Healthe’s bankruptcy petition identifies the company’s shareholders. Lighting Science Group Corp. holds slightly more than 44% of the equity and three trusts affiliated with Stephen M. Ross have a 28% ownership stake.
The company’s Schedules of Assets and Liabilities disclose:
- $12.2 million in assets (including nearly 100 UV technology patents);
- $15 million in unsecured claims;
- Barnes & Thornburg LLP, representing Healthe in its lawsuit against HEO3, is owed about $400,000;
- Crystal IS is owed $2.6 million and party to a pay supply contract with Healthe; and
- SMR Trust is owed $8.2 million.
The company’s Statement of Financial Affairs relates:
- Healthe, Inc., generated $3.2 million in revenue in 2021 and $6.6 million in 2020;
- the company is involved in another lawsuit captioned Nichia Corporation v. Healthe, Inc., Case No. 6-19-cv-01332 (M.D. Fla.);
- the names of the company’s seven directors and current and recent officers;
- Alvarez & Marsal Private Equity Performance Improvement was paid $668,000 within the 90-day period prior to the bankruptcy filing and Alvarez & Marsal collected another $3.7 million on account of Jim Guyette and Troy Temple serving as Healthe’s COO and CCO within the past year;
- Far UV Solutions was paid about $3,000 per month in the 90-days prior to bankruptcy; and
- lobbying firm Polaris Consulting, LLC, received $30,000 in the 90-days prior to bankruptcy.
Healthe and Sterilray’s disputes center on the technology described in U.S. Patent Nos. 9,700,642, 8,975,605, 8,481,985, and 8,753,575 and another pending patent published as US2017/0304472. Healthe’s legal teams at Barnes & Thornburg LLP and Akerman LLP say Healthe hasn’t and doesn’t infringe on HEO3’s patents and HEO3’s infringement allegations are based on impermissibly expanding the claim scope in an attempt to encompass Helathe’s accused products. Healthe believes HEO3’s infringement contentions reflect the fact that HEO3 is defining words contrary to their plain and ordinary meaning, and that, under the plain and ordinary meaning of the terms, the asserted claims are not infringed by Healthe and are invalid. “Adoption of Healthe’s proposed constructions, which are based on the intrinsic evidence and, for one claim term, expert testimony, will make it clear that Healthe is entitled to summary judgment that it does not infringe the asserted claims and that the asserted claims are invalid,” the lawyers told Judge Dalton earlier this month.