Source: https://ro.scribd.com/document/137378402/Secure-Axcess-v-Accell-et-al
Timestamp: 2020-02-19 05:08:42
Document Index: 150307397

Matched Legal Cases: ['§271', '§17', '§17', '§17', '§17', '§17', '§17', '§17', '§17', '§17', '§17', '§17', '§1331', '§271', '§1400', '§1391', '§299', '§271', '§284', '§284', '§285', '§271', '§271', '§284', '§284', '§284', '§284', '§285', '§284', '§284', '§284', '§271', '§284', '§271', '§271', '§271', '§284', '§284', '§285']

Secure Axcess v. Accell et. al. | Patent Infringement | Hdmi
Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-00289: Secure Axcess, LLC v. Accell Corporation et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l84h for more info.
salvareSalvați Secure Axcess v. Accell et. al. pentru mai târziu
SECURE AXCESS, LLC,
ACCELL CORPORATION,
DIAMOND MULTIMEDIA, INC.,
IOGEAR, INC.,
LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC.,
LEANCODE L.L.C. d/b/a PLUGABLE
CORPORATION D/B/A SEWELL
SIIG, INC.,
STARTECH.COM USA L.L.P.,
TARGUS, INC., TRIPP LITE
TRIPPE MANUFACTURING CO.,
and DISPLAYLINK CORP.
PLAINTIFF SECURE AXCESS, LLC’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Secure Axcess, LLC, (“S/A”) files this original complaint and asserts claims of
patent infringement against Defendants Accell Corporation, Diamond Multimedia, Inc., Hewlett
Packard Company, IOGear, Inc., ACCO Brands Corporation, Lenovo (United States) Inc.,
LeanCode L.L.C. d/b/a Plugable Technologies, Sewell Development Corporation d/b/a Sewell
Direct, Siig, Inc., StarTech.com USA L.L.P., Targus, Inc., Tripp Lite Holdings, Inc., Trippe
Manufacturing Company, and DisplayLink Corp.
1. S/A asserts claims of patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271 based on
Defendants’ direct infringement and active inducement of other parties to infringe United States
Patent No. 6,522,309 (the “‘309 Patent”) in this Judicial District and elsewhere in the United
States of America without license or authorization.
2. Plaintiff, S/A, is a limited liability company that is organized and that exists
pursuant to the laws of the State of Texas with its principal place of business at 555 Republic
Drive, Suite 200, Plano, Texas 75074. S/A is the owner of all right, title, and interest in and to
the ‘309 Patent by assignment from the inventor.
3. Defendant, Accell Corporation (“Accell”), is a corporation that is organized and
that exists pursuant to the laws of the State of California with its principal place of business at
3400 Gateway Blvd., Fremont, California, 94538. Accell engages in business in Texas; however,
it does not maintain a resident agent to receive service of process in the State of Texas.
pursuant to V.T.C.A., Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §17.044, Accell may be served with process
by delivering a true and correct copy of this complaint, together with an original summons, to the
Secretary of State for the State of Texas, 1019 Brazos Street, Austin, Texas 78701. Upon receipt
of the summons and the copy of the complaint, the Secretary of State will forward process to
Accell’s agent for receipt of service of process, Kuo Inru, 3400 Gateway Blvd., Fremont,
California 94538.
4. Defendant, Diamond Multimedia, Inc. (“DMI”), is a corporation that is organized
and that exists pursuant to the laws of the State of California with its principal place of business
located at 20740 Plummer Street, Chatsworth, California 91311. DMI engages in business in
Texas; however, it does not maintain a resident agent to receive service of process in the State of
Texas. Thus, pursuant to V.T.C.A., Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §17.044, DMI may be served
with process by delivering a true and correct copy of this complaint, together with an original
citation, to the Secretary of State for the State of Texas, 1019 Brazos Street, Austin, Texas 78701.
Upon receipt of the summons and the copy of the complaint, the Secretary of State will forward
process to DMI’s chief executive officer, Bruce Zaman, at the corporate mailing address, 20740
Plummer Street, Chatsworth, California 91311.
5. Defendant, Hewlett Packard Company (“HP”), is a corporation that is organized
at 3000 Hanover Street, Palo Alto, California 94304. HP is registered to do business in Texas
and it may be served with process by delivering a summons and a true and correct copy of this
complaint to its registered agent for receipt of service of process, CT Corporation System at 350
N. St. Paul St., Suite 2900, Dallas, Texas 75201-4234.
6. Defendant, IOGear, Inc. (“IOGear”), is a corporation that is organized and that
exists pursuant to the laws of the State of California with its principal place of business at 19641
Da Vinci, Foothill Ranch, California 92610.
