Get documents about "foresee-lodsys
Document Sample
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 1 of 13 PageID #:1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
FORESEE RESULTS, INC.,
Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 11-CV-3886
Judge:
v.
Magistrate Judge:
LODSYS, LLC,
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Defendant.
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
Plaintiff ForeSee Results, Inc. (“ForeSee”) hereby alleges for its Complaint for
Declaratory Judgment against Defendant Lodsys, LLC (“Defendant”) on knowledge as to its
own actions and on information and belief as to the actions of others, as follows:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. This is an action for a declaratory judgment that ForeSee does not infringe any
valid claim of United States Patent Nos. 5,999,908 (“the ‘908 patent”), 7,133,834 (“the ‘834
patent”), 7,222,078 (“the ‘078 patent”) or 7,620,565 (“the ‘565 patent”) (collectively, the
“Asserted Patents”), and for a declaratory judgment that the claims of each of the Asserted patent
are invalid.
2. A true and correct copy of the ‘908 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
3. A true and correct copy of the ‘834 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
4. A true and correct copy of the ‘078 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
5. A true and correct copy of the ‘565 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit D.
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 2 of 13 PageID #:2
THE PARTIES
6. Plaintiff ForeSee is a Michigan corporation having a place of business at 2500
Green Road, Suite 400, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105.
7. On information and belief, Lodsys is a Texas limited liability company having a
place of business at 800 Brazos Street, Suite 400, Austin, Texas 78701.
8. On information and belief, Mark Small is the Chief Executive Officer and sole
employee of Lodsys, residing in the greater Chicago, Illinois.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
9. This action arises under the Patent Laws of the United States, Title 35, United
States Code 35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq., and under the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C.
§§ 2201 and 2202. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a), 2201 and 2202.
10. This action is filed to resolve an actual and justiciable controversy between the
parties hereto. Defendant’s conduct has put, and continues to put, ForeSee under a reasonable
and serious apprehension of imminent suit alleging that use of ForeSee Survey product infringes
the ‘908 patent, the ‘834 patent, the ‘078 patent and/or the ‘565 patent. As set forth in
paragraphs herein, there is a conflict of asserted rights among the parties and an actual
controversy exists between ForeSee and the Defendant with respect to the infringement, validity
and scope of the ‘908 patent, the ‘834 patent, the ‘078 patent and the ‘565 patent.
11. Upon information and belief, this Court has personal jurisdiction over Lodsys
because Lodsys’ Chief Executive Officer and sole employee resides in, and conducts business
from, this Judicial District.
12. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and/or 1400.
-2-
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 3 of 13 PageID #:3
ALLEGATIONS IN SUPPORT OF DECLARATORY JUDGMENT JURISDICTION
13. ForeSee realleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation
contained in paragraphs 1-12.
14. Through communications and conduct, Defendant has repeatedly threatened
assertion of the ‘908 patent, the ‘834 patent, the ‘078 patent and/or the ‘565 patent against
customers of ForeSee because of their use a ForeSee Survey product.
15. On or about March 4, 2011, Defendant sent a letter to Best Buy Co., Inc. (“Best
Buy”) alleging that Best Buy “is infringing at least claim 37 of US 5,999,908 as it relates to
consumer surveys conducted in connection with visitors view [Best Buy’s] website.” The March
4, 2011 letter also offered a license to Best Buy under the ‘908 patent, the ‘834 patent, the ‘078
patent and the ‘565 patent.
16. In addition, Defendant sent Best Buy an “Infringement Claim Chart” in which
Defendant alleged that use of the ForeSee Survey product infringed the claims of the ‘908 patent.
A copy of the March 4, 2011 letter and “Infringement Claim Chart” are included in the attached
Exhibit E.
17. On or about March 9, 2011, Defendant sent a letter to WE Energies alleging that
WE Energies “is infringing at least claim 37 of US 5,999,908 as it relates to consumer surveys
conducted in connection with visitors view [WE Energies’] website.” The March 9, 2011 letter
also offered a license to WE Energies under the ‘908 patent, the ‘834 patent, the ‘078 patent and
the ‘565 patent.
