Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/132515084/Norman-IP-Holdings-v-Jaguar-Land-Rover-North-America
Timestamp: 2017-04-26 13:15:39
Document Index: 28452218

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

ScribdBrowseInterestsPolitics & Current AffairsCareer & MoneyPersonal GrowthFictionHealth & FitnessLifestyleEntertainmentBiographies & HistoryScience & TechBrowse byBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinNorman IP Holdings v. Jaguar Land Rover North AmericaUploaded by PriorSmartPatentPatent InfringementDefendantComplaintPlaintiff0.0 (0)DownloadEmbedDescription: Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 6:13-cv-00281: Norman IP Holdings, LLC v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District ...View MoreOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 6:13-cv-00281: Norman IP Holdings, LLC v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l7Su for more info.Copyright: Public DomainDownload as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION NORMAN IP HOLDINGS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Defendant. § § § § § § § § §
Civil Action No. 6:13-cv-281
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Norman IP Holdings, LLC (“Norman”), by and through its attorneys, for its Original Complaint against Defendant Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC (“Jaguar Land Rover” and/or “Defendant”), hereby alleges as follows:
5,502,689 (the “’689 Patent”), issued March 26, 1996, for “Clock Generator Capable of ShutDown Mode and Clock Generation Method” (collectively, the “Patent”). A true and correct copy of the Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. 3. Defendant manufactures, provides, sells, offers for sale, imports, and/or
products and services by others, including their customers, who directly infringe the Patents. 4. Plaintiff Norman seeks injunctive relief to prevent Defendant from continuing
State of Texas, with its principal place of business located at 100 E. Ferguson, Suite 816, Tyler, Texas 75702. 7. Upon information and belief, Defendant Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC
is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located at 555 Macarthur Blvd., Mahwah, New Jersey, 07430. Upon information and belief, Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC is authorized to do business in Texas and has appointed The Corporation Trust Company, Corporation Trust Center, 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801 as its agent for service of process. III. 8. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
the United States, in particular, 35 U.S.C. §§271, 281, 283, 284, and 285. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action under 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1338(a). 9. This Court has personal jurisdiction over each of the Defendant, and venue is
PLAINTIFF’S PATENT 2
The ’689 Patent discloses a clock generator and interrupt bypass circuit for use in
reducing the power consumption of the electrical system in which they are implemented. The clock generator may provide module clock signals for sequencing modules within the same electrical system, and is capable of generating those module clock signals when in an active mode, and of not generating those module clock signals when in a stand-by mode. The clock generator is further capable of providing a delay of a predetermined length from a request to enter shut-down mode to actual entry into shut-down mode, allowing time to prepare the electrical system for shut-down mode. The interrupt bypass circuit may provide a means of leaving shut-down mode in the event that the relevant interrupt requests have been masked. 11. Norman has obtained all substantial right and interest to the Patents, including all
Holdings LLC all right, title, and interest in the Patents. 13. Norman’s business includes acquisition and licensing of intellectual property. In
VI. Jaguar Land Rover 14.
Jaguar Land Rover manufactures, provides, sells, offers for sale, and/or distributes
infringing systems. The infringing Jaguar Land Rover systems include, for example, Jaguar Land
Rover’s motor vehicle products implementing infotainment systems (e.g., 8-inch touchscreen found in Range Rover Evoque, 7-inch touchscreen integrated with hard drive navigation system in Range Rover, and other systems integrated with Hard Disk Drive (HDD) Premium Navigation system in Land Rover automobiles; hard disk navigation system with Traffic Message Channel found in Jaguar automobiles; 'Say What You See' intuitive voice control (SWYS) found in both) automotive navigation systems (e.g., hard disk navigation system with Traffic Message Channel found in Jaguar automobiles and Hard Disk Drive (HDD) Premium Navigation system in Land Rover automobiles), 802.11 security standard compliant wireless functionality, automotive microcontrollers (e.g., with ARM or MIPS embedded processors, for example those found within Bosch Motronic, Denso, and Siemens SID ECUs, keyless entry systems, satellite radio receivers, transmission control units, etc.), and similar products.
With knowledge of the Patents, Jaguar provides related services,
specifications, and instructions for the installation and infringing operation of such systems to its customers, who directly infringe. 15. Through its actions, Jaguar Land Rover has infringed the ’689 Patent and actively
induced others to infringe and contributed to the infringement by others of the ’689 Patent throughout the United States. 16. Norman has been and will continue to suffer damages as a result of Defendant
Jaguar Land Rover’s infringing acts unless and until enjoined.
Plaintiff Norman alleges upon information and belief that Defendant Jaguar Land
Rover has knowingly or with reckless disregard willfully infringed the Patent. Defendant was provided written notice of infringement of the Patents on December 5, 2012. Defendant acted
with knowledge of the Patents and despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of Norman’s valid patent rights. 18. This objectively-defined risk was either known or so obvious that it should have Norman seeks enhanced damages pursuant to
been known to each of the Defendant. 35 U.S.C. § 284.
