Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/129313766/ArrivalStar-et-al-v-Joseph-Smith-Customs-House-Broker
Timestamp: 2017-07-21 23:16:48
Document Index: 315277018

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1338', '§ 271', '§ 48', '§ 1391', '§ 1400', '§ 271', '§ 284', '§ 285', '§ 271', '§ 284', '§ 285']

ArrivalStar et. al. v. Joseph Smith Customs House Broker | Reexamination | Patent Infringement
ArrivalStar et. al. v. Joseph Smith Customs House BrokerUploaded by PriorSmartRelated InterestsReexaminationPatent InfringementLawsuitPatentInjunctionRating and Stats0.0 (0)Document ActionsDownloadShare or Embed DocumentEmbedDescription: Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-20815-CMA: ArrivalStar S.A. et. al. v. Joseph Smith Customs House Broker, Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern D...View MoreOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-20815-CMA: ArrivalStar S.A. et. al. v. Joseph Smith Customs House Broker, Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, the Hon. Cecilia M. Altonaga presiding. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l7Mp for more info.Copyright: Public DomainDownload as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION Case No._________ ARRIVALSTAR S.A. and MELVINO TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, Plaintiffs, vs. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL JOSEPH SMITH CUSTOMS HOUSE BROKER, INC., d/b/a JOSEPH SMITH INTERNATIONAL LOGISTICS, Defendant. ________________________________/ COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Plaintiffs, ArrivalStar S.A. and Melvino Technologies Limited (collectively “Plaintiffs”), by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby sue JOSEPH SMITH CUSTOMS HOUSE BROKER, INC., d/b/a JOSEPH SMITH INTERNATIONAL LOGISTICS (“JS”), for patent infringement, and in support, allege as follows: NATURE OF THE LAWSUIT 1. This is an action for patent infringement of United States Patent Numbers:
§ 1338; and 35 U.S.C. § 271.
This Court has personal jurisdiction over JS pursuant to, inter alia, Florida’s long-
arm statute, § 48.193, in that, upon information and belief, JS: (a) operates, conducts, engages in, and/or carries on a business or business adventure(s) in Florida and/or has an office or agency in Florida; (b) has committed one or more tortious acts within Florida; (c) was and/or is engaged in substantial and not isolated activity within Florida; and/or (d) has purposely availed itself of Florida’s laws, services and/or other benefits and therefore should reasonably anticipate being hailed into one or more of the courts within the State of Florida. 4. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 and 28 U.S.C. § 1400. THE PLAINTIFFS 5. ArrivalStar S.A. is a corporation organized under the laws of Luxembourg, having
British Virgin Islands of Tortola, having offices located at P.O. Box 3174, Palm Chambers, 197 Main Street, Road Town, Tortola, British Virgin Islands. Melvino owns all rights, title and interests in the patents alleged as being infringed in this lawsuit. THE DEFENDANT 7. Defendant JS is a New York Corporation with a principal place of business
located at 210 East Sunrise Highway, Valley Stream, New York, 11581. Upon information and belief, JS transacts business and has, at a minimum, offered to provide and/or has provided to customers within this Judicial District and throughout the State of Florida services and/or products that infringe claims of the ‘359, ‘801, ‘859, ‘645, ‘781 and ‘970 patents.
THE PLAINTIFFS’ PATENTS 8. Plaintiffs own all right, title and interest in, and/or have standing to sue for
infringement of United States Patent Number 6,714,859 (“the ‘859 patent”), entitled “System and Method for an Advance Notification System for Monitoring and Reporting Proximity of a Vehicle”, issued March 30, 2004. A copy of the ‘859 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. 9. Plaintiffs own all right, title and interest in, and/or have standing to sue for
infringement of United States Patent Number 6,904,359 (“the ‘359 patent”), entitled “Notification System and Methods with User-Defineable Notifications Based Upon Occurrence of Events”, issued June 7, 2005. A copy of the ‘359 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 5.
