Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/204206352/Walgreen-v-Rite-Aid-et-al
Timestamp: 2017-05-23 16:12:19
Document Index: 610393012

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 271', '§ 1331', '§ 271', '§ 1391', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 283', '§ 284']

Walgreen v. Rite Aid et. al. | Patent Infringement | Doctrine Of Equivalents
ScribdExploreEXPLORE BY INTERESTSCareer & MoneyBusiness Biography & HistoryEntrepreneurshipLeadership & MentoringMoney ManagementTime ManagementPersonal GrowthHappinessPsychologyRelationships & ParentingReligion & SpiritualitySelf-ImprovementPolitics & Current AffairsPoliticsSocietyScience & TechScienceTechHealth & FitnessFitnessNutritionSportsWellnessLifestyleArts & LanguagesFashion & BeautyFood & WineHome & GardenTravelEntertainmentCelebrity Biography & MemoirPop CultureBiographies & HistoryBiography & MemoirHistoryFictionChildren’s & YAClassic LiteratureContemporary FictionHistorical FictionLGBTQ FictionMystery, Thriller & CrimeRomanceScience Fiction & FantasyBROWSE BY CONTENT TYPEBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicUploadSign inJoinOptionsJoinSign InUploadWalgreen v. Rite Aid et. al.Uploaded by PriorSmartPatent InfringementDoctrine Of EquivalentsPatentLawsuitInjunction0.0 (0)DownloadEmbedDescription: Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-00124-UNA: Walgreen Co. v. Rite Aid Corporation et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, no judge ye...View MoreOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-00124-UNA: Walgreen Co. v. Rite Aid Corporation et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l9Rh for more info.Copyright: Public DomainDownload as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
WALGREEN CO., Plaintiff, v. RITE AID CORPORATION and RITE AID HDQTRS. CORP., Defendants.
Plaintiff Walgreen Co. (“Walgreens” and “Plaintiff”), hereby files this Complaint against Defendants Rite Aid Corporation and Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp. (collectively “Rite Aid” or “Defendants”), and alleges as follows: THE PARTIES 1. Walgreens is an Illinois corporation with a principal place of business at 200
Wilmot Road, Deerfield, Illinois, 60015. 2. Upon information and belief, Rite Aid Corporation is a Delaware corporation with
a principal place of business in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania and conducts business in this Judicial District. 3. Upon information and belief, Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp. is a Delaware corporation
with a principal place of business in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania and conducts business in this Judicial District.
01:14887555.1
NATURE OF ACTION AND JURISDICTION 4. This action arises under the Patent Laws of the United States, Title 35, United
States Code, and more particularly under 35 U.S.C. §§ 271 et seq. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this patent infringement action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a), and 35 U.S.C. §§ 271 and 281-285. 5. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Rite Aid because it has committed acts
giving rise to this action within Delaware and within this Judicial District. Rite Aid has also purposefully availed itself of the rights and benefits of the laws of this State and this Judicial District. Upon information and belief, Rite Aid is a Delaware Corporation in the business of pharmaceutical and consumer retailing and employs residents of the State of Delaware and this Judicial District. Upon information and belief, Rite Aid conducts business and has retail stores with pharmacies throughout the United States, including within the State of Delaware and in this Judicial District. Upon information and belief, Rite Aid markets and sells pharmaceutical and consumer products throughout the United States, including within the State of Delaware and in this Judicial District. 6. Upon information and belief, Rite Aid is a Delaware Corporation that regularly
conducts business in Delaware and in this Judicial District. Upon information and belief, several Rite Aid-controlled entities, including specific Rite Aid stores, are registered to do business in Delaware and have registered agents in this Judicial District. Upon information and belief, Rite Aid has maintained continuous and systematic contacts with the State of Delaware, and plans to continue to maintain its systematic and continuous contacts with the State of Delaware, including but not limited to, its aforementioned business of marketing and selling pharmaceutical and
consumer products in the State of Delaware. Accordingly, this Court has personal jurisdiction over Rite Aid. VENUE 7. Venue is proper in the District of Delaware pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(a),
1391(b), 1391(c), and 1400(b) at least in that Rite Aid is a Delaware corporation and has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business in this Judicial District. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 8. United States Patent No. 8,626,530 (the “530 Patent”), titled “System and Method
for Express Refill,” was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“Patent Office”) on January 7, 2014. A true and correct copy of the 530 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 9. Walgreens is the sole owner, by assignment, of the entire right, title, and interest
in the 530 Patent, including the right to sue for infringement of the 530 Patent. 10. Walgreens owns, offers and operates the Walgreens mobile apps available for at
least the iPad®, iPhone®, Windows Phone®, Android™ devices, and BlackBerry® devices which implement, among other things, a Refill by Scan functionality for refilling a prescription, which is protected by the 530 patent. 11. Upon information and belief, Rite Aid owns, operates, offers, and/or disseminates
or makes available applications for mobile devices (“apps”), including the Rite Aid Pharmacy Mobile Apps available for at least the iPad®, iPhone®, and Android™ devices (the “Accused Apps”), which implement, among other things, a refill by scan functionality for refilling a prescription.
