Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/234957536/STAR-CO-Ranger-Digital-v-Microsoft-et-al
Timestamp: 2016-08-27 11:21:06
Document Index: 593872625

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 271', '§ 1331', '§ 1391', '§ 1400', '§ 284', 'art16']

BrowseUploadSign inJoinBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicWelcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out more1UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Plaintiff STAR CO Ranger Digital, LLC (“STAR CO Ranger Digital”) sues the above-
listed Defendants and on information and belief alleges as follows: Introduction 1. Plaintiff STAR CO Ranger Digital owns the inventions described and claimed in United States Patent No. 8,694,694 entitled “Portable Memory Drive with Portable Applications and Cross-Computer System Management Application” (the ’694 patent). Defendants, without STAR CO Ranger Digital’s permission, (a) have used and continue to use STAR CO Ranger Digital’s patented technology in products and/or services that they make, use, sell, and offer to sell; and/or (b) have contributed to and/or induced, and continue to contribute to and/or induce, STAR CO RANGER DIGITAL, LLC, a Texas corporation, Plaintiff, vs. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, a Washington corporation; IMATION CORP., a Delaware corporation; KINGSTON TECHNOLOGY COMPANY, INC., a Delaware corporation; AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., a Delaware corporation; AMERICAN AIRLINES GROUP INC., a Delaware corporation; BLACK KNIGHT HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware corporation; BLACK KNIGHT FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware corporation, Defendants. CASE NO. 2:14-cv-00793 JURY DEMANDED 2 others to use STAR CO Ranger Digital’s patented technology. STAR CO Ranger Digital seeks damages for patent infringements and an injunction preventing Defendants from (a) making, using, selling, or offering to sell, and from (b) contributing to and inducing others to make, use, sell, or offer to sell, STAR CO Ranger Digital’s patented technology without permission. Jurisdiction and Venue 2. This is an action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 271 and 281, et seq. The Court has original jurisdiction over this patent infringement action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). 3. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and § 1400. Defendants are responsible for acts of infringement occurring in the Eastern District of Texas as alleged in this Complaint. Defendants have (a) delivered or caused to be delivered their infringing products and/or services in the Eastern District of Texas, and/or (b) used or caused to be used infringing products and/or services in the Eastern District of Texas. Plaintiff STAR CO 4. Plaintiff STAR CO Ranger Digital, LLC is a limited liability company existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Texas. Defendants 5. Defendant Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”) is a Washington corporation with its principal place of business in Redmond, Washington. 6. Defendant Imation Corp. (“Imation”) is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Oakdale, Minnesota. 7. Defendant Kingston Technology Company, Inc. (“Kingston”) is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Fountain Valley, California. 3 8. Defendant American Airlines, Inc. (“American Airlines”) is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Fort Worth, Texas. 9. Defendant American Airlines Group Inc. (“American Airlines Group”) is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Fort Worth, Texas. 10. Defendant Black Knight Holdings, Inc. (“Black Knight Holdings”) is a Delaware with its principal place of business in J acksonville, Florida, 11. Defendant Black Knight Financial Services, LLC (“Black Knight Financial”) is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in J acksonville, Florida. CLAIM FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT (‘694 PATENT) 12. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of the allegations in paragraphs 1-11 above. 13. On April 8, 2014, the ‘694 Patent was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. 14. Each claim of the ‘694 patent is valid and enforceable. 15. Plaintiff STAR CO Ranger Digital, LLC is the owner of the ‘694 Patent with full rights to pursue recovery of royalties or damages for infringement of such patent, including full rights to recover past and future damages. Microsoft 16. Since April 8, 2014, Defendant Microsoft has infringed the ‘694 patent and, unless enjoined, will continue to do so, by making, using, selling, offering for sale and/or importing infringing products and/or services, without a license or permission from STAR CO Ranger Digital. Microsoft’s infringing products include, without limitation, its products that include Windows To Go (including without limitation Windows 8.1 Enterprise). 