UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURi FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION

I.

SANDERS LEAD COMPANY, INC. an Alabama corporation, Plaintiff

V.

STANNUM GROUP, LLC a Nevada Limited Liability Company,

STANNUM INTERNATIONAL, LLC a Nevada Limited Liability Company, and S. P. METALS, INC. a Texas corporation, Defendants.

N: 1 ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT FOR ) DAMAGES AND ) DECLARATORY ) RELIEF ) ) ) ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ) ) ) ) ) ) )

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT Plaintiff, Sanders Lead Company, Inc. ("Sanders"), alleges as follows for its Complaint for Damages and for Declaratory Judgment against Defendants, Stannum Group LLC, Stannum International, LLC, and S.P. Metals, Inc.:

1/2296381.9

PARTIES 1. Plaintiff Sanders is an Alabama corporation with its principal place of

business at I Sanders Road, Troy, AL 36079. 2. Upon information and belief, Defendant Stannum Group, LLC

("Stannum Group") is a Nevada limited liability company whose registered agent is The Corporation Trust Company of Nevada, 311 S. Division Street, Carson City, Nevada 89703. On information and belief, this defendant has its principal place of business in Texas. 3. Upon information and belief, Defendant Stannum International, LLC

("Stannum International") is a Nevada limited liability company whose registered agent is The Corporation Trust Company of Nevada, 311 S. Division Street, Carson City, Nevada 89703. On information and belief, this defendant has its principal place of business in Texas. 4. Upon information and belief, Defendant S. P. Metals, Inc. ("S.P.

Metals") is a Texas corporation whose registered agent is Robert Seebeck, 480 W. Highland St., Southlake, TX 76092, having its principal place of business in Texas. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. Sanders brings this action under Title 35 of the United States Code,

and under 28 U.S.C. 2201-2202, to obtain a declaration of non-infringement and invalidity and other matters with respect to U.S. Patent No. 8,105,416 ("the

1/2296381.9

'416 patent" attached as Exh. A, also sometimes referred to as "application 12/774,220"). 6. Accordingly, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. 1331 and 1338(a). 7. This is also an action to obtain compensatory damages for breach of

contract arising under the law of the State of Alabama, and also for a declaration of rights among the parties relating to contract between Sanders and Defendants. There is complete diversity between Sanders and the Defendants. As the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 exclusive of interests and costs, this Court has diversity of citizenship jurisdiction over Sanders' state law contract claims pursuant to 28 USC 1332. 8. The federal and state law claims alleged herein arise out of a common

nucleus of operative facts. Accordingly, this Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law contract claims. Exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims asserted herein would promote judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties. 9. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because each

Defendant has had systematic contacts in this district, including multiple business meetings, transacting business, such as providing technical assistance to and

1/2296381.9

entering into contractual agreements with Sanders, and attempting to license the '416 patent. 10. Venue in this judicial district is proper under 28 U.S.C. 1391 in that

a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this district. Venue is also proper under 28 U.S.C. 1400(b) in that a substantial question regarding patent infringement and invalidity exists concerning Sanders' activities in this judicial district, and a substantial question exists whether Sanders has committed or will commit acts of patent infringement in this judicial district, and Sanders has a regular and established place of business here. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 11. Plaintiff Sanders is a lead recycling company founded in 1973 and

based in Troy. Sanders refines lead reclaimed from car batteries and other sources by removing impurities to produce metallic lead. Sanders sells metallic lead to its customers, and also processes and sells other materials obtained from the recycling process. The reclamation process allows lead, an important metal for automobile and other batteries, to be reused and eliminates what would otherwise be an environmental hazard. 12. Defendant Stannum Group holds itself out as owner of the '416

patent, entitled "Method for Reclaiming Lead," filed on May 5, 2010 and issued on January 31, 2012 naming Jerry D. Schulz, Robert E. Seebeck, and Lawrence G.