IOGear engages in business in Texas; however, it
does not maintain a resident agent to receive service of process in the State of Texas. Thus,
pursuant to V.T.C.A., Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §17.044, IOGear may be served with
process by delivering a true and correct copy of this complaint, together with an original
summons, to the Secretary of State for the State of Texas, 1019 Brazos Street, Austin, Texas
78701. Upon receipt of the summons and the copy of the complaint, the Secretary of State will
forward process to IOGear’s agent for receipt of service of process, Jack Wang, 19641 Da Vinci,
Defendant, ACCO Brands Corporation (“ACCO”), is a corporation and existing
under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business at 300 Tower
Parkway, Lincolnshire, Illinois 60069.
ACCO engages in business in Texas; however, it does
not maintain a resident agent to receive service of process in the State of Texas. Thus, pursuant
to V.T.C.A., Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §17.044, ACCO may be served with process by
delivering a true and correct copy of this complaint, together with an original summons, to the
ACCO’s agent for receipt of service of process, Corporation Service Company, 2711 Centerville
Road, Suite 400, Wilmington, Delaware, 19808.
8. Defendant, Lenovo (United States) Inc. (“Lenovo”), is a corporation organized
and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business at 1009
Think Place, Morrisville, North Carolina, 27560.
Lenovo is registered to do business in Texas
9. Defendant, LeanCode LLC d/b/a Plugable Technologies (“Plugable”), is a limited
liability company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Washington with its
principal place of business at 40 Lake Bellevue Drive, Suite 100, Bellevue, Washington 98005.
Plugable engages in business in Texas; however, it does not maintain a resident agent to receive
service of process in the State of Texas.
Thus, pursuant to V.T.C.A., Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.
Code §17.044, Plugable may be served with process by delivering a true and correct copy of this
complaint, together with an original summons, to the Secretary of State for the State of Texas,
1019 Brazos Street, Austin, Texas 78701. Upon receipt of the summons and the copy of the
complaint, the Secretary of State will forward process to Plugable’s agent for receipt of service
of process, Bernie Thompson, 536 129 th Avenue SE, Bellevue, Washington 98005.
10. Defendant, Sewell Development Corporation d/b/a Sewell Direct (“Sewell”), is a
corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Utah with its principal place of
business at 3877 North 200 East, Provo, Utah, 8406.
Sewell engages in business in Texas;
however, it does not maintain a resident agent to receive service of process in the State of Texas.
Thus, pursuant to V.T.C.A., Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §17.044, Sewell may be served with
Upon receipt of the citation and the copy of the petition, the Secretary of State will
forward process to Sewell’s president, David S. Sewell, at the corporate mailing address of 3877
North 200 East, Provo, Utah 84604.
11. Defendant, Siig, Inc. (“Siig”), is a corporation organized and existing under the
laws of the State of California with its principal place of business at 6078 Stewart Avenue,
Fremont, California 94538.
Siig engages in business in Texas; however, it does not maintain a
resident agent to receive service of process in the State of Texas.
Thus, pursuant to V.T.C.A.,
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §17.044, Siig may be served with process by delivering a true and
correct copy of this complaint, together with an original summons, to the Secretary of State for
the State of Texas, 1019 Brazos Street, Austin, Texas 78701. Upon receipt of the summons and
the copy of the complaint, the Secretary of State will forward process to Siig’s agent for receipt
of service of process, Frank Liu, 6078 Stewart Avenue, Fremont, California, 94538.
12. Defendant,
(“StarTech”),
partnership organized and existing under the laws of Canada with its principal place of business
at 45 Artisans Cresent, London, Ontario, Canada N5V 5E9. StarTech engages in business in
Texas. Thus, pursuant to V.T.C.A., Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §17.044, StarTech may be
served with process by delivering a true and correct copy of this complaint, together with an
original summons, to the Secretary of State for the State of Texas, 1019 Brazos Street, Austin,
Texas 78701. Upon receipt of the summons and the copy of the complaint, the Secretary of State
will forward process to StarTech’s agent for receipt of service of process, CT Corporation
System, 1300 East Ninth Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44114.
13. Defendant, Targus, Inc. (“Targus”), is a corporation organized and existing under
the laws of the state of New York with its principal place of business at 1211 North Miller Street,
Anaheim, California 92806.
Targus is registered to do business in Texas and it may be served
with process by delivering a summons and a true and correct copy of this complaint to its
registered agent for receipt of service of process, CT Corporation System at 350 N. St. Paul St.,
Suite 2900, Dallas, Texas 75201-4234.
