UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

HUHTAMAKI, INC. and 

FUTURE MOLD CORPORATION 

 

Plaintiffs, 

 Case No. 

v. 

INTERNATIONAL CONTAINER CORP. 

and STEVEN F. MANLOVE, an individual, 

 Defendants. 

__________________________________/ 

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY 

AND OTHER RELIEF AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

Plaintiffs Huhtamaki, Inc. and Future Mold Corporation, by and through 

their undersigned attorneys, for their Complaint for declaratory and other relief 

against Defendants International Container Corp. and Steven F. Manlove, state as 

follows: 

PARTIES

1. Plaintiff Huhtamaki, Inc. (“Huhtamaki”) is a Kansas corporation with 

its principal place of business at 9201 Packaging Drive, De Soto, Kansas 66018, 

with manufacturing operations located in Coleman, Michigan. 

1:14-cv-12659-TLL-PTM Doc # 1 Filed 07/07/14 Pg 1 of 25 Pg ID 1
2 

2. Plaintiff Future Mold Corporation (“Future Mold”) is a Michigan 

corporation with its principal place of business at 215 S. Webber St., Farwell, 

Michigan 48622. 

3. On information and belief, Defendant International Container Corp. 

(“ICC”) is a Maryland corporation with its principal place of business at 7763 Old 

Telegraph Road, Severn, Maryland 21144. 

4. On information and belief, Defendant Steven F. Manlove 

(“Manlove”), an individual, is a Maryland resident with an address of 2212 

Canteen Circle, Odenton, Maryland 21113, and is the President and CEO of ICC. 

JURISDICTION, AND VENUE 

5. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1331, 1338(a), and 2201 because the claims for 

declaratory relief alleged in this Complaint arise under the patent laws of the 

United States, 35 U.S.C. §1 et. seq. 

6. This Court can enter the declaratory relief sought in this Complaint 

because this case presents an actual controversy within this Court’s jurisdiction. 

28 U.S.C. §§2201, 2202. 

7. Venue is proper in this judicial district because: (1) upon information 

and belief, Defendants do business in this judicial district, and (2) because a 

substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims in this case 

1:14-cv-12659-TLL-PTM Doc # 1 Filed 07/07/14 Pg 2 of 25 Pg ID 2
3 

occurred in this judicial district and a substantial part of the property that is the 

subject of this case is situated in this judicial district. 28 U.S.C. §1391(b). 

NATURE OF THE COMPLAINT 

8. In this action, Huhtamaki and Future Mold seek the Court’s 

declaratory judgment that: (1) Huhtamaki, Future Mold and certain of their 

products do not infringe any claims of United States Patent No. 6,086,800 (the 

“‘800 Patent”) asserted by ICC; and/or (2) the claims of the ‘800 Patent are 

invalid; and/or (3) the claims of the ‘800 Patent are unenforceable because 

Manlove committed inequitable conduct in the prosecution of the ‘800 Patent; 

and/or (4) Manlove is not the true inventor of the ‘800 Patent. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

9. Future Mold is in the business of developing and manufacturing 

thermoforming tooling and lip rolling machines, and is a leader in the 

thermoforming design and tooling industry. 

10. Huhtamaki is a customer of Future Mold and is in the business of 

manufacturing consumer goods packaging and food service products. 

11. Huhtamaki uses certain Future Mold designed and manufactured 

thermoforming machinery to manufacture, among other things, plastic beverage 

cup lids. 

1:14-cv-12659-TLL-PTM Doc # 1 Filed 07/07/14 Pg 3 of 25 Pg ID 3
4 

Future Mold’s Invention

12. At least as early as March 1993, Melvin J. Otto (“Otto”), President of 

Future Mold, conceived of a thermoforming tool comprising a lid forming wheel 

containing a novel stripper mechanism to be used for producing plastic products 

(the “Future Mold Wheel”). 

13. In May 1993, Future Mold made an offer to sell the Future Mold 

Wheel to a customer, Plastona Ltd. (“Plastona”). 

14. In May 1993, Manlove learned of Otto’s design for the Future Mold 

Wheel through consulting work he provided to Future Mold in connection with 

Future Mold’s offer to sell the Future Mold Wheel to Plastona. 

