Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/132773346/ArrivalStar-et-al-v-TLX-Freight-Forward
Timestamp: 2017-04-23 06:18:37
Document Index: 314201012

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1331', '§ 1338', '§ 271', '§ 48', '§ 1391', '§ 1400', '§ 271', '§ 284', '§ 285', '§ 271', '§ 284']

ArrivalStar et. al. v. TLX Freight Forward
ScribdBrowseInterestsPolitics & Current AffairsCareer & MoneyPersonal GrowthFictionHealth & FitnessLifestyleEntertainmentBiographies & HistoryScience & TechBrowse byBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinArrivalStar et. al. v. TLX Freight ForwardUploaded by PriorSmartPatentPatent InfringementPlaintiffUnited States CodeTitle 35 Of The United States Code0.0 (0)DownloadEmbedDescription: Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-21088-XXXX: ArrivalStar S.A. et. al. v. TLX Freight Forward, Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Fl...View MoreOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-21088-XXXX: ArrivalStar S.A. et. al. v. TLX Freight Forward, Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l7T3 for more info.Copyright: Public DomainDownload as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. ARRIVAL STAR, SA, et al., Plaintiffs, v.TLX FREIGHT FOWARD, INC. Defendant. ________________________________/ COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Plaintiffs ArrivalStar S.A. and Melvino Technologies Limited (collectively “Plaintiffs”), through their undersigned counsel, hereby sue the above-named defendants for patent infringement, and in support, allege as follows: NATURE OF THE LAWSUIT 1. This is an action for patent infringement of United States Patent Numbers:
6,714,859; 6,952,645; 7,030,781; 7,400,970; 6,904,359 and 6,486,801; arising under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of the United States Code. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331; 28 U.S.C.
§ 1338; and 35 U.S.C. § 271. 3. This Court has personal jurisdiction over each Defendant pursuant to, inter alia,
Florida’s long-arm statute, § 48.193, in that each Defendant: (a) operates, conducts, engages in, and/or carries on a business or business adventure(s) in Florida and/or has an office or agency in Florida; (b) has committed one or more tortious acts within Florida; (c) was and/or is engaged in
substantial and not isolated activity within Florida; and/or (d) has purposely availed itself of Florida’s laws, services and/or other benefits and therefore should reasonably anticipate being hailed into one or more of the courts within the State of Florida. 4. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 and 28 U.S.C. § 1400. THE PLAINTIFFS 5. ArrivalStar S.A. is a corporation organized under the laws of Luxembourg, having
British Virgin Islands of Tortola, having offices located at P.O. Box 3174, Palm Chambers, 197 Main Street, Road Town, Tortola, British Virgin Islands. Melvino owns all rights, title and interests in the patents alleged as being infringed in this lawsuit. THE PLAINTIFFS’ PATENTS 7. Plaintiffs own all right, title and interest in, and/or have standing to sue for
infringement of United States Patent Number 6,714,859 (“the ‘859 patent”), entitled “System and Method for an Advance Notification System for Monitoring and Reporting Proximity of a Vehicle”, issued March 30, 2004. A copy of the ‘859 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. 8. Plaintiffs own all right, title and interest in, and/or have standing to sue for
infringement of United States Patent Number 6,952,645 (“the ‘645 patent”), entitled “System and Method for Activation of an Advance Notification System for Monitoring and Reporting Status of Vehicle Travel”, issued October 4, 2005. A copy of the ‘645 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
infringement of United States Patent Number 7,030,781 (“the ‘781 patent”), entitled “Notification System and Method that Informs a Party of Vehicle Delay”, issued April 18, 2006. A copy of the ‘781 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 3. 10. Plaintiffs own all right, title and interest in, and/or have standing to sue for
infringement of United States Patent Number 7,400,970 (“the ‘970 patent”), entitled “System and Method for an Advance Notification System for Monitoring and Reporting Proximity of a Vehicle”, issued July 15, 2008. A copy of the ‘970 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 4. 11. Plaintiffs own all right, title and interest in, and/or have standing to sue for
infringement of United States Patent Number 6,904,359 (“the ‘359 patent”), entitled “Notification System and Methods with User-Defineable Notifications Based Upon Occurrence of Events”, issued June 7, 2005. A copy of the ‘359 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 5. 12. Plaintiffs own all right, title and interest in, and/or have standing to sue for
infringement of United States Patent Number 6,486,801 (“the ‘801 patent”), entitled “Base Station Apparatus and Method for Monitoring Travel of a Mobile Vehicle”, issued November 26, 2002. A copy of the ‘801 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 6. THE DEFENDANT 13. Defendant TLX FREIGHT FOWARD, INC. (“TLX”) is a Delaware Corporation
with a principal place of business located at 350 5th Avenue, 59th Floor, New York, NY 10118. TLX transacts business and has, at a minimum, offered to provide and/or has provided to customers within this Judicial District and throughout the State of Florida services that infringe claims of the ‘859, ‘645, ‘781, ‘970, ‘359 and ‘801 patents. TLX is a part of a network with
locations in Florida, including within this Judicial District, and such network utilizes technology which infringes Plaintiffs’ patents. COUNT I – TLX DIRECT PATENT INFRINGEMENT 14. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate Paragraphs 1 through 13 set forth above as if fully
set forth herein. 15. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271, TLX has infringed claims of the ‘859, ‘645, ‘781,
