IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE DIVISION _________________________________________ TROXFIRE TRAINING SOLUTIONS,

LLC 113 East Church Street Frederick, Maryland 21701 Frederick County

) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) POWER JAMB, LLC ) 24 East Tenafly Avenue ) Staten Island, New York 10312, ) ) And ) ) MICHAEL BISHOP ) 21 Burkeside Avenue ) Brockton, Massachusetts 02301 ) ) Defendants. ) _________________________________________ )

Civil Action No.:

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT Plaintiff TroxFire Training Solutions, LLC (TroxFire), by and through its undersigned counsel, alleges as follows: NATURE OF THE CASE 1. This is an action for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of United States

Patent No. 5,906,493 (the 493 Patent) pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. 2201 et seq., and for such other relief as the Court deems just and proper, 28 U.S.C. 2202.

PARTIES 2. TroxFire is a Maryland limited liability company having a place of business located at

113 E. Church Street, Frederick, Maryland, 21701. 3. On information and belief, Defendant Michael Bishop (Bishop) is a resident of the

Commonwealth of Massachusetts having an address of 21 Burkeside Avenue, Brockton, Massachusetts, 02301, and is the sole owner and licensor of the 493 Patent. 4. On information and belief, Defendant Power Jamb, LLC (Power Jamb) is a New

York limited liability company having a principal office located at 24 East Tenafly Avenue, Staten Island, New York, 10312, and is the exclusive licensee of the 493 Patent. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. This Court has exclusive subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331,

1338(a), 2201, and 2202, and the Patent Laws of the United States pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 1 et seq. 6. This Court also has personal jurisdiction over Bishop and Power Jamb (collectively

referred to herein as Defendants) because Defendants, upon information and belief, each transact substantial business within this district sufficient for personal jurisdiction, such as offering for sale and selling products, and attempting to license and enforce the 493 Patent in this district, and thus have purposely directed their activities toward residents of Maryland and have purposely availed themselves of Maryland law. 7. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) and (c) because a

substantial part of the events given rise to this claim occurred in this district, a substantial part of the property that is the subject of this action is situated in this district, and Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction within this district.
2

BACKGROUND FACTS 8. The 493 Patent issued on May 25, 1999. Bishop identifies himself as the owner and

licensor of the 493 Patent. A copy of the 493 Patent is attached at Exhibit A. 9. Bishop holds himself out as the owner of Power Jamb, and Power Jamb holds itself

out to be the exclusive licensee of the 493 Patent. 10. On September 21, 2011, Defendants contacted TroxFire, and in particular Mr. Daniel

Troxell, a member and product developer of TroxFire, and asserted patent infringement of the 493 Patent. TroxFire, by and through its counsel, responded to Defendants assertions on September 22, 2011. A copy of the September 21 and 22, 2011 email exchange between Bishop (acting for himself and for Power Jamb) and TroxFire (and its counsel) is attached at Exhibit B. 11. On October 7, 2011, counsel for TroxFire sent a letter to Defendants via certified mail

and email following an evaluation of the 493 Patent and TroxFires products, and advised Defendants that no product manufactured or sold by TroxFire has infringed or presently infringes any claim of the 493 Patent. In particular, the 493 Patent is directed to a training door device, and all of the claims of the 493 Patent require that the device include a sliding box having a mock door latch which selectively engages the strike plate as the sliding box moves toward the strike plate. TroxFire does not manufacture or sell any product including a sliding box having a mock door latch as required by the claims of the 493 Patent. A copy of TroxFire counsels email and October 7, 2011 letter is attached at Exhibit C. 12. On October 7, 2011 and despite TroxFires communications to Defendants,

Defendants again asserted that they would be pursuing an action against TroxFire. A copy of

the October 7, 2011 email exchange between Bishop (acting for himself and for Power Jamb) and counsel for TroxFire is attached at Exhibit D. 13. TroxFire and Defendants both maintained vendor booths at a trade convention in

Baltimore, Maryland on July 19-21, 2012 for promoting and selling their respective products. During the convention, Bishop interacted with TroxFire representatives, including Mr. Daniel Troxell, and again asserted that Defendants intend to proceed with a patent infringement action against TroxFire in the near future. 14. On August 1, 2012, Bishop attempted to contact Mr. Daniel Troxell by telephone at

TroxFires place of business, leaving a message with a TroxFire representative and presumably intending to again assert his claims against TroxFire. 15. TroxFire is under a reasonable and serious apprehension that it will imminently be

sued by Defendants for infringement of the 493 Patent. 16. TroxFires products have not infringed and do not infringe, either directly or

indirectly, any claim of the 493 Patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. COUNT I DECLARATION OF NON-INFRINGMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,906,493 17. TroxFire repeats, realleges, and incorporates by reference herein, the allegations in

paragraphs 1-16 as though expressly set forth herein. 18. As a result of the acts described in the foregoing paragraphs, a substantial controversy

exists between the parties that is of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment as to whether TroxFire infringes, directly or indirectly, any claim of the 493 Patent. 19. TroxFires products have not infringed and are not infringing, directly or indirectly,
4

any valid claim of the 493 Patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. 20. A judicial declaration of non-infringement by TroxFire of the 493 Patent is necessary

and appropriate. REQUEST FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, TroxFire respectfully requests that the Court enter judgment in favor of TroxFire granting the following relief: A. A declaration that TroxFire does not and has not infringed, directly or

indirectly, any claim of the 493 Patent; B. An injunction against Defendants and others in active concert or participation

with Defendants from asserting infringement of the 493 Patent against TroxFire or its members, representatives, customers or end users of TroxFires products; C. An order declaring that this is an exceptional case and awarding TroxFire its

costs, expenses, disbursements, and reasonable attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. 285 and all other applicable rules; and D. Such other and further relief that this Court deems just and proper. Respectfully presented, By: ________/s/_____________ Jeffrey I. Auerbach Bar No. 12283 The Auerbach Law Firm, LLC 2275 Research Boulevard, Ste. 500 Rockville, Maryland 20850 Telephone: (301) 670-2818 Facsimile: (301) 670-2814 Email: court@ipatlaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff TroxFire Training Solutions, LLC
5

Dated: August 2, 2012