UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS



VENMILL INDUSTRIES, INC.
Civil Action
Plaintiff No.___________________
v.

ELM, INC.

Defendant


COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT
Plaintiff, VenMill Industries, Inc. (VenMill), by and through its counsel, hereby
complains against the Defendant, ELM, Inc. (ELM), and alleges as follows:
PARTIES
1. Plaintiff VenMill is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
State of Massachusetts and having its principle place of business at 670 Douglas Street,
Uxbridge, MA 01569.
2. On information and belief, defendant ELM is a corporation organized and formed
under the laws of the Japan and having a principle place of business at 15248-11, Kaseda
Takeda, Minamisatsuma-Shi, Kagoshima 897-0002, Japan.


2


NATURE OF THE ACTION
3. This is a declaratory judgment action seeking a determination that VenMill does
not infringe any valid or enforceable claim of U.S. Patent No. 8,342,905 under 35 U.S.C. 271.
4. On information and belief, on January 1, 2013 the United States Patent and
Trademark Office (hereinafter, USPTO) issued United States Patent No. 8,342,905
(hereinafter, the 905 patent), entitled, Optical Disk Restoration Method and Apparatus. A
true copy of the 905 patent is attached as Exhibit A.
5. On information and belief, ELM is the owner by assignment of the 905 patent. A
true copy of the assignment records of the 905 patent retrieved from the assignment database of
the USPTO is attached as Exhibit B.

JURISDICTION & VENUE
6. This action arises under the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. 2201
and 2202 and the Patent Laws of the United States, Title 35 of the United States Code.
7. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
1331 and 1338(a).
8. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) and (c) and 1400(b)
because a substantial part of the events which give rise to the claims herein occurred in this
district and because ELM is subject to personal jurisdiction within this district.
9. On information and belief, this Court has personal jurisdiction over ELM because,
among other things, ELM has continuous and systematic contacts with the State of
3

Massachusetts, including marketing, distributing, and selling products within the State of
Massachusetts.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
10. VenMill is a leading global developer and manufacturer of disc repair and
maintenance products.
11. VenMill produces a product named VMI Hybrid that is a wet-type disk cleaning
product which produces significant liquid waste at the end of a restoration cycle. The VMI Hybrid
provides a continuous flow of water and a continuous flow of abrasive solution during a restoration
cycle. Further, the pads in the VMI Hybrid product remove fluid and are not capable of maintaining
and holding an amount of a polishing agent.
12. ELM is a corporation in the business of providing disc repair machines and
related technology. Some of the ELM products compete with VenMill products.
13. The 905 patent issued with 12 claims, including two independent claims: claim 1
and claim 11.
14. Independent claim 1 of the 905 patent claims a dry-typeoptical disk restoration
apparatus requiring, among other things, a supply control means for intermittently operating the
polishing agent supply means to maintain an amount of the polishing agent held in the polishing
pad during a polishing process and for intermittently operating the polishing water supply means
(emphasis added).
15. Independent claim 11 of the 905 patent claims a dry-typeoptical disk restoration
method requiring, a polishing agent supply process for intermittently supplying the polishing agent
to the readout surface or the polishing pad to maintain an amount of the polishing agent held in the
4

polishing pad during the polishing process; and a polishing water supply process for intermittently
supplying a polishing water to the readout surface (emphasis added).
16. The remaining claims of the 905 patent require at least the same aforementioned
elements required by independent claim 1 or independent claim 11.
17. The claims of the 905 patent are specifically limited to a disk cleaning device or
method that is a dry-type product having an intermittent supply of polishing agent and water, and
requiring a pad that maintains and holds polishing agent (emphasis added).
18. On April 17, 2014, VenMill received a cease and desist letter (Exhibit C) from
Attorney William S. Frommer of the law firm Frommer Lawrence & Haug, LLP indicating that
they are intellectual property counsel for ELM who is the owner of the 905 patent. A copy of
the 905 patent was enclosed with the letter.
19. In the cease and desist letter, counsel for ELM asserted that an optical disk
restoration machine sold by VenMill within the United States under the name VMI Hybrid Disk
Restorer infringes one or more claims of the 905 patent (emphasis added).
20. Counsel for ELM demanded that, within 30 days, VenMill immediately cease
and desist making, selling, and/or offering for sale in the United States the VMI Hybrid Disk
Restorer and any other machines that fall within the scope of the 905 patent as well as,
provide [ELM] a list of distributors and re-sellers of the VMI Hybrid Disk Restorer, a list of the
serial numbers of all VMI Hybrid Disk Restorer machines that have been sold by VenMill up to
the date of [the] letter, the total amount received by VenMill as payment for the sales of such
machines and the total number of VMI Hybrid Disk Restorer achiness presently in inventory
(including the serial numbers of such inventoried machines).
5

21. Plaintiffs have considered the claims of the 905 patent and its relevance to their
VMI Hybrid product and do not agree that the VMI Hybrid product infringes any valid and
enforceable claim of the 905 patent.
22. By virtue of the foregoing, a substantial controversy exists between the parties
that is of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant declaratory relief.

COUNT I
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE 905 PATENT
23. Plaintiffs restate and incorporate by reference each of the averments of the
foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint.
24. Plaintiff is not infringing, has not been infringing, and is not liable for any
infringement of any valid claim of the 905 patent, and ELM is entitled to no relief.
25. As a result of the acts described in the foregoing paragraphs, there exists a
substantial controversy of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant issuance of a declaratory
judgment.
26. A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate so that VenMill may confirm
its right to continue to sell the VMI Hybrid product relative to the 905 patent.
27. VenMill is entitled to a declaratory judgment that it has not infringed and it does
not infringe, directly or indirectly, any valid and enforceable claim of the 905 patent.
PRAYERS FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, the VenMill prays for the following relief against ELM:
i. A declaration that VenMill has not infringed, either directly or indirectly, any
valid and enforceable claim of the 905 patent; and
6

ii. A grant of such other and further relief to VenMill as the Court may deem just
and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
VENMILL INDUSTRIES, INC.
By its Attorneys,
HAYES SOLOWAY, P.C.
DATED: May 14, 2014 By /s/ Norman P. Soloway
Norman Soloway
BBO No. 472840
HAYES SOLOWAY PC
175 Canal Street
Manchester, NH 03101
Telephone: (603) 668-1400
Facsimile: (603) 668-8567
nsoloway@hayes-soloway.com