Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/139279131/Trustees-of-Boston-University-v-Amazon-com
Timestamp: 2017-04-27 18:05:10
Document Index: 91380150

Matched Legal Cases: ['art0', '§ 1331', '§\n1391', '§ 287', '§ 271', '§ 284', '§ 271', '§ 284', '§ 285']

Trustees of Boston University v. Amazon.com
ScribdBrowseInterestsCareer & MoneyPersonal GrowthPolitics & Current AffairsScience & TechHealth & FitnessLifestyleEntertainmentBiographies & HistoryFictionBrowse byBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinTrustees of Boston University v. Amazon.comUploaded by PriorSmart0.0 (0)DownloadEmbedDescription: Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-11097: Trustees of Boston University v. Amazon.com, Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, no ju...View MoreOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-11097: Trustees of Boston University v. Amazon.com, Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l88v for more info.Copyright: Public DomainDownload as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTSTRUSTEES OF BOSTON UNIVERSITY, Plaintiff, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a/k/a AMAZON.COM AUCTIONS, INC. Defend ant.
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND JURY DEMAND Plaintiff Trustees of Boston University, by and through its undersigned attorneys, hereby pleads the following claims of patent infringement against Amazon.com, Inc. (“Defendant”); and respectfully would show the Court as follows: PARTIES 1. Plaintiff Trustees of Boston University (“BU” or the “University”) is a non-profit
one of the largest employers in Boston, with more than 10,000 faculty and staff and over 33,000 students. It conducts a diverse range of interdisciplinary, collaborative and innovative research projects across a broad spectrum of academic departments, programs, centers and institutes, including research in the field of electrical and computer engineering. BU’s faculty includes five Nobel Prize winners and numerous named inventors on United States Patents, including U.S. Patent No. 5,686,738 (the “‘738 patent”), for which BU is the assignee.
ME1 15558638v.1
Upon information and belief, Defendant Amazon.com, Inc. a/k/a Amazon.com
Auctions, Inc. (“Amazon”) is a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware, and it is principal place of business is 1516 Second Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101. Defendant Amazon may be served by effecting service on its registered agent: CT Corporation System, which is located at 155 Federal Street, Suite 700, Boston, Massachusetts 02110. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4. This is an action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the
United States of America, Title 35 of the United States Code. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the matters pled herein under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a) in that this is a civil action arising out of the patent laws of the United States of America. 5. Defendant regularly and deliberately engaged in and continues to engage in
activities that result in using, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing infringing products in and/or into the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and this judicial district. These activities violate the University’s United States patent rights under the ‘738 patent pled herein. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because, among other things, Amazon conducts business in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and in this judicial district; and thus enjoys the privileges and protections of Massachusetts law. 6. Venue is proper in the District of Massachusetts pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
1391(b), (c) and (d) and 1400(b). COUNT I: INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,686,738 7. The ‘738 patent, titled “Highly Insulating Monocrystalline Gallium Nitride Thin
Films,” issued on November 11, 1997. A true and correct copy of the ‘738 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Theodore D. Moustakas, Ph.D., Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering
at BU, is the named inventor of the ‘738 patent. The University owns by assignment the entire right, title, and interest in and to the ‘738 patent, including the sole right to sue for past and present patent infringements thereof. 9. The University is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant’s
