Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/113156606/Fastvdo-LLC
Timestamp: 2016-07-27 10:49:26
Document Index: 540531772

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§ 271', '§ 1331', '§ 271', '§ 285', 'art107']

UploadSign inJoinBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicEditors' Picks BooksHand-picked favorites from our editorsEditors' Picks AudiobooksHand-picked favorites from our editorsEditors' Picks ComicsHand-picked favorites from our editorsEditors' Picks Sheet MusicHand-picked favorites from our editorsTop BooksWhat's trending, bestsellers, award-winners & moreTop AudiobooksWhat's trending, bestsellers, award-winners & moreTop ComicsWhat's trending, bestsellers, award-winners & moreTop Sheet MusicWhat's trending, bestsellers, award-winners & moreCategoriesArts & IdeasBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipChildren'sComputers & TechnologyCooking & FoodCrafts & HobbiesFantasyFiction & LiteratureHappiness & Self-HelpHealth & WellnessHistoryHome & GardenHumorLGBTMystery, Thriller & CrimePolitics & EconomyReferenceReligionRomanceScience & NatureScience FictionSociety & CultureSports & AdventureTravelYoung AdultCategoriesArts & IdeasBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipChildren'sComputers & TechnologyCooking & FoodFantasyFiction & LiteratureHappiness & Self-HelpHealth & WellnessHistoryHome & GardenHumorLGBTMystery, Thriller & CrimePolitics & EconomyReferenceReligionRomanceScience & NatureScience FictionSociety & CultureSports & AdventureTravelYoung AdultCategoriesAdaptationsChildren’sCrime & MysteryFictionHumorMangaNonfictionRomanceSciFi, Fantasy & HorrorSuperheroesYoung AdultPublishersArcanaArchie ComicsBOOM! StudiosDynamiteIDW PublishingKingstone ComicsMarvel ComicsSpace Goat ProductionsTop Cow ComicsValiant ComicsZenescopeDifficultyBeginnerIntermediateAdvancedMixedInstrumentBrassDrums & PercussionGuitar, Bass, and FrettedPianoStringsVocalWoodwindsGenreClassicalCountryFolkJazz & BluesMovies & MusicalsPop & RockReligious & HolidayStandardsWelcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out moreIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE FASTVDO LLC, Plaintiff, v.UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, Defendant. COMPLAINT Plaintiff FastVDO LLC (“FastVDO”) alleges as follows: PARTIES 1. FastVDO is a Florida limited liability corporation with a principal place of Civil Action No. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
business at 750 N. Atlantic Ave., Cocoa Beach, FL 32931. 2. On information and belief, United Technologies Corporation (“UTC”) is a
Delaware corporation with a principal place of business at One Financial Plaza, Hartford, Connecticut, 06103. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. This is an action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the
United States of America, 35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq., including § 271. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). 4. This Court has personal jurisdiction over UTC because, among other reasons,
UTC is incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware, and UTC has conducted and continues to conduct regular and ongoing business in Delaware. Additionally, on information and belief, UTC has committed direct and indirect acts of infringement in this District by making, using, importing, offering for sale, and/or selling infringing products, and inducing others to perform method steps claimed by FastVDO’s patent in Delaware.
because, among other reasons, UTC is incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware, and UTC has conducted and continues to conduct regular and ongoing business in Delaware. Additionally, on information and belief, UTC has committed direct and indirect acts of infringement in this District by making, using, importing, offering for sale, and/or selling infringing products, and inducing others to perform method steps claimed by FastVDO’s patent in Delaware. COUNT I (Infringement of U.S. Patent No. RE 40,081) 6. FastVDO is the owner by assignment and merger of United States Patent No. RE
§ 271, UTC has infringed one or more claims of the ‘081 patent by making, using, importing, selling, or offering to sell video surveillance products, video management products, software and 2
services that use H.264 to code and decode video, including, but not limited to Legend IP Cam, UltraView Cam IP, UltraView EVP Encoder 10/Decoder 10, UltraView EVP Recorder 40/40D, UltraView EVP Recorder 60, UltraView EVP Recorder 80, TruVision Megapixel IP Cameras (TVC-M1120-1-N, TVC-M2110-1-N), TVD-M1120-3-N, TVD-M2110-2-N), TruVision DVR 10 4-channel H.264 DVR recorder, Lenel NVR7, OnGaurd 6.5 software, and Prism 1.1 software. Additionally, UTC has had knowledge of the ‘081 patent since November 8, 2012,1 or alternatively since being served with this complaint, and UTC has induced its customers to code and/or decode video with H.264 and practice the method steps of the ‘081 patent since this time with its marketing materials, advertising materials, manuals and customer support services. For example, UTC advertises that its TruVision DVR 10 digital video recorder “provides users with a cost-effective surveillance solution that enable users to conveniently view, record and play back recorded video. With 4-channel capability and H.264 video compression, this DVR efficiently records and transmits high quality video for reliable and effective security.” See Exhibit C at 1. UTC also advertises that its TruVision Megapixel IP Cameras “utilize H.264 compression technology with dual-streaming capability, making it easy to manage the camera’s bandwidth usage.” See Exhibit D at 1. Similarly, UTC’s Ultraview series IP cameras are advertised as featuring “advanced, powerful H.264 compression”. See Exhibit E at 1. These representative marketing materials exemplify how UTC induces its customers to use its accused products to code and/or decode videos with H.264 to perform the method steps of the ‘081 patent (e.g., coding and decoding blocks of digital image intensities with a block coder and transform coder that utilizes an invertible linear transform having a +/-1 butterfly step, a lifting step, and a scaling factor). By continuing the representative aforementioned activities with knowledge of the ‘081 patent and its essentiality to the H.264 standard, UTC has known, or should have known, that it was inducing infringement by causing the method steps of the ‘081 patent to be performed.
