Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 137-2 Filed 08/12/16 Page 1 of 143
`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 137-2 Filed 08/12/16 Page 1 of 143
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 137-2 Filed 08/12/16 Page 1 of 143
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 137-2 Filed 08/12/16 Page 2 of 143
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
`ATLANTA DIVISION
`
`EMERSON ELECTRIC CO., FISHER- )
`ROSEMOUNT SYSTEMS, INC., and )
`ROSEMOUNT INC.,
`
`) )
`
`) )
`
` Civil Action
`) File No. 1:15-cv-00319-AT
`)
`)
`
`))
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`SIPCO, LLC, and
`IP CO, LLC (d/b/a INTUS IQ),
`
`)
`Defendants.
` )
`)
`SIPCO, LLC, and IP CO, LLC
`(d/b/a INTUS IQ),
`
`) )
`
`) )
`
`) )
`
` Civil Action
`) File No. 1:16-cv-02690-AT
`)
`EMERSON ELECTRIC CO., EMERSON )
`)
`PROCESS MANAGEMENT LLLP,
`FISHER-ROSEMOUNT SYSTEMS, INC., )
`)
`ROSEMOUNT INC., BP p.1.c., BP
`AMERICA, INC., and BP AMERICA )
`PRODUCTION COMPANY,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`)
`Defendants.
` )
`
`DECLARATION OF TIMOTHY J. REPPUCCI, ESQ., IN SUPPORT OF
`SIPCO'S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE
`
`I, Timothy J. Reppucci, Esq., state as follows:
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 137-2 Filed 08/12/16 Page 3 of 143
`
`1.
`
`I am a competent adult over 18 years of age without any criminal
`
`convictions. The facts in this declaration are true and correct to the best of my
`
`knowledge, information, and belief, and I am competent to testify to them if called
`
`upon to do so.
`
`2.
`
`I am an attorney at the law firm, Nutter, McClennen & Fish, LLP in Boston,
`
`Massachusetts, which represents SIPCO, LLC and IP CO, LLC in the above-
`
`captioned matter.
`
`3.
`
`Attached as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of Bates-labeled document
`
`EMR-SIP-00365088, produced and designated CONFIDENTIAL by the Emerson
`
`Defendants in this action.
`
`4.
`
`Attached as Exhibit 2 are true and correct copies of five complaints filed by
`
`SIPCO, LLC in the Eastern District of Texas that include infringement claims
`
`related to U.S. Patent. No. 7,103,511 and two complaints filed by IP CO, LLC in
`
`the Eastern District of Texas that include infringement claims related to U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,044,062.
`
`5.
`
`I have reviewed the results of a person locator search for Thomas Fredricks
`
`conducted using the Accurint for Legal Professionals service provided by
`
`LexisNexis. Upon information and belief, Thomas Fredricks currently resides in
`
`McKinney, Texas.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 137-2 Filed 08/12/16 Page 4 of 143
`
`6.
`
`Attached as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of the webpage titled,
`
`"Linear Technology Design Centers," last accessed on August 2, 2016.
`
`7.
`
`I have reviewed the results of a person locator search for David Lafferty
`
`conducted using the Accurint for Legal Professionals service provided by
`
`LexisNexis. Upon information and belief, David Lafferty currently resides in either
`
`Katy or Houston, Texas.
`
`8.
`
`Attached as Exhibit 4 is the Undertaking and Consent To Be Bound by
`
`Protective Order signed by Robert Akl that lists his address in Lake Dallas, Texas.
`
`9.
`
`Attached as Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of Stephen Heppe's
`
`publicly-accessible Linkedln webpage listing his location as Portland, Oregon, last
`
`accessed on August 2, 2016. According to the website www.distance-cities.com
`
`(last accessed on August 2, 2016), the distance between Portland and Tyler, Texas
`
`is 1,718.91 miles and the distance between Portland and Atlanta, Georgia is
`
`2,171.18 miles.
