Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia Inc v. Lodsys Group LLC

Filing 1

COMPLAINT with Jury Demand; against Lodsys Group LLC by MARTHA STEWART LIVING OMNIMEDIA INC. ( Filing Fee PAID $400 receipt number 0757-1761952) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A U.S. Patent #5,999,908, # 2 Exhibit B U.S. Patent #7,133,834, # 3 Exhibit C U.S. Patent #7,222,078, # 4 Exhibit D U.S. Patent #7,620,565, # 5 Exhibit E July 15, 2011 Lodsys Letter, # 6 Exhibit F July 22, 2013 Burns Email, # 7 Exhibit G August 8, 2013 Burns Email, # 8 Exhibit H August 23, 2013 Burns Email, # 9 Exhibit I September 10, 2013 Burns Email, # 10 Exhibit J September 18, 2013 MSLO Email, # 11 Summons, # 12 Civil Cover Sheet)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
_______________________________________
)
MARTHA STEWART LIVING
)
OMNIMEDIA, INC.
)
)
Plaintiff,
) Civil Action No. 13-CV-1074
)
)
v.
)
)
LODSYS GROUP, LLC
)
)
Defendant.
)
_______________________________________)
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
Plaintiff, Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc. (“MSLO”), by and through the
undersigned counsel, files this amended complaint for a declaratory judgment against Defendant,
Lodsys, Group, LLC (“Lodsys”), and alleges as follows:
NATURE OF ACTION
1.

This is an action for a declaratory judgment that MSLO does not infringe any

valid claim of United States Patent Nos. 5,999,908 (the “‘908 patent”), 7,133,834 (the “‘834
patent”), 7,222,078 (the “‘078 patent”), and 7,620,565 (the “‘565 patent”) (collectively, the
“Asserted Patents”), and for a declaratory judgment that the claims of each of the Asserted
Patents are invalid.
2.

A true and correct copy of the ‘908 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

3.

A true and correct copy of the ‘834 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit B.

4.

A true and correct copy of the ‘078 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit C.

5.

A true and correct copy of the ‘565 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit D.

WHD/9805723.1

THE PARTIES
6.

Plaintiff, MSLO, is incorporated in Delaware and has a principal place of business

at 601 West 26th Street, New York, NY. MSLO is a media and merchandising company whose
business holdings include a variety of print publications, television and radio programming, ecommerce websites, and home goods merchandise.
7.

On information and belief, Defendant, Lodsys, is a Texas limited liability

company and claims to have a principal place of business at 505 East Travis Street, Suite 207,
Marshall, Texas, 75670. The Texas Secretary of State lists the corporate address of Lodsys as
800 Brazos, Suite 400, Austin, Texas 74701.
8.

On information and belief, Lodsys owns the Asserted Patents.

9.

On information and belief, Mark Small is the Chief Executive Officer of Lodsys.

10.

On information and belief, Mr. Small conducts Lodsys’s business from an office

located in Oconomowoc, Wisconsin, within this jurisdictional district. Accordingly, on
information and belief, Lodsys’s primary place of business and/or headquarters is located within
this judicial district.
11.

On information and belief, Mr. Small lives and works in Wisconsin, holds a

Wisconsin driver’s license, is registered to vote in Wisconsin, and is a resident and citizen of
Wisconsin.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
12.

This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of the

United States Code (35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq.), and under the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act (28
U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202).
13.

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

WHD/9805723.1 9805723_1

2

§§ 1331 (federal question) and 1338(a) (action arising under an Act of Congress relating to
patents).
14.

This Court has personal jurisdiction over Lodsys because it has constitutionally

sufficient contacts with Wisconsin so as to make personal jurisdiction proper in this Court.
Lodsys maintains an office within this district and conducts or solicits business within this
district.
15.

Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b), (c) and 1400(b).

16.

