Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/156937384/Endeavor-MeshTech-v-Itron
Timestamp: 2016-08-25 15:01:33
Document Index: 483149138

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§ 1391', '§ 284', '§ 283', '§ 284', '§ 283', '§ 285']

BrowseUploadSign inJoinBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicWelcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out moreUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWAREENDEAVOR MESHTECH, INC., Plaintiff, v. ITRON, INC., Defendant. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Civil Action No.
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Plaintiff Endeavor MeshTech, Inc. (“Plaintiff” or “Endeavor”), by and through its undersigned counsel, files this Original Complaint for Patent Infringement against Defendant Itron, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Itron”) as follows: NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. This is a patent infringement action to stop Defendant’s infringement of
Plaintiff’s United States Patent No. 7,379,981 entitled “Wireless Communication Enabled Meter and Network” (hereinafter, the “’981 Patent” or “Patent-in-Suit”; a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A). Plaintiff is the owner of the Patent-in-Suit. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages. PARTIES 2. Endeavor MeshTech, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws
of the State of Delaware. Plaintiff maintains its principal place of business at 36 Fairway Place, Half Moon Bay, San Mateo County, California, 94019. Plaintiff is the owner of the Patent-inSuit, and possesses all rights thereto, including the exclusive right to exclude the Defendant from
making, using, selling, offering to sell or importing in this district and elsewhere into the United States the patented invention(s) of the Patent-in-Suit, the right to license the Patent-in-Suit, and to sue the Defendant for infringement and recover past damages. 3. Upon information and belief, Itron is a corporation duly organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Washington since December 1, 1977 and having its principal place of business located at 2111 North Molter Road, Liberty Lake, Spokane County, Washington, 99019. Upon information and belief, Defendant is registered as a Foreign Corporation with the Delaware Division of Corporations. Defendant may be served through its registered agent, National Registered Agents, Inc., 160 Greentree Drive, Suite 101, Dover, Delaware, 19904. 4. Upon information and belief, Itron ships, distributes, makes, uses, offers for sale,
sells, and/or advertises its products under its OpenWay® brand name system architecture. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. This action arises under the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et
distributes, makes, uses, imports, offers for sale, sells, and/or advertises its products and affiliated services in the United States, the State of Delaware, and the District of Delaware. Upon information and belief, Defendant has committed patent infringement in the State of Delaware and in the District of Delaware. Defendant solicits customers in the State of Delaware and in the District of Delaware. Defendant has many paying customers who are residents of the State of Delaware and the District of Delaware and who use Defendant’s products in the State of Delaware and in the District of Delaware. 8. 1400(b). BACKGROUND INFORMATION 9. The Patent-in-Suit was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Venue is proper in the District of Delaware pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and
Trademark Office on May 27, 2008 after full and fair examination. Plaintiff is the owner of the Patent-in-Suit, and possesses all right, title and interest in the Patent-in-Suit including the right to enforce the Patent-in-Suit, and the right to sue Defendant for infringement and recover past damages. 10. On information and belief, Defendant owns, operates, advertises, and/or controls
the website www.itron.com, through which Defendant advertises, sells, offers to sell, provides and/or educates customers about its products. COUNT I - INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,379,981 11. 12. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each of Paragraphs 1-10 above. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant has infringed and continues to
infringe the Patent-in-Suit either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents through the
manufacture and sale of infringing products under the OpenWay® brand and affiliated services. Upon information and belief, Defendant has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the Patent-in-Suit because it ships distributes, makes, uses, imports, offers for sale, sells, and/or advertises a self-configuring wireless network, including but not limited to Itron’s OpenWay® system architecture. Defendant provides a self-configuring wireless network that incorporates a network cluster, virtual gate, and virtual network operations entity through the use of devices which may, but do not necessarily, include Itron’s Zigbee-enabled OpenWay CENTRON® meters and Cisco 1000 Series Connected Grid Routers (the “Accused Products”).. Specifically, one or more of Defendant’s Accused Products, infringes one or more of the claims of the Patent-in-Suit. Upon information and belief, Defendant’s Accused Products and affiliated services are available for sale on its website and through various retailers located in this district and throughout the United States. 13. Plaintiff. 14. Plaintiff is entitled to recover from Defendant the damages sustained by Plaintiff Defendant’s aforesaid activities have been without authority and/or license from
as a result of 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. 15. Defendant’s acts of infringement of Plaintiff’s rights under the Patent-in-Suit has
caused, is causing and, unless such acts and practices are enjoined by the Court, will continue to damage Plaintiff, causing irreparable harm to Plaintiff for which there is no adequate remedy at law, and for which Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief under 35 U.S.C. § 283.
JURY DEMAND 16. Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues. PRAYER FOR RELIEF Plaintiff respectfully requests the following relief: A. An adjudication that one or more claims of the Patent-in-Suit has been infringed, either literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, by the Defendant; B. 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, an accounting of all infringing sales including, but not limited to, those sales not presented at trial; C. A grant of permanent injunction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 283, enjoining the Defendant and its respective officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the order by personal service or otherwise, from further acts of infringement with respect to any one or more of the claims of the Patent-in-Suit; D. 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, E. Any further relief that this Court deems just and proper.
