i · protection act, 9 v.s.a. § 2458(b), to sue to enforce the act's prohibitions on unfair...

STATE OF VERMONT, Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE

DISTRICT OF VERMONT

U.:l. OlSHUCT COUl~. 01 S T R I C T 0 F ¥ E R rHJ hi';

f:'iLED

ZOI3 Jmf-7 PH 3: 36

v.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Docket No. 2 : \ '3 - C. V - \I D

MPHJ TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENTS, LLC,

Defendant

NOTICE OF REMOVAL

Defendant MPHJ Technology Investments, LLC ("MPHJ"), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§

1331, 1332(a), 1338, 1367, 1441(a)-(c), 1446, 1454, and 2072; 35 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq.; and the

United States Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2 (Supremacy Clause) and Article I, Section 8,

Clause 8 (Patent Clause) hereby removes this action to the United States District Court for the

District of Vermont.

In support, MPHJ states as follows:

1. On or about May 8, 2013, Plaintiff commenced an action in the State of Vermont

Superior Court, Washington Unit, by filing a "Consumer Protection Complaint" captioned State

of Vermont v. MPHJ Technology Investments, LLC, Docket No. 282-5-13 Wncv (the

"Complaint"). A copy of the Complaint is annexed hereto as Exhibit A.

2. On May 20,2013, MPHJ received a copy ofthe Complaint, together with a

summons and transmittal form, copies of which are annexed hereto as Exhibit B.

76 St. Paul Street Post Office Box 369 Burlington, Vermont 05402-0369

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

Case 2:13-cv-00170-wks Document 1 Filed 06/07/13 of 3

3. Exhibits A and B represent all process, pleadings, and orders served upon

Defendant in this action.

4. The Complaint presents a federal question arising under the United States

Constitution and the laws ofthe United States, specifically, the validity, infringement, and

enforcement of patents that are the subject ofthe letters upon which this action is based,

questions which fall within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the federal district courts.

See, e.g., 28 U.S.C. § 1338 ("The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil

action arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents .... No State court shall have

jurisdiction over any claim for relief arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents ... ");

35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.; 28 U.S.C. § 2072.

5. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over any State law claims that may exist.

6. This Court also has diversity jurisdiction over this action. The matter in

controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000. Defendant, MPHJ Technology Investments,

LLC is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of Delaware with a

principle place of business in the State ofDelaware. The sole member ofMPHJ Technology

Investments, LLC is J. Mac Rust, a citizen of the State of Texas. While this case is filed by the

Attorney Generally purportedly in parens patriae for Vermont, the action actually is a suit by the

Attorney Generally on behalf of certain Vermont businesses, which, upon information and belief,

are citizens of the State of Vermont and their citizenship must be considered in determining

diversity jurisdiction.

7. Thirty (30) days have not yet expired since receipt of the Complaint.

8. Written notice of the filing of this Notice of Removal will be served upon Plaintiff

and filed with the State of Vermont Superior Court, Washington Unit.

gra~~ e~ I ATTORNEYS AT LAW



- 2-


WHEREFORE, Defendant MPHJ Technology Investments, LLC removes this action to

the United States District Court for the District of Ver

Dated:

gra~~e~ IATTORNEYSAHAW



Burlington, Vermont June 7, 2013

- 3 -

Andrew D. anitsky, Esq. Gravel & Shea PC 76 St. Paul Street, ih Floor, P. 0. Box 369 Burlington, VT 05402-0369 (802) 658-0220 [email protected]

and

Bryan Farney, Esq. Maeghan Whitehead, Esq. Farney Daniels PC 800 S. Austin Avenue, Suite 200 Georgetown, TX 78626-5845 (512) 582-2810 [email protected] (Pro Hac Vice pending)

For Defendant


Office of the ATTORNEY GENERAL

109 State Street Montpelier, VT

05609

I ,J

li L.

, STATE OF VERMONT,

STATE OF VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT .WASfi~GTON UNIT

~

CiVIL DIVISION . . I Docket No . . "'K,2- ·~ L:$ Lc:v\ ('.L.f

) } ) ) ) ) )

Plaintiff

v.

MPHJ TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENTS, LLC Defendant

CONSUMER PRQTECTJON CQMPLAINT

I. Introduction

1. The Vermont Attorney General brings this suit under the Vermont Consumer

Protection Act, 9 V.S.A. §§ 2451 et seq. in response to consumer fraud violations by

Defendant MPHJ Technology Investments, LLC. Defendant has engaged in unfair and

deceptive acts by sending a series of letters to many small businesses and non-profit

organizations in Vermont. The letters threaten patent litigation if the businesses do not

pay licensing fees. The Attorney General seeks injunctive relief, restitution and other

compensation to consumers, civil penalties, fees and costs, and other appropriate relief.

II. ~i!Jligs. lurisdictiQn and Related Matters

2. Defendant MPHJ Technology Investments, LLC ("MPHJ Technology") is a

Delaware Limited Liability Company that claims to be located at 1220 North Market Street,

i Ste. 806, Wilmington, Delaware 19801. This is the address of Registered Agents Legal

Services, LLC. MPHJ Technology's registered agent in Delaware. :I I 3. MPHJ Technology operates in Vermont through forty wholly-owned shell

subsidiary companies: AbsMea, LLC; AccNum, LLC; AdzPro, LLC; BarMas, LLC; BetNam,

1

Case 2:13-cv-00170-wks Document 1-1 Filed 06/07/13 Page 1 of 26



05609

II ' ~~ LLC; BriPol, LLC; BruSed, LLC: BunVic, LLC; CaiLad, LLC; Ca!Neb, LLC; CapMat, LLC; ChaPac,

!< LLC; CraVar, LLC; DayMas, LLC; DesNot, LLC; DreOcc, LLC; DucPla, LLC; ElaMon, LLC;

EntNil, LLC; EquiVas, LLC; FanPar, LLC; FasLan, LLC; Fo!Ner, LLC; FraMor, LLC; GimVea,

LLC; GosNel, LLC; GraMet, LLC; HadOpp, LLC; HanMea, LLC; HarNol, LLC; HeaPie, LLC;

lnaNur, LLC; lnkSen, LLC; lntPar, LLC; lsaMai, LLC; )amVor, LLC; JitNom, LLC; jonMor, LLC;

JudPur, LLC; and JusLem, LLC (collectively, the "Shell LLCs"). Each of the Shell LLCs is a

Delaware Limited Liability Company that claims to be located at 40 East Main Street, #19,

Newark, Delaware 19711, a UPS Store.

4. jay Mac Rust, a Texas attorney, is the manager of MPHJ Technology. Calls from

letter recipients to any Shell LLC are directed to Mr. Rust if there is a significant problem.

5. Mr. Rust is also the signatory of every patent's "Exclusive License Agreement"

between MPHJ Technology and each Shell LLC. He has signed each agreement on behalf of

both MPH I Technology and the Shell LLC.

6. MPHJ Technology controls the operations of the Shell LLCs.

7. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant MPHJ Technology did

business in Vermont and solicited payments from Vermont consumers through its wholly

owned subsidiaries.