‘970, ‘359 and ‘801 patents through, among other activities, the commercial sale, offer and/or use of its “Transportation Management System” and other programs/products/services/systems which utilize tracking and messaging technologies that are protected within the ‘859,‘645, ‘781, ‘970, ‘359 and ‘801 patents. 16. TLX’s direct infringement has injured and will continue to injure Plaintiffs unless
and until a monetary judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiffs and/or the Court enters an injunction prohibiting further infringement and, specifically, enjoining further use of methods and systems that come within the scope of the ‘859, ‘645, ‘781, ‘970, ‘359, and ‘801 patents. REQUEST FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully ask this Court to enter judgment against TLX and its subsidiaries, affiliates, agents, servants, employees and all persons in active concert or participation with TLX, granting the following relief: A. An award of damages against TLX adequate to compensate Plaintiffs for the
infringement that has occurred with respect to TLX, together with prejudgment interest from the date that TLX'S infringement of the patents at issue began; B. Increased damages as permitted pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284;
A finding that this case is exceptional and award to Plaintiffs their attorneys’ fees
and costs as provided by 35 U.S.C. § 285; D. A permanent injunction against TLX prohibiting further infringement of the
patents at issue; and, E. All other relief as the Court or a jury may deem proper and just in this instance. COUNT II – TLX INDIRECT PATENT INFRINGEMENT 17. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate Paragraphs 1 through 13 set forth above as if fully
set forth herein. 18. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271, TLX has infringed claims of the ‘859, ‘645, ‘781,
‘970, ‘359, and ‘801 patents through, among other activities, the commercial sale, offer and/or use of its “Transportation Management System” and other programs/products/services/systems which utilize tracking and messaging technologies that are protected within the ‘859, ‘645, ‘781, ‘970, ‘359, and ‘801 patents. 19. TLX’s contributory infringement and/or inducement to infringe has injured and
will continue to injure Plaintiffs unless and until a monetary judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiffs and/or the Court enters an injunction prohibiting further infringement and, specifically, enjoining further use of methods and systems that come within the scope of the ‘859, ‘645, ‘781, ‘970, ‘359 and ‘801 patents. REQUEST FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully ask this Court to enter judgment against and its subsidiaries, affiliates, agents, servants, employees and all persons in active concert or participation with TLX, granting the following relief:
An award of damages against TLX adequate to compensate Plaintiffs for the
infringement that has occurred with respect to TLX, together with prejudgment interest from the date that TLX’s infringement of the patents at issue began; B. C. Increased damages as permitted pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284; A finding that this case is exceptional and award to Plaintiffs their attorneys’ fees
patents at issue; and, E. All other relief as the Court or a jury may deem proper and just in this instance.
JURY DEMAND Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
/s/ Jason P. Dollard Jason P. Dollard, Esquire Florida Bar Number: 0649821 Leslie Robert Evans & Assoc., PA 214 Brazilian Avenue, Suite 200 Palm Beach, Florida 33480 Telephone: 561-832-8288 Facsimile: 561-832-5722 Email: jdollard@lrevanspa.com Counsel for Plaintiffs
Documents Similar To ArrivalStar et. al. v. TLX Freight ForwardSkip carouselArrivalStar et. al. v. Edwin Watts Golf ShopsArrivalStar et. al. v. Fullpower TechnologiesArrivalStar et. al. v. Nanette LeporeArrivalStar et. al. v. Open MileArrivalStar et. al. v. Scanwell LogisticsArrivalStar et. al. v. Pacific Sunwear of CaliforniaArrivalStar et. al. v. Killer DanaArrivalStar et. al. v. Arnold Transportation ServicesArrivalStar et. al. v. FABArrivalStar et. al. v. Burlington Coat Factory WarehouseArrivalStar et. al. v. MagayaArrivalStar et. al. v. Greenbrier Management ServicesArrivalStar et. al. v. LenovoArrivalStar et. al. v. PanasonicArrivalStar et. al. v. ReiArrivalStar et. al. v. RockBlocks GroupArrivalStar et. al. v. TubularArrivalStar et. al. v. Union Pacific Railroad CompanyArrivalStar et. al. v. Estee LauderArrivalStar et. al. v. QuicksilverArrivalStar et. al. v. Joseph Smith Customs House BrokerArrivalStar et. al. v. WCAF Shipment ManagementArrivalStar et. al. v. Armani ExchangeArrivalStar et. al. v. FatheadArrivalStar et. al. v. Strike LogisticsArrivalStar et. al. v. Custom Global LogisticsArrivalStar et. al. v. Rite AidArrivalStar et. al. v. FlightViewArrivalStar et. al. v. SeagateArrivalStar et. al. v. Archer-Daniels Midland CompanyDocuments 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.Samsung vs Apple - Samsung's Appeal to the Supreme CourtAppleVsSamsung_11.07.05Nike v. SkechersNokiaVsApple_11.03.31.100Consulting AgreementWizards of the Coast v. Cryptozoic Entertainment et. al.PRICELINE COM INC 10-K (Annual Reports) 2009-02-20Nokia Complaint Against Apple in federal district court, WisconsinAgainst Intellectual Property, by Stephan Kinsella Apple vs Android 10.12.02Beyond PhilanthropyDavid Einhorn's presentation on Green Mountain RoastersKoninklijke Philips N.V. et. al. v. Nintendo et. al.Bose v. Beats Civil ComplaintProvisional Patent ApplicationGoogle Dec Action vs RockstarTranslation of Mannheim 2O240 Ruling Motorola v MicrosoftNovartis patent JudgementApple vs Samsung 11.04.22AppleVsHTCandS3_11.07.29MicrosoftVsMotorola_11.12.11Bose vs Beats (ITC complaint)GENENTECH INC 10-K (Annual Reports) 2009-02-203D Systems v. Formlabs et. al.Rockstar v Samsung.pdfEPO Examiners Can No Longer Ensure Appropriate Quality StandardsAmicus Brief in Support of Samsung Rehearing12-04-30 Apple-Samsung Teksler-Kim Letter Re FRANDMore 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