Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/182216341/Adrain-v-Panasonic-Corporation-of-North-America-pdf
Timestamp: 2016-07-30 04:05:18
Document Index: 216593263

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1331', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 283', '§ 285', 'art233', 'art2', 'art13']

Adrain v. Panasonic Corporation of North America.pdf
UploadSign inJoinBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicEditors' Picks BooksHand-picked favorites from our editorsEditors' Picks AudiobooksHand-picked favorites from our editorsEditors' Picks ComicsHand-picked favorites from our editorsEditors' Picks Sheet MusicHand-picked favorites from our editorsTop BooksWhat's trending, bestsellers, award-winners & moreTop AudiobooksWhat's trending, bestsellers, award-winners & moreTop ComicsWhat's trending, bestsellers, award-winners & moreTop Sheet MusicWhat's trending, bestsellers, award-winners & moreCategoriesArts & IdeasBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipChildren'sComputers & TechnologyCooking & FoodCrafts & HobbiesFantasyFiction & LiteratureHappiness & Self-HelpHealth & WellnessHistoryHome & GardenHumorLGBTMystery, Thriller & CrimePolitics & EconomyReferenceReligionRomanceScience & NatureScience FictionSociety & CultureSports & AdventureTravelYoung AdultCategoriesArts & IdeasBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipChildren'sComputers & TechnologyCooking & FoodFantasyFiction & LiteratureHappiness & Self-HelpHealth & WellnessHistoryHome & GardenHumorLGBTMystery, Thriller & CrimePolitics & EconomyReferenceReligionRomanceScience & NatureScience FictionSociety & CultureSports & AdventureTravelYoung AdultCategoriesAdaptationsChildren’sCrime & MysteryFictionHumorMangaNonfictionRomanceSciFi, Fantasy & HorrorSuperheroesYoung AdultPublishersArcanaArchie ComicsBOOM! StudiosDynamiteIDW PublishingKingstone ComicsMarvel ComicsSpace Goat ProductionsTop Cow ComicsValiant ComicsZenescopeDifficultyBeginnerIntermediateAdvancedMixedInstrumentBrassDrums & PercussionGuitar, Bass, and FrettedPianoStringsVocalWoodwindsGenreClassicalCountryFolkJazz & BluesMovies & MusicalsPop & RockReligious & HolidayStandardsWelcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out moreIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISIONJOHN B. ADRAIN, Plaintiff,
PANASONIC CORPORATION OF NORTH AMERICA, Defendant.
Plaintiff John B. Adrain ("Adrain") brings this action against defendant Panasonic Corporation of North America ("Panasonic" or "Defendant") and alleges:
issue in this case. 2. On information and belief, Panasonic is a corporation organized and existing under the
laws of Delaware, with its principal place of business located at 1 Panasonic Way, Secaucus, New Jersey, 07094-2917. Panasonic can be served with process through its registered agent, CT
Corporation System, 350 N. St. Paul Street, Suite 2900, Dallas, Texas 75201-4234. 3. On information and belief, Panasonic System Communications Company of North is a unit or division ofPanasonic.
America ("PSCCNA")
Laws of the United States of America, Title 35, United States Code. 5. Subject-matter jurisdiction over Adrain's claims is conferred upon this Court by 28
US.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). 6. On information and belief, Defendant has operated, conducted, engaged in, and/or
carried on business in the state of Texas. 7. 1400(b).
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS REGARDING PATENT INFRINGEMENT
System with Image Memory and Correlation" was duly and legally issued to the inventor, John B. Adrain. A Reexamination Certificate for US. Patent 5,831,669 issued on August 21,2012. A true
and correct copy of US. Patent 5,831,669 with the Reexamination Certificate is attached hereto as Exhibit A. (US. Patent 5,831,669 and the Reexamination Certificate are collectively referred to as "the '669 patent.") Adrain owns all right, title and interest in the '669 patent, including the right to sue for and recover all past, present and future damages for infringement of the '669 patent. 9. The '669 patent is presumed valid.
