Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/210654808/Progressive-Semiconductor-Solutions-v-Marvell-Semiconductor
Timestamp: 2016-10-25 23:18:59
Document Index: 38973815

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1331', '§ 1391', '§ 1400', '§ 284', '§ 284', '§ 285', 'art38', 'art1']

BrowseBrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet Music1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28BRANDON C. FERNALD (SBN 222429) FERNALD LAW GROUP LLP A REGISTERED LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP 510 W 6th Street, Suite 700 Los Angeles, California 90014 Tel: 323.410.0320 Fax: 323.410.0330 Email: brandon@fernaldlawgroup.com DAVID A. SKEELS (pro hac vice application to be filed) skeels@fsclaw.com JONATHAN T. SUDER (pro hac vice application to be filed) jts@fsclaw.com FRIEDMAN, SUDER & COOKE Tindall Square Warehouse No. 1 604 East 4th Street, Suite 200 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Tel: 817.334.0400 Fax: 817.334.0401 Attorneys for Plaintiff PROGRESSIVE SEMICONDUCTOR SOLUTIONS LLC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN DIVISION PROGRESSIVE SEMICONDUCTOR SOLUTIONS LLC, Plaintiff, v. QUALCOMM TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and MARVELL SEMICONDUCTOR, INC. Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO.
COMPLAINT FOR INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,473,349 Jury Trial Demanded
(“Plaintiff”) files this Original Complaint against Defendant MARVELL SEMICONDUCTOR, INC. (“Defendant”) alleging as follows: I. THE PARTIES 1. PROGRESSIVE SEMICONDUCTOR SOLUTIONS LLC (“Plaintiff”) is a Limited Liability Company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Texas, with a principal place of business in Plano, Texas. 2. Upon information and belief, Defendant MARVELL SEMICONDUCTOR, INC. (“MARVELL”) is a California corporation with a principal place of business in Santa Clara, CA. MARVELL’s counsel, Steve Marshall of Fish & Richardson P.C., 1425 K STREET, NW, SUITE 1100, has agreed to accept service of process on behalf of MARVELL. II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. This is an action for infringement of a United States patent. Federal
question jurisdiction is conferred to this Court over such action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). 4. Upon information and belief, Defendant has had minimum contacts
with the Southern Division of the Central District of California such that this venue is fair and reasonable. Defendant has committed such purposeful acts and/or transactions in this district that it reasonably should know and expect that it could be haled into this Court as a consequence of such activity. Upon information and belief, Defendant has transacted and, at the time of the filing of this Complaint, is transacting business within the Southern Division of the Central District of California. 5. For these reasons, personal jurisdiction exists and venue is proper in
this Court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c) and 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b).
III. PATENT INFRINGEMENT On October 29, 2002, United States Patent No. 6,473,349 (“the ‘349 Patent”) was duly and legally issued for “CASCODE SENSE AMP AND COLUMN SELECT CIRCUIT AND METHOD OF OPERATION.” A true and correct copy of the ‘349 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and made a part hereof. 7. 8. The ‘349 Patent is referred to as the “Patent-in-Suit.” By way of assignment, Plaintiff is the owner of all right, title and
interest in and to the Patent-in-Suit, with all rights to enforce it against infringers and to collect damages for all relevant times, including the right to prosecute this action. 9. Upon information and belief, Defendant manufactures, makes, has
made, imports, has imported, markets, sells and/or uses products and/or systems that infringe at least claims 1, 8, and 13 of the Patent-in-Suit. 10. On information and belief, Defendant MARVELL, without authority, consent, right, or license, and in direct infringement of the Patent-in-Suit, manufactures, uses, sells, imports, and/or offers for sale systems and/or products directly infringing one or more claims of the Patent-in-Suit. By way of example only, its 88W8686 chip directly infringes at least claims 1, 8, and 13 of the ‘349 Patent. 11. Plaintiff reserves the right to assert additional claims of the Patent-inSuit and reserves the right to assert additional patents. 12. Plaintiff has been damaged as a result of Defendant’s infringing conduct. Defendant is, thus, liable to Plaintiff in an amount that adequately compensates for its infringement, which, by law, cannot be less than a reasonable royalty, together with interest and costs as fixed by this Court under 35 U.S.C. § 284. -3-
13. Upon information and belief, Defendant will continue its infringement of the Patent-in-Suit unless enjoined by the Court. Defendant’s infringing conduct has caused Plaintiff irreparable harm and will continue to cause such harm without the issuance of an injunction. IV. RELATED CASE 14. This suit is related to another matter currently pending before The
Honorable Otis D. Wright, II, styled Progressive Semiconductor Solutions LLC v. Qualcomm Technologies Inc., et al., 8:13-cv-01535-ODW-JEM. In that action, as in this action, the Complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,473,349. In an Order dated March 3, 2014, the Court dismissed MARVELL without prejudice and directed Plaintiff to “file a new civil action against Marvell Semiconductor.” Dkt. 45 at 2. The Court also advised the parties that “[o]nce the Court receives these documents, it will issue a scheduling order in the Marvell Semiconductor action and coordinate the two cases for all purposes except trial.” Dkt. 45 at 3. V. JURY DEMAND Plaintiff hereby requests a trial by jury pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court find in its favor and against Defendant, and that the Court grant Plaintiff the following relief: a. Judgment that one or more claims of the Patent-in-Suit have been infringed, either literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, by Defendant; b. Judgment that Defendant account for and pay to Plaintiff all damages to and costs incurred by Plaintiff because of Defendant’s infringing activities and other conduct complained of herein; c. That Defendant’s infringement be found to be willful from the time Defendant became aware of the infringing nature of its services, which -4-
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 g. f. e. d.
