Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/221214277/Cascades-Branding-Innovation-v-Abercrombie-Fitch
Timestamp: 2017-04-25 03:01:18
Document Index: 193143435

Matched Legal Cases: ['§\n271', '§ 1331', '§ 1391', '§ 271', '§ 284', '§ 271', '§ 284', '§ 271', '§ 284', '§ 284', '§ 285']

Cascades Branding Innovation v. Abercrombie & Fitch | Patent Infringement
ScribdBrowseInterestsPolitics & Current AffairsCareer & MoneyPersonal GrowthFictionHealth & FitnessLifestyleEntertainmentBiographies & HistoryScience & TechBrowse byBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinCascades Branding Innovation v. Abercrombie & FitchUploaded by PriorSmartPatent InfringementTitle 35 Of The United States CodePatentDamagesUnited States Code0.0 (0)DownloadEmbedDescription: Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. None: Cascades Branding Innovation LLC v. Abercrombie & Fitch, Co. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,...View MoreOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. None: Cascades Branding Innovation LLC v. Abercrombie & Fitch, Co. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-lanY for more info.Copyright: Public DomainDownload as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION CASCADES BRANDING INNOVATIONLLC Plaintiff, vs. ABERCROMBIE & FITCH CO. Defendant. COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Plaintiff Cascades Branding Innovation LLC (“Cascades”) complains against Abercrombie & Fitch Co. (“Abercrombie”) as follows: THE PARTIES 1. Plaintiff Cascades is an Illinois limited liability company having a place of JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
business at 500 Skokie Boulevard, Suite 250, Northbrook, Illinois. Cascades is the exclusive licensee and holder of all substantial rights to U.S. Patent Nos. 7,768,395, 8,106,766 and 8,405,504, referred to below as the “Cascades Patents.” Cascades has standing to sue for infringement of the Cascades Patents. The Cascades Patents are entitled “BRAND MAPPING,” and relate to improvements in mobile devices to allow them to locate branded products and services in their vicinity. 2. Defendant Abercrombie is a Delaware corporation having a principal place of
business located at 6301 Fitch Path, New Albany, Ohio 43054. Abercrombie provides its customers the A&F application, aspects of which Cascades contends infringe the Cascades Patents as alleged below. The A&F application operates on consumers’ smart phones and like devices (such as the Apple iPhone), and allows such phones and devices to enable users to select
an Abercrombie-branded icon to locate Abercrombie-branded store locations in their vicinity on a map, without the users having to manually enter a device location. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, e.g., 35 U.S.C. §§
271, 281, 283-285. Subject matter jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). 4. Defendant Abercrombie conducts significant business in the State of Illinois, and
in this judicial district. Accordingly, this Court has personal jurisdiction over Abercrombie, and venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 and/or 1400. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 5. Inventor Steven K. Gold is a medical doctor by degree who attended medical
school to pursue his dream of inventing medical device technologies, as shown by his first two issued patents. Dr. Gold benefits financially from Cascades’ licensing successes. Following medical school, Dr. Gold became a successful entrepreneur and started companies in the life sciences and other fields. Dr. Gold has taught entrepreneurship at the college level. Dr. Gold invented and filed for the Cascades Patents before the first sale in 2007 of the Apple iPhone. The ’395 Patent issued on August 3, 2010, the ’766 Patent issued on January 31, 2012, and the ’504 Patent issued on March 26, 2013. 6. Abercrombie has been aware of the ’395 Patent since at least approximately July
22, 2011, the date of a Notice of Infringement sent to Abercrombie on behalf of Cascades. The Notice of Infringement included an infringement claim chart for the ’395 Patent (attached as Exhibit A), and a firm license offer to abate Abercrombie’s infringement. Abercrombie did not accept the license offer. Follow-up letters were sent offering a license again on August 22, 2011, November 29, 2012 (which gave Abercrombie notice of the ’766 Patent and included an
infringement claim chart (Ex. A)), February 21, 2013 (which gave Abercrombie notice of U.S. Publication Nos. 2013-0029691 (issued as the ’504 Patent) and 2013-0040663 (issued as U.S. Patent No. 8,451,114)), April 3, 2013, and January 16, 2014 (which included an infringement claim chart for the ’504 Patent (Ex. A)). Abercrombie has never responded. Its infringement has therefore been reckless, without objective basis, and willful. COUNT I – ’395 PATENT 7. 8. Cascades hereby incorporates paragraphs 1-6 above by reference. Abercrombie has infringed at least claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 10, 17, 18, 19, 23, 24, 25, 27,
