IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE NEOLOGY, INC., Plaintiff, v. CONFIDEX, INC.

, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

C.A. No. ____________ DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Plaintiff Neology, Inc. (“Neology”), a Delaware corporation, by and through its undersigned attorneys, alleges as follows: The Parties 1. Neology is a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Delaware,

with its principal place of business at 12760 Danielson Ct., Suite A, Poway, California 92064. 2. Neology is informed and believes and thereon alleges that defendant Confidex,

Inc. (“Confidex” or “Defendant”), is a corporation duly organized under the laws of the S tate of Delaware, with its principal place of business at 451 Hungerford Drive, Suite 119-363, Rockville, Maryland 20850. Nature of Claims, Jurisdiction, and Venue 3. This action arises under the Patent Laws of the United States under 35 U.S.C.

§§ 271 et seq., and seeks damages, injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. §§ 283, 284, and 285. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338. 4. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant at least because Defendant is

incorporated in this district.

5.

Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400(b). COUNT I (PATENT INFRINGEMENT, CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT & INDUCEMENT TO INFRINGE ’443 PATENT)

6. forth herein. 7.

Plaintiff Neology incorporates and alleges paragraphs 1-5 above as if fully set

On May 8, 2001, United States Letters Patent No. 6,229,443 (the “’443 Patent”)

was duly and properly issued for an invention entitled “Apparatus and Method for Detuning of RFID Tag to Regulate Voltage.” The ’443 Patent was duly and legally issued to Single Chip Systems, Inc. (“SCS”), assignee of inventor Bruce Roesner. SCS assigned the ’443 Patent to Neology. A copy of the ’443 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit “A.” 8. Neology is the owner of the ’443 Patent and has all legal and equitable rights to

enforce the ’443 Patent, to bring and maintain this action, and to make, have made, use, import, offer or sell products or services covered by the ’443 Patent. 9. The ’443 Patent is now, and at all relevant times since its date of issuance has

been, valid and enforceable. 10. Despite the fact that Neology has exclusive rights in the inventions of the ’443

Patent, Defendant has directly infringed, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, the ’443 Patent by making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling Radio Frequency Identification (“RFID”) tags, that directly infringe the ’443 Patent. These infringing products comprise at least the following products: Defendant’s (1) Confidex License Plate Tag product, and (2) Confidex Windshield Label product (the “Accused Products”). It is believed that Defendant will continue to directly infringe the ’443 Patent unless enjoined by this Court. Defendant’s infringement and other actions have caused substantial injury to Neology. -2-

11.

Since at least the filing of this Complaint, Defendant has had knowledge of the

’443 Patent and has indirectly infringed the ’443 Patent by actively and intentionally inducing its customers to infringe the ’443 Patent despite such knowledge, including, for example, by providing training and instructions to its customers concerning the use of the Accused Products and by such customers making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling at least the Accused Products, with knowledge that the induced acts constituted infringement, or acted with willful blindness; and/or contributed to infringement by one or more of its customers as Defendant, with knowledge of the ’443 Patent, intended its activities to cause such infringement. The Accused Products are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use and are especially made or adapted for use in infringing the ’443 Patent. It is believed that Defendant will continue to indirectly infringe the ’443 Patent unless enjoined by the Court. Defendant’s indirect infringement and other actions have caused substantial injury to Neology. 12. The amount of money damages that plaintiff Neology has suffered due to

Defendant’s acts of infringement has not been calculated but is subject to proof at trial. COUNT II (PATENT INFRINGEMENT, CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT & INDUCEMENT TO INFRINGE ’264 PATENT) 13. forth herein. 14. On February 10, 2004, United States Letters Patent No. 6,690,264 (the “’264 Plaintiff Neology incorporates and alleges paragraphs 1-12 above as if fully set

Patent”) was duly and properly issued for an invention entitled “Selective Cloaking Circuit for use in a Radiofrequency Identification and Method of Cloaking RFID Tags.” The ’264 Patent

