Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/170291160/Employment-Law-Compliance-Inc
Timestamp: 2018-03-25 01:31:05
Document Index: 545949244

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 271', '§ 284', '§ 271', '§ 1331', '§ 1391', '§ 284', '§ 284', '§ 283', '§ 285', '§ 284', '§ 283', '§ 284', '§ 284', '§ 284', '§ 1961', '§ 284']

Employment Law Compliance, Inc. | Minimum Contacts | Patent
Description: Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 3:13-cv-03844: Employment Law Compliance, Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, no judge yet assigned....
Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 3:13-cv-03844: Employment Law Compliance, Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l99T for more info.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION EMPLOYMENT LAW COMPLIANCE
, INC., Plaintiff, vs. § § § § § Case No. § § Jury Trial Demanded § § § § § § § § §
TEXAS AUTOMOBILE DEALERS ASSOCIATION, SONIC-LUTE RILEY, LP, SONIC-MASSEY CADILLAC, LP, SONIC-RICHARDSON F, LP, KPA SERVICES, LLC and HOTLINKHR, INC. Defendants.
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Plaintiff Employment Law Compliance, Inc. (“ELC”) files this Complaint for Patent Infringement against Texas Automobile Dealers Association, a Texas Non-Profit Corporation (“TADA”), Sonic-Lute Riley, LP (“Sonic-LR”), Sonic-Massey Cadillac, LP (“Sonic-MC”) and Sonic-Richardson F, LP (“Sonic-RF”), KPA Services, LLC (“KPA”) and HotlinkHR, Inc. (“Hotlink”) (collectively referred to as “Defendants”) for infringement of United States Patent Number 7,330,817 (“the ‘817 Patent”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.
NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. This is an action for patent infringement under Title 35 of the United States Code. 2. Defendants make, use, sell, offer for sale, and/or import into the United States products that fall within the scope of one or more claims of the ‘817 Patent.
3. ELC seeks damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, among other relief, for Defendants’ infringement of the ‘817 Patent.
THE PARTIES 4. Plaintiff ELC is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Georgia with is principal place of business in Atlanta, Georgia. ELC does business with clients in Texas and, more specifically, in the Northern District of Texas. 5. TADA is a Texas Non Profit Corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Texas with its principal place of business located at 1108 LaVaca, Suite 800, Austin, Texas 78701. 6. On information and belief, TADA has been and is promoting and actively inducing the use of and using, importing, selling and/or offering for sale products that infringe one or more claims of the ‘817 Patent. 7. TADA is doing business in the United States and, more particularly, in the Northern District of Texas by promoting and actively inducing the use of and using, importing, selling and/or offering for sale products that infringe one or more claims of the ‘817 Patent. 8. Service may be made upon TADA by serving its registered agent for service of process William L. Wolters at 1108 Lavaca, Suite 800, Austin, Texas 78701. 9. On information and belief, Sonic-LR is a Limited Partnership organized and existing under the laws of the State of North Carolina with its principal place of business in Texas located at 1331 North Central Expressway, Richardson, Dallas County, Texas 75080.
10. Sonic-LR has been and is using products that infringe one or more claims of the ‘817 Patent. 11. Sonic-LR is doing business in the United States and, more particularly, in the Northern District of Texas by using products that infringe one or more claims of the ‘817 Patent. 12. Service may be made upon Sonic-LR through its registered agent for service of process CT Corporations System, 350 N. St. Paul, Suite 2900, Dallas, Texas 75201. 13. Upon information and belief, Sonic-MC is a Limited Partnership organized and existing under the laws of the State of North Carolina with its principal place of business in Texas located at 11675 LBJ Freeway, Garland, Dallas County, Texas 75041. 14. Sonic-MC has been and is using products that infringe one or more claims of the ‘817 Patent. 15. Sonic-MC is doing business in the United States and, more particularly, in the Northern District of Texas by using products that infringe one or more claims of the ‘817 Patent. 16. Service may be made upon Sonic-MC through its registered agent for service of process CT Corporations System, 350 N. St. Paul, Suite 2900, Dallas, Texas 75201. 17. Upon information and belief, Sonic-RF is a Limited Partnership organized and existing under the laws of the State of North Carolina with its principal place of business in Texas located at 1819 North Central Expressway, Richardson, Dallas County, Texas.
