Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/140360015/Trustees-of-Boston-University-v-Arrow-Electronics-Et-Al
Timestamp: 2016-12-09 12:51:46
Document Index: 623327688

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1331', '§\n1391', '§ 287', '§ 271', '§ 284', '§ 271', '§ 284', '§ 285']

Trustees of Boston University v. Arrow Electronics Et. Al.
BrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksArticlesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS TRUSTEES OF BOSTON UNIVERSITY, Plaintiff, vs. ARROW ELECTRONICS, INC., COMPONENTSMAX, INC., NRC ELECTRONICS, INC., NU HORIZONS ELECTRONICS CORP., SIERRA IC, INC., TOUCHSTONE SYSTEMS, LLC, VERICAL, INC, VYRIAN, INC., Defendants. COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND JURY DEMAND Plaintiff Trustees of Boston University, by and through its undersigned attorneys, hereby pleads the following claims of patent infringement against Defendants Arrow Electronics, Incorporated; ComponentsMAX, Incorporated; NRC Electronics, Incorporated; NU Horizons Electronics Corporation; Sierra IC, Incorporated; Touchstone Systems, LLC; Verical, Incorporated; and Vyrian, Incorporated (collectively, “Defendants”) and alleges as follows: PARTIES 1. Plaintiff Trustees of Boston University (“BU” or the “University”) is a non-profit Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-11105
Prizes and has been awarded hundreds of United States Patents, including U.S. Patent No. 5,686,738 (the “’738 patent”). 3. Upon information and belief, Defendant Arrow Electronics, Inc. (“Arrow”) is a
company organized under the laws of New York with its principal place of business at 50 Marcus Drive, Melville, New York 11747. Defendant may be served by effecting service on its registered agent: National Registered Agents, Inc., 155 Federal Street, Suite 700, Boston, Massachusetts 02110. 4. Upon information and belief, Defendant ComponentsMAX, Inc. (“C-MAX”) is a
company organized under the laws of Florida with its principal place of business at 5373 North Nob Hill Road, Sunrise, Florida 33351. Defendant may be served by effective service on its registered agent: Junaid CPA & Associates, 5401 N University Drive, Suite 102, Coral Springs, Florida 33067. 5. Upon information and belief, Defendant NRC Electronics, Inc. (“NRC”) is a
company organized under the laws of Florida with its principal place of business at 6600 Park of Commerce Boulevard, Boca Raton, Florida 44387. 6. Upon information and belief, Defendant Nu Horizons Electronics Corporation
(“NHE”) is a company organized under the laws of Delaware with its principal place of business at 70 Maxess Road, Melville, New York 11747. Defendant may be served by effective service on its registered agent: National Registered Agents, Inc., 155 Federal Street, Suite 700, Boston, Massachusetts 02110. 7. Upon information and belief, Defendant Sierra IC Inc. (“Sierra”) is a company
organized under the laws of North Carolina with its principal place of business at 209 Kindling Wood Lane, Waxhaw, North Carolina 28173.
(“Touchstone”) is a company organized under the laws of Florida with its principal place of business at 1888 Thesy Drive, Melbourne, Florida 32940. 9. Upon information and belief, Defendant Verical, Inc. (“Verical”) is a company
organized under the laws of Delaware with its principal place of business at 330 Townsend Street, Suite 202, San Francisco, California 94107. Defendant may be served by effective service on its registered agent: Paul Neibergs, 855 Front Street, San Francisco, California 94111. 10. Upon information and belief, Defendant Vyrian, Inc. (“Vyrian”) is a company
organized under the laws of Texas with its principal place of business at 10101 Southwest Freeway, Suite 400, Houston, Texas 77074. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 11. This is an action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the
United States of America, Title 35 of the United States Code. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the matters pled herein under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a) in that this is a civil action arising out of the patent laws of the United States of America. 12. Defendants regularly and deliberately engaged in and/or continue to engage in
activities that result in using, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing infringing products and products made by infringing processes in and/or into the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and this judicial district. These activities violate the University’s United States patent rights under the ’738 patent as pled herein. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants because, among other things, Defendants conduct business in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and in this judicial district, and thus enjoy the privileges and protections of Massachusetts law. 13. Venue is proper in the District of Massachusetts pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
1391(b), (c) and (d) and 1400(b). 3
COUNT I: INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,686,738 14. The ’738 patent, titled “Highly Insulating Monocrystalline Gallium Nitride Thin
Films,” issued on November 11, 1997. A true and correct copy of the ’738 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 15. Theodore D. Moustakas, Ph.D., Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering
at BU, is the named inventor of the ’738 patent. The University owns by assignment the entire right, title, and interest in and to the ’738 patent, including the sole right to sue for past and present patent infringements thereof. 16. The University is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants use,
sell, offer for sale, and/or import Samsung LED products bearing part numbers SPHWWTHDD805WHT0GD, SPHWHTHAD603S0R0MZ and/or SPMWHT221MD5WAP0S0 which include a gallium nitride thin film semiconductor device claimed by the ’738 patent and thus infringe one or more claims of the ’738 patent. The University is informed and believes, and further alleges, that additional products used, sold, offered for sale, and/or imported by Defendants also constitute and/or include the claimed gallium nitride thin film semiconductor device and also infringe one or more claims of the ’738 patent, including but not limited to light emitting diodes (“LEDs”) (all products accused of infringement above are collectively referred to as “Accused Products”). 17. The University is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the applicable
requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 287 have been satisfied. 18. The University is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants
have infringed, and continue to infringe, one or more claims of the ’738 patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), by, among other things, making, using, offering to sell, selling and/or importing
in and/or into the United States, without authority or license from the University, the Accused Products falling within the scope of one or more claims of the ’738 patent. 19. Defendants’ acts of infringement have caused and will continue to cause
substantial and irreparable damage to the University. 20. As a result of the infringement of the ’738 patent by Defendants, the University
has been damaged. The University is therefore entitled to such damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284 in an amount that presently cannot be pled but that will be determined at trial. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the University prays for entry of judgment against each Defendant as follows: A. B. That Defendants infringed the ’738 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a); That Defendants provide to the University an accounting of all gains, profits and
advantages derived by each Defendant’s infringement of the ‘738 patent, and that the University be awarded damages adequate to compensate them for the wrongful infringement by each Defendant, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 284; C. That this is an exceptional case and that the University be awarded any other
supplemental damages and interest on all damages, including, but not limited to attorney fees available under 35 U.S.C. § 285. D. That the Court preliminarily and thereafter permanently enjoin Defendants and all
those in privity with them from importing, making, having made, selling, offering for sale, distributing and/or using products that infringe the ’738 patent, including but not limited to SPHWHTHAD603S0R0MZ, SPHWWTHDD805WHT0GD, SPMWHT221MD5WAP0S0, and the other Accused Products, in the United States; and
That the University be awarded such other and further relief as this Court may
deem just and proper, including but not limited to equitable relief and all remedies available at law. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b), the University hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues triable to a jury. Dated: May 3, 2013 Respectfully submitted, TRUSTEES OF BOSTON UNIVERSITY By its attorneys, /s/ Ilan N. Barzilay Ilan N. Barzilay (BBO #643978) ibarzilay@seyfarth.com SEYFARTH SHAW LLP World Trade Center East Two Seaport Lane, Suite 300 Boston, Massachusetts 02210 Telephone: (617) 946-4800 Facsimile: (617) 946-4801 Of Counsel Michael W. Shore (Texas 18294915) Alfonso Garcia Chan (Texas 24012408) Eve L. Henson (Texas 00791462) Andrew M. Howard (Texas 24059973) SHORE CHAN DEPUMPO LLP 901 Main Street, Suite 3300 Dallas, Texas 75202 Telephone: (214) 593-9110 Facsimile: (214) 593-9111
Trustees of Boston University v. Arrow Electronics Et. Al. by PatentBlast26 viewsEmbedDownloadDescriptionTrustees of Boston University v. Arrow Electronics et. al.Trustees of Boston University v. Arrow Electronics et. al.Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentShow moreShow less
RelatedCambria v. Wilsonart - Complaintby slbursteinHengst of North America v. Champion Laboratories et. al.by PriorSmarte.Digital v. KORG et. al.by PriorSmartTrustees of Boston University v. Epistar Et. Al.by PatentBlastTrustees of Boston University v. Sierra ICby PriorSmartSemcon Tech v. GlobalFoundries et. al.by PriorSmarte.Digital v. Osram Sylvania et. al.by PriorSmarte.Digital v. New Dane et. al.by PriorSmarte.Digital v. Shaghal et. al.by PriorSmarte.Digital v. Mach Speed Technologies et. al.by PriorSmarte.Digital v. iriver et. al.by PriorSmartNCR v. Documotion Researchby PriorSmartOdorstar Technology et. al. v. SMM Distributors et. al.by PriorSmartAlex is the Best v. Verizon Communications et. al..pdfby PatentBlastInterface IP Holdings v. British Airwaysby PriorSmarte.Digital v. Woodman Labs et. al.by PriorSmarte.Digital v. Huawei Technologies et. al.by PriorSmartTrustees of Boston University v. Sharp et. al.by PriorSmarte.Digital v. ZTE et. al.by PriorSmartBrandywine Communications Technologies v. BTC Communicationsby PriorSmartA&J Manufacturing et. al. v. Kamado Joe Company et. al.by PriorSmartIndustrial Technology Research Institute v. LG Electronics et. al.by PriorSmartDiscovery Inc. v. Lisi Group - Complaintby slbursteinSt. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants v. LG Electronics et. al.by PriorSmartFreescale Semiconductor v. TPV Technology et. al.by PriorSmartEclipse IP v. OfficeMax North Americaby PatentBlastDiamond Coating Technologies v. Hyundai Motor America et. al.by PriorSmartLamina Packaging Innovations v. L'Orealby PriorSmartSimilar to Trustees of Boston University v. Arrow Electronics et. al.Cambria v. Wilsonart - ComplaintHengst of North America v. Champion Laboratories et. al.e.Digital v. KORG et. al.Trustees of Boston University v. Epistar Et. Al.Trustees of Boston University v. Sierra ICSemcon Tech v. GlobalFoundries et. al.e.Digital v. Osram Sylvania et. al.e.Digital v. New Dane et. al.e.Digital v. Shaghal et. al.e.Digital v. Mach Speed Technologies et. al.e.Digital v. iriver et. al.NCR v. Documotion ResearchOdorstar Technology et. al. v. SMM Distributors et. al.Alex is the Best v. Verizon Communications et. al..pdfInterface IP Holdings v. British Airwayse.Digital v. Woodman Labs et. al.e.Digital v. Huawei Technologies et. al.Trustees of Boston University v. Sharp et. al.e.Digital v. ZTE et. al.Brandywine Communications Technologies v. BTC CommunicationsA&J Manufacturing et. al. v. Kamado Joe Company et. al.Industrial Technology Research Institute v. LG Electronics et. al.Discovery Inc. v. Lisi Group - ComplaintSt. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants v. LG Electronics et. al.Freescale Semiconductor v. TPV Technology et. al.Eclipse IP v. OfficeMax North AmericaDiamond Coating Technologies v. Hyundai Motor America et. al.Lamina Packaging Innovations v. L'OrealiMTX Strategic v. NetflixNeatfreak Group v. Whitmor - ComplaintTrustees of Boston University v. Arrow Electronics et. al.