`
`10. Attached as Exhibit 6 is the Undertaking and Consent To Be Bound by
`
`Protective Order signed by Kevin Almeroth that lists his address in Santa Barbara,
`
`California. According to the website www.distance-cities.com (last accessed on
`
`August 2, 2016), the distance between Santa Barbara and Tyler, Texas is 1,412.92
`
`miles and the distance between Santa Barbara and Atlanta, Georgia is 2,013.04
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 137-2 Filed 08/12/16 Page 5 of 143
`
`miles.
`
`11. According to the website www.distance-cities.com (last accessed on August
`
`2, 2016), the distance between St. Louis, Missouri and Tyler, Texas is 520.35 miles
`
`and the distance between St. Louis, Missouri and Atlanta, Georgia is 467.87 miles.
`
`12. According to the website www.distance-cities.com (last accessed on August
`
`2, 2016), the distance between Chanhassen, Minnesota and Tyler, Texas is 870.58
`
`miles and the distance between Chanhassen, Minnesota and Atlanta, Georgia is
`
`909.92 miles.
`
`13. I have reviewed the results of a person locator search for Curt Smith
`
`conducted using the Accurint for Legal Professionals service provided by
`
`LexisNexis. Upon information and belief, Curt Smith currently resides in Houston,
`
`Texas.
`
`14. Attached as Exhibit 7 a true and correct copy of Table C—U.S. District
`
`Courts Civil Federal Judicial Caseload Statistics (March 31, 2015), located at
`
`www.uscourts.gov/statistics/table/c/federal-judicial-caseload-statistics/2015/03/31,
`
`last accessed on August 2, 2016.
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
`
`DATED: August 2, 2016
`
`,-,------
`Timothyep cci, Esq.
`
`I/
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 137-2 Filed 08/12/16 Page 6 of 143
`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 137-2 Filed 08/12/16 Page 6 of 143
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`EXHIBIT 1
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 137-2 Filed 08/12/16 Page 7 of 143
`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 137-2 Filed 08/12/16 Page 7 of 143
`
`
`
`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`
`Groves, John [CORP/HK]
`Wednesday, July 31, 2013 4:02 PM
`'Candida Petite'
`
`Subject:
`Attachments:
`
`RE: Meeting
`Complaintpdf
`
`Candida,
`
`Emerson has just filed the attached Complaint for Declaratory Judgment of Patent Non-
`Infringement and Invalidity in the Northern District of Georgia.
`I want to assure you that
`it is still our intent to reach an amicable conclusion to the patent licensing discussions
`you initiated, but our research shows that you have filed multiple lawsuits in the Eastern
`District of Texas, and the references to Rule 498 on previous correspondence clearly show you
`are anticipating litigation. Emerson's impression of the Eastern District of Texas is that
`it may unduly favor patent owners, and we would prefer to be in another jurisdiction in the
`event that we are unable to reach an amicable solution. We are of course prepared to delay
`or stay this law suit whilst we are discussing possible license terms.
`
`I appreciate you may be unhappy with this step Emerson has taken, but we would still very
`much like to go ahead with our planned meeting on Monday.
`I am looking forward to meeting
`you and Bob in person to explore how we can move forward.
`
`With regard to the meeting agenda, I suggest you start by walking us through your claim
`charts. We can then discuss those and cover any questions Emerson has.
`I would also like to
`discuss your expectations on possible commercial licensing terms.
`
`john
`
`
`
`————— Original Messagen
`From: Candida Petite H
`
`
`Sent: Wednesday, July 3 ,
`To: Groves, John [CORP/HK]
`Subject: Meeting
`
`Hi John - I wanted to check your thoughts on an agenda for next weekg
`
`Do you want us to do a presentation or would you rather do a Q&A session regarding the IE5
`and contract?
`
`Please let me know so that we can plan appropriately.
