JS 44 (Rev. 06/17) CIVIL COVER SHEET

The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as

provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the

purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff County of Residence of First Listed Defendant

(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)

NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF 

THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.

 

(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION(Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff

(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant) 

’ 1 U.S. Government ’ 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF

Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State ’ 1 ’ 1 Incorporated or Principal Place ’ 4 ’ 4

 of Business In This State

’ 2 U.S. Government ’ 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State ’ 2 ’ 2 Incorporated and Principal Place ’ 5 ’ 5

Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State

Citizen or Subject of a ’ 3 ’ 3 Foreign Nation ’ 6 ’ 6

 Foreign Country

IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only) Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.

CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES

’ 110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY ’ 625 Drug Related Seizure ’ 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 ’ 375 False Claims Act

’ 120 Marine ’ 310 Airplane ’ 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 ’ 423 Withdrawal ’ 376 Qui Tam (31 USC 

’ 130 Miller Act ’ 315 Airplane Product Product Liability ’ 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729(a))

’ 140 Negotiable Instrument Liability ’ 367 Health Care/ ’ 400 State Reapportionment

’ 150 Recovery of Overpayment ’ 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS ’ 410 Antitrust

 & Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury ’ 820 Copyrights ’ 430 Banks and Banking

’ 151 Medicare Act ’ 330 Federal Employers’ Product Liability ’ 830 Patent ’ 450 Commerce

’ 152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability ’ 368 Asbestos Personal ’ 835 Patent - Abbreviated ’ 460 Deportation

 Student Loans ’ 340 Marine Injury Product New Drug Application ’ 470 Racketeer Influenced and

 (Excludes Veterans) ’ 345 Marine Product Liability ’ 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations

’ 153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY ’ 480 Consumer Credit

 of Veteran’s Benefits ’ 350 Motor Vehicle ’ 370 Other Fraud ’ 710 Fair Labor Standards ’ 861 HIA (1395ff) ’ 490 Cable/Sat TV

’ 160 Stockholders’ Suits ’ 355 Motor Vehicle ’ 371 Truth in Lending Act ’ 862 Black Lung (923) ’ 850 Securities/Commodities/

’ 190 Other Contract Product Liability ’ 380 Other Personal ’ 720 Labor/Management ’ 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) Exchange

’ 195 Contract Product Liability ’ 360 Other Personal Property Damage Relations ’ 864 SSID Title XVI ’ 890 Other Statutory Actions

’ 196 Franchise Injury ’ 385 Property Damage ’ 740 Railway Labor Act ’ 865 RSI (405(g)) ’ 891 Agricultural Acts

’ 362 Personal Injury - Product Liability ’ 751 Family and Medical ’ 893 Environmental Matters

 Medical Malpractice Leave Act ’ 895 Freedom of Information

 REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS ’ 790 Other Labor Litigation FEDERAL TAX SUITS Act

’ 210 Land Condemnation ’ 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: ’ 791 Employee Retirement ’ 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff ’ 896 Arbitration

’ 220 Foreclosure ’ 441 Voting ’ 463 Alien Detainee Income Security Act or Defendant) ’ 899 Administrative Procedure

’ 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment ’ 442 Employment ’ 510 Motions to Vacate ’ 871 IRS—Third Party Act/Review or Appeal of

’ 240 Torts to Land ’ 443 Housing/ Sentence 26 USC 7609 Agency Decision

’ 245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations ’ 530 General ’ 950 Constitutionality of

’ 290 All Other Real Property ’ 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - ’ 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION State Statutes

 Employment Other: ’ 462 Naturalization Application

’ 446 Amer. w/Disabilities - ’ 540 Mandamus & Other ’ 465 Other Immigration

 Other ’ 550 Civil Rights Actions

’ 448 Education ’ 555 Prison Condition

’ 560 Civil Detainee -

 Conditions of 

 Confinement

V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)

’ 1 Original

Proceeding

’ 2 Removed from

State Court

’ 3 Remanded from

Appellate Court

’ 4 Reinstated or

Reopened

’ 5 Transferred from

Another District

(specify)

’ 6 Multidistrict

Litigation -

Transfer

’ 8 Multidistrict

 Litigation - 

 Direct File

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION

Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):

Brief description of cause:

VII. REQUESTED IN

 COMPLAINT:

’ CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION

UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P.

DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:

JURY DEMAND: ’ Yes ’ No

VIII. RELATED CASE(S)

 IF ANY (See instructions):

JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER

DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

Case: 3:17-cv-00369-WHR Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/18/17 Page: 1 of 17 PAGEID #: 1
JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 06/17)

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44

Authority For Civil Cover Sheet

The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as

required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is

required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of

Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:

I.(a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use 

only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and 

then the official, giving both name and title.

 (b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the 

time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land 

condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.)

 (c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting

in this section "(see attachment)".

II. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X" 

in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.

United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.

United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box.

Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment 

to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes 

precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked.

Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the 

citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity 

cases.)

III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this

section for each principal party.

IV. Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If there are multiple nature of suit codes associated with the case, pick the nature of suit code 

that is most applicable. Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions. 

V. Origin. Place an "X" in one of the seven boxes.

Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.

Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441. 

When the petition for removal is granted, check this box.

Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing 

date.

Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.

Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or 

multidistrict litigation transfers.

Multidistrict Litigation – Transfer. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C. 

Section 1407. 

Multidistrict Litigation – Direct File. (8) Check this box when a multidistrict case is filed in the same district as the Master MDL docket. 

PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE IS NOT AN ORIGIN CODE 7. Origin Code 7 was used for historical records and is no longer relevant due to 

changes in statue.

VI. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional 

statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service

VII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.

Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.

Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.

VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket 

numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.

Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.

Case: 3:17-cv-00369-WHR Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/18/17 Page: 2 of 17 PAGEID #: 2
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

PRODUCTIVITY-QUALITY

SYSTEMS, INC.

210B East Spring Valley Rd.

Dayton, OH 45458

Plaintiff,

vs.

CYBERMETRICS CORPORATION

1523 W. Whispering Wind. Dr.

Suite 100

Phoenix, AZ 85085

Defendant.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Case No. _______________

Judge: _______________

COMPLAINT 

Plaintiff Productivity-Quality Systems, Inc. (“PQ Systems”) states for its 

Complaint against Defendant, CyberMetrics Corporation (“Defendant” or 

“Cybermetrics”), as follows:

NATURE OF THE CLAIMS

1. This is an action for copyright infringement under the Copyright Act of 

1976, 17 U.S.C. §101, et seq., misappropriation of trade secrets under the Ohio Uniform 

Trade Secrets Act, Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §1333.61, et seq., and tortious interference with 

a contract.

PARTIES, VENUE AND JURISDICTION

2. Plaintiff PQ Systems is an Ohio corporation with a principal business 

address located at 210B East Spring Valley Rd, Dayton, OH 45458. PQ Systems is a 

software development company that, for over 30 years, has supplied innovative software 

Case: 3:17-cv-00369-WHR Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/18/17 Page: 3 of 17 PAGEID #: 3
2

solutions that help organizations implement and demonstrate quality improvement 

programs (“Productivity Quality Software”). 

3. Defendant CyberMetrics is an Arizona corporation with a principal 

business address located at 1523 W. Whispering Wind Dr., Suite 100, Phoenix, AZ 

85085. CyberMetrics is a software development company that has historically 

competed with PQ Systems in providing gage management software. 

4. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. §§1331 and 1338(a), because this action arises under the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 

U.S.C. §101, et seq. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367(a), because those claims form a part of the same case or 

controversy of a claim under the Copyright Act. 

