Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/228190648/Straight-Path-IP-Group-v-BlackBerry-et-al
Timestamp: 2017-01-24 15:52:31
Document Index: 580728680

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§ 1331', '§ 1', '§ 1400', '§ 284', '§ 284', '§ 285']

Straight Path IP Group v. BlackBerry et. al. | Black Berry Limited | Patent
BrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksArticlesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoin- 1- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION : STRAIGHT PATH IP GROUP, INC., : : Plaintiff, : : v. : Civil Action No. 6:14-cv-534 : J ury Trial Demanded BLACKBERRY LTD. & BLACKBERRY CORP. : : Defendants. : COMPLAINT 1. Plaintiff Straight Path IP Group, Inc. (“Straight Path” or “Plaintiff”), for its Complaint against Defendants BlackBerry Limited (“BlackBerry”) and BlackBerry Corporation (collectively, “Defendants”), hereby alleges as follows: PARTIES 2. Straight Path is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 5300 Hickory Park Dr. Suite 218, Glen Allen, VA 23059. 3. BlackBerry is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Canada, with its principal place of business located at 295 Phillip Street, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 3W8. BlackBerry is in the business of manufacturing, selling for importation, offering for sale for importation, and importing into the United States certain point-to-point network communications devices and products containing same. 4. BlackBerry Corporation is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business located at 5000 Riverside Drive, Irving, TX 75039. BlackBerry Corporation is a wholly-owned subsidiary of BlackBerry Ltd. - 2 - NATURE OF THE ACTION 5. This is a civil action for the infringement of United States Patent No. 6,009,469 (the “’469 Patent”) (attached as Exhibit A) entitled “Graphic User Interface for Internet Telephony Application,” United States Patent No. 6,108,704 (the “’704 Patent”) (attached as Exhibit B) entitled “Point-to-Point Protocol,” and United States Patent No. 6,131,121 (the “’121 Patent) (attached as Exhibit C) entitled “Point-to-Point Computer Network Communication Utility Utilizing Dynamically Assigned Network Protocol Addresses" (collectively, the “Patents-
in-Suit”) under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq. 6. This action involves Defendants’ manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale, and/or importation into the United States of infringing products, methods, processes, services and systems that are primarily used or primarily adapted for use in point-to-point network communications devices and products containing same, including, for example but without limitation, smartphone handsets and tablet computers, that infringe one or more of the claims of the Patents-in-Suit. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 7. This Court has original jurisdiction over the subject matter of this Complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a) because this action arises under the patent laws of the United States, including 35 U.S.C. §§ 1, et seq. 8. Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in the Tyler Division of the Eastern District of Texas because Defendants regularly transact business in this judicial district by, among other things, offering Defendants’ products and services to customers, business affiliates and partners located in this judicial district. In addition, the Defendants have committed acts of - 3 - direct infringement of one or more of the claims of one or more of the Patents-in-Suit in this judicial district. 9. Venue in this district is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) and 1391(b) and (c), because the Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in this district and have committed acts of infringement in this district. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 10. Plaintiff Straight Path is the lawful assignee of all right, title and interest in and to the Patents-in-Suit. 11. All maintenance fees for the Patents-in-Suit have been timely paid, and there are no fees currently due. COUNT I (Defendants’ Infringement of the ’469 Patent) 12. Paragraphs 1 through 11 are incorporated by reference as if fully restated herein. 13. Defendants make, use, sell, offer to sell and/or import into the United States for subsequent sale or use products, services, methods or processes that directly and/or indirectly infringe, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, or that employ systems, components and/or processes that make use of systems or processes that directly and/or indirectly infringe, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, one or more claims of the ’469 Patent. 14. Such infringing devices include consumer electronics and display that include point-to-point communication processes such as, but not limited to, the BlackBerry Video Chat client-side application process (the “Video Chat Application”). These infringing devices include for example but without limitation, the BlackBerry Z10 (which encompasses all BlackBerry Smartphones) and the BlackBerry PlayBook (which encompasses all BlackBerry Tablets), as well as others of Defendants’ smartphone handsets and tablet computers. - 4 - 15. Defendants actively, knowingly, and intentionally induced, and continue to actively, knowingly, and intentionally induce, infringement of the ’469 Patent by making, using, offering for sale, importing, and selling infringing consumer electronics and display devices, as well as by contracting with others to use, market, sell, offer to sell, and import infringing consumer electronics and display devices, all with knowledge of the ’469 Patent and its claims; with knowledge that its customers and end users, including same in the Eastern District of Texas, will directly infringe the ’469 Patent by using, marketing, selling, offering to sell, and importing infringing consumer electronics and display devices; and with the knowledge and the specific intent to encourage and facilitate those infringing sales and uses of infringing consumer electronics and display devices through the creation and dissemination of promotional and marketing materials, instructional materials, product manuals, and technical materials. 