Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/148857891/Norman-IP-Holdings-v-Lenovo
Timestamp: 2017-04-27 02:28:09
Document Index: 318193537

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

Norman IP Holdings v. Lenovo
ScribdBrowseInterestsCareer & MoneyPersonal GrowthPolitics & Current AffairsScience & TechHealth & FitnessLifestyleEntertainmentBiographies & HistoryFictionBrowse byBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinNorman IP Holdings v. LenovoUploaded by PriorSmart0.0 (0)DownloadEmbedDescription: Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 6:13-cv-00497: Norman IP Holdings, LLC v. Lenovo (United States) Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, ...View MoreOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 6:13-cv-00497: Norman IP Holdings, LLC v. Lenovo (United States) Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l8CB for more info.Copyright: Public DomainDownload as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION NORMAN IP HOLDINGS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC., Defendant. § § § § § § § § §
Civil Action No. 6:13-cv-497
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Norman IP Holdings, LLC (“Norman”), by and through its attorneys, for its Original Complaint against Defendant Lenovo (United States) Inc. (“Lenovo” or “Defendant”), hereby alleges as follows: I. 1. NATURE OF THE ACTION
5,530,597 (the “’597 Patent”), issued on June 25, 1996, for “Apparatus and Method for Disabling Interrupt Masks in Processors or the Like”; United States Patent No. 5,502,689 (the “’689 Patent”), issued March 26, 1996, for “Clock Generator Capable of Shut-Down Mode and Clock Generation Method”; United States Patent No. 5,592,555 (the “’555 Patent”), issued January 7, 1997, for “Wireless Communications Privacy Method and System” (also referred to hereinafter as the “Patents”). True and correct copies of the Patents are attached hereto as Exhibit Nos. 1–3.
Defendant manufactures, provides, sells, offers for sale, imports, and/or
State of Texas, with its principal place of business located at 100 E. Ferguson, Suite 900, Tyler, Texas 75702. 7. Upon information and belief, Defendant Lenovo (United States) Inc. (hereinafter
“Lenovo”) is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 1009 Think Place, Morrisville, North Carolina 27560. Lenovo is registered to do business as a foreign corporation in Texas and has appointed CT Corporation System, 350 North St Paul Street, Dallas, TX 75201 as its agent for service of process. Lenovo may be served with process through its counsel, which has agreed to accept service of process on its behalf. III. 8. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
This is an action for patent infringement which arises under the patent laws of the This Court has
United States, in particular, 35 U.S.C. §§271, 281, 283, 284, and 285.
jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action under 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1338(a).
Norman owns all substantial right and interest to the Patents, including all rights
to recover for all past and future infringements thereof. VI. 14. DEFENDANT’S ACTS
Lenovo manufactures, provides, sells, offers for sale, and/or distributes infringing
systems. Examples of infringing products include Bluetooth 4.0-compliant chipsets found within Lenovo workstation products (e.g., Broadcom Bluetooth 4.0-compliant chipset found within W530 Workstation Laptop; microcontrollers found within storage controller cards sold in Lenovo workstations and servers (e.g., ARM processors found within LSI and Emulex RAID cards); other microcontrollers found within Lenovo workstations and servers (e.g., Marvell processors found within hard disk drives within ThinkServers, for example the Marvell 88i9045 used in the ThinkServer OA89473 500GB 7200 RPM SATA disk and the Marvell 88i8062 used in the ThinkServer 67Y2616 300GB 15K RPM SAS disk); microcontrollers found within LenovoEMC network storage products (e.g., Home Network Storage products incorporating Marvell processors, for example the EZ Backup and Media Center incorporates a Marvell PXA processor, specifically the 6282; as does the Lenovo Iomega ix2; other Lenovo Home Network storage products, e.g., Lenovo Iomega ix4-300d are similarly equipped); and substantially similar products. 15. With knowledge of the Patents, Lenovo provides related services, specifications,
