1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

GREGG I. ANDERSON (CA SBN 255556) PETER A. GERGELY (CO SBN 24564) MERCHANT & GOULD, P.C. 1050 17th Street, Suite 1950 Denver, Colorado 80265 Telephone: (303) 357-1670 Facsimile: (303) 357-1671 ganderson@merchantgould.com pgergely@merchantgould.com Attorneys for Plaintiff ENEL COMPANY, LLC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ENEL COMPANY, LLC, a California Limited Liability Corporation, Plaintiff, vs. DAVID R. SCHAEFER, an individual, LAKELAND ENTERPRISES, INC., a South Carolina Corporation, LAKELAND GEAR, INC., aka RIGHTLINE GEAR, a North Carolina Corporation, CABELAS INCORPORATED, a Delaware Corporation, WAL-MART STORES, INC., a Delaware Corporation, TARGET CORPORATION, a Minnesota Corporation, SPORTSMANS WAREHOUSE, INC., a Utah Corporation, CAMPING WORLD, INC., a Kentucky Corporation, EBAY, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

'12CV1369 JAH WMc Case No. ____________________

COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Plaintiff, ENEL Company, LLC, for its complaint against David Schaefer, Lakeland Enterprises, Inc., Lakeland Gear, Inc., Cabelas Incorporated, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Target Corporation, Sportsmans Warehouse, Inc., Camping World, Inc., eBay, Inc., and Amazon.com, Inc. (collectively, Defendants), states and alleges as follows: JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

1338(a) because this is a civil action for patent infringement. 2. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants because they are present

in this District and/or have continuous and systematic contacts with this District, including but not limited to making sales of the infringing product in this District through their respective channels of distribution. 3. 1400(b). PARTIES 4. Plaintiff ENEL Company LLC (ENEL) is a limited liability corporation Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) and (c) and

incorporated under the laws of the State of California and has a principal place of business at 826 Orange Avenue, #603, Coronado, California 92118. 5. Defendant David R. Schaefer (Schaefer) is an individual residing at 710 Topaz

Court, Seneca, South Carolina 29672 and at relevant times transacted business with ENEL in this District under the corporate name of Defendant Lakeland Enterprises, Inc. (Lakeland Enterprises). 6. Defendant Lakeland Enterprises is a South Carolina corporation, whose registered

agent is Defendant Schaefer at an address of 216 Glen Laurel Drive, Easley, South Carolina

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

29642. Lakeland Enterprises is owned and controlled by Schaefer and at relevant times transacted business with ENEL in this District. 7. Defendant Lakeland Gear, Inc. (Lakeland Gear), also known as Rightline Gear,

is a North Carolina corporation located at 1465 Sand Hill Road, #171, Candler, North Carolina 28715, and transacts business in this District. 8. Defendant Cabelas Incorporated (Cabelas) is a Delaware corporation located at

One Cabela Drive, Sidney, Nebraska 69160, and transacts business in this District. 9. Defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Wal-Mart) is a Delaware corporation located

at 702 Southwest 8th Street, Bentonville, Arkansas 72716 and its registered agent for service of process in California being C T Corporation System located at 818 West 7th Street, Los Angeles, California 90017. 10. Defendant Target Corporation (Target) is a Minnesota corporation located at

1000 Nicollet Mall, TPS-2672, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55403, and its registered agent for service of process in California is C T Corporation System located at 818 West 7th Street, Los Angeles, California 90017. 11. Defendant Sportsmans Warehouse, Inc. (Sportsmans Warehouse) is a Utah

corporation located at 7035 South High Tech Drive, Midvale, Utah 84047 and its registered agent for service of process in California is C T Corporation System located at 818 West 7th Street, Los Angeles, California 90017. 12. Defendant Camping World, Inc. (Camping World) is a Kentucky corporation

located at P.O. Box 90018, Bowling Green, Kentucky 42104, and its registered agent for service of process in California is C T Corporation System located at 818 West 7th Street, Los Angeles, California 90017.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

13.

Defendant eBay, Inc. (eBay) is a Delaware corporation located at 2145 Hamilton

Avenue, San Jose, California 95125, and its registered agent for service of process in California is National Registered Agents, Inc. located at 2875 Michelle Drive, Suite 100, Irvine, California 92606. 14. Defendant Amazon.com, Inc. (Amazon) is a Delaware corporation located at

410 Terry Avenue North, Seattle, Washington 98109 and transacts business in this District. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 15. Lee B. Cargill is the inventor of U.S. Patent No. 6,481,784, which was filed on

February 14, 2001, issued on November 19, 2002 (784 Patent), a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The 784 Patent is describes and claims a novel tent for mounting to the bed of a pickup truck. 16. 17. ENEL is the assignee of the 784 Patent and owns all right and title thereto. Upon information and belief, Defendants have made, used, sold, offered to sell,

and/or imported within the United States a tent for installation in the bed of a pickup truck under the name CampRight tent. 18. Defendants aforementioned actions are a result of their joint and several actions, or

in the alternative, arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences, specifically infringement of the 784 Patent by the CampRight tent. 19. The facts giving rise to the claims against Defendants involve questions of law or

fact common to all Defendants, including but not limited to infringement of the 784 Patent by the CampRight tent. 20. Upon information and belief, Defendants Schaefer, Lakeland Enterprises, and

Lakeland Gear have manufactured or had others manufacture and import into the United States the CampRight tent. 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

21.

