IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION TRAFFIC SYSTEMS LLC,

18631 N. 19th Ave. Suite 158-464 Phoenix, AZ 85027-5800 Plaintiff, v. WAPITI ENGINEERING, LLC, 4565 Glenbrook Road Willoughby, OH 44094 and WAPITI MICRO SYSTEMS, INC., 4565 Glenbrook Road Willoughby, OH 44094 and TRAFFIC CONTROL PRODUCTS, INC., 4565 Glenbrook Road Willoughby, OH 44094 Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CIVIL CASE NO. JUDGE

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Traffic Systems LLC (Traffic Systems") alleges as follows and for its complaint against Wapiti Engineering, LLC, Wapiti Micro Systems, Inc. and Traffic Control Products, Inc. (collectively referred to herein as "Defendants"):

THE PARTIES 1. Traffic Systems is a limited liability company organized and existing under the

laws of the State of Arizona, and has its principal place of business at 18631 N. 19th Ave., Suite 158-464, Phoenix, Arizona 85027-5800. 2. Wapiti Engineering, LLC (Wapiti Engineering) is a limited liability company

organized and existing under the laws of the state of Ohio, and has its principal place of business at 4565 Glenbrook Road, Willoughby, Ohio 44094. 3. Wapiti Micro Systems Corp. (Wapiti Micro Systems) is a corporation organized

and existing under the laws of the state of Ohio, and has its principal place of business at 4565 Glenbrook Road, Willoughby, Ohio 44094. 4. Traffic Control Products, Inc. (TCP) is a corporation organized and existing

under the laws of the state of Ohio, and has its principal place of business at 4565 Glenbrook Road, Willoughby, Ohio 44094. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. This is an action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the

United States, 35 U.S.C. 1 et seq., as is more fully set forth below. 6. This Court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over the subject matter of this

action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1338(a). 7. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Wapiti Engineering, Wapiti Micro

Systems and TCP, each of which is incorporated under the laws of this State and each of which has a principal place of business located within this judicial district.

8.

Venue in this District is proper where Defendants are subject to personal

jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(c) and 1400(b), and because offending product has been sold in this judicial district. 9. This court has supplementary jurisdiction over the state law tort claims asserted in

this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367. BACKGROUND 10. Traffic Systems is engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing and

selling acoustic-based emergency vehicle traffic signal preemption systems. Its proprietary Sonem 2000 traffic signal preemption system (the Sonem System) consists of hardware and software, when installed in a vehicular intersection, is able to detect oncoming emergency sirens, determine the direction of approach of the vehicle with the siren, and to provide signal priority (i.e., a green light) for the emergency vehicle to safely pass through the intersection while stopping traffic proceeding in other directions, with the subsequent restoration of ordinary traffic signal function. 11. Wapiti Micro Systems is in the business of designing, manufacturing, and

promoting traffic signal equipment and related control software. Among Wapitis products is the Right O Way Emergency Preemption System (ROW System), which is described by Wapiti on its website and in marketing materials as the most reliable and accurate siren based preemption system on the market . . . . The ROW System competes directly with the Sonem System. 12. Wapiti Engineering is, on information and belief, in the business of designing

and/or manufacturing traffic signal equipment and related control software, including the ROW System.

13.

TCP is a distributor and seller of traffic signals and related control equipment,

including the ROW system. TCP describes itself on its website as a full-service distributor specializing in a variety of traffic signal control equipment that improves road safety and increases efficiency in a territory that includes Ohio, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Indiana, and Michigan. Its website, www.traffcon.com, includes a listing of manufacturers whose products are offered by TCP. Wapiti Micro Systems is included in the list, and among Wapiti products offered by TCP on its website are preemption systems, including the ROW System. 14. On information and belief, TCP customers use TCPs traffic signal and related

control equipment, including the ROW System in this judicial district and elsewhere in the United States. THE 555 PATENT 15. Traffic Systems is the owner, by assignment, of United States Patent No.

