Ryan Baker (SBN 214036)
`rbaker@bakermarquart.com
`Scott Malzahn (SBN 229204)
`smalzahn@bakermarquart.com
`Baker Marquart LLP
`10990 Wilshire Blvd. 4”‘ Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90024
`Telephone:
`(424) 652-7800
`Facsimile:
`(424)652-7850
`
`Attorneys for Plaintzfifs
`Hologram USA. Inc. and Uwe Maass
`
`\D--JO\U1-I:-i.»->[\J
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`HOLOGRAM USA, INC., a Delaware
`
`C359 N0- 14—cv-09489
`
`corporation; and UWE 1\/IAASS, an
`individual,
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`V.
`
`VNTANA 3D, LLC (d/b/a VNTANA) a
`California limited liability company;
`ASHLEY CROWDER, an individual; and
`
`BENJAMIN CONWAY, an individual;
`
`and DOES 1 through 10,
`
`Defendants.
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`
`._.
`
`©\.DOO*-—.'lO\U’IJ>-LAJ[\J
`
`3—-‘
`
`7......
`
`,_.a
`
`u—- I\J
`
`o—- U)
`
`>-—- -l>-
`
`._. U1
`
`n—-I 0*»
`
`>—- "-J
`
`I-—l 00
`
`>----- ‘-0
`
`Ix.) CD
`
`IN) 3-—A
`
`t\)I\J
`
`l\J L»)
`
`{Q-33
`
`to U’!
`
`E\J ON
`
`[U'----J
`
`l\.) 00
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`I.
`
`In i862, John Pepper and Henry Dircks invented “Pepper’s Ghost,” a
`
`revolutionary illusion technique. Over the last 150 years, Peppers Ghost has
`
`appeared in movies, concerts, magic shows and amusement park rides. Many of us
`
`have sat alongside Pepper’s Ghost in Disneyland’s Haunted Mansion. Today,
`
`thanks to the Plaintiffs’ patented technology, a new incarnation of Pepper’s Ghost
`
`has appeared. The patented technology renders holographic—lil<e images Virtually
`
`indistinguishable from real—life bodies}
`2.
`Plaintiff Hologram USA acquired exclusive rights to the patented
`
`technology directly from co-plaintiff and patent-holder Uwe Maass. Hologram
`
`USA was created to specifically promote and publicize the type of three-
`
`dimensional entertainment only made possible by the Plaintiffs’ patented
`
`technology.
`3.
`
`Plaintiffs have never licensed or otherwise authorized defendants
`
`VNTANA, Ashley Crowder, or Benjamin Conway (collectively, “Defendants”) to
`
`use Plaintiffs’ patented technology. But that has not stopped Defendants from
`
`flagrantly exploiting Plaintiffs’ intellectual property rights. Based on information
`
`and belief, Defendants make, use, offer to sell, and sell goods and services that
`
`infringe U.S. Patent No. 5,865,519 (the “ ‘S19 patent”). Defendants’ willful
`
`infringement of this patent has damaged and continues to damage Plaintiffs.
`
`Plaintiffs seek the assistance of this Court to recover damages and enjoin
`
`Defendants’ wrongful conduct.
`
`3 Technically, Plaintiffs’ patented technology does not create holograms because the images
`generated are not three-dimensional. Instead, it creates the illusion of moving, three-dimensional
`images through use of a patented system that projects a two-dimensional image onto glass or
`plastic arranged at an angle (e. g., a 45~degree angle) on stage.
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`
`THE PARTIES
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiff Hologram USA, Inc. (“Hologram USA”) is a corporation
`
`organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, having a principal
`
`place of business in Beverly Hills, California 90210. Hologram USA has licensed
`
`exclusive rights to practice the ‘519 patent from Uwe Maass.
`
`5.
`
`Plaintiff Uwe Maass is a citizen of Germany and an individual
`
`residing in Dubai in the United Arab Emirates. The United States Patent &
`
`Trademark Office (“PTO”) issued the ‘519 patent to Mr.'Maass on February 2,
`
`1999. Mr. Maass is also the sole named inventor on the 519 patent. Mr. Maass has
`
`owned all rights, title and interest to the ‘S19 patent since the patent’s issuance. A
`
`true and correct copy of the ‘5 19 patent is attached as Exhibit A.
