Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/216015931/Techshell-v-Tech21-Uk
Timestamp: 2017-04-30 23:22:48
Document Index: 141020042

Matched Legal Cases: ['art0', '§ 1331', '§271', '§1331', '§1338', '§1391', '§1400', '§271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§284', '§285', '§271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§284', '§285', '§271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§284', '§285', '§271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§284', '§285', '§283', '§284', '§284', '§284', '§284', '§285', '§284']

ScribdBrowseInterestsCareer & MoneyPersonal GrowthPolitics & Current AffairsScience & TechHealth & FitnessLifestyleEntertainmentBiographies & HistoryFictionBrowse byBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinTechshell v. Tech21 UkUploaded by PriorSmart0.0 (0)DownloadEmbedDescription: Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. None: Techshell Inc v. Tech21 Uk Limited. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, no judge yet assigned. Se...View MoreOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. None: Techshell Inc v. Tech21 Uk Limited. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-labA for more info.Copyright: Public DomainDownload as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PENSACOLA DIVISIONTECHSHELL INC Plaintiff v JURY TRIAL DEMANDED TECH21 UK LIMITED Defendant Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-159
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Plaintiff, Techshell, Inc., for its Complaint against Defendant, Tech21 UK Limited, alleges as follows: INTRODUCTION 1. This is an action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the United
States, Title 35, United States Code. THE PARTIES 2. Plaintiff, Techshell Inc. (hereinafter “Techshell”) is a Florida Corporation with a
principal place of business located at 1501 Newcastle Way, Pensacola, Florida 32534. 3. On information and belief, Defendant Tech21 UK Limited (“Defendant”) is a
company registered in the United Kingdom as registration number 5630013, and has a registered office at Syd’s Quay, Eel Pie Island, Twickenham, TW1 3DY, United Kingdom. 4. On information and belief, Defendant does business as tech21 and operates the
national website and store at http://www.tech21.com/shop/. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over all causes of action set forth herein
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a) because this action arises under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35, United States Code, including 35 U.S.C. §271 et seq. 6. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant as: (i) Defendant maintains
regular and systematic business contacts with the State of Florida and within this judicial district and division; (ii) Defendant purposely, regularly, and continuously conducts business in the State of Florida and within this judicial district and division; (iii) Defendant purposefully directs its activities at residents of the State of Florida; (iv) the cause of action set forth herein arises out of or relates to the Defendant’s activities in the State of Florida; and (v) the exercise of jurisdiction over Defendant will not offend the traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. 7. Venue is proper in this judicial district and division pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331,
§1338(a), §1391, and §1400(b). COUNT ONE: PATENT INFRINGEMENT (U.S. Patent No. 7,643,274) 8. Techshell realleges and incorporates herein the preceding allegations of this
issued United States Patent No. 7,643,274, entitled “Protective Cover For Laptop Computer.” A true and correct copy of U.S. Patent No. 7,643,274 is attached hereto as Exhibit “A.”
