This case was last updated from PACER on 09/30/2021 at 08:16:51 (UTC).

Rem Brands, Inc. v. H.B. Fuller Company

Case Summary

On September 28, 2021, Rem Brands, Inc. (“Plaintiff”), represented by T. Larry Hicks of Cetrulo, Mowery & Hicks P.S.C., filed a contract lawsuit against H.B. Fuller Company, (“Defendant”), seeking declaratory relief and damages, including costs and attorney fees, for the alleged breach of the parties’ June 8, 2021 Termination Agreement by Defendant through its alleged failure to cooperate with Plaintiff’s attempts to register its chemical ingredients through REACH. This case was filed in U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Kentucky with Judge William O. Bertelsman and Judge Candace J. Smith presiding. 

 

In the complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that, “On May 3, 2016, Plaintiff and Defendant entered into two (2) contracts, a Patent and Technology License Agreement and a Distribution Agreement. Under the Patent and Technology License Agreement, Plaintiff granted to Defendant, a license to use certain REM technical information in order to make licensed hygiene products. This agreement also set forth the royalties that would be paid to Plaintiff, including annual royalty minimums.”

 

The Plaintiff further alleged that, “Under the Distribution Agreement, the parties set forth their respective rights with regard to distribution and sales of products made with REM odor control technology, trademarked as ODOGard.” “After operating under these agreements for five (5) years, the parties terminated the agreements through a Termination Agreement dated June 8, 2021 and accepted by Plaintiff on June 14, 2021.”

 

The Plaintiff further alleged that, “Under the termination agreement, Defendant agreed to (1) work cooperatively with the aim of ensuring a seamless customer supply transition from H.B. Fuller to REM; (2) to share with REM the data package submitted to obtain REACH1 registration for ODOGard; (3) to share with REM the data package used to write the ODOGard white paper; (4) to work with REM to report changes in identity under REACH from H.B. Fuller to REM; (5) to release REACHLaw, H.B. Fuller’s consulting firm on REACH registration issues, from any obligations restricting them from working with REM; (6) to release REACHLaw from any obligations restricting them from sharing information related to the REM product registration with REACH. In return, Plaintiff agreed to release Defendant from the unpaid minimum royalty payments which had accumulated under the May 2016 License Agreement, a sum in excess of three (3) million dollars.”

 

The Plaintiff also alleged that, “Despite the provisions of the Termination Agreement, once Plaintiff set about completing the registration process through REACH, Defendant failed to cooperate.”

 

The only claim for relief laid down by the Plaintiff is for the breach of Termination Agreement, wherein the Plaintiff alleged that, at the time of entering into the June 8, 2021 Termination Agreement, Defendant knew that it did not intend to cooperate with Plaintiff’s registration through REACH. That Defendant knew that Plaintiff relied on Defendant’s representations that it would cooperate with the REACH registration process.

 

In its prayer for relief, the Plaintiff requested the Court for a judgment declaring Defendant has breached the June 8, 2021 Termination Agreement, for compensatory and punitive damages to be proven at trial, attorney fees and costs herein expended and for all other relief to which the Plaintiff may appear entitled.

 

This case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the status of this case. Sign up to view the latest case updates and court documents.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    2:21-CV-00122

  • Filing Date:

    09/28/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

William O. Bertelsman

Referral Judge

Candace J. Smith

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

Rem Brands, Inc.

Defendant

H.B. Fuller Company

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

T. Larry Hicks

Attorney at Cetrulo, Mowery & Hicks P.S.C.

130 Dudley Road, Suite 200

Edgewood, KY 41017

 

Court Documents

#5

(#5) NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY RE: FAILURE TO FILE FRCP 7.1 DISCLOSURES to counsel of record, T. Larry Hicks. #1 Complaint has been filed by Rem Brands, Inc. without the required Rule 7.1 Disclosure statement. Rule 7.1 Disclosures must be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days. Failure to file the Disclosure Statement will cause the case to be submitted to the presiding judge for further action. cc: COR (ECO) (Entered: 09/29/2021)

#4

(#4) STANDING REFERRAL ORDER: 1) Case referred to presiding Magistrate Judge to supervise discovery and pretrial proceedings; 2) Magistrate Judge is authorized to conduct all pretrial and status conferences, hold hearings as required, and rule on nondispositive motions. Dispositive motions and motions in limine will be referred by the Clerk of court to the undersigned. Subject to other provisions of law, the final pretrial conference and trial will be before the undersigned, unless the parties agree to a trial by a Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 USC 636(c). Signed by Judge William O. Bertelsman on 6/18/2010.(ECO)cc: COR (Entered: 09/29/2021)

#3

(#3) Summons Issued as to H.B. Fuller Company; Summons issued and returned to counsel electronically (ECO) Modified to correct file date on 9/29/2021 (ECO). (Entered: 09/29/2021)

1 #2

Civil Cover Sheet

1 #1

Proposed Summons

1 #1

Main Document

 

Docket Entries

  • 09/29/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#5) NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY RE: FAILURE TO FILE FRCP 7.1 DISCLOSURES to counsel of record, T. Larry Hicks. #1 Complaint has been filed by Rem Brands, Inc. without the required Rule 7.1 Disclosure statement. Rule 7.1 Disclosures must be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days. Failure to file the Disclosure Statement will cause the case to be submitted to the presiding judge for further action. cc: COR (ECO) (Entered: 09/29/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/29/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#4) STANDING REFERRAL ORDER: 1) Case referred to presiding Magistrate Judge to supervise discovery and pretrial proceedings; 2) Magistrate Judge is authorized to conduct all pretrial and status conferences, hold hearings as required, and rule on nondispositive motions. Dispositive motions and motions in limine will be referred by the Clerk of court to the undersigned. Subject to other provisions of law, the final pretrial conference and trial will be before the undersigned, unless the parties agree to a trial by a Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 USC 636(c). Signed by Judge William O. Bertelsman on 6/18/2010.(ECO)cc: COR (Entered: 09/29/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/29/2021
  • DocketConflict Check run. (ECO) (Entered: 09/29/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/28/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#3) Summons Issued as to H.B. Fuller Company; Summons issued and returned to counsel electronically (ECO) Modified to correct file date on 9/29/2021 (ECO). (Entered: 09/29/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/28/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#1) COMPLAINT ( Filing fee $402; receipt number AKYEDC-5086786), filed by Rem Brands, Inc. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Summons, #2 Civil Cover Sheet)(ECO) (Entered: 09/29/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where H.B. FULLER COMPANY is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer T. Larry Hicks