Lynx Lawsuit Against Zebra

Case 1:15-cv-12297 Document 1 Filed 06/10/15 Page 1 of 83
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
LYNX SYSTEM DEVELOPERS, INC. and
ISOLYNX, LLC,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ZEBRA ENTERPRISE SOLUTIONS
CORPORATION,
ZEBRA TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION,
and
ZIH CORP.,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-12297

COMPLAINT FOR THE
MISAPPROPRIATION OF TRADE
SECRETS; BREACH OF CONTRACT;
INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE
WITH EXISTING CONTRACTUAL
AND ADVANTAGEOUS BUSINESS
RELATIONSHIPS; BREACH OF
FIDUCIARY DUTY; FRAUD; UNFAIR
METHODS OF COMPETITION AND
UNFAIR OR DECEPTIVE ACTS OR
PRACTICES; UNJUST
ENRICHMENT; CONVERSION;
INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE
WITH PROSPECTIVE
CONTRACTUAL AND
ADVANTAGEOUS BUSINESS AND
ECONOMIC RELATIONSHIPS;
CORRECTION OF PATENT
INVENTORSHIP; DECLARATION OF
UNENFORCEABILITY FOR
INEQUITABLE CONDUCT IN
PATENT PROCUREMENT; AND
DECLARATION OF PATENT
OWNERSHIP
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
COMPLAINT
Lynx System Developers, Inc. (Lynx) and IsoLynx LLC (IsoLynx) (collectively
referred to as Plaintiffs) hereby complain of Zebra Enterprise Solutions Corporation (ZES)
and Zebra Technologies Corporation (ZTC) (collectively referred to as Zebra) and ZIH
Corp. (ZIH)1 as follows:
ZES, ZTC, and ZIH may be collectively referred to as Defendants.
INTRODUCTION
1.
This action arises out of unlawful schemes by Defendants to steal technological
innovations for the real-time tracking of athletes and game analysis, and the market for those
innovations, created and developed by Plaintiffs, over a period of many years.
2.
Defendants were introduced to the real-time athlete tracking and game analysis
market as a supplier of off-the-shelf components for Plaintiffs innovations.
During their
dealings with Plaintiffs, which were governed by written confidentiality agreements that
prohibited Defendants from using and exploiting Plaintiffs inventions, trade secrets and other
proprietary and confidential information and know-how, Defendants acknowledged that:
Plaintiffs had created and developed inventions, trade secrets and other proprietary and
confidential information and know-how for the real-time tracking of athletes and a market for
those technological innovations; Defendants lacked the technology, expertise, capabilities and
know-how to provide technically sound and satisfactory solutions to customers in the real-time
athlete tracking and game analysis market, such as the National Football League (NFL) and
other sports leagues; and Defendants would be able to benefit by selling their off-the-shelf
components to be used in products, systems and services tor tracking athletes in real-time and for
game analysis provided by Plaintiffs who had the requisite technology, expertise, capabilities and
know-how.
3.
Plaintiffs trusted and relied on Defendants to comply with their written
confidentiality agreements with Plaintiffs; however, Defendants betrayed Plaintiffs trust and
reliance. Once Defendants realized the enormous business potential of Plaintiffs innovations,
including the market Plaintiffs created for them, Defendants embarked on elaborate schemes to
cut Plaintiffs out. Defendants schemes included getting access to details about Plaintiffs
inventions, trade secrets and other proprietary and confidential information and know-how;
-2-
incorporating Plaintiffs inventions, trade secrets and other proprietary and confidential
information and know-how into a commercial system, called MotionWorks; and filing more
than twenty (20) patent applications in the United States to falsely claim and unlawfully assert
ownership and control of Plaintiffs inventions, trade secrets and other confidential and
proprietary information and know-how.
4.
In this action, Plaintiffs seek to hold Defendants accountable for their unlawful
conduct and the substantial harm they have inflicted upon Plaintiffs. This harm is ongoing, as
Defendants have entered into a lucrative contract with the NFL to provide the MotionWorks
system in all 31 NFL stadiums, and Wembley Stadium in London, for the 2015 NFL regular
season.
NATURE OF THE ACTION
5.
This is an action for: (a) misappropriation of trade secrets; (b) breach of contract;
(c) intentional interference with existing contractual and advantageous business relationships; (d)
breach of fiduciary duty; (e) fraud; (f) unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts
or practices; (g) unjust enrichment; (h) intentional interference with prospective contractual and
advantageous business and economic relationships; (i) conversion; (j) correction of inventorship
of patents; (k) a declaration of unenforceability of patents based on inequitable conduct in
procuring the patents; and (l) a declaration of ownership of patents.
6.
Defendants have engaged in calculated and concerted actions to wrongfully
obtain, use, disclose and claim as their own Plaintiffs inventions, trade secrets, proprietary and
confidential information and other valuable intellectual property rights regarding Plaintiffs
technologies to accurately track athletes on the field of play and to collect and process athlete
position and biometric data in real-time in actual competition or training environments. The
data, in turn, is for use by, among others, professional, collegiate and high school sports leagues
-3-
and teams, broadcasters, coaches, trainers, doctors and electronic gaming vendors for enhanced
fan experience, enhanced broadcast display graphics, coaching, fitness monitoring, camera
targeting, electronic video gaming and many other applications.
7.
Defendants have wrongfully taken, used, disclosed, converted and attempted to
own Plaintiffs inventions, trade secrets, intellectual property rights and other proprietary and
confidential information and know-how relating to Plaintiffs customized software, firmware,
and hardware components that include among other things, Plaintiffs revolutionary data
processing units, data processing algorithms and radio-frequency filters. They have engaged in
wrongful actions to enter into, build and, indeed, prevent others from entering the brand new, but
highly lucrative and burgeoning, business of tracking real-time athlete positioning and biometric
data during competition and training and, in the process, to avail themselves of highly valuable
marketing, sales and reputation benefits resulting from their ability to single-source the
revolutionary real-time athlete tracking technologies to high-profile professional and collegiate
teams and leagues, such as the NFL.
8.
Defendants have also breached their contractual and fiduciary obligations to
Plaintiffs, engaged in fraudulent acts to further and conceal their wrongful acts and intentionally
and tortiously interfered with Plaintiffs existing and prospective business relationships to corner
the real-time athlete tracking business that was developed by Plaintiffs based on Plaintiffs
technologies conceived and developed by Plaintiffs scientists and engineers.
9.
Aware of the enormous value and growth potential of the newly-developed
market built on the strength of Plaintiffs innovation and resulting intellectual property rights,
Defendants tried to buy Plaintiff IsoLynx to avail themselves of Plaintiffs innovative
technologies, intellectual property rights, and talented technologists to the fullest extent. After
failing to do so, Defendants chose to proceed with their unauthorized and wrongful actions to
-4-
misappropriate Plaintiffs inventions, trade secrets and other proprietary and confidential
information and know-how. Defendants have gone as far as trying to claim ownership of
Plaintiffs inventions, trade secrets, and other proprietary and confidential information and
know-how by filing and pursuing patent applications describing and claiming Plaintiffs
inventions, knowing that Plaintiffs engineers and scientists are the true inventors, that Plaintiffs
provided the inventions to Defendants and that Plaintiffs had filed their own patent applications
on their inventions before Defendants filings of patent applications on those same inventions.
10.
By this action, Plaintiffs seek to enjoin further deceitful and unlawful conduct by
Defendants, to correct the consequences of Defendants deceitful and unlawful conduct, to obtain
fair compensation for the harm suffered by Plaintiffs and to hold Defendants responsible for their
deceitful and unlawful conduct.
11.
Plaintiffs have invested millions of dollars and tens of thousands of man-hours to
invent, design, develop, test, optimize and implement a proprietary system called the IsoLynx
System, which uses ultra wide band (UWB) radiofrequency (RF) technology to track,
among other things, the movement of athletes in sporting environments, such as football games,
in real time, and to provide analytics based on the tracking data, such as where, how far and how
fast a player traveled during a game. Plaintiffs invention, design, and development of the
IsoLynx System and the underlying technologies have been carried out in Massachusetts.
12.
Plaintiffs overcame formidable obstacles to invent, design, and develop the
technologies used in the IsoLynx System. For example, in the context of an NFL game, the
UWB RF tags worn by players must be unobtrusive, but also rugged enough to withstand
repetitive, high intensity impact. A successful system must simultaneously track all of the
movements of the players on the field in the dynamic and fast-moving environment of the field
of play, and deliver location data corresponding to each player, in real time. The location data
-5-
for each player must be accurate and continuous, even when tag transmissions are periodically
obstructed by, for example, nearby players. These results must all be accomplished in the
presence of high powered transmitters, such as broadcast and on-field communication
equipment, that emit powerful interfering RF signals.
13.
Generally, the IsoLynx System consists of tags worn by players, a general
purpose tag tracking engine, a collection of hardware, software and firmware components, and
know-how created, designed and developed by Plaintiffs.
14.
The tags emit periodic UWB RF signals. The tags are also configured to attach to
a players shoulder pads and to withstand the rugged environment of a football game. Each
player wears two tags, one on each shoulder.
15.
Proprietary software tools created, designed and developed by Plaintiffs are used
to manage tag installations in such a way that the emitted UWB RF signals can be properly
corresponded to individual players.
16.
Customized receivers are positioned around a stadium to detect the periodic UWB
RF signals that are emitted from the tags. The receivers have specialized filters to eliminate
interference from powerful RF interferers that are found in stadium environments.
17.
A location generating engine receives data from the receivers and determines raw,
real-time tag locations.

18.
A processing unit uses proprietary algorithms created, designed and developed by
Plaintiffs to analyze and process the raw location data of the tags into real-time, accurate and
responsive location data.
19.
Proprietary software created, designed and developed by Plaintiffs is used to
present the location data in tabular, graphical and video formats.
-6-
20.
Proprietary tools and know-how created, designed and developed by Plaintiffs are
used for pre-installation planning, installation, deployment, debugging and calibration of the
IsoLynx System.
21.
The IsoLynx System embodies inventions, trade secrets and other proprietary and
confidential information and know-how created, developed and used by Plaintiffs, including at
least the following:
customized software, firmware and hardware that include RF filters, a data
processing unit and data sanitizing algorithms to produce accurate player position
coordinates in real time;
custom-built computers for real-time data processing, broadcast quality
networking and robotic camera control;
a system of interrelated filtering algorithms that work together to improve the
quality and accuracy of location data determined from tracked objects;
modified UWB real-time location sensors that incorporate band pass filtering to
immunize against interferers;
modified UWB real-time location system tags that achieve a sufficiently low
profile for mounting on sporting equipment;
methods for mounting UWB real-time location system tags in American football
players shoulder pads;
software tools for installing, operating, diagnosing and optimizing a UWB realtime location system in sporting venues;
software tools for managing the team/player/tag/settings relationships in a
sporting application;
methods for real-time monitoring of UWB real-time location system accuracy to
ensure data integrity; and
know-how related to the positioning, installation and operation of a real-time
player tracking and data analysis system.
-7-
22.
Plaintiffs have continuously used the IsoLynx System, including the inventions,
trade secrets and other proprietary and confidential information and know-how that is the subject
of this Complaint, in their business.
23.
Plaintiffs entered into an arrangement with Zebra under which Zebra supplied off-
the-shelf components, including a raw location generating engine, receivers and tags, for use in
the IsoLynx System.
24.
After developing a functional version of the IsoLynx System, Plaintiffs contacted
the NFL. The NFL had previously considered alternative player tracking technologies, such as
Global Positioning Systems (GPS) and optical systems.
However, those systems were
unsatisfactory because, for example, they lost track of players and did not produce accurate
results in real time.
25.
After entering into a non-disclosure agreement with Lynx and visiting Lynxs
testing facility, the NFL, specifically NFL Enterprises LLC (NFL Enterprises), was
sufficiently impressed with the IsoLynx System to request testing of the system. Plaintiffs
initially tested the IsoLynx system for the NFL at the East-West Shrine Game in Tampa, Florida
on January 12, 2012.
26.
Realizing the value of the IsoLynx System, the innovative technology
implemented in the IsoLynx System and the business opportunity with the NFL and other sports
teams and leagues, Zebra entered into confidentiality agreements with Plaintiffs to obtain access
to Plaintiffs inventions, trade secrets and other proprietary and confidential information and
know-how in and related to the IsoLynx System, and to align with Plaintiffs and interject itself
into Plaintiffs business opportunity with the NFL.
27.
Plaintiffs thereafter tested the IsoLynx System in NFL games during the 2012
NFL preseason and regular season.

-8-
28.
During the 2012 NFL season testing, IsoLynx entered into a collaboration
agreement with Sportvision, Inc. (Sportvision), who had provided the Virtual Yellow 1st and
Ten line for NFL games.
Under their agreement, IsoLynx and Sportvision intended to
collaborate to provide to the NFL and other sports leagues an end-to-end sports tracking and
media enhancement system that used the IsoLynx System to generate location tracking data and
Sportvisions own tracking technologies and virtual imaging solutions (the Sportvision
System) to integrate the data into media applications.
29.
At the conclusion of the 2012 NFL season testing, the NFL wanted the IsoLynx
System installed in all 31 NFL stadiums for use in all NFL games during the 2013 NFL season.
30.
After Plaintiffs invented and developed the IsoLynx System and demonstrated its
value to the NFL, Zebra attempted to acquire Plaintiff IsoLynx.

