Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/225712367/Phoenix-Licensing-et-al-v-American-Express-Company-et-al
Timestamp: 2016-10-25 21:03:30
Document Index: 706551376

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§ 271', '§ 1331', '§ 1391', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 284', '§ 285']

BrowseBrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION PHOENIX LICENSING, L.L.C. and LPL LICENSING, L.L.C., Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY; AMERICAN EXPRESS CENTURION BANK; AMEX ASSURANCE COMPANY; AMERICAN EXPRESS INCENTIVE SERVICES, LLC; AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK, FSB; AMERICAN EXPRESS TRAVEL RELATED SERVICES, INC.; and AMERICAN EXPRESS MARKETING & DEVELOPMENT CORP., Defendants. Case No. __________________ Jury Trial Demanded COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT In this action for patent infringement, Plaintiffs Phoenix Licensing, L.L.C. (“Phoenix”) and LPL Licensing, L.L.C. (“LPL”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) make the following allegations against American Express Company; American Express Centurion Bank; AMEX Assurance Company; American Express Incentive Services, LLC; American Express Bank, FSB; American Express Travel Related Services, Inc.; and American Express Marketing & Development Corp. (collectively, “AMEX” or “Defendants”). INTRODUCTION 1. Phoenix owns the inventions for the following marketing technology (the “patented marketing technology”): (a) Computerized apparatuses, methods, and systems that implement decision criteria, product information, and client information to automatically select and present products appropriate for the client via client communications 2:14-cv-636
1 (for example, a direct mail communication incorporating variable information) as described and claimed in United States Patent Number 5,987,434 entitled “Apparatus and Method for Transacting Marketing and Sales of Financial Products” (the “’434 patent”); (b) Apparatuses, methods, and systems that automatically generate personalized communication documents for financial products or services, where the communications include personalized content that present alternative descriptions, characteristics and/or identifications associated with the financial product or service, as described and claimed in United States Patent Number 7,890,366 entitled “Personalized Communication Documents, System and Method for Preparing Same” (the “’366 patent”); (c) Apparatuses, methods, and systems that automatically prepare customized replies to responses, generated from marketing communications delivered to clients for products or services, such as financial products or services, as described and claimed in United States Patent Number 6,999,938 entitled “Automated Reply Generation Direct Marketing System” (the “’938 patent”); (d) Apparatuses, methods, and systems that automatically provide personalized notices concerning financial products or services associated with a set of descriptions, characteristics and/or identifications over an electronic network, which may be presented within a personalized content section of the personalized communication documents, as described and claimed in United States Patent Number 7,860,744 entitled “System and Method for Automatically Providing Personalized Notices Concerning Products and/or Services” (the “’744 patent”); (e) Apparatuses, methods, and system that use client information to automatically select financial products or services appropriate for the 2 client and prepare personalized client communications offering the selected products, as described and claimed in United States Patent Number 8,352,317 entitled “System for Facilitating Production of Variable Offer Communications” (the “’317 patent”); (f) Apparatuses, methods, and systems that automatically generate customized communication documents for a plurality of consumer entities, such documents concerning financial products or services associated with a set of descriptions, characteristics and/or identifications, which may be presented within a personalized content section of the personalized communication documents, as described and claimed in United States Patent Number 7,856,375 entitled “Customized Communication Document Creation System and Method” (the “’375 patent”); and (g) Apparatuses, methods, and systems that automatically generate customized communications offering financial products or services to a plurality of clients, and replies to client responses to such communications, as described and claimed in United States Patent Number 8,234,184 entitled “Automated Reply Generation Direct Marketing System” (the “’184 patent”) (hereafter, the above patents are collectively referred to as the “patents-in-suit”). 2. Pursuant to a license agreement dated December 1, 2006, LPL is the exclusive licensee of the patents-in-suit. 3. Defendants have been and are now infringing the patents-in-suit by making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing products covered by one or more claims of the patents-in-suit without Plaintiffs’ permission. 4. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages for Defendants’ infringement and a permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants from continuing to infringe the patents-in-suit. 3 PARTIES 5. Phoenix is an Arizona limited liability company with its principal place of business in Scottsdale, Arizona. 6. LPL is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in Scottsdale, Arizona and an office and personnel in Tyler, Texas. 7. Upon information and belief, American Express Company is a New York corporation with its principal place of business in New York, New York. 8. Upon information and belief, American Express Centurion Bank is a Utah corporation with its principal place of business in Salt Lake City, Utah. 9. Upon information and belief, AMEX Assurance Company is a Wisconsin corporation with its principal place of business in Green Bay, Wisconsin. 10. Upon information and belief, American Express Incentive Services, LLC is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Fenton, Missouri. 11. Upon information and belief, American Express Bank, FSB is a Utah corporation with its principal place of business in Sat Lake City, Utah. 12. Upon information and belief, American Express Travel Related Services, Inc. is a New York corporation with its principal place of business in New York, New York. 13. Upon information and belief, American Express Marketing & Development Corp. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in New York, New York. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 14. This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq., including § 271. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). 15. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because, among other reasons, Defendants have done business in this District, and have committed and continue to commit acts of patent infringement in this District. 4 16. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)-(d) and 1400(b) because, among other reasons, Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in this District, and have committed and continue to commit acts of patent infringement in this District. COUNT I INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,987,434 17. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each of the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 16 above, and further allege as follows: 18. On November 16, 1999, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued the ’434 patent for inventions covering the following marketing technology: computerized apparatuses, methods, and systems that implement decision criteria, product information, and client information to automatically select and present products appropriate for the client (for example, a direct mail communication incorporating variable information), as described and claimed in the ’434 patent. Phoenix is the owner by assignment of all right, title, and interest in the ’434 patent, including all rights to pursue and collect damages for past infringements of the patent. LPL is the exclusive licensee of the ’434 patent. A true and correct copy of the ’434 patent is attached as Exhibit A. 19. Defendants have been and are now directly infringing one or more claims of the ’434 patent, in this judicial District and elsewhere in the United States, by, among other things, making and using products and services that generate customized marketing materials, such as letters, e-mails, and other communications, for their customers and potential customers. These materials contain, for example, customized notices and offers concerning credit cards and rewards programs. 20. Defendants have committed these acts of infringement without license or authorization. 21. By engaging in the conduct described herein, Defendants have injured Plaintiffs and are thus liable for infringement of the ’434 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271. 5 22. As a result of Defendants’ infringement of the ’434 patent, Plaintiffs have been damaged and are entitled to a money judgment in an amount adequate to compensate for Defendants’ infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by Defendants, together with interest and costs as fixed by the Court. 23. Plaintiffs have also suffered and will continue to suffer severe and irreparable harm unless this Court issues a permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants, their agents, servants, employees, representatives, and all others acting in active concert therewith from infringing the ’434 patent. 24. To the extent that facts learned in discovery show that Defendants’ infringement of the ’434 patent is or has been willful, Plaintiffs reserve the right to request such a finding at the time of trial. COUNT II INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,890,366 25. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each of the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 16 above, and further allege as follows: 26. On February 15, 2011, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued the ’366 patent for inventions covering the following marketing technology: apparatuses, methods, and systems that automatically generate personalized marketing communications for financial products or services, where the communications include personalized content that present alternative descriptions, characteristics and/or identifications associated with the financial product or service, as described and claimed in the ’366 patent. Phoenix is the owner by assignment of all right, title, and interest in the ’366 patent, including all rights to pursue and collect damages for past infringements of the patent. LPL is the exclusive licensee of the ’366 patent. A true and correct copy of the ’366 patent is attached as Exhibit B. 27. Defendants have been and are now directly infringing one or more claims of the ’366 patent, in this judicial District and elsewhere in the United States, by, among other things, making and using products and services that generate customized marketing materials, such as 6 letters, e-mails, and other communications, for their customers and potential customers. These materials contain, for example, customized notices and offers concerning credit cards and rewards programs. 28. Defendants have committed these acts of infringement without license or authorization. 29. By engaging in the conduct described herein, Defendants have injured Plaintiffs and are thus liable for infringement of the ’366 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271. 30. As a result of Defendants’ infringement of the ’366 patent, Plaintiffs have been damaged and are entitled to a money judgment in an amount adequate to compensate for Defendants’ infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by Defendants, together with interest and costs as fixed by the Court. 31. Plaintiffs have also suffered and will continue to suffer severe and irreparable harm unless this Court issues a permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants, their agents, servants, employees, representatives, and all others acting in active concert therewith from infringing the ’366 patent. 32. To the extent that facts learned in discovery show that Defendants’ infringement of the ’366 patent is or has been willful, Plaintiffs reserve the right to request such a finding at the time of trial. COUNT III INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,999,938 33. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each of the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 16 above, and further allege as follows: 34. On February 14, 2006, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued the ’938 patent for inventions covering the following marketing technology: apparatuses, methods, and systems that automatically prepare customized replies to responses, generated from marketing communications delivered to clients for products or services, such as financial products or services, as described and claimed in the ’938 patent. Phoenix is the owner by 7 assignment of all right, title, and interest in the ’938 patent, including all rights to pursue and collect damages for past infringements of the patent. LPL is the exclusive licensee of the ’938 patent. A true and correct copy of the ’938 patent is attached as Exhibit C. 35. Defendants have been and are now directly infringing one or more claims of the ’938 patent, in this judicial District and elsewhere in the United States, by, among other things, making and using products and services that generate customized marketing materials, such as letters, e-mails, and other communications, for their customers and potential customers. These materials contain, for example, customized notices and offers concerning credit cards and rewards programs. 36. Defendants have committed these acts of infringement without license or authorization. 37. By engaging in the conduct described herein, Defendants have injured Plaintiffs and are thus liable for infringement of the ’938 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271. 38. As a result of Defendants’ infringement of the ’938 patent, Plaintiffs have been damaged and are entitled to a money judgment in an amount adequate to compensate for Defendants’ infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by Defendants, together with interest and costs as fixed by the Court. 39. Plaintiffs have also suffered and will continue to suffer severe and irreparable harm unless this Court issues a permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants, their agents, servants, employees, representatives, and all others acting in active concert therewith from infringing the ’938 patent. 40. To the extent that facts learned in discovery show that Defendants’ infringement of the ’938 patent is or has been willful, Plaintiffs reserve the right to request such a finding at the time of trial. 8 COUNT IV INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,860,744 41. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each of the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 16 above, and further allege as follows: 42. On December 28, 2010, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued the ’744 patent for inventions covering the following marketing technology: apparatuses, methods, and systems that automatically provide personalized notices concerning financial products or services associated with a set of descriptions, characteristics and/or identifications over an electronic network, which may be presented within a personalized content section of the personalized communication documents, as described and claimed in the ’744 patent. Phoenix is the owner by assignment of all right, title, and interest in the ’744 patent, including all rights to pursue and collect damages for past infringements of the patent. LPL is the exclusive licensee of the ’744 patent. A true and correct copy of the ’744 patent is attached as Exhibit D. 43. Defendants have been and are now directly infringing one or more claims of the ’744 patent, in this judicial District and elsewhere in the United States, by, among other things, making and using products and services that generate customized marketing materials, such as letters, e-mails, and other communications, for their customers and potential customers. These materials contain, for example, customized notices and offers concerning credit cards and rewards programs. 44. Defendants have committed these acts of infringement without license or authorization. 45. By engaging in the conduct described herein, Defendants have injured Plaintiffs and are thus liable for infringement of the ’744 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271. 46. As a result of Defendants’ infringement of the ’744 patent, Plaintiffs have been damaged and are entitled to a money judgment in an amount adequate to compensate for Defendants’ infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by Defendants, together with interest and costs as fixed by the Court. 9 47. Plaintiffs have also suffered and will continue to suffer severe and irreparable harm unless this Court issues a permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants, their agents, servants, employees, representatives, and all others acting in active concert therewith from infringing the ’744 patent. COUNT V INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,352,317 48. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each of the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 16 above, and further allege as follows: 49. On January 8, 2013, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued the ’317 patent for inventions covering the following marketing technology: apparatuses, methods, and system that use client information to automatically select financial products or services appropriate for the client and prepare personalized client communications offering the selected products, as described and claimed in the ’317 patent. Phoenix is the owner by assignment of all right, title, and interest in the ’317 patent, including all rights to pursue and collect damages for past infringements of the patent. LPL is the exclusive licensee of the ’317 patent. A true and correct copy of the ’317 patent is attached as Exhibit E. 50. Defendants have been and are now directly infringing one or more claims of the ’317 patent, in this judicial District and elsewhere in the United States, by, among other things, making and using products and services that generate customized marketing materials, such as letters, e-mails, and other communications, for their customers and potential customers. These materials contain, for example, customized notices and offers concerning credit cards and rewards programs. 51. Defendants have committed these acts of infringement without license or authorization. 52. By engaging in the conduct described herein, Defendants have injured Plaintiffs and are thus liable for infringement of the ’317 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271. 10 53. As a result of Defendants’ infringement of the ’317 patent, Plaintiffs have been damaged and are entitled to a money judgment in an amount adequate to compensate for Defendants’ infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by Defendants, together with interest and costs as fixed by the Court. 54. Plaintiffs have also suffered and will continue to suffer severe and irreparable harm unless this Court issues a permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants, their agents, servants, employees, representatives, and all others acting in active concert therewith from infringing the ’317 patent. COUNT VI INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,856,375 55. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each of the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 16 above, and further allege as follows: 56. On December 21, 2010, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued the ’375 patent for inventions covering the following marketing technology: apparatuses, methods, and systems that automatically generate customized communication documents for a plurality of consumer entities, such documents concerning financial products or services associated with a set of descriptions, characteristics and/or identifications, which may be presented within a personalized content section of the personalized communication documents, as described and claimed in the ’375 patent. Phoenix is the owner by assignment of all right, title, and interest in the ’375 patent, including all rights to pursue and collect damages for past infringements of the patent. LPL is the exclusive licensee of the ’375 patent. A true and correct copy of the ’375 patent is attached as Exhibit F. 57. Defendants have been and are now directly infringing one or more claims of the ’375 patent, in this judicial District and elsewhere in the United States, by, among other things, making and using products and services that generate customized marketing materials, such as letters, e-mails, and other communications, for their customers and potential customers. These 11 materials contain, for example, customized notices and offers concerning credit cards and rewards programs. 58. Defendants have committed these acts of infringement without license or authorization. 59. By engaging in the conduct described herein, Defendants have injured Plaintiffs and are thus liable for infringement of the ’375 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271. 60. As a result of Defendants’ infringement of the ’375 patent, Plaintiffs have been damaged and are entitled to a money judgment in an amount adequate to compensate for Defendants’ infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by Defendants, together with interest and costs as fixed by the Court. 61. Plaintiffs have also suffered and will continue to suffer severe and irreparable harm unless this Court issues a permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants, their agents, servants, employees, representatives, and all others acting in active concert therewith from infringing the ’375 patent. COUNT VII INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,234,184 62. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each of the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 16 above, and further allege as follows: 63. On July 31, 2012, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued the ’184 patent for inventions covering the following marketing technology: apparatuses, methods, and systems that automatically generate customized communications offering financial products or services to a plurality of clients, and replies to client responses to such communications, as described and claimed in the ’184 patent. Phoenix is the owner by assignment of all right, title, and interest in the ’184 patent, including all rights to pursue and collect damages for past infringements of the patent. LPL is the exclusive licensee of the ’184 patent. A true and correct copy of the ’184 patent is attached as Exhibit G. 12 64. Defendants have been and are now directly infringing one or more claims of the ’184 patent, in this judicial District and elsewhere in the United States, by, among other things, making and using products and services that generate customized marketing materials, such as letters, e-mails, and other communications, for their customers and potential customers. These materials contain, for example, customized notices and offers concerning credit cards and rewards programs. 65. Defendants have committed these acts of infringement without license or authorization. 66. By engaging in the conduct described herein, Defendants have injured Plaintiffs and are thus liable for infringement of the ’184 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271. 67. As a result of Defendants’ infringement of the ’184 patent, Plaintiffs have been damaged and are entitled to a money judgment in an amount adequate to compensate for Defendants’ infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by Defendants, together with interest and costs as fixed by the Court. 68. Plaintiffs have also suffered and will continue to suffer severe and irreparable harm unless this Court issues a permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants, their agents, servants, employees, representatives, and all others acting in active concert therewith from infringing the ’184 patent. PRAYER FOR RELIEF Plaintiffs respectfully request the following relief from this Court: A. A judgment in favor of Plaintiffs that Defendants have infringed the patents-in-
