Docstoc

Lee Antimicrobial Solutions v. Hi-Tech Air _ Water Purification Systems et. al

Document Sample
Lee Antimicrobial Solutions v. Hi-Tech Air _ Water Purification Systems et. al Powered By Docstoc
					                       IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                        FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
                                BEAUMONT DIVISION


                                                   )
LEE ANTIMICROBIAL SOLUTIONS                        )
LLC,                                               )
                                                   )   Civil Action No. _______________
               Plaintiff,                          )
                                                   )   JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
v.                                                 )
                                                   )
HI-TECH AIR & WATER                                )
PURIFICATION SYSTEMS, LLC,                         )
GLOBAL PURIFICATIONS, LLC,                         )
CIMR TECHNOLOGIES, XSTREAM                         )
INFECTION CONTROL, ALTON                           )
HOLT, and JAMES MASTERSON,                         )
                                                   )
               Defendants.                         )
                                                   )



                       COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
       Plaintiff Lee Antimicrobial Solutions LLC (“LAMS”) files this Complaint against Hi-

Tech Air & Water Purification Systems, LLC, Global Purifications, LLC, CIMR Technologies,

XStream Infection Control, Alton Holt, and James Masterson (collectively, “Defendants”).

                                            PARTIES
       1.      LAMS is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 263

Tresser Boulevard, 9th Floor, One Stamford Plaza, Stamford, CT 06901.

       2.      Upon information and belief, Hi-Tech Air & Water Purification Systems, LLC is

a Texas corporation with its principal place of business at 105 Magnolia Trail, Silsbee, TX

77656. Mr. Alton Holt is an officer of Hi-Tech Air & Water Purification Systems, LLC.

       3.      Upon information and belief, Global Purifications, LLC is a Delaware corporation

with its principal place of business at 1810 Wilmington Pike P, Glen Mills, PA 19342-8177. Mr.
Holt is an officer of Global Purifications, LLC.


                                                   1
        4.          Upon information and belief, CIMR Technologies is a business entity that

maintains a website at http://www.cimrtech.com. Mr. Holt is affiliated with CIMR

Technologies.

        5.          Upon information and belief, XStream Infection Control is a business entity with

its principal place of business at 10501 Braddock Road, Suite 204, Fairfax, VA 22032. XStream

Infection Control maintains a website at http://www.xstreaminfectioncontrol.com. Mr. James

Masterson founded XStream Infection Control.

                                     JURISDICTION AND VENUE
        6.          This is an action for patent infringement under the patent laws of the United

States for which this Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1338.

        7.          Personal jurisdiction over Hi-Tech Air & Water Purification Systems, LLC is

proper in this district because the principal place of business of Hi-Tech Air & Water Purification

Systems, LLC is in this district and because the infringing acts being complained of are occurring

in this district.

        8.          Personal jurisdiction over Global Purifications, LLC, CIMR Technologies,

XStream Infection Control, and Messrs. Holt and Masterson is proper in this district because

they purposely availed themselves of the privileges of conducting business in this district by

directing activities there in connection with the allegations in this Complaint.

        9.          Venue in this district is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400(b).

                                      FACTUAL BACKGROUND
        10.         LAMS is an innovator in the field of infection control. It has developed safe and

effective technologies that utilize hydrogen peroxide gas to provide environmental microbial

control and disinfection.

        11.         Upon information and belief, Hi-Tech Air & Water Purification Systems, LLC

develops, uses, and/or tests certain microbial control devices, including, but not limited to, the CIMR

(Continuous Infectious Microbial Reduction) systems, which use hydrogen peroxide gas to

disinfect microbes both airborne and on surfaces.


LAMS complaint-5-24.docx                             2
        12.     Upon information and belief, Global Purifications, LLC, CIMR Technologies,

XSTREAM Infection Control, and Messrs. Holt and Masterson are distributors and/or promoters

of the CIMR systems. See http://www.cimrtech.com, http://www.xstreaminfectioncontrol.com.

                                      THE PATENT-IN-SUIT
        13.     U.S. Patent No. 8,168,122 (“the ‘122 patent”), entitled “Purified Hydrogen

Peroxide Gas Microbial Control Methods and Devices,” was duly and legally issued by the

United States Patent and Trademark Office on May 1, 2012. A copy of the ‘122 patent is

attached as Exhibit 1.
        14.     LAMS is the assignee of the ‘122 patent.

                                       CAUSE OF ACTION
                                (Infringement Of The ‘122 Patent)
        15.     LAMS incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 14 above.

        16.     Defendants, either alone or in conjunction with others, have infringed and

continue to infringe one or more claims of the ‘122 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271, either literally

or under the doctrine of equivalents by making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling within the

United States and/or importing into the United States certain microbial control devices,

including, but not limited to, the CIMR systems, such as CIMR500, CIMR320, CIMR320H,

CIMR1500WM, CIMR3500, and CIMR-Ductwork products.

