Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/138166685/CpuMate-et-al-v-Xigmatek-et-al
Timestamp: 2017-07-23 01:44:54
Document Index: 240524721

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1400', '§ 1400', '§ 1', '§ 1331', '§ 1391', '§ 271', '§ 284', '§ 285']

CpuMate et. al. v. Xigmatek et. al. | Complaint | Patent
CpuMate et. al. v. Xigmatek et. al.Uploaded by PriorSmartRelated InterestsComplaintPatentUnited States District Court For The Eastern District Of TexasLawsuitInjunctionRating and Stats0.0 (0)Document ActionsDownloadShare or Embed DocumentEmbedDescription: Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-00353: CpuMate Inc. et. al. v. Xigmatek Co. Ltd. et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, no ju...View MoreOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-00353: CpuMate Inc. et. al. v. Xigmatek Co. Ltd. et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l86M for more info.Copyright: Public DomainDownload as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISIONCPUMATE INC. and GOLDEN SUN NEWS TECHNIQUES CO., LTD. Plaintiffs, v. XIGMATEK CO. LTD. and XIGMATEK AMERICA INC. Defendants.
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Plaintiffs CpuMate Inc. and Golden Sun News Techniques Co., Ltd. (“Plaintiffs”) for its Complaint against Xigmatek Co. Ltd. and Xigmatek America Inc. (collectively “Xigmatek” or “Defendants”), demands a trial by jury and alleges as follows: PARTIES 1. Plaintiffs CpuMate, Inc. is a Taiwanese company with a principal address of No.
13, Wu-Chiuan 5th Rd., Wu-Ku Industrial District, Taipei Hsien, 248, Taiwan, R.O.C. and Golden Sun News Techniques Co., Ltd. is a Taiwanese company with a principal address of No. 60 Wucyuan Rd., Wugu District, New Taipei City 248, Taiwan R.O.C. 2. On information and belief, Defendant Xigmatek Co. Ltd. is a Taiwan corporation
with its principal place of business at No. 131-21, Chung-Hsing N. St., San-Chung City, New Taipei City 241, Taiwan. On information and belief Xigmatek Co. Ltd., is a nonresident of Texas who engages in business in this state, but does not maintain a regular place of business in this state or a designated agent for service of process in this state. On information and belief, Xigmatek Co. Ltd. resides in this jurisdiction within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). This
proceeding arises, in part, out of business done in this state. Xigmatek Co. Ltd. may be served with process in Taiwan pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents, Article 1, November 15, 1965 T.I.A.S. No. 6638, 20 U.S.T. 361 (U.S. Treaty 1969). Xigmatek Co. Ltd. regularly conducts and transacts business in Texas, throughout the United States, and within the Eastern District of Texas, itself and/or through one or more subsidiaries, affiliates, business divisions, or business units. 3. On information and belief, Defendant Xigmatek America Inc. is incorporated
under the laws of New York with its principal place of business at 47 Mall Dr., Unit 3, Commack, New York, 11725. On information and belief, Xigmatek America Inc. regularly conducts and transacts business in the United States, throughout the State of Texas, and within the Eastern District of Texas, either itself and/or through one or more subsidiaries, affiliates, business divisions, or business units and has committed acts of infringement within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4. This action arises under the Patent Laws of the United States, namely, 35 U.S.C.
§§ 1 et seq. This Court has exclusive subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). 5. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(2) and (c) and/or
1400(b). On information and belief, Xigmatek has transacted business in this district, and has committed acts of patent infringement in this district, by making, using, selling, and /or offering for sale at least the Achilles S1284W and Achilles II SD1284. 6. On information and belief, Xigmatek is subject to this Court’s general and
specific personal jurisdiction because: Xigmatek has minimum contacts within the State of Texas
and the Eastern District of Texas and, pursuant to due process and/or the Texas Long Arm Statute, Xigmatek has purposefully availed itself of the privileges of conducting business in the State of Texas and in the Eastern District of Texas; Xigmatek regularly conducts and solicits business within the State of Texas and within the Eastern District of Texas; and causes of action arise directly from Xigmatek’s business contacts and other activities in the State of Texas and in the Eastern District of Texas. COUNT I INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,950,445 7. Plaintiffs are the owners of all rights, title and interest to United States Patent No.
7,950,445 (“the ‘445 Patent”) entitled “Combined Assembly of Fixing Base and Heat Pipe.” The ‘445 Patent was issued on May 31, 2011 after a full and fair examination by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The application leading to the ‘445 Patent was filed on April 6, 2009. Attached as Exhibit “A” is a copy of the ‘445 Patent. 8. heat pipes. 9. On information and belief, Xigmatek has been and now is infringing the ‘445 The ‘445 Patent is generally directed to a combined assembly of a fixing base and
Patent in the State of Texas, in this judicial district, and elsewhere in the United States by making, using, importing, selling or offering to sell devices having a combined assembly of a fixing base and heat pipes according to the ‘445 Patent. On information and belief, examples of Xigmatek products that infringe the ‘445 Patent include, its Xigmatek Achilles S1284W and AchillesII SD1284. Xigmatek is thus liable for infringement of the ‘445 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.
