Case 4:08-cv Document 13 Filed in TXSD on 03/24/08 Page 1 of 19 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

Transcription

1 Case 4:08-cv Document 13 Filed in TXSD on 03/24/08 Page 1 of 19 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL PACKAGING CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:08-CV TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, CORTAINER PATENT WAREHOUSE L.L.C. and TATIANA GOLOVINA Plaintiffs, JURY DEMAND VS. CHARLES NELSON, JUDGE KENNETH M. HOYT CORTAINER, INC., CORTAINER PRODUCTS SDN BHD, MY FLEXITANK INDUSTRIES SDN BHD, LUSTER INDUSTRIES BHD, AND LUSTER PRECISION ENGINEERING SDN BHD, Defendants. PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Environmental Packaging Technologies Limited ( EPT ), Cortainer Patent Warehouse L.L.C. and Tatiana Golovina ( Golovina ) (collectively, Plaintiffs ) file this First Amended Complaint against Charles Nelson ( Nelson ), Cortainer, Inc. ( Cortainer ), Cortainer Products Sdn Bhd ( Cortainer Products ), MY FlexiTank Industries Sdn Bhd ( MY FlexiTank ), Luster Precision Engineering Sdn Bhd ( Luster Precision ), and Luster Industries Bhd ( Luster Industries ) (collectively, Defendants ) and would respectfully show this Court the following: I. PARTIES 1. Plaintiff Environmental Packaging Technologies Limited ( EPT ) is a Hong Kong corporation licensed to do business in Texas with its headquarters located in Texas. Plaintiff

2 Case 4:08-cv Document 13 Filed in TXSD on 03/24/08 Page 2 of 19 Cortainer Patent Warehouse LLC ( CPW ) is a limited liability company organized under the laws of Texas. Plaintiff Tatiana Golovina is President and owner of EPT and CPW. EPT, CPW and Golovina all maintain a principal place of business at 2200 Post Oak Boulevard, Suite 325, Houston, Texas EPT also has a warehouse located in this judicial district. 2. Defendant Charles Nelson ( Nelson ) is an individual who is a United States citizen and a permanent resident of Harris County, Texas. However, Nelson is currently on a work assignment in Malaysia and maintains living quarters in both locations. Defendant Nelson can be served through his legal counsel, as authorized agents, at King & Spalding, LLP, 1100 Louisiana Street, Suite 4000, Houston, Texas On information and belief, Defendant Cortainer, Inc. ( Cortainer ) is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Texas, having its registered place of business listed as 2323 Clear Lake City Blvd., Suite , Houston, Texas On or about July 8, 2005, Cortainer, Inc. forfeited its corporate privileges under of the Texas Tax Code. Defendant Nelson is the registered agent for Cortainer, Inc. 4. On information and belief, Defendant Cortainer Products Sdn Bhd ( Cortainer Products ) is a Malaysian company that is owned by Defendant Cortainer, Inc. Defendant Cortainer Products Malaysian address is Suite 5.02, Level 5, MBF Tower, 53 Jalan Sultan Ahmad Shah, Penang, Malaysia. Defendant Cortainer Products can be served through its legal counsel, as authorized agents, at King & Spalding, LLP, 1100 Louisiana Street, Suite 4000, Houston, Texas On information and belief, Defendant MY FlexiTank Industries Sdn Bhd ( MY FlexiTank ) is a joint venture between Luster Industries and Cortainer Products. MY FlexiTank is a Malaysian company with a principal place of business at Suite 5.02, Level 5, MBF Tower, _1 2

3 Case 4:08-cv Document 13 Filed in TXSD on 03/24/08 Page 3 of 19 53, Jalan Sultan Ahmad Shah, Penang, Malaysia. Defendant MY FlexiTank can be served through its legal counsel, as authorized agents, at King & Spalding, LLP, 1100 Louisiana Street, Suite 4000, Houston, Texas On information and belief, Defendant Luster Industries Bhd, also d/b/a Luster Group, ( Luster Industries ) is a Malaysian company with a principal place of business at which it may be served with process at Lot 58 & 59, Bakar Arang Industrial Estate Sungai Petani, Kedah Darulaman, Malaysia. 7. On information and belief, Defendant Luster Precision Engineering Sdn Bhd ( Luster Precision ) is a Malaysian company and wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant Luster Industries. Luster Precision has a principal place of business at which it may be served with process at 77, Jalan Prai Jaya 4 Grd. Flr., Bandar Prai Jaya, Perai, Penang, Malaysia. II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 8. This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over the federal claims in this action under 28 U.S.C. 1338(a) (Lanham Act) and under 28 U.S.C (Declaratory Judgment). 9. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) and (c). Further, the claims and causes of action asserted herein accrued in whole or in part, in this judicial district. III. BACKGROUND FACTS 10. Plaintiff Environmental Packaging Technologies Limited ( EPT ) provides innovative packaging solutions for the transport and storage of bulk products, such as liquids and granular solids. EPT has a complete line of bulk packaging products, which includes a collapsible drum and a new and distinctive flexitank product described in greater detail below _1 3

