Case 2:12-cv-01641-JFC Document 1 Filed 10/01/12 Page 1 of 17
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`SHERMAN DIVISION
`
`CASE NO.:
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`MAXIM INTEGRATED PRODUCTS, INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.,
`JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Maxim Integrated Products, Inc. (“Maxim”) hereby alleges for its Complaint for
`
`patent infringement against defendants JPMorgan Chase & Co., and JPMorgan Chase
`
`Bank, N.A., (collectively, “JPMorgan Chase”) on personal knowledge as to its own
`
`actions and on information and belief as to the actions of others, as follows:
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff Maxim is a Delaware corporation with a place of business at
`
`120 San Gabriel Drive, Sunnyvale, California 94086.
`
`2.
`
`On information and belief, defendant JPMorgan Chase & Co. is a
`
`corporation existing and organized under the laws of Delaware. JPMorgan Chase &
`
`Co. is doing business in the Eastern District of Texas, and has its principal place of
`
`business in New York, NY.
`
`3.
`
`On information and belief, defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. is a
`
`wholly owned subsidiary of defendant JPMorgan Chase & Co. JPMorgan Chase Bank,
`
`N.A. is doing business in the Eastern District of Texas, and has its principal place of
`
`business in New York, NY.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 17
`
`PNC-JP MORGAN EXHIBIT 1007
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`SHERMAN DIVISION
`
`CASE NO.:
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`MAXIM INTEGRATED PRODUCTS, INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.,
`JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Maxim Integrated Products, Inc. (“Maxim”) hereby alleges for its Complaint for
`
`patent infringement against defendants JPMorgan Chase & Co., and JPMorgan Chase
`
`Bank, N.A., (collectively, “JPMorgan Chase”) on personal knowledge as to its own
`
`actions and on information and belief as to the actions of others, as follows:
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff Maxim is a Delaware corporation with a place of business at
`
`120 San Gabriel Drive, Sunnyvale, California 94086.
`
`2.
`
`On information and belief, defendant JPMorgan Chase & Co. is a
`
`corporation existing and organized under the laws of Delaware. JPMorgan Chase &
`
`Co. is doing business in the Eastern District of Texas, and has its principal place of
`
`business in New York, NY.
`
`3.
`
`On information and belief, defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. is a
`
`wholly owned subsidiary of defendant JPMorgan Chase & Co. JPMorgan Chase Bank,
`
`N.A. is doing business in the Eastern District of Texas, and has its principal place of
`
`business in New York, NY.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 17
`
`PNC-JP MORGAN EXHIBIT 1007
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-01641-JFC Document 1 Filed 10/01/12 Page 2 of 17
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`4.
`
`This action for patent infringement arises under the patent laws of the
`
`United States, Title 35 of the United States Code.
`
`5.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331
`
`and 1338(a).
`
`6.
`
`This Court has general and specific personal jurisdiction over JPMorgan
`
`Chase & Co. JPMorgan Chase & Co. has substantial contacts with the forum as a
`
`consequence of conducting substantial business in the State of Texas and within this
`
`district. On information and belief, JPMorgan Chase & Co. maintains branches within
`
`Texas and this District through its subsidiary JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.; has
`
`transacted business in Texas and/or in this district, including through the branches that it
`
`maintains within Texas and this district; offers for sale, sells, and advertises its products
`
`and services utilizing the claimed systems and methods with and for customers residing
`
`in Texas, including within this district; and provides products and services directly to
`
`consumers in Texas, including within this district. JPMorgan Chase & Co. has
`
`committed and continues to commit acts of patent infringement in Texas and this
`
`district.
`
`7.
`
`This Court has general and specific personal jurisdiction over JPMorgan
`
`Chase Bank, N.A. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. has substantial contacts with the forum
`
`as a consequence of conducting substantial business in the State of Texas and within
`
`this district. On information and belief, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. maintains
`
`branches within Texas and this District; has transacted business in Texas and/or in this
`
`district, including through the branches that it maintains within Texas and this district;
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`Page 2 of 17
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-01641-JFC Document 1 Filed 10/01/12 Page 3 of 17
`
`offers for sale, sells, and advertises its products and services utilizing the claimed
`
`systems and methods with and for customers residing in Texas, including within this
`
`district; and provides products and services directly to consumers in Texas, including
`
`within this district. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. has committed and continues to
`
`commit acts of patent infringement in Texas and this district.
