Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
ipIQ, INC.,
v.
Judge Philip Bronstein
JOHN KOEPKE, JAMES SHERIDAN, JR.
and RAYMOND ZENKICH,
Defendants.
ORDER
This matter coming before the Court on Plaintiff ipIQ, Inc.’s (“Plaintiff” or “ipIQ”)
Emergency Motion For the Entry of a Temporary Restraining Order, all parties represented by
counsel, the Court being fully advised and having reviewed the verified complaint and
accompanying exhibits and the supporting memorandum of law,
2. Plaintiff has demonstrated that it would suffer irreparable injury if the injunction
is not entered; and
3. Plaintiff has demonstrated that if the injunction is not entered, the harm to the
Plaintiff would exceed the harm to the Defendants from granting the injunction.
381396.3 050814-34054
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION
Plaintiff,
v.
Plaintiff, IpIQ, Inc., for its Verified Complaint against the Defendants, John Koepke,
James Sheridan, Jf. and Raymond Zenkich, individually and collectively d/b/a The Red Chalk
PARTIES
Street, Park Ridge, Illinois 60068. Defendant Koepke was Vice President, later Executive Vice
President, Consulting Services, of ipIQ until his employment was terminated on August 2, 2006.
Green Street, Apt. #502, Chicago, Illinois 60607. Defendant Sheridan was Managing Director,
later Vice President, Consulting Services, at ipIQ until his employment was terminated on
August 2, 2006.
399632.1050814-38556
4. Defendant Raymond Zenkich ("Zenkich") is an individual residing at 1215 Croft
Lane, Evanston, Illinois 60202. Defendant Zenkich was Managing Director, later Vice
President, Consulting Services, of ipIQ until he resigned from his employment on July 28, 2006.
FACTS
Fortune 500 companies, investment banking and investment research firms, academic institutions
and government agencies. For customers seeking intellectual property services, ipIQ offers,
inter alia:
(c) IP data, statistics, metrics and indicators that support corporate decision-
making;
(e) Analysis, tools and metrics that connect corporate financial performance
to a company's patent portfolio;
(g) R&D area assessments that include trends in a given field, analyses of
technological impact, identification of those companies making the most
advances in the field, and those holding key patents in given areas;
399632.1050814-38556
32. ipIQ takes numerous steps to protect the confidentiality of its information.
33. These steps include, but are not limited to execution of employment agreements,
use of licenses to limit distribution and use of the information, identifying customers by
customer number or project pseudoname and not by name, limiting access to the information via
password protection on the company computer systems, limiting access to specific data on a job
by job basis, tracking who logs on to the computer systems, archiving email histories of
employees, labeling appropriate information as confidential and tracking which jobs are run on
34. All employees are required to return all ipIQ data and third party data upon their
35. Defendant Koepke was hired on April 25, 2005 as Vice President, Consulting
Services to assist in expanding ipIQ's consulting division. Prior to his hire, Koepke worked at
Maxiam, an intellectual asset management consulting company, for two years but had no
36. ipIQ also hired Defendant Sheridan on March 28, 2005 and Defendant Zenkich on
September 12, 2005, each as Managing Director, Consulting Services. Both gentlemen had no
37. Defendants all executed Employment Agreements upon their hire. True and
accurate copies of the three Employment Agreements are attached to this Complaint as Exhibits
399632.1050814-38556
were taught the particular details of the ipIQ business by existing ipIQ employees and officers.
Prior to their employment, Defendants had no knowledge of how to use and manipulate patent
data to provide value to customers through consulting or otherwise, nor did they know how to
build a "clean" database or how to manipUlate that data to create patent indicators and patent
statistics.
47. In late July 2006, ipIQ discovered that Defendants had formed a competing
business and had been planning these efforts as early as April, while all were still employed with
ipIQ.
48. After learning the ipIQ business and recognizing the strength of the ipIQ business
model and ipIQ's future business plans, Defendants chose to take all that they learned while
was Defendants' experience prior to ipIQ but an exact copy ofipIQ's business.
