Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/235116099/Sensus-v-Certified-Measurement
Timestamp: 2017-08-21 23:14:22
Document Index: 59456693

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2201', '§2201', '§ 2201', '§ 1', '§ 1338', '§ 1391', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 285']

Description: Official Complaint for Declaratory Judgement in Civil Action No. None: Sensus USA, Inc. v. Certified Measurement LLC. Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, no judge yet assi...
Official Complaint for Declaratory Judgement in Civil Action No. None: Sensus USA, Inc. v. Certified Measurement LLC. Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-laLD for more info.
Plaintiff, Sensus USA, Inc. (“Sensus”), by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby
Measurement LLC (“CML”), and states as follows:
a. A declaratory judgment and ancillary relief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and
2202 resolving an existing case and controversy. To wit, that none of Sensus’ products or
services infringe any of the Defendant, CML’s patents, including U.S. Patent Nos. 5,828,751
(“the ‘751 Patent”), 6,282,648 (“the ‘648 Patent”), 6,289,453 (“the ‘453 Patent”), and 8,549,310
(“the ‘310 Patent”) (collectively, the “Patents-in-Suit”); and
b. Monetary relief, including attorneys’ fees and costs.
U.S.C. §2201, et seq. Defendant sent Sensus and its customers infringement notification letters
for sale, Sensus’ products, giving rise to an actual case or controversy under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201
5. This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq.
§§ 1338, 2201 and 2202.
8. Venue in this District is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 at least because CML’s
for sale, Sensus’ Products, and because Sensus wishes to continue selling and commercializing
(collectively, the “Sensus Product Line”), including the Sensus FlexNet iCon smart meters.
11. The Southern Company (“Southern”), Wisconsin Power and Light Company
(“WP&L”), Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc. (“HECO”), NV Energy, Inc. (“NVE”), and
Portland General Electric Company (“PGEC”, collectively the “Sensus Customers”) are utility
12. On October 27, 1998, the USPTO issued the ‘751 Patent, titled “Method and
Apparatus for Secure Measurement Certification.”
13. On August 28, 2001, the USPTO issued the ‘648 Patent, titled “Method and
14. On September 11, 2001, the USPTO issued the ‘453 Patent, titled “Method and
15. On October 1, 2013, the USPTO issued the ‘310 Patent, titled “Method and
16. On June 5, 2014, CML sent Sensus a letter notifying Sensus that it’s “FlexNet
advanced metering infrastructure infringes one or more claims of each of the [Patents-in-Suit].”
2) may bring a lawsuit against Sensus, unless “a suitable licensing arrangement can be negotiated
soon[.]”
Southern agreed to a license for the Patents-in-Suit. A copy of CML’s letter to Southern is
agreed to a license for the Patents-in-Suit. A copy of CML’s letter to WP&L is attached hereto
agreed to a license for the Patents-in-Suit. A copy of CML’s letter to HECO is attached hereto
license for the Patents-in-Suit. A copy of CML’s letter to NVE is attached hereto as Exhibit 5.
agreed to a license for the Patents-in-Suit. A copy of CML’s letter to PGEC is attached hereto as
information regarding CML’s allegations of infringement.
24. On July 9, 2014, in response to Southern’s response, CML identified the
following claims as “representative independent claims [CML] believe[s] are infringed by”
 The ‘751 Patent: claims 1, 57, 102, 109, 118, 124, 125, 167;
 The ‘648 Patent: claims 1, 141, 142, 143;
 The ‘453 Patent: claim 43; and
 The ‘310 Patent: claim 20.
25. Accordingly, CML alleges that Sensus’, and its customers’, commercialization of
in-Suit under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), either alone or with any other entity, including the Sensus
valid and enforceable claim of the Patents-in-Suit under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), either alone or with
Patents-in-Suit under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c), either alone or with any other entity, including the
whether any of the products in Sensus’ Product Line infringe the Patents-in-Suit.
35. An actual, live and justiciable controversy exists concerning Sensus’ freedom to
in the Sensus Product Line, nor the Sensus Customers’ use of any product in the Sensus Product
injunctive relief, money damages, costs, and/or attorneys’ fees against Sensus or the Sensus
under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and that Sensus be awarded its reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses;
The Procter & Gamble Company v. Kraft Foods Global, Inc. - Document No. 62