Case 2:23-cv-00742-TL Document 1 Filed 05/19/23 Page 1 of 115
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
`AT SEATTLE
`
`
`
`
`No. 2:23-cv-00742
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
`JUDGMENT
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`BELLMAN & SYMFON NORTH
`AMERICA INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`JWIN ELECTRONICS CORPORATION
`DBA ILUV CREATIVE TECHNOLOGY,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`v.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Bellman & Symfon North America Inc. (“B&S” or “Plaintiff”) respectfully files
`
`this Complaint seeking declaratory judgments that Plaintiff does not directly or indirectly
`
`infringe claim 1 of United States Patent No. 10,713,929 (“the ’929 Patent”) (Exhibit A), and that
`
`claim 1 of the ’929 patent is invalid and/or unenforceable. Plaintiff further seeks judgment that
`
`Defendant jWIN Electronics Corporation (d.b.a. iLuv Creative Technology) (“jWIN” or
`
`“Defendant”) has engaged in acts of unfair competition and tortious interference with Plaintiff’s
`
`advantageous business relationships and/or contracts. In support of these requests, Plaintiff
`
`alleges, on information and belief, as follows:
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT - 1
`4871-1067-8117v.2 0121917-000001
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`LAW OFFICES
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98104-1610
`206.622.3150
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00742-TL Document 1 Filed 05/19/23 Page 2 of 115
`
`
`
`I.
`
`NATURE OF THE CASE
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff filed this action in view of Defendant’s willful and deliberate assertion,
`
`and subsequent refusal to withdraw this assertion, of the ’929 Patent against Plaintiff, despite
`
`knowledge that the ’929 Patent is invalid.
`
`2.
`
`Through a request filed under Amazon’s “Amazon Patent Evaluation Express
`
`Procedure” (“APEX”), Defendant has induced Amazon.com (“Amazon”) to remove Plaintiff’s
`
`Vibio Wireless Bed Shaker (Amazon ASIN B082VHC69X) product (the “Accused Product”)
`
`from Amazon’s internet sales platform based on these baseless accusations of infringement of
`
`claim 1 (“the Asserted Claim”) of the ’929 Patent. See Exhibit B, Amazon Patent Evaluation
`
`Express Agreement executed by Kongsik Kim on behalf of jWIN.
`
`3.
`
`Despite being furnished with detailed information demonstrating that the prior art
`
`discloses every element of the Asserted Claim of the ’929 Patent and more than ample time to
`
`review and respond, Defendant has repeatedly delayed responding and has thus far been unable
`
`to articulate a plausible position to refute that information. Defendant has also refused to
`
`withdraw its infringement allegations and thus Amazon has not reinstated the listing of Plaintiff’s
`
`Accused Product.
`
`4.
`
`Damages resulting from Defendant’s improper and tortious mis-assertion of the
`
`’929 Patent continue to accrue every day that Plaintiff’s Accused Product is de-listed from
`
`Amazon’s internet sales platform.
`
`5.
`
`Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this action under the patent laws of the United
`
`States, 35 U.S.C. § 1, et. seq., the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, and Washington
`
`state law. Plaintiff seeks declaratory judgment that at least the Asserted Claim of the ’929 Patent
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT - 2
`4871-1067-8117v.2 0121917-000001
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`LAW OFFICES
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98104-1610
`206.622.3150
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00742-TL Document 1 Filed 05/19/23 Page 3 of 115
`
`
`
`is not infringed and/or is invalid, seek damages for Defendant’s tortious conduct, and any other
`
`form of relief this Court deems appropriate.
`
`II.
`
`PARTIES
`
`6.
`
`Plaintiff Bellman & Symfon North America Inc. is a corporation organized and
`
`existing under the laws of the State of Delaware and maintains a place of business at 5509
`
`Business Dr, Unit B, Wilmington, NC 28405-8445.
`
`7.
`
`Defendant jWIN Electronics Corporation, d.b.a. iLuv Creative Technologies, is,
`
`upon information and belief, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of
`
`New York and maintains a place of business at 2 Harbor Drive, Port Washington, NY 11050.
`
`III.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`8.
`
`This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1, et.
`
`seq., the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, and Washington state law. This Court has
`
`subject matter jurisdiction over the federal law claims in action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331
`
`and 1338(a). This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims in this action
`
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1338(b).
