Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-07147/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-07147-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rubicon Ventures LLC
Defendant
Tech 21 Licensing Limited
Plaintiff
Tech 21 UK Limited
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

CONSENT JUDGMENT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

VIJAY K. TOKE (CA Bar No. 215079)

(vijay@cobaltlaw.com)

COBALT LLP

918 Parker Street, Bldg. A21

Berkeley, CA 94710

Telephone: (510) 841-9800

Facsimile: (510) 295-2401

DAVID B. OWSLEY II (to be admitted pro hac vice)

(dowsley@stites.com)

STITES & HARBISON PLLC

400 West Market Street, Suite 1800

Louisville, KY 40202-3352

Telephone: (502) 587-3400

Facsimile: (502) 587-6391

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

TECH 21 UK LIMITED and

TECH 21 LICENSING LIMITED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

TECH 21 UK LIMITED, a UK company and 

TECH 21 LICENSING LIMITED, a UK 

company,

Plaintiffs,

v.

RUBICON VENTURES LLC, a Massachusetts 

limited liability company,

Defendant.

Case No.: 3:16-cv-07147-JST

CONSENT JUDGMENT

This civil action has come before the Court, upon the pleadings of record, and it has been 

represented to the Court that plaintiffs, Tech 21 UK Limited and Tech 21 Licensing Limited 

(together “Tech21”), and defendant, Rubicon Ventures (“Rubicon”), have agreed to a final 

resolution of this case on the terms and conditions set forth below:

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:16-cv-07147-JST Document 17 Filed 01/12/17 Page 1 of 3
2

CONSENT JUDGMENT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WHEREFORE, with the consent of the parties, through their undersigned attorneys, and 

with the approval of this Court, the Parties submit the following consent judgment.

Background 

1. Tech21 filed its Complaint, asserting claims for: (1) Trade Dress Infringement (15 

U.S.C. § 1125(a)); (2) False Designation of Origin (15 U.S.C. §1125(a)); (3) Trade Dress Infringement 

(California common law); (4) Unfair Business Practices (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200); (5) Design 

Patent Infringement (35 U.S.C. §§ 271 & 289).

2. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this action.

3. Tech21 manufactures and sells a variety of protective cases and packaging to protect 

handheld mobile electronic devices.

4. Rubicon manufactures and sells a variety of protective cases and packaging to 

protect handheld mobile electronic devices. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT:

5. Rubicon, and its affiliates, subsidiaries, officers, directors, agents, successors and 

assigns, are hereby permanently restrained and enjoined from:

(a) making, using, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing all units of the Phantom 

product referenced in paragraphs 26-27 of the Complaint; and

(b) making, using, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing protective cases that 

practice the trade dress alleged in paragraphs 9-10 of the Complaint.

6. Rubicon represents and warrants that it ceased selling and marketing the Phantom 

product referenced in paragraphs 26-27 of the Complaint as of October 23, 2016. 

7. The Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this Judgment. Nonetheless, 

Tech21 will not ask the Court to enforce this Consent Judgment or grant redress for any alleged 

breach thereof unless and until Rubicon fails to remedy such breach within seven business days 

after Tech21 e-mails a notice of breach to Rubicon (rubiconcellular@gmail.com) and its litigation 

counsel, Joel Leeman (jleeman@sunsteinlaw.com). 

8. This Consent Judgment shall not be construed as an admission of liability 

notwithstanding the injunctive relief set forth above. 

Case 3:16-cv-07147-JST Document 17 Filed 01/12/17 Page 2 of 3
3

CONSENT JUDGMENT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

9. This Consent Judgment represents a final resolution of this action. The entire action 

shall be dismissed, and the clerk shall close the case. 

CONSENTS, THROUGH COUNSEL OF RECORD

Dated: January 11, 2017 By: /s/ Vijay K. Toke____________

Vijay K. Toke

COBALT LLP

David B. Owsley II (to be admitted pro hac vice)

STITES & HARBISON PLLC

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

TECH 21 UK LIMITED and

TECH 21 LICENSING LIMITED

Dated: January 11, 2017 By: /s/ Bruce D. Sunstein__________

Bruce D. Sunstein

SUNSTEIN KANN MURPHY & TIMBERS LLP

Attorneys for Defendant 

RUBICON VENTURES

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: ________________________ _____________________________________

Hon. Jon S. Tigar

United States District Court Judge

January 12, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-07147-JST Document 17 Filed 01/12/17 Page 3 of 3