Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/118267616/Brandywine-Communications-Technologies-v-Orbitcom
Timestamp: 2017-05-23 03:09:12
Document Index: 89312354

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1331', '§ 1391', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271']

Brandywine Communications Technologies v. Orbitcom | Patent Infringement | Patent
ScribdExploreEXPLORE BY INTERESTSCareer & MoneyBusiness Biography & HistoryEntrepreneurshipLeadership & MentoringMoney ManagementTime ManagementPersonal GrowthHappinessPsychologyRelationships & ParentingReligion & SpiritualitySelf-ImprovementPolitics & Current AffairsPoliticsSocietyScience & TechScienceTechHealth & FitnessFitnessNutritionSportsWellnessLifestyleArts & LanguagesFashion & BeautyFood & WineHome & GardenTravelEntertainmentCelebrity Biography & MemoirPop CultureBiographies & HistoryBiography & MemoirHistoryFictionChildren’s & YAClassic LiteratureContemporary FictionHistorical FictionLGBTQ FictionMystery, Thriller & CrimeRomanceScience Fiction & FantasyBROWSE BY CONTENT TYPEBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicUploadSign inJoinOptionsJoinSign InUploadBrandywine Communications Technologies v. OrbitcomUploaded by PriorSmartPatent InfringementPatentUnited States Patent LawAiding And AbettingComplaint0.0 (0)DownloadEmbedDescription: Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-00643-CWD: Brandywine Communications Technologies, LLC, v. Orbitcom, Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Ida...View MoreOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-00643-CWD: Brandywine Communications Technologies, LLC, v. Orbitcom, Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho, the Hon. Candy W Dale presiding. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l7nc for more info.Copyright: Public DomainDownload as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentPaul M. Durham pdurham@djplaw.com State Bar No. 8310 J. Mark Gibb mgibb@djplaw.com Pro hac vice pending Clinton E. Duke cduke@djplaw.com Pro hac vice pending Jeffrey A. Stephens jstephens@djplaw.com Pro hac vice pending DURHAM JONES & PINEGAR P.C. 111 East Broadway, Suite 900 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Tel: (801) 415-3000 Fax: (801) 415-3500 Attorneys for Plaintiff Brandywine Communications Technologies, LLC IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO BRANDYWINE COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Plaintiff, v. ORBITCOM, INC. D/B/A ICEHOUSE.NET, Defendant. COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-643
Plaintiff Brandywine Communications Technologies, LLC ("Brandywine" or "Plaintiff"), by way of Complaint against the above-named Defendant ("OrbitCom" or "Defendant"), alleges the following:
PLAINTIFF BRANDYWINE COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC's COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Page 1 of 14
the State of Delaware with a place of business at 1612 Mt. Pleasant Road, Villanova, Pennsylvania, 19085. 3. Defendant OrbitCom is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of
South Dakota with its principal place of business at 1701 N. Louise Drive, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, 57107. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4. This is an action for patent infringement arising under the Patent Laws of the
United States, Title 35 of the United States Code. 5. 6. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338. Defendant is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court because it is registered to do
business in this State. On information and belief, Defendant is also subject to the jurisdiction of this Court by reason of its acts of patent infringement which have been committed in this judicial district, and by virtue of its regularly conducted and systematic business contacts in this State. 7. Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(c) and 1400(b). FACTUAL BACKGROUND 8. On April 27, 1993, U.S. Patent No. 5,206,854 (the "'854 Patent"), entitled
"Detecting Loss of Echo Cancellation" was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office to inventors William L. Betts and Robert A. Day, II (collectively the "'854 _____________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFF BRANDYWINE COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC's COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Page 2 of 14
Inventors"). The '854 Patent has been duly and legally assigned to Brandywine. A copy of the '854 Patent is attached as Exhibit A. 9. On October 5, 1993, U.S. Patent No. 5,251,328 (the "'328 Patent"), entitled
"Method and Apparatus For Automatic Selection and Operation of a Subscriber Line Spectrum Class Technology," was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office to inventors Gordon Bremer and Philip J. Kyees (collectively the "'501 Inventors"). The '501 Patent has been duly and legally assigned to Brandywine. A copy of the '501 Patent is attached as Exhibit E. _____________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFF BRANDYWINE COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC's COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Page 3 of 14
On February 22, 2011, U.S. Patent No. 7,894,472 (the "'472 Patent"), entitled
Defendant that it has been infringing the '854, '328, '537, '657, '501, and '472 Patents through the operation of its Digital Subscriber Line (“DSL”) business. This letter was sent by certified mail with return receipt requested. Upon information and belief, Defendant has received the letter. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,206,854 (35 U.S.C. § 271) 15. The allegations set forth in the foregoing paragraphs 1 through 14 are hereby
PLAINTIFF BRANDYWINE COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC's COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Page 4 of 14
19. damages.
