Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/172280172/Denmel-Holdings-et-al-v-IXT-Systems-International-et-al
Timestamp: 2018-11-16 02:25:59
Document Index: 218551789

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 271', '§ 1331', '§ 1391', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 283', '§ 284', '§283']

Denmel Holdings et. al. v. IXT Systems International et. al. | Damages | Injunction
Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-00888-DBP: Denmel Holdings et. al. v. IXT Systems International et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, the Hon. Dustin B. Pead presiding. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l9dW for more info.
Denmel Holdings et. al. v. IXT Systems Internation...
DENMEL HOLDINGS, LLC, a Utah limited liability company, and MELANIE REAH, an individual Plaintiffs, vs. IXT SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, a Hong Kong entity; JS KARAOKE, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, DOK SOLUTION, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company; WALMART.COM USA, LLC, a California limited liability; TARGET CORPORATION, a Minnesota corporation; KOHL’S DEPARTMENT STORES, INC., a Wisconsin corporation; SEARS HOLDINGS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, dba KMART, a Delaware corporation; SEARS ROEBUCK AND CO., an Illinois corporation; RADIO SHACK CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; SKYMALL, INC., a Delaware corporation; TOYS “R” US, INC., a New Jersey corporation; AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation; WAYFAIR, LLC, a Massachusetts limited liability company; and DOES 15, Defendants.
Plaintiffs, Denmel Holdings, LLC and Melanie Reah (“Plaintiffs” or “Denmel”), hereby complain against Defendants, and allege as follows:
the laws of the State of Utah. 3. On information and belief, Defendant, IXT Systems Limited is a Hong Kong
entity having a place of business at 1185 Gooden Crossing, Largo, FL 33778. 4. Defendant JS Karaoke, LLC is a Florida Limited Liability Company having a
business address at 1185 Gooden Crossing, Largo, Florida 33778. 5. On information and belief, Defendant Dok Solution, LLC is a Florida Limited
Liability Company have a business address at 7778 Bent Grass Court, Largo, Florida 33777. 6. Defendant Wal-Mart.com USA, LLC is a limited liability company organized and
existing under the laws of the State of California, having a business address in Bentonville, Arizona. 7. Defendant Target Corporation is a corporation organized and existing under the
laws of the State of Minnesota, having a business address in Salt Lake City, Utah. 8. Defendant Kohl’s Department Stores, Inc., is a corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Wisconsin, having a business address in Salt Lake City, Utah.
Defendant Sears Holding Management Corporation, dba Kmart, is a corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, having a business address in Salt Lake City, Utah. 10. Defendant Sears Roebuck and Co. is a corporation organized and existing under
the laws of the State of Illinois, having a business address in Salt Lake City, Utah. 11. Defendant Radio Shack Corporation is a corporation organized and existing under
the laws of the state of Delaware, having a business address in Salt Lake City, Utah. 12. Defendant Skymall, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of
the State of Delaware, having a business address at 1520 E Pima St, Phoenix, AZ 85034. 13. Defendant Toys “R” Us, Inc., is a corporation organized and existing under the
laws of the State of New Jersey, having a business address in Salt Lake City, Utah. 14. Defendant Amazon.com, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the
laws of the State of Delaware, having a business address of 1200 12th Ave. South, Ste. 1200, Seattle, WA 98144-2734. 15. Defendant Wayfair, LLC is a corporation organized and existing under the laws
of the state of Massachusetts, having a business address of 177 Huntington Avenue, Suite 6000, Boston, Massachusetts 02115. 16. On information and belief, DOES 1-5 are business entities and individuals who
have participated in the acts alleged herein and have infringed Plaintiffs’ patent by making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing infringing products in the United States, and/or inducing or contributing to infringement of United States Patent No. 6,982,542 (“the ’542 Patent”). 3
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 17. This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 271,
281, and 283, among others. This Court has jurisdiction over the patent claims under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). 18. Venue is proper in this district by virtue of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400 because,
on information and belief, Defendants’ acts of infringement took place and, on information and belief, are taking place within this jurisdiction and because Defendants either reside in this District, can be found in this District or are otherwise subject to personal jurisdiction in this District by making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing infringing product in this district, and/or inducing and contributing to infringement in this district. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 19. On January 3, 2006, the ’542 Patent entitled, “Accessory for Use with Mobile
Telephones” was issued to Denis Reah, the sole inventor named therein. A true and correct copy of the ’542 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A and expressly incorporated herein. 20. 21. On November 9, 2009, Denis Reah passed away. Upon his death, the estate of Denis Reah owned all right, title and interest in
the ’542 Patent. 22. On February 17, 2010, the estate of Denis Reah assigned ownership of the ’542
Patent to Plaintiff, Melanie Reah, the widow of Denis Reah.