and 35 of the ’395 Patent through, among other activities, making, using (for example by testing), offering to sell, and/or selling the A&F application. Its infringement may include additional products, services and technologies (to be determined in discovery) marketed or used by Abercrombie. Abercrombie has also knowingly and intentionally actively aided, abetted and induced others to infringe (such as its customers, users, application downloaders and/or business partners in this judicial district and throughout the United States). Abercrombie has also
knowingly contributed to customer infringement, within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c), by among other things providing the A&F application, which is not a staple article of commerce capable of substantial non-infringing use. 9. As a direct and proximate consequence of the infringement, Cascades has been, is
being and, unless such acts and practices are enjoined by the Court, will continue to be injured in its business and property rights, and has suffered, is suffering, and will continue to suffer injury and damages for which it is entitled to relief under 35 U.S.C. § 284 adequate to compensate for such infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty.
COUNT II – ’766 PATENT 10. 11. Cascades hereby incorporates paragraphs 1-9 above by reference. Abercrombie has infringed at least claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 22
of the ’766 Patent through, among other activities, making, using (for example by testing), offering to sell, and/or selling the A&F application. Its infringement may include additional products, services and technologies (to be determined in discovery) marketed or used by Abercrombie. Abercrombie has also knowingly and intentionally actively aided, abetted and induced others to infringe (such as its customers, users, application downloaders and/or business partners in this judicial district and throughout the United States). Abercrombie has also
knowingly contributed to customer infringement, within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c), by among other things providing the A&F application, which is not a staple article of commerce capable of substantial non-infringing use. 12. As a direct and proximate consequence of the infringement, Cascades has been, is
being and, unless such acts and practices are enjoined by the Court, will continue to be injured in its business and property rights, and has suffered, is suffering, and will continue to suffer injury and damages for which it is entitled to relief under 35 U.S.C. § 284 adequate to compensate for such infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty. COUNT III – ’504 PATENT 13. 14. Cascades hereby incorporates paragraphs 1-12 above by reference. Abercrombie has infringed at least claims 1, 15, 17, 18, 22, 24, 26, 28, 42, 44, 45,
49, 51, and 53 of the ’504 Patent through, among other activities, making, using (for example by testing), offering to sell, and/or selling the A&F application. Its infringement may include additional products, services and technologies (to be determined in discovery) marketed or used
by Abercrombie. Abercrombie has also knowingly and intentionally actively aided, abetted and induced others to infringe (such as its customers, users, application downloaders and/or business partners in this judicial district and throughout the United States). Abercrombie has also
knowingly contributed to customer infringement, within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c), by among other things providing the A&F application, which is not a staple article of commerce capable of substantial non-infringing use. 15. As a direct and proximate consequence of the infringement, Cascades has been, is
being and, unless such acts and practices are enjoined by the Court, will continue to be injured in its business and property rights, and has suffered, is suffering, and will continue to suffer injury and damages for which it is entitled to relief under 35 U.S.C. § 284 adequate to compensate for such infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Cascades asks this Court to enter judgment against Abercrombie and against its respective subsidiaries, affiliates, agents, servants, employees and all persons in active concert or participation with them, granting the following relief: A. An award of damages adequate to compensate Cascades for the infringement that has occurred, together with prejudgment interest from the date infringement of the respective Cascades Patents began and statutory costs; B. C. D. An award to Cascades of all remedies available under 35 U.S.C. § 284; An award to Cascades of all remedies available under 35 U.S.C. § 285; A permanent injunction prohibiting further infringement, inducement and contributory infringement of the Cascades Patents; and, E. Such other and further relief as this Court or a jury may deem proper and just.
