Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/133030958/Beacon-Navigation-v-Daimler-et-al
Timestamp: 2017-07-25 00:18:31
Document Index: 168299800

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

Beacon Navigation v. Daimler et. al. | Patent | Patent Infringement
Beacon Navigation v. Daimler et. al.Uploaded by PriorSmartRelated InterestsPatentPatent InfringementTitle 35 Of The United States CodeMercedes BenzLawsuitRating and Stats0.0 (0)Document ActionsDownloadShare or Embed DocumentEmbedDescription: Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-11452-PJD-MAR: Beacon Navigation GmbH v. Daimler AG et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan,...View MoreOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-11452-PJD-MAR: Beacon Navigation GmbH v. Daimler AG et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, the Hon. Patrick J. Duggan presiding. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l7U8 for more info.Copyright: Public DomainDownload as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWAREBEACON NAVIGATION GMBH, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. v. DAIMLER AG; DAIMLER NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION; MERCEDESBENZ USA, LLC; AND MERCEDES-BENZ U.S. INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
COMPLAINT Plaintiff Beacon Navigation GmbH (“Beacon” or “Plaintiff”), for its Complaint against Defendants Daimler AG (“Daimler”), Daimler North America Corporation (“Daimler North America”), Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (“Mercedes-Benz USA”), and Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc. (“Mercedes-Benz U.S. International”) states and alleges as follows: THE PARTIES 1. Plaintiff Beacon is a Swiss company with limited liability with a principal place
of business in Switzerland. 2. Upon information and belief, Defendant Daimler AG is a German corporation
with a principal place of business at Mercedesstrasse 137, 70327 Stuttgart, Germany. 3. Upon information and belief, Defendant Daimler North America Corporation is a
Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 36455 Corporate Dr., Farmington Hills, MI 48331. 4. Upon information and belief, Defendant Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC is a Delaware
corporation with its principal place of business at One Mercedes Drive, Montvale, NJ 07645. 5. Upon information and belief, Defendant Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc. is
an Alabama corporation with its principal place of business at One Mercedes Drive, Vance, AL 35490. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 6. This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.,
including 35 U.S.C. § 271. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). 7. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b), 1391(c),
1391(d) and/or 1400(b) because (1) a substantial part of the events giving rise to Beacon’s claims occurred in the District of Delaware, (2) because each of the Defendants is either resident in or otherwise subject to personal jurisdiction in the District of Delaware, or is an alien, or (3) each of the Defendants has committed acts of infringement in and has a regular and established place of business in the District of Delaware. BACKGROUND 8. Beacon owns all right, title and interest in U.S. Patent No. 6,360,167 (the “’167
patent”); U.S. Patent No. 6,163,269 (the “’269 patent”); and U.S. Patent No. 5,878,368 (the “’368 patent”) (collectively, the “patents-in-suit”). 9. The ’167 patent, entitled “Vehicle Navigation System With Location-Based
Multi-Media Annotation,” was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on March 19, 2002, after full and fair examination. A copy of the ’167 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 10. The ’269 patent, entitled “Navigation System With Anti-Alias Map Display,” was
duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on December 19, 2000, after full and fair examination. A copy of the ’269 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 11. The ’368 patent, entitled “Navigation System with User Definable Cost Values,”
was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on March 2, 1999, after full and fair examination. A copy of the ’368 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit C. 12. Daimler, Daimler North America, Mercedes-Benz USA, and Mercedes-Benz U.S.
International manufacture, sell and distribute vehicles with navigation systems, including but not limited to the Mercedes E350. COUNT I INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’167 PATENT 13. herein. 14. Daimler, Daimler North America, Mercedes-Benz USA, and Mercedes-Benz U.S. Beacon incorporates each of the preceding paragraphs 1-12 as if fully set forth
International have been and are infringing literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, directly, contributorily, or by inducement, at least claims 1 and 32 of the ’167 patent. 15. Daimler, Daimler North America, Mercedes-Benz USA, and Mercedes-Benz U.S.