18. Sonic-RF has been and is using products that infringe one or more claims of the ‘817 Patent. 19. Sonic-RF is doing business in the United States and, more particularly, in the Northern District of Texas by using products that infringe one or more claims of the ‘817 Patent. 20. Service may be made upon Sonic-RF through its registered agent for service of process CT Corporations System, 350 N. St. Paul, Suite 2900, Dallas, Texas 75201. 21. Upon information and belief, KPA is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Colorado with its principal place of business located at 1380 Forest Park Circle, Lafayette, CO 80026. 22. KPA has been and is designing, marketing, manufacturing, using, importing, selling and/or offering for sale products, that infringe one or more claims of the ‘817 Patent. On information and belief, KPA acquired the exclusive rights to offer a compliance system developed by Hotlink to the transportation market in September 2008. 23. KPA is doing business in the United States and, more particularly, in the Northern District of Texas by designing, marketing, manufacturing, using, importing, selling and/or offering for sale products that infringe one or more claims of the ‘817 Patent. 24. KPA transacts business in the State of Texas without being registered as required by Chapter 9 of the Texas Business Organizations Code. Therefore, service may be made on KPA through the Texas Secretary of State by certified mail sent to Service of Process, Secretary of State, P.O. Box 12079, Austin, Texas 78711-2079.
25. Upon information and belief, Hotlink is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Utah with its principal place of business located at 5579 W. 2000 Street, Mendon, UT 84325-9766. 26. Hotlink has been and is designing, marketing, manufacturing, using, importing, selling and/or offering for sale products, that infringe one or more claims of the ‘817 Patent. 27. Hotlink is doing business in the United States and, more particularly, in the Northern District of Texas by designing, marketing, manufacturing, using, importing, selling and/or offering for sale products that infringe one or more claims of the ‘817 Patent. 28. Hotlink transacts business in the State of Texas without being registered as required by Chapter 9 of the Texas Business Organizations Code. Therefore, service may be made on Hotlink through the Texas Secretary of State by certified mail sent to Service of Process, Secretary of State, P.O. Box 12079, Austin, Texas 78711-2079.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 29. This is a civil action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35, United States Code, including 35 U.S.C. §§ 271 and 281-285. Subject matter jurisdiction is conferred on this Court by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). 30. Venue is proper in the Dallas Division of the Northern District of Texas under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)-(d) and 1400(b). 31. This court has personal jurisdiction over TADA. TADA has purposefully established minimum contacts with the State of Texas, having been incorporated in the State of
Texas since 1917.
Further, TADA has an endorsement relationship publicly
endorsing KPA’s product, which infringes the ‘817 Patent, to its members throughout Texas, including in the Northern District of Texas. KPA’s infringing products have been and continue to be purchased by consumers in the Northern District of Texas. TADA has infringed and continues to infringe, and/or has actively induced and currently is actively inducing others to infringe, the ‘817 Patent within the State of Texas and, more particularly, within the Northern District of Texas. The exercise of jurisdiction over TADA would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. 32. This court has personal jurisdiction over Sonic-LR. Sonic-LR has purposefully
established minimum contacts with the State of Texas, having a car dealership on the Northern District of Texas. Further, Sonic-LR, uses within the Northern District of Texas, the products falling within the scope of one or more claims of the ‘817 Patent. Sonic-LR has committed acts of patent infringement within the State of Texas and, more particularly, within the Northern District of Texas. Sonic-LR has purposefully availed itself of the benefits of the State of Texas and the exercise of jurisdiction over Sonic-LR would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. 33. This court has personal jurisdiction over Sonic-MC. Sonic-MC has purposefully established minimum contacts with the State of Texas, having a car dealership on the Northern District of Texas. Further, Sonic-MC, uses within the Northern District of Texas, the products falling within the scope of one or more claims of the ‘817 Patent. Sonic-MC has committed acts of patent infringement within the State of Texas and, more particularly, within the Northern District of Texas. Sonic-MC has purposefully
availed itself of the benefits of the State of Texas and the exercise of jurisdiction over Sonic-MC would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. 34. This court has personal jurisdiction over Sonic-RF. Sonic-RF has purposefully
