H. Dickson Burton (4004) Andrew A. Hufford (14207) TRASKBRITT, P.C. P.O.

Box 2550 230 South 500 East, Suite 300 Salt Lake City, Utah 84110 Tele: (801) 532-1922; Fax (801) 531-9168 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Storm Products, Inc. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, NORTHERN DIVISION

STORM PRODUCTS, INC., a Utah Corporation, Plaintiff, vs. WILBUR PRODUCTS, INC., dba MOTIV BOWLING, dba Tech-Line Products, a Michigan Corporation, Defendant.

COMPLAINT

Case No. __________________

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff Storm Products, Inc. (Storm), by and through its counsel, brings this complaint against Defendant Wilbur Products, Inc., dba Motiv Bowling, dba Tech-Line Products (collectively, Wilbur or Defendant), as follows: PARTIES 1. Plaintiff Storm is a Utah corporation with its principal place of business at 165

South 8th West, Brigham City, Utah 84302. 2. On information and belief, Defendant Wilbur is a Michigan Corporation with its

principal place of business at 950 West Broadway Avenue, Muskegon, Michigan 49441.

NATURE OF THE ACTION 3. 4. This is a civil action for patent infringement. Wilbur has infringed and continues to infringe, contributed to and continues to

contribute to the infringement of, and/or actively induced and continues to induce others to infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,699,713 (the 173 Patent) and U.S. Patent No. 7,803,058 (the 058 Patent) (collectively, the Asserted Patents). Storm is the legal owner by assignment of the Asserted Patents, which were duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and which are valid and enforceable. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. This is a civil action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the

United States and, more specifically, under 35 U.S.C. 271, 281, 283, 284 and 285. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the patent infringement claims under 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1338(a). 6. This Court has diversity jurisdiction over all non-patent infringement claims

asserted in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332, because the parties are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional amount of $75,000, excluding interest and costs. This Court has original jurisdiction over the unfair competition claims based upon 28 U.S.C. 1338(b) and 1367. 7. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant is

engaged in regular and substantial business in the State of Utah and the District of Utah. This

court also has personal jurisdiction over Defendant under Utah Code Ann. 78B-3-201 (2011) because, on information and belief, Defendant contracts to supply services or goods in Utah. 8. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b), because Defendant has

committed acts of patent infringement in, and has otherwise regularly conducted or conducts business within the State of Utah and the District of Utah. Defendant is deemed to reside in this judicial district within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. 1391(c)(2). 9. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1400(b), and 1391(b)-(c).

BACKGROUND 10. Storm manufactures bowling balls and bowling-related products at its Brigham

City, Utah factory. Storm bowling balls are distributed and sold in all 50 states and over 20 countries. 11. Storm is an innovator in the field of bowling ball technology, and makes bowling

balls that are preferred by many professional and amateur bowlers. 12. The claims of the Asserted Patents are directed to fragrant bowling balls, and

methods of making fragrant bowling balls. Storm currently makes and sells bowling balls with over 45 possible fragrances. 13. Storm has properly marked its products with U.S. Patent 7,699,713 since at least

April, 2010, and with U.S. Patent No. 7,803,058 since at least October, 2010. 14. Storm has invested substantial time, money and intellectual capital into patenting On

fragrant bowling balls, an innovation that consumers widely associate with Storm.

information and belief, Storm was the only significant manufacturer of fragrant bowling balls in the United States until Wilbur began to infringe the Asserted Patents, as alleged herein.

15.

