Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/171048161/Protegrity-v-Trustwave-Holdings
Timestamp: 2017-06-28 06:44:45
Document Index: 16130938

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

Protegrity v. Trustwave Holdings | Reexamination | Patent Infringement
Protegrity v. Trustwave HoldingsUploaded by PriorSmartRelated InterestsReexaminationPatent InfringementLawsuitPatent LawPatentRating and Stats0.0 (0)Document ActionsDownloadShare or Embed DocumentEmbedDescription: Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 3:13-cv-01409-JBA: Protegrity Corp v. Trustwave Holdings, Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, the Hon. ...View MoreOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 3:13-cv-01409-JBA: Protegrity Corp v. Trustwave Holdings, Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, the Hon. Janet Bond Arterton presiding. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l9cn 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 CONNECTICUT____________________________________ PROTEGRITY CORPORATION ) a Cayman Islands Company, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) TRUSTWAVE HOLDINGS, INC. ) a Delaware Corporation, ) ) Defendant. ) ____________________________________)
Civil Action No. 3:13-cv-1409
the country of The Cayman Islands, with its principal operating subsidiary in the United States, Protegrity USA, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, having its principal place of business at 5 High Ridge Park, Stamford, Connecticut 06905. 2. Upon information and belief, Defendant, Trustwave Holdings, Inc. is a Delaware
Corporation, having its principal place of business in the State of Illinois and having an office at 70 W Madison Street, Suite 1050, Chicago, IL 60602. 3. This action has arisen under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 United
under 28 U.S.C. §1391(c). 5. Prior to instituting this lawsuit, Protegrity requested additional technical
information concerning Trustwave’s products alleged to infringe the Patents-in-Suit. Aside from lawyer argument, Trustwave refused to provide additional technical information. COUNT I 6. On March 19, 2013, United States Patent Number 8,402,281 (hereinafter “’281
Patent”) entitled "Data Security System for a Database " was duly and regularly issued. A copy of the ‘281 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". 7. 8. Plaintiff is the owner of the ‘281 Patent. Upon information and belief, Defendant has directly or contributorily infringed or
induced the infringement of the claims of ‘281 Patent by having made, used or sold database security systems that duly embody the invention as claimed therein; such infringement was willful and deliberate; the infringement by Defendant of said Plaintiff's ‘281 Patent has deprived Plaintiff of sales which it otherwise would have made and has in other respects injured Plaintiff and will cause Plaintiff added injury and loss of profits unless enjoined by this Court. 9. 10. 11. The Plaintiff has been damaged by the acts of infringement complained of herein. The Plaintiff has no adequate remedy without the intervention of this Court. This case is "exceptional" within the meaning of 35 USC § 285. COUNT II 12. On November 20, 2001, United States Patent Number 6,321,201 (hereinafter
“’201 Patent”) entitled "Data Security System for a Database Having Multiple Encryption Levels Applicable on a Data Element Value Level" was duly and regularly issued. On October 4, 2011, Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate (8590th) related to ‘201 Patent was duly and regularly issued.