31.
After Plaintiffs rejected Zebras low-ball acquisition offer, Zebra hatched and
executed a scheme to take the IsoLynx System and the inventions and technologies used in the
system for itself, and cut Plaintiffs out of the business opportunity with the NFL and other
customers and business partners. Zebra also poisoned Plaintiffs relationship with Sportvision,
causing the collaboration agreement between IsoLynx and Sportvision to be terminated, and
misappropriated Plaintiffs inventions, trade secrets and other proprietary and confidential
information and know-how to develop and commercialize its Zebra MotionWorksTM real-time
player tracking system, which Zebra provided to the NFL to become The Official On-Field
Player-Tracking Provider of the NFL.
32.
The Zebra MotionWorksTM system, which is based on Plaintiffs inventions, trade
secrets and other proprietary and confidential information and know-how misappropriated by
Zebra, has benefitted Zebra. For example, Zebras 2014 annual report states that its
-9-
partnership with the National Football League (NFL) received global recognition
in 2014, as [the] Zebra MotionWorks sports solution provided real-time visibility
into player performance to enhance the fan experience and enable next-gen stats
and data analytics. Showcasing [the] robust solution across 17 stadiums during
the regular season, plus the Pro Bowl and the Super Bowl, has led to multiple
business opportunities in several industries including manufacturing and
healthcare, as companies increasingly recognize the value in tracking movement
of their assets in real-time.
33.
Going forward, the Zebra MotionWorksTM system will continue to unjustly
benefit Zebra. For example, the Zebra MotionWorksTM system will be installed and used in all
31 NFL stadiums (and Wembley Stadium in London, England for the NFLs international
games) during the 2015 NFL regular season.
34.
Defendants have also unlawfully misappropriated, used and disclosed Plaintiffs
inventions, trade secrets and other proprietary and confidential information and know-how by
incorporating them into filings submitted to the United States Patent and Trademark Office
(USPTO), including U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/831,990, titled Performance
Analytics Based on Real-Time Data for Proximity and Movement of Objects, including
Exhibits A-F (the Zebra Provisional Application), which was filed by ZIH on June 6, 2013,
which incorporates inventions, trade secrets and other proprietary and confidential information
and know-how that Plaintiffs confidentially disclosed to Zebras personnel such as Jill Stelfox,
Cynthia Traeger, Ed Richley and Belinda Turner, and which names Zebra personnel as
inventors of these innovations and technologies claimed and described in the patent
application.
35.
Since that time, ZIH has filed numerous patent applications that claim priority
based on the Zebra Provisional Application. To date, ZIH has obtained two U.S. patents based
on the Zebra Provisional Application, including U.S. Patent No. 8,989,880 (the 880 patent),
filed July 15, 2013, and issued March 24, 2015, and U.S. 9,002,485 (the 485 patent), also
- 10 -
filed July 15, 2013, and issued April 7, 2015. The 880 patent and the 485 patent both identify
ZIH as the applicant and assignee on the face of the patent.
36.
By filing patent applications that contain Plaintiffs inventions, trade secrets and
other proprietary and confidential information and know-how related to the innovations and
technologies used in the IsoLynx System without identifying Plaintiffs employees who are true
inventors of these inventions as named inventors in the Zebra Provisional Application,
Defendants have engaged in a scheme to attempt to claim as their own intellectual property
Plaintiffs inventions, trade secrets and other proprietary and confidential information and knowhow, and, notwithstanding their duties of candor, falsely represented to the United States Patent
and Trademark Office (USPTO) that Defendants employees had created, developed and own
Plaintiffs inventions, trade secrets and other proprietary and confidential information and knowhow, with the full knowledge that it was Plaintiffs employees who were the true inventors of
these inventions and technologies and that Plaintiffs are the rightful owners of any resulting
patent rights from the patent applications.
THE PARTIES
37.
Lynx System Developers, Inc. (Lynx) is a corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, with its principal place of business at
179 Ward Hill Avenue, Haverhill, Massachusetts 01835. From Massachusetts, Lynx creates,
develops, makes, markets and sells digital photo finish technology and fully automatic timing
systems, line-scan cameras and athlete tracking technology for sports markets across the world
under the names Lynx and FinishLynx.
38.
Lynx was founded in 1992 by President and Chief Technology Officer Doug
DeAngelis.
Mr. DeAngelis has a Bachelors Degree in Electrical Engineering from the
University of Maine, where he competed in cross country and indoor and outdoor track. Mr.
- 11 -
DeAngelis also has a Masters Degree in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science from
MIT. As a long-time runner, DeAngelis saw an opportunity to use digital line-scan technology
to produce more accurate and precise photo finish results for sports, which led him to create,
develop and commercialize the Lynx and FinishLynx technologies. The Lynx and FinishLynx
technologies are used at major sporting events across the world, including the Olympic Trials,
the Kentucky Derby, NASCAR races, and the Tour de France.
39.
IsoLynx LLC (IsoLynx) is a limited liability company organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business at 179 Ward Hill
Avenue, Haverhill, Massachusetts 01835. IsoLynx began in 2005 as a business unit of Lynx to
create, develop and commercialize real-time player tracking technology. The IsoLynx business
unit was overseen by Mr. DeAngelis and Lynxs CEO, Ed Evansen. Mr. Evansen joined Lynx in
2003, after co-founding and serving as CEO of Measurement Computing Corporation in Norton,
Massachusetts. He has a Bachelors Degree in Electrical Engineering and an MBA in Business
Technology from Northeastern University.
40.
Lynx formed IsoLynx on November 23, 2009. Lynx was the sole member and
manager of IsoLynx. On September 24, 2010, Lynx assigned the assets of the IsoLynx business
unit to IsoLynx. As part of that transaction, Lynx appointed Mr. Evansen as CEO and he became
a member of IsoLynx. Lynx remained as a member and the sole manager of IsoLynx and
retained majority ownership and control over IsoLynx, including the right to negotiate and enter
into agreements, and to take any other actions with respect to IsoLynx and its assets. Lynx
employees perform work for IsoLynx, and Lynx pays the employees for their work.
41.
Zebra Enterprise Solutions Corporation (ZES) is a corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the State of California with its principal place of business at 2940
North First Street, San Jose, California 95113.
- 12 -
42.
ZES is a wholly owned subsidiary of Zebra Technologies Corporation.
43.
ZES engaged in activities that give rise to the claims brought by Plaintiffs in this
44.
Zebra Technologies Corporation (ZTC) is a corporation organized and existing
suit.
under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business at 475 Half Day
Road, Suite 500, Lincolnshire, Illinois 60069.
45.
ZTC engaged in activities that give rise to the claims brought by Plaintiffs in this
46.
ZIH Corp. (ZIH) is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
suit.
State of Delaware with its principal place of business at 475 Half Day Road, Suite 500,
Lincolnshire, Illinois 60069.
47.
ZIH is a wholly owned subsidiary of Zebra Technologies Corporation.
48.
ZIH is the assignee of patent applications that were unlawfully filed and that give
rise to the claims brought by Plaintiffs in this suit.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
49.
This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1338(a) with respect to
Counts X, XI and XII because they arise under the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. 1, et seq.; 28 U.S.C.
2201(a) with respect to Counts X, XI and XII because they seek declarations of rights and other
legal relations arising under the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. 1, et seq.; 28 U.S.C. 1338(b) with
respect to Count VI because it is a claim for unfair competition that is related to Counts X, XI
and XII; and 28 U.S.C. 1367(a) with respect to Counts I-IX because they are so related to
Counts X, XI and XII that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the
United States Constitution.
- 13 -
50.
This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants based on tortious acts
committed by Defendants in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts that are the subject of this
suit.
Defendants have established at least minimal contacts with the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts such that they should reasonably and fairly anticipate being brought into court in
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Furthermore, ZES and ZTC are registered to do business
and have conducted business in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and they have
purposefully reached out to residents of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts by promoting,
providing and using their products and services in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
including the Zebra MotionWorksTM real-time player tracking system. In addition, Defendants
have visited Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs facilities in Massachusetts, attended the confidential
demonstrations of Plaintiffs technologies and disclosures to Defendants of Plaintiffs inventions,
trade secrets, confidential and proprietary information, know-how and other intellectual property
in Massachusetts, and regularly and systematically communicated with Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs
employees located in Massachusetts in connection with Defendants dealings with Plaintiffs that
form the basis for this Complaint, including seeking and obtaining access to Plaintiffs
inventions, trade secrets, confidential and proprietary information, know-how and other
intellectual property.
51.
Venue in this judicial district is proper under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(2) because a
substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs claims occurred in this
judicial district, and a substantial part of the property that is the subject of this suit is located in
this judicial district. For example, Plaintiffs are located in this judicial district, the IsoLynx
System was invented, developed, tested and demonstrated in this judicial district, Defendants
have visited Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs facilities in this judicial district, Defendants have attended
the confidential demonstrations of Plaintiffs technologies and disclosures to Defendants of
- 14 -
Plaintiffs inventions, trade secrets, confidential and proprietary information, know-how and
other intellectual property in this judicial district, and Defendants have regularly and
systematically communicated with Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs employees located in this judicial
district in connection with Defendants dealings with Plaintiffs that form the basis for this
Complaint.
ADDITIONAL FACTS
52.
In 2004, Lynx initiated a project called IsoLynx to develop a real-time player
tracking and data analysis system. Lynx invested approximately $24,000 to purchase a UWB RF
identification (RFID) system, called the Sapphire Dart, from Multispectral Solutions, Inc.
(MSSI) for use in the IsoLynx project.
The Sapphire Dart system was used to track
personnel, inventory, equipment and parts in factories, warehouses and the like. Generally, the
Sapphire Dart system consisted of asset tags, reference tags, receivers and a receiver interface
that received signals from the tags and used algorithms to determine the positions of the asset
tags. Lynx used components of the Sapphire Dart system for its IsoLynx project.
53.
In April 2008, ZTC acquired MSSI.
54.
At the time ZTC acquired MSSI, Zebra had no experience with creating,
developing, making, marketing or selling real-time tracking systems for sports applications.
55.
Although Zebra sold the Sapphire Dart system for a time after ZTCs acquisition
of MSSI, Zebra ultimately upgraded the Sapphire Dart system, which it began marketing and
selling under the name Dart.
56.
Like the Sapphire Dart system, the Zebra Dart system was designed for tracking
semi-stationary or slow moving objects, such as equipment in hospitals, containers in

warehouses and livestock in a field, with a relatively coarse degree of accuracy.
- 15 -
57.
Like the Sapphire Dart system, the Zebra Dart system was inadequate for use in
real-time tracking systems for sports applications, such as tracking fast-moving athletes on a
dynamic field of play in an NFL stadium environment.
The ZES-Lynx Solutions Agreement
58.
On or about September 30, 2009, Lynx entered into a Solutions Agreement with
ZES (the ZES-Lynx Solutions Agreement).

59.
Under the ZES-Lynx Solutions Agreement, Lynx purchased Zebra Dart
components, including asset tags, receivers and high speed processing hubs, for use in the
IsoLynx System.
60.
Lynx and ZES contemplated and understood that Lynx would incorporate Zebra
Dart components purchased under the ZES-Lynx Solutions Agreement into the IsoLynx System.
61.
ZES drafted the ZES-Lynx Solutions Agreement.

The ZES-Lynx OEM Agreement
62.
On or about December 22, 2009, Lynx and ZES entered into an OEM Agreement
(the ZES-Lynx OEM Agreement).

63.
As under the ZES-Lynx Solutions Agreement, under the ZES-Lynx OEM
Agreement, Lynx purchased Zebra Dart components, including asset tags, receivers and high
speed processing hubs, for uses in the IsoLynx System.
64.
Lynx and ZES contemplated and understood that Lynx would incorporate Zebra
Dart components purchased under the ZES-Lynx OEM Agreement into the IsoLynx System.
65.
ZES drafted the ZES-Lynx OEM Agreement.

The Lynx-NFL Enterprises Nondisclosure Agreement
66.
On August 19, 2010, Lynx and NFL Enterprises LLC (NFL Enterprises)
entered into a Nondisclosure Agreement (the Lynx-NFL Enterprises NDA) [i]n connection
- 16 -
with discussions and/or negotiations between [Lynx and NFL Enterprises LLC] regarding
enhanced statistical data from NFL games.
67.
Under the Lynx-NFL Enterprises NDA, Lynx confidentially disclosed
information about the IsoLynx System to NFL Enterprises so that NFL Enterprises could
consider an arrangement where it would use the IsoLynx System to track players in real time
during NFL games and generate statistical data that would be owned and potentially licensed or
sold to third parties by NFL Enterprises.
68.
Zebra was aware of the Lynx-NFL Enterprises NDA.
69.
Zebra was aware of Plaintiffs dealings with NFL Enterprises under the Lynx-
NFL Enterprises NDA.

70.
Under the Lynx-NFL Enterprises NDA, Plaintiffs tested the IsoLynx System at
the New England Patriots practice facility in Foxborough, Massachusetts on October 5-7, 2010.
The testing went well, and NFL Enterprises showed an interest in entering into an arrangement
where it would obtain rights to use the IsoLynx System to obtain statistical data on NFL players.
71.
Following the testing on October 5-7, 2010, Plaintiffs continued to develop the
IsoLynx System.
72.
In October 2011, NFL Enterprises contacted Plaintiffs regarding the status of the
IsoLynx System. On October 6, 2011, Plaintiffs demonstrated the IsoLynx System to NFL
Enterprises at Andover (Massachusetts) High School under the Lynx-NFL Enterprises NDA.
Two employees of NFL Enterprises Noah Fischbach, Vice President, Emerging Products &
Technology and Vishal Shah, Vice President, Digital Media attended the demonstration. The
demonstration went well, and NFL Enterprises again expressed interest in obtaining rights to use
the IsoLynx System to obtain statistical data on NFL players.
- 17 -
73.
On November 10, 2011, Messrs. Fischbach and Shah visited Lynxs offices in
Haverhill, Massachusetts to obtain additional information, including proprietary and confidential

technical and financial information, about the IsoLynx System.
Plaintiffs confidentially
provided this information to Messrs. Fischbach and Shah under the Lynx-NFL Enterprises NDA.
74.
The NFL thereafter requested a game day test of the IsoLynx System. That test
was conducted in connection with the 2012 East-West Shrine Game in Tampa, Florida.
75.
At the 2012 East-West Shrine Game test, the IsoLynx System did not function as
intended because RF transmissions from wireless broadcast cameras and other sources in the
stadium interfered with the Zebra Dart receivers that were used in the IsoLynx System.
76.
Plaintiffs contacted ZES regarding the RF interference with the Zebra Dart
receivers experienced at the 2012 East-West Shrine Game test.

77.
In response, ZES indicated that the Zebra Dart receivers could not operate in the
presence of powerful RF interferers.

78.
ZES suggested that the only way to avoid RF interference with the Zebra Dart
receivers was to remove the RF interferers from the environment. Neither ZES nor any other
Zebra company was able to offer any technical solution to allow the Zebra Dart receivers to
operate properly in televised NFL or other sports games where wireless broadcast cameras are
used.
79.
Because wireless broadcast cameras are one of the powerful RF interferers in an
NFL stadium, ZESs suggestion to remove the interferers (i.e., wireless broadcast cameras) was
not viable.
80.
To address the inability of Zebra Dart receivers to operate properly in the
presence of powerful RF interference, a huge road block to successful commercialization and

market acceptance of the technologies as identified by the 2012 East-West Shrine Game test of
- 18 -
the IsoLynx System, Plaintiffs, without any technical input from Defendants, engineered a
proprietary and confidential solution that allowed the faint signals of the asset tags to be detected
in the hostile RF environment common in game-day NFL stadiums. Plaintiffs solution uses,
among other things, a specialized band pass filter that blocks the powerful RF signals from
interfering devices but allows a faint UWB RF tag signal to pass through. Plaintiffs solution
was highly effective and allowed the IsoLynx System to work in the actual game environments.
To accomplish this solution, Plaintiffs spent substantial monetary and other resources to
purchase specialized test equipment, rented interfering RF equipment and did laborious and
time-consuming iterative testing of the IsoLynx System in the presence of the RF interferers.
The Lynx-ZES Mutual Confidentiality Agreement
81.
Zebra became interested in the array of proprietary and confidential software tools
and firmware algorithms Plaintiffs had developed to install, calibrate and operate the IsoLynx
System and requested access to them.
82.
On February 17, 2012, Lynx and ZES entered into a Mutual Confidentiality
Agreement (the Lynx-ZES Mutual Confidentiality Agreement) to explore the possibility of a

collaborative business relationship with one another. (Exhibit A to the Complaint, Purpose
Section.)
83.
The collaborative business relationship envisioned by Lynx and ZES and as set
forth in the Lynx-ZES Mutual Confidentiality Agreement was for Lynx to use Zebras Dart
components to provide location information for the IsoLynx System.
84.
ZES drafted the Lynx-ZES Mutual Confidentiality Agreement.
85.
The Lynx-ZES Mutual Confidentiality Agreement sets forth the entire agreement
of the parties concerning the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior agreements,
understandings and negotiations between the parties regarding such subject matter.
- 19 -
86.
The Lynx-ZES Mutual Confidentiality Agreement defined Confidential
Information as
information (including formulae, patterns, compilations, programs, devices,
methods, techniques and processes) provided by either party to the other, that
derives economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to,
and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can
obtain economic value from its disclosure or use, and includes, without limitation,
(a) each partys software and other products and works in progress (including
computer software, manuals, and all other materials associated with the use of the
software) as well as all intellectual property rights associated therewith (including
computer software, manuals, and all other materials associated with the use of the
software) as well as all intellectual property rights associated therewith (including
associated with functionality, programming techniques, interface elements, data
manipulation and management methods and formulae represented in, or
demonstrated by the use of, such software products); and (b) information relating
to each partys business affairs, internal operations, personnel, financial matters,
technology, research and development, product plans or offerings, markets, sales
opportunities, or know-how; and (c) any of the foregoing information belonging
to an affiliate of ZES that ZES may disclose to Company .
87.
The IsoLynx System and the technologies and innovations developed and
implemented in the IsoLynx System by Plaintiffs and the details of Plaintiffs dealings with and
prospective business and economic relationship with the NFL fell within the definition of
Confidential Information set forth in the Lynx-ZES Mutual Confidentiality Agreement.
88.
In the Lynx-ZES Mutual Confidentiality Agreement, ZES agreed to maintain
and preserve the confidentiality of [Lynxs] Confidential Information; to disclose [Lynxs]

Confidential Information to only those of its employees, independent contractors and/or advisors
who are bound by written agreement or professional obligation to preserve the confidentiality of
such Confidential Information upon terms substantially in conformance with the terms of [the
Lynx-ZES Mutual Confidentiality Agreement]; and to use [Lynxs] Confidential Information
solely in connection with evaluating whether to engage in a collaborative business relationship
with [Lynx] and in pursuit of the purposes of such relationship.
- 20 -
89.
Furthermore, ZES agreed that it shall not otherwise use or exploit [Lynxs]
Confidential Information for its own benefit or purposes, or for the benefit or purposes of any
third party.
90.
The term of the Lynx-ZES Mutual Confidentiality Agreement extended until the
conclusion of the parties proposed collaborative business relationship, unless sooner terminated
by either party upon thirty (30) days advance written notice.
91.
In the Lynx-ZES Mutual Confidentiality Agreement, [t]he obligations of
confidentiality and limited use survive for a period of five (5) years from the date of such
termination.
92.
The Lynx-ZES Mutual Confidentiality Agreement further states that
Each party agrees that money damages would be inadequate compensation for
breach of th[e] Agreement. Accordingly, each party hereby consents in advance
to the entry of equitable relief by a court of competent jurisdiction (including an
injunction that enjoins the breaching party from disclosing or using the Disclosing
Partys Confidential Information) to enforce the terms hereof. Such remedies are
in addition to any other remedies available at law or equity.
93.
Thereafter, and pursuant to the Lynx-ZES Mutual Confidentiality Agreement,
Plaintiffs disclosed to Zebra, inventions, trade secrets and other proprietary and confidential
information and know-how related to the design, structure, function, operation and capabilities of
the IsoLynx System, the technologies and innovations used and implemented in the IsoLynx
System, and the business opportunity with the NFL.2
94.
On February 21, 2012, Belinda Turner and Bill Bulzoni of Zebra visited Lynxs
facilities. At this time, Ms. Turner was Director of RFID Engineering RTLS (RFID is an
Hereinafter, the IsoLynx System, the inventions, trade secrets and other proprietary and
confidential information and know-how embodied therein, and Plaintiffs dealings with and
prospective business relationship with the NFL may be referred to collectively as Protected
Information.
- 21 -
acronym for radio frequency identification and RTLS is an acronym for real time location
systems), and Mr. Bulzoni was Director, RFID Business Development.
95.
During the February 21, 2012 meeting with Ms. Turner and Mr. Bulzoni,
Plaintiffs disclosed inventions, trade secrets and proprietary and other confidential information
and know-how related to the IsoLynx System and details of their business opportunity with the
NFL.
96.
Plaintiffs disclosures to Ms. Turner and Mr. Bulzoni at the February 21, 2012,
meeting was made under the Lynx-ZES Mutual Confidentiality Agreement.

