Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/161384666/Data-Speed-Technology-LLC
Timestamp: 2016-09-01 05:51:58
Document Index: 522556431

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§ 271', '§ 1331', '§ 271', '§ 284', '§ 285', 'art30', 'art15']

BrowseBrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicWelcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out moreIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE DATA SPEED TECHNOLOGY LLC, Plaintiff, v.DOCUMENT LOGISTIX, LTD., DOCUMENT LOGISTIX LLC, Defendants. COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT This is an action for patent infringement in which Plaintiff Data Speed Technology LLC makes the following allegations against Defendants Document Logistix, Ltd. and Document Logistix LLC (collectively, the “Defendants”). BACKGROUND 1. Kenneth H. Conner is a life-long computer engineer with knowledge and ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
experience with many technologies including: mainframe computers, application software, operating systems, cellular communications, and networking. This experience comes from
working with technology giants including Digital Equipment Corporation, Argonne National Laboratory, Bell Labs, Motorola, and Lucent. In early 1993, Mr. Conner, along with James. G Hunter, Gregory P. Spar, and Bruce Anderson invented a new information management and storage system that enabled multiple computers to independently read and write to a mass storage device in a relatively high speed manner on a first come, real time basis. For example, the computer first accessing a particular memory address space or file would have the exclusive ability to write to that file and the file would be locked to subsequent computers attempting to write to it, which allowed multiple computers to use a mass storage device in a high speed
manner without conflict. By the summer of 1993, the team had developed a working functional prototype of their invention. On November 9, 1993, the team filed an application for patent on the invention, and on February 2, 1999, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued U.S. Patent No. 5,867,686 (the “Conner Patent”). PARTIES 2. Plaintiff Data Speed Technology LLC (“Data Speed Tech”) is a Delaware limited
liability company. 3. On information and belief, Defendant Document Logistix, Ltd. is a foreign
corporation with its global headquarters at 8 Copperhouse Court, Caldecotte, Milton Keynes, MK7 8NL, United Kingdom. 4. On information and belief, Defendant Document Logistix LLC is a Texas
corporation with its principal place of business at #3616 Far West Boulevard, Suite 117-309, Austin, Texas 78731. On information and belief, Document Logistix LLC has appointed Kim Kuykendall at 3721 Executive Center Dr. Ste. 264, Austin, Texas 78731, as its agent for service of process. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1, et
seq., including § 271. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). 6. This Court has specific and general personal jurisdiction over Defendants
because, among other reasons, Defendants have done business in this District, have committed and continue to commit acts of patent infringement in this District, and/or have harmed and continues to harm Data Speed Tech in this District, by, among other things, using, selling, offering for sale, and importing infringing products and services in this District.
because, among other reasons, Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in this District and Defendants have committed and continue to commit acts of patent infringement in this District. On information and belief, for example, Defendants have used, sold, offered for sale, and imported infringing products in this District. COUNT I INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,867,686 8. Data Speed Tech is the owner by assignment of the Conner Patent, entitled “High
Speed Real-Time Information Storage System.” A true and correct copy of the Conner Patent is attached as Exhibit A. 9. Defendants have been and now are directly infringing the Conner Patent, literally
and under the doctrine of equivalents, in this judicial District and elsewhere in the United States by, among other things, making, using, importing, offering for sale, and/or selling electronic information management and storage products and services that use a method of providing memory access to a memory mass storage device by a plurality of computers, each functioning under an independent operating system, and such method comprising the steps of: receiving a write access request identifying a memory space from a requesting computer of the plurality of computers by the memory mass storage device; granting access and reserving the memory space for the exclusive use of the requesting computer and denying write access to the memory space by any other computer of the plurality of computers for the duration of the access grant to the requesting computer; and receiving a write access request and a required memory size from a second requesting computer of the plurality of computers. In addition and alternatively,
Defendants infringe the patent by, among other things, making, using, importing, offering for sale, and/or selling electronic information management and storage products and services. These
products and services comprise: a memory mass storage device; a plurality of computers, each functioning under an independent operating system, operably connected to the memory mass storage device through an external bus; a communication processor of the memory mass storage device operably connected to the plurality of computers through the external bus for receiving an access request from a requesting computer of the plurality of computers identifying a memory space of the memory mass storage device; a controller of the memory mass storage device operably connected to the communication processor for granting exclusive write access to the identified memory space by the requesting computer for a duration of the access grant to the requesting computer; and a dynamic memory map containing a listing of the identified memory space. The infringing products and services include, for example, Defendants’ program entitled Document Logistix Document Manager. 10. By engaging in the conduct described herein, Defendants have injured Data Speed
Tech and are liable for infringement of the Conner Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). 11. 12. Defendants committed these acts of infringement without license or authorization. As a result of Defendants’ infringement of the Conner Patent, Data Speed Tech
has suffered monetary damages and is entitled to a money judgment in an amount adequate to compensate for Defendants’ infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use of the invention by Defendants, together with interest and costs as fixed by the Court. Data Speed Tech will continue to suffer damages in the future unless this Court enjoins Defendants’ infringing activities. 13. Data Speed Tech has suffered and will continue to suffer severe and irreparable
harm unless this Court issues a permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants, their agents,
servants, employees, representatives, and all others acting in active concert therewith, from infringing the Conner Patent. PRAYER FOR RELIEF Data Speed Tech respectfully requests that this Court enter: A. Conner Patent; B. A permanent injunction enjoining Defendants and their officers, directors, agents, A judgment in favor of Data Speed Tech that Defendants have infringed the
servants, affiliates, employees, divisions, branches, subsidiaries, parents, and all others acting in active concert therewith from infringement of the Conner Patent, or such other equitable relief the Court determines is warranted; C. A judgment and order requiring Defendants to pay Data Speed Tech its damages,
costs, expenses, and prejudgment and post-judgment interest for Defendants’ infringement of the Conner Patent as provided under 35 U.S.C. § 284, and an accounting of ongoing post-judgment infringement; D. A judgment and order finding that this is an exceptional case within the meaning
of 35 U.S.C. § 285 and awarding to Data Speed Tech its reasonable attorneys’ fees against Defendants; E. A judgment and order requiring Defendants to provide an accounting and to pay
supplemental damages to Data Speed Tech, including without limitation, prejudgment and postjudgment interest; and F. Any and all other relief to which Data Speed Tech may be entitled.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Data Speed Tech, under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, requests a trial by jury of any issues so triable by right.
