Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/61571500/Datatreasury-v-U-S-Bank-National-Association
Timestamp: 2017-01-23 10:03:57
Document Index: 124379158

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

BrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksArticlesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinCase 2:06-cv-00072-DF -CE Document 1252 Filed 08/03/11 Page 1 1 of 20 Case 2:11-cv-00346-DF -CE Document 3 Filed 06/03/09 Page of 20UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION DATATREASURY CORPORATION PLAINTIFF § § § v § § WELLS FARGO & COMPANY; WELLS § FARGO BANK, NATIONAL § ASSOCIATION; BANK OF AMERICA § CORPORATION; BANK OF AMERICA, § NATIONAL ASSOCIATION; U.S. § BANCORP; U.S. BANK, NATIONAL § ASSOCIATION; WACHOVIA § CORPORATION; WACHOVIA BANK, § NATIONAL ASSOCIATION; SUNTRUST § BANKS, INC.; SUNTRUST BANK; BB&T § CORPORATION; BRANCH BANKING § AND TRUST COMPANY; § BANCORPSOUTH, INC.; § BANCORPSOUTH BANK; § FIRST HORIZON NATIONAL CORP.; § FIRST TENNESSEE BANK, NATIONAL § ASSOCIATION; § RBS CITIZENS, NATIONAL § ASSOCIATION; COMERICA § INCORPORATED; COMERICA BANK; § KEYCORP;KEYBANK NATIONAL § ASSOCIATION; § LASALLE BANK CORPORATION; § LASALLE BANK NA; M&T BANK § CORPORATION; M&T BANK; § SMALL VALUE PAYMENTS § COMPANY, LLC; THE § CLEARING HOUSE PAYMENTS § COMPANY, LLC and § ELECTRONIC DATA SYSTEMS CORP. § § § DEFENDANTS
Civil Action No. 2:06cv72 (DF)
Case 2:06-cv-00072-DF -CE Document 1252 Filed 08/03/11 Page 2 2 of 20 Case 2:11-cv-00346-DF -CE Document 3 Filed 06/03/09 Page of 20
FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
I. THE PARTIES 1. Plaintiff DataTreasury Corporation ("DataTreasury") is a Delaware
corporation that maintains its principal place of business at 2301 W. Plano Parkway, Suite 106, Plano, Texas 75074. 2. Defendant Wells Fargo & Company is a Delaware Corporation that maintains
its principal place of business at 420 Montgomery Street, San Francisco, California 94104. This Defendant has been served, has appeared and answered, and is properly before the Court. This Defendant is being sued in this litigation for its infringing activities previously set forth in this case and also for activities at issue in the litigation with DataTreasury filed as Cause No. 2:05-CV-291 which has been administratively closed and consolidated with this case by Court order. 3. Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, National Association is a banking subsidiary
of Defendant Wells Fargo & Company. This Defendant has been served, has appeared and answered, and is properly before the Court. This Defendant is being sued in this litigation for its infringing activities previously set forth in this case and also for activities at issue in the litigation with DataTreasury filed as Cause No. 2:05-CV-291 which has been administratively closed and consolidated with this case by Court order. 4. Defendant Bank of America Corporation is a Delaware Corporation that
maintains its principal place of business at Bank of America Center, 401 North Tryon Street, Charlotte, North Carolina 28255. This Defendant has been served, has appeared and answered, and is properly before the Court. This Defendant is being sued in this litigation for
Case 2:06-cv-00072-DF -CE Document 1252 Filed 08/03/11 Page 3 3 of 20 Case 2:11-cv-00346-DF -CE Document 3 Filed 06/03/09 Page of 20
its infringing activities previously set forth in this case and also for activities at issue in the litigation with DataTreasury filed as Cause No. 2:05-CV-292 which has been administratively closed and consolidated with this case by Court order. 5. Defendant Bank of America, National Association is a banking subsidiary of
Defendant Bank of America. This Defendant has been served, has appeared and answered, and is properly before the Court. This Defendant is being sued in this litigation for its infringing activities previously set forth in this case and also for activities at issue in the litigation with DataTreasury filed as Cause No. 2:05-CV-292 which has been administratively closed and consolidated with this case by Court order. 6. Defendant U.S. Bancorp is a Delaware Corporation that maintains its principal
place of business at 800 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402-7014. This Defendant has been served, has appeared and answered, and is properly before the Court. 7. Defendant U.S. Bank, National Association is a banking subsidiary of
Defendant U.S. Bancorp and maintains its principal place of business at 425 Walnut Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202. This Defendant has been served, has appeared and answered, and is properly before the Court. 8. Defendant Wachovia Corporation is a North Carolina Corporation that
maintains its principal place of business at One Wachovia Center, 301 South College Street, Charlotte, North Carolina 28288-0013. This Defendant has been served, has appeared and answered, and is properly before the Court. This Defendant is being sued in this litigation for its infringing activities previously set forth in this case and also for activities at issue in the litigation with DataTreasury filed as Cause No. 2:05-CV-293 which has been administratively closed and consolidated with this case by Court order.