15. During his consulting engagement with Future Mold, Manlove was 

shown a design plan created by Future Mold containing Otto’s design for the 

Future Mold Wheel, which contained the novel stripper mechanism. Manlove’s 

contribution to the project was limited to providing the machinery that would hold 

the Future Mold Wheel, and other ancillary equipment, including the vacuum and 

temperature control system. Manlove had no involvement in the development of 

the Future Mold Wheel itself or Otto’s novel stripper mechanism. 

16. In April 1996, Future Mold manufactured and sold the Future Mold 

Wheel to Irwin International, Inc. (“Irwin”) who incorporated it into machinery 

sold to Pacific Cup. 

1:14-cv-12659-TLL-PTM Doc # 1 Filed 07/07/14 Pg 4 of 25 Pg ID 4
5 

17. A video depicting the operation of the Future Mold Wheel that was 

sold in April 1996 to Irwin was made in November 1996 in connection with the 

testing of the tooling for Pacific Cup, and was publicly shown to potential 

customers in 1997. 

18. In June 1997, the design of the Future Mold Wheel was displayed by 

Irwin at the Society of Plastic Industry’s trade show, NPE, in Chicago, Illinois. 

The video showing the process of operation of the Future Mold Wheel was 

displayed at the June 1997 NPE trade show. 

19. Manlove attended the June 1997 NPE trade show and viewed the 

design of the Future Mold Wheel being displayed at Irwin’s booth, where he also 

spoke with representatives from Irwin about the Future Mold Wheel. 

ICC’s Patents 

20. Knowing that Otto had invented the Future Mold Wheel in the spring 

of 1993 and that there had been a sale of the Future Mold Wheel in 1996, on 

February 23, 1998, Manlove filed the application that matured into the ‘800 Patent. 

[The ‘800 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A]. The ‘800 Patent is entitled 

“Thermoforming Process and Apparatus” and covers an apparatus and method for 

thermoforming plastic containers. ICC is the assignee of the ‘800 Patent. The 

‘800 Patent was originally assigned to ICON Engineering (“ICON”), for which 

Manlove was also the President, and was subsequently assigned by ICON to ICC. 

1:14-cv-12659-TLL-PTM Doc # 1 Filed 07/07/14 Pg 5 of 25 Pg ID 5
6 

21. The ‘800 Patent is a continuation-in-part of application Serial Number 

08/312,090, filed September 26, 1994, now United States Patent No. 5,783,229 

(the “’229 Patent”) [attached hereto as Exhibit B], which is in turn a continuationin-part of application Serial Number 08/266,564, filed June 28, 1994, now United 

States Patent No. 5,459,960 (the “’960 Patent”) [attached hereto as Exhibit C], 

which is a continuation-in-part of application Serial Number 08/120,955 (the “‘955 

Application”), filed September 15, 1993, now abandoned. 

22. Manlove misappropriated the information disclosed to him by Otto in 

1993 during the consulting engagement in connection with Future Mold’s offer to 

sell the Future Mold Wheel to Plastona, and sought to obtain protection for such 

information in his patent application for the ‘229 Patent, and subsequently in the 

application for the ‘800 Patent. The claims ultimately allowed in the ‘800 Patent, 

specifically claims 1, 3, and 13, include the misappropriated information from 

Otto. 

23. The limitations contained in independent claim 1 of the ‘800 Patent 

that were invented by Otto include: (1) “said mold facets being comprised of a 

static upper mold facet section and a dynamic lower mold facet section, said 

dynamic lower mold facet section containing said mold cavity;” (2) “an ejection 

shoe;” and (3) “means for actuating and guiding movement of said dynamic lower 

1:14-cv-12659-TLL-PTM Doc # 1 Filed 07/07/14 Pg 6 of 25 Pg ID 6
7 

mold facet section towards said forming wheel axle at a predetermined ejecting 

sector during rotation of said forming wheel.” 

24. The limitations contained in independent claim 3 of the ‘800 Patent 

that were invented by Otto include: (1) “providing a forming wheel comprised of a 

plurality of mold facets, each said mold facet being comprised of a static upper 

mold facet section and a dynamic lower mold facet section and said mold facet 

containing at least one mold cavity;” and (2) “actuating and guiding movement of 

said dynamic lower mold facet section toward said forming wheel axis when the 

means for actuating and guiding comes into contact with a stationary ejection shoe 

during rotation of said forming wheel.” 

