Med Ag Ventures v. Ducey - Complaint

Case 2:15-cv-00505-DGC Document 1 Filed 03/19/15 Page 1 of 17
BOOTH UDALL FULLER, PLC

1255 W. Rio Salado Parkway, Suite 215
Tempe, Arizona 85281
Telephone (480) 830-2700
Facsimile
(480) 830-2717
Michelle G. Breit SBN 021439
Email
mbreit@boothudall.com
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
Med Ag Ventures Inc., a Colorado

corporation; Dane J. Dukat, an individual;
and Justin T. Cifelli, an individual,
10
11
12
13
14
Plaintiffs,
Case No. ____________________
COMPLAINT
v.
[Demand for Jury Trial]
Cole P. Ducey, an individual; Raw CNC,

LLC, a New Mexico limited liability
company; Nathan W. Todd, an individual;
and Cali Crusher, LLC, a Texas limited
liability company,
15
Defendants.
16
17
Plaintiffs Med Ag Ventures Inc., Dane J. Dukat, and Justin T. Cifelli hereby allege for
18
their Complaint against defendants Cole P. Ducey, Raw CNC, LLC, Nathan Todd and Cali
19
Crusher, LLC, on personal knowledge as to their own actions and on information and belief
20
as to all other matters, as follows:

THE PARTIES
21
22
1.
Plaintiff Meg Ag Ventures Inc. (Med Ag) is a corporation organized and
23
existing under the laws of the State of Colorado, with its principal place of business in Mesa,
24
Arizona.
25
products for consumers, growers and medical marijuana dispensaries.
26
2.
Med Ag develops and manufactures proprietary ancillary medical cannabis
Plaintiff Justin T. Cifelli is an individual residing in Scottsdale, Arizona. Mr.
27
Cifelli is the founder and President of Med Ag. Mr. Cifelli holds a Bachelor of Science in
28
Applied Biology from Arizona State University with an emphasis in plant and soil science.
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.
8
9
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
10
Valley Road, San Diego, California.
11
members of Raw reside in San Diego, California.
12
purports to be the assignee of all rights, title and interest in U.S. Patent No. D714,595 (the
13
595 patent), a patent for an ornamental design of an herb grinder, which issued on
14
October 7, 2014. A true and correct copy of the 595 patent is attached as Exhibit A to this
15
Complaint.
5.
16
Upon information and belief, all active operating

