UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS __________________________________________ ) OPTIM LLC, ) ) Plaintiff ) Case No. ____________ v.

) ) SUNOPTIC TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, ) ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ) Defendant ) __________________________________________)

COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Plaintiff Optim LLC (Optim) files this Complaint for Patent Infringement against Defendant Sunoptic Technologies LLC (Sunoptic), wherein, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 271 and 281, Optim seeks a judgment of infringement by Sunoptic of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,229,201 (the 201 Patent) and 7,798,692 (the 692 Patent), and damages resulting therefrom pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 284, as well as a permanent injunction of the infringing activity pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 283, and such other relief as the Court deems just and proper, and in support thereof alleges as follows: THE PARTIES 1. Optim is a Delaware limited liability company with a principal place of business

at 64 Technology Park Road, Sturbridge, Massachusetts 01566. Optim develops, manufactures and supports state-of-the-art endoscopy products and accessories. 2. On information and belief, Defendant Sunoptic is a Florida corporation with its

principal place of business at 6018 Bowdendale Avenue, Jacksonville, Florida 32216. Under its Sunoptic Surgical brand name, it offers surgical headlights, Xenon and LED light sources,

video cameras, documentation/ recording devices, fiber optic cables and a full array of accessories, parts and repair services through exclusive global distribution direct to the surgical marketplace. See, e.g., www.Sunoptictech.com. 3. On information and belief, Defendant Sunoptic also does business as Cuda

Surgical using the same address. Cuda Surgical offers custom design, development, manufacturing, testing and regulatory services in the medical, dental and industrial fields and is also a leading global supplier of fiber optic cables, high intensity light sources, video and imaging devices. See, e.g., www.cuda.com. Except to the extent specified otherwise, Sunoptic hereinafter refers to Sunoptic Technologies, LLC, Cuda Surgical, and any and all dba or entities controlled by Sunoptic Technologies, LLC, involved in the making, using, selling or importing of the accused products. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

1331 and 1338(a), because the action concerns infringement of United States patents and arises under the patent law of the United States (particularly 35 U.S.C. 271, 281). 5. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Sunoptic at least by virtue of Sunoptic

having conducted business in this District and having committed one or more acts of infringement in this District. 6. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(2)-(3), 1400(b). PATENTS-IN-SUIT 7. Optim is the owner of the 201 Patent, entitled Compact, High-Efficiency, High-

Power Solid State Light Source Using a Single Solid State Light-Emitting Device, which the United States Patent and Trademark Office lawfully and duly issued on June 12, 2007. A true and correct copy of the 201 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 2

8.

Optim is the owner of the 692 Patent entitled Illuminating Device, which the

United States Patent and Trademark Office lawfully and duly issued on September 21, 2010. A true and correct copy of the 692 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit B. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Optims Patented Product 9. Founded in 1970, Optim is a technology development company based in

Sturbridge, Massachusetts. Optim develops, manufactures and supports state-of-the-art endoscopy products and accessories that help medical professionals, law enforcement officers and industrial users work more effectively and efficiently in areas of diminished illumination. 10. Optim sells its patented Portable Light Source (PLS), which is intended to provide

illumination for examination, diagnostic, and therapeutic applications, particularly in endoscopy. The PLS is properly marked as to the 201 and 692 Patents pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 287(a). 11. In a typical use, the patented Optim PLS is attached to an endoscope and delivers

light through the optical rod/guide within the endoscope to illuminate an object in a patient body being examined, without using inconvenient cords or tethers or other external light sources, as depicted below:

12.

The patented PLS connects directly to flexible or rigid endoscopes, and is

compatible with endoscopes manufactured by a variety of companies in the industry, including Karl Storz Endoscopy, ACMI Corporation, and Richard Wolf GmbH, among others. 13. In one patented design, as shown above, the PLS is attached directly to a port or

post connected to the endoscope, and such post contains a light guide that carries light from the PLS to the endoscope. Many types of endoscopes are designed with posts containing a tapered light guide, also known as a light post taper. For example, most small flexible endoscopes, and small diameter rigid endoscopes have light post tapers. Sunoptics Infringing Product 14. On Sunoptics main website, Sunoptic offers a product called PortablePlus

ROVER, and identifies the following items for purchase: SSL-3XSA ROVER III Portable LED Light with ACMI Port SSL-3XSW ROVER III Portable LED Light with WOLF Port SSL-3XSA-R ROVER III Portable LED Light with ACMI Port, Rechargeable Battery SSL-3XSW-R ROVER III Portable LED Light with WOLF Port, Rechargeable Battery 15. On Sunoptics Cuda website, Sunoptic offers a product called ROVER III

Portable 3W LED Light Source. That website also identifies such products for use with ACMI and Wolf endoscope ports, among others. Unless specifically indicated otherwise, Optim collectively refers to all accused infringing products -- regardless of their advertised product name or co-branding as the ROVER. 16. On information and belief, Sunoptics infringement involves sales of the ROVER

for use with endoscopes that have a light post taper. For example, on information and belief, Sunoptic sells a substantial number of ROVER products for use with small flexible and rigid endoscopes that have light post tapers. On information and belief, Richard Wolf sells small rigid endoscopes with light post tapers, and Sunoptic sells its ROVER product for use and co4

branding with Richard Wolf endoscopes. See, e.g., http://www.richardwolfusa.com/video/lightsources.html:

17.

