Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/214755627/Reald-v-Volfoni-et-al
Timestamp: 2018-05-28 11:06:16
Document Index: 288587108

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

Reald v. Volfoni et. al. | Patent Infringement | Injunction
Description: Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-02303: Reald Inc. v. Volfoni, Inc. et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, no judge yet a...
Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-02303: Reald Inc. v. Volfoni, Inc. et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-la9v for more info.
Baker & McKenzie LLP Two Embarcadero Center 11th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Tel: +1 415 576 3000
D. James Pak, State Bar No. 194331 d.james.pak@bakermckenzie.com BAKER & McKENZIE LLP Two Embarcadero Center, 11th Floor San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 576-3000 Facsimile: (415) 576-3099 Attorney for Plaintiff REALD INC.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION REALD INC., Plaintiff, v. VOLFONI, INC., VOLFONI SAS, AND VOLFONI-RIO ASIA COMPANY LIMITED, Defendants. Case No. 2:14-cv-2303 COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Case No. ______________ COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Plaintiff RealD Inc. (“Plaintiff” or “RealD”), by and through its counsel, files this Complaint for patent infringement against Defendants Volfoni, Inc., Volfoni SAS, and Volfoni-Rio Asia Company Limited (collectively, “Defendants” or “Volfoni”). Plaintiff alleges: THE PARTIES 1. Plaintiff RealD Inc. (“RealD” or “Plaintiff”) is a corporation
organized and existing under the laws of Delaware, with a principal place of business at 100 N. Crescent Dr. Suite 200, Beverly Hills, California 90210. 2. Defendant Volfoni, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under
the laws of California, with a principal place of business at 3450 Cahuenga Boulevard West, Unit 504, Los Angeles, California 90068. 3. Defendant Volfoni SAS is a corporation organized and existing under
the laws of France, with a principal place of business at 49 Avenue Pierre Grenier, 92100 Boulogne Billancourt, France. 4. Defendant Volfoni-Rio Asia Company Limited is a joint venture
organized and existing under the laws of Hong Kong, with a principal place of business at Rms 2006-8,20/F Two Chinachem Exchange, Square 338 King’s Rd North Point, Hong Kong. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and
1338(a) and (b) because this is a civil action involving a federal question related to claims for patent infringement under the Patent Act. 6. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because Volfoni,
Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of California, Defendants have offered for sale and/or sold their products to customers in California, and Defendants regularly conduct and solicit business in California, including in this District, and have purposefully established substantial,
continuous, and systematic contacts with this District. Additionally, Defendants have committed and continue to commit acts of patent infringement in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271 in California and in this District. 7. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and
1400(b) for the reasons set forth above and below. BACKGROUND 8. RealD is the owner and assignee of all rights, title, and interest in and
under U.S. Patent No. 8,220,934 (“the ’934 Patent”), entitled “Polarization Conversion Systems for Stereoscopic Projection,” which was duly and legally issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on July 17, 2012, after full and fair examination. A copy of the ’934 Patent is attached as Exhibit A and is
incorporated herein by reference. 9. RealD is the owner and assignee of all rights, title, and interest in and
under U.S. Patent No. 7,857,455 (“the ’455 Patent”), entitled “Combining P and S Rays for Bright Stereoscopic Projection,” which was duly and legally issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on December 28, 2010, after full and fair examination. A copy of the ’455 Patent is attached as Exhibit B and is
incorporated herein by reference. 10. RealD is the owner and assignee of all rights, title, and interest in and
under U.S. Patent No. 7,959,296 (“the ’296 Patent”), entitled “Combining P and S Rays for Bright Stereoscopic Projection,” which was duly and legally issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on June 14, 2011, after full and fair examination. A copy of the ’296 Patent is attached as Exhibit C and is
incorporated herein by reference. 11. RealD is the owner and assignee of all rights, title, and interest in and
under U.S. Patent No. 7,905,602 (“the ’602 Patent”), entitled “Polarization Conversion Systems for Stereoscopic Projection,” which was duly and legally issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on March 15, 2011, after full and
fair examination. A copy of the ’602 Patent is attached as Exhibit D and is incorporated herein by reference. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,220,934) 12. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in
paragraphs 1–11 of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 13. Defendants have been and are directly infringing one or more claims