18. In addition, Defendant sent WE Energies an “Infringement Claim Chart” in which
Defendant alleged that use of the ForeSee Survey product infringed the claims of the ‘908 patent.
-3-
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 4 of 13 PageID #:4
A copy of the March 9, 2011 letter and “Infringement Claim Chart” are included in the attached
Exhibit F.
19. On or about April 19, 2011, Defendant sent a letter to Adidas AG (“Adidas”). In
the letter, Defendant states “[w]e have reviewed your use of the Lodsys Patents and have
prepared the enclosed claim chart demonstrating at least one instance of how you utilize the
inventions embodied in the Lodsys Patents. The images used in the charts are representative
only and in addition to the charted claim of the referenced patent, you should consider the
remaining claims of that patent and the other Lodsys Patents both respect [sic] to the charted
utilization and with respect to other products and services offered by you.” The April 19, 2011
letter also included an offer of license under the ‘908 patent, the ‘834 patent, the ‘078 patent
and/or the ‘565 patent.
20. In addition to the April 19, 2011 letter, Defendant sent Adidas an “Infringement
Claim Chart” in which Defendant alleged that use of the ForeSee Survey product infringed the
claims of the ‘908 patent. A copy of the April 19, 2011 letter and “Infringement Claim Chart”
are included in the attached Exhibit G.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Declaratory Judgment of Non-infringement of the ‘908 patent
21. ForeSee realleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation
contained in paragraphs 1-20.
22. Based on the above-stated conduct, ForeSee is informed and believes, and on that
basis avers, the Defendant contends that use of the ForeSee Survey product infringes one or more
claims of the ‘908 patent.
-4-
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 5 of 13 PageID #:5
23. Accordingly, an actual controversy exists between ForeSee and the Defendant as
to whether or not ForeSee has infringed, or is infringing the ‘908 patent; has contributed to
infringement, or is contributing to infringement of the ‘908 patent; and has induced infringement,
or is inducing infringement of the ‘908 patent.
24. The controversy is such that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 57 and
28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq., ForeSee is entitled to a declaration, in the form of a judgment, that by
its activities ForeSee has not infringed and is not infringing any valid and enforceable claim of
the ‘908 patent; has not contributed to infringement and is not contributing to infringement of the
‘908 patent; and/or has not induced infringement and is not inducing infringement of the ‘908
patent. Such a determination and declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Declaratory Judgment of Non-infringement of the ‘834 patent
25. ForeSee realleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation
contained in paragraphs 1-24.
26. Based on the above-stated conduct, ForeSee is informed and believes, and on that
basis avers, the Defendant contends that use of the ForeSee Survey product infringes one or more
claims of the ‘834 patent.
27. Accordingly, an actual controversy exists between ForeSee and the Defendant as
to whether or not ForeSee has infringed, or is infringing the ‘834 patent; has contributed to
infringement, or is contributing to infringement of the ‘834 patent; and has induced infringement,
or is inducing infringement of the ‘834 patent.
28. The controversy is such that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 57 and
28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq., ForeSee is entitled to a declaration, in the form of a judgment, that by
-5-
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 6 of 13 PageID #:6
its activities ForeSee has not infringed and is not infringing any valid and enforceable claim of
the ‘834 patent; has not contributed to infringement and is not contributing to infringement of the
‘834 patent; and/or has not induced infringement and is not inducing infringement of the ‘834
patent. Such a determination and declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Declaratory Judgment of Non-infringement of the ‘078 patent
29. ForeSee realleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation
contained in paragraphs 1-28.
30. Based on the above-stated conduct, ForeSee is informed and believes, and on that
basis avers, that the Defendant contends that use of the ForeSee Survey product infringes one or
more claims of the ‘078 patent.
31. Accordingly, an actual controversy exists between ForeSee and the Defendant as
to whether or not ForeSee has infringed, or is infringing the ‘078 patent; has contributed to
infringement, or is contributing to infringement of the ‘078 patent; and has induced infringement,
or is inducing infringement of the ‘078 patent.
