Ringers Techs. v. Harmer - Complaint

Case 4:18-cv-04347 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 11/16/18 Page 1 of 12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
RINGERS TECHNOLOGIES LLC, §

§
Plaintiff, §
§
v. §
§
§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:18-CV-4347
GEORGE HARMER, §
§
Defendant. §
§
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Ringers Technologies LLC (“Ringers”) for its Complaint against Defendant
George Harmer (“Harmer”), individually, states as follows:
SECTION I – PARTIES
1. Plaintiff Ringers Technologies LLC is a company organized and existing under
the laws of the State of Texas, with its principal place of business at 8846 North Sam Houston
Parkway, Houston, Harris County, TX 77064.
2. On information and belief, Defendant George Harmer is an individual residing in
California.
SECTION II – NATURE OF ACTION
3. This is an action to determine the proper inventorship and/or ownership of U.S.
Patent No. D824,111 (the “’111 Patent”) (Exhibit 1); U.S. Patent No. D809,714 (the “’714
Patent”) (Exhibit 2); and U.S. Patent Application No. 15/341,586 (“the ’586 Application)
(Exhibit 3) (collectively, the “Challenged Patents”). It is also an action for declaratory judgment
that Ringers has not misappropriated trade secrets of Harmer.

SECTION III – JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a), as
Ringers’ right to relief depends on the resolution of a substantive question of federal patent law,
namely, judgment regarding the inventorship of the Challenged Patents pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §
256. Ringers owns all rights, title, and interest in the Challenged Patents and thus has standing to
bring this suit.
5. This Court also has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 as the
action is between citizens of different States, and the amount in controversy in this action,
exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds the sum of $75,000.
6. This Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over the claims herein arising under
state law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) because they are substantially related to the claims that
arise under the Patent Laws of the United States, as the state and federal claims herein are
derived from a common nucleus of operative facts and considerations of judicial economy
dictate the state and federal claims be consolidated in a single case.
7. This Court is also empowered to issue the declarations sought in this action
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201. Declaratory relief is necessary because Ringers has a reasonable
apprehension of being sued for correction of inventorship under 35 U.S.C. § 256 and
misappropriation of trade secrets by Harmer in view of Harmer’s threats, discussed further
below. Such apprehension is likely to cause harm by interfering with Ringers’ business
opportunities.
8. This Court has specific personal jurisdiction over Harmer as this dispute arises
from communications from Harmer to Ringers in this District and a meeting held between
Harmer and Ringers in this district. Harmer was aware that Ringers is a Texas-based company,
and Harmer purposefully availed himself of the privileges and benefits of doing business in
2
Texas by seeking to potentially collaborate and do business with a Texas-based company.
Harmer is also subject to personal jurisdiction in this Court as this action arises out of Harmer’s
contacts with this forum, as well as any and all other reasons consistent with the Texas long-arm
statute authorizing the exercise of jurisdiction and which federal and state constitutional due-
process guarantees.
9. Venue is proper in this district and division under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because
a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims in this action occurred in
this district, as set forth in greater detail in the paragraphs above and below, and a substantial
part of the property that is the subject of this action is situated in this district.
SECTION IV – FACTS
10. From its principal place of business located in this district, Ringers sells, offers
for sale, and has sold to customers in the United States and elsewhere gloves serving oil and gas,
construction and engineering, fire, tactical, mechanics, industrial, and “do-it-yourself” work
industries, among others. It advertises, promotes, and sells those products in part via the website
www.ringersgloves.com.
11. Certain of Ringers’ products, including but not limited to work gloves with
impact protection sold under the ROUGHNECK® brand, were developed at least as early as
2008. See “Safety Work Glove – Hand Protection – Our History – Ringers Gloves,”
www.ringersgloves.com/about-ringers/our-history (Exhibit 4).
12. Ringers continually develops and improves upon glove technology and designs,
and is the owner and assignee of more than 150 issued patents and pending patent applications
worldwide.
3
13. Ringers is the owner and assignee of the full rights, title, and interest of the
Challenged Patents, which relate to recent improvements to industrial impact safety gloves as
developed and sold by Ringers.
14. On May 28, 2014, Harmer sent an e-mail to Ringers stating that he was working
with a manufacturing company to produce a glove that that he believed would meet the demands
of an industrial rubber glove market that Ringers was at that time supplying with various
products. See Exhibit 5.
15. A few weeks later, Harmer sent Ringers an e-mail stating that he could simplify
the manufacturing process of Ringers’ then-existing rubber gloves and move that production
back to the United States, and Harmer later sent Lim an image of a prototype rubber glove that
had allegedly been made using a certain injection molding process and included a hard rubber
protection pad on the exterior of the glove. See Exhibits 6 and 7. Harmer and Lim then had a
telephonic discussion regarding that injection molding process, and Lim on the same date sent an
e-mail to others within Ringers explaining the injection molding process discussed with Harmer
during the telephone call. See Exhibit 8.
16. In a subsequent e-mail, Lim sent Harmer pictures of certain gloves then on the
market, such as the 7301 MUDDER glove, that included protection pads. Harmer responded that
these were similar to the prototype he was trying to produce; but he explained that the gloves had
not been injection molded and did not include an antimicrobial treated liner, a feature well
known in the glove industry at that time. See Exhibit 9.
17. Ringers’ met with Harmer on August 21, 2014, in Houston to discuss the
prospect of producing a rubber glove via the certain injection-molding process previously
discussed with Harmer. Later, Ringers decided not to pursue that project and shortly thereafter
4
reported that decision to Harmer. See Exhibit 10. Ringers did not thereafter make its gloves
with or otherwise use the injection-molding process proposed by Harmer.
18. About four years later, Harmer accused Ringers via e-mail of marketing a glove
that “looks substantially the same as” the prototype discussed with Ringers’ and demanded an
explanation as to why he was “left out of the loop.” See Exhibit 11.
19. Ringers, through Lim, responded to Harmer’s e-mail explaining that Ringers
does not currently manufacture and has never manufactured any of its gloves using the injection
molding process proposed by Harmer. See Exhibit 12.
20. After being informed that Ringers does not utilize an injection-molding process,
Harmer retained legal counsel, who sent a letter to Ringers asserting, for the first time, that
Harmer’s glove design further included exterior hard rubber pads over the back of each finger
and a single large pad over the back of the hand. See Exhibit 13 (the “July 2018 Notice Letter”).
That letter also referenced each of the Challenged Patents, and asserted:
“[I]n filing the three patent applications, Hardy Lim signed a declaration, under
penalty of perjury, that he is ‘the original inventor’ of the claimed invention in the
application, thus failing to acknowledge our client’s contribution in conceiving
the glove design. The failure to disclose an inventor in a patent application is
grounds for invalidation of any patents which issue on the application unless the
omission of the inventor is corrected.”
Counsel for Harmer further asserted: “Because these structural features were jointly conceived
by Mr. Harmer and Mr. Lim, our client should have been identified in the U.S. Patent Office as
an inventor, and the failure to name him as an inventor subjects any issued patents to
invalidation.”
5
21. Under the Intellectual Property Regulations, 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.41(a), 1.45(c), only
persons that have made an inventive contribution to any of the claims in a patent application
must be listed as an inventor.
22. The issued claim of the ’111 Patent covers, “the ornamental design for an
industrial impact safety glove, as shown and described.”
23. There is no reference in the issued claim of the ’111 Patent to an injection-
molding process.
24. Also, there is no reference in the issued claim of the ’111 Patent to an anti-
microbial treated liner.
25. The safety glove design as shown in the ’111 Patent contains multiple structural
design features not disclosed by Harmer, including without limitation a horizontal protective
element across the knuckle portion of the hand and a set of four separate, vertical protective
elements in the region of the hand between the knuckle and the wrist.
26. The safety glove design as shown and claimed in the ’111 Patent was solely
invented by Lim without reference to any features or manufacturing processes that were
allegedly disclosed by Harmer.
27. The issued claim of the ’714 Patent covers, “the ornamental design for an
industrial impact safety glove, as shown and described.”
28. There is no reference in the issued claim of the ’714 Patent to an injection-
molding process.
29. Also, there is no reference in the issued claim of the ’714 Patent to an anti-
microbial treated liner.
30. The safety glove design as shown in the ’714 Patent contains multiple structural
design features not disclosed by Harmer, including without limitation a horizontal protective
6
element across the knuckle portion of the hand, connected to the protective elements on the back
of the fingers; a set of three connected protective elements in the region of the hand between the
knuckle and the wrist; and a protective structure arranged between the thumb and index finger.
31. The safety glove design as shown in the ’714 Patent was solely invented by Lim
without reference to any features or manufacturing processes that were allegedly disclosed by
Harmer.
32. The pending claims of the ’586 Application recite, inter alia, a glove comprising
“a plurality of protective structures on the dorsal side [of the glove], the plurality of protective
structures including: a first protective structure on the dorsal side arranged to protect at least a
portion of an index finger metacarpal bone; a second protective structure on the dorsal side
arranged to protect at least a portion of a thumb metacarpal bone, the second protective structure
being separate from the first protective structure; and a third protective structure arranged
between the first protective structure and the second protective structure, the third protective
structure being separate from the first protective structure and the second protective structure,
and wherein the third protective structure includes at least three protrusions spaced apart from
each other.”
33. There is no reference in the pending claims of the ’586 Application to an
injection-molding process.
34. Also, there is no reference in the pending claims of the ’586 Application to an
anti-microbial treated liner.
35. The glove as covered by the pending claims of the ’586 Application contains
multiple structural features not disclosed by Harmer, including but not limited to a third
protective structure as recited above.
7
36. The glove as covered by the pending claims of the ’586 Application was solely
invented by Lim without reference to any features or manufacturing processes that were
allegedly disclosed by Harmer.
37. In addition to asserting Harmer’s alleged inventorship of the Challenged Patents,
the July 2018 Notice letter from counsel for Harmer further states:
“Ringers has misappropriated and modified our client’s design and incorporated it
into a new generation of Ringers’ gloves. In that regard, we note that the design
originally conceived of by Mr. Harmer, and later modified jointly by our client
and Mr. Lim, shares many structural features with the gloves depicted on the
Ringers website, including the RoughNeck Series.”
38. The ROUGHNECK® gloves referenced by Harmer were developed and sold as
early as 2008, six years prior to any discussions between Harmer and Ringers.
39. None of the gloves sold by Ringers or depicted on the Ringers website were
designed, developed or manufactured by using any information supplied by Harmer, including
his proposed injection-molding process.
40. Indeed, the ROUGHNECK® gloves referenced by Harmer, in particular, have
never been manufactured by using any injection-molding process, much less the process
proposed by Harmer.
41. The ROUGHNECK® gloves referenced by Harmer do not share the same
structural design features allegedly disclosed by Harmer, including and without limitation,
multiple exterior protection pads over the back of the hand, in contrast to the single large pad
allegedly disclosed by Harmer’s alleged padding design.
42. On September 7, 2018, Ringers sent a letter to Harmer explaining that he did not
contribute any information that Ringers used in its development or modifications to its gloves;
8
that Harmer did not contribute any inventive matter to any claims of the Challenged Patents; and
that Ringers did not misappropriate trade secrets of Harmer. See Exhibit 14.
43. On October 22, 2018, counsel for Harmer sent a second letter, again asserting
misappropriation and that Harmer should be listed as an inventor to the Challenged Patents. See
Exhibit 15 (the “October 2018 Notice Letter”). The October 2018 Notice Letter concludes, “I []
submit that based upon the facts and documentation provided herein that the USPTO or a federal
court would conclude that Mr. Harmer should have been named as an inventor in the ’586
application.” The letter included a demand of payment of $250,000.00.
44. A justiciable case and controversy therefore exists between Ringers and Harmer
concerning, inter alia, Harmer’s assertion that he should be identified as an inventor of the
issued ’111 Patent, the issued ’714 Patent, and the pending ’586 Application; Harmer’s assertion
of misappropriation; its threat of imminent suit of the foregoing; Ringers’ justified anticipation
that such suit is imminent absent its complete compliance with Harmer’s unsupported demands;
and the adverse effect and harm caused by the threat of suit.
SECTION V – DETERMINATION OF INVENTORSHIP FOR ISSUED PATENTS
45. Ringers incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the preceding
paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
46. Harmer asserts that he is the inventor or a co-inventor of issued design U.S.
Patent Nos. D824,111 and D809,714.
47. Harmer is not an inventor of the designs claimed in U.S. Patent Nos. D824,111
or D809,714 because he did not contribute to the conception of the claimed designs.
48. Lim is named as the sole inventor on those patents because he is the person who
solely conceived of the claimed designs.
9
49. Ringers seeks a judgment pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 256 and/or 28 U.S.C. § 2201
that Lim is correctly listed as the sole inventor of U.S. Patent Nos. D824,111 and D809,714.
SECTION VI – DETERMINATION OF INVENTORSHIP FOR THE

