Sie sind auf Seite 1von 86

Case 5:20-cv-00667 Document 1 Filed 01/29/20 Page 1 of 21

1 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP


Andrew J. Gray IV (CA Bar No. 202137)
2 Ehsun Forghany (CA Bar No. 302984)
Marinna Radloff (CA Bar No. 324156)
3 andrew.gray@morganlewis.com
ehsun.forghany@morganlewis.com
4 marinna.radloff@morganlewis.com
1400 Page Mill Road
5 Palo Alto, CA 94304-1124
Tel: +1.650.843.4000
6 Fax: +1.650.843.4001
7 Scott D. Sherwin (to be admitted pro hac vice)
Michael T. Sikora (to be admitted pro hac vice)
8 scott.sherwin@morganlewis.com
michael.sikora@morganlewis.com
9 77 W. Wacker Drive, Ste. 500
Chicago, IL 60601-5094
10 Tel: +1.312.324.1000
Fax: +1.312.324.1001
11
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Ready Pac Foods, Inc.
12 and Ready Pac Product, Inc.

13 (Additional counsel listed on the following page)


14
15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

17 READY PAC FOODS, INC., READY Case No.: 20-cv-667


PAC PRODUCE, INC., and D6 Inc.
18 COMPLAINT FOR
Plaintiffs,
19 DECLARATORY JUDGEMENT
v. OF:
20 (1) NON-INFRINGEMENT AND
FIVE STAR GOURMET FOODS,
21 INVALIDITY OF U.S. DESIGN
INC. and DIRECT PACK, INC.
PATENT NOS. 698,665 AND
22 Defendants. 698,666;
23 (2) NON-INFRINGEMENT OF
TRADE DRESS; AND
24 (3) NO VIOLATION OF UNFAIR
25 COMPETITION LAW

26 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED


27
28
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT;
CASE NO. 20-CV-667
Case 5:20-cv-00667 Document 1 Filed 01/29/20 Page 2 of 21

1 STOEL RIVES LLP


Thomas A. Woods (CA Bar No. 210050)
2 thomas.woods@stoel.com
500 Capitol Mall, Suite 1600
3 Sacramento, CA 95814
Tel: 916.447.0700
4 Fax: 916.447.4781
5 Brad S. Daniels (to be admitted pro hac vice)
Nathan C. Brunette (to be admitted pro hac vice)
6 760 SW Ninth Ave., Suite 3000
Portland, OR 97205
7 Tel: 503.224.3380
Fax: 503.220.2480
8
Attorneys for Plaintiff D6 Inc.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT;
CASE NO. 20-CV-667
Case 5:20-cv-00667 Document 1 Filed 01/29/20 Page 3 of 21

1 For its claims against defendants Five Star Gourmet Foods, Inc. (“Five
2 Star”) and Direct Pack, Inc. (“Direct Pack”), Plaintiffs Ready Pac Foods, Inc. and
3 Ready Pac Produce, Inc. (collectively “Ready Pac”), and Plaintiff D6 Inc. (“D6”)
4 allege as follows:
5 NATURE OF THE ACTION
6 1. This is an action for declaratory judgment under the Federal
7 Declaratory Judgment Act, Title 28, United States Code, Sections 2201 and 2202,
8 of non-infringement and invalidity under the Patent Laws of the United States,
9 Title 35, United States Code, of non-infringement of trade dress under Title 15,
10 United States Code, and of no violation of unfair competition law under Cal. Bus
11 & Prof. Code, Section 17200, et seq.
12 PARTIES
13 2. Plaintiff Ready Pac Foods, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with a
14 principal place of business at 4401 Foxdale Avenue, Irwindale, California 91706.
15 3. Plaintiff Ready Pac Produce, Inc. is a California corporation with a
16 principal place of business at 4401 Foxdale Avenue, Irwindale, California 91706.
17 4. Plaintiff D6 Inc. is an Oregon corporation with a principal place of
18 business at 4630 NE 190th Lane, Portland, OR 97230.
19 5. Upon information and belief, Defendant Five Star is a California
20 corporation with a principal place of business at 3880 East Ebony Street, Ontario
21 California 91761.
22 6. Upon information and belief, Defendant Direct Pack is a Delaware
23 corporation with a principal place of business at 1025 West 8th Street, Azusa,
24 California 91702.
25 JURISDICTION
26 7. This Court has exclusive subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
27 §§ 1331 and 1338(a), as well as 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, for Ready Pac’s
28
1 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT;
CASE NO. 20-CV-667
Case 5:20-cv-00667 Document 1 Filed 01/29/20 Page 4 of 21

1 design patent and trade dress claims arising under 35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq. and 15
2 U.S.C. § 1051, et seq. Because Ready Pac’s unfair competition claim under Cal.
3 Bus & Prof. Code, Section 17200, et seq. substantially relates to its design patent
4 and trade dress claims, this Court also has exclusive subject matter jurisdiction
5 over the unfair competition claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1338(b), as well as 28 U.S.C.
6 §§ 2201 and 2202.
7 8. As described in additional detail below, an actual and justiciable
8 controversy exists between Ready Pac and Defendants as to the alleged
9 infringement, validity, and enforceability of U.S. Design Pat. Nos. 698,665 (“the
10 ’665 Patent”) and 698,666 (“the ’666 Patent”) (collectively the “Disputed
11 Patents”). Ex. A, ’665 Patent; Ex. B, ’666 Patent. Actual and justiciable
12 controversies also exist between Ready Pac and D6 on the one hand, and Five Star
13 on the other hand, over purported trade dress infringement and of unfair
14 competition law violations. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this
15 action based on these real and immediate controversies between Ready Pac and
16 Defendants.
17 9. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Five Star because Five Star
18 is a California corporation with a principal place of business in California, and is
19 therefore subject to the jurisdiction of a court of general jurisdiction in California.
20 Upon information and belief, Five Star also conducts regular business in this
21 District.
22 10. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Direct Pack because Direct
23 Pack has a principal place of business in California, and is therefore subject to the
24 jurisdiction of a court of general jurisdiction in California. Upon information and
25 belief, Direct Pack also conducts regular business in this District and operates a
26 manufacturing facility and warehouse within the District located at 340 El Camino
27 Real B#19, Salinas, California 93901.
28
2 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT;
CASE NO. 20-CV-667
Case 5:20-cv-00667 Document 1 Filed 01/29/20 Page 5 of 21

1 11. This Court further has specific personal jurisdiction over Defendants
2 because they have consented to its jurisdiction with respect to the Disputed Patents.
3 As discussed in additional detail below, Defendants are asserting the Disputed
4 Patents in this District in Five Star Gourmet Foods, Inc. et al. v. Fresh Express,
5 Inc. et al., Case No. 4:19-cv-05611-PJH (Count III).
6 12. This Court further has specific personal jurisdiction over Defendant
7 Five Star because Five Star has consented to jurisdiction in this District with
8 respect to trade dress and unfair competition law claims substantially related to the
9 Disputed Patents. As discussed in additional detail below, Five Star is also
10 asserting similar trade dress infringement and unfair competition claims in this
11 District in Five Star Gourmet Foods, Inc. et al. v. Fresh Express, Inc. et al., Case
12 No. 4:19-cv-05611-PJH (Counts V and VII).
13 VENUE
14 13. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because
15 a substantial part of the events giving rise to Ready Pac’s declaratory judgment
16 claims occurred in this district, including Defendants’ joint assertion of the
17 Disputed Patents and Five Star’s related assertion of trade dress and unfair
18 competition claims.
19 14. Venue is also proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1)
20 and (c)(2) because Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in this District,
21 including because Defendants have jointly asserted and are jointly asserting
22 infringement of the Disputed Patents in this District.
23 INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
24 15. For purposes of intradistrict assignment under Civil Local Rules 3-
25 2(c) and 3-5(b), this Intellectual Property Action will be assigned on a district wide
26 basis.
27
28
3 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT;
CASE NO. 20-CV-667
Case 5:20-cv-00667 Document 1 Filed 01/29/20 Page 6 of 21

1 FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2 16. For over 45 years, Ready Pac has been an industry leader in offering
3 innovative fresh food products to consumers around the world. In particular,
4 Ready Pac specializes in healthy on-the-go salad kits, which it sells under the
5 Bistro® mark. Ready Pac sells a variety of products lines under this mark, such as
6 the original Bistro® Bowl salads, Organic Bistro®, Bistro® Dinner SolutionsTM,
7 Bistro® Grilled Chicken Kits, and Bistro® Gourmet.
8 17. Ready Pac has also been an industry leader in sustainable business
9 practices. Ready Pac has designed 100% recyclable snack trays, salad bowls,
10 ingredient toppers, and shipping containers for its fresh food products. Ready
11 Pac’s innovative salad bowls use 70% post-consumer PET plastic.
12 18. Plaintiff D6 is a leading innovator in plastic packaging design and
13 manufacturing, and is an industry leader in fields including fast-turnaround design-
14 to-shelf packaging manufacturing and precision thermoforming.
15 Five Star Begins Litigation Over Its “Overwrap Assembly” Design
16 19. On November 19, 2018, Five Star filed a lawsuit against Ready Pac in
17 the United States District Court for the Central District of California alleging, inter
18 alia, that Ready Pac infringed U.S. Design Patent No. 769,732 (“the ’732 Patent”).
19 Five Star Gourmet Foods, Inc. v. Ready Pac Foods, Inc. et al., Case No. 5:18-cv-
20 2436-DDP-KK (the “Central District Action”).
21 20. The ’732 Patent is entitled “Container and Overwrap Assembly,”
22 bears an issuance date of Oct. 25, 2016, and identifies only Five Star as the
23 “Applicant” and “Assignee.” The United States Patent and Trademark Office
24 (“USPTO”) Assignment records identify Five Star as the sole owner of the ’732
25 Patent.
26
27
28
4 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT;
CASE NO. 20-CV-667
Case 5:20-cv-00667 Document 1 Filed 01/29/20 Page 7 of 21

1 21. The ’732 Patent covers a design for a “container and overlap
2 assembly,” and does not protect any design for a “tray” or “bowl and tray unit
3 assembly.”
4 22. Five Star’s initial Complaint and its First Amended Complaint, which
5 was filed on December 28, 2018, allege infringement of only Ready Pac’s
6 “cardboard overlap”.
7 23. The products Five Star accuses of infringing the ’732 Patent are sold
8 through a first retailer.
9 Five Star and Direct Pack Begin Litigation Over Their Container Designs
10 24. Almost a year later, on September 5, 2019, Defendants Five Star and
11 Direct Pack jointly filed a lawsuit against Fresh Express, Inc., Proseal America,
12 Inc., and Plastic Ingenuity, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern
13 District of California. Five Star Gourmet Foods, Inc. et al. v. Fresh Express, Inc.
14 et al., Case No. 4:19-cv-05611-PJH (the “Northern District Action”). This lawsuit
15 alleges, inter alia, infringement of the Disputed Patents (the ’665 Patent and the
16 ’666 Patent) by Fresh Express, Inc.’s and Proseal America, Inc.’s plastic
17 packaging. Five Star further alleges trade dress infringement and violation of
18 California’s unfair competition law, also based on Fresh Express, Inc.’s and
19 Proseal America, Inc.’s packaging.
20 25. The ’665 Patent is entitled “Tray,” and bears an issuance date of
21 February 4, 2014. The ’665 Patent identifies Five Star and Direct Pack as both
22 “Applicants” and “Assignees.” The USPTO Assignment records identify Five Star
23 and Direct Pack as co-owners of the ’665 Patent.
24 26. The ’666 Patent is entitled “Bowl and Tray Unit Assembly,” and bears
25 an issuance date of February 4, 2014. The ’666 Patent identifies Five Star and
26 Direct Pack as both “Applicants” and “Assignees.” The USPTO Assignment
27 records identify Five Star and Direct Pack as co-owners of the ’666 Patent.
28
5 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT;
CASE NO. 20-CV-667
Case 5:20-cv-00667 Document 1 Filed 01/29/20 Page 8 of 21

1 27. Both Disputed Patents identify Gandhi B. Sifuentes, Craig R.


2 Snedden, and Tal Shoshan as “Inventors.” Upon information and belief, Direct
3 Pack employs Mr. Sifuetes and Mr. Snedden.
4 28. Upon information and belief, Five Star and Direct Pack co-own the
5 ’665 patent.
6 29. Upon information and belief, Five Star and Direct Pack co-own the
7 ’666 patent.
8 30. Unlike the ’732 Patent, the ’665 and ’666 Patents cover designs for a
9 “tray” and a “bowl and tray unit assembly,” respectively. The ’665 and ’666
10 Patents do not cover designs for an “overwrap assembly.”
11 Five Star Belatedly Seeks to Sue Ready Pac for its Container Designs
12 31. On January 17, 2020, Five Star again sought to amend its Complaint
13 against Ready Pac in the Central District Action. Its proposed Second Amended
14 Complaint alleges infringement of the ’665 and ’666 Patents for the first time
15 against Ready Pac. Plaintiff D6 manufactures and supplies to Ready Pac the bowl
16 and tray (the “D6 Premium Salad Bowl”) accused of infringement in Five Star’s
17 proposed second amended complaint. Five Star’s proposed Second Amended
18 Complaint alleges infringement of different products—plastic bowls sold
19 exclusively through a different retailer—than the infringement allegations based on
20 the ’732 Patent.
21 32. Nearly two years earlier, on March 6, 2018, Five Star wrote to D6
22 alleging that the D6 Premium Salad Bowl infringed the ’666 Patent. Counsel for
23 D6 explained in correspondence dated March 9, 2018, March 19, 2018, and April
24 3, 2018 that the D6 Premium Salad Bowl did not and could not infringe the ’666
25 Patent in view of the relevant prior art, and invited Five Star to respond with any
26 specific contrary analysis. D6’s counsel further put Five Star on notice that absent
27 legal action by Five Star, D6 would continue investing in manufacturing and
28
6 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT;
CASE NO. 20-CV-667
Case 5:20-cv-00667 Document 1 Filed 01/29/20 Page 9 of 21

1 marketing its D6 Premium Salad Bowl design in reliance that Five Star would not
2 assert the ’666 Patent against the D6 Premium Salad Bowl. For nearly two years,
3 until seeking leave to file the Second Amended Complaint against D6’s customer
4 Ready Pac, Five Star took no legal action as to D6.
5 33. The proposed Second Amended Complaint in the Central District
6 Action does not name Direct Pack, the co-owner of the ’655 Patent and ’666
7 Patent, as a co-plaintiff.
8 34. Five Star was granted leave to file its proposed Second Amended
9 Complaint that names only Five Star as a plaintiff. However, as of the filing of
10 this declaratory judgment complaint, Five Star has not filed its proposed Second
11 Amended Complaint alleging infringement of the ’665 and ’666 Patents.
12 35. As of the filing of this Complaint for Declaratory Judgment, Five Star
13 has not sought leave to amend its Complaint to name Direct Pack as a co-plaintiff
14 in the Central District Action, nor has it been granted leave to file an amended
15 complaint that names Direct Pack as a co-plaintiff.
16 36. Five Star lacks standing to assert the Disputed Patents in the Central
17 District Action without Direct Pack. Consequently, that Court lacks subject matter
18 jurisdiction over Five Star’s proposed infringement allegations based on the ’665
19 Patent and ’666 Patent.
20 37. Five Star’s proposed Second Amended Complaint alleges that Ready
21 Pac “produce[s] and distribute[s] premade salads throughout the United States,
22 including California, that infringe Five Star’s duly-issued rights in . . . U.S. Patent
23 No. D698,665 for ‘ornamental design for a tray’ (the ‘’665 Patent’) and U.S. Patent
24 No. D698,666 for ‘Bowl and Tray Assembly Unit’ (the ‘’666 Patent’).” Ex. C, ¶ 3.
25 38. Five Star’s proposed Second Amended Complaint further alleges
26 trade dress infringement by Ready Pac’s plastic packaging, which includes the D6
27
28
7 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT;
CASE NO. 20-CV-667
Case 5:20-cv-00667 Document 1 Filed 01/29/20 Page 10 of 21

