Case 2:13-cv-00190-RAJ-TEM Document 1 Filed 04/12/13 Page 1 of 22 PageID# 1
`
`FILED
`
`2013 APR 12 P 4:2b
`
`CLERK US DISTRICT COURT
`ALEXANDRIA. VIRGINIA
`
`Alan M. Grimaldi Qvo hac vice application anticipated)
`Ann Marie Duffy (VSB No. 48653)
`MAYER BROWN LLP
`1999KSt.NW
`Washington, DC 20006-1101
`Tel: 202-263-3000
`Fax: 202-263-3300
`agrimaldi@mayerbrown.com
`aduffy@mayerbrown.com
`
`A. John P. Mancini Qvo hac vice application anticipated)
`Vanessa M. Biondo {pro hac vice application anticipated)
`Elizabeth M. Winokur {pro hac vice application anticipated)
`MAYER BROWN LLP
`1675 Broadway
`New York, NY 10019-5820
`Tel: 212-506-2500
`Fax: 212-262-1910
`jmancini@mayerbrown.com
`vbiondo@mayerbrown.com
`ewinokur@mayerbrown.com
`
`Counselfor Plaintiffs, Segin Systems, Inc. andSegin Software, LLC
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`
`SEGIN SYSTEMS, INC. and SEGIN
`SOFTWARE, LLC (d/b/a RYNOHL/F£),
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`vs.
`
`STEWART TITLE GUARANTY
`COMPANY; PROPERTYINFO
`CORPORATION; and FIRST BANKING
`SERVICES, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PRELIMINARY
`INJUNCTION AND OTHER RELIEF
`AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`STEWART EXHIBIT 1020
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-00190-RAJ-TEM Document 1 Filed 04/12/13 Page 2 of 22 PageID# 2
`
`Plaintiffs Segin Systems, Inc. ("Segin Systems") and Segin Software, LLC (d/b/a
`
`RynohLive) ("Segin Software") (collectively, "Segin" or "Plaintiffs"), by and through their
`
`attorneys, Mayer Brown LLP, for their complaint against defendants Stewart Title Guaranty
`
`Company ("STGC"); Propertylnfo Corporation ("PIC") (collectively, "Stewart"); and First
`
`Banking Services, Inc. ("FBS") (collectively with Stewart, "Defendants"), allege as follows:
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`Failing in its attempt to acquire the rights to Segin's Rynohi/ve real estate
`
`settlement software, Stewart misappropriated highly confidential material that was only
`
`disclosed to Stewart pursuant to nondisclosure agreements governed by Virginia law. The
`
`material that was misappropriated consists of RynohLive algorithms, interfaces, connection
`
`points, and other information developed by Segin's founders. Stewart and FBS used this
`
`material to launch, injust a few short months, a copycat real estate settlement technology that,
`
`according to FBS, works justlike Rynoh. This action for breach of contract and patent
`
`infringement seeks: (i) preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to prevent Defendants'
`
`continued use of Segin's intellectual property; (ii) damages arising from the Defendants' patent
`
`infringement and breach of contract; (iii) anorder directing Defendants to account for any
`
`confidential material disclosed to third parties or otherwise used in violation of the nondisclosure
`
`agreements; and (iv) an order directing Defendants to return all information furnished under the
`
`nondisclosure agreements and reproductions of such information.
`
`PARTIES
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff Segin Systems is a startup corporation organized under the laws of
`
`Virginia and having its principal place of business at 397 Little Neck Road, 3300 South
`
`Building, Suite 306, Virginia Beach, Virginia 23452. It was founded in January 2005 for the
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-00190-RAJ-TEM Document 1 Filed 04/12/13 Page 3 of 22 PageID# 3
`
`purpose of developing software for the titleand real estate settlement industry, including
`
`RynohLive.
`
`3.
`
`PlaintiffSegin Software is a limited liability company, 94% owned by Segin
`
`Systems, organized in 2008 under the laws ofVirginia, and having its principal place ofbusiness
`
`at 397 Little Neck Road, 3300 South Building, Suite 306, Virginia Beach, Virginia 23452.
