Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/91547125/Disposition-Services-v-Arrow-Intechra
Timestamp: 2016-12-05 18:43:07
Document Index: 243711404

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 271', '§ 284', '§ 285', '§ 284', '§ 284', '§ 285', 'art364']

BrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksArticlesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION DISPOSITION SERVICES LLC, Plaintiff, v.ARROW-INTECHRA LLC, Defendant. COMPLAINT Disposition Services LLC (“Disposition Services”) files this Complaint against ArrowIntechra LLC (“Defendant”) for infringement of United States Patent No. 5,424,944 (hereinafter “the ‘944 Patent”). THE PARTIES 1. Disposition Services is a limited liability company organized and existing under Case No. _________________________ PATENT CASE JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business in Highland, New York. 2. Defendant is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business at 713 S.
Pear Orchard Road, Ridgeland, Mississippi 39157. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant has committed, and continues to commit, acts of infringement in the state of Texas, has conducted business in the state of Texas, and/or has engaged in continuous and systematic activities in the state of Texas. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. This is an action for patent infringement under Title 35 of the United States Code.
Disposition Services is seeking injunctive relief as well as damages.
district because Defendant has committed, and continues to commit, acts of infringement in the State of Texas, including in this district and/or have engaged in continuous and systematic activities in the State of Texas, including in this district. 7. Defendant operates nationwide. Defendant’s website states that “Intechra’s
delivery footprint is borderless. We operate as a single-source solution, a nationwide operation with global capabilities.” http://intechra.com/about-intechra/ (attached as Exhibit A). 8. Defendant has four processing centers in the United States at which Defendant
performs its asset disposition processes and services. Defendant’s four processing centers are located in or near Dallas, TX, Columbus, OH, Hartford, CT, and Reno, NV. http://intechra.com/contact/locations/ (attached as Exhibit B). COUNT I (INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,424,944) 9. 10. Disposition Services incorporates paragraphs 1 through 6 herein by reference. This cause of action arises under the patent laws of the United States, and in
particular, 35 U.S.C. §§ 271, et seq. 11. Disposition Services is the exclusive licensee of the ‘944 Patent, entitled “System
and Methods for Controlled Asset Disposition,” with ownership of all substantial rights in the
‘944 Patent, including the right to exclude others and to enforce, sue and recover damages for past and future infringement. A true and correct copy of the ‘944 Patent is attached as Exhibit C. 12. The ‘944 Patent is valid, enforceable and was duly issued in full compliance with
Title 35 of the United States Code. 13. Defendant has directly infringed and continues to directly infringe one or more
claims of the ‘944 Patent in this judicial district and elsewhere in Texas, and the United States, including at least claim 1, without the consent or authorization of Disposition Services, by or through its making, having made, offer for sale, sale, and/or use of the patented systems and methods for controlled asset disposition through operation of its asset disposition processes and services. 14. Disposition Services has been damaged as a result of Defendant’s infringing
conduct described in this Count. Defendant is, thus, liable to Disposition Services in an amount that adequately compensates it for Defendant’s 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. ADDITIONAL ALLEGATIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT 15. 16. Disposition Services incorporates paragraphs 1 through 12 herein by reference. Defendant has committed direct infringement as alleged in Count I at least
through operation of its asset disposition processes and services. 17. Defendant’s actions complained of herein will continue unless Defendant is
enjoined by this Court. 18. Defendant’s infringement of the ‘944 Patent, since at least the service of this
action, has been and continues to be willful. Defendant has had notice of the ‘944 Patent since at
least the service of this complaint and Defendant has continued to infringe the ‘944 Patent despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constitute infringement of the ‘944 Patent and a subject knowledge or obviousness of such risk. 19. This case is exceptional pursuant to the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 285. JURY DEMAND Disposition Services hereby requests a trial by jury pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. PRAYER FOR RELIEF Disposition Services requests that this Court find in its favor and against Defendant, and that this Court grant Disposition Services the following relief: a. b. Enter judgment for Disposition Services on this Complaint; Enter judgment that one or more claims of the ‘944 Patent has been infringed by Defendant; c. Enter judgment that Defendant accounts for and pays to Disposition Services all damages to and costs incurred by Disposition Services because of Defendant’s infringing activities and other conduct complained of herein; d. Award Disposition Services damages resulting from Defendant’s infringement in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 284; e. Enter a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant and its offices, directors, agents, servants, affiliates, employees, divisions, branches, subsidiaries, parents, and all others acting in active concert or participation with Defendant, from infringing or inducing infringement of the ‘944 Patent, or, in the alternative, 4
judgment that Defendant accounts for and pays to Disposition Services a reasonable royalty and an ongoing post judgment royalty because of Defendant’s past, present and future infringing activities and other conduct complained of herein; f. That Disposition Services be granted pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on the damages caused by Defendant’s infringing activities and other conduct complained of herein; g. h. i. Judgment that Defendant’s infringement was willful; Treble the damages in accordance with the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 284; Find the case to be exceptional under the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 285 and award Disposition Services its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; j. That Disposition Services be granted such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper under the circumstances.
