IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ADVANCED PRINTING SOLUTIONS
Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-3544
CORPORATION, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
Plaintiff Advanced Printing Solutions LLC files this Complaint against Zebra
Technologies Corporation (“Defendant”) for infringement of U.S. Patent No. RE38111 (“the
1. Advanced Printing Solutions LLC (“APS”) is a limited liability company
organized and existing under the laws of the State of Texas, with a principal place of business
located in Frisco, Texas.
2. Zebra Technologies Corporation (“Zebra”) is a Delaware corporation with a
principal place of business in this Division of the Northern District of Illinois, at 475 Half Day
Road, Suite 500, Lincolnshire, Illinois. This Defendant may be served with process through its
registered agents, C T Corporation System, 208 South LaSalle Street, Suite 814, Chicago, Illinois
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3. APS brings this action for patent infringement under the patent laws of the United
States, namely 35 U.S.C. §§ 271, 281, and 284-285, among others.
4. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims in this action pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a), and 1367.
5. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 (b), 1391(c)
and 1400(b). Defendant resides in this judicial district, has committed acts of infringement in
this judicial district, has purposely transacted business in this judicial district, and/or has regular
and established places of business in this judicial district.
6. Defendant is subject to this Court’s specific and general personal jurisdiction
pursuant to due process and due at least to its substantial business in this State and judicial
district, including: (A) at least part of its infringing activities alleged herein; and (B) regularly
doing or soliciting business and, accordingly, deriving substantial revenue from goods and
services provided to Illinois residents.
7. APS incorporates paragraphs 1 through 6 herein by reference.
8. APS is the assignee of the ’111 patent, entitled “Printer with Internal Document
Data Construction,” with ownership of all substantial rights in the ’111 patent, including the right
exclude others and to enforce, sue and recover damages for past and future infringement. A true
and correct copy of the ’111 patent is attached as Exhibit A.
9. The ’111 patent is valid, enforceable, and was duly issued in full compliance with
Title 35 of the United States Code.
10. Defendant has infringed and continue to directly infringe one or more claims of
the ’111 patent in this judicial district and elsewhere in Illinois and the United States by or
through the testing, making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing of certain printing
devices, a list of which is attached as Exhibit B. Defendant has been, and now is, directly
infringing claims of the ’111 patent, including (for example, and without limitation) at least
claims 17 and 18 of the ’111 patent, by or through the testing, making, using, offering for sale,
selling, and/or importing of printing devices that are sold with, inter alia, an internal printer
controller, an external data stream input port operative to receive an external data stream
including automatic document selection data, a document construction module in communication
with the internal printer controller, and a document data printing mechanism that prints
document data in a designated document format.
11. APS has been damaged as a result of Defendant’s infringing conduct described
herein. Defendant is, thus, liable to APS in an amount that adequately compensates it for
Defendants’ infringements, which, by law, cannot be less than a reasonable royalty, together
with interest and costs as fixed by this Court under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
APS hereby requests a trial by jury pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
APS requests that the Court find in its favor and against Defendant, and that the Court
grant APS the following relief:
a. Judgment that one or more claims of the ’111 Patent have been infringed, either
literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, by Defendant;
b. Judgment that Defendant accounts for and pay to APS all damages to and costs
incurred by APS because of Defendant’s infringing activities and other conduct
complained of herein;
c. Judgment that Defendant accounts for and pay to APS a reasonable, on-going,
post-judgment royalty because of Defendant’s infringing activities and other
conduct complained of herein;
d. That APS be granted pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on the damages
caused by Defendant’s infringing activities and other conduct complained of
e. That APS be awarded its attorneys’ fees incurred in this action in accordance with
35 U.S.C. § 285; and
f. That APS be granted such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and
proper under the circumstances.
Date: May 9, 2012 /s/Timothy P. Maloney
Timothy P. Maloney
FITCH, EVEN, TABIN & FLANNERY, LLP
120 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1600
Chicago, Illinois 60603
Telephone: (312) 577-7000
Facsimile: (312) 577-7007
Decker A. Cammack
Texas State Bar No. 24036311
Edward E. Casto
Texas State Bar No. 00797142
NELSON BUMGARDNER CASTO, P.C.
3131 West 7th Street, Suite 300
Fort Worth, Texas 76107
(817) 377-3485 (fax)
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Advanced Printing Solutions LLC