1 Premium Salad Bowl, id. ¶ 40, and violations of California unfair competition law
2 based on that purported trade dress infringement. Id. ¶ 50.
3 39. Five Star’s proposed Second Amended Complaint requests “a
4 preliminary and/or permanent injunction” restraining Ready Pac from
5 “manufacturing, using, marketing, distributing, selling, offering to sell, and
6 importing any product that infringes Five Star’s . . . ’665, or ’666 Patents.” Id.,
7 Prayer for Relief.
8 40. Five Star’s design patent infringement allegations against Ready Pac’s
9 and D6’s products and request for injunctive relief in the Central District Action—
10 along with Five Star’s and Direct Pack’s suit against other competitors—have
11 created a concrete and immediate justiciable controversy between Ready Pac and
12 D6 on the one hand and the Declaratory Judgment Defendants on the other over
13 the ’665 and ’666 Patents. This controversy confers jurisdiction upon this Court
14 pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.
15 41. Similarly, Five Star’s related trade dress infringement allegations
16 against Ready Pac’s products and packaging that include the D6 Premium Salad
17 Bowl and its unfair competition allegations against Ready Pac and its products
18 (which include the D6 Premium Salad Bowl) have created a concrete and
19 immediate justiciable controversy between Ready Pac, D6, and Five Star over Five
20 Star’s potential trade dress and unfair competition claims. This controversy
21 confers jurisdiction upon this Court pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28
22 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.
23 42. Exercising jurisdiction over Ready Pac’s declaratory judgment claims
24 would serve the interests of justice by (i) coordinating the pre-trial litigation about
25 the ’665 and ’666 Patents in a single District, thereby reducing the risk of
26 inconsistent judgments; and (ii) permitting the parties to efficiently resolve their
27 controversies.
28
8 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT;
CASE NO. 20-CV-667
Case 5:20-cv-00667 Document 1 Filed 01/29/20 Page 11 of 21

1 COUNT I
2 (Declaration of Invalidity of U.S. Pat. No. D698,665)
3 43. Ready Pac and D6 repeat and reallege each and every allegation
4 contained in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
5 44. An actual controversy exists with respect to the ’665 Patent. Absent a
6 declaration of invalidity and/or non-infringement, Defendants will wrongfully
7 assert the ’665 Patent against Ready Pac’s and D6’s salad bowls, and thereby cause
8 Ready Pac and D6 irreparable injury and damage.
9 45. Pursuant to the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
10 et seq., Ready Pac and D6 request a declaration from the Court that the ’665 Patent
11 is not infringed, invalid, and unenforceable.
12 46. Each claim of the ’665 Patent is invalid because it fails to satisfy one
13 or more conditions for patentability set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 101 et seq., including
14 but not limited to Sections 171, 102, 103, and 112.
15 47. For example, the ’665 Patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and/or
16 103 based on at least the following references (each of which is prior art to the
17 ’665 Patent) or combinations thereof:
18 U.S. Patent No. 5,593,062 to Martin (“Martin”);
19 U.S. Patent 4,807,776 to Cortopassi (“Cortopassi”);
20 U.S. Design Patent No. 555,475 to Enriquez & Pho (“Enriquez”);
21 U.S. Design Patent No. 615,821 to Stamper (“Stamper”); and
22 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0307116 to Fisher
23 (“Fisher”).
24 48. More specifically, as an example, Martin discloses a food tray with
25 five depressions. Like the claimed tray, Martin discloses a food tray that
26 (i) contains a centered circular depression and four identical corner depressions;
27 and (ii) is symmetrical horizontally, vertically, and across both diagonals.
28
9 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT;
CASE NO. 20-CV-667
Case 5:20-cv-00667 Document 1 Filed 01/29/20 Page 12 of 21

1 49. Moreover, Cortopassi discloses a food-tray insert with roughly the


2 same exterior shape as the ’665 Patent’s tray.
3 50. A person of ordinary skill in the art would therefore find the ’665
4 Patent obvious at least based on Martin and Cortopassi.
5 51. A judicial determination of the respective rights of the parties with
6 respect to the invalidity of the ’665 patent is now necessary and appropriate under
7 28 U.S.C. § 2201.
8 COUNT II
9 (Declaration of Non-Infringement of U.S. Pat. No. D698,665)
10 52. Ready Pac and D6 repeat and reallege each and every allegation
11 contained in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
12 53. As a result of the acts described in the foregoing paragraphs, there exists an
13 actual and justiciable controversy of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the
14 issuance of a declaratory judgment that Ready Pac and D6 have not infringed and do not
15 infringe any claim of the ’665 Patent.
16 54. Ready Pac’s and D6’s salad bowls have not and do not directly or indirectly
17 infringe the ’665 Patent.
18 55. Ready Pac’s and D6’s designs are so plainly dissimilar from the ’665 Patent
19 that Ready Pac and D6 are entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and even disregarding
20 the marked difference in the functional elements of the products, the appearances of the
21 Ready Pac and D6 products are dissimilar enough from the ’665 Patent to conclude that an
22 observer familiar with the prior art would not confuse the products.
23 56. An ordinary observer would immediately observe substantial differences
24 between the patented design and the packaging used by the accused products. For example,
25 and without limitation, Ready Pac’s and D6’s salad bowl toppers (below right), as
26 compared to the ’665 Patent, (i) are not symmetrical about the horizontal and vertical axes,
27 (ii) do not have W-shaped containers in all of the ingredient compartments, (iii) have a
28
10 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT;
CASE NO. 20-CV-667
Case 5:20-cv-00667 Document 1 Filed 01/29/20 Page 13 of 21

1 different shape and design for the dividing walls between the containers, (iv) have a
2 different location for the salad dressing circular container, (v) have different semi-circular
3 finger notches around the salad dressing circular container, and (vi) have a different indent
4 shape and location along the perimeter of the topper.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
57. Ready Pac and D6 are entitled to a judgment declaring that they have not and
15
are not infringing, either directly or indirectly, any claim of the ’665 Patent.
16
COUNT III
17
(Declaration of Invalidity of U.S. Pat. No. D698,666)
18
58. Ready Pac and D6 repeat and reallege each and every allegation
19
contained in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
20
59. An actual controversy exists with respect to the ’666 Patent. Absent a
21
declaration of invalidity and/or non-infringement, Defendants will wrongfully
22
assert the ’666 Patent against Ready Pac’s and D6’s salad bowls, and thereby cause
23
Ready Pac and D6 irreparable injury and damage.
24
60. Pursuant to the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
25
et seq., Ready Pac requests a declaration from the Court that the ’666 Patent is
26
invalid and unenforceable.
27
28
11 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT;
CASE NO. 20-CV-667
Case 5:20-cv-00667 Document 1 Filed 01/29/20 Page 14 of 21

1 61. Each claim of the ’666 Patent is invalid because it fails to satisfy one
2 or more conditions for patentability set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 101 et seq., including
3 but not limited to Sections 171, 102, 103, and 112.
4 62. For example, the ’666 Patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and/or
5 103 based on at least the following references (each of which is prior art to the
6 ’666 Patent) or combinations thereof:
7 U.S. Patent No. 5,593,062 to Martin (“Martin”);
8 U.S. Patent 4,807,776 to Cortopassi (“Cortopassi”);
9 U.S. Design Patent No. 555,475 to Enriquez & Pho (“Enriquez”);
10 U.S. Design Patent No. 615,821 to Stamper (“Stamper”); and
11 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0307116 to Fisher
12 (“Fisher”).
13 63. More specifically, as an example, Martin discloses a food tray with
14 five depressions. Like the tray portion of the claimed bowl and tray unit assembly,
15 Martin discloses a food tray that (i) contains a centered circular depression and
16 four identical corner depressions; and (ii) is symmetrical horizontally, vertically,
17 and across both diagonals.
18 64. Moreover, Cortopassi discloses a rounded square bowl and tray unit
19 assembly containing a food-tray insert with roughly the same exterior shape as the
20 ’666 Patent’s tray.
21 65. A person of ordinary skill in the art would therefore find the ’666
22 Patent obvious at least based on Martin and Cortopassi.
23 66. A judicial determination of the respective rights of the parties with
24 respect to the invalidity of the claims of the ’666 patent is now necessary and
25 appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 2201.
26
27
28
12 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT;
CASE NO. 20-CV-667
Case 5:20-cv-00667 Document 1 Filed 01/29/20 Page 15 of 21

1 COUNT IV
2 (Declaration of Non-Infringement of U.S. Pat. No. D698,666)
3 67. Ready Pac and D6 repeat and reallege each and every allegation
4 contained in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
5 68. As a result of the acts described in the foregoing paragraphs, there exists an
6 actual and justiciable controversy of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the
7 issuance of a declaratory judgment that Ready Pac and D6 have not infringed and do not
8 infringe any claim of the ’666 Patent.
9 69. Ready Pac’s and D6’s salad bowls have not and do not directly or indirectly
10 infringe the ’666 Patent.
11 70. Ready Pac’s and D6’s designs are so plainly dissimilar from the ’666 Patent
12 that Ready Pac and D6 are entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and even disregarding
13 the marked difference in the functional elements of the products, the appearances of the
14 Ready Pac and D6 products are dissimilar enough from the ’666 Patent to conclude that an
15 observer familiar with the prior art would not confuse the products.
16 71. An ordinary observer would immediately observe substantial differences
17 between the patented design and the packaging used by the accused products. For example,
18 and without limitation, Ready Pac’s and D6’s salad bowl toppers (below right), as
19 compared to the ’666 Patent, (i) are not symmetrical about the horizontal and vertical axes,
20 (ii) do not have W-shaped containers in all of the ingredient compartments, (iii) have a
21 different shape and design for the dividing walls between the containers, (iv) have a
22 different location for the salad dressing circular container, (v) have different semi-circular
23 finger notches around the salad dressing circular container, and (vi) have a different indent
24 shape and location along the perimeter of the topper.
25 72. Additionally, for example, and without limitation, Ready Pac’s and D6’s salad
26 bowls (below right), as compared to the ’666 Patent, (i) do not have a rounded-square
27
28
13 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT;
CASE NO. 20-CV-667
Case 5:20-cv-00667 Document 1 Filed 01/29/20 Page 16 of 21

1 shaped bottom to the salad bowl, (ii) do not have corner protrusions on the top of the salad
2 bowl, and (iii) do not have an opaque salad bowl.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
73. Ready Pac and D6 are entitled to a judgment declaring that they have not and
19
are not infringing, either directly or indirectly, any claim of the ’666 Patent.
20
COUNT V
21
(Declaration of Non-Infringement of Trade Dress)
22
74. Ready Pac and D6 repeat and reallege each and every allegation
23
contained in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
24
75. Five Star does not have any registered trade dress rights.
25
76. Five Star purports to assert in the Central District Action that its trade
26
dress rights include the use of squared plastic bowls with rounded corners, bowls
27
28
14 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT;
CASE NO. 20-CV-667
Case 5:20-cv-00667 Document 1 Filed 01/29/20 Page 17 of 21

1 that taper such that the top of each bowl has a larger perimeter than does the
2 bottom, a clear plastic tray insert that has compartments for ingredients and four
3 openings (or finger inserts), one near each corner, and when the bowl is sold
4 individually rather than in packs of two, there is a clear plastic overwrap that
5 contains the product name, ingredients, and all other marketing and legally
6 required information.
7 77. Five Star cannot meet its burden to prove that these features qualify
8 for unregistered trade dress protection. Five Star cannot meet its burden to prove
9 that its alleged trade dress has acquired secondary meaning. Upon information and
10 belief, consumers do not associate the purported trade dress as belonging to Five
11 Star.
12 78. Five Star cannot meet its burden to prove a likelihood of confusion
13 between its purported trade dress and the product packaging used by Ready Pac,
14 including the D6 Premium Salad Bowl.
15 79. For example, and without limitation, Ready Pac’s and D6’s salad bowl toppers
16 (below right), as compared to Five Star’s products (below left), (i) are not symmetrical
17 about the horizontal and vertical axes, (ii) do not have W-shaped in all of the ingredient
18 compartments, (iii) have a different shape and design for the dividing walls between the
19 containers, (iv) have a different location for the salad dressing circular container, (v) have
20 different semi-circular finger notches around the salad dressing circular container, and
21 (vi) have a different indent shape and location along the perimeter of the topper.
22 80. Additionally, for example, and without limitation, Ready Pac’s and
23 D6’s salad bowls (below right), as compared to Five Star’s products (below left),
24 (i) do not have a rounded-square shaped bottom to the salad bowl, (ii) do not have
25 corner protrusions on the top of the salad bowl, and (iii) do not have an opaque
26 salad bowl.
27
28
15 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT;
CASE NO. 20-CV-667
Case 5:20-cv-00667 Document 1 Filed 01/29/20 Page 18 of 21

1 81. Further, for example, and without limitation, Ready Pac’s salad bowls
2 (incorporating the D6 Premium Salad Bowl) (below right), as compared to Five
3 Star’s products (below left) display product information directly on the plastic
4 packaging.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15 82. Five Star cannot meet its burden to prove that its alleged trade dress is
16 non-functional. For example, and without limitation, Five Star’s dividing walls
17 help the food products contained within retain their freshness.
18 83. Ready Pac and D6 are therefore entitled to a judgment declaring that
19 they have not and are not infringing any trade dress of Five Star.
20 COUNT VI
21 (Declaration of No Violation of California Unfair Competition Law)
22 84. Ready Pac and D6 repeat and reallege each and every allegation
23 contained in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
24 85. Because Ready Pac and D6 do not infringe Defendants’ patents or
25 Five Star’s purported trade dress, as discussed above, they has not engaged in any
26
27
28
16 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT;
CASE NO. 20-CV-667
Case 5:20-cv-00667 Document 1 Filed 01/29/20 Page 19 of 21

1 unfair and/or fraudulent business practices that would mislead, deceive, or confuse
2 consumers.
3 86. Ready Pac and D6 are therefore entitled to a judgment declaring that
4 they have not and are not violating California’s unfair competition law.
5 PLAINTIFFS’ PRAYER FOR RELIEF
6 Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for judgment in their favor and against
7 Defendants as follows:
8 A. For judgment in Ready Pac’s and D6’s favor and affirming invalidity and non-
9 infringement of the ‘665 and ‘666 Patents;
10 B. That the Court enter judgment against Defendants and in favor of Ready Pac
11 and D6 and that the Complaint for Declaratory Judgment in this action be granted in its
12 entirety;
13 C. Enter judgment that the ’665 and ’666 Patents are invalid;
14 D. Enter judgment that Plaintiffs’ products do not infringe, directly or indirectly,
15 the ’665 or ’666 Patents;
16 E. Enter judgment that Five Star’s products are not entitled to trade dress
17 protection;
18 F. Enter judgment that Plaintiffs’ products do not infringe any trade dress that
19 might be owned by Five Star;
20 G. Enter judgment that Plaintiffs do not violate California unfair competition
21 law;
22 H. An order awarding Ready Pac and D6 their costs and expenses;
23 I. That the Court deem this an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and award
24 Ready Pac and D6 their costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees; and
25 J. That the Court award Ready Pac and D6 any and all other and further relief
26 that the Court deems just and proper.
27
28
17 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT;
CASE NO. 20-CV-667
Case 5:20-cv-00667 Document 1 Filed 01/29/20 Page 20 of 21

