Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/166936957/Garnet-Digital-v-TiVo
Timestamp: 2017-07-25 15:14:29
Document Index: 56568576

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 271', '§ 1331', '§ 1338', '§ 1391', '§ 284', '§ 285']

Garnet Digital v. TiVo | Patent | United States District Court For The Eastern District Of Texas
Garnet Digital v. TiVoUploaded by PriorSmartRelated InterestsPatentUnited States District Court For The Eastern District Of TexasLawsuitPatent InfringementComplaintRating and Stats0.0 (0)Document ActionsDownloadShare or Embed DocumentEmbedDescription: Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 6:13-cv-00656: Garnet Digital, LLC v. TiVo Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, no judge yet assigned....View MoreOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 6:13-cv-00656: Garnet Digital, LLC v. TiVo Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l95B for more info.Copyright: Public DomainDownload as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION GARNET DIGITAL, LLC, Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. v. TIVO INC., JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendant.
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Plaintiff Garnet Digital, LLC (“Garnet”) files this original complaint against the above-named defendant, alleging, based on its own knowledge as to itself and its own actions, and based on information and belief as to all other matters, as follows: PARTIES 1. Garnet is a limited liability company formed under the laws of the State of
Texas, with a principal place of business in Plano, Texas. 2. Defendant TiVo Inc. (“TiVo”) is a Delaware corporation with a principal
place of business in Alviso, CA. TiVo can be served with process by serving its registered agent: Corporation Service Company dba CSC - Lawyers Incorporating Service Company; 211 E. 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin, TX 78701-3218. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. This is an action for infringement of a United States patent arising under 35
U.S.C. §§ 271, 281, and 284–85, among others. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction of the action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and § 1338(a).
Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400(b). Upon
information and belief, defendant has transacted business in this district and has committed acts of patent infringement in this district. 5. Defendant is subject to this Court’s specific and general personal
jurisdiction under due process and/or the Texas Long Arm Statute due at least to defendant’s substantial business in this forum, including: (i) at least a portion of the infringements alleged herein; and (ii) regularly doing or soliciting business, engaging in other persistent courses of conduct, and/or deriving substantial revenue from goods and services provided to individuals in Texas and in this district. COUNT I INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,379,421 6. On January 3, 1995, United States Patent No. 5,379,421 (“the 421 patent”)
was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office for an invention titled “Interactive Terminal For The Access Of Remote Database Information.” On October 10, 1995, a certificate of correction of the 421 patent was duly and legally issued by the Patent Office. 7. Garnet is the owner of the 421 patent with all substantive rights in and to
that patent, including the sole and exclusive right to prosecute this action and enforce the 421 patent against infringers, and to collect damages for all relevant times. 8. TiVo, either alone and/or in conjunction with others, including its
customers and/or suppliers, made, had made, used, imported, provided, supplied, distributed, sold, and/or offered for sale products and/or systems responsive to output signals from a telephone (including at least the following models: TiVo Premiere) that infringed one or more claims of the 421 patent. 2
Garnet has been damaged as a result of the infringing conduct by defendant
alleged above. Thus, defendant is liable to Garnet in an amount that adequately compensates Garnet for such infringements, 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 Garnet hereby requests a trial by jury on all issues so triable by right. PRAYER FOR RELIEF Garnet requests that the Court find in its favor and against defendant and that the Court grant Garnet the following relief: a. Judgment that one or more claims of the 421 patent have been infringed,
either literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, by defendant; b. Judgment that defendant accounts for and pays to Garnet all damages to and
costs incurred by Garnet because of defendant’s infringing activities and other conduct complained of herein; c. That Garnet be granted pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on the
damages caused by defendant’s infringing activities and other conduct complained of herein; d. That this Court declare this an exceptional case and award Garnet its
reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 285; and e. That Garnet be granted such other and further relief as the Court may deem
just and proper under the circumstances.
