Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/154274835/ArrivalStar-et-al-v-Strike-Logistics
Timestamp: 2016-08-25 02:44:46
Document Index: 335153525

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1338', '§ 271', '§ 48', '§ 271', '§ 284', '§ 285', '§ 271', '§ 285', 'art19', 'artE2']

BrowseUploadSign inJoinBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicWelcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out moreIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION Case No._________ ARRIVALSTAR S.A. and MELVINO TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, Plaintiffs, vs. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL STRIKE LOGISTICS, LLC, Defendant. ________________________________/ COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Plaintiffs, ArrivalStar S.A. and Melvino Technologies Limited (collectively “Plaintiffs”), by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby sue STRIKE LOGISTICS, LLC (“S”), for patent infringement, and in support, allege as follows: NATURE OF THE LAWSUIT 1. This is an action for patent infringement of United States Patent Numbers:
§ 1338; and 35 U.S.C. § 271. 3. This Court has personal jurisdiction over S pursuant to, inter alia, Florida’s long-
arm statute, § 48.193, in that S: (a) operates, conducts, engages in, and/or carries on a business or business adventure(s) in Florida and/or has an office or agency in Florida; (b) has committed
British Virgin Islands of Tortola, having offices located at P.O. Box 3174, Palm Chambers, 197 Main Street, Road Town, Tortola, British Virgin Islands. Melvino owns all rights, title and interests in the patents alleged as being infringed in this lawsuit. THE DEFENDANT 7. Defendant S is an Ohio Corporation with a principal place of business located at
2000 Cassandra Drive, Toledo, Ohio 43611. S transacts business and has, at a minimum, offered to provide and/or has provided to customers within this Judicial District and throughout the State of Florida services and/or products that infringe claims of the ‘359, ‘801, ‘859, ‘645, ‘781 and ‘970 patents. THE PLAINTIFFS’ PATENTS 8. Plaintiffs own all right, title and interest in, and/or have standing to sue for
set forth herein. 16. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), S has directly infringed claims of the ‘359, ‘801,
‘859, ‘645, ‘781 and ‘970 patents through, among other activities, the commercial manufacture, sale, offer for sale, and/or use of its "TRACK SHIPMENT", "ADVANTAGE TRACK", "AUTOMATED EMAIL ALERTS", "BORDER ADVANTAGE" and "REAL TIME STATUS UPDATES" functions, applications, solutions, devices, programs, products, services, methods and/or systems which utilize tracking and messaging technologies that are protected within the ‘359, ‘801, ‘859, ‘645, ‘781 and ‘970 patents, as every claim limitation, or its equivalent, is found in these functions, applications, solutions, devices, programs, products, services, methods and/or systems. 17. S'S direct infringement has injured and will continue to injure Plaintiffs unless
and until a monetary judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiffs and/or the Court enters an injunction prohibiting further infringement and, specifically, enjoining further use of methods and systems that come within the scope of the ‘359, ‘801, ‘859, ‘645, ‘781 and ‘970 patents. REQUEST FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully ask this Court to enter judgment against S and its subsidiaries, affiliates, agents, servants, employees and all persons in active concert or participation with S, granting the following relief:
An award of damages against S adequate to compensate Plaintiffs for the
infringement that has occurred with respect to S, together with prejudgment interest from the date that S'S infringement of the patents at issue began; B. C. Increased damages as permitted pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284; A finding that this case is exceptional and award to Plaintiffs their attorneys’ fees
and costs as provided by 35 U.S.C. § 285; D. at issue; and, E. All other relief as the Court or a jury may deem proper and just in this instance. COUNT II INDIRECT PATENT INFRINGEMENT 18. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate Paragraphs 1 through 17 set forth above as if fully A permanent injunction against S prohibiting further infringement of the patents
set forth herein. 19. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 271(b) and (c), S has indirectly infringed claims of the
‘359, ‘801, ‘859, ‘645, ‘781 and ‘970 patents through, among other activities, the commercial manufacture, sale, offer for sale and/or use of its "TRACK SHIPMENT", "ADVANTAGE TRACK", "AUTOMATED EMAIL ALERTS", "BORDER ADVANTAGE" and "REAL TIME STATUS UPDATES" functions, applications, solutions, devices, programs, products, services, methods and/or systems which utilize tracking and messaging technologies that are protected within the ‘359, ‘801, ‘859, ‘645, ‘781 and ‘970 patents, as S actively and intentionally induced infringement with knowledge that the induced acts constituted infringement, or acted with willful blindness; and/or contributed to infringement by one or more third parties as S had knowledge, rather than intent, that its activity caused such infringement.
