Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/212529468/SFA-Systems-v-American-Express-Company
Timestamp: 2016-09-30 21:40:59
Document Index: 512499936

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§ 1391', '§ 284', '§ 284', '§ 285', 'art20', 'art12']

BrowseBrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION SFA SYSTEMS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY, Defendant. ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. __________ ) ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ) ) ) )
COMPLAINT For its Complaint, Plaintiff SFA Systems, LLC ("SFA"), by and through the undersigned counsel, alleges as follows: THE PARTIES 1. SFA is a Texas limited liability company with a place of business located
at 1400 Preston Road, Suite 472, Plano, TX 75093. 2. Defendant American Express Company is a Delaware corporation with,
upon information and belief, a place of business located at 200 Vesey Street, Three World Financial Center, New York, NY 10285. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. 4. This action arises under the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. Subject matter jurisdiction is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C.
other persistent courses of conduct and/or deriving substantial revenue from goods and services provided to individuals in this district. 6. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to §§ 1391(b), (c) and 1400(b). THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT 7. On May 23, 2000, United States Patent No. 6,067,525 (the "'525 patent"),
entitled "Integrated Computerized Sales Force Automation System," was duly and lawfully issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. A true and correct copy of the '525 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 8. On May 10, 2011, United States Patent No. 7,941,341 (the "'341 patent"),
entitled "Sales Force Automation System and Method," was duly and lawfully issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. A true and correct copy of the '341 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 9. SFA is the assignee and owner of the right, title and interest in and to the
'525 and '341 patents, including the right to assert all causes of action arising under said patents and the right to any remedies for infringement of them. COUNT I – INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,067,525 10. SFA repeats and realleges the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 9 as if
Defendant has infringed and continues to infringe the '525 patent by making, using, importing, offering for sale, and/or selling computer implemented sales systems and methods for facilitating processes relating to the sale and provision of products and services on the www.shopamex.com website, including, but not limited to, the "You might also like . . ." recommendation feature. 2
Defendant has also otherwise been making and using, without license,
supply chain methods, sales methods, sales systems, marketing methods, marketing systems, and inventory systems covered by one or more claims of the '525 patent. 13. SFA is entitled to recover from Defendant the damages sustained by SFA
as a result of Defendant's infringement of the '525 patent in an amount subject to proof 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. To the extent that facts learned in discovery show that Defendant's
infringement of the '525 patent is or has been willful, SFA reserves the right to request such a finding at time of trial. COUNT II – INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,941,341 15. SFA repeats and realleges the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 14 as if
Defendant has infringed and continues to infringe the '341 patent by making, using, importing, offering for sale, and/or selling computer implemented sales systems and methods for facilitating processes relating to the sale and provision of products and services on the www.shopamex.com website, including, but not limited to, the "You might also like . . ." recommendation feature. 17. Defendant also has otherwise been making and using, without license,
supply chain methods, sales methods, sales systems, marketing methods, marketing systems, and inventory systems covered by one or more claims of the '341 patent. 18. SFA is entitled to recover from Defendant the damages sustained by SFA
as a result of Defendant's infringement of the '341 patent in an amount subject to proof at 3
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. 19. To the extent that facts learned in discovery show that Defendant's