14. Defendant, Tripp Lite Holdings, Inc. (“Tripp Lite”), is a corporation and existing
under the laws of the State of Illinois with its principal place of business at 1111 W. 35 th Street,
Chicago, IL 60609-1404. Tripp Lite engages in business in Texas; however, it does not maintain
a resident agent to receive service of process in the State of Texas. Thus, pursuant to V.T.C.A.,
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §17.044, Tripp Lite may be served with process by delivering a
true and correct copy of this complaint, together with an original summons, to the Secretary of
State for the State of Texas, 1019 Brazos Street, Austin, Texas 78701.
summons and the copy of the complaint, the Secretary of State will forward process to Tripp
Lite’s agent for receipt of service of process, Illinois Corporation Service Company, 801 Adlai
Stevenson Drive, Springfield, IL 62703.
15. Defendant,
(“Trippe
Manufacturing”),
corporation and existing under the laws of the State of Illinois with its principal place of business
at 1111 W. 35 th Street, Chicago, IL 60609. Trippe Manufacturing engages in business in Texas;
Thus, pursuant to V.T.C.A., Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §17.044, Trippe Manufacturing may
be served with process by delivering a true and correct copy of this complaint, together with an
will forward process to Trippe Manufacturing’s agent for receipt of service of process, Illinois
Corporation Service Company, 801 Adlai Stevenson Drive, Springfield, IL 62703.
16. Defendant, DisplayLink Corp. (“DisplayLink”), is a corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the state of Washington with its principal place of business at 480 S
California Avenue, Suite 304, Palo Alto, California 94306. DisplayLink engages in business in
Texas. Thus, pursuant to V.T.C.A., Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §17.044, DisplayLink may be
will forward process to DisplayLink’s agent for receipt of service of process, CT Corporation
System, 818 W 7 th Street, Los Angeles, California 90017.
17. This Court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over the subject matter of this
case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1338(a) because the claims in this case arise under the
Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. §271, et seq.
18. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants because each has sold its
products in the State of Texas, actively has induced and/or has contributed to infringement of the
‘309 Patent in the State of Texas, and/or has established regular and systematic business contacts
19. This Court is an appropriate venue for this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1400(b)
because each of the Defendants is deemed to reside in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§1391(c) and each has committed or has induced acts of infringement in this District.
20. Joinder of all Defendants is proper under Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and 35 U.S.C. §299. DisplayLink is jointly liable for infringement of the ‘309 Patent
with the remaining Defendants.
DisplayLink owns software and technology that enables
computer users to practice methods of multi-screen display of images (the “DisplayLink
Technology”).
DisplayLink has licensed the DisplayLink Technology to the other Defendants
and has provided the other Defendants with instructions and diagrams that teach computer users
how to practice multi-screen display of computer images in a manner that infringes one or more
claims of the ‘309 Patent.
Each of the Defendants has utilized the DisplayLink Technology in
one or more of its own products and has used some or all DisplayLink’s instructions and
diagrams to induce other parties to infringe one or more of the methods claimed by the ‘309
Patent. Further, DisplayLink advertises one or more products offered by each of the Defendants
on DisplayLink’s website.
As such, S/A’s patent infringement claims against all Defendants
give rise to common questions of fact and issues of law.
S/A owns the ‘309 Patent.
21. On February 18, 2003, the ‘309 Patent, entitled “Multiscreen Personal Computer
Display Method And Apparatus,” was duly and lawfully issued by the United States Patent and
22. The ‘309 Patent was issued from United States Patent Application Serial No.
09/515,081, which was filed on February 28, 2000.
23. By written assignment dated May 29, 2010 and recorded with the United States
Patent and Trademark Office on June 13, 2010, the ‘309 Patent was assigned by its sole inventor,
Harold J. Weber, to Harold J. Weber, Trustee For SavvyStuff Property Trust.
24. By written assignment dated April 16, 2012 and recorded with the United States
Patent and Trademark Office on July 30, 2012, Harold J. Weber, Trustee For SavvyStuff
Property Trust, assigned the ‘309 Patent to S/A.
25. A true and correct copy of the ‘309 Patent is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit
Count One (Patent Infringement—Accell)
26. S/A incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 25 above, as if fully
reproduced herein.
27. At a minimum, Accell will become aware of the ‘309 Patent at the time it is
served with process in this case.
28. Accell knowingly has induced and specifically has intended its customers to
infringe one or more claims of the ‘309 Patent by using Accell’s products and the DisplayLink
Technology to practice methods of multi-screen display of computer images in violation of 35
29. Notwithstanding its knowledge of the ‘309 Patent, Accell will continue to induce
its customers to infringe one or more claims of the ‘309 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. §271(b).
30. On one or more occasions prior to the filing of this action, Accell also directly has
infringed one or more methods claimed in the ‘309 Patent in connection with its testing of one or
more of its various products, including its UltraVideo® USB 2.0 to DVI-I or VGA Video
Adapter (SKU J130B-001B) and its UltraAV® USB 2.0 to HDMI Adapter (SKU J131B-001B).
