Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/229452823/Open-Network-Solutions-v-Brother-Industries-et-al
Timestamp: 2016-10-27 20:08:39
Document Index: 709684016

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 271', '§ 1', '§ 1331', '§ 1391', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 284', '§ 284', '§ 285', 'art27']

BrowseBrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet Music1IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE OPEN NETWORK SOLUTIONS, INC. ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. TBD ) BROTHER INDUSTRIES, LTD., and ) BROTHER INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ) Defendants. ) _______________________________________________ ) COMPLAINT Plaintiff Open Network Solutions, Inc. (“ONS”) files this complaint for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,745,259 (“the ’259 patent”) and 6,907,476 (“the ’476 patent”) under 35 U.S.C. § 271 against defendants Brother Industries, Ltd. and Brother International Corporation (collectively, “Brother”). Plaintiff seeks damages for Brother’s infringement. Plaintiff alleges as follows: PARTIES 1. Plaintiff Open Network Solutions, Inc. is a company organized under the laws of the State of Delaware. The address of the corporation’s registered office in the State of Delaware is 2711 Centerville Road, Suite 400, Wilmington, DE 19808. 2. Upon information and belief and after a reasonable opportunity for further discovery, Defendant Brother Industries, Ltd. is a company organized and existing under the laws of J apan, having a principal place of business at 15-1 Naeshiro-cho, Mizuho-ku, Nagoya, Aichi 467-8561, J apan. 3. Upon information and belief and after a reasonable opportunity for further discovery, Defendant Brother International Corporation is a corporation organized and existing under the 2 laws of the State of Delaware, having a principal place of business at 200 Crossing Boulevard, Bridgewater, NJ 08807. Brother can be served with process through its agent Corporation Service Company, 2711 Centerville Road, Suite 400, Wilmington, DE 19808. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4. This is an action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., alleging infringement of the ’259 and ’476 patents. Copies of the patents are attached hereto as Exhibits A and B and are incorporated herein by reference in their entireties. 5. The Court has exclusive subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). 6. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Brother because Brother has conducted business in this District and upon information and belief has infringed, contributed to infringement of, and/or actively induced others to infringe the ’259 and ’476 patents in this District as alleged in this Complaint. Further, Brother International Corporation is a registered entity in this District as described in paragraph 2. Brother Industries, Ltd. has itself chosen to file patent infringement actions in this District in the past. See, e.g., Brother Industries, Ltd. v. Aster Graphics Inc. et al., No. 1:13-cv-00323-GMS. 7. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b), 1391(c), and/or 1400(b). PATENTS-IN-SUIT 8. The ’259 patent entitled “Open network system for I/O operation including a common gateway interface and an extended open network protocol with non-standard I/O devices utilizing device and identifier for operation to be performed with device” was duly and legally issued to inventor Richard Hiers Wagner on J une 1, 2004. See Exhibit A. 3 9. The ’476 patent entitled “Open network system and method for I/O operations with non-
standard I/O devices using an extended open network protocol” was duly and legally issued to inventor Mr. Wagner on J une 14, 2005. See Exhibit B. 10. In the early 1990s, Mr. Wagner recognized that the Internet provided a network where nontraditional devices could communicate and share information. While traditional computers (e.g., a combination of a QWERTY keyboard and display screen) had well-known language protocols in place to facilitate the exchange of information on the Internet, there was a need for the ability for nontraditional devices (e.g., those lacking both a QWERTY keyboard and display screen) to communicate on the network as well. 11. Mr. Wagner dedicated himself to inventing the language protocols necessary to open the network to all manner of intelligent electronic devices. 12. The idea was to define an architecture for pervasive peer-to-peer network connectivity of intelligent appliances, wireless devices, and PCs of all form factors that would be easy to use and flexible for connectivity to ad hoc or unmanaged networks whether in the home, a small business, public spaces, or attached to the Internet. 13. Mr. Wagner’s envisioned architecture is designed to support zero-configuration, “invisible” networking, and automatic discovery for a breadth of device categories. This means a device can dynamically join a network, obtain an IP address, convey its capabilities, and learn about the presence and capabilities of other devices. 14. Mr. Wagner’s inventions are described in the ’259 and ’476 patents (among other patents). 15. All right, title and interest to these patents was initially assigned to the company Datascape, Inc. 4 16. The ’259 and ’476 patents, and the patent family from which they are members, are battle-tested; they have been asserted against over 40 companies in patent infringement actions resulting in millions of dollars in settlements. 17. In addition, Mr. Wagner’s patents have been cited by the United States Patent Office against other applications over 1000 times and have held up against hundreds of pieces of prior art. Additionally, both the ’259 patent and ’476 patents have survived reexamination proceedings from the United States Patent Office. 18. On April 15, 2014, Datascape assigned the ’259 and ’476 patents to ONS, a wholly owned subsidiary of WiLAN, Inc. (“WiLAN”). 19. WiLAN and its wholly owned subsidiaries partner with individual inventors and small companies with limited resources and help them contend against large, unauthorized infringers such as Brother. INFRINGING GOODS/SERVICES 20. It has recently come to ONS’s attention that Defendant Brother infringes the ’259 and ’476 patents. 21. Brother manufactures, sells, offers for sale, and uses a number of mobile device printing-
capable printers (“the Brother printers”). 22. These devices fall within the scope of the ’259 and ’476 patents. 23. For example, claim 1 of the ’259 patent provides: A system for supporting communication between processing systems and non-
