UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

DIBA INDUSTRIES, INC., Civil Action No. Plaintiff, v. IDEX HEALTH & SCIENCE, LLC Defendant. COMPLAINT (Jury Demand Endorsed Hereon)

Plaintiff Diba Industries, Inc., as and for its Complaint against Defendant IDEX Health & Science, LLC, by its undersigned counsel, hereby alleges as follows: PARTIES 1. Plaintiff Diba Industries, Inc. (Diba) is a New York corporation with its

principal place of business located at 4 Precision Road, Danbury, CT 06810. 2. Upon information and belief, Defendant IDEX Health & Science, LLC

(Defendant) is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located at 1925 West Field Court, Ste. 200, Lake Forest, IL 60045. JURISDICTION 3. The following claims for patent infringement arise under the Patent Laws of the

United States, 35 U.S.C. 1 et seq. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of these claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1338(a). VENUE 4. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) and (c)

and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1400(b), as the Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant regularly transacts and conducts business in this state and judicial district,
ME1 14027468v.1

actively and purposefully directs its business activities towards this state and judicial district and citizens thereof. STATEMENT OF FACTS 5. Diba is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 7,954,857 B2 (the 857 Patent), issued on

June 7, 2011, entitled Assembly of Multi-Use Torque Fitting and Length of Tubing Having Compressible Seal. A copy of the 857 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Diba is also the owner of U.S. Patent No. 7,984,933 B2 (the 933 Patent), issued on July 26, 2011, entitled Multi-Use Torque Fitting and Compressible Ferrule. A copy of the 933 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit B. The 857 Patent and the 933 Patent are collectively referred to as the Diba Patents. 6. Upon information and belief, Defendant directly and/or through subsidiary

companies designs, makes, uses, imports, offers to sell, or sells infringing torque-limited tubing connectors as part of its Intuitive product line in this judicial district and elsewhere in the United States. 7. Defendant, by its design, manufacture, use, importation, offer of sale, and/or sale

of torque-limited tubing connectors, without authority from Diba, has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of each of the Diba Patents, and will continue to do so unless they are enjoined by this Court. Diba owned the Diba Patents throughout the period of Defendants infringing acts and still owns the Diba Patents. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Infringement of the 857 Patent) 8. Diba incorporates by reference the factual allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1

through 7 above as if set forth herein in full.

2
ME1 14027468v.1

9.

Defendant has infringed and is infringing the 857 Patent by making, using,

importing, selling or offering to sell the torque-limited tubing connections protected by one or more claims of the 857 Patent and/or has induced or contributed to infringement of the 857 Patent. 10. Defendants infringement of Dibas 857 Patent as set forth herein has been and is

deliberate and willful, having received actual knowledge of the 857 Patent and Dibas notice of infringement of the 857 Patent through correspondence in November 2011, making this an exceptional case within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 285; 11. The infringement by Defendant of Dibas 857 Patent has caused and will

continue to cause Diba monetary damage and irreparable harm for which it has no adequate remedy at law. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Infringement of the 933 Patent) 12. Diba incorporates by reference the factual allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1

through 11 above as if set forth herein in full. 13. Defendant has infringed and is infringing the 933 Patent by making, using,

importing, selling or offering to sell the torque-limited tubing connections protected by one or more claims of the 933 Patent and/or has induced or contributed to infringement of the 933 Patent. 14. Defendants infringement of Dibas 933 Patent as set forth herein has been and is

deliberate and willful, having received actual knowledge of the 933 Patent and Dibas notice of infringement of the 933 Patent through correspondence in November 2011, making this an exceptional case within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 285.

3
ME1 14027468v.1

15.

The infringement by Defendant of Dibas 933 Patent has caused and will

continue to cause Diba monetary damage and irreparable harm for which it has no adequate remedy at law. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Diba requests judgment: (a) (b) That each of the Diba Patents, and claims thereof, are valid and enforceable; That Defendant has infringed one or more of the claims of each of the Diba

Patents and that its infringement has been willful; (c) (d) That Diba has been irreparably harmed by the infringing activities of Defendant; That Defendant, its respective parent and/or subsidiary companies, officers,

agents, servants, employees and those persons in active concert or participation with any of them, as well as all successors or assignees of the interests or assets related to the torque-limited tubing connectors, be preliminarily and permanently enjoined and restrained from further infringement of the Diba Patents; (e) That Diba be awarded damages adequate to compensate for Defendants

infringement, which shall include lost profits, but in no event shall be less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the inventions of the Diba Patents by Defendant including pre- and post-judgment interest and costs, including expenses; (f) That, once actual damages are assessed, damages so ascertained be trebled in

view of the willful and deliberate nature of the infringement and be awarded to Diba; (g) That this case be declared an exceptional case in that Diba be awarded its

attorneys fees; and

4
ME1 14027468v.1

(h)

That Diba be awarded such further necessary or proper relief this Court may deem

just and equitable.

Dated: August 24, 2012

Respectfully submitted, /s/ Eric E. Grondahl Eric E. Grondhal (Bar No. CT08988) E-mail: egrondahl@mccarter.com Kevin L. Reiner (Bar No. CT28176) E-mail: kreiner@mccarter.com McCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP CityPlace I 185 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103-3495 Telephone: (860) 275-6700 Facsimile: (860) 724-3397 Attorneys for Plaintiff

OF COUNSEL:

John D. Luken E-mail: john.luken@dinsmore.com Joshua A. Lorentz E-mail: josh.lorentz@dinsmore.com Douglas J. Feichtner
E-mail: doug.feichtner@dinsmore.com

DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP 255 East Fifth Street, Suite 1900 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 977-8200 Facsimile: (202) 372-9141

5
ME1 14027468v.1

JURY DEMAND Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Diba hereby demands a trial by jury of all issues so triable.

Dated: August 24, 2012

Respectfully submitted, /s/ Eric E. Grondahl Eric E. Grondhal (Bar No. CT08988) E-mail: egrondahl@mccarter.com Kevin L. Reiner (Bar No. CT28176) E-mail: kreiner@mccarter.com McCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP CityPlace I 185 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103-3495 Telephone: (860) 275-6700 Facsimile: (860) 724-3397 Attorneys for Plaintiff

OF COUNSEL:

John D. Luken E-mail: john.luken@dinsmore.com Joshua A. Lorentz E-mail: josh.lorentz@dinsmore.com Douglas J. Feichtner
E-mail: doug.feichtner@dinsmore.com

DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP 255 East Fifth Street, Suite 1900 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 977-8200 Facsimile: (202) 372-9141

6
ME1 14027468v.1