Upon information and belief, Rite Aid owns, operates, and/or disseminates or
makes available the Accused Apps to its customers across the United States, including customers within the State of Delaware and in this Judicial District. 13. 14. Rite Aid does not have a license to the 530 patent. An actual controversy of such immediacy and reality as to warrant immediate
injunctive relief exists between Plaintiff and Rite Aid, as discussed in more detail below. COUNT I: Infringement of the 530 Patent Under 35 U.S.C. § 271 15. The allegations of the preceding paragraphs 1-14 are repeated, realleged, and
incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth herein. 16. Under 35 U.S.C. § 271, Rite Aid’s making, using, offering, disseminating,
operation, support, maintenance, and other use of the Accused Apps, and/or importation of the Accused Apps before the expiration of the 530 Patent, constitutes direct infringement, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, of one or more claims of the 530 Patent. 17. Upon information and belief, under 35 U.S.C. § 271, Rite Aid’s making, using,
offering, disseminating, operation, support, maintenance, and other use of the Accused Apps, and/or importation of the Accused Apps before the expiration of the 530 Patent, constitutes indirect infringement of one or more claims of the 530 Patent. 18. On information and belief, Rite Aid, with knowledge of the 530 Patent, and
without authority, has actively induced, and continues to actively induce, infringement by its customers of at least one or more claims of the 530 Patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), by intentionally inducing the use of the Accused Apps, intending to encourage, and in fact encouraging customers to directly infringe, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, one or more claims of the 530 Patent.
On information and belief, as a result of Rite Aid’s inducement, Rite Aid’s
customers have used, and continue to use, the Accused Apps to refill their prescriptions, which represents direct infringement, either literal or under the doctrine of equivalents, of one or more claims of the 530 Patent. 20. On information and belief, Rite Aid actively induces infringement by making,
using, offering, and disseminating into the stream of commerce the Accused Apps, as well as by operating, supporting, maintaining, and otherwise encouraging the use of the Accused Apps, for example by publishing literature encouraging the use of the Accused Apps and by offering support and technical assistance to its customers to encourage use of the Accused Apps in ways that infringe the claims of the 530 Patent. In addition, Rite Aid has had actual knowledge of its customers’ direct infringement and that Rite Aid’s actions induced infringement, either literal or under the doctrine of equivalents, since at least as of the filing date of this Complaint. 21. On information and belief, Rite Aid, with knowledge of the 530 Patent, and
without authority, has also contributed to, and is contributing to, direct infringement, either literal or under the doctrine of equivalents, by its customers of at least one or more claims of the 530 Patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c). For example, on information and belief, Rite Aid has contributed to, and is contributing to, infringement of the 530 Patent by making, using, offering, disseminating, operating, supporting, maintaining, and otherwise encouraging the use of the Accused Apps, and/or through the importation of the Accused Apps before the expiration of the 530 Patent. Given the unique methodology claimed in the 530 Patent, the Accused Apps have no substantial non-infringing use. In addition, on information and belief, Rite Aid has had actual knowledge of customers’ direct infringement, either literal or under the doctrine of
equivalents, and that Rite Aid’s actions contributed to infringement since at least as of the filing date of this Complaint. 22. The acts of infringement by Rite Aid set forth above have caused Plaintiff
monetary damage and irreparable harm for which it has no adequate remedy at law, and until Rite Aid’s infringement is enjoined by this Court, it will continue to cause monetary and irreparable damage. Specifically, as a result of Rite Aid’s ongoing infringement, Plaintiff has been, and will continue to be, irreparably harmed at least through the loss of customers who are drawn to Rite Aid as a result of Rite Aid’s advertisements which promote the use of the infringing Accused Apps. 23. Unless Plaintiff obtains an order enjoining further infringement by Rite Aid, it
faces significant harm as Rite Aid will continue to make, use, offer, disseminate, operate, support, maintain, and otherwise provide access for its customers to the Accused Apps, thereby irreparably harming the protections accorded to Plaintiff under the Patent Laws of the United States. Accordingly, Rite Aid’s infringement is of such immediacy and reality as to warrant immediate injunctive relief so as to protect Plaintiff’s patent rights. PRAYER FOR RELIEF Plaintiff respectfully prays for the following relief: A. An order adjudging that Defendants Rite Aid Corporation and Rite Aid Hdqtrs.
Corp. have infringed, directly and indirectly by way of inducing the infringement of and/or contributing to the infringement of, the 530 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271; B. An order preliminarily and permanently enjoining, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 283
and Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendants Rite Aid Corporation and Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp., their officers, agents, servants, employees, parents, subsidiaries, divisions,
affiliate corporations, other related business entities and all other persons acting in concert, participation, or in privity with them, and their successors and assigns, from further infringement of the 530 Patent, including, but not limited to, an order enjoining Rite Aid from making, using, offering, disseminating, operation, support, maintenance, and any other use of any refill by scan functionality of a mobile app, including without limitation the Rite Aid Pharmacy Mobile Apps, that is covered by one or more claims of the 530 Patent; C. A judgment awarding Plaintiff damages, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, for
Defendants Rite Aid Corporation’s and Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp.’s infringement of the 530 Patent; D. E. F. and proper. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff demands a trial by jury of any and all issues triable of right before a jury, pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and District of Delaware Local Rule 38.1. An award of pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and disbursements; An award of Plaintiff costs and expenses; and An award to Plaintiff of such other and further relief as this Court may deem just
YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP /s/ Anne Shea Gaza Anne Shea Gaza (No. 4093) James L. Higgins (No. 5021) Rodney Square 1000 North King Street Wilmington, DE 19801 (302) 571-6600 agaza@ycst.com jhiggins@ycst.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Walgreen Co.
