Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/185577859/TLI-Communications-v-Dropbox
Timestamp: 2016-08-31 01:40:23
Document Index: 685678598

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 271', '§ 284', '§ 283', '§ 1331', '§ 1391', '§ 284', '§ 285', '§ 284', 'art39']

BrowseUploadSign inJoinBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicWelcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out moreUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ---------------------------------------------------------------------------x TLI COMMUNICATIONS LLC, : : C.A. No. _____________ Plaintiff, : : : v.: : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DROPBOX, INC. : Defendant. : : : : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------x Complaint for Patent Infringement Plaintiff TLI Communications LLC (“TLI”) files this Complaint for Patent Infringement (“Complaint”) against Dropbox, Inc. (“Dropbox”), wherein, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 271 and 281, Plaintiff seeks a judgment of infringement by Defendant of U.S. Patent No. 6,038,295 (the “’295 Patent”) and damages resulting therefrom pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, as well as preliminary and permanent injunction of the infringing activity pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 283, and such other relief as the Court deems just and proper, and in support thereof alleges as follows: The Parties 1. Plaintiff TLI is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of
business at 3422 Old Capitol Trail, Suite 72, Wilmington, Delaware 19808. 2. On information and belief, Defendant Dropbox, Inc. is a Delaware corporation
with its principal place of business at 185 Berry Street, San Francisco, California 94107. Dropbox may be served with process via its registered agent, Corporation Service Company, 2711 Centerville Road, Suite 400, Wilmington, Delaware 19808.
§§ 1331 and 1338(a) because the action concerns infringement of a United States patent. 5. Upon information and belief, Dropbox conducts substantial business in Delaware,
directly or through intermediaries, including: (i) at least a portion of the infringements alleged herein; and (ii) regularly doing or soliciting business, engaging in other persistent courses of conduct and/or deriving substantial revenue from goods and services provided to individuals in Delaware. Further, this Court has personal jurisdiction over Dropbox because it is incorporated in Delaware and has purposely availed itself of the privileges and benefits of the laws of the State of Delaware. 6. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400. The Patent-in-Suit 7. TLI is the owner of the ’295 Patent entitled “Apparatus and Method for
patent was originally assigned to Siemens Aktiengesellschaft of Munich, Germany. TLI is the current owner of the ’295 patent via assignment.
In the mid 1990’s, Dr. Mattes, while working as a scientist for Siemens,
of digital images from a telephone. Over the past few years, smart cellular telephones that incorporate sophisticated digital cameras have exploded in popularity, as has social media. Today, hundreds of millions of digital images are uploaded onto computer servers and social media websites every day, including via www.dropbox.com. Dropbox's products use the ’295’s patented technology, without license or authority, to classify those images so that they can be easily uploaded, stored, organized, retrieved and shared. Dropbox’s Infringing Products 14. 15. Dropbox provides web based products and services. Dropbox recently offered downloadable applications, especially designed for
iPhone and Android mobile telephones, and other mobile telephone platforms, which allow telephone users to easily characterize and upload digital images to Dropbox servers.
So that these digital images could be uploaded, stored and organized, Dropbox
had to develop products and processes that, on information and belief, employ TLI’s patented technology. The infringing products include, but are not limited to, the products and processes that Dropbox uses to upload, store and organize the digital images it receives from mobile telephones (“Dropbox Infringing Products”). Discovery is expected to uncover the full extent of Dropbox’s unlawful use of TLI's patented technology beyond these accused Infringing Products already identified through public information. CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Infringement of the ’295 Patent) 17. TLI incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 16 of the Complaint as if set
forth here in full. 18. Upon information and belief, Dropbox has been and is currently directly
infringing one or more claims of the ’295 Patent by making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling within the United States, and/or importing into the United States, without authority, the Dropbox Infringing Products. For example, and without limitation, Dropbox has directly infringed and continues to directly infringe the ’295 Patent in this judicial district and elsewhere in the United States. Dropbox's infringement includes, without limitation, (i) making and using the apparatus of claim 1 and claims dependent thereon, and (ii) practicing the method of claim 17 and claims dependent thereon. 19. Specifically, Dropbox’s direct infringement includes, without limitation (i) its
uploading of digital images from mobile telephones onto Dropbox servers (or onto servers operated on or for Dropbox’s behalf (“Dropbox servers”)), (ii) its testing of its Dropbox products by uploading images with mobile telephones onto Dropbox servers within the United States, and (iii) its maintaining Dropbox servers that categorize and store images that were uploaded via mobile telephones. Dropbox also directs and/or controls its employees, executives, agents, 4
customers and agents to use the Dropbox Infringing Products to upload images from mobile telephones onto Dropbox servers within the United States. Dropbox also directly infringes one or more claims of the ’295 Patent by providing downloadable applications to mobile telephone users and thus putting the Infringing Products into use. 20. Upon information and belief, upon knowledge of the ’295 Patent (at least since
the filing date of this Complaint), Dropbox is contributing to the infringement of the ’295 Patent by, among other things, knowingly and with intent, actively encouraging its customers, suppliers, agents and affiliates to make, use, sell and/or offer for sale the Dropbox Infringing Products in a manner that constitutes infringement of one or more claims of the ’295 Patent. There are no substantial uses of the Infringing Products that do not infringe one or more claims of the ’295 Patent. Dropbox mobile telephone applications that Dropbox provides to its customers, for example, have no substantial non-infringing use. 21. Upon information and belief, upon knowledge of the ’295 Patent (at least since
the filing date of this Complaint), Dropbox is inducing infringement of the ’295 Patent by, among other things, knowingly and with intent, actively encouraging its customers, suppliers, agents and affiliates to make, use, sell and/or offer for sale Dropbox Infringing Products in a manner that constitutes infringement of one or more claims of the ’295 Patent. 22. To the extent that Dropbox's customers can be considered to put the Infringing
Products into use, then Dropbox would also be inducing infringement of the ’295 Patent by, among other things, knowingly and with intent (at least since the filing date of this Complaint), actively encouraging its customers to make and use Dropbox’s products in a manner that constitutes infringement of one or more claims of the ’295 Patent.