97.
At the February 21, 2012, meeting, Ms. Turner and Mr. Bulzoni indicated that
they were very impressed with the IsoLynx System and requested a follow-up meeting.
98.
On February 28, 2012, Plaintiffs participated in a Web meeting with Ms. Turner
during which Plaintiffs provided additional inventions, trade secrets and other proprietary and
confidential information and know-how related to the IsoLynx System.
99.
Plaintiffs disclosure of its trade secrets and proprietary and confidential
information during the February 28, 2012, Web meeting with Ms. Turner was made pursuant to
the Lynx-ZES Mutual Confidentiality Agreement.
100.
Following the February 28, 2012, Web meeting, Ms. Turner contacted Mr.
Evansen of Plaintiffs and stated that she, as Zebras Director of RFID Engineering, was
extremely impressed and excited about the IsoLynx System and its technologies and that she had
never seen anything like the IsoLynx System and its capabilities. Ms. Turner also told Mr.
Evansen that Zebra needed to have access to the IsoLynx System and its technologies.
101.
In follow-up conversations arranged by Zebra under the Lynx-ZES Mutual
Confidentiality Agreement, Plaintiffs confidentially disclosed additional trade secrets and other
proprietary and confidential information and know-how about the IsoLynx System to Zebra
- 22 -
engineers and management, including Plaintiffs modifications to off-the-shelf Dart tags, details
about the improved band pass filters Lynx had developed for use in the IsoLynx System and
functional capabilities of the IsoLynx System.
102.
Zebra personnel attended Plaintiffs testing of the IsoLynx System during the
December 23, 2012 NFL regular season game between the Miami Dolphins and the Buffalo Bills
at Sun Life Stadium in Miami.
103.
At the December 23, 2012, NFL regular season game at Sun Life Stadium in
Miami, Zebra personnel obtained additional trade secrets and other proprietary and confidential
information and know-how about the IsoLynx System and about the business opportunity with
the NFL under the Lynx-ZES Mutual Confidentiality Agreement.
The Lynx-Sportvision NDA
104.
In March 2012, Plaintiffs contacted Sportvision regarding a potential
collaboration in which the IsoLynx System would be integrated with Sportvisions virtual
imaging technology to provide an end-to-end player tracking and virtual imaging solution for
NFL games.
105.
On March 7, 2012, Lynx and Sportvision entered into a Nondisclosure Agreement
(the Lynx-Sportvision NDA) [i]n connection with discussions and/or negotiations between
the Parties regarding how they can work together to provide Real Time Player and Object
Tracking using RF Technology and a demonstration of Lynxs RF Real Time Player and Object
Tracking System.
106.
The Lynx-Sportvision NDA stated:
The demonstration of Lynxs RF Real Time Player and Object Tracking System
will include describing and demonstrating the logistics, deployment and
performance of Lynxs RF Real Time Player and Object Tracking System from a
users point of view. Lynx shall not disclose to Sportvision under this
Agreement, and will not receive any protection under this Agreement for, any
- 23 -
source code, schematic diagrams or other engineering documents for Lynxs RF

Real Time Player and Object Tracking System.
107.
The original term of the Lynx-Sportvision NDA was six months from March 7
2012, but the term was extended twice first to October 22, 2012, and then to November 15,
2012.
108.
On May 7, 2012, Plaintiffs successfully demonstrated the IsoLynx System to
Sportvision at Andover (Massachusetts) High School under the Lynx-Sportvision NDA.

109.
Zebra was aware of the Lynx-Sportvision NDA and Plaintiffs dealings with
Sportvision under the Lynx-Sportvision NDA.

Testing of the IsoLynx System and the IsoLynx-Sportvision Collaboration Agreement
110.
From July 24, 2012, to August 4, 2012, Plaintiffs, NFL Enterprises and
Sportvision tested the IsoLynx System with integrated Sportvision virtual imaging technology at
Sun Life Stadium in Miami under the Lynx-NFL Enterprises NDA and the Lynx-Sportvision
NDA.
On July 24, 2012, Sun Life Stadium was surveyed, and the integrated IsoLynx
System/Sportvision visual imaging technology was installed in the stadium on August 1-2, 2012.
On August 3, 2012, the integrated IsoLynx System/Sportvision visual imaging technology was
tested in the vacant stadium.
The integrated IsoLynx System/Sportvision visual imaging
technology was further tested on Miami Dolphins players during a scrimmage on August 4,
2012.
111.
The July 24 to August 4, 2012, testing in Miami went well, and NFL Enterprises
requested additional tests for the Miami Dolphins two home preseason games on August 10 and
August 24, 2012, and the Miami Dolphins first home game of the regular season on September
16, 2012.
- 24 -
112.
During the Miami Dolphins August 10, 2012, preseason game, Plaintiffs tested
whether the IsoLynx System would interfere with stadium game-day systems and whether the
IsoLynx System would provide accurate information throughout a game. Although no players
were tagged, tags were placed around the perimeter of the field. The testing was successful.
113.
Following the August 10, 2012, preseason game, Plaintiffs experimented with re-
works of the tags to achieve a smaller overall profile and stable and robust mechanics to
withstand the rigors of an NFL game with Zebras knowledge, consent and encouragement. This
experimentation was a time-consuming, trial and error process. After many iterations and field
tests, Plaintiffs developed modified tags that met the NFLs requirements of a smaller overall
profile, a water resistant assembly and suitable mechanics.
114.
In the August 24, 2012, preseason game, a limited number of football players
were tagged, with two players wearing tags that had been reworked by Plaintiffs specifically for
use in American football. The testing was successful.
115.
Following the August 24, 2012, preseason game, Plaintiffs continued their
development and testing of re-worked tags and improved hardware band pass filters for
integration into Zebra receivers. For example, Plaintiffs rented a broadcast camera transmitter to
simulate the radiofrequency environment in NFL stadiums and compared the performance of
Zebra receivers with and without the hardware band pass filters. This testing showed that the
receivers with the improved hardware band pass filters worked, while the off-the-shelf
receivers without the improved hardware band pass filters did not work.
116.
On or around September 5 and 6, 2012, and pursuant to the Lynx-ZES Mutual
Confidentiality Agreement, Plaintiffs reported the results of their testing to Zebra.
In a
September 5, 2012, email to Belinda Turner and Ed Richley of Zebra, Ed Evansen of Plaintiffs
stated:
- 25 -
We have just completed stadium level system testing incorporating our new
bandpass filters to deal with wireless broadcast cameras and other high powered
interferers. We can now withstand wireless camera transmitter units in the
environment. If you recall, any wireless camera in the environment would cause
all receivers to peg and completely paralyze the system. With our bandpass filters
installed the system performance is identical with wireless cameras on/off.
117.
In response to Mr. Evansens September 5, 2012, email, Ms. Turner of Zebra
acknowledged the difficulty in immunizing the Zebra receivers from RF interferers, the inability
of Zebra to provide a technical solution to the problem and to achieve the desired outcome, and
requested further details on Plaintiffs solutions to the problem.
118.
In response to Ms. Turner, Mr. Evansen provided further details to Zebra under
the Lynx-ZES Mutual Confidentiality Agreement.

119.
During the Miami Dolphins first home regular season game on September 16,
2012, 31 Dolphins players were tagged.
The testing used new firmware filter algorithms
conceived, created and developed by Plaintiffs and receivers with hardware band pass filters.
The testing was successful. As a result, NFL Enterprises requested that testing of the IsoLynx
System continue at Sun Life Stadium for the remainder of the NFLs 2012 regular season.
120.
On September 27, 2012, Mr. Evansen met with Ms. Turner and other Zebra
engineers, including Santiago Romero, Product Manager, and Ed Richley, Chief Scientist
RTLS.
121.
During the September 27, 2012, meeting, Mr. Evansen confidentially disclosed to
Ms. Turner and Messrs. Romero and Richley trade secrets and other proprietary and confidential
information and know-how related to the IsoLynx System.
122.
During the September 27, 2012, meeting, Mr. Evansen showed Ms. Turner and
Messrs. Romero and Richley how the IsoLynx System worked and the proprietary technologies
used in the system, including the latest anti-jitter and reality filtering algorithms; Plaintiffs
- 26 -
combined hardware/software solution for managing the player tagging process using the Tag
Manager running on a mobile platform; and the methods Plaintiffs used for system redundancy,
including automated RJ45 switching banks to replace bad system elements, such as receivers and
processing hubs, in real time.
123.
During the September 27, 2012, meeting with Ms. Turner and Messrs. Romero
and Richley, Mr. Evansen also provided detailed descriptions of how proprietary and
confidential IsoLynx software tools were used to determine the most appropriate locations for
various IsoLynx System elements and the proprietary and confidential IsoLynx tools used for
adjusting and optimizing field coverage, identifying and dealing with environmental issues and
balancing load to maximize overall system bandwidth.
124.
Mr. Evansens disclosure of information to Ms. Turner and Messrs. Romero and
Richley at the September 27, 2012, meeting was made under and was governed by the Lynx-ZES
Mutual Confidentiality Agreement.
125.
At the request of Ms. Turner and Messrs. Romero and Richley, Mr. Evansen
provided some of the same trade secret and other proprietary and confidential information and
know-how that was disclosed at the September 27, 2012, meeting to Tim Harrington, Zebras
Vice President, Product Management RTLS.
126.
Mr. Evansens disclosure of information to Mr. Harrington at the request of Ms.
Turner and Messrs. Romero and Richley was made under and was governed by the Lynx-ZES
127.
The information provided to Mr. Harrington by Mr. Evansen was for Mr.
Harringtons use at a Zebra internal, confidential presentation to Zebras senior management.
- 27 -
128.
Plaintiffs subsequently developed and integrated filtering algorithms into the
IsoLynx System. These algorithms enhanced the anti-jitter and reality filtering algorithms by
causing the real-time output data to appear more natural.
129.
On October 24, 2012, under the Lynx-ZES Mutual Confidentiality Agreement,
Mr. Evansen provided Mr. Romero with additional trade secrets and other proprietary and
confidential information for the design of tags to track players and objects (such as footballs).
Mr. Romero requested this information to prepare himself and other Zebra technical staff for a
conference call that same day.
130.
During a conference call on October 24, 2012, with Mr. Romero and other Zebra
technical staff, Mr. Evansen described Plaintiffs tag designs, including designs to attach tags to
shoulder pads, in detail.
131.
Mr. Evansens disclosures during the October 24, 2012, conference call with Mr.
Romero and other Zebra technical staff were made under and were governed by the Lynx-ZES
132.
On October 25, 2012, Mr. Romero informed Mr. Evansen that Mr. Harringtons
internal presentation about the IsoLynx System had sparked significant interest in the IsoLynx
System within Zebras senior management.
133.
At the request of Mr. Bulzoni of Zebra, from October 29, 2012, to November 7,
2012, Mr. Evansen and Lynxs Director of Marketing, Giles Norton, helped Mr. Bulzoni prepare
a confidential Briefing Deck for Jill Stelfox, the new Vice President and General Manager of
Zebras RTLS division.
134.
The information provided by Messrs. Evansen and Norton to Mr. Bulzoni from
October 29, 2012, to November 7, 2012, and incorporated into the confidential Briefing Deck for
- 28 -
Ms. Stelfox was provided under and governed by the Lynx-ZES Mutual Confidentiality
Agreement.
135.
The confidential Briefing Deck of Zebra acknowledges that the IsoLynx System
used customized software, firmware, and hardware that includes RF filters, an IsoLynx data
processing unit, and Lynx-developed data sanitizing algorithms, and that the IsoLynx solution
produces accurate Player position coordinates in Real Time.
136.
Furthermore, the confidential Briefing Deck includes an IsoLynx Solution
Overview that shows how the IsoLynx System is set up in a stadium; an IsoLynx Solution
Vision that shows Plaintiffs modifications to the Zebra receivers and tags and the IsoLynx
customized 19 rack-mount housing containing custom built computers for Real Time data
processing, broadcast quality networking, and robotic camera control.
137.
The confidential Briefing Deck states that the Intent of Lynx and Zebra is: To
create a strategic partnership whereby Zebras Dart UWB technology provides location
information that enables Lynx System Developers IsoLynx solution.
138.
The confidential Briefing Deck refers to Direct and Indirect monetary and
non-monetary benefits, including [m]arketing and PR benefits provided by NFL relationship.

139.
The confidential Briefing Deck also includes photos of the modified tags Lynx
developed for use in the IsoLynx System.

140.
On November 11, 2012, all of the Miami Dolphins players were tagged for their
game against the Tennessee Titans. Plaintiffs used their updated firmware filtering algorithms in
connection with the tags that were used. The testing was successful.
141.
On or around November 15, 2012, the confidential Briefing Deck was presented
to Ms. Stelfox and other Zebra senior management.
- 29 -
142.
Mr. Bulzoni reported to Mr. Evansen that the presentation of the confidential
Briefing Deck to Ms. Stelfox was well received.

143.
On November 27, 2012, and pursuant to the Lynx-NFL Enterprises NDA,
Plaintiffs tested their tag management system on the shoulder pads used by all of the football
players at the New England Patriots equipment facility in Foxborough, Massachusetts.
Plaintiffs used their newly developed, proprietary and confidential tag management software to
automate the installation of tags and to create the necessary team/player/tag association files.
The testing was successful.
144.
On December 1, 2012, IsoLynx entered into a Collaboration Agreement with
Sportvision (the IsoLynx-Sportvision Collaboration Agreement).

145.
In connection with the IsoLynx-Sportvision Collaboration Agreement, IsoLynx
and Sportvision had collaborated on the development and marketing of a seamless end-to-end
tracking and data generation system that integrates the IsoLynx System and the Sportvision
System into an Integrated Systemthat can deliver real-time sports tracking data, power
coaching solutions and media applications, and have been successfully testing the Integrated
System in NFL games[.]
Furthermore, under the IsoLynx-Sportvision Collaboration
Agreement, the parties intended for Sportvision to act as IsoLynxs exclusive marketing and
sales conduit in certain professional sports and territories, and IsoLynx will act as Sportvisions
exclusive partner to track athletes in specific sports[.]
146.
The IsoLynx-Sportvision Collaboration Agreement describes the IsoLynx
Tracking System Components and Infrastructure, including Standard and Modified active
tags for players and/or objects; [t]ags for system reference calibration; Standard and
Enhanced UWB receivers; and the IsoLynx Positioning Tracking Unit that [c]onnects to all
UWB receivers, computes tag position data from raw receiver data, performs algorithm based
- 30 -
filtering and modeling, and outputs conditioned position data in response to an internal or
external output trigger mechanism event. The IsoLynx-Sportvision Collaboration Agreement
also protected the confidentiality of and Plaintiffs intellectual property rights related to the
IsoLynx System.
147.
Zebra was aware of the IsoLynx-Sportvision Collaboration Agreement.
148.
Zebra was aware of Plaintiffs dealings with Sportvision and NFL Enterprises in
connection with the IsoLynx-Sportvision Collaboration Agreement.

149.
On December 2, 2012, and under the Lynx-NFL Enterprises NDA, Plaintiffs
tested the IsoLynx System on every player on both teams in a game between the Miami Dolphins
and the New England Patriots at Sun Trust Stadium in Miami. This was the first NFL game in
which every player was tagged.
Plaintiffs used their newly developed, proprietary and
confidential firmware filtering algorithms.
The testing was hugely successful, and NFL
Enterprises indicated that it wanted to move forward with a plan to use the IsoLynx System in all
31 NFL stadiums and in every game of the NFLs 2013 regular season.
150.
After the December 2, 2012, NFL game, Plaintiffs sent their modified tags to
Zebra for an engineering evaluation that would evaluate the signal transmission from the tags to
see if Plaintiffs modifications compromised tag transmission characteristics.
151.
Plaintiffs sent their modified tags to Zebra for engineering evaluation after the
December 2, 2012 NFL game pursuant to the Lynx-ZES Mutual Confidentiality Agreement.
152.
On December 16, 2012, Plaintiffs tested the IsoLynx System at an NFL game
between the Miami Dolphins and the Jacksonville Jaguars at Sun Trust Stadium in Miami. All
of the players on both teams were tagged, and the testing was successful.
153.
On December 19, 2012, at the request of NFL Enterprises under the Lynx-NFL
Enterprises NDA, Plaintiffs used their proprietary and confidential technology to create player
- 31 -
statistics, including player identification, the number of plays per player and yards traveled on
per-quarter and per-game bases, from the data obtained from the IsoLynx System during the
previous NFL games. NFL Enterprises verified that these statistics were 100% correct.
154.
Thereafter, NFL Enterprises indicated to Plaintiffs that it wanted to replace its
Game Statistics & Information System. Accordingly, NFL Enterprises asked Plaintiffs to use
their proprietary and confidential software to produce reports of NFL games that included each
game broken down into individual drives; each drive broken down into individual plays; the
distance traveled by each player on each play; the maximum velocity of each player on each
play; the distance traveled by each player while on the field; video clips for specific plays; and
quarter and game summaries for both teams. From December 20, 2012, to mid-February 2013,
Plaintiffs performed these tasks under the Lynx-NFL Enterprises NDA.
155.
Zebra was aware of Plaintiffs aforementioned activities with respect to the
production of reports of NFL games, which were performed from December 20, 2012, to midFebruary 2013.
156.
On December 23, 2012, Plaintiffs tested the IsoLynx System, with Sportvision
virtual imaging technology, under the Lynx-NFL Enterprises NDA during a game between the
Miami Dolphins and the Buffalo Bills at Sun Trust Stadium in Miami. Only the Dolphins
players were tagged. For the first time, Plaintiffs demonstrated the tracking of game objects,
such as down markers and the first down chains by adding tags to those objects.
157.
Zebra employees Belinda Turner and Bill Bulzoni attended the December 23,
2012, NFL game between the Buffalo Bills and the Miami Dolphins.
158.
Cynthia Traeger, a Zebra consultant and close business associate of Ms. Stelfox,
also attended the December 23, 2012, Bills versus Dolphins game for Zebra.
- 32 -
159.
Ms. Turner, Mr. Bulzoni and Ms. Traeger sat with Ed Evansen, Noah Fischbach
and Vishal Shah in the control room to monitor the IsoLynx System.
160.
The testing of the IsoLynx System at the December 23, 2012, Bills versus
Dolphins game was highly successful.