1/2296381.9

Eagan as inventors. The '416 Patent claims a process of detinning lead by adding a product of conventional detinning operations, such as tin dross (described below), back into the kettle in the presence of caustic soda. This causes a slag of impurities to be formed on the surface of the kettle, which is removed, resulting in quality lead content remaining in the kettle. 13. The '416 patent is invalid. On May 5, 2010, Stannum Group filed application 12/774,220 from which the '416 Patent was later issued. The Patent Act provides that a patent is invalid if the alleged inventions claimed in the patent were in public use, on sale, or known and used by others more than one year before the patent application was filed. See 35 U.S.C. 102(b). As such, the one-year date prior to filing of the '416 patent is May 5, 2009. As shown below, Sanders was commercially practicing the alleged inventions claimed in the '416 Patent as early as September 2005, more than 4 years before Stannum Group filed the application for the '416 patent. Also, there exists other prior art which, alone or in combination, describes or discloses all of the steps of the '416 patent claims. The Patent Act also provides that a patent is invalid if the patent applicant did not himself invent the claimed invention. See 35 U.S.C. 102(f). It was not Schulz, Seebeck and Eagan who began using the detinning process claimed in the '416 Patent, but Stannum Group obtained information relating to the process and secretly filed a patent application on it when Stannum Group had no right to do so.

1/2296381.9

The claims of the '416 patent are also invalid as anticipated by several prior art references, such as issued U.S. patents and certain published articles disclosing processes and methods for lead refining and lead detinning. The '416 patent is also invalid because it went abandoned pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 122 because Stannum Group failed to rescind a nonpublication request filed in the 12/774,220 application after filing an international PCT application for the same alleged inventions and claiming priority to the 12/774,220 application. 14. Stannum Group is now trying to use this unlawfully obtained patent

against Sanders to extract royalties or other consideration from Sanders for a process that Sanders itself began using in 2005. Given the circumstances discussed below, if the patent were to be held valid, Sanders would be entitled to an equitable license to it. S.P. Metals Came to Alabama to Transact Business with Sanders 15. An individual named Robert Seebeck approached Sanders in the 2005

timeframe offering to improve Sanders' process for reclaiming tin from lead, which is also called detinning. Seebeck and his business associate, Mike Pizzuto, visited Sanders in Troy, Alabama and represented they could assist Sanders with improving the detinning process. Seebeck said he and Pizzuto were acting on behalf of S.P. Metals.

1/2296381.9

16.

On or about June 6, 2005, Seebeck and Pizzuto came to Sanders' lead

recycling facility for the purpose of entering into an agreement with Sanders. On that date, Sanders and S.P. Metals signed a letter of intent in this district under which S.P. Metals agreed to provide Sanders with certain technical assistance in lead refining. Exh. B attached hereto. In return, Sanders agreed to supply to S.P. Metals at least fifty percent (50%) of the tin dross produced. Tin dross is a byproduct of conventional lead detinning operations such as those at Sanders. Tin dross, as produced in Sanders' recycling process, contains tin oxide, lead oxide, and other metals and substances. Lead oxide comprises a large portion of the tin dross produced at Sanders. 17. In 2005 Pizzuto, a metallurgist, was on site at Sanders' Troy facility

with its plant personnel and taught Sanders to add lead oxide (PbO), which Sanders purchased from a vendor, and caustic soda (NaOH) to molten lead bullion to improve extraction of tin. The addition of lead oxide and caustic soda, an Arrhenius base, improved the extraction of tin by chemical oxidation, i.e., creating a separate layer of tin dross at the top of the molten mixture that can be removed, ultimately reducing the amount of tin in the remaining lead bullion, and reducing lead lost in the kettle.

1/2296381.9

Sanders' Use of Tin Dross for Detinning and Sanders' Sale of Products from this Process 18. By September 2005, Sanders did not have on hand a sufficient supply

of lead oxide from a vendor to perform the detinning, as taught by Pizzuto. At that time, though, Sanders held in storage an abundance of tin dross produced from its detinning operations. Sanders' employees, including Edgar Fannin and Bart Sanders, proposed Sanders' own tin dross as a source of lead oxide to perform detinning in the absence of a sufficient supply of lead oxide from a vendor. 19. In September 2005, after discussing with Pizzuto the use of tin dross

as a source of lead oxide for detinning, the Sanders' employees then used tin dross, along with caustic soda, in a kettle containing lead bullion and then agitated. The resultant chemical reaction between the tin dross, caustic soda, and lead bullion similarly drew tin out of the lead bullion in the form of a layer of slag on the surface of the molten contents of the kettle. This layer of slag was then removed from the kettle, resulting in lead bullion with a lower tin content, and also in less lead lost in the tin dross. Shortly afterward, in September 2005, Sanders sold to customers the lead produced by this process. 20. The use in detinning of caustic soda and lead oxide, first obtained

from a vendor and then later from Sanders' own tin dross, was termed the "Razor Process" by a Sanders employee.

