Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/182431194/Innovative-Wireless-Solutions-LLC
Timestamp: 2017-04-28 03:05:06
Document Index: 709565569

Matched Legal Cases: ['art0', '§ 1331', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271']

ScribdBrowseInterestsCareer & MoneyPersonal GrowthPolitics & Current AffairsScience & TechHealth & FitnessLifestyleEntertainmentBiographies & HistoryFictionBrowse byBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinInnovative Wireless Solutions LLCUploaded by PriorSmart0.0 (0)DownloadEmbedDescription: Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-01857-UNA: Innovative Wireless Solutions LLC. Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, no judge yet assigned...View MoreOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-01857-UNA: Innovative Wireless Solutions LLC. Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l9sV for more info.Copyright: Public DomainDownload as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE INNOVATIVE WIRELESS SOLUTIONS, LLC, Plaintiff, v.ARRIS GROUP, INC., Defendant. § § § § § § § § §
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Plaintiff Innovative Wireless Solutions, LLC (“IWS” or “Plaintiff”), by way of its Complaint for Patent Infringement (“Complaint”) against Defendant Arris Group, Inc. (“Arris Group” or “Defendant”) alleges as follows: NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. This is an action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the
company with a place of business at 555 Republic Drive, Suite 200, Plano, Texas 75074. 3. On information and belief, Defendant Arris Group is a corporation under the laws
of the State of Delaware. On information and belief Defendant has a principal place of business at 3871 Lakefield Drive, Suwanee, Georgia 30024. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4. 1338(a). This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and
to directly infringe, both literally and under the doctrine of equivalents, the ’895 Patent by making, using, offering to sell, and selling in the United States, and importing into the United States, products that practice the subject matter claimed in one or more claims of the ’895 Patent, including but not limited to claim 48, without the authority of IWS. The ’895 Patent Accused Products include, but are not limited to, Defendant’s wireless base stations, wireless access points and wireless routers including, but not limited to, Defendant’s IEEE 802.11 compliant wireless access points and wireless routers such as its 2247 N8 Netopia ADSL2 802.11 N Wi-Fi Gateway. 19. Upon information and belief, Defendant has induced and continues to induce
others to infringe the ’895 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) by, and with specific intent or willful blindness, actively aiding and abetting others to engage in the following actions that constitute direct infringement: (1) performing the steps of the method claims in connection with use of the ’895 Patent Accused Products; (2) using the ’895 Patent Accused Products; and (3) combining the ’895 Patent Accused Products with other components to form the claimed invention. Such other entities include, for example, Defendant’s partners, customers and end users of the ’895 Patent Accused Products. Defendant’s acts of inducement include its advertising, offering for sale, and selling the ’895 Patent Accused Products, and providing user manuals, product documentation, and other instructions regarding the use of the wireless networking features of the ’895 Patent Accused Products. On information and belief, Defendant has engaged in such
actions with specific intent to cause infringement or with willful blindness to the resulting infringement because Defendant has had actual knowledge of the ’895 Patent and that its acts were inducing others to infringe the ’895 Patent since at least the date it received the notice letter from IWS notifying Defendant of its infringement of the ’895 Patent. 20. Upon information and belief, Defendant has committed and continues to commit
identification of the particular infringing products and features, but Defendant thereafter continued to infringe the ’895 Patent by continuing the activities described in Paragraph 13-16. On information and belief, Defendant has not obtained an opinion of counsel regarding the’895
Patent. The Defendant’s continued infringement has therefore been in reckless disregard of IWS’s patent rights. On information and belief, the Defendant’s infringement has been and continues to be willful. COUNT II (INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’264 PATENT) 23. The allegations set forth in the foregoing paragraphs 1 through 22 are hereby
control protocol as defined in IEEE 802.11. In accordance with the wireless protocol, the
controller provides information that controls when wireless devices connected to the network are allowed to transmit, thereby causing the communications over the wireless network to occur in a half-duplex manner. e. The ’264 Patent Accused Products include a first buffer that holds frames
to directly infringe, both literally and under the doctrine of equivalents, the ’264 Patent by making, using, offering to sell, and selling in the United States, and importing into the United States, products that practice the subject matter claimed in one or more claims of the ’264 Patent, including but not limited to claim 5, without the authority of IWS. The ’264 Patent Accused Products include, but are not limited to, Defendant’s wireless base stations, wireless access points and wireless routers including, but not limited to, Defendant’s IEEE 802.11 compliant wireless access points and wireless routers such as its 2247 N8 Netopia ADSL2 802.11 N Wi-Fi Gateway. 29. Upon information and belief, Defendant has induced and continues to induce