31. As a direct and proximate result of Accell’s infringement of the ‘309 Patent, S/A
has been damaged and S/A is entitled to recover a reasonable royalty pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §284.
Moreover, because Accell’s infringement of the ‘309 Patent was willful, S/A is entitled to an
award of increased damages under 35 U.S.C. §284, together with its attorneys’ fees pursuant to
35 U.S.C. §285.
Count Two (Patent Infringement— DMI)
32. S/A incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 25 above, as if fully
33. At a minimum, DMI will become aware of the ‘309 Patent at the time it is served
with process in this case.
34. DMI knowingly has induced and specifically has intended its customers to
infringe one or more claims of the ‘309 Patent by using DMI’s products and the DisplayLink
35. Notwithstanding its knowledge of the ‘309 Patent, DMI will continue to induce its
customers to infringe one or more claims of the ‘309 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. §271(b).
36. DMI also directly has infringed one or more methods claimed in the ‘309 Patent
in connection with its testing of one or more of its various products, including its Diamond
DV100PC-TO-TV USB 3.0/2.0 to DVI/HDMI, Diamond Multimedia WPCTVPRO VStream
Wireless USB PC to TV, Diamond Multimedia WPCTV-1080P VStream Wireless USB PC to
TV, Diamond Multimedia WPCTV1080H VStream Wireless USB PC to TV, Diamond USB to
HDMI PC to TV AV Video Graphics Adapter (BVU1000), and Diamond BVU195 USB
External Video Display Adapter.
37. As a direct and proximate result of DMI’s infringement of the ‘309 Patent, S/A
Moreover, because DMI’s infringement of the ‘309 Patent was willful, S/A is entitled to an
Count Three (Patent Infringement—HP)
38. S/A incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 25 above, as if fully
39. At a minimum, HP will become aware of the ‘309 Patent at the time it is served
40. HP knowingly has induced and specifically has intended its customers to infringe
one or more claims of the ‘309 Patent by using HP’s products and the DisplayLink Technology
to practice methods of multi-screen display of computer images in violation of 35 U.S.C.
§271(b).
41. Notwithstanding its knowledge of the ‘309 Patent, HP will continue to induce its
42. HP also directly has infringed one or more methods claimed in the ‘309 Patent in
connection with its testing of one or more of its various products, including its HP USB Graphics
Adapter (NL571AA) and its HP USB 3.0 Port Replicator.
43. As a direct and proximate result of HP’s infringement of the ‘309 Patent, S/A has
been damaged and S/A is entitled to recover a reasonable royalty pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §284.
Moreover, because HP’s infringement of the ‘309 Patent was willful, S/A is entitled to an award
of increased damages under 35 U.S.C. §284, together with its attorneys’ fees pursuant to 35
Count Four (Patent Infringement—IOGear)
44. S/A incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 25 above, as if fully
45. At a minimum, IOGear will become aware of the ‘309 Patent at the time it is
46. IOGear knowingly has induced and specifically has intended its customers to
infringe one or more claims of the ‘309 Patent by using IOGear’s products and the DisplayLink
47. Notwithstanding its knowledge of the ‘309 Patent, IOGear will continue to induce
48. IOGear also directly has infringed one or more methods claimed in the ‘309
Patent in connection with its testing of one or more of its various products, including its Wireless
USB to VGA Adapter Kit (GUW2015VKIT), Wireless 1080p Computer to HDTV Kit, HDMI
Output (GUWAVKIT3), USB 2.0 to HDMI OR DVI External Video Card (KIT) (GU2025HD),
USB 2.0 to HDMI External Video Card (GUC2025H), USB 2.0 to HDMI Adapter Multi-
Language Version (GUC2025HW6), USB 2.0 External VGA Video Card Multi-Language
Version (GUC2015VW6), USB 2.0 External Video Card (GUC2015V), and USB 2.0 External
DVI Video Card (GUC2020DW6).
49. As a direct and proximate result of IOGear’s infringement of the ‘309 Patent, S/A
Moreover, because IOGear’s infringement of the ‘309 Patent was willful, S/A is entitled to an
Count Five (Patent Infringement—ACCO)
50. S/A incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 25 above, as if fully
51. At a minimum, ACCO will become aware of the ‘309 Patent at the time it is
52. ACCO knowingly has induced and specifically has intended its customers to
infringe one or more claims of the ‘309 Patent by using ACCO’s products and the DisplayLink
53. Notwithstanding its knowledge of the ‘309 Patent, ACCO will continue to induce
54. ACCO also directly has infringed one or more methods claimed in the ‘309 Patent
in connection with its testing of one or more of its various products, including its Kensington
Universal Multi-Display Adapter (K33928US).
55. As a direct and proximate result of ACCO’s infringement of the ‘309 Patent, S/A
has been damaged and S/A is entitled to recover at least a reasonable royalty pursuant to 35
U.S.C. §284.
