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

MAG-NIF, INC., an Ohio corporation Plaintiff; vs. ACE HARDWARE CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, AMAZON.COM, INC., a Washington corporation, AMAZON TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Nevada corporation, BED, BATH & BEYOND, INC., a New York corporation, BEST BUY CO., INC., a Minnesota corporation, BESTBUY.COM, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, KOHLS CORPORATION, a Wisconsin corporation, KOHLS DEPARTMENT STORES, INC., a Delaware corporation, MACYS, INC., a Delaware corporation, MERCHSOURCE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO., a New York corporation,

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CASE No. 1:12-cv-1500

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Judge

_____________

Magistrate

Page 1 of 13

TARGET CORPORATION, a Minnesota corporation, WALGREEN CO., a n Illinois corporation, and DOES 1-50; Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

______________________________________________________________________________ COMPLAINT ______________________________________________________________________________

Plaintiff Mag-Nif, Inc. (Mag-Nif) hereby complains against Defendants ACE HARDWARE CORPORATION; AMAZON.COM, INC.; AMAZON TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; BED, BATH & BEYOND, INC.; BEST BUY CO., INC.; BESTBUY.COM, LLC; KOHLS CORPORATION; KOHLS DEPARTMENT STORES, INC.; MACYS, INC.; MERCHSOURCE, LLC; SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO.; TARGET CORPORATION; WALGREEN CO.; and DOES 1-50 (each a Defendant and collectively the Defendants), and alleges as follows:

PARTIES 1. Plaintiff, Mag-Nif, Inc. (Mag-Nif) is a corporation organized and existing under

the laws of the State of Ohio and has offices in Mentor, Ohio.

Page 2 of 13

2.

Defendant, Ace Hardware Corporation (Ace) is a corporation organized and

existing under the laws of the State of Delaware and has numerous store locations within this judicial district, including throughout the Cleveland, Ohio metropolitan area and in Mentor, Ohio. 3. Defendant, Amazon.com, Inc. (Amazon.com) is a corporation organized and

existing under the laws of the State of Washington and sells goods through its interactive website to customers within this judicial district. 4. Defendant, Amazon Technologies, Inc. (Amazon Tech) is a corporation

organized and existing under the laws of the State of Nevada and sells goods through its interactive website to customers within this judicial district. 5. Defendants Amazon.com and Amazon Tech are sometimes herein referred to

collectively as Amazon. On information and belief, Amazon has sold and/or offered for sale the coin sorter at issue herein to consumers within this judicial district and/or within the State of Ohio. 6. Defendant, Bed, Bath & Beyond, Inc. (Bed Bath) is a corporation organized and

existing under the laws of the State of New York and has numerous store locations within this judicial district, including throughout the Cleveland, Ohio metropolitan area and in Mentor, Ohio. 7. Defendant, Best Buy Co., Inc. (Best Buy Co.) is a corporation organized and

existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota and has numerous store locations within this

Page 3 of 13

judicial district, including throughout the Cleveland, Ohio metropolitan area and in Mentor, Ohio. 8. Defendant, BestBuy.com, LLC (BestBuy.com) is a limited liability company

organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware and sells goods through its interactive website to customers within this judicial district. 9. Defendants Best Buy Co. and BestBuy.com are sometimes herein referred to

collectively as Best Buy. On information and belief, Best Buy has sold and/or offered for sale the coin sorter at issue herein to consumers within this judicial district and/or within the State of Ohio. 10. Defendant, Kohls Corporation (Kohls Co.) is a corporation organized and

existing under the laws of the State of Wisconsin. 11. Defendant, Kohls Department Stores, Inc. (Kohls DS) is a corporation

organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware. 12. Defendants Kohls Co. and Kohls DS are sometimes herein referred to

collectively as Kohls. On information and belief, Kohls has numerous store locations within this judicial district, including throughout the Cleveland, Ohio metropolitan area and in Mentor, Ohio. 13. Defendant Macys, Inc. (Macys) is a corporation organized and existing under

the laws of the State of Delaware and has numerous store locations within this judicial district, including throughout the Cleveland, Ohio metropolitan area and in Mentor, Ohio.

Page 4 of 13

14.

