IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE FMC CORPORATION, Plaintiff, vs.

SUMMIT AGRO USA, LLC and SUMMIT AGRO NORTH AMERICA HOLDING CORPORATION, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

C.A. No.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

COMPLAINT Plaintiff FMC Corporation (FMC or Plaintiff) files this Complaint against Summit Agro USA, LLC (Summit USA) and Summit Agro North America Holding Corporation (Summit Holding) (collectively Defendants), and, in support thereof, alleges as follows: The Parties 1. Plaintiff FMC is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware with its principal place of business at 1735 Market Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 2. FMC is in the business of developing, manufacturing, marketing and distributing a variety of products, including pesticides, such as herbicides, fungicides, and insecticides, for agricultural applications, including use on food and feed crops for human and animal consumption, as well as for non-agricultural applications such as use on ornamental plants, turf, and golf courses.

1
ME1 17033797v.1

3. On information and belief, Defendant Summit USA is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the state of Delaware and has a corporate office at 8000 Regency Park, Suite 265, Cary, North Carolina 27518. 4. On information and belief, Defendant Summit Holding is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware and has a corporate office at 600 Third Avenue, New York, New York 10016. 5. On information and belief, Summit USA and Summit Holding are engaged in the design, manufacture, importation into the United States, and sale after importation of agricultural products such as pesticides, including herbicides, insecticides and fungicides. Jurisdiction and Venue 6. This action arises under the federal Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. 271, the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125, and the Tariff Act, 19 U.S.C. 1304, and the related laws of the State of Delaware and the sister states. This Court has original jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1121 and 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1338(a) and (b). Further, this Court has supplemental jurisdiction over FMCs state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367(a) because those claims are substantially related to FMCs federal claims. 7. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants because they are

incorporated in Delaware and, on information and belief, because they conduct business in Delaware, including selling and/or offering for sale products made by processes that infringe the patent-in-suit. Defendants have registered infringing products for use within the District of Delaware, and they directly and/or indirectly manufacture, and/or import products that are, have been or will be offered for sale, sold, purchased, and used within this judicial district or have

2
ME1 17033797v.1

purposefully and voluntarily placed infringing products into the stream of commerce with the knowledge and expectation that they will be purchased by consumers in this district. 8. Venue is proper in the District of Delaware pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391 (b) and (c) and 1400(b) because Defendants conduct business in this district, and/or the activity about which FMC complains has taken place and is continuing to take place in this district. Factual Allegations 9. FMC discovered and patented sulfentrazone, a herbicidal active ingredient

useful for controlling certain weeds in various agricultural crops including soybean, sunflower and tobacco. Sulfentrazone is also useful for controlling pests in non-crops, such as for ornamental plants, turf, and golf courses. 10. Since the discovery of sulfentrazone in the 1980s, FMC has developed, registered with appropriate governmental pesticide authorities, manufactured, and marketed sulfentrazone active ingredient and sulfentrazone-containing end-use products throughout the United States. FMC continued to invest in researching sulfentrazone, and in developing novel formulations and manufacturing processes of sulfentrazone. The United States patent covering the sulfentrazone active ingredient, U.S. Patent No. 4,818,275, expired in 2006. However, patents covering novel processes for making sulfentrazone continue to be in force. 11. United States Patent No. 7,169,952 (the 952 Patent) (attached as Exhibit A) entitled Process to Prepare Sulfonamides was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) on January 30, 2007, to Leland A. Smeltz, Thomas C. Sedergran, and Harold C. Jarrow on an application filed with the PTO on June 1, 2001, which claims priority to Provisional Patent Application No. 60/209,374, filed on June 5, 2000. FMC is the assignee and lawful owner of all right, title and interest in and to the 952 Patent.

3
ME1 17033797v.1

12. The 952 Patent claims an invention relating to a process for manufacturing sulfentrazone in an efficient and cost-effective manner. One aspect of the novel process of the 952 Patent involves adding a methylsulfonyl group (SO2CH3) to an intermediate chemical compound under high temperature with a particular catalyst called dimethylformamide (DMF). This patented method forms cleaner sulfentrazone, yields more sulfentrazone, and overcomes drawbacks of prior known methods for making sulfentrazone. 13. FMC holds many pesticide registrations for sulfentrazone, including the sulfentrazone active ingredient (EPA Reg. No. 279-3149), as well as approximately twenty pesticide registrations for sulfentrazone-containing end use products that are sold for ultimate use by farmers and others. Among these is FMCs Spartan branded products, including Spartan 4F herbicide (Spartan), EPA Reg. No. 279-3220, issued by the United States Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136, et seq., an herbicide product manufactured by FMC for large agricultural applications, including use on food and feed crops for human and animal consumption. 14. FMC is also the registrant of Authority Assist herbicide, EPA Reg. No. 2793330, as well as several other Authority brand products, issued by the United States Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to FIFRA for large agricultural applications, including use on food and feed crops for human and animal consumption. 15. FMC introduced its Spartan brand products to the market in 2001 and Authority brand products to the market in 2007. FMC has expended millions of dollars promoting these products throughout the United States.

