Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`ESTTA801986
`
`Filing date:
`
`02/16/2017
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Proceeding
`
`92064206
`
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Submission
`
`Filer's Name
`
`Filer's e-mail
`
`Signature
`
`Date
`
`Defendant
`JDA Technology, LLC
`
`CHARLES T RIGGS JR
`LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES T RIGGS JR
`551 FOREST AVE
`RIVER FOREST, IL 60305
`UNITED STATES
`riggs@riggs.pro
`
`Motion to Suspend for Civil Action
`
`Charles T. Riggs Jr.
`
`riggs@riggs.pro
`
`/Charles T. Riggs Jr./
`
`02/16/2017
`
`Attachments
`
`Motion to Suspend with exhibit.pdf(2442631 bytes )
`
`

`

`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`In the matter of Registration No. 4823007
`For the Mark: SONIC VORTEX and design
`Date of Issue: September 29, 2015
`__________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`AFCO INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`Registrant.
`__________________________________________)
`
`v.
`
`
`
`Petitioner,
`
`
`
`JDA TECHNOLOGY, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cancellation No. 92064206
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
`Commissioner for Trademarks
`P.O. Box 1451
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1451
`
`
`REGISTRANT’S MOTION TO SUSPEND
`
`
`
`Pursuant to TBMP 510 and 37 CFR §2.117(a), Registrant hereby respectfully moves the
`
`Board to suspend this cancellation proceeding in view of pending litigation between the parties in the
`
`United Stated District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, Case No. 17-861,
`
`alleging, inter alia, Federal Trademark Infringement of the Sonic Vortex Mark (Count II). A copy of
`
`the Complaint from said litigation is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
`
`In support of this Motion, Registrant respectfully informs the Board that the parties hereto are
`
`engaged in a civil action which may have a bearing on this case. As such, proceedings before the
`
`Board may be suspended until final determination of the civil action. See General Motors Corp. v.
`
`Cadillac Club Fashions Inc., 22 USPQ2d 1933, 1936-37 (TTAB 1992); Toro Co. v. Hardigg
`
`Industries, Inc., 187 USPQ 689, 692 (TTAB 1975), rev’d on other grounds, 549 F.2d 785, 193
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`USPQ 149 (CCPA 1977); Other Telephone Co. v. Connecticut National Telephone Co., 181 USPQ
`
`125, 126-27 (TTAB 1974); petition denied, 181 USPQ 779 (Comm’r 1974); Tokaido v. Honda
`
`Associates Inc., 179 USPQ 861, 862 (TTAB 1973); Whopper-Burger, Inc. v. Burger King Corp., 171
`
`USPQ 805, 806-07 (TTAB 1971).
`
`Accordingly, good cause is hereby shown for suspension of this cancellation proceeding,
`
`consistent with the Board’s policy to suspend in favor of a civil action.1 This request is being made
`
`in good faith and not for any dilatory purpose.
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`By:
`
`s/Charles T. Riggs Jr./
` Attorney for Registrant
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: February 16, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Charles T. Riggs Jr.
`(riggs@riggs.pro)
`The Law Office of Charles T. Riggs Jr.
`551 Forest Ave.
`River Forest, Illinois 60305
`(708) 828-6130
`
`
`
`1 If for some reason this Motion is not granted, Applicant respectfully requests that all scheduled
`dates be reset, including the date for Applicant to file its Answer to the Petition for cancellation.
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`I hereby certify that a true and complete copy of the foregoing REGISTRANT’S MOTION
`TO SUSPEND has been served on Petitioner’s Attorney of Record and Correspondent as listed on
`the TTAB website of the United States Patent and Trademark Office by email, on February 16, 2017
`to:
`
`Ekundayo Seton
`WYATT, TARRANT & COMBS, LLP
`500 West Jefferson Street, Suite 2800
`Louisville, Kentucky 40202-2898
`dseton@wyattfirm.com, trademarks@wyattfirm.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`s/Charles T. Riggs Jr./
` Charles T. Riggs Jr.
` (riggs@riggs.pro)
` The Law Office of Charles T. Riggs Jr.
` 551 Forest Ave.
