Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/151471293/CTP-Innovations-v-Primary-Color-Systems
Timestamp: 2017-09-22 22:42:24
Document Index: 580591348

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1331', '§ 1391', '§\n271', '§ 271', '§ 284', '§ 284']

CTP Innovations v. Primary Color Systems | Patent | Patent Infringement
Description: CTP Innovations v. Primary Color Systems
, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. _______________ v. ) ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRIMARY COLOR SYSTEMS ) CORPORATION, ) ) Defendant. ) ) ________________________________________________________________________ COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT ________________________________________________________________________ Plaintiff CTP Innovations, LLC, for its Complaint against Defendant Primary Color Systems Corporation, states as follows: I. THE PARTIES
Plaintiff CTP Innovations, LLC (“CTP”) is a Delaware limited
Upon information and belief, Defendant Primary Color Systems
Corporation (“Defendant”) is a California corporation, with its principal place of business located at 265 A Briggs Avenue, Costa Mesa, California 92626. Upon information and belief, Defendant does business in the State of Georgia, including in this District. Defendant may be served with process
through service upon its registered agent, Vincent Randazzo, 265 A Briggs Avenue, Costa Mesa, California 92626. II. NATURE OF ACTION
infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,611,349 (the “‘349 Patent”) and 6,738,155 (the “‘155 Patent”). III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a) because it arises under the Patent Laws of the United States, United States Code, Title 35.
Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(c) and
1400(b). On information and belief, Defendant has a regular and established place of business in this district, has transacted business in this district, and/or has committed acts of patent infringement in this district.
IV. CAUSES OF ACTION COUNT I INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,611,349
CTP owns, by assignment, the ‘349 Patent entitled “System and
Method of Generating a Printing Plate File in Real Time Using a Communication Network.” attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
A true and correct copy of the ‘349 Patent is
Upon information and belief, Defendant, in violation of 35 U.S.C. §
271, has infringed, literally or through the doctrine of equivalents, and continues to infringe the ‘349 Patent through Defendant’s making, using, selling, and/or offering for sale in the United States, and specifically in this district, printing and publishing services that implement systems and/or methods that fall within the claims of the ‘349 Patent.
as early as its receipt of a letter from CTP’s counsel regarding infringement of the ‘349 Patent sent on April 19, 2013.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s infringement of
the ‘349 Patent, CTP has been and continues to be damaged in an amount yet to be determined.
Unless Defendant’s ongoing infringement is enjoined, CTP will
suffer irreparable injury for which there is no adequate remedy at law.
This is an exceptional case such that CTP should be entitled to its
reasonable attorney fees and expenses incurred in prosecuting this action and defending any counterclaims brought by Defendant. COUNT II INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,738,155
CTP incorporates the preceding paragraphs as though fully set
CTP owns, by assignment, the ‘155 Patent entitled “System and
Method of Providing Publishing and Printing Services Via a Communications Network.” A true and correct copy of the ‘155 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
Defendant, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, has infringed, literally
or through the doctrine of equivalents, and continues to infringe the ‘155 Patent through Defendant’s making, using, selling, and/or offering for sale in
the United States, and specifically in this district, printing and publishing services that implement systems and/or methods that fall within the claims of the ‘155 Patent.
Defendant has had actual notice of the ‘155 Patent since at least
as early as its receipt of a letter from CTP’s counsel regarding infringement of the ‘155 Patent sent on April 19, 2013.
‘155 Patent unless enjoined by this Court.
On information and belief, Defendant’s infringement of the ‘155
the ‘155 Patent, CTP has been and continues to be damaged in an amount yet to be determined.
reasonable attorney fees and expenses incurred in prosecuting this action and defending any counterclaims brought by Defendant. V. REQUEST FOR RELIEF Wherefore, CTP requests the following relief:
A judgment in favor of CTP that Defendant has infringed the ‘349
A permanent injunction enjoining Defendant and its officers,
directors, agents, servants, affiliates, employees, divisions, branches, subsidiaries, parents, and all other actors acting in active concert therewith from infringing the ‘349 Patent;
directors, agents, servants, affiliates, employees, divisions, branches, subsidiaries, parents, and all other actors acting in active concert therewith from infringing the ‘155 Patent;
A judgment and order requiring Defendant to pay CTP its
damages in an amount not less than a reasonable royalty, treble damages, costs, expenses, and prejudgment and post-judgment interest for Defendant’s infringement of the ‘349 Patent, as provided under 35 U.S.C. § 284;
damages in an amount not less than a reasonable royalty, treble damages, costs, expenses, and prejudgment and post-judgment interest for Defendant’s infringement of the ‘155 Patent, as provided under 35 U.S.C. § 284;
A judgment and order finding that this is an exceptional case
Documents Similar To CTP Innovations v. Primary Color Systems