Case 2:06-cv-00072-DF -CE Document 1252 Filed 08/03/11 Page 4 4 of 20 Case 2:11-cv-00346-DF -CE Document 3 Filed 06/03/09 Page of 20
Defendant Wachovia Bank, National Association is a banking subsidiary of
Wachovia Corporation, and maintains its principal place of business at 301 South Tryon Street, Charlotte, North Carolina 28288. This Defendant has been served, has appeared and answered, and is properly before the Court. This Defendant is being sued in this litigation for its infringing activities previously set forth in this case and also for activities at issue in the litigation with DataTreasury filed as Cause No. 2:05-CV-293 which has been administratively closed and consolidated with this case by Court order. 10. Defendant SunTrust Banks, Inc. is a Georgia corporation that maintains its
principal place of business at 303 Peachtree Street, Suite 500, Atlanta, Georgia 30308 This Defendant has been served, has appeared and answered, and is properly before the Court. 11. Defendant SunTrust Bank is a wholly-owned banking subsidiary of
Defendant SunTrust Banks, Inc. This Defendant has been served, has appeared and answered, and is properly before the Court. 12. Defendant BB&T Corporation is a North Carolina corporation that maintains
its principal place of business at 200 West Second Street, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, 27101. This Defendant has been served, has appeared and answered, and is properly before the Court. 13. Defendant Branch Banking and Trust Company is a wholly-owned banking
subsidiary of Defendant BB&T Corporation. This Defendant has been served, has appeared and answered, and is properly before the Court. 14. Defendant BancorpSouth, Inc. is a Mississippi corporation that maintains its
principal place of business at One Mississippi Plaza, 201 South Spring Street, Tupelo,
_________________________________________________________________________________ Fourth Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement – Wells Fargo et al Page 4
Case 2:06-cv-00072-DF -CE Document 1252 Filed 08/03/11 Page 5 5 of 20 Case 2:11-cv-00346-DF -CE Document 3 Filed 06/03/09 Page of 20
Mississippi 38804. This Defendant has been served, has appeared and answered, and is properly before the Court. 15. Defendant BancorpSouth Bank is a wholly-owned banking subsidiary of
Defendant BancorpSouth, Inc. This Defendant has been served, has appeared and answered, and is properly before the Court.
Defendant First Horizon National Corporation is a Tennessee corporation
that maintains its principal place of business at 165 Madison Avenue, P.O. Box 84, Memphis, Tennessee 38103. This Defendant has been served, has appeared and answered, and is properly before the Court. 17. Defendant First Tennessee Bank, National Association is a wholly-owned
banking subsidiary of Defendant First Horizon National Corporation. This Defendant has been served, has appeared and answered, and is properly before the Court. 18. Defendant RBS Citizens, National Association is a Rhode Island banking
organization that maintains its principal place of business at One Citizens Plaza, Providence, Rhode Island 02903. This Defendant has been served, has appeared and answered, and is properly before the Court. 19. Defendant Comerica Incorporated is a Delaware corporation that maintains
its principal place of business at Comerica Tower at Detroit Center, 500 Woodward Avenue, Detroit, Michigan 48226. This Defendant has been served, has appeared and answered, and is properly before the Court.
_________________________________________________________________________________ Fourth Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement – Wells Fargo et al Page 5
Case 2:06-cv-00072-DF -CE Document 1252 Filed 08/03/11 Page 6 6 of 20 Case 2:11-cv-00346-DF -CE Document 3 Filed 06/03/09 Page of 20
Defendant Comerica Bank is a Texas banking organization that maintains its
principal place of business at 1717 Main Street, Dallas, Texas 75201. This Defendant has been served, has appeared and answered, and is properly before the Court. 21. Defendant KeyCorp is an Ohio corporation that maintains its principal place
of business at 127 Public Square, Cleveland, Ohio 44114. This Defendant has been served, has appeared and answered, and is properly before the Court. 22. Defendant KeyBank National Association is a wholly-owned banking This Defendant has been served, has appeared and
subsidiary of Defendant KeyCorp.
answered, and is properly before the Court. 23. Defendant LaSalle Bank Corporation is a Delaware corporation that
maintains its principal place of business at 135 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60603. This Defendant has been served, has appeared and answered, and is properly before the Court. 24. Defendant LaSalle Bank NA is a wholly-owned banking subsidiary of
Defendant LaSalle Bank Corporation that maintains its principal place of business at 135 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60603. This Defendant has been served, has appeared and answered, and is properly before the Court. 25. Defendant M&T Bank Corporation is a New York corporation that maintains
its principal place of business at One M&T Plaza, Buffalo, New York, 14203-2399. This Defendant has been served, has appeared and answered, and is properly before the Court. 26. Defendant M&T Bank is a wholly-owned banking subsidiary of Defendant
M&T Bank Corporation. This Defendant has been served, has appeared and answered, and is properly before the Court.