` River Forest, Illinois 60305
` (708) 828-6130
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case: 1:17-cv-00861 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/01/17 Page 1 of 34 PageID #:1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`EASTERN DIVISION
`
`CASE NO. 17-861
`
`JUDGE:
`
`MAGISTRATE JUDGE:
`
`
`
`JURY DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`VANCO INTERNATIONAL LLC and
`JDA TECHNOLOGIES LLC
`
` PLAINTIFFS,
`
`
`
` VS.
`
`
`BEALE STREET AUDIO INC.,
`BSA FULMER, LLC D/B/A BEALE
`STREET AUDIO, and
`AFCO INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
` DEFENDANTS.
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs, Vanco International LLC (“Vanco”) and JDA Technologies LLC (“JDA”)
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`complain against Defendants, Beale Street Audio, Inc., (“Beale”), BSA Fulmer, LLC d/b/a Beale
`
`Street Audio (“BSA”) and AFCO Inc. (”AFCO”) (collectively “the Defendants”), and state:
`
`
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This is an action arising under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. §
`
`271 et seq. and is brought against Defendants for their infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,925,676
`
`(“the ‘676 Patent”); and under the trademark laws of the United States, 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq.
`
`and is brought against Defendants for their unfair competition and infringement of U.S.
`
`Trademark Registration No. 4,823,007. This is also action arising under Illinois law, and is
`
`brought against Defendants for deceptive trade practices in violation of 815 ILCS 510; and under
`
`the common law of Illinois for unfair competition and trademark infringement.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case: 1:17-cv-00861 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/01/17 Page 2 of 34 PageID #:2
`
`PARTIES
`
`2.
`
`JDA is a Florida limited liability company with its principal place of business in
`
`Orlando, Florida and owner of the ‘676 Patent.
`
`3.
`
`Vanco is an Illinois limited liability company with its principal place of business
`
`in Batavia, Illinois. Vanco manufactures and sells products used in connection with audio visual
`
`systems.
`
`4.
`
`Beale is a Tennessee corporation with its principal place of business in Memphis,
`
`Tennessee. Beale manufactures, imports, offer for sale and/or sells audio speakers, amplifiers,
`
`and related products.
`
`5.
`
`BSA Fulmer, LLC is a Tennessee limited liability company with its principal
`
`place of business in Memphis, Shelby County, Tennessee that purports to do business as Beale
`
`Street Audio. BSA manufactures, imports, offer for sale and/or sells audio speakers, amplifiers,
`
`and related products.
`
`6.
`
`AFCO is a Tennessee corporation, with its principal office at 122 Gayoso
`
`Avenue, Suite 100 Memphis, Tennessee 38103. AFCO manufactures, imports, offer for sale
`
`and/or sells audio speakers, amplifiers, and related products.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. §§
`
`7.
`
`1331 and 1338(a); 15 U.S.C. § 1121; and 28 U.S.C. § 1332 as none of the Plaintiffs, including
`
`their respective members, are citizens of same States as any of the Defendants and the amount in
`
`controversy is in excess of $75,000 exclusive of interests and costs. This Court has jurisdiction
`
`over the state law and common law claims in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367(a) because
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case: 1:17-cv-00861 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/01/17 Page 3 of 34 PageID #:3
`
`the state law and common law claims are so related to the federal claims that they form part of
`
`the same case or controversy and derive from a common nucleus of operative facts.
`
`8.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants in that Defendants have
`
`committed and continue to commit acts of infringement in this Judicial District in violation of 35
`
`U.S.C. § 271 and 15 U.S.C. § 1114 by, among other things purposefully, advertising, offering
`
`and selling infringing products into the stream of commerce with the knowledge or
`
`understanding that such products will be sold and used in this Judicial District. Defendants have
`
`conspired to transport, have cooperated to transport and have caused to be transported infringing
`
`products into Illinois and this judicial district, and have supplied infringing products to
`
`distributors in Illinois and this judicial district, with the full knowledge and intent that the
`
`Defendants’ infringing products are sold in Illinois and this judicial district.
`
`9.
`
`Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c) and 28
`
`U.S.C. § 1400(b).
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`
`The ‘676 Patent and Sonic Vortex Trademark
`
`
`10.
`
`The subject matter of the ‘676 Patent was invented by Jimmy Lee Murray
`
`(“Murray”). Murray is the manager and principal owner of JDA.
