KIRSCH GARTENBERG HOWARD LLP Attorneys for Plaintiffs Two University Plaza Hackensack, New Jersey 07601 (201)

488-4644 thoward@kghlaw.com UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY -----------------------------------------------------------------X BERKELEY PUBLICATIONS, INC., CLUB PUBLICATIONS, INC., GENESIS PUBLICATIONS, INC., GFL PUBLICATIONS, INC., SWANK PUBLICATIONS, INC., VELVET PUBLICATIONS, INC., Plaintiffs, -against-. ETAGZ, INC., Defendant. ---------------------------------------------------------------- X Plaintiffs Berkeley Publications, Inc. (Berkeley), Club Publications, Inc. (Club), Genesis Publications, Inc. (Genesis), GFL Publications, Inc. (GFL), Swank Publications, Inc. (Swank), and Velvet Publications, Inc. (Velvet), by their attorneys, allege for their Complaint against ETAGZ, Inc.: COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NO PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND INVALIDITY OF PATENTS Docket No.

NATURE OF ACTION
1. This is an action for a declaration of non-infringement and invalidity of patents purportedly owned by Etagz, specifically U.S. Patent No. 6,298,332 B1 (the 332 Patent, attached as Exhibit A) entitled CD-Rom Product Label Apparatus and Method, U.S. Patent No. 7,503,502 B2 (the 502 Patent, attached as Exhibit B) entitled Computer Readable Hang Tag and Product, and U.S. Patent No. 7,703,686 B2 (the 686 Patent, attached as Exhibit C) entitled Consumer-Computer-Readable Product Label Apparatus and Method

(collectively, the Etagz Patents). Based on Etagz actions, including allegations Etagz made in a pending litigation and discovery Etagz has served, a substantial controversy has arisen and now exists between the Plaintiffs and Etagz regarding the Etagz Patents of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment.

THE PARTIES
2. Berkeley is a New Jersey corporation, with its principal place of business in Paramus, New Jersey. 3. Club is a New Jersey corporation, with its principal place of business in Paramus, New Jersey. 4. Genesis is a New York corporation, with its a place of business in Paramus, New Jersey. 5. GFL is a New Jersey corporation, with its principal place of business in Paramus, New Jersey. 6. Swank is a New York corporation, with its principal place of business in Paramus, New Jersey. 7. Velvet is a New Jersey corporation, with its principal place of business in Paramus, New Jersey. 8. Upon information and belief, defendant Etagz is an Indiana corporation, with its principal place of business in Provo, Utah. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 9. This action arises under the Declaratory Judgments Act, 28 U.S.C. 2201 and 2202, and the patent laws of the United States, Title 35, United States Code. This action seeks a Declaratory Judgment that the 332 Patent, the 502 Patent, and the 686 Patent are not infringed by Plaintiffs and are invalid. -2-

10. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331 (federal question) and 1338(a) (action arising under an Act of Congress relating to patents). 11. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) and (c) and 1400(b) for at least the reasons that Etagz, on information and belief, does business in this district and Plaintiffs reside and/or do business in this district. ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS 12. Upon information and belief, defendant Etagz claims to own the 332 Patent, the 502 Patent, and the 686 Patent. 13. Upon information and belief, defendant Etagz is a patent troll, which derives revenue by seeking patent licenses through litigation or threat of litigation. Etagz is very aggressive, having filed more than 30 patent infringement lawsuits involving one or more of the Etagz Patents. 14. Although Etagz has yet to file suit against the Plaintiffs, in a lawsuit pending in the District of Utah (the Utah Action), Etagz has alleged that magazines published by each of the Plaintiffs infringe one or more claims of the Etagz Patents. 15. On or around March 15, 2013, Etagz served a subpoena duces tecum on Berkeley in the Utah Action regarding, inter alia, Accused Products in the Utah Action. 16. On or around March 15, 2013, Etagz serve a subpoena duces tecum on Club in the Utah Action regarding, inter alia, Accused Products in the Utah Action. 17. On or around March 15, 2013, Etagz served a subpoena duces tecum on Genesis in the Utah Action regarding, inter alia, Accused Products in the Utah Action. 18. On or around March 15, 2013, Etagz served a subpoena duces tecum on GFL in the Utah Action regarding, inter alia, Accused Products in the Utah Action.

