Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/126831408/ArrivalStar-et-al-v-Lacoste
Timestamp: 2017-04-25 09:48:25
Document Index: 382415945

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1338', '§ 271', '§ 48', '§ 271', '§ 284', '§ 285', '§ 271']

ArrivalStar et. al. v. Lacoste | Patent
ScribdBrowseInterestsPolitics & Current AffairsCareer & MoneyPersonal GrowthFictionHealth & FitnessLifestyleEntertainmentBiographies & HistoryScience & TechBrowse byBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinArrivalStar et. al. v. LacosteUploaded by PriorSmartPatentPatent InfringementPlaintiffUnited States CodeFlorida0.0 (0)DownloadEmbedDescription: Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-20647-CMA: ArrivalStar S.A. et. al. v. Lacoste USA, Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, th...View MoreOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-20647-CMA: ArrivalStar S.A. et. al. v. Lacoste USA, Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, the Hon. Cecilia M. Altonaga presiding. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l7Hq for more info.Copyright: Public DomainDownload as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION Case No._________ ARRIVALSTAR S.A. and MELVINO TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, Plaintiffs, vs. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL LACOSTE USA, INC., Defendant. ________________________________/ COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Plaintiffs, ArrivalStar S.A. and Melvino Technologies Limited (collectively “Plaintiffs”), by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby sue LACOSTE USA, INC. (“LACOSTE), for patent infringement, and in support, allege as follows: NATURE OF THE LAWSUIT 1. This is an action for patent infringement of United States Patent Numbers:
§ 1338; and 35 U.S.C. § 271. 3. This Court has personal jurisdiction over LACOSTE pursuant to, inter alia,
Florida’s long-arm statute, § 48.193, in that LACOSTE: (a) operates, conducts, engages in, and/or carries on a business or business adventure(s) in Florida and/or has an office or agency in Florida; (b) has committed one or more tortious acts within Florida; (c) was and/or is engaged in
British Virgin Islands of Tortola, having offices located at P.O. Box 3174, Palm Chambers, 197 Main Street, Road Town, Tortola, British Virgin Islands. Melvino owns all rights, title and interests in the patents alleged as being infringed in this lawsuit. THE DEFENDANT 7. Defendant LACOSTE is a Florida Corporation with a principal place of business
located at 551 Madison Avenue, Floor 13, New York, New York 10022. LACOSTE has stores and office located throughout Florida, including, but not limited to, Naples, Orlando, Fort Lauderdale, Boca Raton, Aventura, West Palm Beach, Palm Beach Gardens, and Miami to name only a few. LACOSTE is also specifically authorized to transact business in the State of Florida and has a Registered Agent located in Miami. Thus, LACOSTE does and has had substantial, systematic and continuous business transactions in Florida, and has, as is readily apparent, at a minimum, offered to provide and/or has provided to customers specifically within this Judicial
District and throughout the State of Florida services and/or products that infringe claims of the ‘359, ‘645, and ‘970 patents. THE PLAINTIFFS’ PATENTS 8. Plaintiffs own all right, title and interest in, and/or have standing to sue for
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), LACOSTE has directly infringed claims of the
‘359, ‘645, and ‘970 patents through, among other activities, products, programs, applications, functions, systems and methods, the use of tracking and notification technologies within its "Order Status", "Track Packages", “Advance Ship Notice”, “Order Confirmation Email”, and “Shipment Confirmation Email” services that are protected by the ‘359, ‘645 and ‘970 patents, as every claim limitation, or its equivalent, is found in these applications, solutions, devices, programs, products, services, methods and/or systems. 14. LACOSTE'S direct infringement has injured and will continue to injure Plaintiffs
unless and until a monetary judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiffs and/or the Court enters an injunction prohibiting further infringement and, specifically, enjoining further use of methods and systems that come within the scope of the ‘359, ‘645, and ‘970 patents. REQUEST FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully ask this Court to enter judgment against LACOSTE and its subsidiaries, affiliates, agents, servants, employees and all persons in active concert or participation with LACOSTE, granting the following relief: A. An award of damages against LACOSTE adequate to compensate Plaintiffs for
