Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/133506523/e-Digital-v-Motorola-Mobility
Timestamp: 2017-03-24 19:03:05
Document Index: 62694960

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 101', '§ 281', '§ 1331', '§ 101', '§ 1391', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 284', 'art0']

e.Digital v. Motorola Mobility | Patent | Patent Infringement
BrowseInterestsStay InformedCareerPersonal GrowthFiction & BiographiesHealth & FitnessLifestyleCultureBrowse byBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoin1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28HANDAL & ASSOCIATES 1200 THIRD AVE SUITE 1321 SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 TEL: 619.544.6400 FAX: 619.696.0323
ANTON HANDAL (Bar No. 113812) anh@handal-law.com PAMELA C. CHALK (Bar No. 216411) pchalk@handal-law.com GABRIEL HEDRICK (Bar No. 220649) ghedrick@handal-law.com HANDAL & ASSOCIATES 1200 Third Avenue, Suite 1321 San Diego, California 92101 Tel: 619.544.6400 Fax: 619.696.0323 Attorneys for Plaintiff e.Digital Corporation UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA e.Digital Corporation, Plaintiff, v. Motorola Mobility LLC, Defendant. Plaintiff e.Digital Corporation (“e.Digital” or “Plaintiff”), by and through its undersigned counsel, complains and alleges against Defendant Motorola Mobility LLC (“Motorola” or “Defendant”) as follows: NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. This is a civil action for infringement of a patent arising under the laws of the United States relating to patents, 35 U.S.C. § 101, et seq., including, without limitation, § 281. Plaintiff e.Digital seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction and monetary damages for the infringement of its U.S. Patent Nos. 5,742,737; 5,491,774; 5,839,108; and 5,842,170. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2. This court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case for patent
Case No. '13 CV0780 JAH MDD COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
infringement under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a) and pursuant to the patent laws of the United States of America, 35 U.S.C. § 101, et seq. 3. Venue properly lies within the Southern District of California pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b), (c), and (d) and 1400(b). On information and belief, Defendant conducts substantial business directly and/or through third parties or agents in this judicial district by selling and/or offering to sell the infringing products and/or by conducting other business in this judicial district. Furthermore, Plaintiff e.Digital is headquartered and has its principal place of business in this district, engages in business in this district, and has been harmed by Defendant’s conduct, business transactions and sales in this district. 4. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because, on information and belief, Defendant transacts continuous and systematic business within the State of California and the Southern District of California. In addition, this Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendant because, on information and belief, this lawsuit arises out of Defendant’s infringing activities, including, without limitation, the making, using, selling and/or offering to sell infringing products in the State of California and the Southern District of California. Finally, this Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because, on information and belief, Defendant has made, used, sold and/or offered for sale its infringing products and placed such infringing products in the stream of interstate commerce with the expectation that such infringing products would be made, used, sold and/or offered for sale within the State of California and the Southern District of California. PARTIES 5. Plaintiff e.Digital is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters and principal place of business at 16870 West Bernardo Drive, Suite 120, San Diego, California 92127. 6. Upon information and belief, Defendant Motorola is a corporation
registered and lawfully existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with an office and principal place of business located at 600 North US Highway 45, Libertyville IL 60048. THE ASSERTED PATENTS 7. On April 21, 1998, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally issued United States Patent No. 5,742,737 (“the ’737 patent”) entitled “Method For Recording Voice Messages On Flash Memory In A Hand Held Recorder,” to its named inventors, Norbert P. Daberko, Richard K. Davis, and Richard D. Bridgewater. Plaintiff, e.Digital is the assignee and owner of the entire right, title and interest in and to the ’737 patent and has the right to bring this suit for damages and other relief. A true and correct copy of the ’737 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 8. On October 17, 2012, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued a Reexamination Certificate for the ’737 patent adding new Claim 13, and cancelling Claim 5. Claim 13 is substantially identical to former claim 5. A true and correct copy of the Reexamination Certificate is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 9. On February 13, 1996, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally issued United States Patent No. 5,491,774 (“the ‘774 patent”) entitled “Handheld Record And Playback Device With Flash Memory,” to its named inventors Elwood G. Norris, Norbert P. Daberko, and Steven T. Brightbill. Plaintiff, e.Digital is the assignee and owner of the entire right, title and interest in and to the ’774 patent and has the right to bring this suit for damages and other relief. A true and correct copy of the ’774 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit C. 10. On August 14, 2012, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued a Reexamination Certificate for the ’774 patent. A true and correct copy of the Reexamination Certificate is attached hereto as Exhibit D. 11. On November 17, 1998, the United States Patent and Trademark
