IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE MIDWEST, and HARTFORD UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants. JURY DEMAND Case No.

COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Plaintiff Progressive Casualty Insurance Company (Progressive), by and through its attorneys, for its complaint against Defendants Hartford Fire Insurance Company, Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest, and Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company (collectively, Hartford), demands a jury trial and alleges as follows: NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. This action arises under the Patent Laws of the United States, Title 35 of the

Unites States Code (for example, 35 U.S.C. 271, 281, 283, 284, and 285), for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,064,970 (the 970 patent) (attached as Exhibit A), U.S. Patent No. 8,090,598 (the 598 patent) (attached as Exhibit B), and U.S. Patent No. 8,140,358 (the 358 patent) (attached as Exhibit C).

PARTIES 2. Progressive is a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Ohio, with its

principal place of business at 6300 Wilson Mills Road, Mayfield Village, Ohio 44143. 3. On information and belief, Hartford Fire Insurance Company is a corporation

organized under the laws of the state of Connecticut, with its principal place of business at One Hartford Plaza, 690 Asylum Avenue, Hartford, Connecticut 06155. 4. On information and belief, Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest is a

corporation organized under the laws of the state of Indiana with a place of business at 501 Pennsylvania Parkway, Suite 400, Indianapolis, Indiana 46280. 5. On information and belief, Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company is a

corporation organized under the laws of the state of Connecticut, with its principal place of business at Hartford Plaza, Hartford, Connecticut 06155. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 6. This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of the

United States code, 1, et seq. 7. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28

U.S.C. 1331 and 1338(a). 8. 9. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. 1391 and 1400(b). On information and belief, Hartford regularly transacts and conducts business in

this district, has registered with the Ohio Department of Insurance, and sells insurance within the State of Ohio. Progressive is suffering from the effects of Hartfords unlawful conduct in this district.

COUNT I 10. Progressive incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1

through 9 as though fully asserted herein. 11. On May 16, 2000, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally

issued the 970 patent for an invention related to the determination of insurance ratings based upon vehicle monitoring. Progressive owns the 970 patent. 12. On information and belief, Hartford was aware of the 970 patent prior to the acts

of infringement alleged herein. 13. On information and belief, Hartford, individually or through one or more agents

under its direction and control, has been and still is operating a usage-based vehicle insurance program entitled TrueLane. 14. On information and belief, Hartford, individually or through one or more agents

under its direction and control, operates and maintains an Internet website at https://truelane.octousa.com/ (the TrueLane website) that includes details regarding the TrueLane program. 15. On information and belief, Hartford, or a third party vendor acting on behalf of

and under the direction and control of Hartford, in connection with the TrueLane program, obtains data regarding driving characteristics, including, for example, time of day, speed and location, trip distance, trip duration, acceleration, braking, and type of road, from an insured vehicle. 16. On information and belief, Hartford, or a third party vendor acting on behalf of

and under the direction and control of Hartford, calculates a rating based on the obtained driving characteristics data in accordance with a formula provided by or for Hartford.

17.

Hartford is infringing the 970 patent, including through the operation of the

TrueLane program, which includes each and every feature of the claimed invention. Hartford is infringing either directly, through its own actions and/or the actions of one or more third-party vendors acting under its direction and/or control, or indirectly, through active inducement of the infringing actions with knowledge of or deliberate indifference to the existence and infringement of the 970 patent. 18. On information and belief, Hartford has continued its infringing activities despite

having notice of the 970 patent. Hartfords infringement is willful, entitling Progressive to the recovery of enhanced damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 284. 19. In addition, this is an exceptional case, justifying an award of attorneys fees and

costs to Progressive pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 285. 20. Hartfords infringement has caused and will continue to cause damage and

irreparable harm to Progressive until enjoined by this Court. The amount of the damage and harm has not yet been determined but will be proven at trial. COUNT II 21. Progressive incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1

through 20 as though fully asserted herein. 22. On January 3, 2012, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and

legally issued the 598 patent for an invention related to a vehicle monitoring system. Progressive owns the 598 patent. 23. On information and belief, Hartford was aware of the 598 patent prior to the acts

of infringement alleged herein.

24.