the infringement that has occurred with respect to LACOSTE, together with prejudgment interest from the date that LACOSTE'S infringement of the patents at issue began; B. C. Increased damages as permitted pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284; A finding that this case is exceptional and award to Plaintiffs their attorneys’ fees
and costs as provided by 35 U.S.C. § 285; D. A permanent injunction against LACOSTE prohibiting further infringement of the
set forth herein. 16. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 271(b) and (c), LACOSTE has indirectly infringed
claims of the ‘359, ‘645, and ‘970 patents through, among other activities, products, programs, applications, functions, systems and methods, the use of tracking and notification technologies within its "Order Status", "Track Packages", “Advance Ship Notice”, “Order Confirmation Email”, and “Shipment Confirmation Email” services that are protected by the ‘359, ‘645 and ‘970 patents, as LACOSTE actively and intentionally induced infringement with knowledge that the induced acts constituted infringement, or acted with willful blindness; and/or contributed to infringement by one or more third parties as LACOSTE had knowledge, rather than intent, that its activity caused such infringement. 17. LACOSTE'S contributory infringement and/or inducement to infringe has injured
and will continue to injure Plaintiffs unless and until a monetary judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiffs and/or the Court enters an injunction prohibiting further infringement and, specifically, enjoining further use of methods and systems that come within the scope of the ‘359, ‘645, and ‘970 patents. REQUEST FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully ask this Court to enter judgment against LACOSTE and its subsidiaries, affiliates, agents, servants, employees and all persons in active concert or participation with LACOSTE, granting the following relief:
An award of damages against LACOSTE adequate to compensate Plaintiffs for
Documents Similar To ArrivalStar et. al. v. LacosteSkip carouselArrivalStar Et. Al. v. GatoradeArrivalStar et. al. v. PlattsArrivalStar et. al. v. IHS GlobalArrivalStar Et. Al. v. Panasonic Corporation of North AmericaArrivalStar Et. Al. v. FingerhutArrivalStar et. al. v. Echo Design GroupArrivalStar Et. Al. v. SkechersArrivalStar et. al. v. Aries Freight SystemsArrivalStar et. al. v. Taxi MagicCoprecitec, S.L. et. al. v. BrinkmannArrivalStar et. al. v. CSA Software11-12281-DPW v. Ultimate Building MaintenanceEssociate v. Integrate.comAmethyst IP v. Y-Cam Solutions et. al.Eclipse IP v. McKinley EquipmentMillennium Cryogenic Technologies v. Weatherford Artificial Lift Systems et. al.eDekka v. BeachbodyRichmond v. Daintily et. al.Smart Options v. Ticket2Final et. al.Creser Precision vs. CA2 floro.pdfAdaptix v. Apple et. al.SnoWizard, Inc. et. al.Mlr v. DellGodines vs. MoranKeson Industries v. Johnson Level & Tool Mfg.Cyber Acoustics, LLC et. al.Maxim Integrated Products v. Wal-Mart StoresMaxim Integrated Products v. Wal-Mart StoresDocuments About PatentSkip carousel16-12-20 Apple Complaint v. Acacia Et Al.Gillette Company v. ADKM, Inc. d/b/a Harry's Razor Company et. al.AppleVsSamsung_11.07.05Samsung vs Apple - Samsung's Appeal to the Supreme CourtConsulting AgreementNike v. SkechersNokiaVsApple_11.03.31.100Wizards of the Coast v. Cryptozoic Entertainment et. al.PRICELINE COM INC 10-K (Annual Reports) 2009-02-20Apple vs Android 10.12.02Nokia Complaint Against Apple in federal district court, WisconsinDavid Einhorn's presentation on Green Mountain RoastersBeyond PhilanthropyBose v. Beats Civil ComplaintBose vs Beats (ITC complaint)Koninklijke Philips N.V. et. al. v. Nintendo et. al.Against Intellectual Property, by Stephan Kinsella Provisional Patent ApplicationGoogle Dec Action vs RockstarApple vs Samsung 11.04.22Translation of Mannheim 2O240 Ruling Motorola v MicrosoftNovartis patent JudgementGENENTECH INC 10-K (Annual Reports) 2009-02-20AppleVsHTCandS3_11.07.29MicrosoftVsMotorola_11.12.11BU v AppleRockstar v Samsung.pdfEPO Examiners Can No Longer Ensure Appropriate Quality Standards12-04-30 Apple-Samsung Teksler-Kim Letter Re FRAND3D Systems v. Formlabs et. al.More 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