R. Parrish Freeman (Utah State Bar No. 7529; Email: pfreeman@wnlaw.com) Robert E. Aycock (Utah State Bar No.

8878; Email: raycock@wnlaw.com)

WORKMAN | NYDEGGER A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

60 East South Temple, Tenth Floor Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Telephone: (801) 533-9800 Facsimile: (801) 328-1707 Attorneys for Plaintiff Myung Pyo Choi

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION

Myung Pyo Choi, an Individual, Plaintiff, v. North Bear Beauty Systems, Inc. d/b/a H2Pro Beauty Life, and f/k/a Beauty Max OTC, Inc., an Illinois corporation, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-00835-DAK COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT (JURY TRIAL DEMANDED) Judge Dale A. Kimball

Plaintiff Myung Pyo Choi (Plaintiff) hereby complains against defendant North Bear Beauty Systems, Inc. d/b/a H2Pro Beauty Life, a/k/a NB Beauty Systems and f/k/a Beauty Max OTC, Inc. (Defendant) and for claims of relief alleges as follows: PARTIES 1. Plaintiff is an individual with his principal place of residence in Gyeonggi-do,

Republic of Korea.

2.

Upon information and belief, Defendant is a corporation organized and existing

under the laws of the State of Illinois, with its principal place of business located at 4319 Regency Drive, Glenview, IL 60025. JURISDICTION 3. This is a civil action for patent infringement brought by Plaintiff for acts

committed by Defendant arising under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. 1 et seq. 4. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this dispute pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

1331 and 1338(a). 5. Upon information and belief, Defendant has sold or contracted for the sale of

infringing goods within the State of Utah or induced others to sell or contract for the sale of infringing goods within the State of Utah. These actions by Defendant have resulted in injury to Plaintiff and relate to, and in part give rise to, the claims asserted herein. 6. This Courts exercise of personal jurisdiction over Defendant is consistent with

the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Utah. Moreover, this Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant pursuant to the Utah Long Arm Statute, Utah Code Ann. 78B-3205. 7. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(c), Defendant is deemed to reside in this judicial

district for purposes of venue. 8. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to, at least, 28 U.S.C.

1391(b)(1), 1391(b)(2), and 1400(b).

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Infringement of the D650,942 Patent) 35 U.S.C. 271 9. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the allegations of the preceding paragraphs 1 through

8 of this Complaint into this First Claim for Relief as though fully set forth herein. 10. United States Design Patent No. D650,942 (the 942 Patent) titled Hair Brush

Iron issued from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) on December 20, 2011. (A true and correct copy of the 942 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.) 11. Plaintiff is the owner of all right, title, and interest in and to the 942 Patent,

including the right to sue for and recover all past, present, and future damages for infringement of the 942 Patent, and to enjoin acts of infringement of the 942 Patent. 12. Neither Plaintiff nor any authorized third party has licensed or otherwise

authorized Defendant to practice the 942 Patent. 13. Defendant has made, used, offered to sell, sold, and/or imported into the United

States, and still is making, using, offering to sell, selling, and/or importing into the United States its Heat Brush product having a design that infringes Plaintiffs 942 Patent without Plaintiffs authorization. Defendants conduct in this regard constitutes direct infringement and violates 35 U.S.C. 271(a). On information and belief, Defendant is inducing others to directly infringe the 942 Patent and is therefore liable for indirect infringement under 36 U.S.C. 271(b). 14. Plaintiff sent letters dated April 3, 2013 and May 20, 2013 to Defendant.

Defendant received both letters. Each letter (1) advised Defendant that Defendant was infringing the 942 Patent, (2) demanded that Defendant cease its infringement of the 942 Patent, and (3)

requested Defendant confirm to Plaintiff that Defendant had in fact ceased its infringement of the 942 Patent. Defendant did not respond to either letter. 15. Defendants infringement has been intentional and willful, making this an

exceptional case. 16. Plaintiff has been irreparably harmed and will continue to be irreparably harmed

by Defendants infringement of the 942 Patent unless Defendant is enjoined by this Court from committing further acts of infringement of the 942 Patent. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Infringement of D670,027 Patent) 35 U.S.C. 271 17. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the allegations of the preceding paragraphs 1 through

16 of this Complaint into this First Claim for Relief as though fully set forth herein. 18. United States Design Patent No. D670,027 (the 027 Patent) titled Hair Brush

Iron issued from the USPTO on October 30, 2012. (A true and correct copy of the 027 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.) 19. Plaintiff is the owner of all right, title, and interest in and to the 027 Patent,

including the right to sue for and recover all past, present, and future damages for infringement of the 027 Patent, and to enjoin acts of infringement of the 027 Patent. 20. Neither Plaintiff nor any authorized third party has licensed or otherwise

authorized Defendant to practice the 027 Patent. 21. Defendant has made, used, offered to sell, sold, and/or imported into the United

States, and still is making, using, offering to sell, selling, and/or importing into the United States its Heat Brush product having a design that infringes Plaintiffs 027 Patent without Plaintiffs

authorization. Defendants conduct in this regard constitutes direct infringement and violates 35 U.S.C. 271(a). On information and belief, Defendant is inducing others to directly infringe the 027 Patent and is therefore liable for indirect infringement under 36 U.S.C. 271(b). 22. Plaintiff sent letters dated April 3, 2013 and May 20, 2013 to Defendant.

Defendant received both letters. Each letter (1) advised Defendant that Defendant was infringing the 027 Patent, (2) demanded that Defendant cease its infringement of the 027 Patent, and (3) requested Defendant confirm to Plaintiff that Defendant had in fact ceased its infringement of the 027 Patent. Defendant did not respond to either letter. 23. Defendants infringement has been intentional and willful, making this an

exceptional case. 24. Plaintiff has and will continue to be irreparably harmed by Defendants

infringement of the 027 Patent unless Defendant is enjoined by this Court from committing further acts of infringement of the 027 Patent. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for entry of a final order and judgment that: 1. 2. 3. Defendant has infringed the 942 Patent; Defendant has infringed the 027 Patent; Defendant account for and pay to Plaintiff all damages caused by its infringement

of the 942 and 027 Patents and a trebling of damages for willful infringement under 35 U.S.C. 284, or an award of Defendants profits from its infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 289, whichever is greater;

4.

Plaintiff be granted permanent injunctive relief pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 283

enjoining Defendant, its officers, agents, servants, employees, and all those persons in active concert or participation with them from further acts of patent infringement; 5. Plaintiff be granted pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on the damages

caused to it by reason of Defendants infringement of the942 and 027 Patents; 6. The Court declare this an exceptional case and that Plaintiff be granted its

reasonable attorneys fees in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 285; 7. 8. Costs be awarded to Plaintiff; and Plaintiff be granted such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and

proper under the circumstances. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff demands trial by jury on all claims and issues so triable.

DATED: September 11, 2013

WORKMAN | NYDEGGER A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

By: /s/ R. Parrish Freeman R. Parrish Freeman Robert E. Aycock Attorneys for Plaintiff Mr. Choi