1 JURY TRIAL DEMANDS


2 Ready Pac respectfully demands a trial by jury on all claims and issues so
3 triable under Fed. R. Civ. P. 38.
4 D6 respectfully demands a trial by jury on all claims and issues so triable
5 under Fed. R. Civ. P. 38.
6
7 Dated: January 29, 2020 Respectfully submitted,
8
/s/ Andrew J. Gray IV
9 Andrew J. Gray IV
10 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
Andrew J. Gray IV (CA Bar No. 202137)
11 Ehsun Forghany (CA Bar No. 302984)
Marinna Radloff (CA Bar No. 324156)
12 andrew.gray@morganlewis.com
ehsun.forghany@morganlewis.com
13 marinna.radloff@morganlewis.com
1400 Page Mill Road
14 Palo Alto, CA 94304-1124
Tel: +1.650.843.4000
15 Fax: +1.650.843.4001
16 Scott D. Sherwin (to be admitted pro hac vice)
Michael T. Sikora (to be admitted pro hac vice)
17 scott.sherwin@morganlewis.com
michael.sikora@morganlewis.com
18 77 W. Wacker Drive, Ste. 500
Chicago, IL 60601-5094
19 Tel: +1.312.324.1000
Fax: +1.312.324.1001
20
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Ready Pac Foods, Inc.,
21 and Ready Pac Product, Inc.
22
/s/ Thomas A. Woods
23 Thomas A. Woods
24 STOEL RIVES LLP
Thomas A. Woods (CA Bar No. 210050)
25 thomas.woods@stoel.com
500 Capitol Mall, Suite 1600
26 Sacramento, CA 95814
Tel: 916.447.0700
27 Fax: 916.447.4781
28
18 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT;
CASE NO. 20-CV-667
Case 5:20-cv-00667 Document 1 Filed 01/29/20 Page 21 of 21

1 Brad S. Daniels (to be admitted pro hac vice)


Nathan C. Brunette (to be admitted pro hac vice)
2 brad.daniels@stoel.com
nathan.brunette@stoel.com
3 760 SW Ninth Ave., Suite 3000
Portland, OR 97205
4 Tel: 503.224.3380
Fax: 503.220.2480
5
Attorneys for Plaintiff D6 Inc.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
19 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT;
CASE NO. 20-CV-667
Case 5:20-cv-00667 Document 1-1 Filed 01/29/20 Page 1 of 10

Exhibit A
Case 5:20-cv-00667 Document 1-1 Filed 01/29/20 Page 2 of 10
111111111111111111111111111111!!!,11
8!111111111111111111111
USOOD698665S

(12) United States Design Patent (10) Date


(12) PatentofNo.:
Patent No.: US D698,665
US D698,665 SS
4, 2014
Sifuentes et al. (45) Date of Patent:
(45) ** Feb.
Feb. 4, 2014
(54) TRAY 4,807,776 A * 2/1989 Cortopassi................. 220/23.83
Cortopassi 220, 23.83
D444,058 S * 6/2001 Hampshire et a1. al. D9,761
D9/761
(71) TY
Applicants:Direct Pack, Inc., Sun Valley, CA (US); D513,979 S * 1/2006
1/2006 Snedden et al. ............... D9/425
(71) Applicants pist
Five Inc., Fai
Star Gourmet CA (US);
Foods, Inc., D514,931 S * 2/2006 Snedden et al. ............... D9/425
D514,931 S * 2/2006 Snedden et al. D9/425
Ive Star yourmet Foods, Inc.,
Ontario, CA (US)
D517.405
D517,405 SS ** 3/2006
3/2006 Snedden et
Snedden al. ............... D9/425
et al. D9/425
Ontario, CA (US) D551,091 S * 9/2007 Shahsavarani ..... D9,761
D9/761
D597,379 S * 8/2009 Changpan ... D7/542
(72) Inventors: Gandhi B. Sifuentes, West Covina, CA D607,284
D607,284 SS ** 1/2010
1/2010 Ho
Ho ................. D7/629
D7/629
(US); Craig R. Snedden, Culver City, D628,478
D628,478 SS *: 12/2010
12/2010 Snedden
Snedden et et al.
al. ... ... D9/431
D9/431
D628,479 S * 12/2010 Snedden et al. D9/431
CA (US);s Tal Shoshan,s Alta Loma,s CA D628,479
D632,170
SS *
* 12/2010
2/2011
Snedden et al.
Lawrence et al. ..
............... D9/431
... D9/425
D9.425
(US)
(US) D640,129 S * 6/2011
6/2011 Sifuentes et al. ...... ... D9/425 D9.425
D640,544 S * 6/2011
6/2011 Sifuentes et al. ...... ... D9/425 D9.425
(73) Assignees: Direct Pack, Inc., Sun Valley, CA (US); D642,484
D642,484 SS ** 8/2011
8/2011 Birchmeier etet al.
Birchmeier al. ........... D9/760
D9/760
Five Star Gourmet Foods, Inc., D642,937 S * 8/2011 Birchmeier et al. D9/760
Five Star Gourmet Foods, Inc.,
Ontario, CA (US)
RES : .38
D646,969 S * 10/2011 Sicial rR22
Snedden
CCCC et Cal.al. ....... D9/431
Ontario, CA (US) D646,984
D646,984 SS ** 10/2011
10/2011 Moore et al.
Moore al. ....... D9,737
D9/737
ck D660,147 S * 5/2012 Snedden et al. ... D9/435
D9? 435
(**) Term: 14
(**) Term: 14 Years
Years D665,663 S * 8/2012 Krupa ................ ... D9/428
D9? 428
D688,126 S * 8/2013 Snedden et al. ............... D9/435
(21) No. 29/438,978
Appl. No.: D688,941
D688,941 SS ** 9/2013
9/2013 Sifuentes et
Sifuentes et al.
al. .............. D9/432
D9,432
*k cited
. by examiner
(22)
(22) Filed:
Filed: Dec. 5, 2012
Dec. cited by examiner
(51) LOC
LOC (10) Cl. ................................................ O9-03
09-03 Primary Examiner -— Mark Goodwin
(52)
(52) U.S. Cl.
U.S. Cl. 74) Attorney,
(74) ey, Agent,
Ag Firm -— Frost Brown Todd LLC
or Firm
USPC ............................... D9/761; D9/425; D9/431
(58)
(58) Field
Field of
of Classification
Classification Search Search (57) CLAM
CLAIM
USPC
USPC .......... D9/414,
D9/414, 419, 424, 425, 430, 431, 432, The ornamental design for a tray, as shown and described.
D9/435, 761;
D9/435, 761; D7/538,549,
D7/538, 549, 550.1, 550.1,
D7/601-603, 605, 605, 629; 229/105,
229/105,117.09,117.09, DESCRIPTION
DESCRIPTION
229/117.26,
229/117.26, 189, 406, 407,902,905,
189,406, 407, 902, 905,
229/915.1;
229/915.1: 220/23.4, 23.6, 266, 281,
220/23.4, 23.6, 266, 315,
281,315, FIG. 11 is a top perspective view of of a tray, showing our new
220/318,
220/318, 500,500, 659,
659, 669,
669, 674,
674, 675,
675, 696, 752,
696, 752, design;
design;
220/760, 790, 793, DIG. 12,
220/760, 790, 793, DIG. 12, FOR. 117; FOR. 117; FIG. 2 is a bottom perspective view thereof;
206/508, 557, 499
See application file
2O67508, 557, 499 FIG. 3 is a front elevation view thereof;
See application file for complete search
for complete search history.
history. FIG. 4 isis aa rear
FIG. rear elevation view
view thereof;
thereof;
FIG.
FIG. 55 isis aa left
left elevation view
view thereof;
thereof;
(56) References Cited FIG.
FIG. 66 isis aa right
right elevation
elevation view
view thereof;
thereof;
U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS FIG.
FIG. 7 is a top plan view thereof; and,
7 is a top plan view thereof; and,
FIG.
FIG. 88 isis aa bottom
bottom plan
plan view
view thereof.
thereof.
3,070,275
3,070,275 A ** 12/1962
12, 1962 Bostrom
Bostrom ........................ 229/4.5
229.45
D292.887
D292,887 SS ** 11/1987
1 1/1987 Schouten
Schouten ....................... D9/424
D9,424 1
1 Claim, 8 Drawing
Drawing Sheets
Case 5:20-cv-00667 Document 1-1 Filed 01/29/20 Page 3 of 10

U.S. Patent
Patent Feb. 4, 2014
Feb. 1 of 8
Sheet 1 US D698,665 S

N--
.
0)
Case 5:20-cv-00667 Document 1-1 Filed 01/29/20 Page 4 of 10

U.S. Patent
Patent Feb.
Feb. 4, 2014 Sheet 2 of 8 US D698,665 S

NI
.CD
Li_
Case 5:20-cv-00667 Document 1-1 Filed 01/29/20 Page 5 of 10

U.S. Patent
Patent Feb.
Feb. 4, 2014 Sheet 3 of 8 US D698,665 S

T-MImBP NO
.0)
LL.
Case 5:20-cv-00667 Document 1-1 Filed 01/29/20 Page 6 of 10

U.S. Patent
Patent Feb.
Feb. 4, 2014 Sheet 4 of 8 US D698,665 S

t-niIm)
-
|
6
·
†7
Case 5:20-cv-00667 Document 1-1 Filed 01/29/20 Page 7 of 10

U.S. Patent
Patent Feb.
Feb. 4, 2014 Sheet 5 of 8 US D698,665 S

/ 7/ 7
Case 5:20-cv-00667 Document 1-1 Filed 01/29/20 Page 8 of 10

U.S. Patent Feb. 4, 2014 Sheet 6 of 8 US D698,665 S


Case 5:20-cv-00667 Document 1-1 Filed 01/29/20 Page 9 of 10

U.S. Patent
Patent Feb. 4, 2014 Sheet 7 of 8 US D698,665 S
Case 5:20-cv-00667 Document 1-1 Filed 01/29/20 Page 10 of 10

U.S. Patent
Patent Feb. 4, 2014 Sheet 8 of 8 US D698,665 S

0)
LT
Case 5:20-cv-00667 Document 1-2 Filed 01/29/20 Page 1 of 11

Exhibit B
Case 5:20-cv-00667 Document 1-2 Filed 01/29/20 Page 2 of 11
I11111
11111111
III
11111
111111
,11I1,1,!,11
8!1611111
11111
1111111
11111111111
USOOD698666S

(12) United States Design Patent (10) Date


(12) PatentofNo.:
Patent No.: US D698,666 S
US D698,666 S
Sifuentes et al. (45) Date of Patent:
(45) Feb. 4, 2014
** Feb.

(54) ANDTRAY
BOWL AND UNITASSEMBLY
TRAY UNIT ASSEMBLY 4,807,776
4,807,776 A
A ** 2/1989
2/1989 Cortopassi
Cortopassi................. 220/23.83
220, 23.83
D444,058 S * 6/2001 Hampshire et a1. al. D9,761
D9/761
TY D513,979 S * 1/2006
1/2006 Snedden et al. ............... D9/425
(71)
(71) Applicants:Direct
Applicants: Direct Pack,
Pack, Inc., Sun Valley,
Inc., Sun Valley, CA
CA (US);
(US); D514,931
D514,931 S
S ** 2/2006
2/2006 Snedden et
Snedden al. ... ... D9/425
et al. D9.425
Five Star Gourmet
Five Star Gourmet Foods,
Foods, Inc.,
Inc., D517.405
D517,405 S * 3/2006 Snedden et al. ............... D9/425
Ontario, CA (US) D551,091
D551,091 S
S ** 9/2007
9/2007 Shahsavarani .....
Shahsavarani D9,761
D9/761
D597,379 S * 8/2009 Changpan ... D7/542
(72) D607,284 S * 1/2010
1/2010 Ho ................. D7/629
(72) Inventors:
Inventors: Gandhi
Gandhi B. Sifuentes, West Covina, CA
B. Sifuentes, West Covina, CA
(US); Craig R. Snedden, Culver City,
D628,478 S * 12/2010 Snedden et al. ...
D628,478 S * 12/2010 Snedden et al. ... D9/431
D9/431
(US); Craig R. Snedden, Culver City, D628,479
D628,479 S
S ** 12/2010
12/2010 Snedden et
Snedden al. ............... D9/431
et al. D9/431
CA (US); Tal
CA (US); Tal Shoshan,
Shoshan, Alta
Alta Loma, CA
Loma, CA D632,170 S * 2/2011 Lawrence et al. .............. D9/425
(US) D640,129 S * 6/2011
6/2011 Sifuentes et al. ...... ... D9/425 D9.425
D640,544 S * 6/2011
6/2011 Sifuentes et al. ...... ... D9/425 D9.425
(73) TY D642,484 S * 8/2011 Birchmeier et al. ........... D9/760
(73) Assignees:
Assignees: Direct
El
Five
Pack, Inc., Sun Valley, CA (US);
Inc., Fai,
Star Gourmet CA (US);
Foods, Inc., D642,937 S * 8/2011 Birchmeier et al. ........... D9/760
D642,937 S * 8/2011 Birchmeier et al. D9/760
Ive Star yourmet Foods, Inc.,
Ontario,
D646,969 S * 10/2011
10/2011 Snedden et al. ....... ... D9/431
Ontario, CA (US)
CA (US) D646,984 S * 10/2011
10/2011 Moore et al. ....... D9,737
D9/737
D660,147 S * 5/2012 Snedden et al. ... D9/435
D9? 435
(**)
(**) Term: 14 Years D665,663
D665,663 S
S ** 8/2012
8/2012 Krupa
Krupa ................ ... D9/428
D9? 428
D688,126 S * 8/2013 Snedden et al. ............... D9/435
(21)
(21) Appl No.:
Appl. No. 29/438,980
29/438.98O D688,941
D688,941 S
S ** 9/2013
9/2013 Sifuentes
Sifuentes etet al.
al. .............. D9/432
D9,432
y x- - - 9

** cited
cited by
by examiner
(22)
(22) Filed:
Filed: Dec.
Dec. 5, 2012
2012
(51) LOC (10) Cl. ................................................ O9-03
09-03 Primary
Primary Examiner
Examiner -— Mark
Mark Goodwin
Goodwin
(52) U.S. Cl. (74) Attorney,
(74) Attorney, Agent,
Agent, or
or Firm
Firm -— Frost
Frost Brown
Brown Todd
Todd LLC
LLC
USPC ............................... D9/761; D9/425; D9/431
(57) CLAIM
(58)
(58) Field of
Field of Classification
Classification Search (57)
The
CLAIMand tray unit assembly, as
USPC .......... D9/414,
USPC D9/414, 419, 419, 424,
424, 425,
425, 430,
430, 431,
431, 432,
432, The ornamental
ornamental design
design for
for aa bowl
bowl and tray unit assembly, as
shown and described.
D7/601-603, 605,
50,435,761. D7538.540.5so
D9/435, 761; D7/538, 549, 550.1,
629; 229/105, 117.09,
shown and described.
D7/601-603, 605, 629; 229/105,117.09, DESCRIPTION
DESCRIPTION
229/117.26,
229/117.26, 189, 406, 407,902,905,
189,406, 407, 902, 905,
229/915.1;
229/915.1: 220/23.4,
220/23.4, 23.6,
23.6, 266,
266, 281, 315,
281,315, FIG. 11 is a top perspective view of of a bowl and tray unit
220/318, 500, 659, 669, 674, 675,
220/318, 500, 659, 669, 674, 675, 696, 752, 696, 752, assembly, showing
assembly, showing ourour new
new design;
design;
220/760,
220/760, 790, 790, 793, DIG. 12,
793, DIG. 12, FOR.
FOR. 117;
117; FIG. 2 is a bottom perspective view thereof;
206/508, 557, 499
See application file
2O67508, 557, 499 FIG. 3 is a front elevation view thereof;
See application file for complete search
for complete search history.
history. FIG. 44 isis aa rear
FIG. rear elevation view thereof;
elevation view thereof.
FIG.
FIG. 55 isis aa left
left elevation view
view thereof;
thereof;
(56) References Cited
FIG.
FIG. 66 isis aa right
right elevation
elevation view
view thereof;
thereof;
U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS FIG.
FIG. 77 is
is aa top
top plan
plan view
view thereof;
thereof; and,
and,
FIG.
FIG. 88 isis aa bottom
bottom plan
plan view
view thereof.
thereof.
3,070,275
3,070,275 A ** 12/1962
12, 1962 Bostrom
Bostrom ........................ 229/4.5
229.45
D292.887
D292,887 S ** 11/1987
1 1/1987 Schouten ....................... D9/424
D9,424 1
1 Claim, 8 Drawing
Drawing Sheets

(JILA2
Case 5:20-cv-00667 Document 1-2 Filed 01/29/20 Page 3 of 11

U.S. Patent
Patent Feb. 4, 2014 1 of 8
Sheet 1 US D698,666
D698,666SS

Fig. 1
Case 5:20-cv-00667 Document 1-2 Filed 01/29/20 Page 4 of 11

U.S. Patent
Patent Feb. 4, 2014 Sheet 2 of 8 US D698,666
D698,666SS

Fig.2
Case 5:20-cv-00667 Document 1-2 Filed 01/29/20 Page 5 of 11

U.S. Patent
Patent Feb.
Feb. 4, 2014 Sheet 3 of 8 US D698,666
US D698,666SS

t-m)?
TIS-TIA,
Case 5:20-cv-00667 Document 1-2 Filed 01/29/20 Page 6 of 11

U.S. Patent
Patent Feb.
Feb. 4, 2014 Sheet 4 of 8 US D698,666
D698,666SS

E-m>S),I~TL
Case 5:20-cv-00667 Document 1-2 Filed 01/29/20 Page 7 of 11

U.S. Patent Feb.