Upon information and belief, Raw
Defendant Cole P. Ducey (Ducey) is an individual residing in San Diego
17
County, California. Mr. Ducey purports to be the sole remaining member of defendant
18
Raw. Upon information and belief, Mr. Ducey purports to be the sole inventor of the 595
19
patent.
20
6.
Upon information and belief, defendant Cali Crusher, LLC (Cali Crusher) is
21
a Texas limited liability company with its principle place of business located at 307 W. San
22
Antonio, San Marcos, Texas. On information and belief, all members of Cali Crusher, LLC
23
reside in Texas.
24
7.
25
individual residing in San Marcos, Texas and the managing member of Cali Crusher.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
26
27
28
Upon information and belief, defendant Nathan W. Todd (Todd) is an
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
-2-
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
10
The Grinder Invention
11
11.
In or about 2011, Mr. Dukat first contemplated creating a new herb grinder
12
for use in the medical marijuana industry. At the time, he was also developing other product
13
ideas and inventions related to the same and other industries.
14
12.
By the fall of 2012, Mr. Dukat had a complete design for his new grinder, as
15
well as hand drawn design renderings of the specific grinder features. Mr. Dukats grinder
16
included cutting teeth shaped in geometrical arcs with different shaped ends to allow for
17
dual coarseness selection. Mr. Dukat modified the standard UNF threading of known
18
grinders to make relief notches so that the sections of his grinder could be conjoined and
19
separated much easier and faster. Mr. Dukat also designed a cross brace to support a screen
20
section in the grinder rather than the more typical design of stretching the screen like a
21
drum. In addition, Mr. Dukat designed the top of the grinder to have an ash tray and paper
22
holder and a particular look and functionality for the exterior grip.
23
24
25
13.
Mr. Dukats 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
26
dimensioned and scaled prints of the grinder, which he later used to program the machine
27
used to manufacture a physical prototype.
28
15.
In or about the fall of 2012, Mr. Ducey was visiting Mr. Dukats brother in
-3-
Arizona.
discussions the two were having about forming a business for the manufacture and sale of
products related to the medical cannabis industry.
16.
Mr. Dukat disclosed his grinder invention to Mr. Ducey in the context of
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.
8
9
10
11
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. Dukats herb grinder.
18.
In or about March 2013, Mr. Dukat completed drafting a business plan and
12
moved to California to set up manufacturing because Mr. Ducey asserted he could get free
13
commercial real estate for their use and provide all needed investment capital to open the
14
new business, which ultimately became defendant Raw.
15
19.
After about nine months of working together, Mr. Dukat determined that he
16
could not remain in business with Mr. Ducey due to malfeasance committed by Mr. Ducey.
17
Mr. Dukat moved back to Arizona in or about February 2014.
18
19
20
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
21
inventions and all related intellectual property. Med Ag committed, as part of the license, to
22
protect and defend Dukats design and ownership rights in and to the herb grinder
23
inventions.
24
22.
Without Mr. Dukats knowledge, on or about April 22, 2014, Ducey filed U.S.
25
Patent Application No. 29/488,715 (the 715 application) based on Mr. Dukats
26
conception of the grinder. In this application, Mr. Ducey erroneously named himself as the
27
sole inventor when he was not an inventor at all. Instead, Mr. Dukat was the inventor of the
28
grinder disclosed in Mr. Duceys design patent application.

-4-
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. Dukats 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,
10
Mr. Dukat is the inventor of the grinder disclosed and claimed in the Ducey utility patent
11
application.
12
13
14
15
16
25.
Upon information and belief, Mr. Duceys 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
17
Med Tech Instruments, entered into an exclusive manufacturing agreement with Cali
18
Crusher, whereby Raw granted to Cali Crusher, for a term of seven years, the exclusive use
19
of all Raws purported grinder designs and grinder patents, both current and those which
20
Raw later develops.
21
28.
Upon information and belief, Mr. Ducey, Raw, Mr. Todd and Cali Crusher
22
continue to market and exploit the 595 patent for the manufacturing and sale of grinder
23
products.
The Cure Box Invention
24
25
29.
In or about October 2012, plaintiff Justin Cifelli began development of a plant
26
curing and processing apparatus to assist agricultural growers improve crop yields and
27
quantities (the Cure Box). Mr. Cifelli completed drawings of the apparatus and made a
28
model out of wood and metal.

-5-
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.
company could assist in creating a prototype of Mr. Cifellis Cure Box invention.
32.
Mr. Dukat informed Mr. Cifelli that the new manufacturing
On July 3, 2013, Mr. Cifelli and his company Cifahoy (jointly Cifelli) entered
into two agreements with defendant Raw (Mr. Dukat and Mr. Duceys new company): (1)
10
the Mutual Non-Disclosure Agreement (MNDA), a true and correct copy of which is
11
attached as Exhibit B to this Complaint; and (2) the Development Consulting Agreement
12
(DCA), a true and correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit C to this Complaint.
13
Together, the MNDA and DCA are referred to herein as the Cifelli/Raw Agreements.
14
33.
The purpose of the Cifelli/Raw Agreements was to set out the terms of the
15
business relationship between Cifelli and Raw and, more particularly, for Cifelli to retain Raw
16
to assist in the development of a prototype of the Cure Box.
17
34.
Pursuant to the Cifelli/Raw Agreements, Cifelli provided Raw with detailed
18
confidential information relating to the Cure Box invention and the product under
19
development.
20
consideration Cifelli was required to pay under the Cifelli/Raw Agreements.
21
35.
In addition, Cifelli paid Raw the sum of $3,750, which was the entire
The Cifelli/Raw Agreements make clear that Cifelli is the owner of all the
22
intellectual property rights and confidential information relating to the Cure Box, including
23
from the time the parties entered into the Cifelli/Raw Agreements and at all times thereafter.
24
25
26
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
27
developing, using, selling or collaborating with others on an application or product similar to
28
the Cure Box or using Cifellis intellectual property in competition with Cifelli. The DCAs
-6-
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
10
confidential information it obtained related to the Cure Box, and not to impede Cifellis free
11
use and complete control of any such work product or confidential information.
41.
12
13
Pursuant to the DCA, Raw began developing a prototype of the Cure Box, as
well as certain documentation related to the Cure Box.

