.

tT^ nr> r < C^K

JS 44C/SDNY REV. 7/2012

CIVIL COVER SH

XZ CV 9413
.DEC 2 7 2012

The JS-44 clva cover sheetandtheInformation contained herein neither replace nor supplement thefiling andservice of Judicial Conference oftheUnited StatesIn September 1974, Isrequired for use oftheClerk ofCourt for the purpose of
Initiatingthe civildocket sheet.
PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS BRIAN S. COHEN and

pleadings orother papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the

THEODORE F. SCHROEDER

PINTEREST, INC.

ATTORNEYS (FIRM NAME, ADDRESS, AND TELEPHONE NUMBER

RICHARD L. SCHEFF, ESQUIRE

ATTORNEYS (IF KNOWN)

Unknown

MONTGOMERY McCRACKEN WALKER & RHOADS LLP 437 Madison Avenue, Floor 29, New York, NY 10022

CAUSE OF ACTION (CITE THE U.S. CIVIL STATUTE UNDER WHICH YOU ARE FILING AND WRITE ABRIEF STATEMENT OF CAUSE)
(DO NOT CITE JURISDICTIONAL STATUTES UNLESS DIVERSITY)

This is an action for misappropriation, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty under 28 USC 1332(a) and 28 USC 1391(b).
Has this ora similar case been previously filed In SONY atany time? No [x] Yes D Judge Previously Assigned
& Case No.

If yes, was this case Vol. D Invot. Q Dismissed. No Yes Q If yes, give date.
I8THI8 AN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CASE? NO 3 Yes

(PLACEAN [x] IN ONE BOX ONLY)

NATURE OF SUIT
ACTIONS UNDER STATUTES
OTHER STATUTES

CONTRACT

PERSONAL INJURY INSURANCE

MARINE

PERSONAL INJURY

FORFEITURE/PENALTY

BANKRUPTCY

[ ]110 11120 I ]130 I ]H0 I 1150

[ ] 310 AIRPLANE | J 315 AIRPLANE PRODUCT

.
LIABILITY

11362 PERSONAL INJURYMED MALPRACTICE

[]610
[ ] 620 [ 1625

AGRICULTURE

I ] 422 APPEAL
28USC15S

OTHER FOOD &

DRUG

MILLER ACT NEGOTIABLE

INSTRUMENT

[ I 365 PERSONAL INJURY

PRODUCT LIABILITY

[ ] 423 WITHDRAWAL
28 USC 167

[ J 320 ASSAULT, LIBEL &

SLANDER

[ ] 368 ASBESTOS PERSONAL

INJURY PRODUCT
LIABILITY

DRUG RELATED SEIZURE OF

PROPERTY

RECOVERY OF OVERPAYMENT & ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENT

( ] 330 FEDERAL
EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY

21 USC 881

PROPERTY RIGHTS

[ J400 STATE REAPPORTIONMENT 11410 ANTITRUST ll 430 BANKS & BANKING []4S0 COMMERCE (J460 DEPORTATION 1)470 RACKETEER INFLU
ENCED & CORRUPT

[ ] 340 MARINE

PERSONAL PROPERTY

[ ]1S1 I J152

MEDICARE ACT
RECOVERY OF
DEFAULTED

[ 1345 MARINE PRODUCT

LIABILITY

[ |350 MOTOR VEHICLE

I 355 MOTOR VEHICLE PRODUCT LIABILITY
INJURY

[ ] 370 OTHERFRAUD [ ] 371 TRUTH INLENDING

[ ]660
( ) 690
LABOR
tl'10

[ J 630 [ )640 [ )650

LIQUOR LAWS RR & TRUCK AIRLINE REGS

OCCUPATIONAL

( ] 820 COPYRIGHTS I ) 830 PATENT [ ] 840 TRADEMARK

SOCIAL SECURITY

ORGANIZATION ACT

(RICO)
|]480 [J490 [)810 [ ]850
CONSUMER CREDIT CABLE/SATELLITE TV SELECTIVE SERVICE SECURITIES/ COMMODITIES/
EXCHANGE

SAFETY/HEALTH
OTHER

STUDENT LOANS

[ ] 380 OTHER PERSONAL

PROPERTY DAMAGE

(EXCLVETERANS)
[ [153
RECOVERY OF

t 1360 OTHER PERSONAL

[ ] 385 PROPERTY DAMAGE

PRODUCT LIABILITY

OVERPAYMENT OF VETERAN'S
BENEFITS

11160
M 190 [ ]195

STOCKHOLDERS
SUITS OTHER CONTRACT CONTRACT

11720
PRISONER PETITIONS

11730

[1510 MOTIONS TO
ACTIONS UNDER STATUTES
CIVIL RIGHTS

PRODUCT
LIABILITY

VACATE SENTENCE

20 USC 2255

[ 1740

[ ] 196 FRANCHISE

[ ] 630 HABEAS CORPUS

[ ]790

REAL PROPERTY

[ ] 441 VOTING [ ] 442 EMPLOYMENT [ ] 443 HOUSING/

ACCOMMODATIONS

[ ] 535 DEATH PENALTY [ ] 540 MANDAMUS &OTHER I 1791

] 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) FAIR LABOR 1864 SSID TITLE XVI STANDARDS ACT ] 865 RSI (405(g)) LABOR/MGMT RELATIONS LABOR/MGMT FEDERAL TAX SUITS REPORTING & DISCLOSURE ACT RAILWAY LABOR ACT [ J870 TAXES (U.S. Plaintiff or Defendant) OTHER LABOR ( 1871 IRS-THIRD PARTY LITIGATION 26 USC 7609 EMPL RET INC SECURITY ACT

[ I [ [ [

J861 HIA(1395H) 1862 BLACKLUNG (923)