As a result of Dropbox's unlawful infringement of the ’295 Patent, TLI has
suffered and will continue to suffer damage. TLI is entitled to recover from Dropbox the damages adequate to compensate for such infringement, which have yet to be determined. 24. Any further manufacturing, sales, offers for sale, uses, or importation by Dropbox
of the Infringing Products will demonstrate a deliberate and conscious decision to infringe the ’295 Patent or, at the very least, a reckless disregard of TLI's patent rights. If Dropbox continues to manufacture, use, offer to sell, sell, and/or import the Infringing Products following its notice of the ’295 Patent claims, Dropbox’s infringement will be willful and TLI will be entitled to treble damages and attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in this action, along with prejudgment interest under 35 U.S.C. §§ 284, 285. 25. this Court. 26. Dropbox's acts of infringement have caused and will continue to cause irreparable Dropbox will continue to infringe the ‘295 Patent unless and until it is enjoined by
harm to TLI unless and until Dropbox is enjoined by this Court. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, TLI prays for a Judgment in favor of TLI and against Defendant as follows: A. B. C. Dropbox; D. An order preliminarily and permanently enjoining Dropbox and its affiliates, That Dropbox has directly infringed the ’295 Patent; That Dropbox has indirectly infringed the ’295 Patent; That this case is “exceptional” within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285 against
assigns, and all those acting for them and on their behalf, or acting in concert with them directly or indirectly, from further acts of infringement of the ’295 Patent; E. A full accounting for and an award of damages to TLI for Dropbox's infringement
of the ’295 Patent; including enhanced damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, together with preand post-judgment interest; F. G. proper. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL TLI hereby demands trial by jury on all issues so triable. Dated: November 18, 2013 Respectfully submitted, An award of TLI’s reasonable attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs; and A grant of such other and further equitable or legal relief as this Court deems
TLI Communications v. Dropbox by PriorSmart39 viewsEmbedDownloadDescriptionOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-01922-UNA: TLI Communications LLC v. Dropbox Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, no judge yet assi...Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-01922-UNA: TLI Communications LLC v. Dropbox Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l9vN 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
RelatedTLI Communications v. Pinterestby PatentBlastTLI Communications LLC v. Whi, Inc. d/b/a We Heart Itby PatentBlastTLI Communications v. Photobucket.comby PatentBlastTLI Communications v. Snapchatby PriorSmartTLI Communications v. Shutterflyby PriorSmartTLI Communications LLCby PriorSmartTLI Communications v. Snapchatby PriorSmartTLI Communications v. Smugmugby PriorSmartSprogis v. Googleby PriorSmartBest Energy Reduction Technologies v. Boss Controls et. al.by PriorSmartPPC Broadband v. Times Fiber Communicationsby PatentBlast3 Kho vs CAby Bryne BoishNobelBiz v. Intelligent Contactsby PriorSmartNobelBiz v. Global Connectby PriorSmartTitanide Ventures v. Jungle Disk et. al.by PriorSmartOptimum Energy v. Kiltech Pty et. al.by PriorSmartFotoMedia Technologies v. Facebook et. al.by PriorSmartData Engine Technologies v. SAP America et. al.by PriorSmartSoftVault Systems v. Tangoeby PriorSmartQuality Experience Testing v. JDS Uniphaseby PatentBlastVirnetX vs. Appleby Jonathan FingasParallel Iron v. Accenture et. al.by PriorSmartAdvanced Processor Technologies v. Mindspeed Technologiesby PriorSmartHermes v. Thursday Friday Answerby Charles Colman Law, PLLCSimilar to TLI Communications v. DropboxTLI Communications v. PinterestTLI Communications LLC v. Whi, Inc. d/b/a We Heart ItTLI Communications v. Photobucket.comTLI Communications v. SnapchatTLI Communications v. ShutterflyTLI Communications LLCTLI Communications v. SnapchatTLI Communications v. SmugmugSprogis v. GoogleBest Energy Reduction Technologies v. Boss Controls et. al.PPC Broadband v. Times Fiber Communications3 Kho vs CANobelBiz v. Intelligent ContactsNobelBiz v. Global ConnectTitanide Ventures v. Jungle Disk et. al.Optimum Energy v. Kiltech Pty et. al.FotoMedia Technologies v. Facebook et. al.Data Engine Technologies v. SAP America et. al.SoftVault Systems v. TangoeQuality Experience Testing v. JDS UniphaseVirnetX vs. AppleParallel Iron v. Accenture et. al.Advanced Processor Technologies v. Mindspeed TechnologiesHermes v. Thursday Friday AnswerMobileMedia Ideas, LLC v. Apple Inc., C.A. No. 10-258-SLR (D. Del. Nov. 15, 2012).ComplaintPride Mfg. v. Evolve Golf - Complaint