`
`11.
`
`Generally, the ‘676 Patent provides, inter alia, an improved ported enclosure for
`
`an audio speaker that delivers significantly more bass and a flatter frequency response by
`
`separating the main port of the enclosure into multiple sections called “fins” that channel through
`
`the wall of the enclosure. The fins compress and move air at a high velocity without port noise,
`
`providing improved sound.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case: 1:17-cv-00861 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/01/17 Page 4 of 34 PageID #:4
`
`12.
`
` The ‘676 Patent has a wide range of uses in connection with audio speakers,
`
`including, but not limited to headphones, car and marine speakers, architectural speakers and
`
`table speakers.
`
`13.
`
`On June 7, 2012, Murray filed U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No.
`
`61/656,658 to which the ‘676 Patent claims benefit.
`
`14.
`
`On June 7, 2013, Murray filed U.S. Non-Provisional Utility Patent Application
`
`Ser. No. 13/912,251, which issues as the ‘676 Patent. At about this time of filing, Murray
`
`created a name, Sonic Vortex, and design to identify the audio speaker technology developed
`
`according to the ‘676 Patent.
`
`15.
`
`On February 28, 2014, JDA applied to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`(“USPTO”) to register Sonic Vortex and design (the “Sonic Vortex Mark”) as a trademark and
`
`was assigned Serial Number 86/207,512 to its application.
`
`16.
`
`On December 5, 2014, Murray assigned all of his rights, title, and interest to U.S.
`
`Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/656,658 and in the ‘676 Patent to JDA. This
`
`assignment was recorded in the records of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on December
`
`11, 2014.
`
`17.
`
`On January 6, 2015, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and
`
`legally issued the ‘676 Patent to JDA. (Exhibit A hereto). JDA has continuously owned the ‘676
`
`Patent since its issuance on January 6, 2015.
`
`18.
`
`On September 29, 2015 the USPTO duly and legally granted and issued
`
`registration of the Sonic Vortex mark and design created by Murray as a trademark of JDA to
`
`identify audio speaker enclosures and audio speakers under Registration Number 4,823,007
`
`(“Sonic Vortex Trademark”). (Exhibit B hereto).
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case: 1:17-cv-00861 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/01/17 Page 5 of 34 PageID #:5
`
`19.
`
`On August 17, 2016, JDA granted Vanco, and Vanco presently holds, an
`
`exclusive, worldwide license to all substantive rights in the ‘676 Patent for all fields (“Exclusive
`
`License”).
`
`20.
`
`On August 17, 2016, JDA assigned its ownership of the Sonic Vortex Trademark
`
`to Vanco. This assignment was recorded in the records of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`on January 12, 2017.
`
`Arthur Fulmer and the Defendants
`
`21.
`
`In the spring of 2013, Murray was seeking opportunities for commercializing the
`
`‘676 Patent under the name Sonic Vortex.
`
`22.
`
`Arthur Fulmer III (“Fulmer”) is a resident of Memphis, Tennessee. Fulmer owns
`
`and operates an array of businesses, including businesses that manufacture and sell audio
`
`speakers and related accessories. Upon information and belief, Fulmer owns and operates all
`
`three of the Defendants.
`
`23.
`
`On or about August 10, 2013, Murray met Fulmer for the first time to introduce
`
`and discuss a potential business opportunity relating to the use of the ‘676 Patent in architectural
`
`audio speakers under the Sonic Vortex name (“Sonic Vortex Speakers”).
`
`24.
`
`Fulmer, who has over 50 years of experience in the audio industry, immediately
`
`recognized the commercial value in the Sonic Vortex Speakers, and proposed that he and Murray
`
`enter into a joint venture that would make, market and sell the Sonic Vortex Speakers.
`
`25.
`
`On August 23, 2013, Fulmer provided Murray a document titled Memorandum of
`
`Understanding, which described a proposed business arrangement for this new venture.
`
`Following further discussions, Murray and Fulmer reached consensus on a final draft, which
`
`Murray signed on August 26, 2013, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit C (“2013 MOU”).
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case: 1:17-cv-00861 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/01/17 Page 6 of 34 PageID #:6
`
`26.
