IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 

17th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR 

BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA 

SCRIPTCHEK VISUAL 

VERIFICATION SYSTEMS, INC., 

a Florida Corporation, CASE NO: CACE 20-003398 (08) 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

R.R. DONNELLEY & SONS 

COMPANY, INC. a Delaware 

Corporation, 

Defendant. 

_____________________________/ 

NOTICE OF FILING NOTICE OF REMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT 

TO: 

CLERK OF THE COURT 

17th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR 

BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA 

201 S.E. 6TH STREET 

FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301 

HONORABLE DAVID A. HAIMES 

201 S.E. 6TH STREET 

ROOM 16125 

FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301 

Richard L. Allen, Esq. 

Steven Solowsky, Esq. 

SOLOWSKY & ALLEN, PL 

201 S. Biscayne Blvd. - #915 

Miami, FL 33131 

305-371-2223 

Gary N. Mansfield 

David Stone 

MANSFIELD BRONSTEIN & STONE, 

LLP 

500 Broward Blvd, Suite 1450 

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394 

954-601-5600 

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Filing # 109482137 E-Filed 06/26/2020 03:50:29 PM Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 1 of 162
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on June 26, 2020 Defendant, R.R. DONNELLEY & 

SONS COMPANY, INC., by and through the undersigned attorneys, filed a Notice of 

Removal of this action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of 

Florida, Fort Lauderdale Division pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a), 

1338(a), 1367, 1441, 1446, and 1454. A true and correct copy of said Notice of Removal 

is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 

You are further advised that this Notice of Filing Notice of Removal is served and 

filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d) and that no further process shall proceed unless and 

until this case is remanded. 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing document was electronically filed and 

served via Florida’s E-filing Portal this 26th day of June 2020. 

JENNER & BLOCK LLP 

Attorney for R.R. Donnelley & Sons 

Company, Inc. 

353 N. Clark Street 

Chicago, IL 60654 

Telephone: (312) 222-9350 

Fax: (312) 527-0484 

By: /s/ Reginald J. Hill

 REGINALD J. HILL 

 Ill. Bar No: 6225173 

 Admitted Pro Hac Vice

HALICZER PETTIS & SCHWAMM, P.A. 

Attorney for R.R. Donnelley & Sons 

Company, Inc. 

One Financial Plaza, Seventh Floor 

100 S.E. 3rd Avenue 

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394 

Telephone: 954-523-9922 

Fax: 954-522-2512 

E-MAIL: service@hpslegal.com

By /s/ Eugene K. Pettis

 EUGENE K. PETTIS, ESQ. 

 FBN: 508454 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 2 of 162
MAILING LIST 

SCRIPTCHEK VISUAL VERIFICTION SYSTEMS, INC. V. 

R.R. DONNELLEY & SONS COMPANY, INC. 

CASE NO. CACE 20-003398 (08) 

Richard L. Allen, Esq. 

Steven Solowsky, Esq. 

Solowsky & Allen, PL 

201 S. Biscayne Blvd. - #915 

Miami, FL 33131 

305-371-2223 

E-MAIL DESIGNATIONS: 

mlopez@salawmiami.com; 

rallen@salawmiami.com; 

pleadings@salawmiami.com; 

ssolowsky@salawmiami.com

Gary N. Mansfield 

David Stone 

Mansfield Bronstein & Stone, LLP 

500 Broward Blvd, Suite 1450 

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394 

954-601-5600 

E-MAIL DESIGNATIONS: 

gary@mblawpa.com

dstone@davidstonelaw.com

litigation@mblawpa.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 3 of 162
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION

SCRIPTCHEK VISUAL 

VERIFICATION SYSTEMS, INC., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

R.R. DONNELLEY & SONS 

COMPANY 

Defendant. 

 CASE NO.: ____________________ 

NOTICE OF REMOVAL 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a), 1338(a), 1367, 1441, 1446, and 1454, Defendant R.R. 

Donnelley & Sons Company (“R.R. Donnelley”) hereby removes the above-captioned matter from 

the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida to the 

United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Fort Lauderdale Division. R.R. 

Donnelley’s Notice of Removal is based on the following: 

The State Court Action 

1. On or about February 24, 2020, Plaintiff Scriptchek Visual Verification Systems, 

Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against R.R. Donnelley in the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in 

and for Broward County, Florida, as case number CACE-20-003398 (the “Complaint”). R.R. 

Donnelley was served with a copy of the Complaint on February 27, 2020, via R.R. Donnelley’s 

registered agent. The Complaint is attached as Exhibit 1. (See also Ex. 2 (the civil cover sheet).) 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 4 of 162 Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 1 of 13
2 

2. In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts claims for breach of contract, specific 

performance, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff alleges that it and R.R. Donnelley have a 

Manufacture Agreement where Plaintiff granted R.R. Donnelley a limited, non-exclusive right to 

manufacture and sell Plaintiff’s patented Extended Tab Prescription Drug Label to customers 

approved by Plaintiff who have entered into license agreements with Plaintiff. (Compl. ¶ 13.) 

Plaintiff further alleges that R.R. Donnelley has sold – and is still selling – Plaintiff’s “patented” 

Extended Tab Prescription Drug Label to non-approved customers, including CVS Pharmacy, in 

violation of the Manufacture Agreement. (Compl. ¶ 31.) Plaintiff also alleges that R.R. Donnelley 

breached the Manufacture Agreement by failing to keep proper books of account and failing to 

render written reports to Plaintiff as well as failing to include certain markings on Plaintiff’s 

Extended Tab Prescription Drug Label sold by R.R. Donnelley. (Compl. ¶¶ 47, 54.) Plaintiff 

alternatively alleges a count for unjust enrichment. (Compl. ¶¶ 66-88.) Plaintiff’s Complaint 

seeks damages with interest, costs, as well as specific performance to provide books of accounts 

and written reports from 2006 to present and a demand that R.R. Donnelley immediately cease and 

desist from any and all manufacturing of Plaintiff’s patented Extended Tab Prescription Drug 

Label for non-approved customers. (Compl. ¶¶ 49, 55, 65.) Plaintiff alleges that the amount in 

controversy exceeds $30,000, exclusive of interest, costs, and attorney fees (Comp. ¶ 3), which is 

the amount of controversy necessary for circuit court jurisdiction (see Fla. Stat. § 34.01(c)(2)), but 

Plaintiff fails to allege an actual estimated amount in controversy. 

3. With the Complaint, Plaintiff served Plaintiff Scriptchek Visual Verification 

Systems, Inc.’s First Request for Production to Defendant R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company, Inc. 

(“Plaintiff’s First Request for Production”) (see Ex. 3). 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 5 of 162 Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 2 of 13
3 

4. Following an agreed order on the deadline to respond to the Complaint (see Ex. 4), 

R.R. Donnelley filed a Motion to Dismiss, Motion to Strike, Motion in the Alternative for More 

Definite Statement, and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (“Motion to Dismiss”) on May 18, 

2020. (See Ex. 5.) R.R. Donnelley sought dismissal of the Complaint on the grounds that 

Plaintiff’s claims fail to state any claim under Florida law. (Motion to Dismiss at 4.) R.R. 

Donnelley further sought to strike all references to a “Mutual Confidentiality Agreement” in the 

Complaint as it was unclear how it related to Plaintiff’s claims and appeared wholly irrelevant. 

(Motion to Dismiss at 16.) R.R. Donnelley alternatively sought a more definite statement from 

Plaintiff regarding its claims, its anticipated damages, and the relevance of the Mutual 

Confidentiality Agreement. (Motion to Dismiss at 16-21.) 

5. R.R. Donnelley filed a Pro Hac Vice motion, which was granted by agreed order. 

(See Ex. 6 (the motion) and Ex. 7 (the agreed order).) 

6. On May 27, 2020, Plaintiff’s counsel and counsel for R.R. Donnelley held a Zoom 

conference. The purpose of the conference was to serve as an introductory meeting for counsel 

for both parties. During the conference, the counsel for both parties discussed the Motion to 

Dismiss and Plaintiff’s First Request for Production. Plaintiff’s counsel indicated that they 

planned to respond to the Motion to Dismiss during the following week. 

7. On June 1, 2020, R.R. Donnelley served its response to Plaintiff’s First Request for 

Production and filed a corresponding Notice of Service to the court. (See Ex. 8.) 

8. On June 4, 2020, Plaintiff filed its response to the Motion to Dismiss. (See Ex. 9.) 

In its response, similar to Plaintiff counsel’s remarks during the May 27, 2020 conference, Plaintiff 

clarified that its allegations are limited to Plaintiff’s “patented label.” (See generally Plaintiff’s 

Response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint, Motion to Strike, Motion in the 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 6 of 162 Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 3 of 13
4 

Alternative for More Definite Statement, and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (“Response to 

Motion to Dismiss”) (noting that Plaintiff no longer refers to its Extended Tab Prescription Drug 

Label as “proprietary and patented” as it did in the Complaint but only as “patented”).) In fact, 

Plaintiff confirmed a definition of the Extended Tab Prescription Drug Label provided by R.R. 

Donnelley in the Motion to Dismiss that indicates that any labels at issue have to relate to certain 

patent applications. (Response to Motion to Dismiss ¶ 16.) Plaintiff also clarified that its breach 

of contract claims are not founded on the Mutual Confidentiality Agreement. (Response to Motion 

to Dismiss ¶ 60.) 

9. On June 8, 2020, R.R. Donnelley filed a Notice of Appearance and Designation of 

E-mail Addresses. (See Ex. 10.) 

10. On June 16, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Hearing with regards to the Motion to 

Dismiss set for July 7, 2020. (See Ex. 11.) 

Statutory Grounds for Removal 

11. R.R. Donnelley’s removal of this case is based upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(a) and 

1454.1 Section 1441(a) authorizes the removal of any civil actions filed in state court provided 

that the United States District Court has original jurisdiction for such actions. Section 1454(a) 

authorizes the removal of “[a] civil action in which any party asserts a claim for relief arising under 

any Act of Congress relating to patents” to federal district court. This Court has original 

jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), which provides such jurisdiction over civil 

1

 Given that the state court action is currently in the Motion to Dismiss stage, R.R. Donnelley has 

yet to raise any counterclaims or affirmative defenses. Were the state court action to proceed to 

that stage, R.R. Donnelley anticipates patent-related counterclaims and affirmative defenses, 

including patent invalidity and non-infringement, which would also provide for removal based 

on 28 U.S.C. § 1454. (See Alexsam, Inc. v. WildCard Sys., Inc., No. 15-CIV-61736, 2015 WL 

13688558 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 20, 2015).) 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 7 of 162 Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 4 of 13
5 

actions in which the parties are diverse and in which the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, 

exclusive of interest or costs. This Court also has original jurisdiction over Count I of this action 

(the breach of contract claim pertaining to the alleged manufacturing and selling of Plaintiff’s 

patented Extended Tab Prescription Drug Label to non-approved customers) under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1338(a), which provides such jurisdiction over “any civil action arising under any Act of 

Congress relating to patents[.]” In view of the Court’s federal question jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 1338(a) over Count I, the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1367(a) over all of Plaintiff’s other claims. 

Diversity of Citizenship 

12. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a) and (c), the diversity required for removal exists 

here because Plaintiff is diverse from R.R. Donnelley. Plaintiff is a Florida Corporation while 

R.R. Donnelley is a Delaware Corporation. (Comp. ¶¶ 4-5.) Moreover, Plaintiff’s principal place 

of business is Florida, while R.R. Donnelley’s principal place of business is Illinois. The 

citizenship of the parties is therefore diverse. 

More than $75,000 in Controversy 

13. The amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Despite its failure to identify any 

specific patents or bases for damages in its Complaint, Plaintiff’s counsel’s remarks on May 27, 

2020 and its Response to Motion to Dismiss establish that for Plaintiff to prove its breach of 

contract claim in Count I of the Complaint, Plaintiff must establish that the products allegedly sold 

by RR Donnelley to CVS fall within the scope of Plaintiff’s patents licensed under the Manufacture 

Agreement. In other words, Plaintiff must prove that the products at issue infringe Plaintiff’s valid 

patents that were licensed. By clarifying that its claims are focused on Plaintiff’s patents (see, e.g.,

Response to Motion to Dismiss ¶ 16), Plaintiff confirmed that certain tab labels manufactured and 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 8 of 162 Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 5 of 13
6 

sold by R.R. Donnelley—previously and currently—might be at issue. For approximately the last 

five years, R.R. Donnelley’s business records show that R.R. Donnelley generated revenue from 

sales of tab labels at issue to CVS, such that a reasonable royalty2 on those sales and anticipated 

future sales would readily exceed $75,000. 

14. Accordingly, the amount in controversy—based solely on the subject matter of 

Plaintiffs’ claims and without any admission on R.R. Donnelley’s part—exceeds $75,000. Thus, 

the amount-in-controversy requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) is satisfied.3

Arising Under Patent Law 

15. “[Section] 1338(a) jurisdiction . . . extend[s] only to those cases in which a wellpleaded complaint establishes either that federal patent law creates the cause of action or that the 

plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal 

patent law, in that patent law is a necessary element of one of the well-pleaded claims.” 

(Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 809 (1988) (emphasis added).) 

16. As clarified by Plaintiff counsel’s remarks on May 27, 2020 and Plaintiff’s 

Response to Motion to Dismiss filed June 4, 2020, Plaintiff’s claim that R.R. Donnelley violated 

the Manufacture Agreement by allegedly manufacturing and selling Plaintiff’s patented Extended 

2

 Patent infringement damages are no less than “a reasonable royalty for the use made of the 

invention by the infringer, together with interest and costs as fixed by the court.” 35 U.S.C. 

§ 284. 

3

 Should the Court deem that more information is necessary to determine whether the amount-incontroversy requirement is satisfied, limited post-removal discovery would be an appropriate 

method to fully resolve this issue. (See Pretka v. Kolter City Plaza II, Inc., 608 F.3d 744, 774 

(11th Cir. 2010) (Pryor, J., concurring) (“Our precedents have taken for granted that a defendant 

who removes a civil action has the same right that plaintiff enjoys to conduct discovery about 

jurisdictional facts.”); Williams v. Best Buy Co., 269 F.3d 1316, 1319 (11th Cir. 2001) (“[A] 

district court may properly consider post-removal evidence in determining whether the 

jurisdictional amount was satisfied at the time of removal.”) (citing Sierminski v. Transouth Fin. 

Corp., 216 F.3d 945, 949 (11th Cir. 2000)).) 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 9 of 162 Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 6 of 13
7 

Tab Prescription Drug Label is directly related to and limited to Plaintiff’s patents. As agreed by 

Plaintiff, the Extended Tab Prescription Drug Label “relates to certain then-pending patent 

applications.” (Response to Motion to Dismiss ¶ 16.) Moreover, as clearly established in its 

Response to Motion to Dismiss, the crux of Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim rests entirely on 

that “patented” Extended Tab Prescription Drug Label. Therefore, in order to prevail on its breach 

of contract claim, Plaintiff would need to demonstrate that any and all tab labels that R.R. 

Donnelley sold to non-approved customers fell under Plaintiff’s patent(s). Put another way, to 

prevail, Plaintiff will have to show that R.R. Donnelley infringed Plaintiff’s patent(s). 

17. With regards to arising under patent law, this is hardly a novel fact pattern. Indeed, 

courts have addressed similar fact patterns in the past, holding that claims such as the one in this 

case do arise under patent law, justifying federal jurisdiction. In Kleinerman v. Luxtron, 107 F. 

Supp. 2d 122 (D. Mass. 2000), the plaintiff entered into a license agreement with the defendant in 

which the plaintiff granted the defendant a license to use, make, or sell products incorporating the 

plaintiff’s patents in consideration for royalty payments based on the defendant’s sales volume. 

(Id. 123.) The plaintiff later alleged that the defendant did not report all sales of products using 

the patented technology in violation of the license agreement, depriving the plaintiff of royalty 

payments. (Id.). The plaintiff filed a breach of contract claim, which the defendant removed to 

federal court. (Id.) On motion to remand, the district court denied the remand motion, noting that 

“an analysis of patent infringement is necessary and subject matter jurisdiction lies in a United 

States District Court” since “[i]f, as [the plaintiff] alleges, [the defendant] used the patented 

technology but failed to pay royalties thereof, it violated the License. To determine if that 

happened, the finder of fact must consider whether the unreported products infringed [the 

plaintiff’s] patents.” (Id. 124.) 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 10 of 162 Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 7 of 13
8 

18. In an analogous case, U.S. Valves, Inc. v. Dray, 190 F.3d 811 (7th Cir. 1999) (“Dray 

I”), a patent licensee brought action against licensor for breach of contract. (Id. 812.) The licensee 

alleged that the licensor had sold valves that were covered by the licensed patents. (Id.) When 

assessing whether this breach of contract claim invoked patent law jurisdiction, the court relied 

upon the second prong of Christianson (emphasized supra). (Id. 813-14.) In doing so, the court 

noted, “[the licensee] claimed that [the licensor] sold valves in contravention of this provision . . . 

If the only way for [the licensee] to establish this claim is for it to show that [the licensor] sold 

valves covered by the patents licensed to [the licensee ], then the court must first examine the 

patent and determine which valves are covered and whether the patent was infringed. Thus patent 

law is a necessary element of [the licensee’s] breach of contract action.” (Id. See also U.S. Valves, 

Inc. v. Dray, 212 F.3d 1368, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“Dray II”) (subsequent Federal Circuit decision 

affirming the Seventh Circuit’s conclusion); Berman v. OpenTV Corp., No. C-09-4065 MMC, 

2010 WL 3987448, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2010) (relying on Dray II to hold that “[w]here a 

plaintiff asserts that a breach of contract occurs from a defendant’s infringement of the plaintiff’s 

patents, the breach of contract claim necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of 

patent law”); Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Texas Sys. V. 3d Sys., Inc., No. A-10-CA-871-SS, 2011 

WL 13324299, at *3 (W.D. Tex. July 12, 2011) (relying on Dray II to find patent law jurisdiction 

in case without diversity jurisdiction where parties were not diverse).) 

19. Even cases following the Supreme Court’s decision in Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 

251 (2013) have continued to recognize the holding in Dray II and have held patent law jurisdiction 

over breach of contract claims. (See Levi Straus & Co. v. Aqua Dynamics Sys., Inc., No. 15-CV04718-WHO, 2016 WL 1365946, at **5-6 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2016) (citing Dray II and others to 

find patent law jurisdiction over breach of contract claim); Alexsam, Inc. v. Green Dot Corp., No. 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 11 of 162 Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 8 of 13
9 

215CV05742CASPLAX, 2015 WL 6520917, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2015); Induction 

Innovations, Inc. v. Pacholok, No. 13 CV 5102, 2014 WL 4922350, at *13 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 30, 

2014) (citing Dray II when ruling that “complaint for breach of contract necessarily contains an 

issue of federal patent law); see also Jang v. Boston Sci. Corp., 767 F.3d 1334, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 

2014) (affirming post-Gunn patent law jurisdiction existed where “[a]lthough this cases arises 

from a [state law breach of contract] claim, rather than directly as a patent infringement claim, [the 

plaintiff’s] right to relief . . . depends on an issue of federal patent law – whether the [products] 

sold by [the defendants] would have infringed [the plaintiff’s patents]”) (internal quotation marks 

omitted).) 

20. R.R. Donnelley notes the decision in MDS (Canada) Inc. v. Rad Source Techs., 

Inc., 720 F.3d 833 (11th Cir. 2013) where the court found no patent law jurisdiction for that 

particular breach of contract action, but as explained in Xitronix Corp. v. KLA-Tencor Corp., 916 

F.3d 429 (5th Cir. 2019), MDS was analogous to Gunn since “like the patent issues in Gunn, [the 

issue in MDS] was backwards-looking and insubstantial because it indisputably concerned a sinceexpired patent.” (Id. 440 (emphasis added).) In contrast, the patents underlying the breach of 

contract cases cited above were deemed either valid or validity was in dispute, and patent law 

jurisdiction was found. Indeed, the Federal Circuit in Jang, which was decided after MDS, noted 

the difference in the Gunn “substantiality” test analyzed therein, which is in contrast to MDS’s 

determination of insubstantiality. Therefore, MDS is distinguishable and the above cited cases 

should govern. (See also Wila B.V. v. Wilson Tool Int’l, Inc., No. CV WDQ-06-2861, 2007 WL 

9780502, at *1 (D. Md. Apr. 2, 2007) (noting that the district court, when considering federal 

question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1338, “follow[s] applicable Federal Circuit precedent, if 

such authority is available,” rather than the law of the regional circuit).)

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 12 of 162 Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 9 of 13
10 

21. Given the wealth of case law supporting that breach of contract claims such as the 

one at issue in this case arise under patent law, it is clear that this breach of contract claim too 

arises under patent law. Therefore it is proper for this Court to exercise section 1338(a) jurisdiction 

over Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim and, should diversity jurisdiction not apply, section 

1367(a) supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims. 

Timeliness of Removal 

22. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3), “if the case stated by the initial pleading is not 

removable, a notice of removal may be filed within thirty days after receipt by the defendant, 

through service or otherwise, of a copy of an amended pleading, motion, order or other paper from 

which it may first be ascertained that the case is one which is or has become removable.” When 

R.R. Donnelley first received Plaintiff’s Complaint, it was not clear whether this case was 

removable. As discussed in R.R. Donnelley’s Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff’s Complaint carried 

clear deficiencies as well as contained parts that seemed irrelevant or otherwise confusing. 

However, Plaintiff counsel’s assertions during the May 27, 2020 conference first led R.R. 

Donnelley to ascertain that this case was subject to removal under both diversity jurisdiction as 

well as patent law jurisdiction. Our understanding that this case was subject to removal was 

confirmed via other paper in the form of Plaintiff’s Response to Motion to Dismiss. 

23. Specifically, prior to speaking to Plaintiff’s counsel and receiving Plaintiff’s 

Response to Motion to Dismiss, there was doubt as to whether Plaintiff’s claims were based strictly 

on patents or whether Plaintiff’s claims were also based on some misuse of confidential and 

proprietary information, or some other issue. Plaintiff’s Response to Motion to Dismiss made 

clear that the patents are essential to defining what was licensed under the Manufacture Agreement. 

In particular, throughout its Response to Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff only referred to the Extended 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 13 of 162 Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 10 of 13
11 

Tab Prescription Drug Label as “patented.” Furthermore, Plaintiff confirmed a definition of the 

Extended Tab Prescription Drug Label indicating that the label at issue has to relate to certain 

patent applications. (Response to Motion to Dismiss ¶ 16.) Moreover, the Plaintiff confirmed that 

the Mutual Confidentiality Agreement, which may have been alleged to be a basis for misuse of 

confidential information claims, is not necessary to any claims. (Response to Motion to Dismiss 

¶¶ 59-63.) Similarly, these clarifications, confirmed by Plaintiff’s Response to Motion to Dismiss, 

permitted R.R. Donnelley to determine that the amount in controversy will exceed $75,000, as 

discussed above, making this case subject to removal under diversity jurisdiction. 

24. This Notice of Removal is filed within 30 days of May 27, 2020, the day of the 

conference with Plaintiff’s counsel in which R.R. Donnelley first ascertained that this case is 

subject to removal. This Notice of Removal is also filed within 30 days of June 4, 2020, the day 

R.R. Donnelley received Plaintiff’s Response to Motion to Dismiss, which was the first paper 

served on R.R. Donnelley after it ascertained that this case is subject to removal and which itself 

further confirmed federal jurisdiction. Either way, the Notice of Removal is timely pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3).4

Written Notice of Removal 

25. As 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d) requires, a copy of this Notice of Removal is being 

submitted to the Clerk of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida, and 

is being served on counsel of record for Plaintiff. 

26. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), true and correct copies of all process, pleadings, 

and other documents served on R.R. Donnelley are attached hereto. (See Ex. 12.) 

4

 If R.R. Donnelley’s Notice of Removal is deemed untimely for any reason, 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1454(b)(2) states “the time limitations contained in section 1446(b) may be extended at any 

time for cause shown” so long as “the removal is based solely on [section 1454].” 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 14 of 162 Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 11 of 13
12 

27. A copy of the docket sheet from the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward 

County, Florida is attached hereto. (See Ex. 13.) 

28. R.R. Donnelley reserves the right to amend or supplement this Notice of Removal. 

29. If any questions arise as to the propriety of the removal of this action, R.R. 

Donnelley requests the opportunity to present a brief and requests oral argument in support of 

removal. 

No Waiver 

30. By filing this Notice of Removal, R.R. Donnelley does not waive any defenses 

available to it, does not consent to personal jurisdiction within any Florida state or federal court, 

and does not admit any of Plaintiff’s material allegations, including allegations of wrongdoing by 

R.R. Donnelley or allegations concerning damages. 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 15 of 162 Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 12 of 13
13 

WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated above, R.R. Donnelley hereby removes this action 

to this Court. 

Dated: June 26, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 

R.R. DONNELLEY SONS & COMPANY 

By: /s/ Eugene K. Pettis___________________ 

Eugene K. Pettis 

Debbie P. Klauber 

HALICZER, PETTIS & SCHWAMM, P.A. 

One Financial Plaza 

100 S.E. 3rd Avenue 

Seventh Floor 

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394 

Telephone: (954) 523-9922 

Fax: (954) 522-2512 

Reginald J. Hill* 

JENNER & BLOCK LLP 

353 N. Clark Street 

Chicago, IL 60654 

Telephone: (312) 222-9350 

Fax: (312) 527-0484 

Attorneys for R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company 

*Not yet admitted in the United States District 

Court for the Southern District of Florida 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 16 of 162 Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 13 of 13
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION

SCRIPTCHEK VISUAL 

VERIFICATION SYSTEMS, INC., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

R.R. DONNELLEY & SONS 

COMPANY 

Defendant. 

 CASE NO.: ____________________ 

INDEX OF EXHIBITS TO NOTICE OF REMOVAL 

Exhibit Description 

1. Complaint 

2. Civil Cover Sheet 

3. Plaintiff ScriptChek Visual Verification Systems, Inc.’s First Request for 

Production to Defendant R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company, Inc. 

4. Agreed Order on Deadline for Defendant to Respond to Complaint and First 

Request for Production 

5. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint, Motion to Strike, Motion 

in the Alternative for More Definite Statement, and Incorporated Memorandum 

of Law 

6. Verified Motion for Admission to Appear Pro Hac Vice Pursuant to Florida Rule 

of Judicial Administration 2.510 

7. Agreed Order on Verified Motion for Admission to Appear Pro Hac Vice 

8. Defendant’s Notice of Service of Responses and Objections to Plaintiff’s First 

Request for Documents 

9. Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint, 

Motion to Strike, Motion in the Alternative for More Definite Statement, and 

Incorporated Memorandum of Law 

10. R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company, Inc. Notice of Appearance and Designation of 

E-mail Addresses 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 17 of 162 Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 1 of 2
2 

Exhibit Description 

11. Notice of Hearing (Special Set – 1 Hour) 

12. Service of Process Documents 

13. State Court Docket – ScriptChek Visual Verification Systems, Inc. Plaintiff vs. 

R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company, Inc. Defendant, Broward County Case 

Number: CACE20003398 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 18 of 162 Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 1 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 1 of 23 Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 19 of 162
Filing # 103813414 E-Filed 02/24/2020 04:36:00 PM 

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17Th

JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR 

BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA 

CIVIL DIVISION 

CASE NO.: 

SCRIPTCHEK VISUAL 

VERIFICATION SYSTEMS, INC., 

a Florida Corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

v . 

R.R. DONNELLEY & SONS 

COMPANY, INC., a Delaware 

Corporation, 

Defendant. 

.1 

COMPLAINT 

Plaintiff, SCRIPTCHEK VISUAL VERIFICATION SYSTEMS, INC., a Florida 

Corporation ("ScriptChek"), by and through its undersigned counsel, sues Defendant, R.R. 

DONNELLEY & SONS COMPANY, INC., a Delaware Corporation ("R.R. Donnelley"), 

and alleges as follows: 

I. On or about August 1, 2006, the parties entered into a Non-Exclusive 

Limited License to Manufacture (the "Manufacture Agreement"). A copy of the 

Manufacture Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit "A." 

2. This is an action for breach of the terms of the Manufacture Agreement 

(Counts I and II), alternatively, an action for specific performance of the provisions of the 

Sm./ay/say ik Au.ex, rt. 

201 &BISCAYNE lIOULEYARO ancRour CENTER - SUITE RI 5. MIAMI. FLORIDA III] f 1TIL (NISI 171-423 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 2 of 23 Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 20 of 162
CASE NO.-

Manufacture Agreement (Count Ill), and, alternatively, an action for unjust enrichment 

(Count IV) 

PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE 

3. ,This is an action for damages in which the amount in controversy exceeds 

$30,000.00 exclusive of interest, costs and attorneys' fees and is within the jurisdiction of 

this Court, and alternatively for equitable relief within the jurisdiction of this Court. 

4. ScriptChek is a Florida Corporation conducting business in Bioward 

County, Florida. 

5. KR. Donnelley is a Delaware Corporation conducting business in Inward 

County, Florida. 

6. R.R. Donnelley is the successor by merger to Moore Wallace, its 

predecessor. Moore Wallace was acquired by merger by R.R. Donnelley. As a result of 

R.R. Donnelley's acquisition by merger of Moore Wallace, R.R. Donnelly stands in the 

shoes of Moore Wallace and R.R. Donnelley has assumed the obligations, liabilities, and 

rights of Moore Wallace. 

7. Moore Wallace entered into the Manufacture Agreement with ScriptChek, 

as set forth herein. As a result of R.R. Donnelley's acquisition by merger of Moore 

Wallace, R.R. Donnelly stands in the shoes of Moore Wallace and R.R. Donnelley has 

assumed the obligations, liabilities, and rights of Moore Wallace pursuant to the 

Manufacture Agreement. 

SCUMMY & ALLEN, P.L. 

201 BISCAYIIBROULEVARD,CIEGROUPCEXCER -SUITE 913.MIAMI. FLORIDA 33131 EL(303)3114213 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 3 of 23 Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 21 of 162
CASE Na: 

8. Venue is proper in Broward County, Florida because R.R. Donnelley 

conducts business in Broward County, Florida, and the causes of action accrued in Broward 

County, Florida. 

9. Venue is proper in Broward County, Florida pursuant to ¶ 13 of the 

Manufacture Agreement, in which R.R. Donnelley has consented to jurisdiction and venue 

in Broward County, Florida. Sec Manufacture Agreement, ¶ 13. 

10. In addition, pursuant to¶ 1.3 of the Manufacture Agreement, R.R. Donnelley 

and ScriptChek agreed that the Manufacture Agreement shall be construed and enforced in 

accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of Florida. See Manufacture 

Agreement, ¶ 13. 

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 

The Parties Entered into the Manufacture Agreement 

I I. On or about August I, 2006, ScriptChek and R.R. Donnelley's predecessor, 

Moore Wallace, entered into the Manufacture Agreement. See Manufacture Agreement. 

12. The Manufacture Agreement was the product of negotiation between the 

parties, and it was executed by the Vice President and Associate General Counsel of R.R. 

Donnelly's predecessor, Robert G. Wieland, and by the President of ScriptChek, Stacy 

Kaufman, 

13. Pursuant to the Manufacture Agreement, ScriptChek granted A.R. 

Donnelley a limited, non-exclusive right to manufacture and sell the patented ScriptChek 

Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels for the limited purpose of selling the patented 

ScriptChek Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels only to customers approved by 

SOLOWSKY & ALLEN, P.L. 