`
`5.
`
`On information and belief, defendant VENTANA 3D, LLC d/b/a
`
`VNTANA (“VNTANA”) is a California limited liability company with a principal
`
`place of business in Santa Monica, California 90404.
`
`6.
`
`On information and belief, defendant Ashley Crowder, is a citizen of
`
`the United States and California resident. She is co—Founder, member, and acting
`
`Chief Executive Officer of VNTANA.
`
`7.
`
`On information and belief, defendant Benjamin Conway is a citizen of
`
`the United States and California resident. He is co-Founder, member and current
`
`Director of Business Development at VNTANA.
`
`8.
`
`The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate,
`
`associate, or otherwise, of certain Defendants sued in this complaint as DOES 1-10
`
`(collectively, the “Doe Defendants”), are presently unknown to Plaintiffs, who
`
`therefore sue them by fictitious names. Plaintiffs will amend the complaint to
`
`ailege their true names and capacities when ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed
`
`and believe and therefore allege that all Defendants, which include the Doc
`
`Defendants, were or are, in some way or manner, responsible for and liable to
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`\DOG'-—}O\
`
`10
`
`ll
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`
`1 Plaintiffs for the events, happenings, and damages alleged in this complaint.
`
`2
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that at all times
`
`3 mentioned each Defendant was the agent, servant, employee, co—venturer,
`
`4
`
`5
`
`representative, alter ego, or co—conspirator of each of the other defendants, and
`
`acted with the knowledge, consent, ratification, authorization and/or at the
`
`6 direction of each defendant, or is otherwise responsible in some manner for the
`
`7 occurrences alleged in this complaint.
`
`3
`
`9
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`10.
`
`This is a civil action for patent infringement arising under the Patent
`
`10 Laws of the United States of America, 35 U.S.C. § 101, et seq.
`
`11
`
`1 1.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this Complaint
`
`12 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338.
`
`13
`
`14
`
`12.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants for at least the
`
`following reasons: (i) on information and belief, VNTANA’s principal place of
`
`15 business is located in this District; (ii) on information and belief, defendants
`
`16 Crowder and Conway are residents of this State and District; (iii) on information
`
`17
`
`and belief, Defendants regularly do business or solicit business, engage in other
`
`18 persistent courses of conduct, and/or derive substantial revenue from products
`
`19 and/or services provided to individuals in this District and in this State; and (iv) on
`
`20
`
`information and belief, Defendants have purposefully established substantial,
`
`21
`
`systematic, and continuous contacts with this District and expect or should
`
`22
`
`reasonably expect to be in court here. Thus, this Court’s exercise ofjurisdiction
`
`23 over Defendants will not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial
`
`24 justice.
`
`.
`
`13. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
`
`1391 (b)—(c) and 1400(b). On information and belief, Defendants do business in
`
`and reside in this District, a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`
`to the claim occurred in this District, and Defendants are subject to personal
`
`jurisdiction in this District.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`A.
`
`The Patented Technology
`
`14.
`
`Plaintiffs’ patented technology covers various amazing techniques for
`
`projecting video to create the illusion of life-size, full color, 31) moving images.
`
`The images used in these systems are three—dimensional, but are projected as two-
`
`dimensional images into a three—dimensional stage set. This technology is capable
`
`of creating the appearance of life-size, three-dimensional moving images on stage
`
`that are nearly indistinguishable from real people.
`
`15.
`
`For example, Maass developed the inventions claimed in the ‘S 19
`
`patent after researching an old stage trick called “Pepper’s Ghost,” originally
`
`developed in the 1800s. This illusion was capable of creating the illusion of a
`
`ghost on stage. The trick relied, in part, on a heavy pane of glass positioned on
`
`stage to reflect the image of an actor positioned off-stage. This trick is still used
`
`today, such as at Disney’s Haunted Mansion. While Pepper’s Ghost is a relatively
`
`simple technique for creating an illusion, it is not capable of producing large
`
`effects that could move around on a large stage. Before Maass’s invention, people
`
`had to use technology that relied on 3D glasses to create the illusion of a large
`
`three-dimensional moving image on stage or on screen.