Because of Defendant's infringement of the '854 Patent, Brandywine has suffered
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,251,328 (35 U.S.C. § 271) 20. The allegations set forth in the foregoing paragraphs 1 through 19 are hereby
one or more claims of the '537 Patent in this judicial district and elsewhere by making, using, _____________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFF BRANDYWINE COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC's COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Page 5 of 14
selling, and/or offering for sale services and products that infringe and/or perform processes that infringe one or more claims of the '537 Patent ("Accused Services and Products for the '537 Patent"). 27. Upon information and belief, Defendant's Accused Service and Products for the
December 10, 2012 notice letter, Defendant has committed and continues to commit acts of contributory infringement of the '537 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) by providing products, including the Accused Services and Products to others, including but not limited to its customers and partners, knowing or willfully blind to the fact that that these products constitute a material part of the invention, were especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of the '537 Patent, and have no substantial non-infringing uses. 30. In particular, the Accused Services and Products include DSL modems, which
constitute an especially adapted component to receive Defendant's DSL service. These modems are used by Defendant's partners and customers to perform all of the steps recited in one claim of the '537 Patent. These modems have no substantial non-infringing uses at least because they contain components whose only purpose is to practice the claimed method of providing the infringing DSL service. The use of these modems by Defendant's partners and customers constitutes direct infringement of at least one claim of the '537 Patent. Defendant has known or
PLAINTIFF BRANDYWINE COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC's COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Page 6 of 14
remained willfully blind to these facts since at least the date it received the notice letter from Brandywine notifying Defendant that such activities infringed the '537 Patent. 31. Upon information and belief, since at least the time it received Brandywine’s
customers to infringe include advertising and distributing the Accused Services and Products and providing instruction materials, training, and consulting services regarding the Accused Services and Products. On information and belief, Defendant has engaged in such actions with specific intent to cause infringement or with willful blindness to the resulting infringement because Defendant has had actual knowledge of the '537 Patent and that its acts were inducing its customers to infringe the '537 Patent since at least the date it received the notice letter from Brandywine notifying Defendant that such activities infringed the '537 Patent. 33. Despite Brandywine’s notice regarding the '537 Patent, Defendant has continued
PLAINTIFF BRANDYWINE COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC's COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Page 7 of 14
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,828,657 (35 U.S.C. § 271) 35. The allegations set forth in the foregoing paragraphs 1 through 34 are hereby
that patent since at least the time it received Brandywine’s December 10, 2012 notice of infringement letter. 39. Upon information and belief, since at least the time it received Brandywine’s
constitute an especially adapted component to receive Defendant's DSL service. These modems _____________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFF BRANDYWINE COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC's COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Page 8 of 14
are used by Defendant's partners and customers to perform all of the steps recited in one claim of the '657 Patent. These modems have no substantial non-infringing uses at least because they contain components whose only purpose is to practice the claimed method of providing the infringing DSL service. The use of these modems by Defendant's partners and customers constitutes direct infringement of at least one claim of the '657 Patent. Defendant has known or remained willfully blind to these facts since at least the date it received the notice letter from Brandywine notifying Defendant that such activities infringed the '657 Patent. 41. Upon information and belief, since at least the time it received Brandywine’s
December 10, 2012 notice letter, Defendant has induced and continues to induce others to infringe at least one claim of the '657 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) by, among other things, and with specific intent or willful blindness, actively aiding and abetting others to infringe, including but not limited to Defendant's partners and customers, whose use of the Accused Services and Products constitutes direct infringement of at least one claim of the '657 Patent. 42. In particular, Defendant's actions that aid and abet others such as its partners and
customers to infringe include advertising and distributing the Accused Services and Products and providing instruction materials, training, and consulting services regarding the Accused Services and Products. On information and belief, Defendant has engaged in such actions with specific intent to cause infringement or with willful blindness to the resulting infringement because Defendant has had actual knowledge of the '657 Patent and that its acts were inducing its customers to infringe the '657 Patent since at least the date it received the notice letter from Brandywine notifying Defendant that such activities infringed the '657 Patent.