Thirteen declaratory judgment actions against Lodsys relating to the Asserted

Patents have been brought in this District, including this one—Eset LLC v. Lodsys LLC (Case
No. 2:11-cv-650); RightNow Technologies Inc. v. Lodsys LLC (Case No. 2:11-cv-737); Wolfram
Alpha LLC et al. v. Lodsys LLC and Lodsys Group, LLC (Case No. 2:11-cv-750); LivePerson
Inc. v. Lodsys LLC (Case No. 2:11-cv-1030); ForeSee Results Inc. v. Lodsys LLC (Case No.
2:11-cv-1092); PC Drivers Headquarters 1 Inc. et al. v. Lodsys LLC (Case No. 2:11-cv-1099);
PCS Sales (USA) Inc. v. Lodsys LLC (Case No. 2:11-cv-1113); Oracle America Inc. v. Lodsys
LLC and Lodsys Group, LLC (Case No. 2:12-cv-550); Creative Mobile OU v. Lodsys Group,
LLC (Case No. 2:12-cv-702); BuySeasons v. Lodsys LLC and Lodsys Group, LLC (Case No.
2:12-cv-797); and Confirmit Inc. v. Lodsys LLC and Lodsys Group, LLC (Case No. 2:12-cv-868).
This action is the only one that is still pending; all of the others have been closed.
THE PRESENCE OF AN ACTUAL CONTROVERSY
17.

On July 15, 2011, Mr. Small, sent a letter to Ms. Lisa Gersh, former CEO, of

MSLO. A copy of this letter is attached hereto as Exhibit E.
18.

The July 15, 2011 letter stated:

[w]e have reviewed your use of the Lodsys Patents and have prepared the
enclosed claim chart demonstrating at least one instance of how you
utilize the inventions embodied in the Lodsys Patents. The images used in
the charts are representative only and in addition to the charted claim of

WHD/9805723.1 9805723_1

3

the referenced patent, you should consider the remaining claims of that
patent and the other Lodsys patents both with respect to the charted
utilization and to other products and services offered by you.
19.

The July 15, 2011 letter also stated:

[w]e are interested in reaching a negotiated non-litigation licensing
arrangement with you for all of your uses of the Lodsys Patents under
your brand names and would like to discuss this matter with you within 21
days of your receipt of this letter.
20.

The July 15, 2011 letter also stated that Lodsys has “retained the firms of Kelley,

Donion, Gill, Huck & Goldfarb PLLC (www.kdg-law.com) based in Seattle, Washington, and
The Davis Firm, P.C. (www.bdfirm.com) based in Longview, Texas, to assist the company in
licensing of the Lodsys Patents.”
21.

The July 15, 2011 letter also stated:

Lodsys LLC reserves all rights with regard to the ‘908, ‘834, ‘078, and
‘565 patents, including: (1) the right to seek damages anytime within the
last six years that your company started to make use of Lodsys’ patented
technology; (2) the right to change its royalty rates at any time; (3) the
right to change this licensing program at any time without notice,
including variance to conform to applicable laws. You should not rely on
any communication or lack of communication from Lodsys, Kelley,
Donion, Gill, Huck & Goldfarb, PLLC, or The Davis Firm Group as a
relinquishment of any of Lodsys’ rights.
22.

The July 15, 2011 letter also included an “Infringement Claim Chart,” setting

forth how MSLO’s “Everyday Food Magazine” iPad application allegedly infringes claim 1 of
the ‘078 patent.
23.

On information and belief, there was no communication between Lodsys and

MSLO between July 2011 and July 2013.
24.

On information and belief, Ms. Burns left a voicemail with MSLO on July 16,

2013 regarding the allegations set forth in Lodsys’s July 15, 2011 letter.
25.

During the week of July 15, 2013, Vanessa Soman, former Associate General

WHD/9805723.1 9805723_1

4

Counsel at MSLO, called Jeanette Burns, Secretary at Lodsys/Licensing Associate at IPMG, AG.
26.

On July 22, 2013, Ms. Burns sent an email to Ms. Soman. The letter cc-ed Mark

Small. A copy of this letter is attached hereto as Exhibit F.
27.

