Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/152872627/Brilliant-Optical-Solutions-v-Time-Warner-Cable
Timestamp: 2016-09-26 14:30:28
Document Index: 221852206

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

BrowseBrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicWelcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out moreIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) ) TIME WARNER CABLE, INC. ) ) Defendant. ) _______________________________________________ ) COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Brilliant Optical Solutions LLC (“BOS”) files this Complaint for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,555,478 under 35 U.S.C. § 271 against defendant Time Warner Cable, Inc. (“TWC”). Plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relief. Plaintiff alleges as follows: PARTIES 1. Plaintiff Brilliant Optical Solutions LLC is a Texas company organized under the
laws of the State of Texas. BOS maintains its principal place of business at 1701 Directors Blvd., Suite 300, Austin, Texas 78744. 2. Upon information and belief, TWC is a corporation organized under the laws of
the state of Delaware having its principal place of business at 60 Columbus Circle, New York, NY, 10023.
1 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. This is an action for patent infringement arising under the Patent Laws of the
United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 5,555,478 (the “’478 patent”). A copy of the ’478 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A and is
incorporated herein by reference in its entirety. 4. The Court has exclusive subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28
U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). 5. This Court has personal jurisdiction over TWC because TWC has conducted
business in this District and upon information and belief has infringed, contributed to infringement of and/or actively induced others to infringe the ’478 patent in this district as alleged in this Complaint. Finally, by agreement of the parties, TWC agreed to litigate this action in this Court, and thus consented to jurisdiction and venue in this forum. 6. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b), 1391(c), and/or 1400(b). PATENT-IN-SUIT 7. The ’478 patent entitled “Fiber Optic Information Transmission System” was duly
and legally issued posthumously to inventor Joseph Zelikovitz on September 10, 1996. Exhibit A. 8. Before he passed away, Joseph Zelikovitz recognized a problem with the
conventional means of information transmission and with bridging standard copper communication lines with the developing optic lines. 9. He dedicated himself to opening up the “bottlenecks” that occurred when
information was transmitted by the understood methods of the time. He envisioned a system with fibers connected end-to-end, but with intelligent routing along the way.
He invented a packet-based fiber-optic network, and an application for his
invention was filed on June 7, 1995. As stated above, the patent issued on September 10, 1996. 11. All right, title and interest to the ’478 Patent was initially assigned from his estate
to his widow, Mrs. Melba Zelikovitz. Exhibit B. 12. In order to enforce her husband’s patent, she assigned right, title and interest to
the ’478 Patent to Red River Fiber-Optic Corporation. Exhibit B. 13. 14. The ’478 Patent is battle-tested. On October 4, 2001, Red River Fiber-Optic Corporation filed suit against
Defendant Level 3 Communications, Inc. alleging patent infringement. Red River Fiber Optic Corp., Inc. v. Level 3 Comm’ns, Inc., Case No. 2:01-cv-00208-TJW, Docket No. 1 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 4, 2001) (Exhibit C). 15. Exhibit D. 16. The parties settled the suit before the patent emerged from reexamination, but on On October 4, 2002, a 3rd party requested reexamination of the ’478 Patent.
June 19, 2007 the patent reissued with only minor changes and all its claims intact. Exhibit A. 17. On May 19, 2008, Red River filed suit against Verizon Communications, Inc.,
AT&T Corp., and Qwest Communications International Inc. for infringement of the ’478 patent. Red River Fiber Optic Corp. v. Verizon Comm’ns, Inc., et al., Case No.2:08-cv-00215-TJW-CE, Docket No. 1 (E.D. Tex. May 19, 2008). This action settled. 18. On February 5, 2013, Red River assigned the ’478 patent to Acacia Research
Group, Inc. ("Acacia"). Exhibit E. Acacia is a company that partners with individual inventors and small companies with limited resources to contend with large, unauthorized infringers. The patent was then assigned to BOS, a subsidiary of Acacia, on February 13, 2013. Exhibit F.
3 19. patent. 20.