On information and belief, there are no substantial uses of the ROVER products

made, used, sold, or offered for sale by Sunoptic that do not infringe one or more claims of the 201 Patent and the 692 Patent. Sunoptics Knowledge of Optims Patent Rights 18. On December 9, 2004, U.S. Patent Application No. 10/810,504 (the 504

Application) published as U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2004/0246744 A1 (the Optim Published Patent Application). 19. The 504 Application, and the Optim Published Patent Application, later issued as

the 201 Patent on June 12, 2007. 20. The 692 Patent issued from U.S. Patent Application No. 11/323,481 (the 481

Application), which application was filed on December 30, 2005 as a continuation-in-part of the 504 Application.

21.

On April 21, 2006, Sunoptic referenced the Optim Published Patent Application

in an information disclosure statement it filed during the prosecution of Sunoptics U.S. Patent Application No. 11/379,614 (the Sunoptic 614 Application). 22. The drawings submitted on April 21, 2006 by Sunoptic during the prosecution of

the Sunoptic 614 Application show a device that appears to be the ROVER. 23. On January 22, 2009, the United States Patent and Trademark Office deemed the

Sunoptic 614 Application abandoned for failure to respond to a final office action. 24. At least as early as April 21, 2006, Sunoptic was on actual notice of the Optim

Published Patent Application (which later issued as the 201 Patent), as well as the 504 Application (from which both the 201 Patent and the 692 Patent share a common lineage). Optims and Sunoptics Failed Business Relationship 25. In 2006, Optim purchased a Sunoptic ROVER and became interested in working

with Sunoptic to develop a light source that both Optim and Sunoptic could market Sunoptic would supply the electronics and packaging, and Optim would supply the light engine. On October 18, 2006, representatives for Optim and Sunoptic entered into a non-disclosure agreement. 26. On October 19, 2006, representatives for Optim and Sunoptic met at Optims

headquarters in Sturbridge, Massachusetts. 27. On or about January 25, 2007, Optim mailed a light engine prototype to Sunoptic.

Over the course of February, March and April 2007, Optims and Sunoptics representatives exchanged equipment and information related to the prototype (known as the ROVER XB project).

28.

Over the next several months, Optim was providing light sources to Sunoptic,

which Sunoptic was incorporating into prototype units (some of which were ordered by Optim). 29. Between August and December 2007, problems arose involving Sunoptics

slower-than-promised production and delivery of prototypes ordered by Optim, and a disagreement between Optim and Sunoptic arose about the reasons for poor performance of some of the ROVERs XB prototypes purchased by Optim. 30. In late December 2008, after years of receiving confidential information and

equipment relating to aspects of Optims PLS design, Sunoptic informed Optim that it was terminating the ROVER XB project, thereby effectively discontinuing the companies business relationship. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (INFRINGEMENT OF THE 201 PATENT) 31. Optim incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 30 of the Complaint, as if

set forth here in full. 32. Upon information and belief, Sunoptic has been and is currently directly

infringing one or more claims of the 201 Patent (including but not limited to Claim 13) by making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling within the United States, and/or importing into the United States, without authority, at least the ROVER, and possibly other infringing products (collectively, the Infringing Products). 33. Upon information and belief, with knowledge of the 201 Patent, Sunoptic is

contributing to the infringement of, and/or inducing infringement of the 201 Patent by, among other things, knowingly and with intent, actively encouraging its customers, suppliers, original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and original design manufacturers (ODMs), to make,

use, sell and/or offer for sale Sunoptics Infringing Products in ways that constitute infringements of one or more claims of the 201 Patent (including, but not limited to Claim 13). 34. Based at least on its knowledge of the Optim Published Patent Application at least

as early as April 21, 2006, Sunoptic is, on information and belief, aware of Optims patent rights in the 201 Patent. At the very least, on information and belief, Sunoptic was willfully blind, and Sunoptic took deliberate actions to avoid confirming a high probability of wrongdoing and can almost be said to have actually known the critical facts (i.e., the existence of the 201 Patent). 35. As a result of Sunoptics unlawful infringement of the 201 Patent, Optim has

suffered and will continue to suffer damage. Optim is entitled to recover from Sunoptic the damages adequate to compensate for such infringement, which have yet to be determined. 36. The past, present and any future manufacturing, sales, offers for sale, uses, or

importation by Sunoptic of the Infringing Products demonstrates or will demonstrate a deliberate and conscious decision to infringe the 201 Patent or, at the very least, a reckless disregard of Optims patent rights. 37. The past, present and any future manufacturing, sales, offers for sale, uses, or

importation by Sunoptic of the Infringing Products following its notice of the 201 Patent claims, constitutes and will continue to constitute willful infringement, and Optim will be entitled under 35 U.S.C. 284 and 285 to treble damages, attorneys fees and costs incurred in this action, and prejudgment interest. 38. this Court. Sunoptic will continue to infringe the 201 Patent unless and until it is enjoined by

39.