established minimum contacts with the State of Texas, having a car dealership on the Northern District of Texas. Further, Sonic-RF, uses within the Northern District of Texas, the products falling within the scope of one or more claims of the ‘817 Patent. Sonic-RF has committed acts of patent infringement within the State of Texas and, more particularly, within the Northern District of Texas. Sonic-RF has purposefully availed itself of the benefits of the State of Texas and the exercise of jurisdiction over Sonic-RF would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. 35. This court has personal jurisdiction over KPA. KPA has purposefully established minimum contacts with the State of Texas. Further, KPA, directly and/or through third-party distributors including the TADA, manufactures or assembles products that are and have been offered for sale, sold, purchased, and used within the Northern District of Texas, the products falling within the scope of one or more claims of the ‘817 Patent. KPA, directly or through intermediaries (including distributors, retailers, and others, such as the TADA), ships, distributes, offers for sale, sells, and advertises infringing products in the Northern District of Texas. Additionally, KPA directly and/or through their distribution networks, regularly places infringing products within the stream of commerce, with the knowledge and/or understanding that such products will be sold in the Northern District of Texas. Upon information and belief, KPA has purposefully and voluntarily sold one or more infringing products with the expectation that they will be purchased by consumers in the Northern District of
KPA’s infringing products have been and continue to be purchased by
consumers in the Northern District of Texas. KPA has committed acts of patent infringement within the State of Texas and, more particularly, within the Northern District of Texas. KPA has purposefully availed itself of the benefits of the State of Texas and the exercise of jurisdiction over KPA would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. 36. This court has personal jurisdiction over Hotlink. Hotlink has purposefully
established minimum contacts with the State of Texas. Further, Hotlink, directly and/or through third-party manufacturers, manufactures or assembles products that are and have been offered for sale, sold, purchased, and used within the Northern District of Texas, the products falling within the scope of one or more claims of the ‘817 Patent. Hotlink, directly or through intermediaries (including distributors,
retailers, and others), ships, distributes, offers for sale, sells, and advertises infringing products in the Northern District of Texas. Additionally, Hotlink directly and/or through their distribution networks, regularly places infringing products within the stream of commerce, with the knowledge and/or understanding that such products will be sold in the Northern District of Texas. Upon information and belief, Hotlink has purposefully and voluntarily sold one or more infringing products with the expectation that they will be purchased by consumers in the Northern District of Texas. Hotlink’s infringing products have been and continue to be purchases by consumers in the Northern District of Texas. Hotlink has committed acts of patent infringement within the State of Texas and, more particularly, within the Northern District of Texas. Hotlink has purposefully availed itself of the benefits of the State
of Texas and the exercise of jurisdiction over Hotlink would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
PATENT INFRINGEMENT COUNT 37. ELC incorporates by reference the paragraphs 1 – 36 above as if fully set forth herein. 38. On February 12, 2008, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) duly and legally issued the ‘817 Patent, entitled “System and methods for employment law compliance, establishment, evaluation and review”, after full and fair examination. A true and correct copy of the ‘817 Patent is attached as Exhibit A. ELC is the assignee of all rights, title, and interest in and to the ‘817 Patent and possesses all rights of recovery under the ‘817 Patent, including the right to recover damages for past infringement. 39. The ‘817 Patent is valid and enforceable. 40. Plaintiff ELC makes, uses, sells and/or offers to sell its computerized employment compliance products and/or services related to compensation compliance, hiring compliance, promotion compliance, termination compliance and affirmative action compliance. 41. KPA has been and is now directly infringing the ‘817 Patent by making, using, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing into the United States products that fall within the scope of at least one claim of the ‘817 Patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. 42. Hotlink has been and is now directly infringing the ‘817 Patent by making, using, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing into the United States products that fall
within the scope of at least one claim of the ‘817 Patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. 43. John P. Boggs is Chief Legal Counsel of Hotlink and is the founder of Hotlink. Mr. Boggs is also a member of the senior management team of KPA. Mr. Boggs, along with Steven C. Black, were listed as the inventors on U.S. patent application, Serial No. 10/848,809, filed on May 19, 2004. Mr. Boggs and Mr. Black assigned their right, title and interest in and to U.S. patent application, Serial No. 10/848,809, to Hotlink on May 19, 2004. On information and belief, the Hotlink patent application was rejected by the United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO), and ultimately on appeal to the Board of Patent Appeals & Interferences, in part due to the ‘817. John P. Boggs and Hotlink had knowledge of the ‘817 Patent at least on or around June 9, 2008 when the ‘817 Patent was cited by the USPTO against patent application, U.S. Serial No. 10/848,809, on which Mr. Boggs was listed as an inventor and which Messrs. Boggs and Black assigned to Hotlink on May 19, 2004. 44. As such, Hotlink was and is on notice of the ‘817 Patent and has been and is continuing to willfully infringe the ‘817 Patent since at least June 9, 2008. As such, ELC is entitled to enhanced damages from Hotlink and KPA. 45. TADA actively promotes and induces others to purchase and/or use the KPA/Hotlink infringing system including its member automobile dealerships in Texas. Therefore, TADA is also infringing and/or actively inducing others to infringe the ‘817 Patent in concert with KPA and Hotlink. 46. On information and belief, Sonic LR, Sonic-MC and Sonic-RF are using the infringing KPA/Hotlink system that infringes the ‘817 Patent.