50. Defendants' competing business, which is named either "Patents 360", "Venture
IP ," "IP Decision Group," or "The Red Chalk Group" offers competing intellectual property
consulting services, investment services, data and online tools identical to those offered by and
currently under development by ipIQ. Defendants have also begun to develop an investment
51. Defendants, through their competing business, replicate every aspect of the ipIQ
business.
52. In a detailed letter prepared by Defendant Sheridan and retrieved from Defendant
Sheridan's ipIQ laptop, Defendants outlined their plans for their competing venture. The letter is
399632.1050814-38556
dated July 18, 2006 and a true and accurate copy is attached hereto as Exhibit "D, "but will be
53. The "unique" opportunity Defendants describe in the letter - providing premium
patent related information and services in the areas of consulting, data services and investing - IS
ipIQ's business. In doing so, they intend to "continue to serve corporate clients with their
intellectual property related needs." They also plan on continuing to serve investment
community clients and plan on ultimately partnering with a financial partner to raise an
investment fund. Finally, they plan to sell their "data, metadata (calculated statistics), and
proprietary data (e.g., unified view of a patent portfolio considering mergers and acquisitions)"
with their ultimate goal to be considered the "Morningstar of Patent Data." They consider this
the "real wealth creation opportunity." Indeed, the aspiration to become the "Morningstar of
Patent Data" is ipIQ's future strategy, was discussed and analyzed on a regular basis by all ipIQ
54. The letter goes on to cite future partners, many of whom are ipIQ partners,
including but not limited to Pipal Research, Wall Street Journal and Financial Times.
55. The letter concludes by acknowledging that the field ofIP related professional
service providers is large and fragmented. Defendants identify various companies that are
competitors in some of the segments identified by Defendants but concludes by noting that none
offer the strategic plan to offer the wide range of intellectual property services that Defendants
propose. Remarkably, they fail to disclose in this letter that one company does offer the services
56. All ofthe above ideas and future plans were spawned directly from their
employment with ipIQ, including ipIQ's high level strategic planning. A true and accurate copy
10
399632.1 050814-38556
of ipIQ's March 20, 2006 confidential presentation to a potential investor is attached hereto as
Exhibit "E," but will be filed under seal. The sum and substance of the presentation is identical
to Defendants' outline of its future business, including the identification of a highly confidential
57. Not surprisingly, every step of the way Defendants attempted to hide their
58. To form this competing business, Defendants utilized ipIQ's trade secrets and
confidential information including but not limited to: (1) the manner which ipIQ cleans and
unifies patent data to create a valuable patent database; (2) the use of analytical tools and patent
indicators to manipulate the data; (3) ipIQ's future business plans; (4) ipIQ's customer
relationships; and (5) the use ofipIQ's proprietary databases to provide investment analysis and
59. It is not possible to offer the services offered by Defendants without knowledge
and use ofipIQ's trade secrets and confidential information gained by Defendants while
employed by ipIQ.
60. Defendants have misappropriated ipIQ's propriety business plans and processes,
61. Without their knowledge ofipIQ's business and business plans, Defendants
business would be impossible without this knowledge. Based upon their employment with ipIQ,
they knew what to obtain in order to develop their business and where to get it.
62. Defendants sought to replicate the business ofipIQ by attempting to (1) purchase
and/or create a patent database, (2) purchase and/or create patent indicators and (3) build a patent
11
399632.1 050814-38556
analytics and financial analytics toolset with the help of at least two third party companies, Pipal
63. Defendants sought to develop a brand position in the marketplace with the help of
at least two third party companies, Flow Creative of Chicago, Illinois and Source/Inc. of
Chicago, Illinois. Simultaneous with sending Flow Creative their business plan, Defendants
required Flow Creative to execute a nondisclosure agreement to protect their plans, which in
64. They engaged in these efforts during the course of their employment with ipIQ
and with full knowledge of their obligations contained within their Employment Agreements.
65. Defendants simultaneously started their competing business while still employed
by ipIQ.
