IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, AUSTIN DIVISION REACTIVE SURFACES LTD

LLP, Plaintiff, v. TOYOTA MOTOR ENGINEERING & MANUFACTURING NORTH AMERICA, INC. TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION, Defendants.

Civil Action No.: 13-1098

PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL COMPLAINT & REQUEST FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT A. PARTIES 1. Plaintiff, Reactive Surfaces Ltd, LLP, is a limited liability partnership organized under the laws of the State of Texas. 2. Defendant, Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc. is a corporation that is incorporated under the laws of the State of Kentucky. Defendant has its principal place of business at 25 Atlantic Avenue, Erlanger, Kentucky 41018. Service of process on defendant may be made according to the laws of the State of Texas by serving the registered agent for defendant, CT Corporation Systems, 1999 Bryan Street, Suite 900, Dallas, Texas 75201. 3. Defendant, Toyota Motor Corporation, is a corporation that is incorporated under the laws Japan. Defendant has its principal place of business at 1 Toyota, Toyota Aichi, Japan 471-8571. Service of process on defendant may be made according to the laws of the State of Texas by serving the registered agent for defendant, CT Corporation Systems, 1999 Bryan Street, Suite 900, Dallas, Texas 75201.

B. JURISDICTION 4. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the lawsuit because the suit arises under 35 U.S.C. 271(a) for patent infringement, as well as 35 U.S.C. 291[A*] and 37 C.F.R. 41.202 for patent interference. Plaintiff and defendants are named parties in at least one

patent interference suggested to the Commissioner of Patents by plaintiff. Both parties are making, using, offering to sell and/or selling a composition of matter, article of manufacture, product by process and/or a method that would infringe one or more of the counts recited in at least one such interference. C. VENUE 5. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(2) because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this district. Plaintiff maintains administrative, research and sales offices in Austin, Texas, and has done so since its inception. All or most acts of making, using, selling and/or offering to sell plaintiffs innovations that are the subject of its patents and/or patent applications and embodied in its products, as well as those of defendants, both groups of which patent and patent applications and infringements of same are the subject of the dispute, occurred and continue to occur in this district. 6. Venue is also proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(2) because a substantial part of the property at issue is situated in this district. All property embodied in plaintiffs patents and/or patent applications, which patent and patent applications are the subject of the dispute, is situated in this district. D. FACTS 7. On April 11, 2002, plaintiff organized a business to commercialize coatings containing catalytically active enzymes and other biomolecules that confer to coated surfaces a stable, functional bio-based capability. To date, plaintiff has invested over $10,000,000 to establish its coatings technology in commerce. 8. Since its inception, plaintiff has aggressively sought intellectual property protection for functional coatings and methods for producing same, including numerous applications for patent protection worldwide. Exhibit A. 9. One of plaintiffs functional coatings relies on the incorporation of lipase enzymes as an additive into a coating - the enzymatic additive available from plaintiff is known commercially as DeGreez. 10. DeGreez has been made, used, offered for sale and sold as an additive to functionalize coatings capable of rendering a coated surface self-degreasing since on or before October 1, 2008, the filing date for plaintiffs US Patent Application No. 12/243,755, published September 24, 2009. Exhibit B 11. Among other of its products, plaintiff uses it DeGreez additives and coatings technology, both coatings compositions and methods for producing same, to coat adhesivebacked, plastic sheets from which screen protectors capable of enzymatically removing fingerprints from touch screens are manufactured. Such touch-responsive screens, by way of example, are used for cell phone and for touch screens devices installed in automobiles. Plaintiffs coating and/or a coated screen products are known commercially as erace.

12. On or about October 15, 2013, Reactive Surfaces began competitor searches for potential competitors of its anti-fingerprinting touch screen protectors who might be present at the Consumer Electronics Show to be held in January 2014 in Las Vegas, NV. 13. Between about September-November 2013, plaintiff began making preparations to launch an e-commerce website for the purposes of selling its anti-fingerprinting screen protectors. Exhibit C. 14. Between about October 30-November 4, 2013, in a search of competitive cell phone screen protectors, plaintiff became aware of U.S. Patent Application No. 12/820,063 filed by Andreas et al. that had been assigned to the defendants for compositions and methods of making anti-fingerprinting coatings, the claims of which patent describing an identical method in all substantive aspects to that used by plaintiff to manufacture its cell phone screen protectors. Subsequently, by continuing searching of U.S. patent Office databases, plaintiff became aware of at least six granted U.S. patents and/or filed patent applications owned by defendants claiming similar inventions. 15. A Suggestion for Declaration of Interference under 37 C.F.R. 41.202 was filed by plaintiff on November 29, 2013 with the United States Commissioner of Patents, suggesting that the Commissioner invoke an interference between U.S. Patent Application No. 13/567,341 to Wu et al. and plaintiffs U.S. Patent Application to Wales et al., filed concurrently. Exhibit D. 16. At least one of the counts recited in the suggested interference in Exhibit D is likely to invoke the interference, naming plaintiff as the Senior Party. 17. The U.S. Patent Application to Wales et al. recited in the suggested interference of Exhibit D is assigned to plaintiff. Exhibit E. 18. U.S. Patent Application No. 13/567,341 to Wu, et al.is assigned to defendants. Exhibit F. 19. Plaintiff believes that an actual, substantial case or controversy exists between the parties who have adverse legal interests of sufficient immediacy and reality, said controversy related to inventorship, validity, enforceability and/or infringement of at least one of the claims recited in Exhibit F. 20. Defendants currently make, use, offer to sell, and/or sell one or more compositions and/or one or more methods that would infringe one or more of the counts of the interference recited in Exhibit D. 21. An actual, substantial case or controversy exists between the parties who have adverse legal interests of sufficient immediacy and reality, said controversy relate to inventorship, validity, enforceability and/or infringement of at least one of the counts recited in Exhibit D. 22. A Suggestion for Declaration of Interference under 37 C.F.R. 41.202 was filed by plaintiff on December 4, 2013 with the United States Commissioner of Patents, suggesting

