IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

INNOVATIVE OFFICE PRODUCTS, INC., Plaintiff, v. SDI TECHNOLOGIES INC. d/b/a iHome, LIFEWORKS TECHNOLOGY GROUP LLC, RADIOSHACK CORP., AMAZON.COM, INC. and OFFICEMAX INC., Defendants.

| | | | | | | | | | | |

CIVIL ACTION NO. ____________

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

COMPLAINT This is an action for patent infringement in which Innovative Office Products, Inc. makes the following allegations against SDI Technologies Inc. d/b/a/ iHome, LifeWorks Technology Group LLC, RadioShack Corp., Amazon.com, Inc., and OfficeMax Inc. (collectively, the Defendants). PARTIES 1. Plaintiff Innovative Office Products, Inc. (Plaintiff IOP) is a Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place of business at 100 Kuebler Road, Easton, Pennsylvania 18040. 2. On information and belief, Defendant SDI Technologies Inc. d/b/a iHome

(iHome) is a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business at 1299 Main Street, Rahway, New Jersey 07065.

3.

On information and belief, Defendant LifeWorks Technology Group LLC

(LifeWorks) is a New York limited liability company with its principal place of business at 1412 Broadway, New York, New York 10018. 4. On information and belief, Defendant RadioShack Corporation (RadioShack) is

a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 300 RadioShack Circle, Fort Worth, Texas 76102. 5. On information and belief, Defendant Amazon.com, Inc. (Amazon) is a

Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 410 Terry Avenue North, Seattle, Washington 98109. 6. On information and belief, Defendant OfficeMax Inc. (OfficeMax) is a

Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 263 Shuman Boulevard, Naperville, Illinois 60563. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 7. This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of the

United States Code. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1338(a). 8. On information and belief, Defendants are each subject to this Courts specific

and general personal jurisdiction pursuant to due process and/or the Pennsylvania Long-Arm Statute, 42 Pa. C.S.A. 5322. 9. On information and belief, each Defendant conducts substantial business in this

forum, directly or through intermediaries, including: (i) at least a portion of the acts of infringement alleged herein; and/or (ii) regularly doing or soliciting business, engaging in other

persistent courses of conduct, and/or deriving substantial revenue from goods and/or services provided to individuals located within Pennsylvania and this Judicial District. 10. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 299, jurisdiction over all of the named Defendants in this

action is proper because: (i) the allegations set forth below against each of the Defendants arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences relating to the importing into the United States, sale, and/or offer for sale of the same accused product, i.e., the iHome Stand (see paragraph 17, infra); and (ii) questions of fact common to all of the Defendants will arise in this action. 11. 1400(b). ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS 12. Plaintiff IOP is the owner by assignment of the entire interest in United States Venue is proper in this Judicial District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) and

Patent No. D575,293 (the 293 Patent) entitled FOLDING STAND. Bradley A. Derry and David VanDuzer are listed as the inventors for the 293 Patent. The 293 Patent issued on August 19, 2008. A true and correct copy of the 293 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 13. Plaintiff IOP is the owner by assignment of the entire interest in United States

Patent No. 7,712,719 (the 719 Patent) entitled FOLDING SUPPORT STAND FOR PORTABLE ELECTRONIC DEVICES. Bradley A. Derry, Robert Altonji, and Odd N. Oddsen, Jr. are listed as the inventors for the 719 Patent. The 719 Patent issued on May 11, 2010. A true and correct copy of the 719 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 14. Plaintiff IOP manufactures and sells a portable stand for electronic devices called

the Cricket, which is a commercial embodiment of the claimed design of the 293 and 719 Patents. A product brochure for the Cricket stand is attached hereto as Exhibit C.

15.

IOP has properly marked the Cricket stand in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 287. COUNT I DIRECT INFRINGEMENT OF THE 293 PATENT by Defendant iHome

16.

