UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION Case No.

: ______________ COUPLING SOLUTIONS, LLC, a business entity organized under the Laws of the State of Florida, Plaintiff, vs. PAUL ANTHONY DAVIDSON, and COUPLING TECHNOLOGY LTD., a United Kingdom company, Defendants. _____________________________/ COMPLAINT COMES NOW Plaintiff COUPLING SOLUTIONS, LLC, a business entity organized under the Laws of the State of Florida, and for its complaint against Defendants, PAUL ANTHONY DAVIDSON, and COUPLING TECHNOLOGY LTD., a United Kingdom company, alleges as follows: PARTIES 1. This is an action for declaratory judgment and monetary damages JURY TRIAL REQUESTED

against Defendants Paul Anthony Davidson and Coupling Technology Ltd. (hereinafter sometimes referred to collectively as ADefendants@).

2.

Plaintiff Coupling Solutions, LLC is a Florida limited liability

company with its principal place of business at 250 North Congress Avenue, Delray Beach, Florida. 3. Defendant Paul Anthony Davidson (Davidson) is, upon

information and belief, a citizen of the United Kingdom, who lives in and conducts business in the Southern District of Florida. Upon information and belief, Davidson is a principal and controlling member of Coupling Technology Ltd. At all times relevant, it is believed Davidson was authorized to act on

behalf of Coupling Technology Ltd. and acted as Coupling Technology Ltd.s agent for all transactions described herein. 4. Defendant Coupling Technology Ltd. (CTL) is a United Kingdom

company, registered to do business and has its principal place of business in the United Kingdom, which has acted through Davidson in the Southern District of Florida and committed the acts described herein in this District. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. This Court has jurisdiction over Counts I, II, V and VI pursuant to

28 U.S.C. 1331 and 2201, in that Count I raises a Federal question of interpretation of 35 U.S.C. 261. 6. This Court has jurisdiction over all Counts pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

1332 as Defendants are citizens or subjects of a foreign state, and the property which is the subject of the dispute exceeds the sum or value of $75,000.00, exclusive of interest or costs. Alternatively, the Court has supplemental 2

jurisdiction of Counts III, IV, VII and VIII under principles of supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367. 7. Venue is proper in this judicial district as the events giving rise to

the cause of action occurred in the Southern District of Florida. FACTS 8. In the fall of 2010, Defendants, approached a local manufacturing

business, inquiring whether the business could produce a coupling mechanism which Defendants claimed to have invented. 9. Defendants met with Anthony and Joseph Parisi (Parisi) and

provided drawings of its invention to Parisi. Based upon their expertise in the field, Parisi recognized the invention would not be successful for its intended application. 10. Davidson and Parisi agreed to work together as a joint venture to Parisi and

refine the design and create a viable coupling mechanism.

Defendants agreed any resulting improvements would be owned by a separate entity, to be formed, with ownership divided among the contributors to the design as well as capital investment partners. 11. Acting in reliance upon this agreement, Parisi redesigned the

coupling mechanism (ADesign No. 1"). 12. Defendants converted Design No. 1 and without authorization from

the joint venture, filed a patent application in the United Kingdom for the new

design.

This patent application is designated as GB1018849.8.

The

application was filed November 8, 2010. 13. In December of 2010, Design No. 1 was tested for its intended

purposes. The testing revealed Design No. 1 was a vast improvement, but still failed to produce results that were intended. 14. Parisi, in January of 2011, once again redesigned the coupling

mechanism (Design No. 2). 15. When it was discovered Defendants improperly filed Application

GB1018849.8, Defendants, through Davidson, assigned the U.K. application (Design No. 1) to the joint venture. (See Exhibit 1.) On or about February 7, 2011, the assignment was finalized (See Exhibit 2.) This assignment was made for valuable consideration, which Defendants accepted. 16. Parisi and Davidson were subsequently named on a U.S.

