1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION

OPINIONLAB, INC., )

)

 Plaintiff, ) Case No.: __________ 

)

vs. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT 

INFRINGEMENT, BREACH OF 

CONTRACT, MISAPPROPRIATION OF 

TRADE SECRETS, AND TORTIOUS 

INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS 

EXPECTANCY 

)

IPERCEPTIONS, INC.; ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

IPERCEPTIONS US, INC. )

)

)

)

 Defendants. )

)

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, DAMAGES, AND 

ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS 

Plaintiff OpinionLab, Inc. (hereinafter “Plaintiff” or “OpinionLab”) by its counsel, K&L 

Gates LLP, for its Complaint for injunctive relief, damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs against 

iPerceptions, Inc. and iPerceptions US, Inc., (hereinafter “Defendants”) alleges as follows: 

NATURE OF THE COMPLAINT

1. This is an action for knowing, willful, deliberate, and intentional: (a) patent 

infringement in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq.; (b) breach of a non-disclosure agreement; (c) 

misappropriation of trade secrets in violation of the Illinois Trade Secrets Act, 765 ILCS 1065/1 

et seq; and (d) tortious interference with a business expectancy in violation of the common law 

of the State of Illinois. 

Case: 1:12-cv-05662 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/18/12 Page 1 of 34 PageID #:1
2

2. This action arises from Defendants’ unauthorized, intentional, and willful 

infringement of OpinionLab’s patents and patented technology in its competing web-based data 

collection, analysis, and reporting business; iPerceptions, Inc.’s willful disregard for and breach 

of a non-disclosure agreement pursuant to which OpinionLab disclosed highly-sensitive, 

confidential, and proprietary information to iPerceptions, Inc.; Defendants’ misappropriation and 

use of OpinionLab’s trade secrets; and their intentional interference in OpinionLab’s 

relationships with existing and prospective customers. By its Complaint, Plaintiff seeks 

preliminary and permanent injunctions, and the recovery of actual damages, treble damages, 

profits, costs, attorneys’ fees, punitive damages and other relief as more fully set forth below. 

THE PARTIES

3. OpinionLab, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in 

this judicial district located at 600 Central Ave, Suite 265, Highland Park, Illinois. OpinionLab 

is duly registered to conduct business within this state. OpinionLab is an industry leading 

provider of online user feedback and web page analytical solutions that allow OpinionLab’s 

customers to analyze data collected from Internet users regarding their online experiences with 

respect to web pages and other aspects of the customer’s website (the “Page-Specific Online 

User Feedback Technology”). OpinionLab has been operating successfully for over a decade in 

this technological space and offers and licenses its Page-Specific Online User Feedback 

Technology to several companies located within this judicial district. 

4. iPerceptions, Inc. is a Canadian Corporation with its principal place of business at 

4999 Sainte-Catherine St. West, Suite 500, Montreal H3Z 1T3 Quebec, Canada. iPerceptions, 

Inc. is the named registrant of the domain name http://www.iperceptions.com --one website, 

among others, where the infringing products and services are used and offered for sale to the 

public. 

Case: 1:12-cv-05662 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/18/12 Page 2 of 34 PageID #:2
3

5. iPerceptions US, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of 

business at 575 Madison Ave., Suite 1006, New York, NY 10022-8511. On information and 

belief, iPerceptions is owned or otherwise controlled by iPerceptions, Inc. iPerceptions US, Inc., 

is also using and offering the infringing products and services for sale to the public through the 

iperceptions.com website and engaging in other violations of law as set forth in more detail 

herein. 

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

6. This is an action for patent infringement, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq. and for 

breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets, and tortious interference with business 

expectancy. 

7. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a) 

on the claims for patent infringement and has supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 

on the common law claims. 

PERSONAL JURISDICTION

8. Personal jurisdiction over Defendants is proper under the laws of the State of 

Illinois, pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and under the Due Process 

Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. On information and belief, 

Defendants either reside in this judicial district, conduct business in this judicial district and/or 

the unlawful and tortious acts complained of herein have occurred within and/or extend to or 

affect OpinionLab within this judicial district. More specifically, on information and belief, this 

Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because: (i) the injury resulting from 

Defendants’ patent infringement and related offenses will be felt primarily by OpinionLab in 

Illinois where Plaintiff is located and Defendants are well aware of Plaintiff’s existence and 

Case: 1:12-cv-05662 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/18/12 Page 3 of 34 PageID #:3
4

operation in this judicial district; (ii) Defendants market, promote, advertise, distribute and/or 

sell products and services to customers located in Illinois on a regular, continuous and systematic 

basis; and (iii) Defendants market and sell their data collection, analysis, and reporting products 

and services in Illinois which, as alleged herein, infringe OpinionLab’s patent rights and 

constitutes tortious violations in the State of Illinois. 

VENUE

9. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 and/or 1400 

because Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in this district and have committed acts of 

direct and/or indirect patent infringement and other tortious conduct in this district and from 

which this action arises. 

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

A. Background Regarding OpinionLab and Its Highly-Regarded Page-Specific 

Online User Feedback Technology. 

10. OpinionLab is a true pioneer in the development of web-based interactive user 

feedback technology. OpinionLab’s Page-Specific Online User Feedback Technology solicits 

and collects subjective feedback concerning individual web pages of a website from Internet 

users. The collected information is analyzed and reported to interested parties, such as the owner 

of the website so that the owner can optimize the site to enhance the end user’s experience. 

