Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/186247767/Affinity-Labs-of-Texas-v-Nissan-North-America-et-al
Timestamp: 2018-03-22 04:13:02
Document Index: 680310

Matched Legal Cases: ['§\n1331', '§ 271', '§ 1391', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 284']

Affinity Labs of Texas v. Nissan North America et. al. | Patent Infringement | Patent Application
Description: Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 6:13-cv-00369: Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Nissan North America, Inc. et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District...
Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 6:13-cv-00369: Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Nissan North America, Inc. et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l9xT for more info.
AFFINITY LABS OF TEXAS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA INC., NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD., Defendants.
Case No. 6:13-cv-369 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Plaintiff Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC (“Affinity Labs”) for its causes of action against Defendants, Nissan North America Inc. and Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. (collectively, “Nissan” and/or “Defendants”), states and alleges on knowledge and information and belief as follows: PARTIES 1. Plaintiff Affinity Labs is a Texas limited liability company having offices at 31884
RR 12, Dripping Springs, TX 78620. 2. On information and belief, Defendant Nissan North America, Inc. is a California
corporation with its principal place of business located at 1 Nissan Way, Franklin, Tennessee, 37067. 3. On information and belief, Defendant Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., is a Japanese company
with its headquarters located at 1-1, Takashima 1-chome, Nishi-ku, Yokohama-shi, Kanagawa 220-8686, Japan.
1823818.1
JURISDICTION 4. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
1331 and 1338(a), in that this action arises under the federal patent statutes, 35 U.S.C. §§ 271 and 281-285. 5. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Nissan. Upon information and belief,
Nissan has committed and continues to commit acts giving rise to this action within Texas and within this judicial district and Nissan has established minimum contacts within the forum such that the exercise of jurisdiction over Nissan would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. For example, Nissan has committed and continues to commit acts of infringement in this District, by among other things, offering to sell and selling products that infringe the Asserted Patents, including the Nissan Altima with the Nissan Connect stereo system. In conducting its business in Texas and this judicial district, Nissan derives substantial revenue from infringing products being sold, used, imported, and/or offered for sale or providing service and support to Nissan’s customers in Texas and this District, and will continue to do so unless enjoined by this Court. VENUE 6. Venue in the Western District of Texas is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)
and (c) and 1400(b) because Nissan has committed acts within this judicial district giving rise to this action, and Nissan has and continues to conduct business in this judicial district, including one or more acts of selling, using, importing, and/or offering for sale infringing products or providing service and support to Nissan’s customers in this District. 7. Venue in the Western District of Texas is also proper because on information and
belief, Nissan North America, Inc. is authorized to do business in Texas and has appointed
LexisNexis Document Solutions, Inc., 211 E. 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin, Texas 78701-3218 as its agent for service of process. 8. Venue in the Western District of Texas is further proper because Nissan North
America, Inc. sells Nissan-branded products in Texas, including in the Western District of Texas, through authorized dealers. Consumers can go to Nissan North America, Inc.’s website (www.nissanusa.com) and click on “Find a Dealer,” which directs such inquiries to a list of Nissan-branded automobile dealerships, including South Point Nissan in Austin, Texas and Town North Nissan in Austin, Texas. Consumers can also request quotes on Nissan-branded automobiles via the nissanusa.com website. Consumers can also browse local dealership inventories directly on the nissanusa.com website. 9. Venue in the Western District of Texas is also proper because Nissan North
America, Inc. sells Infiniti-branded automobiles in the Western District of Texas. Clicking on “Locate a Retailer” from Nissan’s website (www.infinitiusa.com) directs such inquiries to a list of Infiniti-branded automobile dealerships, including Austin Infiniti, an authorized Infinitibranded dealership in Austin, Texas. Consumers can request quotes on Infiniti-branded automobiles via the infinitiusa.com website. Consumers can also browse local dealership inventories directly on the infinitiusa.com website. 10. Venue in the Western District of Texas is further proper because Affinity Labs is
headquartered in this District in Dripping Springs, Texas. 11. Venue in the Western District of Texas is further proper because the majority of
Affinity Labs’ documents and relevant evidence is located at Affinity Labs’ headquarters within this District and numerous witnesses are also located within this District.
Venue in the Western District of Texas is also proper because Affinity Labs is
organized and governed by the limited liability company laws of Texas and is subject to taxes in Texas. Affinity Labs maintains a registered agent for service of process in Texas. 13. Venue in the Western District of Texas is also proper because this District is
centrally located to resolve common issues of fact among Affinity Labs and the Defendants. BACKGROUND Affinity Labs 14. Affinity Labs restates and realleges each of the allegations set forth above and
incorporates them herein. 15. 16. Affinity Labs was founded in 2008 by Russell White and Harlie Frost. Russell White is a successful entrepreneur and patent attorney. Mr. White grew up
in Houston, Texas, and has an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering from Texas A&M. Mr. White also graduated from the University of Temple Law School. After earning his law degree, Mr. White co-founded SBC Knowledge Ventures, an entity within AT&T. 17. Mr. White is also a prolific inventor. Mr. White is listed as an inventor on at least
twenty-five separate United States patents. 18. On March 28, 2000, Mr. White and Kevin R. Imes filed a detailed patent application,
No. 09/537,812 (“the ’812 application”) with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”). 19. The ’812 application addressed the problem of navigating through and playing audio
content stored on a portable electronic audio device, such as an MP3 player or cell phone, using a different electronic device.
