Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/156116779/Aeritas-v-American-Airlines
Timestamp: 2017-07-25 03:51:02
Document Index: 297789334

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

Aeritas v. American Airlines | Patent | Patent Infringement
Aeritas v. American AirlinesUploaded by PatentBlastRelated InterestsPatentPatent InfringementService Of ProcessTitle 35 Of The United States CodeUnited States Patent LawRating and Stats0.0 (0)Document ActionsDownloadShare or Embed DocumentEmbedDescription: Aeritas v. American AirlinesView MoreAeritas v. American AirlinesCopyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE AERITAS, LLC, Plaintiff, v.AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., Defendant. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED C.A. No. ____________
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT This is an action for patent infringement in which Plaintiff Aeritas, LLC makes the following allegations against Defendant American Airlines, Inc. PARTIES 1. Plaintiff Aeritas, LLC (“Aeritas” or “Plaintiff”) is a Texas limited liability
company having a principal place of business at 15950 Dallas Parkway, Suite 225, Dallas, Texas 75248. 2. On information and belief, Defendant American Airlines, Inc. (“American” or
“Defendant”) is a Delaware corporation with its principal office at 4333 Amon Carter Boulevard, Fort Worth, TX 76155. American has appointed The Corporation Trust Company, Corporation Trust Center, 1209 Orange St., Wilmington, DE 19801, as its agent for service of process. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of the
Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)-(d) and 1400(b). On
information and belief, Defendant has transacted business in this district, and has committed, contributed to, or induced acts of patent infringement in this district. 5. On information and belief, Defendant is subject to this Court’s specific and
(the “‘589 patent”), entitled “Method and System for Facilitation of Wireless E-Commerce Transactions.” The ‘589 patent issued on April 26, 2011. A true and correct copy of the ‘589 patent is included as Exhibit A. 7. Defendant has been and now is directly and/or indirectly (literally and under the
doctrine of equivalents) infringing at least claim 40 of the ‘589 patent, in this judicial district and elsewhere in the United States, by, among other things, making, using, importing, offering for sale, and/or selling products and services that facilitate wireless transactions by receiving a request for a transaction consisting essentially of an authorization with respect to a product or service and a multistage fulfillment event associated with the authorization occurring at a fulfillment location, determining whether such authorization has been obtained, communicating to a wireless communication device a two-dimensional, optically scannable transaction code that is capable of being scanned at the fulfillment location initially to partially complete the transaction, and completing the wireless transaction at a second point by scanning the two
dimensional code, including but not limited to Defendant’s “Mobile.AA.Com,” “Mobile Apps,” “Mobile Boarding Pass,” and system(s) and service(s) relating thereto. 8. On information and belief, Defendant had actual knowledge of the ‘589 Patent at
least as early as May 3, 2011, or earlier. 9. Aeritas is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant has
contributorily infringed and is currently contributorily infringing the ‘589 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c), by selling or offering for sale to third parties (e.g., Defendant’s customers and/or contractors), in this judicial district and elsewhere throughout the United States, without license or authority from Aeritas, components that embody a material part of the inventions described in the ‘589 Patent, are known by Defendant to be especially made or especially adapted for use in infringement of the ‘589 Patent, and are not staple articles or commodities suitable for substantial, non-infringing use, including the infringing products and/or services set forth above and their respective components. Aeritas is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that these third parties have infringed and will infringe the '589 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by using infringing products and/or services, including some or all of the infringing products and/or services and their respective components. 10. Aeritas is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant has actively
induced and are currently inducing the infringement of the ‘589 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) by knowingly and intentionally encouraging or aiding third parties (e.g., Defendant’s customers and/or contractors) to use infringing products and/or services in this judicial district and elsewhere throughout the United States, without license or authority from Aeritas, including at least the infringing products and/or services set forth above. Aeritas is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that these third parties have infringed and will infringe the ‘589 Patent in
violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by using infringing products and/or services, including some or all of the infringing products and/or services. The Defendant through at least its website, product/service support and training materials actively induced its customers and contractors of the infringing products and/or services to infringe the ‘589 Patent. 11. By making, using, importing, offering for sale, and/or selling such products and
services, and all like products and services, Defendant has injured Aeritas and is thus liable to Aeritas for infringement of the ‘589 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271. 12. As a result of Defendant’s infringement of the ‘589 patent, Plaintiff Aeritas has
