Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/235048050/Ilife-Technologies-v-Body-Media
Timestamp: 2017-05-29 08:35:10
Document Index: 545212614

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

Ilife Technologies v. Body Media | Patent Infringement | Title 35 Of The United States Code
ScribdExploreEXPLORE BY INTERESTSCareer & MoneyBusiness Biography & HistoryEntrepreneurshipLeadership & MentoringMoney ManagementTime ManagementPersonal GrowthHappinessPsychologyRelationships & ParentingReligion & SpiritualitySelf-ImprovementPolitics & Current AffairsPoliticsSocietyScience & TechScienceTechHealth & FitnessFitnessNutritionSportsWellnessLifestyleArts & LanguagesFashion & BeautyFood & WineHome & GardenTravelEntertainmentCelebrity Biography & MemoirPop CultureBiographies & HistoryBiography & MemoirHistoryFictionChildren’s & YAClassic LiteratureContemporary FictionHistorical FictionLGBTQ FictionMystery, Thriller & CrimeRomanceScience Fiction & FantasyBROWSE BY CONTENT TYPEBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicUploadSign inJoinOptionsJoinSign InUploadIlife Technologies v. Body MediaUploaded by PatentBlastPatent InfringementTitle 35 Of The United States CodeDoctrine Of EquivalentsPatentMinimum Contacts0.0 (0)DownloadEmbedDescription: Ilife Technologies v. Body MediaView MoreIlife Technologies v. Body MediaCopyright: © All Rights ReservedDownload as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentPlaintiff’s Original Complaint for Patent Infringement Page 1MWM 603858 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION ILIFE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Plaintiff, v. BODY MEDIA, INC., Defendant. § § § § § § § § § Civil Action No. 3:13-cv-4776 Jury Trial Demanded PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT This is a patent infringement action by iLife Technologies, Inc. (“Plaintiff” or “iLife”) against Body Media, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Body Media”). PARTIES 1. iLife Technologies, Inc. is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business in this Judicial District. 2. Body Media is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 420 Fort Duquesne Boulevard, Suite 1900, Pittsburgh, PA 15222. Body Media has appointed CT Corporation System, 350 North St. Paul Street, Suite 2900, Dallas, TX 75201, as its registered agent for service of process. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 101, et seq. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). Plaintiff’s Original Complaint for Patent Infringement Page 2 MWM 603858 4. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant regularly conducts business in Texas and in the Northern District of Texas, and has committed and continues to commit acts of patent infringement in Texas and in the Northern District of Texas. Defendant has directly or indirectly infringed the asserted patents in the Northern District of Texas by making, importing, using, selling, or offering for sale products and services covered by the asserted patents in Texas and in this District; directly or indirectly placing the same into the stream of commerce to be included in infringing goods and services used, distributed, marketed, sold, or offered for sale in Texas and in this District; and knowingly inducing or contributing to others’ infringement of the asserted patents by contracting with and directing others to use, distribute, market, sell, or offer for sale infringing products and services for which there are no substantial noninfringing uses in Texas and in this District. 5. Defendant has established minimum contacts with the forum such that the exercise of jurisdiction over Defendant would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice by deriving substantial revenue from the sale and use of products and services, including the accused products and services, within this District; expecting or being in a position to reasonably expect its actions to have consequences within this District; and regularly doing business, soliciting business, engaging in other persistent acts of conduct, and deriving substantial revenue from goods and services provided to individuals in Texas and in this District. 6. iLife is a Texas company with its principal place of business in this District. These acts cause injury to iLife within the District. Plaintiff’s Original Complaint for Patent Infringement Page 3 MWM 603858 7. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400(b). PATENTS IN SUIT 8. iLife is the owner by assignment of all rights, title, and interest in and under the following United States Patents and has standing to sue for the past, present, and future infringement of the following United States Patents: Patent Title Issue Date Exhibit U.S. Pat. No. 6,307,481 (“the ‘481 Patent”) “Systems for Evaluating Movement of a Body and Methods of Operating the Same” 10/23/2001 Ex. 1 U.S. Pat. No. 6,703,939 (“the ‘939 Patent”) “System and Method for Detecting Motions of a Body” 03/09/2004 Ex. 2 U.S. Pat. No. 6,864,796 (“the ‘796 Patent”) “Systems within a communication device for evaluating movement of a body and methods of operating the same” 03/08/2005 Ex. 3 U.S. Pat. No. 7,095,331 (“the ‘331 Patent”) “System and Method for Detecting Motion of a Body” 08/22/2006 Ex. 4 U.S. Pat. No. 7,145,461 (“the ‘461 Patent”) “System and Method for Analyzing Activity of a Body” 12/05/2006 Ex. 5 U.S. Pat. No. 7,479,890 (“the ‘890 Patent”) “System and Method for Analyzing Activity of a Body” 01/20/2009 Ex. 6 9. The ‘481 Patent, ‘939 Patent, ‘796 Patent, ‘331 Patent, ‘461 Patent, and ‘890 Patent are collectively referred to as the “Asserted Patents.” ACCUSED PRODUCTS 10. Defendant makes, uses, imports, sells, or offers for sale systems or methods for detecting, evaluating, or analyzing movement of a body covered by one or more claims of the Asserted Patents, including but not limited to the Jawbone UP activity tracker and Jawbone UP mobile application, Fit Link armband, Fit Core armband, Fit Advantage armband, BodyBugg armband, Fit Activity Manager application, Fit mobile Plaintiff’s Original Complaint for Patent Infringement Page 4 MWM 603858 application, and SYNC software (collectively, the “Accused Products”), together with any related services (“Accused Services”). The Accused Products and Services contain systems or methods for body movement detection, body movement evaluation, body movement analysis, receiving body movement signals, analyzing body movement signals, responding to body movement signals, and remotely monitoring body movement signals. 11. Defendant controls and directs the actions of others, including end user customers, through the Accused Products and Services and their instructions, advertisements, software, and use agreements. 12. For example, according to Body Media’s advertisements, the Fit Link armband product includes a 3-axis accelerometer “to measure HOW you move from multiple axis and perspectives, allowing us to better understand your activity.” Among other things, it uses “the accelerometer to measure the distinct patterns created by walking and/or running,” then its “proven algorithms crunch your numbers pairing up sensor data with calorie information and presenting it to you via the BodyMedia FIT Activity Manager so you know how far you are toward reaching your goals!”
13. Defendant’s advertisements show that the Accused Products and Services are not only able to infringe the Asserted Patents, they are not capable of any substantial non-infringing use. They also show that Defendant intends for its customers to infringe the Asserted Patents by using the Accused Products and Services. 1
http://www.bodymedia.com/the_science.html (retrieved October 25, 2013). Plaintiff’s Original Complaint for Patent Infringement Page 5 MWM 603858 14. Defendant has actual knowledge of the Asserted Patents and that the Accused Products and Services infringe the Asserted Patents since at least the service of this cause of action. In re Bill of Lading Transmission & Processing Sys. Patent Litigation, 681 F.3d 1323, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (allowing notice of indirect infringement upon service). COUNT ONE PATENT INFRINGEMENT The ‘481 Patent 15. iLife repeats and re-alleges the allegations in the foregoing paragraphs. 16. Defendant directly infringes, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, and has infringed one or more claims of the ‘481 Patent by, without authority, making, using, importing, offering to sell, or selling the Accused Products and Services that practice the inventions of the ‘481 Patent within the United States. 17. Defendant indirectly infringes the ‘481 Patent within the United States by inducement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Defendant has induced and continues to induce users of the Accused Products and Services to directly infringe one or more claims of the ‘481 Patent by controlling and directing, inter alia, the actions of users and by advertising and claiming benefits that require its customers to commit acts of infringement. 18. Defendant indirectly infringes the ‘481 Patent within the United States by committing contributory infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c). Defendant has contributed to end-user customers’ direct infringement of one or more claims of the ‘481 Patent by providing the Accused Products and Services which, as evidenced by Defendant’s advertisements, are especially made for use in a manner infringing the ‘481 Patent and have no substantial non-infringing uses. Plaintiff’s Original Complaint for Patent Infringement Page 6 MWM 603858 19. Defendant’s infringement has harmed iLife and will continue to cause severe and irreparable damage as long as Defendant’s infringing activities continue. 