Kindle Paperwhite 6” Display product, bearing part number B007OZNZG0, and its Kindle Fire LCD 7” Display product, bearing part number B0083Q04IQ, include a gallium nitride thin film semiconductor device claimed by the ‘738 patent; and thus, these products infringe upon one or more claims of the ‘738 patent. The University is informed and believes, and further alleges, that additional products of the Defendant include light emitting diodes (“LEDs”) made by Seoul Semiconductor Company, Ltd.; Seoul Semiconductor Inc.; and/or Seoul Optodevice Company, Ltd. (“Seoul Semiconductor”) and products including such LEDs (collectively referred to as “Accused Products”) also constitute and/or include the claimed gallium nitride thin film semiconductor device, and therefore, also infringe one or more claims of the ‘738 patent. 10. The University is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the applicable
requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 287 have been satisfied. 11. The University is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant has
infringed, and continues to infringe, one or more claims of the ‘738 patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), by, among other things, making, using, offering to sell, selling and/or importing in and/or into the United States, including in this Judicial district, the Accused Products falling within the scope of one or more claims of the ‘738 patent. Amazon has no authority to make, use, offer to sell, sell, and/or import into the United States the claimed Seoul Semiconductor gallium nitride thin film semiconductor device or any Accused Product by virtue of a direct 3
license from the University or by virtue of an indirect license through the manufacturer Seoul Semiconductor. 12. Upon information and belief, Seoul Semiconductor sells and delivers infringing
products to Defendant Amazon in locations outside the territorial United States. The University requested a stipulation from Seoul Semiconductor in relation to Civil Action Number 1:12-cv11938-FDS, styled Trustees of Boston University v. Seoul Semiconductor, Ltd, et al., that Seoul Semiconductor would stand liable for such sales so that suits involving Seoul Semiconductor’s infringing customers could be avoided. Seoul Semiconductor, however, refused to provide such a stipulation to protect its customers, and specifically denied any legal obligation to cover the infringing acts of any entities to whom Seoul Semiconductor has sold infringing devices outside the United State, but whom then import, sell and/or use said infringing devices in the United States in violation of the University's patent rights. Thus, the only available recourse for these violations of the University’s patent rights is to sue the infringing customers directly. 13. Defendant Amazon’s acts of infringement have caused and will continue to cause
substantial and irreparable damage to the University. 14. Because Amazon’s infringement of the ‘738 patent has damaged the University,
BU is, entitled to damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284 in an amount that presently cannot be pled, but that will be determined at trial. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the University prays for entry of judgment against Defendant Amazon.com, Inc. as follows: A. B. That Defendant Amazon infringed the ‘738 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a); That Defendant Amazon account to the University for all gains, profits and
advantages derived by its infringement of the ‘738 patent, and that the University be awarded 4
damages adequate to compensate it for the wrongful infringement by Defendant Amazon in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 284; C. That the University be awarded any other supplemental damages and interest on
all damages, including, but not limited to costs and attorney fees available under 35 U.S.C. § 285; D. That the Court permanently enjoin Defendant Amazon and all those in privity
with it from making, having made, selling, offering for sale, distributing and/or using products that infringe the ‘738 patent, including the Accused Products, in the United States; and E. That the University be awarded such other and further relief as this Court may