201 S. BISCAYNE POULEVA PO CMGROUPCIOUTR - SUITE 915, MIAMI. I'LQRIDA 33 131 TEL (30M 371-222.1 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 4 of 23 Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 22 of 162
CASE NO.: 

ScriptChek (the "Approved Customers") who have entered into written license agreements 

with ScriptChek to use the patented ScriptChek Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels. 

See Manufacture Agreement,1 I. 

14. The patented ScriptChek Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels are 

prescription labels for displaying additional information printed on a tab extending from 

the label. See Manufacture Agreement, 1 11. 

IS. Pursuant to 1 1 of the Manufacture Agreement, ScriptChek granted R.R. 

Donnelley a "non-exclusive, limited right to manufacture the Extended Tab Prescription 

Drug Label for the limited purpose of selling the Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels 

only to customers approved by [ScriptChek], hereinafter referred to as 'Approved 

Customers' that have entered into written License Agreements with [ScriptChek] to use 

the Extended Tab Prescription Drug Label." See Mamtfacture Agreement,1 I. 

16. Pursuant to 1 4 of the Manufacture Agreement, R.R. Donnelley was 

obligated to "mark all Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels manufactured by it and/or 

sold by it with (a) ScriptChek ®, (b) Patents Pending, and (c) upon notice from 

[ScriptChek] of the issuance of any pending patents, "Patented" with the patent numbers 

and proper dates." See Manufacture Agreement, ¶ 4. 

17. In the Manufacture Agreement, R.R. Donnelley acknowledged and agreed 

that ScriptChek is the owner of the patented ScriptChek Extended Tab Prescription Drug 

Labels. See Manufacture Agreement, p. I . 

18. In the Manufacture Agreement, R.R. Donnelley agreed to manufacture 

ScriptChek's patented Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels for the purpose of selling 

them to ScriptChek's Approved Customers. See Manufacture Agreement, ¶ 2. Pursuant to 

SOLOWSKY & ALLEo, Pt. 

101 & BISCAYNE DOULEDA RD, CI CROUP CENTER-SUITE Olt minmi. FLORIDA 33131 TEL 005137D3223 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 5 of 23 Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 23 of 162
the Manufacture Agreement, R.R. Donnelley has sold and continues to sell the patented 

ScriptChek Extended Tab Prescription Dnig Label to at least one Approved Customer. 

19. In the Manufacture Agreement, R.R. Donnelley agreed not to sell the 

patented ScriptChek Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels to customers who were not 

approved by ScriptChek and to customers who had not entered into written license 

agreements with ScriptChek to use the patented ScriptChek Extended Tab Prescription 

Drug Labels. See Manufacture Agreement, I, 2. 

The Parties Performed under the Manufacture Agreement 

20. The panics performed under the Manufacture Agreement for numerous 

years, and continue to perform under the Manufacture Agreement with respect to those 

Approved Customers who entered into a license agreement with ScriptChek to use the 

patented ScriptChek Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels. 

21. ScriptChek performed its obligations pursuant to the Manufacture 

Agreement, in that it provided the non-exclusive right to manufacture and sell the patented 

ScriptChek Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels to R.R. Donnelley pursuant to the 

terms and conditions set forth in the Manufacture Agreement. 

22. ScriptChek entered into written License Agreements with Approved 

Customers for the Approved Customers to use the patented ScriptChek Extended Tab 

Prescription Drug Labels. See Manufacture Agreement, ill. 

23. R.R. Donnelley manufactured and sold the patented ScriptChek Extended 

Tab Prescription Drug Labels for ScriprChek's Approved Customers' use. See 

Manufacture Agreement, ¶¶ 1, 2. 

SOLOWSKY & ALLEN, P.L 

201 S. BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, miaow, CENTER- SUITE 015.MIAMI. FLORIDA 33 131 TEL (JOS) 3/1-2211 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 6 of 23 Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 24 of 162
CASE NO.: 

24. As referenced in the Manufacture Agreement, patents were issued to 

ScriptChek See. e.g.. Manufacture Agreement,11113, 4. 

25. ScriptChek provided to R.R. Donnelley confidential and proprietary 

information, specifications, know-how, and other protected information and materials to 

be used by R.R. Donnelly solely in furtherance of R.R. Donnelley's manufacture and sale 

of the patented ScriptChek Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels for ScriptChek's 

Approved Customers' use. 

26. The Manufacture Agreement provides that the term of the Manufacture 

Agreement shall extend to the end of the life of the Iasi of the patents coming within the 

provisions of the Manufacture Agreement. See Manufacture Agreement, 9 3. 

R.R. Donnelley Breached the Manufacture Agreement 

27. R.R. Donnelley has been manufacturing and selling the patented ScriptChek 

Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels to non-approved customers, including but not 

limited to CVS Pharmacy, in violation of the Manufacture Agreenient. 

28. As a result, on or about October 29, 2019, ScriptChek, by and through its 

undersigned counsel, sent a demand letter to R.R. Donnelley, which put R.R. Donnelley 

on notice that ScriptChek has elected to exercise its right to terminate the Manufacture 

Agreement with R.R- Donnelley, demanded that R.R. Donnelley cease and desist from 

using any and all of ScriptChek's proprietary information in any form, including but not 

limited to, the manufacture and sale of the patented ScriptChek Extended Tab Prescription 

Drug Labels, demanded that R.R, Donnelley provide an accounting of all sales of the 

patented ScriptChek Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels to non-approved customers, 

SOLOWSKY & ALLEN, P.I.. 

2015. BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, C1T1GROUP CENTER -SUITE 033. MIAMI, FLORIDA DUI TEL130!).171.2223 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 7 of 23 Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 25 of 162
CASE NO.: 

and demanded that R.R. Donnelley itnmediately return all confidential and proprietary 

materials in R.R. Donnelley's possession regarding the patented ScriptChek Extended Tab 

Prescription Dtvg Labels. 

29. On or about November 15, 201.9, ScriptChek, by and through its 

undersigned counsel, sent Mr. Paul Rodriguez, Esq., Vice President and Chief 

International, Privacy and Intellectual Property Counsel for R.R. Donnelley, photographs 

of prescription drug bottles obtained from CVS Pharmacy which contain ScriptChek's 

proprietary and patented Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels, per Mr. Rodriguez's 

request. 

30. On information and belief, R.R. Donnelley has utilized, and is still utilizing, 

ScriptChek's proprietary and patented Extended Tab Prescription Drvg Labels to print and 

supply non-approved customers, including but not limited to CVS Pharmacy, with patented 

ScriptChek Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels for the non-approved customers' 

prescription drug bottles, without ScriptChek's approval, in violation of the Manufacture 

Agreement. 

31. On information and belief, R.R. Donnelley has sold, and is still selling, 

ScriptChek's proprietary and patented Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels to nonapproved customers, including but not limited to CVS Pharmacy, for the non-approved 

customers' prescription drug bottles, without ScriptChek's approval, in violation of the 

Manufacture Agreement. 

32. In addition, on or about November 15, 2019, ScriptChek, by and through its 

undersigned counsel, demanded that R.R. Donnelley provide it with die lines that were 

provided to R.R. Donnelley by CVS Pharmacy, and any die lines R.R. Donnelley sent to 

SOLON'S( ALLEN, P.L. 

201 S. Risen rit 9OULEVARO. CM(ROUPCENICIt - SUITE 915. MIAMI, FILORIDA 331 EEL (305)171.2223 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 8 of 23 Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 26 of 162
CASE NO.: 

CVS Pharmacy for its approval, in order to see the folding perforation on the die line, as 

well as samples of the actual blank labels which R.R. Donnelley provided to CVS 

Pharmacy. A die line is a diagram showing the cut lines and folds of a package to ensure 

proper printing layout. 

33. Despite notice, R.R. Donnelley has failed to provide ScriptChek with any 

of the materials demanded by ScriptChek, and has failed to cease its sale of the patented 

ScriptChek Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels to non-approved customers, including 

but not limited to CVS Pharmacy, in violation of the Manufacture Agreement. 

34. ScriptChek has incurred and continues to incur damages as a result of R.R. 

Donnelley's violations of the Manufacture Agreement. 

R.R. Donnelley Acknowledged the Strictly Confidential Nature 

of ScriptChek's Confidential and Proprietary Information 

Provided to R.R. Donnelley 

35. R.R. Donnelly's predecessor, Moore Wallace entered into a Mutual 

Confidentiality Agreement in September 2003 with ScriptChek. 

36. In the Mutual Confidentiality Agreement, R.R. Donnelley acknowledged 

that the parties' anticipated business relationship would involve the disclosure by 

ScriptChek of ScriptChek's confidential and proprietary information. 

37. In the Mutual Confidentiality Agreement, R.R. Donnelley acknowledged 

theistrictly confidential nature of ScriptChek's confidential and proprietary information. 

38. In the Mutual Confidentiality Agreement, R.R. Donnelly agreed to protect 

ScriptChek's confidential and proprietary information by using a standard of care at least 

SOWWSKY & ALLEN. p.t. 

NM S. [USDA ENE BOULEVARD, CITIGROUP CENTER - SIIITII9 i 5. TIIA.NI, FLORIDA 3113I TEL0011371.2M 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 9 of 23 Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 27 of 162
CASE NO.: 

equal to that which R.R. Donnelly applies to safeguard its own highly confidential internal 

information. 

39. The parties' Mutual Confidentiality Agreement was the product of 

negotiation between the parties, and it was executed in September 2003 by the Chief 

Financial Officer of Operations of R.A. Donnelly's predecessor, Richard McMichael, and 

by the President of ScriptChek, Stacy Kaufman. 

40. Almost three years after the parties entered into the Mutual Confidentiality 

Agreement, the parties' entered into the Manufacture Agreement. 

41 All conditions precedent to filing this action have been performed, have 

occurred, have been satisfied, or have been waived. 

COUNT I 

BREACH OF CONTRACT 

(Non-Exclusive Limited Right to Manufacture) 

42. ScriptChek realleges and reasserts the allegations contained in Paragraphs 

I through 41 as if fully set forth herein. 

43. ScriptChek pleads this Count for Breach of Contract in the alternative to all 

other relief requested herein. 

44. Pursuant to 1 1 of the Manufacture Agreement, ScriptChek granted R.R. 

Donnelley a "non-exclusive, limited right to manufacture the Extended Tab Prescription 

Drug Label for the limited purpose of selling the Extended Tab Prescription Dtug Label 

only to customers approved by [ScriptChek], hereinafter referred to as 'Approved 

Customers' that have entered into written License Agreements with [ScriptChek] to use 

the Extended Tab Prescription Drug Label." 

SOLOWSKY & ALLEN, P.L. 

2015. 13LKA VNL• BOULEVARD. CITICROUP CENTER -SUITE 915. MIAMI, FLORIDA 33151 1E1.13051 371-222.3 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 10 of 23 Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 28 of 162
CASE NO.: 

45. Pursuant to ¶ 4 of the Manufacture Agreement, R.R. Donnelley was 

obligated to "mark all Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels manufactured by it andfor 

sold by it with (a) ScriptChek (b) Patents Pending, and (c) upon notice from 

[ScriptChek] of the issuance of any pending patents, `Patented' with the patent numbers 

and proper date&" 

46. ScriptChek performed its obligations pursuant to the Manufacture 

Agreement, in that it provided the non-exclusive right to manufacture and sell the patented 

ScriptChek Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels to R.R. Donnelley pursuant to the 

terms and conditions set forth in the Manufacture Agreement. 

47. R.R. Donnelley breached the Manufacture Agreement with ScriptChek: 

(I) by manufacturing and selling the patented ScriptChek Extended Tab Prescription Drug 

Labels to non-approved customers, including but not limited to CVS Pharmacy, in 

violation of I I of the Manufacture Agreement; and (2) by failing to include 

"ScriptChek ®" on the patented ScriptChek Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels sold 

by R.R. Donnelley, in violation of ¶ 4 of the Manufacture Agreement. 

48. ScriptChek has been damaged and continues to be damaged as a result. 

49, In addition to the relief requested herein, ScriptChek hereby demands that 

R.R. Donnelley immediately cease and desist from any and all manufacturing of the 

patented ScriptChek Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels to non-approved customers 

pursuant to of the Manufacture Agreement. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, SCRIPTCHEK VISUAL VERIFICATION SYSTEMS, 

INC., demands a Judgment against Defendant, R.R. DONNELLEY & SONS COMPANY, 

- - 

SOLON/SKY & ALLEN. P.L. 

201 S. BISCAYNE BOULEVARD. CITIGROUP CENTER -SUITE915. MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 TEL (3031371-2223 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 11 of 23 Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 29 of 162
CASE NO.: 

INC., [or damages plus prejudgment interest and costs, and for such other and further relief 

as this Court deems just, equitable and proper, 

COUNT II 

BREACH OF CONTRACT 

(Books of Account and Quarterly Reports' 

50. ScriptChek realleges and reasserts the allegations contained in Paragraphs 

1 through 41 as if fully set forth herein. 

51. ScriptChek pleads this Count for Breach of Contract in the alternative to all 

other relief requested herein. 

52. Pursuant to Q 5 of the Manufacture Agreement, R.R. Donnelley was 

obligated to "keep proper books of account accurately reflecting the customers of [R.R. 

Donnelley] For MI Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels and associated devices 

manufactured and sold by it under the terms of this Agreement" 

53. In addition, pursuant to ¶ 5 of the Manufacture Agreement, R.R. Donnelley 

was obligated to "render written reports quarterly to [ScriptChek] not later than the 15th

day of the month following each contract quarter of this Agreement", which reports were 

to contain, inter alio, the name and address of each customer, the dates of sale to each 

customer, and the total number of labels sold to each customer. Id. 

54. R.R. Donnelley breached the Manufacture Agreement with ScriptChek by 

failing to keep proper books of account and failing to render written reports quarterly to 

ScriptChek, in violation of 'j 5 of the Manufacture Agreement. 

55. ScriptChek has been damaged and continues to be damaged as a result. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, SCRLPTCHEK VISUAL VERIFICATION SYSTEMS, 

INC., demands a Judgment against Defendant, R.R. DONNELLEY & SONS COMPANY, 

- I I - 

SoLowsicr & ALLEN, Y.L. 

10I S. BISCAYNE ILINJLIEVARI).CITIGROUP CENTER -SUITES IL MIAMI, FLORIDA 33111 TEL 1305)311-22.23 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 12 of 23 Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 30 of 162
CASE NO.: 

INC., for damages plus prejudgment interest and costs, and for such other and further relief 

as this Court deems just, equitable and proper. 

COUNT III 

SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT 

(Books of Account and Written Ouarterk Reports) 

56. ScriptChek realleges and reasserts the allegations contained in Paragraphs 

1 through 41 as if fully set forth herein. 

57. ScriptChek pleads this Count for Specific Performance of Contract in the 

alternative to all other relief requested herein. 

58. This is an action for Specific Performance of RR. Donnelley's express 

written contractual obligation to keep proper books of account and to render written reports 

quarterly to ScriptChek, as set forth in the Manufacture Agreement which is attached hereto 

as Exhibit "A". 

59. Pursuant to II S of the Manufacture Agreement, R.R. Donnelley was 

obligated to "keep proper books of account accurately reflecting the customer(s) of [RR. 

Donnelley] for all Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels and associated devices 

manufactured and sold by it under the terms of this Agreement". 

60. In addition, pursuant lot 5 of the Manufacture Agreement, R.R. Donnelley 

was obligated to "render written reports quarterly to [ScriptChek] not later than the 15°1

day of the month following each contract quarter of this Agreement", which reports were 

to contain, inter alio, the name and address of each customer, the dates of sales to each 

customer, and the total number of labels sold to each customer. Id. 

- 12 - 

SOLOWSKY ee. ALLEN, FL. 

201 S. 9ISCAYNE BOULEVARD, C MGROUP CENTER -SUITE OIL MIAMI. BLUR IDA 33131 TEL (3051 311a 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 13 of 23 Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 31 of 162
CASE NO.: 

61. The Manufacture Agreement required R.R. Donnelley to keep proper books 

of account and to render the written reports quarterly to ScriptChek, and R.R. Donnelley 

has failed to do so. 

62. ScriptChek is entitled to specific performance of R.R. Donnelley's 

obligations under ¶ 5 of the Manufacture Agreement which requires R.A. Donnelley to 

keep proper books of account and to render written reports quarterly to ScriptChek. 

63. ScriptChek is clearly entitled to specific performance of R.R. Donnelley's 

obligations under 115 of the Manufacture Agreement to keep proper books of account and 

render written reports as specified in115 of the Manufacture Agreement from 2006 to the 

present. 

64. ScriptChek has no adequate remedy at law. 

65. Under the circumstances, justice requires that ScriptChek be granted 

specific performance of R.R. Donnelley's obligations under ¶ 5 of the Manufacture 

Agreement. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, SCRIPTCHEK VISUAL VERIFICATION SYSTEMS, 

INC., demands that this Court enter a Judgment granting specific performance of ¶ 5 of the 

Manufacture Agreement and requiring R.R. DONNELLEY & SONS COMPANY, INC., 

to perform the contractual obligations by providing SCRIPTCHEK VISUAL 

VERIFICATION SYSTEMS, INC., with the books of account and written reports 

specified in ¶ 5 of the Manufaeture Agreement from 2006 to the present, and for such other 

and further relief as this Court deems just, equitable and proper, 

_ 13_ 

SOLOWSKY & ALLEN. F.L. 

201 S. BISCA YNE ROULF.VARD. CITICROUP CENTER -SUITE 9IS. MIAMI. FLORIDA 3313 I TEL 005. 371-2213 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 14 of 23 Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 32 of 162
CASE NO.: 

COUNT IV 

UNJUST ENRICHMENT 

66. ScriptChek realleges and reasserts the allegations contained in Paragraphs 

3-6, 8, and 4! as if fully set forth herein. 

67. Scriptchek pleads this Count for Unjust Enrichment in the alternative to all 

other relief requested herein. 

68. ScriptChek has conferred a benefit on R.R. Donnelley, who has knowledge 

thereof. 

69. R.R. Donnelley has voluntarily accepted and retained the benefit conferred 

by ScriptChek. 

70. The circumstances are such that it would be inequitable for R.R. Donnelley 

to retain the benefit without paying the value thereof to ScriptChek, and R.R. Donnelley 

must provide restitution to ScriptChek. 

71. R.R. Donnelley's retention of the benefits conferred by ScriptChek without 

paying the value thereof to ScriptChek would violate good conscience and fundamental 

principles o£justice or equity. 

72. ScriptChek granted R.R. Donnelley a limited, non-exclusive right to 

manufacture and sell ScriptChck's Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels for the limited 

purpose of selling the Extended Tab Pres'criptien Drug Labels only to customers approved 

by ScriptChek (the "Approved Customer?) who have entered into written license 

agreements with ScriptChek to use the patented ScriptChek Extended Tab Prescription 

Drug Labels. 

73. The Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels are prescription labels for 

displaying additional information printed on a tab extending from the label. 

- 14 - 

SOLOWSKY R ALIEN, P.L. 

201 S.BISCAYNE BOULEVARD. C ITIGROUP CENTER- SUM 015. miANIL FLORIDA 3)131 TEL 005) 311-2223 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 15 of 23 Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 33 of 162
CASE NO.: 

74. R.R. Donnelley was obligated to mark all patented ScriptChek Extended 

Tab Prescription Drug Labels manufactured by it and/or sold by it with (a) ScriptChek CLO, 

(b) Patents Pending, and (c) upon notice from ScriptChek of the issuance of any pending 

patents, 'Patented" with the patent numbers and proper dates. 

75. RR. Donnelley agreed to manufacture ScriptChek's patented Extended Tab 

Prescription Drug Labels for the purpose of selling them only to ScriptChek's Approved 

Customers 

76. RR. Donnelley agreed not to sell the patented ScriptChek Extended Tab 

Prescription Drug Labels to customers who were not approved by ScriptChek and who had 

not entered into written license agreements with ScriptChek to use the patented ScriptChek 

Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels. 

77. ScriptChek provided the non-exclusive right to manufacture and sell the 

patented ScriptChek Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels to R.R. Donnelley. 

78. ScriptChek entered into written License Agreements with Approved 

Customers for the Approved Customers to use the patented ScriptChek Extended Tab 

Prescription Drug Labels. 

79. R.R. Donnelley manufactured and sold the patented ScriptChek Extended 

Tab Prescription. Drug Labels for Scriptatek's Approved Customers' use. 

80. ScriptChek provided to R.R. Donnelley confidential and proprietary 

information, specifications, know-how, and other protected information and materials to 

be used by R.R. Donnelly solely in furtherance of R.R. Donnelley's manufacture and sale 

of the patented ScriptChek Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels for ScriptChek's 

Approved Customers' use. 

- 15 - 

SOLO1VSKV & ALLEN', P.L. 

201 S. BECAME BOULEVARD, C1T1GROUP CEO - SU ILE 915, MIAMI, FIDRIDA 33131 TEL.1305) 311.2'223 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 16 of 23 Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 34 of 162
CASE NO.: 

81. R.R. Donnelley has been manufacturing and selling the patented ScriptChek 

Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels to non-approved customers, including but not 

limited to CVS Pharmacy. 

82. As a result, on or about October 29, 2019, ScriptChek, by and through its 

undersigned counsel, sent a demand letter to R.R. Donnelley, in which ScriptChek, inter 

cilia, demanded that R.R_ Donnelley cease and desist from using any mid all of ScriptChek's 

proprietary information in any form, including but not limited to, the manufacture and sale 

of the patented ScriptChek Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels, demanded that R.R. 

Donnelley provide an accounting of all sales of the patented ScriptChek Extended Tab 

Prescription Drug Labels to non-approved customers, and demanded that R.R. Donnelley 

immediately return all confidential and proprietary materials in R.R. Donnelley's 

possession regarding the patented ScriptChek Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels. 

83. On or about November IS, 2019, ScriptChek, by and through its 

undersigned counsel, sent Mr. Paul Rodriguez, Esq., Vice President and Chief 

International, Privacy and Intellectual Property Counsel for R.R. Donnelley, photographs 

of prescription drug bottles obtained from CVS Pharmacy which contain ScriptChek's 

proprietary and patented Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels, per Mr. Rodriguez's 

request. 

84. On information and belief, R.R. Donnelley has utilized, and 13 still utilizing, 

ScriptChek's proprietary and patented Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels to print and 

supply non-approved customers, including but not limited to CVS Pharmacy, with patented 

ScriptChek Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels for the non-approved customers' 

prescription drug bottles, without ScriptChek's approval. 

- 16 - 

SOLOWSKY & ALLEY, P.L. 

201 5.111SCAYNE BOULEVARn, CITIGROUP CENTER -SUITE 215, MiA011, FLORIDA 33131 TEL(303)371-2223 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 17 of 23 Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 35 of 162
CASE NO: 

85. On information and belief, R.R. Donnelley has sold, and is still selling, 

ScriptChek's proprietary and patented Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels to nonapproved customers, including but not limited to CVS Pharmacy, for the non-approved 

customers' prescription drug bottles, without ScriptChek's approval, and R,R. Donnelley 

has been unjustly enriched by such sales. 

86. In addition, on or about November 15, 2019, ScriptChek, by and through its 

undersigned counsel, demanded that R.R. Donnelley provide it with die lines that were 

provided to R.R.. Donnelley by CVS Pharmacy, and any die lines R.R. Donnelley sent to 

CVS Pharmacy for its approval, in order to see the folding perforation on the die line, as 

well as samples of the actual blank labels which R.R. Donnelley provided to CVS 

Pharmacy. A die line is a diagram showing the cut lines and folds of a package to ensure 

proper printing layout. 

87. Despite notice, R.R. Donnelley has failed to provide ScriptChek with any 

of the materials demanded by ScriptChek, and has failed to cease its sale of the patented 

ScriptChek Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels to non-approved customers, including 

but not limited to CVS Pharmacy. 

88. R.R. Donnelley has been and continues to be unjustly enriched by 

ScriptChek. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff; SCRIPTCHER VISUAL VERIFICATION SYSTEMS, 

INC., demands that this Court enter a Judgment for unjust enrichment against R.R. 

DONNELLEY & SONS COMPANY, INC., and for such other and further relief as this 

Court deems just, equitable and proper. 

l7 - 

SoLowniv & ALLE12, 

201 S. BIECA TNE EIOULEVAKR CITIEROLIEcuipix -E211T0 911. MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 TEL 005) 371-2223 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 18 of 23 Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 36 of 162
CASE NO.: 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

Plaintiff demands Trial by Jury on issues so triable, 

Respectfully submitted, 

SOLOWSKY & ALLEN, P.L. 

Attorneys for Plaintiff, 

SCRIPTCHEK VISUAL 

VERIFICATION SYSTEMS, INC. 

Citigroup Center — Suite 915 

201 S. Biscayne Boulevard 

Miami, Florida 33131 

Telephone No. (305) 371-2223 . 

Facsimile No. (305) 373-2073 

rallen®salawmiami.com 

ssolowsky®salawmiami.corn 

mlopez@salawmiamicom 

pleadings@salawmiamitorn 

By: Is! Richard L. Allen 

RICHARD L. ALLEN 

Florida Bar No. 295485 

and 

MANSFIELD BRONSTEIN & STONE, 

LLP 

Attorneys for Plaintiff, 

SCRIPTCHEK VISUAL 

VERIFICATION SYSTEMS, INC. 

500 Broward Boulevard, Suite 1450 

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33394 

Telephone No.: 954-601-5600 

Facsimile No.: 954-961-4756 

Email: gary®mblawpa.com 

Email: dstone@davidstonelaw.com 

Service: litigation®mblawpa.com 

By: /s/ Gary N. Mansfield 

GARY N. MANSFIELD 

Florida Bar No. 61913 

m:Vnairnsoiptchek vEstraEplaadings12020-02-24 COMPlaillidD0( 

- 18 - 

SOLOWSKY& ALLEN, P.I.. 

201 5. BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, CITIGROUP CENTUR -SUITE915, MIAMI, FLORIDA 15111 TFJ-C1050.171-2223 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 19 of 23 Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 37 of 162
EXHIBIT A 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 20 of 23 Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 38 of 162
Non-Exclusive Limited License to Manufacture 

This Agreement, made and entered Into, in duplicate, this first day of August 2006, by and 

between the Scriptchek Visual Verification Systems, Inc, a corporation organized and doing business 

under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Florida, hereinafter referred to as the "Licensor." and 

Moore Wallace North America, Inc., a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws 

of the Stale of Delaware, here:natter referred to as the 'Licensee." 

VVttnesseth: 

Whereas, the Licensor is the owner of all right, title and interest in and to certain inventions in a 

certain Extended Tab Prescription Drug Label ("Extended Tab Prescription Drug Label"), which 

inventions are the subject of certain Pending Patent Applications in the United States and Canada, said 

inventions and Pending Patent Applications being hereinafter referred to collectively as "International 

Patents-; 

Whereas, the Ucensee desires to obtain the non-exclusive righ€ to manufacture and sell said 

Extended Tab Prescription Drug Label and the Licensor desires to grant the same; 

Now, therefore, In consideration of the premises and the payment of one dollar ($1.00) and/or 

other valuable consideration by each party to the other, the receipt whereof is hereby mutually 

acknowledged, and of the covenants and agreements hereinafter mentioned to be faithfully kept and 

performed by the parties hereto, it is mutually agreed as follows: 

1. Grant of Non-Exclusive Limited License. The Licensor hereby grants to the Licensee the nonexclusive, limited right to manufacture the Extended Tab Prescription Drug Label for the limited purpose 

of selling the Extended Tab Prescription Drug Label only to customers approved by Licensor, hereinafter 

referred to as "Approved Customers" that have entered into written License Agreements with Licensor to 

use the Extended Tab Prescription Drug Label. . 

2. Agreement of Licensee to Manufacture. The Licensee hereby accepts said non-exclusive, 

limited right to manufacture the Extended Tab Prescription Drug Label for the purpose of selling the 

Extended Tab Prescription Drug Label only to the Approved Customers. 

3. Term. The term of the grant hereinabove given In Section 1, unless sooner terminated as 

hereinafter provided for, shall extend to the end of the life of the last of the International Patents coming 

within the provisions of this Agreement. 

In the event that all patent claims included within the Licensors International Patents shall be 

held Invalid in a decision by a court of competent jurisdiction and last resort in any country and from 

which no appeal has or can be taken, then Licensee shall continue to manufacture and sell under the 

then presumed patent, the existence of which is in full force for the same period of time. 

4. Marking. The Licensee shall mark all Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels manufactured by 

it and/or sold by it with (a) Scriptchek (b) Patents Pending, and (c) upon notice from Licensor of the 

issuance of any of the pending patents, "Patented" with the patent numbers and proper dates. 

5. Books of Account. The Licensee shall keep proper books of account accurately reflecting !he 

customer(s) of the Licensee for all Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels and associated devices 

manufactured and sold by it under the terms of this Agreement and render written reports quarterly to the 

Licensor not later than the 15th day of the month following each contract quarter of this Agreement 

FTL:10686136:3 1 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 21 of 23 Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 39 of 162
Including at least (1) name of each customer, (2) &dress of each customer, {3) contact name at each 

customer, (4) dates of salp(s) to each customer and (6) total number of labels sold to each customer on 

each date. In the event of failure of the Licensee to render any report as herein provided for, the Licensor 

at its option may have such report prepared by and delivered to itself by Its authorized representative and 

at the expense of the Licensee. 

6. Nonessienability. The rights to mentlfeeture and sell herein granted to the Licensee are 

personal to It and the same shall not be assigned, divided or apportioned, hi where er in pert. voluntarily 

or by operation of law, without written consent front Licenser, 

7. Cancellation Upon Default. If the Licenses In any manner violates any 9f the term or 

conditions of this agreerneet, or in any manner tulle. to comply with or parry out in every manner and 

respect any and all of the provisions of this agreement, and centInues ag to do for fifteen (15) days after 

notice thereof in writing given by the Licensor to (ha Licensee delivered to the !sat known address, of the 

Licensee stating the nature end character of the 01%* breach with aufflaient definiteness anti 

particularity to perm€t the Licensee to Identity and thvtiopip tha 11§itkins of such 011Q9pd Preach, then In 

that event, the Licensor may M Its option, and without waiving er In any manner affecting any of It other 

then existing rights against the Licensee, cancel the debt of the Licensee to manufacture end sell under 

this agreement by giving the Licensee ten (10) days' notice by registered mail, sent to Its last known 

address, of the Licenser's election to cancel :tech manufacturing and selling rights ender this agreement, 

and all such manufacturing and selling rights herein granted to the Licensee shall then terminate at (he 

end of said ten-day period; provided, however. that If the Licensee cures the breach within the ten (10) 

days after the first notice herein provided for the Liceneor shall not thereafter have the option or election 

of canceling the manufacturine end selling rights glen the Licensee under thin agreement for said 

specific breach; and provided further, that the failure. of the Licensor to at any time cancel such 

manufacturing and selling rights to the Licensee under this egreenffirit es herein provided for, shall not 

prevent or preclude the Licensor at any future time for any other deletions by the Licensee, from taking 

advantage of the provisions of this section of the Agreement. 

6. Right of Parties to Carmel. At any time, either party may, upon giving the other party tree (3) 

months' written notice, cancel and terminate this Agreement without cause. 

9. Inventions. Any additlenel Inventions, aPplIsations, and/or patents pertaining to Extended Tab 

Prescription Drug Label and associated devices hereafter acquired or coming within the control of the 

Licensor shall, at the option of the Licensee. be included under the previsions of this agreement, The 

Licensor agrees to promptly advise the Licensee from time to lime of any such future acquired invention, 

application, and/or patent, and the Licensee may, within sixty (60) days from the receipt of such notice by 

the Licensee and the information necessary to reeke the election, elect to have such invention, 

application and/or patent included under the provisione of this egreement, 

10. Warranty. TM licensor represents Mel it hap the exclusive rights to the International Patents 

and lhat under the provisions of egelion 11 hereof the Licensee shell have the option to Include any such 

future inventions, If any, under the provisions of !hie Agreement. 