`
`16.
`
`After studying Pepper’s Ghost, Maass invented a proprietary system
`
`using a transparent smooth foil, capable of creating the illusion of1ife—size and
`
`three-dimensional images that may move around on a large stage. Importantly, the
`
`use of transparent smooth foil is practical to transport and setup on an existing
`
`stage and safe in comparison to the glass traditionally used in Pepper’s Ghost. The
`
`invention also eliminated the need for using 3D glasses.
`
`17.
`
`The technology described in the ‘S19 patent is known for producing
`
`l 2 3 4 \
`
`O0O*-JON
`
`10
`
`ll
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`
`1 high quality holographic—like projections. In 2006, certain embodiments of the
`
`2
`
`3
`
`technology were used to create a “live” performance by the animated band'Goril1az
`
`at the Grammy Awards. Subsequently, in 2012, pursuant to a license it had
`
`4 obtained from the patent holders at the time, Digital Domain used certain
`
`5 embodiments of the Plaintiffs’ patented technology at the Coachella Music Festival
`
`6
`
`to produce a life-size, three-dimensional moving image of deceased rapper Tupac
`
`7 Shakur performing on stage with Dr. Dre and Snoop Dogg.
`
`3
`
`18.
`
`In February 2014, Hologram USA outbid Digital Domain to acquire
`
`9 exclusive rights to the ‘5 19 patent and other technology. Hologram USA entered
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`into an agreement with Maass and another patent holder to acquire these exclusive
`
`rights. As a result of the parties’ agreement, Hologram USA became the exclusive
`
`licensee to ‘519 patent and other patents in all markets in the United States and
`
`13 Canada, with the exception of adult entertaimnent.
`
`14 B.
`
`Defendants’ Infringement and On-Going Wrongful Conduct
`
`15
`
`19. VNTANA advertises itself as a company that “empowers artists,
`
`16 celebrities, and brands to reach and engage new fans and customers authentically
`
`17 and affordably through the use of holograms.” http://www.vntana.com/. It states
`
`13
`
`19
`
`20
`
`that “[w]e bring fans face~to~face with their favorite artists, actors and athletes by
`
`transporting high definition, real-time holograms across the globe.” Id.
`
`20.
`
`In a March 23, 2014 interview with the Santa Monica Daily Press,
`
`21 Ms. Crowder admitted that VNTANA has used the same system used to create the
`
`22 Tupac Shakur holographic performance at the Coachella Music Festival before it
`
`23 allegedly designed a derivative projection system. See http://smdp.com/faces—of—
`
`24
`
`silicon-beach—ashley—crowder—co-founder-and-ceo-vntana/ I33 270.
`
`25
`
`21.
`
`On its website, VNTANA advertises its ability to provide custom
`
`26 hologram systems used in movie premiers, in-store displays, and other and venues.
`
`27 http://www.vntana.com/.
`
`It also advertises a V-3 Hologram system “for companies
`
`28
`
`COMPLA INT
`
`

`
`that are already experienced using holographic technologies, or for production
`
`companies iooking to use holographic effects[,]” which is available for rental or
`
`purchase.
`
`-161. Based on information and belief, the custom hologram systems and
`
`V-3 Hologram system (collectively, the “Accused Products”) infringe on one or
`
`more claims in the ‘S19 patent.
`
`22.
`
`On its website VNTANA sells the Accused Products as a method to
`
`create holographic-like images. Likewise Crowder and Conway actively promote
`
`their expertise in creating holographic effects and the infringing uses of the
`
`Accused Products in multiple press and online interviews.
`
`23.
`
`Based on information and belief, Crowder has personally participated
`
`in infringing the ‘S19 patent. As co—founder, member, and Chief Executive Officer
`
`of VNTANA, she personally infringed and directed or knowingly and actively
`
`caused others to infringe the ‘S 19 patent. Crowder has mentioned in multiple press
`
`reports and interviews that she has personally and actively participated in the
`
`design, marketing, and sale of the Accused Products. She has also admitted that
`
`she was aware of, and used, the system used to create the Tupac Shakur
`
`holographic performance at the Coachella Music Festival before participating in
`
`the design and sale of the Accused Products.