`
`8.
`
`Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c), and
`
`1400(b) because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims against
`
`JPMorgan Chase occurred and are occurring in this district, and/or because JPMorgan
`
`Chase has regular and established practice of business in this district and has committed
`
`acts of infringement in this district.1
`
`THE ASSERTED PATENTS
`
`9.
`
`On August 17, 1999, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly
`
`and legally issued U.S. Patent No. 5,940,510 (“the ’510 patent”), entitled “Transfer of
`
`Valuable Information Between a Secure Module and Another Module,” to Stephen M.
`
`Curry, Donald W. Loomis, and Michael L. Bolan. A copy of the ’510 Patent is attached
`
`to the Complaint as Exhibit A.
`
`
`1 This matter is related to seventeen other patent actions involving the same four
`asserted patents (ten of which were originally filed in this Court), which were recently
`centralized by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation and transferred to the United
`States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania for pre-trial proceedings.
`Because this matter is a tag-along case, Maxim will seek to transfer this case to the
`Western District of Pennsylvania for pre-trial proceedings, and nothing in this
`Complaint should be construed otherwise. See MDL No. 2354, Dkt. Nos. 101
`(Corrected Transfer Order), 102 (Conditional Transfer Order); J.P.M.L. Rule Nos.
`1.1(h), 7.1.
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`Page 3 of 17
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-01641-JFC Document 1 Filed 10/01/12 Page 4 of 17
`
`10.
`
`The ’510 patent is directed to a system for communicating data securely,
`
`such as for secure mobile financial transactions, including a coprocessor for processing
`
`encryption calculations and a real time clock circuit for time stamping data transactions.
`
`11.
`
`On September 7, 1999, the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`duly and legally issued U.S. Patent No. 5,949,880 (“the ’880 patent”), entitled “Transfer
`
`of Valuable Information Between a Secure Module and Another Module,” to Stephen
`
`M. Curry, Donald W. Loomis, and Michael L. Bolan. A copy of the ’880 Patent is
`
`attached to the Complaint as Exhibit B.
`
`12.
`
`The ’880 patent is directed to a method for electronically transferring
`
`units of exchange between two modules, such as for electronically transferring
`
`monetary equivalents or encrypted data, or where the method involves decrypting
`
`and/or encrypting the data.
`
`13.
`
`On August 15, 2000, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly
`
`and legally issued U.S. Patent No. 6,105,013 (“the ’013 patent”), entitled “Method,
`
`Apparatus, System, and Firmware for Secure Transactions,” to Stephen M. Curry,
`
`Donald W. Loomis, and Christopher W. Fox. A copy of the ’013 Patent is attached to
`
`the Complaint as Exhibit C.
`
`14.
`
`The ’013 patent is directed to a secure transaction integrated circuit
`
`including a microcontroller core; a modular exponentiation accelerator circuit or a math
`
`coprocessor for performing or handling encryption and decryption calculations; an
`
`input/output circuit for exchanging data information with an electronic device; and real-
`
`time clock or a clock circuit for providing a time measurement.
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`Page 4 of 17
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-01641-JFC Document 1 Filed 10/01/12 Page 5 of 17
`
`15.
`
`On May 22, 2001, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly
`
`and legally issued U.S. Patent No. 6,237,095 (“the ’095 patent”), entitled “Apparatus
`
`for Transfer of Secure Information Between a Data Carrying Module and an Electronic
`
`Device,” to Stephen M. Curry, Donald W. Loomis, and Christopher W. Fox. A copy of
`
`the ’095 Patent is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit D.
`
`16.
`
`The ’095 patent is directed to an apparatus for receiving and transmitting
`
`encrypted data, such as for secure transfers of financial information.
`
`17. Maxim is the owner by assignment of all rights, title, and interest to and
`
`in the ’510, ’880, ’013, and ’095 patents (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”).
`
`18.
`
`On information and belief, by no later than on or about December 22,
`
`2011, JPMorgan Chase had actual notice of each of the Asserted Patents and actual
`
`notice that its individual actions and/or the joint or concerted actions of the other
`
`JPMorgan Chase defendants constituted and continue to constitute infringement of at
`
`least one claim of each of the Asserted Patents.
`
`COUNT I: Infringement of the ’510 Patent
`
`19. Maxim incorporates and realleges paragraphs 1 – 18 above as if fully set
`
`forth herein.