11. OpinionLab has developed important technological advances in the field of webbased interactive user feedback collection, analysis, and reporting. OpinionLab has filed for and 

obtained numerous United States and foreign patents covering various aspects of its web-based 

interactive user feedback technology. The issued U.S. patents include, but are not limited to, the 

following: U.S. Patent 6,421,724 (“the ‘724 patent”); U.S. Patent 6,606,581 (“the ‘581 patent”); 

U.S. Patent 6,928,392 (“the ‘392 patent”); U.S. Patent 7,085,820 (“the ‘820 patent”); U.S. Patent 

Case: 1:12-cv-05662 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/18/12 Page 4 of 34 PageID #:4
5

7,370,285 (“the ‘285 patent”); U.S. Patent 8,024,668 (“the ‘668 patent”); and U.S. Patent 

8,041,805 (“the ‘805 patent”) (collectively the “OpinionLab Patents”). True and correct copies 

of the OpinionLab Patents are attached hereto as Exhibits 1-7. 

12. OpinionLab has also developed and implemented proprietary and trade secret 

designs and techniques for the collection, analysis, and reporting of web-based interactive user 

feedback. 

13. OpinionLab has developed an enviable list of clients that use its Page-Specific 

Online User Feedback Technology, including many of the world’s largest and most innovative 

companies. A true and correct copy of many of OpinionLab’s clients that have licensed 

OpinionLab’s Page-Specific Online User Feedback Technology is attached hereto as Exhibit 8. 

14. OpinionLab has been the recipient of many awards, accolades, and recognition for 

its cutting-edge and innovative technological business solutions. Just within the last few weeks, 

OpinionLab was featured in an article in Craine’s Chicago Business entitled “Call It The Eureka 

Index.” A true and correct copy of the article is attached hereto as Exhibit 9. The article details 

the 25 most innovative companies in the Chicago area. OpinionLab was noted for its innovative 

technological developments and for having the 2nd most “valuable patent portfolio.” 

B. iPerceptions, Inc. Approached OpinionLab About a Possible Business 

Combination. 

15. In 2009, the Chief Executive Officer and co-founder of OpinionLab, Mr. Rand 

Nickerson, was contacted by Mr. Jerry Tarasofsky who at the time was the Chief Executive 

Officer of iPerceptions, Inc., a Canadian-based, publicly-traded company. During that initial 

conversation, and in conversations thereafter, Mr. Tarasofsky made it clear iPerceptions, Inc. 

was aware of OpinionLab’s extensive patent portfolio and that iPerceptions, Inc. was interested 

in a business combination with OpinionLab. 

Case: 1:12-cv-05662 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/18/12 Page 5 of 34 PageID #:5
6

16. OpinionLab and iPerceptions, Inc. thereafter entered into a Mutual NonDisclosure Agreement (the “NDA” or “Agreement”) on April 29, 2009. A true and correct copy 

of the NDA is attached hereto as Exhibit 10. The purpose of entering into the NDA was to allow 

the parties to discuss certain sensitive technical and financial information in connection with the 

above-referenced business proposal. 

17. The NDA provides for protection of both parties’ proprietary and confidential 

information and specifically states that: 

Each party agrees that at all times and notwithstanding any 

termination or expiration of this Agreement it will hold in strict 

confidence and not disclose to any third party Confidential 

Information of the other, except as approved in writing by the other 

party to this Agreement, and will use the Confidential 

Information for no purpose other than evaluating or pursuing a 

business relationship with the other party to this Agreement. 

NDA, ¶ 3 (emphasis supplied). 

18. The NDA also memorializes the irreparable harm associated with any breach of 

the Agreement and provides for immediate, injunctive relief: 

“[e]ach party acknowledges that its breach of the Agreement will 

cause irreparable damage and hereby agrees that the other party 

shall be entitled to seek injunctive relief under this Agreement, as 

well as such further relief as may be granted by a court of 

competent jurisdiction.” 

NDA, ¶ 11. 

19. Pursuant to the NDA, iPerceptions, Inc. obtained access to and acquired 

substantial amounts of proprietary and confidential information related to several aspects of 

OpinionLab’s business. 

20. For example, in December of 2009, Mr. Nickerson and Mr. Mark Treschl, the 

President and co-founder of OpinionLab, initially met with the new Chief Executive Officer of 

iPerceptions, Inc. Mr. Claude Guay, in Toronto, Ontario. In reliance on Mr. Guay’s and 

Case: 1:12-cv-05662 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/18/12 Page 6 of 34 PageID #:6
7

iPerceptions’ promise of confidentiality, OpinionLab disclosed confidential information 

regarding its business during this initial meeting. 

21. In January 2010, Mr. Nickerson, Mr. Mark Treschl, and Mr. Rick Blair, the Chief 

Information Officer of OpinionLab, traveled to Montreal, Quebec, to meet with representatives 

of iPerceptions, Inc. Mr. Claude Guay, Mr. François-Charles Sirois, and Denis Sirois of 

iPerceptions, Inc. were in attendance at that meeting. At the urging and request of the 

iPerceptions’ executives, Mr. Nickerson, Mr. Treschl, and Mr. Blair proceeded to disclose 

numerous highly-confidential and proprietary facts about OpinionLab’s business model, 

including but not limited to: 

 (a) an extensive demonstration of OpinionLab’s Page-Specific Online User Feedback 

Technology, including both the web interface and “back end” functionalities; 

(b) the customers that licensed OpinionLab’s Page-Specific Online User Feedback 

Technology; 

(c) detailed information regarding the amount of money charged by OpinionLab to its 

customers to license OpinionLab’s Page-Specific Online User Feedback Technology; 

 (d) detailed information regarding annual and projected revenues for OpinionLab; and 

 (e) detailed information regarding the number of OpinionLab employees and where 

those employees were located. 