Feb. 4, 2014
2014 Sheet 5 of 8 US D698,666 S

in
.0)
LL_
Case 5:20-cv-00667 Document 1-2 Filed 01/29/20 Page 8 of 11

U.S. Patent Feb.


Feb. 4, 2014 Sheet 6 of
of 8 US D698,666 S

CD
0)
L.L.
Case 5:20-cv-00667 Document 1-2 Filed 01/29/20 Page 9 of 11

U.S. Patent
Patent Feb.
Feb. 4, 2014 Sheet 7 of 8 US D698,666
US D698,666SS

._
Case 5:20-cv-00667 Document 1-2 Filed 01/29/20 Page 10 of 11

U.S. Patent
Patent Feb. 4, 2014
Feb. Sheet 8 of 8 US D698,666 S

.
Case 5:20-cv-00667 Document 1-2 Filed 01/29/20 Page 11 of 11

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE


CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION
NO.
PATENT NO. :: D698,666 S Page 11 of
of 11
APPLICATION NO.
APPLICATIONNO. :: 29/438980
29/438.980
DATED
DATED :: February
February 4, 2014
INVENTOR(S) :: Shoshan et al.

ItIt is
is certified that error
certified that appears in
error appears the above-identified
in the above-identified patent
patent and that said
and that said Letters
Letters Patent
Patent isis hereby
hereby corrected
corrected as
as shown
shown below:
below:

Page, Item
Title Page, Item (12)
(12) "Sifuentes"
"Sifuentes' should
should read
read ---- Shoshan, etet al. --.
--.
Title Page, Item
Title Page, Item (72)
(72) Inventor
Inventor isis corrected
corrected to
to read:
read:
--
-- Tal Shoshan, Alta
Alta Loma
Loma (CA);
(CA);
Gandhi B.
Gandhi B. Sifuentes, West Convina (CA) (CA) --.

Signed and Sealed this


Twenty-seventh Day of October, 2015

74-4-04- 2% 4 Michelle K.
K. Lee
Director
Director of
of the
the United
United States
States Patent
Patent and
and Trademark
Trademark Office
Office
Case 5:20-cv-00667 Document 1-3 Filed 01/29/20 Page 1 of 42

Exhibit C
Case 5:20-cv-00667
Case 5:18-cv-02436-DDP-KK Document
Document 54-21-3Filed
Filed 01/29/20Page
01/17/20 Page
1 of2 41
of 42Page ID #:373

1 Christopher W. Arledge (Bar No. 200767)


Email: carledge@onellp.com
2 ONE LLP
4000 MacArthur Boulevard
3 East Tower, Suite 500
Newport Beach, CA 92660
4 Telephone: (949) 502-2870
Facsimile: (949) 258-5081
5
Christopher Lee (Bar No. 274639)
6 Email: clee@onellp.com
ONE LLP
7 9301 Wilshire Blvd.
Penthouse Suite
8 Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (310) 866-5157
9 Facsimile: (310) 943-2085
10 Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant,
FIVE STAR GOURMET FOODS, INC.
11
12
13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
14 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
15
16 FIVE STAR GOURMET FOODS, Case No. 5:18-cv-2436-DDP-KK
INC., a California corporation, Hon. Dean D. Pregerson
17
18 Plaintiff, SECOND AMENDED
vs. COMPLAINT FOR:
19
(1) PATENT INFRINGEMENT
20 READY PAC FOODS, INC., (35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq.);
a Delaware corporation, READY PAC (2) TRADE DRESS
21
PRODUCE, INC., a California INFRINGEMENT (15 U.S.C. §
22 corporation, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, 1051, et seq.); AND
(3) VIOLATION OF UNFAIR
23
Defendants. COMPETITION LAW (Cal.
24 Bus & Prof. Code § 17200, et
seq.)
25
26 AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
27
28

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT


Case 5:20-cv-00667
Case 5:18-cv-02436-DDP-KK Document
Document 54-21-3Filed
Filed 01/29/20Page
01/17/20 Page
2 of3 41
of 42Page ID #:374

1 For its Second Amended Complaint against Defendants Ready Pac Foods,
2 Inc. and Ready Pac Produce, Inc., Plaintiff Five Star Gourmet Foods, Inc. alleges as
3 follow:
4 INTRODUCTION
5 1. Plaintiff Five Star Gourmet Foods, Inc. (“Five Star”) has prepared and
6 distributed fresh, healthy, high-quality, and innovative food products to consumers,
7 retailers, and schoolchildren from its modest headquarters in Ontario, California for
8 nearly 20 years. As a pioneer in the flourishing premade health food space, Five
9 Star’s cutting-edge product innovations are mirrored by equally innovative and
10 recognizable packaging, which has helped build a nationwide following in the local
11 brand.
12 2. Defendants Ready Pac Foods, Inc. and Ready Pac Produce, Inc.
13 (together, “Ready Pac” or “Defendants”) are part of an international conglomerate in
14 the retail food space, Bonduelle. Defendants have tried time and again to overtake
15 Five Star’s market share—especially in healthy, premade salads—to no avail.
16 Desperate to corner this market and squeeze out a smaller competitor, Defendants
17 have replicated not only Five Star’s patent-protected packaging, but also its
18 branding, in a thinly-veiled effort to deceive consumers into buying Defendants’
19 products instead of Five Star’s products.
20 3. Specifically, Defendants produce and distribute premade salads
21 throughout the United States, including California, that infringe Five Star’s duly-
22 issued rights in U.S. Patent No. D769,732 S for “Container and Overwrap
23 Assembly” (the “‘732 Patent”), U.S. Patent No. D698,665 for “ornamental design
24 for a tray” (the “’665 Patent”) and U.S. Patent No. D698,666 for “Bowl and Tray
25 Assembly Unit” (the “’666 Patent”), and Five Star’s established trade dress rights in
26 the image of its “Simply Fresh” line of premium premade salads.
27 4. Defendants’ products are neither manufactured nor authorized by Five
28 Star, nor are Defendants connected to or affiliated with Five Star in any way. This
2
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 5:20-cv-00667
Case 5:18-cv-02436-DDP-KK Document
Document 54-21-3Filed
Filed 01/29/20Page
01/17/20 Page
3 of4 41
of 42Page ID #:375

1 action seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages to remedy the harm to Five Star
2 caused by Defendants’ infringement of Five Star’s patent and trade dress rights, and
3 the conduct calculated to do so, which constitutes unfair competition.
4 5. This is an action in law and in equity for patent infringement, trade
5 dress infringement, and unfair competition, arising under the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. §
6 1, et seq., the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051, et seq., and California’s Unfair
7 Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq., respectively.
8 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
9 6. This case arises under the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq., the
10 Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051, et seq., and Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.
11 This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 39 and 28 U.S.C.
12 § 1331, 1367(a) and 1338(a). The commercial activities of all parties, as well as
13 each separately, affect commerce that may lawfully be regulated by Congress in
14 accordance with the Lanham Act under 15 U.S.C. § 1127.
15 7. Venue is proper in the Central District of California under 28 U.S.C. §
16 1391(b)(2) because Five Star is headquartered in the District, Defendants and their
17 parent organization(s) transact business in this District, and the acts and omissions
18 giving rise to Five Star’s claims occurred in this District.
19 PARTIES
20 8. Plaintiff Five Star Gourmet Foods, Inc. is a California corporation with
21 a principal place of business at 3380 East Ebony Street, Ontario, California 91761.
22 9. On information and belief, Defendant Ready Pac Foods, Inc. is a
23 Delaware corporation qualified to do business in California, with a principal place
24 of business at 4401 Foxdale Avenue, Irwindale, California 91706.
25 10. On information and belief, Defendant Ready Pac Produce, Inc. is a
26 California corporation, with a principal place of business at 4401 Foxdale Avenue,
27 Irwindale, California 91706.
28
3
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 5:20-cv-00667
Case 5:18-cv-02436-DDP-KK Document
Document 54-21-3Filed
Filed 01/29/20Page
01/17/20 Page
4 of5 41
of 42Page ID #:376

1 11. On information and belief, Defendants Ready Pac Foods, Inc. and
2 Ready Pac Produce, Inc. are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Bonduelle, a company
3 founded in France. Five Star further alleges on information and belief that
4 Bonduelle owns several food brands around the world and conducts business in the
5 United States, including in California, through Defendants as “Bonduelle Fresh
6 Americas,” a company based out of Québec, Canada.
7 12. Does 1-10, inclusive, are sued herein under fictitious names, as their
8 true names and capacities are unknown to Five Star at this time. When their true
9 names and capacities are ascertained, Five Star will amend this Complaint by
10 inserting their true names and capacities herein. Five Star is informed and believes,
11 and thereon alleges, that each of the fictitiously named Defendants is responsible in
12 some manner for the acts herein alleged, and that Five Star’s damages, as herein
13 alleged, were proximately caused by the Doe Defendants.
14 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
15 FIVE STAR’S PREMIUM SALAD PRODUCTS AND TRADE DRESS
16 13. Since 1998, Five Star has prepared and distributed fresh, healthy, and
17 innovative food products through retail, school, and food service channels. The
18 public recognizes Five Star’s fresh products due to its unique trade dress and its
19 patented packaging. Five Star carefully prepares and assembles fresh ingredients
20 before they are refrigerated or quick-frozen, which allows Five Star’s consumers to
21 enjoy a convenient finished product that tastes fresh and just-prepared. Five Star’s
22 products are sold at food retailers nationwide, including grocery stores, health food
23 stores, membership-only warehouse clubs, and discount department stores in the
24 state of California.
25 14. One of Five Star’s most popular products is a well-established line of
26 premium salads known under the trademarked names “Simply Fresh Salads” and
27 “Simply Fresh Organic.” These products are also an integral part of Five Star’s
28 expanding Simply Fresh Line of products, including “Simply Fresh Kitchen,”
4
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 5:20-cv-00667
Case 5:18-cv-02436-DDP-KK Document
Document 54-21-3Filed
Filed 01/29/20Page
01/17/20 Page
5 of6 41
of 42Page ID #:377

1 “Simply Fresh Snacks,” “Simply Fresh Soups,” Simply Fresh Sides,” “Simply Fresh
2 Solutions,” and “Simply Fresh 4 Kids” (collectively, the “Simply Fresh Line”).
3 Five Star’s Simply Fresh Line fills an increasing market desire in recent years for
4 fresh ingredients grown without the use of pesticides, growth stimulants, or
5 antibiotics.
6 15. Five Star’s Simply Fresh Line has been a longtime and successful
7 fixture at its various retailers, and Five Star worked hard to create an established
8 look for the line that reflects Five Star’s unique processes and brand. This hard
9 work has garnered a loyal consumer following in Five Star’s Simply Fresh Line.
10 16. Five Star’s Simply Fresh Line has been recognizable in the marketplace
11 due to the trade dress it has used consistently since at least 2014. The unique layout
12 of Five Star’s salad products is known to consumers and has played an important
13 part in Five Star’s success.
14 17. The standard in the industry is to use a round bowl for salad kits.
15 Sometimes retailer specifications require the use of a round bowl. But where Five
16 Star is free to use its preferred packaging, Five Star’s salad products come in
17 squared plastic bowls with rounded corners. The bowls taper such that the top of
18 each bowl has a larger perimeter than does the bottom. On top of the bowls sit clear
19 plastic tray inserts that have compartments for ingredients and four openings (or
20 finger inserts), one near each corner. Five Star has used this packaging since 2014
21 and the packaging has become well known to consumers and expected with virtually
22 all Simply Fresh products.
Simply
23 Fresh.
SALADS
24
25
26
27
28
5
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 5:20-cv-00667
Case 5:18-cv-02436-DDP-KK Document
Document 54-21-3Filed
Filed 01/29/20Page
01/17/20 Page
6 of7 41
of 42Page ID #:378

1 FIVE STAR’S ‘655 AND ‘666 PATENTS


2 18. On December 5, 2012, Five Star filed for patents on the ornamental
3 design for tray and for a bowl and tray assembly unit. On February 4, 2014, the
4 U.S. Patent and Trademark Office duly, properly, and legally issued two patents,
5 U.S. Patent No. D698,655 and U.S. Patent No. D698,666. Full copies of the ‘655
6 and ‘666 Patents are attached to this Complaint as Exhibits A and B, respectively.
7 Depictions of the protected designs are shown below:
8
9
10
11
12
13 111111•111111MIIIIM IN IIII i ii
14
15
‘\‘_!11 4_1
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 5:20-cv-00667
Case 5:18-cv-02436-DDP-KK Document
Document 54-21-3Filed
Filed 01/29/20Page
01/17/20 Page
7 of8 41
of 42Page ID #:379

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 1
10
11
12
13
14 \_.