The Asserted Patents, combined with Storms superior technology, visual appeal,

marketing, and pricing, have helped Storm distinguish itself in the market and become an industry leader in sales of bowling balls in the United States. 16. On information and belief, Wilbur manufactures bowling balls and bowling-

related products at its factory in Muskegon, Michigan. 17. On information and belief, Wilbur also manufactures bowling balls and bowling-

related products under the assumed (dba) names Motiv Bowling (Motiv), and Tech-Line Products (Tech-Line), both located at 18570 Trimble Court, Spring Lake, Michigan 49456. 18. 19. Wilbur is a direct competitor of Storm in the bowling industry. On information and belief, Wilbur sells its bowling balls and bowling-related

products directly to consumers through its internet websites, motivbowling.com and techlineproducts.com, and through an international network of professional bowling shops, which resell the products to local consumers. 20. On April 1, 2013, Storm became aware that Motiv was marketing at least one line

of fragrant bowling balls, and informally contacted Wilbur to discuss the Asserted Patents. Wilbur has continued to sell its fragrant bowling balls. 21. In April, 2013, comments also began to appear on various social media websites

(e.g., Facebook) and online chat rooms frequented by bowling consumers that noted a fragrant smell in the newer Motiv bowling balls. See Exhibit A. Among these posts were comments suggesting consumer confusion about who was making the fragrant Motiv ball. Id.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT 7,699,713 22. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of the foregoing

as if set forth fully herein. 23. Storm is the current exclusive owner and assignee of all right, title and interest in

and to United States Patent No. 7,699,713 (the 173 Patent), titled Scented Bowling Balls and Methods. The 173 Patent was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and

Trademark Office on April 20, 2010. See Exhibit B. 24. 25. The 173 Patent is valid and enforceable. By way of example, the 173 Patent covers A bowling ball, consisting of: a

rubber material formed from a polymer blend comprising, before polymerization, a polymerization catalyst and a polyol precursor material; at least one fragrance dispersed in at least a portion of the rubber material; and a pigment dispersed in at least a portion of the rubber material. 26. By way of further example, the 173 Patent covers A bowling ball, consisting

essentially of: a nonporous rubber material formed from a polymer blend comprising, before polymerization, a polymerization catalyst and a polyol precursor material; and a fragrance at least partially dispersed in at least a portion of the nonporous rubber material. 27. By way of further example, the 173 Patent covers A method for manufacturing

a bowling ball, comprising: dissolving at least a portion of at least one fragrance into a polyol to form a fragrant polyol; adding a catalyst to the fragrant polyol to form a polymer blend; introducing the polymer blend into a mold; and polymerizing the polymer blend to form a bowling ball.

28.

Wilbur has infringed and is still infringing the 173 Patent by making, selling, and

using bowling balls, including at least the Motiv Venom Toxin bowling ball, that embody the patented invention, and Wilbur will continue to do so unless enjoined by this Court. 29. Upon information and belief, Wilbur has had actual notice of the 173 Patent

since before it began selling its infringing bowling balls. 30. Wilburs manufacture, use, sale and/or offer for sale of products that infringe at

least one claim of the claims of the 173 Patent without authority or license from Storm, and in violation of Storms rights, willfully directly infringes Storms 173 Patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. 31. Notwithstanding Wilburs knowledge of the existence of the 173 Patent, Wilbur

has, and continues to, knowingly, intentionally and willfully directly infringe, induce infringement and/or contribute to infringement of at least one of the claims of the 173 Patent either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT 7,803,058 32. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of the foregoing

as if set forth fully herein. 33. Storm is the current exclusive owner and assignee of all right, title and interest in

and to United States Patent No. 7,803,058 (the 058 Patent), titled Scented Bowling Balls and Methods. The 058 Patent was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and

Trademark Office on September 28, 2010. See Exhibit C. 34. The 058 Patent is valid and enforceable.

35.

By way of example, the 058 Patent covers A bowling ball, comprising: a mass

comprising a two-part resin; and a fragrance at least partially dissolved in at least a portion of said two-part resin of said mass. 36. By way of further example, the 058 Patent covers A method for manufacturing

a bowling ball, comprising: providing a liquid material; blending at least one fragrance directly into said liquid material; introducing said liquid material and said at least one fragrance into a cavity of a mold; and curing said material with said at least one fragrance therein. 37. By way of further example, the 058 Patent covers A method for manufacturing

