IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION GELLYFISH TECHNOLOGY OF TEXAS,

LLC, Plaintiff, v. HNI Corporation and The HON Company Defendants. COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Plaintiff Gellyfish Technology of Texas, LLC (Gellyfish Technology) files this Original Complaint against Defendants HNI Corporation (HNI) and The HON Company (HON) (together referred to as Defendants) as follows: NATURE OF CASE 1. This is a claim for patent infringement that arises under the patent laws of the JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Case No.

United States, Title 35 of the United States Code. This Court has original jurisdiction over the subject matter of this claim under 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1338(a). PARTIES 2. Gellyfish Technology of Texas is a Texas Limited Liability Company with

headquarters at 104 East Houston Street, Suite 165, Marshall, Texas 75670. 3. Gellyfish Technology owns and has standing to sue for infringement of United

States Patent No. 5,547,251 (the 251 Patent), entitled Back Support Adjusting Apparatus For Chair With Backrest Flexible Upholstery which was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on August 20, 1996. (Exhibit A)

4.

Named inventor Peter W. Axelson is a rehabilitation engineer who conceived of

the inventions claimed in the 251 Patent after sustaining a spinal cord injury in 1975 during a climbing accident while attending the United States Air Force Academy. After sustaining his spinal cord injury, Axelson continued his education at Stanford University where he received two degrees a B.S. Mechanical Engineering and Product Design, (1979) and a M.M.M.E., Smart Product Design (1982). Axelson continues today to work as a rehabilitation engineer where his ongoing work includes designing, developing and testing assistive technologies for people with disabilities. 5. Plaintiff Gellyfish Technology is the assignee of all rights, title and interest from

inventor Peter W. Axelson in and to the 251 Patent and possesses all substantial right of recovery under the 251 Patent, including the right to sue for past infringement. 6. Defendant HNI is a furniture manufacturing company with a headquarters at 408

East Second Street, Muscatine, Iowa 52761. 7. Defendant HON, a subsidiary of HNI, is a furniture manufacturing company with

a headquarters at 200 Oak Street, Muscatine, Iowa 52761. 8. In addition to Defendant HON, Defendant HNIs other subsidiaries Paoli and

Maxon also occupy a showroom at 222 Merchandise Mart, Chicago, Illinois. 9. According to Defendant HONs website, HON offers the accused products for

sale at its Chicago showroom and employs sales personnel at its Merchandise Mart Chicago showroom, including at least the Resource Center Manager, Amy Fries, and provides an email address to contact the Resource Center Manager at *****@honcompany.com. (Exhibit B, Website)

-2-

10.

According to HONs website, HONs Chicago showroom is a fresh open

environment housed in Chicago renowned Merchandise Mart embracing the new direction of HON solutions. (Exhibit B, Website) 11. feet . 12. HON uses its Chicago showroom to offer for sale among other things the accused According to the Hon website (Exhibit B) its Chicago showroom is 9,700 square

products such as the BASYX chair. Chicago is also home to other HNI company (Paoli and Maxon) showrooms. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. HNI (and three of its subsidiaries HNI, PAOLI and MAXON) hold and maintain

showrooms at 222 Merchandise Mart, Chicago, Illinois where it employs personnel, such as a Resource Manager and uses and offers for sale accused chairs such as the BASYX in the showroom and through other sales outlets in this district. 2. HNI is doing business in this judicial district, has purposefully availed itself of the

privilege of conducting business with residents of this judicial district, has established sufficient minimum contacts with the State of Illinois such that it should reasonably and fairly anticipate being haled into court in Illinois, and has purposefully reached out to residents of Illinois. 3. HON holds and maintains a showroom at 222 Merchandise Mart, Chicago,

Illinois where it employs personnel, including at least a Resource Manager. 4. HON is doing business in this judicial district, has purposefully availed itself of

the privilege of conducting business with residents of this judicial district, has established sufficient minimum contacts with the State of Illinois such that it should reasonably and fairly anticipate being haled into court in Illinois, and has purposefully reached out to residents of Illinois -3-

5.

Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)-(d) and 1400(b). CLAIMS FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT COUNT I INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 251

6.

Plaintiff Gellyfish Technology asserts that HONs BASYX chair infringes at least

Claim 1 of the 251 Patent in that the BASYX has a combination for providing support to the back of the occupant with flexible upholstery including a forward and rear face with vertical side edges. 7. Defendants HNI and HON have infringed and continue to infringe at least claim 1

of the 251 Patent within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 271(a) through the foregoing activities including, without limitation, making, using and offering for sale infringing chairs such as the chair BASYX in the United States. 8. To the extent required by law, Gellyfish Technology has complied with the

provisions of 35 U.S.C. 287 with respect to the 251 Patent. 9. The acts of direct infringement of the 251 Patent by HON by manufacturing,

using, operating, selling (directly or through intermediaries) and/or conducting business through its website has injured Gellyfish Technology, and Gellyfish Technology is entitled to recover damages adequate to compensate it for such infringement from HNI and HON, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Gellyfish Technology respectfully asks this Court to enter judgment against Defendant HNI Inc. and against each of its respective subsidiaries including but not limited to Defendant HON, successors, parents, affiliates, officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with them, granting the following relief: -4-

a. b.

The entry of judgment in favor of Gellyfish Technology and against HNI; An award of damages as to Defendant HNI adequate to compensate

Plaintiff Gellyfish Technology for the infringement that has occurred, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty as permitted by 35 U.S.C. 284, together with prejudgment interest from the date the infringement began; c. An award to Gellyfish Technology of enhanced damages, up to and

including trebling of Gellyfish Technologys damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 284, for Defendants willful infringement. d. A finding that this case is exceptional and an award to Gellyfish

Technology of its reasonable attorneys fees and costs as provided by 35 U.S.C. 285; and e. Such other relief that Gellyfish Technology is entitled to under law, and

any other and further relief that this Court or a jury may deem just and proper. JURY DEMAND Plaintiff Gellyfish Technology demands a trial by jury on all issues presented in this Complaint. Date: March 5, 2012 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Sally Oeffling Wiggins

Sally Oeffling Wiggins Attorney at Law, P.C. 82A Railroad Street Crystal Lake, IL 60014 815-261-8300 sallylawoffice@gmail.com Attorney for Gellyfish Technology of Texas, LLC -5-

-6-