Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/186130370/Vantage-Point-Technology-v-MediaTek
Timestamp: 2017-03-25 23:30:07
Document Index: 5557555

Matched Legal Cases: ['§1331', '§1391', '§1400', '§271', '§ 284', '§271', '§ 284', 'art0']

Vantage Point Technology v. MediaTek
BrowseInterestsStay InformedCareerPersonal GrowthFiction & BiographiesHealth & FitnessLifestyleCultureBrowse byBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION VANTAGE POINT TECHNOLOGY, INC., Plaintiff, v. MEDIATEK USA, INC., Defendant. § § § § § § § § §
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Plaintiff Vantage Point Technology, Inc. (“Vantage Point”) alleges the following for its complaint against Defendant MediaTek USA, Inc. THE PARTIES 1. Plaintiff is a corporation formed under the laws of the State of Texas having its
principal place of business at 719 W. Front Street, Suite 244, Tyler, Texas 75702. 2. Defendant is a corporation formed under the laws of the state of Delaware with a
principal place of business at 5914 West Courtyard Drive, Ste 400, Austin, TX 78730. Defendant may be served with process via its registered agent CT Corporation System, 350 North St. Paul Street, Suite 2900, Dallas, Texas 75201-4234. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. This is a patent infringement action. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1338. 4. The Court has personal jurisdiction, because Defendant has availed itself of the
rights and benefits of this District by conducting business in this jurisdiction, including by
promoting products for sale via the internet, which is accessible to and accessed by residents of this District. Defendant is also registered to do business in the State. 5. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1391(b)-(d) and
§1400(b), because substantial acts of infringement have occurred in this District. COUNT ONE INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,463,750 6. On October 31, 1995, U.S. Patent No. 5,463,750 (the “’750 Patent”) entitled
“Method and Apparatus for Translating Virtual Addresses in a Data Processing System Having Multiple Instruction Pipelines and Separate TLB’s for each Pipeline” was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The application for the ’750 Patent was filed on November 2, 1993 and originally assigned to Intergraph Corporation. A true and correct copy of the ’750 Patent is attached as Exhibit A hereto. 7. Plaintiff is the sole and exclusive owner of all right, title, and interest in the ’750
Patent and holds the exclusive right to take all actions, including the filing of this patent infringement lawsuit, necessary to enforce its rights to the ’750 Patent. Plaintiff also has the right to recover all damages for past, present, and future infringement of the ’750 Patent and to seek injunctive relief as appropriate under the law. 8. Defendant has directly infringed, either literally or by equivalents, one or more
claims of the ’750 Patent by making, having made, using, selling, offering for sale and/or importing products that satisfy each and every limitation of one or more claims of the ’750 Patent, including at least Claim 1. Such products include at least any and all chipsets with dual/quad (multi-core) ARM Cortex A7 or dual ARM Cortex A9s core processor designs. Upon information and belief, the accused chipset products include at least the MT6572, MT6577, MT6589, MT8125/8389, MT8135, and MT8377.
Defendant’s manufacture, sales, offers to sell, and/or importation of the accused
products was unauthorized, without the permission of Plaintiff, and constitutes infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271 for which it is directly liable. 10. As a result of Defendant’s direct infringement, Plaintiff Vantage Point has been
damaged monetarily and is entitled to adequate compensation of no less than a reasonable royalty pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284. COUNT TWO INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,374,329 11. On April 16, 2002, U.S. Patent No. 6,374,329 (the “’329 Patent”) entitled “High
Availability Super Server” was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The application for the ’329 Patent was filed on February 19, 1997 and originally assigned to Intergraph Corporation. A true and correct copy of the ’329 Patent is attached as Exhibit B hereto. 12. Plaintiff is the sole and exclusive owner of all right, title, and interest in the ’329
Patent and holds the exclusive right to take all actions, including the filing of this patent infringement lawsuit, necessary to enforce its rights to the ’329 Patent. Plaintiff also has the right to recover all damages for past, present, and future infringement of the ’329 Patent and to seek injunctive relief as appropriate under the law. 13. Defendant is directly infringing and has directly infringed, either literally or by
equivalents, one or more claims of the ’329 Patent by making, having made, using, selling, offering for sale and/or importing products that satisfy each and every limitation of one or more claims of the ’329 Patent, including at least Claim 1. Such products include at least any and all chipsets with big.LITTLE ARM processor designs. Upon information and belief, the accused chipset products include at least the MT8135.
