Case 1:15-cv-00807-RGA-CJB Document 1 Filed 09/11/15 Page 1 of 16 PageID #: 1
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`ICONTROL NETWORKS, INC.,
`a Delaware corporation,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`SECURENET TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`a Delaware limited liability company,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO.:
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`)))))))))))
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Plaintiff Icontrol Networks, Inc. (“Icontrol”), by its attorneys and for its Complaint,
`
`hereby alleges and states as follows:
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Icontrol is a Delaware corporation having its principal place of business at 555
`
`Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 280, Redwood City, California 94065.
`
`2.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant SecureNet Technologies, LLC, dba
`
`SecureNet Interactive Technologies LLC, (“SecureNet”) is a Delaware limited liability company
`
`having its principal place of business at 1135 Townpark Avenue, Suite 2155, Lake Mary,
`
`Florida, 32746.
`
`THE NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`3.
`
`On December 21, 2010, the USPTO issued United States Patent No. 7,855,635
`
`(“the ’635 patent”), entitled “Method and System For Coupling An Alarm System To An
`
`External Network”. Icontrol is the owner and assignee of all right, title and interest in and to the
`
`’635 patent and holds the right to sue and recover damages for infringement thereof, including
`
`past damages. A true and correct copy of the ’635 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00807-RGA-CJB Document 1 Filed 09/11/15 Page 2 of 16 PageID #: 2
`
`
`4.
`
`On June 25, 2013, the USPTO issued United States Patent No. 8,473,619 (“the
`
`’619 patent”), entitled “Security Network Integrated with Premise Security System”. Icontrol is
`
`the owner and assignee of all right, title and interest in and to the ’619 patent and holds the right
`
`to sue and recover damages for infringement thereof, including past damages. A true and correct
`
`copy of the ’619 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
`
`5.
`
`On July 2, 2013, the USPTO issued United States Patent No. 8,478,844 (“the ’844
`
`patent”), entitled “Forming a Security Network Including Integrated Security System
`
`Components and Network Devices”. Icontrol is the owner and assignee of all right, title and
`
`interest in and to the ’844 patent and holds the right to sue and recover damages for infringement
`
`thereof, including past damages. A true and correct copy of the ’844 patent is attached hereto as
`
`Exhibit 3.
`
`6.
`
`On December 6, 2011, the USPTO issued United States Patent No. 8,073,931
`
`(“the ’931 patent”), entitled “Networked Touchscreen with Integrated Interfaces”. Icontrol is the
`
`owner and assignee of all right, title and interest in and to the ’931 patent and holds the right to
`
`sue and recover damages for infringement thereof, including past damages. A true and correct
`
`copy of the ’931 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 4.
`
`7.
`
`Icontrol is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that SecureNet infringes
`
`one or more claims of ’635, ’931, ’619, and ’844 patents (collectively, “the Asserted Patents”)
`
`literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, under 35 U.S.C. §271(a)-(c), as alleged below.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`8.
`
`This action arises under the Patent Laws of the United States, codified at Title 35,
`
`United States Code §101, et seq. Accordingly, subject matter jurisdiction of this Court exists
`
`under at least 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1338(a).
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00807-RGA-CJB Document 1 Filed 09/11/15 Page 3 of 16 PageID #: 3
`
`
`9.
`
`On information and belief, this Court has personal jurisdiction over SecureNet
`
`because SecureNet is a Delaware limited liability company and therefore resides in this district.
`
`Further, on information and belief SecureNet has committed acts of infringement in this district.
`
`10.
`
`On information and belief, SecureNet is doing business in this district by making,
`
`using, offering for sale, and/or selling its products including, but not limited to, products that
`
`practice the subject matter of the Asserted Patents, including, without limitation, its various
`
`“Interactive Gateway Modules” such as (again, without limitation) its “SecureNet GSM
`
`Interactive Gateway” and various other gateway modules; its “Video Pro” system; its “Remote
`
`Control” system; SecureNet Platform; SmartLink mobile app; and the Helix wireless security
`
`system. Various combinations of the aforementioned products are packaged and sold under its
`
`“Interactive,” “Lifestyle,” and “Lifestyle Premium” packages (collectively, “Accused Products”).
