Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/117900893/Trans-Video-Electronics-v-Netflix
Timestamp: 2016-12-09 02:01:57
Document Index: 165787965

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§ 1391', '§ 284', '§ 284', '§ 284', '§ 283']

BrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksArticlesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE TRANS VIDEO ELECTRONICS, LTD., Plaintiff, v.NETFLIX, INC., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Plaintiff Trans Video Electronics, Ltd. (“Plaintiff” or “TVE”), by and through its undersigned counsel, files this Complaint for patent infringement against Defendant Netflix, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Netflix”) as follows: NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. This is a patent infringement action to stop Defendant’s infringement of
Plaintiff’s United States Patent No. 5,594,936 entitled “Global Digital Video News Distribution System” (hereinafter, the “’936 patent”) and United States Patent No. 5,991,801 entitled “Global Digital Video News Distribution System” (hereinafter, the “’801 patent”) (collectively referred to as the “Patents-in-Suit”). Copies of the Patents-in-Suit are attached hereto as Exhibits A and B respectively. Plaintiff is the owner of the Patents-in-Suit with respect to the Defendant. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages.
PARTIES 2. TVE is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of
Indiana, and maintains its principal place of business at 4115 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 208, Washington, DC 20016. 3. Plaintiff is the owner of the Patents-in-Suit with respect to the Defendant, and
possesses all rights thereto, including the exclusive right to exclude the Defendant from making, using, selling, offering to sell or importing in this district and elsewhere into the United States the patented invention(s) of the Patents-in-Suit, the right to sublicense the Patents-in-Suit, and to sue the Defendant for infringement and recover past damages. 4. Upon information and belief, Defendant is a corporation duly organized and
existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, having its principal place of business located at 100 Winchester Circle, Los Gatos, California, 95032. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. This action arises under the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et
minimum contacts within the State of Delaware and in the District of Delaware; Defendant has purposefully availed itself of the privileges of conducting business in the State of Delaware and in the District of Delaware; Defendant has sought protection and benefit from the laws of the State of Delaware; Defendant regularly conducts business within the State of Delaware and within the District of Delaware, and Plaintiff’s causes of action arise directly from Defendant’s business contacts and other activities in the State of Delaware and in the District of Delaware.
More specifically, Defendant, directly and/or through its intermediaries, ships,
distributes, offers for sale, sells, and/or advertises (including the provision of an interactive web page) its products and services in the United States, the State of Delaware, and the District of Delaware. Upon information and belief, Defendant and/or its customers have committed patent infringement in the State of Delaware and in the District of Delaware, and/or has intentionally induced others to commit patent infringement in the State of Delaware and in the District of Delaware. Defendant solicits customers in the State of Delaware and in the District of Delaware. Defendant has many paying customers who are residents of the State of Delaware and the District of Delaware and who use Defendant’s products and services in the State of Delaware and in the District of Delaware. 8. 1400(b). COUNT I: INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,594,936 9. 10. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each of Paragraph 1-8 above. The ‘936 patent was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Venue is proper in the District of Delaware pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and
Trademark Office on January 14, 1997 after full and fair examination. Plaintiff is the owner under the ‘936 patent with respect to Defendant, and possesses all right, title and interest in the ‘936 patent including the right to enforce the ‘936 patent, and the right to sue Defendant for infringement and recover past damages. 11. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant infringes the ’936 patent either
literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. Upon information and belief, Defendant has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the ’936 patent by making, using, and providing a method for distributing information to various locations in a digital network; said
communications through its on-demand video service, in this district and elsewhere in the United States through its website, www.netflix.com, and other Internet-related services. Upon
information and belief, Defendant has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the ’936 patent by making, using, and providing an information distribution system for a network, consisting of master communications means, distribution amplifiers, communications unit groups, and a master controller means, through its on-demand video service, in this district and elsewhere in the United States through its website and other Internet-related services. 12. Upon information and belief, Defendant has intentionally induced and continues
to induce infringement of one or more claims of the ’936 patent in this district and elsewhere in the United States, by its intentional acts which have successfully, among other things, encouraged, instructed, enabled and otherwise caused its customers to use a method for distributing information to various locations in a digital network, said method having been provided by Defendant to its customers for the primary purpose of causing infringing acts by said customers. Defendant has had knowledge of the ’936 patent as of July 1, 2011, and, upon information and belief, continues to encourage, instruct, enable and otherwise cause its customers to use its products in a manner which infringes the ’936 patent. Upon information and belief, Defendant has specifically intended that its customers use the accused products in such a way that infringes the ‘936 patent by, at a minimum, providing instructions to its customers on how to use the accused product in such a way that infringes the ’936 patent and knew that its actions, including but not limited to providing such instructions, would induce, have induced, and will continue to induce infringement by its customers.
