Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/151060193/Safe-Storage-v-Emulex-et-al
Timestamp: 2017-04-24 19:41:04
Document Index: 167823162

Matched Legal Cases: ['art0', '§ 1', '§ 271', '§ 1331', '§ 1391', '§ 271', '§ 284', '§ 285']

ScribdBrowseInterestsPolitics & Current AffairsCareer & MoneyPersonal GrowthFictionHealth & FitnessLifestyleEntertainmentBiographies & HistoryScience & TechBrowse byBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinSafe Storage v. Emulex et. al.Uploaded by PriorSmart0.0 (0)DownloadEmbedDescription: Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-01150-UNA: Safe Storage LLC v. Emulex Corporation et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, no judge ...View MoreOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-01150-UNA: Safe Storage LLC v. Emulex Corporation et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l8F3 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 DELAWARE SAFE STORAGE LLC, Plaintiff, v.EMULEX CORPORATION (OF DELAWARE) AND EMULEX CORPORATION (OF CALIFORNIA), Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT This is an action for patent infringement in which Plaintiff Safe Storage LLC (“Safe Storage”) makes the following allegations against Defendants Emulex Corporation (of Delaware) and Emulex Corporation (of California) (collectively, “Emulex”): PARTIES 1. 2. Plaintiff Safe Storage LLC is a Delaware limited liability company. On information and belief, Defendant Emulex Corporation (of Delaware)
(“Emulex-Delaware”) is a Delaware corporation with its principal office at 3333 Susan Street, Costa Mesa, California 92626. Emulex-Delaware has appointed The Corporation Trust
Company, Corporation Trust Center, 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801, as its agent for service of process. 3. On information and belief, Defendant Emulex Corporation (of California)
(“Emulex-California”) is a California corporation with its principal office at 3333 Susan Street, Costa Mesa, California 92626. Emulex-California has appointed C T Corporation System, 818
W Seventh Street, Los Angeles, California 90017, as its agent for service of process. On information and belief, Emulex-California is a subsidiary of Emulex-Delaware.1 4. Upon information and belief, at all pertinent times herein mentioned, Defendants,
and each of them, were the agents and/or alter egos of their Co-Defendants and shared a unity of interest with their Co-Defendants, and, in doing the things hereinafter alleged, were acting within the course and scope of such agency and with the permission and consent of their CoDefendants. Defendants, and each of them, had and have actual or constructive knowledge of the events, transactions and occurrences alleged herein, and either knew or should have known of the conduct of their Co-Defendants and cooperated in, benefited from and/or ratified such conduct. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1, et
seq., including § 271. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). 6. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Emulex because, among other reasons,
Emulex is incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware, has done business in this District, has committed and continues to commit acts of patent infringement in this District, and has harmed and continues to harm Safe Storage in this District, by, among other things, using, selling, offering for sale, and importing infringing products and services in this District. 7. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)-(c) and 1400(b)
because, among other reasons, Emulex is subject to personal jurisdiction in this District, and has committed and continues to commit acts of patent infringement in this District. On information
See http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/350917/000119312512375827/d364701dex21.htm (Form 10-K of Emulex-Delaware identifying Emulex-California as one of its many subsidiaries). 2
and belief, for example, Emulex has used, sold, offered for sale, and imported infringing products in this District. COUNT I INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,978,346 8. United States Patent No. 6,978,346 (“the Safe Storage Patent” or “the ’346
Patent”) was invented by Sung-Hoon Baek, Joong-Bae Kim, and Yong-Youn Kim of the Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (“ETRI”). ETRI is the national leader in Korea in the research and development of information technologies. Since its inception in 1976, ETRI has developed new technologies in 4M DRAM computer memory, CDMA and 4G LTE cellular phone communications, LCD displays, as well as large-scale computer storage, the technology at issue in this case. ETRI employs over 1730 research/technical staff, of whom 93% hold a post-graduate degrees and 41% have earned a doctoral degree in their technological field. Over the last five years, ETRI has applied for a total of 18,639 patents, has contributed 7,548 proposals that have been adopted by international and domestic standard organizations, and has published over 1,300 articles in peer-reviewed technology publications. 9. Safe Storage is the exclusive licensee of the ’346 Patent entitled “Apparatus for
redundant interconnection between multiple hosts and RAID” (“Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks”). The application for the ‘346 Patent was filed on December 29, 2000, with a priority date of at least September 19, 2000. The patent issued on December 20, 2005. Pursuant to Safe Storage’s exclusive license, Safe Storage has all substantial rights regarding the ‘346 Patent, including the exclusive right to bring suit for infringement of the ‘346 Patent. A true and correct copy of the Safe Storage Patent is attached as Exhibit A. 10. The Safe Storage Patent claims, inter alia, an apparatus for a redundant
interconnection between multiple hosts and a RAID, comprising: a first RAID controlling unit 3
and a second RAID controlling unit for processing a requirement of numerous host computers, the first RAID controlling unit including a first network controlling unit and a second network controlling unit, and the second RAID controlling unit including a third network controlling unit and a fourth network controlling unit; and a plurality of connection units for connecting the first RAID controlling units and the second RAID controlling unit to the numerous host computers, wherein the first RAID controlling unit and the second RAID controlling unit directly exchange information with the numerous host computers through the plurality of connecting units, and the first network controlling unit exchanges information with the fourth network controlling unit, and the second network controlling unit exchanges information with the third network controlling unit. 11. One embodiment of the invention of the Safe Storage Patent is shown in Fig. 5