1/2296381.9

Sanders' Agreements with S.P. Metals 21. On September 13, 2005, Sanders and S.P. Metals executed a

"Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure Agreement" (hereinafter, "the September 2005 NDA") in which Sanders agreed to engage S.P. Metals to provide Sanders with "services involving lead refining, and such other services as [Sanders] and [S.P. Metals] may agree upon from time to time, and [S.P. Metals] hereby agree[d] to provide the Services to [Sanders]." See Exh. C attached hereto. 22. The September 2005 NDA also stated that the "Parties agree not to

divulge, reveal, report or use, for any purpose, any confidential information which either of the Parties has obtained or which was disclosed to either of the Parties by the other Party." Id. at 7. The September 2005 NDA provided that it would expire after five (5) years. Id. at 6. 23. On January 10, 2006, S.P. Metals and Sanders entered into a five-year

agreement entitled "General Agreement/Transaction: Lead Refining" (hereinafter, "the January 2006 Agreement") by which Sanders agreed to sell "a minimum 50% [tin] dross/slag produced using the 'Razor Process" to S.P. Metals in return for S.P. Metals' agreement to "continue to provide Sanders with technical support and assistance as may be required." See Exh. D attached hereto. Sanders agreed to use its best efforts to insure the dross/slag provided contained 18-20% tin. The January

1/2296381.9

2006 Agreement provided for a term of five (5) years from the date of execution, but could be terminated upon thirty (30) days written notice to the other party. 24. Sanders provided tin dross from the Razor Process to S.P. Metals,

making it available for S.P. Metals to pick up at Sanders' Troy facility. Sanders in fact provided more than 50% of the tin dross from the Razor Process to Defendants for more than 6 years up to the present. The tin dross produced by the Razor Process is a valuable product and Defendants' receipt of it for more than 6 years was a substantial benefit they received in this district. 25. On information and belief, in 2008, Pizzuto and S.P. Metals -

including Seebeck and Schulz - parted company. S.P. Metals informed Sanders that tin dross from Sanders would be shipped not to Pizzuto's Mexican company but to an entity called ECS in Texas. 26. renewed. 27. On or about January 5, 2011, Seebeck, who had been a representative The September 2005 NDA expired in September 2010, and was not

of S.P. Metals in its dealings with Sanders since 2005, requested Sanders sign an extension of the January 2006 Agreement" with Stannum International. Sanders agreed to an extension to June 10, 2011.

1/2296381.9

28.

Seebeck represented to Sanders that S.P. Metals had assigned the

rights to its contractual arrangements with Sanders to Stannum International, but Sanders never received a copy of an executed assignment. The So-Called "Improved" Razor Process 29. Afterwards, in 2011 Stannum International requested Sanders also

extend the September 2005 NDA, but Sanders did not do so. Stannum International then told Sanders it had developed an "Improved Razor Process" which Stannum International would disclose to Sanders only if Sanders signed a new NDA. Stannum International communicated to Sanders that Sanders' execution of a new NDA was linked specifically to disclosure of the details of Stannum International's "Improved Razor Process" for testing and evaluation by Sanders. 30. In June 2011, Sanders Lead and Stannum International entered into a

new "Confidentiality and Nondisclosure Agreement" ("June 2011 NDA"). See Exh. E at p. 2. Paragraph L(a) of the June 2011 NDA states "Confidential Information' means all information, data, knowledge and know-how (in whatever form and however communicated or maintained, whether orally, electronically, digitally, graphically, documentary or otherwise), described in Recital C to this Agreement Disclosing Party, itself or through one of its Representatives, delivers or discloses to the Recipient... " Recital C was never delivered to Sanders by Stannum International.

1/2296381.9

31.