It has recently come to BOS’s attention that Defendant TWC infringes the ’478
For example, claim 1 of the ’478 patent provides:
1. A fiber optic transmission system comprising: a plurality of fiber optic lines, subscriber locations, intelligent communication platforms, and at least one intelligent routing card; a first source of data at a first subscriber location; a first data processor line card at said first subscriber location capable of forming a plurality of data transmission packets with data, header and tail information; a first intelligent communication platform coupled to said first data processor line card by fiber optic lines wherein said first intelligent communication platform is capable of receiving any one of said transmission packets, determining the appropriate route for said one transmission packet and is capable of shunting said one transmission packet onto the appropriate fiber optic line to a first intelligent line module; a first intelligent routing card at the junction of at least two fiber optic lines and coupled to said first intelligent line module wherein said first intelligent routing card is capable of receiving any one of said transmission packets, determining the appropriate route for said one transmission packet and shunting said one transmission packet onto the appropriate fiber optic line to or away from said first intelligent line module; and
4 a second data processor line card at a second subscriber location coupled to said first intelligent routing card capable of receiving said transmission packet and decoding the data within said packet. Exhibit A, ’478 patent, col. 12, ln 45 to col. 13, ln 6. INFRINGING GOODS/SERVICES 21. The ’478 Patent discloses a fiber optic network that includes fiber optic lines
operating in conjunction with shunting and routing devices that divert information through a network to the intended subscriber. 22. Upon information and belief, TWC owns, operates, maintains, sells, offers for
sale, makes, and uses a fiber optic transmission system as described in the claims of the ’478 Patent. 23. Specifically, TWC advertises that it is capable of providing a complete system to
transport data (including internet, voice, and video) from the source of that data (e.g., a subscriber location such as a residence or business) to the destination of the data (e.g., another subscriber location) using fiber optic lines end-to-end. (the “TWC System”). The TWC System includes, at a minimum, its Time Warner Cable Business Class Ethernet Solutions. Besides owning, operating, maintaining, selling, offering for sale, making, and using the TWC System, TWC induces the use of the TWC System by residential, business, governmental, and enterprise subscribers. Exhibit G (available at http://www.telegration.com/presentations/TIME%20WARNER%20Ethernet_Solutions_for_Part ners_20120221.pdf).
5 COUNT I TWC PATENT INFRINGEMENT UNDER 35 U.S.C. 271 OF THE ’478 PATENT 24. 25. BOS incorporates by reference the allegations of paragraphs 1-23. The ’478 patent was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and An ex parte
Trademark Office on September 10, 1996, after full and fair examination. reexamination certificate issued on June 19, 2007. 26.
Plaintiff is the assignee of all rights, title, and interest in and to the ’478 patent
and possesses all rights of recovery under the ’478 patent. 27. TWC has directly infringed the ’478 patent at a minimum by making, using,
offering to sell, and selling within the United States products and services that practice the inventions of the ’478 patent, namely products/services affiliated with at least the TWC System, and these products/services have no substantial non-infringing uses. 28. TWC has contributorily infringed the ’478 patent and induced infringement of the
’478 patent after the filing of the complaint. 29. 30. TWC was aware of the ’478 patent at a minimum after the filing of this complaint. Despite knowledge of the patent and its infringement and, upon belief, TWC
continues to operate its TWC System. 31. In addition and upon belief, TWC encourages its customers to operate the TWC
System in an infringing manner. 32. TWC has caused and will continue to cause BOS substantial damage and
irreparable injury by virtue of its continuing infringement.
BOS is entitled to recover from TWC the damages sustained by BOS as a result
of TWC’s acts in an amount subject to proof at trial and an injunction preventing TWC from continuing its acts. 34. Upon information and belief and after an opportunity for further discovery,
TWC’s infringement of the ’478 patent is willful and deliberate. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Brilliant Optical Solutions respectfully requests that the Court enter a judgment as follows: A. A judgment that TWC has directly infringed the ’478 patent, contributorily infringed the ’478 patent, and induced infringement of the ’478 patent; B. An injunction preventing TWC and its officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, licensees, successors, and assigns, and those in active concert or participation with TWC, from directly infringing, contributorily infringing, and inducing the infringement of the ’478 patent; C. A judgment and order requiring TWC to pay Plaintiff damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284, including supplemental damages for any continuing post-verdict infringement up until entry of the final judgment, with an accounting, as needed, and treble damages for willful infringement as provided by 35 U.S.C. § 284; D. A judgment and order requiring TWC to pay Plaintiff pre-judgment and postjudgment interest on the damages awarded; E. A judgment and order requiring TWC to pay Plaintiff the costs of this action (including all disbursements) and attorneys' fees as provided by 35 U.S.C. § 285; and
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff hereby requests that all issues be determined by jury.