20. iLife is entitled to recover damages adequate to compensate it for the injuries complained of herein, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty. 21. iLife is further entitled to have Defendant enjoined from committing future acts of infringement that would subject iLife to irreparable harm. COUNT TWO PATENT INFRINGEMENT The ‘939 Patent 22. iLife repeats and re-alleges the allegations in the foregoing paragraphs. 23. Defendant directly infringes, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, and has infringed one or more claims of the ‘939 Patent by, without authority, making, using, importing, offering to sell, or selling the Accused Products and Services that practice the inventions of the ‘939 Patent within the United States. 24. Defendant indirectly infringes the ‘939 Patent within the United States by inducement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Defendant has induced and continues to induce users of the Accused Products and Services to directly infringe one or more claims of the ‘939 Patent by controlling and directing, inter alia, the actions of users and by advertising and claiming benefits that require its customers to commit acts of infringement. 25. Defendant indirectly infringes the ‘939 Patent within the United States by committing contributory infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c). Defendant has contributed to end-user customers’ direct infringement of one or more claims of the ‘939 Patent by providing the Accused Products and Services which, as evidenced by Plaintiff’s Original Complaint for Patent Infringement Page 7 MWM 603858 Defendant’s advertisements, are especially made for use in a manner infringing the ‘939 Patent and have no substantial non-infringing uses. 26. Defendant’s infringement has harmed iLife and will continue to cause severe and irreparable damage as long as Defendant’s infringing activities continue. 27. iLife is entitled to recover damages adequate to compensate it for the injuries complained of herein, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty. 28. iLife is further entitled to have Defendant enjoined from committing future acts of infringement that would subject iLife to irreparable harm. COUNT THREE PATENT INFRINGEMENT The ‘796 Patent 29. iLife repeats and re-alleges the allegations in the foregoing paragraphs. 30. Defendant directly infringes, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, and has infringed one or more claims of the ‘796 Patent by, without authority, making, using, importing, offering to sell, or selling the Accused Products and Services that practice the inventions of the ‘796 Patent within the United States. 31. Defendant indirectly infringes the ‘796 Patent within the United States by inducement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Defendant has induced and continues to induce users of the Accused Products and Services to directly infringe one or more claims of the ‘796 Patent by controlling and directing, inter alia, the actions of users and by advertising and claiming benefits that require its customers to commit acts of infringement. 32. Defendant indirectly infringes the ‘796 Patent within the United States by committing contributory infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c). Defendant has Plaintiff’s Original Complaint for Patent Infringement Page 8 MWM 603858 contributed to end-user customers’ direct infringement of one or more claims of the ‘796 Patent by providing the Accused Products and Services which, as evidenced by Defendant’s advertisements, are especially made for use in a manner infringing the ‘796 Patent and have no substantial non-infringing uses. 33. Defendant’s infringement has harmed iLife and will continue to cause severe and irreparable damage as long as Defendant’s infringing activities continue. 34. iLife is entitled to recover damages adequate to compensate it for the injuries complained of herein, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty. 35. iLife is further entitled to have Defendant enjoined from committing future acts of infringement that would subject iLife to irreparable harm. COUNT FOUR PATENT INFRINGEMENT The ‘331 Patent 36. iLife repeats and re-alleges the allegations in the foregoing paragraphs. 37. Defendant directly infringes, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, and has infringed one or more claims of the ‘331 Patent by, without authority, making, using, importing, offering to sell, or selling the Accused Products and Services that practice the inventions of the ‘331 Patent within the United States. 38. Defendant indirectly infringes the ‘331 Patent within the United States by inducement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Defendant has induced and continues to induce users of the Accused Products and Services to directly infringe one or more claims of the ‘331 Patent by controlling and directing, inter alia, the actions of users and by advertising and claiming benefits that require its customers to commit acts of infringement. Plaintiff’s Original Complaint for Patent Infringement Page 9 MWM 603858 39. Defendant indirectly infringes the ‘331 Patent within the United States by committing contributory infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c). Defendant has contributed to end-user customers’ direct infringement of one or more claims of the ‘331 Patent by providing the Accused Products and Services which, as evidenced by Defendant’s advertisements, are especially made for use in a manner infringing the ‘331 Patent and have no substantial non-infringing uses. 40. Defendant’s infringement has harmed iLife and will continue to cause severe and irreparable damage as long as Defendant’s infringing activities continue. 