UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION MILLENNIUM MARKING COMPANY, INC.

, an Illinois Corporation, Plaintiff, and LEO-HENN HUMAL, an individual, Nominal Plaintiff, v. UNITED MARKING, INC., an Illinois Corporation, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No. 1:11-cv-8920

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Plaintiffs Millennium Marking Company (MMC) and Leo-Henn Humal hereby file this Complaint for Patent Infringement against Defendant United Marking, Inc. MMC seeks

damages, injunctive, and other relief for Defendants willful infringement of United States Patent No. 5,858,298. NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. This is an action for patent infringement under the patent laws of the United

States, 35 U.S.C. 1 et seq. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2. The Court has exclusive jurisdiction over the subject matter of this lawsuit

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1338(a).

3.

This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because it is a corporation

registered in the State of Illinois and because it transacts substantial business in Illinois. 4. 1400(b). THE PATENT IN SUIT 5. On January 12, 1999, United States Patent No. 5,858,298 entitled Method for the Venue is proper in the Northern District of Illinois pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

Selective Closing of the Pores of the Surface of Thermo-Plastic Porous Material (the 298 Patent) was duly and lawfully issued to inventor Leo-Henn Humal. On October 31, 2011, MMC became the owner of the 298 Patent by assignment. As the owner, MMC has the right to sue and recover for present and future infringement of the 298 Patent. A true and correct copy of the 298 Patent is attached as Exhibit A. THE PARTIES 6. Plaintiff MMC is an Illinois corporation with its principal place of business in Elk

Grove Village, Illinois. 7. Plaintiff Leo-Henn Humal is a citizen of Estonia and, as inventor and assignee of

the 298 Patent, is named as a nominal plaintiff herein. 8. Defendant is an Illinois corporation with its principal place of business in Rolling

Meadows, Illinois. COUNT I P A T E NT I NF R I NG E M E NT A G A I NST D E F E NDA NT S 9. reference. 10. Defendant has infringed and continues to infringe, has induced and continues to The allegations of paragraphs 1-8 of the Complaint are incorporated herein by this

induce others to infringe, and has committed and continues to commit acts of contributory 2

infringement of one or more claims of the 298 Patent in this district and elsewhere by making, selling, and/or offering for sale Flash Products to perform the patented process that is covered by one or more claims of the 298 Patent, including, without limitation, Claim 1. The Flash Products made, sold, and/or offered for sale by Defendants are a component or material for use in a patented process constituting a material part of the invention, as claimed in the 298 Patent. 11. Defendant has had actual knowledge of the 298 Patent since at least 2005

because Defendant was an authorized licensee of the 298 Patent from approximately 2005 until April 2011. Furthermore, Defendant is a competitor of Plaintiff and as such, knew or should have known of the 298 Patent. 12. Defendant has in the past and continues to promote, advertise, and instruct

customers and potential customers about Defendants Flash Products, including infringing uses of the 298 Patent. Defendants promotion, advertisement, and instruction efforts include, at a minimum, maintenance of the website http://www.unitedmarking.com. Defendant engaged in these acts with the actual intent to cause the acts which it knew or should have known would induce actual infringement of the 298 Patent. Pursuant to at least Defendants promotion, advertisements, and instruction, Defendants have specifically intended to cause customers to infringe the 298 Patent. 13. Defendant knew or should have known that the Flash Products are especially

made or especially adapted for use in infringing the 298 Patent and that there is no substantially non-infringing use of the Flash Products. 14. The Flash Products are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable

for substantial non-infringing use.

15.

Defendants actions have and continue to constitute active inducement of and

contributory infringement of the 298 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. 271(b)-(c). 16. 17. Defendants acts of infringement are willful and deliberate. Defendant has caused and will continue to cause MMC substantial damage and

irreparable injury by virtue of its past dealings and continuing infringement of the 298 Patent. MMC will suffer further damage and irreparable injury unless and until Defendant is enjoined by this Court from continuing such infringement. 18. This case is exceptional pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 285. PRAYER FOR JUDGMENT WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Millennium Marking Company prays for judgment: a) Entering a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendant, its officers, agents, servants, employees, and those persons and entities acting in concert or participation with any of them from performing the patented process that is covered by the 298 Patent; b) c) Awarding damages for Defendants infringement of the 298 Patent; Increasing damages, up to three times the amount found, due to Defendants willful infringement; d) e) Awarding pre- and post-judgment interest on the damages assessed; Declaring this case exceptional pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 285 and awarding MMC its reasonable attorneys fees and costs of suit; and f) Awarding to MMC such further necessary or proper relief as the Court deems just.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiffs request a trial by jury.

Date: December 15, 2011 Respectfully submitted, MILLENNIUM MARKING COMPANY, INC., and LEO-HENN HUMAL By: /s/ Peter M. Spingola One of Plaintiffs Attorneys Peter M. Spingola (6243942) CHAPMAN SPINGOLA, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive Suite 4800 Chicago, Illinois 60601 312/606-8754 (phone) 312/630-9233 (fax)