Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/216401350/Landmark-Technology-v-Hitachi-America
Timestamp: 2017-01-19 05:07:05
Document Index: 726058514

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 285', 'art25']

Landmark Technology v. Hitachi America
BrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksArticlesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISIONLANDMARK TECHNOLOGY, LLC, Plaintiff, v. HITACHI AMERICA LTD. Defendant.
CASE NO. 6:14-CV-249
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Plaintiff Landmark Technology, LLC ("Landmark"), for its Complaint against Hitachi America Ltd. ("Defendant"), alleges as follows: JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. This is an action for patent infringement in violation of the Patent Act of
LA 10591507v1
Hitachi America Ltd. ("Hitachi") is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York, with its principal place of business at 50 Prospect Avenue, Tarrytown, New York 10591. Plaintiff is further informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Hitachi is in the business of selling industrial components and equipment, and derives a significant portion of its revenue from sales and distribution via electronic commerce conducted on and using at least, but not limited to, the Internet website located at https://i-store.hitachi.us/ISDWebstore/Shop (the "Website") and/or the Hitachi iOS application (the “App”). Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that, at all times relevant hereto, Hitachi has done and continues to do business in this judicial district, including, but not limited to, selling products to customers located in this judicial district by way of the Hitachi Website and/or App. FACTS 7. On September 11, 2001, United States Patent No. 6,289,319 entitled
"Automated Business and Financial Transaction Processing System" was duly and legally issued to Lawrence B. Lockwood as inventor. A true and correct copy of United States Patent No. 6,289,319 is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference. Following a reexamination of Patent No. 6,289,319, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued an Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate, Number US 6,289,319 C1, on July 17, 2007, confirming the validity of all six (6) original claims and allowing twenty-two (22) additional claims. A true and correct copy of Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate, Number US 6,289,319 C1 is attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by this reference. Following a second reexamination of Patent No. 6,289,319, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued an Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate, Number US 6,289,319 C2, on Jan 31, 2013, confirming the
validity of all twenty eight (28) original claims. A true and correct copy of Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate, Number US 6,289,319 C2 is attached hereto as Exhibit "C" and incorporated herein by this reference (United States Patent No. 6,289,319, together with the additional claims allowed by Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate, Number US 6,289,319 C1, and reaffirmed by Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate, Number US 6,289,319 C2 shall hereinafter be referred to as the "'319 Patent.") On September 1, 2008, Lockwood licensed all rights in the '319 Patent to Plaintiff. Plaintiff is the exclusive licensee of the entire right, title and interest in and to the '319 Patent, including all rights to enforce the '319 Patent and to recover for infringement. The '319 Patent is valid and in force. 8. As more fully laid out below, Defendant has been and is now infringing
the '319 Patent, in this judicial district and elsewhere, by selling and distributing its products and services using electronic commerce systems, which, individually or in combination, incorporate and/or use subject matter claimed by the '319 Patent. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Direct Infringement of the '319 Patent, in Violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a)) 9. 10. Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1-8. The claims of the '319 Patent relate to "an automated data processing
system for processing business and financial transactions between entities from remote sites" comprising a variety of features. 11. The Hitachi Website and the Hitachi App are each "an automated data
processing system for processing business and financial transactions between entities from remote sites" practicing the claims of the '319 Patent. 12. By way of example only, and not limited to, Defendant's App and
supporting server infringes Claim 1 of the '319 Patent in that, the Defendant's App and supporting server provides a system that practices all of the limitations of the claim and on which Defendant processes business information and places purchase orders, including:
The App and supporting server is an automatic data processing
App practice all of the remaining limitations of Claim 1 of the '319 Patent. 13. Defendant, therefore, by the acts complained of herein, is making, using,
selling, or offering for sale in the United States, including in the Eastern District of Texas, products and/or services embodying the invention, and has in the past and is now continuing to infringe the '319 Patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). 14. Defendant threatens to continue to engage in the acts complained of herein
and, unless restrained and enjoined, will continue to do so, all to Plaintiff's irreparable injury. It would be difficult to ascertain the amount of compensation that would afford Plaintiff adequate relief for such future and continuing acts, and a multiplicity of judicial proceedings would be required. Plaintiff does not have an adequate remedy at law to compensate it for the injuries threatened. 15. By reason of the acts of Defendant alleged herein, Plaintiff has suffered