161.
Ms. Turner was very impressed with the IsoLynx System at the December 23,
2013, Bills versus Dolphins game.

162.
No Zebra employee or consultant contributed to or participated in any of the work
done to set up or to conduct testing of the IsoLynx System at the December 23, 2012, Bills
versus Dolphins game, or any prior NFL game.
163.
On December 28, 2012, Plaintiffs removed the IsoLynx System from Sun Trust
Stadium.
164.
Based on its assessment of the IsoLynx System under the Lynx-NFL Enterprises
NDA, including the operation and performance of the IsoLynx System during the 2012 NFL
season, NFL Enterprises determined that it wanted to deploy the IsoLynx System for NFL
games.
165.
On December 31, 2012, Mr. Fischbach requested a meeting between NFL
Enterprises, Plaintiffs and Zebra to discuss the details and logistics of deploying Plaintiffs
IsoLynx System during the next NFL season.
166.
At the request of Plaintiffs, Sportvision was later invited to the meeting that was
requested by Mr. Fischbach.

167.
The meeting requested by Mr. Fischbach on December 31, 2012, took place on
January 11, 2013.

168.
Prior to the January 11, 2013, meeting, at the request of Zebra and under the
Lynx-ZES Mutual Confidentiality Agreement, Plaintiffs confidentially sent Zebra additional

- 33 -
trade secrets and other proprietary and confidential information and know-how about the
IsoLynx System, including modified tags from the December 23, 2012, game between the
Dolphins and the Bills and data and specifications for RJ45 relay banks for use in implementing
redundancy in the IsoLynx System.
169.
On January 10, 2013, Zebra provided to Plaintiffs a Lynx/Zebra Engineering
Review that reported on the performance of the modified tags from the December 23, 2012
game between the Dolphins and the Bills, which had been re-engineered by Plaintiffs with
Zebras knowledge, consent and encouragement.
170.
The Lynx/Zebra Engineering Review was provided under the Lynx-ZES

171.
On January 11, 2013, a meeting was held between Plaintiffs, Zebra, NFL
Enterprises and Sportvision. Ed Evansen and Doug DeAngelis attended for Plaintiffs. Jill
Stelfox, Ed Richley, Belinda Turner, Cynthia Traeger and one additional person attended for
Zebra. Noah Fischbach, Vishal Shah, Josh Helmrich, Matt Swensson and David Healy attended
for NFL Enterprises. Jeff Jonas, Mike Jakob and Hank Adams attended for Sportvision.
172.
The January 11, 2013, meeting was subject to Plaintiffs existing agreements with
Zebra, NFL Enterprises and Sportvision, specifically the provisions in those agreements that
addressed the handling and disclosure of confidential or proprietary information.
173.
Zebra, through Ms. Stelfox and other Zebra employees and officers, repeatedly
and, as it turned out, falsely represented to Plaintiffs that Zebra was acting in good faith and
fairly in its dealings with Plaintiffs, that Zebra had no intention to injure or cause other harm to
Plaintiffs and that Zebra intended to honor and fulfill its contractual and fiduciary obligations to
Plaintiffs.
- 34 -
174.
For example, on January 29, 2013, Ms. Stelfox represented to Messrs. Evansen
and DeAngelis via telephone that Zebra would not provide a real time player tracking system to
the NFL without Plaintiffs.
175.
Plaintiffs relied on Ms. Stelfoxs representation made on January 29, 2013.
176.
On February 5, 2013, Ms. Stelfox represented to Mr. Evansen via telephone that
cutting out Plaintiffs would be the wrong thing to do and it would make no business sense to
derail a train which is in full motion.
177.
Again, Plaintiffs relied on Ms. Stelfoxs representation made on February 5, 2013.
178.
In proceeding with their discussions and dealings with Zebra in the following
months, Plaintiffs relied upon the overall and individual representations made by Ms. Stelfox,
including those made on January 29, 2013, February 5, 2013 and March 29, 2013.
179.
At the time Ms. Stelfox made the statements identified in paragraphs 173, 174 and
176, and contrary to her representations to Plaintiffs, Zebra was engaged in secret discussions
with NFL Enterprises for Zebra to provide, without Plaintiffs participation, a real time player
tracking system that used Plaintiffs trade secrets and other proprietary and confidential
information and know-how.
180.
At or around the time that Ms. Stelfox made the statements identified in
paragraphs 173, 174 and 176, contrary to her representations to Plaintiffs, Zebra was secretly
engaged in its preparation to cut out Plaintiffs from providing a real time player tracking system
to the NFL that was based on Plaintiffs innovations and technologies and to claim as
Defendants own intellectual property Plaintiffs trade secrets and other proprietary and
confidential information disclosed to Zebra confidentially, including seeking to file patent
applications on such trade secrets and proprietary and confidential information and know-how.
- 35 -
181.
As the Vice President and General Manager of Zebras RTLS division, and
because of her involvement in the discussions and dealings between Plaintiffs and Zebra with
respect to Plaintiffs trade secrets and other proprietary and confidential information and knowhow, Ms. Stelfox knew that, contrary to her representations and assurances, Zebra was engaged
in discussions with NFL Enterprises for Zebra to provide, without Plaintiffs participation, a real
time player tracking system that used Plaintiffs trade secrets and other proprietary and
confidential information and know-how.
Zebras Attempt to Acquire IsoLynx
182.
On February 11, 2013, Ms. Stelfox telephoned Mr. Evansen and told him that she
had spoken with Zebras board of directors about the IsoLynx System and the business
opportunity with NFL Enterprises and that Zebra wanted to acquire IsoLynx, including the
IsoLynx System, including Plaintiffs inventions, trade secrets and other proprietary and
confidential information and know-how used in the system.
183.
When Mr. Evansen mentioned IsoLynxs obligations under the IsoLynx-
Sportvision Collaboration Agreement during the February 11, 2013, telephone call, Ms. Stelfox
responded that the agreement could be circumvented through an asset-only purchase or,
alternatively, Zebra would abide by the agreement.
184.
On February 12, 2013, Ms. Stelfox telephoned Mr. Evansen and told him that
Zebra wanted to provide terms for an acquisition of IsoLynx.

185.
On February 14, 2013, Ms. Stelfox told Mr. Evansen that although Zebra was
prepared to provide terms for an acquisition of IsoLynx, Zebra first needed to see a copy of the
IsoLynx-Sportvision Collaboration Agreement.
186.
Mr. Evansen responded that he would need to investigate whether he was
authorized to provide a copy of the IsoLynx-Sportvision Collaboration Agreement to Zebra.

- 36 -
187.
On February 15, 2013, Mr. Evansen told Ms. Stelfox that, under a separate non-
disclosure agreement that would govern discussions regarding Zebras potential acquisition of
IsoLynx, Plaintiffs would provide Zebra with a copy of the IsoLynx-Sportvision Collaboration
Agreement with the financial information redacted.
188.
Ms. Stelfox agreed to Mr. Evansens proposal with respect to the provision of the
redacted IsoLynx-Sportvision Collaboration Agreement under a non-disclosure agreement.

189.
Mr. Evansen sent Ms. Stelfox a Mutual Non-Disclosure Agreement between ZTC
and IsoLynx (the IsoLynx-ZTC NDA) for the purpose of disclosing information for the
contemplated acquisition of IsoLynx by Zebra.
190.
Ms. Stelfox executed the IsoLynx-ZTC NDA on behalf of ZTC. Mr. Evansen
executed the IsoLynx-ZTC NDA on behalf of IsoLynx.

191.
The IsoLynx-ZTC NDA states that
[w]ithout the prior written consent of Disclosing Party and except as otherwise
required by applicable law, Receiving Party shall keep, and shall cause its
Representatives to keep, all Proprietary Information of Disclosing Party
confidential . Receiving Party shall not, and shall cause its Representatives to
not, use any Proprietary Information of Disclosing Party for the benefit of itself or
any other third party or for any purpose other than to evaluate the Proposed
Transaction or in connection with the consummation of the Proposed Transaction.
192.
The IsoLynx-ZTC NDA defines Proprietary Information to mean
any and all confidential information and material disclosed by one party to the
other party in connection with the Proposed Transaction or in the course of either
partys evaluation of the Proposed Transactioninclud[ing] the fact that
discussions or negotiations are taking place concerning the Proposed Transaction
or the fact of the Proposed Transaction or that any Proprietary Information has
been shared between the parties and their respective Representatives in
connection therewith, and the proposed terms and conditions of the Proposed
Transaction (including any financial terms and conditions) and the status thereof.
193.
The IsoLynx-ZTC NDA states that [a]s between Disclosing Party and Receiving
Party, all Proprietary Information (including, without limitation, all copies, extracts and portions
- 37 -
thereof) is and shall remain the sole property of Disclosing Party. Receiving Party does not
acquire (by license or otherwise, whether express or implied) any intellectual property rights or
other rights under this Agreement or any disclosure hereunder, except the limited right to use
such Proprietary Information of Disclosing Party in accordance with the express provisions of
this Agreement.
194.
The IsoLynx-ZTC NDA states that Receiving Party agrees that, due to the
unique nature of the Proprietary Information, the unauthorized disclosure or use of the
Proprietary Information may cause irreparable harm and significant injury to Disclosing Party,
the extent of which will be difficult to ascertain and for which there may be no adequate remedy
at law. Accordingly, Receiving Party agrees that Disclosing Party, in addition to any other
available remedies, shall have the right to an immediate injunction and other equitable relief
enjoining any breach or threatened breach of this Agreement, without the necessity of posting
any bond or other security.
195.
On February 18, 2013, and under the IsoLynx-ZTC NDA, Mr. Evansen sent Ms.
Stelfox a copy of the IsoLynx-Sportvision Collaboration Agreement with the financial

information redacted.
196.
On February 21, 2013, Ms. Stelfox made a verbal offer to Mr. Evansen for Zebra
to acquire IsoLynx.
197.
Ms. Stelfoxs offer was far under the value of IsoLynx and, thus, it was rejected.
198.
In response to Mr. Evansens rejection of Ms. Stelfoxs February 21, 2013 verbal
offer, Ms. Stelfox agreed to provide a revised offer.

199.
On February 28, 2013, Ms. Stelfox telephoned Mr. Evansen and told him that
although she did not have a revised offer for Zebra to acquire IsoLynx, Mr. Evansen should
provide a proposal on behalf of IsoLynx for its acquisition.
- 38 -
200.
On March 5, 2013, Mr. Evansen provided a verbal proposal to Ms. Stelfox for
Zebra to acquire IsoLynx.

201.
Ms. Stelfox told Mr. Evansen that she would need to submit his March 5, 2013,
verbal proposal to Zebras board of directors for approval. Neither Ms. Stelfox nor any other
Zebra executive ever provided a counter-offer or any other type of response. Instead, Defendants
decided to take from Plaintiffs without any compensation, rather than acting in good faith and
paying for Plaintiffs inventions and technologies and the business opportunities created by
Plaintiffs, and embarked on a plan to cut out Plaintiffs through subterfuge and fraudulent
representations and misrepresentations.
202.
On March 7, 2013, Sportvision proposed a meeting between Sportvision, Zebra
and Plaintiffs to discuss a collaborative approach to working with NFL Enterprises. The meeting
was scheduled for March 15, 2013.
Zebras Scheme to Take the IsoLynx System and Cut Out Plaintiffs
203.
Rather than working with Plaintiffs in good-faith and fulfilling its fiduciary and
contractual obligations owed to Plaintiffs or acquiring the IsoLynx System and the associated
inventions and technologies created and developed by IsoLynx through legitimate means, Zebra
schemed to take the IsoLynx System and the associated inventions and technologies for itself
(without the need to pay Plaintiffs for them) and cut out Plaintiffs from the business opportunity
with the NFL and reaping any direct or indirect benefits from associating with the NFL and other
prospective business partners or customers as Plaintiffs contemplated.
204.
Zebras scheme, unbeknownst to Plaintiffs at the time Zebra was planning and
executing the scheme, included admittedly fabricating allegations that Lynx breached the ZESLynx Solutions Agreement and the ZES-Lynx OEM Agreement such that Plaintiffs could not
acquire and use Dart components for the IsoLynx System as contemplated in those agreements.
- 39 -
Zebra also schemed to poison and irreparably harm Plaintiffs relationship with Sportvision, such
that Plaintiffs and Sportvision could not provide an integrated real-time player tracking system as
planned.
205.
In a March 8, 2013, letter to Mr. Evansen, Ms. Stelfox falsely asserted that the
IsoLynx-Sportvision Collaboration Agreement can be read to evidence the direct disclosure to

Sportvision of sensitive Zebra confidential information and confidential technology[,] which
purportedly constituted a breach of the ZES-Lynx Solutions Agreement.
206.
In her March 8, 2013, letter, Ms. Stelfox also asserted that Zebra was entitled to
terminate the ZES-Lynx Solutions Agreement, but [g]iven what to date we understood was a
strong relationship, we will refrain from immediate termination, to give [Lynx] an opportunity to
address and remove [Zebras] concerns.
207.
In her March 8, 2013, letter, Ms. Stelfox failed to identify what specific sensitive
Zebra confidential information was allegedly disclosed in the IsoLynx-SportVision