others to infringe the ’264 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) by, and with specific intent or willful blindness, actively aiding and abetting others to engage in the following actions that constitute direct infringement: (1) performing the steps of the method claims in connection with use of the ’264 Patent Accused Products; (2) using the ’264 Patent Accused Products; and (3) combining the ’264 Patent Accused Products with other components to form the claimed invention. Such other entities include, for example, Defendant’s partners, customers and end users of the ’264 Patent Accused Products. Defendant’s acts of inducement include advertising, offering for sale, and selling the ’264 Patent Accused Products, and providing user manuals, product documentation, and other instructions regarding the use of the wireless networking features of the ’264 Patent Accused Products. On information and belief, Defendant has engaged in such actions with specific intent to cause infringement or with willful blindness to the resulting infringement because Defendant has had actual knowledge of the ’264 Patent and that its acts
were inducing others to infringe the ’264 Patent since at least the date it received the notice letter from IWS notifying Defendant of its infringement of the ’264 Patent. 30. 31. IWS has been harmed by the Defendant’s infringing activities. IWS notified Defendant of its infringement of the ’264 Patent including an
the limitations of at least claim 40 of the ’473 Patent in at least the following manner:
The ’473 Patent Accused Products provide communication between a
CSMA/CD network (an Ethernet network) and a bidirectional communications path (the wireless path). b. The ’473 Patent Accused Products include an Ethernet interface that
’473 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) by actively aiding and abetting others to engage in the following actions that constitute direct infringement: (1) performing the steps of the method claims in connection with use of the ’473 Patent Accused Products; (2) using the ’473 Patent Accused Products; and (3) combining the ’473 Patent Accused Products with other components to form the claimed invention. This letter further explained that such other entities include, for example, Defendant’s partners, customers and end users of the ’473 Patent Accused Products. This letter further explained that Defendant’s acts of inducement include but are not limited to
advertising, offering for sale, and selling the ’473 Patent Accused Products, and providing user manuals, product documentation, and other instructions regarding the use of the wireless networking features of the ’473 Patent Accused Products. 36. IWS’s letter also informed Defendant that it was contributing to infringement of
to directly infringe, both literally and under the doctrine of equivalents, the ’473 Patent by making, using, offering to sell, and selling in the United States, and importing into the United States, products that practice the subject matter claimed in one or more claims of the ’473 Patent,
including but not limited to claim 40, without the authority of IWS. The ’473 Patent Accused Products include, but are not limited to, Defendant’s wireless base stations, wireless access points and wireless routers including, but not limited to, Defendant’s IEEE 802.11 compliant wireless access points and wireless routers such as its 2247 N8 Netopia ADSL2 802.11 N Wi-Fi Gateway. 39. Upon information and belief, Defendant has induced and continues to induce
acts of contributory infringement of the ’473 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) by offering to sell and selling the ’473 Patent Accused Products. The ‘473 Patent Accused Products constitute a
material part of the invention, were especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of the ’473 Patent, and have no substantial non-infringing uses. The ’473 Patent Accused Products constitute a material part of the claimed invention at least because they contain the components that interface a wireless network to an Ethernet network and provide control information to the wireless devices as claimed in the ’473 Patent. Further, the ’473 Patent Accused Products were made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of the ’473 Patent and have no substantial non-infringing uses at least because they contain components whose only purpose is to interface a wireless network to an Ethernet network and provide control information to the wireless devices as claimed in the ’473 Patent. Defendant has known or remained willfully blind to these facts since at least the date it received the notice letter from IWS detailing Defendant’s infringement of the ’473 Patent. 41. 42. IWS has been harmed by the Defendant’s infringing activities. IWS notified Defendant of its infringement of the ’473 Patent including an
identification of the particular infringing products and features, but Defendant thereafter continued to infringe the ’473 Patent by continuing the activities described in Paragraph 33-36. On information and belief, Defendant has not obtained an opinion of counsel regarding the’473 Patent. The Defendant’s continued infringement has therefore been in reckless disregard of IWS’s patent rights. On information and belief, the Defendant’s infringement has been and continues to be willful. JURY DEMAND IWS demands a jury trial on all issues and claims so triable. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, IWS prays for judgment as follows:
a. patents-in-suit; b.