PENDING PATENT APPLICATION
51. Harmer asserts that he should be listed as an inventor of pending U.S. Patent
Application No. 15/341,586.
52. Harmer should not be listed as an inventor of U.S. Patent Application No.
15/341,586 because neither the specification nor the pending claims of that application contain
any subject matter that was conceived of by Harmer, in whole or in part.
53. Ringers seeks a judgment pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 256, 28 U.S.C. §1367(a),
and/or 28 U.S.C. § 2201 that Lim is correctly listed as the sole inventor on U.S. Patent
Application No. 15/341,586.
SECTION VII – DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NO MISAPPROPRIATION OF

TRADE SECRETS
55. Harmer asserts that Ringers misappropriated Harmer’s alleged trade secrets in
developing its ROUGHNECK® gloves and in filing the patent applications associated with the
Challenged Patents.
56. Ringers did not misappropriate any trade secret of Harmer in designing,
developing, or manufacturing its ROUGHNECK® gloves or in filing the patent applications
associated with the Challenged Patents.
10
57. An immediate, real, and justiciable case or controversy exists between the
parties concerning the alleged misappropriation of Harmer’s trade secrets.
58. Ringers seeks a judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367(a) and/or 28 U.S.C. §
2201 that Ringers did not misappropriate any trade secret of Harmer.
SECTION VIII – DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
59. Ringers demands a jury trial on all matters so triable.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Ringers Technologies LLC prays for judgment and relief as
follows:
a) Finding that Lim is the sole inventor of U.S. Patent Nos. D824,111 and
D809,714 and that Harmer should not be listed as an inventor of U.S. Patent Nos. D824,111 and
D809,714;
b) Finding that Lim is the sole inventor of U.S. Patent Application No. 15/341,586
and that Harmer should not be listed as an inventor of U.S. Patent Application No. 15/341,586;
c) Declaring that Ringers did not misappropriate any trade secret of Harmer;
d) Finding that this is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285;
e) Awarding Ringers its costs and attorneys’ fees; and
f) Awarding such further and additional relief as the Court deems just and proper.
11
Dated: November 16, 2018 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Chris P. Perque

Chris P. Perque
ATTORNEY IN CHARGE
Texas Bar No. 24005828
Southern District ID No. 23235
ADAMS AND REESE LLP
1221 McKinney St., Suite 4400
Houston, TX 77010
Tel: 713.308.0167
Fax: 713.308.4072
E-mail: chris.perque@arlaw.com
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF
RINGERS TECHNOLOGIES LLC
12
Case 4:18-cv-04347 Document 1-1 Filed in TXSD on 11/16/18 Page 1 of 9
Exhibit 1
1111111111111111111111111111111
01!11
8121411,11 1111111111111110111
(12) United States Design Patent (10) Patent No.: US D824,111 S
Lim (45) Date of Patent: ** Jul. 24, 2018
(54) INDUSTRIAL IMPACT SAFETY GLOVE FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS
(71) Applicant: RINGERS TECHNOLOGIES LLC, CN 2909876 Y 6/2007

CN 201821981 U 5/2011
Houston, TX (US)
(Continued)
(72) Inventor: Hardy Lim, Houston, TX (US)
OTHER PUBLICATIONS
(73) Assignee: RINGERS TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
Ringen Gloves Anti Slip 160 Series, posted at tokootomotif.com,
Houston, TX (US)
posting date May 11, 2016 (as found on tineye.com), [online], [site
(**) Term: 15 Years visited Aug. 26, 2017]. Available from Internet, URL: https://tineye.
com/search/ac00d2f0cfd8cb916b210a5f2d87748b812177d5/.*
(21) Appl. No.: 29/568,716 (Continued)
(22) Filed: Jun. 21, 2016 Primary Examiner — George D. Kirschbaum

Assistant Examiner — Maria J Edwards
(51) LOC (11) Cl. 02-06
(74) Attorney, Agent, or Firm — Jason P Mueller; Adams
(52) U.S. Cl.
and Reese, LLP
USPC D29/117.1
(58) Field of Classification Search (57) CLAIM
USPC D29/100, 113, 115, 116.1, 116.2, 116.3, The ornamental design for an industrial impact safety glove,
D29/117.1, 118, 120.1; D2/617-622 as shown and described.
CPC A41D 19/01517; A41D 19/01505; A41D
DESCRIPTION
19/015; A41D 19/01588
See application file for complete search history.
FIG. 1 is a front perspective view of an industrial impact
(56) References Cited safety glove in accordance with the present design;
FIG. 2 is a rear elevational view thereof;
U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS FIG. 3 is a front elevational view thereof;
FIG. 4 is a right side elevational view thereof;
2,686,316 A * 8/1954 Linn A41D 19/01517 FIG. 5 is a left side elevational view thereof;
2/16 FIG. 6 is a top plan view thereof; and,
4,766,612 A 8/1988 Patton, Sr.
5,625,900 A 5/1997 Hayes FIG. 7 is a bottom plan view thereof.
7,000,259 B2 2/2006 Matechen The broken lines shown are included for the purpose of
7,370,373 B2 5/2008 Kohler illustrating a portion of the safety glove that forms no part
D608,978 S * 2/2010 Votel D2/617 of the claimed design.
7,774,860 B2 8/2010 Kohler The stippling in the drawings is for shading purposes only.
8,137,606 B2 3/2012 Thompson et al.
8,528,117 B2 9/2013 Asiaghi Although shown in the context of a right hand glove, an
D695,969 S 12/2013 Ruminski embodiment of the present invention also may be incorpo-
8,935,812 B2 1/2015 Safford rated in a left hand glove.
D722,208 S * 2/2015 Votel D2/619
(Continued) 1 Claim, 6 Drawing Sheets
US D824,111 S
Page 2
(56) References Cited FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS
U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS CN 202680583 U 1/2013

CN 202821761 U 3/2013
8,950,015 B2 2/2015 Gibby CN 203152571 U 8/2013
D733,364 S * 6/2015 Choi D29/117.1 CN 203563727 U 4/2014
9,198,474 B1 12/2015 Hacobian CN 203618841 U 6/2014
9,241,519 B2 1/2016 Jaeger CN 203662075 U 6/2014
9,298,326 B2 3/2016 Spencer WO 2010151727 Al 12/2010
9,346,202 B2 5/2016 Gellis
D759,318 S * 6/2016 Wyatt D29/117.1
D788,402 S * 6/2017 Votel D2/619 OTHER PUBLICATIONS
2006/0212990 Al * 9/2006 Mattesky A41D 19/0006
2/161.6 Ringers Gloves 065 R-Flex Impacct Nitrile Light Duty Impact
2007/0136928 Al 6/2007 Dolenak
Glove, posted at amazon.com, posting date May 30, 2016, [online],
2008/0109933 Al 5/2008 Dolenak
2008/0109935 Al * 5/2008 DeBlasis A63B 71/148 [site visited Aug. 18, 2017]. Available from Internet, URL: https://
2/161.1 www.amazon.com/RingersGlovesRFlexNitrileProtection/dp/
2008/0263747 Al * 10/2008 DeBlasis A41F 1/06
2/161.1 BO1GDEJOQC.*
2009/0038052 Al 2/2009 Gellis Ringers Gloves 160 Light Duty Series, posted at amazon.com,
2010/0071114 Al * 3/2010 Jaeger A41D 19/01523 posting date Jun. 9, 2016, [online], [site visited Aug. 26, 2017].
2/161.6 Available from Internet, URL: https://www.amazon.com/
2010/0090966 Al 4/2010 Gregorio
2010/0186457 Al 7/2010 Zhu RingersGlovesLightSiliconePadding/dp/B01GU3IV60 .*
2011/0047672 Al 3/2011 Hatfield Ringers Gloves 169 Series Velcro Closure Gloves, posted at ama-
2011/0067165 Al 3/2011 Fream et al. zon.com, posting date Jun. 9, 2016, [online], [site visited Aug. 18,
2011/0068028 Al 3/2011 Harriman et al.
2017]. Available from Internet, URL: https://www.amazon.com/
2012/0054937 Al * 3/2012 Robaire A63B 71/148
2/16 RingersGlovesVelcroClosureMedium/dp/B01GU4HYXK.*
2012/0128995 Al 5/2012 Leto et al. Ringers Gloves 179 Series, posted at amazon.com, posting date Jun.
2012/0227157 Al 9/2012 Kleinert 9, 2017, [online], [site visited Aug. 26, 2017]. Available from
2012/0227158 Al 9/2012 Ashworth et al.
Internet, URL: https://www.amazon.com/
2012/0240308 Al 9/2012 Thompson
2013/0074242 Al 3/2013 Moreland et al. RingersGlovesR17912SlipXXLarge/dp/B01GU5BEGM.*
2013/0104285 Al 5/2013 Nolan Ringers Gloves 266 Insulated Gloves, posted at amazon.com,
2014/0026282 Al * 1/2014 Rusakov A63B 71/143 posting date Mar. 11, 2011, [online], [site visited Aug. 18, 2017].
2/20 Available from Internet, URL: https://www.amazon.com/
2014/0033392 Al * 2/2014 Bulan A41D 19/01529
2/16 RingersGloves266InsulatedLarge/dp/B004TMLLRQ.*
2014/0143926 Al 5/2014 Brown et al. Ringers Gloves R-267 Roughneck, posted at amazon.com, posting
2014/0157832 Al 6/2014 Thompson et al. date Dec. 15, 2010, [online], [site visited Aug. 18, 2017]. Available
2015/0119200 Al * 4/2015 Jones A63B 21/065
from Internet, URL: https://www.amazon.com/
482/44
2015/0220146 Al 8/2015 Fisher et al. RingersGlovesRoughneckImpactProtection/dp/BOOBJ9UGX2.*
2016/0135520 Al * 5/2016 Jung A41D 19/01505
2/161.6 * cited by examiner
U.S. Patent Jul. 24, 2018 Sheet 1 of 6 US D824,111 S
,;17)
==============
FIG. 1
---------
----- ---------- - -
N./
V.
FIG. 2
..,
1 i 1 i ;
I
FIG. 3
FIG. 4
FIG. 5
FIG. 6
FIG. 7
Exhibit 2
1111111111111111111111111111111
0111,1,9111
411111111111111111111
(12) United States Design Patent (10) Patent No.: US D809,714 S
Lim (45) Date of Patent: ** Feb. 6, 2018
(54) INDUSTRIAL IMPACT SAFETY GLOVE FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS
(71) Applicant: RINGERS TECHNOLOGIES LLC, CN 2909876 Y 6/2007

Houston, TX (US) CN 201821981 U 5/2011
(Continued)
(72) Inventor: Hardy Lim, Houston, TX (US)
OTHER PUBLICATIONS
(73) Assignee: RINGERS TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
Houston, TX (US) Ringers Gloves 065 R-Flex, posted at amazon.com, posting date
May 30, 2016, [online], [site visited Aug. 28, 1926]. Available from
(**) Term: 15 Years Internet, URL: https://www.amazon.com/
RingersGlovesRFlexNitrileProtection/dp/B01GDEJOQC.*
(21) Appl. No.: 29/583,084 (Continued)
(22) Filed: Nov. 2, 2016 Primary Examiner — George D. Kirschbaum
Assistant Examiner — Maria J Edwards
Related U.S. Application Data (74) Attorney, Agent, or Firm — Jason P. Mueller; Adams
& Reese, LLP
(63) Continuation of application No. 29/568,716, filed on
Jun. 21, 2016. (57) CLAIM
(51) LOC (11) Cl. 02-06 The ornamental design for an industrial impact safety glove,
(52) U.S. Cl. as shown and described.
USPC D29/117.1
DESCRIPTION
(58) Field of Classification Search
USPC D29/100, 113, 115, 116.1, 116.2, 116.3, FIG. 1 is a perspective view of an industrial impact safety
D29/117.1, 118, 120.1; D2/617-622 glove in accordance with the present design;
CPC A41D 19/01517; A41D 19/01505; A41D FIG. 2 is a rear elevational view thereof;
19/015; A41D 19/01588 FIG. 3 is a front elevational view thereof;
See application file for complete search history. FIG. 4 is a right side elevational view thereof;
FIG. 5 is a left side elevational view thereof;
(56) References Cited
FIG. 6 is a top plan view thereof; and,
U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS FIG. 7 is a bottom plan view thereof.
The broken lines shown are included for the purpose of
4,766,612 A 8/1988 Patton, Sr. illustrating a portion of the industrial impact safety glove
5,625,900 A 5/1997 Hayes that forms no part of the claimed design.
7,000,259 B2 2/2006 Matechen Although shown in the context of a right hand glove, an
7,370,373 B2 5/2008 Kohler
D608,978 S * 2/2010 Votel D2/617 embodiment of the present invention is also incorporated in
7,774,860 B2 8/2010 Kohler a left hand glove, wherein the left hand glove is a mirror
8,137,606 B2 3/2012 Thompson et al. image of the right hand glove depicted in the FIGS. 1 to 7.
8,528,117 B2 9/2013 Asiaghi
(Continued) 1 Claim, 6 Drawing Sheets
US D809,714 S
Page 2
(56) References Cited 2014/0143926 Al 5/2014 Brown et al.

