Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/178344363/NobelBiz-Inc-v-T-C-N-Inc
Timestamp: 2017-09-22 11:50:46
Document Index: 227448666

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

NobelBiz, Inc. v. T C N, Inc. | Injunction | Patent
NobelBiz, Inc. v. T C N, Inc.
Description: NobelBiz, Inc. v. T C N, Inc.
NOBELBIZ, INC. Plaintiff, v. T C N, INC. Defendant. Civil Action No. _____________
Plaintiff, NobelBiz, Inc. (“NobelBiz”), by and through its counsel, Capshaw DeRieux, L.L.P. and Gibbons P.C., as for its Complaint against Defendant, T C N, Inc. (hereafter referred to as “Defendant”), states as follows: THE PARTIES 1. Plaintiff NobelBiz is a privately held company incorporated under the laws of the
State of Delaware, and having its principal place of business at 5973 Avenida Encinas, Suite 202, Carlsbad, California 92008. NobelBiz is a provider of telecommunications solutions to call centers worldwide. 2. Upon information and belief, Defendant is a corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Utah, and having its principal place of business at 560 South Valley View Drive, Suite 3, St. George, Utah 84770. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. This is an action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the
§§ 1331 and 1338(a). 5. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because of its continuous and
systematic business contacts with the state of Texas, as well as its purposefully availing itself of this Court’s jurisdiction. 6. Venue is appropriate in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c),
and/or 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). NOBELBIZ’S PATENT 7. On October 22, 2013, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued
United States Patent No. 8,565,399 (“the ‘399 patent”), entitled “SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MODIFYING COMMUNICATION INFORMATION (MCI).” 8. 9. NobelBiz is the assignee of the ‘399 patent. By way of a general description, the ‘399 patent discloses a system for processing
a telephone call from a call originator (calling party) to a call target (receiving party), comprising a database for storing telephone numbers, as well as a processor to select from the database a telephone number based on the call target’s area code, to set caller identification (or caller ID) data to the selected number, and to transmit the caller ID data to the call target. 10. In practice, the invention of the ‘399 patent allows a calling party’s number to
appear local or from the same area code as the receiving party. 11. 12. NobelBiz has embodied features of the ‘399 patent in its LocalTouch™ service. LocalTouch™ is designed to enhance the effectiveness of, e.g., outbound
teleservice call centers, such as collection agencies and marketing firms, by increasing contact rates between calling parties and receiving parties.
For example, by implementing the novel process of the ‘399 patent,
LocalTouch™ has been shown to increase contact rates between calling parties and receiving parties by over thirty percent (30%). 14. LocalTouch™ has also received professional approval in the form of the
Technovation Award from the American Teleservices Association (“ATA”) in 2006, as well as the Fulcrum Award from the ATA in 2009. DEFENDANT’S INFRINGING SYSTEMS 15. Defendant is a provider of virtual call center services, as well as outbound
services (hereafter “Defendant’s Services”). 16. Upon information and belief, Defendant’s Services contain a database for storing
outgoing telephone numbers. 17. Upon information and belief, Defendant’s Services contain a processor to select
from the database a telephone number that has the same area code as the call target’s area code. 18. Upon information and belief, Defendant’s Services contain a processor to set
caller ID data to the selected number. 19. Upon information and belief, Defendant’s Services contain a processor to transmit
the caller ID data to the call target. 20. Upon information and belief, Paragraphs 16-19 can be accomplished in
Defendant’s Services using the Local Caller ID feature (the “Local Caller ID Feature”). The “Local Caller ID service is utilized to match the debtors’ number with a local number in . . . [a] pool. The numbers can also be randomized, increasing right party connection.” Ex. A. In short, “[t]his feature allows clients to call their customers and display a caller ID number that is local to the customer’s calling area. For example: ABC Bank in New York City can call John Doe in Buffalo and display a caller ID with a 917 area code - rather than a 212 area code or a 1-800 3
number. This local number encourages the customer to pick up the phone.” Ex. B (“TCN’s Local Caller ID Feature Increases Customer Contact Rates by 50-100%”); Ex. C. 21. Upon information and belief, the Local Caller ID feature identified in Paragraph
20 allows a calling party’s number to appear local or from the same area code as the call target (receiving party). 22. Upon information and belief, Defendant’s Services practice each and every
element of one or more claims in the ‘399 patent.
