Case 1:13-cv-01727-UNA Document 1 Filed 10/18/13 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 1
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`C.A. No. ___________________
`
`TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ALEX IS THE BEST, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SONY CORPORATION, SONY MOBILE
`COMMUNICATIONS AB; SONY MOBILE
`COMMUNICATIONS (USA), INC., and
`SONY ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiff Alex is the Best, LLC. (“AITB”), by and through its undersigned counsel, brings
`
`this action against Sony Corporation, Sony Mobile Communications, AB, and Sony Mobile
`
`Communications (USA), Inc., and Sony Electronics, Inc. (collectively, “Sony” and/or
`
`“Defendants”). In support of this Complaint, AITB alleges as follows:
`
`NATURE OF THE SUIT
`
`This is an action for patent infringement for patent infringement under the Patent
`
`1.
`
`Laws of the United States of America, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., including 35 USC § 271.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`Plaintiff AITB is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the state
`
`2.
`
`of New York with its principal place of business at 75 82nd St., Brooklyn, New York 11209.
`
`3.
`
`On information and belief, Sony Corporation is a Japanese corporation with its
`
`principal place of business at 7-1, Konan, 1-Chome, Minato-Ku, Tokyo, MO 108-0075.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`C.A. No. ___________________
`
`TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ALEX IS THE BEST, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SONY CORPORATION, SONY MOBILE
`COMMUNICATIONS AB; SONY MOBILE
`COMMUNICATIONS (USA), INC., and
`SONY ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiff Alex is the Best, LLC. (“AITB”), by and through its undersigned counsel, brings
`
`this action against Sony Corporation, Sony Mobile Communications, AB, and Sony Mobile
`
`Communications (USA), Inc., and Sony Electronics, Inc. (collectively, “Sony” and/or
`
`“Defendants”). In support of this Complaint, AITB alleges as follows:
`
`NATURE OF THE SUIT
`
`This is an action for patent infringement for patent infringement under the Patent
`
`1.
`
`Laws of the United States of America, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., including 35 USC § 271.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`Plaintiff AITB is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the state
`
`2.
`
`of New York with its principal place of business at 75 82nd St., Brooklyn, New York 11209.
`
`3.
`
`On information and belief, Sony Corporation is a Japanese corporation with its
`
`principal place of business at 7-1, Konan, 1-Chome, Minato-Ku, Tokyo, MO 108-0075.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-01727-UNA Document 1 Filed 10/18/13 Page 2 of 10 PageID #: 2
`
`
`
`4.
`
`On information and belief, Sony Mobile Communications AB is incorporated
`
`under the laws of Sweden with its principal place of business at Nya Vattentornet SE-221, 88
`
`Lund, Sweden.
`
`5.
`
`On information and belief, Sony Mobile Communications (USA), Inc. is a
`
`Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 7001 Development Drive, Research
`
`Triangle, North Carolina 27709. It can be served with process through its agent Capitol
`
`Services, Inc., 1675 S State St., Suite B, Dover, Delaware 19901.
`
`6.
`
`On information and belief, Sony Electronics, Inc. is a company organized under
`
`the laws of Delaware with a principal place of business at 16530 Via Esprillo, San Diego, CA
`
`92127. It can be served with process through its agent Corporation Service Company, 2711
`
`Centerville Rd., Ste. 400, Wilmington, Delaware 19808.
`
`7.
`
`Defendants are in the business of making, using, selling, offering for sale
`
`and/or importing network-enabled image capturing devices.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28
`
`8.
`
`U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a) because the action arises under the patent laws of the United
`
`States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq.
`
`9.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants by virtue of their
`
`systematic and continuous contacts with this jurisdiction, as well as because of the injury to
`
`AITB and the cause of action AITB has raised, as alleged herein.
`
`10.
