Source: https://fr.scribd.com/document/194782309/iLife-Technologies-v-Nintendo-of-America
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 17:00:53+00:00

Document:
Richmond v. Forever Gifts et. al.
Radiation Stabilization Solutions v. Varian Medical Systems et. al.
Stambler v. BankUnited Et. Al.
Stambler v. Ally Financial et. al.
Adaptix v. Pantech et. al.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION ILIFE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Plaintiff, v.
NINTENDO OF AMERICA, INC., Defendant.
et seq. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1338(a).
exercise of jurisdiction over Defendant would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice by deriving substantial revenue from the sale and use of products and services, including the accused products, within this District; expecting or being in a position to reasonably expect its actions to have consequences within this District; and regularly doing business, soliciting business, engaging in other persistent acts of conduct, and deriving substantial revenue from goods and services provided to individuals in Texas and in this District. 6. iLife is a Texas company with its principal place of business in this District.
These acts cause injury to iLife within the District.
Communication (NFC) functionality.4 Nintendos advertisements show that the Accused Products and Services are not only able to infringe the Asserted Patents, they are not capable of any substantial non-infringing use. They also show that Nintendo intends for its customers to infringe the Asserted Patents by using the Accused Products and Services. 13. Defendant has actual knowledge of the Asserted Patents and that the Accused Products and Services infringe the Asserted Patents since at least the service of this cause of action. In re Bill of Lading Transmission & Processing Sys. Patent Litigation, 681 F.3d 1323, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (allowing notice of indirect infringement upon service). COUNT ONE PATENT INFRINGEMENT The 481 Patent 14. iLife repeats and re-alleges the allegations in the foregoing paragraphs. 15. Defendant directly infringes, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, and has infringed one or more claims of the 481 Patent by, without authority, making, using, importing, offering to sell, or selling the Accused Products and Services that practice the inventions of the 481 Patent within the United States. 16. Defendant indirectly infringes the 481 Patent within the United States by inducement under 35 U.S.C. 271(b). Defendant has induced and continues to induce users of the Accused Products and Services to directly infringe one or more claims of the 481 Patent by controlling and directing, inter alia, the actions of users and by advertising and claiming benefits that require its customers to commit acts of infringement.
939 Patent by controlling and directing, inter alia, the actions of users and by advertising and claiming benefits that require its customers to commit acts of infringement. 24. Defendant indirectly infringes the 939 Patent within the United States by committing contributory infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271(c). Defendant has contributed to end-user customers direct infringement of one or more claims of the 939 Patent by providing the Accused Products and Services which, as evidenced by Defendants advertisements, are specially made for use in a manner infringing the 939 Patent and have no substantial non-infringing uses. 25. Defendants infringement has harmed iLife and will continue to cause severe and irreparable damage as long as Defendants infringing activities continue. 26. iLife is entitled to recover damages adequate to compensate it for the injuries complained of herein, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty. 27. iLife is further entitled to have Defendant enjoined from committing future acts of infringement that would subject iLife to irreparable harm. COUNT THREE PATENT INFRINGEMENT The 796 Patent 28. iLife repeats and re-alleges the allegations in the foregoing paragraphs. 29. Defendant directly infringes, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, and has infringed one or more claims of the 796 Patent by, without authority, making, using, importing, offering to sell, or selling the Accused Products and Services that practice the inventions of the 796 Patent within the United States.
using, importing, offering to sell, or selling the Accused Products and Services that practice the inventions of the 331 Patent within the United States. 37. Defendant indirectly infringes the 331 Patent within the United States by inducement under 35 U.S.C. 271(b). Defendant has induced and continues to induce users of the Accused Products and Services to directly infringe one or more claims of the 331 Patent by controlling and directing, inter alia, the actions of users and by advertising and claiming benefits that require its customers to commit acts of infringement. 38. Defendant indirectly infringes the 331 Patent within the United States by committing contributory infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271(c). Defendant has contributed to end-user customers direct infringement one or more claims of the 331 Patent by providing the Accused Products and Services which, as evidenced by Defendants advertisements, are specially made for use in a manner infringing the 331 Patent and have no substantial non-infringing uses. 39. Defendants infringement has harmed iLife and will continue to cause severe and irreparable damage as long as Defendants infringing activities continue. 40. iLife is entitled to recover damages adequate to compensate it for the injuries complained of herein, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty. 41. iLife is further entitled to have Defendant enjoined from committing future acts of infringement that would subject iLife to irreparable harm. COUNT FIVE PATENT INFRINGEMENT The 461 Patent 42. iLife repeats and re-alleges the allegations in the foregoing paragraphs.
43. Defendant directly infringes, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, and has infringed one or more claims of the 461 Patent by, without authority, making, using, importing, offering to sell, or selling the Accused Products and Services that practice the inventions of the 461 Patent within the United States. 44. Defendant indirectly infringes the 461 Patent within the United States by inducement under 35 U.S.C. 271(b). Defendant has induced and continues to induce users of the Accused Products and Services to directly infringe one or more claims of the 461 Patent by controlling and directing, inter alia, the actions of users and by advertising and claiming benefits that require its customers to commit acts of infringement. 45. Defendant indirectly infringes the 461 Patent within the United States by committing contributory infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271(c). Defendant has contributed to end-user customers direct infringement of one or more claims of the 461 Patent by providing the Accused Products and Services which, as evidenced by Defendants advertisements, are specially made for use in a manner infringing the 461 Patent and have no substantial non-infringing uses. 46. Defendants infringement has harmed iLife and will continue to cause severe and irreparable damage as long as Defendants infringing activities continue. 47. iLife is entitled to recover damages adequate to compensate it for the injuries complained of herein, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty. 48. iLife is further entitled to have Defendant enjoined from committing future acts of infringement that would subject iLife to irreparable harm.
COUNT SIX PATENT INFRINGEMENT The 890 Patent 49. iLife repeats and re-alleges the allegations in the foregoing paragraphs. 50. Defendant directly infringes, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, and has infringed one or more claims of the 890 Patent by, without authority, making, using, importing, offering to sell, or selling the Accused Products and Services that practice the inventions of the 890 Patent within the United States. 51. Defendant indirectly infringes the 890 Patent within the United States by inducement under 35 U.S.C. 271(b). Defendant has induced and continues to induce users of the Accused Products and Services to directly infringe one or more claims of the 890 Patent by controlling and directing, inter alia, the actions of users and by advertising and claiming benefits that require its customers to commit acts of infringement. 52. Defendant indirectly infringes the 890 Patent within the United States by committing contributory infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271(c). Defendant has contributed to end-user customers direct infringement of one or more claims of the 890 Patent by providing the Accused Products and Services which, as evidenced by Defendants advertisements, are specially made for use in a manner infringing the 890 Patent and have no substantial non-infringing uses. 53. Defendants infringement has harmed iLife and will continue to cause severe and irreparable damage as long as Defendants infringing activities continue. 54. iLife is entitled to recover damages adequate to compensate it for the injuries complained of herein, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty.
the law, as well as its costs; and E. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable.
Respectfully submitted, /s/ S. Wallace Dunwoody Michael C. Wilson mwilson@munckwilson.com Texas Bar No. 21704590 S. Wallace Dunwoody wdunwoody@munckwilson.com Texas Bar No. 24040838 MUNCK WILSON MANDALA, LLP 12770 Coit Road, Suite 600 Dallas, Texas 75251 Telephone: (972) 628-3600 Telecopier: (972) 628-3616 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF, ILIFE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.