UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION AMERICAN RECREATION PRODUCTS, LLC, Plaintiff, vs.

TENNIER INDUSTRIES, INC. Defendant. ) ) ) ) No. ) ) ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ) ) ) )

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT Plaintiff American Recreation Products, LLC alleges as follows for its Complaint against Defendant Tennier Industries, Inc.: Parties 1. Plaintiff American Recreation Products, LLC (ARP) is a Delaware limited

liability company with a principal place of business at 600 Kellwood Parkway, Chesterfield, Missouri 63017. 2. On information and belief, Tennier Industries, Inc. (Tennier) is a New York

corporation with a principal place of business in Boca Raton, Florida. Nature of the Action 3. ARP brings this action for declaratory relief under the Patent Laws of the United

States, 35 U.S.C. 100 et seq. ARP seeks a declaratory judgment that it does not infringe any claim of U.S. Patent No. 5,533,216 (the 216 patent), that it cannot be held liable for infringement of the 216 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 1498(a), and that the claims of the 216 patent are invalid.

Jurisdiction and Venue 4. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and

1338(a) because the claims alleged below are brought under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. 2201(a) and 2202, and the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. 100 et seq. 5. Tennier is subject to personal jurisdiction in the Eastern District of Missouri

because it possesses the necessary minimum contacts with Missouri and because such an exercise of personal jurisdiction in this district would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Tenniers contacts with Missouri include Tenniers repeated allegations of patent infringement directed at ARP in Missouri, Tenniers allegations of patent infringement directed at ARPs customers, again with effects directed at Missouri, Tenniers apparent plans to interrupt ARPs supply of accused products which are manufactured in Missouri, and, on information and belief, the business Tennier transacts in Missouri. 6. Venue in this district is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) because a

substantial part of the actions, statements, threats, and property giving rise to ARPs claims occurred or is located in this district, and because Tennier is subject to personal jurisdiction in this district. Substantial Controversy Between The Parties 7. Tennier asserts that it owns all right, title and interest in the 216 patent, entitled

MODULAR SLEEPING BAG, which was issued on July 9, 1996. A copy of the 216 patent is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit A. 8. On February 19, 2013, Tennier sent a letter to ARP, alleging that a product known

as the Slumberjack MSS Complete Modular Sleep System (the accused product) infringes the 216 patent. A copy of Tenniers letter is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit B.

9.

Tennier demanded that ARP immediately cease and desist from all further

manufacture, use, offers for sale, and sales of sleeping bags that infringe the 216 Patent, and from importing any such sleeping bags into the United States. 10. Tennier also demanded that ARP notify its customers that the allegedly infringing

sleeping bags would no longer be commercially available. Tennier reiterated these demands in emails to undersigned counsel. 11. ARP has not infringed and does not infringe, directly or indirectly, literally or

under the doctrine of equivalents, any valid and enforceable claim of the 216 patent. 12. In light of the demands Tennier has imposed on ARP, its customer, and its

manufacturer, there exists a controversy of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant a declaratory judgment concerning the parties respective rights as they relate to the 216 patent. COUNT I Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of the 216 Patent 13. ARP incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in all preceding

paragraphs of this Complaint. 14. Based on Tenniers allegations of infringement of the 216 patent, there is an

actual controversy between the parties with respect to infringement of the 216 patent. 15. ARP seeks a declaration from this Court that it has not infringed, and is not now

infringing, the 216 patent. 16. ARP additionally seeks a declaration from this Court that Tenniers allegations of

infringement fail, in whole or in part, as a result of 28 U.S.C. 1498(a) because ARPs accused products are sold for the benefit of the United States and with its authorization and consent. COUNT II Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of the 216 Patent 17. ARP incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in all preceding 3

paragraphs ofthis Complaint. 18. Based on Tennier's allegations of infringement ofthe '216 patent, there is an

actual controvery between the parties with respect to the validity of the '216 patent. 19. ARP seeks a declaration from this Court that the claims of the '216 patent are

invalid under 35 U.S.C. 101 , 102, 103, and/or 112.

Prayer for Relief

WHEREFORE, ARP prays that the Court enter judgment:

A.

Declaring that ARP has not infringed, induced others to infringe, or contributed to

the infringement of any claim of U.S. Patent No. 5,533 ,216; B. C. Declaring that the claims of U.S. Patent No . 5,533 ,216 are invalid; and Awarding ARP its costs and attorneys ' fees and such other and further relief as

the Court finds just and proper.

Dated: March 7, 2013

David W. Harlan, #20127MO B. Scott Eidson, #57757MO Richard L. Brophy, #59731MO Zachary C. Howenstine, #61649MO ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP 7700 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 1800 St. Louis, Missouri 63105 Telephone: 314.621.5070 Fax: 314.621.5065 dharlan@armstrongteasdale.com seidson@armstrongteasdale.com rbrophy@armstrongteasdale.com zhowenstine@armstrongteasdale.com