8. The Vermont Attorney General is authorized under the Vermont Consumer

Protection Act, 9 V.S.A. § 2458(b), to sue to enforce the Act's prohibitions on unfair and

) : deceptive acts and practices in commerce. 'l ' 9. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant and is the proper venue for

I I this action, based on the unfair and deceptive letters sent, or otherwise authorized, by

I i Defendant throughout Vermont, including in Washington County. jl

II 'I I, I' II

2

- ---------------------------------------------------------


Office ot the ATTORNEY GENERAL


05609

10. This action is in the public interest.

Ill. Statutory Framework

11. The Vermont Consumer Protection Act, 9 V.S.A. § 2453(a), prohibits unfair and

deceptive acts and practices in commerce.

12. Businesses are considered consumers under the Vermont Consumer Protection

Act, except where the goods or services at issue are being resold by the business.

13. The acts described below, and summarized in paragraphs 14-54. constitute

unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce.

IV. Facts

14. Since September 2012, numerous Vermont small businesses have received

letters from one of the Shell LLCs.

15. Defendant, acting through the Shell LLCs, has sent similar letters to hundreds or

thousands of businesses outside Vermont.

16. One Vermont recipient of the letters was Lincoln Street, Inc., a Springfield,

Vermont non-profit that operates on state and federal funding to bring home care to I

i 1 developmentally disabled Vermonters. Another Vermont recipient was ARIS Solutions, a

non-profit that provides fiscal agent services to Vermonters with disabilities to assist them

with daily living tasks.

17. The letters allege potential infringement of MPHJ Technology's patents, and

request that the recipients either purchase licenses or confirm that they are not infringing

the patents. See Exs. A-C.

3




05609

18. The patents that Defendant owns and that are referenced in these letters sent to

Vermont businesses were previously the subject of litigation brought by the prior owner of

the patents. Those lawsuits were voluntarily dismissed by the patent-holder prior to any

determination of their validity. No court has ruled on the validity of the patents.

19. The earliest patent referenced in these letters was filed in 1998 and issued in

2001.

20. On information and belief, no attempt to enforce the patents occurred until

2012.

21. Exhibit A is a redacted copy of the first letter sent to targeted businesses.

22. The first letter began, ''We have identified your company as one that appears to

be using the patented technology."

23. The first letter further stated:

You should know also that we have had a positive response from the business community to our licensing program. As you can imagine, most businesses, upon being informed that they are infringing someone's patent rights, are interested in operating lawfully and taking a license promptly. Many companies have responded to this licensing program in such a manner. Their doing so has allowed us to determine that a fair price for a license negotiated in good faith and without the need for court action is payment of [$900- $1200] per employee.

24. The first letter demanded that if the recipient business did not believe it was

infringing, it fill out a questionnaire and produce extensive and burdensome

documentation to prove that it was not infringing. See Ex. A, p. 4, para 2.

25. Exhibit B is a redacted copy of the third letter in the series of letters sent to

Vermont businesses.

4




05609

II

!j ), ·I I· il

I 26. Exhibit Cis a redacted copy of a draft complaint sent to Vermont businesses with

i the second or third letter. I r 27. The second and third letters were sent by a Texas law firm, Farney Daniels LLP

I i! ("Farney Daniels"). The second and third letters state that Farney Daniels is sending the

\! letters on behalf of the Shell LLC that sent the first letter. ![ !I 28. These later letters claimed that, because the recipients did not respond to the

~

i 1 first, or first and second, letters, it was reasonable to assume that the recipient was

I · infringing the patents, and Defendant had therefore retained patent counsel.

li ,I

29. Some businesses that have complained to the Attorney General never received

the first or second letters, and only received a third letter that referred to the prior letters.

30. The second letter stated that Farney Daniels' representation can involve

litigation, which could be avoided if the recipient were to respond in two weeks to discuss

licensing the patents.

31. The third letter twice promised to bring litigation:

[I]f we do not hear from you within two weeks from the date of this letter, our client will be forced to file a Complaint against you for patent infringement in Federal Court where it will pursue all of the remedies and royalties to which it is entitled ..

LW]e must hear from you within two weeks of the date of this letter. Given that litigation will ensue otherwise, we again encourage you to retain competent patent counsel to assist you in this matter. (Emphasis in original)<

32. The third letter, and sometimes the second letter, attached a draft complaint ll I 1 against the receiving business, naming the Shell LLC that sent the letter as the plaintiff. See \

I I I

I

ri

Exhibit C

5


Office of the AITORNEY GENERAL


05609

ll I

33. Defendant states in the letters that it will target additional Vermont businesses

· as part of its "ongoing vigorous licensing program."

34. The three letters Defendant sent to Vermont businesses contain statements that

are false, deceptive, and likely to mislead the businesses that received them.

35. On information and belief, Defendant performed little, if any, due diligence to

confirm that the targete-d businesses were actually infringing its patents prior to sending

these letters.

36. Defendant targeted small businesses in commercial fields that were likely

unrelated to patent law.

37. On information and belief, Defendant has not received a positive response from

the business community to its licensing program.

38. Nationwide, only a tiny fraction of the businesses that have received these

letters, not "many" or "most," have purchased licenses.

39. The actual average licensing fee negotiated by Defendant was Jess than $900.

40. A business that receives a letter from a law firm that mentions the possibility of

litigation is reasonably likely to infer that the threat of potential litigation is real.

41. Neither Defendant nor any Shell LLC has filed a single lawsuit in Vermont or any

other state.

42. Over 130 days have passed since Vermont businesses began receiving letters

promising that they would be sued if they did not respond within two weeks.

43. On information and belief, at the time the third letters were sent and

Defendant's counsel promised to sue the recipient businesses, Defendant had not engaged

6




05609

in any further investigation of the recipient businesses or determined that the businesses

were actually infringing its patents.

44. At the time the letters were sent to Vermont businesses, Defendant had not

j retained local Vermont counsel, as would be needed to prepare for litigation in Vermont

45. Obtaining an opinion from qualified patent counsel as to whether a patent is

II valid and whether a potential patent-infringement action is likely to succeed can cost

J j thousands of dollars, and can exceed the cost of the requested licenses.

) ! 46. Even an unsuccessful patent-infringement action may cost the defendant in

:1 excess of$1~2 million if the defendant chooses not to settle.

47. In certain circumstances, defendants in patent litigation may be able to recover

1 their costs from plaintiffs, but that requires first enduring the entirety of the litigation.

I I

48. lf the defendant in a patent lawsuit successfully moves for an award of fees and

I I costs, but the plaintiff is an undercapitalized shell company, the defendant will not be I

J reimbursed for the costs of litigation.

49. In the letters sent to Vermont businesses, each Shell LLC claimed to possess an

exclusive license, which would permit it to enforce the patents against businesses within a

specific geographic area and commercial field.

50. Each Shell LLC was actually assigned a combination of geographic and

commercial fields that was identical to at least one other Shell LLC.

51. Given the overlapping assignments, the Shell LLCs do not possess exclusive

J licenses.

