The inventor of South Carolina's best-selling flavored vodka says he'sbeen cheated by the distillery that makes and merchandises it. RichardPatrick says the owners of the Irvin-House Vineyard and FireflyDistillery on Wadmalaw Island conspired to keep the profits fromFirefly Sweet Tea Vodka to themselves.
    Patrick, a onetimetour guide and tasting room associate at the Irvin-House Vineyard andFirefly Distillery, sued both businesses and their principals, JimIrvin and Scott Newitt.
    The vodka is sold in South Carolina and10 other Southeast states, including Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia,Florida, Louisiana and Tennessee.
    But the lawsuit comes on theheels of an announcement that Firefly Distillery and The SazeracCompany of New Orleans have formed a joint venture to sell FireflySweet Tea Vodka globally.
    Charleston attorney Daniel Slotchiverrepresents Patrick with Clayton McCullough of the Pratt-Thomas Walkerlaw firm, declined to comment, saying the complaint speaks for itself.
    MaryFrash, a spokeswoman for the vineyard and distillery, said thedefendants have not issued a response to Patrick's allegations.
    Irvin-HouseVineyards produces wine from muscadine grapes. Firefly Distillery,located on the same property, produces and sells two products: FireflyMuscadine Vodka, using grapes grown at the vineyard, and Firefly SweetTea Vodka.
    The two companies have overlapping staff, ownership, management and business interests.
    Accordingto the complaint in the Charleston County Court of Common Pleas,Patrick was hired to work in the vineyard's tasting room and to conducttours, and later entered into an independent contractor relationshipwith the distillery. Under that agreement, Patrick sold muscadine vodkaon commission.
    Patrick decided to try his hand at coming upwith a new flavored vodka. He experimented with different formulas andingredients, outside of the scope of his daily work, the complaint said.
    DuringSeptember and October 2007, Patrick says he worked almost exclusivelyon trying to come up with a coffee-flavored vodka. After multipleattempts failed, he was inspired by a bourbon and sweet tea drink hesampled, and turned his attention to creating a vodka that tasted likesweet iced tea.
    The drink made its debut at the Irvin-Housevineyard a month later, during a series of dinners put on for food andbeverage industry executives. Based on the positive response itreceived, Patrick says he perfected the formula, came up with a namefor it, and pitched the drink to Irvin and Newitt as an addition toFirefly's product line.
    Irvin and Newitt agreed. Patrick sayshe told the two men he wanted to have a written agreement signed beforeproceeding any further on what he described as a "partnership and/orjoint venture."
    Patrick's complaint states that both men toldhim there didn't need to be a written agreement and that he would be"taken care of" as a partner if and when the product proved successful.
    FireflySweet Tea Vodka came into distribution in April this year, and quicklybecame the top-selling flavored vodka in South Carolina, the complaintstates.
    Still uneasy about his compensation and ownershiprights, Patrick said he again sought a written agreement with the twomen. Again, he says, he was told he would be taken care of, and wastold that such agreements were not normally written down, but were oralcontracts.
    "Based on his inexperience and naiveté, [Patrick]believed [these representations] and did not get a written documentdetailing the terms of the joint venture/partnership," the complaintstates.
    By July, Firefly Sweet Tea Vodka was a runaway success, not only in Charleston, but increasingly throughout the Southeast.
    Patrickcontends his personal efforts wee largely responsible for getting thevodka into local restaurants and bars and helping it establish afoothold in the crowded flavored vodka market.
    Despite theseefforts, the complaint states, Patrick was pushed out of the jointventure on July 14, based on the false assertion that he had engaged incorporate espionage.
    Since terminating their relationship,Patrick said Irvin and Newitt have denied his creation of the formula,denied his rights to the term "Sweet Tea Vodka," and denied hisownership interested to the formula and any share of the profitsgenerated by it.
    Co-counsel Clayton McCullough said the lawsuit was filed after attempts to negotiate proved fruitless.
    Asked about how much money might be involved, McCullough said, "That's the great unknown at this point.
    "We'vegotten some intellectual property counsel to work with us and we canmake some assumptions based on their promotional literature, but ourclient has not been involved with them for quite some time now andhonestly, we just don't know," he said.