`
`20.
`
`On information and belief, JPMorgan Chase has and continues to
`
`infringe one or more claims of the ’510 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), literally
`
`or under the doctrine of equivalents, by making, using, selling, and/or offering to sell in
`
`the United States and without authority products, devices, systems, and/or components
`
`of systems that embody the patented invention, including for example products, devices,
`
`systems and/or components of systems that include or make use of the “Chase Mobile”
`
`smartphone applications.
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`Page 5 of 17
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-01641-JFC Document 1 Filed 10/01/12 Page 6 of 17
`
`21.
`
`On information and belief, JPMorgan Chase has induced and continues
`
`to induce infringement of the ’510 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) by
`
`encouraging its customers and other third parties to make and/or use the claimed system
`
`for communicating data securely, including a coprocessor for processing encryption
`
`calculations and a real time clock circuit for time stamping data transactions. Such
`
`making and/or using of the claimed system for communicating data securely constitutes
`
`infringement, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, of one or more claims of the
`
`’510 patent by such customers or third parties. JPMorgan Chase’s acts of
`
`encouragement include: providing and intending its customers to use the “Chase Mobile
`
`(SM)” smartphone applications; providing other components of the system that makes
`
`use of these applications, including, e.g., servers and data storage; advertising these
`
`applications through its own and third-party websites; and providing instructions to use
`
`these applications.
`
`22.
`
`JPMorgan Chase has proceeded in this manner despite its actual
`
`knowledge of the ’510 patent and that the specific actions it actively induced on the part
`
`of its customers and other third parties constitute infringement of the ’510 patent. At
`
`the very least, because JPMorgan Chase has been and remains on notice of the ’510
`
`patent and the accused infringement, it has been and remains willfully blind regarding
`
`the infringement it has induced and continues to induce.
`
`23.
`
`On information and belief, JPMorgan Chase has contributed and
`
`continues to contribute to the infringement of the ’510 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 271(c) by, without authority, selling and/or offering to sell within the United States,
`
`importing, and/or supplying components of the claimed system for communicating data
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`Page 6 of 17
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-01641-JFC Document 1 Filed 10/01/12 Page 7 of 17
`
`securely, such as the “Chase Mobile (SM)” smartphone applications. When, for
`
`example, these applications are installed on a portable device, the claimed systems are
`
`made and/or used, thereby infringing, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, of
`
`one or more claims of the ’510 patent. These components supplied by JPMorgan
`
`Chase, including, e.g., these applications, constitute material parts of the claimed
`
`inventions of the ’510 patent.
`
`24.
`
`On information and belief, JPMorgan Chase knows, for the reasons
`
`described in detail above, that these components are especially made and/or especially
`
`adapted for use in infringing the ’510 patent. Moreover, these components are not
`
`staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use at least because
`
`the components have no use apart from infringing the Asserted Patents, including the
`
`’510 patent. For example, at least the “Chase Mobile (SM)” smartphone applications
`
`are used only in conjunction with or as part of the claimed systems for securely
`
`communicating data.
`
`25.
`
`On information and belief, JPMorgan Chase has willfully infringed and
`
`continues to willfully infringe the ’510 Patent by making, using, offering to sell, and/or
`
`selling the applications and other components of the claimed system in the United
`
`States without authority, by actively inducing infringement of the ’510 patent, and by
`
`contributing to the infringement of the ’510 patent despite an objectively high
`
`likelihood that such actions constitute infringement and despite being on notice that its
`
`actions constitute infringement.
`
`26. Maxim has suffered damages as a result of JPMorgan Chase’s
`
`infringement of the ’510 Patent. In addition, Maxim will continue to suffer severe and
`
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`Page 7 of 17
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-01641-JFC Document 1 Filed 10/01/12 Page 8 of 17
`
`irreparable harm unless this Court issues a permanent injunction prohibiting JPMorgan
`
`Chase, its agents, servants, employees, representatives, and all others acting in active
`
`concert therewith from infringing the ’510 Patent.
`
`COUNT II: Infringement of the ’880 Patent
`
`27. Maxim incorporates and realleges paragraphs 1 – 18 above as if fully set
`
`forth herein.
`
`28.
