Razer Auto v. Omix-ADA - Complaint

Case 5:16-cv-00300 Document 1 Filed 02/19/16 Page 1 of 12 Page ID #:1
1
2
3
4
5
Eric A. Kelly (California SBN 292241)

eric.kelly@kellytechlaw.com
5535 Westlawn Ave., No. 180
Los Angeles, CA 90066
310-486-2698 phone or text msg
310-943-1432 fax
Attorney for Plaintiff Razer Auto, Inc.
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
EASTERN DIVISION
11
RAZER AUTO, INC.,
12
13
14
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil Action No. 5:16-CV-00300
COMPLAINT FOR DECLATORY

JUDGMENT OF PATENT NONINFRINGEMENT AND INVALIDITY OF
U.S. DESIGN PATENT D712,324
OMIX-ADA, INC.,
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
15
Defendant.
16
17
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF
18
19
Plaintiff Razer Auto, Inc. (Razer) alleges, through its undersigned counsel, as
20
follows for this Complaint for Declaratory Judgment of Patent Non-Infringement and
21
Invalidity or Unenforceability (Complaint) against Defendant Omix-ADA, Inc. (Omix):
22
23
NATURE OF ACTION
1.
Razer seeks in this action a declaratory judgment that Razer is not liable for
24
25
infringement of a properly construed, valid, and enforceable claim of U.S. Design Patent
26
D712,324 (the 324 Patent) and that the properly construed claim of the 324 Patent is
27
invalid or unenforceable.
28
1
2.
A true and correct copy of the 324 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
2
3
PARTIES
3.
Plaintiff Razer is a state of California corporation with a principal place of
4
5
business at 1042 N. Mountain Ave STE B764, Upland, CA 91786; and a warehouse physical
address located at 1951 S. Parco Ave., Suite B, Ontario, CA 91761. Both Razer locations are
within San Bernardino County, CA; as well as within the Central District of California.
8
9
4.
Defendant Omix is a state of Georgia corporation, with a Georgia Secretary of
State Control Number of K222936, and reported principal office address of 460 Horizon
10
11
12
13
14
15
Drive, Suite 400, Suwanee, GA 30024 and a registered agent address of 3184 St. Ives
Country Club Pkwy, Gwinnett, Duluth, GA 30097.
5.
An address of 460 Horizon Drive, Suwanee, GA 30024 for Omix was admitted
to by Omix on a SEMA Tradeshow Complaint Form dated November 11, 2015, by an Alain
Eboli, an employee of Omix. This SEMA Tradeshow Complaint Form is attached as Exhibit
16
17
B. Note, SEMA is an acronym for the Specialty Equipment Market Association. Both
18
parties attended this SEMA Tradeshow in November, 2015, in Las Vegas, NV. Note, this
19
460 Horizon Drive, Suwanee, GA 30024, address for Omix as reported by Omix in Exhibit B
20
only differs from the reported principal office address, in that the principal office address also
21
includes a suite number of 400.
22
23
6.
Based on information and belief, Omix uses a business phone number of 770-
24
614-6101; wherein the area code of 770 is an area code serving at least portions of Atlanta,
25
GA; which agrees with Omix having a domicile in Georgia. This phone number is displayed
26
upon a website of www.omix-ada.com, and this website was reported as the website for Omix
27
by Omix as their website in the SEMA Tradeshow Complaint Form as depicted in Exhibit B.
28
2
1
2
3
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