`
`The 2013 MOU provided, among other provisions, the new venture would utilize
`
`and operate under AF West Inc., an existing entity under Fulmer’s control, which would (a) be
`
`renamed at a later date, (b) be owned equally by Fulmer and Murray; and (c) license and pay a
`
`royalty for the Sonic Vortex technology. The 2013 MOU additionally described Fulmer and
`
`Murray’s roles and responsibilities. Murray would manage and direct the design, quality,
`
`marketing and sales of the Sonic Vortex Speakers; and Fulmer through one or more of his
`
`businesses, would provide financing for the venture and manage manufacturing and distribution
`
`of the Sonic Vortex Speakers, and the business administration, accounting and banking for the
`
`new venture.
`
`27.
`
`In September 2013, Murray proposed that rather than utilize AF West Inc. for the
`
`venture, that a new entity be formed, which he further proposed be named Beal Street Audio Inc.
`
`Fulmer agreed, and on December 23, 2013, Fulmer caused Beale Street Audio Inc. to be formed
`
`under the laws of Tennessee.
`
`28.
`
`Fulmer selected a manufacturer in China, with whom he, through his other
`
`businesses had an ongoing relationship, to serve as a source for the manufacturing of Sonic
`
`Vortex Speakers (“Fulmer’s Manufacturer”). After the 2013 MOU was signed, and over the
`
`course of several months thereafter, Murray made several trips to China to meet with and provide
`
`Fulmer’s Manufacturer with the detailed drawing, specifications, technology processes and other
`
`information to manufacture the Sonic Vortex Speakers according to the ‘676 Patent.
`
`29.
`
`Also, starting in September 2013, Murray commenced promotional and sales
`
`activities for the new venture. As the production of the Sonic Vortex Speakers was underway,
`
`Murray secured Beale’s first order for Sonic Vortex Speakers in June 2014.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case: 1:17-cv-00861 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/01/17 Page 7 of 34 PageID #:7
`
`30. With the permission of JDA, in September 2014, Beale began selling the Sonic
`
`Vortex Speakers under the Sonic Vortex mark.
`
`31.
`
`At least the following Sonic Vortex Speakers of the Defendants were
`
`manufactured according to the specification of the ‘676 patent and are commercial embodiments
`
`of the ‘676 patent (“accused products”):
`
`Model Number
`IPLCR4-BB
`P4-BB
`IC6-B
`IC6-MB
`IC6-BB
`IC8-B
`IC8-BB
`ICA6-B
`ICA6-MB
`ICA6-BB
`ICW4-MB
`ICW6-MB
`ICS6-MB
`ICS8-MB
`
`Name/Description
`PanCake In-Wall Dual 4inch Carbon Fiber. 1inch Titanium Dome
`70mm 4 inch Carbon Fiber and Titanium Tweeter
`In Ceiling 6.5” 2-way with 1” Silk Dome
`In Ceiling 6.5” 2-way with 1” Aluminum Dome
`In Ceiling 6.5” 2-way with 1” Titanium Dome
`In Ceiling 8” 2-way with 1” Silk Dome
`In Ceiling 8” 2-way with 1” Titanium Dome
`In Ceiling Angled 6.5” with 1” Silk Dome
`In Ceiling Angled 6.5” with 1” Aluminum Dome
`In Ceiling Angled 6.5” with 1” Titanium Dome
`In Ceiling or In Wall 4” 2-way ¾” Aluminum Dome
`In Ceiling or In Wall 6.5” 2-way, 1” Aluminum Dome
`6.5” In Ceiling Subwoofer Kevlar Driver
`8” In Ceiling Subwoofer Kevlar Driver
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit D are current webpages from Defendants’ website http://beale-
`
`streetaudio.com/ for these accused products.
`
`Model Number
`BXC650
`BXC800
`BXCA650
`BXCW401
`BXCW651
`BXP401
`TU401
`BXCS650
`BXCS800
`
`Name/Description
`
`In Ceiling 6.5" 2-Way
`In Ceiling 8" 2-Way
`In Ceiling 6.5” 2-Way
`4" In Ceiling/In Wall 2-Way
`6.5" In Ceiling/In Wall 2-Way
`Pancake Speaker 4 inch 1 inch ALU Dome
`Ultra Shallow 4 inch 1 inch ALU Dome 70V
`In Ceiling 6.5” Subwoofer
`In Ceiling 8" Subwoofer
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit E are current webpages
`
`from Defendants’ website
`
`http://www.bsaxpress.com/ for these accused products.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case: 1:17-cv-00861 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/01/17 Page 8 of 34 PageID #:8
`
`32.
