Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/94843577/Front-Row-Technologies-v-MLB-Advanced-Media-et-al
Timestamp: 2017-05-23 17:04:08
Document Index: 558802533

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 271', '§ 1331', '§ 1391', '§ 1400', '§ 287', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§281', '§284', '§ 285', '§ 285']

Front Row Technologies v. MLB Advanced Media et. al. | Patent | Patent Infringement
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 InUploadFront Row Technologies v. MLB Advanced Media et. al.Uploaded by PriorSmartPatentPatent InfringementTitle 35 Of The United States CodeComplaintLimited Partnership0.0 (0)DownloadEmbedDescription: Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 3:12-cv-01639-N: Front Row Technologies, LLC v. MLB Advanced Media, L.P. et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern Distric...View MoreOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 3:12-cv-01639-N: Front Row Technologies, LLC v. MLB Advanced Media, L.P. et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, the Hon. David C Godbey presiding. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l6ay for more info.Copyright: Public DomainDownload as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION FRONT ROW TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Plaintiff, vs. MLB ADVANCED MEDIA, L.P., MERCURY RADIO ARTS, INC., d/b/a ‘THE GLENN BECK PROGRAM, INC.’, & GBTV, LLC § § § § § § § § § § § § §
Plaintiff Front Row Technologies, LLC (“Front Row Technologies”) files this Complaint for patent infringement against Defendants MLB Advanced Media, L.P., Mercury Radio Arts, Inc., d/b/a “The Glenn Beck Program, Inc.”, and GBTV, LLC (collectively the “Defendants”) and alleges as follows: I. 1. PARTIES
having its principal place of business at 117 Bryn Mawr Drive SE, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87106. 2. Defendant MLB Advanced Media, L.P. is a limited partnership organized and
existing under the laws of the State of New York, with its principal place of business located at 245 Park Avenue, Floor 34, New York, New York 10167. MLB Advanced Media, L.P. is a resident of New York, which engages in business in various states throughout the United States.
This action arises, in part, out of the MLB Advanced Media, L.P.’s business that is directed to and conducted within the State of Texas. MLB Advanced Media, L.P. (“MLB-AM”) is in the business of broadcasting entertainment, news, and sporting events through electronic and wireless instrumentalities, the sale of electronic software for broadcasting sporting events through electronic and wireless instrumentalities, and/or the sale of electronic software for broadcasting sporting events through electronic and wireless instrumentalities in interstate commerce. MLB-AM engages in such business in the State of Texas; and more specifically, MLB-AM has entered into a contractual arrangement with one or more of the other named defendants to provide such services for GBTV.1 While Defendant MLB-AM does not have a registered agent designated in the State of Texas, it can be served with process through the Secretary of the State of Texas. FED. R. CIV. PRO. 4(h)(1)(A). 3. Defendant Mercury Radio Arts, Inc., d/b/a “The Glenn Beck Program, Inc.”, is a
New York corporation with its principal place of business located at 1133 Avenue of the Americas, 34th Floor, New York, New York 10036. While it is a New York Corporation, Mercury Radio Arts, Inc. (“Mercury”) engages in business throughout the United States. However, this action arises, in part, out of Mercury’s business, which has been and continues to be conducted in as well as directed to the State of Texas. Mercury is in the business of broadcasting entertainment, news, and radio shows throughout the United States. Since at least 2012, Mercury has maintained a Dallas office.2 Defendant Mercury can be served with process through its registered agent CSC – Lawyers Incorporating Service Company, 211, E. 7th Street,
See Terms of Use Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit “B.” “Founded in 2002, Mercury has a full time staff of over 100 employees and is based in New York, NY and Dallas, Texas.” http://www.glennbeck.com/content/program/. April 27, 2012 Printout of Webpage, attached hereto as Exhibit “C.”
Suite 620, Austin, Texas 78701-3218; or its Chief Executive Officer Glenn L. Beck, who resides at 2208 Vaquero Estates Boulevard, Westlake, Tarrant County, Texas 76262, or at his primary place of business GBTV Studios at The Studios at Las Colinas, 6301 Riverside Drive, Irving, Dallas County, Texas 75039. 4. Defendant GBTV, LLC (“GBTV”) is a New York limited liability corporation
with its principal place of business located at 1133 Avenue of the Americas, 34th Floor, New York, New York 10036. Defendant Mercury is the principal of GBTV. Like its principal, GBTV engages in business throughout the United States. This action arises, in part, out of GBTV’s business, which has been and continues to be conducted in as well as directed to the State of Texas. GBTV is in the business of video production and content for broadcasting entertainment and news shows throughout the United States. Since at least 2012, GBTV has maintained a Dallas office at The Studios at Las Colinas, 6301 Riverside Drive, Irving, Dallas County, Texas 75039.3 GBTV can be served with process through its principal Defendant Mercury, whose registered agent in Texas is CSC – Lawyers Incorporating Service Company, 211, E. 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin, Texas 78701-3218; or its Director Glenn L. Beck, who resides at 2208 Vaquero Estates Boulevard, Westlake, Tarrant County, Texas 76262, offices at GBTV Studios at The Studios at Las Colinas, 6301 Riverside Drive, Irving, Dallas County, Texas 75039.