Plaintiff, Denmel Holdings, LLC, has been granted an exclusive license to make,
use, sell, offer for sale, import, or otherwise benefit from the rights granted by the ’542 Patent in the United States, including the right to sublicense the ’542 Patent. 24. Plaintiffs have granted sublicenses to third parties (“sublicensees”) under the ’542
Patent, including rights to make, use, sell, offer for sale, and import products that come within the scope of the ’542 Patent. 25. The subject matter of the ’542 Patent relates to charging stations/ valets
(“Charging Stations”) for mobile telephones, PDAs, or other electronic devices. 26. The scope of the claims of the ’542 Patent encompass Charging Stations which
have structures to hold multiple mobile telephones, PDAs, or other electronic devices and their respective charging cables. 27. 28. The ’542 Patent is valid and enforceable. Defendants have infringed and, on information and belief, continue to infringe,
directly, contributorily, and/or through the inducement of others, by manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing Charging Stations that come within the scope of one or more claims of the ’542 Patent thereby infringing the ’542 Patent, including at least independent claim 1 of the ’542 Patent, or which are taught to be used in accordance with one or more claims of the ’542 Patent, without authority or license from Plaintiffs. Screenshots of Defendants’ websites showing infringing Charging Stations are attached hereto as Exhibit B.
The presence of infringing Charging Stations in the United States interferes with
the ability of Denmel Holdings, LLC to enter into the United States market for Charging Stations, and interferes with the rights granted to Plaintiffs’ sublicensees. 30. Defendants have sold or offered for sale at least one of the infringing Charging
Stations in Utah, or placed infringing Charging Stations in the stream of commerce with the expectation that they would be purchased by residents of Utah.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF DIRECT INFRINGEMENT OF PATENT 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) 31. Plaintiffs incorporate herein each and every allegation of paragraphs 1 through 30
of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein and further allege as follows: 32. enforceable. 33. Patent. 34. Plaintiff, Denmel Holdings, LLC has been granted an exclusive U.S. license to Plaintiff, Melanie Reah, is the owner of all rights, title and interest in the ’542 The ’542 Patent has at all times subsequent to its issue date been valid and fully
make, use, sell, offer for sale, import, or otherwise benefit from the rights granted by the ’542 Patent, including the right to grant sublicenses. 35. On information and belief, Defendants made, used, sold, offered for sale, and/or
imported infringing Charging Stations that come within the scope of one or more claims of the ’542 Patent. 6
On information and belief, Defendants make, use, sell, offer for sale, and/or
import infringing Charging Stations that come within the scope of one or more claims of the ’542 Patent. 37. Defendants’ actions have interfered with Plaintiffs’ ability to enter the U.S.
market or otherwise profit from Charging Stations made in accordance with the ’542 patent. 38. All making, using, selling, sale offerings, and/or importing of infringing Charging
Stations by Defendants has been without authority or license from Plaintiffs and in violation of Plaintiffs’ rights, thereby infringing the ’542 Patent. 39. The amount of money damages which Plaintiffs have suffered due to Defendants’
acts of infringement cannot be determined without an accounting, but Plaintiffs are entitled to at least a reasonable royalty for all infringing Charging Stations made, used, sold, offered for sale, and/or imported by Defendants. 40. Further, harm to Plaintiffs arising from Defendants’ acts of infringement is not
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF INDUCEMENT OF PATENT INFRINGEMENT 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) 41. Plaintiffs incorporate herein each and every allegation of paragraphs 1 through 40
of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein and further allege as follows: 7
On information and belief, Defendants have actively induced, and are now
inducing others to make or use infringing Charging Stations that come within the scope of one or more claims of the ’542 Patent. 43. On information and belief, the Defendants have induced others to make or use
infringing Charging Stations in violation of Plaintiffs’ rights under the ’542 Patent. 44. On information and belief, Defendants are aware of the ’542 patent and have
induced infringement in deliberate disregard for the rights of Plaintiffs. 45. On information and belief, Defendants have unlawfully derived, and continue to
unlawfully derive income and profits by inducing others to infringe the ’542 Patent. 46. On information and belief, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer damages
as a result of Defendants’ inducement to infringe the ’542 Patent. 47. The amount of money damages which Plaintiffs have suffered due to Defendants