Collaboration Agreement.
208.
After sending her March 8, 2013, letter, Mr. Stelfox conveyed to Plaintiffs that
she had an ulterior motive in sending the letter to Plaintiffs, that her letter alleging breach by
Lynx should not be taken at its face value by Plaintiffs and that her letter was sent to achieve
other business objectives of Zebra.
209.
On March 11, 2013, during a telephone conversation with Mr. Evansen, Ms.
Stelfox told Mr. Evansen that her March 8, 2013 letter was part of a plan to artificially force a
termination of the IsoLynx-Sportvision Collaboration Agreement, which Ms. Stelfox and Zebra
believed would then clear the way for Zebra and Plaintiffs to work directly with NFL Enterprises
without Sportvisions participation.
- 40 -
210.
During the March 11, 2013, telephone conversation, Mr. Evansen told Ms. Stelfox
that Plaintiffs would not participate in Zebras proposed subterfuge and he ended the telephone
call.
211.
On March 11, 2013, Mr. Evansen sent Ms. Stelfox a letter stating that, contrary to
Ms. Stelfoxs assertions in her admitted subterfuge March 8, 2013, letter, Lynx had not disclosed
sensitive Zebra confidential information and confidential technology to Sportvision and
providing confirmation that Lynx had complied with the confidentiality provisions in the ZESLynx Solutions Agreement.
212.
On March 13, 2013, Ms. Stelfox provided Mike Jakob at Sportvision a diagram
that falsely suggested that Zebra, and not Plaintiffs, would provide Plaintiffs proprietary and
confidential tag modifications and hardware band pass filter technology.
213.
Through false and misleading representations made separately to Plaintiffs and
Sportvision, Defendants and Ms. Stelfox tried to enlist Plaintiffs on Zebras scheme to cut out
Sporvision and, at the same time, tried to enlist Sportvision on Zebras scheme to cut out
Plaintiffs in the business opportunity of providing a real time player tracking system to the NFL.
214.
Zebra attempted to cut out both Plaintiffs and Sportvision so that it can reap all of
the benefits of the business opportunity of providing a real time player tracking system to the
NFL that was made possible by Plaintiffs inventions, technologies and efforts.
215.
On March 19, 2013, Noah Fischbach of NFL Enterprises reassured Mr. Evansen
that the NFL would not proceed with the real time player tracking system without Plaintiffs and
the IsoLynx technology.
216.
On March 22, 2013, Mr. Evansen called Ms. Stelfox to schedule a meeting
between Plaintiffs and Zebra. The meeting was scheduled for, and took place on, March 27,
2013, in New York.
- 41 -
217.
At the March 27, 2013, meeting between Plaintiffs and Zebra, Cynthia Traeger on
behalf of Zebra, asserted for the first time that the IsoLynx System was no different from
previous technology developed by Zebra, contradicting prior statements made by Zebra.
218.
At no time before the March 27, 2013, meeting had anyone associated with Zebra
made an assertion such as Ms. Traegers assertion. Contrary to Ms. Traegers assertion, Zebra,
up to that point, had repeatedly stated that the IsoLynx System and the inventions that Plaintiffs
had created, developed and implemented for the NFL real-time athlete tracking and game
analysis system were new, valuable and innovative.
219.
On March 29, 2013, Ms. Stelfox sent an email to Mr. Evansen assuring Plaintiffs
I still very much want to figure out a way to work together and referred to the conversation
you and I had about the pieces IsoLynx wants to perform for the NFL including Plaintiffs
helping support stadium prep, the black box, tagging the players and the camera application.
220.
Ms. Stelfoxs representation made on March 29, 2013, was false because
Defendants and their officers and employees, including Ms. Stelfox, had already begun
implementing steps to cut out Plaintiffs from the NFL business opportunity.
221.
On April 18, 2013, contrary to her prior representations and statements, Ms.
Stelfox sent a letter to Mr. Evansen purporting to provide formal notice of immediate
termination of the Zebra-Lynx relationship and, specifically, termination of the ZES-Lynx
Solutions Agreement and the ZES-Lynx OEM Agreement.
222.
In her April 18, 2013, letter to Mr. Evansen, Ms. Stelfox erroneously asserted that
Sportvision just disclosed Zebras confidential discounted pricing to the NFL. Sportvision
obtained this information from Lynx[.] In addition, Ms. Stelfox also erroneously asserted that
Lynx had breached the ZES-Lynx Solutions Agreement and the ZES-Lynx OEM Agreement by
modif[ying] Zebra systems and technology.
- 42 -
223.
Ms. Stelfoxs April 18, 2013, letter was a subterfuge to cut Plaintiffs out of the
business opportunity with the NFL and then use Plaintiffs trade secrets and other proprietary
and confidential information and know-how in and related to the IsoLynx System.
224.
Neither Lynx nor IsoLynx modified any Zebra firmware or Firmware, as
those terms are defined in the ZES-Lynx Solutions Agreement and the ZES-Lynx OEM
Agreement.
225.
To the extent Lynx or IsoLynx modified Zebra Hardware, as that term is
defined in the ZES-Lynx Solutions Agreement and the ZES-Lynx OEM Agreement, such
modifications were made with Zebras knowledge, consent and encouragement in connection
with the Lynx-ZES Mutual Confidentiality Agreement.
226.
Before Ms. Stelfox sent her April 18, 2013, letter to Mr. Evansen, Sportvision
informed Ms. Stelfox that it did not obtain any Zebra pricing information from Plaintiffs or
elsewhere, thus, refuting the subsequent assertion made by Ms. Stelfox.
227.
On April 24, 2013, Mr. DeAngelis wrote to ZTCs CEO, Anders Gustafsson,
regarding the assertions in Ms. Stelfoxs April 18, 2013 letter and to propose a discussion about
repairing the relationship between Plaintiffs and Zebra.
228.
On April 25, 2013, Plaintiffs counsel responded to Ms. Stelfoxs April 18, 2013,
letter, denying any wrongdoing and asking Zebra to provide evidence in support of Ms. Stelfoxs
assertions.
229.
Zebra has failed to produce any evidence that supported the assertions found in
Ms. Stelfoxs April 18, 2013, letter.

230.
On May 3, 2013, during a phone conversation with Mr. DeAngelis, Mr.
Gustafsson denied that Zebra was excluding Plaintiffs from the business opportunity with NFL
- 43 -
Enterprises and made an affirmative representation to Plaintiffs that Zebra was trying to give the
NFL a solution that included IsoLynx.
231.
months, Plaintiffs relied upon the statement made by Mr. Gustafsson on May 3, 2013.
232.
At the time of, and contrary to, Mr. Gustafssons May 3, 2013, statement to
Plaintiffs, Zebra was engaged in secret discussions with NFL Enterprises for Zebra to provide,
without Plaintiffs participation, a real time player tracking system that used Plaintiffs
inventions, trade secrets and other proprietary and confidential information and know-how. At
or around the time of Mr. Gustafssons May 3, 2013, statement, and contrary to his
representation to Plaintiffs, Zebra was secretly engaged in the preparation to cut out Plaintiffs
from providing a real time player tracking system to the NFL that was based on Plaintiffs
inventions and technologies and to claim as Defendants own intellectual property Plaintiffs
inventions, trade secrets and other proprietary and confidential information and know-how
disclosed to Zebra confidentially, including seeking to file patent applications on such
inventions, trade secrets and other proprietary and confidential information and know-how.
233.
As the CEO of ZTC, Mr. Gustafsson knew that Zebra was engaged in discussions
with NFL Enterprises for Zebra to provide, without Plaintiffs participation, a real-time player
tracking system that used Plaintiffs inventions, trade secrets and other proprietary and
234.
During his May 3, 2013, telephone conversation with Mr. DeAngelis, Mr.
Gustafsson also told Mr. DeAngelis that his understanding as the CEO of ZTC was that Plaintiffs
could include Zebras components in the IsoLynx System for other customers.
235.
Contrary to Mr. Gustafssons representation, Zebra refused to supply Dart
components used in the IsoLynx System.

- 44 -
236.
On June 4, 2013, IsoLynxs patent counsel wrote to Zebras Vice President and
General Counsel, Jim Kaput, regarding Defendants obligations not to use or exploit Plaintiffs
inventions, trade secrets and other confidential information and intellectual property and knowhow that had been disclosed under the Lynx-ZES Mutual Confidentiality Agreement, including,
without limitations, information pertaining to:
Modified UWB Real Time Location System Sensor incorporating band-pass
filtering for immunizing against interferers
Modified UWB Real Time Location System Tag to achieve a sufficiently low
profile for mounting in sports equipment
Methods for mounting UWB Real Time Location System Tags in shoulder pads
Software tools for installing diagnosing and optimizing UWB Real Time Location
System in sporting venues
Software tools for managing the team/player/tag/settings relationships in a
sporting application
Methods for real time monitoring of UWB Real Time Location System level
accuracy to insure data integrity
237.
On June 30, 2013, Belinda Turner, Zebras Director, RFID Engineering RTLS,
called Ed Evansen to inquire whether Plaintiffs had had any recent discussions with NFL
Enterprises about the IsoLynx System. Mr. Evansen responded that there had been no such
discussions. Ms. Turner indicated that Zebra was unable to achieve results that were accurate, in
real time and responsive without Plaintiffs IsoLynx technology.
Termination of Plaintiffs Business Relationships
with the NFL and Sportvision as a Result of Zebras Actions
238.
As a result of Ms. Stelfoxs April 18, 2013, letter purportedly terminating the
ZES-Lynx Solutions Agreement and the ZES-Lynx OEM Agreement, Zebra unilaterally stopped
supplying components that it had been supplying for use in the IsoLynx System, specifically
- 45 -
Dart components, pursuant to the ZES-Lynx Solutions Agreement and the ZES-Lynx OEM
Agreement.
239.
Because of Zebras refusal to supply Dart components under the ZES-Lynx
Solutions Agreement and the ZES-Lynx OEM Agreement, until Plaintiffs were able to evaluate,
test, customize and implement other off-the-shelf components from other RFID equipment
suppliers into the IsoLynx System, which is a time-consuming process, Plaintiffs were not able
to provide a fully operational IsoLynx System for customers and potential customers, including
NFL Enterprises and Sportvision.
240.
Specifically, because of Zebras refusal to supply Dart components under the
ZES-Lynx Solutions Agreement and the ZES-Lynx OEM Agreement, again, until Plaintiffs were
able to evaluate, test, customize and implement other off-the-shelf components from other RFID
equipment suppliers into the IsoLynx System, which is a time-consuming process, Plaintiffs
were not able to provide the necessary components for the integrated IsoLynx/Sportvision endto-end tracking and data generation system contemplated by the IsoLynx-Sportvision
Collaboration Agreement.
241.
As a result of Zebras wrongful termination of the ZES-Lynx Solutions
Agreement and the ZES-Lynx OEM Agreement based on unsupported and false assertions and
as part of Zebras admitted subterfuge to artificially force a termination of IsoLynx and
Sportvisions relationship and agreement, the IsoLynx-Sportvision Collaboration Agreement was
terminated in October 2013.
242.
Because of Zebras refusal to supply Dart components under the ZES-Lynx
Solutions Agreement and the ZES-Lynx OEM Agreement, Plaintiffs became unable to provide a
fully operational IsoLynx System to NFL Enterprises for installation and use during NFL
preseason and regular games.
- 46 -
243.
Zebra, without Plaintiffs participation and prior knowledge, installed real-time
player tracking systems in two NFL stadiums for use during the NFLs 2013 preseason games
using Plaintiffs inventions, trade secrets and other proprietary and confidential information and
know-how, usurping Plaintiffs business opportunities and eliminating any meaningful
possibility for Plaintiffs to become the provider of such a system to the NFL.
244.
IsoLynx has sought patent protection for its inventions related to the IsoLynx
System, and these inventions have been described and claimed in patent applications that
published and issued well after Zebras misappropriation and breaches of the Lynx-ZES Mutual
Confidentiality Agreement, which have been assigned to IsoLynx by the developers and/or
inventors of the inventions, trade secrets and other proprietary and confidential information and
know-how. The inventions, trade secrets and other proprietary and confidential information and
know-how related to the IsoLynx System contained in IsoLynxs published patent applications
and issued patents were kept confidential and from public knowledge prior to the publication of
IsoLynxs patent applications by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
Zebras Unlawful Uses of and Benefits From Plaintiffs Inventions,
Trade Secrets and Other Proprietary and Confidential Information and Know-How
245.
Zebra used Plaintiffs inventions, trade secrets and other proprietary and
confidential information and know-how disclosed to Zebra in confidence by Plaintiffs to design,

develop, commercialize and use the Zebra MotionWorksTM real-time player tracking system.
246.
Plaintiffs did not authorize Zebra to use Plaintiffs inventionsk, trade secrets and
other proprietary and confidential information and know-how to design, develop, commercialize
or use the Zebra MotionWorksTM real-time player tracking system.
247.
The Zebra MotionWorksTM system incorporates and uses Plaintiffs inventions,
trade secrets and other proprietary and confidential information and know-how.
- 47 -
248.
Plaintiffs did not authorize Zebra to incorporate or use Plaintiffs inventions, trade
secrets or other proprietary and confidential information and know-how in or in connection with
the Zebra MotionWorksTM system.
249.
Without authorization from Plaintiffs, Zebra has used photographs and
descriptions of Plaintiffs profile modified tags attached to shoulder pads owned by Plaintiffs to
promote the Zebra MotionWorksTM system.
250.
At least some of the same Zebra personnel who obtained and had access to
Plaintiffs inventions, trade secrets and other proprietary and confidential information and knowhow under the Lynx-ZES Mutual Confidentiality Agreement were and/or are responsible for
and/or involved in the design, development, implementation and use of the Zebra
MotionWorksTM system.
251.
Zebra could not have developed a commercially viable real-time player tracking
system without the use and incorporation of Plaintiffs inventions, trade secrets and other
proprietary and confidential information and know-how.
252.
Zebra has reaped, continues to reap, and will reap in the future, substantial
benefits from the use and incorporation of Plaintiffs inventions, trade secrets and other
proprietary and confidential information and know-how in and in connection with the Zebra
MotionWorksTM system.
253.
During the 2013 NFL preseason and regular seasons, Zebra MotionWorksTM was
installed and used for NFL games in Detroit and San Francisco.
254.
In July 2014, Zebra entered into a five-year partnership agreement with the NFL
under which Zebra became The Official On-Field Player-Tracking Provider of the NFL.
Under that agreement, the MotionWorks system will be used in all 31 NFL stadiums, and
Wembley Stadium in London, in the 2015 NFL regular season.
- 48 -
255.
During the 2014 NFL regular season, the Zebra MotionWorksTM system was
installed and used in the 15 stadiums that hosted Thursday Night Football games (the NFL
stadiums located in Atlanta, Baltimore, Carolina (Charlotte), Chicago, Cincinnati, Denver, Green
Bay, Houston, Jacksonville, Miami, New England (Foxborough), Oakland, San Francisco, St.
Louis, and Washington, D.C., as well as in Detroit and New Orleans, and was used to capture
information from all 32 NFL teams.
256.
The Zebra MotionWorksTM was installed and used in the NFLs Pro Bowl Game,
held on January 25, 2015, and Super Bowl XLIX, held on February 1, 2015.
257.
Zebra has entered into agreements with multiple NFL teams for use of the Zebra
MotionWorksTM system during their practices.

258.
Zebra has reaped substantial monetary, marketing and public relations benefits
from its relationship with the NFL based on the Zebra MotionWorksTM system.
259.
For example, Zebras deal with the NFL for the installation and operation of the
Zebra MotionWorksTM system is worth at least $50 million.

260.
Based on the Zebra MotionWorksTM system, Zebra has publicly touted itself, with
the NFL, as Partners in Innovation.

261.
Zebras relationship with the NFL has resulted in additional business and business
opportunities for Zebra, both within and outside sports markets.

262.
Sports leagues other than the NFL have approached Zebra about integrating the
hardware found in the Zebra MotionWorksTM into their own games.

263.
Zebra has provided the Zebra MotionWorksTM system to at least one NCAA
football team and at least one hockey team.

264.
The Zebra MotionWorksTM system has produced growth in Zebras overall RFID
business.
- 49 -
265.
Zebra has received industry awards for the Zebra MotionWorks system. For
example, the Zebra MotionWorks system was a Peoples Choice Winner of the 2014 Internet
of Things Awards by Postscapes, and the Zebra MotionWorks system won a 2015 Sports
Business Award in the category of Best in Sports Technology.
266.
Zebra has touted the very features made possible by Plaintiffs intellectual
property, claiming that the real-time, next generation sports statistics, event and visualization
platform leverages Zebras predictive analytics technology, which Defendants misappropriated
from Plaintiffs.
267.
Defendants have stated that they intend to leverage its business relationship with
the NFL to expand their business in the real-time athlete tracking and game analysis market to
the entire sports world and every sport.
268.
Defendants have benefitted in numerous other ways. One such benefit is the
substantial increase in the valuation of the Zebra stock, which increased from $80.07 per share at
the time of the official announcement of the NFL/Zebra partnership (July 31, 2014) to $109.64
per share on May 29, 2015. The appreciation in the Zebra stock price during that period
(approximately 37%) outperformed the NASDAQ Composite Index (which increased by 16%)
by more than 200% and the S&P 500 Index (which increased by approximately 9.2%) by more
than 400%.
269.
Defendants would not have obtained the above benefits without their unlawful use
and incorporation of Plaintiffs inventions, trade secrets and other proprietary and confidential
information and know-how in and in connection with the MotionWorks system.
Defendants Unlawful Patent Filings
270.
In addition to the unlawful use of Plaintiffs trade secrets and other proprietary
and confidential information in the Zebra MotionWorksTM system, Defendants have unlawfully
- 50 -
misappropriated, used and disclosed Plaintiffs inventions, trade secrets and other proprietary
and confidential information and know-how by incorporating them into filings submitted to the
USPTO.
271.
On June 6, 2013, ZIH filed U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/831,990, titled
Performance Analytics Based on Real-Time Data for Proximity and Movement of Objects,
including Exhibits A-F (the Zebra Provisional Application) with the USPTO. This was only
one day after the delivery of Plaintiffs June 4, 2013, letter to Zebras Vice President and General
Counsel referred to in paragraph 236 above in which Plaintiffs reminded Defendants of
Plaintiffs inventions, trade secrets and other proprietary and confidential information and knowhow disclosed in confidence under the Lynx-ZES Mutual Confidentiality Agreement and
Defendants obligation not to use or exploit those inventions, trade secrets and other proprietary
and confidential information and know-how. Nevertheless, the Zebra Provisional Application
incorporates inventions, trade secrets and other proprietary and confidential information and
know-how related to the IsoLynx System that Plaintiffs disclosed to Zebra under the Lynx-ZES
272.
The Zebra Provisional Application identifies, as inventors, Zebra personnel who
had direct access to Plaintiffs trade secrets and other proprietary and confidential information,
including Jill Stelfox, Cynthia Traeger, Ed Richley and Belinda Turner.
273.
Since that time, ZIH has filed numerous patent applications that claim priority
based on the Zebra Provisional Application and that identify as inventors Zebra personnel who
had direct access to Plaintiffs trade secrets and other proprietary and confidential information.
274.
By filing patent applications that contain Plaintiffs trade secrets and other
proprietary and confidential information related to the innovation and technologies used in the
IsoLynx System without identifying Plaintiffs employees as inventors, Defendants and their
- 51 -
employees have attempted to claim as their own intellectual property and falsely represented to
the United States Patent and Trademark Office that they had created, developed and own
Plaintiffs trade secrets and other proprietary and confidential information and know how, with
the full knowledge that it was Plaintiffs and their scientists and engineers who were the true
inventors of these innovations and technologies.
COUNT I
TRADE SECRET MISAPPROPRIATION
(On behalf of Plaintiffs against all Defendants)
275.
Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-274 as if fully set
forth herein.
276.
Plaintiffs Protected Information includes protectable trade secrets owned by
277.
Plaintiffs used their protectable trade secrets in connection with their business.
278.
Plaintiffs protectable trade secrets gave Plaintiffs opportunities to obtain
them.
advantages over competitors who did not know or use the protectable trade secrets.
279.
Plaintiffs undertook reasonable steps to secure and maintain the confidentiality
and secrecy of the protectable trade secrets contained in the Protected Information.
280.
After Plaintiffs confidentially disclosed the Protected Information, including the
protectable trade secrets embodied therein, to Zebra, Zebra improperly used, improperly
disclosed, and otherwise misappropriated these trade secrets.
281.
The information Zebra improperly used, improperly disclosed, and otherwise
misappropriated includes Plaintiffs trade secrets at the time of Zebras misappropriation.
- 52 -
282.
Zebra improperly used the protectable trade secrets by using them in a manner not
authorized by the Lynx-ZES Mutual Confidentiality Agreement and in a manner not authorized
by law.
283.
Zebra improperly disclosed the protectable trade secrets by disclosing them to
individuals who are not authorized to view the protectable trade secrets under the Lynx-ZES
Mutual Confidentiality Agreement and by law.
284.
ZIH has improperly used and disclosed the protectable trade secrets by filing the
Zebra Provisional Application and patent applications claiming priority based on the Zebra
Provisional Application, which incorporate trade secrets and other proprietary and confidential
information related to the IsoLynx System without authorization and falsely asserting that
employees of Zebra created, developed and own Plaintiffs trade secrets and other proprietary
and confidential information and know how.
285.
IsoLynx has been harmed and continues to be harmed, and Defendants have been
unjustly enriched, by Defendants improper use, improper disclosure, and misappropriation of

Plaintiffs protectable trade secrets, and Defendants use, disclosure and misappropriation was a
substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs harm and Defendants unjust enrichment.
COUNT II
BREACH OF CONTRACT
(On behalf of Lynx against ZES)
286.
forth herein.
287.
The Lynx-ZES Mutual Confidentiality Agreement is a valid and enforceable
contract entered into between Lynx and ZES.
- 53 -
288.
Plaintiffs Protected Information is Confidential Information as defined in the
Lynx-ZES Mutual Confidentiality Agreement.