32. The controversy is such that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 57 and
28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq., ForeSee is entitled to a declaration, in the form of a judgment, that by
its activities ForeSee has not infringed and is not infringing any valid and enforceable claim of
the ‘078 patent; has not contributed to infringement and is not contributing to infringement of the
‘078 patent; and/or has not induced infringement and is not inducing infringement of the ‘078
patent. Such a determination and declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time.
-6-
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 7 of 13 PageID #:7
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Declaratory Judgment of Non-infringement of the ‘565 patent
33. ForeSee realleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation
contained in paragraphs 1-32.
34. Based on the above-stated conduct, ForeSee is informed and believes, and on that
basis avers, that the Defendant contends that use of the ForeSee Survey product infringes one or
more claims of the ‘565 patent.
35. Accordingly, an actual controversy exists between ForeSee and the Defendant as
to whether or not ForeSee has infringed, or is infringing the ‘565 patent; has contributed to
infringement, or is contributing to infringement of the ‘565 patent; and has induced infringement,
or is inducing infringement of the ‘565 patent.
36. The controversy is such that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 57 and
28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq., ForeSee is entitled to a declaration, in the form of a judgment, that by
its activities ForeSee has not infringed and is not infringing any valid and enforceable claim of
the ‘565 patent; has not contributed to infringement and is not contributing to infringement of the
‘565 patent; and has not induced infringement and is not inducing infringement of the ‘565
patent. Such a determination and declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of the ‘908 patent
37. ForeSee realleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation
contained in paragraphs 1-36.
-7-
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 8 of 13 PageID #:8
38. Based on the above-stated conduct, ForeSee is informed and believes, and on that
basis avers, that the Defendant contends that ForeSee infringes one or more claims of the ‘908
patent.
39. ForeSee denies that it infringes any valid and enforceable claim of the ‘908
patent, and avers that the assertions of infringement cannot be maintained consistently with
statutory conditions of patentability and the statutory requirements for disclosure and claiming
that must be satisfied for patent validity under at least one of 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and
112.
40. Accordingly, an actual controversy exists between ForeSee and the Defendant as
to the validity of the ‘908 patent. The controversy is such that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 57 and 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq., ForeSee is entitled to a declaration, in the form of a
judgment, that the ‘908 patent is invalid. Such a determination and declaration is necessary and
appropriate at this time.
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of the ‘834 patent
41. ForeSee realleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation
contained in paragraphs 1-40.
42. Based on the above-stated conduct, ForeSee is informed and believes, and on that
basis avers, that the Defendant contends that ForeSee infringes one or more claims of the ‘834
patent.
43. ForeSee denies that it infringes any valid and enforceable claim of the ‘834
patent, and avers that the assertions of infringement cannot be maintained consistently with
statutory conditions of patentability and the statutory requirements for disclosure and claiming
-8-
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 9 of 13 PageID #:9
that must be satisfied for patent validity under at least one of 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and
112.
44. Accordingly, an actual controversy exists between ForeSee and the Defendant as
to the validity of the ‘834 patent. The controversy is such that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 57 and 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq., ForeSee is entitled to a declaration, in the form of a
judgment, that the ‘834 patent is invalid. Such a determination and declaration is necessary and
appropriate at this time.
SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of the ‘078 patent
45. ForeSee realleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation
contained in paragraphs 1-44.
46. Based on the above-stated conduct, ForeSee is informed and believes, and on that
basis avers, that the Defendant contends that ForeSee infringes one or more claims of the ‘078
patent.
47. ForeSee denies that it infringes any valid and enforceable claim of the ‘078
patent, and avers that the assertions of infringement cannot be maintained consistently with
statutory conditions of patentability and the statutory requirements for disclosure and claiming
that must be satisfied for patent validity under at least one of 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and
112.
48. Accordingly, an actual controversy exists between ForeSee and the Defendant as
to the validity of the ‘078 patent. The controversy is such that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 57 and 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq., ForeSee is entitled to a declaration, in the form of a
-9-
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 10 of 13 PageID #:10
judgment, that the ‘078 patent is invalid. Such a determination and declaration is necessary and
appropriate at this time.
EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of the ‘565 patent
49. ForeSee realleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation
contained in paragraphs 1-48.