`
`Defendants are subject to this Court’s specific and general personal jurisdiction
`
`pursuant to due process and/or the Delaware Long-Arm Statute, due to at least their substantial
`
`business in this forum, including: (i) at least a portion of the infringement alleged herein; and
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-01727-UNA Document 1 Filed 10/18/13 Page 3 of 10 PageID #: 3
`
`
`
`(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 this
`
`District.
`
`11.
`
`Defendants have conducted and do conduct business within this District,
`
`directly or through intermediaries, resellers, agents, or offer for sale, sell, and/or advertise
`
`(including the use of interactive web pages with promotional material) products in this District
`
`that infringe the Asserted Patents.
`
`12.
`
`In addition
`
`to Defendants’ continuously and systematically conducting
`
`business in this District, the causes of action against Defendants are connected (but not limited)
`
`to Defendants’ purposeful acts committed in this District, including Defendants’ making, using,
`
`importing, offering for sale, or selling products which include features that fall within the
`
`scope of at least one claim of the Asserted Patents.
`
`13.
`
`Venue lies in this District under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400(b) because,
`
`among other reasons, Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in this District, and have
`
`committed and continue to commit acts of patent infringement in this District. For example,
`
`Defendants have used, sold, offered for sale, and/or imported infringing products in this District.
`
`
`14.
`
`Defendants are properly joined under 35 U.S.C. § 299(a)(1) because a right to
`
`JOINDER
`
`relief is asserted against the parties jointly, severally, and in the alternative with respect to the
`
`same transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences relating to the making,
`
`using, importing into the United States, offering for sale, and/or selling the same accused
`
`products. Specifically, as alleged in detail below, Defendants are alleged to infringe the
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-01727-UNA Document 1 Filed 10/18/13 Page 4 of 10 PageID #: 4
`
`
`
`Asserted Patents with respect to the same image capturing devices including, but not limited to,
`
`the Sony Xperia Z.
`
`15.
`
`Defendants are properly joined under 35 U.S.C. § 299(a)(2). Questions of fact
`
`will arise that are common to all defendants, including for example, whether Defendants’
`
`products have features that meet the features of one or more claims of the Asserted Patents, and
`
`what reasonable royalty will be adequate to compensate the owner of the Asserted Patents for its
`
`infringement.
`
`16.
`
`Defendants use, make, sell, offer for sale and/or import portable computing
`
`devices that, when used, infringe on the Asserted Patents.
`
`17.
`
`At least one right to relief is asserted against these parties jointly, severally, or in
`
`the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of
`
`transactions or occurrences relating to the making, using, importing into the United States,
`
`offering for sale, or selling of the same accused product and/or process.
`
`THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT
`
`There are two patents at issue in this action: United States Patent Nos. 8,134,600
`
`18.
`
`(the “’600 Patent”); and 8,477,197 (the “’197 Patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”).
`
`The ’600 Patent
`
`19.
`
`On March 13, 2012 the USPTO duly and legally issued the ’600 Patent, entitled
`
`“Internet Direct Device” after a full and fair examination to inventors Frank Clemente and Ted
`
`Feaser. AITB is presently the owner by assignment of the ’600 Patent, having received all
`
`rights, title, and interest in and to the ’600 Patent. AITB possesses all rights of recovery under
`
`the ’600 Patent, including the exclusive right to recover for past infringement. A true and
`
`correct copy of the ’600 Patent is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit A.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-01727-UNA Document 1 Filed 10/18/13 Page 5 of 10 PageID #: 5
`
`
`
`The ’197 Patent
`
`20.
`
`On July 2, 2013 the USPTO duly and legally issued the ’197 patent, entitled
`
`“Internet Direct Device” after a full and fair examination to inventors Frank Clemente and Ted
`
`Feaser. AITB is presently the owner by assignment of the ’197 Patent, having received all
`
`rights, title, and interest in and to the ’197 Patent. AITB possesses all rights of recovery under
`
`the ’197 Patent, including the exclusive right to recover for past infringement. A true and
`
`correct copy of the ’197 Patent is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit B.