Office duly and legally issued United States Patent No. 5,839,108 (“the ’108 COMPLAINT
patent”) entitled “Flash Memory File System In A Handheld Record And Playback Device,” to its named inventors Norbert P. Daberko and Richard K. Davis. Plaintiff e.Digital is the assignee and owner of the entire right, title and interest in and to the ’108 patent and has the right to bring this suit for damages and other relief. A true and correct copy of the ’108 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit E. 12. On November 24, 1998, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally issued United States Patent No. 5,842,170 (“the ’170 patent”) entitled “Method For Editing In Hand Held Recorder,” to its named inventors Norbert P. Daberko, Richard K. Davis, and Richard D. Bridgewater. Plaintiff, e.Digital is the assignee and owner of the entire right, title and interest in and to the ’170 patent and has the right to bring this suit for damages and other relief. A true and correct copy of the ’170 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit F. COUNT ONE INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’737 PATENT BY DEFENDANT 13. 14. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each of the Upon information and belief, Defendant, without authority, (a) has allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 12 above. directly infringed and continues to directly infringe the ’737 patent by making, using, offering to sell, or selling within the United States, or importing into the United States, products that practice one ore more claims of the ’737 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a); (b) has induced and continues to induce infringement of one or more claims of the ’737 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b); and (c) has contributed and continues to contribute to the infringement of one ore more claims of the ’737 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c). 15. The accused products, alone or in combination with other products, practice each of the limitations of independent claims 1, 4, 9, and 13, and dependent claims 3, 6 and 7 of the ’737 patent. 16. The accused products for purposes of the ‘737 patent include but are
not limited to Motorola smartphones including, but not limited to, the Razr, Razr Maxx, Razr M, Razr HD, Razr Maxx HD, Razr M Developer Edition, Razr HD Developer Edition, Droid 4, Photon Q 4G LTE, Photon 4G, Admiral, ES400S, Electrify 2, Electrify M, Electrify, Defy XT, Atrix HD Developer Edition, Atrix HD, Atrix 2, Triumph, i867, Titanium, and the XT 886; and certain Motorola mobile phones including, but not limited, to the Quantico and the Brute i686. 17. Upon information and belief, Defendant, without authority, has actively induced infringement and continues to actively induce infringement of the ’737 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) by causing others to directly infringe the claims of the ’737 patent and/or by intentionally instructing others how to use the accused products in a manner that infringes the claims of the ’737 patent. On information and belief, Defendant has induced and continues to induce infringement by instructing customers to operate the products in an infringing manner and/or when Defendant tests or otherwise operates the accused products in the United States. 18. Upon information and belief, Defendant, without authority, has contributed to and continues to contribute to the infringement of the ’737 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) by importing into the United States, selling and/or offering to sell within the United States accused products that (1) constitute a material part of the invention of the ’737 patent, (2) Defendant knows to be especially adapted for use in infringing the ’737 patent, and (3) are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use with respect to the ’737 patent. 19. Based on information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant sells, ships, or otherwise delivers the accused products with all the features required to infringe the asserted claims of the ’737 patent. On information and belief, these products are designed to practice the infringing features. 20. Defendant had knowledge of infringement of the ’737 patent since at