`
`9.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendant in this action at least
`
`because Defendant commenced and continues to maintain enforcement proceedings regarding
`
`the ’929 patent in this judicial district. See, e.g., Campbell Pet Co. v. Miale, 542 F.3d 879, 884-
`
`86 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (specific personal jurisdiction satisfied by patentee’s “extra-judicial patent
`
`enforcement” efforts in forum state). Specifically, Defendant sent the APEX request to Amazon
`
`(410 Terry Ave. N, Seattle, WA 98109). Each claim presented herein arises out of Defendant’s
`
`actions directed at this forum, which gives rise to sufficient minimum contacts under
`
`Washington’s Long-Arm statute. Wash Rev. Code §4.28.185.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT - 3
`4871-1067-8117v.2 0121917-000001
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`LAW OFFICES
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98104-1610
`206.622.3150
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00742-TL Document 1 Filed 05/19/23 Page 4 of 115
`
`
`
`10.
`
`This Court also has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant
`
`expressly “agree[d] to the jurisdiction and venue of the federal and state courts located in King
`
`County, Seattle, Washington” when it submitted its APEX request to Amazon in this judicial
`
`district. Exhibit B at p. 1, ¶5.
`
`11.
`
`For the same reasons, venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
`
`1391(b) because the events giving rise to this action took place within this District.
`
`IV.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`12.
`
`Products having the Bellman & Symfon brand have been marketed and sold to
`
`improve the lives of the deaf and hearing impaired for over 30 years. See
`
`https://bellman.com/en/about-us/our-story/. Such products include, for example, alerting
`
`devices, listening devices, personal amplifiers, headsets, and more. See
`
`https://bellman.com/en/product/#block-24089. These innovative, life-changing products have
`
`garnered accolades, including design awards, and are sold around the world.
`
`13.
`
`As particularly relevant to this dispute, Plaintiff markets and sells the Accused
`
`Product – the Vibio device. See Exhibit C, printout of https://bellman.com/en/product/stand-
`
`alone-products/vibio-bed-shaker/ (retrieved March 23, 2023).
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT - 4
`4871-1067-8117v.2 0121917-000001
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`LAW OFFICES
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98104-1610
`206.622.3150
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00742-TL Document 1 Filed 05/19/23 Page 5 of 115
`
`
`
`
`The Vibio device is a wireless “bed shaker” alarm device that vibrates at times set
`
`14.
`
`by the user using a corresponding mobile device application. Id. Plaintiff’s Vibio device is and
`
`has been available for sale in the United States from various sources, including Amazon.
`
`Amazon ASIN B082VHC69X was listed in December 2019 and was continuously available until
`
`it was removed from that marketplace in January 2023 as a direct result of Defendant’s improper
`
`assertion of the ’929 patent. Exhibit D, Web Archive capture of
`
`https://www.amazon.com/dp/B082VHC69X/, dated May 30, 2022; Exhibit E, January 17, 2023
`
`email from Amazon to Plaintiff regarding removal of listing for ASIN B082VHC69X.
`
`15.
`
`Defendant describes its “iLuv” branding as a “worldwide premium brand,” that is
`
`“headquartered in New York with distribution centers on both the East and West Coasts of the
`
`U.S and worldwide.” Defendant’s website states that the iLuv brand provides “the most
`
`comprehensive accessories line for the Apple and smartphone markets.” See
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT - 5
`4871-1067-8117v.2 0121917-000001
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`LAW OFFICES
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98104-1610
`206.622.3150
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00742-TL Document 1 Filed 05/19/23 Page 6 of 115
`
`
`
`http://jwin.com/brand-iluv.asp. On information and belief, Defendant’s iLuv branded products
`
`are available for sale on the internet, including at least from the website iLuv.com and the digital
`
`marketplace provided by Amazon.
`
`16.
`
`Defendant is a direct competitor of Plaintiff. On information and belief, devices
`
`marketed and sold by Defendant that compete with the Accused Product include at least the iLuv
`
`SmartShaker 3 product, which is available for sale on the Amazon marketplace. Exhibit F,
`
`printout of https://www.amazon.com/iLuv-SmartShaker-Vibration-Bluetooth-
`
`Notification/dp/B08V6QCBTS (retrieved March 23, 2023).
`
`17.
