Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/233430095/ADP-Dealer-Services-v-Suggs
Timestamp: 2017-01-23 09:55:46
Document Index: 185578805

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2201', '§100', '§ 1331', '§ 1391', '§ 101', '§ 285']

ADP Dealer Services v. Suggs
BrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksArticlesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION ADP Dealer Services, Inc., ) ) Civil Action No. 14-631 Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) J URY TRIAL DEMANDED Robert W. Suggs, Sr., ) ) Defendant. ) ___________________________________ ) COMPLAINT ADP Dealer Services, Inc. (“Dealer Services”), for its complaint against Robert W. Suggs, Sr. (“Suggs”), by and through its undersigned attorneys, states and alleges as follows: INTRODUCTION 1. Dealer Services brings this suit to defend against allegations of patent infringement involving products and services it sells to its clients for maintaining their automobile inventories (“Inventory Service”). Thirteen of Dealer Services’ automobile dealer clients received letters from Mr. Christopher J oe (the “Infringement Letters”), an attorney with the law firm of Buether J oe & Carpenter, LLC, alleging that Suggs is the owner of United States Patent No. 8,548,672 (the “’672 patent” or the “patent-in-suit”) and alleging that, inter alia, Dealer Services’ clients’ websites, using Dealer Services’ Inventory Service, infringe at least claim 3 of the ‘672 patent owned by Suggs. 2. Suggs’ allegations have no merit and Dealer Services brings this declaratory judgment action against Suggs for a declaration that Dealer Services’ Inventory Service does not infringe any valid and enforceable claim of the ‘672 patent, and to recover damages from Suggs for causing Dealer Services to defend itself against a meritless patent infringement allegation. PARTIES 3. Plaintiff ADP Dealer Services, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware and has a principal place of business at 1950 Hassell Road, Hoffman Estates, Illinois 60195. 4. Upon information and belief, Defendant Robert W. Suggs, Sr. is an individual residing within this district, in Austin, Texas. NATURE OF THE ACTION 5. This is an action for declaratory judgment that Dealer Services’ Inventory Service does not infringe any valid and enforceable claim of the '672 patent, and that the claims of the '672 patent are invalid and unenforceable. A true and correct copy of the '672 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 6. Upon information and belief, Suggs is the lawful owner of all right, title and interest in the patent-in-suit. 7. This is an actual and justiciable controversy, as alleged herein. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 8. These claims arise under the Declaratory J udgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, and the Patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. §100 et seq. 9. Subject matter jurisdiction is proper in this court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338, 2201, and 2202. 10. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Suggs because, upon information and belief, he resides in this district, and does business as President and CEO of 2 Amerisale, Inc., a business in this district, located at 4111 Medical Parkway, Austin, Texas 78756, which allegedly offers a software product covered by the patent-in-suit. 11. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400(b) because, upon information and belief, Suggs is a resident of this district and is doing business in this district and allegedly offering for sale in this district a software product covered by the patent-in-suit. BACKGROUND OF THE CONTROVERSY 12. Dealer Services owns and operates its Inventory Service, which it sells to its clients, typically automobile dealers. 13. Dealer Services’ Inventory Service is used by its client automobile dealers to assist with inventory control of automobiles for sale. 14. On J une 19, 23-25, and J uly 1 and 3, 2014, the Infringement Letters were received by thirteen Dealer Services’ clients alleging that, inter alia, Dealer Services’ clients’ use of Dealer Service Inventory Service infringe the patent-in-suit. True and correct copies of the Infringement Letters are attached hereto as Exhibit B. 15. The Infringement Letters are each five pages in length, authored by Suggs’ counsel, Christopher J oe, and each contain claim charts purporting to show that Dealer Services’ clients’ use of Dealer Services’ Inventory Service infringe at least claim 3 of the '672 patent. 