Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/155424675/NovelPoint-Tracking-v-Volvo-Cars-of-North-America
Timestamp: 2016-12-07 13:39:07
Document Index: 190092142

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 285', '§ 285', 'art4', 'art001']

BrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksArticlesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISIONNOVELPOINT TRACKING LLC Plaintiff, v. VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC Defendant. Case No. 2:13-cv-552 PATENT CASE JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
COMPLAINT NovelPoint Tracking LLC files this Complaint against Volvo Cars of North America, LLC for infringement of United States Patent No. 6,442,485. THE PARTIES 1. Plaintiff NovelPoint Tracking LLC (“NPT”) is a Texas limited liability company
with its principal place of business at 1300 Ballantrae Dr., Allen TX, 75013 in the Eastern District of Texas. 2. Defendant Volvo Cars of North America, LLC (“Defendant”) is a Delaware
Limited Liability Company with its principal place of business at 1 American Road – WHQ Room 612, Dearborn, MI 48126. Defendant’s Registered Agent in the State of Texas is CT Corporation System, 350 N. St. Paul Street, Ste. 2900, Dallas, Texas 75201-4234. 3. Volvo Cars of North America, LLC sells its products within the Eastern District
of Texas through authorized dealers. Consumers can directly request a price quote for a Volvo automobile they customized on Defendant’s website (www.volvocars.com): when a consumer such as NPT (with a 75013 zip code) customizes a Volvo automobile and requests a quote, he is directed to Volvo of Dallas, located in Collin County, Texas, within the Eastern District of 1
Texas. In addition, clicking on “Find a Dealer” from Defendant’s website directs inquires such as one made by NPT (with a 75013 zip code) to a map of Volvo-named automobile dealerships with Volvo of Dallas, located in Collin County, Texas as the first suggested dealer. Volvo of Dallas offers consumers Volvo vehicles for sale in the Eastern District of Texas on its website (www.volvoofdallas.com); consumers can also apply for vehicle financing directly on the dealership website. NATURE OF THE ACTION 4. This is a civil action for infringement of United States Patent No. 6,442,485 (the
because Defendant has committed acts of infringement in the United States including use and offers for sale directed to this District, additional acts of infringement have occurred within this District, and Defendant sells its products through authorized dealerships in this District and elsewhere in the State of Texas and are deemed to reside in this District for purposes of this action. 7. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant and venue is proper in this
district because Defendant has committed, and continues to commit, acts of infringement in and directed toward the State of Texas, including in this district and/or has engaged in continuous and systematic activities in the State of Texas, including in this District, as have its affiliates.
THE PATENT-IN-SUIT 8. The Patent-in-Suit, entitled “Method and Apparatus for an Automatic Vehicle
Location, Collision Notification, and Synthetic Voice,” was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on August 27, 2002. A copy of the Patent-in-Suit is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 9. NPT is the exclusive owner of all rights, title, and interest in the Patent-in-Suit,
claims of the Patent-in-Suit under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), either literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, by making, using, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing products and/or methods encompassed by those claims. 13. Third parties, including Defendant’s dealers have infringed, and continue to
infringe, one or more claims of the Patent-in-Suit under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), either literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, by using, selling, and/or offering for sale in the United States, and/or importing into the United States, products supplied by Defendant. 14. Upon information and belief, based on the information presently available to
NPT, absent discovery, and in the alternative to direct infringement, NPT contends that Defendant has since receiving notice of the filing of this Complaint induced infringement and continues to induce infringement, of one or more claims of the Patent-in-Suit under
35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Defendant has since receiving notice of the filing of this Complaint actively, knowingly, and intentionally induced, and continues to actively, knowingly, and intentionally induce, infringement of the Patent-in-Suit by making, using, importing, and selling or otherwise supplying products to third parties, including—at a minimum—its dealers, with the knowledge and intent that such third parties will use, sell, offer for sale, and/or import, products supplied by Defendant to infringe the Patent-in-Suit; and with the knowledge and intent to encourage and facilitate the infringement through the dissemination of the products and/or the creation and dissemination of promotional and marketing materials, supporting materials, instructions, training, product manuals, and/or technical information related to such products. 15. Upon information and belief, based on the information presently available to
NPT, absent discovery, and in the alternative to direct infringement, NPT contends that Defendant has since receiving notice of the filing of this Complaint contributed, and continues to contribute, to the infringement by third parties, including—at a minimum—its dealers, of one or more claims of the Patent-in-Suit under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) by manufacturing, using, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing Defendant’s products, knowing that those products constitute a material part of the inventions of the Patent-in-Suit, knowing that those products are especially made or adapted to infringe the Patent-in-Suit, and knowing that those products are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use. 16. Defendant’s Volvo Navigation System is an example of an infringing product
and/or method, and is offered for sale as an option on 2013 model-year Volvo vehicles offered for sale in the United States, including the following models: S60, S80, XC60, XC70, XC90, C30, and C70.