_________________________________________________________________________________ Fourth Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement – Wells Fargo et al Page 6
Case 2:06-cv-00072-DF -CE Document 1252 Filed 08/03/11 Page 7 7 of 20 Case 2:11-cv-00346-DF -CE Document 3 Filed 06/03/09 Page of 20
Defendant Small Value Payments Company, LLC is a Delaware Limited
Liability Company that maintains its principal place of business at 100 Broad Street, New York, New York This Defendant has been served, has appeared and answered, and is properly before the Court. 29. Defendant The Clearing House Payments Company, L.L.C. is a Delaware
Limited Liability Company that maintains its principal place of business at The Clearing House, 100 Broad Street, New York, New York 10004. This Defendant has been served, has appeared and answered, and is properly before the Court. 30. Defendant Electronic Data Systems Corp. is a Delaware corporation that
maintains its principal place of business at 5400 Legacy Drive, Plano, Texas 75024-3199. This Defendant has been served, has appeared and answered, and is properly before the Court. This Defendant is being sued in this litigation for its infringing activities except for the “EDS Pay for Check 21” product and activities that were the subject of the now-dismissed DataTreasury Corporation v. Electronic Data Systems Corp., Cause No. 3:02-CV-2642-K, Northern District of Texas. The “EDS Pay for Check 21” product and activities are not accused in this litigation. II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 31. This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of the
United States Code. The Court's jurisdiction over this action is proper under the above statutes, including 35 U.S.C. §271 et seq. and 28 U.S.C. §1338. 32. Personal jurisdiction exists generally over Defendants pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§1391 because they have sufficient minimum contacts with the forum as a result of business conducted within the State of Texas and within this district. Personal jurisdiction also exists
_________________________________________________________________________________ Fourth Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement – Wells Fargo et al Page 7
Case 2:06-cv-00072-DF -CE Document 1252 Filed 08/03/11 Page 8 8 of 20 Case 2:11-cv-00346-DF -CE Document 3 Filed 06/03/09 Page of 20
specifically over Defendants because of Defendants’ conduct in making, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or importing, directly, contributorily, and/or by inducement, infringing products and services within the State of Texas and within this district. In particular,
Defendants have provided services and sold products in this District separately and with or for other infringing companies which are or were Defendants in related pending litigation the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. 33. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. §§1391(b), (c), and (d), as well
as 28 U.S.C., §1400(b) for the reasons set forth above and below. Furthermore, venue is proper because each of the Defendants is currently engaging in infringing activities in this District with another Defendant in related and past-pending litigation filed by DataTreasury Corporation in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division. 34. The following Defendants are owners or current users of Viewpointe Archive
Services, LLC: Wells Fargo & Company; Wells Fargo Bank, National Association; Bank of America Corporation; Bank of America, National Association; U.S. Bancorp; U.S. Bank, National Association; Wachovia Corporation; Wachovia Bank, National Association; SunTrust Banks, Inc.; SunTrust Bank; BB&T Corporation; Branch Banking & Trust Company; Bancorp South, Inc.; Bancorp South Bank; First Horizon National Corporation; and First Tennessee Bank, National Association; These Defendants may be collectively referred to as the “Viewpointe Defendant Group.” 35. The members of the Viewpointe Defendant Group are subject to personal
jurisdiction, in addition to the reasons set forth above and below, because of each member’s infringing activities with relation to the products and services of Viewpointe Archive Services, LLC, a nationwide check image archive and exchange service that operates in or
_________________________________________________________________________________ Fourth Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement – Wells Fargo et al Page 8
Case 2:06-cv-00072-DF -CE Document 1252 Filed 08/03/11 Page 9 9 of 20 Case 2:11-cv-00346-DF -CE Document 3 Filed 06/03/09 Page of 20
through this District.