a bowling ball, comprising: providing a polyol; blending at least a fragrance directly into said polyol; substantially removing gas or gas bubbles from a mixture including said polyol and said fragrance; introducing said mixture and a polymerization catalyst therefor into a cavity of a mold; and permitting a blend including said polyol and said polymerization catalyst therefor to at least partially polymerize to form a bowling ball. 38. By way of further example, the 058 Patent covers A bowling ball, comprising: a

substantially rigid, substantially nonporous spherical mass comprising a two-part resin and configured as a bowling ball; and fragrance at least partially dissolved within at least a portion of said two-part resin. 39. Wilbur has infringed and is still infringing the 058 Patent by making, selling, and

using bowling balls, including at least the Motiv Venom Toxin bowling ball, that embody the patented invention, and Wilbur will continue to do so unless enjoined by this Court. 40. Upon information and belief, Wilbur has had actual notice of the 058 Patent

since before it began selling its infringing bowling balls.

41.

Wilburs manufacture, use, sale and/or offer for sale of products that infringe at

least one claim of the claims of the 058 Patent without authority or license from Storm, and in violation of Storms rights, willfully directly infringes Storms 058 Patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. 42. Notwithstanding Wilburs knowledge of the existence of the 058 Patent, Wilbur

has, and continues to, knowingly, intentionally and willfully directly infringe, induce infringement and/or contribute to infringement of at least one of the claims of the 058 Patent either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION STATE LAW UNFAIR COMPETITION 43. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of the foregoing

as if set forth fully herein. 44. Wilbur by its actions set forth herein above has engaged in intentional business

acts or practices that are unlawful, unfair and/or fraudulent and that have caused a material diminution in the value of the Asserted Patents. These intentional business acts or practices do not relate to the departure and hiring of an employee by a competitor. 45. Wilburs conduct as set forth hereinabove gives rise to a cause of action for unfair

competition under the statutory and common law of the State of Utah, including at least Utah Code Ann. 13-5a-101. 46. Wilbur has committed the above-described acts in bad faith, with the intention of

trading off of Storms name, goodwill and reputation.

47.

Storm has been, and will continue to be, irreparably harmed by the conduct of

Wilbur, unless enjoined by this Court. 8

48.

Wilburs conduct in this regard has damaged Storm in an amount to be

determined at trial, which damages should be awarded to Storm under Utah Code Ann. 13-5a103(1)(b)(i). 49. For Wilburs conduct in this regard, Storm should be awarded its costs and

attorney fees under Utah Code Ann. 13-5a-103(1)(b)(ii). 50. If the court determines that the circumstances are appropriate, punitive damages

should be awarded to Storm for Wilburs conduct in this regard under Utah Code Ann. 13-5a103(1)(b)(iii).

PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the following relief: A. B. A judgment that Defendant has infringed each of the Asserted Patents; A preliminary and permanent injunction against Defendant, its respective officers,

agents, servants, employees, attorneys, parent and subsidiary companies, assigns and successors in interest, and those persons in active concert or participation with one or any of them, enjoining them from infringement, inducement of infringement, and contributory infringement of each and every one of the Asserted Patents, including but not limited to an injunction against making, using, selling, and/or offering for sale within the United States, and/or importing into the United States, any products that infringe one or more of the Asserted Patents; C. Patents; D. alleged herein; E. Prejudgment interest; 9 A reasonable royalty for Defendants use of Plaintiffs patented technology, as Lost profit damages resulting from Defendants infringement of the Asserted

F. G.

Post-judgment interest; A judgment holding Defendants infringement of the Asserted Patents to be

willful, and a trebling of damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 284; H. A declaration that this Action is exceptional pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 285, and an

award to Plaintiff of its attorneys' fees, costs and expenses incurred in connection with this Action; I. Such other relief as the Court may deem just and equitable.

JURY DEMAND Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues presented in this Complaint.

DATED this 17th day of April, 2013.

_/s/H. Dickson Burton_______ H. Dickson Burton Andrew A. Hufford TRASKBRITT, P.C. P.O. Box 2550 230 South 500 East, Suite 300 Salt Lake City, Utah 84110 Tele: (801) 532-1922; Fax (801) 531-9168 Attorneys for Plaintiff