Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/146079206/P-S-Products-v-Activision-Complaint
Timestamp: 2017-06-28 23:55:06
Document Index: 290934659

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1331', '§ 1391', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 284', '§ 289', '§ 284', '§ 285', '§ 284', '§ 284', '§ 285', 'arty 0', '§ 103']

P S Products v. Activision - Complaint | Patent | Complaint
P S Products v. Activision - ComplaintUploaded by slbursteinRelated InterestsPatentComplaintPatent InfringementLawsuitTortRating and Stats0.0 (0)Document ActionsDownloadShare or Embed DocumentEmbedDescription: P S Products v. Activision - ComplaintView MoreP S Products v. Activision - ComplaintCopyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content' .• • IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Frtr-o IW
:-,· I 11p ' ' •' JUN 0 6 2013 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF W. CLERK d!ficL.ERK P. S. PRODUCTS, INC., and BILLY PENNINGTON, Individually PLAINTIFFS v. Civil Action No.4·. \3 w 7:>4a ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC., ACTIVISION PUBLISHING, INC., and TREY ARCH CORPORATION. This case assigned to District \(ec and to Magistrate Judge • DEFENDANT COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT TO THE HONORABLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT: COMES NOW the Plaintiffs, P.S. Products, Inc., and Mr. Billy Pennington, individually, hereafter "Plaintiffs," by and through its attorney, Chris H. Stewart of the Stewart Law Firm, files this Complaint against the Defendants, Activision Blizzard, Inc., Activision Publishing, Inc., and Treyarch.Corporation, hereafter "Defendants," herein states: JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. This Court retains subject matter jurisdiction as patent infringement raises a federal question and is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 2. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, venue in this suit lies in the Eastern District of Arkansas because the actions which gave rise to the claims presented in this complaint occurred in Little Rock, Arkansas, within the Eastern District of Arkansas. 3. Additionally, the Eastern District of Arkansas has personal jurisdiction of the Defendants. Defendants have maintained substantial, continuous and systematic contacts with the state of Arkansas through its business dealings with customers. Defendants marketed its 1 I Case 4:13-cv-00342-KGB Document 1-2 Filed 06/05/13 Page 1 of 11
• • products to retail customer in the state of Arkansas. Specifically, the Defendants have committed acts of infringement in violation of35 U.S.C. § 271 by offering for sale and providing to customers in the state of Arkansas the video game Call of Duty, Black Ops II., which contains illegal images of the Plaintiffs' United States Letters Patent No. US D561, 294 S. Call of Duty, Black Ops II was the highest revenue producing video game in 2012 and the Defendants should reasonably expect to be subject to the Courts in the state of Arkansas. Moreover, Activision Blizzard, Inc., exercises sufficient control over Activision Publishing, Inc, and Treyarch Corporation. 4. Additionally, The Eastern District of California has personal jurisdiction of the Defendants because, among other things, Defendants is engaged in tortuous conduct within the state of Arkansas and in this District, including placing into commerce products that contain illegal images that embody the Plaintiffs' patent. PARTIES RELEVANT TO PLAINTIFFS'COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 5. This action is brought by P.S. Products, Inc., and its president, Mr. Billy Pennington, manufacturers of stun guns and other personal security devices, organized within the state of Arkansas with its principal headquarters at 3120 Joshua Street, Little Rock, AR 72204. 6. The Defendant, Activision Blizzard, Inc., is a corporation organized existing in the state of Delaware with its principal place of business at 3100 Ocean Park Boulevard, Santa Monica, California with business activities throughout the United States, on the World Wide Web and specifically in the state of Arkansas. 7. The Defendant, Activision Publishing, Inc., is a corporation organized existing in the state of Delaware with its principal place of business at 3100 Ocean Park Boulevard, Santa 2 Case 4:13-cv-00342-KGB Document 1-2 Filed 06/05/13 Page 2 of 11