The July 22, 2013 letter thanked Ms. Soman for her return call “last week,” and

further stated, “[a]s you requested, I am sending you our licensing documents for the Lodsys
Patents along with the Markman ruling. Lodsys Group’s believes [sic] there are four iPad apps
that are infringing uses [sic]: Martha Stewart Living Magazine, Martha Stewart Everyday Food
(Claimed Charted) [sic], Martha Stewart CraftStudio and Martha Stewart Weddings.”
28.

The July 22, 2013 letter further offered MSLO a license at $5,000 per accused

infringing product, or $20,000 total.
29.

The July 22, 2013 letter further stated that it is Lodsys’s position that the Apple

Inc. (“Apple”) license does not extend to cover Apple’s agents.
30.

The July 22, 2013 letter concluded: “I am hopeful that you will take advantage of

our program. I will follow up with you next week. Meanwhile, if you have any questions,
please do not hesitate to give me a call.”
31.

After Ms. Soman received the July 22, 2013 letter, Ms. Soman called Ms. Burns

and notified her that Allison Hoffman, EVP and General Counsel of MSLO, is the new contact
for the Lodsys Group matter.
32.

On August 8, 2013, Ms. Burns sent MSLO an email “forwarding the pertinent

documents.” The email attached a letter, a “Patent Sub-License Agreement” and the
Memorandum Opinion and Order from Lodsys, LLC et al. v. Brother Int’l Corp., et al., Case No.
2:11-cv-00090, pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. A
copy of this email and the attached documents are attached hereto as Exhibit G.

WHD/9805723.1 9805723_1

5

33.

On August 23, 2013, Ms. Burns and Ms. Hoffman spoke by telephone.

34.

On August 23, 2013, Ms. Burns sent MSLO an email attaching a “crib sheet” of

the parties’ claim construction positions from the Lodsys, LLC et al. v. Brother Int’l Corp., et al.,
Case No. 2:11-cv-00090, pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Texas. A copy of this email and the attached “crib sheet” are attached hereto as Exhibit H.
35.

On September 10, 2013, Ms. Burns sent MSLO an email asking, “[w]hen would

be a good time to go over IMPG’s proposal offered back in August?” A copy of this email is
attached hereto as Exhibit I.
36.

On September 18, 2013, MSLO sent a response to Ms. Burns. A copy of this

email is attached hereto as Exhibit J.
37.

MSLO’s September 18, 2013 email stated:

Thank you for following up with me last week about IPMG’s proposal. WE have
now had a chance to review the materials that you sent. Based on our review, we
have concluded that none of the four Martha Stewart iPad applications – Martha
Stewart Living Magazine, Martha Stewart Everyday Food, Martha Stewart
CraftStudio, or Martha Stewart Weddings—practices any claims of any of the
four patents included in the proposed Martha Stewart-IPMG Lodsys Patent
Sublicense Agreement (U.S. Patent Nos. 5,999,908, 7,133,834, 7,222,078 and/or
7,620,565). As such, Martha Stewart is not interested in taking a license to any of
these patents.
38.

MSLO has not heard from Lodsys since sending the September 18, 2013 email.

39.

Upon information and belief, Lodsys is solely a licensing entity, and without

enforcement it receives no benefits from the Asserted Patents.
40.

Lodsys brought its first lawsuit on February 11, 2011. Lodsys filed a lawsuit

against 12 companies alleging infringement of the Asserted Patents. That case is styled Lodsys,
LLC v. Brother International Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:11-cv-90 and is pending in the
Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division.

WHD/9805723.1 9805723_1

6

41.

According to the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) service,

Lodsys and/or Lodsys, LLC are parties and/or have been parties (usually plaintiffs) in 151 cases
in the Eastern District of Texas, most of which, upon information and belief, have settled by
amounts far below the cost of litigation.
42.

Many of Lodsys’s cases in the Eastern District of Texas have been consolidated

into one action, which is scheduled to go to trial October 2013.
43.