1)876 CUSTOMER
CHALLENGE 12 USC 3410 [ )890 OTHER STATUTORY
ACTIONS

1)891 AGRICULTURAL ACTS [ ]892 ECONOMIC

STABILIZATION ACT

[ )893 ENVIRONMENTAL
MATTERS

[1894

ENERGY

ALLOCATION ACT

IMMIGRATION

1 ]895 FREEOOM OF INFORMATION ACT [ )900 APPEAL OF FEE

DETERMINATION
UNDER EQUAL

[ 1210 [ 1220 [ | 230

LAND

CONDEMNATION FORECLOSURE RENT LEASE & EJECTMENT

TORTS TO LAND

[ ] 444 WELFARE [ J 446 AMERICANS WITH

DISABILITIES EMPLOYMENT

PRISONER CIVIL RIGHTS 11462

[ ] 550 CIVIL RIGHTS ( ] 555 PRISON CONDITION

NATURALIZATION APPLICATION

ACCESS TO JUSTICE

11463

HABEAS CORPUSALIEN DETAINEE

[ ]950 CONSTITUTIONALITY
OF STATE STATUTES

[ ] 446 AMERICANS WITH

DISABILITIES -OTHER

[ ) 240 I I MS
[ ) 290

[ ]465

OTHER IMMIGRATION
ACTIONS

TORT PRODUCT
LIABILITY

[ 1440 OTHER CIVIL RIGHTS

(Non-Prisoner)

ALL OTHER REAL PROPERTY

Check If demanded In complaint:

CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION

UNDER F.R.C.P. 23

DO YOU CLAIM THIS CASE IS RELATED TOACIVIL CASE NOW PENDING IN S.D.N.Y.?
IF SO, STATE:
JUDGE

DEMAND $75,000+

OTHER

DOCKET NUMBER.

Check YESonly if demandedIncomplaint

JURY DEMAND: E YES NO

NOTE: Pleasesubmit at thetime offiling an explanation ofwhy cases are deemed related.

(PLACEAN x iNONEBOXdHLY)

ORIGIN

IS 1 Original

Proceeding

2 Removed from

stateCourt

3 Remanded 4 Reinstated or

from

Reopened

5 Transferred from 6 Multidistrict

(Specify District)

Litigation

7AppealTo District
Judgment

^SeJudge

[]a. all partln raprwanted

I I b. Atleastone
party Is pro se.

Appellate

(PLACE AN x IN ONE BOX ONLY)

BASIS OF JURISDICTION

IFDIVERSITY, INDICATE

D 1 U.S. PLAINTIFF 2 U.S. DEFENDANT 3 FEDERAL QUESTION

(U.S. NOT APARTY)

IS4 DIVERSITY

(28 USC 1332, 1441)

.
PTF

CITIZENSHIP BELOW.

CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (FOR DIVERSITY CASES ONLY)

(Placean [X] in one boxfor Plaintiff and one boxforDefendant)
PTF DEF PTF DEF

CITIZEN OF THIS STATE

[11 [Xj 1 U w

CITIZEN OR SUBJECT OF A FOREIGN COUNTRY INCORPORATED or PRINCIPAL PLACE

OF BUSINESS IN THIS STATE

[ ]3 I ]3 []4[]4

INCORPORATED and PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS IN ANOTHER STATE FOREIGN NATION

I I5 X5 [16 []6

DEF

CITIZEN OF ANOTHER STATE X) 2 []2

PLAINTIFF(S) ADDRESS(ES) AND COUNTY(IES)

THEODORE F. SCHROEDER, 4408 Asbury Avenue, Ocean City, New Jersey 08226

DEFENDANT(S) ADDRESS(ES) AND COUNTY(IES)

BRIAN S. COHEN, 1 Little West 12th Street, New York, New York 10014
19801

PINTEREST, INC., 1201 Orange Street, Suite 600, One Commerce Center, New Castle, Delaware

DE REPRKENTA-nON Is^ReSSSe THAT, AT THIS TIME, IHAVE BEEN UNABLE, WITH REASONABLE DILIGENCE, TO ASCERTAIN THE
RESIDENCE ADDRESSES OF THE FOLLOWING DEFENDANTS:

Not applicable.

Checkone:

THIS ACTION SHOULD BE ASSIGNED TO:

(DO NOT check either box If this a PRISONER PETITION/PRISONER CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT.)

WHITE PLAINS

g| MANHATTAN

DATE 12/27/12
RECEIPT*

SIGNATUrjayOF ATJpRNE^F RECORD

" ' /fl

ADMITTED TO PRACTICE IN THIS DISTRICT

M YES (DATE ADMITTED Mo. JJ Attorney Bar Code # 1206 Yr. 2011 )

Magistrate Judge is to be designated bythe Clerk of the Court.

Magistrate Judge
Ruby J. Krajick, Clerk ofCourt by
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT (NEW YORK SOUTHERN)

,
Deputy Clerk, DATED.

i A L' ''kiJ* s so Designated.

12
THEODORE F. SCHROEDER,

^"1 o

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff,

Civil Action No.

v.

ECF Case

BRIAN S. COHEN and

PINTEREST, INC.,
Defendants.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Plaintiff, Theodore F. Schroeder ("Schroeder"), by and through his undersigned counsel, brings this Verified Complaint against Defendants Brian S. Cohen ("Cohen") and Pinterest, Inc.
("Pinterest") and alleges the following:
r-o

INTRODUCTION
1.

This is an action for, among other things, misappropriation, unjust emichmeflfand

-Y3

breach of fiduciary duty arising out of Defendants Cohen and Pinterest's illegal use ofplaintiff s
ideas and information technology in developing www.Pinterest.com.
CT

2.