-3-

19. On or around March 15, 2013, Etagz served a subpoena duces tecum on Swank in the Utah Action regarding, inter alia, Accused Products in the Utah Action. 20. On or around March 15, 2013, Etagz served a subpoena duces tecum on Velvet in the Utah Action regarding, inter alia, Accused Products in the Utah Action. 21. Etagz alleges in the Utah Action that Plaintiffs are alter egos of certain defendants in the Utah Action. FIRST COUNT (Declaratory Judgment of Non-infringement as to U.S. Patent No. 6,298,332) 22. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference as though fully set forth herein the preceding paragraphs. 23. Plaintiffs contend they have not infringed and are not infringing, directly, indirectly, contributorily, by active inducement, or otherwise, any valid claim of the 332 Patent. 24. Etagz, by its prior actions, has demonstrated that it disputes Plaintiffs contentions. 25. In light of the present controversy that exists between the parties, Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of the 332 Patent. SECOND COUNT (Declaratory Judgment of Non-infringement as to U.S. Patent No. 7,503,502) 26. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference as though fully set forth herein the preceding paragraphs. 27. Plaintiffs contend they have not infringed and are not infringing, directly, indirectly, contributorily, by active inducement, or otherwise, any valid claim of the 502 Patent. 28. Etagz, by its prior actions, has demonstrated that it disputes Plaintiffs contentions.

-4-

29. In light of the present controversy that exists between the parties, Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of the 502 Patent. THIRD COUNT (Declaratory Judgment of Non-infringement as to U.S. Patent No. 7,703,686) 30. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference as though fully set forth herein the preceding paragraphs. 31. Plaintiffs contend they have not infringed and are not infringing, directly, indirectly, contributorily, by active inducement, or otherwise, any valid claim of the 686 Patent. 32. Etagz, by its prior actions, has demonstrated that it disputes Plaintiffs contentions. 33. In light of the present controversy that exists between the parties, Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of the 686 Patent. FOURTH COUNT (Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity as to U.S. Patent No. 6,298,332) 34. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference as though fully set forth herein the preceding paragraphs. 35. Plaintiffs contend that the 332 Patent is invalid, because, among other things, it does not meet one or more of the conditions for patentability set forth in 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103, 112, and/or 116. 36. Etagz, by its prior actions, has demonstrated that it disputes Plaintiffs contentions. 37. In light of the present controversy that exists between the parties, Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment of invalidity of the 332 Patent.

-5-

FIFTH COUNT (Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity as to U.S. Patent No. 7,503,502) 38. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference as though fully set forth herein the preceding paragraphs. 39. Plaintiffs contend that the 502 Patent is invalid, because, among other things, it does not meet one or more of the conditions for patentability set forth in 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103, 112, and/or 116. 40. Etagz, by its prior actions, has demonstrated that it disputes Plaintiffs contentions. 41. In light of the present controversy that exists between the parties, Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment of invalidity of the 502 Patent. SIXTH COUNT (Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity as to U.S. Patent No. 7,703,686) 42. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference as though fully set forth herein the preceding paragraphs. 43. Plaintiffs contend that the 686 Patent is invalid, because, among other things, it does not meet one or more of the conditions for patentability set forth in 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103, 112, and/or 116. 44. Etagz, by its prior actions, has demonstrated that it disputes Plaintiffs contentions. 45. In light of the present controversy that exists between the parties, Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment of invalidity of the 686 Patent. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray for Judgment: (A) (B) Declaring that Plaintiffs do not infringe any valid claim of the 332 Patent; Declaring that Plaintiffs do not infringe any valid claim of the 502 Patent; -6-

(C) (D) (E) (F) (G)

Declaring that Plaintiffs do not infringe any valid claim of the 686 Patent; Declaring that the claims of the 332 Patent are invalid; Declaring that the claims of the 502 Patent are invalid; Declaring that the claims of the 686 Patent are invalid; Awarding Plaintiffs their costs of suit incurred herein;

(H) Deeming this cases to be deemed exceptional under 35 U.S.C. 285, and awarding Plaintiffs their attorneys fees; and (I) Granting such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO N.J. Rule 4:5-1 I certify pursuant to R. 4:5-1 that the matter in controversy is not the subject of any other action pending in any court or of a pending arbitration proceeding, except that in the Utah Action identified in paragraph 14 herein Etagz has alleged that magazines published by each of the Plaintiffs infringe one or more claims of the Etagz Patents and that Plaintiffs are alter egos of certain defendants therein, but Plaintiffs have not been named or joined as parties in that action, and that no other action or arbitration proceeding is contemplated, I further certify that all appropriate person or entities have, to the best of my knowledge, been joined as parties in this action. Dated: March 26, 2013 KIRSCH GARTENBERG HOWARD LLP Attorneys for Plaintiffs By: s/ Thomas S. Howard Mark A. Finkelstein, Esq. (not admitted in New Jersey) JONES DAY Co-counsel for Plaintiffs 3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 800 Irvine, CA 92612-4408
s:\h\magna - patent action\complaint.docx

-7-