Sunoptics acts of infringement have caused and will continue to cause irreparable

harm to Optim unless and until Sunoptic is enjoined by this Court. 40. willful. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (INFRINGEMENT OF THE 692 PATENT) 41. Optim incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 40 of the Complaint, as if On information and belief, Sunoptics infringement of the 201 Patent has been

set forth here in full. 42. Upon information and belief, Sunoptic has been and is currently directly

infringing one or more claims of the 692 Patent (including but not limited to Claim 1) by making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling within the United States, and/or importing into the United States, without authority, at least the ROVER, and possibly other infringing products (collectively, the Infringing Products). 43. Upon information and belief, with knowledge of the 692 Patent, Sunoptic is

contributing to the infringement of, and/or inducing infringement of the 692 Patent by, among other things, knowingly and with intent, actively encouraging its customers, suppliers, original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and original design manufacturers (ODMs), to make, use, sell and/or offer for sale Sunoptics Infringing Products in ways that constitute infringements of one or more claims of the 692 Patent (including but not limited to Claim 1). 44. Based at least on its knowledge of the Optim Published Patent Application at least

as early as April 21, 2006, Sunoptic is, on information and belief, aware of Optims patent rights in the 692 Patent. At the very least, on information and belief, Sunoptic was willfully blind, and Sunoptic took deliberate actions to avoid confirming a high probability of

wrongdoing and can almost be said to have actually known the critical facts (i.e., the existence of the 692 Patent). 45. As a result of Sunoptics unlawful infringement of the 692 Patent, Optim has

suffered and will continue to suffer damage. Optim is entitled to recover from Sunoptic the damages adequate to compensate for such infringement, which have yet to be determined. 46. The past, present and any future manufacturing, sales, offers for sale, uses, or

importation by Sunoptic of the Infringing Products demonstrates or will demonstrate a deliberate and conscious decision to infringe the 692 Patent or, at the very least, a reckless disregard of Optims patent rights. 47. The past, present and any future manufacturing, sales, offers for sale, uses, or

importation by Sunoptic of the Infringing Products following its notice of the 692 Patent claims, constitutes and will continue to constitute willful infringement, and Optim will be entitled under 35 U.S.C. 284 and 285 to treble damages, attorneys fees and costs incurred in this action, and prejudgment interest. 48. this Court. 49. Sunoptics acts of infringement have caused and will continue to cause irreparable Sunoptic will continue to infringe the 692 Patent unless and until it is enjoined by

harm to Optim unless and until Sunoptic is enjoined by this Court. 50. willful. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Optim prays for a Judgment in favor of Optim and against Sunoptic as follows: A. An order that Sunoptic has directly infringed the 201 and 692 Patents; On information and belief, Sunoptics infringement of the 692 Patent has been

10

B. Patents; C. D. E. U.S.C. 285; F.

An order that Sunoptic has contributed to the infringement of the 201 and 692

An order that Sunoptic has induced the infringement of the 201 and 692 Patents; An order that Sunoptic has willfully infringed the 201 and 692 Patents; An order against Sunoptic that this case is exceptional within the meaning of 35

An order against Sunoptic permanently enjoining Sunoptic and its affiliates,

subsidiaries, officers, directors, employees, agents, representatives, licensees, successors, distributors, assigns, and all those acting for them and on their behalf, or acting in concert with them directly or indirectly, from further acts of infringement of the 201 and 692 Patents; G. An order directing Sunoptic to fully account for Sunoptics infringement of the

201 and 692 Patents, and awarding damages (including enhanced damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 284) to Optim for such damages, together with pre- and post-judgment interest; H. I. proper. An order awarding Optim its reasonable attorneys fees, expenses, and costs; and A grant of such other and further equitable or legal relief as this Court deems

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Optim hereby demands trial by jury on all issues so triable. / / /

11

/ / /

12

Dated: December 10, 2013 Respectfully submitted, OPTIM LLC By its counsel, /s/ HOWARD J. SUSSER BURNS & LEVINSON LLP Howard J. Susser (BBO # 636183) Stephen Y. Chow (BBO # 082990) Merton E. Thompson (BBO # 637056) Zachary R. Gates (BBO # 677873) Alexandra Capachietti (BBO # 666765) 125 Summer Street Boston, Massachusetts 02110-1624 [Tel.] (617) 345-3000 [Fax] (617) 345-3299 hsusser@burnslev.com schow@burnslev.com mthompson@burnslev.com zgates@burnslev.com acapachietti@burnslev.com

13

4849-5849-2181.5

14