Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/234224748/DietGoal-Innovations-v-Taco-John-s-International
Timestamp: 2015-05-25 02:36:06
Document Index: 631749292

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1331', '§17', '§ 1391', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 284', '§ 287', '§ 285']

P. 1DietGoal Innovations v. Taco John's InternationalDietGoal Innovations v. Taco John's InternationalRatings: (0)|Views: 9|Likes: 0Published by PatentBlastDietGoal Innovations v. Taco John's InternationalDietGoal Innovations v. Taco John's InternationalMore info:Published by: PatentBlast on Jul 17, 2014Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reservedAvailability:Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content|Add to collectionSee moreSee lesshttps://www.scribd.com/doc/234224748/DietGoal-Innovations-v-Taco-John-s-International07/17/2014pdftextoriginal PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Page 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION DIETGOAL INNOVATIONS LLC, Plaintiff, v. TACO JOHN’S INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant. § § § § § § § § § Civil Action No. 2:12-cv-______ Jury Trial Demanded PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Plaintiff DietGoal Innovations LLC files this Complaint against Taco John’s International, Inc. (“Defendant”) and alleges as follows: PARTIES
Plaintiff DietGoal Innovations LLC (“DietGoal”) is a Texas Limited Liability Company based in Austin, Texas. 2.
Upon information and belief, Defendant is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Wyoming, with its principal place of business located at 808 West 20th Street, P.O. Box 1589, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82001. Defendant may be served with process through its registered agent Linda Parsons, 2724 Millimar, Plano, Texas 75075. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
This is an action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the United States of America, Title 35, United States Code. 4.
This Court has original jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Page 2 5.
Upon information and belief, Defendant is subject to this Court’s general and/or specific personal jurisdiction because it (a) is a resident of the State of Texas; and/or (b) has designated an agent for service of process in the State of Texas; and/or (c) has committed acts of infringement in the State of Texas as alleged below; and/or (d) is engaged in continuous and systematic activities in the State of Texas. Therefore, this Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant under the Texas long-arm statute, TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE §17.042.
Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(c) and 1400(b). On information and belief, Defendant has a regular and established place of business in this district, and/or has transacted business in this district and has committed and/or induced acts of patent infringement in this district. THE PATENT-IN-SUIT 7.
On July 1, 2003, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued United States Patent No. 6,585,516 (“the ʻ
516 Patent”) entitled “Method and System for Computerized Visual Behavior Analysis, Training, and Planning,” a true copy of which is attached as Exhibit A. 8.
DietGoal is the exclusive licensee of the ‘516 Patent and possesses all rights to sue for and recover all past, present and future damages for infringement of the ‘516 Patent. CLAIM 1 -- INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,585,516
Defendant has been and now is directly infringing one or more claims of the ‘516 Patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), by making and/or using in the United States the computer implemented website www.tacojohns.com, which has a computerized meal planning interface at http://www.tacojohns.com/menu/index.cfm/ and its related webpages such as http://www.tacojohns.com/menu/menudetail5.cfm/crispytaco (“Meal Builder”). PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Page 3 10.
In addition and/or in the alternative, the Defendant has been and/or is now indirectly infringing one or more claims of the ‘516 Patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), by inducing visitors to its website and its Meal Builder (“End Users”) to directly infringe the ‘516 Patent through their use of the infringing instrumentality. The Defendant induces such infringement by at least making its website available to End Users and providing links and/or other directions on its website and/or the internet for End Users to visit its Meal Builder. The Defendant engages in such activities knowingly and, at least from the time of receipt of the present Complaint, has done so with the knowledge that such activity encourages End Users to directly infringe the ‘516 Patent. 11.
As a direct and proximate consequence of the acts and practices of the Defendant in infringing, directly and/or indirectly, one or more claims of the ‘516 Patent, DietGoal has suffered, is suffering, and will continue to suffer injury and damages for which it is entitled to relief under 35 U.S.C. § 284 in an amount to be determined at trial. 12.
The limitation of damages provision of 35 U.S.C. § 287(a) is not applicable to DietGoal. 13.
This case presents exceptional circumstances within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285 and DietGoal is thus entitled to an award of its reasonable attorneys’ fees. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
DietGoal, under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, requests a trial by jury of any issues so triable. Activity (0)FiltersAdd to collectionReview Add NoteLikeShowingAllMost RecentReviewsAll NotesLikesYou've already reviewed this. Edit your review.Rating 0/5Post notePost reviewPost replyPost note and likeNo activity yetLoad more