5. CyberMetrics conspired with Jeff Aughton, a former PQ Systems employee 

to misappropriate PQ Systems’ trade secrets and exploit its other valuable confidential 

and proprietary information, including its copyright protected materials. CyberMetrics 

was or should have been aware of Jeff Aughton’s conduct under Ohio jurisdiction, 

associated with the misappropriation and unauthorized exploitation of PQ Systems’ 

trade secrets and other valuable confidential and proprietary information, and the 

infringement of PQ Systems’ Copyrights. Furthermore, CyberMetrics regularly transacts 

business within the State of Ohio via the sale of its software development goods and 

services to Ohio residents, as well as holding seminars within Ohio. Consequently, both 

general and specific personal jurisdiction is proper.

6. Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of Ohio because a substantial portion of the acts giving rise to this case, 

including the infringement of Plaintiff’s copyrights and trade secrets, and tortious 

Case: 3:17-cv-00369-WHR Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/18/17 Page: 4 of 17 PAGEID #: 4
3

interference with Plaintiff’s contracts, occurred in the Southern District of Ohio, and a 

substantial part of PQ Systems’ property that is the subject of this action is located there. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

PQ Systems’ Intellectual Property 

7. PQ Systems first began offering its flagship statistical process control 

software, SQCpack, after incorporating in Ohio in 1984. SQCpack helps PQ Systems’ 

clients to collect, analyze and process data and statistics for purposes of implementing 

and demonstrating quality improvement programs.

8. Shortly after incorporating, PQ Systems secured the telephone number 

800-777-3020, which it still utilizes to this day.

9. Since the launch of SQCpack over 30 years ago, PQ Systems has grown and 

worked tirelessly over many years to perfect its craft, and is now recognized 

internationally as a premier software development company, serving clients in all 50 

states, Europe, Africa, and Australia.

10. Over the years, SQCpack has become a popular and widely distributed 

product, and is currently installed on workstations at many Fortune 100 companies and 

household names in the automotive, pharmaceutical, and software development 

industries, among others.

11. Adding to the success of SQCpack, in 1986 PQ Systems further expanded 

its offerings to include its innovative GAGEpack gage management software. GAGEpack 

allows PQ Systems’ clients to manage various measurement devices, instruments and 

gages.

Case: 3:17-cv-00369-WHR Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/18/17 Page: 5 of 17 PAGEID #: 5
4

12. In 1991, PQ Systems applied for and received U.S. Copyright Registrations 

TXu000464578, TXu000466964, and TXu000466951 for its GAGEpack, SQCpack 3.1 

and SQCpack plus 1.2 software, respectively. 

13. In 1999, SQCpack was again supplemented by CHARTrunner, a powerful 

statistical process control program that is a derivative of SQCpack and allows for 

integration of a wider range of data external to the SQCpack ecosystem.

14. SQCpack, GAGEpack, and CHARTrunner allow for PQ Systems’ clients to 

produce charts, graphs, and similar output from statistical data collected by the 

software. In demonstrating the types of charts and graphs that can be created with its 

software, PQ Systems has for years supplied its clients with sample charts and/or 

graphs.

15. Some of the sample charts and/or graphs provided with PQ Systems’ 

software were created with data supplied from the book “Improving Healthcare With 

Control Charts,” written by Raymond G. Carey.

16. Raymond G. Carey was a friend of Dr. Michael Cleary, the founder and 

former President of PQ Systems, and authorized PQ Systems to utilize data from his 

book to produce sample charts expressly for the purpose of demonstrating the power of 

PQ Systems’ software applications to clients in the healthcare industry.

17. PQ Systems has since filed additional copyright applications for updated 

versions of its SQCpack, GAGEpack, and CHARTrunner software source code, as well as 

sample charts referenced above which are currently pending at the U.S. Copyright office.