and instructions for the installation and infringing operation of such systems to its customers, who directly infringe. 16. The foregoing infringing products include embedded processors. Lenovo
processors are designed and manufactured to operate in a manner which reduces power
consumption and infringes the ’689 Patent and ’597 Patent. Lenovo installs those processors so as to operate in an infringing manner. The infringing systems have no substantial non-infringing uses. 17. With respect to the ’555 Patent, Lenovo intentionally implements relevant
provisions of the Bluetooth Specification 4.0. Lenovo specifies wireless controllers that are compliant with Bluetooth Specification 4.0. The subject controllers are designed and
manufactured to operate in a manner which infringes the ’555 Patent during normal operation. Lenovo installs those controllers so as to operate in an infringing manner. The infringing controllers have no substantial non-infringing uses. 18. Lenovo has had knowledge of the Patents at least since its having requested a
license from AMD on June 23, 2005. A license was never effected between AMD and Lenovo. Moreover, the requested license did not encompass the products accused in this case. 19. With knowledge of the Patents, Lenovo has provided and continues to provide
related services, specifications, and instructions for the installation and infringing operation of such systems to the customers of its products, who directly infringe through the operation of those products. 20. With knowledge of the Patents, Lenovo has purposefully and voluntarily placed
infringing products in the stream of commerce with the expectation that its products will be purchased by customers in the Eastern District of Texas. 21. Through its actions, Lenovo has infringed the Patents and actively induced others
to infringe and contributed to the infringement by others of the Patents throughout the United States. 22. Norman has been and will continue to suffer damages as a result of Defendant
Lenovo’s infringing acts unless and until enjoined. VII. 23. WILLFULNESS
Plaintiff Norman alleges upon information and belief that Defendant Lenovo has Defendant has had
knowledge of the Patents since 2005, and was aware of Norman’s claim of infringement of the patents at least as early as February 17, 2011, the date of Norman’s original complaint in action number 6:11-cv-00084-LED. Defendant acted with knowledge of the Patents and despite an objectively high likelihood that their actions constituted infringement of Norman’s valid patent rights. 24. This objectively-defined risk was either known or so obvious that it should have
COUNT ONE PATENT INFRINGEMENT—U.S. PATENT NO. 5,530,597 25. 26. 27. Plaintiff Norman realleges and incorporates herein paragraphs 1–24. Defendant has infringed the ’597 Patent. Defendant has indirectly infringed the ’597 Patent by inducing the infringement
of the ’597 Patent and contributing to the infringement of the ’597 Patent. 28. Upon information and belief, Defendant has jointly infringed the ’597 Patent,
including by controlling and/or directing others to perform one or more of the claimed method steps. 29. Defendant’s aforementioned acts have caused damage to Norman and will
COUNT TWO PATENT INFRINGEMENT—U.S. PATENT NO. 5,502,689 30. 31. 32. Plaintiff Norman realleges and incorporates herein paragraphs 1–24. Defendant has infringed the ’689 Patent. Defendant has indirectly infringed the ’689 Patent by inducing the infringement
of the ’689 Patent and contributing to the infringement of the ’689 Patent. 33. Upon information and belief, Defendant has jointly infringed the ’689 Patent,
including by controlling and/or directing others to perform one or more of the claimed method steps. 34. Defendant’s aforementioned acts have caused damage to Norman and will
COUNT THREE PATENT INFRINGEMENT—U.S. PATENT NO. 5,592,555 35. 36. 37. Plaintiff Norman realleges and incorporates herein paragraphs 1–24. Defendant has infringed the ’555 Patent. Defendant has indirectly infringed the ’555 Patent by inducing the infringement
of the ’555 Patent and contributing to the infringement of the ’555 Patent. 38. Upon information and belief, Defendant has jointly infringed the ’555 Patent,
including by controlling and/or directing others to perform one or more of the claimed method steps. 39. Defendant’s aforementioned acts have caused damage to Norman and will
JURY DEMAND 7
Plaintiff Norman hereby demands a jury on all issues so triable.