Respectfully submitted, /s/ Elizabeth L. DeRieux Matthew J. Antonelli (lead attorney) Texas Bar No. 24068432 matt@ahtlawfirm.com Zachariah S. Harrington Texas Bar No. 24057886 zac@ahtlawfirm.com Larry D. Thompson, Jr. Texas Bar No. 24051428 larry@ahtlawfirm.com Kris Y. Teng Texas Bar No. 24079443 kris@ahtlawfirm.com ANTONELLI, HARRINGTON & THOMPSON LLP 4200 Montrose Blvd., Ste. 430 Houston, TX 77006 (713) 581-3000 (713) 581-3020 fax S. Calvin Capshaw State Bar No. 03873900 Elizabeth L. DeRieux State Bar No. 05770585 D. Jeffrey Rambin State Bar No. 00791478 CAPSHAW DeRIEUX, LLP 114 E. Commerce Ave. Gladewater, TX 75647 Telephone: (903) 236-9800 Facsimile: (903) 236-8787 E-mail: ccapshaw@capshawlaw.com E-mail: ederieux@capshawlaw.com E-mail: jrambin@capshawlaw.com Attorneys for Garnet Digital, LLC
Recommended DocumentsDocuments Similar To Garnet Digital v. OnkyoSkip carouselStambler v. Ameriprise Financial et. al.Secure Axcess v. PNC Bank, National Association et. al.Qommerce Systems v. Estee LauderPatent Group v. Yeti CoolersPatent Group v. Global Custom Commerce L.P. d/b/a Blinds.comSecure Axcess v. Raymond James & Associates et. al.NovelPoint Security v. OracleBluebonnet Telecommunications v. Pantech WirelessGordium Innovations LLCLamina Packaging Innovations v. John Jameson Import CompanyOpen Network Solutions Inc.Parallel Separation Innovations v. Axiom Process et. al.Cronos Technologies v. Toys "R"3M Innovative Properties Company et. al. v. Swift CanadaIdeative Product Ventures v. Monster Cable ProductsInMotion Imagery Technologies v. Grass Valley et. al.Edekka v EtsyLight Transformation Technologies LLCAutomated Facilities Management v. IFS North AmericaIdeative Product Ventures v. Hewlett Packard CompanySFA Systems v. Wal-Mart Stores et. al.Segan v. ZyngaTelinit Technologies v. Quality Speaks, LLC d/b/a Voip.comSemcon Tech v. Freescale SemiconductorDexas International v. Office DepotEclipse IP v. Harley-DavidsonGlobeTec Trust LLCGlobeTec Trust LLCCardsoft v. Gores Group et. al.Warn Industries v. Engo Industries et. al.Documents About PatentSkip carouselNokiaVsApple_11.03.31.10012-04-30 Apple-Samsung Teksler-Kim Letter Re FRANDAppleVsHTCandS3_11.07.15The Oppidan Press Edition 10 2011 (The Investec Rhodes Top 100 Special Edition)MicrosoftVsMotorola_11.08.17Samsung vs Apple - Samsung's Appeal to the Supreme CourtNokia Complaint Against Apple in federal district court, WisconsinTranslation of Mannheim 2O240 Ruling Motorola v MicrosoftPRICELINE COM INC 10-K (Annual Reports) 2009-02-20WikiLeaks TPP Intellectual Property Rights ChapterFacebook's Counterclaims to Yahoo's Patent LawsuitNike v. SkechersKoninklijke Philips N.V. et. al. v. Nintendo et. al.4. ExhB Lodsys Letter to Illusion LabsNYT Complaint Against LodsysGreenwich Ballistics v. Jamison InternationalMicrosoftVsMotorola_11.12.11Google Dec Action vs Rockstar11-07-01 Apple Motion for PI Against SamsungEPO Examiners Can No Longer Ensure Appropriate Quality StandardsConsulting AgreementBU v AppleNovartis patent JudgementApple vs Samsung 11.06.16AppleVsHTCandS3_11.07.29Apple vs Samsung 11.04.22MicrosoftVsMotorola_10.12.2316-12-20 Apple Complaint v. Acacia Et Al.11-07-21 Lodsys Amended ComplaintSemantic Compaction Systems et. al. v. Speak For Yourself et. al.More From PriorSmartSkip carouselLike kind card game (US patent 6193235)Like kind money board table game (US patent 6186505)Intelligent user interface including a touch sensor device (US patent 8288952)User interface with proximity sensing (US patent 8035623)Wine cellar alarm system (US patent 8710985)Cell regulatory genes, encoded products, and uses related thereto (US patent 7030227)Multicasting method and apparatus (US patent 6434622)Method and apparatus for retrieving data from a network using linked location identifiers (US patent 6226655)Casino bonus game using player strategy (US patent 6645071)High-speed serial linking device with de-emphasis function and the method thereof (US patent 7313187)Casing spacer (US patent 6736166)Advance Products & Systems v. CCI Piping SystemsModern Telecom Systems LLCTracBeam v. AppleRichmond v. Creative IndustriesSenju Pharmaceutical et. al. v. Metrics et. al.VIA Technologies et. al. v. ASUS Computer International et. al.Perrie v. PerrieEckart v. Silberline ManufacturingSenju Pharmaceutical et. al. v. Metrics et. al.Kenzinc v. imblowingup et. al.Sun Zapper v. Devroy et. al.Merck Sharp & Dohme v. Fresenius KabiTracBeam v. T-Mobile et. al.ATEN International v. Uniclass Technology et. al.Mcs Industries v. Hds TradingDok Solution v. FKA Distributung et. al.GRQ Investment Management v. Financial Engines et. al.Merck Sharp & Dohme v. Fresenius KabiMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Konami Digital Entertainment