Each of the members of the Viewpointe Defendant Group have
authorized, participated in, or facilitated transactions occurring in whole or in part within this District that, in whole or in part, infringe the ‘988 and ‘137 patents asserted herein. DataTreasury was pursuing its claims against Viewpointe Archive Services, LLC in related litigation in this District, Cause No. 2:05-CV-290, and which case was consolidated into the instant case, 2:06cv72, on June 1, 2006. 36. The following Defendants are owners or current users of Small Value
Payments Company, LLC and/or The Clearing House Payments Company, LLC: Wells Fargo & Company; Wells Fargo Bank, National Association; Bank of America Corporation; Bank of America, National Association; U.S. Bancorp; U.S. Bank, National Association; Wachovia Corporation; Wachovia Bank, National Association; BB&T Corporation; Branch Banking & Trust Company; RBS Citizens, National Association.; Comerica Incorporated; Comerica Bank; KeyCorp; KeyBank National Association; LaSalle Bank Corporation; LaSalle Bank NA; M&T Bank Corporation; and M&T Bank. These Defendants may be collectively referred to as the “SVPCo/Clearing House Defendant Group.” 37. The members of the SVPCo/Clearing House Defendant Group are subject to
personal jurisdiction, in addition to the reasons set forth above and below, because of each member’s infringing activities with relation to the products and services of Small Value Payments Co., LLC and The Clearing House Payments Company, LLC. These Defendants operate a nationwide check image exchange service that operates in or through this District. This Court has already determined in a previous Order that Small Value Payments Company, LLC is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court because of, inter alia, its performance of activities in this District related to its nationwide exchange and archive service. Each of the
_________________________________________________________________________________ Fourth Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement – Wells Fargo et al Page 9
Case 2:06-cv-00072-DF -CE Document 1252 Filed 08/03/11 Page 10 ofof 20 Case 2:11-cv-00346-DF -CE Document 3 Filed 06/03/09 Page 10 20
members of the SVPCo/Clearing House Defendant Group have authorized, participated in, or facilitated transactions occurring in whole or in part within this District that, in whole or in part, infringe the patents asserted against them herein. III. PATENT INFRINGMENT 38. DataTreasury is the owner as assignee of all rights, title and interest in and
under United States Patent No. 5,910,988 (“the ‘988 patent”), which duly and legally issued on June 8, 1999, with Claudio Ballard as the named inventor, for an invention in remote image capture with centralized processing and storage. This patent went through re-exam with the USPTO and was duly and legally reissued under United States Patent No. 5,910,988 C! (“the ‘988 patent”) on October 23, 2007. DataTreasury is the owner as assignee of all rights, title and interest in and under United States Patent No. 5,910,988 C1. 39. DataTreasury is the owner as assignee of all rights, title, and interest in and
under United States Patent No. 6,032,137 (“the ‘137 patent”), which duly and legally issued on February 29, 2000 with Claudio Ballard as the named inventor, for an invention in a remote image capture with centralized processing and storage. This patent went through reexam with the USPTO and was duly and legally reissued under United States Patent No. 6,032,137 C1 (“the ‘137 patent”) on December 25, 2007. DataTreasury is the owner as assignee of all rights, title and interest in and under United States Patent No. 6,032,137 C1. 40. DataTreasury is the owner of all rights, title, and interest in and under United
States Patent No. 5,265,007 ("the '007 patent"), which duly and legally issued on November 23, 1993, with John L. Barnhard, Jr., Thomas K. Bowen, Terry L. Geer, and John W. Liebersbach as the named inventors, for an invention of a central check clearing system.
_________________________________________________________________________________ Fourth Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement – Wells Fargo et al Page 10
Case 2:06-cv-00072-DF -CE Document 1252 Filed 08/03/11 Page 11 ofof 20 Case 2:11-cv-00346-DF -CE Document 3 Filed 06/03/09 Page 11 20
DataTreasury is the owner of all rights, title, and interest in and under United
States Patent No. 5,583,759 ("the '759 patent"), which duly and legally issued on December 10, 1996, with Terry L. Geer as the named inventor, for an invention with a mechanism for expediting the deposit, transport, and submission of checks into the payment system. 42. DataTreasury is the owner of all rights, title, and interest in and under United
States Patent No. 5,717,868 ("the '868 patent"), which duly and legally issued on February 10, 1998, with David L. James as the named inventor, for an invention with an electronic payment interchange concentrator. 43. DataTreasury is the owner of all rights, title, and interest in and under United
States Patent No. 5,930,778 ("the '778 patent"), which duly and legally issued on July 27, 1999, with Terry L. Geer as the named inventor, for an invention with a system for expediting the clearing of financial instruments and coordinating the same with invoice processing at the point of receipt. 44. This is an exceptional case within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. §285. IV. 45. COUNT ONE – THE ‘988 DEFENDANTS
The following Defendants have been and are infringing the '988 patent by
making, using, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing in or into the United States, directly, contributory, and/or by inducement, without authority, products and services that fall within the scope of the claims of the '988 patent: Wells Fargo & Company; Wells Fargo Bank, National Association; Bank of America Corporation; Bank of America, National Association; Wachovia Corporation, Wachovia Bank, National Association; U.S. Bancorp; U.S. Bank, National Association; SunTrust Banks, Inc.; SunTrust Bank; BB&T Corporation; Branch Banking & Trust Company; BancorpSouth, Inc.; BancorpSouth Bank; First Horizon