`
`24.
`
`Based on information and belief, Conway also has personally
`
`participated in infringing the ‘S 19 patent. As co—founder, member, and Director of
`
`Business Development of VNTANA, he personally infringed and directed, or
`
`knowingly and actively caused others to infringe the ‘S 19 patent. Conway has
`
`discussed in multiple press reports and trade articles that he has personally and
`
`actively participated in the design, marketing, and sale of the Accused Products.
`
`He has also admitted that he was aware of, and used, the system used to create the
`
`Tupac Shakur holographic performance at the Coachella Music Festival before
`
`participating in the design and sale of the Accused Products.
`
`\D0O'--JCh
`
`10
`
`I1
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`
`25.
`
`On or about June 25, 2014, Plaintiffs sent a cease and desist letter that
`
`formally placed Defendants on notice of the ‘5 19 patent and their infringing
`
`activities. Plaintiffs demanded that Defendants cease all activities infringing on
`
`the ‘519 patent. A true and correct copy of Plaintiffs’ June 25, 2014 demand letter
`
`is attached as Exhibit B.
`
`26. Despite receiving a pre-litigation cease and desist demand, Plaintiffs
`
`are informed and believe and therefore allege that Defendants continue to make,
`
`use, offer to sell, and sell products and services incorporating the ‘519 patent
`
`without authorization.
`
`27.
`
`On information and belief, the Accused Products infringe on one or
`
`more claims in the ‘519 patent.
`
`28.
`
`Defendants’ infringement of the ‘5 19 patent has caused‘ and will
`
`continue to cause monetary and other damages to Plaintiffs.
`
`FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF —— Against all Defendants
`
`(Infringement of Patent No. 5,865,519)
`
`29.
`
`Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the preceding averments set forth
`
`in the preceding paragraphs.
`
`'
`
`30.
`
`The ‘5 19 patent duly and lawfully issued on February 2, 1999, to Uwe
`
`Maass and is titled “Device For Displaying Moving Images In The Background Of
`A Stage.” The claims of the ‘5 19 patent are directed at a system or apparatus for
`
`representing three-dimensional moving images in the background of a stage or the
`
`like using an image source. See Exhibit A.
`
`31. Mr. Maass is the owner of the ‘5 19 patent, and Hologram USA has
`
`licensed the exclusive right to exploit this patent in all markets in the U.S. and
`
`Canada with the exception of adult entertainment. Mr. Maass and Hologram USA
`
`have the right to bring this suit for injunctive relief and damages.
`
`32.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants have been, are currently, and
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`
`unless enjoined, will continue to directly infringe one or more claims of the ‘S19
`
`patent by making, using, offering to sell, and selling within the United States the
`patented invention. Defendants’ products and services embody and/or practice one
`
`or more claims of the ‘519 patent.
`
`33.
`
`Defendants’ infringing activities have caused and will continue to
`
`cause Plaintiffs irreparable harm, for which it has no adequate remedy at law,
`
`unless Defendants’ infringing activities are enjoined by this Court in accordance
`
`with 35 U.S.C. § 283.
`
`34.
`
`Plaintiffs have been and continue to be damaged by Defendants’
`
`infringement of the ‘S 19 patent in an amount to be determined at trial.
`
`SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF - Against All Defendants
`
`(Willful Infringement)
`
`35.
`
`Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the preceding averments set forth
`
`in the preceding paragraphs.
`
`36. As alleged above, the Defendants did not possess a valid license from
`
`Hologram USA to make, use, offer to sell or sell Plaintiffs’ patented technology.
`
`Despite not having the proper license, Defendants willfully infringed the ‘S19
`
`patent.
`
`37.
`
`The Defendants knew about the ‘S 19 patent before the complaint in
`
`this action was filed, and acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its
`
`actions constituted infringement of a valid patent. Defendants have admitted that
`
`they were aware of the Tupac hologram at Coachella. Under the circumstances,
`
`the Defendants surely understood that the technology used by them to create
`
`holographic-iike projections was patented.
`
`38.