`
`Thanks
`
`Candida
`
`Candida Petite
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`EMR-SIP-00365088
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 137-2 Filed 08/12/16 Page 8 of 143
`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 137-2 Filed 08/12/16 Page 8 of 143
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 2
`EXHIBIT 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:08-cv-00359-JRG Document 1 Filed 09/19/08 Page 1 of 16 PageID #: 1Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 137-2 Filed 08/12/16 Page 9 of 143
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action File No. 2:08cv359
`
`
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`SIPCO, LLC,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC., COOPER
`INDUSTRIES, LTD., COOPER
`WIRING DEVICES, INC.,
`CRESTRON ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`EATON CORPORATION, HAWKING
`TECHNOLOGIES, INC., HOMESEER
`TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`INTERMATIC, INC., LEVITON
`MANUFACTURING CO., INC.,
`SMART HOME SYSTEMS, INC.,
`WAYNE-DALTON CORP., and X10
`WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`NOW COMES Plaintiff SIPCO, LLC (“SIPCO”) and hereby makes and files
`
`this Complaint and request for injunctive relief and monetary damages against
`
`Defendants AMAZON.COM, INC. (“Amazon”), COOPER INDUSTRIES, LTD.
`
`(“CIL”), COOPER WIRING DEVICES, INC. (“CWD”) (collectively with CIL,
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:08-cv-00359-JRG Document 1 Filed 09/19/08 Page 2 of 16 PageID #: 2Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 137-2 Filed 08/12/16 Page 10 of 143
`
`“Cooper”), CRESTRON ELECTRONICS,
`
`INC.
`
`(“Crestron”), EATON
`
`CORPORATION (“Eaton”), HAWKING TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (“Hawking”),
`
`HOMESEER TECHNOLOGIES, LLC (“HomeSeer”), INTERMATIC, INC.
`
`(“Intermatic”), LEVITON MANUFACTURING CO., INC. (“Leviton”), SMART
`
`HOME SYSTEMS, INC. (“SHS”), WAYNE-DALTON CORP. (“Wayne-Dalton”),
`
`and X10 WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY, INC. (“X10”) (collectively “Defendants”),
`
`and in support thereof, respectfully shows the Court as follows:
`
`PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff SIPCO is a Georgia Limited Liability Company having its
`
`principal place of business at Overlook I, Suite 660, 2849 Paces Ferry Road, Atlanta,
`
`Georgia 30339.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant Amazon is a Delaware corporation, having its principal place
`
`of business at 1200 12th Avenue South, Suite 1200, Seattle, Washington 98144.
`
`3.
`
`Defendant CIL is a Bermuda corporation, having its principal place of
`
`business at 600 Travis Street, Suite 5600, Houston, Texas 77002.
`
`4.
`
`Defendant CWD is a New York corporation, having its corporate offices
`
`at 600 Travis Street, Suite 5600, Houston, Texas 77002.
`
`5.
`
`Defendant Crestron is a New Jersey corporation, having its principal
`
`place of business at 15 Volvo Drive, Rockleigh, New Jersey 07647.
`
`6.
`
`Defendant Eaton is an Ohio corporation, having its principal place of
`
`business at 1111 Superior Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio 44114.
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:08-cv-00359-JRG Document 1 Filed 09/19/08 Page 3 of 16 PageID #: 3Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 137-2 Filed 08/12/16 Page 11 of 143
`
`7.
`
`Defendant Hawking is a California corporation, having its principal place
`
`of business at 15281A Barranca Parkway, Irvine, California 92618.
`
`8.
`
`Defendant HomeSeer is a New Hampshire corporation, having its
`
`principal place of business at 35 Constitution Drive, Suite C, Bedford, New
`
`Hampshire 03110.
`
`9.
`
`Defendant Intermatic is a Delaware corporation having its principal place
`
`of business at Intermatic Plaza, Spring Grove, Illinois 60081.
`
`10. Defendant Leviton is a Delaware corporation, having a principal place of
`
`business at 59-25 Little Neck Parkway, Little Neck, New York 11362.
`
`11. Defendant SHS is a New York corporation, having a principal place of
`
`business at 10 Lawrence Avenue, Smithtown, New York 11787.
`
`12. Defendant Wayne-Dalton is an Ohio corporation, having its principal
`
`place of business at One Door Drive, Mount Hope, Ohio 44660.
`
`13. Defendant X-10 is a Delaware corporation having its principal place of
`
`business at 620 Naches Avenue Southwest, Renton, Washington 98057.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`14. This is an action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of
`
`the United States, 35 U.S.C. §101 et seq.