22. During the course of this January 2010 meeting and thereafter, it became clear to 

OpinionLab that iPerceptions, Inc. simply wanted to purchase OpinionLab for the purpose of 

obtaining the OpinionLab Patents and OpinionLab customers. Because Mr. Nickerson and Mr. 

Treschl did not believe iPerceptions’ proposals and overtures would in the best interest of 

Case: 1:12-cv-05662 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/18/12 Page 7 of 34 PageID #:7
8

OpinionLab, further discussions regarding a proposed combination between the companies were 

not given serious consideration by OpinionLab. 

C. In 2012, iPerceptions Launched Its “webValidator” On-line Software Program 

with Comment Cards In Order to Directly Compete with OpinionLab’s PageSpecific Online User Feedback Technology. 

23. On March 5, 2012 iPerceptions revealed a web page-specific, product-specific, 

and feature-specific data collection product and technology—its webValidator software 

including the associated “Comment Cards”—at the eMetrics Marketing Optimization Summit in 

San Francisco, California. Mark Treschl and Mr. Jonathan Levitt, the Chief Marketing Officer at 

OpinionLab, were also in attendance at the Summit. 

24. On the evening of March 5, 2012, Mr. Levitt spoke with the iPerceptions, Inc. 

Senior Sales Executive at the time, Mr. Daniel Taras. During the course of that conversation, 

Mr. Taras admitted to Mr. Levitt that iPerceptions was losing clients as a result of not being able 

to compete with OpinionLab’s page-specific level data gathering and that iPerceptions’ 

customers were asking for a solution that provided more page-specific data and related 

information. Mr. Levitt explained to Mr. Taras that several of OpinionLab’s patents covered 

page-specific data gathering technologies. Mr. Taras acknowledged that he and other executives 

at iPerceptions, Inc. were aware of OpinionLab’s patent portfolio but decided to launch this new 

comment card technology and thereby take a “calculated risk” that OpinionLab would not 

initiate legal proceedings. Mr. Taras also acknowledged that Mr. Claude Guay—by now the 

former Chief Executive Officer of iPerceptions, Inc.—approved of the decision to move forward 

with the infringing conduct. 

25. Later that same evening, Mr. Levitt had a similar conversation with Mr. Duff 

Anderson, the Vice President of Insights at iPerceptions, Inc., who also was equally candid and 

Case: 1:12-cv-05662 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/18/12 Page 8 of 34 PageID #:8
9

forthcoming regarding iPerceptions, Inc.’s blatantly-infringing intentions. Mr. Anderson stated 

that it was a “conscious decision” to rollout the “comment card” platform as a means to compete 

directly with OpinionLab’s Page-Specific Online User Feedback Technology. Mr. Anderson 

made the comment several times during the conversation that it was “not fair” that OpinionLab 

could offer client surveys, but that iPerceptions could not offer comment cards. Three of Mr. 

Anderson’s most salient and instructive comments to Mr. Levitt that evening were: (i) “You can't 

stop the market from evolving”; (ii) “We have no choice in order to survive”; and (iii) “maybe 

this will make OpinionLab want to just buy us out and remove the threat from the market.” 

26. Also during the eMetrics Marketing Optimization Summit, Mr. Treschl 

approached the iPerceptions, Inc. booth that was being tended to by Mr. Guay and Mr. Anderson. 

Mr. Treschl noticed that on the LCD displays inside the booth was a version of iPerception’s 

webValidator with Comment Cards software operating on a “mocked-up” version of the 

Vonage.com website. At the time, Vonage was a client of OpinionLab’s and had licensed the 

Page-Specific Online User Feedback Technology. Mr. Anderson stated that iPerceptions “did 

not want to” release its webValidator software with Comments Cards to Vonage, but was told by 

Vonage that iPerceptions must offer this if they wanted to do business with Vonage. Mr. Treschl 

told both Mr. Guay and Mr. Anderson that the webValidator demo infringed on several 

OpinionLab patents. 

27. After iPerceptions, Inc. attended the eMetrics Marketing Optimization Summit in 

San Francisco, a news release was posted on iperceptions.com announcing the introduction of 

the iPerceptions’ “Comment Cards to Turn Online Complaints into Actionable CRM.” A copy 

of the new release is provided as Exhibit 11 hereto, and can be accessed at 

Case: 1:12-cv-05662 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/18/12 Page 9 of 34 PageID #:9
10

http://www.iperceptions.com/news/iperceptions-introduces-comment-cards-turn-onlinecomplaints-actionable-crm/. 

D. iPerceptions Targets OpinionLab’s Customers And Offers To Provide The 

Competing and Infringing webValidator With Comment Cards Software For Less 

Money Than OpinionLab Provides Its Page-Specific Online User Feedback 

Technology. 

28. As a result of OpinionLab providing extensive and highly-confidential and 

proprietary information to iPerceptions, Inc., it was in a position to exploit and misappropriate 

that information by offering OpinionLab’s customers the competing and infringing webValidator 

with Comments Cards solution as a “less expensive” alternative. 

29. On approximately March 27, 2012, Mr. Kevin Pento of Vonage.com informed 

Mr. Rob Love of OpinionLab that Vonage.com would not renew its contract with OpinionLab 

but was instead going to license the webValidator with Comment Cards solution from 

iPercpetions. Mr. Pento’s stated reason for doing so was due to the fact that iPerceptions could 

offer its solution at a lower price. Further, within the last several weeks, two other current 

customers of OpinionLab have indicated that they have been approach by an OpinionLab 

“competitor” that is offering to provide page-specific online user feedback technology that would 

directly compete with OpinionLab’s Page-Specific Online User Feedback Technology. On 

information and belief, the “competitor” is Defendants. 

E. The Competing and Infringing webValidator Software With Comment Cards Is 

Now “Live” on Both Vonage.com and iPerceptions.com.