Respectfully submitted, DISPOSITION SERVICES LLC
/s/Andrew W. Spangler Andrew W. Spangler SPANGLER & FUSSELL P.C. 208 N. Green Street, Suite 300 Longview, Texas 75601 P. 903.753.9300 F. 903.553.0403 spangler@sfipfirm.com
James A. Fussell, III SPANGLER & FUSSELL P.C. 211 N. Union St., Ste. 100 Alexandria, Virginia 22314 P. 903.753.9300 F. 903.553.0403 fuseell@sfipfirm.com Anthony G. Simon Benjamin R. Askew Michael P. Kella THE SIMON LAW FIRM, P.C. 800 Market Street, Suite 1700 St. Louis, Missouri 63101 P. 314.241.2929 F. 314.241.2029 asimon@simonlawpc.com baskew@simonlawpc.com mkella@simonlawpc.com
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF DISPOSITION SERVICES LLC
Disposition Services v. Arrow-Intechra by PriorSmart364 viewsEmbedDownloadDescriptionOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 6:12-cv-00292: Disposition Services LLC v. Arrow-Intechra LLC. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, no judg...Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 6:12-cv-00292: Disposition Services LLC v. Arrow-Intechra LLC. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l5Ww 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
RelatedDisposition Services v. Dellby PriorSmartJ-Channel Industries v. Weather Shield Manufacturingby PriorSmartJ-Channel Industries v. HWD Acquisitionby PriorSmartJ-Channel Industries v. MGM Industriesby PriorSmartPatent Group v. W. W. Graingerby PriorSmartPatent Group v. Esurance Insurance Servicesby PriorSmartJ-Channel Industries v. Home Depot et. al.by PriorSmartVehicle Intelligence and Safety v. Mercedes-Benz Et. Al.by PatentBlastJ-Channel Industries v. Comfort View Productsby PriorSmartSun Taiyang v. Jbs Hair et. al.by PriorSmartPatent Group v. Build.comby PriorSmartGriffin Technology Holdings v. NetZeroby PriorSmartGriffin Technology Holdings v. Clearwireby PriorSmartGriffin Technology Holdings v. Locus Telecommunicationsby PriorSmartGeoTag v. Amerco et. al.by PriorSmartPatent Group v. El Fenixby PriorSmartWyncomm v. Vizioby PriorSmartNational Oilwell DHT v. Cougar Drilling Solutions Et. Al.by PatentBlastWyncomm LLCby PriorSmartEclipse IP v. Avon Productsby PriorSmartGeoTag v. Sunbelt Rentalsby PriorSmartMeadows Financial Systems v. Little Caesar Enterpriseby PriorSmartChrimar Systems et. al. v. Alcatel-Lucent et. al.by PriorSmartPrecision Energy Services v. ThruBitby PriorSmartM.J. Woods v. Little Rapidsby PatentBlastBovard Studio v. J. Sussmanby PatentBlastGolight v. Pilot Automotiveby PriorSmartAntennatech v. BMW of North Americaby PriorSmartSimilar to Disposition Services v. Arrow-IntechraDisposition Services v. DellJ-Channel Industries v. Weather Shield ManufacturingJ-Channel Industries v. HWD AcquisitionJ-Channel Industries v. MGM IndustriesPatent Group v. W. W. GraingerPatent Group v. Esurance Insurance ServicesJ-Channel Industries v. Home Depot et. al.Vehicle Intelligence and Safety v. Mercedes-Benz Et. Al.J-Channel Industries v. Comfort View ProductsSun Taiyang v. Jbs Hair et. al.Patent Group v. Build.comGriffin Technology Holdings v. NetZeroGriffin Technology Holdings v. ClearwireGriffin Technology Holdings v. Locus TelecommunicationsGeoTag v. Amerco et. al.Patent Group v. El FenixWyncomm v. VizioNational Oilwell DHT v. Cougar Drilling Solutions Et. Al.Wyncomm LLCEclipse IP v. Avon ProductsGeoTag v. Sunbelt RentalsMeadows Financial Systems v. Little Caesar EnterpriseChrimar Systems et. al. v. Alcatel-Lucent et. al.Precision Energy Services v. ThruBitM.J. Woods v. Little RapidsBovard Studio v. J. SussmanGolight v. Pilot AutomotiveAntennatech v. BMW of North AmericaJ-Channel Industries v. Lowe's Companies Et. Al.J-Channel Industries v. Associated MaterialsDisposition Services v. Arrow-Intechra