On information and belief, in all Eastern District of Texas cases, counsel of record

to Lodsys are Kelley, Donion, Gill, Huck & Goldfarb, PLLC, based in Seattle, WA, and The
Davis Firm, P.C., based in Longview, Texas.
44.

By virtue of Lodsys’s actions, MSLO is in reasonable apprehension of an

imminent patent infringement suit relating to the Asserted Patents.
45.

MSLO denies that it infringes any valid claim of the Asserted Patents. MSLO

now seeks a declaratory judgment that it does not infringe any valid claim of the Asserted
Patents.
46.

MSLO also seeks a declaratory judgment that the Asserted Patents are invalid for

at least the reason that the claims of the Asserted Patents are anticipated by prior art, including
but not limited to, California Institute of Technology’s TOC/DOC system and Telebase System’s
EasyNet Knowledge Gateway.
47.

On information and belief, third party Apple is licensed to the Asserted Patents

(“Apple’s License”) and is expressly permitted, among other things, to use, sell, offer to sell, or
otherwise distribute to its developers, such as MSLO, products and services that embody the
technology covered by the Asserted Patents.
48.

On information and belief, Lodsys purchased the Asserted Patents subject to

WHD/9805723.1 9805723_1

7

Apple’s License. On information and belief, Apple’s ability to use the technology embodied by
the Asserted Patents is the purported value of Apple’s License.
49.

Apple offers products and services to MSLO to enabled MSLO to offer its

products to end users of Apple products. The products and services Apple provides to MSLO
consist, among other things, of Apple application program interfaces, Apple software
development kits, and Apple’s operating system through which MSLO programs access Apple
hardware and software that permit interaction between MSLO and Apple end users. Apple also
provides a comprehensive set of Apple hosting, marketing, sales, agency, and delivery services
that allow MSLO to provide its products to millions of Apple end users.
COUNT I
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘908 PATENT
50.

The allegations of paragraphs 1-49 are incorporated by reference as if fully set

forth herein.
51.

The iPad applications for the following four publications, Martha Stewart Living

Magazine, Martha Stewart Everyday Food, Martha Stewart CraftStudio and Martha Stewart
Weddings, do not infringe any valid claim of the ’908 Patent.
52.

An actual controversy exists between MSLO and the Defendant as to whether or

not MSLO has infringed, or is infringing, the ‘908 Patent; has contributed to infringement, or is
contributing to infringement of the ‘908 Patent; and has induced infringement, or is inducing
infringement of the ‘908 Patent.
53.

The controversy is such that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 57 and

28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq., MSLO is entitled to a declaration, in the form of a judgment, that by its
activities MSLO has not infringed and is not infringing any valid and enforceable claim of the

WHD/9805723.1 9805723_1

8

‘908 Patent; has not contributed to infringement and is not contributing to infringement of the
‘908 Patent; and/or has not induced infringement and is not inducing infringement of the ‘908
Patent. Such a determination and declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time.
COUNT II
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘834 PATENT
54.

The allegations of paragraphs 1-53 are incorporated by reference as if fully set

forth herein.
55.

The iPad applications for the following four publications, Martha Stewart Living

Magazine, Martha Stewart Everyday Food, Martha Stewart CraftStudio and Martha Stewart
Weddings, do not infringe any valid claim of the ’834 Patent.
56.

An actual controversy exists between MSLO and the Defendant as to whether or

not MSLO has infringed, or is infringing, the ‘834 Patent; has contributed to infringement, or is
contributing to infringement of the ‘834 Patent; and has induced infringement, or is inducing
infringement of the ‘834 Patent.
57.

The controversy is such that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 57 and

28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq., MSLO is entitled to a declaration, in the form of a judgment, that by its
activities MSLO has not infringed and is not infringing any valid and enforceable claim of the
‘834 Patent; has not contributed to infringement and is not contributing to infringement of the
‘834 Patent; and/or has not induced infringement and is not inducing infringement of the ‘834
Patent. Such a determination and declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time.
COUNT III
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘078 PATENT
58.

