Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/117411315/EON-Corp-IP-Holdings-v-Pantech-Wireless
Timestamp: 2017-07-27 17:56:05
Document Index: 133243555

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 271', '§ 1331', '§ 1391', '§ 17', '§ 271', '§ 287', '§ 284', '§ 285']

EON Corp. IP Holdings v. Pantech Wireless | Patent | Patent Infringement
EON Corp. IP Holdings v. Pantech WirelessUploaded by PriorSmartRelated InterestsPatentPatent InfringementReexaminationComputer NetworkUnited States District Court For The Eastern District Of TexasRating and Stats0.0 (0)Document ActionsDownloadShare or Embed DocumentEmbedDescription: Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 6:12-cv-00942: EON Corp. IP Holdings, LLC v. Pantech Wireless, Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, no...View MoreOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 6:12-cv-00942: EON Corp. IP Holdings, LLC v. Pantech Wireless, Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l7if for more info.Copyright: Public DomainDownload as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION EON CORP.IP HOLDINGS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. PANTECH WIRELESS, INC., Defendant. § § § § § § § §
Civil Action No. ___________________ JURY TRIAL REQUESTED
PLAINTIFF EON CORP. IP HOLDINGS, LLC’S COMPLAINT Plaintiff EON Corp. IP Holdings, LLC (“EON”), by and for its Complaint against Pantech Wireless, Inc. (“Pantech”) for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,592,491 (the “’491 Patent”), U.S. Patent No. 5,388,101 (the “’101 Patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 5,663,757 (the “757 Patent”) (collectively, the “Patents-in-Suit”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271, alleges as follows: I. 1. THE PARTIES
Plaintiff EON Corp. IP Holdings, LLC is a Texas limited liability company with
its principal place of business located at 719 W. Front Street, Suite 108, Tyler, Texas 75702. EON is a wholly owned subsidiary of EON Corporation, formerly known as TV Answer, Inc., a Delaware corporation founded in 1986. EON Corporation is a pioneering wireless technology research and development company that has been in continuous operation since its inception. In the early 1990s, the Federal Communications Commission granted EON Corporation’s petition for an allocation of wireless spectrum specifically for its proposed innovative wireless service offering, known then as Interactive Video and Data Services. While the “IVDS” offering did not originally realize its full commercial potential, the company’s technological advances in interactive digital wireless communications became the subject of a vast intellectual property portfolio covering many communication techniques and devices that have become commonplace
in recent years. EON, as the licensing division of EON Corporation, has been approaching companies in the wireless and interactive video industries to properly license its foundational technologies. In the current skeptical and hostile licensing environment, the largest
communications companies often play a game of ostrich, burying their head in the sand and giving wireless consumers the products and services they demand despite at least a general recognition that in doing so they are traversing property boundaries owned by others. These companies refuse to license even those technologies with a strong pedigree and licensing track record. Costly and contentious patent litigation is the necessary result of this reckless but profitable behavior. Many of Pantech’s major competitors in the wireless industry have properly paid for using EON’s technology. By this action, EON engages a compulsory process that will require Pantech to do the same. 2. Defendant Pantech is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of
Georgia with its principal place of business located at 5607 Glenridge Drive, Suite 500, Atlanta, GA 30342. In addition to Pantech’s continuous and systematic conduct of business in Texas, the causes of action against Pantech arose from or are connected with Pantech’s purposeful acts committed in Texas, including Pantech’s selling, offering to sell, using and inducing others to use, cellular handsets and related products, applications, and services containing interactive television programming which embody one or more claims of the Patents-in-Suit. Pantech may be served through its registered agent Kathleen Elizabeth Jones at 5607 Glenridge Drive, Suite 500, Atlanta, GA 30342. II. 3. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
States, Title 35 of the United States Code (“U.S.C.”). The Court has subject matter jurisdiction
over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). Venue lies in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400(b). 4. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Pantech under the laws of the State of
Texas, including Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 17.042. 5. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Pantech. Pantech has conducted and
does conduct business within the State of Texas, directly or through intermediaries or agents, or offers for sale, sells, and advertises (including through the provision of interactive web pages) handsets and related products, applications, and services that directly and/or indirectly infringe the Patents-in-Suit. III. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS A. 6. The ’757 Patent
On September 2, 1997, after a full and fair examination, the United States Patent
and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) duly and legally issued the ’757 Patent, titled “Software Controlled Multi-Mode Interactive TV Systems.” The claims of the ’757 Patent were confirmed during reexamination, as evidenced by the Reexamination Certificate issued on August 14, 2012. A true and correct copy of the ’757 Patent and Reexamination Certificate are attached hereto as Exhibit A. 7. Broadly speaking, the ’757 patent claims a data processing station subscriber unit
with interactive video capabilities. This technology has recently become ubiquitous, as entities like Pantech now manufacture and sell subscriber units and deliver quality interactive video content for wireless device users at affordable prices. EON’s technology is fundamental to the development of these products and services.
