Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/68699207/Untitled
Timestamp: 2016-08-26 11:11:25
Document Index: 600196737

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 271', '§ 1331', '§ 1391', '§ 271', '§ 287', '§ 284']

BrowseUploadSign inJoinBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicWelcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out moreIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION PATENT HARBOR, LLCPlaintiff, v. THE CRITERION COLLECTION, INC. Defendant. § § § § § § § § §
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT This is an action for patent infringement in which Patent Harbor, LLC (“Patent Harbor”), makes the following allegations against The Criterion Collection, Inc. (hereafter “Criterion” or “Defendant”). PARTIES 1. Patent Harbor is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Texas.
Patent Harbor maintains its principal place of business at 4455 Camp Bowie Blvd., Suite 114, PMB 72, Ft. Worth, TX 76107. 2. Upon information and belief, Criterion is, and at all relevant times mentioned
herein was, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware with a principal place of business at 215 Park Avenue South, Fifth Floor, New York, NY 10003. Upon information and belief, The Criterion Collection, Inc. authors, manufactures and/or distributes DVD and Blu-Ray discs to consumers in the United States and, more particularly, in the Eastern District of Texas. Criterion may be served with process by serving its registered agent, The Corporation Trust Company, Corporation Trust Center, 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801.
United States Code, more particularly, 35 U.S.C. §§ 271 et seq. 4. 5. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). This Court has personal jurisdiction over Criterion. Defendant has conducted and
does conduct business within the State of Texas. Defendant, directly or through intermediaries (including distributors, retailers, and others), authors, distributes, offers for sale, sells, ships, and/or advertises (including the provision of an interactive web page) its products in the United States, the State of Texas, and the Eastern District of Texas. Upon information and belief, Defendant has purposefully and voluntarily placed one or more of its infringing products, as described below, into the stream of commerce with the expectation that they will be purchased by consumers in the Eastern District of Texas. Upon information and belief, these infringing products have been and continue to be purchased by consumers in the Eastern District of Texas. Defendant has committed the tort of patent infringement within the State of Texas and, more particularly, within the Eastern District of Texas. 6. 1400(b). COUNT 1: INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,684,514 7. Patent Harbor refers to and incorporates all preceding paragraphs as though fully Venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and
set forth herein. 8. United States Patent No. 5,684,514 (“the ‘514 Patent”), entitled “Apparatus and
Method for Assembling Content Addressable Video” was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on November 4, 1997, after full and fair examination. Patent Harbor is the assignee of all rights, title, and interest in and to the ‘514 Patent and possesses all 2
rights of recovery under the ‘514 Patent, including the right to recover damages for past infringements. A true and correct copy of the ‘514 Patent is attached as Exhibit A. 9. Upon information and belief, and upon representations to Patent Harbor by United
Artists Corporation and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., named defendants in the currently pending lawsuit before this Court styled Patent Harbor, LLC v. DreamWorks Animation SKG, Inc. et al., civil action no. 6:11-cv-00229, Criterion manufactures, uses, sells, offers to sell, authors, and/or distributes DVD and Blu-Ray discs containing movies, television shows or other forms of video entertainment produced by at least United Artists Corporation and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. In particular, United Artists has represented that its “DVDs and Blu-Ray discs are and, since May 9, 2005 have been distributed by…The Criterion Collection, Inc.” Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer has represented that its “DVDs and Blu-Ray discs are and, since May 9, 2005, have been distributed by…The Criterion Collection, Inc.” Upon information and belief, Criterion’s
authoring or manufacture of the DVD and Blu-Ray discs, including, but not limited to, exemplary movie The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, with their content-addressing features (e.g. illustrated chapter/scene selection) along with the authoring equipment, and/or sale of the authored discs, on behalf of others and/or itself, infringe one or more claims of the ‘514 Patent. Upon information and belief, Criterion either performs the authoring, manufacturing, and/or distribution or directs and controls the authoring, manufacturing, and/or distribution through contract. 10. Criterion has actual notice of the ‘514 Patent at least as early as the filing of this
Original Complaint. 11. Upon information and belief, Criterion is infringing one or more claims, including
at least claim 6 of the ‘514 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271 by performing, without authority, one or more of the following acts: (i) making, using, selling, offering to sell, authoring, and/or 3
distributing within the United States the DVD and Blu-ray discs which infringe one or more claims of the ‘514 Patent; (ii) importing into the United States the DVD and Blu-ray discs which infringe one or more claims of the ‘514 Patent; and/or (iii) indirectly infringing one or more claims of the ‘514 Patent by means of jointly infringing, inducing infringement and/or contributing to infringement through directly contracting with and/or directing contractors to perform infringing acts of their behalf. 12. Patent Harbor has been damaged as a result of Criterion’s infringing conduct.