16. The penultimate paragraph of each of the Infringement Letters explicitly demands a response or “[Suggs’ counsel] will assume that [Dealer Services’ client(s)] prefers to resolve this dispute in Federal Court and will so advise Mr. Suggs.” 17. The Infringement Letters are clear and unambiguous, and evidence a dispute of sufficient immediacy and reality. 3 COUNT I DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE ʼ672 PATENT 18. Dealer Services repeats and incorporates by reference each of the foregoing paragraphs of its Complaint. 19. An actual and justiciable case or controversy exists between Plaintiff Dealer Services and Defendant Suggs concerning non-infringement of the patent-in-suit by Dealer Services’ Inventory Service which requires a declaration of rights by this Court. 20. Dealer Services’ Inventory Service does not, and will not, infringe any valid and enforceable claim of the patent-in-suit. 21. Dealer Services is entitled to a declaratory judgment that its manufacture, use, offer for sale, or sale in the United States or importation into the United States of its Inventory Service does not infringe any valid and enforceable claim of the patent-in-suit. COUNT II DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY OF THE ʼ672 PATENT 22. Dealer Services repeats and incorporates by reference each of the foregoing paragraphs of its Complaint. 23. An actual and justiciable case or controversy exists between Plaintiff Dealer Services and Defendant Suggs concerning the invalidity of the patent-in-suit which requires a declaration of rights by this Court. 24. One or more of the claims of the patent-in-suit is invalid or unenforceable for failure to meet the requirements of patentability under at least 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and / or 112. 4 25. Dealer Services is entitled to a declaratory judgment that the claims of the patent-
in-suit are invalid or unenforceable. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Dealer Services requests the following relief, and prays that the Court: A. Declare that Plaintiff Dealer Services' Inventory Service has not infringed, and will not infringe, any valid and enforceable claim of the patent-in-suit; B. Declare that the claims of the patent-in-suit are invalid or unenforceable; C. Enjoin Defendant Suggs, and his agents, counsel, servants, and all persons in active concert or participation with him, from attempting to enforce the patent-in-suit against Dealer Services by reason of its Inventory Service or against any Dealer Services client by reason of that clients’ use of Dealer Services’ Inventory Service; D. Award Plaintiff Dealer Services its costs; E. Find this case exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285, and award Plaintiff Dealer Services its fees and expenses; and F. Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. 5 6 JURY DEMAND Plaintiff Dealer Services demands a trial by jury as to all matters triable to a jury. Dated: J uly 8, 2014 By: /s/ Richard D. Milvenan Richard D. Milvenan State Bar No. 14171800 McGINNIS LOCHRIDGE & KILGORE, LLP 600 Congress Avenue, Suite 2100 Austin, Texas 78701 512.495.6005 512.505-6035 rmilvenan@mcginnislaw.com J oseph V. Saphia Laura A. Chubb FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, 10
Floor New York, New York 10151 212.588.0800 212.588.0500 jsaphia@flhlaw.com lchubb@flhlaw.com Not yet admitted Pro Hac Vice Attorneys for ADP Dealer Services, Inc. More From This UserLike kind card game (US patent 6193235)Like kind money board table game (US patent 6186505)Intelligent user interface including a touch sensor device (US patent 8288952)User interface with proximity sensing (US patent 8035623)Wine cellar alarm system (US patent 8710985)Cell regulatory genes, encoded products, and uses related thereto (US patent 7030227)Multicasting method and apparatus (US patent 6434622)Method and apparatus for retrieving data from a network using linked location identifiers (US patent 6226655)Casino bonus game using player strategy (US patent 6645071)High-speed serial linking device with de-emphasis function and the method thereof (US patent 7313187)Casing spacer (US patent 6736166)Advance Products & Systems v. CCI Piping SystemsModern Telecom Systems LLCTracBeam v. AppleRichmond v. Creative IndustriesSenju Pharmaceutical et. al. v. Metrics et. al.VIA Technologies et. al. v. ASUS Computer International et. al.Perrie v. PerrieEckart v. Silberline ManufacturingSenju Pharmaceutical et. al. v. Metrics et. al.Kenzinc v. imblowingup et. al.Sun Zapper v. Devroy et. al.Merck Sharp & Dohme v. Fresenius KabiTracBeam v. T-Mobile et. al.ATEN International v. Uniclass Technology et. al.
