med ag ventures v. ducey - complaint

8/9/2019 Med Ag Ventures v. Ducey - Complaint

1/36

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

BOOTH UDALL FULLER, PLC1255 W. Rio Salado Parkway, Suite 215

Tempe, Arizona 85281 Telephone (480) 830-2700Facsimile (480) 830-2717

Michelle G. Breit – SBN 021439 Email [email protected]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Med Ag Ventures Inc., a Coloradocorporation; Dane J. Dukat, an individual;and Justin T. Cifelli, an individual,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Cole P. Ducey, an individual; Raw CNC,LLC, a New Mexico limited liabilitycompany; Nathan W. Todd, an individual;and Cali Crusher, LLC, a Texas limitedliability company,

Defendants.

Case No. ____________________

COMPLAINT

[Demand for Jury Trial]

Plaintiffs Med Ag Ventures Inc., Dane J. Dukat, and Justin T. Cifelli hereby allege for

their Complaint against defendants Cole P. Ducey, Raw CNC, LLC, Nathan Todd and Cali

Crusher, LLC, on personal knowledge as to their own actions and on information and belief

as to all other matters, as follows:

THE PARTIES

1. Plaintiff Meg Ag Ventures Inc. (“Med Ag”) is a corporation organized and

existing under the laws of the State of Colorado, with its principal place of business in Mesa

Arizona. Med Ag develops and manufactures proprietary ancillary medical cannabis

products for consumers, growers and medical marijuana dispensaries.

2. Plaintiff Justin T. Cifelli is an individual residing in Scottsdale, Arizona. Mr

Cifelli is the founder and President of Med Ag. Mr. Cifelli holds a Bachelor of Science in

Applied Biology from Arizona State University with an emphasis in plant and soil science

Case 2:15-cv-00505-DGC Document 1 Filed 03/19/15 Page 1 of 17


2/36

-2-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

For more than five years, Mr. Cifelli has provided technical expertise in the medical

agriculture and LED lighting technology fields.

3. Plaintiff Dane J. Dukat (“Dukat”) is an individual residing in Mesa, Arizona

Mr. Dukat is the Executive Vice President and Director of Engineering of Med Ag. Mr

Dukat studied mechanical engineering at Arizona State University and is an experienced

engineer and machinist in the field of aerospace engineering, where he developed expertise

in computer-controlled manufacturing and parts design.

4. Upon information and belief, defendant Raw CNC, LLC (“Raw”) is a New

Mexico limited liability company, with its principal place of business at 11675 Sorrento

Valley Road, San Diego, California. Upon information and belief, all active operating

members of Raw reside in San Diego, California. Upon information and belief, Raw

purports to be the assignee of all rights, title and interest in U.S. Patent No. D714,595 (the

“’595 patent”), a patent for an ornamental design of an herb grinder, which issued on

October 7, 2014. A true and correct copy of the ’595 patent is attached as Exhibit A to this

Complaint.

5. Defendant Cole P. Ducey (“Ducey”) is an individual residing in San Diego

County, California. Mr. Ducey purports to be the sole remaining member of defendant

Raw. Upon information and belief, Mr. Ducey purports to be the sole inventor of the ’595

patent.

6. Upon information and belief, defendant Cali Crusher, LLC (“Cali Crusher”) is

a Texas limited liability company with its principle place of business located at 307 W. San

Antonio, San Marcos, Texas. On information and belief, all members of Cali Crusher, LLC

reside in Texas.

7. Upon information and belief, defendant Nathan W. Todd (“Todd”) is an

individual residing in San Marcos, Texas and the managing member of Cali Crusher.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

8. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331

1332(a)(1), 1367, 2201 and 2202. Upon information and belief, plaintiffs and defendants are



3/36

-3-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

citizens of different states, and the sum or value of the claim being asserted herein is greater

than $75,000, calculated in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1332(b). In addition, this action

arises under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of the United States Code, § 256,

because the parties have conflicting patent inventorship claims.

9. This Court has personal jurisdiction over defendants Ducey, Raw, Todd and

Cali Crusher because each has performed acts which were calculated to cause injuries to

plaintiffs in Arizona.

10. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

BACKGROUND

The Grinder Invention

11. In or about 2011, Mr. Dukat first contemplated creating a new herb grinder

for use in the medical marijuana industry. At the time, he was also developing other produc

ideas and inventions related to the same and other industries.

12. By the fall of 2012, Mr. Dukat had a complete design for his new grinder, as

well as hand drawn design renderings of the specific grinder features. Mr. Dukat’s grinder

included cutting teeth shaped in geometrical arcs with different shaped ends to allow for

dual coarseness selection. Mr. Dukat modified the standard UNF threading of known

grinders to make relief notches so that the sections of his grinder could be conjoined and

separated much easier and faster. Mr. Dukat also designed a cross brace to support a screen

section in the grinder rather than the more typical design of stretching the screen like a

drum. In addition, Mr. Dukat designed the top of the grinder to have an ash tray and paper

holder and a particular look and functionality for the exterior grip.

13.

Mr. Dukat’s grinder had four sections, with each section incorporating one of

the above mentioned features.

14. By the summer of 2013, Mr. Dukat was far along into preparing final

dimensioned and scaled prints of the grinder, which he later used to program the machine

used to manufacture a physical prototype.

15. In or about the fall of 2012, Mr. Ducey was visiting Mr. Dukat’s brother in



4/36

-4-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Arizona. Mr. Dukat disclosed his grinder invention to Mr. Ducey in the context of

discussions the two were having about forming a business for the manufacture and sale of

products related to the medical cannabis industry.

16.

By that time, Mr. Dukat had fully conceived of the grinder invention and

completed hand drawings and designs for a new herb grinder featuring geometrical arcs,

unique thread lock features, a cross brace to support a screen, an exterior grip with crescent

shaped grooves, and a top with an ashtray and paper holder.

17. Throughout the remainder of 2012 and into early 2013, Mr. Dukat and Mr

Ducey continued discussing their plans to form the new business and agreed that, among

other products, the new business would manufacture and sell Mr. Dukat’s herb grinder.

18. In or about March 2013, Mr. Dukat completed drafting a business plan and

moved to California to set up manufacturing because Mr. Ducey asserted he could get free

commercial real estate for their use and provide all needed investment capital to open the

new business, which ultimately became defendant Raw.

19. After about nine months of working together, Mr. Dukat determined that he

could not remain in business with Mr. Ducey due to malfeasance committed by Mr. Ducey

Mr. Dukat moved back to Arizona in or about February 2014.