16. Defendants have also contributed to the infringement by others, including the end users of infringing consumer electronics and display devices, and continue to contribute to infringement by others, by selling, offering to sell, and importing the infringing consumer electronics and display devices into the United States, knowing that those products constitute a material part of the inventions of the ’469 Patent, knowing those products to be especially made or adapted to infringe the ’469 Patent, knowing that those products are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use, and knowing that end users of those products, including end users in the Eastern District of Texas, would directly infringe the ’469 Patent. 17. Defendants have had knowledge of and notice of the ’469 Patent and its infringement since at least, and through, August 23, 2013, despite this knowledge, continue to commit tortious conduct by way of patent infringement. - 5 - 18. Defendants have been and continue to be infringing one or more of the claims of the ’469 Patent through the aforesaid acts. 19. Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages adequate to compensate for the infringement. COUNT II (Defendants’ Infringement of the ’704 Patent) 20. Paragraphs 1 through 19 are incorporated by reference as if fully restated herein. 21. Defendants make, use, sell, offer to sell and/or import into the United States for subsequent sale or use products, services, methods or processes that directly and/or indirectly infringe, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, or that employ systems, components and/or processes that make use of systems or processes that directly and/or indirectly infringe, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, one or more claims of the ’704 Patent. 22. Such infringing devices include consumer electronics and display that include point-to-point communication processes such as, but not limited to, the BlackBerry Video Chat client-side application process (the “Video Chat Application”). These infringing devices include for example but without limitation, the BlackBerry Z10 (which encompasses all BlackBerry Smartphones) and the BlackBerry PlayBook (which encompasses all BlackBerry Tablets), as well as others of Defendants’ smartphone handsets and tablet computers. 23. Defendants actively, knowingly, and intentionally induced, and continue to actively, knowingly, and intentionally induce, infringement of the ’704 Patent by making, using, offering for sale, importing, and selling infringing consumer electronics and display devices, as well as by contracting with others to use, market, sell, offer to sell, and import infringing consumer electronics and display devices, all with knowledge of the ’704 Patent and its claims; with knowledge that its customers and end users, including same in the Eastern District of Texas, - 6 - will directly infringe the ’704 Patent by using, marketing, selling, offering to sell, and importing infringing consumer electronics and display devices; and with the knowledge and the specific intent to encourage and facilitate those infringing sales and uses of infringing consumer electronics and display devices through the creation and dissemination of promotional and marketing materials, instructional materials, product manuals, and technical materials. 24. Defendants have also contributed to the infringement by others, including the end users of infringing consumer electronics and display devices, and continue to contribute to infringement by others, by selling, offering to sell, and importing the infringing consumer electronics and display devices into the United States, knowing that those products constitute a material part of the inventions of the ’704 Patent, knowing those products to be especially made or adapted to infringe the ’704 Patent, knowing that those products are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use, and knowing that end users of those products, including end users in the Eastern District of Texas, would directly infringe the ’704 Patent. 25. Defendants have had knowledge of and notice of the ’704 Patent and its infringement since at least, and through, August 23, 2013, despite this knowledge, continue to commit tortious conduct by way of patent infringement. 26. Defendants have been and continue to be infringing one or more of the claims of the ’704 Patent through the aforesaid acts. 27. Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages adequate to compensate for the infringement. COUNT III (Defendants’ Infringement of the ’121 Patent) 28. Paragraphs 1 through 27 are incorporated by reference as if fully restated herein. - 7 - 29. Defendants make, use, sell, offer to sell and/or import into the United States for subsequent sale or use products, services, methods or processes that directly and/or indirectly infringe, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, or that employ systems, components and/or processes that make use of systems or processes that directly and/or indirectly infringe, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, one or more claims of the ’121 Patent. 