_________________________________________________________________________________ Fourth Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement – Wells Fargo et al Page 11
Case 2:06-cv-00072-DF -CE Document 1252 Filed 08/03/11 Page 12 ofof 20 Case 2:11-cv-00346-DF -CE Document 3 Filed 06/03/09 Page 12 20
National Corporation; First Tennessee Bank, National Association; RBS Citizens, National Association.; Comerica Incorporated; Comerica Bank; KeyCorp; KeyBank National Association; LaSalle Bank Corporation; LaSalle Bank NA; M&T Bank Corporation; M&T Bank; The Clearing House Payments Company, LLC; Small Value Payments Company, and Electronic Data Systems Corp. (hereafter “the ‘988 Defendants). Unless the ‘988 Defendants are enjoined by this Court, DataTreasury is without an adequate remedy at law. 46. The ‘988 Defendants have been and are actively inducing and/or contributing
to the infringement of the '988 patent among themselves and by others. 47. The ‘988 Defendants’ infringement of the '988 patent has been and is willful. V. 48. COUNT TWO – THE ‘137 DEFENDANTS
The following Defendants have been and are infringing the ‘137 patent by
making, using, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing in or into the United States, directly, contributory, and/or by inducement, without authority, products and services that fall within the scope of the claims of the ‘137 patent: Wells Fargo & Company; Wells Fargo Bank, National Association; Bank of America Corporation; Bank of America, National Association; Wachovia Corporation, Wachovia Bank, National Association U.S. Bancorp; U.S. Bank, National Association; SunTrust Banks, Inc.; SunTrust Bank; BB&T Corporation; Branch Banking & Trust Company; BancorpSouth, Inc.; BancorpSouth Bank; First Horizon National Corporation; First Tennessee Bank, National Association; RBS Citizens, National Association; Comerica Incorporated; Comerica Bank; KeyCorp; KeyBank National Association; LaSalle Bank Corporation; LaSalle Bank NA; M&T Bank Corporation; M&T Bank; The Clearing House Payments Company, LLC; Small Value Payments Company, and
_________________________________________________________________________________ Fourth Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement – Wells Fargo et al Page 12
Case 2:06-cv-00072-DF -CE Document 1252 Filed 08/03/11 Page 13 ofof 20 Case 2:11-cv-00346-DF -CE Document 3 Filed 06/03/09 Page 13 20
Electronic Data Systems Corp. (hereafter “the ‘137 Defendants). Unless the ‘137 Defendants are enjoined by this Court, DataTreasury is without an adequate remedy at law. 49. The ‘137 Defendants have been and are actively inducing and/or contributing
to the infringement of the '137 patent among themselves and by others. 50. The ‘137 Defendants’ infringement of the '137 patent has been and is willful. VI. 51. COUNT THREE – THE ‘007 DEFENDANTS
The following Defendants have been and are infringing the '007 patent by
making, using, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing in or into the United States, directly, contributory, and/or by inducement, without authority, products and services that fall within the scope of the claims of the '007 patent: Bank of America Corporation; Bank of America, National Association; U.S. Bancorp; U.S. Bank, National Association; Wachovia Corporation; Wachovia Bank, National Association; BB&T Corporation; Branch Banking & Trust Company; RBS Citizens, National Association; Comerica Incorporated; Comerica Bank; KeyCorp; KeyBank National Association; LaSalle Bank Corporation; LaSalle Bank NA; M&T Bank Corporation; M&T Bank; Small Value Payments Company, LLC; The Clearing House Payments Company, LLC; (hereafter “the ‘007 Defendants). Unless the ‘007 Defendants are enjoined by this Court, DataTreasury is without an adequate remedy at law. 52. The ‘007 Defendants have been and are actively inducing and/or contributing
to the infringement of the '007 patent among themselves and by others. 53. The ‘007 Defendants’ infringement of the '007 patent has been and is willful. VII. 54. COUNT FOUR – THE ‘759 DEFENDANTS
The following Defendants have been and are infringing the '759 patent by
making, using, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing in or into the United States,
_________________________________________________________________________________ Fourth Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement – Wells Fargo et al Page 13
Case 2:06-cv-00072-DF -CE Document 1252 Filed 08/03/11 Page 14 ofof 20 Case 2:11-cv-00346-DF -CE Document 3 Filed 06/03/09 Page 14 20
directly, contributory, and/or by inducement, without authority, products and services that fall within the scope of the claims of the '759 patent: Wells Fargo & Company; Wells Fargo Bank, National Association; Bank of America Corporation; Bank of America, National Association; Wachovia Corporation; and Wachovia Bank, National Association; Inc., (hereafter “the ‘759 Defendants). Unless the ‘759 Defendants are enjoined by this Court, DataTreasury is without an adequate remedy at law. 55. The ‘759 Defendants have been and are actively inducing and/or contributing
to the infringement of the '759 patent among themselves and by others. 56. The ‘759 Defendants’ infringement of the '759 patent has been and is willful. VIII. COUNT FIVE – THE ‘868 DEFENDANTS 57. The following Defendants have been and are infringing the '868 patent by
making, using, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing in or into the United States, directly, contributory, and/or by inducement, without authority, products and services that fall within the scope of the claims of the '868 patent: Wells Fargo & Company; Wells Fargo Bank, National Association; Bank of America Corporation; Bank of America, National Association; U.S. Bancorp; U.S. Bank, National Association; Wachovia Corporation; Wachovia Bank, National Association; BB&T Corporation; Branch Banking & Trust Company; RBS Citizens National Association; Comerica Incorporated; Comerica; KeyCorp; KeyBank National Association; LaSalle Bank Corporation; LaSalle Bank NA; M&T Bank Corporation; M&T Bank; Small Value Payments Company, LLC; The Clearing House Payments Company, LLC; (hereafter “the ‘868 Defendants). Unless the ‘868 Defendants are enjoined by this Court, DataTreasury is without an adequate remedy at law.
