Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/84265358/Affinity-Labs-of-Texas-v-Clear-Channel-Broadcasting
Timestamp: 2017-02-24 11:43:17
Document Index: 486248680

Matched Legal Cases: ['§101', '§ 1331', '§ 1391', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 284', '§ 285', 'art0']

BrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION AFFINITY LABS OF TEXAS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. CLEAR CHANNEL BROADCASTING, INC., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
C.A. No. 1:12-205
COMPLAINT Now comes Plaintiff Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC before this Court and alleges its complaint and petition for relief against Defendant Clear Channel Broadcasting, Inc. as follows: PARTIES 1. Plaintiff Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC (“Affinity”) is a Texas limited liability
corporation having offices at 4131 Spicewood Springs, Suite N-10, Austin, TX 78759. 2. Upon information and belief, Defendant Clear Channel Broadcasting, Inc. (“Clear
Channel”) is a Nevada Corporation with offices located at 200 E Basse Rd., San Antonio, TX 78209-8328. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. These claims arise under the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. §101 et
seq., in that each is a claim for infringement of a United States patent. The jurisdiction of this Court is founded upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
This Court has personal jurisdiction over Clear Channel. Clear Channel has
transacted business in this judicial district and/or has committed, contributed to, and/or induced acts of patent infringement in this judicial district. 5. 1400(b). PATENT INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘379 PATENT 6. 7. The allegations of paragraphs 1-5 are incorporated herein by reference. Plaintiff Affinity is the sole owner by assignment of United States Patent No. Venue within this District is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c) and
7,970,379 (“the ‘379 Patent”), which issued on June 28, 2011, and is entitled “Providing Broadcast Content” A copy of the ‘379 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 8. Clear Channel has infringed and, if not enjoined, will continue to infringe one or
more claims of the ‘379 Patent, by performing, without authority, one or more of the following acts: (a) making, using, offering for sale, or selling within the United States the invention as claimed in one or more claims of the ‘379 Patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a); (b) importing into the United States the invention as claimed in one or more claims of the ‘379 Patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a); (c) inducing infringement of one or more claims of the ‘379 Patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b); and/or (d) contributing to the infringement of one or more claims of the ‘379 Patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) (the “acts of infringement of the ‘379 Patent”). 9. Clear Channel’s acts of infringement of the ‘379 Patent include the
manufacturing, using, marketing, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing of the iHeartRadio platform.
Despite having knowledge of the ‘379 Patent, Clear Channel has knowingly and
willfully made, used, offered for sale, sold, and/or imported the iHeartRadio platform that infringes the ‘379 Patent, and has done so after receiving notice of the ‘379 Patent and of Clear Channel’s infringement thereof, and Clear Channel has taken these actions without authorization from Affinity. 11. Upon information and belief, Clear Channel will continue to infringe the ‘379
Patent unless enjoined by this Court. 12. As a result of Clear Channel’s infringement, Affinity has suffered and will
continue to suffer damages. 13. Affinity is entitled to recover from Clear Channel the damages sustained by
Affinity as a result of Clear Channel’s wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial. JURY DEMAND Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38 and the Seventh Amendment of the United States Constitution, Affinity hereby demands a jury trial on all issues triable to a jury. REQUEST FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Affinity petitions this Court and requests that a judgment be entered and relief be granted as follows: A. Declaring that Clear Channel has infringed the ‘379 Patent as alleged herein
(directly, by inducement, and/or contributorily); B. C. Declaring that Clear Channel’s infringement of the ‘379 Patent is willful; Permanently enjoining, restraining, and prohibiting Clear Channel, and any party
acting through, for, or in concert with Clear Channel from further infringing (directly, by inducement, or contributorily) any claim of the ‘379 Patent;
Awarding to Affinity such monetary or compensatory damages as may be found
or deemed adequate to fully compensate Affinity for Clear Channel’s acts of infringement of the ‘379 Patent and/or any other injury suffered by Affinity due to Clear Channel’s acts of infringement of the ‘379 Patent; E. Awarding to Affinity treble damages, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, and based on
Clear Channel’s willful infringement of the ‘379 Patent; F. Declaring this case exceptional and awarding to Affinity its attorneys’ fees,
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285; G. H. proper. Awarding to Affinity its costs; and Awarding to Affinity such other, further, or general relief as this Court may deem
Respectfully submitted, Dated: March 6, 2012 By: /s/ Thomas W. Sankey Thomas W. Sankey TX Bar No. 17635670 twsankey@duanemorris.com Duane Morris LLP Suite 800 1330 Post Oak Blvd. Houston, TX 77056-3166 Tel.: 713.402.3900 Fax: 713.402.3901
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 6th day of March 2012, all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via the Court’s CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3).