4
ME1 17033797v.1

16. As a result of FMCs successful promotion and market development efforts, FMC has developed substantial market share for the Spartan and Authority brand products, and sales of these products account for tens of millions of dollars each year. 17. On information and belief, Summit Holding is the original registrant under EPA Reg. No. 82534-5, issued by the United States Environmental Protection Agency for SAUSX-01 (Summit Holdings End-Use Product Registration). 18. On information and belief, Summit Holding has granted, according to FIFRAs Supplemental Distributorship rules, a private label for Summit Holdings End-Use Product Registration to Summit USA for the end use product SFZ 4SC herbicide, EPA Reg. No. 825345-88783, for use in large agricultural applications, including food and feed crops for human and animal consumption. Sulfentrazone is the active ingredient in SFZ 4SC and is formulated at a ratio of 39.6% sulfentrazone active ingredient to 60.4% other ingredients, similar to the formulation ratio of FMCs Spartan product. 19. The product label for SFZ 4SC notes that the product is manufactured for: Summit Agro USA, LLC, 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 265 Cary, NC 27518. 20. On information and belief, Summit Holding has granted, according to FIFRAs Supplemental Distributorship rules, a private label for Summit Holdings End-Use Product Registration to Tenkoz Inc. for the end-use product Blanket 4F herbicide (Blanket), EPA Reg. No. 82534-5-55467, for use in large agricultural applications, including food and feed crops for human and animal consumption. Sulfentrazone is the active ingredient in Blanket and is formulated at a ratio of 39.6% sulfentrazone active ingredient to 60.4% other ingredients, similar to FMCs Spartan product.

5
ME1 17033797v.1

21. The product label indicates that Blanket is manufactured at the following EPA Establishment: EPA Est. No. 70815-GA-002. This establishment corresponds to a manufacturing facility in the USA. The product label also notes: Distributed by: Tenkoz, Inc. 1725 Windward Concourse, Suite 1410 Alpharetta, GA 30005 22. The product labeling for Blanket fails to identify by name any registrant or manufacturer of the Blanket product, but on information and belief, and consistent with FIFRAs Supplemental Distributorship rules, Summit Holding is the registrant and is responsible for manufacture, as noted on shipping documentation accompanying a pallet of Blanket product which states: Summit Agro Material Number N6AZZBLKTFINPKG. 23. On information and belief, the sulfentrazone formulated in the SFZ 4SC and Blanket products is identical to the sulfentrazone formulated in the Summit Holdings End Use Product Registration SAUSX-01 product. 24. On information and belief, Summit USA imports the sulfentrazone active ingredient for use in producing both Blanket and SFZ 4SC from Nutrichem Co. Ltd., which has a corporate office at Building D-1, NO66 Xixiaokou Road, Haidian District, Beijing, China 100192. 25. Nutrichem shipped over 8,000 KG of sulfentrazone active ingredient from Shanghai, China to Long Beach, California for Summit USA. It arrived in the U.S. on July 16, 2013.

6
ME1 17033797v.1

26. Nutrichem shipped over 7,000 KG of sulfentrazone active ingredient from Shanghai, China to Jacksonville, Florida for Summit USA. It arrived in the U.S. on August 3, 2013. 27. Nutrichem shipped over 7,000 KG of sulfentrazone active ingredient from Shanghai, China to Long Beach, California for Summit USA. It arrived in the U.S. on August 6, 2013. 28. Nutrichem shipped over 9,000 KG of sulfentrazone active ingredient from Shanghai, China to Long Beach, California for Summit USA. It arrived in the U.S. on August 17, 2013. 29. Nutrichem shipped over 9,000 KG of sulfentrazone active ingredient from Shanghai, China to Long Beach, California for Summit USA. It arrived in the U.S. on December 24, 2013. 30. On information and belief, the 40,000 KG of sulfentrazone active ingredient already known to be imported into the United States was used, or will be used, to formulate products for distribution and sale within the United States under the trade names Blanket and/or SFZ 4SC. For the purpose of illustration, 40,000 KG of sulfentrazone active ingredient equates to about 100,000 KG of Blanket and/or SFZ 4SC. 31. On information and belief, the sulfentrazone active ingredient formulated in the Blanket and/or SFZ 4SC products are or will be offered for sale in this district and for use by customers in this District through Defendants distribution channels. On information and belief, the end use product is registered with the Delaware Department of Agriculture for use in this state, and the infringing products offered for sale by Defendants include, by way of example and without limitation, Blanket and SFZ 4SC. 7
ME1 17033797v.1