2014/0157832 Al 6/2014 Thompson et al.
U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS 2015/0119200 Al* 4/2015 Jones A63B 21/065
482/44
D695,969 S 12/2013 Ruminski 2015/0220146 Al 8/2015 Fisher et al.
8,935,812 B2 1/2015 Safford 2016/0135520 Al* 5/2016 Jung A41D 19/01505
D722,208 S * 2/2015 Votel D2/619 2/161.6
8,950,015 B2 2/2015 Gibby
D733,364 S * 6/2015 Choi D29/117.1 FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS
D745,746 S * 12/2015 Hughes D29/117.1
9,198,474 B1 12/2015 Hacobian CN 202680583 U 1/2013
9,241,519 B2 1/2016 Jaeger CN 202821761 U 3/2013
9,298,326 B2 3/2016 Spencer CN 203152571 U 8/2013
9,346,202 B2 5/2016 Gellis CN 203563727 U 4/2014
D759,318 S * 6/2016 Wyatt D29/117.1 CN 203618841 U 6/2014
D788,402 S * 6/2017 Votel D2/619 CN 203662075 U 6/2014
2006/0212990 Al * 9/2006 Mattesky A41D 19/0006 WO 2010151727 Al 12/2010
2/161.6
2007/0136928 Al 6/2007 Dolenak
2008/0109933 Al 5/2008 Dolenak OTHER PUBLICATIONS
2008/0109935 Al * 5/2008 DeBlasis A63B 71/148
2/161.1 Ringers Gloves 160 Light Duty Series, posted at amazon.com,
2008/0263747 Al * 10/2008 DeBlasis A41F 1/06 posting date Jun. 9, 2016, [online], [site visited Aug. 28, 1926].
2/161.1 Available from Internet, URL: https://www.amazon.com/
2009/0038052 Al 2/2009 Gellis RingersGlovesLightSiliconePadding/dp/B01GU3IV60 .*
2010/0071114 Al* 3/2010 Jaeger A41D 19/01523 Ringers Gloves 169 Series Velcro Closure Gloves, posted at ama-
2/161.6 zon.com, posting date Jun. 9, 2016, [online], [site visited Aug. 28,
2010/0090966 Al 4/2010 Gregorio 1926]. Available from Internet, URL: https://www.amazon.com/
2010/0186457 Al 7/2010 Zhu RingersGlovesVelcroClosureMedium/dp/B01GU4HYXK.*
2011/0047672 Al 3/2011 Hatfield Ringers Gloves 179 Series, posted at amazon.com, posting date Jun.
2011/0067165 Al 3/2011 Fream et al.
9, 2016, [online], [site visited Aug. 28, 1926]. Available from
2011/0068028 Al 3/2011 Harriman et al.
Internet, URL: https://www.amazon.com/
2012/0054937 Al* 3/2012 Robaire A63B 71/148
2/16 RingersGlovesR17912SlipXXLarge/dp/B01GU5BEGM.*
2012/0128995 Al 5/2012 Leto et al. Ringers Gloves 266 Insulated Gloves, posted at amazon.com,
2012/0227157 Al 9/2012 Kleinert posting date Mar. 11, 2011, [online], [site visited Aug. 26, 2017].
2012/0227158 Al 9/2012 Ashworth et al. Available from Internet, URL: https://www.amazon.com/
2012/0240308 Al 9/2012 Thompson RingersGloves266InsulatedLarge/dp/B004TMLLRQ.*
2013/0074242 Al 3/2013 Moreland et al. Ringers Gloves R-267 Roughneck, posted at amazon.com, posting
2013/0104285 Al 5/2013 Nolan date Dec. 15, 2010, [online], [site visited Aug. 26, 2017]. Available
2014/0026282 Al * 1/2014 Rusakov A63B 71/143 from Internet, URL: https://www.amazon.com/
2/20 RingersGlovesRoughneckImpactProtection/dp/BOOBJ9UGX2.*
2014/0033392 Al* 2/2014 Bulan A41D 19/01529
2/16 * cited by examiner
U.S. Patent Feb. 6, 2018 Sheet 1 of 6 US D809,714 S
FIG. I
X00
O0 O 00 O 0
O 00 O 00 O00
00 O 00 O 00 O 0
O 00 • 0 C) O 00 O 0
O 00 eO0 O0 -•
• -0 - 0 O 00 X00 •
O 00 O 000 O 04 ®00 •
000 O 00 O 0 • ai
O 0 Oi • Q_ _c •o 0_0_91_ 0
0
0 __ ---0 0 O0 00 ,C$
eko • 0 0
\6:9 Q 0 01 0c_
oa O 0*, 44 _
O 060000000 0 4.
0000000000000 0.
00900000o 0000
• *** 0
- 0000Q -4°0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 *0 Q00
0 000000* °
•
0 0 \-9 0 0
0 00 0 0
,0 100`000
000 0
0
• 0\_0
j
FIG.2
FIG. 3
FIG. 4
FIG. 5
FIG. 7
Exhibit 3
111111111111111111111111111111111!!J
i11111111#1
1111111111111111111111
(19) United States
(12) Patent Application Publication (10) Pub. No.: US 2018/0049490 Al
Lim (43) Pub. Date: Feb. 22, 2018
(54) PROTECTIVE GLOVE INCLUDING IMPACT (52) U.S. Cl.

PROTECTION CPC . A41D 19/01523 (2013.01); A41D 19/01505
(2013.01); A41D 19/01547 (2013.01)
(71) Applicant: Ringers Technologies LLC, Houston,
TX (US) (57) ABSTRACT
A protective glove includes one or more fabrics coupled
(72) Inventor: Hardy Lim, Houston, TX (US) together into a form of a hand, with the form having a palm
side and a dorsal side opposite the palm side, and protective
(21) Appl. No.: 15/341,586 structures disposed on the dorsal side. The protective struc-
tures include a first protective structure on the dorsal side
(22) Filed: Nov. 2, 2016 arranged to protect at least a portion of an index finger
metacarpal bone, a second protective structure on the dorsal
Related U.S. Application Data side arranged to protect at least a portion of a thumb
(63) Continuation of application No. 29/568,716, filed on metacarpal bone, and a third protective structure arranged
Jun. 21, 2016. between the first protective structure and the second protec-
tive structure. The second protective structure is separate
from the first protective structure, and the third protective
Publication Classification
structure is separate from the first and second protective
(51) Int. Cl. structures. The third protective structure includes at least
A41D 19/015 (2006.01) three protrusions spaced apart from each other.
1000 1160
1200
------
Patent Application Publication Feb. 22, 2018 Sheet 1 of 8 US 2018/0049490 Al
1000 1160
1420
1410
1200
FIG. 1
1430b
1430c
1430d
1430e
FIG. 3
314
520
602
FIG. 6
1122
---------
I 1
I
I I
I I
I I
I I
1121
J
1 I LA
L:
r
1200
1440
FIG. 7
FIG. 8
1123
1440
FIG. 9
US 2018/0049490 Al Feb. 22, 2018

1
PROTECTIVE GLOVE INCLUDING IMPACT the first protective structure and the second protective struc-
PROTECTION ture and includes three or more protrusions spaced apart
from each other.
BACKGROUND [0008] In aspects of the present disclosure, one of the
protective structures has a first height and another of the
Technical Field protective structures has a second height different from the
first height.
[0001] The present disclosure relates to protective gloves [0009] In aspects of the present disclosure, the third pro-
and, more particularly, to gloves that provide impact protective structure further includes a base layer, and the three
tection. or more protrusions are secured to the base layer. In aspects
of the present disclosure, the perimeter of the base layer has
Background of Related Art a quadrangle shape.
[0010] In aspects of the present disclosure, the thumb
[0002] Protective gloves are commonly used to guard the metacarpal bone and the index finger metacarpal bone define
wearer from hazardous chemicals, fluids, impact trauma, radial directions. In the third protective structure, a first
wounds, abrasions, and the like. In addition to providing protrusion of the three or more protrusions is positioned
these protections, glove manufacturers strive to provide adjacent to the thumb metacarpal bone and extends in a
protective gloves that are comfortable, durable, and do not radial direction. The remaining protrusions are positioned
inhibit the wearer's natural dexterity. adjacent to the index finger metacarpal bone and are
[0003] Certain industries require gloves having specific arranged in a row in the radial direction.
levels of protection suitable for use in the environments [0011] In aspects of the present disclosure, the first pro-
typical in that particular industry. To this end, standard rating trusion is an elongated protrusion arranged to protect at least
systems have been implemented to enable a user to readily a portion of a trapezium bone, and another protrusion is
identify whether a particular safety glove is suitable for use arranged to protect at least a portion of a trapezoid bone. In
in the intended industry. One such system is the European one embodiment, the elongated protrusion includes two ends
Norm (EN), which designates whether a particular article is with one end being wider than the other end. In one
compliant with essential requirements. EN 388, for example, embodiment, one of the protrusions has a triangular shape
designates whether a glove provides adequate protection and another protrusion has a parallelogram shape.
from mechanical risks. EN 374-1, as another example, [0012] In aspects of the present disclosure, the first pro-
designates whether a glove provides chemical resistance tective structure includes two or more protrusions spaced
(and to what chemicals the glove is sufficiently resistant) and apart from each other and secured to a common base layer,
micro-organism resistance. EN 420, as still another where one of the two protrusions is configured to protect all
example, designates whether a glove meets the general or a portion of the index finger distal phalange bone. In one
requirements for protective gloves in terms of construction, embodiment, one of the protrusions has a parallelogram
fitness, safety, etc. shape and another has a trapezoid shape.
[0004] In addition to rating systems such as the EN, [0013] In aspects of the present disclosure, the first pro-
markings such as the European Conformity (CE Marking) tective structure is configured to further protect all or a
are utilized by glove manufacturers to indicate that a par- portion of the little finger metacarpal bone.
ticular article complies with the relevant directives for that [0014] In aspects of the present disclosure, the second
particular class of articles. With respect to safety gloves, for protective structure is configured to further protect at least a
example, the Personal Protection Equipment (PPE) Direc- portion of a hand scaphoid, trapezoid, and trapezium bones
tive 89/686/EEC is the relevant directive for achieving CE and includes five or more protrusions that are spaced apart
Marking status. from each other and that are arranged in two rows.
[0015] In aspects of the present disclosure, the protective
SUMMARY glove further includes a sleeve attached to the fabric that is
in the form of the hand, and further includes a fourth
[0005] To the extent consistent, any of the aspects and protective structure on the palm side of the sleeve.
features detailed herein may be used in conjunction with any [0016] In aspects of the present disclosure, the one or more
or all of the other aspects and features detailed herein. fabric coupled together into the form of the hand covers only
[0006] Provided in accordance with aspects of the present a portion of a finger and does not cover the entire finger.
disclosure is a glove including one or more fabric coupled
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
together into a form of a hand, with the form having a palm
side and a dorsal side opposite the palm side. The glove has [0017] Various aspects and features of the present disclo-
protective structures on the dorsal side. sure are described herein with reference to the drawings
[0007] In aspects of the present disclosure, the protective wherein like reference numerals identify similar or identical
structures include a first protective structure on the dorsal elements and:
side arranged to protect all or a portion of an index finger [0018] FIG. 1 is a perspective view of a protective glove
metacarpal bone and a second protective structure on the provided in accordance with aspects of the present disclo-
dorsal side arranged to protect all or a portion of a thumb sure;
metacarpal bone, with the second protective structure being [0019] FIG. 2 is a side view of the protective glove of FIG.
separate from the first protective structure. The protective 1;
structures include a third protective structure that is arranged [0020] FIG. 3 is a perspective view of another protective
between the first protective structure and the second protec- glove provided in accordance with aspects of the present
tive structure. The third protective structure is separate from disclosure;
US 2018/0049490 Al Feb. 22, 2018