289.
Lynx fulfilled all of its obligations pursuant to the Lynx-ZES Mutual
Confidentiality Agreement.
290.
Pursuant to the Lynx-ZES Mutual Confidentiality Agreement, ZES agreed to
maintain and preserve the confidentiality of [Lynxs] Confidential Information; to disclose

[Lynxs] Confidential Information to only those of its employees, independent contractors and/or
advisors who are bound by written agreement or professional obligation to preserve the
confidentiality of such Confidential Information upon terms substantially in conformance with
the terms of [the Lynx-ZES Mutual Confidentiality Agreement]; and to use [Lynxs]
Confidential Information solely in connection with evaluating whether to engage in a
collaborative business relationship with [Lynx] and in pursuit of the purposes of such
relationship.
291.
ZES did not maintain and preserve the confidentiality of [Lynxs] Confidential
Information, failed to comply with its obligations to disclose [Lynxs] Confidential

Information to only those of its employees, independent contractors and/or advisors who are
bound by written agreement or professional obligation to preserve the confidentiality of such
Confidential Information upon terms substantially in conformance with the terms of [the LynxZES Mutual Confidentiality Agreement]; and failed to comply with its obligations to use
[Lynxs] Confidential Information solely in connection with evaluating whether to engage in a
collaborative business relationship with [Lynx] and in pursuit of the purposes of such
relationship.
- 54 -
292.
Pursuant to the Lynx-ZES Mutual Confidentiality Agreement, ZES agreed that it
shall not otherwise use or exploit [Lynxs] Confidential Information for its own benefit or
purposes, or for the benefit or purposes of any third party.
293.
ZES used and exploited Lynxs Confidential Information for its own benefit or
purposes, or for the benefit or purposes of one or more of third parties in furtherance of
Defendants unauthorized and wrongful actions complained of herein.
294.
Pursuant to the Lynx-ZES Mutual Confidentiality Agreement, ZES agreed that it
shall notify [Lynx] immediately upon discovery of any unauthorized use or disclosure of
[Lynxs] Confidential Information or any other breach of this paragraph 3 [of the Lynx-ZES
Mutual Confidentiality Agreement], and shall reasonably assist [Lynx] to regain possession of its
Confidential Information and prevent any further unauthorized use.
295.
ZES did not notify Lynx immediately upon discovery of any unauthorized use or
disclosure of Lynxs Confidential Information or any other breach of paragraph 3 of the LynxZES Mutual Confidentiality Agreement.
Instead, ZES and other Defendants attempted to
conceal their wrongful and deceitful actions from Plaintiffs, made fraudulent representations to
Plaintiffs to further Defendants wrongful business objectives and concealment of their actions
and filed patent applications on the Confidential Information provided to ZES by Plaintiffs under
the Lynx-ZEUS Mutual Confidentiality Agreement.
296.
Pursuant to the Lynx-ZES Mutual Confidentiality Agreement, ZES agreed that
[e]ach party shall retain ownership of all right, title and interest in and to its Confidential
Information, and nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to convey to the Receiving Party
any right, title, license or interest in any Confidential Information provided by the Disclosing
Party.
- 55 -
297.
ZES and other Defendants have unlawfully misappropriated, used and disclosed
Plaintiffs trade secrets and other proprietary and confidential information by incorporating them
into filings submitted by ZIH to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO),
including U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/831,990, titled Performance Analytics Based on
Real-Time Data for Proximity and Movement of Objects, including Exhibits A-F (the Zebra
Provisional Application), which was filed by ZIH on June 6, 2013, which incorporates trade
secrets and other proprietary and confidential information that Plaintiffs confidentially disclosed
to Zebras personnel such as Jill Stelfox, Cynthia Traeger, Ed Richley and Belinda Turner and
which name these Zebra personnel as inventors of these innovations and technologies claimed
and described in the patent applications.
298.
Notwithstanding the obligations and prohibitions set forth in the Lynx-ZES
Mutual Confidentiality Agreement, ZES and other Defendants have caused ZIH to file numerous
patent applications that claim priority based on the Zebra Provisional Application.
299.
ZES breached the Lynx-ZES Mutual Confidentiality Agreement by disclosing
Plaintiffs Protected Information for purposes expressly prohibited by the Lynx-ZES Mutual
Confidentiality Agreement, including using Plaintiffs Protected Information for its own benefit
and for the benefit of third parties, including ZTC, ZIH, and the NFL and by using Plaintiffs
Protected Information in a manner not authorized by the Lynx-ZES Mutual Confidentiality
Agreement.
300.
Lynx has been damaged, and ZES has been unjustly enriched, by ZESs breach of
the Lynx-ZES Mutual Confidentiality Agreement in an amount to be determined at trial.
- 56 -
COUNT III
INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH EXISTING CONTRACTUAL
AND ADVANTAGEOUS BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS
(On behalf of Plaintiffs against ZES and ZTC)
301.
forth herein.
302.
From March 2012 to October 2013, Plaintiffs had an advantageous business
relationship with Sportvision. Moreover, from December 2012 to October 2013, IsoLynx had an
expressly contractual relationship with Sportvision that was embodied in the IsoLynxSportvision Collaboration Agreement.
303.
Zebra knew of Plaintiffs advantageous business relationship and contractual
relationship with Sportvision.

304.
In 2013, Zebra intentionally and improperly interfered with Plaintiffs
advantageous business and contractual relationships with Sportvision.

305.
Zebras Vice President and General Manager RTLS, Jill Stelfox, sent Plaintiffs
a letter containing unsupported assertions of wrongdoing by Plaintiffs in an attempt to force

Plaintiffs to terminate the IsoLynx-Sportvision Collaboration Agreement, which according to
Zebra, would allow Zebra and Plaintiffs to work directly with NFL Enterprises without
Sportvisions participation.
306.
After Plaintiffs refused to go along with Zebras scheme to cut Sportvision out of
any potential deal with NFL Enterprises, Ms. Stelfox and Zebra continued to allege, without
basis, that Plaintiffs had breached Lynxs agreements with ZES. Relying on these unsupported
allegations, Zebra purported to terminate ZESs agreements with Lynx and subsequently stopped
supplying components that it had been supplying for use in the IsoLynx System, specifically
Dart components. Because of Zebras refusal to supply Dart components under the ZES-Lynx
- 57 -
Solutions Agreement and the ZES-Lynx OEM Agreement (which refusal was intentionally
designed to induce a disruption or breach of the contractual relationship between Plaintiffs and
Sportvision until Plaintiffs were able to evaluate, test, customize and implement other off-theshelf components from other RFID equipment suppliers into the IsoLynx System) Plaintiffs
could not provide the necessary components for the integrated IsoLynx/Sportvision end-to-end
tracking and data generation system contemplated by the IsoLynx-Sportvision Collaboration
Agreement.
307.
As a result of Zebras intentional and improper actions, Plaintiffs business and
contractual relationships with Sportvision were terminated in October 2013.

308.
As a result of Zebras intentional interference with Plaintiffs business and
contractual relationships with Sportvision, Plaintiffs have been harmed and Zebra has been
unjustly enriched, and Zebras intentional interference was a substantial factor in causing
Plaintiffs harm and Zebras unjust enrichment.
COUNT IV
FRAUD
309.
forth herein.
310.
The statements made by Jill Stelfox on January 29, 2013, to Messrs. Evansen and
DeAngelis and identified in paragraphs 173-174 were representations of material fact.

311.
The statements made by Jill Stelfox on February 5, 2013 to Mr. Evansen and
identified in paragraph 176 were representations of material facts.

312.
The statements made by Jill Stelfox on March 29, 2013 to Mr. Evansen and
identified in paragraph 219 were representations of material facts.
- 58 -
313.
The representations identified in paragraphs 173, 174, 176 and 219 were false and
Ms. Stelfox knew that these representations were false when they were made. At the time that
Ms. Stelfox made the representations identified in paragraphs 173, 174, 176 and 219, and
contrary to these representations, Zebra was engaged in secret discussions with NFL Enterprises
for Zebra to provide, without Plaintiffs participation, a real time player tracking system that
used Plaintiffs inventions, trade secrets and other proprietary and confidential information and
know-how.
314.
As the Vice President and General Manager of Zebras RTLS division, and
because of her involvement in the discussions and dealings between Plaintiffs and Zebra with
respect to Plaintiffs trade secrets and other proprietary and confidential information and knowhow, Ms. Stelfox knew that Zebra was engaged in discussions with NFL Enterprises for Zebra to
provide, without Plaintiffs participation, a real time player tracking system that used Plaintiffs
trade secrets and other proprietary and confidential information and know-how.
315.
At or around the time that Ms. Stelfox made the statements identified in
paragraphs 173, 174, 176 and 219, and contrary to her representations to Plaintiffs, Zebra was
secretly engaged in the preparation to cut out Plaintiffs from providing a real time player
tracking system to the NFL that was based on Plaintiffs innovations and technologies and to
convert and claim as Defendants own intellectual property Plaintiffs inventions, trade secrets
and other proprietary and confidential information and know-how disclosed to Zebra in
confidence, including seeking to file patent applications on such inventions, trade secrets and
other proprietary and confidential information and know-how.
316.
The statement made by Anders Gustafsson on May 3, 2013 to Mr. DeAngelis and
identified in paragraph 230 was a representation of material fact.
- 59 -
317.
The representation identified in paragraph 230 was false and Mr. Gustafsson
knew that this representation was false when it was made. At the time that Mr. Gustafsson made
the representation identified in paragraph 230 and, contrary to this representation, Zebra was
engaged in secret discussions with NFL Enterprises for Zebra to provide, without Plaintiffs
participation, a real time player tracking system that used Plaintiffs inventions, trade secrets and
other proprietary and confidential information and know-how.
318.
As the CEO of ZTC, Mr. Gustafsson knew that Zebra was engaged in discussions
with NFL Enterprises for Zebra to provide, without Plaintiffs participation, a real time player
tracking system that used Plaintiffs inventions, trade secrets and other proprietary and
319.
At or around the time that Mr. Gustafsson made the statement identified in
paragraph 230, and contrary to his representation to Plaintiffs, Zebra was secretly engaged in the
preparation to cut out Plaintiffs from providing a real time player tracking system to the NFL that
was based on Plaintiffs innovations and technologies and to convert and claim as Defendants
own intellectual property Plaintiffs inventions, trade secrets and other proprietary and
confidential information and know-how disclosed to Zebra in confidence, including seeking to
file patent applications on such inventions, trade secrets and other proprietary and confidential
information and know-how.
320.
Ms. Stelfox and Mr. Gustafsson made their fraudulent representations, including
those identified in paragraphs 173, 174, 176 and 219 and paragraph 230, respectively, intending
to make Plaintiffs rely on and believe that Zebra had their best interests in mind and to prevent
Plaintiffs from participating in discussions with the NFL until it was too late, and until after
Zebra had already installed a real time player tracking system for the NFL without Plaintiffs
involvement.
- 60 -
321.
months, Plaintiffs reasonably relied upon the fraudulent representations made by Defendants,
including those by Ms. Stelfox made on January 29, 2013, February 5, 2013 and March 29, 2013
and identified in paragraphs 173, 174, 176 and 219, and those made by Mr. Gustafsson on May
3, 2013 and identified in paragraph 230.
322.
Plaintiffs reasonable reliance on Ms. Stelfoxs and Mr. Gustafssons false
representations of material fact caused Plaintiffs to lose out on the business opportunity of
providing a real time player tracking system for the NFL and has otherwise damaged Plaintiffs
directly and indirectly and monetarily and irreparably.
COUNT V
BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY
323.
Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs reference paragraphs
1-322 as if fully set forth herein.

324.
Plaintiffs and Zebra were engaged in a joint venture or partnership designed to
deliver a real-time player tracking system to the NFL. Specifically, Plaintiffs and Zebra were
working together whereby Zebras Dart UWB technology provided information that enabled
Plaintiffs IsoLynx System.
325.
As a result of this joint venture or partnership, Plaintiffs and Zebra owed fiduciary
duties to each other.

326.
Zebra breached the fiduciary duties it owed to Plaintiffs as a co-joint venture or
partner by, for example: unlawfully disclosing, using, and otherwise misappropriating Plaintiffs
Protected Information for its own benefit; discussing the installation and operation of a real-time
player tracking system with the NFL without Plaintiffs involvement, knowledge or consent,
- 61 -
while at the same time fraudulently assuring and representing to Plaintiffs that it would not
provide a real-time player tracking system to the NFL without Plaintiffs involvement; and
improperly refusing to supply components for use in the IsoLynx System, based on fabricated
allegations that wrongfully accused Lynx of breaching agreements that governed the supply of
the components.
327.
As a result of Zebras breach of the fiduciary duties it owed to Plaintiffs, Zebra
has been unjustly enriched and Plaintiffs have been harmed including at least damages
proximately caused by that breach.
COUNT VI
UNFAIR METHODS OF COMPETITION AND UNFAIR OR DECEPTIVE ACTS OR
PRACTICES UNDER MASSASCHUSETTS GENERAL LAW CHAPTER 93A
328.
forth herein.
329.
Zebra is engaged in trade and business, building and providing, among other
things, asset tracking technologies.

330.
Zebra has engaged in unfair or deceptive acts or trade practices. For example,
Zebra has breached the Lynx-ZES Mutual Confidentiality Agreement; enabled ZIH, a wholly
owned subsidiary of ZTC, to improperly use Plaintiffs Protected Information in the filing of
patent applications; and executed a scheme, through fabricated allegations of wrongdoing,
fraudulent representations, and intentional acts meant to interfere with Plaintiffs business
relationships, whereby it took the IsoLynx System and Plaintiffs innovations and technologies
used in the IsoLynx System for itself without paying and cut out Plaintiffs from the business
opportunities with the NFL and others.
- 62 -
331.
Zebras unfair or deceptive acts or trade practices have occurred primarily and
substantially in Massachusetts. For example, Zebras unfair or deceptive acts have been received
and acted upon by Plaintiffs in Massachusetts, where Plaintiffs reside and where the
development of the IsoLynx System and Plaintiffs Protected Information took place. The harm
and losses caused by Zebras unfair or deceptive acts have also been incurred in Massachusetts.
332.
Zebra has committed its unfair or deceptive acts or trade practices willfully and
knowingly.
333.
As a result of Zebras unfair or deceptive acts or trade practices, Plaintiffs have
suffered a loss of money or property.