COUNT I Infringement of United States Patent No. 7,169,952 32. Paragraphs 1 - 31 are incorporated by reference as if fully restated herein. 33. Plaintiff FMC is the assignee and lawful owner of all right, title and interest in and to the 952 Patent. 34. On information and belief, the process used to create the sulfentrazone that is imported into the United States and used to formulate Blanket and SFZ 4SC infringes one or more claims of the 952 Patent, including claim 18, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. On information and belief, sulfentrazone and/or sulfentrazone-containing products are or will be offered for sale in this District and for use by customers in this District through Defendants distribution channels. On information and belief, these products are registered in Delaware and are or will be offered for sale by Defendants under the brands, by way of example and without limitation, Blanket and SFZ 4SC. 35. Defendants have been directly and/or indirectly infringing one or more claims of the 952 Patent by making, using, selling, or offering to sell within the United States, and/or importing into the United States sulfentrazone and one or more sulfentrazone-containing products manufactured using a process covered either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents by one or more claims of the 952 Patent. 36. Defendants have been infringing one or more of the claims of the 952 Patent by actively inducing others, including its foreign manufacturer, to sell into the United States sulfentrazone made by methods or processes covered by one or more claims of the 952 Patent, knowing that those methods and processes are covered by one or more claims of the '952 Patent.

8
ME1 17033797v.1

37. Defendants have infringed and continue to infringe the 952 Patent, despite their knowledge of the patent and in reckless disregard for FMCs patent rights. At least one of the Defendants knew of the 952 Patent at least as early as July 2013, when FMC notified Summit USA of the 952 Patent. On information and belief, one or both Defendants had knowledge of the 952 Patent prior to that time. Despite their knowledge, Defendants chose to import sulfentrazone which is made using a process covered by one or more claims of the 952 Patent. Defendants continued infringement is reckless and willful. 38. FMC has been irreparably harmed by the Defendants infringement of its valuable patent rights. Defendants unauthorized, infringing use of FMCs patented processes and methods has threatened the value of FMCs patent rights because Defendants conduct results in FMCs loss of its lawful patent rights to exclude others from making, using, selling, offering to sell and/or importing sulfentrazone active ingredient and sulfentrazone-containing products that are made using the patented processes and methods. 39. Defendants have been infringing one or more claims of the 952 Patent, including but not limited to claim 18, through the aforesaid acts, and will continue to do so unless enjoined by this Court. 40. Defendants disregard for FMCs property rights threatens FMCs relationships with its distributors of its Spartan and Authority brand products, as well as FMCs other sulfentrazone-containing products. Defendants will derive a competitive advantage over any of FMCs existing and future sales from using FMCs patented technology without paying compensation for such use. Accordingly, unless and until Defendants continued acts of infringement are enjoined, FMC will suffer further irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law. 9
ME1 17033797v.1

41. FMC is entitled to recover damages adequate to compensate for the infringement and enhanced damages due to Defendants willful infringement. COUNT II False Designation Of Origin In Violation Of 15 U.S.C. 1125(a)(1)(B) 42. Paragraphs 1 - 41 are incorporated by reference as if fully restated herein. 43. FMCs Spartan and Authority brand products are formulated, packaged, and labeled in the United States of America. The sulfentrazone active ingredient formulated in FMCs Spartan and Authority brand products is manufactured in China. Accordingly, in full compliance with the Tariff Act, 19 U.S.C. 1304, the product labeling for the Spartan and Authority brand products states as follows: ACTIVE INGREDIENT MADE IN CHINA AND FORMULATED AND PACKAGED IN USA. 44. The Blanket and SFZ 4SC products formulated by Defendants, and distributed and sold by and for Defendants in the United States, neither designate China as the country of origin of the products, nor designate China as the country of origin of the active ingredient in the products. 45. Defendants have failed to satisfy the marking requirements of the Tariff Act, 19 U.S.C. 1304(a), which requires that every article of foreign origin (or its container ) imported into the United States shall be marked in a conspicuous place as legibly, indelibly, and permanently as the nature of the article (or container) will permit in such manner as to indicate to an ultimate purchaser in the United States the English name of the country of origin of the article. 46. On information and belief, Defendants deliberate decision to omit identification of China as the country of origin for the Blanket and SFZ 4SC products is specifically designed to (i) deceive the marketplace and the consuming public into believing that 10
ME1 17033797v.1