`
`11.
`
`On information and belief, venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
`
`§§1391(b), (c) and 1400 because SecureNet is a Delaware limited liability company and
`
`therefore resides in this district. Further, on information and belief, venue is proper in this
`
`Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1391(b), (c) and 1400 because SecureNet has committed acts of
`
`infringement in this district. On information and belief, SecureNet is doing business in this
`
`district by making, using, offering for sale, and/or selling its products including, but not limited
`
`to, products that practice the subject matter of the Asserted Patents, including without limitation
`
`the Accused Products.
`
`SECURENET’S KNOWLEDGE OF THE ASSERTED PATENTS
`
`12.
`
`For the reasons discussed herein, on information and belief, SecureNet either had
`
`actual knowledge of the Asserted Patents and/or their respective applications prior to this action
`
`or willfully blinded itself to the existence of those patents.
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00807-RGA-CJB Document 1 Filed 09/11/15 Page 4 of 16 PageID #: 4
`
`
`13.
`
`Icontrol is informed and believes that SecureNet first obtained knowledge of the
`
`Asserted Patents prior to this action through the instances of direct competition between Icontrol
`
`and SecureNet as well as the numerous interactions between the two companies. Icontrol and
`
`SecureNet have directly competed for one or more customer accounts. On information and
`
`belief, during the process of this direct competition, SecureNet learned of the Asserted Patents.
`
`14.
`
`On information and belief, SecureNet independently learned about the Asserted
`
`Patents because it researched Icontrol. SecureNet and Icontrol are both members of the Z-Wave
`
`Alliance. On information and belief, SecureNet researched Icontrol not only because of this
`
`mutual membership in the Z-Wave Alliance, but moreover because they have directly competed
`
`for one or more customer accounts, SecureNet affirmatively investigated Icontrol and its patent
`
`portfolio, at which time SecureNet learned about the Asserted Patents.
`
`15.
`
`On information and belief, as part of SecureNet’s investigation of Icontrol,
`
`SecureNet visited Icontrol’s website, where the Asserted Patents are, and have been, prominently
`
`displayed.
`
`16.
`
`On information and belief, as part of its investigation about Icontrol, SecureNet
`
`further independently learned about at least the ’931, ’619, and ’844 patents on account of a
`
`patent infringement lawsuit brought by Icontrol on July 10, 2013, against Alarm.com Inc. and
`
`Frontpoint Security Solutions LLC that involved the aforementioned patents.
`
`17.
`
`On information and belief, SecureNet was aware of a publication by Imperial
`
`Capital entitled “Security Industry Monitor,” dated March 2014.
`
`18.
`
`On information and belief, SecureNet is aware of U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`13/311,365, which will issue as U.S. Patent No. 9,141,276 and was published on October 11,
`
`2012, because it is displayed on Icontrol’s website at http://www.icontrol.com/patents/.
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00807-RGA-CJB Document 1 Filed 09/11/15 Page 5 of 16 PageID #: 5
`
`
`19.
`
`That publication states that “Alarm.com and iControl Networks have been and
`
`remain from our past publications the best known companies providing interactive wireless
`
`software platforms to the security and cable-telecom industries.” (emphasis added).
`
`20.
`
`SecureNet willfully blinded itself to the Asserted Patents to the extent that it
`
`lacked affirmative knowledge of the Asserted Patents prior to this publication and/or failed to
`
`investigate Icontrol, one of the “best known” companies in the applicable industry.
`
`21.
