Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/19128888/TiVo-vs-Att-Complaint-1-of-5
Timestamp: 2017-07-23 21:39:22
Document Index: 33349094

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§ 271', '§ 1331', '§ 1400', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 284']

TiVo vs Att Complaint 1 of 5 | Patent Infringement | Patent
TiVo vs Att Complaint 1 of 5Uploaded by Davis FreebergRelated InterestsPatent InfringementPatentTitle 35 Of The United States CodeInjunctionUnited States Patent LawRating and Stats0.0 (0)Document ActionsDownloadShare or Embed DocumentEmbedDescription: A copy of the complaint that TiVo filed against AT&T alleging the violation of 3 different patents.View MoreA copy of the complaint that TiVo filed against AT&T alleging the violation of 3 different patents.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentCase 2:09-cv-00259Document 1
TIVO INC., Plaintiff, vs. AT&T INC., Defendant.
Case No. 2:09-cv-259
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND JURY DEMAND Plaintiff TiVo Inc. ("Plaintiff" or "TiVo") hereby pleads the following claims for patent infringement against Defendant AT&T Inc. ("AT&T" or "Defendant"), and alleges as follows: JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. This is an action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the
United States of America, 35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq., including § 271. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the matters pleaded herein under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). 2. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because, among other
reasons, Defendant has done business in this District, has committed and continues to commit acts of patent infringement in this District, and has harmed and continues to harm Plaintiff TiVo in this District, by, among other things, using, selling and offering for sale infringing products in this District. Moreover, on information and belief, the Defendant has placed infringing products
into the stream of commerce by shipping those products into this District or knowing that the products would be shipped into this District. 3. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1400(b) and 1391(b)-(c)
because, among other reasons, Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in this District and has committed acts of infringement in this District. On information and belief, Defendant has sold and distributed infringing products in this District. PARTIES 4. Plaintiff TiVo, a pioneer in home entertainment, created the first commercially
viable digital video recorder ("DVR"). TiVo owns patents to protect its innovative ideas that revolutionize the way consumers access home entertainment. TiVo is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in Alviso, California. 5. Defendant AT&T provides television and DVR services through its U-verse
service in many cities and communities. On information and belief, U-verse network deployment reached 17 million living units as of year-end 2008, and AT&T is marketing the Uverse service to almost 65 percent of those units. On information and belief, AT&T provides the U-verse service in over 16 states to over a million customers, including customers in the Eastern District of Texas. For example, on information and belief, AT&T provides the U-verse service to customers in Allen, Frisco, Lebanon, The Colony, and Plano. AT&T provides infringing products and services to customers in these cities and communities. AT&T is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in Dallas, Texas. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT (U.S. Patent No. 6,233,389) 6. full. 7. Plaintiff is the owner of the entire right, title and interest in and to U.S. Patent No. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 5 as if set forth here in
6,233,389 ("the '389 patent"), entitled "Multimedia time warping system," which was duly issued on May 15, 2001. A copy of the '389 patent is attached as Exhibit A hereto.
On information and belief, Defendant has infringed and is currently infringing the
'389 patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, by, among other things, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing within this judicial district and elsewhere in the United States, without license or authority, products and/or processes falling within the scope of one or more claims of the '389 patent including without limitation AT&T's U-verse product and/or service. 9. On information and belief, Defendant induced and is actively inducing the
infringement of the '389 patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), by, among other things, actively and knowingly aiding and abetting others to directly make, use, offer for sale, sell, and/or import within this judicial district and elsewhere in the United States, without license or authority, products and/or processes falling within the scope of one or more claims of the '389 patent including without limitation AT&T's U-verse product and/or service. 10. On information and belief, Defendant has contributorily infringed and is currently
contributorily infringing the '389 patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c), by, among other things, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing within this judicial district and elsewhere in the United States, without license or authority, products or components of products which constitute a material part of the '389 patent, knowing that such products and/or components are especially made or especially adapted for use in the infringement of the '389 patent, and not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use. 11. On information and belief, Defendant has infringed and is currently infringing the
'389 patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(f), by, among other things, supplying or causing to be supplied in or from the United States, without license or authority, components or products that are combined and/or used outside the United States in a manner that falls within the scope of one or more claims of the '389 patent including without limitation AT&T's U-verse product and/or service. 12. On information and belief, Defendant's infringement of the '389 patent has been
and continues to be willful and deliberate.