-3-

was duly and legally issued to SCS, assignee of inventor Dave Dalglish. SCS duly assigned the ’264 Patent to Neology. A copy of the ’264 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit “B.” 15. Neology is the owner of the ’264 Patent and has all legal and equitable rights to

enforce the ’264 Patent, to bring and maintain this action, and to make, have made, use, import, offer or sell products or services covered by the ’264 Patent. 16. The ’264 Patent is now, and at all relevant times since its date of issuance has

been, valid and enforceable. 17. Despite the fact that Neology has exclusive rights in the inventions of the ’264

Patent, Defendant has directly infringed, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, the ’264 Patent by making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling at least the Accused Products. It is believed that Defendant will continue to directly infringe unless enjoined by this Court. Defendant’s infringement and other actions have caused substantial injury to Neology. 18. Since at least the filing of this Complaint, Defendant has had knowledge of the

’264 Patent and has indirectly infringed the ’264 Patent by actively and intentionally inducing its customers to infringe the ’264 Patent despite such knowledge, including, for example, by providing training and instructions to its customers concerning the use of the Accused Products and by such customers making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling at least the Accused Products, with knowledge that the induced acts constituted infringement, or acted with willful blindness; and/or contributed to infringement by one or more of its customers as Defendant, with knowledge of the ’264 Patent, intended its activities to cause such infringement. The Accused Products are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use and are especially made or adapted for use in infringing the ’264 Patent. It is believed that Defendant will continue to indirectly infringe the ’264 Patent unless enjoined by -4-

the Court. Defendant’s indirect infringement and other actions have caused substantial injury to Neology. 19. The amount of money damages that plaintiff Neology has suffered due to

Defendant’s acts of infringement has not been calculated but is subject to proof at trial. COUNT III (CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT & INDUCEMENT TO INFRINGE ’568 PATENT) 20. forth herein. 21. On August 7, 2012, United States Letters Patent No. 8,237,568 (the “’568 Plaintiff Neology incorporates and alleges paragraphs 1-19 above as if fully set

Patent”) was duly and properly issued for an invention entitled “System and Method for Providing Secure Identification Solutions.” The ’568 Patent was duly and legally issued to BNC IP Switzerland GmbH (“BNC”), assignee of inventors Francisco Martinez de Velasco Cortina and Manfred Rietzler. BNC duly assigned the ’568 Patent to Neology. A copy of the ’568 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit “C.” 22. Neology is the owner of the ’568 Patent and has all legal and equitable rights to

enforce the ’568 Patent, to bring and maintain this action, and to make, have made, use, import, offer or sell products or services covered by the ’568 Patent. 23. The ’568 Patent is now, and at all relevant times since its date of issuance has

been, valid and enforceable. 24. Since at least the filing of this Complaint, Defendant has had knowledge of the

’568 Patent and has indirectly infringed the ’568 Patent by actively and intentionally inducing its customers to infringe the ’568 Patent despite such knowledge, including, for example, by providing training and instructions to its customers concerning the use of the Accused Products and by such customers making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling at least the Accused -5-

Products, with knowledge that the induced acts constituted infringement, or acted with willful blindness; and/or contributed to infringement by one or more of its customers as Defendant, with knowledge of the ’568 Patent, intended its activities to cause such infringement. The Accused Products are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use and are especially made or adapted for use in infringing the ’568 Patent. It is believed that Defendant will continue to indirectly infringe the ’568 Patent unless enjoined by the Court. Defendant’s indirect infringement and other actions have caused substantial injury to Neology. 25. The amount of money damages that plaintiff Neology has suffered due to

Defendant’s acts of infringement has not been calculated but is subject to proof at trial. COUNT IV (PATENT INFRINGEMENT, CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT & INDUCEMENT TO INFRINGE ’044 PATENT) 26. forth herein. 27. On December 4, 2012, United States Letters Patent No. 8,325,044 (the “’044 Plaintiff Neology incorporates and alleges paragraphs 1-25 above as if fully set

Patent”) was duly and properly issued for an invention entitled “System and Method for Providing Secure Identification Solutions.” The ’044 Patent was duly and legally issued to BNC, assignee of inventors Francisco Martinez de Velasco Cortina and Manfred Rietzler. BNC duly assigned the ’044 Patent to Neology. A copy of the ’044 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit “D.” 28. Neology is the owner of the ’044 Patent and has all legal and equitable rights to

enforce the ’044 Patent, to bring and maintain this action, and to make, have made, use, import, offer or sell products or services covered by the ’044 Patent.