COUNT ONE PATENT INFRINGEMENT—U.S. PATENT NO. 5,502,689 19. 20. 21. Plaintiff Norman realleges and incorporates herein paragraphs 1–18. Defendant has infringed the ’689 Patent. Defendant has indirectly infringed the ’689 Patent by inducing the infringement
of the ’689 Patent and contributing to the infringement of the ’689 Patent. 22. Upon information and belief, Defendant has jointly infringed the ’689 Patent,
including by controlling and/or directing others to perform one or more of the claimed method steps. 23. Defendant’s aforementioned acts have caused damage to Norman and will
VIII. REQUEST FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Norman respectfully requests that the Court: A. B. Enter judgment that each Defendant infringes one or more claims of the Patents literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents; Permanently enjoin each Defendant, its agents, servants, and employees, and all those in privity with each Defendant or in active concert and participation with any of the Defendant, from engaging in acts of infringement of the Patents; Award Plaintiff Norman past and future damages together with prejudgment and post-judgment interest to compensate for the infringement by Defendant of the Patents in accordance with 35 U.S.C. §284, and increase such award by up to three times the amount found or assessed in accordance with 35 U.S.C. §284;
Declare this case exceptional pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §285; and Award Plaintiff Norman its costs, disbursements, attorneys’ fees, and such further and additional relief as is deemed appropriate by this Court. Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ Andrew G. DiNovo Andrew G. DiNovo Texas State Bar No. 00790594 Adam G. Price Texas State Bar No. 24027750 Chester J. Shiu Texas State Bar No. 24071126 DiNovo Price Ellwanger & Hardy LLP 7000 N. MoPac Expressway, Suite 350 Austin, Texas 78731 Telephone: (512) 539-2626 Telecopier: (512) 539-2627
Documents Similar To Norman IP Holdings v. Jaguar Land Rover North AmericaSkip carouselRecognicorp v. Oakley Capital Private Equity et. al.Trustees of Boston University v. NikonTrustees of Boston University v. Fujifilm Holdings et. al.Trustees of Boston University v. Stanley Electric et. al.Trustees of Boston University v. LG Display et. al.Trustees of Boston University v. Hannspree et. al.Belfer Cosmetics v. Radney Day Spa Et. Al.Telinit Technologies v. NextivaTelinit Technologies v. PanTerra NetworksTeleCommunication Systems v. Cobra ElectronicsTelinit Technologies v. Quality Speaks, LLC d/b/a Voip.comTelinit Technologies v. Jive CommunicationsFamosa v. Shockoe - ComplaintJam Strait v. Pilot Automotive et. al.Aeritas v. Continental AirlinesTelinit Technologies v. Toktumi, Inc. d/b/a Line2Famosa v. Shockoe Commerce Group Et. Al.Broadnet Teleservices v. Shoutpoint Et. Al.Jernberg Dental v. Integra Lifesciences Holdings et. al.Telinit Technologies v. Phone.comBioTex v. Heidelberg EngineeringInterface IP Holdings v. AllianceBernsteinSwipe Innovations v. MagTekKI Ventures v. Fry's Electronics Et. Al.Georgetown Rail Equipment Company v. HollandData Carriers v. Amazon.comHagenbuch v. Otto Environmental Systems North AmericaJoao Control & Monitoring Systems v. Consolidated EdisonJoao Control & Monitoring Systems v. Cablevision SystemsJoao Control & Monitoring Systems v. Dish NetworkDocuments About PatentSkip carousel16-12-20 Apple Complaint v. Acacia Et Al.Gillette Company v. ADKM, Inc. d/b/a Harry's Razor Company et. al.AppleVsSamsung_11.07.05Samsung vs Apple - Samsung's Appeal to the Supreme CourtConsulting AgreementNike v. SkechersPRICELINE COM INC 10-K (Annual Reports) 2009-02-20NokiaVsApple_11.03.31.100Wizards of the Coast v. Cryptozoic Entertainment et. al.Apple vs Android 10.12.02Nokia Complaint Against Apple in federal district court, WisconsinDavid Einhorn's presentation on Green Mountain RoastersBose vs Beats (ITC complaint)Beyond PhilanthropyBose v. Beats Civil ComplaintAgainst Intellectual Property, by Stephan Kinsella Koninklijke Philips N.V. et. al. v. Nintendo et. al.Apple vs Samsung 11.04.22Provisional Patent ApplicationTranslation of Mannheim 2O240 Ruling Motorola v MicrosoftNovartis patent JudgementGoogle Dec Action vs RockstarGENENTECH INC 10-K (Annual Reports) 2009-02-20AppleVsHTCandS3_11.07.29MicrosoftVsMotorola_11.12.11BU v AppleEPO Examiners Can No Longer Ensure Appropriate Quality StandardsGreenwich Ballistics v. Jamison International12-04-30 Apple-Samsung Teksler-Kim Letter Re FRAND3D Systems v. Formlabs 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