Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/104562177/Sonic-Industry-v-Viewpoint-Bank
Timestamp: 2018-12-16 13:13:39
Document Index: 590692109

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§ 271', '§ 1331', '§ 1391', '§ 284', '§ 284', '§ 283', '§285']

Sonic Industry v. Viewpoint Bank | Complaint | United States District Court For The Eastern District Of Texas
Sonic Industry v. Viewpoint Bank
Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 2:12-cv-00571: Sonic Industry, LLC v. Viewpoint Bank, N.A. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l6DC for more info.
Case 2:12-cv-00571 Document 1
Filed 08/31/12 Page 1 of 29 PageID #: 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION SONIC INDUSTRY, LLC, Civil Action No. ___________________ Plaintiff, v. VIEWPOINT BANK, N.A. Defendant. PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Plaintiff Sonic Industry, LLC (“Plaintiff”), by and through its undersigned counsel, files this Original Complaint against ViewPoint Bank, N.A. (“Defendant”) as follows: NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. This is a patent infringement action to stop Defendant’s infringement of Plaintiff’s United States Patent No. 5,954,793 entitled “Remote Limit-Setting Information System” (the “’793 patent”; a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A). Plaintiff is the exclusive licensee of the ’793 patent with respect to the Defendant. monetary damages. PARTIES 2. Plaintiff is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware. Plaintiff maintains its principal place of business at 3422 Old Capital Trail, PMB (STE) 1549, Wilmington, Delaware 19808-6192. Plaintiff is the exclusive licensee of the ’793 patent with respect to the Defendant, and possesses the right to sue for infringement and recover past damages. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
1 COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
Filed 08/31/12 Page 2 of 29 PageID #: 2
3. Upon information and belief, Defendant is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Texas, with its principal place of business located at 1309 West 15th Street, Plano, TX 75075. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4. This action arises under the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., including 35 U.S.C. §§ 271, 281, 283, 284, and 285. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case for patent infringement under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). 3. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because: Defendant is present within or has minimum contacts with the State of Texas and the Eastern District of Texas; Defendant has purposefully availed itself of the privileges of conducting business in the State of Texas and in the Eastern District of Texas; Defendant has sought protection and benefit from the laws of the State of Texas; Defendant regularly conducts business within the State of Texas and within the Eastern District of Texas; and Plaintiff’s causes of action arise directly from Defendant’s business contacts and other activities in the State of Texas and in the Eastern District of Texas. 4. More specifically, Defendant, directly and/or through authorized intermediaries, ships, distributes, offers for sale, sells, and/or advertises (including the provision of an interactive web page) its products and services in the United States, the State of Texas, and the Eastern District of Texas. Upon information and belief, Defendant has committed patent
infringement in the State of Texas and in the Eastern District of Texas, has contributed to patent infringement in the State of Texas and in the Eastern District of Texas, and/or has induced others to commit patent infringement in the State of Texas and in the Eastern District of Texas. Defendant solicits customers in the State of Texas and in the Eastern District of Texas. Defendant has paying customers who are residents of the State of Texas and the
2 COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
Filed 08/31/12 Page 3 of 29 PageID #: 3
Eastern District of Texas and who use the Defendant’s products and services in the State of Texas and in the Eastern District of Texas. 5. Venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400(b). COUNT I – PATENT INFRINGEMENT 6. The ’793 patent was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on September 21, 1999, after full and fair examination, for systems and methods for setting limits on a remote information system. Plaintiff is the exclusive licensee of the ’793 patent with respect to the Defendant, and possesses all rights of recovery under the ’793 patent with respect to the Defendant, including the right to sue for infringement and recover past damages. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant owns, operates, advertises, controls, sells, and otherwise provides hardware and software for “remotely setting limits on an information processing system.” Upon information and belief, Defendant has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the ’793 patent by making, using, providing, offering to sell, and selling (directly or through intermediaries), in this district and elsewhere in the United States, systems and methods for using a remote device to set a selection and limit on a server. More particularly, Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant sells and/or requires and/or directs users to access and/or use a software system on a remote device to enter and verify selection and limit parameters for online banking prior to
transmitting the parameters to a host computer for processing, in a manner claimed in the ’793 patent. Upon information and belief, Defendant has contributed to the infringement of one or more claims of the ’793 patent, and/or actively induced others to infringe one or more claims of the ’793 patent, in this district and elsewhere in the United States. 7. Defendant’s aforesaid activities have been without authority and/or license from Plaintiff. 8. Plaintiff is entitled to recover from the Defendant the damages sustained by Plaintiff as a result of the Defendant’s wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial, which, by law, cannot be less than a reasonable royalty, together with interest and costs as fixed by this Court under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
3 COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
Filed 08/31/12 Page 4 of 29 PageID #: 4
9. Defendant’s infringement of Plaintiff’s exclusive rights under the ’793 patent will continue to damage Plaintiff, causing irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law, unless enjoined by this Court. JURY DEMAND 10. Plaintiff hereby requests a trial by jury pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. PRAYER FOR RELIEF Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court find in its favor and against Defendant, and that the Court grant Plaintiff the following relief: A. An adjudication that one or more claims of the ’793 patent have been infringed, either literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, by Defendant and/or by others to whose infringement Defendant has contributed and/or by others whose infringement has been induced by Defendant; B. An award to Plaintiff of damages adequate to compensate Plaintiff for the Defendant’s acts of infringement together with pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; C. That, should Defendant’s acts of infringement be found to be willful from the time that Defendant became aware of the infringing nature of their actions, which is the time of filing of Plaintiff’s Original Complaint at the latest, that the Court award treble damages for the period of such willful infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284; D. A grant of permanent injunction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 283, enjoining the Defendant from further acts of (1) infringement, (2) contributory infringement, and (3) actively inducing infringement with respect to the claims of the ‘793 patent; E. That this Court declare this to be an exceptional case and award Plaintiff its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs in accordance with 35 U.S.C. §285; and
4 COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
Filed 08/31/12 Page 5 of 29 PageID #: 5
F. Any further relief that this Court deems just and proper.
Dated: August 31, 2012 Respectfully submitted, By: /s/ Austin Hansley AUSTIN HANSLEY LAW FIRM Austin L. Hansley Texas Bar No.: 24073081 5050 Quorum Dr. Suite 700 Dallas, Texas 75254 Telephone: (469) JURY-PRO Facsimile: (855) FIRM-FAX Email: TheTexasLawOffice@gmail.com www.TheTexasLawOffice.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF SONIC INDUSTRY, LLC
5 COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
Filed 08/31/12 Page 6 of 29 PageID #: 6
Filed 08/31/12 Page 7 of 29 PageID #: 7
Filed 08/31/12 Page 8 of 29 PageID #: 8
Filed 08/31/12 Page 9 of 29 PageID #: 9
Filed 08/31/12 Page 10 of 29 PageID #: 10
Filed 08/31/12 Page 11 of 29 PageID #: 11
Filed 08/31/12 Page 12 of 29 PageID #: 12
Filed 08/31/12 Page 13 of 29 PageID #: 13
Filed 08/31/12 Page 14 of 29 PageID #: 14
Filed 08/31/12 Page 15 of 29 PageID #: 15
Filed 08/31/12 Page 16 of 29 PageID #: 16
Filed 08/31/12 Page 17 of 29 PageID #: 17
Filed 08/31/12 Page 18 of 29 PageID #: 18
Filed 08/31/12 Page 19 of 29 PageID #: 19
Filed 08/31/12 Page 20 of 29 PageID #: 20
Filed 08/31/12 Page 21 of 29 PageID #: 21
Filed 08/31/12 Page 22 of 29 PageID #: 22
Filed 08/31/12 Page 23 of 29 PageID #: 23
Filed 08/31/12 Page 24 of 29 PageID #: 24
Filed 08/31/12 Page 25 of 29 PageID #: 25
Filed 08/31/12 Page 26 of 29 PageID #: 26
Filed 08/31/12 Page 27 of 29 PageID #: 27
Filed 08/31/12 Page 28 of 29 PageID #: 28
Filed 08/31/12 Page 29 of 29 PageID #: 29
Documents Similar To Sonic Industry v. Viewpoint Bank
Garnet Digital v. D-Link Systems et. al.
Joao Control & Monitoring Systems v. Chrysler
Akers v. Robert Bosch
Dynamic 3D Geosolutions v. Emerson Electric et. al.
Super Interconnect Technologies v. BlackBerry et. al.
17CV002052 Wagelaar
E-Contact Technologies v. LeaseWeb
Ideative Product Ventures v. DU International
Spouses Santos Vs
Jeushl Wensh Tiu II
Flores vs. Chua
St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants v. Motorola Mobility
G.R. No. 194024 April 25, 2012
19. Villa vs Heirs of Altavas
6 Sun Insurance vs Asuncion
Jappy Aranas
Security Bank Corp v. Victorio - 1
HumanCentric Ventures v. Xiao - Complaint
Hawkins v. Bass Pro Shop - Complaint
Lodsys Group v. Loews Hotels Holding
Pilapil vs CA
Autofact_d67ceffac2_201812050905Uploaded by Rodrigo Barrios Gatica
Pre SupuestoUploaded by Dayanna Herrera
Review Monarchs, Ministers and Maps, Emergence of CartographyUploaded by Julian Carrera
BARRONS WORD STOCKUploaded by Anonymous bVLovsn
kirstin reigler - resume 2018Uploaded by api-419969470
Bloque 4 siderurgia.pdfUploaded by Jhackson Nhoel Jove Halanoca