/s/ Thomas W. Sankey_______ THOMAS W. SANKEY
Sign up to vote on this titleUsefulNot usefulAffinity Labs of Texas v. Clear Channel Broadcasting by PriorSmart0.0 (0)EmbedDownloadDescriptionOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-00205-LY: Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Clear Channel Broadcasting, Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Western Distric...Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-00205-LY: Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Clear Channel Broadcasting, Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, the Hon. Lee Yeakel presiding. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l5wr 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
RelatedPrompt Medical Systems v. Provation Medicalby PatentBlastMeadows Financial Systems v. Deutsche Lufthansaby PriorSmartExacto v. Platte Chemicalby PriorSmartABnote USA, Inc. vs Travel Tags, Incby PriorSmartMankes v. Fandangoby PriorSmartBashen v. Littler Mendelsonby PriorSmartEarthcomber v. Primediaby PriorSmartEarthcomber v. Truliaby PriorSmartBoadin Technology v. Dow Jones & Companyby PriorSmartWiremold Company v. Next Generation Marketing et. al.by PriorSmartClear With Computers v. Hyundai Motor Americaby PriorSmartQuxuz v. Jimdo et. al.by PriorSmartVariant Holdings, LLC and Variant v. Moody Gardens, Inc. D/B/A Moody Gardens Hotel, Spa and Convention Centerby PriorSmartTechnology Licensing v. Pelcoby PriorSmartQixiz v. NEC Corporation of Americaby PriorSmartClouding IP v. CNN Interactive Groupby PriorSmartBergstrom v. Idle Free Systemsby PriorSmartMeadows Financial Systems v. Pizza Hutby PriorSmartBluebonnet Telecommunications v. VTech Communicationsby PriorSmartOptrel v. A.C.E. International Company, Inc. d/b/a ArcOneby PriorSmartFrey v. Nikeby PatentBlastQuxuz v. Volusionby PriorSmartUponor v. Sioux Chief Mfg.by PriorSmartMary Elle Fashions v. Jasco Prods. - Complaintby slbursteinClouding IP LLCby PriorSmartBluebonnet Telecommunications v. Kyocera Communicationsby PriorSmartFicep v. Voortmanby PriorSmartXEO Int. v. Kretek Internationalby PriorSmartSimilar to Affinity Labs of Texas v. Clear Channel BroadcastingSkip carouselPrompt Medical Systems v. Provation MedicalMeadows Financial Systems v. Deutsche LufthansaExacto v. Platte ChemicalABnote USA, Inc. vs Travel Tags, IncMankes v. FandangoBashen v. Littler MendelsonEarthcomber v. PrimediaEarthcomber v. TruliaBoadin Technology v. Dow Jones & CompanyWiremold Company v. Next Generation Marketing et. al.Clear With Computers v. Hyundai Motor AmericaQuxuz v. Jimdo et. al.Variant Holdings, LLC and Variant v. Moody Gardens, Inc. D/B/A Moody Gardens Hotel, Spa and Convention CenterTechnology Licensing v. PelcoQixiz v. NEC Corporation of AmericaClouding IP v. CNN Interactive GroupBergstrom v. Idle Free SystemsMeadows Financial Systems v. Pizza HutBluebonnet Telecommunications v. VTech CommunicationsOptrel v. A.C.E. International Company, Inc. d/b/a ArcOneFrey v. NikeQuxuz v. VolusionUponor v. Sioux Chief Mfg.Mary Elle Fashions v. Jasco Prods. - ComplaintClouding IP LLCBluebonnet Telecommunications v. Kyocera CommunicationsFicep v. VoortmanXEO Int. v. Kretek InternationalMDPL Complaint 20Quxuz v. ZohoAffinity Labs of Texas v. Clear Channel Broadcasting