15 1

16 °
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 5:18-cv-0Case 5:20-cv-00667
2436-DD Document
P-KK Documen t 54-2 1-3 Filed
Filed 01/29/20
01/17/20 Page
Page 8 of941 Page ID #:380
of 42

1 19. With respect to its salad multi-packs, Five Star joins two bowls – one
2 stacked on top of the other – with a vertical sleeve that wraps around both bowls and
3 acts simultaneously as a packaging overwrap and label. The sleeve contains the
4 well-established “Simply Fresh” logo at the top of the sleeve—and for its Organic
5 products, the word “Organic” immediately below—in readily identifiable fonts and
6 styles used for the Simply Fresh Line. Located below the logo is the product name,
7 comprised of the salad’s main ingredients, with a photographic depiction of the
8 ingredients. At the bottom is a more detailed listing of the organic ingredients
9 contained in the salad and additional details about the product, such as “chicken
10 raised without antibiotics” and “non-GMO.” On or about the bottom of the sleeve is
11 a row of four logos showing icons of the various social media platforms Five Star is
12 active on, inviting consumers to “follow us,” and there is a statement regarding the
13 recyclability of the sleeve and salad container as well as a statement about the
14 packaging materials being recycled from a certain number of plastic bottles. Below
15 are true and correct images of a Five Star Simply Fresh Organic salad:
16
17
18
19
20
tZuin{IA, Criutherry
21 :Lgii Pep ILI Salad
el Pork kipslimo

22
23
Quinoat. Cranberry
24 andPepita Salad

25
26
27
28
8
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 5:20-cv-00667
Case 5:18-cv-02436-DDP-KK Document
Document 54-21-3Filed
Filed 01/29/20Page
01/17/20 Page 1041
9 of of 42
Page ID #:381

1 FIVE STAR’S ‘732 PATENT


2 20. On December 23, 2014, Five Star filed for a patent on the ornamental
3 design for a container and overwrap assembly used to sell two premade salads in
4 one package, i.e., two salad bowls held together using a cardboard overwrap, or
5 “sleeve.” On October 25, 2016, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office duly,
6 properly, and legally issued U.S. Patent No. D769,732, entitled “Container and
7 Overwrap Assembly,” with Five Star as the assignee. A full copy of the ‘732 Patent
8 is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit C, and below is a depiction of the protected
9 design:
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 21. Since at least 2014 and continuing to date, in some retailers, two of
17 Five Star’s Simply Fresh salads are sold in one unified package using Five Star’s
18 patented ornamental overwrap and stacked bowl assembly design.
19 DEFENDANTS’ SALES OF INFRINGING SALAD PRODUCTS
20 22. For years, Defendants have tried—and failed—to replicate Five Star’s
21 success in the premium premade salad space by repeatedly producing packaging that
22 would confuse consumers and infringe Five Star’s various products and protected
23 intellectual property. Each and every packaging innovation by Five Star in recent
24 years has been met by Defendants’ transparent attempts to duplicate those
25 innovations, confuse customers, and exploit the goodwill Five Star has gained with
26 its customers.
27 23. On information and belief, in approximately October 2018, in a blatant
28 attempt to mimic Five Star’s success and revive their own sales, Defendants began
9
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 5:18-cv-0
Case 5:20-cv-00667
2436-DDP Document
-KK Documen t 54-21-3Filed
Filed 01/29/20Page
01/17/20 Page
1011
of of
4142Page ID #:382

1 to produce, make, use, offer for sale, sell, and/or import a line of premade salads
2 called “Bistro Organic” that utilized a virtually identical cardboard overwrap to that
3 of Five Star’s Simply Fresh Line, and particularly the organic varieties of Five
4 Star’s line. Using an extremely similar narrow, vertical cardboard sleeve and
5 overall trade dress design, Defendants’ company and brand identifying information
6 is at the top of the sleeve, with the term “Organic” displayed immediately below—
7 all of which employ a font scheme nearly identical to Five Star’s sleeve. Further,
8 like Five Star’s sleeve, the specific product name is displayed toward the center
9 together with photographic depictions of the salad ingredients. The bottom of the
10 sleeve, like Five Star’s, contains a more detailed listing of the organic ingredients
11 contained in the salad as well as other details, like “chicken raised without
12 antibiotics” and “non-GMO.” Further to the bottom of the sleeve, like Five Star’s
13 sleeve, there is a “Follow Us” section with the same four social media icons that
14 Five Star depicts, and a statement about recyclability and the product container
15 being made from a certain number of recycled plastic bottles. Below is a photo
16 comparison of two of Five Star’s and Defendants’ respective products:
17
18
19 Simply se"zampt
Presh
20 Simply
21
Quinea, Cranberry
festi
22 jr;ij'sep Eta. SaisAl

23
rrmo %WIOMEN

4
Mole
24
25 Quirtoa.. Cranberry
AU,
and Pepita Salad
26
27
28
10
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 5:20-cv-00667
Case 5:18-cv-02436-DDP-KK Document
Document 54-21-3Filed
Filed 01/29/20Page
01/17/20 Page
11 12 of 42Page ID #:383
of 41

1
2
3
4
5
6 ,pria0111411311.
)

7 - DELUXE --
SANTA FE SlYLE SALAD
8 SAKI° 411ill"ft LAD

9
10
11 24. Likewise, on information and belief, beginning in November 2019,
12 Defendants deviated from using the rounded bowl they (and others in the industry)
13 have traditionally used and, added a virtually identical squared tray and bowl set, the
14 entire impression of which is designed to hijack the goodwill that Five Star has
15 earned with consumers. A comparison of Five Star’s and Ready Pac’s products is
16 shown below:
17
Simply
18 Fresh
19 SALADS
CHICKEN K.
20 Santa Fe Style
Salad with Chicken
GUACAMOLE SALAD
CHIPOTLE KONtY
ainaigaetie,

21
22
E°M

23 A o-Sun-Dried Tomato
Chipotle Dressing
rHFV.ffEFEE:74:,,
24 Olden Raised
Without Antibiotics
KEEP REFRIGERATED NET WT 6.902 (196g)

25
26 25. On information and belief, Defendants produce and distribute premade
27 snacks, salads, and meals sold at retailers internationally, some of which are United
28 States retailers that also sell Five Star’s products.
11
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 5:20-cv-00667
Case 5:18-cv-02436-DDP-KK Document
Document 54-21-3Filed
Filed 01/29/20Page
01/17/20 Page
12 13 of 42Page ID #:384
of 41

1 26. The stark similarity between Five Star’s and Defendants’ salads is
2 compounded by Defendants’ use of Five Star’s patented overwrap design as
3 depicted in the ‘732 Patent, and the use of the bowls and trays as depicted in the
4 ‘665 Patent and ‘666 Patents, as well as the fact that Five Star’s and Defendants’
5 products are often displayed for purchase in the same manner, in the same
6 refrigerated display case, side-by-side.
7 27. Defendants’ new design is substantially different from their old design,
8 shown here:
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17 Defendants’ move from its old packaging – which was perfectly functional – to its
18 new packaging is a transparent attempt to copy Five Star’s design and capitalize on
19 Five Star’s goodwill.
20 28. Defendants’ infringing premade salads, including but not limited to its
21 Bistro Organic salad line, which Defendants produce, make, use, offer for sale, sell,
22 and/or import throughout the United States, are not made or produced by Five Star,
23 nor has Five Star licensed, authorized, sponsored, endorsed, or approved of
24 Defendants’ actions in any way. Five Star has never provided any authorization,
25 license, assignment, or other permission to Defendants to use the ‘732, ‘665, of ‘666
26 Patents or Five Star’s Simply Fresh trade dress. Defendants are not associated with
27 Five Star in any way and are, in fact, Five Star’s direct competitors in the retail salad
28 industry.
12
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 5:20-cv-00667
Case 5:18-cv-02436-DDP-KK Document
Document 54-21-3Filed
Filed 01/29/20Page
01/17/20 Page
13 14 of 42Page ID #:385
of 41

1 29. Defendants’ continued production, sale, offering for sale, importation,


2 and/or distribution of its premade salads, including but not limited to, its Bistro
3 Organic line of salads, as currently packaged and dressed, infringes the ‘732 Patent
4 and Five Star’s trade dress. These infringing actions have resulted in irreparable
5 harm to Five Star’s goodwill and business reputation with its consumers, for which
6 Five Star has no adequate remedy at law.
7 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
8 (Patent Infringement – 35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq.)
9 (Against All Defendants)
10 30. Five Star realleges and incorporates each allegation in Paragraphs 1
11 through 29 above as though fully set forth herein.
12 31. Since at least October 2018, Defendants have produced, made, used,
13 offered for sale, sold, and/or imported, and continue to produce, make, use, offer to
14 sell, sell, and/or import premade salad products that infringe Five Star’s ’732, ‘665’
15 and ‘666 Patents, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
16 32. As a result of Defendants’ infringement of Five Star’s rights in the
17 patents, Five Star has suffered and will continue to suffer damages in an amount to
18 be proved at trial. In addition, Five Star is entitled to recovery of Defendants’
19 profits pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 289.
20 33. Defendants’ continued infringement with full knowledge of the patents
21 and Five Star’s rights therein, at least as of the filing of this lawsuit, is willful
22 because Defendants have been on notice of Five Star’s patent since at least October
23 2018 and have continued to infringe notwithstanding this knowledge.
24 34. Defendants’ willful infringement of Five Star’s rights in the patents
25 warrants an award of treble damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284, and makes this an
26 exceptional case warranting an award of Five Star’s reasonable attorneys’ fees and
27 costs under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
28
13
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 5:20-cv-00667
Case 5:18-cv-02436-DDP-KK Document
Document 54-21-3Filed
Filed 01/29/20Page
01/17/20 Page
14 15 of 42Page ID #:386
of 41

1 35. Defendants’ infringement of the patents has caused irreparable harm to


2 Five Star, and will continue to do so unless enjoined. As a result, Five Star is
3 entitled to injunctive relief pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 283.
4 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
5 (Trade Dress Infringement – 15 U.S.C. § 1051, et seq.)
6 (Against All Defendants)
7 36. Five Star realleges and incorporates each allegation in Paragraphs 1
8 through 35 of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
9 37. As described herein, Five Star’s trade dress is non-functional. For
10 example, the placement of the copy or text on the cardboard sleeve does not serve a
11 utilitarian function. Likewise, although bowls and trays are functional, the specific
12 design of the bowls and trays that has long been used by Five Star, and is now being
13 copied by Ready Pac, is not functional. Alternative designs are available—e.g., the
14 word “organic” could be placed in the lower 1/3 of the vertical cardboard sleeve, the
15 “Simply Fresh” logo could be placed in the center of the vertical cardboard sleeve,
16 and Ready Pac could use rounded bowls and trays with different configurations.
17 Indeed, the best evidence that Ready Pac had alternative designs available to it is the
18 fact that Ready Pac previously used alternative designs on its packaging before
19 moving to a design virtually identical to Five Star’s:
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
14
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 5:20-cv-00667
Case 5:18-cv-02436-DDP-KK Document
Document 54-21-3Filed
Filed 01/29/20Page
01/17/20 Page
15 16 of 42Page ID #:387
of 41

1 38. Simply put, while Five Star’s trade dress incorporates functional
2 elements – the use of a bowl, for example – the aesthetic whole is non-functional,
3 creates a distinctive visual impression, and is thus protectable. The overall
4 appearance of Five Star’s trade dress is also inherently distinctive and/or has a
5 secondary meaning. On information and belief, significant segments of consumers
6 who are likely to purchase Five Star’s products identify this trade dress with Five
7 Star.
8 39. As described herein, consumers are likely to confuse Five Star’s
9 Simply Fresh products with the accused Ready Pac products. For example, since at
10 least October 2018, and continuing to the present, Defendants have sold premade
11 salads under the name “Bistro Organic” with an overall appearance and trade dress
12 design that is, in all material respects, confusingly similar to Five Star’s “Simply
13 Fresh” trade dress and, particularly, Five Star’s Simply Fresh organic varieties,
14 including but not limited to, the placement of distinctive elements and color scheme.
15 Using an extremely similar narrow, vertical cardboard sleeve and overall trade dress
16 design, Defendants’ company and brand identifying information is at the top of the
17 sleeve, with the term “Organic” displayed immediately below—all of which employ
18 a font scheme nearly identical to Five Star’s sleeve. Further, like Five Star’s sleeve,
19 the specific product name is displayed toward the center together with photographic
20 depictions of the salad ingredients. The bottom of the sleeve, like Five Star’s,
21 contains a more detailed listing of the organic ingredients contained in the salad as
22 well as other details, like “chicken raised without antibiotics” and “non-GMO.”
23 Further to the bottom of the sleeve, like Five Star’s sleeve, there is a “Follow Us”
24 section with the same four social media icons that Five Star depicts, and a statement
25 about recyclability and the product container being made from a certain number of
26 recycled plastic bottles.
27 40. Since November 2019, Ready Pac has been selling products that
28 infringe upon Five Star’s trade dress in its tray and bowl designs. As discussed and
15
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Page ID #:388
16 of1741of 42
Case 5:20-cv-00667 Document 1-3 Filed 01/29/20 Page
Case 5:18-cv-02436-DDP-KK Document 54-2 Filed 01/17/20 Page

1 shown in the photographs above, in many of its product offerings, Five Star uses
that the top of
2 squared plastic bowls with rounded corners. The bowls taper such
bowls sit clear
3 each bowl has a larger perimeter than does the bottom. On top of the
openings (or
4 plastic tray inserts that have compartments for ingredients and four
dually rather than
5 finger inserts), one near each corner. When the bowl is sold indivi
sed above and
6 in packs of two, Five Star does not use the cardboard overwrap discus
rap that contains
7 protected by the ‘732 Patent but, instead, uses a clear plastic overw
8 the product name, ingredients, and all other marketing and legally required
shown in the
9 information. Ready Pac is now using a virtually identical design, as
10 comparison photograph below:
11
Simply
12 Fresh_ r
SALADS'
13
CHICKEN IL
Santa Fe Style GUACAMOLE SALAD
14 Salad with Chicken
WITIt
CHROME HONEY
Vanairta

15
16
17 nat &MAW
I ,..EagF,EfFEELF-L
18 0 CITA. aised
VVithootAntRthivtrcs
270
01t0111ES

RUIMEHATED 'TONTO OW%91

19
20 41. Five Star has invested considerable resources in developing its trade
21 dress design and in promoting its products by use of this design.
22 42. The purpose of Five Star’s trade dress design is to identify Five Star as
23 the source of its products and to establish a symbol of quality and goodwill that
24 consumers can trust.
25 43. On information and belief, Defendants intentionally and willfully
26 copied Five Star’s trade dress design in order to cause confusion, unfairly
by
27 appropriate Five Star’s established goodwill, and divert Five Star’s customers
, as a result of
28 means of deception as to the source of Defendants’ products. Indeed
16
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 5:20-cv-00667
Case 5:18-cv-02436-DDP-KK Document
Document 54-21-3Filed
Filed 01/29/20Page
01/17/20 Page
17 18 of 42Page ID #:389
of 41

1 Defendants’ use of a trade dress design that is similar to Five Star’s, actual
2 consumer confusion has, in fact, occurred. Accordingly, it is a virtual certainty that
3 consumers are likely to be confused as to the source of the products they purchase,
4 in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).
5 44. Defendants’ use of a confusingly similar trade dress design has caused,
6 and will continue to cause, Five Star injury in the form of diverted sales and
7 diminution of the selling power of its established trade dress.
8 45. On information and belief, Defendants have derived and received, and
9 will continue to derive and receive, gains, profits, and advantages from Defendants’
10 trade dress infringement in an amount not presently known to Five Star. By reason
11 of Defendants’ actions constituting trade dress infringement, Five Star has been
12 damaged and is entitled to monetary relief in an amount to be determined at trial.
13 46. Unless enjoined, Defendants’ continuing infringement of Five Star’s
14 trade dress is likely to cause Five Star irreparable harm by diverting sales and
15 damaging Five Star’s business reputation and the reputation of Five Star’s Simply
16 Fresh Organic salad line. As a result, Five Star is entitled to injunctive relief
17 pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1116.
18 47. Defendants’ continued infringement with full knowledge Five Star’s
19 trade dress rights, at least as of the filing of this lawsuit, is willful because
20 Defendants have been on notice of the infringing design since at least October 2018
21 and have continued to infringe notwithstanding this knowledge.
22 48. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117, Five Star is entitled to damages for
23 Defendants’ infringing acts, up to three times actual damages as fixed by this Court,
24 and its reasonable attorneys’ fees for the necessity of bringing this claim.
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
17
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 5:20-cv-00667
Case 5:18-cv-02436-DDP-KK Document
Document 54-21-3Filed
Filed 01/29/20Page
01/17/20 Page
18 19 of 42Page ID #:390
of 41