Shortly after execution of the June 2011 NDA, Stannum International

did in fact disclose information to Sanders relating to the "Improved Razor Process" so that Sanders could run trials and evaluate the process. 32. The January 2006 Agreement terminated on June 10, 2011. And the

June 2011 NDA contains no obligation for Sanders to provide to Stannum International any of the tin dross produced by Sanders in its detinning operations. Therefore, Sanders is currently under no obligation to continue shipping 50% of the tin dross from its detinning using the Razor Process to Stannum International. 33. The June 2011 NDA does not apply to any information disclosed prior

to June 15, 2011. Accordingly, under the June 2011 NDA Sanders has no obligation to maintain as confidential any information disclosed pursuant to the September 2005 NDA. 34. Beginning in or about August 2011, Sanders conducted trial runs of

the "Improved Razor Process." Stannum International offered Sanders a license agreement on the "Improved Razor Process." Sometime after commencing trial runs of the "Improved Razor Process," Sanders informed Stannum International that Sanders declined at that time to enter into a license agreement on the "Improved Razor Process."

1/2296381.9

Defendants Threaten Sanders

35.

On or about December 30, 2011, Stannum International sent Sanders

an email demanding that Sanders stop shipping "Razor slag" to one or more third parties because Sanders was "using [Stannum International] intellectual property and not compensating [Stannum International]" and because such third parties could "learn of our process and may be able to reverse engineer it by analyzing the slag." See Exh. F attached hereto. 36. In response, Sanders sent a letter dated January 6, 2012. Among other

things, this letter cited expiration of the September 2005 NDA and the January 2006 Agreement, and denied any obligation by Sanders to provide to any of the defendants 50% of the tin dross from Sanders' use of the Razor Process. This letter also cited certain articles and publications authored by others in existence before the filing of the '416 patent, and stated that the Razor Process "has been in the public domain for a very long time. And its technology can no longer be held as confidential or regarded as proprietary. Any associated intellectual property no longer exists." 37. A meeting between Sanders and Defendants occurred in Troy on

January 24, 2012. During the discussions, Defendants provided to Sanders a letter from a lawyer for Stannum International and Stannum Group. The letter, dated January 20, 2012, attached hereto as Ex. G, states, among other things,
1/2296381.9

The information contained in the articles [cited in Sanders' January 6, 2012 letter] generally relates to lead processing, but contains several substantial differences from the claimed process in the pending patent applications. The lead refining process disclosed and claimed in the pending applications contains novel elements that are not described in the cited references. As such we are assisting Stannum Group, LLC, to vigorously pursue protection for its intellectual property. The statement in the January 6, 2012 letter that "any associated intellectual property no longer exists" is therefore false. In fact, one of the applications has received a notice of allowance and will be issuing in short order. Upon issuance, Stannum Group, LLC, will have the ability to stop others from utilizing the lead refining process that is claimed.

(Emphasis added). The '416 patent issued just days later, on January 31, 2012, and the defendants provided a copy of it to Sanders. 38. In prosecuting the application leading to the '416 patent, Stannum Group specifically requested the application not be published as would normally be done. In making the non-publication request, as required by 35 U.S.C. 122, Stannum Group represented to the Patent Office that the patent application "has not and will not be the subject of an application filed in another country, or under a multilateral international agreement, that requires publication at eighteen months after filing." Stannum Group, however, did file such a multilateral international application on April 22, 2011 under the Patent Cooperation Treaty, WO 2011/139603 A2, claiming priority to the application which was issued as the '416 patent, but did not rescind the non-publication request as required by law. As a

1/2296381.9

result, the application leading to the '416 patent was never published, and was not available to Sanders until after it was issued on January 31, 2012. 39. Defendants Stannum International and Stannum Group and/or their

representatives also demanded Sanders agree to pay royalties and sign a license agreement licensing the '416 patent in order to perform the "Razor process." Defendants sent a proposed license agreement to Sanders on or about February 21, 2012, saying in a cover letter that the proposed license "allows Sanders to continue reaping the significant financial and operational benefits of the Razor Process." On March 16, 2012, Defendants re-sent the cover letter and proposed license to Sanders, reasserting the demand for royalties. 40. Defendants have breached the September 2005 NDA by using and

disclosing the Razor Process - which was partially developed by Sanders employees - in applying for and obtaining a patent on the Razor Process during the term of the September 2005 NDA. The September 2005 NDA specifically provides that both parties "agree not to divulge, reveal, report or use, for any purpose, any confidential information which either of the Parties has obtained or which was disclosed to either of the Parties by the other Party." Exh. C at p. 3. But Defendants have used the information about Sanders' own tin dross as a detinning agent for Defendants' own purposes by obtaining a patent secretly without disclosing the application to Sanders until it was days away from issuance.