Without reference to the particular construction of any claim terms, features of the
technology claimed in the ’757 Patent include: (1) a software operating system in the wireless subscriber unit for controlling received interactive video content; (2) selectable content options on a video screen display; (3) the ability to create customizable programming menus or guides for individual subscribers on the display screen; and (4) wireless transmission and reception facilities in the subscriber unit that allow for the sending and receiving of interactive control signals, including messages with subscriber IDs. 9. Pantech manufactures, uses, sells, offers for sale, and imports subscriber units that
deliver interactive video programming to subscribers throughout the United States and its territories. 10. EON is the assignee through an exclusive license of all right, title, and interest in
and to the ’757 Patent and possesses all rights of recovery under the ’757 Patent, including the exclusive right to recover for infringement. The ’757 Patent is valid and enforceable. 11. Pantech has been and is presently infringing at least one claim of the ’757 Patent
literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, directly or indirectly, including by knowingly and specifically intending to contribute to or induce infringement by others, alone or with mobile network operators (e.g., cellular providers), mobile interactive video content (and associated application) providers, and/or end-users. 12. For example, Pantech directly infringes by making, using, selling, offering for
sale, importing, and/or subscriber units (e.g., models Crux, Hotshot, Breakout, Burst, Crossover, Flex, Pocket, and similar interactive-video-enabled devices) that are especially configured for receiving mobile interactive video content (e.g., television shows and movies provided via
AT&T U-Verse Live TV, Google Play Movies & TV, Netflix, YouTube, or similar video services) and embody one or more claims of the ’757 Patent. 13. Pantech indirectly infringes by contributing to direct infringement by its
customers and mobile network operators by selling, offering for sale, importing, and/or exporting these subscriber units and interactive video services that are configured for use in and constitute a material portion of the patented invention (e.g., data processing station subscriber units that deliver interactive television or television-quality entertainment and informational content to subscribers). 14. Pantech induces direct infringement of the ’757 Patent, for example, by
advertising and instructing customers how to access and use interactive video services such as AT&T U-Verse Live TV, Google Play Movies & TV, Netflix, and YouTube on the accused subscriber units. Pantech’s customers that are mobile network operators and end-users of the subscriber units’ interactive video features directly infringe the apparatuses and methods of ’757 Patent by making, using, selling, offering to sell, importing into the United States and/or exporting from the United States the accused subscriber units and interactive video services. 15. Pantech acted and continues to act intentionally and with knowledge of its
infringement of the ’757 Patent at least since the date this lawsuit was filed or served. On information and belief, third parties, including current and prior defendants in related matters involving the same patents, put Pantech on notice of EON’s claims and of Pantech’s infringing activities prior to the filing of this Complaint. For example, on March 2, 2012, AT&T sent a letter notifying Pantech of several Pantech devices implicated in a related EON case involving all of the Patents-in-Suit.1 Through this letter, AT&T notified Pantech of its devices that EON accused in the AT&T case as components or devices that alone or together with other
EON v. AT&T, 11-cv-01555-FAB, E.D. Tex.