Provisional Patent Application No. 61/446,469 filed on February 24, 2011, which is specifically identified as related to GB1018849.8. 17. By virtue of an agreement assigning U.S. patent rights (See Exhibit

3.) Defendants assigned rights to any U.S. national phase application filed from international application WO 2010/106369 in the general coupling technology area to Plaintiff. Plaintiff filed for and is pursuing a U.S. national phase

application in accordance with the agreement; however, Defendants have also filed and are pursuing a parallel U.S. national phase application filed on September 19, 2011. 4

18.

By virtue of the assignments, Plaintiff owns all rights to not only

Design No. 1 but also to subsequent designs, including Design No. 2. Defendants have converted the drawings and used the Design No. 2 drawings to file U.K. patent application, designated as GB1107429.1 filed on May 4, 2011. 19. Parisi and Davidson were named on a subsequent U.S. Provisional

Patent Application No. 61/550,528 filed on July 7, 2011 and which is specifically identified as being related to GB1107429.9, GB1018849.8 and U.S. Provisional 61/446,469. Notwithstanding Plaintiffs rights to the inventions, Defendants

have asserted that it owns all interests in Design Nos. 1 and 2 by virtue of a AConsultancy Agreement@ allegedly entered into prior to the February 7, 2011, assignment. 20. application Plaintiff filed on November 8, 2011 an international patent PCT/US2011/059757 claiming priority to GB1018849.8,

GB1107429.9, U.S. 61/446,469, and U.S. 61/505,528. 21. Defendants never disclosed any contractual obligations of

Davidson to assign rights to inventions before or after the parties designed the improved coupling mechanism and agreed to act as a joint venture. 22. The Consultancy Agreement is, upon information and belief, a

document created by Defendants to falsely claim ownership and is void and unenforceable against Plaintiff. At all material times, Defendants represented there was no impediment to Plaintiffs unencumbered ownership of the improved

coupling mechanism Designs. Upon further information and belief, the Consultancy Agreement was made without consideration. 23. Alternatively, Plaintiff is a bona fide purchaser for reasonable value

of all rights associated with Designs 1 and 2, including all of the identified patent applications. As such, Plaintiff owns all rights associated with Designs 1 and 2. 24. Defendants claims of ownership interest in the patent applications

create an immediate and judicable case or controversy concerning the respective parties ownership rights and obligations under the terms of the patent applications. COUNT I DECLARATION OF OWNERSHIP OF UNITED STATES PATENT APPLICATION 61/446,469 25. Plaintiff realleges and reasserts the allegations in Paragraphs 1

through 24 hereinabove. 26. Plaintiff is the owner of all right, title and interest to U.S. Patent

Application 61/446,469. 27. Defendants assigned any and all rights, title or interest it may have

had in U.S. Patent Application 61/446,469 to Plaintiff. 28. Plaintiff is a bona fide purchaser for value of U.S. Patent

Application 61/446,469. Any and all claims of ownership rights by Defendants are inferior to and subject to the ownership interests of Plaintiff, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 261.

29.

Plaintiff has been forced to retain the undersigned counsel to

enforce its rights to intellectual property and is entitled to reasonable fees from Defendant. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that this Honorable Court enter such preliminary and final orders and judgments as are necessary to provide Plaintiff with the following relief: a. A Final Judgment declaring Plaintiff is the owner of all rights to U.S. Patent Application 61/446,469 and other intellectual property rights associated with the coupling mechanisms disclosed therein; b. c. Reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit; and Such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. COUNT II DECLARATION OF OWNERSHIP OF UNITED STATES PATENT APPLICATION 61/505,528 30. Plaintiff realleges and reasserts the allegations in Paragraphs 1

through 24 hereinabove. 31. Plaintiff is the owner of all right, title and interest to U.S. Patent

Application 61/505,528. 32. Defendants assigned any and all rights, title or interest it may have

had in U.S. Patent Application 61/505,528 to Plaintiff. 33. Plaintiff is a bona fide purchaser for value of U.S. Patent