On information and belief, Hartford, individually or through one or more agents

under its direction and control, has been and still is operating a usage-based vehicle insurance program entitled TrueLane. 25. On information and belief, Hartford, individually or through one or more agents

under its direction and control, operates and maintains an Internet website at https://truelane.octousa.com/ (the TrueLane website) that includes details regarding the TrueLane program. 26. On information and belief, Hartford, or a third party vendor acting on behalf of

and under the direction and control of Hartford, in connection with the TrueLane program, obtains data regarding driving characteristics, including, for example, time of day, speed and location, trip distance, trip duration, acceleration, braking, and type of road, from an insured vehicle. 27. On information and belief, Hartford, or a third party vendor acting on behalf of

and under the direction and control of Hartford, calculates an insurance rating or safety score based on the obtained driving characteristics data in accordance with a formula provided by or for Hartford. 28. Hartford is infringing the 598 patent, including through the operation of the

TrueLane program, which includes each and every feature of the claimed invention. Hartford is infringing either directly, through its own actions and/or the actions of one or more third-party vendors acting under its direction and/or control, or indirectly, through active inducement of the infringing actions with knowledge of or deliberate indifference to the existence and infringement of the 598 patent.

29.

On information and belief, Hartford has continued its infringing activities despite

having notice of the 598 patent. Hartfords infringement is willful, entitling Progressive to the recovery of enhanced damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 284. 30. In addition, this is an exceptional case, justifying an award of attorneys fees and

costs to Progressive pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 285. 31. Hartfords infringement has caused and will continue to cause damage and

irreparable harm to Progressive until enjoined by this Court. The amount of the damage and harm has not yet been determined but will be proven at trial. COUNT III 32. Progressive incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1

through 31 as though fully asserted herein. 33. On March 20, 2012, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and

legally issued the 358 patent for an invention related to a vehicle monitoring system. Progressive owns the 358 patent. 34. On information and belief, Hartford was aware of the 358 patent prior to the acts

of infringement alleged herein. 35. On information and belief, Hartford, individually or through one or more agents

under its direction and control, has been and still is operating a usage-based vehicle insurance program entitled TrueLane. 36. On information and belief, Hartford, individually or through one or more agents

under its direction and control, operates and maintains an Internet website at https://truelane.octousa.com/ (the TrueLane website) that includes details regarding the TrueLane program.

37.

On information and belief, Hartford, or a third party vendor acting on behalf of

and under the direction and control of Hartford, in connection with the TrueLane program, obtains data regarding driving characteristics, including, for example, time of day, speed and location, trip distance, trip duration, acceleration, braking, and type of road, from an insured vehicle. 38. On information and belief, Hartford, or a third party vendor acting on behalf of

and under the direction and control of Hartford, calculates an insurance rating or safety score based on the obtained driving characteristics data in accordance with a formula provided by or for Hartford. 39. Hartford is infringing the 358 patent, including through the operation of the

TrueLane program, which includes each and every feature of the claimed invention. Hartford is infringing either directly, through its own actions and/or the actions of one or more third-party vendors acting under its direction and/or control, or indirectly, through active inducement of the infringing actions with knowledge of or deliberate indifference to the existence and infringement of the 358 patent. 40. On information and belief, Hartford has continued its infringing activities despite

having notice of the 358 patent. Hartfords infringement is willful, entitling Progressive to the recovery of enhanced damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 284. 41. In addition, this is an exceptional case, justifying an award of attorneys fees and

costs to Progressive pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 285. 42. Hartfords infringement has caused and will continue to cause damage and

irreparable harm to Progressive until enjoined by this Court. The amount of the damage and harm has not yet been determined but will be proven at trial.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Progressive demands the following relief: A. judgment that Hartford has infringed, contributorily infringed and/or actively

induced others to infringe the 970, 598, and 358 patents; B. a preliminary and permanent injunction against Hartfords continued infringement

and inducement of infringement of the 970, 598, and 358 patents; C. an award of damages in favor of Progressive and against Hartford adequate to

compensate Progressive for Hartfords infringement of the 970, 598, and 358 patents (including an assessment of pre-judgment interest and post-judgment interest); D. enhancement of damages by up to three times the amount found or assessed based

on Hartfords willful infringement, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 284; E. F. a finding that this case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. 285; an award to Progressive for its reasonable expenses, including attorneys fees, and

costs of this action; and G. an award of such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

JURY DEMAND Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Progressive hereby respectfully requests a jury trial on all issues and claims so triable.

Dated: April 30, 2012

Respectfully submitted, By: /s/ Calvin P. Griffith James R. Wooley (Ohio Bar No. 0033850) jrwooley@jonesday.com Calvin P. Griffith (Ohio Bar No. 0039484) cpgriffith@jonesday.com Patrick J. Norton (Ohio Bar No. 0069978) pjnorton@jonesday.com JONES DAY North Point 901 Lakeside Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44114 Telephone: (216) 586-3939 Facsimile: (216) 579-0212 Attorneys for Plaintiff Progressive Casualty Insurance Company