`
`15. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant
`
`to 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1338(a).
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:08-cv-00359-JRG Document 1 Filed 09/19/08 Page 4 of 16 PageID #: 4Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 137-2 Filed 08/12/16 Page 12 of 143
`
`16. Defendant Amazon is subject to personal jurisdiction in this district by
`
`virtue of, among other things, doing business and committing acts of infringement in
`
`the State of Texas and this judicial district, through agents and representatives and/or
`
`otherwise having substantial contacts with the State of Texas and this judicial district.
`
`Amazon can be served with process through its registered agent, Corporation Service
`
`Company, 6500 Harbour Heights Parkway, Mukilteo, Washington 98275.
`
`17. Defendant CIL is subject to personal jurisdiction in this district by virtue
`
`of, among other things, it is a resident of Texas and it is doing business and
`
`committing acts of infringement in the State of Texas and this judicial district, through
`
`agents and representatives and/or otherwise having substantial contacts with the State
`
`of Texas and this judicial district. CIL can be served with process through its
`
`registered agent, CT Corporation, 350 N. St. Paul Street, Dallas, Texas 75201.
`
`18. Defendant CWD is subject to personal jurisdiction in this district by
`
`virtue of, among other things, doing business and committing acts of infringement in
`
`the State of Texas and this judicial district, through agents and representatives and/or
`
`otherwise having substantial contacts with the State of Texas and this judicial district.
`
`CWD can be served with process through its registered agent, CT Corporation, 350 N.
`
`St. Paul Street, Dallas, Texas 75201.
`
`19. Defendant Crestron is subject to personal jurisdiction in this district by
`
`virtue of, among other things, doing business and committing acts of infringement in
`
`the State of Texas and this judicial district, through agents and representatives and/or
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:08-cv-00359-JRG Document 1 Filed 09/19/08 Page 5 of 16 PageID #: 5Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 137-2 Filed 08/12/16 Page 13 of 143
`
`otherwise having substantial contacts with the State of Texas and this judicial district.
`
`Crestron can be served with process through its registered agent, David Feldstein, 15
`
`Volvo Drive, Rockleigh, New Jersey 07647.
`
`20. Defendant Eaton is subject to personal jurisdiction in this district by
`
`virtue of, among other things, doing business and committing acts of infringement in
`
`the State of Texas and this judicial district, through agents and representatives and/or
`
`otherwise having substantial contacts with the State of Texas and this judicial district.
`
`Eaton can be served with process through its registered agent, CT Corporation, 350 N.
`
`St. Paul Street, Dallas, Texas 75201.
`
`21. Upon information and belief, Defendant Hawking is subject to personal
`
`jurisdiction in this district by virtue of, among other things, doing business and
`
`committing acts of infringement in the State of Texas and this judicial district, through
`
`agents and representatives and/or otherwise having substantial contacts with the State
`
`of Texas and this judicial district. Hawking can be served with process through its
`
`registered agent, Frank Lin, 15281A Barranca Parkway, Irvine, California 92618.
`
`22. Upon information and belief, Defendant HomeSeer is subject to personal
`
`jurisdiction in this district by virtue of, among other things, doing business and
`
`committing acts of infringement in the State of Texas and this judicial district, through
`
`agents and representatives and/or otherwise having substantial contacts with the State
`
`of Texas and this judicial district. HomeSeer can be served with process through its
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:08-cv-00359-JRG Document 1 Filed 09/19/08 Page 6 of 16 PageID #: 6Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 137-2 Filed 08/12/16 Page 14 of 143
`
`registered agent, John E. Hughes, 900 Elm Street, P.O. Box 326, Manchester, New
`
`Hampshire 03101.
`
`23. Defendant Intermatic is subject to personal jurisdiction in this district by
`
`virtue of, among other things, doing business and committing acts of infringement in
`
`the State of Texas and this judicial district, through agents and representatives and/or
`
`otherwise having substantial contacts with the State of Texas and this judicial district.
`
`Intermatic can be served with process through its registered agent, CT Corporation,
`
`350 N. St. Paul Street, Dallas, Texas 75201.