66. In or around April 2006, Defendants created a web office using the software
application provided by the company WebEx and named it "ClosetPerfect" which allowed them
to share information among themselves and to discuss the logistics of their competing enterprise
without ipIQ's knowledge. Contained within that ClosetPerfect web platform was a Master Task
Framework which set forth all of the tasks necessary to form the competing business. ipIQ does
not have a copy of the Master Task Framework, but is aware of its existence.
67. To assist them in forming this competing business, Defendants engaged third
parties, including Pipal Research and SolutionWerx, to contact data providers and other
intellectual property companies on their behalf while disguising the true source of the inquiries.
12
399632.1050814-38556
68. Defendants also engaged some of the same third parties, including Pipal Research
and SolutionWerx, to replicate ipIQ's proprietary data processing operations and toolset.
69. As an initial step, Defendants hired SolutionWerx, Inc. to contact various vendors
Thomson. During this same time frame, SolutionWerx also attempted to contact Delphion on
behalf of Defendants.
71. In their attempts to obtain a patent database to compete against ipIQ, Defendants
went so far as to attempt to probe ipIQ employees for information, specifically with regard to
how ipIQ cleans the data through its unification techniques. In an April 27, 2006 e-mail,
Defendant Koepke suggested that Defendants "probe Subi [ipIQ's Managing Director of Data
Architecture] re: clean-up." A true and accurate copy of that e-mail is attached hereto as Exhibit
"F."
72. Defendant Zenkich also suggested to Defendant Koepke that he reach out to
Francis N arin [an ipIQ consultant and former president and owner of ipIQ' s predecessor
company, CHI Research] to "see ifmaybe there is any responsibility on Delphion's side to
supply data to everyone." Defendants never disclosed to Francis Narin the reasons for these
inquiries. A true and accurate copy of the e-mail is attached hereto as Exhibit "G."
73. Defendant Koepke also confirmed in an e-mail that he would "ask Fran and/or
Subi (assuming I can find an appropriate way to ask) I suppose I can also ask Subi the amount of
effort in cleaning up the FTP data ... " A true and accurate copy of that e-mail is attached hereto
as Exhibit "H."
13
399632.1050814·38556
74. On or about May 1,2006, Defendant Koepke drafted an e-mail to be sent by Pipal
Research directed to 1790 Analytics. In that e-mail, Pipal Research was to have requested on
behalf of Defendants a price quote for 1790 Analytics corporate thesaurus data as provided to
Delphion, including the hierarchy feature and original assignee feature. In asking Pipal to send
this e-mail, Defendant Zenkich advised Pipal that "we are starting development of the innovation
service offering, we are identifying sources for data which we then will enhance." A true and
75. In June 2006, Defendants, while still employed by ipIQ and under the guise of
working on behalf ofthe company, also contacted at least one ipIQ New Jersey employee and
inquired about unification techniques. That employee spent time with Defendant Sheridan
explaining the process and directed another employee to send ipIQ's unification instructions to
him.
76. As the above paragraph discusses, from their employment, Defendants knew that
patent data which was not cleaned had no value and, therefore, Defendants proceeded to contact
77. On June 19,2006, approximately one week after Defendants probed ipIQ New
Jersey employees for detailed unification techniques under the guise of working for the
company, Defendants prepared a presentation for Pipal Research in which they advised Pipal that
their new company was "developing an intellectual property data business (named Patents 360),
describe exactly ipIQ's business plan. In that presentation, Defendants agreed to provide the
"initial tools and processes" to Pipal Research. These are tools and processes which they were
wholly unfamiliar with before working for ipIQ approximately one year before this presentation.
14
399632.1 050814-38556
In that presentation, Defendants talked about how to take a patent database and conduct name
normalization, patent reassignment and company unification. This is the exact proprietary
process that ipIQ engages in to create its robust database and is a process that was unknown to
these Defendants prior to their employment with ipIQ. A true and accurate copy of the Pipal
presentation is attached hereto as Exhibit "J," but will be filed under seal.
