Sie sind auf Seite 1von 66

Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 1 of 66

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Civil Action No. ______________________

AMSA, INC. d/b/a VERSACART SYSTEMS, INC.,


a Colorado corporation,

Plaintiff,
v.

ADVANCE CARTS, INC.,


a Florida corporation, and
SUPERBASKET AMERICAS, INC.,
a Connecticut corporation,

Defendants.

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff AMSA, Inc. d/b/a Versacart Systems, Inc. (hereinafter "Plaintiff" or "Versacart

Systems"), by and through its undersigned counsel, for its Complaint against Defendants Advance

Carts, Inc. (“Advance”) and SuperBasket Americas, Inc. (“SuperBasket”), states as follows:

JURISDICTION

1. This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 101 et

seq., for unfair competition arising under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), and for violation

of state and common law. The Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over this case and the

parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a), and 15 U.S.C. §1221, and supplemental

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1367(a).

2. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants as Defendants have a principal

place of business in this District, conduct business in this District, sell their infringing products in
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 2 of 66

this District, and as Versacart Systems' claims arise from tortious acts occurring in this District,

and as Defendant Advance is incorporated in the state of Florida.

3. The Court has jurisdiction over Defendant SuperBasket under the state of Florida

Long Arm Statute, Fla. Stat. 48.193, as Defendant SuperBasket operates, conducts, engages in,

and carries on a business in Florida.

VENUE

4. Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Southern District of

Florida pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400(b).

THE PARTIES

5. Plaintiff Versacart Systems is, and at all relevant times herein was, a corporation

duly organized and existing under the laws of the state of Colorado, having a principal place of

business at 4720 Walnut Street, Suite 105, Boulder, Colorado 80301. Plaintiff designs, imports,

exports, and distributes shopping carts and ancillary items through multiple channels throughout

the United States of America.

6. Mr. Ivor Michael Walter and Mr. Jeroen Engel are, and at all relevant times herein

were, the inventors of the "Shopping Cart," protected by U.S. Design Patent No. D538,501, which

issued on March 13, 2007 (the "'501 Patent"). Mr. Walter and Mr. Engel have duly assigned the

'501 Patent to Versacart Systems.

7. Mr. Walter and Mr. Engel are, and at all relevant times herein were, the inventors

of the "Shopping Cart," protected by U.S. Design Patent No. D566,372, which issued on April 8,

2008 (the "'372 Patent"). Mr. Walter and Mr. Engel have duly assigned the '372 Patent to Versacart

Systems.

2
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 3 of 66

8. Mr. Walter is, and at all relevant times herein was, the inventor of the "Cart,"

protected by U.S. Design Patent No. D580,619, which issued on November 11, 2008 (the "'619

Patent"). Mr. Walter has duly assigned the '619 Patent to Versacart Systems.

9. Mr. Walter is, and at all relevant times herein was, the inventor of the "Cart,"

protected by U.S. Design Patent No. D633,269, which issued on February 22, 2011 (the "'269

Patent"). Mr. Walter has duly assigned the '269 Patent to Versacart Systems.

10. Mr. Walter and Mr. Engel are, and at all relevant times herein were, the inventors

of the "Cart," protected by U.S. Design Patent No. D638,602, which issued on May 24, 2011 (the

"'602 Patent"). Mr. Walter and Mr. Engel have duly assigned the '602 Patent to Versacart Systems.

11. Mr. Walter is, and at all relevant times herein was, the inventor of the "Cart,"

protected by U.S. Design Patent No. D639,521, which issued on June 7, 2011 (the "'521 Patent").

Mr. Walter has duly assigned the '521 Patent to Versacart Systems.

12. Mr. Walter and Mr. Ning Siu Sin are, and at all relevant times herein were, the

inventors of the "Cart," protected by U.S. Design Patent No. D644,809, which issued on September

6, 2011 (the "'809 Patent"). Mr. Walter and Mr. Sin have duly assigned the '809 Patent to Versacart

Systems.

13. Mr. Walter, Mr. Engel and Mr. Wilson Zeng are, and at all relevant times herein

were, the inventors of the "Set of Cart Baskets," protected by U.S. Design Patent No. D656,288,

which issued on March 20, 2012 (the "288 Patent"). Mr. Walter, Mr. Engel, and Mr. Zeng have

duly assigned the '288 Patent to Versacart Systems.

14. Mr. Walter is, and at all relevant times herein was, the inventor of the "Combined

Child Seat and Retention Flap for use with a Shopping Cart," protected by U.S. Design Patent No.

3
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 4 of 66

D658,841, which issued on May 1, 2012 (the "'841 Patent"). Mr. Walter has duly assigned the

'841 Patent to Versacart Systems.

15. Mr. Walter and Mr. Engel are, and at all relevant times herein were, the inventors

of the "Set of Cart Baskets," protected by U.S. Design Patent No. D663,091, which issued on July

3, 2012 (the "'091 Patent"). Mr. Walter and Mr. Engel have duly assigned the ‘091 Patent to

Versacart Systems.

16. Mr. Walter is, and at all relevant times herein was, the inventor of the "Cart,"

protected by U.S. Design Patent No. D700,762, which issued on March 4, 2014 (the "'762 Patent").

Mr. Walter has duly assigned the '762 Patent to Versacart Systems.

17. Mr. Walter is, and at all relevant times herein was, the inventor of the "Cart,"

protected by U.S. Design Patent No. D751,264, which issued on March 8, 2016 (the "'264 Patent").

Mr. Walter has duly assigned the '264 Patent to Versacart Systems.

18. Mr. Walter, Mr. Engel, and Mr. Zeng are, and at all relevant times herein were, the

inventors of the "Cart Basket," protected by U.S. Design Patent No. RE45,961, which issued on

April 5, 2016 (the "'’961 Reissued Patent" or “’961 Patent”). Mr. Walter, Mr. Engel, and Mr. Zeng

have duly assigned the '961 Reissued Patent to Versacart Systems.

19. Mr. Walter, Mr. Zeng, and Mr. Paul Jensen are, and at all relevant times herein

were, the inventors of the "Cart," protected by U.S. Design Patent No. D763,536, which issued on

August 9, 2016 (the "'536 Patent"). Mr. Walter, Mr. Zeng, and Mr. Jensen have duly assigned the

'536 Patent to Versacart Systems.

20. Mr. Walter is, and at all relevant times herein was, the inventor of the "Shopping

Cart," protected by U.S. Design Patent No. RE46,268, which issued on January 10, 2017 (the "'268

4
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 5 of 66

Reissued Patent" or “’268 Patent”). Mr. Walter has duly assigned the '268 Reissued Patent to

Versacart Systems.

21. Mr. Walter, Mr. Engel, and Mr. Zeng are, and at all relevant times herein were, the

inventors of the "Set of Cart Baskets," protected by U.S. Design Patent No. RE46,281, which

issued on January 24, 2017 (the "'281 Reissued Patent" or “’281 Patent”). Mr. Walter, Mr. Engel,

and Mr. Zeng have duly assigned the ‘281 Reissued Patent to Versacart Systems.

22. Upon information and belief, Defendant Advance is, and at all relevant times herein

was, a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the state of Florida with a

principal place of business located at 2799 NW 2nd Avenue, Boca Raton, Florida 33431. Advance

conducts business in this District and has sold and presently sells infringing products in this

District.

23. Upon information and belief, Defendant Advance is an operating entity owned

100% by Defendant SuperBasket, a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the

state of Connecticut, with a principal place of business at 129 Church St., New Haven, Connecticut

06510.

24. Upon information and belief, Defendant Advance conducts business in Florida on

behalf of SuperBasket, and under the direction and control of SuperBasket.

25. On information and belief, Defendants employ at least one common corporate

officer who resides in this district. Marcus Magnusson is identified in state corporate records as

the President of Advance and the Vice President and Secretary of SuperBasket, and lists his

residence address in Boca Raton, Florida. Mr. Magnusson is also identified as the registered agent

for Advance.

26. Advance and SuperBasket are hereinafter referred to collectively as "Defendants".

5
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 6 of 66

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

The '501 Patent

27. Beginning on or about October 2004, Versacart Systems began to market and sell

a novel cart, which is set forth and described in the '501 Patent, in the United States of America.

28. On September 7, 2005, Mr. Walter filed a United States Patent Application with

the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) to protect the ornamental design of

this cart, which was entitled "Shopping Cart."

29. Mr. Walter assigned the subject matter of the '501 Patent to Versacart Systems in

an Assignment dated September 2, 2005. The Assignment was recorded at the USPTO on October

4, 2005.

30. On March 13, 2007, the USPTO duly and legally issued to Ivor Michel Walter U.S.

Design Patent No. D538,501. A true copy of the '501 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

31. Mr. Walter was and continues to be the first and original inventor of the invention

claimed in the '501 Patent, which is sold as Versacart Systems' EXpress6000-B (also referred to

as “EXpress 6000”). The EXpress6000-B is made of steel using round and/or oval tubing and/or

wire and molded plastic. True and correct copies of digital photographs of Versacart’s

EXpress6000-B cart and a specification sheet of the EXpress6000-B cart are attached and

incorporated herein as Exhibit 17.

32. Mr. Engel was subsequently identified as an inventor of the invention claimed in

the ‘501 Patent and assigned all right, title, and interest in the ‘501 Patent to Versacart Systems in

Assignments dated February 15, 2016.

33. Plaintiff is, and at all relevant times mentioned herein was, the lawful assignee of

the '501 Patent.

6
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 7 of 66

34. Plaintiff has not licensed nor assigned any rights under the '501 Patent to

Defendants, nor to any agent of Defendants.

35. Pursuant to Versacart Systems' standard business practice of marking products, the

EXpress6000-B and/or packaging was marked with notice of "patent pending" beginning in or

about September 2005, after Versacart Systems filed the application that became the '501 Patent.

36. Upon information and belief, at least as early as June, 2014 and continuing through

the present, Defendant Advance designed, manufactured, and sold its own versions of Plaintiff's

novel cart, referred to as “Xpress 90x”, as set forth and described in the '501 Patent. Defendant

Advance's Xpress 90x cart is identical or at least substantially similar in design and shape to the

cart depicted in the '501 Patent. True and correct copies of digital photographs of Defendant

Advance's imitation Xpress 90x cart are attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit 26.

37. Upon information and belief, Defendant Advance's imitation Xpress 90x cart is

marketed, sold, and offered for sale throughout the United States by Defendants, including but not

limited to within the state of Florida.

The '372 Patent

38. Beginning on or about January 2006, Versacart Systems began to market and sell a

novel cart, which is set forth and described in the '372 Patent, in the United States of America.

39. On December 14, 2006, Mr. Walter filed a United States Patent Application with

the USPTO to protect the ornamental design of the novel cart, which was entitled "Shopping Cart."

40. On January 3, 2007, Mr. Walter assigned the '372 Patent to Versacart Systems. The

Assignment was recorded at the USPTO on February 12, 2007.

41. On April 8, 2008, the USPTO duly and legally issued to Ivor Michel Walter U.S.

Design Patent No. D566,372. A true copy of the '372 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.

7
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 8 of 66

42. Mr. Walter was and continues to be the first and original inventor of the invention

claimed in the ‘372 Patent, which is sold as Versacart Systems' "EXpress 3500-B" and “EXpress

3500-B-C (also referred to as “EXpress 3500”). The EXpress3500-B and EXpress 3500-B-C are

made of steel using round and/or oval tubing and/or wire and molded plastic. True and correct

copies of digital photographs of Versacart’s EXpress3500-B and EXpress 3500-B-C carts and

specification sheets thereof are attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit 18.

43. Mr. Engel was subsequently identified as an inventor of the invention claimed in

the ‘372 Patent and assigned all right, title, and interest in the ‘372 Patent to Versacart Systems in

Assignments dated February 15, 2016.

44. Plaintiff is, and at all relevant times mentioned herein was, the lawful assignee of

the '372 Patent.

45. Plaintiff has not licensed nor assigned any rights under the '372 Patent to

Defendants, nor to any agent of Defendants.

46. Pursuant to Versacart Systems' standard business practice of marking products, the

EXpress3500-B and/or packaging was marked with notice of "patent pending" beginning in or

about December, 2006, after Versacart Systems filed the application that became the '372 Patent.

