Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/202847024/FEGO-Precision-Industrial-v-Withings
Timestamp: 2017-02-22 06:59:19
Document Index: 786076606

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1331', '§ 1391', '§ 271', '§\n287', '§ 271', '§\n287', '§ 284', 'art0', 'artc4', 'artc4']

FEGO Precision Industrial v. Withings | Patent | Patent Infringement
BrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISIONFEGO PRECISION INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD., Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-42 v. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED WITHINGS INC.,
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT This is an action for patent infringement in which FEGO Precision Industrial Co., Ltd. (“FEGO” or “Plaintiff”) makes the following allegations against Withings Inc. (“Withings” or “Defendant”): PARTIES 1. Plaintiff FEGO is a Taiwanese company, having a principal place of business of
947 Lin-Sen Rd, Wu-Fong Tai-Chung 413, Taiwan ROC. 2. Defendant Withings is a company organized and existing under the laws the state
of Delaware, with its principal place of business located 16192 Coastal Highway, Lewes, DE 19958. Withings may be served via its registered again: Harvard Business Services, Inc., 16192 Coastal Highway, Lewes, DE 19958.
JURISDICATION AND VENUE 3. This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of the
United States Code. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). 4. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(c) and 1400(b). On
information and belief, Defendant has transacted business in this district, and has committed and/or induced acts of patent infringement in this district. 5. On information and belief, Defendant is subject to this Court’s specific and
general personal jurisdiction pursuant to due process and/or the Texas Long Arm Statue, due at least to its substantial business in this forum, including: (i) at least a portion of the infringements alleged herein; and (ii) regularly doing or soliciting business, engaging in other persistent courses of conduct, and/or deriving substantial revenue from goods and services provided to individuals in Texas and in this Judicial District. COUNT I INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,680,629 6. Plaintiff is the owner by assignment of United States Patent No. 7,680,629 (“the
’629 Patent”) titled “System and Method for Providing Notes in Measurement Devices.” The ’629 Patent issued on March 16, 2010. A true and correct copy of the ’629 Patent is attached as Exhibit A. 7. Upon information and belief, Defendant has been and is now infringing the ’629
Patent in the State of Texas, in this judicial district, and elsewhere in the United States, by, among other things, directly or through intermediaries, making, using, importing, providing, supplying, distributing, selling, and/or offering for sale apparatuses and systems (including, without limitation, the Withings Pulse, and the related applications) for providing a measuring
device with the capabilities of note taking, at least one measuring component, a note control component, and a CPU, adapted to link the measuring event to a note. Defendant is directly infringing, literally infringing, and/or infringing the ’629 Patent under the doctrine of equivalents. Defendant is thus liable for infringement of the ’629 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271. 8. On information and belief, to the extent any marking was required by 35 U.S.C. §
287, all predecessors in interest to the ’629 Patent complied with any such requirements.
As a result of Defendant’s infringement of the ’629 Patent, Plaintiff has suffered
monetary damages and is entitled to a money judgment 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, and Plaintiff will continue to suffer damages in the future unless Defendant’s infringing activities are enjoined by this Court.
Unless a permanent injunction is issued enjoining Defendant and its agents,
servants, employees, representatives, affiliates, and all others acting on in active concert therewith from infringing the ’629 Patent, Plaintiff will be greatly and irreparably harmed. COUNT II INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,078,430 11. Plaintiff is the owner by assignment of United States Patent No. 8,078,430 (“the
’430 Patent”) titled “System and Method for Providing Notes in Measurement Devices.” The ’430 Patent issued on December 13, 2011. A true and correct copy of the ’430 Patent is attached as Exhibit B. 12. Upon information and belief, Defendant has been and is now infringing the ’430
Patent in the State of Texas, in this judicial district, and elsewhere in the United States, by,
among other things, directly or through intermediaries, making, using, importing, providing, supplying, distributing, selling, and/or offering for sale apparatuses and systems (including, without limitation, the Withings Pulse, and the related applications) for providing a method of note taking in an electronic measurement device, by receiving and recording a note corresponding to a measuring event of the electronic measurement device input from a note input device, the note information being information other than measurement of the individual measuring event, and linking the note with the individual measuring event. Defendant is directly infringing, literally infringing, and/or infringing the ’430 Patent under the doctrine of equivalents. Defendant is thus liable for infringement of the ’430 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271. 13. On information and belief, to the extent any marking was required by 35 U.S.C. §
287, all predecessors in interest to the ’430 Patent complied with any such requirements.