1 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION


2 (Violation of Unfair Competition Law – Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.)
3 (Against All Defendants)
4 49. Five Star realleges and incorporates each allegation in Paragraphs 1
5 through 48 of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
6 50. Defendants’ repeated, systemic, willful, and intentional conduct
7 designed to misappropriate Five Star’s intellectual property and/or the repeated,
8 systemic, willful, and intentional use of infringing trade dress designs, as set forth
9 herein, constitutes an unlawful, unfair, and/or fraudulent business practice in
10 violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.
11 51. Defendants’ business practice is unfair and/or fraudulent because it
12 offends the established public policy of California to protect its consumers—in this
13 case, Five Star’s California consumers—from misleading, deceptive, and confusing
14 products that deprive consumers of the knowledge as to the true origin of the goods
15 purchased. Defendants did so, and continue to do so, by mimicking the design and
16 trade dress of Five Star’s products, and thereby exploit the goodwill and business
17 reputation Five Star has built with its consumers through its recognizable design and
18 trade dress.
19 52. Pursuant to Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 and 17203, Five Star is
20 entitled to an order enjoining Defendants from continuing to carry out the unlawful,
21 unfair, and/or fraudulent business practice described herein.
22 53. Further, as a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ violation of
23 Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, Defendants have been unjustly enriched and must
24 be required to make restitution to Five Star or disgorge their ill-gotten gains
25 pursuant to Cal. Bus. & Prof. § 17203.
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
18
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 5:20-cv-00667
Case 5:18-cv-02436-DDP-KK Document
Document 54-21-3Filed
Filed 01/29/20Page
01/17/20 Page
19 20 of 42Page ID #:391
of 41

1 PRAYER FOR RELIEF


2 WHEREFORE, Five Star prays for judgment against Defendants as follows:
3 A. That Five Star’s ‘732 Patent be deemed valid and willfully infringed by
4 Defendants under 35 U.S.C. § 271;
5 B. For a preliminary and/or permanent injunction restraining Defendants,
6 their officers, agents, servants, employees, directors, representatives, successors-in-
7 interest, parent corporations, subsidiary corporations, affiliated corporations, and all
8 other persons, firms, or entities acting in concert or participating with them, directly
9 or indirectly, from (1) manufacturing, using, marketing, distributing, selling,
10 offering to sell, and importing any product that infringes Five Star’s ‘732, ‘665, or
11 ‘666 Patents, (2) using confusingly similar trade dress on their products, and/or (3)
12 unfairly competing with Five Star in any manner whatsoever, as well as a permanent
13 injunction compelling Defendants to destroy all existing labels, sleeves, overwraps,
14 packaging, or inventory adorned with the infringing trade dress, and to recall
15 products already sold with the infringing trade dress;
16 C. For an award to Five Star of compensatory damages, including but not
17 limited to, profits earned by Defendants through its infringement, Five Star’s lost
18 profits as a result of Defendants’ infringement, and expenses incurred by Five Star
19 in counteracting the confusing effects of Defendants’ use of the infringing trade
20 dress, in an amount according to proof, and that such damages be trebled pursuant to
21 15 U.S.C. § 1117 and/or 35 U.S.C. § 284 as a result of Defendants’ deliberate and
22 willful infringement in conscious disregard of Five Star’s rights;
23 D. For a declaration that this case is exceptional, and in conjunction
24 therewith, an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §
25 285 and/or 15 U.S.C. § 1117;
26 E. For declaration that Defendants have competed unfairly with Five Star
27 under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq., and that Defendants’ actions in doing
28 so be adjudged intentional, willful, and done knowingly;
19
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 5:20-cv-00667
Case 5:18-cv-02436-DDP-KK Document
Document 54-21-3Filed
Filed 01/29/20Page
01/17/20 Page
20 21 of 42Page ID #:392
of 41

1 F. For restitution or disgorgement of profits pursuant to Cal. Bus. & Prof.


2 Code § 17203;
3 G. For pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as allowed by law; and
4 H. For such other and further equitable and legal relief as this Court deems
5 just and proper.
6
7 Dated: January 17, 2020 ONE LLP
8
9 By: /s/ Christopher W. Arledge
Christopher W. Arledge
10
Christopher Lee
11 Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counter-
Defendant, FIVE STAR GOURMET
12
FOODS, INC.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
20
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 5:20-cv-00667
Case 5:18-cv-02436-DDP-KK Document
Document 54-21-3Filed
Filed 01/29/20Page
01/17/20 Page
21 22 of 42Page ID #:393
of 41

1 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL


2 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b), Five Star hereby demands
3 a trial by jury of all issues so triable.
4
5 Dated: January 17, 2020 ONE LLP
6
7 By: /s/ Christopher W. Arledge
Christopher W. Arledge
8
Christopher Lee
9 Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counter-
Defendant, FIVE STAR GOURMET
10
FOODS, INC.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
21
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 5:20-cv-00667
Case 5:18-cv-02436-DDP-KK Document
Document 54-21-3Filed
Filed 01/29/20Page
01/17/20 Page
22 23 of 42Page ID #:394
of 41

EXHIBIT A
Case 5:20-cv-00667
Case 5:18-cv-02436-DDP-KK Document
Document 54-21-3Filed
Filed 01/29/20Page
01/17/20 Page
23 24 of 42Page ID #:395
of 41
11111111111111111111111111111
1!!!!918y1511111111111111111111
(12) United States Design Patent (10) Patent No.: US D698,665 S
Sifuentes et al. (45) Date of Patent: ** Feb. 4, 2014

(54) TRAY 4,807,776 A * 2/1989 Cortopassi 220/23.83


D444,058 S * 6/2001 Hampshire et al. D9/761
(71) Applicants:Direct Pack, Inc., Sun Valley, CA (US); D513,979 S * 1/2006 Snedden et al. D9/425
D514,931 S * 2/2006 Snedden et al. D9/425
Five Star Gourmet Foods, Inc., D517,405 S * 3/2006 Snedden et al. D9/425
Ontario, CA (US) D551,091 S * 9/2007 Shahsavarani D9/761
D597,379 S * 8/2009 Changpan D7/542
(72) Inventors: Gandhi B. Sifuentes, West Covina, CA D607,284 S * 1/2010 Ho D7/629
(US); Craig R. Snedden, Culver City, D628,478 S * 12/2010 Snedden et al. D9/431
D628,479 S * 12/2010 Snedden et al. D9/431
CA (US); Tal Shoshan, Alta Loma, CA D632,170 S * 2/2011 Lawrence et al. D9/425
(US) D640,129 S * 6/2011 Sifuentes et al. D9/425
D640,544 S * 6/2011 Sifuentes et al. D9/425
(73) Assignees: Direct Pack, Inc., Sun Valley, CA (US); D642,484 S * 8/2011 Birchmeier et al. D9/760
Five Star Gourmet Foods, Inc., D642,937 S * 8/2011 Birchmeier et al. D9/760
D646,969 S * 10/2011 Snedden et al. D9/431
Ontario, CA (US)
D646,984 S * 10/2011 Moore et al. D9/737
D660,147 S * 5/2012 Snedden et al. D9/435
(**) Term: 14 Years D665,663 S * 8/2012 Krupa D9/428
D688,126 S * 8/2013 Snedden et al. D9/435
(21) Appl. No.: 29/438,978 D688,941 S * 9/2013 Sifuentes et al. D9/432

* cited by examiner
(22) Filed: Dec. 5, 2012
(51) LOC (10) Cl. 09-03 Primary Examiner - Mark Goodwin
(52) U.S. Cl. (74) Attorney, Agent, or Firm - Frost Brown Todd LLC
USPC D9/761; D9/425; D9/431
(58) Field of Classification Search (57) CLAIM
USPC D9/414, 419, 424, 425, 430, 431, 432, The ornamental design for a tray, as shown and described.
D9/435, 761; D7/538, 549, 550.1,
D7/601-603, 605, 629; 229/105, 117.09, DESCRIPTION
229/117.26, 189, 406, 407, 902, 905,
229/915.1; 220/23.4, 23.6, 266, 281, 315, FIG. 1 is a top perspective view of a tray, showing our new
220/318, 500, 659, 669, 674, 675, 696, 752, design;
220/760, 790, 793, DIG. 12, FOR. 117; FIG. 2 is a bottom perspective view thereof;
206/508, 557, 499 FIG. 3 is a front elevation view thereof;
See application file for complete search history. FIG. 4 is a rear elevation view thereof;
FIG. 5 is a left elevation view thereof;
(56) References Cited FIG. 6 is a right elevation view thereof;
U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS FIG. 7 is a top plan view thereof; and,
FIG. 8 is a bottom plan view thereof.
3,070,275 A * 12/1962 Bostrom 229/4.5
D292,887 S * 11/1987 Schouten D9/424 1 Claim, 8 Drawing Sheets
Case 5:20-cv-00667
Case 5:18-cv-02436-DDP-KK Document
Document 54-21-3Filed
Filed 01/29/20Page
01/17/20 Page
24 25 of 42Page ID #:396
of 41

U.S. Patent Feb. 4, 2014 Sheet 1 of 8 US D698,665 S


Case 5:20-cv-00667
Case 5:18-cv-02436-DDP-KK Document
Document 54-21-3Filed
Filed 01/29/20Page
01/17/20 Page
25 26 of 42Page ID #:397
of 41

U.S. Patent Feb. 4, 2014 Sheet 2 of 8 US D698,665 S

NI
.CD
Li_
Case 5:20-cv-00667
Case 5:18-cv-02436-DDP-KK Document
Document 54-21-3Filed
Filed 01/29/20Page
01/17/20 Page
26 27 of 42Page ID #:398
of 41

U.S. Patent Feb. 4, 2014 Sheet 3 of 8 US D698,665 S

NO
.0)
LL.
Case 5:20-cv-00667
Case 5:18-cv-02436-DDP-KK Document
Document 54-21-3Filed
Filed 01/29/20Page
01/17/20 Page
27 28 of 42Page ID #:399
of 41

U.S. Patent Feb. 4, 2014 Sheet 4 of 8 US D698,665 S


Case 5:20-cv-00667
Case 5:18-cv-02436-DDP-KK Document
Document 54-21-3Filed
Filed 01/29/20Page
01/17/20 Page
28 29 of 42Page ID #:400
of 41

U.S. Patent Feb. 4, 2014 Sheet 5 of 8 US D698,665 S


Case 5:20-cv-00667
Case 5:18-cv-02436-DDP-KK Document
Document 54-21-3Filed
Filed 01/29/20Page
01/17/20 Page
29 30 of 42Page ID #:401
of 41

U.S. Patent Feb. 4, 2014 Sheet 6 of 8 US D698,665 S


Case 5:20-cv-00667
Case 5:18-cv-02436-DDP-KK Document
Document 54-21-3Filed
Filed 01/29/20Page
01/17/20 Page
30 31 of 42Page ID #:402
of 41

U.S. Patent Feb. 4, 2014 Sheet 7 of 8 US D698,665 S


Case 5:20-cv-00667
Case 5:18-cv-02436-DDP-KK Document
Document 54-21-3Filed
Filed 01/29/20Page
01/17/20 Page
31 32 of 42Page ID #:403
of 41

U.S. Patent Feb. 4, 2014 Sheet 8 of 8 US D698,665 S

0)
E
Case 5:20-cv-00667
Case 5:18-cv-02436-DDP-KK Document
Document 54-21-3Filed
Filed 01/29/20Page
01/17/20 Page
32 33 of 42Page ID #:404
of 41

EXHIBIT B
Case 5:20-cv-00667
Case 5:18-cv-02436-DDP-KK Document
Document 54-21-3Filed
Filed 01/29/20Page
01/17/20 Page
33 34 of 42Page ID #:405
of 41
11111111111111111111111111111
1!!!!918y1611111111111111111111
(12) United States Design Patent (10) Patent No.: US D698,666 S
Sifuentes et al. (45) Date of Patent: ** Feb. 4, 2014

(54) BOWL AND TRAY UNIT ASSEMBLY 4,807,776 A * 2/1989 Cortopassi 220/23.83
D444,058 S * 6/2001 Hampshire et al. D9/761
D513,979 S * 1/2006 Snedden et al. D9/425
(71) Applicants:Direct Pack, Inc., Sun Valley, CA (US); D514,931 S * 2/2006 Snedden et al. D9/425
Five Star Gourmet Foods, Inc., D517,405 S * 3/2006 Snedden et al. D9/425
Ontario, CA (US) D551,091 S * 9/2007 Shahsavarani D9/761
D597,379 S * 8/2009 Changpan D7/542
(72) Inventors: Gandhi B. Sifuentes, West Covina, CA D607,284 S * 1/2010 Ho D7/629
D628,478 S * 12/2010 Snedden et al. D9/431
(US); Craig R. Snedden, Culver City, D628,479 S * 12/2010 Snedden et al. D9/431
CA (US); Tal Shoshan, Alta Loma, CA D632,170 S * 2/2011 Lawrence et al. D9/425
(US) D640,129 S * 6/2011 Sifuentes et al. D9/425
D640,544 S * 6/2011 Sifuentes et al. D9/425
(73) Assignees: Direct Pack, Inc., Sun Valley, CA (US); D642,484 S * 8/2011 Birchmeier et al. D9/760
D642,937 S * 8/2011 Birchmeier et al. D9/760
Five Star Gourmet Foods, Inc., D646,969 S * 10/2011 Snedden et al. D9/431
Ontario, CA (US) D646,984 S * 10/2011 Moore et al. D9/737
D660,147 S * 5/2012 Snedden et al. D9/435
(**) Term: 14 Years D665,663 S * 8/2012 Krupa D9/428
D688,126 S * 8/2013 Snedden et al. D9/435
(21) Appl. No.: 29/438,980 D688,941 S * 9/2013 Sifuentes et al. D9/432

* cited by examiner
(22) Filed: Dec. 5, 2012
(51) LOC (10) Cl. 09-03 Primary Examiner - Mark Goodwin
(52) U.S. Cl. (74) Attorney, Agent, or Firm - Frost Brown Todd LLC
USPC D9/761; D9/425; D9/431
(57) CLAIM
(58) Field of Classification Search
The ornamental design for a bowl and tray unit assembly, as
USPC D9/414, 419, 424, 425, 430, 431, 432,
shown and described.
D9/435, 761; D7/538, 549, 550.1,
D7/601-603, 605, 629; 229/105, 117.09, DESCRIPTION
229/117.26, 189, 406, 407, 902, 905,
229/915.1; 220/23.4, 23.6, 266, 281, 315, FIG. 1 is a top perspective view of a bowl and tray unit
220/318, 500, 659, 669, 674, 675, 696, 752, assembly, showing our new design;
220/760, 790, 793, DIG. 12, FOR. 117; FIG. 2 is a bottom perspective view thereof;
206/508, 557, 499 FIG. 3 is a front elevation view thereof;
See application file for complete search history. FIG. 4 is a rear elevation view thereof;
FIG. 5 is a left elevation view thereof;
(56) References Cited
FIG. 6 is a right elevation view thereof;
U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS FIG. 7 is a top plan view thereof; and,
FIG. 8 is a bottom plan view thereof.
3,070,275 A * 12/1962 Bostrom 229/4.5
D292,887 S * 11/1987 Schouten D9/424 1 Claim, 8 Drawing Sheets
Case 5:20-cv-00667
Case 5:18-cv-02436-DDP-KK Document
Document 54-21-3Filed
Filed 01/29/20Page
01/17/20 Page
34 35 of 42Page ID #:406
of 41