-6-

29.

The ’044 Patent is now, and at all relevant times since its date of issuance has

been, valid and enforceable. 30. Despite the fact that Neology has exclusive rights in the inventions of the ’044

Patent, Defendant has directly infringed, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, the ’044 Patent by making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling Accused Products that directly infringe the ’044 Patent. It is believed that Defendant will continue to directly infringe unless enjoined by this Court. Defendant’s direct infringement and other actions have caused substantial injury to Neology. 31. Since at least the filing of this Complaint, Defendant has had knowledge of the

’044 Patent and has indirectly infringed the ’044 Patent by actively and intentionally inducing its customers to infringe the ’044 Patent despite such knowledge, including, for example, by providing training and instructions to its customers concerning the use of the Accused Products and by such customers making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling at least the Accused Products, with knowledge that the induced acts constituted infringement, or acted with willful blindness; and/or contributed to infringement by one or more its customers as Defendant, with knowledge of the ’044 Patent, intended its activities to cause such infringement. The Accused Products are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use and are especially made or adapted for use in infringing the ’044 Patent. It is believed that Defendant will continue to indirectly infringe the ’044 Patent unless enjoined by the Court. Defendant’s indirect infringement and other actions have caused substantial injury to Neology. 32. The amount of money damages that plaintiff Neology has suffered due to

Defendant’s acts of infringement has not been calculated but is subject to proof at trial. -7-

COUNT V (CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT & INDUCEMENT TO INFRINGE ’436 PATENT) 33. forth herein. 34. On November 19, 2013, United States Letters Patent No. 8,587,436 (the “’436 Plaintiff Neology incorporates and alleges paragraphs 1-32 above as if fully set

Patent”) was duly and properly issued for an invention entitled “System and Method for Providing Secure Identification Solutions.” The ’436 Patent was duly and legally issued to Neology, assignee of inventors Francisco Martinez de Velasco Cortina and Manfred Rietzler. A copy of the ’436 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit “E.” 35. Neology is the owner of the ‘436 Patent and has all legal and equitable rights to

enforce the ‘436 Patent, to bring and maintain this action, and to make, have made, use, import, offer or sell products or services covered by the ’436 Patent. 36. The ’436 Patent is now, and at all relevant times since its date of issuance has

been, valid and enforceable. 37. Since at least the fling of this Complaint, Defendant has had knowledge of the

’436 Patent and has indirectly infringed the ’436 Patent by actively and intentionally indu cing its customers to infringe the ’436 Patent despite such knowledge, including, for example, by providing training and instructions to its customers concerning the use of the Accused Products and by such customers making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling at least the Accused Products, with knowledge that the induced acts constituted infringement, or acted with willful blindness; and/or contributed to infringement by one or more of its customers as Defendant, with knowledge of the ’436 Patent, intended its activities to cause such infringement. The Accused Products are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use and are especially made or adapted for use in infringing the ’436 Patent. It is -8-

believed that Defendant will continue to indirectly infringe the ’436 Patent unless enjoined by the Court. Defendant’s indirect infringement and other actions have caused substantial injury to Neology. 38. The amount of money damages that plaintiff Neology has suffered due to

Defendant’s acts of infringement has not been calculated but is subject to proof at trial. COUNT VI (PATENT INFRINGEMENT, CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT & INDUCEMENT TO INFRINGE ’664 PATENT) 39. forth herein. 40. On October 10, 2006, United States Letters Patent No. 7,119,664 (the “’664 Plaintiff Neology incorporates and alleges paragraphs 1-38 above as if fully set