18. PQ Systems has also filed copyright applications for unpublished versions 

of code for ProSPC, a derivative of CHARTrunner that was created by former employee 

Case: 3:17-cv-00369-WHR Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/18/17 Page: 6 of 17 PAGEID #: 6
5

Jeff Aughton within the scope of his employment, and PqChartCore, another program 

written by Jeff Aughton within the scope of his employment. 

19. The content of U.S. Copyright Registration numbers TXu000464578, 

TXu000466964, and TXu000466951, as well as the updated content in PQ Systems’ 

new Copyright applications for SQCpack, GAGEpack, CHARTrunner, ProSPC, and 

PqChartCore, and the sample charts, are hereinafter referred to collectively as 

“Copyright Works.”

PQ Systems’ Former Employee Jeff Aughton

20. Jeff Aughton (“Aughton”) began employment with PQ Systems in 1989 as 

a software developer working on SQCpack and GAGEpack. 

21. Aughton similarly worked on the development of CHARTrunner prior to 

and after its 1999 release.

22. Over the course of his first 24 years of employment with PQ Systems, 

Aughton’s seniority within the company increased to the point where he was made a 

manager within the company and had access to all of PQ Systems’ proprietary 

information, including its trade secrets, source code for all of its software, and other 

confidential information regarding PQ Systems’ clients and business plans.

23. In 2011, an employee by the name David Todd (“Todd”) was fired from PQ 

Systems after it was discovered that he formed his own company called ProQM, which 

was producing software competitive to PQ Systems and targeting its customers, 

simultaneous with Todd’s employment with PQ Systems.

24. In 2013, Todd sent an unsolicited communication to PQ Systems, 

informing the company that he had been working with Aughton to develop a software 

Case: 3:17-cv-00369-WHR Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/18/17 Page: 7 of 17 PAGEID #: 7
6

application based upon CHARTrunner, which would be called ProSPC and would be 

offered by Todd’s company in competition with PQ Systems.

25. Upon learning of Todd’s accusations, PQ Systems confronted Aughton and 

promptly performed a disciplinary hearing.

26. As a result of the disciplinary hearing, facts about Aughton’s involvement 

in ProSPC were confirmed.

27. Aughton planned to work with Todd to sell the ProSPC software through 

Todd’s company, ProQM, and Todd was the one who decided to call the software 

ProSPC.

28. Aughton wrote the ProSPC software, which was derivative of PQ Systems’ 

CHARTrunner software.

29. Aughton wrote PqChartCore, charting code that was developed from and 

intended to be used in CHARTrunner, in or about 2006 and 2007.

30. Aughton wrote ProSPC in or about 2007.

31. Aughton ultimately inserted code from PqChartCore into both ProSPC and 

GAGEpack.

32. ProSPC and PqChartCore are both owned by PQ Systems.

33. As a result of the disciplinary hearing, Aughton, who expressed regret 

about his actions, was demoted within PQ Systems and no longer maintained his 

managerial role.

34. On May 8, 2015, Aughton abruptly submitted a one-line resignation letter 

to the President of PQ Systems.

35. On May 29, 2015, Aughton established his own company called Factoria, 

Ltd.

Case: 3:17-cv-00369-WHR Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/18/17 Page: 8 of 17 PAGEID #: 8
7

Cybermetrics’ Actions Against PQ Systems

36. In 1988, CyberMetrics began selling a product called GAGEtrak, a product 

that is competitive to PQ Systems’ GAGEpack.

37. In 1988, CyberMetrics secured the telephone number 800-777-7020, a 

number that is only one digit off from PQ System’s number, 800-777-3020.

38. Over the years, CyberMetrics did not offer a product competitive to PQ 

Systems’ SQCpack or CHARTrunner software, until 2017.

39. During a 2007 trade show where PQ Systems was exhibiting, agents from 

CyberMetrics approached PQ Systems’ employees and stated CyberMetrics’ desire to 

purchase PQ Systems’ assets, including SQCpack, CHARTrunner, and GAGEpack 

software.

40. At some point prior to August 2017, CyberMetrics began development of 

InSPC, Productivity Quality Software that is competitive to SQCpack and 

CHARTrunner.