International directly infringe, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), by making, using, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing in or into the United States, without authority, products that practice the ’167 patent, including but not limited to the Mercedes E350. 16. Upon information and belief, Daimler, Daimler North America, Mercedes-Benz
USA, and Mercedes-Benz U.S. International had knowledge of the ’167 patent based on a letter sent to each of them on September 28, 2011. 17. Upon information and belief, Daimler, Daimler North America, Mercedes-Benz
USA, and Mercedes-Benz U.S. International have contributed to direct infringement of the ’167 patent by others (e.g., consumers), in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), because the GPS navigation systems in their products, including but not limited to the Mercedes E350, are specially adapted for an infringing use of the ’167 patent, embody a material part of the inventions claimed in the ’167 patent, and are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use. 18. Upon information and belief, Daimler, Daimler North America, Mercedes-Benz
USA, and Mercedes-Benz U.S. International actively induce others (e.g., consumers) to directly infringe the ’167 patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c), by providing products with GPS navigation systems, including but not limited to the Mercedes E350, along with instructions, user manuals, or technical assistance actively directing, encouraging, or assisting infringement of the ’167 patent, and/or by providing a system where one of the core and common features leads to third party infringement of the ’167 patent. 19. Upon information and belief, Daimler, Daimler North America, Mercedes-Benz
USA, and Mercedes-Benz U.S. International had knowledge of the ’167 patent based on a letter sent to each of them on September 28, 2011 but have engaged in infringing conduct nonetheless. Daimler, Daimler North America, Mercedes-Benz USA, and Mercedes-Benz U.S. International’s infringement is willful. 20. Beacon has no adequate remedy at law against these acts of patent infringement.
Unless Daimler, Daimler North America, Mercedes-Benz USA, and Mercedes-Benz U.S. International are permanently enjoined from further infringement of the ’167 patent, Beacon will suffer irreparable harm. 21. As a direct and proximate result of the acts of patent infringement by Daimler,
Daimler North America, Mercedes-Benz USA, and Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Beacon has been damaged in an amount not presently known. 22. Beacon has incurred and will incur attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses in the
prosecution of this action. The circumstances of this dispute create an exceptional case within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285, and Beacon is entitled to recover its reasonable and necessary fees and expenses. COUNT II INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’269 PATENT 23. herein. 24. Daimler, Daimler North America, Mercedes-Benz USA, and Mercedes-Benz U.S. Beacon incorporates each of the preceding paragraphs 1-12 as if fully set forth
International have been and are infringing literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, directly, contributorily, or by inducement, at least claims 1, 7, and 11 of the ’269 patent. 25. Daimler, Daimler North America, Mercedes-Benz USA, and Mercedes-Benz U.S.
International directly infringe, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), by making, using, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing in or into the United States, without authority, products that practice the ’269 patent, including but not limited to the Mercedes E350. 26. Upon information and belief, Daimler, Daimler North America, Mercedes-Benz
USA, and Mercedes-Benz U.S. International had knowledge of the ’269 patent based on a letter sent to each of them on September 28, 2011. 27. Upon information and belief, Daimler, Daimler North America, Mercedes-Benz
USA, and Mercedes-Benz U.S. International have contributed to direct infringement of the ’269 patent by others (e.g., consumers), in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), because the GPS
navigation systems in their products, including but not limited to the Mercedes E350, are specially adapted for an infringing use of the ’269 patent, embody a material part of the inventions claimed in the ’269 patent, and are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use. 28. Upon information and belief, Daimler, Daimler North America, Mercedes-Benz
USA, and Mercedes-Benz U.S. International actively induce others (e.g., consumers) to directly infringe the ’269 patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c), by providing products with GPS navigation systems, including but not limited to the Mercedes E350, along with instructions, user manuals, or technical assistance actively directing, encouraging, or assisting infringement of the ’269 patent, and/or by providing a system where one of the core and common features leads to third party infringement of the ’269 patent. 29. Upon information and belief, Daimler, Daimler North America, Mercedes-Benz
USA, and Mercedes-Benz U.S. International had knowledge of the ’269 patent based on a letter sent to each of them on September 28, 2011 but have engaged in infringing conduct nonetheless. Daimler, Daimler North America, Mercedes-Benz USA, and Mercedes-Benz U.S. International’s infringement is willful. 30. Beacon has no adequate remedy at law against these acts of patent infringement.
