Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/165576936/Card-Verification-Solutions-v-PNC-Financial-Services-Group
Timestamp: 2017-11-18 01:32:12
Document Index: 492598003

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

Card Verification Solutions v. PNC Financial Services Group | Patent | Patent Infringement
Card Verification Solutions v. PNC Financial Services Group
Description: Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-06341: Card Verification Solutions, LLC v. PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern Di...
Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-06341: Card Verification Solutions, LLC v. PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l94d for more info.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION CARD VERIFICATION SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case
No. 1:13-CV-06341 Plaintiff, v. PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC., Defendant. PATENT CASE JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
COMPLAINT Card Verification Solutions, LLC (“CVS”) files this Complaint against PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. (“PNC” 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. PNC is a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place of business located at 1
PNC Plaza, 249 5th Ave., Pittsburgh, PA 15222-2707. 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 PNC has
committed acts of infringement in this district and/or is deemed to reside in this district. 1
This Court has personal jurisdiction over PNC and venue is proper in this district
because PNC 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, PNC regularly conducts business in this district as shown by at least 30 PNC locations in the City of Chicago. Therefore, PNC 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
particular, 35 U.S.C. §§ 271, et seq. 9. The ‘245 patent is entitled “Providing Verification Information for a
Transaction.” CVS is the owner of the ‘245 patent with ownership of all substantial rights in the ‘245 patent, including the right to exclude others and to enforce, sue, and recover damages for past and future infringement. A true and correct copy of the ‘245 patent is attached as Exhibit 1. 10. The ‘245 patent is valid, enforceable and was duly issued in full compliance with
(Direct Infringement) 11. PNC 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 not 2
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. PNC 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 PNC 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 PNC 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”). PNC 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 PNC in accord with the principles of joint infringement in that PNC retains direction and/or control over the actions of the Participating Entities. 14. On information and belief, PNC 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
evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for discovery on this issue.
CVS has been damaged as a result of Bank of America’s infringing conduct
described herein. PNC is, thus, liable to CVS in an amount that adequately compensates CVS for Bank of America’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 PNC 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. PNC has been on notice of the ‘245 patent since at least since receipt of service of
this Complaint. 19. Since PNC has been on notice of the ’245 patent, PNC 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 PNC has been on notice of the ‘245 patent, PNC 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. PNC 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, Bank of America, 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. PNC 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 Bank of America’s infringing conduct
described in this Count. PNC is, thus, liable to CVS in an amount that adequately compensates it for Bank of America’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.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF CVS requests that this Court find in its favor and against Defendant, and that this Court grant CVS the following relief: a. b. Enter judgment for CVS on this Complaint; Enter judgment that one or more claims of the ‘245 patent has been infringed, either directly or indirectly by Defendant; c. Enter judgment that Defendant accounts for and pays to CVS all damages to and costs incurred by CVS because of Defendant’s infringing activities and other conduct complained of herein; d. Enter judgment that Defendant accounts for and pays to CVS a reasonable royalty and an ongoing post judgment royalty because of Defendant’s past, present and future infringing activities and other conduct complained of herein; e. Award CVS pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on the damages caused by Defendant’s infringing activities and other conduct complained of herein; and f. Award CVS such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper under the circumstances.
Respectfully submitted, /s/ Timothy E. Grochocinski Timothy E. Grochocinski Aaron W. Purser Joseph P. Oldaker INNOVALAW, P.C. 1900 Ravinia Place Orland Park, Illinois 60462 P. 708.675.1975 F. 708.675.1786 teg@innovalaw.com apurser@innovalaw.com joldaker@innovalaw.com COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF CARD VERIFICATION SOLUTIONS, LLC
Documents Similar To Card Verification Solutions v. PNC Financial Services Group
In-Depth Test v. Intersil
J-Channel Industries v. American Builders & Contractors Supply et. al.
Picture Perfect et. al. v. Idea Stream et. al.
Helen of Troy v. Smith Abrasives
Autoscribe et. al. v. Alliant Credit Union Foundation
J-Channel Industries v. MGM Industries
Card Verification Solutions v. BMO Financial
Cradle IP v. Altera