`
`On September 16, 2014, Icontrol filed a complaint against SecureNet alleging
`
`infringement of the ’635, ’619, and ’844 patents, and other Icontrol patents. The patents asserted
`
`in that action expressly reference the ’931 patent as a related patent. Accordingly, SecureNet
`
`had actual knowledge of the Asserted Patents no later than the filing of the Complaint in that
`
`action, Icontrol Networks, Inc. v. SecureNet Technologies, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-001198
`
`(“First Action”).
`
`22.
`
`Discovery in the First Action commenced, and Icontrol propounded discovery
`
`requests to garner information regarding SecureNet’s non-infringement contentions. SecureNet
`
`refused to respond substantively, and instead filed two motions to dismiss.
`
`23.
`
`The Court held a scheduling conference in the First Action on February 27, 2015.
`
`After the conference, Icontrol filed a Joint Motion to voluntarily dismiss its claims against
`
`SecureNet without prejudice.
`
`24.
`
`The Court dismissed the First Action on March 18, 2015. After the dismissal was
`
`granted, Icontrol and SecureNet engaged in further discussions relating to Icontrol’s patents.
`
`25.
`
`On information and belief, SecureNet misrepresented the lawsuit’s dismissal by,
`
`in part, informing industry members that Icontrol did not have a meritorious case and neglecting
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00807-RGA-CJB Document 1 Filed 09/11/15 Page 6 of 16 PageID #: 6
`
`
`to mention that SecureNet had previously represented to Icontrol that it had prepared non-
`
`infringement contentions and had analyzed prior art references.
`
`26.
`
`To date, almost one year after Icontrol filed its initial complaint in the First
`
`Action, SecureNet has never identified a single non-infringement argument or prior art reference.
`
`SecureNet has never rebutted Icontrol’s claim charts showing infringement of the ’635, ’619, and
`
`’844 patents. SecureNet’s failure to identify any non-infringement argument or prior art
`
`reference—despite Icontrol’s repeated requests for such materials—after nearly one year
`
`confirms that SecureNet willfully infringes.
`
`27.
`
`SecureNet has known of the existence of the Asserted Patents, and its acts of
`
`infringement have been willful and in disregard for the Asserted Patents, without any reasonable
`
`basis for believing that it had a right to engage in the infringing conduct.
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’635 PATENT
`
`28.
`
`Icontrol realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of all the
`
`preceding paragraphs of the Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
`
`29.
`
`Icontrol is the assignee and sole owner of all right, title, and interest in the ’635
`
`patent.
`
`30.
`
`Regarding infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271(a), Icontrol is informed and
`
`believes, and thereon alleges, that SecureNet has infringed and continues to infringe at least
`
`claim 1 of the ’635 patent in this district and elsewhere, by making, using, offering for sale,
`
`and/or selling at least the Accused Products within the United States. Icontrol expects to assert
`
`additional claims of the ’635 patent.
`
`31.
`
`Regarding infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271(b), Icontrol is informed and
`
`believes that SecureNet has caused, urged, encouraged and/or aided and continues to cause, urge,
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00807-RGA-CJB Document 1 Filed 09/11/15 Page 7 of 16 PageID #: 7
`
`
`encourage, and/or aid third parties (e.g., retailers, service providers, consumer electronics OEMs,
`
`and system integrators) to directly infringe one or more claims of the ’635 patent. These actions
`
`include, but are not limited to: advertising the infringing products and their infringing use;
`
`establishing distribution channels for these infringing products in the United States; drafting,
`
`distributing or making available datasheets, instructions, or manuals for the Accused Products to
`
`SecureNet’s customers and prospective customers; and/or providing technical support or other
`
`services for the Accused Products to SecureNet’s customers and prospective customers. On
`
`information and belief, SecureNet has taken these actions with full knowledge of the ’635 patent,
`
`and acted with the specific intent to induce one or more of these third parties to infringe the ’635
`
`patent. On information and belief, these third-parties in fact have directly infringed the ’635
`
`patent by making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling products containing, using, or
`
`incorporating the Accused Products.
`
`32.