1J

11

I

i' ,I II

7




05609

52. The Shell LLCs mostly targeted businesses in Vermont that were located outside

the geographic regions in which the Shell LLCs claimed to be legally permitted to enforce

the patents.

53. Despite the reasonable inference that counsel sending a letter threatening

litigation has reviewed the case and found it meritorious in accordance with his or her

professional and ethical obligations, on information and belief, that review did not take

place.

54. Defendant acted in bad faith by sending these letters to Vermont businesses.

V. Cause of Action: Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices

55. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference herein each and every

allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs 1 through 54.

56. Defendant engaged in unfair trade practices in commerce in violation of the

Vermont Consumer Protection Act 9 V.S.A. § 2453(a), including:

a. Stating that litigation would be brought against the recipients, when

Defendant was neither prepared nor likely to bring litigation;

b. Using legal counsel to imply that Defendant had performed a sufficient

pre~suit investigation, including investigation into the target businesses

and their potentially infringing activities, that would be required to justify

filing a lawsuit;

c. Targeting small businesses that were unlikely to have the resources to

fight patent-litigation, or even to pay patent counsel;

d. Sending letters that threatened patent·infringement litigation with no

independent evidence that the recipients were infringing its patents;

8




05609

'

i' :I 1\

II II I

e. Shifting the entire burden of the pre-suit investigation onto the small

businesses that received the letters;

f. Propounding burdensome information demands on any business that

claimed not to infringe the patents; and

g. Using shell corporations in order to hide the true owners of the patents,

avoid liability, and encourage quick settlements.

I 57. Defendant engaged in deceptive trade practices in commerce in violation of the I

j Vermont Consumer Protection Act, 9 V.S.A § 2453(a), by making deceptive statements in

I: the threatening letters which would likely lead consumers to believe the following: 11

a. Defendant would sue the target businesses if they did not respond within

two weeks;

b. Defendant would sue the target businesses ifthey did not pay money;

c. Defendant had a reasonable basis for identifying the target businesses as

infringing its patents;

d. Subsidiary Shell LLCs were exclusive licensees able to enforce the

patents;

e. Target companies were within the sending Shell LLC's alleged area of

exclusivity;

f. Defendant's licensing program had received a positive response from the

business community;

g. Many or most businesses were interested in promptly purchasing a

license from Defendant;

9




05609

!I

'! 11

I I II

I

h. Based on prior licensing agreements, the fair price of a license was

between $900 and $1200 per employee;

i. Target businesses were receiving a third letter, which refers to two prior

letters, when in many cases recipients had received no prior letters.

WHEREFORE Plaintiff State of Vermont requests judgment in its favor and the

following relief:

1. A permanent injunction prohibiting Defendant from engaging in any business

activity in, into or from Vermont that violates Vermont law.

2. A permanent injunction requiring Defendant to stop threatening Vermont

businesses with patent-infringement lawsuits.

3. Full restitution to all Vermont businesses who suffered damages due to

Defendant's acts.

4. Civil penalties of up to $10,000.00 for each violation of the Consumer Protection

Act

S. The award of investigative and litigation costs and fees to the State ofVermont.

6. Such other relief as the Court deems appropriate.

10


Office of the AITORNEY GENERAL


05609

Dated: May 8, 2013

11

STATE OF VERMONT

WILLIAM H. SORRELL ATTORNEY GENERAL

Bridget C. A . a Ryan Kriger Assistant Attorneys General Vermont Attorney General's Office 109 State Street Montpelier, VT 05609 Tel. (802) 828-5500 basay@a tg.state.vt.us [email protected]


Rc:

HarNol, LLC 40 E.a&t Mam Str'eet. # i 9 N~DE 19'7l1

S66-320..S3/l

liiiliiii1ll

Exhibit A

We are the licensing agent fnr certain U.S. patents listed below. We bsve identified your company as one that appears to be using the patented technology, and we are contacting you to initiate discussions regarding your need for a license. In this letter, we explain what the patents cover, how you likely have an i.nfringing system, explain why a license is needed, and provide you the general t=rms for sucb a license. We also answer some frequently asked questions, as well as explain how you cao determine whether you do have an infringing system that requires a license. We should note that we have written you with the understanding that ycru are the proper person to contact on behalf of __.._If you are not the proper person to handle this matter on behalf of the compao~s let+..er to the proper person., and notify us so that we may update our records and contact them directly in the future.

To turn to the matter at hand, the patents for which we are the licensing agent are listed below. T'he list incJudes both issued U.S. patents, as weli as a patent application which is expected to issue in the future as an additional U.S. patent

:. U.S. ?at. No. 7,986,426 ("Distributed Computer Architecture And Process Fer Document Merugcmenr');

2. U.S. Pat. No. 7,477,410 ("Distributed Computer Architecture And Process For Virtual Copying");

3. U.S. Pat. No. 6,771,381 (''Distributed Computer Architecture And Process Far Virtual Copying");

4. U.S. Pat. No. 6,185.590 (''Process And Architecture For Use On Sta.'1d-Alone Machine And In Distributed Computer Architecture For Client Server .A..nd!Or lntra."let And!Or Internet Operating Environments"); and

5. 13/182,857 filed July !4, 20!1 (''Distributed Computer Architecture And Process For Document Management").

You can find and review each of the issued patents listed above .at W\VW.google.com!pe.tents.


?age2

A.s you may know, a patent's scope is defined by its cl.airns, and you will see tb.ar each of !he above-listed pa.ten.ts have different claims. While those differences ma.tter and mean each patent is distinct, the patents listed above do, as a group, generally relate to the same teclmology field, and cover what at tbe time was a groundbreeldng diSiributed computer architecture and process fur digital document management An illustrative embodiment of the arobit.ecture of the patents is provided in Figure 2&, which is reproduced here for your reference.

~!'ION$ •• ~' I.OOAI. Fl.!$

~·-··~ .'t 1' .,.. ' 1 f»lli~f'lf..$ 1 '

~+i ~=~-• •

""~ . " ~ ~ .

~···•··~ 1'111Hll1!1 tMrtAL~ lol\.1..~ 1'91P'ti!IIAL l1a. ~'-XI

F\.g. 2&

A good example of an infringing system, and one your company likely uses, is an office local area network ("'LAN'') which is in communication with a server, employee computers having email sofh¥a.re such as Outlook or Lotus, and a third-parry scanner (or a multi-function printer v.ith scanning functionality) which permits the scanning of a document directly to employee email address as a pdf at'..achment. Such a system would be a typical example of ·what infringes. There are other examples listed further below.

We note here that the scope of the patents is technically defmed by the claims, and the lEL·1guage of the claims defines the legaJ scope of the patents. The more generalized exam.ples provided in this letter are for your convenience and should not be considered exact substitutes for the more detailed claims.. As such, you mey find it useful to consider, as illustrative examples, claims 1·5 ofthe '426 Patent. Reviewing those you can see that the patent claims are directed to a system having a digital eopier/scan.'1er/multifunction device wjtb an interface to office equipment (or to the web) and related softwa.-e, for scanning or copying and transmitting images electronicalfy to one or more destinations such as email, applications or other local files. Coverage of this type of system. a.11d of the more generally worded example in the prev1ous paragraph. is funber reflected in claims 1, 8 and 15 oft.~e '4}0 Patent, claims 12 and 15 of the '381 Patent, and claims 9 and 16 of the '590 Patent. Obviously each claim is separately drafted and you should consider the scope of each claim separately.