• • Monica, California with business activities throughout the United States, on the World Wide Web and specifically in the state of Arkansas. 8. The Defendant, Treyarch Corporation is a corporation organized existing in the state of Delaware with its principal place of business at 3420 Ocean Park Boulevard, Santa Monica, California with business activities throughout the United States, on the World Wide Web and specifically in the state of Arkansas. FACTS APPLICABLE TO CLAIMS IN PLAINTIFFS'COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 9. The Plaintiffs specialize in the manufacture and distribution of stun guns, stun devices, gun cleaning kits, and other personal protection devices. 10. The Plaintiffs market and sell its patented products through trade specialty shows, sales associates, retail stores, catalogs and through internet distribution throughout the United States. 11. On February 5, 2008, United States Letters Patent No. US D561, 294 S, (hereafter "US D561, 294 S") was issued to the Plaintiffs for a design invention for a stun gun. 12. The Plaintiffs have owned the patent No. US D561, 294 S throughout the period of the Defendants infringing acts and still owns the patent. 13. The Plaintiffs' products are one of a kind. 14. The Plaintiffs' designs are its own intellectual property. No goods of this design existed prior to the Plaintiffs' designs and patents. 15. The Plaintiffs are the only holder of patents on products of this kind in the United States. 16. The Plaintiffs' product, the Zap Blast Knuckle® embodies the US D561, 294 S design patent. 3 Case 4:13-cv-00342-KGB Document 1-2 Filed 06/05/13 Page 3 of 11
• • 17. When the Zap Blast Knuckle® is operated by a user it produces a 950,000 volt electrical shock. 18. A user holds the Zap Blast Knuckle® as if holding a pair of brass knuckles. 19. The Zap Blast Knuckle® is one of the Plaintiffs most sought after and sold products. 20. The Plaintiffs have complied with the statutory requirement of placing a notice of the Letters of Patent on all Stun Guns. 21. On information and belief the Plaintiffs learned that the Defendants' video game, Call of Duty, Black Ops IL for platforms, Xbox, PlayStation 3, Wii and MICROSOFT WINDOWS, contain illegal images that embody the Plaintiffs' US D561, 294 S patent. 22. On information and belief, Activision Blizzard, Inc., is a worldwide online, PC, console, handheld and mobile video game publisher and transacts substantial business, either directly or through their agents on an ongoing basis in this judicial district. 23. On information and belief, Activision Publishing, Inc., 1s a wholly owned subsidiary of Activision Blizzard, Inc., and transacts substantial business, either directly or through their agents on an ongoing basis in this judicial district. 24. On information and belief, Treyarch Corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of Activision Blizzard, Inc., and transacts substantial business, either directly or through their agents on an ongoing basis in this judicial district. 25. On information and belief, Activision Publishing, Inc., has offered and sold, and continues to offer and sell, in this judicial district the video game Call of Duty, Black Ops II. 4 Case 4:13-cv-00342-KGB Document 1-2 Filed 06/05/13 Page 4 of 11
• • 26. On information and belief, Activision Blizzard, Inc., is actively involved in the management and control of Activision Publishing, Inc., pertaining to the offer for sale and sale of the video game Call of Duty, Black Ops II. 27. On information and belief, Activision Publishing, Inc., holds itself out as the owner of the video game Call of Duty, Black Ops II and its intellectual property. 28. On information and belief, Treyarch Corporation holds itself out as the developer of the video game Call of Duty, Black Ops II and its intellectual property. 29. On information and belief, Activision Blizzard, Inc., represents Activision Publishing, Inc., to be one of its operating segments and that the Call of Duty, Black Ops II franchise has generated over $1 billion in revenues to date. 30. On information and belief, the Defendants' video game, Call of Duty, Black Ops II was the highest grossing sold video game in 2012. 31. Activision Blizzard, Inc., Activision Publishing, Inc., and Treyarch Corporation are collectively referred to herein as "Defendants," and unless specifically stated otherwise, the acts complained of herein were committed by, and on behalf, and/or for the benefit of all of the Defendants. 32. The Defendants have sold and continue to sell Call of Duty, Black Ops IL for platforms, Xbox, PlayStation 3, Wii and MICROSOFT WINDOWS, hereafter, ("platforms") that contain illegal images that embody the Plaintiffs' US D561, 294 S patent at retail locations and on the world wide web throughout the United States. 33. In the video game Call of Duty, Black Ops II on and in all platforms a player, via an avatar, may access weapons called the Combat Suppression Knuckles or Galvaknuckles via icons that are illegal images that embody the Plaintiffs' US D561, 294 S patent. 5 Case 4:13-cv-00342-KGB Document 1-2 Filed 06/05/13 Page 5 of 11