Patent No. 7,643,274 (hereinafter the “’274 Patent”), including the right to bring suit for past, present, and future patent infringement, and to collect past, present, and future damages. 11. On September 16, 2011 a request for an inter parte reexamination of all claims of the
‘274 Patent was filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. As the Patent Office determined that there was no reasonable likelihood that claims 9-15 and 17 of the ‘274 Patent were unpatentable, the Patent Office refused to reexamine claims 9-15 and 17 of the ‘274 Patent. 12. On April 2, 2013, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally
issued a Supplemental Examination Certificate for the ‘274 Patent. 13. Defendant has in the past and continues to infringe at least claims 9-15 and 17 of the
‘274 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. §§271 (a), (b), and (c). Defendant’s direct infringing acts include, but are not necessarily limited to, Defendant’s importation, use, offering for sale, and sale of protective covers for computers, including laptop computers (hereinafter “Defendant’s protective covers”). Information from Defendant’s national website and store (http://www.tech21.com/laptopcases/apple-macbook-cases/), which shows some representative examples of Defendant’s infringing protective covers, is attached as Exhibit “B.” Defendant’s patrons and customers also directly infringe at least claims 9-15 and 17 of the ‘274 Patent. 14. Defendant has in the past and continues to indirectly infringe at least claims 9-15
and 17 of the ‘274 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) by actively, knowingly, and intentionally inducing direct infringement by other persons, including patrons, customers, and end users, by offering for sale and/or selling Defendant’s protective covers in the United States
without authority or license from Techshell and in a manner understood and intended to infringe Techshell’s ‘274 Patent. 15. Techshell provided Defendant with written notice of the ‘274 Patent no later than
on or about the filing date of this Complaint. At the same time, Techshell also told Defendant that Defendant had in the past and was continuing to infringe the ‘274 Patent. As a result, Defendant had notice of its alleged infringement of the ‘274 Patent. 16. On information and belief, as Defendant deliberately avoided confirming its high
probability of wrongdoing, Defendant has and continues to act, and induce the direct infringement of at least claims 9-15 and 17 of the ‘274 Patent, with willful blindness. 17. Defendant also has in the past and continues to indirectly infringe at least claims
9-15 and 17 of the ‘274 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) by actively, knowingly, and intentionally contributing to an underlying direct infringement by other persons, such as Defendant’s patrons, customers, and end users, by offering for sale and/or selling Defendant’s protective covers in the United States without authority or license from Techshell and in a manner understood and intended to infringe Techshell’s ‘274 Patent. 18. Defendant’s protective covers are (i) a component and material part of the
inventions claimed in at least claims 9-15 and 17 of the ‘274 Patent, (ii) knowingly and especially designed for use in infringing at least claims 9-15 and 17 of the ‘274 Patent, (iii) are intended to be used to infringe at least claims 9-15 and 17 of the ‘274 Patent, and (iv) not a staple item of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use. 19. On information and belief, as Defendant deliberately avoided confirming its high
probability of wrongdoing, Defendant has and continues to act, and contribute to the direct infringement of at least claims 9-15 and 17 of the ‘274 Patent, with willful blindness. 20. Customers who reside in the State of Florida, including the Northern District of
Florida, may purchase Defendant’s protective covers from Defendant via the Internet. 21. Defendant’s infringement of the ‘274 Patent has been, and continues to be,
objectively reckless, willful and deliberate, entitling Techshell to increased damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §284 and to attorneys’ fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §285. 22. Techshell has and continues to suffer damages as a direct and proximate result of
Defendant’s infringement of the ‘274 Patent and will suffer additional and irreparable damages unless Defendant is permanently enjoined by this Court from continuing its infringement. Techshell has no adequate remedy at law. 23. Techshell is entitled to: (i) damages adequate to compensate it for Defendant’s
infringement of the ‘274 Patent, which amounts to, at a minimum, a reasonable royalty; (ii) Techshell’s lost profits; (iii) treble damages; (iv) attorneys’ fees; (v) costs; and (vi) a preliminary and thereafter permanent injunction. COUNT TWO: PATENT INFRINGEMENT (U.S. Patent No. 7,907,400) 24. Techshell realleges and incorporates herein the preceding allegations of this
issued United States Patent No. 7,907,400, entitled “Protective Cover For Laptop Computer.” A true and correct copy of U.S. Patent No. 7,907,400 is attached hereto as Exhibit “C.”
