IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION INVUE SECURITY

PRODUCTS INC. Plaintiff, v. MERCHANDISING TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CIVIL ACTION NO.: _____________________________ Jury Trial Demanded

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF Plaintiff INVUE SECURITY PRODUCTS INC. (hereinafter referred to as InVue or Plaintiff), for its Complaint against Defendant MERCHANDISING TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (hereinafter referred to as MTI or Defendant), alleges as follows: 1. This is an action for Declaratory Judgment and other relief brought under

the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. 2201-02. 2. Plaintiff InVue is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of

the State of Ohio, having a principal place of business at 15015 Lancaster Highway, Charlotte, North Carolina 28277, and is doing business in this State and District. 3. Upon information and belief, Defendant MTI is a corporation organized

and existing under the laws of the State of Oregon, having a principal place of business at 1050 NW 229th Avenue, Hillsboro, Oregon 97124, and may be served with a summons and complaint at that address. Upon information and belief, Defendant MTI is a

manufacturer of loss prevention and security products used by retailers and others to display consumer electronics products. 4. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action on the

following grounds: (a) 28 U.S.C. 1331, this being a civil action arising under the laws of the United States; (b) 28 U.S.C. 1337(a), this being a civil action arising under an Act of Congress regulating commerce and protecting trade and commerce; and (c) 28 U.S.C. 1338(a), this being a civil action arising under an Act of Congress relating to alleged patent rights. 5. This Court may declare the rights and other legal relations of the parties in

this case under 28 U.S.C. 2201, and Rule 57, Fed.R.Civ.P., because an actual and justiciable controversy exists concerning the rights of, and legal relations between, Plaintiff InVue and Defendant MTI. 6. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant MTI consistent with

the principles underlying the U.S. Constitution and N.C. Gen. Stat. 1-75.4 because, among other things, any injury caused to Plaintiff occurred in the State of North Carolina as a result of MTIs actions within the State of North Carolina and this District, and because MTI sent a demand letter to this State and District creating in Plaintiff a reasonable apprehension of suit by MTI. Additionally, upon information and belief, MTI is regularly doing business in this State and District, and upon information and belief, the products of MTI relevant to this case are sold and/or used in this State and District.

-2-

7.

Venue is proper in this Court under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 1391

and/or 1400 because, among other things, this is an action arising out of allegations of patent infringement and because Plaintiff is in this District and a substantial part of the events giving rise to Plaintiffs claims occurred in this District, and on information and belief, Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in this District. 8. On or about February 1, 2012, Defendant MTI sent a letter to Plaintiff

InVues corporate offices in Charlotte, North Carolina, alleging that Defendant MTI is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 7,744,404 (the 404 patent) entitled Cable Management System for Product Display and U.S. Patent No. 7,909,641 (the 641 patent) entitled Cable Management Systems for Product Display, which were issued on June 29, 2010 and March 22, 2011, respectively. A copy of Defendants letter of February 1, 2012, is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. Copies of the 404 patent and 641 patent are attached hereto as Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 3, respectively. 9. The February 1, 2012, letter alleges infringement of MTIs alleged patent

rights by virtue of InVues marketing of a system referred to as the Series 1000 Swivel Camera Sensor. Among other things, MTIs letter states that InVues advertising copy states that the cable connection swivels inside [the] sensor and that the swivel technology is tangle free, and further asserts that [t]hese products may incorporate the technology of the patents referenced above. 10. The February 1, 2012, letter further purports to request InVue to review

these patents and let [MTI] know specifically what differences exist between InVues products and the [allegedly] patented technology.

-3-

11.

On information and belief, the Series 1000 Swivel Camera Sensor product

does not infringe any valid and enforceable patent rights of MTI, including any rights in the 404 patent and/or the 641 patent. 12. There is an actual, substantial, and justiciable controversy between

Plaintiff InVue and Defendant MTI of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the rendering of a declaratory judgment by this Court. Defendant MTI has made a clear threat against Plaintiff sufficient to create a reasonable apprehension by InVue of suit by MTI concerning its alleged patent rights. Plaintiff is entitled to a judgment declaring its rights as requested herein. COUNT I DECLARATORY JUDGMENT REGARDING ALLEGATIONS OF PATENT INFRINGEMENT 13. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 12 above as if set

forth fully herein. 14. There is an actual, substantial, and justiciable controversy between