standard I/O (input/output) devices over an open network comprising: a server that processes extended open network statements, said server being communicatively coupled to an open network; a first non-standard I/O device communicatively coupled to said open network; and 5 a client program executing within said first non-standard I/O device for processing extended open network statements so that said first non-standard I/O device may communicate with said server. Exhibit A, ’259 patent, col. 19, ln 65 to col. 20, ln 10. 24. Similarly, claim 14 of the ’476 patent provides: A method for processing extended open network protocol statements so a non-standard I/O device may communicate with a processing system over an open network comprising: receiving extended open network protocol statements over an open network; and processing said received extended open network protocol statements to control an operation associated with a non-standard I/O device. 25. Generally, the Brother printers communicate with open networks through the use of extended open network protocol statements (e.g., the IPP protocol). 26. Given this, they fall within the scope of the claims of the ’259 and ’476 patents. COUNT I BROTHER’S PATENT INFRINGEMENT UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 271 OF THE ’259 PATENT 27. ONS incorporates by reference the allegations of paragraphs 1–26. 28. The ’259 patent was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on J une 1, 2004, after full and fair examination. A reexamination certificate issued on February 18, 2014. 29. Plaintiff is the assignee of all rights, title, and interest in and to the ’259 patent and possesses all rights of recovery under the ’259 patent. 30. Brother has directly infringed the ’259 patent at a minimum by making, using, offering to sell, and selling within the United States products and services that practice the inventions of the 6 ’259 patent, namely non-standard products that access content over the Internet, and these products/services have no substantial non-infringing uses. 31. Brother has contributorily infringed the ’259 patent and induced infringement of the ’259 patent after the filing of the complaint. 32. Brother is aware of the ’259 patent at a minimum as of the filing of this Complaint. 33. Despite knowledge of the patent and its infringement, Brother continues to manufacture, make, offer for sale, and sell goods that violate the patent. 34. In addition and upon belief, Brother encourages its customers to operate the products in an infringing manner. 35. Brother has caused and will continue to cause ONS damage by virtue of its continuing infringement. 36. ONS is entitled to recover from Brother the damages sustained by ONS as a result of Brother’s acts in an amount subject to proof at trial. 37. Upon information and belief and after an opportunity for further discovery, Brother’s infringement of the ’259 patent is willful and deliberate at a minimum starting from at least the date of this filing. COUNT II BROTHER’S PATENT INFRINGEMENT UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 271 OF THE ’476 PATENT 38. ONS incorporates by reference the allegations of paragraphs 1–37. 39. The ’476 patent was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on J une 14, 2005 after full and fair examination. The ’476 patent also survived reexamination proceedings from the United States Patent Office which ended in April 2014. 7 40. Plaintiff is the assignee of all rights, title, and interest in and to the ’476 patent and possesses all rights of recovery under the ’476 patent. 41. Brother has directly infringed the ’476 patent at a minimum by making, using, offering to sell, and selling within the United States products and services that practice the inventions of the ’476 patent, namely non-standard products that access content over the Internet, and these products/services have no substantial non-infringing uses. 42. Brother has contributorily infringed the ’476 patent and induced infringement of the ’476 patent after the filing of the complaint. 43. Brother is aware of the ’476 patent at a minimum as of the filing of this Complaint. 44. Despite knowledge of the patent and its infringement, Brother continues to manufacture, make, offer for sale, and sell goods that violate the patent. 45. In addition and upon belief, Brother encourages its customers to operate the products in an infringing manner. 46. Brother has caused and will continue to cause ONS damage by virtue of its continuing infringement. 47. ONS is entitled to recover from Brother the damages sustained by ONS as a result of Brother’s acts in an amount subject to proof at trial. 48. Upon information and belief and after an opportunity for further discovery, Brother’s infringement of the ’476 patent is willful and deliberate at a minimum starting from at least the date of this filing. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Open Network Solutions, Inc. respectfully requests that the Court enter a judgment as follows: 8 A. A judgment that Brother has directly infringed the ’259 and ’476 patents, contributorily infringed the ’259 and ’476 patents, induced infringement of the ’259 and ’476 patents, and willfully infringed the ’259 and ’476 patents; B. A judgment and order requiring Brother to pay Plaintiff damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284, including supplemental damages for any continuing post-verdict infringement up until entry of the final judgment, with an accounting, as needed, and treble damages for willful infringement as provided by 35 U.S.C. § 284; C. A judgment and order requiring Brother to pay Plaintiff pre-judgment and post-
judgment interest on the damages awarded; D. A judgment and order requiring Brother to pay Plaintiff the costs of this action (including all disbursements) and attorney’s fees as provided by 35 U.S.C. § 285; and E. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff hereby requests that all issues be determined by jury. Dated: June 11, 2014
Of Counsel: Paul A. Lesko (admission forthcoming) Sarah S. Burns (admission forthcoming) SIMMONS BROWDER GIANARIS ANGELIDES & BARNERD LLC One Court Street Alton, IL 62002 (618) 259-2222 plesko@simmonsfirm.com sburns@simmonsfirm.com /s/ David W. deBruin David W. deBruin (#4846) THE DEBRUIN FIRM LLC 405 N. King Street I Suite 440 Wilmington, DE 19801 (302) 660-2582 ddebruin@thedebruinfirm.com Attorneys for Plaintiff 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.