47. Upon information and belief, at least as early as June, 2014 and continuing through

the present, Defendant Advance designed, manufactured, and sold its own versions of Plaintiff's

novel cart, referred to as “Xpress 55x,” “Xpress 65x,” and “Xpress 65xc,” as set forth and

described in the '372 Patent. Defendant Advance's Xpress 55x, 65x, and 65xc carts are identical

or at least substantially similar in design and shape to the cart depicted in the '372 Patent. True

and correct copies of digital photographs of Defendant Advance's imitation Xpress 55x, 65x, and

65xc carts and specification sheets thereof are attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit 27.

8
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 9 of 66

48. Upon information and belief, Defendant Advance's imitation Xpress 55x, 65x, and

65xc carts are marketed, sold, and offered for sale throughout the United States by Defendants,

including but not limited to within the state of Florida.

The '619 Patent

49. Beginning on or about February, 2007, Versacart Systems began to market and sell

a novel cart, which is set forth and described in the '619 Patent, in the United States of America.

50. On January 30, 2008, Mr. Walter filed a United States Patent Application with the

United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") to protect the ornamental design of this

cart, which was entitled "Cart."

51. Mr. Walter assigned the subject matter of the '619 Patent to Versacart Systems in

an Assignment dated January 29, 2008. The Assignment was recorded at the USPTO on January

30, 2008.

52. On September 6, 2011, the USPTO duly and legally issued to Ivor Michel Walter

U.S. Design Patent No. D580,619. A true copy of the '619 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 3.

53. Mr. Walter was and continues to be the first and original inventor of the invention

claimed in the '619 Patent, which is sold as Versacart Systems' "EXpress5050-B" (also referred to

as “EXpress5050”). The EXpress5050-B is made of steel using round and/or oval tubing and/or

wire and molded plastic. True and correct copies of digital photographs of Versacart’s

EXpress5050-B cart and a specification sheet of the EXpress5050-B cart are attached and

incorporated herein as Exhibit 19.

54. Plaintiff is, and at all relevant times mentioned herein was, the lawful assignee of

the '619 Patent.

9
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 10 of 66

55. Plaintiff has not licensed nor assigned any rights under the '619 Patent to

Defendants, nor to any agent of Defendants.

56. Pursuant to Versacart Systems' standard business practice of marking products, the

EXpress5050-B and/or packaging was marked with notice of "patent pending" beginning in or

about January, 2008 after Versacart Systems filed the application that became the '619 Patent.

57. Upon information and belief, at least as early as June, 2014 and continuing through

the present, Defendant Advance designed, manufactured, and sold its own versions of Plaintiff's

novel cart, referred to as “Xpress 100x”, as set forth and described in the '619 Patent. Defendant

Advance's Xpress 100x cart is identical or at least substantially similar in design and shape to the

cart depicted in the '619 Patent. True and correct copies of digital photographs of Defendant

Advance's Xpress 100x imitation of Plaintiff's novel cart, and a specification sheet of the Xpress

100x cart, taken directly from Defendant’s website, are attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit

28.

58. Upon information and belief, Defendant Advance's imitation Xpress Series 100x

cart is used, marketed, sold, and offered for sale by Defendants throughout the United States,

including but not limited to within the state of Florida.

The '269 Patent

59. Beginning on or about November, 2008, Versacart Systems began to market and

sell a novel cart, which is set forth and described in the '269 Patent, in the United States of America.

60. On October 22, 2009, Mr. Walter filed a United States Patent Application with the

USPTO to protect the ornamental design of this cart, which was entitled "Cart."

10
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 11 of 66

61. Mr. Walter assigned the subject matter of the '269 Patent to Versacart Systems in

an Assignment dated October 22, 2009. The Assignment was recorded at the USPTO on October

22, 2009.

62. On February 22, 2011, the USPTO duly and legally issued to Ivor Michel Walter

U.S. Design Patent No. D633,269. A true copy of the '269 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 4.

63. Mr. Walter was and continues to be the first and original inventor of the invention

claimed in the '269 Patent, which is sold as Versacart Systems' EXpress6000-B. See Exhibit 17.

64. Plaintiff is, and at all relevant times mentioned herein was, the lawful assignee of

the '269 Patent.

65. Plaintiff has not licensed nor assigned any rights under the '269 Patent to

Defendants, nor to any agent of Defendants.

66. Pursuant to Versacart Systems' standard business practice of marking products, the

EXpress6000-B and/or packaging was marked with notice of "patent pending" beginning in or

about October 2006, after Versacart Systems filed the application that became the '269 Patent.

67. Upon information and belief, at least as early as June 2014 and continuing through

the present, Defendant Advance designed, manufactured, and sold its own versions of Plaintiff's

novel cart, referred to as “Xpress 110x”, as set forth and described in the '542 Patent. Defendant

Advance's Xpress 110x cart is identical or at least substantially similar in design and shape to the

cart depicted in the '269 Patent. True and correct copies of digital photographs of Defendant

Advance's imitation Xpress 110x cart of Plaintiff's novel cart, taken directly from Plaintiff’s

website, and a specification sheet of the Xpress 110x cart, are attached and incorporated herein as

Exhibit 29.

11
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 12 of 66

68. Upon information and belief, Defendant Advance's imitation Xpress 110x cart is

marketed, sold, and offered for sale by Defendants throughout the United States, including but not

limited to within the state of Florida.

The '602 Patent

69. Beginning on or about November, 2009, Versacart Systems began to market and

sell a novel cart, which is set forth and described in the '602 Patent, in the United States of America.

70. On October 27, 2010, Mr. Walter filed a United States Patent Application with the

United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") to protect the ornamental design of this

cart, which was entitled "Cart."

71. Mr. Walter assigned the subject matter of the '602 Patent to Versacart Systems in

an Assignment dated October 27, 2010. The Assignment was recorded at the USPTO on

November, 2010.

72. On May 24, 2011, the USPTO duly and legally issued to Ivor Michel Walter U.S.

Design Patent No. D638,602. A true copy of the '602 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 5.

73. Mr. Walter was and continues to be the first and original inventor of the invention

claimed in the '602 Patent, which is sold as Versacart Systems' "EXpress5050-B". The

EXpress5050-B is made of steel using round and/or oval tubing and/or wire and molded plastic.

See Exhibit 19.

74. Mr. Engel was subsequently identified as an inventor of the invention claimed in

the ‘602 Patent and assigned all right, title, and interest in the ‘602 Patent to Versacart Systems in

an Assignment dated February 15, 2016 and recorded on April 25, 2016.

75. Plaintiff is, and at all relevant times mentioned herein was, the lawful assignee of

the '602 Patent.

12
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 13 of 66

76. Plaintiff has not licensed nor assigned any rights under the '602 Patent to

Defendants, nor to any agent of Defendants.

77. Pursuant to Versacart Systems' standard business practice of marking products, the

EXpress5050-B and/or packaging was marked with notice of "patent pending" beginning in or

about October, 2010 after Versacart Systems filed the application that became the '602 Patent.

78. Upon information and belief, at least as early as June, 2014 and continuing through

the present, Defendant Advance designed, manufactured, and sold its own versions of Plaintiff's

novel cart, referred to as “Xpress 100x”, as set forth and described in the '602 Patent. Defendant

Advance's Xpress 100x cart is identical or at least substantially similar in design and shape to the

cart depicted in the '602 Patent. True and correct copies of digital photographs of Defendant

Advance's Xpress 100x imitation of Plaintiff's novel cart, and a specification sheet of the Xpress

100x cart, taken directly from Defendant’s website, are attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit

28.

79. Upon information and belief, Defendant Advance's imitation Xpress 100x cart is

used, marketed, sold, and offered for sale by Defendants throughout the United States, including

but not limited to within the state of Florida.

The '521 Patent

80. Beginning on or about December, 2009, Versacart Systems began to market and

sell a novel cart, which is set forth and described in the '521 Patent, in the United States of America.

81. On November 15, 2010, Mr. Walter filed a United States Patent Application with

the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") to protect the ornamental design of this

cart, which was entitled "Cart."

13
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 14 of 66

82. Mr. Walter assigned the subject matter of the '521 Patent to Versacart Systems in

an Assignment dated November 15, 2010. The Assignment was recorded at the USPTO on

November 15, 2010.

83. On June 7, 2011, the USPTO duly and legally issued to Ivor Michel Walter U.S.

Design Patent No. D639,521. A true copy of the '521 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 6.

84. Mr. Walter was and continues to be the first and original inventor of the invention

claimed in the '521 Patent, which is sold as Versacart Systems' "EXpress7050". The EXpress7050

is made of steel using round and/or oval tubing and/or wire and molded plastic. True and correct

copies of digital photographs of Versacart’s EXpress7050 cart and a specification sheet for the

EXpress7050 cart are attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit 20.

85. Plaintiff is, and at all relevant times mentioned herein was, the lawful assignee of

the '521 Patent.

86. Plaintiff has not licensed nor assigned any rights under the '521 Patent to

Defendants, nor to any agent of Defendants.

87. Pursuant to Versacart Systems' standard business practice of marking products, the

EXpress7050 and/or packaging was marked with notice of "patent pending" beginning in or about

November, 2010 after Versacart Systems filed the application that became the '521 Patent.

88. Upon information and belief, at least as early as June, 2014 and continuing through

the present, Defendant Advance designed, manufactured, and sold its own versions of Plaintiff's

novel cart, referred to as “Xpress 130xc,” as set forth and described in the '521 Patent. Defendant

Advance's Xpress 130xc cart is identical or at least substantially similar in design and shape to the

cart depicted in the '521 Patent. True and correct copies of digital photographs of Defendant

14
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 15 of 66

Advance's Xpress 130xc imitation of Plaintiff's novel cart, and a specification of the Xpress 130xc

cart, taken directly from Defendant’s website, are attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit 30.

89. Upon information and belief, Defendant Advance's imitation Xpress 130xc cart is

used, marketed, sold, and offered for sale by Defendants throughout the United States, including

but not limited to within the state of Florida.

The '809 Patent

90. Beginning on or about December, 2009, Versacart Systems began to market and

sell a novel cart, which is set forth and described in the '809 Patent, in the United States of America.

91. On December 1, 2010, Mr. Walter filed a United States Patent Application with the

United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") to protect the ornamental design of this

cart, which was entitled "Cart."

92. Mr. Walter assigned the subject matter of the '809 Patent to Versacart Systems in

an Assignment dated November 30, 2010. The Assignment was recorded at the USPTO on

December 1, 2010. Subsequently, Mr. Ning Siu Sin was identified as an inventor of the invention

claimed in the ‘809 Patent, and he then assigned the subject matter of the ‘809 patent to Versacart

Systems, and his Assignment was recorded in the USTPO.

93. On September 6, 2011, the USPTO duly and legally issued to Ivor Michel Walter

U.S. Design Patent No. D644,809. A true copy of the '809 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 7.

94. Mr. Walter was and continues to be the first and original inventor of the invention

claimed in the '809 Patent, which is sold as Versacart Systems' "EXpress6000-C" (also referred to

as “EXpress6000” or “EXpress6000-C”). The EXpress6000-C is made of steel using round and/or

oval tubing and/or wire and molded plastic. True and correct copies of digital photographs of

15
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 16 of 66

Versacart’s EXpress6000-C cart and a specification sheet of the EXpress6000-C cart are attached

and incorporated herein as Exhibit 21.

95. Plaintiff is, and at all relevant times mentioned herein was, the lawful assignee of

the '809 Patent.

96. Plaintiff has not licensed nor assigned any rights under the '809 Patent to

Defendants, nor to any agent of Defendants.

97. Pursuant to Versacart Systems' standard business practice of marking products, the

EXpress6000-C and/or packaging was marked with notice of "patent pending" beginning in or

about December, 2010 after Versacart Systems filed the application that became the '809 Patent.