25. The limitations contained in independent claim 13 of the ‘800 Patent 

that were invented by Otto include: (1) “providing a forming wheel that includes a 

plurality of mold facets, each of said mold facets including a static upper mold 

facet section and a dynamic lower mold facet section, each such said dynamic 

lower mold facet section containing a mold cavity;” and (2) “actuating the dynamic 

lower mold facet section towards the forming wheel axis when the mold facet 

reaches a predetermined ejecting sector.” 

26. The ‘229 Patent is entitled “Thermoforming Process and Apparatus” 

and contains a single apparatus claim directed to an apparatus for thermoforming 

plastic containers. 

1:14-cv-12659-TLL-PTM Doc # 1 Filed 07/07/14 Pg 7 of 25 Pg ID 7
8 

27. Manlove filed the application that matured into the ‘229 Patent on 

September 26, 1994 knowing that Otto had invented the Future Mold Wheel in the 

spring of 1993. The ‘229 Patent also was a continuation-in-part of the ‘960 Patent 

and claimed priority to the ‘955 Application. The single apparatus claim in the 

‘229 Patent includes the information misappropriated from Otto. The limitations 

contained in the sole claim of the ‘229 Patent that were invented by Otto include: 

(1) “said mold facets being comprised of a static upper mold facet section and a 

dynamic lower mold facet section;” (2) “said dynamic lower mold facet section 

containing said mold cavity;” (3) “a stationary ejection shoe;” and (4) a means for 

actuating and guiding movement of said dynamic lower mold facet section towards 

said forming wheel axle when the means for actuating and guiding comes into 

contact with said stationary election shoe during rotation of said forming wheel.” 

28. The’960 Patent is entitled “Nursery Container” and covers a nursery 

container providing an improved root structure for plants intended to be 

transplanted in the ground and contains one independent apparatus claim and two 

dependent apparatus claims. 

29. The ‘955 Application is entitled “Plant Growing Container and 

Method of Manufacturing Said Container,” and was abandoned prior to being 

published. 

1:14-cv-12659-TLL-PTM Doc # 1 Filed 07/07/14 Pg 8 of 25 Pg ID 8
9 

30. The ‘960 Patent covers a completely different invention from the 

“Thermoforming Process and Apparatus” in the ‘229 Patent and the ‘800 Patent. 

None of the claims in either the ‘229 Patent or the ‘800 Patent are supported by the 

disclosure of the ‘960 Patent, nor does either the ‘229 Patent or the ‘800 Patent 

repeat any portion of the ‘970 Patent whatsoever. 

31. During the prosecution of the application for the ‘229 Patent, Manlove 

attempted to expedite his application for the ‘229 Patent through a Petition to Make 

Special Under 37 C.F.R. 1.102(c) and MPEP 708.02 dated February 28, 1995 

claiming that the invention “will materially contribute to the conservation of 

energy resources and costs” and “enhance the quality of the environment.” The 

United States Patent and Trademark Office (the “PTO”) denied that petition for the 

failure to contain an affidavit or declaration as required by the MPEP explaining 

how the invention “materially contributes to (1) the discovery or development of 

energy resources, or (2) the more efficient utilization and conservation of energy 

resources.” Decision on Petition to Make Special Under 37 C.F.R. 1.102(c) dated 

March 31, 1995. Manlove did not attempt to overcome the PTO’s denial of the 

petition. 

32. Manlove also made numerous references to “pending infringing 

litigation” in an effort to demonstrate to the PTO the need for expeditious 

1:14-cv-12659-TLL-PTM Doc # 1 Filed 07/07/14 Pg 9 of 25 Pg ID 9
process

ultimate

 Verifie

Patent A

3

Notice 

1998 i

declarat

attorney

Applica

penalty 

ing of his

ely claimed

ed Statemen

Application

3. In co

to File Mi

ndicating 

tions on Ja

y, claiming

ation, and 

of fine and

s applicati

d: 

nt in Supp

n Under 37

onnection w

issing Part

that the 

anuary 2, 1

g priority 

declaring 

d/or impris

ion in pe

ort of Petit

7 C.F.R. 1.

with the pr

ts of Appl

oath or 

1999, signe

to the ‘2

the truth 

sonment: 

