Case 0:22-cv-62369-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/19/2022 Page 1 of 9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Yifeng Luo,
Plaintiff,

v.

The Individuals, Partnerships and

Defendants.

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Plaintiff Yifeng Luo (“Plaintiff”) hereby brings the present action against the individuals,

Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations identified on Schedule “A” (collectively,

“Defendants”). Defendants have willfully infringed one or more claims of U.S. Patent No.

D965,237 (“the ’237 Patent”) by making, using, offering for sale, selling, distributing and/or

importing into the United States for subsequent sale and use of unauthorized and unlicensed

products, namely the Dog Tie Out Stake bearing counterfeit versions of the ornamental design of

Plaintiff’s Patent (“Infringing Products”). In support of its claims, Plaintiff alleges as follows:

I. NATURE OF ACTION
1. This action is for patent infringement arising under the patent law of the United

States, 35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq., including 35 U.S.C. §§ 271, 281, 283, 284, 285, and 289.

2. Plaintiff has filed this action to combat e-commerce store operators who trade

upon Plaintiff’s reputation and goodwill by making, using, offering for sale, selling and/or

importing into the United States for subsequent sale or use unauthorized and unlicensed Infringing

Products that infringe ’237 Patent. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of

Plaintiff’s Patent for the Dog Tie Out Stake. Defendants create e-commerce stores operating under
Case 0:22-cv-62369-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/19/2022 Page 2 of 9

one or more seller storefronts that are making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing

into the United States for subsequent sale or use Infringing Products to unknowing consumers.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over the claims in this action

pursuant to the provisions of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq., 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a)-(b) and

28 U.S.C. § 1331.

2. Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in this district because they direct

business activities toward and conduct business with consumers throughout the United States,

including within the State of Florida and this district through at least the Internet based e-commerce

stores and fully interactive commercial Internet website accessible in Florida and operating under

their Seller Storefronts.

3. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, and this Court may

properly exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendants since each of the Defendants directly

targets business activities toward consumers in the United States, including Florida, through at

least the fully interactive e-commerce stores operating under the Defendants’ seller storefronts

identified on Schedule A. Specifically, Defendants have targeted sales to Florida residents by

setting up and operating e-commerce stores that target United States consumers using one or more

Seller Storefronts, offer shipping to the United States, including Florida, accept payment in U.S.

dollars and, on information and belief, have sold products using infringing and counterfeit versions

of Plaintiff’s federally registered patent to residents of Florida. Each of the Defendants is

committing tortious acts in Florida, is engaging in interstate commerce, and has wrongfully caused

Plaintiff substantial injury in the State of Florida.

///
Case 0:22-cv-62369-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/19/2022 Page 3 of 9

III. THE PARTIES

THE PLAINTIFF

4. Plaintiff is a resident in Guangzhou, China.

5. Plaintiff is the inventor and lawful owner of all right, title, and interest in and to

the ’237 Patent.

6. Plaintiff’s products are distributed and sold to consumers throughout the United

States, including consumers in Florida.

7. Plaintiff uses the distinctive patented Dog Tie Out Stake in connection with

Plaintiff’s products.

THE DEFENDANTS

8. Defendants are individuals and business entities of unknown makeup who own

and/or operate one or more of the e-commerce stores under the Seller Storefronts identified on

Schedule A and/or other Seller Storefronts not yet known to Plaintiff. On information and belief,

Defendants reside and/or operate in the foreign jurisdictions with lax intellectual property

enforcement systems or redistribute products from the same or similar sources in those locations.

Defendants have the capacity to be sued pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b).

9. On information and belief, Defendants either individually or jointly, operate one

or more e-commerce stores. Tactics used by Defendants to conceal their identities and the full

scope of their operation make it virtually impossible for Plaintiff to learn Defendants’ true

identities and the exact interworking their network. If Defendants provide additional credible

information regarding their identities, Plaintiff will take appropriate steps to amend the Complaint.

IV. DEFENDANTS’ UNLAWFUL CONDUCT

10. In recent years, Plaintiff has identified numerous fully interactive, e-commerce
Case 0:22-cv-62369-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/19/2022 Page 4 of 9

stores, including those operating under the seller storefronts identified on Schedule A, which were

offering for sale and/or selling Infringing Products to consumers in this Judicial District and

throughout the United States. E-commerce sales, including through e-commerce stores like those

of Defendants, have resulted in a sharp increase in the shipment of unauthorized products into the

United States.