2
[0021] FIG. 4 is a first end view of a protective glove than two layers of fabric. Each layer may be composed of
provided in accordance with aspects of the present disclo- one or more different fabrics.
sure; [0029] As shown in FIG. 1, the illustrated glove includes
[0022] FIG. 5 is a second end view of a protective glove protective structures on the dorsal side of the glove. The
provided in accordance with aspects of the present disclo- glove includes a first protective structure 1410 on the dorsal
sure; side of the glove that protects at least part of the index finger
[0023] FIG. 6 is a side view of a protective glove provided metacarpal bone. The first protective structure 1410 can
in accordance with aspects of the present disclosure; protect other portions of the hand, and in the illustrated
[0024] FIG. 7 is a bottom view of a protective glove embodiment, the first protective structure 1410 also protects
provided in accordance with aspects of the present disclo- at least part of the other metacarpal bones. As illustrated, the
sure; first protective structure includes a base layer and a number
of protrusions that are spaced apart on the common base
[0025] FIG. 8 is a bottom view of another protective glove
layer. Other arrangements and configurations are contem-
provided in accordance with aspects of the present disclo-
plated to be within the scope of the present disclosure.
sure; and
[0030] The glove of FIG. 1 includes a second protective
[0026] FIG. 9 is a bottom view of yet another protective
structure 1420 on the dorsal side of the glove that protects
glove provided in accordance with aspects of the present
at least part of the pollex, i.e., thumb metacarpal bone. As
disclosure.
illustrated, the second protective structure 1420 is separate
and distinct from the first protective structure 1410, and
DETAILED DESCRIPTION includes a number of protrusions on a common base layer.
[0027] Referring to FIG. 1, a protective glove provided in [0031] In accordance with aspects of the present disclo-
accordance with the present disclosure is shown generally sure, the glove of FIG. 1 includes a third protective structure
identified by reference numeral 1000. Protective glove 1000 1430 arranged between the first protective structure 1410
includes a hand-receiving portion 1100 and an elongated and the second protective 1420 structure. The third protec-
wrist portion 1200 extending from hand-receiving portion tive structure 1430 is separate and distinct from the first
1100. Hand-receiving portion 1100 is shaped to generally protective structure 1410 and the second protective structure
conform to a human hand and includes a dorsal side (as 1420, and also includes a number of protrusions on a
illustrated), a palm side 1120, a thumb pocket 1140, and four common base layer.
(4) finger pockets 1160. The illustrated thumb pocket 1140 [0032] Generally, the first, second, and third protective
and finger pockets 1160 cover the digits entirely, but structures 1410, 1420, and 1430, and other illustrated pro-
embodiments of the disclosed glove can cover only a portion tective structures, and the protrusions therein are arranged to
of the thumb and fingers. Elongated wrist portion 1200 is protect portions of the hand without unduly hampering hand
integrally formed with hand-receiving portion 1100 and has motion and dexterity. For example, protrusions can be
a length suitable for covering at least a portion of the spaced apart so that spaces between protrusions are arranged
wearer's lower arm. It is envisioned that various sizes of over joints or over areas that bend, flex, articulate, or
protective glove 1000 may be provided, such as small otherwise move. The protrusions can have various shapes,
(measuring about 35 cm from the tip end of the middle finger heights, and arrangements. For example, the perimeters of
pocket to the open end of elongated wrist portion 1200), the protrusions can substantially be in the shape of triangles,
medium (measuring about 40 cm), and large (measuring rectangles, parallelograms, trapezoids, and other geometric
about 50 cm), to ensure adequate fit for a wide range of shapes. Particular shapes may be appropriate based on the
users. motion of different portions of the hand. The protrusions can
[0028] Protective glove 1000 can be formed from one extend away from the glove fabric in different heights. For
fabric or multiple fabrics couple together into the shape of example, one protrusion may be higher than another pro-
a hand. As used herein, "fabric" refers to any sheet of trusion, or one protective structure may be higher than
material composed of natural and/or synthetic fibers. The another protective structure. The protective structures 1410,
glove can include an inner layer that contacts a wearer's 1420, and 1430 will now be discussed in more detail below.
hand and wrist. The inner layer can be knit to form a single [0033] FIG. 2 is a side view of the glove of FIG. 1 and
construction and can be made from one or a combination of shows the second and third protective structures more
aramid fibers, cotton fibers, and glass fibers. The inner layer clearly from a more direct angle. The second protective
provides cut resistance, comfort, and sweat absorption, and structure 1420 is disposed over the thumb and provides
may extend the entire length of the glove 1000. With respect several protrusions that are spaced apart to permit greater
to the exterior of protective glove 1000, an exterior layer can range of motion and movement of the thumb. The protru-
be knitted from fabric components such as Polyester, Span- sions of the second protective structure 1420 all share a
dex, Lycra, and Kevlar or any synthetic fiber that is known common base layer 1425. The second protective structure
to have exceptional elasticity. For example, in one embodi- 1420 protects at least a part of the thumb metacarpal bone.
ment, the exterior layer may comprise about 86% Polyester In the illustrated embodiment, the second protective struc-
and 14% Spandex. The inner layer and the outer layer can be ture 1420 also protects the thumb phalanges.
formed using hand sewing methods or automated sewing [0034] The third protective structure 1430 is located adja-
techniques, which can apply traditional stitching thread or cent to and is separate from the second protective structure
yarn or thermo poly rubber ("TPR") stitching thread made of 1420. Generally, the third protective structure 1430 is
about 90% Nylon. It is envisioned that other stitching located between other structures that protect the index finger
threads such as, but not limited to, cotton, polyester, linen, metacarpal bone and the thumb metacarpal bone, but the
rayon, and the like could be used. In various embodiments, third protective structure 1430 can also function to protect
the glove may have a single layer of fabric or may have more those bones from certain impact angles. The third protective
US 2018/0049490 Al Feb. 22, 2018

3
structure includes three or more protrusions, and as illus- sions protecting at least one of the finger phalanges to have
trated in FIG. 2, the third protective structure 1430 includes a curved arrangement 312, 314. The curved arrangement
five protrusions 1430a-1430e on a common base layer 1435. may increase finger dexterity and hand movement in par-
[0035] Generally, the thumb and finger metacarpal bones ticular applications or industries. Additionally, as shown in
define five radial directions that extend from the wrist and FIG. 4, various protrusions may have a sloped apex or ridge
align with those metacarpal bones. An infinite number of or plateau 316 that is shaped and configured to address
other radial directions are located between the five radial particular impact risks of particular applications or indus-
directions aligned with the metacarpal bones and also extend tries.
from the wrist. With continuing reference to FIG. 2, the third [0039] Referring to FIG. 5, there is shown a second-end
protective structure 1430 includes a first protrusion 1430a view of a glove in accordance with aspects of the disclosed
that is positioned adjacent to the thumb metacarpal bone and technology. The glove includes one or more fabrics 502
extends substantially in a radial direction, which in FIG. 2 coupled together into the form of a hand and includes an
can be the radial direction defined by the index finger opening for receiving a hand. The fabrics 502 can form one
metacarpal bone. The other protrusions 1430b-1430d are layer of fabric or multiple layers of fabric. Each layer can be
positioned adjacent to the index finger metacarpal bone and composed of one or more fabrics. The protective structures,
are arranged in a row in the radial direction of the index such as the second protective structure 520, are secured to
finger metacarpal bone. The protrusions can be arranged to the outside of the fabric 502 using techniques that will be
protect at least a portion of trapezoid and/or trapezium recognized by those skilled in the art, including threading
bones. The illustrated first protrusion 1430a is an elongated and stitching, sonic welding, among others. Fabric 502
protrusion that has one end that is wider than the other end. provides sufficient structural support so as to serve as a
The other protrusions 1430b-1430d have various shapes. For substrate upon which protective structures are secured. The
example, as shown in FIG. 2, protrusion 1430b has a protective structures, such as the second protective structure
triangular shape, protrusions 1430c and 1430d have a par- 520 and protrusions 522, 524, are formed from thermo poly
allelogram shape, and protrusion 1430e has a trapezoidal rubber ("TPR") and may have a thickness of, for example,
shape. The protrusions in the third protective structure 1430 about 6 mm on areas above knuckles, fingers, and thumb,
of FIG. 2 are configured and arranged to protect the area and about 2-5 mm above the metacarpal bones. The protec-
between the thumb and index finger metacarpal bones while tive structures, such as the second protective structure 520
permitting motion in that portion of the hand when the hand and protrusions 522, 524, may further have a hardness of
opens or grips and object or when the fingers pinch together. about 30-40 Shore A. Other materials, construction, heights,
The protrusions 1430a-1430e share a common base layer and durability, among other characteristics, are contem-
1435. In one embodiment, the protrusions 1430a-1430e can plated to be encompassed with the scope of the present
have the same height. In various embodiments, the protru- disclosure.
sions 1430a-1430e can have different heights.
[0040] In accordance with one aspect of the present dis-
[0036] Referring to FIG. 3, there is shown another closure, protrusions 522, 524 can be configured and
embodiment of a glove having first, second, and third arranged to protect at least part of the scaphoid, trapezoid,
protective structures 310, 320, and 330. The protective and/or trapezium bones.
structures of FIG. 3 differ from the protective structures of
FIG. 2 in the shape, size, and arrangement of protrusions. In [0041] FIG. 6 shows a side view of a glove according to
FIG. 3, the first protective structure 310 is a different the present disclosure. As shown in FIG. 6, the first protec-
protective structure altogether from the first protective struc- tive structure 602 can be either one of the two illustrated
ture 1410 of FIG. 1. However, in accordance with aspects of structures and can extend to and protect the digitus minimus
the present disclosure, the first protective structure 310 still manus, or commonly referred to simply as the "little finger,"
protects part of the index finger metacarpal bone. The first and the little finger metacarpal bone, or beyond.
protective structure 310 includes a common base layer 315 [0042] Turning to FIGS. 7-9, various embodiments of the
and a larger number of protrusions on the common base palm side of a glove in accordance with the present disclo-
layer 315. Those protrusions together with the common base sure are shown. Palm side may include a plurality of
layer 315 are collectively referred to as the first protective protective padding/structures 1121, 1122 which are suitably
structure 310. As shown in FIG. 3, the first protective cut-resistant, abrasion-resistant, and/or tear-resistant. The
structure 310 protects the phalanges of all of the fingers. padding 1121, 1122 may be disposed in areas accordingly to
[0037] The second protective structure 320 includes a particular industry requirements. For example, as shown in
fewer number of protrusions than the second protective FIG. 7, padding may include a panel 1121 which can be
structure 1420 of FIGS. 1 and 2, but still protects part of the secured to the fabric of the palm side of the glove. To further
thumb metacarpal bone. The third protective structure 330 increase protection of a wearer's palm, a set of padding 1122
includes four protrusions in the same general arrangement as are disposed in areas where extra protection or greater
FIGS. 1 and 2, and is still located between the first and durability or comfort are needed. The glove fabric at the
second protective structures. The third protective structure palm may be formed of components such as PVC, Nylon,
330 of FIG. 3 is smaller than the third protective structure leather, Polyester, Spandex, and other suitable components
1430 of FIGS. 1 and 2 and may be more suitable when there that may enhance protection of the palm. For example, with
is lesser risk of impact to that portion of the hand. FIG. 3 is respect to percentage by weight, fabric of the palm may be
merely illustrative and other arrangements and configura- composed of 45% to 65% PVC, 25% to 35 PU, and 15% to
tions of the protective structures are contemplated. 25% Nylon. Other compositions and materials are contem-
[0038] Referring also to FIG. 4, there is shown a first-end plated.
view of the glove of FIG. 3. With respect to the first [0043] FIG. 8 shows another embodiment of a palm hav-
protective structure 310, it may be desirable for the protru- ing a plurality of gripping structures 1123 which can provide
US 2018/0049490 Al Feb. 22, 2018

