Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/80356869/e-Watch-Inc
Timestamp: 2018-10-22 12:33:54
Document Index: 365809909

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1331', '§\n1391', '§ 271', '§ 285', '§ 271', '§ 285']

e-Watch, Inc. | Patent Infringement | United States District Court For The Eastern District Of Texas
Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 5:12-cv-00106: e-Watch, Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, no judge yet assigned. See http://…Full description
Vehicle Interface Technologies, LLC v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC, C.A. Nos. 12-1285-RGA & 14-339-RGA (D. Del. Dec. 28, 2016)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION e-WATCH, INC
. Plaintiff v. INFINIAS, LLC Defendant § § § § § § § §
Civil Case No. 5:12-cv-106
Comes Now e-WATCH, INC., complaining of INFINIAS, LLC, and for cause of action respectfully shows as follows:
Plaintiff e-WATCH, INC.. is a Nevada Corporation with its principal office in San
Antonio, Texas. 2. Defendant INFINIAS, LLC is a Indiana Limited Liability Company with its
principal office in Carmel, Indiana. It may be served with process by serving its registered agent for service of process, Wayne Jared at 14112 Secretariat Court, Westfield, Indiana 46074. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and
1338(a), because Plaintiff’s claims arise under federal laws relating to patents and unfair competition. 4. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendant because it transacts
business within geographic boundaries of the Western District of Texas, and it has committed
acts of patent infringement within the geographic boundaries of the Western District of Texas. 5. Venue is proper in the Western District of Texas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
1391(b), 1391(c) and 1400(b) because the Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in this judicial district, the Defendant regularly conducts business in the state of Texas and within this judicial district, and the Defendant has committed acts of infringement within this judicial district. FACTS 6. e-Watch develops and markets hardware, software and services designed to
centrally manage a multiplicity of safety, security and access control devices using IP protocol over a computer network. For example, a corporate office campus may include access control by way of card readers, keypads and biometric readers to unlock doors, still frame pictures of individuals seeking access for human or software facial recognition. It may also include full motion cameras monitoring hallways, and alarms which monitor breaking glass or emergency egress doors. e-Watch has developed technology which can integrate all of these diverse components into a centrally managed system, as opposed to each individual component comprising its own discrete system. 7. e-Watch is the owner of United States Patent No. 6,970,183 filed on June 14,
2000 and which issued on November 29, 2005 (the ’183 Patent), and of United States Patent No. 7,228,429 filed on September 21, 2001 and which issued on June 5, 2007 (the ’429 Patent). The hardware and software systems marketed by e-Watch incorporate claims included these patents. 8. On information and belief the Defendant, Infinias makes, uses and sells, or
attempts to make, use or sell, or otherwise provides throughout the United States and within the geographical area covered by the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas
products and services which utilize the systems and methods described by claims in the ‘183 and ’429 Patents. CLAIM FOR INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘183 PATENT 9. below. 10. The ‘183 Patent describes technology for a multimedia surveillance and Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing paragraphs by reference as if fully set forth
monitoring system which can transmit sensor data using digital transmission over both wired and wireless computer networks. 11. 12. The ‘183, Patent is valid and enforceable. The Defendant has and continues to infringe, contributorily infringe or actively
induce the infringement of the ‘183 Patent by using, selling and offering for use or sale products and services within this judicial district which incorporate e-Watch’s patented technology. The Defendant is offering for sale or use, or selling or using these products without license or authority from e-Watch. The claims of the patent are either literally infringed or infringed under the doctrine of equivalents. These infringing acts of the Defendant are committed in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271. 13. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that the acts of infringement by the
Defendant are willful, making this an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285. 14. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff further alleges that the actions of the
Defendant have resulted in substantial lost profits to the Plaintiff, and substantial unjust profits and enrichment to the Defendant, all in amounts yet to be determined. Plaintiff at all times has been and is now willing to grant licenses to qualified parties, including the Defendant, for the use of its patented technology, at a reasonable royalty rate. Defendant’s acts of infringement have
caused irreparable harm to the Plaintiff and will continue to do so unless enjoined by the Court.
CLAIM FOR INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘429 PATENT 15. below. 16. The ‘429 Patent describes network appliances designed to integrate a combination Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing paragraphs by reference as if fully set forth
of monitoring devices and building support functions into a single device that can communicate over a single network connection. 17. 18. The ‘429, Patent is valid and enforceable. The Defendant has and continues to infringe, contributorily infringe or actively
induce the infringement of the ‘429 Patent by using, selling and offering for use or sale products and services within this judicial district which incorporate e-Watch’s patented technology. The Defendant is offering for sale or use, or selling or using these products without license or authority from e-Watch. The claims of the patent are either literally infringed or infringed under the doctrine of equivalents. These infringing acts of the Defendant are committed in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271. 19. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that the acts of infringement by the
Defendant are willful, making this an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285. 20. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff further alleges that the actions of the
DAMAGES 21. As a result of Defendant’s infringement, Plaintiff has suffered actual and
consequential damages, however, Plaintiff does not yet know the full extent of such damages and such extent cannot be ascertained except through discovery and special accounting. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Plaintiff seeks recovery of damages for lost profits, reasonable royalties, unjust enrichment, and benefits received by the Defendant as a result of using the misappropriated technology. Plaintiff seeks any other damages to which it may be entitled in law or in equity. 22. Defendant’s infringement was committed intentionally, knowingly, and with
callous disregard of Plaintiff’s legitimate rights. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to and now seeks to recover exemplary damages in an amount not less than the maximum amount permitted by law. ATTORNEYS FEES 23. Plaintiff is entitled to recover reasonable and necessary attorneys fees under
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT 24. All conditions precedent to Plaintiff’s right to recover as requested herein have
JURY DEMAND 25. Plaintiff demands a trial by jury pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38. PRAYER WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff e-Watch, Inc. asks that Defendant, Infinias, LLC, be cited to appear and answer and, on final trial, that Plaintiff have judgment against Defendant for the following: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. Actual economic damages; Exemplary treble damages as allowed by law; Permanent injunction; Attorney fees; Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as allowed by law; Costs of suit; and All other relief in law or in equity to which Plaintiff may show itself justly entitled.
_______________________________ W. Shawn Staples ▪ TBN 00788457 Stanley Frank & Rose LLP 7026 Old Katy Rd., Suite 259 Houston, Texas 77024 Tel: 713-980-4381 ▪ Fax: 713-980-1179 wsstaples@stanleylaw.com Attorney in Charge for e-Watch, Inc.
Documents Similar To e-Watch, Inc.