        17.     In particular, Hi-Tech Air & Water Purification Systems, LLC, Mr. Alton Holt, and

users of the CIMR systems practice one or more method claims of the ‘122 patent. By way of

example, upon information and belief, the CIMR systems operate by generating ozone-free

hydrogen peroxide gas from humid ambient air via exposure of an interior titanium dioxide catalyst

to ultraviolet light, and directing the hydrogen peroxide gas to the protected area to disinfect

microbes both airborne and on surfaces.

        18.     Further, Defendants have induced others to directly infringe the ‘122 patent by

actively instructing, assisting, and/or encouraging others to practice one or more claims of the
‘122 patent with the knowledge that the induced acts constitute infringing activities. By way of


LAMS complaint-5-24.docx                            3
example, the product guide of the CIMR systems touts that (1) they are “ozone-free;” (2) they

work “by creating 0.02 parts per million (ppm) of hydrogen peroxide gas from the oxygen and

humidity that already exists in the air;” (3) they are “effective against microbes both airborne and on

surfaces;” and (4) they virtually destroy microbes because “[t]he hydrogen peroxide molecules

have both localized positive and negative charges; they are literally drawn to viruses and bacteria by

electro-static attraction.”

        19.       Defendants have also promoted the CIMR systems through websites and

presentations. By way of example, the websites http://www.cimrtech.com and
http://www.xstreaminfectioncontrol.com state that the CIMR systems “disinfect[] viruses,

bacteria, mold and other fungi by producing 0.02 ppm of hydrogen peroxide gas from oxygen

and water vapor in the air” and use a “Photo Catalytic process that produces a gaseous hydrogen

peroxide.”

        20.       In addition, Defendants have contributed to the direct infringement of the ‘122

patent by others by offering to sell or selling the CIMR systems with the knowledge that they

were especially designed and made to practice one or more claims of the ‘122 patent. See

paragraphs 17-19 above. Further, the CIMR systems are not suitable for substantial

noninfringing use. By way of example, the websites http://www.cimrtech.com and

http://www.xstreaminfectioncontrol.com state that:

              The process employed in the CIMR systems is “different from the aqueous vaporized
              process. Aqueous vaporized process takes liquid hydrogen peroxide and vaporizes it
              into the air. The aqueous vaporized process results in hydrogen peroxide levels over
              OSHA [Occupational Safety & Health Administration] limits for occupied areas;” and

              The hydrogen peroxide gas in the CIMR systems is “supplied to the protected area
              where it diffuses everywhere air travels.”

        21.       Defendants’ direct and indirect infringement of the ‘122 patent has been willful

and deliberate.

        22.       LAMS has suffered, and will continue to suffer, irreparable injury and damages
by Defendants’ infringement of the ‘122 patent.



LAMS complaint-5-24.docx                           4
          23.    Defendants’ infringement of the ‘122 patent will continue unless enjoined by the

Court.

                                      PRAYER FOR RELIEF
          LAMS respectfully requests that the Court grant the following relief:

          (a)    declaring that Defendants have directly and/or indirectly infringed the ‘122

patent;

          (b)    preliminarily and permanently enjoining Defendants, their partners, founders,

owners, shareholders, officers, agents, employees, attorneys, servants, sales representatives,
independent contractors, customers, and those in concert or participation with them, from further

infringement of the ‘122 patent;

          (c)    awarding LAMS damages for infringement of the ‘122 patent, said damages to be

trebled if willful infringement is found;

          (d)    awarding LAMS reasonable attorneys fees and costs to enforce the ‘122 patent;

and

          (e)    awarding LAMS such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and

proper.

                                    DEMAND OF JURY TRIAL
          LAMS hereby demands a jury trial for all issues triable in this action.


          Dated: May 24, 2012                   Respectfully submitted,


                                                /s/ J. Thad Heartfield
                                                J. Thad Heartfield
                                                Texas State Bar No. 09346800
                                                E-mail: thad@jth-law.com
                                                M. Dru Montgomery
                                                Texas State Bar No. 24010800
                                                E-mail: dru@jth-law.com




LAMS complaint-5-24.docx                           5
                                    THE HEARTFIELD LAW FIRM
                                    2195 Dowlen Road
                                    Beaumont, Texas 77706
                                    (409) 866-3318 (Telephone)
                                    (409) 866-5789 (Facsimile)



Of Counsel:
Charles G. Berry
Arnold & Porter LLP
399 Park Avenue
New York, New York 10022-4690
Tel: 212-715-1399
Charles.Berry@aporter.com

John E. Nilsson
Arnold & Porter LLP
555 Twelfth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20004-1206
Tel: 202-942-5000
John.Nilsson@aporter.com

Wallace Wu
Arnold & Porter LLP
777 S. Figueroa Street, 44th Flr.
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Tel: 213-243-4000
Wallace.Wu@aporter.com




LAMS complaint-5-24.docx              6

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:26
posted:5/30/2012
language:
pages:6