20. On or about April 13, 2014, Mr. Dukat filed with the United States Patent and

Trademark Office (“USPTO”) a provisional patent application for his grinder invention.

21. In April 2014, Mr. Dukat exclusively licensed to Med Ag his herb grinder

inventions and all related intellectual property. Med Ag committed, as part of the license, to

protect and defend Dukat’s design and ownership rights in and to the herb grinder

inventions.

22. Without Mr. Dukat’s knowledge, on or about April 22, 2014, Ducey filed U.S

Patent Application No. 29/488,715 (the “’715 application”) based on Mr. Dukat’s

conception of the grinder. In this application, Mr. Ducey erroneously named himself as the

sole inventor when he was not an inventor at all. Instead, Mr. Dukat was the inventor of the

grinder disclosed in Mr. Ducey’s design patent application.



5/36

-5-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

23. Mr. Ducey also executed and submitted to the USPTO a declaration stating he

is the sole inventor of the ’715 application. This declaration and the related application

ultimately resulted in the issuance of the ’595 patent on October 7, 2014, on which Mr

Ducey is identified as the sole inventor.

24. Upon information and belief, on or about June 19, 2014, Mr. Ducey filed a

utility patent application again based on Mr. Dukat’s grinder conception and invention. The

application purports to be a continuation in part of and claims priority to the ’715

application which matured into the ’595 patent. On information and belief, Mr. Ducey also

erroneously named himself as the sole inventor on the utility patent application. Instead

Mr. Dukat is the inventor of the grinder disclosed and claimed in the Ducey utility patent

application.

25. Upon information and belief, Mr. Ducey’s June 19, 2014 utility patent

application for the herb grinder is still pending before the USPTO.

26. Upon information and belief, Mr. Ducey has licensed his purported rights

title and interest in the ’595 patent to Raw.

27. Upon information and belief, on September 3, 2014, Raw, doing business as

Med Tech Instruments, entered into an exclusive manufacturing agreement with Cali

Crusher, whereby Raw granted to Cali Crusher, for a term of seven years, the exclusive use

of all Raw’s purported grinder designs and grinder patents, both current and those which

Raw later develops.

28. Upon information and belief, Mr. Ducey, Raw, Mr. Todd and Cali Crusher

continue to market and exploit the ’595 patent for the manufacturing and sale of grinder

products.

The Cure Box Invention

29. In or about October 2012, plaintiff Justin Cifelli began development of a plant

curing and processing apparatus to assist agricultural growers improve crop yields and

quantities (the “Cure Box”). Mr. Cifelli completed drawings of the apparatus and made a

model out of wood and metal.



6/36

-6-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

30. In or about March or April 2013, Mr. Cifelli engaged an engineer to assist in

the generation of CAD drawings and development of the electrical system and controls for

the Cure Box.

31.

Around the same time, Mr. Cifelli met plaintiff Dane Dukat. At the time, Mr

Dukat was preparing to move to San Diego to start a new manufacturing business with

defendant Cole Ducey. Mr. Dukat informed Mr. Cifelli that the new manufacturing

company could assist in creating a prototype of Mr. Cifelli’s Cure Box invention.

32. On July 3, 2013, Mr. Cifelli and his company Cif ahoy (jointly “Cifelli”) entered

into two agreements with defendant Raw ( Mr. Dukat and Mr. Ducey’s new company ): (1)

the Mutual Non-Disclosure Agreement (“MNDA”), a true and correct copy of which is

attached as Exhibit B to this Complaint; and (2) the Development Consulting Agreement

(“DCA”), a true and correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit C to this Complaint

Together, the MNDA and DCA are referred to herein as “the Cifelli/Raw Agreements.”

33. The purpose of the Cifelli/Raw Agreements was to set out the terms of the

business relationship between Cifelli and Raw and, more particularly, for Cifelli to retain Raw

to assist in the development of a prototype of the Cure Box.

34. Pursuant to the Cifelli/Raw Agreements, Cifelli provided Raw with detailed

confidential information relating to the Cure Box invention and the product under

development. In addition, Cifelli paid Raw the sum of $3,750, which was the entire

consideration Cifelli was required to pay under the Cifelli/Raw Agreements.

35. The Cifelli/Raw Agreements make clear that Cifelli is the owner of all the

intellectual property rights and confidential information relating to the Cure Box, including

from the time the parties entered into the Cifelli/Raw Agreements and at all times thereafter

36. In addition, the Cifelli/Raw Agreements make clear that Raw owns none of

the intellectual property rights to the Cure Box.

37. Under the DCA, Raw is prohibited from competing with Cifelli by

developing, using, selling or collaborating with others on an application or product similar to

the Cure Box or using Cifelli’s intellectual property in competition with Cifelli. The DCA’s



7/36

-7-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

noncompete provisions remain effective for three years after the parties terminate doing

business together.

38. The DCA provides that either Cifelli or Raw may terminate the agreement by

serving written notice of termination on the other.

39. Pursuant to the DCA, upon termination, Raw is obligated to deliver to Cifelli

all work product from the services Raw performed relating to the Cure Box, including the

prototype, and to return to Cifelli all other confidential information relating to the Cure Box.

40. In addition, under the DCA, Raw is obligated after termination not to

interfere with or corrupt any aspects of the work it performed under the agreement or any

confidential information it obtained related to the Cure Box, and not to impede Cifelli’s free

use and complete control of any such work product or confidential information.

41. Pursuant to the DCA, Raw began developing a prototype of the Cure Box, as

well as certain documentation related to the Cure Box.

42. In or about October 2013, Raw and Mr. Ducey entered into an oral agreement

with Mr. Cifelli whereby Raw and Mr. Ducey agreed to pay Mr. Cifelli to develop Raw ’s

websites and to provide other business development and marketing assistance. Pursuant to

that agreement, Mr. Cifelli performed these duties and incurred expenses related thereto

Under the contract, Mr. Cifelli was entitled to payment from Raw in an amount in excess of

$9,000.

43. On or about February 18, 2014, Mr. Cifelli learned of certain malfeasance by

Mr. Ducey. Among other improper conduct, Mr. Ducey wrongfully began asserting that

Raw and Mr. Ducey were the owners of the rights, title and interest in Mr. Cifelli’s Cure Box

and related intellectual property.

44. Mr. Ducey and Raw further refused to compensate Mr. Cifelli for his website

and business development services or to reimburse Mr. Cifelli for expenses he incurred.