An adjudication that Defendant has infringed one or more claims of each of the
An award of damages to be paid by Defendant adequate to compensate IWS for
Documents Similar To Innovative Wireless Solutions LLCSkip carouselInnovative Wireless Solutions v. Zoom TelephonicsInnovative Wireless Solutions LLCSalus Corporation d/b/a ICP Medical v. Tidi ProductsArrivalStar et. al. v. RFID Global Solution5-DueDiligenceCV-FTOInternal Combustion Solutions v. HondataSport Systems Unlimited v. Rink SystemsMonistere v. Scissor MechanicNorman IP Holdings v. Toyota Motor North AmericaM. Rothschild Holding v. Angels Baseball Et. Al.Trustees of Boston University v. Everlight Electronics et. al.Real Time Social Inventions v. Conduit et. al.Wilson Elecs. v. CellPhone-Mate - ComplaintSecureNova v. LG Electronics et. al.Tristar Products et. al. v. National Express et. al.Blue Gentian v. Telebrands et. al.advanced marketing systemsDigiMedia Holdings Group v. Access.1 CommunicationsDigiMedia Holdings Group v. Tomlinson-Leis CommunicationsDigiMedia Holdings Group v. Access.1 CommunicationsPlacon Corp. v. Sabert Corp. - ComplaintEclipse IP v. Air CanadaBandspeed v. Qualcomm et. al.Content Extraction And Transmission v. Wells Fargo Bank, National AssociationNoticeEclipse IP v. CDWEclipse IP v. Abt Electronics2012-02-07 Order (Klausner) Granting Mtn to DismissSagacious Research - Patent and Trademark Updates – 29-December 2011Pi-Net International v. KronosDocuments About PatentSkip carousel16-12-20 Apple Complaint v. Acacia Et Al.AppleVsSamsung_11.07.05Gillette Company v. ADKM, Inc. d/b/a Harry's Razor Company et. al.Samsung vs Apple - Samsung's Appeal to the Supreme CourtNokiaVsApple_11.03.31.100Consulting AgreementPRICELINE COM INC 10-K (Annual Reports) 2009-02-20Nike v. SkechersWizards of the Coast v. Cryptozoic Entertainment et. al.Apple vs Android 10.12.02Nokia Complaint Against Apple in federal district court, WisconsinDavid Einhorn's presentation on Green Mountain RoastersBose vs Beats (ITC complaint)Beyond PhilanthropyBose v. Beats Civil ComplaintAgainst Intellectual Property, by Stephan Kinsella Koninklijke Philips N.V. et. al. v. Nintendo et. al.GENENTECH INC 10-K (Annual Reports) 2009-02-20Provisional Patent ApplicationGoogle Dec Action vs RockstarApple vs Samsung 11.04.22AppleVsHTCandS3_11.07.29MicrosoftVsMotorola_11.12.11Translation of Mannheim 2O240 Ruling Motorola v MicrosoftNovartis patent Judgement14-01-21 Apple v. Samsung Summary Judgment OrderBU v AppleEPO Examiners Can No Longer Ensure Appropriate Quality StandardsGreenwich Ballistics v. Jamison International12-04-30 Apple-Samsung Teksler-Kim Letter Re FRANDMore 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