`
`Segin Software is the owner of the patent in suit.
`
`4.
`
`Defendant STGC is a corporation organized under the laws of Texas and having
`
`its principal place ofbusiness at 1980 Post Oak Boulevard, Suite 800, Houston, Texas 77056.
`
`STGC is one of the nation's largest title insurers.
`
`5.
`
`Defendant PIC is a corporation organized under the laws of Texas and having its
`
`principal place ofbusiness at 1980 Post Oak Boulevard, Suite 500, Houston, Texas 77056. PIC
`
`is Stewart's real estate technology company, and the successor of former Stewart technology
`
`divisions, Landata Systems, Inc. ("Landata") and First Data Systems, Inc. ("FDS").
`
`6.
`
`Defendant FBS is a corporation organized under the laws of Tennessee and
`
`having its principal place ofbusiness at 315 Hickerson Drive, Murfreesboro, Tennessee 37129.
`
`FBS develops banking, sub accounting, escrow accounting, and reconciliation products and
`
`services that it offers to financial institutions and real estate title insurance companies.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`7.
`
`This Court has federal subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C.
`
`§§1331 (federal question); 1338(a) (patent); and 1367 (supplemental jurisdiction).
`
`8.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdictionover Defendants because they have engaged
`
`in substantial business activities in the State of Virginia. Defendants transacted, solicited, and
`
`conducted business in Virginia through their employees, agents, and/or sales representatives, and
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-00190-RAJ-TEM Document 1 Filed 04/12/13 Page 4 of 22 PageID# 4
`
`derived substantial revenue from such business causing injuries to Segin in Virginia. In addition,
`
`this Court has personal jurisdiction over Stewart because this is a patent infringement and breach
`
`of contract action "arisingout of and "relating to" nondisclosure agreements that Landata and
`
`FDS (PIC's predecessors and STGC's affiliates) entered into with Segin Systems, by which PIC
`
`and STGC are bound. The consent provisions provide that "[t]he Virginia state courts of the
`
`City of Norfolk (or, if there is exclusive federal jurisdiction, the United States District Courtfor
`
`the Eastern District of Virginia, Norfolk Division) shall have exclusive jurisdiction and venue
`
`over any dispute arising out of or relating to this Agreement, and the Recipient hereby consents
`
`to the jurisdiction and venue of such courts."
`
`9.
`
`Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(a), 1391(b), and
`
`1391(c), including, without limitation, because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the
`
`claims occurred in thisjudicial district, Defendants are advertising, marketing, using, selling
`
`and/oroffering to sell products in thisjudicial district, and Defendants are subject to this Court's
`
`personal jurisdiction with respect to the present action.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`I.
`
`Segin's Market-Leading Real Estate Settlement Software
`
`10.
`
`In late 2004, Richard M. Reass ("Reass") and Kenneth A. Taylor ("Taylor")
`
`began experimenting with the concept of a real estate settlement software that would combat the
`
`pervasive escrow theft and mishandling of settlement funds resulting from the inability of the
`
`title insurance industry to self police, which had been costing the industry hundreds of millions
`
`of dollars in losses per year.
`
`11.
`
`In January 2005, Reass founded Segin Systems for the purpose of developing
`
`software that would provide the internal controls that the title insurance/settlement industry
`
`lacked, by ensuring the integrity of financial transactions. Among other things, Segin Systems
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-00190-RAJ-TEM Document 1 Filed 04/12/13 Page 5 of 22 PageID# 5
`
`invested substantial amounts of time, money, and intellectual capital researching this novel
`
`concept and developing the technology to actualize it.
`
`12.
`
`Segin Systems's significant expenditures of effort, years of trial-and-error, and
`
`substantial financial commitment culminated in the successful launch of RynohLive nationally in
`
`February 2009.
`
`13.
