PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION

DAVID AUYEUNG,

Plaintiff,

v.
Case No.:_____________________
ULTRAVISION HOLDINGS, L.L.C.
D/B/A ULTRAVISION LED AND D/B/A
ULTRAVISION INTERNATIONAL,

Defendant.


PLAINTIFF DAVID AUYEUNGS ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
AGAINST DEFENDANT ULTRAVISION HOLDINGS, L.L.C.
D/B/A ULTRAVISION LED AND D/B/A ULTRAVISION INTERNATIONAL


TO THE HONORABLE COURT:
COMES NOW, Plaintiff DAVID AUYEUNG (AUYEUNG) and files this Original
Complaint against Defendant Ultravision Holdings, L.L.C. d/b/a Ultravision LED and d/b/a
Ultravision International (the Complaint) and, in support of said Complaint, avers the following:
I. PARTIES
1. Plaintiff AUYEUNG is an individual residing in Denton County, Texas.
2. Defendant ULTRAVISION HOLDINGS, L.L.C. D/B/A ULTRAVISION LED
AND D/B/A ULTRAVISION INTERNATIONAL (ULTRAVISION) is a Texas limited
liability company with a principle place of business at 4347 W. Northwest Hwy, Ste. 120-323,
Dallas, Texas 75220 and may be served with process by and through its Registered Agent, National
Registered Agents, Inc., located at 1999 Bryan St., Ste. 900, Dallas, Texas 75201.


PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 2
II. JURISDICTION & VENUE
3. This Court has jurisdiction over AUYEUNGs claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
1331, 1338, 1367, and 2201 in that this case relates to the determination of ownership of certain
patent applications.
4. Venue is proper in this district with respect to AUYEUNGs claims pursuant to 28
U.S.C. 1391 in that ULTRAVISIONs principle place of business is located in this district.
III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
5. On or about February 10 2011, AUYEUNG began providing consultancy services
to ULTRAVISION as an independent contractor.
6. At about the same time, two agreements between AUYEUNG and
ULTRAVISIONnamely, a Non-Disclosure and Non-Solicitation Agreement (the Non-
Disclosure Agreement) and a Consulting Agreement (the Consultancy Agreement)were
contemplated and considered.
7. Despite the Consultancy Agreement being considered, and despite the Non-
Disclosure Agreement lacking, on its own and by its terms, any consideration for the obligations
placed on AUYEUNG therein, only the Non-Disclosure Agreement was ever executed. A true
and correct copy of the executed Non-Disclosure Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit A and
is incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. A true and correct copy of the unsigned
Consultancy Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit B and is incorporated by reference as if
fully set forth herein.
8. Although the Consultancy Agreement was never executed, AUYEUNG continued
to provide his consulting services to ULTRAVISION until approximately February 11, 2012,

PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 3
during which time AUYEUNG had begun independently developing various valuable intellectual
work products in the course of providing his consulting services.
9. On or about February 11, 2012, AUYEUNG ceased providing consulting services
to ULTRAVISION due to ULTRAVISIONs failure and/or refusal to pay outstanding and past
due amounts for his services and expenses in the amount of $95,008.31.
10. On or about March 10, 2012, ULTRAVISION, by and through its president,
William Bill Hall (W. Hall), met with AUYEUNG in an effort to settle the outstanding
amounts ULTRAVISION owed to AUYEUNG for his consulting services.
11. Thereafter, on or about March 15, 2012, ULTRAVISION sent a letter to
AUEYUNG (the Settlement Letter), memorializing the results of their meeting on March 10,
2012 and offering to settle and pay the outstanding balance of $95,008.32 by making an initial
payment of $45,000.00 by April 15, 2012 to be followed by eight monthly payments of $6,251.04
in satisfaction of the remaining amount of $50,008.32, which offer AUYEUNG accepted by
affixing his signature to the Settlement Letter where indicated and as instructed. A true and correct
copy of the executed Settlement Letter is attached hereto as Exhibit C and is incorporated by
reference as if fully set forth herein.
12. Contemporaneously with but separate from the Settlement Letter, ULTRAVISION
made an employment offer to AUYEUNG (the Employment Offer), which AUYEUNG
accepted, outlining the basic terms of an employment relationship between AUYEUNG and
ULTRAVISION; however, said Employment Offer specifically stipulated that it was an offer of
employment only and did not constitute an employment contract or guarantee of employment but
would need to be followed by a formal employment agreement if accepted. A true and correct

PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 4
copy of the executed Employment Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit D and is incorporated
by reference as if fully set forth herein.
13. Despite AUYEUNGs acceptance of the Employment Offer, no formal
employment agreement between AUYEUNG and ULTRAVISION was executed and no
employment relationship was created; rather, AUYEUNG continued to provide his consulting
services to ULTRAVISION as he had previously as an independent contractor and continued to
develop various intellectual work products in the course thereof.
14. Further, despite its promises in the Settlement Letter to pay the outstanding
balances due and owing to AUYEUNG, ULTRAVISION failed to pay the initial payment of
$45,000.00 and the eight monthly payments of $6,251.04.
15. Additionally, ULTRAVISION continued to fail to pay AUYEUNG for his
continuing provision of consulting services through the period beginning March 29, 2012 and
ending September 5, 2012, increasing the amount due and owing to AUYEUNG to not less than
$110,006.51.
16. During this period, on or about J uly 30, 2012, AUYEUNG filed three provisional
patent applicationsnamely, Provisional Applications No. 61/677,340; 61/677,346; and
61/677,352for the intellectual work product he had independently developed during the course
of his consulting to ULTRAVISION (the Provisional Patents).
17. In or about November and December 2012, AUYEUNG and ULTRAVISION
negotiated an employment relationship between them that was to compensate AUYEUNG as an
employee of ULTRAVISION for his work going forward and was to have provisions for paying
off the amounts due and owing to AUYEUNG, agreed at that time to total $130,530.00. A true
and correct copy of W. Halls e-mail to AUYEUNG on behalf of ULTRAVISION, confirming the

PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 5
terms of the negotiated relationship and the amount due and owing to AUYEUNG, is attached
hereto as Exhibit E and is incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
18. From December 2012 until March 31, 2014, AUYEUNG worked for
ULTRAVISION under the terms of the employment relationship, and no additional amounts
accrued to the amount due and owing to AUYEUNG for his prior consulting services; however,
despite ULTRAVISIONs renewed agreement to pay the $130,530.00 due and owing to
AUYEUNG, ULTRAVISION failed and/or refused to make any payments towards this amount
during this time.
19. In point of fact, as recently as April 1, 2014, ULTRAVISION has acknowledged
and made promises to pay the amount of $130,530.00 due and owing to AUYEUNG. On or about
April 1, 2014, ULTRAVISION, by and through W. Hall, sent an e-mail to AUYEUNG, confirming
that 50% of the outstanding balance would be wired to AUYEUNG on April 30, 2014 with the
remaining 50% to be wired to AUYEUNG on J une 30, 2014. A true and correct copy of
ULTRAVISIONs April 1, 2014 e-mail is attached hereto as Exhibit F and is incorporated by
reference as if fully set forth herein.
20. Despite its thrice-repeated promise to pay AUYEUNG the amounts due and owing
for his consulting services during the years of 2011 and 2012, ULTRAVISION failed or refused
to pay the promised 50% on April 30, 2014. Rather, on May 6, 2014, perhaps realizing and
acknowledging its liability to AUYEUNG and the invalidity of the Non-Disclosure Agreement,
ULTRAVISION, by and through W. Hall, sent an e-mail to AUYEUNG, informing him that its
attorney had advised it to stop payment until AUYEUNG provided a mutual release and
acknowledgement of the Non-Disclosure Agreement. A true and correct copy of

PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 6
ULTRAVISIONs May 6, 2014 e-mail is attached hereto as Exhibit G and is incorporated by
reference as if fully set forth herein.
21. Throughout the course of the business relationship between AUYEUNG and
ULTRAVISION, ULTRAVISION has never denied or disputed the amounts due and owing to
AUYEUNG for his consulting services during the years of 2011 and 2012. Rather,
ULTRAVISION has repeatedly acknowledged that such amounts are due and has made repeated
promises to pay such amounts; nonetheless, despite such acknowledgements and promises,
ULTRAVISION has at all relevant times failed and/or refused to pay the amounts due and owing
to AUYEUNG.
22. Further, on or about March 15, 2013 and December 20, 2013, during the time of
AUYEUNGs employment with ULTRAVISION but separate therefrom, AUYEUNG filed full
utility patent applicationsnamely, Patent Applications No. 13/836,612; 13/836,517; and
14/137,380for his mental work products covered by his Provisional Patents (the Patent
Applications).
23. At that time, AUYEUNG assigned the Patent Applications to ULTRAVISION by
written assignments (the Patent Assignments); however, contrary to the recitations of
consideration in the Patent Assignments, because ULTRAVISION has failed and/or refused to pay
for his consulting services during the years of 2011 and 2012, during which he developed the
mental work product underlying the Provisional Patents and the Patent Applications, AUYEUNG
has never received any due consideration to support the Patent Assignments. A true and correct
copy of the Patent Assignments is attached hereto as Exhibit H and is incorporated by reference
as if fully set forth herein.

PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 7
24. Based upon the foregoing, ULTRAVISION has stolen AUYEUNGs consulting
services and mental work products derived therefrom; has made false promises of payment and
compensation therefor; and now proceeds to wrongfully withhold such payments in an attempt to
have AUYEUNG affirm ULTRAVISIONs title to his intellectual works and absolve
ULTRAVISION of liability for its wrongdoing towards him.
25. For these reasons, because of ULTRAVISIONs past and ongoing wrongful
conduct towards him and because of the lack of consideration to support any agreements between
them, AUYEUNG is entitled to and seeks to have this COURT invalidate the Non-Disclosure
Agreement and the Patent Assignments so that he may put his intellectual work products to gainful
use.
26. In the alternative, AUYEUNG respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment
against ULTRAVISION requiring it to pay all amounts due and owing to him in addition to any
statutory damages, interest, costs, and attorneys fees warranted by ULTRAVISIONs
wrongdoing, as follows.
27. In support of this Complaint, AUYEUNG attaches hereto as Exhibit I and
incorporates by reference as if fully set forth herein a true and correct systematic record of the
amounts due and owing to AUYEUNG from ULTRAVISION in an amount of not less than
$110,006.51. In further support of this Complaint, AUYEUNG attaches hereto as Exhibit J and
incorporates by reference as if fully set forth herein the Affidavit of David Auyeung, swearing to
the facts set forth in this Complaint as more particularly described therein.
IV. CAUSES OF ACTION
28. Plaintiff hereby reincorporates paragraphs 1 through 27 above by reference as if set
forth fully herein.

PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 8
29. This is a suit for declaratory relief as to intellectual properties and for related causes
of action, as follows: i) Request for Declaratory Relief Invalidating Non-Disclosure Agreement;
ii) Request for Declaratory Relief Invalidating Assignments of Patent Applications No.
13/836,612; 13/836,517; and 14/137,380; and, in the alternative, iii) Suit on Sworn Account; iv)
Breach of Contract; and v) Quantum Meruit.
i. REQUEST FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF INVALIDATING NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT

30. Plaintiff hereby reincorporates paragraphs 1 through 27 above by reference as if set
forth fully herein.
31. As set forth hereinabove, the Non-Disclosure Agreement, upon a plain language
reading within the four corners of the document, does not identify any consideration for the
unilateral obligations placed upon Plaintiff therein.
32. Rather, the Non-Disclosure Agreement merely sets forth various restrictions upon
Plaintiffs use and handling of certain information provided by Defendant and upon Plaintiffs
ability to solicit Defendants employees, contractors, and/or customers, without providing
anything to Plaintiff in return as consideration for his acquiescence to such restrictions.
33. Nor did Plaintiff at any time receive any benefit from Defendant that might be
construed to serve as sufficient consideration for the Non-Disclosure Agreement, nor has
Defendant indicated that any such benefit was forth coming.
34. Rather, Defendant has only ever promised to pay Plaintiff the outstanding amounts
for his consulting services without reference to any additional consideration for his agreeing to the
Non-Disclosure Agreement.

PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 9
35. Accordingly, the Non-Disclosure Agreement is void for lack of consideration as a
matter of law, and Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment declaring the Non-
Disclosure Agreement to be null and void, pursuant to 28 USC 2201.
ii. REQUEST FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF INVALIDATING ASSIGNMENTS OF PATENT
APPLICATIONS NO. 13/836,612; 13/836,517

36. Plaintiff hereby reincorporates paragraphs 1 through 27 above by reference as if set
forth fully herein.
37. As set forth hereinabove, Plaintiff has executed the Patent Assignments, assigning
the Patent Applications based upon the Provisional Patents for Plaintiffs intellectual work product
developed during the course of his consultancy services for Defendant in 2011 and 2012, for which
services Plaintiff has received no payment.
38. Accordingly, Plaintiff has received no consideration or benefit from Defendant for
the intellectual work product assigned to them by and in the Patent Assignments.
39. Although the Patent Assignments include recitals that satisfactory consideration
has been received for the assignments, pursuant to the Restatement 2nd of Contracts 218, such
recitals may be shown to be untrue, including by parol evidence. See Restatement 2nd of Contracts
218.
40. In evidence that such recitals are untrue, Plaintiff sets forth the Affidavit of David
Auyeung, included herewith as Exhibit J ; a systematic account of the amounts due and owing for
Plaintiffs consulting services to Defendant in 2012, included herewith as Exhibit I; and
Defendants own e-mail correspondences, acknowledging the amounts due and owing to Plaintiff
for his consulting services in 2012 and the non-payment thereof, included herewith as Exhibits G,
F, and E.

PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 10
41. Accordingly because the recitals of consideration in the Patent Assignments are
false and no sufficient consideration has been paid to Plaintiff for the assignment of his intellectual
work product, the Patent Assignments are void as a matter of law for lack of consideration.
42. Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment declaring the Patent
Assignments to be null and void and declaring Plaintiff to be the owner of the Patent Applications.
iii. SUIT ON SWORN ACCOUNT
43. Plaintiff hereby reincorporates paragraphs 1 through 27 above by reference as if set
forth fully herein. In the alternative to the above pled requests for declaratory relief, Plaintiff
pleads as follows:
44. Plaintiff provided good and valuable services to Defendant.
45. For such services, Plaintiff charged prices that were just and true because such
prices were usual, customary, and reasonable and there was no written contract for such services
between Plaintiff and Defendant.
46. Plaintiff includes herewith, as Exhibit I, a true and correct systematic record of the
amounts charged to Defendant for Plaintiffs services in the course of the transaction between
Plaintiff and Defendant.
47. All lawful offsets, payments, and credits have been applied to the amounts charged
to Defendant for Plaintiffs services, and such amounts remain outstanding and unpaid and are due
and owing to Plaintiff.
48. Plaintiffs damages arising from Defendants failure and/or refusal to pay the
amounts due and owing to Plaintiff are liquidated in that the amount of such damages can readily
be determined from the allegations in this Complaint and the exhibits hereto.

PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 11
49. Plaintiff has filed this Complaint under oath as set forth in the Affidavit of David
Auyeung attached hereto as Exhibit J .
iv. BREACH OF CONTRACT

50. Plaintiff hereby reincorporates paragraphs 1 through 27 above by reference as if set
forth fully herein. In the alternative to the above pled requests for declaratory relief, Plaintiff
pleads as follows:
51. There is a valid and enforceable contract between Plaintiff and Defendant to wit,
the Settlement Agreementfor which Plaintiff is a proper party to sue.
52. Plaintiff has tendered performance of and/or was excused from performing his
contractual obligations under the Settlement Agreement by Defendants breach.
53. Defendant has breached the Settlement Agreement, causing Plaintiff injury thereby.
54. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to recover from Defendant his actual damages;
pre- and post-judgment interest on such actual damages; costs of court; and reasonably attorneys
fees.
v. QUANTUM MERUIT

55. Plaintiff hereby reincorporates paragraphs 1 through 27 above by reference as if set
forth fully herein. In the alternative to the above pled requests for declaratory relief, Plaintiff
pleads as follows:
56. Plaintiff provided good and valuable services to Defendantto wit, Plaintiffs
consultancy services and mental work product.
57. Plaintiffs services were provided to and for Defendant.
58. Defendant accepted Plaintiffs services.

PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 12
59. Defendant had reasonable notice that Plaintiff expected compensation for his
services provided to Defendant.
60. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to recover from Defendant his actual damages;
pre- and post-judgment interest on such actual damages; costs of court; and reasonable attorneys
fees.
V. APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
61. Because the Patent Applications for Plaintiffs intellectual work products remain in
Defendants control, Plaintiff faces a danger that, during the pendency of this suit seeking to
invalidate the Patent Assignments, Defendant might transfer, assign, pledge, or otherwise
hypothecate the Patent Applications, to Plaintiffs detriment.
62. Based upon Defendants failure to pay Plaintiff the amounts due and owing him for
his consulting services and Defendants failure to provide Plaintiff any other valuable
consideration for the Patent Assignments, Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of his case for
declaratory relief invalidating the Patent Assignments for lack of consideration.
63. The injury faced by Plaintiff outweighs the injury that would be sustained by
enjoining Defendant from hypothecating the Patent Applications.
64. Furthermore, the Courts granting of a temporary restraining order against
Defendant, preventing Defendant from hypothecating the Patent Applications, would not
adversely affect public policy or public interest.
65. Plaintiff respectfully requests that Defendant be restrained from hypothecating the
Patent Applications until ownership of such Patent Applications has been resolved and determined
by this Court. If necessary, Plaintiff is willing to post a bond in order for the Court to issue the
restraining order against Defendant.

PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 13
VI. ATTORNEYS FEES
66. Because of Defendants conduct, Plaintiff has been required to retain the services
of an attorney to protect his rights and interests. Based upon the foregoing, in the event that the
Court grants Plaintiff the declaratory relief sought hereinabove, Plaintiff respectfully requests that
this Court award him his costs of court and reasonable attorneys fees as part of such relief,
pursuant to 28 USC 2202. Alternatively, in the event the Court denies Plaintiffs request for
declaratory relief but grants the relief sought in the alternative for suit on sworn account, theft of
services, breach of contract, and/or quantum meruit, Plaintiff is entitled to recover his costs of
court and reasonable and necessary attorneys fees pursuant to Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code
38.001 and 134.005(b).
VII. PRAYER
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff DAVID AUYEUNG prays that
this Court enter judgment against Defendant ULTRAVISION HOLDINGS, L.L.C. D/B/A
ULTRAVISION LED AND D/B/A ULTRAVISION INTERNATIONAL, declaring the
assignments of Patent Applications No. 13/836,612; 13/836,517; and 14/137,380 invalid for lack
of consideration and awarding Plaintiff his costs of court and reasonable attorneys fees. In the
alternative, Plaintiff prays that this Court enter judgment against Defendant, awarding Plaintiff his
actual damages for his suit on sworn account, for Defendants breach of contract, and/or for
quantum meruit; awarding Plaintiff pre- and post-judgment interest on his actual damages;
awarding Plaintiff his costs of court; and awarding Plaintiff his reasonable and necessary attorneys
fees. Plaintiff prays for such further relief, at law or in equity, to which he may show himself
entitled.


PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 14
DATED: J une 20, 2014

Respectfully submitted,
WILSON LEGALGROUP P.C.


By: /s/J ohn T. Wilson
J ohn T. Wilson
State Bar No. 24008284
john@wilsonlegalgroup.com
Kandace D. Walter
State Bar No. 24047068
kandace@wilsonlegalgroup.com
Ryan S. Prugh
State Bar No. 2408859
ryan@wilsonlegalgroup.com
16610 Dallas Parkway, Suite 1000
Dallas, Texas 75248

(T) 972.248.8080
(F) 972.248.8088

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
DAVID AUYEUNG