11. Defendants have targeted sales to Florida residents by setting up and operating e-

commerce stores that target United States consumers using one or more Seller Storefronts, offer

shipping to the United States, including Florida, accept payment in U.S. dollars and, on

information and belief, have sold Infringing Products to residents of Florida.

12. Defendants concurrently employ and benefit from substantially similar

advertising and marketing strategies. For example, Defendants facilitate sales by e-commerce

stores operating under the seller storefronts so that they appear to unknowing consumers to be

authorized online retailers, outlet stores, or wholesalers. E-commerce stores operating under the

seller storefronts appear sophisticated and accept payment in U.S. dollars via credit cards, Amazon

Pay. E-commerce stores operating under the seller storefronts often include content and images

that make it very difficult for consumers to distinguish such stores from an authorized retailer.

Plaintiff has not licensed or authorized Defendants to use the Plaintiff’s Patent, and none of the

Defendants are authorized retailers of genuine Plaintiff’s Products.

13. On information and belief, Defendants have engaged in fraudulent conduct when

registering the Seller Storefronts by providing false, misleading and/or incomplete information to

e-commerce platforms. On information and belief, certain Defendants have anonymously

registered and maintained seller storefronts to prevent discovery of their true identities and the

scope of their e-commerce operation.

14. On information and belief, Defendants regularly register or acquire new seller

storefronts for the purpose of offering for sale and selling Infringing Products. Such seller alias

registration patterns are one of many common tactics used by the Defendants to conceal their

identities and the full scope and interworking of their operation, and to avoid being shut down.

15. Even though Defendants operate under multiple fictitious Storefronts, the e-

commerce stores operating under the Seller Storefronts often share unique identifiers, such as

templates with common elements that intentionally omit any contact information or other

information for identifying Defendants or other seller storefronts they operate or use. E-commerce

stores operating under the Seller Storefronts include other notable common features, such as use

of the same registration patterns, accepted payment methods, check-out methods, keywords,

illegitimate search engine optimization (SEO), advertising tactics, similarities in price and

quantities, the same incorrect grammar and misspellings, and/or the use of the same text and

images. Additionally, Infringing Products for sale by the seller storefronts bear similar

irregularities and indicia of being unauthorized to one another, suggesting that the Infringing

Products were manufactured by and come from a common source and that Defendants are

interrelated.

16. Infringers such as Defendants typically operate under multiple Seller Storefronts

and payment accounts so that they can continue operation in spite of Plaintiff’s enforcement

efforts. On information and belief, Defendants maintain off-shore bank accounts and regularly

move funds from their financial accounts to off-shore bank accounts outside the jurisdiction of this

Court to avoid payment of any monetary judgment awarded to Plaintiff. Indeed, analysis of

financial account transaction logs from previous similar cases indicates that off-shore infringers

regularly move funds from U.S.-based financial accounts to off-shore accounts outside the
Case 0:22-cv-62369-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/19/2022 Page 6 of 9

jurisdiction of this Court.

17. On information and belief, Defendants are an interrelated group of infringers

working in active concert to knowingly and willfully manufacture, import, distribute, offer for

sale, and sell Infringing Products in the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or

occurrences. Defendants, without any authorization or license from Plaintiff, have jointly and

severally, knowingly and willfully offered for sale, sold, and/or imported into the United States

for subsequent resale or use products that infringe directly and/or indirectly the Plaintiff’s Patent.

Each e-commerce store operating under the seller storefronts offers shipping to the United States,

including Florida, and, on information and belief, each Defendant has sold Infringing Products

into the United States and Florida over the Internet.

18. Defendants’ infringement of the Plaintiff’s Patent in the making, using, offering

for sale, selling, and/or importing into the United States for subsequent sale or use of the Infringing

Products was willful.

19. Defendants’ infringement of the Plaintiff’s Patent in connection with the making,

using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing into the United States for subsequent sale or use

of the Infringing Products, including the making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing

into the United States for subsequent sale or use of Infringing Products into Florida, is irreparably

harming Plaintiff.

