Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/127578206/Princeton-Digital-Image-Corporation
Timestamp: 2017-03-24 01:44:17
Document Index: 587867946

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

BrowseInterestsStay InformedCareerPersonal GrowthFiction & BiographiesHealth & FitnessLifestyleCultureBrowse byBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE PRINCETON DIGITAL IMAGE CORPORATION, Plaintiff, Case No. v.JURY TRIAL DEMANDED MACY'S, INC., Defendant. COMPLAINT Princeton Digital Image Corporation (hereafter “Princeton”), Plaintiff, brings this action against Macy's, Inc. (hereafter “Defendant”), and alleges that: PARTIES 1. of Texas. 2. Upon information and belief, Defendant is a Delaware corporation having as its Plaintiff Princeton is a corporation organized and doing business under the laws
agent for service of process Corporation Service Company, 2711 Centerville Road, Suite 400, Wilmington, DE 19808. Upon information and belief, Defendant regularly conducts and transacts business in Delaware within this Judicial District, and throughout the United States, itself and/or through one or more subsidiaries, affiliates, business divisions, or business units. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. This is an action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the
United States, 35 U.S.C. § 271, et seq. 4. 1338(a). This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and
This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant since, on information and
belief, Defendant has transacted business in this judicial district, directly or through intermediaries, and/or committed acts of infringement in this judicial district. 6. and 1400(b). BACKGROUND 7. On March 14, 1989, United States Patent No. 4,813,056 (hereafter “the ‘056 Venue in this district over Defendant is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c) and (d)
Patent”) was duly and legally issued to Nicola J. Fedele, as the inventor thereof, and at all applicable times was valid and subsisting. A copy of the ‘056 Patent, which is entitled “Modified Statistical Coding of Digital Signals,” is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”. 8. Nicola J. Fedele originally assigned his rights to the ‘056 Patent to General
Electric Company, which assigned all rights, title and interest in and to the ‘056 Patent to Princeton Digital Image Compression, LLC. Princeton Digital Image Compression, LLC has assigned all of its rights, title and interest in and to the ‘056 Patent to Princeton Digital Image Corporation, Plaintiff herein, the current holder of the ‘056 Patent. INFRINGEMENT OF THE `056 PATENT 9. Upon information and belief, Defendant infringed the ’056 patent in violation of
35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by using the patented invention to, inter alia, encode images in a manner that infringed claims 18, 19, 20, 21 and 23 of the ’056 patent. For example, upon information and belief, Defendant encoded image data into JPEG files for purposes of producing JPEG images of products sold through Defendant’s websites and/or converting existing images of such products into JPEG images of said products having different sizes and/or image quality, all for display on Defendant’s websites (including macys.com and bloomingdales.com) for the purpose of selling said products. 2
Princeton is entitled to recover from Defendant damages as a result of
Defendant’s acts of infringement of the ‘056 Patent in an amount subject to proof at trial. PRAYER AND RELIEF WHEREFORE, Princeton prays for judgment against Defendant and for the following relief: A. B. a judgment declaring that Defendant infringed the ‘056 patent; an accounting for damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 from Defendant for its
infringement of the ‘056 patent, and an award of damages ascertained against Defendant in favor of Princeton, together with interest and costs thereon; and C. such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
JURY DEMAND Plaintiff Princeton demands a trial by jury of all issues properly triable by jury in this action.
