Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/118088746/Brandywine-Communications-Technologies-v-Bob-Meiger-Emerald-People-s-Utility-District-d-b-a-Eugene-Free-Community-Network
Timestamp: 2015-11-25 05:28:11
Document Index: 715136543

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271']

P. 1Brandywine Communications Technologies v. Bob Meiger Emerald People's Utility District d/b/a Eugene Free Community NetworkBrandywine Communications Technologies v. Bob Meiger Emerald People's Utility District d/b/a Eugene Free Community Network|Views: 97|Likes: 0Published by PriorSmartOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 3:12-cv-02339: Brandywine Communications Technologies, LLC v. Bob Meiger Emerald People's Utility District d/b/a Eugene Free Community Network. Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l7kL for more info.Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 3:12-cv-02339: Brandywine Communications Technologies, LLC v. Bob Meiger Emerald People's Utility District d/b/a Eugene Free Community Network. Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l7kL for more info.More info:Categories:Types, Business/Law, Court FilingsPublished by: PriorSmart on Dec 27, 2012Copyright:Public DomainAvailability:Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content|Add to collectionSee moreSee lesshttps://www.scribd.com/doc/118088746/Brandywine-Communications-Technologies-v-Bob-Meiger-Emerald-People-s-Utility-District-d-b-a-Eugene-Free-Community-Network07/29/2014pdftextoriginalBradley M. Ganz, OSB 94076 Lloyd L. Pollard II, OSB 07490 Ganz Law, P.C. P.O.Box 2200 163 SE 2nd Avenue Hillsboro, OR 97123 (503) 844-9009 Facsimile (503) 296-2172 mail@ganzlaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Brandywine Communications Technologies, LLC
BRANDYWINE COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Plaintiff, v. BOB MEIGER EMERALD PEOPLE'S UTILITY DISTRICT D/B/A EUGENE FREE COMMUNITY NETWORK, Defendant. COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Civil Action No.
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Plaintiff Brandywine Communications Technologies, LLC ("Brandywine" or "Plaintiff"), by way of Complaint against the above-named Defendant ("Eugene Free Community Network" or "Defendant"), alleges the following: _____________________________________________________________________________
the State of Delaware with a place of business at 1612 Mt. Pleasant Road, Villanova, Pennsylvania 19085. 3. Defendant Eugene Free Community Network is a corporation organized under the
laws of the State of Oregon with its principal place of business at 33733 Seavey Loop Road, Eugene, Oregon 97405. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4. This is an action for patent infringement arising under the Patent Laws of the
"Detecting Loss of Echo Cancellation" was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office to inventors William L. Betts and Robert A. Day, II (collectively the "'854 Inventors"). The '854 Patent has been duly and legally assigned to Brandywine. A copy of the '854 Patent is attached as Exhibit A. _____________________________________________________________________________
On October 5, 1993, U.S. Patent No. 5,251,328 (the "'328 Patent"), entitled
"Predistortion Technique for Communications Systems," was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office to inventor David G. Shaw (the "'328 Inventor"). The '328 Patent has been duly and legally assigned to Brandywine. A copy of the '328 Patent is attached as Exhibit B. 10. On September 22, 1998, U.S. Patent No. 5,812,537 (the "'537 Patent"), entitled
"Echo Canceling Method and Apparatus for Data Over Cellular," was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office to inventors William Lewis Betts, Ramon B. Hazen, and Robert Earl Scott (collectively the "'537 Inventors"). The '537 Patent has been duly and legally assigned to Brandywine. A copy of the '537 Patent is attached as Exhibit C. 11. On October 27, 1998, U.S. Patent No. 5,828,657 (the "'657 Patent"), entitled ''Half
"Method and Apparatus For Automatic Selection and Operation of a Subscriber Line Spectrum Class Technology," was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office to inventors Gordon Bremer and Phillip J. Kyees (collectively the "'501 Inventors"). The '501 Patent has been duly and legally assigned to Brandywine. A copy of the '501 Patent is attached as Exhibit E. 13. On February 22, 2011, U.S. Patent No. 7,894,472 (the "'472 Patent"), entitled
"Method and Apparatus For Automatic Selection and Operation of a Subscriber Line Spectrum _____________________________________________________________________________
Class Technology," was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office to inventors Gordon Bremer and Phillip J. Kyees (collectively the "'472 Inventors"). The '472 Patent has been duly and legally assigned to Brandywine. A copy of the '472 Patent is attached as Exhibit F. 14. On December 10, 2012, Brandywine sent a letter to Defendant notifying