Emulex has been and now is directly infringing the Safe Storage Patent literally
and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, in this judicial District and elsewhere in the United States, by, among other things, making, using, importing, offering for sale, and/or selling redundant RAID storage system products and services that include an apparatus for a redundant interconnection between multiple hosts and a RAID, comprising: a first RAID controlling unit and a second RAID controlling unit for processing a requirement of numerous host computers, the first RAID controlling unit including a first network controlling unit and a second network controlling unit, and the second RAID controlling unit including a third network controlling unit and a fourth network controlling unit; and a plurality of connection units for connecting the first RAID controlling units and the second RAID controlling unit to the numerous host computers, wherein the first RAID controlling unit and the second RAID controlling unit directly exchange information with the numerous host computers through the plurality of connecting units, and the 5
first network controlling unit exchanges information with the fourth network controlling unit, and the second network controlling unit exchanges information with the third network controlling unit. The infringing products and services include, for example, Emulex’s 8Gb/s Fibre Channel Dual-Port PCIe HBA (host bus adapter cards). 13. Emulex has had knowledge of the Safe Storage Patent since at least June 28,
2013, when it received a letter identifying the ‘346 Patent, Emulex’s 8Gb/s Fibre Channel DualPort PCIe HBA, and exemplary evidence of infringement, including the evidence set forth in Paragraph 14 below, and Emulex has induced its customers, users of Emulex’s 8Gb/s Fibre Channel Dual-Port PCIe HBA, to assemble and use an apparatus for a redundant interconnection between multiple hosts and a RAID, comprising: a first RAID controlling unit and a second RAID controlling unit for processing a requirement of numerous host computers, the first RAID controlling unit including a first network controlling unit and a second network controlling unit, and the second RAID controlling unit including a third network controlling unit and a fourth network controlling unit; and a plurality of connection units for connecting the first RAID controlling units and the second RAID controlling unit to the numerous host computers, wherein the first RAID controlling unit and the second RAID controlling unit directly exchange information with the numerous host computers through the plurality of connecting units, and the first network controlling unit exchanges information with the fourth network controlling unit, and the second network controlling unit exchanges information with the third network controlling unit. 14. For example, Emulex has instructed its customers, users of Emulex’s 8Gb/s Fibre
Channel Dual-Port PCIe HBA, to connect these HBA cards to two switches and the two RAID controllers on a storage array in the manner shown in the below diagram:
These instructions were made available by Emulex to its customers on the following Emulex website,2 http://www.implementerslab.com/artifacts/da5335e2-0423-43cf-af583a3f5ad4ef0a/elx_sis_all_ibmsysx_8gb_vmware.pdf (entitled, “Deployment Guide: Deploying 8Gb/s Fibre Channel with IBM System x Servers and VMware vSphere”, page 55) and in making these instructions available, Emulex specifically intended to encourage its customers to follow these instructions to assemble Emulex’s 8Gb/s Fibre Channel Dual-Port PCIe HBA with other components into an infringing system, knowing that the assembly and use of the system described in its instructions constituted infringement of the ‘346 Patent.
See http://www.networksolutions.com/whois/results.jsp?domain=implementerslab.com (showing Emulex as the Registrant of the implementerslab.com domain name).
Thus, Emulex has induced its customers to infringe the Safe Storage Patent
literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents. Upon information and belief, Emulex acted with the specific intent to induce its customers to make and use the apparatus claimed by the Safe Storage Patent by continuing the above-mentioned activities with knowledge of the Safe Storage Patent. 16. By engaging in the conduct described herein, Emulex has injured Safe Storage
and is thus liable for infringement of the ‘346 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271. 17. authorization. 18. As a result of Emulex’s infringement of the ‘346 Patent, Safe Storage has suffered Emulex has committed these acts of infringement without license or
monetary damages and is entitled to a money judgment in an amount adequate to compensate for Emulex’s infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by Emulex, together with interest and costs as fixed by the Court, and Safe Storage will continue to suffer damages in the future unless Emulex’s infringing activities are enjoined by this Court. 19. Safe Storage has also suffered and will continue to suffer severe and irreparable
harm unless this Court issues a permanent injunction prohibiting Emulex, its agents, servants, employees, representatives, and all others acting in active concert therewith from infringing the ‘346 Patent.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Safe Storage respectfully requests that this Court enter: A. A judgment in favor of Safe Storage that Emulex has infringed, directly and/or indirectly, the ‘346 Patent; B. A permanent injunction enjoining Emulex and its officers, directors, agents, servants, affiliates, employees, divisions, branches, subsidiaries, parents, and all others acting in active concert therewith from infringement of the Safe Storage Patent, or such other equitable relief the Court determines is warranted; C. A judgment and order requiring Emulex to pay Safe Storage its damages, costs, expenses, and prejudgment and post-judgment interest for Emulex’s infringement of the ‘346 Patent as provided under 35 U.S.C. § 284; D. A judgment and order finding that this is an exceptional case within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285 and awarding to Safe Storage its reasonable attorneys’ fees against Emulex; E. A judgment and order requiring Emulex to provide an accounting and to pay supplemental damages to Safe Storage, including without limitation, prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and F. Any and all other relief to which Safe Storage may be entitled. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Safe Storage, under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, requests a trial by jury of any issues so triable by right.