EXHIBIT C
Case 5:20-cv-00667
Case 5:18-cv-02436-DDP-KK Document
Document 54-21-3Filed
Filed 01/29/20Page
01/17/20 Page
35 36 of 42Page ID #:407
of 41
11111111111111111111111111111111R0111111111
(12) United States Design Patent (10) Patent No.: US D769,732 S
Shoshan (45) Date of Patent: ** Oct. 25, 2016

(54) CONTAINER AND OVERWRAP ASSEMBLY 5,484,059 A * 1/1996 Sutherland B65D 71/18
206/140
D484,798 S * 1/2004 Bukowski D9/433
(71) Applicant: FiveStar Gourmet Foods, Inc., D595,150 S * 6/2009 Cain D9/711
Ontario, CA (US) D639,186 S * 6/2011 Shapiro D9/711
D639,679 S * 6/2011 Kissner D9/739
(72) Inventor: Tal Shoshan, Alta Loma, CA (US) D654,810 S * 2/2012 Mansouri D9/711
D665,271 S * 8/2012 Halty D9/711
(73) Assignee: FIVESTAR GOURMET FOODS, D693,242 S * 11/2013 Birchmeier D9/711
D710,213 S * 8/2014 Birchmeier D9/711
INC., Ontario, CA (US) D714,639 S * 10/2014 Royer D9/433
D718,641 S * 12/2014 Ryan D9/433
(**) Term: 14 Years D722,871 S * 2/2015 Royer D9/433
D760,036 S * 6/2016 Hucuptan D7/629
(21) Appl. No.: 29/512,912 * cited by examiner

(22) Filed: Dec. 23, 2014 Primary Examiner — Vy Koenig


(51) LOC (10) Cl. 09-05 (74) Attorney, Agent, or Firm — Frost Brown Todd LLC
(52) U.S. Cl. (57) CLAIM
USPC D9/711 The ornamental design for a container and overwrap assem-
(58) Field of Classification Search bly, as shown and described.
USPC D9/414-418, 420-423, 430-434, DESCRIPTION
D9/702-705, 709-713, 715; D3/302, 303;
D7/601, 602 FIG. 1 is a top perspective view of a container and overwrap
CPC B65D 5/00-5/02; B65D 5/0209-5/0272; assembly, showing our new design;
B65D 5/40; B65D 5/5455; B65D 5/727; FIG. 2 is a bottom perspective view thereof;
B65D 31/10-31/18; B65D 35/04; B65D FIG. 3 is a front elevational view thereof, the rear elevational
35/56 view thereof being identical thereto;
See application file for complete search history. FIG. 4 is a left elevational view thereof, the right elevational
view being identical thereto;
(56) References Cited FIG. 5 is a top plan view thereof; and,
FIG. 6 is a bottom plan view thereof.
U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS The protrusions, recesses, and other portions of the container
3,443,681 A * 5/1969 Wysocki B65D 71/20 and overwrap assembly shown in broken lines are unclaimed
206/434 environment, and form no part of the claimed design.
4,671,453 A * 6/1987 Cassidy B65D 65/24
206/147 1 Claim, 6 Drawing Sheets
Case 5:20-cv-00667
Case 5:18-cv-02436-DDP-KK Document
Document 54-21-3Filed
Filed 01/29/20Page
01/17/20 Page
36 37 of 42Page ID #:408
of 41

U.S. Patent Oct. 25, 2016 Sheet 1 of 6 US D769,732 S

Fig.1
Case 5:20-cv-00667
Case 5:18-cv-02436-DDP-KK Document
Document 54-21-3Filed
Filed 01/29/20Page
01/17/20 Page
37 38 of 42Page ID #:409
of 41

U.S. Patent Oct. 25, 2016 Sheet 2 of 6 US D769,732 S

Fig.2
Case 5:20-cv-00667
Case 5:18-cv-02436-DDP-KK Document
Document 54-21-3Filed
Filed 01/29/20Page
01/17/20 Page
38 39 of 42Page ID #:410
of 41

U.S. Patent Oct. 25, 2016 Sheet 3 of 6 US D769,732 S

-r -
_I
I

L J
7
7

7
LI J
I

L J
7

Fig.3
Case 5:20-cv-00667
Case 5:18-cv-02436-DDP-KK Document
Document 54-21-3Filed
Filed 01/29/20Page
01/17/20 Page
39 40 of 42Page ID #:411
of 41

U.S. Patent Oct. 25, 2016 Sheet 4 of 6 US D769,732 S

ILL

N /

N
N -7"
//
z

Fig.4
Case 5:20-cv-00667
Case 5:18-cv-02436-DDP-KK Document
Document 54-21-3Filed
Filed 01/29/20Page
01/17/20 Page
40 41 of 42Page ID #:412
of 41

U.S. Patent Oct. 25, 2016 Sheet 5 of 6 US D769,732 S

Fig.5
Case 5:20-cv-00667
Case 5:18-cv-02436-DDP-KK Document
Document 54-21-3Filed
Filed 01/29/20Page
01/17/20 Page
41 42 of 42Page ID #:413
of 41

U.S. Patent Oct. 25, 2016 Sheet 6 of 6 US D769,732 S

NN
\
,:\\
\\\\\
//// .;\.. \\\\\\!\\ \
//// \\:\
\\:\\
\
\ s \
\\\\ \ \ \ \\
///// \ \ \\
/
// ///
/ // /I /
I/ /
/// / /// /
/ \\\\ \\\ \\\\\
\\\\\ \
I // / //I/
/III!
1 1
1111 111
111 \1111111\1 111I1
\\1\1\1\ \\\I\

111 /1111
IIIIII 11I 1I III
II II 1111111 11111
111
I1I1I 1IIII I IIIII/11I III11
1111 11I111 1I 11 111111 II1I
I1I 11 I\I 1I111111 1111
/ /I I / I II
/ // I / /II
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
\
\\ \\ \\ \ / /I/ / / //
/// I
\ \ \\ ////li / ///
/ ///// ii//
\\\\.:\,\\\\\\\. / /
., \\\\,\
v iii/ //
\.\\\\\: \\''\\
\ .
N\‘'\ iii '' //,%///
/
:,\. \ \ N // 4
\ N
N
NN /
././
N
NNN ////
/

Fig.6
>G&75B8 -- #FRc' )0(*2$ Case 5:20-cv-00667 Document 1-4 Filed 01/29/20 Page 1 of 2
/5B58 /;B1> ?411@
HUR >G&75B8 -- PVcVY P\cR_ `URRa N[Q aUR V[S\_ZNaV\[ P\[aNV[RQ UR_RV[ [RVaUR_ _R]YNPR [\_ `b]]YRZR[a aUR SVYV[T N[Q `R_cVPR \S ]YRNQV[T` \_ \aUR_ ]N]R_` N` _R^bV_RQ Of YNd%
RePR]a N` ]_\cVQRQ Of Y\PNY _bYR` \S P\b_a' HUV` S\_Z% N]]_\cRQ V[ Va` \_VTV[NY S\_Z Of aUR >bQVPVNY 7\[SR_R[PR \S aUR I[VaRQ GaNaR` V[ GR]aRZOR_ *20-% V` _R^bV_RQ S\_ aUR 7YR_X \S
7\b_a a\ V[VaVNaR aUR PVcVY Q\PXRa `URRa' (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
5' #F$ <8-5:@522? 0121:0-:@?
Ready Pac Foods, Inc., Ready Pac Produce, Inc., D6, Inc. Five Star Gourmet Foods, Inc. and Direct Pack, Inc.
#G$ 7\b[af \S FR`VQR[PR \S :V_`a @V`aRQ DYNV[aVSS Los Angeles County 7\b[af \S FR`VQR[PR \S :V_`a @V`aRQ 8RSR[QN[a San Bernardino County
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
BCH93 =B @5B8 7CB89AB5H=CB 75G9G% IG9 H<9 @C75H=CB C:
H<9 HF57H C: @5B8 =BJC@J98'
#H$ 5aa\_[Rf` (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) 5aa\_[Rf` (If Known)
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP Stoel Rives, LLP ONE LLP
1400 Page Mill Road, 500 Capitol Mall, Suite 1600 4000 MacArthur Boulevard, East Tower, Suite 500, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1124 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (949) 502-2870
1.650.843.4000 1.916.447.0700
55' .-?5? ;2 6A>5?05/@5;: (Place an “X” in One Box Only) 555' /5@5E1:?45< ;2 <>5:/5<-8 <->@51? (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
<@2 012 <@2 012
* I'G' ;\cR_[ZR[a DYNV[aVSS , :RQR_NY EbR`aV\[ 7VaVgR[ \S HUV` GaNaR * * =[P\_]\_NaRQ or D_V[PV]NY DYNPR - -
(U.S. Government Not a Party)
\S 6b`V[R`` =[ HUV` GaNaR
7VaVgR[ \S 5[\aUR_ GaNaR + + =[P\_]\_NaRQ and D_V[PV]NY DYNPR . .
+ I'G' ;\cR_[ZR[a 8RSR[QN[a - 8VcR_`Vaf \S 6b`V[R`` =[ 5[\aUR_ GaNaR
(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)
7VaVgR[ \_ GbOWRPa \S N , , :\_RVT[ BNaV\[ / /
:\_RVT[ 7\b[a_f

5B' :-@A>1 ;2 ?A5@ (Place an “X” in One Box Only)


/;:@>-/@ @;>@? 2;>215@A>1(<1:-8@D .-:7>A<@/D ;@41> ?@-@A@1?
**) =[`b_N[PR <1>?;:-8 5:6A>D <1>?;:-8 5:6A>D /+. 8_bT FRYNaRQ GRVgb_R \S -++ 5]]RNY +1 IG7 h *.1 ,0. :NY`R 7YNVZ` 5Pa
*+) AN_V[R D_\]R_af +* IG7 h 11* -+, KVaUQ_NdNY +1 IG7 ,0/ EbV HNZ #,* IG7
,*) 5V_]YN[R ,/. DR_`\[NY =[Wb_f iD_\QbPa
*,) AVYYR_ 5Pa @VNOVYVaf /2) CaUR_ h *.0 h ,0+2#N$$
,*. 5V_]YN[R D_\QbPa @VNOVYVaf
*-) BRT\aVNOYR =[`a_bZR[a ,/0 <RNYaU 7N_R( 8-.;> <>;<1>@D >534@? -)) GaNaR FRN]]\_aV\[ZR[a
,+) 5``NbYa% @VORY " GYN[QR_
*.) FRP\cR_f \S DUN_ZNPRbaVPNY DR_`\[NY -*) 5[aVa_b`a
,,) :RQR_NY 9Z]Y\fR_`l 0*) :NV_ @NO\_ GaN[QN_Q` 5Pa 1+) 7\]f_VTUa`
CcR_]NfZR[a CS =[Wb_f D_\QbPa @VNOVYVaf -,) 6N[X` N[Q 6N[XV[T
@VNOVYVaf 0+) @NO\_(AN[NTRZR[a 1,) DNaR[a
JRaR_N[l` 6R[RSVa` ,/1 5`OR`a\` DR_`\[NY =[Wb_f -.) 7\ZZR_PR
,-) AN_V[R FRYNaV\[` 1,. DNaR[an5OO_RcVNaRQ BRd
*.* ARQVPN_R 5Pa D_\QbPa @VNOVYVaf
,-. AN_V[R D_\QbPa @VNOVYVaf 0-) FNVYdNf @NO\_ 5Pa 8_bT 5]]YVPNaV\[ -/) 8R]\_aNaV\[
*.+ FRP\cR_f \S 8RSNbYaRQ <1>?;:-8 <>;<1>@D -0) FNPXRaRR_ =[SYbR[PRQ "
,.) A\a\_ JRUVPYR 0.* :NZVYf N[Q ARQVPNY 1-) H_NQRZN_X
GabQR[a @\N[` #9ePYbQR` ,0) CaUR_ :_NbQ 7\__b]a C_TN[VgNaV\[`
,.. A\a\_ JRUVPYR D_\QbPa @RNcR 5Pa
JRaR_N[`$ ,0* H_baU V[ @R[QV[T ?;/5-8 ?1/A>5@D
@VNOVYVaf 02) CaUR_ @NO\_ @VaVTNaV\[ -1) 7\[`bZR_ 7_RQVa
*., FRP\cR_f \S ,1) CaUR_ DR_`\[NY D_\]R_af 1/* <=5 #*,2.SS$
,/) CaUR_ DR_`\[NY =[Wb_f 02* 9Z]Y\fRR FRaV_RZR[a -1. HRYR]U\[R 7\[`bZR_
CcR_]NfZR[a 8NZNTR =[P\ZR GRPb_Vaf 5Pa 1/+ 6YNPX @b[T #2+,$ D_\aRPaV\[ 5Pa
\S JRaR_N[l` 6R[RSVa` ,/+ DR_`\[NY =[Wb_f &ARQVPNY
ANY]_NPaVPR ,1. D_\]R_af 8NZNTR D_\QbPa 1/, 8=K7(8=KK #-).#T$$ -2) 7NOYR(GNa HJ
*/) Ga\PXU\YQR_`l GbVa` @VNOVYVaf 59953>-@5;:
1/- GG=8 HVaYR LJ= 1.) GRPb_VaVR`(7\ZZ\QVaVR`(
*2) CaUR_ 7\[a_NPa -/+ BNab_NYVgNaV\[ 9ePUN[TR
/5B58 >534@? <>5?;:1> <1@5@5;:? 1/. FG= #-).#T$$
*2. 7\[a_NPa D_\QbPa @VNOVYVaf 5]]YVPNaV\[
--) CaUR_ 7VcVY FVTUa` 12) CaUR_ GaNaba\_f 5PaV\[`
4-.1-? /;><A? -/. CaUR_ =ZZVT_NaV\[ 2101>-8 @-C ?A5@?
*2/ :_N[PUV`R 12* 5T_VPbYab_NY 5Pa`
--* J\aV[T -/, 5YVR[ 8RaNV[RR 5PaV\[` 10) HNeR` #I'G' DYNV[aVSS \_
>1-8 <>;<1>@D --+ 9Z]Y\fZR[a 12, 9[cV_\[ZR[aNY ANaaR_`
.*) A\aV\[` a\ JNPNaR 8RSR[QN[a$
+*) @N[Q 7\[QRZ[NaV\[ --, <\b`V[T( GR[aR[PR 12. :_RRQ\Z \S =[S\_ZNaV\[
10* =FGiHUV_Q DN_af +/ IG7
5PP\ZZ\QNaV\[` 5Pa
++) :\_RPY\`b_R .,) ;R[R_NY h 0/)2
--. 5ZR_' d(8V`NOVYVaVR`i 12/ 5_OVa_NaV\[
+,) FR[a @RN`R " 9WRPaZR[a .,. 8RNaU DR[NYaf
9Z]Y\fZR[a 122 5QZV[V`a_NaVcR D_\PRQb_R
+-) H\_a` a\ @N[Q ;@41>
--/ 5ZR_' d(8V`NOVYVaVR`iCaUR_ 5Pa(FRcVRd \_ 5]]RNY \S
+-. H\_a D_\QbPa @VNOVYVaf .-) AN[QNZb` " CaUR_ 5TR[Pf 8RPV`V\[
+2) 5YY CaUR_ FRNY D_\]R_af --1 9QbPNaV\[
..) 7VcVY FVTUa` 2.) 7\[`aVabaV\[NYVaf \S GaNaR
... D_V`\[ 7\[QVaV\[ GaNabaR`
./) 7VcVY 8RaNV[RRi
7\[QVaV\[` \S
7\[SV[RZR[a