`
`Regarding infringement under U.S.C. §271(c), Icontrol is informed and believes
`
`that SecureNet contributed and continues to contribute to infringement by selling, offering to
`
`sell, and/or importing the Accused Products and related components to third parties (e.g.,
`
`retailers, service providers, consumer electronics OEMs, and system integrators). These third
`
`parties then make, use, sell, or offer to sell products, devices, or systems that incorporate the
`
`Accused Products and related components and use the Accused Products and related components
`
`to practice the claimed inventions of the ’635 patent. Thus, the Accused Products and their
`
`related components constitute material parts of the ’635 patent. Moreover, the third parties’
`
`actions constitute direct infringement of the’635 patent.
`
`33.
`
`Upon information and belief, SecureNet knows, for the reasons described above,
`
`that the Accused Products and related components are especially made and/or especially adapted
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00807-RGA-CJB Document 1 Filed 09/11/15 Page 8 of 16 PageID #: 8
`
`
`for use in infringing the ’635 patent. Moreover, these components and apparatuses are not staple
`
`articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use, at least because the Accused
`
`Products and related components have no use apart from making and/or using the inventions as
`
`claimed in the ’635 patent. For example and without limitation, the Accused Products are used
`
`only in conjunction with or as part of the claimed apparatuses and methods.
`
`34.
`
`Icontrol is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that unless enjoined by this
`
`Court, SecureNet will continue to infringe the ’635 patent, and Icontrol will continue to suffer
`
`irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law. Accordingly, Icontrol is entitled
`
`to permanent injunctive relief against such infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §283.
`
`35.
`
`Icontrol is informed and believes that SecureNet’s infringement of the ’635 patent
`
`has been, and continues to be knowing, intentional, and willful.
`
`36.
`
`Icontrol has and will continue to suffer damages as a result of SecureNet’s
`
`infringement of the ’635 patent, and is entitled to compensation for such damages pursuant to 35
`
`U.S.C. §284 in an amount to be determined at trial.
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’619 PATENT
`
`37.
`
`Icontrol realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of all the
`
`preceding paragraphs of the Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
`
`38.
`
`Icontrol is the assignee and sole owner of all right, title, and interest in the ’619
`
`patent.
`
`39.
`
`Regarding infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271(a), Icontrol is informed and
`
`believes, and thereon alleges, that SecureNet has infringed and continues to infringe at least
`
`claim 1 of the ’619 patent in this district and elsewhere, by making, using, offering for sale,
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00807-RGA-CJB Document 1 Filed 09/11/15 Page 9 of 16 PageID #: 9
`
`
`and/or selling at least the Accused Products within the United States. Icontrol expects to assert
`
`additional claims of the ’619 patent.
`
`40.
`
`Regarding infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271(b), Icontrol is informed and
`
`believes that SecureNet has caused, urged, encouraged and/or aided and continues to cause, urge,
`
`encourage, and/or aid third parties (e.g., retailers, service providers, consumer electronics OEMs,
`
`and system integrators) to directly infringe one or more claims of the ’619 patent. These actions
`
`include, but are not limited to: advertising the infringing products and their infringing use;
`
`establishing distribution channels for these infringing products in the United States; drafting,
`
`distributing or making available datasheets, instructions, or manuals for the Accused Products to
`
`SecureNet’s customers and prospective customers; and/or providing technical support or other
`
`services for the Accused Products to SecureNet’s customers and prospective customers. On
`
`information and belief, SecureNet has taken these actions with full knowledge of the ’619 patent,
`
`and acted with the specific intent to induce one or more of these third parties to infringe the ’619
`
`patent. On information and belief, these third-parties in fact have directly infringed the ’619
`
`patent by making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling products containing, using, or
`
`incorporating the Accused Products.
`
`41.