PLAINTIFF BRANDYWINE COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC's COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Page 9 of 14
Despite Brandywine’s notice regarding the '657 Patent, Defendant has continued
'501 Patent include but are not limited to Defendant’s DSL service, modems, and equipment. 48. Defendant had actual knowledge of the '501 Patent and its alleged infringement of
December 10, 2012 notice letter, Defendant has induced and continues to induce others to infringe at least one claim of the '501 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) by, among other things, and with specific intent or willful blindness, actively aiding and abetting others to infringe,
PLAINTIFF BRANDYWINE COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC's COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Page 10 of 14
including but not limited to Defendant's partners and customers, whose use of the Accused Services and Products constitutes direct infringement of at least one claim of the '501 Patent. 50. In particular, Defendant's actions that aid and abet others such as its partners and
to infringe the '501 Patent. On information and belief, Defendant's infringement has been and continues to be willful. 52. Brandywine has been harmed by Defendant's infringing activities. SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,894,472 (35 U.S.C. § 271) 53. The allegations set forth in the foregoing paragraphs 1 through 52 are hereby
one or more claims of the '472 Patent in this judicial district and elsewhere by making, using, selling, and/or offering for sale services and products that infringe and/or perform processes that infringe one or more claims of the '472 Patent ("Accused Services and Products for the '472 Patent"). _____________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFF BRANDYWINE COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC's COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Page 11 of 14
customers to infringe include advertising and distributing the Accused Services and Products and providing instruction materials, training, and consulting services regarding the Accused Services and Products. On information and belief, Defendant has engaged in such actions with specific intent to cause infringement or with willful blindness to the resulting infringement because Defendant has had actual knowledge of the '472 Patent and that its acts were inducing its customers to infringe the '472 Patent since at least the date it received the notice letter from Brandywine notifying Defendant that such activities infringed the '472 Patent. 59. Despite Brandywine’s notice regarding the '472 Patent, Defendant has continued
to infringe the '472 Patent. On information and belief, Defendant's infringement has been and continues to be willful. 60. Brandywine has been harmed by Defendant's infringing activities.
PLAINTIFF BRANDYWINE COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC's COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Page 12 of 14
JURY DEMAND Brandywine demands a trial by jury on all issues triable as such. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Brandywine respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment for Brandywine and against Defendant as follows: a. '472 Patents; b. An award of damages to be paid by Defendant adequate to compensate An adjudication that Defendant has infringed the '854, '328, '537, '657, '501, and
PLAINTIFF BRANDYWINE COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC's COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Page 13 of 14
Respectfully submitted, /s/ Paul M. Durham Paul M. Durham pdurham@djplaw.com State Bar No. 8310 J. Mark Gibb mgibb@djplaw.com Pro hac vice pending Clinton E. Duke cduke@djplaw.com Pro hac vice pending Jeffrey A. Stephens jstephens@djplaw.com Pro hac vice pending DURHAM JONES & PINEGAR P.C. 111 East Broadway, Suite 900 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Tel: (801) 415-3000 Fax: (801) 415-3500 Attorneys for Plaintiff Brandywine Communications Technologies, LLC