Documents Similar To Walgreen v. Rite Aid et. al.Skip carouselVideojet Technologies et. al. v. Markem-ImajeBrandywine Communications Technologies LLCBrandywine Communications Technologies v. GetnetBrandywine Communications Technologies LLCBrandywine Communications Technologies LLCHowlink Global v. Global Tel*Link et. al.In-Depth Test v. Vishay IntertechnologyDyson Technology et. al. v. Cornucopia ProductsMetabolon v. Stemina Biomarker DiscoveryBusiness Process Modeling Solutions LLC d/b/a DE-BPMS v. Red HatJoao Bock Transaction Systems v. Jack Henry & AssociatesMessaging Gateway Solutions v. Amdocs et. al.Flashpoint Technology v. ZTE et. al.ArcelorMittal France et. al. v. AK SteelA.R. Arena Products v. Grayling IndustriesIcon Health & Fitness v. FitnessKeeperArrivalStar Et. Al. v. North Face ApparelGodines v CAMi-Jack Systems and Technology v. Babaco Alarm SystemsTyco Fire & Security et. al. v. Tyco Integrated Security et. al.BillingNetwork Patent v. TherabillSmith kline beckham corp. v.caBeacon Navigation v. Audi et. al.Wood-Paper Company v. Heft, 75 U.S. 333 (1869)Mobile Logistics LLC V. Kimberly-Clark CorporationCeeColor Industries v. Key Source InternationalCeeColor Industries v. Digi InternationalMobile Logistics LLC V. Nestle USA Inc.Network Acceleration Technologies v. Hughes Network SystemsMobile Logistics v. Marten TransportDocuments About Patent InfringementSkip carouselNike v. SkechersNokia Complaint Against Apple in federal district court, WisconsinKoninklijke Philips N.V. et. al. v. Nintendo et. al.Bose vs Beats (ITC complaint)3D Systems v. Formlabs et. al.Bose v. Beats Civil ComplaintTreehouse Avatar Technologies v. TurbinePosner OrderGreenwich Ballistics v. Jamison InternationalFacebook's Counterclaims to Yahoo's Patent LawsuitAmended Galaxy ComplaintBU v AppleLodsys Complaint Against Adidas BestBuy Et AlNYT Complaint Against LodsysSemantic Compaction Systems et. al. v. Speak For Yourself et. al.PersonalWeb Technologies et. al. v. Rackspace et. al.Rockstar v Samsung.pdfHuawei v. SamsungBose vs BeatsComponex v. Electronics For ImagingRecognicorp v. CCP hf et. al.Symantec v. Veeam SoftwareTechnology Licensing v. Blackmagic Design PtyBrightEdge Technologies v. Searchmetrics et. al.Technology Properties v. Dane Elec et. al.Novartis Pharmaceuticals v. Torrent Pharmaceuticals et. al.Canatelo v. HikvisionVascular Solutions v. Boston ScientificCallidus Software v. XactlyMore From PriorSmartSkip carouselLike kind card game (US patent 6193235)Like kind money board table game (US patent 6186505)Intelligent user interface including a touch sensor device (US patent 8288952)User interface with proximity sensing (US patent 8035623)Wine cellar alarm system (US patent 8710985)Cell regulatory genes, encoded products, and uses related thereto (US patent 7030227)Multicasting method and apparatus (US patent 6434622)Method and apparatus for retrieving data from a network using linked location identifiers (US patent 6226655)Casino bonus game using player strategy (US patent 6645071)High-speed serial linking device with de-emphasis function and the method thereof (US patent 7313187)Casing spacer (US patent 6736166)Advance Products & Systems v. CCI Piping SystemsModern Telecom Systems LLCTracBeam v. AppleRichmond v. Creative IndustriesSenju Pharmaceutical et. al. v. Metrics et. al.VIA Technologies et. al. v. ASUS Computer International et. al.Perrie v. PerrieEckart v. Silberline ManufacturingSenju Pharmaceutical et. al. v. Metrics et. al.Kenzinc v. imblowingup et. al.Sun Zapper v. Devroy et. al.Merck Sharp & Dohme v. Fresenius KabiTracBeam v. T-Mobile et. al.ATEN International v. Uniclass Technology et. al.Mcs Industries v. Hds TradingDok Solution v. FKA Distributung et. al.GRQ Investment Management v. Financial Engines et. al.Merck Sharp & Dohme v. Fresenius KabiMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Konami Digital Entertainment