least the filing of this complaint and perhaps as early as 2010 by virtue of the Plaintiff’s filing of complaints against others within Defendant’s industry. On information and belief, Defendant has continued to sell products that practice the ’737 patent after acquiring knowledge of infringement. 21. 22. Upon information and belief, the infringement by Defendant has been Plaintiff has been irreparably harmed by these acts of infringement and is willful. and has no adequate remedy at law. Upon information and belief, infringement of the ’737 patent is ongoing and will continue unless Defendant is enjoined from further infringement by the court. COUNT TWO INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’774 PATENT BY DEFENDANT 23. 24. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each of the Upon information and belief, Defendant, without authority, (a) has allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 12 above. directly infringed and continues to directly infringe the ’774 patent by making, using, offering to sell, or selling within the United States, or importing into the United States, products that practice one ore more claims of the ’774 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a); (b) has induced and continues to induce infringement of one or more claims of the ’774 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b); and (c) has contributed and continues to contribute to the infringement of one ore more claims of the ’774 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c). 25. The accused products, alone or in combination with other products, practice each of the limitations of independent claims 33 and 34, and dependent claims 2, 3, 6, 10, 15 through 16, 18, 23 through 26, and 28 through 31 of the ’774 patent. 26. The accused products for purposes of the ’774 patent include but are
not limited to Motorola smartphones including, but not limited to, the Razr, Razr COMPLAINT
Maxx, Razr M, Razr HD, Razr Maxx HD, Razr M Developer Edition, Razr HD Developer Edition, Droid 4, Photon Q 4G LTE, Photon 4G, Admiral, ES400S, Electrify 2, Electrify M, Electrify, Defy XT, Atrix HD Developer Edition, Atrix HD, Atrix 2, Triumph, i867, Titanium, and the XT 886; and certain Motorola mobile phones including, but not limited to, the Brute i686. 27. Upon information and belief, Defendant, without authority, has actively induced infringement and continues to actively induce infringement of the ’774 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) by causing others to directly infringe the claims of the ’774 patent and/or by intentionally instructing others how to use the accused products in a manner that infringes the claims of the ’774 patent. On information and belief, Defendant has induced and continues to induce infringement by instructing customers to operate the products in an infringing manner and/or when Defendant tests or otherwise operates the accused products in the United States. 28. Upon information and belief, Defendant, without authority, has contributed to and continues to contribute to the infringement of the ’774 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) by importing into the United States, selling and/or offering to sell within the United States accused products that (1) constitute a material part of the invention of the ’774 patent, (2) Defendant knows to be especially adapted for use in infringing the ’774 patent, and (3) are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use with respect to the ’774 patent. 29. Based on information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant sells, ships, or otherwise delivers the accused products with all the features required to infringe the asserted claims of the ’774 patent. On information and belief, these products are designed to practice the infringing features. 30. Defendant had knowledge of infringement of the ’774 patent since at
least the filing of this complaint and perhaps as early as 2010 by virtue of the COMPLAINT
Plaintiff’s filing of complaints against others within Defendant’s industry. On information and belief, Defendant has continued to sell products that practice the ’774 patent after acquiring knowledge of infringement. 31. 32. Upon information and belief, the infringement by Defendant has been Plaintiff has been irreparably harmed by these acts of infringement and is willful. and has no adequate remedy at law. Upon information and belief, infringement of the ’774 patent is ongoing and will continue unless Defendant is enjoined from further infringement by the court. COUNT THREE INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’108 PATENT BY DEFENDANT 33. 34. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each of the Upon information and belief, Defendant, without authority, (a) has allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 12 above. directly infringed and continues to directly infringe the ’108 patent by making, using, offering to sell, or selling within the United States, or importing into the United States, products that practice one or more claims of the ’108 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a); (b) has induced and continues to induce infringement of one or more claims of the ’108 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b); and (c) has contributed and continues to contribute to the infringement of one or more claims of the ’108 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c). 35. The accused products, alone or in combination with other products, practice each of the limitations of independent claim 2 and dependent claim 3 of the ’108 patent. 36. Razr, Razr Maxx, Razr M, Razr HD, Razr Maxx HD, Razr M Developer Edition, Razr HD Developer Edition, Droid 4, Photon Q 4G LTE, Photon 4G, Admiral, ES400S, Electrify 2, Electrify M, Electrify, Defy XT, Atrix HD Developer Edition, Atrix HD, Atrix 2, Triumph, i867, Titanium, and the XT