41. At some point prior to August 2017, CyberMetrics hired Jeff Aughton 

and/or his company, Factoria Ltd., to assist with the creation of InSPC and/or InSPC+. 

42. Under direction by CyberMetrics, Jeff Aughton used his special knowledge 

of PQ Systems’ SQCpack, CHARTrunner, and GAGEpack software, as well as the 

derivatives ProSPC and PqChartCore, to create copies and/or derivative works of those 

software which would ultimately be known as InSPC and/or InSPC+.

43. Investigation of InSPC and InSPC+ has revealed glaringly substantial 

similarities with PQ Systems’ Copyright protected software.

Case: 3:17-cv-00369-WHR Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/18/17 Page: 9 of 17 PAGEID #: 9
8

44. For example, comparison of a “Rules” file sourced from ProSPC and a 

similar file sourced from InSPC shows that the formatting and naming conventions for 

each are largely identical.

45. Likewise, review of XML files for chart definitions sourced from ProSPC 

and InSPC show virtually identical formatting and naming conventions.

46. Additionally, review of “properties” files from the InSPC+ language 

database and a similar language database from GAGEpack contain identical 

information, including the name “Jeff” which appears in an author line for both, and the 

name “PQ Systems (Europe) Ltd.” which appears in the Company line for both.

47. Mr. Aughton’s involvement in the development of InSPC is confirmed by 

the multiple instances of “developed by Factoria” appearing within the program.

48. InSPC and/or InSPC+ provides sample charts for clients of Cybermetrics, 

similar to the sample charts provided by PQ Systems’ CHARTrunner and SQCpack. 

49. The sample charts provided with CyberMetrics’ InSPC and/or InSPC+ 

software utilize identical statistics from the book “Improving Healthcare With Control 

Charts,” written by Raymond G. Carey, which were provided to PQ Systems 18 years ago 

by authority of Mr. Carey himself. 

50. CyberMetrics has no relationship with Raymond G. Carey, and never 

received authorization to use his data in their sample charts.

51. CyberMetrics copied or directed Aughton to copy the data from Raymond 

G. Carey’s book and create sample charts functionally identical to PQ Systems’ charts.

52. CyberMetrics employed Aughton with the intention of copying PQ 

Systems’ Productivity Quality Software, such as SQCpack, CHARTrunner, ProSPC, 

PqChartCore, and GAGEpack, in order to fast track InSPC and/or InSPC+ as a product 

Case: 3:17-cv-00369-WHR Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/18/17 Page: 10 of 17 PAGEID #: 10
9

sufficient to compete with PQ Systems’ decades of experience in statistical process 

control software.

53. CyberMetrics began offering InSPC and/or InSPC+ to the public in August 

of 2017.

54. In furtherance of the creation of Productivity Quality Software, and other 

similar works, PQ Systems has over many years and at great expense developed 

proprietary materials, applications, information, and procedures that are unknown to 

the public, which are only revealed internally to employees and contractors of PQ 

Systems pursuant to confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements (“PQ Systems Trade 

Secrets”). PQ Systems also takes measures to guard closely and maintain the secrecy of 

all of its sensitive and valuable information including, without limitation, restricting 

access to only those employees and contractors with a specific need to know the 

information, and setting up security measures, including firewalls, to insure that 

unauthorized persons or competitors cannot access the servers containing its 

information.

55. In connection with his employment with PQ Systems, Aughton signed an 

employment agreement containing clauses obligating him to avoid unauthorized 

disclosure of and maintain the confidentiality of PQ Systems’ proprietary information 

and/or trade secrets.

56. Cybermetrics has been aware of Aughton’s former employment with PQ 

Systems and his confidentiality and non-disclosure agreement with PQ Systems.