On January 10, 2012, a Certificate of Correction related to the reexamination certificate was duly and regularly issued. A copy of the aforesaid patent, reexamination certificate, and certificate of correction are attached hereto as Exhibit "B". 13. 14. Plaintiff is the owner of the ‘201 Patent. Upon information and belief, Defendant has directly or contributorily infringed or
induced the infringement of the claims of the ‘201 Patent by having made, used or sold database security systems that duly embody the invention as claimed therein; such infringement was willful and deliberate; the infringement by Defendant of said Plaintiff's ‘201 Patent has deprived Plaintiff of sales which it otherwise would have made and has in other respects injured Plaintiff and will cause Plaintiff added injury and loss of profits unless enjoined by this Court. 15. 16. 17. The Plaintiff has been damaged by the acts of infringement complained of herein. The Plaintiff has no adequate remedy without the intervention of this Court. This case is "exceptional" within the meaning of 35 USC § 285. COUNT III 18. On November 8, 2005, United States Patent Number 6,963,980 (hereinafter “’980
Patent”) entitled "Combined Hardware and Software Based Encryption of Databases” was duly and regularly issued. A copy of the aforesaid patent, reexamination certificate, and certificate of correction are attached hereto as Exhibit "C". 19. 20. Plaintiff is the owner of the ‘980 Patent. Upon information and belief, Defendant has directly or contributorily infringed or
induced the infringement of the claims of the ‘980 Patent by having made, used or sold database security systems that duly embody the invention as claimed therein; such infringement was willful and deliberate; the infringement by Defendant of said Plaintiff's ‘980 Patent has deprived
Plaintiff of sales which it otherwise would have made and has in other respects injured Plaintiff and will cause Plaintiff added injury and loss of profits unless enjoined by this Court. 21. 22. 23. The Plaintiff has been damaged by the acts of infringement complained of herein. The Plaintiff has no adequate remedy without the intervention of this Court. This case is "exceptional" within the meaning of 35 USC § 285. COUNT IV 24. On February 10, 2009, United States Patent Number 7,490,248 (hereinafter “248
Patent”) entitled "Method for Reencryption of a Database” was duly and regularly issued. A copy of the aforesaid patent, reexamination certificate, and certificate of correction are attached hereto as Exhibit "D". 25. 26. Plaintiff is the owner of the ‘248 Patent. Upon information and belief, Defendant has directly or contributorily infringed or
induced the infringement of the claims of the ‘248 Patent by having made, used or sold database security systems that duly embody the invention as claimed therein; such infringement was willful and deliberate; the infringement by Defendant of said Plaintiff's ‘248 Patent has deprived Plaintiff of sales which it otherwise would have made and has in other respects injured Plaintiff and will cause Plaintiff added injury and loss of profits unless enjoined by this Court. 27. 28. 29. The Plaintiff has been damaged by the acts of infringement complained of herein. The Plaintiff has no adequate remedy without the intervention of this Court. This case is "exceptional" within the meaning of 35 USC § 285. COUNT V 30. On January 29, 2008, United States Patent Number 7,325,129 (hereinafter “129
Patent”) entitled "Method for Altering Encryption Status in a Relational Database in a
Continuous Process” was duly and regularly issued. A copy of the aforesaid patent, reexamination certificate, and certificate of correction are attached hereto as Exhibit "E". 31. 32. Plaintiff is the owner of the ‘129 Patent. Upon information and belief, Defendant has directly or contributorily infringed or
induced the infringement of the claims of the ‘129 Patent by having made, used or sold database security systems that duly embody the invention as claimed therein; such infringement was willful and deliberate; the infringement by Defendant of said Plaintiff's ‘129 Patent has deprived Plaintiff of sales which it otherwise would have made and has in other respects injured Plaintiff and will cause Plaintiff added injury and loss of profits unless enjoined by this Court. 33. 34. 35. The Plaintiff has been damaged by the acts of infringement complained of herein. The Plaintiff has no adequate remedy without the intervention of this Court. This case is "exceptional" within the meaning of 35 USC § 285.