11. Interpretation. In this agreement the term "Extended Tab Prescription Drug Leber shag men 

a prescription label for displaying additional information printed on a tab extendlne frern the !abet 

12. Successors. This agreement shell inure to the benefit of and he bindlnu upon the heir's, 

admInielreters and executors of the Licensor, 

F71;104PCM 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 22 of 23 Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 40 of 162
13. This Agreement shall be construed end enforced In accordance with and governed by the 

laws of the State of Florida. Jurisdiction of any dispute hereunder may be In Broward County, €lorida 

and the parties hereby agree to the non-exclusive Jurisdiction of the stale and federal courts located in 

13 roward County, Florida in connection with any dispute arising hereunder. 

14. This Agreement and the terms and provisions hereof may only be changed, waived or 

discharged by an instrument in writing signed by the parties hereto. 

15. This Agreement shall be construed without regard to any presumption or other rule requiring 

construction against the party causing the Agreement to be drafted. 

16. This Agreement may be executed In counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, 

but all of which together shall be deemed to be one agreement. 

17. If, for any reason, any provision of the Agreement is held invalid, such invalidity shall not 

affect any other provision of this Agreement, and the Agreement shall otherwise remain in full force and 

effect 

18. Any notice to be given under this Agreement shall be sufficient if it is in writing and is sent by 

certified or registered mail to the Contractor at his address as the same appears on the books and 

records of the Company or to the company at Its principal office. attention of the President, or otherwise 

as directed by the Company, from time to time. 

In Witness Whereof the parties have caused this agreement to be executed effective the date first 

written 

LIC R: 

By: 

Print e: Stacy fman 

Title: President 

LICENSEE: 

nhaerg 1Lo_kosoL 

PrintName: Robed G. NI nd 

Title: Vice President, Associate General Counsel 

F1141089688:3 3 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 23 of 23 Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 41 of 162
Exhibit 2 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 42 of 162 Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 1 of 3
Case Number: CACE-20-003398 Division: 08 

Filing# 103813414 E-Filed 02/24/2020 04:36:00 PM 

FORM 1.997. CIVIL COVER SHEET 

The civil cover sheet and the information contained in it neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of 

pleadings or other documents as required by law. This form must be filed by the plaintiff or petitioner with the 

Clerk of Court for the purpose of reporting data pursuant to section 25. 07 5, Florida Statutes. (See instructions 

for completion.) 

I. CASE STYLE 

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, 

IN AND FOR BROW ARD COUNTY, FLORIDA 

ScriptChek Visual Verification Systems, Inc. 

Plaintiff 

vs. 

R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company, Inc. 

Defendant 

II. AMOUNT OF CLAIM 

Case No.: _______ _ 

Judge: ________ _ 

Please indicate the estimated amount of the claim rounded to the nearest dollar $30,001 

Ill. TYPE OF CASE (If the case fits more than one type of case, select the most definitive category.) If the 

most descriptive label is a subcategory (is indented under a broader category), place an x on both the main 

category and subcategory lines. 

D Condominium 

~ Contracts and indebtedness 

D Eminent domain 

D Auto negligence 

D Negligence - other 

D Business governance 

D Business torts 

D Environmental/Toxic tort 

D Third party indemnification 

D Construction defect 

D Mass tort 

D Negligent security 

D Nursing home negligence 

D Premises liability - commercial 

D Premises liability - residential 

D Products liability 

D Real Property/Mortgage foreclosure 

D Commercial foreclosure 

D Homestead residential foreclosure 

D Non-homestead residential foreclosure 

D other real property actions 

D Professional malpractice 

D Malpractice - business 

D Malpractice - medical 

D Malpractice - other professional 

D Other 

D Antitrust/Trade Regulation 

D Business Transaction 

D Circuit Civil - Not Applicable 

D Constitutional challenge-statute or ordinance 

D Constitutional challenge-proposed amendment 

D Corporate Trusts 

D Discrimination-employment or other 

D Insurance claims 

D Intellectual property 

D Libel/Slander 

D Shareholder derivative action 

D Securities litigation 

D Trade secrets 

D Trust litigation 

D County Civil 

D Small Claims up to $8,000 

D 

D 

D 

D 

Civil 

Replevins 

Evictions 

other civil (non-monetary) 

***FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL BRENDA D. FORMAN, CLERK 02/24/2020 04:35:59 PM.**** 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 43 of 162 Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 2 of 3
COMPLEX BUSINESS COURT 

This action is appropriate for assignment to Complex Business Court as delineated and mandated by the 

Administrative Order. Yes D No~ 

IV. REMEDIES SOUGHT (check all that apply): 

~ Monetary; 

D Non-monetary declaratory or injunctive relief; 

D Punitive 

V. NUMBER OF CAUSES OF ACTION: 

(Specify) 

( 4) Count I-Breach of Contract, II-Breach of Contract, III-Specific Performance of Contract, IVUnjust Enrichment 

VI. IS THIS CASE A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT? 

D Yes 

~ No 

VII. HAS NOTICE OF ANY KNOWN RELATED CASE BEEN FILED? 

~ No 

D Yes - If "yes" list all related cases by name, case number and court: 

VIII. IS JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN COMPLAINT? 

~Yes 

D No 

I CERTIFY that the information I have provided in this cover sheet is accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief, and 

that I have read and will comply with the requirements of Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.425. 

Signature: s/ Richard L Allen 

Attorney or party 

FL Bar No.: 295485 

(Bar number, if attorney) 

Richard L Allen 

(Type or print name) 

Date: 02/24/2020 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 44 of 162 Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 3 of 3
Exhibit 3 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 45 of 162 Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 1 of 9
Filing # 103813414 E-Filed 02/24/2020 04:36:00 PM 

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE I i n

JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR 

BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA 

CIVIL DIVISION 

CASE NO.: 

SCRIPTCHEK VISUAL 

VERIFICATION SYSTEMS, INC., 

a Florida Corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

R.R. DONNELLEY & SONS 

COMPANY, INC., a Delaware 

Corporation, 

Defendant. 

PLAINTIFF SCRIPTCHEK VISUAL VERIFICATION SYSTEMS. INC.'S 

FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANT 

R.R. DONNELLEY & SONS COMPANY, INC. 

Plaintiff SCRIPTCHEK VISUAL VERIFICATION SYSTEMS, INC., a Florida 

Corporation ("ScriptChek"), by and through its undersigned counsel, and pursuant to the 

Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby request that Defendant R.R. DONNELLEY & 

SONS COMPANY, INC., a Deiaware Corporation, timely respond to this First Request 

for. Production in compliance with the Rules, and the instructions and definitions contained 

herein. 

INSTRUCTIONS 

This Request is continuing in nature, and the answers and documents must be 

supplemented by you at such lime in the future as arty facts, information,.and documents 

discovered hereafter have been ascertained, and such supplemental answers, information 

SCLOwSKY & ALLEN, P. L. 

ZOI S. BISCA YNE 801ItILVARD, CITIOROUP CENTER -SUITE Olt MIAMI. FLORIDA 31131 TEL 1305) YD-2223 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 46 of 162 Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 2 of 9
CASE NO.: 

and documents shall be sewed upon the undersigned attorneys seasonably after such 

discovery. 

Plaintiff requests that you timely produce the items specified herein for inspection 

and copying. 

You are required to produce a document or tangible thing if it is within your 

possession, custody, or control. Possession, custody, or control includes constructive 

possession, such that you need not have actual physical possession. As long as you have 

the superior right to compel the production from a third party (including an agency, 

authority or representative), you have possession, custody, or control. 

If you cannot produce the documents listed herein in full after exercising due 

diligence to secure such documents, please so state and specify the reason(s) For your 

inability to produce the documents and stating whatever information you have relating to 

the location and/or possession, custody, or control of the documents. 

For each document which you seek to withhold under a claim of privilege, workproduct, or otherwise, the following information shall be provided in a Privilege Log: the 

specific ground for withholding each such document; a statement of the basis on which 

privilege is claimed; the place, date, and the manner of rendering or otherwise preparing 

the document; the name and title of the sender of the document and the name and title of 

the recipient of the document; a summary of the contents of the document; the identity of 

each person to whom the document has heretofore been communicated by copy, exhibition, 

reading, or substantial summarization; the date of such communication; the employer and 

title of such person, if any, at the time of such communication; and the current location and 

custodian of the original and copies of the document or communication. 

If any document listed herein has been lost, discarded, or destroyed, you shall 

identify such document as completely as possible, which identification shall include, but 

not be limited to, date of disposal, matter of disposal, reason for disposal, person 

authorizing the disposal, and the person disposing of the document. 

All documents listed herein shall be produced as they are kept in the usual course 

of business or shall be organized and labeled to correspond with categories in this Request. 

The selection of documents from files and other sources shall be performed in such a 

manner as to ensure that the file or other source in which the document is obtained may be 

identified. Any documents listed herein shall be produced in their full and unexpurgated 

form. 

For those requests for which there are no responsive materials, explicitly 

indicate "NONE" for each such request. 

SOLOWSRY R ALLF-V, 

201 &BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, CITIGEOUP DUSTER -5111TE R15, MIAMI. FLORIDA 33131 TEL (3031111.2123 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 47 of 162 Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 3 of 9
CASE NO.: 

DEFINITIONS 

"Any" as used herein includes the word "all," and the word "all" as used herein 

includes the word "any." "All" shall be construed to include the term "each," and "each" 

shall be construed to include the word "all." 

The connectives "arid," "or," and "and/or" shall be construed either disjunctively 

or conjunctively as necessary to bring within the scope of the discovery request all 

responses that might otherwise be construed outside of its scope. 

"Books of Account" shall have the meaning ascribed to it in 14 of the Manufacture 

Agreement. 

"Communication" or "correspondence" shall mean any contact or act by which 

any information or knowledge is transmitted or conveyed between two or more persons 

and shall include, without limitation, contact by any means including written contact by 

any document, electronic contact, and oral contact by such means as face-to-face meetings 

and telephone conversations, including but not limited to letters, emails, text messages, 

iMessages, and postings cm any social media site or application, and notes of meetings, 

conversations and conferences. 

"Complaint" shall refer to the Complaint tiled in the above-captioned case on 

February 24, 2020. 

"Concerning" and "Concern", when used with respect to a document, subject, or 

fact, means embodying, containing, evidencing, reflecting, pertaining to, relating to, 

verifying, regarding, reciting, recording, constituting, supporting, refitting, or referring to. 

"CVS" shall mean CVS Pharmacy, a subsidiary of CVS HEALTH 

CORPORATION, INC., a Delaware Corporation, its principals, officers, agents, 

employees, assignees, subsidiaries, corporate affiliates, and/or representatives. 

"Document" or "documents" shall be deemed to include, by way of illustration 

only and not by way of limitation, the following (whether printed or reproduced by any 

process, written, and/or produced by hand, including the original and any copy which is 

not identical because of marginal notes or otherwise) which are subject to your custody or 

control, wherever located, and whether or not claimed to be privileged or otherwise 

excludable from discovery: electronic data, notes; correspondence; communications of any 

nature; telegrams; e-mails; text messages; memoranda; notebooks of any character; 

summaries or records of personal conversations; diaries; calendars; muting slips or 

memoranda; reports; records; computer records; computer programs; computer disks; 

US Bs or thumb drives; publications; photographs; films; minutes or records of meetings; 

transcripts of oral testimony or statements; reports and/or summaries of interviews; reports 

and/or summaries of investigations; agreements and contracts, including all modifications 

and/or revisions thereof; reports and/or summaries of negotiations; court papers; brochures; 

pamphlets; press releases; drafts of, revisions of, or translations of any document; invoices; 

Sotawsxy it Au-es, P.L. 

201 5 RISCAVNE BOULEVARD. CITIGROUP CENTER - 51111TI 011. MIAMI. FLORIDA 31132 TELn0511i1,2021 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 48 of 162 Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 4 of 9
CASE NO.:

checks; bills; estimates; account statements; tape recordings (audio or video); and records 

and dictation belts. Marks on any sheet or side thereof, including but not b9 way of 

limitation, initials, stamped indicia, any comment or any notation of any character not a 

part of the original text, or any reproduction thereof, is to be considered a separate 

document. 

The term "document" is intended to include Electronically Stored Information, 

which includes but is not limited to your word-processing documents; spreadsheets; 

presentation documents; graphics; animations; images; e-mail (including attachments 

which shall he kept with the e-mail); instant messages; text messages; chat messages; voice 

mail; audio, video, and audiovisual recordings; databases and data base subsets; software; 

and other user, or machine created, digital information which is stored on computer 

networks, servers, computer systems, desktop computers, laptop computers, home 

computers, the internet, web pages, archives, screenshots, discs, CDs, DVDs, diskettes, 

drives, tapes, cartridges, flash drives, jump drives, and other external storage media, 

personal digital assistants, handheld wireless devices, cellular telephones, iPhones, 

Blackberries, pagers and voicemail systems. 

The term "document" includes all non-privileged electronically stored information 

in native format, including Outlook pst files, (communications, emails, contacts, calendars, 

to do lists and events, as well as any other activity databases). The term "document" 

includes all electronic communications and social media postings on your equipment, 

including but not limited to instant messages, tact messages, blogs, tweets, wilds, forum 

comments, social media communications of any kind (Facebook, and the like), voicemails, 

videos, online profiles, postings, messages (including, without limitation, tweets, replies, 

re-tweets, direct messages, status updates, wall comments, groups joined, activity streams, 

and blog entries), photographs, videos, and online communications on your equipment. 

"Each" as used herein includes die word "every," and the word "every" as used 

herein includes the word "each." 

"Extended Tab Prescription Drug Label" shall have the meaning ascribed to it 

in the Manufacture Agreement, 

"Manufacture Agreement" shall be deemed to refer to the Non-Exclusi ve Limited 

License to Manufacture, entered into on or about August I, 2006 by ScriptChek and Moore 

Wallace, the predecessor by merger to R.R. Donnelley. A copy of the Manufacture 

Agreement is attached w the Complaint as Exhibit "A". 

"Marking" shall have the meaning ascribed to it in 1 4 of the Manufacture 

Agreement. 

"Person" shall be deemed to mean any natural person, the estate of any natural 

person, or any legal entity, including but not limited to a corporation, mist, partnership, 

unincorporated association, or any officer, director, employee, agent, or other person acting 

or purporting to act on their behalf. 

SOUP/SKY & ALLEN, p,L 

201 S. BISCAYNE BOLILEYARD.CITIOROUP C1,iLATER-SUITE 915. MIAMI, FLORIDA 11131 TEL (505) 111-2223 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 49 of 162 Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 5 of 9
CASE NO.: 

"RR. Donnelley" shall be deemed to refer to R.R. DONNELLEY & SONS 

COMPANY, INC., a Delaware corporation, its principals, officers, agents, employees, 

assignees, subsidiaries, corporate affiliates, and/or representatives.' 

"SeriptChek" shall be deemed to refer to SCRIPTCHEK VISUAL 

VERI€ICATION SYSTEMS, INC., a Florida Corporation, its principals, officers, agents, 

employees, assignees, subsidiaries, corporate affiliates, and/or representatives. 

"You", "you", "Your" and "yours" for purposes of these Requests shall be 

deemed to refer to Defendant, R.R. Donnelley, and/or any officer, manager, member, 

representative, employee, agent, or other person acting on behalf RR: Donnelley. 

The use of the singular form of any word includes the plural, and the use of the 

plural includes the singular. 

The applicable relevant time period for each of the following Requests for 

Production shall be from January I, 2006 through the present, unless otherwise specified. 

I For the purposes of these Requests, R.R. Donnelley shall also be deemed to refer to 

MOORE WALLACE, NORTH AMERICA, INC., a Delaware corporation, which was 

acquired by merger with R.R. Donnelley, and its principals, officers, agents, employees, 

assignees, subsidiaries, corporate affiliates, and/or representatives. 

SOLOWSKY & ALLEN, R.L. 

301 S. SISCAYNE BOULEVARD. CI FIGROUP CENTER -SUITE 915, MIAMI. FLORIDA 33131 TEL(305) 371-2223 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 50 of 162 Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 6 of 9
CASE NO.: 

REOUESTS 

1. All documents and correspondence concerning the Manufacture 

Agreement. This request includes, but is not limited to, all documents and/or 

correspondence, regardless of whether additional persons or entities were the senders, the 

recipients, or were otherwise copied on the documents and/or correspondence. 

2. All documents and correspondence concerning the Extended Tab 

Prescription Drug Label. This request includes, but is not limited to, all documents and/or 

correspondence, regardless of whether additional persons or entities were the senders, the 

recipients, or were otherwise copied on the documents and/or correspondence. 

3. All documents and correspondence between CVS and R.R. Donnelley 

concerning the Manufacture Agreement. This request includes, but is not limited to, all 

documents and/or correspondence, regardless of whether additional persons or entities 

were the senders, the recipients, or were otherwise copied on the documents and/or 

correspondence. 

4. All documents and correspondence between CVS and R.R. Donnelley 

concerning the Extended Tab Prescription Drug Label. This request includes, but is not 

limited to, all documents and/or correspondence, regardless of whether additional persons 

or entities were the senders, the recipients, or were otherwise copied on the documents 

and/or correspondence. 

5. All documents and correspondence between CVS and R.R. Donnelley 

concerning the manufacture of any prescription drug labels, including but not limited to 

any and all die lines provided to CVS by K.R. Donnelley. This request includes, but is not 

limited to, all documents and/or correspondence, regardless of whether additional persons 

or entities were the senders, the recipients, or were otherwise copied on the documents 

and/or correspondence. 

6. All documents and correspondence between R.R. Donnelley and any other 

Person concerning the manufacture of any prescription drug labels, including but not 

limited to any and all die lines provided to such Person by R.R. Donnelley. This request 

includes, but is not limited to, all documents and/or correspondence, regardless of whether 

additional persons or entities were the senders, the recipients, or were otherwise copied on 

the documents and/or correspondence. 

7. All documents and correspondence concerning the manufacture of the 

Extended Tab Prescription Drug Label. 

8. All documents and correspondence concerning the Books of Account, 

including but not limited to the Books of Account themselves, and any and all documents 

and correspondence concerning same. 

$01.05YSX Y & ALLEN, P.L. 

201 S. BISCAYNE BOULEVARD. CITIGROUP CENTER-- SUITE 915. MEAML FLORIDA D131 TEL DOD 371-221.1 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 51 of 162 Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 7 of 9
CASE NO.: 

9. All documents and correspondence concerning the sale(s) of the Extended 

Tab Prescription Drug Label to any Person. 

10. All documents and correspondence R.R. Donnelley sent to or received From 

any third parties concerning the Extended Tab Prescription Drug Label. 

11. All documents and correspondence R.R. Donnelley sent to or received from 

any third parties concerning ScriptChek. 

12. All documents and correspondence R.R. Donnelley sent to or received from 

any third parties concerning CVS. 

13. All documents and correspondence concerning ScriptChek's allegations as 

set forth in the Complaint. 

14, All documents concerning ScriptChek. 

15. All documents concerning the Extended Tab Prescription Drug Label. 

Respectfully submitted, 

SOLOwS KY & ALLEN, P.L. 

Attorneys for Plaintiff, 

SCRIPTCHEK VISUAL 

VERIFICATION SYSTEMS, INC 

Citigroup Center — Suite 915 

201 S. Biscayne Boulevard 

Miami, Florida 33131 

Telephone No. (305) 371-2223 

Facsimile No. (305) 373-2073 

rallen@salawmiami.com 

ssolowslcy©salawm lam Loom 

mlopez@salawmiaminom 

pleadingsG,salawmiami torn 

By: is/ Richard L. Allen 

RICHARD L. ALLEN 

Florida Bar No. 295485 

and 

SOLOWIKY ALLES, P.L. 

201 S. BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, CITIGROUP CENTER- SUITE 915, N11/52,11, PLORIDA 33131 TEL1305)3/1-2223 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 52 of 162 Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 8 of 9
CASE NO.: 

MANSFIELD BRONSTEIN & STONE, 

LLP 

Attorneys for Plaintiff, 

SCRIPTCHEK VISUAL 

VERIFICATION SYSTEMS, INC. 

500 Broward Boulevard, Suite 1450 

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33394 

Telephone No.: 954-601-5600 

Facsimile No.: 954-961-4756 

Email: garpgmblatypa.com 

Email: dstone®davidstonelaw.com 

Service: litigation@mblawpa.com 

By: is/Gary N Mansfield 

GARY N. MANSFIELD 

Florida Bar No. 61913 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served 

together with the Complaint on the Defendant, R.A. DONNELLEY & SONS COMPANY, 

INC. 

By; Is/ Richard L, Allen 

RICHARD L. ALLEN 

mtmaIntscriptchek visvaTipleadIngaa/20-02-24 first request for production to defendant.docx 

SOLOWSKY & ALLEN, P.L 

201 5. BISCAYNE BOLILEYARD.C111GROUPC1iNYER -SUITE915. mIAN.11.1.1.0aIDA 33131 TEL 1303) 3111123 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 53 of 162 Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 9 of 9
Exhibit 4 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 54 of 162 Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 1 of 3
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

 CASE NO. CACE20003398 DIVISION 08 JUDGE David A Haimes

ScriptChek Visual Verification Systems, Inc.

Plaintiff(s) / Petitioner(s)

v.

R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company, Inc.

Defendant(s) / Respondent(s)

____________________________/

 THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon the agreement of Plaintiff SCRIPTCHEK VISUAL

VERIFICATION SYSTEMS, INC. (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant R.R. DONNELLEY & SONS

COMPANY, INC. (“Defendant”) regarding the deadline for Defendant to respond to the

Complaint and Plaintiff’s First Request for Production, and the Court having reviewed the file

and being otherwise duly advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED

as follows: 

 1. Defendant shall respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint on or before May 18, 2020. 

 2. Defendant shall respond to Plaintiff’s First Request for Production on or before June 1,

2020. 

AGREED ORDER ON DEADLINE FOR DEFENDANT TO RESPOND TO

COMPLAINT AND FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, at Broward County, Florida on 03-20-2020.

CACE20003398 03-20-2020 8:35 AM

Hon. David A Haimes

CIRCUIT JUDGE

Electronically Signed by David A Haimes

Copies Furnished To:

Gary N. Mansfield , E-mail : gary@mblawpa.com

Gary N. Mansfield , E-mail : litigation@mblawpa.com

Filing # 105199974 E-Filed 03/20/2020 10:04:54 AM Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 55 of 162 Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 2 of 3
Gary N. Mansfield , E-mail : dstone@davidstonelaw.com

Paul Rodriguez , E-mail : paul.l.rodriguez@rrd.com

Richard L Allen , E-mail : mlopez@salawmiami.com

Richard L Allen , E-mail : rallen@salawmiami.com

Richard L Allen , E-mail : pleadings@salawmiami.com

Steven Solowsky , E-mail : ssolowsky@salawmiami.com

CaseNo: CACE20003398

Page 2 of 2

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 56 of 162 Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 3 of 3
Exhibit 5 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 1 of 25 Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 57 of 162
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17TH

JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR

BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

CIVIL DIVISION

SCRIPTCHEK VISUAL

VERIFICATION SYSTEMS, INC.,

a Florida Corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

R.R. DONNELLEY & SONS

COMPANY, a Delaware

Corporation,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

 Case No. CACE20003398

 Judge David A. Haimes 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT, MOTION TO 

STRIKE, MOTION IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT, 

AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUMUM OF LAW

Pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.140, Defendant R.R. Donnelley & Sons 

Company (“R.R. Donnelley”), by and through its undersigned counsel, files this Motion to 

Dismiss, Motion to Strike, Motion in the Alternative for More Definite Statement, and 

Incorporated Memorandum of Law (the “Motion”) in response to Plaintiff ScriptChek Visual 

Verification Systems, Inc.’s (“Plaintiff’s”) Complaint. In support of the Motion, R.R. Donnelley 

states the following:

I. INTRODUCTION

On or about February 24, 2020, Plaintiff filed its Complaint against R.R. Donnelley 

seeking damages for Breach of Contract (Counts I and II); Specific Performance (Count III); and 

recovery for Unjust Enrichment (Count IV).

Filing # 107623883 E-Filed 05/18/2020 02:54:58 PM Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 2 of 25 Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 58 of 162
2

A. The Non-Exclusive Limited License to Manufacture Agreement

As alleged by Plaintiff, this case concerns a manufacture agreement entered into between 

Plaintiff and Moore Wallace North America, Inc. (“Moore Wallace”) on or about August 1, 

2006, titled “Non-Exclusive Limited License to Manufacture” (“Manufacture Agreement”). This 

Manufacture Agreement – attached to Plaintiff’s Complaint as Exhibit A – granted Moore 

Wallace “the non-exclusive, limited right to manufacture the Extended Tab Prescription Drug 

Label for the limited purpose of selling the Extended Tab Prescription Drug Label only to 

customers approved by [Plaintiff] . . . that have entered into written License Agreements with 

[Plaintiff] to use the Extended Tab Prescription Drug Label.” Exhibit A at ¶ 1. As defined by 

the Manufacture Agreement, the Extended Tab Prescription Drug Label relates to certain thenpending patent applications and is “a prescription label for displaying additional information 

printed on a tab extending from the label.” Exhibit A at Recitals, ¶ 11. In addition to the 

provisions governing the non-exclusive limited license, the Manufacture Agreement contains

other provisions, including a provision to mark the labels and a provision to keep books of 

account. Exhibit A at ¶¶ 4, 5. 

B. Plaintiff’s Allegations against R.R. Donnelley

Plaintiff further alleges that R.R. Donnelley, as successor by merger to Moore Wallace, 

breached the Manufacture Agreement. Complaint at ¶¶ 6-7, 42-65 (Counts I and II). Plaintiff 

claims R.R. Donnelley “manufactur[ed] and [sold] the patented ScriptChek Extended Tab 

Prescription Drug Labels to non-approved customers.” Complaint at ¶ 47. However, nowhere in 

the Complaint does Plaintiff plead supporting facts such as when, where, and how these 

Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels were allegedly manufactured or sold, or even what 

Plaintiff considers to qualify as its Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels (including but not 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 3 of 25 Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 59 of 162
3

limited to any parameters, any related patents, or any unique features that distinguish Plaintiff’s 

certain Extended Tab Prescription Drug Label from other such labels on the market). Plaintiff 

further claims R.R. Donnelley “fail[ed] to include ‘ScriptChek ®’ on patented [Plaintiff] 

Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels sold by R.R. Donnelley.” Complaint at ¶ 47. However, 

nowhere in the Complaint does Plaintiff plead supporting facts, such as the bases for marking the 

tabs with Plaintiff’s trademark, how this marking provision is central to the Manufacture 

Agreement, or how Plaintiff was damaged by the alleged breach. Plaintiff claims R.R. 

Donnelley “fail[ed] to keep proper books of account and fail[ed] to render written reports 

quarterly to [Plaintiff].” Complaint at ¶ 54. However, nowhere in the Complaint does Plaintiff 

plead supporting facts, such as the dates and times of any alleged violation or whether Plaintiff 

attempted to utilize the contractually available remedy for the alleged breach prior to filing suit.

Plaintiff alternatively pleads for specific performance for R.R. Donnelley “to keep proper 

books of account and to render written reports quarterly to Plaintiff.” Yet nowhere in the 

Complaint does Plaintiff plead facts supporting the contention that it has no adequate remedy at 

law or why justice requires Plaintiff be granted specific performance or why specific 

performance of the agreement would be appropriate going forward in view of Plaintiff electing 

its right to terminate the Manufacture Agreement (see Complaint at ¶ 28). 

Plaintiff also alternatively pleads that R.R. Donnelley was unjustly enriched at Plaintiff’s 

expense. Yet nowhere in the Complaint does Plaintiff plead facts supporting that it has no 

adequate remedy at law, the circumstances of how a benefit was conferred to R.R. Donnelley, or 

why it would be inequitable for R.R Donnelley to retain that alleged benefit.

In addition, in its Complaint, Plaintiff makes multiple references to a Mutual 

Confidentiality Agreement. See, e.g., Complaint at ¶¶ 35-40. Yet nowhere in the Complaint 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 4 of 25 Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 60 of 162
4

does the Plaintiff tie this Mutual Confidentiality Agreement to any of its alleged claims, nor does 

Plaintiff attach this referenced Mutual Confidentiality Agreement to its Complaint.

II. PLAINTIFF FAILS TO PROPERLY STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION AND 

INCLUDES IMMATERIAL INFORMATION IN ITS COMPLAINT

R. R. Donnelley seeks dismissal of the Complaint because Plaintiff’s claims fail to state 

any claim under Florida law. Plaintiff’s breach of contract claims (Counts I and II) fail to state a 

cause of action because, among other things, Plaintiff does not allege the ultimate facts necessary 

to support the essential elements, namely, that a material breach of a contractual term occurred or 

that damages were caused by the alleged breach. Plaintiff’s specific performance claim (Count 

III) fails to state a cause of action because, among other things, Plaintiff does not allege the 

ultimate facts necessary to support the essential elements, namely, that Plaintiff has no adequate 

remedy at law or that justice requires and that Plaintiff is entitled to specific performance. 

Finally, Plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim (Count IV) fails to state a cause of action because, 

among other things, the existence of an express contract negates an unjust enrichment claim and, 

even despite that, Plaintiff does not allege the ultimate facts necessary to support the essential 

elements, namely, that Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law or that a benefit was conferred to 

R.R. Donnelley and that the claim falls within the statute of limitations. 

R.R. Donnelley further seeks to strike Paragraphs 35-40, along with any other mention of 

the Mutual Confidentiality Agreement in Plaintiff’s Complaint, as immaterial, since: (a) the 

Complaint fails to explain the relevance of the Mutual Confidentiality Agreement to any of the 

counts pursued by Plaintiff; and (b) the Plaintiff failed to include a copy of the Mutual 

Confidentiality Agreement as an attachment to the Complaint.

Should any part of Plaintiff’s Complaint survive dismissal – or should any part of 

Paragraphs 35-40 or any reference to the Mutual Confidentiality Agreement in Plaintiff’s 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 5 of 25 Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 61 of 162
5

Complaint survive the motion to strike – R.R. Donnelley moves, in the alternative, for Plaintiff 

to provide a more definite statement on the surviving count(s), alleged damages, and any 

surviving references to the Mutual Confidentiality Agreement, in order for R.R. Donnelley to 

fully and properly prepare a response and defense to any surviving allegations.

III. MOTION TO DISMISS

A. Legal Standard for Motion to Dismiss

“A motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action tests the legal sufficiency of a 

complaint.” Hosp. Constructors Ltd. ex rel. Lifemark Hosps. of Fla., Inc. v. Lefor, 749 So. 2d 

546, 547 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); see also Pac. Ins. Co. v. Botelho, 891 So. 2d 587, 590 (Fla. 3d 

DCA 2004); Casserly v. City of Delray Beach, 288 So. 3d 135, 138 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017). In 

other words, the primary purpose of a motion to dismiss is to ask the trial court to determine 

whether the complaint – as drafted – properly states a cause of action upon which relief can be 

granted and, if it does not, to enter an order of dismissal. See Sussan v. Nova Se. Univ., 723 So. 

2d 933 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).

In determining the merits of a motion to dismiss, the trial court is confined to the four 

corners of the complaint – including the attachments thereto – and the allegations of which must 

be accepted as true and considered in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. K.W. 

Brown & Co. v. McCutchen, 819 So. 2d 977, 979 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).