`
`Throughout 2014, Murray repeatedly requested Fulmer
`
`to provide him
`
`documentation showing his ownership in Beale. Fulmer ignored these requests.
`
`33.
`
`Throughout 2014, Murray, on behalf of JDA made repeated requests of Fulmer
`
`and Beale to negotiate and enter into a written licensing agreement with JDA for the ‘676 patent
`
`and Sonic Vortex mark. To this end, Murray on numerous occasions provided Fulmer and Beale
`
`with a proposed Field of Use Patent and Trademark License Agreement bearing terms that were
`
`consistent with their prior discussions. Fulmer and Beale however made no effort to advance the
`
`making of a written licensing agreement.
`
`34. Murray’s growing frustration and dissatisfaction over Fulmer and Beale’s failure
`
`to address his requests became plainly apparent to Fulmer, who in an effort to placate Murray,
`
`presented him on October 2, 2014 with a new Memorandum of Understanding (“2014 MOU”) under
`
`the auspices that it was to replace the 2013 MOU. Although the 2014 MOU expressly provided it
`
`was “a non-binding memorandum of understanding intended only to outline a revised proposal
`
`for the structure and operation of the Sonic Vortex endeavor,” it reaffirmed the parties’ intent for
`
`Beale to enter into a licensing agreement with JDA for the ‘676 patent and Sonic Vortex mark,
`
`and to pay JDA a royalty therefor. A copy of the 2014 MOU is attached as Exhibit F.
`
`35.
`
`Over the next five months, Fulmer dodged any attempt by Murray to advance a
`
`licensing agreement between Beale and JDA.
`
`36.
`
`By January 2015, AFCO was importing and Beale was filling significant orders of
`
`Sonic Vortex Speakers with the distribution partners set up by Murray.
`
`37.
`
`By March 2015, the Sonic Vortex Speakers had been successfully established and
`
`integrated into the market. It was at about this time that Beale finally presented Murray with a
`
`written licensing agreement for JDA and an employment agreement for Murray. These
`
`agreements were wholly inconsistent from any prior discussions, and showed that Fulmer had no
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 1:17-cv-00861 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/01/17 Page 9 of 34 PageID #:9
`
`intention of honoring any previously discussed terms. When Murray protested, Fulmer informed
`
`him the terms in the agreements were not negotiable. Murray and JDA refused to accept or sign
`
`the agreements.
`
`38.
`
`Thereafter, Murray’s role in Beale became more and more limited, and his
`
`communications to Fulmer and his associates were generally ignored.
`
`39.
`
`By fall of 2015, Murray had honed Beale’s manufacturing processes to optimum
`
`quality and efficiency levels, and through his contacts in the audio industry, established a global
`
`network of distributors and sales representatives to promote and advance sell Sonic Vortex
`
`Speakers. Despite all this, (a) Beale had neither entered into a licensing agreement with JDA or
`
`paid it royalties as contemplated, (b) Murray was still without any information or documentation
`
`confirming his ownership interest in Beale, and (c) Fulmer formed a new company, BSA, to
`
`essentially takeover the business operations of Beale. At this juncture, neither Fulmer nor the
`
`Defendants needed Murray, and in September 2015, purported to fire Murray from any and all
`
`positions he held with Beale.
`
`40.
`
`In response, JDA withdrew its permission for Defendants to use the Sonic Vortex
`
`mark and to make, use, sell, offer for sale and/or import products under the ‘676 patent.
`
`41.
`
`On September 23, 2015, Fulmer, Beale and BSA sued Murray and JDA in the
`
`United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, case number 2:15cv2623,
`
`attempting to force a license under the ‘676 patent and the Sonic Vortex mark (“prior lawsuit”).
`
`After a settlement conference on December 17, 2015, it became clear that Fulmer, Beale and
`
`BSA had no reasonable basis for their claims in prior lawsuit, and they voluntarily dismissed the
`
`lawsuit on February 1, 2016.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case: 1:17-cv-00861 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/01/17 Page 10 of 34 PageID #:10
`
`42.