_________________________________________________________________________________ Fourth Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement – Wells Fargo et al Page 14
Case 2:06-cv-00072-DF -CE Document 1252 Filed 08/03/11 Page 15 ofof 20 Case 2:11-cv-00346-DF -CE Document 3 Filed 06/03/09 Page 15 20
The ‘868 Defendants have been and are actively inducing and/or contributing
to the infringement of the '868 patent among themselves and by others. 59. The ‘868 Defendants’ infringement of the '868 patent has been and is willful. IX. 60. COUNT SIX – THE ‘778 DEFENDANTS
The following Defendants have been and are infringing the '778 patent by
making, using, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing in or into the United States, directly, contributory, and/or by inducement, without authority, products and services that fall within the scope of the claims of the '778 patent: Wells Fargo & Company; Wells Fargo Bank, National Association; Bank of America Corporation; Bank of America, National Association; Wachovia Corporation; and Wachovia Bank, National Association (hereafter “the ‘778 Defendants). Unless the ‘778 Defendants are enjoined by this Court, DataTreasury is without an adequate remedy at law. 61. The ‘778 Defendants have been and are actively inducing and/or contributing
to the infringement of the '778 patent among themselves and by others. 62. The ‘778 Defendants’ infringement of the '778 patent has been and is willful. X. COUNT SEVEN – VICARIOUS LIABILITY 63. Wells Fargo & Company, Bank of America Corporation, U.S. Bancorp,
Wachovia Corporation, SunTrust Banks, Inc., BB&T Corporation, BancorpSouth, Inc., First Horizon National Corporation, Comerica Incorporated, Keycorp, LaSalle Bank Corporation, and M&T Bank Corporation (“Parent Company Defendants”) are the alter ego of their respective subsidiaries, and specifically their wholly-owned operating bank subsidiaries that are also named as Defendants herein. Specifically, the Parent Company Defendants so control the operations, decisions, and/or daily operations of the operating bank Defendants
_________________________________________________________________________________ Fourth Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement – Wells Fargo et al Page 15
Case 2:06-cv-00072-DF -CE Document 1252 Filed 08/03/11 Page 16 ofof 20 Case 2:11-cv-00346-DF -CE Document 3 Filed 06/03/09 Page 16 20
that the Parent Company Defendants are the alter ego of the operating bank Defendants. Facts proving this alter ego relationship include: (a) the operating bank Defendants are wholly owned subsidiaries of the Parent Company Defendants; (b) many of the operating bank Defendants and Parent Company Defendants have common officers and directors; (c) the Parent Company Defendants and operating bank defendants file consolidated financial statements; (d) some daily operations of the Parent Company Defendants and operating Bank Defendants are not kept separate; and (e) the Parent Company Defendants exert such control over the operating bank Defendants such that they should not be viewed as separate entities. In addition to the Parent Company Defendants and their respective operating bank Defendants being alter egos of each other, the Parent Company Defendants are also liable for joint infringement and contributorily infringing and inducing infringement, by virtue of their relationship with their operating bank subsidiary Defendant. For the same reasons listed above, the Parent Company Defendants are liable for joint infringement, contributory infringement, and inducing infringement, as they have shared in and directed the infringing operations of their operating subsidiary bank Defendants in the manner set forth herein. The liability and damages for all infringing actions of the operating bank Defendants should be shared jointly by the operating subsidiary bank Defendant and its respective Parent Company Defendant. XI. 64. CONSOLIDATION OF 2005 CASES
Prior to the filing of the Original Complaint in this case, Plaintiffs had filed
Cause Nos. 2:05-cv-291, 2:05-cv-292, and 2:05-cv-293 (collectively “the 2005 cases”). Defendants in those cases were Wells Fargo & Company; Wells Fargo Bank, National Association; Bank of America Corporation; Bank of America, National Association;
_________________________________________________________________________________ Fourth Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement – Wells Fargo et al Page 16
Case 2:06-cv-00072-DF -CE Document 1252 Filed 08/03/11 Page 17 ofof 20 Case 2:11-cv-00346-DF -CE Document 3 Filed 06/03/09 Page 17 20
Wachovia Corporation, and Wachovia Bank, National Association respectively. The only patents asserted in the 2005 cases were the ‘988 and ‘137 patents. 65. At the Court’s request, for more efficient management of this litigation, the