Defendant Schaefer has actual notice that he and/or Lakeland Enterprises

infringed the 784 Patent and with that knowledge sold the CampRight tent business to Lakeland Gear. 22. On information and belief, Schaefer was the founder, sole owner and manager of,

Lakeland Enterprises and had full authority to control or discontinue production of the CampRight tent after he became aware of ENELs patent rights. 23. Defendant Schaefers actions, including but not limited to the fact that Defendant

Schaefer knew of the 784 Patent, induced infringing acts of Lakeland Enterprises and other Defendants and he knew or should have known his actions would induce actual infringements. 24. Defendant Schaefer has aided and abetted Lakeland Enterprises and other

Defendants in infringing the 784 Patent. 25. Upon receiving actual notice of infringement, Defendant Schaefer represented to

ENEL that the CampRight tent did not infringe the 784 Patent and that he had contacted counsel who had provided him an opinion of noninfringement. Defendant Schaefer also represented that such opinion would be provided to ENEL. Upon information and belief, Lakeland Gear knew or should have known that the CampRight tent infringed the 784 Patent. 26. No opinion was ever provided by Defendant Schaefer and, on information and

belief, the foregoing representations were false. 27. Upon information and belief, Lakeland Gear acquired the CampRight tent

business from Defendants Schaefer and Lakeland Enterprises with actual knowledge of the 784 Patent and of the claim of ENEL that the 784 Patent was infringed by the making of the CampRight tent. 28. Upon information and belief, Defendants Cabelas, Wal-Mart, Target,

Sportsmans Warehouse, Camping World, eBay, and Amazon have purchased and continue to 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

purchase the CampRight tent from Defendants Schaefer, Lakeland Enterprises, Lakeland Gear and/or Rightline Gear and have sold and continue to sell the CampRight tent through their distribution channels. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PAT. NO. 6,481,784 For its First Claim for Relief against Defendants, ENEL alleges as follows: 29. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 28 above are incorporated by

reference as though set forth fully herein. 30. Upon information and belief, Defendants have infringed, induced, and/or

contributed to the infringement of one of more claims of the 784 Patent within the United States without authority of ENEL by making, using, selling, offering to sell and/or importing tents claimed in the 784 Patent or contributed to or induced others to infringe the 784 Patent under the terms and provisions of 35 U.S.C. 271 (a), (b), and/or (c). 31. Upon information and belief, Defendants had actual knowledge of the 784 Patent

and that the CampRight tent infringed the 784 Patent. 32. Despite having actual notice of the 784 patent, Defendants continue to make, use,

sell, offer to sell and/or import the patented tent of the 784 Patent. 33. Defendants infringement has damaged ENEL and therefore ENEL is entitled to

damages adequate to compensate it for the infringement and willful infringement by Defendants, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for Defendants use made of the 784 Patent as provided under the terms and provisions of 35 U.S.C. 284. 34. Defendants will continue to infringe, induce others to infringe, and/or contribute

to the infringement of the 784 Patent unless enjoined by this Court.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

35.

Defendants have willfully and deliberately infringed, induced others to infringe,

and/or contributed to the infringement of the 784 Patent, thus rendering this an "exceptional" case within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 285. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF INJUNCTIVE RELIEF For its Second Claim for Relief against Defendants, ENEL alleges as follows: 36. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 35 above are incorporated by

reference as though set forth fully herein. 37. The actions of Defendants entitle ENEL to preliminary and permanent injunctive

relief under the terms and provisions of 35 U.S.C. 283. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, ENEL requests the following relief: A. That the Court enter judgment in ENELs favor and against Defendants finding

that Defendants have infringed the claims of the 784 Patent. B. That the Court preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants and their

officers, directors, employees, agents, licensees, servants, successors and assigns, and any and all persons acting in privity or in concert with them from infringing, actively inducing infringement, or contributing to infringement of the 784 Patent; C. Defendants; D. That ENEL have an accounting of all damages to ENEL, including the profits, That this Court declare all claims of the 784 Patent valid and infringed by

revenues and costs of each Defendant arising from the infringement of the 784 Patent; E. That this Court award to ENEL damages adequate to compensate it for

Defendants acts of infringement, inducement of infringement, and contributing to the infringement by others of the 784 Patent complained of herein, together with pre- and post7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

judgment interest thereon, but in no event less that a reasonable royalty for the use made of the 784 Patent; F. That the Court finds that the infringement of the 784 Patent by Defendants is

willful, and that this Court award enhanced damages up to and including treble damages against Defendants; G. action; H. I. That the Court order Defendants to pay ENELs costs for this action; That pre- and post-judgment interest be awarded by the Court in the highest That the Court order Defendants to pay ENELs reasonable attorneys' fees for this

amount and at the highest rate allowed by law; J. equitable. PLAINTIFF'S JURY DEMAND Plaintiff ENEL hereby demands a jury trial of all issues triable to a jury. That the Court grant ENEL such other and further relief as it may deem just and

ENEL COMPANY, LLC By its Attorneys, Date: June 6, 2012 /s/ Gregg I. Anderson Gregg I. Anderson, Esq.