30. Such infringing devices include consumer electronics and display that include point-to-point communication processes such as, but not limited to, the BlackBerry Video Chat client-side application process (the “Video Chat Application”). These infringing devices include for example but without limitation, the BlackBerry Z10 (which encompasses all BlackBerry Smartphones) and the BlackBerry PlayBook (which encompasses all BlackBerry Tablets), as well as others of Defendants’ smartphone handsets and tablet computers. 31. Defendants actively, knowingly, and intentionally induced, and continue to actively, knowingly, and intentionally induce, infringement of the ‘121 Patent by making, using, offering for sale, importing, and selling infringing consumer electronics and display devices, as well as by contracting with others to use, market, sell, offer to sell, and import infringing consumer electronics and display devices, all with knowledge of the ’121 Patent and its claims; with knowledge that its customers and end users, including same in the Eastern District of Texas, will directly infringe the ’121 Patent by using, marketing, selling, offering to sell, and importing infringing consumer electronics and display devices; and with the knowledge and the specific intent to encourage and facilitate those infringing sales and uses of infringing consumer electronics and display devices through the creation and dissemination of promotional and marketing materials, instructional materials, product manuals, and technical materials. - 8 - 32. Defendants have also contributed to the infringement by others, including the end users of infringing consumer electronics and display devices, and continue to contribute to infringement by others, by selling, offering to sell, and importing the infringing consumer electronics and display devices into the United States, knowing that those products constitute a material part of the inventions of the ’121 Patent, knowing those products to be especially made or adapted to infringe the ’121 Patent, and knowing that those products are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use, and knowing that end users of those products, including end users in the Eastern District of Texas, would directly infringe the ’121 Patent. 33. Defendants have had knowledge of and notice of the ’121 Patent and its infringement since at least, and through, August 23, 2013, and, despite this knowledge, continue to commit tortious conduct by way of patent infringement. 34. Defendants have been and continue to be infringing one or more of the claims of the ’121 Patent through the aforesaid acts. 35. Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages adequate to compensate for the infringement. - 9 - PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, Straight Path IP Group, Inc., respectfully requests the following relief: a) A judgment that Defendants have infringed the ’469 Patent; b) A judgment that Defendants have infringed the ’704 Patent; c) A judgment that Defendants have infringed the ’121 Patent; d) An injunction against Defendants, their subsidiaries, affiliates, parents, successors, assignees, officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons acting in concert or in participation with them, permanently enjoining each of them from infringing, contributing to, and/or inducing the infringement of the ‘469 Patent; e) An injunction against Defendants, their subsidiaries, affiliates, parents, successors, assignees, officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons acting in concert or in participation with them, permanently enjoining each of them from infringing, contributing to, and/or inducing the infringement of the ‘704 Patent; f) An injunction against Defendants, their subsidiaries, affiliates, parents, successors, assignees, officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons acting in concert or in participation with them, permanently enjoining each of them from infringing, contributing to, ans/or inducing the infringement of the ‘121 Patent; g) A judgment that awards Straight Path all appropriate damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 for the Defendants’ past infringement, and any continuing or future infringement of the Patents-in-Suit, up until the date such judgment is entered, including interest, costs, and disbursements as justified under 35 U.S.C. § 284 and, if necessary, to adequately compensate Straight Path for Defendants’ infringement; and h) An adjudication: - 10 - i. that this case is exceptional within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285; ii. that Straight Path be awarded the attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses it incurs in prosecuting this action; and iii. that Straight Path be awarded such further relief at law or in equity as the Court deems just and proper. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 36. Straight Path hereby demands trial by jury on all claims and issues so triable. - 11 - DATED: J une 4, 2014 Respectfully submitted WARD & SMITH LAW FIRM By: /s/ Michael T. Renaud by permission T. J ohn Ward, J r. T. J ohn Ward, J r. Texas State Bar No. 00794818 T. J ohn Ward Texas State Bar No. 2084800 J . Wesley Hill Texas State Bar No. 24032294 Claire Abernathy Henry Texas State Bar No. 24053063 WARD & SMITH LAW FIRM 1127 J udson Road, Suite 220 Longview, TX 75606 Tel: (903)-757-6400 Fax: (903) 757-2323 Email: jw@wsfirm.com tjw@wsfirm.com wh@wsfirm.com claire@wsfirm.com OF COUNSEL: Michael T. Renaud – LEAD ATTORNEY J ames M. Wodarski Michael J . McNamara Michael C. Newman Sandra J . Badin Robert J . L. Moore MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS, GLOVSKY & POPEO P.C. One Financial Center Boston, MA 02111 (617) 542-6000 mtrenaud@mintz.com jwodarski@mintz.com mmcnamara@mintz.com mcnewman@mintz.com sjbadin@mintz.com rjmoore@mintz.com Counsel for Plaintiff Straight Path IP Group, Inc. More From This UserLike 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.
