Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/175243473/Landmark-Technology-v-Jones-Group
Timestamp: 2016-08-29 13:27:00
Document Index: 510078223

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', 'art35']

BrowseUploadSign inJoinBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicWelcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out moreIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISIONLANDMARK TECHNOLOGY, LLC, Plaintiff, v. THE JONES GROUP, INC. Defendant.
CASE NO. 6:13-cv-767
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Plaintiff Landmark Technology, LLC ("Landmark"), for its Complaint against The Jones Group, Inc. ("Defendant"), alleges as follows: JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. This is an action for patent infringement in violation of the Patent Act of the
organized under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business at 719 W. Front Street, Suite 157, Tyler, Texas 75702. 6. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendant The
Jones Group, Inc. ("The Jones Group"), is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York, with its principal place of business at 1411 Broadway, New York, New York 10018. 7. Plaintiff is further informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that The Jones
Group is in the business of selling, among other things, clothing, shoes, handbags, and leather goods, and derives a significant portion of its revenue from sales and distribution via Internetbased electronic commerce conducted on and using at least, but not limited to, the Internet websites located at http://www.JonesNewYork.com, http://www.NineWest.com, http://www.EasySpirit.com, http://www.StuartWeitzman.com, http://www.AnneKlein.com, http://www.RachelRoy.com, http://www.Bandolino.com, and http://www.JNY.com (the "Websites"). 8. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that, at all times
relevant hereto, the Jones Group has done and continues to do business in this judicial district, including, but not limited to, by selling products to customers located in this judicial district by way of the Jones Group's Websites. FACTS 9. On November 19, 1996, United States Patent No. 5,576,951 entitled "Automated
Sales and Services System" was duly and legally issued to Lawrence B. Lockwood ("Lockwood") as inventor. A true and correct copy of United States Patent No. 5,576,951 is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference. Following a reexamination of Patent No. 5,576,951, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued an Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate, Number US 5,576,951 C1, on January 29, 2008, confirming the validity of all ten (10) original claims and allowing twenty-two (22) additional claims. A true
and correct copy of Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate, Number US 5,576,951 C1 is attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by this reference. Following a second reexamination on the '951 patent the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued an Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate, Number US 5,576,951 C2, on May 9, 2013, again confirming the validity of all thirty-two (32) claims. A true and correct copy of Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate, Number US 5,576,951 C2 is attached hereto as Exhibit "C" and incorporated herein by this reference. (United States Patent No. 5,576,951, together with the additional claims confirmed and allowed by Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate, Number US 5,576,951 C1, and as confirmed by Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate, Number US 5,576,951 C2, shall hereinafter be referred to as the "'951 Patent.") On September 1, 2008, Lockwood licensed all rights in the '951 Patent to Plaintiff. Plaintiff is the exclusive licensee of the entire right, title and interest in and to the '951 Patent, including all rights to enforce the '951 Patent and to recover for infringement. The '951 Patent is valid and in force. 10. On March 7, 2006, United States Patent No. 7,010,508 entitled "Automated
Multimedia Data Processing Network" (the "'508 Patent") was duly and legally issued to Lawrence B. Lockwood as inventor. A true and correct copy of the '508 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit "D" and incorporated herein by this reference. On September 1, 2008, Lockwood licensed all rights in the '508 Patent to Plaintiff. Plaintiff is the exclusive licensee of the entire right, title and interest in and to the '508 Patent, including all rights to enforce the '508 Patent and to recover for infringement. The '508 Patent is valid and in force. 11. On or about April 22, 2011, Plaintiff sent Defendant a letter informing Defendant
of the '951 Patent and the '508 Patent and that Defendant's actions, as more fully described below, constituted infringement of the '951 Patent and the '508 Patent. 12. As more fully laid out below, Defendant has been and is now infringing the '951
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Direct Infringement of the '951 Patent, in Violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a)) 13. 14. Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1-12. The claims of the '951 Patent relate to "a computer search system for retrieving
