IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

MINNESOTA DIVERSIFIED INDUSTRIES, INC. Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO.

TECHNOLOGY CONTAINER CORP., Defendant.

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NONINFRINGEMENT

Plaintiff, Minnesota Diversified Industries, Inc. (MDI) states and alleges as follows: Parties 1. Plaintiff MDI is a Minnesota non-profit corporation serving people with

disabilities while delivering high quality products and services to business customers. MDI is based in Minnesota with locations in St. Paul (1700 Wynne Ave., St. Paul, MN 55108), Grand Rapids (825 Lily Lane, Grand Rapids, MN 55744), and Hibbing (1937 4th Ave. E., Hibbing, MN 55746).

2.

Upon information and belief, Defendant Technology Container Corp.

(TCC) is a Massachusetts corporation, having a principle place of business at 207 Greenwood St., Worcester, MA 01607. Jurisdiction and Venue 3. This is an action for a Declaratory Judgment under 28 U.S.C. 2201 and

2202 relating to an actual controversy between the parties with regard to the noninfringement of United States Patent No. 6,257,484 (484 patent) (Copy attached as Exhibit A). 4. Upon information and belief, Defendant, TCC is the assignee of the 484

patent to Dowd, entitled Collapsible Corrugated Plastic Box Having Tear-Resistant Hand Holds, which issued on July 10, 2001. 5. products. 6. In a July 27, 2012, letter sent to MDI in Minnesota, TCC stated that [i]t is MDI makes, uses, and sells, among other things, corrugated plastic

apparent to us that MDI is selling corrugated plastic boxes having the hand holds set forth in the claims of the [484] patent. Accordingly, MDI is infringing the patent. Technology Container Corporation goes to great lengths to protect its intellectual property. Since Technology Container Corporation sells products that embody its intellectual property, it is particularly concerned with ensuring that its competitors do not use its patented IP, as such unauthorized acts of infringement greatly affect Technology Container Corporations business and thus cause it direct damage. This letter serves as formal notice of your companys infringement of the subject patent . As you are likely

aware, continued infringement of the patent after notice thereof can subject your company to enhanced damages of up to three times Technology Container Corporations lost profits for each infringing product that your company sells. Willful infringement of a patent can also expose your company to payment of Technology Container Corporations attorneys fees if it has to enforce the subject patent against your company. (Copies of correspondence is attached as Exhibit B). 7. Through these statements, among other things, Defendant, or those acting

for Defendant, has created a reasonable apprehension of suit for infringement of the 484 patent with respect to Plaintiffs ability to make, use, or sell at least some of its products. 8. This court has subject matter jurisdiction in accordance with 28 U.S.C.

1338, 2201, and 2202. 9. Upon information and belief, Defendant TCC has conducted business in the

State of Minnesota, including the sale of boxes in Minnesota. 10. For purposes of venue and personal jurisdiction, Defendant TCC resides in

Minnesota. Upon information and believe, TCC has conducted business in the State of Minnesota. 11. The exercise of personal jurisdiction comports with Minn. Stat. 543.19.

Venue in this District is proper under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b), (c), and 1400(b). Count I Declaration of Non-Infringement 12. reference. The allegations of the preceding paragraphs 1-11 are incorporated herein by

13.

Plaintiff has not infringed, is not now infringing, and has not contributorily

infringed or induced infringement of any valid claim of the 484 patent. 14. The 484 patent includes three independent claims: 1, 8, and 12. Each of

the independent claims are generally directed to a collapsible box (or a blank for a collapsible box) made of corrugated plastic. 15. Each of the independent claims recites the following limitation relating to a

handle of the box: said cut line having a downwardly concave U-shaped end portion on both ends thereof on opposite ends of said hinge line (claim 1); a cut line through said corrugated plastic to define a hinged flap in the side wall and said cut line has a downwardly concave U-shaped end on both sides of the flap (claim 8); said cut line configured as an upwardly open U-shape to define a depending flap, and the ends of said U-shaped cut line include downwardly concave U-shaped end portions to provide improved tear resistance (claim 12).1 16. Exhibit D shows a box made and sold by Plaintiff. As may be seen, the

handle of the box does not include a downwardly concave U-shaped end portion on both

Figure 10a of the 484 patent (included as Exhibit C with element 76a circled) illustrates the collapsible box claimed in the 484 patent including the limitations related to the handle. Column 6, lines 23-36 of the 484 patent describes the handle as claimed: FIG. 10a shows an alternative hand hold 28a of this invention. In this embodiment, the cut line 30a that defines the generally U-shaped flap 29a in each width wall 12a has downwardly concave U-shaped terminal ends 76a on both ends of a hinge line 32a across the top of the flap. The terminal ends 76a each has a width w of about to 1 inch, and more preferably about inch, and a height h of about 1/8 to inch, and more preferably about 3/16 inch. The arcuate ends 76a may help to distribute the lifting force that is applied to the hand hold and may thereby help reduce tearing of the plastic material at the hand hold. The hinge line 32a may include weakening of the plastic material such as by a perforated score through one of the facing sheets, or a crushed score, both of which are described above.

ends of a hinge line. This may be seen even more clearly in Exhibit E, which shows an enlarged view of the handle of Plaintiffs box. 17. Exhibit F provides a schematic drawing of a blank used to make a box sold

by the Plaintiff. Again, it is clear that the handle (circled and identified on Exhibit F) does not include a downwardly concave U-shaped end portion on both ends of a hinge line. 18. All RSC (Regular Slotted Container)/HSC (Half Slotted Container) boxes

made and sold by MDI have handles substantially similar to the handle(s) shown in Exhibits D-F. 19. Because the products made, used, and/or sold by Plaintiff do not include

each and every element of any claim of the 484 patent, Plaintiff does not infringe the 484 patent. Prayer for Relief WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants as follows: A. A declaratory judgment that U.S. Patent No. 6,257,484 is not infringed,

contributorily infringed, or infringed through inducement by Plaintiff. B. An order enjoining Defendants, and those in active concert or participation

with Defendants who receive actual notice thereof, from in any way charging or threatening patent infringement against Plaintiff or any of Plaintiffs current or prospective customers, dealers, licensees, agents, servants, or employees based on the patent-in-suit.

C.

An order awarding Plaintiff its reasonable costs and attorneys fees, in

accordance with 35 U.S.C. 285. Dated: August 2, 2012 WINTHROP & WEINSTINE, P.A.

s/Devan V. Padmanabhan Devan V. Padmanabhan (No. 240126) Paul J. Robbennolt (No. 240497) Michelle Dawson (No. 388610) 225 South Sixth Street Suite 3500 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 (612) 604-6400 Attorneys for Plaintiff Minnesota Diversified Industries, Inc.

7118882v2