Defendant, MechSource, LLC (MerchSource) is a limited liability company

organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware and, on information and belief, has sold and/or offered for sale the coin sorter at issue herein to the other Defendants and/or to other third parties that reside within this judicial district or within the State of Ohio. 15. Defendant Sears, Roebuck and Co. (Sears) is a corporation organized and

existing under the laws of the State of New York and has numerous store locations within this judicial district, including throughout the Cleveland, Ohio metropolitan area. 16. Defendant Target Corporation (Target) is a corporation organized and existing

under the laws of the State of Minnesota and has numerous store locations within this judicial district, including throughout the Cleveland, Ohio metropolitan area. 17. Defendant Walgreen Co. (Walgreens) is a corporation organized and existing

under the laws of the State of Illinois and has numerous store locations within this judicial district, including throughout the Cleveland, Ohio metropolitan area and in Mentor, Ohio. 18. On information and belief, DOES 1-50 are business entities and individuals who

have participated in the acts alleged herein and have infringed Plaintiffs patent by making, using, selling, and/or offering for sale Infringing Product in the United States.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 19. This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. 1 et seq.

This Court has jurisdiction over the patent claims under 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1338(a).

Page 5 of 13

20.

Venue is proper in this district by virtue of 28 U.S.C. 1391 and 1400 because,

on information and belief, Defendants either reside in this District, can be found in this District or are otherwise subject to personal jurisdiction in this District and because Defendants acts of infringement took place and/or are taking place within this jurisdiction by making, using, selling, or offering for sale infringing product in this judicial district.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 21. Plaintiff, Mag-Nif, is the owner of United States Patent No. 6,524,179 B2 entitled

Cylindrical Coin Bank (the 179 Patent), which issued February 25, 2003. A copy of the '179 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A and expressly incorporated herein. 22. Plaintiff, Mag-Nif is the owner of the 179 Patent and has the exclusive right to

make, use, sell, offer for sale, import, or otherwise benefit from the rights granted by the 179 Patent in the United States. 23. The subject matter of the 179 Patent relates to coin banks having one or more

coin holders that are removably aligned with one or more coin chutes. 24. The scope of the claims of the 179 Patent encompass coin sorters comprising

each of the elements of the claims. 25. 26. 27. Mag-Nif currently manufactures and sells coin sorters within the United States. The 179 Patent is valid and enforceable. Defendant, MerchSource, is manufacturing and/or importing the Emerson

automatic coin sorter, which on information and belief, infringes one or more claims of the 179

Page 6 of 13

Patent (the Infringing Product). Photos of the Infringing Product and its packaging are provided herewith as Exhibit B. 28. MerchSource and the other Defendants are selling and offering for sale and/or

have sold and offered for sale the Infringing Product manufactured by MerchSource. 29. The Infringing Product competes with Mag-Nifs coin sorters and causes price

erosion for similar products within the United States, which injures Mag-Nif. 30. Defendants sell and offer for sale and/or have sold or offered for sale the

Infringing Product in their stores and/or through their interactive websites. 31. On information and belief, each of the Defendants have sold and/or offered for

sale at least one unit of the Infringing Product in Ohio.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF DIRECT INFRINGEMENT OF PATENT 35 U.S.C. 271(a) 32. Plaintiff incorporates herein each and every allegation of paragraphs 1 through 31

of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein and further allege as follows: 33. enforceable. 34. Plaintiff, Mag-Nif is the owner of record and holds all rights under the 179 The 179 Patent has at all times subsequent to its issue date been valid and fully

Patent, including the right to sue for infringement. 35. On information and belief, Defendants make, use, sale, offer for sale, and/or

import the Infringing Product within the United States.

Page 7 of 13

36.

On information and belief, the Infringing Product literally infringes one or more

claims of the 179 Patent, including at least claim 10. 37. On information and belief, the Infringing Product infringes one or more claims of

the 179 Patent under the Doctrine of Equivalents, including at least claim 10. 38. Plaintiff has not authorized or licensed the Defendants to make, use, sell, offer to

sale, and/or import the Infringing Product, and thus all such actions have been in violation of Plaintiffs rights, thereby infringing the 179 Patent. 39. Plaintiff is entitled to damages in an amount to be determined at trial adequate to

compensate for the Defendants infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for all Infringing Product made, used, sold, offered for sale, and/or imported by Defendants. 40. Further, harm to Plaintiff arising from Defendants acts of infringement is not

fully compensable by money damages. Rather, Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law and which will continue until Defendants conduct is enjoined.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF INDUCEMENT OF PATENT INFRINGEMENT 35 U.S.C. 271(b) 41. Plaintiff incorporates herein each and every allegation of paragraphs 1 through 40

of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein and further allege as follows:

Page 8 of 13

42.