components comprise the inventions claimed by each of the Patents-in-Suit. Pantech received a copy of the EON v. AT&T complaint identifying all of the current Patents-in-Suit and EON’s allegations of infringement regarding these Pantech devices. The same or substantially similar Pantech components and devices accused in the AT&T case are devices implicated in the present case. At least as a result of Pantech’s receipt of AT&T’s letter, EON believes Pantech obtained knowledge of EON’s patent portfolio and learned that it infringed and continues to infringe each of the Patents-in-Suit well in advance of the filing of the instant Complaint. 16. Pantech’s mobile video services and compatible subscriber units offer program
selection and interactive, mobile video functionalities that are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use. B. 17. The ’101 and ’491 Patents (the “Dinkins Patents”)
On February 7, 1995, after a full and fair examination, the USPTO duly and
legally issued the ’101 Patent, titled “Interactive Nationwide Data Service Communication System for Stationary and Mobile Battery Operated Subscriber Units.” The claims of the ’101 Patent were confirmed during reexaminations, as evidenced by Reexamination Certificates issued on January 17, 2012 and August 14, 2012. A true and correct copy of the ’101 Patent and Reexamination Certificate are attached hereto as Exhibit B. 18. EON is the assignee through an exclusive license with EON Corporation of all
right, title, and interest in and to the ’101 Patent and possesses all rights of recovery under the ’101 Patent, including the exclusive right to recover for infringement. The ’101 Patent is valid and enforceable. 19. The ’101 Patent describes a multi-faceted communication structure designed to
enable two-way wireless digital signals to be exchanged between one or more base stations and
remote, low-powered subscriber units placed at a distance from the base stations. Broadly and without reference to the particular construction of any claim terms, features of the communications technology claimed in the ’101 Patent include individual low power subscriber units that transmit and receive wireless digital information from a network of cells to provide customers with a range of interactive and wireless data services. 20. On January 7, 1997, the USPTO duly and legally issued the ’491 Patent, titled
“Wireless Modem,” after a full and fair examination. A true and correct copy of the ’491 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit C. 21. EON is the assignee under an exclusive license with EON Corporation of all
rights, title, and interest in and to the ’491 Patent and possesses all rights of recovery under the ’491 Patent, including the right to recover for past infringement. The ’491 Patent is valid and enforceable. 22. The ’491 Patent is a continuation-in-part of the ’101 Patent. The ’491 Patent
enables communication in a two-way network between subscribers and the network base station or network hub switching center via multiple paths (e.g., a Wide-Area-Network (WAN) path or a Local-Area-Network (LAN) path). The ’491 Patent teaches deploying a wireless modem in the home or office as an alternate network access point. The ’491 Patent overcomes persistent coverage and capacity issues in cellular deployments without the need for additional costly network infrastructure (e.g., base stations), and thereby helps to stabilize the cost of communication services within the network. Therefore, wireless interactive video services
requiring increased bandwidth or speed become feasible. In fact, one of the many advantages of the patented technology is the provision of high bandwidth applications and services to multiple
subscribers at peak load capacity in and out of the home or office by combining cellular access with a wireless modem LAN using, for instance, Wi-Fi technology. 23. The technology taught and claimed in the ’101 and ’491 Patents was invented by
then EON head engineer, Gilbert Dinkins, and these patents are collectively referred to as the “Dinkins Patents.” 24. Pantech has been and is presently infringing at least one claim of each of the
Dinkins Patents literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, directly or indirectly by knowingly and specifically intending to contribute to or induce infringement by others, alone or with wireless network operators, application providers, customers, and/or end users. Pantech makes, uses, sells, offers for sale, imports, and/or exports wireless devices (e.g., Crux, Hotshot, Breakout, Burst, Crossover, Flex, Pocket, and similar devices) that fall within the scope of at least one claim of each of the Dinkins Patents or are especially configured for use in and constitute a material portion of the patented inventions. 25. Pantech indirectly infringes by contributing to direct infringement by its
customers and mobile network operators through the selling, offering for sale, importing, and/or exporting of, for example, dual-mode wireless devices that are specially configured for use in and constitute a material portion of the patented invention. 26. Pantech induces others, including its customers and mobile network operators, to