`
`24. Defendant Leviton is subject to personal jurisdiction in this district by
`
`virtue of, among other things, doing business and committing acts of infringement in
`
`the State of Texas and this judicial district, through agents and representatives and/or
`
`otherwise having substantial contacts with the State of Texas and this judicial district.
`
`Leviton can be served with process through its registered agent, CT Corporation, 350
`
`N. St. Paul Street, Dallas, Texas 75201.
`
`25. Upon information and belief, Defendant SHS is subject to personal
`
`jurisdiction in this district by virtue of, among other things, doing business and
`
`committing acts of infringement in the State of Texas and this judicial district, through
`
`agents and representatives and/or otherwise having substantial contacts with the State
`
`of Texas and this judicial district. SHS can be served with process through its
`
`principal place of business at 10 Lawrence Avenue, Smithtown, New York 11787.
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:08-cv-00359-JRG Document 1 Filed 09/19/08 Page 7 of 16 PageID #: 7Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 137-2 Filed 08/12/16 Page 15 of 143
`
`26. Defendant Wayne-Dalton is subject to personal jurisdiction in this district
`
`by virtue of, among other things, doing business and committing acts of infringement
`
`in the State of Texas and this judicial district, through agents and representatives
`
`and/or otherwise having substantial contacts with the State of Texas and this judicial
`
`district. Wayne-Dalton can be served with process through its registered agent, CT
`
`Corporation, 350 N. St. Paul Street, Dallas, Texas 75201.
`
`27. Upon information and belief, Defendant X10 is subject to personal
`
`jurisdiction in this district by virtue of, among other things, doing business and
`
`committing acts of infringement in the State of Texas and this judicial district, through
`
`agents and representatives and/or otherwise having substantial contacts with the State
`
`of Texas and this judicial district. X10 can be served with process through its
`
`registered agent, Danial D. Pharris, 601 Union Street, Suite 2600, Seattle, Washington
`
`98101.
`
`28. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1391 and 1400(b).
`
`FACTS GIVING RISE TO THIS ACTION
`
`Patents-in-Suit
`
`29. On May 10, 2005, United States Patent No. 6,891,838, entitled
`
`“SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MONITORING AND CONTROLLING
`
`RESIDENTIAL DEVICES” (the “‘838 Patent”), was duly and legally issued by the
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office (the “PTO”). A copy of the ‘838 Patent is
`
`attached hereto as Exhibit “A.”
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:08-cv-00359-JRG Document 1 Filed 09/19/08 Page 8 of 16 PageID #: 8Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 137-2 Filed 08/12/16 Page 16 of 143
`
`30. On September 5, 2006, United States Patent No. 7,103,511, entitled
`
`“WIRELESS COMMUNICATION NETWORKS FOR PROVIDING REMOTE
`
`MONITORING OF DEVICES” (the “‘511 Patent”), was duly and legally issued by
`
`the PTO. A copy of the ‘511 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit “B.”
`
`31. SIPCO is the assignee of the ‘838 Patent and the ‘511 Patent
`
`(collectively, the “Patents-in-Suit”).
`
`32. David Petite, the President of Plaintiff SIPCO, is the sole inventor of the
`
`technologies embodied in the ‘511 Patent and is one of two co-inventors of the
`
`technologies embodied in the ‘838 Patent. Mr. Petite is a pioneer in the field of
`
`wireless technology, and his inventions are widely deployed in a variety of products
`
`and networks throughout the United States.
`
`Defendants’ Acts of Infringement
`
`33. Amazon makes, uses, sells, offers to sell, and/or imports wireless sensor
`
`network systems and the components of such systems for use in the consumer-based
`
`home automation field of use.
`
`34. These wireless systems and products include without limitation those
`
`marketed by Amazon under various brands on its website, “Amazon.com.”
`
`35. Cooper makes, uses, sells, offers to sell, and/or imports wireless sensor
`
`network systems and the components of such systems for use in the consumer-based
`
`home automation field of use.
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:08-cv-00359-JRG Document 1 Filed 09/19/08 Page 9 of 16 PageID #: 9Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 137-2 Filed 08/12/16 Page 17 of 143
`
`36. These wireless Cooper systems and products include without limitation
`
`those marketed by Cooper under its ASPIRE RF brand.