suit; B. A permanent injunction enjoining Defendants and their officers, directors, agents, servants, affiliates, employees, divisions, branches, subsidiaries, parents, and all others acting in active concert therewith from infringing of the patents-in-suit, or such other equitable relief the Court determines is warranted; 13 C. A judgment and order requiring Defendants to pay Plaintiffs their damages, costs, expenses, and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest for Defendants’ infringement of the patents-in-suit as provided under 35 U.S.C. § 284; D. A judgment and order finding that this is an exceptional case within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285 and awarding to Plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys’ fees against Defendants; E. A judgment and order requiring Defendants to provide an accounting and to pay supplemental damages to Plaintiffs, including without limitation, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; and F. Any and all other relief to which Plaintiffs may be entitled. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs request a trial by jury of any issues so triable by right. Dated: May 21, 2014 RUSS AUGUST & KABAT /s/ Benjamin T. Wang Marc A. Fenster (CA SBN 181067) Benjamin T. Wang (CA SBN 228712) 12424 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor Los Angeles, California 90025 Telephone: (310) 826-7474 Facsimile: (310) 826-6991 mfenster@raklaw.com bwang@raklaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs Phoenix Licensing, L.L.C. and LPL Licensing, L.L.C. Phoenix Licensing et. al. v. American Express Company et. al.Uploaded by PriorSmartPlaintiffDefendantPatentpatentPatent InfringementAmerican Express3 viewsDownloadEmbedDescription: Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-00636: Phoenix Licensing, L.L.C. et. al. v. American Express Company et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern Dist...See MoreOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-00636: Phoenix Licensing, L.L.C. et. al. v. American Express Company et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-lave for more info.Copyright: Public DomainDownload as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content
Documents similar to Phoenix Licensing et. al. v. American Express Company et. al.Phoenix Licensing et. al. v. Wells Fargo & Company et. al.Phoenix Licensing et. al. v. AT&T Mobility et. al.Phoenix Licensing et. al. v. Carnival et. al.e.Digital v. Creative Labs et. al.e.Digital v. Yamaha Corporation of America et. al.Phoenix Licensing et. al. v. Gerber Life Insurance CompanyDigitude Innovations LLCHengst of North America v. Champion Laboratories et. al.Lamina Packaging Innovations v. HasbroCronos Technologies LLCCharles Smith Enterprises v. EMCAFA Polytek North America et. al. v. Clorox Company, The et. al.Cronos Technologies v. Shoebuy.comCronos Technologies v. Ace HardwareTracBeam v. T-Mobile et. al.ILife Technologies v. AliphComIlife Technologies v. Body MediaActivision TV v. American Digital SignageArczar v. HasbroPhoenix Licensing et. al. v. Toyota Motor North America et. al.Smith Abrasives v. Wusthof-Trident of AmericaWyncomm v. Silicon Mountain Memory et. al.EZ Products of South Florida v. Dollar Tree StoresProximity Monitoring Innovations v. AssetWorksTainoApp v. Sony ElectronicsFlashpoint Technology v. Pantech et. al.Whelen Engineering v. Code 3 et. al.Optical Devices v. Panasonic et. al.PT Diagnostics v. Pratt & Whitney Canada et. al.Cuozzo Speed Technologies v. Fujitsu Ten Corp. of AmericaBooks similar to Phoenix Licensing et. al. v. American Express Company et. al.Patent EaseHow to Make Your Own Patent Drawing and Save ThousandsMundus Foppensis
The Fop Display'dAamun miehiä
Historiallinen kuvaelmaThe Texas Jury RulesProving Damages to the JuryHigh-Profit ProspectingCurses, A Mobley Meadows NovelFinal AppealInformation MarketingThe Justice MachineCpa Cash - Make Cash Online With Cpa MarketingRepresenting Yourself In Court (US)101 Ways to Market Your Auto Repair ShopPCI DSS10 Lead Generation and Marketing Strategies That Every Small Business Owner Needs to Know!PCI DSSNo Fear Or FavourJust Good BusinessHacking PoliticsHard Choices10 Steps To Get More Coaching Clients & Double Your IncomeThe Second ComingGo Tell Aunt RhodieTotal SurveillanceMolly Power SeriesDocuments about PlaintiffAmended Complaint Filed 9/30/2016 Doe v. Trump et al refiled complaint 9/30/16Tiffany Doe DeclarationiPhone Touch Screen - Amended Complaint [CONFORMED COPY]2016-04-18 Cheri Jacobus Lawsuit Against Trump and LewandowskiSaudi LawsuitPennie v. Soros et al Amended Complaint179125570172Mejia v. Freeman - FIT AND THICK trademark complaint.pdfVW Diesel caseLil Wayne v. Cash Money - complaint.pdf20160718 - Wwe Cte LawsuitCavanaugh v BarteltAndrea Tantaros suitTake-Two and Rockstar Games v Leslie BenziesZenimax v Oculus - Amended ComplaintAmended Levaquin complaint Lawsuit against Hillary ClintonSolid Oak Sketches v Take-TwoPalantir LawsuitPokemon Go lawsuitGoguen/Baptiste San Mateo CourtBenzies v RockstarFresh Guidelines on Quashing of Proceedings of a Non-compoundable Offence on the Basis of Settlement Between the PartiesMumford Emergency MotionGov-Uscourts-Nysd-460787-1-0Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against EOS Lip BalmGhomeshi rulingHaloSongs Inc v SheeranCarlsbad Police Brutality ComplaintBooks about DefendantThe FormulaJury DoodyThe VerdictOscar Pistorius The VerdictLaw, Life and LaughterMurder in MarpleDocuments about DefendantJane Doe Declaration as FiledBundy wants govt to ID informantsPennie v. Soros et al Amended Complaint179125570172Mejia v. Freeman - FIT AND THICK trademark complaint.pdf09-20-2016 ECF 1305 USA v SHAWNA COX - Notice That the U.S. Attorneys' Office Has