IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BEAUMONT DIVISION

LEE ANTIMICROBIAL SOLUTIONS LLC, Plaintiff, v. HI-TECH AIR & WATER PURIFICATION SYSTEMS, LLC, GLOBAL PURIFICATIONS, LLC, CIMR TECHNOLOGIES, XSTREAM INFECTION CONTROL, ALTON HOLT, and JAMES MASTERSON, Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Civil Action No. _______________ JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Plaintiff Lee Antimicrobial Solutions LLC (LAMS) files this Complaint against HiTech 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

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. 16. LAMS incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 14 above. 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

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. and deliberate. 22. LAMS has suffered, and will continue to suffer, irreparable injury and damages Defendants direct and indirect infringement of the 122 patent has been willful

by Defendants infringement of the 122 patent.

LAMS complaint-5-24.docx

23. Court.

Defendants infringement of the 122 patent will continue unless enjoined by the

PRAYER FOR RELIEF LAMS respectfully requests that the Court grant the following relief: (a) patent; (b) preliminarily and permanently enjoining Defendants, their partners, founders, declaring that Defendants have directly and/or indirectly infringed the 122

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) and (e) proper. DEMAND OF JURY TRIAL LAMS hereby demands a jury trial for all issues triable in this action. Dated: May 24, 2012 Respectfully submitted, awarding LAMS such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and awarding LAMS reasonable attorneys fees and costs to enforce the 122 patent;

/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

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