5,710,555 ("the '555 Patent"), entitled "Siren Detector," which was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent & Trademark Office on January 20, 1998. A true and correct copy of the '555 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A, and is incorporated herein in its entirety. 16. 17. The '555 Patent is presumed valid pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 282, and is enforceable. The '555 Patent teaches, among other things, a siren detector for detecting siren

sounds which precess at known rates within a selected frequency band to facilitate preemptable control of traffic light signals to enable an emergency vehicle to pass through a traffic intersection on a priority basis, said detector comprising transducer means for detecting said sounds and for producing an electrical sound output signal representative thereof, first filter means for filtering said sound output signal to produce an antialiased output signal to prevent

aliasing in a subsequent analog to digital conversion process, and second filter means for producing a band-limited signal by filtering said antialiased output signal to reject signals outside said selected frequency band; and limiter-discriminator means for producing an indication of the frequency of said band-limited signal. 18. Stated more simply, the 555 Patent describes and teaches a product with

components that detect an audio signal from an incoming vehicular siren, digitally process the audio signal to distinguish its identity as a siren as opposed to other traffic sounds and to determine the direction of its approach, and directs the software controlling traffic signals in an intersection to give priority to the oncoming emergency vehicle while stopping traffic in other directions. 19. Traffic Systems holds all right, interest, and title in and to the '555 Patent,

including the right to collect past damages under the '555 Patent, in connection with the marketing, offering for sale, and sale of infringing products. 20. Wapiti Engineering designed and/or manufactured the ROW System, or has

otherwise been involved in the creation and promotion of the ROW System. 21. Wapiti Micro Systems, an entity that is related to Wapiti Engineering and shares

the same business location, manufactures, offers for sale, and/or sells the ROW System, which is covered by one or more claims of the '555 Patent. 22. TCP is a corporate affiliate of Wapiti Micro Systems and Wapiti Engineering that

is involved in the marketing, distribution, offer for sale, and sale of the ROW System, which is covered by one or more claims of the '555 Patent. 23. The ROW System has been offered for sale and sold in this judicial district and

elsewhere in the United States, including Pennsylvania.

24.

The Installation and Software Manual for the ROW System describes the ROW

System, in part as including an acoustic detector to detect siren sounds . . . and a processor unit located in the cabinet that determines the presence of emergency vehicles . . . [a]s the emergency vehicle approaches the intersection, the siren sound of the emergency vehicle is detected and a signal is sent to the controller, which takes the appropriate action as programmed. This functionality is identical to that of the 555 Patent. 25. The ROW System includes a digital signal processing unit known as a Danville

Signal dspstak 21262, which is, on information and belief, utilized in the ROW System to provide some or all of the filtration and limiter-discriminator means taught in the 555 Patent. DEFENDANTS COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES 26. Both the Sonem System and the ROW System are marketed to and purchased by

municipalities and other governmental organizations that are responsible for maintaining traffic signals. The purchase of traffic signals and equipment is generally conducted through a public bidding process for the entire package of equipment, together with installation services. 27. In some instances, a request for bids for a package of traffic signal equipment

specifies particular items by brand. For example, a bid may specify that the Sonem System be used, as opposed to generically specifying an emergency vehicle preemption system or an acoustic emergency vehicle preemption system. 28. The installation of traffic signals and related equipment is generally performed by

engineering and contracting firms, who acquire the necessary equipment from suppliers and distributors. 29. Defendants have engaged in a pattern of inducing these contractors to substitute

the ROW System for the Sonem System when installing equipment on behalf of municipal

customers, including for contracts in which the Sonem System was the only specified emergency vehicle preemption equipment or was the only acoustic emergency vehicle preemption system capable of meeting the specifications for the bid. 30. Defendants accomplish this substitution by offering the ROW System at far below

its ordinary retail cost and by making false representations about the qualities and performance of the ROW System and its substitutability for and equivalence to the Sonem System. The net result of such a substitution is that Traffic Systems loses sales and the contractor and Defendants are enriched at the expense of Traffic Systems and the ultimate municipal customer. 31. Defendants additionally have solicited the cities of Akron, Ohio and Canton, Ohio

to replace portions of the Sonem System with ROW System components. Specifically, Defendants have solicited Akron and Canton to replace the Sonem System phase selector the cabinet-mounted unit that takes incoming audio signals, identifies emergency vehicle sirens, and communicates with other traffic signal control equipment to preempt the normal operation of traffic signals in favor of the emergency vehicles passage with the ROW System phase selector. Defendants have represented to Akron and Canton that the exchange of phase selectors would result in improved performance at a lower cost, and that the ROW System phase selector could be used with already-installed siren detectors (which are typically mounted on traffic signals above intersections) and the field wiring that connects the detectors to the phase selector. 32. In fact, the ROW System phase selector is not fully compatible with the Sonem

Systems detectors, and interchanging ROW and Sonem parts will lead to confusion by customers and the general public regarding the system actually in use. 33. Defendants have made a series of false representations regarding the capabilities

and performance of the ROW System. Contrary to representations made by the Defendants the