To assist you in confll'ming that you need a license, we provide illustrative examples of ir.fringing systems below in the form of a brief set of fact checklists the1 you can use to determine if your system is one for which you should contact us about a license. lf you can answer "'YES" to each question under any of t.~e scenarios A t.'ru'ough C below, then you should contact us promptly.


- -------------------

Page 3

A.. lnternetworldng of Sc:ao..ner!MFP and Email (SMTP, IMAP, POP3)

Yea No

0 Cl

w 0

w ;:;

L

2.

3.

Does your company use document scanning equipment that is network addressable (i.e , it has an IP address and can communiczte on your network);

Does your company use Microsoft Exchange!Outlock, Lotus Domino/Notes or a comparable system for company email;

A:re at least some of your employees' email addresses loaded into the scanner, so that you can select to whom you wish to send a scanned document by email; or, alternatively, can you manually input an employee's email address L'lto the scanner to whom you wish a sc.anned document to b:: sent; and

o o 4 Can you cause yoi.u- sca..TIDer to transform your paper docUl!lent to a .pdf file, and have it automatically transmitted to one or more of your employees by email. By automatically, we mean that pressing a "Start" or "Go" button instigates both tbe copying oft.~e document and the automatic transmission of the doctll'nent to its intended destination (such as a Microsoft Outlook email inbox).

B. Sr::uner!MFP and Sbarepoint (HTTP and HTTPS)

o ::J 1. Does your company use document scanning equipment that is network addressable (i.e., it has an rP address and can communicate on your network);

o o 2. Does your company use Microsoft Sharepoint; and

o o 3. Is your scanner equipment configured so that you can scan a document and automatically transmit it to a Sharepoint site address.

C. Scanner/MFP and FrP/SFTP Site

o ::J l. Does your company use document scanning equipment t.l-tat is network addressable (i.e., it has an IP address and can communicate on your network);

o o 2. Does your company use File T!'fu'lsfer Protocol and/or Secure File Transfer Protocol; and

o o 3. Is your sca:nner equipment con....-'lgured so that you can scan a document and automatically transmit it to a.."l FTP or SFTP site.

Our research. vvhich includes review of several marketplace trends and surveys, includi:1g various IDC reports, lnfotrends reports and market share analyses.. as well as a recent survey of an IT service cornpa."l)' about the intemal network environments of its clients, has led us to the conclusion that an overv.•helming majority of companies like yours utilize systems that are set up to practice at least one of sc..-na.rios A through C above. Indeed, such practices are now standard in many industries. As a common example, our investigation has shown t.~at most businesses have migrated to the usage of corporate email servers run..r'ling Exchange or Lotus Domino/Notes and have further i."'lcorporated digital scanning into t.'r)eir workflows.


?age4

As your orga.n.iz.atiou aL.'Uost cerWnly uses in its da:y~to-day operations digital copier/scannet/multifu.nction equipment which is interfaced tO a separate central office computer (an office network). so that digital i.ma.ges may be scanned and trmstnitted to one or more destin.a.tions such as email accounts a:nd other applicatio.cs, you should enter into a Hcense agreement with us at this time.

lfyou believe you are in tbe unusuai position of not baving a system that can practice any of scenarios A through C outlined above, or otherwise avoids the requirements of the patent claims, please contact us so we may discuss means for confirming that Upon appropriate confumation. we would agree you bJ!ve no need of a license and would not intend to purs~ the matter further unless cL"Cumstsnces changed in a way to warrant reopening a reasonable inquiry. The materials we likely would require could include copies of the user manuals for your office copying/scanning equipment, along with the IP addresses and 2012 daily activity logs for each of them, as well as the registry of each of the email servers and file servers used in your company. These would allow us to determine whether we agree with your assessment Of course, we are v.rilling to treat any information you provide us as corJidential e.'1d we will sign a non-disclosuJ·e agreement to that effect if you so desire. We should note that the examples A tr<.rough C above a.--e not an exhaustive iist of the systems which may infringe, and that it may be determined that your S)'Stem neve!"'.he1ess requires a license even if it does not exactly fit one of the more common examples we have provided in this letter. However, when you provide us with the above information, we will be able to make that determination and explain that situation to you, if it exists.

You should know also that we have had a positive response from the business community to our licensing program. As you can imagine, most businesses, upon being informed that they are infringing someone's patent rights, are interested in operating lawfully and taking a license promptJy. Many companies have responded to this licensing program in such a mar.ner. Their doing so has allowed us to determine that a fair price for a license negotiated in good faith and without the need for court action is a payment of $1,000 per employee. We trust that your organization wiU agree to conionn your bel:-.avior tO respect our patent rights by negotiating a license rather than continuing to accept the benefits of OUT patented technology without a license. Assuming this is the case, we are prepared to make this pricing available to you.

As part of our licensing program, we have received ce.'1:ain common inquiries that frequently are asked. 1n anticipation that you might have some of those same questior.s, and v.'ith an interest in addressing those sooner than later, we 'Wish to provide some additional information as welL

One common question we have been asked is why we are not contacting the manufacturers of the scanning equipment or application software directly. The answer is our patent rights do not claim any scanning equipment, network file systems, FTP or Sharepoi:nt sites, or email systems alone. Instead. oUT patent rights are addressed to end user enterprise systems which use network sca.-mers or MFPs interoperably with ot.1.er software/systems in order to practice the patented solution. As such, we would not, and do not, expect any manufacturer of a particular piece of equipment or softwa:e to accept any responsibility for the infringement created by the overall system, of which their product is only a part. Further, we expect that if you review your OWl'l agreements ~ith these rnanufacturers, you v.rill find that likewise they do not owe you any duty to indemnify you for situations where you combine a piece of equipment or softv.rare witb other equipmerrt or software to make a larger, more integrated (and useful) system.


Another common question is whether (or wby) you have been singled out to receive this letter, as you may believe there are other companies like you that have not been contacted. Our response to th.a1 is to essu.re you that we have an ongoing vigorous licensing program that is being handled as promptly as possible. and that we fully expect to add:ess the companies who are in need of a license. 'I"ha! said, your infringement of the patent rights is not justified by the infringement by otbe:-s, as we are sure you understand.

We do invite you to consult vvith a patent attorney regarding this matter. Patents are exclusive property rights granted by law, and there can be serious consequences for infringement. I.nfrin.gers who continue to infringe in the face of an objectively high risk of infringement of a valid patent can be forced to pay treble (triple) the actual damages, as well as the patent owner's litigation costs, including all attorney's fees.