JURY DEMAND Cascades demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable. Dated: April 30, 2014 Cascades Branding Innovations LLC By: /s/ William W. Flachsbart William W. Flachsbart Robert P. Greenspoon Michael R. La Porte Travis Campbell FLACHSBART & GREENSPOON, LLC 333 North Michigan Avenue, Ste 2700 Chicago, IL 60601 T: 312-551-9500 F: 312-551-9501 Attorneys for Plaintiff Cascades Branding Innovation LLC
Documents Similar To Cascades Branding Innovation v. Abercrombie & FitchSkip carouselPetEdge v. LTD Commodities HoldingsIcon Health & Fitness v. Polar Electro OyItt Manufacturing Enterprises et. al. v. Summit PumpYellow Dog Technologies v. Fuel Recyclers et. al.O2Cool v. Windy City NoveltiesTiVo vs. AT&T 2009 patent infringement complaintScalar v. Carson OpticalScalar v. Aven InternationalKrull v. Amazon.Com et. al.Geotag v. SuccessFactorsArrivalStar et. al. v. American MillenniumBest Lighting v. AH Lighting - ComplaintIPVX Patent Holdings v. 8x8August Technology et. al. v. CamtekParallax Group v. Incstores - ComplaintVacation Exchange v. Interval International v. CloerenOptical Devices LLC v. Nintendo Co. Ltd. Et. Al.Efficiency Systems v. DellCTP Innovations v. Primary Color SystemsCTP Innovations v. Progress Printing CompanyCTP Innovations v. Meyers Printing CompaniesGraftech International Holdings v. G&CS CO., LTD. a/k/a Green & Carbon SolutionsOplus Technologies v. Sears Holdings et. al.Tierra Intelectual Borinquen v. Kyocera et. al.152310 Canada v. HTM Lighting - ComplaintOperating Systems Solutions v. AppleCTP Innovations v. Benson Integrated Markeing SolutionsNo Unfair Comp in PatentVictaulic v. Scholzen ProductsDocuments About Patent InfringementSkip carouselNike v. SkechersNokia Complaint Against Apple in federal district court, WisconsinBose v. Beats Civil ComplaintBose vs Beats (ITC complaint)Koninklijke Philips N.V. et. al. v. Nintendo et. al.BU v AppleRockstar v Samsung.pdf3D Systems v. Formlabs et. al.Greenwich Ballistics v. Jamison InternationalPersonalWeb Technologies et. al. v. Rackspace et. al.Lodsys Complaint Against Adidas BestBuy Et AlSemantic Compaction Systems et. al. v. Speak For Yourself et. al.Amended Galaxy ComplaintNYT Complaint Against LodsysFacebook's Counterclaims to Yahoo's Patent LawsuitPosner OrderTreehouse Avatar Technologies v. TurbineHuawei v. SamsungBose vs BeatsZonar Systems v. Synovia et. al.Touchscreen Gestures v. Huawei Technologies et. al.Novartis Pharmaceuticals v. Torrent Pharmaceuticals et. al.13-10-03 Innovatio v. Mult. Def. WiFi Patents FRAND DeterminationVideojet Technologies et. al. v. Markem-ImajeCH2O v. Meras EngineeringNovartis Pharmaceuticals et. al. v. Noven Pharmaceuticals et. al.Fitness Anywhere v. Woss EnterprisesEckart v. Silberline ManufacturingSegway v. Swagway complaint.pdfMathWorks v. AccelerEyes 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