45. On or about March 4, 2014, Cifelli terminated Raw’s services and the

relationship with Raw by providing written notice to Mr. Ducey and Raw from Cifelli’s

attorney. In that same notice, Mr. Cifelli demanded Raw turn over to Cifelli all the drawings



8/36

-8-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

documentation, and specifications related to the Cure Box, as well as the prototype built by

Raw under the Cifelli/Raw Agreements, and to assign to Mr. Cifelli ownership in the Cure

Box trademark registration.

46.

Initially, Ducey and Raw refused to return any of the items. Mr. Ducey and

Raw asserted and, upon information and belief, continue to assert substantial rights in and to

the intellectual property related to the Cure Box.

47. On or about October 1, 2014, Mr. Ducey and Raw relinquished possession of

the Cure Box prototype to Cifelli, but only after Mr. Ducey removed critical software and

hardware components from the prototype, thereby destroying the prototype and rendering it

worthless.

48. On information and belief, Mr. Ducey and Raw continue to refuse to return

the remaining components of the prototype and any of the documentation or other

confidential information related to the Cure Box.

49. The DCA noncompetition prohibition is in effect and enforceable until at

least the start of March 2017, three years after Mr. Cifelli provided written notice of

termination. Despite the prohibition against competing, upon information and belief, Mr

Ducey and Raw have hired or sought to hire persons to assist them in developing a product

that competes with Mr. Cifelli’s Cure Box.

50. In or about April 2014, Mr. Cifelli exclusively licensed to Med Ag all further

development and commercialization rights in all Cure Box plant processing invention

technology and all related intellectual property. Med Ag committed, as part of the license, to

protect and defend Cifelli’s design and ownership rights in and to the Cure Box invention.

Defendants’ Defamatory Statements

51. On information and belief, defendant Nathan Todd, on behalf of himself and

Cali Crusher, and others working on behalf of Cali Crusher, have contacted numerous Med

Ag existing and potential customers, and Med Ag’s existing and potential vendors, at least

during the Champs Trade Show at the Las Vegas Convention Center in Las Vegas, Nevada

on or about February 3, 2015 through February 5, 2015, and have made false, injurious and



9/36

-9-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

defamatory statements regarding Med Ag and the products Med Ag has sold and is offering

to sell to such customers. Mr. Todd’s and Cali Crusher’s false and defamatory statements

include at least the following:

a.

that defendants, including Cali Crusher, have “sued” Med Ag for

patent infringement related to Med Ag’s grinder products or for “infringing” Cali Crushers

grinder product, when in fact (i) Dukat sued Ducey for Ducey’s wrongful conduct with

regard to Raw, (ii) the lawsuit does not include claims for patent infringement, and (iii)

neither Todd nor Cali Crusher are parties to that lawsuit;

b. that Med Ag’s products are unlicensed and infringing patents in which

Todd and Cali Crusher hold an interest, knowing that Med Ag’s grinder products do not

infringe a valid claim of the ’595 patent;

c. that Med Ag’s business will be “shut down” soon due to Meg Ag’s

patent infring ement and/or “infringement of Cali Crusher’s grinder” and that Med Ag will

be prohibited from making and selling its grinder products; and

d. further, defendants failed to inform the third parties that Dane Dukat

has asserted he is the true inventor of the ’595 patent and that, if proven, it would deprive

defendants of any rights with regard to the ’595 patent.

52. Defendants Todd and Cali Crusher made each of the above-identified

statements and omissions with actual malice and with the intent to convey to Med Ag’s

customers and other third parties the false impression that Med Ag, and potentially its

customers, are subject to infringement claims by defendants, and to induce the customers to

not purchase grinder products from Med Ag and instead to purchase grinder products from

Cali Crusher or otherwise risk having their respective business operations disrupted.

53. Upon information and belief, in or about October 2014 and continuing

thereafter, defendant Ducey, on behalf of himself and Raw, stated to defendants Todd and

Cali Crusher at least the following:

a. that Mr. Ducey and Raw own all rights to the herb grinder intellectual

property;



10/36

-10-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

b. that Med Ag ’s herb grinders violate Mr. Ducey’s patent rights and

other intellectual property rights and purported rights of Raw in the grinder intellectual

property;

c.

that Mr. Ducey has sued Med Ag for patent infringement;

d. that Med Ag will be forced to cease its manufacturing of herb grinders

and

e. further, upon information and belief, Mr. Ducey failed to inform Mr.

Todd and Cali Crusher that Mr. Dukat is in fact that inventor of the herb grinder and that

Mr. Ducey obtained the ’595 patent through fraud on the USPTO.

54.

Mr. Ducey and Raw made each of the above-identified statements and

omissions with actual malice and with the intent to convey to Mr. Todd and Cali Crusher the

false impression that Med Ag and potentially its customers are subject to claims of patent

infringement and to dissuade Mr. Todd and Cali Crusher from conducting business with

Med Ag.

55. As a result of defendants’ false and defamatory statements, Med Ag has lost

and continues to lose product sales.

COUNT I

Slander

(Against All Defendants)

56. Paragraphs 1 to 55 are incorporated by reference herein as though set forth in

their entirety.

57. Defendants Ducey, Raw, Todd and Cali Crusher made certain false,

slanderous, and defamatory statements, as summarized in paragraphs 51 to 55, above.

58. The false, slanderous and defamatory statements were communicated to one

or more third persons.

59. Because the defamatory statements were about Med Ag’s business, trade or

professional conduct the damages are presumed.

60. Upon information and belief, defendants made the slanderous statements with



11/36

-11-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

actual malice and for the purpose of injuring Med Ag and its business.

61. Med Ag is entitled to have and recover from Defendants amounts necessary

to make Med Ag whole in response to defendants’ slanderous statements and to deter false

and malicious attacks on its reputation.

COUNT II

Tortious Interference with Business Relations



their entirety.

63.

Meg Ag has a valid and existing business relationship and expectancy of future

business with its customers and potential customers.

64. Defendants intentionally published statements that were false, misleading

and/or deceptive to Med Ag’s customers and expected customers to further defendants

own business opportunities and promote the sale of defendants’ products to the detriment

of Med Ag’s products.

65. Defendants intentionally interfered thus inducing or causing a breach or

termination of Med Ag’s relationships or expectancies.

66. Med Ag was and continues to be damaged as a result of defendants’ actions.

67. Defendants’ actions were in bad faith, willful, wanton and undertaken with a

callous disregard for Med Ag ’s interests and business relations.

COUNT III

Correction of Inventors Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 256 on U.S. Patent No. D714,595

(Against Cole P. Ducey)


their entirety.

69. Dane Dukat conceived of all of the inventions disclosed or claimed in the ’595

patent and is the sole inventor of the ’595 patent.