Defendants to be "extremely discreet/careful as usual ... " A true and accurate copy ofthe June
79. The most egregious part of the presentation, especially in light of Defendants'
previously discussed July letter attached hereto as Exhibit "D," was what was included on the
third to the last page of the Pipal presentation. That page is entitled Patents 360 Aspiration for IP
Module and below that is the following language: "insert copy of a page from the Morningstar
book on Jude's desk (if you can discretely get it)." Jude Reter is a Chicago-based ipIQ
employee.
80. Therefore, in addition to forming their competing venture without the knowledge
of ipIQ, Defendants also planned to take ipIQ data to assist them in forming this business.
81. Upon information and belief, Defendants ultimately chose SolutionWerx and
Pipal Research as their partners in their scheme and proceeded to provide SolutionWerx and
Pipal Research the confidential information Defendants gathered at ipIQ, so that SolutionWerx
and Pipal Research would know how to cleanse the patent data and create the database.
site on behalf of the Defendants in order to better organize their patent data efforts. This portal
15
399632.1050814-38556
site provided everything required to manage their competing data and tool creation efforts
83. Simultaneous with the development of the patent database, Defendants reached
out to the investment community. On April 19, 2006, Defendant Sheridan reached out to a
colleague to assist him in approaches to package IP data for the investment community. A true
84. Approximately ten days later, on April 30, 2006, Defendant Sheridan contacted
another colleague, Chris Bell, to discuss the mechanics of setting up an investment fund. A true
and accurate copy of the Sheridan e-mail to Chris Bell is attached hereto as Exhibit "M."
85. A few months later while still employed by ipIQ, Defendants reached out to Steve
Salutric at Results One Financial to discuss their future business. In an email to Mr. Salutric,
Defendant Zenkich blatantly claims ownership and control of ipIQ's investment fund. Without
making any mention of ipIQ, Defendant Zenkich attaches a chart of "our IP fund performance,"
describes the six year performance of the fund and states "I'm pretty impressed with the
performance and am curious what you think. We're eager to get up in running as soon as
possible to begin selling through retail, wholesale, and institutional channels." A true and
accurate copy of the June 20, 2006 email is attached hereto as Exhibit "N," but will be filed
under seal.
86. Throughout this time, Defendants were also actively involved in replicating the
subscription piece ofthe ipIQ business strategy. Defendants' efforts were focused upon usurping
87. Only six months before Defendants' presentation to Pipal, in December 2005,
Pipal made a presentation to ipIQ in which it proposed partnering with ipIQ to create an ipIQ-
16
399632.1050814-38556
branded platform to create tear sheets for Fortune 100 companies. In this proposal, Pipal
recognized that ipIQ was a "thought leader in IP Research and analysis has very proficient
processes and know-how in unlocking the value of intellectual property." A true and accurate
copy of the Pipal proposal is attached hereto as Exhibit "0," but will be filed under seal.
88. As early as April 29, 2006, Defendant Zenkich wrote to the other Defendants:
"Guys - July 1 is also the date that Pipal wants to go live with their product. We may need some
type of internal beta to prepare a set of data/analysis. I'll also post my mock-up ofthe tear sheet
today." These tear sheets were the type of offering proposed by Pipal to ipIQ in December
2005. A true and accurate copy of the e-mail is attached hereto as Exhibit "P."
89. As part of this proposal and/or related to other projects between ipIQ and Pipal,
ipIQ and Pipal signed a non-disclosure agreement to protect the exchange of confidential
information.
90. In addition to possibly aiding Pipal to breach its non-disclosure agreement with
ipIQ, Defendants sought to usurp a corporate opportunity of ipIQ and to create and assisted in
creating a competitor, Pipal, to challenge their current employer at the time, ipIQ.
91. ipIQ has reason to believe that Defendants have provided detailed trade secrets
and confidential information with regard to ipIQ's business to Pipal Research, SolutionWerx and
others.
continued to be paid as employees and officers of ipIQ and continued to receive and have
unfettered access to ipIQ's confidential and proprietary databases, know-how and information.
17
399632.1 050814-38556
.'
93. The revenues and productivity ofipIQ's consulting division dropped dramatically
during this four-month period. This drop can now be explained - Defendants were preoccupied
planning their new business and lining up prospects for that future business.