`
`On information and belief, JPMorgan Chase has and continues to
`
`infringe one or more claims of the ’880 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), literally
`
`or under the doctrine of equivalents, by performing in the United States and without
`
`authority every step of the patented invention by using products, devices, systems
`
`and/or components of systems that include or make use of the “Chase Mobile (SM)”
`
`smartphone applications.
`
`29.
`
`On information and belief, JPMorgan Chase has induced and continues
`
`to induce infringement of the ’880 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) by
`
`encouraging its customers and other third parties to perform the claimed methods for
`
`electronically transferring units of exchange. Such performing of the claimed method
`
`for electronically transferring units of exchange constitutes infringement, literally or
`
`under the doctrine of equivalents, of one or more claims of the ’880 patent by such
`
`customers or third parties. JPMorgan Chase’s acts of encouragement include: providing
`
`and intending its customers to use the “Chase Mobile (SM)” smartphone applications;
`
`providing other components of the system that makes use of these applications,
`
`including, e.g., servers and data storage; advertising these applications through its own
`
`and third-party websites; and providing instructions to use these applications.
`
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`Page 8 of 17
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-01641-JFC Document 1 Filed 10/01/12 Page 9 of 17
`
`30.
`
`JPMorgan Chase has proceeded in this manner despite its actual
`
`knowledge of the ’880 patent and that the specific actions it actively induced on the part
`
`of its customers and other third parties constitute infringement of the ’880 patent. At
`
`the very least, because JPMorgan Chase has been and remains on notice of the ’880
`
`patent and the accused infringement, it has been and remains willfully blind regarding
`
`the infringement it has induced and continues to induce.
`
`31.
`
`On information and belief, JPMorgan Chase has contributed and
`
`continues to contribute to the infringement of the ’880 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 271(c) by, without authority, selling and/or offering to sell within the United States,
`
`importing, and/or supplying components of a system for electronically transferring units
`
`of exchange, such system including the “Chase Mobile (SM)” smartphone applications,
`
`wherein use of the system constitutes performance of the claimed methods. When, for
`
`example, these applications are used on a portable device, the claimed methods are
`
`performed, thereby infringing, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, of one or
`
`more claims of the ’880 patent. These components supplied by JPMorgan Chase,
`
`including, e.g., these applications, constitute material parts of a system, the only use of
`
`which constitutes performance of the claimed inventions of the ’880 patent.
`
`32.
`
`On information and belief, JPMorgan Chase knows, for the reasons
`
`described in detail above, that these components are especially made and/or especially
`
`adapted for use in infringing the ’880 patent. Moreover, these components are not
`
`staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use at least because
`
`the components have no use apart from infringing the Asserted Patents, including the
`
`’880 patent. For example, at least using the “Chase Mobile (SM)” smartphone
`
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`Page 9 of 17
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-01641-JFC Document 1 Filed 10/01/12 Page 10 of 17
`
`applications are used only in performing the claimed methods for electronically
`
`transferring units of exchange.
`
`33.
`
`On information and belief, JPMorgan Chase has willfully infringed and
`
`continues to willfully infringe the ’880 patent by performing in the United States and
`
`without authority every step of the claimed invention, by actively inducing infringement
`
`of the ’880 patent, and by contributing to the infringement of the ’880 patent despite an
`
`objectively high likelihood that such actions constitute infringement and despite being
`
`on notice that its actions constitute infringement.
`
`34. Maxim has suffered damages as a result of JPMorgan Chase’s
`
`infringement of the ’880 patent. In addition, Maxim will continue to suffer severe and
`
`irreparable harm unless this Court issues a permanent injunction prohibiting JPMorgan
`
`Chase, its agents, servants, employees, representatives, and all others acting in active
`
`concert therewith from infringing the ’880 patent.
`
`COUNT III: Infringement of the ’013 Patent
`
`35. Maxim incorporates and realleges paragraphs 1 – 18 above as if fully set
`
`forth herein.
`
`36.
`
`On information and belief, JPMorgan Chase has and continues to
`
`infringe one or more claims of the ’013 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), literally
`
`or under the doctrine of equivalents, by making, using, selling, and/or offering to sell in
`
`the United States and without authority products, devices, systems, and/or components
`
`of systems that embody the patented invention, including for example products, devices,
`
`systems and/or components of systems that include or make use of the “Chase Mobile
`
`(SM)” smartphone applications.
`
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`Page 10 of 17
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-01641-JFC Document 1 Filed 10/01/12 Page 11 of 17
`
`37.
