IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

LEROY G. HAGENBUCH, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. v. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED OTTO ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS NORTH AMERICA,INC., Defendant.

COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Plaintiff, LeRoy G. Hagenbuch ( "Hagenbuch" or "Plaintiff'), by his undersigned attorneys, complains of Defendant Otto Environmental Systems North America, Inc.( "Otto" or "Defendant"), and alleges as follows: PARTIES 1. Plaintiff Hagenbuch is an Illinois resident with an address at 1425 East Glen Avenue, Peoria Heights, Illinois 61616.

2.

Hagenbuch is the named inventor on, and owner of, a substantial number of patents, including patents disclosing and claiming certain types of material collection systems ( "MCS Patents"). The MCS Patents include claims which cover certain types of refuse container tracking systems.

3.

On information and belief, Defendant Otto is a North Carolina corporation and a citizen of North Carolina, with its principal place of business at 12700 General Drive, Charlotte, North Carolina 28273.

4.

Defendant Otto is engaged in the business, inter alia, of selling refuse container tracking ( systems under the "Res-CT" trade name "Res-CT Systems")

5.

On information and belief, Otto employs at least one sales person who operates from an address within this Judicial District, namely, an address in West Chicago, Illinois. On information and belief the sales person is engaged in the business, inter alia, of marketing, offer for sale and/or selling Res-CT Systems from within this Judicial District.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 6. This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of the United States Code.

7.

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1338(a).

8.

On information and belief, Defendant is subject to this Court's general and specific personal jurisdiction, pursuant to due process and the Illinois Long Arm Statute, respectively.

9.

On information and belief, Defendant is subject to the Court's general personal jurisdiction because its activities include regularly doing or soliciting business, engaging in other persistent courses of conduct, and/or deriving substantial revenue from goods and services provided to persons or entities in Illinois.

-2-

10.

On information and belief, Defendant is subject to the Court's specific personal jurisdiction because its activities include regular and substantial advertising, promotion and/or sales in Illinois of products and/or systems that infringe the patents-in-suit owned by Hagenbuch.

11.

On information and belief, venue is proper in this district under at least 28 U.S.C. 1391(c) and 1400(b) because Defendant has committed one or more acts of infringement of Hagenbuch's MCS Patents within this Judicial District.

THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT AND DEFENDANT'S NOTICE THEREOF

12.

Plaintiff Hagenbuch is the inventor and owner of United States Patent No. 5,644,489 ( "the `489 Patent entitled "Apparatus and Method For Identifying Containers From ") Which Material Is Collected and Loaded Onto A Haulage Vehicle." The `489 Patent was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent &Trademark Office on July 1, 1997. A true and correct copy ofthe `489 Patent is attached as Exhibit 1.

13.

Plaintiff Hagenbuch is the inventor and owner of United States Patent No. 5,416,706 C1 ( "the `706 Patent entitled "Apparatus For Identifying Containers From Which Refuse Is ") Collected and Compiling A Historical Record of The Containers." The `706 Patent was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent &Trademark Office on May 16, 1995. A true and correct copy of the `706 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.

14.

On or around April 25, 2011, counsel for Hagenbuch sent a letter to Otto setting forth allegations that Otto's Res-CT systems infringe at least claims 1 and 6 of the `489 Patent,

-3-

and providing preliminary infringement contentions in support of Hagenbuch's position. The April 25, 2011 letter also put Otto on notice ofthe `706 Patent.

15.

On June 2, 2011, counsel for Hagenbuch received an email from Otto's General Counsel making assurances that Otto "will study this matter carefully and will provide [Hagenbuch] with a full response in the coming weeks." The promised "full response" never came.

16.

On or around June 17, 2011, outside counsel for Otto telephoned counsel for Hagenbuch requesting time to review the Hagenbuch patents and to respond during the second week of July 2011. Outside counsel for Otto provided no written substantive response.

17.

Instead, on or around July 8, 2011, outside counsel for Otto and counsel for Hagenbuch held a teleconference in which Otto professed interest in taking a license.

18.

On or around August 12, 2011, counsel for Hagenbuch emailed a letter to outside counsel for Otto outlining terms of a proposed license and requesting a response by September 9, 2011.

19.

On or around August 25, 2011, counsel for Hagenbuch and outside counsel for Otto held a teleconference in which counsel for Otto indicated that, due to travel plans of certain individuals, a response by the requested date of September 9, 2011 would be unlikely. Hagenbuch agreed to extend the requested response date from September 9, 2011 to September 21, 2011.

20.