Moreover, because ACCO’s infringement of the ‘309 Patent was willful, S/A is
entitled to an award of increased damages under 35 U.S.C. §284, together with its attorneys’ fees
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §285.
Count Six (Patent Infringement—Lenovo)
56. S/A incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 25 above, as if fully
57. At a minimum, Lenovo will become aware of the ‘309 Patent at the time it is
58. Lenovo knowingly has induced and specifically has intended its customers to
infringe one or more claims of the ‘309 Patent by using Lenovo’s products and the DisplayLink
59. Notwithstanding its knowledge of the ‘309 Patent, Lenovo will continue to induce
60. Lenovo also directly has infringed one or more methods claimed in the ‘309
Patent in connection with its testing of one or more of its various products, including its
ThinkPad Mini Dock Plus Series 3 with USB 3.0 (433835U), ThinkPad Mini Dock Plus Series 3
with USB 3.0 – 90W (433815U), ThinkPad Mini Dock Plus Series 3 with USB 3.0 – 90W
(433715U), ThinkPad Port Replicator Series 3 with USB 3.0 (433615W), USB 3.0 to DVI/VGA
Monitor Adapter (0B047072), and USB to DVI Monitor Adapter (45K5296).
61. As a direct and proximate result of Lenovo’s infringement of the ‘309 Patent, S/A
Moreover, because Lenovo’s infringement of the ‘309 Patent was willful, S/A is
Count Seven (Patent Infringement—Plugable)
62. S/A incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 25 above, as if fully
63. At a minimum, Plugable will become aware of the ‘309 Patent at the time it is
64. Plugable knowingly has induced and specifically has intended its customers to
infringe one or more claims of the ‘309 Patent by using Plugable’s products and the DisplayLink
65. Notwithstanding its knowledge of the ‘309 Patent, Plugable will continue to
induce its customers to infringe one or more claims of the ‘309 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C.
66. Plugable also directly has infringed one or more methods claimed in the ‘309
Patent in connection with its testing of one or more of its various products, including its UD-
3000 USB 3.0 Docking Station for Windows PCs, UD-160-A USB 2.0 Universal Laptop
Docking Station, USB3–HDMI-DVI USB 3.0 to HDMI/DVI Adapter for Windows, USB3-VGA
DVI/VGA/HDMI Support, UGA-2K-A USB 2.0 to VGA/DVI/HDMI Adapter for Multiple
Monitors, UGA-165 USB 2.0 to VGA/DVI/HDMI Adapter for Multiple Monitors, and USB –
VGA – 165 USB to VGA Adapter for Multiple Displays.
67. As a direct and proximate result of Plugable’s infringement of the ‘309 Patent,
S/A has been damaged and S/A is entitled to recover at least a reasonable royalty pursuant to 35
U.S.C. §284. Moreover, because Plugable’s infringement of the ‘309 Patent was willful, S/A is
Count Eight (Patent Infringement—Sewell)
68. S/A incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 25 above, as if fully
69. At a minimum, Sewell will become aware of the ‘309 Patent at the time it is
70. Sewell knowingly has induced and specifically has intended its customers to
infringe one or more claims of the ‘309 Patent by using Sewell’s products and the DisplayLink
71. Notwithstanding its knowledge of the ‘309 Patent, Sewell will continue to induce
72. Sewell also directly has infringed one or more methods claimed in the ‘309 Patent
in connection with its testing of one or more of its various products, including its Minidek USB
to DVI, VGA and HDMI Display Adapter (SW-22857).
73. As a direct and proximate result of Sewell’s infringement of the ‘309 Patent, S/A
Moreover, because Sewell’s infringement of the ‘309 Patent was willful, S/A is
Count Nine (Patent Infringement—Siig)
74. S/A incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 25 above, as if fully
75. At a minimum, Siig will become aware of the ‘309 Patent at the time it is served
76. Siig knowingly has induced and specifically has intended its customers to infringe
one or more claims of the ‘309 Patent by using Siig’s products and the DisplayLink Technology
77. Notwithstanding its knowledge of the ‘309 Patent, Siig will continue to induce its
78. Siig also directly has infringed one or more methods claimed in the ‘309 Patent in
connection with its testing of one or more of its various products, including its USB 3.0 to HDMI
with Audio (CE-H20W12-S1), USB 2.0 to DVI/VGA (JU-DV0012-S2), USB 2.0 to VGA (JU-
000071-S1), USB 2.0 2-Port Hub (JU-H20011-S1), USB 2.0 to DVI/VGA Pro (JU-DV0112-S1),
USB 2.0 to HDMI with Audio (JU-HM0112-S1), USB 2.0 to VGA Pro (JU-VG0012-S1), USB
to DisplayPort Adapter (JU-DP0011-S1), USB 3.0 to DVI/VGA Pro (JU-DV0311-S1), USB
to HDMI/DVI Dual Head Display Adapter (JU-H20211-S1), USB 3.0 to VGA Pro (JU-
VG0311-S1), and Wireless USB to HDMI with Audio Kit (JU-HM0211-S1).