• • 34. Additionally, the weapons, Combat Suppression Knuckles or Galvaknuckles, that a player may access through the icons are an illegal copy of the Plaintiffs' US D561, 294 S patent. 35. In the video game Call of Duty, Black Ops II when a player via an avatar, uses the weapons called Combat Suppression Knuckles or Galvaknuckles it emits an electrical shock representing in reality the shock volts produced by the Plaintiffs' product Zap Blast Knuckle® that embodies the Plaintiffs' US D561, 294 S patent. 36. In the campaign mode of Call of Duty, Black Ops II, these knuckles appear in the levels "Karma" and "Odysseus." 37. In the campaign mode of Call of Duty, Black Ops II, a player may use the access kit perk on these levels, an icon will appear indicating there is a weapons cache available. After opening the case, the player will immediately see illegal images that embody the Plaintiffs' US D561, 294 S patent. 38. The Combat Suppression Knuckles also appear in the "strike force" portions of the campaign. 39. Galvaknuckles must be purchased in zombie mode. In the game play a player may acquire the Galvaknuckles by an access through icons that are an illegal copy of the Plaintiffs' product Zap Blast Knuckle® that embodies the Plaintiffs' US D561, 294 S patent. 40. The icons that are an illegal copy of the Plaintiffs' product Zap Blast Knuckle® that embodies the Plaintiffs' US D561, 294 S patent are found in each of the zombie levels: Tranzit, Farm, Town, Nuketown Zombies, and Die Rise. 6 Case 4:13-cv-00342-KGB Document 1-2 Filed 06/05/13 Page 6 of 11
' ' • • 41. Illegal images that embody the Plaintiffs' US D561, 294 S are contained in the Defendants' video game Call of Duty, Black Ops II for platform Xbox stock-keeping unit number 511997 5 42. Illegal images that embody the Plaintiffs' US D561, 294 S are contained in the Defendants' video game Call of Duty, Black Ops II for platform PlayStation 3 stock-keeping unit number 5119939 .. 43. Illegal images that embody the Plaintiffs' US D561, 294 S are contained in the Defendants' video game Call of Duty, Black Ops II for platform Wii stock-keeping unit number 6847331. 44. Illegal images that embody the Plaintiffs' US D561, 294 S are contained in the Defendants' video game Call of Duty, Black Ops II for platform MICROSOFT WINDOWS stock-keeping unit number 5120025. 45. The Defendants' actions have violated 35 U.S.C. § 271. 46. The Defendants, intentionally, willfully, and wantonly violated 35 U.S.C. § 271. 4 7. The Defendants without authority placed in the stream of commerce and offered to sell, the video game Call of Duty, Black Ops II which contains illegal images that embody the Plaintiffs' US D561, 294 S patent at retail locations and on the world wide web throughout the United States. 48. The Defendants without a licensed from the Plaintiffs placed in the stream of commerce and offered to sell, the video game Call of Duty, Black Ops II which contains illegal images that embody the Plaintiffs' US D561, 294 S patent at retail locations and on the world wide web throughout the United States. 7 Case 4:13-cv-00342-KGB Document 1-2 Filed 06/05/13 Page 7 of 11
• • 49. The Defendants have infringed and are still infringing the Letters of Patents Nos. US D561, 294 S by selling the video game Call of Duty, Black Ops II which contains illegal images that embody the Plaintiffs' US D561, 294 S patent at retail locations and on the world wide web throughout the United States and the Defendants will continue to do so unless enjoined by this Court. 50. The Defendants have been on constructive notice No. US D561, 294 S patent by at least as early as February 5, 2008 when the patent was issued. Nevertheless, the Defendants have infringed and continues to infringe the US D561, 294 S patent. COUNT I PATENT INFRINGEMENT 51. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every averment contained m paragraphs 1 through 53 of the Plaintiffs' Complaint, inclusive. 