IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS AMSTED INDUSTRIES INCORPORATED ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v.

) ) TIANRUI GROUP FOUNDRY COMPANY, ) LTD., CSR QISHUYAN LOCOMOTIVE ) COMPANY, LTD., STANDARD CAR TRUCK ) COMPANY, INC. and WESTINGHOUSE ) AIR BRAKE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, ) ) Defendants. )

No.

11-cv-659-DRH-SCW

COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Plaintiff Amsted Industries Incorporated (Amsted) for its complaint against Defendants Tianrui Group Foundry Company, Ltd. (Tianrui); CSR Qishuyan Locomotive Company, Ltd. (Qishuyan); Standard Car Truck Company, Inc. (SCT); and Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation (Wabtec) (collectively, Defendants) hereby demands a jury trial and alleges as follows: PARTIES 1. Plaintiff Amsted is an employee-owned corporation organized and existing under the

laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business at Two Prudential Plaza, 180 N. Stetson St., Suite 1800, Chicago, IL 60601. Amsted is a leading designer and manufacturer of a variety of railway car systems and devices, and through its innovative work, has obtained hundreds of patents from the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Amsted regularly conducts business, through itself and its subsidiaries, in this district, including operating a steel foundry in Granite City, Illinois to manufacture railway car sideframes and bolsters using the patented processes that are the subject of this suit.

2.

Upon information and belief, Defendant Tianrui is a Chinese corporation with a place

of business at Bus Station South, Linru Town, Ruzhou, Henan, China. Upon information and belief, Defendant Tianrui is engaged in the manufacture, use, importation into the United States, offer for sale and/or sale in the United States of railway car sideframes and bolsters, including but not limited to sideframes and bolsters under the BARBER trade name such as model number S2HD. 3. Upon information and belief, Defendant Qishuyan is a Chinese corporation with a

place of business at No. 358, Yanling East Road, Changzhou, Jiangsu 213011, China. Upon information and belief, Defendant Qishuyan is engaged in the manufacture, use, importation into the United States, offer for sale and/or sale in the United States of railway car sideframes, including but not limited to sideframes under the BARBER trade name such as model number S2HD. 4. Upon information and belief, Defendant SCT is a corporation organized and existing

under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business at 865 Busse Highway, Park Ridge, IL 60068. Upon information and belief, Defendant SCT is engaged in the use, offer for sale and/or sale in the United States, and/or importation into the United States, of railway car sideframes and bolsters, including but not limited to sideframes and bolsters under the BARBER trade name such as model number S2HD. 5. Upon information and belief, Defendant Wabtec is a corporation organized and

existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with a place of business at 1001 Air Brake Ave., Wilmerding, PA 15148. Upon information and belief, Defendant Wabtec is engaged in the use, offer for sale and/or sale in the United States, and/or importation into the United States, of railway car sideframes and bolsters, including but not limited to sideframes and bolsters under the BARBER trade name such as model number S2HD.

NATURE OF THE ACTION 6. This is an action arising under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. 1

et seq. and is brought by Amsted against Defendants for Defendants infringement of Amsteds patents. Specifically, Amsted seeks remedies for Defendants patent infringement of one or more of Amsteds United States Patent Nos. 5,752,564 (the 564 Patent); 5,954,114 (the 114 Patent), and 6,622,776 (the 776 Patent) (collectively, the Asserted Patents). JURISDICTION AND VENUE 7. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1338(a)

because this action arises under the patent laws of the United States. 8. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants because the Defendants have

established minimum contacts with the forum state of Illinois. 9. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Tianrui because, on information

and belief, Defendant Tianrui has at least minimum contacts with this forum as a result of business regularly conducted within the State of Illinois relating to the causes of action herein. Such jurisdiction exists generally as well as specifically as a result of, at least, Defendant Tianrui offering to sell and/or selling products in this state that are claimed to infringe the Asserted Patents. Defendant Tianruis conduct and connections with this state are and have been such that Defendant Tianrui should have anticipated being brought into this judicial district. Alternatively, the exercise by this Court of personal jurisdiction over Defendant Tianrui is consistent with the procedure of Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(2) and would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. 10. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Qishuyan because, on