70. Mr. Dukat should have been, but was not, named as an inventor on the ’595



12/36

-12-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

patent. His omission was error, which error arose without deceptive intent on his part.

71. Cole Ducey, the named inventor of the ’595 patent, did not make any

contribution to the conception of the claimed subject matter of the ’595 patent. Mr. Ducey’s

inclusion as an inventor was in error.

72. Mr. Dukat should be named as the inventor of the ’595 patent and Mr. Ducey

should be removed as an inventor of the ’595 patent.

73. Mr. Dukat has financial and reputational interests that will be advanced if he is

added as an inventor of the ’595 patent, and if Mr. Ducey is removed as an inventor of the

’595 patent.

74.

Mr. Dukat therefore requests correction of the inventor named in the ’595

patent to substitute Mr. Dukat in place of Mr. Ducey.

COUNT IV

Declaratory Judgment – Invalidity of the ’595 Patent


their entirety.

76. The parties have an actual case or controversy regarding the invalidity of the

’595 patent and the controversy is ripe for adjudication by this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2201, et seq.

77. The parties dispute whether the ’595 patent as currently issued is invalid due

to the failure to name the correct inventor pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 102(f).

78. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201,

et seq . that the sole claim of the ’595 patent is invalid.

COUNT V

Declaratory Judgment – Unenforceability of the ’595 Patent


their entirety.

80. The parties have an actual case or controversy regarding the enforceability of

the ’595 patent and the controversy is ripe for adjudication by this Court pursuant to 29



13/36

-13-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

U.S.C. § 2201, et seq .

81. The parties dispute whether the ’595 patent is unenforceable due to the

inequitable conduct of Cole Ducey.

82.

In a sworn declaration to the USPTO, Mr. Ducey declared himself to be the

sole inventor of the subject matter claimed in the ’595 patent. As set forth above, Mr

Ducey’s statement was completely false and Mr. Ducey knew the statement was false. Mr

Ducey submitted the declaration with the intent to deceive the USPTO into believing that he

was the sole inventor of the ’595 patent. In truth, Mr. Ducey was not an inventor at all, and

Dane Dukat should have been named as the inventor of the patent.

83.

Mr. Ducey’s false claim of inventorship was a material misrepresentation

because the patent would not have issued but for Ducey’s false claim of inventorship. If Mr

Ducey had truthfully informed the USPTO that he did not invent the subject matter of the

patent, the patent could not have issued to him pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 102(f).

84. Further, the USPTO would not have issued the patent if it had known that

Mr. Dukat should have been listed as the sole inventor and that the claimed invention was

inaccurately represented as Mr. Ducey’s work.

85. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201,

et seq., that the ’595 patent is unenforceable due to the inequitable conduct of Cole Ducey.

COUNT VI

Unjust Enrichment/Restitution



their entirety.

87. Defendants Mr. Ducey and Raw were enriched by improperly obtaining the

’595 patent and/or any license or other payments or benefits therefrom, at Dane Dukat and

Med Ag ’s expense.

88. As a direct and proximate cause of defendants’ conduct, Dukat and Med Ag

have been harmed in an amount to be determined at trial, and will continue to be harmed



14/36

-14-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

until appropriate injunctive relief is granted.

89. Under these circumstances, equity and good conscience would not permit

defendants to retain any ill-gotten gains.

COUNT VII

Declaratory Judgment – Ownership of Cure Box Intellectual Property Rights

(Against Mr. Ducey and Raw)


their entirety.

91. An actual case or controversy exists between Mr. Cifelli, on the one hand, and

Mr. Ducey and Raw, on the other hand, as to ownership of the rights, title and interest in the

Cure Box, including all intellectual property related thereto, and the controversy is ripe for

adjudication by this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, et seq.

92. Mr. Cifelli is entitled to a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, e

seq., that neither Mr. Ducey nor Raw own any rights, title or interests in the Cure Box,

including any and all intellectual property related thereto.

COUNT VIII

Breach of Contract

(Against Raw)


their entirety.

94. Cifelli and Raw are parties to the DCA, a valuable and enforceable contract

supported by consideration.

95.

Cifelli abided by the terms of the DCA.

96. Raw failed to perform its obligations under the DCA as set forth above,

including by at least the following conduct:

a. failing and refusing to provide to Cifelli the Cure Box prototype

without removal of any component parts thereof;

b. failing and refusing to return to Cifelli confidential information relating



15/36

-15-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

to the Cure Box;

c. upon information and belief, using Cifelli’s confidential information for

purposes of developing a competing device;

d.

upon information and belief, hiring or seeking to hire an engineer or

other persons to assist Raw in developing a device to compete with the Cure Box; and

e. asserting Raw is the owner of the Cure Box and all rights, interests and

title to the intellectual property relating thereto in contravention of the terms of the DCA.

97. No event occurred discharging Raw of its duties to perform under the DCA.

98. As a result of Raw’s conduct, Cifelli has suffered actual and consequential

damages in an amount to be proven at trial plus pre- and post-judgment interest.

99. Pursuant to, inter alia , A.R.S. §§ 12-341 and 12-341.01, Cifelli is entitled to

recover his reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

COUNT IX

Breach of Contract

(Against Raw)


their entirety.

101. Mr. Cifelli and Raw entered into an oral contract under which Mr. Cifelli

agreed to create a website for Raw and to provide other valuable services and Raw agreed to

compensate Mr. Cifelli for his services and reimburse his expenses.

102. Mr. Cifelli performed his obligations under the contract.

103. Raw failed to perform its obligations under the contract and failed and refused

to compensate Mr. Cifelli for his services and reimburse him for his expenses.

104. No event occurred discharging Raw of its duties to perform under the

contract.

105. As a result of Raw’s conduct, Cifelli has suffered actual and consequentia

damages in an amount to be proven at trial plus pre- and post-judgment interest.

106. Pursuant to, inter alia , A.R.S. §§ 12-341 and 12-341.01, Cifelli is entitled to



16/36

-16-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

recover his reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request the Court grant the following relief in their favor

and against Defendants:

A. For general damages in an amount according to proof at trial;

B. For special damages in an amount according to proof at trial;

C. For appropriate injunctive relief;

D. For an order to the USPTO to correct the ’595 patent to name Dane Dukat as

the sole inventor;

E.

For a declaration and judgment finding that the ’595 patent is invalid as

currently issued.

