Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/204589884/Knapp-Logistics-Automation-v-R-X-Automation-Solutions
Timestamp: 2016-07-26 03:00:23
Document Index: 507811516

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§ 1331', '§ 1391', '§ 284', '§ 284', '§ 285', '§ 284', 'art50']

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 moreUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION KNAPP LOGISTICS & AUTOMATION, INC., PLAINTIFF, V. R/X AUTOMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., DEFENDANT. § § § § § § § § § §
CIVIL ACTION No. 13-cv-1112 COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Plaintiff Knapp Logistics & Automation, Inc. (“Plaintiff” or “Knapp”) files this Complaint for patent infringement (“Complaint”) against Defendant R/X Automation Solutions, Inc. (“Defendant” or “RXAS”), and alleges as follows: I. 1. PARTIES
Knapp is a Georgia corporation, having a principal place of business at 2124
Barrett Park Dr. Suite 100, Kennesaw, GA 30144. 2. Upon information and belief, Defendant is a Colorado corporation and has its
principal place of business at 105 S. Sunset Street, Suite K-L-M, Longmont, CO 80501. Defendant can be served through its registered agent, Heather Chambers, at 525 Collyer Street, Longmont, CO 80501. II. 3. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
This is an action for patent infringement of United States Patent No. 8,601,776
(“the ‘776 Patent”), scheduled to be issued on December 10, 2013. The action arises under the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.
§§ 1331, 1332 & 1338. 5. In addition, this Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because it has
knowingly and actively engaged in acts that have infringed, will infringe, and/or aid and abet in the direct infringement of at least claims 1–5, 10 and 14–18, and possibly claims 6–9, 11–13, and 19–20, of Knapp’s ‘776 Patent. 6. Specifically, this Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant based upon
Defendant’s sale of goods and transaction of business in the State of Texas and sufficient minimum contact with the State of Texas, and with the Western District of Texas, in particular. Upon information and belief, Defendant has transacted business within this district, has committed tortious acts within this district, has committed tortious injury to Knapp in this district, regularly does or solicits business in this district, derives revenue from goods used or consumed in this judicial district, engages in other persistent courses of conduct in this district, and is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court. 7. Venue in this Court is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)–(c) & 1400(b) because
(i) Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in the Western District of Texas, and therefore is a resident of that judicial district; and/or (ii) a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in the Western District of Texas. III. 8. THE CONTROVERSY
Knapp Logistics & Automation, Inc. (“Knapp”) is a member of the Knapp AG
family of companies headquartered out of Graz, Austria. Knapp AG is a global leader in distribution logistics and software products that enable its customers to dramatically improve their storage/buffering, order-picking, sorting and packing operations. Knapp AG and its
affiliates have over 55 years of experience and 1,500 material handling installations in 50 different countries. In the last 10 years, Knapp AG and its affiliates have installed over 500 plants for more than 300 customers in 38 countries on 5 continents. 9. On October 24, 2013, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”)
notified Knapp that its patent application number 13/398,979 had been allowed. On November 4, 2013, Knapp paid the issue fee, and on November 20, 2013, the PTO further notified Knapp that said application would issue as United States Patent No. 8,601,776 (“the ‘776 Patent”), entitled “Systems and Methods of Automated Dispensing, Prescription Filling, and Packaging,” on December 10, 2013. Exhibit A hereto is a true and correct copy of the Issue Notification provided to Knapp. Exhibit B hereto is a true and correct copy of published application number 13/398,979. Exhibit C hereto is a true and correct set of the claims as allowed by the patent examiner. 1 10. Plaintiff Knapp Logistics & Automation, Inc. is the owner by assignment of all
