Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/234957405/Cedatech-Holdings-v-HTC-et-al
Timestamp: 2017-07-23 08:20:23
Document Index: 618488906

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§ 1331', '§ 271', '§ 1391', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 284', '§ 285']

Cedatech Holdings v. HTC et. al. | Patent | Patent Infringement
Cedatech Holdings v. HTC et. al.Uploaded by PriorSmartRelated InterestsPatentPatent InfringementTitle 35 Of The United States CodeLawsuitUnited States District Court For The Eastern District Of TexasRating and Stats0.0 (0)Document ActionsDownloadShare or Embed DocumentEmbedDescription: Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 4:14-cv-00477: Cedatech Holdings, LLC v. HTC Corporation et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, no ju...View MoreOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 4:14-cv-00477: Cedatech Holdings, LLC v. HTC Corporation et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-laJy for more info.Copyright: Public DomainDownload as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION Cedatech Holdings, LLC, Plaintiff, v. HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) C.A. No: 4:14-cv-477 J URY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Plaintiff Cedatech Holdings, LLC (Cedatech), by and through its undersigned counsel, for its Complaint for patent infringement against defendants HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc. (collectively HTC), hereby states: THE PARTIES 1. Plaintiff Cedatech is a Texas company with a principal place of business at 555 Republic Dr., Plano, Texas 75074. 2. Defendant HTC Corporation is a corporation organized under the laws of Taiwan with a principal place of business at 88 Section 3, Zhongxing Road, Xindian District, New Taipei City, 231, Taiwan, R.O.C. 3. Defendant HTC America, Inc. is a Washington corporation with a principal place of business at 13920 SE Eastgate Way, Suite 400, Bellvue, Washington 98005. Upon information and belief, HTC American, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of HTC Corporation. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4. This is a civil action for the infringement of United States Patent Number 7,707,591 ("the ‘591 Patent" or "the Patent-in-Suit"), under the Patent Laws of the United States 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. 5. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a) because this action arises under the patent laws of the United States, including 35 U.S.C. § 271 et seq. 6. This Court has specific and general personal jurisdiction over HTC, which has conducted and continues to conduct business in the State of Texas and in this J udicial District. HTC sells, offers for sale, and/or advertises products and services in the State of Texas and in this J udicial District. HTC has committed acts of infringement in the State of Texas and in this J udicial District, and elsewhere in the United States. HTC also derives substantial revenue from goods and services provided to individuals in Texas and in this J udicial District. -1- 7. Venue is proper in this J udicial District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400(b). THE PATENT-IN-SUIT 8. On April 27, 2010, the ‘591 Patent entitled "Integration of Audio or Video Program with Application Program," was duly and lawfully issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"). 9. The ‘591 Patent relates to, among other things, a system running an application program, wherein a separate audio or video program is integrated with the application program. Cedatech is the owner of the ‘591 Patent and has all rights to enforce the ‘591 Patent. 10. A copy of the ‘591 Patent is attached as Exhibit A to this Complaint. COUNT ONE 11. Cedatech incorporates by references each of the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 12. HTC makes, uses, or sells a variety of electronic devices, including smartphones. 13. HTC has directly infringed, and continues to directly infringe, at least one claim of the ‘591 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents. Defendant's infringing acts include, but are not limited to: making, using, selling, and offering to sell its electronic devices. These HTC products, among other infringing features, provide the capability to integrate an audio or video program with a separate application program. 14. As one example, HTC currently makes, uses, and sells the HTC One smartphone. The HTC One infringes at least one claim of the ‘591 Patent, at least by providing an audio speech -2- recognition program. This audio speech recognition program provides input into any separate application program running on the operating system. 15. HTC has indirectly infringed at least one claim of the ‘591 Patent, through induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271. HTC is notified of its infringement of the ‘591 Patent as of the filing of this complaint. Nevertheless, HTC continues its acts of indirect infringement by continuing to actively induce consumers to practice the invention claimed in the ‘591 Patent. HTC instructs consumers to use HTC devices with speech input, within the scope of the ‘591 Patent. For example, consumers are induced to use HTC One with speech recognition to provide input into separate application programs. 16. With knowledge of the ‘591 Patent, HTC has indirectly infringed the ‘591 Patent by inducing the direct infringement by consumers, by enabling, instructing, and encouraging consumers to make and use the infringing apparatus described in at least one claim of the ‘591 Patent, while aware that their use is infringing. 