Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/205493069/Wolf-Run-Hollow-v-Williams-Sonoma
Timestamp: 2014-03-12 06:21:51
Document Index: 324809223

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1331', '§ 1391', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§287', '§ 284', '§ 285']

P. 1Wolf Run Hollow v. Williams-SonomaWolf Run Hollow v. Williams-SonomaRatings: (0)|Views: 15|Likes: 0Published by patentdataWolf Run Hollow v. Williams-SonomaWolf Run Hollow v. Williams-SonomaMore info:Published by: patentdata on Feb 07, 2014Copyright:Attribution Non-commercialAvailability:Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Free download as PDF, TXT or read online for free from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content|Add to collectionSee MoreSee lesshttp://www.scribd.com/doc/205493069/Wolf-Run-Hollow-v-Williams-Sonoma02/07/2014pdftextoriginal 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION
WOLF RUN HOLLOW, LLC, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAMS-SONOMA, INC.,
Defendant. Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-65 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT This is an action for patent infringement in which Wolf Run Hollow
, LLC. (“
” or “Plaintiff”) makes the following allegations against Williams-Sonoma, Inc. (“
” or “Defendant”): PARTIES 1.
Plaintiff Wolf Run is a Texas limited liability company having a principal place of business of 719 West Front Street, Suite 174, Tyler, Texas 75702. 2.
Defendant Williams-Sonoma, Inc. (“
”) is a Delaware company with its Corporate Headquarters at 3250 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94109. Defendant engages in business in Texas and may be served with process by serving their registered agent Corporation Service Company at 2711 Centerville Rd, Ste 400, Wilmington, DE 19808. JURISDICATION AND VENUE 3.
This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of the United States Code. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). 2 4.
Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 (b), (c), (d) and 1400(b). On information and belief, Defendant has transacted business in this district, and has committed and/or induced acts of patent infringement in this district. 5.
On information and belief, Defendant is subject to this Court’s specific and general personal jurisdiction pursuant to due process and/or the Texas Long Arm Statue, due at least to its substantial business in this forum, including: (i) at least a portion of the infringements 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 Texas and in this Judicial District. COUNT I INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,115,817 6.
Plaintiff is the owner by assignment of United States Patent No. 6,115,817 entitled “
Methods and Systems for Facilitating Transmission of Secure Messages Across Insecure Networks
” (the “‘817 patent”
). A true and correct copy of the ‘817
Patent is attached as Exhibit A. 7.
Upon information and belief, Defendant has been and is now infringing the ‘817
Patent in the State of Texas, in this judicial district, and elsewhere in the United States, by, among other things, directly or through intermediaries, making, using, importing, providing, supplying, distributing, selling, and/or offering for sale apparatuses and systems and providing methods practiced on Defendant’s
various websites (including, without limitation, http://www.williams-sonoma.com and related internal systems supporting the operation of said websites) covered by one or more claims of the ‘817
Patent to the injury of Wolf Run. Defendant is directly infringing, literally infringing, and infringing the ‘817
Patent under the 3 doctrine of equivalents. Defendant is thus liable for infringement of the ‘817
Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). 8.
Defendant has also been inducing infringement of the ‘817
Patent, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) by intentionally and knowingly inviting and instructing the users of websites supported by Defendant’s
software to perform the claimed methods and by supplying software modules or components used to directly infringe. 9.
Defendant has also been contributing to the infringement of the ‘817
Patent, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) by selling or offering to sell in the United States the software that powers the accused websites with knowledge that the software is especially made or adapted for use in a way that infringes. The software that Defendant provides is a significant part of the inventions of the claims of the ‘817
Patent and has no significant non-infringing use. 10.
On information and belief, to the extent any marking was required by 35 U.S.C. §287, all predecessors in interest to the ‘817
Patent complied with any such requirements. 11.
Defendant is willfully and intentionally infringing the ‘817
Patent from at least the date of the filing of this law suit. 12.
laintiff is entitled to increased damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 and to attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this action under 35 U.S.C. § 285 with respect to these Defendant. 13.
Defendant is wilfully infringing the ‘817 Patent at least from the date of the filing of this Complaint; to the extent that facts learned in discovery show that Defendant
infringement of the ‘817
Patent is, or has been willful, Plaintiff reserves the right to request such a finding at the time of trial. 14.
As a result of D
efendant’
s infringement of the ‘817
Patent, Plaintiff has suffered monetary damages and is entitled to a money judgment in an amount adequate to compensate for Activity (0)FiltersAdd to collectionReviewAdd noteLikeEmbedShowingAllMost RecentReviewsAll NotesLikesYou've already reviewed this. Edit your review.Rating 0/5Post notePost reviewPost replyPost note and likeNo activity yetLoad more