Admitted Pro Hac Vice) [email protected] 2 TREVOR Q
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Case 2:16-cv-00557 Document 1 Filed 03/13/16 Page 1 of 172 1 JAMES V. FAZIO, III (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) [email protected] 2 TREVOR Q. CODDINGTON, PH.D. (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) [email protected] 3 SAN DIEGO IP LAW GROUP LLP 12526 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300 4 San Diego, CA 92130 Telephone: (858) 792-3446 5 Facsimile: (858) 792-3501 6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, IAN CHRISTOPHER O’CONNELL; MUSION EVENTS LTD.; 7 MUSION 3D LTD.; MUSION IP LTD.; and HOLICOM FILMS LTD. 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 11 IAN CHRISTOPHER O’CONNELL; CASE NO. MUSION EVENTS LTD., MUSION 3D 12 LTD.; MUSION IP LTD. and HOLICOM COMPLAINT FOR: FILMS LTD., 13 (1) INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT Plaintiffs, NO. 8,915,595; 14 (2) INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT vs. NO. 9,033,522; 15 (3) INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. HOLOGRAM USA, INC.; MDH TRADEMARK NO. 3,255,043; 16 HOLOGRAM LIMITED; UWE MAASS; (4) INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. and DOES 1 through 10, TRADEMARK NO. 3,776,645; 17 (5) BREACH OF CONTRACT; Defendants. (6) INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE 18 WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE; 19 (7) NEGLIGENT INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC 20 ADVANTAGE; (8) UNFAIR COMPETITION; 21 (9) BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY; (10) FALSE ADVERTISING IN 22 VIOLATION OF 15 U.S.C. §1125(A); (11) FRAUDULENT 23 MISREPRESENTATION; (12) CONVERSION; 24 (13) UNJUST ENRICHMENT/DISGORGEMENT; 25 AND (14) DECLARATORY JUDGMENT 26 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 27 28 COMPLAINT Case 2:16-cv-00557 Document 1 Filed 03/13/16 Page 2 of 172 1 As and for their Complaint, Plaintiffs Ian Christopher O’Connell (“O’Connell”), Musion 2 Events Ltd. (“MEL”), Musion 3D Ltd. (“M3D”), Musion IP Ltd. (“MIP”), and Holicom Films 3 Ltd. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) hereby allege against Defendants Hologram USA, Inc. 4 (“Hologram USA”), MDH Hologram Limited (“MDH”) and Uwe Maass (“Maass”) (collectively, 5 “Defendants”) as follows: 6 THE PARTIES 7 1. Ian Christopher O’Connell (“O’Connell”) is an individual residing in London, 8 England and is a citizen of the United Kingdom. As a one-third owner of MIP, O’Connell has 9 standing to assert infringement of the patents and trademarks alleged herein that are owned by 10 MIP. As the sole Assignee of the “Connected Claims” described herein, O’Connell also has 11 standing to assert any and all claims that MSL has against the Plaintiffs or otherwise. 12 2. Musion Events Limited (“MEL”) is a private company organized and existing 13 under the laws of the United Kingdom with its principal place of business in Leicester, England. 14 3. Musion 3D Ltd. (“M3D”) is a private company organized and existing under the 15 laws of the United Kingdom with its principal place of business in London, England. 16 4. Musion IP Ltd. (“MIP”) is a private company organized and existing under the 17 laws of the United Kingdom with its principal place of business in London, England. 18 5. Holicom Films Ltd. is a private company organized and existing under the laws of 19 the United Kingdom with its principal place of business in London, England. 20 6. Uwe Maass (“Maass”) is a citizen of Germany residing in Dubai, United Arab 21 Emirates. Musion Global Ltd. (“Musion Global”) is a United Kingdom entity with its principal 22 place of business located at Westcott House, 35 Portland Place, London, United Kingdom W18 23 1QF. On information and belief, Maass and/or MDH uses Musion Global in tandem with 24 Eventworks Dubai and/or Eventworks 4D LLC to sell infringing flame-retardant foil that 25 infringes at least the Defendants’ ‘595 patent. Plaintiffs have obtained and produced copies of 26 invoices from Musion Global to DRAFTFCB in New York for $194,610 for staging and filming a 27 holographic event in Dallas. On information and belief, Eventworks 4D, LLC is a Ohio limited 28 liability company and is a licensee/customer of MDH to which MDH supplied fireproof foil. On -1- COMPLAINT Case 2:16-cv-00557 Document 1 Filed 03/13/16 Page 3 of 172 1 information and belief, Eventworks Dubai is a foreign entity or partnership co-owned by Uwe 2 Maass and his wife Dalia al Yacoubi with a mailing address of P.O. Box 58113, Dubai, United 3 Arab Emirates. 4 7. On information and belief, MDH Hologram Limited (“MDH”) is a corporation 5 organized and existing under the laws of the United Kingdom with its registered office located at 6 90 High Holborn, London, United Kingdom WC1V 6XX. 7 8. On information and belief, Hologram USA, Inc. (“Hologram USA”) is a 8 corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal 9 place of business located at 301 N. Canon Drive, Beverly Hills, California 90210. 