Please let us hear from you within two weeks of the date of this letter, so that we may agree with you upon an appropriate license ammgement if one is needed. You may answer by contacting us b)' mail, phone, or email at the address provided at lhe start of this letter. We look for,.,ard to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

David Martin HarNol, LLC


Re:

Dear

FARNEY DAN1ELS LLP llOO South Austin A~., Suite :200 G@rgetoWA, Texu 1&626·S34S

YID Fir&( CJtm Mall

We write with respect to the patent licensing efforts of out client., Ent."fll, LLC. This is the third letter you have received on this topic. The first letter, sent to you some time ago, provided a detailed explanation of what our client's patents cover, how you likely have an infringing system and therefore require a license, and provided you with the general terms for such a license. We then wrote you several weeks ago, noting that our client had oot received a response from you., and had turned the matter over to us in hopes that we would be able to work out a license agreement. Both }etters advised you l.o seek patent counsel for assistance. As you have not contacted us to explain that you do not have an infringing system, we reasonably can only assume that the system you are using is covered by the patents. In that case, you do need a l' license.

Accordingly, if we do not hear from you within two weeks from the date of this letter, our client will be forced to file a Complaint against you for patent infringement in Federal District Court where it will pursue all of the remedies SJ'ld royalties to which it lei entitled. The Complaint is attached, so that you may review it and show it to your counsel. Please note that we reserve the right to modify the Compla.int, including adding additional patents, before we file. WhHe our client would like to avoid litigation, lt takes its licensing responsibilities seriously, as well as its responsibilities to protect the interests of all the companies who have already taken tbe proper step of obtaining a license. As stated in both the first and second letters you received, our client has no interest in seeking a license from someone who does not infringe. To reiterate this point one last time, if your company does not use a system coverea b~ t~e pa1ents, v.te urge you to contact us to confirm tlon-infringement so that we may d1scontinue our correspondence wltb you llJ'ld avoid the unnecessary expense associated with a lawsuit.

ln the far more likely scenario that you de need a license, we are prepared to work with you to reach an agreement on reasonable terms, but we must bear from you within two~~ of the date of thls letter. Given that litigation will ensue otherwise, we again encourage you to retain comp~:tent patent counsel to assist you in this matter. lf you have al:eady retained patent counsel, :please forward th.is Jetter to them and inform us of your choice of counsel so that we may direct all future correspondence to them.

You may contact rne at (S 12) 508-8481,

Sincerely,

Maeghan Whitehead


--- --· -~ -"-- --- - -- Exliib1tc··--- - -- · ·--

TN THE UNITED STATES DISTRlCT COURT

EnfNil, LLC

Plaintiff, Civil Action No.----

v. JURY TRIAL REQUESTED

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff EntNil, LLC (''EntNil" or "Plaintiff"), by way of Complaint against Defendant

<~Defendant"), hereby alleges as follows:

NATURE OF THE ACTJON

l. This is a.n action for patent infringement arising under the Patent Laws of the

United States, 35 U.S.C. H 1, et seq.

THEPA;BTIES

2. Plaintiff EntNil is a- limited liability c.ompany organized under the Laws of

Delaware with its principal place of business at 40 East Main Street, #19, Newark, DE 19711.

J!,;!Rl.SDICTION AND VENUE

4. This is an action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the

United States, Title 35 of the United States Code. This Cou.'t has jutisdictlon over the subject

r::latter of this action under 28 U.S.C §§ 1331 and 133&(a). Venue is proper in this judicial

district under 28 U.S.C. §§ l39l(b&c) and 1400(b).


5. Tnis Cow1 has personal jurisdiction over Defendant for at least the following

reasons: (i) has. upon i.nformation and belief. knowingly and intentionally

committed acts cf patent infringement at least in this Distriot and (i.i)

does business or solicits business, engages in other persistent courses of conduct, andJor derives

substantial revenue from products and/or services provided to individuals in fuis District

RELEVANT FACTS

6, This is a case where the Plaintiff owns valuable patent rights through a

combination of issued patents .and patents pending which cover the Defendant's ability to operate

an information technology system wlthin which its employees are able to scan a document into

such things as (a} an email attachment, including transmittal of the attachment over a local area

network or across the Internet; (b) a digital document file format, transmitted over a local area

network or across the Internet, including storage of the document into its network files so that it

can be acces.seci by Defendant's employees t.l;rough one or more software applications: (c) a

digital document, inciuding transrnJttal of the document to a Sharepoint site or an FTP site.

These patent rights are valuable because of the efficiencies they add to the workplace via the fast,

reliable transmission of data "'it..~Jout the added cost, delay and unreliability of paper-based

systems of the prior art.

7 Defendant obtained this lech."lology by integrating hardware, software and other

equipment provided by various companies, none of which individually are accused of infringing

the P!aintift'!; patent rights. However, the Defendant has h7ought these diverse elements together

into a data management srstem that infringes Plaintiffs patent rights.

8. Plaintiff has previously cornmunicatorl in writing wlth Defendant about its patent

rights, incJuding setting forth its view that Defenda.'l.t should take a license to one or more of its

2


patents. Defendant has not denied the use of the infringing technology, but has thus fat been

urrwi.Ui.ng to share any of its own business information requested by Plaintiff, and has

furthermore failed to cease its illegal theft of Plaintiff's patont rights.

9. Upon information and belief, Defendant has created and maintains a system for

col.lecting,, storing and accessing information,

l 0. Upon information and belic::f, Defendant utilizes a network addressable scanner

and or a network addressable multifunction device (each of which \s hereby described as en "IP

scanne.f"). The rP scanJ1er is capable of scruming paper into a digjtaJ form. Said [p sce.nner has

its own IP address. lt is conftgured so that various employee email addresses may be inputted

into it in advance. Said rP scanner also includes a user interface which permits the user to input,

inter alia, an intended recipien~s email address, and then to press a button, which in tum triggers

the scanning cf paper into a digitally-format-..ed file that is automatically emailed to the intended

recipient's email address. Upon information and belief, such fP scanner is configured to support

similar related functionality such as scanning a document into a digital file that it transmitted to a

Sharepoint site and/or lo !L'1 FTP site, where it may be accessed by one or more of Defendant's

employees. To be clear, Plaintiff is not alleging or contending that !P scanner equipment alone

infringes any patent rights.

l i. Upon information at:d belief, Defendant utilizes within its tT infrastnlcture an

email system. Upon information and belief, Defendant utilizes Microsoft Exchange and

Outlook, which runs on al lea~! 0ne server, in order to aid the process of communicating a digital

image from an lP scanner to a,., intended email destination. Again, Plaintiff is not alleging or

contending that these Microsoft products (or servers running them) by themselves infringe any

patent rights.

3


! 2. Upon information and belief, Defendant utilizes an IP scanner capable of scannin.g

paper into a dlgit.al form. Said IP scanner includes a user interface which permits t.~e user of the

IP ;canner to input, inter alia, at'\ intended network file destination, and to then press a button,

which in turn triggers the scanning of paper into a digitally-formatted file that is automatically

transmitted to and stored within the designated network· file destination. To be clear, Plaintiff is

not alleging or contending that the IP scanner equipment aJone infringes any patent rights.