79. As a direct and proximate result of Siig’s infringement of the ‘309 Patent, S/A has
been damaged and S/A is entitled to recover at least a reasonable royalty pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
§284. Moreover, because Siig’s infringement of the ‘309 Patent was willful, S/A is entitled to an
Count Ten (Patent Infringement—StarTech)
80. S/A incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 25 above, as if fully
81. At a minimum, StarTech will become aware of the ‘309 Patent at the time it is
82. StarTech knowingly has induced and specifically has intended its customers to
infringe one or more claims of the ‘309 Patent by using StarTech’s products and the DisplayLink
83. Notwithstanding its knowledge of the ‘309 Patent, StarTech will continue to
84. StarTech also directly has infringed one or more methods claimed in the ‘309
Patent in connection with its testing of one or more of its various products, including its USB 3.0
to HDMI/DVI External Video Card Multi Monitor Adapter (USB32HDE), USB to VGA
External Video Card Multi Monitor Adapter (USB2VGAE3), USB to DVI External Video Card
Multi Monitor Adapter (USB2DVIE3), USB to VGA Multi Monitor External /video Adapter
(USBVGAE2), USB to DVI External /Dual or Multi Monitor Video Adapter (USB2DVIE2),
USB 3.0 to HDMI and DVI Dual Monitor External Video Card (USB32HDDVII), USB 3.0 to
(USB32DVIPRO),
DisplayPort External Video Card Multi Monitor Adapter (USB32DPPRO), Professional USB to
VGA External Dual or Multi Monitor Video Adapter (USB2VGAPRO), 6 ft. USB VGA Adapter
Cable – External Multi Monitor Video M/M (USB2VGAMM6), USB to VGA Adapter –
External USB Video Graphics Card for PC and MAC (USB2VGAPRO2), USB to HDMI
External Dual or Multi Monitor Video Adapter with Audio (USB2HDMI), Professional USB to
DVI External Dual or Multi Monitor Video Adapter (USB2DVIPRO), USB to DVI Adapter –
External USB Video Graphics Card for PC and MAC (USB2DVIPRO2), 6 ft. USB DVI External
Multi Monitor Video Adapter Cable – M/M (USB2DVIMM6), and USB DVI External Dual or
Multi Monitor Video Adapter (USB2DVI).
85. As a direct and proximate result of StarTech’s infringement of the ‘309 Patent,
U.S.C. §284. Moreover, because StarTech’s infringement of the ‘309 Patent was willful, S/A is
Count Eleven (Patent Infringement—Targus)
86. S/A incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 25 above, as if fully
87. At a minimum, Targus will become aware of the ‘309 Patent at the time it is
88. Targus knowingly has induced and specifically has intended its customers to
infringe one or more claims of the ‘309 Patent by using Targus’s products and the DisplayLink
89. Notwithstanding its knowledge of the ‘309 Patent, Targus will continue to induce
90. Targus also directly has infringed one or more methods claimed in the ‘309 Patent
in connection with its testing of one or more of its various products, including its 3.0 SuperSpeed
Dual Video Adapter (ACA039US) and its USB 2.0 Docking Station (ACP51USZ).
91. As a direct and proximate result of Targus’s infringement of the ‘309 Patent, S/A
Moreover, because Targus’s infringement of the ‘309 Patent was willful, S/A is
Count Twelve (Patent Infringement—Tripp Lite)
92. S/A incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 25 above, as if fully
93. At a minimum, Tripp Lite will become aware of the ‘309 Patent at the time it is
94. Tripp Lite knowingly has induced and specifically has intended its customers to
infringe one or more claims of the ‘309 Patent by using Tripp Lite’s products and the
DisplayLink Technology to practice methods of multi-screen display of computer images in
violation of 35 U.S.C. §271(b).
95. Notwithstanding its knowledge of the ‘309 Patent, Tripp Lite will continue to
96. Tripp Lite also directly has infringed one or more methods claimed in the ‘309
Patent in connection with its testing of one or more of its various products, including its USB to
VGA/DVI Adapter (U244-001-R), USB to VGA Adapter (U244-001-VGA-R), USB to HDMI
Adapter (U244-001-HDMI-R), and its USB 3.0 to DVI or VGA Adapter (U344-001-R).
