IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA WEST PALM BEACH

NAZTEC INTERNATIONAL GROUP, L.L.C., Plaintiff, v. C.R. DANIELS, INC. and CASTO & HARRIS, INC. Civil Action No. ______________

Defendants. /

COMPLAINT Comes Now the Plaintiff Naztec International Group, L.L.C. (Plaintiff or Naztec) , through counsel, and for its Complaint against the Defendants C.R. Daniels, Inc. and CastoHarris, Inc (collectively Defendants) state as follows: PARTIES AND JURISDICTION 1. Plaintiff is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the

State of Florida and has a principal place of business in West Palm Beach, FL 33411. 2. On information and belief, Defendant C.R. Daniels, Inc. is a company

organized under the laws of the State of Maryland and has a principle place of business at 3451 Ellicott Center Drive, Ellicott City, MD 21043. 3. On information and belief, Defendant Casto & Harris, Inc. is a company

organized under the laws of the State of West Virginia and has a principle place of business at 109 Market Street, Spencer, West Virginia.
1

4.

These claims arise under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C.

2201, and 2202, and the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. 1 et seq. 5. This Court has jurisdiction of the claims of patent invalidity and a

declaration of non-infringement pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1338(a), 2201 and 2202. 6. value of $75,000.00. 7. On information and belief, Defendants regularly engage in business over On information and belief, the amount in controversy exceeds the sum or

the internet and in this Judicial District and have thus purposefully availed themselves of the privilege of doing business in the State of Florida and in this District by marketing and selling products or having others market and offer for sale their products, representation and visitation at trade conferences in this District, including but not limited to the voting booth products that they allege is respectively protected by inter alia U.S. Patents No. 7,895,954, D622975, D603,184, D603,621, D616,217 and D603,183 (the Patents in Suit). 8. and (c), and 1400(b). FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS 9. This is a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration of nonVenue is proper in this Judicial District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)

infringement and invalidity of U.S. Patents No. 7,895,954 (the 954 Patent); D622,975; D603,184; D603,621; D616,217; and D603,183 and for tortuous interference and for violations of the Florida Deceptive Business Statute, Title XXXIII, Section 501.201 et seq. 10. The Patent in Suit name as joint inventors of the patent right Mr. Gary

Abel (Mr. Abel) and Mr. Joseph Wilson (Mr. Wilson).

11.

On information and belief, Mr. Wilson and Mr. Abel are officers of the

respective Defendants Casto Harris, Inc. and C.R. Daniels, Inc. 12. On information and belief, on September 16, 2011 Mr. Abel assigned his

patent rights in the Patents in Suit to C.R. Daniels, Inc. 13. On information and belief, September 20, 2011 Mr. Wilson assigned his

patent rights in the Patents in Suit to Casto & Harris, Inc. 14. The Defendants asserted the Patents in Suit patent against Plaintiff as seen

by its suit initiated in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland that is captioned C. R. Daniels et al. v. Naztec International Group, LLC 1:11-cv-1624 (The Maryland Litigation) which alleged infringement of the Patents in Suit by Plaintiff by Naztecs sale of a voting booth identified as the Smartpoll. Accordingly, a justiciable case or controversy exists and Plaintiff requests a declaratory judgment that the manufacture, use, sale and/or offer of sale in the United States of Naztecs voting booth would not infringe any of the claims of the Patents in Suit. 15. The Naztecs motion to dismiss the Maryland litigation for lack of

personal jurisdiction was denied on December 2, 2011. 16. On January 6, 2012 Naztec moved to dismiss the Maryland litigation

because Defendants did not own the Patents in Suit when the complaint was filed and therefore the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the action. 17. Naztecs motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is

currently pending before the Maryland court.

18.

Plaintiff, Naztec is a direct competitor of Defendants in connection with

the manufacture, design and marketing and sales of voting booths in the United States.

19.