98. Upon information and belief, at least as early as June, 2014 and continuing through

the present, Defendant Advance designed, manufactured, and sold its own versions of Plaintiff's

novel cart, referred to as “Xpress 110xc”, as set forth and described in the '809 Patent. Defendant

Advance's Xpress 110xc cart is identical or at least substantially similar in design and shape to the

cart depicted in the '809 Patent. True and correct copies of digital photographs of Defendant

Advance's Xpress 110xc imitation of Plaintiff's novel cart, and a specification sheet of the Xpress

110xc cart, taken directly from Plaintiff’s website, are attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit

31.

99. Upon information and belief, Defendant Advance's imitation Xpress 110xc cart is

used, marketed, sold, and offered for sale by Defendants throughout the United States, including

but not limited to within the state of Florida.

The '288 Patent

100. Beginning on or about April 2010, Versacart Systems began to market and sell a

novel cart, which is set forth and described in the '288 Patent, in the United States of America.

16
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 17 of 66

101. On March 23, 2011, Mr. Walter filed a United States Patent Application with the

United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") to protect the ornamental design of this

cart, which was entitled "Set of Cart Baskets.”

102. Mr. Walter assigned the subject matter of the '288 Patent to Versacart Systems in

an Assignment dated March 23, 2011. The Assignment was recorded at the USPTO on March 23,

2011.

103. On March 20, 2012, the USPTO duly and legally issued to Ivor Michel Walter U.S.

Design Patent No. D656,288. A true copy of the '288 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 8.

104. Mr. Walter was and continues to be the first and original inventor of the invention

claimed in the '288 Patent, which is sold as Versacart Systems' "TT-100-S-T". The TT-100-S-T

baskets are made of molded plastic having a plurality of holes on each of the sides. True and correct

copies of digital photographs of Versacart’s TT-100-S-T cart are attached and incorporated herein

as Exhibit 22.

105. Mr. Engel and Mr. Zeng were subsequently identified as inventors of the invention

claimed in the ‘288 Patent.

106. Mr. Zeng assigned all right, title, and interest in the ‘288 Patent to Versacart

Systems in an Assignment dated February 15, 2016 and recorded on April 18, 2016.

107. Mr. Engel assigned all right, title, and interest in the ‘288 Patent to Versacart

Systems in an Assignment dated and recorded on April 4, 2016.

108. Plaintiff is, and at all relevant times mentioned herein was, the lawful assignee of

the '288 Patent.

109. Plaintiff has not licensed nor assigned any rights under the '288 Patent to

Defendants, nor to any agent of Defendants.

17
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 18 of 66

110. Pursuant to Versacart Systems' standard business practice of marking products, the

TT-100-S-T and/or packaging was marked with notice of "patent pending" beginning in or about

March, 2011 after Versacart Systems filed the application that became the '288 Patent.

111. Upon information and belief, at least as early as June, 2014 and continuing through

the present, Defendant Advance designed, manufactured, and sold its own versions of Plaintiff's

novel cart baskets, referred to as “105px”, as set forth and described in the '288 Patent. Defendant

Advance's 105px cart baskets are identical or at least substantially similar in design and shape to

the cart baskets depicted in the '288 Patent. True and correct copies of digital photographs of

Defendant Advance's 105px imitation of Plaintiff's novel cart, and a specification sheet of the

Xpress 105px cart, taken directly from Defendant’s website, are attached and incorporated herein

as Exhibit 32.

112. Upon information and belief, Defendant Advance's imitation 105px cart baskets are

used, marketed, sold, and offered for sale by Defendants throughout the United States, including

but not limited to within the state of Florida.

The '841 Patent

113. Beginning on or about October, 2010, Versacart Systems began to market and sell

a novel cart, which is set forth and described in the '841 Patent, in the United States of America.

114. On September 21, 2011, Mr. Walter filed a United States Patent Application with

the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") to protect the ornamental design of this

cart, which was entitled "Combined Child Seat and Retention Flap for Use with a Shopping Cart.”

115. Mr. Walter assigned the subject matter of the '841 Patent to Versacart Systems in

an Assignment dated September 21, 2011. The Assignment was recorded at the USPTO on

September 22, 2011.

18
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 19 of 66

116. On May 1, 2012, the USPTO duly and legally issued to Ivor Michel Walter U.S.

Design Patent No. D658,841. A true copy of the '841 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 9.

117. Mr. Walter was and continues to be the first and original inventor of the invention

claimed in the '841 Patent, which is sold as Versacart Systems' "EXpress7050". The EXpress7050

is made of steel using round and/or oval tubing and/or wire and molded plastic and has a child seat

and retention flap as set forth in the ‘841 Patent. See Exhibit 20.

118. Plaintiff is, and at all relevant times mentioned herein was, the lawful assignee of

the '841 Patent.

119. Plaintiff has not licensed nor assigned any rights under the '841 Patent to

Defendants, nor to any agent of Defendants.

120. Pursuant to Versacart Systems' standard business practice of marking products, the

EXpress7050 and/or packaging was marked with notice of "patent pending" beginning in or about

September, 2011 after Versacart Systems filed the application that became the '841 Patent.

121. Upon information and belief, at least as early as June, 2014 and continuing through

the present, Defendant Advance designed, manufactured, and sold its own versions of Plaintiff's

novel cart, referred to as “Xpress 130xc,” having the child seat and retention flap as set forth and

described in the '841 Patent. Defendant Advance's Xpress 130xc cart’s child seat and retention

flap is identical or at least substantially similar in design and shape to the child seat and retention

flap depicted in the '841 Patent. See Exhibit 30.

122. Upon information and belief, Defendant Advance's imitation Xpress 130xc cart

with child seat and retention flap is used, marketed, sold, and offered for sale by Defendants

throughout the United States, including but not limited to within the state of Florida.

19
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 20 of 66

The '091 Patent

123. Beginning on or about April, 2011, Versacart Systems began to market and sell a

novel cart, which is set forth and described in the '091 Patent, in the United States of America.

124. On March 19, 2012, Mr. Walter filed a United States Patent Application with the

United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") to protect the ornamental design of this

cart, which was entitled "Set of Cart Baskets."

125. Mr. Walter assigned the subject matter of the '091 Patent to Versacart Systems in

an Assignment dated November 30, 2010. The Assignment was recorded at the USPTO on

December 1, 2010.

126. On July 3, 2012, the USPTO duly and legally issued to Ivor Michel Walter U.S.

Design Patent No. D633,091. A true copy of the '091 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 10.

127. Mr. Walter was and continues to be the first and original inventor of the invention

claimed in the '091 Patent, which is sold as Versacart Systems' "TT-100-S-T". The Express TT-

100-S-T baskets are made of molded plastic having a plurality of holes on each of the sides. See

Exhibit 22.

128. Mr. Engel was subsequently identified as an inventor of the invention claimed in

the ‘091 Patent.

129. Mr. Engel assigned all right, title, and interest in the ‘091 Patent to Versacart

Systems in an Assignment dated and recorded on April 4, 2016.

130. Plaintiff is, and at all relevant times mentioned herein was, the lawful assignee of

the '091 Patent.

131. Plaintiff has not licensed nor assigned any rights under the '091 Patent to

Defendants, nor to any agent of Defendants.

20
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 21 of 66

132. Pursuant to Versacart Systems' standard business practice of marking products, the

TT-100-S-T and/or packaging was marked with notice of "patent pending" beginning in or about

March, 2012 after Versacart Systems filed the application that became the '091 Patent.

133. Upon information and belief, at least as early as June, 2014 and continuing through

the present, Defendant Advance designed, manufactured, and sold its own versions of Plaintiff's

novel cart, referred to as “105px”, as set forth and described in the '091 Patent. Defendant

Advance's 105px cart is identical or at least substantially similar in design and shape to the cart

depicted in the '091 Patent. True and correct copies of digital photographs of Defendant Advance's

Xpress 105px imitation of Plaintiff's novel cart, and a specification of the Advance 105px cart,

taken directly from Defendant’s website, are attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit 32.

134. Upon information and belief, Defendant Advance's imitation 105px cart is used,

marketed, sold, and offered for sale by Defendants throughout the United States, including but not

limited to within the state of Florida.

The '762 Patent

135. Beginning on or about November, 2011, Versacart Systems began to market and

sell a novel cart, which is set forth and described in the '762 Patent, in the United States of America.

136. On October 18, 2012, Mr. Walter filed a United States Patent Application with the

United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") to protect the ornamental design of this

cart, which was entitled "Cart."

137. Mr. Walter assigned the subject matter of the '762 Patent to Versacart Systems in

an Assignment dated October 17, 2012. The Assignment was recorded at the USPTO on

November 11, 2012.

21
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 22 of 66

138. On March 4, 2014, the USPTO duly and legally issued to Ivor Michel Walter U.S.

Design Patent No. D700,762. A true copy of the '762 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 11.

139. Mr. Walter was and continues to be the first and original inventor of the invention

claimed in the '762 Patent, which is sold as Versacart Systems' "TT-150" and “TT-175.” The TT-

150 and TT-175 each have a top basket made of colorful molded plastic and having rounded

corners and a plurality of holes on its sides. They also have a lower grated platform made of

rounded steel tubing. True and correct copies of digital photographs and specification sheets of

Versacart’s TT-150 and TT-175 carts are attached and incorporated herein as Exhibits 23 and 24.

140. Plaintiff is, and at all relevant times mentioned herein was, the lawful assignee of

the '809 Patent.

141. Plaintiff has not licensed nor assigned any rights under the '762 Patent to

Defendants, nor to any agent of Defendants.

142. Pursuant to Versacart Systems' standard business practice of marking products, the

TT-150 and TT-175 and/or packaging was marked with notice of "patent pending" beginning in

or about October, 2012 after Versacart Systems filed the application that became the '762 Patent.

143. Upon information and belief, at least as early as June, 2014 and continuing through

the present, Defendant Advance designed, manufactured, and sold its own versions of Plaintiff's

novel carts, referred to as “55px” and “105px,” as set forth and described in the '762 Patent.

Defendant Advance's 55px and 105px carts are identical or at least substantially similar in design

and shape to the cart depicted in the '762 Patent. See Exhibits 33 and 32.

144. Upon information and belief, Defendant Advance's imitation 55px and 105px carts

are used, marketed, sold, and offered for sale by Defendants throughout the United States,

including but not limited to within the state of Florida.

22
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 23 of 66

The '264 Patent

145. Beginning on or about December 2013, Versacart Systems began to market and sell

a novel cart, which is set forth and described in the '264 Patent, in the United States of America.

146. On November 19, 2014, Mr. Walter filed a United States Patent Application with

the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") to protect the ornamental design of this

cart, which was entitled "Cart."

147. Mr. Walter assigned the subject matter of the '264 Patent to Versacart Systems in

an Assignment dated November 19, 2014. The Assignment was recorded at the USPTO on

November 19, 2014.

148. On March 8, 2016, the USPTO duly and legally issued to Ivor Michel Walter U.S.

Design Patent No. D751,264. A true copy of the '264 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 12.

149. Mr. Walter was and continues to be the first and original inventor of the invention

claimed in the '264 Patent, which is sold as Versacart Systems' "C-160". The C-160 is made of

steel using round and/or oval tubing and/or wire and molded plastic. True and correct copies of

digital photographs of Versacart’s C-160 cart and a specification sheet of the C-160 cart are

attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit 25.

150. Plaintiff is, and at all relevant times mentioned herein was, the lawful assignee of

the '264 Patent.

151. Plaintiff has not licensed nor assigned any rights under the '264 Patent to

Defendants, nor to any agent of Defendants.

152. Pursuant to Versacart Systems' standard business practice of marking products, the

C-160 and/or packaging was marked with notice of "patent pending" beginning in or about

November, 2014 after Versacart Systems filed the application that became the '264 Patent.

23
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 24 of 66

153. Upon information and belief, at least as early as June, 2014 and continuing through

the present, Defendant Advance designed, manufactured, and sold its own versions of Plaintiff's

novel cart, referred to as “100Z,” “140Z” “160Z,” “180Z” and “210Z,” as set forth and described

in the '264 Patent. Defendant Advance's 100Z, 140Z, 160Z, 180Z, and 210Z carts are identical or

at least substantially similar in design and shape to the cart depicted in the '264 Patent. True and

correct copies of digital photographs and/or specification sheets of Defendant Advance's imitations

of Plaintiff's novel cart, taken directly from Defendant’s website, are attached and incorporated

herein as Exhibit 35.

