Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/212995090/iOttie-et-al-v-HisGadget
Timestamp: 2017-06-26 17:47:25
Document Index: 651945722

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 100', '§ 271', '§1331', '§1391', '§ 284', '§ 285', '§271', '§ 284', '§ 271', '§ 284', '§ 284', '§ 284', '§ 283', '§ 285']

iOttie et. al. v. HisGadget | Patent Infringement | Patent
iOttie et. al. v. HisGadgetUploaded by PriorSmartRelated InterestsPatent InfringementPatentDeclaratory JudgmentLawsuitDamagesRating and Stats0.0 (0)Document ActionsDownloadShare or Embed DocumentEmbedDescription: Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-00103-RAJ-TEM: iOttie, Inc. et. al. v. HisGadget Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the H...View MoreOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-00103-RAJ-TEM: iOttie, Inc. et. al. v. HisGadget Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the Hon. Raymond A. Jackson presiding. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-la6S for more info.Copyright: Public DomainDownload as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentFHFDZOIH MAR II
P 3"- Ob
No, $-i\^C\J \Ql
Zltt T£*n
HISGADGET, INC.,
INFRINGEMENT;DEMAND FOR
Plaintiffs iOttic. Inc. and HSM Co., Ltd. (respectively, "iOttie" or "HSM", collectively
"Plaintiffs"), for their complaint against Defendant HisGadget Inc. ("HisGadget'") for preliminary and permanent injunctive and declaratory relief and for damages, including treble or
multiple damages, for patent infringement, states and alleges as follows:
Plaintiffs allege that HisGadget has infringed and continues to infringe one or
more claims of the United States Patent No. 8,627,953 ("the '953 Patent" or "Patent-in-Suit").
This is a civil action for the patent infringement of the '953 Patent, including the willful
infringement of the '953 Patent by HisGadget.
The technology at issue involves the holding mechanism and, more particularly,
to a holder for a portable device.
HSM is a corporation organized under the laws of the Republic of Korea, having
a place of business located in Seoul, Korea. It is the owner of the '953 Patent.
iOttie is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York and
maintains its principal place of business at 214 State Street #102, Hackensack, New Jersey,
07601. iOttie is the exclusive licensee, from HSM, of the '953 Patent.
On information and belief, HisGadget is a California corporation with its principal
place of business at 30075 Ahern Avenue Union City, California 94587.
This action is based upon and arises under the Patent Laws of the United States,
35 U.S.C. §§ 100 et seq. In particular §§ 271, 281, 283, 284 and 285 is intended to redress
infringement of the '953 Patent owned and exclusively licensed by Plaintiffs.
U.S.C. §§1331 and 1338(a).
HisGadget has transacted and continues to transact business in the United States
and in this judicial district and division by: using or causing lo be used; making; importing or
causing to be imported; offering to sell or causing to be offered for sale; and/orselling or causing
to be sold directly, through intermediaries and/or as an intermediary, a variety of products that
infringe the "953 Patent to customers in the United States, including customers in this judicial
district and division, and Defendant will continue to do so unless enjoined by this Court.
Upon information and belief, HisGadget is subject to this Court's general and/or
specific personal jurisdiction, because it has committed acts of infringement in the Commonwealth of Virginia as alleged below; and/or HisGadget is engaged in continuous
activities in the Commonwealth of Virginia. HisGadget acts caused injury to Plaintiffs in the
Commonwealth, and HisGadget regularly does or solicits business, or engages in a course of
conduct, or derives substantial revenue from goods used or consumed or services rendered in this
Commonwealth. Therefore, this Court has personal jurisdiction over HisGadget.
Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C §§1391 and 1400(b).
On January 14, 2014, the '953 Patent, entitled "Holder for portable device" was
duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. HSM is the owner of
all rights, title, and interest in and to the '953 Patent. A copy of the '953 Patent is attached as
iOttie is an exclusive licensee of the '953 Patent and possesses the right to sue and
to recover for infringement of the '953 Patent.
HSM is the owner of the '953 Patent, and has invested substantial time and
money in designing, developing, manufacturing and producing holder products that incorporate
the patented technology HSM, e.g., developed the Easy One' Touch Car Mount Holder for a portable device.
HSM has granted to iOttie the exclusive right to sell, re-sell and distribute the
products under iOttie's own brand name. iOttie has purchased and is purchasing the products
from HSM. iOttie has sold and is selling the product in the United States.
iOttie holds full power and authority to bring and prosecute lawsuits against third
parties for infringement of the '953 Patent.
HisGadget at least uses, causes to be used, makes, imports, causes to be imported,
offers for sale, causes to be offered for sale, sells, and/or causes to be sold in the United States
and in this judicial district and division a product (e.g., the iClever One-Touch Car Mount
Holder) for holding a portable device that incorporates the technology claimed in the '953 Patent.