7.
This action arise under the laws of the United States (U.S.), including the
U.S. patent laws as codified in Title 35 of the United States Code (U.S.C.) 1 et seq.; and
4
5
with specific remedies sought under the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, Title 28 U.S.C.
2201 and 2202. An actual, substantial, and continuing justiciable controversy exists
between Razer and Omix that requires a declaration of rights by this Court.
8
9
8.
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Title 28
U.S.C. 1331 and pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. 1338(a).
10
11
9.
This Court has personal jurisdiction over Omix by virtue of Omixs purposeful
12
and presently ongoing contacts with the State of California, including but not limited to,
13
selling and offering to sell to California residents various Omix products, including products,
14
such as fender flares, for use on various makes and models of Jeeps.
15
10.
This Court has personal jurisdiction over Omix by virtue of Omixs purposeful
16
17
and presently ongoing contacts with the State of California, including but not limited to,
18
Omix supporting numerous dealers of Omix products, wherein such numerous dealers have
19
retail physical addresses within California. For example, Omixs website www.omix-
20
ada.com includes a Find A Dealer function, wherein that function returns the following
21
dealers located in the Central District of California: a 4Wheel Parts located in Redondo
22
23
Beach, CA; a 4Wheel Parts located in Compton, CA; a Jeep Solutions, Inc. located in Long
24
Beach, CA; a 4Wheels Parts located in Van Nuys, CA; a 4Wheel Parts located in Thousand
25
Oaks, CA; a 4Wheel Parts located in Azusa, CA; a Rack N Road located in Costa Mesa, CA;
26
a 4Wheel Parts located in Santa Ana, CA; and a Brothers 4X4 located in Montclair, CA.
27
28
3
1
2
3
Thus, Omix is specifically servicing consumer retail locations within the Central District of
California, as well as California in general.
11.
This Court has personal jurisdiction over Omix, at least with respect to the
4
5
specific subject matter of this action, by virtue of Omixs purposeful contacts with the Central
District of California, including, without limitation, Omixs Cease and Desist Letter, dated,
February 4, 2016, directed into the Central District of California, at Razer, as exemplified in
Exhibit C, such that Omix should and could reasonably be expected to be haled into Court in
the Central District of California.
10
11
12.
Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. 1391 and
12
1400(b) because substantial parts of events giving rise to the claims presented in this
13
Complaint occurred in the Central District of California, including, without limitation,
14
Omixs attempts to enforce the 324 Patent against Razer, wherein Razer resides in the
15
Central District of California, see e.g., Exhibit C. Further, substantial parts of events giving
16
17
rise to the claims presented in this Complaint occur in the Central District of California,
18
including, without limitation, Razers warehousing of inventory of products in Ontario, CA,
19
that Omix alleges infringes the 324 Patent; as well as Razer selling and offering to sell such
20
products from Ontario, CA; wherein Ontario, CA, is in the Central District of California.
21
Note, Upland, CA, the city of Razers principal place of business, where some sales and
22
23
marketing efforts are directed from is also within the Central District of California. Further,
24
substantially all of the property that is the subject of this action is situated in the Central
25
District of California, in that Razer carries inventory of the alleged infringing products at
26
Razers Ontario, CA, warehouse location.
27
28
4
1
2
3
13.
Venue is further proper because Omix is subject to personal jurisdiction in the
Central District of California and Razers principal place of business is located within the
Central District of California, then Omix is deemed to reside in the Central District of
4
5
California pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. 1391(c)(2).

FACTUAL BACKGROUND
6
7
8
9
14.
Razer within U.S. markets, offers to sell, has sold, and continues to sell a
product that Omix alleges infringes the 324 Patent, hereinafter, Razers stubby fender
flares. This alleged product of Razer, these stubby fender flares, are described as a pocket
10
11
style or stubby style of fender flare for attachment to a Jeep Wrangler vehicle, replacing
12
existing fender flares on the Jeep Wrangler. These stubby fender flares are generally sold as a
13
kit of four stubby fender flares, with two stubby fender flares for the front wheel wells of the
14
Jeep Wrangler and the remaining two stubby fender flares for the rear wheel wells of the Jeep
15
Wrangler; and the kits are sold with ornamental rivets.
16
17
18
15.
Since April 13, 2015, Razer has offered these stubby fender flares for sale in
the U.S.
19
16.
Since April 29, 2015, Razer has sold these stubby fender flares in the U.S.
20
17.
Razer sells their stubby fender flares in the U.S. via Amazon, the well known
21
online retailer.
22
23
24
25
26
18.
Omix owns the 324 Patent; wherein the 324 Patent issued on September 2,
2014. See Exhibit A and Exhibit C.