`
`On information and belief, JPMorgan Chase has induced and continues
`
`to induce infringement of the ’013 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) by
`
`encouraging its customers and other third parties to make and/or use the claimed secure
`
`transaction integrated circuit. Such making and/or using of the claimed apparatus
`
`constitutes infringement, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, of one or more
`
`claims of the ’013 patent by such customers or third parties. JPMorgan Chase’s acts of
`
`encouragement include: providing and intending its customers to use the “Chase Mobile
`
`(SM)” smartphone applications; providing other components of the system that makes
`
`use of these applications, including, e.g., servers and data storage; advertising these
`
`applications through its own and third-party websites; and providing instructions to use
`
`these applications.
`
`38.
`
`JPMorgan Chase has proceeded in this manner despite its actual
`
`knowledge of the ’013 patent and that the specific actions it actively induced on the part
`
`of its customers and other third parties constitute infringement of the ’013 patent. At
`
`the very least, because JPMorgan Chase has been and remains on notice of the ’013
`
`patent and the accused infringement, it has been and remains willfully blind regarding
`
`the infringement it has induced and continues to induce.
`
`39.
`
`On information and belief, JPMorgan Chase has contributed and
`
`continues to contribute to the infringement of the ’013 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 271(c) by, without authority, selling and/or offering to sell within the United States,
`
`importing, and/or supplying components of a system, including the “Chase Mobile
`
`(SM)” smartphone applications, which system as a result includes the claimed secure
`
`transaction integrated circuit. When, for example, these applications are installed on a
`
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`Page 11 of 17
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-01641-JFC Document 1 Filed 10/01/12 Page 12 of 17
`
`portable device, the resulting systems are made and/or used, thereby infringing, literally
`
`or under the doctrine of equivalents, of one or more claims of the ’013 patent. These
`
`components supplied by JPMorgan Chase, including, e.g., these applications, constitute
`
`material parts of the claimed inventions of the ’013 patent.
`
`40.
`
`On information and belief, JPMorgan Chase knows, for the reasons
`
`described in detail above, that these components are especially made and/or especially
`
`adapted for use in infringing the ’013 patent. Moreover, these components are not
`
`staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use at least because
`
`the components have no use apart from infringing the Asserted Patents, including the
`
`’013 patent. For example, at least the “Chase Mobile (SM)” smartphone applications
`
`are used only in conjunction with or as part of the claimed secure transaction integrated
`
`circuit.
`
`41.
`
`On information and belief, JPMorgan Chase has willfully infringed and
`
`continues to willfully infringe the ’013 Patent by making, using, offering to sell, and/or
`
`selling the applications and other components of the secure transaction integrated circuit
`
`in the United States without authority, by actively inducing infringement of the ’013
`
`patent, and by contributing to the infringement of the ’013 patent despite an objectively
`
`high likelihood that such actions constitute infringement and despite being on notice
`
`that its actions constitute infringement.
`
`42. Maxim has suffered damages as a result of JPMorgan Chase’s
`
`infringement of the ’013 Patent. In addition, Maxim will continue to suffer severe and
`
`irreparable harm unless this Court issues a permanent injunction prohibiting JPMorgan
`
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`Page 12 of 17
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-01641-JFC Document 1 Filed 10/01/12 Page 13 of 17
`
`Chase, its agents, servants, employees, representatives, and all others acting in active
`
`concert therewith from infringing the ’013 Patent.
`
`COUNT IV: Infringement of the ’095 Patent
`
`43. Maxim incorporates and realleges paragraphs 1 – 18 above as if fully set
`
`forth herein.
`
`44.
`
`On information and belief, JPMorgan Chase has and continues to
`
`infringe one or more claims of the ’095 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), literally
`
`or under the doctrine of equivalents, by making, using, selling, and/or offering to sell in
`
`the United States and without authority products, devices, systems, and/or components
`
`of systems that embody the patented invention, including for example products, devices,
`
`systems and/or components of systems that include or make use of the “Chase Mobile
`
`(SM)” smartphone applications.
`
`45.
`
`On information and belief, JPMorgan Chase has induced and continues
`
`to induce infringement of the ’013 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) by
`
`encouraging its customers and other third parties to make and/or use the claimed
`
`apparatus for receiving and transmitting encrypted data. Such making and/or using of
`
`the claimed apparatus constitutes infringement, literally or under the doctrine of
`
`equivalents, of one or more claims of the ’095 patent by such customers or third parties.