52. On February 5, 2008 United States Patent No. US D561, 294 S was duly and legally issued to the Plaintiffs for a design invention for a "Stun Gun." The Plaintiffs are the sole and exclusive owner of the US D561, 294 S patent and holds all rights and interests in the US D561, 294 S patent. Among other things, the Plaintiffs holds the sole and exclusive rights to manufacture, use, sell, import and offer to sell under the US D561, 294 S patent and the right to enforce the US D561, 294 S patent against alleged infringers. 53. The Plaintiffs have complied with any applicable statutory notice requirements by posting notice of the US D561, 294 S patent on its product, the Zap Blast Knuckle®, that embodies the US D561, 294 S patent. 54. The Defendants have infringed and continues to infringe on the US D561, 294 S patent by its manufacture, use, sale, importation, licensing and/or offer for sale of its Defendants' video game Call of Duty, Black Ops II for platforms, Xbox, Wii, MICROSOFT WINDOWS and 8 Case 4:13-cv-00342-KGB Document 1-2 Filed 06/05/13 Page 8 of 11
• • Playstation 3, that contain illegal images that embody the Plaintiffs' US D561, 294 S patent. The Defendants also have infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the US D561, 294 S patent by contributing to and actively inducing others to use, sell, import, and/or offer for sale its video game Call of Duty, Black Ops II for platforms, Xbox, Wii, MICROSOFT WINDOWS and Playstation 3, that contain illegal images that embody the Plaintiffs' US D561, 294 S patent. The Defendants are liable for its infringement of the US D561, 294 S patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271. 55. The Defendants acts of infringement have caused damage to the Plaintiffs, and the Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from the Defendants the damages they have sustained as a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial. The Plaintiffs have owned the US D561, 294 S patent throughout the period of the Defendants' infringing acts. The Defendants' infringement of the Plaintiffs' exclusive rights will continue to damage the Plaintiffs, causing irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law, unless enjoined by this Court. 56. The Defendants have been on constructive notice No. US D561, 294 S patent by at least as early as February 5, 2008 when the patent was issued. Nevertheless, the Defendants have infringed and continues to infringe the US D561, 294 S patent. 57. Each such infringement by Defendants constitutes a separate and distinct act of infringement. Defendants' acts of infringement are willful, in disregard of and with indifference to the rights of the Plaintiffs. 58. As a direct and proximate cause of the infringement by Defendants, the Plaintiffs are entitled to reasonable royalties that may be proper under 35 U.S.C. § 284 in amounts to be proven at trial, entitlement to the Defendants' profits that may be proper under 35 U.S.C. § 289 9 Case 4:13-cv-00342-KGB Document 1-2 Filed 06/05/13 Page 9 of 11
• • in amounts to be proven at trial, enhanced damages as may be proper under 35 U.S.C. § 284 and a reasonable attorney's fee pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285. Therefore, the Plaintiffs demand: PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs prays for judgment against Defendants, as follows: A. Judgment against the Defendants declaring that the Defendants' actions directly infringe on the Plaintiffs' patents No. US D561, 294 S; B. Plaintiffs' reasonable royalties that may be proper under 35 U.S.C. § 284 in amounts to be proven at trial; C. Plaintiffs entitlement to the Defendants' profits with respect to each patent infringement in amounts to be proven at trial; D. Enhanced damages that may be proper under 35 U.S.C. § 284 with respect to each patent infringement for the Defendants' willful infringement; E. A declaration that the Plaintiffs' case against the Defendants is an exceptional case pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 and therefore subject to attorneys' fees; F. An award of costs and attorneys' fee to the Plaintiffs; and, G. Such other relief as the Court deems just and reasonable. 10 Case 4:13-cv-00342-KGB Document 1-2 Filed 06/05/13 Page 10 of 11
. . • • DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury as to all claims averred he ·n that are triable by jury. Jb Dated: June5, 2013 11 s By: Chris H. Stew Ark. Bar No. 03-222 Attorney for Plaintiffs 904 Garland Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 501-353-1364 Fax: 501-353-1263 Email: arklaw@comcast.net Case 4:13-cv-00342-KGB Document 1-2 Filed 06/05/13 Page 11 of 11
