Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/182729909/SecureNova-v-ZTE-et-al
Timestamp: 2016-12-04 13:00:37
Document Index: 408933322

Matched Legal Cases: ['§299', '§ 271', '§284', '§284', '§285', 'art38', 'art3']

BrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksArticlesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISONSECURENOVA, LLC Plaintiff, v.
ZTE CORPORATION And ZTE (USA) INC.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-cv-952 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT SecureNova, LLC (“SecureNova”), by and through its undersigned counsel, brings this action against ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA), Inc., (collectively “ZTE” or “Defendants”). In support of this Complaint, SecureNova alleges as follows: NATURE OF THE SUIT 1. This is an action for patent infringement under the Patent Laws of the United
On information and belief, Defendant ZTE Corporation is a Chinese corporation
with its principal place of business at No. 55, Hi-tech Road South, Shenzhen, P.R. China 518057. ZTE maintains business operations in the United States at 2425 N. Central Expressway, Suite 600, Richardson, Texas 75080. 4. ZTE (USA) Inc. is a New Jersey corporation with its principal place of business at
2425 North Central Expressway, Suite 600, Richardson, Texas 75080. ZTE (USA) Inc.’s registered agent for service of process is Li Mo, 4585 Spencer Drive, Plano, Texas 75024. 5. Defendants are in the business of making, using, selling, offering to sell and/or
pursuant to due process and/or the Texas Long-Arm Statute, due to at least their substantial business in this forum, including: (i) at least a portion of the infringement alleged herein; and (ii) regularly doing or soliciting business, engaging in other persistent courses of conduct,
and/or deriving substantial revenue from goods and services provided to individuals in this District. 9. Defendants have conducted and do conduct business within this District,
relief is asserted against the parties jointly, severally, and in the alternative with respect to the same transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences relating to the making, using, importing into the United States, offering to sell, and/or selling the same accused products. Specifically, as alleged in detail below, Defendants are alleged to infringe the enable secondary
Asserted Patent with respect to the same devices w h i c h
c o m m u n i c a t i o n d e v i c e s t o r e c e i v e c o m m u n i c a t i o n s e r v i c e s including, but not limited to, the ZTE Avid 4G mobile phone. 13. Defendants are properly joined under 35 U.S.C. §299(a)(2). Questions of fact
will arise that are common to all defendants, including for example, whether Defendants’ products have features that meet the features of one or more claims of the Asserted Patent, and what reasonable royalty will be adequate to compensate the owner of the Asserted Patent for their infringement. 14. Defendants use, make, sell, offer to sell and/or import devices that, when used,
entitled “Communication Service Subscription Management” after a full and fair examination to inventors Glenn A. Walker, Joseph R. Dockemeyer, Jr., Michael L. Hiatt, Jr., Harry Diamond, and Linda L. Miner. SecureNova is presently the owner by assignment of the ’482 Patent, having received all rights, title, and interest in and to the ’482 Patent. SecureNova possesses all rights of recovery under the ’482 Patent, including the exclusive right to recover for past
infringement. A true and correct copy of the ’482 Patent is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit A. DESCRIPTION OF THE ACCUSED INFRINGEMENT 17. Defendants make, use, sell, offer to sell and/or import into the United States
devices which perform a computer implemented method that enables secondary communication devices to receive communication services (the “Accused Products”). These Accused Products also include a processor-readable medium having processor-executable instructions for enabling secondary communication device to receive communication services. For example, the ZTE Avid 4G serves as a portable hotspot device allowing sharing of its cellular internet connection with other devices in the process of performing a method to enable a secondary communication device to receive communication services. COUNT I: INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’482 PATENT 18. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in
paragraphs 1-17. 19. In violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, ZTE is now, and has been directly infringing
and/or inducing infringement of the ’482 Patent. 20. ZTE has had knowledge of infringement of the ’482 Patent at least as of the
service of the present complaint. 21. ZTE has directly infringed and continues to directly infringe at least one claim of
the ’482 Patent by making, using, importing, offering to sell, and/or selling devices, such as the ZTE Avid 4G, without authority in the United States, and will continue to do so unless enjoined
by this Court. As a direct and proximate result of ZTE’s direct infringement of the ’482 Patent, Plaintiff has been and continues to be damaged. 22. ZTE has indirectly infringed and continues to indirectly infringe at least one claim
of the ’482 Patent by actively inducing their respective customers, users, and/or licensees to directly infringe by using, selling, offering to sell and/or import devices, such as the ZTE Avid 4G. ZTE engaged or will have engaged in such inducement having knowledge of the ’482 Patent. Furthermore, ZTE knew or should have known that its action would induce direct infringement by others and intended that its actions would induce direct infringement by others. For example, ZTE sells, offers to sell and advertises devices, such as the ZTE Avid 4G, in Texas specifically intending that its customers buy and use said devices. Furthermore, the ZTE Avid 4G includes a User Guide that instructs, among others, its customers, users, and licensees to perform the computer implemented method disclosed in the ’482 Patent. Defendants’ customers, users, and/or licensees perform said method when they use the ZTE Avid 4G. 23. ZTE has contributorily infringed and continues to contributorily infringe at least
one claim of the ’482 Patent by selling and/or offering to sell devices, such as the ZTE Avid 4G, whose mobile hotspot feature is not a staple article of commerce and has no substantial noninfringing uses. ZTE has done this with knowledge of the ’482 Patent and knowledge that this component constitutes a material part of the invention claimed in the ’482 Patent. ZTE engaged or will have engaged in such contributory infringement having knowledge of the ’482 Patent. As a direct and proximate result of ZTE’s contributory infringement of the ’482 Patent, Plaintiff has been and continues to be damaged.