4
enhanced grip. FIG. 9 shows yet another embodiment with 2. The glove of claim 1, wherein the third protective
gripping structures 1123 having a different configuration and structure further includes a base layer, the at least three
arrangement. protrusions being secured to the base layer.
[0044] With respect to FIGS. 7 and 8, elongated wrist 3. The glove of claim 1, wherein a first protrusion of the
portion 1200 may be a substantially cylindrical form and at least three protrusions is positioned adjacent to the thumb
may be composed of the same materials used for other metacarpal bone and extends substantially in a radial direc-
portions of the glove. For example, with respect to percent- tion, and wherein the remainder of the at least three protru-
age by weight, the elongated wrist portion 1200 may be sions are positioned adjacent to the index finger metacarpal
composed of 80% to 90% nylon and 10% to 20% PU. To bone and are arranged in a row substantially in the radial
enhance protection of the wearer's wrist, elongated wrist direction.
portion 1200 may include a fourth protective structure 1440. 4. The glove of claim 2, wherein the base layer includes
The fourth protective structure 1440 can be composed of a perimeter having a quadrangle shape.
materials similar to those describe above herein. 5. The glove of claim 3, wherein the first protrusion is an
[0045] As shown in FIG. 7, the fourth protective structure elongated protrusion arranged to protect at least a portion of
1440 includes protrusions that are spaced apart. FIGS. 8 and a trapezium bone and another of the at least three protrusions
9 show other embodiments of protective structure 1440. is arranged to protect at least a portion of a trapezoid bone.
[0046] From the foregoing and with reference to the 6. The glove of claim 3, wherein the elongate protrusion
various drawing figures, those skilled in the art will appre- includes two ends with one of the two ends being wider than
ciate that certain modifications can be made to the present the other of the two ends.
disclosure without departing from the scope of the same. 7. The glove of claim 3, wherein at least one of the at least
While exemplary embodiments of the disclosure have been three protrusions has a triangular shape and another of the at
shown in the drawings, it is not intended that the disclosure least three protrusions has a parallelogram shape.
be limited thereto, as it is intended that the disclosure be as 8. The glove of claim 1, wherein the first protective
broad in scope as the art will allow and that the specification structure includes at least two protrusions spaced apart from
be read likewise. Therefore, the above description should each other and secured to a common base layer, wherein one
not be construed as limiting, but merely as exemplifications of the at least two protrusions is configured to protect at least
of particular embodiments. Those skilled in the art will a portion of an index finger distal phalange bone.
envision other modifications within the scope and spirit of 9. The glove of claim 1, wherein the first protective
the claims appended hereto. structure is configured to further protect at least a portion of
What is claimed is: a little finger metacarpal bone.
1. A glove comprising: 10. The glove of claim 8, wherein one of the plurality of
at least one fabric coupled together into a form of a hand, protective structures has a first height and another of the
the form having a palm side and a dorsal side opposite plurality of protective structures has a second height differ-
the palm side; and ent from the first height.
a plurality of protective structures on the dorsal side, the 11. The glove of claim 8, wherein one of the at least two
plurality of protective structures including: protrusions has a parallelogram shape and another of the at
a first protective structure on the dorsal side arranged to least two protrusions has a trapezoid shape.
protect at least a portion of an index finger metacar- 12. The glove of claim 1, further comprising:
pal bone; a sleeve attached to the fabric coupled into the form of the
a second protective structure on the dorsal side hand; and
arranged to protect at least a portion of a thumb a fourth protective structure on a palm side of the sleeve.
metacarpal bone, the second protective structure 13. The glove of claim 1, wherein the second protective
being separate from the first protective structure; and structure is configured to further protect at least a portion of
a third protective structure arranged between the first a hand scaphoid, trapezoid, and trapezium bones and
protective structure and the second protective struc- includes protrusions arranged in two rows, each row having
ture, the third protective structure being separate at least five protrusions spaced apart from each other.
from the first protective structure and the second 14. The glove of claim 1, wherein the at least one fabric
protective structure, and wherein the third protective couple together into the form of the hand covers a portion of
structure includes at least three protrusions spaced a finger and does not cover an entirety of the finger.
apart from each other. * * * * *
Exhibit 4
Exhibit 5
Exhibit 6
Exhibit 7
Exhibit 8
From: hardy lim <hardyl@ringersgloves.com>

Date: Friday, July 18, 2014 at 2:34 PM
To: kenny <kennyd@ringersgloves.com>
Cc: Jim bailey <jimb@ringersgloves.com>
Subject: FW: Impact gloves
Hi Kenny -
Talked with George for about 40 mins. Very interesting idea. However, I can’t shake off the feeling that his idea has
been done before by someone else or maybe even there’s a reason why nobody has done it like this.
He’s basically trying to use injection molded process to make this glove. So instead of injecting plastic into the mold
cavities, it would inject nitrile, PVC, etc. or whatever glove dip compound can be used for a glove.
It seems that he has the basic idea down for how to do this but not exactly following through completely. For
example, what happens to the curing / baking time after the PVC is injected into the mold cavity? How does the PVC,
nitrile, etc. react to the steel mold cavities? Will the PVC, nitrile, etc. release from the mold cavities easily or will they
leave residue on the inside surface of the mold? Because PVC, nitrile, etc. for gloves are specifically formulated for
glove making purposes. Whereas thermoplastic such as ABS, PVC, PE, etc. used in injection molding (like to make
plastic toys, etc.) have different sets for formula so it can be released from the mold cavity easily.
Again, if this is doable, why hasn’t anyone come up with this idea? So there must be a reason why? Either someone
else already owned this patented injection molded process in making gloves or some kind of chemical reaction
between the nitrile, PVC, etc. against the steel mold. If this is so innovative and simple, I’m sure other companies
would have tried it already by now.
Based on my talk with him, George hasn’t created any molds for his idea. He talked to someone in the US, in
Bakersville area about tooling and mold. This makes me think that he is now just looking for someone to back him up,
to support his idea for this process and provide him with the money to open tooling.
Injection molded tooling mold for something as large and long as this glove is not cheap. Think about it, a gauntlet
style glove is about 14” x 5” x 1.5” (flat glove) + different sizes molds for different sizes gloves. So the overall tooling
cost is quite high. Just to give some comparison, a lacrosse head (that plastic scoop with nets they pick the ball with)
is made with injection mold thermoplastic. A lacrosse head is about 10” x 5” x 2”. The tooling mold for lacrosse head
is $20K.
George hasn’t done any research into patents to see if there are other similar process like his. All he has done was
just basic search for gloves that look like his red glove pic below. When I asked him if he has seen or heard about the
Hex Armor Mudder, he has no clue. He kept bringing up the Mud Dawg PVC gloves with those sausage-like long
TPR and told me how bad those are.
Hex Armor is about to release this glove. Pic below. Similar to his concept, except Hex Armor sonic weld those TPR
onto the shell then dip the whole thing in PVC.
Mad Grip owns an injection molded process for adhering TPR onto their knit gloves. Pic below.
Pic below also is my notes when talking to him.
When you have a chance, let me know and I can call you to discuss.
Best Regards,
Hardy
Exhibit 9
From: George Harmer

Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 1:25:45 PM (UTC-06:00) Central Time (US & Canada)
To: Hardy Lim
Subject: RE: Impact gloves
There are some similarities to the glove design that I have but I do not think that they are using the injection process and do not have
the antimicrobial treated liner. I look forward to speaking with you soon..
Thank you,
George Harmer
GPS Safety Manager
Office 661-765-5330 (225)
Mobil 661-340-7266
gharmer@genprod.com
1
Exhibit 10
From: George Harmer

Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 4:29:12 PM (UTC-06:00) Central Time (US & Canada)
To: Hardy Lim
Subject: Re: Impact Gloves
Since you're not interested at this time I should continue on my own?
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 18, 2014, at 10:16 AM, Hardy Lim <hardyl@ringersgloves.com> wrote:
Hi George -
Hope you are well in CA.
Thank you for taking your time to visit us and explain to us about your idea in more detail.
We’re glad to be able to discuss your idea in person and to fully understand everything. We’ve
discussed your idea internally and at the moment, we won’t be pursuing this idea any further due to
our current priorities, as we’re closing in toward the end of 2014. We will revisit and review your idea
again in the future when we feel that we’re ready among other priorities we have in glove
development.
Thank you for your time and we appreciate you sharing with us the possible opportunity to work
together.
Best Regards,
Hardy
Exhibit 11
From: George Harmer <gharmer@genprod.com>

Sent: Friday, May 04, 2018 1:13 PM
To: Hardy Lim; Jim
Subject: PVC Impact Glove
Jim and Hardy, I wanted to follow up with the two of you regarding my visit to the R&D department at your
office in Texas. There was a lot of discussion around the glove that I had been working on and Hardy and I
made some changes to my original design. We also talked about different methods of producing that glove.
Some time had passed and I received an email from Hardy thanking me for my time but Hardy said that at the
present there were too many other projects in the works to pursue moving forward with the modified design of
my glove. The email further stated that you were going to revisit my project at a later date and we would then
discuss. I have not received any communication that you were going to proceed with the design that we had
come up with and to my surpriseone of my safety reps came to me last week showing off a new glove on the
market by Ringer that looks substantially the same as the one we discussed in Hardy’s office in Texas. I would
like someone to explain to me as to why I was not contacted as this project that we worked on together went
forward to production. I wait to hear from you soon so that I can better understand why I was left out of the
loop. I would appreciate receiving your response to this inquiry by no later than May 18, 2018.
Thanks,
George Harmer
1
Exhibit 12
From: Hardy Lim <hardyl@ringersgloves.com>

Sent: Friday, May 25, 2018 2:15 PM
To: George Harmer
Cc: Jim Bailey
Subject: Re: Gloves
Hi George -
Thank you for your e-mails earlier this month regarding your injection-molded PVC-coated glove. As we discussed
in 2014, implementing an injection-molded process to create a PVC-coated glove would be prohibitively expensive
for Ringers. Using the process we discussed would require, at minimum, high costs to develop custom molds for
each sized glove. Because of the costs associated with the process, we do not manufacture, and have never
manufactured, any of our gloves by injection molding.
Also, you may recall from our earlier discussions that our development of the R-Chem series of gloves dates back to
2012, well before our meeting in 2014.
If you have any other questions, please let me know by return.
Best Regards,
Hardy
Hardy Lim,
R&D Director
RINGERS TECHNOLOGIES LLC / RINGERS GLOVES

8846 N. Sam Houston Parkway W., Suite 110, Houston, TX 77064, USA
Office 281.953.5233 | Mobile 832.817.8363
Skype hal_ringersgloves | Fax 281.953.5250
Email hardyl@ringersgloves.com | Web www.ringersgloves.com
The contents of this transmission are proprietary property of Ringers Technologies LLC / Ringers Gloves and
are intended for the person to whom this transmission is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this
transmission (or his or her authorized representative), please be advised that any disclosure, dissemination, or
1
unauthorized distribution of this transmission is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error,
please notify the sender immediately by telephone. Thank you for your cooperation and assistance.
2
Exhibit 13
James M. Duncan 661-328-5226 JDuncan@kleinlaw.com
Klein • DeNatale • Goldner

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Registered Patent Attorney
4550 California Ave., Second Floor, Bakersfield, CA 93309

p. 661-395-1000 f. 661-326-0418 www.kleinlaw.com
July 10, 2018
VIA FEDEX
Ringers Technologies LLC

Jim Bailey
3443 N. Sam Houston PKWY W STE 500
Houston, TX 77086
Re: NOTICE OF BREACH OF NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT
Dear Mr. Bailey:
This law firm represents George Harmer of Taft, California. Mr. Harmer is Safety
Manager with General Production Service. Mr. Harmer has provided this firm with documents
and a chronology pertaining to communications between himself and Ringers Gloves during the
period May through September 2014, as well as recent correspondence between himself and
Ringers.
In Mr. Harmer's position as Safety Manager he has first-hand knowledge and experience
with oil field work gloves. Because of the frequency and severity of hand injuries suffered by oil
production workers, Mr. Harmer has devoted substantial time and expense in investigating the
performance of existing work gloves and design improvements which may be made to the gloves
to provide greater protection without sacrificing utility. As a result of his efforts, in 2014 Mr.
Harmer conceived a new design for an impact resistant work glove.
In May 2014, our client met with "Josh", a Ringers national account manager, and
informed him that Mr. Harmer was in the process of working with a manufacturing company to
produce a glove that Mr. Harmer had been working on for the past year. Josh made an
introduction of our client to Ringers management and thereafter our client exchanged
correspondence with you and Hardy Lim, Ringers Research and Development Director. The
focus of the communications was Mr. Harmer's new design and his findings regarding the
problems with Ringers' then existing R-Chem series gloves. The existing R-Chem glove utilized
in the oil industry was the R-77 which utilized multiple components and which included interior
impact pads.
On May 28, 2014, you contacted our client by email and arranged for a telephone
conference, which occurred during that same week. Thereafter followed a series of
communications between Ringers' personnel and our client. Based upon these conversations,
Ringers was sufficiently interested to send Mr. Harmer a mutual non-disclosure agreement
Klein, DeNatale, Goldner, Cooper, Rosenlieb & Kimball, LLP