Sign up to vote on this titleUsefulNot usefulADP Dealer Services v. Suggs by PriorSmartEmbedDownloadDescriptionOfficial Complaint for Declaratory Judgement in Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-00631: ADP Dealer Services, Inc. v. Suggs. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, no judge yet assi...Official Complaint for Declaratory Judgement in Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-00631: ADP Dealer Services, Inc. v. Suggs. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-laFx 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
RelatedNYT Complaint Against Lodsysby Florian MuellerKimberly-Clark Worldwide v. Naty ABby PriorSmartVictaulic Company v. Eastern Industrial Suppliesby PatentBlastNichia v. Emcoreby PriorSmartDurney et. al. v. Team Athletic Goodsby PriorSmartArrivalStar et. al. v. SpectorSoftby PriorSmartCommonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation v. Real Communicationsby PriorSmartBennett v. Alpha Canvas & Awning Companyby PriorSmartArrivalStar et. al. v. DriveCamby PriorSmartArrivalStar et. al. v. Global Security Tracking et. al.by PriorSmartSemcon Tech v. Freescale Semiconductorby PriorSmartCircuit Check v. QXQby PriorSmartTelefonix et. al. v. RTF Globalby PriorSmartEarthcomber v. LoopNetby PriorSmartAmTab Manufacturing v. BioFit Engineered Productsby PriorSmartfalcon technologies and services v. Benchmark Foamby PriorSmartArrivalStar et. al. v. SecureAlertby PriorSmartEtagz v. Magnusby PriorSmartGrupo Petrotemex S.A. DE C.V. et. al. v. AlphaPetby PriorSmartPregis Innovative Packaging v. Sealed Airby PriorSmartParallel Networks v. Funcomby PriorSmartParker v. Kimberly-Clarkby PriorSmartAkamai v. Cotendo Patent Lawsuit - Complaintby joemullinArrivalStar et. al. v. Cubic Global Tracking Solutionsby PriorSmartAllied Machine & Engineering v. Jewell Machine & Fabricationby PriorSmartOutdoor Cap v. Watersby PriorSmartEtagz v. Eolo Sportby PriorSmartReshare Commerce v. Pure Romanceby PriorSmartSimilar to ADP Dealer Services v. SuggsNYT Complaint Against LodsysKimberly-Clark Worldwide v. Naty ABVictaulic Company v. Eastern Industrial SuppliesNichia v. EmcoreDurney et. al. v. Team Athletic GoodsArrivalStar et. al. v. SpectorSoftCommonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation v. Real CommunicationsBennett v. Alpha Canvas & Awning CompanyArrivalStar et. al. v. DriveCamArrivalStar et. al. v. Global Security Tracking et. al.Semcon Tech v. Freescale SemiconductorCircuit Check v. QXQTelefonix et. al. v. RTF GlobalEarthcomber v. LoopNetAmTab Manufacturing v. BioFit Engineered Productsfalcon technologies and services v. Benchmark FoamArrivalStar et. al. v. SecureAlertEtagz v. MagnusGrupo Petrotemex S.A. DE C.V. et. al. v. AlphaPetPregis Innovative Packaging v. Sealed AirParallel Networks v. FuncomParker v. Kimberly-ClarkAkamai v. Cotendo Patent Lawsuit - ComplaintArrivalStar et. al. v. Cubic Global Tracking SolutionsAllied Machine & Engineering v. Jewell Machine & FabricationOutdoor Cap v. WatersEtagz v. Eolo SportReshare Commerce v. Pure RomancePioneer Fe-Lines v. PetSmartEset v. LodsysADP Dealer Services v. Suggs