Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/234957441/Quest-Nettech-v-D-L-Blair
Timestamp: 2017-11-24 10:17:08
Document Index: 553002432

Matched Legal Cases: ['§1', '§1331', '§1391', '§1400', '§284', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 284', '§ 284', '§ 284', '§ 285']

Quest Nettech v. D.L. Blair | Patent Infringement | United States District Court For The Eastern District Of Texas
Description: Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-00784: Quest Nettech Corporation v. D.L. Blair, Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, no judge ...
Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-00784: Quest Nettech Corporation v. D.L. Blair, Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-laJB for more info.
QUEST NETTECH CORPORATION §
v. § Civil Action No. ________________
D.L. BLAIR, INC. §
Defendant. § JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Plaintiff Quest NetTech Corporation (“Quest”) files its complaint against Defendant D.L.
Blair, Inc. (“Defendant”).
2. Upon information and belief, Defendant is a corporation organized and existing under the
laws of the State of New York with its principal place of business located at 400 Post Avenue,
Suite 400, Westbury, New York, NY. 11590. It may be served through its CEO Thomas J .
Conlon at its principal place of business.
3. This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. §§1 et seq. This
Court has jurisdiction over this action in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1338(a).
5. Venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b) and (c)
and §1400(b), because Defendant has committed acts of infringement in the Eastern District of
Patent No. 5,508,731 C1 (“the ‘731 Patent”) entitled, “GENERATION OF ENLARGED
PARTICIPATORY BROADCAST AUDIENCE” to Henry Von Kohorn. Quest is the owner by
assignment of the ‘731 Patent. A true and correct copy of the ‘731 Patent is attached hereto as
7. Quest is the owner of all rights, title, and interest in and to the ‘731 Patent. Quest
8. The ‘731 Patent is valid and enforceable. Defendant has infringed, and continues to
methods, and apparatuses of the ‘731 Patent through conducting, administering and
9. Defendant is aware of the ‘731 Patent, has knowledge of the infringing nature of
Defendant’s activities, but has nevertheless continued its infringing activities. Defendant’s
written and verbal notice of the ‘731 Patent, as well as Defendant’s infringement of such patent.
10. Quest has been damaged as a result of Defendant’s infringing conduct. Defendant is,
therefore, liable to Quest in an amount that adequately compensates Quest for Defendant’s
costs as fixed by this Court under 35 U.S.C. §284.
Count 1—(Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,508,731 C1)
inducing infringement and/or contributing to the infringement of one or more claims of the ‘731
covered by one or more claims of the ‘731 Patent to the injury of Quest.
13. Participants in Defendant’s sweepstakes, contests, and game promotions directly infringe
one or more claims of the ‘731 Patent. For example, participants of the FedEx – Pack & Ship
with the Pros Sweepstakes directly infringe claims 77 and 90 of the ‘731 Patent by putting into
service, controlling and obtaining the benefit of their personal computers and the respective
14. Defendant infringes one or more claims of the ‘731 Patent, indirectly. For example,
Defendant indirectly infringes claims 77 and 90 of the ‘731 Patent by inducing and/or
contributing to direct infringement by participants of the FedEx – Pack & Ship with the Pros
Sweepstakes. Defendant operates the online sweepstakes with knowledge of the ‘731 Patent, at
least after being informed about the ‘731 Patent by Quest, knowing that said sweepstakes forms a
component of one or more inventions claimed in the ‘731 Patent, instructing users in the
operation of said sweepstakes and encouraging users to use the website with specific intent of
inducing the users to put the website into use, benefitting the users, and infringing at least claims
77 and 90 of the ‘731 Patent, with said sweepstakes having no substantial non-infringing use.
15. Defendant is liable for infringement of one or more claims of the ‘731 Patent pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 271, either literally or under the Doctrine of Equivalents.
16. Defendant’s infringement of the ‘731 Patent was and continues to be willful and was with
actual and/or constructive knowledge of the ‘731 Patent.
17. As a result of Defendant’s wrongful conduct, Quest has been damaged in an amount to be
more claims of the ‘731 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. §§ 271(a), (b), and (c);
b. A judgment that Defendant’s infringement of the ‘731 Patent has been willful;
c. An award of damages, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, adequate to compensate
Quest for Defendants' infringement of the ‘731 Patent, in an amount to be
d. An order, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, and based on Defendant’s willful
infringement of the ‘731 Patent enhancing all damages awarded to Quest by
e. An order, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, awarding to Quest interest on damages and
f. An order, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285, awarding to Quest its reasonable attorneys'
Documents Similar To Quest Nettech v. D.L. Blair