IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ABERCROMBIE ONLINE, LLC, Plaintiff, v.

LIFEPROXY, LLC, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

C.A. No.___________________ DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY AND NON-INFRINGEMENT Plaintiff, Abercrombie Online, LLC (Abercrombie), by its attorneys, files this complaint for Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity and Non-Infringement against LifeProxy, LLC (LifeProxy), and hereby alleges as follows: NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. This is an action under the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. 2201

and 2202, against LifeProxy for a declaration that pursuant to the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. 1 et seq., certain patents allegedly owned by LifeProxy are invalid and not infringed by Abercrombie. THE PARTIES 2. Plaintiff Abercrombie is a limited liability company organized and existing under

the laws of the State of Delaware, having its principal place of business at 403 West 4th Street, Lewes, Delaware, 19958.

3.

On information and belief, Defendant LifeProxy is a limited liability company

organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, having a place of business at 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 300, Bethesda, Maryland, 20817. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over these claims for declaratory relief

arising under the patent laws of the United States, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1338(a), and the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. 2201 and 2202. 5. On information and belief, this Court has personal jurisdiction over LifeProxy,

because LifeProxy is a Delaware limited liability company and has constitutionally sufficient contacts with Delaware so as to make personal jurisdiction proper in this Court. 6. Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. 1391 and 1400(b). THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT 7. U.S. Patent No. 7,461,024 (the 024 patent) is entitled Bidder-Side Auction

Dynamic Pricing Agent, System, Method And Computer Program Product and bears an issuance date of December 2, 2008. A copy of the 024 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. 8. U.S. Patent No. 8,204,819 (the 819 patent) is entitled Bidder-Side Auction

Dynamic Pricing Agent, System, Method And Computer Program Product and bears an issuance date of June 19, 2012. A copy of the 819 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. 9. The 024 patent and the 819 patent are collectively referred to hereinafter as the

Patents-in-Suit.

BACKGROUND 10. On February 5, 2014, Daniel Abercrombie received a letter dated February 4,

2014 purportedly from David M. Farnum, Esq. of ATFirm PLLC on LifeProxys behalf (the Letter). The Letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 3. 11. The Letter asserted that LifeProxy is the owner of United States Patent Nos.

8,204,819 and 7,461,024 and additional pending U.S. patent applications (the LifeProxy Patent Portfolio). 12. The Letter asserted that the LifeProxy Patent Portfolio relates to bidder-side

auction dynamic pricing agents, systems, methods, and computer program products. 13. The Letter asserted that [w]e have recently reviewed ezsniper.com and

bidnapper.com and determined that one or more of the products and services offered by these websites infringe one or more claims of each of the issued LifeProxy Patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 8,204,819 and 7,461,024. 14. infringement. 15. terms. 16. The Letter asserted that [w]e would like to discuss this matter amicably so as to The Letter asserted that LifeProxy is willing to license its Patents on reasonable The Letter asserted that [t]his letter constitutes LifeProxys notice of

obviate the necessity that we pursue litigation as it will otherwise be the only available means for LifeProxy to enforce its Patents. 17. The Letter asserted: Please be advised that LifeProxy is prepared to institute a

patent infringement litigation if necessary to resolve this matter.

18.

The Letter asserted that [s]hould a litigation be required, LifeProxy will seek an

award of damages, legal fees, and injunction against your use of the patented technology and any and all other remedies allowed under the law. COUNT I DECLARATION OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PAT. NO. 7,461,024

19. forth herein. 20.

Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations of paragraphs 1-18 as if fully set

Abercrombie has not directly infringed, contributed to the infringement of, or

induced others to infringe, any valid and enforceable claim of the 024 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. For example, ezsniper.com and bidnapper.com do not infringe any valid and enforceable claim of the 024 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. 21. As a result of the acts described in the foregoing paragraphs, there exists a

substantial controversy of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment. 22. A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate so that Abercrombie may

ascertain its rights regarding the 024 patent. COUNT II DECLARATION OF INVALIDITY OF U.S. PAT. NO. 7,461,024 23. forth herein. 24. The 024 patent is invalid for failure to meet the conditions of patentability and/or Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations of paragraphs 1-18 as if fully set

otherwise comply with one or more of 35 U.S.C. 100 et seq., 101, 102, 103, and 112 and the
4

rules, regulations and laws pertaining thereto. For example, one or more claims of the 024 patent are invalid, at least under 35 U.S.C. 102/103, based upon at least the following prior art: Cricket Jr., developed by David Eccles, eSnipe developed by Warren Wiens, and Bidrobot developed by Charles Eglinton. 25. As a result of the acts described in the foregoing paragraphs, there exists a

substantial controversy of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment. 26. A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate so that Abercrombie may

ascertain its rights with respect to the 024 patent. COUNT III DECLARATION OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PAT. NO. 8,204,819 27. forth herein. 28. Abercrombie has not directly infringed, contributed to the infringement of, or Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations of paragraphs 1-18 as if fully set

induced others to infringe, any valid and enforceable claim of the 819 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. For example, ezsniper.com and bidnapper.com do not infringe any valid and enforceable claim of the 819 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. 29. As a result of the acts described in the foregoing paragraphs, there exists a

substantial controversy of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment. 30. A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate so that Abercrombie may

ascertain its rights regarding the 819 patent.

5

COUNT IV DECLARATION OF INVALIDITY OF U.S. PAT. NO. 8,204,819 31. forth herein. 32. The 819 patent is invalid for failure to meet the conditions of patentability and/or Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations of paragraphs 1-18 as if fully set

otherwise comply with one or more of 35 U.S.C. 100 et seq., 101, 102, 103, and 112 and the rules, regulations and laws pertaining thereto. For example, one or more claims of the 819 patent are invalid, at least under 35 U.S.C. 102/103, based upon at least the following prior art: Cricket Jr., developed by David Eccles, eSnipe developed by Warren Wiens, and Bidrobot developed by Charles Eglinton. 33. As a result of the acts described in the foregoing paragraphs, there exists a

substantial controversy of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment. 34. A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate so that Abercrombie may

ascertain its rights with respect to the 819 patent. JURY DEMAND In accordance with Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 38.1 of the Local Rules of Civil Practice and Procedure of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, Abercrombie respectfully demands a jury trial of all issues triable to a jury in this action. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests the following relief:

(a)

A declaration that Abercrombie has not infringed and does not infringe

any valid and enforceable claim of any of the Patents-in-Suit; (b) A declaration that the Patents-in-Suit are invalid for failure to meet the

conditions of patentability and/or otherwise comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 100 et seq., 101, 102, 103, and/or 112; (c) An injunction against LifeProxy and its officers, agents, servants,

employees, attorneys, and others in active concert or participation with them from asserting infringement or instituting any legal action for infringement of the Patents-in-Suit against Abercrombie or its customers or end users of its products and services; (d) An order declaring that this is an exceptional case and awarding

Abercrombie its costs, expenses, disbursements, and reasonable attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. 285 and all other applicable statutes, rules and common law; (e) Such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper;

DATED: February 24, 2014

NOVAK DRUCE CONNOLLY BOVE & QUIGG LLP By: /s/ Thatcher A. Rahmeier Thatcher A. Rahmeier (# 5222) 1007 North Orange Street, 9th Floor Wilmington, Delaware 19801 (302) 658-9141 thatcher.rahmeier@novakdruce.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Abercrombie Online, LLC