having a forward and rearward aspect and comprising:

7. The case of claim 2 wherein each of said upper slider
a lower box having an open top and side edge defining a
member channel comprises having a center web and angled
border of said top on each oftwo side surfaces, said box
flange which are in opposed, generally parallel relation to one
containing at least one audio or electronic device;
55 another and slide longitudinally with respect to each other as
at least one upper platform having a bottom surface and a
the channels slide.
side edge defining a border of said bottom surface on
8. The case of claim 2 wherein each said lower slider
each of two side surfaces of said upper platform, said
member channels extend along approximately the entire
upper platform containing at least one electronic or
length of a respective said lower box side edge.
accessory device capable of operating with said lower 60 9. The case of claim 2 wherein the upper and lower slider
box device;
an upper box having an open bottom and side edge defining

aborderof said bottom on each oftwo side surfaces, said
member channel comprise of material comprising of

extruded aluminum or other light, strong material that can be
affixed to the top planar surface ofthe sides ofthe lower box
and the side planar surface ofthe upper platform.
box contains a concave space for housing at least one

audio or electronic device when in a closed position;
65
10. The case of claim 1 wherein the slider member channel
a slider member channel assembly comprising at least a
assembly comprises an engagement mechanism having a
first or upper slider member channel and second or lower
cantilever spring lever mounted on the top side edge of the
US 7,614,521 B2
8
lower box, said lever having a first end attached to the said box
22. The case of claim 21 wherein said lower slider member
and a second end comprising the prong and manual actuation
channels are spaced apart axially from each other.
surface extending beyond the lower slider member channel
23. For platform and box combination case having an
via hole disposed therein.
upper and lower boxes with an upper platform, said case
11. The case of claim 10 wherein the cantilever spring 5 housing audio and electronic equipments, a method for pro
viding in said case variably adjustable upper platform for the
member comprises an elongate plate member with the elon
placement of additional gears or electronic devices without
gate dimension aligned in the direction of the second slider
occupying additional space than in the typical DJ boxes, said
member channel movement to engage the slide stop member.
method comprising the steps of:
12. The case ofclaim 11 wherein the elongate plate mem
providing a lower box having an open top and side edge
ber attaches to the side wall of lower box at a fixed end ofthe 10
defining a border ofsaid top ofeach oftwo side surfaces,
plate member and having an unattached opposite end with an
said box containing at least one audio equipment device;
elongate dimension in the direction ofthe upper slider mem
providing at least one upper platform having a bottom
ber channel, and including said prong projecting toward the
surface and a side edge defining a border of said bottom
slide path ofthe upper slider member channel, and biased by
surface on each oftwo side surfaces of said upper plat
said elongate plate member in the opposite direction from 15
form, said upper platform containing at least one elec
said prong to normally maintain the prong out of the pathway
tronic device capable of operating with said lower box
of the upper slider member channel.
device;
13. The case of claim 11 wherein said cantilever spring
providing an upper box having an open bottom and side
lever comprises a material for lever comprising of stainless
edge defining a border ofsaid bottom on each oftwo side
steel, aluminum, bronze, iron, low and high carbon steels, and 20
surfaces, said box contains a concave space for housing
other materials suitable for the application.
at
least one electronic device when in a closed position;
14. The case of claim 1 wherein the slider member chamiel
providing at least one latch fastened adjacent to each said
assembly comprises a stop member having a cantilever biased
upper box side edge and extending downward to releasstop member having a first end mounted to the lower box and
ably engage a respective one of said lower box latch
extending there-through said lower slider member channel 25
receptacles;
via hole with a spring mechanism biasing the upper slider

member channel engaging end into the upper slider member
channel path of the upper slider member channel when the
upper slider member channel is in the extended position.
15. The case of claim 1 wherein the slider member chamiel
30
assembly comprises a spring and metal ball assembly which

is tightly fitted in an hole sufficient to hold said spring in the
top planar surface of the box sides and said assembly is
recessed but slightly protruding there-through the lower
35
slider member channel to frictionally engage said safety stop
hole and the bottom flange portion of said upper slider mem
ber channel to allow a smooth and fluid movement of the
upper platform.
16. The case ofclaim 15 wherein the spring and metal ball 40
assembly comprises a material for the spring comprising of
aluminum, bronze, low and high carbon steels, and other high
tensile materials containing sufficient compression for the
application.
17. The case of claim 1 wherein each said upper slider 45
member channel is substantially shorter in the longitudinally

axial direction than said lower slider member channels.
18. The case ofclaim 1 wherein said upper platform mem

ber fastens to the horizontal flanges there-between of said
upper slider member channels in a horizontal position.
50
19. The case of claim 1 wherein said upper slider member
channels having opposite axial ends.
20. The case ofclaim 19 wherein said upper slider member
channels are spaced apart axially from each other.
55
21. The case of claim 1 wherein said lower slider member
channels having opposite axial ends.
providing a lower box having a lower slider member chan

