Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/125227475/EMG-Technology-v-Puma-North-America
Timestamp: 2018-01-21 11:06:54
Document Index: 23095017

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

EMG Technology v. Puma North America | Patent | United States District Court For The Eastern District Of Texas
EMG Technology v. Puma North America
Description: Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 6:13-cv-00145: EMG Technology, LLC v. Puma North America, Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, no judg...
Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 6:13-cv-00145: EMG Technology, LLC v. Puma North America, Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l7Di for more info.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION EMG TECHNOLOGY, LLC
, Plaintiff, v. PUMA NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendant. Case No. 6:13-cv-145 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Plaintiff EMG Technology, LLC (“EMG”) alleges as follows for its complaint against Defendant Puma North America, Inc. ("Puma"): JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. This is an action for patent infringement in violation of the Patent Act of the
infringement claims for relief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). 3. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Puma because Puma has transacted and
is transacting business in the Eastern District of Texas that includes, but is not limited to, the use and sale of products and systems that practice the subject matter claimed in the patents involved in this action. 4. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b-c) and 1400(b) because
a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this District
-1LA 9267220v1
where Puma has done business and committed infringing acts and continues to do business and to commit infringing acts. PARTIES 5. EMG is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of
California with its principal place of business in Los Angeles, California. 6. EMG is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Puma is a company
organized under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business at 10 Lyberty Way, Westford, Massachusetts 01886-3616. EMG is further informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Puma is principally engaged in the business of selling athletic shoes, clothing, accessories and related products, and that a significant portion of its revenue derives from the promotion and/or sale of its products and services through its Internet web sites, including at least the following web sites reformatted for use on portable devices and cellular phones capable of browsing the Internet using a small screen, located at https://www.puma.com/, and http://m.puma.com/. EMG is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that, at all times relevant hereto, Puma has done and continues to do business in this judicial district. PATENTS 7. United States Patent No. 7,441,196 (the “‘196 Patent”) entitled “Apparatus and
Method of Manipulating a Region on a Wireless Device Screen for Viewing, Zooming and Scrolling Internet Content” was duly and legally issued on October 21, 2008. A true and correct copy of the ‘196 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference. By a series of assignments, EMG is now the assignee of the entire right, title and interest in and to the ‘196 Patent, including all rights to enforce the ‘196 Patent and to recover for infringement. The ‘196 Patent is valid and in force.
-2LA 9267220v1
Following a reexamination of Patent No. 7,441,196, the United States Patent and
Trademark Office issued an Inter Partes Reexamination Certificate, Number US 7,441,196 C1, on September 6, 2011. A true and correct copy of Inter Partes Reexamination Certificate, Number US 7,441,196 C1 is attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by this reference. (United States Patent No. 7,441,196, together with Inter Partes Reexamination Certificate, Number US 7,441,196 C1, shall hereinafter be referred to as the "'196 Patent."). FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF Infringement of the ‘196 Patent 9. 10. EMG refers to and incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1-8. Puma, by the acts complained of herein, and by making, using, selling, offering
for sale, and/or importing in the United States, including in the Eastern District of Texas, instrumentalities embodying the invention, has in the past, does now, and continues to infringe the ‘196 Patent directly, contributorily and/or by inducement, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271. 11. By reason of the acts of Puma alleged herein, EMG has suffered damage in an
amount to be proved at trial. 12. Puma threatens to continue to engage in the acts complained of herein and, unless
restrained and enjoined, will continue to do so, all to EMG’s irreparable injury. It would be difficult to ascertain the amount of compensation that would afford EMG adequate relief for such future and continuing acts, and a multiplicity of judicial proceedings would be required. EMG does not have an adequate remedy at law to compensate it for the injuries threatened. JURY DEMAND 13. EMG demands a jury trial on all issues so triable.
-3LA 9267220v1
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, EMG prays for relief as follows: A. B. For an order finding that the ‘196 Patent is valid and enforceable; For an order finding that Puma has infringed the ‘196 Patent directly,
contributorily and/or by inducement, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271; C. For an order temporarily, preliminarily and permanently enjoining Puma, its
officers, directors, agents, servants, affiliates, employees, subsidiaries, divisions, branches, parents, attorneys, representatives, privies, and all others acting in concert or participation with any of them, from infringing the ‘196 Patent directly, contributorily and/or by inducement, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271; D. For an order directing Puma to file with the Court, and serve upon EMG’s
counsel, within thirty (30) days after entry of the order of injunction, a report setting forth the manner and form in which it has complied with the injunction; E. For an order awarding EMG general and/or specific damages adequate to
compensate EMG for the infringement by Puma, including a reasonable royalty and/or lost profits, in amounts to be fixed by the Court in accordance with proof, including enhanced and/or exemplary damages, as appropriate, as well as all of the profits or gains of any kind made by Puma from its acts of patent infringement; F. For an order awarding EMG pre-judgment interest and post-judgment interest at
the maximum rate allowed by law; G. entitled; For an order requiring an accounting of the damages to which EMG is found to be
-4LA 9267220v1
For an order declaring this to be an exceptional case pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285
and awarding EMG its attorneys’ fees; I. J. and proper. For an order awarding EMG its costs of court; and For an order awarding EMG such other and further relief as the Court deems just
DATED: February 12, 2013 OF COUNSEL:
Respectfully Submitted, By: /s/ Charles Ainsworth
Jeffer Mangels Butler and Mitchell, LLP Stanley M. Gibson (Cal. Bar No. 162329) smg@jmbm.com Gregory S. Cordrey (Cal. Bar No. 190144) gxc@jmbm.com 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Seventh Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 203-8080 Facsimile: (310) 203-0567 Charles Ainsworth State Bar No. 00783521 Robert Christopher Bunt State Bar No. 00787165 PARKER, BUNT & AINSWORTH, P.C. 100 E. Ferguson, Suite 1114 Tyler, TX 75702 903/531-3535 903/533-9687 E-mail: charley@pbatyler.com E-mail: rcbunt@pbatyler.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF EMG TECHNOLOGY, LLC
-5LA 9267220v1
Documents Similar To EMG Technology v. Mastercard
Bluebonnet Telecommunications v. Uniden America
Qommerce Systems v. Fanatics
National Cheng Kung University v. Philips International Et. Al.
DietGoal Innovations v. Ufood Restaurant Group
Swipe Innovations v. VeriFone et. al.
EMG Technology v. Google
Long Corner Consumer Electronics v. ViewSonic
Princeton Digital Image v. Facebook et. al.
Long Corner Consumer Electronics v. Coolpad Technologies
MDPL Complaint 3
Transdata v. Oklahoma Gas & Electric Company
Toesox v. Icon Health & Fitness et. al.
Sage Products, LLC v. DeRoyal Industries Inc
Eclipse IP v. Sears Holdings
Dual Lever Suspension v. Santa Cruz Bicycles
Joao Control and Monitoring Systems v. Smartvue
Cajun Chickcan Of Texas LLP
Crorey Creations v. Hobby Lobby Stores