Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/137816678/c4cast-com-v-Capital-One-Financial-et-al
Timestamp: 2017-02-21 15:39:45
Document Index: 497062250

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 271', '§\n287', '§ 271', '§287', '§ 284', 'art0', 'artc4', 'artc4']

BrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISIONC4CAST.COM, INC., Plaintiff, v. CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, AND CAPITAL ONE SERVICES, LLC Defendants. Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-329 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Plaintiff c4cast.com, Inc. (“c4cast” or “Plaintiff”) files this Complaint for patent infringement against Capital One Financial Corporation and Capital One Services, LLC (collectively “Capital One” or “Defendants”) alleging as follows: PARTIES 1. Plaintiff c4cast.com, Inc. is a Delaware corporation having a principal place of
business of 750 E. Walnut St., Pasadena, California 91101. 2. On information and belief, Defendant Capital One is a corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business located at 1680 Capital One Drive, McLean, VA 22102. On information and belief, Capital One may be served via its registered agent, Corporation Service Company, 2711 Centerville Rd., Ste. 400, Wilmington, Delaware 19808.
information and belief, Defendants have transacted business in this district, and has committed acts of patent infringement in this district. 5. On information and belief, Defendants are subject to this Court’s specific and
general personal jurisdiction pursuant to due process and/or the Texas Long Arm Statue, due at least to its substantial business in this forum, including: (i) at least a portion of the infringements alleged herein; and (ii) regularly doing or soliciting business, engaging in other persistent courses of conduct, and/or deriving substantial revenue from goods and services provided to individuals in Texas and in this Judicial District. COUNT I INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,658,467 6. Plaintiff is the owner by assignment of United States Patent No. 6,658,467 (“the
’467 Patent”) entitled “Provision of Informational Resources over an Electronic Network.” The ’467 Patent issued on December 2, 2003. A true and correct copy of the ’467 Patent is attached as Exhibit A. 7. Upon information and belief, Defendants have been and is now infringing the
’467 Patent in the State of Texas, in this judicial district, and elsewhere in the United States, by, among other things, directly or through intermediaries, making, using, importing, providing, supplying, distributing, selling, and/or offering for sale apparatuses and systems and providing
http://www.capitalone.com and related internal systems supporting the operation of said websites) for maintaining a collection of resources that can be accessed by a participant over the electronic network at a given time; assigning points to the resources based on participant access of the resources; and modifying the collection based on the points assigned to the resources covered by one or more claims of the ’467 Patent to the injury of c4cast. Defendants are directly infringing, literally infringing, and/or infringing the ’467 Patent under the doctrine of equivalents. Defendant is thus liable for infringement of the ’467 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271. 8. On information and belief, to the extent any marking was required by 35 U.S.C. §
287, all predecessors in interest to the ’467 Patent complied with any such requirements. 9. As a result of Defendants’ infringement of the ’467 Patent, Plaintiff has suffered
monetary damages and is entitled to a money judgment in an amount adequate to compensate for Defendants’ infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by Defendants, together with interest and costs as fixed by the court, and Plaintiff will continue to suffer damages in the future unless Defendants’ infringing activities are enjoined by this Court. 10. Unless a permanent injunction is issued enjoining Defendants and their agents,
servants, employees, representatives, affiliates, and all others acting on in active concert therewith from infringing the ’467 Patent, Plaintiff will be greatly and irreparably harmed.
COUNT II INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,958,204 11. Plaintiff is the owner by assignment of United States Patent No. 7,958,204 (“the
’204 Patent”) entitled “Community-Selected Content.” The ’204 Patent issued on June 7, 2011. A true and correct copy of the ’204 Patent is attached as Exhibit B. 12. Upon information and belief, Defendants have been and is now infringing the
’204 Patent in the State of Texas, in this judicial district, and elsewhere in the United States, by, among other things, directly or through intermediaries, making, using, importing, providing, supplying, distributing, selling, and/or offering for sale apparatuses and systems and providing methods practiced on Defendants’ various websites (including, without limitation,
http://www.capitalone.com and related internal systems supporting the operation of said websites) for maintaining a collection of resources, assigning points to individual resources based on amount of participant access, and modifying the collection based on the points assigned to the resources covered by one or more claims of the ’204 Patent to the injury of c4cast. Defendants are directly infringing, literally infringing, and/or infringing the ’204 Patent under the doctrine of equivalents. Defendants are thus liable for infringement of the ’204 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271. 13. On information and belief, to the extent any marking was required by 35 U.S.C.