30. iPerceptions has in fact released its updated webValidator with Comment Cards 

software into the marketplace. The news release referred to in ¶ 27 above and provided as 

Exhibit 11 hereto explains that “iPerceptions’ Comment Cards will be immediately available to 

current webValidator clients, and available as a standalone solution starting in June 2012.” 

Case: 1:12-cv-05662 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/18/12 Page 10 of 34 PageID #:10
11

31. Within just the last two weeks, the Defendants’ competitive and infringing 

webValidator software with Comment Cards was made available on the Vonage.com website. 

32. Below is a screen shot of the home page of the Vonage.com web site. The web 

page has a “Feedback” icon in the upper right corner. 

Icon to launch online 

comment card

33. When a user hovers a cursor over the “Feedback” icon, a balloon with two link 

options appears: “I’m a customer” and “I’m not a customer,” as shown below. 

Case: 1:12-cv-05662 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/18/12 Page 11 of 34 PageID #:11
12

34. Clicking on either the “I’m a customer” or the “I’m not a customer” links causes 

the iPerceptions comment card to appear in a window on the Vonage.com home web page, as 

shown below. The iPerceptions comment card is identical for both the “I’m a customer” and 

“I’m not a customer” links. 

iPerceptions 

comment card

35. The iPerceptions comment cards are available via the upper right-hand corner 

“Feedback” icon on multiple web pages at the Vonage.com web site. 

36. The iPerceptions comment cards that are available on pages of the Vonage.com 

web site allow a user to rate the web pages for recommendation using a rating scale that has a 

positive rating (10 – “Extremely likely”), a negative rating (0 – “Not at all likely”), and a neutral 

rating (5). 

Case: 1:12-cv-05662 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/18/12 Page 12 of 34 PageID #:12
13

37. The iPerceptions comment cards that are available on pages of the Vonage.com 

web site allow a user to provide open-ended comments on the web page by clicking on the 

“Like,” “Suggestion/comment” or “Dislike” icons, which each upon activation cause a free form 

text box to appear in which the user can type open-ended comments pertaining to the web page. 

The user can indicate that his/her comments pertain to the specific web page by selecting the 

“website – this page” option from the “Which of the following best describes the focus of your 

comment” drop down menu, as shown below: 

Case: 1:12-cv-05662 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/18/12 Page 13 of 34 PageID #:13
14

38. The URL for the iPerceptions comment card is http://ipscomment.iperceptions.com/UIF/UIFMain.aspx?lid=1&rn=108096&pID=1&referrer=http://www

.vonage.com/&hv1=OmniKey~[CS]v1|27FB94780507A933-40000103400017E3[CE], which is 

different from the URL for the Vonage.com home web page, which is http://www.vonage.com/, 

on which the iPerceptions’ comment card is displayed. 

39. The iPerceptions comment card is also currently available at the iPerceptions web 

site, www.iperceptions.com. 

40. Below is a screen shot from the iperceptions.com homepage. The iPerceptions 

comment card can be launched in a pop-up window when the user clicks the balloon feedback 

icon in the lower right-hand corner of the web page: 

Icon to launch online 

comment card

Case: 1:12-cv-05662 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/18/12 Page 14 of 34 PageID #:14
15

41. The screen shot below shows the online comment card that is displayed in a popup window when the user clicks on the balloon feedback icon: 

Pop-up window with 

online comment card

42. Below is a more detailed image of the iPerceptions online comment card available 

from the iPerceptions website: 

Case: 1:12-cv-05662 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/18/12 Page 15 of 34 PageID #:15
16

43. As shown above, this iPerceptions comment card allows the user to rate the web 

page for recommendation using a rating scale that has a positive rating (10 – “Extremely likely”), 

a negative rating (0 – “Not at all likely”), and a neutral rating (5). 

44. This iPerceptions comment card also allows the user to provide open-ended 

comments on the web page by clicking on the “Suggestion,” “Dislike” or “Praise” icons, which 

each upon activation cause a free form text box to appear in which the user can type open-ended 

comments pertaining to the web page. The user can indicate that his/her comments pertain to the 

Case: 1:12-cv-05662 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/18/12 Page 16 of 34 PageID #:16
17

specific web page by selecting the “website – this page” option from the “Which of the following 

best describes the focus of your comment” drop down menu, such as shown below: 

45. Below is an image of the iPerceptions comment card when the user clicks the 

“Suggestion” icon shown above. Upon clicking the “Suggestion” icon, a free form text box is 

displayed where the user can insert open-ended, textual suggestions for the web page. 

Case: 1:12-cv-05662 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/18/12 Page 17 of 34 PageID #:17
18

46. The URL for the server for the comment card for the iPerceptions website shown 

in the immediately prior paragraph is ipsmobile.iperceptions.com/UIF/UIFMain.aspx?lid=1&rn=107472&referrer= 

http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iperceptions.com%2F, which is different from the URL for the 

iPerceptions’ homepage, iperceptions.com. 

Case: 1:12-cv-05662 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/18/12 Page 18 of 34 PageID #:18
19

47. The balloon feedback icon in the lower right-hand corner of the iPerceptions web 

page remains in the lower right-hand corner of the iPerceptions web page even when the user 

scrolls up and down the iPerceptions web page. 

48. The balloon feedback icon is displayed on multiple web pages of the iPerceptions 

web site. 

49. The news release referred to in ¶ 30 above and provided as Exhibit 11 hereto 

states that the iPerceptions comment cards “give website visitors the opportunity to offer 

suggestions, explain dislikes or give praise about any issue – using their own words.” 