The ’812 application disclosed the ability to connect a portable electronic device,
such as an MP3 player or cell phone, to a second device such as an automobile with a display and sound system. As disclosed in the ’812 application, the music available on the portable device can then be displayed and selected using controls on an automobile stereo system, and played through the speakers. 21. Mr. White and Mr. Imes made this disclosure in the ’812 application over a year
before the iPod was released in October 2001, and years before the functionality of having the music available on a portable device be displayed and selected using controls on an automobile stereo system and played through the speakers was available using an iPhone and some luxury vehicles. 22. On October 8, 2013, the PTO issued United States Patent No. 8,554,191, entitled
“System and Method for Managing Media” (“the ’191 patent”), a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A. The ’191 patent was issued from a continuation application claiming priority to the ’812 application. 23. On November 19, 2013, the PTO issued United States Patent No. 8,588,680, entitled
“System and Method to Communicate Targeted Information” (“the ’680 patent”), a copy of which is attached as Exhibit B. The ’680 patent was issued from a continuation application claiming priority to the ’812 application. 24. The ’191 and ’680 patents (collectively, “the Asserted Patents”) are in the same
patent family and both claim priority to the ’812 application, which was filed with the PTO on March 28, 2000 and issued on March 6, 2007 as United States Patent No. 7,187,947, entitled “System and Method for Communicating Selected Information to an Electronic Device.”
Other patents in the ’191 and ’680 patent family have been cited by major businesses
in the computer, software, communications, automotive, and mobile industries. For example, U.S. Patent No. 7,324,833 and U.S. Patent No. 7,634,228 have been cited in at least 38 patents and publications, with many of these patents assigned to corporations such as Apple, AT&T, Toyota, Google, Nokia, Bose, and Volkswagen. 26. Affinity Labs holds legal title, by assignment, to the Asserted Patents. COUNT I Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,554,191 by Nissan 27. On information and belief, Nissan manufactures, uses, sells, offers to sell, markets,
imports, has manufactured, used, sold, offered to sell, marketed, and/or imported products that infringe or have infringed the ’191 patent. 28. As a result, Affinity Labs brings this action to seek damages and injunctive relief
arising out of Nissan’s infringing acts. 29. Affinity Labs restates and realleges each of the allegations set forth above and
incorporates them herein. 30. Upon information and belief, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), Nissan has
infringed, and if not enjoined, will continue to infringe the ’191 patent by (1) manufacturing, using, marketing, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing, without authority, products and services that are covered by one or more claims of the ’191 patent, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents; (2) inducing infringement of one or more claims of the ’191 patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b); and/or (3) contributing to the infringement of one or more claims of the ’191 patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c). In particular, Nissan infringes one or more claims of the ’191 patent directly and indirectly, literally and under the doctrine of
equivalents, and by inducement and contributory infringement by (1) manufacture, use, marketing of, sale, offer for sale, and/or importation of Nissan automobiles with sound systems, including at least, for example, the Nissan Altima; and (2) using Nissan automobiles with sound systems, including at least, for example, the Nissan Altima, as part of the audio system and methods claimed in the ’191 patent. 31. Also on information and belief, Nissan markets and sells Nissan automobiles with
sound systems, including at least, for example, the Nissan Altima. Nissan markets and sells its Nissan automobiles with sound systems to customers and potential customers that include, for example, dealerships and other companies in the vehicle industry in the United States, in addition to individual customers in the United States. 32. Also on information and belief, Nissan markets and sells Nissan automobiles
containing a Bluetooth compliant communication module supplied by Visteon. 33. In addition, on information and belief, Nissan has actively induced and is actively
inducing others, such as Nissan’s customers, to directly infringe the ’191 patent in this District and elsewhere in the United States in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). For example, on
information and belief, Nissan and/or its distributors or representatives have sold or otherwise provided Nissan automobiles with sound systems—including at least, for example, the Nissan Altima—to third parties, such as Nissan’s customers. Nissan’s customers, on information and belief, have directly infringed and are directly infringing the ’191 patent. Moreover, Nissan specifically intends for and encourages its customers to use technology in violation of the ’191 patent. For example, by marketing and selling its automobiles with sound systems that are able to pair with a portable electronic device, such as an MP3 player or cell phone, Nissan has
encouraged and is encouraging its customers to use its automobiles with sound systems and, thus, to directly infringe the ’191 patent. 34. Furthermore, on information and belief, Nissan has also contributed to and is
contributing to direct infringement of the ’191 patent by third parties, such as Nissan’s customers, in this District and elsewhere in the United States, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c). For example, on information and belief, Nissan has contributed to and is contributing to infringement of the ’191 patent by selling its customers Nissan automobiles with sound systems that are able to pair with a portable electronic device, such as an MP3 player or cell phone, including at least, for example, the Nissan Altima—the use of which by Nissan’s customers has directly infringed and is directly infringing the ’191 patent. 35. ’191 patent. 36. Affinity Labs has been injured and has been caused significant financial damage as a Nissan does not have a license or permission to use the claimed subject matter in the
direct and proximate result of Nissan’s infringement of the ’191 patent. 37. Nissan will continue to infringe the ’191 patent, and thus cause irreparable injury and
damage to Affinity Labs unless enjoined by this Court. 38. Affinity Labs is entitled to recover from Nissan the damages sustained by Affinity
Labs as a result of Nissan’s wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial. COUNT II Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,588,680 by Nissan 39. On information and belief, Nissan manufactures, uses, sells, offers to sell, markets,
imports, has manufactured, used, sold, offered to sell, marketed, and/or imported products that infringe or have infringed the ’680 patent.