rights, title, and interest in and to the ‘776 Patent. 11. Defendant has made, offered for sale, sold, used, and/or caused to be used, and/or
imported systems and methods of automated dispensing, prescription filling, and packaging that embody or practice at least claims 1–5, 10 and 14–18, and possibly claims 6–9, 11–13, and 19– 20, of Knapp’s ‘776 Patent. Defendant uses and causes to be used systems and methods of automated dispensing, prescription filling, and packaging, such as those marketed as Defendant’s Script Count Tablet & Capsule Dispensing Unit (“Script Count”). 12. An infringing Internet advertisement for the Script Count product is found at
http://www.rxas.com/testimonials/mail-order-central-fill-pharmacy/fulfillment-system/tablet1
When Knapp receives the issued patent, it will amend this complaint to include a true and correct copy of the ‘776 patent. 3
capsule-dispensing-units-and-system/. A true and correct copy of said advertisement is attached hereto as Exhibit D. That advertisement shows that the Script Count product includes a counter with one or more sensors configured to count the tablets, and a canister removably engaged with a secure door of the counter, and that the counter is configured to count the tablets when the secure door is open and closed for online replenishment. 13. Furthermore, Knapp and RXAS are direct competitors in competitive bidding
situations. In previous competitive bids, the requests for proposal have listed all of these foregoing capabilities, and RXAS has submitted bids for those projects. 14. Therefore, manufacturing the Script Count product, as well as any use, sales,
offers to sell, or importation of the same are an unpermitted infringement of Knapp’s ‘776 Patent. It is also an unpermitted act of indirect infringement to make, import, use, sell or offer to sell components that are uniquely adapted for use with the Script Count, or that Defendant knows will be used in a Script Count product. 15. Upon information and belief, Defendant has sold over 100 Script Count machines
to the HEB Grocery Company, LP (“H-E-B”), in San Antonio Texas, and some or all of those Script Count machines have been installed in H-E-B’s facility in or near San Antonio, Texas. This belief is based upon communications between Mr. Michael Hahn of Knapp and Ms. Wendy Faldet and Ms. Sheryll Ann Brown, both of whom are employed by H-E-B in its pharmacy operations. 16. On November 12, 2013, Knapp’s counsel, William L. Warren, sent a letter to
Timothy Chambers, President of RXAS, demanding that Defendant immediately cease and desist from any further actions that would constitute unpermitted infringement of the ‘776 Patent, and warning Defendant not to submit a bid (due November 22, 2013) for the Kaiser Permanente 125-
921-01 Livermore Bldg. A & G CPP Pharmacy ATC Cell Replacement Project in California. Despite Knapp’s warning, on or about November 22, 2013, Defendant submitted a bid on the Livermore Project. 17. On November 22, 2013, Mr. Josef Mentzer of Knapp received a settlement
proposal from Defendant. In the settlement proposal, Defendant offered to not submit a bid on the Livermore Project if all patent rights were waived and if Knapp accepted Defendant’s agreement not to sell any product as defined by the claims of Knapp’s ‘776 Patent. The proposal did not mention the accused Script Count product, or agree not to make, use, sell, offer for sale, or import the Script Count product. 18. On November 27, 2013, Knapp’s counsel sent an email communication to Mr.
Wiedmann, Defendant’s presumptive outside intellectual property counsel, including a second demand to cease and desist, and requesting a conference call on December 3, 2013 at 11:00 am EST to discuss resolution of this matter without resorting to the court. 19. On December 3, 2013, at 10:30 am, Mr. Warren sent an email communication to
Mr. Wiedmann indicating that he would call as proposed. When Mr. Warren called Mr. Wiedmann at 11:00 am, however, Mr. Warren was informed that Mr. Weidmann was unavailable. Mr. Warren left a voicemail message requesting that Mr. Weidmann return Mr. Warren’s call. To date, Mr. Warren has not received a response from Mr. Weidmann. 20. Upon information and belief, RXAS intends to continue marketing its Script
Count product against the ATD-L1P, Knapp’s product that practices the claims of the ‘776 Patent.
