throbber
CIVIL COVER SHEET
`
`ILND 44 (Rev. 09/20)
`Case: 1:21-cv-02753 Document #: 1-5 Filed: 05/20/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:65
` The ILND 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except
`as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
`purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (See instructions on next page of this form.)
` I. (a) PLAINTIFFS
`
`DEFENDANTS
`
`(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff
`(Except in U.S. plaintiff cases)
`
`(c) Attorneys (firm name, address, and telephone number)
`
`County of Residence of First Listed Defendant
`(In U.S. plaintiff cases only)
` Note: In land condemnation cases, use the location of the tract of land involved.
` Attorneys (If Known)
`
`II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Check one box, only.)
` 1 U.S. Government
` 3
` Federal Question
`Plaintiff
`(U.S. Government not a party.)
`
`III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (For Diversity Cases Only.)
`(Check one box, only for plaintiff and one box for defendant.)
` PTF DEF
` PTF
`DEF
`Incorporated or Principal Place of
` 4
` 4
` 1
` 1
`Business in This State
`
`Citizen of This State
`
` 2 U.S. Government
`Defendant
`
` 4
`
` Diversity
`(Indicate citizenship of parties in Item III.)
`
`Citizen of Another State
`
` 2
`
`Incorporated and Principal Place
`2
` of Business in Another State
`
`Citizen or Subject of a
`Foreign Country
`
` 3
`
`3 Foreign Nation
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
`OTHER STATUTES
` 375 False Claims Act
` 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
` 3729 (a))
` 400 State Reapportionment
`
` 410 Antitrust
` 430 Banks and Banking
` 450 Commerce
` 460 Deportation
` 470 Racketeer Influenced
` and Corrupt
` Organizations
` 480 Consumer Credit
`
` 485 Telephone Consumer
`
` Protection Act (TCPA)
` 490 Cable/Sat TV
` 850 Securities/Commodities/
`
` Exchange
` 890 Other Statutory Actions
` 891 Agricultural Arts
` 893 Environmental Matters
` 895 Freedom of Information
` Act
` 896 Arbitration
` 899 Administrative
` Procedure
` Act/Review or Appeal of
`Agency Decision
` 950 Constitutionality of
` State Statutes
`
`LABOR
`710 Fair Labor Standards
` Act
`720 Labor/Management
` Relations
`
`740 Railway Labor Act
`751 Family and Medical
` Leave Act
`790 Other Labor Litigation
`
`791 Employee Retirement
` Income Security Act
`
`PROPERTY RIGHTS
`820 Copyright
`830 Patent
`835 Patent - Abbreviated
` New Drug Application
`840 Trademark
`880 Defend Trade Secrets
` Act of 2016 (DTSA)
`SOCIAL SECURITY
`861 HIA (1395ff)
`862 Black Lung (923)
`863 DIWC/DIWW
` (405(g))
`864 SSID Title XVI
`865 RSI (405(g))
`
`FEDERAL TAXES
`870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff
` or Defendant
`
`871 IRS—Third Party
` 26 USC 7609
`
`CIVIL RIGHTS
` 440 Other Civil Rights
` 441 Voting
` 442 Employment
`443 Housing/Accommodations
` 445 Amer. w/ Disabilities-
` Employment
` 446 Amer. w/Disabilities -
`Other
` 448 Education
`
`BANKRUPTCY
`422 Appeal 28 USC 158
`423 Withdrawal
` 28 USC 157
`
` FORFEITURE/PENALTY
` 625 Drug Related Seizure
` of Property
` 21 USC 881
` 690 Other
`
`IMMIGRATION
`462 Naturalization
` Application
`463 Habeas Corpus –
` Alien Detainee
` (Prisoner Petition)
`465 Other Immigration
` Actions
`
`V. ORIGIN (Check one box, only.)
` 1 Original
` 2 Removed from
`Proceeding
`State Court
`
`VI. CAUSE OF ACTION ( Enter U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing and
`write a brief statement of cause.)
`
` 3 Remanded from
`Appellate Court
`
`
`4 Reinstated
` or Reopened
`
` 5 Transferred
` from Another
` District
` (specify)
`VII. PREVIOUS BANKRUPTCY MATTERS (For nature of suit 422 and
`423, enter the case number and judge for any associated bankruptcy matter previously adjudicated by
`a judge of this Court. Use a separate attachment if necessary.)