However, it is clear that Florida is a fact-pleading state rather than a notice-pleading 

jurisdiction. See Deloitte & Touche v. Gencor Industries, Inc., 929 So. 2d 678, 681 (Fla. 5th 

DCA 2006); Horowitz v. Laske, 855 So. 2d 169, 172-73 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). Mere opinions or 

conclusions unsupported by specific facts are improper and therefore are not presumed true on a 

motion to dismiss. Brandon v. Pinellas County, 141 So. 2d 278, 279 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962); Other 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 6 of 25 Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 62 of 162
6

Place of Miami, Inc. v. City of Hialeah Gardens, 353 So. 2d 861, 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). And 

where the allegations of the complaint do not establish a cause of action for which relief may be 

granted, a plaintiff’s cause of action may be dismissed. Sessler v. Arshak Corp., 464 So. 2d 612, 

613 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Feldman v. Houle, 400 So. 2d 180, 180-81 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).

B. Counts I and II Fail to State a Claim for Breach of Contract

Under Florida law, “an adequately pled breach of contract action requires three elements: 

(1) a valid contract; (2) a material breach; and (3) damages.” Friedman v. New York Life Ins. 

Co., 985 So. 2d 56, 58 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (citing J.J. Gumberg Co. v. Janis Servs., Inc., 847 

So. 2d 1048, 1049 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Indus. Med. Pub. Co. v. Colonial Press of Miami, Inc., 

181 So. 2d 19, 20 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)). For a claim of breach of contract, Florida contract law 

requires that the breach must be material. Marino v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 245 F.R.D. 729, 

734 (S.D. Fla. 2007) (interpreting Florida law) (citing J.J. Gumberg Co. at 1049). “To constitute 

a material breach, a defendant’s nonperformance of a contract must go to the essence of the 

contract.” Covelli Family, L.P. v. ABG5, LLC, 977 So. 2d 749, 752 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)

(internal quotations omitted) (quoting Beefy Trail, Inc. v. Beefy King Int’l, Inc., 267 So. 2d 853, 

857 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)). On the other hand, a defendant’s “failure to perform some minor part 

of [its] contractual duty cannot be classified as a material or vital breach.” Id. (quoting Beefy 

Trail, Inc. at 857); see also Atlanta Jet v. Liberty Aircraft Services, LLC, 866 So. 2d 148, 150

(Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (quoting same).

In Counts I and II of the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges breaches of the Manufacture 

Agreement, but Plaintiff fails to adequately plead these claims. While Plaintiff alleges the 

existence of a valid contract – in addition to including the Manufacture Agreement as part of the 

Complaint – Plaintiff fails to plead sufficient facts to establish a material breach and damages.

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 7 of 25 Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 63 of 162
7

1. Plaintiff Fails to Plead Ultimate Facts to Establish Material Breach in 

Count I

In Count I, Plaintiff alleges that R.R. Donnelley “breached the Manufacture Agreement 

with [Plaintiff]: (1) by manufacturing and selling the patented ScriptChek Extended Tab 

Prescription Drug Labels to non-approved customers, including but not limited to CVS 

Pharmacy, in violation of ¶ 1 of the Manufacture Agreement; and (2) by failing to include 

‘ScriptChek ®’ on patented ScriptChek Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels sold by R.R. 

Donnelley, in violation of ¶ 4 of the Manufacture Agreement.” Complaint at ¶ 47. 

As to the first alleged breach, Plaintiff pleads no facts to support its claim of a breach. 

First, rather than identify the products allegedly sold in breach of the contract with any 

specificity, Plaintiff merely uses a label to encompass the products at issue: “patented ScriptChek 

Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels.” This is misleading and obscures the ultimate facts 

Plaintiff has to plead to establish a breach of the agreement. First, the use of “patented” in 

conjunction with the label indicates that the products are covered by at least one valid patent. 

However, no such valid patent(s) is identified in the Complaint. Even if a patent or patents were 

identified, to establish the alleged breach, Plaintiff would have to establish exactly how the 

products at issue meet each and every limitation of at least one claim of each patent. See 

Arunachalam v. Apple, Inc., —F. App’x—, 2020 WL 729658, at *3 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 13, 2020) 

(affirming dismissal where plaintiff failed to specifically allege how the defendants’ products fell 

under plaintiff’s patent or how defendants’ products actually infringed plaintiff’s patent); see 

also E.Digital Corp. v. iBaby Labs, Inc., No. 15-cv-05790-JST, 2016 WL 4427209, at *2 (N.D. 

Cal. Aug. 22, 2016) (analyzing case law and holding that patent infringement pleadings must 

“allege that the accused products practice each of the limitations found in at least one asserted 

claim”); Atlas IP, LLC v. Exelon Corp., No. 15-cv-10746, 2016 WL 2866134, at *5 (N.D. Ill. 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 8 of 25 Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 64 of 162
8

May 17, 2016) (“[F]actual allegations that do not permit a court to infer that the accused 

products infringes each element of at least one claim are not suggestive of infringement.”). 

Plaintiff fails to identify the specific patents and claims it believes cover the products at issue and 

fails to provide facts showing how the product features are covered by the unspecified patent 

claims.

Second, the requested use of “ScriptChek” on the label for the products at issue suggests 

falsely that the products at issue have some association with ScriptChek, when in fact there are 

no facts alleged to support such a conclusion. To the extent Plaintiff is alleging some association 

between the products at issue and Plaintiff, Plaintiff fails to supply the facts supporting any such 

association. In sum, Plaintiff pleads no facts to establish its stated legal contention and 

conclusion that a breach occurred, such as identifying what it considers to be its proprietary and 

patented Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels, including but not limited to what patents would 

cover these labels, the features of these labels that establish they are covered by any patent(s), 

and any other information that would lead these labels to be considered Plaintiff’s proprietary 

and patented material or otherwise associated with Plaintiff. 

As for the second alleged breach in Count I, Plaintiff pleads no facts to establish how the 

inclusion – or lack thereof – of ScriptChek’s trademark and the trademark registration symbol 

(i.e., ScriptChek®) goes to the essence of the contract and therefore constitutes a material 

breach. And again, Plaintiff alleges no facts regarding the relevant or applicable patents or other 

intellectual property at issue to support how the lack of marking the products with Plaintiff’s 

trademark actually materially breached the Manufacture Agreement.

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 9 of 25 Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 65 of 162
9

2. Plaintiff Fails to Plead Ultimate Facts to Establish Material Breach in 

Count II

In Count II, Plaintiff alleges that R.R. Donnelley “breached the Manufacture Agreement 

with [Plaintiff] by failing to keep proper books of accounts and failing to render written reports 

quarterly to [Plaintiff], in violation of ¶ 5 of the Manufacture Agreement.” Complaint at ¶ 54. 

However, once again, Plaintiff fails to plead sufficient facts to either establish that this 

constitutes a material breach of the Manufacture Agreement or establish how R.R. Donnelley 

allegedly failed to keep proper books or render written reports (e.g., how were the books 

improperly kept, how the reports were non-compliant, how often, if ever, or when these issues 

arose, etc.). Indeed, despite the fact that the Manufacture Agreement was entered into almost 14 

years ago, Plaintiff fails to allege any facts with respect to when this alleged breach occurred or 

whether and when there was performance under the contract. Plaintiff also fails to acknowledge 

whether it sought the remedy outlined in the Manufacture Agreement before filing suit for breach 

of contract. See Exhibit A at ¶ 5 (“In the event of failure of the Licensee to render any report as 

herein provided for, the Licensor at its option may have such report prepared by and delivered to 

itself by its authorized representative ... .”).

3. Plaintiff Fails to Plead Ultimate Facts to Establish Damages in Counts I 

and II

For both Counts I and II, Plaintiff likewise fails to sufficiently plead facts supporting its 

contention that it suffered damages. Plaintiff pleads no facts supporting how it suffered damages 

from any alleged failure to mark with Plaintiff’s trademark and the trademark registration 

symbol. Plaintiff pleads no facts supporting the extent of damages it suffered from R.R. 

Donnelley allegedly selling Plaintiff’s so-called proprietary and patented label to non-approved 

buyers. And Plaintiff pleads no facts supporting how the alleged failure to keep books or render 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 10 of 25 Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 66 of 162
10

written reports led to Plaintiff suffering damages, particularly where, as pled, Plaintiff failed to 

make use of its contractual remedy. Indeed, with the exception of Plaintiff’s claim that this 

lawsuit in its totality “is an action for damages in which the amount in controversy exceeds 

$30,000.00” (Complaint at ¶ 3), Plaintiff provides no detail as to damages, particularly in relation 

to the breach-of-contract claims, and without factual support for damages, the breach-of-contract 

claims must be dismissed.

C. Count III Fails to State a Claim for Specific Performance

Specific performance “is an equitable remedy.” Brooks v. Watchtower Bible and Trade 

Soc. of Florida, Inc., 706 So. 2d 85, 90 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). It “is well settled that one cannot 

invoke equity jurisdiction where there is an adequate remedy at law.” Zuckerman v. Alex 

Hofrichter, P.A., 630 So. 2d 210, 211 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); see also Esposito v. Horning, 416 So.

2d 896, 898 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982) (“Basic to jurisdiction in equity is the rule that there must be a 

lack of an adequate remedy at law.”) (quoting First Nat’l Bank in St. Petersburg v. Ferris, 156 

So. 2d 421, 423 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)). “To demonstrate a right to this remedy under Florida law, 

a plaintiff must plead facts showing: (1) the plaintiff is clearly entitled to this remedy; (2) there is 

no adequate remedy at law; and (3) justice must require it.” La Gorce Palace Condo Assoc., Inc.

v. QBE Insurance Corp., 733 F. Supp. 2d 1332, 1334 (S.D. Fla. 2010) (dismissing claim for 

specific performance where plaintiff failed to plead sufficient facts to support the first and 

second elements) (citing Castigliano v. O’Connor, 911 So. 2d 145, 148 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)) 

(emphasis added). “In addition to pleading facts supporting the second element of no adequate 

remedy at law, the first element of the claim requires litigants seeking the remedy to establish the 

legal requirements of entitlement to the right ‘by clear, definite, and certain proof.’” Id. (quoting 

Castigliano, 911 So. 2d at 148). 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 11 of 25 Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 67 of 162
11

In Count III of the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that justice requires that it be granted 

specific performance (Complaint at ¶ 65), but fails to include a single factual allegation showing 

how justice requires specific performance of the Manufacture Agreement. This alone serves as a 

basis for dismissing the claim. Plaintiff likewise asserts that it has no adequate remedy at law 

(Complaint at ¶ 64), but again fails to provide any facts to support that allegation. In fact, 

Plaintiff fails to provide factual support for any of the elements required to seek specific 

performance.

In addition to failing to provide factual support for the elements of specific performance, 

Plaintiff negates its own claim that it is clearly entitled to this remedy through the Manufacture 

Agreement attached to the Complaint as Exhibit A. As stated in the Manufacture Agreement, 

“[i]n the event of failure of the Licensee to render any report as herein provided for, the Licensor 

at its option may have such report prepared by and delivered to itself by its authorized 

representative.” Exhibit A at ¶ 5. At no point in its Complaint does Plaintiff allege that it even 

attempted to exercise this contractual remedy prior to seeking specific performance. It is 

inapposite to claim clear entitlement to equitable relief – and that justice requires so – when not 

all contractually available remedies have been used.

Moreover, it is evident from the allegations of the Complaint (see Complaint at ¶ 63) that 

Plaintiff has inordinately delayed seeking relief. Laches or delay on the part of the party seeking 

specific performance constitute a sufficient ground for denying specific performance. See De 

Huy v. Osborne, 96 Fla. 435, 118 So. 161, 163 (1928) (“It is a familiar principle that, where a 

party is not reasonably diligent under all the circumstances in asserting his claim for specific 

performance, the delay may render it inequitable to enforce his claim, though it is otherwise

meritorious.”) (citing Nobles v. L’Engle, 61 Fla. 696, 55 So. 839 (1911)); see also Perry v. 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 12 of 25 Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 68 of 162
12

Benson, 107 So. 2d 213, 216 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958) (citing cases); Matousek v. Cooper, 111 So. 2d 

65, 68 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959) (affirming dismissal of specific performance claim following 

unexcused delay of over three years). Based on the Complaint, Plaintiff appears to be seeking 

specific performance for books of account and written quarterly reports dating back to 2006. 

Given the passage of time (up to 14 years), Plaintiff is not entitled to specific performance as a 

matter of law.

D. Claim IV Fails to State a Claim for Unjust Enrichment

For a claim of unjust enrichment, a plaintiff must plead facts showing: “(1) the plaintiff 

has conferred a benefit on the defendant; (2) the defendant has knowledge of the benefit; (3) the 

defendant has accepted or retained the benefit conferred; and (4) the circumstances are such that 

it would be inequitable for the defendant to retain the benefit without paying fair value for it.” 

Adventist Health System/Sunbelt Inc. v. Medical Sav. Ins. Co., No. 6:03-cv-1121-Orl-19KRS,

2004 WL 6225293, at *5 (quoting Magwood v. Tate, 835 So. 2d 1241, 1243 (Fla. 4th DCA 

2003)). Additionally, like specific performance, it is “well settled in Florida that unjust 

enrichment is an equitable remedy and is, therefore, not available where there is an adequate 

legal remedy. Thus, to properly state a claim for unjust enrichment, a party must allege that no 

adequate legal remedy exists.” Am. Honda Motor Co. v. Motorcycle Info. Network, Inc., 390 F.

Supp. 2d 1170, 1178 (M.D. Fla. 2005) (dismissing unjust enrichment claim where “the amended 

counterclaim does not suggest that an adequate legal remedy is unavailable to the Defendant”) 

(interpreting Florida law) (citing Martinez v. Weyerhaeuser Mort. Co., 959 F. Supp. 1511, 1518 

(S.D. Fla. 1996); Bowleg v. Bowe, 502 So. 2d 71, 72 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (“[T]he theory of 

unjust enrichment is equitable in nature and is, therefore, not available where there is an 

adequate legal remedy . . . .”)). There is an adequate remedy at law when monetary damages are 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 13 of 25 Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 69 of 162
13

available via an alternative claim. Bule v. Garda CL Southeast, Inc., No. 14-21898-CIV, 2014 

WL 3501546, at *3 (S.D. Fla. July 14, 2014) (interpreting Florida law). Moreover, “[t]he 

existence of an express contract negates an action under an unjust enrichment theory.” Braham 

v. Branch Banking & Trust Co., 170 So. 3d 844, 848 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (citing Diamond “S”

Dev. Corp. v. Mercantile Bank, 989 So. 2d 696, 697 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (holding that unjust 

enrichment claim was precluded by the existence of an express contract between parties 

concerning same subject matter)); see also Ocean Commc’ns, Inc. v. Bubeck, 956 So. 2d 1222, 

1225 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (“[A] plaintiff cannot pursue an equitable theory, such as unjust 

enrichment . . . to prove entitlement to relief if an express contract exists.”) (citing Kovtan v. 

Frederiksen, 449 So. 2d 1, 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (“It is well settled that the law will not imply a 

contract where an express contract exists concerning the same subject matter.”); In re Estate of 

Lonstein, 433 So. 2d 672, 674 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) (same).

In Count IV of the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges a claim for unjust enrichment, but that 

claim fails given the existence of an express contract on the same subject matter as the allegation 

– the Manufacture Agreement. As Plaintiff attached that Manufacture Agreement to its 

Complaint as Exhibit A, it is proper for the Court to consider that Manufacture Agreement 

during a motion to dismiss. See K.W. Brown, 819 So. 2d at 979; Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.130(b) (“Any 

exhibit attached to a pleading must be considered a part thereof for all purposes.”). While 

Plaintiff attempted to maintain its unjust enrichment claim by pleading around the Manufacture 

Agreement and by pleading in the alternative despite making similar allegations (see Complaint 

at ¶¶ 72, 74-76 and compare with ¶¶ 13, 15, 16, 18, 19 (General Allegations) and ¶¶ 44-45, 47 

(Count I)), that is insufficient to avoid dismissal of the unjust enrichment claim. “An unjust 

enrichment claim can only be pled in the alternative if one or more parties contest the existence 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 14 of 25 Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 70 of 162
14

or validity of an express contract governing the subject of the dispute.” Herazo v. Whole Foods 

Mkt., Inc., No. 14-61909-CIV, 2015 WL 4514510, at *2 (S.D. Fla. July 24, 2015) (interpreting 

Florida law) (citing In re: Managed Care Litig., 185 F. Supp. 2d 1310, 1337-38 (S.D. Fla 2002); 

Martorella v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co, 931 F. Supp. 2d 1218, 1228 (S.D. Fla. 2013)

(dismissing unjust enrichment claim despite “Plaintiffs argu[ing] that they should be allowed to 

plead the unjust enrichment claim in the alternative”). As there is no dispute as to the existence 

of the Manufacture Agreement, the unjust enrichment claim should be dismissed.

If the mere existence of the Manufacture Agreement is insufficient to dismiss the unjust 

enrichment claim, the fact that Plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim references the terms of the 

Manufacture Agreement (see Complaint at ¶¶ 72, 74-76) also provides grounds to dismiss the 

claim. Where the terms of a legal document are impliedly incorporated by reference into the 

complaint, the trial court may consider the contents of the document in ruling on a motion to 

dismiss. See Veal v. Voyager Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 51 So. 3d 1246, 1249 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)

(“[S]ince the complaint impliedly incorporates the terms of the agreement by reference, the trial 

court was entitled to review the terms of that agreement to determine the nature of the claim 

being alleged.”). As such, even considering the Complaint as pled, by referring to the terms of 

the Manufacture Agreement in its unjust enrichment claim, Plaintiff is not entitled to an unjust 

enrichment claim as a matter of law.

Even without the express contract, Plaintiff fails to state a claim for unjust enrichment by 

failing to plead sufficient facts to support such a theory. Plaintiff pleads that it provided R.R. 

Donnelley a “limited, non-exclusive right to manufacture and sell [Plaintiff’s] Extended Tab 

Prescription Drug Labels for the limited purpose of selling the Extended Tab Prescription Drug 

Labels only to customers approved by [Plaintiff]” (Complaint at ¶ 72), but Plaintiff fails to plead 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 15 of 25 Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 71 of 162
15

any facts indicating how R.R. Donnelley has knowledge of the benefit, including but not limited 

to what Plaintiff considers to qualify as its Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels and whether 

and how that information was conveyed to R.R. Donnelley. Plaintiff fails to plead any facts 

surrounding how R.R. Donnelley either accepted or retained the benefit claimed by Plaintiff. 

And Plaintiff fails to plead any facts suggesting that R.R. Donnelley retained the benefit without 

paying fair value for it, what the fair value would be for the alleged benefit, or any facts 

indicating why the situation is inequitable. In fact, unlike its claim for specific performance, 

Plaintiff even fails to allege that it has no adequate remedy at law – let alone any facts to support 

such an allegation.

Even if properly pled, the unjust enrichment claim is apparently barred by the statute of 

limitations. A motion to dismiss a complaint on expiration of the statute of limitations can and 

should be granted “where the facts constituting the defense affirmatively appear on the face of 

the complaint and establish conclusively that the statute of limitations bars the action as a matter 

of law.” Bott v. City of Marathon, 949 So. 2d 295, 296 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (quoting Alexander 

v. Suncoast Builders, Inc., 837 So. 2d 1056, 1057 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)); see also City of Riviera 

Beach v. Reed, 987 So. 2d 168, 170 (Fla 4th DCA 2008) (“[D]ismissal is appropriate where it is 

inescapably clear from the face of the complaint that the suit was filed beyond the statutory 

period.”) (internal quotations omitted) (quoting Roehner v. Atl. Coast Dev. Corp., 356 So. 2d 

1296, 1297 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)). The statute of limitations on a claim for unjust enrichment is 

four years. Fla. Stat. § 95.11(3)(k) (2018). A claim for unjust enrichment accrues at the time the 

defendant receives the improper enrichment. See, e.g., Swafford v. Schweitzer, 906 So. 2d 1194, 

1195-96 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (finding that unjust enrichment claim accrued at the time plaintiff 

made improvements to defendant’s property). While Plaintiff fails to plead with any specificity 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 16 of 25 Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 72 of 162
16

in its unjust enrichment claim as to the times and dates of the alleged events, when reviewing the 

Complaint as a whole, there is only one reasonable time as to when R.R. Donnelley would have 

allegedly received the benefit – 2006. Since it has been upward of 14 years since the accrual of 

the unjust enrichment claim – well over the four-year statute of limitations – the unjust 

enrichment claim is subject to dismissal.

IV. MOTION TO STRIKE

Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.140(f) provides that “[a] party may move to strike or 

the court may strike redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter from any pleading 

at any time.”

Paragraphs 35-40 of the Complaint are “immaterial.” All of these paragraphs reference a 

“Mutual Confidentiality Agreement” that was not included with the Complaint. Moreover, none 

of the causes of actions raised by the Plaintiff at all reference or rely upon this Mutual 

Confidentiality Agreement. Therefore, the inclusion of this agreement appears wholly irrelevant 

to the claims otherwise raised by Plaintiff in its Complaint. Without any connection to the 

claims in the Complaint, these paragraphs and all references to the Mutual Confidentiality 

Agreement should be stricken from the Complaint.

V. MOTION IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT

As previously stated, to the extent that Plaintiff’s Complaint survives dismissal and being 

stricken, R.R. Donnelley moves, in the alternative, that Plaintiff be required to provide a more 

definite statement in relation to the surviving portions of its Complaint. Specifically, to the 

extent applicable following this Court’s ruling on the motion to dismiss and motion to strike, 

R.R. Donnelley seeks a more definite statement from Plaintiff on the following subjects: (1) 

Count I of the Complaint; (2) Count II of the Complaint; (3) Count III of the Complaint; (4) 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 17 of 25 Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 73 of 162
17

Count IV of the Complaint; (5) any discussion of damages throughout the surviving Complaint; 

and (6) any references to the Mutual Confidentiality Agreement throughout the surviving 

Complaint.

A. Legal Standard Governing a Motion for More Definite Statement

“The function of a motion for more definite statement is to require that a vague, 

indefinite, or ambiguous pleading be so amended as to enable the party required to respond 

thereto to intelligently discern the issues to be litigated and to properly frame his answer or 

reply.” Conklin v. Boyd, 189 So. 2d 401, 403-04 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966); see also Fla. R. Civ. P.

1.140(e). When a defendant contends that a complaint is so vague and indefinite that it cannot 

be properly responded thereto, the remedy for such defects lies in pressing for a more definite 

statement. See Smith v. Platt Motors, Inc., 137 So. 2d 239, 242 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962) (“By its 

brief appellee manufacturer argues . . . that the complaint is so vague and indefinite that it cannot 

properly plead thereto . . . [its] remedy lies in pressing for a more definite statement.”); Frisch v. 

Kelly, 137 So. 2d 252, 253 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962) (“A motion for more definite statement is 

appropriate for dissipation of vagueness and ambiguity.”). It is generally within the sound 

discretion of the trial court to require a party to redraft a pleading for the sake of clarity. Stern v. 

Perma-Stress, Inc., 134 So. 2d 509, 511 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961). A motion for more definite 

statement may be granted where the more particular specifications can facilitate the resolution of 

a case. Luciani v. High, 372 So. 2d 530, 531 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979).

B. More Definite Statement re: Count I

To the extent that Count I survives the motion to dismiss, R.R. Donnelley requests that 

Plaintiff be required to provide a more definite statement related to Count I so that R.R. 

Donnelley will be able to properly prepare a defense and response to the allegations. The more 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 18 of 25 Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 74 of 162
18

definite statement for Count I should include at least: (1) at which points in time Plaintiff alleges 

R.R. Donnelley breached the contract provision; (2) the parameters of what it deems as the 

Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels including any associated patents; (3) the parameters of 

any other proprietary or patented material at issue; (4) any facts supporting the claim that R.R. 

Donnelley sold Plaintiff’s proprietary or patented Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels to nonapproved customers; (5) any facts supporting the claim that R.R. Donnelley failed to include 

Plaintiff’s trademark on patented Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels; (6) any facts 

supporting that the inclusion of Plaintiff’s trademark goes to the essence of the Manufacture 

Agreement; (7) any facts supporting the claim for damages resulting from the alleged breach of 

contract; and (8) the method by which Plaintiff computed the extent of damages related to its 

alleged breach of contract claim in Count I.

C. More Definite Statement re: Count II

To the extent Count II survives the motion to dismiss, R.R. Donnelley requests that 

Plaintiff be required to provide a more definite statement related to Count II so that R.R. 

Donnelley will be able to properly prepare a defense and response to the allegations. The more 

definite statement for Count II should include at least: (1) the points in time Plaintiff alleges R.R. 

Donnelley breached any contract provision; (2) any facts supporting the claim that R.R. 

Donnelley failed to keep its books of account; (3) any facts supporting the claim that R.R. 

Donnelley failed to render written reports to Plaintiff; (4) the number of instances in which R.R. 

Donnelley allegedly failed to provide quarterly reports; (5) whether Plaintiff alleges that it 

attempted to use its contractual remedy to prepare its own reports; (6) any facts supporting that 

keeping books of account and rendering written reports go to the essence of the Manufacture 

Agreement; (7) any facts supporting the claim for damages resulting from the alleged breach of 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 19 of 25 Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 75 of 162
19

contract; and (8) the method by which Plaintiff computed the extent of damages related to its 

alleged breach of contract claim in Count II.

D. More Definite Statement re: Count III

To the extent Count III survives the motion to dismiss, R.R. Donnelley requests that 

Plaintiff be required to provide a more definite statement related to Count III so that R.R. 

Donnelley will be able to properly prepare a defense and response to the allegations. The more 

definite statement for Count III should include at least: (1) the points in time Plaintiff alleges 

R.R. Donnelley failed to keep its books of account; (2) the points in time Plaintiff alleges R.R. 

Donnelley failed to render written reports to Plaintiff; (3) any facts supporting why Plaintiff does 

not have an adequate remedy at law; (4) any facts supporting why justice would require specific 

performance; (5) any facts supporting why Plaintiff is clearly entitled to specific performance; 

(6) whether Plaintiff alleges that it attempted to use its contractual remedy to prepare its own 

reports; (7) any facts supporting the claim for damages resulting from the alleged failure to 

perform; and (8) the method by which Plaintiff computed the extent of damages related to the 

specific performance claim in Count III.

E. More Definite Statement re: Count IV

To the extent Count IV survives the motion to dismiss, R.R. Donnelley requests that 

Plaintiff be required to provide a more definite statement related to Count IV so that R.R. 

Donnelley will be able to properly prepare a defense and response to the allegations. The more 

definite statement for Count IV should include at least: (1) when Plaintiff conferred a benefit to 

R.R. Donnelley; (2) any facts supporting that R.R. Donnelley knew of any benefit, such as any 

details identifying Plaintiff’s proprietary and patented Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels 

including any and all associated patents; (3) any facts supporting the claim that Plaintiff 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 20 of 25 Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 76 of 162
20

conferred a benefit to R.R. Donnelley; (4) whether the granted limited, non-exclusive right to 

manufacture and sell Plaintiff’s Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels is related to the 

Manufacture Agreement attached to the Complaint as Exhibit A; (5) any facts supporting the 

claim that R.R. Donnelley accepted or retained the benefit allegedly conferred; (6) any facts 

supporting the fair value of the benefit allegedly conferred to R.R. Donnelley; (7) any facts 

supporting that R.R. Donnelley did not pay the fair value of the benefit allegedly conferred; (8) 

any facts supporting how the current circumstances are inequitable for Plaintiff (9) any facts 

supporting the claim that Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law; (10) any facts supporting the 

claim for damages resulting from the alleged unjust enrichment; and (11) the method by which 

Plaintiff computed the extent of damages related to the unjust enrichment claim in Count IV.

F. More Definite Statement re: Damages

It has been generally recognized that, where a defendant seeks more specific allegations 

of a plaintiff’s damages, particularly in a breach of contract action, a motion for more definite 

statement constitutes the proper remedy for the relief sought. Miller v. Bill Rivers Trailers, Inc., 

450 So. 2d 334, 335 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (explaining that if a defendant “desires a more specific 

allegation of damages, such relief may be obtained by a [ ] motion for more definite statement.”). 

In this matter, to the extent Counts I-IV survive the motion to dismiss, R.R. Donnelley requests 

that Plaintiff be required to provide a more definite statement as to the specific amounts of 

damages asserted in the Complaint. Plaintiff’s Complaint merely states, “[t]his is an action for 

damages in which the amount in controversy exceeds $30,000.00 exclusive of interest, costs and 

attorneys’ fees . . . .” Complaint at ¶ 3. Similarly, Plaintiff only vaguely alleges to have incurred 

damages with no specificity as to extent or computational method. See Complaint at ¶¶ 34, 48, 

55, 88. Plaintiff does not state the specific amount of these damages or how these damages have 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 21 of 25 Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 77 of 162
21

been computed. R.R. Donnelley requests this information in order to properly prepare a defense 

and response to the allegations.

G. More Definite Statement re: Mutual Confidentiality Agreement

Finally, to the extent references to the Mutual Confidentiality Agreement survive the 

motion to strike, R.R. Donnelley requests that the Plaintiff be required to provide a more detailed 

statement related to the Mutual Confidentiality Agreement so that R.R. Donnelley will be able to 

properly prepare a defense and response to the allegations. The more definite statement should 

include at least: (1) all facts connecting the Mutual Confidentiality Agreement to any of the 

causes of actions in the Complaint; and (2) furnishing a copy of the Mutual Confidentiality 

Agreement as an attachment to the Complaint given its explicit reference in the Complaint.

VI. REQUESTED RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Defendant R.R. Donnelley respectfully requests that this Court enter an 

order: (1) granting its Motion to Dismiss and dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint; (2) granting its 

Motion to Strike and striking Paragraphs 35-40 of Plaintiff’s Complaint along with all other 

references to the Mutual Confidentiality Agreement; (3) in the alternative – and to the extent 

applicable following resolution of the Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike – granting its 

Motion for More Definite Statement; and (4) for other relief as this Court deems just and proper.

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 22 of 25 Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 78 of 162
22

Dated: May 18, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

R.R. DONNELLEY SONS & COMPANY

By: /s/ Eugene K. Pettis___________________

 One of Its Attorneys

Eugene K. Pettis (Fla. Bar # 508454)

Debbie P. Klauber (Fla. Bar # 55646)

HALICZER, PETTIS & SCHWAMM, P.A.

One Financial Plaza

100 S.E. 3rd Avenue

Seventh Floor

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394

Telephone: (954) 523-9922

Fax: (954) 522-2512

Reginald J. Hill (Ill. Bar # 6225173)

JENNER & BLOCK LLP

353 N. Clark Street

Chicago, IL 60654

Telephone: (312) 222-9350

Fax: (312) 527-0484

(Pro Hac Vice Motion Pending)

Attorneys for R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 23 of 25 Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 79 of 162
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing document was electronically filed and served via 

Florida’s E-filing Portal this 18th day of May, 2020.

HALICZER PETTIS & SCHWAMM, P.A.

Attorneys for R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company

100 S.E. Third Avenue

Seventh Floor

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394

(954) 523-9922 – tel

(954) 522-2512 – fax

By: /s/ Eugene K. Pettis

 EUGENE K. PETTIS, ESQ.

 Fla. Bar No: 508454

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 24 of 25 Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 80 of 162
MAILING LIST 

ScriptChek Visual Verifiction Systems, Inc. v. R.R. Donnelly & Sons, Inc. 

CASE NO. CACE 20-003398 (08) 

Richard L. Allen, Esq. 

Steven Solowsky, Esq. 