Plaintiff IOP incorporates by reference the allegations stated in paragraphs 1-15

as if fully set forth. 17. On information and belief, Defendant iHome has imported into the United States,

sold and/or offered for sale, on or after the issue date of the 293 Patent, a product called the iHome IH-IP2201 Travel Tablet Stand (iHome Stand). Screen captures from www.lifeworks.com and www.radioshack.com, showing the iHome Stand being offered for sale, are attached hereto as Exhibit D and Exhibit E, respectively. 18. On information and belief, Defendant iHome is continuing to import into the

United States, sell and/or offer for sale the iHome Stand as of the date of this Complaint. 19. On information and belief, the iHome Stand incorporates the claimed design of

the 293 Patent. 20. The acts referred to in paragraphs 17 and 18 were engaged in without authority

from Plaintiff IOP. 21. 293 Patent. 22. On December 2, 2011, a cease and desist letter was mailed by Plaintiff IOP to Each of the acts referred to in paragraphs 17 and 18 constitute infringement of the

Defendant iHome via UPS Next Day Air service with signature confirmation. This letter specifically identified the 293 Patent and provided a copy thereof. A copy of this letter, without attachments, is attached as Exhibit F hereto. This letter was confirmed received by Defendant iHome on December 5, 2011 through a delivery confirmation delivered by UPS to Plaintiff IOP.

23.

On information and belief, since at least as early as December 5, 2011 and

continuing to the present, the acts referred to in paragraphs 17 and 18 were engaged in by Defendant iHome with actual knowledge of the existence of the 293 Patent. 24. On information and belief, since at least as early as December 5, 2011, Defendant

iHome knew or should have known that its acts referred to in paragraphs 17 and 18 constituted infringement of the 293 Patent. 25. Since at least as early as December 5, 2011 and continuing to the present, each of

the acts referred to in paragraphs 17 and 18 constituted willful infringement of the 293 Patent. COUNT II DIRECT INFRINGEMENT OF THE 719 PATENT by Defendant iHome 26. Plaintiff IOP incorporates by reference the allegations stated in paragraphs 1-25

as if fully set forth. 27. On information and belief, Defendant iHome has imported into the United States,

sold and/or offered for sale, on or after the issue date of the 719 Patent, the iHome Stand. Screen captures from www.life-works.com and www.radioshack.com, showing the iHome Stand being offered for sale, are attached hereto as Exhibit D and Exhibit E, respectively. 28. On information and belief, Defendant iHome is continuing to import into the

United States, sell and/or offer for sale the iHome Stand as of the date of this Complaint. 29. On information and belief, the iHome Stand incorporates the claimed invention of

the 719 Patent. 30. The acts referred to in paragraphs 27 and 28 were engaged in without authority

from Plaintiff IOP.

31. 719 Patent. 32.

Each of the acts referred to in paragraphs 27 and 28 constitute infringement of the

On December 2, 2011, a cease and desist letter was mailed by Plaintiff IOP to

Defendant iHome via UPS Next Day Air service with signature confirmation. This letter specifically identified the 719 Patent and provided a copy thereof. A copy of this letter, without attachments, is attached as Exhibit F hereto. This letter was confirmed received by Defendant iHome on December 5, 2011 through a delivery confirmation delivered by UPS to Plaintiff IOP. 33. On information and belief, since at least as early as December 5, 2011 and

continuing to the present, the acts referred to in paragraphs 27 and 28 were engaged in by Defendant iHome with actual knowledge of the existence of the 719 Patent. 34. On information and belief, since at least as early as December 5, 2011, Defendant

iHome knew or should have known that its acts referred to in paragraphs 27 and 28 constituted infringement of the 719 Patent. 35. Since at least as early as December 5, 2011 and continuing to the present, each of

the acts referred to in paragraphs 27 and 28 constituted willful infringement of the 719 Patent. COUNT III INDIRECT INFRINGEMENT OF THE 293 PATENT ACTIVE INDUCEMENT by Defendant iHome 36. Plaintiff IOP incorporates by reference the allegations stated in paragraphs 1

through 35 as if fully set forth. 37. On information and belief, Defendant iHome, on or after the issue date of the 293

Patent, sold and/or offered for sale the iHome Stand to retailers and/or customers located in the United States knowing that these retailers and/or customers would sell, offer for sale, and/or use said products within the United States in violation of 35 U.S.C. 271(a).

