IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

POTENTIAL DESIGN INC. a California corporation Plaintiff, v. COOPER B-LINE, INC. a Delaware corporation Defendant.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 3:14-cv-00280-JPG-PMF

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

COMPLAINT Plaintiff, POTENTIAL DESIGN INC., by its attorneys, for its complaint against Defendant COOPER B-LINE, INC., allege as follows: NATURE OF ACTION 1. This action is for infringement of United States Patent No. 7,651,056 (the 056

Patent - EXHIBIT A), U.S. Patent No. 7,926,766 (the 766 Patent EXHIBIT B) and U.S. Patent No. 7,931,242 (the 242 Patent EXHIBIT C) (collectively, the Asserted Patents or Patents in Suit) under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C 1 et seq. Plaintiff also asserts claims under 15 U.S.C. 1125 (the Lanham Act), and the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, 815 ILCS 510/1, et seq. PARTIES 2. Plaintiff, Potential Design, Inc. (hereinafter PDI or Plaintiff) is a California

corporation with a principal place of business at 4185 E Jefferson, Fresno, California. 3. Defendant, Cooper B-Line, Inc. (hereinafter Cooper B-Line or Defendant) is

a Delaware corporation, wholly owned by publicly-held Eaton Corporation, plc., and has its principal place of business at 509 West Monroe Street, Highland, Madison County, Illinois.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4. This action is for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the United

States, 35 U.S.C. 1 et seq. and claims pursuant to violation of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. 1125 ) and Illinois statute (815 ILCS 510). 5. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction for the claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

1331, 1332, and/or 1338(a) and 1338(b). This Court also has jurisdiction pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1121 and the doctrine of supplemental jurisdiction. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim under 28 U.S.C. 1367(a) because that claim is so closely related to the Federal Statutory claims that they form a single case or controversy. 6. Personal jurisdiction over the Defendant is proper, as the Defendant is an entity

with a principal place of business in Illinois and within this District, the Defendant is doing business in Illinois and within this District and the wrongful acts by Defendant and resulting injury complained of herein occurred in Illinois and within this District. This includes

Defendants activity of advertising, manufacturing, and/or selling products in United States commerce and within this State and District, in violation of Federal and Illinois statutes. 7. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391 and 1400(b).

FACTUAL BACKGROUND 8. Plaintiff, PDI, is the exclusive licensee of the three (3) Asserted Patents, which

cover inventions relating to the method and products useful for mounting support assemblies for pipes and conduits in applications such as food and pharmaceutical processing facilities.

These include strut mounting assemblies and method of use, as well as wall mount support assemblies. 9. PDI markets products covered by the Asserted Patents, and such products are, and

consistently have been, marked with the patent numbers by PDI after each Asserted Patent issued by the US Patent Office. 10. The inventions of the Asserted Patents provide benefits which include features that minimize or eliminate contamination and are more easily cleaned. This includes, for example, a strut for mounting to an upright support whereby the assembly enhances sanitation by effectively eliminating horizontal surfaces, such as with the structure shown in Figure 2 of the Asserted Patents (reproduced on the left of the images below), and for mounting to a horizontal surface, as with the structure shown in Figure 9 of the Asserted Patents (reproduced on the right of the images below).

11. On information and belief, during the term of the Asserted Patent(s), Defendant has marketed and sold products covered by the claims of the Asserted Patents. This activity includes Defendants marketing materials which are provided herewith as EXHIBIT D and

EXHIBIT E. 12. On information and belief, Defendants conduct of marketing and selling products in violation of the Asserted Patents was willful and with knowledge of the Asserted Patents. 13. At least as early as April 29, 2010, Defendant was aware of the 766 Patent, and had received actual notice of the 766 Patent directly from PDI and the patent owner, James Tjerrild. 14. Prior to April 1, 2011, Defendant was aware of the 056 Patent and subsequently sought a license of the patent from the patent owner, James Tjerrild of PDI. Further, on information and belief, Defendant was aware of the 242 Patent at the time or soon after that patent issued by the U.S. Patent Office. 15. Despite having knowledge of the Asserted Patents, Defendant commenced and/or continued to market and sell products in violation of the Asserted Patent(s) and, on information and belief, such violation of the Asserted Patent(s) was and continues to be willful. 16. Defendant has never become a licensee of the Asserted Patents, and Defendant instead marketed products in violation of one or more claims of the patents in competition with PDI, the exclusive licensee of the Asserted Patents. That business activity by Defendant has caused harm to PDI.