See Exhibit B. 3
PRAYER FOR RELIEF FastVDO prays for the following relief: 1. A judgment that UTC has directly infringed (either literally or under the doctrine
of equivalents) one or more claims of the ‘081 patent; 2. ‘081 patent; 3. A permanent injunction enjoining UTC and its officers, directors, agents, A judgment that UTC has induced the infringement of one or more claims of the
servants, affiliates, employees, divisions, branches, subsidiaries, parents, and all others acting in active concert or participation with them, from infringing each of the ‘081 patent; 4. An award of damages resulting from UTC’s acts of infringement in accordance
of 35 U.S.C. § 285 and awarding to FastVDO its reasonable attorneys’ fees; 6. A judgment and order requiring Rovi to provide an accounting and to pay
Fastvdo LLC by PriorSmart107 viewsEmbedDownloadDescriptionOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-01433-UNA: Fastvdo LLC. Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.prio...Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-01433-UNA: Fastvdo LLC. Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l74Q for more info.Categories: Types, Business/Law, Court FilingsRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Public DomainDownload as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentShow moreShow less
RelatedComputer Software Protection v. Microsoftby PatentBlastMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Samsung Electronics Et. Alby PatentBlastHelios Software et. al. v. Awareness Technologies et. al.by PriorSmartCanatelo v. TP-LINK Technologies et. al.by PriorSmartApple v. Samsung - Notice of D677 Reexamby slbursteinEFF: 06-937bsacRembrandtby EFFAmeranth v. Fandangoby PatentBlastPosner Orderby jeff_roberts881Landmark Technology v. Zumiezby PriorSmartCRFD Research Inc.by PriorSmartSelene Communication Technologies v. EMCby PriorSmartEC Data Systems v. J2 Global et. al.by PriorSmartFor Apple, 1 Out of 10 Aint Badby seedcornppcKaavo v. International Business Machinesby PriorSmartAmethyst IP v. Mobi Technologiesby PatentBlastTQP Development v. Dish Networkby PriorSmartPatentby JoannePriyaGlobeTecTrust v. Earthlinkby PriorSmartBlue Spike v. Zeitera et. al.by PriorSmartBody Science v. St. Jude Medicalby PriorSmartBody Science v. St. Jude Medicalby PriorSmartBlue Spike v. Accu-Time Systemsby PatentBlastBlue Spike v. Ingersoll-Rand Companyby PriorSmartDiamond v. Chakrabartyby Dianne Gandeza-LandichoWarrantyby souvikepbm20MF Newsletter JAN08by pontiuspilateSCO Grp v. Novell Inc - Document No. 197by Justia.comBose v. McDonaldsby joemullinSimilar to Fastvdo LLCComputer Software Protection v. MicrosoftMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Samsung Electronics Et. AlHelios Software et. al. v. Awareness Technologies et. al.Canatelo v. TP-LINK Technologies et. al.Apple v. Samsung - Notice of D677 ReexamEFFAmeranth v. FandangoPosner OrderLandmark Technology v. ZumiezCRFD Research Inc.Selene Communication Technologies v. EMCEC Data Systems v. J2 Global et. al.For Apple, 1 Out of 10 Aint BadKaavo v. International Business MachinesAmethyst IP v. Mobi TechnologiesTQP Development v. Dish NetworkPatentGlobeTecTrust v. EarthlinkBlue Spike v. Zeitera et. al.Body Science v. St. Jude MedicalBody Science v. St. Jude MedicalBlue Spike v. Accu-Time SystemsBlue Spike v. Ingersoll-Rand CompanyDiamond v. ChakrabartyWarrantyMF Newsletter JAN08SCO Grp v. Novell Inc - Document No. 197Bose v. McDonalds