`
`RynohZ./vc, originally known as Transaction Assurance Program &
`
`eReconcile/Positive Pay (the "TAP Project"), automates the various transactions required to
`
`complete a real estate settlement and provides real-time (ornear real-time) performance of
`
`several of these transactions, thereby simplifying the settlement processand reducing, if not
`
`eliminating, fraudulent transactions.
`
`14.
`
`The RynohLive system is comprised of five interrelated modules working in
`
`concert, described on the RynohLive website as follows:
`
`RynohPay - a fully automated near real-time positive pay system that ensures that only
`validated checks are honored by the bank. RynohPay either provides automatic inputs to
`the clients' bank positive pay system, or is a standalone solution for those agents whose
`bank does not provide that service.
`
`RynohTrax - verification and validation of user defined critical transactions, both receipts
`and disbursements. Typical reconciliation systems reflect only what hasoccurred.
`RynohTrax provides notification for those critical items that are not being posted to the
`account for either payment or credit.
`
`RynohRccon - automatic daily three-way reconciliation with an embedded
`"Reconciliation Wizard" that identifies accounting and posting errors; timely alerts of
`potential issues mitigates or totally eliminates loss from fraud or error. A "Reconciliation
`Analysis" feature further identifies transactions whose status may represent audit or
`regulatory issues.
`
`RynohReport - a comprehensive set of daily reports that enable proactive management
`and oversight of financial activities. One of those is the "Morning Report" - a daily
`analysis report of escrow account activity and integrity. Emailed to designated recipients,
`the report contains user defined alerts of critical transactions, reconciliation status, and
`available funds by file/subaccount. The "Morning Report" reflects those critical time
`sensitive items requiring immediate attention.
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-00190-RAJ-TEM Document 1 Filed 04/12/13 Page 6 of 22 PageID# 6
`
`RynohSecure - enables the insurance underwriter or regulator to continuously monitor
`and fully audit account activity ona near real-time basis. Anti-fraud algorithms, funds
`verification protocols, and other techniques generate alerts whenevera suspect or
`potentially fraudulent event is detected.
`
`http://www.rynoh.com/index.php/home/about-us (last accessed Apr. 9, 2013).
`
`15.
`
`Since its introduction, RynohLive has"identified defalcation, wire and ACH
`
`fraud; stopped employee embezzlements; eliminated check fraud and disbursing errors and saved
`
`its clients millions of dollars within the settlement industry." Id.
`
`16.
`
`RynohLive quickly became viewed as the salvation of the title insurance industry,
`
`and its use has been mandated on numerous instances by title insurance underwriters to mitigate
`
`the staggering losses caused by agent escrow theft and the mishandling of settlement funds.
`
`17.
`
`As explained in detail below, Segin Systems attempted to protect its intellectual
`
`property in RynohLive by executing strict nondisclosure agreements ("NDAs") that limited
`
`Stewart's use of Segin Systems's confidential information, and by patenting its invention. The
`
`patent rights are held by Segin Systems's subsidiary, Segin Software, formed in 2008.
`
`18.
`
`Segin Systems could not have anticipated that Stewart, which purportedly sought
`
`to promote RynohLive and solidify Rynohl/w's position as a market leader, was, in actuality,
`
`upon information and belief, funneling over four years of Rynoh£/ve development details to a
`
`third party (FBS) to enable and facilitate the cloning of RynohZ./ve and the launch ofa directly
`
`competing software, in violation of the NDAs and Segin's intellectual property rights.
`
`19.
`
`Although the growth of RynohLive has continued, Defendants' unlawful conduct
`
`has already caused Segin substantial and irreparable harm, and it will continue to do so if
`
`Defendants are not stopped.
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-00190-RAJ-TEM Document 1 Filed 04/12/13 Page 7 of 22 PageID# 7
`
`II.
`
`The Nondisclosure Agreements and Stewart's Access to the Confidential
`Information
`
`20.
`
`RynohLive was not Reass's first major contribution to the title insurance industry.
`
`Before developing RynohZ./ve, Reass created and deployed several software applications that
`
`streamlined title agency operations, including, for example, the industry's first transaction
`
`management system, a document scanning and imaging system with an automatic filing
`
`capability, electronic storage of files, automated underwriting, and productivity management.