Respectfully submitted, O’KELLY ERNST & BIELLI, LLC Dated: February 26, 2013 /s/ Sean T. O’Kelly Sean T. O’Kelly (No. 4349) 901 N. Market Street, Suite 1000 Wilmington, Delaware 19801 (302) 778-4000 (302) 295-2873 (facsimile) sokelly@oeblegal.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Princeton Digital Image Corporation
Sign up to vote on this titleUsefulNot usefulPrinceton Digital Image Corporation by PriorSmart0.0 (0)EmbedDownloadDescriptionOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-00327-UNA: Princeton Digital Image Corporation. Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, no judge yet assign...Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-00327-UNA: Princeton Digital Image Corporation. Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l7Kq 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
RelatedSonic Industry v. Sally Beauty Holdingsby PriorSmartPenovia v. Microsoftby PriorSmartNewell Operating Company d/b/a Ashland Hardware Systems v. Truth Hardwareby PriorSmartPrinceton Digital Image Corporationby PriorSmartPrinceton Digital Image Corporationby PriorSmartTrue Pitch v. Porta-Pro Mounds Inc dba The Perfect Moundby PriorSmartSonic Industry v. Public Storageby PriorSmartWorldwide Oilfield Machine v. Ameriforge Group, Inc. d/b/a AF Global Corporation a/k/a AF Globalby PriorSmartPatent Group v. James Coney Islandby PriorSmartPenovia v. Sprint Nextelby PriorSmartData Carriers v. LG Electronics Mobilecomm et. al.by PriorSmartFreeny et. al. v. Murphy Oil et. al.by PriorSmartExcel Industries v. MTD Productsby PatentBlastMUSIC Group Services v. Ion Audioby PriorSmartLBS Innovations v. Gasbuddy OpenStoreby PatentBlaste.digital v. Toshiba America Information Systemsby PatentBlastCYVA Research Holdings v. Henderson Citizens Bancshares Et. Al.by PatentBlastFEGO Precision Industrial v. Fitbitby PatentBlastCTP Innovations v. Edwards Brothersby PriorSmartCTP Innovations v. Magna IV Color Imagingby PriorSmartCTP Innovations v. A & M Labelby PriorSmartPlayCore Wisconsin v. Krauss Craft, Inc. d/b/a Playcraft Systemsby PriorSmartTrustees of Boston University v. Hewlett-Packard Companyby PriorSmartChou v. Sony et. al.by PriorSmartKirker Enterprises v. Max Makeup Cherimoya et. al.by PriorSmartElectro-Mechanicial v. Power Distribution Products et. al.by PriorSmartCertusview Technologies v. United States Infrastructure Et. Al.by PatentBlastActivision TV v. CenturyLink, Inc. d/b/a Century Link Communicationsby PatentBlastSimilar To Princeton Digital Image v. Footlocker.com et. al.Skip carouselSonic Industry v. Sally Beauty HoldingsPenovia v. MicrosoftNewell Operating Company d/b/a Ashland Hardware Systems v. Truth HardwarePrinceton Digital Image CorporationPrinceton Digital Image CorporationTrue Pitch v. Porta-Pro Mounds Inc dba The Perfect MoundSonic Industry v. Public StorageWorldwide Oilfield Machine v. Ameriforge Group, Inc. d/b/a AF Global Corporation a/k/a AF GlobalPatent Group v. James Coney IslandPenovia v. Sprint NextelData Carriers v. LG Electronics Mobilecomm et. al.Freeny et. al. v. Murphy Oil et. al.Excel Industries v. MTD ProductsMUSIC Group Services v. Ion AudioLBS Innovations v. Gasbuddy OpenStoree.digital v. Toshiba America Information SystemsCYVA Research Holdings v. Henderson Citizens Bancshares Et. Al.FEGO Precision Industrial v. FitbitCTP Innovations v. Edwards BrothersCTP Innovations v. Magna IV Color ImagingCTP Innovations v. A & M LabelPlayCore Wisconsin v. Krauss Craft, Inc. d/b/a Playcraft SystemsTrustees of Boston University v. Hewlett-Packard CompanyChou v. Sony et. al.Kirker Enterprises v. Max Makeup Cherimoya et. al.Electro-Mechanicial v. Power Distribution Products et. al.Certusview Technologies v. United States Infrastructure Et. Al.Activision TV v. CenturyLink, Inc. d/b/a Century Link CommunicationsActivision Tv v. CianbroActivision TV v. Omni Hotels ManagementPrinceton Digital Image v. Footlocker.com et. al.