Plaintiff originated the ideas that led to the popular, ever-growing Pinterest

website. In 2005, supported by two friends, Plaintiff conceived a web application that would
allow Internet users to share information about themselves in ways very different from the

popular social networks like Friendster, MySpace and Facebook by focusing on such users'
interests posted to such user's "board." Plaintiff brought his fellow Columbia law school friends on as partners to help him develop the project and, later, Cohen, a self-proclaimed
"Entrepreneurial Mentor," became a partner with the other three owners. Plaintiff invested the

most amount of money of the four stakeholders and, by far, the most amount of time by
developing his ideas into a functioning website and growing community with thousands of users.

3354570vl

3.

While becoming business partners with Plaintiff and over the course of most of

2007, Cohen learned about Plaintiffs ideas and all related technology and business plans. Cohen

worked with Plaintiff and Plaintiffs two colleagues to further develop Plaintiffs ideas. Cohen

caused the project to deadlock so he could steal the core ideas for himself and freeze out the
Plaintiff from reaping any benefits. 4. It was not until March 2012 that Plaintiff learned that Cohen played a material

role in the early stages of Pinterest when Plaintiff read an article in which Cohen bragged about

being Pinterest's "first investor" and meeting the founders of Pinterest at a business plan competition. What Cohen did not disclose in that article was that in addition to being the first
investor, he had stolen the ideas that underlie Pinterest in violation of an understanding not to
disclose or otherwise share Plaintiffs ideas.

5.

It would be unconscionable for Defendants to retain the value of the Plaintiffs

ideas and labor without making the appropriate remuneration to him.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

6.

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter under 28 U.S.C.

1332(a) because this matter is between citizens of different states and the amount in controversy
exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.

7.

This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because a substantial part of

Defendants' misconduct that gives rise to this action occurred in this District. 8. This Court is a proper venue under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) because this Court is in a

judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims
occurred, and because Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in this District.

3354570vl

PARTIES

9.

Plaintiff Schroeder is an individual and a resident of the State of New Jersey.

10.

Defendant Cohen is an individual and a resident of the State of New York. Upon

information and belief, Cohen regularly conducts business in this District and maintains at least
one residence in this District.

11.

Defendant Pinterest is a private corporation organized and existing under the laws

of the State of Delaware. While Pinterest's principal place of business is located in the State of
California, it began its operations and continues to routinely conduct business in the State of New York. The Pinterest website has grown quickly in popularity, reaching over 10 million unique users per month, faster than any other individual site. In an article in the Wall Street
Journal in April 2012, Pinterest was valued at $1.5 billion.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff Develops a Company and Functioning Website to Launch, Find, Discover and Discuss Products, Services and Ideas
12. In 2005, while attending Columbia Law School, Plaintiff and a fellow law school

classmate, Brandon Stroy ("Stroy"), worked together to develop an idea for a socially networked bulletin board where users came together to share their locations with their friends. At the time,

no such website existed. Plaintiff and Stroy pitched the idea to third parties in an attempt to obtain financing, but Plaintiff realized that he would be better off if he had not only the idea, but
also the technological expertise to bootstrap the idea into a web application.

13.

Plaintiff proceeded to learn how to develop programs and applications by

teaching himself computer programming. Indeed, at the time, Plaintiff spent more than 2,000

hours teaching himself all of the necessary computer and programming skills while developing
an appropriate application for his idea.
3
3354570vl

14.

Plaintiff soon enlisted another former classmate, William Bocra ("Bocra"), to help

further develop his idea, create a business model and handle administrative matters for the

project. The project became formalized through the creation of a company called RendezVoo
LLC ("RDV"). Plaintiff was given a 65% majority interest in RDV and was named the President

of RDV because it was his original idea and also because he took sole responsibility for the development of the web application and all technical processes. Plaintiff retained responsibility
for and performed all technical work in connection with the development of RDV's website:
www.Rendezvoo.com.

15.

RDV's operating agreement made clear that the members of the company

owed each other certain fiduciary duties and expressly prohibited the unilateral taking of any
corporate opportunity by any member. Consistent with his majority interest and RDV's

operating agreement, Plaintiff invested substantially more money and time into the company
than Stroy and Bocra.

16.

More than a year after Plaintiffs development of the idea, the first version of

www.Rendezvoo.com was released to the public. Plaintiff developed and built every technical aspect of www.Rendezvoo.com, and the large concepts underpinning the web application
originated with Plaintiff.

17.

Seeing a bigger opportunity with more content for users to browse, Plaintiff

eventually convinced Stroy and Bocra during 2006 that the scope of RDV should be expanded in
a second version to have its social networked bulletin boards share more than its users' locations;

users could share any interest they had, which, as memorialized in RDV's business plan, RDV

was "a website where people meet to share opinions, views, items and tastes on a variety of subjects - products, services, events, politics, economics - nearly anything of human interest."
4
3354570vl

Plaintiff rebuilt the application to address this new focus and introduced the new concepts to the
existing user community in an alpha release in August 2006.

18.

Version 2 of RDV's web application ("RDV Version 2") provided "boards" for

users to post their interests. Plaintiff also designed and implemented an infinite scroll to make it
easier for users to browse large amounts of data. When RDV Version 2 was launched, standard

web technologies provided only inefficient ways to browse large amounts of data.

Infinite

scrolling allows users to scroll through content on a seemingly single, long page rather than open
separate pages to retrieve additional content. At the time, the concept of infinite scrolling was in

its infancy.

