Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/143456849/Cheetah-Omni-v-NP-Photonics
Timestamp: 2016-08-30 12:31:31
Document Index: 183849536

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 271', '§ 1331', '§ 1391', '§ 287', '§ 271', '§ 287', '§ 271', '§ 285', '§ 285']

BrowseUploadSign inJoinBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicWelcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out moreIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION CHEETAH OMNI, LLC, Plaintiff, vs. NP PHOTONICS, INC. Defendant. § § § § § § § § § § § CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:13-cv-418
Plaintiff Cheetah Omni, LLC (“Cheetah Omni”) files this Original Complaint for patent infringement against Defendant NP Photonics, Inc. (“the Defendant”) and alleges as follows upon information and belief: PARTIES 1. 2. Plaintiff Cheetah Omni is a Texas limited liability company. Defendant NP Photonics, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the
laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business located at UA Science & Technology Park, 9030 S. Rita Road, Suite 120, Tucson, AZ 85747. NP Photonics, Inc. is a resident of Delaware who engages in business in the State of Texas and this action arises, in part, out of the NP Photonics, Inc. business directed to and in the State of Texas. NP Photonics, Inc. is in the business of developing, delivering and supporting advanced defense, security and aerospace systems in the land, sea and air in interstate commerce and specifically does so in the Eastern District of Texas. Upon information and belief, NP Photonics, Inc. is authorized to do
business in Texas and may be served with process by serving its registered agent Capitol Services, Inc., 1675 S. State St., Suite B, Dover, Delaware 19901. 3. Defendant regularly conduct and transact business in Texas, throughout the
United States, and within the Eastern District of Texas, itself and/or through one or more subsidiaries, affiliates, business divisions, or business units. Defendant can be served with process through any of its registered agents including officers or directors. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4. This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of the
United Stated Code. The Court’s jurisdiction over this action is proper under the above statutes, including 35 U.S.C. § 271 et seq., and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). 5. Personal jurisdiction exists generally over each Defendant because each
Defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with the forum as a result of business regularly conducted within the State of Texas and within the Eastern District of Texas. Indeed, Defendant, directly or through subsidiaries or intermediaries, make, use, sell and offer for sale, the products that are the subject of this Complaint in the United States, the State of Texas, and the Eastern District of Texas. Personal jurisdiction also exists specifically over Defendant
as a result of, at least, Defendant’s distribution network wherein Defendant, individually and collectively, placed instrumentalities and provided services and applications that practice the claimed inventions within the stream of commerce, which stream is directed at this district, and by committing the tort of patent infringement within the Eastern District of Texas. 6. 1400(b). Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 (b)(2), (c), and 28 U.S.C. §
COUNT I INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,633,673 7. Plaintiff Cheetah Omni, LLC is the owner of all rights, title and interest in and
under United States Patent No. 7,633,673 (“‘673 patent”), titled “System And Method For Generating Infrared Light For Use In Medical Procedures,” which duly and legally issued on December 15, 2009. A true and correct copy of the ‘673 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A.	8. The ‘673 patent is valid and enforceable. The ‘673 Patent is generally directed to
a mid-infrared light source. 9. ‘673 patent. 10. On information and belief, Defendant NP Photonics has been and now is All requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 287 have been satisfied with respect to the
infringing the ‘673 Patent in the State of Texas, in this judicial district, and elsewhere in the United States by making, using, importing, selling or offering to sell products that have a multiplexer for combining laser signals, a gain fiber, and first and second waveguide structure. On information and belief, examples of Defendant’s products that infringe the ‘673 Patent include, but are not limited to its SpectraChrome 1000. Defendant NP Photonics, is thus liable for infringement of the ‘673 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271. 11. As a result of this Defendant’s infringement of the ‘673 Patent, Cheetah Omni has
suffered monetary damages in an amount not yet determined, and will continue to suffer damages in the future unless Defendant’s infringing activities are enjoined by this Court. 12. Unless a permanent injunction is issued enjoining this Defendant and its agents,
servants, employees, representatives, affiliates, and all others acting on or in active concert therewith from infringing the ‘673 Patent, Cheetah Omni will be greatly and irreparably harmed.
Upon information and belief, Defendant had knowledge of the ‘673 patent but
have engaged in their infringing conduct nonetheless. Defendant’s infringement is therefore willful. 14. Plaintiff Cheetah Omni, LLC has no adequate remedy at law against Defendant’s
acts of patent infringement. Unless Defendant is permanently enjoined from their unlawful and willful infringement of the ‘673 patent, Cheetah Omni, LLC will suffer irreparable harm. COUNT II INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,433,116 15. Plaintiff Cheetah Omni, LLC is the owner of all rights, title and interest in and
under United States Patent No. 7,433,116 (“‘116 patent”), titled “Infra-Red Light Source Including a Raman Shifter,” which duly and legally issued on October 7, 2008. A true and correct copy of the ‘116 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit B.	16.	The ‘116 patent is valid and enforceable. The ‘116 Patent is generally directed to
an infrared light source.	17. ‘116 patent.	18. On information and belief, Defendant NP Photonics has been and now is All requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 287 have been satisfied with respect to the
infringing the ‘116 Patent in the State of Texas, in this judicial district, and elsewhere in the United States by making, using, importing, selling or offering to sell products that have at least one combiner coupled to at least a first and second pump lasers, and a wavelength shifter coupled to the at least one combiner. On information and belief, examples of Defendant’s products that infringe the ‘116 Patent include, but are not limited to its SpectraChrome 1000 is thus liable for infringement of the ‘116 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.
As a result of this Defendant’s infringement of the ‘116 Patent, Cheetah Omni has
suffered monetary damages in an amount not yet determined, and will continue to suffer damages in the future unless Defendant’s infringing activities are enjoined by this Court. 20. Unless a permanent injunction is issued enjoining this Defendant and its agents,
servants, employees, representatives, affiliates, and all others acting on or in active concert therewith from infringing the ‘116 Patent, Cheetah Omni will be greatly and irreparably harmed. 21. Upon information and belief, Defendant had knowledge of the ‘116 Patent but
have engaged in their infringing conduct nonetheless. Defendant’s infringement is therefore willful.	22. Plaintiff Cheetah Omni, LLC has no adequate remedy at law against Defendant’s
acts of patent infringement. Unless Defendant is permanently enjoined from their unlawful and willful infringement of the ‘116 patent, Cheetah Omni, LLC will suffer irreparable harm.	23. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s acts of patent infringement,
Cheetah Omni, LLC has been and continues to be injured and has sustained and will continue to sustain substantial damages.	24. Cheetah Omni, LLC has incurred and will incur attorneys’ fees, costs, and The circumstances of this dispute create an
expenses in the prosecution of this action.
exceptional case within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285, and Cheetah Omni, LLC is entitled to recover its reasonable and necessary attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses.	5
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Plaintiff Cheetah Omni, LLC respectfully requests that judgment be entered in its favor and against Defendant NP Photonics, Inc. and respectfully requests that the Court grant the following relief to Cheetah Omni, LLC: (a) (b) Declare that the ‘673 and ‘116 Patents are valid and enforceable; Declare that Defendant NP Photonics, Inc. is liable for past and present direct
infringement, both literally and under the doctrine of equivalents, of the ‘673 and ‘116 Patents; (c) Declare that Defendant NP Photonics, Inc. is liable for inducing infringement and
contributing to infringement of the ‘673 and ‘116 Patents, both in the past and presently; (d) Award damages to Cheetah Omni to which it is entitled for patent infringement of
the ‘673 and ‘116 patents; (e) Enter a preliminary, and thereafter, permanent injunction against Defendant NP
Photonics, Inc. for its acts of direct infringement of the ‘673 and ‘116 Patents; (f) Enter a preliminary, and thereafter, permanent injunction against Defendant NP
Photonics, Inc. for active inducement of infringement and/or contributory infringement of the ‘673 and ‘116 Patents by others; (g) U.S.C. § 285; (h) (i) Award interest on Cheetah Omni LLC’s damages; and Such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. Award Cheetah Omni LLC its expenses, costs, and attorneys’ fees pursuant to 35
JURY DEMAND In accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 38 and 39, Plaintiff Cheetah Omni, LLC asserts its rights under the Seventh Amendment of the United States Constitution and demands a trial by jury on all issues.
Respectfully submitted, /s/ Winston O. Huff Winston O. Huff, Attorney in Charge Texas State Bar No. 24068745 Deborah Jagai Texas State Bar No. 24048571 W. O. Huff & Associates, PLLC 302 N. Market Street, Suite 450 Dallas, TX 75202 214.749.1220 (Firm) 469.206.2173 (Fax) whuff@huffip.com djagai@huffip.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF CHEETAH OMNI, LLC
CERTIFICATE OF FILING I hereby certify that on May 22, 2013, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system. Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ Winston O. Huff Winston O. Huff, Attorney in Charge
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via the Court’s CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3) on this the 22nd day of May, 2013. /s/ Winston O. Huff
Cheetah Omni v. NP Photonics by PatentBlast27 viewsEmbedDownloadDescriptionCheetah Omni v. NP PhotonicsCheetah Omni v. NP PhotonicsRead 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
RelatedGellyfish Technology of Texas v. Fujitsu Et. Al.by PatentBlastWayne Fueling Sys. v. ESCO Servs. - Complaintby slbursteinMcRo Inc.by PriorSmartMcRo v. LucasArts Entertainment Companyby PriorSmartCYVA Research Holdings v. Ebayby PriorSmartValeo Et. Al. v. Federal-Mogul Et. Al.by PatentBlastValeo et. al. v. Federal-Mogul et. al.by PriorSmartCrossroads Systems v. Dellby PatentBlastBabbage Holdings v. Electronic Artsby PatentBlastNetwork Congestion Solutions LLCby PriorSmartAutomated Facilities Management v. IFS North Americaby PriorSmart v. c4cast.com et. al.by PriorSmartTraffic Information v. Fandangoby PriorSmartHarel et. al. v. Kgm Industries et. al.by PriorSmartSpineology v. Soteiraby PriorSmartPhoenix Licensing et. al. v. Ameriprise Financial et. al.by PriorSmartSmoracy et. al. v. King Kong Tools et. al.by PriorSmartUbiComm v. Zaleby PatentBlastArrivalStar et. al. v. Seagateby PriorSmartEtagz v. MGA Entertainmentby PriorSmartDigiMedia Holdings Group v. Hunt County Radioby PriorSmartDigiMedia Holdings Group v. Hunt County Radioby PatentBlastMessaging Gateway Solutions v. Syniverse Technologiesby PriorSmartSwipe Innovations v. Moneris Solutions et. al.by PriorSmartSimilar to Cheetah Omni v. NP PhotonicsGellyfish Technology of Texas v. Fujitsu Et. Al.Wayne Fueling Sys. v. ESCO Servs. - ComplaintMcRo Inc.McRo v. LucasArts Entertainment CompanyCYVA Research Holdings v. EbayValeo Et. Al. v. Federal-Mogul Et. Al.Valeo et. al. v. Federal-Mogul et. al.Crossroads Systems v. DellBabbage Holdings v. Electronic ArtsNetwork Congestion Solutions LLCAutomated Facilities Management v. IFS North America v. c4cast.com et. al.Traffic Information v. FandangoHarel et. al. v. Kgm Industries et. al.Spineology v. SoteiraPhoenix Licensing et. al. v. Ameriprise Financial et. al.Smoracy et. al. v. King Kong Tools et. al.UbiComm v. ZaleArrivalStar et. al. v. SeagateEtagz v. MGA EntertainmentDigiMedia Holdings Group v. Hunt County RadioDigiMedia Holdings Group v. Hunt County RadioMessaging Gateway Solutions v. Syniverse TechnologiesSwipe Innovations v. Moneris Solutions et. al.Odorstar Technology et. al. v. SMM Distributors et. al.