38.

On information and belief, Defendant iHome continues to engage in the acts

referred to in paragraph 37. 39. Defendant iHomes acts, as set forth in paragraphs 37 and 38, were engaged in

without authority from Plaintiff IOP. 40. The acts referred to in paragraphs 37 and 38 constitute infringement of the 293

Patent by Defendant iHome by active inducement. 41. On information and belief, since at least as early as December 5, 2011 and

continuing to the present, the acts referred to in paragraphs 37 and 38 were engaged in by Defendant iHome with actual knowledge of the existence of the 293 Patent. 42. On information and belief, since at least as early as December 5, 2011, Defendant

iHome knew or should have known that its acts referred to in paragraphs 37 and 38 constituted infringement of the 293 Patent. 43. Since at least as early as December 5, 2011 and continuing to the present, each of

the acts referred to in paragraphs 37 and 38 constituted willful infringement of the 293 Patent by active inducement. COUNT IV INDIRECT INFRINGEMENT OF THE 719 PATENT ACTIVE INDUCEMENT by Defendant iHome 44. Plaintiff IOP incorporates by reference the allegations stated in paragraphs 1

through 43 as if fully set forth. 45. On information and belief, Defendant iHome, on or after the issue date of the 719

Patent, sold and/or offered for sale the iHome Stand to retailers and/or customers located in the United States knowing that these retailers and/or customers would sell, offer for sale, and/or use said products within the United States in violation of 35 U.S.C. 271(a).

46.

On information and belief, Defendant iHome continues to engage in the acts

referred to in paragraph 45. 47. Defendant iHomes acts, as set forth in paragraphs 45 and 46, were engaged in

without authority from Plaintiff IOP. 48. The acts referred to in paragraphs 45 and 46 constitute infringement of the 719

Patent by Defendant iHome by active inducement. 49. On information and belief, since at least as early as December 5, 2011 and

continuing to the present, the acts referred to in paragraphs 45 and 46 were engaged in by Defendant iHome with actual knowledge of the existence of the 719 Patent. 50. On information and belief, since at least as early as December 5, 2011, Defendant

iHome knew or should have known that its acts referred to in paragraphs 45 and 46 constituted infringement of the 719 Patent. 51. Since at least as early as December 5, 2011 and continuing to the present, each of

the acts referred to in paragraphs 45 and 46 constituted willful infringement of the 719 Patent by active inducement. COUNT V DIRECT INFRINGEMENT OF THE 293 PATENT by Defendant LifeWorks 52. Plaintiff IOP incorporates by reference the allegations stated in paragraphs 1-51

as if fully set forth. 53. On information and belief, Defendant LifeWorks has sold and/or offered for sale,

on or after the issue date of the 293 Patent, the iHome Stand. A screen capture from www.lifeworks.com showing the iHome Stand being offered for sale is attached hereto as Exhibit D.

54.

On information and belief, Defendant LifeWorks is continuing to sell and/or offer

for sale the iHome Stand as of the date of this Complaint. 55. On information and belief, the iHome Stand incorporates the claimed design of

the 293 Patent. 56. The acts referred to in paragraphs 53 and 54 were engaged in without authority

from Plaintiff IOP. 57. 293 Patent. 58. On December 14, 2011, counsel for Plaintiff IOP was contacted by counsel for Each of the acts referred to in paragraphs 53 and 54 constitute infringement of the

Defendant LifeWorks, who stated that they had received a copy of the cease and desist letter described in paragraph 22 from Defendant iHome. 59. On information and belief, since at least as early as December 14, 2011 and

continuing to the present, the acts referred to in paragraphs 53 and 54 were engaged in by Defendant LifeWorks with actual knowledge of the existence of the 293 Patent. 60. On information and belief, since at least as early as December 14, 2011,

Defendant LifeWorks knew or should have known that its acts referred to in paragraphs 53 and 54 constituted infringement of the 293 Patent. 61. Since at least as early as December 14, 2011 and continuing to the present, each

of the acts referred to in paragraphs 53 and 54 constituted willful infringement of the 293 Patent. COUNT VI DIRECT INFRINGEMENT OF THE 719 PATENT by Defendant LifeWorks

62.

