Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/133649600/Lodsys-Group-v-Gameloft
Timestamp: 2017-03-27 18:01:07
Document Index: 29035392

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1331', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 284', '§ 285', '§ 284', '§ 285', 'art0']

Lodsys Group v. Gameloft
BrowseInterestsStay InformedCareerPersonal GrowthFiction & BiographiesHealth & FitnessLifestyleCultureBrowse byBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION LODSYS GROUP, LLC, Plaintiff, v. GAMELOFT USA, INC., Defendant. § § § § § § § § §
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-cv-248 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Marshall, Texas. 2. Defendant Gameloft USA, Inc. (“Gameloft”) is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business in New York, New York. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and
and legally issued for a “Customer-Based Product Design Module.” A true and correct copy of the ‘565 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Lodsys is the owner by assignment of all rights, title, and interest in and to the ‘565 patent. 6. On information and belief, Gameloft has infringed directly, indirectly, literally,
under the doctrine of equivalents, contributorily, and/or through the inducement of others (including but not limited to users of Gameloft’s applications), one or more of the claims of the ‘565 patent. On information and belief, Gameloft manufactures, uses, sells, imports, and/or
offers to sell infringing products and/or services — including but not limited to Gameloft’s applications such as Real Soccer 2012 — which infringe at least claims 1, 15, and 27 of the ‘565 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271. 7. Prior to filing this complaint, Lodsys informed Gameloft of the patents-in-suit and
offered to enter into a licensing arrangement that would allow Gameloft to continue practicing the inventions claimed in patents-in-suit. Gameloft, however, chose not to enter into a licensing agreement. Instead, with knowledge of the patents-in-suit and disregard for Lodsys’ patent rights, Gameloft chose to continue its infringement. On information and belief, Gameloft
continued its infringement despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of a valid patent (i.e., the ‘565 patent). Gameloft was made aware and, therefore, knew of the risk that it infringed the ‘565 patent. willfully, and with intent to infringe the patents-in-suit. Accordingly, Gameloft acted knowingly,
the alternative to direct infringement, Gameloft is liable for indirect infringement of the ’565 patent by inducing infringement and contributing to direct infringement of the ‘565 patent by others (e.g., end users of Gameloft’s applications, including Real Soccer 2012). 9. At least from the time Gameloft received notice from Lodsys, Gameloft has
purposely and voluntarily made its applications available to customers, with the expectation that its applications will be used by end users within the Eastern District of Texas. On information and belief, and in the alternative to direct infringement, Gameloft has thereby induced the end users of its applications within the Eastern District of Texas to infringe one or more claims of the ‘565 patent, and Gameloft knew or should have known that its actions would induce direct infringement. 10. On information and belief, and in the alternative to direct infringement, Gameloft
has also contributed to the direct infringement of one or more claims of the ‘565 patent by intentionally and voluntarily providing its applications to end users within the Eastern District of Texas, knowing that its applications to be especially made or adapted for use by end users to infringe the ‘565 patent from at least the time Gameloft received notice of the patents-in-suit from Lodsys. On information and belief, Gameloft’s applications have no substantial
noninfringing uses, and Gameloft acted knowing that its applications are not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantially non-infringing use. 11. Defendant’s acts of infringement have caused damage to Lodsys, and Lodsys is
legally issued for “Methods and Systems for Gathering Information from Units of a Commodity Across a Network.” A true and correct copy of the ‘078 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit B. Lodsys is the owner by assignment of all rights, title, and interest in and to the ‘078 patent. 13. On information and belief, Gameloft has infringed directly, indirectly, literally,
under the doctrine of equivalents, contributorily, and/or through the inducement of others (including but not limited to users of Gameloft’s applications), one or more of the claims of the ‘078 patent. On information and belief, Gameloft manufactures, uses, sells, imports, and/or
offers to sell infringing products and/or services — including but not limited to Gameloft’s applications such as Real Soccer 2012 — which infringe at least claims 1 and 69 of the ‘078 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271. 14. Prior to filing this complaint, Lodsys informed Gameloft of the patents-in-suit and
continued its infringement despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of a valid patent (i.e., the ‘078 patent). Gameloft was made aware and, therefore, knew of the risk that it infringed the ‘078 patent. willfully, and with intent to infringe the patents-in-suit. 15. Based on the information presently available to Lodsys absent discovery, and in Accordingly, Gameloft acted knowingly,
the alternative to direct infringement, Gameloft is liable for indirect infringement of the ‘078 patent by inducing infringement and contributing to direct infringement of the ‘078 patent by others (e.g., end users of Gameloft’s applications, including Real Soccer 2012). 16. At least from the time Gameloft received notice from Lodsys, Gameloft has
purposely and voluntarily made its applications available to customers, with the expectation that 4
its applications will be used by end users within the Eastern District of Texas. On information and belief, and in the alternative to direct infringement, Gameloft has thereby induced the end users of its applications within the Eastern District of Texas to infringe one or more claims of the ‘078 patent, and Gameloft knew or should have known that its actions would induce direct infringement. 17. On information and belief, and in the alternative to direct infringement, Gameloft
has also contributed to the direct infringement of one or more claims of the ‘078 patent by intentionally and voluntarily providing its applications to end users within the Eastern District of Texas, knowing that its applications to be especially made or adapted for use by end users to infringe the ‘078 patent from at least the time Gameloft received notice of the patents-in-suit from Lodsys. On information and belief, Gameloft’s applications have no substantial
noninfringing uses, and Gameloft acted knowing that its applications are not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantially non-infringing use. 18. Defendant’s acts of infringement have caused damage to Lodsys, and Lodsys is
entitled to recover from defendant the damages sustained by Lodsys as a result of defendant’s wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial. Defendant’s infringement is willful and deliberate, including because defendant became aware of the infringing nature of its products and services at the latest when it received a notice letter from Lodsys and/or the filing of this complaint, entitling Lodsys to increased damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 and to attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this action under 35 U.S.C. § 285. JURY DEMAND Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Lodsys respectfully requests a trial by jury on all issues. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Lodsys Group, LLC, respectfully requests entry of judgment in its favor and against defendant as follows: (a) Declaration that defendant has infringed U.S. Patent No. 7,620,565 and U.S. 5
Patent No. 7,222,078; (b) Awarding the damages arising out of defendant’s infringement of U.S. Patent No.
