IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BEAUMONT DIVISION CLOEREN INCORPORATED Plaintiff,

VS. EXTRUSION DIES INDUSTRIES, LLC Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION NO. _________________

PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL COMPLAINT TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COMES NOW, Plaintiff, CLOEREN INCORPORATED (hereinafter Cloeren), alleges as follows: NATURE OF ACTION 1. This is an action for (i) enforcement of a Settlement Agreement entered into in

February 2011 (the 2011 Settlement Agreement) related to patent infringement by Defendant, Extrusion Dies Industries, LLC ("EDI"), arising under Title 35 of the United States Code, and (ii) an action for patent infringement by EDI arising under Title 35 of the United States Code. The 2011 Settlement Agreement relates to prior patent litigation in this Court. As with the prior litigation, the activities complained of herein generally relate to extrusion apparatus. THE PARTIES 2. Cloeren is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of

Texas, and having its principal place of business at 401 16th Street, Orange, Texas 77630. 3. On about January 20, 1998, a Third Articles of Amendment to the Articles of

Incorporation of The Cloeren Company was filed with the State of Texas, by which the name The Cloeren Company was changed to Cloeren Incorporated in the records of the State of Texas. 4. Cloeren is in the business of designing, manufacturing and selling extrusion

apparatus, and of repairing and refurbishing extrusion apparatus.

5.

On information and belief, EDI is a foreign LLC duly organized and existing

under the laws of the State of Delaware with a principal place of business at 911 Kurth Road, Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin 54729. 6. On information and belief, EDI is in the business of designing, manufacturing and

selling extrusion apparatus, and of repairing and refurbishing extrusion apparatus. 7. EDI engages in business in direct competition with Cloeren. JURISDICTION 8. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332, this Court has jurisdiction over this matter because

there is complete diversity between the parties, which are domiciled in different states, and the amount in controversy is in excess of $75,000 exclusive of interest, fees, and costs. 9. This Court also has original jurisdiction with respect to the patent infringement

claim under 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1338(a). 10. The Court further has jurisdiction over the 2011 Settlement Agreement claim

under 28 U.S.C. 1367 as that claim and the patent infringement claim are so related that they form part of the same case and controversy. VENUE 11. Venue with respect to enforcement of the 2011 Settlement Agreement is proper

in this Court in view of the 2011 Settlement Agreement referred to in a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, copy attached hereto as Exhibit 1, filed in prior litigation in this Court, Civil Action No. 1:10CV729. 12. Venue with respect to the related patent infringement is also proper in this Court

under 28 U.S.C. 1391 and 1400(b) because, among other things, EDI has customers in, and does business in, the Eastern District of Texas, and the consequences of EDIs acts of patent infringement have been suffered by Plaintiff Cloeren in this District.

BACKGROUND 13. On September 19, 1995, United States Patent No. 5,451,357, entitled Apparatus

and Process for Composite Extrusion with Width Adjustment (the 357 Patent) was duly and legally issued with Peter F. Cloeren as inventor by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The 357 Patent is valid and in full force and effect. A true and correct copy of the 357 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. 14. 15. Cloeren is the assignee of all right, title and interest in and to the '357 Patent. On about November 11, 2010, Plaintiff Cloeren filed a Complaint for enforcement

of a 1999 Settlement Agreement and for Patent Infringement (Civil Action No. 1:10CV729) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, against EDI (the "2010 Suit"). The Complaint alleged, among other things, breach of the 1999 Settlement Agreement and infringement of the 357 Patent. 16. On about February 24, 2011, Cloeren and EDI entered into the 2011 Settlement

Agreement as part of the settlement of the 2010 Suit. 17. On information and belief, EDI has been and is making, offering to sell, selling,

inducing the use of, and/or contributing to the infringement of, extrusion apparatus within the scope of one or more claims of the 357 Patent (the Infringing Extrusion Apparatus), in the United States (EDIs Acts). 18. On information and belief, the Infringing Extrusion Apparatus has been sold by

EDI, and is being used in the United States by the purchaser for extrusion, in violation of one or more claims of the 357 Patent. COUNT 1 ENFORCEMENT OF THE 2011 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 19. 20. Cloeren incorporates paragraphs 1-20 of this Complaint here. The 2011 Settlement Agreement remains in force, and EDI is bound by the 2011

Settlement Agreement. 21. Cloeren has fulfilled its obligations under the 2011 Settlement Agreement. 3

22. Agreement. 23.

On information and belief, EDIs Acts constitute a breach of the 2011 Settlement

On information and belief, Cloeren has been injured and has lost one or more

sales as a direct result of EDI's breach of the Settlement Agreement, and will continue to be injured and lose sales unless EDI is enjoined from such breach. COUNT 2 INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT N0. 5,451,357 24. 25. Cloeren incorporates paragraphs 1-20 of this Complaint here. On information and belief, EDIs Acts constitute infringement and furthermore

willful infringement of the 357 Patent. 26. On information and belief, Cloeren has been damaged by EDIs infringement of

the 357 Patent and will continue to be damaged in the future unless EDI is enjoined from infringing the 357 Patent. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Cloeren Incorporated, prays for relief as follows: A. B. A judgment and Order that EDI has breached the Settlement Agreement; An Order preliminarily and permanently enjoining EDI, its officers, directors,

agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all others in active concert or participation with EDI, directly or indirectly, from continued breach of the Settlement Agreement; C. 357 Patent); D. An Order preliminarily and permanently enjoining EDI, its officers, directors, A judgment and Order that EDI has infringed U.S. Patent No. 5,451,357 (the

agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all others in active concert or participation with EDI, directly or indirectly, from continued infringement of the 357 Patent, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 283; E. An award of damages to Plaintiff for EDIs breach of the Settlement Agreement;

F.

An award to Plaintiff pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 284 of damages, not less than a

reasonable royalty, adequate to compensate Plaintiff for infringement of the 357 Patent; G. H. A trebling of the infringement damages award pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 284; An award to Plaintiff of its reasonable attorneys fees incurred with respect to

enforcement of the 2011 Settlement Agreement and of the 357 Patent; I. J. An award to Plaintiff of prejudgment interest on the sums; Any further relief to which Plaintiff may appear entitled.

Dated this 22nd day of February, 2012. Respectfully submitted, McPHERSON, HUGHES, BRADLEY, WIMBERLEY, STEELE & CHATELAIN 3120 Central Mall Drive Port Arthur, TX 77642 (409) 724-6644 (409) 724-7585 Facsimile

By: JAMES E. WIMBERLEY Texas Bar No. 21750350 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF, CLOEREN INCORPORATED