19.
Since at least as early as 2013, Omix developed and introduced a [allegedly]
new, original, and ornamental design for fender flares for vehicles. See Exhibit C
27
28
5
1
2
3
(annotation of allegedly added). These introduced Omix fender flares products embodies
the designs of the 624 Patent.
20.
Omix has sold, offers to sell, and currently sells fender flare products in the
4
5
U.S. Omix and Razer are direct competitors in that both companies sell particular types of
fender flare products for attachment to some Jeep vehicles. Omix and Razer have adverse
interests.
8
9
21.
Omixs Cease and Desist Letter, as shown in Exhibit C, alleges that Razers
marketing of its fender flares constitutes infringement of the 324 Patent. Further, in this
10
11
Cease and Desist Letter, Omix demands that Razer cease manufacturing, using, selling,
12
offering to sell, and/or importing into the U.S. Razers stubby fender flares. Omix in this
13
Cease and Desist Letter also demands that Razer destroy all existing inventory of the stubby
14
fender flares. And Omix further demands in this Cease and Desist Letter that Razer provide
15
stubby fender flares sales information for a purpose of ascertaining money damages. See
16
17
18
generally, Exhibit C.
22.
Additionally, on Friday, December 11, 2015, Razer received an email from
19
Amazons counsel, that a Rugged Ridge had filed a complaint with Amazon, which stated,
20
[w]e have received notice alleging that one or more products sold by you on Amazon.com
21
infringe patents purportedly owned by Rugged Ridge. RUGGED RIDGE is a trademark
22
23
owned by Omix. Omix offers some of their products for sale on Amazon under the trademark
24
of RUGGED RIDGE. Omix has initiated steps with Amazon to prevent or hamper Razers
25
ability to market and sell Razers stubby fender flares via Amazon.
26
27
23.
However, Razer contends that is has not infringed and is not infringing any
properly construed, valid, and enforceable claim of the 324 Patent.
28
6
1
2
3
24.
Razer further contends that the properly construed claim of the 324 Patent is
invalid for failure to comply with the requirements for patentability of, inter alia, Title 35
U.S.C. 101, 102, 103, and/or 112. Razer further contends that the properly construed
4
5
6
claim of the 324 Patent is unenforceable for inequitable conduct of Omix.

25.
A U.S. design patent application that issued into the 324 Patent was filed on
August 7, 2013, with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Both
before filing this U.S. design patent application, including more than a year before the filing
of this U.S. design patent application, as well as while this U.S. design patent application was
10
11
pending before the USPTO, Omix was aware of or should have been aware of various fender
12
flare products available in at least U.S. markets, including Omix supplied fender flare
13
products and competitor supplied fender flare products. Omix should have been aware of
14
various fender flare products, particularly those for Jeeps, because Omix has been
15
incorporated since 1992 and asserts that they are the World's Largest Jeep Parts &
16
17
Accessories Manufacturer! per their www.omix-ada.com website. With respect to Omixs
18
website of www.omix-ada.com, Razer last visited this website on February 18, 2016. Yet
19
Omix failed to notify the USPTO, as required to do so under Title 37 Code of Federal
20
Regulations (CFR) 1.56 of such information that is material to patentability. For
21
example, based on information and belief, Omix was providing fender flare products for
22
23
24
Jeeps under the Rugged Ridge brand at least as early as February 2011.
26.
By virtue of Omixs actions and statements directed at or against Razer,
25
including, without limitation, the SEMA Tradeshow Complaint Form attached as Exhibit B
26
and the Cease and Desist Letter attached as Exhibit C, as well as the email notice from
27
28
7
1
2
Amazon, there is an actual and substantial controversy between Razer and Omix regarding
Razers liability for patent infringement, validity, and enforceability of the 324 Patent.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

4
5
6
7
8
9
(Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of U.S. Design Patent D712,324)

27.
Razer restates and incorporates by reference as if fully set forth herein the
allegations of the foregoing Paragraphs 1 26.

28.
Omix has asserted and continues to assert that Razers marketing of its fender
flares constitutes infringement of the 324 Patent; that Razer must cease manufacturing,
10
11
using, selling, offering to sell, and/or importing into the U.S. Razers stubby fender flares;
12
that Razer must destroy all existing inventory of the stubby fender flares; and that Razer
13
provide stubby fender flares sales information to Omix for a purpose of ascertaining money
14
damages. See generally, Exhibit C.
15
29.
Razer disputes that Razer has infringed any properly construed, valid, and
16
17
18
enforceable claim of the 324 Patent.