F. For a declaration and judgment finding that the ’595 patent is unenforceable.

G. For a declaration and judgment finding that Cifelli is the owner of all rights

interest and title in the Cure Box, including all intellectual property rights;

H. Cifelli recover his costs and attorneys’ fees incurred pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 12 -

341 and 12-341.01 or otherwise;

I. For costs;

J. For reasonable attorney’s fees;

K. For pre-judgment and post-judgment interest;

L. For a constructive trust to be preliminarily and permanently imposed upon the

’595 patent and any benefits derived therefrom, and for Ducey to be declared constructive or

involuntary trustee holding the ’595 patent and any ill-gotten gains for the benefit of Mr.

Dukat;

M. For an awarding to plaintiffs for their reasonable attorneys’ fees, because this

is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285; and

N. Granting such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and

appropriate.



17/36

-17-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, plaintiffs demand a

trial by jury of this action.

DATED this 19th day of March, 2015.

BOOTH UDALL FULLER, PLC

/s/ Michelle G. BreitMichelle G. Breit (SBN 021439)[email protected] 1255 W. Rio Salado Parkway, Suite 215

Tempe, Arizona 85281 Telephone (480) 830-2700Facsimile (480) 830-2717

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs



18/36

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Civil Cover Sheet

This automated JS-44 conforms generally to the manual JS-44 approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in

September 1974. The data is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet.The information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as

required by law. This form is authorized for use only in the District of Arizona.

The completed cover sheet must be printed directly to PDF and filed as an

attachment to the Complaint or Notice of Removal.

Plaintiff

(s):

Med Ag Ventures Inc. ; Dane J.

Dukat ; Justin T. Cifelli

Defendant

(s):

Cole P. Ducey ; Raw CNC, LLC ;

Nathan W. Todd ; Cali Crusher,

LLC

County of Residence: MaricopaCounty of Residence: Outside the State of

Arizona

County Where Claim For Relief Arose: Maricopa

Plaintiff's Atty(s): Defendant's Atty(s):

Michelle G. Breit ( Med Ag Ventures Inc. ; Dane

J. Dukat ; Justin T. Cifelli )BOOTH UDALL FULLER, PLC

1255 W. Rio Salado Pkwy., #215

Tempe, Arizona 85281

480-830-2700

II. Basis of Jurisdiction: 3. Federal Question (U.S. not a party)

III. Citizenship of Principal

Parties (Diversity Cases Only)

Plaintiff:-1 Citizen of This State

Defendant:- 2 Citizen of Another State

IV. Origin : 1. Original Proceeding

V. Nature of Suit: 830 Patent

VI.Cause of Action: Title 35 of the United States Code, § 256.

VII. Requested in Complaint

Page 1 of 2

3/19/2015 @ 3:54:46 PM http://www.azd.uscourts.gov//cgi-bin/generate_civil_js44.pl

Case 2:15-cv-00505-DGC Document 1-1 Filed 03/19/15 Page 1 of 2


19/36

Class Action: No

Dollar Demand: DJ; $TBD

Jury Demand: Yes

VIII. This case is not related to another case.

Signature: /s/ Michelle G. Breit

Date: 3/19/2015

If any of this information is incorrect, please go back to the Civil Cover Sheet Input form using the Back button in

your browser and change it. Once correct, save this form as a PDF and include it as an attachment to your case

opening documents.

Revised: 01/2014

Page 2 of 2

3/19/2015 @ 3:54:46 PM http://www.azd.uscourts.gov//cgi-bin/generate_civil_js44.pl



20/36

Exhibit A

Exhibit A



21/36

1 2 ) United

States

Design Patent 1 0 )

P a t e n t N 0 . 2

USOOD71459SS

US

D 7 1 4 , 5 9 5

S

Ducey

4 5 ) Date o f P a t e n t : 4 * O c t . 7 , 2014

( 5 4 )

HERB

GRINDER 7 , 3 6 7 , 5 1 9 B2 5 / 2 0 0 8

d e G r o o t e

e t 3 1 .

7,422,170

B2* 9/2 0 08 Bao . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241/168

_

D594,288

s 6/2 0 0 9

Mah tal.

( 7 1 )

A p p l i c a n t .

C o l e D u c e y ,

S a n M a r c o s , CA

U S )

1 3 6 2 1 6 0 9 S

1 1 / 2 0 1 0

M c G u y e r

e t

a l ‘

7 , 8 8 6 , 9 9 9

B2

2 / 2 0 1 1 R u z y c k y

( 7 2 ) I n v e n t o r : Cole D u c e y , San M a r c o s ,

CA

U S ) 8 , 0 8 3 , 1 6 7 B 1 1 2 / 2 0 1 1 N a m a k i a n e r a 1 ,

8 , 2 2 0 , 7 3 2 B2 7 / 2 0 1 2 G r i f ? n

e t

a 1 .

**) Term

Years

S

Kent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

..

678,004

s

3/2013 Dam

_ 8,393,563 B2 3/2013 Chaouietal.

( 2 1 ) APPI'NO 2 9 / 4 8 8 ’ 7 1 5 D 6 9 5 , 0 6 7

s

1 2 / 2 0 1 3 W i l s o n e t a 1 .

_ 2010/0301806 A1 12/2010 Ormaza

t

a 1 .

( 2 2 ) F l l e d l Apr-22,2014 2 0 1 2 / 0 0 9 7 7 7 4 A1

4 / 2 0 1 2

H a i n b a c h

_ 2013/0015278 A1 1/2013 dwards

52Cé110)Cl.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . 07 04 2 0 1 3 / 0 2 1 4 0 6 8 A1 8 / 2 0 1 3 C a m i t t a

USPC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D7/679; D7/37 2 *

cited

by

xaminer

( 5 8 )

F i e l d o f

C l a s s i ? c a t i o n S e a r c h

CPC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A47]

2/08

Primary Examiner*erry W a l l a ce

USPC

. . . . . . . . . . . .

D7/679, 59m598,

3 7 2 , 3 7 3 ,

4 0 1 . 1 ,

( 7 4 ) A t t o r n e y ,

A g e / 1 1 ,

or

Firm

uche

s s o c i a t e s , PC;

2 2 2 / 1 4 2 1 4 1 4 2 9 , 4 8 0 ; 9 9 / 4 8 4 4 4 8 5 ,

J o h n

K - B u c h e

9 9 / 4 9 5 ,

5 0 9 4 5 1 0 ,

2 4 1 / 2 5 ,

1 0 1 . 2 ,

1 9 9 . 1 2 ,

241/1013, 273142734, 2 8 2 . 1 ,

1 6 8 , 1 6 9 , ( 5 7 )

_

CLAIM

_

241M691 8 3 36 9 2

9 5 The

o r n a m e n t a l

d e 5 1 g n

o f an h e r b

g r m d e r ,

a s

shown

and

S e e

a p p l i c a t i o n

? l e f o r c o m p l e t e s e a r c h h i s t o r y . d e s c n b e d

( 5 6 ) R e f e r e n c e s C i t e d DESCRIPTION

U . S . PATENTDOCUMENTS

7 9 5 , 7 4 6

A

4 / 1 9 0 5

Wing?eld t a 1 .

