Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/132978360/Beacon-Navigation-v-Hyundai-Motor-Company-et-al
Timestamp: 2017-02-22 00:49:44
Document Index: 300768942

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 284', '§ 285', 'art0', 'artc4', 'art1']

Beacon Navigation v. Hyundai Motor Company et. al. | Patent | Patent Infringement
BrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWAREBEACON NAVIGATION GMBH, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. v. HYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANY; HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA; AND HYUNDAI MOTOR MANUFACTURING ALABAMA, LLC, Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
COMPLAINT Plaintiff Beacon Navigation GmbH (“Beacon” or “Plaintiff”), for its Complaint against Defendants Hyundai Motor Company (“Hyundai Motor Company”), Hyundai Motor America (“Hyundai Motor America”), and Hyundai Motor Manufacturing Alabama, LLC (“Hyundai Motor Manufacturing Alabama”) states and alleges as follows: THE PARTIES 1. Plaintiff Beacon is a Swiss company with limited liability with a principal place
is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 700 Hyundai Blvd., Montgomery, AL 36105. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.,
1391(d) and/or 1400(b) because (1) a substantial part of the events giving rise to Beacon’s claims occurred in the District of Delaware, (2) because each of the Defendants is either resident in or otherwise subject to personal jurisdiction in the District of Delaware, or is an alien, or (3) each of the Defendants has committed acts of infringement in and has a regular and established place of business in the District of Delaware. BACKGROUND 7. Beacon owns all right, title and interest in U.S. Patent No. 5,878,368 (the “’368
patent”) (collectively, the “patent-in-suit”). 8. The ’368 patent, entitled “Navigation System with User Definable Cost Values,”
was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on March 2, 1999, after full and fair examination. A copy of the ’368 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 9. Hyundai Motor Company, Hyundai Motor America, and Hyundai Motor
Manufacturing Alabama manufacture, sell and distribute vehicles with navigation systems, including but not limited to the Hyundai Veracruz.
COUNT I INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’368 PATENT 10. herein. 11. Hyundai Motor Company, Hyundai Motor America, and Hyundai Motor Beacon incorporates each of the preceding paragraphs 1-9 as if fully set forth
Manufacturing Alabama have been and are infringing literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, directly, contributorily, or by inducement, at least claims 1 and 15 of the ’368 patent. 12. Hyundai Motor Company, Hyundai Motor America, and Hyundai Motor
Manufacturing Alabama directly infringe, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), by making, using, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing in or into the United States, without authority, products that practice the ’368 patent, including but not limited to the Hyundai Veracruz. 13. Upon information and belief, Hyundai Motor Company, Hyundai Motor America,
and Hyundai Motor Manufacturing Alabama had knowledge of the ’368 patent based on a letter sent to each of them on September 28, 2011. 14. Upon information and belief, Hyundai Motor Company, Hyundai Motor America,
and Hyundai Motor Manufacturing Alabama have contributed to direct infringement of the ’368 patent by others (e.g., consumers), in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), because the GPS navigation systems in their products, including but not limited to the Hyundai Veracruz, are specially adapted for an infringing use of the ’368 patent, embody a material part of the inventions claimed in the ’368 patent, and are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use. 15. Upon information and belief, Hyundai Motor Company, Hyundai Motor America,
and Hyundai Motor Manufacturing Alabama actively induce others (e.g., consumers) to directly infringe the ’368 patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c), by providing products with GPS navigation systems, including but not limited to the Hyundai Veracruz, along with instructions, user manuals, or technical assistance actively directing, encouraging, or assisting infringement of the ’368 patent, and/or by providing a system where one of the core and common features leads to third party infringement of the ’368 patent. 16. Upon information and belief, Hyundai Motor Company, Hyundai Motor America,
and Hyundai Motor Manufacturing Alabama had knowledge of the ’368 patent based on a letter sent to each of them on September 28, 2011 but have engaged in infringing conduct nonetheless. Hyundai Motor Company, Hyundai Motor America, and Hyundai Motor Manufacturing Alabama’s infringement is willful. 17. Beacon has no adequate remedy at law against these acts of patent infringement.
Unless Hyundai Motor Company, Hyundai Motor America, and Hyundai Motor Manufacturing Alabama are permanently enjoined from further infringement of the ’368 patent, Beacon will suffer irreparable harm. 18. As a direct and proximate result of the acts of patent infringement by Hyundai
Motor Company, Hyundai Motor America, and Hyundai Motor Manufacturing Alabama, Beacon has been damaged in an amount not presently known. 19. Beacon has incurred and will incur attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses in the
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Beacon requests that judgment be entered in its favor and against Hyundai Motor Company, Hyundai Motor America, and Hyundai Motor Manufacturing Alabama, and that the Court award the following relief to Beacon: (a) damages in an amount adequate to compensate Beacon for infringement of the patent-in-suit, and in no event less than a reasonable royalty; (b) increased damages in an amount three times the damages found by the jury or assessed by the Court for the willful infringement of the patents-in-suit pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284; (c) (d) expenses, costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285; a preliminary and, thereafter, a permanent injunction against Hyundai Motor Company, Hyundai Motor America, and Hyundai Motor Manufacturing Alabama, their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all other persons in active concert or participation with any of them who receive actual notice thereof; (e) (f) prejudgment and post-judgment interest on all damages; and such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. JURY DEMAND In accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 38 and 39, Beacon asserts its rights under the Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution and demands a trial by jury on all issues triable by a jury.
Sign up to vote on this titleUsefulNot usefulBeacon Navigation v. Hyundai Motor Company et. al. by PriorSmart0.0 (0)EmbedDownloadDescriptionOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-11414-PJD-MAR: Beacon Navigation GmbH v. Hyundai Motor Company et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District o...Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-11414-PJD-MAR: Beacon Navigation GmbH v. Hyundai Motor Company et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, the Hon. Patrick J. Duggan presiding. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l7TN 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
RelatedDelaware Radio Technologies LLC et. al.by PriorSmartBeacon Navigation v. Hyundai Motor Company et. al.by PriorSmartBeacon Navigation v. Hyundai Motor Company et. al.by PriorSmartc4cast.com v. Hearst et. al.by PriorSmartYesware v. RPost Holdings et. al..pdfby PatentBlastSprint Communications Company LP v. Vonage Holdings Corp., et al - Document No. 14by Justia.comVirtual Reality Feedback et. al. v. Target Brands et. al.by PriorSmarte.digital v. Research in Motion Et. Al.by PatentBlastVariant Holdings, LLC and Variant v. Moody Gardens, Inc. D/B/A Moody Gardens Hotel, Spa and Convention Centerby PriorSmartTransdata v. Alabama Power Companyby PriorSmartMAZ Encryption Technologies v. Hewlett-Packard Company et. al.by PriorSmartNilfisk-Advance v. EDICby PriorSmartGrowing Technology v. Broadcomby PriorSmartSunbeam Products v. Hamilton Beach Brandsby PriorSmartEMG Technology v. Vanguard Groupby PriorSmartAirmid IP v. Terumo Cardiovascular Systemsby PriorSmartRecognicorp v. Vistaprint USA Incorporated, Vistaprint N.V., Vistaprint Limited and Vistaprint Netherlandsby PriorSmart1st Technology v. Wild Tangent.pdfby PatentBlastGemini IP v. Consonaby PriorSmartSemcon Tech LLCby PriorSmartCpuMate et. al. v. Toshiba et. al.by PriorSmartSuper Interconnect Technologies v. ZTE Et. Al.by PatentBlastNotice: Commission Decision to Review, etc.: Certain Endoscopic Probes for Use in Argon Plasma Coagulation Systemsby Justia.comSilver Spoons v. Govino - Complaintby slbursteinWausau Paper Towel & Tissue, LLCby PriorSmartPT Diagnostics v. Sikorsky Aircraftby PriorSmartCloud Farm Associates, L.P. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., C.A. No. 10-502-LPS (D. Del. Jul. 27, 2012).by YCSTBlogQuxuz v. Wedding Windowby PriorSmartSimilar to Beacon Navigation v. Hyundai Motor Company et. al.Skip carouselDelaware Radio Technologies LLC et. al.Beacon Navigation v. Hyundai Motor Company et. al.Beacon Navigation v. Hyundai Motor Company et. al.c4cast.com v. Hearst et. al.Yesware v. RPost Holdings et. al..pdfSprint Communications Company LP v. Vonage Holdings Corp., et al - Document No. 14Virtual Reality Feedback et. al. v. Target Brands et. al.e.digital v. Research in Motion Et. Al.Variant Holdings, LLC and Variant v. Moody Gardens, Inc. D/B/A Moody Gardens Hotel, Spa and Convention CenterTransdata v. Alabama Power CompanyMAZ Encryption Technologies v. Hewlett-Packard Company et. al.Nilfisk-Advance v. EDICGrowing Technology v. BroadcomSunbeam Products v. Hamilton Beach BrandsEMG Technology v. Vanguard GroupAirmid IP v. Terumo Cardiovascular SystemsRecognicorp v. Vistaprint USA Incorporated, Vistaprint N.V., Vistaprint Limited and Vistaprint Netherlands1st Technology v. Wild Tangent.pdfGemini IP v. ConsonaSemcon Tech LLCCpuMate et. al. v. Toshiba et. al.Super Interconnect Technologies v. ZTE Et. Al.NoticeSilver Spoons v. Govino - ComplaintWausau Paper Towel & Tissue, LLCPT Diagnostics v. Sikorsky AircraftCloud Farm Associates, L.P. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., C.A. No. 10-502-LPS (D. Del. Jul. 27, 2012).Quxuz v. Wedding WindowEunson v. Dodge, 85 U.S. 414 (1873)Pioneer Fe-Lines v. PetSmartBeacon Navigation v. Hyundai Motor Company et. al.