of the ’934 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271 by making, using, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing in or into the United States, without authority, products, including at least the Volfoni Diamond product, which embody one or more claims of the ’934 Patent. 14. Defendants have been and are indirectly infringing one or more claims
of the ’934 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) by actively inducing customers and/or users to use, sell, offer for sale, and/or import in or into the United States, without authority, the Volfoni Diamond product, which embodies one or more claims of the ’934 Patent. Defendants have known about the ’934 Patent since at least as early as September 2, 2013 when they received a cease and desist letter from RealD identifying the ’934 Patent. Since that date, Defendants have continued to offer for sale, sell, and/or import in or into the United States the infringing Volfoni Diamond product. Defendants knew or should have known that their continued sales of the Volfoni Diamond product would induce direct infringement by customers and/or users. Defendants also failed to redesign the Volfoni Diamond product to cease infringement. 15. Defendants have been and are indirectly infringing one or more claims
of the ’934 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) by contributing to the direct infringement of one or more claims of the ’934 Patent by customers and/or users of the Volfoni Diamond product, which embodies one or more claims of the ’934 Patent, and has no substantial uses that do not infringe one or more claims of the
’934 Patent. Defendants have known about the ’934 Patent since at least as early as September 2, 2013 when they received a cease and desist letter from RealD identifying the ’934 Patent. Since that date, Defendants have continued to offer for sale, sell, and/or import in or into the United States the infringing Volfoni Diamond product, which Defendants knew or should have known to be especially adapted for use in infringing the ’934 Patent and would infringe one or more claims of the ’934 Patent if made, used, sold, offered for sale, or imported in or into the United States. 16. Defendants’ infringement of the ’934 Patent has been and is willful.
Defendants have known about the ’934 Patent since at least as early as September 2, 2013 when they received a cease and desist letter from RealD identifying the ’934 Patent. Since that date, Defendants have continued to make, use, sell, offer for sale, and/or import in or into the United States the infringing Volfoni Diamond product despite an objectively high likelihood that their actions constituted infringement. 17. Defendants’ infringement of the ’934 Patent has caused damage to
RealD, and RealD is entitled to recover from Defendants the damages it has sustained as a result of Defendants’ wrongful acts, including lost profits. 18. Defendants’ infringement of the ’934 Patent will continue to damage
RealD, causing irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law, unless enjoined by the Court. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,857,455) 19. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in
paragraphs 1–18 of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 20. Defendants have been and are directly infringing one or more claims
of the ’455 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271 by making, using, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing in or into the United States, without authority, products,
including at least the Volfoni Diamond product, which embody one or more claims of the ’455 Patent. 21. Defendants have been and are indirectly infringing one or more claims
of the ’455 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) by actively inducing customers and/or users to use, sell, offer for sale, and/or import in or into the United States, without authority, the Volfoni Diamond product, which embodies one or more claims of the ’455 Patent. Defendants have known about the ’455 Patent since at least as early as September 2, 2013 when they received a cease and desist letter from RealD identifying the ’455 Patent. Since that date, Defendants have continued to offer for sale, sell, and/or import in or into the United States the infringing Volfoni Diamond product. Defendants knew or should have known that their continued sales of the Volfoni Diamond product would induce direct infringement by customers and/or users. Defendants also failed to redesign the Volfoni Diamond product to cease infringement. 22. Defendants have been and are indirectly infringing one or more claims
of the ’455 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) by contributing to the direct infringement of one or more claims of the ’455 Patent by customers and/or users of the Volfoni Diamond product, which embodies one or more claims of the ’455 Patent, and has no substantial uses that do not infringe one or more claims of the ’455 Patent. Defendants have known about the ’455 Patent since at least as early as September 2, 2013 when they received a cease and desist letter from RealD identifying the ’455 Patent. Since that date, Defendants have continued to offer for sale, sell, and/or import in or into the United States the infringing Volfoni Diamond product, which Defendants knew or should have known to be especially adapted for use in infringing the ’455 Patent and would infringe one or more claims of the ’455 Patent if made, used, sold, offered for sale, or imported in or into the United States. 23. Defendants’ infringement of the ’455 Patent has been and is willful.