`
`On December 23, 2022, Defendant submitted an APEX request to Amazon
`
`through its attorney Kongsik Kim. Exhibit B at 2. The APEX request accused several products
`
`listed on Amazon’s marketplace of infringing the Asserted Claim of the ’929 patent, including
`
`Plaintiff’s Accused Product, ASIN B082VHC69X. Id.
`
`18.
`
`That evening, Amazon emailed Plaintiff that the APEX request was filed
`
`identifying the Accused Product. Amazon’s email indicated that, among other things, “[i]f you
`
`do not either resolve your claim with the patent owner directly, or agree to participate in the
`
`neutral evaluation process, we will remove the listings at the end of this email from
`
`Amazon.com.” Exhibit G, email, Amazon.com to Bellman dated December 23, 2022.
`
`Unfortunately, Amazon’s email was not received by Plaintiff until nighttime, and the next day
`
`was Christmas Eve. As such, the email was overlooked during the holiday season, and Plaintiff
`
`did not respond to Amazon’s notice.
`
`19.
`
`Amazon sent a second email on January 17, 2023, notifying Plaintiff that the
`
`Accused Product listing had been taken down. Exhibit E. After Plaintiff received Amazon’s
`
`January 17, 2023 email, Plaintiff contacted Defendant’s representative of record, Mr. Kongsik
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT - 6
`4871-1067-8117v.2 0121917-000001
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`LAW OFFICES
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98104-1610
`206.622.3150
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00742-TL Document 1 Filed 05/19/23 Page 7 of 115
`
`
`
`Kim, on January 24, 2023. Plaintiff explained that the ’929 patent was plainly invalid in light of
`
`at least the ZBand silent alarm product, which had been publicly available and sold in the United
`
`States and elsewhere prior to the earliest possible priority date for the ’929 patent, and provided
`
`Defendant with a claim chart demonstrating how the prior art discloses every element of claim 1.
`
`See Exhibit H, ZBand Claim Chart. Plaintiff requested that jWIN withdraw its APEX
`
`submission. Mr. Kim refused and argued that, based on his interpretation of the limitations of
`
`the Asserted Claim, the prior did not teach or suggest every element thereof.
`
`20.
`
`Three weeks later, on February 20, 2023, Mr. Kim for the first time indicated that
`
`infringement charts were submitted to Amazon as part of the APEX request and provided a copy
`
`to Plaintiff. The claim chart Mr. Kim provided set forth an infringement position that relied upon
`
`an inconsistent interpretation of the claim language relative to Mr. Kim’s argument regarding
`
`invalidity. Specifically, Mr. Kim questioned whether the information submitted regarding the
`
`prior art ZBand product was sufficient to demonstrate that the product included a separate
`
`controller (i.e. processor) performing the function recited in the claims.
`
`21.
`
`On February 21, 2023, Plaintiff responded to Mr. Kim’s email pointing out his
`
`improperly contradictory, nose-of-wax treatment of the limitations of the Asserted Claim.
`
`Plaintiff also pointed out the specific details within the information previously furnished, that
`
`demonstrated unambiguously that the prior art ZBand product necessarily had a separate
`
`controller performing the recited functions. Plaintiff also provided Mr. Kim with additional prior
`
`art disclosing or suggesting every element of the Asserted Claim.
`
`22.
`
`In about February 2023, Plaintiff contacted Mr. Declan Leonard, one of the co-
`
`founders of the company that developed and commercialized the ZBand. Mr. Leonard
`
`personally designed and implemented the technical features of the ZBand product and developed
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT - 7
`4871-1067-8117v.2 0121917-000001
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`LAW OFFICES
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98104-1610
`206.622.3150
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00742-TL Document 1 Filed 05/19/23 Page 8 of 115
`
`
`
`the software application for interacting with the ZBand product. From personal knowledge, Mr.
`
`Leonard was able to directly and unambiguously refute the doubts that Mr. Kim expressed as to
`
`whether the ZBand included a separate controller and what its functions were. He agreed to
`
`assist and prepared a sworn declaration regarding the ZBand product.
`
`23.
`
`On March 7, Plaintiff provided Mr. Kim with a second claim chart demonstrating
`
`that each and every limitation of the Asserted Claim was also disclosed a second prior art
`
`reference: U.S. Patent No. 8,812,259 (Exhibit I), published before the earliest priority date of the
`
`‘929 patent and assigned to Fitbit LLC (“the Fitbit Patent”), and that the asserted claim was
`
`therefore invalid as anticipated by the Fitbit patent. See Exhibit J, Fitbit Claim Chart
`
`24.