42.
14
In or about October 2013, Raw and Mr. Ducey entered into an oral agreement
15
with Mr. Cifelli whereby Raw and Mr. Ducey agreed to pay Mr. Cifelli to develop Raws
16
websites and to provide other business development and marketing assistance. Pursuant to
17
that agreement, Mr. Cifelli performed these duties and incurred expenses related thereto.
18
Under the contract, Mr. Cifelli was entitled to payment from Raw in an amount in excess of
19
$9,000.
20
43.
On or about February 18, 2014, Mr. Cifelli learned of certain malfeasance by
21
Mr. Ducey. Among other improper conduct, Mr. Ducey wrongfully began asserting that
22
Raw and Mr. Ducey were the owners of the rights, title and interest in Mr. Cifellis Cure Box
23
and related intellectual property.
24
25
26
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 Raws services and the
27
relationship with Raw by providing written notice to Mr. Ducey and Raw from Cifellis
28
attorney. In that same notice, Mr. Cifelli demanded Raw turn over to Cifelli all the drawings,
-7-
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
10
worthless.
11
48.
On information and belief, Mr. Ducey and Raw continue to refuse to return
12
the remaining components of the prototype and any of the documentation or other
13
confidential information related to the Cure Box.
14
49.
The DCA noncompetition prohibition is in effect and enforceable until at
15
least the start of March 2017, three years after Mr. Cifelli provided written notice of
16
termination. Despite the prohibition against competing, upon information and belief, Mr.
17
Ducey and Raw have hired or sought to hire persons to assist them in developing a product
18
that competes with Mr. Cifellis Cure Box.
19
50.
In or about April 2014, Mr. Cifelli exclusively licensed to Med Ag all further
20
development and commercialization rights in all Cure Box plant processing invention
21
technology and all related intellectual property. Med Ag committed, as part of the license, to
22
protect and defend Cifellis design and ownership rights in and to the Cure Box invention.
Defendants Defamatory Statements
23
24
51.
On information and belief, defendant Nathan Todd, on behalf of himself and
25
Cali Crusher, and others working on behalf of Cali Crusher, have contacted numerous Med
26
Ag existing and potential customers, and Med Ags existing and potential vendors, at least
27
during the Champs Trade Show at the Las Vegas Convention Center in Las Vegas, Nevada
28
on or about February 3, 2015 through February 5, 2015, and have made false, injurious and
-8-
defamatory statements regarding Med Ag and the products Med Ag has sold and is offering
to sell to such customers. Mr. Todds and Cali Crushers 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 Ags grinder products or for infringing Cali Crushers
grinder product, when in fact (i) Dukat sued Ducey for Duceys 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 Ags products are unlicensed and infringing patents in which
10
Todd and Cali Crusher hold an interest, knowing that Med Ags grinder products do not
11
infringe a valid claim of the 595 patent;

c.
12
that Med Ags business will be shut down soon due to Meg Ags
13
patent infringement and/or infringement of Cali Crushers grinder and that Med Ag will
14
be prohibited from making and selling its grinder products; and