4 13. Plaintiff. 14.
as a result of Defendant’s wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial, which, by law, cannot be less than a reasonable royalty, together with interest and costs as fixed by this Court under 35 U.S.C. § 284. 15. Defendant’s infringement of Plaintiff’s rights under the ‘936 patent will continue
to damage Plaintiff, causing irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law, unless enjoined by this Court. COUNT II: INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,991,801 16. 17. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each of Paragraph 1-15 above. The ‘801 patent was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and
Trademark Office on November 23, 1999 after full and fair examination. Plaintiff is the owner under the ‘801 patent with respect to Defendant, and possesses all right, title and interest in the ‘801 patent including the right to enforce the ‘801 patent, and the right to sue Defendant for infringement and recover past damages. 18. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant infringes the ’801 patent either
literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. Upon information and belief, Defendant has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the ’801 patent by making, using, and providing an information distribution system for a network, consisting of digital storing units, communications unit groups, and a menu storing unit, through its on-demand video service, in this district and elsewhere in the United States through its website, www.netflix.com, and other Internet-related services.
5 19. Plaintiff. 20.
as a result of Defendant’s wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial, which, by law, cannot be less than a reasonable royalty, together with interest and costs as fixed by this Court under 35 U.S.C. § 284. 21. Defendant’s infringement of Plaintiff’s rights under the ‘801 patent will continue
to damage Plaintiff, causing irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law, unless enjoined by this Court. JURY DEMAND 22. Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues. PRAYER FOR RELIEF Plaintiff respectfully requests the following relief: A. An adjudication that one or more claims of the Patents-in-Suit have been infringed, either literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, by the Defendant; B. An adjudication that one or more claims of the Patents-in-Suit have been infringed, by customers of the Defendant, said customers having been induced to infringe by the intentional actions of the Defendant; C. An award to Plaintiff of damages adequate to compensate Plaintiff for the Defendant’s acts of infringement together with prejudgment interest pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 284;
A grant of permanent injunction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 283, enjoining the Defendant from further acts of (1) infringement and (2) actively inducing infringement with respect to the claims of the Patents-in-Suit;
Respectfully submitted this 20th day of December, 2012. STAMOULIS & WEINBLATT LLC /s/ Stamatios Stamoulis________ 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 Douglas L. Bridges Pro Hac Vice Application to be Filed HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC 169 Dauphin Street, Suite 100 Mobile, Alabama 36602 Telephone: (251) 298-8701 Facsimile: (205) 326-3332 E-mail: dbridges@hgdlawfirm.com Jacqueline K. Burt Pro Hac Vice Application to be Filed HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC 3621 Vinings Slope, Suite 4320 Atlanta, Georgia 30339 Telephone: (404) 996-0861 Facsimile: (205) 547-5502 Email: jburt@hgdlawfirm.com
7 Dara T. Jeffries Pro Hac Vice Application to be Filed HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC 3621 Vinings Slope, Suite 4320 Atlanta, Georgia 30339 Telephone: (404) 996-0867 Facsimile: (205) 547-5515 Email: djeffries@hgdlawfirm.com Jonathan R. Miller Pro Hac Vice Application to be Filed HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC 3621 Vinings Slope, Suite 4320 Atlanta, Georgia 30339 Telephone: (404) 996-0863 Facsimile: (205) 547-5506 Email: jmiller@hgdlawfirm.com Joseph C. Gabaeff Pro Hac Vice Application to be Filed HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC 9800 D Topanga Canyon Boulevard, #347 Chatsworth, CA 91311 Telephone: (205) 326-3336 Facsimile: (205) 326-3332 Email: jgabaeff@hgdlawfirm.com Timothy C. Davis Pro Hac Vice Application to be Filed HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC 2224 1st Avenue North Birmingham, Alabama 35203 Telephone: (205) 326-3336 Facsimile: (205) 326-3332 Email: tdavis@hgdlawfirm.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Trans Video Electronics, Ltd.