17. HisGadget has induced and continues to induce infringement of the '953 Patent in
the United States and in this judicial district.
18. HisGadget actively sells to and solicits business from customers and distributors
located in the United States. HisGadget will continue to do so.
CLAIM FOR DIRECT INFRINGEMENT OF THE '953 PATENT
Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference as if fully set forth herein the
allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 18.
20. On January 14,2014, United States Letters Patent No. 8,627,953 was issued to the
HSM for an invention in a holder for a portable device. The HSM owned the patent throughout
the period of HisGadget's infringing acts and still owns the '953 Patent.
HisGadget has used, made, sold, imported or offered a Car Mount Holder (e.g.,
the iClever One-Touch Car Mount Holder) for sale in the United States, and has used the Car
Mount Holder (e.g., the iClever One-Touch Car Mount Holder) in conjunction with a portable
device in the United States. Such sales and offers for sale occurred in this judicial district and
HisGadget has infringed and is still infringing the Letters Patent by making,
selling, and using the Car Mount Holder (e.g., the iClever One-Touch Car Mount Holder) for a
portable device that embodies the patented invention, and HisGadget will continue to do so
Plaintiffs have complied with the statutory requirement of placing a notice of the
Letters Patent on the Car Mount Holder (e.g., the iClever One-Touch Car Mount Holder) for a portable device it manufactures and sells and has given Defendant written notice of the
For at least some period of time, HisGadget has known that the Car Mount Holder
(e.g., the iClever One-Touch Car Mount Holder), and the Car Mount Holder (e.g., the iClever
One-Touch Car Mount Holder) used in conjunction with portable devices, infringe certain claims
of the '953 patent.
HisGadget's actions constitute direct patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. §
Plaintiffs are informed and believe that HisGadget's infringement of the '953
patent will continue unless enjoined by this Court.
HisGadget's direct infringement has been intentional, willful, and with a reckless
disregard for the rights of Plaintiffs.
HisGadget has caused Plaintiffs substantial injury, including lost profits, for
which Plaintiffs are entitled to damages adequate to compensate them for direct infringement.
HisGadget's direct infringement warrants the assessment of increased damages
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, and an award of attorneys' fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285.
CLAIM FOR CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT OF THE '953 PATENT
allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 29.
HisGadget has made, sold, imported or offered the Car Mount Holder (e.g., the
iClever One-Touch Car Mount Holder) for sale in the United States.
The HisGadget Car Mount Holder (e.g., the iClever One-Touch Car Mount
Holder) is especially made, or especially adapted, for use in the making of device that infringe
certain claims of the '953 patent. 33. The HisGadget Car Mount Holder (e.g., the iClever One-Touch Car Mount
Holder) has no substantial non-infringing use.
(e.g., the iClever One-Touch Car Mount Holder) is especially made to infringe certain claims of
the '953 patent.
§271(c).
HisGadget's actions constitute contributory patent infringement under 35 U.S.C.
Plaintiffs are informed and believe that HisGadget's contributory infringement of
the '953 patent will continue unless enjoined by this Court.
HisGadget's contributory infringement has been intentional, willful, and with a
reckless disregard for the rights of Plaintiffs.
which Plaintiffs are entitled to damages adequate to compensate them for contributory infringement.
HisGadget's contributory infringement warrants the assessment of increased
damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, and an award of attorneys' fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §
CLAIM FOR ACTIVE INDUCEMENT OF INFRINGEMENT
OF THE '953 PATENT
allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 39.
Plaintiffs are informed and believe that third party users of the HisGadget Car
Mount Holder (e.g., the iClever One-Touch Car Mount Holder) are directly infringing certain claims of the '953 patent.
42. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that by advertising, offering for sale, selling
and supporting the HisGadget Car Mount Holder (e.g., the iClever One-Touch Car Mount
Holder), HisGadget has knowingly and intentionally caused third party users of the HisGadget
Car Mount Holder (e.g., the iClever One-Touch Car Mount Holder) to infringe certain claims of
the '953 patent. 43. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that, after having been put on notice of the
existence of the '953 patent and the infringing use of the HisGadget Car Mount Holder (e.g., the
iClever One-Touch Car Mount Holder), HisGadget has continued to advertise, offer for sale, sell
and support the HisGadget Car Mount Holder (e.g., the iClever One-Touch Car Mount Holder)
to third party users with the intent to induce third party users to infringe the '953 patent.
44. HisGadget's actions constitute active inducement of patent infringement under 35
U.S.C. § 271(b). 45. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that HisGadget's active inducement of
infringement of the '953 patent will continue unless enjoined by this Court. 46. HisGadget's active inducement of infringement has been intentional, willful, and
with a reckless disregard for the rights of Plaintiffs.