`
`No written license agreement for either the ‘676 patent or the Sonic Vortex mark
`
`was ever entered into between Fulmer or any of the Defendants and JDA or Murray.
`
`43.
`
`Rather than ceasing and desisting from using the Sonic Vortex mark and from
`
`making, using, selling, offering for sale and/or importing products under the ‘676 patent, Fulmer
`
`and the Defendants have conspired to, have cooperated to and have continued to make, use, offer
`
`for sale, sell and/or import products under the Sonic Vortex mark and under the ‘676 patent,
`
`knowing they no longer had or have permission or authorization to do so. Such continued and
`
`ongoing actions by the Defendants constitute willful trademark and patent infringement.
`
`44.
`
`On February 4, 2016, JDA’s counsel sent the Defendants’ counsel a letter putting
`
`the Defendants on formal notice of their infringement of the Sonic Vortex mark and the ‘676
`
`patent (Exhibit G hereto).
`
`45.
`
`Despite such formal notice of patent and trademark infringement, the Defendants
`
`continue to willfully infringe the Sonic Vortex mark and the ‘676 patent, by making, using,
`
`offering for sale, selling and/or importing unauthorized, counterfeit Sonic Vortex speakers made
`
`according to the specification of the ‘676 patent.
`
`46.
`
`Upon information and belief, the Defendants have made no change to the accused
`
`products and have made no effort to try to avoid infringement.
`
`COUNT I
`
`Patent Infringement of the ‘676 Patent
`
`47.
`
`48.
`
`Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraphs 1-46 as though fully stated herein.
`
`On January 6, 2015, United States Patent No. 8,925,676 (“the ‘676 patent”),
`
`entitled “Ported audio speaker enclosures,” was duly and legally issued. Jimmy Lee Murray is
`
`the named inventor of the subject matter claimed in the ‘676 patent and, as of the date of the
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case: 1:17-cv-00861 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/01/17 Page 11 of 34 PageID #:11
`
`issuance of the ‘676 patent, had assigned his entire interest in the ‘676 patent to JDA. A true and
`
`correct copy of the ‘676 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`49.
`
`Defendants have been and still are infringing the ‘676 patent by the unauthorized
`
`making, using, importing, offering for sale, and/or selling of the accused products which infringe
`
`the claims of the ‘676 patent.
`
`50.
`
`As a representative example, Defendants’ IPLCR4-BB DUAL 4" IN WALL LCR
`
`2-WAY PANCAKE speakers are one of Defendants’ accused products which infringe the claims
`
`of the ‘676 patent. Attached hereto as Exhibit H is a spec sheet of this accused product. Upon
`
`information and belief, all references therein to Defendants’ products being patented or
`
`“Multiple International Patents Awarded,” “Additional Patents Pending” or “patented enclosure”
`
`refer to the ‘676 patent and Plaintiff’s related foreign patents or patent applications.
`
`51.
`
`Using the aforesaid representative example, the following is a claim chart
`
`detailing how Defendants’ accused products infringe the claims of the ‘676 patent. Each
`
`pictured part of the exemplary accused product is the literal element of the referenced claim
`
`language and was specifically designed and manufactured according to the specification of the
`
`‘676 Patent while Murray was working with Fulmer’s Manufacturer to produce:
`
`Claim 1
`
`[1.0] An
`comprising:
`
`audio
`
`speaker
`
`enclosure
`
`IPLCR4-BB DUAL 4" IN WALL LCR 2-WAY
`PANCAKE speakers
`Defendants’ spec sheet discloses (Ex. E, p. 2) the
`following:
`Sonic Vortex Enclosure - The Sonic Vortex
`Enclosure is a tuned, sealed enclosure that
`captures driver backside air compression and
`redirects air movement to the fins, via the Sonic
`Vortex Airgate.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case: 1:17-cv-00861 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/01/17 Page 12 of 34 PageID #:12
`
`[1.1] an enclosure housing defining an
`internal volume with a speaker opening at a
`first end thereof, the speaker opening being
`configured to receive a speaker therein,
`
`
`Defendants’ spec sheet discloses (Ex. E, p. 2) the
`following:
`Sonic Vortex Speaker - Innovative speaker
`design that produces great sound in a patented
`enclosure. …Sonic Vortex speakers assure
`consistent performance in stereo and multi-
`channel systems…
`
`
`
`Captured, compressed air from driver movement
`travels through the fins encircled by the Sonic
`Vortex Enclosure. The captured air gets
`redirected, preventing sound bleed to an adjacent
`room.