S'S contributory infringement and/or inducement to infringe has injured and will
continue to injure Plaintiffs unless and until a monetary judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiffs and/or the Court enters an injunction prohibiting further infringement and, specifically, enjoining further use of methods and systems that come within the scope of the ‘359, ‘801, ‘859, ‘645, ‘781 and ‘970 patents. REQUEST FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully ask this Court to enter judgment against S and its subsidiaries, affiliates, agents, servants, employees and all persons in active concert or participation with S, granting the following relief: A. An award of damages against S adequate to compensate Plaintiffs for the
and costs as provided by 35 U.S.C. § 285; D. at issue; and, E. All other relief as the Court or a jury may deem proper and just in this instance. JURY DEMAND Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable. Dated: July 16, 2013. Respectfully submitted, /s/ William R. McMahon William R. McMahon, Esquire
A permanent injunction against S'S prohibiting further infringement of the patents
ArrivalStar et. al. v. Strike Logistics by PriorSmart19 viewsEmbedDownloadDescriptionOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-22569-XXXX: ArrivalStar S.A. et. al. v. Strike Logistics, LLC. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Flori...Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-22569-XXXX: ArrivalStar S.A. et. al. v. Strike Logistics, LLC. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l8KL 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
RelatedArrivalStar et. al. v. Real Time Freight Servicesby PriorSmartArrivalStar et. al. v. VSSODby PriorSmartArrivalStar et. al. v. American Logistics Internationalby PriorSmartArrivalStar et. al. v. Open Mileby PriorSmartArrivalStar et. al. v. Saudi Arabian Airlinesby PriorSmartArrivalStar Et. Al. v. Gamestopby PatentBlastCinsay v. New Anticsby PriorSmartE2E Processing v. Crocs Et. Al.by PatentBlastInMotion Imagery Technologies v. Imationby PriorSmartKlausner Technologies, Inc. V. Interactive Intelligence Group, Incby PriorSmartKlausner Technologies v. Zultysby PriorSmartAcceleron v. Hitachi Data Systemsby PriorSmartCoolIT Systems v. Asetek Holdingsby PriorSmartOlivistar v. Polar Electroby PatentBlastFreeny et. al. v. IC Intracom Holdings et. al.by PriorSmartKickapoo Run v. Infomcby PriorSmartHarcol Research v. Black Market Distributionby PriorSmartDelaware Radio Technologies Et. Al. v. Tesla Motorsby PatentBlastCirrex Systems v. Polymicro Technologiesby PriorSmartInMotion Imagery Technologies v. NTIby PriorSmartAdvec v. Vector Biosystemsby PriorSmartKlausner Technologies v. Hullomailby PriorSmartArczar et. al. v. WowWeeby PriorSmartVerbovszky Et. Al. v. Britax Child Safetyby PatentBlastAngleFix v. Smith & Nephewby PatentBlastPeschke Map Technologies LLCby PriorSmartBeverage Dispensing Solutions v. Coca-Cola Companyby PriorSmartSportBrain v. Fitbitby PriorSmartSimilar to ArrivalStar et. al. v. Strike LogisticsArrivalStar et. al. v. Real Time Freight ServicesArrivalStar et. al. v. VSSODArrivalStar et. al. v. American Logistics InternationalArrivalStar et. al. v. Open MileArrivalStar et. al. v. Saudi Arabian AirlinesArrivalStar Et. Al. v. GamestopCinsay v. New AnticsE2E Processing v. Crocs Et. Al.InMotion Imagery Technologies v. ImationKlausner Technologies, Inc. V. Interactive Intelligence Group, IncKlausner Technologies v. ZultysAcceleron v. Hitachi Data SystemsCoolIT Systems v. Asetek HoldingsOlivistar v. Polar ElectroFreeny et. al. v. IC Intracom Holdings et. al.Kickapoo Run v. InfomcHarcol Research v. Black Market DistributionDelaware Radio Technologies Et. Al. v. Tesla MotorsCirrex Systems v. Polymicro TechnologiesInMotion Imagery Technologies v. NTIAdvec v. Vector BiosystemsKlausner Technologies v. HullomailArczar et. al. v. WowWeeVerbovszky Et. Al. v. Britax Child SafetyAngleFix v. Smith & NephewPeschke Map Technologies LLCBeverage Dispensing Solutions v. Coca-Cola CompanySportBrain v. Fitbit