`
` 6 Multidistrict
`Litigation -
`Transfer
`
` 8 Multidistrict
` Litigation -
` Direct File
`
`VIII. REQUESTED IN
`Check if this is a class action under Rule 23,
`COMPLAINT:
`F.R.CV.P.
`IX. RELATED CASE(S) IF ANY (See instructions):
`X.
`Is this a previously dismissed or remanded case?
`
` Judge
` Yes
`
`Demand $
`
`CHECK Yes only if demanded in complaint:
`Jury Demand:
` Yes
` No
`Case Number
` No If yes, Case # Name of Judge
`
`Date: ___________________________________________
`
` Signature of Attorney of Record ______________________________________________
`
`IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Check one box, only.)
`CONTRACT
` 110 Insurance
`
`TORTS
`PERSONAL INJURY
`
`310 Airplane
`315 Airplane Product Liability
`320 Assault, Libel & Slander
`330 Federal Employers'
` Liability
`340 Marine
`345 Marine Product Liability
`350 Motor Vehicle
`355 Motor Vehicle Product
` Liability
`360 Other Personal Injury
`362 Personal Injury - Medical
`Malpractice
`
` PRISONER PETITIONS
` 510 Motions to Vacate
` Sentence
` 530 General
`
` 535 Death Penalty
`
`Habeas Corpus:
`540 Mandamus & Other
`550 Civil Rights
`555 Prison Condition
`560 Civil Detainee -
` Conditions
`
` of Confineme nt
`
`
`PERSONAL INJURY
`
`530 General
`367 Health Care/
` Pharmaceutical
` Personal Injury
` Product Liability
`368 Asbestos Personal
` Injury Product
` Liability
`
`370 Other Fraud
`
`371 Truth in Lending
`
`380 Other Personal
` Property Damage
`385 Property Damage
` Product Liability
`
` PERSONAL PROPERTY
`
` 120 Marine
`
` 130 Miller Act
`
` 140 Negotiable Instrument
` 150 Recovery of Overpayment
`
` & Enforcement of Judgment
` 151 Medicare Act
` 152 Recovery of Defaulted
` Student Loan
` (Excludes Veterans)
` 153 Recovery of Veteran’s
` Benefits
` 160 Stockholders’ Suits
` 190 Other Contract
` 195 Contract Product Liability
` 196 Franchise
`
` REAL PROPERTY
` 210 Land Condemnation
` 220 Foreclosure
` 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment
` 240 Torts to Land
` 245 Tort Product Liability
`290 All Other Real Property
`
`1
`
`EXHIBIT 1018
`
`

`

`Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X"
`United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.
`United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box.
`Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment
`Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the
`citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity
`cases.)
`
`Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If there are multiple nature of suit codes associated with the case, pick the nature of suit code
`that is most applicable. Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 1:21-cv-02753 Document #: 1-5 Filed: 05/20/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:66
`INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44
`Authority for Civil Cover Sheet
`
`The ILND 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as
`required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is
`required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of
`Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:
`
`I.(a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use
` (b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the
` (c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting
`
`
`in this section "(see attachment)".
`
`II.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this
`
`
`section for each principal party.
`
`IV.
`
`
`
`Origin. Place an "X" in one of the seven boxes.
`V.
`Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.
`
`
`Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441.
`
`
`Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing
`
`
`date.
`
`
`Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.
`
`
`Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or
`
`
`multidistrict litigation transfers.
`
`
`
` Multidistrict Litigation – Transfer. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C.
`
` Multidistrict Litigation – Direct File. (8) Check this box when a multidistrict case is filed in the same district as the Master MDL docket.
`PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE IS NOT AN ORIGIN CODE 7. Origin Code 7 was used for historical records and is no longer relevant due to
`
`
`
`
`changes in statue.
`
`VI. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional
`
`
`statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service
`
`VII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.
`
`
`Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.
`
`
`Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.
`
`VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket
`
`
`numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.
`
`Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-02753 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/20/21 Page 1 of 16 PageID #:1
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`
`Civil Action No.