On information and belief, Defendants have actively induced, and are now

inducing others to make or use Infringing Product that come within the scope of one or more claims of the 179 Patent, including at least claim 10. 43. On information and belief, Defendants have unlawfully derived, and continue to

unlawfully derive income and profits by inducing others to infringe the 179 Patent. 44. On Information and belief, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer damages

as a result of Defendants inducement to infringe the 179 Patent. 45. On information and belief, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer

irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law because of Defendants inducement of others to make and use products that infringe the 179 Patent, and will continue to be harmed unless Defendants are enjoined from further acts of inducement.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF CONTRIBUTORY PATENT INFRINGEMENT 35 U.S.C. 271(c) 46. Plaintiff incorporate herein each and every allegation of paragraphs 1 through 45

of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein and further allege as follows: 47. On information and belief, Defendants have sold, or have offered to sell within

the United States, components of one or more claims of the 179 Patent which constitute a material component of the invention.

Page 9 of 13

48.

On information and belief, Defendants knew that such components were

especially made or adapted for use to infringe of one or more claims of the 179 Patent, including at least claim 10. 49. On Information and belief, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer damages

as a result of Defendants contributory infringement of the 179 Patent. 50. On information and belief, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer

irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law because of Defendants contributory infringement, and will continue to be harmed unless Defendants are enjoined from further acts of contributory infringement.

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 35 U.S.C. 283 51. Plaintiff incorporate herein each and every allegation of paragraphs 1 through 50

of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein and further allege as follows: 52. As a result of Defendants actions, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to

suffer irreparable harm, including loss of goodwill, the loss of customers, and irreparable damage to the market for its coin sorters in the form of price erosion. 53. 54. The injury to Plaintiff outweighs the harm an injunction may cause to Defendants. The order and injunction will not be adverse to the public interest.

Page 10 of 13

55.

There is a substantial likelihood that Plaintiff will prevail on the merits of the

underlying claims, because the Infringing Product meet each element of at least one claim of the 179 Patent. 56. Plaintiff is entitled to an injunction prohibiting Defendants from making, using,

selling, offering for sale, and/or importing the Infringing Product, from inducing others to engage in said infringing activities, and from engaging in contributory infringement of the 179 Patent.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Mag-Nif prays for judgment as follows: A. 179 Patent; B. For injunctive relief enjoining Defendants, and their respective officers, directors, A judgment finding Defendants jointly and severally liable for infringement of the

agents, employees, representatives and all persons operating in concert with Defendants, as follows; a. the 179 Patent; b. from using any product or method falling within the scope of any of the from manufacturing any products falling within the scope of the claims of

claims of the 179 Patent; c. from selling, offering to sell, licensing or purporting to license any product

or method falling within the scope of any of the claims of the 179 Patent;

Page 11 of 13

d.

from importing any product into the United States which falls within the

scope of any of the claims of the 179 Patent; e. Patent; f. from engaging in acts constituting contributory infringement of any of the from actively inducing others to infringe any of the claims of the 179

claims of the 179 Patent; and g. C. from all other acts of infringement of the 179 Patent;

For judgment finding the infringement of the Defendants to be willful, and for an

award of enhanced damages in connection with such finding; D. For judgment finding this to be an exceptional case and awarding Plaintiff its

costs and attorneys fees incurred herein; E. An award of damages adequate to compensate Mag-Nif for infringement of the

179 Patent, in an amount to be proven at trial, including treble damages, lost profits damages, reasonable royalty damages, and other damages allowed by 35 U.S.C. 284; F. An award of Mag-Nifs costs in bringing this action, pursuant to at least 28 U.S.C.

1920 and 35 U.S.C. 284; G. H. An order that Mag-Nif be granted pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; and For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

Page 12 of 13

JURY DEMAND Plaintiff demands a jury by trial on all claims for relief and all issues so triable. DATED: June 12, 2012 By: s/ Michael J. Gallagher/ Attorneys for Plaintiff Mag-Nif, Inc.

CERTIFICATE OF FILING I hereby certify that this Complaint has been filed electronically with the Clerk of the Court, United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on the 12th day of June, 2012.

By: /s/ Michael J. Gallagher GALLAGHER & DAWSEY CO.,LPA Michael J. Gallagher, Esq. P.O. Box 785 Columbus, OH 43216 Phone: 614-228-6280 Facsimile: 614-228-6704

Attorney for the Plaintiff

Page 13 of 13