Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/173384131/Progressive-Semiconductor-Solutions-v-Qualcomm-Techonologies-et-al
Timestamp: 2017-07-23 16:13:00
Document Index: 210712136

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1331', '§ 1391', '§ 1400', '§ 284', '§ 284', '§ 285']

Progressive Semiconductor Solutions v. Qualcomm Techonologies et. al. | Patent Infringement | Patent
Progressive Semiconductor Solutions v. Qualcomm Techonologies et. al.Uploaded by PriorSmartRelated InterestsPatent InfringementPatentComplaintInjunctionLawsuitRating and Stats0.0 (0)Document ActionsDownloadShare or Embed DocumentEmbedDescription: Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 8:13-cv-01535-DMG-JEM: Progressive Semiconductor Solutions LLC v. Qualcomm Techonologies Inc et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for ...View MoreOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 8:13-cv-01535-DMG-JEM: Progressive Semiconductor Solutions LLC v. Qualcomm Techonologies Inc et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, the Hon. Dolly M. Gee presiding. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l9eX for more info.Copyright: Public DomainDownload as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28Plaintiff
(“Plaintiff”) files this Original Complaint against Defendants QUALCOMM TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and MARVELL SEMICONDUCTOR, INC. (“Defendants”) alleging as follows: I. THE PARTIES 1. PROGRESSIVE SEMICONDUCTOR SOLUTIONS LLC (“Plaintiff”)
is a Limited Liability Company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Texas, with a principal place of business in Plano, Texas. 2. Upon information and belief, Defendant QUALCOMM TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (“QUALCOMM”) is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in San Diego, CA. Defendant QUALCOMM may be served with process by serving its Registered Agent, Corporation Service Company located at 2710 Gateway Oaks Drive, Suite 150N, Sacramento, CA 95833. 3. Upon information and belief, Defendant MARVELL SEMICONDUCTOR, INC. (“MARVELL”) is a California corporation with a principal place of business in Santa Clara, CA. Defendant MARVELL may be served with process by serving its Registered Agent, CT Corporation System located at 818 West Seventh Street, Los Angeles, CA 90017. II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4. This is an action for infringement of a United States patent. Federal
question jurisdiction is conferred to this Court over such action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). 5. Upon information and belief, Defendants have had minimum contacts
with the Southern Division of the Central District of California such that this venue is fair and reasonable. Defendants have committed such purposeful acts and/or transactions in this district that they reasonably should know and expect that they could be haled into this Court as a consequence of such activity. Upon information -1-
and belief, Defendants have transacted and, at the time of the filing of this Complaint, are transacting business within the Southern Division of the Central District of California. 6. For these reasons, personal jurisdiction exists and venue is proper in this
Court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c) and 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). III. PATENT INFRINGEMENT 7. On October 29, 2002, United States Patent No. 6,473,349 (“the ‘349 Patent”) was duly and legally issued for “CASCODE SENSE AMP AND COLUMN SELECT CIRCUIT AND METHOD OF OPERATION.” A true and correct copy of the ‘349 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and made a part hereof. 8. On March 1, 2005, United States Patent No. 6,862,208 (“the ‘208 Patent”) was duly and legally issued for “MEMORY DEVICE WITH SENSE AMPLIFIER AND SELF-TIMED LATCH.” A true and correct copy of the ‘208 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit “B” and made a part hereof. 9. in-Suit.” 10. By way of assignment, Plaintiff is the owner of all right, title and The ‘349 and ‘208 Patents are referred to collectively as the “Patents -
interest in and to the Patents-in-Suit, with all rights to enforce them against infringers and to collect damages for all relevant times, including the right to prosecute this action. 11. Upon information and belief, Defendants manufacture, make, have
made, import, have imported, market, sell and/or use products and/or systems that infringe one or more claims of the Patents-in-Suit; and/or induce and/or contribute to the infringement of one or more of the claims of the Patents-in-Suit by others. 12. On information and belief, Defendant QUALCOMM, without authority,
consent, right, or license, and in direct infringement of the Patents-in-Suit, manufactures, uses, sells, imports, and/or offers for sale systems and/or products -2-
directly infringing one or more claims of the Patents-in-Suit. By way of example only, its MSM8960 chip directly infringes at least claim 1 of the ‘349 Patent, and at least claim 1 of the ‘208 Patent. 13. On information and belief, Defendant MARVELL, without authority,
consent, right, or license, and in direct infringement of the Patents-in-Suit, manufactures, uses, sells, imports, and/or offers for sale systems and/or products directly infringing one or more claims of the Patents-in-Suit. By way of example only, its 88W8686 chip directly infringes at least claim 1 of the ‘349 Pat ent, and at least claim 1 of the ‘208 Patent. 14. Plaintiff reserves the right to assert additional claims of the Patents-inPlaintiff has been damaged as a result of Defendants’ infringing
Suit and reserves the right to assert additional patents. 15.
conduct. Defendants are, thus, liable to Plaintiff in an amount that adequately compensates for their infringement, which, by law, cannot be less than a reasonable royalty, together with interest and costs as fixed by this Court under 35 U.S.C. § 284. 16. Upon information and belief, Defendants will continue their infringement of the Patents-in-Suit unless enjoined by the Court. Defendants’ infringing conduct has caused Plaintiff irreparable harm and will continue to cause such harm without the issuance of an injunction. IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court find in its favor and against Defendants, and that the Court grant Plaintiff the following relief: a. Judgment that one or more claims of the Patents-in-Suit have been infringed, either literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, by Defendants and/or by others to whose infringement Defendants have contributed to and/or by others whose infringement has been induced by Defendants; -3-
Judgment that Defendants account for and pay to Plaintiff all damages to and costs incurred by Plaintiff because of Defendants’ infringing activities and other conduct complained of herein; That Defendants’ infringement be found to be willful from the time Defendants became aware of the infringing nature of its services, which is the time of filing of Plaintiff’s Complaint at the latest, and that the Court award treble damages for the period of such willful infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284.
