Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/231040489/Jericho-Systems-v-Axiomatics
Timestamp: 2016-08-28 05:34:03
Document Index: 177796444

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§ 1331', '§ 1391', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§\n271', '§ 284', '§ 285', 'art93', 'art09']

BrowseUploadSign inJoinBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicWelcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out moreDB1/ 79789274.1
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT – PAGE 1
JERICHO SYSTEMS CORPORATION, )
AXIOMATICS, INC., )
Plaintiff Jericho Systems Corporation, by its undersigned attorneys, files this Complaint
against Axiomatics, Inc. and alleges as follows:
1. Plaintiff Jericho Systems Corporation (“Jericho”) is a Texas corporation with its principal
place of business at 6600 LBJ Freeway, Suite 250, Dallas, Texas 75240.
2. On information and belief, Axiomatics, Inc. (“Axiomatics”) is a Delaware company with
its principal place of business at 1338 S. Foothill Drive #237, Salt Lake City, Utah 84108.
3. On information and belief, Axiomatics registered as a foreign corporation with the Texas
Secretary of State on April 19, 2012 and filed a Certificate of Withdrawal on February 26, 2014.
4. On information and belief, Axiomatics is the North American subsidiary of Axiomatics
AB, which is headquartered in Stockholm, Sweden.
5. This is an action for patent infringement pursuant to the Patent Laws of the United States,
35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.
6. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338.
DB1/ 79789274.1
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT – PAGE 2
7. Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(c) and 1400(b). The
Plaintiff maintains its principal place of business in this judicial district and, upon information
and belief, Defendant conducts substantial business in this judicial district, directly and through
intermediaries, including: (i) at least a portion of the infringements alleged herein; and (ii)
regularly doing or soliciting business, engaging in other persistent courses of conduct and/or
deriving substantial revenue from goods and services provided to individuals in this judicial
8. Upon information and belief, Axiomatics sells software products, including its access
control products, to customers in this judicial district, including but not limited to Bell
Helicopters. For example, but without limitation, upon information and belief in May 2009
Axiomatics was awarded a defense contract to provide software to Bell Helicopter.
9. On October 15, 2013, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office duly and lawfully issued
U.S. Patent No. 8,560,836, entitled “Method and System for Dynamically Implementing an
Enterprise Resource Policy” to inventor Michael W. Roegner (the “’836 Patent”). A true and
correct copy of the ’836 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
10. The Abstract of the ’836 Patent recites “[a] rules evaluation engine that controls user's
security access to enterprise resources that have policies created for them. This engine allows
real time authorization process to be performed with dynamic enrichment of the rules if
necessary. Logging, alarm and administrative processes for granting or denying access to the
user are also realized. The access encompasses computer and physical access to information and
enterprise spaces.”
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT – PAGE 3
11. The ’836 Patent is a valid and enforceable United States Patent issued after a full and fair
12. Jericho is the sole owner by assignment of the entire right, title, and interest in and to the
’836 Patent.
13. On information and belief, the Veterans Administration (the “VA”) purchased
Axiomatics products that infringe on one or more of Jericho’s patents.
14. On October 18, 2013, Jericho raised the infringement issue with VA.
15. On April 28, 2014, VA responded that “[a]fter investigation, VA has found no evidence
that [its] Procurement . . . infringes any patents.”
COUNT I – INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,560,836
16. Jericho re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through
15 above, as if fully set forth herein.
17. Axiomatics makes, uses, sells, offers to sell, and/or imports a system that controls access
to resources using a rules evaluation engine.
18. Axiomatics’ system grants or denies access based on rules or polices. On its own
website, Axiomatics identifies its access control system as an Attribute Based Access Control
(“ABAC”) process.
19. Axiomatics’ access control system embodies and practices the invention of the ’836
20. Axiomatics does not have a license or legal right to make, use, sell, offer to sell, or
import the invention described in and covered by the ’836 Patent.
