Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/97713208/Sonic-Industry-v-U-S-Bancorp
Timestamp: 2016-12-07 09:15:45
Document Index: 7150184

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§ 271', '§ 1331', '§\n1391', '§ 284', '§ 284', '§ 285', 'art166']

Sonic Industry v. U.S. Bancorp | Patent
BrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksArticlesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoin1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24BRYAN M. GARRIE, APC BRYAN M. GARRIE (#131738) P.O. Box 2731 La Jolla, California 92038 Tel.: (858) 459-0020 LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW P. TYSON MATTHEW P. TYSON (#178427) 1117 Wall Street, Suite 4 La Jolla, California 92037 Tel.: (619) 787-0614 Attorneys for SONIC INDUSTRY, LLC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SONIC INDUSTRY, LLC, Plaintiff, v. Jury Trial Demanded U.S. BANCORP, Defendant. Case No.
'12CV1514 DMS BGS
SONIC INDUSTRY, LLC’S COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
Plaintiff SONIC INDUSTRY, LLC (“Plaintiff” or “Sonic”) alleges: NATURE OF THE CASE 1. This is a patent infringement action. Sonic is the exclusive licensee of United
States Patent No. 5,954,793 entitled “Remote Limit-Setting Information Distribution System” (the “’793 Patent,” a copy of which is attached as EXHIBIT 1.) The ‘793 Patent covers a remotelyconfigurable information distribution system which selectively filters inbound information in response to selection and limit parameters provided by a remotely-connected processing device. Defendant U.S. BANCORP (“Defendant” or “Bancorp”) has infringed and is infringing on the ‘703 Patent by providing a patented remote limit-setting information distribution system to its customers. Accordingly, Sonic brings this action to redress the misappropriation by Bancorp and to seek injunctive relief and monetary damages. PARTIES 2. Plaintiff is a limited liability company organized and existing under the law of the
State of Delaware. Plaintiff maintains its principal place of business at 3422 Old Capital Trail, PMB (STE) 1549, Wilmington, Delaware 19808-6192. Plaintiff is the exclusive licensee of the ‘793 Patent which respect to the Defendant, and possesses the right to sue for infringement and recover past damages. 3. Defendant is a corporation organized and existing under the law of the State of
Delaware, with its principal place of business located at 800 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4. This action arises under the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.,
including 35 U.S.C. §§ 271, 281, 283, 284, and 285. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case for patent infringement under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). 2
This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because: Defendant is present
within or has minimum contacts with the State of California and the Southern District of California; Defendant has purposefully availed itself of the privileges of conducting business in the State of California and in the Southern District of California; Defendant has sought protection and benefit from the laws of the State of California; Defendant regularly conducts business within the State of California and within the Southern District of California; and Plaintiff’s causes of action arise directly from Defendant’s business contacts and other activities in the State of California and in the Southern District of California. 6. Furthermore, Defendant, directly and/or through authorized intermediaries, ships,
distributes, offers for sale, sells, and/or advertises (including the provision of an interactive web page) its products and services in the United States, the State of California, and the Southern District of California. Upon information and belief, Defendant has committed patent infringement in the State of California and in the Southern District of California, has contributed to patent infringement in the State of California and in the Southern District of California, and/or has induced others to commit patent infringement in the State of California and in the Southern District of California. Defendant solicits customers in the State of California and in the Southern District of California. Defendant has paying customers who are residents of the State of California and the Southern District of California and who use the Defendant’s products and services in the State of California and in the Central District of California. 7. Venue is proper in the Southern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
1391 and 1400(b). /// /// /// 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 /// 8. 9.
COUNT 1 – PATENT INFRINGEMENT Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 7. The ‘793 Patent was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and
Trademark Office on September 21, 1999, after full and fair examination, for systems and methods for a remote limit-setting information distribution system. Plaintiff is the exclusive licensee of the ’793 Patent with respect to the Defendant, and possesses all rights of recovery under the ’793 Patent with respect to the Defendant, including the right to sue for infringement and recover past damages. 10. Plaintiff is informed and believes that is informed and believes that Defendant
owns, operates, advertises, controls, sells, and otherwise provides hardware and software for a remote limit-setting information distribution system. Upon information and belief, Defendant has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the ’793 Patent by making, using, providing, offering to sell, and selling (directly or through intermediaries), in this district and elsewhere in the United States, systems and methods for using a remote device to set a selection and limit on a server. 11. More particularly, Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant sells and/or
requires and/or directs users to access and/or use a software system on a remote device to enter and verify selection and limit parameters for account information notifications prior to transmitting the parameters to a host computer for processing, in a manner claimed in the ’793 Patent. Upon information and belief, Defendant has contributed to the infringement of one or more claims of the ’793 Patent, and/or actively induced others to infringe one or more claims of the ’793 patent, in this district and elsewhere in the United States. 12. The conduct of Defendant has been without authority and/or license from Plaintiff.