infringement of United States Patent Number 6,486,801 (“the ‘801 patent”), entitled “Base Station Apparatus and Method for Monitoring Travel of a Mobile Vehicle”, issued November 26, 2002. A copy of the ‘801 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 6. 14. The ‘359 patent referenced in Paragraph 12 above was the subject of an Inter
set forth herein. 16. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), JS has directly infringed claims of the ‘359, ‘801,
‘859, ‘645, ‘781 and ‘970 patents through, among other activities, the commercial manufacture, sale, offer for sale, and/or use of its "Shipment Tracing" and “Electronic Notification System" functions, applications, solutions, devices, programs, products, services, methods and/or systems which utilize tracking and messaging technologies enabling JS to "trigger [and send] an automated email or fax message based on important shipment occurrences as defined by JS'S individual clients" 1 that are protected within the ‘359, ‘801, ‘859, ‘645, ‘781 and ‘970 patents, as every claim limitation, or its equivalent, is found in these functions, applications, solutions, devices, programs, products, services, methods and/or systems.
Electronic Notification System triggers an automated email or fax message based on important shipment occurrences as defined by our
individual clients. For example, an importer can obtain an email message whenever a shipment arrives or clears – or receive automatic POD information or copies of US Customs duty bills as they are generated. These messages can be customized to include your proprietary shipment or order numbers, your supplier reference numbers, or both. We also use this system to automatically dispatch cargo the moment it becomes available day or night - to ensure that your shipments never remain motionless." http://www.jsmithco.com/it/event.html
JS'S direct infringement has injured and will continue to injure Plaintiffs unless
and until a monetary judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiffs and/or the Court enters an injunction prohibiting further infringement and, specifically, enjoining further use of methods and systems that come within the scope of the ‘359, ‘801, ‘859, ‘645, ‘781 and ‘970 patents. REQUEST FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully ask this Court to enter judgment against JS and its subsidiaries, affiliates, agents, servants, employees and all persons in active concert or participation with JS, granting the following relief: A. An award of damages against JS adequate to compensate Plaintiffs for the
infringement that has occurred with respect to JS, together with prejudgment interest from the date that JS'S infringement of the patents at issue began; B. C. Increased damages as permitted pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284; A finding that this case is exceptional and award to Plaintiffs their attorneys’ fees
and costs as provided by 35 U.S.C. § 285; D. at issue; and, E. All other relief as the Court or a jury may deem proper and just in this instance. COUNT II INDIRECT PATENT INFRINGEMENT 18. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate Paragraphs 1 through 17 set forth above as if fully A permanent injunction against JS prohibiting further infringement of the patents
set forth herein. 19. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 271(b) and (c), JS has indirectly infringed claims of the
‘359, ‘801, ‘859, ‘645, ‘781 and ‘970 patents through, among other activities, the commercial manufacture, sale, offer for sale and/or use of its "Shipment Tracing" and “Electronic
Notification System" functions, applications, solutions, devices, programs, products, services, methods and/or systems which utilize tracking and messaging technologies enabling JS to "trigger [and send] an automated email or fax message based on important shipment occurrences as defined by JS'S individual clients" 2 that are protected within the ‘359, ‘801, ‘859, ‘645, ‘781 and ‘970 patents, as JS actively and intentionally induced infringement with knowledge that the induced acts constituted infringement, or acted with willful blindness; and/or contributed to infringement by one or more third parties as JS had knowledge, rather than intent, that its activity caused such infringement. 20. JS'S contributory infringement and/or inducement to infringe has injured and will
