Case: 3:20-cv-01011 Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/08/20 1 of 11.

PageID #: 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

SAMUEL STAMPING )
TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, ) JUDGE:
1760 Broadway Ave. )
Hermitage, Pennsylvania 16148 ) MAGISTRATE JUDGE:
)
Plaintiff, ) CASE NO:
)
v. ) COMPLAINT FOR DESIGN
) PATENT INFRINGEMENT
THERMA-TRU CORP. )
1750 Indian Wood Circle ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Maumee, Ohio 43537 )
)
Defendant. )

Plaintiff Samuel Stamping Technologies, LLC (“SST”), for its Complaint against

Therma-Tru Corp., alleges as follows:

Nature of the Action

1. This is an action for design patent infringement under the Patent Laws of

the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. This action arises by reason of Defendant’s

copying of SST’s ornamental designs for door skins, described below.

Parties

2. SST is organized under the laws of the State of Pennsylvania, with its

principal place of business in Hermitage, Pennsylvania.

3. Defendant is an Ohio Corporation with its principal place of business in

Maumee, Ohio.
 Case: 3:20-cv-01011 Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/08/20 2 of 11. PageID #: 2

Jurisdiction and Venue

4. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28

U.S.C. §§ 1331.

5. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant is

an Ohio Corporation with its principal place of business in this district.

6. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) because

Defendant is an Ohio corporation that resides in this district and has committed the acts

of infringement complained of and has a regular and established place of business in this

district.

SST And Its Door Skin Design Patents

7. Beginning with a predecessor company, SST has been engaged in the steel

service business for more than 40 years. Its work in various metal processing activities

led to the stamping and design of steel door skins. Generally speaking, door skins are

thin layers of material such as steel or fiberglass comprising the front and back surfaces

of doors. Door skins attached to the front and/or back of a door frequently have

ornamental designs, as exemplified by the three SST patented door skin designs

described further below. Those patented designs have been highly successful for SST,

which has stamped them for several door manufacturers and related companies, including

Defendant.

8. In in particular, SST’s three patented door skin designs at issue herein,

depicted below, are protected by the following design patents, all of which remain in full

-2-
 Case: 3:20-cv-01011 Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/08/20 3 of 11. PageID #: 3

force and effect: US Design Patent No. D557,427, issued on December 11, 2007 (the

“D427 patent”); US Design Patent No. D625,023, issued on October 5, 2010 (the “D023

patent”); and US Design Patent No. D635,276, issued on March 29, 2011 (the “D276

patent”) (collectively, the “SST Patents”).

D557,427 D625,023 D635,276

--

•••• ••••••

1
LT
K __.
7t ___i
7
7
6: :6
_ .
10 t6
I
i 1 _ I IL I
I

Defendant’s Infringement Of the SST Design Patents

9. Commencing in 2006, SST stamped door skins covered by the SST Patents

for a metal supplier, which in turn sold those doors to Defendant.

10. In late 2018, the metal supplier advised SST that it had learned that

Defendant was planning to cease purchasing the doors for which SST stamped the skins

with its patented designs and instead produce the same models in-house in a cost saving

move. In early 2019, SST contacted an employee of Defendant about this information

-3-
 Case: 3:20-cv-01011 Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/08/20 4 of 11. PageID #: 4

and reminded that employee of the SST Patents, including the various ways in which SST

had notified Defendant of those patents. The employee acknowledged notice of the SST

Patents and claimed that its design for the same models would not infringe those patents,

but did not offer to provide SST with information on the designs of its replacement doors.

11. Plaintiff determined that Defendant’s replacement doors infringe the SST

Patents when it was able to inspect them, and so advised Defendant in a letter dated

August 22, 2019.

Count I: Infringement of US Design Patent No. D557,427

(35 U.S.C. § 271(a))

12. SST realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of Paragraphs 1

through 11 above.