claims from the 2005 cases have been hereby consolidated into this case, as indicated by the inclusion of the Defendants in the 2005 cases into Counts 1 and 2 above. The Defendants in the 2005 cases have all consented to this consolidation. XII. 66. JURY TRIAL
DataTreasury has demanded and demands a trial by jury. XIII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
DataTreasury respectfully requests the following relief: A. That the Court declare that the ‘988, ‘137, '007, '759, '868, and '778 patents are
valid and enforceable and that they are infringed by Defendants as described herein; B. That the Court enter a permanent injunction against Defendants’ direct
infringement of the ‘988, ‘137, '007, '759, '868, and '778 patents; C. That the Court enter a permanent injunction against Defendants’ active
inducement of infringement and/or contributory infringement of the ‘988, ‘137, '007, '759, '868, and '778 patents among themselves and by others; D. E. F. G. That the Court award damages to DataTreasury to which it is entitled; That the Court award interest on the damages to DataTreasury; That the Court treble all damages and interest for willful infringement; That the Court award to DataTreasury its costs and attorney's fees incurred in
this action; and H. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
_________________________________________________________________________________ Fourth Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement – Wells Fargo et al Page 17
Case 2:06-cv-00072-DF -CE Document 1252 Filed 08/03/11 Page 18 ofof 20 Case 2:11-cv-00346-DF -CE Document 3 Filed 06/03/09 Page 18 20
____________________________________ NELSON J. ROACH, Attorney in Charge STATE BAR NO. 16968300 DEREK GILLILAND STATE BAR NO. 24007239 NIX PATTERSON & ROACH, L.L.P. 205 Linda Drive Daingerfield, Texas 75638 903.645.7333 (telephone) 903.645.5389 njroach@nixlawfirm.com dgilliland@nixlawfirm.com C. CARY PATTERSON STATE BAR NO. 15587000 BRADY PADDOCK STATE BAR NO. 00791394 ANTHONY BRUSTER STATE BAR NO. 24036280 R. BENJAMIN KING STATE BAR NO. 24048592 NIX PATTERSON & ROACH L.L.P. 2900 St. Michael Drive, Suite 500 Texarkana, Texas 75503 903.223.3999 (telephone) 903.223.8520 (facsimile) akbruster@nixlawfirm.com bpaddock@nixlawfirm.com benking@nixlawfirm.com ROD COOPER STATE BAR NO. 90001628 EDWARD CHIN STATE BAR NO.. 50511688 NICOLE REED KLIEWER STATE BAR NO. 24041759 NIDA NADIR
_________________________________________________________________________________ Fourth Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement – Wells Fargo et al Page 18
Case 2:06-cv-00072-DF -CE Document 1252 Filed 08/03/11 Page 19 ofof 20 Case 2:11-cv-00346-DF -CE Document 3 Filed 06/03/09 Page 19 20
STATE BAR NO. 24057433 ANDREW WRIGHT STATE BAR NO. 24063927 NIX PATTERSON & ROACH, L.L.P. 5215 N. O’Connor Blvd., Suite 1900 Irving, Texas 75039 972.831.1188 (telephone) 972.444.0716 (facsimile) rodcooper@nixlawfirm.com edchin@nixlawfirm.com nicolekliewer@nixlawfirm.com nida.nadir@gmail.com awright@npraustin.com JOE KENDALL STATE BAR NO. 11260700 KARL RUPP STATE BAR NO. 24035243 KENDALL LAW GROUP, LLP 3232 McKinney Avenue, Ste. 700 Dallas, Texas 75204 214.744.3000 (telephone) 214.744.3015 (facsimile) jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com krupp@kendalllawgroup.com ERIC M. ALBRITTON STATE BAR NO. 00790215 ALBRITTON LAW FIRM P.O. Box 2649 Longview, Texas 75606 903.757.8449 (telephone) 903.758.7397 (facsimile) ema@emafirm.com T. JOHN WARD, JR. STATE BAR NO. 00794818 WARD & SMITH LAW FIRM P.O. Box 1231 Longview, Texas 75606 903.757.6400 (telephone) 903.757.2323 (facsimile) jw@jwfirm.com
_________________________________________________________________________________ Fourth Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement – Wells Fargo et al Page 19
Case 2:06-cv-00072-DF -CE Document 1252 Filed 08/03/11 Page 20 ofof 20 Case 2:11-cv-00346-DF -CE Document 3 Filed 06/03/09 Page 20 20
SETH OSTROW STATE BAR NO. 2532257 MATTHEW L. KAUFMAN STATE BAR NO. 4001046 JEANPIERRE J. GIULIANO STATE BAR NO. 4273777 ARIANNA FRANKL STATE BAR NO. 3019650 ELYSSA S. LANE STATE BAR NO. 4388393 OSTROW KAUFMAN & FRANKL LLP 136 East 57th Street, Ste. 1205 New York, NY 10022 212.888.0312 212.265.1441 (facsimile) mkaufman@okfllp.com sostrow@okfllp.com afrankl@okfllp.com jpgiuliano@okfllp.com elyssa.lane@gmail.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF DATATREASURY CORPORATION
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was filed electronically in compliance with Local Rule CV-5(a) and served via the Court’s electronic filing system on all counsel who have consented to electronic service on this the 29TH day of Mahy, 2009.