Plaintiff InVue and Defendant MTI concerning MTIs allegations that Plaintiff has infringed any valid claims of the 404 patent and/or the 641 patent. 15. These allegations place a cloud over Plaintiffs business activities and will

cause uncertainty among customers, prospective customers, suppliers, and others in the marketplace, likely leading Plaintiff and/or its related entities to lose sales and business opportunities. 16. On information and belief, the Series 1000 Swivel Camera Sensor product

does not infringe any valid claims of the 404 patent and/or the 641 patent, as alleged by MTI.

-4-

17.

Plaintiff is entitled to a judgment declaring that any and all making, using,

selling, offering for sale, or importing into the United States of the accused products by Plaintiff is and has been lawful, and otherwise declaring that Plaintiff has not infringed any valid rights, if any, that Defendant MTI may hold in the 404 patent and/or the 641 patent. 18. As a direct and proximate result of MTIs allegations of patent

infringement against products made, used, sold, offered for sale, and/or imported into the United States by or for Plaintiff, Plaintiff is suffering irreparable injury to its reputation and goodwill in an amount that cannot presently be ascertained and cannot be compensated adequately by monetary relief alone. COUNT II DECLARATORY JUDGMENT REGARDING PATENT INVALIDITY 19. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 18 above as if set

forth fully herein. 20. There is an actual, substantial, and justiciable controversy between

Plaintiff InVue and Defendant MTI concerning MTIs allegations that Plaintiff has infringed any valid claims of the 404 patent and/or the 641 patent. 21. These allegations place a cloud over Plaintiffs business activities and will

cause uncertainty among customers, prospective customers, suppliers, and others in the marketplace, likely leading Plaintiff and/or its related entities to lose sales and business opportunities. 22. On information and belief, Defendant MTIs broad assertion, construction,

and/or interpretation of the 404 patent and/or the 641 patent renders the claims thereof

-5-

invalid in view of the prior art and/or for failure to comply with the provisions of one or more sections of the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. 1 et seq. 23. Plaintiff is entitled to a judgment declaring that the claims of the 404

patent and/or the 641 patent are invalid for failure to comply with the provisions of one or more sections of the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. 1 et seq. 24. As a direct and proximate result of MTIs allegations of patent

infringement against products made, used, sold, offered for sale, and/or imported into the United States by or for Plaintiff, Plaintiff is suffering irreparable injury to its reputation and goodwill in an amount that cannot presently be ascertained and cannot be compensated adequately by monetary relief alone. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff InVue Security Products Inc. prays that this Court enter judgment: (a) Declaring that Plaintiff, and including specifically the Series 1000 Swivel Camera Sensor products made, used, imported, sold and/or offered for sale by Plaintiff or its related entities, has not infringed and is not infringing any valid purported patent rights of MTI in the 404 patent and/or the 641 patent, and otherwise has not violated any provision of the patent laws of the United States; (b) Declaring that the claims of the 404 patent and the 641 patent are invalid pursuant to the patent laws of the United States; (c) Permanently enjoining MTI, its successors, assigns, and others from asserting the 404 patent and the 641 patent against Plaintiff or its related entities with respect to the Series 1000 Swivel Camera Sensor product and any other

-6-

product currently or previously made, used, imported, sold and/or offered for sale by Plaintiff or its related entities; (d) Finding in favor of Plaintiff and declaring this case to be exceptional pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 285; (e) Awarding Plaintiff its attorneys fees and other costs and expenses; (f) Awarding interest to Plaintiff to the extent permitted by law; and (g) Awarding to Plaintiff any such further relief as the Court deems just and proper. PLAINTIFF HEREBY DEMANDS A TRIAL BY JURY ON ALL ISSUES SO TRIABLE. This 9th day of February, 2012.

s/ Bruce J. Rose Bruce J. Rose, N.C. Bar No. 20105 ALSTON & BIRD LLP 101 South Tryon Street, Suite 4000 Charlotte, North Carolina 28280-4000 (704) 444-1000 (telephone) (704) 444-1111 (facsimile) ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF, INVUE SECURITY PRODUCTS INC.

-7-