886; and certain Motorola mobile phones including, but not limited to, the Brute i686. 37. Upon information and belief, Defendant, without authority, has actively induced and continues to actively induce infringement of claims 2 and 3 of the ’108 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) by causing others to directly infringe the claims of the ’108 patent and/or by intentionally instructing others how to use the accused products in a manner that infringes claims 2 and 3 of the ’108 patent. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant has induced and continues to induce infringement by instructing customers to operate the products in an infringing manner and/or when Defendant tests or otherwise operates the accused products in the United States. 38. Upon information and belief, Defendant, without authority, has contributed and continues to contribute to the infringement of claims 2 and 3 of the ’108 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) by importing into the United States, selling and/or offering to sell within the United States accused products that (1) embody and constitute a material part of the invention of the ’108 patent, (2) Defendant knows to be especially adapted for use in infringing the ’108 patent, and (3) are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use with respect to the ’108 patent. 39. On information and belief, Defendant sells, ships or otherwise delivers the accused products with all the features required to infringe the asserted claims of the ’108 patent. On information and belief, these products are designed to practice the infringing features. 40. Defendant had knowledge of infringement of the ’108 patent since at least the filing of this complaint and perhaps as early as 2010 by virtue of the Plaintiff’s filing of complaints against others within Defendant’s industry. 41. Upon information and belief, the infringement by Defendant has been
and is willful. COMPLAINT
Plaintiff has been irreparably harmed by these acts of infringement
and has no adequate remedy at law. Upon information and belief, infringement of the ’108 patent is ongoing and will continue unless Defendant is enjoined from further infringement by the court. COUNT FOUR INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’170 PATENT BY DEFENDANT 43. 44. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each of the Upon information and belief, Defendant, without authority, (a) has allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 12 above. directly infringed and continues to directly infringe the ’170 patent by making, using, offering to sell, or selling within the United States, or importing into the United States, products that practice one ore more claims of the ’170 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a); (b) has induced and continues to induce infringement of one or more claims of the ’170 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b); and (c) has contributed and continues to contribute to the infringement of one ore more claims of the ’170 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c). 45. The accused products, alone or in combination with other products, practice each of the limitations of independent claims 1 and 7 and certain dependent claims 2, 3 and 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the ’170 patent. 46. The accused products for purposes of the ’170 patent include but are not limited to Motorola smartphones including, but not limited to, the Razr, Razr Maxx, Razr M, Razr HD, Razr Maxx HD, Razr M Developer Edition, Razr HD Developer Edition, Droid 4, Photon 4G, ES400S, Electrify 2, Electrify M, Atrix HD Developer Edition, Atrix HD, Atrix 2, i867, Titanium, and the XT 886; and certain Motorola mobile phones including, but not limited to, the Brute i686. 47. Upon information and belief, Defendant, without authority, has actively induced infringement and continues to actively induce infringement of the ’170 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) by causing others to directly infringe
the claims of the ’170 patent and/or by intentionally instructing others how to use the accused products in a manner that infringes the claims of the ’170 patent. On information and belief, Defendant has induced and continues to induce infringement by instructing customers to operate the products in an infringing manner and/or when Defendant tests or otherwise operates the accused products in the United States. 48. Upon information and belief, Defendant, without authority, has contributed and continues to contribute to the infringement of the ’170 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) by importing into the United States, selling and/or offering to sell within the United States accused products that (1) embody and constitute a material part of the invention of the ’170 patent, (2) Defendant knows to be especially adapted for use in infringing the ’170 patent, and (3) are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use with respect to the ’170 patent. 