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`))
`
`
`)
`
`)))))))
`
`
`)
`
`HIGH ENERGY OZONE LLC d/b/a FAR-UV
`STERILRAY and S. EDWARD
`NEISTER,
`
` Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`EDEN PARK ILLUMINATION, INC.
`
` Defendant.
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiffs High Energy Ozone LLC d/b/a Far-UV Sterilray (“HEO3”) and Mr. S. Edward
`
`Neister (“Mr. Neister”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) allege as follows:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`More than fifteen years ago, physicist S. Edward Neister developed and patented
`
`methods for deactivating or destroying harmful microorganisms using a new spectrum of
`
`ultraviolet (UV) light. Mr. Neister’s methods included the development and use of Krypton-
`
`Chloride excimer lamps that emit a peak wavelength at 222 nm in conjunction with other
`
`wavelengths. Unlike the 254 nm UV light—which had been used for decades for sanitization but
`
`was dangerous to humans—applying 222 nm UV light does not penetrate human skin or eyes,
`
`making it far better and more useful than traditional lamps and methods of use.
`
`2.
`
`Mr. Neister’s patented technology became the foundation for the family business.
`
`Mr. Neister and his brother John Neister originally founded the company that would become HEO3
`
`in 2005 in a small town in New Hampshire. HEO3 produces and sells lamps designed to perform
`
`Mr. Neister’s patented methods of killing harmful microorganisms.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-02753 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/20/21 Page 2 of 16 PageID #:2
`
`3.
`
`The global COVID-19 pandemic took the world by surprise in early 2020, but the
`
`hard work of and vision by the Neister brothers anticipated such a crisis. Their Excimer Wave
`
`Sterilray™ technology, products, and patented methods positioned HEO3 to be a global leader in
`
`UV light disinfection technology, providing sanitization devices to aid in the fight against the
`
`disease.
`
`4.
`
`As a result of the pandemic, interest in UV light disinfection technology reached
`
`new heights. Market entrants sprung forth to capitalize on sanitization using far-UV light in the
`
`222 nm range – including through unauthorized use of HEO3’s patented technology.
`
`5.
`
`HEO3’s patented technology asserted in this case includes U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`8,975,605 and 9,700,642, true and correct copies of which are attached hereto as Exhibits 1 and 2,
`
`respectively.
`
`6.
`
`Defendant Eden Park Illumination, Inc. (“Eden Park”) is one such company trading
`
`on HEO3’s patented technology. As described below, Eden Park’s products utilize HEO3’s
`
`patented systems and methods.
`
`7.
`
`To protect its hard-earned intellectual property rights, HEO3 sent a notice letter to
`
`Eden Park in June 2018 to notify them of HEO3’s patents and to offer to open licensing
`
`discussions. But still Eden Park refused to cease its infringing activities.
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`8.
`
`This is an action for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,975,605 (“the ’605 patent”)
`
`and 9,700,642 (“the ’642 patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”) pursuant to the Patent
`
`Laws of the United States of America, 35 U.S.C. §§ 100 et seq.
`
`2
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-02753 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/20/21 Page 3 of 16 PageID #:3
`
`PARTIES
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiff HEO3 is a company organized and existing under the laws of the State of
`
`New Hampshire with its principal place of business at 30 Centre Road, Suite 6, Somersworth, NH
`
`03878.
`
`10. Plaintiff S. Edward Neister resides and works in the state of New Hampshire. He is
`
`the founder of HEO3 and its Chief Technology Officer.
`
`11. On information and belief, Defendant Eden Park is a corporation organized and
`
`existing under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business at 903 N
`
`Country Fair Drive, Champaign, IL 61822. Eden Park also has offices in Chicago, IL. See Eden
`
`Park’s website, https://edenpark.com/#Contact_Section, at “Locations.”
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`12. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under at least 28 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 1331, 1338.
`
`13. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Eden Park because it is headquartered in
`
`the State of Illinois. Eden Park also maintains a place of business in this District.