VIII. REQUEST FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Norman respectfully requests that the Court: A. B. Enter judgment that Defendant infringes one or more claims of the Patents literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents; Permanently enjoin Defendant, its agents, servants, and employees, and all those in privity with Defendant or in active concert and participation with Defendant, from engaging in acts of infringement of the Patents; Award Plaintiff Norman past and future damages together with prejudgment and post-judgment interest to compensate for the infringement by Defendant of the Patents in accordance with 35 U.S.C. §284, and increase such award by up to three times the amount found or assessed in accordance with 35 U.S.C. §284; Declare this case exceptional pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §285; and Award Plaintiff Norman its costs, disbursements, attorneys’ fees, and such further and additional relief as is deemed appropriate by this Court.
Respectfully submitted, Dated: June 19, 2013 By: /s/ Andrew G. DiNovo Andrew G. DiNovo Texas State Bar No. 00790594 Adam G. Price Texas State Bar No. 24027750 Chester J. Shiu Texas State Bar No. 24071126 DiNovo Price Ellwanger & Hardy LLP 7000 N. MoPac Expressway, Suite 350 Austin, Texas 78731 Telephone: (512) 539-2626 Telecopier: (512) 539-2627
Documents Similar To Norman IP Holdings v. LenovoSkip carouselData Locker v. Apricorn et. al.c4cast.com v. DellCanatelo v. TP-LINK Technologies et. al.Canatelo v. Toshiba America Information Systems et. al.BillingNetwork Patent v. VetportDigiMedia Holdings Group v. NM LicensingDelaware Radio Technologies et. al. v. Hubbard Radio.pdfDelaware Radio Technologies LLC et. al.Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co. v. Hughes Tool Co, 192 F.2d 620, 10th Cir. (1951)ArrivalStar et. al. v. StartrackArrivalStar et. al. v. AyantraArrivalStar et. al. v. Loc-Aid TechnologiesArrivalStar et. al. v. IsoTrakMPHJ Technology Investments Et. Al. v. Research NowChinook Licensing DE v. Match.comBedgear v. Comfort Revolution - ComplaintSkyline Software Systems v. Analytical GraphicsYamauchi v. Albany InternationalDissertation - Patent Infringement and Freedom to Operate Analysis_1Gramm v Deere ComplaintG H Strickland v. Federal Signal et. al.PersonalWeb Technologies v. Amazon Web Services et. al.Adaptix v. Ericsson Et. Al. 2Cyber Acoustics v. Belkin InternationalCrorey Creations v. Amazon.comEagle Harbor v. Ford Motor Co; JMOLSt. Jude Children's Research Hospital v. Xcovery Holding CompanyIpl Full TextThe Suffolk Company v. Hayden, 70 U.S. 315 (1866)Lead Relay v. WzhDocuments About PatentSkip carousel16-12-20 Apple Complaint v. Acacia Et Al.Gillette Company v. ADKM, Inc. d/b/a Harry's Razor Company et. al.AppleVsSamsung_11.07.05Samsung vs Apple - Samsung's Appeal to the Supreme CourtConsulting AgreementPRICELINE COM INC 10-K (Annual Reports) 2009-02-20NokiaVsApple_11.03.31.100Wizards of the Coast v. Cryptozoic Entertainment et. al.Nike v. SkechersApple vs Android 10.12.02Nokia Complaint Against Apple in federal district court, WisconsinDavid Einhorn's presentation on Green Mountain RoastersBose vs Beats (ITC complaint)Beyond PhilanthropyBose v. Beats Civil ComplaintKoninklijke Philips N.V. et. al. v. Nintendo et. al.Against Intellectual Property, by Stephan Kinsella Apple vs Samsung 11.04.22Provisional Patent ApplicationGoogle Dec Action vs RockstarGENENTECH INC 10-K (Annual Reports) 2009-02-20AppleVsHTCandS3_11.07.29MicrosoftVsMotorola_11.12.11Translation of Mannheim 2O240 Ruling Motorola v MicrosoftNovartis patent JudgementBU v Apple14-01-21 Apple v. Samsung Summary Judgment OrderEPO Examiners Can No Longer Ensure Appropriate Quality StandardsGreenwich Ballistics v. Jamison International12-04-30 Apple-Samsung Teksler-Kim Letter Re FRANDMore 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