13. Defendant has copied the design of the door claimed in D427 Patent by

making, importing, using, offering to sell, or selling in the United States, including in the

State of Ohio and within this District, at least its Profiles 2 Panel Square Top Flush Style

No. 978HD (“Profiles 978HD”) door. A side-by-side comparison of the claimed design

of the D427 patent, SST’s commercial embodiment (previously sold to Defendant) and

the Profiles 978HD door (from Defendant’s website) is shown below.

-4-
 Case: 3:20-cv-01011 Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/08/20 5 of 11. PageID #: 5

D427 Patent SST Commercial Defendant’s Profiles

Embodiment 978HD

5
rP

\ /

61_ ?

14. The design of Defendant’s Profiles 978HD door is substantially the same as

the design of the D427 Patent. The designs are so similar as to be nearly identical such

that an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, would be so

deceived by the substantial similarity between the designs so as to be induced to purchase

Defendant’s Profiles 978HD door believing it to be substantially the same as the design

protected by the D427 Patent.

15. Defendant’s acts of infringement of the D427 Patent were undertaken

without authority, permission or license from SST. Defendant’s infringing activities

violate 35 U.S.C. § 271.

-5-
 Case: 3:20-cv-01011 Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/08/20 6 of 11. PageID #: 6

16. Defendant’s infringement has damaged SST. The injury to SST is

irreparable and will continue unless and until Defendant is enjoined from further

infringement.

17. SST has complied with the marking requirements set forth in 35 U.S.C.

§ 287 and has provided Defendant with appropriate notice of its infringement of the D427

Patent.

18. SST is entitled to an accounting of all revenue and profits derived by

Defendant from its infringement of the D427 Patent, including without limitation,

Defendant’s total profit pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 289.

19. SST is entitled to a permanent injunction preventing Defendant from

further infringing the D427 Patent.

Count II: Infringement of US Design Patent No. D625,023

(35 U.S.C. § 271(a))

20. SST realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of Paragraphs 1

through 11 above.

21. Defendant has copied the design of the door claimed in D023 Patent by

making, importing, using, offering to sell, or selling in the United States, including in the

State of Ohio and within this District, at least its Profiles 2 Panel Soft Arch Flush Style

No. 1005HD (“Profiles 1005HD”) door. A side-by-side comparison of the claimed

design of the D023 patent, SST’s commercial embodiment (previously sold to Defendant)

and the Profiles 1005HD door (from Defendant’s website) is shown below.

-6-
 Case: 3:20-cv-01011 Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/08/20 7 of 11. PageID #: 7

D023 Patent SST Commercial Defendant’s Profiles

Embodiment 1005HD

-------
. -

7t1 y

I
1
ai:r.a... ..

_____

22. The design of Defendant’s Profiles 1005HD door is substantially the same

as the design of the D023 Patent. The designs are so similar as to be nearly identical such

that an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, would be so

deceived by the substantial similarity between the designs so as to be induced to purchase

Defendant’s Profiles 1005HD door believing it to be substantially the same as the design

protected by the D023 Patent.

23. Defendant’s acts of infringement of the D023 Patent were undertaken

without authority, permission or license from SST. Defendant’s infringing activities

violate 35 U.S.C. § 271.

-7-
 Case: 3:20-cv-01011 Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/08/20 8 of 11. PageID #: 8

24. Defendant’s infringement has damaged SST. The injury to SST is

irreparable and will continue unless and until Defendant is enjoined from further

infringement.

25. SST has complied with the marking requirements set forth in 35 U.S.C.

§ 287 and has provided Defendant with appropriate notice of its infringement of the D023

Patent.

26. SST is entitled to an accounting of all revenue and profits derived by

Defendant from its infringement of the D023 Patent, including without limitation,

Defendant’s total profit pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 289.

27. SST is entitled to a permanent injunction preventing Defendant from

further infringing the D023 Patent.