Dated: August 16, 2013 Of Counsel: Alex C.D. Giza Marc A. Fenster Dorian S. Berger RUSS AUGUST & KABAT 12424 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90025 (310) 826-7474 agiza@raklaw.com mfenster@raklaw.com dberger@raklaw.com
BAYARD, P.A. /s/ Stephen B. Brauerman (sb4952) Richard D. Kirk (rk0922) Stephen B. Brauerman (sb4952) Vanessa R. Tiradentes (vt5398) 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 900 P.O. Box 25130 Wilmington, DE 19899 (302) 655-5000 rkirk@bayardlaw.com sbrauerman@bayardlaw.com vtiradentes@ bayardlaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff Data Speed Technology LLC
Data Speed Technology LLC by PriorSmart30 viewsEmbedDownloadDescriptionOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-01448-UNA: Data Speed Technology LLC. Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, no judge yet assigned. See ht...Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-01448-UNA: Data Speed Technology LLC. Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l8Wh for more info.Interests: Types, Business/Law, Court FilingsRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Public DomainDownload as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentShow moreShow less
RelatedData Speed Technology v. Oracleby PriorSmartData Carriers v. Trip Advisorby PriorSmartMultiplayer Network Innovations v. LG Electronics et. al.by PriorSmartRelay IP v. Trading Technologies Internationalby PatentBlastCeeColor Industries v. Irisguardby PriorSmartCyberFone Systems v. Mediacom Broadbandby PriorSmartBabbage Holdings v. Ubisoft Et. Al.by PatentBlast911 Notify v. LifeWatchby PatentBlastArunachalam v. Edible Arrangements Internationalby PriorSmartInterForm v. YAFA Pen Companyby PriorSmartISwitch v. Cincinnati Bell et. al.by PriorSmarteDekka v. Tory Burchby PriorSmart15-11-02 Davidson-Santorelli Amicus Brief in Favor of en Bancby Florian MuellerSarif Biomedical v. Accurayby PriorSmartFalse Advertising Opinionby pauloverhauserArrivalStar et. al. v. Virgin Americaby PriorSmartSafe Storage v. ATTO Technology Et. Al.by PatentBlast"The Apple iPod iTunes Anti-Trust Litigation" - Document No. 82by Justia.comMobile Logistics v. Schneider Nationalby PriorSmartCity of Wall Lake sues Wall Lake business for the amount, $2,120.86by thesacnewsHilltop Technology v. AU Optronics et. al.by PriorSmartWyncomm v. Pantech Et. Al.by PatentBlastUntitledby PriorSmartCyberFone Systems v. Insight Communications Companyby PriorSmartSimilar to Data Speed Technology v. Document Logistix Et. Al.Data Speed Technology v. OracleData Carriers v. Trip AdvisorMultiplayer Network Innovations v. LG Electronics et. al.Relay IP v. Trading Technologies InternationalCeeColor Industries v. IrisguardCyberFone Systems v. Mediacom BroadbandBabbage Holdings v. Ubisoft Et. Al.911 Notify v. LifeWatchArunachalam v. Edible Arrangements InternationalInterForm v. YAFA Pen CompanyISwitch v. Cincinnati Bell et. al.eDekka v. Tory Burch15-11-02 Davidson-Santorelli Amicus Brief in Favor of en BancSarif Biomedical v. AccurayFalse Advertising OpinionArrivalStar et. al. v. Virgin AmericaSafe Storage v. ATTO Technology Et. Al."The Apple iPod iTunes Anti-Trust Litigation" - Document No. 82Mobile Logistics v. Schneider NationalCity of Wall Lake sues Wall Lake business for the amount, $2,120.86Hilltop Technology v. AU Optronics et. al.Wyncomm v. Pantech Et. Al.UntitledCyberFone Systems v. Insight Communications CompanyParker v. Kimberly-ClarkEdison Lux Industries v. Automattic