Application 61/505,528. Any and all claims of ownership rights by Defendants

are inferior to and subject to the ownership interests of Plaintiff, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 261. 34. Plaintiff has been forced to retain the undersigned counsel to

enforce its rights to intellectual property and is entitled to reasonable fees from Defendant. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that this Honorable Court enter such preliminary and final orders and judgments as are necessary to provide Plaintiff with the following relief: a. A Final Judgment declaring Plaintiff is the owner of all rights to U.S. Patent Application 61/505,528 and other intellectual property rights associated with the coupling mechanisms disclosed therein; b. c. Reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit; and Such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. COUNT III DECLARATION OF OWNERSHIP OF UNITED KINGDOM PATENT APPLICATION GB1018849.8 35. Plaintiff realleges and reasserts the allegations in Paragraphs 1

through 24 hereinabove. 36. Plaintiff is the owner of all right, title and interest to United Kingdom

Patent Application GB1018849.8. 37. Defendants assigned all rights, title or interest to UK Patent Pursuant to UK law, Section 33(1) at

Application GB1018849.8 to Plaintiff.

Patents Act 1977, the failure of Defendants to register any claim before Plaintiff acquired the assignment precludes any claim of ownership by Defendants. 38. Plaintiff is a bona fide purchaser for value of U.K. Patent

Application GB1018849.8. Any ownership interests of Defendants are inferior to and subject to the ownership interests of Plaintiff. 39. Plaintiff has been forced to retain the undersigned counsel to

enforce its rights to intellectual property and is entitled to reasonable fees from Defendant. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that this Honorable Court enter such preliminary and final orders and judgments as are necessary to provide Plaintiff with the following relief: a. A Final Declaratory Judgment finding Plaintiff is the owner of all intellectual property rights of the coupling mechanisms embodied in U.K. Patent Application GB1018849.8; b. c. Reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit; and Such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. COUNT IV DECLARATION OF OWNERSHIP OF UNITED KINGDOM PATENT APPLICATION GB1107429.1 40. Plaintiff realleges and reasserts the allegations in Paragraphs 1

through 24 hereinabove. 41. Plaintiff is the owner of all right, title and interest to United Kingdom

Patent Application GB1196429.1. 9

42.

Defendants assigned all rights, title or interest to U.K. Patent Pursuant to UK law, Section 33(1) at

Application GB1196429.1 to Plaintiff.

Patents Act 1977, the failure of Defendants to register any claim before Plaintiff acquired the assignment precludes any claim of ownership by Defendants. 43. Plaintiff is a bona fide purchaser for value of U.K. Patent

Application GB1196429.1. Any ownership interests of Defendants are inferior to and subject to the ownership interests of Plaintiff. 44. Plaintiff has been forced to retain the undersigned counsel to

enforce its rights to intellectual property and is entitled to reasonable fees from Defendant. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that this Honorable Court enter such preliminary and final orders and judgments as are necessary to provide Plaintiff with the following relief: a. A Final Declaratory Judgment finding Plaintiff is the owner of all intellectual property rights of the coupling mechanisms embodied in U.K. Patent Application GB1196429.1; b. c. Reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit; and Such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

COUNT V DECLARATION OF OWNERSHIP OF INTERNATIONAL PATENT APPLICATION PCT/US2011/059757 45. Plaintiff realleges and reasserts the allegations in Paragraphs 1

through 24 hereinabove. 10

46.

Plaintiff is the owner of all right, title and interest to international

patent application PCT/US2011/059757. 47. Defendants assigned any and all rights, title or interest it may have

had in international patent application PCT/US2011/059757 to Plaintiff. 48. Plaintiff is a bona fide purchaser for value of international patent Any and all claims of ownership rights by

application PCT/US2011/059757.

