Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/220179172/Olivistar-v-Leviton-Manufacturing
Timestamp: 2017-05-28 07:13:36
Document Index: 414015216

Matched Legal Cases: ['§1391', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 284', '§ 283', '§ 284', '§285']

Olivistar v. Leviton Manufacturing | Complaint | Patent
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 InUploadOlivistar v. Leviton ManufacturingUploaded by PriorSmartComplaintPatentPatent InfringementGlossary Of Patent Law TermsInjunction0.0 (0)DownloadEmbedDescription: Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-00512: Olivistar, LLC v. Leviton Manufacturing Co., Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, no ju...View MoreOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-00512: Olivistar, LLC v. Leviton Manufacturing Co., Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-lakH for more info.Copyright: Public DomainDownload as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION OLIVISTAR, LLC Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-cv-512 v. LEVITON INC., MANUFACTURING Defendant. PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Plaintiff Olivistar, LLC (“Plaintiff” or “Olivistar”), by and through its undersigned counsel, files this Complaint against Defendant Leviton Manufacturing Co., Inc. (“Leviton”) as follows: NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. This is a patent infringement action to stop Defendant’s infringement of Plaintiff’s CO., JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
the State of Texas. Plaintiff maintains its principal place of business at 2150 S. Central Expressway, Suite 200, McKinney, Texas 75070. 3. Upon information and belief, Defendant Leviton Manufacturing Co., Inc. is a
business organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business located at 201 North Service Road, Melville, NY 11747. Leviton conducts business in the State of Texas and its Registered Agent for service of process is The Corporation Trust Company, Corporation Trust Center, 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, DE 19801. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4. This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § et seq.,
ships, distributes, offers for sale, sells, and/or advertises products and services in the United States, the State of Texas, and the Eastern District of Texas including but not limited to the Accused Instrumentalities as detailed below. Defendant solicits customers in the State of Texas and in the Eastern District of Texas. Defendant has paying customers who are residents of the State of Texas and the Eastern District of Texas and who use the Defendant’s products and services in the State of Texas and in the Eastern District of Texas. Defendant derives substantial
revenue from goods and services provided to individuals in Texas and in this district. 7. Venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1391 and
systems that infringe the ‘731 patent. The ‘731 patent provides, among other things, a “system including one or more premises-server computing devices in communication with a number of input and/or output devices, a central communication device and at least one client computing device in communication with the central communication device, a method for processing device data, the method comprising: (1) obtaining an access request from a client computing device, the access request including one or more identification attributes corresponding to the client device (2) generating a list of premises-server computing devices available for communication with the client device, the list of premises-server computing devices the client device obtains access based upon a processing of the one or more identification attributes; and (3) transmitting the list of premises-server computing devices available for communication with the client device; (4) wherein the client device cannot directly access the premises-server computing device prior to
obtaining the list of premises-server computing devices available for communication.” 11. Defendant directly or through intermediaries, made, had made, used, imported,
provided, supplied, distributed, sold, and/or offered for sale products and/or systems and methods for providing data communication in a device network that infringed one or more claims of the ‘731 patent in this district and elsewhere in the United States, Particularly, Defendant makes, uses, provides, offers for sale, and sells their product entitled Leviton Home Automation System (“Accused Instrumentality”) which directly and/or indirectly infringes the ‘731 patent. 12. Defendant also infringes under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) and (c) by inducing and/or
Defendant’s infringement of Plaintiff’s exclusive rights under the ‘731 patent will
systems that infringe the ‘481 patent. The ‘481 patent provides, among other things, a “method for controlling devices in a computer system, the method comprising: (1) obtaining a user selection of one or more of a plurality of networked devices to be manipulated from a user interface, wherein at least one of the plurality of networked devices requires device-specific protocol instructions that are different from protocol instructions required by at least one of the other plurality of networked devices; (2) obtaining a user interface application corresponding to the selected one or more networked devices; (3) transmitting, to at least one user interface selection device, the user interface application corresponding to the selected one or more networked devices so that the user interface can be displayed on the at least one user interface selection device; (4) obtaining a user selection of an operation corresponding to at least one selected networked device; (5) encoding the selected operation according to a standard communication protocol instruction; (6) transmitting the selected standard protocol instruction