Dated: June 28, 2013 Of Counsel: Alexander C.D. Giza Marc A. Fenster Jeffrey Z.Y. Liao RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT 12424 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor Los Angeles, California 90025 (310) 826-7474 agiza@raklaw.com mfenster@raklaw.com jliao@raklaw.com
Documents Similar To Safe Storage v. Emulex Et. Al.Skip carouselSpécifications (anglais) (1)Prepking HP0-238 Exam QuestionsServer+ Certification BibleRaid in linux20141003-QNAP Turbo NAS Hardware Manual ENG3PAR Customer Presentation Open Network Solutions v. Wincor Nixdorf International Et. Al.dx60-dx80-br_smbRaidA 2313540CompuSpace L.C. v. IDC Solutions Ptry. et. al.Real World WebAlpha Financial Technologies v. Mount Lucas ManagementSpinal Generations v. Atlas SpineGametek v. RockyouEfficiency Systems v. Oracle et. al.Storage Area Networks SAN Basic L1 and L2 Interview Question and AnswersReasonable Prefiling Investigation and the Test for Rule 11.pdfINTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS.docxJ-Channel Industries v. Home Depot et. al.Post Trips Patenting Trends -2000-2006Manual Lmt 1.0 1 Beta1Sampo IP v. IntuitEverglades Game Technologies v. GSN Games Et. Al.CELG v ACT - Complaint Filed May 15, 2014Celgene v. Natco Pharma et. al.FLH BIO 2011 BrochureIntellectual Property RightsIPR Projects Allotment List January 2016.docxAdidas America Inc. v. Skechers USA Inc.Documents About PatentSkip carousel16-12-20 Apple Complaint v. Acacia Et Al.Gillette Company v. ADKM, Inc. d/b/a Harry's Razor Company et. al.AppleVsSamsung_11.07.05Samsung vs Apple - Samsung's Appeal to the Supreme CourtNike v. SkechersConsulting AgreementNokiaVsApple_11.03.31.100Wizards of the Coast v. Cryptozoic Entertainment et. al.PRICELINE COM INC 10-K (Annual Reports) 2009-02-20Apple vs Android 10.12.02Nokia Complaint Against Apple in federal district court, WisconsinDavid Einhorn's presentation on Green Mountain RoastersBeyond PhilanthropyAgainst Intellectual Property, by Stephan Kinsella Koninklijke Philips N.V. et. al. v. Nintendo et. al.Bose v. Beats Civil ComplaintBose vs Beats (ITC complaint)Provisional Patent ApplicationGoogle Dec Action vs RockstarApple vs Samsung 11.04.22Translation of Mannheim 2O240 Ruling Motorola v MicrosoftNovartis patent JudgementAppleVsHTCandS3_11.07.29MicrosoftVsMotorola_11.12.11GENENTECH INC 10-K (Annual Reports) 2009-02-20Rockstar v Samsung.pdfEPO Examiners Can No Longer Ensure Appropriate Quality Standards12-04-30 Apple-Samsung Teksler-Kim Letter Re FRAND3D Systems v. Formlabs et. al.BU v AppleMore From PatentBlastSkip carouselMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Samsung Electronics Et. AlMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Nintendo of America Et. AlMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Cantor Fitzgerald Et. AlMultiplayer Network Innovations v. ZTE Et. AlMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Toshiba AmericaMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Pantech Et. AlMultiplayer Network Innovations v. NVIDIAActifio v. DelphixRTC Industries v. Flextronics InternationalTactical Medical Solutions v. Karl Et. AlPrometheus Laboratories v. Par Pharmaceutical Companies Et. AlAndrea Electronics v. Lenovo Group Et. Al.Andrea Electronics v. Toshiba Et. Al.Property Disclosure Technologies v. TruliaGlobal Tel*Link v. Securus Technologies et. al.Century Board v. National Registered AgentsIatric Systems v. FairWarningHologram Et. Al. v. Arena3D Industrial Illusion Et. Al.Tech-ni-Fold v. F.P. Rosback CompanyRTC Industries v. ZiveloMotobatt v. Deltran OperationsImpax Laboratories Et. Al. v. Lannett Holdings Et. Al.Alkermes Pharma Ireland v. Sun Pharma Global FZE Et. Al.Unimed Pharmaceuticals Et. Al. v. Perrigo Company Et. Al.Sensus v. Certified MeasurementCapella Photonics v. TellabsCapella Photonics v. Fujitsu Network CommunicationsCapella Photonics v. CienaILife Technologies v. AliphComAeritas v. GameStop