Without Plaintiffs knowledge, these two key concepts, in addition to the ideas

underpinning RDV itself, found their way to Pinterest. 19. By mid-2006, Plaintiff had personally invested more than 5,000 hours developing

RDV's website and applications. Plaintiff, who graduated from Columbia Law School in May

2006, delayed taking the bar examination in the summer of 2006 and also delayed commencing his legal career so that he could focus solely on RDV and generating additional interest in it.
Unlike Plaintiff, Stroy, who graduated law school at the same time as Plaintiff, immediately

began his legal career at a large law firm, while Bocra focused most of his time on a family
business and launching a restaurant.

20.

By the end of 2006, excited about the promise of RDV Version 2, Plaintiff, Stroy

and Bocra began to look for capital to further advance the RDV project. That search led to Plaintiffs introduction to Defendant Cohen who was then affiliated with New York Angels - an
independent consortium of angel investors in New York City that works with local
entrepreneurs.

3354570vl

Presentation ofwww.Rendezvoo.com to Defendant Cohen

21.

In January 2007, Plaintiff, Stroy and Bocra met Cohen in New York City to

present RDV's concepts, business model and business plan. Plaintiff furnished Cohen with a

copy of the RDV business plan. That business plan, drafted the prior year as Plaintiff was

developing RDV Version 2, described the site as one "where people meet to share opinions,
views, items and tastes on a variety of subjects - products, services, events, politics and economics - nearly anything of human interest." At the time of the first meeting with Cohen,
RDV had an operating web application with more than 5,000 users.

22.

After the initial meeting in January 2007, Cohen stated that he was happy to meet

with the RDV team again to help "polish [their] marketing and pitch." Thereafter, the group met

again on January 29, 2007 in New York City. During this meeting, the parties discussed taking
RDV's web application and focusing it more narrowly on new ideas, products and services

because, similar to their first meeting with New York Angels, Cohen could not contemplate how people would be interested in viewing other people's interests. Cohen in fact exclaimed multiple
times in these meetings that he did not get the concept.

23.

After the January 29, 2007 meeting, Plaintiff, Stroy and Bocra discussed ways to

make RDV's website and business plan more in line with what was discussed during the two
meetings. It was agreed that the scope of www.Rendezvoo.com would be narrowed. So,

Plaintiff returned to the proverbial drawing table and worked diligently to develop a more
narrowly tailored web application that was based upon the concepts and ideas developed in RDV
Version 2 during 2006 - prior to meeting Cohen but were more attractive and understandable to

Cohen. Their efforts were successful. Plaintiffs technological efforts led to the creation of what
was referred to within RDV as the "Launchbed" platform.
6
3354570vl

24.

Plaintiff saw the positive

aspects

of the Launchbed

platform

and

contemporaneously remarked: "[The] one beauty of this thing if we pull it off is the ability for
the launcher to interact with those users checking it out" and that "you as content

producer/launcher get to launch your art/site/product and control the branding message that
results."

25.

Indeed, the initial Launchbed.com branding statement identified that "Launchbed

is the website and user community where people and companies can launch new products,
services, ideas, and media in order to ignite word-of-mouth efforts and receive targeted
feedback."

26.

Plaintiff, along with others from RDV, provided the Launchbed concept and

business model to Cohen on March 16, 2007 - two months after their first meeting.

27.

When discussing the Launchbed model in an email on April 29, 2007, Cohen

recognized that Launchbed "provides the announcee with a branded, centralized web launch presence and a sophisticated platform of customer-centric Web 2.0 community tools to make the
launch more effective. It's the first interactive-user driven launch environment for

everything 'new' that provides for immediate customer inquiry and feedback." (Emphasis in
original).
Cohen Joins RDV and Enters Into A Fiduciary Relationship With Plaintiff and Others

28.

In May 2007, Plaintiff, along with Bocra and Stroy, began discussing offering

partnership to Cohen. By that time, Plaintiff had originated the idea behind RDV and performed
all of the technical developmental tasks in creating the RDV website, and the RDV site was publicly available on the Internet and had a community of over 5,000 users.

3354570vl

29.

At the time Cohen was being considered as a partner, RDV was organized as a

limited liability company with its ownership interests allocated 65% to Plaintiff and 17.5% to

both Stroy and Bocra. Plaintiff, Stroy and Bocra proposed to Cohen that if he were to join the
company, Plaintiff would reduce his ownership interest to 46% and Cohen, Stroy and Bocra would each own 18%. Plaintiff maintained a substantial ownership of RDV in recognition of his ideas and efforts.
members of RDV.

No one objected to Plaintiffs larger financial position vis-a-vis the other

30.

On May 24, 2007, realizing the potential success of RDV and its concepts, Cohen Cohen noted that "[a]s for my role, I feel comfortable being the

accepted RDV's offer.

company's chairman with some operational authority and responsibility." The following day,
Cohen became RDV's new Chairman and Chief Executive Officer.

31.

At all relevant times, Cohen lacked the training and skill to perform the technical

work Plaintiff was performing in furtherance of the project.

32.

As part of Cohen joining RDV, Cohen agreed to be equally bound to the

requirements and restrictive covenants in RDV's operating agreement, including not taking Plaintiffs ideas or using any of RDV's work product. Cohen's pledges of commitment to

Plaintiff, Stroy and Bocra, his acceptance of RDV's business plan and Plaintiffs explanations of how www.Rendezvoo.com worked, his access to RDV's management information and
procedures, and his understanding that he would be compensated when the website was successful, created a duty of good faith and fair dealing as well as other fiduciary obligations
between Cohen and Plaintiff, Stroy and Bocra.

33.

Cohen also promised to contribute $20,000 to the project. (Cohen never paid this

amount and, instead, only contributed a few thousand dollars.)

8
3354570vl

34.

As the parties worked to refine their revised business model, Cohen aptly

described RDV's objectives: "our interest is to provide the first news release distribution of new

launches to the millions (we need this number to be successful) of reasonably sophisticated web
users who want to know immediately about new products and do not want or need to wait for the

interpretation from the press and analyst communities. . . . We are creating the first to know
'people wire service' for the masses on the Internet! Thus Scoopwire.com began to make more sense."1

35.