1/2296381.9

Defendants' conduct has been to the detriment of Sanders. In furtherance of their secret scheme, Defendants filed a nonpublication request for the 12/774,220 application to prevent publication of the application by the Patent Office in the ordinary course. 41. In light of Defendants' recent actions and statements, Sanders is at

risk of being sued now for patent infringement for using its own tin dross in the Razor Process. Sanders is under a real and ongoing apprehension that it will be sued by the Defendants for infringement of one or more claims of the '416 patent or be sued for breach of contract. Thus, Sanders faces the impossible situation in which a process it began using in 2005, and which has lost any cloak of confidentiality, is now being offered back to Sanders for a price. 42. As a result, Sanders has changed its detinning process so that it no

longer includes addition of tin dross into the kettle from a previous kettle run. This change in detinning is done at increased cost and loss of efficiency, and Sanders seeks an order from this Court giving Sanders the ability to use its own tin dross in its detinning process without the threat of patent infringement litigation by Defendants. 43. The Defendants have obtained U.S. patent 8,105,416 through the

efforts and expense of Sanders in developing and improving the process for detinning using tin dross and caustic soda. By determining that tin dross could be

1/2296381.9

used instead of lead oxide from a vendor, Sanders made a critical improvement to the process which Pizzuto originally taught Sanders in 2005, and Sanders did so using its own plant, equipment and personnel without any reimbursement by Defendants. Defendants contributed nothing towards improvement of the original method taught by Pizzuto of adding caustic soda and lead oxide purchased from a vendor. Defendants were more than fully compensated for their technical assistance to Sanders by receipt of more than 50% of the tin dross resulting from Sanders' use of the Razor Process for a period in excess of 6 years. 44. Defendants encouraged Sanders to use the Razor Process inasmuch as

Sanders was providing tin dross to Defendants. Prior to January 2012, Defendants did not tell Sanders they planned to apply for a patent or would demand royalties for using the process. If Defendants had told Sanders their intentions, Sanders would have taken action to protect itself at the outset of the relationship with Defendants, and throughout. 45. Sanders' own plant, equipment and personnel directly contributed to

Defendants' obtaining of a patent. Defendants demonstrated consent, acquiescence, inducement and/or assistance to Sanders' use of the process for more than 5 years. Defendants' actions and all the circumstances - including the agreements among the parties - demonstrate that all parties expected Sanders' obligation to provide Defendants with tin dross would terminate after June 10, 2011.

1/2296381.9

46.

In filing application 12/774,220 on May 5, 2010 (from which the '416

patent later issued), Schulz, Seebeck and Eagan were not the correct inventors of the claimed process 47. An actual, immediate, and justiciable controversy exists between

Plaintiff and the Defendants concerning whether the '416 patent is infringed, unenforceable, and invalid. 48. An actual, immediate, and justiciable controversy also exists between

Sanders and defendants with respect to whether Sanders breached or will breach the January 2006 Agreement between it and Defendants.

COUNT! (Breach of Contract: The September 2005 NDA) 49. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations contained in paragraphs 1

through 48 of this Complaint as though set forth in full herein. 50. The Defendants have breached the September 2005 NDA - by using

and disclosing information obtained from Sanders - in secretly applying for and obtaining a patent on the Razor Process, which Defendants obtained on January 31, 2012. This has resulted in Defendants' holding of a patent by which they are demanding Sanders pay patent royalties - possibly until the year 2030 when the '416 patent would expire. Sanders has suffered compensatory damages exceeding

1/2296381.9

$75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, by being forced to alter its detinning process to conform to the patent, and has expended other sums as a proximate result thereof. COUNT II (Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement, 28 U.S.C. 2201-2202) 51. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations contained in paragraphs 1

through 50 of this Complaint as though set forth in full herein. 52. Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that Plaintiff has not and is not

infringing, directly or indirectly, any valid or enforceable claim of the '416 patent. 53. Plaintiff is entitled to further necessary or proper relief based on the

Court's declaratory judgment or decree.