“Beck said, ‘I have come to know and respect the people of Texas and could not be more excited about GBTV studios – the future home of GBTV and a multiplatform destination for the fusion of entertainment and enlightenment. We are proud to become part of the Dallas-Fort Worth area and are eager to become good neighbors and members of the local community.’” http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Glenn-Beck-to-Build-Studios-in-LasColinas-135688193.html. May 21, 2012 Printout of Webpage, attached hereto as Exhibit “D.”
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of the
United Stated Code. The Court’s jurisdiction over this action is proper under the above statutes, including 35 U.S.C. § 271 et seq., and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). 6. Personal jurisdiction exists generally over the Defendants because each Defendant
has sufficient minimum contacts with the forum as a result of business regularly conducted within the State of Texas. Personal jurisdiction also exists specifically over the Defendants as a result of, at least, the use of Defendants’ GBTV and/or Mercury’s Dallas County offices at The Studios of Las Colinas, which is the broadcast venue contemplated and covered by the infringed claims of Plaintiff’s patent. In addition, Defendants, individually and collectively, placed
instrumentalities and/or provided services and/or applications that practice the claimed inventions within the stream of commerce directed at the State of Texas, and by committing the tort of patent infringement within the State of Texas. 7. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). III. INFRINGEMENT OF UNITED STATES PATENTS 8. Plaintiff Front Row Technologies is the owner of all rights, title and interest in
and under United States Patent No. 8,090,321 (“’321 Patent”), titled “Transmitting Sports and Entertainment Data to Wireless Hand Held Devices over a Telecommunications Network,” which duly and legally issued on January 3, 2012. A true and correct copy of the ’321 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 9. 10. ’321 patent. The ’321 patent is valid and enforceable. All requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 287 have been satisfied with respect to the
IV. CLAIM ONE - INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’321 PATENT 11. Front Row Technologies incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-10 above as
though fully repeated herein. 12. Defendant MLB-AM has been and is continuing to directly infringe, literally
and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, the ’321 patent by making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing in or into the United States, without authority, instrumentalities that practice one or more claims of the ’321 patent in violation of § 271(a), including, but not limited to the following products: GBTV.Com, GBTV Plus, GBTV Properties, At Bat 12, MLB.TV. 13. Defendants Mercury and GBTV (“Beck Defendants”) have been and are
continuing to directly infringe, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, the ’321 patent by making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing in or into the United States, without authority, instrumentalities that practice one or more claims of the ’321 patent in violation of § 271(a), including, but not limited to the following products: GBTV.Com, GBTV Plus, and GBTV Properties. 14. The various products offered by Defendants, which are listed above, allow users
to access live programing such as: (i) Glenn Beck’s Live Daily Show; (ii) Glenn Beck’s Live Radio Program; (iii) live-game video of Major League Baseball games, (iv) access scores and stats, (v) multi-game viewing options, (vi) live-game picture in picture, (vii) live-game highlights, and (viii) live-game DVR functionality. Such services are available over, at least, WiFi 3G and 4G networks; and utilize various mobile devices, including, but not limited to, iOS, which is the mobile operating system utilized by various Apple devices, as well as Android devices.
Upon information and belief, Defendants practice all the steps of one or more of
the claims of the ’321 patent either alone or as the “mastermind” directing or controlling the actions or participation of each other and/or any third parties. 16. ’321 patent. 17. Plaintiff Front Row Technologies has no adequate remedy at law against Defendants have at no time, either expressly or impliedly, been licensed under the
Defendants’ acts of patent infringement. Unless Defendants are permanently enjoined from their unlawful and willful infringement of the ’321 patent, Front Row Technologies will suffer irreparable harm. 18. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ acts of patent infringement, Front
Row Technologies has been and continues to be injured, and has sustained and will continue to sustain substantial damages. Under 35 U.S.C. §281, Plaintiff Front Row Technologies shall have a remedy for Defendants’ infringement of the ‘321 patent by virtue of this lawsuit, and shall be entitled to an award of damages adequate to compensate for Defendants’ infringement of the ‘321 Patent, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use of its invention made by Defendants, together with interest and costs as fixed by the court under 35 U.S.C. §284. 19. Plaintiff Front Row Technologies has incurred and will incur attorneys’ fees,
costs, and expenses in the prosecution of this action. The circumstances of this dispute demonstrate an exceptional case within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285, and therefore, Plaintiff Front Row Technologies is entitled to recover its reasonable and necessary attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses.