___________________________________ NIX PATTERSON & ROACH, L.L.P.
_________________________________________________________________________________ Fourth Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement – Wells Fargo et al Page 20
Sign up to vote on this titleUsefulNot usefulDatatreasury v. U S Bank National Association by PriorSmartEmbedDownloadDescriptionOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 2:11-cv-00346-DF-CE: Datatreasury Corporation v. U S Bank National Association. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District ...Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 2:11-cv-00346-DF-CE: Datatreasury Corporation v. U S Bank National Association. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, the Hon. David Folsom presiding. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l4gC for more info.Interests: Types, Business/Law, Court FilingsRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Public DomainDownload as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentShow moreShow less
RelatedN5 Technologies v. Capital One Financial et. al.by PriorSmartSelect Retrieval v. Altrec et. al.by PriorSmartKee Action Sports et. al. v. Valkenby PriorSmartWebvention v. Allergan et. al.by PriorSmartMultiplayer Network Innovations v. HTC et. al.by PriorSmartAdvanced Data Access v. Nanya Technology et. al.by PriorSmartWalker Digital v. Citigroup et al. Patent Complaintby joemullinWyncomm LLCby PriorSmartJ-Channel Industries v. Home Depot et. al.by PriorSmartU.S. Ethernet Innovations v. Cirrus Logic et. al.by PriorSmartJumpSport v. Springfree Et. Al.by PatentBlastMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Acer et. al.by PriorSmartU.S. Ethernet Innovations v. Sharp Electronicsby PriorSmartCellport Systems v. Kyocera et. al.by PriorSmartPatent Harbor v. P&F et. al.by PriorSmarte.Digital v. Shinano Kenshi et. al.by PriorSmartiMTX Strategic v. Netflixby PriorSmartJoao Bock Transaction Systems v. Capital One Financial Et. Al.by PatentBlastRichmond v. Jiawei North America et. al.by PriorSmartInformatica v. Protegrityby PatentBlastIBC v. Mr. BBQ - Complaintby slbursteinWisconsin Alumni Research Foundation v. WH Nutritionalsby PriorSmartQuest Nettech v. Collaborative Marketing Groupby PatentBlastJoao Bock Transaction Systems v. MasterCardby PriorSmartQuest NetTech v. Marden-Kaneby PatentBlastCellport Systems v. HTC et. al.by PriorSmartArtis v. STW - Complaintby slbursteinUnified Messaging Solutions v. PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., RBC Bankby PatentBlastSimilar to Datatreasury v. U S Bank National AssociationN5 Technologies v. Capital One Financial et. al.Select Retrieval v. Altrec et. al.Kee Action Sports et. al. v. ValkenWebvention v. Allergan et. al.Multiplayer Network Innovations v. HTC et. al.Advanced Data Access v. Nanya Technology et. al.Walker Digital v. Citigroup et al. Patent ComplaintWyncomm LLCJ-Channel Industries v. Home Depot et. al.U.S. Ethernet Innovations v. Cirrus Logic et. al.JumpSport v. Springfree Et. Al.Multiplayer Network Innovations v. Acer et. al.U.S. Ethernet Innovations v. Sharp ElectronicsCellport Systems v. Kyocera et. al.Patent Harbor v. P&F et. al.e.Digital v. Shinano Kenshi et. al.iMTX Strategic v. NetflixJoao Bock Transaction Systems v. Capital One Financial Et. Al.Richmond v. Jiawei North America et. al.Informatica v. ProtegrityIBC v. Mr. BBQ - ComplaintWisconsin Alumni Research Foundation v. WH NutritionalsQuest Nettech v. Collaborative Marketing GroupJoao Bock Transaction Systems v. MasterCardQuest NetTech v. Marden-KaneCellport Systems v. HTC et. al.Artis v. STW - ComplaintUnified Messaging Solutions v. PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., RBC BankJoao Control & Monitoring Systems v. Verizon CommunicationsEagles Nest Outfitters v. Harden - ComplaintDatatreasury v. U S Bank National Association