`
`14. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)-(c) and 1400(b) because
`
`Eden Park maintains a place of business in this District and has committed acts of infringement in
`
`this District.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`HEO3’s 222 nm UV Technology
`
`15. HEO3 is a leading developer of disinfection equipment using 222 nm UV
`
`technology. HEO3’s disinfection technology provides a safe and environmentally sound means of
`
`disinfection using UV-light to kill bacteria, viruses, mold, and fungi in seconds or less. It has been
`
`validated by over 40 third-party labs as having a greater than 99.99% effective kill rate.
`
`3
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-02753 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/20/21 Page 4 of 16 PageID #:4
`
`16. HEO3’s technology permits users to sterilize surfaces without harsh chemicals.
`
`Additionally, unlike more commonly used UV sterilization techniques, HEO3’s technology is
`
`mercury-free and does not produce ozone – a significant advance in terms of safety and
`
`environmental impact.
`
`17. HEO3 offers a wide range of products utilizing its 222 nm UV technology. These
`
`include, for example: luminaire fixtures; air and surface disinfection units for disinfecting ambient
`
`air and surfaces in a room; surface disinfection rails and disinfection wands for disinfecting
`
`surfaces and air; pathogen reduction boxes for disinfecting high-touch items (such as handheld
`
`medical equipment) that can be placed inside the boxes; and airduct units for disinfecting air
`
`passing through HVAC units.
`
`18. HEO3 does business under the tradename Far-UV SterilrayTM and its products
`
`feature Mr. Neister’s patented Excimer Wave SterilrayTM Technology. Customers across the globe
`
`use Excimer Wave SterilrayTM products to create safer work, home, and medical environments.
`
`19. As described on its website, HEO3’s goal is to reduce the spread of infections and
`
`the burdens of such illnesses on our healthcare system. Over the past year alone, HEO3 has been
`
`approached by numerous and diverse organizations—including NFL teams, airlines, and robotic
`
`companies that specialize in the disinfection of office spaces, military barracks, public
`
`transportation, and hospitals—that have expressed interest in using HEO3’s technology to help
`
`prevent spread of COVID-19.
`
`20. HEO3’s 222 nm UV technology is described and claimed in the Asserted Patents, on
`
`which Mr. Neister is the sole inventor. Mr. Neister has worked in the field of laser and UV light
`
`technology for over six decades. Mr. Neister drew on his decades of experience to develop HEO3’s
`
`222 nm UV technology claimed in the Asserted Patents.
`
`4
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-02753 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/20/21 Page 5 of 16 PageID #:5
`
`21. Prior to Mr. Neister’s inventions, UV disinfection methods typically used light at
`
`254 nm generated by mercury-based lamps. As described in, e.g., the ’605 patent, Mr. Neister
`
`discovered that single line wavelengths emitted from an “excimer” lamp—a lamp using inert gases
`
`to generate photons at wavelengths matching the maximum absorption bands for DNA nitrogenous
`
`bases, proteins, amino acids, and other component bonds of microorganisms—could be
`
`significantly more effective than standard 254 nm photons for destroying DNA. As described in
`
`the ’605 patent, “[k]ill action times are reduced from 10’s to 100’s of seconds to times of 0.1
`
`seconds.” Ex. 1 at 4:65-67.
`
`22. One of the wavelengths Mr. Neister found to be particularly useful for disinfection
`
`was 222 nm, falling within the “far-UV” range. HEO3’s Excimer Wave SterilrayTM products utilize
`
`photons at this wavelength, amongst others.
`
`23. Recognizing Mr. Neister’s discoveries, the United States Patent and Trademark
`
`Office (“USPTO”) issued the Asserted Patents. Mr. Neister is the sole inventor of the Asserted
`
`Patents and related applications that are currently pending.
`
`Eden Park’s Thin 222 nm UV Lamps
`
`24. Eden Park manufactures, sells and uses products that perform Mr. Neister’s patented
`
`processes for destroying or deactivating the DNA or RNA (i.e., the organic bonds and proteins) of
`
`microorganisms on substances or surfaces of the Asserted Patents.