17. On information and belief, during at least part of the years 2010 - 2013, Defendant marketed its products with advertising including a photograph as is shown below, which shows the configuration of the product as disclosed and claimed in the Asserted Patents.

FIG 1 - Photograph from Cooper B-Line Marketing Materials

18. On information and belief, at least during a period of time, Defendant marketed products using the above photograph, showing a support strut for mounting items to a horizontal support (such as a wall) to sell products having the structure as is shown in cross-sectional view to the right, which has a structure similar or identical to that of FIG 1 above.

19. On information and belief, Defendant more recently marketed products, and/or continue to market, products using the photograph shown above (FIG 1) to sell products having a differing structure. The products actually delivered during that period of time had a structure as is shown in cross-sectional to the right, which differ in the upper portion of the strut as compared with products depicted in Defendants marketing photograph (Fig. 1 above).

20. On information and belief, the configuration of products as advertized in Defendants advertisement (FIG 1 above photograph) was deceptively different from the products actually delivered to customers (FIG 3 above), at least during a period of time that includes the years 2012 to the present. Such deceptive marketing practice thereby included deception, false pretense, and/or a misrepresentation of a material fact. 21. Defendants use of false or misleading representation of products, in connection with advertisement and sales in interstate commerce and in Illinois, and in competition with products sold by PDI, violates Federal and Illinois statutes, including 815 ILCS 510/2(7)-(8) and 15 U.S.C. 1125. 22. On information and belief, Defendants deceptive marketing has been purposeful, and with the intent or knowledge that it would likely deceive purchasers into believing the products offered for sale have advantageous characteristics not literally present in the products actually delivered by Defendant.

COUNT I INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,651,056 23. As a complete and first ground for relief, PDI asserts infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,651,056 (the 056 Patent EXHIBIT A) entitled Method of Mounting Support Assemblies for Pipes, Conduits and Tubes, and realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 - 22 of this Complaint. 24. The United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally issued the 056 Patent to James W. Tjerrild on January 26, 2010. PDI is the exclusive licensee of the rights in the 056 Patent, which includes the right to enforce the rights against infringement and to recover damages for all infringements thereof. 25. The 056 Patent is still in full force and effect and is presumed valid under the Patent laws. 26. Cooper B-Line has marketed and sold, and continues to market and sell, products which are intended and are used by customers to directly infringe one or more claim(s) of the 056 Patent. Cooper B-Line is vicariously liable for patent infringement due to inducement and/or contributory infringement by its conduct, including marketing and promoting its products in the United States to practice the claims of the 056 Patent. 27. Images of example Cooper B-Line catalog pages depicting products offered and sold by the Defendant in a manner to infringe one or more claim of the 056 Patent are provided as EXHIBIT D and E. Cooper B-Line distributed such catalog pages and related materials to advertise and offer for sale the products in a manner to infringe one or more claims of the 056 Patent. Pursuant to such conduct, Cooper B-Line has sold to others, including third party suppliers and contractors, such products and/or substantially similar products. 28. PDI has been, and is likely to continue to be, damaged by Cooper B-Lines

conduct, including its marketing and sale of such products in a manner to induce or contribute to infringement of the 056 patent. 29. Furthermore, Cooper B-Lines acts of infringement have been willful and/or in willful disregard of the 056 Patent, as Cooper B-Line then had knowledge of the 056 Patent and continued its infringing activity as a competitor to PDIs business as a licensee of the 056 Patent. 30. This is an exceptional case because of such willful infringement, and treble damages payable to PDI by Cooper B-Line is warranted. 31. PDI has been, and will continue to be, irreparably harmed by Cooper B-Lines conduct of inducing infringement and/or contributing to infringement of the 056 Patent.

COUNT II INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,931,242 32. As a complete and second ground for relief, PDI asserts infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,931,242 (the 242 Patent EXHIBIT B) entitled Support Assembly for Pipes Conduits and Tubes, and realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 - 31 of this Complaint. 33. The United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally issued the 242 Patent to James W. Tjerrild on April 26, 2011. PDI is the exclusive licensee of the rights in the 242 Patent, which includes the right to enforce the rights against infringement and to recover damages for all infringements thereof. 34. The 242 Patent is still in full force and effect and is presumed valid under the Patent laws. 35. Cooper B-Line has infringed, and continues to infringe, one or more claim(s) of the 242 Patent by making, using, offering to sell, selling and/or importing for sale in the