50. Based on the above-stated conduct, ForeSee is informed and believes, and on that
basis avers, that the Defendant contends that ForeSee infringes one or more claims of the ‘565
patent.
51. ForeSee denies that it infringes any valid and enforceable claim of the ‘565
patent, and avers that the assertions of infringement cannot be maintained consistently with
statutory conditions of patentability and the statutory requirements for disclosure and claiming
that must be satisfied for patent validity under at least one of 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and
112.
52. Accordingly, an actual controversy exists between ForeSee and the Defendant as
to the validity of the ‘565 patent. The controversy is such that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 57 and 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq., ForeSee is entitled to a declaration, in the form of a
judgment, that the ‘565 patent is invalid. Such a determination and declaration is necessary and
appropriate at this time.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, plaintiff ForeSee prays for a judgment as follows:
1. For a declaration that its products do not infringe any valid claim of the ‘908
patent;
-10-
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 11 of 13 PageID #:11
2. For a declaration that assertions of infringement of the ‘908 patent cannot be
maintained consistently with statutory conditions of patentability and the statutory requirements
for disclosure and claiming that must be satisfied for patent validity under one or more of 35
U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112;
3. For a declaration that the claims of the ‘908 patent are invalid under one or more
of 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112;
4. For a declaration that its products do not infringe any valid claim of the ‘834
patent;
5. For a declaration that assertions of infringement of the ‘834 patent cannot be
maintained consistently with statutory conditions of patentability and the statutory requirements
for disclosure and claiming that must be satisfied for patent validity under one or more of 35
U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112;
6. For a declaration that the claims of the ‘834 patent are invalid under one or more
of 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112;
7. For a declaration that its products do not infringe any valid claim of the ‘078
patent;
8. For a declaration that assertions of infringement of the ‘078 patent cannot be
maintained consistently with statutory conditions of patentability and the statutory requirements
for disclosure and claiming that must be satisfied for patent validity under one or more of 35
U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112;
9. For a declaration that the claims of the ‘078 patent are invalid under one or more
of 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112;
-11-
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 12 of 13 PageID #:12
10. For a declaration that its products do not infringe any valid claim of the ‘565
patent;
11. For a declaration that assertions of infringement of the ‘565 patent cannot be
maintained consistently with statutory conditions of patentability and the statutory requirements
for disclosure and claiming that must be satisfied for patent validity under one or more of 35
U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112;
12. For a declaration that the claims of the ‘565 patent are invalid under one or more
of 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112;
13. For a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining and restraining Defendant
and its respective officers, partners, employees, agents, parents, subsidiaries or anyone in privity
with them, and all persons acting in concert with them and each of them:
a. from making any claims to any person or entity that any product of
ForeSee infringes the ‘908 patent, the ‘834 patent, the ‘078 patent and/or
the ‘565 patent;
b. from interfering with, or threatening to interfere with the
manufacture, sale, or use of any ForeSee’s products by ForeSee, its
customers, distributors, predecessors, successors or assigns; and
c. from instituting or prosecuting any lawsuit or proceeding, placing
in issue the right of ForeSee, its customers, distributors, predecessors,
successors or assigns, to make, use or sell products which allegedly
infringe the ‘908 patent, the ‘834 patent, the ‘078 patent and/or the ‘565
patent.
-12-
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 13 of 13 PageID #:13
14. For an award to ForeSee of its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit
incurred herein; and
15. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiffs respectfully request a trial by jury.
Respectfully submitted,
FORESEE, INC.
Dated June 6, 2011 By: s/Brent A. Hawkins ___________
Brent A. Hawkins
Of Counsel: Brett E. Bachtell
Michael E. Shanahan MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY, LLP
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY, LLP 227 West Monroe Street
340 Madison Avenue Chicago, Illinois 60606-5096
New York, NY 10173
Telephone: (212) 547-5400 Attorneys for Plaintiff ForeSee, Inc.
