Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/183287890/Chrimar-Systems-et-al-v-Grandstream-Networks
Timestamp: 2016-07-24 20:26:42
Document Index: 349215400

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 101', '§ 1391', '§ 284', '§ 271', '§ 284', 'art24']

Chrimar Systems et. al. v. Grandstream Networks
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 moreIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION CHRIMAR SYSTEMS, INC.d/b/a CMS TECHNOLOGIES and CHRIMAR HOLDING COMPANY, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. GRANDSTREAM NETWORKS, INC., Defendant. COMPLAINT ChriMar Systems, Inc. d/b/a CMS Technologies (“ChriMar”) and Chrimar Holding Company, LLC (“Holding”) (collectively referred to as “CMS”) files this Complaint against Grandstream Networks, Inc. (“Grandstream” or “Defendant”) for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012 (the “’012 patent” or “Asserted Patent”). THE PARTIES 1. ChriMar is a Michigan Corporation with its principal place of business at 36528
Case No. 6:13-cv-882 PATENT CASE JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
at 303 South Washington Avenue, Marshall, Texas 75670. GRANDSTREAM NETWORKS, INC. 3. Grandstream Networks, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business located at 126 Brookline Avenue, 3rd Floor, Brookline, MA 02215. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Grandstream because Grandstream has committed, and continues to
commit, acts of infringement in the state of Texas, has conducted business in the state of Texas, and/or has engaged in continuous and systematic activities in the state of Texas. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4. This is an action for patent infringement under Title 35 of the United States Code.
Question) and 1338(a) (Patents) because this is a civil action for patent infringement arising under the United States’ patent statutes, 35 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. 6. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(c) and 1400(b) because Grandstream
has committed acts of infringement in this district and/or are deemed to reside in this district. 7. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Grandstream and venue is proper in this
district because Grandstream has committed, and continues to commit acts of infringement in the state of Texas, including in this district and/or have engaged in continuous and systematic activities in the state of Texas, including in this district. COUNT I (INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,155,012) 8. 9. CMS incorporates paragraphs 1 through 7 herein by reference. This cause of action arises under the patent laws of the United States, and in
Method for Adapting a Piece of Terminal Equipment” and Holding is the exclusive licensee of the ‘012 patent. CMS has ownership of all substantial rights in the ‘012 patent, including the right to exclude others and to enforce, sue and recover damages for past and future infringement. A true and correct copy of the ‘012 patent is attached as Exhibit A. 2
The ‘012 patent is valid, enforceable and was duly issued in full compliance with
Title 35 of the United States Code. 12. CMS has been damaged as a result of Grandstream’s infringing conduct described
in this Count. Grandstream is, thus, liable to CMS in an amount that adequately compensates it for their infringement, which by law, cannot be less than a reasonable royalty, together with interest and costs as fixed by this Court under 35 U.S.C. § 284. GRANDSTREAM (Direct Infringement) 13. On information and belief, Grandstream has and continues to directly infringe one
or more claims of the ‘012 patent in this judicial district and/or elsewhere in Texas and the United States, including at least claim 31, by, among other things, making, using, offering for sale, selling and/or importing Grandstream’s products, including but not limited to products with model numbers GXP1105, GXP1165, GXP1405, GXP2100, GXP2120, GXP2200, GXV3140 and GXV3601. Grandstream is thereby liable for infringement of the ‘012 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271. GRANDSTREAM (Indirect Infringement – Inducement) 14. Based on the information presently available to CMS, absent discovery, and in the
alternative to direct infringement, CMS contends that Grandstream has and continues to indirectly infringe one or more claims of the ‘012 patent, including at least claim 31, by inducing others, including end users of Grandstream’s products, including but not limited to model numbers GXP1105, GXP1165, GXP1405, GXP2100, GXP2120, GXP2200, GXV3140 and GXV3601 to use infringing devices in violation of one or more claims of the ’012 patent, including at least claim 31.