compensation for any continuing or future infringement up until the date that Defendants are finally and permanently enjoined from further infringement. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 27. action. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, SecureNova prays for the following relief: A. That Defendants be adjudged to have infringed the Asserted Patent, directly and/or indirectly, by way of inducement and/or contributory infringement, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents; B. That Defendants, their officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, affiliates, divisions, branches, parents, and those persons in active concert or participation with any of them, be permanently enjoined from infringing the Asserted Patent; 7 SecureNova demands a trial by jury as to all issues that are triable by a jury in this
C. An award of damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §284 sufficient to compensate SecureNova for the Defendants’ past infringement and any continuing or future infringement up until the date that Defendants are finally and permanently enjoined from further infringement, including compensatory damages; D. An assessment of pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and costs against Defendants, together with an award of such interest and costs, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. §284; E. That Defendants be directed to pay enhanced damages, including SecureNova’s attorneys’ fees incurred in connection with this lawsuit pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §285; and F. That SecureNova have such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
SecureNova v. ZTE et. al. by PriorSmart38 viewsEmbedDownloadDescriptionOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-00952: SecureNova, LLC v. ZTE Corporation et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, no judge yet...Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-00952: SecureNova, LLC v. ZTE Corporation et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l9tN for more info.Interests: Types, Business/Law, Court FilingsRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Public DomainDownload as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentShow moreShow less
RelatedSecureNova v. HTC et. al.by PriorSmartSecureNova v. BlackBerry Limited f/k/a Research in Motion et. al.by PriorSmartSecureNova v. LG Electronics et. al.by PriorSmartAlex is the Best v. Blackberry et. al.by PriorSmartAlex is the Best v. HTC et. al.by PriorSmartCertainteed v. Owens Corningby PatentBlastCreateAds v. Netidentity Solutionsby PriorSmartCreateAds LLCby PriorSmartAlex is the Best LLCby PriorSmartSapphire Dolphin LLCby PriorSmartU.S. Ethernet Innovations v. Lenovoby PatentBlastOrthophoenix v. Dfine Et. Al.by PatentBlastCreateAds v. American Greetingsby PriorSmartBennett Regulator Guards v. Atlanta Gas Light Companyby PriorSmartBytemark v. Globe Sherpaby PriorSmartTennier Industries v. American Recreation Productsby PriorSmartCyberfone Systems v. Xeroxby PatentBlastCyberfone Systems v. Lexmark Internationalby PatentBlastZipit Wireless v. Blackberry et. al..pdfby PatentBlastBruckbauer v. Lemansby PriorSmartSapphire Dolphin v. JWIN Electronicsby PriorSmartPreservation Technologies LLCby PriorSmartKwik Tek v. WOW Sports - Complaintby slbursteinAlex is the Best LLCby PriorSmartStandard Innovation v. Leloi Ab et. al.by PriorSmartAvocent Redmond v. Aten Technology et. al.by PriorSmart3form v. Bollen Resourcesby PatentBlastShieldmark v. Insite Solutionsby PriorSmartSimilar to SecureNova v. ZTE et. al.SecureNova v. HTC et. al.SecureNova v. BlackBerry Limited f/k/a Research in Motion et. al.SecureNova v. LG Electronics et. al.Alex is the Best v. Blackberry et. al.Alex is the Best v. HTC et. al.Certainteed v. Owens CorningCreateAds v. Netidentity SolutionsCreateAds LLCAlex is the Best LLCSapphire Dolphin LLCU.S. Ethernet Innovations v. LenovoOrthophoenix v. Dfine Et. Al.CreateAds v. American GreetingsBennett Regulator Guards v. Atlanta Gas Light CompanyBytemark v. Globe SherpaTennier Industries v. American Recreation ProductsCyberfone Systems v. XeroxCyberfone Systems v. Lexmark InternationalZipit Wireless v. Blackberry et. al..pdfBruckbauer v. LemansSapphire Dolphin v. JWIN ElectronicsPreservation Technologies LLCKwik Tek v. WOW Sports - ComplaintAlex is the Best LLCStandard Innovation v. Leloi Ab et. al.Avocent Redmond v. Aten Technology et. al.3form v. Bollen ResourcesShieldmark v. Insite SolutionsNetwolves IP v. CradlepointCreateAds LLCSecureNova v. ZTE et. al.