COUNT I
INFRINGEMENT OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. D965,237S
(35 U.S.C. § 271)

20. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth

in the preceding paragraphs.

21. Defendants are making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing into the
Case 0:22-cv-62369-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/19/2022 Page 7 of 9

United States for subsequent sale or use Infringing Products that infringe directly and/or indirectly

the ornamental design for an organizer, namely the Dog Tie Out Stake, claimed in the Plaintiff’s

Patent.

22. Defendants have infringed the ’237 Patent through the aforesaid acts and will

continue to do so unless enjoined by this Court. Defendants’ wrongful conduct has caused Plaintiff

to suffer irreparable harm resulting from the loss of its lawful patent rights to exclude others from

making, using, selling, offering for sale, and importing the patented invention. Plaintiff is entitled

to injunctive relief pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 283. The issue of “willful” infringement measures the

infringing behavior, in the circumstances in which the infringer acted, against an objective standard

of reasonable commercial behavior in the same circumstances. Medtronic Xomed, Inc. v. Gyrus

Ent LLC, 440 F. Supp. 2d 1300, 1314 (M.D. Fla. 2006). The extent to which seller storefronts

disregarded the property rights of Plaintiff, the deliberateness of Seller Storefronts’ tortious acts

and other manifestations of unethical and injurious commercial conduct provide the grounds for a

finding of willful infringement and the enhancement of damages. See Id.

23. Defendants’ infringement, contributory infringement and/or inducement to

infringe has injured Plaintiff. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages adequate to

compensate it for such infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty.

24. Defendants’ infringement, contributory infringement and/or inducement to

infringe has been willful and deliberate because Defendants have notice of or knew of Plaintiff’s

patent and have nonetheless injured and will continue to injure Plaintiff, unless and until this Court

enters an injunction, which prohibits further infringement and specifically enjoins further

manufacture, use, sale, importation and/or offer for sale of products or services that come within

the scope of the ’237 patent.

25. Based on Defendants’ wrongful conduct, Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief as

well as monetary damages and other remedies as provided by Patent Act, including damages that

Plaintiff has sustained and will sustain as a result of Defendants’ illegal and infringing actions as

alleged herein, Defendants’ profits pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 289, and any other damages as

appropriate pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants as follows:

1) That Defendants, their affiliates, officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys,

confederates, and all persons acting for, with, by, though, under or in active concert with

them be temporarily, preliminarily, and permanently enjoined and restrained from:

a. making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing into the United States for

subsequent sale or use any products not authorized by Plaintiff and that include any

reproduction, copy or colorable imitation of the Patent claimed in the Plaintiff’s Patent.

b. aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone in infringing upon the

Plaintiff’s Patent; and

c. effecting assignments or transfers, forming new entities or associations or utilizing

any other device for the purpose of circumventing or otherwise avoiding the

prohibitions set forth in Subparagraphs (a) and (b).

2) Entry of an Order that, upon Plaintiff’s request, those with notice of the injunction, including,

without limitation, any online marketplace platforms such as Amazon or Walmart

(collectively, the “Third Party Provider”) shall disable and cease displaying any

advertisements used by or associated with Defendants in connection with the sale of goods
Case 0:22-cv-62369-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/19/2022 Page 9 of 9

that infringe Patent claimed in the Plaintiff’s Patent.

3) That Plaintiff be awarded such damages as it shall prove at trial against Defendants that are

adequate to compensate Plaintiff for Defendants’ infringement of the Plaintiff’s Patent, but in

no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by the Defendants,

together with interest and costs, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284;

4) That the amount of damages awarded to Plaintiff to compensate Plaintiff for infringement of

the Plaintiff’s Patent be increased by three times the amount thereof, as provided by 35 U.S.C.§

284.

5) In the alternative, that Plaintiff be awarded all profits realized by Defendants from Defendants’

infringement of the Plaintiff’s Patent, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 289;

6) That Plaintiff be awarded its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; and

7) Award any and all other relief that this Court deems just and proper.

Dated this 19th day of December 2022. Respectfully submitted,

Andrew J. Palmer
Jared W. Gasman Attorney, P.A.
5353 N. Federal Highway, Suite 402
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33308
Phone: 954-771-7050
ajpalmer@gasmanlaw.com
dkang@gasmanlaw.com