Skoopwire.com ("Skoopwire"), which is the brand name selected by the four

partners for the original Launchbed platform, was the more narrowly-focused version of RDV Version 2. After a series of meetings among Cohen, Plaintiff, Stroy and Bocra regarding RDV
in the first half of 2007, Plaintiff, along with Stroy and Bocra, continued to refine many of RDV's concepts and built an initial prototype of what became Skoopwire. During this process, Plaintiff taught Cohen about the social networking niche in which Rendezvoo/Skoopwire operated. During this time period, in response to Cohen's strong urging because he never

understood the basic concept of sharing interests, Plaintiff, Stroy and Bocra agreed to take down RDV Version 2 in order to focus on Skoopwire.

36.

Skoopwire was to be a free, direct-to-customer news wire connecting businesses

to bloggers, sophisticated customers and journalists wanting the easiest access to information about new products and services. Skoopwire was designed to make it easy and convenient to launch, find, discover and discuss new products and services before they were covered in the
mainstream media.

1 Issues obtaining a domain name resulted in scoopwire becoming skoopwire.

9
3354570vl

37.

At the same time the parties were working on the web design for Skoopwire.com,

Plaintiff was working to develop Skoopwire's technology plan. In June 2007 (and several times

thereafter), Plaintiff distributed and spoke about Skoopwire's technology plan with Cohen.
Skoopwire's technology plan included information regarding the architecture and platform for the website together with an analysis of how the website would permit interaction between
Skoopwire's customers and a collection of customer data.

38.

When the parties were discussing the technology plan for Skoopwire.com, they
Plaintiff identified that one key aspect of

also discussed Plaintiffs "usability principles."

Skoopwire was that, like RDV Version 2, the website intended to "[l]et the user design the site,

not the designer." In other words, Plaintiffs idea was to have those using the website determine what was posted to the website. If a user was interested in a product, such user would post that
product on Skoopwire to share their interest.
The Parties Incorporate Skoopwire and Move to Further Define Their
Relationships with Each Other and the Idea Behind Skoopwire.com

39.

On June 29, 2007, the parties restructured RDV when they formed and

incorporated Skoopwire Media Associates, Inc. ("SMA") in Delaware. It was Cohen's idea to use SMA rather than the RDV limited liability company because, as he stated at the time, that it
would be more attractive to investors to use a corporation instead of a limited liability company. However, the nature of the relationship and fiduciary duties between those involved in

RDV/SMA remained unchanged by the restructuring.

40. On July 3, 2007, after much work and analysis, the parties privately launched the

website Skoopwire.com for testing, customer review and analysis.

10
3354570vl

41.

Beginning in July 2007 and continuing through October 2007, the parties tested

the Skoopwire.com website with family members, friends, and others. Skoopwire compiled and
used this information to further develop and refine the website. 42. By September 2007, Cohen was representing himself to focus groups and

potential customers as the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Skoopwire. In one such email correspondence, Cohen described Skoopwire.com as follows: "For some time I wondered if there could be a free wire service (complimentary to Businesswire) that would focus on ONLY new products and services (revenue producing releases) introductions and be more directed at bloggers and sophisticated customers. Additionally, as the role of PR professionals
have evolved to talking more with customers, could such a wire service also include an interactive conversation browser... That's what we have created. Skoopwire is it's [sic] name."

43.

Plaintiff, Bocra and Cohen agreed that Skoopwire was "a free, direct-to-consumer

newswire connecting businesses to bloggers, sophisticated customers and journalists wanting the easiest access to information about new products and services. Skoopwire makes it easy and convenient to launch, find, discover and discuss these new products and services before they are

covered in the mainstream media." Skoopwire.com differed from RDV Version 2 in essence in
that RDV Version 2 was less focused on new products and allowed users to post anything of
interest to them whether "new" or not.

Cohen Creates Conflicts Over Ownership Interests and Deadlocks The Company

44.

In September 2007, after the focus groups returned favorable results and the

parties were soon looking to launch www.Skoopwire.com to the public, Cohen became upset with what he perceived to be Stroy's lack of involvement in the project. Cohen believed his role

as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Skoopwire warranted a greater ownership position
11
3354570vl

than his present, equal 18% share with Stroy. In fact, Cohen wanted to push Stroy out of Skoopwire entirely. However, Plaintiff and Stroy had agreed in 2005 that Stroy would always maintain a reduced equity interest in the project even though Stroy no longer was required to
contribute to RDV. In other words, Plaintiff had an agreement that he had to honor with Stroy.
45. By early November 2007, Cohen was still unhappy with his ownership share.

When Plaintiff was attempting to finalize a shareholders agreement that maintained Stroy as an
owner, Cohen balked at the idea. In fact, in a November 5, 2007 email, Cohen stated that the

"shareholders agreement is the least important issue on my mind. After what you said at our breakfast two weeks ago, I have found it extremely difficult to believe that I could trust you to trust Bill and I going forward. Nothing else matters. You and I must meet (again) to see if an
ONGOING trusting relationship can be truly found."

46.

Cohen, fully realizing his efforts were causing tension between him and Plaintiff,

persisted in arguing for Stroy's ouster and an increased financial interest in Skoopwire. Those

efforts, in combination with Plaintiff, Stroy and Bocra giving Cohen certain rights under the
organizational documents of RDV and Skoopwire, effectively deadlocked the project and created
significant strains in the relationships among those involved. Cohen was well aware that, at the

time Cohen created the conflicts, Plaintiff had started work at a law firm as a junior lawyer with

substantial work obligations partly at the urging of Cohen and that Plaintiff and his wife recently
had their first child. Cohen also knew that Stroy and Bocra, who were not as involved in the project as Plaintiff, continued to be burdened pursuing their careers outside of RDV and

Skoopwire Cohen had also never fulfilled his promise to contribute $20,000 to the project.
47. Cohen's efforts to deadlock the project and freeze Plaintiff from pursuing his own

ideas were successful.

