Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/126490284/911-Notify-v-ADT-LLC-d-b-a-ADT-Security-Services
Timestamp: 2016-08-25 02:31:48
Document Index: 584057612

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§ 1391', 'Application No. 09', '§ 271', '§ 284', '§ 285', 'art42']

911 Notify v. ADT LLC d/b/a ADT Security Services
BrowseUploadSign inJoinBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicWelcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out moreIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE 911 NOTIFY, LLC, Plaintiff, v.ADT LLC d/b/a/ ADT SECURITY SERVICES, Defendant. COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT This is an action for patent infringement in which Plaintiff 911 Notify, LLC (“911 Notify”) makes the following allegations against Defendant ADT LLC d/b/a ADT Security Services (“Defendant”): PARTIES 1. 911 Notify, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with a registered address ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
of 903 S. College Ave., Box 275, Newark, Delaware 19715. 2. On information and belief, Defendant is a Delaware limited liability company
with a principal place of business at 1 Town Center Road, Boca Raton, Florida 33486. Defendant has appointed The Corporation Trust Company, 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801, as its agent for service of process. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1, et
acts of patent infringement in this District, and has harmed and continues to harm 911 Notify in this District, by, among other things, using, selling, offering for sale, and importing infringing products and services in this District. 5. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)-(d) and 1400(b)
because, among other reasons, Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in this District, has committed and continues to commit acts of patent infringement in this District. On information and belief, for example, Defendant has used, sold, offered for sale, and imported infringing products in this District. COUNT I INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,775,356 6. 911 Notify is the owner by assignment of United States Patent No. 6,775,356 to
Angelo Salvucci, Don E. Reich, Kurt E. Warner, and William C. Cook, (the “’356 Patent”), entitled “Real-Time Incident and Response Information Messaging in a System for the Automatic Notification that an Emergency Call has Occurred from a Telecommunication Device.” The application for the ‘356 Patent was filed on September 27, 2001, and is a continuation-in-part of United States Patent Application No. 09/712,660, filed on November 30, 2000. The ‘356 Patent issued on August 10, 2004. A true and correct copy of the ‘356 Patent is attached as Exhibit A. 7. Defendant has infringed and is still infringing the ‘356 Patent, in this judicial
District and elsewhere in the United States, by, among other things, making, using, importing, offering for sale, and/or selling products and services that embody the patented inventions, and will continue to do so unless enjoined by this Court. Defendant’s medical alert systems include functionality that provides notification to identified parties that an emergency call to an emergency service has been made from a subscriber. Under certain circumstances, Defendant’s 2
medical alert systems place a call to an emergency service provider, and disclose to emergency services real-time data, such as monitoring data, which is collected between the time of the emergency call and the initiation of a response. In addition, upon receiving the emergency call, the system may fetch a subscriber record, containing indicia corresponding to identified parties from a subscriber database, and activate a message response system that initiates notification of the identified parties, including, for example, emergency services, relatives or neighbors. 8. By engaging in the conduct described herein, Defendant has injured 911 Notify
and is thus liable for infringement of the ‘356 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271. 9. authorization. 10. As a result of Defendant’s infringement of the ‘356 Patent, 911 Notify has Defendant has committed these acts of infringement without license or
suffered monetary damages and is entitled to a money judgment in an amount adequate to compensate for Defendant’s infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by Defendant, together with interest and costs as fixed by the Court. 11. 911 Notify has also suffered and will continue to suffer severe and irreparable