97. As a direct and proximate result of Tripp Lite’s infringement of the ‘309 Patent,
U.S.C. §284. Moreover, because Tripp Lite’s infringement of the ‘309 Patent was willful, S/A is
Count Thirteen (Patent Infringement—Trippe Manufacturing)
98. S/A incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 25 above, as if fully
99. At a minimum, Trippe Manufacturing will become aware of the ‘309 Patent at the
time it is served with process in this case.
100. Trippe Manufacturing knowingly has induced and specifically has intended its
customers to infringe one or more claims of the ‘309 Patent by using Trippe Manufactruring’s
products and the DisplayLink Technology to practice methods of multi-screen display of
computer images in violation of 35 U.S.C. §271(b).
101. Notwithstanding its knowledge of the ‘309 Patent, Trippe Manufacturing will
continue to induce its customers to infringe one or more claims of the ‘309 Patent in violation of
35 U.S.C. §271(b).
102. Trippe Manufacturing also directly has infringed one or more methods claimed in
the ‘309 Patent in connection with its testing of one or more of its various products, including its
USB to VGA/DVI Adapter (U244-001-R), USB to VGA Adapter (U244-001-VGA-R), USB to
HDMI Adapter (U244-001-HDMI-R), and its USB 3.0 to DVI or VGA Adapter (U344-001-R).
103. As a direct and proximate result of Tripp Lite’s infringement of the ‘309 Patent,
Count Fourteen (Patent Infringement—DisplayLink)
104. S/A incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 25 above, as if fully
105. DisplayLink is a sophisticated developer of semiconductors and software for
enabling and facilitating communication between computers and multiple displays. DisplayLink
owns a portfolio of patents that are directed to these types of technology.
106. DisplayLink retains and relies on sophisticated patent counsel to prosecute its
applications for patents in connection with its various technologies.
In connection with their
prosecution of DisplayLink’s applications for patents, DisplayLink’s patent counsel routinely
searches prior art to determine whether and to what extent there may be other patents,
publications, or technologies that might be material to the USPTO’s determination of whether
DisplayLink’s inventions are entitled to patent protection.
107. In connection with one or more of their prior art searches, DisplayLink’s patent
counsel must have discovered the ‘309 Patent and must have disclosed it to DisplayLink.
108. Prior to the filing of this lawsuit, DisplayLink either had knowledge of the ‘309
Patent or took steps to remain willfully ignorant of the ‘309 Patent.
109. At a minimum, DisplayLink will become aware of the ‘309 Patent at the time it is
110. DisplayLink licenses its technology to other parties for use in connection with
their products and devices, such as USB graphics adapters, universal docking stations, and
monitors. The other Defendants in this case are such licensees.
111. DisplayLink and its licensees, including the other Defendants in this case,
knowingly have induced and specifically have intended customers to infringe one or more claims
of the ‘309 Patent by using the licenses’ products and the DisplayLink Technology to practice
methods of multi-screen display of computer images in violation of 35 U.S.C. §271(b).
112. Notwithstanding its knowledge of the ‘309 Patent, DisplayLink will continue to
113. DisplayLink also directly has infringed one or more methods claimed in the ‘309
Patent in connection with its testing of one or more of its various technologies.
114. As a direct and proximate result of DisplayLink’s infringement of the ‘309 Patent,
U.S.C. §284. Moreover, because DisplayLink’s infringement of the ‘309 Patent was willful, S/A
is entitled to an award of increased damages under 35 U.S.C. §284, together with its attorneys’
fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §285.