Defendant that it has been infringing the '854, '328, '537, '657, '501, and '472 Patents through the operation of its Digital Subscriber Line (“DSL”) business. This letter was sent by certified mail with return receipt requested. Upon information and belief, Defendant has received the letter. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,206,854 (35 U.S.C. § 271) 15. The allegations set forth in the foregoing paragraphs 1 through 14 are hereby re-
alleged and incorporated herein by reference. 16. Upon information and belief, Defendant has infringed one or more claims of the
'854 Patent in this judicial district and elsewhere by making, using, selling, and/or offering for sale services, products, or both, that infringe and/or perform processes that infringe one or more claims of the '854 Patent ("Accused Services and Products for the '854 Patent"). 17. Upon information and belief, Defendant's Accused Services and Products for the
that patent since at least the time it received Brandywine’s December 10, 2012, notice of infringement letter. 19. damages. _____________________________________________________________________________
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,251,328 (35 U.S.C. § 271) 20. The allegations set forth in the foregoing paragraphs 1 through 19 are hereby re-
alleged and incorporated herein by reference. 21. Upon information and belief, Defendant has infringed one or more claims of the
'328 Patent in this judicial district and elsewhere by making, using, selling, and/or offering for sale services, products, or both, that infringe and/or perform processes that infringe one or more claims of the '328 Patent ("Accused Services and Products for the '328 Patent"). 22. Upon information and belief, Defendant's Accused Services and Products for the
that patent since at least the time it received Brandywine’s December 10, 2012, notice of infringement letter. 24. damages. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,812,537 (35 U.S.C. § 271) 25. The allegations set forth in the foregoing paragraphs 1 through 24 are hereby reBecause of Defendant's infringement of the '328 Patent, Brandywine has suffered
alleged and incorporated herein by reference. 26. Upon information and belief, Defendant has infringed and continues to infringe
one or more claims of the '537 Patent in this judicial district and elsewhere by making, using, selling, and/or offering for sale services, products, or both, that infringe and/or perform processes
that infringe one or more claims of the '537 Patent ("Accused Services and Products for the '537 Patent"). 27. Upon information and belief, Defendant's Accused Services and Products for the
that patent since at least the time it received Brandywine’s December 10, 2012, notice of infringement letter. 29. Upon information and belief, since at least the time it received Brandywine’s
December 10, 2012, notice letter, Defendant has committed and continues to commit acts of contributory infringement of the '537 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) by providing products, including the Accused Services and Products to others, including but not limited to its customers and partners, knowing or willfully blind to the fact that that these products constitute a material part of the invention, were especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of the '537 Patent, and have no substantial non-infringing uses. 30. In particular, the Accused Services and Products include DSL modems, which
constitute an especially adapted component to receive Defendant's DSL service. These modems are used by Defendant's partners and customers to perform all of the steps recited in one claim of the '537 Patent. These modems have no substantial non-infringing uses at least because they contain components whose only purpose is to practice the claimed method of providing the infringing DSL service. The use of these modems by Defendant's partners and customers constitutes direct infringement of at least one claim of the '537 Patent. Defendant has known or remained willfully blind to these facts since at least the date it received the notice letter from Brandywine notifying Defendant that such activities infringed the '537 Patent. _____________________________________________________________________________
December 10, 2012, notice letter, Defendant has induced and continues to induce others to infringe at least one claim of the '537 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) by, among other things, and with specific intent or willful blindness, actively aiding and abetting others to infringe, including but not limited to Defendant's partners and customers, whose use of the Accused Services and Products constitutes direct infringement of at least one claim of the '537 Patent. 32. In particular, Defendant's actions that aid and abet others such as its partners and
to infringe the '537 Patent. On information and belief, Defendant's infringement has been and continues to be willful. 34. Brandywine has been harmed by Defendant's infringing activities. FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,828,657 (35 U.S.C. § 271) 35. The allegations set forth in the foregoing paragraphs 1 through 34 are hereby re-
alleged and incorporated herein by reference.