13. Upon information and belief, Defendant utilizes Microsoft Windows in a ctient

server configuration, in order to ald the process of communicating a digital image from a

scanner/copier to ru1 intended fk!e destination accessible to a file server. Again, Plaintiff is not

alleging or contending that these Microsoft products (or setver rm4-llng lvficrosoft products) by

themselves infringe any patent rights.

COUNT 1- INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7.477141Q

14. EntNil repeats andre-alleges the allegations of all of the preceding paragraphs as

if fully set forth herein.

15. On January !3, 2.009, United States Parent No. 7.477.410 (hereine.fter referred to

as t!le "'41 0 Patent"), entitled DISTRIBUTED COMPtJTER ARCHITECTURE AND PROCESS

FOR VIRTUAl_, COPYING, was duly and legally issued by the United Stales Patent and

Trademark: Office. A true and correct copy of the '4 J 0 Patent is attached as Exhibit A to this

Complaint

J 6. En \Nil is the exclusive licensee for the field pertinent to the Defendant in and to

the '41 0 Patent, '"''ith sufficient rights and interest in the '41 0 Paten! as to have sta11ding to

4


- --------------------------------,-

assert all causes of action arising under said patent and the right to ll..'l.Y remedies for infringement

of it with respect-

J 7. Upon inform.a.tion and belief, Defendant has in the past and continues to directly

infringe at least Claim 8 and other claims of the '4 i 0 Patent by making and using in this judicial

district and elsewhere in tbc United States, e. data management system pos!lessing all of the

elements of at least these claims.

18. Upon information and b~lief, Defendant uses at least one network addressable

scanner, digital copier or other multifunction peripheral (collectively, "digital copying devices")

capable of creating a digital copy of a physical document (e.g., a paper document).

J9. Upon information and belief, Defendant uses one or more central computer(s) or

server(s) for sharing access to information (collectively, Defendant's "file server") amonrs desktop

computers and/or other corr.puters used by Defendant's employees (collectively, ''client

computers") and/or mobile devices used by Defen.da:1t's employees such as Blackberry® devices

and other srnartphones.

20. Up:m information and belief, Defendant uses one or more central cornputer(s) or

server(s) running corporate electronic email softv.•are (collectively, Defendant's "email server").

21. Upon information and belief, Defendant's file server and its email server are each

connected to data stored in 8....'1 electronic storage modium {''Defendant's data storage") such that

certain of Defendant's data located in Defendant's data storage is accessible to Defendant's file

server anCJor email server.

22. Upon information and belief, Defendant uses memory in its file server and/or

email server which stores software permitting electronic communication between Defendat'lt's

file server and a! least one of the Defendant's digital copying devices,

5


23. Upon infoll'llat!on and belief, Defendant uses memory in its file server rmdlor

email server which stores software permitting electronic communication betwc.en Defendant's

rue server a..'ld a: least one of the Defendants client computers.

24. Upon infonnation and belief, Defendant uses memory in its file server and/or

email server which stores software permitting electronic communication between Defendant's

email server and at least one of the Defendant's digital copying devices.

25. Up<m information a.t1d belief, Defendant uses memory in its file server and/or

email server which stores software permitting electronic communication between Defendant's

email server and at least one of the Defendant's client computers.

26. Upon information end belief, Defendant uses software operated on or in

conjunction with its file server and/or its email server and/or its data storage to replicate and

transmit one or more dig1ta1 copies of physical documents such as paper documents to one or

more servers or client computers.

27. This replication and transmission occurs as a result of a user~command

communicated through a graphical user interface (GUf), wittiout a."ly modification of any of

Defendant's client computers, and without any modification of Defendant's software source code.

28. As a consequence of the lnfTingemenl of the '41 0 Patent hy the aforesaid

Defendant, Plaintiff is entitled to recovery of past damages in the form of, at a minimum, a

reasonable royalty.

29. Defendant's ccndud since at least Defendant's receipt of ti:e first communication

from Plaintiff to Defendant regarding the '410 Patent also has induced infringement and/or

contributed to infringement by others For this indirect infringement, Plaintitr also is entitled to

recover damages in the form of, at a minimum, a reasonable royalty.

6


30. Moreover. as a consequence of t">e prior communication of patent rights by

Plaintiff to Defendant. combined with Defendant1s failure to cease and desist from further

in..·li:ingement in the face of the objective risk of infringement, the infringement is willful, giving

rise to PLaintiff's claims for trebling of the damages in this case, as well as to Plainti.ff's claims

that this ls a case where Defendant should reimburse Plaintiff for its attorneys: fees and other

costs of litigation pursuant to 35 U.S.C. Section 285.

COUNT U· fNFRlNGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 71986,426

31 . EntNil reasserts and incorporates herein by reference the allegations of all

preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

32. On July 26, 2011, U.S. Patent No. 7,9&6,426 (hereinafter referred to as the '"426

Patent"), entitled DISTRIBUTED COMPUTER ARCHITECTURE AND PROCESS FOR

DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT, was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and

Trademark Office. A true and correct copy of the '426 Patent is attached as Exhibit B to thl~

Complaint.

33. EntNil is the exclusive liceJJSee for the field pertinent to the Defendant in and to

the '426 Patent, with sufficient rights and interes! in the '426 Patent as to have standing to assert

all causes of action arising under said patent and the right to any remedies for infringement of it

with respect

34. As a result of the Defendant's scan-to· file and scan-to-email functionall ty

described in the preceding paragraphs. which are incorporated herein in <heir entirety, the '426

patent is directly infringed by Defendant The infringement lnclucles infringement of Claim l.

7


35. As a consequence of the infringement of the '426 Patent by the aforesaid

Defendant, Plaintiff is entitled to recovery of past damages in the form of, at a minimum, a

reasonable royalty.

36. Defendant's conduct since at least Defendant's receipt of the first communication

from Plaintiff 1o Defendant regarding the '426 Patent also has induced infringement a.ndlor

contributed to infringement by others. For this indirect infringement, Plaintiff also is entitled to

recover damages in the form of, at a minimum, a reasonable royalty.

37. Moreover, as a consequence of the prior communication of patent rights by

Plaintiff to Defendant, combined with Defendants failure to cease and desist from further

infringement in the face of the objective risk of infringement, the infringement is wiUful, giving

rise to Ptaintift's claims for trebling of the damages in this case, as well as to Plaintiffs claims

t.~at this is a case where Defenda."''t should reimburse Plaintiff for its attorneys' fees and other

costs cf litigation pursuant to 35 U.S.C. Section 285.