The allegations of paragraphs 1-57 are incorporated by reference as if fully set

WHD/9805723.1 9805723_1

9

forth herein.
59.

The iPad applications for the following four publications, Martha Stewart Living

Magazine, Martha Stewart Everyday Food, Martha Stewart CraftStudio and Martha Stewart
Weddings, do not infringe any valid claim of the ’078 Patent.
60.

An actual controversy exists between MSLO and the Defendant as to whether or

not MSLO has infringed, or is infringing, the ‘078 Patent; has contributed to infringement, or is
contributing to infringement of the ‘078 Patent; and has induced infringement, or is inducing
infringement of the ‘078 Patent.
61.

The controversy is such that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 57 and

28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq., MSLO is entitled to a declaration, in the form of a judgment, that by its
activities MSLO has not infringed and is not infringing any valid and enforceable claim of the
‘078 Patent; has not contributed to infringement and is not contributing to infringement of the
‘078 Patent; and/or has not induced infringement and is not inducing infringement of the ‘078
Patent. Such a determination and declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time.
COUNT IV
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘565 PATENT
62.

The allegations of paragraphs 1-61 are incorporated by reference as if fully set

forth herein.
63.

The iPad applications for the following four publications, Martha Stewart Living

Magazine, Martha Stewart Everyday Food, Martha Stewart CraftStudio and Martha Stewart
Weddings, do not infringe any valid claim of the ’565 Patent.
64.

An actual controversy exists between MSLO and the Defendant as to whether or

not MSLO has infringed, or is infringing, the ‘565 Patent; has contributed to infringement, or is

WHD/9805723.1 9805723_1

10

contributing to infringement of the ‘565 Patent; and has induced infringement, or is inducing
infringement of the ‘565 Patent.
65.

The controversy is such that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 57 and

28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq., MSLO is entitled to a declaration, in the form of a judgment, that by its
activities MSLO has not infringed and is not infringing any valid and enforceable claim of the
‘565 Patent; has not contributed to infringement and is not contributing to infringement of the
‘565 Patent; and/or has not induced infringement and is not inducing infringement of the ‘565
Patent. Such a determination and declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time.
COUNT V
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY OF THE ‘908 PATENT
66.

The allegations of paragraphs 1-65 are incorporated by reference as if fully set

forth herein.
67.

The iPad applications for the following four publications, Martha Stewart Living

Magazine, Martha Stewart Everyday Food, Martha Stewart CraftStudio and Martha Stewart
Weddings, do not infringe any valid claim of the ’908 Patent.
68.

MSLO denies that it infringes any valid and enforceable claim of the ‘908 Patent,

and avers that the assertions of infringement cannot be maintained consistently with statutory
conditions of patentability and the statutory requirements for disclosure and claiming that must
be satisfied for patent validity under at least one of 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112.
69.

Accordingly, an actual controversy exists between MSLO and the Defendant as to

the validity of the ‘908 Patent. The controversy is such that, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 57 and 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq., MSLO is entitled to a declaration, in the form of a
judgment, that the ‘908 Patent is invalid. Such a determination and declaration is necessary and

WHD/9805723.1 9805723_1

11

appropriate at this time.
COUNT VI
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY OF THE ‘834 PATENT
70.

The allegations of paragraphs 1-69 are incorporated by reference as if fully set

forth herein.
71.

The iPad applications for the following four publications, Martha Stewart Living

Magazine, Martha Stewart Everyday Food, Martha Stewart CraftStudio and Martha Stewart
Weddings, do not infringe any valid claim of the ’834 Patent.
72.

MSLO denies that it infringes any valid and enforceable claim of the ‘834 Patent,

and avers that the assertions of infringement cannot be maintained consistently with statutory
conditions of patentability and the statutory requirements for disclosure and claiming that must
be satisfied for patent validity under at least one of 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112.
73.