suffered monetary damages in an amount adequate to compensate for Defendant’s infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by Defendant, together with interest and costs as fixed by the Court, and Plaintiff Aeritas will continue to suffer damages in the future unless Defendant’s infringing activities cease. COUNT II INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,209,903 13. Plaintiff Aeritas is the owner by assignment of United States Patent No. 7,209,903
(the “‘903 patent”), entitled “Method and System for Facilitation of Wireless E-Commerce Transactions.” The ‘903 patent issued on April 24, 2007. A true and correct copy of the ‘903 patent is included as Exhibit B. 14. Defendant has been and now is directly and/or indirectly (literally and under the
doctrine of equivalents) infringing at least claim 22 of the ‘903 patent, in this judicial district and elsewhere in the United States, by, among other things, making, using, importing, offering for sale, and/or selling products and services that facilitate wireless transactions that involve a payment obligation on behalf of a requester and a fulfillment obligation on behalf of a provider by receiving a request from a requester who has indicated acceptance of an obligation to pay for
the product or service, verifying that requester’s identity, communicating a transaction code to a wireless communication device representative of the transaction requested, optically scanning the code from a visual display of the wireless communication device in fulfillment of the transaction, and triggering a fulfillment event in response whereby the provider fulfills the obligation to the requester and the requested product or service is received, including but not limited to Defendant’s “Mobile.AA.Com,” “Mobile Apps,” “Mobile Boarding Pass,” and system(s) and service(s) relating thereto. 15. On information and belief, Defendant had actual knowledge of the ‘903 Patent at
least as early as May 3, 2011, or in September 2009, or earlier. 16. Aeritas is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant has
contributorily infringed and is currently contributorily infringing the ‘903 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c), by selling or offering for sale to third parties (e.g., Defendant’s customers and/or contractors), in this judicial district and elsewhere throughout the United States, without license or authority from Aeritas, components that embody a material part of the inventions described in the ‘903 Patent, are known by Defendant to be especially made or especially adapted for use in infringement of the ‘903 Patent, and are not staple articles or commodities suitable for substantial, non-infringing use, including the infringing products and/or services set forth above and their respective components. Aeritas is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that these third parties have infringed and will infringe the ‘903 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by using infringing products and/or services, including some or all of the infringing products and/or services and their respective components. 17. Aeritas is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant has actively
induced and are currently inducing the infringement of the ‘903 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C.
§ 271(b) by knowingly and intentionally encouraging or aiding third parties (e.g., Defendant’s customers and/or contractors) to use infringing products and/or services in this judicial district and elsewhere throughout the United States, without license or authority from Aeritas, including at least the infringing products and/or services set forth above. Aeritas is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that these third parties have infringed and will infringe the ‘903 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by using infringing products and/or services, including some or all of the infringing products and/or services. The Defendant through at least its website, product/service support and training materials actively induced its customers and contractors of the infringing products and/or services to infringe the ‘903 Patent. 18. By making, using, importing, offering for sale, and/or selling such products and
services, and all like products and services, Defendant has injured Aeritas and is thus liable to Aeritas for infringement of the ‘903 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271. 19. As a result of Defendant’s infringement of the ‘903 patent, Plaintiff Aeritas has
suffered monetary damages in an amount adequate to compensate for Defendant’s infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by Defendant, together with interest and costs as fixed by the Court, and Plaintiff Aeritas will continue to suffer damages in the future unless Defendant’s infringing activities cease. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE Plaintiff Aeritas respectfully requests that this Court enter: A. A judgment in favor of Plaintiff Aeritas that Defendant has infringed (either
literally or under the doctrine of equivalents), directly or indirectly, by way of inducing or contributing to the infringement of, one more of the claims of the ‘589 Patent and the ‘903 Patent (collectively, “Asserted Patents”);
A judgment and order requiring Defendant to pay Plaintiff Aeritas its damages,
costs, expenses, and prejudgment and post-judgment interest for Defendant’s infringement of the Asserted Patents as provided under 35 U.S.C. § 284; C. A judgment and order finding that this is an exceptional case within the meaning
of 35 U.S.C. § 285 and awarding to Aeritas its reasonable attorneys’ fees against Defendant; D. A judgment and order requiring Defendant to provide an accounting and to pay
supplemental damages to Aeritas, including without limitation, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; E. Any and all other relief to which Plaintiff Aeritas may show itself to be entitled. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff Aeritas, under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, requests a trial by jury of any issues so triable by right.