`
`Despite their knowledge of the existence of the ‘519 patent, based on
`
`information and belief, Defendants willfully, intentionally and consciously
`
`infringed the ‘S19 patent in disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights.
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`
`39.
`
`Plaintiffs have also placed Defendants on written notice of their
`
`alleged infringement. Plaintiffs demanded in their pre-litigation ietter that
`
`Defendants cease all activities infringing on the ‘5 19 patent. Defendants have
`
`failed to comply with this demand. See Exhibit B.
`
`40. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ willful infringement
`
`of the ‘519 patent, Plaintiffs have been and will continue to suffer monetary
`
`damages and irreparable injury. Defendants have created on—going confusion in
`
`the marketplace as to the rightful owners and licensors of the ‘S 19 patent, which
`
`renders this case appropriate for treble damages.
`
`THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF -~ Against All Defendants
`
`(Active Inducement)
`
`41.
`
`Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the preceding averments set forth
`
`in the preceding paragraphs.
`
`42.
`
`In addition to directly infringing the ‘S 19 patent, the Defendants are
`
`liable for indirect infringement. The Defendants actively induced the direct
`
`infringement of the ‘519 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. section 271(b), which
`
`provides that whoever “actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as
`
`an infringer.”
`
`43. As alleged in greater detail above, the Defendants knew about the
`
`‘S 1 9 patent before the complaint in this action was filed, and acted with knowledge
`that their induced acts constitute patent infringement. Defendants are familiar with
`
`the ‘5 i 9 patent and have had prior experiences with Plaintiffs’ patented technology
`
`— which is widely known within the entertainment industry. Further, Plaintiffs
`
`expressly demanded that Defendants refrain from misappropriating their patented
`
`technology before this lawsuit was filed.
`
`44.
`
`On information and belief, the Defendants intended to induce
`
`infringement of the ‘5 19 patent. The Defendants offer the Accused Products to
`
`O0‘-~.lO’\U’:-J3
`
`10
`
`ll
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`10
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`
`third parties and offer instruction to create a holographic intended to induce third
`
`parties to infringe the ‘5 19 patent.
`
`45.
`
`In particular, based on information and belief, Defendants
`
`intentionally induced infringement of the ‘S 19 patent by placing the Accused
`
`Products into the stream of commerce, with knowledge that such products infringe
`
`the Patent At Issue. As stated on the VNTANA website, Defendants offer both the
`
`hardware and instructions for third parties to assemble the Accused Products that
`
`infringe the ‘S19 patent. See http://www.vntana.com, Services tab.
`
`46.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ induced infringement
`
`of the ‘S 19 patent, Plaintiffs have been and will continue to suffer monetary
`
`damages and irreparable injury.
`
`FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF -— Against All Defendants
`
`(Contributory Infringement)
`
`47.
`
`Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the preceding averrnents set forth
`
`in the preceding paragraphs.
`
`48.
`
`In addition to directly infringing the ‘5 19 patent, the Defendants are
`
`liable for indirect infringement. The Defendants engaged in contributory
`
`infringement of the ‘S19 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. section 271(0), which
`
`provides that “[c]ontributory infringement occurs if a party sells or offers to sell, a
`
`material or apparatus for use in practicing a patented process, and that ‘material or
`
`apparatus’ is material to practicing the invention, has no substantial non—infringing
`
`uses, and is known by the party ‘to be especially made or especially adapted for
`
`use in an infringement of such patent.”
`
`49. As alleged in greater detail above, the Defendants knew about the
`
`‘S19 patent before the complaint in this action was filed. Defendants are familiar
`
`with the ‘5 19 patent and have had prior experiences with Plaintiffs’ patented
`
`technology -- which is widely known within the entertainment industry. Further,
`
`10
`
`ll
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`ll
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`
`Plaintiffs expressly demanded that Defendants refrain from misappropriating their
`
`patented technology before this lawsuit was filed.
`
`50.
`
`Based on information and belief, Defendants contributed to the
`
`infringement of the ‘5 l9 patent by placing the Accused Products into the stream of
`
`commerce with knowledge that such products infringe the Patent At Issue. The
`
`Accused Products have no substantial non—infringing use.