Defendants have known about the ’455 Patent since at least as early as September 2, 2013 when they received a cease and desist letter from RealD identifying the ’455 Patent. Since that date, Defendants have continued to make, use, sell, offer for sale, and/or import in or into the United States the infringing Volfoni Diamond product despite an objectively high likelihood that their actions constituted infringement. 24. Defendants’ infringement of the ’455 Patent has caused damage to
RealD, and RealD is entitled to recover from Defendants the damages it has sustained as a result of Defendants’ wrongful acts, including lost profits. 25. Defendants’ infringement of the ’455 Patent will continue to damage
RealD, causing irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law, unless enjoined by the Court. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,959,296) 26. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in
paragraphs 1–25 of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 27. Defendants have been and are directly infringing one or more claims
of the ’296 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271 by making, using, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing in or into the United States, without authority, products, including at least the Volfoni Diamond product, which embody one or more claims of the ’296 Patent. 28. Defendants have been and are indirectly infringing one or more claims
of the ’296 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) by actively inducing customers and/or users to use, sell, offer for sale, and/or import in or into the United States, without authority, the Volfoni Diamond product, which embodies one or more claims of the ’296 Patent. Defendants have known about the ’296 Patent since at least as early as September 2, 2013 when they received a cease and desist letter from RealD identifying the ’296 Patent. Since that date, Defendants have continued to
offer for sale, sell, and/or import in or into the United States the infringing Volfoni Diamond product. Defendants knew or should have known that their continued sales of the Volfoni Diamond product would induce direct infringement by customers and/or users. Defendants also failed to redesign the Volfoni Diamond product to cease infringement. 29. Defendants have been and are indirectly infringing one or more claims
of the ’296 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) by contributing to the direct infringement of one or more claims of the ’296 Patent by customers and/or users of the Volfoni Diamond product, which embodies one or more claims of the ’296 Patent, and has no substantial uses that do not infringe one or more claims of the ’296 Patent. Defendants have known about the ’296 Patent since at least as early as September 2, 2013 when they received a cease and desist letter from RealD identifying the ’296 Patent. Since that date, Defendants have continued to offer for sale, sell, and/or import in or into the United States the infringing Volfoni Diamond product, which Defendants knew or should have known to be especially adapted for use in infringing the ’296 Patent and would infringe one or more claims of the ’296 Patent if made, used, sold, offered for sale, or imported in or into the United States. 30. Defendants’ infringement of the ’296 Patent has been and is willful.
Defendants have known about the ’296 Patent since at least as early as September 2, 2013 when they received a cease and desist letter from RealD identifying the ’296 Patent. Since that date, Defendants have continued to make, use, sell, offer for sale, and/or import in or into the United States the infringing Volfoni Diamond product despite an objectively high likelihood that their actions constituted infringement. 31. Defendants’ infringement of the ’296 Patent has caused damage to
RealD, and RealD is entitled to recover from Defendants the damages it has sustained as a result of Defendants’ wrongful acts, including lost profits.
Defendants’ infringement of the ’296 Patent will continue to damage
RealD, causing irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law, unless enjoined by the Court. FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,905,602) 33. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in
paragraphs 1–32 of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 34. Defendants have been and are directly infringing one or more claims
of the ’602 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271 by making, using, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing in or into the United States, without authority, products, including at least the Volfoni Diamond product, which embody one or more claims of the ’602 Patent. 35. Defendants have been and are indirectly infringing one or more claims
of the ’602 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) by actively inducing customers and/or users to use, sell, offer for sale, and/or import in or into the United States, without authority, the Volfoni Diamond product, which embodies one or more claims of the ’602 Patent. Defendants have known about the ’602 Patent since at least as early as September 2, 2013 when they received a cease and desist letter from RealD identifying the ’602 Patent. Since that date, Defendants have continued to offer for sale, sell, and/or import in or into the United States the infringing Volfoni Diamond product. Defendants knew or should have known that their continued sales of the Volfoni Diamond product would induce direct infringement by customers and/or users. Defendants also failed to redesign the Volfoni Diamond product to cease infringement. 36. Defendants have been and are indirectly infringing one or more claims
of the ’602 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) by contributing to the direct infringement of one or more claims of the ’602 Patent by customers and/or users of the Volfoni Diamond product, which embodies one or more claims of the ’602
Patent, and has no substantial uses that do not infringe one or more claims of the ’602 Patent. Defendants have known about the ’602 Patent since at least as early as September 2, 2013 when they received a cease and desist letter from RealD identifying the ’602 Patent. Since that date, Defendants have continued to offer for sale, sell, and/or import in or into the United States the Volfoni Diamond product, which Defendants knew or should have known to be especially adapted for use in infringing the ’602 Patent and would infringe one or more claims of the ’602 Patent if made, used, sold, offered for sale, or imported in or into the United States. 37. Defendants’ infringement of the ’602 Patent has been and is willful.