Patent”) was duly and properly issued for an invention entitled “Deep Sleep in an RFID Tag.” The ’664 Patent was duly and legally issued to Bella ID Solutions, Inc. (“Bella”), assignee of inventor Bruce Roesner. Bella duly assigned the ’664 Patent to ID Solutions, Inc., which duly assigned it to Neology. A copy of the ’664 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit “F.” 41. Neology is the owner of the ’664 Patent and has all legal and equitable rights to

enforce the ’664 Patent, to bring and maintain this action, and to make, have made, use, import, offer or sell products or services covered by the ’664 Patent. 42. The ’664 Patent is now, and at all relevant times since its date of issuance has

been, valid and enforceable. 43. Despite the fact that Neology has exclusive rights in the inventions of the ’664

Patent, Defendant has directly infringed, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, the ’664 Patent by making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling Accused Products that directly infringe the ’664 Patent. It is believed that Defendant will continue to directly infringe unless enjoined by -9-

this Court. Defendant’s direct infringement and other actions have caused substantial injury to Neology. 44. Since the filing of this Complaint, Defendant has had knowledge of the ’664

Patent and has indirectly infringed the ’664 Patent by actively and intentionally inducing its customers to infringe the ’664 Patent despite such knowledge, including, for example, by providing training and instructions to its customers concerning the use of the Accused Products and by such customers making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling at least the Accused Products, with knowledge that the induced acts constituted infringement, or acted with willful blindness; and/or contributed to infringement by one or more of its customers as Defendant, with knowledge of the ’664 Patent, intended its activities to cause such infringement. The Accused Products are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use and are especially made or adapted for use in infringing the ’664 Patent. It is believed that Defendant will continue to indirectly infringe the ’664 Patent unless enjoined by the Court. Defendant’s indirect infringement and other actions have caused substantial injury to Neology. 45. The amount of money damages that plaintiff Neology has suffered due to

Defendant’s acts of infringement has not been calculated but is subject to proof at trial. REQUESTED RELIEF WHEREFORE, plaintiff Neology respectfully requests the following relief: a. b. c. d. judgment that Defendant infringes the ’443 Patent; judgment that Defendant infringes the ’264 Patent; judgment that Defendant infringes the ’568 Patent; judgment that Defendant infringes the ’044 Patent; - 10 -

e. f. g.

judgment that Defendant infringes the ’436 Patent; judgment that Defendant infringes the ’664 Patent; the entry of a preliminary and permanent injunction, requiring Defendant and its

officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, licensees, successors, assigns, and customers, and those in active concert or participation with any of them, to stop making, using, offering to sell, or selling in the United States or importing into the United States any devices that infringe any claim of the ’443, ’264, ’568, ’044, ’436, and ’664 Patents, or contributing to or inducing the same by others; h. judgment against the Defendant for money damages to Neology for Defendant’s

infringement, contributory infringement, and/or inducement of infringement of the ’443, ’264, ’568, ’044, ’436, and ’664 Patents, including but not limited to reasonable royalties and/or lost profits; i. that any such money judgment against Defendant be trebled in view of the willful

and deliberate nature of the Defendant’s infringement; j. k. l. an award to Neology of prejudgment and postjudgment interest; an accounting by Defendant’s sufficient to determine damages; judgment that this is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285, and an award to

Neology of its costs and expenses of suit, including reasonable attorneys’ fees for bringing and prosecuting this action; and m. such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. JURY DEMAND Neology respectfully requests a jury trial on all issues triable to a jury.

- 11 -

MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP

Mary B. Graham (#2256) Jeremy A. Tigan (#5239) 1201 N. Market Street P.O. Box 1347 Wilmington, DE 19899-1347 (302) 658-9200 mgraham@mnat.com jtigan@mnat.com Attorneys for Neology, Inc. OF COUNSEL: Robert H. Sloss Victor M. Felix Brian J. Kennedy PROCOPIO, CORY, HARGREAVES & SAVITCH LLP 525 B Street, Suite 2200 San Diego, CA 92101 (619) 238-1900 December 19, 2013
7864555

- 12 -