inducing others to infringe the ’542 Patent cannot be determined without an accounting, but Plaintiffs are entitled to at least a reasonable royalty. 48. On information and belief, Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF CONTRIBUTORY PATENT INFRINGEMENT 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) 49. Plaintiffs incorporate herein each and every allegation of paragraphs 1 through 48
of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein and further allege as follows: 50. On information and belief, Defendants have sold, or have offered to sell within
the United States, components of one or more claims of the ’542 Patent which constitute a material component of the invention. 51. On information and belief, Defendants knew that such components were
especially made or adapted for use in infringing one or more claims of the ’542 Patent. 52. On information and belief, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer damages
as a result of Defendants’ contributory infringement of the ’542 Patent. 53. The amount of money damages which Plaintiffs have suffered due to Defendants’
contributory infringement of the ’542 Patent cannot be determined without an accounting, but Plaintiffs are entitled to at least a reasonable royalty. 54. On information and belief, Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 35 U.S.C. § 283 55. Plaintiffs incorporate herein each and every allegation of paragraphs 1 through 54
of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein and further allege as follows: 56. As a result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to
suffer irreparable harm, including loss of goodwill and the loss of customers. 57. Moreover, Defendants’ actions have interfered with Plaintiffs’ ability to enter the
United States market and will continue to cause irreparable injury unless enjoined. 58. sublicensees. 59. The injury to Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ sublicensees outweighs the harm an Furthermore, Defendants’ actions interfere with the rights granted to Plaintiffs’
injunction may cause to Defendants. 60. 61. The order and injunction will not be adverse to the public interest. There is a substantial likelihood that Plaintiffs will prevail on the merits of the
underlying claims, because the infringing Charging Stations meet each element of at least one claim of the ’542 Patent and the ’542 Patent is valid and enforceable.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT 35 U.S.C. § 284 62. Plaintiffs incorporate herein each and every allegation of paragraphs 1 through 61
of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein and further allege as follows: 10
On information and belief, Defendants are aware of the ’542 Patent and continue
to make, use, sell, offer for sale, or import infringing Charging Stations, and/or induce or contribute to infringement of the ’542 Patent. 64. On information and belief, Defendants knew or should have known their acts
infringed the ’542 Patent. 65. On information and belief, Defendants have disregarded Plaintiffs’ rights in
the ’542 Patent and continue to make, use, sell, offer for sale, and/or import infringing Charging Stations, and/or induce or contribute to others making or using infringing Charging Stations without authority or license from Plaintiffs. 66. Defendants’ willful infringement of the ’542 Patent makes this an exceptional
Defendants, and 11
For damages for patent infringement in an amount to be determined at trial, such
active concert or participation with them, individually and/or jointly, be enjoined under 35 U.S.C. §283 from further violation of Plaintiffs’ patent rights or such terms as the Court deems reasonable, including, without limitation, that Defendants cease making, selling, offering for sell, or distributing the infringing Charging Stations and any other products which infringe the ’542 Patent; iv. That Defendants be ordered to file with this Court and serve on Plaintiffs within
infringing Charging Stations.
That Defendants destroy all materials using or containing the infringing Charging
Stations and all advertisements in their possession or control. E. That Defendants recall all labels, signs, prints, packages, advertisements,
promotional and/or marketing materials that reflect the infringing Charging Stations. F. That Defendants shall notify all affiliates which market or sell the infringing
Charging Stations of this Court’s order. G. That Defendants place a corrective statement in each venue, and through each
form of media, where Defendants made or promulgated advertisements reflecting the infringing Charging Stations. H. That Defendants provide a copy of the Order of this Court to all consumers
identified through reasonable efforts who received infringing Charging Stations. I. That Defendants are prohibited from continuing the unlawful conduct as set forth
claims, including without limitation actual damages, exemplary damages, consequential damages, incidental damages, punitive damages, lost profits, and damages for intangible injuries as this Court deems to be just and proper. 13
DATED: September 30, 2013. BATEMAN IP LAW GROUP By: /s/ Randall B. Bateman Randall B. Bateman Sarah W. Matthews Attorneys for Plaintiffs Denmel Holdings LLC and Melanie Reah
Documents Similar To Denmel Holdings et. al. v. IXT Systems International et. al.