`
`21.
`
`These applications put Reass's pre-Segin company, Reliant Title Insurance
`
`Agency, Inc. ("Reliant Title"), far ahead of its competitors and garnered the attention of Stewart,
`
`which is one of the nation's largest title insurers.
`
`22.
`
`In light of Reliant Title's success, when Reass first spoke to Stewart about the
`
`TAP Project/RynohZ./w in late 2004, Stewart was interested in getting involved.
`
`23.
`
`To protect Segin Systems's intellectual property, Segin Systems and certain
`
`Stewart entitiesentered into nondisclosure agreements ("NDAs"). Landata and FDS, both
`
`Stewart companies and predecessors of PIC, entered into the NDAs on their own behalf as well
`
`as on behalfof their officers, directors, agents, employees, and affiliates. The Landata NDA was
`
`executed on or around February 23, 2005. The FDS NDA was executed on or around April 24,
`
`2005. True and correct copies of the NDAs are attached hereto as Exhibit A and Exhibit B
`
`respectively.
`
`24.
`
`The NDAs provide in pertinent part:
`
`The Recipient acknowledges that Segin claims its Confidential Information as a special,
`valuable and unique asset. For itself and on behalf of its officers, directors, agents,
`employees, and affiliates (each an "Affiliate"), the Recipient agrees that it shall:
`
`a.
`
`Keep in confidence all Confidential Information, and that it will not
`directly or indirectly disclose to any third party or use for its own benefit,
`or use for any purpose other than an assessment of the TAP Project, any
`Confidential Information it receives from Segin;
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-00190-RAJ-TEM Document 1 Filed 04/12/13 Page 8 of 22 PageID# 8
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`Restrict disclosure of the Confidential Information solely to the minimum
`number of Affiliates necessary in orderto assess the TAP Project and only
`to those Affiliates who have executed binding and enforceable
`confidentiality or nondisclosure agreements with Recipient;
`
`Advise Affiliates who receive Confidential Information under Section 2(b)
`of their binding obligations with respect to such Confidential Information
`and take all reasonable measures to protectthe confidentiality of such
`Confidential Information, including prohibiting such Affiliates from
`reproducing any Confidential Information in any form;
`
`Use the Confidential Information only as needed in conjunction with the
`TAP Project, and in particular, not use the Confidential Information in
`competition with Segin noruse it in any unlawful manner; and
`
`Use reasonable care to protect the Confidential Information, and in no
`event use less than the same degree of care to protect the Confidential
`Information as it would employ with respect to its own information of like
`importance which it does not desire to have published or disseminated.
`
`Id. H2 (emphasis added).
`
`25.
`
`"Confidential Information" under the NDAs includes "any information related to
`
`the TAP Project, whether provided in writing, orally or in any other medium." Exs. Aand B
`
`(NDAs) 13.
`
`26.
`
`The NDAs further provide that no patent or copyright license is granted by
`
`Segin's disclosure of any information to the Recipient. Id. \ 7.
`
`27.
`
`The NDAs also state that"[a]ll information furnished under this Agreement shall
`
`remain Segin's property and shall be returned to it at its request together with all copies, extracts,
`
`plans, schematics, or other reproductions in whole or in part made of such information by the
`
`Recipient." Id. H6.
`
`28.
`
`Additionally, the NDAs provide that "[t]he Recipient acknowledges that its
`
`breach of this Agreement will result in immediate and irreparable harm to Segin, for which there
`
`will be no adequate remedy at law, and Segin shall be entitled to equitable reliefto compel the
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-00190-RAJ-TEM Document 1 Filed 04/12/13 Page 9 of 22 PageID# 9
`
`Recipient to ceaseand desist all unauthorized use and disclosure of Segin's Confidential
`
`Information." Id. ^ 9.
`
`29.