• CIVIL COVER SHEET • JS 44 (Rev. 12/12) The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleading;s or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court Thts form, approved by the Judtctal Conference of the Umted States m September 1974, IS requtred for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM) I. (a) PLAINTIFFS P.S. Products, Inc., & Billy Pennington, Individually. DEFENDANTS Activision Blizzard, Inc., Activision Publishing, Inc. & Treyarch Corporation (b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff ,_P_.,.u,_.la.,s,k,_i_______ _ County of Residence of First Listed Defendant (EXCEPT IN US PLAINTIFF CASES) (c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Stewart Law Firm 904 Garland Street Little Rock, AR 72201 PH: 501-353-1364 (IN U.S PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY) NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED. Attorneys (If Known) II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an "X"tnOneBoxonty) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an "X" in One Box for Plaintiff 0 I US. Govenunent Plaintiff 0 2 US. Govenunent Defendant 3 Federal Question (US Government Not a Party) 0 4 Diversity (Indicate Citizenship o(Parties in Item Ill) IV NATURE OF SUIT (Place an "X" in One Box Only) [fD '., .>&: .... :>li-i!E •J#-Mi't .. j,>!;lf/ 0 II 0 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 0 120 Marine 0 310 Airplane 0 365 Persona! Injury • 0 130 Miller Act 0 315 Airplane Product Product Liability 0 140 Negotiable Instrument Liability 0 367 Health Care/ 0 150 Recovery of Overpayment 0 320 Libel & Phammceutical & Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injwy 0 151 Medicare Act 0 330 Federal Employers' Product Liability 0 152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability 0 368 Asbestos Personal Student Loans 0 340 Marine Injury Product (Excludes Veterans) 0 345 Marine Product Liability (For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant) PTF DEF PTF DEF Citizen of This State 0 I 0 I Incorporated or Principal Place 0 4 0 4 Citizen of Another State 0 2 Citizen or Subject of a 0 3 of Business In This State 0 2 Incorporated and Principal Place of Business In Another State 0 3 Foreign Nation 0 5 0 5 0 6 0 6 ALTYL.· .· ... ;.;,,
0 625 Drug Related Seizure 0 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 0 375 False Claims Act ofProperty 21 USC 881 0 423 Withdrawal 0 400 State Reapportionment 0 690 Other 28 usc 157 0 41 0 Antitrust 0 430 Banks and Banking 0 450 Commerce 0 820 Copyrights 0 460 Deportation 830 Patent 0 470 Racketeer Influenced and 0 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations 0 480 Consumer Credit ,'i§, ·: IiA:BOR. .• 0 490 Cable/Sat TV 0 153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY 0 710 Fair Labor Standards 0 861 HIA (!395ft) 0 850 Securities/Commodities! ofVeteran's Benefits 0 350 Motor Vehicle 0 370 Other Fraud Act 0 862 Black Lung (923) 0 160 Stockholders' Suits 0 355 Motor Vehicle 0 371 Truth in Lending 0 720 Labor/Management 0 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) 0 0 190 Other Contract Product Liability 0 3 80 Other Personal Relations 0 864 SSID Title XVI 0 0 195 Contract Product Liability 0 360 Other Personal Property Damage 0 740 Railway Labor Act 0 865 RSI (405(g)) 0 0 196 Franchise Injury 0 385 Property Damage 0 751 Family and Medical 0 0 362 Personal Injury- Product Liability Leave Act Medical Malpractice 0 790 Other Labor Litigation 0 '."'" ·'' 0 791 Employee Retirement " :filfc!ITS 0 0 210 Land Condemnation 0 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: Income Security Act 0 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff 0 220 Foreclosure 0 441 Voting 0 463 Alien Detainee or Defendant) 0 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 0 442 Employment 0 510 Motions to Vacate 0 871 IRS-Third Party 0 0 240 Torts to Land 0 443 Housing! Sentence 26 usc 7609 0 245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations 0 530 General 0 290 All Other Real Property 0 445 An1er. w/Disabilities- 0 535 Death Penalty BJi#.:L. .:2$1!: Employment Other: 0 462 Naturalization Application 0 446 Amer. w/Disabilities- 0 540 Mandamus & Other 0 465 Other Immigration Other 0 550 Civil Rights Actions 0 448 Education 0 555 Prison Condition D 560 Civil Detainee-