50. The news release referred to in ¶ 30 above and provided as Exhibit 11 hereto 

further explains that, “Website visitors are asked to identify the nature of their feedback up-front, 

which enables companies to segment the comments by type in order to isolate specific issues, get 

advice, or see what they’re doing right.” 

51. iPerceptions performs analytics and generates reports based on the comments 

received from website visitors (i.e., end-users) via the iPerceptions comment cards. 

52. The news release referred to in ¶ 30 above and provided as Exhibit 11 hereto 

explains: 

Comments are analyzed using an interactive dashboard, which 

includes one-click concept qualification of the open-ended 

feedback. The results can be displayed on a score card or trended 

over time, either by page, section or site-wide. Additional 

segmenting variables include number of respondents, referral 

ratings, Net Promoter scores, and comment types (dislikes, 

suggestions, likes). 

Case: 1:12-cv-05662 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/18/12 Page 19 of 34 PageID #:19
20

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 

(FEDERAL PATENT INFRINGEMENT UNDER THE 35 U.S.C. §1, et seq. ) 

(Against Both Defendants) 

A. Infringement of the ‘724 Patent

53. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in 

paragraphs 1-52 of this Complaint, as though they were fully set forth herein. 

54. On July 16, 2002, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) 

issued the ‘724 patent, entitled “Web Site Response Measurement Tool.” A true and correct 

copy of the ‘724 patent is provided as Exhibit 1. 

55. OpinionLab is the owner of the ‘724 patent by assignment. 

56. Defendants are now and/or have been directly, indirectly, contributorily, and/or 

by inducement infringing the ‘724 patent, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, as 

proscribed by 35 U.S.C. § 271, et seq., by, without permission or authority from OpinionLab, 

selling, offering to sell, making, using, contributing to others’ use and sale of, and/or inducing 

others to use and sell within the United States, including this District, products and/or 

components of products and/or services that infringe at least one claim of the ‘724 patent, 

including but not limited to claims 4, 8 and 9 of the ‘724 patent, through, but not limited to, the 

iPerceptions’ and Vonage web page comment cards. 

57. For indirect infringement, the direct infringers of the ‘724 patent include 

iPerceptions’ customers that use iPerceptions’ online comment cards and/or end-users of the 

websites of both iPerceptions and Vonage. 

58. iPerceptions’ online comment cards and associated software have no substantial 

use other than infringement of the ‘724 patent. 

Case: 1:12-cv-05662 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/18/12 Page 20 of 34 PageID #:20
21

59. Based on information and belief, Defendants knew that their and their customers’ 

acts of providing the iPerceptions’ online comment cards to web page end-users constituted 

infringement of the ‘724 patent. 

60. Defendants are not, and have not been at any time, licensed under the ‘724 patent. 

61. Upon information and belief, Defendants foregoing acts of infringement have 

been and continue to be willful and deliberate. 

62. OpinionLab has been damaged by the foregoing acts of infringement of the ‘724 

patent by Defendants and will continue to be damaged by such infringement unless enjoined by 

this Court. 

B. Infringement of the ‘581 Patent

63. OpinionLab realleges and incorporates herein ¶¶ 1-62 above as if fully set forth 

herein. 

64. On August 12, 2003, the USPTO issued the ‘581 patent, entitled “System and 

Method for Measuring and Reporting User Reactions to Particular Web Pages of a Website.” A 

true and correct copy of the ‘581 patent is provided as Exhibit 2. 

65. OpinionLab is the owner of the ‘581 patent by assignment. 

66. Defendants are now and/or have been directly, indirectly, contributorily, and/or 

by inducement infringing the ‘581 patent, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, as 

proscribed by 35 U.S.C. § 271, et seq., by, without permission or authority from OpinionLab, 

selling, offering to sell, making, using, contributing to others’ use and sale of, and/or inducing 

others to use and sell within the United States, including this District, products and/or 

components of products and/or services that infringe at least one claim of the ‘581 patent, 

Case: 1:12-cv-05662 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/18/12 Page 21 of 34 PageID #:21
22

including but not limited to claims 1, 2, 11, 13, 17, 19, 20, 29, and 31 of the ‘581 patent, through, 

but not limited to, the iPerceptions’ and Vonage web page comment cards. 

67. For indirect infringement, the direct infringers of the ‘581 patent include 

iPerceptions’ customers that use iPerceptions’ online comment cards and/or end-users of the 

websites of both iPerceptions and Vonage. 

68. iPerceptions’ online comment cards and associated software have no substantial 

use other than infringement of the ‘581 patent. 

69. Based on information and belief, Defendants knew that their and their customers’ 

acts of providing the iPerceptions and Vonage online comment cards to web page end-users 

constituted infringement of the ‘581 patent. 

70. Defendants are not, and have not been at any time, licensed under the ‘581 patent. 

71. Upon information and belief, Defendants foregoing acts of infringement have 

been and continue to be willful and deliberate. 

72. OpinionLab has been damaged by the foregoing acts of infringement of the ‘581 

patent by Defendants and will continue to be damaged by such infringement unless enjoined by 

this Court. 

C. Infringement of the ‘392 Patent

73. OpinionLab realleges and incorporates herein ¶¶ 1-72 above as if fully set forth 

herein. 

74. On August 9, 2005, the USPTO issued the ‘392 patent, entitled “Collecting a User 

Response to an Explicit Question Specifically Concerning a Particular Web Page of a Website.” . 

A true and correct copy of the ‘392 patent is provided as Exhibit 3. 