harm unless this Court enjoins Defendant, its agents, servants, employees, representatives, and all others acting in active concert therewith from infringing the ‘356 Patent. PRAYER FOR RELIEF 911 Notify respectfully requests that this Court enter: A. B. A judgment in favor of 911 Notify that Defendant has infringed the ‘356 Patent; A permanent injunction enjoining Defendant and its officers, directors, agents, servants, affiliates, employees, divisions, branches, subsidiaries, parents, and all
others acting in active concert therewith from infringement of the ‘356 Patent, or such other equitable relief the Court determines is warranted; C. A judgment and order requiring Defendant to pay 911 Notify its damages, costs, expenses, and prejudgment and post-judgment interest for Defendant’s infringement of the ‘356 Patent as provided under 35 U.S.C. § 284; D. A judgment and order finding that this is an exceptional case within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285 and awarding to 911 Notify its reasonable attorneys’ fees against Defendant; E. A judgment and order requiring Defendant to provide an accounting and to pay supplemental damages to 911 Notify, including without limitation, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; and F. Any and all other relief to which 911 Notify may be entitled. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 911 Notify, under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, requests a trial by jury of any issues so triable by right. Dated: February 19, 2013 OF COUNSEL: Benjamin T. Wang Marc A. Fenster RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT 12424 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor Los Angeles, California 90025 (310) 826-7474 bwang@raklaw.com mfenster@raklaw.com BAYARD, P.A. /s/ Richard D. Kirk Richard D. Kirk (#0922) Stephen B. Brauerman (#4952) Vanessa R. Tiradentes (#5398) 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 900 P.O. Box 25130 Wilmington, DE 19899 (302) 655-5000 rkirk@bayardlaw.com sbrauerman@bayardlaw.com vtiradentes@bayardlaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff 911 Notify, LLC
911 Notify v. ADT LLC d/b/a ADT Security Services by PriorSmart42 viewsEmbedDownloadDescriptionOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-00268-UNA: 911 Notify LLC v. ADT LLC d/b/a ADT Security Services. Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, n...Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-00268-UNA: 911 Notify LLC v. ADT LLC d/b/a ADT Security Services. Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l7FE 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
Related911 Notify v. Carshield Servicesby PriorSmartTelecomm Innovations v. Equinox Payments.pdfby PatentBlastInfinite Data v. Barnes & Nobleby PriorSmartAntennatech v. Jack In The Boxby PriorSmartWyncomm v. InfoSonicsby PatentBlastLippert Components Manufacturing v. Actuant et. al.by PriorSmartUMF v. Midmark - Complaintby slburstein11-11410-DPWby barzilay123Pediatric Medical Devices v. Indiana Mills & Manufacturingby PriorSmartUbiComm v. OpenSky Projectby PriorSmartNovelPoint Tracking v. Yaesu USA, Inc. d/b/a Standard Horizonby PriorSmartKardiametrics v. Merit Medical Systemsby PriorSmartPatentMarks Communications v. Kyocera Communicationsby PriorSmartScholle v. Rapakby PatentBlastData Speed Technology v. Dassault Systemes SolidWorksby PatentBlastCYVA Research Holdings v. First Financial Bankshares et. al.by PriorSmartOrabrush v. Fetch.For Cool Pets et. al.by PriorSmartPrivaCash v. American Express Travel Related Services Company et. alby PatentBlastExecware v. Overstock.comby PriorSmartCeats v. Zillowby PriorSmartBunayog vs Tunasby Roosevelt GuerreroArtisent, Inc.by PriorSmartPragmatus Mobile LLCby PriorSmartSoverain Software v. Euromarket Designs et. al.by PriorSmartSimilar to 911 Notify v. ADT LLC d/b/a ADT Security Services911 Notify v. Carshield ServicesTelecomm Innovations v. Equinox Payments.pdfInfinite Data v. Barnes & NobleAntennatech v. Jack In The BoxWyncomm v. InfoSonicsLippert Components Manufacturing v. Actuant et. al.UMF v. Midmark - Complaint11-11410-DPWPediatric Medical Devices v. Indiana Mills & ManufacturingUbiComm v. OpenSky ProjectNovelPoint Tracking v. Yaesu USA, Inc. d/b/a Standard HorizonKardiametrics v. Merit Medical SystemsPatentMarks Communications v. Kyocera CommunicationsScholle v. RapakData Speed Technology v. Dassault Systemes SolidWorksCYVA Research Holdings v. First Financial Bankshares et. al.Orabrush v. Fetch.For Cool Pets et. al.PrivaCash v. American Express Travel Related Services Company et. alExecware v. Overstock.comCeats v. ZillowBunayog vs TunasArtisent, Inc.Pragmatus Mobile LLCSoverain Software v. Euromarket Designs et. al.Aloft Media LLC v. Microsoft Corporation - Document No. 1Request Entry of Default against Alex Popovic, Greyside Group, Associated Realtors, Default Judgement for Triple CanopyRural Community Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Dreamscape Technologies, L.P.