Plaintiff has suffered and will suffer monetary damages as a result of Defendant’s
infringement of the ‘793 Patent in an amount to be determined at trial, 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. 14. Upon information and belief, Defendant has and/or will become aware of the
infringing nature of its conduct, entitling Plaintiff to treble damages for any period of such willful infringement thereafter pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284. 15. Plaintiff has suffered irreparable harm as a result of Defendant’s infringement of the
‘793 Patent, and Plaintiff will continue to suffer irreparable harm unless Defendant is enjoined from infringing the ‘793 Patent. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Sonic respectfully requests this Court: 1. To enter judgment that one or more claims of the ‘793 Patent, either literally and/or
under the doctrine of equivalents, has been infringed by Bancorp and/or by others to whose infringement Bancorp has contributed and/or by others whose infringement has been induced by Bancorp; 2. To award Sonic monetary damages against Bancorp adequate to compensate
Plaintiff, together with pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; 3. infringement; 4. To grant Sonic a permanent injunction against Bancorp pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § To award Sonic treble damages against Bancorp for all periods of willful
283, enjoining Bancorp and its respective officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and all persons in active concert or participation with any of the foregoing, from infringing the ‘793 Patent; 5
To declare this case to be “exceptional” under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and to award Sonic
its attorney’s fees, expenses, and costs incurred in this action; and 6. To award Sonic such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW P. TYSON
   Dated: ________________
By: _______________________________________ MATTHEW P. TYSON Attorneys for SONIC INDUSTRY, LLC
Sonic Industry v. U.S. Bancorp by PriorSmart166 viewsEmbedDownloadDescriptionOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 3:12-cv-01514-DMS-BGS: Sonic Industry, LLC v. U.S. Bancorp. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, the ...Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 3:12-cv-01514-DMS-BGS: Sonic Industry, LLC v. U.S. Bancorp. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, the Hon. Dana M. Sabraw presiding. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l6gq 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
Relatede.Digital v. Silicon Power Computer & Communications et. al.by PriorSmarte.Digital v. ADATA Technology et. al.by PriorSmarte.Digital v. PNY Electronicsby PriorSmarte.Digital v. C-One Technology et. al.by PriorSmarte.digital v. Mach Xtreme Technology Et. Al.by PatentBlastCharles Smith Enterprises v. EMCby PriorSmartDigitude Innovations LLCby PriorSmartSpatium Innovations v. Adobe Systemsby PatentBlastDigitude Innovations v. Pantech & Curitel Communications et. al.by PriorSmartInMotion Imagery Technologies v. Notorious Productions et. al.by PriorSmartCpuMate Et. Al. v. Cooler Master Et. Al.by PatentBlastDigitude Innovations v. HTC et. al.by PriorSmarte.Digital v. Advanced Mediaby PriorSmartTechnology Properties v. Dellby PriorSmartJames Games v. Hasbro et. al.by PriorSmartSorkin et. al. v. VStructural et. al.by PriorSmartSportBrain Holdings v. Withingsby PatentBlaste.Digital v. Diasonic Technology et. al.by PriorSmarte.Digital v. Transcend Informationby PriorSmartSportBrain Holdings v. Polar Electroby PatentBlaste.digital v. Mushkinby PatentBlastCharles Smith Enterprises v. North Plains Systems Holdingsby PriorSmartPiao Shang Industry v. Xentris Wirelessby PriorSmartCANVS v. Thermoteknix Systems Et. Al.by PatentBlastThirty Three Threads v. Lucy Apparel - Complaintby slbursteinAeritas v. American Airlinesby PatentBlastActivision TV v. American Digital Signageby PatentBlastFlashPoint Technology v. HTC Et. Al.by PatentBlastSimilar to Sonic Industry v. U.S. Bancorpe.Digital v. Silicon Power Computer & Communications et. al.e.Digital v. ADATA Technology et. al.e.Digital v. PNY Electronicse.Digital v. C-One Technology et. al.e.digital v. Mach Xtreme Technology Et. Al.Charles Smith Enterprises v. EMCDigitude Innovations LLCSpatium Innovations v. Adobe SystemsDigitude Innovations v. Pantech & Curitel Communications et. al.InMotion Imagery Technologies v. Notorious Productions et. al.CpuMate Et. Al. v. Cooler Master Et. Al.Digitude Innovations v. HTC et. al.e.Digital v. Advanced MediaTechnology Properties v. DellJames Games v. Hasbro et. al.Sorkin et. al. v. VStructural et. al.SportBrain Holdings v. Withingse.Digital v. Diasonic Technology et. al.e.Digital v. Transcend InformationSportBrain Holdings v. Polar Electroe.digital v. MushkinCharles Smith Enterprises v. North Plains Systems HoldingsPiao Shang Industry v. Xentris WirelessCANVS v. Thermoteknix Systems Et. Al.Thirty Three Threads v. Lucy Apparel - ComplaintAeritas v. American AirlinesActivision TV v. American Digital SignageFlashPoint Technology v. HTC Et. Al.EZ Products of South Florida v. Fifty/Fifty Group et. al.Cogent Medicine v. John Wiley & Sons et. al.Sonic Industry v. U.S. Bancorp