Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/165564828/Card-Verification-Solutions-v-Citigroup
Timestamp: 2018-01-20 00:21:42
Document Index: 207134713

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1331', '§ 101', '§ 1391', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 284', '§ 284']

Card Verification Solutions v. Citigroup | Patent | Patent Infringement
Description: Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-06339: Card Verification Solutions, LLC v. Citigroup Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, ...
Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-06339: Card Verification Solutions, LLC v. Citigroup Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l944 for more info.
No. 1:13-CV-06339 Plaintiff, v. CITIGROUP INC., Defendant. PATENT CASE JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
COMPLAINT Card Verification Solutions, LLC (“CVS”) files this Complaint against Citigroup, Inc. (“Citigroup” or “Defendant”) for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,826,245 (“the ’245 patent”). THE PARTIES 1. CVS is an Illinois limited liability company with its principal office at 3301 W.
Marshall Avenue, Suite 302, Longview, Texas 75604. 2. Citigroup is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located at
399 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10043. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. 4. This is an action for patent infringement under Title 35 of the United States Code. Jurisdiction is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 (Federal
Question) and 1338(a) (Patents) because this is a civil action for patent infringement arising under the United States’ patent statutes, 35 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. 5. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(c) and 1400(b) because Citigroup has
This Court has personal jurisdiction over Citigroup and venue is proper in this
district because Citigroup has committed, and continues to commit, acts of infringement in the State of Illinois, including in this district and has engaged in continuous and systematic activities in the State of Illinois, including in this district. For example, Citigroup regularly conducts business in this district as shown by at least 30 Citigroup locations in the City of Chicago. Therefore, Citigroup has engaged in continuous and systematic activities in this district and has purposefully availed itself of the privileges of conducting business in this district. COUNT I (INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,826,245) 7. 8. CVS incorporates paragraphs 1 through 6 herein by reference. This cause of action arises under the patent laws of the United States, and in
(Direct Infringement) 11. Citigroup has and continues to directly infringe one or more claims of the ‘245
patent in this judicial district and/or elsewhere in Illinois and the United States, including at least claim 22 by, among other things, practicing methods that infringe the ‘245 patent including, but 2
not limited to methods for providing verification information for a transaction between an initiating party and a verification-seeking party such as point-of-sale or internet transactions using a credit or debit card. Citigroup is thereby liable for infringement of the ‘245 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271. 12. Based on the information presently available to CVS, absent discovery, CVS
contends that Citigroup has and continues to directly infringe one or more claims of the ‘245 patent, including at least claim 22, by practicing the method in conjunction with other third parties who work synergistically with Citigroup to provide verification information for a transaction using a nonsecure communication network, such as merchants, payment processors, gateways, and other issuing or acquiring banks (hereinafter “Participating Entities”). Citigroup in conjunction with the Participating Entities have, at minimum, directly infringed the ‘245 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C § 271. 13. To the extent any of the asserted claims, such as claim 22, are construed to require
action that is performed by a Participating Entity, such actions are attributable to Citigroup in accord with the principles of joint infringement in that Citigroup retains direction and/or control over the actions of the Participating Entities. 14. On information and belief, Citigroup exerts direction or control over the
Participating Entities, at a minimum, through contractual obligations to provide services that include the performance of actions falling within at least one element of at least one of the asserted claims, such as claim 22. 15. In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(3), CVS will likely have additional
CVS has been damaged as a result of Citigroup’s infringing conduct described
herein. Citigroup is, thus, liable to CVS in an amount that adequately compensates CVS for Citigroup’s infringements, which, by law, cannot be less than a reasonable royalty, together with interest and costs as fixed by the Court under 35 U.S.C. § 284. (Indirect Infringement – Inducement) 17. Based on the information presently available to CVS, absent discovery, and in the
alternative to direct infringement, CVS contends that Citigroup has and continues to indirectly infringe one or more claims of the ‘245 patent, including at least claim 22 by inducing others (e.g., merchants, payment processors, gateways, issuing banks, or acquiring banks) to practice methods in violation of one or more claims of the ’245 patent. 18. Citigroup has been on notice of the ‘245 patent since at least since receipt of
service of this Complaint. 19. Since Citigroup has been on notice of the ’245 patent, Citigroup has knowingly
induced infringement of the ‘245 patent, including at least claim 22 of the ‘245 patent, and possessed specific intent to encourage others’ infringement. 20. Since Citigroup has been on notice of the ‘245 patent, Citigroup knew or should
have known that its actions would induce actual infringement of the ‘245 patent, including at least claim 22 of the ‘245 patent. 21. Citigroup provides support and encourages others (e.g., merchants, payment
processors, gateways, issuing banks, and/or acquiring banks) to practice the methods and infringe at least claim 22 of the ‘245 patent. On information and belief, Citigroup, at a minimum, provides support and encourages others through contractual obligations to provide services that include the performance of the patented methods. In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. 4
P. 11(b)(3), CVS will likely have additional evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery on this issue. 22. Citigroup has not produced any evidence as to any investigation, design around or
that any remedial action was taken with respect to the ‘245 patent. In accordance with Fed .R. Civ. P. 11(b)(3), CVS will likely have additional evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for discovery on this issue. 23. CVS has been damaged as a result of Citigroup’s infringing conduct described in
this Count. Citigroup is, thus, liable to CVS in an amount that adequately compensates it for Citigroup’s infringement, 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. JURY DEMAND CVS hereby requests a trial by jury pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Documents Similar To Card Verification Solutions v. Citigroup
Stat Medical Devices v. AMG Medical et. al.