Patent No. 7,907,400 (hereinafter the “’400 Patent”), including the right to bring suit for past, present, and future patent infringement, and to collect past, present, and future damages. 27. On September 16, 2011 a request for an inter parte reexamination of all claims of the
‘400 Patent was filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. As the Patent Office determined that there was no reasonable likelihood that claims 9-25 and 40-53 of the ‘400 Patent were unpatentable, the Patent Office refused to reexamine claims 9-25 and 40-53 of the ‘400 Patent. 28. Defendant has in the past and continues to infringe at least claims 9-25 and 40-53 of
the ‘400 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. §§271 (a), (b), and (c). Defendant’s direct infringing acts include, but are not necessarily limited to, Defendant’s importation, use, offering for sale, and sale of Defendant’s protective covers. Information from Defendant’s national website and store, which shows some representative examples of Defendant’s infringing protective covers, is attached as Exhibit “B.” Defendant’s patrons and customers also directly infringe at least claims 9-25 and 40-53 of the ‘400 Patent. 29. Defendant has in the past and continues to indirectly infringe at least claims 9-25
and 40-53 of the ‘400 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) by actively, knowingly, and intentionally inducing direct infringement by other persons, including patrons, customers, and end users, by offering for sale and/or selling Defendant’s protective covers in the United States without authority or license from Techshell and in a manner understood and intended to infringe Techshell’s ‘400 Patent.
Techshell provided Defendant with written notice of the ‘400 Patent no later than
on or about the filing date of this Complaint. At the same time, Techshell also told Defendant that Defendant had in the past and was continuing to infringe the ‘400 Patent. As a result, Defendant had notice of its alleged infringement of the ‘400 Patent. 31. On information and belief, as Defendant deliberately avoided confirming its high
probability of wrongdoing, Defendant has and continues to act, and induce the direct infringement of at least claims 9-25 and 40-53 of the ‘400 Patent, with willful blindness. 32. Defendant also has in the past and continues to indirectly infringe at least claims
9-25 and 40-53 of the ‘400 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) by actively, knowingly, and intentionally contributing to an underlying direct infringement by other persons, such as Defendant’s patrons, customers, and end users, by offering for sale and/or selling Defendant’s protective covers in the United States without authority or license from Techshell and in a manner understood and intended to infringe Techshell’s ‘400 Patent. 33. Defendant’s protective covers are (i) a component and material part of the
inventions claimed in at least claims 9-25 and 40-53 of the ‘400 Patent, (ii) knowingly and especially designed for use in infringing at least claims 9-25 and 40-53 of the ‘400 Patent, (iii) are intended to be used to infringe at least claims 9-25 and 40-53 of the ‘400 Patent, and (iv) not a staple item of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use. 34. On information and belief, as Defendant deliberately avoided confirming its high
probability of wrongdoing, Defendant has and continues to act, and contribute to the direct infringement of at least claims 9-25 and 40-53 of the ‘400 Patent, with willful blindness.
Florida, may purchase Defendant’s protective covers from Defendant via the Internet. 36. Defendant’s infringement of the ‘400 Patent has been, and continues to be,
objectively reckless, willful and deliberate, entitling Techshell to increased damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §284 and to attorneys’ fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §285. 37. Techshell has and continues to suffer damages as a direct and proximate result of
Defendant’s infringement of the ‘400 Patent and will suffer additional and irreparable damages unless Defendant is permanently enjoined by this Court from continuing its infringement. Techshell has no adequate remedy at law. 38. Techshell is entitled to: (i) damages adequate to compensate it for Defendant’s
infringement of the ‘400 Patent, which amounts to, at a minimum, a reasonable royalty; (ii) Techshell’s lost profits; (iii) treble damages; (iv) attorneys’ fees; (v) costs; and (vi) a preliminary and thereafter permanent injunction. COUNT THREE: PATENT INFRINGEMENT (U.S. Patent No. 8,289,703) 39. Techshell realleges and incorporates herein the preceding allegations of this
legally issued United States Patent No. 8,289,703, entitled “Protective Cover For Laptop Computer.” A true and correct copy of U.S. Patent No. 8,829,703 is attached hereto as Exhibit “D.”