Grandstream has been on notice of the ‘012 patent since at least service of this
action. In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(3), CMS will likely have additional evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery on this issue. 16. On information and belief, since Grandstream has been on notice of the ’012
patent, Grandstream has knowingly induced infringement of the ‘012 patent, including at least claim 31 of the ‘012 patent, and possessed specific intent to encourage others’ infringement. 17. On information and belief, since Grandstream has been on notice of the ‘012
patent, Grandstream knew or should have known that its action would induce actual infringement of the ‘012 patent, including at least claim 31 of the ‘012 patent, by end users of Grandstream’s products, including but not limited to model numbers GXP1105, GXP1165, GXP1405, GXP2100, GXP2120, GXP2200, GXV3140 and GXV3601. 18. For example, since Grandstream has been on notice of the ‘012 patent,
Grandstream has purposefully and voluntarily placed infringing products in the stream of commerce with the expectation that its products will be purchased by end users in the United States, including end users in the Eastern District of Texas, and used in a way that infringes atleast claim 31 of the ‘012 patent. 19. Since Grandstream has been on notice of the ‘012 patent, Grandstream has also
provided support to users of Grandstream’s products, model numbers GXP1105, GXP1165, GXP1405, GXP2100, GXP2120, GXP2200, GXV3140 and GXV3601 in the United States, including users in the Eastern District of Texas. 20. Grandstream has not produced or relied upon an opinion of counsel suggesting
that the ‘012 patent is invalid or is not infringed by Grandstream’s products, including but not limited to Grandstream’s products with model numbers GXP1105, GXP1165, GXP1405,
GXP2100, GXP2120, GXP2200, GXV3140 and GXV3601. In accordance with Fed .R. Civ. P. 11(b)(3), CMS will likely have additional evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for discovery on this issue. 21. Grandstream has not produced any evidence as to any investigation, design
around or that any remedial action was taken with respect to the ‘012 patent. In accordance with Fed .R. Civ. P. 11(b)(3), CMS will likely have additional evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for discovery on this issue. ADDITIONAL ALLEGATIONS 22. CMS has been damaged as a result of Defendant’s infringing conduct described
monetary damage to CMS and will continue to do so unless and until Defendant is enjoined and restrained by this Court. JURY DEMAND CMS hereby requests a trial by jury pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF CMS requests that this Court find in its favor and against Defendant, and that this Court grant CMS the following relief: a. b. Enter judgment for Plaintiff on this Complaint; Enter judgment that one or more claims of the ‘012 patent has been infringed, either directly or indirectly by Defendant; c. Enter judgment that Defendant account for and pay to CMS all damages to and costs incurred by CMS because of Defendant’s infringing activities and other conduct complained of herein; d. Award Plaintiff damages resulting from Defendant’s infringement in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 284; e. Enter a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant and their officers, directors, agents, servants, affiliates, employees, divisions, branches, subsidiaries, parents, and all others acting in active concert or participation with them, from infringing or inducing infringement of the ‘012 patent, or, in the alternative, judgment that Defendant account for and pay to CMS a reasonable royalty and an ongoing post judgment royalty because of Defendant’s past, present and future infringing activities and other conduct complained of herein; f. That CMS be granted pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on the damages caused by Defendant’s infringing activities and other conduct complained of herein; g. That CMS be granted such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper under the circumstances.
Chrimar Systems et. al. v. Grandstream Networks by PriorSmart24 viewsEmbedDownloadDescriptionOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 6:13-cv-00882: Chrimar Systems, Inc. et. al. v. Grandstream Networks, Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Te...Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 6:13-cv-00882: Chrimar Systems, Inc. et. al. v. Grandstream Networks, Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l9tG 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
RelatedWyncomm v. ZTE et. al.by PatentBlastInnovative Automation v. Spotifyby PriorSmartGordium Innovations v. Waters Network Systemsby PriorSmartBluebonnet Telecommunications v. Uniden Americaby PriorSmartDietGoal Innovations v. CalorieKing Wellness Solutionsby PriorSmartInternet Access Solutions v. AT&T et. al.by PriorSmartExecware LLCby PriorSmartNovo Transforma Technologies LLCby PriorSmartTraffic Information v. Fandangoby PriorSmartUbiComm v. Zappos IPby PatentBlastTristar Products v. Choon's Designby PatentBlastIndustrial Technology Research Institute v. Lg Electronics et. al.by PriorSmartInternal Combustion Solutions v. Hondataby PriorSmartPatent Group v. Esurance Insurance Servicesby PriorSmartLandmark Technology v. Tempur-Pedic Internationalby PriorSmartWyncomm v. France Telecomby PatentBlastPersonalWeb Technologies et. al. v. Apple.pdfby PatentBlastCore Optical Technologies v. Ciena Coporationby PatentBlastFlfmc v. Wham o (Wd Penn 2010)by sstithamNUtech Ventures v. Norman Nobleby PriorSmartLong Corner Consumer Electronics v. Acer Americaby PatentBlastShieldmark v. Insite Solutionsby PriorSmartPatent Group v. El Fenixby PriorSmartWhalen Furniture Mfg. v. Z-Line Designsby PriorSmartSimilar to Chrimar Systems et. al. v. Grandstream Networks.pdfWyncomm v. ZTE et. al.Innovative Automation v. SpotifyGordium Innovations v. Waters Network SystemsBluebonnet Telecommunications v. Uniden AmericaDietGoal Innovations v. CalorieKing Wellness SolutionsInternet Access Solutions v. AT&T et. al.Execware LLCNovo Transforma Technologies LLCTraffic Information v. FandangoUbiComm v. Zappos IPTristar Products v. Choon's DesignIndustrial Technology Research Institute v. Lg Electronics et. al.Internal Combustion Solutions v. HondataPatent Group v. Esurance Insurance ServicesLandmark Technology v. Tempur-Pedic InternationalWyncomm v. France TelecomPersonalWeb Technologies et. al. v. Apple.pdfCore Optical Technologies v. Ciena CoporationFlfmc v. Wham o (Wd Penn 2010)NUtech Ventures v. Norman NobleLong Corner Consumer Electronics v. Acer AmericaShieldmark v. Insite SolutionsPatent Group v. El FenixWhalen Furniture Mfg. v. Z-Line Designs