products is unauthorized, without the permission of Plaintiff, and constitutes infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271 for which it is directly liable. 15. As a result of Defendant’s direct infringement, Plaintiff Vantage Point has been
damaged monetarily and is entitled to adequate compensation of no less than a reasonable royalty pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284. JURY DEMAND Plaintiff requests a jury on all issues so triable. PRAYER WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court: A. Enter judgment that Defendant has directly infringed, either literally or by equivalents, the ’750 Patent and the ’329 Patent; B. Award Plaintiff damages for Defendant’s infringement in an amount to be determined at trial, including enhanced damages, costs, and pre and postjudgment interest; and C. Award any other relief deemed just and proper.
/s/ Paul V. Storm Paul V. Storm Texas State Bar No. 19325350 Sarah M. Paxson Texas State Bar No. 24032826 GARDERE WYNNE SEWELL LLP 1601 Elm Street, Suite 3000 Dallas, Texas 75201 (214) 999-3000 pvstorm@gardere.com spaxson@gardere.com
Sign up to vote on this titleUsefulNot usefulVantage Point Technology v. MediaTek by PriorSmart0.0 (0)EmbedDownloadDescriptionOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-00991: Vantage Point Technology, Inc. v. MediaTek USA, Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, no...Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-00991: Vantage Point Technology, Inc. v. MediaTek USA, Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l9xr 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
RelatedNorman IP Holdings v. TP-LINK Technologiesby PriorSmartDigital Signal Innovations v. Speechproby PriorSmartBrandywine Communications Technologies v. InReach Internetby PriorSmartBrandywine Communications Technologies v. Nunetby PriorSmartPolara Engineering v. Campbell Companyby PriorSmartDigital Signal Innovations v. CSIdentityby PatentBlastTelecomm Innovations LLCby PriorSmartBrandywine Communications Technologies v. Erie Onlineby PriorSmartBrandywine Communications Technologies LLCby PriorSmartBrandywine Communications Technologies v. Allworxby PatentBlastWireless Media Innovations v. Americold Logisticsby PriorSmartBrandywine Communications Technologies LLCby PriorSmartDigital Signal Innovations LLCby PriorSmartDigital Signal Innovations LLCby PriorSmartDigital Signal Innovations LLCby PriorSmartBiomedical Enterprises v. Solana Surgicalby PriorSmartBrandywine Communications Technologies LLCby PriorSmart: Digital Signal Innovations v. CSIdentity.pdfby PatentBlastEye Safety Systems v. Revision Militaryby PriorSmartMobile Logistics v. Reliance Expressby PriorSmartTelecomm Innovations LLC v. Cardtronics Inc. Et. Al.by PatentBlastDigital Signal Innovations v. Agnitioby PriorSmartPJC Logistics v. Zonar Systemsby PriorSmartNovaerus Group v. Airmanager Technologiesby PriorSmartBrandywine Communications Technologies v. Aastraby PriorSmartWireless Media Innovations v. Gapby PatentBlastNetwork Acceleration Technologies LLCby PriorSmartTraffic Information v. U.S. Bancorpby PriorSmartSimilar To Vantage Point Technology v. HisenseSkip carouselNorman IP Holdings v. TP-LINK TechnologiesDigital Signal Innovations v. SpeechproBrandywine Communications Technologies v. InReach InternetBrandywine Communications Technologies v. NunetPolara Engineering v. Campbell CompanyDigital Signal Innovations v. CSIdentityTelecomm Innovations LLCBrandywine Communications Technologies v. Erie OnlineBrandywine Communications Technologies LLCBrandywine Communications Technologies v. AllworxWireless Media Innovations v. Americold LogisticsBrandywine Communications Technologies LLCDigital Signal Innovations LLCDigital Signal Innovations LLCDigital Signal Innovations LLCBiomedical Enterprises v. Solana SurgicalBrandywine Communications Technologies LLCEye Safety Systems v. Revision MilitaryMobile Logistics v. Reliance ExpressTelecomm Innovations LLC v. Cardtronics Inc. Et. Al.Digital Signal Innovations v. AgnitioPJC Logistics v. Zonar SystemsNovaerus Group v. Airmanager TechnologiesBrandywine Communications Technologies v. AastraWireless Media Innovations v. GapNetwork Acceleration Technologies LLCTraffic Information v. U.S. BancorpSeidio v. Boxwave et. al.Brandywine Communications Technologies v. HickoryTechVantage Point Technology v. Hisense