Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/131475456/TechRadium-v-FirstCall-Network
Timestamp: 2017-07-21 03:31:35
Document Index: 612851090

Matched Legal Cases: ['§1331', '§1338', '§1391', '§1391', '§1400', '§271', '§285']

TechRadium v. FirstCall Network | Damages | Patent Infringement
TechRadium v. FirstCall NetworkUploaded by PriorSmartRelated InterestsDamagesPatent InfringementLawsuitComplaintPatentRating and Stats0.0 (0)Document ActionsDownloadShare or Embed DocumentEmbedDescription: Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 3:13-cv-00078: TechRadium Inc v. FirstCall Network, Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, no judge yet...View MoreOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 3:13-cv-00078: TechRadium Inc v. FirstCall Network, Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l7R9 for more info.Copyright: Public DomainDownload as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS GALVESTON DIVISION TechRadium, Inc.Plaintiff v. § § § § § § § §
Civil Action No. 3:13-cv-78 Jury Trial Demanded
FirstCall Network, Inc. Defendant
TECHRADIUM’S COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Plaintiff TechRadium, Inc. brings this complaint for patent infringement against FirstCall Network, Inc. and alleges as follows: Parties 1. Plaintiff TechRadium, Inc. is a Texas Corporation with its principal place of
business in Sugar Land, Texas. 2. Defendant FirstCall Network, Inc. is a Louisiana corporation with its principal
place of business in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. It may be served with process by serving its registered agent for service of process, Howard M. Dennis at 5423 Galeria Dr., Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 70816-6008, or wherever he may be found. Jurisdiction And Venue 3. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 and
§1338(a), because Plaintiff’s claims arise under federal laws relating to patents and unfair competition. 4. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendant because Defendant has
transacted business in this judicial district and has committed acts of patent infringement in this judicial district.
Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b), §1391(c)
and §1400(b) because Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in this judicial district, it regularly conducts business in the State of Texas and in this judicial district, and has committed acts of infringement in this judicial district. Facts 6. TechRadium develops, sells, and services mass notification systems that allow an
administrator to originate a single message that will be delivered simultaneously via multiple communication protocols to at least one user on the network. This technology is patented by the Plaintiff, TechRadium, and marketed under the trade name “IRIS”™ (Immediate Response Information System). Among other things, the patented IRIS™ technology eliminated the need for an administrator to send multiple identical messages, and allowed group members to select their grouping information. 7. Using prior technology to send a single message through multiple communication
gateways would require the administrator to send the message multiple times—once through each communication gateway using the appropriate protocol. For instance, if one group member chose to be notified via text message, and another chose to be notified via e-mail, then at least two separate messages would have to be originated by the administrator. Additionally, this prior technology did not allow a group member to select their grouping information. 8. TechRadium’s patented IRIS™ product includes an administrator interface
through which a message is originated. This interface can include a converter for translating the message into the language selected by the group member and a converter for translating text into voice for voice messages. It also has a database for storing the contact device information of the group member, priority for each selected device, and language preference. The database allows
for the grouping of certain members (e.g., high school teachers in a school district) and provides a mechanism for user selected grouping information. This technology also has the capability to receive response data from the user contact device. The administrator initiates the distribution of the message using the member grouping information, and the message is then transferred through at least two industry standard protocols simultaneously to the at least one user contact device. 9. TechRadium is the owner of United States Patent No. 7,773,729, issued on
August 10, 2010 (‘729 Patent). The IRIS™ system marketed by TechRadium incorporates claims included in this patent. A copy of this patent is attached as Exhibit A. 10. TechRadium is the owner of all right, title, and interest in and to the ‘729 Patent
by assignment, with full and exclusive right to bring suit to enforce the “729 Patent, including the right to recover for past infringement. 11. On information and belief, Defendant makes, uses and sells, or attempts to make,
use or sell, or otherwise provides throughout the United States and within the geographical area covered by this judicial district products and services which utilize the systems and methods described by claims in the ‘729 Patent. Claim For Infringement Of The ’729 Patent 12. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of the foregoing
paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 13. The ‘729 Patent describes technology for a digital notification system that utilizes
an administrator interface to transmit a message from an administrator to a user contact device. A copy of the ‘729 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 14. The ‘729, Patent is valid and enforceable.
Defendant has and continues to infringe, contributorily infringe or actively
induces the infringement of the ‘729 Patent by using, selling and offering for use or sale products and services within the United States and within this judicial district which incorporate TechRadium’s patented technology. Defendant is offering for sale or use, or selling or using these products without license or authority from TechRadium. The claims of the patent are either literally infringed or infringed under the doctrine of equivalents. These actions by Defendant are in violation of 35 U.S.C. §271. 16. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that the acts of infringement by
Defendant is willful, making this an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. §285. 17. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff further alleges that the actions of Defendant
have resulted in substantial lost profits to Plaintiff to the extent that this technology was licensable by Plaintiff, and substantial unjust profits and enrichment to Defendant, all in amounts yet to be determined. Plaintiff at all times has been and is now willing to grant licenses to qualified parties, including Defendant, for the use of its patented technology, at a reasonable royalty rate. Defendant’s acts of infringement have caused irreparable harm to Plaintiff and will continue to do so unless enjoined by the Court. Damages 18. As a result of Defendant’s acts of infringement, Plaintiff has suffered actual and
consequential damages; however, Plaintiff does not yet know the full extent of such infringement and such extent cannot be ascertained except through discovery and special accounting. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Plaintiff seeks recovery of damages for lost profits, reasonable royalties, unjust enrichment, and benefits received by Defendant as a result of using the
misappropriated technology. Plaintiff seeks any other damages to which it may be entitled in law or in equity. 19. Plaintiff’s injury was caused by Defendant’s gross negligence, malice, or actual
fraud. Defendant’s acts of infringement were committed intentionally, knowingly, and with callous disregard of Plaintiff’s legitimate rights. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to and now seeks to recover exemplary damages in an amount not less than the maximum amount permitted by law. Attorney’s Fees 20. Plaintiff is entitled to recover reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees under
applicable law. Conditions Precedent 21. All conditions precedent to Plaintiff’s right to recover as requested herein have
occurred or been satisfied. Jury Demand 22. Plaintiff demands a trial by jury pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 38. Prayer WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff asks that Defendant be cited to appear and answer and, on final trial, that Plaintiff have judgment against Defendant for the following: a. Actual economic damages; b. Exemplary treble damages as allowed by law; c. Permanent injunction; d. Attorney fees;
e. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as allowed by law; f. Costs of suit; and g. All other relief in law or in equity to which Plaintiff may show itself justly entitled.
Respectfully submitted, /s/ Louis A. Vetrano, Jr. Louis A. Vetrano, Jr. Attorney In Charge Texas Bar No.: 24013684 S.Dist.T ID: 26369 General Counsel – TechRadium, Inc. One Sugar Creek Center Blvd., Suite 1100 Sugar Land, Texas 77478 281-263-6302 Fax: 281-263-6395 Email: lvetrano@techradium.com Attorney For Plaintiff, TechRadium, Inc.
Exhibit A United States Patent No. 7,773,729
Recommended DocumentsDocuments Similar To TechRadium v. FirstCall NetworkSkip carouselWallcandy v. DCWV AcquisitionEtagz v. Playmates Toys Et. Al.Integrated Production Services v. Epic Lift Systems, LLCAutomated Facilities Management v. Smartware GroupMcRo v. Codemasters et. al.Open Text v. Box et. al.CyberFone Systems v. Comcast Cable CommunicationsGold Medal Products v. C. Cretors & CompanyGDC Enterprises v. Robco ManufacturingJOAO Bock Transaction Systems v. ScottradeDigitude Innovations v. Pantech & Curitel Communications et. al.Telebrands v. Tekno - ComplaintRetired NYPD Captain Sues Pension Board Alleging DiscriminationExtract From DRT Solutions Weekly MailData Carriers LLCBashen v. Littler MendelsonOnline News Link v. Overstock.comANTONIO GELUZ vs.docKickapoo Run v. CureMD.comKardiametrics v. Boston ScientificBanking laws062-Singapore Airlines v. Hon. Cruz-Paño G.R. No. L-47739 June 22, 1983Sanders vs. Veridiano Case DigestManaloto vs VelosoCredits 2 - GR 123498Complaint for Damages SampleWi-LAN et. al. v. Toshiba et. al.Radio Systems et. al. v. Urban PottyWeber v. Sears - ComplaintSprint Communications Company LP v. Vonage Holdings Corp., et al - Document No. 2Documents About DamagesSkip carouselLisa Lee CVC ComplaintStern TaxesWhitney Wolfe lawsuit against TinderJugement contre les géants du tabacContest RulesFootball player Aaron Hernandez sued after shooting manBritto v. Craig & Karl and AppleCraigslist v PadMapperZillow Sexual Harassment SuitComplaint for damages, demand for jury trialPosner OrderSnake Infestation ComplaintRichard W. Roberts complaintMichael Brown v Swagway ComplaintFrank OceanMarketing AgreementAFP v Morel - 1.2M Damages AffirmedMejia v. Freeman - FIT AND THICK trademark complaint.pdfReggie Bush lawsuit against St. Louis CVCMark-1 Plumbing, Inc. v. Charlie Thomas Ford, Ltd.TierneySmall Claims WorksheetSavio v. Peterson ComplaintKinsman/Winston LawsuitStarsShaun White Legal ComplaintWebsite Terms of UseFormation 8 Joe Lonsdale Lawsuitgov.uscourts.ohnd.209347.1.0Hernandez 4More 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