115. S/A demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff S/A prays for the entry of judgment in its favor and against the
(a) In connection with Count I, finding that Defendant, Accell, has either directly
infringed or indirectly infringed the ‘309 Patent, that such infringement was willful, that S/A is
entitled to damages of no less than a reasonable royalty for Accell’s infringement, that S/A is
entitled to increased damages due to willful infringement, and that S/A is entitled to recover its
costs and its attorneys’ fees expended to prosecute its claims;
(b) In connection with Count II, finding that Defendant, DMI, has either directly
entitled to damages of no less than a reasonable royalty for DMI’s infringement, that S/A is
(c) In connection with Count III, finding that Defendant, HP, has either directly infringed
or indirectly infringed the ‘309 Patent, that such infringement was willful, that S/A is entitled to
damages of no less than a reasonable royalty for HP’s infringement, that S/A is entitled to
increased damages due to willful infringement, and that S/A is entitled to recover its costs and its
attorneys’ fees expended to prosecute its claims;
(d) In connection with Count IV, finding that Defendant, IOGear, has either directly
entitled to damages of no less than a reasonable royalty for IOGear’s infringement, that S/A is
(e) In connection with Count V, finding that Defendant, ACCO, has either directly
entitled to damages of no less than a reasonable royalty for ACCO’s infringement, that S/A is
(f) In connection with Count VI, finding that Defendant, Lenovo, has either directly
entitled to damages of no less than a reasonable royalty for Lenovo’s infringement, that S/A is
(g) In connection with Count VII, finding that Defendant, Plugable, has either directly
entitled to damages of no less than a reasonable royalty for Plugable’s infringement, that S/A is
(h) In connection with Count VIII, finding that Defendant, Sewell, has either directly
entitled to damages of no less than a reasonable royalty for Sewell’s infringement, that S/A is
(i) In connection with Count IX, finding that Defendant, Siig, has either directly infringed
damages of no less than a reasonable royalty for Siig’s infringement, that S/A is entitled to
(j) In connection with Count X, finding that Defendant, StarTech, has either directly
entitled to damages of no less than a reasonable royalty for StarTech’s infringement, that S/A is
(k) In connection with Count XI, finding that Defendant, Targus, has either directly
entitled to damages of no less than a reasonable royalty for Targus’s infringement, that S/A is
(l) In connection with Count XII, finding that Defendant, Tripp Lite, has either directly
entitled to damages of no less than a reasonable royalty for Tripp Lite’s infringement, that S/A is
(m) In connection with Count XIII, finding that Defendant, Trippe Manufacturing, has
either directly infringed or indirectly infringed the ‘309 Patent, that such infringement was
willful, that S/A is entitled to damages of no less than a reasonable royalty for Trippe
infringement, and that S/A is entitled to recover its costs and its attorneys’ fees expended to
prosecute its claims;
(n) In connection with Count XIV, finding that Defendant, DisplayLink, has either
directly infringed or indirectly infringed the ‘309 Patent, that such infringement was willful, that
S/A is entitled to damages of no less than a reasonable royalty for DisplayLink’s infringement,
that S/A is entitled to increased damages due to willful infringement, and that S/A is entitled to
recover its costs and its attorneys’ fees expended to prosecute its claims;
(o) In connection with all counts, permanently enjoining the Defendants from making,
using, offering for sale, or selling, the accused products in the United States of America for the
term of the ‘309 Patent;
(p) In connection with all counts, permanently enjoining the Defendants from inducing
others to infringe the claims of the ‘309 Patent;
(q) In connection with all counts, awarding prejudgment interest and post-judgment
interest at the lawful rates; and
(r) In connection with all counts, awarding all other relief to which S/A may be entitled.
James E. Davis State Bar No. 05504200 Kelly J. Kubasta State Bar No. 24002430 Todd Basile State Bar No. 24078205
8150 N. Central Expy., 10 th Floor T: 214.367.6000 F: 214.367.6001 jim.davis@kk-llp.com kelly.kubasta@kk-llp.com todd.basile@kk-llp.com docketing_kkllp@me.com
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF SECURE AXCESS LLC
Încălcarea brevetelor
Serviciul procesului
Titlul 35 din Codul Statelor Unite
Documente similare cu Secure Axcess v. Accell et. al.
LBT-0651O | Caltron 6 Inch LCD Open Frame Monitor and Industrial Touch Screen Monitors
PLA-4260_111505
Andreas Storbeck
Videoedge-hybrid-16-Channfel-4 4 Guide a0 Lt En
Wayne Dinh
ACR-AL716 ACER MONITOR
Applied Food Sciences v. Hangover Joe&#039;s Products
Titanide Ventures v. Amazon.com et. al.
Optiplex 390 d Tech Guide
Johann Michael Chuckaree
SpecCom Cases Godines vs CA
Engelbert_Jere_2481
Fsn Ips700a Data Sheet
Netgear, Inc. v. Ruckus Wireless, Inc., C.A. No. 10-999-SLR
Kenan Nurkovic
Projector Manual Optoma H31
Unifi Scientific Batteries v. Sony Mobile Communications AB et. al.
Unifi Scientific Batteries v. HTC et. al.
Jae Graphics Card
Clouding IP, LLC v. Rackspace Hosting, Inc., et al., C.A. No.12-675-LPS (D. Del. Feb. 6, 2014).
Mai multe de la PriorSmart
Populare în Service Of Process
186_Ang v Chinatrust
El Banco-Espanol-Filipino v. Palanca
Esler v. Mor-Subs Inc et al - Document No. 4
Stackhouse v. Maricopa Cty Sher Of, et al - Document No. 12
Super Interconnect Technologies v. Huawei Technologies et. al.
9. Sagana vs Francisco
Supreme Court Rules 2005
Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Nis
I Object to This Bogus Litigation Process and the Theft of Tax Payer Funds (pay check) by Corrupt Government Employees in Collusion With Unethical Law Breaking Civil Defense Attorneys
3. Resident Mammals of Tanon Straits v. DENR Sec. Angelo Reyes
JDF 98 Affidavit of Service R8-17.docx
Request to Review CONFLICTS Lita Abella 10-16-17.Compressed