`
`The NDAs are governed by Virginia law, and provide for the exclusive
`
`jurisdiction and venue of this Court over any federal dispute arising out of or relating to the
`
`NDAs. See id. ffll 16-17. Specifically, the NDAs provide that "[t]he Virginiastate courtsof the
`
`City of Norfolk (or, if there is exclusive federal jurisdiction, the United States District Court for
`
`the Eastern District of Virginia, Norfolk Division) shall have exclusivejurisdictionand venue
`
`over any dispute arising out of or relating to this Agreement, and the Recipient hereby consents
`
`to the jurisdiction and venue of such courts." Id. f 16.
`
`30. With the NDAs in placeand enforceable against the Stewart entities and their
`
`successors {see id. ffi| 2, 14), the parties' discussions advanced. Over the course of the next
`
`several years, while developing the TAP Project/RynohA/ve, Reass met on numerous occasions
`
`with Stewart representatives in Houston, Nashville, and Virginia Beach to discuss the prospect of
`
`forming a Stewart-RynohZ./ve relationship.
`
`31.
`
`Underthe arrangementdiscussed by the parties, Stewart would purchase from
`
`Segin Systems the rights to utilize Segin Systems's RynohLive technology, Segin Systems would
`
`integrate RynohLive with Stewart's settlement software (AIM/AIM+), and Stewart would use its
`
`resources and strong industry presence to promote the use of RynohLive. Per the proposed
`
`arrangement, Segin Systems's RynohLive technology would be launched as a joint initiative
`
`between Segin Systems and Stewart.
`
`32.
`
`In 2008, negotiations continued, reaching the point of finalizing the Stewart-
`
`RynohLive relationship, and Stewart, through PIC, made its first official offer that December.
`
`33.
`
`Stewart's offer was insufficient and was rejected by Segin Systems.
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-00190-RAJ-TEM Document 1 Filed 04/12/13 Page 10 of 22 PageID# 10
`
`34.
`
`After being told that its offer was too low, Stewart continued to express interest in
`
`utilizing RynohZive and made additional, targeted requests for information, under the pretext of
`
`intending to finalize a deal.
`
`35. With the NDAs in place, Segin Systems continued providing Stewart with
`
`Confidential Information, including, among otherthings, the essential data elements for the
`
`AIM+ interface along with the RynohZ,/ve infrastructure requirements.
`
`36.
`
`OnAugust 21, 2009, Stewart made another targeted request for Confidential
`
`Information (details regarding Ryno\\Secure, the latest of the five interrelated RynohL/ve
`
`modules), offering no hint of Stewart's plan to launch a competing settlement software system.
`
`After providing the requested information that day, Segin Systems heard nothing more from
`
`Stewart. AgencySecure, Stewart's product, was launched just two months later.
`
`HI.
`
`The Launch of AgencySecure
`
`37.
`
`In October 2009, two months after Stewart requested and received the last of the
`
`Confidential Information, Stewart launched AgencySecure - a real estate settlement technology,
`
`the primary component of which is a RynohLive clone that FBS allegedly "developed" for
`
`Stewart.
`
`38. When questioned by Segin Systems, Stewart indicated that it had chosen to utilize
`
`a competing vendor's technology instead of Segin's RynohZ,/ve What Stewart did not explain,
`
`however, is that, upon information and belief, Stewart had agreed to provide FBS with the
`
`RynohLive algorithms, interfaces, connection points, and other information developed by Segin
`
`that would (and did) enable FBS to "develop" a competing technology for AgencySecure almost
`
`instantly and with minimal expenditures of itsown; in exchange, FBS had agreed toanexclusive
`
`three-year contract with Stewart.
`
`39.
`
`As a result, from 2009-2012, AgencySecure was used only by Stewart entities.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-00190-RAJ-TEM Document 1 Filed 04/12/13 Page 11 of 22 PageID# 11
`
`40.
`
`Now that the three-year exclusivity period has expired, FBS intends to expand
`
`AgencySecure beyond Stewart and launch it across the market.
`
`41.
`
`FBS likely would not have agreed to any period of exclusivity if it had
`
`independently developed the AgencySecure technology.
`
`42.