94. ipIQ has had approximately sixty-eight clients over the past three years. Of the
approximately thirty current ipIQ clients, five have been continuous clients for the last three
years, eight have been continuous clients for the last five years and one has been a continuous
client since 1968. As a result ofthe longevity ofipIQ's client relationships and through the
services that it provides to its clients, ipIQ has developed an extensive knowledge of the needs of
its clients.
96. Absent a lapse in the quality of the services, ipIQ clients remain clients for an
97. ipIQ has developed those clients over a long period of time and at great time and
expense. They have been developed through significant investments in business development
including travel expenses, industry event sponsorship expenses, sales and client support staff
development expenses, printing and publishing expenses, company web site development;
developing and writing papers, and distributing them through coordinated public relations
relationship on which future projects could be based; significant investments in project and
18
399632.1050814-38556
prospect and lead generation sources and tools, including over a year of effort developing ipIQ's
Salesforce.com site.
98. Upon information and belief, Defendants, while still employed by ipIQ, have
99. Defendants have taken these actions to compete directly against ipIQ in both
100. Prior to their efforts to form this competing enterprise, Defendants regularly kept
upper management apprised of their consulting activities and client development activities. Over
the past four months, Defendants attempted to meet with and contact ipIQ clients and prospects
without the knowledge of upper management. During this period, Defendants have contacted
and solicited ipIQ clients, including Motorola, Inc., Alcatel and Hewlett-Packard in an apparent
101. Defendants are in a position to solicit ipIQ's clients and prospects due to their
trade secrets.
102. Defendants have replicated ipIQ's business and now are trying to take ipIQ's
customers that have been developed at a substantial commitment of time and expense.
103. As soon as ipIQ became aware of Defendants' breaches of loyalty and of their
Employment Agreements, letters dated August 2, 2006 were sent to each of the Defendants to
terminate them from their continued employment with ipIQ and to have them cease and desist
19
399632.1 050814-38556
104. Upon information and belief, despite notice, Defendants have contacted and
solicited ipIQ partners, prospects and prospective investment partners, including Citadel
August 10, 2006, Defendants met with Citadel Investment Group and presented a document that
describes their business as having a "unique set of patent-level data" and "extensive experience
addressing IF related issues for Fortune 500 corporations and the investment community."
Defendants did not even bother to change the template label on this document and it still reads
"ipIQ template 02," further indicating their direct misappropriation of ipIQ proprietary material.
The properties of this document indicate it was authored by Elias Zenkich, father of Defendant
Raymond Zenkich, and a key investor in Pipal Research. A true and accurate copy of this
document is attached hereto as Exhibit "Q," but will be filed under seal.
105. Despite these letters, Defendants continued to unlawfully compete against ipIQ
and failed to offer any response to the letters as well as an additional proposal offered by ipIQ's
counsel in an e-mail dated August 5, 2006. ipIQ did not receive any written response until
receiving a letter dated August 11,2006 in which Defendants rejected all of the proposals in
106. Instead, Defendants, as late as August 9, 2006, were engaging in efforts to copy
their ipIQ e-mail accounts from their laptops for their future personal use. A true and accurate
20
399632.1050814-38556
H. Awarding ipIQ its costs and attorneys' fees; and
I. Granting ipIQ such other and further relief as is just and equitable.
COUNT II
reference.
118. These breaches have allowed Defendants and/or entities owned, in whole or in
119. These breaches have caused, are causing and will cause ipIQ to lose the
120. By breaching their agreements with ipIQ, Defendants have caused, are causing,
121. By breaching their agreements with ipIQ, Defendants have caused, are causing,
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment be entered in its favor and requesting that
this Court award it damages and equitable relief against Defendants as follows:
A. Awarding compensatory damages, including but not limited to, all wages and
benefits received by Defendants while they were unlawfully competing against
ipIQ and all damages suffered by ipIQ arising out of The Carlyle Group's refusal
to invest in ipIQ;
23
399632.1050814-38556
COUNT III
reference.