constitute an especially adapted component to receive Defendant's DSL service. These modems are used by Defendant's partners and customers to perform all of the steps recited in one claim of the '657 Patent. These modems have no substantial non-infringing uses at least because they contain components whose only purpose is to practice the claimed method of providing the infringing DSL service. The use of these modems by Defendant's partners and customers _____________________________________________________________________________
constitutes direct infringement of at least one claim of the '657 Patent. Defendant has known or remained willfully blind to these facts since at least the date it received the notice letter from Brandywine notifying Defendant that such activities infringed the '657 Patent. 41. Upon information and belief, since at least the time it received Brandywine’s
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,970,501 (35 U.S.C. § 271) 45. The allegations set forth in the foregoing paragraphs 1 through 44 are hereby re-
alleged and incorporated herein by reference. 46. Upon information and belief, Defendant has infringed and continues to infringe
that patent since at least the time it received Brandywine’s December 10, 2012, notice of infringement letter. 49. Upon information and belief, since at least the time it received Brandywine’s
December 10, 2012, notice letter, Defendant has induced and continues to induce others to infringe at least one claim of the '501 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) by, among other things, and with specific intent or willful blindness, actively aiding and abetting others to infringe, including but not limited to Defendant's partners and customers, whose use of the Accused Services and Products constitutes direct infringement of at least one claim of the '501 Patent. 50. In particular, Defendant's actions that aid and abet others such as its partners and
and Products. On information and belief, Defendant has engaged in such actions with specific intent to cause infringement or with willful blindness to the resulting infringement because Defendant has had actual knowledge of the '501 Patent and that its acts were inducing its customers to infringe the '501 Patent since at least the date it received the notice letter from Brandywine notifying Defendant that such activities infringed the '501 Patent. 51. Despite Brandywine’s notice regarding the '501 Patent, Defendant has continued
to infringe the '501 Patent. On information and belief, Defendant's infringement has been and continues to be willful. 52. Brandywine has been harmed by Defendant's infringing activities. SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,894,472 (35 U.S.C. § 271) 53. The allegations set forth in the foregoing paragraphs 1 through 52 are hereby re-
alleged and incorporated herein by reference. 54. Upon information and belief, Defendant has infringed and continues to infringe
that patent since at least the time it received Brandywine’s December 10, 2012, notice of infringement letter. _____________________________________________________________________________
December 10, 2012, notice letter, Defendant has induced and continues to induce others to infringe at least one claim of the '472 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) by, among other things, and with specific intent or willful blindness, actively aiding and abetting others to infringe, including but not limited to Defendant's partners and customers, whose use of the Accused Services and Products constitutes direct infringement of at least one claim of the '472 Patent. 58. In particular, Defendant's actions that aid and abet others such as its partners and
to infringe the '472 Patent. On information and belief, Defendant's infringement has been and continues to be willful. 60. Brandywine has been harmed by Defendant's infringing activities. JURY DEMAND Brandywine demands a trial by jury on all issues triable as such. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Brandywine respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment for Brandywine and against Defendant as follows: _____________________________________________________________________________
a. '472 Patents; b.
An adjudication that Defendant has infringed the '854, '328, '537, '657, '501, and
/s/ Lloyd L. Pollard II Lloyd L. Pollard, II, OSB 07490 Ganz Law, P.C. 163 SE 2nd Avenue Hillsboro, Oregon 97123 (503) 844-9009 mail@ganzlaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Brandywine Communications Technologies, LLC
RecommendedBrandywine Communications Technologies v. Nextgen Internet Systems, Inc.PatentBlastBrandywine Communications Technologies v. Cactus International, Inc. D/B/A Cactus Computer & Internet ServicePriorSmartOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-00641-...Brandywine Communications Technologies v. Graydog InternetPriorSmartOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 3:12-cv-02332:...Brandywine Communications Technologies v. NunetPriorSmartOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 5:12-cv-07225-...Brandywine Communications Technologies v. InReach InternetPriorSmartOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. None: Brandywi...Brandywine Communications Technologies v. DLS Computer Services, Inc. D/B/A DLS Internet ServicesPriorSmartOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-10317:...Brandywine Communications Technologies v. Nova Internet ServicesPriorSmartOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 6:12-cv-01007:...Brandywine Communications Technologies v. LinkLine CommunicationsPatentBlastBrandywine Communications Technologies v. Trinet-E TelecommunicationsPriorSmartOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-01314-...Brandywine Communications Technologies v. PEAK InternetPriorSmartOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 3:12-cv-02335:...Brandywine Communications Technologies LLCPriorSmartOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-01767-...Brandywine Communications Technologies v. HyperUSAPriorSmartOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 6:12-cv-01005:...Brandywine Communications Technologies v. DLS Computer Services, Inc.PatentBlastBrandywine Communications Technologies v. GetnetPatentBlastBrandywine Communications Technologies LLCPriorSmartOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-01766-...Brandywine Communications Technologies v. WindstreamPatentBlastBrandywine Communications Technologies LLCPriorSmartOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-01768-...Brandywine Communications Technologies v. Interlync Internet ServicesPriorSmartOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-10319:...Brandywine Communications Technologies LLCPriorSmartOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-01769-...Brandywine Communications Technologies v. Consolidated Communications HoldingsPriorSmartOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-01784-...Brandywine Communications Technologies v. TMNPatentBlastBrandywine Communications Technologies v. BTC CommunicationsPriorSmartOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 2:12-cv-00215-...Brandywine Communications Technologies v. GetnetPriorSmartOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. None: Brandywi...Brandywine Communications Technologies v. Other World ComputingPriorSmartOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-10321:...Brandywine Communications Technologies v. InfowestPriorSmartOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 2:12-cv-01213-...Brandywine Communications Technologies v. InReach InternetPatentBlastBrandywine Communications Technologies v. Stayton Cooperative Telephone CompanyPatentBlastBrandywine Communications Technologies v. PEAK InternetPatentBlastBrandywine Communications Technologies v. Stayton Cooperative Telephone CompanyPriorSmartOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 3:12-cv-02336:...Brandywine Communications Technologies v. David L. Aldridge CompanyPriorSmartOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 6:12-cv-01003:...Previous|NextPage 1 of 8Similar to Brandywine Communications Technologies v. Bob Meiger Emerald People...Brandywine Communications Technologies v. Nextgen Internet Systems, Inc.PatentBlastBrandywine Communications Technologies v. Nextgen Internet Systems, Inc.Brandywine Communications Technologies v. Cactus International, Inc. D/B/A Cactus Computer & Internet ServicePriorSmartBrandywine Communications Technologies v. Cactus International, Inc. D/B/A Cactus Computer & Internet ServiceBrandywine Communications Technologies v. Graydog InternetPriorSmartBrandywine Communications Technologies v. Graydog InternetBrandywine Communications Technologies v. NunetPriorSmartBrandywine Communications Technologies v. NunetBrandywine Communications Technologies v. InReach InternetPriorSmartBrandywine Communications Technologies v. InReach InternetBrandywine Communications Technologies v. DLS Computer Services, Inc. D/B/A DLS Internet ServicesPriorSmartBrandywine Communications Technologies v. DLS Computer Services, Inc. D/B/A DLS Internet ServicesBrandywine Communications Technologies v. Nova Internet ServicesPriorSmartBrandywine Communications Technologies v. Nova Internet ServicesBrandywine Communications Technologies v. LinkLine CommunicationsPatentBlastBrandywine Communications Technologies v. LinkLine CommunicationsBrandywine Communications Technologies v. Trinet-E TelecommunicationsPriorSmartBrandywine Communications Technologies v. Trinet-E TelecommunicationsBrandywine Communications Technologies v. PEAK InternetPriorSmartBrandywine Communications Technologies v. PEAK InternetBrandywine Communications Technologies LLCPriorSmartBrandywine Communications Technologies LLCBrandywine Communications Technologies v. HyperUSAPriorSmartBrandywine Communications Technologies v. HyperUSABrandywine Communications Technologies v. DLS Computer Services, Inc.PatentBlastBrandywine Communications Technologies v. DLS Computer Services, Inc.Brandywine Communications Technologies v. GetnetPatentBlastBrandywine Communications Technologies v. GetnetBrandywine Communications Technologies LLCPriorSmartBrandywine Communications Technologies LLCBrandywine Communications Technologies v. WindstreamPatentBlastBrandywine Communications Technologies v. WindstreamBrandywine Communications Technologies LLCPriorSmartBrandywine Communications Technologies LLCBrandywine Communications Technologies v. Interlync Internet ServicesPriorSmartBrandywine Communications Technologies v. Interlync Internet ServicesBrandywine Communications Technologies LLCPriorSmartBrandywine Communications Technologies LLCBrandywine Communications Technologies v. Consolidated Communications HoldingsPriorSmartBrandywine Communications Technologies v. Consolidated Communications HoldingsBrandywine Communications Technologies v. TMNPatentBlastBrandywine Communications Technologies v. TMNBrandywine Communications Technologies v. BTC CommunicationsPriorSmartBrandywine Communications Technologies v. BTC CommunicationsBrandywine Communications Technologies v. GetnetPriorSmartBrandywine Communications Technologies v. GetnetBrandywine Communications Technologies v. Other World ComputingPriorSmartBrandywine Communications Technologies v. Other World ComputingBrandywine Communications Technologies v. InfowestPriorSmartBrandywine Communications Technologies v. InfowestBrandywine Communications Technologies v. InReach InternetPatentBlastBrandywine Communications Technologies v. InReach InternetBrandywine Communications Technologies v. Stayton Cooperative Telephone CompanyPatentBlastBrandywine Communications Technologies v. Stayton Cooperative Telephone CompanyBrandywine Communications Technologies v. PEAK InternetPatentBlastBrandywine Communications Technologies v. PEAK InternetBrandywine Communications Technologies v. Stayton Cooperative Telephone CompanyPriorSmartBrandywine Communications Technologies v. Stayton Cooperative Telephone CompanyBrandywine Communications Technologies v. David L. Aldridge CompanyPriorSmartBrandywine Communications Technologies v. David L. Aldridge Company