Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/134664239/Edison-Lux-Industries-v-Automattic
Timestamp: 2017-02-28 03:50:48
Document Index: 104216542

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§ 1331', '§ 271', '§ 1391', '§ 271', '§ 287', '§ 284', '§ 284', '§ 285', 'art0']

Edison Lux Industries v. Automattic
BrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE EDISON LUX INDUSTRIES LLC, Plaintiff, v.AUTOMATTIC, INC. Defendant. : : : : : : : : : :
Civil Case No. __________ JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
COMPLAINT Plaintiff Edison Lux Industries LLC ("Plaintiff"), for its Complaint against Defendant Automattic, Inc. ("Defendant"), hereby alleges as follows: PARTIES 1. 2. Plaintiff is a Delaware limited liability company. Upon information and belief, Defendant is a Delaware corporation having a
principal place of business at 60 29th Street, #343, San Francisco, CA 94110-4929. Upon information and belief, Defendant may be served with process through its registered agent, National Registered Agents, Inc., at 160 Greentree Drive, Suite 101, Dover, DE 19904. NATURE OF THE ACTION 3. This is a civil action for the infringement of United States Patent No. 6,442,602
(the "'602 Patent") under the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a) because this action arises under the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 271 et seq. 5. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because it is incorporated in
Delaware and has purposely availed itself of the privileges and benefits of the laws of the State of Delaware. 6. Upon information and belief, more specifically, Defendant, directly and/or
through authorized intermediaries, ships, distributes, offers for sale, sells, and/or advertises its products and services in the United States and the State of Delaware. Upon information and belief, Defendant has committed patent infringement in the State of Delaware. Defendant
solicits customers in the State of Delaware. Defendant has many paying customers who are residents of the State of Delaware and who each use Defendant's products and services in the State of Delaware. 7. Venue is proper in this judicial district as to Defendant pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1391 and 1400(b). THE PATENT-IN SUIT 8. 9. Paragraphs 1-7 are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. On February August 27, 2002, the '602 Patent entitled "System and Method for
Dynamic Creation and Management of Virtual Subdomain Addresses" was duly and lawfully issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO"). The '602 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Plaintiff is the exclusive licensee of the '602 Patent and possesses all rights of
recovery under the '602 Patent, including the right to sue and recover all damages for infringement thereof, including past infringement. COUNT I – PATENT INFRINGEMENT 11. Paragraphs 1-10 are incorporated by reference as if fully restated herein. Upon information and belief and in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), Defendant,
has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the '602 Patent by making, using, providing, offering to sell, and selling (directly or through intermediaries), in this district and elsewhere in the United States, systems and methods for redirecting virtual subdomains (e.g., unrecognized unregistered subdomains) to a real/registered domain or virtual subdirectory, as described via the website http://www.wordpress.com (the "Website"). 13. Defendant's Website is configured to receive a request from an Internetworked
client for an Internet document at an unrecognized unregistered subdomain address, such as "unknown.wordpress.com." Defendant's Website maintains a redirection URL that redirects this unknown subdomain request to either the top level domain or a user’s profile. Upon receiving the request, the Defendant Website executes a redirection script that includes code that either redirects a user to a registration URL for registering a wordpress URL associated with the unrecognized unregistered subdomain name. More specifically, the redirection URL includes a virtual subdirectory. Defendant's Website redirects the unrecognized unregistered subdomain request to the registration URL.
To the extent such notice may be required, Defendant received actual notice of its
infringement of the '602 Patent at least as early as the filing of the complaint in this action, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 287(a). 15. Plaintiff. 16. Plaintiff is entitled to recover from the Defendant the damages sustained by Defendant's aforesaid activities have been without authority and/or license from
Plaintiff as a result of the Defendant’s wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial, 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. 17. Defendant’s infringement of Plaintiff's exclusive rights under the '602 Patent will
continue to damage Plaintiff, causing irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law, unless enjoined by this Court. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Edison Lux Industries LLC respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment against Defendant Automattic, Inc. as follows: A. B. An adjudication that Defendant has infringed the '602 Patent; An award of damages to be paid by Defendant adequate to compensate Plaintiff for its past infringement and any continuing or future infringement up until the date such judgment is entered, including interest, costs and disbursements as justified under 35 U.S.C. § 284 and, if necessary, to adequately compensate Plaintiff for Defendant’s infringement, and an accounting of all infringing sales including, but not limited to, those sales not presented at trial;
A declaration that this case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285; An award to Plaintiff of its attorney fees, costs, and expenses incurred in prosecuting this action; and
An award to Plaintiff of such further relief at law or in equity as the Court deems just and proper. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury on all claims and issues so triable.