123. By taking the above-described actions, the Defendants breached their fiduciary
duty of loyalty and their fiduciary duty as employees of ipIQ not to (1) form a competing
business while still employed, (2) reveal ipIQ data and/or trade secrets to third parties to allow
them to compete against ipIQ, (3) reveal, disclose or otherwise utilize ipIQ data, confidential
information and/or other trade secrets ofipIQ, and (4) usurp corporate opportunities ofipIQ for
124. Defendants' breaches were knowing, intentional, wanton, reckless, willful and
oppressIve.
125. By breaching their fiduciary duties to ipIQ, Defendants have caused, are causing
and will cause ipIQ to lose the competitive advantages afforded by its trade secrets and
confidential information.
126. By breaching their fiduciary duties to ipIQ, Defendants have caused, are causing,
127. . By breaching their fiduciary duties to ipIQ, Defendants have caused, are causing,
Defendants requesting that this Court award it damages and equitable relief as follows:
A. Awarding compensatory damages, including but not limited to, all wages and
benefits received by Defendants while they were unlawfully competing against
25
399632.1 050814-38556
L. Granting ipIQ such other and further relief as is just and equitable.
COUNT IV
reference.
129. Defendants owe ipIQ a duty of good faith and fair dealing pursuant to the
Employment Agreements.
130. For the reasons set forth above, Defendants have breached the implied covenant
131. By breaching the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Defendants
have caused, are causing and will cause ipIQ to lose the competitive advantages afforded by its
132. By breaching the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Defendants
have caused, are causing, and will continue to cause damage to ipIQ.
133. By breaching the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Defendants
have caused, are causing, and will continue to cause ipIQ irreparable harm.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment be entered in its favor and against the
Defendants requesting that this Court award it damages and equitable relief as follows:
A. Awarding compensatory damages, including but not limited to, all wages and
benefits received by Defendants while they were unlawfully competing against
ipIQ and all damages suffered by ipIQ arising out of The Carlyle Group's refusal
to invest in ipIQ;
27
399632.1050814-38556
COUNT V
134. Plaintiff realleges each of the paragraphs above and incorporates same by
reference.
considerable amount oftime, effort and money, ipIQ developed commercially valuable,
confidential, scientific, technical and business information, including the Unified Database
which encompasses, among other things, the Thesaurus and the Science Linkage Database, and
software, processes for patent name normalization, reassignment tracking, and corporate name
unification, customer lists and customer specific data and business plans and strategy, hereinafter
136. ipIQ trade secrets fall within the definition of trade secrets in the Illinois Trade
137. Defendants knew that the ipIQ trade secrets constituted a valuable commercial
asset of ipIQ and that ipIQ had expended much time, effort and money in developing the ipIQ
trade secrets.
138. Defendants knew that the information was communicated in confidence by ipIQ
139. The ipIQ trade secrets gave ipIQ an opportunity to obtain a substantial advantage
over its competitors who did not know, or have access to or use, the ipIQ trade secrets.
140. The ipIQ trade secrets were not generally known and not readily ascertainable by
proper means by others who could or would obtain economic value from their disclosure or use.
29
399632.1 050814-38556
associated with the WebEx web office for Closet Perfect, and (4) financial records
on Defendants' online QuickBooks archives.
1. Entering an order compelling Defendants to return all ipIQ data and/or all ipIQ's
trade secrets and confidential information to ipIQ;
L. Granting ipIQ such other and further relief as is just and equitable.
COUNT VI
TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT AND PROSPECTIVE
ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE AGAINST DEFENDANTS
149. Plaintiffrealleges each of the Counts set forth above and incorporates same by
reference.
150. Plaintiff is currently under contract with clients, and has numerous prospective,
152. Defendants, by and through their employees, agents and servants have
intentionally and/or with malice, interfered with current contractual relations and prospective
153. The interference by Defendants with the contracts and prospective economic
relationships has caused a loss of prospective gain as a result of the interference, which has
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment be entered in its favor against all Defendants
and requesting that this Court award it damages and equitable relief as follows:
A. Awarding compensatory damages, including but not limited to, all wages and
benefits received by Defendants while they were unlawfully competing against
ipIQ and all damages suffered by ipIQ arising out of The Carlyle Group's refusal
to invest in ipIQ;
32
399632.1050814-38556
COUNT VII
154. Plaintiff realleges each of the Counts set forth above and incorporates same by
reference.