30.
An ordinary observer would not consider the design of Razers Stubby fender
19
flares and the designs embodied in the 624 Patent to be substantially similar. In fact, there
20
are numerous differences between Razers Stubby fender flares and the claimed designs in the
21
624 Patent.
22
23
31.
An actual and substantial controversy exists between Razer and Omix, the
24
parties having adverse interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of
25
a declaratory judgment that Razer has not infringed and does not infringe any properly
26
construed, valid, and enforceable claim of the 624 Patent.
27
28
8
1
2
3
32.
Razer accordingly requests a judicial determination of Razers rights, duties,
and obligations with respect to the 624 Patent.

33.
A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate so that Razer may ascertain
4
5
its rights relative to the 624 Patent; otherwise, Razer has no practical recourse but to meet
Omixs demands, such as paying Omixs demand for money damages, destroying valuable
inventory, and ceasing sales and marketing activities of the Stubby fender flares.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Design Patent D712,324)
10
11
12
13
14
15
34.
Razer restates and incorporates by reference as if fully set forth herein the
allegations of the foregoing Paragraphs 1 33.

35.
Omix has asserted and continues to assert that Razers marketing of its fender
flares constitutes infringement of the 324 Patent; that Razer must cease manufacturing,
using, selling, offering to sell, and/or importing into the U.S. Razers stubby fender flares;
16
17
that Razer must destroy all existing inventory of the stubby fender flares; and that Razer
18
provide stubby fender flares sales information to Omix for a purpose of ascertaining money
19
damages. See generally, Exhibit C.
20
21
36.
Razer disputes that Razer has infringed any properly construed, valid, and
enforceable claim of the 324 Patent; and Razer affirmatively alleges that the claim of the
22
23
324 Patent is invalid for failure to meet one or more requirements for patentability under,
24
inter alia, Title 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103, and/or 112. Razer further affirmatively alleges
25
that the properly construed claim of the 324 Patent is unenforceable for inequitable conduct
26
of Omix.
27
28
9
1
2
3
37.
Therefore, an actual and substantial controversy exists between Razer and
Omix, with such parties having adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to
warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment that the properly construed claim of the 624
4
5
Patent is invalid for failure to meet one or more of the requirements for patentability under,
inter alia, Title 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103, and/or 112; or that the properly construed claim
of the 624 Patent is unenforceable for inequitable conduct of Omix.
8
9
38.
Accordingly, Razer requests a judicial determination of Razers rights, duties,
and obligations with respect to the 324 Patent.
10
39.
11
12
Razers rights relative to the 324 Patent.
13
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
14
15
A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate so that Razer may ascertain
WHEREFORE, Razer respectfully requests the Court to enter judgment in Razers

favor as to all claims asserted in this Complaint and, specifically, to enter judgment as
16
17
follows:
A.
18
19
Declaring that Razer is not liable for any infringement of any properly
construed, valid, and enforceable claim of the 324 Patent;
20
21
B.
Declaring that the 324 Patent is invalid;
C.
Declaring that the 324 Patent is unenforceable;
D.
Finding that this case is exceptional pursuant to Title 35 U.S.C. 285, entitling
22
23
24
Razer to an award against Omix of Razers reasonable attorneys fees;
25
E.
Awarding to Razer its costs and disbursements of this action; and
26
F.
Awarding to Razer such other and further relief as this Court deems just and
27
proper.
28
10
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
2
3
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b) and L.R. 38-1, Razer hereby demands a trial by jury
on all issues so triable.
4
5
Dated: February 19, 2016
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Eric Kelly
Eric A. Kelly (California SBN 292241)

eric.kelly@kellytechlaw.com
5535 Westlawn Ave., No. 180
Los Angeles, CA 90066
310-486-2698 phone or text msg
310-943-1432 fax
Attorney for Plaintiff, Razer Auto, Inc.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
///
///
///
11
VERIFICATION
2
3
I. Samuel Chi, declare as follows:
1.
I am a citizen of the United
States of America and
I am over the age of
+
5
6
7
8
eighteen.
2.
I currently hold
the position of Chief Executive Office of Plaintiff Razer Auto,
Inc. and I have held that position at all pertinent times herein.
3.
I have read the foregoing Complaint and I declare that the facts alleged therein
are true and correct to best of my knowledge and
belief. I understand that
a false statement
10
l1
this Verification
will
subject me to penalties of perjury.
12
13
74
I declare under penalty ofperjury under the law ofthe united states of America that
the foregoing is true and correct.
15
l6
17
Executed
on:
February 19,2016
Samuel Chi
18
19
20
2l
22
23
24
z)
26
27
28
12
in
Case 5:16-cv-00300 Document 1-1 Filed 02/19/16 Page 1 of 9 Page ID #:13
EXHIBIT A
Copy of U.S. Design Patent D712,324
EXHIBIT B
SEMA Tradeshow Complaint Form
EXHIBIT C
Defendant Omixs Cease and Desist Letter
H?YtrZ
SeNnruocr
s. RtcE
Suire 2400
Add6,
CA 10363 I017
Biadlcy P C&d.'
Dncct Dial: (!Ol)888 7405
Dtct Fd: {,104) 870-8216

