Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/71137835/VirnetX-vs-Apple
Timestamp: 2017-01-19 14:07:31
Document Index: 731357052

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 271', '§ 1338', '§ 1391', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 283', '§ 284', '§ 284']

BrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksArticlesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION VirnetX Inc., Plaintiff, vs. Apple Inc., Defendant. § § § § § § § § § § §
Civil Action No. 6:11-cv-563
PLAINTIFF VIRNETX INC.’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Plaintiff VirnetX Inc. (“VirnetX”) files this Complaint against Defendant Apple Inc. for patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271 and in support thereof would respectfully show the Court the following: THE PARTIES 1. Plaintiff VirnetX is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
State of Delaware, and maintains its principal place of business at 308 Dorla Court, Suite 206, Zephyr Cove, Nevada 89448. 2. Defendant Apple Inc. (“Apple” or “Defendant”) is a California corporation with
its principal place of business at 1 Infinite Loop, Cupertino, California 95014. On information and belief, Apple regularly conducts and transacts business in Texas, throughout the United States, and within the Eastern District of Texas, and as set forth below, has committed and continues to commit, tortious acts of patent infringement within and outside of Texas and within the Eastern District of Texas.
United States, Title 35, United States Code. This Court has exclusive subject matter jurisdiction over this case for patent infringement under 28 U.S.C. § 1338. 4. 1400(b). 5. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant. Defendant has conducted Venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and
and does conduct business within the State of Texas. Defendant, directly or through subsidiaries or intermediaries (including distributors, retailers, and others), ships, distributes, offers for sale, sells, and advertises (including the provision of an interactive web page) its products and/or services in the United States, the State of Texas, and the Eastern District of Texas. Defendant, directly and through subsidiaries or intermediaries (including distributors, retailers, and others), has purposefully and voluntarily placed one or more of its infringing products and/or services, as described below, into the stream of commerce with the expectation that they will be purchased and used by consumers in the Eastern District of Texas. These infringing products and/or services have been and continue to be purchased and used by consumers in the Eastern District of Texas. Defendant has committed acts of patent infringement within the State of Texas and, more particularly, within the Eastern District of Texas. ASSERTED PATENT 6. On November 1, 2011, United States Patent No. 8,051,181 (“the ‘181 patent”)
entitled “Method for Establishing Secure Communication Link Between Computers of Virtual Private Network,” was duly and legally issued with Victor Larson, Robert Durham Short, III, Edmund Colby Munger, and Michael Williamson as the named inventors after full and fair
examination. VirnetX is the owner of all rights, title, and interest in and to the ’181 patent and possesses all rights of recovery under the ’181 patent. COUNT ONE PATENT INFRINGEMENT BY APPLE 7. VirnetX incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-6 as if fully set forth herein. As
described below, Apple has infringed and/or continues to infringe the ’181 patent. 8. At least Apple’s iPhone 4, iPhone 4S, iPod Touch, iPad 2, and Macintosh
computers with the “Lion” operating system directly or indirectly infringe at least claims 1, 2, 412, 17, 19, 21, 22, 24-29 of the ’181 patent. Apple makes, uses, sells, offers to sell, and imports these products and thus directly infringes the ‘181 patent. 9. Apple indirectly infringes the ’181 patent by contributing to infringement by
others, such as resellers and end-user customers, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 271(c), because Apple offers to sell or sells within the United States a component of a patented machine, manufacture, combination, or composition, or a material or apparatus for use in practicing a patented process, constituting a material part of the invention, knowing the same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of such patent, and not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use. 10. Apple indirectly infringes by inducing infringement by others, such as resellers
and end-user customers, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), because Apple actively induces infringement of the ’181 patent by others, such as resellers and end-user customers. 11. Apple has infringed and/or continues to infringe one or more claims of the ’181
patent as set forth above. Apple is liable for direct infringement, as well as indirect infringement by way of inducement and/or contributory infringement, for the ’181 patent pursuant to 35
U.S.C. § 271 (a), (b), (c), and/or (f) as set forth above. For VirnetX’s claims of indirect infringement, Apple’s resellers, consultants, and/or end-user customers are direct infringers of the ’181 patent. 12. Apple’s acts of infringement have caused damage to VirnetX. VirnetX is entitled
to recover from Apple the damages sustained by VirnetX as a result of Apple’s wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial. In addition, the infringing acts and practices of Apple have caused, are causing, and, unless such acts and practices are enjoined by the Court, will continue to cause immediate and irreparable harm to VirnetX for which there is no adequate remedy at law, and for which VirnetX is entitled to injunctive relief under 35 U.S.C. § 283. 13. lawsuit. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL VirnetX hereby demands a jury for all issues so triable. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, VirnetX prays for the following relief: 1. A judgment that Apple has directly infringed the ’181 patent, contributorily Apple has received actual notice of infringement by virtue of the filing of this
infringed the ’181 patent, and/or induced the infringement of the ’181 patent; 2. A preliminary and permanent injunction preventing Apple and its respective
officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, licensees, successors, and assigns, and those in active concert or participation with any of them, from directly infringing, contributorily infringing, and/or inducing the infringement of the ’181 patent; 3. This case be found an exceptional case, entitling VirnetX to attorneys’ fees
incurred in prosecuting this action;
A judgment and order requiring Defendant to pay VirnetX 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; 5. A judgment and order requiring Defendant to pay VirnetX the costs of this action
(including all disbursements); 6. A judgment and order requiring Defendant to pay VirnetX pre-judgment and post-
judgment interest on the damages awarded; 7. A judgment and order requiring that in the event a permanent injunction
preventing future acts of infringement is not granted, that VirnetX be awarded a compulsory ongoing licensing fee; and 8. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Respectfully submitted, McKOOL SMITH, P.C. /s/ Douglas A. Cawley Douglas A. Cawley, Lead Attorney Texas State Bar No. 04035500 E-mail: dcawley@mckoolsmith.com Luke F. McLeroy Texas State Bar No. 24041455 E-mail: lmcleroy@mckoolsmith.com Bradley W. Caldwell Texas State Bar No. 24040630 E-mail: bcaldwell@mckoolsmith.com Jason D. Cassady Texas State Bar No. 24045625 E-mail: jcassady@mckoolsmith.com MCKOOL SMITH P.C. 300 Crescent Court, Suite 1500 Dallas, Texas 75201 Telephone: (214) 978-4000 Telecopier: (214) 978-4044 Sam F. Baxter Texas State Bar No. 01938000 E-mail: sbaxter@mckoolsmith.com MCKOOL SMITH P.C. 104 East Houston, Suite 300 Marshall, Texas 75670 Telephone: (903) 923-9000 Telecopier: (903) 923-9099 Robert M. Parker Texas State Bar No. 15498000 rmparker@pbatyler.com Robert Christopher Bunt Texas State Bar No. 00787165 rcbunt@pbatyler.com PARKER, BUNT & AINSWORTH, P.C. 100 East Ferguson, Suite 1114 Tyler, Texas 75702 Telephone: (903) 531-3535 Telecopier: (903) 533-9687 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF VIRNETX INC.
More From This UserOracle denied using revived patent vs. GoogleTouchscreen Gestures vs AppleDOJ lawsuit vs. Apple, publishers over e-booksBen Grobler vs. AppleFTC Privacy RecommendationsNovelPoint vs. AppleCore Wireless Licensing vs. AppleApple vs. Motorola over Qualcomm patentsSmartData vs. AppleSmart Audio vs. AppleApple ex parte request from EricssonWalt Disney 2012 proxy statementJewel vs. NSA, Bush Jr., ObamaUSPTO rejects some Oracle patent claimsSenate antitrust letter to FTC over GoogleJudge dismisses PS3 Other OS lawsuitUnderstanding Carrier IQ TechnologyErik Cherdak vs. Apple, Nike, Curtis VockGarnet Digital vs. Apple, HTC, AT&T, Verizon, et. al.Personal Audio vs. AmazonITC dismisses S3 complaint vs. AppleGraphics Properties Holding vs. Apple, LG, RIM and moreSEC August 17 response to Apple-Nokia dealSEC July 19 follow-up on Apple-Nokia deal
VirnetX vs. Apple by Jonathan Fingas3.9K viewsEmbedDownloadInterests: Types, Business/Law, Court FilingsRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentMore informationShow less
RelatedVirnetX Verdictby Mikey CampbellPatent Harbor v. Appleby PriorSmartCywee Group v. Appleby PatentBlastSightsound Technologies v. Appleby PriorSmartElia Data of Texas v. Appleby PriorSmartTriDim Innovations v. Appleby MacRumorsBluebonnet Telecommunications v. Appleby PriorSmartExpress Card Systems v. Appleby PatentBlastCedatech Holdings v. Appleby PriorSmartOpenwave Systems v. Apple et. al.by PriorSmartGellyfish Technology of Texas v. Fujitsu Et. Al.by PatentBlastPapst Licensing v. Apple Incby Jack PurcherTrans Video Electronics v. Appleby PriorSmartUntitledby PriorSmartMotorola iPhone 4S Complaintby tomkrazitMotorola Mobility v. Appleby PriorSmartSmith v. Honeywell Internationalby PriorSmartRegents of the University of California et. al. v. Staplesby PriorSmartWi-Lan v. Appleby PriorSmartBluebonnet Telecommunications v. NEC CASIO Mobile Communications et. al.by PriorSmartBusiness Process Modeling Solutions LLC d/b/a DE-BPMS v. Red Hatby PriorSmartUnifi Scientific Batteries v. Sony Mobile Communications AB et. al.by PriorSmart v. Criterion Collectionby PriorSmartHospital Systems Complaintby Myers, Boebel and MacLeod L.L.P.MAZ Encryption Technologies v. HTC et. al.by PriorSmartPersonalWeb Technologies et. al. v. Rackspace et. al.by PriorSmartUnifi Scientific Batteries v. HTC et. al.by PriorSmartBluebonnet Telecommunications v. Toshiba America Information Systemsby PriorSmartSimilar to VirnetX vs. AppleVirnetX VerdictPatent Harbor v. AppleCywee Group v. AppleSightsound Technologies v. AppleElia Data of Texas v. AppleTriDim Innovations v. AppleBluebonnet Telecommunications v. AppleExpress Card Systems v. AppleCedatech Holdings v. AppleOpenwave Systems v. Apple et. al.Gellyfish Technology of Texas v. Fujitsu Et. Al.Papst Licensing v. Apple IncTrans Video Electronics v. AppleUntitledMotorola iPhone 4S ComplaintMotorola Mobility v. AppleSmith v. Honeywell InternationalRegents of the University of California et. al. v. StaplesWi-Lan v. AppleBluebonnet Telecommunications v. NEC CASIO Mobile Communications et. al.Business Process Modeling Solutions LLC d/b/a DE-BPMS v. Red HatUnifi Scientific Batteries v. Sony Mobile Communications AB et. al. v. Criterion CollectionHospital Systems ComplaintMAZ Encryption Technologies v. HTC et. al.PersonalWeb Technologies et. al. v. Rackspace et. al.Unifi Scientific Batteries v. HTC et. al.Bluebonnet Telecommunications v. Toshiba America Information SystemsBluebonnet Telecommunications v. Uniden America2012-08-15 Nonend v Spotify - ComplaintVirnetX vs. Apple