10 

titions to 

tion to Rev

137(b) at p

osecution 

lication iss

declaratio

ed by Man

229 Patent

of the sta

overcome

vive an Un

p. 3, dated 

of the ‘800

sued by th

on was m

nlove perso

t, the ‘96

atements i

e an aban

nintentiona

April 22, 

0 Patent, in

he PTO on

missing, M

onally and

60 Patent, 

in the dec

ndonment,

ally Abando

1997. 

n response

n Decembe

Manlove 

d not his pa

and the 

claration u

and 

oned 

e to a 

er 9, 

filed 

atent 

‘955 

under 

1:14-cv-12659-TLL-PTM Doc # 1 Filed 07/07/14 Pg 10 of 25 Pg ID 10
11 

1:14-cv-12659-TLL-PTM Doc # 1 Filed 07/07/14 Pg 11 of 25 Pg ID 11
3

the claim

complie

date un

applican

applican

applicat

3

Action, 

‘229 P

intentio

priority 

‘960 Pa

Amendm

3

Huhtam

4. On S

ms of the 

ed with “on

der 35 U.S

nt desired 

nt was ob

tion in the 

5. In an

Manlove,

Patent app

nally addr

date by in

atent and to

ment to Ap

6. On Ju

maki accusi

September 

application

ne or more

S.C. 120.” 

priority b

bligated to

application

n amendme

 knowing 

plication 

ressed the

nserting the

o the ‘955 A

pplication 

ICC’s

uly 30, 20

ing it of inf

21, 1999, 

n for the ‘8

e condition

 In that O

based upon

o include 

n for the ‘8

ent filed in

that the ‘9

or the ‘

e deficienc

e followin

Applicatio

Serial No. 

s Assertion 

13, ICC’s 

fringing th

12 

the PTO

800 Patent

ns for recei

Office Acti

n a previo

a specif

800 Patent

n response 

960 Patent

800 Pate

cy raised b

g language

n: 

09/164,49

of Patent I

attorney, M

he ‘800 Pat

O issued an

t and findi

iving the b

ion, the Ex

ously co-p

fic referen

. 

 to the Sep

t did not s

ent applic

by the Ex

e claiming

93 p. 2 date

Infringeme

Martin G. 

tent and of

n Office A

ng that Ma

benefit of a

xaminer sta

ending ap

nce to the

ptember 2

support the

cation, spe

xaminer w

g priority to

ed 1/10/20

ent

Belisario, 

ffering to li

Action rejec

anlove had

an earlier f

ated that if

pplication, 

e earlier 

1, 1999 O

e claims in

ecifically 

with respec

o the unrel

00. 

sent a lett

icense the 

cting 

d not 

filing 

f the 

 the 

filed 

ffice 

n the 

and 

ct to 

lated 

er to 

‘800 

1:14-cv-12659-TLL-PTM Doc # 1 Filed 07/07/14 Pg 12 of 25 Pg ID 12
13 

Patent “on reasonable terms.” In the letter ICC’s counsel references “the two 

retracting flat lid rotary thermoforming systems built by the predecessor of today’s 

Thermoforming Systems, LLC used by Huhtamaki” as the basis for the alleged 

infringement. 

37. On March 11, 2014, counsel for Future Mold responded to ICC’s 

infringement notice by advising ICC that the ‘800 Patent was expired and 

unenforceable and pointing out: 

a) The ‘800 Patent expired September 15, 2013; 

b) The ‘800 Patent is invalid for failing to identify Otto as the 

inventor; 

c) The ‘800 Patent is unenforceable as a result of Manlove’s 

inequitable conduct in falsely omitting Otto as an inventor and for 

falsely claiming priority to the ‘960 Patent; and 

d) The ‘800 Patent is invalid due to the on-sale bar because the 

technology covered by it was offered for sale and sold by Future Mold 

prior to the critical date of both the ‘800 Patent and the ‘229 Patent. 

38. On March 27, 2014, ICC’s attorney responded to Future Mold’s 

March 11, 2014 letter admitting that the ‘800 Patent expired on September 15, 

2013, but denying the allegations regarding incorrect inventorship and inequitable 

1:14-cv-12659-TLL-PTM Doc # 1 Filed 07/07/14 Pg 13 of 25 Pg ID 13
14 

conduct. ICC also admitted that a sale of the machine allegedly covered by the 

‘800 Patent occurred more than a year before the ‘800 patent was filed. 