d.
15
further, defendants failed to inform the third parties that Dane Dukat
16
has asserted he is the true inventor of the 595 patent and that, if proven, it would deprive
17
defendants of any rights with regard to the 595 patent.
18
52.
Defendants Todd and Cali Crusher made each of the above-identified
19
statements and omissions with actual malice and with the intent to convey to Med Ags
20
customers and other third parties the false impression that Med Ag, and potentially its
21
customers, are subject to infringement claims by defendants, and to induce the customers to
22
not purchase grinder products from Med Ag and instead to purchase grinder products from
23
Cali Crusher or otherwise risk having their respective business operations disrupted.
24
53.
Upon information and belief, in or about October 2014 and continuing
25
thereafter, defendant Ducey, on behalf of himself and Raw, stated to defendants Todd and
26
Cali Crusher at least the following:

a.
27
28
that Mr. Ducey and Raw own all rights to the herb grinder intellectual
property;
-9-
b.
that Med Ags herb grinders violate Mr. Duceys 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;
e.
further, upon information and belief, Mr. Ducey failed to inform Mr.
and
7
8
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.
10
54.
Mr. Ducey and Raw made each of the above-identified statements and
11
omissions with actual malice and with the intent to convey to Mr. Todd and Cali Crusher the
12
false impression that Med Ag and potentially its customers are subject to claims of patent
13
infringement and to dissuade Mr. Todd and Cali Crusher from conducting business with
14
Med Ag.
15
16
55.
As a result of defendants false and defamatory statements, Med Ag has lost
and continues to lose product sales.
17
COUNT I
18
Slander
19
(Against All Defendants)
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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 Ags business, trade or
professional conduct the damages are presumed.

60.
Upon information and belief, defendants made the slanderous statements with
-10-
1
2
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
8
9
10
11
12
62.
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,
13
and/or deceptive to Med Ags customers and expected customers to further defendants
14
own business opportunities and promote the sale of defendants products to the detriment
15
of Med Ags products.
16
17
65.
Defendants intentionally interfered thus inducing or causing a breach or
termination of Med Ags relationships or expectancies.
18
66.
Med Ag was and continues to be damaged as a result of defendants actions.
19
67.
Defendants actions were in bad faith, willful, wanton and undertaken with a
20
callous disregard for Med Ags interests and business relations.
21
COUNT III
22
Correction of Inventors Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 256 on U.S. Patent No. D714,595
23
(Against Cole P. Ducey)
24
25
26
27
28
68.
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
-11-
1
2
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. Duceys
inclusion as an inventor was in error.
5
6
7
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.
10
74.
Mr. Dukat therefore requests correction of the inventor named in the 595
11
patent to substitute Mr. Dukat in place of Mr. Ducey.
12
COUNT IV
13
Declaratory Judgment Invalidity of the 595 Patent
14
15
16
75.
their entirety.
76.
The parties have an actual case or controversy regarding the invalidity of the
17
595 patent and the controversy is ripe for adjudication by this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
18
2201, et seq.
19
20
21
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,
22
et seq. that the sole claim of the 595 patent is invalid.
23
COUNT V
24
Declaratory Judgment Unenforceability of the 595 Patent
25
26
27
28
79.
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
-12-
1
2
3
4
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.
Duceys 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.
10
83.
Mr. Duceys false claim of inventorship was a material misrepresentation,
11
because the patent would not have issued but for Duceys false claim of inventorship. If Mr.
12
Ducey had truthfully informed the USPTO that he did not invent the subject matter of the
13
patent, the patent could not have issued to him pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 101 and 102(f).
14
84.
Further, the USPTO would not have issued the patent if it had known that
15
Mr. Dukat should have been listed as the sole inventor and that the claimed invention was
16
inaccurately represented as Mr. Duceys work.
17
18
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.
19
COUNT VI
20
Unjust Enrichment/Restitution
21
22
23
24
86.
their entirety.
87.
Defendants Mr. Ducey and Raw were enriched by improperly obtaining the
25
595 patent and/or any license or other payments or benefits therefrom, at Dane Dukat and
26
Med Ags expense.
27
28
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
-13-
1
2
3
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)
7
8
9
90.
their entirety.
91.
An actual case or controversy exists between Mr. Cifelli, on the one hand, and
10
Mr. Ducey and Raw, on the other hand, as to ownership of the rights, title and interest in the
11
Cure Box, including all intellectual property related thereto, and the controversy is ripe for
12
adjudication by this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2201, et seq.
13
92.
Mr. Cifelli is entitled to a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2201, et
14
seq., that neither Mr. Ducey nor Raw own any rights, title or interests in the Cure Box,
15
including any and all intellectual property related thereto.
16
COUNT VIII
17
Breach of Contract
18
(Against Raw)
19
20
21
22
93.
their entirety.
94.
Cifelli and Raw are parties to the DCA, a valuable and enforceable contract
supported by consideration.
23
95.
Cifelli abided by the terms of the DCA.
24
96.
Raw failed to perform its obligations under the DCA as set forth above,
25
26
27
28
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