Blanket and SFZ 4SC are wholly manufactured in the United States of America; (ii) erode the market share built up and established by FMC at substantial cost for its Spartan and Authority brand products; and (iii) compete unfairly with FMC by intentionally confusing and deceiving the marketplace. 47. Defendants disregard for its labeling obligations under the Tariff Act, 19 U.S.C. 1304, threatens to mislead FMCs distributors of its Spartan and Authority brand products and to upset the competitive balance between and among FMC and Defendants. Defendants will derive a competitive advantage over any of FMCs existing and future sales by distributing and selling the Blanket and SFZ 4SC products without proper and adequate labeling. Accordingly, unless and until Defendants continued acts of mislabeling are enjoined, FMC will suffer further irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law. 48. The acts and omissions described above of Defendants are likely to cause confusion, mistake, and/or deception as to the source or origin of the Blanket and SFZ 4SC products, and thus violate Section 43(a)(1)(B) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a)(1)(B). 49. The acts and omissions described above have diluted sales, and are likely to continue to dilute sales, of FMCs Spartan and Authority brand products. 50. On information and belief, the acts and omissions of the Defendants described above have at all times relevant to this action been willful. 51. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of the Defendants described above, FMC has suffered and will continue to suffer severe irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law inasmuch as some or all of the harm is not quantifiable in money damages.

11
ME1 17033797v.1

52. Preliminary and permanent injunctive relief are necessary to protect FMC and the marketplace from further damage from Defendants failure to properly mark its products as required by law. 53. Monetary damages are necessary to make FMC whole for the harm that is quantifiable and has already been caused by Defendants failure to properly mark its products. COUNT III Deceptive Trade Practices 54. Paragraphs 1-53 are incorporated by reference as if fully restated herein. 55. The acts and omissions described above of Defendants are likely to cause confusion, mistake, and/or deception as to the source or origin of the Blanket product, and thus violate the common law and/or statutory deceptive trade practices laws of one or more states, including without limitation, 6 Del. C. 1953, 2531 et seq. 56. The acts and omissions described above have diluted, and are likely to continue to dilute, sales of FMCs Spartan and Authority brand products. 57. On information and belief, the acts and omissions of the Defendants described above have at all times relevant to this action been willful. 58. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of the Defendants described above, FMC has suffered and will continue to suffer severe irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law inasmuch as some or all of the harm is not quantifiable in money damages. 59. Preliminary and permanent injunctive relief are necessary to protect FMC and the marketplace from further damage from Defendants deceptive trade practices.

12
ME1 17033797v.1

60. Monetary damages are necessary to make FMC whole for the harm that is quantifiable and has already been caused by Defendants deceptive trade practices. 61. FMC is entitled to an award of treble damages and attorneys fees per the deceptive trade practices laws of one or more states, including without limitation, 6 Del. C. 1953, 2533. COUNT IV Common Law Unfair Competition 62. FMC repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 161, as though fully restated herein. 63. The acts and omissions described above constitute common law unfair competition under the common law of one or more states, including without limitation the common law of Delaware, and have diluted, and are likely to continue to dilute, sales of FMCs Spartan and Authority brand products. 64. On information and belief, the acts and omissions of the Defendants described above have at all times relevant to this action been willful. 65. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of the Defendants described above, FMC has suffered and will continue to suffer severe irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law inasmuch as some or all of the harm is not quantifiable in money damages. 66. Preliminary and permanent injunctive relief are necessary to protect FMC and the marketplace from further damage from Defendants unfair competition. 67. Monetary damages are necessary to make FMC whole for the harm that is quantifiable and has already been caused by Defendants unfair competition.