4 17. Microsoft has actively induced, and will continue to actively induce infringement of the ‘694 patent by others, including those that make, use, sell, or offer for sale Windows To Go drives. Microsoft offered and continues to offer its infringing products and/or services for sale, and instructed and continues to instruct others to operate the products in an infringing manner, including through instruction, documentation, and support provided to (a) those that make, use, sell, and offer for sale Windows To Go drives, and (b) users of Windows To Go. Microsoft knew of the ‘694 patent since at least the date of this complaint’s filing, and knew that its actions would induce and will continue to induce infringement of the ‘694 patent by others, including (a) those that make, use, sell, and offer for sale Windows To Go drives, and (b) users of Windows To Go. As a result of Microsoft’s inducement, users of Microsoft’s infringing products and/or services have infringed and continue to infringe the ‘694 patent. 18. Microsoft has contributed to and continues to contribute to the infringement of the ‘694 patent by others, including (a) those that manufacture or provide Windows To Go drives and (b) users of Windows To Go. Microsoft sold, offered to sell, and/or imported and continues to sell, offer to sell, and/or import its infringing products and/or services that constitute a material part of the invention claimed in the ‘694 patent. Microsoft knew that its infringing products and/or services were especially made for infringement of the ‘694 patent; that they were not a staple article or commodity of commerce; and that they have no substantial non-infringing use. 19. Plaintiff has been damaged by Microsoft’s infringement of the ‘694 Patent and will suffer additional irreparable damage and impairment of the value of its patent rights unless Microsoft is enjoined from continuing to infringe the ‘694 patent. 5 Imation 20. Since April 8, 2014, Defendant Imation has infringed the ‘694 patent and, unless enjoined, will continue to do so, by making, using, selling, offering for sale and/or importing infringing products, without a license or permission from STAR CO Ranger Digital. Imation’s infringing products include, without limitation, its drives certified for use with Windows To Go. 21. Imation has actively induced, and will continue to actively induce infringement of the ‘694 patent by others, including customers and users of its Windows To Go drives. Imation offered and continues to offer its infringing products for sale, and instructed and continues to instruct others to operate them in an infringing manner, including through instruction, documentation, and support provided to its customers and users of its Windows To Go drives. Imation knew of the ‘694 patent since at least the date of this complaint’s filing, and knew that its actions would induce and will continue to induce infringement of the ‘694 patent by others, including its customers and users of its Windows To Go drives. As a result of Imation’s inducement, its customers and users of its Windows To Go drives have infringed and continue to infringe the ‘694 patent. 22. Imation has contributed to and continues to contribute to the infringement of the ‘694 patent by others, including customers and users of its Windows To Go drives. Imation sold, offered to sell, and/or imported and continues to sell, offer to sell, and or/import its Windows To Go drives that constitute a material part of the invention claimed in the ‘694 patent. Imation knew that its infringing products were especially made for infringement of the ‘694 patent; that they were not a staple article or commodity of commerce; and that they have no substantial non-
infringing use. 6 23. Plaintiff has been damaged by Imation’s infringement of the ‘694 Patent and will suffer additional irreparable damage and impairment of the value of its patent rights unless Imation is enjoined from continuing to infringe the ‘694 patent. Kingston 24. Since April 8, 2014, Defendant Kingston has infringed the ‘694 patent and, unless enjoined, will continue to do so, by making, using, selling, offering for sale and/or importing infringing products, without a license or permission from STAR CO Ranger Digital. Kingston’s infringing products include, without limitation, its drives certified for use with Windows To Go. 25. Kingston has actively induced, and will continue to actively induce infringement of the ‘694 patent by others, including customers and users of its Windows To Go drives. Kingston offered and continues to offer its infringing products for sale, and instructed and continues to instruct others to operate them in an infringing manner, including through instruction, documentation, and support provided to its customers and users of its Windows To Go drives. Kingston knew of the ‘694 patent since at least the date of this complaint’s filing, and knew that its actions would induce and will continue to induce infringement of the ‘694 patent by others, including its customers and users of its Windows To Go drives. As a result of Kingston’s inducement, its customers and users of its Windows To Go drives have infringed and continue to infringe the ‘694 patent. 