That Plaintiff be granted pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on the damages caused by Defendants’ infringing activities and other conduct complained of herein;
That the Court declare this an exceptional case and award Plaintiff its reasonable attorney’s fees and costs in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 285;
That Defendants be permanently enjoined from any further activity or conduct that infringes one or more claims of the Patents-in-Suit; and
That Plaintiff be granted such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper under the circumstances.
BRANDON C. FERNALD FERNALD LAW GROUP LLP
By: Brandon C. Fernald Attorneys for Plaintiff PROGRESSIVE SEMICONDUCTOR SOLUTIONS LLC
DAVID A. SKEELS (pro hac vice application to be filed) skeels@fsclaw.com JONATHAN T. SUDER (pro hac vice application to be filed) jts@fsclaw.com DAVE R. GUNTER (pro hac vice application to be filed) gunter@fsclaw.com FRIEDMAN, SUDER & COOKE Tindall Square Warehouse No. 1 604 East 4th Street, Suite 200 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Tel: 817.334.0400 Fax: 817.334.0401
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff respectfully demands a jury trial on all issues so triable pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b) and L.R. 38-1. DATED: September 30, 2013 FERNALD LAW GROUP LLP BRANDON C. FERNALD RACHEL D. STANGER
By: Brandon C. Fernald Attorneys for Plaintiff PROGRESSIVE SEMICONDUCTOR SOLUTIONS LLC DAVID A. SKEELS (pro hac vice application to be filed) skeels@fsclaw.com JONATHAN T. SUDER (pro hac vice application to be filed) jts@fsclaw.com DAVE R. GUNTER (pro hac vice application to be filed) gunter@fsclaw.com FRIEDMAN, SUDER & COOKE Tindall Square Warehouse No. 1 604 East 4th Street, Suite 200 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Tel: 817.334.0400 Fax: 817.334.0401
Recommended DocumentsDocuments Similar To Progressive Semiconductor Solutions v. Qualcomm Techonologies et. al.Skip carouselTimebase Pty Ltd v. Thomson Corporation, The - Document No. 38Locata LBS v. United Sample.pdfCeraMedic v. Zimmer Holdings et. al.Edizone v. Schneider SaddleryAlex is the Best v. HTC et. al.Alex is the Best LLCAirtight Networks v. Aerohive NetworksFrank v Kosuyama59 Phil 206Wireless Mobile Devices v. Nokia et. al.Pioneer Pet Prods. v. EA Distrib. - ComplaintHussmann v. Heatcraft Refrigeration Products et. al.Nalco Company v. AshlandCanatelo v. Grandstream Networks12-10943-JLTSpeakman v. Acorn Eng'g - ComplaintAcceleron v. Hitachi Data SystemsEarthcomber v. TruliaBrilliant Optical Solutions v. FairPoint CommunicationsBrandywine Communications Technologies v. Mitel NetworksRyan Data Exchange et. al. v. GracoKlausner Technologies v. TaridiumKarl Storz Endoscopy-America v. Integrated Medical Systems InternationalUbicomm v. Williams-SonomaProgressive International Corporation v. Blyth,IncSelex Communications, Inc. v. Jajah, Inc. - Document No. 1GlobeTecTrust v. Cox CommunicationsInnovative Creations v. IDDEA California - ComplaintCrook v. Miles Kimball CompanyI12-11448MWisconsin Technology Venture Group v. MyCouponsDocuments About Patent InfringementSkip carouselNokia Complaint Against Apple in federal district court, WisconsinNike v. SkechersFacebook's Counterclaims to Yahoo's Patent LawsuitGreenwich Ballistics v. Jamison InternationalNYT Complaint Against LodsysKoninklijke Philips N.V. et. al. v. Nintendo et. al.Posner OrderBU v AppleSemantic Compaction Systems et. al. v. Speak For Yourself et. al.Treehouse Avatar Technologies v. TurbineRockstar v Samsung.pdfBose v. Beats Civil ComplaintBose vs Beats (ITC complaint)Lodsys Complaint Against Adidas BestBuy Et AlPersonalWeb Technologies et. al. v. Rackspace et. al.Amended Galaxy Complaint3D Systems v. Formlabs et. al.Digitech Image Technologies v. Olympus et. al.TQP Development v. CraigslistStat Medical Devices v. AMG Medical et. al.McCrory v. PackitBluebonnet Telecommunications v. VTech CommunicationsRealtime Data v. CME Group et. al.Wi-LAN et. al. v. LG Electronics et. al.Employment Law Compliance, Inc.Ingeniador v. BMC SoftwareUnified Messaging Solutions v. Southwest AirlinesPatent Group v. Global Custom Commerce L.P. d/b/a Blinds.comLamina Packaging Innovations v. Sara HappRecognicorp v. Oakley Capital Private Equity et. al.More From PriorSmartSkip carouselLike 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.Mcs Industries v. Hds TradingDok Solution v. FKA Distributung et. al.GRQ Investment Management v. Financial Engines et. al.Merck Sharp & Dohme v. Fresenius KabiMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Konami Digital Entertainment