13
ME1 17033797v.1

PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, FMC respectfully prays for judgment against Defendants, and that this Court grant FMC the following relief: a. Adjudging and decreeing that the 952 Patent is valid and enforceable against Defendants; b. Adjudging and decreeing that each of the Defendants has infringed, directly and indirectly, the 952 Patent; c. Permanently enjoining each of the Defendants, and their parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, related companies, successors and assigns, and each of their officers, directors, principals, employees, representatives, agents and attorneys, and all persons acting in concert or active participation with or on their behalf, or within their control, from making, using, selling, offering for sale, importing, or advertising products or processes that infringe any of the claims of the patent-in-suit, or otherwise engaging in acts of infringement of the patent-in-suit, all as alleged herein, or alternatively if no injunction is awarded, awarding treble the damages awarded to FMC at trial for any infringement continuing past the date of verdict until the expiration of the patent-insuit; d. Ordering an accounting, including a post-verdict accounting, to determine the damages to be awarded to FMC as a result of Defendants infringement and unfair competition; e. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 284, entering an award to FMC of such damages as it shall prove at trial against Defendants that are adequate to compensate FMC for said patent infringement, said damages to be no less than a reasonable royalty together with interest and costs; 14
ME1 17033797v.1

f. Assessing pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and costs against Defendants, together with an award of such interest and costs, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 284; g. Declaring this case to be exceptional and directing Defendants to pay FMCs attorneys fees incurred in connection with this lawsuit pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 285; h. Adjudging the infringement to be willful and awarding enhanced damages and attorneys fees to FMC due to Defendants willful infringement; i. Declaring that Defendants distribution and sale of the SFZ 4SC and Blanket products without designating China as the country of origin violates federal and state law, as detailed above; j. Preliminarily and permanently enjoining Defendants, and their parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, related companies, successors and assigns, and each of their officers, directors, principals, employees, representatives, agents, sales representatives, sales agents, distributors, and attorneys, and all persons acting in concert or active participation with or on their behalf, or within their control: (1) from marketing, selling, offering for sale, distributing, or advertising the SFZ 4SC and Blanket products without clearly, conspicuously, legibly, indelibly, and permanently designating China as the country of origin on the product packaging and labeling; and (2) to recall from the marketplace all SFZ 4SC and Blanket products packaged without clearly, conspicuously, legibly, indelibly, and

15
ME1 17033797v.1

permanently designating China as the country of origin on the product packaging and labeling; k. Directing Defendants to file with this Court and serve on FMCs attorneys, within thirty (30) days of the date of entry of any injunction, a report in writing and under oath setting forth in detail the manner and form in which it has complied with this Courts injunction; l. Requiring Defendants to account for and pay to FMC any and all profits arising from the foregoing acts and omissions in violation of the Tariff Act, 19 U.S.C. 1304, the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a)(1)(B), and the common law and/or statutory law of one or more states, including the Delaware Deceptive Trade Practices Act, 6 Del. C. 1953, 2531, et seq.; m. Requiring Defendants to pay FMC compensatory damages in an amount as yet undetermined caused by the foregoing acts and omissions in violation of the Tariff Act, 19 U.S.C. 1304, the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a)(1)(B), and the common law and/or statutory law of one or more states, including the Delaware Deceptive Trade Practices Act, 6 Del. C. 1953, 2531, et seq.; n. Requiring Defendants to pay FMC all types of damages available under the common law and/or statutory law of one or more states, including the Delaware Deceptive Trade Practices Act, 6 Del. C. 1953, 2533, including treble damages, in amounts as yet undetermined, caused by the foregoing acts of unfair competition and deceptive trade practices; o. Requiring Defendants to pay FMCs costs and attorneys fees in this action pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1117 and other applicable laws, including the common law and/or 16
ME1 17033797v.1

statutory law of one or more states, including the Delaware Deceptive Trade Practices Act, 6 Del. C. 1953, 2533(b); and p. Granting to FMC such other, further, and different relief as may be just and proper.

17
ME1 17033797v.1

JURY DEMAND Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, FMC demands a trial by a jury of twelve in this action of all issues so triable. MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP Dated: January 16, 2014 OF COUNSEL: Peter A. Sullivan Lisa A. Chiarini HUGHES HUBBARD & REED LLP One Battery Park Plaza New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 837-6000 Facsimile: (212) 422-4726 sullivan@hugheshubbard.com chiarini@hugheshubbard.com Frederick G. Michaud CAPSHAW DERIEUX 1710 Swann Street NW Washington, D.C. 20009 Tel: (202) 251-2975 fmichaud@capshawlaw.com Thomas J. Rechen MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP City Place I 185 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 0103 Tel: 860-275-6706 Fax: 860-218-9680 trechen@mccarter.com /s/ Michael P. Kelly Michael P. Kelly (# 2295) Renaissance Centre 405 N. King Street, 8th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 (302) 984-6300 mkelly@mccarter.com Attorneys for FMC Corporation

18
ME1 17033797v.1