information and belief, Defendant Qishuyan has at least minimum contacts with this forum as a result of business regularly conducted within the State of Illinois relating to the causes of action

herein. Such jurisdiction exists generally as well as specifically as a result of, at least, Defendant Qishuyan offering to sell and/or selling products in this state that are claimed to infringe the Asserted Patents. Defendant Qishuyans conduct and connections with this state are and have been such that Defendant Qishuyan should have anticipated being brought into this judicial district. Alternatively, the exercise by this Court of personal jurisdiction over Defendant Qishuyan is consistent with the procedure of Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(2) and would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. 11. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant SCT because, on information

and belief, Defendant SCT is a resident of the State of Illinois and has at least minimum contacts with this forum as a result of business regularly conducted within the State of Illinois relating to the causes of action herein. Such jurisdiction exists generally as well as specifically as a result of, at least, Defendant SCT using, offering to sell and/or selling products in this state that are claimed to infringe the Asserted Patents. Defendant SCTs conduct and connections with this state are and have been such that Defendant SCT should have anticipated being brought into this judicial district. 12. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Wabtec because, on information

and belief, Defendant Wabtec has at least minimum contacts with this forum as a result of business regularly conducted within the State of Illinois relating to the causes of action herein. Such jurisdiction exists generally as well as specifically as a result of, at least, Defendant Wabtec using, offering to sell and/or selling products in this state that are claimed to infringe the Asserted Patents. Defendant Wabtecs conduct and connections with this state are and have been such that Defendant Wabtec should have anticipated being brought into this judicial district. 13. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391 and 1400(b).

THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT 14. The Asserted Patents generally cover various processes for manufacturing sideframes

and bolsters for use in building railway cars. 15. Amsted is the owner by assignment of the entire right, title, and interest in and to the

Asserted Patents, including the right to bring this suit for injunctive relief and for past and present damages. 16. 17. All of the Asserted Patents are valid and enforceable. Upon information and belief, Defendants have infringed and continue to infringe one

or more claims of one or more of the Asserted Patents by engaging in acts that constitute infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271, including but not necessarily limited to, using, offering to sell, and/or selling within the United States, and importing into the United States, without authority, railway car sideframes and/or bolsters made by Amsteds patented processes. COUNT I INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,752,564 18. 19. Paragraphs 1 through 17 are incorporated by reference as if fully stated herein. On May 19, 1998, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally

issued the 564 Patent entitled Railway Truck Castings And Method And Cores For Making Castings. A copy of the 564 Patent is attached as Exhibit A to this Complaint. 20. Defendants have infringed and are infringing, either literally or under the doctrine

of equivalents, the 564 Patent by using, offering to sell, and/or selling within the United States, and/or importing into the United States, without authority, railway car sideframes and/or bolsters, including but not limited to sideframes and/or bolsters under the BARBER trade name such as model number S2HD, made by the processes as claimed by one or more claims of the 564 Patent.

21.

Amsted has been and continues to be damaged by Defendants infringement of the

564 Patent, in an amount to be determined at trial. 22. Amsted has suffered irreparable injury for which there is no adequate remedy at law

and will continue to suffer such irreparable injury unless Defendants infringement of the 564 Patent is enjoined by this Court. 23. been, willful. 24. Defendants infringement of the 564 Patent is exceptional, and thus, pursuant to 35 Upon information and belief, Defendants infringement of the 564 Patent is, and has

U.S.C. 285, entitles Amsted to its reasonable attorneys fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this action. COUNT II INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,954,114 25. 26. Paragraphs 1 through 17 are incorporated by reference as if fully stated herein. On September 21, 1999, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and

legally issued the 114 Patent, entitled Method Of Making Railway Truck Bolsters. A copy of the 114 Patent is attached as Exhibit B to this Complaint. 27. Defendants Tianrui, SCT, and Wabtec have infringed and are infringing, either

literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, the 114 Patent by using, offering to sell, and/or selling within the United States, and/or importing into the United States, without authority, railway car bolsters, including but not limited to bolsters under the BARBER trade name such as model number S2HD, made by the processes as claimed by one or more claims of the 114 Patent. 28. Amsted has been and continues to be damaged by Defendants Tianruis, SCTs, and