Solowsky & Allen, PL 

201 S. Biscayne Blvd. - #915 

Miami, FL 33131 

Attorneys for Plaintiff

305-371-2223 

E-MAIL DESIGNATIONS: 

mlopez@salawmiami.com; 

rallen@salawmiami.com; 

pleadings@salawmiami.com; 

ssolowsky@salawmiami.com

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 25 of 25 Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 81 of 162
Exhibit 6 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 82 of 162 Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-7 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 1 of 7
Filing # 107593566 E-Filed 05/18/2020 10:08:51 AM 

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 

17th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR 

BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA 

CASE NO: CACE 20-003398 (08) 

SCRIPTCHEK VISUAL VERIFICATION 

SYSTEMS, INC., 

Plaintiff, 

Vs. 

R.R. DONNELLY & SONS, INC., 

Defendant. 

VERIFIED MOTION FOR ADMISSION TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE 

PURSUANT TO FLORIDA RULE OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION 2.510 

COMES NOW Reginald J. Hill, Movant herein, and respectfully represents the 

following: 

1. Movant is an attorney and a member of the law firm of Jenner & Block LLP, with 

offices at 353 N Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654 (312-222-9350). 

2. Movant has been retained personally or as a member of the above-named law firm 

by the Plaintiff/Defendant, R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co., to provide legal representation in 

connection with the above-styled matter now pending before the above-named court of the State 

of Florida. 

3. Movant is an active member in good standing and currently eligible to practice 

law n the following jurisdiction(s): 

1 

Filing # 107593566 E-Filed 05/18/2020 10:08:51 AM Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 83 of 162 Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-7 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 2 of 7
CASE NO: CACE 20-003398 (08) 

Illinois Bar # 6225173 

4. There arc no disciplinary proceedings pending against Movant, except as 

provided below (give jurisdiction of disciplinary action, date of disciplinary action, nature of the 

violation and the sanction, if any, imposed): (attach additional sheet if necessary) 

N/A 

5. Within the past five (5) years, Movant has not been subject to any disciplinary 

proceedings, except as provided below (give jurisdiction of disciplinary action, date of 

disciplinary action, nature of the violation and the sanction, if any, imposed): (attach additional 

sheet if necessary) 

N/A 

6. Movant has never been subject to any suspension proceedings, except as provided 

below (give jurisdiction of disciplinary action, date of disciplinary action, nature of the violation 

and the sanction, if any, imposed): (attach additional sheet if necessary) 

N/A 

7. Movant has never been subject to any disbarment proceedings, except as 

provided below (give jurisdiction of disciplinary action, date of disciplinary action, nature of the 

violation and the sanction, if any, imposed): (attach additional sheet if necessary) 

N/A 

8. Movant, either by resignation, withdrawal, or otherwise, never has terminated or 

attempted to terminate Movant's office as an attorney in order to avoid administrative, 

disciplinary, disbarment, or suspension proceedings. 

2 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 84 of 162 Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-7 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 3 of 7
CASE NO: CACE 20-003398 (08) 

9. Movant is not an inactive member of The Florida Bar. 

10. Movant is not now and has never been a member of The Florida Bar. 

11. Movant is not a suspended member of The Florida Bar. 

12. Movant is not a disbarred member of The Florida Bar nor has Movant received a 

disciplinary resignation from The Florida Bar. 

13. Movant has not previously been disciplined or held in contempt by reason of 

misconduct committed while engaged in representation pursuant to Florida Rule of Judicial 

Administration 2.510, except as provided below (give date of disciplinary action or contempt, 

reasons therefor, and court imposing contempt): (attach additional sheet if necessary) 

N/A 

14. Movant has filed motion(s) to appear as counsel in Florida state courts during the 

past five (5) years in the following matters: (attach additional sheet if necessary) 

Date of Motion Case Name Case Number Court Motion Granted/Denied 

N/A 

15. Local counsel of record associated with Movant in this matter s Eugene K. 

Pettis, Esq., Florida Bar #508454, who is an active member n good standing of The Florida Bar, 

with the law firm of Haliczer Pettis & Schwamm, 100 Southeast Third Avenue, 7th Floor, Fort 

Lauderdale, FL 33394 (954-523-9922). 

3 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 85 of 162 Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-7 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 4 of 7
CASE NO: CACE 20-003398 (08) 

16. Movant has read the applicable provisions of Florida Rule of Judicial 

Administration 2.510 and Rule 1-3.10 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar and certifies that 

this verified motion complies with those rules. 

17. Movant agrees to comply with the provisions of the Florida Rules of Professional 

Conduct and consents to the jurisdiction of the courts and the Bar of the State of Florida. 

WHEREFORE, Movant respectfully requests permission to appear in this Court for the 

cause only. 

STATE OF ILLINOIS 

COUNTY OF COOK 

I, Reginald J. Hill , do hereby swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that I am the 

Movant in the above-styled matter; that I have read the foregoing Motion and know the contents 

thereof, and the contents are true of my own knowledge and belief. 

, Movant/Affiant 

The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 14th day of May , 2020 

by Reginald J. Hill, who is personally known to me and who did take an oath. 

• leffOrat.641.10 

OFFICIAL SEAL 

BETH L. PERKINS 

Notary Public - State of Illinois 

My Commission Expires 10128/2020 

Notary Public (Signature) 

State of Illinois 

Beth L. Perkins 

(Printed or Typed Name) 

My Commission Expires: 10/28/2020 

I hereby consent to be associated as local counsel of record in this cause pursuant to 

Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.510. 

DATED this t.S day of , 20 . 

Eugen K. Pettis 

Fla. Bar # 508454 

Local Counsel of Record 

4 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 86 of 162 Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-7 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 5 of 7
CASE NO: CACE 20-003398 (08) 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing motion was 

furnished by U.S. mail to PHV Admissions, The Florida Bar, 651 East Jefferson Street, 

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2333 accompanied by payment of the $250.00 filing fee made 

payable to The Florida Bar, and via Florida's e-filing portal to all parties listed on the attached 

Mailing List this 1sth day of May, 2020. 

HALICZER PETTIS & SCHWAMM, P.A. 

Attorneys for Defendant 

100 S.E. Third Avenue — 7th Floor 

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394 

E-MAIL DESIGNATION: service@hpslegal.com 

(954) 523-9922 

(954) 522-2512 — fax 

By: 

EUGENE K. PETTIS, ESQ. 

Fla. Bar No: 508454 

5 

CASE NO: CACE 20-003398 (08)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing motion was

furnished by U.S. mail to PHV Admissions, The Florida Bar, 651 East Jefferson Street,

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2333 accompanied by payment of the S250.0O filing fee made

payable to The Florida Bar, and via Florida’s c-filing portai to all parties listed on the attached

Mailing List this l day of May, 2020.

HALICZER PETIIS & SCHWAMM, P.A.

Attorneys for Defendant

100 S.E. Third Avenue —7th Floor

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394

E-MAIL DESIGNATION: servicehpslegal.com

(954) 523-9922

(954) 522-2512— fax

By:__________

EU NE K. PETTIS, ESQ.

Fla. Bar No: 508454

5

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 87 of 162 Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-7 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 6 of 7
CASE NO: CACE 20-003398 (08) 

MAILING LIST 

ScriptChek Visual Verifiction Systems, Inc. v. R.R. Donnelly & Sons, Inc. 

CASE NO. CACE 20-003398 (08) 

Richard L. Allen, Esq. 

Steven Solowsky, Esq. 

Solowsky & Allen, PL 

201 S. Biscayne Blvd. - #915 

Miami, FL 33131 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

305-371-2223 

E-MAIL DESIGNATIONS: mlopez@salawmiami.corn; rallen@salawmiami.cont; 

pleadings@salawmiami.cont; ssolowsky@salawmiami.cont 

6 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 88 of 162 Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-7 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 7 of 7
Exhibit 7 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 89 of 162 Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-8 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 1 of 3
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

 CASE NO. CACE20003398 DIVISION 08 JUDGE David A Haimes

ScriptChek Visual Verification Systems, Inc.

Plaintiff(s) / Petitioner(s)

v.

R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company, Inc.

Defendant(s) / Respondent(s)

____________________________/

THIS CAUSE having come before the Court on the Verified Motion for Admission to

Appear Pro Hace Vice Pursuant to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.510 on

behalf of Reginald J. Hill, Esq. of the law firm of Jenner & Block, LLP, with offices at

353 North Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654, and the Court having been advised that

there are no objections to said motion, it is hereupon,

 ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the motion is GRANTED.

AGREED ORDER

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, at Broward County, Florida on 05-19-2020.

CACE20003398 05-19-2020 11:17 AM

Hon. David A Haimes

CIRCUIT JUDGE

Electronically Signed by David A Haimes

Copies Furnished To:

Eugene K Pettis , E-mail : cmarr@hpslegal.com

Eugene K Pettis , E-mail : epettis@hpslegal.com

Eugene K Pettis , E-mail : service@hpslegal.com

Gary N. Mansfield , E-mail : gary@mblawpa.com

Gary N. Mansfield , E-mail : litigation@mblawpa.com

Gary N. Mansfield , E-mail : dstone@davidstonelaw.com

Reginald J. Hill , E-mail : rhill@jenner.com

Filing # 107672556 E-Filed 05/19/2020 12:21:54 PM Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 90 of 162 Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-8 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 2 of 3
Richard L Allen , E-mail : mlopez@salawmiami.com

Richard L Allen , E-mail : rallen@salawmiami.com

Richard L Allen , E-mail : pleadings@salawmiami.com

Steven Solowsky , E-mail : ssolowsky@salawmiami.com

CaseNo: CACE20003398

Page 2 of 2

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 91 of 162 Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-8 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 3 of 3
Exhibit 8 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 92 of 162 Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-9 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 1 of 3
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE

 17th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR 

 BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA 

SCRIPTCHEK VISUAL 

VERIFICATIONSYSTEMS, INC., 

a Florida Corporation, CASE NO: CACE 20-003398 (08) 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

R.R. DONNELLEY & SONS 

COMPANY, INC. a Delaware 

Corporation, 

 Defendant. 

_____________________________/ 

DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF SERVICE OF RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS 

TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS 

COMES NOW the Defendant, R.R. DONNELLEY & SONS COMPANY, INC, 

by and through the undersigned attorneys, and files its Notice of Service of Responses 

and Objections to Plaintiff’s First Request for Documents propounded with the 

Complaint by the Plaintiff, SCRIPTCHEK VISUAL VERIFICATION SYSTEMS, INC. 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing document was electronically filed and 

served via Florida’s E-filing Portal this 1

st day of June 2020.

JENNER & BLOCK LLP

Attorney for R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company

353 N. Clark Street

Chicago, IL 60654

Telephone: (312) 222-9350

Fax: (312) 527-0484

By: /s/ Reginald J. Hill

 REGINALD J. HILL

 Ill. Bar No: 6225173

 Admitted Pro Hac Vice

HALICZER PETTIS & SCHWAMM, P.A.

Attorney for R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company

One Financial Plaza, Seventh Floor

100 S.E. 3rd Avenue

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394

Telephone: 954-523-9922 

Fax: 954-522-2512 

E-MAIL: service@hpslegal.com

By /s/ Eugene K. Pettis

 EUGENE K. PETTIS, ESQ.

 FBN: 508454

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 93 of 162 Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-9 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 2 of 3
MAILING LIST 

SCRIPTCHEK VISUAL VERIFICTION SYSTEMS, INC. V. 

R.R. DONNELLEY & SONS COMPANY, INC.

CASE NO. CACE 20-003398 (08) 

Richard L. Allen, Esq. 

Steven Solowsky, Esq. 

Solowsky & Allen, PL 

201 S. Biscayne Blvd. - #915 

Miami, FL 33131 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

305-371-2223 

E-MAIL DESIGNATIONS: 

mlopez@salawmiami.com; 

rallen@salawmiami.com; 

pleadings@salawmiami.com; 

ssolowsky@salawmiami.com

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 94 of 162 Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-9 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 3 of 3
Exhibit 9 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-10 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 1 of 20 Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 95 of 162
SOLOWSKY & ALLEN, P.L. 201 S. BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, CITIGROUP CENTER – SUITE 915, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 TEL (305) 371-2223

 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17TH

JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR 

BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA 

CIVIL DIVISION 

CASE NO.: CACE20003398 

SCRIPTCHEK VISUAL 

VERIFICATION SYSTEMS, INC., 

a Florida Corporation, 

 

 

 Plaintiff, 

 

v. 

 

R.R. DONNELLEY & SONS 

COMPANY, INC., a Delaware 

Corporation, 

 

 Defendant. 

/ 

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS 

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT, MOTION TO STRIKE, MOTION IN THE 

ALTERNATIVE FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT, AND 

INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW 

 Plaintiff, SCRIPTCHEK VISUAL VERIFICATION SYSTEMS, INC., a Florida 

Corporation (“ScriptChek”), by and through its undersigned counsel and pursuant to 

Florida law, hereby files its Response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, Motion to Strike, 

Motion in the Alternative for More Definite Statement, and Incorporated Memorandum of 

Law dated May 18, 2020 (the “Motion to Dismiss”), and as grounds states as follows: 

I. Introduction. 

1. Plaintiff and Defendant have a written agreement for Defendant (a 

commercial printing company) to manufacture a patented prescription drug label, with a 

tab extending from the label, for Plaintiff’s customers who have entered into license 

Filing # 108415289 E-Filed 06/04/2020 04:46:08 PM Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-10 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 2 of 20 Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 96 of 162
 CASE NO.: CACE20003398 

- 2 - 

SOLOWSKY & ALLEN, P.L. 201 S. BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, CITIGROUP CENTER – SUITE 915, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 TEL (305) 371-2223

agreements with Plaintiff to use same. See Complaint, at ¶ 13. As set forth in Plaintiff’s 

Complaint, Defendant breached the parties’ contract by, inter alia, manufacturing 

Plaintiff’s patented label for other companies, without notice to Plaintiff or without 

Plaintiff having entered into license agreements with those companies. See Complaint, at 

¶¶ 27, 30, 31. 

2. The gravamen of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is that Plaintiff’s 

Complaint does not provide enough notice to Defendant for it to understand what 

constitutes the patented label that is the subject of the parties’ contract. 

3. Essentially, on the one hand, Defendant argues that Plaintiff has not 

provided it with sufficient information to know what patented label Plaintiff refers to in its 

Complaint. On the other hand, for fourteen years Defendant has manufactured and 

continues to manufacture Plaintiff’s patented label for Plaintiff’s customers. See

Complaint, at ¶¶ 18, 20. If Defendant’s argument sounds nonsensical, that’s because it is. 

Since Defendant has been producing Plaintiff’s patented label for Plaintiff’s customers for 

fourteen years, Defendant certainly knows what comprises the label it has been 

manufacturing. That label is the subject of Plaintiff’s Complaint. Defendant cannot 

manufacture something for Plaintiff’s customers if it does not know what it is 

manufacturing, and for Defendant to feign ignorance in its Motion to Dismiss is ridiculous.1

4. As set forth herein, Defendant knows exactly what constitutes the label at 

issue in this case, as it has been manufacturing the labels for Plaintiff’s customers for 

fourteen years. See Complaint, at ¶¶ 18, 20. The label is a defined term in the contract that 

1

 Defendant carries over this very same argument in its Responses and Objections to Plaintiff’s First Request 

for Documents, filed June 1, 2020, as an excuse for not producing one single page of documents to Plaintiff 

in response to Plaintiff’s First Request for Production to Defendant, dated February 24, 2020. 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-10 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 3 of 20 Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 97 of 162
 CASE NO.: CACE20003398 

- 3 - 

SOLOWSKY & ALLEN, P.L. 201 S. BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, CITIGROUP CENTER – SUITE 915, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 TEL (305) 371-2223

Plaintiff has with Defendant. See Complaint, Exhibit “A”. Plaintiff has entered into 

numerous license agreements with customers to use the label, as contemplated by the 

contract between Plaintiff and Defendant. Defendant has manufactured these labels for 

Plaintiff’s customers for fourteen years, and continues to do so to this day. See Complaint, 

at ¶¶ 18, 20. For Defendant to now feign ignorance and argue that it does not know what it 

has been manufacturing for Plaintiff’s customers for well over a decade is tantamount to 

fraud on the Court. 

5. As set forth herein, Plaintiff has adequately pled the causes of action for 

breach of contract, specific performance, and unjust enrichment raised in its Complaint. 

Defendant knows exactly what it is that Plaintiff is filing suit over. Accordingly, 

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and Defendant’s arguments in support of same are wholly 

without merit. 

II. Count I of Plaintiff’s Complaint for Breach of Contract (Non-Exclusive 

Limited Right to Manufacture) is Adequately Pled. 

6. Under Florida law, a breach of contract action requires three elements: (1) a 

valid contract; (2) a material breach; and (3) damages. See Friedman v. New York Life Ins. 

Co., 985 So. 2d 56, 58 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). 

7. Defendant admits that Plaintiff has adequately alleged the existence of a 

valid contract. See Motion to Dismiss, at Page 6 (“Plaintiff alleges the existence of a valid 

contract – in addition to including the Manufacture Agreement as part of the 

Complaint . . .”). Thus, Plaintiff has satisfied the first element of its Breach of Contract 

claim. 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-10 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 4 of 20 Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 98 of 162
 CASE NO.: CACE20003398 

- 4 - 

SOLOWSKY & ALLEN, P.L. 201 S. BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, CITIGROUP CENTER – SUITE 915, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 TEL (305) 371-2223

8. With respect to the “material breach” element of a breach of contract claim, 

Defendant contends that Plaintiff has failed to plead ultimate facts to establish a material 

breach in Count I. Defendant is wrong. 

9. As set forth herein, Plaintiff has adequately pled that Defendant materially 

breached the terms of the Manufacture Agreement. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110(b)(2) requires only 

that Plaintiff make a “short and plain statement of the ultimate facts showing that the 

pleader is entitled to relief.” Id. Plaintiff has clearly done so in its Complaint. 

10. The Non-Exclusive Limited License for Defendant to manufacture the 

Extended Tab Prescription Drug Label is specifically set forth in the Manufacture 

Agreement attached to Plaintiff’s Complaint as Exhibit “A” thereto: 

Grant of Non-Exclusive Limited License. The Licensor hereby 

grants to the Licensee the non-exclusive, limited right to 

manufacture the Extended Tab Prescription Drug Label for the 

limited purpose of selling the Extended Tab Prescription Drug Label 

only to customers approved by Licensor, hereinafter referred to as 

“Approved Customers” that have entered into written License 

Agreements with Licensor to use the Extended Tab Prescription 

Drug Label. 

See Manufacture Agreement, ¶ 1. 

11. Furthermore, the requirement for Defendant to mark the Extended Tab 

Prescription Drug Labels with “ScriptChek ®” is set forth in the Manufacture Agreement 

attached to Plaintiff’s Complaint: 

Marking. The Licensee shall mark all Extended Tab Prescription 

Drug Labels manufactured by it and/or sold by it with 

(a) ScriptChek ®, (b) Patents Pending, and (c) upon notice from 

Licensor of the issuance of any of the pending patents, “Patented” 

with the patent numbers and proper dates. 

See Manufacture Agreement, ¶ 4. 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-10 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 5 of 20 Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 99 of 162
 CASE NO.: CACE20003398 

- 5 - 

SOLOWSKY & ALLEN, P.L. 201 S. BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, CITIGROUP CENTER – SUITE 915, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 TEL (305) 371-2223

12. In contrast to Defendant’s claim that “Plaintiff pleads no facts to support its 

claim of a breach” (Motion to Dismiss, at Page 7), Plaintiff has cited to and alleged that 

Defendant breached ¶¶ 1 and 4 of the Manufacture Agreement by “(1) manufacturing and 

selling the patented ScriptChek Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels to non-approved 

customers, including but not limited to CVS Pharmacy, in violation of ¶ 1 of the 

Manufacture Agreement; and (2) by failing to include “ScriptChek ®” on the patented 

ScriptChek Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels sold by Defendant, in violation of ¶ 4 

of the Manufacture Agreement.” See Complaint, at ¶ 47. 

13. Plaintiff has attached the Manufacture Agreement to the Complaint and 

specifically alleged which material provisions of the Manufacture Agreement were 

breached by Defendant. Accordingly, Plaintiff has adequately pled the material breach 

element of its breach of contract claim. 

14. In support of its claim that “Plaintiff pleads no facts to support its claim of 

a breach” (Motion to Dismiss, at Page 7), Defendant, inter alia, argues that “rather than 

identify the products allegedly sold in breach of the contract with any specificity, Plaintiff 

merely uses a label to encompass the products at issue: ‘patented ScriptChek Extended Tab 

Prescription Drug Labels’.” See Motion to Dismiss, at Page 7. Defendant’s contention is 

belied by the allegations of the Complaint and the plain language of the Manufacture 

Agreement. 

15. The Extended Tab Prescription Drug Label is a defined term in the 

Manufacture Agreement: 

Whereas, the Licensor is the owner of all right, title and interest in 

and to certain inventions in a certain Extended Tab Prescription 

Drug Label (“Extended Tab Prescription Drug Label”), which 

inventions are the subject of certain Pending Patent Applications in 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-10 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 6 of 20 Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 100 of 162
 CASE NO.: CACE20003398 

- 6 - 

SOLOWSKY & ALLEN, P.L. 201 S. BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, CITIGROUP CENTER – SUITE 915, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 TEL (305) 371-2223

the United States and Canada, said inventions and Pending Patent 

Applications being hereinafter referred to collectively as 

“International Patents” 

See Manufacture Agreement, Page 1. 

Interpretation. In this agreement the term “Extended Tab 

Prescription Drug Label” shall mean a prescription label for 

displaying additional information printed on a tab extending from 

the label. 

See Manufacture Agreement, ¶ 11. 

16. In addition, Defendant concedes the definition of the Extended Tab 

Prescription Drug Label in its Motion to Dismiss. See Motion to Dismiss, at Page 2 (“As 

defined by the Manufacture Agreement, the Extended Tab Prescription Drug Label relates 

to certain then-pending patent applications and is a ‘prescription label for displaying 

additional information on a tab extending from the label.’”). 

17. Not only is the Extended Tab Prescription Drug Label a sufficiently defined 

term in the Manufacture Agreement (which Defendant admits on Page 2 of its own Motion 

to Dismiss), but also Plaintiff has alleged that “[t]he parties performed under the 

Manufacture Agreement for numerous years, and continue to perform under the 

Manufacture Agreement with respect to those Approved Customers who entered into a 

license agreement with ScriptChek to use the patented ScriptChek Extended Tab 

Prescription Drug Labels”, that “ScriptChek entered into written License Agreements with 

Approved Customers for the Approved Customers to use the patented ScriptChek Extended 

Tab Prescription Drug Labels”, and that “[Defendant] manufactured and sold the patented 

ScriptChek Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels for ScriptChek’s Approved 

Customers’ use.” See Complaint, ¶¶ 20, 22, 23. 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-10 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 7 of 20 Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 101 of 162
 CASE NO.: CACE20003398 

- 7 - 

SOLOWSKY & ALLEN, P.L. 201 S. BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, CITIGROUP CENTER – SUITE 915, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 TEL (305) 371-2223

18. Despite the Extended Tab Prescription Drug Label being a defined term in 

the Manufacture Agreement, despite the Extended Tab Prescription Drug Label being 

subject to valid patents, and despite Defendant’s years of manufacturing the Extended Tab 

Prescription Drug Labels for those Approved Customers who have entered into written 

agreements with ScriptChek for use of same, Defendant ludicrously contends that Plaintiff 

has failed to “identify the products allegedly sold in breach of the contract with any 

specificity” (Motion to Dismiss, at Page 7). Clearly, Defendant knows exactly what 

constitutes the Extended Tab Prescription Drug Label as it manufactured same for 

ScriptChek’s Approved Customers for years and continues to do so to this very day. For 

Defendant to feign ignorance in its Motion to Dismiss is tantamount to fraud on this Court. 

19. Defendant claims that “to establish the alleged breach, Plaintiff would have 

to establish exactly how the products at issue meet each and every limitation of at least one 

claim of each patent.” See Motion to Dismiss, at Page 7. Defendant’s contention is incorrect 

as a matter of Florida law. This is an action for Breach of Contract. Plaintiff has attached 

the contract upon which this action is brought, and the ScriptChek Extended Tab 

Prescription Drug Label is a defined term therein. Accordingly, Defendant has been 

provided with enough specificity in Plaintiff’s allegations in order for it to answer same. 

See Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. v. Walters, 246 So. 2d 563, 565 (Fla. 1971) (“[W]here a 

complaint contains sufficient allegations to acquaint the defendant with the plaintiff's 

charge of wrongdoing so that the defendant can intelligently answer the same, it is error to 

dismiss the action on the ground that more specific allegations are required.”). Defendant’s 

arguments that it needs more details or specificity with respect to Plaintiff’s claims can be 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-10 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 8 of 20 Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 102 of 162
 CASE NO.: CACE20003398 

- 8 - 

SOLOWSKY & ALLEN, P.L. 201 S. BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, CITIGROUP CENTER – SUITE 915, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 TEL (305) 371-2223

addressed in the discovery period or through its affirmative defenses to Plaintiff’s 

Complaint, and are not the proper subject of a motion to dismiss. 

20. Defendant’s citations to Arunachalam v. Apple, Inc., —F. App’x—, 2020 

WL 729658, at *3 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 13, 2020), E.Digital Corp. v. iBaby Labs, Inc., No. 15-

cv-05790-JST, 2016 WL 4427209, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2016) and Atlas IP, LLC v. 

Exelon Corp., No. 15-cv-10746, 2016 WL 2866134, at *5 (N.D. Ill. May 17, 2016), are 

unpersuasive. All three cited cases are trademark/patent infringement cases involving 

different burdens of proof and are not applicable to the instant breach of contract case. 

21. Defendant has cited no cases stating that a Plaintiff, in a breach of contract 

action, is required to identify valid patents, establish how each product at issue meets each 

and every limitation of at least one claim of each patent, identify the specific patents and 

claims that cover the products at issue, and provide facts showing how the product features 

are covered by unspecified “patent claims”. Plaintiff reiterates that this is not a “patent 

claim”. This is an action for breach of contract. The Extended Tab Prescription Drug Label 

is a defined term therein and Defendant has been provided with sufficient facts to prepare 

its defense. 

22. If Defendant wishes to obtain more information concerning the specifics of 

Plaintiff’s claim, it will have the discovery period to do so. See Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. 

v. Walters, 246 So. 2d 563, 565 (Fla. 1971) (“[I]t is not necessary for the plaintiff to state 

the theory of his case in his pleading.”). 

23. Defendant concedes the existence of a valid contract, Plaintiff has alleged 

that Defendant materially breached the contract, and Plaintiff has alleged that it suffered 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-10 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 9 of 20 Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 103 of 162
 CASE NO.: CACE20003398 

- 9 - 

SOLOWSKY & ALLEN, P.L. 201 S. BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, CITIGROUP CENTER – SUITE 915, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 TEL (305) 371-2223

damages as a result. Thus, Defendant’s claim that Plaintiff has failed to adequately plead a 

claim for Breach of Contract is incorrect as a matter of law. 

24. Defendant further claims that “the requested use of ‘ScriptChek’ on the 

label for the products at issue suggests falsely that the products at issue have some 

association with ScriptChek, when in fact there are no facts alleged to support such a 

conclusion.” Motion to Dismiss, at Page 8. 

25. As set forth above, Plaintiff has alleged that Defendant “fail[ed] to include 

“ScriptChek ®” on the patented ScriptChek Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels sold 

by R.R. Donnelley, in violation of ¶ 4 of the Manufacture Agreement.” See Complaint, 

at 47. Defendant’s claim that Plaintiff has failed to allege facts to support its claim that the 

products at issue have some association with ScriptChek is belied by the plain allegations 

of Plaintiff’s Complaint. 

26. Defendant goes on to claim that “Plaintiff pleads no facts to establish how 

the inclusion – or lack thereof – of ScriptChek’s trademark and the trademark registration 

symbol (i.e., ScriptChek®) goes to the essence of the contract and therefore constitutes a 

material breach.” Motion to Dismiss, at Page 8. 

27. The question of whether a breach is material is a factual one to be 

determined by the trier of fact. See Beefy Trail, Inc. v. Beefy King Intern., Inc., 267 So. 2d 

853, 858 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972) (“[T]he question of whether the plaintiff has presented clear 

and convincing evidence that the alleged breaches by the defendant are vital or material is 

a question of fact to be resolved by the trier of fact or jury.”). 

28. Accordingly, Plaintiff has met its burden under Florida law to adequately 

plead its claim for breach of contract with respect to Count I of its Complaint. 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-10 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 10 of

 20

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 104 of 162
 CASE NO.: CACE20003398 

- 10 - 

SOLOWSKY & ALLEN, P.L. 201 S. BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, CITIGROUP CENTER – SUITE 915, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 TEL (305) 371-2223

III. Count II of Plaintiff’s Complaint for Breach of Contract (Books of 

Account and Quarterly Reports) is Adequately Pled. 

29. With respect to Count II of Plaintiff’s Complaint, Defendant claims that 

“Plaintiff fails to plead sufficient facts” to establish that Defendant’s breach of the 

manufacture agreement by failing to keep proper books of accounts and failing to render 

written reports quarterly to Plaintiff, in violation of ¶ 5 of the Manufacture Agreement, is 

a material breach. See Motion to Dismiss, Page 9. 

30. The requirement for Defendant to keep proper books of account for those 

Approved Customers who have entered into written License Agreements with Plaintiff to 

use the Extended Tab Prescription Drug Label and render those reports quarterly to 

Plaintiff is set forth in ¶ 5 of the Manufacture Agreement: 

Books of Account. The Licensee shall keep proper books of account 

accurately reflecting the customer(s) of the Licensee for all 

Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels and associated devices 

manufactured and sold by it under the terms of this Agreement and 

render written reports quarterly to the Licensor not later than the 15th

day of the month following each contract quarter of this Agreement 

including at least (1) name of each customer, (2) address of each 

customer, (3) contact name at each customer; (4) dates of sale(s) to 

each customer and (5) total number of labels sold to each customer 

on each date. 

See Manufacture Agreement, at ¶ 5. 

31. Plaintiff has pled that Defendant breached the Manufacture Agreement by 

“failing to keep proper books of account and failing to render written reports quarterly to 

ScriptChek, in violation of ¶ 5 of the Manufacture Agreement.” See Complaint, at ¶ 54. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff has adequately alleged that Defendant has breached the Manufacture 

Agreement with respect to Count II of Plaintiff’s Complaint. In addition, as set forth above, 

whether a breach is or is not material is a question of fact. See supra ¶ 27. 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-10 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 11 of

 20

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 105 of 162
 CASE NO.: CACE20003398 

- 11 - 

SOLOWSKY & ALLEN, P.L. 201 S. BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, CITIGROUP CENTER – SUITE 915, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 TEL (305) 371-2223

32. Defendant states that “Plaintiff fails . . . to establish how R.R. Donnelley 

allegedly failed to keep proper books or render written reports (e.g., how were the books 

improperly kept, how the reports were non-compliant, how often, if ever, or when these 

issues arose, etc.)”. Motion to Dismiss, at Page 9. 

33. As set forth above, Plaintiff has pled that Defendant failed to “keep proper 

books of account” and “failed to render written reports quarterly to ScriptChek, in violation 

of ¶ 5 of the Manufacture Agreement.” See Complaint, at ¶ 54. Standing on their own, these 

allegations are sufficient to support a claim for breach of contract. Defendant’s arguments 

that the breach of contract is not material, and that it needs more details or specificity with 

respect to Plaintiff’s claims can be addressed in the discovery period or through its 

affirmative defenses to Plaintiff’s Complaint, and are not the proper subject of a motion to 

dismiss. 