154. Upon information and belief, Defendant Advance's imitation 100Z, 140Z, 160Z,

180Z, and 210Z carts are used, marketed, sold, and offered for sale by Defendants throughout the

United States, including but not limited to within the state of Florida.

The ‘961 Reissued Patent

155. Beginning on or about April, 2010, Versacart Systems began to market and sell a

novel cart, which is set forth and described in the '961 Reissued Patent, in the United States of

America.

156. On March 24, 2011, Mr. Walter filed a United States Patent Application with the

USPTO to protect the ornamental design of the novel cart, which was entitled "Set of Cart

Baskets."

157. On March 24, 2011, Mr. Walter assigned the Patent Application that would become

the '700 Patent to Versacart Systems. The Assignment was recorded at the USPTO on March 24,

2011.

158. On March 27, 2012, the USPTO duly and legally issued to Ivor Michel Walter U.S.

Design Patent No. D656,700.

24
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 25 of 66

159. On April 5, 2016, the USPTO duly and legally reissued the ’700 patent as U.S.

Design Patent No. RE45,961. A true copies of the ‘961 Reissued Patent is attached hereto as

Exhibit 13.

160. Mr. Walter was and continues to be the first and original inventor of the novel cart,

which is sold as Versacart Systems' "TT-100-S-T". The TT-100-S-T has a top basket made of

plastic and having rounded corners and a plurality of holes on its sides. See Exhibit 22.

161. Mr. Engel and Mr. Zeng were subsequently identified as inventors of the invention

claimed in the ‘961 Patent and assigned all right, title, and interest in the ‘961 Patent to Versacart

Systems in Assignments dated February 15, 2016.

162. Plaintiff is, and at all relevant times mentioned herein was, the lawful assignee of

the ‘700 and ‘961 Patents.

163. Plaintiff has not licensed nor assigned any rights under the ‘700 or '961 Patents to

Defendants, nor to any agent of Defendants.

164. Pursuant to Versacart Systems' standard business practice of marking products, the

TT-100-S-T and/or packaging was marked with notice of "patent pending" beginning in or about

March 2011, after Versacart Systems filed the application that became the '700 and ‘961 Patents.

165. Upon information and belief, at least as early as June, 2014 and continuing through

the present, Defendant Advance designed, manufactured, and sold its own versions of Plaintiff's

novel cart, referred to as “55px,” and “55pxc” as set forth and described in the '’700 and ‘961

Patents. Defendant Advance's 55px and 55pxc carts are identical or at least substantially similar

in design and shape to the cart depicted in the '700 and ‘961 Patents. See Exhibits 33 and 36.

25
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 26 of 66

166. Upon information and belief, Defendant Advance's imitation 55px and 55pxc carts

are marketed, sold, and offered for sale throughout the United States by Defendants, including but

not limited to within the state of Florida.

The '536 Patent

167. Beginning on or about February 2014, Versacart Systems began to market and sell

a novel cart, which is set forth and described in the '536 Patent, in the United States of America.

168. On January 12, 2015, Mr. Walter, Mr. Paul Jensen, and Mr. Zeng filed a United

States Patent Application with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") to

protect the ornamental design of this cart, which was entitled "Cart."

169. Mr. Walter, Mr. Jensen, and Mr. Zeng assigned the subject matter of the '536 Patent

to Versacart Systems in Assignments dated February 18, 2015. The Assignments were recorded

at the USPTO on February 24, 2015.

170. On August 9, 2016, the USPTO duly and legally issued to Ivor Michel Walter, Paul

Jensen and Wilson Zeng U.S. Design Patent No. D763,536. A true copy of the '536 Patent is

attached hereto as Exhibit 14.

171. Mr. Walter, Mr. Jensen, and Mr. Zeng were and continue to be the first and original

inventors of the invention claimed in the '536 Patent, which is sold as Versacart Systems' "C-160".

The C-160 is made of steel using round and/or oval tubing and/or wire and molded plastic. See

Exhibit 25.

172. Plaintiff is, and at all relevant times mentioned herein was, the lawful assignee of

the '536 Patent.

173. Plaintiff has not licensed nor assigned any rights under the '536 Patent to

Defendants, nor to any agent of Defendants.

26
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 27 of 66

174. Pursuant to Versacart Systems' standard business practice of marking products, the

Express C-160 and/or packaging was marked with notice of "patent pending" beginning in or about

January, 2015 after Versacart Systems filed the application that became the ‘536 Patent.

175. Upon information and belief, at least as early as June, 2014 and continuing through

the present, Defendant Advance designed, manufactured, and sold its own versions of Plaintiff's

novel cart, referred to as “100Z,” “140Z” “160Z,” “180Z,” and “210Z,” as set forth and described

in the '536 Patent. Defendant Advance's 100Z, 140Z, 160Z, 180Z, and 210Z carts are identical or

at least substantially similar in design and shape to the cart depicted in the '536 Patent. See Exhibit

35.

176. Upon information and belief, Defendant Advance's imitation 100Z, 140Z, 160Z,

180Z, and 210Z carts are used, marketed, sold, and offered for sale by Defendants throughout the

United States, including but not limited to within the state of Florida.

The ‘268 Reissued Patent

177. Beginning on or about April, 2011, Versacart Systems began to market and sell a

novel cart, which is set forth and described in the '268 Reissued Patent, in the United States of

America.

178. On April 3, 2012, Mr. Walter filed a United States Patent Application with the

USPTO to protect the ornamental design of the novel cart, which was entitled "Shopping Cart.”

179. On April 2, 2012, Mr. Walter assigned the Patent Application that would become

the '972 Patent to Versacart Systems. The Assignment was recorded at the USPTO on October 8,

2015.

180. On July 9, 2013, the USPTO duly and legally issued to Ivor Michel Walter U.S.

Design Patent No. D685,972.

27
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 28 of 66

181. On January 10, 2017, the USPTO duly and legally reissued the ’972 patent as U.S.

Design Patent No. RE46,268. A true copy of the ‘268 Reissued Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit

15.

182. Mr. Walter was and continues to be the first and original inventor of the novel cart,

which is sold as Versacart Systems' "EXpress6000-C". The EXpress6000-C is made of steel using

round and/or oval tubing and/or wire and molded plastic, and has a top and bottom basket

connected by a frame and handle. See Exhibit 21.

183. Plaintiff is, and at all relevant times mentioned herein was, the lawful assignee of

the ‘972 and ‘268 Patents.

184. Plaintiff has not licensed nor assigned any rights under the ‘972 or '268 Patents to

Defendants, nor to any agent of Defendants.

185. Pursuant to Versacart Systems' standard business practice of marking products, the

EXpress6000-C and/or packaging was marked with notice of "patent pending" beginning in or

about April 2012, after Versacart Systems filed the application that became the '972 and ‘268

Patents.

186. Upon information and belief, at least as early as June, 2014 and continuing through

the present, Defendant Advance designed, manufactured, and sold its own versions of Plaintiff's

novel cart, referred to as “Xpress 110x,” and “Xpress 110xc” as set forth and described in the '972

and ‘268 Patents. Defendant Advance's Xpress 110x and 110xc carts are identical or at least

substantially similar in design and shape to the cart depicted in the '972 and ‘268 Patents. See

Exhibits 29 and 31.

28
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 29 of 66

187. Upon information and belief, Defendant Advance's imitation Xpress 110x and

110xc carts are marketed, sold, and offered for sale throughout the United States by Defendants,

including but not limited to within the state of Florida.

The ‘281 Reissued Patent

188. Beginning on or about April, 2010, Versacart Systems began to market and sell a

novel cart, which is set forth and described in the '281 Reissued Patent, in the United States of

America.

189. On March 24, 2011, Mr. Walter filed a United States Patent Application with the

USPTO to protect the ornamental design of the novel cart, which was entitled "Set of Cart

Baskets".

190. On March 24, 2011 Mr. Walter assigned the Patent Application that would become

the '700 Patent to Versacart Systems. The Assignment was recorded at the USPTO on March 24,

2011.

191. On March 27, 2012, the USPTO duly and legally issued to Ivor Michel Walter U.S.

Design Patent No. D656,700.

192. On January 24, 2017, the USPTO duly and legally reissued the ’700 patent as U.S.

Design Patent No. RE46,281. A true copy of the ‘281 Reissued Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit

16.

193. Mr. Walter was and continues to be the first and original inventor of the novel cart,

which is sold as Versacart Systems' "TT-100-S-T". The TT-100-S-T has a top basket made of

plastic and having rounded corners and a plurality of holes on its sides. See Exhibit 22.

194. Mr. Engel and Mr. Zeng were subsequently identified as inventors of the invention

claimed in the ‘281 Reissued Patent.

29
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 30 of 66

195. Mr. Engel assigned all right, title, and interest in the ‘281 Patent to Versacart

Systems in an Assignment dated May 22, 2016 and recorded on May 27, 2016.

196. Mr. Zeng assigned all right, title, and interest in the ‘281 Patent to Versacart

Systems in an Assignment dated May 26, 2016 and recorded on May 27, 2016.

197. Plaintiff is, and at all relevant times mentioned herein was, the lawful assignee of

the ‘700 and ‘281 Patents.

198. Plaintiff has not licensed nor assigned any rights under the ‘700 or '281 Patents to

Defendants, nor to any agent of Defendants.

199. Pursuant to Versacart Systems' standard business practice of marking products, the

TT-100-S-T and/or packaging was marked with notice of "patent pending" beginning in or about

March 2011, after Versacart Systems filed the application that became the '700 and ‘281 Patents.

200. Upon information and belief, at least as early as June, 2014 and continuing through

the present, Defendant Advance designed, manufactured, and sold its own versions of Plaintiff's

novel cart, referred to as “55px,” and “55pxc” as set forth and described in the '’700 and ‘281

Patents. Defendant Advance's 55px and 55pxc carts are identical or at least substantially similar

in design and shape to the cart depicted in the '700 and ‘281 Patents. See Exhibits 33 and 35.

201. Upon information and belief, Defendant Advance's imitation 55px and 55pxc carts

are marketed, sold, and offered for sale throughout the United States by Defendants, including but

not limited to within the state of Florida.

Trade Dress Rights

EXpress6000-B Trade Dress

202. Plaintiff is, and at all relevant times mentioned herein was, the lawful owner of the

valid and protectable trade dress associated with its novel shopping cart, which includes features

30
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 31 of 66

in the size, colors, texture, finish, and choice of material, associated with Versacart Systems'

EXpress6000-B. The EXpress6000-B trade dress includes, by way of example, the composite

image created by the carts in the EXpress6000 series, the frame made of steel, the use of

rectangular steel tubing in the frame, the use of coated metal wire in the basket, the use of round

and/or oval tubing and/or wire, the use of molded plastic on portions of the frame, and the

ornamental design of the novel cart. See Exhibit 17.

203. Defendant Advance’s Xpress 90x and 110x carts closely resemble the

characteristics of visual appearance of the Plaintiff’s EXpres 6000 series through the resemblance

of the composite image created by the carts in the EXpress6000 series, the use of a frame made of

steel, the use of rectangular steel tubing in the frame, the use of coated metal wire in the basket,

the use of round and/or oval tubing and/or wire, the use of molded plastic on portions of the frame,

and the resemblance of the ornamental design of the novel cart. See Exhibits 26 and 28.

EXpress 3500-B and EXpress 3500-B-C Trade Dress

204. Plaintiff is, and at all relevant times mentioned herein was, the lawful owner of the

valid and protectable trade dress associated with its novel cart, which includes features in the size,

colors, texture, finish, and choice of material associated with Versacart Systems' EXpress3500-B

and EXpress3500-B-C, which are also sold with Plaintiff's other product offerings. The

EXpress3500-B and EXpress3500-B-C trade dress includes, by way of example, the composite

image created by the EXpress3500-B and EXpress3500-B-C, the frame made of steel, the use of

round and/or oval tubing and/or wire, the use of molded plastic on portions of the frame, and the

ornamental design of the novel cart. See Exhibit 18.