57. In connection with the foregoing activities, CyberMetrics has obtained 

proprietary and confidential information regarding PQ Systems’ unknown software 

Case: 3:17-cv-00369-WHR Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/18/17 Page: 11 of 17 PAGEID #: 11
10

code, customers and business plans from Aughton, knowingly causing Aughton to 

breach his contractual obligations to PQ Systems.

58. At no time did PQ Systems authorize CyberMetrics to create reproductions 

or derivatives of PQ Systems Copyright protected, confidential, or proprietary materials, 

including its trade secrets, and at no time did PQ Systems authorize CyberMetrics to 

display or distribute such reproductions or derivatives.

59. At no time did PQ Systems authorize Aughton or any other person to 

disclose its trade secrets or other confidential information to CyberMetrics or other 

unauthorized third parties.

60. The Defendant continues to reproduce, make derivative works of, 

distribute and display PQ Systems’ copyright-protected materials, continue to exploit 

the PQ Systems’ trade secrets, and is utilizing PQ Systems’ proprietary information to 

interfere with PQ Systems’ contractual relations, causing significant damage to PQ 

Systems.

COUNT I

COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT 

(17 U.S.C. §§ 106 and 501)

61. PQ Systems incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the 

previous paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

62. The Copyright Works are original works of authorship and PQ Systems is 

the sole and exclusive owner of all right, title and interest in and to the copyright in the 

Copyright Works.

63. PQ Systems has filed copyright applications with the U.S. Copyright Office 

for all of the Copyright Works, some of which have been previously registered.

Case: 3:17-cv-00369-WHR Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/18/17 Page: 12 of 17 PAGEID #: 12
11

64. CyberMetrics has not received any license, assignment, or other 

authorization to exploit and reproduce the Copyright Works.

65. CyberMetrics had access to the Copyright Works, as the works are 

available for sale to the public, CyberMetrics has expressed explicit interest in 

purchasing rights to the Copyright Works, and CyberMetrics has ultimately employed a 

former employee of PQ Systems who has intimate knowledge of each of the Copyright 

Works.

66. InSPC and/or InSPC+ are substantially similar to PQ Systems’ Copyright 

Works.

67. CyberMetrics has and continues to reproduce, make derivative works of, 

distribute and display the Copyright Works, in violation of the Copyright Act of 1976, 

U.S.C. §501.

68. CyberMetrics’ acts of infringement alleged herein are committed willfully 

and in knowing disregard of PQ Systems’ rights.

69. As a result of CyberMetrics ongoing acts of infringement alleged herein 

and in accordance with 17 U.S.C. §504(b), PQ Systems is entitled to recover from 

CyberMetrics the damages it has sustained, and will sustain, and any profits obtained by 

CyberMetrics as a result of or attributable to their infringement. At present, the amount 

of such damages and profits cannot be fully ascertained by PQ Systems.

70. As a result of CyberMetrics ongoing acts of willful infringement alleged 

herein, PQ Systems is also entitled to elect to receive statutory damages, costs and 

attorney’s fees, pursuant to §504(c).

Case: 3:17-cv-00369-WHR Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/18/17 Page: 13 of 17 PAGEID #: 13
12

COUNT II

MISAPPROPRIATION OF TRADE SECRETS

(Ohio Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §1333.61, et seq.)

71. PQ Systems incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the 

previous paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

72. PQ Systems undertook substantial efforts to maintain the secrecy of PQ 

Systems’ trade secrets, and other confidential and proprietary information.

73. PQ Systems’ confidential and proprietary information constitutes trade 

secrets within the meaning of Ohio Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Ohio Rev. Code Ann. 

§1333.61, et seq. 

74. CyberMetrics has misappropriated, acquired, used, and will inevitably use 

in the future, unless enjoined by this Court, the PQ Systems’ trade secrets.

75. As a direct and proximate result of CyberMetrics’ misappropriation of 

trade secrets, PQ Systems has been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.

76. CyberMetrics knew or had reason to know that PQ Systems trade secrets 

were acquired for an improper purpose and by improper means.