34. In addition to sufficiently alleging its claim for breach of contract in its 

Complaint, Plaintiff notes that once Defendant provides Plaintiff with the books of account 

and quarterly reports as it is obligated to do pursuant to ¶ 5 of the Manufacture Agreement, 

Plaintiff will be able to further elaborate on the specifics of Defendant’s breach. 

35. Finally, Defendant argues that “Plaintiff also fails to acknowledge whether 

it sought the remedy outlined in the Manufacture Agreement before filing suit for breach 

of contract.” See Motion to Dismiss, at Page 9. As set forth above, and as Defendant quotes 

from the Manufacture Agreement, “the Licensor at its option may have such report 

prepared by and delivered to itself . . . ” See Motion to Dismiss, at Page 9, citing 

Manufacture Agreement, ¶ 5 (emphasis added). Plaintiff is not required to pursue the 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-10 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 12 of

 20

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 106 of 162
 CASE NO.: CACE20003398 

- 12 - 

SOLOWSKY & ALLEN, P.L. 201 S. BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, CITIGROUP CENTER – SUITE 915, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 TEL (305) 371-2223

contractual remedy prior to filing suit, nor has Defendant cited any law to the effect that 

Plaintiff is required to do so prior to filing suit. 

36. Accordingly, as set forth above, Plaintiff has met its burden under Florida 

law to adequately plead its claim for breach of contract with respect to Count II of its 

Complaint. 

IV. Plaintiff has Adequately Pled Damages in Counts I and II of its Complaint. 

37. Defendant argues that “For both Counts I and II, Plaintiff likewise fails to 

sufficiently plead facts supporting its contention that it suffered damages.” See Motion to 

Dismiss, at Page 9. 

38. However, Plaintiff has alleged that it suffered damages (see Complaint 

¶¶ 48, 55), which allegations are sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss. See Hutchison 

v. Tompkins, 259 So. 2d 129, 132–33 (Fla. 1972) (“General damages, that is, those damages 

which naturally and necessarily flow or result from the injuries alleged need not be 

specifically pleaded.”). 

39. Once Defendant provides Plaintiff with the books of account and quarterly 

reports as it is obligated to do pursuant to ¶ 5 of the Manufacture Agreement, Plaintiff will 

be able to further elaborate on the specifics of the damages it suffered as a result of 

Defendant’s multiple breaches of the Manufacture Agreement. 

40. If Defendant wishes for more specificity regarding Plaintiff’s damages, it 

may obtain same during the discovery period. 

41. In accordance with the foregoing, Plaintiff has met its burden for pleading 

damages with respect to its breach of contract claims as a matter of Florida Law. 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-10 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 13 of

 20

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 107 of 162
 CASE NO.: CACE20003398 

- 13 - 

SOLOWSKY & ALLEN, P.L. 201 S. BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, CITIGROUP CENTER – SUITE 915, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 TEL (305) 371-2223

V. Count III of Plaintiff’s Complaint for Specific Performance Adequately 

States a Claim. 

42. With respect to Count III of Plaintiff’s Complaint, Defendant contends that 

Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for specific performance. 

43. In order to be entitled to specific performance, Plaintiff must plead that: 

“(1) the plaintiff is clearly entitled to this remedy; (2) there is no adequate remedy at law; 

and (3) justice must require it.” See Castigliano v. O'Connor, 911 So. 2d 145, 148 (Fla. 3d 

DCA 2005). 

44. As a preliminary note, Plaintiff is not seeking specific performance of the 

entire Manufacture Agreement. Plaintiff is only seeking specific performance of those 

provisions of the Manufacture Agreement that require Defendant to provide Plaintiff with 

books of account and written quarterly reports. Plaintiff requires both items in order to 

calculate its damages for purposes of this action. 

45. Defendant also admits that Plaintiff has alleged that “it has no adequate 

remedy at law.” Motion to Dismiss, at Page 11. Therefore, Plaintiff has satisfied the second 

element of a claim for specific performance. 

46. Defendant admits that Plaintiff has alleged that “justice requires that it be 

granted specific performance” Motion to Dismiss, at Page 11. Therefore, Plaintiff has 

satisfied the third element of a claim for specific performance. 

47. With respect to the first element, Defendant claims that “Plaintiff negates 

its own claim that it is clearly entitled to this remedy” due to ¶ 5 of the Manufacture 

Agreement which states “[i]n the event of failure of the Licensee to render any report as 

herein provided for, the Licensor at its option may have such report prepared by and 

delivered to itself by its authorized representative.” See Complaint, Exhibit A at ¶ 5. 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-10 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 14 of

 20

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 108 of 162
 CASE NO.: CACE20003398 

- 14 - 

SOLOWSKY & ALLEN, P.L. 201 S. BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, CITIGROUP CENTER – SUITE 915, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 TEL (305) 371-2223

48. As explicitly stated in the Manufacture Agreement, this remedy is at 

Plaintiff’s option and is not a prerequisite to filing an action for specific performance. 

49. Defendant then goes on to argue that Plaintiff has “inordinately delayed 

seeking relief” and as a result, is barred by the doctrine of laches from seeking relief. This 

is an affirmative defense that Defendant can raise in a responsive pleading to Plaintiff’s 

Complaint and is not proper for a motion to dismiss. See Diaz v. Bravo, 603 So. 2d 106, 

107 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (“Res judicata, estoppel and laches are affirmative defenses which 

are not properly raised by a motion to dismiss, but should be pled as part of the answer. 

Therefore, if the motion to dismiss was granted on either of those grounds, the trial court 

erred.”) (internal citations omitted). 

50. Similarly, Defendant’s contention that Plaintiff is barred in whole or in part 

from seeking specific performance due to the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense 

that Defendant can raise in a responsive pleading to Plaintiff’s Complaint and is not proper 

for a motion to dismiss. See Alexander Hamilton Corp. v. Leeson, 508 So. 2d 513, 513 

(Fla. 4th DCA 1987) (“Under Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.110(d), the [Defendants] 

should have raised their affirmative defense of statute of limitations in their answer and not 

via a motion to dismiss. The purpose of a motion to dismiss is to test whether a plaintiff 

has alleged a good cause of action in the complaint and, therefore, consideration of 

defendant's affirmative defenses or the sufficiency of the evidence is irrelevant and 

immaterial in deciding a motion to dismiss.”) (internal citations omitted). 

51. Plaintiff is entitled to equitable relief even where there is an alternative 

contractual basis for recovery. See Kelsey v. Pewthers, 685 So. 2d 953, 956 (Fla. 4th DCA 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-10 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 15 of

 20

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 109 of 162
 CASE NO.: CACE20003398 

- 15 - 

SOLOWSKY & ALLEN, P.L. 201 S. BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, CITIGROUP CENTER – SUITE 915, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 TEL (305) 371-2223

1996) (“Further, money damages and equitable relief are not inconsistent remedies; rather, 

both rely on the validity of a contract and seek redress for its breach.”). 

52. Plaintiff has met its burden with respect to the three elements of a claim for 

specific performance. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Count III of Plaintiff’s 

Complaint should be denied. 

VI. Count IV of Plaintiff’s Complaint for Unjust Enrichment Adequately 

States a Claim. 

53. Plaintiff has adequately pled its claim for Unjust Enrichment. 

54. A claim for Unjust Enrichment may be pled in the alternative even where a 

contract exists. See Haskel Realty Group, Inc. v. KB Tyrone, LLC, 253 So. 3d 84, 86 (Fla. 

2d DCA 2018) (“The complaint also alleges counts for unjust enrichment and quantum 

meruit. KB Tyrone argued these claims had to be dismissed because they were negated by 

the allegations in count one stating that the parties had an express oral contract. This 

argument has no merit. It is evident from the complaint that Haskel pleaded these counts 

as alternatives to its claim for breach of an oral contract.”). 

55. Plaintiff has met its burden to plead Unjust Enrichment as a matter of 

Florida law. If Defendant wishes for more specificity concerning, for instance, “How R.R. 

Donnelley either accepted or retained the benefit” or “what the fair value would be for the 

alleged benefit”, Defendant may obtain such information during the discovery period. 

Plaintiff is not required to plead such facts in its Complaint. See Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. 

v. Walters, 246 So. 2d 563, 565 (Fla. 1971) (“[I]t is not necessary for the plaintiff to state 

the theory of his case in his pleading.”). 

56. Finally, Defendant’s contention that Plaintiff is barred in whole or in part 

from pursuing this Unjust Enrichment claim due to the statute of limitations is an 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-10 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 16 of

 20

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 110 of 162
 CASE NO.: CACE20003398 

- 16 - 

SOLOWSKY & ALLEN, P.L. 201 S. BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, CITIGROUP CENTER – SUITE 915, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 TEL (305) 371-2223

affirmative defense that Defendant can raise in a responsive pleading to Plaintiff’s 

Complaint and is not proper for a motion to dismiss. Defendant’s conclusory allegation 

that “there is only one reasonable time when R.R. Donnelley would have allegedly received 

the benefit – 2006” (Motion to Dismiss, at Page 16) is unsupported by the allegations of 

the Complaint and presents a factual dispute that is not proper for a motion to dismiss. See 

Alexander Hamilton Corp. v. Leeson, 508 So. 2d 513, 513 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) (“Under 

Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.110(d), the [Defendants] should have raised their 

affirmative defense of statute of limitations in their answer and not via a motion to dismiss. 

The purpose of a motion to dismiss is to test whether a plaintiff has alleged a good cause 

of action in the complaint and, therefore, consideration of defendant's affirmative defenses 

or the sufficiency of the evidence is irrelevant and immaterial in deciding a motion to 

dismiss.”) (internal citations omitted). 

57. Plaintiff has met its burden with respect to pleading its claim for Unjust 

Enrichment. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Count IV of Plaintiff’s 

Complaint should be denied. 

VII. Defendant’s Motion to Strike Must be Denied. 

58. Defendant has claimed that “35-40 of the Complaint are ‘immaterial’” since 

they “reference a ‘Mutual Confidentiality Agreement’ that was not included with the 

Complaint”. See Motion to Dismiss, at Page 16. 

59. Plaintiff is not required to attach the Mutual Confidentiality Agreement to 

the Complaint. However, as a courtesy, Plaintiff is willing to provide a copy to counsel for 

Defendant upon request. 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-10 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 17 of

 20

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 111 of 162
 CASE NO.: CACE20003398 

- 17 - 

SOLOWSKY & ALLEN, P.L. 201 S. BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, CITIGROUP CENTER – SUITE 915, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 TEL (305) 371-2223

60. Counts I and II of the Complaint are breach of contract actions founded 

upon the Manufacture Agreement and not the Mutual Confidentiality Agreement. Fla. R. 

Civ. P. 1.130(a) requires only that Plaintiff attach a copy of the contract upon which the 

action is brought, and Plaintiff has done so by attaching the Manufacture Agreement. 

61. Plaintiff includes references to the Mutual Confidentiality Agreement in 

order to support its claim that “the parties’ anticipated business relationship would involve 

the disclosure by ScriptChek of ScriptChek’s confidential and proprietary information.” 

Complaint, at ¶ 36. 

62. The allegations in Paragraphs 35-40 are not “immaterial” as Defendant 

claims. They support Plaintiff’s allegations of the confidential nature of the proprietary 

ScriptChek Extended Tab Prescription Drug Label, the subject of the Manufacture 

Agreement. 

63. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Strike Paragraphs 35-40 because they 

have no “connection to the claims in the Complaint” is without merit and must be denied. 

VIII. Defendant’s Motion in the Alternative for More Definite Statement 

Must be Denied. 

64. Defendant “seeks a more definite statement from Plaintiff on the following 

subjects: (1) Count I of the Complaint; (2) Count II of the Complaint; (3) Count III of the 

Complaint; (4) Count IV of the Complaint, (5) any discussion of damages throughout the 

surviving Complaint; and (6) any references to the Mutual Confidentiality Agreement 

throughout the surviving Complaint.” See Motion to Dismiss, at Page 16-17. 

65. Plaintiff reincorporates its responses to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss on 

the same grounds. Defendant may not use the Motion to Dismiss or Motion for More 

Definite Statement as a way to circumvent the discovery procedures of this Court. If 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-10 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 18 of

 20

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 112 of 162
 CASE NO.: CACE20003398 

- 18 - 

SOLOWSKY & ALLEN, P.L. 201 S. BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, CITIGROUP CENTER – SUITE 915, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 TEL (305) 371-2223

Defendant wishes for more information concerning Plaintiff’s claims, it may utilize the 

various discovery procedures available to it under Florida law. 

66. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for More Definite Statement must be 

denied. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff SCRIPTCHEK VISUAL VERIFICATION SYSTEMS, 

INC., respectfully requests that this Court enter an order denying Defendant’s Motion to 

Dismiss, Motion to Strike, Motion in the Alternative for More Definite Statement, and 

Incorporated Memorandum of Law, and for such other relief as this Court deems just and 

proper. 

Respectfully submitted, 

SOLOWSKY & ALLEN, P.L. 

Attorneys for Plaintiff, 

SCRIPTCHEK VISUAL 

VERIFICATION SYSTEMS, INC. 

Citigroup Center – Suite 915 

201 S. Biscayne Boulevard 

Miami, Florida 33131 

Telephone No. (305) 371-2223 

Facsimile No. (305) 373-2073 

rallen@salawmiami.com 

ssolowsky@salawmiami.com 

mlopez@salawmiami.com 

pleadings@salawmiami.com 

By:___/s/ Richard L. Allen________ 

 RICHARD L. ALLEN 

 Florida Bar No. 295485 

and 

 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-10 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 19 of

 20

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 113 of 162
 CASE NO.: CACE20003398 

- 19 - 

SOLOWSKY & ALLEN, P.L. 201 S. BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, CITIGROUP CENTER – SUITE 915, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 TEL (305) 371-2223

MANSFIELD BRONSTEIN & STONE,

LLP 

Attorneys for Plaintiff, 

SCRIPTCHEK VISUAL 

VERIFICATION SYSTEMS, INC. 

500 Broward Boulevard, Suite 1450 

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33394 

Telephone No.: 954-601-5600 

Facsimile No.: 954-961-4756 

Email: gary@mblawpa.com 

Email: dstone@davidstonelaw.com 

Service: litigation@mblawpa.com 

By:___/s/ Gary N. Mansfield_______ 

 GARY N. MANSFIELD 

 Florida Bar No. 61913 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was filed with 

the Clerk of the Court via the Florida Courts eFiling Portal and served by Email upon 

EUGENE K. PETTIS, ESQ., DEBBIE P. KLAUBER. ESQ., Haliczer, Pettis & Schwamm, 

P.A., One Financial Plaza, 100 S.E. 3rd Avenue, Seventh Floor, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, 

33394 (Email: epettis@hpslegal.com; service@hpslegal.com; cmarr@hpslegal.com); and 

REGINALD J. HILL, ESQ., Jenner & Block LLP, 353 N. Clark Street, Chicago, Illinois, 

60654 (Email: rhill@jenner.com), this 4th day of June, 2020. 

_____/s/ Richard L. Allen_________ 

 RICHARD L. ALLEN 

m:\main\scriptchek visual\pleadings\plaintiff's response to defendant's motion to dismiss and incorporated memorandum of law.docx 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-10 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 20 of

 20

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 114 of 162
Exhibit 10 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 115 of 162 Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-11 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 1 of 3
1 

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE

 17th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR 

 BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA 

 CASE NO: CACE 20-003398 (08) 

SCRIPTCHEK VISUAL VERIFICATION 

SYSTEMS, INC., a Florida Corporation, 

 Plaintiff, 

Vs.

R.R. DONNELLEY & SONS 

COMPANY, INC., 

 Defendant. 

_____________________________/ 

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AND DESIGNATION OF E-MAIL ADDRESSES 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that undersigned counsel hereby enters his Notice of 

Appearance as counsel for the Defendant, R.R. DONNELLY & SONS COMPANY, and 

requests that copies of all future pleadings, discovery and any other documents filed in 

this case be directed to the attention of:

rhill@jenner.com; dnelson@jenner.com; docketing@jenner.com

service@hpslegal.com

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing document was electronically filed and 

served via Florida’s E-filing Portal to all counsel on the attached service list on this 8

th

day of June 2020.

JENNER & BLOCK LLP

Attorney for R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company

353 N. Clark Street

Chicago, IL 60654

Telephone: (312) 222-9350

Fax: (312) 527-0484

E-MAIL: rhill@jenner.com; 

docketing@jenner.com; dnelson@jenner.com

By: /s/ Reginald J. Hill

 REGINALD J. HILL

 Ill. Bar No: 6225173

 Admitted Pro Hac Vice [#1022714]

HALICZER PETTIS & SCHWAMM, P.A. 

Attorney for R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company

One Financial Plaza, Seventh Floor

100 S.E. 3rd Avenue

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394

Telephone: 954-523-9922 

Fax: 954-522-2512 

E-MAIL: service@hpslegal.com

By /s/ Eugene K. Pettis

 EUGENE K. PETTIS, ESQ.

 FBN: 508454

Filing # 108510213 E-Filed 06/08/2020 11:28:57 AM Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 116 of 162 Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-11 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 2 of 3
CASE NO. CACE 20-003398 (08) 

2 

MAILING LIST 

Our File No. 1324.0001

ScriptChek Visual Verifiction Systems, Inc. v. R.R. Donnelly & Sons, Inc. 

CASE NO. CACE 20-003398 (08) 

Richard L. Allen, Esq. 

Steven Solowsky, Esq. 

Solowsky & Allen, PL 

201 S. Biscayne Blvd. - #915 

Miami, FL 33131 

Attorneys for Plaintiff

305-371-2223 

E-MAIL DESIGNATIONS: mlopez@salawmiami.com; rallen@salawmiami.com; 

pleadings@salawmiami.com; ssolowsky@salawmiami.com

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 117 of 162 Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-11 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 3 of 3
Exhibit 11 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 118 of 162 Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-12 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 1 of 4
SOLOWSKY & ALLEN, P.L. 201 S. BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, CITIGROUP CENTER – SUITE 915, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 TEL (305) 371-2223

 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17TH 

JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR 

BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA 

CIVIL DIVISION 

CASE NO.: CACE 20-003398 (08) 

SCRIPTCHEK VISUAL 

VERIFICATION SYSTEMS, INC., 

a Florida Corporation, 

 

 

 Plaintiff, 

 

v. 

 

R.R. DONNELLEY & SONS 

COMPANY, INC., a Delaware 

Corporation, 

 

 Defendant. 

/ 

NOTICE OF HEARING

(SPECIAL SET – 1 Hour) 

 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned has set down for hearing before the 

Honorable David A. Haimes, one of the Judges of the above styled Court, on Tuesday, July 

7, 2020, at 10:45 a.m., via Zoom, and instructions are as follows: 

DAVID HAIMES is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting 

Topic: Judge Haimes Docket 

Join Zoom Meeting 

https://17thflcourts.zoom.us/j/111475745 

Meeting ID: 111 475 745 

One tap mobile 

or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard on: 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT, 

MOTION TO STRIKE, MOTION IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR MORE 

DEFINITE STATEMENT, AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUMUM 

OF LAW. 

 PLEASE GOVERN YOURSELVES ACCORDINGLY. 

Filing # 108938778 E-Filed 06/16/2020 02:47:18 PM Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 119 of 162 Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-12 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 2 of 4
 CASE NO.: CACE 20-003398 (08) 

- 2 - 

SOLOWSKY & ALLEN, P.L. 201 S. BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, CITIGROUP CENTER – SUITE 915, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 TEL (305) 371-2223

 I hereby certify that I have made a good faith attempt to resolve this matter by 

having direct communication about the matter with all parties, prior to my noticing this 

motion for hearing. 

Respectfully submitted, 

SOLOWSKY & ALLEN, P.L. 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

SCRIPTCHEK VISUAL 

VERIFICATION SYSTEMS, INC. 

Citigroup Center – Suite 915 

201 S. Biscayne Boulevard 

Miami, Florida 33131 

Telephone No. (305) 371-2223 

Facsimile No. (305) 373-2073 

rallen@salawmiami.com 

ssolowsky@salawmiami.com 

mlopez@salawmiami.com 

pleadings@salawmiami.com 

By:___/s/ Richard L. Allen________ 

 RICHARD L. ALLEN 

 Florida Bar No. 295485 

and 

MANSFIELD BRONSTEIN & STONE,

LLP 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

SCRIPTCHEK VISUAL 

VERIFICATION SYSTEMS, INC. 

500 Broward Boulevard, Suite 1450 

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33394 

Telephone No. (954) 601-5600 

Facsimile No. (954) 961-4756 

Email: gary@mblawpa.com 

Email: dstone@davidstonelaw.com 

Service: litigation@mblawpa.com 

By:___/s/ Gary N. Mansfield_______ 

 GARY N. MANSFIELD 

 Florida Bar No. 61913 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 120 of 162 Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-12 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 3 of 4
 CASE NO.: CACE 20-003398 (08) 

- 3 - 

SOLOWSKY & ALLEN, P.L. 201 S. BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, CITIGROUP CENTER – SUITE 915, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 TEL (305) 371-2223

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was filed with 

the Clerk of the Court via the Florida Courts eFiling Portal and served by Email upon 

EUGENE K. PETTIS, ESQ., Haliczer, Pettis & Schwamm, P.A., One Financial Plaza, 100 

S.E. 3rd Avenue, Seventh Floor, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, 33394 (Email:

service@hpslegal.com); and REGINALD J. HILL, ESQ., Jenner & Block LLP, 353 N. 

Clark Street, Chicago, Illinois, 60654 (Email: rhill@jenner.com; dnelson@jenner.com; 

docketing@jenner.com), this 16th day of June, 2020. 

_____/s/ Richard L. Allen_________ 

 RICHARD L. ALLEN 

“If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, 

you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the ADA Coordinator, 

17th Judicial Circuit, 201 S.E. 6th Street, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, 33301, Telephone: (954) 831-7721, within 

two (2) working days of your receipt of this Notice; if you are hearing or voice impaired, call (800) 955-

8771.” 

m:\main\scriptchek visual\pleadings\notice of hearing (special set-1 hour) (defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint).docx 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 121 of 162 Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-12 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 4 of 4
Exhibit 12 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-13 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 1 of 36 Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 122 of 162
Filing# 103893099 E-Filed 02/25/2020 04:38:15 PM 

X IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROW ARD COUNTY, FLORIDA 

IN THE COUNTY COURT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA 

CIVIL DIVISION 

PLAINTIFF(S) 

SCRIPTCHEK VISUAL VERIFICATION 

SYSTEMS, INC., a Florida Corporation 

CIVIL ACTION SUMMONS 

VS. DEFENDANT(S) 

R.R. DONNELLEY & SONS COMP ANY, 

INC., a Delaware corporation 

CASE NUMBER 

CACE-20-003398 (08) 

CLOCK IN 

To Defendant(s): R.R. DONNELLEY & SONS COMPANY, INC. Address: CT Corporation System 

1200 S. Pine Island Road 

(1) By serving, pursuant to §48.091, Florida Statutes, the resident Plantation, FL 33324 

agent, or in his absence, (2) By serving, pursuant to §48.081, 

Florida Statutes: (a) the president or vice president or other head 

of the corporation; and in his absence: (b) the cashier, treasurer, 

secretary, or general manager; and in the absence of all of the 

above: (c) any director; and in the absence of all of the above: 

( d) an officer or business a ent. 

A lawsuit has been filed against you. Plaintiff's First Request for Production to Defendant is also being served upon you. 

You have 20 calendar days after this summons is served on you to file a written response to the attached Complaint with the clerk of 

this court. A phone call will not protect you; your written response, including the case number given above and the names of the 

parties, must be filed if you want the Court to hear your side of the case. If you do not file your response on time, you may lose the 

case, and your wages, money and property may thereafter be taken without further warning from the Court. There are other legal 

requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may call an attorney referral service 

or legal aid office (listed in the phone book). 

If you choose to file a written response yourself, at the same time you file your written response to the Court located at: 

Broward County Courthouse 

Clerk of Courts 

201 S.E. 6th Street 

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 

Additional Court locations are printed on the back of this form. 

You must also mail or take a copy of your written responses to the "Plaintiff/Plaintiffs Attorney" named below. 

Plaintiff/Plaintiff Attorney 

RICHARD L. ALLEN, ESQ. 

Address: 

Solowsky & Allen, P .L. 

201 S. Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 915 

Miami, Florida 3 3131 

(305) 371-2223 

TO EACH SHERIFF OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA: You are commanded to serve this Summons and a copy of the 

Complaint of this lawsuit and Plaintiffs First Request for Production to Defendant on the above named defendant. 

HOWARD C. FORMAN 

Clerk of Courts By: ____ _ 

Court 

Seal 

Date: 

FEB 26 2020 

*** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL BRENDA D. FORMAN, CLERK 02/25/2020 04:38: 13 PM.  

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-13 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 2 of 36 Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 123 of 162
Filing# 104326513 E-Filed 03/04/2020 01:29:28 PM 

VERIFIED RETURN OF SERVICE 

State of Florida County of Broward Circuit Court 

Case Number: 20-3398 CACE08 

Plaintiff: 

SCRIPTCHEK VISUAL VERIFICATION SYSTEMS, INC. 

vs. 

Defendant: 

R.R. DONNELLEY & SONS COMPANY, INC. 

For: 

Richard L. Allen, Esq. 

SOLOWSKY & ALLEN, P.L. 

201 South Biscayne Blvd. 

Suite 915 

Miami, FL 33131 

11111111111111111111111111111 I lllllll 

POP2020048664 

Received by Priority One Process Service, Inc. on the 27th day of February, 2020 at 9:00 am to be served on R.R. 

DONNELLEY & SONS COMPANY, INC. C/O CT CORPORATION SYSTEM, REGISTERED AGENT, 1200 S. PINE ISLAND 

ROAD, PLANTATION, FL 33324. 

I, ANDREW KARP, being duly sworn, depose and say that on the 27th day of February, 2020 at 2:30 pm, I: 

CORPORATE SERVED this CIVIL ACTION SUMMONS, COMPLAINT, FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, EXHIBITS 

with the date and hour of service endorsed thereon by me, to DONNA MOCK, employee and authorized receiver of CT 

CORPORATION SYSTEMS, INC. as REGISTERED AGENT of the within named corporation, located at 1200 S. PINE 

ISLAND ROAD, PLANTATION, FL 33324 and informed said person of the contents therein, in compliance with state statutes. 

I certify that I am over the age of 18, have no interest in the above action, am a Sheriffs Appointed Process Server in the 

Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in good standing in the county in which the process was served. "Under penalty of perjury, I 

declare that I have read the foregoing Affidavit of Service and that the facts stated in it are true." 

//m··~;t~-, DENISE ABAD 

\~ • ~;) Notary Public· State of Florida 

"<'?:0 #,/ Commission# GG 362626 

· ...... ~.f'i-·" My Comm. Expires Mar 14, 2022 

Subscribed an 

March, 2020 b 

me. 

rn to before me on the 3rd day of 

ffiant who is personally known to 

NOTARY PUBLI 

STATE OF FLORIDA 

ANDRE~P___, S.P.S. #260 

Priority One Process Service, Inc. 

5893 Sunset Drive 

South Miami, FL 33143 

(305) 669-1518 

Our Job Serial Number: POP-2020048664 

Ref: SCRIPTCHEK VS R.R. 

Copyright© 1992-2020 Database Services, Inc. - Process Server's Toolbox V8.1 c 

** *FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL BRENDA D. FORMAN, CLERK 03/04/2020 01:29:28 PM.**** 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-13 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 3 of 36 Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 124 of 162
Filing# I 03893099 E-Filed 02/25/202004:38:15 PM 

-X_ 11" THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEE1"TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN A1'1> FOR BROWARD COU1'TY, FLORIDA 

IN THE COUNTY COURT IN AND FOR BROW ARD COUNTY, FLORIDA 

CIVIL DIVISION CIVIL ACTION su~nJONS CASE NU)'IBER 

CACE-20-003398 (08 

PLAINTIFF(S) VS. DEFENDANT(S) 

SCRIPTCHEK VISUAL VERIFICATION 

SYSTEMS, INC., a Florida Corporation 

R.R. DONNELLEY & SONS COMPANY, 

INC., a Delaware corporation 

To Defendant(s): R.R. DONNELLEY & SONS COMPANY, INC. 

(I) By serving, pursuant to §48.091, Florida Statutes, the resident 

agent, or in his absence, (2) By serving, pursuant to §48.081, 

Florida Statutes: (a) tl1e president or vice president or other head 

of tile corporation; and in his absence: (b) tile cashier, treasurer, 

secretary, or general manager; and in the absence of all oftlle 

above: (c) any director; and in tlle absence of all of the above: 

(d an officer or business a ent. 

Address: CT Corporation System 

I 200 S. Pinc Island Road 

Plantation, FL 33324 

CLOCK IN 

A lawsuit has been filed against you. Plaintiff's First Request for Production to Defendant is also being served upon you. 

You have 20 calendar days after tllis summons is served on you to file a written response to tlle attached Complaint witll tile clerk of 

this court. A phone call will not protect you; your written response, including tile case number given above and tlle names of the 

parties, must be filed if you want tile Court to hear your side of tile case. If you do not file your response on time, you may lose the 

case, and your wages, money and property may tllereafter be taken without further warning from tlle Court. There are oilier legal 

requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may call an attorney referral service 

or legal aid office (listed in tile phone book). 

If you choose to file a written response yourself, at the same time you file your written response to the Court located at: 

Broward County Courtltouse' \ c vd.: z./-z.. 7 I ~"UJ lilt __ 9:.....;<>~:.....::::ihP'f Clerk of Courts S ~ .. I . 201S.E.6'h Street .erved _x:>_.n_r'.\' . ~ c.,t:._ 

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Ti. "e /} .,( \() . n-' - u o· 

Additional Court locations are printed on tile back oftllis form. )ate -z / '2. 7 /ZD7.-0 : ;z..3 () 

You must also mail or take a copy of your written responses to the "Pl~V~ptiffsi\ttqrney" narn~ bclo;.-~ 

Plaintiff/Plaintiff Attorney 

RICHARD L. ALLEN, ESQ 

Address: 

Solowsky & Allen, P .L. 

201 S. Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 915 

Miami, Florida 33 I 31 

(305) 371-2223 

11"'-. " "2.. " 0 

TO EACH SHERIFF OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA: You are commanded to serve tllis Summons and a copy oftllc 

Complaint oftllis lawsuit and Plaintiffs First Request for Production to Defendant on tile above named defendant. 

HOWARD C. FOIOIAN 

Clerk of Courts By: ___ _ Court 

Seal 

Date: 

FEB 26 2020 

*** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY. FL BRENDA D. FORMAN, CLERK 02 25 2020 04:38: l3 PM.  Lj 8 (e Ce y 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-13 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 4 of 36 Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 125 of 162
A lb. 

;_:_t CT Corporation Service of Process 

Transmittal 

02/27/2020 

CT Log Number 537283724 

TO: YVETTE BUSIA 

R R Donnelley Et Sons Company 

35 WEST WACKER DRIVE, 36TH FLOOR 

CHICAGO, IL 60601 

RE: Process Served in Florida 

FOR: R. R. Donnelley Et Sons Company (Domestic State: DE) 

ENCLOSED ARE COPIES OF LEGAL PROCESS RECEIVED BY THE STATUTORY AGENT OF THE ABOVE COMPANY AS FOLLOWS: 

TITLE OF ACTION: SCRIPTCHEK VISUAL VERIFICATION SYSTEMS, INC., etc., Pltf. vs. R.R. DONNELLEY Et 

SONS COMPANY, INC., etc., Dft. 

