Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/133022964/Beacon-Navigation-v-Kia-Motors-et-al
Timestamp: 2017-02-28 16:23:02
Document Index: 126178639

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 285', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 285', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 285', '§ 285', 'art0']

BrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWAREBEACON NAVIGATION GMBH, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. v. KIA MOTORS CORP.; KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.; AND KIA MOTORS MANUFACTURING GEORGIA, INC., Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
COMPLAINT Plaintiff Beacon Navigation GmbH (“Beacon” or “Plaintiff”), for its Complaint against Defendants Kia Motors Corp. (“Kia Motors Corp.”), Kia Motors America, Inc. (“Kia Motors America”), and Kia Motors Manufacturing Georgia, Inc. (“Kia Motors Manufacturing Georgia”) 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 Kia Motors Corp. is a Korean
corporation with its principal place of business at 231 Yangjae-dong, Seocho-gu, Seoul 137-938 South Korea. 3. Upon information and belief, Defendant Kia Motors America is a California
corporation with its principal place of business at 111 Peters Canyon Rd., Irvine, CA 92606. 4. Upon information and belief, Defendant Kia Motors Manufacturing Georgia is a
Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business at 7777 Kia Parkway, West Point, Georgia 31833.
legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on January 19, 1999, after full and fair examination. A copy of the ’511 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit D. 12. Kia Motors Corp., Kia Motors America, and Kia Motors Manufacturing Georgia
manufacture, sell and distribute vehicles with navigation systems, including but not limited to the Kia Sportage. COUNT I INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’180 PATENT 13. herein. 14. Kia Motors Corp., Kia Motors America, and Kia Motors Manufacturing Georgia Beacon incorporates each of the preceding paragraphs 1- 12 as if fully set forth
have been and are infringing literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, directly, contributorily, or by inducement, at least claim 1 of the ’180 patent. 15. Kia Motors Corp., Kia Motors America, and Kia Motors Manufacturing Georgia
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 ’180 patent, including but not limited to the Kia Sportage. 16. Upon information and belief, Kia Motors Corp., Kia Motors America, and Kia
Motors Manufacturing Georgia had knowledge of the ’180 patent based on a letter sent to each of them on September 28, 2011. 17. Upon information and belief, Kia Motors Corp., Kia Motors America, and Kia
Motors Manufacturing Georgia have contributed to direct infringement of the ’180 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 Kia Sportage, are specially adapted for an infringing use of the ’180 patent, embody a material part of the inventions claimed in the ’180 patent, and are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use. 18. Upon information and belief, Kia Motors Corp., Kia Motors America, and Kia
Motors Manufacturing Georgia actively induce others (e.g., consumers) to directly infringe the ’180 patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c), by providing products with GPS navigation systems, including but not limited to the Kia Sportage, along with instructions, user manuals, or technical assistance actively directing, encouraging, or assisting infringement of the ’180 patent, and/or by providing a system where one of the core and common features leads to third party infringement of the ’180 patent. 19. Upon information and belief, Kia Motors Corp., Kia Motors America, and Kia
Motors Manufacturing Georgia had knowledge of the ’180 patent based on a letter sent to each of them on September 28, 2011 but have engaged in infringing conduct nonetheless. Kia Motors Corp., Kia Motors America, and Kia Motors Manufacturing Georgia’s infringement is willful. 20. Beacon has no adequate remedy at law against these acts of patent infringement.
Unless Kia Motors Corp., Kia Motors America, and Kia Motors Manufacturing Georgia are permanently enjoined from further infringement of the ’180 patent, Beacon will suffer irreparable harm.
As a direct and proximate result of the acts of patent infringement by Kia Motors
Corp., Kia Motors America, and Kia Motors Manufacturing Georgia, 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 ’380 PATENT 23. herein. 24. Kia Motors Corp., Kia Motors America, and Kia Motors Manufacturing Georgia Beacon incorporates each of the preceding paragraphs 1-12 as if fully set forth
have been and are infringing literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, directly, contributorily, or by inducement, at least claims 1, 18, 26, and 29 of the ’380 patent. 25. Kia Motors Corp., Kia Motors America, and Kia Motors Manufacturing Georgia
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 ’380 patent, including but not limited to the Kia Sportage. 26. Upon information and belief, Kia Motors Corp., Kia Motors America, and Kia
Motors Manufacturing Georgia had knowledge of the ’380 patent based on a letter sent to each of them on September 28, 2011. 27. Upon information and belief, Kia Motors Corp., Kia Motors America, and Kia
Motors Manufacturing Georgia have contributed to direct infringement of the ’380 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 Kia Sportage, are specially adapted for an infringing use of the ’380 patent, embody a material part of the inventions claimed in the ’380 patent, and are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use. 28. Upon information and belief, Kia Motors Corp., Kia Motors America, and Kia
Motors Manufacturing Georgia actively induce others (e.g., consumers) to directly infringe the ’380 patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c), by providing products with GPS navigation systems, including but not limited to the Kia Sportage, along with instructions, user manuals, or technical assistance actively directing, encouraging, or assisting infringement of the ’380 patent, and/or by providing a system where one of the core and common features leads to third party infringement of the ’380 patent. 29. Upon information and belief, Kia Motors Corp., Kia Motors America, and Kia
Motors Manufacturing Georgia had knowledge of the ’380 patent based on a letter sent to each of them on September 28, 2011 but have engaged in infringing conduct nonetheless. Kia Motors Corp., Kia Motors America, and Kia Motors Manufacturing Georgia’s infringement is willful. 30. Beacon has no adequate remedy at law against these acts of patent infringement.