Open Network Solutions v. Brother Industries et. al. by PriorSmart27 viewsEmbedDownloadDescriptionOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-00729-UNA: Open Network Solutions Inc. v. Brother Industries Ltd. et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Del...Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-00729-UNA: Open Network Solutions Inc. v. Brother Industries Ltd. et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-lazd 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
RelatedOpen Network Solutions v. Lexmark Internationalby PatentBlastOpen Network Solutions Inc.by PriorSmartOpen Network Solutions v. Wincor Nixdorf International Et. Al.by PatentBlastOpen Network Solutions v. Yamaha et. al.by PriorSmartOpen Network Solutions Inc.by PriorSmartOpen Network Solutions v. HTC et. al.by PriorSmartOpen Network Solutions v. Caviumby PatentBlastOpen Network Solutions v. Xerox.pdfby PatentBlastOpen Network Solutions v. Koninklijke Philips, N.v. Et. Al.by PatentBlastOpen Network Solutions v. NCRby PriorSmartGenband v. Metaswitch Networks Et. Al.by PatentBlastConstellation Technologies v. Windstream Holdings et. al.by PriorSmartMobileMedia Ideas v. HTCby PriorSmartUnified Messaging Solutions v. Multiplyby PriorSmartAlcatel-Lucent v. Fortinetby PriorSmartIngeniador v. BMC Softwareby PriorSmartiControl Networks v. Alarm.com et. al.by PriorSmartJIPR 14(1) 7-13by Suman BalyaniNorman IP Holdings v. Chrysler Group et. al.by PriorSmartUnified Messaging Solutions v. Home Awayby PriorSmartInterMetro Industries v. Rubbermaidby PriorSmartDigital Air Technologies v. Volkswagen Group of Americaby PriorSmartVirtualAgility v. Salesforce.com Et. Al.by PatentBlastCompound Photonics v. Syndiantby PriorSmartUnified Messaging Solutions v. Bokfby PriorSmartMonolithic Power Systems v. Silergy Et. Al.by PatentBlastUnified Messaging Solutions v. EverBankby PriorSmartFrontPoint Security Sued for Patent Infringementby ghostgripSimilar to Open Network Solutions v. Brother Industries et. al.Open Network Solutions v. Lexmark InternationalOpen Network Solutions Inc.Open Network Solutions v. Wincor Nixdorf International Et. Al.Open Network Solutions v. Yamaha et. al.Open Network Solutions Inc.Open Network Solutions v. HTC et. al.Open Network Solutions v. CaviumOpen Network Solutions v. Xerox.pdfOpen Network Solutions v. Koninklijke Philips, N.v. Et. Al.Open Network Solutions v. NCRGenband v. Metaswitch Networks Et. Al.Constellation Technologies v. Windstream Holdings et. al.MobileMedia Ideas v. HTCUnified Messaging Solutions v. MultiplyAlcatel-Lucent v. FortinetIngeniador v. BMC SoftwareiControl Networks v. Alarm.com et. al.JIPR 14(1) 7-13Norman IP Holdings v. Chrysler Group et. al.Unified Messaging Solutions v. Home AwayInterMetro Industries v. RubbermaidDigital Air Technologies v. Volkswagen Group of AmericaVirtualAgility v. Salesforce.com Et. Al.Compound Photonics v. SyndiantUnified Messaging Solutions v. BokfMonolithic Power Systems v. Silergy Et. Al.Unified Messaging Solutions v. EverBankFrontPoint Security Sued for Patent InfringementMonolithic Power Systems v. Silergy et. al.Unified Messaging Solutions v. First-Citizens Bank & Trust Company