Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/160906459/Hopewell-Culture-Design-v-Microsoft-Et-Al
Timestamp: 2017-07-27 07:11:17
Document Index: 727581276

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§ 271', '§ 1331', '§ 299', '§ 1391', '§ 284', '§285']

Hopewell Culture & Design v. Microsoft Et. Al. | United States District Court For The Eastern District Of Texas | Patent Infringement
Hopewell Culture & Design v. Microsoft Et. Al.Uploaded by PatentBlastRelated InterestsUnited States District Court For The Eastern District Of TexasPatent InfringementPatentPersonal ComputersComplaintRating and Stats0.0 (0)Document ActionsDownloadShare or Embed DocumentEmbedDescription: Hopewell Culture & Design v. Microsoft et. al.View MoreHopewell Culture & Design v. Microsoft et. al.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISIONHOPEWELL CULTURE & DESIGN LLC, Plaintiff, V. CASE NO. 2:13-CV-622 MICROSOFT CORPORATION, ACER AMERICA CORPORATION, FUJITSU AMERICA, INC., HUAWEI DEVICE USA, INC., ZTE (UNITED STATES) INC., Defendant. PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Plaintiff Hopewell Culture & Design LLC (“Plaintiff”), by and through its undersigned counsel, files this Original Complaint against Microsoft Corporation, Acer America Corporation, Fujitsu America, Inc., Huawei Device, USA, Inc., and ZTE (United States) Inc. (“Defendants”) as follows: NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. This is a patent infringement action to stop Defendants’ infringement of United JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
States Patent No. 7,171,625 (“the ’625 patent”) entitled “Double-Clicking a Point-and-Click Interface Apparatus to Enable a New Interaction with Content Represented by an Active Visual Display Element”. A true and correct copy of the ’625 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Plaintiff is the exclusive licensee of the ’625 patent. monetary damages. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and
the State of Texas. Plaintiff maintains its principal place of business at 104 East Houston Street, Suite 170, Marshall, Texas 75670. Plaintiff is authorized to do business in Texas. Plaintiff is the exclusive licensee of the ’625 patent, and possesses the right to sue for infringement and recover past damages. 3. Upon information and belief, Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”) is a
corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Washington, with its principal place of business at 1 Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA 98052. Microsoft is registered to do business in Texas and can be served with process through its registered agent, Corporation Service Company, 2711 Centerville Road, Suite 400, Wilmington, DE 19808. 4. Upon information and belief, Acer America Corporation (“Acer”) is a corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the State of California, with its principal place of business at 333 West San Carlos Street, Suite 1500, San Jose, CA 95110. Acer can be served with process through its registered agent, C T Corporation System, 818 West Seventh Street, Los Angeles, CA 90017. 5. Upon information and belief, Fujitsu America, Inc. (“Fujitsu”) is a corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the State of California, with its principal place of business at 1250 East Arques Avenue, M/S 124. Sunnyvale, CA 94085. Fujitsu is registered to do business in Texas and can be served with process through its registered agent, The Corporation Trust Company, Corporation Trust Center, 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, DE 19801.
Upon information and belief, Huawei Device USA, Inc. (“Huawei”) is a
corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Texas, with its principal place of business at 5700 Tennyson Parkway, Plano, Texas 75024. Huawei is registered to do business in Texas and can be served with process through its registered agent, C T Corporation System, 350 North Saint Paul Street, Suite 2900, Dallas, Texas 75201. 7. Upon information and belief, ZTE (United States) Inc. (“ZTE”) is a corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the State of New Jersey, with its principal place of business at 2425 North Central Expressway, Richardson, Texas 75080. ZTE is registered to do business in Texas and can be served with process through its registered agent, Jing Li, 2425 North Central Expressway, Suite 323, Richardson, Texas 75080. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 8. This action arises under the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et
seq., including 35 U.S.C. §§ 271, 281, 283, 284, and 285. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case for patent infringement under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). 9. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because: Defendants have
minimum contacts within the State of Texas and the Eastern District of Texas; Defendants have purposefully availed itself of the privileges of conducting business in the State of Texas and in the Eastern District of Texas; Defendants have sought protection and benefit from the laws of the State of Texas; Defendants regularly conduct business within the State of Texas and within the Eastern District of Texas; and Plaintiff’s cause of action arises directly from Defendants’ business contacts and other activities in the State of Texas and in the Eastern District of Texas. 10. More specifically, Defendants, directly and/or through intermediaries, ships,
distributes, offers for sale, sells, and/or advertises (including the provision of an interactive web
page) their products and services in the United States, the State of Texas, and the Eastern District of Texas. Upon information and belief, Defendants have committed patent infringement in the State of Texas and in the Eastern District of Texas. Defendants solicit and have solicited customers in the State of Texas and in the Eastern District of Texas. Defendants have many paying customers who are residents of the State of Texas and the Eastern District of Texas and who each use and have used the Defendants’ products and services in the State of Texas and in the Eastern District of Texas. 11. and 1400(b). 12. Joinder of the Defendants is proper pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 299(a) at least Venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391
because each Defendant’s infringing products includes, complies with, and/or utilizes either the Android and/or Windows operating systems, the practice of which by each Defendant necessarily results in infringement of the patent-in-suit. In addition, questions of fact common to all of the Defendants will arise in the action at least because, upon information and belief, Defendants’ infringing acts arise from their common acts of including, complying with and/or utilizing the Android and/or Windows operating systems. COUNT I – PATENT INFRINGEMENT 13. The ’625 patent was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and
Trademark Office on January 30, 2007 after full and fair examination. Plaintiff is the exclusive licensee of the ’625 patent with respect to the Defendants, and possesses all rights of recovery under the ’625 patent with respect to the Defendants, including the right to sue for infringement and recover past damages.