39. On April 16, 2014, Future Mold’s counsel responded to ICC’s March 

27th letter advising that ICC has no claim for past damages due to the lack of notice 

or marking prior to the time Huhtamaki ceased using the challenged technology 

due to a redesign by Future Mold prior to the date of the initial infringement notice 

letter and declining to provide evidence of incorrect inventorship and inequitable 

conduct because Manlove was well aware of the facts providing the basis for such 

allegations. Future Mold concluded by noting that ICC’s admission of a first sale 

date of August 1996 more than one year before the filing date of the ‘800 Patent is 

additional proof that the ‘800 Patent was invalid ab initio. 

40. On April 30, 2014, rather than respond to Future Mold’s April 16th

letter, ICC instead filed suit against Huhtamaki Inc., a Delaware corporation, in the 

District of Delaware, International Container Corp. v Huhtamaki Inc., Case No. 

1:14-cv-00567 (D. Del.) (the “ICC Litigation”), alleging infringement of claims 1, 

2, 3, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the ‘800 Patent. The complaint has not yet been served 

on Huhtamaki. The Delaware corporation named as the defendant by ICC in the 

ICC Litigation is not the corporate entity that purchased and used the Future Mold 

Wheel. Rather, Plaintiff Huhtamaki, a Kansas corporation, is the entity that is a 

1:14-cv-12659-TLL-PTM Doc # 1 Filed 07/07/14 Pg 14 of 25 Pg ID 14
15 

customer of Future Mold. Accordingly, ICC named the wrong party in the ICC 

Litigation. 

41. As a consequence of ICC’s assertions of infringement, an actual 

controversy presently exists between Future Mold and Huhtamaki on the one hand 

and ICC and Manlove on the other as to the invalidity, unenforceability and 

infringement of the ‘800 Patent. 

COUNT I 

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NONINFRINGEMENT

(Against Defendant ICC only) 

42. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 41 above as if 

fully set forth herein. 

43. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment that claims 1, 2, 3, 11, 

12, 13 and 14 of the ‘800 Patent are not infringed by Future Mold, Huhtamaki, 

their products or the manufacture, use, sale or offering for sale thereof. 

COUNT II 

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY – PRIOR ART/SALE

(Against Defendant ICC only) 

44. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 43 above as if 

fully set forth herein. 

45. More than one year prior to the filing of the application for the ‘800 

Patent, the alleged invention was known, used, offered for sale and sold by Future 

Mold, and possibly others, in the United States. Accordingly, the ‘800 Patent is 

1:14-cv-12659-TLL-PTM Doc # 1 Filed 07/07/14 Pg 15 of 25 Pg ID 15
16 

invalid because the alleged invention fails to satisfy the conditions for patentability 

specified in 35 U.S.C. § 102. 

46. In addition, the ‘800 Patent is invalid because the alleged invention 

fails to satisfy the conditions for patentability specified in 35 U.S.C. §§ 103 and/or 

112. 

COUNT III 

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT 

OF INVALIDITY - INCORRECT INVENTORSHIP

(Against Defendant ICC only) 

47. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 46 above as if 

fully set forth herein. 

48. Manlove did not invent the subject matter patented in the ‘800 Patent, 

nor did he make any invention or discovery, either novel, original, or otherwise, 

within the meaning of Title 35 of the United States Code. 

49. Therefore, the ‘800 Patent is invalid for failing to name the correct 

inventor. 

COUNT IV 

CORRECTION OF INVENTORSHIP

(Against Defendant ICC only) 

50. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 49 above as if 

fully set forth herein. 

1:14-cv-12659-TLL-PTM Doc # 1 Filed 07/07/14 Pg 16 of 25 Pg ID 16
17 

51. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 256(b), Plaintiffs are entitled to the issuance 

of an order by this Court directing the Director of the PTO to correct the ‘800 

Patent to name Otto as the inventor. 

COUNT V 

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF UNENFORCEABILITY – 

INEQUITABLE CONDUCT AS TO INVENTORSHIP

(Against Defendants ICC and Manlove) 

52. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 51 above as if 

fully set forth herein. 