205. Defendant Advance’s Xpress 55x, 65x, and 65xc carts closely resemble the

characteristics of visual appearance of the Plaintiff’s EXpress3500-B and EXpress3500-B-C

31
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 32 of 66

through the resemblance of the composite image created by the carts in the EXpress3500-B and

EXpress3500-B-C, the use of a frame made of steel, the use of rectangular steel tubing in the

frame, the use of coated metal wire in the basket, the use of round and/or oval tubing and/or wire,

the use of molded plastic on portions of the frame, and the resemblance of the ornamental design

of the novel cart. See Exhibit 27.

EXpress5050-B Trade Dress

206. Plaintiff is, and at all relevant times mentioned herein was, the lawful owner of the

valid and protectable trade dress associated with its novel cart, which includes features in the size,

colors, texture, finish, and choice of material associated with the frame of Versacart Systems'

EXpress5050-B, which is also sold with Plaintiff's other product offerings. The EXpress5050-B

trade dress includes, by way of example, the composite image created by the EXpress5050-B, the

frame made of steel, the use of round and/or oval tubing and/or wire, the use of molded plastic on

portions of the frame, and the ornamental design of the novel cart. See Exhibit 19.

207. Defendant Advance’s Xpress 100x carts closely resemble the characteristics of

visual appearance of the Plaintiff’s EXpress5050-B through the resemblance of the composite

image created by the carts in the EXpress5050-B, the use of a frame made of steel, the use of

rectangular steel tubing in the frame, the use of coated metal wire in the basket, the use of round

and/or oval tubing and/or wire, the use of molded plastic on portions of the frame, and the

resemblance of the ornamental design of the novel cart. See Exhibit 28.

EXpress7050 Trade Dress

208. Plaintiff is, and at all relevant times mentioned herein was, the lawful owner of the

valid and protectable trade dress associated with its novel cart, which includes features in the size,

colors, texture, finish, and choice of material associated with the frame of Versacart Systems'

32
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 33 of 66

EXpress7050, which is also sold with Plaintiff's other product offerings. The EXpress7050 trade

dress includes, by way of example, the composite image created by the EXpress7050, the frame

made of steel, the use of round and/or oval tubing and/or wire, the use of molded plastic on portions

of the frame, the proportional dimensions of the bottom and top baskets, and the ornamental design

of the novel cart. See Exhibit 20.

209. Defendant Advance’s Xpress 110x carts closely resemble the characteristics of

visual appearance of the Plaintiff’s EXpress7050 through the resemblance of the composite image

created by the carts in the EXpress7050, the use of round and/or oval tubing and/or wire, the use

of molded plastic on portions of the frame, the proportional dimensions of the bottom and top

baskets, and the ornamental design of the novel cart. See Exhibit 30.

EXpress6000-C Trade Dress

210. Plaintiff is, and at all relevant times mentioned herein was, the lawful owner of the

valid and protectable trade dress associated with its novel cart, which includes features in the size,

colors, texture, finish, and choice of material associated with the frame of Versacart Systems'

EXpress6000-C, which is also sold with Plaintiff's other product offerings. The EXpress6000-C

trade dress includes, by way of example, the composite image created by the EXpress6000-C, the

frame made of steel, the use of round and/or oval tubing and/or wire, the use of molded plastic on

portions of the frame, and the ornamental design of the novel cart. See Exhibit 21.

211. Defendant Advance’s Xpress 110xc carts closely resemble the characteristics of

visual appearance of the Plaintiff’s EXpress6000-C through the resemblance of the composite

image created by the carts in the EXpress6000-C, the use of round and/or oval tubing and/or wire,

the use of molded plastic on portions of the frame, and the ornamental design of the novel cart.

See Exhibit 31.

33
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 34 of 66

TT-100-S-T Trade Dress

212. Plaintiff is, and at all relevant times mentioned herein was, the lawful owner of the

valid and protectable trade dress associated with its novel cart, which includes features in the size,

colors, texture, finish, and choice of material associated with the frame of Versacart Systems' TT-

100-S-T, which is also sold with Plaintiff's other product offerings. The TT-100-S-T trade dress

includes, by way of example, the composite image created by the TT-100-S-T, the frame made of

colorful molded plastic, the use of holes on each of the sides of the baskets, the angle of the baskets,

the rounded corners, and the ornamental design of the novel cart. See Exhibit 22.

213. Defendant Advance’s 105px and 55px and 55pxc carts closely resemble the

characteristics of visual appearance of the Plaintiff’s TT-100-S-T through the resemblance of the

composite image created by the carts in the TT-100-S-T, the frame made of colorful molded

plastic, the use of holes on each of the sides of the baskets, the angle of the baskets, the rounded

corners, and the ornamental design of the novel cart. See Exhibits 32, 33, and 36.

TT-150 Trade Dress

214. Plaintiff is, and at all relevant times mentioned herein was, the lawful owner of the

valid and protectable trade dress associated with its novel cart, which includes features in the size,

colors, texture, finish, and choice of material associated with the frame of Versacart Systems' TT-

150, which is also sold with Plaintiff's other product offerings. The TT-150 and trade dress

includes, by way of example, the composite image created by the TT-150, the top basket made of

plastic and having rounded corners and a plurality of holes on its sides, its bright color, the lower

platform made of round steel tubing, and the ornamental design of the novel cart. See Exhibit 23.

215. Defendant Advance’s 55px carts closely resemble the characteristics of visual

appearance of the Plaintiff’s TT-150 through the resemblance of the composite image created by

34
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 35 of 66

the carts in the TT-150, the top basket made of plastic and having rounded corners and a plurality

of holes on its sides, its bright color, the lower platform made of round steel tubing, and the

ornamental design of the novel cart. See Exhibit 33.

TT-175 Trade Dress

216. Plaintiff is, and at all relevant times mentioned herein was, the lawful owner of the

valid and protectable trade dress associated with its novel cart, which includes features in the size,

colors, texture, finish, and choice of material associated with the frame of Versacart Systems' TT-

175, which is also sold with Plaintiff's other product offerings. The TT-175 and trade dress

includes, by way of example, the composite image created by the TT-175, the top basket made of

plastic and having rounded corners and a plurality of holes on its sides, its bright color, the lower

platform made of round steel tubing, and the ornamental design of the novel cart. See Exhibit 24.

217. Defendant Advance’s 55pxc carts closely resemble the characteristics of visual

appearance of the Plaintiff’s TT-175 through the resemblance of the composite image created by

the carts in the TT-175, the top basket made of plastic and having rounded corners and a plurality

of holes on its sides, its bright color, the lower platform made of round steel tubing, and the

ornamental design of the novel cart. See Exhibit 36.

C-160 Trade Dress

218. Plaintiff is, and at all relevant times mentioned herein was, the lawful owner of the

valid and protectable trade dress associated with its novel cart, which includes features in the size,

colors, texture, finish, and choice of material associated with the frame of Versacart Systems' C-

160, which is also sold with Plaintiff's other product offerings. The C-160 trade dress includes, by

way of example, the composite image created by the C-160, the frame made of steel, the use of

round and/or oval tubing and/or wire, the use of molded plastic on portions of the frame, the

35
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 36 of 66

horizontal and parallel design of the tubing, the design and angle of the lower platform, and the

ornamental design of the novel cart. See Exhibit 25.

219. Defendant Advance’s 100Z, 140Z, 160Z, 180Z, and 210Z carts closely resemble

the characteristics of visual appearance of the Plaintiff’s C-160 through the resemblance of the

composite image created by the carts in the C-160, the frame made of steel, the use of round and/or

oval tubing and/or wire, the use of molded plastic on portions of the frame, the horizontal and

parallel design of the tubing, the design and angle of the lower platform, and the ornamental design

of the novel cart. See Exhibit 35.

Trademark Rights

220. In addition, since at least as early as March 30, 2005, Versacart Systems has

provided shopping carts throughout the United States through multiple distribution channels.

221. Since at least as early as March 30, 2005, Versacart has continuously used the mark

EXPRESS in connection with its carts in interstate commerce (hereafter referred to as “EXPRESS

Trademark”).

222. On February 8, 2018, Versacart filed U.S. Trademark Application Serial No.

87/785119 for the EXPRESS Trademark for “metal storage corrals in the nature of a storage shed

for shopping carts” in International Class 6, and “shopping carts; shopping carts designed to hold

a separate basket or crate” in International Class 12, based on use in interstate commerce as early

as March 30, 2005. A true and correct copy of U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 87/785119

is attached hereto as Exhibit 38.

223. Among other goods, Versacart uses the EXPRESS Trademark in relation to a line

of shopping carts, which includes its EXpress6000-C, EXpress6000-B, EXpress5050-B, EXpress

7050 and EXpress3500-B carts.

36
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 37 of 66

224. Versacart also operates a website hosted at www.versacart.com that promotes the

EXpress line of shopping carts. A true and correct copy of the web page for the EXpress line of

shopping carts is attached as Exhibit 37.

225. As a result of long-standing use, extensive advertising and promotion, Versacart

has acquired substantial common law rights in the EXPRESS Trademark, which has become

widely and favorably known among Versacart’s customers and potential customer base, including

national retail outlets and grocery stores, for designating a single source of shopping carts.

General Allegations

226. On or about June 25, 2014, Versacart Systems, by and through counsel, notified

Defendant Advance by priority mail letter transmission of Advance's infringement of Versacart

Systems' intellectual property rights (the "Notice Letter"). In the Notice Letter, Versacart Systems

asked Defendant Advance to discontinue the sale and offer for sale of Versacart Systems' product

designs and corresponding intellectual property, including patent, trademark, trade dress, and

copyrights. A true and correct copy of the Notice Letter and accompanying Exhibits are attached

hereto as Exhibit 39.

227. On or about July 11, 2014, Defendant Advance, via its Co-Owner Peter Olausson,

wrote a response letter (“Response Letter”) to counsel for Versacart Systems representing that it

had ceased using certain materials on its website, and that Advance needed more time to evaluate

and respond to certain other infringement matters. A true and correct copy of the Response Letter

is attached hereto as Exhibit 40.

228. Versacart Systems has not received any further communications from Defendant

Advance regarding the substance of the Notice Letter.

37
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 38 of 66

229. Defendant Advance continues to copy product designs identified in the Notice

Letter and continues to make, sell, and offer for sale such copied products.

230. Defendant Advance copied existing and new designs made by Versacart Systems

after the date of the Notice Letter, and proceeded to make, sell, and offer for sale such copied

products.

231. Upon information and belief, Advance operates a website hosted at the domain

www.advancecarts.com that promotes shopping carts under the designation “Xpress” (“Advance’s

Shopping Carts”). A true and correct copy of the web page for the Xpress line of shopping carts

is attached as Exhibit 41.

232. Defendants market and distribute Advance’s Shopping Carts.

233. Defendant Advance’s “Xpress” designation for Advance’s Shopping Carts and

Versacart’s EXPRESS Trademark used in connection with its shopping carts are nearly identical.

Defendant Advance’s “Xpress” designation removes the letter “e” from EXPRESS, but sounds

identical to EXPRESS when pronounced.

234. Upon information and belief, Versacart and Defendants market and sell their goods

in the same channels of trade, including at trade shows, online, and directly to potential consumers.

235. Upon information and belief, Versacart and Defendants market and sell their goods

to the same potential customers, including large consumer retail chains in which shopping carts

are used.

236. Defendant Advance’s use of the “Xpress” designation for Advance’s Shopping

Carts is likely to cause consumer confusion with Versacart’s EXPRESS Trademark used in

connection with shopping carts.

38
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 39 of 66

237. Upon information and belief, Defendant Advance adopted the “Xpress” designation

for its shopping carts knowingly, with an intent to derive benefit from the reputation of Versacart’s

EXPRESS Trademark. Even after receiving and responding to Versacart’s Notice Letter,

Defendant Advance continued using the “Xpress” designation for Advance’s Shopping Carts.

238. Upon information and belief, Defendants market and distribute Defendant

Advance’s Shopping Carts in each state of the United States.

239. Defendant Advance’s Shopping Carts are identical to the shopping carts supplied

by Versacart Systems under the EXPRESS Trademark.

240. Defendant Advance manufactures, distributes, and sells its own version of

Plaintiff's patented products throughout the United States.

