IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION OSBE Parket B. V.

, a Dutch corporation and Supra Floors, Inc., a Canadian corporation, Plaintiffs, v. Foam Products Corporation, a Georgia corporation, Defendant. COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Plaintiffs OSBE Parket B.V. and Supra Floors, Inc. (collectively referred to as OSBE or Plaintiffs), for their complaint against Defendant Foam Products, Inc. (Foam Products), state as follows: THE PARTIES 1. OSBE Parket B.V. is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of

Civil Action No. _________________

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

The Netherlands with its principal place of business in Eindhoven, Netherlands. OSBE Parket B.V. designs, among other things, Elastilon which is a self-adhesive installation system for hardwood floors and the like, and distributes these products worldwide. 2. OSBE Parket B.V. is the lawful owner by assignment of the entire right, title, and

interest in and to U.S. Patent No. 5,564,251 (the 251 Patent) issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on October 15, 1996. The inventor of the 251 Patent is Frederik J. Van Bers. The 251 Patent is entitled METHOD OF LAYING A FLOOR, and a true and correct copy of the 251 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

3.

Supra Floors, Inc. (Supra Floors) is a Canadian corporation with a principal

place of business at 35 Woodbine Downs Blvd., Rexdale, Ontario, Canada M9W6N5. Supra Floors promotes, markets, sells, and provides technical support and training for OSBEs Elastilon products, throughout the United States. 4. Supra Floors, Inc. is the exclusive licensee from OSBE Parket B.V. under the

251 Patent for the right to sell, offer to sell, and market OSBEs Elastilon products at least in the United States. 5. According to Georgias Secretary of State, Foam Products is a Georgia

corporation with a principal place of business at 350 Beamer Road, SW, Calhoun, Georgia 30701. 6. On information and belief, Jerry G. Arnold is the CEO of Foam Products, with an

address of 350 Beamer Road, SW, Calhoun, Georgia 30701. 7. On information and belief, Mr. Arnold personally participates in the decision

making process of Foam Products concerning all aspects of manufacturing, marketing and promoting flooring products and installation services to its customers. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 8. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

1331 (federal question), 1332 (diversity), and/or 1338 (patents), because it is a civil action arising under the laws of the United States, namely, 35 U.S.C. 271. 9. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Foam Products pursuant to the Illinois

Long Arm Statute, 735 ILCS 5/2-209(a)(1)-(2) and (c) because, among other things, Foam Products transacts business in this judicial district, at least by offering to sell, selling and/or advertising floor surfacing products and/or services at least through the Internet in such a way as

to reach customers in Illinois and this district. Personal jurisdiction also exists because, among other things, Foam Products transacts business directly and/or through third party distributors in this judicial district by selling or offering to sell products that infringe one or more claims of the 251 Patent. 10. Jurisdiction is also proper, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332, because the amount in

controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and the dispute is between citizens of different states. 11. Venue lies in this district under 28 U.S.C. 1391. FOAM PRODUCTS PATENT INFRINGEMENT 12. Foam Products products include at least the following: Silencer SA Self-

Adhesive, Silencer LVT; Eco Ultimate Silencer; and Eco Silencer HD FOF. 13. Foam Products publishes and provides documents intending that persons

including the manufacturers, sellers, resellers, distributors, installers and customers engage in direct infringement by their use of at least the following products, Silencer SA Self-Adhesive; Silencer LVT; Eco Ultimate Silencer; and Eco Silencer HD FOF, for floor installations. 14. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a printout of Foam Products Web Page dated

March 7, 2013 that provides how-to-instructions for the installation of the Silencer SA SelfAdhesive product. 15. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a printout of Foam Products Web Page dated

March 7, 2013 that provides how-to-instructions for the installation of the Silencer LVT product. 16. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a printout of Foam Products Web Page dated

March 7, 2013 that provides how-to-instructions for the installation of the Eco Ultimate Silencer product.

17.

Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a printout of Foam Products Web Page dated

March 7, 2013 that provides how-to-instructions for the installation of the Eco Silencer HD FOF product. 18. On its website, Foam Products invites customers to purchase its Silencer SA Self-

Adhesive, Silencer LVT, Eco Ultimate Silencer, and Eco Silencer HD FOF products by providing contact numbers and an email address. 19. On information and belief, Foam Products customers can use Foam Products

website to find stores, sellers, resellers, distributors, installers that carry the Silencer SA SelfAdhesive, Silencer LVT, Eco Ultimate Silencer, and Eco Silencer HD FOF products or like kinds thereof. 20. Foam Products customers can use Foam Products website to learn the

installation technique for its Silencer SA Self-Adhesive, Silencer LVT, Eco Ultimate Silencer, and Eco Silencer HD FOF products. 21. At least these facts establish that Foam Products actively encourages others, such

as end user customers, to practice the method taught in the 251 Patent. 22. At least these facts establish that Foam Products affirmatively intends to actively

induce the infringement of the 251 Patent by marketing and selling its Silencer SA SelfAdhesive, Silencer LVT, Eco Ultimate Silencer, and Eco Silencer HD FOF products intending that end user customers of these products perform the claimed method. 23. On information and belief, at least Foam Products Silencer SA Self-Adhesive is

also referred to as EasyFloat SA. 24. On information and belief, the installation technique for the EasyFloat SA is

virtually identical to that of Silencer SA Self-Adhesive.