53. Knowing that the novel independent claim limitations in the ‘229 

Patent and the ‘800 Patent related to a stripping mechanism invented by Otto (see 

¶¶ 22 – 25, 27 above), Manlove filed his application for the ‘229 Patent initially, 

and subsequently the ‘800 Patent for the same invention naming only himself as 

the sole inventor, thereby withholding from the PTO the material information that 

he was not the sole inventor of the alleged invention. 

54. The withheld information related to inventorship was material and not 

cumulative because, unless corrected, incorrect inventorship renders a patent 

invalid. 

55. Manlove deliberately and intentionally omitted naming Otto as the 

inventor or co-inventor with an intent to deceive the PTO so that he could 

misappropriate Otto’s invention and assert infringement of the alleged invention 

1:14-cv-12659-TLL-PTM Doc # 1 Filed 07/07/14 Pg 17 of 25 Pg ID 17
18 

against Future Mold’s customers, including Huhtamaki, and others and to profit 

generally off the monopoly granted in the ‘229 Patent and the ‘800 Patent. 

56. Manlove’s attempts to expedite prosecution of his application for the 

‘229 Patent on the basis of environmental factors that were never properly 

demonstrated to the PTO and his references in the prosecution history for the ‘229 

Patent to “pending infringement litigation” in an effort to revive the application 

further evidence an intent to deceive the PTO because they demonstrate his 

knowledge that others were claiming ownership to his alleged invention. 

57. Because Manlove withheld material information about the correct 

inventor of the alleged invention in the ‘800 Patent with an intent to deceive the 

PTO, Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment that the ‘800 Patent is 

unenforceable due to Manlove’s inequitable conduct. 

COUNT VI 

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF UNENFORCEABILITY – 

INEQUITABLE CONDUCT AS TO PRIORITY DATE

(Against Defendants ICC and Manlove) 

58. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 57 above as if 

fully set forth herein. 

59. To claim the benefit of an earlier filing date, an applicant of a 

continuation-in-part application must meet the conditions of 35 U.S.C. § 120 and 

37 C.F.R. 1.78(a)(1)-(a)(3). The claims in the continuation-in-part application 

claiming the benefit of the earlier filing date must be supported by the disclosure in 

1:14-cv-12659-TLL-PTM Doc # 1 Filed 07/07/14 Pg 18 of 25 Pg ID 18
19 

the prior application. In addition, the continuation-in-part application must repeat 

a substantial portion of the prior application. 

60. While a continuation-in-part application may include matter not 

disclosed in the prior filed application, only the claims of the continuation-in-part 

that were disclosed in the prior application are entitled to the benefit of the filing 

date of the prior application. 

61. Knowing that Otto had invented the Future Mold Wheel more than 

one year prior to the filing of the application for the ‘229 Patent and the ‘800 

Patent, Manlove submitted materially false information to the PTO in claiming 

priority to the unrelated ‘960 Patent and the ‘955 Application. 

62. Because Manlove claimed he was the sole inventor of the ‘960 Patent, 

Manlove knew or should have known that none of the claims in the ‘229 Patent or 

the ‘800 Patent were supported in any way by the ‘960 Patent. Nevertheless, 

Manlove deliberately claimed priority to the ‘960 Patent and the ‘955 Application 

in his applications for the ‘229 Patent and the ‘800 Patent, making at least two 

specific representations that the ‘800 Patent was entitled to the priority date of the 

‘960 Patent and the ‘955 Application as a continuation-in-part application. 

63. A claim for priority is inherently material to patentability because a 

priority date may determine validity of the application and resulting patent at issue. 

In particular, Manlove knew that Otto invented the Future Mold Wheel prior to the 

1:14-cv-12659-TLL-PTM Doc # 1 Filed 07/07/14 Pg 19 of 25 Pg ID 19
20 

critical dates of both the ‘800 Patent and the ‘229 Patent (see ¶¶ 14-15 above) and 

admitted that the Future Mold Wheel had been sold by Future Mold prior to the 

critical date of the ‘800 Patent (see ¶¶ 38-39 above). 