that the Commissioner invoke an interference between U.S. Patent No. 8,324,295 to Jai, et al. and plaintiffs U.S. Patent Application, filed concurrently. Exhibit G. 23. At least one of the counts recited in the suggested interference in Exhibit G is likely to invoke the interference, naming plaintiff as Senior Party. 24. The U.S. Patent Application to McDaniel et al., recited in the suggested interference of Exhibit D, is assigned to plaintiff. Exhibit H. 25. U.S. Patent No. 8,324,295 to Jai et al. is assigned to defendant Toyota Motor Company. Exhibit I. 26. Plaintiff believes that an actual, substantial case or controversy exists between the parties who have adverse legal interests of sufficient immediacy and reality, said controversy related to inventorship, validity, enforceability and/or infringement of at least one of the claims recited in Exhibit I. 27. Defendants currently make, use, offer to sell, and/or sell one or more compositions and/or one or more methods that would infringe one or more of the counts of the interference recited in Exhibit G. 28. An actual, substantial case or controversy exists between the parties who have adverse legal interests of sufficient immediacy and reality, said controversy related to inventorship, validity, enforceability and/or infringement of at least one of the counts recited in Exhibit G. 29. Plaintiff is aware of at least four additional U.S. patents or patent applications that are subject to suggestion for an interference between the parties, and will timely file same, amending its Complaint accordingly. Exhibit J.

E. DECLARATORY JUDGMENT 30. Plaintiff seeks a declaration of this Court that at least one of the counts in the interference of Exhibit D should be resolved in its favor, naming plaintiff (as the assignee of) the proper inventor/s of each such count. 31. Plaintiff seeks a declaration of this Court that at least one of the counts in the interference of Exhibit G should be resolved in its favor, naming plaintiff (as the assignee of) the proper inventor/s of each such count. 32. Plaintiff seeks a declaration of this Court that U.S. Patent No. 8,324,295 is invalid and/or unenforceable for failing to name a proper inventor of at least one of the counts in the interference of Exhibit G. 33. Plaintiff seeks a declaration of this Court that no claim of U.S. Patent No. 8,324,295 is infringed by any composition, method, product by process, or article of manufacture related to coatings being commercialized by plaintiff.

34. The requested declaratory judgment relief is necessary to prevent irreparable harm to the business of the plaintiff who is commercializing its inventions as claimed in at least one of the counts in the interferences recited in Exhibits D and/or G, and because an actual, substantial case or controversy exists between the parties who have adverse legal interests of sufficient immediacy and reality, said controversy related to inventorship, validity, enforceability and/or infringement of at least one of the claims recited in U.S. Patent No. 8,324,295.

F. PRAYER 35. For these reasons, plaintiff asks for judgment against defendants for the following:

a. Plaintiff is the assignee of the sole and actual inventor/s of one or more of the counts of the interferences recited in Exhibits D and/or G. b. U.S. Patent No. 8,324,295 is invalid and/or unenforceable against plaintiff.

c. No claim recited in U.S. Patent No. 8,324,295 is infringed by any composition, method, product by process, or article of manufacture related to coatings being commercialized by plaintiff. d. e. f. Reasonable attorney fees Court costs. All other relief the Court deems appropriate.

G. PLAINTIFFS DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 36. Plaintiff asserts its rights under the Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and demands, in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38, a trial by jury on all issues. Respectfully submitted, By: ___/s/Steve McDaniel___ Steve McDaniel TX Bar No.788007 300 West Avenue, Suite 1316 Austin, Texas 78701 E-mail smcdaniel@technologylitigators.com Tel. 512.472.8282 Fax 512.472.8181 OF COUNSEL McDaniel & Associates, P.C. ATTORNEY IN CHARGE FOR Plaintiff, Reactive Surfaces, Ltd., LLP