Facsimile: (212) 547-5444
DM_US 28894704-2.084203.0033
-13-
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 1 of 92 PageID #:14
EXHIBIT A
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 2 of 92 PageID #:15
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 3 of 92 PageID #:16
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 4 of 92 PageID #:17
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 5 of 92 PageID #:18
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 6 of 92 PageID #:19
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 7 of 92 PageID #:20
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 8 of 92 PageID #:21
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 9 of 92 PageID #:22
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 10 of 92 PageID #:23
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 11 of 92 PageID #:24
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 12 of 92 PageID #:25
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 13 of 92 PageID #:26
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 14 of 92 PageID #:27
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 15 of 92 PageID #:28
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 16 of 92 PageID #:29
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 17 of 92 PageID #:30
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 18 of 92 PageID #:31
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 19 of 92 PageID #:32
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 20 of 92 PageID #:33
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 21 of 92 PageID #:34
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 22 of 92 PageID #:35
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 23 of 92 PageID #:36
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 24 of 92 PageID #:37
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 25 of 92 PageID #:38
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 26 of 92 PageID #:39
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 27 of 92 PageID #:40
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 28 of 92 PageID #:41
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 29 of 92 PageID #:42
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 30 of 92 PageID #:43
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 31 of 92 PageID #:44
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 32 of 92 PageID #:45
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 33 of 92 PageID #:46
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 34 of 92 PageID #:47
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 35 of 92 PageID #:48
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 36 of 92 PageID #:49
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 37 of 92 PageID #:50
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 38 of 92 PageID #:51
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 39 of 92 PageID #:52
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 40 of 92 PageID #:53
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 41 of 92 PageID #:54
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 42 of 92 PageID #:55
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 43 of 92 PageID #:56
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 44 of 92 PageID #:57
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 45 of 92 PageID #:58
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 46 of 92 PageID #:59
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 47 of 92 PageID #:60
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 48 of 92 PageID #:61
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 49 of 92 PageID #:62
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 50 of 92 PageID #:63
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 51 of 92 PageID #:64
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 52 of 92 PageID #:65
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 53 of 92 PageID #:66
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 54 of 92 PageID #:67
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 55 of 92 PageID #:68
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 56 of 92 PageID #:69
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 57 of 92 PageID #:70
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 58 of 92 PageID #:71
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 59 of 92 PageID #:72
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 60 of 92 PageID #:73
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 61 of 92 PageID #:74
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 62 of 92 PageID #:75
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 63 of 92 PageID #:76
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 64 of 92 PageID #:77
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 65 of 92 PageID #:78
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 66 of 92 PageID #:79
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 67 of 92 PageID #:80
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 68 of 92 PageID #:81
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 69 of 92 PageID #:82
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 70 of 92 PageID #:83
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 71 of 92 PageID #:84
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 72 of 92 PageID #:85
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 73 of 92 PageID #:86
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 74 of 92 PageID #:87
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 75 of 92 PageID #:88
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 76 of 92 PageID #:89
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 77 of 92 PageID #:90
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 78 of 92 PageID #:91
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 79 of 92 PageID #:92
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 80 of 92 PageID #:93
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 81 of 92 PageID #:94
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 82 of 92 PageID #:95
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 83 of 92 PageID #:96
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 84 of 92 PageID #:97
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 85 of 92 PageID #:98
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 86 of 92 PageID #:99
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 87 of 92 PageID #:100
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 88 of 92 PageID #:101
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 89 of 92 PageID #:102
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 90 of 92 PageID #:103
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 91 of 92 PageID #:104
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 92 of 92 PageID #:105
Case: 1:11-cv-03886 Document #: 2 Filed: 06/07/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:407
CIVIL COVER SHEET
The 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 form isrequired for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE
INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE OF THE FORM.)
(a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS
ForeSee Results, Inc. Lodsys, LLC
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff County of Residence of First Listed Defendant
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE
LAND INVOLVED.