COUNT VII
UNJUST ENRICHMENT
334.
forth herein.
335.
Plaintiffs confidentially disclosed their Protected Information to Zebra.
336.
By disclosing their Protected Information to Zebra, Plaintiffs conferred a benefit
upon Zebra.
337.
Zebra appreciated and acknowledged the value and benefit of Plaintiffs Protected
Information.
338.
Zebra misused Plaintiffs Protected Information to benefit themselves and at the
expense of Plaintiffs. Zebra improperly used and improperly disclosed the Protected Information
in a manner not authorized by the Lynx-ZES Mutual Confidentiality Agreement and by state and
federal law. Furthermore, Zebra made the Protected Information available without authorization
to ZIH, who then incorporated Protected Information related to the IsoLynx System into the
- 63 -
Zebra Provisional Application and falsely asserted that employees of Zebra created, developed
and own this Protected Information.
339.
Under the circumstances, it would be inequitable for Zebra to retain Plaintiffs
Protected Information without paying Plaintiffs an amount that approximates the value of the
benefit conferred upon Defendants.
COUNT VIII
CONVERSION
(On behalf of Plaintiffs against all Defendants)
340.
forth herein.
341.
At all times, Plaintiffs have been the rightful and proper owner and possessor of
the IsoLynx System, the inventions, trade secrets and other proprietary and confidential
information and know-how embodied therein.
342.
The IsoLynx System, the inventions, trade secrets and other proprietary and
confidential information and know-how embodied therein is Plaintiffs personal property.

343.
By incorporating Plaintiffs inventions, trade secrets and other proprietary and
confidential information and know-how related to the IsoLynx System into its Zebra
MotionWorksTM real-time player tracking system without authorization, Zebra intentionally and
wrongfully exercised acts of ownership, control or dominion over Plaintiffs personal property to
which it had no right of possession at the time.
344.
By filing patent applications that contain Plaintiffs inventions, trade secrets and
other proprietary and confidential information and know-how related to the IsoLynx System
without identifying Plaintiffs employees as inventors, Defendants intentionally and wrongfully
- 64 -
exercised acts of ownership, control or dominion over Plaintiffs personal property to which they
had no right of possession at the time.
345.
Plaintiffs have been damaged by Defendants intentional and wrongful exercise of
acts of ownership over Plaintiffs inventions, trade secrets and other proprietary and confidential
information and know-how related to the IsoLynx System.
COUNT IX
INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE CONTRACTUAL
AND ADVANTAGEOUS BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC RELATIONSHIPS
346.
forth herein.
347.
From 2010 to 2013, Plaintiffs had an advantageous business and economic
relationship with the NFL, and specifically NFL Enterprises. Moreover, during this timeframe,
Plaintiffs were working toward and had the expectation of an advantageous business relationship
whereby Plaintiffs would work with the NFL to install and operate real-time player tracking
systems in NFL stadiums for use during NFL games, which would have resulted in economic
benefits to Plaintiffs.
348.
Zebra knew of Plaintiffs existing and prospective business and economic
relationships with the NFL.

349.
Zebra engaged in wrongful conduct including misappropriation of Plaintiffs
inventions, trade secrets and other proprietary and confidential information and know-how;
breach of the Lynx-ZES Mutual Confidentiality Agreement; wrongful termination of the ZESLynx Solutions Agreement and the ZES-Lynx OEM Agreement; fraudulent assurance to
Plaintiffs that Zebra was not engaged in discussions with the NFL for Zebra to provide a real
time player tracking system without Plaintiffs participation; breach of Zebras fiduciary duty
- 65 -
owed to Plaintiffs as a result of its joint venture or partnership with Plaintiffs; unfair or deceptive
acts or trade practices in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws. Ch. 93A, common law conversion; and
common law unjust enrichment.
350.
By engaging in its wrongful conduct, Zebra intentionally and improperly
interfered with Plaintiffs existing and prospective business and economic relationships with the
NFL, and Zebra knew that the disruption of Plaintiffs relationships with the NFL was certain or
substantially certain to occur.
351.
As a result of Ms. Stelfoxs April 18, 2013, letter purportedly and wrongfully
terminating the ZES-Lynx Solutions Agreement and the ZES-Lynx OEM Agreement, Zebra
stopped supplying components that it had been supplying for use in the IsoLynx System,
specifically Dart components, pursuant to the ZES-Lynx Solutions Agreement and the ZES-Lynx
OEM Agreement.
352.
Because of Zebras wrongful termination and refusal to supply Dart components
under the ZES-Lynx Solutions Agreement and the ZES-Lynx OEM Agreement, until Plaintiffs
were able to evaluate, test, customize and implement other off-the-shelf components from other
RFID equipment suppliers into the IsoLynx System, which is a time-consuming process,
Plaintiffs were not able to provide a fully operational IsoLynx System to NFL Enterprises for
installation and use during NFL preseason and regular games.
353.
Between January and May 2013, Zebra continually and fraudulently assured
Plaintiffs that it was not engaged in discussions with the NFL for Zebra to provide, without
Plaintiffs participation, a real time player tracking system that used Plaintiffs inventions, trade
secrets and other proprietary and confidential information and know-how, all of which was
misappropriated by Zebra in a manner not authorized by the Lynx-ZES Mutual Confidentiality
Agreement and in a manner not authorized by state law.
- 66 -
354.
Between January and May 2013, Zebra was in fact in discussions with the NFL to
provide a real time player tracking system, despite the fraudulent assurances it made to Plaintiffs
to the contrary.
355.
Zebra then, in August 2013 and without Plaintiffs participation and prior
knowledge, was able to install real-time player tracking systems in two NFL stadiums for use
during the NFLs 2013 preseason games by using Plaintiffs inventions, trade secrets and other
proprietary and confidential information and know-how.
356.
As a result of Zebras intentional and improper actions, Plaintiffs existing and
prospective business and economic relationships with the NFL were disrupted and ended in mid2013.
357.
Plaintiffs have been harmed and Zebra has been unjustly enriched as a result of its
intentional interference with Plaintiffs existing and prospective business and economic
relationships with the NFL, and Zebras intentional interference was a substantial factor in
causing Plaintiffs harm and Zebras unjust enrichment.
COUNT X
CORRECTION OF INVENTORSHIP OF THE 880 PATENT
AND THE 485 PATENT PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. 256
(On behalf of Plaintiffs against ZIH Corp. and Other Defendants)
358.
forth herein.
359.
This is an action under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. 256,
seeking correction of inventorship of United States patents by adding rightful and actual
inventors as joint inventors.
- 67 -
360.
Lynx and IsoLynx, as employers and assignees of intellectual property rights
developed by their employees, officers and consultants, have sufficient, concrete economic
interest in the correction of the inventorship of U.S. Patents Nos. 8,989,880 and 9,002,485.
361.
The 880 patent and the 485 patent, as well as the applications from which they
were issued, claim priority based on the Zebra Provisional Application filed on June 6, 2013.
362.
The Zebra Provisional Application, the 880 patent and the 485 patent
incorporate, and the 880 and 485 patents describe and claim as patentable inventions,
Plaintiffs proprietary information and know-how related to the IsoLynx System that Plaintiffs
disclosed to Zebra under the Lynx-ZES Mutual Confidentiality Agreement. Specifically, in
December 2012, Plaintiffs disclosed to Zebra their Automated Play Detection System that used
real time information about participant locations to determine formations by comparing the
participant data information to formation models. Plaintiffs demonstrated the operation of their
Automated Play Detection system to Zebra executives during an actual NFL game between the
Miami Dolphins and Buffalo Bills on December 23, 2012.
As part of demonstrating the
Automated Play Detection System, Plaintiffs disclosed the functions and capabilities of
determining formations by comparing the participant location data to formation models. Zebra
executives that viewed the operation of the Automated Play Detection System and received the
detailed explanation of how it operated included Belinda Turner, Bill Bulzoni and Cynthia
Traeger.
363.
Plaintiffs employees, officers and/or consultants, including Edward G. Evansen,
Douglas J. DeAngelis, Gerard M. Reilly and Kirk M. Sigel, contributed significantly to the
conception of the inventions claimed and described in the 880 patent and the 485 patent, and
Plaintiffs also communicated to Defendants a definite and permanent idea of their contribution.
- 68 -
364.
These inventions are embodied in elements of claims 2, 8, 10 and 15 of the 880
patent and claims 1, 8 and 14 of the 485 patent, and any claims directly or indirectly dependent
thereon, including, without limitation:
comparing [compare] the participant location data to formation models based at
least in part on the participant role data and the field data; and
determining [determine] formation data based on the comparing the participant
location data to the formation models.
The same or precisely the same claim elements are also included in claims 4, 55, 94, 99
and 117 of the Zebra Provisional Application.
365.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs employees, officers and consultants should have been
named as joint inventors of the 880 patent and 485 patent as well as the Zebra Provisional
Application to which all of the patents at issue claim priority.
366.
Knowing full well that Plaintiffs employees, officers and consultants are true
joint inventors of the inventions claimed in the patents at issue, neither ZIH nor the other
Defendants named, as true joint inventors of the Zebra Provisional Application, the 880 patent
or the 485 patent, any of Plaintiffs employees, officers and consultants who made significant
contributions to the conception of the inventions of these patents.
367.
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 256, an order should issue correcting inventorship of the
Zebra Provisional Application, the 880 patent and the 485 patent and, upon issuance, any other
patent issued from any patent application that claims priority to the Zebra Provisional
Application and that contains the proprietary information and know-how related to the IsoLynx
System developed by Plaintiffs employees, officers and consultants. At a minimum, Edward G.
Evansen, Douglas J. DeAngelis, Gerard M. Reilly and Kirk M. Sigel should be added to the list
of inventors of the 880 patent and the 485 patent.
- 69 -
COUNT XI
DECLARATION OF UNENFORCEABILITY
FOR INEQUITABLE CONDUCT IN PATENT PROCUREMENT
(On behalf of Plaintiffs against ZIH and Other Defendants)
368.
forth herein.
369.
An actual controversy exists between Plaintiffs and Defendants as to the
enforceability of the Zebra Provisional Application, U.S. Application Nos. 13/942,202 and
13/942,244 that claim priority to the Zebra Provisional Application, and the 880 and 485
patents.
370.
Plaintiffs, who are employers and assignees of intellectual property rights
developed by their employees, officers and consultants, have sufficient, concrete economic
interest in the Zebra Provisional Application, Application Nos. 13/942,202 and 13/942,244, and
the 880 and 485 patents, and have suffered harm as a result of the inequitable conduct by ZIH
and other Defendants in the procurement thereof.
371.
Plaintiffs seek a declaration that the Zebra Provisional Application, Application
Nos. 13/942,202 and 13/942,244, and the 880 and 485 patent are unenforceable for inequitable
conduct in the procurement thereof.
372.
ZIH, together with other Defendants, knowingly misrepresented material
information to the USPTO relating to the inventorship of the Zebra Provisional Application,
Application Nos. 13/942,202 and 13/942,244, and the 880 and 485 patents.
Automated Play Detection System
373.
In December 2012 under the IsoLynx-ZES Mutual Confidentiality Agreement,
Plaintiffs disclosed to Zebra their Automated Play Detection System that used the real time
- 70 -
information about participant locations to determine formations by comparing the participant

location data to formation models. Plaintiffs demonstrated the operation of their Automated Play
Detection system to Zebra executives during an actual NFL game between the Miami Dolphins
and Buffalo Bills on December 23, 2012.
As part of demonstrating the Automated Play
Detection System, Plaintiffs disclosed the functions and capabilities of determining formations
by comparing the participant location data to formation models. Zebra executives that viewed
the operation of the Automated Play Detection System and received the detailed explanation of
how it operated included Belinda Turner, Bill Bulzoni and Cynthia Traeger.
374.
On June 6, 2013, one day after delivery of Plaintiffs letter to Defendants Vice
President and General Counsel, Jim Kaput, regarding Plaintiffs inventions, trade secrets and
other proprietary and confidential information and know-how and Defendants obligations not to
use or exploit them, ZIH filed the Zebra Provisional Application.
The Zebra Provisional
Application incorporates inventions, trade secrets and other proprietary and confidential
information and know-how invented by Plaintiffs officers, employees and/or agents.
375.
The Zebra Provisional Application identifies, as inventors, Zebra personnel who
had direct access to Plaintiffs Automated Play Detection System, including Cynthia Traeger and
Belinda Turner.
376.
Nine days after filing the Zebra Provisional Application, ZIH filed U.S. patent
application number 13/942,567, titled, Performance Analytics Based on Real-Time Data For
Proximity And Movement of Objects (Application No. 13/942,567). ZIH filed Application
No. 13/942,567 through its patent attorney Brian C. Ellsworth (Patent Reg. No. 50,813).
Application No. 13/942,567 ultimately issued as the 880 patent on March 24, 2015, listing ZIH
as the assignee and naming three inventors: Michael A. Wohl, James J. OHagan and Wolfgang
Strobel (the 880 Named Inventors).
- 71 -
377.
The 880 patent claims priority to the Zebra Provisional Application, and contains
claims directed to determining formations based on comparing the participant location data with
formation models. Specifically, claims 2, 8, 10 and 15 of the 880 patent, and any claims
directly or indirectly dependent thereon, contain the following claim elements:
least in part on the participant role data and the field data;
location data to the formation models
378.
Edward G. Evansen, Douglas J. DeAngelis, Gerard M. Reilly and Kirk M. Sigel,
are joint inventors of at least claims 2, 8, 10 and 15 of the 880 patent, and any claims directly or
indirectly dependent thereon, based on their contributions to the conception of those claims and
their communication to Defendants of a definite and permanent idea of their contribution.
Edward G. Evansen, Douglas J. DeAngelis, Gerard M. Reilly and Kirk M. Sigel are all obligated
and required to assign any inventions that they invent in connection with their work at
Lynx/IsoLynx to Plaintiffs.
379.
During July 2013, the 880 Named Inventors, at the request and direction of
Zebra, fraudulently signed inventorship oaths asserting that they were the original and joint
inventors of the subject matter claimed in the application resulting in the issuance of the 880
patent.
380.
Zebra fraudulently concealed naming Edward G. Evansen, Douglas J. DeAngelis,
Gerard M. Reilly and Kirk M. Sigel as inventors of the 880 patent because it wanted to own the
880 patent outright and did not want to share an undivided ownership interest in the 880 patent
with Plaintiffs, who would have such an ownership interest based on Edward G. Evansens,
- 72 -
Douglas J. DeAngelis, Gerard M. Reillys and Kirk M. Sigels contributions and their
obligations to assign their inventions to Plaintiffs.
381.
On the same day ZIH filed U.S. patent application number 13/942,567, ZIH also
filed U.S. patent application number 13/942,316 through its patent attorney Brian C. Ellsworth
(Patent Reg. No. 50,813). Application No. 13/942,316 ultimately issued as the 485 patent on
April 7, 2015, listing ZIH as the assignee and naming five inventors: Michael A. Wohl, James J.
OHagan, Anthony R. Brown, Wolfgang Strobel and Dean Lodwig (the 485 Named
Inventors).
382.
The 485 patent claims priority to the Zebra Provisional Application, and contains
claims directed to determining formations based on comparing the participant location data with
formation models. Specifically, claims 1, 8 and 14 of the 485 patent, and any claims directly or
indirectly dependent thereon, contain the following claim elements:
least in part on the participant role data and the field data;
location data to the formation models
383.
Edward G. Evansen, Douglas J. DeAngelis, Gerard M. Reilly and Kirk M. Sigel
are joint inventors of at least claims 1, 8, and 14 of the 485 patent, and any claims directly or
indirectly dependent thereon, based on their contributions to the conceptions of these claims and
their communication to Defendants of a permanent idea of their contribution.
Edward G.
Evansen, Douglas J. DeAngelis, Gerard M. Reilly and Kirk M. Sigel are obligated and required
to assign to Plaintiffs any inventions that they invent in connection with their work at or with
Plaintiffs.
- 73 -
384.
During July 2013, the 485 Named Inventors, at the request and direction of
Zebra, fraudulently signed inventorship oaths asserting that they were the original and joint
inventors of the subject matter claimed in the application resulting in the issuance of the 485
patent.
385.
Zebra fraudulently concealed naming Edward G. Evansen, Douglas J. DeAngelis,
Gerard M. Reilly and Kirk M. Sigel as inventors of the 485 patent because it wanted to own the
485 patent outright and did not want to share an undivided ownership interest in the 485 patent
with Plaintiffs, who would have such an ownership interest based on Edward G. Evansens,
Douglas J. DeAngelis, Gerard M. Reillys and Kirk M. Sigels
contributions and their
obligations to assign their inventions to Plaintiffs.