Patent No. 8,829,703 (hereinafter the “‘703 Patent”), including the right to bring suit for past, present, and future patent infringement, and to collect past, present, and future damages. 42. Defendant has in the past and continues to infringe one or more claims of the ‘703
Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. §§271 (a), (b), and (c). Defendant’s direct infringing acts include, but are not necessarily limited to, Defendant’s importation, use, offering for sale, and sale of Defendant’s protective covers. Information from Defendant’s national website and store, which shows some representative examples of Defendant’s infringing protective covers, is attached as Exhibit “B.” Defendant’s patrons and customers also directly infringe one or more claims of the ‘703 Patent. 43. Defendant has in the past and continues to indirectly infringe one or more claims
of the ‘703 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) by actively, knowingly, and intentionally inducing direct infringement by other persons, including patrons, customers, and end users, by offering for sale and/or selling Defendant’s protective covers in the United States without authority or license from Techshell and in a manner understood and intended to infringe Techshell’s ‘703 Patent. 44. Techshell provided Defendant with written notice of the ‘703 Patent no later than
on or about the filing date of this Complaint. At the same time, Techshell also told Defendant that Defendant had in the past and was continuing to infringe the ‘703 Patent. As a result, Defendant had notice of its alleged infringement of the ‘703 Patent. 45. On information and belief, as Defendant deliberately avoided confirming its high
probability of wrongdoing, Defendant has and continues to act, and induce the direct infringement of one or more claims of the ‘703 Patent, with willful blindness. 46. Defendant also has in the past and continues to indirectly infringe one or more
claims of the ‘703 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) by actively, knowingly, and intentionally contributing to an underlying direct infringement by other persons, such as Defendant’s patrons, customers, and end users, by offering for sale and/or selling Defendant’s protective covers in the United States without authority or license from Techshell and in a manner understood and intended to infringe Techshell’s ‘703 Patent. 47. Defendant’s protective covers are (i) a component and material part of the
inventions claimed in the ‘703 Patent, (ii) knowingly and especially designed for use in infringing one or more claims of the ‘703 Patent, (iii) are intended to be used to infringe one or more claims of the ‘703 Patent, and (iv) not a staple item of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use. 48. On information and belief, as Defendant deliberately avoided confirming its high
probability of wrongdoing, Defendant has and continues to act, and contribute to the direct infringement of one or more claims of the ‘703 Patent, with willful blindness. 49. Customers who reside in the State of Florida, including the Northern District of
Florida, may purchase Defendant’s protective covers from Defendant via the Internet. 50. Defendant’s infringement of the ‘703 Patent has been, and continues to be,
objectively reckless, willful and deliberate, entitling Techshell to increased damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §284 and to attorneys’ fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §285.
Defendant’s infringement of the ‘703 Patent and will suffer additional and irreparable damages unless Defendant is permanently enjoined by this Court from continuing its infringement. Techshell has no adequate remedy at law. 52. Techshell is entitled to: (i) damages adequate to compensate it for Defendant’s
infringement of the ‘703 Patent, which amounts to, at a minimum, a reasonable royalty; (ii) Techshell’s lost profits; (iii) treble damages; (iv) attorneys’ fees; (v) costs; and (vi) a preliminary and thereafter permanent injunction. COUNT FOUR: PATENT INFRINGEMENT (U.S. Patent No. 8,638,555) 53. Techshell realleges and incorporates herein the preceding allegations of this
Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 54. On January 28, 2014, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and
legally issued United States Patent No. 8,638,555, entitled “Protective Cover For Laptop Computer.” A true and correct copy of U.S. Patent No. 8,638,555 is attached hereto as Exhibit “E.” 55. Techshell is the owner, by assignment, of all right, title, and interest in and to U.S.