COUNT III (Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity, 28 U.S.C. 54. 2201-2202)

Plaintiff incorporates the allegations contained in paragraphs 1

through 53 of this Complaint as though set forth in full herein. 55. The claims of the '416 patent are invalid for failure to meet the

requirements of the patent laws of the United States, including at least 35 U.S.C. 102, 103, and 112, or are otherwise unenforceable.

1/2296381.9

56.

The claims of the '416 patent are also invalid as anticipated by several

prior art references, such as issued U.S. patents and certain published articles disclosing processes and methods for lead refining and lead detinning. Such anticipatory prior art includes, without limitation, U.S. Patent Nos. 1,573,830, 2,155,545, and 2,241,806. 57. The claims of the '416 patent are invalid as anticipated by inventions,

disclosures, systems, and processes publicly used, known, patented, and/or published before the '416 patent was filed. 58. The claims of the '416 patent are invalid because the patented

invention was sold, or offered for sale, more than one year before the application for the '416 patent was filed on May 5, 2010, including by Sanders' commercialization of the claimed process in the '416 patent, and by Sanders' sales of products produced by the claimed process, all of which occurred before May 5, 2009. 59. The claims of the '416 patent are invalid as obvious and unpatentable

over prior art references, taken alone or when taken together pursuant to the holding in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc. 127 U.S. 1727, 1731 (2007). 60. The claims of the '416 patent are invalid and indefinite for failing to

satisfy the requirements for an adequate invention disclosure and written description in the patent specification, including but not limited to, failing to

1/2296381.9

adequately disclose and particularly claim the subject matter that the applicants regarded as their invention. 61. Under 35 Usc 122 (b)(2)(13)(iii), the '416 patent became abandoned

45 days after Stannum Group's filing of a PCT application on April 22, 2011, because the applicant failed to rescind its non-publication request. 62. If the '416 patent were held valid despite the foregoing, under 35 usc

102(f), the '416 patent would be invalid because it does not list the correct inventors. 63. Accordingly, Sanders is entitled to a declaration by the court that the

claims of the '416 patent are invalid or are otherwise unenforceable. Sanders is entitled to further necessary or proper relief based on the Court's declaratory judgment or decree.

COUNT IV (Unjust Enrichment) 64. 65. Sanders incorporates Paragraphs 1 - 63 as if fully set forth herein. To the extent U.S. patent 8,105,416 is valid and enforceable,

Defendants have received a benefit from Sanders under circumstances which would make it unjust for Sanders not to receive the benefit of this patent. Defendants have been unjustly enriched by their conduct in taking for themselves

1/2296381.9

exclusive rights to the Razor Process by secretly patenting it without Sanders' knowledge or consent. This taking not only deprived Sanders of the financial gain it could have realized had Defendants paid for an exclusive license or assignment of rights, but also betrayed Sanders and deprived Sanders of its prerogative not to patent its own invention or to exclude others from benefiting from it. 66. Sanders is entitled to any financial gain obtained by the Defendants

from the patent, in addition to a fully paid up license to practice the process described therein. COUNTY (Equitable License to U.S. Patent 8,104,416)

67. 68.

Sanders incorporates Paragraphs 1- 66 as if fully set forth herein. To the extent the patent is held to be valid and enforceable, Sanders is

entitled to an equitable license to it, fully paid up, as well as to any other patent (in the U.S. or internationally) which might issue in the future claiming similar rights.

COUNT VI (Declaratory Judgment Relating to Contract) 69. 70. Sanders incorporates Paragraphs 1- 68 as if fully set forth herein. Sanders has fully complied with its obligations under the terms of its

agreements with Defendants. 1/2296381.9

71.