`
`37. Crestron makes, uses, sells, offers to sell, and/or imports wireless sensor
`
`network systems and the components of such systems for use in the facilities
`
`management and consumer-based home automation fields of use.
`
`38. These wireless Crestron systems and products include without limitation
`
`those marketed by Crestron under its infiNET brand.
`
`39. Eaton makes, uses, sells, offers to sell, and/or imports wireless sensor
`
`network systems and the components of such systems for use in the consumer-based
`
`home automation and, upon information and belief, the industrial controls fields of
`
`use.
`
`40. These wireless Eaton systems and products include without limitation
`
`those marketed by Eaton under its Home Heartbeat brand.
`
`41. Hawking makes, uses, sells, offers to sell, and/or imports wireless sensor
`
`network systems and the components of such systems for use in the consumer-based
`
`home automation field of use.
`
`42. These wireless Hawking systems and products include without limitation
`
`those marketed by Hawking under its HomeRemote brand.
`
`43. HomeSeer makes, uses, sells, offers to sell, and/or imports wireless
`
`sensor network systems and the components of such systems for use in the consumer-
`
`based home automation field of use.
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:08-cv-00359-JRG Document 1 Filed 09/19/08 Page 10 of 16 PageID #: 10Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 137-2 Filed 08/12/16 Page 18 of 143
`
`44. These wireless HomeSeer systems and products include without
`
`limitation those marketed by HomeSeer under a number of brands, including its own,
`
`on HomeSeer’s website, “HomeSeer.com.”
`
`45.
`
`Intermatic makes, uses, sells, offers to sell, and/or imports wireless sensor
`
`network systems and the components of such systems for use in the consumer-based
`
`home automation field of use.
`
`46. These wireless Intermatic systems and products include without
`
`limitation those marketed by Intermatic under its HomeSettings and InTouch brands.
`
`47. Leviton makes, uses, sells, offers to sell, and/or imports wireless sensor
`
`network systems and the components of such systems for use in the consumer-based
`
`home automation field of use.
`
`48. These wireless Leviton systems and products include without limitation
`
`those marketed by Leviton under its Vizia RF brand.
`
`49. SHS makes, uses, sells, offers to sell, and/or imports wireless sensor
`
`network systems and the components of such systems for use in the consumer-based
`
`home automation field of use.
`
`50. These wireless systems and products include without limitation those
`
`marketed by SHS under a number of brands on SHS’ website,
`
`“SmartHomeUSA.com.”
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:08-cv-00359-JRG Document 1 Filed 09/19/08 Page 11 of 16 PageID #: 11Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 137-2 Filed 08/12/16 Page 19 of 143
`
`51. Wayne-Dalton makes, uses, sells, offers to sell, and/or imports wireless
`
`network systems and the components of such systems for use in the consumer-based
`
`home automation field of use.
`
`52. These wireless Wayne-Dalton systems and products include without
`
`limitation those marketed by Wayne-Dalton under its HomeSettings brand.
`
`53. X10 makes, uses, sells, offers to sell, and/or imports wireless network
`
`systems and the components of such systems for use in the consumer-based home
`
`automation field of use.
`
`54. These wireless X10 systems and products include without limitation
`
`those marketed by X10 under its ActiveHome brand.
`
`55. All Defendants have infringed, contributed to the infringement of, and/or
`
`induced the infringement of the ‘838 Patent through actions undertaken in connection
`
`with wireless networks and related products.
`
`56. Defendants Amazon, Cooper, Crestron, Eaton, Hawking, Homeseer,
`
`Intermatic, Leviton, SHS and Wayne-Dalton have infringed, contributed to the
`
`infringement of, and/or induced the infringement of the ‘511 Patent through actions
`
`undertaken in connection with wireless networks and related products.
`
`57. This suit specifically does not assert infringement of the Patents-in-Suit
`
`within the Utility Field of Use, as that term is defined in a certain 2004 License
`
`Agreement pursuant to which the Patents-in-Suit were assigned to Plaintiff SIPCO.
