UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

SOLVETTA L.L.C., a Florida limited liability company,

) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LLC, ) an Illinois limited liability company, ) NEAT-OH! INTERNATIONAL, LLC, ) an Illinois limited liability company, ) ) Defendants. ) _____________________________________)

Case No.

COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, SOLVETTA L.L.C. (hereinafter Solvetta) hereby complains against Defendants International Holdings LLC (hereinafter IHLLC) and Neat-Oh! International, LLC (hereinafter Neat-Oh!)(IHLLC and Neat-Oh! will hereinafter collectively referred to as Defendants) as follows:

1. This is an action for declaratory judgment of non-infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,597,209 and 7,845,508 and for other relief brought under the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. 2201-02 and arising under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. 271 et seq.

I. THE PARTIES 2. Plaintiff Solvetta is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida, with its principal place of business at 4959 N.W. 57th Lane, Coral Springs, Florida 33067.

3. Upon information and belief, Defendant IHLLC, is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of Illinois, with its principal place of business at 790 Frontage Road, Suite 303, Northfield, Illinois 60093. 4. Upon information and belief, Defendant Neat-Oh! is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of Illinois, with its principal place of business at 790 Frontage Road, Suite 303, Northfield, Illinois 60093.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. This is an action for declaratory judgment under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. 1 et seq., and the Declaratory Judgment Action, 28 U.S.C. 2201-2202. 6. This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1338(a), 2201 and 2202. 7. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because they conduct business in the State of Florida and within the Southern District, have committed the complained of acts in the State of Florida and/or have cause injury to Solvetta who resides in the State of Florida. Defendants have also contacted and electronically written and sent emails to Plaintiff in Florida on numerous occasions. Such contacts have included allegations by Defendant that Plaintiffs Solvetta product infringes patents owned by Defendants. Defendants have also emailed to Solvetta in Florida and this Judicial District a claim chart (though flawed) for one of Defendants patents and where Defendants allege shows how Plaintiffs Solvetta product infringes Defendants patents. 8. Venue properly lies in the Southern District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391 and 1400, because the acts complained of herein have been committed in this Judicial District and Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction within the this Judicial District and the Plaintiff has its principal place of business within this Judicial District.
2

III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 9. Plaintiff Solvetta offers for sale a lunch box product that is easily convertible to a placement to provide a clean surface for the user to eat on his or her food on. A picture of Plaintiffs Solvetta product in a lunch box configuration and in a placemat configuration is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Plaintiff Solvetta has obtained or is currently seeking patent protection for its Solvetta product in several countries, including, but not limited, patent applications with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. 10. Upon information and belief, through an Assignment from the alleged inventors, Defendant IHLLC is the assignee and owner of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,597,209 and 7,845,508 at issue in this dispute. 11. Upon information and belief, Defendant Neat-OH! offers for sale throughout the United States, including within the Southern District of Florida children storage products, including collapsible interactive storage products that unzip to become activity or play surfaces, and then zip back up to storage bin form. 12. Upon information and belief, both Defendants are controlled, managed, directed and/or operated by Wayne Rothschild. 13. Beginning on or about December 6, 2013 and continuing thereafter, Wayne Rothschild on behalf of Defendants on several occasions contacted Plaintiff Solvetta by email and telephone, alleging that the Solvetta Product infringes patents owned by his company. On or about, December 16, 2013, Mr. Rothschild sent to Plaintiff Solvetta in the Southern District of Florida, an email with a flawed claim chart allegedly showing how the Solvetta product purportedly infringed Claim 23 of
3