Defendants have known about the ’602 Patent since at least as early as September 2, 2013 when they received a cease and desist letter from RealD identifying the ’602 Patent. Since that date, Defendants have continued to make, use, sell, offer for sale, and/or import in or into the United States the infringing Volfoni Diamond product despite an objectively high likelihood that their actions constituted infringement. 38. Defendants’ infringement of the ’602 Patent has caused damage to
RealD, and RealD is entitled to recover from Defendants the damages it has sustained as a result of Defendants’ wrongful acts, including lost profits. 39. Defendants’ infringement of the ’602 Patent will continue to damage
RealD, causing irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law, unless enjoined by the Court. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, RealD respectfully requests that the Court enter judgment in its favor and against the Defendants as follows: a. Declaring that Volfoni, Inc. has infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 8,220,934,
7,857,455, 7,959,296, and 7,905,602; b. Declaring that Volfoni, SAS has infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 8,220,934,
7,857,455, 7,959,296, and 7,905,602;
Declaring that Volfoni-Rio Asia Company Limited has infringed U.S.
Patent Nos. 8,220,934, 7,857,455, 7,959,296, and 7,905,602; d. Declaring that U.S. Patent Nos. 8,220,934, 7,857,455, 7,959,296, and
7,905,602 are valid; e. Preliminarily enjoining Defendants and their officers, agents,
employees, and their privies, from further infringement, including contributory infringement, of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,220,934, 7,857,455, 7,959,296, and 7,905,602; f. Permanently enjoining Defendants and their officers, agents,
employees, and their privies, from further infringement, including contributory infringement, of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,220,934, 7,857,455, 7,959,296, and 7,905,602; g. Awarding a future compulsory royalty in the event that full injunctive
relief is not awarded as requested; h. Awarding damages arising out of Defendants’ infringement of U.S.
Patent Nos. 8,220,934, 7,857,455, 7,959,296, and 7,905,602, including prejudgment and post-judgment interest; i. Declaring that Defendants’ infringement was willful and awarding
treble damages and interest to RealD under 35 U.S.C. § 284; j. Declaring this to be an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and
awarding to RealD its reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses incurred in this action; and k. proper. Awarding such other and further relief as the Court deems just and
BAKER & MCKENZIE LLP By: /s/ D. James Pak
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL RealD hereby demands a jury trial pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as to all issues in this lawsuit.
Documents Similar To Reald v. Volfoni et. al.
Voice Domain Technologies v. Apple
Olivistar v. Panasonic Corporation of North America
Datascope et. al. v. Teleflex et. al.
Technology Licensing v. Westinghouse Digital et. al.
McMillan Electric v. EPEC Engineered Technologies
Whalen Furniture Mfg. v. Z-Line Designs
Oakley v. Stampede Presentation Products et. al.
SAF-Holland v. Hendrickson
Legal Comdfgmittee
Parallel Networks v. Riverbed Technology
WISCONSIN ALUMNI RESEARCH FOUNDATION v. Intel Corporation - Document No. 1
Sensible Products v. SIYA, Inc. D/B/A Sona Enterprises
Hospira v. B. Braun Medical
Execware v. eBay
CyberFone Systems v. Cable One