DOCUMENT(S) SERVED: Summons, Verification, Request, Certificate, Complaint, Exhibit(s) 

COURT/AGENCY: Broward County Circuit Court, FL 

Case # CACE2000339808 

NATURE OF ACTION: Breach Of Contract 

ON WHOM PROCESS WAS SERVED: C T Corporation System, Plantation, FL 

DATE AND HOUR OF SERVICE: By Process Server on 02/27/2020 at 14:55 

JURISDICTION SERVED: Florida 

APPEARANCE OR ANSWER DUE: You have 20 calendar days after this summons is served on you 

ATTORNEY(S) / SENDER(S): RICHARD L. ALLEN 

SOLOWSKY Et ALLEN, R L. 

201 S. Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 915 

Miami, FL 33131 

305-371-2223 

ACTION ITEMS: CT has retained the current log, Retain Date: 02/27/2020, Expected Purge Date: 

03/08/2020 

Image SOP 

Email Notification, YVETTE BUSIA yvette.b.kumi@rrd.com 

Email Notification, Alli Mack alli.c.mack@rrd.com 

SIGNED: C T Corporation System 

ADDRESS: 208 South LaSalle Street 

Suite 814 

Chicago, IL 60604 

For Questions: 866-331-2303 

CentralTeam1@wolterskluwer.com 

Page 1 of 1 / SS 

Information displayed on this transmittal is for CT 

Corporation's record keeping purposes only and is provided to 

the recipient for quick reference. This information does not 

constitute a legal opinion as to the nature of action, the 

amount of damages, the answer date, or any information 

contained in the documents themselves. Recipient is 

responsible for interpreting said documents and for taking 

appropriate action. Signatures on certified mail receipts 

confirm receipt of package only, not contents. 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-13 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 5 of 36 Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 126 of 162
Filing # 103893099 E-Filed 02/25/2020 04:38:15 PM 

X IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF nu SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA 

— IN THE COUNTY COURT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA 

CIVIL DIVISION CIVIL ACTION SUMMONS CASE NUMBER 

CACE-20-003398 (08) 

PLAINTIFF(S) 

SCRIPTCHEK VISUAL VERIFICATION 

SYSTEMS, INC., a Florida Corporation 

VS. DEFENDANT(S) 

R.R. DONNELLEY & SONS COMPANY, 

INC., a Delaware corporation 

CLOCK IN 

To Defendant(s): R,R. DONNELLEY & SONS COMPANY, INC. 

(1) By serving, pursuant to §48.091, Florida Statutes, the resident 

agent, or in his absence, (2) By serving, pursuant to §48.081, 

Florida Statutes: (a) the president or vice president or other head 

of the corporation; and in his absence: (b) the cashier, treasurer, 

secreimy, or general manager; and in the absence of all or the 

above: (c) any director, and in the absence doll of the above: 

(d) any officer or business agent. 

Address: CT Corporation System 

1200 S. Pine Island Road 

Plantation, FL 33324 

/k410 

for Production to Defendant is also bel g 

a written response to the attached Complain 

including the case number given above and 

case. If you do not Ole your response on time, 

without fbrther warning from the Court. There 

not know an attorney, you may call an attorney 

you file your written response to the Court 

Courthouse 

Street 

FL 33301 

to the "Plaintiff/Plaintiffs Attorney" named 

7,--° 

C(01, 

served 

with the 

the names 

you may 

arc other 

referral 

located 

below. 

C 

upon you. 

clerk of 

of the 

lose the 

legal 

service 

at: 

A lawsuit has been filed against you. Plaintiff's First Request 

You have 20 calendar days after this summons is served on you to file 

this court. A phone call will not protect you; your written response, 

panics, must be filed if you want the Court to hear your side of the 

case, and your wages, money and property may thereafter be taken 

requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. If you do 

or legal aid office (listed in the phone book). 

If you choose to file a written response yourself, at the same time 

Broward County 

Clerk of Courts 

201 S.E. 6111 

Fort Lauderdale, 

Additional Court locations are printed on the back of this form. 

You must also mail or take a copy of your written responses 

Plaintiff/Plaintiff Attorney 

RICHAIM L. ALLEN, ESQ. 

Address: 

Solowsky & Allen, PI, 

201 S. Biscayne Boulevard. Suite 915 

Miami, Florida 33131 

(30$) 371-2223 

TO EACH SHERIFF OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA: You are commanded to serve this Summons and a copy of the 

Complaint of this lawsuit and P aintifFs First Request for Production to Defendant on the above named defendant. 

Clerk of Courts 

HOWARD C. FORMAN Court t.,:c,,,,.... , By: ,- 'N.t. " Seal 

Date: 

FEB 26 2020 kr)"4-ULU 

BRENDA D. FORMAN 

** * FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL BRENDA D. FORMAN. CLERK 02/25/2020 04:38:13 PM."'" 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-13 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 6 of 36 Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 127 of 162
Filing # 103813414 E-Filed 02/24/2020 04:36:00 PM 

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17TH 

JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR 

BRO WARD COUNTY, FLORIDA 

CIVIL DIVISION 

CASE NO.: 

SCRIPTCHEK VISUAL 

VERIFICATION SYSTEMS, INC., 

a Florida Corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

V. 

R.R. DONNELLEY & SONS 

COMPANY, INC., a Delaware 

Corporation, 

Defendant. 

PLAINTIFF SCRIPTCITEK VISUAL VERIFICATION SYSTEMS, INC.'S 

FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANT 

R.R. DONNELLEY & SONS COMPANY, INC. 

Plaintiff, SCRIPTcHEK VISUAL VERIFICATION SYSTEMS, INC., a Florida 

Corporation ("ScriptChek"), by and through its undersigned counsel, and pursuant to the 

Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby request that Defendant R.R. DONNELLEY & 

SONS COMPANY, INC., a Delaware Corporation, timely respond to this First Request 

for Production in compliance with the Rules, and the instructions and definitions contained 

herein. 

INSTRUCTIONS 

This Request is continuing in nature, and the answers and documents must be 

supplemented by you at such time in the future as any facts, information,•and documents 

discovered hereafter have been ascertained, and such supplemental answers, information 

SOLOWSKY & ALLEN, P.L. 

DI S. BISCA YNE BOULEVARD, CITIOROUP CENTER - SUITE 913. MIAMI. FLORIDA 33131 TEL (303I 371-2223 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-13 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 7 of 36 Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 128 of 162
CASE NO.: 

and documents shall be served upon the undersigned attorneys seasonably after such 

discovery. 

Plaintiff requests that you timely produce the items specified herein for inspection 

and copying. 

You are required to produce a document or tangible thing if it is within your 

possession, custody, or control. Possession, custody, or control includes constructive 

possession, such that you need not have actual physical possession. As long as you have 

the superior right to compel the production from a third party (including an agency, 

authority or representative), you have possession, custody, or control. 

If you cannot produce the documents listed herein in full after exercising due 

diligence to secure such documents, please so state and specify the reason(s) for your 

inability to produce the documents and stating whatever information you have relating to 

the location and/or possession, custody, or control of the documents. 

For each document which you seek to withhold under a claim of privilege, workproduct, or otherwise, the following information shall be provided in a Privilege Log: the 

specific ground for withholding each such document; a statement of the basis on which 

privilege is claimed; the place, date, and the manner of rendering or otherwise preparing 

the document; the name and title of the sender of the document and the name and title of 

the recipient of the document; a summary of the contents of the document; the identity of 

each person to whom the document has heretofore been communicated by copy, exhibition, 

reading, or substantial summarization; the date of such communication; the employer and 

title of such person, if any, at the time of such communication; and the current location and 

custodian of the original and copies of the document or communication. 

If any document listed herein has been lost, discarded, or destroyed, you shall 

identify such document as completely as possible, which identification shall include, but 

not be limited to, date of disposal, matter of disposal, reason for disposal, person 

authorizing the disposal, and the person disposing of the document. 

All documents listed herein shall be produced as they are kept in the usual course 

of business or shall be organized and labeled to correspond with categories in this Request. 

The selection of documents from files and other sources shall be performed in such a 

manner as to ensure that the file or other source in which the document is obtained may be 

identified. Any documents listed herein shall be produced in their full and unexpurgated 

form. 

For those requests for which there are no responsive materials, explicitly 

indicate "NONE" for each such request. 

- 2 - 

SOLOWSKY & ALLEN, P.L. 

201 S. BISCAYNE BOULEVARD. CITIGROUP cENTER - SUITE 9I5. MIA M I. FLORIDA 33131 rei. (305)331.2123 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-13 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 8 of 36 Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 129 of 162
CASE NO.: 

DEFINITIONS 

"Any" as used herein includes the word "all," and the word "all" as used herein 

includes the word "any." "All" shall be construed to include the term "each," and "each" 

shall be construed to include the word "all." 

The connectives "and," "or," and "and/or" shall be construed either disjunctively 

or conjunctively as necessary to bring within the scope of the discovery request all 

responses that might otherwise be construed outside of its scope. 

"Books of Account" shall have the meaning ascribed to it in 1 4 of the Manufacture 

Agreement. 

"Communication" or "correspondence" shall mean any contact or act by which 

any information or knowledge is transmitted or conveyed between two or more persons 

and shall include, without limitation, contact by any means including written contact by 

any document, electronic contact, and oral contact by such means as face-to-face meetings 

and telephone conversations, including but not limited to letters, mails, text messages, 

iMessages, and postings on any social media site or application, and notes of meetings, 

conversations and conferences. 

"Complaint" shall refer to the Complaint filed in the above-captioned case on 

February 24, 2020. 

"Concerning" and "Concern", when used with respect to a document, subject, or 

fact, means embodying, containing, evidencing, reflecting, pertaining to, relating to, 

verifying, regarding, reciting, recording, constituting, supporting, refuting, or referring to. 

"CVS" shall mean CVS Pharmacy, a subsidiary of CVS HEALTH 

CORPORATION, INC., a Delaware Corporation, its principals, officers, agents, 

employees, assignees, subsidiaries, corporate affiliates, and/or representatives. 

"Document" or "documents" shall be deemed to include, by way of illustration 

only and not by way of limitation, the following (whether printed or reproduced by any 

process, written, and/or produced by hand, including the original and any copy which is 

not identical because of marginal notes or otherwise) which are subject to your custody or 

control, wherever located, and whether or not claimed to be privileged or otherwise 

excludable from discovery: electronic data, notes; correspondence; communications of any 

nature; telegrams; e-mails; text messages; memoranda; notebooks of any character; 

summaries or records of personal conversations; diaries; calendars; routing slips or 

memoranda; reports; records; computer records; computer programs; computer disks; 

USBs or thumb drives; publications; photographs; films; minutes or records of meetings; 

transcripts of oral testimony or statements; reports and/or summaries of interviews; reports 

and/or summaries of investigations; agreements and contracts, including all modifications 

and/or revisions thereof; reports and/or summaries of negotiations; court papers; brochures; 

pamphlets; press releases; drafts of, revisions of, or translations of any document; invoices; 

-3., 

SoLewssy & ALLEN, P.L. 

201 S. BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, CITIGROUP CENTER -SUITE 91S, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 TEL (305) 371.2223 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-13 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 9 of 36 Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 130 of 162
CASE NO.: 

checks; bills; estimates; account statements; tape recordings (audio or video); and records 

and dictation belts. Marks on any sheet or side thereof, including but not by way of 

limitation, initials, stamped indicia, any comment or any notation of any character not a 

part of the original text, or any reproduction thereof, is to be considered a separate 

document. 

The term "document" is intended to incInde Electronically Stored Information, 

which includes but is not limited to your word-processing documents; spreadsheets; 

presentation documents; graphics; animations; images; e-mail (including attachments 

which shall be kept with the e-mail); instant messages; text messages; chat messages; voice 

mail; audio, video, and audiovisual recordings; databases and data base subsets; software; 

and other user, or machine created, digital information which is stored on computer 

networks, servers, computer systems, desktop computers, laptop computers, home 

computers, the internet, web pages, archives, screenshots, discs, CDs, DVDs, diskettes, 

drives, tapes, cartridges, flash drives, jump drives, and other external storage media, 

personal digital assistants, handheld wireless devices, cellular telephones, iPhones, 

Blackberries, pagers and voicemail systems. 

The term "document" includes all non-privileged electronically stored information 

in native format, including Outlook pst files, (communications, emails, contacts, calendars, 

to do lists and events, as well as any other activity databases). The term "document" 

includes all electronic communications and social media postings on your equipment, 

including but not limited to instant messages, text messages, Wogs, tweets, wilcis, forum 

comments, social media communications of any kind (Facebook, and the like), voicemails, 

videos, online profiles, postings, messages (including, without limitation, tweets, replies, 

re-tweets, direct messages, status updates, wall comments, groups joined, activity streams, 

and blog entries), photographs, videos, and online communications on your equipment. 

"Each" as used herein ineludes the word "every," and the word "every" as used 

herein includes the word "each." 

"Extended Tab Prescription Drug Label" shall have the meaning ascribed to it 

in the Manufacture Agreement. 

"Manufacture Agreement" shall be deemed to refer to the Non-Exclusive Limited 

License to Manufacture, entered into on or about August 1, 2006 by ScriptChek and Moore 

Wallace, the predecessor by merger to R.R. Donnelley, A copy of the Manufacture 

Agreement is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit "A". 

"Marking" shall have the meaning ascribed to it in 11 4 of the Manufacture 

Agreement. 

"Person" shall be deemed to mean any natural person, the estate of any natural 

person, or any legal entity, including but not limited to a corporation, trust, partnership, 

unincorporated association, or any officer, director, employee, agent, or other person acting 

or purporting to act on their behalf. 

- 4 - 

SOLOWSKY & ALLEN, P.L. 

201 S. BISCAYNE BOULEVARD. CITIOROUP CENTER - SUITE 015. MIAMI. FLORIDA 33 1,11 TEL (30$) 371-2223 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-13 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 10 of

 36

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 131 of 162
CASE NO.: 

"R.R. Donnelley" shall be deemed to refer to R.R. DONNELLEY & SONS 

COMPANY, INC., a Delaware corporation, its principals, officers, agents, employees, 

assignees, subsidiaries, corporate affiliates, and/or representatives.' 

"ScriptChek" shall be deemed to refer to SCRIPTCHEK VISUAL 

VERIFICATION SYSTEMS, INC., a Florida Corporation, its principals, officers, agents, 

employees, assignees, subsidiaries, comorate affiliates, and/or representatives. 

"You", "you", "Your" and "yours" for purposes of these Requests shall be 

deemed to refer to Defendant, R.R. Donnelley, arid/or any officer, manager, member, 

representative, employee, agent, or other person acting on behalf R.R. Donnelley. 

The use of the singular form of any word includes the plural, and the use of the 

plural includes the singular. 

The applicable relevant time period for each of the following Requests for 

Production shall be from January 1, 2006 through the present, unless otherwise specified. 

For the purposes of these Requests, R.R. Donnelley shall also be deemed to refer to 

MOORE WALLACE, NORTH AMERICA, INC., a Delaware corporation, which was 

acquired by merger with R.R. Donnelley, and its principals, officers, agents, employees, 

assignees, subsidiaries, corporate affiliates, and/or representatives. 

- 5 - 

SOLOWSKY & ALLEN, P.L. 

201 S. BISCAYNE BOULEVARD. CITIGROIR CENTER SUITE 915, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 TEL(305). 371-2223 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-13 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 11 of

 36

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 132 of 162
CASE NO.: 

REOUESTS 

I. All documents and correspondence concerning the Manufacture 

Agreement. This request includes, but is not limited to, all documents and/or 

correspondence, regardless of whether additional persons or entities were the senders, the 

recipients, or were otherwise copied on the documents and/or correspondence. 

2. All documents and correspondence concerning the Extended Tab 

Prescription Drug Label. This request includes, but is not limited to, all documents and/or 

correspondence, regardless of whether additional persons or entities were the senders, the 

recipients, or were otherwise copied on the documents and/or correspondence. 

3. All documents and correspondence between CVS and R.R. Donnelley 

concerning the Manufacture Agreement. This request includes, but is not limited to, all 

documents and/or correspondence, regardless of whether additional persons or entities 

were the senders, the recipients, or were otherwise copied on the documents and/or 

correspondence. 

4. All documents and correspondence between CVS and R.R. Donnelley 

concerning the Extended Tab Prescription Drug Label. This request includes, but is not 

limited to, all documents and/or correspondence, regardless of whether additional persons 

or entities were the senders, the recipients, or were otherwise copied on the documents 

and/or correspondence. 

5. All documents and correspondence between CVS and R.R. Donnelley 

concerning the manufacture of any prescription drug labels, including but not limited to 

any and all die lines provided to CVS by R.R. Donnelley. This request includes, but is not 

limited to, all documents and/or correspondence, regardless of whether additional persons 

or entities were the senders, the recipients, or were otherwise copied on the documents 

and/or correspondence. 

6. All documents and correspondence between R.R. Donnelley and any other 

Person concerning the manufacture of any prescription drug labels, including but not 

limited to any and all die lines provided to such Person by R.R. Donnelley. This request 

includes, but is not limited to, all documents and/or correspondence, regardless of whether 

additional persons or entities were the senders, the recipients, or were otherwise copied on 

the documents and/or correspondence. 

7. All documents and correspondence concerning the manufacture of the 

Extended Tab Prescription Drug Label. 

8. All documents and correspondence concerning the Books of Account, 

including but not limited to the Books of Account themselves, and any and all documents 

and correspondence concerning same. 

- 6 - 

SoLowsgy& ALLEN, P.L. 

201 S. BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, CITIGROUP CENTER- SUITE 915. MIAMI. FLORIDA 33131 TEL (305)371-2223 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-13 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 12 of

 36

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 133 of 162
CASE NO.: 

9. All documents and correspondence concerning the sale(s) of the Extended 

Tab Prescription Drug Label to any Person. 

I 0. All documents and correspondence R.R. Donnelley sent to or received from 

any third parties concerning the Extended Tab Prescription Drug Label. 

11. All documents and correspondence R.R. Donnelley sent to or received from 

any third parties concerning ScriptChek. 

12. All documents and correspondence R.R. Donnelley sent to or received from 

any third parties concerning CVS. 

13. All documents and correspondence concerning ScriptChek's allegations as 

set forth in the Complaint. 

14. All documents concerning ScriptChek. 

15. All documents concerning the Extended Tab Prescription Drug Label. 

Respectfully submitted, 

SOLOWSKY & ALLEN, P.L. 

Attorneys for Plaintiff, 

SCRIPTCHEK VISUAL 

VERIFICATION SYSTEMS, INC. 

Citigroup Center — Suite 915 

201 S. Biscayne Boulevard 

Miami, Florida 33131 

Telephone No. (305) 371-2223 

Facsimile No. (305) 373-2073 

rallen@salawmiami.com 

ssolowsky@salawmiami.com 

rnlopez@salawmiami.com 

pleadings@salawmiami.corn 

By: Is/ Richard L. Allen 

RICHARD L. ALLEN 

Florida Bar No. 295485 

and 

- 7 - 

SOLOWSKY & ALLEN, P.L. 

201 S. BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, CITIGROUp CENTER- SUITE 915, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 TEL (3051371-2223 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-13 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 13 of

 36

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 134 of 162
CASE NO.: 

MANSFIELD BRONS'rEIN & STONE, 

LLP 

Attorneys for Plaintiff, 

SCRIPTCHEK VISUAL 

VERIFICATION SYSTEMS, INC 

500 Broward Boulevard, Suite 1450 

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33394 

Telephone No.: 954-601-5600 

Facsimile No.: 954-961-4756 

Email: gary@mblawpa.com 

Email: dstone@davidstortelaw.com 

Service: litigation@mblawpa.com 

By: /s/ Gary N. Mansfield 

GARY N. MANSFIELD 

Florida Bar No. 61913 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

.1 HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served 

together with the Complaint on the Defendant, R.R. DONNELLEY & SONS COMPANY, 

INC. 

By:/s/ Richard L. Allen 

RICHARD L. ALLEN 

mArnalnIscriptchek visuartplead1ngst2020-02-24 first requesl for production to defendantdocx 

- 8 - 

SOLOWSKY & ALLEN, P.L. 

201 S. BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, CITIGROUP CENTER SUITE 915. MIAMI. FLORIDA 3331 TEL (305)374-2223 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-13 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 14 of

 36

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 135 of 162
Filing # 103813414 E-Filed 02/24/2020 04:36:00 PM 

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17111 

JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR 

PRO WARD COUNTY, FLORIDA 

CIVIL DIVISION 

CASE NO.: 

SCRIPTCHEK VISUAL 

VERIFICATION SYSTEMS, INC., 

a Florida Corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

V. 

R.R. DONNELLEY & SONS 

COMPANY, INC., a Delaware 

Corporation, 

Defendant. 

COMPLAINT 

Plaintiff, SCRIPTCHEK VISUAL VERIFICATION SYSTEMS, INC., a Florida 

Corporation ("ScriptChek"), by and through its undersigned counsel, sues Defendant, R.R. 

DONNELLEY & SONS COMPANY, INC., a Delaware Corporation ("R.R. Donnelley"), 

and alleges as follows: 

I. On or about August I 2006, the parties entered into a Non-Exclusive 

Limited License to Manufacture (the "Manufacture Agreement"). A copy of the 

Manufacture Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit "A." 

2. This is an .action for breach of the terms of the Manufacture Agreement 

(Counts I and 10, alternatively, an action for specific performance of the provisions of the 

SOLOWSKY & ALLEN, P.L. 

20! S. BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, CITIGROUP CENTER SUITE 915. MIAMI FLORIDA 3131 TEL (30S) 17 t.2,.223. 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-13 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 15 of

 36

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 136 of 162
CASE NO.: 

Manufacture Agreement (Count ill), and, alternatively, an action for unjust enrichment 

(Count IV). 

PARTIES, JURISDICTION. AND VENUE 

3. This is an action for damages in which the amount in controversy exceeds 

$30,000.00 exclusive of interest, costs and attorneys' fees and is within the jurisdiction of 

this Court, and alternatively for equitable relief within the jurisdiction of this Court. 

4. ScriptChek is a Florida Corporation conducting business in Broward 

County, Florida. 

5. R.R. Donnelley is a Delaware Corporation conducting business in Broward 

County, Florida. 

6. R.R. Donnelley is the successor by merger to Moore Wallace, its 

predecessor. Moore Wallace was acquired by merger by R.R. Donnelley. As a result of 

R.R. Donnelley's acquisition by merger of Moore Wallace, R.R. Donnelly stands in the 

shoes of Moore Wallace and R.R. Donnelley has assumed the obligations, liabilities, and 

rights of Moore Wallace. 

7. Moore Wallace entered into the Manufacture Agreement with ScriptChek, 

as set forth herein. As a result of R.R. Donnelley's acquisition by merger of Moore 

Wallace, R.R. Donnelly stands in the shoes of Moore Wallace and R.R. Donnelley has 

assumed the obligations, liabilities, and rights of Moore Wallace pursuant to the 

Manufacture Agreement. 

- 2 - 

SOLOWSKY & ALLEN, P.L. 

201 S. BiSCAYNE BOULEVARD, Ci no ROUP CENTER — SUITE 9 L3, rysIAML FLORIDA 33131 TEL (305)37i-3223 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-13 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 16 of

 36

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 137 of 162
CASE NO.: 

8. Venue is proper in Broward County, Florida because R.R. Donnelley 

conducts business in Broward County, Florida, and the causes of action accrued in Broward 

County, Florida. 

9. Venue is proper in Broward County, Florida pursuant to 11 13 of the 

Manufacture Agreement, in which R.R. Donnelley has consented to jurisdiction and venue 

in Broward County, Florida. See Manufacture Agreement,1113. 

10. In addition, pursuant to 1113 of the Manufacture Agreement, R.R. Donnelley 

and ScriptChek agreed that the Manufacture Agreement shall be construed and enforced in 

accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of Florida. See Manufacture 

Agreement, 11 13. 

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 

The Parties Entered into the Manufacture Agreement 

1i. On or about August I, 2006, ScriptChek and R.R. Donnelley's predecessor, 

Moore Wallace, entered into the Manufacture Agreement. See Manufacture Agreement. 

12. The Manufacture Agreement was the product of negotiation between the 

parties, and it was executed by the Vice President and Associate General Counsel of R.R. 

Donnelly's predecessor, Robert G. Nieland, and by the President of ScriptChek, Stacy 

Kaufman. 

13. Pursuant to the Manufacture Agreement, ScriptChek granted R.R. 

Donnelley a limited, non-exclusive right to manufacture and sell the patented ScriptChek 

Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels for the limited purpose of selling the patented 

ScriptChek Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels only to customers approved by 

- 3 - 

SOLOWSKY & ALLEN, P.L. 

201 S. BISCAYNE BOULEVARD. CITIGROUP CENTER - SUITE 915, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 TEL 005)371.2223 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-13 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 17 of

 36

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 138 of 162
CASE NO.: 

ScriptChek, (the "Approved Customers") who have entered into written license agreements 

with ScriptChek to use the patented ScriptChek Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels. 

See Manufacture Agreement,1 1. 

14. The patented ScriptChek Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels are 

prescription labels for displaying additional information printed on a tab extending from 

the label. See Manufacture Agreement, 11. 

15. 'Pursuant to ¶ 1 of the Manufacture Agreement, ScriptChek granted R.R. 

Donnelley a "non-exclusive, limited right to manufacture the Extended Tab Prescription 

Drug Label for the limited purpose of selling the Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels 

only to customers approved by [ScriptChen hereinafter referred to as 'Approved 

Customers' that have entered into written License Agreements with [ScriptChek] to use 

the Extended Tab Prescription Drug Label" See Manufacture Agreement, Ill I. 

16. Pursuant to ¶ 4 of the Manufacture Agreement, R.R. Donnelley was 

obligated to "mark all Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels manufactured by it and/or 

sold by it with (a) ScriptChek 0, (b) Patents Pending, and (c) upon notice from 

[ScriptChek] of the issuance of any pending patents, "Patented" with the patent numbers 

and proper dates." See Manufacture Agreement, 114. 

17. In the Manufacture Agreement, R.R. Donnelley acknowledged and agreed 

that ScriptChek is the owner of the patented ScriptChek Extended Tab Prescription Drug 

Labels. See Manufacture Agreement, p. 1. 

18. In the Manufacture Agreement, R.R. Donnelley agreed to manufacture 

ScriptChek's patented Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels for the purpose of selling 

them to ScriptChek's Approved Customers. See Manufacture Agreement, ¶ 2. Pursuant to 

- 4 - 

SOLOWS1CY 8: ALLEN, P.L. 

201 S. BISCAYNE BOULEVARD. CITICROUP CENTER-SUITE 915, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 TEL (305)371-2223 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-13 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 18 of

 36

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 139 of 162
the Manufacture Agreement, R.R. Donnelley has sold and continues to sell the patented 

ScriptChek Extended Tab Prescription Drug Label to at least one Approved Customer. 

19. In the Manufacture Agreement, R.R. Donnelley agreed not to sell the 

patented ScriptChek Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels to customers who were not 

approved by ScriptChek and to customers who had not entered into written license 

agreements with ScriptChek to use the patented ScriptChek Extended Tab Prescription 

Drug Labels. See Manufacture Agreement, J 1, 2. 

The Parties Performed under the Manufacture Agreement 

20. The parties performed under the Manufacture Agreement for numerous 

years, and continue to perform under the Manufacture Agreement with respect to those 

Approved Customers who entered into a license agreement with ScriptChek to use the 

patented ScriptChek Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels. 

21. ScriptChek performed its obligations pursuant to the Manufacture 

Agreement, in that it provided the non-exclusive right to manufacture and sell the patented 

ScriptChek Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels to R.R. Donnelley pursuant to the 

terms and conditions set forth in the Manufacture Agreement. 

22. ScriptChek entered into written License Agreements with Approved 

Customers for the Approved Customers to use the patented ScriptChek Extended Tab 

Prescription Drug Labels. See Manufacture Agreement, 11 I. 

23. R.R. Donnelley manufactured and sold the patented ScriptChek Extended 

Tab Prescription Drug Labels for ScriptChek's Approved Customers' use. See 

Manufacture Agreement, ll 1,2. 

- 5 - 

SOLOWSKY & ALLEN, A.L. 

201 S. BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, CITIGROUP CENTER - SUITE UIS. MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 TEL (30) 371-22.23 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-13 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 19 of

 36

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 140 of 162
CASE NO.: 

24. As referenced in the Manufacture Agreement, patents were issued to 

ScriptChek. See, e.g., Manufacture Agreement, U 3, 4. 

25. ScriptChek provided to R.R. Donnelley confidential and proprietary 

information, specifications, know-how, and other protected information and materials to 

be used by R.R. Donnelly solely in furtherance of R.R. Donnelley's manufacture and sale 

of the patented ScriptChek Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels for ScriptChek's 

Approved Customers' use. 

26. The Manufacture Agreement provides that the term of the Manufacture 

Agreement shall extend to the end of the life of the last of the patents coming within the 

provisions of the Manufacture Agreement. See Manufacture Agreement, ¶ 3. 

R.R. Donnelley Breached the Manufacture Agreement 

27. R.R. Donnelley has been manufacturing and selling the patented ScriptChek 

Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels to non-approved customers, including but not 

limited to CVS Pharmacy, in violation of the Manufacture Agreenient. 

28. As a result, on or about October 29, 2019, ScriptChek, by and through its 

undersigned counsel, sent a demand letter to R.R. Donnelley, which put R.R. Donnelley 

on notice that ScriptChek has elected to exercise its right to terminate the Manufacture 

Agreement with R.R. Doimelley, demanded that R.R. Donnelley cease and desist from 

using any and all of ScriptChek's proprietary information in any form, including but not 

limited to, the manufacture and sale of the patented ScriptChek Extended Tab Prescription 

Drug Labels, demanded that R.R. Donnelley provide an accounting of all sales of the 

patented ScriptChek Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels to non-approved customers, 

- 6 - 

SOLOWSKY & ALLEN, F.L. 

201 S. BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, CITIGROUP CENTER - SUITE 913.1111AM% FLORIDA 23131 TEL 1305) 371-2223 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-13 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 20 of

 36

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 141 of 162
CASE NO.: 

and demanded that R.R. Donnelley immediately return all confidential and proprietary 

materials in R.R. Donnelley's possession regarding the patented ScriptChek Extended Tab 

Prescription Drug Labels. 

29. On or about November 15, 2019, ScriptChek, by and through its 

undersigned counsel, sent Mr. Paul Rodriguez, Esq., Vice President and Chief 

International, Privacy and Intellectual Property Counsel for R.R. Donnelley, photographs 

of prescription drug bottles obtained from CVS Pharmacy which contain ScriptChek's 

proprietary and patented Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels, per Mr. Rodriguez's 

request. 

30. On information and belief, R.R. Donnelley has utilized, and is still utilizing. 

ScriptChek's proprietary and patented Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels to print and 

supply non-approved customers, including but not limited to CVS Pharmacy, with patented 

ScriptChek Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels for the non-approved customers' 

prescription drug bottles, without ScriptChek's approval, in violation of the Manufacture 

Agreement. 

31. On information and belief, R.R. Donnelley has sold,' and is still selling, 

ScriptChek's proprietary and patented Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels to nonapproved customers, including but not limited to CVS Pharmacy, for the non-approved 

customers' prescription drug bottles, without ScriptChek's approval, in violation of the 

Manufacture Agreement. 

32. In addition, on or about November 15, 2019, ScriptChek, by and through its 

undersigned counsel, demanded that R.R. Donnelley provide it with die lines that were 

provided to R.R. Donnelley by CVS Pharmacy, and any die lines RR. Donnelley sent to 

- 7 - 

SoLowsxv & ALLEN, P.L. 