2,602,596 A

7/1952

Jones e t

a l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

24l/169.1

D 1 8 9 , 3 1 0 S

1 1 / 1 9 6 0

C r a i g

3 , 7 2 9 , 0 9 6 A

4 / 1 9 7 3

F i t z n e r e t

a 1 .

D250,280 S 1 1 / 1 9 7 8 Waldman

4 , 3 0 4 , 3 6 3

A

1 2 / 1 9 8 1

A t k i e l s k i

D307,223 S 4 / 1 9 9 0 R o s s a r i

5,071,663 A 12/1991 Dugan

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. .

241/168

D378,653 S 4 / 1 9 9 7 R i c h a r d i

D447,920

S

9 / 2 0 0 1 L i l l e l u n d

e t

a 1 .

6 , 5 1 7 , 0 1 8 B2

2 / 2 0 0 3

Manson

D 4 7 4 , 3 7 8 S 5 / 2 0 0 3

Brandenng

D477,503

S * 7/2003

Wong

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. .

D7/678

6 , 6 6 3 , 0 3 1 B2* 1 2 / 2 0 0 3 Henderson t a 1 . 2 4 1 / 1 6 9 . 1

6,834,817 B2* 12/2 0 0 4 Manson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241/169.1

D501,372 S

2 / 2 0 0 5

Lo

6 , 9 4 5 , 4 8 6

B2 9 / 2 0 0 5

T e n g

7 , 1 4 7 , 1 7 4

B2

1 2 / 2 0 0 6 Mansen

F I G . 1

i s

a t o p

p l a n view o f

t h e

h e r b

g r i n d e r s h o w i n g

my ew

d e s i g n .

F I G . 2 i s a bottom p l a n view o f F I G . 1 .

F I G .

3

i s

a t o p p e r s p e c t i v e v i e w o f o p t i e r o f h e

h e r b

g r i n d e r .

F I G . 4 i s a bottom p e r s p e c t i v e view

of

I G . 3 .

F I G . 5 i s a

t o p p e r s p e c t i v e

view o f t h e s e c o n d

i e r

o f t h e h e r b

g r i n d e r .

F I G . 6 i s a

t o p p e r s p e c t i v e view

o f t h e t h i r d t i e r o f t h e h e r b

g r i n d e r .

F I G .

7

i s

a

t o p p e r s p e c t i v e

view

o f

t h e

bottom

i e r

o f

t h e

h e r b

g r i n d e r ; a n d ,

F I G .

8

i s

a n e x p l o d e d p e r s p e c t i v e v i e w o f t h e h e r b g r i n d e r .

The s e c t i o n s a r e shown s e p a r a t e l y f o r

c l a r i t y

and e a s e o f

i l l u s t r a t i o n .

The

broken i n e s

a r e

f o r

l l u s t r a t i v e

p u r p o s e s o n l y

and form no p a r t o f

t h e

c l a i m e d d e s i g n .

1 C l a i m , 5 Drawing S h e e t s



22/36

US. atent

0a.

,

2 0 1 4

S h e e t

1

0 f 5

US 714,595

S



23/36

US

D 7 1 4 , 5 9 5

S

h e e t 2 0 f 5

c t .

7 ,

2 0 1 4

S .

P a t e n t

F l G . 3

FIGA



24/36

US. atent

0a.

,

2 0 1 4

S h e e t

3

0 f 5

US 714,595 S



25/36

US. atent

0a.

,

2 0 1 4

S h e e t 4 0 f 5

US 714,595

S



26/36

US. atent

0a.

,

2 0 1 4

S h e e t 5 0 f 5

US 714,595

S

F I G



27/36

Exhibit B

Exhibit B



28/36

Mutual Non-Disclosure Agreement

This Mutual Non-Disclosure Agreement (the "Agreement") is entered into this 3rd day of July,

2013 by and between Raw CNC, LLC and Dane Dukat, (collectively "Consultant" herein) a New

Mexico limited liability company, having its principal place

of

business

in

San Diego California,

and Cifahoy, LLC and its managing member Justin Cifelli (collectively "Company" herein), a

LLC based in Scottsdale,

AZ.

Whereas, each wishes to reveal certain infonnation which it deems proprietary and

confidential to the other; and

Whereas, the parties hereby acknowledge that any information which each may obtain

from the other regarding their respective inventions, products, services and software has

commercial value and is proprietary to the disclosing party.

Therefore, Consultant and Company agree to maintain the confidentiality

of

information

provided

to

each by the other under the following terms and conditions and agree

as

follows for

good and valuable consideration, receipt and sufficiency

of

which is hereby acknowledged:

l "Confidential Information" shall mean and include all information which one party

receives directly or indirectly, in writing or verbally, from the other or any director, officer,

employee or agent of the same to include, without limitation, (a) information relating to the

business affairs, methods of business, management information systems, inventions, products

and services, trade secrets, software applications, and other proprietary information or ideas

regarding the disclosing party's products, services and business plans as they may exist from

time to time. Confidential Information also includes, without limitation, any summary, repmt,

compilation, analysis, drawings, specifications, abstract or conclusion,

in

any form, or otherwise

existing

as

a result

of

any other Confidential Information (also referred to herein

as

"Cl''). CI

is

to specifically include but not be limited to Company's product portfolio plans targeting

consumable micro-green farming and hydroponic industries such

as

its plant growing and

processing technologies (i.e., cure box and LED lighting designs).

2. Duty of Cont1dentiality. Confidential Information shall be used only for the purpose

of evaluating a possible business transaction or business relationship between the parties; and

each party shall keep all Confidential Information

of

the other party confidential and shall not

intentionally disclose or fail to take all reasonable measures to prevent the disclosure

of

Confidential Information to any individual, corporation, partnership, trust, governmental

authority or any other third party without express written consent of the disclosing party. Each

party shall use the Confidential Information revealed by the other party solely for the purpose set

forth above. Except for that limited purpose, no license or right

of

any kind is given the recipient

with respect to Confidential Information, including no license or right under any patent,

copyright, trade secret, trademark, mask work or other intellectual propetty right

of

the party

revealing the Confidential Information. The recipient shall maintain

in

confidence and not

disclose or permit access to all or any part of the Confidential Information other than those

of

its

employees who have a need to know for the sole business purpose as set forth above and subject

to the terms and conditions

of

this Agreement. The recipient shall have a duty to protect only that



29/36

Confidential Information which (i) is marked confidential or proprietary or (ii) will be

of

such a

nature

as

may reasonably be expected to be confidential or proprietary. Joint discussions or

efforts to improve CI or develop investor and market demand or awareness in any item of CI

does not convey rights on the other party unless and until agreed to in writing signed by the party

to

be bound.