`
`Regarding infringement under U.S.C. §271(c), Icontrol is informed and believes
`
`that SecureNet contributed and continues to contribute to infringement by selling, offering to
`
`sell, and/or importing the Accused Products and related components to third parties (e.g.,
`
`retailers, service providers, consumer electronics OEMs, and system integrators). These third
`
`parties then make, use, sell, or offer to sell products, devices, or systems that incorporate the
`
`Accused Products and related components and use the Accused Products and related components
`
`to practice the claimed inventions of the ’619 patent. Thus, the Accused Products and their
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00807-RGA-CJB Document 1 Filed 09/11/15 Page 10 of 16 PageID #: 10
`
`
`related components constitute material parts of the ’619 patent. Moreover, the third parties’
`
`actions constitute direct infringement of the’619 patent.
`
`42.
`
`Upon information and belief, SecureNet knows, for the reasons described above,
`
`that the Accused Products and related components are especially made and/or especially adapted
`
`for use in infringing the ’619 patent. Moreover, these components and apparatuses are not staple
`
`articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use, at least because the Accused
`
`Products and related components have no use apart from making and/or using the inventions as
`
`claimed in the ’619 patent. For example and without limitation, the Accused Products are used
`
`only in conjunction with or as part of the claimed apparatuses and methods.
`
`43.
`
`Icontrol is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that unless enjoined by this
`
`Court, SecureNet will continue to infringe the ’619 patent, and Icontrol will continue to suffer
`
`irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law. Accordingly, Icontrol is entitled
`
`to permanent injunctive relief against such infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §283.
`
`44.
`
`Icontrol is informed and believes that SecureNet’s infringement of the ’619 patent
`
`has been, and continues to be knowing, intentional, and willful.
`
`45.
`
`Icontrol has and will continue to suffer damages as a result of SecureNet’s
`
`infringement of the ’619 patent, and is entitled to compensation for such damages pursuant to 35
`
`U.S.C. §284 in an amount to be determined at trial.
`
`THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION: INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’844 PATENT
`
`46.
`
`Icontrol realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of all the
`
`preceding paragraphs of the Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
`
`47.
`
`Icontrol is the assignee and sole owner of all right, title, and interest in the ’844
`
`patent.
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00807-RGA-CJB Document 1 Filed 09/11/15 Page 11 of 16 PageID #: 11
`
`
`48.
`
`Regarding infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271(a), Icontrol is informed and
`
`believes, and thereon alleges, that SecureNet has infringed and continues to infringe at least
`
`claim 1 of the ’844 patent in this district and elsewhere, by making, using, offering for sale,
`
`and/or selling at least the Accused Products within the United States. Icontrol expects to assert
`
`additional claims of the ’844 patent.
`
`49.
`
`Regarding infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271(b), Icontrol is informed and
`
`believes that SecureNet has caused, urged, encouraged and/or aided and continues to cause, urge,
`
`encourage, and/or aid third parties (e.g., retailers, service providers, consumer electronics OEMs,
`
`and system integrators) to directly infringe one or more claims of the ’844 patent. These actions
`
`include, but are not limited to: advertising the infringing products and their infringing use;
`
`establishing distribution channels for these infringing products in the United States; drafting,
`
`distributing or making available datasheets, instructions, or manuals for the Accused Products to
`
`SecureNet’s customers and prospective customers; and/or providing technical support or other
`
`services for the Accused Products to SecureNet’s customers and prospective customers. On
`
`information and belief, SecureNet has taken these actions with full knowledge of the ’844 patent,
`
`and acted with the specific intent to induce one or more of these third parties to infringe the ’844
`
`patent. On information and belief, these third-parties in fact have directly infringed the ’844
`
`patent by making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling products containing, using, or
`
`incorporating the Accused Products.
`
`50.