`
`51. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ contributory
`
`infringement of the ‘S 19 patent, Plaintiffs have been and wiil continue to suffer
`
`monetary damages and irreparable injury.
`
`FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF — Against All Defendants
`
`(Preliminary and Permanent Injunction)
`
`52.
`
`Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the preceding averments set forth
`
`in the preceding paragraphs.
`
`53.
`
`immediate and irreparable injury will result to Plaintiffs unless this
`
`Court enters a Preliminary Injunction, pursuant to FRCP 65, enjoining all
`
`Defendants and their agents, servants, employees, attorneys, subsidiaries and any
`
`other individual or entity in active concert or participation with them who receives
`
`actual notice of the order, from infringing, inducing others to infringe, or
`
`contributing to the infringement of the ‘S19 patent, including the manufacture, use,
`
`sale, and offer to sell any equipment or services related to the use of such
`
`equipment subject to the ‘5 19 patent.
`
`54.
`
`Plaintiffs have a likelihood of success on the merits given that there is
`
`no dispute that Defendants have infringed and continue to infringe the ‘5 19 patent,
`
`by using and seliing the Accused Products to create holographic—1ike images.
`
`55. As aresult of Defendants’ unlawful activities, Plaintiffs have suffered
`
`and will suffer irreparable harm. Hologram USA has spent several million dollars
`
`building the Hologram USA name and brand. For instance, Hologram USA spent
`
`12
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`
`millions of dollars to build a Beverly Hills showroom to display and market their
`
`patented technology to potential customers.
`
`56.
`The acts of the Defendants have already caused Plaintiffs significant
`harm. By advertising, promoting and displaying the Accused Products, Defendants
`
`have contributed to significant confusion in the marketplace. That confusion has
`
`diluted the value of the Hologram USA brand by causing confusion among
`
`potential customers. On information and belief, Defendants are continuing to
`
`promote and sell the Accused Products to other prospective customers.
`
`57.
`
`If Defendants are permitted to continue their infringing conduct,
`
`including but not limited to the continued promotion of their services, the
`
`irreparable harm suffered by Hologram USA will be immeasurable.
`
`58. Defendants’ actions will continue to irreparably harm Plaintiffs’
`
`business reputation and brand by creating consumer confusion as to the true owner
`
`of the patented technology. No adequate remedy at law will alleviate this harm.
`
`RE§ QUEST FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that:
`
`a.
`
`Judgment be entered that Defendants have infringed one or more
`
`claims of the ‘519 patent;
`
`b.
`
`Judgment be entered permanently enjoining Defendants, their
`
`directors, officers, agents, servants, and employees, and those acting in privity or in
`
`concert with them, and their subsidiaries, divisions, successors and assigns, from
`
`further acts of infringement of the ‘S 19 patent;
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`Judgment be entered that Defendants’ infringement has been willfiil;
`
`Judgment be entered awarding Plaintiffs all damages adequate to
`
`compensate them for Defendants’ infringement of the ‘5 19 patent, including all
`
`pre-judgment and post—judgment interest at the maximum rate permitted by law,
`
`1 3
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`and including a trebling of such damages due to Defendants’ willful infringement.
`
`e.
`
`For reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in bringing and litigating this
`
`action;
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`For costs of suit herein; and
`
`Judgment be entered awarding all other relief as the Court deems
`
`6 proper.
`
`BAKER MAR
`
`P
`
` [
`
`BY1
`
`”
`
`DATED: December 10, 2014
`
`7 3
`
`9
`
`10
`
`l 1
`
`12
`l—d L:-J
`
`14
`
`l5
`
`16
`
`17
`
`1 8
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Ryan Baker (Bar No. 21403 6)
`rbaker@bal<ermarquart.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintzflfs Hologram USA,
`Inc. and Uwe Maass
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Please take notice that Plaintiffs demand trial by jury in this action.
`
`DATED: December 10, 2014
`
`BAKER MARQUART LLP
`
`By:
`
`C
`
`:
`
`Ryan Baker (Bar No. 214036)
`rbaker@bal<errnarquart.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs Hologram USA,
`Inc. and Uwe Maass
`
`COMPLAINT