ROW System is inferior to the Sonem System. The ROW System has frequently encountered difficulty in identifying vehicle sirens in field conditions, and Defendants have never allowed a municipal customer or state highway department to test the ROW System head to head with the Sonem System. Moreover, Defendants market the ROW System as appropriate for use in coldweather environments, despite the fact that several of the electronic components in the ROW Systems phase selector are not rated for use in temperatures below freezing. 34. Defendants have, on information and belief, obtained copies of the software that

operates the Sonem System and have intentionally copied features and functionalities of that software in order to improve the software utilized for the ROW System. COUNT I PATENT INFRINGEMENT 35. Traffic Systems incorporates the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1-34 above as

if each were separately set forth at length herein. 36. Upon information and belief, Wapiti Engineering, Wapiti Micro Systems, and

TCP have knowledge of the 555 Patent through at least its commercial activities, communications with customers and potential customers, and/or communications with Traffic Systems. 37. Wapiti Engineering and Wapiti Micro Systems have designed, manufactured,

assembled, offered for sale, and/or sold the ROW System, which infringes one or more claims of the '555 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. 271. 38. Wapiti Engineering and Wapiti Micro Systems have been and are now infringing

the 555 Patent by contributing to and inducing their customers to at least use, in this judicial district and elsewhere in the United States, traffic signal and related control equipment, including

without limitation the ROW System, covered by one or more claims of the 555 Patent. 39. Wapiti Engineering and Wapiti Micro Systems are now contributing to and

inducing the infringement of one or more claims of the 555 Patent by supplying or causing to be supplied all or a substantial portion of the components of the invention covered by one or more claims of the 555 Patent, including without limitation the ROW System, and by contributing to and inducing the combination of such components within the United States. 40. TCP offers for sale, and sells, the ROW System, which infringes one or more

claims of the '555 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. 271. 41. TCP has been and is now infringing the 555 Patent by contributing to and

inducing their customers to at least use, in this judicial district and elsewhere in the United States, traffic signal and related control equipment, including without limitation the ROW System, covered by one or more claims of the 555 Patent. 42. TCP is now contributing to and inducing the infringement of one or more claims

of the 555 Patent by supplying or causing to be supplied all or a substantial portion of the components of the invention covered by one or more claims of the 555 Patent, including without limitation the ROW System, and by contributing to and inducing the combination of such components within the United States. 43. Defendants have designed, manufactured, assembled, offered for sale and/or sold

the ROW System within the United States and this judicial district. 44. The ROW System has no substantial non-infringing use and is specially designed

to work with the invention of the 555 Patent. 45. Defendants acts of infringement were done with knowledge of the 555 Patent

and with the intent to encourage infringement.

46.

Each of Wapiti Engineering, Wapiti Micro Systems and TCP has profited from its

infringement of the 555 Patent. 47. The direct and contributory infringement and inducement to infringe by

Defendants has been willful and wanton. 48. Defendants infringement have caused, and continue to cause, Traffic Systems to

suffer injury and economic damages. 49. The infringement by Defendants is causing irreparable damage to Traffic

Systems and will continue to cause irreparable damage to Traffic Systems unless Defendants are enjoined by this Court from their continued infringement. COUNT II DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES 50. Traffic Systems incorporates the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1-49 above as

if each were separately set forth at length herein. 51. Defendants have made, and continue to make, false representations regarding the

quality and performance of the ROW System. 52. Defendants have made, and continue to make, false representations regarding the

interchangeability of parts between the ROW System and the Sonem System. 53. Defendants, through the conduct described herein, have caused confusion among

customers and end purchasers of emergency vehicle traffic signal preemption systems by encouraging the co-mingling of parts of the ROW System with parts of the Sonem System, thereby attempting to pass off the ROW System as compatible with, and equivalent to, the Sonem System. Defendants activities have also resulted in some municipalities simultaneously using both the Sonem System and the ROW System. The varying performance of the

10

preemption systems in different intersections causes customers and the general public to associate acoustic based emergency vehicle preemption with the poor field experience demonstrated by the ROW System. 54. Defendants activities, through the conduct described herein, have caused and will

continue to cause confusions among customers and the general public regarding the source or approval of emergency vehicle traffic signal preemption systems, and/or regarding any affiliation between the ROW System and Sonem System. 55. Defendants activities have caused harm to Traffic Systems in the form of lost

revenue from sales of the Sonem System. 56. Defendants activities also have tarnished the reputation of acoustic emergency

vehicle traffic signal preemption systems, and have thereby caused Traffic Systems damages. 57. Defendants conduct constitute deceptive trade practices pursuant to Ohio