49. Based on information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant sells, ships, or otherwise delivers the accused products with all the features required to infringe the asserted claims of the ’170 patent. On information and belief, these products are designed to practice the infringing features. 50. 51. Plaintiff alleges upon information and belief, that the infringement by Plaintiff has been irreparably harmed by these acts of infringement Defendant has been and is willful. and has no adequate remedy at law. Upon information and belief, infringement of the ’170 patent is ongoing and will continue unless Defendant is enjoined from further infringement by the court. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief and judgment as follows: 1. 2. That Defendant be declared to have infringed the Patents-in-Suit; That Defendant’s infringement of the Patents-in-Suit has been
deliberate and willful; 3. Preliminarily and permanently enjoining the Defendant’s officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with them, from infringement of the Patents-in-Suit, including nut not limited to any making, using, offering for sale, selling, or importing of unlicensed infringing products within and without the United States; 4. 5. 6. 7. Compensation for all damages caused by Defendant’s infringement of Enhancing Plaintiff’s damages up to three (3) times their amount Granting Plaintiff pre- and post-judgment interest on its damages, Awarding such other relief as this Court may deem just and proper. HANDAL & ASSOCIATES Dated: April 1, 2013 By: /s/ Pamela C. Chalk Anton N. Handal Gabriel G. Hedrick Pamela C. Chalk Attorneys for Plaintiff e.Digital Corporation the Patents-in-Suit to be determined at trial; pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284; together with all costs and expenses; and,
HANDAL & ASSOCIATES Dated: April 1, 2013 By: /s/ Pamela C. Chalk Anton N. Handal Gabriel G. Hedrick Pamela C. Chalk Attorneys for Plaintiff e.Digital Corporation
Sign up to vote on this titleUsefulNot usefule.Digital v. Motorola Mobility by PriorSmart0.0 (0)EmbedDownloadDescriptionOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 3:13-cv-00780-JAH-MDD: e.Digital Corporation v. Motorola Mobility LLC. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Calif...Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 3:13-cv-00780-JAH-MDD: e.Digital Corporation v. Motorola Mobility LLC. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, the Hon. John A. Houston presiding. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l7Uy 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
Relatede.Digital v. ADATA Technology et. al.by PriorSmarte.Digital v. Huawei Technologies et. al.by PriorSmarte.Digital v. JVC Americas et. al.by PriorSmarte.Digital v. Appleby PriorSmarte.Digital v. SanDiskby PriorSmarte.Digital v. ATP Electronicsby PriorSmarte.Digital v. Yamaha Corporation of America et. al.by PriorSmarte.Digital v. Accelerated Memory Productionby PriorSmart v. Apple et. al.by PriorSmartPotter Voice Technologies v. Appleby PatentBlastPotter Voice v. Apple Et Alby jeff_roberts881Diamond Coating Technologies v. Hyundai Motor America et. al.by PriorSmartCDD Technologies v. Acer Americaby PriorSmartDynamic 3D Geosolutions v. Emerson Electric et. al.by PriorSmartSpiker v. Martin Et. Al.by PatentBlastInvue Security Products v. Langhong Technology Et. Al.by PatentBlastI.C. Medical v. ConMedby PatentBlastNunka Et. Al. v. Innovative Health Solutions Et. Al.by PatentBlastHengst of North America v. Champion Laboratories et. al.by PriorSmartClerisy et. al. v. AirWare Holdings et. al.by PriorSmartBetter Mouse Company v. Steelseries ApS Et. Al.by PatentBlastc4cast.com v. Dellby PriorSmartOptical Devices v. Panasonic et. al.by PriorSmartPrinceton Digital Image v. CAE Healthcare et. al.by PriorSmartNeuroGrafix et. al. v. Brainlab et. al.by PriorSmartAuto-Dimensions v. Autodesk et. al.by PriorSmartPatent Litigation in Europe Enby Anbarasan SubuInMotion Imagery Technologies v. Dellby PatentBlastSimilar To e.Digital v. Motorola MobilitySkip carousele.Digital v. ADATA Technology et. al.e.Digital v. Huawei Technologies et. al.e.Digital v. JVC Americas et. al.e.Digital v. Applee.Digital v. SanDiske.Digital v. ATP Electronicse.Digital v. Yamaha Corporation of America et. al.e.Digital v. Accelerated Memory Production v. Apple et. al.Potter Voice Technologies v. ApplePotter Voice v. Apple Et AlDiamond Coating Technologies v. Hyundai Motor America et. al.CDD Technologies v. Acer AmericaDynamic 3D Geosolutions v. Emerson Electric et. al.Spiker v. Martin Et. Al.Invue Security Products v. Langhong Technology Et. Al.I.C. Medical v. ConMedNunka Et. Al. v. Innovative Health Solutions Et. Al.Hengst of North America v. Champion Laboratories et. al.Clerisy et. al. v. AirWare Holdings et. al.Better Mouse Company v. Steelseries ApS Et. Al.c4cast.com v. DellOptical Devices v. Panasonic et. al.Princeton Digital Image v. CAE Healthcare et. al.NeuroGrafix et. al. v. Brainlab et. al.Auto-Dimensions v. Autodesk et. al.Patent Litigation in Europe EnInMotion Imagery Technologies v. DellThinkTank One Research v. PLR IP Holdings Et. Al.NovelPoint Tracking v. TeeJet Technologies Illinoise.Digital v. Motorola Mobility