On or around September 21, 2011, counsel for Hagenbuch and outside counsel for Otto held a teleconference in which counsel for Otto rejected Hagenbuch's license terms

~'

proposed on August 12, 2011 and stated that certain products and/or systems are not covered by any of the Hagenbuch patents, but stated that Otto would make a reasoned counterproposal within about two weeks. Counsel for Hagenbuch requested that Otto provide an explanation supporting its assertion that some of its systems are not encompassed by the claims in Hagenbuch's patents.

21.

On or around October 10, 2011, nearly sixth months after initially contacting Otto, counsel for Hagenbuch emailed outside counsel for Otto, requesting to be apprised as to the status of Otto's promised counterproposal. Hagenbuch never received a response.

22.

At no time prior to the filing of this Complaint has Otto alleged that any Hagenbuch patent is invalid or unenforceable, or identified any specific Hagenbuch patent claim limitation that it alleges is not met by any of Otto's products or systems.

23.

On January 17, 2012, an Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate issued for the `706 Patent. A true and correct copy of the Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate issued for the `706 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 3. The reexamination proceedings for the `706 Patent confirmed the validity of several claims, including claim 17 of the `706 Patent

COUNTI INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO.5,644,489 24. Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1-23 as if fully incorporated herein.

25.

On information and belief, Defendant has been and now is directly and/or indirectly infringing the `489 Patent in the State of Illinois, in this Judicial District, and elsewhere in the United States.

-5-

26.

Defendant's infringements include, without limitation, making, using, distributing, importing, leasing, selling or offering to sell the Res-CT system, which conduct infringes at least claims 1 and 6 of the `489 Patent.

27.

On information and belief, Defendant's infringement of the `489 Patent has been and continues to be willful, including because its infringement is clear and, at a minimum, such continued infringement would be an objectively reckless act.

28.

Defendant is thus liable for infringement of the `489 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 271.

29.

At least prior to the filing of this action and with respect to the `489 Patent, Plaintiff had no marking obligations pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 287(a).

30.

Plaintiff has incurred and will incur attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses in the prosecution of this action. The circumstances of this dispute create an exceptional case within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 285, and Plaintiff is entitled to recover its reasonable and necessary fees and expenses.

COUNT II INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO.5,416,706 C1 31. Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1-23 as if fully incorporated herein.

32.

On information and belief, Defendant has been and now is directly and/or indirectly infringing the `706 Patent in the State of Illinois, in this Judicial District, and elsewhere in the United States.

33.

Defendant's infringements include without limitation, making, using, distributing, importing, leasing, selling and/or offering to sell the Res-CT system, which conduct infringes at least claim 17 of the `706 Patent.

34.

On information and belief, Defendant's infringement of the `706 Patent has been and continues to be willful, including because its infringement is clear and, at a minimum, such continued infringement would necessarily be an objectively reckless act.

35.

Defendant is thus liable for infringement ofthe `706 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 271.

36.

At least prior to the filing of this action and with respect to the `706 Patent, Plaintiff Hagenbuch had no marking obligations pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 287(a).

37.

Plaintiff has incurred and will incur attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses in the prosecution of this action. The circumstances of this dispute create an exceptional case within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 285, and Plaintiff is entitled to recover its reasonable and necessary fees and expenses.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE,Plaintiff Hagenbuch respectfully requests that this Court enter: 1. A judgment in favor of Plaintiff Hagenbuch declaring that Defendant has infringed, directly, and/or indirectly, by way of inducing and/or contributing to the infringement of the `489 and `706 Patents; 2. A judgment in favor of Plaintiff Hagenbuch that Defendant's infringement is and/or has been willful;

-7-

3.

A judgment and order requiring Defendant to pay Plaintiff Hagenbuch his damages, costs, expenses, and prejudgment and postjudgment interest for Defendant's infringement of the `489 and `706 Patents as provided under 35 U.S.C. 284;

4.

An award to Plaintiff Hagenbuch for enhanced damages as provided under 35 U.S.C. 284;

5.

A judgment and order finding that this is an exceptional case within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 285 and awarding to Plaintiff Hagenbuch his reasonable attorneys' fees; and

6.

An award of any and all other relief to which Plaintiff Hagenbuch may show himself to be entitled.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff LeRoy Hagenbuch, under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, requests a trial by jury of any issues so triable by right.

Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Joseph L. Fogel One of His Attorneys Joseph F. Fogel, Esq. Jonathan Hill, Esq. Darrick J. Hooker, Esq. FREEBORN &PETERS LLP 311 South Wacker Drive Suite 3000 Chicago, Illinois 60606 Telephone: (312) 360-6000 Facsimile: (312)360-6994 Email: jhill@freebornpeters.com Attorneys For Plaintiff LeRoy G. Hagenbuch

Dated: March 9, 2012