`
`25. Specifically, Eden Park makes, sells and uses thin 222 nm UV lamps (the “Accused
`
`Product”). See generally https://edenpark.com/. Eden Park markets these lamps as a “a way to
`
`rapidly kill dangerous virus cells and disinfect densely populated spaces.” Id. Eden Park’s website
`
`further promotes the lamps, in view of the COVID-19 pandemic as “a science-backed solution for
`
`returning our communities to a new, safer normal.” Id. Particularly “[i]n the face of threats like
`
`5
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-02753 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/20/21 Page 6 of 16 PageID #:6
`
`COVID-19,” Eden Park claims, “our work-spaces and meeting places need safe, effective solutions
`
`that will allow us to return to a new normal.” Id.
`
`26. Eden Park extorts the benefits of 222 nm wavelength light, stating that “[n]ot all
`
`ultraviolet light is created equal.” Id. In fact, “UV wavelengths 222 nm and above are effective
`
`for killing or destroying bacteria and viruses.” Id. Eden Park also remarks, as Mr. Neister already
`
`knew, that “222 nm cannot penetrate human skin,” and while “254 nm to 257 nm wavelengths are
`
`effective, but they penetrate dangerously deep into human cells.” Id.
`
`27. Eden Park advertises that its thin 222 nm lamps may be used “in populated indoor
`
`spaces, including factories, submarines, aircraft carriers, planes, waiting rooms, restaurants and
`
`more.” Id. Eden Park’s lamps are similarly advertised for “public space disinfection.” Id.
`
`28. Eden Park further advertises how its 222 nm lamps are used in a variety of
`
`applications. See https://edenpark.com/business-applications/. For example, Eden Park advertises
`
`the use of its lamps in various environments with humans present, including shopping, travel,
`
`dining, and living. Id. These applications, according to Eden Park, are examples of partners using
`
`Eden Park lamps “for air and surface disinfection.” See https://edenpark.com/.
`
`29. Eden Park further promotes the use of its thin 222 nm lamps by citing numerous
`
`items of
`
`“industry
`
`research.”
`
` See https://edenpark.com/222nm-uv-safety-efficacy-
`
`research/#articles. For example, Eden Park cites several studies demonstrating the safety and
`
`efficacy of using 222 nm light for disinfection, including a 2020 study from Kobe University
`
`entitled, “Repetitive irradiation with 222 nm UVC shown to be non-carcinogenic & safe for
`
`sterilizing human skin.” Id. Eden Park also cites a 2020 scientific report published in Nature
`
`demonstrating that “airborne coronavirus inactivation by far-UVC in populated rooms.” Id.
`
`30. Eden Park’s website displays a graph that shows multiple UV wavelengths (peaks)
`
`are present in light from its 222 nm UV lamps:
`
`6
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-02753 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/20/21 Page 7 of 16 PageID #:7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`See, e.g., https://edenpark.com/ (annotations added).
`
`Eden Park’s Willful Infringement
`
`31. On June 13, 2018, Eden Park President Mr. Cy Herring visited Hepacart booth at the
`
`54th APIC Annual Conference & Technical Exhibit in Minneapolis, MN. While at the booth, Mr.
`
`Herring spoke with HEO3 co-founder Mr. John Neister, who displayed to Mr. Herring a sample of
`
`Plaintiffs’ lamps.
`
`32. On June 19, 2018, Plaintiffs sent a notice letter (attached as Exhibit 3) to Eden Park.
`
`The letter identified and attached the asserted patents and stated: “The purpose of this letter is to
`
`inform you that your development of what you refer to as “Custom Flat Excimer Lamps” may be
`
`infringing at least one of these patents.” Id. The letter further cited several sections of Eden Park’s
`
`website, noting that Eden Park’s description of its own products characterized them in ways that
`
`“are potentially infringing at least” the ‘642 patent. Id. Accordingly, Eden Park has been on notice
`
`7
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-02753 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/20/21 Page 8 of 16 PageID #:8
`
`of the Asserted Patents, and infringement risks involving its products, by at least as early as June
`
`2018. Eden Park never responded to Plaintiffs’ letter.
`
`33. Over the course of 2020, in the wake of the global COVID-19 pandemic, interest in
`
`and promotion of UV sterilization technology dramatically increased. HEO3 sought to stop
`
`unauthorized use of its 222 nm UV technology. These actions include a lawsuit against Healthe,
`
`Inc. (“Healthe”) (Case No. 6:20-cv-2233, pending in the Middle District of Florida), where Healthe
`
`products are alleged to infringe the Asserted Patents by utilizing Eden Park’s 222 nm lamps.
