Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/65127012/Norman-IP-Holdings-v-Lexmark-International-et-al
Timestamp: 2017-06-26 05:33:56
Document Index: 318725801

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

Norman IP Holdings v. Lexmark International et. al. | Patent | Patent Infringement
Norman IP Holdings v. Lexmark International et. al.Uploaded by PriorSmartRelated InterestsPatentPatent InfringementUnited States District Court For The Eastern District Of TexasLawsuitComplaintRating and Stats0.0 (0)Document ActionsDownloadShare or Embed DocumentEmbedDescription: Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 6:11-cv-00495: Norman IP Holdings, LLC v. Lexmark International, Inc. et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of...View MoreOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 6:11-cv-00495: Norman IP Holdings, LLC v. Lexmark International, Inc. et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l4rr for more info.Copyright: Public DomainDownload as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION § § Plaintiff, § § v.§ Civil Action No. 6:11-cv-495 § Brother International Corporation and Lexmark § International, Inc. § Jury Trial Demanded § Defendants. § § Norman IP Holdings, LLC,
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Norman IP Holdings, LLC (“Norman”), by and through its attorneys, for its Original Complaint against Defendants Brother International Corporation and Lexmark International, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”), hereby alleges as follows:
5,530,597 (the “’597 Patent”), issued on June 25, 1996, for “Apparatus and Method for Disabling Interrupt Masks in Processors or the Like”; United States Patent No. 5,502,689 (the “’689 Patent”), issued March 26, 1996, for “Clock Generator Capable of Shut-Down Mode and Clock Generation Method”; and United States Patent No. 5,592,555 (the “’555 Patent”), issued January 7, 1997, for “Wireless Communications Privacy Method and System” (collectively, the
“Patents”). True and correct copies of the Patents are attached hereto as Exhibits 1–3. 3. Each of the Defendants manufactures, provides, sells, offers for sale, imports,
State of Texas, with its principal place of business located at 100 E. Ferguson, Suite 816, Tyler, Texas 75702. 7. Upon information and belief, Defendant Brother International Corporation is a
Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located at 100 Somerset Corporate Boulevard, Bridgewater, NJ 08807-0911. Upon information and belief, Brother International Corporation is authorized to do business in Texas and has appointed Corporation Service Company, 211 E. 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin, TX 78701-3218 as its agent for service of process. Hereinafter Brother International Corporation will be referred to as “Brother.” 8. Upon information and belief, Defendant Lexmark International, Inc. is a
Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located at 740 New Circle Road, Lexington, KY 40550. Upon information and belief, Lexmark International, Inc. is authorized to do business in Texas and has appointed CT Corporation System, 350 N. St. Paul St., Suite 2900, Dallas, TX 75201-4234 as its agent for service of process. International, Inc. will be referred to as “Lexmark.” Hereinafter Lexmark
the United States, in particular, 35 U.S.C. §§271, 281, 283, 284, and 285. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action under 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1338(a). 10. This Court has personal jurisdiction over each of the Defendants, and venue is
interrupt at any time except under certain conditions, at which time the system can override the interrupt mask. Electronic devices practicing the inventions claimed in the ’597 Patent can exit certain processes or states without using a hardware reset and thus protect against unnecessary information loss. Further, through the use of the inventions claimed in the ’597 Patent, such electronic devices can prevent situations where the processor is locked in a certain state because all interrupts were masked by software when the processor entered such state. 12. The ’689 Patent discloses a clock generator and interrupt bypass circuit for use in
reducing the power consumption of the electrical system in which they are implemented. The clock generator may provide module clock signals for sequencing modules within the same
electrical system, and is capable of generating those module clock signals when in an active mode, and of not generating those module clock signals when in a stand-by mode. The clock generator is further capable of providing a delay of a predetermined length from a request to enter shut-down mode to actual entry into shut-down mode, allowing time to prepare the electrical system for shut-down mode. The interrupt bypass circuit may provide a means of leaving shut-down mode in the event that the relevant interrupt requests have been masked. 13. The ’555 Patent discloses a system and method for processing and securing
communication signals over a wireless communications network. An enciphering algorithm may be programmatically selected and applied to the signals for secure transmission. 14. Norman has obtained all substantial right and interest to the Patents, including all
Holdings LLC all right, title, and interest in the Patents. Saxon had acquired the asserted Patents
through a Patent Purchase Agreement between Saxon and Saxon IP Assets, LLC (“Seller”) effective as of July 6, 2007 (“the Patent Purchase Agreement”).
that regard, Norman has licensed the Patents to numerous Fortune 500 companies. Norman has also entered into settlement agreements in connection with litigation in the Eastern District of Texas and in the International Trade Court.