3. Limitations on Duty

of

Confidentiality. The recipient shall have no duty

of

confidentiality with respect to any information or material which:

(a) Is known to the recipient at the time

of

its disclosure to the recipient;

(b)

Is or becomes publicly known through no wrongful act or the recipient;

(c) Is received from a third party without breach

of

the restrictions contained

111

this

Agreement;

(d) Is furnished to a third party by the disclosing party without a similar restriction on such

third party and which restriction is, or should be reasonably known by the recipient.

(e) Is approved for release by the written authorization

of

the revealing party.

4. Ownership. All Confidential Information delivered by either party to the other shall be

and remain the property

of

the revealing party and shall be promptly returned, together with any

copies thereof, to the revealing party upon written request.

5. Security

of

Confidential Information. The parties agree that they shall use and maintain

security procedures to assure, in a commercially reasonable manner, that no entity other than the

party owning the Confidential Information may take any action that would violate the terms

of

this Agreement. Each party shall promptly repmt to the other (a) any violation

of

the provisions

of

this Agreement that occurs and (b) any occurrence

of

which a party has or should have

knowledge,

in

which a third party directly or indirectly gains access to Confidential Information

through or

ti·om

that party or

its

officers, directors, employees or agents.

6.

Subsequent Agreement.

In

the event discussions between the parties result in any

agreement for either to provide products and/or services

of

any nature including involving any CI

to the other pmty, the parties expressly agree that neither will acquire by performance

of

said

agreement any right to the products and/or services

of

the other, including any right to market the

same to any other party without the express written consent

of

the party owning such products or

services. The parties further covenant that neither will appropriate any Confidential Information

of

the other for its own use or for the use

of

others.

7. Term. The duty

of

confidentiality set forth in this Agreement shall survive termination

of

any discussions regarding a possible business transaction and shall be incorporated in any

subsequent agreement that may arise from such discussions, in

substantially the same form as

contained herein and shall remain in effect for three (3) years from the date

of

termination of

such relationship.

8.

Miscellaneous.



30/36

(a) This Agreement shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws

of

the State of Arizona. Each party agrees to jurisdiction and venue of any dispute in Maricopa

County, Arizona. In

the event

of

a dispute between the parties, the parties agree to submit this

matter to mediation, with each party bearing its own costs and expenses except splitting equally

the mediator fees.

If

mediation is unsuccessful, the parties agree

to

submit the matter to binding

arbitration

if

they can agree on an arbitrator and arbitration method

in

good faith. If the parties

are unable to agree on submission

of

the matter to binding arbitration, the courts sitting in

Maricopa County may be engaged and the prevailing party may be entitled to reasonable

attorneys' fees and costs

if

the other party

is

found not

to

have exercised good faith

to

reasonably

avoid conflict and disagreement and resolve the dispute without need of formal court litigation.

(b) This Agreement does not obligate the parties to enter into a business relationship

with each other, nor does t prevent either party from developing competitive products or

services,

as

long

as

the duty

of

confidentiality created hereunder

is

not violated.

(c) This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties, their successors and assigns.

Neither party may assign this Agreement nor any Confidential Information received

as

a result

of

the Agreement without the revealing patty's prior written consent, which shall not be

unreasonably withheld.

(d) This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement and understanding

of

the parties

with respect to the subject matter

of this Agreement and supersedes any prior agreement. Any

amendment or modifications

of

this Agreement shall be

in

writing and executed by duly

authorized representatives

of

the parties. If this Agreement conflicts with any existing or

subsequent agreement this Agreement shall control unless such subsequent agreement

specifically references this Agreement and expressly states the intent and manner to supersede

this Agreement.

Consultant and Company hereby acknowledge the acceptance

of

the above terms

as

of the date

set forth above.



31/36

Exhibit C

Exhibit C



32/36

©

Cifahoy, LLC, 2013, All Rights Reserved.

DEVELOPMENT CONSl.JLTING AGREEMENT

THIS AGREEMENT

("Agreement"), made and entered into

as

of

July 3rd, 2013 (the

"Effective Date"), by and between

DANE Dl.JKAT

and Raw CNC, LLC (collectively the

"Consultant" herein), and CIFAHOY, LLC, and Justin Cifelli (collectively "Company" herein).

Consultant nd Company are. referred to as the parties or Parties.

WHEREAS, the parties have agreed to discuss a business relationship (or already have

such a relationship), have executed a mutual non-disclosure agreement ("MNDA") immediately

prior to execution hereof (which may be attached as Exhibit A and is incorporated herein and not

superseded hereby

-- in

the event

of

a conflict

in

terms and provisions between the MNDA and

this Agreement, this Agreement shall control), which business discussions and relationship will

necessitate the exchange

of

and creation of additional proprietary confidential information and

related intellectual propetty and products; and

AND WHEREAS, Consultant acknowledges the purpose

of

this business relationship is

to develop products and intellectual property to be owned exclusively by COMPANY including

but not limited to a plant cure box for processing

of

micro-green and botanical items, and the

LED grow light technology and other products and services for plant, hydroponic, farming and

related production and processing and consumption inventions for industrial, business and

consumer customers/markets (such products and service inventions

of

Company are referred to

herein

as

the "Projects," or "Confidential Information" or "CI"

of

Company). Projects include

all

associated software coding, Internet/web marketing expertise, engineering designs/drawings,

product concepts/designs, product prototypes, future product versions and feature ideas and plans

which may arise, and the associated business development and marketing plans and relationships

developed

in

connection with the Projects. Consultant will assist

in

the development

of

the

Projects on a fair basis

as

agreed from time to time

as

authorized by Company

in

its discretion.

AND WHEREAS,

Company has expertise that may be

of

value to Consultant and

Consultant may request assistance from Company from time to time and will fairly compensate

and reward Company for its effort and assistance;

NOW, THEREFORE, for good consideration the Consultant and COMPANY agree as

follows:

1.