Been Caught Coaching WitnessesUS v. Deric LostutterLil Wayne v. Cash Money - complaint.pdf20160718 - Wwe Cte LawsuitCavanaugh v BarteltAndrea Tantaros suitTake-Two and Rockstar Games v Leslie BenziesZenimax v Oculus - Amended ComplaintAmended Levaquin complaint Lawsuit against Hillary ClintonSolid Oak Sketches v Take-TwoPalantir LawsuitHobos Proffer Pokemon Go lawsuitGoguen/Baptiste San Mateo CourtRoss Ulbricht Sentencing Benzies v RockstarMumford Emergency MotionGov-Uscourts-Nysd-460787-1-0Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against EOS Lip BalmHaloSongs Inc v SheeranCarlsbad Police Brutality ComplaintDocuments about PatentBusiness Development Executive Resume SampleGlobal Competitiveness Report 2005/2006 Executive SummaryStandard Form of Agreement for Design ServicesPalantir LawsuitLinx Bracelet v. Origami OwlThe Conservative Nanny StateProClin® 150, 200 & 300 Preservatives General Safety and HandlingSamsung vs Apple - Samsung's Appeal to the Supreme CourtConsulting AgreementDOW CHEMICAL CO /DE/ 10-K (Annual Reports) 2009-02-20TierneyAgainst Intellectual Property, by Stephan Kinsella Consulting ContractMossberg Firearms 2012 CatalogBose vs Beats (ITC complaint)Broadcom Corp v. Innovium - complaint.pdfOpportunity KnocksPershing Square Sohn PresentationApple Inc (AAPL) Form 10-K (Annual Report) Filed 2008-11-05Apple vs Android 10.12.02Wizards of the Coast v. Cryptozoic Entertainment et. al.DANAHER CORP /DE/ 10-K (Annual Reports) 2009-02-25AppleVsSamsung_11.07.05Novartis patent JudgementGENENTECH INC 10-K (Annual Reports) 2009-02-20Kodak C.F.O.'s declarationGame of War v. Empire Z - Machine Zone v. Ember Entertainment complaint.pdfAVON PRODUCTS INC 10-K (Annual Reports) 2009-02-20Under Armour, Inc. 10-K (Annual Reports) 2009-02-20Dbc Settleltr 00384ohBooks about patentThe Necessity of AtheismLicensing and Managing Electronic Resources恨海The Unforseen Return顔氏家訓 — Volume 07Aunt Deborah孝經Whiffet SquirrelForever文子梁公九諫Supplementary Copyright Statutes, US Copy. OfficeMademoiselle Olympe ZabriskiThe Milkmaid
1892Apotheose CamoneanaTennessee's PartnerDisguising at Hertford穆天子传官場現形記官場現形記The Seas of QuiviraThe Trouble with DaleksIndipendent Inventors and Pro Corporate Federal CourtsPetition for Certiorari Denied Without OpinionPetition for Certiorari Denied Without OpinionPetition for CertiorariPetition for Certiorari Denied Without OpinionDocuments about patentLil Wayne v. Cash Money - complaint.pdfSample Producer Contract (Royalty-Bearing Work for Hire)As 3600-2009 Concrete StructuresSolid Oak Sketches v Take-TwoGov-Uscourts-Nysd-460787-1-0HaloSongs Inc v SheeranStarsBrief of Amici Curiae 212 Songwriters, Composers, Musicians, And Produce...LSE MPP Policy Brief 9 Copyright and CreationThe Conservative Nanny StateJournal of Music, Technology and EducationStudies in Musical TheatrePhoto Permission Agreement_FINALProClin® 150, 200 & 300 Preservatives General Safety and HandlingCloud Computing for LibrariesThe SoundtrackSharing Creative Works (Creative Commons)The Radio JournalStudies in Documentary FilmYesh Music v. S Carter Enterprises - class action complaint royalties TIDAL.pdfPrince v. Chodera - ComplaintJournal of Writing in Creative PracticeNaruto v. SlaterSamsung vs Apple - Samsung's Appeal to the Supreme CourtJournal of Visual Arts PracticeDocuments about Patent InfringementBrief of Amici Curiae 212 Songwriters, Composers, Musicians, And Produce...Samsung vs Apple - Samsung's Appeal to the Supreme CourtBose vs Beats (ITC complaint)Apple vs Android 10.12.02Wizards of the Coast v. Cryptozoic Entertainment et. al.AppleVsSamsung_11.07.05Redigi CapitolExclusivity AgreementRichmond Ring & Pinion InstallationNokiaVsApple_11.03.31.10012-07-25 Apple v Samsung Adverse Inference Jury Instruction OrderBRISTOL MYERS SQUIBB CO 10-K (Annual Reports) 2009-02-20Nokia vs Apple 11.01.06Oracle Google Damages - June 6 Precis UnredactedApple Samsung VerdictAmended Galaxy ComplaintUse of the ITC to Block Foreign Pirate WebsitesOracle Opposition to Google Daubert MotionBombardier Recreational Products et. al. v. Arctic Cat et. al.Translation of Mannheim 2O240 Ruling Motorola v MicrosoftPersonalWeb Technologies et. al. v. Rackspace et. al.3D Systems v. Formlabs et. al.Koninklijke Philips N.V. et. al. v. Nintendo et. al.Oracle Google ComplaintGov.uscourts.cand.250725.4.0Posner OrderVerdict FormTreehouse Avatar Technologies v. TurbineDocuments about American ExpressApple ACCC SubmissionLawsuit Against Ruth Madoff (Irving Picard)LOSSAN TimetableBrochure for Auction of Scott Rothstein Luxury VehiclesCampbell v FacebookAugust 2016Onyeri Etal Indictment September 2016September 2016October 2016The New Lawsuit EcosystemFebruary 2016April 2016June 2016July 2016DRAFT - COPY June Oversight ReportApril 2016AccentureApril 2014American Express and Henry Schein announce new partnershipLoyalty Management, Are You Ready for the Next Generation of Loyalty? powered by Loyalty 360 - April 2009Chrysler AffidavitMarch 2011 IssueJune 2011 IssueAccenture ReportMay 2016May 2016June 2016FBI Summary about Alleged United 93 Hijacker Ahmed Al-Haznawi02-17-2012 Edition