Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/137504538/Geotag-v-SuccessFactors
Timestamp: 2017-04-23 09:18:15
Document Index: 216719403

Matched Legal Cases: ['art0', '§ 271', '§ 281', '§ 1338', '§ 284', '§ 284', '§ 285']

ScribdBrowseInterestsPolitics & Current AffairsCareer & MoneyPersonal GrowthFictionHealth & FitnessLifestyleEntertainmentBiographies & HistoryScience & TechBrowse byBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinGeotag v. SuccessFactorsUploaded by PriorSmart0.0 (0)DownloadEmbedDescription: Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-00291: Geotag, Inc. v. SuccessFactors, Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, no judge yet assig...View MoreOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-00291: Geotag, Inc. v. SuccessFactors, Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l84n 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 MARSHALL DIVISION GEOTAG, INC., Plaintiff, vs. SUCCESSFACTORS, INC., Defendant. § § § § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-cv-291 § § JURY TRIAL DEMANDED § § §
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Plaintiff GeoTag, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) files this Original Complaint against Defendant SuccessFactors, Inc. (“SuccessFactors” OR “Defendant”), and would respectfully show the Court as follows: I. THE PARTIES 1. 2. Plaintiff is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business in Plano, Texas. Upon information and belief, Defendant SuccessFactors, Inc., is a Delaware
corporation with its principal place of business at 1 Tower Place, Suite 1100, South San Francisco, CA 94080. SuccessFactors may be served with process through its registered agent Corporation Service Company, 2711 Centerville Road, Suite 400, Wilmington, Delaware 19808. II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. This is an action for infringement of a United States patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271 et
seq. and § 281. This Court has exclusive jurisdiction of such action under 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a). 4. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant has committed
acts of patent infringement alleged herein within the Marshall Division of the Eastern District Texas.
Upon information and belief, Defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with the
because other cases asserting infringement of the ‘474 Patent are now before this Court. A list of the Eastern District of Texas cases is attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference In the currently-pending Eastern District case of GeoTag, Inc. v. Frontier Communications Corp., et al., Case No. 2:10-cv-265-JRG, this Court again considered and construed the terms and claims of the present patent-in-suit, as set forth in the Court’s claim-construction (or Markman) Memorandum Opinion and Order issued on February 26, 2013. Also, in the cases listed in Exhibit B, one or more 2
of the existing defendants have disclosed that the Defendant has information relevant to determining infringement of the ‘474 Patent, or may be responsible to indemnify or defend the existing defendants regarding infringement of the ‘474 Patent. III. PATENT INFRINGEMENT 8. 9. Plaintiff incorporates the above paragraphs herein by reference. On July 27, 1999, United States Patent No. 5,930,474 (“the ‘474 Patent”) was duly
and legally issued. The ‘474 is titled “Internet Organizer for Accessing Geographically and Topically Based Information” and is directed to a software interface which organizes information based on the geographical area of the resources about which the information is desired. A true and correct copy of the ‘474 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. Generally, the ‘474 Patent discloses systems and methods for integrating geographically organized data with topical data to help Internet users find information on the Internet quickly and efficiently. The invention also allows a seller to make his goods or services available upon a user-search predicated on varying geographic levels (e.g., city, state, longitude, latitude etc.). 10. By assignment, GeoTag, Inc., is the owner of all right, title and interest of the ‘474
Patent, including all rights to enforce and prosecute actions for infringement and to collect damages for all relevant times against infringers of the ‘474 Patent. Accordingly, Plaintiff possesses the exclusive right and standing to prosecute the present action for infringement of the ‘474 Patent by Defendant. 11. Upon information and belief, Defendant has manufactured, made, marketed, sold,