155. Defendants have been enriched through their breaches of contract, breaches of
fiduciary duty and duty of loyalty and their misappropriation of trade secrets.
156. By benefiting from the breaches of contract, breaches of fiduciary duty and duty
of loyalty and their misappropriation of trade secrets, Defendants have been unjustly enriched.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment be entered in its favor against all Defendants
and requesting that this Court award it damages and equitable relief as follows:
A. Awarding compensatory damages, including but not limited to, all wages and
benefits received by Defendants while they were unlawfully competing against
ipIQ and all damages suffered by ipIQ arising out of The Carlyle Group's refusal
to invest in ipIQ;
34
399632.1050814-38556
G. Requiring Defendants to account for and disgorge to ipIQ all profits Defendants
gained from the intellectual property services they rendered on behalf of
themselves or any of their companies to any customer or active prospect of ipIQ;
J. Entering an order compelling Defendants to return all ipIQ data and/or all ipIQ's
trade secrets and confidential information to ipIQ;
L. Granting ipIQ such other and further relief as is just and equitable.
COUNT VIII
157. Plaintiffrealleges each of the Counts set forth above and incorporates same by
reference.
158. Defendants' conduct constitutes the wrongful exercise of dominion and control
159. As a result of the conversion of the property over which Plaintiff retained an
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment be entered in its favor against all Defendants
and requesting that this Court award it damages and equitable relief as follows:
35
399632.1 050814-38556
K. Granting ipIQ such other and further relief as is just and equitable.
STEPHEN M. ORLOFSKY
JONATHAN M. KORN
New Jersey Resident Partners
J. LLEWELLYN MATHEWS
New Jersey Resident Counsel
BLANK ROME LLP
A Pennsylvania LLP
Woodland Falls Corporate Park
210 Lake Drive East
Suite 200
Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
(856) 779-3600
Orlofsky@Blankrome.com
Kom@Blankrome.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff, ipIQ, Inc.
37
399632.1 050814-38556
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues triable of right by a jury.
Of Counsel:
STEPHEN M. ORLOFSKY
JONATHAN M. KORN
New Jersey Resident Partners
J. LLEWELLYN MATHEWS
New Jersey Resident Counsel
BLANK ROME LLP
A Pennsylvania LLP
Woodland Falls Corporate Park
210 Lake Drive East
Suite 200
Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
(856) 779-3600
Orlofsky@Blankrome.com
Kom@Blankrome.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff, ipIQ, Inc.
38
399632.1 050814-38556
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION
Plaintiff,
v.
Judge Philip Bronstein
JOHN KOEPKE, JAMES SHERIDAN, JR.
and RAYMOND ZENKICH,
Defendants.
Pursuant to the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure and Rule 201 of the Illinois Supreme
Court Rules, this matter is before the Court pursuant to the stipulation and agreement of ipIQ,
Inc. ("Plaintiff') and John Koepke, James Sheridan, Jr. and Raymond Zenkich ("Defendants").
The terms of this Agreed Protective Order are designed to protect confidential business
information which may be the subject of discovery in the above-captioned action, currently
By agreement of the parties, and for good cause shown, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED,
as follows:
extracts or summaries of the same, memoranda or briefs which contain the same,
the same.
122534.00602/30298951 v.3
control of persons not authorized to received Confidential or Attorney
Confidential Information.
counsel for the parties and produced to counsel for the opposing party upon
request, except for any consulting experts or other individuals whose identity
18. This Order is subject to the rights of any party or non-party (which rights are
I
expressly reserved) to petition this Court to protect all confidential information by
I
seeking additional protective orders, and to seek relief with respect to any
!
of confidential information.
ENTER:
AGREED:
~~t~~;2006
ipIQ, Inc.
Dated: Set'tcmber ',2006 Dated:
~~
7
122534.00602/30298951 v.3