Docstoc

foresee-lodsys

Document Sample
foresee-lodsys Powered By Docstoc
					      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

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:5149
posted:6/9/2011
language:English
pages:106