Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/138966312/NeoMedia-Technologies-v-Bed-Bath-Beyond
Timestamp: 2016-07-23 18:46:37
Document Index: 598512386

Matched Legal Cases: ['§271', '§271', '§271', '§284', '§285', 'art240']

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 COLORADO Civil Action No.____________________________ NEOMEDIA TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Plaintiff, v. Judge BED BATH & BEYOND INC., Jury Trial Demand Defendant.
COMPLAINT Plaintiff NeoMedia Technologies, Inc. for its Complaint for patent infringement against Defendant Bed Bath & Beyond Inc., alleges as follows: PARTIES 1. Plaintiff NeoMedia Technologies, Inc. (“NeoMedia”) is a Delaware
(“the ‘048 Patent”) and US Patent 8,131,597 (“the ‘597 Patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). NeoMedia has and has had the exclusive right to enforce and collect damages for infringement of the Asserted Patents during all relevant time periods. 3. On information and belief, Defendant Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. (“Bed
Bath”) is organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York, having its principal place of business at 715 Morris Avenue, Springfield, NJ 07081 and having a
1	place of business (a company-owned or franchise store) at 2500 East First Ave, Denver, CO 80206. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4. This is a civil action for patent infringement arising under the Patent Laws
reexaminations before the USPTO. The first reexamination was instituted on July 26, 2007 (“the 2007 Reexamination”), and concluded on June 9, 2009, when the USPTO issued an Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate (6867th). The second reexamination was instituted on September 20, 2010 (“the 2010 Reexamination”), and concluded on September 6, 2011, with the USPTO issued an Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate (8519th). A true and correct copy of the ‘048 Patent, and its two Ex Parte Reexamination Certificates is attached as Exhibit A. 13. On March 6, 2012, the ‘597 Patent, entitled “System and Method for
3	Pa.), and NeoMedia Technologies, Inc. v. SpyderLynk, LLC, Case No. 12 CV 00939 (D. Co.). 15. NeoMedia has licensed the Asserted Patents to a several of providers of
valuable intellectual property, including the ‘048 and ‘597 patents, to other companies including Kraft Foods, Microsoft, Progressive Insurance, and Mondelez Global LLC. THE DEFENDANT BED BATH 17. According to its SEC filings, Defendant Bed Bath describes itself as
selling “a wide assortment of domestics merchandise and home furnishings,” and whose “1,173 stores operate in 50 states, the Disctrict of Columbia, Puerto Rico and Canada.” 18. On information and belief, Defendant Bed Bath implements its marketing
strategies at least by publishing or causing to be published advertisements featuring QR Codes in order to capitalize in the form of added value to its brand. BED BATH’S AWARENESS OF THE ASSERTED PATENTS 19. Bed Bath has been expressly aware of the ‘048 Patent no later than
February 7, 2013, when NeoMedia, through its counsel, notified the in house counsel for Bed Bath of the ‘048 Patent and offered Bed Bath the opportunity to license the patents. 20. Bed Bath has been expressly aware of the ‘597 Patent no later than
February 7, 2013, when NeoMedia, through its counsel, notified the in house counsel for Bed Bath of the ‘597 Patent and offered Bed Bath the opportunity to license the patent.
the parties, but Bed Bath has never agreed to take a license and has never demonstrated why it believes a license is not necessary. FACTS REGARDING BED BATH’S INFRINGEMENT 22. QR Code advertisements and/or product packaging used by Bed Bath are
communicate the index to the server “http://bqt.co” to obtain the URL “http://m.bedbathandbeyond.com/bedbathbeyond/catalog.do?cid=1489872” of the content server.
5	24.
