IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

NALCO COMPANY,

Plaintiff, v. WETEND TECHNOLOGIES OY, Defendant.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Civil Action No. _____________

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT Nalco Company (Nalco), for its Complaint, states and alleges as follows: THE PARTIES 1. Plaintiff, Nalco, is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the

State of Delaware and has a principal place of business at 1601 W. Diehl Road, Naperville, Illinois 60563-1198. 2. Upon information and belief, defendant Wetend Technologies Oy (Wetend) is a

Finnish corporation having its principal place of business at Kaartilantie 7, FIN-57230 Savonlinna, Finland. 3. Nalco and Wetend are both involved and active in the development and sale of

chemical mixing devices for industrial processes such as papermaking. 4. Upon information and belief, Wetend is the assignee U.S. Pat. No. 6,659,636

issued on December 9, 2003 and entitled METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR FEEDING A CHEMICAL INTO A LIQUID FLOW (the 636 patent). (Exhibit A)

5.

Upon information and belief, Wetend is the assignee U.S. Pat. No. 7,234,857

issued on June 26, 2007 and entitled METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR FEEDING A CHEMICAL INTO A LIQUID FLOW (the 857 patent). (Exhibit B) 6. Upon information and belief, Wetend is the assignee U.S. Pat. No. 7,758,725

issued on July 20, 2010 and entitled METHOD OF MIXING A PAPER MAKING CHEMICAL INTO A FIBER SUSPENSION FLOW (the 725 patent). (Exhibit C) JURISDICTION 7. This is an action for Declaratory Judgment under 28 U.S.C. 2201. Counts I, II,

and III relate to an actual and justiciable controversy arising under 35 U.S.C., an act of Congress relating to patents. 8. 9. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 2201, 2202, and 1338. There is an actual controversy between the parties with regard to the matters

asserted herein. 10. Wetend has threatened Nalco with charges of patent infringement and threats of a

suit for infringement of the 636 patent, the 857 patent, and the 725 patent (collectively, the Wetend Patents). 11. Wetend recently again threatened Nalcos PARETO products with charges of

patent infringement in a letter sent to Nalcos headquarters in Naperville, Illinois dated March 27, 2012. 12. solution. Wetends letter attached an infringement analysis and proposed a commercial

13.

Wetends commercial solution included (1) Nalco admitting patent infringement,

(2) Wetend granting Nalco a license, and (3) Nalco making royalty payments to Wetend based on Nalcos past and future product sales. 14. 15. Wetends letter demanded a response by April 30, 2012. Wetends actions threaten harm to Nalcos ability to make, use, or sell its

PARETO mixing devices. VENUE 16. Venue in this District is proper under 28 U.S.C. 1391 and 1400(b). COUNT I DECLARATION OF NONINFRINGEMENT 17. reference. 18. Nalco has not infringed, is not now infringing, will not infringe any claim of the Nalco restates the allegations in paragraphs 1-16 and incorporates them herein by

Wetend Patents by reason of its manufacture, use, offers for sale or sale of its PARETO devices or any of its other business activities. COUNT II DECLARATION OF PATENT INVALIDITY 19. reference. 20. The Wetend Patents are invalid, at least for failure to comply with one or more Nalco restates the allegations in paragraphs 1-18 and incorporates them herein by

statutory requirements of patentability of Title 35 of the United States Code, including but not limited to 101, 102, 103, and 112. 21. More specifically, and without limitation, the Wetend Patents are invalid under

102 as anticipated or under 103 as obvious in light of one or more patents and publications for mixing systems.

22.

Additionally, and without limitation, the Wetend Patents are invalid as not

meeting the enablement and written description requirements of 112, first paragraph, and as not pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter as required by 112, second paragraph. COUNT III DECLARATION OF UNENFORCEABILITY 23. reference. 24. The 636 patent claimed priority to a PCT application PCT/FI99/00145. The PCT Nalco restates the allegations in paragraphs 1-22 and incorporates them herein by

search report for the PCT application included six references. Four of the six references were cited in an information disclosure statement to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office dated August 24, 2000 along with the first page of the PCT search report. But, the second page of the PCT search report and references EP0745463 and EP0541457 were omitted. 25. The PCT search report indicated that EP0745463 and EP0541457 were relevant to

PCT claims 1-53. 26. The prosecuting attorney for the 636 patent knew of the PCT search report

because four of the six references were included in the August 24, 2000 information disclosure statement. 27. The prosecuting attorney for the 636 patent intentionally omitted EP0745463 and

EP0541457, and the last page of the search report, from the information disclosure statement. 28. The 636 patent is unenforceable because of inequitable conduct by Wetend and

the prosecuting attorney, including the intentional failure to bring material references to the attention of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. 29. The 857 patent and the 725 patent claim priority to the 636 patent. Therefore,

the '857 and '725 patents are unenforceable for at least the reason that the inequitable conduct

committed in the 636 tainted both the 857 and 725 patents and the inequitable conduct in prosecuting the '636 patent had immediate and necessary relation to the enforcement of the 857 and 725 patents. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Nalco prays for judgment against Wetend as follows: A. A declaratory judgment that the 636 patent, the 857 patent, and the 725 patent

are not infringed by Nalco; B. are invalid; C. A declaratory judgment that the 636 patent, the 857 patent, and the 725 patent A declaratory judgment that the 636 patent, the 857 patent, and the 725 patent

are unenforceable due to inequitable conduct; D. An order enjoining and restraining Wetend from further charges of infringement

or acts of enforcement based on the 636 patent, the 857 patent, and the 725 patent against Nalco, Nalcos parent company Ecolab Inc. and its subsidiaries, prospective customers, and anyone in privity with Nalco; E. An order awarding Nalco its costs, in addition to its attorneys fees, in accordance

with 35 U.S.C. 285; and F. Such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and equitable. DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL Nalco hereby demands a trial by jury of all issues so triable.

Dated: April 23, 2012 Respectfully Submitted, NALCO COMPANY By: s/ Oscar L. Alcantara One of its Attorneys Anthony R. Zeuli (IL #6231415, MN #274884) Rachel K. Zimmerman (MN #314171) MERCHANT & GOULD, P.C. 3200 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 332-5300 Fax: (612) 332-9081 David E. Morrison Oscar Alcantara GOLDBERG KOHN LTD. 55 East Monroe Street, Suite 3300 Chicago, Illinois 60603 Phone: (312) 201-4000 Fax: (312) 863-7477 OF COUNSEL: Andrew D. Sorensen ECOLAB INC. 655 Lone Oak Drive Eagan, Minnesota 55121