Plaintiff IOP incorporates by reference the allegations stated in paragraphs 1-61

as if fully set forth. 63. On information and belief, Defendant LifeWorks has sold and/or offered for sale,

on or after the issue date of the 719 Patent, the iHome Stand. A screen capture from www.lifeworks.com showing the iHome Stand being offered for sale is attached hereto as Exhibit D. 64. On information and belief, Defendant LifeWorks is continuing to sell and/or offer

for sale the iHome Stand as of the date of this Complaint. 65. On information and belief, the iHome Stand incorporates the claimed invention of

the 719 Patent. 66. The acts referred to in paragraphs 63 and 64 were engaged in without authority

from Plaintiff IOP. 67. 719 Patent. 68. On December 14, 2011, counsel for Plaintiff IOP was contacted by counsel for Each of the acts referred to in paragraphs 63 and 64 constitute infringement of the

Defendant LifeWorks, who stated that they had received a copy of the cease and desist letter described in paragraph 32 from Defendant iHome. 69. On information and belief, since at least as early as December 14, 2011 and

continuing to the present, the acts referred to in paragraphs 63 and 64 were engaged in by Defendant LifeWorks with actual knowledge of the existence of the 719 Patent. 70. On information and belief, since at least as early as December 14, 2011,

Defendant LifeWorks knew or should have known that its acts referred to in paragraphs 63 and 64 constituted infringement of the 719 Patent.

10

71.

Since at least as early as December 14, 2011 and continuing to the present, each

of the acts referred to in paragraphs 63 and 64 constituted willful infringement of the 719 Patent. COUNT VII DIRECT INFRINGEMENT OF THE 293 PATENT by Defendant RadioShack 72. Plaintiff IOP incorporates by reference the allegations stated in paragraphs 1-71

as if fully set forth. 73. On information and belief, Defendant RadioShack has sold and/or offered for

sale, on or after the issue date of the 293 Patent, the iHome Stand. A screen capture from www.radioshack.com, showing the iHome Stand being offered for sale, is attached hereto as Exhibit E. 74. On information and belief, Defendant RadioShack is continuing to sell and/or

offer for sale the iHome Stand as of the date of this Complaint. 75. On information and belief, the iHome Stand incorporates the claimed design of

the 293 Patent. 76. The acts referred to in paragraphs 73 and 74 were engaged in without authority

from Plaintiff IOP. 77. 293 Patent. 78. On November 29, 2011, a cease and desist letter was mailed by Plaintiff IOP to Each of the acts referred to in paragraphs 73 and 74 constitute infringement of the

Defendant RadioShack via UPS Next Day Air service with signature confirmation. This letter specifically identified the 293 Patent and provided a copy thereof. A copy of this letter, without attachments, is attached as Exhibit G hereto. This letter was confirmed received by Defendant

11

RadioShack on December 2, 2011 through a delivery confirmation delivered by UPS to Plaintiff IOP. 79. On information and belief, since at least as early as December 2, 2011 and

continuing to the present, the acts referred to in paragraphs 73 and 74 were engaged in by Defendant RadioShack with actual knowledge of the existence of the 293 Patent. 80. On information and belief, since at least as early as December 2, 2011, Defendant

RadioShack knew or should have known that its acts referred to in paragraphs 73 and 74 constituted infringement of the 293 Patent. 81. Since at least as early as December 2, 2011 and continuing to the present, each of

the acts referred to in paragraphs 73 and 74 constituted willful infringement of the 293 Patent. COUNT VIII DIRECT INFRINGEMENT OF THE 719 PATENT by Defendant RadioShack 82. Plaintiff IOP incorporates by reference the allegations stated in paragraphs 1-81

as if fully set forth. 83. On information and belief, Defendant RadioShack has sold and/or offered for

sale, on or after the issue date of the 719 Patent, the iHome Stand. A screen capture from www.radioshack.com, showing the iHome Stand being offered for sale, is attached hereto as Exhibit E. 84. On information and belief, Defendant RadioShack is continuing to sell and/or

offer for sale the iHome Stand as of the date of this Complaint. 85. On information and belief, the iHome Stand incorporates the claimed invention of

the 719 Patent.

12

86.

The acts referred to in paragraphs 83 and 84 were engaged in without authority

from Plaintiff IOP. 87. 719 Patent. 88. On November 29, 2011, a cease and desist letter was mailed by Plaintiff IOP to Each of the acts referred to in paragraphs 83 and 84 constitute infringement of the

Defendant RadioShack via UPS Next Day Air service with signature confirmation. This letter specifically identified the 719 Patent and provided a copy thereof. A copy of this letter, without attachments, is attached as Exhibit G hereto. This letter was confirmed received by Defendant RadioShack on December 2, 2011 through a delivery confirmation delivered by UPS to Plaintiff IOP. 89. On information and belief, since at least as early as December 2, 2011 and

continuing to the present, the acts referred to in paragraphs 83 and 84 were engaged in by Defendant RadioShack with actual knowledge of the existence of the 719 Patent. 90. On information and belief, since at least as early as December 2, 2011, Defendant

RadioShack knew or should have known that its acts referred to in paragraphs 83 and 84 constituted infringement of the 719 Patent. 91. Since at least as early as December 2, 2011 and continuing to the present, each of

the acts referred to in paragraphs 83 and 84 constituted willful infringement of the 719 Patent. COUNT IX DIRECT INFRINGEMENT OF THE 293 PATENT by Defendant Amazon 92. Plaintiff IOP incorporates by reference the allegations stated in paragraphs 1-91

as if fully set forth.

13

93.

On information and belief, Defendant Amazon has sold and/or offered for sale, on

or after the issue date of the 293 Patent, the iHome Stand. A screen capture from www.amazon.com, showing the iHome Stand being offered for sale, is attached hereto as Exhibit H. 94. On information and belief, Defendant Amazon is continuing to sell and/or offer

for sale the iHome Stand as of the date of this Complaint. 95. On information and belief, the iHome Stand incorporates the claimed design of

the 293 Patent. 96. The acts referred to in paragraphs 93 and 94 were engaged in without authority

from Plaintiff IOP. 97. 293 Patent. 98. On September 17, 2010, a copy of a first amended complaint in an action entitled Each of the acts referred to in paragraphs 93 and 94 constitute infringement of the

Innovative Office Products, Inc. v. Amazon.com Inc. et al., Civil Docket No. 5:10-cv-04487RBS, which was then pending before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, was mailed by Plaintiff IOP to Defendant Amazon, through its counsel Robert T. Cruzen of Klarquist Sparkman, LLP, via UPS Next Day Air service with signature confirmation. The 293 Patent was included as Exhibit A to said first amended complaint. This letter was confirmed received by Defendant Amazon on September 21, 2010 through a delivery confirmation delivered by UPS to Plaintiff IOP. Proof of this delivery confirmation is attached hereto as Exhibit I.

14

99.

Since at least as early as September 21, 2010 and continuing to the present, the

acts referred to in paragraphs 93 and 94 were engaged in by Defendant Amazon with actual knowledge of the existence of the 293 Patent. 100. On information and belief, since at least as early as September 21, 2010,

Defendant Amazon knew or should have known that its acts referred to in paragraphs 93 and 94 constituted infringement of the 293 Patent. 101. Since at least as early as September 21, 2010 and continuing to the present, each

of the acts referred to in paragraphs 93 and 94 constituted willful infringement of the 293 Patent. COUNT X DIRECT INFRINGEMENT OF THE 719 PATENT by Defendant Amazon 102. Plaintiff IOP incorporates by reference the allegations stated in paragraphs 1-101

as if fully set forth. 103. On information and belief, Defendant Amazon has sold and/or offered for sale, on

or after the issue date of the 719 Patent, the iHome Stand. A screen capture from www.amazon.com, showing the iHome Stand being offered for sale, is attached hereto as Exhibit H. 104. On information and belief, Defendant Amazon is continuing to sell and/or offer

for sale the iHome Stand as of the date of this Complaint. 105. On information and belief, the iHome Stand incorporates the claimed invention of

the 719 Patent. 106. The acts referred to in paragraphs 103 and 104 were engaged in without authority

from Plaintiff IOP.