Wabtecs infringement of the 114 Patent, in an amount to be determined at trial. 29. Amsted has suffered irreparable injury for which there is no adequate remedy at law

and will continue to suffer such irreparable injury unless Defendants Tianruis, SCTs, and Wabtecs infringement of the 114 Patent is enjoined by this Court. 30. Upon information and belief, Defendants Tianruis, SCTs, and Wabtecs

infringement of the 114 Patent is, and has been, willful. 31. Defendants Tianruis, SCTs, and Wabtecs infringement of the 114 Patent is

exceptional, and thus, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 285, entitles Amsted to its reasonable attorneys fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this action. COUNT III INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,622,776 32. 33. Paragraphs 1 through 17 are incorporated by reference as if fully stated herein. On September 23, 2003, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and

legally issued the 776 Patent, entitled Method Of Making Sideframes For Railway Car Trucks. A copy of the 776 Patent is attached as Exhibit C to this Complaint. 34. Defendants have infringed and are infringing, either literally or under the doctrine

of equivalents, the 776 Patent by using, offering to sell, and/or selling within the United States, and/or importing into the United States, without authority, railway car sideframes, including but not limited to sideframes under the BARBER trade name such as model number S2HD, made by the processes as claimed by one or more claims of the 776 Patent. 35. Amsted has been and continues to be damaged by Defendants infringement of the

776 Patent, in an amount to be determined at trial. 36. Amsted has suffered irreparable injury for which there is no adequate remedy at law

and will continue to suffer such irreparable injury unless Defendants infringement of the 776 Patent is enjoined by this Court. 37. Upon information and belief, Defendants infringement of the 776 Patent is, and has

been, willful. 38. Defendants infringement of the 776 Patent is exceptional, and thus, pursuant to 35

U.S.C. 285, entitles Amsted to its reasonable attorneys fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this action. JURY DEMANDED 39. Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Amsted hereby

respectfully requests a jury trial on all issues and claims so triable. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Amsted prays for the following judgment and relief against Defendants: (A) (B) (C) That all Defendants have infringed the 564 and 776 Patents; That Defendants Tianrui, SCT, and Wabtec have also infringed the 114 Patent; That all Defendants, their officers, agents, and employees, and those persons in active

concert or participation with any of them, and their successors and assigns be permanently enjoined from infringement of the 564 and 776 Patents, including but not limited to an injunction against using, offering to sell, and selling within the United States, and importing into the United States, any products made by a process that infringes the 564 and 776 Patents; (D) That Defendants Tianrui, SCT, and Wabtec, their officers, agents, and employees,

and those persons in active concert or participation with any of them, and their successors and assigns be permanently enjoined from infringement of the 114 Patent, including but not limited to an injunction against using, offering to sell, and selling within the United States, and importing into the United States, any products made by a process that infringes the 114 Patent; (E) That Amsted be awarded all damages adequate to compensate it for Defendants

respective infringement of the Asserted Patents, such damages to be determined by a jury, and if

necessary to adequately compensate Amsted for the infringement, an accounting and treble damages as a result of Defendants willful infringement; (F) That Amsted be awarded pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum

rate allowed by law; (G) That this case be declared an exceptional case within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 285

and that Amsted be awarded its reasonable attorney fees, expenses, and costs incurred in connection with this action; and (H) proper. That Amsted be awarded such other and further relief as this Court deems just and

Dated: August 1, 2011

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Thomas Q. Keefe, Jr.

Thomas Q. Keefe, Jr. THOMAS Q. KEEFE P.C. 6 Executive Woods Court Belleville, Illinois 62226-2016 618.207.3991 (Telephone) 618.236.2194 (Facsimile debbie@tqkeefe.com Mark A. Pals. P.C. Jamie H. McDole KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 300 North LaSalle Chicago, Illinois 60654-6436 312.862.2000 (Telephone) 312.862.2200 (Facsimile) mark.pals@kirkland.com jamie.mcdole@kirkland.com Attorneys for Plaintiff AMSTED INDUSTRIES INCORPORATED