VI. Brother 17.
Brother manufactures, provides, sells, offers for sale, and/or distributes infringing
systems. The infringing Brother systems include, for example, Brother HL series laser printers and related products. With knowledge of the Patents, Brother provides related services,
specifications, and instructions for the installation and infringing operation of such systems to its customers, who directly infringe. 18. Through its actions, Brother has infringed the ’689 Patent and ’555 Patent and
actively induced others to infringe and contributed to the infringement by others of the ’689 Patent and ’555 Patent throughout the United States. 19. Norman has been and will continue to suffer damages as a result of Defendant
Brother’s infringing acts unless and until enjoined.
Lexmark 20. Lexmark manufactures, provides, sells, offers for sale, and/or distributes
infringing systems. The infringing Lexmark systems include, for example, the Lexmark Pro700 Series, the Lexmark C544dn and similar products. With knowledge of the Patents, Lexmark provides related services, specifications, and instructions for the installation and infringing operation of such systems to its customers, who directly infringe. 21. Through its actions, Lexmark has infringed the ’689 Patent, ’597 Patent and ’555
Patent and actively induced others to infringe and contributed to the infringement by others of the ’689 Patent, ’597 Patent and ’555 Patent throughout the United States. 22. Norman has been and will continue to suffer damages as a result of Defendant
filing of this Complaint, Defendants have knowingly or with reckless disregard willfully infringed the ’597 Patent and ’689 Patent. Defendants have been provided written notice of infringement of the ’597 Patent and ’689 Patent. Defendants acted with knowledge of the Patents and despite an objectively high likelihood that their actions constituted infringement of Norman’s valid patent rights. 24. This objectively-defined risk was either known or so obvious that it should have
been known to each of these Defendants. Norman seeks enhanced damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284.
COUNT ONE PATENT INFRINGEMENT—U.S. PATENT NO. 5,530,597 25. 26. 27. Plaintiff Norman realleges and incorporates herein paragraphs 1–24. Defendant Lexmark has infringed the ’597 Patent. Defendant Lexmark has indirectly infringed the ’597 Patent by inducing the
infringement of the ’597 Patent and contributing to the infringement of the ’597 Patent. 28. Upon information and belief, Defendant Lexmark has jointly infringed the ’597
Patent, including by controlling and/or directing others to perform one or more of the claimed method steps. 29. Defendant Lexmark’s aforementioned acts have caused damage to Norman and
COUNT TWO PATENT INFRINGEMENT—U.S. PATENT NO. 5,502,689 30. 31. 32. Plaintiff Norman realleges and incorporates herein paragraphs 1–24. Defendants have infringed the ’689 Patent. Defendants have indirectly infringed the ’689 Patent by inducing the infringement
of the ’689 Patent and contributing to the infringement of the ’689 Patent. 33. Upon information and belief, Defendants have jointly infringed the ’689 Patent,
including by controlling and/or directing others to perform one or more of the claimed method steps. 34. Defendants’ aforementioned acts have caused damage to Norman and will
COUNT THREE PATENT INFRINGEMENT—U.S. PATENT NO. 5,592,555 35. 36. 37. Plaintiff Norman realleges and incorporates herein paragraphs 1–24. Defendants have infringed the ’555 Patent. Defendants have indirectly infringed the ’555 Patent by inducing the infringement
of the ’555 Patent and contributing to the infringement of the ’555 Patent. 38. Upon information and belief, Defendants have jointly infringed the ’555 Patent,