Count III: Infringement of US Design Patent No. D635,276

(35 U.S.C. § 271(a))

28. SST realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of Paragraphs 1

through 11 above.

29. Defendant has copied the design of the door claimed in D276 Patent by

making, importing, using, offering to sell, or selling in the United States, including in the

State of Ohio and within this District, at least its Profiles 2 Panel Plank Soft Arch Flush

Style No. 205HD (“Profiles 205HD”) door. A side-by-side comparison of the claimed

design of the D276 patent, SST’s commercial embodiment (previously sold to Defendant)

and the Profiles 205HD door (from Defendant’s website) is shown below.

-8-
 Case: 3:20-cv-01011 Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/08/20 9 of 11. PageID #: 9

D276 Patent SST Commercial Defendant’s Profiles

Embodiment 205HD
i_ 8 1
-----------
--- --------
matiw.--- 1
1 1
l l 1
i

il -- . iirsimit om

1 7' J7
10 10
41
/ N

30. The design of Defendant’s Profiles 205HD door is substantially the same as

the design of the D276 Patent. The designs are so similar as to be nearly identical such

that an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, would be so

deceived by the substantial similarity between the designs so as to be induced to purchase

Defendant’s Profiles 205HD door believing it to be substantially the same as the design

protected by the D276 Patent.

31. Defendant’s acts of infringement of the D276 Patent were undertaken

without authority, permission or license from SST. Defendant’s infringing activities

violate 35 U.S.C. § 271.

-9-
 Case: 3:20-cv-01011 Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/08/20 10 of 11. PageID #: 10

32. Defendant’s infringement has damaged SST. The injury to SST is

irreparable and will continue unless and until Defendant is enjoined from further

infringement.

33. SST has complied with the marking requirements set forth in 35 U.S.C.

§ 287 and has provided Defendant with appropriate notice of its infringement of the D276

Patent.

34. SST is entitled to an accounting of all revenue and profits derived by

Defendant from its infringement of the D276 Patent, including without limitation,

Defendant’s total profit pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 289.

35. SST is entitled to a permanent injunction preventing Defendant from

further infringing the D276 Patent.

Prayer For Relief

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff SST prays for judgment as follows:

1. A judgment that Defendant infringes the SST Patents.

2. A permanent injunction enjoining Defendant, and all persons acting in

concert with Defendant, from infringing the SST Patents.

3. A judgment and order requiring Defendant to pay SST all damages caused

by Defendant’s infringement of the SST Patents, but in no event less than the greater of a

reasonable royalty pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284 or the total profit made by Defendant

from its infringement of the SST Patents patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 289.

4. A judgment and order requiring Defendant to pay SST supplemental

-10-
 Case: 3:20-cv-01011 Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/08/20 11 of 11. PageID #: 11

damages or profits for any continuing post-verdict infringement up until entry of the final

judgment, with an accounting, as needed.

5. A judgment and order requiring Defendant to pay SST increased damages

up to three times the amount found or assessed pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284.

6. A judgment and order requiring Defendant to pay SST pre-judgment and

post judgment interest on any damages or profits awarded.

7. A determination that this action is an exceptional case pursuant to 35

U.S.C. § 285.

8. That SST have such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and

proper.

Jury Demand

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38, Plaintiff Samuel Stamping

Technologies, LLC demands trial by jury for all claims and issues thus triable by right.

Dated: May 8, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP

/s/ Michael J. Garvin

Michael J. Garvin [0025394]
Aaron M. Williams [0090319]
200 Public Square, Suite 1400
Of counsel: Cleveland, OH 44114
Phone: (216) 479-6100
Brigid E. Sharek [0097834] Fax: (216) 479-6060
52 E. Gay St. mjgarvin@vorys.com
Columbus, OH 43215 amwilliams@vorys.com
Phone: (614) 464-6400
Fax: (614) 464-6350 Attorneys for Plaintiff Samuel Stamping
besharek@vorys.com Technologies, LLC

-11-
 Case: 3:20-cv-01011 Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 05/08/20 1 of 2. PageID #: 12

(SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)

Samuel Stamping Technologies, LLC Therma-Tru Corp.