Upon information and belief, Defendant Microsoft Corporation has infringed and
continues to infringe one or more claims of the ’625 patent by making, using, providing, offering to sell, and selling (directly or through intermediaries), in this district and elsewhere in the United States, internet tablet PC, including the Microsoft Surface, allowing a user to double click or double tap a visual display element representing interactive content and interact with a second version of the interactive content. 15. Upon information and belief, Defendant Acer has infringed and continues to
infringe one or more claims of the ’625 patent by making, using, providing, offering to sell, and selling (directly or through intermediaries), in this district and elsewhere in the United States, internet tablet PCs, and laptops including, V7-582P-6673, S7-191-6447, S7-191-6400, W3-8101600, W700-6831, W700-6454, B1-710-L480, B1-710-L401, A110-07g08u, W510-1837, W3810-1416, W3-810-1632, W3-810-1650, W3-810-1833, W510-1849, W510-1404, W510-1422, W510-1432, W510-1438, W510-1440, W510-1458, W510-1620, W510-1837, W700-6454, W700-6495, W700-6499, W700-6602, W700-6680, W700-6831, A200-10g32u, R7-571-6858, allowing a user to double click or double tap a visual display element representing interactive content and interact with a second version of the interactive content. 16. Upon information and belief, Defendant Fujitsu has infringed and continues to
infringe one or more claims of the ’625 patent by making, using, providing, offering to sell, and selling (directly or through intermediaries), in this district and elsewhere in the United States, internet tablet PCs, and laptops including LIFEBOOK AH562, STYLISTIC Q702 Hybrid Tablet PC, LIFEBOOK T732 Tablet PC, LIFEBOOK T902 Tablet PC, STYLISTIC Q572 Tablet PC, allowing a user to double click or double tap a visual display element representing interactive content and interact with a second version of the interactive content.
Upon information and belief, Defendant Huawei has infringed and continues to
infringe one or more claims of the ’625 patent by making, using, providing, offering to sell, and selling (directly or through intermediaries), in this district and elsewhere in the United States, internet tablet PCs, and mobile phone devices including Huawei Prism II, Huawei W1, Huawei Premia 4G MediaPad S7 Pro, allowing a user to double click or double tap a visual display element representing interactive content and interact with a second version of the interactive content. 18. Upon information and belief, Defendant ZTE has infringed and continues to
infringe one or more claims of the ’625 patent by making, using, providing, offering to sell, and selling (directly or through intermediaries), in this district and elsewhere in the United States, internet tablet PCs, and mobile phone devices including AT&T Z998, ZTE Overture, AT&T Avail, AT&T Avail 2, Sprint Vital, ZTE Prelude, ZTE Illustra, ZTE Director, Sprint Force, ZTE Anthem, ZTE Warp Sequent, ZTE Merit, ZTE Fury, ZTE Warp, Cricket Score, ZTE Avid 4G, ZTE Velox, allowing a user to double click or double tap a visual display element representing interactive content and interact with a second version of the interactive content. 19. Plaintiff. 20. Plaintiff is entitled to recover from Defendant the damages sustained by Plaintiff Defendants’ aforesaid activities have been without authority and/or license from
as a result of the Defendants’ wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial, which, by law, cannot be less than a reasonable royalty, together with interest and costs as fixed by this Court under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
JURY DEMAND Plaintiff hereby requests a trial by jury pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. PRAYER FOR RELIEF Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court find in its favor and against Defendants, and that the Court grant Plaintiff the following relief: A. An adjudication that one or more claims of the ’625 patent have been infringed,
either literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, by Defendants; B. An award to Plaintiff of damages adequate to compensate Plaintiff for the
Defendants’ acts of infringement together with pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; C. That this Court declare this to be an exceptional case and award Plaintiff its
reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs in accordance with 35 U.S.C. §285; and D. Any further relief that this Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted, By: /s/ Austin Hansley AUSTIN HANSLEY P.L.L.C. Austin Hansley Texas Bar No.: 24073081 5050 Quorum Dr. Suite 700 Dallas, Texas 75254 Telephone: (469) 587-9776 Facsimile: (855) 347-6329 Email: Austin@TheTexasLawOffice.com www.TheTexasLawOffice.com ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF HOPEWELL CULTURE & DESIGN, LLC
Recommended DocumentsDocuments Similar To Hopewell Culture & Design v. Microsoft Et. Al.Skip carouselInMotion Imagery Technologies v. Notorious Productions et. al.Rockwell Solutions v. General Mills SalesMiCash v. PreCashMy Health v. MedisanaSynQor v. Cisco SystemsAdrain v. Hubb Systems LLC d/b/a Data911Traffic Information v. AllstateInstitute for Information Industry v. Cisco SystemsQommerce Systems v. Saks DirectApplied Food Sciences v. Hangover Joe&#039;s ProductsNational Oilwell Varco v. Ensign International Energy Servicese-Watch et. al. v. LG ElectronicsAlpha Financial Technologies v. Mount Lucas ManagementKroy IP Holdings v. SafewayZ-Dimensional v. Mercedes-BenzModern Group et. al. v. Pinnacle Companies et. al.Ideative Product Ventures v. Philips Electronics North Americae-Watch et. al. v. AppleProperty Disclosure Technologies v. Century 21 Real EstateCompression Labs Incorporated v. Adobe Systems Incorporated et al - Document No. 45Ideative Product Ventures v. Accell43NobelBiz v. Stage 2 NetworksEclipse IP v. Sears HoldingsInnovative Automation v. Verizon and Redbox Digital Entertainment Services et. al. v. ZTE et. al.TQP Development v. MiTAC DigitalParker v. Kimberly-ClarkWilliam Cramp & Sons Ship & Engine Building Co. v. International Curtis Marine Turbine Co., 246 U.S. 28 (1918)Ingeniador v. GE HealthcareDocuments About United States District Court For The Eastern District Of TexasSkip carouselPatent Harbor v. Platinum Disc, LLC d/b/a Echo Bridge Home EntertainmentSmartFit Solutions v. Equinox HoldingsEMG Technology v. Union Pacific Railroad CompanyeDekka v. Net-A-Porter GroupNational Cheng Kung University v. GEO SemiconductoreDekka v. U.S. Auto Parts NetworkPanTaurus v. DropboxLodsys Group v. BullionVault et. al.Meadows Financial Systems v. Little Caesar EnterpriseLodsys Group v. Dow Jones & CompanyAlpha Financial Technologies v. Mount Lucas ManagementLong Corner Security v. VantivSmartFit Solutions v. Freemotion FitnessAffinity Labs of Texas v. Ford Motor CompanyInMotion Imagery Technologies v. NetflixRemote Locator Systems v. BSM WirelessKlausner Technologies v. VoiceRiteLodsys Group v. Volkswagen Group of AmericaLone Star Document Management v. Atalasoft et. al.Lumetique v. Stone DistributorsMarshall Feature Recognition v. Diageo North AmericaTouchscreen Gestures v. Acer et. al.National Cheng Kung University v. CreeKlausner Technologies v. Centrepoint TechnologiesQuest Nettech v. HelloWorldEMG Technology v. ExpediaKlausner Technologies v. Bandwidth.comeDekka v. Follett Higher Education GroupPowerline Innovations v. Actiontec Electronics et. al.eDekka v. Motorsport Aftermarket GroupMore From PatentBlastSkip carouselMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Samsung Electronics Et. AlMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Nintendo of America Et. AlMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Cantor Fitzgerald Et. AlMultiplayer Network Innovations v. ZTE Et. AlMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Toshiba AmericaMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Pantech Et. AlMultiplayer Network Innovations v. NVIDIAActifio v. DelphixRTC Industries v. Flextronics InternationalTactical Medical Solutions v. Karl Et. AlPrometheus Laboratories v. Par Pharmaceutical Companies Et. AlAndrea Electronics v. Lenovo Group Et. Al.Andrea Electronics v. Toshiba Et. Al.Property Disclosure Technologies v. TruliaGlobal Tel*Link v. Securus Technologies et. al.Century Board v. National Registered AgentsIatric Systems v. FairWarningHologram Et. Al. v. Arena3D Industrial Illusion Et. Al.Tech-ni-Fold v. F.P. Rosback CompanyRTC Industries v. ZiveloMotobatt v. Deltran OperationsImpax Laboratories Et. Al. v. Lannett Holdings Et. Al.Alkermes Pharma Ireland v. Sun Pharma Global FZE Et. Al.Unimed Pharmaceuticals Et. Al. v. Perrigo Company Et. Al.Sensus v. Certified MeasurementCapella Photonics v. TellabsCapella Photonics v. Fujitsu Network CommunicationsCapella Photonics v. CienaILife Technologies v. AliphComAeritas v. GameStop