§287, all predecessors in interest to the ’204 Patent complied with any such requirements. 14. As a result of Defendants’ infringement of the ’204 Patent, Plaintiff has suffered
monetary damages and is entitled to a money judgment in an amount adequate to compensate for Defendants’ infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by Defendants, together with interest and costs as fixed by the court, and Plaintiff will
continue to suffer damages in the future unless Defendants’ infringing activities are enjoined by this Court. 15. Unless a permanent injunction is issued enjoining Defendants and their agents,
servants, employees, representatives, affiliates, and all others acting on in active concert therewith from infringing the ’204 Patent, Plaintiff will be greatly and irreparably harmed. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter: 1. Patents; 2. A permanent injunction enjoining Defendants and their officers, directors, agents A judgment in favor of Plaintiff that Defendants have infringed the ’467 and ’204
servants, affiliates, employees, divisions, branches, subsidiaries, parents, and all others acting in active concert therewith from infringement of the ’467 and ’204 Patents, or such other equitable relief the Court determines is warranted; 3. A judgment and order requiring Defendants pay Plaintiff its damages, costs,
expenses, and prejudgment and post-judgment interest for Defendants’ infringement of the ’467 and ’204 Patents as provided under 35 U.S.C. § 284, and an accounting of ongoing postjudgment infringement; 4. entitled. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL C4cast, under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, requests a trial by jury of any issues so triable by right. Any and all other relief, at law or equity, to which Plaintiff may show itself to be
Respectfully submitted, By: \s\ Hao Ni Hao Ni Texas Bar No. 24047205 hni@nilawfirm.com Timothy T. Wang Texas Bar No. 24067927 twang@nilawfirm.com Neal G. Massand Texas Bar No. 24039038 nmassand@nilawfirm.com Stevenson Moore V Texas Bar No. 24076573 smoore@nilawfirm.com Ni, Wang & Associates, PLLC 8140 Walnut Hill Ln., Ste. 310 Dallas, TX 75251 Tel: (972) 331-4600 Fax: (972) 314-0900 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF C4CAST.COM, INC.
Sign up to vote on this titleUsefulNot usefulc4cast.com v. Capital One Financial et. al. by PriorSmart0.0 (0)EmbedDownloadDescriptionOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-00329: c4cast.com, Inc. v. Capital One Financial Corporation et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of ...Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-00329: c4cast.com, Inc. v. Capital One Financial Corporation et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l85P 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
RelatedMcMillan Electric v. EPEC Engineered Technologiesby PriorSmartFEGO Precision Industrial v. Withingsby PriorSmartFEGO Precision Industrial v. Scosche Industriesby PatentBlastFEGO Precision Industrial v. Fitbitby PatentBlastCYVA Research Holdings v. Priceline.comby PriorSmartc4cast.com v. Barnes & Noble et. al.by PriorSmartFEGO Precision Industrial v. Nikeby PatentBlastFEGO Precision Industrial v. Garmin Internationalby PriorSmartCYVA Research Holdings v. Henderson Citizens Bancshares Et. Al.by PatentBlastRPost Holdings et. al. v. ExactTargetby PriorSmartRothschild Location Technologies LLCby PriorSmartRecruitMe v. Avid Life Mediaby PatentBlastFlexiteek Americas et. al. v. Plasteak et. al.by PriorSmartCuozzo Speed Technologies v. Reach Unlimitedby PatentBlastWorldwide Oilfield Machine v. Ameriforge Group, Inc. d/b/a AF Global Corporation a/k/a AF Globalby PriorSmartPlayCore Wisconsin v. Krauss Craft, Inc. d/b/a Playcraft Systemsby PriorSmartAlexander v. Baxter Internationalby PriorSmartBarrette Outdoor Living v. Origin Point Brandsby PatentBlastCuozzo Speed Technologies v. Cellco Partnershipby PatentBlastToro Company v. Barreto Manufacturingby PriorSmartc4cast.com v. Dellby PriorSmartHarcol Research v. Evogenby PatentBlastUntitledby PriorSmartSynchronoss Technologies v. Newbay Software et. al.by PriorSmarteDekka v. Fanaticsby PriorSmarteDekka v. Motorsport Aftermarket Groupby PriorSmartCYVA Research Holdings v. Ebayby PriorSmartRTC Industries v. Ziveloby PatentBlastSimilar to c4cast.com v. Capital One Financial Et. Al.Skip carouselMcMillan Electric v. EPEC Engineered TechnologiesFEGO Precision Industrial v. WithingsFEGO Precision Industrial v. Scosche IndustriesFEGO Precision Industrial v. FitbitCYVA Research Holdings v. Priceline.comc4cast.com v. Barnes & Noble et. al.FEGO Precision Industrial v. NikeFEGO Precision Industrial v. Garmin InternationalCYVA Research Holdings v. Henderson Citizens Bancshares Et. Al.RPost Holdings et. al. v. ExactTargetRothschild Location Technologies LLCRecruitMe v. Avid Life MediaFlexiteek Americas et. al. v. Plasteak et. al.Cuozzo Speed Technologies v. Reach UnlimitedWorldwide Oilfield Machine v. Ameriforge Group, Inc. d/b/a AF Global Corporation a/k/a AF GlobalPlayCore Wisconsin v. Krauss Craft, Inc. d/b/a Playcraft SystemsAlexander v. Baxter InternationalBarrette Outdoor Living v. Origin Point BrandsCuozzo Speed Technologies v. Cellco PartnershipToro Company v. Barreto Manufacturingc4cast.com v. DellHarcol Research v. EvogenUntitledSynchronoss Technologies v. Newbay Software et. al.eDekka v. FanaticseDekka v. Motorsport Aftermarket GroupCYVA Research Holdings v. EbayRTC Industries v. ZiveloRothschild Location Technologies v. Nissan North AmericaUntitledc4cast.com v. Capital One Financial Et. Al.