4 Case 4:08-cv Document 13 Filed in TXSD on 03/24/08 Page 4 of 19 ( Product ). By virtue of an assignment from the inventor in November 2007, EPT owns all the patent rights to the new Product, claimed in a pending patent application discussed further below. EPT is owned by Golovina. 11. In December 2003, Nelson was hired by Ms. Tatiana Golovina, as a full-time consultant, for the purpose of assisting her in the evaluation of packaging and shipping technologies and of companies having such technologies, and for the development of a new business based on those technologies. At that time, Nelson was President of a company called Cortainer, Inc. A related company called Cortainer Patent Warehouse LLC ( CPW ) owned certain patents and patent applications relating to packaging and shipping products. Nelson advised Golovina that she should purchase CPW. On February 11, 2004, based on Nelson s advice, Golovina purchased CPW and became 100% owner of CPW. 12. During 2003 and 2004, Golovina and CPW continued to make payments to Nelson, entrusting Nelson with valuable business and technical information, and entrusting Nelson to represent Golovina s and CPW s interests. One of Nelson s duties was to set up and supervise an operation in China to manufacture flexitanks for CPW. On behalf of Golovina and CPW, Nelson worked closely with a Chinese manufacturer, and provided information enabling the Chinese manufacturer to make flexitanks. During the latter part of 2004, commercial-grade flexitanks were produced by the Chinese manufacturer, which began supplying CPW with flexitanks for resale to end-user customers. 13. On information and belief, while Nelson was being paid by Golovina and CPW, and supposed to be setting up and supervising operations for CPW and Golovina in China, Nelson was actually feathering his own nest and stealing CPW s technology. In March 2004, shortly after Golovina s acquisition of CPW, Nelson secretly formed an entity in Malaysia called _1 4

5 Case 4:08-cv Document 13 Filed in TXSD on 03/24/08 Page 5 of 19 Cortainer Products Sdn Bhd ( Cortainer Products ), and began to set up a sales operation, designed to compete directly with Golovina and CPW. On information and belief, instead of being owned by CPW, Cortainer Products was owned by Nelson and/or Cortainer, Inc. On information and belief, Nelson opened a sales office in Malaysia, and began hiring a sales staff and negotiating and entering into contracts with various companies to carry out his scheme. Later in 2004, after the Chinese manufacturer began producing flexitanks for CPW, Nelson announced that a second plant would soon be opened in Malaysia. However, unbeknownst to Golovina, the purpose of the second plant was to supply flexitanks for Nelson and Cortainer Products, not Golovina or CPW. 14. Central to Nelson s scheme was the development of a way to manufacture and sell knock-off flexitanks having the same distinctive look as flexitanks manufactured for CPW. In December 2005, on information and belief, Nelson caused his secretly-formed company, Cortainer Products, to enter into a joint venture agreement with Defendant Luster Industries, a large Malaysian company, for the stated purpose of designing, developing, manufacturing and marketing of a new flexitank product. Defendant MY FlexiTank was the joint venture company that was created. That new flexitank product was a duplicate of the very Product being manufactured for CPW in China. In addition to duplicating the Product, Nelson began to falsely represent to customers and others that he was the inventor of the new flexitank product. 15. The actual inventor of the new flexitank Product is Charles True, an individual residing in Houston, Texas. On May 9, 2005, Charles True filed a patent application with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, identifying himself as the inventor of the Product. The published version of that application is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Charles Nelson was aware in 2005 that Charles True was the inventor and had filed the patent application _1 5