directly infringe the Dinkins Patents, for example, by providing wireless devices with multi-path capability to customers and instructing them in how to switch between WAN and LAN communication paths. 27. Pantech induces infringement by actively instructing and encouraging its
customers to use Pantech’s wireless devices in infringing network configurations by touting the
advantages that its products can provide to such users, by providing technical assistance in integrating its products into such network configurations, or by providing service manuals or other instructions explaining how to use the Pantech wireless devices in a way that infringes the claims of the Dinkins Patents. In addition, Pantech actively promotes the advantages that its wireless devices can offer end users, including wider coverage and availability for its users and the applications they desire and increased communication speeds throughout the user experience both at home or on the go. Pantech’s customers, end users and mobile network operators directly infringe the apparatus and method claims of the Dinkins Patents by importing, exporting, making, using, selling, and/or offering to sell infringing networks that include Pantech’s wireless devices. 28. Pantech acted and continues to act intentionally and with knowledge of its
infringement of the Dinkins Patents at least since the date this lawsuit was filed or served. On information and belief, third parties, including current and prior defendants in related matters involving the same patents, put Pantech on notice of EON’s claims and of Pantech’s infringing activities prior to the filing of this Complaint. For example, on March 2, 2012, AT&T sent a letter notifying Pantech of several Pantech devices implicated in a related EON case involving all of the Patents-in-Suit.2 Through this letter, AT&T notified Pantech of its devices that EON accused in the AT&T case as components or devices that alone or together with other components comprise the inventions claimed by each of the Patents-in-Suit. Pantech received a copy of the EON v. AT&T complaint identifying all of the current Patents-in-Suit and EON’s allegations of infringement regarding these Pantech devices. The same or substantially similar Pantech components and devices accused in the AT&T case are devices implicated in the present case. At least as a result of Pantech’s receipt of AT&T’s letter, EON believes Pantech obtained
knowledge of EON’s patent portfolio and learned that it infringed and continues to infringe each of the Patents-in-Suit well in advance of the filing of the instant Complaint. 29. Pantech’s wireless devices are made especially for performing the communication
methods and for use on networks that infringe the Dinkins Patents and are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use. For example, Pantech’s wireless devices are made especially for performing the communication methods and for use on networks that infringe the Dinkins Patents because they include multimode or dual path communication features and functions that are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use. IV. CAUSE OF ACTION
Infringement of the Patents-in-Suit 30. EON repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 29 as
if those allegations had been fully set forth herein. 31. Defendant, without authorization or license and in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271
(a),(b),(c), and (f), has been and is infringing the ’757 Patent, the ’101 Patent, and the ’491 Patent directly, by inducement, and/or contributorily. 32. Because Defendant had actual knowledge of EON’s infringement allegations
prior to the commencement of this action, Defendant’s infringement has been and is willful. Furthermore, Defendant’s infringement occurring after the date of this action will continue to be willful. 33. EON has no adequate remedy at law against Defendant’s acts of infringement,
and Defendant’s infringement will continue unless enjoined by this Court.
Defendant’s unauthorized use of EON’s patented-technology causes EON and its
licensees harm. 35. EON has suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable injury as a result of
Defendant’s infringement, including through the harm described in the preceding paragraph. 36. 37. EON is in compliance with any requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 287, if applicable. EON has been damaged by Defendant’s infringement and will continue to be
damaged until enjoined by this Court. V. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment against Defendant, and in favor of Plaintiff. Plaintiff prays that this Court: A. award Plaintiff all relief available under § 284 of the Patent Act, including
monetary damages, for the Defendant’s infringement in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact; B. award Plaintiff all relief available under § 285 of the Patent Act, including
the costs of this litigation as well as well as expert witness and attorneys’ fees; C. and D. award Plaintiff whatever equitable relief is deemed appropriate. VI. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL order payment of all applicable interests, including prejudgment interest;
EON demands a trial by jury of any and all issues triable of right before a jury.
