Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/157217632/Untitled
Timestamp: 2017-05-01 05:46:43
Document Index: 232423718

Matched Legal Cases: ['art0', '§ 2201', '§ 1367', '§ 1391', '§ 100', '§ 285']

ScribdBrowseInterestsCareer & MoneyPersonal GrowthPolitics & Current AffairsScience & TechHealth & FitnessLifestyleEntertainmentBiographies & HistoryFictionBrowse byBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinUntitledUploaded by PriorSmart0.0 (0)DownloadEmbedView MoreCopyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentTHE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY ----------------------------------------------------------------x LT GAME INTERNATIONAL LIMITED AND ) LT GAME INTERNATIONAL (USA) LIMITED, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) - against ) ) DEQ SYSTEMS CORPORATION, ) ) Defendant. ) ----------------------------------------------------------------x COMPLAINT Plaintiffs LT Game International Limited and LT Game International (USA) Limited (hereinafter collectively “Plaintiffs”), by their attorneys Meredith & Keyhani, PLLC, for their Complaint against defendant DEQ Systems Corporation (“DEQ” or “Defendant”) allege as follows: PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. This is an action for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of
U.S. Patent Nos. 6179710, 6638167, 6217447 (individually and/or collectively “Defendant’s Patents”). 2. On information and belief, Defendant is the assignee, sole and full owner of all
rights in Defendant’s Patents. 3. In addition, Plaintiffs in this action seek judgment and damages against Defendant
for tortious interference with Plaintiffs’ current and prospective contractual and business relationships. Meredith & Keyhani, PLLC
5 Independence Way Suite 300 Princeton, NJ 08540 • Telephone (609) 945-7406 • Facsimile: (609) 228-4031
THE PARTIES 4. LT Game International Limited is a company incorporated under the laws of
Ontario, Canada and is in the business of sales and marketing of gaming products in the State of New Jersey, the United States and internationally. 5. LT Game International Limited is a licensee of LT Game Limited, a company
with principle places of business in Hong Kong and Macau, business, technology, intellectual property and products sold to customers located in the United States and internationally. 6. LT Game International (USA) Limited is a company incorporated under the laws
of British Virgin Islands and is in the business of sales and marketing of gaming products in the United States. 7. Defendant is a publicly traded Canadian company located at 1840, 1st Street, Suite
103-A Lévis, Quebec Canada G6W 5M6.
Upon information and belief, Defendant is in the business of selling and offering
for sale gaming products all over the world including in the United States and the State of New Jersey. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 9. This action arises under the Patent Laws of the United States, Title 35, United
States Code and common law. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this declaratory judgment action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 1331 and 1338(a), and supplemental jurisdiction over the common law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). 10. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(c) and 1400(b). Meredith & Keyhani, PLLC
Page 3 11. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant regularly
transacts business and actively targets customers throughout the United States, the State of New Jersey and within this judicial district. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 12. Beginning on or about June of 2013 Defendant began contacting Plaintiffs’ U.S.
customers, business partners and potential customers, including Commerce Casino, and began interfering with Plaintiff’s current and prospective contractual and business relationships by making allegations that Plaintiffs are infringing Defendant’s Patents. 13. In a meeting on or about June 20, 2013, Plaintiffs and their counsel were advised
by representatives of Plaintiffs’ customer Commerce Casino that Defendant asserted to Commerce Casino that Plaintiffs’ LT Game Live Multi-Table System infringed Defendant’s Patents. 14. At the time of making its allegations of infringement, Defendant was fully aware
of Plaintiffs’ current and prospective contractual and business relationships with Plaintiffs’ customers, business partners and potential customers, including Commerce Casino, when it interfered with these relationships and made these allegations of infringement. 15. Defendant intentionally interfered with Plaintiffs’ current and prospective
contractual and business relationships with the intent to induce breach of current contractual and/or business relationships and/or prevent formation of prospective contractual and/or business relationships by representing to them, inter alia, that Plaintiffs engaged in unlawful activities that violate Defendant’s rights and business with the Plaintiffs may result in legal action against them and subject them to liability and damages. Meredith & Keyhani, PLLC
Page 4 16. Defendant’s aforesaid interference has undermined and/or will likely
undermine Plaintiffs’ current contractual and/or business relationships and/or prevented formation of prospective contractual and/or business relationships. 17. Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer substantial damages and
irreparable harm as a result of Defendant’s unlawful actions. COUNT 1 - DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT 18. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation set forth in the
preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 19. Plaintiffs do not practice any of the claims of Defendant’s Patents and
accordingly do not infringe directly or indirectly any of the claims of Defendant’s Patents. 20. As a result of the acts described in the foregoing paragraphs, there exists a
substantial controversy of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment. 21. A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate so that Plaintiffs may
ascertain its rights regarding Defendant’s Patents. COUNT 2 - DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY 22. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation set forth in the
preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 23. Upon information and belief, Defendant’s Patents are invalid for failure to
meet the conditions of patentability and/or otherwise comply with one or more of 35 U.S.C. §§ 100 et seq., 101, 102, 103, and/or 112.