Bed Bath does cause and has caused advertisements and/or product
packaging to be published to the general public intending to strengthen the value of its brand, featuring at least one QR Code. 25. Bed Bath publishes and has published these advertisements and/or product
packaging on behalf of its brand in order to instruct users to scan the QR Code provided by Bed Bath with a barcode reader. ALLEGATIONS RELATING TO WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT 26. Defendant Bed Bath has been aware of the ‘048 Patent since at least as
early as February 7, 2013, when NeoMedia sent Bed Bath a letter offering to license NeoMedia’s patent portfolio. 27. Defendant Bed Bath has been aware of the ‘597 Patent since at least as
early as February 7, 2013, when NeoMedia sent Bed Bath a letter offering to license NeoMedia’s patent portfolio. 28. Despite specific knowledge of the claims of the Asserted Patents, Bed
Bath was objectively reckless in continuing to engage in actions that indirectly infringe the Asserted Patents. Bed Bath knew or should have known that there was an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of a valid patent. COUNT I: INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘048 PATENT 29. NeoMedia incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs
1 through 28 of this Complaint as though set forth fully herein. 30. To the extent that Bed Bath has sponsored QR campaigns with any
6	NeoMedia, QR Codes that are covered by one or more claims of the ‘048 patent, Defendant Bed Bath has been and is currently infringing the ‘048 Patent by inducement and/or contributorily in violation of 35 U.S.C. §271 (b), and/or (c). 31. Bed Bath, through previous correspondence from NeoMedia, and based
upon this Complaint, is actually aware of the ‘048 patent and what acts constitute infringing conduct. 32. With this knowledge, Bed Bath has intentionally taken active steps to
cause, urge, encourage, or aid others’ direct infringement of the ‘048 Patent with knowledge of that infringement, such as by advertising and distributing the Bed Bath QR Codes, including instructions on how to use the QR Codes, by which Bed Bath specifically intended to cause, urge, encourage, or aid others to directly infringe the ‘048 Patent. 33. These active steps caused, urged, encouraged, or aided others to use the
Bed Bath QR Codes in a manner that employs and/or embodies the claims of the ‘048 Patent by meeting each and every element of one or more of the claims, including putting the invention into service, i.e., controlling the system as a whole and obtaining benefit from it. 34. By making and/or using QR codes that indirectly link to a webserver, Bed
Bath is making and/or using QR codes that are material to practicing the ‘048 Patent’s invention. 35. Bed Bath QR codes that indirectly link to a webserver are especially made
or especially adapted to indirectly link to a webserver.
7	36.
Bed Bath QR codes that indirectly link to a webserver have no substantial
non-infringing uses. 37. By making and/or using the QR codes that indirectly link to a webserver,
Bed Bath specifically intended its customers to infringe the ‘048 Patent and knew that the customers’ acts constituted infringement. 38. 39. On information and belief, Bed Bath’s conduct is willful and deliberate. As a direct and proximate result of Bed Bath’s acts of patent infringement,
NeoMedia has been, and continues to be injured, and has sustained, and will continue to sustain, substantial damages in an amount not yet determined. 40. In addition, NeoMedia has and will continue to suffer irreparable harm as
a direct and proximate result of Bed Bath’s acts of patent infringement. COUNT II: INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘597 PATENT 41. NeoMedia incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs
1 through 28 and 30 through 40 of this Complaint as though set forth fully herein. 42. To the extent that Bed Bath has sponsored QR campaigns with any
provider not licensed by NeoMedia, by making, using, selling, or offering for sale in this judicial district and elsewhere in the United States, without authorization or license from NeoMedia, QR Codes that are covered by one or more claims of the ‘597 patent, Defendant Bed Bath has been and is currently infringing the ‘597 Patent by inducement and/or contributorily in violation of 35 U.S.C. §271(b), and/or (c). 43. Bed Bath, through previous correspondence from NeoMedia, and based
upon this Complaint, is actually aware of the ‘597 patent and what acts constitute infringing conduct.
8	44.
With this knowledge, Bed Bath has intentionally taken active steps to
cause, urge, encourage, or aid others’ direct infringement of the ‘597 Patent with knowledge of that infringement, such as by advertising and distributing the Bed Bath QR Codes, including instructions on how to use the QR Codes, by which Bed Bath specifically intended to cause, urge, encourage, or aid others to directly infringe the ‘597 Patent. 45. These active steps caused, urged, encouraged, or aided others to use the
Bed Bath QR Codes in a manner that employs and/or embodies the claims of the ‘597 Patent by meeting each and every element of one or more of the claims of the ‘597 Patent, including putting the invention into service, i.e., controlling the system as a whole and obtaining benefit from it. 46. By making and/or using QR codes that indirectly link to a webserver, Bed
Bath is making and/or using QR codes that are material to practicing the ‘597 Patent’s invention. 47. Bed Bath QR codes that indirectly link to a webserver are especially made
or especially adapted to indirectly link to a webserver. 48. Bed Bath QR codes that indirectly link to a webserver have no substantial
non-infringing uses. 49. By making and/or using the QR codes that indirectly link to a webserver,
Bed Bath specifically intended its customers to infringe the ‘597 Patent and knew that the customers’ acts constituted infringement. 50. On information and belief, conduct by Bed Bath is willful and deliberate.
As a direct and proximate result of Bed Bath’s acts of patent infringement,
NeoMedia has been, and continues to be injured, and has sustained, and will continue to sustain, substantial damages in an amount not yet determined. 52. In addition, NeoMedia has and will continue to suffer irreparable harm as
a direct and proximate result of Bed Bath’s acts of patent infringement. REQUEST FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, NeoMedia requests that this Court enter judgment: A. Adjudging, finding and declaring that Bed Bath has indirectly infringed (both via induced infringement and contributory infringement) the asserted claims of each of the Patents-In-Suit under 35 U.S.C. §271; B. Adjudging, finding and declaring that infringement by Bed Bath is willful and deliberate; C. Ordering Bed Bath to pay NeoMedia an amount that, as adequately as possible, compensates NeoMedia for infringement by Bed Bath, in no event less than a one-time fully paid up reasonable royalty fee; D. Ordering Bed Bath to pay court costs, pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest, and attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. §§284 and 285; E. Finding that this is an “exceptional” case pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §285, and awarding enhanced damages up to and including treble the amount of damages and the payment of attorneys’ fees; and F. Granting NeoMedia such other and further relief as is just and proper, or as the Court deems appropriate.