Unless Kia Motors Corp., Kia Motors America, and Kia Motors Manufacturing Georgia are permanently enjoined from further infringement of the ’380 patent, Beacon will suffer irreparable harm. 31. As a direct and proximate result of the acts of patent infringement by Kia Motors
Corp., Kia Motors America, and Kia Motors Manufacturing Georgia, Beacon has been damaged in an amount not presently known. 32. 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 ’111 PATENT 33. herein. 34. Kia Motors Corp., Kia Motors America, and Kia Motors Manufacturing Georgia Beacon incorporates each of the preceding paragraphs 1-12 as if fully set forth
have been and are infringing literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, directly, contributorily, or by inducement, at least claims 1 and 17 of the ’111 patent. 35. Kia Motors Corp., Kia Motors America, and Kia Motors Manufacturing Georgia
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 ’111 patent, including but not limited to the Kia Sportage. 36. Upon information and belief, Kia Motors Corp., Kia Motors America, and Kia
Motors Manufacturing Georgia had knowledge of the ’111 patent based on a letter sent to each of them on September 28, 2011. 37. Upon information and belief, Kia Motors Corp., Kia Motors America, and Kia
Motors Manufacturing Georgia have contributed to direct infringement of the ’111 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 Kia Sportage, are specially adapted for an infringing use of the ’111 patent, embody a material part of the inventions claimed in the ’111 patent, and are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use.
Motors Manufacturing Georgia actively induce others (e.g., consumers) to directly infringe the ’111 patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c), by providing products with GPS navigation systems, including but not limited to the Kia Sportage, along with instructions, user manuals, or technical assistance actively directing, encouraging, or assisting infringement of the ’111 patent, and/or by providing a system where one of the core and common features leads to third party infringement of the ’111 patent. 39. Upon information and belief, Kia Motors Corp., Kia Motors America, and Kia
Motors Manufacturing Georgia had knowledge of the ’111 patent based on a letter sent to each of them on September 28, 2011 but have engaged in infringing conduct nonetheless. Kia Motors Corp., Kia Motors America, and Kia Motors Manufacturing Georgia’s infringement is willful. 40. Beacon has no adequate remedy at law against these acts of patent infringement.
Unless Kia Motors Corp., Kia Motors America, and Kia Motors Manufacturing Georgia are permanently enjoined from further infringement of the ’111 patent, Beacon will suffer irreparable harm. 41. As a direct and proximate result of the acts of patent infringement by Kia Motors
Corp., Kia Motors America, and Kia Motors Manufacturing Georgia, Beacon has been damaged in an amount not presently known. 42. Beacon has incurred and will incur attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses in the
COUNT IV INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’511 PATENT 43. herein. 44. Kia Motors Corp., Kia Motors America, and Kia Motors Manufacturing Georgia Beacon incorporates each of the preceding paragraphs 1-12 as if fully set forth
have been and are infringing literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, directly, contributorily, or by inducement, at least claims 1 and 3 of the ’511 patent. 45. Kia Motors Corp., Kia Motors America, and Kia Motors Manufacturing Georgia
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 ’511 patent, including but not limited to the Kia Sportage. 46. Upon information and belief, Kia Motors Corp., Kia Motors America, and Kia
Motors Manufacturing Georgia had knowledge of the ’511 patent based on a letter sent to each of them on September 28, 2011. 47. Upon information and belief, Kia Motors Corp., Kia Motors America, and Kia
Motors Manufacturing Georgia have contributed to direct infringement of the ’511 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 Kia Sportage, are specially adapted for an infringing use of the ’511 patent, embody a material part of the inventions claimed in the ’511 patent, and are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use. 48. Upon information and belief, Kia Motors Corp., Kia Motors America, and Kia
Motors Manufacturing Georgia actively induce others (e.g., consumers) to directly infringe the ’511 patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c), by providing products with GPS navigation
systems, including but not limited to the Kia Sportage, along with instructions, user manuals, or technical assistance actively directing, encouraging or assisting infringement of the ’511 patent, and/or by providing a system where one of the core and common features leads to third party infringement of the ’511 patent. 49. Upon information and belief, Kia Motors Corp., Kia Motors America, and Kia
Motors Manufacturing Georgia had knowledge of the ’511 patent based on a letter sent to each of them on September 28, 2011 but have engaged in infringing conduct nonetheless. Kia Motors Corp., Kia Motors America, and Kia Motors Manufacturing Georgia’s infringement is willful. 50. Beacon has no adequate remedy at law against these acts of patent infringement.