`
`34. Despite the June 2018 letter and more recent enforcement action by HEO3, Eden
`
`Park refused to engage in licensing discussions or to cease its infringement. Its willful
`
`infringement continues to this day.
`
`COUNT I
`(Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,975,605)
`
`35.
`
`Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations of all previous paragraphs as if
`
`fully set forth herein.
`
`36.
`
`The ’605 patent, entitled “Method and Apparatus for Producing a High Level of
`
`Disinfection in Air and Surfaces,” was duly and legally issued by the USPTO on March 10, 2015.
`
`See Ex. 1.
`
`37. Mr. Neister is the owner of all rights, title, and interest in and to the ’605 patent and
`
`HEO3 is its exclusive licensee. Mr. Neister and HEO3 are entitled to sue for past and future
`
`infringement.
`
`38.
`
`Eden Park received actual notice of the ’605 patent at least as early as the filing of
`
`its Complaint, and on information and belief received notice of the ’605 patent at least as early as
`
`June 2018, when Plaintiffs sent a notice letter to Eden Park.
`
`8
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-02753 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/20/21 Page 9 of 16 PageID #:9
`
`39.
`
`Eden Park has directly infringed—literally and/or under the doctrine of
`
`equivalents—the ’605 patent by making, using, selling, offering for sale in the United States,
`
`and/or importing into the United States UV lamps that practice one or more claims of the ’605
`
`patent, including but not limited to the Accused Products.
`
`40.
`
`For example, claim 1 of the ’605 patent recites:
`
`1. A process for destroying or deactivating the DNA organic bonds and proteins
`of microorganisms comprising the steps of:
`generating photons of at least two single line wavelengths from a non-
`coherent light source selected from the group consisting of at least two
`wavelengths being of 222 nm, 254 nm, and 282 nm;
`directing the photons to a substance to be disinfected, whereby the
`photons destroy or deactivate the DNA organic bonds and proteins of
`microorganisms;
`exposing the surface to be disinfected to the generated photons of at
`least two wavelengths, wherein the exposing achieves a ninety percent kill
`of microorganisms in a time period of less than one second.
`
`41.
`
`Based upon publicly available information, the accused Eden Park thin 222 nm UV
`
`lamps practice each limitation of and infringe at least claim 1 of the ’605 patent. Eden Park’s thin
`
`222 nm UV lamps produce UV light in multiple wavelengths, including 222 nm and 254 nm. See
`
`¶ 30, supra; see also https://edenpark.com/.
`
`42.
`
`Light from Eden Park’s thin 222 nm UV lamps are “direct[ed] … to a substance to
`
`be disinfected, whereby the photons destroy or deactivate the DNA organic bonds and proteins of
`
`microorganisms.” See Ex. 1, ’605 patent at claim 1. Eden Park markets them for use “in populated
`
`indoor spaces, including factories, submarines, aircraft carriers, planes, waiting rooms, restaurants
`
`and more.” See https://edenpark.com/.
`
`43.
`
`Exposure to light from Eden Park’s 222 nm UV lamps “achieve[] a ninety percent
`
`kill of microorganisms in a time period of less than one second.” See Ex. 1, ’605 patent at claim
`
`1. Eden Park markets its thin 222 nm UV lamps as being incorporated in Healthe Space™
`
`9
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-02753 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/20/21 Page 10 of 16 PageID #:10
`
`products. See https://edenpark.com/business-applications/. Healthe advertises its products to
`
`“naturally kill up to 99.9% of bacteria and viruses including coronaviruses.”
`
` See
`
`https://healtheinc.com/learn/far-uvc-222/. Both Healthe’s and Eden Park’s websites also link to a
`
`scientific study published by researchers at Columbia University stating that “[b]ased on the beta-
`
`HCoV-OC43 results, continuous far-UVC exposure in occupied public locations at the current
`
`regulatory exposure limit (~3 mJ/cm2/hour) would result in ~90% viral inactivation in ~8 minutes,
`
`95% in ~11 minutes, 99% in ~16 minutes and 99.9% inactivation in ~25 minutes,” a true and
`
`correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit 4. Buonanno, M., et al., Far-UVC Light (222 nm)
`
`Efficiently and Safely Inactivates Airborne Human Coronaviruses; Sci Rep 10, 10285 (June 24,
`
`2020) at Abstract.