17. HTC’s use of the technology claimed in the ‘591 Patent is without license or authorization from Cedatech. 18. Cedatech has been damaged by HTC's infringement of the ‘591 Patent. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Cedatech Holdings, LLC prays for entry of judgment as follows: a) Enter judgment for Cedatech on this complaint and adjudging that the Defendant has infringed one or more of the claims of the Patent-in-Suit, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents; -3- b) Award Cedatech all damages to which it is entitled under 35 U.S.C. § 284 resulting from HTC's infringement, and ordering a full accounting of all damages adequate to compensate Cedatech for the infringement of its patent rights; c) Award Cedatech pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on its damages at the maximum rate permitted by law; d) Award costs and attorney's fees to Cedatech, and finding that this case is exceptional, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285; and e) Grant Cedatech such further and additional relief as the Court deem as just and proper under the circumstances. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Cedatech hereby demands a trial by jury on all claims and issues so triable. Dated: J uly 18, 2014 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Frank M. Washko _ Frank M. Washko, Ph.D. (252010) Furqan A. Nanji (250972) TIBURON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PLLC 350 Townsend St., Suite 680 San Francisco, CA 94107 fwashko@tiburonip.com
fnanji@tiburonip.com (415) 545-8040
Allen S. Wan (24085640) 3723 Greenville Ave. Dallas, TX 75206 patlit4@allenwan.com (469) 242-0945 Counsel for Plaintiff Cedatech Holdings, LLC -4- Recommended DocumentsDocuments Similar To Cedatech Holdings v. HTC et. al.Skip carouselBayer Pharma v. Warner Chilcott Company et. al.Klausner Technologies v. MicrosoftKlausner Technologies v. MetroPCS Communications et. al.Bluebonnet Telecommunications v. Sonim TechnologiesKlausner Technologies v. Clearwire CommunicationsMacroSolve v. Inter-Continental Hotels et. al.Klausner Technologies v. Broadvox Holding CompanyPhoenix Licensing et. al. v. Travelers Companies et. al.Klausner Technologies v. Bright House NetworksKlausner Technologies v. Schmooze ComJoao Control & Monitoring Systems v. Protect AmericaAccuhire.com v. Kronos et. al.Net Navigation Systems v. Arista NetworksOnline News Link v. Amazon.comAngros v. Ventana Medical SystemsNorco Industries v. Automated Products InternationalPenovia v. RicohPenovia v. Actiontec ElectronicsPenovia v. XeroxWolf Run Hollow v. TargetIn Tex Complainte.Digital v. Creative Labs et. al.Quest Nettech v. D.L. BlairAuto Crane Company v. G S Hydraulics et. al.Equistar Chemicals Et. Al. v. Westlake ChemicalCustom Accessories v. Premier Accessory Group - ComplaintBlue Spike v. S MobilityMosaid Technologies v. STMicroelectronicsMicrolog v. NEC AmericaPatent Group v. Academy.ComDocuments About PatentSkip carouselAppleVsHTCandS3_11.07.15MicrosoftVsMotorola_11.08.17NokiaVsApple_11.03.31.10012-04-30 Apple-Samsung Teksler-Kim Letter Re FRANDThe Oppidan Press Edition 10 2011 (The Investec Rhodes Top 100 Special Edition)Samsung vs Apple - Samsung's Appeal to the Supreme CourtNokia Complaint Against Apple in federal district court, WisconsinTranslation of Mannheim 2O240 Ruling Motorola v MicrosoftGreenwich Ballistics v. Jamison InternationalNike v. SkechersFacebook's Counterclaims to Yahoo's Patent Lawsuit4. ExhB Lodsys Letter to Illusion LabsNYT Complaint Against LodsysPRICELINE COM INC 10-K (Annual Reports) 2009-02-20WikiLeaks TPP Intellectual Property Rights ChapterKoninklijke Philips N.V. et. al. v. Nintendo et. al.MicrosoftVsMotorola_11.12.11BU v Apple11-07-01 Apple Motion for PI Against SamsungGoogle Dec Action vs RockstarEPO Examiners Can No Longer Ensure Appropriate Quality StandardsNovartis patent JudgementConsulting AgreementTreehouse Avatar Technologies v. TurbineApple vs Samsung 11.06.16MicrosoftVsMotorola_10.12.23Semantic Compaction Systems et. al. v. Speak For Yourself et. al.AppleVsHTCandS3_11.07.2916-12-20 Apple Complaint v. Acacia Et Al.Apple vs Samsung 11.04.22More From PriorSmartSkip carouselLike kind card game (US patent 6193235)Like kind money board table game (US patent 6186505)Intelligent user interface including a touch sensor device (US patent 8288952)User interface with proximity sensing (US patent 8035623)Wine cellar alarm system (US patent 8710985)Cell regulatory genes, encoded products, and uses related thereto (US patent 7030227)Multicasting method and apparatus (US patent 6434622)Method and apparatus for retrieving data from a network using linked location identifiers (US patent 6226655)Casino bonus game using player strategy (US patent 6645071)High-speed serial linking device with de-emphasis function and the method thereof (US patent 7313187)Casing spacer (US patent 6736166)Advance Products & Systems v. CCI Piping SystemsModern Telecom Systems LLCTracBeam v. AppleRichmond v. Creative IndustriesSenju Pharmaceutical et. al. v. Metrics et. al.VIA Technologies et. al. v. ASUS Computer International et. al.Perrie v. PerrieEckart v. Silberline ManufacturingSenju Pharmaceutical et. al. v. Metrics et. al.Kenzinc v. imblowingup et. al.Sun Zapper v. Devroy et. al.Merck Sharp & Dohme v. Fresenius KabiTracBeam v. T-Mobile et. al.ATEN International v. Uniclass Technology et. al.Mcs Industries v. Hds TradingDok Solution v. FKA Distributung et. al.GRQ Investment Management v. Financial Engines et. al.Merck Sharp & Dohme v. Fresenius KabiMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Konami Digital Entertainment