26. Kingston has contributed to and continues to contribute to the infringement of the ‘694 patent by others, including customers and users of its Windows To Go drives. Kingston sold, offered to sell, and/or imported and continues to sell, offer to sell, and or/import its Windows To Go drives that constitute a material part of the invention claimed in the ‘694 patent. Kingston knew that its infringing products were especially made for infringement of the ‘694 7 patent; that they were not a staple article or commodity of commerce; and that they have no substantial non-infringing use. 27. Plaintiff has been damaged by Kingston’s infringement of the ‘694 Patent and will suffer additional irreparable damage and impairment of the value of its patent rights unless Kingston is enjoined from continuing to infringe the ‘694 patent. American Airlines Defendants 28. Defendants American Airlines and American Airlines Group (collectively “American Airlines Defendants”) have infringed the ‘694 patent and, unless enjoined, will continue to do so by using infringing products and/or services without a license or permission from STAR CO Ranger Digital. American Airlines Defendants’ infringement includes, without limitation, their use of Windows To Go. 29. Plaintiff has been damaged by American Airlines Defendants’ infringement of the ‘694 Patent and will suffer additional irreparable damage and impairment of the value of its patent rights unless American Airlines Defendants are enjoined from continuing to infringe the ‘694 patent. Black Knight Defendants 30. Defendants Black Knight Holdings and Black Knight Financial (collectively “Black Knight Defendants”) have infringed the ‘694 patent and, unless enjoined, will continue to do so by using infringing products and/or services without a license or permission from STAR CO Ranger Digital. Black Knight Defendants’ infringement includes, without limitation, their use of Windows To Go. 8 31. Plaintiff has been damaged by Black Knight Defendants’ infringement of the ‘694 Patent and will suffer additional irreparable damage and impairment of the value of its patent rights unless Black Knight Defendants are enjoined from continuing to infringe the ‘694 patent. Jury Demand Plaintiff demands trial by jury of all issues. Prayer for Relief WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as follows: A. A decree preliminarily and permanently enjoining Defendants, their officers, directors, employees, agents, and all persons in active concert with them, from infringing, and contributing to or inducing others to infringe, the ‘694 patent; B. Compensatory damages awarding Plaintiff damages caused by Defendants’ infringement of the ‘694 patent. C. Enhancement of Plaintiff’s damages by reason of the nature of Defendants’ infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284; D. Costs of suit and attorneys’ fees; E. Pre-judgment interest; and F. Such other relief as justice requires. Dated: J uly 22, 2014 Respectfully submitted, By: /Christin Cho/ Christin Cho CA State Bar No. 238173 (admitted to practice before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas) Email: christin@dovellaw.com Gregory S. Dovel 9 CA State Bar No. 135387 (admitted to practice before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas) Email: greg@dovellaw.com Dovel & Luner, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: 310-656-7066 Facsimile: 310-657-7069 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF STAR CO RANGER DIGITAL LLC Like 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.
STAR CO Ranger Digital v. Microsoft et. al. by PriorSmart16 viewsEmbedDownloadDescriptionOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-00793: STAR CO Ranger Digital, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of T...Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-00793: STAR CO Ranger Digital, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-laKw for more info.Interests: 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
RelatedCardsoft v. First Databy PriorSmartBlue Spike v. Lumigon A/Sby PriorSmartPi-Net International v. Walgreenby PriorSmartMasterMine Software v. Microsoftby PriorSmartRegents of the University of California et. al. v. Staplesby PriorSmartNovelPoint Security v. Hewlett-Packard Companyby PriorSmartColorado Remediation Technologies v. Panda Distributionby PriorSmartCanatelo v. TP-LINK Technologies et. al.by PriorSmartCANVS v. Exelis et. al.by PriorSmartPragmatus Telecom LLCby PriorSmartSmartData v. Netgearby PriorSmartDeep Web v. Microsoftby PriorSmartAdaptix v. HTC et. al.by PatentBlastTQP Development v. MovieTickets.comby PriorSmartExergen v. Thermomedics et. al.by PriorSmartOracle v Lodsysby jeff_roberts881Lennon Image Technologies v. Forevermark et. al.by PriorSmartROY-G-BIV v. Siemens et. al.by PriorSmartLBS Innovations v. Sally Beauty Supply et. al.by PriorSmartKlausner Technologies v. Donomaby PriorSmartUniloc vs Mojangby Joshua MooreKlausner Technologies v. Fonalityby PriorSmartUntitledby PriorSmartFacedouble v. Vizi Labsby PriorSmartData Carriers v. Neiman Marcus Groupby PatentBlastUniloc et. al. v. Chief Architectby PriorSmartTQP Development v. LivingSocialby PriorSmartKroy IP Holdings v. Krogerby PriorSmartSimilar to STAR CO Ranger Digital v. Microsoft et. al.Cardsoft v. First DataBlue Spike v. Lumigon A/SPi-Net International v. WalgreenMasterMine Software v. MicrosoftRegents of the University of California et. al. v. StaplesNovelPoint Security v. Hewlett-Packard CompanyColorado Remediation Technologies v. Panda DistributionCanatelo v. TP-LINK Technologies et. al.CANVS v. Exelis et. al.Pragmatus Telecom LLCSmartData v. NetgearDeep Web v. MicrosoftAdaptix v. HTC et. al.TQP Development v. MovieTickets.comExergen v. Thermomedics et. al.Oracle v LodsysLennon Image Technologies v. Forevermark et. al.ROY-G-BIV v. Siemens et. al.LBS Innovations v. Sally Beauty Supply et. al.Klausner Technologies v. DonomaUniloc vs MojangKlausner Technologies v. FonalityUntitledFacedouble v. Vizi LabsData Carriers v. Neiman Marcus GroupUniloc et. al. v. Chief ArchitectTQP Development v. LivingSocialKroy IP Holdings v. KrogerAmeranth v. Par Technology et. al.Uniloc et. al. v. Envato PTY