`
`[1.2] the enclosure housing having an inner
`surface facing the internal volume and an
`outer
`surface,
`the enclosure
`further
`defining at least two ports communicating
`between the internal volume and the outer
`surface, the at least two ports extending
`between the inner and outer surfaces along
`a port
`length
`that
`is greater
`than a
`maximum housing thickness between the
`inner and outer surfaces;
`
`
`Defendants’ spec sheet discloses (Ex. E, p. 2) the
`following:
`Sonic Vortex Enclosure - The Sonic Vortex
`Enclosure is a tuned, sealed enclosure that
`captures driver backside air compression and
`redirects air movement to the fins, via the Sonic
`Vortex Airgate.
`Sonic Vortex Airgate - The Vortex Airgate is
`the eye of the storm. Driver backside air
`compression passes through the tuned port (hole
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case: 1:17-cv-00861 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/01/17 Page 13 of 34 PageID #:13
`
`in the middle) and gets separated into multiple
`ported transmission lines (fins).
`Sonic Vortex Fins - The Fins are encircled by
`and sealed to the inside of the Enclosure.
`These air channels are specially tuned for length
`and volume to perfectly neutralize air
`the
`to
`pressure, balancing energy
`transfer
`external cabinet, eliminating external vibration.
`Sonic Vortex Dispersion Ports - The redirected
`air from driver movement exits the front ported
`enclosure at multiple positions….
`
`
`
`.
`
`The captured air travels through the fins and
`exits out of the ports on the front of the
`enclosure….
`
`[1.3] wherein each of the at least two ports
`includes a first port section, extending
`towards a perimeter of
`the enclosure
`housing between
`the
`inner and outer
`surfaces at a second end of the internal
`volume opposite the first end, and
`[1.4] a second port section, extending
`between the inner and outer surfaces from
`the first port section at the perimeter,
`winding at
`least partially around a
`perimeter of the enclosure housing toward
`the outer surface.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 1:17-cv-00861 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/01/17 Page 14 of 34 PageID #:14
`
`Claim 2
`
`[2.0] The audio speaker enclosure of claim
`1, wherein each of the at least two ports
`has an inlet at the second end.
`
`IPLCR4-BB DUAL 4" IN WALL LCR 2-WAY
`PANCAKE speakers
`
`Claim 3
`
`[3.0] The audio speaker enclosure of claim
`2, wherein each of the at least two ports
`has an outlet at the first end.
`
`Claim 4
`
`[4.0] The audio speaker enclosure of claim
`2, wherein each of the at least two ports
`begins at a common inlet plenum defined
`at the second end.
`
`Claim 5
`
`[5.0] The audio speaker enclosure of claim
`1, wherein the enclosure housing includes
`an inner shell and an outer shell, the at
`least two ports being defined between the
`inner and outer shells.
`
`
`
`IPLCR4-BB DUAL 4" IN WALL LCR 2-WAY
`PANCAKE speakers
`
`
`
`IPLCR4-BB DUAL 4" IN WALL LCR 2-WAY
`PANCAKE speakers
`
`
`
`IPLCR4-BB DUAL 4" IN WALL LCR 2-WAY
`PANCAKE speakers
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 1:17-cv-00861 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/01/17 Page 15 of 34 PageID #:15
`
`Claim 6
`
`[6.0] The audio speaker enclosure of claim
`5, wherein a plurality of port walls extend
`between the inner and outer shells, the at
`least two ports being defined therebetween.
`
`Claim 7
`
`[7.0] The audio speaker enclosure of claim
`6, wherein, for each of the at least two
`ports, the first port section extends between
`the inner and outer shells at the second end
`of the internal volume opposite the first
`end, and
`[7.1] the second port section extends
`between the inner and outer shells winding
`at least partially around the perimeter.
`
`Claim 8
`
`[8.0] The audio speaker enclosure of claim
`7, wherein the plurality of port walls of the
`first port section are formed integrally with
`the outer shell and
`
`[8.1] the plurality of port walls of the
`second port section are formed integrally
`with the inner shell.
