SATA GmbH & Co. KG v. Central Purchasing, LLC

Good Law
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaSeptember 13, 20212:20-cv-02131California2,126 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

I. Background

21 Plaintiff SATA GmbH & Co. KG (“SATA”) manufactures, among 22 other things, paint spray guns. (First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) ¶ 23 8.) SATA also owns a design patent, U.S. D552,213 (“the Patent”), 24 in an ornamental design for a paint spray gun. (Id. ¶ 23.) 25 Harbor Freight also sells paint spray guns. (Id. ¶¶ 14, 16.) In 26 1999, SATA brought suit against Harbor Freight, alleging trade 27 dress infringement and associated claims related to Harbor 28 Freight’s sale of paint spray guns. (Id. ¶ 14.) In 2000, the parties settled all claims and entered into a Settlement Agreement (“the Agreement”). (Id.) The Agreement included a confidentiality provision, under which both parties agreed not to disclose the Agreement, or its terms, to third parties. (FAC, Ex. A ¶ 18.) In 2020, SATA filed the instant action for patent infringement and breach of the 2000 Agreement. SATA filed the Agreement on the publicly-accessible court docket as Exhibit A to SATA’s original Complaint. (Dkt. 1.) The next day, counsel for Harbor Freight contacted SATA’s counsel, contending that SATA’s public filing of the Agreement constituted…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.