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:08-cv-00359-JRG Document 1 Filed 09/19/08 Page 12 of 16 PageID #: 12Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 137-2 Filed 08/12/16 Page 20 of 143
`
`COUNT I
`Infringement of the ‘838 Patent
`
`58. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates by reference the allegations in
`
`paragraphs 1 through 57 as if set forth fully verbatim herein.
`
`59. Defendants are infringing the ‘838 Patent by making, selling, offering for
`
`sale, using, and/or importing products that consist of and/or incorporate infringing
`
`wireless network systems. In particular, Defendants are infringing the ‘838 Patent
`
`under 35 U.S.C. §271 by performing, without authority, one or more of the following
`
`acts: (a) making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling within the United States
`
`products and services that practice the inventions of the ‘838 Patent; (b) importing into
`
`the United States the inventions of the ‘838 Patent; (c) contributing to the
`
`infringement of the ‘838 Patent by others in the United States; and/or (d) inducing
`
`others to infringe the ‘838 Patent within the United States.
`
`60. Defendants’ infringing systems are being manufactured, sold, offered for
`
`sale, used, and/or imported without permission or license from Plaintiff, and
`
`Defendants will continue such infringement unless enjoined by this Court.
`
`61. Defendants had notice, either actual or constructive, of the ‘838 Patent.
`
`62. Defendants’ infringement of the ‘838 Patent has been willful and
`
`deliberate.
`
`63. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ infringement of the
`
`‘838 Patent, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer damages.
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:08-cv-00359-JRG Document 1 Filed 09/19/08 Page 13 of 16 PageID #: 13Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 137-2 Filed 08/12/16 Page 21 of 143
`
`64. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law and will be irreparably injured
`
`unless Defendants’ acts of infringement are enjoined by this Court.
`
`COUNT II
`Infringement of the ‘511 Patent
`
`65. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates by reference the allegations in
`
`paragraphs 1 through 64 as if set forth fully verbatim herein.
`
`66. Defendants Amazon, Cooper, Crestron, Eaton, Hawking, Homeseer,
`
`Intermatic, Leviton, SHS, and Wayne-Dalton are infringing the ‘511 Patent by
`
`making, selling, offering for sale, using, and/or importing products that consist of
`
`and/or incorporate infringing wireless network systems. In particular, these
`
`defendants are infringing the ‘511 Patent under 35 U.S.C. §271 by performing,
`
`without authority, one or more of the following acts: (a) making, using, offering to
`
`sell, and/or selling within the United States products and services that practice the
`
`inventions of the ‘511 Patent; (b) importing into the United States the inventions of
`
`the ‘511 Patent; (c) contributing to the infringement of the ‘511 Patent by others in the
`
`United States; and/or (d) inducing others to infringe the ‘511 Patent within the United
`
`States.
`
`67. The infringing systems of Amazon, Cooper, Crestron, Eaton, Hawking,
`
`Homeseer, Intermatic, Leviton, SHS, and Wayne-Dalton are being made, sold, offered
`
`for sale, used, and/or imported without permission or license from Plaintiff, and these
`
`defendants will continue such infringement unless enjoined by this Court.
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:08-cv-00359-JRG Document 1 Filed 09/19/08 Page 14 of 16 PageID #: 14Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 137-2 Filed 08/12/16 Page 22 of 143
`
`68. These defendants had notice, either actual or constructive, of the ‘511
`
`Patent.
`
`69. These defendants’ infringement of the ‘511 Patent has been willful and
`
`deliberate.
`
`70. As a direct and proximate result of these defendants’ infringement of the
`
`‘511 Patent, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer damages.