10	JURY DEMAND NeoMedia demands a trial by jury on all issues that may be so tried.
11	More From This UserLike kind card game (US patent 6193235)Like kind money board table game (US patent 6186505)Intelligent user interface including a touch sensor device (US patent 8288952)User interface with proximity sensing (US patent 8035623)Wine cellar alarm system (US patent 8710985)Cell regulatory genes, encoded products, and uses related thereto (US patent 7030227)Multicasting method and apparatus (US patent 6434622)Method and apparatus for retrieving data from a network using linked location identifiers (US patent 6226655)Casino bonus game using player strategy (US patent 6645071)High-speed serial linking device with de-emphasis function and the method thereof (US patent 7313187)Casing spacer (US patent 6736166)Advance Products & Systems v. CCI Piping SystemsModern Telecom Systems LLCTracBeam v. AppleRichmond v. Creative IndustriesSenju Pharmaceutical et. al. v. Metrics et. al.VIA Technologies et. al. v. ASUS Computer International et. al.Perrie v. PerrieEckart v. Silberline ManufacturingSenju Pharmaceutical et. al. v. Metrics et. al.Kenzinc v. imblowingup et. al.Sun Zapper v. Devroy et. al.Merck Sharp & Dohme v. Fresenius KabiTracBeam v. T-Mobile et. al.ATEN International v. Uniclass Technology et. al.
NeoMedia Technologies v. Bed Bath & Beyond by PriorSmart240 viewsEmbedDownloadDescriptionOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-01152: NeoMedia Technologies, Inc. v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, no ju...Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-01152: NeoMedia Technologies, Inc. v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l885 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
RelatedNeoMedia Technologies v. Taco Bellby PriorSmartNeoMedia Technologies v. Re/Maxby PriorSmartNeoMedia Technologies v. Wendy'sby PriorSmartNeoMedia Technologies v. Michaels Storesby PriorSmartNeoMedia Technologies v. Kaoby PriorSmartNeoMedia Technologies v. Conairby PriorSmartIngeniador v. Nuance Communicationsby PriorSmartEC Data Systems v. J2 Global et. al.by PriorSmartNeoMedia Technologies v. Targetby PriorSmartInnovative Wireless Solutions v. La Quinta Inn Wordwide et. al.by PriorSmartlicenseby khongminhnamBOScom License Agreement and Limited Warrantyby dionizio199466656by sabatino123US Federal Trade Commission: V060019by ftcHP Pavilion a1600n.c00769211by tonehog457011792Ameranth v. Seamless North Americaby PriorSmartMN101E03G micro panasonic=mod CT-GT2150Rby anon-208982eulaby Wilder Leonardo Valverde AlvaIntertrust Patent Suit Against Appleby techledesflip flopby Jorge OrzcoMicrosoft vs. Global Electronic Recyclingby Jacob Demmitt104 Megaco Finalby Amjad Ali KhanOpen Network Solutions v. Lexmark Internationalby PatentBlastViasat et. al. v. Space Systems/Loralby PriorSmartSoftware License Agreementby Ivan SvojicCIX IPT DKT Telephone Administrator Manualby ertai123EULAby Edison Herrera Núñeztms320f2812by Andre Bacilio VelaSimilar to NeoMedia Technologies v. Bed Bath & BeyondNeoMedia Technologies v. Taco BellNeoMedia Technologies v. Re/MaxNeoMedia Technologies v. Wendy'sNeoMedia Technologies v. Michaels StoresNeoMedia Technologies v. KaoNeoMedia Technologies v. ConairIngeniador v. Nuance CommunicationsEC Data Systems v. J2 Global et. al.NeoMedia Technologies v. TargetInnovative Wireless Solutions v. La Quinta Inn Wordwide et. al.licenseBOScom License Agreement and Limited Warranty56US Federal Trade CommissionHP Pavilion a1600n.c00769211Ameranth v. Seamless North AmericaMN101E03G micro panasonic=mod CT-GT2150ReulaIntertrust Patent Suit Against Appleflip flopMicrosoft vs. Global Electronic Recycling104 Megaco FinalOpen Network Solutions v. Lexmark InternationalViasat et. al. v. Space Systems/LoralSoftware License AgreementCIX IPT DKT Telephone Administrator ManualEULAtms320f2812CeeColor Industries v. Healthcast74LS93N.pdf