As a result, Affinity Labs brings this action to seek damages and injunctive relief
arising out of Nissan’s infringing acts. 41. Affinity Labs restates and realleges each of the allegations set forth above and
incorporates them herein. 42. Upon information and belief, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), Nissan has
infringed, and if not enjoined, will continue to infringe the ’680 patent by (1) manufacturing, using, marketing, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing, without authority, products and services that are covered by one or more claims of the ’680 patent, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents; (2) inducing infringement of one or more claims of the ’680 patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b); and/or (3) contributing to the infringement of one or more claims of the ’680 patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c). In particular, Nissan infringes one or more claims of the ’680 patent directly and indirectly, literally and under the doctrine of equivalents, and by inducement and contributory infringement by (1) manufacture, use, marketing of, sale, offer for sale, and/or importation of Nissan automobiles with sound systems, including at least, for example, the Nissan Altima; and (2) using Nissan automobiles with sound systems, including at least, for example, the Nissan Altima, as part of the audio system and methods claimed in the ’680 patent. 43. Also on information and belief, Nissan markets and sells Nissan automobiles with
sound systems, including at least, for example, the Nissan Altima. Nissan markets and sells its Nissan automobiles with sound systems to customers and potential customers that include, for example, dealerships and other companies in the vehicle industry in the United States, in addition to individual customers in the United States.
In addition, on information and belief, Nissan has actively induced and is actively
inducing others, such as Nissan’s customers, to directly infringe the ’680 patent in this District and elsewhere in the United States in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). For example, on
information and belief, Nissan and/or its distributors or representatives have sold or otherwise provided Nissan automobiles with sound systems—including at least, for example, the Nissan Altima—to third parties, such as Nissan’s customers. Nissan’s customers, on information and belief, have directly infringed and are directly infringing the ’680 patent. Moreover, Nissan specifically intends for and encourages its customers to use technology in violation of the ’680 patent. For example, by marketing and selling its automobiles with sound systems that are able to pair with a portable electronic device, such as an MP3 player or cell phone, Nissan has encouraged and is encouraging its customers to use its automobiles with sound systems and, thus, to directly infringe the ’680 patent. 45. Furthermore, on information and belief, Nissan has also contributed to and is
contributing to direct infringement of the ’680 patent by third parties, such as Nissan’s customers, in this District and elsewhere in the United States, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c). For example, on information and belief, Nissan has contributed to and is contributing to infringement of the ’680 patent by selling its customers Nissan automobiles with sound systems that are able to pair with a portable electronic device, such as an MP3 player or cell phone, including at least, for example, the Nissan Altima—the use of which by Nissan’s customers has directly infringed and is directly infringing the ’680 patent. 46. ’680 patent. Nissan does not have a license or permission to use the claimed subject matter in the
direct and proximate result of Nissan’s infringement of the ’680 patent. 48. Nissan will continue to infringe the ’680 patent, and thus cause irreparable injury and
damage to Affinity Labs unless enjoined by this Court. 49. Affinity Labs is entitled to recover from Nissan the damages sustained by Affinity
Labs as a result of Nissan’s wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial. DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY Affinity Labs demands a jury trial on all issues so triable, pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Affinity Labs prays for the following relief: 1. A declaration that Nissan has infringed and is infringing the ’191 and ’680 patents
and is liable to Affinity Labs for infringement; 2. 3. An order enjoining Nissan from infringing the ’191 and ’680 patents; If a permanent injunction is not granted, a judicial determination of the conditions
amount adequate to compensate Affinity Labs for Nissan’s infringement of the ’191 and ’680 patents, and that the damages be trebled pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284; 5. An equitable accounting of damages owed by Nissan for the period of infringement
of the ’191 and ’680 patents, following the period of damages established by Affinity Labs at trial; 11
Documents Similar To Affinity Labs of Texas v. Nissan North America Et. Al.
Richmond v. Ethan Group