and/or used computer networks, systems, products and/or services comprising all of the elements and limitations of one or more of the claims of the ‘474 Patent, but at least claim 1, and therefore
Defendant has infringed one or more claims of the’474 Patent; and/or has induced and/or contributed to the infringement of one or more of the claims of the ‘474 Patent, but at least claim 1, by others. 12. Defendant’s infringing conduct is based, at least in part, on such Defendant’s making,
using, distributing, and/or selling or offering for sale, a system for providing geographical and topical information to Internet users in a manner disclosed and protected against infringement by one or more claims of the ‘474 Patent, but at least claim 1, either directly or indirectly through their customers website. 13. On information and belief, SuccessFactors has been aware of the ‘474 patent due to
discussions with its customers who are defendants in the currently-pending litigation in this District, including Best Buy, Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc., and Life Time Fitness, Inc., and through direct discussions with Plaintiff. 14. On information and belief, since becoming aware of the ‘474 patent, Defendant has
been and is now indirectly infringing by way of inducing infringement and contributing to the infringement of at least claim 1 of the ‘474 patent in the State of Texas, in this judicial district, and elsewhere in the United States, by providing services, listed supra, for use by Defendant’s customers. Defendant is a direct and indirect infringer, and its customers using these services are direct infringers. 15. Direct Infringement: More specifically, on information and belief, Defendant
SuccessFactors, without authority, consent, right, or license, and in direct infringement of the ‘474 Patent, manufactures, has manufactured, makes, has made, uses, has used, sells, has sold, offers for sale, has offered for sale, distributes, and/or has distributed, systems, products, and/or services directly infringing one or more claims of the ‘474 Patent, but at least claim 1, including, but not limited to, those of its software and services, including its Jobs2Web and SuccessFactors software 4
and services. Exemplary embodiments can be found at http://www.bestbuy-jobs.com/ (Best Buy), http://jobs.josbank.com/ (Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc.), and http://jobs.lifetimefitness.com/ (Life Time Fitness Inc.). 16. Inducing Infringement: More specifically, on information and belief, Defendant
SuccessFactors, without authority, consent, right, or license, manufactures, has manufactured, makes, has made, uses, has used, sells, has sold, offers for sale, has offered for sale, distributes, and/or has distributed, systems, products, and/or services, including but not limited to, Jobs2Web and SuccessFactors software/services, inducing infringement of one or more claims of the ‘474 Patent, but at least claim 1, in its customers such as Best Buy, Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc., and Life Time Fitness, Inc. SuccessFactors has been on notice of the ‘474 Patent, yet has continued inducing infringement in at least the aforementioned SuccessFactors customers, by continuing to provide Jobs2Web and SuccessFactors software/services. On information and belief, since becoming aware of the ‘474 patent Defendant SuccessFactors is and has been committing the act of inducing infringement by specifically intending to induce infringement by providing the identified Jobs2Web and SuccessFactors software and services to its customers and by aiding and abetting its use. On information and belief, Defendant SuccessFactors knew or should have known that through its acts it was and is inducing infringement of the ‘474 patent. Exemplary embodiments can be found at http://www.bestbuy-jobs.com/ (Best Buy), http://jobs.josbank.com/ (Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc.), and http://jobs.lifetimefitness.com/ (Life Time Fitness Inc.). 17. Contributory Infringement: More specifically, on information and belief, Defendant
SuccessFactors, without authority, consent, right, or license, manufactures, has manufactured, makes, has made, uses, has used, sells, has sold, offers for sale, has offered for sale, distributes, and/or has distributed, systems, products, and/or services, including but not limited to, those of its Jobs2Web 5
and SuccessFactors software/services, contributes to infringement of one or more claims of the ‘474 Patent, but at least claim 1, in its customers such as Best Buy, Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc., and Life Time Fitness, Inc. On information and belief, Defendant SuccessFactors is and has been