United States, without license or authority, products which are covered by one or more claim(s) of the 242 Patent during the term of that patent. 36. Images of example Cooper B-Line catalog pages, depicting products advertized

and sold by the Defendant that infringe one or more claims of the 242 Patent, are provided as EXHIBIT D and E. Cooper B-Line distributed such catalog pages to advertise and offer for sale products that infringe one or more claims of the 242 Patent, and pursuant to such conduct Cooper B-Line has sold to others, including third party suppliers and contractors such products and/or substantially similar products. 37. PDI has been, and will likely continue to be, damaged by Cooper B-Lines use of the aforementioned conduct, including advertisement, marketing and sale of infringing products. 38. Furthermore, Cooper B-Lines acts of infringement have been willful and/or in willful disregard of the 242 Patent, and Cooper B-Line was aware of the 242 Patent and continued its infringing activity as a competitor to PDIs business, the exclusive licensee of the 242 Patent. 39. This is an exceptional case because of such willful infringement, and treble damages payable to PDI by Cooper B-Line is warranted. 40. PDI has been and, will continue to be, irreparably harmed by Cooper B-Lines infringement of the 242 Patent.

COUNT III INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,926,766 41. As a complete and third ground for relief, PDI asserts infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,926,766 (the 766 Patent EXHIBIT C) entitled Support Assembly for Pipes

Conduits and Tubes, and realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 - 40 of this Complaint. 42. The United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally issued the 766 Patent to James W. Tjerrild on April 19, 2011. PDI is the exclusive licensee of the rights in the 766 Patent, which includes the right to enforce the rights against infringement and to recover damages for all infringements thereof. 43. The 766 Patent is still in full force and effect and is presumed valid under the Patent laws. 44. On information and belief, Cooper B-Line has infringed, and will continue to infringe, one or more claim(s) of the 766 Patent by making, using, offering to sell, selling and/or importing for sale in the United States, without license or authority, products which are covered by one or more claim(s) of the 766 Patent. Images of example Cooper B-Line catalog pages that are used by parties in the industry, depicting such products offered and sold by the Defendant are provided as EXHIBIT D and E. 45. PDI has been, and is likely to continue to be, damaged by Cooper B-Lines conduct, including its marketing and sale of infringing products. 46. Furthermore, Cooper B-Lines acts of infringement have been willful and/or in willful disregard of the 766 Patent, and Cooper B-Line was aware of the 766 Patent and continued its infringing activity as a competitor to PDIs business as a licensee of the 766 Patent. 47. This is an exceptional case because of such willful infringement, and treble damages payable to PDI by Cooper B-Line is warranted. 48. PDI has been and, will continue to be, irreparably harmed by Cooper B-Lines infringement of the 766 Patent.

10

COUNT IV FEDERAL UNFAIR COMPETITION IN VIOLATION OF 15 U.S.C. 1125(A) 49. As a complete and fourth ground for relief, PDI hereby charges Defendant with unfair competition under the laws of the United States, 15 U.S.C. 1051, et seq. (Lanham Act), and realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 - 48 of this Complaint. 50. On the basis of the conduct described in the foregoing paragraphs, Defendant has, in connection with marketing of goods in interstate commerce, used false or misleading description or representation of fact regarding the nature, quality, or characteristics of such goods. 51. Defendants false or misleading representation has actually deceived, or is likely to deceive, customers of such products, and was made in association with promotion of such goods in interstate commerce. 52. Defendants misleading representation is material to the purchasing decision and Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer injury, including irreperabe injury and damages as a competitor to Defendant. 53. Defendants conduct has been and continues to constitute false advertisement in violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a)(1)(B), and Defendants conduct has been deliberate or willful false advertisement such that this is an exceptional case and recovery of attorney fees to Plaintiff is warranted. COUNT V VIOLATION OF THE ILLINOIS UNIFORM DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT, 815 ILCS 510/2 54. As a complete and fifth ground for relief, PDI hereby charges Defendant with Violation of the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, 815 ILCS 510, et seq., and realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 - 53 of this Complaint.