`
`Upon information and belief, the Stewart representatives - who, under the NDAs
`
`in place, spent years studying the development of Segin's RynohLive, including several days and
`
`weeks in face-to-face meetings in addition to communicating by email and telephone about
`
`RynohLive - were instrumental in the launch of AgencySecure, providing FBS the Confidential
`
`Information of Segin Systems that it needed in order to duplicate RynohLive.
`
`43.
`
`The settlement software utilized in AgencySecure was and is identical to
`
`Rynoh£/v<? in all material respects. Indeed, in "developing" AgencySecure, FBS- with
`
`Stewart's help - copied each and every key feature and function of RynohZ,/ve: (1) its fully
`
`automated near real-time positive pay system that ensures that only validated checks are honored
`
`by the bank; (2) its verification and validation feature that provides notification for certain user-
`
`defined critical transactions; (3) its automatic daily three-way reconciliation service that
`
`identifies accounting and postingerrors, alerts users of potential fraud and error, and identifies
`
`transactions whose status may represent audit or regulatory issues; (4) its comprehensive daily
`
`reporting system; and (5) its anti-fraud algorithms, funds verification protocols, and other
`
`techniques that generate alerts whenever a suspect or potentiallyfraudulent event is detected,
`
`thereby enabling the insurance underwriteror regulatorto continuously monitor and fully audit
`
`account activity on a near real-time basis.
`
`44.
`
`Segin did not discover until 2012 that FBS played a role in developing
`
`AgencySecure.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-00190-RAJ-TEM Document 1 Filed 04/12/13 Page 12 of 22 PageID# 12
`
`45.
`
`At a product demonstration for AgencySecure, when questioned about the
`
`similarities between AgencySecure and RynohLive, FBS itself announced that AgencySecure
`
`works just like Rynoh.
`
`46.
`
`Defendants have not only misappropriated Segin's technology, but they are
`
`exploiting its goodwill and reputation to promote AgencySecure, and are unfairly benefiting
`
`from the expense, time, effort, and labor that Segin expended in developing and promoting
`
`RynohLive.
`
`IV.
`
`The '939 Patent
`
`47.
`
`In addition, Defendants are infringing one or more claims of Segin Software's
`
`patent.
`
`48.
`
`On April 23, 2007, Reass and Taylor filed U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`11/788,876 to provide additional protection for the intellectual property in RynohLive.
`
`49.
`
`On or around September 25, 2007, Reass and Taylor assigned and transferred to
`
`eReconcile LLC the entire right, title, and interest in and to any and all patents that may issue
`
`from Application No. 11/788,876. On March 13, 2008,eReconcile LLC assigned and
`
`transferred to Segin Software the entire right, title, and interest in and to any and all patents that
`
`may issue from Application No. 11/788,876.
`
`50.
`
`The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally issued U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,165,939 ("the '939 patent") to Segin Software on April 24, 2012. Entitled "Method of Settling
`
`a Real Estate Transaction and System Implementing the Method," the '939 patent teaches a
`
`method for settling real estate transactions and outlines a web-based, automated, and integrated
`
`system for ensuring the integrity of financial transactions. A true and correct copy of the '939
`
`patent is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
`
`51.
`
`The claims of the '939 patent are valid and enforceable.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-00190-RAJ-TEM Document 1 Filed 04/12/13 Page 13 of 22 PageID# 13
`
`52.
`
`Segin Software is the owner of all right, title, and interest in the '939 patent,
`
`including the right to sue and recover damages and equitable relief for its infringement.
`
`53.
`
`Segin Software has complied with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 287 and marks
`
`its products by identifying the '939 patent on the"Registration" page of the RynohLive website.
`
`54.
`
`At the latest, Stewart became aware of the '939 patent on or about June 15, 2012,
`
`when Reass spoke with Stewart representatives at a Texas Land Title Association meeting.
`
`During this conversation, Reass informed Stewart that Segin Software had received a patent on
`
`the RynohLive invention in April 2012.
`
`55.