Unless Kia Motors Corp., Kia Motors America, and Kia Motors Manufacturing Georgia are permanently enjoined from further infringement of the ’511 patent, Beacon will suffer irreparable harm. 51. As a direct and proximate result of the acts of patent infringement by Kia Motors
Corp., Kia Motors America, and Kia Motors Manufacturing Georgia, Beacon has been damaged in an amount not presently known. 52. 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 Kia Motors Corp., Kia Motors America, and Kia Motors Manufacturing Georgia, and that the Court award the following relief to Beacon:
expenses, costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285; a preliminary and, thereafter, a permanent injunction against Kia Motors Corp., Kia Motors America, and Kia Motors Manufacturing Georgia, their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all other persons in active concert or participation with any of them who receive actual notice thereof;
Sign up to vote on this titleUsefulNot usefulBeacon Navigation v. Kia Motors et. al. by PriorSmart0.0 (0)EmbedDownloadDescriptionOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-11441-PJD-MAR: Beacon Navigation GmbH v. Kia Motors Corp. et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Mic...Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-11441-PJD-MAR: Beacon Navigation GmbH v. Kia Motors Corp. 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/-l7U6 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
RelatedBrownmed v. Allsopby PriorSmartBergstrom v. Idle Free Systemsby PriorSmartBillingNetwork Patent v. Planet DDSby PatentBlastDDB Technologies v. Stat Crew Softwareby PriorSmartAugme Technologies v. Veltiby PriorSmartEtagz v. Playmates Toys Et. Al.by PatentBlastDurney et. al. v. Team Athletic Goodsby PriorSmartEclipse IP v. Groundlink et. al.by PriorSmartSecure Axcess v. Accell et. al.by PriorSmartMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Cantor Fitzgerald Et. Alby PatentBlast v. Ford Motor Companyby PriorSmartFlashpoint Technology v. Huawei Technologies et. al.by PriorSmartPhoenix Licensing et. al. v. American Express Company et. al.by PriorSmartBradley v. Applied Marine Systemsby PriorSmartPurl v. MindFire Internet Solutionsby PatentBlastLund v. Bushwacker Et. Al.by PatentBlastWest Liberty Foods v. Smithfield Foodsby PatentBlastGeotag v. SuccessFactorsby PatentBlastOSBE Parket et. al. v. Foam Productsby PriorSmartTrustees of Boston University v. Samsung Electronics Company Et. Al.by PatentBlastAcqis v. Alcatel-Lucent et. al.by PriorSmartBrilliant Optical Solutions v. Googleby PatentBlastTektronix Inc. v. The United States and the Hickok Electrical Instrument Co., Lavoie Laboratories, Inc., Jetronic Industries, Inc., Third-Party, 351 F.2d 630, 3rd Cir. (1965)by Scribd Government DocsSmith & Wesson v. Plinker Armsby PatentBlastMemory Integrity LLCby PriorSmartSwipe Innovations v. TSYS Merchant Solutions et. al.by PriorSmartImation v. Verbatimby PriorSmartOrder Granting Prelim. Injunction--AG Design v. Trainman Lanternby Robert ChristieSimilar to Beacon Navigation v. Kia Motors et. al.Skip carouselBrownmed v. AllsopBergstrom v. Idle Free SystemsBillingNetwork Patent v. Planet DDSDDB Technologies v. Stat Crew SoftwareAugme Technologies v. VeltiEtagz v. Playmates Toys Et. Al.Durney et. al. v. Team Athletic GoodsEclipse IP v. Groundlink et. al.Secure Axcess v. Accell et. al.Multiplayer Network Innovations v. Cantor Fitzgerald Et. Al v. Ford Motor CompanyFlashpoint Technology v. Huawei Technologies et. al.Phoenix Licensing et. al. v. American Express Company et. al.Bradley v. Applied Marine SystemsPurl v. MindFire Internet SolutionsLund v. Bushwacker Et. Al.West Liberty Foods v. Smithfield FoodsGeotag v. SuccessFactorsOSBE Parket et. al. v. Foam ProductsTrustees of Boston University v. Samsung Electronics Company Et. Al.Acqis v. Alcatel-Lucent et. al.Brilliant Optical Solutions v. GoogleTektronix Inc. v. The United States and the Hickok Electrical Instrument Co., Lavoie Laboratories, Inc., Jetronic Industries, Inc., Third-Party, 351 F.2d 630, 3rd Cir. (1965)Smith & Wesson v. Plinker ArmsMemory Integrity LLCSwipe Innovations v. TSYS Merchant Solutions et. al.Imation v. VerbatimOrder Granting Prelim. Injunction--AG Design v. Trainman LanternInternational Mulch Company v. Novel Ideas0Beacon Navigation v. Kia Motors et. al.