United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin Green Bay Division CP Packaging, LLC, ) Plaintiff

) ) v. ) ) Multivac, Inc., ) Defendant. )

No. ____________

COMPLAINT
Plaintiff CP Packing, LLC (CP Packaging) brings this complaint against defendant Multivac, Inc. (Multivac) for a declaratory judgment that CP Packaging, LLC, does not infringe U.S. Patent No. 7,922,614 and that the patent is invalid. Parties 1. Plaintiff CP Packaging is a Wisconsin limited liability company located at 2530

West Everett Street, Appleton, Wisconsin, 54914. CP Packaging is in the business of making packaging machinery. 2. Defendant Multivac is a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware and is

headquartered at 11021 N.W. Pomona Avenue, Kansas City, Missouri, 64153. Defendant Multivac, Inc. is a subsidiary of Multivac Sepp Haggenmller GmbH & Co. KG. Multivac and its parent company make and sell packaging machinery. According to Multivacs website, they have more than 3,300 employees and more than 60 subsidiaries throughout the world.

Jurisdiction and Venue 3. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this dispute pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

1331 because it arises under the laws of the United States and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1338(a) because it arises under an act of Congress relating to patents. 4. The declaratory judgment sought is authorized by 28 U.S.C. 2201(a). An actual

controversy exists between Multivac and CP Packaging. 5. The Court has both general and specific personal jurisdiction over Multivac under

the Wisconsin long arm statute, Wis. Stat. 801.05(1)(d). Multivac engages in substantial and continuous activities within Wisconsin and in this District. According to Multivacs website, Multivac maintains a worldwide sales and service network . . . . Most regions are served by locally-based representatives and technical engineers. Also according to Multivacs website, Multivac has more than 900 consultants and service technicians around the world . . . Multivac Inc. in the USA is Multivacs largest distribution subsidiary. Multivac has at least such one employee in Wisconsin, who services packaging machines that Multivac sells and has sold in Wisconsin. 6. In addition, Multivac regularly offers its products for sale in Wisconsin. For

example, Multivac regularly attends the annual Wisconsin Cheese Industry Conference. Multivac has reserved booth no. 601 for the 2012 International Cheese Technology Expo being held in Milwaukee on April 10-12, 2012. Multivac has reserved booth no. 51 for the 2012 Wisconsin Cheese Industry Conference being held in La Crosse on April 13-14, 2012. Multivac is also an affiliate member of the Wisconsin Association of Meat Processors. 7. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) because Multivac

resides in this District and because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this District.

The Patent-in-Suit and Multivacs Improper Behavior 8. U.S. Patent No. 7,922,614 (the 614 patent) is titled, Chain for a Machine

Drive, Transport of a Material in a Machine or the Like, and Packaging Machine Comprising One Such Chain. The 614 Patent issued on April 12, 2011, and was assigned to Multivac Sepp Haggenmller GmbH & Co. KG. A copy of the 614 Patent is attached as Exhibit A. 9. The 614 patent was issued in error, and it is invalid. Among other things, the

patent examiner was unaware of a 30-year old patent (U.S. Patent No. 4,353,459, attached hereto as Exhibit B) which discloses the flexible chain that Multivac claims to have invented. 10. On February 22, 2012, Multivac Sepp Haggenmller GmbH & Co. KG recorded

an assignment document purporting to assign an interest in the 614 Patent to its U.S. subsidiary, Multivac, Inc. 11. That same day, Multivac Inc. filed a lawsuit in the Western District of Missouri,

Case No. 4:12-cv-228 (the Missouri Action), alleging that CP Packaging infringed the 614 Patent by, among other things, offering to sell CP Packagings VisionPak machine. 12. CP Packaging does not infringe the 614 Patent. Among other things, all claims

of the 614 Patent require a chain, but the accused VisionPak machine has a belt instead of a chain. 13. Multivac has not served the summons and complaint in the Missouri Action on

CP Packaging. Multivac knows that CP Packaging is not subject to personal jurisdiction in Missouri and that it cannot effect valid service on CP Packaging. 14. Multivac has no reasonable expectation of winning its Missouri Action. The

Missouri Action is a sham. 15. Instead, Multivac is trying to compete unfairly with CP Packaging, to

commercially disparage CP Packaging, to interfere with CP Packagings actual and prospective

business relationships, and to misuse the litigation process by informing CP Packagings customers about Multivacs unreasonable, sham Missouri Action. Multivac is using the existence of its Complaint in the Missouri Action to try to convince customers that they should not do business with CP Packaging. 16. Declaratory relief is necessary to settle the parties legal relations and avoid

uncertainty and insecurity in the conduct of CP Packagings business in this District, in furtherance of the purposes of the Declaratory Judgment Act. Count I Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of the 614 Patent 17. 18. CP Packaging incorporates all the preceding paragraphs into this Count. Each claim of the 614 Patent is invalid under at least 35 U.S.C. 102, 103,

and/or 112. By way of example, the 614 patent is invalid in light of U.S. Patent No. 4,353,459. 19. There is a substantial controversy between CP Packaging and Multivac regarding

the validity of the 614 Patent. They have adverse legal interests, and the matter is of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment. 20. CP Packaging is entitled to a judgment declaring that each claim of the 614

Patent is invalid. Count II Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of the 614 Patent 21. 22. CP Packaging incorporates all the preceding paragraphs into this Count. CP Packaging is not infringing and has never infringed any claim of the 614

Patent, either directly or indirectly, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.

23.

There is a substantial controversy between CP Packaging and Multivac regarding

infringement of the 614 Patent. They have adverse legal interests, and the matter is of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment. 24. CP Packaging is entitled to a judgment declaring that it is not infringing and has

never infringed any claim of the 614 Patent, either directly or indirectly, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. Prayer for Relief 25. Wherefore, CP Packaging seeks judgment against Multivac and: a. that the Court enter a judgment declaring that each claim of the 614 Patent is invalid; b. that the Court enter a judgment declaring that CP Packaging has not infringed and does not infringe any claim of the 614 Patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents; c. that the Court find this to be an exceptional case and award reasonable attorney fees to CP Packaging; d. that the Court award CP Packaging such other relief as is just and proper. Jury Demand 26. CP Packaging respectfully demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

Dated this 9th day of April, 2012. s/ Daniel T. Flaherty Daniel T. Flaherty State Bar No. 1011357 GODFREY & KAHN, S.C. 100 West Lawrence Street Appleton, WI 54911 Phone: 920-830-2800 Fax: 920-830-3530 Email: dflaherty@gklaw.com Anthony S. Baish State Bar No. 1031577 GODFREY & KAHN, S.C. 780 North Water Street Milwaukee, WI 53202-3590 Phone: 414-273-3500 Fax: 414-273-5198 Email: tbaish@gklaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff, CP Packaging, LLC Direct Inquiries To: Daniel T. Flaherty 920-830-2800 Of Counsel Martin Black Robert W. Ashbrook Jr. Dechert LLP Cira Centre, 2929 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19104-2808 (215) 994-2215 robert.ashbrook@dechert.com
7749911_1