`
`Despite initially promising to respond later in the week of March 7, Defendant has
`
`yet to respond to the information demonstrating that the Asserted Claim is invalid as anticipated
`
`by the Fitbit Patent. On March 31, Mr. Kim indicated that he was working on the claim chart
`
`and would respond shortly.
`
`25.
`
`On April 27, 2023, having received no further response from Mr. Kim, Plaintiff
`
`provided a Declaration from Mr. Leonard confirming that the prior ZBand product includes each
`
`and every feature of the Asserted Claim, including those that Mr. Kim had previously questioned.
`
`Plaintiff again urged Mr. Kim to provide a response to Plaintiff’s detailed assertions and claim
`
`chart demonstrating the invalidity of the Asserted Claim based on the Fitbit Patent, which Mr.
`
`Kim had in his possession since March 7. Plaintiff also requested that Mr. Kim respond to the
`
`Declaration that directly refuted Mr. Kim’s prior position.
`
`26.
`
`Despite providing Defendant with detailed information demonstrating that the
`
`Asserted Claim is invalid as anticipated by at least two different prior art references, and despite
`
`having more than ample time to respond, Defendants have been unable or unwilling to assert any
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT - 8
`4871-1067-8117v.2 0121917-000001
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`LAW OFFICES
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98104-1610
`206.622.3150
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00742-TL Document 1 Filed 05/19/23 Page 9 of 115
`
`
`
`plausible response. And yet, Defendants refuse to rectify their improper assertion of the ’929
`
`patent. Meanwhile, Plaintiff’s product continues to be unjustly excluded from the Amazon
`
`marketplace based on Defendant’s acts. Because Plaintiff can wait no longer to rectify the harm
`
`occasioned by Defendant’s behavior, Plaintiff now respectfully seeks the relief requested in this
`
`Complaint and any other relief the Court deems appropriate.
`
`V.
`
`THE PATENT IN SUIT
`
`27.
`
`The face of the ’929 patent indicates that it was filed on January 4, 2019 as U.S.
`
`Patent Application No. 16/240,000, and issued on July 14, 2020. The ’929 patent states that it is
`
`a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 16/167,911, filed on October 23, 2018 (issued as
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,311,708), a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 14/937,797, filed on
`
`November 10, 2015 (issued as U.S. Patent No. 10,147,305). Exhibit A, ’929 patent at cover
`
`pages 1-2. The ’929 patent also claims priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No.
`
`62/078,460, filed November 12, 2014. Id.
`
`28.
`
`The ’929 patent identifies one inventor, Justin Chiwon Kim, and is assigned on its
`
`face to jWIN Electronics Corporation, Port Washington, NY. Id.
`
`29.
`
`On information and belief, the ’929 patent is terminally disclaimed over both U.S.
`
`Patent Nos. 10,147,305 and 10,311,708.
`
`30.
`
`The ’929 patent purports to be directed to “An alarm and monitoring system
`
`including a primary device and at least one secondary device, the alarm and monitoring system
`
`including at least one controller configured to: determine whether at least one alarm event is set;
`
`establish a wireless communication between a primary device and the secondary device, when it
`
`is determined that the alarm event has been set; transmit an alarm event signal including alarm
`
`information from the primary device to the secondary device in accordance with the alarm event
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT - 9
`4871-1067-8117v.2 0121917-000001
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`LAW OFFICES
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98104-1610
`206.622.3150
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00742-TL Document 1 Filed 05/19/23 Page 10 of 115
`
`
`
`that is determined to have been set; generate an alarm signal by the secondary device in
`
`accordance with at least the alarm information; and render the generated alarm signal on a
`
`rendering device.” Exhibit A, ’929 pat. at Abstract.
`
`31.