21. Without license or authorization and in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), Axiomatics has
directly infringed and continues to directly infringe one or more claims of the ’836 Patent by
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT – PAGE 4
making, using, offering for sale, and/or selling within this district and elsewhere in the United
States and/or importing into this district and elsewhere in the United States, certain systems,
including, without limitation, the access control system that embodies and/or practices subject
matter claimed in the ’836 Patent.
22. Axiomatics was aware of the ’836 Patent and its infringement thereof at least as of the
date Axiomatics learned from the VA that Jericho contends that certain Axiomatics products
infringe the ’836 patent. Axiomatics acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions
infringe the ’836 patent by at least continuing to make, use, sell, offer to sell, and/or import
certain systems, including, without limitation, the access control system that embodies and/or
practices subject matter claimed in the ’836 Patent.
23. Further, upon information and belief, by the manufacture, use, importation, sale, and/or
offer to sale of such systems, as well as by other activities, including but not limited to, the
support and maintenance of systems having, providing, or otherwise enabling the systems and
methods of the ’836 Patent, Axiomatics has contributed and continues to contribute to the
infringement, and/or has actively induced and continues to actively induce the infringement, of
said patent by others in the United States under at least 35 U.S.C. §§ 271(b) and (c).
24. Upon information and belief, since at least as of the date Axiomatics learned from the VA
that Jericho contends that certain Axiomatics products infringe the ’836 patent, Axiomatics
specifically intended to induce infringement by its customers and others under 35 U.S.C. §
271(b) by, for example, selling its infringing systems to customers, including, without limitation,
the access control system that embodies and/or practices subject matter claimed in the ’836
Patent, with knowledge that such customers use the infringing systems. Axiomatics actively and
knowingly aids and abets others to infringe, including but not limited to its customers, whose use
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT – PAGE 5
of Axiomatics’ access control system constitutes direct infringement of the ’836 Patent. For
example, since the date Axiomatics learned from the VA that Jericho contends that certain
Axiomatics products infringe the ’836 patent, Axiomatics has intentionally and knowingly
encouraged others to infringe by using Axiomatics’ infringing software, including Axiomatics’
selling, licensing and otherwise providing its infringing software to its customers and potential
customers, and by advertising its policy-based access control system on its website.
https://www.axiomatics.com/solutions/products.html (last visited on June 19, 2014).
25. Upon information and belief, since at least the date Axiomatics learned from the VA that
Jericho contends that certain Axiomatics products infringe the ’836 patent, Axiomatics has and
continues to materially contribute to the infringement of the ’836 patent under 35 U.S.C. 271(c)
by intentionally and knowingly making, selling, or offering for sale computer products that
infringe on the ’836 patent. These computer program products constitute a material part of the
’836 patent, are not a staple article, have no substantial non-infringing uses, and are especially
adapted to work in a system or carry out a method claimed in the ’836 patent.
26. Jericho has been and continues to be irreparably damaged by Axiomatics’ activities
infringing the ’836 Patent.
Plaintiff Jericho Systems Corporation respectfully requests that this Court grant the
(a) Judgment against Axiomatics and in favor of Jericho;
(b) Judgment in favor of Jericho that Axiomatics has infringed the ’836 Patent and
that such infringement has been and is willful;
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT – PAGE 6
(c) A permanent injunction enjoining Axiomatics and its officers, directors, agents,
servants, affiliates, employees, divisions, branches, subsidiaries, parents, partners, and all others
acting in concert with Axiomatics from infringing the ’836 Patent;
(d) A judgment and order requiring Axiomatics to pay Jericho damages, costs,
expenses, and prejudgment and post-judgment interest for Axiomatics’ infringement of the ’836
(e) An award to Jericho for enhanced damages resulting from the knowing,
deliberate, and willful nature of Defendant’s prohibited conduct with notice being made at least
as early as the date Axiomatics learned from Veterans Affairs that Jericho contends that certain
Axiomatics products infringe the ’836 patent, as provided under 35 U.S.C. § 284;
(f) A judgment and order finding that this is an exceptional case within the meaning
of 35 U.S.C. § 285 and awarding to Jericho its reasonable attorneys’ fees;
(g) That Axiomatics account for and pay over to Jericho its profits and all damages
sustained by Jericho;
(h) That the Court award Jericho costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in this action; and
(i) Such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
Jericho hereby demands trial by jury on all issues.