damage in an amount to be proved at trial.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Inducing Infringement of the '319 Patent, in Violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b)) 16. 17. Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1-15. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendant
has actively and knowingly induced infringement of the '319 Patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) by, among other things, inducing its customers (the end users of its Website and/or App) to utilize their own computers in combination with its Website, and incorporated and/or related systems, to search for and order information and products from its Website in such a way as to infringe the '319 Patent. 18. On information and belief, Defendant has had knowledge of the '319
Patent at least as earlier as the service of this complaint. 19. By reason of the acts of Defendant alleged herein, Plaintiff has suffered
damage in an amount to be proved at trial. 20. Defendant threatens to continue to engage in the acts complained of herein
and, unless restrained and enjoined, will continue to do so, all to Plaintiff's irreparable injury. Plaintiff does not have an adequate remedy at law. JURY DEMAND Plaintiff demands a jury trial on all issues so triable. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as follows: A. B. For an order finding that the '319 Patent is valid and enforceable; For an order finding that, by the acts complained of herein, Defendant has directly
infringed, and induced others to infringe, the '319 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271; C. For an order temporarily, preliminarily and permanently enjoining Defendant, its
officers, directors, agents, servants, affiliates, employees, subsidiaries, divisions, branches, parents, attorneys, representatives, and all others acting in concert or privity with any of them, from infringing the '319 Patent, and from inducing others to infringe the '319 Patent;
disposition all infringing products and systems in its possession; E. For an order directing Defendant to file with the Court, and serve upon Plaintiff's
reasonable royalty and/or lost profits, in amounts to be fixed by the Court in accordance with proof, including enhanced and/or exemplary damages, as appropriate, as well as all of Defendant's profits or gains of any kind from its acts of patent infringement; G. For an order awarding Plaintiff all of its costs, including its attorneys' fees,
incurred in prosecuting this action, including, without limitation, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 and other applicable law; H. I. For an order awarding Plaintiff pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; and For an order awarding Plaintiff such other and further relief as the Court may
Landmark Technology v. Hitachi America by PriorSmart25 viewsEmbedDownloadDescriptionOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 6:14-cv-00249: Landmark Technology LLC v. Hitachi America LTD.,. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, no ju...Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 6:14-cv-00249: Landmark Technology LLC v. Hitachi America LTD.,. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-labY 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
RelatedLandmark Technology v. Jones Groupby PriorSmartLandmark Technology v. Geeknetby PriorSmartLandmark Technology v. Belkby PriorSmartLandmark Technology v. Tractor Supply Companyby PriorSmartLandmark Technology v. Deluxeby PriorSmartLandmark Technology v. Brinker International Et. Al.by PatentBlastLandmark Technology v. Johnson Outdoorsby PatentBlastLandmark Technology v. Tandy Leather Factoryby PriorSmartLandmark Technology v. PetSmartby PriorSmartLandmark Technology v. Tempur-Pedic Internationalby PriorSmartLandmark Technology v. Toro Companyby PriorSmartLandmark Technology v. Build-A-Bear Workshopby PriorSmartLandmark Technology v. iRobotby PriorSmartLandmark Technology v. Annby PriorSmartRichmond v. Sears Roebuckby PriorSmartLennon Image Technologies v. Boucheron Joaillerieby PriorSmartREC Software v. Casio America et. al.by PriorSmartLennon Image Technologies v. Mattelby PriorSmartP S Products et. al. v. SC Importsby PriorSmartMilos Misha Subotincic et. al. v. McKee Foods et. al.by PriorSmartInMotion Imagery Technologies v. MedioStreamby PriorSmartJoao Control and Monitoring Systems v. Xanbooby PriorSmartSlab-Pro v. Max Protection - Complaintby slbursteinLennon Image Technologies v. Skullcandyby PriorSmarte.Digital v. Advanced Mediaby PriorSmartVantage Point Technology v. Kyocera International.pdfby PatentBlastLandmark Technology v. Redbox Automated Retailby PatentBlastComplaintby pauloverhauserSimilar to Landmark Technology v. Louis Vuitton North AmericaLandmark Technology v. Jones GroupLandmark Technology v. GeeknetLandmark Technology v. BelkLandmark Technology v. Tractor Supply CompanyLandmark Technology v. DeluxeLandmark Technology v. Brinker International Et. Al.Landmark Technology v. Johnson OutdoorsLandmark Technology v. Tandy Leather FactoryLandmark Technology v. PetSmartLandmark Technology v. Tempur-Pedic InternationalLandmark Technology v. Toro CompanyLandmark Technology v. Build-A-Bear WorkshopLandmark Technology v. iRobotLandmark Technology v. AnnRichmond v. Sears RoebuckLennon Image Technologies v. Boucheron JoaillerieREC Software v. Casio America et. al.Lennon Image Technologies v. MattelP S Products et. al. v. SC ImportsMilos Misha Subotincic et. al. v. McKee Foods et. al.InMotion Imagery Technologies v. MedioStreamJoao Control and Monitoring Systems v. XanbooSlab-Pro v. Max Protection - ComplaintLennon Image Technologies v. Skullcandye.Digital v. Advanced MediaVantage Point Technology v. Kyocera International.pdfLandmark Technology v. Redbox Automated RetailComplainte.Digital v. Centon Electronicse.Digital v. Maxell Corporation of AmericaLandmark Technology v. Louis Vuitton North America