U.S. Patent No. 7,597,209 (the 209 Patent), with Claim 23 being incorrectly characterized by Mr. Rothschild as being representative of the claim coverage in the 209 Patent. Mr. Rothschild has also referred to controlling a family of patents. Mr. Rothschild also sent an Invoice to Plaintiff in Florida by email for royalties Defendants believed they were owed by Plaintiff for allegedly infringing Defendants Patents. A copy of the claim chart and cover email, the Invoice for royalties allegedly owed to Defendants, as well as certain other email correspondence, are attached hereto as Composite Exhibit B. 14. Mr. Rothschild also sent to Plaintiff Solvetta in the Southern District of Florida a proposed license agreement, which also identified U.S. Patent No. 7,845,508 (the 508 Patent) as an additional licensed patent. The 508 Patent is generally directed to the same subject matter as the 209 Patent and the patent application that matured into the 508 was a continuation-in-part application that claimed priority to the application that ultimately matured into the 279 Patent. Furthermore, the 209 Patent and the 508 Patent both share the same Title. On several occasions Mr. Rothschild has referred to Defendants possessing a family of patents. The 209 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit C and the 508 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit D. 15. Given that the 508 Patent is directed to the same general subject matter as the 279 Patent, that the 508 Patent claimed priority to the 279 Patent and that the 508 Patent was also licensed in the proposed license agreement, it is reasonable for Plaintiff to assume that Defendants are also asserting that Plaintiffs Solvetta product also allegedly infringes the 508 Patent, in addition to the 279 Patent. A copy of the proposed license agreement identifying both the 279 Patent and the 508 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit E. 16. Defendants are wrongfully alleging that Plaintiff has violated federal patent laws. 17. Plaintiff is in doubt as to its rights and liabilities with respect to the 508 Patent and the 279 Patent and there is a genuine dispute between the parties as to whether Plaintiff has infringed
4

such patents, with Plaintiff believing that the Solvetta product fails to be covered by any claim in either the 279 Patent or the 508 Patent. 18. There is an actual and substantial controversy between Plaintiff and Defendants of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the rendering of a declaratory judgment by this Court. Defendants have a made a threat to Plaintiffs business by accusing Plaintiff of unlawful actions and requiring Plaintiff to enter into a unfair license agreement, which ultimately prevents Plaintiff from conducting its business activities, and wrongfully requires Plaintiff to pay royalties to Defendant Neat-Oh! and abandoned the patent protection Plaintiff has obtained or is seeking with respect to the SOLVETTA product. 19. Plaintiff is entitled to a judgment declaring its rights as requested herein.

IV. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Declaratory Judgment of Noninfringement 209 Patent) 20. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-19 as if fully set forth herein. 21. There is an actual and justiciable controversy between Plaintiff and Defendants concerning Defendants allegations that Plaintiff has violated Defendants purported patent rights for the 209 Patent. 22. Upon information and belief, Defendant IHLLC is the owner of the 209 Patent, issued on October 8, 2009 and entitled MULTIPURPOSE STORAGE DEVICE AND METHOD. Though, it is believed that Defendant IHLLC is the owner of the 209 Patent, the proposed license agreement identifies Defendant Neat-OH! as the Licensor. 23. Plaintiff offers for sale and sells a lunch box that is convertible into a placement that has been accused of infringing the 209 Patent.
5

24. Based on Defendants and Mr. Rothschilds conduct, Plaintiff believes, in good faith, that one or both of the Defendants will commence suit against Plaintiff. Because Plaintiff sells its convertible lunch box that Defendants claim infringes the 209 Patent, there is a substantial, continuing, and justiciable controversy between Plaintiff, on the one hand, and Defendants, on the other hand, relating to the purported infringement of the 209 Patent. 25. No claim of the 209 Patent can be validly construed to be infringed by any product sold by Plaintiff. Plaintiff has not directly, indirectly, or contributorily infringed, or actively induced infringement of, any claim of the 209 patent or otherwise violated Defendants alleged rights under such patent. 26. As one non-limiting reason why the Solvetta product does not infringe the 209 Patent, the claims of the 209 Patent all require a plurality of webbings with each webbing connected between adjacent wall portions and that the wall portions and webbings form a continuous surface. The Solvetta product contains a single webbing sheet, not a plurality of webbings. Furthermore, the wall portions of the Solvetta product are connected behind the single webbing sheet. Only the single webbing sheet by itself forms a continuous surface. The Solvetta wall portions are not part of the continuous surface, as required by all of the claims in the 209 Patent. 27. These allegations by Defendants place a cloud over Plaintiffs business, and in particular Plaintiffs right and ability to continue its business activities with respect to the product for which Defendants have accused Plaintiff of patent infringement with respect to the 209 Patent. The allegations by Defendants will cause uncertainty among Plaintiffs customers, prospective customers and suppliers and elsewhere in the marketplace, likely leading Plaintiff to lose revenues and/or business opportunities. 28. Plaintiff is entitled to a judgment declaring that Plaintiffs continued importing, marketing, distributing, selling, offers for sale, and/or other use of the Solvetta product for which
6

Defendants have accused Plaintiff of patent infringement with respect to the 209 Patent has been and will continue to be lawful, and declaring that Plaintiff has not otherwise violated any purported rights of Defendants for the 209 Patent. 29. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to a declaratory judgment that it does not infringe any claims of the 209 Patent. 30. Plaintiff has satisfied all conditions precedent to bringing this action.

V. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Declaratory Judgment of Noninfringement 508 Patent) 31. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-30 as if fully set forth herein. 32. There is an actual and justiciable controversy between Plaintiff and Defendants concerning Defendants allegations that Plaintiff has violated Defendants purported patent rights for the 508 Patent. 33. Upon information and belief, Defendant IHLLC is the owner of the 508 Patent, issued on December 7, 2010 and entitled MULTIPURPOSE STORAGE DEVICE AND METHOD. Though, it is believed that Defendant IHLLC is the owner of the 508 Patent, the proposed license agreement identifies Defendant Neat-OH! as the Licensor. 34. Plaintiff offers for sale and sells a lunch box that is convertible into a placement. Through the listing of the 508 Patent on the proposed license agreement, Defendants are also accusing Plaintiffs convertible lunch box of infringing the 508 Patent. 35. Based on Defendants and Mr. Rothschilds conduct, Plaintiff believes, in good faith, that one or both of the Defendants will commence suit against Plaintiff. Because Plaintiff sells its convertible lunch box that Defendants claim infringes the 508 Patent, there is a substantial,
7

continuing, and justiciable controversy between Plaintiff, on the one hand, and Defendants, on the other hand, relating to the purported infringement of the 508 Patent. 36. No claim of the 508 Patent can be validly construed to be infringed by any product sold by Plaintiff. Plaintiff has not directly, indirectly, or contributorily infringed, or actively induced infringement of, any claim of the 508 patent or otherwise violated Defendants alleged rights under such patent. 37. As one non-limiting reason why the Solvetta product does not infringe the 508 Patent, the claims of the 508 Patent all require a firstwall side that is integral with a flap and a top portion

that extends completely around the upper edges of a pair of wall ends when in its first configuration(which is the in use as a storage container configuration).The Solvetta product
contains four wall members that all terminate at a same height. Two of the wall members are provided with handles the slightly extend upward from the top of their associated wall member. None of the Solvetta wall members have a flap (which is shown as a Velcro strip 2610 in the specification of the 508 patent), nor does any of the Solvetta wall members have a top portion that extends completely around the upper edges of the adjacent wall members. The Solvetta product fails to contain a top portion and flap, as required by all of the claims in the 508 Patent. 38. These allegations by Defendants place a cloud over Plaintiffs business, and in particular Plaintiffs right and ability to continue its business activities with respect to the product for which Defendants have accused Plaintiff of patent infringement with respect to the 508 Patent. The allegations by Defendants will cause uncertainty among Plaintiffs customers, prospective customers and suppliers and elsewhere in the marketplace, likely leading Plaintiff to lose revenues and/or business opportunities. 39. Plaintiff is entitled to a judgment declaring that Plaintiffs continued importing, marketing, distributing, selling, offers for sale, and/or other use of the Solvetta product for which
8

Defendants have accused Plaintiff of patent infringement with respect to the 508 Patent has been and will continue to be lawful, and declaring that Plaintiff has not otherwise violated any purported rights of Defendants for the 508 Patent. 40. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to a declaratory judgment that it does not infringe any claims of the 508 Patent. 41. Plaintiff has satisfied all conditions precedent to bringing this action.

VI. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 42. Plaintiff hereby exercises its right to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc., Rule 38, demands a jury trial in accordance therewith as to all issues that may be heard by a jury.

VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHERFORE, Plaintiff Solvetta prays for the entry of a judgment: a. Declaring that Plaintiff has not and does not infringe, under any theory, any claim of the 209 Patent; b. Declaring that Plaintiff has not and does not infringe, under any theory, any claim of the 508 Patent; c. Declaring that Plaintiff has violated any other purported rights of Defendants, including any provisions of 35 U.S.C. 1 et seq. or any other asserted federal, state, or common laws; d. Declaring this case exceptional in Plaintiffs favor pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 285; e. Awarding Plaintiff its costs and reasonable attorneys fees and other litigation expenses, together with such further legal and equitable relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,

April 18, 2014

_________/s/_______________ Daniel S. Polley Florida Bar No. 847331 dan@danpolley.com DANIEL S. POLLEY, P.A. 7251 West Palmetto Park Road Suite 202 Boca Raton, Florida 33433 Tel: 561-347-5955 Fax: 561-807-5987 Attorneys for Plaintiff, SOLVETTA L.L.C.

10