committing the act of contributory infringement by intending to provide the identified Jobs2Web and SuccessFactors software and services to its customers knowing that they are a material part of the invention, knowing that its use was made and adapted for infringement of the ‘474 patent, and further knowing that the systems are not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantially noninfringing use. Exemplary embodiments can be found at http://www.bestbuyjobs.com/ (Best Buy), http://jobs.josbank.com/ (Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc.), and http://jobs.lifetimefitness.com/ (Life Time Fitness Inc.). 18. Plaintiff has been damaged as a result of Defendant’s infringing conduct. Defendant
is thus liable to Plaintiff for damages in an amount that adequately compensates for such Defendant’s infringement, i.e., in an amount that by law cannot be less than would constitute a reasonable royalty for the use of the patented technology, together with interest and costs as fixed by this Court under 35 U.S.C. § 284. 19. Upon information and belief, Defendant will continue its infringement of one or more
claims of the‘474 Patent unless enjoined by the Court. Each and all of the Defendant’s infringing conduct thus causes Plaintiff irreparable harm and will continue to cause such harm without the issuance of an injunction. 20. On information and belief, prior to the filing of the complaint, Defendant’s
infringement was willful and continues to be willful. On information and belief, prior to the filing of this Complaint, Defendant was aware of the ‘474 patent, due to discussions with its customers who are defendants in the currently-pending litigation in this District, including Best Buy, Jos. A. Bank 6
Clothiers, Inc., and Life Time Fitness, Inc., and through direct discussions with Plaintiff, and Defendant knew or should have known that Defendant was infringing at least claim 1 of the ‘474 patent. On information and belief, Defendant in its infringing activities acted as it did despite an objectively high likelihood that their actions constituted infringement of a valid patent. The Defendant’s infringing activities were intentional and willful in that the risk of infringement was known to Defendant or was so obvious that it should have been known to Defendant. 21. On information and belief, Defendant has had at least constructive notice of the ‘474
patent by operation of law, and there are no marking requirements that have not been complied with. IV. JURY DEMAND Plaintiff hereby requests a trial by jury pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. V. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court find in its favor and against Defendant, and that the Court grant Plaintiff the following relief: a. Judgment that one or more claims of United States Patent No. 5,930,474 have been infringed, either literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, by Defendant and/or by others to whose infringement Defendant has contributed and/or by others whose infringement has been induced by Defendant; Judgment that Defendant account for and pay to Plaintiff all damages to and costs incurred by Plaintiff because of Defendant’s infringing activities and other conduct complained of herein; That Defendant’s infringement be found to be willful, and that the Court award treble damages for the period of such willful infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284. That Plaintiff be granted pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on the damages caused by Defendant’s infringing activities and other conduct complained of herein; That the Court declare this an exceptional case and award Plaintiff its reasonable attorney’s fees and costs in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 285; 7
That Defendant be permanently enjoined from any further activity or conduct that infringes one or more claims of United States Patent No. 5,930,474; and That Plaintiff be granted such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper under the circumstances. Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Craig Tadlock By: Craig Tadlock Texas State Bar No. 00791766 Keith Smiley Texas State Bar No. 24067869 Tadlock Law Firm 2701 Dallas Parkway, Suite 360 Plano, Texas 75093 Telephone: (903) 730-6789 e-mail: craig@tadlocklawfirm.com keith@tadlocklawfirm.com David R. Bennett Direction IP Law P.O. Box 14184 Chicago, IL 60614-0184 Telephone: (312) 291-1667 e-mail: dbennett@directionip.com Daniel Mount Kevin Pasquinelli Mount Spelman & Fingerman, PC 333 West San Carlos Street Riverpark Tower, Suite 1650 San Jose, CA 95110 Telephone: (408) 279-7000 e-mail: dan@mount.com kpasquinelli@mount.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF GEOTAG, INC.