`
`Regarding infringement under U.S.C. §271(c), Icontrol is informed and believes
`
`that SecureNet contributed and continues to contribute to infringement by selling, offering to
`
`sell, and/or importing the Accused Products and related components to third parties (e.g.,
`
`retailers, service providers, consumer electronics OEMs, and system integrators). These third
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00807-RGA-CJB Document 1 Filed 09/11/15 Page 12 of 16 PageID #: 12
`
`
`parties then make, use, sell, or offer to sell products, devices, or systems that incorporate the
`
`Accused Products and related components and use the Accused Products and related components
`
`to practice the claimed inventions of the ’844 patent. Thus, the Accused Products and their
`
`related components constitute material parts of the ’844 patent. Moreover, the third parties’
`
`actions constitute direct infringement of the’844 patent.
`
`51.
`
`Upon information and belief, SecureNet knows, for the reasons described above,
`
`that the Accused Products and related components are especially made and/or especially adapted
`
`for use in infringing the ’844 patent. Moreover, these components and apparatuses are not staple
`
`articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use, at least because the Accused
`
`Products and related components have no use apart from making and/or using the inventions as
`
`claimed in the ’844 patent. For example and without limitation, the Accused Products are used
`
`only in conjunction with or as part of the claimed apparatuses and methods.
`
`52.
`
`Icontrol is informed and believes that SecureNet’s infringement of the ’844 patent
`
`has been, and continues to be knowing, intentional, and willful.
`
`53.
`
`Icontrol is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that unless enjoined by this
`
`Court, SecureNet will continue to infringe the ’844 patent, and Icontrol will continue to suffer
`
`irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law. Accordingly, Icontrol is entitled
`
`to permanent injunctive relief against such infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §283.
`
`54.
`
`Icontrol has and will continue to suffer damages as a result of SecureNet’s
`
`infringement of the ’844 patent, and is entitled to compensation for such damages pursuant to 35
`
`U.S.C. §284 in an amount to be determined at trial.
`
`-12-
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00807-RGA-CJB Document 1 Filed 09/11/15 Page 13 of 16 PageID #: 13
`
`
`FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION: INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’931 PATENT
`
`55.
`
`Icontrol realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of all the
`
`preceding paragraphs of the Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
`
`56.
`
`Icontrol is the assignee and sole owner of all right, title, and interest in the ’931
`
`patent.
`
`57.
`
`Regarding infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271(a), Icontrol is informed and
`
`believes, and thereon alleges, that SecureNet has infringed and continues to infringe at least
`
`claim 1 of the ’931 patent in this district and elsewhere, by making, using, offering for sale,
`
`and/or selling at least the Accused Products within the United States. Icontrol expects to assert
`
`additional claims of the ’931 patent.
`
`58.
`
`Regarding infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271(b), Icontrol is informed and
`
`believes that SecureNet has caused, urged, encouraged and/or aided and continues to cause, urge,
`
`encourage, and/or aid third parties (e.g., retailers, service providers, consumer electronics OEMs,
`
`and system integrators) to directly infringe one or more claims of the ’931 patent. These actions
`
`include, but are not limited to: advertising the infringing products and their infringing use;
`
`establishing distribution channels for these infringing products in the United States; drafting,
`
`distributing or making available datasheets, instructions, or manuals for the Accused Products to
`
`SecureNet’s customers and prospective customers; and/or providing technical support or other
`
`services for the Accused Products to SecureNet’s customers and prospective customers. On
`
`information and belief, SecureNet has taken these actions with full knowledge of the ’931 patent,
`
`and acted with the specific intent to induce one or more of these third parties to infringe the ’931
`
`patent. On information and belief, these third-parties in fact have directly infringed the ’931
`
`-13-
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00807-RGA-CJB Document 1 Filed 09/11/15 Page 14 of 16 PageID #: 14
`
`
`patent by making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling products containing, using, or
`
`incorporating the Accused Products.
`
`59.