Thus, Criterion is liable to Patent Harbor in an amount that adequately compensates Patent Harbor for its infringement, which, by law, cannot be less than a reasonable royalty, together with interest and costs as fixed by this Court under 35 § U.S.C. 284. 13. Criterion will continue to infringe the claims of the ‘514 Patent unless a post
judgment royalty is awarded. 14. Patent Harbor is in compliance with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 287, to the
extent applicable. 15. As a result of Criterion’s acts of infringement, Patent Harbor has suffered and will
continue to suffer damages in an amount to be proved at trial. PRAYER FOR RELIEF Patent Harbor prays for the following relief: A. A judgment that Criterion has infringed the ‘514 Patent as alleged herein, directly
and/or indirectly by way of contributory infringement and/or inducing infringement of the ‘514 Patent, as alleged herein; B. A judgment and order requiring Criterion to pay Patent Harbor compensatory
damages in an amount no less than a reasonable royalty under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
A judgment and order requiring Criterion to pay Patent Harbor pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest on the damages awarded; D. A judgment and order that Criterion pay Patent Harbor an on-going post-
judgment royalty for future acts of infringement, at a rate to be determined by the jury or the Court; and E. Any and all other relief as the Court deems just and equitable. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Patent Harbor, LLC hereby demands that all issues be determined by a jury. October 13, 2011 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Keith A. Rutherford Keith A. Rutherford Texas State Bar No. 17452000 Lead Attorney John C. Cain Texas State Bar No. 00783778 Scott Reese Texas State Bar No. 24046696 WONG, CABELLO, LUTSCH, RUTHERFORD & BRUCCULERI, L.L.P. 20333 SH 249, Suite 600 Houston, Texas 77070 Telephone: (832) 446-2400 Facsimile: (832) 446-2424 E-Mail: krutherford@counselip.com E-Mail: jcain@counselip.com E-Mail: sreese@counselip.com T. John Ward, Jr. Texas State Bar No. 00794818 WARD & SMITH LAW FIRM 111 W. Tyler St. Longview, Texas 75601 Telephone: (903) 757-6400 Facsimile: (903) 757-2323 E-Mail: jw@jwfirm.com Eric M. Albritton Texas State Bar No. 00790215 5
Steve Edwards Texas State Bar No. 00784008 ALBRITTON LAW FIRM 111 W. Tyler St. Longview, Texas 75601 Telephone: (903) 757-8449 Facsimile: (903) 7587397 E-Mail: ema@emafirm.com E-Mail: see@emafirm.com COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF PATENT HARBOR, LLC
RelatedAzure Networks et. al. v. MediaTekby PriorSmartCeraMedic v. Biometby PriorSmartTendler Cellular of Texas v. TX-11 Acquisition, LLC d/b/a Cellular One of East Texas et. al.by PriorSmartKlausner Technologies, Inc. V. Interactive Intelligence Group, Incby PriorSmartKlausner Technologies v. 3CXby PriorSmartVidex v. Triteq Lock and Securityby PriorSmartClerisy et. al. v. AirWare Holdings et. al.by PriorSmartInnovative Automation v. Targetby PriorSmartInnovative Automation v. Koboby PriorSmartSmith et. al. v. Guardian Fall Protection et. al.by PriorSmartWonderland Nurserygoods v. Thorley Industriesby PriorSmartWyncomm LLCby PriorSmartLumen View Technology v. InternMatchby PriorSmartProtegrity v. Trustwave Holdingsby PriorSmartCycle Dog LLC v Motivation Design - Complaintby slbursteinUmbanet v. Cape Resorts Group et. al.by PriorSmartUniloc et. al. v. Depositphotosby PriorSmartPatentMarks Communications v. Dellby PatentBlastOnline News Link v. Wayfairby PatentBlastGDC Enterprises v. Robco Manufacturingby PriorSmartTelecomm Innovations v. ATM Systemsby PriorSmartDinDon Foods v. Conica Gift Trust et. al.by PriorSmartCircuit Check v. QXQby PriorSmartArrivalStar et. al. v. Pilot Corporation of Americaby PriorSmartArrivalStar Et. Al. v. Avante International Technologyby PatentBlastActivision TV v. American Digital Signageby PatentBlastDataTern v. Premierby PriorSmartArrivalStar et. al. v. Sephoraby PriorSmartSimilar to v. Criterion CollectionAzure Networks et. al. v. MediaTekCeraMedic v. BiometTendler Cellular of Texas v. TX-11 Acquisition, LLC d/b/a Cellular One of East Texas et. al.Klausner Technologies, Inc. V. Interactive Intelligence Group, IncKlausner Technologies v. 3CXVidex v. Triteq Lock and SecurityClerisy et. al. v. AirWare Holdings et. al.Innovative Automation v. TargetInnovative Automation v. KoboSmith et. al. v. Guardian Fall Protection et. al.Wonderland Nurserygoods v. Thorley IndustriesWyncomm LLCLumen View Technology v. InternMatchProtegrity v. Trustwave HoldingsCycle Dog LLC v Motivation Design - ComplaintUmbanet v. Cape Resorts Group et. al.Uniloc et. al. v. DepositphotosPatentMarks Communications v. DellOnline News Link v. WayfairGDC Enterprises v. Robco ManufacturingTelecomm Innovations v. ATM SystemsDinDon Foods v. Conica Gift Trust et. al.Circuit Check v. QXQArrivalStar et. al. v. Pilot Corporation of AmericaArrivalStar Et. Al. v. Avante International TechnologyActivision TV v. American Digital SignageDataTern v. PremierArrivalStar et. al. v. Sephora