6 Case 4:08-cv Document 13 Filed in TXSD on 03/24/08 Page 6 of 19 Accordingly, Nelson could not and did not dispute True s status as inventor at that time. As described therein, the Product has several innovative structural features, including independent multiple layers and a particular type of seal. Charles True later filed a PCT patent application under the Patent Cooperation Treaty, based on that U.S. patent application. Since then, numerous other corresponding patent applications have been filed in other countries, listing Charles True as the sole inventor. 16. In December 2006, Environmental Packaging Technologies Limited ( EPT ) was formed. EPT is owned by Golovina. Since at least as early as January 2007, EPT has been purchasing Products from the factory in China and reselling those Products in Texas and in other parts of the world. In November 2007, Charles True assigned all his patent rights in the Product, including the pending patent applications, to EPT, and accepted a position with EPT as Development Director. Since at least as early as February 2007, EPT has been importing into Texas and then exporting from Texas the Products. 17. Defendants have been making, marketing and/or selling an imitation of EPT s Product, giving it so close a resemblance in appearance to EPT s Product that confusion is likely to arise among the public as to the source of the imitation product. Defendants Nelson, Cortainer and Cortainer Products have conspired among themselves and with various Malaysian companies, including Defendants MY FlexiTank, Luster Precision and Luster Industries. 18. On information and belief, in addition to selling lookalike products, Defendants Nelson, Cortainer and Cortainer Products have also been making false representations to EPT s customers, including false statements that Charles Nelson is the inventor of the knock-off product; and that the patent rights for the two competing products are owned by an entity other than EPT. On information and belief, Defendants Nelson, Cortainer and Cortainer Products have _1 6

7 Case 4:08-cv Document 13 Filed in TXSD on 03/24/08 Page 7 of 19 communicated those false representations to actual and potential customers of Plaintiff EPT in this judicial district and elsewhere. These false statements have a tendency to mislead the actual and potential customers. Defendants Nelson, Cortainer and Cortainer Products have made such representations knowing they were false, for the purpose of diverting business from EPT. IV. BREACH OF FIDICUCIARY DUTY 19. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations of paragraphs Nelson breached his fiduciary duties to Golovina and CPW in violation of the laws of the State of Texas. Nelson represented Golovina and CPW as an agent, and owed corresponding duties to Golovina and CPW. 21. By virtue of Nelson s relationship with Golovina and CPW, Nelson owed Golovina and CPW fiduciary duties of loyalty, good faith, candor, refraining from self-dealing, acting with integrity of the strictest kind, fair and honest dealing, and full disclosure of matters that might influence Nelson to act in a manner prejudicial to Golovina and CPW. 22. Nelson breached his fiduciary duties to Golovina and CPW by taking money paid by Golovina and CPW for purposes of establishing operations in China and Malaysia, failing to establish such operations on behalf of Golovina and CPW, and instead working and using money paid by Golovina and CPW to establish operations for Nelson s own company, Cortainer Products, in Malaysia. 23. Nelson also breached his fiduciary duties to Golovina and CPW by using CPW s confidential information and trade secrets for his own purposes, namely, to set up a manufacturing and sales operation to profit himself. After being hired to work as Golovina s and CPW s agent, Nelson possessed and had access to confidential information and trade secrets, _1 7

8 Case 4:08-cv Document 13 Filed in TXSD on 03/24/08 Page 8 of 19 including technical and business information. As filed, the Charles True patent application, attached as Exhibit A, contained confidential technical information and trade secrets relating to the Product, and that information was not published until November When Nelson was setting up the operations in China and Malaysia, the information in the True patent application to which Nelson had access was still confidential. Nelson used that information, while it was still secret, to give him and his competing business a head-start in manufacturing a product that would compete with the CPW Product. 24. As a result of Nelson s breach of his duties, Nelson has unjustly and illegally received and retained fees, moneys, property, and profit which must be disgorged. Defendants have wrongfully and illegally benefited from Nelson s fraudulent acts, and are liable for acts taken by Nelson on their behalf. 25. On information and belief, Nelson s breach of fiduciary duty was willful, deliberate, intentional, and/or intended to provide Nelson with an unwarranted benefit, such that exemplary damages should be awarded. 26. Plaintiffs have been and will continue to be damaged by Defendants acts. V. FRAUD 27. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations of paragraphs Nelson illegally committed fraud against Golovina and CPW in violation of the laws of the State of Texas. 29. Defendant Nelson falsely represented to Golovina and CPW that he would undertake to work for them to help set up operations on their behalf in China and Malaysia _1 8