`
`Regarding infringement under U.S.C. §271(c), Icontrol is informed and believes
`
`that SecureNet contributed and continues to contribute to infringement by selling, offering to
`
`sell, and/or importing the Accused Products and related components to third parties (e.g.,
`
`retailers, service providers, consumer electronics OEMs, and system integrators). These third
`
`parties then make, use, sell, or offer to sell products, devices, or systems that incorporate the
`
`Accused Products and related components and use the Accused Products and related components
`
`to practice the claimed inventions of the ’931 patent. Thus, the Accused Products and their
`
`related components constitute material parts of the ’931 patent. Moreover, the third parties’
`
`actions constitute direct infringement of the’931 patent.
`
`60.
`
`Upon information and belief, SecureNet knows, for the reasons described above,
`
`that the Accused Products and related components are especially made and/or especially adapted
`
`for use in infringing the ’931 patent. Moreover, these components and apparatuses are not staple
`
`articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use, at least because the Accused
`
`Products and related components have no use apart from making and/or using the inventions as
`
`claimed in the ’931 patent. For example and without limitation, the Accused Products are used
`
`only in conjunction with or as part of the claimed apparatuses and methods.
`
`61.
`
`Icontrol is informed and believes that SecureNet’s infringement of the ’931 patent
`
`has been, and continues to be knowing, intentional, and willful.
`
`62.
`
`Icontrol is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that unless enjoined by this
`
`Court, SecureNet will continue to infringe the ’931 patent, and Icontrol will continue to suffer
`
`-14-
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00807-RGA-CJB Document 1 Filed 09/11/15 Page 15 of 16 PageID #: 15
`
`
`irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law. Accordingly, Icontrol is entitled
`
`to permanent injunctive relief against such infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §283.
`
`63.
`
`Icontrol has and will continue to suffer damages as a result of SecureNet’s
`
`infringement of the ’931 patent, and is entitled to compensation for such damages pursuant to 35
`
`U.S.C. §284 in an amount to be determined at trial.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Icontrol prays that this Court:
`
`a.
`
`Declare that SecureNet has infringed one or more claims of the Asserted
`
`Patents;
`
`b.
`
`Permanently enjoin SecureNet and its officers, agents, representatives,
`
`distributors, wholesalers, retailers, licensees, servants, employees, attorneys, successors, assigns,
`
`parent or subsidiary corporations, and affiliates, and all persons acting in active concert or
`
`participation with it, from infringing, inducing others to infringe, or contributing to the
`
`infringement of the Asserted Patents;
`
`c.
`
`Award Icontrol damages in an amount adequate to compensate Icontrol for
`
`SecureNet’s acts of infringement, including without limitation on the basis of a reasonable
`
`royalty and for lost profits, together with interest thereon, in an amount to be proven at trial, in
`
`accordance with 35 U.S.C. §§154(d) and 284;
`
`d.
`
`Find that this case is exceptional and award Icontrol in an amount up to
`
`three times the actual amount assessed, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284;
`
`e.
`
`Find that this case is exceptional and award Icontrol its respective costs
`
`and expenses for SecureNet’s infringement, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, in accordance
`
`with the provisions of 35 U.S.C. §285 or other statutes;
`
`-15-
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00807-RGA-CJB Document 1 Filed 09/11/15 Page 16 of 16 PageID #: 16
`
`
`f.
`
`Award Icontrol pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the highest
`
`rates allowed by law; and
`
`g.
`
`Award Icontrol any other relief, in law and in equity, to which the Court
`
`finds Icontrol is justly entitled.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Icontrol demands a trial
`
`
`
` /s/ Richard K. Herrmann
`Richard K. Herrmann (I.D. No. 405)
`Mary B. Matterer (I.D. No. 2696)
`MORRIS JAMES LLP
`500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1500
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 888-6800
`rherrmann@morrisjames.com
`mmatterer@morrisjames.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Icontrol Networks, Inc.
`
`by jury of this action.
`
`
`
`Dated: September 11, 2015
`
`
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`James C. Yoon
`Ryan R. Smith
`Christopher D. Mays
`Mary A. Procaccio-Flowers
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI P.C.
`650 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
`650-493-9300
`
`-16-
`
`