COUNT I (Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,564,251) 25. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference the allegations of paragraphs 1

through 24 above as if fully set forth herein. 26. Based at least on the actions set forth herein above, Plaintiffs allege that Foam

Products infringes one or more claims of the 251 Patent under 35 U.S.C. 271(a), by making, using, selling, and/or offering to sell products which infringe the 251 Patent, including but not limited to, Silencer SA Self-Adhesive, Silencer LVT, Eco Ultimate Silencer, and Eco Silencer HD FOF. 27. Plaintiffs allege that Foam Products has actively induced, and continues to induce,

the infringement of one or more claims of the 251 Patent under 35 U.S.C. 271(b), by actively inducing the use, offer for sale, sale, and/or import of the products which infringe the 251 Patent, including, but not limited to, Silencer SA Self-Adhesive, Silencer LVT, Eco Ultimate Silencer, and Eco Silencer HD FOF. 28. Foam Products website, found at www.foamproducts.com, and the links

referenced therein, provide a comprehensive description of Foam Products products, how-toinstall instructions, and contact information for purchasing the products. 29. Foam Products website is publicly accessible, and can be viewed without login

credentials. Foam Products website is targeted to, and viewed by, users, customers and/or potential customers of its flooring products. 30. Foam Products website, and links from Foam Products website, includes a

detailed description of its Silencer SA Self-Adhesive, Silencer LVT, Eco Ultimate Silencer, and Eco Silencer HD FOF products, and the uses of those products.

31.

The reasonable inference to be drawn from the facts set forth above is that Foam

Products actively and intentionally updates its website to promote its products and services to encourage users, customers and/or potential customers to use its products in the manner described by Foam Products. 32. The reasonable inference to be drawn from the facts set forth above is that Foam

Products actively takes steps to update its website to promote its Silencer SA Self-Adhesive, Silencer LVT, Eco Ultimate Silencer, and Eco Silencer HD FOF products to encourage users, customers and/or potential customers to practice the method taught in the 251 Patent. 33. The reasonable inference to be drawn from the facts set forth above is that Foam

Products, through a variety of methods including without limitation, its website, has offered for sale, and continues to offer for sale, its Silencer SA Self-Adhesive, Silencer LVT, Eco Ultimate Silencer, and Eco Silencer HD FOF products to enable users, customers and/or potential customers to practice the method claimed in the 251 Patent. 34. Based upon Foam Products specific directions for use of the Silencer SA Self-

Adhesive, Silencer LVT, Eco Ultimate Silencer, and Eco Silencer HD FOF products, Foam Products users and/or customers directly infringe the claims of the 251 Patent. 35. Foam Products continues to take active steps to market and sell its Silencer SA

Self-Adhesive, Silencer LVT, Eco Ultimate Silencer, and Eco Silencer HD FOF products, and specifically encourages its users and/or customers to infringe the 251 Patent. 36. Foam Products continues to advertise on its website the Silencer SA Self-

Adhesive, Silencer LVT, Eco Ultimate Silencer, and Eco Silencer HD FOF products, and advertises its use in a manner that infringes one or more claims of the 251 Patent.

37.

Use of the Silencer SA Self-Adhesive, Silencer LVT, Eco Ultimate Silencer, and

Eco Silencer HD FOF products as described above infringe the 251 Patent. 38. Foam Products acts of making, using, importing, selling, and/or offering for sale

infringing products have been without the permission, consent, authorization or license of Plaintiffs. 39. As a result of Foam Products acts of infringement, Plaintiffs have sustained and

will continue to sustain economic damages. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to preliminary and/or permanent injunction relief pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 283. 40. On information and belief, Foam Products infringement of the 251 Patent has

been and continues to be willful, deliberate and/or objectively reckless. 41. Foam Products infringement of the 251 Patent has injured and continues to

injure Plaintiffs in an amount to be proven at trial. 42. Foam Products had actual knowledge of the 251 Patent prior to the manufacture

and sale of the infringing flooring products, and elected to willfully and deliberately disregard Plaintiffs patent rights, rendering this case exceptional, entitling Plaintiffs to recover treble damages and attorneys fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 284 and 285. RELIEF REQUESTED WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand a judgment in their favor and against Defendant Foam Products, and request that this Court grant the following relief and judgment: A. Patent; B. A preliminary and permanent injunction against Foam Products and all of its An entry of judgment holding Foam Products liable for infringement of the 251

officers, representatives, agents, employees, related companies, successors and assigns, and all

others in privity or acting in concert with them, from infringing, inducing the infringement, or contributing to the infringement of any claims of the 251 Patent, including, but not limited to, further infringement by offering to sell, selling, installing, manufacturing, and/or directing the manufacture, sale, and/or installation of any products that infringe any claims of the 251 Patent; C. An award to Plaintiffs of such damages as they shall prove at trial against Foam

Products that is adequate to fully compensate Plaintiffs for Foam Products infringement of the 251 Patent, said damages to be no less than a reasonable royalty or Plaintiffs lost profits; D. An award to Plaintiffs for Foam Products willful infringement of treble damages

so determined, as provided by 35 U.S.C. 284, together with post-judgment interest and prejudgment interest from the first date of infringement of the 251 Patent; E. A finding that this case is exceptional and an award to Plaintiffs of their costs

and reasonable attorneys fees, as provided by 35 U.S.C. 285; F. G. An accounting of all infringing sales and revenues; and, Such further and other relief as the Court may deem proper and just.

JURY DEMAND Plaintiffs demand trial by jury of all issues triable to a jury. DATED: March 8, 2013 Respectfully Submitted,

/s/Edward L. Bishop Edward L. Bishop ebishop@bishoppatents.com Nicholas S. Lee nlee@bishoppatents.com BISHOP & DIEHL, LTD. 1750 E. Golf Rd., Suite 390 Schaumburg, IL 60173 Tel: (847) 969-9123 Fax: (847) 969-9124 Attorneys for Plaintiff OSBE Parket B.V. and Supra Floors, Inc.