`
`The ’929 patent recites sixteen (16) claims, of which claims 1 and 9 are
`
`independent. Claim 1 (the Asserted Claim) purports to be directed to “[a]n alarm system” and is
`
`reproduced below:
`
`1. An alarm system comprising:
`
`a primary device having a first controller; and
`
`at least one secondary device having at least one secondary
`controller and at least one rendering device;
`
`wherein the first controller is configured to (i) determine whether at
`least one alarm event is set on the primary device, (ii) establish a
`wireless communication between the primary device and the
`secondary device when determination is made that the alarm event
`has been set on the primary device, (iii) generate a first alarm signal
`including first alarm rendering instructions based on the alarm event
`set, and (iv) transmit the first alarm signal including the first alarm
`rendering instructions from the primary device to the secondary
`device, and
`
`wherein the secondary controller is configured to (i) generate second
`alarm rendering instructions for the rendering device based on the
`first alarm rendering instructions and (ii) render the second alarm
`rendering instructions on the rendering device.
`
`VI. COUNT I: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF
`INVALIDITY OF THE ’929 PATENT
`
`32.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates and re-alleges the allegations in the preceding paragraphs of
`
`the Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
`
`33.
`
`Defendant purports to be the owner of the ’929 Patent with all right, title, and
`
`interest thereto.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT - 10
`4871-1067-8117v.2 0121917-000001
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`LAW OFFICES
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98104-1610
`206.622.3150
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00742-TL Document 1 Filed 05/19/23 Page 11 of 115
`
`
`
`34.
`
`The Asserted Claim of the ’929 Patent is invalid at least for failure to comply with
`
`the requirements for patentability under Title 35 of the U.S. Code, including at least one or more
`
`of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, and 112.
`
`35.
`
`Examples of prior art establishing invalidity of the Asserted Claim includes at
`
`least the Zband device, the FitBit One device, each of which was publicly available and sold in
`
`the United States and elsewhere before the earliest possible priority date of the ’929 patent as
`
`well as user manuals and other documentation associated with the Fitbit One device and the
`
`ZBand device, Irish Patent Application No. IE S2012/0235 A2, U.S. Patent No. 8,812,259, each
`
`published before the earliest possible priority date of the ’929 patent and others.
`
`36.
`
`For the reasons set forth above, an actual and justiciable controversy exists
`
`between Plaintiff and Defendant regarding whether Plaintiff has infringed at least the Asserted
`
`Claim of the ’929 Patent.
`
`37.
`
`A judicial declaration is necessary to determine the parties’ respective rights with
`
`respect to the ’929 Patent.
`
`38.
`
`Plaintiff is entitled to a judgment declaring that at least Asserted Claim 1 of the
`
`’929 patent is invalid.
`
`VII. COUNT II: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF
`NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’929 PATENT
`
`39.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates and re-alleges the allegations in the preceding paragraphs of
`
`the Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
`
`40.
`
`Defendant purports to be the owner of the ’929 Patent with all right, title, and
`
`interest thereto.
`
`41.
`
`In its APEX request to Amazon, Defendant asserted that Plaintiff’s Accused
`
`Product infringes claim 1 of the ’929 Patent. See Exhibit B at 2.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT - 11
`4871-1067-8117v.2 0121917-000001
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`LAW OFFICES
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98104-1610
`206.622.3150
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00742-TL Document 1 Filed 05/19/23 Page 12 of 115
`
`
`
`42.
`
`Plaintiff’s Accused Product does not meet, either literally or under the doctrine of
`
`equivalents, every element of the Asserted Claim of the ’929 Patent.
`
`43.
`
`In particular, Plaintiff’s Accused Product does not meet at least the following
`
`limitation recited in the Asserted Claim: “wherein the first controller is configured to (i)
`
`determine whether at least one alarm event is set on the primary device, (ii) establish a wireless
`
`communication between the primary device and the secondary device when determination is
`
`made that the alarm event has been set on the primary device, (iii) generate a first alarm signal
`
`including first alarm rendering instructions based on the alarm event set, and (iv) transmit the
`
`first alarm signal including the first alarm rendering instructions from the primary device to the
`
`secondary device.”
`
`44.
`
`Accordingly, Plaintiff has not and does not infringe the Asserted Claim of the
`
`’929 Patent.
`
`45.
`
`An actual and justiciable controversy therefore exists between Plaintiff and
`
`Defendant regarding whether Plaintiff has infringed the Asserted Claim of the ’929 Patent.
`
`46.
`
`A judicial declaration is necessary to determine the parties’ respective rights with
`
`respect to the ’929 Patent.
`
`47.
`
`Plaintiff is entitled to a judgment declaring that it has not infringed and does not
`
`infringe at least the Asserted Claim of the ’929 Patent.