By early 2008, the parties started contemplating a liquidation of

12

3354570vl

Skoopwire. Cohen, concealing his developing plan to steal Plaintiffs ideas, facetiously stated in
an email: "Frankly, I'm still saddened that such a marvelous idea and execution is lost forever."
48. Several discussions took place, including in person meetings in New York City, to

have those involved reconcile their differences. At no time did Cohen disclose his plan to take

Plaintiffs ideas and work product and use them for his own gain.

49.

As part of the proposed liquidation agreement that was being circulated among

the group by email, the parties intended that Plaintiff, Bocra, Stroy and Cohen would not
develop, pursue, or otherwise work on or cause or assist another to develop, pursue or otherwise
work on an entity or business reasonably related to the purposes, goals, aims and business
models of RDV or Skoopwire.

50.

In a July 1, 2008 email to Plaintiff, Cohen stated: "I have absolutely NO interest

in PROFITTING from your specific design work on Skoopwire."

51.

Cohen's plan to take Plaintiffs ideas and work product without compensating

Plaintiff continued. Several requests by Plaintiff for the group to sign the liquidation agreement
went without a response. By that time, Cohen knew that in order to steal Plaintiffs ideas, Cohen

could not sign any agreement that would prevent or limit his ability to take Plaintiffs ideas. 52. The parties never executed the liquidation agreement and www.Skoopwire.com

was never officially released to the public.

53.

After those involved in the project moved on with their respective lives and

careers in mid-2008, Plaintiff continually contemplated how he could make use of his ideas and
work product.

54.

By then, Plaintiff had devoted almost four years of his life and thousands of hours

working on his ideas and performing all of the technical requirements to enable Rendezvoo.com
13
3354570vl

and Skoopwire.com to be functional ~ without any compensation. Plaintiff had also contributed more money to the venture than Cohen or anyone else.
55. Out of a concern that Cohen would sue if Plaintiff tried to make use of what

Plaintiff himself had created and designed, Plaintiff kept putting any ideas of continuing his
efforts to the side. Cohen's Faustian Deal With the Founders of Pinterest

56.

As it turns out, Cohen wasted little time in stealing Plaintiffs ideas and using

those ideas for his personal gain.

In 2009, the year after Cohen caused the deadlock in

RDV/SMA, Cohen had given Plaintiffs ideas and applications to young entrepreneurs who, unlike Cohen, had the ability to fulfill Plaintiffs role of performing the technical aspects. 57. After Pinterest became publicly available, several persons familiar with Plaintiffs
It did not

ideas and Rendezvoo.com told him about the similarities between the two websites.

take long for Plaintiff to confirm what he had been told.

The similarities were almost too

coincidental. Pinterest was nearly exactly what Plaintiff conceived as RDV Version 2. At that
time, Plaintiff had no idea and could not have known that Cohen was in anyway involved with
Pinterest.

58.

Indeed, it was not until March 2012 that Plaintiff learned about Cohen's

successful scheme to steal Plaintiffs ideas and use them for his own gain despite promises and
an obligation not to do so.
59. On March 11, 2012, an article entitled "Pinterest's First Investor Explains the

Secret to the Startup's Success" was published. At or about the time the article was published,
Plaintiff obtained a copy of that article. In the article, Cohen was quoted as saying: "I was Pinterest's first investor." http://mashable.com/2012/03/11/pinterest-first-investor/ (last visited
14
3354570vl

June 18, 2012). In the article, Cohen claimed that he happened upon Pinterest's founders Ben
Silbermann and Evan Sharp "at a business plan competition where Angel investors 'forage for new opportunities'." (Id.) (quoting Cohen). Cohen then described in the article what it was like

to work with Pinterest in the early days and how the idea for Pinterest blossomed out of Tote, a different project Silbermann was working on.
60. Cohen said that he was a mentor to Silbermann and that Cohen "marveled at how

Silbermann listened to advice from investors, customers and partners" and that "they were

incredibly open for input.

That's really important as an instructive element for social

entrepreneurs - anyone - [they were open] to those Angel investors who care deeply about their success." (Id.) (quoting Cohen). 61. Cohen noted that Silbermann's first project was an app called "Tote."

Silbermann's "Tote" app was the first women's fashion catalog on the iPhone and allowed users

to tag specific items for later viewing.

Cohen stated that Silbermann recognized that by

"grabbing" items on the app, women were sharing their tastes. Cohen claimed that the grabbing
tool "became very useful and was the early incarnation of Pinterest."
62. Cohen did not reveal that he had taken Plaintiffs ideas and worked with

Silbermann to develop Pinterest. (Cohen lacked the technical skills to write code or otherwise
develop website applications.)
Similarities Between RDV Version 2 and Pinterest

63.

Pinterest allows users to pull images from elsewhere on the Internet to generate

"pins," which they then compile into various topic boards, creating organized collages of their pins. Each pin also functions as an immediate link to its original Internet source, such as a shopping site where users can immediately purchase the item pictured, a blog post, or an article.
15
3354570vl

64.