`
`44.
`
`Eden Park indirectly infringes the ’605 patent as provided by 35 U.S.C. § 271(b)
`
`by actively inducing others, including customers who purchase and use the Accused Product, to
`
`commit direct infringement of one or more claims of the ’605 patent.
`
`45.
`
`Eden Park’s affirmative acts of providing at least the Eden Park website, manuals,
`
`training, guides, marketing material, and/or demonstrations induces customers to use the Accused
`
`Products in a manner intended by Eden Park to cause direct infringement of the ’605 patent.
`
`46.
`
`Eden Park performed the acts that constitute inducement with knowledge or at least
`
`willful blindness that the induced acts would constitute infringement. At least through the filing of
`
`this Complaint, Eden Park has received actual notice that its customers directly infringe the ’605
`
`patent and that its own acts induce such infringement. On information and belief, Eden Park
`
`received actual knowledge that its customers directly infringe the ’605 patent at least as early as
`
`June 2018.
`
`10
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-02753 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/20/21 Page 11 of 16 PageID #:11
`
`47.
`
`Eden Park also indirectly infringes the ’605 patent as provided by 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 271(c) by contributing to infringement of one or more claims of the ’605 patent by others,
`
`including Eden Park’s customers who purchase and use the Accused Product.
`
`48.
`
`Eden Park’s affirmative acts of selling infringing products and providing those
`
`products to customers contribute to the infringement of the ’605 patent. The Accused Product is
`
`specially made or adapted for use in infringement of the ’605 patent and is not a staple article of
`
`commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use.
`
`49.
`
`Eden Park contributed to the infringement of others with knowledge or at least
`
`willful blindness that the Accused Product is specially made or adapted for use in an infringement
`
`of the ’605 patent and is not a staple article of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use.
`
`At least through the filing of this Complaint, and on information and belief at least as early as June
`
`2018, Eden Park received actual notice that its acts constitute contributory infringement.
`
`50.
`
`Eden Park’s infringement has been and continues to be willful and in reckless
`
`disregard for the ’605 patent, without any reasonable basis for believing that it had a right to engage
`
`in the infringing conduct.
`
`51.
`
`Eden Park’s continued infringement of the ’605 Patent has damaged and will
`
`continue to damage Plaintiffs, who offer directly competing products. Eden Park’s acts have
`
`caused, and unless restrained and enjoined, will continue to cause, irreparable injury and damage
`
`to Plaintiffs for which there is no adequate remedy at law.
`
`11
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-02753 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/20/21 Page 12 of 16 PageID #:12
`
`COUNT II
`(Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,700,642)
`
`Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations of previous paragraphs as if fully
`
`52.
`
`set forth herein.
`
`53.
`
`The ’642 patent, entitled “Method and Apparatus for Sterilizing and Disinfecting
`
`Air and Surfaces and Protecting a Zone from External Microbial Contamination,” was duly and
`
`legally issued by the USPTO on July 11, 2017. See Ex. 2.
`
`54. Mr. Neister is the owner of all rights, title, and interest in and to the ’642 patent and
`
`HEO3 is its exclusive licensee. Mr. Neister and HEO3 are entitled to sue for past and future
`
`infringement.
`
`55.
`
`Eden Park received actual notice of the ’642 patent at least as early as the filing of
`
`its Complaint, and on information and belief received notice of the ’642 patent at least as early as
`
`June 2018, when Plaintiffs notified Eden Park of their infringement of the ’642 patent via letter.
`
`56.
`
`Eden Park has directly infringed—literally and/or under the doctrine of
`
`equivalents—the ’642 patent by making, using, selling, offering for sale in the United States,
`
`and/or importing into the United States sanitization equipment that practice one or more claims of
`
`the ’642 patent, including but not limited to the Accused Product.
`
`57.
`
`For example, claim 1 of the ’642 patent recites:
`
`1. A process for destroying a DNA or RNA of a microorganism on a substance or
`surface comprising the ste

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket