Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/207123006/Carucel-Investments-v-Gogo-et-al
Timestamp: 2017-04-29 12:41:48
Document Index: 328315565

Matched Legal Cases: ['art0', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 271', '§ 1331', '§ 1391', '§ 284', '§ 284', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 284', '§ 285', '§ 283']

Carucel Investments v. Gogo et. al.
ScribdBrowseInterestsCareer & MoneyPersonal GrowthPolitics & Current AffairsScience & TechHealth & FitnessLifestyleEntertainmentBiographies & HistoryFictionBrowse byBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinCarucel Investments v. Gogo et. al.Uploaded by PriorSmart0.0 (0)DownloadEmbedDescription: Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 0:14-cv-60363-RSR: Carucel Investments, L.P. v. Gogo, Inc. et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, ...View MoreOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 0:14-cv-60363-RSR: Carucel Investments, L.P. v. Gogo, Inc. et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, the Hon. Robin S. Rosenbaum presiding. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l9UH for more info.Copyright: Public DomainDownload as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No._____________ Carucel Investments, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership, Plaintiff, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED v. Gogo, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Gogo LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and Aircell Business Aviation Services LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendants.
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Plaintiff Carucel Investments, LP (“Carucel”) states the following as its Complaint against Defendants Gogo, Inc., Gogo LLC, and Aircell Business Aviation Services LLC (collectively “Gogo”): I. NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. This is an action for patent infringement arising under the Patent Laws of the
United States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 1, et seq. 2. Carucel is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that Gogo has been and
is infringing, contributing to the infringement of, and/or actively inducing others to infringe claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,221,904 (the “’904 Patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,848,701 (the “’701 Patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,979,023 (the “’023 Patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 8,463,177 (the
“’177 Patent”) (collectively the "Asserted Patents"). II. THE PARTIES 3. Plaintiff Carucel is a Delaware limited partnership with its principal place of
business at 3121 N.E. 51st Street, #401, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308. 4. Carucel is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that Defendant Gogo,
Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 1250 N. Arlington Heights Road, Suite 500, Itasca, Illinois 60143. 5. Carucel is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that Defendant Gogo
LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business at 1250 N. Arlington Heights Road, Suite 500, Itasca, Illinois 60143. 6. Carucel is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that Defendant Aircell
Business Aviation Services LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business at 1250 N. Arlington Heights Road, Suite 500, Itasca, Illinois 60143. 7. Carucel is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that Defendant Gogo
Inc. is a holding company that does business through its two indirect operating subsidiaries, Defendant Gogo LLC and Defendant Aircell Business Aviation Services LLC. 8. Upon information and belief, Gogo has substantial contacts and transacts
substantial business, either directly or through its agents, on an ongoing basis in this judicial district and elsewhere in the United States. 9. Unless specifically stated otherwise, the acts complained of herein were
committed by, on behalf of, and/or for the benefit of Gogo. III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 10. This action arises under the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 1, et
seq., including 35 U.S.C. § 271. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
This Court has personal jurisdiction over Gogo because Gogo has substantial
contacts and conducts business in the State of Florida and in this judicial district, and has been infringing, contributing to the infringement of and/or actively inducing others to infringe claims of the Asserted Patents in Florida and elsewhere. This Court also has personal jurisdiction over Gogo because Gogo has committed a tortious act causing injury within Florida, namely, the acts of infringement, contributory infringement, and/or inducement of infringement alleged herein. 12. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b), 1391(c), 1391(d)
and/or 1400(b) because a substantial part of the events giving rise to Carucel's claims occurred in the Southern District of Florida and because Gogo is subject to personal jurisdiction in the Southern District of Florida. IV. THE PATENTS IN SUIT 13. On May 22, 2007, the ’904 Patent, entitled “Mobile Communication System with
Moving Base Station,” was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office to the named inventor Charles D. Gavrilovich, after a full and fair examination. A true and correct copy of the ’904 Patent is attached as Exhibit A to this Complaint. 14. 15. The ’904 Patent is valid and enforceable. On December 7, 2010, the ’701 Patent, also entitled “Mobile Communication
System with Moving Base Station,” was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office to the named inventor Charles D. Gavrilovich, after a full and fair examination. A true and correct copy of the ’701 Patent is attached as Exhibit B to this Complaint. 16. 17. The ’701 Patent is valid and enforceable. On July 12, 2011, the ’023 Patent, also entitled “Mobile Communication System
with Moving Base Station,” was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office to the named inventor Charles D. Gavrilovich, after a full and fair examination. A true and correct copy of the ’023 Patent is attached as Exhibit C to this
Complaint. 18. 19. The ’023 Patent is valid and enforceable. On June 11, 2013, the ’177 Patent, also entitled “Mobile Communication System
with Moving Base Station,” was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office to the named inventor Charles D. Gavrilovich, after a full and fair examination. A true and correct copy of the ’177 Patent is attached as Exhibit D to this Complaint. 20. 21. The ’177 Patent is valid and enforceable. Carucel is the assignee and owner of all rights, title, and interest in and to the
Asserted Patents, including the right to assert all causes of action arising under the Asserted Patents and all rights to any remedies for infringement. V. GOGO’S ACTS OF INFRINGEMENT 22. On or about April 30, 2012, Carucel sent a letter and copies of the ’904, ’701, and
’023 Patents to Gogo addressed to Gogo’s Senior Vice President and General Counsel. The letter and copies of the patents were received by Gogo on May 2, 2012. A true and correct copy of that letter is attached as Exhibit E to this complaint. Gogo therefore had actual and full knowledge of at least the ’904, ’701, and ’023 patents no later than May 2, 2012. The letter received by Gogo also refers to a “pending continuation application” which subsequently issued as the ’177 patent. Accordingly, Gogo had actual and full knowledge of the patent application that issued as the ’177 patent. 23. Carucel is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that Gogo has made,
used, sold, imported and/or offered for sale, and/or continues to make, use, sell, import and/or offer for sale, products and services in the United States that fall within the scope of one or more claims of each of the Asserted Patents. These infringing systems and services include, but are not limited to, airborne in-flight internet connectivity systems and services and other in-flight voice and data communications products and services, such as ATG-4000, ATG-5000, Gogo®
Inflight Service, Gogo Biz® Service, Aircell Mobile Broadband Network, Cabin Telecommunications Router (CTR), Gogo Vision, and ATG-4 system, among others (the “Accused Products and Services”). 24. Without license or authorization, Gogo’s making, use, sale, offers for sale, and/or
importation of the Accused Products and Services in the United States constitute acts of direct infringement of the Asserted Patents. 25. Gogo is contributorily infringing, will induce, is inducing and has induced
infringement of one or more claims of each of the Asserted Patents by offering to sell and selling current and preceding versions of the Accused Products and Services, to customers, buyers, sellers, users, and others who directly infringe the Asserted Patents. 26. Carucel is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that Gogo has sold or
offered to sell its Accused Products and Services to third parties, including but not limited to, for example, American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, United Airlines, US Airways, and Continental Airlines, among others, who incorporate the Accused Products and Services into their own products and services. Upon information and belief, those third parties in turn have made, used, sold, offered for sale, and/or imported and/or continue to make, use, sell, offer for sale, and/or import their own products and services in the United States. These activities undertaken by the third parties constitute acts of direct infringement of the Asserted Patents. For example, Carucel is informed and believes that one or more of the third parties offer access to wireless internet service to passengers on domestic flights. In addition, Carucel is informed and believes that one or more of the third parties infringe the patents by employing persons that access the wireless internet service with wireless point-of-sale devices to perform credit card and debit card transactions. 27. Infringement of each Asserted Patent can be found through, among other things,
operation of the Accused Products, which are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use, in an ordinary and intended manner.
Despite Gogo’s knowledge of the Asserted Patents, and Gogo’s knowledge of
their validity and infringement by the Accused Products and Services, on information and belief, Gogo has continued and is continuing to sell and offer to sell the Accused Products and Services to third parties with the object of promoting their use to infringe, as shown by Gogo’s clear expression and other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement by their customers. For instance, on information and belief, Gogo provides documents related to the Accused Products and Services, such as datasheets, product manuals or other literature, to third parties. In an example, Gogo’s “Aircell Solutions Guide For Dealers” shows diagrams and identifies Gogo equipment for installation on aircraft where the equipment includes two third-party antennas connected to Gogo’s ATG-4000, which is connected to Gogo’s CTR to form an infringing system. 29. On information and belief, Gogo knew or should have known that its equipment,
for example, the ATG-4000 and CTR, is especially adapted or made for use to infringe the Asserted Patents. 30. As a result, Gogo has contributed to and continues to contribute to the
infringement of the Asserted Patents. 31. Carucel is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that, by its sales and/or
offers for sale of the Accused Products and Services to third parties, Gogo also has induced and continues to induce acts by third parties that Gogo knew or should have known would constitute direct infringement of the Asserted Patents. Gogo actively induces infringement of the Asserted Patents by designing the Accused Products and Services to be capable of infringement and by deliberately promoting and encouraging the use of its products and services by the third parties in ways that infringe the Asserted Patents. 32. For example, Gogo documents such as the “Aircell Solutions Guide For Dealers”
have directly induced Gogo’s customers to use the Accused Products and Services in a manner that infringes each of the Asserted Patents.
Carucel is entitled to recover from Gogo the actual damages it sustained as a
result of Gogo's wrongful acts alleged herein under 35 U.S.C. § 284 in an amount to be proven at trial, together with interest and costs. 34. Carucel is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that Gogo's infringement
of the Asserted Patents as set forth herein has been and is willful, deliberate and in wanton disregard of Carucel's patent rights, and Carucel is therefore entitled to increased damages up to three times the amount of actual damages and attorneys' fees, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 284, 285. 35. Gogo's infringement of the Asserted Patents will continue to damage Carucel,
causing irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law, unless it is enjoined by this Court. VI. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF COUNT I (Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,221,904 Under 35 U.S.C. § 271, et. seq.) 36. Carucel incorporates by reference and realleges paragraphs 1 through 35 above as
if fully set forth here. 37. Carucel is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that Gogo: (i) has
infringed and continues to infringe claims of the ’904 Patent, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, by making, using, offering to sell, selling (directly or through intermediaries), and/or importing the Accused Products and Services in this district and elsewhere in the United States, and/or (ii) has contributed and continues to contribute to the literal infringement and/or infringement under the doctrine of equivalents of claims of the ’904 Patent, and/or (iii) has actively induced and continues to actively induce others to infringe claims of the ’904 Patent, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, in this district and elsewhere in the United States.
COUNT II (Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,848,701 Under 35 U.S.C. § 271, et. seq.) 38. Carucel incorporates by reference and realleges paragraphs 1 through 37 above as
if fully set forth here. 39. Carucel is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that Gogo: (i) has
infringed and continues to infringe claims of the ’701 Patent, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, by making, using, offering to sell, selling (directly or through intermediaries), and/or importing the Accused Products and Services in this district and elsewhere in the United States, and/or (ii) has contributed and continues to contribute to the literal infringement and/or infringement under the doctrine of equivalents of claims of the ’701 Patent in this district and elsewhere in the United States, and/or (iii) has actively induced and continues to actively induce others to infringe claims of the ’701 Patent, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, in this district and elsewhere in the United States . COUNT III (Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,979,023 Under 35 U.S.C. § 271, et. seq.) 40. Carucel incorporates by reference and realleges paragraphs 1 through 39 above as
if fully set forth here. 41. Carucel is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that Gogo: (i) has
infringed and continues to infringe claims of the ’023 Patent, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, by making, using, offering to sell, selling (directly or through intermediaries), and/or importing the Accused Products and Services in this district and elsewhere in the United States, and/or (ii) has contributed and continues to contribute to the literal infringement and/or infringement under the doctrine of equivalents of claims of the ’023 Patent in this district and elsewhere in the United States, and/or (iii) has actively induced and continues to actively induce others to infringe claims of the ’023 Patent, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, in
this district and elsewhere in the United States. COUNT IV (Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,463,177 Under 35 U.S.C. § 271, et. seq.) 42. Carucel incorporates by reference and realleges paragraphs 1 through 41 above as
if fully set forth here. 43. Carucel is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that Gogo: (i) has
infringed and continues to infringe claims of the ’177 Patent, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, by making, using, offering to sell, selling (directly or through intermediaries), and/or importing the Accused Products and Services in this district and elsewhere in the United States, and/or (ii) has contributed and continues to contribute to the literal infringement and/or infringement under the doctrine of equivalents of claims of the ’177 Patent in this district and elsewhere in the United States, and/or (iii) has actively induced and continues to actively induce others to infringe claims of the ’177 Patent, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, in this district and elsewhere in the United States. VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Carucel asks this Court to enter judgment in its favor against Gogo and grant the following relief: A. An adjudication that Gogo has infringed and continues to infringe the Asserted
Patents as alleged above; B. An adjudication that Gogo has contributed and continues to contribute to the
infringement of the Asserted Patents as alleged above; C. An adjudication that Gogo has induced the infringement and continues to induce
the infringement of the Asserted Patents as alleged above; D. An accounting of all damages sustained by Carucel as a result of Gogo’s acts
of infringement of the Asserted Patents;
An award to Carucel of actual damages adequate to compensate Carucel for
Gogo’s acts of patent infringement, together with prejudgment and post judgment interest; F. An award to Carucel of enhanced damages, up to and including trebling of
Carucel’s damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284 for Gogo’s willful infringement of the Asserted Patents; G. An award of Carucel’s costs of suit and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 35
U.S.C. § 285 due to the exceptional nature of this case, or as otherwise permitted by law; H. A grant of a permanent injunction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 283, enjoining Gogo,
and each of its agents, servants, employees, principals, officers, attorneys, successors, assignees, and all those in active concert or participation with Gogo, including related individuals and entities, customers, representatives, OEMs, dealers, and distributors from further acts of (1) infringement, (2) contributory infringement, and (3) active inducement to infringe with respect to the claims of the Asserted Patents; I. Any further relief that this Court deems just and proper. VIII. JURY DEMAND Plaintiff Carucel requests a jury trial on all issues triable to a jury in this matter.
s/Oliver Alan Ruiz John C. Malloy, III Florida Bar Number: 964220 Email: jc3@malloylaw.com Malloy & Malloy, P.L. 2800 S.W. 3rd Avenue Miami, Fl 33129 Telephone: 305.858.8000 Facsimile: 305.858.0008 Oliver A. Ruiz Florida Bar Number: 524786 Email: oruiz@malloylaw.com Malloy & Malloy, P.L. 2800 S.W. 3rd Avenue Miami, Fl 33129 Telephone: 305.858.8000 Facsimile: 305.858.0008 Michael K. Lindsey (Pro hac vice pending) James M. Sarnecky (Pro hac vice pending) Gavrilovich, Dodd & Lindsey, LLP 4660 La Jolla Village Dr. Suite 750 San Diego, CA 92122 Tel: 858.869.2201 Fax: 858.458.9986 Attorneys for Plaintiff Carucel Investments, L.P. Attorneys for Plaintiff Carucel Investments, L.P.
Documents Similar To Carucel Investments v. Gogo Et. Al.Skip carouselArrivalStar et. al. v. Cogent SolutionsArrivalStar Et. Al. v. Avante International TechnologyArrivalStar Et. Al. v. KnightedArrivalStar Et. Al. v. Elemica InternationalCDD Technologies v. DellEames v. Godfrey, 68 U.S. 78 (1864)Sarif Biomedical v. AccuraySmith & Wesson v. Brookshire Tool and Manufacturing CompanyAcceleron v. Hitachi Data SystemsIgnite v. Pacific Market International Et. Al.Seasonal Specialties v. Inliten et. al.MacNeil IP v. United Brokerage Company et. al.Navilyst Medical v. Merit Medical SystemsAssignment for October 7HSM Portfolio LLC v. Fujitsu Ltd., C.A. No. 11-770-RGA (D. Del. July 3, 2012).Norfolk et. al. v. Koshi Electronics of AmericaLandmark Technology v. Haverty Furniture CompaniesLandmark Technology v. DSWLandmark Technology v. New York & CompanyLandmark Technology v. Destination MaternityLandmark Technology v. Delia'sLandmark Technology v. Shoe CarnivalGPNE v. RollinsEMG Technology v. Rite AidWipo Pub 834 Ch3 Undermining Patent Patent Applications 050213DLHVAC Modulation Technologies v. CarrierMDPL Complaint 6Unified Messaging Solutions v. FiservUnified Messaging Solutions v. Wells Fargo & Company et. al.SureFire v. Jetbeam et. al.Documents About Doctrine Of EquivalentsSkip carouselLodsys Complaint Against Adidas BestBuy Et Al11-07-21 Lodsys Amended ComplaintDot 23 Technologies Siri LawsuitJoao Control & Monitoring Systems v. Jaguar Land Rover North AmericaVertical Analytics v. Bruker AXS et. al.EMC v. Pure StorageMaxim Integrated Products v. Capital One FinancialAutomated Transactions v. Community National Bank and Community Bancorp.Alfonso Cioffi et. al. v. GoogleDelaware Display Group et. al. v. Pantech et. al.CRFD Research Inc.Sanofi-Aventis et. al. v. Eli Lilly and CompanyTechnologies Properties v. Action Electronics et. al.Mirus Bio v. FugentMaxim Integrated Products v. StarbucksMaxim Integrated Products v. ExpediaBrandeis University et. al. v. NestleMedicis Pharmaceutical et. al. v. Stiefel Laboratories et. al.Tranxition v. NovellEclipse IP v. Cornerstone BrandsMaxim Integrated Products v. Citigroup et. al.LifeScreen Sciences v. C.R. Bard et. al.Dymocom Enterprise v. Armstrong International et. al.Digcom Inc vs ZTE Corporation, et. al.Optical Devices v. LG Electronics et. al.Delaware Display Group LLC et. al.Siemens Medical Solutions v. HumedicaBettcher Industries v. Suhner Turbo Trim et. al.Ogma v. Nyko TechnologiesLodsys v. DriveTime Automotive Group et. al.More From PatentBlastSkip carouselMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Samsung Electronics Et. AlMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Nintendo of America Et. AlMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Cantor Fitzgerald Et. AlMultiplayer Network Innovations v. ZTE Et. AlMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Toshiba AmericaMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Pantech Et. AlMultiplayer Network Innovations v. NVIDIAActifio v. DelphixRTC Industries v. Flextronics InternationalTactical Medical Solutions v. Karl Et. AlPrometheus Laboratories v. Par Pharmaceutical Companies Et. AlAndrea Electronics v. Lenovo Group Et. Al.Andrea Electronics v. Toshiba Et. Al.Property Disclosure Technologies v. TruliaGlobal Tel*Link v. Securus Technologies et. al.Century Board v. National Registered AgentsIatric Systems v. FairWarningHologram Et. Al. v. Arena3D Industrial Illusion Et. Al.Tech-ni-Fold v. F.P. Rosback CompanyRTC Industries v. ZiveloMotobatt v. Deltran OperationsImpax Laboratories Et. Al. v. Lannett Holdings Et. Al.Alkermes Pharma Ireland v. Sun Pharma Global FZE Et. Al.Unimed Pharmaceuticals Et. Al. v. Perrigo Company Et. Al.Sensus v. Certified MeasurementCapella Photonics v. TellabsCapella Photonics v. Fujitsu Network CommunicationsCapella Photonics v. CienaILife Technologies v. AliphComAeritas v. GameStop