Respectfully submitted, PLAINTIFF BRILLIANT OPTICAL SOLUTIONS, LLC By its attorneys, SIMMONS BROWDER GIANARIS ANGELIDES & BARNERD LLC Dated: July 8, 2013. By: /s/ Paul A. Lesko Paul A. Lesko Sarah S. Burns Jo Anna Pollock Jason C. Schmidt One Court Street Alton, IL 62002 (618) 259-2222 (618) 259-2251-facsimile plesko@simmonsfirm.com sburns@simmonsfirm.com jpollock@simmonsfirm.com jschmidt@simmonsfirm.com
8 Multiplayer 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 Measurement
Brilliant Optical Solutions v. Time Warner Cable by PatentBlast13 viewsEmbedDownloadDescriptionBrilliant Optical Solutions v. Time Warner CableBrilliant Optical Solutions v. Time Warner CableRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentShow moreShow less
RelatedNorman IP Holdings v. Kia Motors Americaby PriorSmartIntellectual Ventures v. Symantecby PatentBlastKlausner Technologies v. Schmooze Comby PriorSmartNuvana Medical Innovations v. Tornierby PriorSmartEZ Products of South Florida v. Fifty/Fifty Group et. al.by PriorSmartNalco Company v. Wetend Technologies Oyby PriorSmartWhite v. H.J. Heinz Companyby PriorSmartBlue Gentian Et. Al. v. New Product Solutions Et. Al.by PatentBlastMosaid Technologies v. Xilinxby PriorSmartCreateAds LLCby PriorSmartOptical Devices LLC v. Nintendo Co. Ltd. Et. Al.by PatentBlastGordium Innovations LLCby PriorSmartArunachalam v. Wal-Mart Storesby PatentBlastRadiation Stabilization Solutions v. Varian Medical Systems et. al.by PriorSmartDigital Signal Innovations v. SecuriMobileby PatentBlastArrivalStar Et. Al. v. Golfsmithby PatentBlastInnovative Display Technologies v. Nikon et. al.by PriorSmartSkyllzone v. BDL Penn Enterprisesby PriorSmartInternal Combustion Solutions v. Yoshimura Research And Development Of Americaby PriorSmartDelaware Radio Technologies LLC et. al.by PriorSmartRydex Technologies v. Hospiraby PatentBlastPragmatus Telecom v. HSNby PatentBlastDietGoal Innovations v. Timeby PriorSmartCpuMate et. al. v. Giga-Byte Technology Co Ltd of Taipei Taiwan et. al.by PriorSmartWireless Media Innovations v. Sears Holdingby PriorSmartData Carriers LLCby PriorSmartCYVA Research Holdings v. Priceline.comby PriorSmartPeschke Map Technologies v. Westfield Concession Managementby PatentBlastSimilar to Brilliant Optical Solutions v. Time Warner CableNorman IP Holdings v. Kia Motors AmericaIntellectual Ventures v. SymantecKlausner Technologies v. Schmooze ComNuvana Medical Innovations v. TornierEZ Products of South Florida v. Fifty/Fifty Group et. al.Nalco Company v. Wetend Technologies OyWhite v. H.J. Heinz CompanyBlue Gentian Et. Al. v. New Product Solutions Et. Al.Mosaid Technologies v. XilinxCreateAds LLCOptical Devices LLC v. Nintendo Co. Ltd. Et. Al.Gordium Innovations LLCArunachalam v. Wal-Mart StoresRadiation Stabilization Solutions v. Varian Medical Systems et. al.Digital Signal Innovations v. SecuriMobileArrivalStar Et. Al. v. GolfsmithInnovative Display Technologies v. Nikon et. al.Skyllzone v. BDL Penn EnterprisesInternal Combustion Solutions v. Yoshimura Research And Development Of AmericaDelaware Radio Technologies LLC et. al.Rydex Technologies v. HospiraPragmatus Telecom v. HSNDietGoal Innovations v. TimeCpuMate et. al. v. Giga-Byte Technology Co Ltd of Taipei Taiwan et. al.Wireless Media Innovations v. Sears HoldingData Carriers LLCCYVA Research Holdings v. Priceline.comPeschke Map Technologies v. Westfield Concession ManagementClouding IP LLCReaux Medical Industries v. Stryker et. al.