(c) Attorney¶s (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)
Brent A. Hawkins, Brett E. Bachtell, Ryan N. Phelan
McDermott Will & Emery, LLP, 227 W. Monroe Street
Chicago, IL 60606
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an ³X´ in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES(Place an ³X´ in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
PTF DEF PTF DEF
1 U.S. Government ■ 3 Federal Question Citizen of This State 1 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4
Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) of Business In This State
2 U.S. Government 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5 5
Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties of Business In Another State
in Item III)
Citizen or Subject of a 3 3 Foreign Nation 6 6
Foreign Country
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an ³X´ in One Box Only)
CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES
110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 610 Agriculture 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 400 State Reapportionment
120 Marine 310 Airplane 362 Personal Injury² 620 Other Food & Drug 410 Antitrust
130 Miller Act 315 Airplane Product Med. Malpractice 625 Drug Related Seizure 423 Withdrawal 430 Banks and Banking
140 Negotiable Instrument Liability 365 Personal Injury ² of Property 21 USC 881 28 USC 157 450 Commerce/ICC Rates/etc.
150 Recovery of Overpayment 320 Assault, Libel & Product Liability 630 Liquor Laws 460 Deportation
& Enforcement of Judgment Slander 368 Asbestos Personal 640 R.R. & Truck PROPERTY RIGHTS 470 Racketeer Influenced and
151 Medicare Act 330 Federal Employers¶ Injury Product 650 Airline Regs. Corrupt Organizations
820 Copyrights
152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability Liability 660 Occupational 480 Consumer Credit
■ 830 Patent
Student Loans (excl. vet.) 340 Marine PERSONAL PROPERTY Safety/Health 490 Cable/Satellite TV
840 Trademark
153 Recovery of Overpayment 345 Marine Product 370 Other Fraud 690 Other 810 Selective Service
of Veteran¶s Benefits Liability 371 Truth in Lending 850 Security/Commodity/Exch.
160 Stockholders¶ Suits 350 Motor Vehicle 380 Other Personal LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY 875 Customer Challenge
190 Other Contract 355 Motor Vehicle Property Damage 12 USC 3410
710 Fair Labor Standards 861 HIA (1395ff)
195 Contract Product Liability Product Liability 385 Property Damage 891 Agricultural Acts
Act 862 Black Lung (923)
196 Franchise 360 Other Personal Inj. Product Liability 892 Economic Stabilization Act
720 Labor/Mgmt. Relations 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
893 Environmental Matters
REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS 864 SSID Title XVI
894 Energy Allocation Act
730 Labor/Mgmt.Reporting 865 RSI (405(g))
895 Freedom of Information Act
210 Land Condemnation 441 Voting 510 Motions to Vacate & Disclosure Act
FEDERAL TAX SUITS 900 Appeal of Fee
220 Foreclosure 442 Employment Sentence 740 Railway Labor Act
Determination Under
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 443 Housing/ Habeas Corpus:
870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff Equal Access to Justice
240 Torts to Land Accommodations 530 General 790 Other Labor Litigation
or Defendant) 950 Constitutionality of
245 Tort Product Liability 444 Welfare 535 Death Penalty
State Statutes
290 All Other Real Property 445 ADA²-Employment 540 Mandamus & Other 791 Empl. Ret. Inc.
871 IRS²Third Party 890 Other Statutory Actions
446 ADA ² Other 550 Civil Rights Security Act 26 USC 7609
440 Other Civil Rights 555 Prison Condition
(PLACE AN ³X´ IN ONE BOX ONLY) Appeal to District
V. ORIGIN Transferred from Judge from
■ 1 Original 2 Removed from 3 Remanded from 4 Reinstated or 5 another district 6 Multidistrict 7 Magistrate
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened (specify) Litigation Judgment
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION (Enter U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing and write VII. PREVIOUS BANKRUPTCY MATTERS (For nature of
a brief statement of cause.) suit 422 and 423, enter the case number and judge for any associated
bankruptcy matter perviously adjudicated by a judge of this Court. Use a
35 USC 1, et seq., 28 USC 2201 and 2202 separate attachment if necessary)
VIII. REQUESTED IN CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
UNDER F.R.C.P. 23 ■ Yes
COMPLAINT: JURY DEMAND: No
■ is not a refiling of a previously dismissed action.
IX. This case
is a refiling of case number , previously dismissed by Judge
DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
June 7, 2011
s/Brent A. Hawkins