Preambles. The above preambles are incorporated herein. The objective

of

this

relationship

is

for Consultant to assist Company in Projects development. Consultant agrees the

intent of the preambles is that Consultant releases any and all claims or other rights it may have

to Projects related materials, inventions, discoveries and any associated rights.

2. Trade Secrets and Confidential Information. All information given to Consultant

in connection herewith, and the work product

of

the parties hereto related to this relationship

("Work Product"), is considered confidential trade secrets and property exclusively of



33/36

COMPANY ("Intellectual Property" herein) and shall be deemed Cl of Company m the

associated MNDA.

2. Restrictions

on

Use and Disclosure. Consultant agrees not to disclose to third

parties or use the Intellectual Property in competition with COMPANY.

3. Excluded Information. For purposes

of

this Agreement, Intellectual Property

shall not include any information:

(a) that is already known to the receiving party at the time

of

disclosure and is

free from an obligation

of

confidentiality;

(b) information generally known to the public already.

4. Injunction. The unauthorized disclosure or use

of

any Intellectual Property could

cause irreparable harm and significant injury to Company. Accordingly, Company has the right

to seek and obtain an immediate injunction enjoining any breach

of

this Agreement pe1taining to

use or disclosure

of

Intellectual Property.

5. Miscellaneous.

a. The parties will agree

in

wntmg from time to time the manner

of

compensating Consultant for services hereunder, but in no event shall

Company be obligated to Consultant for any fees and costs not invoiced

within 30 days of Consultant performing compensable services hereunder.

b. If Company performs services to Consultant to assist Consultant in connection

herewith or in connection with other matters under consideration and

governed by the MNDA, Company reserves the right to bill and invoice

Consultant for associated services and consulting.

c.

The parties may agree

to

some manner

of

offset for services rendered

to

each

other

if

in writing as they anticipate some manner and measure

of

mutually

assisting each other and have already discussed the possibility of a long term

strategic relationship if possible and

if

fair agreeable terms can be agreed

upon.

d. This Agreement shall be governed by, and construed

in

accordance with the

laws

of

the State

of

Arizona (if an action brought

in

either

of

these

jurisdictions then that law shall apply).

e. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit on the parties and their successors

and assigns.

f Disputes over payments due Consultant do not affect the interpretation

of

effect hereof nor the ownership and rights to

all

work product and associated

CI involved with or created on the Project or Projects being worked on by the

parties for Company.

g. Consultant agrees to execute any additional paperwork required, at no extra

cost to Company, within 48 hours

of

any request, to reflect the understanding

hereunder and ownership by Company

of

all CI (Trade Secrets and

Confidential Information and Work Product collectively Company's

Intellectual Property).

2



34/36

h. Consultant agrees it is an independent contractor and not an employee,

perfonns similar services for other people, is trained to perform the Services,

and is on control

of

the time and place

of

performance of services to

Company.

1.

This agreement is effective upon signing by both Parties,

is

continuing

nature and its term shall continue for three years after the Parties terminate

doing business together (Company continues to

solely and perpetually own all

Work Product and associated rights and CI disclosed to Consultant or created

pursuant hereto by collaboration

of

the parties).

J. Consultant's compensation shall be governed by separate agreement and

periodic not less than 30 day invoicing if Consultant claims payments are due,

(or addendurn exhibit hereto) although Consultant acknowledges it

has

received $1 and other good and valuable consideration

in

connection

herewith.

k. Either Party may terminate this agreement by servicing written notice

of

termination on the other. Consultant will turn over and leave all Work Product

from Services and other CI under its control during the term hereof to

Company immediately, and after termination not interfere with or corrupt any

aspects

of

Work Product or CI or otherwise impede Company's free use and

complete control

of

any such Work product or CI.

I Contractor warrants it has the skill and capacity to timely perform prototype

and product development services anticipated hereunder as represented to the

Company.

m.

Consultant acknowledges it has encouraged Company to engage Consultant

and collaborate with Consultant and in exchange therefor Consultant

is

promising to offer a strategic relationship to Company on reasonable terms

including but not limited to the opportunity to invest in

if

not acquire

Consultant. Nothing herein obligates Company however to do so.

n.

The Term hereof is the period beginning when the Patties first met

to

discuss

Services and ending three (3) years after the Parties stop working together by

written notice

of

termination of this Agreement. A termination hereof does not

impact the parties obligations to each other under the MNDA incorporated

herein.

o. This agreement may only be modified in writing, to the extent contrary

supersedes prior agreements between the Parties, and shall be liberally

construed.

6.

Exclusive Use and Benefit. Consultant will not develop and use or sell or

collaborate on a similar competing application or product to the Company's cure box, LED

lighting technology

or

other Company planned inventions disclosed

to

Consultant during the

term hereof without written approval

of

COMPANY.

3



35/36

IN WITNESS

WHEREOF

the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed

as

of

the date written above.

COMPANY: CONSULTANT:

By

Ffom

C Ji-·

_

By

Title: Justin Cifelli, Managing Member

Date: 7 3

:

2o /]'

Date:

7

4



36/36

AO 120 (Rev. 08/10)

TO:Mail Stop 8

Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

P.O. Box 1450

Alexandria, VA 22313-1450

REPORT ON THE

FILING OR DETERMINATION OF AN

ACTION REGARDING A PATENT OR

TRADEMARK

In Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 290 and/or 15 U.S.C. § 1116 you are hereby advised that a court action has been

filed in the U.S. District Court on the following

G Trademarks or G Patents. ( G the patent action involves 35 U.S.C. § 292.):

DOCKET NO. DATE FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT

PATENT OR

TRADEMARK NO.

DATE OF PATENT

OR TRADEMARK HOLDER OF PATENT OR TRADEMARK

1

2

3

4

5

In the above—entitled case, the following patent(s)/ trademark(s) have been included:

DATE INCLUDED INCLUDED BY

G Amendment G Answer G Cross Bill G Other Pleading

PATENT OR

TRADEMARK NO.

DATE OF PATENT

OR TRADEMARK HOLDER OF PATENT OR TRADEMARK

1

2

3

4

5

In the above—entitled case, the following decision has been rendered or judgement issued:

DECISION/JUDGEMENT

CLERK (BY) DEPUTY CLERK DATE

District of Arizona

3/19/2015 District of Arizona

Med Ag Ventures Inc.; Dane J. Dukat; and Justin T.Cifelli

Cole P. Ducey; Raw CNC, LLC; Nathan W. Todd; andCali Crusher, LLC

D714,595 10/7/2014 Cole Ducey


med ag ventures v. ducey - complaint

Documents