Revised Code 4165.02(a)(2), (3), (7) and/or (10). 58. Traffic Systems, as a result of Defendants actual and/or threatened deceptive

trade practices, is faced with imminent and continuing irreparable harm from such deceptive trade practices, for which Traffic Systems has no adequate remedy at law. Defendants deceptive trade practices have further caused Traffic Systems to suffer damages in an amount to be proven at trial. As a result of Defendants intentional and malicious conduct, Traffic Systems is entitled to an award of punitive damages. COUNT III UNFAIR COMPETITION 59. Traffic Systems incorporates the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1-58 above as

if each were separately set forth at length herein.

11

60.

Defendants have engaged in a variety of business conduct, intended to improperly

promote the ROW System and to substitute the ROW System in the place of the Sonem System. 61. Defendants have engaged in a variety of business conduct designed to confuse the

distinction between the ROW System and the Sonem System, such that a customer may become confused about the origin of acoustic emergency vehicle traffic signal preemption equipment or about an affiliation between the ROW System and the Sonem System. 62. Defendants business tactics are malicious and intentionally directed at Traffic

Systems, and Traffic Systems has been harmed as a result of Defendants conduct. 63. 64. Defendants conduct constitutes unfair competition under Ohio law. Traffic Systems, as a result of Defendants unfair competition, is faced with

imminent and continuing irreparable harm, for which Traffic Systems has no adequate remedy at law. Defendants unfair competition has further caused Traffic Systems to suffer damages in an amount to be proven at trial. As a result of Defendants intentional and malicious conduct, Traffic Systems is entitled to an award of punitive damages. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Traffic Systems respectfully requests that this Court: 1. As to Count I of the Complaint: a. enter judgment that Wapiti Engineering and Wapiti Micro Systems have

directly infringed the '555 Patent; b. enter judgment that Wapiti Engineering and Wapiti Micro Systems have

contributed to the infringement of the '555 Patent; c. enter judgment that Wapiti Engineering and Wapiti Micro Systems have

induced the infringement of the '555 Patent;

12

d. e. Patent; f. g.

enter judgment that TCP has infringed the '555 Patent; enter judgment that TCP has contributed to the infringement of the '555

enter judgment that TCP has induced the infringement of the '555 Patent; preliminarily and permanently enjoin Wapiti Engineering, Wapiti Micro

Systems and TCP, and their respective officers, subsidiaries, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all persons in active concert with them, from any further infringement of the '555 Patent; h. award damages, costs, and prejudgment interest to Traffic Systems under

35 U.S.C. 284 in an amount sufficient to compensate Traffic Systems for Defendants infringement to be determined at trial, including lost profits; i. award up to treble damages upon a finding that Defendants infringement

has been willful and wanton under 35 U.S.C. 284; j. declare this case exceptional and award Traffic Systems its reasonable

attorneys' fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 285; and k. for an accounting for any infringing sales not presented at trial and an

award by the Court of additional damages for any such infringing sales; 2. As to Count II of the Complaint: a. award damages to Traffic Systems in an amount to be proven at trial; plus interest, costs, and attorneys fees; b. award punitive damages to Traffic Systems; c. preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants, and their respective officers, subsidiaries, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all persons in active concert with

13

them from engaging in deceptive trade practices as against Traffic Systems and/or the Sonem System; 3. As to Count III of the Complaint: a. award damages to Traffic Systems in an amount to be proven at trial; plus interest, costs, and attorneys fees; b. award punitive damages to Traffic Systems; c. preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants, and their respective officers, subsidiaries, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all persons in active concert with them from engaging in deceptive trade practices as against Traffic Systems and/or the Sonem System; 5. As to all Counts of the Complaint, award Traffic Systems such other relief as this

Court deems just and proper. Dated: November 19, 2013 _/s/ Matthew E. Liebson_______________ Matthew E. Liebson (0071544) Megan D. Dortenzo (0079047) Thompson Hine LLP 3900 Key Tower 127 Public Square Cleveland, OH 44114 (216) 566-5636 (direct) (216) 566-5800 (fax) matthew.liebson@thompsonhine.com megan.dortenzo@thompsonhine.com

JURY DEMAND A trial by jury is requested on all causes of action for which a jury trial is available. _/s/ Matthew E. Liebson_______________ One of the attorneys for Plaintiff Traffic Systems LLC

14