Documents Similar To Geotag v. SuccessFactorsSkip carouselCpuMate Et. Al. v. Xigmatek Et. Al.Odorstar Technology et. al. v. CLO2 Systems et. al.Interface IP Holdings v. Open TextCheetah Omni v. NP PhotonicsNeurowave Medical Technologies v. Comfort Quest Et. Al.Peschke Map Technologies v. Boulevard InvestPeschke Map Technologies v. TarragonPeschke Map Technologies v. Macerich PartnershipCYVA Research Holdings v. EbayEdizone v. Blue Chip Medical ProductsRobinson v. Bartlow et. al.Nexersys v. Gustin et. al.Peschke Map Technologies v. JJ GumbergCuozzo Speed Technologies v. Reach UnlimitedPeschke Map Technologies v. Glimcher Colonial Park Mall Et. Al.Peschke Map Technologies v. LernerVentana Sales Design and Manufacturing v. Newell Window Furnishings et. al.Trustees of Boston University v. Olympus et. al.Monistere v. Scissor MechanicNorman IP Holdings v. Volvo Cars of North AmericaCovidien v. BiolitecInterAD Technologies v. Atlantic Broadband Finance et. al.Innovative Wireless Solutions LLCInnovative Wireless Solutions LLCInnovative Wireless Solutions v. Zoom TelephonicsBluebonnet Telecommunications v. Yealink Network TechnologyBeneficial Innovations, Inc. v. Blockdot, Inc. et al - Document No. 47Unified Messaging Solutions v. UBS Financial ServicesUnified Messaging Solutions v. XingUnified Messaging Solutions v. United Air LinesDocuments About Patent InfringementSkip carouselNike v. SkechersNokia Complaint Against Apple in federal district court, WisconsinKoninklijke Philips N.V. et. al. v. Nintendo et. al.Bose v. Beats Civil ComplaintBose vs Beats (ITC complaint)3D Systems v. Formlabs et. al.Rockstar v Samsung.pdfBU v AppleGreenwich Ballistics v. Jamison InternationalPersonalWeb Technologies et. al. v. Rackspace et. al.Lodsys Complaint Against Adidas BestBuy Et AlSemantic Compaction Systems et. al. v. Speak For Yourself et. al.Amended Galaxy ComplaintNYT Complaint Against LodsysFacebook's Counterclaims to Yahoo's Patent LawsuitPosner OrderTreehouse Avatar Technologies v. TurbineHuawei v. SamsungBose vs BeatsZond v. Gillette Company, the et. al.Zonar Systems v. Synovia et. al.Touchscreen Gestures v. Huawei Technologies et. al.Novartis Pharmaceuticals v. Torrent Pharmaceuticals et. al.Fitness Anywhere v. Woss EnterprisesMathWorks v. AccelerEyes et. al.Videojet Technologies et. al. v. Markem-ImajeSteuben Foods, Inc.13-10-03 Innovatio v. Mult. Def. WiFi Patents FRAND DeterminationCH2O v. Meras EngineeringNovartis Pharmaceuticals et. al. v. Noven Pharmaceuticals et. al.More From PatentBlastSkip carouselMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Samsung Electronics Et. AlMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Nintendo of America Et. AlMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Cantor Fitzgerald Et. AlMultiplayer Network Innovations v. ZTE Et. AlMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Toshiba AmericaMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Pantech Et. AlMultiplayer Network Innovations v. NVIDIAActifio v. DelphixRTC Industries v. Flextronics InternationalTactical Medical Solutions v. Karl Et. AlPrometheus Laboratories v. Par Pharmaceutical Companies Et. AlAndrea Electronics v. Lenovo Group Et. Al.Andrea Electronics v. Toshiba Et. Al.Property Disclosure Technologies v. TruliaGlobal Tel*Link v. Securus Technologies et. al.Century Board v. National Registered AgentsIatric Systems v. FairWarningHologram Et. Al. v. Arena3D Industrial Illusion Et. Al.Tech-ni-Fold v. F.P. Rosback CompanyRTC Industries v. ZiveloMotobatt v. Deltran OperationsImpax Laboratories Et. Al. v. Lannett Holdings Et. Al.Alkermes Pharma Ireland v. Sun Pharma Global FZE Et. Al.Unimed Pharmaceuticals Et. Al. v. Perrigo Company Et. Al.Sensus v. Certified MeasurementCapella Photonics v. TellabsCapella Photonics v. Fujitsu Network CommunicationsCapella Photonics v. CienaILife Technologies v. AliphComAeritas v. GameStop