386.
Zebra also fraudulently concealed naming Edward G. Evansen, Douglas J.
DeAngelis, Gerard M. Reilly and Kirk M. Sigel as inventors on the Zebra Provisional
Application because it wanted to own any patents issuing therefrom outright and did not want to
share an undivided ownership interest in any such patents with Plaintiffs, who would have such
an ownership interest based on Edward G. Evansens, Douglas J. DeAngelis, Gerard M. Reillys
and Kirk M. Sigels contributions and their obligations to assign their inventions to Plaintiffs.
387.
As a critical requirement for obtaining a patent, inventorship is material, and the
intentional falsehoods and omissions by Zebra regarding inventorship are affirmative egregious
conduct that cannot be cured, rendering any patents issuing from the Zebra Provisional
Application, and the 880 patent and the 485 patent, unenforceable for inequitable conduct.
Notch Filtering for Immunizing Against Interferers
388.
In July 2012 under the IsoLynx-ZES Mutual Confidentiality Agreement, Plaintiffs
disclosed their solution to use notch filters in addition to, or instead of, band pass filters to
combat interferers in specific game day environments. The notch filter solution was invented by
- 74 -
Alexander T. Farkas, a consultant to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs disclosed and described the notch filter
solution in an email chain between Ed Evansen (Lynx/IsoLynx) and Ed Richley, Belinda Turner
and Bill Bulzoni (Zebra) dated July 17-18, 2012.
389.
On June 6, 2013, ZIH filed the Zebra Provisional Application.
The Zebra
Provisional Application incorporates a tunable notch filter invented by Plaintiffs principals,

employees and/or agents. The Zebra Provisional Application identifies, as inventors, Zebra
personnel who had direct access to Plaintiffs tunable notch filter, including at least Ed Richley.
390.
On July 15, 2013, ZIH filed U.S. patent application number 13/942,202, titled,
Multiple Antenna Interference Rejection in Ultra-Wideband Real Time Locating Systems

(Application No. 13/942,202).
ZIH filed Application No. 13/942,202 through its patent
attorney Brian C. Ellsworth (Patent Reg. No. 50,813). Application No. 13/942,202 published as
U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2014/0362892 A1 on December 11, 2014, listing ZIH as
the assignee and naming Edward A. Richley as the sole inventor (the US2014/0362892 Named
Inventor).
391.
Application No. 13/942,202 claims priority to the Zebra Provisional Application,
and contains claims directed to adjusting filtering using a tunable notch filter. Specifically, claim
8 and 11 of US2014/0362892, and any claims directly or indirectly dependent thereon, are
directed to a
method of providing interference rejection and contain the following claim
element:
wherein adjusting filtering of the composite signal comprises attenuating the
component of the composite signal using a tunable notch filter.
The same or precisely the same claim element is included in claim 13, and any claims
directly or indirectly dependent thereon, of Exhibit A of the Zebra Provisional Application.
- 75 -
Claim 17 of US2014/0362892, and any claims directly or indirectly dependent thereon,

are directed to an apparatus comprising [sic] for providing interference rejection and contains the
following claim element:
cause the apparatus to attenuate the component of the composite signal using a
tunable notch filter.
392.
On July 15, 2013, ZIH also filed U.S. patent application number 13/942,244,
titled, Interference Rejection in Ultra-Wideband Real Time Locating Systems (Application

No. 13/942,244). ZIH filed Application No. 13/942,244 through its patent attorney Brian C.
Ellsworth (Patent Reg. No. 50,813).
Application No. 13/942,244 published as U.S. Patent
Application Publication US 2014/0364078 A1 on December 11, 2014, listing ZIH as the

assignee and naming Edward A. Richley as the sole inventor (the US2014/0364078 Named
Inventor).
393.
Application No. 13/942,244 claims priority to the Zebra Provisional Application,
and contains claims directed to filtering using a tunable notch filter. Specifically, claim 1 of
US2014/0364078, and any claims directly or indirectly dependent thereon, are directed to a
Ultra-Wideband receiver and contain the following claim element:
a tunable notch filter configured to attenuate a part of the composite signal
representing the interference signal thereby generating a filtered signal.
The same or precisely the same claim element is included in claim 5, and any claims directly or
indirectly dependent thereon, of Exhibit A of the Zebra Provisional Application.
Claim 6 of US2014/0364078, and any claims directly or indirectly dependent thereon, are
directed to a method of providing interference rejection and contain the following claim element:
filtering at least a first component of the composite signal representing the
interference signal with a tunable notch filter to generate a filtered signal.
- 76 -
The same or precisely the same claim element is included in claim 9, and any claims directly or
indirectly dependent thereon, of Exhibit A of the Zebra Provisional Application.
394.
Alexander T. Farkas is a joint inventor of at least claims 8, 11 and 17 of
US2014/0362892, claims 1 and 6 of US2014/0364078 and claims 5, 9 and 13 of Exhibit A of the

Zebra Provisional Application, and any claims directly or indirectly dependent thereon, based on
his contributions to the conceptions of these claims and his communication to Defendants of a
permanent idea of their contribution. Mr. Farkas was and remains obligated and required to
assign any inventions that he invents in connection with his work at or with Lynx/IsoLynx to
Plaintiffs.
395.
During
July
2013,
the
US2014/0362892
Named
Inventor
and
the
US2014/0364078 Named Inventor, at the request and direction of Zebra, fraudulently signed
inventorship oaths asserting that he was the original and sole inventor of the subject matter
claimed in the applications resulting in those published applications.
396.
Zebra fraudulently concealed naming Alexander T. Farkas as an inventor of the
Zebra Provisional Application and Applications Nos. 13/942,202 and 13/942,244 because it
wanted to own any patents issuing therefrom outright and did not want to share an undivided
ownership interest in any such patents with Plaintiffs, who would have such an ownership
interest based on Mr. Farkas contributions and his obligations to assign his inventions to
Plaintiffs.
397.
intentional falsehoods and omissions by Zebra regarding inventorship are affirmative egregious
conduct that cannot be cured, rendering any patents issuing from the Zebra Provisional
Application and Application Nos. 13/942,202 and 13/942,244 unenforceable for inequitable
conduct.
- 77 -
User Interface Features of IsoTools and Whos On The Field (WOTF) Software
398.
In February 2012 under the IsoLynx-ZES Mutual Confidentiality Agreement,
Plaintiffs disclosed to Zebra their IsoTools install/test/debug software and their Whos On The
Field (WOTF) software.
Plaintiffs IsoTools install/test/debug and WOTF software is an
important part of the IsoLynx System.
Plaintiffs disclosed and described their IsoTools
install/test/debug and WOTF software, including their user interface features, to Defendants
employees, including Belinda Turner and Bill Bulzoni, at least during a February 21, 2012
meeting at Plaintiffs offices.
399.
Under the IsoLynx-ZES Mutual Confidentiality Agreement, Plaintiffs, through
Brian Rhodes and Joseph Gaudreau, further disclosed the IsoTools install/test/debug and WOTF
software including their user interface features in a February 28, 2012 Web Demo to Belinda
Turner.
400.
On June 4, 2013, IsoLynx counsel wrote to Zebra requesting that it destroy and
no longer use IsoLynx confidential information and intellectual property, including, among other
things identified, the software tools for installing, diagnosing and optimizing UWB Real Time
Location
System
in
sporting
venues,
and
Software
tools
for
managing
the
team/player/tag/settings relationships in a sporting application.

401.
On June 6, 2013, ZIH filed the Zebra Provisional Application.
The Zebra
Provisional Application incorporates user interface features of the IsoTools install/test/debug and
WOTF software invented by Plaintiffs principals, employees and/or agents.
The Zebra
Provisional Application identifies, as inventors, Zebra personnel who had direct access to
Plaintiffs user interface features of the IsoTools install/test/debug and WOTF software,
including at least Belinda Turner.
- 78 -
402.
At least claims 1-38 of Exhibit D of the Zebra Provisional Application, and any
claims directly or indirectly dependent thereon, are directed to user interface features of the
IsoTools install/test/debug and WOTF software.
403.
Douglas DeAngelis, Edward G. Evansen, Joseph Gaudreau, Gerard M. Reilly,
Brian Rhodes and Kirk Sigel are joint inventors of at least claims 1-38 of Exhibit D of the Zebra
Provisional Application, and any claims directly or indirectly dependent thereon, based on their
contributions to the conceptions of these claims and their communication to Defendants of a
permanent idea of their contribution.
Douglas DeAngelis, Edward G. Evansen, Joseph
Gaudreau, Gerard M. Reilly, Brian Rhodes and Kirk Sigel are obligated and required to assign
any inventions that they invent in connection with their work at Lynx/IsoLynx to Plaintiffs.
404.
Zebra fraudulently concealed naming Douglas DeAngelis, Edward G. Evansen,
Joseph Gaudreau, Gerard M. Reilly, Brian Rhodes and Kirk Sigel as inventors of the Zebra
Provisional Application because it wanted to own any patents issuing therefrom outright and did
not want to share an undivided ownership interest in any such patents with Plaintiffs, who would
have such an ownership interest based on Douglas DeAngelis, Edward G. Evansen, Joseph
Gaudreau, Gerard M. Reilly, Brian Rhodes and Kirk Sigels contributions and their obligations
to assign their inventions to Plaintiffs.
405.
intentional falsehoods and omissions by Zebra regarding inventorship are affirmative, egregious
conduct that cannot be cured rendering any patents issuing from the Zebra Provisional
Application unenforceable for inequitable conduct.
- 79 -
COUNT XII
DECLARATION OF OWNERSHIP OF PATENTS
(Plaintiffs against all Defendants)
406.
forth herein.
407.
An actual controversy exists between Plaintiffs on one hand and ZIH and other
Defendants on the other hand as to inventorship and ownership of the 880 and 485 patents,
Application Nos. 13/942,202 and 13/942,244, and the Zebra Provisional Application.
408.
Plaintiffs employees, officers and consultants, namely, Douglas DeAngelis,
Edward G. Evansen, Alexander T. Farkas, Joseph Gaudreau, Gerard M. Reilly, Brian Rhodes
and Kirk Sigel, contributed significantly to the conception of one or more of the inventions
claimed and described in the 880 and 485 patents, Application Nos. 13/942,202 and
13/942,244, and the Zebra Provisional Application, and Plaintiffs also communicated a definite
and permanent idea of their contributions to such inventions claimed and in the 880 and 485
patents, Application Nos. 13/942,202 and 13/942,244, and the Zebra Provisional Application.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs employees, officers and consultants are actual and joint inventors of the
880 and 485 patents, Application Nos. 13/942,202 and 13/942,244, and the Zebra Provisional
Application, and they are all obligated to assign their inventions to Plaintiffs.
409.
Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration that Plaintiffs are a legal and equitable co-
owner of the '880 and 485 patents, Application Nos. 13/942,202 and 13/942,244, and the Zebra
Provisional Application, and an order directing ZIH to execute any and all necessary documents
to confirm and memorialize Plaintiffs legal and equitable ownership of the '880 and 485
patents, Application Nos. 13/942,202 and 13/942,244, and the Zebra Provisional Application.
- 80 -
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs ask this Court to enter judgment against ZES, ZTC, and ZIH
and each of their parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, agents, servants, employees and all entities in
active concert or participation with them, granting the following relief:
a) Compensatory damages (including Plaintiffs lost profits and consequential damages,
disgorgement of Defendants ill-gotten profits, Defendants unjust enrichment, payment
of a reasonable royalty and/or reliance damages) in an amount to be determined at trial,
with interest;
b) Enhanced and punitive damages as permitted by law, including Mass. Gen. L. ch. 93A;
c) A permanent injunction enjoining and restraining each of the Defendants and their
parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, agents, servants, employees, and all entities in active
concert or participation with them, from using Plaintiffs Protected Information,
including inventions, trade secrets and other proprietary and confidential information and
know-how, in and related to the Zebra MotionWorks system, any similar sports
tracking offerings provided by or for Zebra, and any patents and patent applications;
d) An order directing Defendants to permanently remove all Zebra MotionWorks
installations and any similar sports tracking systems provided by or for Zebra, including
but not limited to any MotionWorks installations in NFL stadiums;
e) Any and all equitable relief that may be available to Plaintiffs, including without
limitation restitution, disgorgement, or the imposition of a constructive trust;
f) A declaration that Douglas DeAngelis, Edward G. Evansen, Gerard M. Reilly and Kirk
Sigel are joint inventors of the 880 patent and the 485 patent;
g) An order directing the Commissioner of the USPTO to issue a Certificate of Correction
for the 880 patent and the 485 patent attesting to the fact that Douglas DeAngelis,
- 81 -
Edward G. Evansen, Gerard M. Reilly and Kirk Sigel were omitted as joint inventors on
the 880 patent and the 485 patent and correcting that error by including each of Douglas
DeAngelis, Edward G. Evansen, Gerard M. Reilly and Kirk Sigel as inventors on those
patents;
h) A declaration that Plaintiffs are the legal and equitable co-owners of the 880 patent, the
485 patent, Applications Nos. 13/942,202 and 13/942,244 and the Zebra Provisional
Application;
i) Alternatively, a declaration that the 880 patent, the 485 patent, any patents issuing from
any of Applications Nos. 13/942,202 and 13/942,244 and/or the Zebra Provisional
Application are unenforceable for inequitable conduct in the procurement thereof;
j) Costs and reasonable attorneys fees, as permitted by law; and
k) Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and reasonable.
- 82 -
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
Respectfully submitted,
s/ William A. Scofield, Jr.
William A. Scofield, Jr. (BBO# 448940)
([email protected])
LATHROP & GAGE LLP
28 State Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02109
Phone: 857.300.4032
Facsimile: 857.300.4001
David J. Sheikh ([email protected])
Christopher J. Lee ([email protected])
Richard B. Megley, Jr.
([email protected])
Brian E. Haan ([email protected])
Joseph A. Culig ([email protected])
LEE SHEIKH MEGLEY & HAAN
1 North Franklin Street, Suite 3340
Chicago, Illinois 60606
Phone: 312.982.0070
Facsimile: 312.982.0071
Counsel for Lynx System Developers, Inc.
and IsoLynx, LLC
- 83 -

Lynx Lawsuit Against Zebra

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lynx Lawsuit Against Zebra

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lynx Lawsuit Against Zebra

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:15-cv-12297 Document 1 Filed 06/10/15 Page 1 of 83

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-12297

ZES, ZTC, and ZIH may be collectively referred to as Defendants.

Case 1:15-cv-12297 Document 1 Filed 06/10/15 Page 2 of 83

This action arises out of unlawful schemes by Defendants to steal technological

market as a supplier of off-the-shelf components for Plaintiffs innovations.

Plaintiffs trusted and relied on Defendants to comply with their written

Case 1:15-cv-12297 Document 1 Filed 06/10/15 Page 3 of 83

Defendants have engaged in calculated and concerted actions to wrongfully

Case 1:15-cv-12297 Document 1 Filed 06/10/15 Page 4 of 83

Defendants have wrongfully taken, used, disclosed, converted and attempted to

Defendants have also breached their contractual and fiduciary obligations to

Aware of the enormous value and growth potential of the newly-developed

Case 1:15-cv-12297 Document 1 Filed 06/10/15 Page 5 of 83

Plaintiffs have invested millions of dollars and tens of thousands of man-hours to

Plaintiffs overcame formidable obstacles to invent, design, and develop the

Case 1:15-cv-12297 Document 1 Filed 06/10/15 Page 6 of 83

Generally, the IsoLynx System consists of tags worn by players, a general

real-time tag locations.

A processing unit uses proprietary algorithms created, designed and developed by

Proprietary software created, designed and developed by Plaintiffs is used to

present the location data in tabular, graphical and video formats.

Case 1:15-cv-12297 Document 1 Filed 06/10/15 Page 7 of 83

Case 1:15-cv-12297 Document 1 Filed 06/10/15 Page 8 of 83

After developing a functional version of the IsoLynx System, Plaintiffs contacted

However, those systems were

Realizing the value of the IsoLynx System, the innovative technology

NFL preseason and regular season.

Case 1:15-cv-12297 Document 1 Filed 06/10/15 Page 9 of 83

Under their agreement, IsoLynx and Sportvision intended to

value to the NFL, Zebra attempted to acquire Plaintiff IsoLynx.

The Zebra MotionWorksTM system, which is based on Plaintiffs inventions, trade

Case 1:15-cv-12297 Document 1 Filed 06/10/15 Page 10 of 83

Going forward, the Zebra MotionWorksTM system will continue to unjustly

Defendants have also unlawfully misappropriated, used and disclosed Plaintiffs

Case 1:15-cv-12297 Document 1 Filed 06/10/15 Page 11 of 83

Lynx System Developers, Inc. (Lynx) is a corporation organized and existing

Mr. DeAngelis has a Bachelors Degree in Electrical Engineering from the

Case 1:15-cv-12297 Document 1 Filed 06/10/15 Page 12 of 83

IsoLynx LLC (IsoLynx) is a limited liability company organized and existing

Zebra Enterprise Solutions Corporation (ZES) is a corporation organized and

Case 1:15-cv-12297 Document 1 Filed 06/10/15 Page 13 of 83

ZES is a wholly owned subsidiary of Zebra Technologies Corporation.

Zebra Technologies Corporation (ZTC) is a corporation organized and existing

ZIH is a wholly owned subsidiary of Zebra Technologies Corporation.

rise to the claims brought by Plaintiffs in this suit.

Case 1:15-cv-12297 Document 1 Filed 06/10/15 Page 14 of 83

Defendants have established at least minimal contacts with the Commonwealth of

Venue in this judicial district is proper under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(2) because a

Case 1:15-cv-12297 Document 1 Filed 06/10/15 Page 15 of 83

In 2004, Lynx initiated a project called IsoLynx to develop a real-time player

The Sapphire Dart system was used to track

In April 2008, ZTC acquired MSSI.

semi-stationary or slow moving objects, such as equipment in hospitals, containers in

Case 1:15-cv-12297 Document 1 Filed 06/10/15 Page 16 of 83

ZES (the ZES-Lynx Solutions Agreement).

Under the ZES-Lynx Solutions Agreement, Lynx purchased Zebra Dart

ZES drafted the ZES-Lynx Solutions Agreement.