COUNT I INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘776 PATENT 21. Knapp realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of paragraphs 1–20
of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 22. Defendant has infringed the ‘776 Patent, either literally or under the doctrine of
equivalents, and either directly, or by inducing or contributing to the direct infringement of others. 23. Defendant has continued its infringement despite notice of the existence of the
‘776 Patent, and despite evidence that its Script Count infringes said patent. Accordingly, Defendant’s infringement is willful. 24. Defendant’s infringement of the ‘776 Patent has damaged and will continue to
damage Plaintiff Knapp. 25. Defendant’s infringement of the ‘776 Patent has caused and will continue to cause
Plaintiff Knapp irreparable harm unless enjoined by the Court. V. 26. JURY DEMAND
Knapp respectfully demands a jury trial on all claims and issues so triable. VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Knapp prays for judgment and seeks relief as follows: (1) The Court declare that Defendant has infringed the exclusive rights granted to
Knapp that are disclosed by the claims of the ‘776 Patent; (2) The Court declare that the ‘776 Patent is valid and enforceable;
The Court enjoin Defendant preliminarily and permanently, against further
infringement of the ‘776 Patent by Defendant, its officers, agents, servants, employees, affiliates, subsidiaries, licenses, successors and assigns and those persons acting in concert with them including related individuals and entities, customers, representatives, dealers, and distributors; (4) The Court award to Knapp damages in an amount adequate to compensate Knapp
for Defendant’s infringement of the ‘776 Patent, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty pursuant to 35 U.S.C § 284; (5) The Court award to Knapp its costs, and pre- and post-judgment interest on its
damages, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284; (6) The Court declare this case to be exceptional and award Knapp its reasonable
attorney fees and costs under 35 U.S.C. § 285; (7) The Court declare that Defendant’s acts of infringement, inducement of
infringement and/or contributory infringement of the ‘776 Patent has been knowing and willful; (8) The Court increase all damages awarded to Knapp in this case to three times the
damages amount found by the jury or assessed by this Court pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284; and (9) The Court award to Knapp such other and further relief as the Court may deem
SUTHERLAND ASBILL & BRENNAN LLP /s/ Juan C. Garcia Juan C. Garcia Texas State Bar No. 24045914 1001 Fannin Street Suite 3700 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: 713-470-6157 Fax: 713-654-1301 Email: juan.garcia@sutherland.com 7
Ann G. Fort* Georgia State Bar No. 269995 Stephanie G. Stella* Virginia State Bar No. 77358 999 Peachtree Street NE Suite 2300 Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: 404-853-8000 Fax: 404-853-8806 Email: ann.fort@sutherland.com stephanie.stella@sutherland.com *pro hac vice admission to be applied for. Attorneys for Plaintiff Knapp Logistics & Automation, Inc.
U.S. Patent No. 8,601,776 SYSTEMS AND METHODS OF AUTOMATED TABLET DISPENSING, PRESCRIPTION FILLING, AND PACKAGING Knapp Logistics Automation, Inc. Sutherland Ref. No.: 24036-0010
PATENTED CLAIMS 1. A system for automated tablet dispensing comprising: a counter configured to count tablets, the counter comprising: a secure door; a sensor configured to count the tablets; and a hopper assembly configured to receive the tablets through the secure door and transfer the tablets to the sensor; and a closed canister removably engaged with the secure door of the counter and configured to hold the tablets for delivery through the secure door of the counter and into the hopper assembly; wherein the counter is configured to count the tablets when the secure door of the counter is open and closed.
The system of claim 1, wherein the secure door of the counter is configured to be open
when the canister is engaged with the counter.
The system of claim 1, wherein the secure door of the counter is configured to be closed
when the canister is removed from the counter.
The system of claim 1, wherein the canister comprises a secure door that is removably
engaged with the secure door of the counter.
The system of claim 4, wherein the secure doors of the counter and the canister are
configured to be closed when the canister is removed from the counter; and wherein the secure doors of the counter and the canister are configured to be open when the canister is engaged with the counter.
23334642.1
The system of claim 1, further comprising an electronic verification system comprising a
RF chip or an electronic serial number located on each of the counter and the canister.
The system of claim 1, wherein the canister comprises a tamper-proof security tag.
The system of claim 1, further comprising a locking mechanism configured to prevent
unauthorized access to the tablets in the counter and the canister when the canister is engaged with the counter.
The system of claim 8, wherein the locking mechanism comprises an automatic locking
mechanism configured to prevent unauthorized access to the tablets in the counter and the canister once the canister is engaged with the counter.
The system of claim 4, wherein the secure door of the canister comprises a reversible
door configured to reversibly open and close.
The system of claim 4, wherein the secure door of the canister comprises a sliding door
configured to reversibly open and close.
The system of claim 6, wherein the secure door of the counter is configured to be closed
until the canister is engaged with the counter and verification of the counter and the canister is successfully completed via the electronic verification system.
The system of claim 6, wherein the secure door of the counter is configured to be open
once verification of the counter and the canister is successfully completed via the electronic verification system.