information" and "a computerized system for selecting and ordering a variety of information, goods and services," each comprising a variety of features. 15. The Jones Group's Websites are a "computer search system[s] for retrieving
information" and "computerized system[s] for selecting and ordering a variety of information, goods and services" practicing the claims of the '951 Patent. 16. By way of example only, and not limited to it, Defendant's Websites infringe
Claim 10 of the '951 Patent in that, for example, the Defendant's Websites provide a system that practices all of the limitations of the claim and on which its customers search for information about products and purchase products, including: a. The Websites are a computerized system for selecting and ordering
computers practice all of the remaining limitations of Claim 10 of the '951 Patent. 17. Defendant, therefore, by the acts complained of herein, is making, using, selling,
unless restrained and enjoined, will continue to do so, all to Plaintiff's irreparable injury. It would be difficult to ascertain the amount of compensation that would afford Plaintiff adequate relief for such future and continuing acts, and a multiplicity of judicial proceedings would be required. Plaintiff does not have an adequate remedy at law to compensate it for the injuries threatened. 19. By reason of the acts of Defendant alleged herein, Plaintiff has suffered damage
in an amount to be proved at trial. 20. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that the infringement
by Defendant is willful, wanton, and deliberate, without license, and with full knowledge of the '951 Patent, thereby making this an exceptional case entitling Plaintiff to attorneys' fees and enhanced damages. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Inducing Infringement of the '951 Patent, in Violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b)) 21. 22. Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1-20. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendant has
actively and knowingly induced infringement of the '951 Patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) by, among other things, inducing its customers (the end users of its Websites) to utilize their own computers in combination with its Websites, and incorporated and/or related systems, to search for and order information and products from its Websites in such a way as to infringe the '951 Patent. 23. By reason of the acts of Defendant alleged herein, Plaintiff has suffered damage
in an amount to be proved at trial. 24. Defendant threatens to continue to engage in the acts complained of herein and,
by Defendant is willful, wanton, and deliberate, without license, and with full knowledge of the '951 Patent, thereby making this an exceptional case entitling Plaintiff to attorneys' fees and enhanced damages. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Direct Infringement of the '508 Patent, in Violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a)) 26. 27. Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1-12. The claims of the '508 Patent relate to "an automated multimedia system for data
processing for delivering information on request to at least one user," comprising a variety of features. 28. The Jones Group's Websites are "an automated multimedia system for data
processing for delivering information on request to at least one user," practicing the claims of the '508 Patent. 29. By way of example, only, and not limited to it, Defendant's Websites infringe
Claim 8 of the '508 Patent in that, for example, Defendant's Websites provide a system that practices all of the limitations of the claim and on which its customers search for information about products, including: a. The Websites are an automated multimedia system for data
processing for delivering information on request to at least one user. That is, it uses text and graphics, among other means, to deliver product information and other information to Defendant's customers. b. and its supporting systems). c. The web server(s) of the Websites practice all of the remaining The Websites include at least one computerized station (the server
limitations of Claim 8 of the '508 Patent. 30. Defendant, therefore, by the acts complained of herein, is making, using, selling,
and/or services embodying the invention, and has in the past and is now continuing to infringe the '508 Patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). 31. Defendant threatens to continue to engage in the acts complained of herein and,
unless restrained and enjoined, will continue to do so, all to Plaintiff's irreparable injury. It would be difficult to ascertain the amount of compensation that would afford Plaintiff adequate relief for such future and continuing acts, and a multiplicity of judicial proceedings would be required. Plaintiff does not have an adequate remedy at law to compensate it for the injuries threatened. 32. By reason of the acts of Defendant alleged herein, Plaintiff has suffered damage