`
`DESCRIPTION OF THE ACCUSED PRODUCTS
`
`Defendants’ network-enabled image-capturing devices (hereinafter, “Image-
`
`21.
`
`capturing Devices”), including but not limited to the Sony Xperia Z, are configured to take still
`
`and video images. Defendants’ Image-capturing Devices are configured to transmit and receive
`
`still and video images to and from other Image-capturing Devices, as well as a website
`
`application, on which still and video images captured by the Image-capturing Devices can be
`
`stored and managed.
`
`22.
`
`For example, one such website application that allows users to store and manage
`
`still and video images captured by Image-capturing Devices is Google+, which comes pre-
`
`installed in the Sony Xperia Z.
`
`23.
`
`The Sony Xperia Z is an Internet direct device as it allows the user to access the
`
`Internet through a variety of connections, including but not limited to Wi-Fi and various cellular
`
`networks such as LTE, UMTS HSPA+, and GSM GPRS/EDGE. Thus, the Sony Xperia Z is an
`
`Internet direct device with an imaging system to capture still or video images.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-01727-UNA Document 1 Filed 10/18/13 Page 6 of 10 PageID #: 6
`
`
`
`COUNT I
`(INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’600 PATENT)
`
`Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in
`
`24.
`
`paragraphs 1-23.
`
`25.
`
`In violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, Sony is now, and has been directly infringing
`
`and/or inducing infringement of the ’600 Patent.
`
`26.
`
`Sony has had knowledge of infringement of the ’600 Patent at least as of the
`
`service of the present complaint.
`
`27.
`
`Sony has directly infringed and continues to directly infringe at least claim 1 of
`
`the ’600 Patent by making, using, importing, offering for sale, and/or selling Image-capturing
`
`Devices without authority in the United States, and will continue to do so unless enjoined by this
`
`Court. As a direct and proximate result of Sony’s direct infringement of the ’600 Patent,
`
`Plaintiff has been and continues to be damaged.
`
`28.
`
`Sony has indirectly infringed and continues to indirectly infringe at least claim 1
`
`of the ’600 Patent by actively inducing their respective customers, users, and/or licensees to
`
`directly infringe by using, selling, offering to sell and/or Image-capturing Devices. Sony
`
`engaged or will have engaged in such inducement having knowledge of the ’600 Patent.
`
`Furthermore, Sony knew or should have known that its action would induce direct infringement
`
`by others and intended that its actions would induce direct infringement by others. For example,
`
`Sony sells, offers for sale and advertises Image-capturing Devices in Delaware specifically
`
`intending that its customers buy and use said products. As a direct and proximate result of
`
`Sony’s indirect infringement by inducement of the ’600 Patent, Plaintiff has been and continues
`
`to be damaged.
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-01727-UNA Document 1 Filed 10/18/13 Page 7 of 10 PageID #: 7
`
`
`
`29.
`
`To the extent that facts learned in discovery show that Defendants’ infringement
`
`of the ’600 Patent is or has been willful, AITB reserves the right to request such a finding at the
`
`time of trial.
`
`30.
`
`As a result of Defendants’ infringement of the ’600 Patent, AITB has suffered
`
`monetary damages and is entitled to a monetary judgment in an amount adequate to compensate
`
`for Defendants’ past infringement, together with interests and costs.
`
`31.
`
`AITB will continue to suffer damages in the future unless Defendants’ infringing
`
`activities are enjoined by this Court. As such, AITB is entitled to compensation for any
`
`continuing or future infringement up until the date that Defendants are finally and permanently
`
`enjoined from further infringement.
`
`COUNT II
`(INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’197 PATENT)
`
`
`
`32.
`
`Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in
`
`paragraphs 1-31.
`
`33.
`
`In violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, Sony is now, and has been directly infringing
`
`and/or inducing infringement of the ’197 Patent.
`
`34.
`
`Sony has had knowledge of infringement of the ‘197 Patent at least as of the
`
`service of the present complaint.
`
`35.