COUNT I PATENT INFRINGEMENT [SMART VIERA TVs]
Adrain repeats and realleges the allegations of paragraphs 1-9 above, as though fully
Upon information and belief, Panasonic, either alone or in conjunction with others, has
in the past and continues to infringe and/or induce infringement of the '669 patent by making, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or importing, and/or causing others to make, use, sell, or offer to sell, and/or import, in this judicial district and/or elsewhere in the United States, Smart VIERA TV s that alone or in use are covered by one or more of the claims of the '669 patent. 12. For example, Panasonic makes, uses, sells, offers to sell and/or imports Smart VIERA
TV s that utilize a camera to monitor a space and that are capable of facial recognition. By way of further example, one such model of TV includes the VT line of Smart VIERA TV s (such as model number TC-P60VT60). 13. Consumers purchase and use Panasonic's Smart VIERA TV s and are instructed by
Panasonic to use methods that infringe one or more claims of the '669 patent. 14. By way of further example, consumers of such devices are able to store images oftheir
faces and thereafter the Smart VIERA TV is able to recognize their faces. 15. Panasonic provides instructions, such as user manuals, that instruct consumers on how
to set up and use such devices in such manners, specifically intending such consumers will operate these devices in such a manner, and knowing of such actions, which constitutes infringement of one or more claims of the '669 patent. 16. Panasonic has been and/or is now indirectly infringing one or more claims of the '669 Smart VIERA TVs to
patent in violation of35 U.S.C. 271(b) by inducing consumers ofPanasonic's
directly infringe one or more claims of the '669 patent through their use of Panasonic's Smart VIERA TV s, such as through use of facial recognition in a monitored space. 17. For example, Panasonic induces direct infringement of the '669 patent by providing
user manuals and instructions with the Smart VIERA TV that show users how to register their faces
with the Smart VIERA TV. Panasonic engages in such inducement knowingly and, at least from the time of receipt of the present Complaint, has done so with knowledge that such activity encourages consumers of its Smart VIERA TVs to directly infringe the '669 patent. 18. 19. Panasonic is liable for infringement of the '669 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271. Panasonic's acts of infringement have caused damage to Adrain, and Adrain is entitled
to recover from Panasonic the damages sustained by Adrain as a result ofPanasonic' s wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial. 20. As a consequence of the infringement complained of herein, Adrain has been
irreparably damaged to an extent not yet determined and will continue to be irreparably damaged by such acts in the future unless Panasonic is enjoined by this Court from committing further acts of infringement.
COUNT II PATENT INFRINGEMENT [MONITORING DEVICES]
Adrain repeats and realleges the allegations of paragraphs 1-20 above, as though fully
set forth herein. 22. Upon information and belief, Panasonic, alone and/or through its division and/or unit,
PSCCNA, either alone or in conjunction with others, has in the past and continues to infringe and/or induce infringement of the '669 patent by making, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or importing, and/or causing others to make, use, sell, or offer to sell, and/or import, in this judicial district and/or elsewhere in the United States, monitoring cameras, network recorders, and associated software (collectively "Monitoring Devices") that alone or in use are covered by one or more of the claims of the '669 patent.
For example, Panasonic, alone and/or through its division and/or unit, PSCCNA,
makes, uses, sells, offers to sell and/or imports Monitoring Devices that monitor a space and are capable of facial recognition to identify individuals. By way of further example, one such Monitoring Device includes the Panasonic WJ-NV200k Network Disk Recorder operating the Panasonic WJNVF20 Additional Business Intelligence Kit, and connected to the Panasonic WJ-SF336 camera. 24. Consumers purchase and use Panasonic's Monitoring Devices and are instructed by
Panasonic to use methods that infringe one or more claims of the '669 patent. 25. By way of further example, consumers of such devices are able to store images of
individuals' faces and thereafter automatically recognize those individuals through operation of the Monitoring Devices. 26. Panasonic, alone and/or through its division and/or unit, PSCCNA, provides
instructions, such as user manuals, that instruct consumers on how to set up and use such Monitoring Devices in such manners, specifically intending such consumers will operate these devices in such a manner, and knowing of such actions, which constitutes infringement of one or more claims of the '669 patent. 27. Panasonic, alone and/or through its division and/or unit, PSCCNA, has been and/or is
now indirectly infringing one or more claims of the '669 patent in violation of35 U.S.C. 271(b) by inducing consumers ofPanasonic' s Monitoring Devices to directly infringe one or more claims ofthe '669 patent through their use of Panasonic's Monitoring Devices, such as through use of facial recognition in a monitored space. 28. For example, Panasonic, alone and/or through its division and/or unit, PSCCNA,