JURY DEMAND

38. Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, EntNil demands a

trial by jury on all issues triable as such.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, EntNil respectfully demands judgment for itself and against Defendant as

follows:

A. An adjudication that Defendant has infringed the '4! D Patent;

B. An adjudication that Defendant has infringed the '426 Patent;

C. An award of damages to be paid by Defenda.."1t adequate to compensate EntNil for

its past infringements of the '41 0 and '426 Patents and any continuing or future

8


infringement through t.he date such judgment is entered, including interest, costs, expenses and

onh.a.nced damages for any v.illful infringement as justified under 35 U.S.C. § 2&4 and an

accounting of an infringing acts including, but not limited to, those acts not presented at trial;

D. A declaration that this case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285, a..'ld an award of

Plaintiff's reasonable attorneys' fees; and

E. AJl award to EntNi! of such further relief at law or In equity as the Court deems

just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: _____ __, 2012 By: -----

Attorneys for Plaintiff. EnrNil, LLC

9

·n• ••• ••. ••·•· ,.. ~


Service of Process Transmittal Form

Date: May 20, 2013

To: Mr. J. Mac Rust Attorney At Law 8416 Old McGregor Rd. Waco, TX 76712

RE: PROCESS SERVED

For: MPHJ Technology Investments, LLC

Domestic State: DE

Registered Agents Legal Services, LLC

1220 N. Market Street Suite 806 Wilmington DE 19801 (302) 427-6970 (800) 400-6650 [email protected] {email} www.lncLegal.com

ENCLOSED ARE COPIES OF LEGAL PROCESS RECEIVED BY THE STATUTORY AGENT OF THE ABOVE COMPANY AS FOLLOWS:

1. TITLE OF ACTION: STATE OF VERMONT v. MPHJ TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENTS, LLC

2. DOCUMENTS SERVED: SUMMONS

3. COURT: STATE OF VERMONT WASHINGTON SUPERIOR COURT COUNTY OF WASHINGTON

4. NATURE OF ACTION: 282-5-13-WNCV

5. ON WHOM PROCESS WAS SERVED: Registered Agents Legal Services, LLC

6. DATE AND HOUR OF SERVICE: May 20,2013, PROCESS SERVER

7. APPEARANCE OR ANSWER DUE: (PLEASE SEE ENCLOSED)

SIGNED: PER: ADDRESS:

Registered Agents Legal Services, LLC Tamara Coleman 1220 N. Market Street Suite 806 Wilmington, DE 19801 SOP

lnfonnation contained on this transmittal fonn is recorded for Registered Agents Legal Services, LLC record keeping purposes only and 10 pennit quick reference for the recipienL This infonnation does constitute a legal opinion as 10 the nature of the action, amount of damages, the answer date, or any infonnation that can be obtained from the documents themselves. The recipient is responsible for interpreting the documents and for taking the appropriate action.

Experience and Quality Service


SUMMONS

STATE OF VERMONT

COUNTY OF WASHINGTON


v.

MPHJ TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENTS, LLC, Defendant.

WASHINGTON SUPERIOR COURT

Docket No. 282-5-13 Wncv

-<

THIS SUMMONS IS DIRECTED TO MPHJ TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENTS, 'LL"'C::

1. YOU ARE BEING SUED. The plaintiff has started a lawsuit against you. The Plaintiffs Complaint against you is attached to this summons. Do not throw these papers away. They are official papers that affect your rights.

2. YOU MUST REPLY WITHIN 20 DAYS TO PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS. You must give or mail the Plaintiff a written response called an Answer within 20 days ofthe date on which you received this Summons. You must send a copy of your Answer to the Bridget A say located at:

Office of the Attorney General, 109 State St., Montpelier, VT 05609, [email protected].

You must also give or mail your Answer to the Court located at:

Washington Civil Division, Superior Court 4 < "\tate St, Montpelier, VT, 05602, (802) 828-2091.

3. YOU MUST RESPOND TO EACH CLAIM. your Answer you must state whether you agree or disagree v not be given everything asked for in the Complaint, you mu:

4. YOU WILL LOSE YOUR CASE IF YOU D• do not Answer within 20 days and file it with the Court, yo1 Court may decide against you and award the Plaintiff eve!)

5. YOU MUST MAKE ANY CLAIMS AGAir related legal claims you have against the Plaintiff. Your c your Counterclaims in writing in your Answer, you may n insurance company will defend you, you must still file an:

6. LEGAL ASSISTANCE. You may wish to! the court clerk for information about places where you c< the C t a written A swer (o protect your rights or·

~··(~-Ia · s Attorney

Se~edon ___ ~-- __________ _ Date

ShQ.ntSJ o S/JV{r3 @._I

; Complaint. In he Plaintiff should

HE COURT. Ifvou .' O(p {Jnt 'of the sto.-y, anithe

nswer must state any f you do not make surance and the

wyer, you should ask ~lp, you must still give

_________ --"I ~L Dated·-----

_ ___ .. ________________ _ Sheriff


SUMMONS

STATE OF VERMONT WASHINGTON SUPERIOR COURT

COUNTY OF WASHINGTON


v.

MPHJ TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENTS, LLC, Defendant

Docket No. 282-5-13 Wncv

_.,c THIS SUMMONS IS DIRECTED TO MPHJ TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENTS:-LL"C:'

1. YOU ARE BEING SUED. The plaintiff has started a lawsuit against you. The Plaintiffs Complaint against you is attached to this summons. Do not throw these papers away. They are official papers that affect your rights.

2. YOU MUST REPLY WITHIN 20 DAYS TO PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS. You must give or mail the Plaintiff a written response called an Answer within 20 days of the date on which you received this Summons. You must send a copy of your Answer to the Bridget Asay located at:

Office of the Attorney General, 109 State St., Montpelier, VT 05609, [email protected].

You must also give or mail your Answer to the Court located at:

Washington Civil Division, Superior Court, 65 State St, Montpelier, VT, 05602, (802) 828-2091.

3. YOU MUST RESPOND TO EACH CLAIM. The Answer is your written response to the Plaintiff's Complaint In your Answer you must state whether you agree or disagree with each paragraph of the Complaint. If you believe the Plaintiff should not be given everything asked for in the Complaint, you must say so in your Answer.

4. YOU WILL LOSE YOUR CASE IF YOU DO NOT GIVE YOUR WRITTEN ANSWER TO THE COURT. If you do not Answer within 20 days and file it with the Court, you will Jose this case. You will not get to tell your side of the story, and the Court may decide against you and award the Plaintiff everything asked for in the complaint.

5. YOU MUST MAKE ANY CLAIMS AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF IN YOUR REPLY. Your Answer must state any related legal claims you have against the Plaintiff. Your claims against the Plaintiff are called Counterclaims. If you do not make your Counterclaims in writing in your Answer, you may not be able to bring them up at all. Even if you have insurance and the insurance company will defend you, you must still file any Counterclaims you may have.

6. LEGAL ASSISTANCE. You may wish to get legal help from a lawyer. If you cannot afford a lawyer, you should ask the court clerk for information about places where you can get free legal help. Even if you cannot get legal help, you must still give

the C t a w~itten; sw~r you moy lo" the 5'( I D I I) Ia1 · "s Attorney ~------

SeNedon ______________________ _

Date Sheriff


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE

DISTRICT OF VERMONT


V.

MPHJ TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENTS, LLC,

Defendant

) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Docket No.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Andrew D. Manitsky, Esq., attorney for Defendant, certify that on June 7, 2013, I

served a copy ofDefendant's Notice of Removal by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, on Bridget C.