`
`Among other things, Defendants have created settlement software virtually
`
`identical to RynohLive, incorporated that identical software into theircompeting product,
`
`AgencySecure, and actively produced, marketed, solicited sales for, and sold their AgencySecure
`
`product, which infringes one or more claims of the '939 patent.
`
`56.
`
`At least as of June 15, 2012, when Stewart became aware of the '939 patent, it has
`
`known or should have known that its nearly-identical product likely infringes the '939 patent and
`
`has been willfully and deliberately infringing one or more claims of the '939 patent.
`
`57.
`
`Defendants continue to violate Segin's rights, and show no signs of terminating
`
`their infringing conduct.
`
`V.
`
`The Substantial and Irreparable Harm to Segin
`
`58.
`
`Defendants' exploitation of Segin Systems'sConfidential Information in violation
`
`of the NDAs and their infringement of the '939 patent have caused Segin substantial and
`
`irreparable harm.
`
`59.
`
`Defendants have unlawfully exploited, and are continuing to exploit and profit
`
`from, Segin'sConfidential Information and the hard-earned goodwill and reputation of Segin's
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-00190-RAJ-TEM Document 1 Filed 04/12/13 Page 14 of 22 PageID# 14
`
`RynohLive, and are unfairly benefiting from the expense, time, effort, and laborthat Segin
`
`expended in developing and promoting RynohZ./vtj.
`
`60. Moreover, pursuant to the arrangement that Segin Systems and Stewart discussed
`
`extensively and in detail from 2005 to 2009, Stewart should have launched RynohLive instead of
`
`the cloned technology. The Stewart-Rynohl/ve relationship would likely have been finalized
`
`absent the Defendants' unlawful conduct.
`
`61.
`
`Underthe arrangement discussed by the parties, Segin Systems would have
`
`profited from the substantial fees and royalties that Stewart and Stewart customers would have
`
`paid Segin for the use of RynohZ,/ve; the product marketing and advertising that Stewart would
`
`have contributed; the resources and global reach and presence that only Stewart could have
`
`offered; the expanded customer base that Segin would have realized; the increased profitability
`
`of each customer relationship; and the numerous other business opportunities that would have
`
`presented themselves to Segin as a result of RynohZ,/ve's increased exposure, market dominance,
`
`and prestige. But instead, Defendants' gain was, and continues to be, Segin's irreparable loss of,
`
`inter alia, prestige, recognition, goodwill, profits, and customers.
`
`62.
`
`Absent an injunction, the anticipated launch of AgencySecure across the market
`
`will increase the irreparable harm to Segin.
`
`COUNT I
`(Patent Infringement)
`
`Stewart's Infringement of the '939 Patent
`
`63.
`
`Segin incorporates the foregoing allegations in Paragraphs 1 through 62 as if fully
`
`set forth herein.
`
`64.
`
`Segin Software is the owner of all right, title, and interest in the '939 patent.
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-00190-RAJ-TEM Document 1 Filed 04/12/13 Page 15 of 22 PageID# 15
`
`65.
`
`Upon information and belief, Stewart is now and has been directly infringing the
`
`'939 patent by making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling in the United States, and/or
`
`importing into the United States, products and/orservices that are covered by at leastclaim 1 of
`
`the '939 patent, including, by way of example and not limitation, Defendants' AgencySecure.
`
`66.
`
`On or around June 15, 2012, Stewart had full and actual knowledge of the '939
`
`patent.
`
`67.
`
`Upon information and belief, Stewart is now and has been, since at least June 15,
`
`2012, contributingto infringement of the '939 patent by others by selling and/or offeringto sell
`
`within the United States, and/or importing into the United States, materials and/or apparatuses
`
`for use in practicingthe method described in at least claim 1 of the '939 patent, including, by
`
`way of example and not limitation, Defendants' AgencySecure. Upon information and belief,
`
`Stewart knew that these materials and/or apparatuses were especially made or adapted for use in
`
`an infringement of the '939 patent, are a material part of Segin's invention, and have no
`
`substantial, non-infringing use; and Stewart's actions have in fact contributed to another's direct
`
`infringement of at least claim 1 of the '939 patent.