Dated: July 24, 2013 OF COUNSEL: Marc A. Fenster Andrew D. Weiss C. Jay Chung RUSS AUGUST & KABAT 12424 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor Los Angeles, California 90025 Telephone: (310) 826-7474 Facsimile: (310) 826-6991 mfenster@raklaw.com aweiss@raklaw.com jchung@raklaw.com
BAYARD, P.A. /s/ Stephen B. Brauerman Richard D. Kirk (#0922) Stephen B. Brauerman (#4952) Vanessa R. Tiradentes (vt5398) 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 900 P.O. Box 25130 Wilmington, DE 19899 (302) 655-5000 rkirk@bayardlaw.com sbrauerman@bayardlaw.com vtiradentes@bayardlaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Aeritas, LLC
Recommended DocumentsDocuments Similar To Aeritas v. American AirlinesSkip carouselZanfel Laboratories et. al. v. Ziff et. al.Wyncomm v. Silicon Mountain Memory Et. Al.Vehicle Operation Technologies v. General Motors CompanySwipe Innovations v. ExaDigmGlobal Touch Solutions v. AppleMicrolog Corp. v. Mitel Networks Inc.Optical Devices LLC v. Nintendo Co. Ltd. Et. Al.Wyncomm LLCData Carriers LLCCronos Technologies LLCLee v. Wildlife EnterprisesPersonalWeb Technologies v. CaringoPersonalWeb Technologies v. NEC Corporation of AmericaArunachalam v. Jones GroupSmartPhone Technologies v. LG Electronics et. al.e.digital v. Mach Xtreme Technology Et. Al.Unilin Beheer et. al. v. Topstar Flooring et. al.McRo v. Sony Computer Entertainment America et. al.Arunachalam v. Victoria's Secret DirectWaters Industries v. Outdoor CapTechnology Licensing v. Grass ValleyVossen Wheels v. Wheel World 3Entorian Technologies v. Fusion-ioSelect Retrieval LLCEtagz v. Do ItContent Extraction And Transmission v. Capsys TechnologiesSorias et. al. v. National Cellular et. al.Neology v. ConfidexUntitledRydex Technologies v. InsuletDocuments About PatentSkip carouselThe Oppidan Press Edition 10 2011 (The Investec Rhodes Top 100 Special Edition)AppleVsHTCandS3_11.07.15NokiaVsApple_11.03.31.10012-04-30 Apple-Samsung Teksler-Kim Letter Re FRANDMicrosoftVsMotorola_11.08.17Nokia Complaint Against Apple in federal district court, WisconsinTranslation of Mannheim 2O240 Ruling Motorola v MicrosoftSamsung vs Apple - Samsung's Appeal to the Supreme CourtFacebook's Counterclaims to Yahoo's Patent LawsuitNYT Complaint Against Lodsys4. ExhB Lodsys Letter to Illusion LabsWikiLeaks TPP Intellectual Property Rights ChapterPRICELINE COM INC 10-K (Annual Reports) 2009-02-20Greenwich Ballistics v. Jamison InternationalKoninklijke Philips N.V. et. al. v. Nintendo et. al.MicrosoftVsMotorola_11.12.11Nike v. Skechers11-07-01 Apple Motion for PI Against SamsungEPO Examiners Can No Longer Ensure Appropriate Quality StandardsGoogle Dec Action vs RockstarConsulting AgreementBU v AppleNovartis patent JudgementApple vs Samsung 11.06.1616-12-20 Apple Complaint v. Acacia Et Al.AppleVsHTCandS3_11.07.2911-07-21 Lodsys Amended ComplaintApple vs Samsung 11.04.22MicrosoftVsMotorola_10.12.23Semantic Compaction Systems et. al. v. Speak For Yourself 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