17. Patent-in-Suit. 18.
NPT has been and continues to be damaged by Defendant’s infringement of the
Defendant’s actions complained of herein are causing irreparable harm and
within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285. JURY DEMAND 20. Plaintiff NPT hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, NPT prays for judgment as follows: A. B. That Defendant has infringed one or more claims of the patent-in-suit; That Defendant account for and pay all damages necessary to adequately
§ 285 and that NPT be awarded the attorney fees, costs, and expenses that it incurs prosecuting this action; and
DATED: July 20, 2013 Respectfully submitted,
NovelPoint Tracking v. Volvo Cars of North America by PriorSmart4 viewsEmbedDownloadDescriptionOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. None: NovelPoint Tracking LLC v. Volvo Cars of North America LLC. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, no j...Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. None: NovelPoint Tracking LLC v. Volvo Cars of North America LLC. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l8LR 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
RelatedNovelPoint Tracking v. Chrysler Groupby PriorSmartNovelPoint Tracking v. Mazda Motor of Americaby PatentBlastNovelPoint Tracking v. Jaguar Land Rover North Americaby PatentBlastNovelPoint Tracking v. Subaru of Americaby PatentBlastNovelPoint Tracking v. Bentley Motorsby PriorSmartNovelPoint Tracking v. Mercedes-Benzby PatentBlastNovelPoint Tracking v. Toyota Motor Salesby PatentBlastNovelPoint Tracking v. Mitsubishi Motors North Americaby PriorSmartWebvention v. GNC Holdings et. al.by PriorSmartNovelPoint Tracking v. Lenovoby PatentBlastMass Engineered Design v. ErgoTech Groupby PriorSmartLodsys Group v. Volkswagen Group of Americaby PriorSmartLodsys Group v. Dow Jones & Companyby PriorSmartLodsys Group v. TeamLavaby PatentBlastLodsys Group v. Evernoteby PriorSmartWireless Handover Oy v. AT&Tby PatentBlastLodsys Group v. OpticsPlanetby PatentBlastSwipe Innovations v. International Technologies & Systemsby PatentBlastSwipe Innovations v. Chase Paymentech Solutions et. al.by PriorSmartSwipe Innovations v. TechTrexby PriorSmartSwipe Innovations v. Orpakby PriorSmartRockwell Solutions v. General Mills Salesby PatentBlastParallel Separation Innovations v. National Oilwell Varco et. al.by PriorSmartSwipe Innovations v. Bluebird et. al.by PriorSmartSwipe Innovations v. WorldPayby PriorSmart001 Complaintby legalwriter1Swipe Innovations v. MagTekby PriorSmartInMotion Imagery Technologies v. Rokuby PriorSmartSimilar to NovelPoint Tracking v. Volvo Cars of North AmericaNovelPoint Tracking v. Chrysler GroupNovelPoint Tracking v. Mazda Motor of AmericaNovelPoint Tracking v. Jaguar Land Rover North AmericaNovelPoint Tracking v. Subaru of AmericaNovelPoint Tracking v. Bentley MotorsNovelPoint Tracking v. Mercedes-BenzNovelPoint Tracking v. Toyota Motor SalesNovelPoint Tracking v. Mitsubishi Motors North AmericaWebvention v. GNC Holdings et. al.NovelPoint Tracking v. LenovoMass Engineered Design v. ErgoTech GroupLodsys Group v. Volkswagen Group of AmericaLodsys Group v. Dow Jones & CompanyLodsys Group v. TeamLavaLodsys Group v. EvernoteWireless Handover Oy v. AT&TLodsys Group v. OpticsPlanetSwipe Innovations v. International Technologies & SystemsSwipe Innovations v. Chase Paymentech Solutions et. al.Swipe Innovations v. TechTrexSwipe Innovations v. OrpakRockwell Solutions v. General Mills SalesParallel Separation Innovations v. National Oilwell Varco et. al.Swipe Innovations v. Bluebird et. al.Swipe Innovations v. WorldPay001 ComplaintSwipe Innovations v. MagTekInMotion Imagery Technologies v. RokuInMotion Imagery Technologies v. NetflixQuest Nettech v. Little & KingNovelPoint Tracking v. Volvo Cars of North America