including by controlling and/or directing others to perform one or more of the claimed method steps. 39. Defendants’ aforementioned acts have caused damage to Norman and will
VIII. REQUEST FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Norman respectfully requests that the Court: A. Permanently enjoin each Defendant, its agents, servants, and employees, and all those in privity with each Defendant or in active concert and participation with any of the Defendants, from engaging in acts of infringement of the Patents; Award Plaintiff Norman past and future damages together with prejudgment and post-judgment interest to compensate for the infringement by Defendants of the Patents in accordance with 35 U.S.C. §284, and increase such award by up to three times the amount found or assessed in accordance with 35 U.S.C. §284; Declare this case exceptional pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §285; and Award Plaintiff Norman its costs, disbursements, attorneys’ fees, and such further and additional relief as is deemed appropriate by this Court. Respectfully submitted, Dated: September 15, 2011 By: /s/ Andrew G. DiNovo Andrew G. DiNovo Texas State Bar No. 00790594 Adam G. Price Texas State Bar No. 24027750 Chester J. Shiu Texas State Bar No. 24071126 DiNovo Price Ellwanger & Hardy LLP 7000 N. MoPac Expressway, Suite 350 Austin, Texas 78731 Telephone: (512) 539-2626 Telecopier: (512) 539-2627
Recommended DocumentsDocuments Similar To Norman IP Holdings v. Lexmark International et. al.Skip carouselNorman IP Holdings v. ArchosMacroSolve v. Avis Rent A Car SystemSwipe Innovations v. PayPalCedatech Holdings v. AppleCellular Communications Equipment v. MicrosoftIndustrial Technology Research Institute v. LG et. al.Kroy IP Holdings v. Starbucks.pdfNorman IP Holdings v. Buffalo TechnologyRyan Data Exchange et. al. v. GracoRotatable Technologies v. Blastro et. al.Amethyst IP v. Belkin InternationalWestwater Products v. IdylwildeApplied Food Sciences v. Hangover Joe&#039;s ProductsBovino v. Incase DesignsWyncomm LLCData Carriers LLC v. Criterion CollectionSelect Retrieval v. Bulbs.comMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Huawei Technologies et. al.LED Tech Development v. Home DepotOasis Research v. Emc et. al.DietGoal Innovations v. Tyson FoodsTierra Intelectual Borinquen v. HTC et. al.Avid Technology v. HarmonicNet Navigation Systems v. Arista NetworksBlue Spike v. GoogleSD Holdings v. Aircraft Owners and Pilots AssociationAntennatech v. BMW of North AmericaPenovia v. BenQ AmericaVirtual Reality Feedback Et. Al. v. Amazon.comDocuments About PatentSkip carousel12-04-30 Apple-Samsung Teksler-Kim Letter Re FRANDNokia Complaint Against Apple in federal district court, WisconsinThe Oppidan Press Edition 10 2011 (The Investec Rhodes Top 100 Special Edition)Translation of Mannheim 2O240 Ruling Motorola v MicrosoftSamsung vs Apple - Samsung's Appeal to the Supreme CourtAppleVsHTCandS3_11.07.15MicrosoftVsMotorola_11.08.17NokiaVsApple_11.03.31.100PRICELINE COM INC 10-K (Annual Reports) 2009-02-20NYT Complaint Against LodsysNike v. Skechers4. ExhB Lodsys Letter to Illusion LabsKoninklijke Philips N.V. et. al. v. Nintendo et. al.Facebook's Counterclaims to Yahoo's Patent LawsuitWikiLeaks TPP Intellectual Property Rights ChapterMicrosoftVsMotorola_11.12.11Greenwich Ballistics v. Jamison InternationalGoogle Dec Action vs Rockstar11-07-01 Apple Motion for PI Against SamsungEPO Examiners Can No Longer Ensure Appropriate Quality StandardsNovartis patent JudgementConsulting AgreementBU v Apple16-12-20 Apple Complaint v. Acacia Et Al.Semantic Compaction Systems et. al. v. Speak For Yourself et. al.AppleVsHTCandS3_11.07.29MicrosoftVsMotorola_10.12.23Apple vs Samsung 11.06.16Treehouse Avatar Technologies v. TurbineApple 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