is the time of filing of Plaintiff’s Complaint at the latest, and that the Court award treble damages for the period of such willful infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284. That Plaintiff be granted pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on the damages caused by Defendant’s infringing activities and other conduct complained of herein; That the Court declare this an exceptional case and award Plaintiff its reasonable attorney’s fees and costs in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 285; That Defendant be permanently enjoined from any further activity or conduct that infringes one or more claims of the Patent-in-Suit; and That Plaintiff be granted such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper under the circumstances.
FERNALD LAW GROUP LLP A Registered Limited Liability Partnership
/s Brandon C. Fernald Brandon Fernald
David A. Skeels State Bar No. 24041925 Jonathan T. Suder State Bar No. 19463350 FRIEDMAN, SUDER & COOKE Tindall Square Warehouse No. 1 604 East 4th Street, Suite 200 Fort Worth, Texas 76102 (817) 334-0400 Fax (817) 334-0401 jts@fsclaw.com skeels@fsclaw.com gunter@fsclaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff, Progressive Semiconductor Solutions LLC
Progressive Semiconductor Solutions v. Marvell Semiconductor by PriorSmart38 viewsEmbedDownloadDescriptionOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 8:14-cv-00330: Progressive Semiconductor Solutions LLC v. Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Central Dis...Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 8:14-cv-00330: Progressive Semiconductor Solutions LLC v. Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-la2G for more info.Interests: Types, Business/Law, Court FilingsRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Public DomainDownload as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentShow moreShow less
RelatedProtegrity Corp v. Ciphercloud, Inc.by PatentBlastEndeavor MeshTech v. Sensusby PriorSmartProtegrity v. Dataguiseby PatentBlastAKZO Nobel Coatings v. Dow Chemical Companyby PriorSmartActivision TV v. Solohealthby PatentBlastSchwing Bioset v. Pumpaction et. al.by PriorSmartAutomated Facilities Management v. Assetpointby PriorSmartEndeavor MeshTech v. Itronby PriorSmartHopewell Culture & Design v. Viewsonicby PatentBlastKickapoo Run v. Vision Infonetby PriorSmart1 Mainby Lja CsaProtegrity v. Element Payment Servicesby PatentBlastPowerline Innovations v. Netgearby PatentBlastSecure Web Conference v. Citrix Systemsby PriorSmartEndeavor MeshTech v. Itronby PriorSmartInnovative Automation v. Appleby PriorSmartCorda-Roy's Originals v. Lovesacby PatentBlastAdvanced Data Access v. Fujitsu et. al.by PriorSmartAdmob Sued for Patent Infringementby PriorSmartLumen View Technology v. EducationDynamics et. al.by PriorSmartOne-E-Way (CD Cal Jan 19, 2012)by dsb001Powell v. Jobar Internationalby PriorSmartEVM Systems v. Rex Medical et. al.by PriorSmartCrs v. Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wirelessby PriorSmartLumen View Technology v. Catchafireby PriorSmartAuto and Marine Technology Acquisition v. Marine Acquisitionby PriorSmartRelay IP v. BT Group Et. Al.by PatentBlastLong Corner Security v. TNS et. al.by PriorSmartSimilar to Progressive Semiconductor Solutions v. Marvell SemiconductorProtegrity Corp v. Ciphercloud, Inc.Endeavor MeshTech v. SensusProtegrity v. DataguiseAKZO Nobel Coatings v. Dow Chemical CompanyActivision TV v. SolohealthSchwing Bioset v. Pumpaction et. al.Automated Facilities Management v. AssetpointEndeavor MeshTech v. ItronHopewell Culture & Design v. ViewsonicKickapoo Run v. Vision Infonet1 MainProtegrity v. Element Payment ServicesPowerline Innovations v. NetgearSecure Web Conference v. Citrix SystemsEndeavor MeshTech v. ItronInnovative Automation v. AppleCorda-Roy's Originals v. LovesacAdvanced Data Access v. Fujitsu et. al.Admob Sued for Patent InfringementLumen View Technology v. EducationDynamics et. al.One-E-Way (CD Cal Jan 19, 2012)Powell v. Jobar InternationalEVM Systems v. Rex Medical et. al.Crs v. Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon WirelessLumen View Technology v. CatchafireAuto and Marine Technology Acquisition v. Marine AcquisitionRelay IP v. BT Group Et. Al.Long Corner Security v. TNS et. al.Surf Waves v. Pacific Surf Designs et. al.Long Corner Consumer Electronics v. ViewSonic