As a result of Xigmatek’s infringement of the ‘445 Patent, Plaintiffs have suffered
monetary damages in an amount not yet determined, and will continue to suffer damages in the future unless Xigmatek’s infringing activities are enjoined by this Court. 11. Unless a permanent injunction is issued enjoining Xigmatek and its agent,
servants, employees, representatives, affiliates, and all others acting on or in active concert therewith from infringing the ‘445 Patent, Plaintiffs will be greatly and irreparably harmed. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully requests that this Court enter: A. B. A judgment in favor of Plaintiffs that Xigmatek has infringed the ‘445 Patent. A permanent injunction enjoining Xigmatek and its officers, directors, agents,
servants, affiliates, employees, divisions, branches, subsidiaries, parents, and all others acting in active concert therewith from infringing the ‘445 Patent; C. A judgment and order requiring Xigmatek to pay Plaintiffs its damages, costs,
expenses, and prejudgment and post-judgment interest for Xigmatek infringement of the ‘445 Patent as provided under 35 U.S.C. § 284; D. An award to Plaintiffs for enhanced damages resulting from the knowing,
of 35 U.S.C. § 285 and awarding to Plaintiffs its reasonable attorneys’ fees; and F. Any and all other relief to which Plaintiffs may show itself to be entitled.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiffs, under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, requests a trial by jury of any issues so triable by right.
Respectfully submitted, CPUMATE INC. and GOLDEN SUN NEWS TECHNIQUES CO., LTD. /s/ Winston O. Huff Winston O. Huff, Attorney in Charge Texas State Bar No. 24068745 Deborah Jagai Texas State Bar No. 24048571 W. O. Huff & Associates, PLLC 302 N. Market Street, Suite 450 Dallas, TX 75202 214.749.1220 (Firm) 469.206.2173 (Fax) whuff@huffip.com djagai@huffip.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS CPUMATE INC. and GOLDEN SUN NEWS TECHNIQUES CO., LTD.
CERTIFICATE OF FILING I hereby certify that on April 26, 2013 I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system.
/s/ Winston O. Huff Winston O. Huff, Attorney in Charge
Recommended DocumentsDocuments Similar To CpuMate et. al. v. Xigmatek et. al.Skip carouselNational Cheng Kung University v. Cisco SystemsNational Cheng Kung University v. GEO SemiconductorNational Cheng Kung University v. IntelShin-Shuoh Lin v. Recreational EquipmentInNova Patent Licensing v. NetSuiteMVConnect v. RDN, DRN - ComplaintDeep Web v. MicrosoftWerner Paddles v. BranchesOMX et. al. v. Frontal Group Private et. al.Skyline Software Systems, Inc. v. Keyhole, Inc et al - Document No. 6Gametek v. ZyngaGametek v. Digital ChocolateMobile Logistics v. Reliance ExpressOrthopaedic Hospital v. DePuy OrthopaedicsZen Design Group v. Accoutrements, LLC dba Archie McPheeSpark Network Services, Inc. v. Match.Com, LP et al - Document No. 26Skyline Software Systems, Inc. v. Keyhole, Inc et al - Document No. 2IBC v. Nexgrill - ComplaintJ-Channel Industries v. Woodgrain MillworkInteractive Mounts v. Milestone AV TechnologiesAmerican Vehicular Sciences v. Hyundai Motor Company et. al.Excelsior Medical v. Ivera MedicalPanTaurus v. DropboxPanTaurus v. GoogleXerox Corporation v. Scm Corporation v. Van Dyk Research Corporation, a New Jersey Corporation, and Bernard R. Hellring, as Receiver in Proceedings for an Arrangement Under Chapter Xi of the Bankruptcy Act, Third-Party, 576 F.2d 1057, 3rd Cir. (1978)Mobile Transformation v. Sugar PublishingMobile Transformation v. Blip NetworksRpost Holdings et. al. v. TelarixAdvantek Marketing v. Shanghai Walk-Long Tools - ComplaintFontem Ventures et. al. v. VaporDocuments About ComplaintSkip carouselPolygamy ruling in UtahSage Kelly ComplaintAppleVsHTCandS3_11.07.15NokiaVsApple_11.03.31.100Gov-Uscourts-Nysd-460787-1-0Harassment PolicyBill Cosby Civil Case FilesMotion to Dismiss Complaint, Motion to Vacate Clerks Default and in the Alternative Motion for Summary JudgmentStarbuzz TobaccoWells Fargo Loses Appeal Regarding AssignmentsComplaint - Huskins QuinnCavanaugh v BarteltNike v. Skechers"Bachelor" TV producers vs. "Reality Steve" LawsuitMicrosoftVsMotorola_11.12.118:15-cv-00158 #5 - Order DismissingDismissal Order in S.E.C. v. CohmadSWA LawsuitMotion to DismissWWE preemptive lawsuit against Dynamite Kid, Koko B Ware, Blackjack Windham and Ivan KoloffLIBERI v TAITZ - 91 2009-08-03 TAITZ Motion for Rule 11 SanctionsRHODES v MacDONALD - 17 - ORDER denying 15[RECAP] Motion for Stay of Deployment filed by Connie Rhodes. Ordered by Judge Clay D. Land - Gov.uscourts.gamd.77605.17.0Motion for Sanction of Dismissal With Prejudice or Dismissal for Unclean HandsKrewEllaTILA Rescission Success Without Tender - HENRY BOTELHO, Plaintiff, V. U.S. BANK, N.a., As Trustee for the LXS 2007-4N Trust, DefendantFailure to Verify the Complaint Rule Change to Rule 1.110SHOWTIME v JOHN DOES - Complaint and ExhibitsRHODES v MacDONALD - 8 - MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for Damages, Declaratory Judgment, and Injunctive Relief and Application for TRO - Gov.uscourts.gamd.77605.8.0Picower's Response to Madoff Trustee, Seeking Dismissal of Case AppleVsSamsung_11.06.30More 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