47. The Defendants, as set forth above, have been and are now infringing and/or actively inducing infringement of one or more claims of the ‘817 Patent. The Defendants are liable for infringement for the ‘817 Patent as set forth above. 48. The Defendants’ acts of infringement and/or actively inducing have caused ELC monetary damage. ELC is entitled to recover from the Defendants monetary damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 adequate to compensate ELC for infringement of the ‘817 Patent.
REMEDIES 49. As a direct and proximate consequence of the acts and practices of Defendants in infringing and/or actively inducing the infringement of one or more claims of the ‘ 817 Patent, ELC has been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial and will continue to be damaged in its business and property rights as a result of Defendants’ infringing activities, unless such activities are enjoined by this Court. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, ELC is entitled to damages adequate to compensate for the infringement, including, inter alia, lost profits and/or a reasonable royalty. 50. By reason of their infringing acts and practices, Defendants are causing, and, unless such acts and practices are enjoined by the Court, will continue to cause immediate and irreparable harm to ELC for which there is no adequate remedy at law, and for which ELC is entitled to injunctive relief under 35 U.S.C. § 283. ELC, therefore, requests a permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants, t h e i r directors, officers, employees, agents, parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, and anyone else in active concert or participation with Defendants from infringement, inducing
infringement, or contributory infringement of the ‘817 Patent, including the making, manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale, distribution, or promotion of products and/or services falling within the scope of the claims of the ‘817 Patent. 51. To the extent that facts learned during the pendency of this case show that Defendants’ infringement is willful and deliberate, ELC reserves the right to amend this complaint and request such a finding and seek appropriate relief at time of trial.
COSTS, INTEREST AND ATTORNEY’S FEES 52. If it be determined that this case presents exceptional circumstances within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285, ELC requests the Court award it all reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred in this litigation and pre-judgment and postjudgment interest pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 284 and 285.
DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL 53. ELC hereby demands a trial by jury, under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for all issues triable of right by a jury.
PRAYER WHEREFORE, Plaintiff ELC respectfully prays for the following: a. A judgment that Defendants have infringed, directly and/or indirectly, actively induced infringement, and/or contributorily infringed the ‘817 Patent; b. A judgment and order permanently enjoining Defendants and their
directors, officers, employees, agents, parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, and all persons in active concert or participation with Defendants from infringement, inducement to infringe, or contributory
infringement of the ‘ 817 Patent, including the making, manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale, distribution, or promotion of products and/or services falling within the scope of the claims of the ‘817 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 283; c. A judgment and order requiring Defendants pay ELC damages sufficient to compensate them for the infringement of the ‘ 817 Patent, in an amount not less than ELC’s lost profits and/or a reasonable royalty and interest and costs, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, and supplemental damages for any continuing post-verdict
infringement up until entry of final judgment with an accounting, as needed; d. A judgment and order awarding enhanced damages, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, to the extent that Defendants’ acts of infringement of the ‘817 Patent are determined to be willful; e. An award of prejudgment interest, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, from the date of each act of infringement of the ‘ 8 1 7 Patent by Defendants to the day on which judgment for damages is entered, and a further award of post-judgment interest, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961, continuing until such judgment is paid; f. An award of all costs and reasonable attorney’s fees against
Defendants, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 284 and 285, based on its infringement of the ‘817 Patent; and g. Such other and further relief to which ELC may be entitled.
Dated: September 20, 2013. Respectfully submitted, /s/ John Reenan John Reenan Lead Attorney Texas State Bar No. 00789777 jreenan@helmsgreene.com Christopher S. Kilgore Texas State Bar No. 11398350 ckilgore@helmsgreene.com Helms & Greene, LLC 1700 Pacific Avenue, Suite 3740 Dallas, Texas 75201 Telephone: (214) 466-7910 Facsimile: (214) 466-7915
/s/ Scott Harper Scott L. Harper Texas State Bar No. 00795038 Steven H. Washam Texas Bar No. 24042821 HARPER WASHAM LLP 1700 Pacific Ave., Suite 3600 Dallas, Texas 75201 Telephone: 214-389-8985 Facsimile: 214-389-8986 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF EMPLOYMENT LAW COMPLIANCE, INC.
Documents Similar To Employment Law Compliance, Inc.
Recent Court Judgements in Employment Law WIP
Employment Law Review - Schaner and Harper III
Case on Employment Law