241. Upon information and belief, at least as early as June, 2014, Defendant Advance

has been manufacturing, importing, selling and/or distributing products which infringe Plaintiff's

intellectual property rights.

242. Upon information and belief, Defendant Advance’s infringing activities occurred

and are occurring under the direction and control of Defendant SuperBasket.

243. Defendants are manufacturing, importing, selling and/or distributing infringing

products in willful violation of Versacart Systems' intellectual property rights.

244. By manufacturing, importing, selling, and/or distributing imitation products,

including Defendant Advance's Xpress 110c, Xpress 110x, Xpress 90x, Xpress 55x,, Xpress 65x,

Xpress 65xc, Flavor Series 105x and 105px, and 160Z, Defendants are infringing the trade dress

associated with Plaintiff's EXpress6000-C, EXpress6000-B, EXpress3500-B, EXpress3500-B-C,

EXpress5050-B, Express7050, TT-100-S-T, TT-150, TT-175, and/or C-160, which is protected

under Section 1125(a) of the Lanham Act.

39
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 40 of 66

245. Defendants are "passing off" Defendants' version of EXpress6000-C,

EXpress6000-B, EXpress3500-B, EXpress3500-B-C, EXpress5050-B, Express7050, TT-100-S-

T, TT-150, TT-175, and/or C-160 shopping carts to third parties as the products that are marketed,

sold, and offered for sale throughout the United States by Versacart Systems.

246. Defendants' infringing and confusingly similar trade dress is likely to cause

confusion with Plaintiff's distinctive trade dress associated with Plaintiff's EXpress6000-C,

EXpress6000-B, EXpress3500-B, EXpress3500-B-C, EXpress5050-B, Express7050, TT-100-S-

T, TT-150, TT-175, and/or C-160, and upon information and belief, has caused confusion among

actual consumers.

247. The trade dress associated with Plaintiff's EXpress6000-C, EXpress6000-B,

EXpress3500-B, EXpress3500-B-C, EXpress5050-B, Express 7050, TT-100-S-T, TT-150, TT-

175, and/or C-160 has acquired secondary meaning.

248. The trade dress associated with Plaintiff's EXpress6000-C, EXpress6000-B,

EXpress3500-B, EXpress3500-B-C, EXpress5050-B, Express7050, TT-100-S-T, TT-150, TT-

175, and/or C-160 is non-functional.

249. Defendants’ use of the same or confusingly similar trade dress to the distinctive

trade dress associated with Plaintiff's EXpress6000-C, EXpress6000-B, EXpress3500-B,

EXpress3500-B-C, EXpress5050-B, Express7050, TT-100-S-T, TT-150, TT-175, and/or C-160

demonstrates copying and intent to confuse both potential and actual consumers, which constitutes

unfair competition.

250. The additional acts of Defendants complained of herein further constitute unfair

competition.

40
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 41 of 66

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Infringement of the '501 Patent – Against Both Defendants)

251. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation

contained in the previous paragraphs, as though fully set forth herein.

252. Defendants, and each of them, have infringed and continue to infringe the claims

of Plaintiff's '501 Patent by applying patented designs, or a colorable imitation thereof, to an article

of manufacture, and thereafter using, selling or distributing said products within this District and

elsewhere throughout the United States.

253. Upon information and belief, Defendants are inducing direct infringement of the

'501 Patent by others by actively instructing, assisting, and/or encouraging others to practice one

or more of the inventions claimed in the '501 Patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).

254. Upon information and belief, Defendants are contributing to direct infringement of

the '501 Patent by others by directing others to manufacture one or more components which

constitute a material part of the invention defined by the claims of the '501 Patent, knowing the

same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of the '501 Patent, and

which components are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial non-

infringing use, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c).

255. Defendants' actions of making, having made, importing, using or selling products

which infringe the '501 Patent have been, and are, willful, deliberate and/or in conscious disregard

of Plaintiff's rights, making this an exceptional case within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285 and

entitling Plaintiff to an award of its attorneys' fees and treble damages.

256. Unless restrained and enjoined, Defendants' acts of infringement as alleged above,

will cause Plaintiff irreparable injury, to which Plaintiff has no adequate remedy.

41
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 42 of 66

257. Defendants' infringement of the '501 Patent has caused damage to Plaintiff in an

amount to be ascertained at trial.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Infringement of the '372 Patent – Against Both Defendants)

258. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation

contained in paragraphs 1 through 250, as though fully set forth herein.

259. Defendants, and each of them, have infringed and continue to infringe the claims

of Plaintiff's '372 Patent by applying patented designs, or a colorable imitation thereof, to an article

of manufacture, and thereafter using, selling or distributing said products within this District and

elsewhere throughout the United States.

260. Upon information and belief, Defendants are inducing direct infringement of the

'372 Patent by others by actively instructing, assisting, and/or encouraging others to practice one

or more of the inventions claimed in the '372 Patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).

261. Upon information and belief, Defendants are contributing to direct infringement of

the '372 Patent by others by directing others to manufacture one or more components which

constitute a material part of the invention defined by the claims of the '372 Patent, knowing the

same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of the '372 Patent, and

which components are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial non-

infringing use, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c).

262. Defendants' actions of making, having made, importing, using or selling products

which infringe the '372 Patent have been, and are, willful, deliberate and/or in conscious disregard

of Plaintiff's rights, making this an exceptional case within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285 and

entitling Plaintiff to an award of its attorneys' fees and treble damages.

42
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 43 of 66

263. Unless restrained and enjoined, Defendants' acts of infringement as alleged above,

will cause Plaintiff irreparable injury, to which Plaintiff has no adequate remedy.

264. Defendants' infringement of the '372 Patent has caused damage to Plaintiff in an

amount to be ascertained at trial.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Infringement of the '619 Patent – Against Both Defendants)

265. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation

contained in paragraphs 1 through 250, as though fully set forth herein.

266. Defendants, and each of them, have infringed and continue to infringe the claims

of Plaintiff's '619 Patent by applying patented designs, or a colorable imitation thereof, to an article

of manufacture, and thereafter using, selling or distributing said products within this District and

elsewhere throughout the United States.

267. Upon information and belief, Defendants are inducing direct infringement of the

'619 Patent by others by actively instructing, assisting, and/or encouraging others to practice one

or more of the inventions claimed in the '619 Patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).

268. Upon information and belief, Defendants are contributing to direct infringement of

the '619 Patent by others by directing others to manufacture one or more components which

constitute a material part of the invention defined by the claims of the '619 Patent, knowing the

same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of the '619 Patent, and

which components are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial non-

infringing use, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c).

269. Defendants' actions of making, having made, importing, using or selling products

which infringe the '619 Patent have been, and are, willful, deliberate and/or in conscious disregard

43
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 44 of 66

of Plaintiff's rights, making this an exceptional case within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285 and

entitling Plaintiff to an award of its attorneys' fees and treble damages.

270. Unless restrained and enjoined, Defendants' acts of infringement as alleged above,

will cause Plaintiff irreparable injury, to which Plaintiff has no adequate remedy.

271. Defendants' infringement of the '619 Patent has caused damage to Plaintiff in an

amount to be ascertained at trial.

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Infringement of the '269 Patent – Against All Defendants)

272. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation

contained in paragraphs 1 through 250, as though fully set forth herein.

273. Defendants, and each of them, have infringed and continue to infringe the claims

of Plaintiff's '269 Patent by applying patented designs, or a colorable imitation thereof, to an article

of manufacture, and thereafter using, selling or distributing said products within this District and

elsewhere throughout the United States.

274. Upon information and belief, Defendants are inducing direct infringement of the

'269 Patent by others by actively instructing, assisting, and/or encouraging others to practice one

or more of the inventions claimed in the '269 Patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).

275. Upon information and belief, Defendants are contributing to direct infringement of

the '269 Patent by others by directing others to manufacture one or more components which

constitute a material part of the invention defined by the claims of the '269 Patent, knowing the

same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of the '269 Patent, and

which components are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial non-

infringing use, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c).

44
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 45 of 66

276. Defendants' actions of making, having made, importing, using or selling products

which infringe the '269 Patent have been, and are, willful, deliberate and/or in conscious disregard

of Plaintiff's rights, making this an exceptional case within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285 and

entitling Plaintiff to an award of its attorneys' fees and treble damages.

277. Unless restrained and enjoined, Defendants' acts of infringement as alleged above,

will cause Plaintiff irreparable injury, to which Plaintiff has no adequate remedy.

278. Defendants' infringement of the '269 Patent has caused damage to Plaintiff in an

amount to be ascertained at trial.

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Infringement of the '602 Patent – Against Both Defendants)

279. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation

contained in paragraphs 1 through 250, as though fully set forth herein.

280. Defendants, and each of them, have infringed and continue to infringe the claims

of Plaintiff's '602 Patent by applying patented designs, or a colorable imitation thereof, to an article

of manufacture, and thereafter using, selling or distributing said products within this District and

elsewhere throughout the United States.

281. Upon information and belief, Defendants are inducing direct infringement of the

'602 Patent by others by actively instructing, assisting, and/or encouraging others to practice one

or more of the inventions claimed in the '602 Patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).

282. Upon information and belief, Defendants are contributing to direct infringement of

the '602 Patent by others by directing others to manufacture one or more components which

constitute a material part of the invention defined by the claims of the '602 Patent, knowing the

same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of the '602 Patent, and

45
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 46 of 66

which components are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial non-

infringing use, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c).

283. Defendants' actions of making, having made, importing, using or selling products

which infringe the '602 Patent have been, and are, willful, deliberate and/or in conscious disregard

of Plaintiff's rights, making this an exceptional case within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285 and

entitling Plaintiff to an award of its attorneys' fees and treble damages.

284. Unless restrained and enjoined, Defendants' acts of infringement as alleged above,

will cause Plaintiff irreparable injury, to which Plaintiff has no adequate remedy.

285. Defendants' infringement of the '602 Patent has caused damage to Plaintiff in an

amount to be ascertained at trial.

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Infringement of the '521 Patent – Against Both Defendants)

286. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation

contained in paragraphs 1 through 250, as though fully set forth herein.

287. Defendants, and each of them, have infringed and continue to infringe the claims

of Plaintiff's '521 Patent by applying patented designs, or a colorable imitation thereof, to an article

of manufacture, and thereafter using, selling or distributing said products within this District and

elsewhere throughout the United States.

288. Upon information and belief, Defendants are inducing direct infringement of the

'521 Patent by others by actively instructing, assisting, and/or encouraging others to practice one

or more of the inventions claimed in the '521 Patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).

289. Upon information and belief, Defendants are contributing to direct infringement of

the '521 Patent by others by directing others to manufacture one or more components which

46
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 47 of 66

constitute a material part of the invention defined by the claims of the '521 Patent, knowing the

same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of the '521 Patent, and

which components are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial non-

infringing use, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c).

290. Defendants' actions of making, having made, importing, using or selling products

which infringe the '521 Patent have been, and are, willful, deliberate and/or in conscious disregard

of Plaintiff's rights, making this an exceptional case within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285 and

entitling Plaintiff to an award of its attorneys' fees and treble damages.

291. Unless restrained and enjoined, Defendants' acts of infringement as alleged above,

will cause Plaintiff irreparable injury, to which Plaintiff has no adequate remedy.

292. Defendants' infringement of the '521 Patent has caused damage to Plaintiff in an

amount to be ascertained at trial.

SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Infringement of the '809 Patent – Against Both Defendants)

293. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation

contained in paragraphs 1 through 250, as though fully set forth herein.

294. Defendants, and each of them, have infringed and continue to infringe the claims

of Plaintiff's '809 Patent by applying patented designs, or a colorable imitation thereof, to an article

of manufacture, and thereafter using, selling or distributing said products within this District and

elsewhere throughout the United States.

295. Upon information and belief, Defendants are inducing direct infringement of the

'809 Patent by others by actively instructing, assisting, and/or encouraging others to practice one

or more of the inventions claimed in the '809 Patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).