As a result of Defendant’s infringement of the ’430 Patent, Plaintiff has suffered
servants, employees, representatives, affiliates, and all others acting on in active concert therewith from infringing the ’430 Patent, Plaintiff will be greatly and irreparably harmed. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter:
1. Patents; 2.
A judgment in favor of Plaintiff that Defendant has infringed the ’629 and ’430
A permanent injunction enjoining Defendant and its officers, directors, agents
servants, affiliates, employees, divisions, branches, subsidiaries, parents, and all others acting in active concert therewith from infringement of the ’629 or ’430 Patents, or such other equitable relief the Court determines is warranted; 3. A judgment and order requiring Defendant pay to Plaintiff its damages, costs,
expenses, and prejudgment and post-judgment interest for Defendant’s infringement of the ’629 and ’430 Patents as provided under 35 U.S.C. § 284, and an accounting of ongoing postjudgment infringement; and 4. entitled. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL FEGO, under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, requests a trial by jury of any issues so triable by right. Any and all other relief, at law or equity, to which Plaintiff may show itself to be
DATED January 27, 2014.
Respectfully submitted, By: \s\ Timothy T. Wang Hao Ni Texas Bar No. 24047205 hni@nilawfirm.com Timothy T. Wang Texas Bar No. 24067927 twang@nilawfirm.com Neal G. Massand Texas Bar No. 24039038 nmassand@nilawfirm.com Stevenson Moore V Texas Bar No. 24076573 smoore@nilawfirm.com Ni, Wang & Associates, PLLC 8140 Walnut Hill Ln., Ste. 310 Dallas, TX 75231 Tel: (972) 331-4600 Fax: (972) 314-0900 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF FEGO PRECISION INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD
Sign up to vote on this titleUsefulNot usefulFEGO Precision Industrial v. Withings by PriorSmart0.0 (0)EmbedDownloadDescriptionOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-00042: FEGO Precision Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Withings Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, no...Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-00042: FEGO Precision Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Withings Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l9Q4 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
RelatedFEGO Precision Industrial v. Nikeby PatentBlastMcMillan Electric v. EPEC Engineered Technologiesby PriorSmartRecruitMe v. Avid Life Mediaby PatentBlastc4cast.com v. New York Times Companyby PriorSmartRecruitMe v. Embraceby PatentBlastFEGO Precision Industrial v. Scosche Industriesby PatentBlastFEGO Precision Industrial v. Fitbitby PatentBlastRecruitMe v. Urbansitterby PriorSmartSonic Industry v. United Parcel Service of Americaby PatentBlastRecruitMe v. DM Services et. al.by PriorSmartGDC Enterprises v. Robco Manufacturingby PriorSmartPanTaurus v. Dropboxby PriorSmartEZ Products of South Florida v. Dollar Tree Storesby PriorSmartFEGO Precision Industrial v. BodyMediaby PriorSmartExtang v. Bridgeway Enterprises et. al.by PriorSmartSonic Industry v. Public Storageby PriorSmartc4cast.com v. Capital One Financial Et. Al.by PatentBlastSonic Industry v. Travelocity.comby PriorSmartCYVA Research Holdings v. Henderson Citizens Bancshares Et. Al.by PatentBlastGriffin Technology Holdings v. Locus Telecommunicationsby PriorSmartc4cast.com v. Valveby PriorSmartGriffin Technology Holdings v. Clearwireby PriorSmartRecruitMe v. Zooskby PriorSmartSonic Industry v. Sally Beauty Holdingsby PriorSmartCYVA Research Holdings v. Priceline.comby PriorSmartChrimar Systems et. al. v. Aastra Technologies et. al.by PriorSmartWolf Run Hollow v. Williams-Sonomaby PriorSmartActivision TV v. Pinnacle Bancorpby PriorSmartSimilar to FEGO Precision Industrial v. WithingsSkip carouselFEGO Precision Industrial v. NikeMcMillan Electric v. EPEC Engineered TechnologiesRecruitMe v. Avid Life Mediac4cast.com v. New York Times CompanyRecruitMe v. EmbraceFEGO Precision Industrial v. Scosche IndustriesFEGO Precision Industrial v. FitbitRecruitMe v. UrbansitterSonic Industry v. United Parcel Service of AmericaRecruitMe v. DM Services et. al.GDC Enterprises v. Robco ManufacturingPanTaurus v. DropboxEZ Products of South Florida v. Dollar Tree StoresFEGO Precision Industrial v. BodyMediaExtang v. Bridgeway Enterprises et. al.Sonic Industry v. Public Storagec4cast.com v. Capital One Financial Et. Al.Sonic Industry v. Travelocity.comCYVA Research Holdings v. Henderson Citizens Bancshares Et. Al.Griffin Technology Holdings v. Locus Telecommunicationsc4cast.com v. ValveGriffin Technology Holdings v. ClearwireRecruitMe v. ZooskSonic Industry v. Sally Beauty HoldingsCYVA Research Holdings v. Priceline.comChrimar Systems et. al. v. Aastra Technologies et. al.Wolf Run Hollow v. Williams-SonomaActivision TV v. Pinnacle BancorpCuozzo Speed Technologies v. Reach UnlimitedeDekka v. Estee LauderFEGO Precision Industrial v. Withings