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT – PAGE 7
Dated: June 23, 2014 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Paulo B. McKeeby
State Bar No. 00784571
Timothy D. Bergquist
State Bar No. 24087163
(214) 466-4000 (telephone)
(214) 466-4001 (facsimile)
tbergquist@morganlewis.com
J. Kevin Fee (pro hac vice forthcoming)
Alex Hanna (pro hac vice forthcoming)
Todd R. Steggerda (pro hac vice forthcoming)
Brad Fagg (pro hac vice forthcoming)
Katelyn Moscony
(pro hac vice forthcoming)
(202) 739-5353 (telephone)
(202) 739-3001 (facsimile)
Attorneys of Record for Jericho Systems
*Admitted in Virginia only
Jericho Systems v. Axiomatics by PriorSmart93 viewsEmbedDownloadDescriptionOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. None: Jericho Systems Corporation v. Axiomatics, Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, no judge yet as...Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. None: Jericho Systems Corporation v. Axiomatics, Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-laBE 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
RelatedHANESBRANDS, INC. et al v. AMERICAN APPAREL, INC. et al - Document No. 1by Justia.comCore Brace May 22by api-12708101Choon's Design v. My Importsby PriorSmartshangri-la.docby Josephine Dominguez RojasKohler Co.by PriorSmartNCKU Suitby Mikey CampbellMidwestern Pet Foods, Inc. v. Societe des Produits Nestle S.A., 2011-1482 (Fed. Cir. Jul. 9, 2012) (finding substantial evidence supporting TTAB's denial of WAGGIN' STRIPS registration b/c of BEGGIN' STRIPS reg)by Charles Colman Law, PLLCMetropolitan Theatre, LLC v. Yes Prep Public Schools, Inc., No. 01-15-00480 (Tex. App. Feb. 25, 2015)by robert_thomas_5Uniloc Luxembourg et. al. v. PerkinElmer et. al.by PriorSmartSignal IP v. Suzuki Motor of Americaby PriorSmartIglesias Filipina Independiente vs Taezaby HaroldDeLeontrademark laws.20130225.211046by guilty83priestYou Greet v. Tap For Messageby PriorSmartComplaint Clever Factory v Kings Bridge Int'lby Lara PearsonMECL Design Handbook HB205-Dby dave.lambertDesign Basics v Lancia Homes Complaintby Kenan FarrellSpanx - Amended Complaint (N.D. Ga.)by slbursteinPetEdge, Inc.by PriorSmart09-80aby YCSTBlogGlud & Marstrand A/S v. Viva Magnetics Ltd Hong Kong et. al.by PriorSmartSimilar to Jericho Systems v. AxiomaticsHANESBRANDS, INC. et al v. AMERICAN APPAREL, INC. et al - Document No. 1Core Brace May 22Choon's Design v. My Importsshangri-la.docKohler Co.NCKU SuitMidwestern Pet Foods, Inc. v. Societe des Produits Nestle S.A., 2011-1482 (Fed. Cir. Jul. 9, 2012) (finding substantial evidence supporting TTAB's denial of WAGGIN' STRIPS registration b/c of BEGGIN' STRIPS reg)Metropolitan Theatre, LLC v. Yes Prep Public Schools, Inc., No. 01-15-00480 (Tex. App. Feb. 25, 2015)Uniloc Luxembourg et. al. v. PerkinElmer et. al.Signal IP v. Suzuki Motor of AmericaIglesias Filipina Independiente vs Taezatrademark laws.20130225.211046You Greet v. Tap For MessageComplaint Clever Factory v Kings Bridge Int'lMECL Design Handbook HB205-DDesign Basics v Lancia Homes ComplaintSpanx - Amended Complaint (N.D. Ga.)PetEdge, Inc.09-80aGlud & Marstrand A/S v. Viva Magnetics Ltd Hong Kong et. al.Little v. World Packaging