-14-
to the Cure Box;

c.
2
3
purposes of developing a competing device;

d.
4
5
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.
6
7
upon information and belief, using Cifellis confidential information for
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 Raws conduct, Cifelli has suffered actual and consequential
10
11
12
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.
13
COUNT IX
14
Breach of Contract
15
(Against Raw)
16
17
18
100.
their entirety.
101.
Mr. Cifelli and Raw entered into an oral contract under which Mr. Cifelli
19
agreed to create a website for Raw and to provide other valuable services and Raw agreed to
20
compensate Mr. Cifelli for his services and reimburse his expenses.
21
102.
Mr. Cifelli performed his obligations under the contract.
22
103.
Raw failed to perform its obligations under the contract and failed and refused
23
24
25
26
27
28
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 Raws conduct, Cifelli has suffered actual and consequential
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
-15-
recover his reasonable attorneys fees and costs.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request the Court grant the following relief in their favor
3
4
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;
10
E.
11
currently issued.
12
F.
For a declaration and judgment finding that the 595 patent is unenforceable.
13
G.
For a declaration and judgment finding that Cifelli is the owner of all rights,
14
interest and title in the Cure Box, including all intellectual property rights;
15
16
For a declaration and judgment finding that the 595 patent is invalid as
H.
Cifelli recover his costs and attorneys fees incurred pursuant to A.R.S. 12-
341 and 12-341.01 or otherwise;
17
I.
For costs;
18
J.
For reasonable attorneys fees;
19
K.
For pre-judgment and post-judgment interest;
20
L.
For a constructive trust to be preliminarily and permanently imposed upon the
21
595 patent and any benefits derived therefrom, and for Ducey to be declared constructive or
22
involuntary trustee holding the 595 patent and any ill-gotten gains for the benefit of Mr.
23
Dukat;
24
25
26
27
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.
28
-16-
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1
2
3
4
5
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.
6
7
8
9
10
11
/s/ Michelle G. Breit

Michelle G. Breit (SBN 021439)
mbreit@boothudall.com
1255 W. Rio Salado Parkway, Suite 215
Telephone (480) 830-2700
Facsimile
(480) 830-2717
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-17-
Page 1 of 2
Case 2:15-cv-00505-DGC Document 1-1 Filed 03/19/15 Page 1 of 2
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 Med Ag Ventures Inc. ; Dane J.
(s):
Dukat ; Justin T. Cifelli
Cole P. Ducey ; Raw CNC, LLC ;

Defendant
Nathan W. Todd ; Cali Crusher,
(s):
LLC
County of Residence: Maricopa
County 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 )
1255 W. Rio Salado Pkwy., #215
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
http://www.azd.uscourts.gov//cgibin/generate_civil_js44.pl
3/19/2015 @ 3:54:46 PM
Page 2 of 2

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
http://www.azd.uscourts.gov//cgibin/generate_civil_js44.pl
3/19/2015 @ 3:54:46 PM
Exhibit A
Exhibit A

USOOD71459SS
(12) United States Design Patent (10) Patent N0.2

Ducey
(54)
HERB GRINDER
-
(71) Applicant. Cole Ducey, San Marcos, CA (US)

(72)
Inventor:
(**)
Term:
Cole Ducey, San Marcos, CA (US)
(21)
APPI'NO" 29/488715
(22)
Flledl
Years
5/2008 de Groote et 31.