Dated: April 5, 2013
STAMOULIS & WEINBLATT LLC /s/ Stamatios Stamoulis Stamatios Stamoulis #4606 stamoulis@swdelaw.com Richard C. Weinblatt #5080 weinblatt@swdelaw.com Two Fox Point Centre 6 Denny Road, Suite 307 Wilmington, DE 19809 Telephone: (302) 999-1540 Counsel for Plaintiff Edison Lux Industries LLC
Sign up to vote on this titleUsefulNot usefulEdison Lux Industries v. Automattic by PriorSmart0.0 (0)EmbedDownloadDescriptionOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-00555-UNA: Edison Lux Industries LLC v. Automattic Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, no judge ye...Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-00555-UNA: Edison Lux Industries LLC v. Automattic Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l7X5 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
RelatedAlcorn Communications v. eMinorby PatentBlastUmbanet v. Englewood Wine Merchants Et. Al.by PatentBlastGoodman v. on Semiconductorby PatentBlastAugme Technologies v. Veltiby PriorSmartActivision TV v. Tri Star Energyby PatentBlastMattress Safe v. AWS Healthby PriorSmartBlue Spike v. DERMALOG Identification Systems et. al.by PriorSmartBlue Spike v. Smart Media Innovations et. al.by PatentBlastBlue Spike v. Precise Biometrics et. al.by PriorSmartMoney Suite Company v. 21st Century Insurance and Financial Services et. al.by PriorSmartData Carriers v. Walgreenby PriorSmartVStream Technologies v. LG Electronics et. al.by PriorSmartSecurus Technologies v. Global Tel*Linkby PriorSmartDan Herrera, Sr. v. Glenn Weathers, Taos County Sheriff and Taos County Sheriff's Department, Samuel Montoya, Taos County Manager, Taos County Board of Commissioners, Orlando Santistevan, Sofio D. Ortega, Celestino Romero, 72 F.3d 137, 10th Cir. (1995)by Scribd Government DocsEmail_Khalid Khan vs Ch Zulfiqar Rendention of Accountsby yousafCourt Docs Detail Kelly Brinson's Deathby Andy CampbellMichigan Ins. Bank v. Eldred, 143 U.S. 293 (1892)by Scribd Government DocsAnswer Defendantby Anonymous EIUMm0homeworkby babyirish04De La Vega vs. Ballilos (1916)by Enteng Coroza Leido IVNeflix en Banc Petitionby dsb001LED Engin v. Luminus Devicesby PriorSmartBlaszkowski et al v. Mars Inc. et al - Document No. 346by Justia.comBabbage Holdings v. Square Enix et. al.by PriorSmartCarol Spizzirri v. City of Park City IL, 1993by Gordon T. PrattOrder on Motion for Conditional Certificationby Matthew HerringtonPre Trial Brief-1by No WeFrancois vs. Mazer and Shade via RadarOnlineby Aaron NobelSimilar to Edison Lux Industries v. AutomatticSkip carouselAlcorn Communications v. eMinorUmbanet v. Englewood Wine Merchants Et. Al.Goodman v. on SemiconductorAugme Technologies v. VeltiActivision TV v. Tri Star EnergyMattress Safe v. AWS HealthBlue Spike v. DERMALOG Identification Systems et. al.Blue Spike v. Smart Media Innovations et. al.Blue Spike v. Precise Biometrics et. al.Money Suite Company v. 21st Century Insurance and Financial Services et. al.Data Carriers v. WalgreenVStream Technologies v. LG Electronics et. al.Securus Technologies v. Global Tel*LinkDan Herrera, Sr. v. Glenn Weathers, Taos County Sheriff and Taos County Sheriff's Department, Samuel Montoya, Taos County Manager, Taos County Board of Commissioners, Orlando Santistevan, Sofio D. Ortega, Celestino Romero, 72 F.3d 137, 10th Cir. (1995)Email_Khalid Khan vs Ch Zulfiqar Rendention of AccountsCourt Docs Detail Kelly Brinson's DeathMichigan Ins. Bank v. Eldred, 143 U.S. 293 (1892)Answer DefendanthomeworkDe La Vega vs. Ballilos (1916)Neflix en Banc PetitionLED Engin v. Luminus DevicesBlaszkowski et al v. Mars Inc. et al - Document No. 346Babbage Holdings v. Square Enix et. al.Carol Spizzirri v. City of Park City IL, 1993Order on Motion for Conditional CertificationPre Trial Brief-1Francois vs. Mazer and Shade via RadarOnlineVerdict Form in Lisa Karas v. New NGC, Inc. Awarding Judgment to PlaintiffJill Noble v Anthem Data Breach Class Action ComplaintEdison Lux Industries v. Automattic