On information and belief, on or about March 15, 2010 the Defendants

authorized their agent and attorney to transmit a letter to the Office of General Services of the State of New York in Albany, New York that made allegations regarding Naztec and its SmartPoll voting booths (the March Letter). A true and correct copy of the March 15, 2010 letter is attached hereto and incorporated as Exhibit A. 20. that: despite Naztecs claims to have professional engineered their booth, it is a verbatim copy of the C.R. Daniels/ES&S Easyvote Model 9C. This much is apparent from certain design details that were borrowed for no apparent reason other than they appear in the Model 9C. . Naztec actions reflect willful and blatant disregard for our clients rights, a lack of business ethics, and constitute unlawful patent infringement. 21. On information and belief, the Defendants have also made oral In the March Letter, Defendants, through counsel, represented inter alia

misrepresentations regarding its alleged ownership rights in patents that relate to voting booths to purchasers of voting booths in New York and in other jurisdictions and have improperly accused Naztec of violating their intellectual property rights.

Count I (Tortuous Interference with Actual and Prospective Business Relations) 22. by reference herein. 23. Defendants representations regarding its alleged patent rights in voting The allegations recited in paragraphs 1-21 are realleged and incorporated

booths and its allegations regarding Naztec in its communications to the New York Office of General Services dated March 15, 2010 are false and misleading and were made with the intent

to interfere with Naztecs actual and prospective business relationships with its customers, including the sale in New York. 24. First of all, the Defendants representation that they owned any patents at

the time they sent the March Letter was false. On March 15, 2010 neither Defendant C.R. Daniels nor Defendant Casto & Harris owned any patents that related to voting booths. 25. When the Letter was sent to New York Office of General Services, the

applications that led to the 954 Patent and U.S Patent Nos. D622,975 and D616,217 had not issued. 26. In addition, Defendants representation that the accused Naztec voting

booth was a verbatim copy of the Defendants voting booth is false and misleading. The Naztec voting booth is not a verbatim copy nor is it an identical copy or an exact copy to any of the voting booths sold by Defendants or patented by Mr. Abel and Mr. Wilson. 27. In connection with the voting booth that was disclosed in the 954 Patent,

the accused Naztec voting booth lacks inter alia, the claimed side length structures 431 that extend from platform support 430. These structures allegedly provide the function of

protecting the privacy screens from damage when multiple booths are in a nesting position. Because the accused device lacks this structure, among others, the device does not constitute a verbatim copy of the structure disclosed in the 954 Patent. 28. Abels and Wilsons design patents D603,184 and D603,621, which had

issued, each disclose legs that extend vertically from a base to a working support surface. In contrast, the legs of the accused Naztec SmartPoll voting booth extend at a prominent angle from the base support to a working support surface.

29.

Further, in connection with the U.S. Patent No D603,183, the accused

Naztec SmartPoll voting booth lacks the triangular shaped support plates associated with the legs that are disclosed in the patents. 30. The design of the privacy screen on the accused Naztec device is also

different from the privacy screens disclosed in all of the patents eventually issued to Abel and Wilson: U.S. Patents Nos. 7,895,954, D622,975; D603,184; D603,621; D616,217; and D603,183 (Defendants Design Patents). 31. The accused Naztec voting booth is not an identical or exact copy of any

of the Defendants various designs for voting booths as disclosed in the Design Patents or the954 Patent. 32. Defendants further falsely represented and suggested that Naztec copied

non-functional elements of its voting booths and that its efforts to compete in the market for voting booths reflected a lack of business ethics. 33. Defendants statements are false and defamatory, intentional, unjustifiable

interference and by wrongful means were designed to interfere with the Naztecs contractual relations and prospective contractual relations to dissuade Naztecs customers and prospective customers from ordering products from Naztec. 34. Naztec has actual and prospective business relationship with numerous

New York counties for the sale of voting booths. 35. Defendants were aware of Plaintiffs actual and prospective business

relationships with the state of New Yorks Office of General Services and various New York counties that purchase voting booths.

36.

