Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/113779373/Gordium-Innovations-v-Asante-Technologies
Timestamp: 2016-09-26 19:32:08
Document Index: 22534297

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§ 1331', '§ 1391', '§ 271', '§ 285', 'art98']

BrowseBrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicWelcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out moreIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWAREGORDIUM INNOVATIONS LLC, Plaintiff, v. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ASANTE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant. Civil Action No.
PLAINTIFF GORDIUM INNOVATIONS LLC'S COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
Plaintiff Gordium Innovations LLC ("Plaintiff" or "Gordium"), for its Complaint against defendant Asante Technologies, Inc. ("Defendant"), alleges the following: NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. This is an action for patent infringement arising under the Patent Laws of the
United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. THE PARTIES 2. Gordium is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of
Texas with a place of business at 106 Fannin Avenue, Round Rock, Texas 78664. 3. Upon information and belief, Defendant is a corporation organized under the laws
of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business at 47436 Fremont Boulevard, Fremont, California 94538. 4. Upon information and belief, Defendant conducts business under the names
"Asante", and "Asante, a Communication Division of UIC Corporation."
PLAINTIFF GORDIUM INNOVATIONS LLC'S COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Page 1 of 4
United States, Title 35 of the United States Code. 6. 7. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338. Upon information and belief, Defendant regularly conducts business in this
judicial district and has committed acts of patent infringement in this judicial district including, inter alia, selling and offering to sell infringing products and services in this judicial district. 8. Upon information and belief, Defendant has ongoing and systematic contacts with
this judicial district and the United States. In particular, Defendant is incorporated in Delaware and upon information and belief conducts business in this judicial district. 9. Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(c) and 1400(b). COUNT I – INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,697,385 10. The allegations set forth in the foregoing paragraphs 1 through 9 are incorporated
into this First Claim for Relief. 11. On February 24, 2004, U.S. Patent No. 6,697,385 ("the '385 patent"), entitled
"Circuit(s), Method(s) and Architecture for Configurable Packet Re-timing in Network Repeater Hubs," was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A true and correct copy of the '385 Patent is attached as Exhibit A to this Complaint. 12. Gordium is the assignee and owner of the right, title and interest in and to the '385
Patent, including the right to assert all causes of action arising under said patent and the right to any remedies for infringement of it. 13. In violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, Defendant has directly infringed and continues to
directly infringe, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, the '385 Patent by importing,
making, using, selling and/or offering for sale in the United States, including in this Judicial District, products capable of providing features claimed in at least Claims 1 and 14 of the '385 Patent ("the '385 Accused Products and Services"), without the authority of Plaintiff. 14. The '385 Accused Products and Services include, but are not limited to, the
Asante IntraCore 36524 Layer-2/3/4 Gigabit switch. 15. Gordium has been harmed by Defendant's infringing activities. JURY DEMAND Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Civil L.R. 3-6(a), Gordium demands a trial by jury on all issues triable as such. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in its favor and against Defendant as follows: A. B. An adjudication that Defendant has infringed the '385 patent; An award of damages to be paid by Defendant adequate to compensate Plaintiff
for Defendant's past infringement of the '385 patent and any continuing or future infringement through the date such judgment is entered, including interest, costs, expenses and an accounting of all infringing acts including, but not limited to, those acts not presented at trial; C. judgment; D. A declaration that this case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285, and an award of A reasonable ongoing royalty to compensate Plaintiff for any sales made post-
Plaintiff's reasonable attorneys' fees; E. An award to Plaintiff of such further relief at law or in equity as the Court deems
STAMOULIS & WEINBLATT LLC /s/ Richard C. Weinblatt Stamatios Stamoulis #4606 stamoulis@swdelaw.com Richard C. Weinblatt #5080 weinblatt@swdelaw.com Two Fox Point Centre 6 Denny Road, Suite 307 Wilmington, DE 19809 Telephone: (302) 999-1540 Attorneys for Plaintiff Gordium Innovations LLC
Gordium Innovations v. Asante Technologies by PriorSmart98 viewsEmbedDownloadDescriptionOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-01487-UNA: Gordium Innovations LLC v. Asante Technologies Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, no j...Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-01487-UNA: Gordium Innovations LLC v. Asante Technologies Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l77a 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
RelatedeDekka v. Motorsport Aftermarket Groupby PriorSmartWyncomm v. NEC Corporation of Americaby PriorSmartActivision TV v. Build-A-Bear Workshopby PriorSmartActivision TV v. Tri Star Energyby PatentBlastRoss v. Weiser - Complaintby slbursteinREFINED RECOMMENDATION CORPORATION v. NETFLIX, INC. - Document No. 1by Justia.comContent Extraction And Transmission v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Associationby PriorSmartPanTaurus v. Lexar Mediaby PriorSmartUNorth v. Tego et. al.by PriorSmartMobile Transformation v. FreshPlanetby PriorSmartUbiComm v. ABT Electronicsby PatentBlastUbiComm v. Zaleby PatentBlastGPNE v. BP Americaby PriorSmartZ-Man Fishing Products Et. Al. v. Renosky Et. Al.by PatentBlastCigarette Racing v. Mystic Powerboats - Complaintby slbursteinRadio Systems v. D.E. Systems et. al.by PriorSmartRSI Video Technologies v. Vacant Property Security Et. Al.by PatentBlastDelaware Radio Technologies LLC et. al.by PriorSmartOutdoor Cap v. Watersby PriorSmartNotice: Import investigations: Agricultural vehicles and componentsby Justia.comLandmark Technology v. New York & Companyby PriorSmartLT Tech v. Frontrange Solutionsby PatentBlastAmerica's Collectibles Network v. Genuine Gemstone Companyby PriorSmartVehicle IP v. Basic Energy Servicesby PatentBlastBrooks Automation v. Telemarkby PriorSmartMojack Distributors v. Shinn Fu Company of Americaby PatentBlastCommunity United IP v. Oracle et. al.by PriorSmartKohler Co.by PriorSmartSimilar to Gordium Innovations v. Asante TechnologieseDekka v. Motorsport Aftermarket GroupWyncomm v. NEC Corporation of AmericaActivision TV v. Build-A-Bear WorkshopActivision TV v. Tri Star EnergyRoss v. Weiser - ComplaintREFINED RECOMMENDATION CORPORATION v. NETFLIX, INC. - Document No. 1Content Extraction And Transmission v. Wells Fargo Bank, National AssociationPanTaurus v. Lexar MediaUNorth v. Tego et. al.Mobile Transformation v. FreshPlanetUbiComm v. ABT ElectronicsUbiComm v. ZaleGPNE v. BP AmericaZ-Man Fishing Products Et. Al. v. Renosky Et. Al.Cigarette Racing v. Mystic Powerboats - ComplaintRadio Systems v. D.E. Systems et. al.RSI Video Technologies v. Vacant Property Security Et. Al.Delaware Radio Technologies LLC et. al.Outdoor Cap v. WatersNoticeLandmark Technology v. New York & CompanyLT Tech v. Frontrange SolutionsAmerica's Collectibles Network v. Genuine Gemstone CompanyVehicle IP v. Basic Energy ServicesBrooks Automation v. TelemarkMojack Distributors v. Shinn Fu Company of AmericaCommunity United IP v. Oracle et. al.Kohler Co.RimProfile Products v. Central Fiber Et. Al.