75. OpinionLab is the owner of the ‘392 patent by assignment. 

Case: 1:12-cv-05662 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/18/12 Page 22 of 34 PageID #:22
23

76. Defendants are now and/or have been directly, indirectly, contributorily, and/or 

by inducement infringing the ‘392 patent, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, as 

proscribed by 35 U.S.C. § 271, et seq., by, without permission or authority from OpinionLab, 

selling, offering to sell, making, using, contributing to others’ use and sale of, and/or inducing 

others to use and sell within the United States, including this District, products and/or 

components of products and/or services that infringe at least one claim of the ‘392 patent, 

including but not limited to claims 1-2, 5, 13-15, 18, 26-27, 30 and 38 of the ‘392 patent, 

through, but not limited to iPerceptions’ and Vonage’s web page comment cards. 

77. For indirect infringement, the direct infringers of the ’392 patent include 

iPerceptions’ customers that use iPerceptions’ online comment cards and/or end-users of the 

websites of both iPerceptions and Vonage. 

78. iPerceptions’ online comment cards and associated software have no substantial 

use other than infringement of the ‘392 patent. 

79. Based on information and belief, Defendants knew that their and their customers 

acts of providing the iPerceptions and Vonage online comment cards to web page end-users 

constituted infringement of the ‘392 patent. 

80. Defendants are not, and have not been at any time, licensed under the ‘392 patent. 

Upon information and belief, Defendants’ foregoing acts of infringement have been and continue 

to be willful and deliberate. 

81. OpinionLab has been damaged by the foregoing acts of infringement of the ‘392 

patent by Defendants and will continue to be damaged by such infringement unless enjoined by 

this Court. 

Case: 1:12-cv-05662 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/18/12 Page 23 of 34 PageID #:23
24

D. Infringement of the ‘820 Patent

82. OpinionLab realleges and incorporates herein ¶¶ 1-81 above as if fully set forth 

herein. 

83. On August 1, 2006, the USPTO issued the ‘820 patent, entitled “System and 

Method for Reporting to a Website Owner User Reactions to Particular Web Pages of a 

Website.” A true and correct copy of the ‘717 patent is provided as Exhibit 4. 

84. OpinionLab is the owner of the ‘820 patent by assignment. 

85. Defendants are now and/or have been directly, indirectly, contributorily, and/or 

by inducement infringing the ‘820 patent, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, as 

proscribed by 35 U.S.C. § 271, et seq., by, without permission or authority from OpinionLab, 

selling, offering to sell, making, using, contributing to others’ use and sale of, and/or inducing 

others to use and sell within the United States, including this District, products and/or 

components of products and/or services that infringe at least one claim of the ‘820 patent, 

including but not limited to claims 1-3, 10-11, 15, 18, 20, 25-27, 34 and 42 of the ‘820 patent, 

through, but not limited to iPerceptions’ and Vonage’s web page comment cards. 

86. For indirect infringement, the direct infringers of the ’820 patent include 

iPerceptions’ customers that use iPerceptions’ online comment cards and/or end-users of the 

websites of both iPerceptions and Vonage. 

87. iPerceptions’ online comment cards and associated software have no substantial 

use other than infringement of the ‘820 patent. 

88. Based on information and belief, Defendants knew that their and their customers 

acts of providing the iPerceptions online comment cards to web page end-users constituted 

infringement of the ‘820 patent. 

Case: 1:12-cv-05662 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/18/12 Page 24 of 34 PageID #:24
25

89. Defendants are not, and have not been at any time, licensed under the ‘820 patent. 

Upon information and belief, Defendants’ foregoing acts of infringement have been and continue 

to be willful and deliberate. 

90. OpinionLab has been damaged by the foregoing acts of infringement of the ‘820 

patent by Defendants and will continue to be damaged by such infringement unless enjoined by 

this Court. 

E. Infringement of the ‘285 Patent

91. OpinionLab realleges and incorporates herein ¶¶ 1-90 above as if fully set forth 

herein. 

92. On May 6, 2008, the USPTO issued the ‘285 patent, entitled “Receiving and 

Reporting Page-Specific User Feedback Concerning One or More Particular Web Pages of a 

Website.” A true and correct copy of the ‘285 patent is provided as Exhibit 5. 

93. OpinionLab is the owner of the ‘285 patent by assignment. 

94. Defendants are now and/or have been directly, indirectly, contributorily, and/or 

by inducement infringing the ‘285 patent, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, as 

proscribed by 35 U.S.C. § 271, et seq., by, without permission or authority from OpinionLab, 

selling, offering to sell, making, using, contributing to others’ use and sale of, and/or inducing 

others to use and sell within the United States, including this District, products and/or 

components of products and/or services that infringe at least one claim of the ‘285 patent, 

including but not limited to claims 1, 3, 9, 11 18, 22, 25, 30, 34 and 37 of the ‘285 patent, 

through, but not limited to, iPerceptions’ and Vonage’s web page comment cards available. 

Case: 1:12-cv-05662 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/18/12 Page 25 of 34 PageID #:25
26

95. For indirect infringement, the direct infringers of the ‘285 patent include 

iPerceptions’ customers that use iPerceptions’ online comment cards and/or end-users of the 

websites of both iPerceptions and Vonage. 

96. iPerceptions’ online comment cards and associated software have no substantial 

use other than infringement of the ‘285 patent. 

97. Based on information and belief, Defendants knew that their and their customers’ 

acts of providing the iPerceptions and Vonage online comment cards to web page end-users 

constituted infringement of the ‘285 patent. 

98. Defendants are not, and have not been at any time, licensed under the ‘285 patent. 

99. Upon information and belief, Defendants’ foregoing acts of infringement have 

been and continue to be willful and deliberate. 

100. OpinionLab has been damaged by the foregoing acts of infringement of the ‘285 

patent by Defendants and will continue to be damaged by such infringement unless enjoined by 

this Court. 

F. Infringement of the ‘668 Patent

101. OpinionLab realleges and incorporates herein ¶¶ 1-100 above as if fully set forth 

herein. 