9 Case 4:08-cv Document 13 Filed in TXSD on 03/24/08 Page 9 of 19 Nelson knew his continued misrepresentations were false, and Nelson intended that Golovina and CPW rely on his false statements. 30. Golovina and CPW relied on Nelson s false representations, for example, by supplying him with confidential information, by not using a different agent in China and Malaysia, and by paying money to Nelson. Golovina and CPW were injured by Nelson s failure to promote the operations in China and Malaysia on their behalf, by Nelson s actions in setting up his own competing operations instead, by Defendants misappropriation of money paid by Golovina and CPW, and by Defendants sales and distribution of competing products. 31. The Charles True patent application, attached as Exhibit A, was not published until November That application contains confidential technical information relating to the Product to which Nelson had access. When Nelson was setting up the operations in China and Malaysia, the information in the True patent application to which Nelson had access was still confidential. Nelson used that information, while it was still secret, to give him and his competing business a head-start in manufacturing a product that would compete with the CPW Product. 32. Defendants have wrongfully and illegally benefited from Nelson s fraudulent acts, and are liable for acts taken by Nelson on their behalf. 33. Plaintiffs have been and will continue to be damaged by Defendants acts. VI. CONVERSION 34. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations of paragraphs Defendant Nelson has illegally committed the tort of conversion against Golovina and CPW in violation of the laws of the State of Texas _1 9

10 Case 4:08-cv Document 13 Filed in TXSD on 03/24/08 Page 10 of Golovina and CPW owned certain moneys which were delivered to Nelson for the specific authorized use of setting up operations for Golovina and CPW in China and Malaysia. Nelson wrongfully misappropriated and diverted such moneys for his own use in setting up his own company Cortainer Products. 37. Defendants have wrongfully and illegally benefited from Nelson s illegal conversion, and are liable for acts taken by Nelson on their behalf. 38. Plaintiffs have been and will continue to be damaged by Defendants acts. Specifically, Golovina and CPW have been injured by the loss of money intended for use in setting up their own operations, by the loss of opportunity in setting up her own operations, and by resulting unfair competition from Defendants products. VII. CONSPIRACY 39. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all allegations of paragraphs Defendants Nelson, Cortainer and Cortainer Products have conspired among themselves against Plaintiffs, and have also conspired with Defendants MY FlexiTank, Luster Precision and Luster Industries. By acting together, they accomplish an object or course of action in which they had a meeting of the minds on that object or course of action and, pursuant to which they committed one or more unlawful, overt acts, including but not limited to trade dress infringement and palming off. As a proximate result of this conspiracy, Plaintiffs have suffered injuries. As such, Plaintiffs are entitled to damages against Defendants in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this Court _1 10

11 Case 4:08-cv Document 13 Filed in TXSD on 03/24/08 Page 11 of 19 VIII. TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE 41. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all allegations of paragraphs Upon information and belief, Defendants have intentionally interfered with Plaintiff EPT s contractual relationships. Accordingly, Plaintiffs sue Defendants for tortious interference with contract. As a direct and proximate result of such interference, Plaintiffs have suffered damages. Such interference has been intentional and done with malice, and Plaintiffs seek to recover exemplary damages as permitted by law. IX. UNFAIR COMPETITION UNDER TEXAS COMMON LAW 43. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations of paragraphs Defendants have committed acts of unfair competition against Plaintiffs under Texas common law. Defendants have committed trade dress infringement and palming off. Defendants have copied Plaintiff EPT s trade dress and incorporated it into their own knock-off products, which compete directly with Plaintiff EPT s Products. Plaintiff EPT owns the common law trade dress rights associated with the Product. Defendants unauthorized use of EPT s trade dress is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of Defendants with EPT, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of Defendants goods, services, or commercial activities. 45. On information and belief, additional acts of unfair competition committed by Defendants Nelson, Cortainer and Cortainer Products are making false representations that Charles Nelson is the inventor of the same product that is a knock-off of EPT s Product, and _1 11