continue to injure Plaintiffs unless and until a monetary judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiffs and/or the Court enters an injunction prohibiting further infringement and, specifically, enjoining further use of methods and systems that come within the scope of the ‘359, ‘801, ‘859, ‘645, ‘781 and ‘970 patents. REQUEST FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully ask this Court to enter judgment against JS and its subsidiaries, affiliates, agents, servants, employees and all persons in active concert or participation with JS, granting the following relief: A. An award of damages against JS adequate to compensate Plaintiffs for the
infringement that has occurred with respect to JS, together with prejudgment interest from the date that JS'S infringement of the patents at issue began;
Increased damages as permitted pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284; A finding that this case is exceptional and award to Plaintiffs their attorneys’ fees
and costs as provided by 35 U.S.C. § 285; D. at issue; and, E. All other relief as the Court or a jury may deem proper and just in this instance. JURY DEMAND Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable. A permanent injunction against JS prohibiting further infringement of the patents
/s/ William R. McMahon William R. McMahon, Esquire Florida Bar Number: 39044 McMahon Law Firm, LLC 21070 Sweetwater Lane North Boca Raton, Florida 33428 Telephone: 561-470-7604 Facsimile: 561-807-5900 Email: bill@mlfllc.com Counsel for Plaintiffs
Recommended DocumentsDocuments Similar To ArrivalStar et. al. v. Joseph Smith Customs House BrokerSkip carouselArrivalStar et. al. v. Echo Global LogisticsArrivalStar et. al. v. uShipArrivalStar et. al. v. Nexus DistributionArrivalStar et. al. v. TtsArrivalStar et. al. v. Aramex InternationalArrivalStar et. al. v. LaserShipArrivalStar et. al. v. Sierra Data SystemsArrivalStar et. al. v. Megatrux TransportationArrivalStar et. al. v. BurtonArrivalStar et. al. v. Ortec InternationalArrivalStar et. al. v. Vehicle Tracking SolutionsArrivalStar et. al. v. FlightViewArrivalStar et. al. v. Armani ExchangeArrivalStar et. al. v. VSSODArrivalStar et. al. v. Open MileArrivalStar et. al. v. Custom Global LogisticsArrivalStar et. al. v. K & N EngineeringArrivalStar Et. Al. v. Starbucks Coffee CompanyArrivalStar Et. Al. v. Benjamin MooreUnited States v. Esnault-Pelterie, 299 U.S. 201 (1936)Millennium Marking Company et. al. v. Stamp-Connection.comMosaid Technologies v. Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications et. al.Wilson Elecs. v. CellPhone-Mate - ComplaintCellular Communications Equipment v. MicrosoftKlausner Technologies v. CallWaveKlausner Technologies v. Accessline CommunicationsKlausner Technologies v. Smoothstone IP CommunicationsKlausner Technologies v. FonalityCreateAds v. Endurance International Group Holdings et. al.Lamina Packaging Innovations v. Maisons Marques & Domaines et. al.Documents About ReexaminationSkip carouselGPS Industries v. DSG Tag Systems et. al.Landmark Technology v. Louis Vuitton North AmericaHVAC Modulation Technologies v. Goodman GlobalScalar v. ZarbecoLunarEye v. Gps InsightImplicit v. F5 NetworksDigiMedia Holdings Group v. Tomlinson-Leis CommunicationsJapanese Foundation For Cancer Research v. Rea et. al.Washington Research Foundation v. Sharp et. al.13-11-20 Samsung Statement of Recent Decision Re. '915 PatentEMG Technology v. ExpediaGPS Industries v. Deca InternationalInteplast Group v. Primex PlasticsLandmark Technology v. Abercrombie & Fitch CompanyLandmark Technology v. Jones GroupEMG Technology v. MastercardNeoMedia Technologies v. Dunkin' Brands Group13-04-16 Apple Declaration Regarding Patent ReexaminationsPresident and Fellows of Harvard College et. al. v. Kappos et. al.13-04-02 Apple Response Re '381 Patent 'Final' RejectionDigiMedia Holdings Group v. Access.1 CommunicationsJAB Distributors v. STS Linens et. al.Thermo-Ply v. Ohio Willow Wood Company et. al.Rein v. US Patent & Trademark Office, 553 F.3d 353, 4th Cir. (2009)Scalar v. Micro WorldSRI International v. Cisco SystemsGrafTech International Holdings v. Research In Motion et. al.NeoMedia Technologies v. Taco BellHelferich Patent Licensing v. CBSCassidian Communications v. microDATA GISMore From PriorSmartSkip carouselLike 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.Mcs Industries v. Hds TradingDok Solution v. FKA Distributung et. al.GRQ Investment Management v. Financial Engines et. al.Merck Sharp & Dohme v. Fresenius KabiMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Konami Digital Entertainment