8 More From This UserMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Samsung Electronics Et. AlMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Nintendo of America Et. AlMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Cantor Fitzgerald Et. AlMultiplayer Network Innovations v. ZTE Et. AlMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Toshiba AmericaMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Pantech Et. AlMultiplayer Network Innovations v. NVIDIAActifio v. DelphixRTC Industries v. Flextronics InternationalTactical Medical Solutions v. Karl Et. AlPrometheus Laboratories v. Par Pharmaceutical Companies Et. AlAndrea Electronics v. Lenovo Group Et. Al.Andrea Electronics v. Toshiba Et. Al.Property Disclosure Technologies v. TruliaGlobal Tel*Link v. Securus Technologies et. al.Century Board v. National Registered AgentsIatric Systems v. FairWarningHologram Et. Al. v. Arena3D Industrial Illusion Et. Al.Tech-ni-Fold v. F.P. Rosback CompanyRTC Industries v. ZiveloMotobatt v. Deltran OperationsImpax Laboratories Et. Al. v. Lannett Holdings Et. Al.Alkermes Pharma Ireland v. Sun Pharma Global FZE Et. Al.Unimed Pharmaceuticals Et. Al. v. Perrigo Company Et. Al.Sensus v. Certified Measurement
Trans Video Electronics v. Netflix by PatentBlast12 viewsEmbedDownloadRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentMore informationShow less
RelatedTrans Video Electronics Ltd.by PriorSmartTrans Video Electronics v. Time Warner Cableby PatentBlastTrans Video Electronics v. Vuduby PriorSmartFlashPoint Technology v. HTC Et. Al.by PatentBlastTrans Video Electronics v. Amazon.comby PriorSmartSportBrain Holdings v. Fitbugby PatentBlastAeritas v. American Airlinesby PatentBlastInMotion Imagery Technologies v. Notorious Productions et. al.by PriorSmartSurpass Tech Innovation v. LG Display Et. Al.by PatentBlastMillenium Biologix v. Baxter Healthcare Et. Al.by PatentBlastFlashPoint Technology v. HTC et. al.by PriorSmarte.Digital v. C-One Technology et. al.by PriorSmartTechnology Properties v. Kingston Technologyby PriorSmartInvue Security Products v. Langhong Technology Et. Al.by PatentBlastJoao Control & Monitoring Systems v. Protect Americaby PriorSmartHarcol Research v. Muscle Sports Products, LLC d/b/a Muscle Sports Internationalby PatentBlaste.Digital v. Diasonic Technology et. al.by PriorSmartWisconsin Alumni Research Foundation v. WH Nutritionalsby PriorSmartSportBrain v. Adidas Americaby PriorSmartCronos Technologies v. Expediaby PatentBlastJoao Control & Monitoring Systems LLCby PriorSmartSorkin et. al. v. VStructural et. al.by PriorSmartLamina Packaging Innovations v. Hasbroby PriorSmartHarcol Research v. Vitacost.comby PriorSmartTransVideo Electronics v. Huluby PatentBlastCronos Technologies LLCby PriorSmartEZ Products of South Florida v. Fifty/Fifty Group et. al.by PriorSmartRichmond v. Quanzhou Bright Solar Energy Et. Al.by PatentBlastSimilar to Trans Video Electronics v. NetflixTrans Video Electronics Ltd.Trans Video Electronics v. Time Warner CableTrans Video Electronics v. VuduFlashPoint Technology v. HTC Et. Al.Trans Video Electronics v. Amazon.comSportBrain Holdings v. FitbugAeritas v. American AirlinesInMotion Imagery Technologies v. Notorious Productions et. al.Surpass Tech Innovation v. LG Display Et. Al.Millenium Biologix v. Baxter Healthcare Et. Al.FlashPoint Technology v. HTC et. al.e.Digital v. C-One Technology et. al.Technology Properties v. Kingston TechnologyInvue Security Products v. Langhong Technology Et. Al.Joao Control & Monitoring Systems v. Protect AmericaHarcol Research v. Muscle Sports Products, LLC d/b/a Muscle Sports Internationale.Digital v. Diasonic Technology et. al.Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation v. WH NutritionalsSportBrain v. Adidas AmericaCronos Technologies v. ExpediaJoao Control & Monitoring Systems LLCSorkin et. al. v. VStructural et. al.Lamina Packaging Innovations v. HasbroHarcol Research v. Vitacost.comTransVideo Electronics v. HuluCronos Technologies LLCEZ Products of South Florida v. Fifty/Fifty Group et. al.Richmond v. Quanzhou Bright Solar Energy Et. Al.iMTX Strategic v. AppleTainoApp v. Sony ElectronicsTrans Video Electronics v. Netflix