Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

ENERGY SCIENCES, INC. Plaintiff, v. PCT ENGINEERED SYSTEMS, LLC. Defendant. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL CIVIL ACTION NO.

COMPLAINT Energy Sciences, Inc. (ESI) brings this complaint for patent infringement against Defendant PCT Engineered Systems, LLC (PCT).

NATURE OF ACTION 1. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes United States Patent Nos. 6,426,507

(507 Patent); 6,610,376 (376 Patent); 7,026,635 (635 Patent); and 7,348,580 (580 Patent) under 35 U.S.C. 271 et. seq. BACKGROUND 2. The technology in this dispute relates to electron beam (EB) systems and

processes for manufacturing products that are used largely in the multi-billion dollar packaging industry. In addition, EB systems are used in a variety of other applications, for example, curing pressure sensitive adhesive for tapes, curing coating for furniture, and sterilization for aseptic packaging. EB systems and process, and their related technologies have evolved and advanced for over than 30 years, and are used as an energy efficient alternative to thermal (heat)

processing. EB systems generate a stream of electrons created by a voltage differential that pass through a thin foil to create an EB that is used to treat and/or cure a substrate passing under the thin foil. The EB market, and in particular the low voltage EB market, has grown steadily worldwide. Examples of some of the many applications for EB systems and processes currently in use globally include printing presses, coating and laminating lines, curing lines, and other related applications. PARTIES Plaintiff 3. Plaintiff ESI is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of

Delaware with a principal place of business at 42 Industrial Way, Wilmington, MA 01887. 4. For over thirty (30) years ESI has been a leader in the development and use of

innovative EB systems, processes and products made therefrom. ESI was issued its first patent (not involved in the present dispute) related to EB system technology in 1972. In 1988, ESI was acquired by Iwasaki Electric Corporation of Tokyo, Japan (Iwasaki), and is now a subsidiary of Iwasaki, one of the world's largest suppliers of light related technology and one of the worlds largest manufacturers of UV curing systems. 5. Over the last decade, ESI has become the leader in developing low voltage EB

systems for use in coating and laminating, ink printing, adhesive crosslinking, and related applications. ESI has sought and been awarded by the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) patent protection for its innovations in this field. The present dispute involves several of those patents, identified above in paragraph 1. 6. ESI is the sole owner by assignment of the 507, 376, 635, and 580 Patents.

Defendant 7. Upon information and belief, Defendant PCT is a limited liability corporation

organized under the laws of Iowa, with a principal place of business at 8700 Hillandale Road, Davenport, Iowa 52806. 8. Upon information and belief, PCT started as a custom systems and automation

service provider in 1988. In 2003, PCT acquired certain EB technology from Bemis Clysar referred to as BroadBeam. Following its acquisition of the BroadBeam technology, PCT began to provide service and parts for the BroadBeam systems installed worldwide. In addition, PCT started to manufacture and sell new EB systems. Starting in 2008, PCT introduced a new BroadBeam LE series of EB products. The new LE series and the existing EP and CE series of EB products are capable of operating in the low voltage range covered by the ESI patents in suit. 9. Upon information and belief, PCT recently became the exclusive distributor for

Comet EB Lab Test Units (Comet EB) in North and South America. The Comet EB utilizes EB technology, and is manufactured and sold by Comet Technologies (Comet), headquartered in Flamatt, Switzerland. 10. Upon information and belief, the Defendant PCT makes, uses, offers for sale,

sells in the U.S., and/or imports into the U.S. infringing systems and/or products, including, but not limited to, the BroadBeam line of EB systems such as the LE, EP, and CE series. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 11. This is an action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the

United States, United States Code, 35 U.S.C. 271 et seq. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1338(a).

12.

This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendant. The Defendant

maintains a website (www.teampct.com), which markets and advertises, inter alia, their BroadBeam EB systems to customers and potential customers globally. The Defendant utilizes sales representatives covering territories that include the United States and Europe. According to the Defendants website, the BroadBeam division maintains a 24 hours/day parts and service department for their EB systems worldwide. The Defendant has and continues to promote and advertise its BroadBeam EB systems in at least the United States, including the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 13. Upon information and belief, Defendant, on at least one occasion directly or

indirectly through intermediaries (including sales agents and others), offered for sale, an electron beam system to a company located in Bedford, Massachusetts. 14. As noted above, Defendant is the exclusive distributor in North and South

America for the Comet EB. Upon information and belief, the Comet EB may infringe at least one claim of the patents in suit, namely the 507, 376, 635, and 580 Patents. 15. As a result of the activities described above in at least paragraphs 8-10 and 12-

14, the Defendant has purposely availed itself of the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Accordingly, the Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in this district. 16. 1400(b). COUNT I: 17. 18. INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,426,507 Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b), (c) and/or

Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 - 16 as if fully set forth herein. On July 30, 2002, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (Patent

Office) duly and legally issued U.S. Patent No. 6,426,507 (the 507 Patent), entitled Particle

Beam Processing Apparatus, to I. Rangwalla, H. Clough, and G. Hannafin as the inventors. A copy of the 507 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. 19. Upon information and belief, the Defendant is aware of the 507 Patent and has

engaged in activities that directly infringe the 507 Patent by making, using, offering to sell, selling and/or importing systems and/or products, including, but not limited to, the BroadBeam line of EB systems such as the LE, EP, and CE series in the United States, and/or indirectly infringe by inducing infringement of the 507 Patent, and/or by contributing to infringement of the 507 Patent, under at least one of 35 U.S.C. 271(a), (b), (c), or (f). 20. Upon information and belief, the Defendant contributes to the infringement of

one or more claims of the 507 Patent by making, selling, or offering for sale components for the BroadBeam EB systems, which constitute a material part of the invention claimed in the 507 Patent, and which are not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use; rather, the components are used for or in EB systems that infringe at least one of the claims of the 507 Patent. 21. Upon information and belief, the Defendant advises and/or instructs third parties

that purchase its EB systems to operate the systems in such a manner that infringes at least one claim of the 507 Patent. 22. It is anticipated that discovery is needed to verify and confirm the allegations

based upon information and belief set forth in paragraphs 19-21 above, and that such discovery will likely reveal that instructions were provided to third parties regarding operation of the EB systems that results in infringement of one or more claims of the 507 Patent.

23.

Upon information and belief, Defendant knew or had reason to know that the use

of the EB systems by third parties would infringe the 507 Patent, and with full knowledge of the 507 Patent, induced or contributed to the infringement of the 507 Patent. 24. As a result of the Defendants past and on-going infringement of the 507 Patent,

Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, damages. 25. As a result of the Defendants infringement of the 507 Patent, Plaintiff has been

irreparably injured, and will suffer further irreparable injury unless such infringing acts are enjoined by this Court. COUNT II: 26. 27. INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,610,376

Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 - 25 as if fully set forth herein. On August 26, 2003, the Patent Office duly and legally issued U.S. Patent No.

6,610,376 (the 376 Patent), entitled Particle Beam Processing Apparatus, to I. Rangwalla, H. Clough, and G. Hannafin as the inventors. A copy of the 376 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. 28. Upon information and belief, the Defendant is aware of the 376 Patent and has

engaged in activities that directly infringe the 376 Patent by making, using, offering to sell, selling and/or importing systems and/or products, including, but not limited to, the BroadBeam line of EB systems such as the LE, EP, and CE series in the United States, and/or indirectly infringe by inducing infringement of the 376 Patent and/or by contributing to infringement of the 376 Patent, under at least one of 35 U.S.C. 271(a), (b), or (c). 29. Upon information and belief, the Defendant contributes to the infringement of

one or more claims of the 376 Patent by making, selling, or offering for sale components for the BroadBeam EB systems, which constitute a material part of the invention claimed in the 376 Patent, and which are not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial non-

infringing use; rather, the components are used for practicing all of the steps of at least one of the claims of the 376 Patent. 30. Upon information and belief, the Defendant advises and/or instructs third parties

that purchase its EB systems to operate the systems in such a manner that infringes at least one claim of the 376 Patent. 31. It is anticipated that discovery is need to verify and confirm the allegations based

upon information and belief set forth in paragraphs 28-30 above, and that such discovery will likely reveal that instructions were provided to third parties regarding operation of the EB systems that results in infringement of one or more claims of the 376 Patent. 32. Upon information and belief, Defendant knew or had reason to know that the use

of the EB systems by third parties would infringe the 376 Patent, and with full knowledge of the 376 Patent, induced or contributed to the infringement of the 376 Patent. 33. As a result of the Defendants past and on-going infringement of the 376 Patent,

Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, damages. 34. As a result of the Defendants infringement of the 376 Patent, Plaintiff has been

irreparably injured, and will suffer further irreparable injury unless such infringing acts are enjoined by this Court. COUNT III: INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,026,635 35. 36. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 - 34 as if fully set forth herein. On April 11, 2006, the Patent Office duly and legally issued U.S. Patent No.

7,026,635 (the 635 Patent), entitled Particle Beam Processing Apparatus and Materials Treatable Using the Apparatus, to I. Rangwalla, H. Clough, and G. Hannafin as the inventors. A copy of the 635 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

37.