COUNT I – PATENT INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘399 PATENT 23. NobelBiz restates and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 22 as if
stated fully herein. 24. Complaint. 25. In violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), Defendant is, literally and under the doctrine Defendant had knowledge of the ‘399 patent at least as of upon service of this
of equivalents, infringing the ‘399 patent, by, among other things, making, using, offering for sale, and/or selling Defendant’s Services and will continue to do so unless such infringing activities are enjoined by this Court. 26. In violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), Defendant is indirectly infringing the ‘399
patent since the filing of this Complaint by offering to sell and selling Defendant’s Services in the United States, including within this judicial district. (a) this Complaint. (b) Defendant also knowingly induced infringement and possessed specific Defendant had knowledge of the ‘399 patent at least as of upon service of
intent to encourage another’s infringement which led to direct infringement by a third party of
one or more claims of the ‘399 patent, e.g., call centers, by use of Defendant’s Services, and by soliciting end users to purchase and use Defendant’s Services, in this district and elsewhere in the United States. (c) On information and belief, Defendant, for example, provides and
advertises to its customers the benefits of the Local Caller ID Feature through user manuals and other marketing and instructional materials. Exs. A-D. (d) On information and belief, as another example, Defendant further offers a
website (https://www.tcnp3.com/home/management-login-form/), available in this jurisdiction, where customers can log onto the site and learn or be instructed on how the Local Caller ID Feature operates, including downloading user manuals. Ex. E. (e) By following the materials (and the Local Caller ID feature disclosed),
these customers can, are intended to, and do practice the ‘399 patent. 27. In violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c), Defendant has contributorily infringed and
continues to contributorily infringe since the filing of this Complaint, by selling and/or offering to sell in the United States the Local Caller ID Feature, which: (a) (b) constitute a material part of the invention of the ‘399 patent; are known by Defendant since at least as of upon the service of this
Complaint, , to be especially adapted for use in infringing the ‘399 patent; and (c) are not suitable for substantial noninfringing use. The Local Caller ID
Feature allows a calling party’s number to appear local or from the same area code as the receiving party and thus, has no substantial use that does not infringe one or more claims of the ‘399 patent.
NobelBiz will be substantially and irreparably harmed if Defendant’s
infringement of the ‘399 patent is not enjoined. Plaintiff does not have an adequate remedy at law. 29. NobelBiz is entitled to recover from the Defendant the damages sustained as a
result of Defendant’s infringing acts. 30. Plaintiff demands trial by jury of all issues so triable.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Plaintiff requests that: (a) the ‘399 patent; (b) An accounting be had for the damages resulting from Defendant’s Judgment be entered that Defendant has directly and indirectly infringed
infringement of the ‘399 patent, including, without limitation, lost profits caused by the infringing activities of Defendant, and that the damages so ascertained be awarded together with interest and costs plus expenses, and pre- and post-judgment interest; (c) Judgment be entered that this is an exceptional case, and that NobelBiz is
entitled to its reasonable attorney fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285; (d) A permanent injunction be issued, restraining and enjoining Defendant, its
officers, agents, attorneys, and employees, and those acting in privity or concert with them, from engaging in the commercial manufacture, use, offer for sale, or sale within the United States, or importation into the United States, of systems claimed in the ‘399 patent; and (e) The Court award such other and further relief as the Court may deem just
DATED: October 21, 2013 NOBELBIZ, INC. By:/s/ Elizabeth DeRieux_ S. Calvin Capshaw Texas Bar No. 03783900 Elizabeth L DeRieux Texas Bar No. 05770585 D. Jeffrey Rambin Texas Bar No. 00791478 CAPSHAW DERIEUX LLP 114 E Commerce Avenue Gladewater, TX 75647 Phone: (903) 236-9800Facsimile: (903) 2368787 Email: ccapshaw@capshawlaw.com Email: ederieux@capshawlaw.com Email: jrambin@capshawlaw.com Of Counsel: Ralph A. Dengler (Pro hac vice pending) New York Bar No.: 2796712 Charles H. Chevalier (Pro hac vice pending) New York Bar No.: 4348702 GIBBONS P.C. One Gateway Center Newark, NJ 07102 Phone: (973) 596-4825 Facsimile: (973) 639-6381 Email: rdengler@gibbonslaw.com Andrew P. MacArthur (Pro hac vice pending) New York Bar No.: 4573226 GIBBONS P.C. One Pennsylvania Plaza, 37th Floor New York, New York 10119 Phone: (212) 613-2000 Facsimile: (212) 290-2018 Email: amacarthur@gibbonslaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff NobelBiz, Inc.
Documents Similar To NobelBiz, Inc. v. T C N, Inc.
Gazo Dadole
Labrel 1st Set FT
235689255-Alcatel-CE21811-IB-English-Rev1-20071116.pdf
SMC v NLRC (2003)