47
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 48 of 66

296. Upon information and belief, Defendants are contributing to direct infringement of

the '809 Patent by others by directing others to manufacture one or more components which

constitute a material part of the invention defined by the claims of the '809 Patent, knowing the

same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of the '809 Patent, and

which components are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial non-

infringing use, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c).

297. Defendants' actions of making, having made, importing, using or selling products

which infringe the '809 Patent have been, and are, willful, deliberate and/or in conscious disregard

of Plaintiff's rights, making this an exceptional case within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285 and

entitling Plaintiff to an award of its attorneys' fees and treble damages.

298. Unless restrained and enjoined, Defendants' acts of infringement as alleged above,

will cause Plaintiff irreparable injury, to which Plaintiff has no adequate remedy.

299. Defendants' infringement of the '809 Patent has caused damage to Plaintiff in an

amount to be ascertained at trial.

EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Infringement of the '288 Patent – Against Both Defendants)

300. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation

contained in paragraphs 1 through 250, as though fully set forth herein.

301. Defendants, and each of them, have infringed and continue to infringe the claims

of Plaintiff's '288 Patent by applying patented designs, or a colorable imitation thereof, to an article

of manufacture, and thereafter using, selling or distributing said products within this District and

elsewhere throughout the United States.

48
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 49 of 66

302. Upon information and belief, Defendants are inducing direct infringement of the

'288 Patent by others by actively instructing, assisting, and/or encouraging others to practice one

or more of the inventions claimed in the '288 Patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).

303. Upon information and belief, Defendants are contributing to direct infringement of

the '288 Patent by others by directing others to manufacture one or more components which

constitute a material part of the invention defined by the claims of the '288 Patent, knowing the

same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of the '288 Patent, and

which components are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial non-

infringing use, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c).

304. Defendants' actions of making, having made, importing, using or selling products

which infringe the '288 Patent have been, and are, willful, deliberate and/or in conscious disregard

of Plaintiff's rights, making this an exceptional case within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285 and

entitling Plaintiff to an award of its attorneys' fees and treble damages.

305. Unless restrained and enjoined, Defendants' acts of infringement as alleged above,

will cause Plaintiff irreparable injury, to which Plaintiff has no adequate remedy.

306. Defendants' infringement of the '288 Patent has caused damage to Plaintiff in an

amount to be ascertained at trial.

NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Infringement of the '841 Patent – Against Both Defendants)

307. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation

contained in paragraphs 1 through 250, as though fully set forth herein.

308. Defendants, and each of them, have infringed and continue to infringe the claims

of Plaintiff's ‘841 Patent by applying patented designs, or a colorable imitation thereof, to an article

49
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 50 of 66

of manufacture, and thereafter using, selling or distributing said products within this District and

elsewhere throughout the United States.

309. Upon information and belief, Defendants are inducing direct infringement of the

'841 Patent by others by actively instructing, assisting, and/or encouraging others to practice one

or more of the inventions claimed in the '841 Patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).

310. Upon information and belief, Defendants are contributing to direct infringement of

the '841 Patent by others by directing others to manufacture one or more components which

constitute a material part of the invention defined by the claims of the '841 Patent, knowing the

same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of the '841 Patent, and

which components are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial non-

infringing use, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c).

311. Defendants' actions of making, having made, importing, using or selling products

which infringe the '841 Patent have been, and are, willful, deliberate and/or in conscious disregard

of Plaintiff's rights, making this an exceptional case within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285 and

entitling Plaintiff to an award of its attorneys' fees and treble damages.

312. Unless restrained and enjoined, Defendants' acts of infringement as alleged above,

will cause Plaintiff irreparable injury, to which Plaintiff has no adequate remedy.

313. Defendants' infringement of the '841 Patent has caused damage to Plaintiff in an

amount to be ascertained at trial.

TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Infringement of the '091 Patent – Against Both Defendants)

314. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation

contained in paragraphs 1 through 250, as though fully set forth herein.

50
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 51 of 66

315. Defendants, and each of them, have infringed and continue to infringe the claims

of Plaintiff's '091 Patent by applying patented designs, or a colorable imitation thereof, to an article

of manufacture, and thereafter using, selling or distributing said products within this District and

elsewhere throughout the United States.

316. Upon information and belief, Defendants are inducing direct infringement of the

'091 Patent by others by actively instructing, assisting, and/or encouraging others to practice one

or more of the inventions claimed in the '091 Patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).

317. Upon information and belief, Defendants are contributing to direct infringement of

the '091 Patent by others by directing others to manufacture one or more components which

constitute a material part of the invention defined by the claims of the '091 Patent, knowing the

same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of the '091 Patent, and

which components are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial non-

infringing use, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c).

318. Defendants' actions of making, having made, importing, using or selling products

which infringe the '091 Patent have been, and are, willful, deliberate and/or in conscious disregard

of Plaintiff's rights, making this an exceptional case within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285 and

entitling Plaintiff to an award of its attorneys' fees and treble damages.

319. Unless restrained and enjoined, Defendants' acts of infringement as alleged above,

will cause Plaintiff irreparable injury, to which Plaintiff has no adequate remedy.

320. Defendants' infringement of the '091 Patent has caused damage to Plaintiff in an

amount to be ascertained at trial.

51
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 52 of 66

ELEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Infringement of the '762 Patent – Against Both Defendants)

321. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation

contained in paragraphs 1 through 250, as though fully set forth herein.

322. Defendants, and each of them, have infringed and continue to infringe the claims

of Plaintiff's '762 Patent by applying patented designs, or a colorable imitation thereof, to an article

of manufacture, and thereafter using, selling or distributing said products within this District and

elsewhere throughout the United States.

323. Upon information and belief, Defendants are inducing direct infringement of the

'762 Patent by others by actively instructing, assisting, and/or encouraging others to practice one

or more of the inventions claimed in the '762 Patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).

324. Upon information and belief, Defendants are contributing to direct infringement of

the '762 Patent by others by directing others to manufacture one or more components which

constitute a material part of the invention defined by the claims of the '762 Patent, knowing the

same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of the '762 Patent, and

which components are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial non-

infringing use, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c).

325. Defendants' actions of making, having made, importing, using or selling products

which infringe the '762 Patent have been, and are, willful, deliberate and/or in conscious disregard

of Plaintiff's rights, making this an exceptional case within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285 and

entitling Plaintiff to an award of its attorneys' fees and treble damages.

326. Unless restrained and enjoined, Defendants' acts of infringement as alleged above,

will cause Plaintiff irreparable injury, to which Plaintiff has no adequate remedy.

52
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 53 of 66

327. Defendants' infringement of the '762 Patent has caused damage to Plaintiff in an

amount to be ascertained at trial.

TWELFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Infringement of the '264 Patent – Against Both Defendants)

328. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation

contained in paragraphs 1 through 250, as though fully set forth herein.

329. Defendants, and each of them, have infringed and continue to infringe the claims

of Plaintiff's '264 Patent by applying patented designs, or a colorable imitation thereof, to an article

of manufacture, and thereafter using, selling or distributing said products within this District and

elsewhere throughout the United States.

330. Upon information and belief, Defendants are inducing direct infringement of the

'264 Patent by others by actively instructing, assisting, and/or encouraging others to practice one

or more of the inventions claimed in the '264 Patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).

331. Upon information and belief, Defendants are contributing to direct infringement of

the '264 Patent by others by directing others to manufacture one or more components which

constitute a material part of the invention defined by the claims of the '264 Patent, knowing the

same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of the '264 Patent, and

which components are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial non-

infringing use, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c).

332. Defendants' actions of making, having made, importing, using or selling products

which infringe the '264 Patent have been, and are, willful, deliberate and/or in conscious disregard

of Plaintiff's rights, making this an exceptional case within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285 and

entitling Plaintiff to an award of its attorneys' fees and treble damages.

53
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 54 of 66

333. Unless restrained and enjoined, Defendants' acts of infringement as alleged above,

will cause Plaintiff irreparable injury, to which Plaintiff has no adequate remedy.

334. Defendants' infringement of the '264 Patent has caused damage to Plaintiff in an

amount to be ascertained at trial.

THIRTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Infringement of the '961 Patent – Against Both Defendants)

335. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation

contained in paragraphs 1 through 250, as though fully set forth herein.

336. Defendants, and each of them, have infringed and continue to infringe the claims

of Plaintiff's '961 Patent by applying patented designs, or a colorable imitation thereof, to an article

of manufacture, and thereafter using, selling or distributing said products within this District and

elsewhere throughout the United States.

337. Upon information and belief, Defendants are inducing direct infringement of the

'961 Patent by others by actively instructing, assisting, and/or encouraging others to practice one

or more of the inventions claimed in the '961 Patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).

338. Upon information and belief, Defendants are contributing to direct infringement of

the '961 Patent by others by directing others to manufacture one or more components which

constitute a material part of the invention defined by the claims of the '961 Patent, knowing the

same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of the '961 Patent, and

which components are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial non-

infringing use, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c).

339. Defendants' actions of making, having made, importing, using or selling products

which infringe the '961 Patent have been, and are, willful, deliberate and/or in conscious disregard

54
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 55 of 66

of Plaintiff's rights, making this an exceptional case within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285 and

entitling Plaintiff to an award of its attorneys' fees and treble damages.

340. Unless restrained and enjoined, Defendants' acts of infringement as alleged above,

will cause Plaintiff irreparable injury, to which Plaintiff has no adequate remedy.

341. Defendants' infringement of the '961 Patent has caused damage to Plaintiff in an

amount to be ascertained at trial.

FOURTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Infringement of the '536 Patent – Against Both Defendants)

342. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation

contained in paragraphs 1 through 250, as though fully set forth herein.

343. Defendants, and each of them, have infringed and continue to infringe the claims

of Plaintiff's '536 Patent by applying patented designs, or a colorable imitation thereof, to an article

of manufacture, and thereafter using, selling or distributing said products within this District and

elsewhere throughout the United States.

344. Upon information and belief, Defendants are inducing direct infringement of the

'536 Patent by others by actively instructing, assisting, and/or encouraging others to practice one

or more of the inventions claimed in the '536 Patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).

345. Upon information and belief, Defendants are contributing to direct infringement of

the '536 Patent by others by directing others to manufacture one or more components which

constitute a material part of the invention defined by the claims of the '536 Patent, knowing the

same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of the '536 Patent, and

which components are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial non-

infringing use, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c).

55
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 56 of 66

346. Defendants' actions of making, having made, importing, using or selling products

which infringe the '536 Patent have been, and are, willful, deliberate and/or in conscious disregard

of Plaintiff's rights, making this an exceptional case within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285 and

entitling Plaintiff to an award of its attorneys' fees and treble damages.

347. Unless restrained and enjoined, Defendants' acts of infringement as alleged above,

will cause Plaintiff irreparable injury, to which Plaintiff has no adequate remedy.

348. Defendants' infringement of the '536 Patent has caused damage to Plaintiff in an

amount to be ascertained at trial.

FIFTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Infringement of the '268 Patent – Against Both Defendants)

349. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation

contained in paragraphs 1 through 250, as though fully set forth herein.

350. Defendants, and each of them, have infringed and continue to infringe the claims

of Plaintiff's '268 Patent by applying patented designs, or a colorable imitation thereof, to an article

of manufacture, and thereafter using, selling or distributing said products within this District and

elsewhere throughout the United States.

351. Upon information and belief, Defendants are inducing direct infringement of the

'268 Patent by others by actively instructing, assisting, and/or encouraging others to practice one

or more of the inventions claimed in the '268 Patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).

352. Upon information and belief, Defendants are contributing to direct infringement of

the '268 Patent by others by directing others to manufacture one or more components which

constitute a material part of the invention defined by the claims of the '268 Patent, knowing the

same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of the '268 Patent, and

56
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 57 of 66

which components are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial non-

infringing use, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c).

353. Defendants' actions of making, having made, importing, using or selling products

which infringe the '268 Patent have been, and are, willful, deliberate and/or in conscious disregard

of Plaintiff's rights, making this an exceptional case within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285 and

entitling Plaintiff to an award of its attorneys' fees and treble damages.

354. Unless restrained and enjoined, Defendants' acts of infringement as alleged above,

will cause Plaintiff irreparable injury, to which Plaintiff has no adequate remedy.