`
`68.
`
`Further, upon information and belief, Stewart is now and has been actively and
`
`knowingly inducing the infringement of the '939 patent by others, with knowledge of Segin
`
`Software's patent rights and without reasonable basis for believing that its conduct is lawful.
`
`Upon information and belief, Stewart is now and has been, since at least June 15, 2012, with
`
`specific intent and requisite knowledge, actively and knowingly inducing infringement of the
`
`'939 patent by soliciting, assisting, and/or fostering customers' use of products and/or services
`
`that are covered by at least claim 1 of the '939 patent, including, by way of example and not
`
`limitation, Defendants' AgencySecure. Upon further information and belief, Stewart knew or
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-00190-RAJ-TEM Document 1 Filed 04/12/13 Page 16 of 22 PageID# 16
`
`willfully blinded itself from knowing that such products and/or services infringe at least claim 1
`
`of the '939 patent, and that the induced acts constitute infringement of at least claim 1 of the
`
`'939 patent.
`
`69.
`
`Stewart, with full and actual knowledge of the '939 patent, nonetheless committed
`
`and continues to commit at least the aforementioned infringing acts despite an objectively high
`
`likelihood that these actions constitute infringement of a valid patent. Further, under the
`
`circumstances, Stewart knew or should have known of this objectively high risk.
`
`70.
`
`Thus, Stewart's infringing activities constitute willful and deliberate infringement
`
`of the '939 patent, entitling Segin Software to enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 and
`
`reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.
`
`71.
`
`Stewart's infringement of the '939 patent has been withoutexpress or implied
`
`license from Segin Software, and will continue unless enjoined by this Court.
`
`72.
`
`As a direct and proximate consequence of Stewart's infringement of the '939
`
`patent, Segin Software has suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable injury and damages in
`
`an amount not yet determined, for which Segin Software is entitled to relief.
`
`FBS's Infringement of the '939 Patent
`
`73.
`
`Segin incorporates the foregoing allegations in Paragraphs 1 through 72 as if fully
`
`set forth herein.
`
`74.
`
`75.
`
`Segin Software is the owner of all right, title, and interest in the '939 patent.
`
`Upon information and belief, FBS is now and has been directly infringing the
`
`'939 patent by making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling in the United States, and/or
`
`importing into the United States, products and/or services that are covered by at leastclaim 1 of
`
`the '939 patent, including, by way of example and not limitation, Defendants' AgencySecure.
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-00190-RAJ-TEM Document 1 Filed 04/12/13 Page 17 of 22 PageID# 17
`
`76.
`
`FBS's infringement of the '939 patent has been without express or implied license
`
`from Segin Software, and will continue unless enjoined by this Court.
`
`77.
`
`As a direct and proximate consequence of FBS's infringement of the '939 patent,
`
`Segin Software hassuffered and will continue to suffer irreparable injury and damages in an
`
`amount not yet determined, for which Segin Software is entitled to relief.
`
`COUNT II
`(Breach of Contract)
`
`78.
`
`Segin incorporates the foregoing allegations in Paragraphs 1 through 77 as if fully
`
`set forth herein.
`
`79.
`
`On or about February 23, 2005, PIC's predecessors, Landata and FDS, entered
`
`into the NDAs with Segin Systems.
`
`80.
`
`81.
`
`The NDAs are valid contracts.
`
`Among other things, the NDAs provide that Landata, FDS, their affiliates, and
`
`their successors must not use the Confidential Information for their own benefit, in competition
`
`with Segin Systems, or for any purpose other than to assess the TAP Project/RynohZ,/ve.
`
`82.
`
`Because PIC is the successor of Landata and FDS, and STGC is and was an
`
`affiliate of PIC and its predecessors, the confidentiality provisions of the NDAs are binding on
`
`and enforceable against the Stewart entities.
`
`83.
`
`Pursuant to the NDAs, Segin Systems furnished Confidential Informatio