10 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 11 9. This Court has original and exclusive subject matter jurisdiction over the 12 Plaintiffs’ patent and trademark infringement and federal false advertising claims pursuant to 28 13 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs’ state 14 law claims under 28 U.S.C. §1367(a). 15 10. Personal jurisdiction and venue over the Defendants are proper at least because 16 they have subjected themselves to personal jurisdiction and venue in this District by virtue of 17 filing suit here and because Defendants regularly and systematically engage in business in this 18 District. 19 BACKGROUND 20 The Eyeliner Agreement, Maass Assignment, and MIP Assignment 21 11. In 1996, Uwe Maass filed the patent application that matured into the ‘519 patent. 22 12. Maass later met James Rock and Ian O’Connell and, in 2002, the three individuals 23 set up a company called Musion Systems Ltd. (“MSL”) to exploit the technology disclosed by the 24 ‘519 patent. 25 13. On October 29, 2002, MSL registered the domain name “musion.co.uk” with 26 Nominet. Later, in 2003, MSL applied to register “Musion” and “Eyeliner” as UK trademarks. 27 On April 1, 2004, MSL filed a further patent application relating to the technology naming 28 O’Connell and Rock as co-inventors, namely, the application that matured into the ‘212 patent. -2- COMPLAINT Case 2:16-cv-00557 Document 1 Filed 03/13/16 Page 4 of 172 1 14. The Eyeliner Agreement. In September 2006, the parties consulted Deloitte & 2 Touche (“Deloitte”) for advice concerning the structure of their business. This resulted in an 3 agreement dated June 25, 2007 known as the “Eyeliner Agreement.” The parties to the Eyeliner 4 Agreement were MSL, O’Connell, Maass, Rock, Eventworks Ltd. and MEL. Plaintiffs have 5 satisfied all their obligations under the Eyeliner Agreement, except to the extent they were 6 excused from performance by virtue of Defendants’ material breaches thereof as further alleged 7 herein. 8 15. Under the Eyeliner Agreement, in exchange for receiving ownership of certain 9 intellectual property including the ‘212 and ‘361 patents, Maass granted various licenses to (i) 10 MSL, (ii) O’Connell and Rock “for the benefit of, and onward assignment to” a new company to 11 be set up by them and to be called Musion Events Ltd. (“MEL”) and (iii) an entity called 12 EventWorks. The intention was that O’Connell and Rock would operate (through MEL) in the , 13 Eire, France, Italy and Russia; that Eventworks would operate in Bahrain, Oman, Kuwait, Qatar, 14 UAE and Switzerland; and that MSL would have the rights to operate anywhere else. 15 Importantly also, the Eyeliner Agreement placed certain contractual obligations and restrictions 16 on Maass and contemplated that O’Connell, Maass and Rock would form a new IP holding 17 company (“MIP”) that would own future intellectual property rights. 18 a. More specifically, the Eyeliner Agreement essentially provided that Maass must 19 not assign, transfer, encumber or license any intellectual property in the foil or 20 Licensed Products without the consent of O’Connell and Rock. Maass has 21 breached this provision of the Eyeliner Agreement by purporting to assign and/or 22 license the asserted patents without at least O’Connell’s consent to at least plaintiff 23 Hologram USA, Inc. and the settled defendants in the companion cases to this one, 24 Hologram USA, Inc. et al. v. Cirque du Soleil, LLC et al., 2:14-cv-916 (D. Nev.) 25 and Hologram USA, Inc. et al. v. Pulse Evolution Corp. et al., 2:14-cv-772 (D. 26 Nev.). 27 b. In addition, the Eyeliner Agreement provided that any net income derived from 28 exploitation of the Foil and the Licensed Product (among other things) shall be -3- COMPLAINT Case 2:16-cv-00557 Document 1 Filed 03/13/16 Page 5 of 172 1 shared by Maass, O’Connell and Rock through their shareholdings in MSL and all 2 parties shall assign all such income to MSL for that purpose. Maass has breached 3 the Eyeliner Agreement at least because he has (1) granted patent licenses without 4 O’Connell and Rock’s consent; and (2) failed to share all net income derived from 5 exploitation of the Foil and the Licensed Product with O’Connell and Rock as 6 required by the agreement. 7 c. In addition, the Eyeliner Agreement provided that Maass was the owner of 8 intellectual property including the ‘519 patent, and that MSL was the owner of the 9 “MSL Registrations” which included the PCT Application G2004/001414) and all 10 worldwide applications in and for patents based on that PCT Application, which 11 include the ‘212 patent and ‘361 patent.