41. iLife is entitled to recover damages adequate to compensate it for the injuries complained of herein, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty. 42. iLife is further entitled to have Defendant enjoined from committing future acts of infringement that would subject iLife to irreparable harm. COUNT FIVE PATENT INFRINGEMENT The ‘461 Patent 43. iLife repeats and re-alleges the allegations in the foregoing paragraphs. 44. Defendant directly infringes, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, and has infringed at one or more claims of the ‘461 Patent by, without authority, making, using, importing, offering to sell, or selling the Accused Products and Services that practice the inventions of the ‘461 Patent within the United States. 45. Defendant indirectly infringes the ‘461 Patent within the United States by inducement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Defendant has induced and continues to induce users of the Accused Products and Services to directly infringe one or more claims of the Plaintiff’s Original Complaint for Patent Infringement Page 10 MWM 603858 ‘461 Patent by controlling and directing, inter alia, the actions of users and by advertising and claiming benefits that require its customers to commit acts of infringement. 46. Defendant indirectly infringes the ‘461 Patent within the United States by committing contributory infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c). Defendant has contributed to end-user customers’ direct infringement of one or more claims of the ‘461 Patent by providing the Accused Products and Services which, as evidenced by Defendant’s advertisements, are especially made for use in a manner infringing the ‘461 Patent and have no substantial non-infringing uses. 47. Defendant’s infringement has harmed iLife and will continue to cause severe and irreparable damage as long as Defendant’s infringing activities continue. 48. iLife is entitled to recover damages adequate to compensate it for the injuries complained of herein, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty. 49. iLife is further entitled to have Defendant enjoined from committing future acts of infringement that would subject iLife to irreparable harm. COUNT SIX PATENT INFRINGEMENT The ‘890 Patent 50. iLife repeats and re-alleges the allegations in the foregoing paragraphs. 51. Defendant directly infringes, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, and has infringed one or more claims of the ‘890 Patent by, without authority, making, using, importing, offering to sell, or selling the Accused Products and Services that practice the inventions of the ‘890 Patent within the United States. Plaintiff’s Original Complaint for Patent Infringement Page 11 MWM 603858 52. Defendant indirectly infringes the ‘890 Patent within the United States by inducement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Defendant has induced and continues to induce users of the Accused Products and Services to directly infringe one or more claims of the ‘890 Patent by controlling and directing, inter alia, the actions of users and by advertising and claiming benefits that require its customers to commit acts of infringement. 53. Defendant indirectly infringes the ‘890 Patent within the United States by committing contributory infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c). Defendant has contributed to end-user customers’ direct infringement of one or more claims of the ‘890 Patent by providing the Accused Products and Services which, as evidenced by Defendant’s advertisements, are especially made for use in a manner infringing the ‘890 Patent and have no substantial non-infringing uses. 54. Defendant’s infringement has harmed iLife and will continue to cause severe and irreparable damage as long as Defendant’s infringing activities continue. 55. iLife is entitled to recover damages adequate to compensate it for the injuries complained of herein, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty. 56. iLife is further entitled to have Defendant enjoined from committing future acts of infringement that would subject iLife to irreparable harm. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 57. iLife demands that all issues be determined by jury. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff iLife Technologies, Inc. prays for relief against Defendant as follows: Plaintiff’s Original Complaint for Patent Infringement Page 12 MWM 603858 A. A judgment that Defendant has infringed, induced others to infringe, and committed acts of contributory infringement with respect to the ‘481 Patent, ‘939 Patent, ‘796 Patent, ‘331 Patent, ‘461 Patent, and ‘890 Patent; B. A judgment awarding iLife damages adequate to compensate for Defendant’s infringement; C. A permanent injunction enjoining Defendant, its officers, agents, servants, employees, representatives, licensees, successors, assigns, and all those in privity, active concert, or participation with any of them from further infringement, inducing the infringement, and contributing to the infringement of the ‘481 Patent, ‘939 Patent, ‘796 Patent, ‘331 Patent, ‘461 Patent, and ‘890 Patent; D. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest to the full extent allowed under the law, as well as its costs; and E. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable. Respectfully submitted, /s/ S. Wallace Dunwoody Michael C. Wilson mwilson@munckwilson.com Texas Bar No. 21704590 S. Wallace Dunwoody wdunwoody@munckwilson.com Texas Bar No. 24040838 MUNCK WILSON MANDALA, LLP 12770 Coit Road, Suite 600 Dallas, Texas 75251 Telephone: (972) 628-3600 Telecopier: (972) 628-3616 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF, ILIFE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Documents Similar To Ilife Technologies v. Body MediaSkip carouselILife Technologies v. FitbitILife Technologies v. AliphComAccuhire.com v. Kronos et. al.Unified Messaging Solutions v. Northern Illinois Gas CompanyUnified Messaging Systems v. AmerenUnified Messaging Solutions v. CareerbuilderUnified Messaging Solutions v. WalgreenUnified Messaging Solutions v. Where Are You NowGenfoot v. Atsco Footwear et. al.Unified Messaging Solutions v. UBS Financial ServicesUnified Messaging Solutions v. Sprint NextelMichelin North America v. Attturo - ComplaintUnified Messaging Solutions v. United Air LinesPolaris IP, LLC v. Google Inc. et al - Document No. 1Stopinc Aktiengesellschaft v. J.W. HicksRR Donnelley & Sons Company v. XeroxIntegrated Technological Systems v. NetspendFerox v. Conseal International et. al.e.Digital v. Cavalry StorageNorfolk et. al. v. Koshi Electronics of AmericaWyncomm v. ArchosNU Flow Technologies v. a.O. Reed & Company Et. Al.My Health et. al. v. ZeOmegaThinkTank One Research v. Liddell Electronics et. al.Park Industries v. Eurostone MachineBurns v. Meyer, 100 U.S. 671 (1880)NoticeProfectus Technology v. Huawei Technologies et. al.Pragmatus Mobile LLC v. Lenovo Group Ltd.Rubber Co. v. Goodyear, 76 U.S. 807 (1870)Documents About Patent InfringementSkip carouselNike v. SkechersNokia Complaint Against Apple in federal district court, Wisconsin3D Systems v. Formlabs et. al.Koninklijke Philips N.V. et. al. v. Nintendo et. al.Bose v. Beats Civil ComplaintBose vs Beats (ITC complaint)Treehouse Avatar Technologies v. TurbinePosner OrderPersonalWeb Technologies et. al. v. Rackspace et. al.Lodsys Complaint Against Adidas BestBuy Et AlNYT Complaint Against LodsysGreenwich Ballistics v. Jamison InternationalFacebook's Counterclaims to Yahoo's Patent LawsuitBU v AppleSemantic Compaction Systems et. al. v. Speak For Yourself et. al.Amended Galaxy ComplaintRockstar v Samsung.pdfHuawei v. SamsungComponex v. Electronics For ImagingBose vs BeatsRecognicorp v. CCP hf et. al.Technology Licensing v. Blackmagic Design PtyNovartis Pharmaceuticals v. Torrent Pharmaceuticals et. al.Symantec v. Veeam SoftwareBrightEdge Technologies v. Searchmetrics et. al.Spanx vs Yummie TummieCapella Photonics v. CienaCanatelo v. HikvisionCallidus Software v. Xactly3M Company et. al. v. Saint-Gobain AbrasivesMore From PatentBlastSkip carouselMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Samsung Electronics Et. AlMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Nintendo of America Et. AlMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Cantor Fitzgerald Et. AlMultiplayer Network Innovations v. ZTE Et. AlMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Toshiba AmericaMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Pantech Et. AlMultiplayer Network Innovations v. NVIDIAActifio v. DelphixRTC Industries v. Flextronics InternationalTactical Medical Solutions v. Karl Et. AlPrometheus Laboratories v. Par Pharmaceutical Companies Et. AlAndrea Electronics v. Lenovo Group Et. Al.Andrea Electronics v. Toshiba Et. Al.Property Disclosure Technologies v. TruliaGlobal Tel*Link v. Securus Technologies et. al.Century Board v. National Registered AgentsIatric Systems v. FairWarningHologram Et. Al. v. Arena3D Industrial Illusion Et. Al.Tech-ni-Fold v. F.P. Rosback CompanyRTC Industries v. ZiveloMotobatt v. Deltran OperationsImpax Laboratories Et. Al. v. Lannett Holdings Et. Al.Alkermes Pharma Ireland v. Sun Pharma Global FZE Et. Al.Unimed Pharmaceuticals Et. Al. v. Perrigo Company Et. Al.Sensus v. Certified MeasurementCapella Photonics v. TellabsCapella Photonics v. Fujitsu Network CommunicationsCapella Photonics v. CienaAeritas v. GameStop