Defendants are inferior to and subject to the ownership interests of Plaintiff, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 261. 49. Plaintiff has been forced to retain the undersigned counsel to

enforce its rights to intellectual property and is entitled to reasonable fees from Defendant. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that this Honorable Court enter such preliminary and final orders and judgments as are necessary to provide Plaintiff with the following relief: a. A Final Judgment declaring Plaintiff is the owner of all rights to international patent application PCT/US2011/059757 and other intellectual property rights associated with the coupling

mechanisms disclosed therein; b. c. Reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit; and Such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

COUNT VI DECLARATION OF OWNERSHIP OF U.S. NATIONAL PHASE APPLICATION OF WO2010/106369 11

50.

Plaintiff realleges and reasserts the allegations in Paragraphs 1

through 24 hereinabove. 51. Plaintiff is the owner of all right, title and interest to the U.S.

national phase patent application of WO2010/106369. 52. Defendants assigned any and all rights, title or interest it may have

had in U.S. national phase patent application of WO2010/106369 to Plaintiff. 53. Plaintiff is a bona fide purchaser for value of U.S. national phase

patent application of WO2010/106369. Any and all claims of ownership rights by Defendants are inferior to and subject to the ownership interests of Plaintiff, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 261. 54. Plaintiff has been forced to retain the undersigned counsel to

enforce its rights to intellectual property and is entitled to reasonable fees from Defendant. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that this Honorable Court enter such preliminary and final orders and judgments as are necessary to provide Plaintiff with the following relief: a. A Final Judgment declaring Plaintiff is the owner of all rights to U.S. national phase patent application of WO2010/106369 and other intellectual property rights associated with the coupling

mechanisms disclosed therein; b. Reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit; and 12

c.

Such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

13

COUNT VII CONVERSION 55. Plaintiff realleges and reasserts the allegations in Paragraphs 1

through 24 hereinabove. 56. Plaintiff is the owner of all drawings, sketches, patent applications,

prototypes, and related intellectual property for revisions and redesigns of the coupling mechanism. 57. Defendants have converted for their own use and benefit the

property of Plaintiff and have asserted adverse claims of ownership in such property. 58. Plaintiff has suffered substantial monetary damages as the result of

the conversion. 59. Plaintiff has been forced to retain the undersigned counsel to

enforce its rights and is entitled to reasonable fees from Defendant. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that this Honorable Court enter such preliminary and final orders and judgments as are necessary to provide Plaintiff with the following relief: a. b. Return of the personal property; An award of damages sufficient to compensate Plaintiff for the acts asserted herein; c. d. Reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit; and Such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. 14

COUNT VIII BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY 60. Plaintiff realleges and reasserts the allegations in Paragraphs 1

through 24 hereinabove. 61. By virtue of the relationship between Plaintiff and Defendants,

Defendants had a fiduciary obligation to act in the best interests of Plaintiff. Defendants failed to do so, by among other acts, claiming as their own the improvements and redesigns of the coupling mechanisms, and attempting to secure for their own benefits rights in such designs. 62. Plaintiff has suffered substantial monetary damages as a result of

Defendants actions. 63. Defendants actions were willful and wanton.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that this Honorable Court enter such preliminary and final orders and judgments as are necessary to provide Plaintiff with the following relief: a. Monetary damages in an amount sufficient to compensate Plaintiff for the losses; b. c. d. Punitive damages; Costs of suit; and Such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

15

REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff requests a trial by jury.

Respectfully submitted December 29, 2011. /s/Brian R. Gilchrist BRIAN R. GILCHRIST Florida Bar No. 774065 bgilchrist@addmg.com RYAN T. SANTURRI Florida Bar No. 015698 rsanturri@addmg.com ALLEN, DYER, DOPPELT, MILBRATH & GILCHRIST, P.A. 255 S. Orange Avenue, Suite 1401 Post Office Box 3791 Orlando, FL 32802-3791 Telephone: 407/841-2330 Facsimile: 407/841-2343 Attorneys for Plaintiff

16