15

107.

Each of the acts referred to in paragraphs 103 and 104 constitute infringement of

the 719 Patent. 108. On September 17, 2010, a copy of a first amended complaint in an action entitled

Innovative Office Products, Inc. v. Amazon.com Inc. et al., Civil Docket No. 5:10-cv-04487RBS, which was then pending before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, was mailed by Plaintiff IOP to Defendant Amazon, through its counsel Robert T. Cruzen of Klarquist Sparkman, LLP, via UPS Next Day Air service with signature confirmation. The 719 Patent was included as Exhibit B to said first amended complaint. This letter was confirmed received by Defendant Amazon on September 21, 2010 through a delivery confirmation delivered by UPS to Plaintiff IOP. Proof of this delivery confirmation is attached hereto as Exhibit I. 109. Since at least as early as September 21, 2010 and continuing to the present, the

acts referred to in paragraphs 103 and 104 were engaged in by Defendant Amazon with actual knowledge of the existence of the 719 Patent. 110. On information and belief, since at least as early as September 21, 2010,

Defendant Amazon knew or should have known that its acts referred to in paragraphs 103 and 104 constituted infringement of the 719 Patent. 111. Since at least as early as September 21, 2010 and continuing to the present, each

of the acts referred to in paragraphs 103 and 104 constituted willful infringement of the 719 Patent. COUNT XI DIRECT INFRINGEMENT OF THE 293 PATENT by Defendant OfficeMax

16

112.

Plaintiff IOP incorporates by reference the allegations stated in paragraphs 1-111

as if fully set forth. 113. On information and belief, Defendant OfficeMax has sold and/or offered for sale,

on or after the issue date of the 293 Patent, the iHome Stand in OfficeMax retail stores located in the United States. A photograph of the iHome Stand being offered for sale in an OfficeMax retail store is attached hereto as Exhibit J. 114. On information and belief, Defendant OfficeMax is continuing to sell and/or offer

for sale the iHome Stand as of the date of this Complaint. 115. On information and belief, the iHome Stand incorporates the claimed design of

the 293 Patent. 116. The acts referred to in paragraphs 113 and 114 were engaged in without authority

from Plaintiff IOP. 117. Each of the acts referred to in paragraphs 113 and 114 constitute infringement of

the 293 Patent. COUNT XII DIRECT INFRINGEMENT OF THE 719 PATENT by Defendant OfficeMax 118. Plaintiff IOP incorporates by reference the allegations stated in paragraphs 1-117

as if fully set forth. 119. On information and belief, Defendant OfficeMax has sold and/or offered for sale,

on or after the issue date of the 719 Patent, the iHome Stand in OfficeMax retail stores located in the United States. A photograph of the iHome Stand being offered for sale in an OfficeMax retail store is attached hereto as Exhibit J.

17

120.

On information and belief, Defendant OfficeMax is continuing to sell and/or offer

for sale the iHome Stand as of the date of this Complaint. 121. On information and belief, the iHome Stand incorporates the claimed invention of

the 719 Patent. 122. The acts referred to in paragraphs 119 and 120 were engaged in without authority

from Plaintiff IOP. 123. Each of the acts referred to in paragraphs 119 and 120 constitute infringement of

the 719 Patent. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff IOP respectfully prays as follows: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) That it be decreed that each of the Defendants has infringed the 293 Patent; That it be decreed that the 293 Patent is valid and enforceable; That it be decreed that each of the Defendants has infringed the 719 Patent; That it be decreed that the 719 Patent is valid and enforceable; That the Defendants be ordered to account for and pay damages adequate to

compensate Plaintiff IOP for its damages caused by the infringements by Defendants of the patents in suit; (f) That these damages be increased, pursuant to 35 U.S.C 284, to up to three times

the actual damages found or assessed by the Court, and that interest be paid by each Defendant from the date of its initial infringement; (g) That Plaintiff IOP be awarded its attorneys fees, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 285, and

an assessment of interest, costs, and expenses for this suit;

18