IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA DraegerSafety,Inc. Plaintiff, CivilActionNo.____________ v. E.D.Bullard,Co.

Bullard,Co. ComplaintforDeclaratoryJudgment Defendant JuryTrialDemanded

ComplaintforDeclaratoryJudgment Plaintiff, DraegerSafety,Inc.,byandthroughitsattorneys,DelSoleCavanaugh StroydLLC,filesthefollowingComplaintforDeclaratoryJudgmentandstatesasfollows: NatureofthisAction 1. ThisisaDeclaratoryJudgmentactionbroughtbyDraegerSafetyInc. Draeger Safety againstE.D.BullardCo. Bullard becauseofBullardsrepeatedthreatenedpatent litigationagainstDraegerSafety. 2. ThisactionarisesundertheFederalDeclaratoryJudgmentAct,28U.S.C.2201 and2202andthepatentlawsoftheUnitedStates,Title35,UnitedStatesCode.Specifically, thisactionseeksadeclarationthatDraegerSafetydoesnotinfringeanyclaimsofUnited StatesPatents7,321,119;7,622,716;and,7,897,919 thepatentsinsuit . TheParties 3. DraegerSafetyisaDelawareCorporationwithitsprincipalplaceofbusinessat101 TechnologyDrivePittsburgh,PA15275.

4. BullardisaDelawareCorporationwithitsprincipalplaceofbusinessat1898Safety Way,Cynthiana,KY41031. JurisdictionandVenue 5. ThisactionarisesundertheUnitedStatespatentlaws,35U.S.C.1etseq.,and undertheFederalDeclaratoryJudgmentAct,28U.S.C.2201and2202. 6. ThisCourthasjurisdictionoverthesubjectmatterofthisactionpursuantto28 U.S.C.1331and1338 a . 7. Venueisproperinthisjudicialdistrictunder28U.S.C.1391. 8. ThisCourthaspersonaljurisdictionoverBullardbecauseitconductsbusinessinthe CommonwealthofPennsylvaniaandthisdistrictbymarketingandofferingforsale protectiveequipmentandsystems.ThisCourtalsohaspersonaljurisdictionoverBullard because,assetforthbelow,BullardpurposefullydirectedactivitiestothisCommonwealth whenitcorrespondedwithDraegerSafetyaboutBullardspatentapplicationandissued patents,whichgivesrisetothisaction. BackgroundofthisAction 9. Thereisanactualandjusticiablecontroversybetweenthepartiesconcerningthe patentsinsuit,assetforthmorefullybelow. 10. DraegerSafetyisaninnovatorandleaderindeliveringproductsthatprotect, support,andsavelives.AnexemplarysetoftheseproductsaretheDrgerUCFthermal imagingcameras.DraegerSafetycurrentlymanufacturesandsellsitsUCF2lineofthermal imagingcameras,whichincludesmodelnumbers6000,7000,9000,and9000NFPA approved.

11. BullardhasthreatenedtosueDraegerSafetyforpatentinfringementofthepatents insuit. 12. BullardfirstcontactedDraegerSafetyinSeptember2006regardingapatent application,whichlaterledtothe119patent.BullardthencontactedDraegerSafetywhen the119patentissuedin2008. 13. BullardfollowedupwithDraegerSafetyinAugust24,2012,identifyingtwo additionalpatentsthathadissued:the716patentandthe919patent.Inthisletter, BullardmadeclearthatitwasinvestigatingDraegerSafetysthermalimagingcameraswith ThermalScanfunction,andreservedallof Bullards rightsandremediesunderapplicable law. 14. EventhoughDraegerSafetyexplainedtoBullardthatDraegerSafetydidnot practicetheclaimsinthepatentsinsuit,andthatDraegerSafetybelievedthepatentsin suittobeinvalid,BullardcontinuedtocorrespondandcommunicatewithDraegerSafety aboutthepatentsinsuit. 15. Forinstance,onApril24,2013,BullardsoutsidecounselemailedDraegerSafety aboutpriorartinreferencetowhatBullardsoutsidecounselcharacterizedasBullards patentinfringementclaim.Bullardsoutsidecounselthenrequestedadditional informationthatBullardcouldevaluatebeforetakingnextsteps. 16. Bullardsoutsidecounselthenfolloweduponthatsamedaywithadditional threatstosueDraegerSafety.Forexample,Bullardsoutsidecounselrequestedadditional priorartsoBullardcandecideifthereisavaliddefensesowedonthavetofilesuit.Ihave tothinkitmakesmoresensetoconvinceusnottofilesuitthantodefendonewhereyou stonewalledus emphasisadded .

17. SalesrepresentativeshavealsoaccusedDraegerSafetyofpatentinfringement duringconversationswithpotentialcustomers. 18. BasedonBullardscommunications,inisolationandintotality,Bullardhasevinced itspreparednessandwillingnesstoattempttoenforcethepatentsinsuitagainstDraeger Safety.Asaresult,thereisasubstantialcontroversybetweenBullardandDraegerSafety becauseDraegerSafetydoesnotandhasnotpracticedanyclaimsinthepatentsinsuitby sellingitsUCF2lineofthermalimagingcameras.DraegerSafety,therefore,bringsthis complainttoendBullardsthreatenedlitigationoverthepatentsinsuitandtoobtaina judicialdeclarationthatDraegerSafetydoesnotandhasnotpracticedanyclaiminthe patentsinsuitbysellingisUCF2lineofthermalimagingcameras. CountINoninfringementofthe119Patent 19. DraegerSafetyrestatesandreallegesparagraphs118herein. 20. DraegerSafetydoesnotinfringe,eitherdirectlyorindirectly,whetherliterallyor undertheDoctrineofEquivalents,anyclaiminthe119patentbymanufacturingand sellingitsUCF2lineofthermalimagingcameras,whichincludesmodelnumbers6000, 7000,9000,and9000NFPAapproved. 21. DraegerSafetyisentitledtoadeclarationthatitdoesnotinfringeanyclaimof 119patent. CountIINoninfringementofthe716Patent 22. DraegerSafetyrestatesandreallegesparagraphs118herein. 23. DraegerSafetydoesnotinfringe,eitherdirectlyorindirectly,whetherliterallyor

undertheDoctrineofEquivalents,anyclaiminthe716patent bymanufacturingand sellingitsUCF2lineofthermalimagingcameras,whichincludesmodelnumbers6000, 7000,9000,and9000NFPAapproved. 24. DraegerSafetyisentitledtoadeclarationthatitdoesnotinfringeanyclaimof 716patent. CountIIINoninfringementofthe919Patent 25. DraegerSafetyrestatesandreallegesparagraphs118herein. 26. DraegerSafetydoesnotinfringe,eitherdirectlyorindirectly,whetherliterallyor undertheDoctrineofEquivalents,anyclaiminthe919patent bymanufacturingand sellingitsUCF2lineofthermalimagingcameras,whichincludesmodelnumbers6000, 7000,9000,and9000NFPAapproved. 27. DraegerSafetyisentitledtoadeclarationthatitdoesnotinfringeanyclaimof 919patent. JuryTrialDemanded DraegerSafetyrespectfullydemandsatrialbyjuryonallclaimssotriable.