Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/136578868/CDD-Technologies-v-Acer-America
Timestamp: 2016-09-26 01:30:22
Document Index: 64426896

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§ 1391', '§ 271', '§ 284', '§ 271', '§ 284', '§ 285', 'art49', 'art3']

CDD Technologies v. Acer America
BrowseBrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicWelcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out moreIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION CDD TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Plaintiff, v. ACER AMERICA CORPORATION, Defendant. ) ) ) ) Civil Action No._______________ ) ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ) ) ) )
business located at 719 West Front Street, Suite 242, Tyler, Texas 75702. 2. Defendant Acer America Corporation ("Acer") is a California corporation
with, upon information and belief, a place of business located at 333 West San Carlos Street, Suite 1500, San Jose, California 95110. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. 4. This action arises under the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. Subject matter jurisdiction is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C.
other persistent courses of conduct and/or deriving substantial revenue from goods and services provided to individuals in this district. 6. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to §§ 1391(b), (c) and 1400(b). THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT 7. On April 11, 2000, United States Patent No. 6,049,874 (the "'874 patent"),
entitled "System and Method for Backing Up Computer Files Over a Wide Area Computer Network," was duly and lawfully issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"). A true and correct copy of the '874 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 8. On March 31, 1998, United States Patent No. 5,734,340 (the "'340
patent"), entitled "Method and Apparatus for Storing Run-Intensive Information in Compact Form," was duly and lawfully issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"). A true and correct copy of the '340 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 9. CDD Technologies is the assignee and owner of the right, title and interest
in and to the '874 and '340 patents, including the right to assert all causes of action arising under said patents and the right to any remedies for infringement of them. COUNT I – INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,049,874 10. CDD Technologies repeats and realleges the allegations of paragraphs 1
through 9 as if fully set forth herein. 11. Without license or authorization and in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), upon information and belief, Defendant has infringed and continues to infringe at least claims 1 and 10 of the '874 patent by making, using, offering for sale, and/or selling within this district and elsewhere in the United States and/or importing into this district and elsewhere
in the United States, methods for backing up data and systems for backing up files in user computers, including but not limited to, Acer AN1600 F1 storage system. 12. CDD Technologies is entitled to recover from Defendant the damages
sustained by CDD Technologies as a result of Defendant's infringement of the '874 patent in an amount subject to proof at trial, which, by law, cannot be less than a reasonable royalty, together with interest and costs as fixed by this Court under 35 U.S.C. § 284. COUNT II – INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,734,340 13. CDD Technologies repeats and realleges the allegations of paragraphs 1
through 12 as if fully set forth herein. 14. Without license or authorization and in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a),
upon information and belief, Defendant has infringed and continues to infringe at least claims 1, 7, 21 and 26 of the '340 patent by making, using, offering for sale, and/or selling within this district and elsewhere in the United States and/or importing into this district and elsewhere in the United States, products, including but not limited to, Acer AN1600 F1 storage system, that include, among other features, a machine-implemented data compression method. 15. CDD Technologies is entitled to recover from Defendant the damages
sustained by CDD Technologies as a result of Defendant's infringement of the '340 patent in an amount subject to proof at trial, which, by law, cannot be less than a reasonable royalty, together with interest and costs as fixed by this Court under 35 U.S.C. § 284. JURY DEMAND CDD Technologies hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, CDD Technologies requests that this Court enter judgment against Defendants as follows: A. B. An adjudication that Defendants have infringed the '874 and '340 patents; An award of damages to be paid by Defendants adequate to compensate
CDD Technologies for its past infringement of the '874 and '340 patents and any continuing or future infringement through the date such judgment is entered, including interest, costs, expenses and an accounting of all infringing acts including, but not limited to, those acts not presented at trial; C. A declaration that this case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285, and an
CDD Technologies v. Acer America by PriorSmart49 viewsEmbedDownloadDescriptionOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 6:13-cv-00335: CDD Technologies, LLC v. Acer America Corporation. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, no j...Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 6:13-cv-00335: CDD Technologies, LLC v. Acer America Corporation. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l83n 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
RelatedCDD Technologies v. ASUS Computer Internationalby PriorSmartAdaptix v. Nokia Siemens Networks et. al.by PriorSmartAdaptix v. Motorola Mobility et. al.by PriorSmartCascades Branding Innovation v. Allstateby PriorSmartEtagz v. Key Publishingby PriorSmartBoadin Technology v. Bloombergby PriorSmartAcceleron v. Bull HN Information Systemsby PriorSmartMacroSolve v. Redbox Automated Retailby PatentBlastGlobeTecTrust v. Knologyby PriorSmartJoao Control & Monitoring Systems v. Chryslerby PriorSmart3Form v. Lumicorby PriorSmarte.Digital v. OCZ Technology Groupby PriorSmartRubbermaid Commercial Products v. Everstrong Productsby PatentBlastCRFD Research Inc.by PriorSmartLexington Luminance v. Lighting Science Groupby PriorSmartMacroSolve v. Carlson Hotels Et. Al.by PatentBlastA&J Manufacturing et. al. v. GHP Group et. al.by PriorSmartVehicle Operation Technologies v. Porsche Cars North Americaby PriorSmartMoJack Distributors v. J & S Jacksby PriorSmartPinpoint v. Grouponby PriorSmartDePuy Synthes Products v. Globus Medicalby PriorSmartGodines v CAby Patricia GonzagaPragmatus Mobile v. Kyocera Et. Al.by PatentBlastMagpul v Plinker Tactical Complaintby Richard Johnson3-D Matrix Et. Al. v. Menicon Et. Al.by PatentBlastPS Prods. v. Jobar - Complaintby slbursteinIdeative Product Ventures v. StarTech.comby PriorSmartOverland Storage v. Pivotstorby PriorSmartSimilar to CDD Technologies v. Acer AmericaCDD Technologies v. ASUS Computer InternationalAdaptix v. Nokia Siemens Networks et. al.Adaptix v. Motorola Mobility et. al.Cascades Branding Innovation v. AllstateEtagz v. Key PublishingBoadin Technology v. BloombergAcceleron v. Bull HN Information SystemsMacroSolve v. Redbox Automated RetailGlobeTecTrust v. KnologyJoao Control & Monitoring Systems v. Chrysler3Form v. Lumicore.Digital v. OCZ Technology GroupRubbermaid Commercial Products v. Everstrong ProductsCRFD Research Inc.Lexington Luminance v. Lighting Science GroupMacroSolve v. Carlson Hotels Et. Al.A&J Manufacturing et. al. v. GHP Group et. al.Vehicle Operation Technologies v. Porsche Cars North AmericaMoJack Distributors v. J & S JacksPinpoint v. GrouponDePuy Synthes Products v. Globus MedicalGodines v CAPragmatus Mobile v. Kyocera Et. Al.Magpul v Plinker Tactical Complaint3-D Matrix Et. Al. v. Menicon Et. Al.PS Prods. v. Jobar - ComplaintIdeative Product Ventures v. StarTech.comOverland Storage v. PivotstorAdvanced Processor Technologies v. Creative Technology et. al.Health Grades v. MDX Medical