nel fastened to each upper side edge thereof, said mem
ber having a continuous flange projecting therefrom and
a recessed hole positioned therein, said spring loaded
metal ball extending there-through said lower slider
member chamiel in stationary and transitional positions,
a stop hole positioned therein near the extreme end of
said member, said cantilever spring lever extending
there-through said slider member channel when in use;
providing an upper platform contained within the enclo
sure box having an upper slider member channel fas
tened to side thereof, said upper slider member channel
having a continuous web channel projecting downward
therefrom and a stop hole positioned therein, said spring
loaded metal ball frictionally engaged with said upper

slider member channel when in stationary and transi
tional positions;
means for shifting said upper platform along said lower

box in a rearward or forward direction in a continuously
variable path within a limit of travel determined by said
safety cantilever spring stop member until said audio or
electronic equipment in said lower box is exposed to the
satisfaction of said operator and simultaneously allow
the placement of computers or other accessories on the
upper platform to constitute an operating mode position;
and
means for frictionally engaging said upper and lower slider

member channels, thereby securing said upper platform
in said operating position.

Xstatic v. Hsiao &amp; Montano - Complaint

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Xstatic v. Hsiao &amp; Montano - Complaint

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

!

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

XSTATIC PRO INC., a New York corporation

dba PRO X CASES dba PROX CASES,

HSIAO & MONTANO, INC., a California

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367. Alternatively, this Court possesses subject matter

This Court possesses general personal jurisdiction over Defendant Hsiao

portion of the misconduct by Odyssey here alleged occurred in this District.

ProX Cases is a manufacturer and distributor of DJ cases and related DJ

Defendant Hsiao & Montano, Inc. dba Odyssey Innovative Designs

("Odyssey") is a California corporation with a business address at 809 W. Santa Anita

Odyssey manufactures and distributes DJ cases and related DJ products in

Odyssey claims to be the owner by assignment of United States Patent No.

7,614,521 ("the '521 patent).

Odyssey also claims to be the owner by assignment of United States

Design Patent No. D643,213 ("the '213 design patent").

In particular, Odyssey caused the removal of all of ProX Cases' products

In addition, Odyssey contacted certain ProX Cases' customers/retailers

ProX Cases' customers/retailers with infringement actions if those ProX Cases'

By letter dated July 9, 2013, in response to a February 3, 2013 letter from

Certainly, after seeing ProX Cases' non-infringement analysis, Odyssey

Certainly, after seeing ProX Cases' non-infringement and invalidity

Indeed, in light of the extent of ProX Cases' non-infringement positions as

Importantly, at no point did Odyssey or its counsel respond to either the

In addition, at least one customer/retailer of ProX Cases was "cut off' by

As set forth in the December 2012 non-infringement analysis, the presence

"providing a lower box having a lower slider member channel fastened to

"providing an upper platform contained within the enclosure box having

However, as set forth in the December 2012 non-infringement analysis,

telescopically slides in the lower slider member channel in a longitudinal

Likewise, as set forth in the December 2012 analysis, ProX Cases'

products do not infringe claim 23 of the '521 patent because:

"Further, the purpose of these structures, as described in the '521 patent, is

box. Since each of the Accused Products is missing an identical or

Accordingly, when Odyssey's representative contacted ProX Cases'

In fact, as set forth above, in light of ProX Cases' extensive non

Odyssey's requirement has the effect of substantially lessening

competition in the relevant market.

ProX Cases is injured in its business as a result of the Odyssey's anti

Importantly, although Odyssey has spent considerable time and expense

Odyssey's actions above alleged, interfering with ProX Cases' business

Odyssey's improper activities have directly and proximately caused harm

Odyssey's improper activities are likely to continue unless and until

enjoined by this Court.

(VIOLATION OF SECTION 43(a) OF THE LANHAM ACT, 15U.S.C. 1125(a))

Paragraphs 1-39 as though fully set forth herein.

In light of the foregoing, Odyssey's statements to ProX Cases'

Odyssey's false or misleading descriptions or representations of fact were

made in commercial advertising or promotion, including to ProX Cases'

customers/retailers as well as to persons involved with the DJ Expo 2012. Odyssey's

Odyssey's statements relating to patent infringement were literally false.

In addition, Odyssey's statements actually deceived or hadthe tendency to

deceive a substantial segment of their intended audience, namely, ProX Cases'

Odyssey's deception was material, in that it was likelyto influence the

purchasing decision, including specifically whether to continue to purchase and/or offer

Odyssey caused the false statements to enter interstate commerce.

ProX Cases has been and continues to be damaged as a result of

Odyssey's false statements, including at least by a lessening of the goodwill associated

Paragraphs 1-48 as though fully set forth herein.

As set forth above, Odyssey published statements, namely,

communications with specific customers/retailers of ProX Cases, that certain products of

Odyssey's statements tended to disparage the ProX Cases products,

namely, that they allegedly infringe one or more of Odyssey's patents.

Odyssey's allegations of infringement were provably false.

Xstatic v. Hsiao & Montano - Complaint

Xstatic v. Hsiao & Montano - Complaint