77. CyberMetrics misappropriation of the PQ Systems’ trade secrets was 

willful and malicious, entitling PQ Systems to an award of attorneys’ fees and punitive 

damages.

78. PQ Systems is further entitled to an injunction prohibiting CyberMetrics 

from misappropriating and/or using any trade secret and other confidential information 

owned by PQ Systems, and ordering an immediate return of all documents, information 

or property taken from PQ systems by CyberMetrics.

79. PQ Systems has been and will continue to be damaged as a result of 

CyberMetrics’ activities.

Case: 3:17-cv-00369-WHR Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/18/17 Page: 14 of 17 PAGEID #: 14
13

80. PQ Systems has lost and is threatened with losing valuable sales, 

customers, trade secrets, its competitive advantage, and good will, and CyberMetrics 

conduct and acts, as alleged above, will continue to cause irreparable harm to PQ 

Systems unless enjoined by this Court.

81. Damages alone will not provide PQ Systems with an adequate remedy at 

law.

COUNT III

TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH A CONTRACT

82. PQ Systems incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the 

previous paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

83. PQ Systems has a valid and existing contract with Aughton.

84. CyberMetrics is and have been aware of such contract.

85. CyberMetrics, without privilege, justification or cause, intentionally and 

unfairly interfered with PQ Systems’ contract. CyberMetrics’ interference has caused a 

certain contract to be breached.

86. As a direct and proximate result of CyberMetrics’ tortious interference 

with PQ Systems’ contracts, PQ Systems has been damaged in an amount to be proven 

at trial.

87. The actions of CyberMetrics in interfering with the contract was

intentional and malicious, entitling PQ Systems to an award of punitive damages.

Case: 3:17-cv-00369-WHR Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/18/17 Page: 15 of 17 PAGEID #: 15
14

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, PQ Systems respectfully demands judgment against Defendant 

as follows: 

(1) Awarding PQ Systems all of its damages for each of the alleged claims, in 

an amount to be determined at trial;

(2) That PQ Systems be awarded damages in accordance with the Copyright 

Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. §504(b) and as shall otherwise appear that it has sustained, and 

continues to sustain, as a result of Defendants’ copyright infringement, together with 

any profits obtained by Defendants as a result of the copyright infringement; or, if PQ 

Systems so elects, that PQ Systems be awarded statutory damages pursuant to §504(c);

(3) That PQ Systems be awarded its costs and attorney’s fees in bringing this 

copyright infringement action as authorized by the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §505; 

(4) A preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting Defendant from 

misappropriating and/or using any trade secret and other confidential and proprietary 

information owned by PQ Systems, and ordering an immediate return of all documents, 

information, Copyright Works or other property taken from PQ Systems by Defendant;

(5) A preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendant from (i) 

soliciting and/or servicing PQ Systems’ customers until a date occurring at least two 

years after conclusion of trial on this matter, (ii) soliciting or seeking to hire PQ Systems’ 

employees until a date occurring at least two years after conclusion of trial on this 

matter;

(6) That Defendant be directed to destroy any unauthorized copies, 

reproductions, or derivatives of the Copyright Works which cannot be returned;

(7) That PQ Systems be awarded its attorney’s fees and the costs of this action;

Case: 3:17-cv-00369-WHR Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/18/17 Page: 16 of 17 PAGEID #: 16
15

(8) That PQ Systems be awarded punitive damages;

(9) Such other relief to which PQ Systems may be entitled to at law or in 

equity.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated this 18th day of October, 2017.

/s/ April L. Besl__________

April L. Besl (82542)

Michael J. Wheeler (95319)

Dinsmore & Shohl LLP

255 East Fifth Street 

Suite 1900

Cincinnati, OH 45202

Attorneys for Plaintiff, PQ Systems.

Case: 3:17-cv-00369-WHR Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/18/17 Page: 17 of 17 PAGEID #: 17