Patent No. 8,638,555 (hereinafter the “‘555 Patent”), including the right to bring suit for past, present, and future patent infringement, and to collect past, present, and future damages. 56. Defendant has in the past and continues to infringe one or more claims of the ‘555
Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. §§271 (a), (b), and (c). Defendant’s direct infringing acts include, but are not necessarily limited to, Defendant’s importation, use, offering for sale, and sale of Defendant’s protective covers. Information from Defendant’s national website and store, which
shows some representative examples of Defendant’s infringing protective covers, is attached as Exhibit “B.” Defendant’s patrons and customers also directly infringe one or more claims of the ‘555 Patent. 57. Defendant has in the past and continues to indirectly infringe one or more claims
of the ‘555 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) by actively, knowingly, and intentionally inducing direct infringement by other persons, including patrons, customers, and end users, by offering for sale and/or selling Defendant’s protective covers in the United States without authority or license from Techshell and in a manner understood and intended to infringe Techshell’s ‘555 Patent. 58. Techshell provided Defendant with written notice of the ‘555 Patent no later than
on or about the filing date of this Complaint. At the same time, Techshell also told Defendant that Defendant had in the past and was continuing to infringe the ‘555 Patent. As a result, Defendant had notice of its alleged infringement of the ‘555 Patent. 59. On information and belief, as Defendant deliberately avoided confirming its high
probability of wrongdoing, Defendant has and continues to act, and induce the direct infringement of one or more claims of the ‘555 Patent, with willful blindness. 60. Defendant also has in the past and continues to indirectly infringe one or more
claims of the ‘555 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) by actively, knowingly, and intentionally contributing to an underlying direct infringement by other persons, such as Defendant’s patrons, customers, and end users, by offering for sale and/or selling Defendant’s
protective covers in the United States without authority or license from Techshell and in a manner understood and intended to infringe Techshell’s ‘555 Patent. 61. Defendant’s protective covers are (i) a component and material part of the
inventions claimed in the ‘555 Patent, (ii) knowingly and especially designed for use in infringing one or more claims of the ‘555 Patent, (iii) are intended to be used to infringe one or more claims of the ‘555 Patent, and (iv) not a staple item of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use. 62. On information and belief, as Defendant deliberately avoided confirming its high
probability of wrongdoing, Defendant has and continues to act, and contribute to the direct infringement of one or more claims of the ‘555 Patent, with willful blindness. 63. Customers who reside in the State of Florida, including the Northern District of
Florida, may purchase Defendant’s protective covers from Defendant via the Internet. 64. Defendant’s infringement of the ‘555 Patent has been, and continues to be,
objectively reckless, willful and deliberate, entitling Techshell to increased damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §284 and to attorneys’ fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §285. 65. Techshell has and continues to suffer damages as a direct and proximate result of
Defendant’s infringement of the ‘555 Patent and will suffer additional and irreparable damages unless Defendant is permanently enjoined by this Court from continuing its infringement. Techshell has no adequate remedy at law. 66. Techshell is entitled to: (i) damages adequate to compensate it for Defendant’s
infringement of the ‘555 Patent, which amounts to, at a minimum, a reasonable royalty; (ii)
Techshell’s lost profits; (iii) treble damages; (iv) attorneys’ fees; (v) costs; and (vi) a preliminary and thereafter permanent injunction.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Techshell seeks the following relief: a. That Defendant be enjoined from further infringement of the ‘274 Patent, the ‘400
Patent, the ‘703 Patent, and the ‘555 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §283; b. That Defendant be ordered to pay damages adequate to compensate Techshell for
Defendant’s infringement of the ‘274 Patent, the ‘400 Patent, the ‘703 Patent, and the ‘555 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §284; c. That Defendant be ordered to pay Techshell Techshell’s lost profits due to
Defendant’s infringement of the ‘274 Patent, the ‘400 Patent, the ‘703 Patent, and the ‘555 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §284; d. §284; e. f. U.S.C. §284; g. §285; That Defendant be ordered to pay Techshell’s attorneys’ fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. That Defendant be ordered to pay prejudgment interest pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §284; That Defendant be ordered to pay all costs associated with this action pursuant to 35 That Defendant be ordered to pay Techshell treble damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b), Techshell demands a trial by jury of all issues triable of right by a jury. Respectfully submitted, this 2nd day of April, 2014.