9/2008
6/2009
13621609 S
11/2010 McGuyer et al
2/2011 Ruzycky
12/2011 Namakian er a1,
s
S
7/2012 Grif?n et a1.

*
D695,067 s
2010/0301806 A1
Apr-22,2014
2012/0097774 A1
_
Bao ............................. .. 241/168

Mah etal.
7,886,999 B2
8,083,167 B1
8,393,563 B2
Oct. 7, 2014
7,422,170 B2*
D594,288 s
D678,004
4*
7,367,519 B2
8,220,732 B2
(58)
US D714,595 S
(45) Date of Patent:
3/2013
Dam
Kent
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
3/2013
Chaouietal.
12/2013 Wilson et a1.

12/2010
Ormaza et a1.
4/2012 Hainbach
2013/0015278 A1
1/2013
52C110)Cl. .............................................. .. 07 04
2013/0214068 A1
8/2013 Camitta
Edwards
USPC ........................................... .. D7/679; D7/372
* cited by examiner
Field of Classi?cation Search

CPC ...................................................... .. A47] 42/08
USPC ............. .. D7/679, 59m598, 372, 373, 401.1,
222/142141429, 480; 99/4844485,
Primary Examiner * Terry Wallace
(74) Attorney, Age/11, or Firm * Buche & Associates, PC;
John K- Buche
99/495, 5094510, 241/25, 101.2, 199.12,

241/1013, 273142734, 282.1, 168, 169,
241M691 83 36 92 95
See application ?le for complete search history.

(56)
(57)
_
CLAIM
_
The ornamental de51gn of an herb grmder, as shown and
descnbed'
References Cited
DESCRIPTION
FIG. 1 is a top plan view of the herb grinder showing my new
U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS
design.
795,746 A
4/1905 Wing?eld et a1.
2,602,596 A *
FIG. 2 is a bottom plan view of FIG. 1.
7/1952 Jones et al. .............. .. 24l/169.1
D189,310 S
11/1960 Craig
3,729,096
D250,280
4,304,363
D307,223
4/1973
11/1978
12/1981
4/1990
Fitzner et a1.
Waldman
Atkielski
Rossari
12/1991
Dugan ........................ .. 241/168
A
S
A
S
5,071,663 A *
FIG. 3 is a top perspective view of top tier of the herb grinder.

FIG. 4 is a bottom perspective view of FIG. 3.
FIG. 5 is a top perspective view of the second tier of the herb
grinder.
FIG. 6 is a top perspective view of the third tier of the herb
grinder.
D378,653 S
D447,920 S
6,517,018 B2
4/1997 Richardi
9/2001 Lillelund et a1.
2/2003 Manson
D474,378 S
5/2003 Brandenng
FIG. 8 is an exploded perspective view of the herb grinder.
7/2003
The sections are shown separately for clarity and ease of

illustration. The broken lines are for illustrative purposes only
and form no part of the claimed design.
D477,503 S
D501,372 S
6,945,486 B2
7,147,174 B2
12/2004
grinder; and,
Wong ........................... .. D7/678
6,663,031 B2* 12/2003 Henderson et a1.

6,834,817 B2*
FIG. 7 is a top perspective view of the bottom tier of the herb
241/169.1
Manson ................... .. 241/169.1
2/2005 Lo
9/2005 Teng
12/2006 Mansen
1 Claim, 5 Drawing Sheets
US. Patent
0a. 7, 2014
Sheet 1 0f5
US D714,595 S
US. Patent
Oct. 7, 2014
Sheet 2 0f 5
FlG.3
FIGA
US D714,595 S
US. Patent
0a. 7, 2014
Sheet 3 0f5
US D714,595 S
US. Patent
0a. 7, 2014
Sheet 4 0f5
US D714,595 S
US. Patent
0a. 7, 2014
Sheet 5 0f5
US D714,595 S
FIG.8
Exhibit B
Exhibit B
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
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:
Is known to the recipient at the time of its disclosure to the recipient;
(a)
(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 tiom 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.
(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 it 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.
Exhibit C
Exhibit C