On information and belief, Defendants false and defamatory statements

have caused Naztecs New York customers and elsewhere to hesitate, reduce, add conditions or refrain from purchasing products from Naztec. 37. On information and belief, Naztec has been damaged by Defendants

false and misleading representations.

COUNT II (Declaration of Patent Invalidity of the 954 Patent) 38. Naztec realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations recited in

paragraphs 1-33 above. 39. The 954 Patent is invalid for failure to meet one or more of the

requirements for patentability under 35 USC 101 et seq. including but not limited to 35 U.S.C. 102, 103, and 112. 40. On information and belief, the claims of the 954 Patent are invalid

because the alleged invention claimed therein is anticipated in view of the prior art and thus fail to satisfy the conditions of patentability set forth in 35 U.S.C. 102. 41. The claims of the 954 Patent are invalid because the alleged invention

claimed are obvious in view of the prior art to one having ordinary skill in the art and thus fail to satisfy the conditions for patentability set forth in 35 U.S.C. 103. 42. Highly relevant and material prior art references were not disclosed to the

Patent Examiner, including but not limited to the U.S. Patent No. 4,325,561 as well as commercially available nesting shopping carts and airport carts, and therefore such information was not considered by the Patent Examiner during the prosecution of the Patents.

43.

Shopping carts and airport carts are highly relevant and material as they

are designed to be rolled, may be transported in wheeled groups, and have a design that simultaneously guides both a top and bottom structure of adjacent devices in place and keeps them in place in a wheeled group during transport. 44. Shopping carts and airport carts are highly relevant as they are transported

in groups in their nested configuration and the designs include a trapezoidal structures which maintains them in position during transport. 45. On information and belief, had the Examiner been aware of the existence

of these references the Examiner would not have allowed the claims of the 954 Patent. 46. The claims of the 954 Patent are invalid because the alleged invention

claimed fail to satisfy the conditions for patentability set forth in 35 U.S.C. 112. 47. Patent are invalid. Naztec is entitled to a declaratory judgment that the claims of the 954

COUNT III (Declaration of Non-Infringement of the 954 Patent) 48. Naztec realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations recited in

paragraphs 1-33 above. 49. A case or controversy exists between Naztec and the Defendants

concerning the non-infringement of the 954 Patent. 50. During the prosecution of the application for the 954 Patent, the

Defendants amended their patent claims in order to obtain approval from the Patent Office and avoid the effect of prior art patents which had rendered the claims as originally presented anticipated or obvious. On November 18, 2010 the Defendants specifically added a limitation to
8

the claims that required the device to include a platform support comprising a pair of opposing members extending adjacent the opposing side edges of said working surface (the platform support). 51. Defendants had repeatedly represented to the Patent Office that the

platform support limitation was important and served as a: peripheral guard to prevent damage to the working surface (voting booths are often deployed and stowed in a rough manner), and even more so because their trapezoidal configuration in conjunction with their incline serves to guide the semi-enclosed working surfaces together when rolling the booths into their nested configuration, avoiding damage to the privacy panels. (hereinafter the platform support protective function.) 52. The accused Naztec voting booth does not have the recited platform

support structure or a member extending the adjacent opposing side edges of the working surface (the platform support) or any other corresponding structure that performs the platform support protective function. 53. On information and belief, Defendants were able to inspect the accused

Naztec voting booth product and therefore should have and could have determined that the accused products lacked the platform support structure or platform support protective function. 54. Because the accused Naztec voting booth lacks each of the limitations

recited in the claims, the voting booth does not directly infringe the 954 Patent. 55. Because Defendants amended their claims to include the platform

support limitation during the prosecution of the patent to obtain allowance, the accused Naztec voting booth does not infringe the 954 Patent under the doctrine of equivalents.

56.

In view of this absence of the recited platform support protection

function and related structural limitation, the accused Naztec voting booth does not infringe either directly or under the doctrine of equivalence and the Defendants allegations of patent infringement with respect to the 954 Patent are objectively baseless. 57. Naztec is entitled to a declaratory judgment that its SmartPoll voting

booth do not infringe any of the claims of the 954 Patent.

