Source: http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/power_study/email/msg00543.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 09:05:56
Document Index: 394136813

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

Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 11:43:33 -0700
(Unfortunately I sent this only to the detection mail list earlier in the week.
It was my intention to send it to the entire Task Force. My apologies! Geoff)
Colleagues in P802.3af-
I have been notified that there is a legal action that has been filed that may relate to the work that we are doing in P802.3af.
Cisco Systems has notified me via one of their attorneys, Robert Barr, that they have been sued by CMS for patent infringement. The text of the filing derived from a scan is included below.
I have been told that it is Cisco's position that their current product that provides DTE Power is (a) not conformant to the draft being developed by P802.3af and (b) does not infringe the 260 patent.
The following seem to be the case:
(a) CMS has indicated that they do not wish to participate in the development of the 802.3af Standard
(b) CMS has not indicated that they will provide an assurance letter to IEEE.
As there is the possibility that this legal action may have some influence on the approach that individuals wish to take in developing the draft, it seemed prudent on my part to notify you of the existence of this action. It is only because of this unusual set of circumstances that I am taking this action.
This document is being distributed to you "FOR INFORMATION ONLY"
It's contents will not be discussed at the meeting.
We will not examine the merits of either the patent or the lawsuit in our meetings.
We will not discuss in our meetings the relationship between our draft and any patent.
We are a technical group and these are legal matters.
It is up to each member to decide on their own, outside the committee, (presumably with the assistance of whatever resources are available from their sponsoring company) as to what action is appropriate on their part and whether this legal action has any impact on our work.
If you have questions about this please direct them to me and or Steve Carlson, NOT to the reflector.
I look forward to seeing you at the meeting in St. Louis.
| E-Mail: thompson@xxxxxxxx |
x----x----x----x----x----x----x----x----x----x----x----x----x----x----x
From: Robert Barr <rbarr@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "Thompson, Geoff [SC5:321:EXCH]" <gthompso@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Fw: Chrimar Systems v. Cisco
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 17:41:41 -0700
("Captured" from the PDF scan of the court filing and edited to correct for scanning errors by GOT):
IN THE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CHRIMAR SYSTEMS, INC.
d/b/a CMS Technologies, Inc.,
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., Civil Action No. 01-71113
a California Corporation, (other Court filing stamps not shown)
AND REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff, ChriMar Systems, Inc. d/b/a CMS Technologies, Inc., for its Complaint against Defendant, Cisco Systems, Inc., alleges as follows:
1. Plaintiff, ChriMar Systems, Inc. d/b/a CMS Technologies, Inc. ("CMS") is
a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state, of Michigan, having a
place of business at 13955 Farmmgton Road, Livonia, MI 48154.
2. Defendant, Cisco Systems; Inc., ("Cisco"), on information and belief, is a
corporation organized under the laws of the State of California, and has its principal place
of business at 170 West Tasman Drive, San Jose, California 95134 and is doing business
within the Eastern District :of Michigan.
3. This is an action for patent infringement under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35, United States Code.
4. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1338 (a).
5. Venue is proper before this Court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400.
Causes of Action For Patent Infringement
6. On April ll, 1995, United States Patent No. 5,406,260 (the "'260 Patent")
was duly and legally issued to Marshall B. Cummings and Christopher R. Young, on an
invention entitled "Network Security System For Detecting Removal Of Electronic
Equipment". Such patent was assigned to ChriMar Systems, Inc. A copy of the ‘260
patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
7. Upon information and belief, Defendant Cisco Systems, Inc. has infringed, contributorily infringed, and/or actively induced infringement of the ‘260 patent in
violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271 by making, using, inducing others to use, offering for sale and/or selling computer networking switches and other computer networking peripheral devices, including without limitation IP phones, that infringe one or more of the claims of the ‘260 patent, both within and outside this judicial district, without authority to do so.
9. Upon information and belief, Defendant’s infringement of the ‘260 patent has been willful.
10. CMS Technologies, Inc. has been irreparably damaged and will continue to be irreparably damaged by Defendant’s infringement unless this Court enjoins Defendant from continuing their infringement.
Wherefore, Plaintiff, CMS Technologies, Inc., prays for the entry of judgment from this Court that:
(a) United States Patent No. 5,406,260 was duly and legally issued, and is valid and enforceable;
(b) Cisco Systems, Inc. has directly and/or contributorily infringed United States Patent No. 5,406,260 and/or actively induced infringement of United States Patent No. 5,406,260 by others;
(c) Cisco Systems, Inc. be preliminarily and permanently enjoined from engaging in any further acts of infringement of United States Patent No. 5,406,260;
(d) CMS Technologies, Inc. be awarded damages adequate to compensate for the infringement by Cisco Systems, Inc., pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284;
(e) Cisco Systems, Inc.‘s infringement has been willful, thereby entitling CMS Inc. to recover treble damages, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284;
(f) The infringement by Cisco Systems, Inc. has been such as to render this action exceptional, and CMS Technologies, Inc. be awarded reasonable attorney’s fees,
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285;
(g) CMS Technologies, Inc. awarded such other and further relief as this Court may deem to be right and just.
Plaintiff, CMS Technologies, Inc. hereby makes demand for a trial by jury pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as to all issues of this lawsuit.
Dated: March 21,2001 By________(Signed)________
Terrance Rader, Esq.
Glenn E. Forbis, Esq.
Tel.: (248) 594-0600
CMS Technologies, Inc.
Prev by Date: RE: detecting a PD disconnection event
Next by Date: RE: detecting a PD disconnection event
Prev by thread: Re: Potential heating problem with standard patch Cat5 panels
Next by thread: detecting a PD disconnection event