12 Case 4:08-cv Document 13 Filed in TXSD on 03/24/08 Page 12 of 19 falsely suggesting to actual and potential customers that the patent rights in the Product belong to someone besides EPT. Defendants Nelson, Cortainer and Cortainer Products have engaged in their illegal conduct willfully and deliberately. The actual inventor of the Product is Charles True; and EPT owns the patent rights to the Product. 46. EPT has been and will continue to be damaged by Defendants acts. X. FALSE DESIGNATION OF ORIGIN UNDER THE LANHAM ACT 47. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations of paragraphs EPT has distinctive trade dress rights in its flexitank Products. Defendants are responsible for making, marketing and/or selling knock-off flexitank products having the same or confusingly similar trade dress. Defendants conduct constitutes false designation of origin in violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a)(1)(A). intentionally. 49. On information and belief, Defendants have engaged in their illegal conduct 50. Plaintiffs have been and will continue to be damaged by Defendants acts. Defendants conduct is causing irreparable harm. XI. FALSE ADVERTISING UNDER THE LANHAM ACT 51. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations of paragraphs Defendants Nelson, Cortainer and Cortainer Products have falsely represented that Charles Nelson is the inventor of Defendants knock-off product, and Defendants Nelson, Cortainer and Cortainer Products have falsely represented that the patent rights in the Product _1 12

13 Case 4:08-cv Document 13 Filed in TXSD on 03/24/08 Page 13 of 19 belong to someone besides EPT. Defendants conduct constitutes false advertising in violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a)(1)(B). 53. On information and belief, Defendants Nelson, Cortainer and Cortainer Products have engaged in their illegal conduct intentionally. 54. Plaintiffs have been and will continue to be damaged by Defendants acts. Defendants conduct is causing irreparable harm. XII. ACCOUNTING AGAINST DEFENDANTS 55. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations of paragraphs Plaintiffs respectfully request this Court to order the Defendants to account for any profits derived by them because of the acts complained of herein, and for any moneys paid to them by Plaintiffs. XIII. DECLARATORY JUDGMENT 57. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all allegations of paragraphs Pursuant to 28 U.S.C , Plaintiff EPT seeks a declaration that it is the sole and exclusive owner of the distinctive common law trade dress embodied in the Product. Plaintiff EPT also seeks a declaration that the inventor of the Product is Charles True, not Charles Nelson. Further, EPT seeks to recover its costs and reasonable attorneys fees incurred in the prosecution of this action _1 13

14 Case 4:08-cv Document 13 Filed in TXSD on 03/24/08 Page 14 of 19 XIV. PUNITIVE AND EXEMPLARY DAMAGES 59. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all allegations of paragraphs By virtue of the aforementioned claims, Plaintiffs request the award of punitive and/or exemplary damages. It is alleged that Defendants actions were taken with such callous and/or wanton disregard of Plaintiffs rights, that it should be awarded damages to punish these Defendants from committing such egregious acts in the future. XV. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 61. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all allegations of paragraphs Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief enjoining and requiring Defendants, their offices, agents, servants, employees, attorneys and all other persons acting in concert or participation with any of them, as follows: a. Defendants may not export and/or import into the United States their imitation flexitank products; b. Defendants may not represent that Charles Nelson is the inventor of the imitation flexitank products at issue here; c. Defendants may not represent that any other company besides EPT, or its successors, owns patent rights in the flexitank product being sold by Defendants; d. Defendants may not distribute, sell or cause to be distributed or sold any of the imitation products at issue here; e. Defendants may not enforce or attempt to enforce any contracts or agreements with customers which relate to the imitation products at issue here; _1 14

15 Case 4:08-cv Document 13 Filed in TXSD on 03/24/08 Page 15 of 19 f. Defendants must take corrective action to inform its customers of this judgment and the requirements of this order, recall all imitation products, refund customers for purchasing imitation products, and release customers from any contracts or agreements relating to such imitation products; g. Defendants must deliver for destruction all imitation products and materials relating to such products; and h. Each Defendant must submit to Plaintiffs and to this Court, within thirty (30) days of the Court s order (or other time ordered by the Court), a report in writing under oath setting forth in detail the manner and form in which that Defendant has complied with the injunction. 63. Plaintiffs request that such order direct any of Defendants imitation products found within the United States to be seized by an officer of any court of competent jurisdiction, whenever and wherever found, and shall be destroyed by such officer pursuant to this Court s inherent equitable powers. 64. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law without the requested injunctive relief. Injuries and losses are continuing. The property rights involved are unique and irreplaceable, such that it will be impossible to accurately measure, in monetary terms, the potential damage caused by Defendants current and future conduct. 65. It is essential that the Court restrain Defendants from their tortious actions and violations of the law. XVI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF For these reasons, Plaintiffs EPT, Golovina and CPW respectfully pray for equitable relief and they have and recover judgment against Defendants as follows: a. For actual damages; b. For Defendants profits; _1 15