102. On September 20, 2011, the USPTO issued the ‘668 patent, entitled “Receiving 

and Reporting Page-Specific User Feedback Concerning One or More Particular Web Pages of a 

Website.” A true and correct copy of the ‘668 patent is provided as Exhibit 6. 

103. OpinionLab is the owner of the ‘668 patent by assignment. 

104. Defendants are now and/or have been directly, indirectly, contributorily, and/or 

by inducement infringing the ‘668 patent, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, as 

Case: 1:12-cv-05662 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/18/12 Page 26 of 34 PageID #:26
27

proscribed by 35 U.S.C. § 271, et seq., by, without permission or authority from OpinionLab, 

selling, offering to sell, making, using, contributing to others’ use and sale of, and/or inducing 

others to use and sell within the United States, including this District, products and/or 

components of products and/or services that infringe at least one claim of the ‘668 patent, 

including but not limited to claims 1, 3, 9, 10-11, 13 and 19 of the ‘668 patent, through, but not 

limited to, iPerceptions’ and Vonage’s web page comment cards. 

105. For indirect infringement, the direct infringers of the ‘668 patent include 

iPerceptions’ customers that use iPerceptions’ online comment cards and/or end-users of the 

websites of both iPerceptions and Vonage. 

106. iPerceptions’ online comment cards and associated software have no substantial 

use other than infringement of the ‘668 patent. 

107. Based on information and belief, Defendants knew that their and their customers’ 

acts of providing the iPerceptions’ and Vonage online comment cards to web page end-users 

constituted infringement of the ‘668 patent. 

108. Defendants are not, and have not been at any time, licensed under the ‘668 patent. 

109. Upon information and belief, Defendants’ foregoing acts of infringement have 

been and continue to be willful and deliberate. 

110. OpinionLab has been damaged by the foregoing acts of infringement of the ‘668 

patent by Defendants and will continue to be damaged by such infringement unless enjoined by 

this Court. 

G. Infringement of the ‘805 Patent

111. OpinionLab realleges and incorporates herein ¶¶ 1-110 above as if fully set forth 

herein. 

Case: 1:12-cv-05662 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/18/12 Page 27 of 34 PageID #:27
28

112. On October 18, 2011, the USPTO issued the ‘805 patent, entitled “System and 

Method for Reporting to a Website Owner User Reactions to Particular Web Pages of a 

Website.” A true and correct copy of the ‘805 patent is provided as Exhibit 7. 

113. OpinionLab is the owner of the ‘805 patent by assignment. 

114. Defendants are now and/or have been directly, indirectly, contributorily, and/or 

by inducement infringing the ‘805 patent, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, as 

proscribed by 35 U.S.C. § 271, et seq., by, without permission or authority from OpinionLab, 

selling, offering to sell, making, using, contributing to others’ use and sale of, and/or inducing 

others to use and sell within the United States, including this District, products and/or 

components of products and/or services that infringe at least one claim of the ‘805 patent, 

including but not limited to claims 1-2, 6, 8, 10-11, 15, 17, 18-19, 23, 25-27, 31 and 33 of the 

‘805 patent, through, but not limited to, iPerceptions’ and Vonage’s web page comment cards. 

115. For indirect infringement, the direct infringers of the ‘805 patent include 

iPerceptions’ customers that use iPerceptions’ online comment cards and/or end-users of the 

websites of both iPerceptions and Vonage. 

116. iPerceptions’ online comment cards and associated software have no substantial 

use other than infringement of the ‘805 patent. 

117. Based on information and belief, Defendants’ knew that their and their customers’ 

acts of providing the iPerceptions’ and Vonage online comment cards to web page end-users 

constituted infringement of the ‘805 patent. 

118. Defendants are not, and have not been at any time, licensed under the ‘805 patent. 

119. Upon information and belief, Defendants’ foregoing acts of infringement have 

been and continue to be willful and deliberate. 

Case: 1:12-cv-05662 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/18/12 Page 28 of 34 PageID #:28
29

120. OpinionLab has been damaged by the foregoing acts of infringement of the ‘805 

patent by Defendants and will continue to be irreparably damaged by such infringement unless 

enjoined by this Court. 

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(BREACH OF CONTRACT )

(Against iPerceptions, Inc.) 

121. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in 

paragraphs 1-120 of this Complaint, as though they were fully set forth herein. 

122. In exchange for express promises of iPerceptions, Inc. under the NDA, 

OpinionLab disclosed to iPerceptions, Inc. certain proprietary and confidential information 

regarding OpinionLab’s web-based user feedback business. 

123. As detailed above, and upon further information and belief, iPerceptions, Inc. has 

failed to hold in strict confidence the proprietary and confidential information of OpinionLab 

acquired pursuant to the NDA, and has used and continues to use that proprietary and 

confidential information for purposes other than evaluating or pursuing a business relationship 

with OpinionLab. 

124. Upon information and belief, iPerceptions, Inc. has disclosed and/or used 

OpinionLab’s proprietary and confidential information in competing with OpinionLab with 

respect to its web-based user feedback business. 

125. OpinionLab has performed and continues to perform all of its obligations under 

the NDA. 

126. As a proximate result of the acts of iPerceptions, Inc. as alleged herein, 

OpinionLab has suffered and will continue to suffer significant, immediate, and irreparable 

damage to its business, while iPerceptions, Inc. profits at Plaintiff’s expense. 

Case: 1:12-cv-05662 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/18/12 Page 29 of 34 PageID #:29
30

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(VIOLATION OF THE ILLINOIS TRADE SECRETS ACT 765 ILCS 1065/1 et seq) 

(Against Both Defendants) 

127. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in 

paragraphs 1-126 of this Complaint, as though they were fully set forth herein. 