Despite Sanders' compliance, a genuine controversy has arisen

between the parties regarding Sanders' compliance with its obligations under the terms of the agreements between it and Defendants and whether such obligations are ongoing or have since expired. 72. Sanders is entitled to a declaratory judgment that the September 2005

NDA and the January 2006 Agreement have expired. 73. Sanders is entitled to a declaratory judgment that it is no longer bound

by the January 2006 Agreement, and thus that Sanders is under no obligation to provide any tin dross processed by the "Razor Process" to Defendants. 74. Sanders is entitled to a declaratory judgment that any information

disclosed pursuant to the September 2005 NDA is no longer confidential due to the expiration of the September 2005 NDA as well as the fact that all such information is now publically available from three separate U.S. patent applications, including the application that ultimately issued as the '416 patent, each of which relates to the Razor Process and lists Defendant Stannum Group as assignee. 75. Sanders is entitled to a declaratory judgment that the June 2011 NDA

applies only to the "Improved Razor Process" or to any future disclosure of confidential information between the parties, and thus does not apply to any information exchanged between the parties prior to its effective date of June 1 5, 2011.

1/2296381.9

WHEREFORE, Sanders respectfully prays the Court will: a. Empanel a jury to hear evidence and, after a full trial on the merits, award Sanders compensatory damages; b. Enter an order declaring that Sanders is not infringing any valid and enforceable claim of the '416 patent either directly or indirectly; c. Enter an order declaring that the claims of the '416 patent are invalid and unenforceable; d. Enter an order declaring that Sanders is entitled to any financial gain obtained by the Defendants from the '416 patent, in addition to a fully paid up license to it; e. Enter an order declaring that Sanders has an equitable license to the '416 patent; f. Enter an order declaring that Defendants breached the September 2006 NDA by using and disclosing Sanders' information in making the '416 patent application; g. Enter an order declaring that Defendants have been unjustly enriched by the issuance of a patent that was improperly and secretly obtained using Sanders' confidential information;

1/2296381.9

h. Enter an order declaring that Sanders has not breached any agreement between it and Defendants; i. Enter an order declaring that Sanders has fulfilled its contractual obligations to S.P. Metals; j. Enter an order declaring that Sanders fulfilled its contractual obligations to Stannum International pursuant to any contract assigned to Stannum International by S.P. Metals; k. Enter an order declaring that the 2005 and 2006 agreements between Sanders and one or more of the Defendants are expired; 1. Enter an order declaring that ongoing sales of Sanders' tin dross to third parties will not constitute breach of contract since any applicable contract is expired; m. Enter an order declaring that the June 2011 NDA applies only to the "Improved Razor Process" or to any future disclosure of confidential information between the parties, and thus does not apply to any information exchanged between the parties prior to June 2011; n. Enter an award of attorneys fees in favor of Sanders on account of this being an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. 285; o. Enter an order awarding Sanders such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

1/2296381.9

Respectfully submitted this 20th day of March, 2012.

oseph S. Bird III BIROO 1 Plaintiff, Sanders Lead Company, Inc., demands trial by jury.

Rfseph S. Bird III Of Counsel: BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP Paul W. Sykes, Esq. (SYK003) One Federal Place 1819 Fifth Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203-2119 Ph: 205.521.8000 Fax: 205.521.8800 Quindall E. Segall, Esq. Alabama Center For Commerce 401 Adams Avenue Suite 780 Montgomery, AL 36104 P: 334.956.7700 F: 334.956.7701 Of Counsel:

1/2296381.9

CERVERA RALPH & REEVES LLC Grady A. Reeves, Esq. (REE042) Matthew M. Baker, Esq. (BAKO 17) P.O. Box 325 914 South Brundidge Street Troy, Alabama 36081-0325 Ph: 334.566.0116
Fax 334.566.4073. Attorneys for Sanders Lead Company, Inc.

Please Serve the Summons & Complaint on: Stannum Group, LLC

do The Corporation Trust Company of Nevada

311 S. Division Street Carson City, Nevada 89703 Stannum International, LLC

do The Corporation Trust Company of Nevada

311 S. Division Street Carson City, Nevada 89703 SP Metals, Inc.

do Robert Seebeck
480 W. Highland St. Southlake, TX 76092

1/2296381.9