and all those in privity with it from further infringement of Plaintiff’s ‘281, ‘201, ‘980, ‘248, and ‘129 Patents. B. Defendant be required to account to Plaintiff for the damages recoverable by
Plaintiff under 35 U.S.C. §284 as a result of the wrongful making, using, and selling of Plaintiff's inventions as claimed in Plaintiff's ‘281, ‘201, ‘980, ‘248, and ‘129 Patents, the exact extent of which cannot now be determined by Plaintiff, and that all of such damages be trebled. C. D. Plaintiff be awarded reasonable attorney fees; Plaintiff be allowed its costs; and
Such other and further relief be granted to which Plaintiff may be justly entitled. JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff demands a trial by jury. September 25, 2013 Respectfully submitted,
Stephen P. McNamara, ct01220 ST. ONGE STEWARD JOHNSTON & REENS, LLC 986 Bedford Street Stamford, Connecticut 06905-5619 Telephone: 203/324-6155 Facsimile: 203/327-1096 smcnamara@ssjr.com litigation@ssjr.com and Stefan V. Stein, concurrently seeking pro hac vice admission Florida Bar Number 300527 Woodrow H. Pollack, concurrently seeking pro hac vice admission Florida Bar Number 26802 GRAYROBINSON, PA Suite 2700 401 E. Jackson Street Tampa, Florida 33602 Telephone: 813/273-5000 Facsimile: 813/273-5145 stefan.stein@gray-robinson.com woodrow.pollack@gray-robinson.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Protegrity Corporation
Recommended DocumentsDocuments Similar To Protegrity v. Trustwave HoldingsSkip carouselThermolife International v. Intensity NutritionCanatelo v. Grandstream NetworksPinpoint v. OrbitzActivision TV v. Omni Hotels ManagementGraphics Properties Holdings v. AppleESPN Patent LawsuitMobile Transformation v. DailymotionJSDQ Mesh Technologies LLC v. AT&TRembrandt 07 1848Polyzen v. RadiadyneParallel Networks v. OnNetMission Abstract Data L.L.C. v. Beasley Broad. Group, Inc., C.A. No. 11-176-LPS (D. Del. Nov. 14, 2011)The Procter & Gamble Company v. Kraft Foods Global, Inc. - Document No. 68Marhaygue v. Wolfpac TechnologiesSpiker v. Martin Et. Al.Stec Ip v. GoogleRubber Co. v. Goodyear, 76 U.S. 807 (1870)LifeScreen Sciences v. C R Bard et. al.LifeScreen Sciences v. C.R. Bard et. al.Fellowes v. Intelli-Zone et. al.Joao Control & Monitoring Systems v. Ford Motor CompanyCharge Lion v. SemtechCase In Point et. al. v. Mermaid Manufacturing of Southwest FloridaStambler v. Ameriprise Financial et. al.Kidd et. al. v. Home DepotLaw on PatentsPragmatus Telecom v. Office DepotA&J Manufacturing Et. Al. v. BrinkmannIngeniador v. DillardsPatent Litigation in CaliforniaDocuments About ReexaminationSkip carouselGPS Industries v. Deca InternationalInteplast Group v. Primex Plastics13-11-20 Samsung Statement of Recent Decision Re. '915 Patent13-04-16 Apple Declaration Regarding Patent ReexaminationsLunarEye v. Gps InsightLandmark Technology v. Louis Vuitton North AmericaEMG Technology v. MastercardNeoMedia Technologies v. Dunkin' Brands GroupEMG Technology v. ExpediaSRI International v. Cisco SystemsJapanese Foundation For Cancer Research v. Rea et. al.Washington Research Foundation v. Sharp et. al.GrafTech International Holdings v. Research In Motion et. al.NeoMedia Technologies v. Taco BellHelferich Patent Licensing v. CBSCassidian Communications v. microDATA GISRein v. US Patent & Trademark Office, 553 F.3d 353, 4th Cir. (2009)Implicit v. F5 NetworksDigiMedia Holdings Group v. Access.1 Communications13-04-02 Apple Response Re '381 Patent 'Final' RejectionPresident and Fellows of Harvard College et. al. v. Kappos et. al.Landmark Technology v. Abercrombie & Fitch CompanyGPS Industries v. DSG Tag Systems et. al.Scalar v. ZarbecoScalar v. Micro WorldJAB Distributors v. STS Linens et. al.DigiMedia Holdings Group v. Tomlinson-Leis CommunicationsThermo-Ply v. Ohio Willow Wood Company et. al.HVAC Modulation Technologies v. Goodman GlobalLandmark Technology v. Jones GroupMore 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