201 S. FIESCA yNE BOULEVARD. CITIQROLIP CWER -SUITE 91'. MItM1, FLORIDA 33131 TEL (305) 371-2223 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-13 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 21 of

 36

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 142 of 162
CASE NO.: 

CVS Pharmacy for its approval, in order to see the folding perforation on the die line, as 

well as samples of the actual blank labels which R.R. Donnelley provided to CVS 

Pharmacy. A die line is a diagram showing the cut lines and folds of a package to ensure 

proper printing layout. 

33. Despite notice, R.R. Donnelley has failed to provide ScriptChek with arty 

of the materials demanded by ScriptChek, and has failed to cease its sale of the patented 

ScriptChek Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels to non-approved customers, including 

but not limited to CVS Pharmacy, in violation of the Manufacture Agreement. 

34. ScriptChek has incurred and continues to incur damages as a result of R.R. 

Donnelley's violations of the Manufacture Agreement. 

R.R. Donnelley Acknowledged the Strictly Confidential Nature 

of ScriptChek's Confidential and Proprietary information 

Provided to R.R. Donnelley 

35. R.R. Donnelly's predecessor, Moore Wallace entered into. a Mutual 

Confidentiality Agreement in September 2003 with ScriptChek. 

36. In the Mutual Confidentiality Agreement, A.R. Donnelley acknowledged 

that the parties' anticipated business relationship would involve the disclosure by 

ScriptChek of ScriptChek's confidential and proprietary information. 

37. Ert the Mutual Confidentiality Agreement, R.R. Donnelley acknowledged 

the strictly confidential nature of ScriptChek's confidential and proprietary information. 

38. In the Mutual Confidentiality Agreement, R.R. Donnelly agreed to protect 

ScriptChek's confidential and proprietary information by using a standard of care at least 

- 8 - 

SoLnwsicy & ALLEN, P. L. 201 S. SCAThE BOULEVARD, CITIGROUP CENTER - SUITI9I. MIAMI, FLotorm 33131 TEL (305)371-2223 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-13 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 22 of

 36

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 143 of 162
CASE NO.: 

equal to that which R.R. Donnelly applies to safeguard its own highly confidential internal 

information. 

39. The parties' Mutual Confidentiality Agreement was the product of 

negotiation between the parties, and it was executed in September 2003 by the Chief 

Financial Officer of Operations of R.R. Donnelly's predecessor, Richard McMichael, and 

by the President of ScriptChek, Stacy Kaufman. 

40. Almost three years after the parties entered into the Mutual Confidentiality 

Agreement, the parties' entered into the Manufacture Agreement. 

41. All conditions precedent to filing this action have been performed, have 

occurred, have been satisfied, or have been waived. 

COUNT 1 

BREACH OF CONTRACT 

(Non-Exclusive Limited Right to Manufactures 

42. ScriptChek realleges and reasserts the allegations contained in Paragraphs 

1 through 41 as if fully set forth herein. 

43. ScriptChek pleads this Count for Breach of Contract in the alternative to all 

other relief requested herein. 

44. Pursuant to 1 of the Manufacture Agreement, ScriptChek granted R.R. 

Donnelley a "non-exclusive, limited right to manufacture the Extended Tab Prescription 

Drug Label for the limited purpose of selling the Extended Tab Prescription Drug Label 

only to customers approved by [ScriptChek], hereinafter referred to as 'Approved 

Customers' that have entered into written License Agreements with [ScriptChek] to use 

the Extended Tab Prescription Drug Label." 

- 9 - 

Soi.owsicy & ALLEN, RIM S. BISCAYNE BOULEVARD. CITIGROUP CENTER -SUITE 913..M1AML FLORIDA 33131 TEL 1305) 371-2223 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-13 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 23 of

 36

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 144 of 162
CASE NO.: 

45. Pursuant to 4 of the Manufacture Agreement, R.R. Donnelley was 

obligated to "mark all Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels manufactured by it ancVor 

sold by it with (a) ScriptChek +V, (b) Patents Pending, and (c) upon notice from 

[ScriptChek] of the issuance of any pending patents, 'Patented' with the patent numbers 

and proper dates." 

46. ScriptChek performed its obligations pursuant to the Manufacture 

Agreement, in that it provided the non-exclusive right to manufacture and sell the patented 

ScriptChek Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels to R.R. Donnelley pursuant to the 

terms and conditions set forth in the Manufacture Agreement. 

47. R.R. Donnelley breached the Manufacture Agreement with ScriptChek: 

(I) by manufacturing and selling the patented ScriptChek Extended Tab Prescription Drug 

Labels to non-approved customers, including but not limited to CVS Pharmacy, in 

violation of I of the Manufacture Agreement; and (2) by failing to include 

"ScriptChek 0" on the patented ScriptChek Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels sold 

by R.R. Donnelley, in violation of114 of the Manufacture Agreement. 

48. ScriptChek has been damaged and continues to be damaged as a result. 

49. In addition to the relief requested herein, ScriptChek hereby demands that 

R.R. Donnelley immediately cease and desist from any and all manufacturing of the 

patented ScriptChek Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels to non-approved customers 

pursuant to lj 1 of the Manufacture Agreement. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, SCRIPTCHEK VISUAL VERIFICATION SYSTEMS, 

INC., demands a Judgment against Defendant, R.R. DONNELLEY & SONS COMPANY, 

- I 0 - 

SOLOWSKY & ALLFIN, P.L. 

201 S. BISCAYNE 13OULEVA W. CITIGROUP CENTER - SUITE 915. 2.11AMI. FLORIDA 33131 TEL {305j 371-2223 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-13 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 24 of

 36

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 145 of 162
CASE NO.: 

INC., for damages plus prejudgment interest and costs, and for such other and further relief 

as this Court deems just, equitable and proper. 

COUNT II 

BREACH OF CONTRACT 

(Books of Account and Ouarterty Reports) 

50. ScriptChek realleges and reasserts the allegations contained in Paragraphs 

1 through 41 as if fully set forth herein. 

51. ScriptChek pleads this Count for Breach of Contract in the alternative to all 

other relief requested herein. 

57. Pursuant to j 5 of the Manufacture Agreement, R.R. Donnelley was 

obligated to "keep proper books of account accurately reflecting the customers of [R.R. 

Donnelley] for all Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels and associated devices 

manufactured and sold by it under the terms of this Agreement." 

53. In addition, pursuant to 5 of the Manufacture Agreement, R.R. Donnelley 

was obligated to "render written reports quarterly to [ScriptChek] not later than the 15th 

day of the month following each contract quarter of this Agreement", which reports were 

to contain, inter alio, the name and address of each customer, the dates of sale to each 

customer, and the total number of labels sold to each customer. Id. 

54. R.R. Donnelley breached the Manufacture Agreement with ScriptChek by 

failing to keep proper books of account and failing to render written reports quarterly to 

ScriptChek, in violation of 1 5 of the Manufacture Agreement. 

55. ScriptChek has been damaged and continues to be damaged as a result. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff; SCRIPTCHEK VISUAL VERIFICATION SYSTEMS, 

INC., demands a Judgment against Defendant, RR. DONNELLEY & SONS COMPANY, 

- 11 - 

SOLOWSKY & ALLEN, P.L. 

201 S. BISCAYNE BOULEVARD. CITIGROUP CENTER -SUITE 915, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 TEL 1303.1371-2223 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-13 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 25 of

 36

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 146 of 162
CASE NO.: 

INC., for damages plus prejudgment interest and costs, and for such other and further relief 

as this Court deems just, equitable and proper. 

COUNT III 

SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT 

(Books of Account and Written Quarterly Reports) 

56. ScriptChek realleges and reasserts the allegations contained in Paragraphs 

I through 41 as if fully set forth herein. 

5.7. ScriptChek pleads this Count for Specific Performance of Contract in the 

alternative to all other relief requested herein. 

58. This is an action for Specific Performance of R.R. Donnelley's express 

written contractual obligation to keep proper books of account and to render written reports 

quarterly to ScriptChek, as set forth in the Manufacture Agreement which is attached hereto 

as Exhibit "A". 

59. Pursuant to 1 5 of the Manufacture Agreement, R.R. Donnelley was 

obligated to "keep proper books of account accurately reflecting the customer(s) of [R.R. 

Donnelley] for all Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels and associated devices 

manufactured and sold by it under the terms of this Agreement". 

60. In addition, pursuant to 1 5 of the Manufacture Agreement, R.R. Donnelley 

was obligated to "render written reports quarterly to [ScriptChek] not later than the 15th 

day of the month following each contract quarter of this Agreement", which reports were 

to contain, inter alio, the name and address of each customer, the dates of sales to each 

customer, and the total number of labels sold to each customer. Id. 

- 12 - 

SoLowsKy 6: ALLEN, P.L. 

201 S. BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, CMGROUP CENTER -SUITE 915, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 TEL (305)371.2223 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-13 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 26 of

 36

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 147 of 162
CASE NO.: 

61. The Manufacture Agreement required R.R. Donnelley to keep proper books 

of account and to render the written reports quarterly to ScriptChek, and R.R. Donnelley 

has failed to do so. 

62. ScriptChek is entitled to specific performance of R.R. Donnelley's 

obligations under 1 5 of the Manufacture Agreement which requires R.R. Donnelley to 

keep proper books of account and to render written reports quarterly to ScriptChek. 

63. ScriptChek is clearly entitled to specific performance of R.R. Donnelley's 

obligations under If 5 of the Manufacture Agreement to keep proper books of account and 

render written reports as specified in 5 of the Manufacture Agreement from 2006 to the 

present. 

64. ScriptChek has no adequate remedy at law. 

65. Under the circumstances, justice requires that ScriptChek be granted 

specific performance of R.R. Donnelley's obligations under 1 5 of the Manufacture 

Agreement. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, SCRIPTCHEK VISUAL VERIFICATION SYSTEMS, 

INC., demands that this Court enter a Judgment granting specific performance of 1 5 of the 

Manufacture Agreement and requiring R.R. DONNELLEY & SONS COMPANY, INC., 

to perform the contractual obligations by providing SCRIPTCHEK VISUAL 

VERIFICATION SYSTEMS, INC., with the books of account and written reports 

specified in1 5 of the ManufaCture Agreement from 2006 to the present, and for such other 

and further relief as this Court deems just, equitable and proper, 

- 13 - 

SOLOWSKY & ALLEN, P.L. 

201 S. BISCA YNE BOULEVARD, CITIOROLIP CENTER - SLIME 915, MIAMI. FLORIDA 33131 TEL (305) 371-2323 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-13 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 27 of

 36

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 148 of 162
CASE NO.: 

COUNT IV 

UNJUST ENRICHMENT 

66. ScriptChek realleges and reasserts the allegations contained in Paragraphs 

3-6, 8, and 41 as if fully set forth herein. 

67. ScriptChek pleads this Count for Unjust Enrichment in the alternative to all 

other relief requested herein. 

68. ScriptChek has conferred a benefit on R.R. Donnelley, who has knowledge 

thereof. 

69. R.R. Donnelley has voluntarily accepted and retained the benefit conferred 

by ScriptChek. 

70. The circumstances are such that it would be inequitable for R.R. Donnelley 

to retain the benefit without paying the value thereof to ScriptChek, and R.R. Donnelley 

must provide restitution to ScriptChek. 

7 l . R.R. Donnelley's retention of the benefits conferred by ScriptChek without 

paying the value thereof to ScriptChek would violate good conscience and fundamental 

principles of justice or equity. 

72. ScriptChek granted R.R. Donnelley a limited, non-exclusive right to 

manufacture and sell ScriptCheles Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels for the limited 

purpose of selling the Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels only to customers approved 

by ScriptChek (the "Approved Customers") who have entered into written license 

agreements with ScriptChek to use the patented ScriptChek Extended Tab Prescription 

Drug Labels. 

73. The Extended Tab Preseription Drug Labels are prescription labels for 

displaying additional information printed on a tab extending from the label. 

- 14 - 

SoLowsKy & ALLEN, Pi. 

201 S. BISCAYNE. BOULEVARD, CITIGROUP CEN1 ER - SUITE 015, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 TEL (305) P1-222.3 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-13 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 28 of

 36

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 149 of 162
CASE NO.: 

74. R.R. Donnelley was obligated to mark all patented ScriptChek Extended 

Tab Prescription Drug Labels manufactured by it and/or sold by it with (a) ScriptChek 

(b) Patents Pending, and (c) upon notice from ScriptChek of the issuance of any pending 

patents, `!•Patented" with the patent numbers and proper dates. 

75. R.R. Donnelley agreed te manufacture ScriptChek's patented Extended Tab 

Prescription Drug Labels for the purpose of selling them only to ScriptChek's Approved 

Customers, 

76. R.R. Donnelley agreed not to sell the patented ScriptChek Extended Tab 

Prescription Drug Labels to customers who were not approved by ScriptChek and who had 

not entered into written license agreements with ScriptChek to use the patented ScriptChek 

Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels. 

77. ScriptChek provided the non-exclusive right to manufacture and sell the 

patented ScriptChek Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels to R.R. Donnelley. 

78. ScriptChek entered into written License Agreements with Approved 

Customers for the Approved Customers to use the patented ScriptChek Extended Tab 

Prescription Drug Labels. 

79. R.R. Donnelley manufactured and sold the patented ScriptChek Extended 

Tab Prescription Drug Labels for ScriptChek's Approved Customers' use. 

80. SeriptChek provided to R.R. Donnelley confidential and proprietary 

information, specifications, know-how, and other protected information and materials to 

be used by R.R. Donnelly solely in furtherance of R.R. Donnelley's manufacture and sale 

of the patented ScriptChek Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels for ScriptChek's 

Approved Customers' use. 

- 15 - 

SOLO WSKY & ALLEN, P.L. 

201 S. BLSCAYNE BOULEVARD, CI11GROUP ceape - SUITE 915, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 TEL (305)371-2223 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-13 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 29 of

 36

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 150 of 162
CASE NO.: 

81. R.R. Donnelley has been manufacturing and selling the patented ScriptChek 

Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels to non-approved customers, including but not 

limited to CVS Pharmacy. 

82. As a result, on or about October 29, 2019, ScriptChek, by and through its 

undersigned counsel, sent a demand letter to R.R. Donnelley, in which ScriptChek, inter 

alia, demanded that R.R. Donnelley cease and desist from using any and all of ScriptChek's 

proprietary information in any form, including but not limited to, the manufacture and sale 

of the patented ScriptChek Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels, demanded that R.R. 

Donnelley provide an accounting of all sales of the patented ScriptChek Extended Tab 

Prescription Drug Labels to non-approved customers, and demanded that R.R. Donnelley 

irrunediately return all confidential and proprietary materials in R.R. Donnelley's 

possession regarding the patented ScriptChek Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels. 

83. On or about November 15, 2019, ScriptChek, by and through its 

undersigned counsel, sent Mr. Paul Rodriguez, Esq., Vice President and Chief 

International, Privacy and Intellectual Property Counsel for R.R. Donnelley, photographs 

of prescription drug bottles obtained from CVS Pharmacy which contain ScriptChek's 

proprietary and patented Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels, per Mr. Rodriguez's 

request. 

84. On information and belief, R.R. Donnelley has utilized, and is still utilizing, 

ScriptChek's proprietary and patented Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels to print and 

supply non-approved customers, including but not limited to CVS Pharmacy, with patented 

ScriptChek Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels for the non-approved customers' 

prescription drug bottles, without ScriptChek's approval. 

- 16 - 

SOLOWSKY & ALLEN, P.L. 

201 S. E1SCA YNE BOULEVARD, CITIGROUP CENTER -SUITE 015, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 TEL (305)371-2223 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-13 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 30 of

 36

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 151 of 162
CASE NO.: 

85. On information and belief, R.R. Donnelley has sold, and is still selling, 

ScriptChek's proprietary and patented Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels to nonapproved customers, including but not limited to CVS Pharmacy, for the non-approved 

customers' prescription drug bottles, without SciiptChek's approval, and R.R. Donnelley 

has been unjustly enriched by such sales. 

86. In addition, on or about November 15, 2019, ScriptChek, by and through its 

undersigned counsel, demanded that R.R. Donnelley provide it with die lines that were 

provided to R.R. Donnelley by CVS Pharmacy, and any die lines R.R. Donnelley sent to 

CVS Pharmacy for its approval, in order to see the folding perforation on the die line, as 

well as samples of the actual blank labels which R.R. Donnelley provided to CVS 

Pharmacy. A die line is a diagram showing the cut lines and folds of a package to ensure 

proper printing layout. 

87. Despite notice, R.R. Donnelley has failed to provide ScriptChek with any 

of the materials demanded by ScriptChek, and has failed to cease its sale of the patented 

ScriptChek Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels to non-approved customers, including 

but not limited to CVS Pharmacy. 

38. R.R. Donnelley has been and continues to be unjustly enriched by 

ScriptChek. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, SCRIPTCHEK VISUAL VERIFICATION SYSTEMS, 

INC, demands that this Court enter a Judgment for unjust enrichment against R.R. 

DONNELLEY & SONS COMPANY, INC., and for such other and further relief as this 

Court deems just, equitable and proper. 

17 - 

SOLOWSKY & ALLE,H, P.I.. 

201 S. oiscA NNE uouLevARo. cmcRouP CENTER - suiTE 915, MIAMI, FLORIDA 23131 TEL OM 371-2223 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-13 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 31 of

 36

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 152 of 162
CASE NO.: 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

Plaintiff demands Trial by Jury on issues so triable. 

Respectfully submitted, 

SOLOWSKY & ALLEN, P.L. 

Attorneys for Plaintiff, 

SCRIPTCHEK VISUAL 

VERIFICATION SYSTEMS, INC. 

Citigroup Center Suite 915 

201 S. Biscayne Boulevard 

Miami, Florida 33131 

Telephone No. (305) 371-2223 

Facsimile No. (305) 373-2073 

rallen®salawmiami.com 

ssolowsky®salawmiami.com 

mlopez®salawmiami.com 

pleadings@salawmiami.com 

By:/s/ Richard L. Allen 

RICHARD L. ALLEN 

Florida Bar No. 295485 

and 

MANSFIELD BRONSTEIN & STONE, 

LLP 

Attorneys for Plaintiff; 

SCRIPTCHEK VISUAL 

VERIFICATION SYSTEMS, INC. 

500 Broward Boulevard, Suite 1450 

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33394 

Telephone No.: 954-601-5600 

Facsimile No.: 954-961-4756 

Email: gary@mblawpa.com 

Email: dstone@davidstonelaw.com 

Service: litigation®mblawpa.com 

By:/s/ Gary N. Mansfield 

GARY N. MANSFIELD 

Florida Bar No. 61913 

mAmainlscriptchek vlsua1lpleadingsk2020-02-24 complainidocx 

- 18 - 

SOLOwsKY & ALLEN, P.L. 

201 S. BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, CITIGROUP CENTER - SUITE g1$, MIAMI, 110111DA 33131 TEL (303)371-2223 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-13 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 32 of

 36

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 153 of 162
Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-13 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 33 of

 36

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 154 of 162
Non-Exclusive Limited License to Manufacture 

This Agreement, made and entered into, in duplicate, this first day of August, 2006, by and 

between the Scriptchek Visual Verification Systems, Inc, a .corporation organized and doing business 

under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Florida, hereinafter referred to as the "Licensor," and 

Moore Wallace North America, Inc., a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws 

of the State of Delaware, hereinafter referred to as the "Licensee." , 

Wttnesseth: 

Whereas, the Licensor is the owner of all right, title and interest in and to certain Inventions in a 

certain Extended Tab Prescription Drug Label ("Extended Tab Prescription Drug Label"), which 

inventions are the subject of certain Pending Patent Applications in the United States and Canada, said 

inventions and Pending Patent Applications being hereinafter referred to collectively as "International 

Patents"; 

Whereas, the Licensee desires to obtain the non-exclusive right to manufacture and sell said 

Extended Tab Prescription Drug Label and the Licensor desires to grant the same; 

Now, therefore, in consideration of the premises and the payment of one dollar ($1.00) and/or 

other valuable consideration by each party to the other, the receipt whereof is hereby mutually 

acknowledged, and of the covenants and agreements hereinafter mentioned to be faithfully kept and 

performed by the parties hereto, it is mutually agreed as follows: 

1. Grant of Non-Exclusive Limited License. The Licensor hereby grants to the Licensee the nonexclusive, limited right to manufacture the Extended Tab Prescription Drug Label for the limited purpose 

of selling the Extended Tab Prescription Drug Label only to customers approved by Licensor, hereinafter 

referred to as "Approved Customers" that have entered into written License Agreements with Licensor to 

use the Extended Tab Prescription Drug Label. . 

2. Agreement of Licensee to Manufacture. The Licensee hereby accepts said non-exclusive, 

limited right to manufacture the Extended Tab Prescription Drug Label for the purpose of selling the 

Extended Tab Prescription Drug Label only b the Approved Customers. 

3. Term. The term of the grant herelnabove given in Section 1, unless sooner terminated as 

hereinafter provided for, shall extend to the end of the life of the last of the International Patents coming 

within the provisions of this Agreement, 

In the event that all patent claims included within the Licensor's International Patents shall be 

held invalid in a decision by a court of competent jurisdiction and last resort in any country and from 

which no appeal has or can be taken, then Licensee shall continue to manufacture and sell under the 

then presumed patent, the existence of which is in full force for the same period of time. 

4. Marking. The Licensee shall mark all Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels manufactured by 

it and/or sold by it with (a) Scriptchek OD, (b) Patents Pending, and (c) upon notice from Licensor of the 

issuance of any of the pending patents, "Patented" with the patent numbers and proper dates. 

5. Books of Account. The Licensee shall keep proper books of account accurately reflecting the 

customer(s) of the Licensee for all Extended Tab Prescription Drug Labels and associated devices 

manufactured and sold by it under the terms of this Agreement and render written reports quarterly to the 

Licensor not later than the 15th day of the month following each contract quarter of this Agreement 

FTL:10139686:3 1 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-13 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 34 of

 36

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 155 of 162
Including at least (1) name of each customer, (2) address of each customer, (3) contact name at each 

customer, (4) dates of sal(s) to each customer and (6) total nurnber of labels sold to each customer on 

each date. In the event of failure of ttie Licensee to render any report as herein provided for, the Licensor 

at its option may have such report prepared by and delivered to itself by its authorized representative and 

at the expense of the Licensee. 

6. Nonassignability. The rights to manufacture end sell herein granted to the Licensee are 

personal to It and the same shall not be assigned, divided or apportioned, In whole or In part, voluntarily 

or by operation of law, without written conserd from Licensor. 

7. Cancellation Upon Default. If the LI4ensee In any manner violates any of the terms, or 

conditions of this agreement, or in any manner fella t emply with or carry out In every manner and 

respect any and all of the ProtOlons of this egreemeni. and COntinaeo §P 0 do Nr fifteen (15) days after 

notice thereof In writing given by the Licensor to the Lleafitlea delivered to the !eat 'mown gdOrese af the 

Licensee stating the nature and eharnfkr of the Oak* breath with aUfflp,tant definiteness and 

Particulerity to permit the Liconeitm to Identify and invo;tigaie the nature of such alleged brae.ch, than In 

that event, the Licensor may at Its option, and without waiving or in any manner affeeting any of its other 

then existing rights against the Licensee, cancel the right of the Licensee to manufacture and sell under 

this agreement by giving the Licensee ten (10) deye notice by registered mail, sent to Its last known 

address, of the Licensees election to cancel such manufacturing and selling rights ender this agreement, 

and all such manufacturing and selling rights herein granted to the Licensee shall then terminate at the 

end of said ten-day period; provided, however, that if the Licensee curee the breach within the ten (10) 

days after the first notice herein provided for the Licensor shall not thereafter have the option or election 

of canceling the manufacturing and selling rights given the Licensee under this agreement for said 

specific breach; and provided further, that the failure of the Licensor to at any time cancel such 

manufacturing arid selling rights to the Licensee under this agreement as herein provided for, shall not 

prevent or preclude the Licensor at any future time for any other violations by the Licensee, from taking 

advantage of the provisions of this section.of the Agreement. 

8. Right of Parties to Cancel. At any time, elthor party may, upon giving the other party three (3) 

months' written notice, woo and terminate this Agreement without cause. 

9. inventions. Any additipnal inventions, applications, and/or patents pertelnino to Extended Tab 

Prescription Drug Label and associated devices hereafter acquired or coming within the control of the 

Licensor shall, at the option of the Licensee. be Included under the provisions of this agreement, The 

Licensor agrees to promptly advise the Licensee from time to time of any such future acquired Invention, 

application, and/or patent, and tho Licensee may, within sixty (60) days from the receipt of such notice by 

the Licensee and the Information necessary to make the election, elect to have such Invention, 

application and/or patent included under the provisions of this agreement, 

10. Warranty. The Licensor represents that it has the exclusive rights to the international Patents 

and that under the provisions of section 11 hereof the Licensee shell have the option to Include any eyeh 

future inventions, If any, under the provisions or thie Agreement. 

11. Interpretation, In this agreement the term "Extended Tab Proscription Drug Label" shall mean 

a prescription label for displaying additional information printed on a tab extending hem the labei, 

12. Successors. This agreement shall Inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the heirs, 

administrators and executors of the Licensor, 

Ff1;104PU§tp,0 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-13 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 35 of

 36

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 156 of 162
written 

LIC 

By: 

Print e: Stacy ufman 

Title: President 

13. This Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with and governed by the 

laws of the State of Florida. Jurisdiction of any dispute hereunder may be In Broward County, Florida 

and the parties hereby agree to the non-exclusive Jurisdiction of the state and federal courts located in 

Broward County, Florida in connection with any dispute arising hereunder. 

14. This Agreement and the terms and provisions hereof may only be changed, waived or 

discharged by an instrument in writing signed by the parties hereto. 

15. This Agreement shall be construed without regard to any presumption or other rule requiring 

construction against the party causing the Agreement to be drafted. 

16. This Agreement may be executed In counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, 

but all of which together shall be deemed to be one agreement. 

17. if, for any reason, any provision of the Agreement is held invalid, such invalidity shall not 

affect any other provision of this Agreement, and the Agreement shall otherwise remain in full force and 

effect. 

18. Any notice to be given under this Agreement shall be sufficient if it is in writing and is sent by 

certified or registered mall to the Contractor at his address as the same appears on the books and 

records of the Company or to the company at its principal office, attention of the President, or otherwise 

as directed by the Company, from time to time. 

In Witness Whereof the parties have caused this agreement to be executed effective the date first 

LICENSEE: 

By: 

Print Name: Robert G. Ni land 

Title: Vice President, Associate General Counsel 

FTL:10139886:3 3 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-13 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 36 of

 36

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 157 of 162
Exhibit 13 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 158 of 162 Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-14 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 1 of 5
6/22/2020 Case Detail - Public - Broward County Clerk of Courts 

ScriptChek Visual Verification Systems, Inc. Plaintiff vs. R.R. Donnelley & Sons 

Company, Inc. Defendant 

Broward County Case Number: CACE20003398 

State Reporting Number: 062020CA003398AXXXCE 

Court Type: Civil 

Case Type: Contract and Indebtedness 

Incident Date: N/A 

Filing Date: 02/24/2020 

Court Location: Central Courthouse 

Case Status: Pending 

Magistrate Id I Name: N/A 

Judge ID I Name: 08 Haimes, David A. 

— Party(ies) 

Party 

Type Party Name 

0 

0 Attorneys / Address 

Address * Denotes Lead Attorney 

Total: 2 

Plaintiff ScriptChek Visual Verification * Allen, Richard Lewis 

Systems, Inc. Retained 

Bar ID: 295485 

Solowsky & Allen, PL 

201 S Biscayne Blvd., Ste. 

915 

Miami, FL 33131-4326 

Status: Active 

Defendant R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company, Inc. * Pettis, Eugene K 

Retained 

Bar ID: 508454 

Haliczer Pettis & Schwamm 

PA 

100 SE 3rd Avenue, 7th 

Floor 

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394-

0000 

Status: Active 

https://www.browardclark.org/Web2/CaseSearchECNCaseDetairtcaseid=MTA4MDc1MjM%3d-G2VVzHqVabFKc%3d&caseNum=CACE200033968,c... 114 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 159 of 162 Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-14 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 2 of 5
6/22/2020 Case Detail - Public - Broward County Clerk of Courts 

— Disposition(s) 

Date 

Date 

Statistical Closure(s) 

Disposition(s) 

— Event(s) & Document(s) 

View Page(s) 

Date Description Additional Text 

06/16/2020 Notice of Hearing 

06/08/2020 Notice of Appearance AND 

DESIGNATION OF 

E-MAIL 

ADDRESSES 

Party: Defendant 

R.R. Donnelley & 

Sons Company, Inc. 

06/04/2020 Response to Motion to Dismiss 

06/01/2020 Notice of Service 

05/19/2020 Agreed Order Verified Motion for 

Admission to 

Appear Pro Hace 

Vice 

05/18/2020 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice Reginald J. Hill 

Total: 0 

Total: 13 

View Pages 

3 

2 

1 

1 

1 

I 

19 

2 

2 

6 

https://www.browardclerk.org/Web2/CaseSearchECA/CaseDetail/?caseid=MTA4MDcl MjM%3d-G2VVzHq%2bFKc%3d&caseNum=CACE20003398&c... 2/4 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 160 of 162 Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-14 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 3 of 5
6/22/2020 Case Detail - Public - Broward County Clerk of Courts 

Date Description Additional Text 

05/18/2020 Motion to Dismiss DEFENDANT'S 

MOTION TO 

DISMISS 

PLAINTIFF'S 

COMPLAINT, 

MOTION TO 

STRIKE, MOTION 

IN THE 

ALTERNATIVE FOR 

MORE DEFINITE 

STATEMENT, AND 

INCORPORATED 

MEMORANDUMUM 

OF LAW 

Party: Defendant 

R.R. Donnelley & 

Sons Company, Inc. 

03/20/2020 Agreed Order regarding the 

deadline for 

Defendant to 

respond to the 

Complaint and 

Plaintiffs First 

Request for P 

oduction 

03/04/2020 Summons Returned Served 2/27/20 

Party: Defendant 

R.R. Donnelley & 

Sons Company, Inc. 

02/25/2020 eSummons Issuance R.R. DONNELLEY 

& SONS 

COMPANY, INC 

02/24/2020 Civil Cover Sheet 

Amount: $30,001.00 

02/24/2020 Complaint (eFiled) 

Party: Plaintiff 

ScriptChek Visual 

Verification 

Systems, Inc. 

View Pages 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

24 

2 

2 

1 

3 

22 

https://www.browardclerk.org/Web2/CaseSearchECA/CaseDetail/?caseid=MTA4MDcl MjM%3d-G2VVzHq%2bFKc%3d&caseNum=CACE20003398&c... 3/4 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 161 of 162 Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-14 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 4 of 5
6/22/2020 Case Detail - Public - Broward County Clerk of Courts 

Date Description Additional Text View Pages 

02/24/2020 Request for Production 

— Hearing(s) 

There is no Disposition information available for this case. 

— Related Case(s) 

There is no related case information available for this case. 

TO DEFENDANT 

R.R. DONNELLEY 

& SONS 

COMPANY, INC 

Party: Plaintiff 

ScriptChek Visual 

Verification 

Systems, Inc. 

I 8 

Total: 0 

Total: 0 

https://www.browardclerk.org/Web2/CaseSearchECA/CaseDetail/?caseid=MTA4MDcl MjM%3d-G2VVzHq%2bFKc%3d&caseNum=CACE20003398&c... 4/4 

Case 0:20-cv-61261-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 162 of 162 Case 0:20-cv-61261-XXXX Document 1-14 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 5 of 5