B' ;>535: (Place an “X” in One Box Only)


* C_VTV[NY + FRZ\cRQ S_\Z , FRZN[QRQ S_\Z - FRV[`aNaRQ \_ . H_N[`SR__RQ S_\Z / AbYaVQV`a_VPa 1 AbYaVQV`a_VPa
D_\PRRQV[T GaNaR 7\b_a 5]]RYYNaR 7\b_a FR\]R[RQ 5[\aUR_ 8V`a_VPa (specify) @VaVTNaV\[iH_N[`SR_ @VaVTNaV\[i8V_RPa :VYR

B5' /-A?1 ;2 7VaR aUR I'G' 7VcVY GaNabaR b[QR_ dUVPU f\b N_R SVYV[T (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity)3
-/@5;: 35 U.S.C. § 1 et. seq. and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202
6_VRS QR`P_V]aV\[ \S PNb`R3
Declaratory Judgment of Noninfringement and Invalidity of U.S. Design Patents
B55' >1=A1?@10 5: 7<97? =: H<=G =G 5 /8-?? -/@5;: 019-:0 " 7<97? M9G \[Yf VS QRZN[QRQ V[ P\Z]YNV[a3
/;9<8-5:@, IB89F FI@9 +,% :RQ' F' 7Vc' D' 6A>D 019-:0, MR` B\

B555' >18-@10 /-?1#?$%


52 -:D (See instructions):
>I8;9 Phyllis J. Hamilton 8C7?9H BIA69F 4:19-cv-05611-PJH
5C' 05B5?5;:-8 -??53:91:@ #/N[NQ 8THFQ >ZQJ *&)$
#<QFHJ FS _C` NS ;SJ .T\ ;SQ]$ ?-: 2>-:/5?/;(;-78-:0 ?-: 6;?1 1A>17-&9/75:81DB5881

0-@1 01/29/2020 ?53:-@A>1 ;2 -@@;>:1D ;2 >1/;>0 /s/ Andrew J. Gray IV


>G&75B8 -- #_Rc' )0(*2$ Case 5:20-cv-00667 Document 1-4 Filed 01/29/20 Page 2 of 2

5:?@>A/@5;:? 2;> -@@;>:1D? /;9<81@5:3 /5B58 /;B1> ?411@ 2;>9 6?&/-:0 ++

-ZYMTWNY] 2TW /N[NQ /T[JW ?MJJY' HUR >G&75B8 -- PVcVY P\cR_ `URRa N[Q aUR V[S\_ZNaV\[ P\[aNV[RQ UR_RV[ [RVaUR_ _R]YNPR` [\_ `b]]YRZR[a` aUR SVYV[T` N[Q
`R_cVPR \S ]YRNQV[T \_ \aUR_ ]N]R_` N` _R^bV_RQ Of YNd% RePR]a N` ]_\cVQRQ Of Y\PNY _bYR` \S P\b_a' HUV` S\_Z% N]]_\cRQ V[ Va` \_VTV[NY S\_Z Of aUR >bQVPVNY
7\[SR_R[PR \S aUR I[VaRQ GaNaR` V[ GR]aRZOR_ *20-% V` _R^bV_RQ S\_ aUR 7YR_X \S 7\b_a a\ V[VaVNaR aUR PVcVY Q\PXRa `URRa' 7\[`R^bR[aYf% N PVcVY P\cR_ `URRa V`
`bOZVaaRQ a\ aUR 7YR_X \S 7\b_a S\_ RNPU PVcVY P\Z]YNV[a SVYRQ' HUR Naa\_[Rf SVYV[T N PN`R `U\bYQ P\Z]YRaR aUR S\_Z N` S\YY\d`3
5' F$ <QFNSYNKKX&0JKJSIFSYX' 9[aR_ [NZR` #YN`a% SV_`a% ZVQQYR V[VaVNY$ \S ]YNV[aVSS N[Q QRSR[QN[a' =S aUR ]YNV[aVSS \_ QRSR[QN[a V` N T\cR_[ZR[a NTR[Pf% b`R
\[Yf aUR SbYY [NZR \_ `aN[QN_Q NOO_RcVNaV\[`' =S aUR ]YNV[aVSS \_ QRSR[QN[a V` N[ \SSVPVNY dVaUV[ N T\cR_[ZR[a NTR[Pf% VQR[aVSf SV_`a aUR NTR[Pf N[Q
aUR[ aUR \SSVPVNY% TVcV[T O\aU [NZR N[Q aVaYR'
G$ /TZSY] TK >JXNIJSHJ' :\_ RNPU PVcVY PN`R SVYRQ% RePR]a I'G' ]YNV[aVSS PN`R`% R[aR_ aUR [NZR \S aUR P\b[af dUR_R aUR SV_`a YV`aRQ ]YNV[aVSS _R`VQR` Na aUR
aVZR \S SVYV[T' =[ I'G' ]YNV[aVSS PN`R`% R[aR_ aUR [NZR \S aUR P\b[af V[ dUVPU aUR SV_`a YV`aRQ QRSR[QN[a _R`VQR` Na aUR aVZR \S SVYV[T' #BCH93 =[ YN[Q
P\[QRZ[NaV\[ PN`R`% aUR P\b[af \S _R`VQR[PR \S aUR jQRSR[QN[ak V` aUR Y\PNaV\[ \S aUR a_NPa \S YN[Q V[c\YcRQ'$
H$ -YYTWSJ]X' 9[aR_ aUR SV_Z [NZR% NQQ_R``% aRYR]U\[R [bZOR_% N[Q Naa\_[Rf \S _RP\_Q' =S aUR_R N_R `RcR_NY Naa\_[Rf`% YV`a aURZ \[ N[ NaaNPUZR[a% [\aV[T
V[ aUV` `RPaV\[ j#`RR NaaNPUZR[a$'k
55' 6ZWNXINHYNTS' HUR ON`V` \S Wb_V`QVPaV\[ V` `Ra S\_aU b[QR_ :RQR_NY FbYR \S 7VcVY D_\PRQb_R 1#N$% dUVPU _R^bV_R` aUNa Wb_V`QVPaV\[` OR `U\d[V[
]YRNQV[T`' DYNPR N[ jLk V[ \[R \S aUR O\eR`' =S aUR_R V` Z\_R aUN[ \[R ON`V` \S Wb_V`QVPaV\[% ]_RPRQR[PR V` TVcR[ V[ aUR \_QR_ `U\d[ ORY\d'
#*$ I[VaRQ GaNaR` ]YNV[aVSS' >b_V`QVPaV\[ ON`RQ \[ +1 IG7 hh *,-. N[Q *,-1' GbVa` Of NTR[PVR` N[Q \SSVPR_` \S aUR I[VaRQ GaNaR` N_R V[PYbQRQ UR_R'
#+$ I[VaRQ GaNaR` QRSR[QN[a' KUR[ aUR ]YNV[aVSS V` `bV[T aUR I[VaRQ GaNaR`% Va` \SSVPR_` \_ NTR[PVR`% ]YNPR N[ jLk V[ aUV` O\e'
#,$ :RQR_NY ^bR`aV\[' HUV` _RSR_` a\ `bVa` b[QR_ +1 IG7 h *,,*% dUR_R Wb_V`QVPaV\[ N_V`R` b[QR_ aUR 7\[`aVabaV\[ \S aUR I[VaRQ GaNaR`% N[ NZR[QZR[a
a\ aUR 7\[`aVabaV\[% N[ NPa \S 7\[T_R`` \_ N a_RNaf \S aUR I[VaRQ GaNaR`' =[ PN`R` dUR_R aUR I'G' V` N ]N_af% aUR I'G' ]YNV[aVSS \_ QRSR[QN[a P\QR
aNXR` ]_RPRQR[PR% N[Q O\e * \_ + `U\bYQ OR ZN_XRQ'
#-$ 8VcR_`Vaf \S PVaVgR[`UV]' HUV` _RSR_` a\ `bVa` b[QR_ +1 IG7 h *,,+% dUR_R ]N_aVR` N_R PVaVgR[` \S QVSSR_R[a `aNaR`' KUR[ 6\e - V` PURPXRQ% aUR
PVaVgR[`UV] \S aUR QVSSR_R[a ]N_aVR` Zb`a OR PURPXRQ' #GRR GRPaV\[ === ORY\d4 :;@1, KJIJWFQ VZJXYNTS FHYNTSX YFPJ UWJHJIJSHJ T[JW IN[JWXNY]
HFXJX'$
555' >JXNIJSHJ #HNYN^JSXMNU$ TK <WNSHNUFQ <FWYNJX' HUV` `RPaV\[ \S aUR >G&75B8 -- V` a\ OR P\Z]YRaRQ VS QVcR_`Vaf \S PVaVgR[`UV] dN` V[QVPNaRQ NO\cR'
AN_X aUV` `RPaV\[ S\_ RNPU ]_V[PV]NY ]N_af'
5B' :FYZWJ TK ?ZNY' DYNPR N[ jLk V[ aUR N]]_\]_VNaR O\e' =S aUR [Nab_R \S `bVa PN[[\a OR QRaR_ZV[RQ% OR `b_R aUR PNb`R \S NPaV\[% V[ GRPaV\[ J= ORY\d% V`
`bSSVPVR[a a\ R[NOYR aUR QR]baf PYR_X \_ aUR `aNaV`aVPNY PYR_X#`$ V[ aUR 5QZV[V`a_NaVcR CSSVPR a\ QRaR_ZV[R aUR [Nab_R \S `bVa' =S aUR PNb`R SVa` Z\_R aUN[
\[R [Nab_R \S `bVa% `RYRPa aUR Z\`a QRSV[VaVcR'
B' ;WNLNS' DYNPR N[ jLk V[ \[R \S aUR `Ve O\eR`'
#*$ C_VTV[NY D_\PRRQV[T`' 7N`R` \_VTV[NaV[T V[ aUR I[VaRQ GaNaR` QV`a_VPa P\b_a`'
#+$ FRZ\cRQ S_\Z GaNaR 7\b_a' D_\PRRQV[T` V[VaVNaRQ V[ `aNaR P\b_a` ZNf OR _RZ\cRQ a\ aUR QV`a_VPa P\b_a` b[QR_ HVaYR +1 IG7 h *--*' KUR[ aUR
]RaVaV\[ S\_ _RZ\cNY V` T_N[aRQ% PURPX aUV` O\e'
#,$ FRZN[QRQ S_\Z 5]]RYYNaR 7\b_a' 7URPX aUV` O\e S\_ PN`R` _RZN[QRQ a\ aUR QV`a_VPa P\b_a S\_ Sb_aUR_ NPaV\[' I`R aUR QNaR \S _RZN[Q N` aUR SVYV[T
QNaR'
#-$ FRV[`aNaRQ \_ FR\]R[RQ' 7URPX aUV` O\e S\_ PN`R` _RV[`aNaRQ \_ _R\]R[RQ V[ aUR QV`a_VPa P\b_a' I`R aUR _R\]R[V[T QNaR N` aUR SVYV[T QNaR'
#.$ H_N[`SR__RQ S_\Z 5[\aUR_ 8V`a_VPa' :\_ PN`R` a_N[`SR__RQ b[QR_ HVaYR +1 IG7 h *-)-#N$' 8\ [\a b`R aUV` S\_ dVaUV[ QV`a_VPa a_N[`SR_` \_
ZbYaVQV`a_VPa YVaVTNaV\[ a_N[`SR_`'
#/$ AbYaVQV`a_VPa @VaVTNaV\[ H_N[`SR_' 7URPX aUV` O\e dUR[ N ZbYaVQV`a_VPa PN`R V` a_N[`SR__RQ V[a\ aUR QV`a_VPa b[QR_ NbaU\_Vaf \S HVaYR +1 IG7
h *-)0' KUR[ aUV` O\e V` PURPXRQ% Q\ [\a PURPX #.$ NO\cR'
#1$ AbYaVQV`a_VPa @VaVTNaV\[ 8V_RPa :VYR' 7URPX aUV` O\e dUR[ N ZbYaVQV`a_VPa YVaVTNaV\[ PN`R V` SVYRQ V[ aUR `NZR QV`a_VPa N` aUR AN`aR_ A8@ Q\PXRa'
DYRN`R [\aR aUNa aUR_R V` [\ C_VTV[ 7\QR 0' C_VTV[ 7\QR 0 dN` b`RQ S\_ UV`a\_VPNY _RP\_Q` N[Q V` [\ Y\[TR_ _RYRcN[a QbR a\ PUN[TR` V[ `aNabaR'
B5' /FZXJ TK -HYNTS' FR]\_a aUR PVcVY `aNabaR QV_RPaYf _RYNaRQ a\ aUR PNb`R \S NPaV\[ N[Q TVcR N O_VRS QR`P_V]aV\[ \S aUR PNb`R' 0T STY HNYJ OZWNXINHYNTSFQ
XYFYZYJX ZSQJXX IN[JWXNY]' 9eNZ]YR3 I'G' 7VcVY GaNabaR3 -0 IG7 h ..,' 6_VRS 8R`P_V]aV\[3 I[NbaU\_VgRQ _RPR]aV\[ \S PNOYR `R_cVPR'
B55' >JVZJXYJI NS /TRUQFNSY' 7YN`` 5PaV\[' DYNPR N[ jLk V[ aUV` O\e VS f\b N_R SVYV[T N PYN`` NPaV\[ b[QR_ :RQR_NY FbYR \S 7VcVY D_\PRQb_R +,'
8RZN[Q' =[ aUV` `]NPR R[aR_ aUR NPabNY Q\YYN_ NZ\b[a ORV[T QRZN[QRQ \_ V[QVPNaR \aUR_ QRZN[Q% `bPU N` N ]_RYVZV[N_f V[Wb[PaV\['
>b_f 8RZN[Q' 7URPX aUR N]]_\]_VNaR O\e a\ V[QVPNaR dURaUR_ \_ [\a N Wb_f V` ORV[T QRZN[QRQ'
B555' >JQFYJI /FXJX' HUV` `RPaV\[ \S aUR >G&75B8 -- V` b`RQ a\ VQR[aVSf _RYNaRQ ]R[QV[T PN`R`% VS N[f' =S aUR_R N_R _RYNaRQ ]R[QV[T PN`R`% V[`R_a aUR Q\PXRa
[bZOR_` N[Q aUR P\__R`]\[QV[T WbQTR [NZR` S\_ `bPU PN`R`'
5C' 0N[NXNTSFQ -XXNLSRJSY' =S aUR BNab_R \S GbVa V` b[QR_ D_\]R_af FVTUa` \_ D_V`\[R_ DRaVaV\[` \_ aUR ZNaaR_ V` N GRPb_VaVR` 7YN`` 5PaV\[% YRNcR aUV`
`RPaV\[ OYN[X' :\_ NYY \aUR_ PN`R`% VQR[aVSf aUR QVcV`V\[NY cR[bR NPP\_QV[T a\ 7VcVY @\PNY FbYR ,&+3 jaUR P\b[af V[ dUVPU N `bO`aN[aVNY ]N_a \S aUR
RcR[a` \_ \ZV``V\[` dUVPU TVcR _V`R a\ aUR PYNVZ \PPb__RQ \_ V[ dUVPU N `bO`aN[aVNY ]N_a \S aUR ]_\]R_af aUNa V` aUR `bOWRPa \S aUR NPaV\[ V` `VabNaRQ'k
0FYJ FSI -YYTWSJ] ?NLSFYZWJ' 8NaR N[Q `VT[ aUR PVcVY P\cR_ `URRa'