F mail:b@don@scsr com
Telelhone: (a0a) 872 7000
February 4.2016
I IA ('LRTITIED MAIL. RETUNV RECEIPT REOUESTED

Samuel Chi, President
i95l S. Parco Ave.. Suite B

Onrario, CA 9176I
Re:
Our Client: Omix-ADA. Inc.

U.S. Design Patent No. D'712,324
Dear Sir:
'lhis firm represents Omix-ADA, Inc. (OMIX) in intellectual propedy matters.
At
least as early as 2013, OMIX developed and introduced a new, original, and
omamental design for l'ender flares for vehicles that provide an aggressive off-road look with
additional tire coverage and clearance. OMIX owns United States Design Patent No. US
D7l2-324 (the'324 Patent) that issued on September 2,2014, and which protects the design of
its fender fla.es. A copy of the '324 Patent is included as Attachment A. The '324 Patent gives
OMIX the ght to prevent others from making, using, impofiing, and/or selling fender flares thar
fill within the scope ofthe design palent.
At the November 2015 SEMA Show in Las Vegas, NV, OMIX employees noted that
your company, Razer Auto, Inc. (Razer), had an exhibition booth in which vehicle fender flares
viftually identical to those of OMIX were on display both separately and mounted to a vehicle.
,A subsequent search of your company's website revealed that Razer was actively offering for
sale five different modols (RZCMFF-3000/3001/3002/3003/3004) of the same fender flare
design, with variatiotN between the product models based only on color or sulbce finish. We
have rcviewed these fender flare products and detemined that they fall within the scope of the
'324 Patel\t. Thus, Razer's marketing of its lender flares constitutes iniingement of the '324
Patent.
OMIX notified the staff attomey at SEMA ofRazer's exhibition ofthe infringing feirder
flares and provided a copy of the '324 Patent. The SEMA attomey then conveyed this
information to Razer personnel with the request to stop displaying the fender llares. Upon
receipt of the requcst the separate display of infringing fender flares was removed fiom the
exhibition booth. but the fender llares mounted to the display vehicle werc not. Futhemore,
dcspite actual notice of OMIX'S design patelt at the SEMA show, Razer has since continued to
make, use, import, sell, or offer for sale the infringing fender flare products on its website and on
Amazon.com. and upon inlbrmation and beiief, continued to provide the infringing i'ender flare
WCSR 35566512v1
ffi7
Samuel Chi, President

February 4,2016
Page 2
s\Drux;E
&
RIcr
products to distributom to sellon their respective websites and on Amazon.com. This continued
infringement of OMIX'S prcprietary fender flare design creates confusion in consumers and
OMIX customers that is difficult to quantify and expensive to reverse.
Remedies afforded to an owner of a U.S. patent that is infringed can include the owner's
lost profits- an inliinger's profits, and/or an injunction against further sales and infringing uses.
Under appropriate circumstances, such as willful infiingement, a Court will treble a damage
award and order an infringer to pay attomeys' fees. As the '324 Patent issued on September 2,
2014- a court can award darnages for infringing actions occuring since this date.
OMIX cannot tolerate infringement of its pateDts. Accordingly, we demand immediate

cessation by Razer and its agents and affiliates ofthe manufacture, use, sale, offer for saie and-/or
importation into the United States of any fender flare that falls within the scope of the '324
Patent. We also demand that Razer deshoy ail existing inventory of the same. We flrther
demand that Razer provide inibrmation regarding the numbers of its fender flare products that
have been made, used, and/or sold since the'324 Patent issued, and to whom they were sold. so
that \"/e may determine the amount ofmoney damages suffered by OMIX as a result ofRazer's
infringing activities.
We expect a response to this letter, or a reasonable request for futher time, from Razer
within fowteen (14) days of its receipt. Although we hope that this matter can be resolved
between the companies on an amicable business basis, absent such a response OMIX will
assume that Razer intends to continue its inliinging activity and will proceed with further action
to protect its valuable patent rights.
Very truly yours,
WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE

A Prolbssional Limited Liability Company
,/ lk /,p
(J"2,*,flU u-zt'-
BradJey P. Cardon
BPC/ajc
Enclosures
\UCSR
35i66il2vl

Razer Auto v. Omix-ADA - 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

Razer Auto v. Omix-ADA - Complaint

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Case 5:16-cv-00300 Document 1 Filed 02/19/16 Page 1 of 12 Page ID #:1

Eric A. Kelly (California SBN 292241)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAZER AUTO, INC.,

Civil Action No. 5:16-CV-00300

COMPLAINT FOR DECLATORY

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF

Invalidity or Unenforceability (Complaint) against Defendant Omix-ADA, Inc. (Omix):

Case 5:16-cv-00300 Document 1 Filed 02/19/16 Page 2 of 12 Page ID #:2

Plaintiff Razer is a state of California corporation with a principal place of

Defendant Omix is a state of Georgia corporation, with a Georgia Secretary of

includes a suite number of 400.

Case 5:16-cv-00300 Document 1 Filed 02/19/16 Page 3 of 12 Page ID #:3

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

U.S.C. 1331 and pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. 1338(a).

Case 5:16-cv-00300 Document 1 Filed 02/19/16 Page 4 of 12 Page ID #:4

the Central District of California.

Complaint occurred in the Central District of California, including, without limitation,

including, without limitation, Razers warehousing of inventory of products in Ontario, CA,

Razers Ontario, CA, warehouse location.

Case 5:16-cv-00300 Document 1 Filed 02/19/16 Page 5 of 12 Page ID #:5

Venue is further proper because Omix is subject to personal jurisdiction in the

California pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. 1391(c)(2).

Wrangler; and the kits are sold with ornamental rivets.

2014. See Exhibit A and Exhibit C.

Since at least as early as 2013, Omix developed and introduced a [allegedly]

Case 5:16-cv-00300 Document 1 Filed 02/19/16 Page 6 of 12 Page ID #:6

Additionally, on Friday, December 11, 2015, Razer received an email from

infringe patents purportedly owned by Rugged Ridge. RUGGED RIDGE is a trademark

properly construed, valid, and enforceable claim of the 324 Patent.

Case 5:16-cv-00300 Document 1 Filed 02/19/16 Page 7 of 12 Page ID #:7

claim of the 324 Patent is unenforceable for inequitable conduct of Omix.

Accessories Manufacturer! per their www.omix-ada.com website. With respect to Omixs

Regulations (CFR) 1.56 of such information that is material to patentability. For

By virtue of Omixs actions and statements directed at or against Razer,

Case 5:16-cv-00300 Document 1 Filed 02/19/16 Page 8 of 12 Page ID #:8

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of U.S. Design Patent D712,324)

allegations of the foregoing Paragraphs 1 26.

damages. See generally, Exhibit C.

enforceable claim of the 324 Patent.

construed, valid, and enforceable claim of the 624 Patent.

Case 5:16-cv-00300 Document 1 Filed 02/19/16 Page 9 of 12 Page ID #:9

Razer accordingly requests a judicial determination of Razers rights, duties,

and obligations with respect to the 624 Patent.

A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate so that Razer may ascertain

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Design Patent D712,324)

allegations of the foregoing Paragraphs 1 33.

damages. See generally, Exhibit C.

Case 5:16-cv-00300 Document 1 Filed 02/19/16 Page 10 of 12 Page ID #:10

Therefore, an actual and substantial controversy exists between Razer and

of the 624 Patent is unenforceable for inequitable conduct of Omix.

Accordingly, Razer requests a judicial determination of Razers rights, duties,

and obligations with respect to the 324 Patent.

Razers rights relative to the 324 Patent.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate so that Razer may ascertain

WHEREFORE, Razer respectfully requests the Court to enter judgment in Razers

construed, valid, and enforceable claim of the 324 Patent;

Declaring that the 324 Patent is invalid;

Declaring that the 324 Patent is unenforceable;