PLAINTIFF BRANDYWINE COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC's COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Page 14 of 14
Documents Similar To Brandywine Communications Technologies v. OrbitcomSkip carouselBrandywine Communications Technologies v. MicroservBrandywine Communications Technologies v. NunetBrandywine Communications Technologies v. ZultysBrandywine Communications Technologies v. InfowestBrandywine Communications Technologies LLCBrandywine Communications Technologies v. Bob Meiger Emerald People's Utility District d/b/a Eugene Free Community NetworkBrandywine Communications Technologies v. AllworxBrandywine Communications Technologies v. Empire One TelecommunicationsBrandywine Communications Technologies v. GeraciBrandywine Communications Technologies v. Datum CommunicationsBrandywine Communications Technologies v. Chatham Hill GroupBrandywine Communications Technologies v. Coastal Telco ServicesBrandywine Communications Technologies LLCBrandywine Communications Technologies v. Ikano CommunicationsBrandywine Communications Technologies v. TMNBrandywine Communications Technologies, LLCBlackbeam v. Promier ProductsRimowa v. Briggs & Riley Travelware.pdfGordium Innovations v. Belkin InternationalFrontPoint Security Sued for Patent InfringementiControl Networks v. Alarm.com et. al.NovelPoint Security v. LaCieBSP Software v. MotioInnovative Wireless Solutions v. ZyXEL CommunicationsOakley v. UV SalesAmerican Vehicular Sciences v. Hyundai Motor Company et. al.Unilin Beheer Et. Al. v. Tropical Flooring Et. Al.Olivistar v. New Balance Athletic ShoeProcter & Gamble Company v. Team TechnologiesAlex is the Best v. T-Mobile et. al..pdfDocuments About Patent InfringementSkip carouselNike v. SkechersNokia Complaint Against Apple in federal district court, WisconsinBose vs Beats (ITC complaint)Koninklijke Philips N.V. et. al. v. Nintendo et. al.Bose v. Beats Civil Complaint3D Systems v. Formlabs et. al.Treehouse Avatar Technologies v. TurbineGreenwich Ballistics v. Jamison InternationalPosner OrderBU v AppleFacebook's Counterclaims to Yahoo's Patent LawsuitAmended Galaxy ComplaintLodsys Complaint Against Adidas BestBuy Et AlNYT Complaint Against LodsysSemantic Compaction Systems et. al. v. Speak For Yourself et. al.PersonalWeb Technologies et. al. v. Rackspace et. al.Rockstar v Samsung.pdfHuawei v. SamsungBose vs BeatsComponex v. Electronics For ImagingRecognicorp v. CCP hf et. al.Symantec v. Veeam SoftwareTechnology Licensing v. Blackmagic Design PtyVideojet Technologies et. al. v. Markem-ImajeBrightEdge Technologies v. Searchmetrics et. al.Technology Properties v. Dane Elec et. al.Canatelo v. HikvisionCallidus Software v. XactlyVascular Solutions v. Boston ScientificNovartis Pharmaceuticals v. Torrent Pharmaceuticals et. al.More From PatentBlastSkip carouselMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Samsung Electronics Et. AlMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Nintendo of America Et. AlMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Cantor Fitzgerald Et. AlMultiplayer Network Innovations v. ZTE Et. AlMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Toshiba AmericaMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Pantech Et. AlMultiplayer Network Innovations v. NVIDIAActifio v. DelphixRTC Industries v. Flextronics InternationalTactical Medical Solutions v. Karl Et. AlPrometheus Laboratories v. Par Pharmaceutical Companies Et. AlAndrea Electronics v. Lenovo Group Et. Al.Andrea Electronics v. Toshiba Et. Al.Property Disclosure Technologies v. TruliaGlobal Tel*Link v. Securus Technologies et. al.Century Board v. National Registered AgentsIatric Systems v. FairWarningHologram Et. Al. v. Arena3D Industrial Illusion Et. Al.Tech-ni-Fold v. F.P. Rosback CompanyRTC Industries v. ZiveloMotobatt v. Deltran OperationsImpax Laboratories Et. Al. v. Lannett Holdings Et. Al.Alkermes Pharma Ireland v. Sun Pharma Global FZE Et. Al.Unimed Pharmaceuticals Et. Al. v. Perrigo Company Et. Al.Sensus v. Certified MeasurementCapella Photonics v. TellabsCapella Photonics v. Fujitsu Network CommunicationsCapella Photonics v. CienaILife Technologies v. AliphComAeritas v. GameStop