Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/150430908/ABnote-v-Teraco
Timestamp: 2016-07-24 07:43:23
Document Index: 74014892

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 100', '§ 100', '§ 1391', '§ 284', '§ 284', '§ 271', '§ 284', '§ 284', '§ 284', '§ 283', 'art76', 'art3']

UploadSign inJoinBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicEditors' Picks BooksHand-picked favorites from our editorsEditors' Picks AudiobooksHand-picked favorites from our editorsEditors' Picks ComicsHand-picked favorites from our editorsEditors' Picks Sheet MusicHand-picked favorites from our editorsTop BooksWhat's trending, bestsellers, award-winners & moreTop AudiobooksWhat's trending, bestsellers, award-winners & moreTop ComicsWhat's trending, bestsellers, award-winners & moreTop Sheet MusicWhat's trending, bestsellers, award-winners & moreCategoriesArts & IdeasBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipChildren'sComputers & TechnologyCooking & FoodCrafts & HobbiesFantasyFiction & LiteratureHappiness & Self-HelpHealth & WellnessHistoryHome & GardenHumorLGBTMystery, Thriller & CrimePolitics & EconomyReferenceReligionRomanceScience & NatureScience FictionSociety & CultureSports & AdventureTravelYoung AdultCategoriesArts & IdeasBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipChildren'sComputers & TechnologyCooking & FoodFantasyFiction & LiteratureHappiness & Self-HelpHealth & WellnessHistoryHome & GardenHumorLGBTMystery, Thriller & CrimePolitics & EconomyReferenceReligionRomanceScience & NatureScience FictionSociety & CultureSports & AdventureTravelYoung AdultCategoriesAdaptationsChildren’sCrime & MysteryFictionHumorMangaNonfictionRomanceSciFi, Fantasy & HorrorSuperheroesYoung AdultPublishersArcanaArchie ComicsBOOM! StudiosDynamiteIDW PublishingKingstone ComicsMarvel ComicsSpace Goat ProductionsTop Cow ComicsValiant ComicsZenescopeDifficultyBeginnerIntermediateAdvancedMixedInstrumentBrassDrums & PercussionGuitar, Bass, and FrettedPianoStringsVocalWoodwindsGenreClassicalCountryFolkJazz & BluesMovies & MusicalsPop & RockReligious & HolidayStandardsWelcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out moreIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTSABNOTE USA, INC., Plaintiff, v. TERACO, INC. Defendant. Civil Action No.: JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
COMPLAINT Plaintiff, ABnote USA, Inc. (“ABnote”), files this Complaint against Defendant, Teraco, Inc. (“Teraco”) pursuant to the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 100 et. seq., alleging: PARTIES AND BACKGROUND 1. ABnote is a Massachusetts corporation, having a principal place of business at 225
States, 35 U.S.C. § 100 et seq. 4. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
Massachusetts consistent with the principles of due process and the Massachusetts Long-Arm Statute because Teraco has offered its products for sale in this District, has transacted business in this District, has committed and/or induced acts of patent infringement in this District, and/or has placed its products into the stream of commerce through established distribution channels with the expectation that such products will be purchased by residents of this District. 6. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400(b). COUNT I – INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,588,658 7. herein. 8. ABnote is the owner of all right, title, and interest in United States Patent No. The allegations of paragraphs 1 – 6 are restated and re-alleged as though fully set forth
6,588,658 (“the ‘658 patent”), issued July 8, 2003, entitled “Transaction Card with Attached Auxiliary Member.” A copy of the ‘658 patent is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit A. 9. On information and belief, Teraco has infringed and continues to infringe, literally or
under the doctrine of equivalents, the ‘658 patent by making, using, importing, offering to sell, and/or selling products or processes, including without limitation “Snap Off Cards,” that practice one or more inventions claimed in the ‘658 patent, as well as infringing by knowingly, actively and intentionally inducing others to infringe the ‘658 patent, including but not limited to customers, and/or by contributing to the infringement of the ‘658 patent by others, including but not limited to customers. There are no substantial non-infringing uses for Teraco’s infringing products. 10. On information and belief, at all relevant times and at least since the date of the filing
of this lawsuit, Teraco has had actual notice of the ‘658 patent, and has had actual notice and
knowledge that the conduct of others, including but not limited to Teraco’s customers, directly infringed the claims of the ‘658 patent. 11. 12. 13. 14. Teraco’s infringement of the ‘658 patent has been and remains willful and deliberate. Teraco’s activities have been without ABnote’s authorization. Teraco has profited through its infringement of the ‘658 patent. As a result of Teraco’s infringement, ABnote has been damaged and will be further
damaged, and is entitled to be compensated for such damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284 in an amount that presently cannot be ascertained, but that will be determined at trial. COUNT II – INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,531,482 15. The allegations of paragraphs 1 – 6 are restated and re-alleged as though fully set forth herein. 16. ABnote is the owner of all right, title, and interest in United States Patent No.