Asay, Esq., and Ryan Kriger, Esq., at the Vermont Attorney General's Office, 109 State Street,

Montpelier, Vermont 05609.

Dated: Burlington, Vermont June 7, 2013

An rew D. anitsky, Esq. Gravel & Shea PC 76 St. Paul Street, ih Floor, P. 0. Box 369 Burlington, VT 05402-0369 (802) 658-0220 [email protected] For Defendant

gra~~e~ [ATTORNEYSATLAW

76 St. Paul Street Post Office Box 369 llurlington, Vermont 05402-0369

'\PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION


JS 44 (Rev. 12/12) CIVIL COVER SHEET The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This fonn, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS State of Vermont

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff W~a,s="h-"i"-'n'l:lg,_,to,n"------(EXCEPT IN U.S PLAINTIFF CASES)

(C) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number)

Bridget C. Asay, Assistant Attorney General, Vermont Attorney General's Office, 109 State Street, Montpelier, VT 05609, (802) 828-5500 [email protected]. vt.us

DEFENDANTS MPHJ Technology Investments, LLC

County of Residence of First Listed Defendant (IN U.S PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)

NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.

Attorneys (Jf Known)

Andrew D. Manitsky, Esq., Gravel & Shea PC, 76 St. Paul Street, 7th Floor, P. 0. Box 369, Burlington, VT 05402-0369 (802) 658-0220; [email protected]

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an "X" inOneBoxOnlyJ III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an "X" in One Box for Plaintiff (For Diversity Cases Only)

PTF and One Box for Defendant)

~ 3 Federal Question PTF DEF 0 I U.S. Government

Plaintiff (U.S Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State 0 I DEF

0 I Incorporated or Principal Place 0 4 0 4 of Business In This State

0 2 U.S. Government Defendant

0 4 Diversity (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)

Citizen of Another State 0 2 0 2 Incorporated and Principal Place of Business In Another State

0 5 0 5

Citizen or Subject of a 0 3 0 3 Foreign Nation

IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an "X" in One Box Only)

0 110 Insurance 0 120 Marine 0 130 Miller Act 0 140 Negotiable Instrument 0 150 Recovery of Overpayment

& Enforcement of Judgment 0 151 Medicare Act

PERSONAL INJURY 0 310 Airplane 0 315 Airplane Product

Liability 0 320 Assault, Libel &

Slander 0 330 Federal Employers'

Liability 0 340 Marine

PERSONAL INJURY 0 365 Personal injury -

Product Liability 0 367 Health Care/

Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability

0 368 Asbestos Personal Injury Product

0 625 Drug Related Seizure of Property 21 USC 881

0 690 Other

0 422 Appeal28 USC 158 0 423 Withdrawal

28 usc !57

'"'" i•PRUPER VRIGHTS 0 820 Copyrights M 830 Patent 0 840 Trademark 0 152 Recovery of Defaulted

Student Loans (Excludes Veterans) 0 345 Marine Product

Liability Liability '""''1!:•\~~;,;~"'H'~'' ,ABUR'"i*1••'i<i!''''~HH!';: ,.,,,:~iSU(; tAL SEC JRii'l'Y ,,, ,,,.

0 !53 Recovery of Overpayment PERSONAL PROPERTY 0 710 Fair Labor Standards 0 861 HIA (!395ft) of Veteran's Benefits

0 160 Stockholders' Suits 0 190 Other Contract 0 0

195 Contract Product Liability 196 Franchise

0 350 Motor Vehicle 0 370 Other Fraud Act 0 355 Motor Vehicle 0 371 Truth in Lending 0 720 Labor/Management

Product Liability 0 380 Other Personal Relations 0 360 Other Personal Property Damage 0 740 Railway Labor Act

Injury 0 385 Property Damage 0 751 Family and Medical 0 362 Personal Injury- Product Liability Leave Act

Medical Malpractice 0 790 Other Labor Litigation """-·"',::~R:;E:-:A-:L"'"P"'R"'O~P"'E"'R"'T"'V=·!''.,,;,.,,,.,:::-,,,+""''~""):"'J"'C,:,IVI~L::,;RI~G~Hi':TSS";:,;:;ii;,;!~iei;;!:"'"'"''lip"'R~I:o;S~O~N~E"'R"'·':!p-:::E:::TI::::TI=o~N:::S:-:g:rli 0 791 Employee Retirement

0 862 Black Lung (923) 0 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) 0 864 SSID Title XVI 0 865 RSI (405(g))

0 210 Land Condemnation 0 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: 0 463 Alien Detainee

Income Security Act 0 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff

0 220 Foreclosure 0 441 Voting 0 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 0 442 Employment 0 240 Torts to Land 0 443 Housing/ 0 245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations 0 290 All Other Real Property 0 445 Amer. w/Disabilities-

Employment 0 446 Amer. w/Disabilities -

Other 0 448 Education

V, ORIGIN (P/acean "X"inOneBoxOnly)

0 510 Motions to Vacate Sentence

0 530 General 0 535 Death Penalty

Other: 0 540 Mandanms & Other 0 550 Civil Rights 0 555 Prison Condition 0 560 Civil Detainee -

Conditions of Confinement

.,,,,;:;;,;:mmUMMIGRATION!'''' .. ;;:c; 0 462 Naturalization Application 0 465 Other Immigration

Actions

or Defendant) 0 871 IRS-Third Party

26 usc 7609

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0

0 1 Original )l( 2 Removed from Proceeding State Court

0 3 Remanded from Appellate Court

0 4 Reinstated or Reopened

0 5 Transferred from Another District (specify)

0 6 Multidistrict Litigation

Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity): 28U.S.C. 1331,1338;35U.S.C. 1etse.

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause: Action based on validity, infringement and enforcement of patent.

0 6 0 6

·,.~OTHER STATUTES . .'c_

375 False Claims Act 400 State Reapportionment 410 Antitrust 430 Banks and Banking 450 Commerce 460 Deportation 470 Racketeer Influenced and

Corrupt Organizations 480 Consumer Credit 490 Cable/Sat TV 850 Securities/Conunodities/

Exchange 890 Other Statutoty Actions 891 Agricultural Acts 893 Enviromnental Matters 895 Freedom oflnfonnation

Act 896 Arbitration 899 Administrative Procedure

Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision

950 Constitutionality of State Statutes

VII. REQUESTED IN COMPLAINT:

0 CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND$ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint

VIII. RELATED CASE(S) IF ANY

DATE

06/07/2013 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

UNDER RULE 23, F.RCv.P.

(See instructiom): JUDGE

SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF

Andrew D. Manitsky

RECEIPT# AMOUNT ;/; '-! 0 0 APPLYING IFP -----

JURY DEMAND: 0 Yes l!l( No

DOCKET NUMBER

JUDGE \ 0 \ \ MAG JUDGE

\3-c.v- \lo


i · protection act, 9 v.s.a. § 2458(b), to sue to enforce the act's prohibitions on unfair...

Documents