COMPLAINT 

 1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

Dongguan Tesmai Electronic Technology Co., Ltd.,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

The Individuals, Partnerships and Unincorporated 

Associations Identified on Schedule “A,” 

Defendants. 

 / 

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 

AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

Plaintiff Dongguan Tesmai Electronic Technology Co., Ltd. (“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. D891,522 (“the ’522 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 Toy Aircraft bearing counterfeit versions of the ornamental design 

of Plaintiff’s Patents (“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 

Case 0:22-cv-62029-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/01/2022 Page 1 of 9
COMPLAINT 

 2 

the United States for subsequent sale or use unauthorized and unlicensed Infringing Products that 

infringe ’522 Patent. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s Patents 

for the Toy Aircraft. Defendants create e-commerce stores operating under 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 

Case 0:22-cv-62029-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/01/2022 Page 2 of 9
COMPLAINT 

 3 

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

substantial injury in the State of Florida. 

III. THE PARTIES 

PLAINTIFF JOHN ANTHONY FISHER 

4. Plaintiff is a company organized under the laws of China, with its principal place 

of business located in Dongguan, China. 

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

the ’522 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 Toy Aircraft 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 

Case 0:22-cv-62029-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/01/2022 Page 3 of 9
COMPLAINT 

 4 

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 

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 ecommerce 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 

Case 0:22-cv-62029-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/01/2022 Page 4 of 9
COMPLAINT 

 5 

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 ecommerce 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 

Case 0:22-cv-62029-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/01/2022 Page 5 of 9
COMPLAINT 

 6 

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 

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 Patents. 

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 Patents 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 Patents 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. 

/// 

/// 

Case 0:22-cv-62029-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/01/2022 Page 6 of 9
COMPLAINT 

 7 

COUNT I

INFRINGEMENT OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. D891,522 

(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 

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

the ornamental design for an organizer, namely the Toy Aircraft, claimed in the Plaintiff’s Patent. 

22. Defendants have infringed the ’522 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 

Case 0:22-cv-62029-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/01/2022 Page 7 of 9
COMPLAINT 

 8 

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 ’522 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, through, 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 

Patents; 

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). 

Case 0:22-cv-62029-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/01/2022 Page 8 of 9
COMPLAINT 

 9 

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 (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 that infringe Patent claimed 

in the Plaintiff’s Patents; 

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 Patents, 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 Patents 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 Patents, 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 1st day of November 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 

Case 0:22-cv-62029-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/01/2022 Page 9 of 9