5,531,482 (“the ‘482 patent”), issued July 2, 1996, entitled “Card with Removable Reusable Element.” A copy of the ‘482 patent is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit B. 17. On information and belief, Teraco has infringed and continues to infringe, literally or
under the doctrine of equivalents, the ‘482 patent by making, using, importing, offering to sell, and/or selling products or processes, including without limitation cards bearing removable and reusable labels, that practice one or more inventions claimed in the ‘482 patent, as well as infringing by knowingly, actively and intentionally inducing others to infringe the ‘482 patent, including but not limited to customers, and/or by contributing to the infringement of the ‘482 patent by others, including but not limited to customers. There are no substantial non-infringing uses for Teraco’s infringing products. 18. On information and belief, at all relevant times and at least since the date of the filing
of this lawsuit, Teraco has had actual notice of the ‘482 patent, and has had actual notice and
knowledge that the conduct of others, including but not limited to Teraco’s customers, directly infringed the claims of the ‘482 patent. 19. 20. 21. 22. Teraco’s infringement of the ‘482 patent has been and remains willful and deliberate. Teraco’s activities have been without ABnote’s authorization. Teraco has profited through its infringement of the ‘482 patent. As a result of Teraco’s infringement, ABnote has been damaged and will be further
damaged, and is entitled to be compensated for such damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284 in an amount that presently cannot be ascertained, but that will be determined at trial.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, ABnote prays for the following relief: (a) That the Court enter judgment that Teraco has infringed the ‘658 and ‘482 patents
under 35 U.S.C. § 271 et seq; (b) That the Court order Teraco to provide to ABnote an accounting of all gains,
profits, and advantages gained by Teraco as a result of its infringement of the ‘658 and ‘482 patents, and that ABnote be awarded adequate damages to compensate for the wrongful infringing acts by Teraco, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 284; (c) That the Court enter judgment that Teraco’s infringement of the ‘658 and ‘482
Teraco’s willful and deliberate infringement of the ‘658 and ‘482 patents, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284; (e) That the Court enter judgment that this case is exceptional and award ABnote its
expenses, costs, and attorneys’ fees in accordance with 35 U.S.C. §§ 284 and 285.
enjoined pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 283 from further acts of infringement; and (g) For such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. JURY DEMAND Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, ABnote demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable. Respectfully submitted, ABNOTE USA, INC., By its attorneys, Dated: June 27, 2013 /s/ Michael A. Albert__________ Michael A. Albert (BBO # 558566) malbert@wolfgreenfield.com Robert Abrahamsen (BBO # 636635) rabrahamsen@wolfgreenfield.com Elizabeth A. DiMarco (BBO # 681921) edimarco@wolfgreenfield.com WOLF, GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C. 600 Atlantic Avenue Boston, MA 02210 (617) 646-8000 Attorneys for Plaintiff
ABnote v. Teraco by PriorSmart76 viewsEmbedDownloadDescriptionOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-11539: ABnote USA, Inc. v. Teraco, Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, no judge yet assigned....Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-11539: ABnote USA, Inc. v. Teraco, Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l8Eq for more info.Categories: 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
RelatedMattress Safe v. J.T. Eatonby PriorSmartMattress Safe v. J. T. Eatonby PriorSmartInVue Security Products v. Kum Oh Electronicsby PriorSmartCycle Dog LLC v Motivation Design - Complaintby slbursteinSport Dimension v. Coleman Companyby PriorSmartMobile Logistics v. Atlas RFID Holdings et. al.by PriorSmartPrecitec v. American Laser Enterprisesby PriorSmartVirTra Systems v. FAACby PriorSmartMDPL Complaint 6by Myers, Boebel and MacLeod L.L.P.Wireless Media Innovations v. Kirkland's Storesby PriorSmartExoTablet v. Negri Electronicsby PatentBlastSmith et. al. v. Guardian Fall Protection et. al.by PriorSmartTervis Tumbler v. CNR Prods. - Complaintby slbursteinQuest Nettech v. Bottlerocket Marketing Groupby PriorSmartZoom Bait Company v. GrandeBass Trophy Hunter Baitsby PriorSmartCpuMate et. al. v. Xigmatek et. al.by PriorSmartBridgestone Americas Tire Operations v. Schrader-Bridgeport International Et. Al.by PatentBlastCYVA Research Holdings v. Priceline.comby PriorSmarte-ImageData v. Konica Minolta Business Solutions et. al.by PriorSmartNational Cheng Kung University v. GEO Semiconductorby PriorSmart3Form et. al. v. Rowe Fenestrationby PatentBlastKolcraft Enterprises v. Artsana Et. Al.by PatentBlastM.J. Woods v. Little Rapidsby PatentBlastHarcol Research v. HBS Internationalby PatentBlastKarecki v. Filaby PriorSmartOne-E-Way v. JayBird Gearby PriorSmarte.Digital v. OCZ Technology Groupby PriorSmartNovelPoint Tracking v. Clarion Corporation of Americaby PriorSmartSimilar to ABnote v. TeracoMattress Safe v. J.T. EatonMattress Safe v. J. T. EatonInVue Security Products v. Kum Oh ElectronicsCycle Dog LLC v Motivation Design - ComplaintSport Dimension v. Coleman CompanyMobile Logistics v. Atlas RFID Holdings et. al.Precitec v. American Laser EnterprisesVirTra Systems v. FAACMDPL Complaint 6Wireless Media Innovations v. Kirkland's StoresExoTablet v. Negri ElectronicsSmith et. al. v. Guardian Fall Protection et. al.Tervis Tumbler v. CNR Prods. - ComplaintQuest Nettech v. Bottlerocket Marketing GroupZoom Bait Company v. GrandeBass Trophy Hunter BaitsCpuMate et. al. v. Xigmatek et. al.Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations v. Schrader-Bridgeport International Et. Al.CYVA Research Holdings v. Priceline.come-ImageData v. Konica Minolta Business Solutions et. al.National Cheng Kung University v. GEO Semiconductor3Form et. al. v. Rowe FenestrationKolcraft Enterprises v. Artsana Et. Al.M.J. Woods v. Little RapidsHarcol Research v. HBS InternationalKarecki v. FilaOne-E-Way v. JayBird Geare.Digital v. OCZ Technology GroupNovelPoint Tracking v. Clarion Corporation of AmericaSafety Armor v. ReadyMax