`
`VIII. COUNT III: TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE
`WITH CONTRACT OR BUSINESS EXPECTANCY
`
`48.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates and re-alleges the allegations in the preceding paragraphs of
`
`the Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT - 12
`4871-1067-8117v.2 0121917-000001
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`LAW OFFICES
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98104-1610
`206.622.3150
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00742-TL Document 1 Filed 05/19/23 Page 13 of 115
`
`
`
`49.
`
`This claim arises under Washington state law and is based on Defendant’s
`
`intentional and improper interference in the contract and/or business relationships between
`
`Plaintiff and Amazon, and between Plaintiff and Amazon’s customers.
`
`50.
`
`As set forth above, Defendant was and is aware that Plaintiff and Amazon
`
`maintained a business relationship whereby Plaintiff’s Accused Product was sold on Amazon’s
`
`online marketplace.
`
`51.
`
`Defendant’s APEX request to Amazon was and is intended to result in the
`
`removal of the listing of the Accused Product on Amazon’s online marketplace.
`
`52.
`
`As a result of Defendant’s willful and improper actions, Amazon did in fact
`
`remove the Accused Product and the listing has not been restored.
`
`53.
`
`Defendant’s submission of and ongoing refusal to withdraw its APEX request
`
`constitutes an improper purpose at least because Defendant knows or should have known that the
`
`Asserted Claim of the ’929 patent is invalid and/or not infringed by the Accused Product.
`
`54.
`
`Defendant’s conduct has resulted in the ongoing accrual of pecuniary damages to
`
`Plaintiff.
`
`IX. COUNT IV: VIOLATION OF WASHINGTON STATE
`CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
`
`55.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates and re-alleges the allegations in the preceding paragraphs of
`
`the Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
`
`56.
`
`This claim is based on Defendant’s unfair and deceptive trade practices in
`
`violation of Washington’s Consumer Protection Act, codified at Wash. Rev. Cod § 19.86.020 et
`
`seq.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT - 13
`4871-1067-8117v.2 0121917-000001
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`LAW OFFICES
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98104-1610
`206.622.3150
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00742-TL Document 1 Filed 05/19/23 Page 14 of 115
`
`
`
`57.
`
`Defendant has engaged in unfair and/or deceptive acts by knowingly and without
`
`justification continuing to maintain what Defendant knows to be materially false representations
`
`to third party Amazon.
`
`58.
`
`Defendant falsely stated that Plaintiff’s Accused Product infringes the Asserted
`
`Claim of the ’929 patent. As discussed in more detail above, at the time Defendant made the
`
`false statements to Amazon, Defendant knew and/or should have known that such statements to
`
`were false or were made with reckless disregard for the truth because the Accused Product does
`
`not infringe the Asserted Claim of the ’929 patent, and because the Asserted Claim of the ’929
`
`patent is invalid.
`
`59. Moreover, as set forth above, to the extent Defendant was not aware at the time it
`
`began its enforcement efforts with Amazon that the Asserted Claim of the ’929 patent is not
`
`infringed by the Accused Product and/or is invalid, Defendant certainly has such knowledge
`
`now.
`
`60.
`
`Defendant’s act was in and affecting commerce because it was intended to and in
`
`fact did remove Plaintiff’s Accused Product from Amazon’s online marketplace, where the
`
`Accused Product had been sold prior to its removal.
`
`61.
`
`Defendant’s actions caused immediate and ongoing injury to Plaintiff’s business.
`
`Prior to Defendants’ statements to Amazon and the subsequent removal of Plaintiff’s Accused
`
`Product, Amazon sales of the Accused Product generated substantial revenue for Plaintiff. That
`
`revenue stream has been eliminated as a result of Defendant’s improper actions. Furthermore,
`
`because of the absence of Vibio on Amazon, Defendant is also destroying Plaintiff’s ranking on
`
`Amazon, which will take a long time to repair once the product is reinstated.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT - 14
`4871-1067-8117v.2 0121917-000001
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`LAW OFFICES
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98104-1610
`206.622.3150
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00742-TL Document 1 Filed 05/19/23 Page 15 of 115
`
`
`
`62.
`
`Defendant’s act affects the public interest at least because customers who
`
`purchased the Accused Device on Amazon cannot now access warranty and customer service
`
`channels previously available through Amazon’s website. See generally, Exhibit D.