Unless enjoined, Defendant will continue to infringe the '389 patent, and Plaintiff
will suffer irreparable injury as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's conduct. 14. Plaintiff has been damaged by Defendant's conduct, and until an injunction issues,
will continue to be damaged in an amount yet to be determined. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT (U.S. Patent No. 7,493,015) 15. full. 16. Plaintiff is the owner of the entire right, title and interest in and to U.S. Patent No. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 5 as if set forth here in
7,493,015 ("the '015 patent"), entitled "Automatic playback overshoot correction system," which was duly issued on February 17, 2009. A copy of the '015 patent is attached as Exhibit B hereto. 17. On information and belief, Defendant has infringed and is currently infringing the
'015 patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, by, among other things, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing within this judicial district and elsewhere in the United States, without license or authority, products and/or processes falling within the scope of one or more claims of the '015 patent including without limitation AT&T's U-verse product and/or service. 18. On information and belief, Defendant induced and is actively inducing the
infringement of the '015 patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), by, among other things, actively and knowingly aiding and abetting others to directly make, use, offer for sale, sell, and/or import within this judicial district and elsewhere in the United States, without license or authority, products and/or processes falling within the scope of one or more claims of the '015 patent including without limitation AT&T's U-verse product and/or service. 19. On information and belief, Defendant has contributorily infringed and is currently
contributorily infringing the '015 patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c), by, among other things, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing within this judicial district and elsewhere in the United States, without license or authority, products or components of products which constitute a material part of the '015 patent, knowing that such products and/or components are
especially made or especially adapted for use in the infringement of the '015 patent, and not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use. 20. On information and belief, Defendant has infringed and is currently infringing the
'015 patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(f), by, among other things, supplying or causing to be supplied in or from the United States, without license or authority, components or products that are combined and/or used outside the United States in a manner that falls within the scope of one or more claims of the '015 patent including without limitation AT&T's U-verse product and/or service. 21. On information and belief, Defendant's infringement of the '015 patent has been
and continues to be willful and deliberate. 22. Unless enjoined, Defendant will continue to infringe the '015 patent, and Plaintiff
will suffer irreparable injury as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's conduct. 23. Plaintiff has been damaged by Defendant's conduct, and until an injunction issues,
will continue to be damaged in an amount yet to be determined. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT (U.S. Patent No. 7,529,465) 24. full. 25. Plaintiff is the owner of the entire right, title and interest in and to U.S. Patent No. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 5 as if set forth here in
7,529,465 ("the '465 patent"), entitled "System for time shifting multimedia content streams," which was duly issued on May 5, 2009. A copy of the '465 patent is attached as Exhibit C hereto. 26. On information and belief, Defendant has infringed and is currently infringing the
'465 patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, by, among other things, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing within this judicial district and elsewhere in the United States, without license or authority, products and/or processes falling within the scope of one or more claims of the '465 patent including without limitation AT&T's U-verse product and/or service.
On information and belief, Defendant induced and is actively inducing the
infringement of the '465 patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), by, among other things, actively and knowingly aiding and abetting others to directly make, use, offer for sale, sell, and/or import within this judicial district and elsewhere in the United States, without license or authority, products and/or processes falling within the scope of one or more claims of the '465 patent including without limitation AT&T's U-verse product and/or service. 28. On information and belief, Defendant has contributorily infringed and is currently
contributorily infringing the '465 patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c), by, among other things, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing within this judicial district and elsewhere in the United States, without license or authority, products or components of products which constitute a material part of the '465 patent, knowing that such products and/or components are especially made or especially adapted for use in the infringement of the '465 patent, and not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use. 29. On information and belief, Defendant has infringed and is currently infringing the
'465 patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(f), by, among other things, supplying or causing to be supplied in or from the United States, without license or authority, components or products that are combined and/or used outside the United States in a manner that falls within the scope of one or more claims of the '465 patent including without limitation AT&T's U-verse product and/or service. 30. On information and belief, Defendant's infringement of the '465 patent has been
and continues to be willful and deliberate. 31. Unless enjoined, Defendant will continue to infringe the '465 patent, and Plaintiff
will suffer irreparable injury as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's conduct. 32. Plaintiff has been damaged by Defendant's conduct, and until an injunction issues,
will continue to be damaged in an amount yet to be determined.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as follows: A. That U.S. Patent Nos. 6,233,389; 7,493,015; and 7,529,465 (collectively, the "Patents-In-Suit") are valid and enforceable; B. C. D. E. That Defendant has directly infringed the Patents-In-Suit; That Defendant has induced the infringement of the Patents-In-Suit; That Defendant has contributorily infringed the Patents-In-Suit; That Defendant and any of their affiliates, subsidiaries, officers, directors,
employees, agents, representatives, licensees, successors, assigns, and all those acting for any of them and/or on any of their behalf, or acting in concert with any of them directly or indirectly, be enjoined from infringing, inducing others to infringe or contributing to the infringement of the Patents-In-Suit; F. That Defendant and any of their affiliates, subsidiaries, officers, directors,
employees, agents, representatives, licensees, successors, assigns, and all those acting for any of them and/or on any of their behalf, or acting in concert with any of them directly or indirectly, deliver to Plaintiff all products that infringe the Patents-In-Suit for destruction at Plaintiff's option; G. with interest; H. I. That Defendant be ordered to provide an accounting; That Defendant be ordered to pay supplemental damages to Plaintiff, including That Defendant be ordered to pay compensatory damages to Plaintiff, together
without limitation interest; J. That the infringement by Defendant be adjudged willful and that the damages be
increased under 35 U.S.C. § 284 to three times the amount found or measured; K. That this be adjudged an exceptional case and that Plaintiff be awarded their
attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses in this action; and
L. appropriate.
That Plaintiff be awarded such other and further relief as the Court may deem
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury on all issues. Dated: August 26, 2009 Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ Robert M. Parker Robert M. Parker PARKER, BUNT & AINSWORTH, P.C. Robert M. Parker State Bar No. 15498000 rmparker@pbatyler.com Robert Christopher Bunt Sate Bar No. 00787165 rcbunt@pbatyler.com Charles Ainsworth State Bar No. 00783521 charley@pbatyle.com 100 E. Ferguson, Suite 1114 Tyler, Texas 75702 Telephone: (903) 531-3535 Facsimile: (903) 533-9687 IRELL & MANELLA LLP Morgan Chu Perry Goldberg Andrei Iancu Alexander C.D. Giza 1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900 Los Angeles, California 90067-4276 Telephone: (310) 277-1010 Facsimile: (310) 203-7199 Attorneys for Plaintiff TiVo Inc.
Recommended DocumentsDocuments Similar To TiVo vs Att Complaint 1 of 5Skip carouselHusqvarna AB v. Toro CompanyBanyan Licensing et. al. v. Medili TechnologyLa Crosse Technology IP Holdings, LLC v. Ambient, LLCPRESERVATION TECHNOLOGIES vs. WORLD WRESTLING ENTERTAINMENTYananton v. OurPet's Companyyananton v. Petco Animal SuppliesCascades Branding Innovation v. Marriott InternationalStec Ip v. GoogleBlister Sister v. WalgreensTek Nek Toys International v. Dennis Foland, Inc. d/b/a Charm CompanyHoo-Ahhs v. Ira GreenCaramanis v. SeatPets et. al.Spiker v. Martin Et. Al. v. Sabinsa et. al.Bluebonnet Telecommunications v. LG Electronics Et. Al.Kind Fire LawsuitAdaptix v. Sony Mobile Communications Et. Al.SmartPhone Technologies v. Amazon.Com et. al.12-10412-PBSParthenon Unified Memory Architecture v. Huawei Technologies Et. Al.Mobile Logistics v. Motorola SolutionsIcon Health & Fitness v. StravaFirestar Diamonds v. Gold-N-Diamonds - ComplaintTitanide Ventures v. Microsoft11-10787-RWZTelecomm Innovations LLCRehco v. Spin MasterGraphics Properties Holdings v. Motorola Mobility Holdings et. al.Applied Medical Resources v. Covidien et. al.Internet Access Solutions LLCDocuments About Patent InfringementSkip carouselNokia Complaint Against Apple in federal district court, WisconsinGreenwich Ballistics v. Jamison InternationalNike v. SkechersFacebook's Counterclaims to Yahoo's Patent LawsuitNYT 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. TurbineBose vs Beats (ITC complaint)Bose v. Beats Civil ComplaintRockstar v Samsung.pdfLodsys 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 Davis FreebergSkip carouselDiscfree Business PlanBrentwood Police Log Aug 19-20, 2009Antioch Crime Beat Aug 24 - 30 2009Tivo vs Verizon Complaint 5 of 5TiVo vs Verizon Complaint 4 of 5TiVo vs Verizon Complaint 3 of 5TiVo vs Verizon Complaint 2 of 5TiVo vs Verizon Complaint 1 of 5TiVo vs Att Complaint 5 of 5TiVo vs Att Complaint 4 of 5TiVo vs Att Complaint 3 of 5TiVo vs Att Complaint 2 of 5Antioch Police Beat 081009 081609BPDPublicLog20090817-0818BPDPublicLog20090814-0816BPDPublicLog20090810-0811BPD Police Log 081213BPD Police Log 080709Brentwood Crime Log Aug 5 and 6 09Divx Transcript May 09Divx Transcript Dec 08Divx TranscriptMotion Denied DivxYou Win Some You Lose SomeAntioch PD Crime Logs July 27 to Aug 2 09Antioch Police Logs July 13 to 19 2009TiVo TexasUMG Tries to Force DivX to Use Audible MagicNetflix Walmart Anti Trust Complaint