COUNT IV (Declaration of Non-Infringement of the Design Patents) 58. Naztec realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations recited in

paragraphs 1-33 above. 59. A case or controversy exists between Naztec and the Defendants

concerning the non-infringement of Defendants Design Patents. 60. The design of the accused Naztec voting booth is not substantially similar

to the designs that are disclosed in Defendants Design Patents. 61. For the foregoing reasons, as well as other reasons, Naztec is entitled to a

declaration that the manufacture, use, sale and offer of sale the United States of the accused Naztec voting booth product would not infringe any valid and enforceable claims of Defendants Design Patents.

COUNT V (Violation of Floridas Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices) 62. Naztec realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations recited in

paragraphs 1-33 above.

10

63.

As more fully set forth above, the Defendants have engaged in unfair and

unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair and deceptive acts or practices in their trade or commerce to the detriment of the Plaintiffs. 64. Plaintiff is a legitimate business enterprise, which desires the protection

from Defendants, who engage in unfair methods of competition, or unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. 65. Plaintiffs are consumer as that term is defined in Section 501.203 of the

Florida Statutes, and the prevailing case law supporting that Statute. 66. The Defendants conduct constitutes an unconscionable act or practice

and/or unfair and deceptive action in violation of Florida law, and those sought to be protected by the purposes of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. 67. Defendants used unfair methods of competition, or unconscionable,

deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce to prevent Plaintiff from sales. 68. Defendants used unfair methods of competition, or unconscionable,

deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce to increase Plaintiff costs related to actual sales in competition over Defendants. 69. Defendants Letter, while it did not own the subject patents, is an unfair

method of competition, or unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. 70. The Defendants deceptive and unfair trade practices have caused actual

damages to the Plaintiff.

11

71.

Plaintiffs are entitled to recover its reasonable attorneys fees and costs

pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. WHEREFORE, Naztec International Group LLC prays for judgment as follows: (1) (2) (3) (4) For entry of judgment against the Defendants and in favor of Naztec. For a declaration that the Patents in Suit are not infringed by Naztec. For a declaration that the Patents in Suit are invalid and unenforceable. For an entry of Judgment finding that Defendants have illegally interfered with Naztec business relationships. (5) For an award of its damages that resulted from Defendants illegal interference, the amount of which will be established at trial. (6) That the Court find that Defendants claims of infringement are objectively baseless and that the case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. 285. (7) For injunctive relief against Defendants restraining Defendants from further interference with the relationships between Naztec and its customers for voting booths. (8) That the Court award Naztec its reasonable costs and attorneys fees that were expended in the defense of this action and pursuant to Fl. Stat. 501.211 and 35 U.S.C. 285. (9) Permanently enjoining Defendants, its officers, agents, directors, servants, employees, subsidiaries, partners, representatives, distributors, sales agents and assigns, and all those acting under the authority of or in privy with them or with any of them, from asserting or otherwise seeking to enforce the Patents in Suit against Naztec or the accused products.

12

(10)

For an entry of Judgment finding that Defendants have violated the

Florida Deceptive Trade Practice Act. (11) Awarding Naztec any further additional relief as the Court may deem just,

proper and equitable. Respectfully submitted, By: s/Paul K. Silverberg Paul K. Silverberg, Esq. Fla. Bar No. 147877 SILVERBERG & WEISS, P.A. Trial Counsel for Plaintiffs 1290 Weston Road, Suite 218 Weston, Florida 33326 (954) 384-0998 tel. (954) 384-5390 fax. psilverberg@pkslegal.com email Andrew C. Aitken (Bar No. 06413) Aitken Law Offices, LLC P.O. Box 1810 Wheaton, MD 20902 Phone (301) 537-3299 Facsimile (240) 491-9892 acaitken@aitkenlawoffices.com

13