Upon information and belief, the Defendant is aware of the 635 Patent and has

engaged in activities that directly infringe the 635 Patent by making, using, offering to sell, selling and/or importing systems and/or products, including, but not limited to, the BroadBeam line of EB systems such as the LE, EP, and CE series in the United States, and/or indirectly infringe by inducing infringement of the 635 Patent and/or by contributing to infringement of the 635 Patent, under at least one of 35 U.S.C. 271(a), (b), or (c). 38. Upon information and belief, the Defendant contributes to the infringement of

one or more claims of the 635 Patent by making, selling, or offering for sale components for the BroadBeam EB systems, which constitute a material part of the invention claimed in the 635 Patent, and which are not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use; rather, are used for practicing all of the steps of at least one of the claims of the 635 Patent. 39. Upon information and belief, the Defendant advises and/or instructs third parties

that purchase its EB systems to operate the systems in such a manner that infringes at least one claim of the 635 Patent. 40. It is anticipated that discovery is needed to verify and confirm the allegations

based upon information and belief set for in paragraphs 37-39 above, and that such discovery will likely reveal that instructions were provided to third parties regarding operation of the EB systems that results in infringement of one or more claims of the 635 Patent. 41. Upon information and belief, Defendant knew or had reason to know that the use

of the EB systems by third parties would infringe the 635 Patent, and with full knowledge of the 635 Patent, induced or contributed to the infringement of the 635 Patent.

42.

As a result of the Defendants past and on-going infringement of the 635 Patent,

Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, damages. 43. As a result of the Defendants infringement of the 635 Patent, Plaintiff has been

irreparably injured, and will suffer further irreparable injury unless such infringing acts are enjoined by this Court. COUNT IV: INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,348,580 44. 45. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 - 43 as if fully set forth herein. On March 25, 2008, the Patent Office duly and legally issued U.S. Patent No.

7,348,580 (the 580 Patent), entitled Particle Beam Processing Apparatus and Materials Treatable Using the Apparatus, to I. Rangwalla, H. Clough, and G. Hannafin as the inventors. A copy of the 580 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. 46. Upon information and belief, the Defendant is aware of the 580 Patent and has

engaged in activities that directly infringe the 580 Patent by making, using, offering to sell, selling and/or importing systems and/or products, including, but not limited to, the BroadBeam line of EB systems such as the LE, EP, and CE series in the United States, and/or indirectly infringe by inducing infringement of the 580 Patent and/or by contributing to infringement of the 580 Patent, under at least one of 35 U.S.C. 271(a), (b), (c), or (f). 47. Upon information and belief, the Defendant contributes to the infringement of

one or more claims of the 580 Patent by making, selling, or offering for sale components for the BroadBeam EB systems, which constitute a material part of the invention claimed in the 580 Patent, and which are not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use; rather, the components are used for or in EB systems that infringe at least one of the claims of the 580 Patent.

48.

Upon information and belief, the Defendant advises and/or instructs third parties

that purchase its EB systems to operate the systems in such a manner that infringes at least one claim of the 580. 49. It is anticipated that discovery is needed to verify and confirm allegations based

upon information and belief set forth in paragraphs 46-48 above, and that such discovery will likely reveal that instructions were provided to third parties regarding operation of the EB systems that results in infringement of one or more claims of the 580 Patent. 50. Upon information and belief, Defendant knew or had reason to know that the use

of the EB systems by third parties would infringe the 580 Patent, and with full knowledge of the 580 Patent, induced or contributed to the infringement of the 580 Patent. 51. As a result of the Defendants past and on-going infringement of the 580 Patent,

Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, damages. 52. As a result of the Defendants infringement of the 580 Patent, Plaintiff has been

irreparably injured, and will suffer further irreparable injury unless such infringing acts are enjoined by this Court. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests the following relief: (a) a declaration that Defendant infringes U.S. Patent Nos. 6,426,507; 6,610,376; 7,026,635; and 7,348,580, and a final judgment incorporating same; (b) entry of permanent equitable relief under 35 U.S.C. 283, including, but not limited to, a permanent injunction that enjoins Defendant and any of its officers, agents, employees, assigns, representatives, privies, successors, and those acting in concert or participation with them from infringing and/or inducing or contributing to infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,426,507; 6,610,376; 7,026,635; and 7,348,580.

10

(c) an award of damages sufficient to compensate Plaintiff for infringement by Defendant under 35 U.S.C. 284, together with prejudgment and post-judgment interest; (d) a judgment holding that this is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. 285 and awarding Plaintiff reasonable attorneys fees, costs, and expenses; and (e) such other relief deemed just and proper. JURY DEMAND Under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury of all issues so triable by a jury in this action.

11

DATED: June 27, 2013

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Michael R. McGurk Michael R. McGurk (BBO No. 653,810) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, L.L.P. 2 Seaport Lane Boston, MA 02210 E-mail address: michael.mcgurk@finnegan.com Telephone: (617) 646-1600 Facsimile: (617) 646-1666

Attorney for Plaintiff Energy Sciences, Inc.

12