Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/236098443/Untitled
Timestamp: 2017-06-29 08:07:41
Document Index: 396741726

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

UntitledUploaded by PriorSmartRelated InterestsPatentPatent InfringementTitle 35 Of The United States CodeUnited States Patent LawDamagesRating and Stats0.0 (0)Document ActionsDownloadShare or Embed DocumentEmbedView MoreCopyright: © All Rights ReservedDownload as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION MULTIPLAYER NETWORK INNOVATIONS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. WMS GAMING, INC., Defendant. Civil Action No. __________ JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Plaintiff Multiplayer Network Innovations, LLC (“MNI” or “Plaintiff”), by and through its counsel, for its complaint against Defendant WMS Gaming, Inc. (“Defendant” or “WMS”), alleges as follows: BACKGROUND 1. MNI holds U.S. Patent No. 5,618,045 (the, “MNI patent” or the, “‘045 patent”), a patent invented by Dr. Michael Kagan and Ian Solomon. 2. Dr. Kagan is a noted scholar and inventor. He holds a PhD in chemistry from Hebrew University in Jerusalem and is the author of numerous books and journal articles relating to technology, chemistry, and religion. Dr. Kagan’s articles have been published in the journals including Nature and the Journal of Medicinal Chemistry. 3. Dr. Kagan is the inventor of ten United States patents. 4. Ian Solomon is an inventor and entrepreneur who is the co-founder of medical device makers SteadyMed Therapeutics, Inc. and Aespira Ltd. 5. During the mid-1990’s, Dr. Kagan and Mr. Solomon conceived of a way for electronic devices to communicate with one another for the playing of computer games. 6. Dr. Kagan and Mr. Solomon’s idea was conceived in part against the backdrop of the conflict in the Middle East. The idea was to use wirelessly connected gaming devices to open up channels of communication between people with divergent views. 7. Among Dr. Kagan and Mr. Solomon’s inventions are inventions relating to the use of a device to enable two or more people to play a game over a wireless network. 8. Dr. Kagan and Mr. Solomon’s inventions have useful applications to fields such as video gaming hardware and software, smartphone hardware and software, and casino gaming hardware and software, among others. 9. Leading technology companies including Microsoft Corporation, Apple, Inc., Intel Corporation, Google Corporation, and Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. have cited the MNI patent numerous times. 10. Over 325 issued United States patents cite the MNI patent. 11. Plaintiff is the owner by assignment of the MNI patent. The MNI patent is entitled “Interactive Multiple Player Game System and Method of Playing A Game Between at Least Two Players.” The MNI patent issued on April 8, 1997, based on a patent application filed on February 8, 1995. A true and correct copy of the MNI patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A. PARTIES 12. Plaintiff is a Texas limited liability company. 13. On information and belief, WMS Gaming, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business at 800 South Northpoint Blvd., Waukegan, Illinois 60085. WMS may be served with process via its registered agent for service of process, National Registered Agents Inc., 200 West Adams Street, Chicago, Illinois 60606. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 14. This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of the United States Code. Accordingly, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). 15. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because, among other reasons, Defendant has established minimum contacts with the forum state of Texas. Defendant, directly and/or through third-party intermediaries, makes, uses, imports, offers for sale, and/or sells products within the state of Texas, and particularly within the Eastern District of Texas. Thus, Defendant has purposefully availed themselves of the benefits of doing business in the State of Texas and the exercise of jurisdiction over Defendant would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. 16. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 (b)-(c) and 1400(b) because Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in this District, has transacted business in this district and has committed acts of patent infringement in this district. COUNT I (Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,618,045) 17. Plaintiff MNI realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-16 above, as if fully set forth herein. 18. Defendant makes, uses, sells, and offers for sale in the United States products and/or services for multiplayer gaming. 19. WMS has infringed indirectly and continues to infringe indirectly the '045 patent by active inducement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). 20. Upon information and belief, WMS had knowledge of the '045 patent since at least as early as 2003, or alternatively since being served with this complaint. WMS cited the '045 patent in the following U.S. Patent, which issued in 2003: U.S. Patent No. 6,554,704. 21. On information and belief, WMS has intended and continues to intend, to induce patent infringement by third-party users of its online and mobile games and has had knowledge that the inducing acts would cause infringement or has been willfully blind to the possibility that its inducing acts would cause infringement. For example, WMS provides access to multiple online and mobile games, including but not limited to Super Jackpot Party and Jungle Wild, as well as instructions on how to download and play the games in a manner that infringes the '045 patent to end users. By downloading and/or playing these games in the manner taught by WMS, end users directly infringe at least Claims 5 and 8 of the '045 patent. By continuing to provide these games as well as instructions on how to download and play the games in a manner described in Claims 5 and 8 of the '045 patent, WMS has and continues to specifically intend to induce infringement of the '045 patent. 