induces direct infringement of the' 669 patent by providing user manuals with the Monitoring Devices that show users how to register the faces of individuals for later recognition by the Monitoring
Device. Panasonic engages in such inducement knowingly and, at least from the time of receipt ofthe present Complaint, has done so with knowledge that such activity encourages consumers of their Monitoring Devices to directly infringe the '669 patent. 29. Panasonic alone and/or its division and/or unit, PSCCNA, is liable for infringement of
the '669 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271. 30. Panasonic's acts of infringement, alone and/or through its division and/or unit,
PSCCNA, have caused damage to Adrain, and Adrain is entitled to recover from Panasonic the damages sustained by Adrain as a result ofPanasonic' s wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial. 31. As a consequence of the infringement complained of herein, Adrain has been
Defendant has directly infringed and/or induced infringement of the '669 patent; Defendant accounts for and pays to Adrain all damages caused by its infringement of
the '669 patent; C. Adrain be granted permanent injunctive relief pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 283 enjoining
Defendant and its officers, agents, servants, employees and those persons in active concert or participation with it from further acts of patent infringement; D. Adrain be granted pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on the damages caused to
him by reason of Defendant's patent infringement;
Adrain be granted his reasonable attorneys' fees in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 285; Costs be awarded to Adrain; and, Adrain be granted such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper
Respectfully submitted, Dated: November 5,2013 By:
lsi Elizabeth L. DeRieux John T. Polasek Texas Bar. No. 16088590 tpolasek@pqelaw.com C. Dale Quisenberry Texas Bar No. 24005040 dquisenberry@pqelaw.com Jeffrey S. David Texas Bar No. 24053171 jdavid@pqelaw.com
IRELAND, CARROLL & KELLEY, P. C
6101 S. Broadway, Suite 500 P.O. Box 7879 Tyler, Texas 75711 Telephone: (903) 561-1600 Facsimile: (903) 581-1071 S. Calvin Capshaw State Bar No. 03783900 ccapshaw@capshawlaw.com
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Page -7-
Elizabeth L. DeRieux State Bar No. 05770585 ederieux@capshawlaw.com D. Jeffrey Rambin State Bar No. 00791478 jrambin@capshawlaw.com CAPSHAW DERIEUX,LLP 114 East Commerce Avenue Gladewater, Texas 75647 Telephone: (903) 236-9800 Facsimile: (903) 236-8787 Russell R. Smith State Bar No. 18682310 rsmith@fairchildlawfirm.com Fairchild, Price, Haley, & Smith, L.L.P. 1801 North Street Nacogdoches, Texas 75963-1668 Telephone: (936) 569-2327 Facsimile: (936) 569-7932 Attorneys for Plaintiff
Adrain v. Panasonic Corporation of North America.pdf by PatentBlast26 viewsEmbedDownloadDescriptionAdrain v. Panasonic Corporation of North AmericaAdrain v. Panasonic Corporation of North AmericaRead 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
RelatedAdaptix v. HTC et. al.by PatentBlastInnovative Automation v. Koboby PatentBlastApple v. Wi-Lanby PriorSmartAdaptix v. Blackberry Limited, Blackberryby PriorSmartDatabase Sync Solutions v. International Business Machinesby PatentBlastChrimar Systems et. al. v. Samsung Electronics et. al.by PriorSmartOperating Systems Solutions v. Appleby PriorSmartSkky v. Manwin et. al.by PatentBlastPaid Search Engine Tools, LLC v. Google, Inc. et al - Document No. 10by Justia.comCanatelo v. JVC Kenwood et. al.by PriorSmartSemcon Tech v. Intelby PatentBlastComplex Distribution Chain Kills DRAM Class Actionby wmgosborneCanatelo v. Sony Electronics et. al.by PriorSmart233by sabatino123Marshall Feature Recognition v. Wm. Wrigley Jr. Companyby PriorSmartPatent Case Digestby Jimboy FernandezTQP Development v. Furnitureland Southby PriorSmartoraclevsgoogleby br0th3rOracle v Google Complaintby markfontecchioTQP Development v. Allied Electronicsby PriorSmartGoodmanby PriorSmartTelinit Technologies v. Yahooby PriorSmart2nd and 8th Copyright Casesby Leng VillezaTelcordia Technologies, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., C.A. No. 04-876-GMS (D. Del. Apr. 14, 2014).by YCSTBlogTelinit Technologies v. Toktumi, Inc. d/b/a Line2by PriorSmartUS Supreme Court: 06-937by Supreme CourtBillingNetwork Patent v. Azalea Health Innovationsby PriorSmart13-06-11 ITC Staff Brief in Apple-Samsung Caseby Florian MuellerSimilar to Adrain v. Panasonic Corporation of North AmericaAdaptix v. HTC et. al.Innovative Automation v. KoboApple v. Wi-LanAdaptix v. Blackberry Limited, BlackberryDatabase Sync Solutions v. International Business MachinesChrimar Systems et. al. v. Samsung Electronics et. al.Operating Systems Solutions v. AppleSkky v. Manwin et. al.Paid Search Engine Tools, LLC v. Google, Inc. et al - Document No. 10Canatelo v. JVC Kenwood et. al.Semcon Tech v. IntelComplex Distribution Chain Kills DRAM Class ActionCanatelo v. Sony Electronics et. al.233Marshall Feature Recognition v. Wm. Wrigley Jr. CompanyPatent Case DigestTQP Development v. Furnitureland SouthoraclevsgoogleOracle v Google ComplaintTQP Development v. Allied ElectronicsGoodmanTelinit Technologies v. Yahoo2nd and 8th Copyright CasesTelcordia Technologies, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., C.A. No. 04-876-GMS (D. Del. Apr. 14, 2014).Telinit Technologies v. Toktumi, Inc. d/b/a Line2US Supreme CourtBillingNetwork Patent v. Azalea Health Innovations13-06-11 ITC Staff Brief in Apple-Samsung CaseMAZ Encryption Technologies v. Fujitsu America Et. Al.