`
`Sony has directly infringed and continues to directly infringe at least claim 1 of
`
`the ’197 Patent by making, using, importing, offering for sale, and/or selling Image-capturing
`
`Devices without authority in the United States, and will continue to do so unless enjoined by this
`
`Court. As a direct and proximate result of Sony’s direct infringement of the ’197 Patent,
`
`Plaintiff has been and continues to be damaged.
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-01727-UNA Document 1 Filed 10/18/13 Page 8 of 10 PageID #: 8
`
`
`
`36.
`
`Sony has indirectly infringed and continues to indirectly infringe at least claim 1
`
`of the ’197 Patent by actively inducing their respective customers, users, and/or licensees to
`
`directly infringe by using, selling, offering to sell and/or importing Image-capturing Devices.
`
`Sony engaged or will have engaged in such inducement having knowledge of the ’197 Patent.
`
`Furthermore, Sony knew or should have known that its action would induce direct infringement
`
`by others and intended that its actions would induce direct infringement by others. For example,
`
`Sony sells, offers for sale and advertises integrated Image-capturing Devices in Delaware
`
`specifically intending that its customers buy and use said products. As a direct and proximate
`
`result of Sony’s indirect infringement by inducement of the ’197 Patent, Plaintiff has been and
`
`continues to be damaged.
`
`37.
`
`To the extent that facts learned in discovery show that Defendants’ infringement
`
`of the ’197 Patent is or has been willful, AITB reserves the right to request such a finding at the
`
`time of trial.
`
`38.
`
`As a result of Defendants’ infringement of the ’197 Patent, AITB has suffered
`
`monetary damages and is entitled to a monetary judgment in an amount adequate to compensate
`
`for Defendants’ past infringement, together with interests and costs.
`
`39.
`
`AITB will continue to suffer damages in the future unless Defendants’ infringing
`
`activities are enjoined by this Court. As such, AITB is entitled to compensation for any
`
`continuing or future infringement up until the date that Defendants are finally and permanently
`
`enjoined from further infringement.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`AITB demands a trial by jury as to all issues that are triable by a jury in this
`
`40.
`
`action.
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-01727-UNA Document 1 Filed 10/18/13 Page 9 of 10 PageID #: 9
`
`
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, AITB prays for the following relief:
`
`A.
`
`That Defendants be adjudged to have infringed the Asserted Patents, directly
`
`and/or indirectly, by way of inducement and/or contributory infringement, literally and/or under
`
`the doctrine of equivalents;
`
`B.
`
`That Defendants, their officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, attorneys,
`
`affiliates, divisions, branches, parents, and those persons in active concert or participation with
`
`any of them, be permanently enjoined from infringing the Asserted Patents;
`
`C.
`
`An award of damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §284 sufficient to compensate AITB
`
`for the Defendants’ past infringement and any continuing or future infringement up until the date
`
`that Defendants are finally and permanently enjoined from further infringement, including
`
`compensatory damages;
`
`D.
`
`An assessment of pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and costs against
`
`Defendants, together with an award of such interest and costs, in accordance with 35 U.S.C.
`
`§284;
`
`E.
`
`That Defendants be directed to pay enhanced damages, including AITB’s
`
`attorneys’ fees incurred in connection with this lawsuit pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §285; and
`
`F.
`
`That AITB have such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and
`
`proper.
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-01727-UNA Document 1 Filed 10/18/13 Page 10 of 10 PageID #: 10
`
`
`
`October 18, 2013
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BAYARD, P.A.
`
`/s/ Richard D. Kirk
`Richard D. Kirk (rk0922)
`Stephen B. Brauerman (sb4952)
`Vanessa R. Tiradentes (vt5398)
`Sara E. Bussiere (sb5725)
`222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 900
`P.O. Box 25130
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`rkirk@bayardlaw.com
`sbrauerman@bayardlaw.com
`vtiradentes@bayardlaw.com
`sbussiere@bayardlaw.com
`(302) 655-5000
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Alex is the Best, LLC
`
`10
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