Bakersfield I Fresno I San Diego
July 10, 2018

Page 2
prepared by Ringers, where the NDA contemplated the exchange of confidential information in
furtherance of a potential business relationship between our client and Ringers.
Following execution of the NDA, Mr. Harmer communicated on several occasions via
telephone and email with Hardy Lim. In those communications, our client disclosed his findings
regarding the problems with the R-Chem series gloves and Mr. Harmer's glove designs which
overcame those problems. Mr. Harmer's proposed design included exterior hard rubber
protection pads over the back of each finger and a large pad over the back of the hand. The pads
overlying each finger and thumb were segmented, with four to six pad blocks per finger and
thumb. Ringers was sufficiently motivated by these disclosures to pay the expenses of flying
Mr. Harmer to Houston to discuss his designs in person.
On August 20, 2014, Mr. Harmer flew to Houston and on August 21, 2014, he drove to
Ringers' office in the Woodlands. While at the Ringers' facility, Mr. Harmer met for several
hours with Hardy Lim. Mr. Harmer and Mr. Lim discussed Mr. Harmer's research on existing
gloves, including Ringers R-Chem glove, and Mr. Harmer disclosed to him the problems with
these different gloves and the wear tests he had conducted and the tendency of the R-Chem glove
to become a breeding ground for bacteria. They also discussed manufacturing options for a new
glove. Starting with Mr. Harmer's original design as a starting point, using Mr. Lim's computer
Mr. Lim and Mr. Harmer conceived new designs of a glove which incorporated the various
features they discussed. Following his meeting with Mr. Lim, Mr. Harmer met with you.
During this meeting, Mr. Harmer was informed that Ringers was a very ethical company and if
Ringers proceeded with the project, that Mr. Harmer would be compensated for his contributions
to the new design.
On September 18, 2014, Mr. Lim sent an email to Mr. Harmer in which he advised our
client that there were too many other projects which took priority and that Ringers would not
pursue working with Mr. Harmer at that time. He further informed Mr. Harmer that the project
would be revisited at a later date. However, Ringers did not contact Mr. Harmer again.
Earlier this year, Mr. Harmer discovered that Ringer had introduced a modified R-Chem
glove that substantially incorporates the features of his initial design (such as the exterior impact
pads over each finger and the back of the hand) and as modified by Mr. Lim and Mr. Harmer at
the Ringers' facility on August 21st. Upon this discovery, Mr. Harmer reached out to you and
Mr. Lim via email on May 4, 2018 and requested an explanation as to why Mr. Harmer was not
contacted regarding the new glove. Mr. Lim responded on May 4th that Ringers would review
the situation and get back to him. On May 21, 2018, having received no further communication
from Ringers, our client reached out again and asked for Ringers' response. On May 25, 2018,
Mr. Lim sent an email to Mr. Harmer in which Mr. Lim referred to Mr. Harmer's "injection-
molded PVC coated glove". Mr. Lim informed our client that "because of the costs associated
with the process, we do not manufacture, and have never manufactured, any of our gloves by
injection molding."
30L1387.DOCX
July 10, 2018

Page 3
On June 7, 2018, Mr. Harmer replied to Mr. Lim, in which Mr. Harmer provided Mr. Lim
with the chronology of events discussed above and reminded him that during the August 2014
meeting, other options and designs were discussed that would achieve the same design brought
to Ringers by Mr. Harmer. Mr. Harmer concluded by requesting that Ringers recognize his
contributions to the new glove design and provide our client with some type of compensation for
his contribution of intellectual property. Mr. Harmer requested a response by June 21, 2018.
Ringers has not, as of the date of this present letter, provided any response to the June 7th
correspondence from our client.
The NDA entered into between our client and Ringers states in the background section
that "[tjhe parties intend to discuss the formation of a business relationship with each other, may
form such business relationship, and may participate in business activities during such business
relationship (collectively, the 'Business Purpose')." The NDA further states that the term
"Confidential Information includes any modifications or derivatives prepared by the Receiving
Party that contain or are based upon Confidential Information of the Disclosing Party". The
NDA further provides that the Receiving Party "will use the Disclosing Party's Confidential
Information only in connection with the Business Purpose" and the Receiving Party "will not
copy or modify the Disclosing Party's Confidential Information except as necessary to achieve
the Business Purpose".
In reliance upon the NDA, our client made a full disclosure of his glove design and
research to Ringers. As evidence that Ringers had not previously conceived of this design,
having already received information regarding our client's glove design, Ringers paid for him to
travel to Houston and paid for his accommodations when he visited the Ringers' facility to
discuss his design.
Notwithstanding the above quoted provisions of the NDA, Ringers has misappropriated
and modified our client's design and incorporated it into a new generation of Ringers' gloves. In
that regard, we note that the design originally conceived of by Mr. Harmer, and later modified
jointly by our client and Mr. Lim, shares many structural features with the gloves depicted on the
Ringers website, including the RoughNeck Series. This misappropriation constitutes breach of
the NDA and is actionable.
In our investigation of this matter, we have further discovered that Hardy Lim and
Ringers filed patent application No. 29/568,716 on June 21, 2016 for an "Industrial Impact
Safety Glove". The '716 Application, which will issue as US D824,111 on July 24, 2018,
names Ringers Technologies LLC as the Assignee and Hardy Lim is identified as the inventor.
Patent Application 29/583,084, which claims priority to the '716 Application, was filed on
November 2, 2016 and issued on February 6, 2018 as US D809,714. Likewise, an application
for utility patent, No. 15/341,586 was also filed on November 2, 2016 and claims priority to the
`716 Application. The '586 Application is currently pending and awaiting a first office action.
30L1387.DOCX
July 10, 2018

Page 4
United States Patent law requires that "when an invention is made by two or more
persons jointly, they shall apply for patent jointly and each make the required oath". 35 U.S.C. §
116(a). "If a person makes a practical and concrete suggestion that contributes to the invention,
he is considered a joint inventor." Ethicon, Inc. v U.S. Surgical Corp., 937 F. Supp. 1015, 1036
(D. Conn. 1996) affirmed 135 F.3d 1456, 1459 (CAFC 1998). "When a number of persons make
an invention jointly, a valid patent cannot be taken out in the name of one of them." In re
VerHoef888 F.3d 1362, 1365 (CAFC 2018). "When an invention is made jointly, the joint
inventors need not contribute equally to its conception." Id. at 1366. "Failure to name them
renders a patent invalid." Id. at 1365.
We further note that in filing the three patent applications, Hardy Lim signed a
declaration, under penalty of perjury, that he is "the original inventor" of the claimed invention
in the application, thus failing to acknowledge our client's contribution in conceiving the glove
design. The failure to disclose an inventor in a patent application is grounds for invalidation of
any patents which issue on the application unless the omission of the inventor is corrected.
Solomon v. Kimberly-Clark Corp, 216 F.3d 1372, 1381 (CAFC 2000).
In reviewing our client's initial design, along with the design conceived of by Mr.
Harmer and Mr. Lim and comparing those designs to the three patent applications filed on behalf
of Ringers, we note many common structural features. Specifically, the gloves depicted and
claimed in the three patent applications all include exterior protection pads over the back of each
finger and thumb, where the pads overlying each finger and thumb are segmented, with four to
six pad blocks per finger and thumb. A large pad covers the back of the hand. Because these
structural features were jointly conceived by Mr. Harmer and Mr. Lim, our client should have
been identified to the United States Patent Office as an inventor, and the failure to name him as
an inventor subjects any issued patents to invalidation.
As discussed above, our client reached out to Ringers and reasonably requested that
Ringers recognize his contributions to the new glove design and agree to compensate him for his
intellectual property. Rather than respond as an "ethical company", Ringers elected to ignore
those overtures, requiring our client to engage counsel to act on his behalf.
This letter is written to inquire whether Ringers is willing to engage in good faith
negotiations with our client and arrive at mutually-acceptable terms of compensation for our
client. In exchange, our client is willing to cooperate with Ringers in resolving the correction of
inventorship of the two issued patents and the pending application. However, in view of our
client's lack of trust in Ringer's ability to negotiate in good faith, we anticipate that such
resolution will require engaging an independent mediator to assist the parties in reaching
acceptable terms of compensation for our client's contribution to the Ringers' glove design.
If Ringers is not willing to engage in such negotiations with our client, our client is
prepared to undertake all actions necessary to obtain justice, including — but not limited to —
30L1387.DOCX
July 10, 2018

Page 5
initiating litigation against Ringers and/or initiating post-grant review challenges in the United
States Patent and Trademark Office.
If we receive no response to this letter by August 8, 2018, we will assume that Ringers is
unwilling to engage in meaningful settlement negotiations and will proceed accordingly.
Otherwise, we look forward to hearing Ringers or its attorneys.
Nothing contained in or omitted from this letter shall be deemed a waiver of any of our
client's rights or remedies with respect to this matter and our client expressly reserves all of its
rights and remedies. This letter is not intended as a complete recitation of the facts or issues. It
is intended for settlement purposes only and shall not be deemed admissible to any legal
proceeding pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 408 and California Evidence Code § 1152.
Very truly yours,
James M. Duncan
JMD:kmr
30L1387.DOC.X
Exhibit 14
Attorneys at Law
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Louisiana
Mississippi
South Carolina
Tennessee
Private and Confidential – Texas
Subject to Federal Rule of Evidence 408 Washington, DC
Jason Mueller
September 7, 2018 Direct (504) 585-0490
Jason.Mueller@arlaw.com
James M. Duncan
Klein DeNatale Goldner
4550 California Ave., Second Floor
Bakersfield, California 93309
JDuncan@kleinlaw.com
Via Certified Mail and Electronic Mail
Re: Demand Letter to Ringers Technologies LLC

Our Ref. 26316-01
Dear Mr. Duncan:
It was a pleasure speaking with you recently regarding the above-referenced matter. As I
noted during our call, this firm represents Ringers Technologies LLC (“Ringers”), and we are in
receipt of the demand letter dated July 10, 2018 (the “Letter”) you sent on behalf of your client
George Harmer. We disagree with the conclusions in the Letter. Ringers has not taken any
action to harm Mr. Harmer, and we request that you provide documentation that supports Mr.
Harmer’s allegations.
The Letter claims breach of a non-disclosure agreement, misappropriation, and fraud on

the United States Patent and Trademark Office, all stemming from communications between Mr.
Harmer and Ringers in May to August 2014. Specifically, it is alleged that Mr. Harmer
discussed potential modifications to the “R-77” glove commercially offered by Ringers during
the May to August 2014 time period. The Letter also claims that the “proposed design included
exterior hard rubber protection pads over the back of each finger and a large pad over the back of
the hand”.
As noted in the Letter, Mr. Harmer met with Hardy Lim to discuss Mr. Harmer’s
proposed design. These conversations included discussions about Ringers’ existing gloves and
other gloves on the market, mainly the 7301 MUDDER glove and MADGRIP glove. Ringers’
records confirm that Mr. Harmer, after being provided with samples of the MUDDER and
MADGRIP glove, stated in written communication to Ringers that those designs have
“similarities to the glove design that I have but I do not think that they are using the injection
process and do not have the antimicrobial treated liner.” See attached e-mail dated July 22,
2014.
One Shell Square | 701 Poydras Street, Suite 4500 | New Orleans, Louisiana 70139 | 504.581.3234 | Fax 504.566.0210
ADAMS AND REESE LLP
Mr. James Duncan
September 7, 2018
Page 2
Mr. Harmer’s proposal for the referenced injection-molding process was the only
potential idea that Ringers was interested in discussing with Mr. Harmer at their meeting.
Indeed, the only alleged improvement that Mr. Harmer ultimately discussed with Ringers was
the injection process.
As previously confirmed to Mr. Harmer, Ringers does not and has never implemented an
injection-molding process for any of its gloves, as the process is prohibitively expensive. See
attached e-mail dated May 25, 2018.
Interestingly, Mr. Harmer appears to have now expanded his alleged contributions to
include “impact material” and padded members. See attached e-mail dated June 7, 2018; Letter
at Page 2. In no way did Mr. Harmer contribute to the design of gloves with padded members.
In fact, both the 7301 MUDDER glove and MADGRIP glove discussed with Mr. Harmer feature
exterior protection pads. Ringers’ own products that were commercially available in August
2014 also feature exterior protection pads. Ringers’ padded gloves with exterior protection date
back to 2008, several years before any contact between Mr. Harmer and Ringers.
For at least the foregoing reasons, Mr. Harmer did not contribute any information that
Ringers misappropriated or used in its development or modifications to its gloves.
Mr. Harmer is not an inventor of the subject matter of Ringers’ patents and patent
applications. For your edification, we enclose a copy of Ringers’ U.S. Patent Application Nos.
29/568,716, 29/583,084, and 15/341,586 (the “Patent Applications”). We recommend that you
closely examine the Patent Applications in view of Mr. Harmer’s proposed design (also enclosed
for your reference). Mr. Harmer’s proposed injection molding and antimicrobial treated liner are
not claimed or part of Ringers’ Patent Applications. Only persons that have made an inventive
contribution to any of the claims in the patent application must be listed as an inventor. 37
C.F.R. 1.41(a); 1.45(c). The clear differences in the claims of the Patent Applications as
compared to Mr. Harmer’s ideas confirm that Ringers was under no obligation whatsoever to list
Mr. Harmer as an inventor to the Patent Applications.
Ringers did not breach the Mutual Non-Disclosure Agreement (“NDA”) executed with
Mr. Harmer. The NDA confirms that “Confidential Information shall not include [] any
information that: (a) is now or hereafter becomes publicly known without violation of this
Agreement; or (b) was known by the recipient prior to the time of disclosure hereunder; or
… (d) is independently developed by the recipient [] without resort to the information
disclosed hereunder.” See attached. The specific pad arrangements disclosed in the Ringers
Patent Applications had absolutely nothing to do with Mr. Harmer.
In sum, Mr. Harmer’s current statements regarding his alleged contributions and
proposed modifications to Ringers’ R-77 glove are in direct contradiction to the facts regarding
his August 2014 discussions with Ringers, as documented by both Mr. Harmer and Ringers.
Ringers has at all times dealt with Mr. Harmer fairly and in good faith.
ADAMS AND REESE LLP
Mr. James Duncan
September 7, 2018
Page 3
Again, we ask that Mr. Harmer produce any documentation and/or factual support for the
allegations made in the July 10 Letter. If there is additional information we are not aware of, we
would be happy to discuss.
Please be advised that Ringers reserves all of its rights. Neither this letter nor any of your
actions taken with regards to this letter constitutes a waiver or release of Ringers’ rights, all of
which are expressly reserved. This letter is not a complete statement of all facts, rights, or claims
relating to this matter.
We await your immediate response and remain,
Very truly yours,
ADAMS AND REESE LLP
Jason P. Mueller, Esq.
CC: Mr. John Mullins, Senior VP of Finance, Ringers Technologies, LLC
Enclosures: July 22, 2014 e-mail from G. Harmer to H. Lim, “RE: Impact gloves”;
May 25, 2018 e-mail from H. Lim to G. Harmer, “RE: Gloves”;
June 7, 2018 e-mail from G. Harmer to H. Lim, “RE: Gloves”;
U.S. Patent Appl. No. 29/568,716, as published (U.S. Patent No. D824,111, Jul.
24, 2018);
U.S. Patent Appl. No. 29/583,084, as published (U.S. Patent No. D809,714, Feb.
6, 2018);
U.S. Patent Appl. No. 15/341,586, as published (U.S. Publ. No. 2018/0049490,
Feb. 22, 2018);
“PVC AFTERMARKET GLOVE”, provided by George Harmer to Hardy Lim,
Jul. 18, 2014;
Mutual Non-Disclosure Agreement, dated Jul. 2, 2014
Exhibit 15
James M. Duncan 661-328-5226 JDuncan@kleinlaw.com
Klein • DeNatale aGoldner

- ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Registered Patent Attorney
4550 California Ave., Second Floor, Bakersfield, CA 93309

p. 661-395-1000 f. 661-326-0418 www.kleinlaw.com
October 22, 2018
Adams and Reese LLP

Jason Mueller
One Shell Square
701 Poydras Street, Suite 4500
New Orleans, LA 70139
Via US Mail and email (Jason.Mueller@arlaw.com)
Re: Reply to Your September 7, 2018 Letter
Dear Mr. Mueller:
This letter provides the additional documentation and factual support requested in your
September 7, 2018 letter.
To summarize the pertinent exchanges to date in this matter, following an initial

exchange of emails between our respective clients, on July 10, 2018 I sent a demand letter to
Ringers Technologies LLC dated July 10, 2018. In my letter, among other things, I invited
Ringers to engage in negotiations with George Harmer regarding his assertions that Ringers had
breached a non-disclosure agreement with him and that Mr. Harmer provided material
contributions to the Ringers R-Chem glove including embodiments disclosed in pending patent
applications. Following telephonic and email exchanges between you and I, on September 7,
2018 you provided Ringers' response to Mr. Harmer's demand. Your letter rejected the demand,
but invited Mr. Harmer to produce any documentation and/or factual support for the allegations
of the July 10th letter. Following receipt of your September 7th letter, on October 10, 2018 you
and I spoke by telephone and I informed you that documentation and factual support would be
forthcoming. In our telephone conference you requested, along with the documentation and
factual support, that my client provide his demand for resolution of all of his potential claims
against Ringers.
As you might expect, Mr. Harmer's recollection of events differs substantially from the
narrative set forth within your letter. Mr. Harmer's June 7, 2018 email to Hardy Lim and Jim
Bailey, included as an attachment to your letter, sets forth a chronology of the events. However,
having received the factual assertions set forth in your letter, I am providing additional details
which are pertinent to my client's claims against Ringers.
Klein, DeNatale, Goldner, Cooper, Rosenlieb & Kimball, LLP

Bakersfield Fresno J San Diego
October 22, 2018

Page 2
Mr. Harmer is employed as a Safety Manager for General Production Service, an oil well
servicing company. In this position, Mr. Harmer has personal knowledge of the various hazards
encountered by rig workers, specifically the hazards presented by oilfield tubulars, wellhead
fixtures, and heavy pieces of equipment during well pulling operations, which hazards are
exacerbated by the heavy coating of oil which typically covers everything around a wellsite.
Injuries to the hands are perhaps the most common hazard to which rig workers are exposed and
gloves are generally the only available hand protection.
In particular, rig workers are at risk for pinch-point and crush-point related injuries to the
hands. Thus the gloves should provide some protection from impacts, while still allowing the
dexterous use of the hands. In addition, because of the exposure to oil and other liquid
substances, the gloves must be fluid resistant. An additional issue is the durability of the gloves,
which can wear out very quickly because of the harsh environment.
Because of the risk of severe hand injury and his perception that the available gloves
were providing less than optimal service at a significant expense, Mr. Harmer took it upon
himself in 2013 to investigate solutions to the design of the then-available oilfield gloves. The
glove being utilized at the time by GPS workers was the Ringers R-77 glove. Mr. Harmer
collected substantial information regarding glove design and injury and thereafter conceived his
own design for a glove. In late 2013 he engaged PRG Prototyping of Pittsburg, KS to produce a
prototype glove which embodied his design. PRG created a drawing of the prototype. Your
September 7`h letter transmitted an incomplete drawing of the prototype which omitted
information at the bottom of the drawing regarding sourcing of the base glove material. A
complete copy of the drawing is transmitted as Exhibit A with this letter Following the creation
of the prototype, Mr. Harmer began exploring different options for the commercial manufacture
of his glove design.
As witnessed by Darin Jeffries, a Safety Division Regulatory Compliance Officer at GPS,

arrangements were made to meet with Josh Baltimore of Ringers. Mr. Harmer and Mr. Jeffries
met with Mr. Baltimore at the GPS office yard in Taft, California. During this meeting Mr.
Harmer disclosed design criteria for the new glove to Mr. Baltimore. As Mr. Jeffries is willing
to testify, the other oilfield gloves available at that time did not meet GPS's requirements for
specific impact protection positioned on the glove. Mr. Jeffries is further willing to testify that
Mr. Harmer's design, which was specific for well pulling operations, provided the specific
impact protection GPS desired.
As witnessed by Shawn Harmer, a Safety Supervisor for GPS, Mr. Baltimore visited the
Aera Belridge field office with him and told Aera representatives and Aera contractors at a safety
meeting that Ringers was working with GPS, specifically George Harmer, to develop a glove for
well servicing and drilling that would have impact protection and would be fluid resistant.
3PE2103.DOCX
October 22, 2018

Page 3
With respect to Ringers R-77 glove, my client identified to Ringers representatives the
following problems with the glove: (1) the multiple layers of the glove (specifically the sewing
of the interior padding to the glove liner) promoted growth of bacteria; (2) the smooth texture of
the palm side of the glove was thin and slick and therefore susceptible to tearing and slipping; (3)
the two part shell, comprised of a hand section and an attached vinyl cuff, was uncomfortable
and abraded the forearms of the workers; (4) the multi-step manufacturing process of the R-77
(which requires assembly of the cuff to the glove liner, attachment of the internal impact pads to
the impact liner, attachment of the impact liner the glove liner, and dipping the entire assembly
in PVC to form the exterior shell) is complicated and drives up the expense; and (5) the R-77 is
bulky resulting in loss of dexterity.
The glove design conceived by Mr. Harmer addressed all of the above issues by
eliminating the interior padding, providing a textured surface to the palm of the glove, utilizing
an integral shell and thereby eliminating the separate cuff, and anticipating a two-step
manufacturing process involving dipping an integral glove liner (with an extended and integral
cuff) into PVC and then fusing hard rubber pads to the exterior PVC shell. Alternatively, as
indicated in Mr. Harmer's original design drawing, the base material for the glove could be "an
off the shelf widely available PVC glove". It was later that Mr. Harmer considered the
possibility of producing his glove with an injection molding process.
After the initial meetings with Josh Baltimore, in late May 2014 my client was
introduced by Mr. Baltimore to Jim Bailey, who in turn introduced Mr. Harmer to Hardy Lim. A
number of telephone conversations and emails were exchanged between my client and Mr.
Bailey and Mr. Lim. Please find transmitted herewith the emails we have thus far been able to
locate, which are marked as Exhibit B. For clarity, we have separated each email from its
respective email chain and placed the emails in chronologic order. From these emails, please
note the following points:
1. Mr. Harmer advised Jim Bailey on May 28, 2014 that Mr. Harmer was in the process
of working with a manufacturing company to produce a glove that Mr. Harmer had
been working on for the past year which addressed the shortcomings of the Ringers
glove. Jim Bailey responded the same day and noted that "Josh thought it would be
worth my time to explore your ideas and learn more about your product."
2. On June 30, 2014, Mr. Harmer advised Jim Bailey that he had come up with some
other ideas on the manufacturing process. Contrary to your statement that "the
referenced injection-molding process was the only potential idea that Ringers was
interested in discussing with Mr. Harmer at their meeting", Ringers had already
expressed an interest in Mr. Harmer's designs before the time George Harmer
considered the possibility of manufacturing with an injection molding process.
3PE2103.00CX
October 22, 2018

Page 4
3. As further evidence that Ringers had interest beyond the injection-molding process,
please refer to the August 11, 2014 email sent by Hardy Lim to George Harmer in
which Mr. Lim advises my client that he was all set for travel and requested my
client to "bring all documentations, drawings, prototypes, etc. that you have relevant
to your proposed glove design so we can review and discuss everything in detail." As
requested, Mr. Harmer brought approximately 30 pages of documents with him which
set forth his findings and glove design.
As previously stated within my July 10, 2018 letter to Ringers, Mr. Harmer met with your
client's representatives in Houston on August 21, 2014, and spent several hours with Hardy Lim.
Injection molding was dismissed early on in their discussions because of the expense of injection
molds. As an alternative to injection molding, they discussed a manufacturing process in which
a glove liner is dipped into PVC to form an exterior shell. As another option, as noted in my
client's original disclosure (Exhibit A), the PVC shell may be purchased. Once the PVC shell is
obtained, hard rubber pads are attached to the PVC exterior shell by either sewing, gluing or
sonic welding processes, and a textured surface applied to the palm of the glove.
In the course of the several hours in which my client met with Hardy Lim, the two men
used Mr. Lim's computer to conceive a new glove design which incorporated the various design
features they discussed, utilizing Mr. Harmer' original design as a starting point. The resulting
design was printed out by Mr. Lim, who provided a copy to Mr. Harmer. Please find transmitted
herewith a copy of the drawing provided by Mr. Lim to my client, marked as Exhibit C.
Following the morning meeting with Mr. Lim, my client had lunch with Jim Bailey and showed
him the new design jointly developed by Mr. Harmer and Mr. Lim. It was at this time that Jim
Bailey informed my client that if Ringers proceeded with the design that Mr. Harmer would be
compensated for his contributions.
It is worth noting that the design embodied in Exhibit C includes a number of the
structural elements claimed in the '586 application including, as recited in claim 1, "a plurality of
protective structures on the dorsal side, the plurality of protective structures including: a first
protective structure on the dorsal side arranged to protect at least a portion of an index finger
metacarpal bone; a second protective structure on the dorsal side arranged to protect at least a
portion of a thumb metacarpal bone, the second protective structure being separate from the first
protective structure; and a third protective structure arranged between the first protective
structure and the second protective structure, the third protective structure being separate from
the first protective structure and the second protective structure, and wherein the third protective
structure includes at least three protrusions spaced apart from each other."
I note that patent application 15/341,586 filed by Ringers in 2016, and naming Hardy
Lim as the sole inventor, teaches, among other things, a single piece glove (as opposed to the R-
77 glove which has a cuff piece attached) having an exterior layer which may comprising about
86% Polyester and 14% Spandex. The '586 application further teaches the use of thermo poly
3PE2103.DOCX
October 22, 2018