/s/ Stamatios Stamoulis Stamatios Stamoulis #4606 stamoulis@swdelaw.com Richard C. Weinblatt #5080 weinblatt@swdelaw.com STAMOULIS & WEINBLATT LLC Two Fox Point Centre 6 Denny Road, Suite 307 Wilmington, Delaware 19809 Telephone: (302) 999-1540 Jacqueline K. Burt, Pro Hac Vice Anticipated Email: jburt@hgdlawfirm.com Dara T. Jeffries, Pro Hac Vice Anticipated Email: djeffries@hgdlawfirm.com HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC 3621 Vinings Slope, Suite 4320 Atlanta, Georgia 30339 Telephone: (404) 996-0861, 0867 Facsimile: (205) 547-5502, 5515 Joseph C. Gabaeff, Pro Hac Vice Anticipated Email: jgabaeff@hgdlawfirm.com 9800 D Topanga Canyon Boulevard, #347 Chatsworth, California 91311 Telephone: (205) 326-3336 Facsimile: (205) 326-3332 Franciscus L. Diaba, Pro Hac Vice Anticipated Email: fdiaba@srff.com Harvey Kesner, Pro Hac Vice Anticipated Email: hkesner@srff.com SICHENZIA ROSS FRIEDMAN FERENCE LLP 61 Broadway New York, New York 10006 Telephone: (212) 930-9700 Facsimile: (212) 930-9725 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Endeavor MeshTech, Inc.
Endeavor MeshTech v. Itron by PatentBlast30 viewsEmbedDownloadDescriptionEndeavor MeshTech v. ItronEndeavor MeshTech v. ItronRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentShow moreShow less
RelatedJoao Bock Transaction Systems v. General Electric Capitalby PriorSmartItron_AR2010_fby nnayar1Joao Control & Monitoring Systems v. Verizon Communicationsby PatentBlastby PriorSmartCreateAds v. Federal Expressby PatentBlastMagpul v Plinker Tactical Complaintby Richard JohnsonInternet Media Interactive v. Journal Register Companyby PatentBlastIn-Depth Test v. Vishay Intertechnologyby PriorSmartAbarta v. Vuzixby PriorSmartOrientview Technologies v. Hat Worldby PriorSmartAbarta v. Sensicsby PatentBlastInternet Access Solutions LLCby PriorSmartCTP Innovations v. Rohrerby PriorSmartAbarta v. Sensicsby PriorSmartViking v. Victaulic Companyby PriorSmartMass Engineered Design v. Spaceco Business Solutionsby PriorSmartSMP Logic Systems v. Jerome Stevens Pharmaceuticalsby PriorSmartPollin Patent Licensing et. al. v. Hsbc Bank et. al.by PriorSmartReshare Commerce v. Pure Romanceby PriorSmartMass Engineered Design v. ISE et. al.by PriorSmartFTC Petition for Certiorari FTC v. Rambusby gesmerComplementSoft v. SAS Instituteby PriorSmartMAZ Encryption Technologies v. Hewlett-Packard Company et. al.by PriorSmartSuper Interconnect Technologies v. Hewlett-Packardby PriorSmarte.Digital v. ADATA Technology et. al.by PriorSmartSchuartz v. CA.docxby orionsrulerGoogle Inc. v. Compression Labs Inc et al - Document No. 15by Justia.comKarl Storz Endoscopy-America v. Integrated Medical Systems Internationalby PriorSmartSimilar to Endeavor MeshTech v. ItronJoao Bock Transaction Systems v. General Electric CapitalItron_AR2010_fJoao Control & Monitoring Systems v. Verizon CommunicationsCreateAds v. Federal ExpressMagpul v Plinker Tactical ComplaintInternet Media Interactive v. Journal Register CompanyIn-Depth Test v. Vishay IntertechnologyAbarta v. VuzixOrientview Technologies v. Hat WorldAbarta v. SensicsInternet Access Solutions LLCCTP Innovations v. RohrerAbarta v. SensicsViking v. Victaulic CompanyMass Engineered Design v. Spaceco Business SolutionsSMP Logic Systems v. Jerome Stevens PharmaceuticalsPollin Patent Licensing et. al. v. Hsbc Bank et. al.Reshare Commerce v. Pure RomanceMass Engineered Design v. ISE et. al.FTC Petition for Certiorari FTC v. RambusComplementSoft v. SAS InstituteMAZ Encryption Technologies v. Hewlett-Packard Company et. al.Super Interconnect Technologies v. Hewlett-Packarde.Digital v. ADATA Technology et. al.Schuartz v. CA.docxGoogle Inc. v. Compression Labs Inc et al - Document No. 15Karl Storz Endoscopy-America v. Integrated Medical Systems International