1760 Broadway Ave. 1750 Indian Wood Circle
Hermitage, Pennsylvania 16148 Maumee, Ohio 43537
Mercer County, PA Lucas County, OH
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)

(Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) (If Known)

Michael J. Garvin [0025394]; Aaron M. Williams [0090319]
Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP
200 Public Square, Suite 1400, Cleveland, OH 44114
Phone: (216) 479-6100

(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)

(U.S. Government Not a Party) or

and
(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)

(specify)
(Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity)
35 U.S.C. § 271(a)
Patent Infringement
TBD

(See instructions):

ðëñðèñîðîð ñ-ñ Ó·½¸¿»´ Öò Ù¿®ª·²

 Case: 3:20-cv-01011 Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 05/08/20 2 of 2. PageID #: 13
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

I. Civil Categories: (Please check one category only).

1. ì General Civil
2. Administrative Review/Social Security
3. Habeas Corpus Death Penalty
*If under Title 28, §2255, name the SENTENCING JUDGE:

CASE NUMBER:
II. RELATED OR REFILED CASES. See LR 3.1 which provides in pertinent part: "If an action is filed or removed to this Court
and assigned to a District Judge after which it is discontinued, dismissed or remanded to a State court, and
subsequently refiled, it shall be assigned to the same Judge who received the initial case assignment without regardfor
the place of holding court in which the case was refiled. Counsel or a party without counsel shall be responsible for
bringing such cases to the attention of the Court by responding to the questions included on the Civil Cover Sheet."

This action RELATED to another PENDING civil case REFILED

If applicable, please indicate on page 1 in section VIII, the name of the Judge and case number.

III. In accordance with Local Civil Rule 3.8, actions involving counties in the Eastern Division shall be filed at any of the
divisional offices therein. Actions involving counties in the Western Division shall be filed at the Toledo office. For the
purpose of determining the proper division, and for statistical reasons, the following information is requested.

ANSWER ONE PARAGRAPH ONLY. ANSWER PARAGRAPHS 1 THRU 3 IN ORDER. UPON FINDING WHICH
PARAGRAPH APPLIES TO YOUR CASE, ANSWER IT AND STOP.

(1) Resident defendant. If the defendant resides in a county within this district, please set forth the name of such
county
COUNTY: Lucas County, OH
Corporation For the purpose of answering the above, a corporation is deemed to be a resident of that county in which
it has its principal place of business in that district.

(2) Non-Resident defendant. If no defendant is a resident of a county in this district, please set forth the county
wherein the cause of action arose or the event complained of occurred.
COUNTY:

(3) Other Cases. If no defendant is a resident of this district, or if the defendant is a corporation not having a principle
place of business within the district, and the cause of action arose or the event complained of occurred outside
this district, please set forth the county of the plaintiff's residence.
COUNTY:

IV. The Counties in the Northern District of Ohio are divided into divisions as shown below. After the county is
determined in Section III, please check the appropriate division.

EASTERN DIVISION

AKRON (Counties: Carroll, Holmes, Portage, Stark, Summit, Tuscarawas and Wayne)
CLEVELAND (Counties: Ashland, Ashtabula, Crawford, Cuyahoga, Geauga, Lake,
Lorain, Medina and Richland)
YOUNGSTOWN (Counties: Columbiana, Mahoning and Trumbull)

WESTERN DIVISION

ì TOLEDO (Counties: Allen, Auglaize, Defiance, Erie, Fulton, Hancock, Hardin, Henry,
Huron, Lucas, Marion, Mercer, Ottawa, Paulding, Putnam, Sandusky, Seneca
VanWert, Williams, Wood and Wyandot)