Unless Daimler, Daimler North America, Mercedes-Benz USA, and Mercedes-Benz U.S. International are permanently enjoined from further infringement of the ’269 patent, Beacon will suffer irreparable harm. 31. As a direct and proximate result of the acts of patent infringement by Daimler,
Daimler North America, Mercedes-Benz USA, and Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Beacon has been damaged in an amount not presently known.
Beacon has incurred and will incur attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses in the
prosecution of this action. The circumstances of this dispute create an exceptional case within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285, and Beacon is entitled to recover its reasonable and necessary fees and expenses. COUNT III INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’368 PATENT 33. herein. 34. Daimler, Daimler North America, Mercedes-Benz USA, and Mercedes-Benz U.S. Beacon incorporates each of the preceding paragraphs 1-12 as if fully set forth
International have been and are infringing literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, directly, contributorily, or by inducement, at least claims 1 and 15 of the ’368 patent. 35. Daimler, Daimler North America, Mercedes-Benz USA, and Mercedes-Benz U.S.
International directly infringe, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), by making, using, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing in or into the United States, without authority, products that practice the ’368 patent, including but not limited to the Mercedes E350. 36. Upon information and belief, Daimler, Daimler North America, Mercedes-Benz
USA, and Mercedes-Benz U.S. International had knowledge of the ’368 patent based on a letter sent to each of them on September 28, 2011. 37. Upon information and belief, Daimler, Daimler North America, Mercedes-Benz
USA, and Mercedes-Benz U.S. International have contributed to direct infringement of the ’368 patent by others (e.g., consumers), in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), because the GPS navigation systems in their products, including but not limited to the Mercedes E350, are specially adapted for an infringing use of the ’368 patent, embody a material part of the
inventions claimed in the ’368 patent, and are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use. 38. Upon information and belief, Daimler, Daimler North America, Mercedes-Benz
USA, and Mercedes-Benz U.S. International actively induce others (e.g., consumers) to directly infringe the ’368 patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c), by providing products with GPS navigation systems, including but not limited to the Mercedes E350, along with instructions, user manuals, or technical assistance actively directing, encouraging, or assisting infringement of the ’368 patent, and/or by providing a system where one of the core and common features leads to third party infringement of the ’368 patent. 39. Upon information and belief, Daimler, Daimler North America, Mercedes-Benz
USA, and Mercedes-Benz U.S. International had knowledge of the ’368 patent based on a letter sent to each of them on September 28, 2011 but have engaged in infringing conduct nonetheless. Daimler, Daimler North America, Mercedes-Benz USA, and Mercedes-Benz U.S. International’s infringement is willful. 40. Beacon has no adequate remedy at law against these acts of patent infringement.