Sign up to vote on this titleUsefulNot usefulStraight Path IP Group v. BlackBerry et. al. by PriorSmartEmbedDownloadDescriptionOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. None: Straight Path IP Group, Inc. v. BlackBerry Limited et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, no ju...Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. None: Straight Path IP Group, Inc. v. BlackBerry Limited et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-laxy 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
RelatedEnterprise Systems Technologies v. LG Electronics et. al.by PriorSmartStraight Path IP Group v. BlackBerry Et. Al.by PatentBlastStraight Path IP Group v. ZTE Et. Al.by PatentBlastHelferich Patent Licensing v. Best Buyby PriorSmartHelferich Patent Licensing v. J.C. Penny et. al.by PriorSmartHelferich Patent Licensing v. Bon-Ton Storesby PriorSmartMosaid Technologies v. Xilinxby PriorSmartDigitude Innovations v. LG Electronics et. al.by PriorSmartBluebonnet Telecommunications v. LG Electronics Et. Al.by PatentBlastMosaid Technologies v. NXP Semiconductorsby PatentBlastBascom Research v. Jive Softwareby PriorSmartBascom Research v. Jive Softwareby PriorSmartSampo IP v. Blackboard et. al..pdfby PatentBlastTQ Delta v. ZyXEL Communications et. al.by PriorSmartKoninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. et. al. v. Zoll Lifecorby PriorSmartCompound Photonics v. Syndiantby PriorSmartDigcom, Inc, vs Casio Computer, et. al.by PriorSmartBlue Spike v. Oppo Digital et. al.by PriorSmartNorman IP Holdings v. Lenovoby PatentBlastCardXX v. Dynamics Et. Al.by PatentBlastFall 2012 Advanced Courses Conference Magalog by PRGPatentLawTechnology Innovations Associates LLCby PriorSmartSecureNova v. LG Electronics et. al.by PriorSmartAlcatel-Lucent v. Sophos et. al.by PriorSmartAnother Worlds Clone Takes a Shot at ATVIby PatentplayTierra Intelectual Borinquen v. HTC et. al.by PriorSmartIrori Technologies v. Luminexby PriorSmartInnovative Communications v. Texas Instrumentsby PriorSmartSimilar to Straight Path IP Group v. BlackBerry et. al.Enterprise Systems Technologies v. LG Electronics et. al.Straight Path IP Group v. BlackBerry Et. Al.Straight Path IP Group v. ZTE Et. Al.Helferich Patent Licensing v. Best BuyHelferich Patent Licensing v. J.C. Penny et. al.Helferich Patent Licensing v. Bon-Ton StoresMosaid Technologies v. XilinxDigitude Innovations v. LG Electronics et. al.Bluebonnet Telecommunications v. LG Electronics Et. Al.Mosaid Technologies v. NXP SemiconductorsBascom Research v. Jive SoftwareBascom Research v. Jive SoftwareSampo IP v. Blackboard et. al..pdfTQ Delta v. ZyXEL Communications et. al.Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. et. al. v. Zoll LifecorCompound Photonics v. SyndiantDigcom, Inc, vs Casio Computer, et. al.Blue Spike v. Oppo Digital et. al.Norman IP Holdings v. LenovoCardXX v. Dynamics Et. Al.Fall 2012 Advanced Courses Conference Magalog Technology Innovations Associates LLCSecureNova v. LG Electronics et. al.Alcatel-Lucent v. Sophos et. al.Another Worlds Clone Takes a Shot at ATVITierra Intelectual Borinquen v. HTC et. al.Irori Technologies v. LuminexInnovative Communications v. Texas InstrumentsTechnology Properties v. DellNovelPoint Security v. Verbatim AmericasStraight Path IP Group v. BlackBerry et. al.