in an amount to be proved at trial. 33. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that the infringement
by Defendant is willful, wanton, and deliberate, without license, and with full knowledge of the '508 Patent, thereby making this an exceptional case entitling Plaintiff to attorneys' fees and enhanced damages. FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Inducing Infringement of the '508 Patent, in Violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b)) 34. 35. Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1-12, 26-33. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendant has
actively and knowingly induced infringement of the '508 Patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) by, among other things, inducing its customers (the end users of its Websites) to utilize their own computers in combination with its Websites, and incorporated and/or related systems, to search for and order information and products from its Websites in such a way as to infringe the '508 Patent. 36. By reason of the acts of Defendant alleged herein, Plaintiff has suffered damage
unless restrained and enjoined, will continue to do so, all to Plaintiff's irreparable damage. Plaintiff does not have an adequate remedy at law. 38. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that the infringement
by Defendant is willful, wanton, and deliberate, without license, and with full knowledge of the '508 Patent, thereby making this an exceptional case entitling Plaintiff to attorneys' fees and enhanced damages. JURY DEMAND Plaintiff demands a jury trial on all issues so triable. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as follows: A. B. C. For an order finding that the '951 Patent is valid and enforceable; For an order finding that the '508 Patent is valid and enforceable; For an order finding that, by the acts complained of herein, Defendant has directly
DATED: October 10, 2013 OF COUNSEL: Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP Stanley M. Gibson (Cal. Bar No. 162329) smg@jmbm.com Patrick M. Ryan (Cal. Bar No. 203215) pmr@jmbm.com Ali Shalchi (Cal. Bar No. 239164) axs@jmbm.com 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Seventh Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 203-8080 Facsimile: (310) 203-0567
Landmark Technology v. Jones Group by PriorSmart35 viewsEmbedDownloadDescriptionOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 6:13-cv-00767: Landmark Technology, LLC v. The Jones Group, Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, no ju...Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 6:13-cv-00767: Landmark Technology, LLC v. The Jones Group, Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l9hi 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
RelatedLandmark Technology v. Belkby PriorSmartLandmark Technology v. Build-A-Bear Workshopby PriorSmartLandmark Technology v. Deluxeby PriorSmartLandmark Technology v. Cacheby PatentBlastLandmark Technology v. Tandy Leather Factoryby PriorSmartLandmark Technology v. Redbox Automated Retailby PatentBlastDef.30 1 Exhibits H Mby Len HarrisLBS Innovations v. Berroco et. al.by PriorSmartGeotag v. SuccessFactorsby PatentBlastCDD Technologies v. Acer America et. al.by PriorSmartMorsa v. Facebookby PriorSmartThe Dow Chemical Company v. Nova Chemicals Corporation (Canada), et al., C.A. 05-737-JJF (D. Del. July 30, 2010)by YCSTBlogLumen View Technology v. Evolvby PriorSmartEclipse IP v. CDWby PatentBlastEclipse IP v. PetMed Expressby PriorSmartTelematics v. CarrierWebby PriorSmartCloud Satchel v. Amazon.comby PriorSmartData Carriers v. Barnes & Nobleby PriorSmartTelematics v. Webtech Wireless et. al.by PriorSmartData Carriers v. Hewlett-Packard Companyby PriorSmartData Carriers v. Lenovoby PriorSmartCareerBuilder v. GeoTagby PriorSmartCellport Systems v. Pantech et. al.by PriorSmartCreateAds v. Hewlett-Packard Companyby PriorSmartFontem Ventures et. al. v. Spark Industriesby PriorSmartFontem Ventures et. al. v. Loecby PriorSmartUnited Pet Group v. Wise Puppy et. al.by PriorSmartHarcol Research v. Black Market Distributionby PriorSmartSimilar to Landmark Technology v. Jones GroupLandmark Technology v. BelkLandmark Technology v. Build-A-Bear WorkshopLandmark Technology v. DeluxeLandmark Technology v. CacheLandmark Technology v. Tandy Leather FactoryLandmark Technology v. Redbox Automated RetailDef.30 1 Exhibits H MLBS Innovations v. Berroco et. al.Geotag v. SuccessFactorsCDD Technologies v. Acer America et. al.Morsa v. FacebookThe Dow Chemical Company v. Nova Chemicals Corporation (Canada), et al., C.A. 05-737-JJF (D. Del. July 30, 2010)Lumen View Technology v. EvolvEclipse IP v. CDWEclipse IP v. PetMed ExpressTelematics v. CarrierWebCloud Satchel v. Amazon.comData Carriers v. Barnes & NobleTelematics v. Webtech Wireless et. al.Data Carriers v. Hewlett-Packard CompanyData Carriers v. LenovoCareerBuilder v. GeoTagCellport Systems v. Pantech et. al.CreateAds v. Hewlett-Packard CompanyFontem Ventures et. al. v. Spark IndustriesFontem Ventures et. al. v. LoecUnited Pet Group v. Wise Puppy et. al.Harcol Research v. Black Market DistributionAmerican Covers v. Rok ImportsAeroflex v. Armacell Enterprise