`
`Furthermore, Defendant’s act of weaponizing its patent, and then refusing to rectify the damage
`
`caused by wielding it improperly, is contrary to the public interest in the issuance and
`
`enforcement of valid patents.
`
`63.
`
`Defendant acted and continues to act willfully, deliberately, and in bad faith in
`
`falsely asserting to Amazon that the Accused Product infringes the Asserted Claim of the ’929
`
`patent. These unlawful, unfair, and deceptive business practices have harmed Plaintiff’s
`
`reputation and sales and will continue to do so unless and until Defendant’s unfair
`
`misrepresentations to Amazon regarding the Accused Product are rectified, and Plaintiff’s
`
`product listing is restored.
`
`64.
`
`Plaintiff has suffered damages as a direct and proximate consequence of
`
`Defendant’s conduct. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to damages in an amount to be proven at
`
`trial.
`
`X.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment on the Complaint as follows:
`
`A.
`
`A judgment that the Asserted Claim of the ’929 patent is not infringed by Plaintiff
`
`or Plaintiff’s Accused Product;
`
`B.
`
`A judgment that the Asserted Claim of the ’929 patent is invalid and/or
`
`unenforceable;
`
`C.
`
`Damages sufficient to compensate Plaintiff for Defendant’s unfair and tortious
`
`conduct;
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT - 15
`4871-1067-8117v.2 0121917-000001
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`LAW OFFICES
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98104-1610
`206.622.3150
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00742-TL Document 1 Filed 05/19/23 Page 16 of 115
`
`
`
`D.
`
`Damages for Defendant’s unfair acts in violation of the Washington Consumer
`
`Protection Act;
`
`E.
`
`An order requiring Defendant to withdraw or retract its improper request to
`
`Amazon that resulted in the de-listing of Plaintiff’s products;
`
`E.
`
`A declaration that this case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and a
`
`concomitant award of Plaintiff’s reasonable attorney’s fees, costs, and any expenses incurred in
`
`by Plaintiff in this action;
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`An order awarding Plaintiff its costs in filing and prosecuting this action; and
`
`Any other relief this Court deems just and proper under the circumstances.
`
`XI.
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
`
`DATED May 19, 2023.
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT - 16
`4871-1067-8117v.2 0121917-000001
`
`
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Bellman & Symfon
`North America Inc.
`
`
`By: s/ Benjamin J. Byer
`
`
`Benjamin J. Byer, WSBA #38206
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98104-1610
`Tel: 206.622.3150 / Fax: 206.757.7700
`Email: benbyer@dwt.com
`
`Thomas P. Canty, pro hac vice forthcoming
`Steven H. Sklar, pro hac vice forthcoming
`James W. Sanner, pro hac vice forthcoming
`LEYDIG, VOIT & MAYER, LTD.
`Two Prudential Plaza
`180 North Stetson Avenue, Suite 4900
`Chicago, IL 60601
`Tel: 312.616.5600 / Fax: 312.616.5700
`Email: tcanty@leydig.com
`Email: ssklar@leydig.com
`Email: jsanner@leydig.com
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`LAW OFFICES
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98104-1610
`206.622.3150
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00742-TL Document 1 Filed 05/19/23 Page 17 of 115
`Case 2:23-cv-00742-TL Document1 Filed 05/19/23 Page 17 of 115
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`

`( 12 ) United States Patent
`Kim
`
`( 10 ) Patent No .: US 10,713,929 B2
`( 45 ) Date of Patent :
`* Jul . 14 , 2020
`
`US010713929B2
`
`( 72 ) Inventor :
`
`( * ) Notice :
`
`( 54 ) ALARM AND MONITORING SYSTEM AND
`METHOD OF OPERATION THEREOF
`( 71 ) Applicant : JWIN ELECTRONICS CORP . , Port
`Washington , NY ( US )
`Justin Chiwon Kim , Port Washington ,
`NY ( US )
`( 73 ) Assignee : JWIN ELECTRONICS
`CORPORATION , Port Washington ,
`NY ( US )
`Subject to any disclaimer , the term of this
`patent is extended or adjusted under 35
`U.S.C. 154 ( b ) by 0 days .
`This patent is subject to a terminal dis
`claimer .
`( 21 ) Appl . No .: 16 / 240,000
`( 22 ) Filed :
`Jan. 4 , 2019
`(