47. HisGadget has caused Plaintiffs substantial injury, including lost profits, for
48. HisGadget's active inducement of infringement warrants the assessment of
increased damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, and an award of attorneys' fees pursuant to 35
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment and seek relief against Defendant as follows:
A. An adjudication that one or more claims of the Patent-in-Suit has been
infringed, either literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, by the Defendant and/or the
Defendant in conjunction with its customers;
An adjudication that Defendant has induced infringement of one or more
claims of the Patent-in-Suit;
An adjudication that Defendant has contributed to the infringement of one
or more claims of the Patent-in-Suit;
An award to Plaintiff of damages adequate to compensate Plaintiff for the
Defendant's acts of infringement together with prejudgment interest pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284;
That, should Defendant's acts of infringement be found to be willful from
the time that Defendant became aware of the infringing nature of its actions, that the Court award
treble damages for the period of such willful infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284; F. A grant of permanent injunction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 283, enjoining
the Defendant from further acts of infringement with respect to the claims of the Patent-in-Suit;
G. That this Court declare this to be an exceptional case and award Plaintiff
its reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 285;
Interests and costs; and
Dated: March 11.2014
Sean Allen Passino (VA Bar 47,268)
Sean Allen Passino (VA Bar 47,268) Jeffrey H. Gregcr (VA Bar 41,500)
LOWE HAUPTMAN & HAM, LLP 2318 Mill Road, Suite 1400
Alexandria, Virginia 22314 Telephone: 703-684-1111
Facsimile: 703-518-5499
Email: spassino@ipfirm.com jhgreger@ipfirm.com Attorneys for Plaintiff IOTTIE, INC. and HSM Co., Ltd.
Recommended DocumentsDocuments Similar To iOttie et. al. v. HisGadgetSkip carouselIllinois Computer Research, LLC v. Google Inc. - Document No. 20MacroSolve v. BoxEntertainment Printing Enterprises v. TicktboxMacroSolve v. Pandora MediaBlue Gentian et. al. v. Tristar ProductsMitchell Ellis Products v. Bouldin & Lawson et. al.Transglobal Product Licensing v. Travel HammockIdeal Industries v. Platinum ToolsTransglobal Product Licensing v. HoodiepillowAuto and Marine Technology Acquisition v. UflexManufacturing Co. v. Cowing, 105 U.S. 253 (1882)Opticool Technologies v. LiebertJ.S.T. Mfg. v. DellPB&J Software v. AcronisPB&J Software v. EvaultPB&J Software v. DechoPJC Logistics v. ATX GroupFind My Iphone patent suitMcRo v. Activision BlizzardCUTV Forensics v. LinearTerrraSpark Geosciences v. Paradigm et. al.McRo Inc.Telecomm Innovations v. Equinox Payments.pdfClear With Computers v. Ag Growth International dba Batco ManufacturingNalco Company v. AshlandMaxim Integrated Products v. ExpediaSpace Systems/Loral v. Viasat et. al.Thule Child Transport Systems v. JoovyNichia v. Everlight Electronics et. al.Arunachalam v. StaplesDocuments About Patent InfringementSkip carouselNokia Complaint Against Apple in federal district court, WisconsinNike v. SkechersGreenwich Ballistics v. Jamison InternationalFacebook's Counterclaims to Yahoo's Patent LawsuitNYT Complaint Against LodsysKoninklijke Philips N.V. et. al. v. Nintendo et. al.BU v ApplePosner OrderTreehouse Avatar Technologies v. TurbineSemantic Compaction Systems et. al. v. Speak For Yourself et. al.Rockstar v Samsung.pdfBose v. Beats Civil ComplaintBose vs Beats (ITC complaint)Amended Galaxy ComplaintLodsys Complaint Against Adidas BestBuy Et AlPersonalWeb Technologies et. al. v. Rackspace et. al.3D Systems v. Formlabs et. al.Otsuka Pharmaceutical v. Par PharmaceuticalPhatRat Technology v. RiddellAuto and Marine Technology Acquisition v. Marine AcquisitionPetter Investments v. Hydro Engineering et. al.Credit Card Fraud Control v. PaypaleDekka v. U.S. Auto Parts NetworkNetwork Signatures v. ConocoPhillips CompanyMirror Worlds Technologies v. Apple et. al.Bsg Tech v. Albee Baby CarriageJanssen Pharmaceuticals v. Glenmark Generics et. al.Optrel v. A.C.E. International Company, Inc. d/b/a ArcOneOtter Products v. Aimo WirelessMedtek Devices v. Tack Smart Filter TechnologyMore 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