128. The proprietary and confidential information disclosed to iPerceptions, Inc. 

pursuant to the NDA included competitively sensitive information, including but not limited to 

technical and non-technical information relating to OpinionLab's software, methods, techniques, 

and/or processes for collecting, analyzing, and reporting web-based user feedback. On 

information and belief, all of the Defendants knew of the confidential and proprietary nature of 

the information disclosed by OpinionLab to iPerceptions, Inc. 

129. Pursuant to the NDA, iPerceptions, Inc. obtained access to and acquired 

OpinionLab’s proprietary and confidential information with knowledge that it acquired that 

information under circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain its secrecy and or limit its use. 

Upon information and belief, iPerceptions, Inc. disclosed that proprietary and confidential 

information to representatives of iPerceptions US, Inc., and said representatives knew or should 

have known the disclosure to them was improper. 

130. Upon information and belief, Defendants misappropriated, disclosed, and/or used 

OpinionLab’s trade secrets in competing with OpinionLab. 

131. Upon information and belief, such acts of the Defendants aforesaid are being done 

willfully and maliciously. 

132. As a proximate result of the acts of Defendants as alleged herein, OpinionLab has 

suffered and will continue to suffer significant damage to its business, while Defendants profit at 

Plaintiff’s expense. 

Case: 1:12-cv-05662 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/18/12 Page 30 of 34 PageID #:30
31

133. OpinionLab has no adequate remedy at law for this misappropriation of its trade 

secrets. Unless Defendants are enjoined by the Court, Plaintiff will continue to suffer irreparable 

harm. 

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH A PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE – 

VIOLATION OF ILLINOIS COMMON LAW) 

(Against Both Defendants) 

134. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in 

paragraphs 1-133 of this Complaint, as though they were fully set forth herein. 

135. OpinionLab had particular and existing and prospective business relationships 

with customers with whom OpinionLab would have done business but for Defendants’ unlawful 

behavior. 

136. Defendants knew of OpinionLab’s existing and prospective relationships with 

these customers. 

137. Upon information and belief, through dishonest, unfair, and/or improper means 

Defendants intentionally interfered with OpinionLab’s existing and prospective relationships 

with these customers. 

138. Defendants’ interference caused injury to OpinionLab’s existing and prospective 

relationships with these customers, in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional requirements of 

this Court. 

139. OpinionLab has no adequate remedy at law for this tortious conduct engaged in 

by Defendants. Unless Defendants are enjoined by the Court, Plaintiff will continue to suffer 

irreparable harm. 

Case: 1:12-cv-05662 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/18/12 Page 31 of 34 PageID #:31
32

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

 WHEREFORE, OpinionLab prays for an order and judgment as follows: 

a. That the ’724, ’581, ‘392, ’820, ’285, ’688, and ’805 Patents are valid and 

enforceable; 

b. That Defendants have infringed the ’724, ’581, ‘392, ’820, ’285, ’688, and/or 

’805 Patents; 

c. That Defendants’ infringing actions have been willful, deliberate, and intentional; 

d. That Defendants be ordered to make or be subjected to a full accounting for and 

pay OpinionLab all damages to which OpinionLab is entitled (together with prejudgment 

interest and OpinionLab’s costs and disbursements) as a consequence of Defendants’ 

infringing acts in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 284, including but not limited to a 

reasonable royalty for Defendants’ use of the patented technology and/or OpinionLab’s 

lost profits; 

e. That such damages be trebled for the willful, deliberate, and intentional nature of 

Defendants’ infringing acts as set forth above; 

f. That this case be declared exceptional, and that plaintiff OpinionLab be awarded 

their reasonable attorneys’ fees herein, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 285; 

g. That a preliminary and permanent injunction be entered prohibiting the further 

manufacture, sale, offer for sale, use or importation by Defendants of all infringing 

products and services; 

h. That iPerceptions, Inc. intentionally breached the NDA entitling OpinionLab to 

injunctive relief, damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs; 

Case: 1:12-cv-05662 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/18/12 Page 32 of 34 PageID #:32
33

i. That Defendants engaged in a willful violation of the Uniform Trade Secrets Acts 

and that OpinionLab is entitled to actual damages, treble damages, and attorneys’ fees 

and costs for said violations; 

j. That Defendants engaged in tortious interference with a prospective economic 

advantage and that that OpinionLab be awarded exemplary and punitive damages and 

attorneys’ fees under Illinois law for Defendants’ willful, intentional, and tortious acts; 

k. That Plaintiff be entitled to undertake expedited discovery to ascertain the extent 

of Defendants’ breach of the NDA and/or misappropriation of trade secrets; 

l. That OpinionLab be awarded such other and further relief as this Court may deem 

just and equitable for Defendant’s wrongful actions. 

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff hereby demands and requests a trial by jury on all issues so triable. 

Dated: July 18, 2012 Respectfully submitted, 

K&L GATES LLP

 By: /s/ J. Michael Keyes

 

J. Michael Keyes (Gen. Bar #29215) 

K&L GATES LLP

618 W. Riverside Ave., Ste. 300 

Spokane, WA 99201 

Telephone: 509.624.2100 

Facsimile: 509.456.0146 

Robert J. Barz (#6285709) 

K&L GATES LLP

70 W. Madison St., Ste. 3100 

Chicago, IL 60602 

Telephone: 312.372.1121 

Facsimile: 312.827.8000 

Attorneys for Plaintiff, OpinionLab, Inc. 

Case: 1:12-cv-05662 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/18/12 Page 33 of 34 PageID #:33
Case: 1:12-cv-05662 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/18/12 Page 34 of 34 PageID #:34