Pinterest allows users to view most popular pins on the site and the boards that

other users have created, without any external marketing input. The site invites users to "like" pins and re-pin things, creating a microcosm of image-sharing based solely on user-created content and "word of mouth" through social networking.
65. In the March 11, 2012 article, Cohen falsely stated that he did not know where the

concept of pinning on boards came from, but that he would "imagine it is that [Silbermann] saw
customers/women needing to have a contrast of all the things they were buying organized" and

that it "lent itself naturally to boards." (Id.) (quoting Cohen). Cohen also falsely claimed in the
article that the Pinterest site "came out of nowhere." (Id.) (quoting Cohen). Contrary to his

claims, Cohen knew exactly where the idea for the Pinterest site originated - with the Plaintiff
and his development of Version 2 ofRendezvoo.com.

66.

Some of the key similarities between the RDV Version 2 of Plaintiff and Cohen's

subsequent Pinterest site include:

RDV's Version 2 provided a website for users to post their interests for their friends and the other users of the site to see. This concept was noted in RDV's business plan, made part of its business model and evidenced by a functioning web application that had thousands of users. The goal of RDV was to connect things that mattered to a user with other users (i.e., show a user's identity via photos, hyperlinks and text descriptions of things that matter to them to their friends) while providing a place for a product or event promoter to gain visibility for its product. Pinterest is nearly an exact match of this same concept. Skoopwire, the off-shoot of RDV designed by Plaintiff, focused particularly on product discovery through socially networked product launches. The goal was that any new product launch would be covered on Skoopwire by its users and shared with friends of that user, thereby igniting word of mouth about the product launch. Pinterest's primary business model as described in the media is product discovery through friends.
16

3354570vl

o The user interface of RDV Version 2 adopted a user interface technique called the "infinite scroll" much before the technique was used by any mainstream website. Pinterest uses the infinite scroll technique, which has proven extremely successful
in enticing users to remain on the website.

o In RDV Version 2, the main user interface (the "Board") and each user's profile page (that user's "Board") adopted a concept that is now central to Pinterest.
(Rendezvoo user's posted to the Board and their board, while Pinterest users "pin" photos and descriptions to their virtual corkboard.)

o Recognizing the value of female users, RDV Version 2 adopted a pink and purple color scheme to attract female users. Pinterest's user community is predominantly female because of practices that target females.
67. The website for New York Angels (www.newyorkangels.com), the firm Cohen

operated through in his early dealings with Plaintiff, lists Pinterest as being added to that firm's
portfolio in 2009 - months after Cohen, the self-proclaimed "first investor" in Pinterest, froze

Plaintiff from pursuing Rendezvoo and Skoopwire and stole Plaintiffs ideas.
website, essentially RDV Version 2, was launched in March 2010.
68.

Pinterest's

Upon information and belief, Cohen remains an investor in Pinterest with a

significant financial interest in the company.

CAUSES OF ACTION
Count One

Unjust Enrichment (Plaintiff v. Cohen and Pinterest)

69.

Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs

as though set forth fully herein. 70. Defendant Cohen has promoted himself as the first investor in Pinterest and as

having worked with the founders of Pinterest in developing the site.

17
3354570vl

71.

Pinterest is an increasingly popular Internet site, which was founded on ideas and

concepts devised by Plaintiff, although Cohen has stated that the concepts behind Pinterest were
born "out of nowhere."

72.

As a result of Defendants' actions as described in this Complaint, Defendants

have been enriched at the expense of Plaintiff.

73.

As a result of Defendants' actions as described in this Complaint, Plaintiff has

been deprived of a valuable benefit.

74. Defendant has benefitted, and will continue to benefit, from his involvement with

Pinterest due to the current and likely continuing success of Pinterest.

75.

Defendant has benefitted to the detriment of Plaintiff as Cohen used the concepts

of Plaintiff without ever crediting and compensating him.

76.

Defendants cannot establish any justification for their unjust enrichment at the

expense of Plaintiff.

77.

The actions of Defendants described in this Complaint have at all times relevant

to this action been willful and/or knowing.

78.

Cohen has not acknowledged that the idea that forms the lynchpin of Pinterest

was taken from his previous ventures with Plaintiff, and thus equity and good conscience require that Plaintiff be remunerated for his contributions and concepts.
79. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendants alleged in this

Complaint, Plaintiff has been irreparably harmed and has suffered monetary damages in an as yet
undetermined amount.

18
3354570vl

Count Two

Misappropriation (Plaintiff v. Cohen and Pinterest)

80.

Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs

as though set forth fully herein.

81.

Plaintiff took steps to maintain the secrecy of all related technology and business

management information. The technology and business management information were valuable
to Plaintiff and Cohen.

82.
third parties.
83.

The technology developed by Plaintiff was not easily acquired or duplicated by

Cohen was the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of RDV and Skoopwire. In

this role, he was involved in many conversations with Plaintiff and the other members of

RDV/Skoopwire, and he was exposed to their confidential and proprietary information, including
but not limited to the business and technology plans for RDV/Skoopwire.

84. demographics.

Cohen also was privy to the anticipated use of the sites and the target markets and As Chairman and CEO, Cohen also was aware that everyone involved in

RDV/Skoopwire intended that the information was to be kept confidential and that, in particular, it would not be used to develop or assist another to develop a business with similar goals and
business models.

85.

Despite this understanding, Cohen entered into a relationship with Pinterest,

providing the founders with the proprietary information that he acquired through his association
with RDV/Skoopwire and upon which Pinterest was formed.

19
3354570vl

86.

Cohen misappropriated not only confidential information, but also business

opportunities for the other members of RDV/Skoopwire.

opportunities to Pinterest.

Cohen diverted those business

87.

Defendants' actions as described in this Complaint constitute misappropriation of

Plaintiffs trade secrets.

88.

The actions of Defendants described in this Complaint have at all times relevant

to this action been willful and/or knowing.

89.

As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendants alleged in this

Complaint, Plaintiff has been irreparably harmed and has suffered monetary damages in an as yet
undetermined amount.
Count Three

Misappropriation of Skills and Expenditures (Plaintiff v. Cohen and Pinterest)

90.

Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs

as though set forth fully herein.

91.
expenditures.

The technology developed by Plaintiff required significant labor, skill, and

92.

Plaintiff took steps to maintain the secrecy of all technology that he developed as
The technology and business management

well as all business management information.

information was valuable to Plaintiff and Cohen.

93.
third parties.

The technology developed by Plaintiff was not easily acquired or duplicated by

20
3354570vl

94.

As Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of RDV and Skoopwire, Cohen was

exposed to confidential and proprietary information, including but not limited to the business and

technology plans for RDV/Skoopwire.

95. Cohen entered into a relationship with Pinterest, providing the founders with the

proprietary information that he acquired through his association with RDV/Skoopwire and upon
which Pinterest was formed.

96.

Cohen misappropriated technology and information that was the result of

Plaintiffs labor, skill, and expenditures, and Cohen did so in bad faith.

97.
own benefit.

Cohen's misappropriation of Plaintiff s labor, skill, and expenditures was for his

98.

Cohen misappropriated not only confidential information, but also business

opportunities for the other members of RDV/Skoopwire.

opportunities to Pinterest.

Cohen diverted those business

99.

Cohen and Pinterest gained an unfair advantage when they used the technology

developed by Plaintiff, which was the result of Plaintiff s labor, skill, and expenditures.
100. Defendants' actions as described in this Complaint constitute misappropriation of

Plaintiffs labor, skill, and expenditures.

101.

The actions of Defendants described in this Complaint have at all times relevant

to this action been willful and/or knowing.

102.

As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendants alleged in this

Complaint, Plaintiff has been irreparably harmed and has suffered monetary damages in an as yet
undetermined amount.

21
3354570vl

Count Four

Promissory Estoppel (Plaintiff v. Cohen)

103.

Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs

as though set forth fully herein.

104. In an email dated July 1, 2008, Cohen unambiguously promised Plaintiff that he

would not take his ideas underlying Skoopwire for his own benefit. 105. Cohen intended Plaintiff to rely on that promise and it was foreseeable that

Plaintiff would rely on the promise.

106.
detriment.

Plaintiff reasonably relied on Cohen's promise not to take his ideas to his

107.

As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendants alleged in this

Complaint, Plaintiff has been irreparably harmed and has suffered monetary damages in an as yet
undetermined amount.
Count Five

Breach of Fiduciary Duty (Plaintiff v. Cohen)

108.

Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs

as though set forth fully herein.

109.

Due to his position as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of RDV/Skoopwire,

Cohen owed fiduciary duties to Plaintiff. Cohen was in a position of trust and confidence within the company, and Plaintiff reposed trust and confidence in Cohen.
knowingly gained a superiority and influence over Plaintiff. 110. Plaintiff relied on Cohen to act in the best interest of RDV/Skoopwire and Cohen

In so doing, Cohen

had full knowledge of Plaintiff s reliance.

22
3354570vl

111.

Cohen breached his fiduciary duties by misusing and misappropriating Plaintiffs

confidential and proprietary ideas, plans, and information for his own personal gain and that of
Pinterest.

112.

Cohen further breached his fiduciary duties by violating the trust placed in him by

using the concepts and business plans he learned at RDV/Skoopwire to begin at least one other

venture, claiming ignorance as to the origins of these ideas and neglecting to give credit to
Plaintiff who developed these concepts.

113.

The actions of Defendants described in this Complaint have at all times relevant

to this action been willful and/or knowing.

114.

As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendants alleged in this

Complaint, Plaintiff has been irreparably harmed and has suffered monetary damages in an as yet
undetermined amount. Count Six

Aiding and Abetting Breach of Fiduciary Duty (Plaintiff v. Pinterest)

115.

Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs

as though set forth fully herein. 116. Defendant Cohen owed fiduciary duties to Plaintiff by virtue of their business

relationship in RDV/Skoopwire, of which Defendant Pinterest was aware.

117. Pinterest had actual knowledge of Cohen's breach, knowingly participated in the

breach, and provided substantiated assistance to Cohen by basing the venture on ideas and

concepts that were misappropriated and constituted confidential and proprietary information, and
by failing to give credit to the originators of these ideas.

118.

Pinterest is profiting from and will continue to profit from these ideas.
23

3354570vl

119.

As a result of Pinterest's knowing participation in Cohen's breach of fiduciary

duties, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial, including the current
and potential profits of Pinterest.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that judgment be entered in his favor, and
that the Court grant:

a.
b.

an award of compensatory damages substantially in excess of $75,000;

a constructive trust over earnings derived from Pinterest;

c.
d.

an award of pre- and post-judgment interest at the legal rate;

an award of the costs and disbursements of this action, including reasonable

attorneys' fees; and e.

circumstances.

such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper under the

24
3354570vl

MONTGOMERY, McCRACKEN, WALKER & RHOADS, LLP

Dated: December 27, 2012

Richard L. Scheff -1206

Sidney S. Liebesman - 8/44

Charles Palella - 6642
437 Madison Avenue

29th Floor
New York, NY 10022

Tel:(212)867-9500 Fax:(212)201-1939

Attorneysfor Plaintiff
OF COUNSEL: Steven Pachman

K. Carrie Sarhangi William B. Conaty

MONTGOMERY, McCRACKEN WALKER & RHOADS, LLP
123 S. Broad Street

Philadelphia, PA 19109 Tel.: (215) 772-1500 Fax:(215)772-7620

R. Montgomery Donaldson Lisa Zwally Brown

MONTGOMERY, McCRACKEN WALKER & RHOADS, LLP
1105 N. Market Street

15th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Tel.: (302) 504-7800 Fax:(302) 504-7820

25
3354570vl