16 Case 4:08-cv Document 13 Filed in TXSD on 03/24/08 Page 16 of 19 fact; c. For exemplary and/or punitive damages in the amount found by the trier of d. For an order enjoining and requiring Defendants, their offices, agents, servants, employees, attorneys and all other persons acting in concert or participation with any of them, as follows: 1. Defendants may not export and/or import into the United States their imitation flexitank products; 2. Defendants may not represent that Charles Nelson is the inventor of the imitation flexitank products at issue here; 3. Defendants may not represent that any other company besides EPT, or its successors, owns patent rights in the flexitank product being sold by Defendants; 4. Defendants may not distribute, sell or cause to be distributed or sold any of the imitation products at issue here; 5. Defendants may not enforce or attempt to enforce any contracts or agreements with customers which relate to the imitation products at issue here; 6. Defendants must take corrective action to inform its customers of this judgment and the requirements of this order, recall all imitation products, refund customers for purchasing imitation products, and release customers from any contracts or agreements relating to such imitation products; 7. Defendants must deliver for destruction all imitation products and materials relating to such products; and 8. Each Defendant must submit to Plaintiffs and to this Court, within thirty (30) days of the Court s order (or other time ordered by the Court), a report in writing under oath setting forth in detail the manner and form in which that Defendant has complied with the injunction _1 16

17 Case 4:08-cv Document 13 Filed in TXSD on 03/24/08 Page 17 of 19 e. Plaintiffs request that such order direct any of Defendants imitation products found within the United States to be seized by an officer of any court of competent jurisdiction, whenever and wherever found, and shall be destroyed by this Court s inherent equitable powers. f. For a declaratory judgment that EPT is the lawful and exclusive holder of the Texas common law rights in the trade dress of the flexitank Product in question, and that the inventor of the Product is Charles True, not Charles Nelson; g. Reasonable attorneys fees and costs incurred in the prosecution of this matter and through any and all appeals; h. Prejudgment and post-judgment interest on the above-referenced sums from date of judgment until paid at that highest lawful rate; and i. For such other and further relief to which this Court deems Plaintiffs justly entitled. Dated: March 24, 2008 Respectfully submitted, s/ Douglas H. Elliott Douglas H. Elliott Attorney-In-Charge Texas Bar No S.D. Texas No PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP 3040 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 1500 Houston, Texas Tel: Fax: delliott@pattersonsheridan.com ATTORNEY-IN-CHARGE FOR PLAINTIFFS CORTAINER PATENT WAREHOUSE L.L.C. and TATIANA GOLOVINA _1 17

18 Case 4:08-cv Document 13 Filed in TXSD on 03/24/08 Page 18 of 19 Of Counsel: Erik A. Knockaert Texas Bar No S.D. Texas No Monique M. Raub Texas Bar No S.D. Texas No PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP 3040 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 1500 Houston, Texas Tel: Fax: /s Dale Jefferson (by permission) Dale Jefferson Attorney-In-Charge Texas Bar No S.D. Texas No MARTIN, DISIERE, JEFFERSON & WISDOM, LLP 808 Travis, Suite 1800 Houston, Texas Tel: Fax: ATTORNEY-IN-CHARGE FOR PLAINTIFF ENVIRONMENTAL PACKAGING TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED Gary L. Pate Texas Bar No S.D. Texas No MARTIN, DISIERE, JEFFERSON & WISDOM, LLP 808 Travis, Suite 1800 Houston, Texas Tel: Fax: _1 18

19 Case 4:08-cv Document 13 Filed in TXSD on 03/24/08 Page 19 of 19 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiff s First Amended Complaint was served on the parties listed below, via the Court s CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5 on this 24 th day of March, Jill A. McWhirter. Esq. C. Brannon Robertson, Esq. Yoo-Sun Park, Esq. Craig E. Stone, Esq. KING & SPALDING, L.L.P Louisiana Street Suite 4000 Houston, Texas Facsimile: (713) Attorneys for Defendants Charles Nelson and Cortainer Products Sdn Bhd s/ Erik A. Knockaert Erik A. Knockaert _1 19