Page 5 24. As a result of the acts described in the foregoing paragraphs, there exists a
substantial controversy of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment. 25. A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate so that Plaintiffs may
ascertain its rights regarding Defendant’s Patents. COUNT 3 - TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CURRENT AND PROSPECTIVE CONTRACTUAL AND BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS 26. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation set forth in the
preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 27. Defendant’s aforesaid actions constitute tortious interference with
Plaintiffs’ current and prospective business and contractual relationships. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for a judgment against Defendant, as follows: (a) A declaration that Plaintiffs have not infringed, either directly or indirectly, any
valid and enforceable claim of Defendant’s Patents; (b) (c) (d) A declaration that the claims of Defendant’s Patents are invalid; A declaration that Defendant’s Patents are unenforceable; An order declaring that Plaintiffs are the prevailing party and that this is an
exceptional case, awarding Plaintiffs their costs, expenses, disbursements and reasonable attorneys fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and all other applicable statutes, rules and common law; (e) Such other and other relief as this Court may deem just and proper;
Page 6 (f) An order for Damages resulting from the loss of current and prospective
economic value and opportunity due to Defendant’s tortious interference with Plaintiff’s current and prospective contractual and business relationships; (g) A preliminary and permanent injunction, enjoining Defendant from interfering
with Plaintiffs’ current and prospective business and contractual relationships. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Pursuant to Rule 38, Fed. R. Civ. P., Plaintiffs hereby demands a trial by jury for all issues triable of right by a jury in this case. Date: July 30, 2013 Meredith & Keyhani, PLLC s/Dariush Keyhani 5 Independence Way Suite 300 Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone (609) 945-7406 Facsimile: (609) 228-4031 dkeyhani@meredithkeyhani.com www.meredithkeyhani.com
Documents Similar To Lt Game International Et. Al. v. Deq SystemsSkip carouselTie Down v. DemcoMayborn v. Sorensen Research And Development Trust2013.02.13 Particulars of Claim [Stamped]1 MainIdeal Products v. Cherry Engineering Et. Al.BENIGNO DEL RIO VS CARLO PALANCA G.R. NO.L-2450 MAY 31, 1949.docCrorey Creations v. TargetLittle v. World PackagingeDekka v. Harry and DavidLong Corner Security v. JVL Ventures, LLC.pdfeDekka v. Net-A-Porter GroupeDekka v. Saks DirecteDekka v. Edible ArrangementseDekka v. 1 SaleADay59.0 Answer to Amended ComplaintScottish Air International, Inc. And Murray Vidockler v. British Caledonian Group, Plc, and Adam Thomson, Dennis H. Walter and R. Marshall Gibson, 860 F.2d 57, 2d Cir. (1988)UntitledBrent Boyd Original Motion & Complaint Feb. 2010DOJ v Arpaio # 336 | D.Ariz._2-12-cv-00981_336CV Complaint Obrien v Hhs Obama Abortion Pill MandateCarr v. NAFCEAST WEST RESORT DEVELOPMENT et al v. ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY ComplaintCASE_John Denis de Silva_House RulesRestoration Industry Association v. ThermaPurePerez Grav KnifeEd Mm Azuma Cmp Lnt for ConversionDadivas vs. Villanueva DigestElf Cocoon v. Philip Stein - Teslar trademark complaint.pdfExtortion and Public Corruption in U.S. District CourtReconveyance (Revised 1)Documents About PlaintiffSkip carouselAmended Complaint Filed 9/30/2016 Tiffany Doe DeclarationTake-Two and Rockstar Games v Leslie BenziesClass Action Lawsuit Filed Against EOS Lip BalmDoe v. Trump et al refiled complaint 9/30/16Uber SettlementTorrentfreak Manny Ruling Ip AddressAMA Multimedia v. Spankbang.com - complaint.pdfMotion to Dismiss Complaint, Motion to Vacate Clerks Default and in the Alternative Motion for Summary JudgmentI am an attorney so I decided to sue my lender...Carlsbad Police Brutality ComplaintElaine Miller vs. ToyotaMarder v Niantic Complaint 7 29StarsSolid Oak Sketches v Take-TwoWORLD WRESTLING ENTERTAINMENT, INC.’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF WWE’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONSVersa Products v. Stitch Industries - CFAA Trade SecretsPodliska v Select Committee and Trey GowdyFraudulent Conveyance Quiet Title PacketComplaint for damages, demand for jury trialPokemon Go lawsuitRocket Docket Annihilator - DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENTSmall Claims WorksheetGardasil Complaint 2-28-201350 Cent v. World Star Hip Hop OpinionFive Pawns Class Action LawsuitMichael Brown v Swagway ComplaintBeastieMyEx.com LawsuitLinx Bracelet v. Origami OwlMore 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