22. Since at least 2003, WMS has been and still is willfully infringing the '045 patent. At least as early as 2003, WMs had actual knowledge of the '045 patent. Despite having actual knowledge of the '045 patent, WMS has continued to willfully, wantonly, and deliberately infringe the '045 patent. Accordingly, MNI seeks enhanced damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284 and a finding that this is an exceptional case within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285, entitling MNI to its attorneys' fees and expenses. 23. To the extent applicable, the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 287(a) have been met with respect to the '045 patent. 24. As a result of Defendant's infringement of the '045 patent, MNI has suffered monetary damages. MNI seeks an award of damages in an amount adequate to compensate for Defendant's infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by Defendant, together with interest and costs as fixed by the Court. PRAYER FOR RELIEF Plaintiff respectfully requests the following relief from this Court: A. A judgment that Defendant have infringed one or more claims of the '045 patent; B. An award of damages resulting from Defendant's acts of infringement in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 284; C. A judgment and order finding that this is an exceptional case within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285 and awarding to MNI its reasonable attorneys' fees against Defendant; D. A judgment and order requiring Defendant to provide accountings and to pay supplemental damages to MNI, including, without limitation, prejudgment and post-
judgment interest; and E. Any and all other relief to which MNI may show itself to be entitled. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff requests a trial by jury of any issues so triable by right. Dated: August 6, 2014 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Elizabeth L. DeRieux S. Calvin Capshaw TX Bar No. 03783900 Elizabeth L. DeRieux TX Bar No. 05770585 D. Jeffrey Rambin TX Bar No. 00791478 CAPSHAW DERIEUX, LLP 114 E. Commerce Ave. Gladewater, Texas 75647 Telephone: 903-236-9800 Facsimile: 903-236-8787 E-mail: ccapshaw@capshawlaw.com E-mail: ederieux@capshawlaw.com E-mail: jrambin@capshawlaw.com Of Counsel: Marc A. Fenster, CA SB No. 181067 Dorian S. Berger CA SB No. 264424 Daniel P. Hipskind CA SB No. 266763 RUSS AUGUST & KABAT 12424 Wilshire Boulevard 12
Floor Los Angeles, California 90025 Telephone: 310-826-7474 Facsimile: 310-826-6991 E-mail: mfenster@rawklaw.com E-mail: dberger@raklaw.com E-mail: dhipskind@raklaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff, Multiplayer Network Innovations, LLC Recommended DocumentsDocuments Similar To UntitledSkip carouselSundesa v. Advanced Nutritional PerformanceAffinity Labs of Texas v. Clear Channel BroadcastingNovelPoint Tracking v. Worldwide Golf EnterprisesBruder Healthcare Company v. Bigwall Enterprises et. al.Kolcraft Enterprises v. Artsana Et. Al.Unified Messaging Solutions v. Google et. al.Go-Go Babyz v. Brica Et. Al.Innovative Display Technologies v. ZTE Et. Al.Smart Destinations, Inc.11-11930-GAOPetAware v. Dog's Play and Training Center Et. Al.1445 Designs v. FoxfuryBetter Food Choices v. MyNetDiary et. al.Renfrow et. al. v. BDP Innovative Chemicals CompanyPolliwalk's v. Crocs et. al.ADA Solutions v. Access Products, Inc. d/b/a Access Tile et. al.ArrivalStar et. al. v. Taca International AirlinesCDD Technologies v. Fujitsu AmericaBabbage Holdings v. Square Enix et. al.Swipe Innovations v. MagTekMaxim Integrated Products v. U.S. Bancorp et. al.Bsg Tech v. Christianbook.com v. Baker HughesFlow Valve v. Forum Energy Technologies Et. Al.Chrimar Systems et. al. v. Alcatel-Lucent et. al.MacroSolve v. Gilt Groupe Holdings et. al.IPCalculus - Patenting activity in Cardiovascular DevicesOrientview Technologies v. BeachmintLennon Image Technologies v. Forevermark et. al.Patent InfringementDocuments About PatentSkip carouselMicrosoftVsMotorola_11.08.1712-04-30 Apple-Samsung Teksler-Kim Letter Re FRANDAppleVsHTCandS3_11.07.15NokiaVsApple_11.03.31.100Translation of Mannheim 2O240 Ruling Motorola v MicrosoftNokia Complaint Against Apple in federal district court, WisconsinSamsung vs Apple - Samsung's Appeal to the Supreme CourtThe Oppidan Press Edition 10 2011 (The Investec Rhodes Top 100 Special Edition)Greenwich Ballistics v. Jamison InternationalWikiLeaks TPP Intellectual Property Rights Chapter4. ExhB Lodsys Letter to Illusion LabsNYT Complaint Against LodsysNike v. SkechersKoninklijke Philips N.V. et. al. v. Nintendo et. al.MicrosoftVsMotorola_11.12.11Facebook's Counterclaims to Yahoo's Patent LawsuitPRICELINE COM INC 10-K (Annual Reports) 2009-02-2011-07-01 Apple Motion for PI Against SamsungConsulting AgreementEPO Examiners Can No Longer Ensure Appropriate Quality StandardsBU v AppleNovartis patent JudgementGoogle Dec Action vs RockstarAppleVsHTCandS3_11.07.29MicrosoftVsMotorola_10.12.23Apple vs Samsung 11.06.1616-12-20 Apple Complaint v. Acacia Et Al.11-07-21 Lodsys Amended ComplaintApple vs Samsung 11.04.22Treehouse Avatar Technologies v. TurbineMore 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