64. Nevertheless, Manlove sought to obtain the benefit of the earliest 

priority date of the ’955 Application despite knowing that the inventions disclosed 

in the ‘800 Patent and the ‘229 Patent were not disclosed at all in at least the ‘960 

Patent (the ‘955 Application not having been published). Had Manlove been 

truthful in connection with his claim of priority, he would have been obligated to 

disclose the Future Mold Wheel to the PTO, which reference the PTO would have 

considered important in deciding whether to allow the application for the ‘800 

Patent. That the PTO would have considered the Future Mold Wheel important in 

its examination of Manlove’s application for the ‘800 Patent is evident from 

Manlove’s assertion of infringement against Huhtamaki for Huhtamaki’s use of the 

Future Mold Wheel. 

65. Manlove deliberately and intentionally misrepresented that the ‘800 

Patent was entitled to claim priority to the ‘960 Patent and the ‘955 Application 

with an intent to deceive the PTO so that he could avoid having to disclose the 

Future Mold Wheel to the PTO as prior art, which disclosure Manlove knew would 

have resulted in a rejection of the ‘800 Patent. This misrepresentation coupled 

with his willful omission of Otto as an inventor along with his claims in connection 

1:14-cv-12659-TLL-PTM Doc # 1 Filed 07/07/14 Pg 20 of 25 Pg ID 20
21 

with attempting to expedite his application for the ‘229 Patent demonstrate that 

Manlove intended to deceive the PTO so he could misappropriate Otto’s invention 

as his own. 

66. Because Manlove intentionally misrepresented that the ‘800 Patent 

was entitled to claim priority to the ‘960 Patent and the ‘955 Application with an 

intent to deceive the PTO, Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment that the 

‘800 Patent is unenforceable due to Manlove’s inequitable conduct. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Huhtamaki, Inc. and Future Mold Corporation 

respectfully request: 

A. A Declaratory Judgment that they are not liable for directly or 

contributorily infringing or inducing infringement, of any valid, 

enforceable claim of the ‘800 Patent; 

B. A Declaratory Judgment that each and every claim of the ‘800 

Patent is invalid; 

C. An order directing the Director of the PTO to correct the ‘800 

Patent to name Melvin J. Otto as the inventor; 

D. A Declaratory Judgment that the claims of the ‘800 Patent are 

unenforceable due to Manlove’s inequitable conduct; 

1:14-cv-12659-TLL-PTM Doc # 1 Filed 07/07/14 Pg 21 of 25 Pg ID 21
22 

E. An order directing ICC and Manlove to disgorge to Future 

Mold any profits resulting from the licensing, assignment or any other 

assertion of the ‘800 Patent that resulted in remuneration; 

F. A Declaratory Judgment that ICC is not entitled to any damages 

in any action by ICC against Huhtamaki for infringement of the ‘800 

Patent; 

G. An award of costs in this case; 

H. A declaration that this case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. §285 

and an award to Huhtamaki and Future Mold of all attorneys’ fees 

incurred; and 

I. Such other and further relief that is just and proper under the 

circumstances. 

1:14-cv-12659-TLL-PTM Doc # 1 Filed 07/07/14 Pg 22 of 25 Pg ID 22
23 

JURY DEMAND 

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

Respectfully submitted, 

RADER, FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC

Dated: July 7, 2014 /s/ Douglas P. LaLone (P45751) 

 Douglas P. LaLone (P45751) 

 Lisa Rycus Mikalonis (P39485) 

 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

39533 Woodward Avenue, Ste. 140 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 

Tel: (248) 594-0600 

Fax: (248) 594-0610 

 dpl@raderfishman.com

lrm@raderfishman.com

1:14-cv-12659-TLL-PTM Doc # 1 Filed 07/07/14 Pg 23 of 25 Pg ID 23
1:14-cv-12659-TLL-PTM Doc # 1 Filed 07/07/14 Pg 24 of 25 Pg ID 24
25 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on July 7, 2014, I electronically filed the foregoing 

paper with the Clerk of the United States District Court, Eastern District of 

Michigan, using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing 

to all counsel of record. 

/s/ Douglas P. LaLone (P45751) 

 Douglas P. LaLone (P45751) 

RADER, FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

39533 Woodward Avenue 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 

dpl@raderfishman.com

1:14-cv-12659-TLL-PTM Doc # 1 Filed 07/07/14 Pg 25 of 25 Pg ID 25