355. Defendants' infringement of the '268 Patent has caused damage to Plaintiff in an

amount to be ascertained at trial.

SIXTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Infringement of the '281 Patent – Against Both Defendants)

356. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation

contained in paragraphs 1 through 250, as though fully set forth herein.

357. Defendants, and each of them, have infringed and continue to infringe the claims

of Plaintiff's '281 Patent by applying patented designs, or a colorable imitation thereof, to an article

of manufacture, and thereafter using, selling or distributing said products within this District and

elsewhere throughout the United States.

358. Upon information and belief, Defendants are inducing direct infringement of the

'281 Patent by others by actively instructing, assisting, and/or encouraging others to practice one

or more of the inventions claimed in the '281 Patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).

359. Upon information and belief, Defendants are contributing to direct infringement of

the '281 Patent by others by directing others to manufacture one or more components which

57
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 58 of 66

constitute a material part of the invention defined by the claims of the '281 Patent, knowing the

same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of the '281 Patent, and

which components are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial non-

infringing use, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c).

360. Defendants' actions of making, having made, importing, using or selling products

which infringe the '281 Patent have been, and are, willful, deliberate and/or in conscious disregard

of Plaintiff's rights, making this an exceptional case within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285 and

entitling Plaintiff to an award of its attorneys' fees and treble damages.

361. Unless restrained and enjoined, Defendants' acts of infringement as alleged above,

will cause Plaintiff irreparable injury, to which Plaintiff has no adequate remedy.

362. Defendants' infringement of the '281 Patent has caused damage to Plaintiff in an

amount to be ascertained at trial.

SEVENTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Unfair Competition under 15 U.S.C. § 1125 – Against Both Defendants)

363. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation

contained in paragraphs 1 through 250, as though fully set forth herein.

364. Defendants’ promotion, advertising, marketing, distribution, offer for sale and sale

throughout the United States of shopping carts under the designation “Xpress” constitutes

infringement of an unregistered trademark and use of a false designation of origin which is likely

to cause confusion, mistake, or deception as to origin, sponsorship, or approval, in violation of

Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). This conduct constitutes an attempt to

trade on the goodwill which Versacart Systems has developed in the EXPRESS Trademark, all to

the damage of Versacart Systems.

58
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 59 of 66

365. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Defendants have caused Versacart System

irreparable harm and injury and will continue to do so unless Defendants are restrained and

enjoined by this Court from further violation of Versacart System’s rights.

366. Versacart System has no adequate remedy at law.

EIGHTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Florida Common Law Trademark Infringement – Against Both Defendants)

367. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation

contained in paragraphs 1 through 250, as though fully set forth herein.

368. Defendants’ promotion, advertising, marketing, distribution, offer for sale and sale

throughout the United States of shopping carts under the designation “Xpress” is likely to cause

confusion, or to deceive potential purchasers and others, whereby they would be led to mistakenly

believe that Defendants are affiliated with, related to, sponsored by, or connected with Versacart

Systems, in violation of the common law of the state of Florida.

369. This conduct also constitutes an attempt to trade on the goodwill which Versacart

Systems has developed in the EXPRESS Trademark, all to the damage of Versacart Systems.

370. Upon information and belief, the acts of Defendants were willful and malicious and

done with the intent to injure Plaintiff. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to recover, and hereby

requests, exemplary and/or punitive damages from Defendants.

371. As a result of this conduct, Defendants, have caused and, unless restrained and

enjoined by this Court, will continue to cause irreparable harm, damage, and injury to Versacart

Systems.

372. Versacart Systems has no adequate remedy at law.

59
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 60 of 66

NINETEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Trade Dress Infringement – Against Both Defendants)

373. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation

contained in paragraphs 1 through 250, as though fully set forth herein.

374. Defendants have infringed and continue to infringe the trade dress associated with

Plaintiff's EXpress6000C, EXpress6000B, EXpress3500-B, Express 7050, TT-100, TT-150, TT-

175, TT-100-S-T, and/or C-160 shopping carts by applying their designs, or a colorable imitation

thereof, to an article of manufacture, and thereafter using, selling or distributing said products

within this District and elsewhere throughout the United States. Plaintiff’s trade dress is distinctive

and non-functional and has attained secondary meaning.

375. Upon information and belief, the designs of Defendants' products are substantially

the same as Plaintiff's trade dress, such as to cause confusion and deceive purchasers into

purchasing one supposing it to be the other.

376. The acts of Defendants, as alleged herein, constitute trade dress infringement and

unfair competition in violation of Section 1125(a) of the Lanham Act.

377. Unless restrained and enjoined, Defendants' acts of trade dress infringement will

cause Plaintiff irreparable injury.

378. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid conduct, Plaintiff has sustained

damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

379. Plaintiff has incurred and will continue to incur attorneys' fees and court costs

arising from the acts of Defendants as alleged herein. Plaintiff seeks the recovery of attorneys'

fees and costs in this action.

60
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 61 of 66

380. The wrongful acts of Defendants, as alleged herein, unless restrained and enjoined

by order of this Court, will cause irreparable harm to Plaintiff and its goodwill. Plaintiff has no

adequate remedy at law for the injuries that have been, and will continue to be, sustained as a result

of Defendants' conduct.

TWENTIETH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Unfair Competition – Against Both Defendants)

381. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation

contained in paragraphs 1 through 250, as though fully set forth herein.

382. The acts of Defendants, as alleged herein, constitute unfair competition in violation

of Section 1125(a) of the Lanham Act and Florida common law.

383. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid conduct, Plaintiff has sustained

damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

384. Plaintiff has incurred, and will continue to incur attorneys' fees and court costs

arising from the acts of Defendants as alleged herein. Plaintiff seeks the recovery of attorneys'

fees and costs in this action.

385. Upon information and belief, the actions of the Defendants were willful and

malicious and done with the intent to injure Plaintiff. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to recover,

and hereby requests, exemplary and/or punitive damages from Defendants.

386. The wrongful acts of Defendants, as alleged herein, unless restrained and enjoined

by order of this Court, will cause irreparable injury to Plaintiff and its goodwill. Plaintiff has no

adequate remedy at law for the injuries that have been, and will continue to be, sustained as a result

of Defendants' conduct.

61
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 62 of 66

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, prays for judgment as follows:

On The First Through Sixteenth Claims for Relief

387. Declaring that Defendants have infringed Plaintiff's '809, '269, '501, '372, '961,

'091, ‘281, ‘762, ‘264, ‘268, ‘619, ‘602, ‘521, ‘841, ‘536, ‘700, and ‘288 Patents;

388. Issuing temporary and preliminary injunctions enjoining Defendants, their officers,

agents, subsidiaries, and employees, and those in privity with or that act in concert with any of the

foregoing, from further activities that constitute infringement of Plaintiff's '809, '269, '501, '372,

'961, '091, ‘281, ‘762, ‘264, ‘268, ‘619, ‘602, ‘521, ‘841, ‘536, and ‘288 Patents, pursuant to 35

U.S.C. § 283;

389. For an award against Defendants, jointly and severally, for actual damages,

including lost profits and a reasonable royalty;

390. For an award of all gains, profits, and advantages derived by Defendants by their

infringement of Plaintiff's '809, '269, '501, '372, '961, '091, ‘281, ‘762, ‘264, ‘268, ‘619, ‘602, ‘521,

‘841, ‘536, and ‘288 Patents;

391. For enhanced statutory damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, together with costs

and pre- and post-judgment interest;

392. For injunctive relief in the form of a permanent injunction, enjoining Defendants

from manufacturing, importing, selling, marketing and/or distributing any products that infringe

on Plaintiff's '809, '269, '501, '372, '961, '091, ‘281, ‘762, ‘264, ‘268, ‘619, ‘602, ‘521, ‘841, ‘536,

and ‘288 Patents;

393. For an order requiring Defendants to deliver up to be impounded during the

pendency of this action all of the allegedly infringing products;

62
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 63 of 66

394. For an order requiring Defendants' remaining inventory of infringing products to

be delivered up to the custody of the Court for destruction;

395. For reasonable attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285;

396. For interest at the maximum legal rate on all damages from the date first incurred

until paid, if applicable;

On The Seventeenth through Eighteenth Claims for Relief

397. Issuing preliminary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining Defendants and any

principals, agents, servants, employees, successors, and assigns of Defendants, and all those in

privity, concert, or participation with Defendants, from:

(i) imitating, copying, duplicating, or otherwise making any use of the

EXPRESS Trademark, and or any mark confusingly similar to the EXPRESS Trademark,

including, but not limited to, the designation "Xpress;"

(ii) manufacturing, producing, distributing, circulating, selling, or otherwise

disposing of any printed material which bears any copy or colorable imitation of the

EXPRESS Trademark;

(iii) using any unauthorized copy or colorable imitation of the EXPRESS

Trademark in such fashion as is likely to relate or connect Defendants with Versacart

Systems;

(iv) using any false designation of origin or false description which can or is likely

to lead the trade or public, or individual members thereof, to believe mistakenly that any

service advertised, promoted, offered, or sold by Defendants are sponsored, endorsed,

connected with, approved, or authorized by Versacart Systems;

63
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 64 of 66

(v) causing likelihood of confusion or injury to Versacart Systems' business

reputation and to the distinctiveness of the EXPRESS Trademark by unauthorized use of a

confusingly similar sign design;

(vi) engaging in any other activity constituting unfair competition or infringement

of the EXPRESS Trademark or Versacart Systems' rights in, or to use, or to exploit the

same; and

(vii) assisting, aiding or abetting another person or business entity in engaging or

performing any of the activities enumerated in subparagraphs (i) through (vi) above.

B. Finding that Defendants have infringed the EXPRESS Trademark in violation of

federal law and have damaged Versacart Systems' goodwill by Defendants' conduct,

C. Finding that Defendants have unfairly competed with Versacart Systems by the acts

complained of herein in violation of federal law.

D. Finding that the acts of Defendants constitute trademark infringement in violation

of the common law of the state of Florida.

E. Finding that the acts of Defendants constitute unfair competition in violation of the

common law of the state of Florida.

F. Finding Defendants liable and awarding to Versacart Systems monetary damages

in an amount to be fixed by the Court in its discretion as just, including all of the Defendants'

profits or gains of any kind resulting from their willful infringement and/or acts of unfair

competition, said amount to be trebled, and exemplary damages in view of the intentional nature of

the acts complained of herein, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117.

G. Awarding to Versacart Systems exemplary damages in view of the intentional,

willful, wanton and reckless disregard of its rights; and

64
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 65 of 66

H. Granting to Versacart Systems such other and further relief as the Court may deem

just, proper, and equitable under the circumstances

On The Nineteenth and Twentieth Claims for Relief

398. For restitution of all revenue and profits from Defendants' unfair business practices,

including an award of damages available under 15 U.S.C. § 1117, including for willful violation

of § 1125(a);

399. For exemplary and/or punitive damages;

400. For the recovery of attorneys' fees and costs;

401. For injunctive relief in the form of a preliminary and permanent injunction

enjoining Defendants from engaging the future acts of consumer confusion and unfair or deceptive

business practices;

On All Claims for Relief

402. For attorneys’ fees, costs, and pre- and post-judgment interest as permitted by law;

403. Punitive damages as provided by law; and

404. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

65
Case 9:18-cv-80383-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2018 Page 66 of 66

DATED: March 26, 2018 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Ava K. Doppelt, Esq.


Ava K. Doppelt, Esq.
Florida Bar No. 393738
ALLEN, DYER, DOPPELT & GILCHRIST, P.A.
255 S. Orange Avenue, Suite 1401
Orlando, Florida 32801
Telephone: (407) 841-2330
Facsimile: (407) 841-2343
Email: adoppelt@allendyer.com

Of counsel:
Carolyn Juarez, Esq.
NEUGEBOREN O’DOWD, PC
1227 Spruce Street, Suite 200
Boulder, Colorado 80302
Telephone: (720)536-4904
Email: Carolyn@nodiplaw.com

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF


AMSA, INC. d/b/a VERSACART SYSTEMS, INC.

66