Accordingly, an actual controversy exists between MSLO and the Defendant as to

the validity of the ‘834 Patent. The controversy is such that, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 57 and 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq., MLSO is entitled to a declaration, in the form of a
judgment, that the ‘834 Patent is invalid. Such a determination and declaration is necessary and
appropriate at this time.
COUNT VII
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY OF THE ‘078 PATENT
74.

The allegations of paragraphs 1-73 are incorporated by reference as if fully set

forth herein.
75.

Based on the above-stated conduct, MSLO is informed and believes that the

Defendant contends that MSLO infringes one or more claims of the ‘078 Patent.

WHD/9805723.1 9805723_1

12

76.

MSLO denies that it infringes any valid and enforceable claim of the ‘078 Patent,

and avers that the assertions of infringement cannot be maintained consistently with statutory
conditions of patentability and the statutory requirements for disclosure and claiming that must
be satisfied for patent validity under at least one of 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112.
77.

Accordingly, an actual controversy exists between MSLO and the Defendant as to

the validity of the ‘078 Patent. The controversy is such that, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 57 and 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq., MSLO is entitled to a declaration, in the form of a
judgment, that the ‘078 Patent is invalid. Such a determination and declaration is necessary and
appropriate at this time.
COUNT VIII
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY OF THE ‘565 PATENT
78.

The allegations of paragraphs 1-77 are incorporated by reference as if fully set

forth herein.
79.

Based on the above-stated conduct, MSLO is informed and believes that the

Defendant contends that MSLO infringes one or more claims of the ‘565 Patent.
80.

MSLO denies that it infringes any valid and enforceable claim of the ‘565 Patent,

and avers that the assertions of infringement cannot be maintained consistently with statutory
conditions of patentability and the statutory requirements for disclosure and claiming that must
be satisfied for patent validity under at least one of 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112.
81.

Accordingly, an actual controversy exists between MSLO and the Defendant as to

the validity of the ‘565 Patent. The controversy is such that, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 57 and 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq., MSLO is entitled to a declaration, in the form of a
judgment, that the ‘565 Patent is invalid. Such a determination and declaration is necessary and

WHD/9805723.1 9805723_1

13

appropriate at this time.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, plaintiff MSLO prays that:
A.

The Court declare that the four accused MSLO iPad applications do not infringe
any valid claim of the ’908 patent;

B.

The Court declare that the claims of the ‘908 patent are invalid under one or more
of 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112;

C.

The Court declare that the four accused MSLO iPad applications do not infringe
any valid claim of the ’834 patent;

D.

The Court declare that the claims of the ‘834 patent are invalid under one or more
of 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112;

E.

The Court declare that the four accused MSLO iPad applications do not infringe
any valid claim of the ’078 patent;

F.

The Court declare that the claims of the ‘078 patent are invalid under one or more
of 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112;

G.

The Court declare that the four accused MSLO iPad applications do not infringe
any valid claim of the ’565 patent;

H.

The Court declare that the claims of the ‘565 patent are invalid under one or more
of 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112;

I.

MSLO be awarded its costs in this action;

J.

MSLO be awarded its attorneys fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285; and

K.

MSLO be awarded such other and further relief as this Court deems is just and

proper.

WHD/9805723.1 9805723_1

14

DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL
MSLO hereby demands a trial by jury in this action.
Dated: September 25, 2013

Respectfully Submitted,

s/Eugenia G. Carter
Eugenia G. Carter
WI State Bar ID No. 1011447
[e-mail]
WHYTE HIRSCHBOECK DUDEK S.C.
33 East Main Street, Suite 300
PO Box 1379
Madison, WI 53701
[phone]
and
Steven Lieberman
[e-mail]
Brian Rosenbloom
[e-mail]
Jenny L. Colgate
[e-mail]
ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, PC
607 14th Street, N.W., Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20005
[phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc.

WHD/9805723.1 9805723_1

15