Dated: December 19, 2012
Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Daniel Scardino Daniel Scardino Texas State Bar No. 24033165 Cabrach J. Connor Texas State Bar No. 24036390 Jeffery R. Johnson Texas State Bar No. 24048572 REED & SCARDINO LLP 301 Congress Avenue, Suite 1250 Austin, Texas 78701 Tel.: (512) 474-2449 Fax: (512) 474-2622 dscardino@reedscardino.com cconnor@reedscardino.com jjohnson@reedscardino.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF EON CORP. IP HOLDINGS, LLC
Recommended DocumentsDocuments Similar To EON Corp. IP Holdings v. Pantech WirelessSkip carouselKlausner Technologies v. CallWaveKlausner Technologies v. Smoothstone IP CommunicationsKlausner Technologies v. Accessline CommunicationsKlausner Technologies v. FonalitySwipe Innovations v. Moneris Solutions et. al.Howlink Global v. Securus TechnologiesTelinit Technologies v. Quality Speaks, LLC d/b/a Voip.comExpress Card Systems v. Costco WholesaleQuest Nettech v. Don Jagoda AssociatesBabbage Holdings v. Konami Digital EntertainmentBiscotti v. MicrosoftTraffic Information v. U.S. BancorpSagacious Research - Patent and Trademark Updates – 7-January 2012Parke, Davis vs. Doctors'11-11759-NMGBovino v. Amazon.comCarshark v. Case-MateSarvint Vs CarreTela Innovations Inc.Canatelo v. TRENDnetWireless Telematics v. Outdoorlink Et. Al.Adaptix v. Asustek Et. Al.Quxuz v. BigCommerceQuxuz v. VolusionQuxuz v. AutomatticQuxuz v. WeeblyQuxuz v. Wix.comQuxuz v. YolaMt. Derm Et. Al. v. Mei-Cha International Et. Al.Zanfel Laboratories et. al. v. Ziff et. al.Documents About PatentSkip carouselMicrosoftVsMotorola_11.08.17NokiaVsApple_11.03.31.10012-04-30 Apple-Samsung Teksler-Kim Letter Re FRANDNokia Complaint Against Apple in federal district court, WisconsinThe Oppidan Press Edition 10 2011 (The Investec Rhodes Top 100 Special Edition)AppleVsHTCandS3_11.07.15Translation of Mannheim 2O240 Ruling Motorola v MicrosoftSamsung vs Apple - Samsung's Appeal to the Supreme CourtPRICELINE COM INC 10-K (Annual Reports) 2009-02-20Facebook's Counterclaims to Yahoo's Patent LawsuitNYT Complaint Against Lodsys4. ExhB Lodsys Letter to Illusion LabsWikiLeaks TPP Intellectual Property Rights ChapterGreenwich Ballistics v. Jamison InternationalKoninklijke Philips N.V. et. al. v. Nintendo et. al.MicrosoftVsMotorola_11.12.11Nike v. Skechers11-07-01 Apple Motion for PI Against SamsungEPO Examiners Can No Longer Ensure Appropriate Quality StandardsGoogle Dec Action vs RockstarConsulting AgreementBU v AppleNovartis patent Judgement16-12-20 Apple Complaint v. Acacia Et Al.Apple vs Samsung 11.06.16MicrosoftVsMotorola_10.12.23Semantic Compaction Systems et. al. v. Speak For Yourself et. al.AppleVsHTCandS3_11.07.2911-07-21 Lodsys Amended ComplaintApple vs Samsung 11.04.22More From PriorSmartSkip carouselLike kind card game (US patent 6193235)Like kind money board table game (US patent 6186505)Intelligent user interface including a touch sensor device (US patent 8288952)User interface with proximity sensing (US patent 8035623)Wine cellar alarm system (US patent 8710985)Cell regulatory genes, encoded products, and uses related thereto (US patent 7030227)Multicasting method and apparatus (US patent 6434622)Method and apparatus for retrieving data from a network using linked location identifiers (US patent 6226655)Casino bonus game using player strategy (US patent 6645071)High-speed serial linking device with de-emphasis function and the method thereof (US patent 7313187)Casing spacer (US patent 6736166)Advance Products & Systems v. CCI Piping SystemsModern Telecom Systems LLCTracBeam v. AppleRichmond v. Creative IndustriesSenju Pharmaceutical et. al. v. Metrics et. al.VIA Technologies et. al. v. ASUS Computer International et. al.Perrie v. PerrieEckart v. Silberline ManufacturingSenju Pharmaceutical et. al. v. Metrics et. al.Kenzinc v. imblowingup et. al.Sun Zapper v. Devroy et. al.Merck Sharp & Dohme v. Fresenius KabiTracBeam v. T-Mobile et. al.ATEN International v. Uniclass Technology et. al.Mcs Industries v. Hds TradingDok Solution v. FKA Distributung et. al.GRQ Investment Management v. Financial Engines et. al.Merck Sharp & Dohme v. Fresenius KabiMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Konami Digital Entertainment