The system of claim 1, wherein a capacity of the hopper assembly is equal to or greater
than a capacity of the canister.
The system of claim 1, wherein the canister and the hopper assembly are configured to
allow the tablets to be emptied completely from the canister into the hopper assembly when the canister is engaged with the counter.
The system of claim 1, wherein the counter is configured to count the tablets when the
canister is removed from the counter.
The system of claim 1, wherein the canister and the counter are configured to allow the
canister to be removed from the counter while the counter counts the tablets.
tablets to be delivered from the canister into the hopper assembly while the counter counts the tablets.
The system of claim 1, wherein the canister comprises a security identification chip for
validation by a central computer system.
The system of claim 1, wherein the counter further comprises a buffer assembly
configured to hold pre-counted tablets.
Juan C. Garcia of Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP 1001 Fannin Street, Suite 3700, Houston, TX 77002 713-470-6157
Knapp Logistics & Automation v. R/X Automation Solutions by PriorSmart50 viewsEmbedDownloadDescriptionOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-00319-RBJ: Knapp Logistics & Automation, Inc. v. R/X Automation Solutions, Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the District ...Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-00319-RBJ: Knapp Logistics & Automation, Inc. v. R/X Automation Solutions, Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, the Hon. R. Brooke Jackson presiding. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l9RU 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
RelatedSirona Dental Systems Et. Al. v. OnDemand3D Technologyby PatentBlastOnline News Link v. Backcountry.comby PatentBlastRelay IP v. Cisco Systemsby PatentBlastPanTaurus v. Appleby PriorSmartVoda v. Medtronic et. al.by PriorSmartUbiComm LLCby PriorSmartRTC Industries v. Flextronics Internationalby PatentBlastWyncomm LLCby PriorSmartTLI Communications v. Snapchatby PriorSmartPlayCore Wisconsin v. Krauss Craft, Inc. d/b/a Playcraft Systemsby PriorSmartKanga Care v. GoGreen Enterprisesby PriorSmartSmith et. al. v. Garlock Equipment Companyby PriorSmartO.S. Security v. First Alert et. al.by PriorSmartShin v. Northern Tool - Complaintby slbursteinLodsys Group v. GMCI Internet Operations et. al.by PriorSmartCovidien Sales et. al. v. Ethicon Endo-Surgeryby PriorSmartJam Strait v. Osram Sylvaniaby PriorSmartMass Engineered Design v. ErgoTech Groupby PriorSmartHynx v RMBSby GrandepleaseEureka Mobility v. Voxx Internationalby PriorSmartBluebonnet Telecommunications v. Motorola Mobilityby PatentBlasteDekka v. Art.comby PriorSmarteDekka v. J.C. Penney et. al.by PriorSmartEDekka v. EBagsby PatentBlastTransData v. San Diego Gas & Electric Companyby PriorSmartBluebonnet Telecommunications v. Nokia Et. Al.by PatentBlasteDekka v. Fragrancenet.comby PriorSmarteDekka v. Follett Higher Education Groupby PriorSmartSimilar to Knapp Logistics & Automation v. R/X Automation SolutionsSirona Dental Systems Et. Al. v. OnDemand3D TechnologyOnline News Link v. Backcountry.comRelay IP v. Cisco SystemsPanTaurus v. AppleVoda v. Medtronic et. al.UbiComm LLCRTC Industries v. Flextronics InternationalWyncomm LLCTLI Communications v. SnapchatPlayCore Wisconsin v. Krauss Craft, Inc. d/b/a Playcraft SystemsKanga Care v. GoGreen EnterprisesSmith et. al. v. Garlock Equipment CompanyO.S. Security v. First Alert et. al.Shin v. Northern Tool - ComplaintLodsys Group v. GMCI Internet Operations et. al.Covidien Sales et. al. v. Ethicon Endo-SurgeryJam Strait v. Osram SylvaniaMass Engineered Design v. ErgoTech GroupHynx v RMBSEureka Mobility v. Voxx InternationalBluebonnet Telecommunications v. Motorola MobilityeDekka v. Art.comeDekka v. J.C. Penney et. al.EDekka v. EBagsTransData v. San Diego Gas & Electric CompanyBluebonnet Telecommunications v. Nokia Et. Al.eDekka v. Fragrancenet.comeDekka v. Follett Higher Education Group