deem just and proper, including but not limited to any equitable relief and/or legal remedies available at law. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b), the University hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues triable to a jury.
Respectfully submitted, TRUSTEES OF BOSTON UNIVERSITY By its attorneys, /s/ Erik Paul Belt Erik Paul Belt, BBO #558620 ebelt@mccarter.com Kelly A. Gabos, BBO #666219 kgabos@mccarter.com McCarter & English, LLP 265 Franklin Street Boston, Massachusetts 02210 Telephone: (617) 449-6506 Facsimile: (617) 607-6035
Of Counsel Michael W. Shore (Texas 18294915) Alfonso Garcia Chan (Texas 24012408) Eve Henson (Texas 00791462) Andrew M. Howard (Texas 24059973) SHORE CHAN DEPUMPO LLP 901 Main Street, Suite 3300 Dallas, Texas 75202 Telephone: (214) 593-9110 Facsimile: (214) 593-9111 Dated: May 2, 2013
Documents Similar To Trustees of Boston University v. Amazon.comSkip carouselCRFD Research v. Amazon.com Et. Al.Unifi Scientific Batteries v. Research In Motion et. al.National Products v. Lifedge Et. Al.Dymocom Enterprise v. Armstrong International et. al.Richmond v. Chien Luen Industries et. al.Endeavor Energy v. Tucson Electric Power Company.pdfSolo Cup v. Coverpack - ComplaintStoneeagle Services v. Pay-Plus Solutions et. al.Blue Gentian v. Telebrands et. al.Richmond v. Pine Top SalesCreateAds v. Hallmark Cards et. al.Relay IP v. BT Group Et. Al.7595956 Canada v. Li et. al.Deepsouth Packing Co. v. Laitram Corp., 406 U.S. 518 (1972)Oakley v. Seaver CompanyCRM AmazonAmazon Om Case Study NewVolstar Technologies v. Gillette CompanyComplaint in Voltstar against The Gillette CompanyAdidas America Inc. v. Skechers USA Inc.California Tax Board002Oplus Technologies v. Sears Holdings et. al.Freeny Et. Al. v. Kohl's Corporation23Supreme Court Patent DecisionUniversity of West Virginia, Board of Trustees, and West Virginia University Research Corporation, Third Party and James Earl Smith and Integral Concepts, Inc., Third Party v. Kurt L. Vanvoorhies, Defendant/third Party, 342 F.3d 1290, 3rd Cir. (2003)The Springboard ServiceSafe Storage v. Overland StorageSafe Storage v. NetappDocuments About Amazon.ComSkip carouselFinding the Next AppleChicago Tax ComplaintPW Show Daily, Day 1, June 5U.S. v. Apple Et Al Opening Slides 6-3-2013George Clooney is the American Movie ReviewAll About Steve Movie ReviewIsis by Douglas Clegg, A Tale of the SupernaturalShutter Island Movie ReviewAngelina Jolie is Salt Movie ReviewAmazon Counterfeit LawsuitsSilk Road exhibits GX 222Group XP Experience Index 2016 WEB6Graham & Doddsville_Issue 25Amazon fake reviewsArbitration Demand - Cyande GroupArbitration Demand - Arobo Trade Inc.Hard 2 Find complaintByliner Retail Report - Paul Carr, March-April-May 2014PW Select May 2015 London Show Daily 17 April 201208-06-16 EditionApple Response to EBook Price-Fixing ClaimsCathas Advanced Technologies v. Amazon.comApple vs. Amazon Trademark CaseDOJ Motion of Facts and LawVoltstar Technologies, Inc. f/k/a Horizon Technologies v. Amazon.ComContentGuard Holdings v. Amazon.com et. al.PW Show Daily, May 29, Day 1Brickey v. Amazon - First Sale DoctrineHazelton Partners LetterMore From PatentBlastSkip carouselMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Samsung Electronics Et. AlMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Nintendo of America Et. AlMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Cantor Fitzgerald Et. AlMultiplayer Network Innovations v. ZTE Et. AlMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Toshiba AmericaMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Pantech Et. AlMultiplayer Network Innovations v. NVIDIAActifio v. DelphixRTC Industries v. Flextronics InternationalTactical Medical Solutions v. Karl Et. AlPrometheus Laboratories v. Par Pharmaceutical Companies Et. AlAndrea Electronics v. Lenovo Group Et. Al.Andrea Electronics v. Toshiba Et. Al.Property Disclosure Technologies v. TruliaGlobal Tel*Link v. Securus Technologies et. al.Century Board v. National Registered AgentsIatric Systems v. FairWarningHologram Et. Al. v. Arena3D Industrial Illusion Et. Al.Tech-ni-Fold v. F.P. Rosback CompanyRTC Industries v. ZiveloMotobatt v. Deltran OperationsImpax Laboratories Et. Al. v. Lannett Holdings Et. Al.Alkermes Pharma Ireland v. Sun Pharma Global FZE Et. Al.Unimed Pharmaceuticals Et. Al. v. Perrigo Company Et. Al.Sensus v. Certified MeasurementCapella Photonics v. TellabsCapella Photonics v. Fujitsu Network CommunicationsCapella Photonics v. CienaILife Technologies v. AliphComAeritas v. GameStop