became aware of the infringing nature of its respective products and services, which is the time of receiving a notice letter from Lodsys or the filing of Lodsys’s Complaint at the latest, and awarding treble damages to Lodsys for the period of such willful infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284; (d) by law; and (e) proper. Dated: April 2, 2013 By: Respectfully Submitted, /s/ William E. Davis, III William E. “Bo” Davis, III Texas State Bar No. 24047416 THE DAVIS FIRM, PC 111 West Tyler Street Longview, Texas 75601 Phone: (903) 230-9090 Fax: (903) 230-9661 Email: bdavis@bdavisfirm.com Michael A. Goldfarb Christopher M. Huck Kit W. Roth KELLEY, GOLDFARB, HUCK & ROTH, PLLC 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6100 Seattle, Washington 98104 Phone: (206) 452-0260 Fax: (206) 397-3062 Email: goldfarb@kdg-law.com huck@kdg-law.com roth@kdg-law.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Lodsys Group, LLC 6 Awarding such other costs and further relief as the Court may deem just and Awarding attorneys’ fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 or as otherwise permitted
Sign up to vote on this titleUsefulNot usefulLodsys Group v. Gameloft by PriorSmart0.0 (0)EmbedDownloadDescriptionOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-00248: Lodsys Group, LLC v. Gameloft USA, Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, no judge yet as...Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-00248: Lodsys Group, LLC v. Gameloft USA, Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l7UE 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
RelatedLodsys Group v. TeamLavaby PatentBlastLodsys Group v. Gamevilby PriorSmartLodsys Group v. OpticsPlanetby PatentBlastLodsys Group v. BackFlip Studiosby PatentBlastC Y Wong Intellectual Property v. Bulova Watch Companyby PriorSmartSmartData v. Netgearby PriorSmartTelecomm Innovations LLCby PriorSmartTelecomm Innovations v. Best Data Products et. al.by PriorSmartTelecomm Innovations v. Payment Alliance Internationalby PriorSmartTelecomm Innovations v. Lexmark Internationalby PriorSmartTelecomm Innovations LLCby PriorSmartTelecomm Innovations LLCby PriorSmartSmith et. al. v. Guardian Fall Protection et. al.by PriorSmartIBC v. Wal-Mart - Complaintby slbursteinTemper Axle Products v. Amsted Rail Companyby PriorSmartWyncomm v. Appleby PatentBlastWyncomm v. Rain Computersby PatentBlastWyncomm v. Octagon Systemsby PatentBlastJoao Control & Monitoring Systems v. Mazda Motor of Americaby PriorSmartWyncomm v. System 76by PatentBlastTransVideo Electronics v. Huluby PatentBlastWyncomm v. HTC Americaby PatentBlastFreeny et. al. v. Murphy Oil et. al.by PriorSmartSwimways Et. Al. v. Zuruby PatentBlastE-Contact Technologies v. Appleby PatentBlastMobile Logistics LLCby PriorSmartPatent Group v. Crayolaby PriorSmartShinn Fu Company of America, Inc. et. al. v. Northern Tool & Equipment Company, Inc.by PatentBlastSimilar To Lodsys Group v. GameloftSkip carouselLodsys Group v. TeamLavaLodsys Group v. GamevilLodsys Group v. OpticsPlanetLodsys Group v. BackFlip StudiosC Y Wong Intellectual Property v. Bulova Watch CompanySmartData v. NetgearTelecomm Innovations LLCTelecomm Innovations v. Best Data Products et. al.Telecomm Innovations v. Payment Alliance InternationalTelecomm Innovations v. Lexmark InternationalTelecomm Innovations LLCTelecomm Innovations LLCSmith et. al. v. Guardian Fall Protection et. al.IBC v. Wal-Mart - ComplaintTemper Axle Products v. Amsted Rail CompanyWyncomm v. AppleWyncomm v. Rain ComputersWyncomm v. Octagon SystemsJoao Control & Monitoring Systems v. Mazda Motor of AmericaWyncomm v. System 76TransVideo Electronics v. HuluWyncomm v. HTC AmericaFreeny et. al. v. Murphy Oil et. al.Swimways Et. Al. v. ZuruE-Contact Technologies v. AppleMobile Logistics LLCPatent Group v. CrayolaShinn Fu Company of America, Inc. et. al. v. Northern Tool & Equipment Company, Inc.137-146Knowles Electronics v. Analog DevicesLodsys Group v. Gameloft