to a server corresponding to the selected networked device; and (7) obtaining an output corresponding to the selected operation of the selected networked device. 20. Defendant directly or through intermediaries, made, had made, used, imported,
provided, supplied, distributed, sold, and/or offered for sale products and/or systems and methods for implementing open-control remote device control that infringed one or more claims of the ‘481 patent in this district and elsewhere in the United States, Particularly, Defendant makes, uses, provides, offers for sale, and sells their product entitled Leviton Home Automation System (“Accused Instrumentality”) which directly and/or indirectly infringes the ‘481 patent. 21. Defendant also infringes under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) and (c) by inducing and/or
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. 25. Defendant’s infringement of Plaintiff’s exclusive rights under the ‘481 patent will
continue to damage Plaintiff, causing irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law, unless enjoined by this Court. JURY DEMAND Plaintiff hereby requests a trial by jury pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. PRAYER FOR RELIEF Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court find in its favor and against the Defendant, and that the Court grant Plaintiff the following relief: A. A judgment in favor of Plaintiff that Defendant has infringed one or more of the claims, directly, jointly and/or indirectly, by way of inducing and/or contributing to the infringement of the ‘731 patent and/or the ‘481 patent; B. A permanent injunction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 283, enjoining Defendant and their officers, directors, agents servants, affiliates, employees, divisions, branches, subsidiaries, parents, and all others acting in active concert therewith from infringement, inducing the infringement of, or contributing to the infringement of the ‘731 patent and/or the ‘481 patent, or such other equitable relief the Court determines is warranted; C. An award to Plaintiff of damages adequate to compensate Plaintiff for the Defendant’s acts of infringement together with pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; D. That, should Defendant’s acts of infringement be found to be willful from the time
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 7
that Defendant became aware of the infringing nature of their actions, which is the time of filing of Plaintiff’s Original Complaint at the latest, that the Court award treble damages for the period of such willful infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284; E. That this Court declare this to be an exceptional case and award Plaintiff its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs in accordance with 35 U.S.C. §285; and F. Any further relief that this Court deems just and proper.
Documents Similar To Olivistar v. Leviton ManufacturingSkip carouselOlivistar v. Protection OneOlivistar v. Chamberlain GroupOlivistar v. Lennox IndustriesOlivistar v. General Electric CompanyOlivistar v. Belkin InternationalOlivistar v. LoxoneLucky Litter v. Applica Consumer Products et. al.Advance Products & Systems v. CCI Piping SystemsChrimar Systems et. al. v. Amx.pdfBoston Heart Diagnostics v. Health Diagnostic LaboratoryPanTaurus v. Toshiba AmericaCeeColor Industries v. Key Source InternationalMobile Logistics LLCCeeColor Industries v. AuthentecMobile Logistics LLC V. Nestle USA Inc.Digital Signal Innovations v. SpeechproMobile Logistics v. Arctic ExpressNetwork Acceleration Technologies v. Hughes Network SystemsCeeColor Industries v. VelquestGordium Innovations v. LantronixMobile Transformation v. FreshPlanetMobile Logistics v. Dimension Trucking ServiesMobile Logistics v. Marten TransportMobile Logistics LLC V. Kimberly-Clark CorporationLumen View Technology v. InternMatchTelecomm Innovations v. Payment Alliance InternationalMobile Logistics LLCNetwork Acceleration Technologies v. Hughes Network SystemsMobile Logistics v. TransfreightCeeColor Industries v. Digi InternationalDocuments About ComplaintSkip carouselForeclosure Case Killer!- An Allonge Is Not Admissable Evidence of Bank’s OwnershipCavanaugh v BarteltZenimax v Oculus - Amended ComplaintMotion to Dismiss Complaint, Motion to Vacate Clerks Default and in the Alternative Motion for Summary JudgmentNike v. SkechersNokiaVsApple_11.03.31.100Carlsbad Police Brutality ComplaintMotion for Sanction of Dismissal With Prejudice or Dismissal for Unclean HandsBill Cosby Civil Case FilesClinton's Response 9.15.2016Failure to Verify the Complaint Rule Change to Rule 1.110Wells Fargo Loses Appeal Regarding AssignmentsTILA Rescission Success Without Tender - HENRY BOTELHO, Plaintiff, V. U.S. BANK, N.a., As Trustee for the LXS 2007-4N Trust, DefendantGoguen/Baptiste Cross ComplaintApple vs Samsung 11.04.22weekndLIBERI v TAITZ - 91 2009-08-03 TAITZ Motion for Rule 11 SanctionsRHODES v MacDONALD - 8 - MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for Damages, Declaratory Judgment, and Injunctive Relief and Application for TRO - Gov.uscourts.gamd.77605.8.0Sage Kelly ComplaintUSAvSergeyAleynikov 7-4-09 FullPolygamy ruling in UtahGov-Uscourts-Nysd-460787-1-0Motion to DismissSWA LawsuitPicower's Response to Madoff Trustee, Seeking Dismissal of Case Florida 2nd DCA Case 2D08 3553 SJ Premature No Standing to ForecloseMicrosoftVsMotorola_11.12.11Harassment PolicyKrewElla8:15-cv-00158 #5 - Order DismissingMore 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