`
`71. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law and will be irreparably injured
`
`unless these defendants’ acts of infringement are enjoined by this Court.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the following relief against Defendants:
`
`A. A judgment that Defendants have infringed, actively induced
`
`infringement of, and/or contributorily infringed the ‘838 Patent, as set forth herein;
`
`B. A judgment that defendants Amazon, Cooper, Crestron, Eaton, Hawking,
`
`Homeseer, Intermatic, Leviton, SHS, and Wayne-Dalton have infringed, actively
`
`induced infringement of, and/or contributorily infringed the ‘511 Patent, as set forth
`
`herein;
`
`C. An award of all damages recoverable under the United States Patent
`
`Laws, in an amount to be proven at trial;
`
`D. An award of treble damages for Defendants’ willful infringement;
`
`E. A preliminary, and thereafter permanent, injunction enjoining and
`
`restraining Defendants and their respective officers, directors, agents, servants,
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:08-cv-00359-JRG Document 1 Filed 09/19/08 Page 15 of 16 PageID #: 15Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 137-2 Filed 08/12/16 Page 23 of 143
`
`employees, attorneys, and all others acting under, by or through them, from directly
`
`infringing, contributorily infringing, and inducing the infringement of the ‘838 Patent,
`
`as set forth herein;
`
`F.
`
`A preliminary, and thereafter permanent, injunction enjoining and
`
`restraining defendants Amazon, Cooper, Crestron, Eaton, Hawking, Homeseer,
`
`Intermatic, Leviton, SHS, and Wayne-Dalton and their respective officers, directors,
`
`agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all others acting under, by or through
`
`them, from directly infringing, contributorily infringing, and inducing the
`
`infringement of the ‘511 Patent, as set forth herein;
`
`G. A judgment and order requiring Defendants to pay Plaintiff’s
`
`prejudgment and post-judgment interest on the damages awarded;
`
`H. A judgment requiring Defendants to pay the costs of this action
`
`(including all disbursements) and attorneys’ fees as provided by 35 U.S.C. §285, with
`
`prejudgment interest; and
`
`I.
`
`Such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and equitable.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Plaintiff hereby demands that all issues so triable be determined by a jury.
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:08-cv-00359-JRG Document 1 Filed 09/19/08 Page 16 of 16 PageID #: 16Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 137-2 Filed 08/12/16 Page 24 of 143
`
`Respectfully submitted, this 19th day of September, 2008.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WARD & SMITH LAW FIRM
`
`
`T. JOHN WARD, JR.
`(State Bar No. 00794818)
`
`P. O. Box 1231
`Longview, Texas 75606-1231
`(903) 757-6400 (telephone)
`(903) 757-2323 (fax)
`jw@jwfirm.com
`
`PROVOST UMPHREY, LLP
`Joe Kendall
`(State Bar No. 11260700)
`3232 McKinney Avenue, Suite 700
`Dallas, Texas 75204
`(214) 744-3000 (telephone)
`jkendall@provostumphrey.com
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`John C. Herman
`Ryan K. Walsh
`E. Joseph Benz III
`Jason S. Jackson
`Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
`LLP
`3424 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 1650
`Atlanta, Georgia 30326
`(404) 504-6500 (telephone)
`(404) 504-6501 (facsimile)
`jherman@csgrr.com
`rwalsh@csgrr.com
`jbenz@csgrr.com
`jjackson@csgrr.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`SIPCO, LLC
`
`- 16 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:11-cv-00048-LED-JDL Document 1 Filed 01/31/11 Page 1 of 26 PageID #: 1Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 137-2 Filed 08/12/16 Page 25 of 143
`
`
`SIPCO, LLC,
`
`vs.
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action File
`
`
`No. 6:11cv48
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`ABB INC.; COULOMB
`)
`TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; ECOTALITY,
`)
`INC.; ELECTRIC TRANSPORTATION
`)
`ENGINEERING CORPORATION dba
`)
`ECOTALITY NORTH AMERICA;
`)
`ENERGYHUB, INC.; JETLUN
`)
`CORPORATION; INGERSOLL-RAND
`)
`COMPANY; INGERSOLL-RAND
`)
`SCHLAGE LOCK HOLDING
`)
`COMPANY LLC; SCHLAGE LOCK
`)
`COMPANY; TRANE, INC.; and
`)
`SMARTLABS, INC.
`)
`)
`)
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`Plaintiff SIPCO, LLC (“SIPCO”) hereby makes this Complaint for patent
`
`infringement against Defendants ABB INC. (“ABB”), COULOMB
`
`TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (“Coulomb Technologi
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