`
`IPLCR4-BB DUAL 4" IN WALL LCR 2-WAY
`PANCAKE speakers
`
`
`
`
`
`IPLCR4-BB DUAL 4" IN WALL LCR 2-WAY
`PANCAKE speakers
`
`
`
`
`
`IPLCR4-BB DUAL 4" IN WALL LCR 2-WAY
`PANCAKE speakers
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 9
`
`IPLCR4-BB DUAL 4" IN WALL LCR 2-WAY
`PANCAKE speakers
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 1:17-cv-00861 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/01/17 Page 16 of 34 PageID #:16
`
`[9.0] The audio speaker enclosure of claim
`7, wherein the audio speaker enclosure
`further includes an end plate arranged
`between the inner and outer shells at the
`second end, the end plate having a central
`opening
`communicating between
`the
`internal volume and the first section and at
`least
`two
`perimetric
`openings
`communicating, respectively for each of
`the at least two ports, between the first port
`section and the second port section.
`
`Claim 10
`
`[10.0] The audio speaker of claim 5,
`wherein
`the audio speaker enclosure
`further includes an end cap arranged at the
`first end surrounding the speaker opening
`and bridging the inner and outer shells.
`
`Claim 11
`
`[11.0] The audio speaker of claim 10,
`wherein the end cap defines an outlet for
`each of the at least two ports.
`
`
`
`IPLCR4-BB DUAL 4" IN WALL LCR 2-WAY
`PANCAKE speakers
`
`
`
`IPLCR4-BB DUAL 4" IN WALL LCR 2-WAY
`PANCAKE speakers
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 12
`
`[12.0] The audio speaker of claim 10,
`wherein the end cap includes at least one
`pivotable ceiling mount support.
`
`IPLCR4-BB DUAL 4" IN WALL LCR 2-WAY
`PANCAKE speakers
`
`
`
`
`[The green tabs in the pictures are the pivotable
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 1:17-cv-00861 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/01/17 Page 17 of 34 PageID #:17
`
`Claim 13
`
`[13.0] An
`comprising:
`
`audio
`
`speaker
`
`enclosure
`
`ceiling mount supports.]
`
`IPLCR4-BB DUAL 4" IN WALL LCR 2-WAY
`PANCAKE speakers
`Defendants’ spec sheet discloses (Ex. E, p. 2) the
`following:
`Sonic Vortex Enclosure - The Sonic Vortex
`Enclosure is a tuned, sealed enclosure that
`captures driver backside air compression and
`redirects air movement to the fins, via the Sonic
`Vortex Airgate.
`
`[13.1] an enclosure housing defining an
`internal volume with a speaker opening at a
`first end thereof, the speaker opening being
`configured to receive a speaker therein,
`
`
`Defendants’ spec sheet discloses (Ex. E, p. 2) the
`following:
`Sonic Vortex Speaker - Innovative speaker
`design that produces great sound in a patented
`enclosure. …Sonic Vortex speakers assure
`consistent performance in stereo and multi-
`channel systems…
`
`
`
`Captured, compressed air from driver movement
`travels through the fins encircled by the Sonic
`Vortex Enclosure. The captured air gets
`redirected, preventing sound bleed to an adjacent
`room.
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 1:17-cv-00861 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/01/17 Page 18 of 34 PageID #:18
`
`[13.2] the enclosure housing having an
`inner surface facing the internal volume
`and an outer surface, the enclosure further
`defining at least one port communicating
`between the internal volume and the outer
`surface, the at least one port extending
`between the inner and outer surfaces along
`a port
`length
`that
`is greater
`than a
`maximum housing thickness between the
`inner and outer surfaces;
`
`
`Defendants’ spec sheet discloses (Ex. E, p. 2) the
`following:
`Sonic Vortex Enclosure - The Sonic Vortex
`Enclosure is a tuned, sealed enclosure that
`captures driver backside air compression and
`redirects air movement to the fins, via the Sonic
`Vortex Airgate.
`Sonic Vortex Airgate - The Vortex Airgate is
`the eye of the storm. Driver backside air
`compression passes through the tuned port (hole
`in the middle) and g