Page 5
rubber ("TPR") for the "protective structures" which the application teaches may be attached by
threading and stitching or sonic welding to the dorsal side of the glove. The palm of the glove,
as opposed to the Ringers R-77 glove, has gripping structures on the palm which may be formed
from PVC. The single piece construction, the use of PVC, the configuration of the protective
structures, and the use of gripping structures on the palm are all structural features which George
Harmer disclosed to Ringers in 2014.
Regarding the "protective structures", your letter includes the statement "Interestingly,
Mr. Harmer appears to have expanded his alleged contributions to include "impact material" and
padded members". You thereafter state "[i]n no way did Mr. Harmer contribute to the design of
gloves with padded members." In this regard, I direct your attention to the design drawing you
included as an attachment to your letter. That drawing shows close up views of "hard rubber
protection pads on interrior [sic] of glove" (but clearly shown in the drawing on the exterior of
the glove) and "large protection pad on top of hand". What is interest is that while your letter
denies this contribution by Mr. Harmer, it transmits a document which demonstrates the error of
your claim.
You further assert that "the 7301 MUDDER Glove and the MADGRIP glove discussed
with Mr. Harmer feature exterior protection pads" and that "Ringers' own products that were
commercially available in August 2014 also feature exterior protection pads." Of course,
assuming these references were disclosed to the USPTO, if any of these gloves anticipated the
pad configuration shown in Mr. Harmer's initial design drawing and in the Harmer/Lim design
(both of which are substantially similar to that disclosed and claimed in the '586 application), it
seems likely that all claims of the '586 application would have been rejected as anticipated or
obvious. However, as you know, the September 20, 2018 office action indicates all claims are
allowable if rejections under 35 USC 112 are resolved.
In summary, Mr. Harmer's conceived an improved rig worker glove having the following
design features: improved impact protection, improved dexterity, elimination of the cuff,
durability, a simplified manufacturing process, and reducing structures which promote the
growth of internal bacteria. Ringers was sufficiently interested to listen to my client, enter into
an NDA with him, pay his expenses to travel to Houston, and have Ringer's Research and
Development Director, Hardy Lim, meet with him for several hours. In the course of this
meeting, the two men jointly prepared a design drawing which incorporates many of Mr.
Harmer's original design features, including a substantially similar configuration of exterior pads
on the backside of the glove. Substantially similar features subsequently appear in three
different patent applications in which Mr. Lim is identified as sole inventor.
The Non-Disclosure Agreement entered into by our respective clients provides that "the
term 'Confidential Information' includes any modifications or derivatives prepared by the
Receiving Party that contain or are based upon Confidential Information of the Disclosing
Party". In view of the facts and documentation provided herein, I submit that a jury would likely
3 P E2103.DOCX
October 22, 2018

Page 6
agree that Ringers utilized information obtained from Mr. Harmer in developing a new rig
worker glove and therefore breached the Non-Disclosure Agreement. I further submit that based
upon the facts and documentation provided herein that the USPTO or a federal court would
conclude that Mr. Harmer should have been named as an inventor in the '586 application.
You requested that my client provide his demand for resolution of all of his potential
claims against Ringers. In view of the strong case I believe we can make against Ringers, that
demand is $250,000.00, with an initial payment due upon execution of a settlement agreement
and the remaining balance payable over four years, with the initial payment due on January 1,
2019 and remaining payments due in $50,000 installments due in successive payments every
January 15t.
Nothing contained in or omitted from this letter shall be deemed a waiver of any of our
client's rights or remedies with respect to this matter and our client expressly reserves all of its
rights and remedies. This letter is not intended as a complete recitation of the facts or issues. It
is intended for settlement purposes only and shall not be deemed admissible to any legal
proceeding pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 408.
I have calendared this matter for follow-up within two weeks.
Very truly yours,
James M. Duncan
JMD:kmr
Enclosures
3PE2103.DOCX
JS 44 (Rev. 06/17) CIVIL COVER SHEET
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS

Ringers Technologies LLC George Harmer
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Harris County of Residence of First Listed Defendant Kern County, CA
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)
Chris P. Perque - Adams and Reese LLP

1221 McKinney, Suite 4400 Houston, Texas 77010 (713) 308-0167
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
’ 1 U.S. Government ’ 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State ’ 1 ’ 1 Incorporated or Principal Place ’ 4 ’ 4
of Business In This State
’ 2 U.S. Government ’ 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State ’ 2 ’ 2 Incorporated and Principal Place ’ 5 ’ 5
Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State
Citizen or Subject of a ’ 3 ’ 3 Foreign Nation ’ 6 ’ 6

Foreign Country
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only) Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES
’ 110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY ’ 625 Drug Related Seizure ’ 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 ’ 375 False Claims Act
’ 120 Marine ’ 310 Airplane ’ 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 ’ 423 Withdrawal ’ 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
’ 130 Miller Act ’ 315 Airplane Product Product Liability ’ 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729(a))
’ 140 Negotiable Instrument Liability ’ 367 Health Care/ ’ 400 State Reapportionment
’ 150 Recovery of Overpayment ’ 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS ’ 410 Antitrust
& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury ’ 820 Copyrights ’ 430 Banks and Banking
’ 151 Medicare Act ’ 330 Federal Employers’ Product Liability ’ 830 Patent ’ 450 Commerce
’ 152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability ’ 368 Asbestos Personal ’ 835 Patent - Abbreviated ’ 460 Deportation
Student Loans ’ 340 Marine Injury Product New Drug Application ’ 470 Racketeer Influenced and
(Excludes Veterans) ’ 345 Marine Product Liability ’ 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations
’ 153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY ’ 480 Consumer Credit
of Veteran’s Benefits ’ 350 Motor Vehicle ’ 370 Other Fraud ’ 710 Fair Labor Standards ’ 861 HIA (1395ff) ’ 490 Cable/Sat TV
’ 160 Stockholders’ Suits ’ 355 Motor Vehicle ’ 371 Truth in Lending Act ’ 862 Black Lung (923) ’ 850 Securities/Commodities/
’ 190 Other Contract Product Liability ’ 380 Other Personal ’ 720 Labor/Management ’ 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) Exchange
’ 195 Contract Product Liability ’ 360 Other Personal Property Damage Relations ’ 864 SSID Title XVI ’ 890 Other Statutory Actions
’ 196 Franchise Injury ’ 385 Property Damage ’ 740 Railway Labor Act ’ 865 RSI (405(g)) ’ 891 Agricultural Acts
’ 362 Personal Injury - Product Liability ’ 751 Family and Medical ’ 893 Environmental Matters
Medical Malpractice Leave Act ’ 895 Freedom of Information
REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS ’ 790 Other Labor Litigation FEDERAL TAX SUITS Act
’ 210 Land Condemnation ’ 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: ’ 791 Employee Retirement ’ 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff ’ 896 Arbitration
’ 220 Foreclosure ’ 441 Voting ’ 463 Alien Detainee Income Security Act or Defendant) ’ 899 Administrative Procedure
’ 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment ’ 442 Employment ’ 510 Motions to Vacate ’ 871 IRS—Third Party Act/Review or Appeal of
’ 240 Torts to Land ’ 443 Housing/ Sentence 26 USC 7609 Agency Decision
’ 245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations ’ 530 General ’ 950 Constitutionality of
’ 290 All Other Real Property ’ 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - ’ 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION State Statutes
Employment Other: ’ 462 Naturalization Application
’ 446 Amer. w/Disabilities - ’ 540 Mandamus & Other ’ 465 Other Immigration
Other ’ 550 Civil Rights Actions
’ 448 Education ’ 555 Prison Condition
’ 560 Civil Detainee -
Conditions of
Confinement
V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
’ 1 Original ’ 2 Removed from ’ 3 Remanded from ’ 4 Reinstated or ’ 5 Transferred from ’ 6 Multidistrict ’ 8 Multidistrict
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District Litigation - Litigation -
(specify) Transfer Direct File
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
35 U.S.C. § 256 and/or 28 U.S.C. § 2201
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:
Plf is seeking judgment regarding the inventorship of the Challenged Patents.
VII. REQUESTED IN ’ CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. JURY DEMAND: ’ Yes ’ No
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER
DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
11/16/2018 /s/ Chris P. Perque
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE
Print Save As... Reset

JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 06/17)
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44

Authority For Civil Cover Sheet
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as
required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is
required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of
Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:
I.(a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use
only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and
then the official, giving both name and title.
(b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the
time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land
condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.)
(c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting
in this section "(see attachment)".
II. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X"
in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.
United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.
United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box.
Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment
to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes
precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked.
Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the
citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity
cases.)
III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this
section for each principal party.
IV. Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If there are multiple nature of suit codes associated with the case, pick the nature of suit code
that is most applicable. Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
V. Origin. Place an "X" in one of the seven boxes.

Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.
Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441.
When the petition for removal is granted, check this box.
Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing
date.
Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.
Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or
multidistrict litigation transfers.
Multidistrict Litigation – Transfer. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C.
Section 1407.
Multidistrict Litigation – Direct File. (8) Check this box when a multidistrict case is filed in the same district as the Master MDL docket.
PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE IS NOT AN ORIGIN CODE 7. Origin Code 7 was used for historical records and is no longer relevant due to
changes in statue.
VI. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional
statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service
VII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.
Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.
Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.
VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket
numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.
Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
RINGERS TECHNOLOGIES LLC, §

§
Plaintiff, §
§
v. §
§
§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:18-CV-4347
GEORGE HARMER, §
§
Defendant. §
§
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1, Plaintiff Ringers Technologies LLC states that it
has no parent corporation and that no publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of its stock.
Dated: November 16, 2018 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Chris P. Perque

Chris P. Perque
ATTORNEY IN CHARGE
Texas Bar No. 24005828
Southern District ID No. 23235
ADAMS AND REESE LLP
1221 McKinney St., Suite 4400
Houston, TX 77010
Tel: 713.308.0167
Fax: 713.308.4072
E-mail: chris.perque@arlaw.com
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF
RINGERS TECHNOLOGIES LLC

Ringers Techs. v. Harmer - Complaint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ringers Techs. v. Harmer - Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 4:18-cv-04347 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 11/16/18 Page 1 of 12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

RINGERS TECHNOLOGIES LLC, §

George Harmer (“Harmer”), individually, states as follows:

1. Plaintiff Ringers Technologies LLC is a company organized and existing under

Parkway, Houston, Harris County, TX 77064.

2. On information and belief, Defendant George Harmer is an individual residing in

SECTION II – NATURE OF ACTION

3. This is an action to determine the proper inventorship and/or ownership of U.S.

that Ringers has not misappropriated trade secrets of Harmer.

SECTION III – JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a), as

bring this suit.

exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds the sum of $75,000.

dictate the state and federal claims be consolidated in a single case.

misappropriation of trade secrets by Harmer in view of Harmer’s threats, discussed further

Texas by seeking to potentially collaborate and do business with a Texas-based company.

www.ringersgloves.com/about-ringers/our-history (Exhibit 4).

developed and sold by Ringers.

products. See Exhibit 5.

during the telephone call. See Exhibit 8.

known in the glove industry at that time. See Exhibit 9.

with or otherwise use the injection-molding process proposed by Harmer.

molding process proposed by Harmer. See Exhibit 12.

application, thus failing to acknowledge our client’s contribution in conceiving

the glove design. The failure to disclose an inventor in a patent application is

omission of the inventor is corrected.”

must be listed as an inventor.

industrial impact safety glove, as shown and described.”

microbial treated liner.

allegedly disclosed by Harmer.

industrial impact safety glove, as shown and described.”

microbial treated liner.

33. There is no reference in the pending claims of the ’586 Application to an

anti-microbial treated liner.

protective structure as recited above.

allegedly disclosed by Harmer.

37. In addition to asserting Harmer’s alleged inventorship of the Challenged Patents,

Ringers website, including the RoughNeck Series.”

designed, developed or manufactured by using any information supplied by Harmer, including

his proposed injection-molding process.

40. Indeed, the ROUGHNECK® gloves referenced by Harmer, in particular, have

allegedly disclosed by Harmer’s alleged padding design.

application.” The letter included a demand of payment of $250,000.00.

SECTION V – DETERMINATION OF INVENTORSHIP FOR ISSUED PATENTS

45. Ringers incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the preceding

paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

Patent Nos. D824,111 and D809,714.

solely conceived of the claimed designs.

SECTION VI – DETERMINATION OF INVENTORSHIP FOR THE

50. Ringers incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the preceding

paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

Application No. 15/341,586.

any subject matter that was conceived of by Harmer, in whole or in part.

53. Ringers seeks a judgment pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 256, 28 U.S.C. §1367(a),

Application No. 15/341,586.

SECTION VII – DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NO MISAPPROPRIATION OF

54. Ringers incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the preceding

paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

developing, or manufacturing its ROUGHNECK® gloves or in filing the patent applications

associated with the Challenged Patents.

parties concerning the alleged misappropriation of Harmer’s trade secrets.

58. Ringers seeks a judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367(a) and/or 28 U.S.C. §

SECTION VIII – DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL