Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/135462447/Digcom-Inc-vs-Casio-Computer-et-al
Timestamp: 2018-09-24 12:07:24
Document Index: 39441611

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 282', '§ 282', '§ 282', '§ 282', '§ 271', '§ 1331', '§ 1391', '§ 285']

Digcom, Inc, vs Casio Computer, et. al. | Patent Infringement | Doctrine Of Equivalents
Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 3:13-cv-00176-MMD-WGC: Digcom, Inc, vs Casio Computer, et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, the Hon…Full description
Dan C. Bowen, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 1555 Ann O. Hall, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 5447 BOWEN HALL 555 South Center Street Reno, Nevada 89501 Telephone: (775) 323-8678 Fax: (775) 786-6631 OF COUNSEL: Matthew J.M. Prebeg (Pro hac pending) Christopher M. Faucett (Pro hac pending) Steven W. Abbott (Pro hac pending) Matthew S. Compton, Jr. (Pro hac pending) CLEARMAN PREBEG LLP 815 Walker Street, Suite 1040 Houston, Texas 77002 Tel: 713.223.7070 Fax: 713.223.7071 Andrew Kochanowski (Pro hac pending) SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, Suite 1700 Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: 248.746.4048 Fax: 248.936.2153 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA DIGCOM, INC., A Nevada Corporation, Plaintiff, vs. CASIO COMPUTER CO., LTD., CASIO AMERICA, INC., and NEC CASIO MOBILE COMMUICATIONS, LTD., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Plaintiff Digcom, Inc., for its Complaint against Defendants Casio Computer Co., Ltd., Casio America, Inc., and NEC Casio Mobile Communications, Ltd., alleges as follows: THE PARTIES 1. Plaintiff Digcom, Inc. (hereinafter “DIGCOM”) is a Nevada Corporation
with its corporate headquarters and principal place of business at 923 Tahoe Boulevard, Suite 210, Incline Village, Nevada 89451. 2. Upon information and belief, Casio Computer Co., Ltd. is a corporation
organized and existing under the laws of Japan, with its principal place of business at 6-2, Hon-machi 1-chome, Shibuya-ku, Tokyo 151-8543, Japan. On information and belief,
Casio Computer Co., Ltd. transferred its cellular phone business to NEC Casio Mobile Communications, Ltd. on June 1, 2010 and currently is a 20 percent shareholder of NEC Casio Mobile Communications, Ltd. 3. Upon information and belief, Casio America, Inc. is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Defendant Casio Computer Co., Ltd., and is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York, with its principal place of business at 570 Mt Pleasant Ave, Dover, New Jersey 07801. Casio America, Inc. may be served with process by serving its registered agent, Corporation Service Company, 80 State Street, Albany, New York 12207.
Upon information and belief, NEC Casio Mobile Communications, Ltd. is a
corporation organized and existing under the laws of Japan, with its principal place of business at 1753, Shimonumabe, Nakahara-Ku, Kawasaki, Kanagawa, 211-8666, Japan.
Throughout this pleading, and unless specifically noted otherwise, Defendants Casio Computer Co., Ltd., Casio America, Inc., and NEC Casio Mobile Communications, Ltd. will be referenced collectively as the “Defendants”. The term “Defendants” also includes the Defendants’ employees, agents, and all other persons or entities that the Defendants direct and/or control.
THE PATENTS U.S. Patent No. 7,627,320 5. On December 1, 2009, United States Patent No. 7,627,320, entitled “Voice,
Location Finder, Modulation Format Selectable Wi-Fi, Cellular Mobile Systems” (the “‘320 patent”) was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A
true and correct copy of the ‘320 patent is attached as Exhibit A. 6. 7. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 282, the ‘320 patent is presumed valid. The ‘320 patent is a continuation application of U.S. utility patent application
Ser. No. 11/745,201 entitled: “Video, Voice and Location Finder Wireless Communication
System,” which is a continuation application of U.S. utility patent application Ser. No. 11/197,610 entitled: “Location Finder, Tracker, Communication and Remote Control system”, filed on August 3, 2005 and now U.S. Pat. No. 7,260,369, issued on August 21, 2007. U.S. Patent No. 7,805,143
On September 28, 2010, United States Patent No. 7,805,143, entitled
“Mobile Video Internet, Cellular and Location Finder System” (the “‘143 patent”) was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A true and correct copy of the ‘143 patent is attached as Exhibit B.
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 282, the ‘143 patent is presumed valid. The ‘143 patent is a continuation application of U.S. utility patent application
Ser. No. 11/867,688 entitled: “Barcode Reader, Location Finder, GPS, Navigational Interactive TDMA, GSM, GPRS, EDGE, CDMA, OFDM, Wi-Fi, Wireless and Wired System,” and a continuation application of U.S. utility patent application Ser. No.
11/197,609 entitled: “Multimode Communication System”, filed on August 3, 2005 and now U.S. Pat. No. 7,280,810, issued on October 9, 2007. U.S. Patent No. 7,809,374 11. On October 5, 2010, United States Patent No. 7,809,374, entitled “Video
Mobile Communication System” (the “‘374 patent”) was duly and legally issued by the
United States Patent and Trademark Office. A true and correct copy of the ‘374 patent is attached as Exhibit C. 12. 13. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 282, the ‘374 patent is presumed valid. The ‘374 patent is a continuation application of U.S. utility patent application
Ser. No. 11/745,201 entitled: “Video, Voice and Location Finder Wireless Communication System”, which is a continuation of U.S. utility patent application Ser. No. 11/197,610 entitled: “Location Finder, Tracker, Communication and Remote Control System,” filed on August 3, 2005 and now U.S. Pat. No. 7,260,369, issued on Aug. 21, 2007. U.S. Patent No. 7,983,678
On July 19, 2011, United States Patent No. 7,983,678, entitled “3G and Wi-
Fi Connected Mobile Systems” (the “‘678 patent”) was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A true and correct copy of the ‘678 patent is attached as Exhibit D.
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 282, the ‘678 patent is presumed valid. The ‘678 patent is a continuation application of U.S. patent application Ser.
No. 12/767,802, filed on Apr. 27, 2010, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,877,110, entitled: “Cascaded 4G, 3G, 2G and Other Systems” and is a continuation application of U.S. patent application
Ser. No. 11/924,263, filed on Oct. 25, 2007, entitled: “VoIP Multimode WLAN, Wi-Fi, GSM, EDGE, TDMA, Spread Spectrum, CDMA Systems” and now U.S. Pat. No. 7,711,368, and is a continuation application of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/745,201, filed on May 7, 2007, entitled: “Video, Voice and Location Finder Wireless Communication System”, and now U.S. Pat. No. 7,558,574 and is a continuation application of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/197,610, filed on Aug. 3, 2005, entitled: “Location Finder, Tracker, Communication and Remote Control System,” and now U.S. Pat. No. 7,260,369, issued on Aug. 21, 2007. 17. The ‘320 patent, ‘143 patent, ‘374 patent, and ‘678 patent are collectively
referred to as “the patents-in-suit”. DIGCOM is the exclusive licensee of the patents-in-suit and has all substantial rights in and to the patents-in-suit, including the right to sue and collect damages for past, present, and future infringement.
THE INVENTOR OF THE PATENTS IN SUIT 18. The sole named inventor of the patents-in-suit is Kamilo Feher, Ph.D. Dr.
Feher is a former professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the University of California, Davis, and also was a Professor at the University of Ottawa, Canada, Concordia University, Montreal, Santa Clara University, and Stanford University in Palo Alto, California. He is the author of six books in the wireless digital communications field, which
have been published in the United States and translated into Russian and Chinese. He has also authored more than 300 IEEE articles and other related industry publications. In the past, Dr. Feher developed and patented technology that was licensed to U.S. companies for manufacturing products for use by NASA and the U.S. Department of Defense. Dr. Feher is the president and CEO of DIGCOM.
In addition to his academic accomplishments, Dr. Feher is a prolific inventor
and is the named inventor of over 80 United States patents and their foreign counterparts. These patents, generally speaking, relate to wireless telecommunications methods, apparatuses and systems. In March 2011, along with Interdigital Corp. and Qualcomm, Inc., among others, Dr.
Feher was recognized as a leading patent owner in mobile data transmission (See http://www.griffithhack.com.au/Assets/1956/1/GH_Smartphones_final.pdf, pg. 21, Figs. 11 and 12; last visited March 28, 2013). JURISDICTION AND VENUE
States Code, particularly §§ 271, 281, 283, 284 and 285. This Court has jurisdiction over the claim for patent infringement under Title 28 United States Code §§ 1331 and 1338(a). 21. Personal jurisdiction exists generally over each of the Defendants because,
upon information and belief, each Defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with the
forum as a result of business conducted within the State of Nevada and within the District of Nevada; purposefully availed itself of the privileges of conducting business in the State of Nevada and in the District of Nevada; sought protection and benefit from the laws of the State of Nevada; transacted business in a continuous and systematic manner within the State
of Nevada and within the District of Nevada, including but not limited to, making, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or leasing products and/or services as described and claimed in the patents-in-suit either directly or through subsidiaries and/or intermediaries; and because DIGCOM’s causes of action arise directly from The Defendants’ business contacts and other activities in the State of Nevada and in the District of Nevada.
On information and belief, The Defendants derive substantial revenue from
the sale of the Accused Products referred to in paragraphs 31, 46, 61 and 76 of the Complaint to companies organized and existing under the laws of the State of Nevada, and/or the Defendants derive substantial revenue from products sold or distributed within this District.
interstate and international commerce. 24. On information and belief, the Defendants expect or should reasonably
The above acts cause injury to DIGCOM within this District.
Venue is proper in this Court under Title 28 United States Code §§ 1391(b)–(c) and 1400(b). COUNT I: FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,627,320)
Plaintiff incorporates its previous allegations by the reference. Accused Products
The Defendants have been and are now making, using, selling, offering for
sale within the United States, or importing into the United States, at least the following
mobile system products: Casio G’zOne Commando (at least the model sold via Verizon Wireless) and other mobile products (hereinafter the “Accused Products I”). Direct Infringement 28. By so making, using, selling, or offering to sell within the United States, or
importing into the United States at least the aforementioned Accused Products I, the
Defendants have directly infringed and continue to infringe at least claim 5 of the ‘320 patent, either literally or by equivalents. Inducement of Infringement 29. The Defendants have had knowledge of the ‘320 patent at least since the
serving of the underlying complaint in this case.
Since becoming aware of the ‘320 patent, the Defendants have continued to
intentionally, actively, and knowingly advertise about, import, export, sell, offer to sell, lease, and/or offer to lease one or more of the Accused Products I through their websites, including but not limited to CASIOGZONE.com, retailers, resellers and distributors, as well
as in other ways. 31. Since becoming aware of the ‘320 patent, the Defendants’ advertising and
sales of one or more of the Accused Products I have intentionally, actively, knowingly, and willfully contained and continues to contain instructions, directions, suggestions, and/or invitations that intentionally, actively, and knowingly invite, entice, lead on, influence,
prevail on, move by persuasion, cause, and/or influence the public, the Defendants’ distributors, the Defendants’ retailers, the Defendants’ customers, and/or
CASIOGZONE.com website users to, at least, import, export, make, use, sell, offer to sell, lease and/or offer to lease one or more of the Accused Products I to practice the inventions
claimed in the ‘320 patent, and thus directly infringe the patent, either literally or by equivalents. 32. Since becoming aware of the ‘320 patent, the Defendants were willfully
blind, knew, or should have known that the public’s, the distributor’s, the retailer’s, the customer’s and/or the website user’s acts relative to importing, exporting, making, using,
selling, offering to sell, leasing, and/or offering to lease one or more of the Accused Products I to practice the inventions claimed in the ‘320 patent, directly infringe, either literally or by equivalents, at least claim 5 of the ‘320 patent. 33. ‘320 patent. For these reasons, the Defendants are liable for inducing infringement of the
Contributory Infringement At least for the reasons stated above, the Defendants have had actual knowledge of the ‘320 patent. 34. Since becoming aware of the ‘320 patent, the Defendants have intentionally,
actively, and knowingly offered to sell or sold the Accused Products I within the United
States or imported the Accused Products I into the United States. 35. By selling, offering to sell, and/or importing into the United States one or
more of the Accused Products I and the components thereof, the Defendants have contributed to the infringement by the public, the distributors, the retailers, the customers and the website users who import, export, make, use, sell, offer to sell, lease, and/or offer to
lease one or more of the Accused Products I to practice the inventions claimed in the ‘320 patent, and thus directly infringe the patent, either literally or by the doctrine of equivalents.
Since becoming aware of the ‘320 patent, the Defendants were willfully
blind, knew, or should have known that the Accused Products I were especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of at least claim 5 of the ‘320 patent. 37. The Accused Products I are not a staple article or commodity of commerce
suitable for substantial noninfringing use because they are especially configured to infringe
at least claim 5 of the ‘320 patent, either literally or through the doctrine of equivalents. 38. Since becoming aware of the ‘320 patent, the Defendants were willfully
blind, knew, or should have known that the Accused Products I were not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use. For these reasons, the Defendants are contributory infringers of at least claim 5 of
the ‘320 patent, either literally or through the doctrine of equivalents. COUNT II: SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,805,143)
sale within the United States, or importing into the United States, at least the following mobile system products: Casio G’zOne Commando (at least the model sold via Verizon Wireless) and other mobile products (hereinafter the “Accused Products II”).
Direct Infringement 41. By so making, using, selling, or offering to sell within the United States, or
importing into the United States at least the aforementioned Accused Products II, the
Defendants have directly infringed and continue to infringe at least claim 2 of the ‘143 patent, either literally or by equivalents. Inducement of Infringement 42. The Defendants have had knowledge of the ‘143 patent at least since the
Since becoming aware of the ‘143 patent, the Defendants have continued to
intentionally, actively, and knowingly advertise about, import, export, sell, offer to sell, lease, and/or offer to lease one or more of the Accused Products II through their websites, including but not limited to CASIOGZONE.com, retailers, resellers and distributors, as well as in other ways.
Since becoming aware of the ‘143 patent, the Defendants’ advertising and
sales of one or more of the Accused Products II have intentionally, actively, knowingly, and willfully contained and continues to contain instructions, directions, suggestions, and/or invitations that intentionally, actively, and knowingly invite, entice, lead on, influence,
CASIOGZONE.com website users to, at least, import, export, make, use, sell, offer to sell, lease and/or offer to lease one or more of the Accused Products II to practice the inventions claimed in the ‘143 patent, and thus directly infringe the patent, either literally or by
equivalents. 45. Since becoming aware of the ‘143 patent, the Defendants were willfully
blind, knew, or should have known that the public’s, the distributors’, the retailers’, the customers’ and/or the website users’ acts relative to importing, exporting, making, using,
selling, offering to sell, leasing, and/or offering to lease one or more of the Accused Products II to practice the inventions claimed in the ‘143 patent, directly infringe, either literally or by equivalents, at least claim 2 of the ‘143 patent. 46. ‘143 patent. For these reasons, the Defendants are liable for inducing infringement of the
Contributory Infringement 47. At least for the reasons stated above, the Defendants have had actual
knowledge of the ‘143 patent. 48. Since becoming aware of the ‘143 patent, the Defendants have intentionally,
actively, and knowingly offered to sell or sold the Accused Products II within the United
States or imported the Accused Products II into the United States. 49. By selling, offering to sell, and/or importing into the United States one or
more of the Accused Products II and the components thereof, the Defendants has contributed to the infringement by the public, the distributors, the retailers, the customers
and the website users who import, export, make, use, sell, offer to sell, lease, and/or offer to lease one or more of the Accused Products II to practice the inventions claimed in the ‘143 patent, and thus directly infringe the patent, either literally or by the doctrine of equivalents. 50. Since becoming aware of the ‘143 patent, the Defendants were willfully
blind, knew, or should have known that the Accused Products II were especially made or
especially adapted for use in an infringement of at least claim 2 of the ‘143 patent. 51. The Accused Products II are not a staple article or commodity of commerce
suitable for substantial noninfringing use because they are especially configured to infringe at least claim 2 of the ‘143 patent, either literally or through the doctrine of equivalents.
Since becoming aware of the ‘143 patent, the Defendants were willfully
blind, knew, or should have known that the Accused Products II were not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use. For these reasons, the Defendants are contributory infringers of at least claim 2 of the ‘143 patent, either literally or through the doctrine of equivalents.
COUNT III: THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF (INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,809,374)
sale within the United States, or importing into the United States, at least the following mobile system products: Casio G’zOne Commando (at least the model sold via Verizon Wireless) and other mobile products (hereinafter the “Accused Products III”). Direct Infringement
By so making, using, selling, or offering to sell within the United States, or
importing into the United States at least the aforementioned Accused Products III, the Defendants have directly infringed and continue to infringe at least claim 3 of the ‘374 patent, either literally or by equivalents. Inducement of Infringement
The Defendants have had knowledge of the ‘374 patent at least since the
serving of the underlying complaint in this case. 57. Since becoming aware of the ‘374 patent, the Defendants have continued to
intentionally, actively, and knowingly advertise about, import, export, sell, offer to sell,
lease, and/or offer to lease one or more of the Accused Products III through their websites, including but not limited to CASIOGZONE.com, retailers, resellers and distributors, as well as in other ways. 58. Since becoming aware of the ‘374 patent, the Defendants’ advertising and
sales of one or more of the Accused Products III have intentionally, actively, knowingly,
and willfully contained and continues to contain instructions, directions, suggestions, and/or invitations that intentionally, actively, and knowingly invite, entice, lead on, influence, prevail on, move by persuasion, cause, and/or influence the public, the Defendants’ distributors, the Defendants’ retailers, the Defendants’ customers, and/or
CASIOGZONE.com website users to, at least, import, export, make, use, sell, offer to sell,
lease and/or offer to lease one or more of the Accused Products III to practice the inventions claimed in the ‘374 patent, and thus directly infringe the patent, either literally or by equivalents. 59. Since becoming aware of the ‘374 patent, the Defendants were willfully
blind, knew, or should have known that the public’s, the distributors’, the retailers’, the customers’ and/or the website users’ acts relative to importing, exporting, making, using, selling, offering to sell, leasing, and/or offering to lease one or more of the Accused Products III to practice the inventions claimed in the ‘374 patent, directly infringe, either literally or by equivalents, at least claim 3 of the ‘374 patent.
60. ‘374 patent.
For these reasons, the Defendants are liable for inducing infringement of the
Contributory InfringementAt least for the reasons stated above, the Defendants have had actual knowledge of the ‘374 patent.
Since becoming aware of the ‘374 patent, the Defendants have intentionally,
actively, and knowingly offered to sell or sold the Accused Products III within the United States or imported the Accused Products III into the United States. 62. By selling, offering to sell, and/or importing into the United States one or
more of the Accused Products III and the components thereof, the Defendants has
contributed to the infringement by the public, the distributors, the retailers, the customers and the website users who import, export, make, use, sell, offer to sell, lease, and/or offer to lease one or more of the Accused Products III to practice the inventions claimed in the ‘374 patent, and thus directly infringe the patent, either literally or by the doctrine of equivalents. 63. Since becoming aware of the ‘374 patent, the Defendants were willfully
blind, knew, or should have known that the Accused Products III were especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of at least claim 3 of the ‘374 patent. 64. The Accused Products III are not a staple article or commodity of commerce
at least claim 3 of the ‘374 patent, either literally or through the doctrine of equivalents. 65. Since becoming aware of the ‘374 patent, the Defendants were willfully
blind, knew, or should have known that the Accused Products III were not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use. 66. For these reasons, the Defendants are contributory infringers of at least claim
3 of the ‘374 patent, either literally or through the doctrine of equivalents. COUNT IV: FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,983,678) 67. Plaintiff incorporates its previous allegations by the reference.
Accused Products 68. The Defendants have been and are now making, using, selling, offering for
sale within the United States, or importing into the United States, at least the following mobile system products: Casio G’zOne Commando (at least the model sold via Verizon Wireless) and other mobile products (hereinafter the “Accused Products IV”).
Direct Infringement 69. By so making, using, selling, or offering to sell within the United States, or
importing into the United States at least the aforementioned Accused Products IV, the Defendants have directly infringed and continue to infringe at least claim 1 of the ‘678 patent, either literally or by equivalents.
Inducement of Infringement 70. The Defendants have had knowledge of the ‘678 patent at least since the
serving of the underlying complaint in this case. 71. Since becoming aware of the ‘678 patent, the Defendants have continued to
intentionally, actively, and knowingly advertise about, import, export, sell, offer to sell, lease, and/or offer to lease one or more of the Accused Products IV through their websites, including but not limited to CASIOGZONE.com, retailers, resellers and distributors, as well as in other ways. 72. Since becoming aware of the ‘678 patent, the Defendants’ advertising and
sales of one or more of the Accused Products IV have intentionally, actively, knowingly, and willfully contained and continues to contain instructions, directions, suggestions, and/or invitations that intentionally, actively, and knowingly invite, entice, lead on, influence, prevail on, move by persuasion, cause, and/or influence the public, the Defendants’
CASIOGZONE.com website users to, at least, import, export, make, use, sell, offer to sell, lease and/or offer to lease one or more of the Accused Products IV to practice the inventions claimed in the ‘678 patent, and thus directly infringe the patent, either literally or by equivalents.
Since becoming aware of the ‘678 patent, the Defendants were willfully
blind, knew, or should have known that the public’s, the distributors’, the retailers’, the customers’ and/or the website users’ acts relative to importing, exporting, making, using, selling, offering to sell, leasing, and/or offering to lease one or more of the Accused Products IV to practice the inventions claimed in the ‘678 patent, directly infringe, either
literally or by equivalents, at least claim 1 of the ‘678 patent. 74. ‘678 patent. Contributory Infringement For these reasons, the Defendants are liable for inducing infringement of the
At least for the reasons stated above, the Defendants have had actual
knowledge of the ‘678 patent. 76. Since becoming aware of the ‘678 patent, the Defendants have intentionally,
actively, and knowingly offered to sell or sold the Accused Products IV within the United States or imported the Accused Products IV into the United States.
By selling, offering to sell, and/or importing into the United States one or
more of the Accused Products IV and the components thereof, the Defendants has contributed to the infringement by the public, the distributors, the retailers, the customers and the website users who import, export, make, use, sell, offer to sell, lease, and/or offer to
lease one or more of the Accused Products IV to practice the inventions claimed in the ‘678 patent, and thus directly infringe the patent, either literally or by the doctrine of equivalents. 78. Since becoming aware of the ‘678 patent, the Defendants were willfully
blind, knew, or should have known that the Accused Products IV were especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of at least claim 1 of the ‘678 patent.
The Accused Products IV are not a staple article or commodity of commerce
suitable for substantial noninfringing use because they are especially configured to infringe at least claim 1 of the ‘678 patent, either literally or through the doctrine of equivalents. 80. Since becoming aware of the ‘678 patent, the Defendants were willfully
blind, knew, or should have known that the Accused Products IV were not a staple article or
commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use. For these reasons, the Defendants are contributory infringers of at least claim 1 of the ‘678 patent, either literally or through the doctrine of equivalents. DAMAGES
The Defendants’ acts of infringement of the ‘320 patent, the ‘143 patent, the ‘374 patent, and the ‘678 patent as alleged above have injured DIGCOM and thus DIGCOM is entitled to recover damages adequate to compensate it for that infringement, which in no event can be less than a reasonable royalty. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
DIGCOM hereby demands a jury trial on all claims and issues triable of right by a jury, including the Defendants’ affirmative defenses and counterclaims, if any.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, DIGCOM prays for entry of judgment in its favor and against Defendants Casio Computer Co., Ltd., Casio America, Inc., and NEC Casio Mobile Communications, Ltd., declaring: A. That the Defendants have infringed one or more claims of the ‘320 patent,
the ‘143 patent, the ‘374 patent, and the ‘678 patent; B. That the Defendants account for and pay to DIGCOM all damages caused by
the infringement of the ‘320 patent, the ‘143 patent, the ‘374 patent, and the ‘678 patent, which by statute can be no less than a reasonable royalty; C. That DIGCOM be granted pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on the
damages caused to it by reason of the Defendants’ infringement of the ‘320 patent, the ‘143 patent, the ‘374 patent, and the ‘678 patent; That the case be declared exceptional pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285, in favor of DIGCOM, and that DIGCOM be granted its attorneys’ fees in this action;
That costs be awarded to DIGCOM; That DIGCOM be granted such other and further relief that is just and proper
under the circumstances. Dated this 11th day of April, 2013. BOWEN HALL
By: /s/ Dan C. Bowen Dan C. Bowen, Esq. Ann O. Hall, Esq. 555 South Center Street Reno, Nevada 89501 Telephone: (775) 323-8678 OF COUNSEL:
Matthew J.M. Prebeg (Pro hac pending) Christopher M. Faucett (Pro hac pending) Steven W. Abbott (Pro hac pending) Matthew S. Compton, Jr. (Pro hac pending) CLEARMAN PREBEG LLP 815 Walker Street, Suite 1040 Houston, Texas 77002 Tel: 713.223.7070 Fax: 713.223.7071 Andrew Kochanowski (Pro hac pending) SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, Suite 1700 Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: 248.746.4048 Fax: 248.936.2153
Documents Similar To Digcom, Inc, vs Casio Computer, et. al.