Unless Daimler, Daimler North America, Mercedes-Benz USA, and Mercedes-Benz U.S. International are permanently enjoined from further infringement of the ’368 patent, Beacon will suffer irreparable harm. 41. As a direct and proximate result of the acts of patent infringement by Daimler,
Daimler North America, Mercedes-Benz USA, and Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Beacon has been damaged in an amount not presently known. 42. Beacon has incurred and will incur attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses in the
prosecution of this action. The circumstances of this dispute create an exceptional case within
the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285, and Beacon is entitled to recover its reasonable and necessary fees and expenses. PRAYER FOR RELIEF Beacon requests that judgment be entered in its favor and against Daimler, Daimler North America, Mercedes-Benz USA, and Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, and that the Court award the following relief to Beacon: (a) damages in an amount adequate to compensate Beacon for infringement of the patents-in-suit, and in no event less than a reasonable royalty; (b) increased damages in an amount three times the damages found by the jury or assessed by the Court for the willful infringement of the patents-in-suit pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284; (c) (d) expenses, costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285; a preliminary and, thereafter, a permanent injunction against Daimler, Daimler North America, Mercedes-Benz USA, and Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all other persons in active concert or participation with any of them who receive actual notice thereof; (e) (f) prejudgment and post-judgment interest on all damages; and such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. JURY DEMAND In accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 38 and 39, Beacon asserts its rights under the Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution and demands a trial by jury on all issues triable by a jury.
Recommended DocumentsDocuments Similar To Beacon Navigation v. Daimler et. al.Skip carouselDown-N-Dirty Outdoors v. EBSCO Industries et. al.Unified Messaging Solutions v. Avid Life MediaUnified Messaging Solutions LLCUnified Messaging Solutions v. XingAbnoba IP v. ABB et. al.ComplaintMarine Technologies Inc.Digitude Innovations v. Samsung Electronics et. al.CTP Innovations v. Tucker-Castleberry PrintingRTC Industries v. Catalina MarketingCTP Innovations v. SleeveCoEco-Products v. World CentricCian Ip v. Pickering Interfaces et. al.Jlip v. Jetavation et. al.Eastman Kodak Company v. Fujifilm et. al.Kroy IP Holdings v. Safewaye-Watch et. al. v. LG ElectronicsAlpha Financial Technologies v. Mount Lucas ManagementBillingNetwork Patent v. Azalea Health InnovationsAuto-Dimensions v. Dassault Systemes SolidWorks et. al.Kimber Cakeware v. Bradshaw - ComplaintMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Huawei Technologies et. al.LT Tech v. DellSemcon Tech v. XilinxAdvanced Printing Solutions v. Zebra TechnologiesVictaulic Company v. Eastern Industrial SuppliesIntellectual Property Rights and Criminal PunishmentJazz Pharmaceuticals v. Amneal PharmaceuticalsShinn Fu Company of America, Inc. et. al. v. Northern Tool & Equipment Company, Inc.Kappa Digital v. T-MobileDocuments About PatentSkip carouselThe Oppidan Press Edition 10 2011 (The Investec Rhodes Top 100 Special Edition)AppleVsHTCandS3_11.07.15NokiaVsApple_11.03.31.10012-04-30 Apple-Samsung Teksler-Kim Letter Re FRANDMicrosoftVsMotorola_11.08.17Nokia Complaint Against Apple in federal district court, WisconsinTranslation of Mannheim 2O240 Ruling Motorola v MicrosoftSamsung vs Apple - Samsung's Appeal to the Supreme CourtFacebook's Counterclaims to Yahoo's Patent LawsuitNYT Complaint Against Lodsys4. ExhB Lodsys Letter to Illusion LabsWikiLeaks TPP Intellectual Property Rights ChapterPRICELINE COM INC 10-K (Annual Reports) 2009-02-20Greenwich Ballistics v. Jamison InternationalKoninklijke Philips N.V. et. al. v. Nintendo et. al.MicrosoftVsMotorola_11.12.11Nike v. SkechersEPO Examiners Can No Longer Ensure Appropriate Quality StandardsGoogle Dec Action vs Rockstar11-07-01 Apple Motion for PI Against SamsungConsulting AgreementBU v AppleNovartis patent JudgementApple vs Samsung 11.06.1616-12-20 Apple Complaint v. Acacia Et Al.AppleVsHTCandS3_11.07.2911-07-21 Lodsys Amended ComplaintApple vs Samsung 11.04.22MicrosoftVsMotorola_10.12.23Semantic Compaction Systems et. al. v. Speak For Yourself et. al.More 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