11

55. At all times relevant to this case, the Defendant was engaged in commerce and trade in Illinois. 56. Defendants promotional materials used in commerce include a misrepresentation that its products (specifically, its :Dura Clean strut mounting for horizontal surfaces) are of a particular standard, quality, or grade, or are of a particular style or model, where in fact the goods are of another. 57. Defendant also has advertised goods with the intent to not sell them as advertised, and has otherwise engaged in conduct which creates a likelihood of confusion or mistake. 58. The deceptive acts and practices by Defendant include misrepresentation and/or omission of facts relating to the following: a. Advertising strut mounting assembly parts and/or systems with photographs and/or other depiction wherein the products that were available for sale differed; b. Misrepresenting the characteristics and/or beneficial geometric aspects of strut mounting components that were offered for sale; c. Misrepresenting the attributes and/or characteristics of strut mounting products that are advertised as being suitable for specific environments requiring washing and resistance to residue gathering. 59. Defendants acts were done with the intent that consumers rely upon such acts. 60. Defendants acts constitute deceptive trade practices in violation of Section 2 of the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, 815 Ill. Comp. Stat. 510/2(a)(7), (9) and/or (12). 61. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant actions, Plaintiff has been damaged and/or is likely to be damaged.

12

62. Unless Defendants acts are restrained by this Court, the deceptive business practices will continue and the public and Plaintiff will continue to be injured.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, PDI, prays: A. For a judgment that one or more of the 242 Patent claims have been infringed by

Cooper B-Line; B. For an injunction against Cooper B-Line, its officers, agents, servants, employees,

attorneys, successors, and assigns, and all others in active concert of participation with Cooper B-Line against further infringement of the 242 Patent, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 283; C. That this Court award damages sustained by PDI for the infringement of the 242

Patent, including at least a reasonable royalty, together with prejudgment and post-judgment interest; D. For a judgment that one or more of the 766 Patent claims have been infringed by

Cooper B-Line; E. For an injunction against Cooper B-Line, its officers, agents, servants, employees,

attorneys, successors, and assigns, and all others in active concert of participation with Cooper B-Line against further infringement of the 766 Patent, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 283; F. That this Court award damages sustained by PDI for the infringement of the 766

Patent, including at least a reasonable royalty, together with prejudgment and post-judgment interest;

13

G.

For a judgment that Cooper B-Line is liable for infringement of one or more of

the 056 Patent claims due to its conduct of contributing to and/or inducement of infringement by customers of Defendants products; H. For an injunction against Cooper B-Line, its officers, agents, servants, employees,

attorneys, successors, and assigns, and all others in active concert of participation with Cooper B-Line against further inducement or contributory infringement of the 056 Patent; I. That this Court award damages sustained by PDI for the vicarious liability of

infringement of the 056 Patent, including at least a reasonable royalty, together with prejudgment and post-judgment interest; J. K. For an assessment of costs against Cooper-B-Line; That the Court assess treble damages against Cooper B-Line due to its deliberate

patent infringement, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 284; L. That the Court find this to be an exceptional case and that PDI be awarded its

costs, disbursements, and attorney fees for this action, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 285; M. For a judgment that Cooper B-Lines conduct constitutes false advertisement in

violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a)(1)(B); N. That this Court award PDI recovery of damages for Cooper B-Lines violation of

the Lanham Act. O. That this Court find that Cooper B-Lines false advertisement has been deliberate

and willful, such that this is an exceptional case and PDI is awarded recovery of attorney fees from Cooper B-Line. P. For an injunction against Cooper B-Line, its officers, agents, servants, employees,

attorneys, successors, and assigns, and all others in active concert of participation with Cooper

14

B-Line against further false or misleading advertisement, including an injunction from further use of photographs depicting products that are not available from Cooper B-Line. Q. For a judgment that Cooper B-Line has violated the Illinois Uniform Deceptive

Trade Practices Act, 815 ILCS 510/2(a); R. That this Court aware PDI recovery of its costs, disbursements, and attorney fees

for this action due to Cooper B-Lines willful violation of Illinois state statute. S. That this Court award PDI such further relief, including preliminary and

permanent relief, as the Court may deem just and appropriate. REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL PDI hereby requests trial by jury in this matter for all issues so triable. Respectfully submitted, POTENTIAL DESIGN INC. Date: February 24, 2014 By: s/ Russell K. Scott Russell K. Scott No. 02533642 rks@greensfelder.com Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale, P.C. 12 Wolf Creek Drive, Suite 100 Belleville, IL 62226 Telephone: 618-257-7308 Facsimile: 618-257-7353 Of counsel: to be admitted pro hac vice Bradley F. Rademaker Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg, LLP 2 North LaSalle, Suite 1700 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: 312-269-8000 Attorneys for Plaintiff

15