Plaintiff Front Row Technologies, LLC respectfully requests that judgment be entered in its favor against Defendants MLB Advanced Media, L.P., Mercury Radio Arts, Inc., and GBTV, LLC; and respectfully requests that this Court grant it the following relief: a) Declare that the ’321 patent is exclusively owned by Plaintiff Front Row
Technologies, LLC; b) c) Declare that the ’321 patent is valid and enforceable; Declare that Defendants MLB Advanced Media, L.P., Mercury Radio Arts, Inc.,
and GBTV, LLC are liable for past and present direct infringement, both literally and under the doctrine of equivalents, of the ’321 patent; d) Award damages to Front Row Technologies, LLC to which it is entitled for
Defendants’ infringement of the ‘321 patent; e) Enter a preliminary, and thereafter, permanent injunction against Defendants
MLB Advanced Media, L.P., Mercury Radio Arts, Inc., and GBTV, LLC for their acts of direct infringement of the ’321 patent; f) Award Front Row Technologies, LLC its expenses, costs, and attorneys’ fees
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285; g) Award interest on Front Row Technologies, LLC’s damages as well as the costs
incurred in pursuing this action; and h) Such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. VI. JURY DEMAND In accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 38 and 39, Plaintiff Front Row Technologies, LLC asserts its rights under the Seventh Amendment of the United States Constitution and demands a trial by jury on all issues.
By: /s/ Michael W. Shore SHORE CHAN BRAGALONE DEPUMPO LLP Michael W. Shore Texas State Bar No. 18294915 Alfonso Garcia Chan Texas State Bar No. 24012408 Eve L. Henson Texas Bar No. 00791462 Christopher L. Evans Texas Bar No. 24058901 901 Main Street, Suite 3300 Dallas, Texas 75202 Telephone: 214.593.9110 Facsimile: 214.593.9111 mshore@shorechan.com achan@shorechan.com ehenson@shorechan.com cevans@shorechan.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Front Row Technologies, LLC
Documents Similar To Front Row Technologies v. MLB Advanced Media Et. Al.Skip carouselNovelPoint Security v. HGSTLandmark Technology v. BelkILife Technologies v. FitbitIlife Technologies v. Body MediaILife Technologies v. AliphComSundesa v. Advanced Nutritional PerformancePanoMap v AppleMacy's Search Engine Patent Infringement Suit - ComplaintPatently Apple PresentsPragmatus Mobile v. Sony Mobile Communications et. al.Cipla 15-424Imation v. VerbatimGelTight Enterprises v. Sleep Care TechnologiesSunrise Medical v. KI Mobility et. al.Voice Integration Technologies LLCWi-LAN et. al. v. HTC et. al.CRFD Research Inc. v. Quick DryArrivalStar et. al. v. EarthSearch Communications International et. al.ThermaPure v. Rapid Response RestorationThermaPure v. C&C Clean Team EnterprisesWarner Chilcott Company et. al. v. Aurobindo Pharma et. al.3form et. al. v. Gannon Arnold AssociatesMAZ Encryption Technologies v. Acer et. al.Vargas v Yaptico & CoRockstar Consortium et. al. v. LG Electronics et. al..pdfKittrich v. Quark Enterprises et. al.LIP - Patents DigestsRevocationThe Doctrine of Equivalents in Patent InfringementDocuments About PatentSkip carousel16-12-20 Apple Complaint v. Acacia Et Al.AppleVsSamsung_11.07.05Nike v. SkechersWizards of the Coast v. Cryptozoic Entertainment et. al.Samsung vs Apple - Samsung's Appeal to the Supreme CourtNokiaVsApple_11.03.31.100Gillette Company v. ADKM, Inc. d/b/a Harry's Razor Company et. al.PRICELINE COM INC 10-K (Annual Reports) 2009-02-20David Einhorn's presentation on Green Mountain RoastersConsulting AgreementBeyond PhilanthropyApple vs Samsung 11.04.22Nokia Complaint Against Apple in federal district court, WisconsinApple vs Android 10.12.02Translation of Mannheim 2O240 Ruling Motorola v MicrosoftKoninklijke Philips N.V. et. al. v. Nintendo et. al.Bose vs Beats (ITC complaint)3D Systems v. Formlabs et. al.Against Intellectual Property, by Stephan Kinsella Provisional Patent ApplicationNovartis patent JudgementBose v. Beats Civil ComplaintGENENTECH INC 10-K (Annual Reports) 2009-02-2011-07-01 Apple Motion for PI Against Samsung12-04-30 Apple-Samsung Teksler-Kim Letter Re FRAND14-01-21 Apple v. Samsung Summary Judgment OrderAmicus Brief in Support of Samsung RehearingMicrosoftVsMotorola_11.12.11Treehouse Avatar Technologies v. TurbineApple vs Samsung 11.06.16More 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