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 and 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
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.
shall not include any information:
(a)
(b)
For purposes of this Agreement, Intellectual Property
that is already known to the receiving party at the time of disclosure and is
free from an obligation of confidentiality;
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).
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 111
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.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed as of
the date written above.
COMPANY:
By:
Ffom C!Ji-_
CONSULTANT:
By:
Title: Justin Cifelli, Managing Member

Date:
7-3 ..:. 2o /]'"
Date:

AO 120 (Rev. 08/10)
REPORT ON THE
FILING OR DETERMINATION OF AN
ACTION REGARDING A PATENT OR
TRADEMARK
Mail Stop 8
Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
TO:
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
District of Arizona
G Trademarks or
DOCKET NO.
Patents.
G
the patent action involves 35 U.S.C. 292.):
DATE FILED
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
3/19/2015
District of Arizona
PLAINTIFF
DEFENDANT
Med Ag Ventures Inc.; Dane J. Dukat; and Justin T.

Cifelli
PATENT OR
TRADEMARK NO.
1 D714,595
Cole P. Ducey; Raw CNC, LLC; Nathan W. Todd; and

Cali Crusher, LLC
DATE OF PATENT
OR TRADEMARK
10/7/2014
HOLDER OF PATENT OR TRADEMARK
Cole Ducey
2
3
4
5
In the aboveentitled case, the following patent(s)/ trademark(s) have been included:
DATE INCLUDED
INCLUDED BY
PATENT OR
TRADEMARK NO.
Amendment
DATE OF PATENT
OR TRADEMARK
Answer
Cross Bill
Other Pleading
HOLDER OF PATENT OR TRADEMARK
1
2
3
4
5
In the aboveentitled case, the following decision has been rendered or judgement issued:
DECISION/JUDGEMENT
CLERK
(BY) DEPUTY CLERK
DATE
Copy 1Upon initiation of action, mail this copy to Director Copy 3Upon termination of action, mail this copy to Director
Copy 2Upon filing document adding patent(s), mail this copy to Director Copy 4Case file copy

Med Ag Ventures v. Ducey - Complaint

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Med Ag Ventures v. Ducey - Complaint

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

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

BOOTH UDALL FULLER, PLC

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Med Ag Ventures Inc., a Colorado

Case No. ____________________

[Demand for Jury Trial]

Cole P. Ducey, an individual; Raw CNC,

as to all other matters, as follows:

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

products for consumers, growers and medical marijuana dispensaries.

Med Ag develops and manufactures proprietary ancillary medical cannabis

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

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

agriculture and LED lighting technology fields.

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

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

in computer-controlled manufacturing and parts design.

Valley Road, San Diego, California.

members of Raw reside in San Diego, California.

Upon information and belief, all active operating

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

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

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

Case 2:15-cv-00505-DGC Document 1 Filed 03/19/15 Page 3 of 17

because the parties have conflicting patent inventorship claims.

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

The Grinder Invention

ideas and inventions related to the same and other industries.

the above mentioned features.

used to manufacture a physical prototype.

Case 2:15-cv-00505-DGC Document 1 Filed 03/19/15 Page 4 of 17

products related to the medical cannabis industry.

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

new business, which ultimately became defendant Raw.

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

grinder disclosed in Mr. Duceys design patent application.

Case 2:15-cv-00505-DGC Document 1 Filed 03/19/15 Page 5 of 17

Ducey is identified as the sole inventor.

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

title and interest in the 595 patent to Raw.

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

Raw later develops.

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

model out of wood and metal.

Case 2:15-cv-00505-DGC Document 1 Filed 03/19/15 Page 6 of 17

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

the Cure Box.

defendant Cole Ducey.

Mr. Dukat informed Mr. Cifelli that the new manufacturing

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

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

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

the intellectual property rights to the Cure Box.

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

Case 2:15-cv-00505-DGC Document 1 Filed 03/19/15 Page 7 of 17

serving written notice of termination on the other.

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

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

well as certain documentation related to the Cure Box.

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

and related intellectual property.

On or about March 4, 2014, Cifelli terminated Raws services and the