Conditions of Confinement V. ORIGIN (Place an "X"inOneBoxOnly) )ii( l Original 0 2 Removed from Proceeding State Court 0 3 Remanded from Appellate Court 0 4 Reinstated or Reopened 0 5 Transferred from Another District (<pecifY) 0 6 Multidistrict Litigation Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity): Exchange 890 Other Statutory Actions 891 Agricultural Acts 893 Environmental Matters 895 Freedom of Information Act 896 Arbitration 899 Administrative Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision 950 Constitutionality of State Statutes 35 U.S.C. 271 VI. CAUSE OF ACTION 1-:B':-r'-ie-::f-':de.;;.s.;..cr':-ip_t,.io_n_o-::f-ca-u-se-:-------------------------------------
VII. REQUESTED IN COMPLAINT: Patent Infringement 0 CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION UNDER RULE 23. F.RCv.P. (See instructions): DEMAND$ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint: JURY DEMAND: ;81 Yes 0 No VIII. RELATED CASE(S) IF ANY JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER DATE FOR OFFICE USE ONLY RECEIPT# AMOUNT APPLYING IFP runGE MAG.WDGE Case 4:13-cv-00342-KGB Document 1-3 Filed 06/05/13 Page 1 of 1
Recommended DocumentsDocuments Similar To P S Products v. Activision - ComplaintSkip carousel v. Photoflex et. al.GDC Enterprises v. Robco ManufacturingPowerline Innovations v. NetgearKhoshnood v. Bear Archery641 - Traduções PT-BR PC Games (Game Vício, Tribo Gamer BR e Tribo Dos Renegados BR) Tutorial by Fernando Thomazi4-7 Complaint - Hudson v. DepuyInMotion Imagery Technologies v. Grass Valley et. al.Etagz v. Dynaflex International et. al.Etagz v. Active PeopleDream Wick v. Root CandlesLife Technologies et. al. v. EbioscienceATLeisure v. Red Star TradersAzure Networks et. al. v. Asus Computer International et. al.Data Carriers LLCWi-LAN et. al. v. AppleInterDesign v. Merrick Eng'g - ComplaintEssociate v. 4355768 CANADABragel International v. June TailorExpress Card Systems v. Costco WholesaleTouchscreen Gestures v. ViewSonicPragmatus Telecom LLCUbiComm v. VMwareUbiComm v. HealthcastUbiComm LLCMobile Telecommunications Technologies v. Samsung Telecommunications AmericaPrompt Medical Systems v. Provation MedicalEfficiency Systems v. Cisco SystemsIPCalculus - Patenting activity in Cardiovascular DevicesUntitledOverland Storage v. Quantum et. al.Documents About PatentSkip carouselMicrosoftVsMotorola_11.08.17Nokia Complaint Against Apple in federal district court, WisconsinNokiaVsApple_11.03.31.100Translation of Mannheim 2O240 Ruling Motorola v MicrosoftAppleVsHTCandS3_11.07.15The Oppidan Press Edition 10 2011 (The Investec Rhodes Top 100 Special Edition)12-04-30 Apple-Samsung Teksler-Kim Letter Re FRANDSamsung vs Apple - Samsung's Appeal to the Supreme CourtGreenwich Ballistics v. Jamison InternationalNYT Complaint Against LodsysKoninklijke Philips N.V. et. al. v. Nintendo et. al.MicrosoftVsMotorola_11.12.114. ExhB Lodsys Letter to Illusion LabsWikiLeaks TPP Intellectual Property Rights ChapterFacebook's Counterclaims to Yahoo's Patent LawsuitNike v. SkechersPRICELINE COM INC 10-K (Annual Reports) 2009-02-20Google Dec Action vs RockstarConsulting Agreement11-07-01 Apple Motion for PI Against SamsungBU v AppleEPO Examiners Can No Longer Ensure Appropriate Quality StandardsNovartis patent Judgement16-12-20 Apple Complaint v. Acacia Et Al.Semantic Compaction Systems et. al. v. Speak For Yourself et. al.MicrosoftVsMotorola_10.12.2311-07-21 Lodsys Amended ComplaintApple vs Samsung 11.04.22Treehouse Avatar Technologies v. TurbineApple vs Samsung 11.06.16More From slbursteinSkip carouselCrocs v. Effervescent - Order on Claim ConstructionS.A.S. Jean Cassegrain v. GMG Heartstrings - ComplaintC&A Mktg. v. GoPro - Opp'n to MSJ of NoninfringementC&A Mktg. v. GoPro - MSJ of NoninfringementLaltitude v. Amazon - ComplaintColumbia v. Seirus - 289 BriefingCupcake Sushi v. Speirs - ComplaintSchubert UP applicationDyson v. SharkNinja - Order Denying SJ of Non-infringementDyson v. Sharkninja - Def. MSJ Non-infringementNordock v. Systems - Orders re AOM briefingBoiling Point v. Fong Ware - Order Granting SJColumbia Sportswear v. Seirus - Motion to Dismiss per TC HeartlandAmerican Textile v. Hollander Sleep - Motion to DismissDeckers v. Romeo & Juliette - Order on § 103 MSJSugarfina v. Sweet Pete's - ComplaintYeti Coolers v. Glacier - ComplaintPopsockets v. Hueffner - ComplaintHFA v. Trinidad Benham - ComplaintEvriholder Prods v Simply Lbs - ComplaintPuma v. Forever 21 - Order Denying PIPacific Coast Marine Windshields v. Malibu Boats - SJ OrderMcGoogan v. Decky - ComplaintColors in Optics v. Oakley - ComplaintBuscemi LLC v. Styleline Studios - ComplaintMity Lite v. Blumenthal - ComplaintDyson v. SharkNinja - Pl MSJ Disgorgement (289) BriefDyson v. SharkNinja - Pl MSJ DisgorgementDyson v. SharkNinja - Pl MSJ Haas (289) BriefLin v Belkin - MSJ Order