infringement of the '341 patent is or has been willful, SFA reserves the right to request such a finding at time of trial. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, SFA requests that this Court enter judgment against Defendant as follows: A. B. An adjudication that Defendant has infringed the '525 and '341 patents; An award of damages to be paid by Defendant adequate to compensate
SFA for Defendant's past infringement of the '525 and '341 patents and any continuing or future infringement through the date such judgment is entered, including interest, costs, expenses and an accounting of all infringing acts including, but not limited to, those acts not presented at trial; C. A declaration that this case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285, and an
award of SFA's reasonable attorneys' fees; and D. An award to SFA of such further relief at law or in equity as the Court
/s/Andrew W. Spangler Andrew W. Spangler TX SB #24041960 spangler@spanglerlawpc.com Spangler Law P.C. 208 N. Green Street, Suite 300 Longview, TX 75601 Telephone: (903) 753-9300 Facsimile: (903) 553-0403 Stamatios Stamoulis DE SB #4606 stamoulis@swdelaw.com Richard C. Weinblatt DE SB #5080 weinblatt@swdelaw.com Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC Two Fox Point Centre 6 Denny Road, Suite 307 Wilmington, DE 19809 Telephone: (302) 999-1540 Facsimile: (302) 762-1688 Attorneys for Plaintiff SFA Systems, LLC
SFA Systems v. American Express Company by PriorSmart20 viewsEmbedDownloadDescriptionOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 6:14-cv-00170: SFA Systems LLC v. American Express Company. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, no judge y...Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 6:14-cv-00170: SFA Systems LLC v. American Express Company. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-la6h 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
RelatedSafegate Airport Systems et. al. v. RLG Docking Systems et. al.by PriorSmartFreedom Scientific v. Aumed Et. Al.by PatentBlastRgis v. WIS Internationalby PatentBlastDigiMedia Holdings Group v. Access.1 Communicationsby PriorSmartBrandywine Communications Technologies v. Consolidated Communications Holdingsby PriorSmartData Carriers v. Acer Americaby PriorSmartIBV Systems v. Ubisenseby PriorSmartNuvotronics v. Luxteraby PriorSmartCharles Smith Enterprises v. Statsby PriorSmartUnified Messaging Solutions v. BMO Harris Bankby PatentBlastSpiker v. Martin Et. Al.by PatentBlastUnified Messaging Solutions v. Cupidby PriorSmartCYVA Research Holdings v. First Financial Bankshares et. al.by PriorSmartTotal Lock & Security, Inc., d/b/a The Door Switch v. SecuriTech Group et. al.by PriorSmartPanTaurus v. Hewlett-Packard Companyby PatentBlastNeoMedia Technologies v. Conairby PriorSmartUnified Messaging Solutions v. Grouponby PriorSmartUnified Messaging Solutions v. UBS Financial Servicesby PriorSmart12-10162-RWZby barzilay123Sunbeam Products v. Hamilton Beach Brandsby PriorSmartWireless Handover Oy v. AT&Tby PatentBlastOutdoor Edge Cutlery v. Browningby PriorSmartTLI Communications v. IAC/InterActiveCorp et. al. by PatentBlastKern v. Forever Lazy et. al.by PriorSmartAbarta v. Lincoln Electric Companyby PatentBlastElpida Memory et. al. v. Intellectual Ventures et. al.by PriorSmartADC Telecommunications v. Opterna AMby PriorSmartBroadway Holdings v. Pratt Industries Et. Al.by PatentBlastSimilar to SFA Systems v. Wal-Mart Stores et. al.Safegate Airport Systems et. al. v. RLG Docking Systems et. al.Freedom Scientific v. Aumed Et. Al.Rgis v. WIS InternationalDigiMedia Holdings Group v. Access.1 CommunicationsBrandywine Communications Technologies v. Consolidated Communications HoldingsData Carriers v. Acer AmericaIBV Systems v. UbisenseNuvotronics v. LuxteraCharles Smith Enterprises v. StatsUnified Messaging Solutions v. BMO Harris BankSpiker v. Martin Et. Al.Unified Messaging Solutions v. CupidCYVA Research Holdings v. First Financial Bankshares et. al.Total Lock & Security, Inc., d/b/a The Door Switch v. SecuriTech Group et. al.PanTaurus v. Hewlett-Packard CompanyNeoMedia Technologies v. ConairUnified Messaging Solutions v. GrouponUnified Messaging Solutions v. UBS Financial Services12-10162-RWZSunbeam Products v. Hamilton Beach BrandsWireless Handover Oy v. AT&TOutdoor Edge Cutlery v. BrowningTLI Communications v. IAC/InterActiveCorp et. al. Kern v. Forever Lazy et. al.Abarta v. Lincoln Electric CompanyElpida Memory et. al. v. Intellectual Ventures et. al.ADC Telecommunications v. Opterna AMBroadway Holdings v. Pratt Industries Et. Al.Broadway Holdings v. Pratt Industries Et. Al.Parallel Networks v. Ignite Technologies