Documents Similar To Techshell v. Tech21 UkSkip carouselBlue Gentian Et. Al. v. New Product Solutions Et. Al.Xy v. Trans Ova Genetics, LCThermoLife International v. Sechel Holdings et. al.McRo Inc.UntitledTechshell v. EforcityCAO Group v. Sybron Dental Specialities Et. Al.Techshell v. Incipio Technologies3form v. Bollen ResourcesTechshell v. AevoeTechshell v. eBaySelect Retrieval v. Shoebuy.comCommercial Recovery v. CU RecoveryBU v AppleEclipse IP v. FanaticsEclipse IP v. AutozoneThule Organization Solutions v. Mizco InternationalWisconsin Technology Venture Group v. One Way ShoppingTrustees of Boston University v. Viewsonic Et. Al.Commercial Recovery v. Burns & CarlisleTrustees of Boston University v. Planar Systems et. al.Thule Organization Solutions v. Small Dog Electronics, Inc. d/b/a HammerheadEclipse IP v. American ApparelTrustees of Boston University v. Kingbright Electric et. al.Neurowave Medical Technologies v. MannMarhaygue v. Wolfpac TechnologiesMcRo v. Take-Two Interactive SoftwareBarry v. MedtronicO.S. Security v. Sargent Manufacturing Company Et. Al.Telinit Technologies v. NextivaDocuments About PatentSkip carousel16-12-20 Apple Complaint v. Acacia Et Al.AppleVsSamsung_11.07.05Gillette Company v. ADKM, Inc. d/b/a Harry's Razor Company et. al.Samsung vs Apple - Samsung's Appeal to the Supreme CourtNike v. SkechersNokiaVsApple_11.03.31.100Consulting AgreementPRICELINE COM INC 10-K (Annual Reports) 2009-02-20Wizards of the Coast v. Cryptozoic Entertainment et. al.Apple vs Android 10.12.02Nokia Complaint Against Apple in federal district court, WisconsinBeyond PhilanthropyDavid Einhorn's presentation on Green Mountain RoastersBose vs Beats (ITC complaint)Apple vs Samsung 11.04.22Bose v. Beats Civil ComplaintGENENTECH INC 10-K (Annual Reports) 2009-02-20Provisional Patent ApplicationAgainst Intellectual Property, by Stephan Kinsella Translation of Mannheim 2O240 Ruling Motorola v MicrosoftMicrosoftVsMotorola_11.12.11Novartis patent JudgementGoogle Dec Action vs RockstarKoninklijke Philips N.V. et. al. v. Nintendo et. al.11-07-01 Apple Motion for PI Against SamsungAppleVsHTCandS3_11.07.2914-01-21 Apple v. Samsung Summary Judgment OrderBU v AppleAmicus Brief in Support of Samsung RehearingGreenwich Ballistics v. Jamison InternationalMore From PatentBlastSkip carouselMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Samsung Electronics Et. AlMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Nintendo of America Et. AlMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Cantor Fitzgerald Et. AlMultiplayer Network Innovations v. ZTE Et. AlMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Toshiba AmericaMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Pantech Et. AlMultiplayer Network Innovations v. NVIDIAActifio v. DelphixRTC Industries v. Flextronics InternationalTactical Medical Solutions v. Karl Et. AlPrometheus Laboratories v. Par Pharmaceutical Companies Et. AlAndrea Electronics v. Lenovo Group Et. Al.Andrea Electronics v. Toshiba Et. Al.Property Disclosure Technologies v. TruliaGlobal Tel*Link v. Securus Technologies et. al.Century Board v. National Registered AgentsIatric Systems v. FairWarningHologram Et. Al. v. Arena3D Industrial Illusion Et. Al.Tech-ni-Fold v. F.P. Rosback CompanyRTC Industries v. ZiveloMotobatt v. Deltran OperationsImpax Laboratories Et. Al. v. Lannett Holdings Et. Al.Alkermes Pharma Ireland v. Sun Pharma Global FZE Et. Al.Unimed Pharmaceuticals Et. Al. v. Perrigo Company Et. Al.Sensus v. Certified MeasurementCapella Photonics v. TellabsCapella Photonics v. Fujitsu Network CommunicationsCapella Photonics v. CienaILife Technologies v. AliphComAeritas v. GameStop