`
`JPMorgan Chase’s acts of encouragement include: providing and intending its
`
`customers to use the “Chase Mobile (SM)” smartphone applications; providing other
`
`components of the system that makes use of these applications, including, e.g., servers
`
`and data storage; advertising these applications through its own and third-party
`
`websites; and providing instructions to use these applications.
`
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`Page 13 of 17
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-01641-JFC Document 1 Filed 10/01/12 Page 14 of 17
`
`46.
`
`JPMorgan Chase has proceeded in this manner despite its actual
`
`knowledge of the ’095 patent and that the specific actions it actively induced on the part
`
`of its customers and other third parties constitute infringement of the ’095 patent. At
`
`the very least, because JPMorgan Chase has been and remains on notice of the ’095
`
`patent and the accused infringement, it has been and remains willfully blind regarding
`
`the infringement it has induced and continues to induce.
`
`47.
`
`On information and belief, JPMorgan Chase has contributed and
`
`continues to contribute to the infringement of the ’095 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 271(c) by, without authority, selling and/or offering to sell within the United States,
`
`importing, and/or supplying components of a system, including the “Chase Mobile
`
`(SM)” smartphone applications, which system as a result embodies the claimed
`
`apparatus. When, for example, these applications are installed on a portable device, the
`
`resulting systems are made and/or used, thereby infringing, literally or under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents, of one or more claims of the ’095 patent. These components
`
`supplied by JPMorgan Chase, including, e.g., these applications, constitute material
`
`parts of the claimed inventions of the ’095 patent.
`
`48.
`
`On information and belief, JPMorgan Chase knows, for the reasons
`
`described in detail above, that these components are especially made and/or especially
`
`adapted for use in infringing the ’095 patent. Moreover, these components are not
`
`staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use at least because
`
`the components have no use apart from infringing the Asserted Patents, including the
`
`’095 patent. For example, at least the “Chase Mobile (SM)” smartphone applications
`
`are used only in conjunction with or as part of the claimed apparatus.
`
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`Page 14 of 17
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-01641-JFC Document 1 Filed 10/01/12 Page 15 of 17
`
`49.
`
`On information and belief, JPMorgan Chase has willfully infringed and
`
`continues to willfully infringe the ’095 Patent by making, using, offering to sell, and/or
`
`selling the applications and other components of the claimed apparatus in the United
`
`States without authority, by actively inducing infringement of the ’095 patent, and by
`
`contributing to the infringement of the ’095 patent despite an objectively high
`
`likelihood that such actions constitute infringement and despite being on notice that its
`
`actions constitute infringement.
`
`50. Maxim has suffered damages as a result of JPMorgan Chase’s
`
`infringement of the ’095 Patent. In addition, Maxim will continue to suffer severe and
`
`irreparable harm unless this Court issues a permanent injunction prohibiting JPMorgan
`
`Chase, its agents, servants, employees, representatives, and all others acting in active
`
`concert therewith from infringing the ’095 Patent.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`For the above reasons, Maxim respectfully requests that this Court grant the
`
`following relief in favor of Maxim and against JPMorgan Chase:
`
`(a)
`
`A judgment in favor of Maxim that JPMorgan Chase has infringed (either
`
`literally or under the doctrine of equivalents) one or more claims of the
`
`Asserted Patents;
`
`(b)
`
` A permanent injunction enjoining JPMorgan Chase and its officers,
`
`directors, agents, servants, affiliates, employees, divisions, branches,
`
`subsidiaries, parents, and all others acting in active concert or participation
`
`with JPMorgan Chase, from infringing the Asserted Patents;
`
`(c)
`
`A judgment and order requiring JPMorgan Chase to pay Maxim its
`
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`Page 15 of 17
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-01641-JFC Document 1 Filed 10/01/12 Page 16 of 17
`
`damages, costs, expenses, and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest
`
`for JPMorgan Chase’s infringement of the Asserted Patents;
`
`(d)
`
`An award of treble damages for JPMorgan Chase’s willful infringement of
`
`the Asserted Patents;
`
`(e)
`
`A judgment and order finding that this is an exceptional case within the
`
`meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285 and awarding Maxim its reasonable attorney
`
`fees; and
`
`(f)
`
`Any and all such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff Maxim
`
`
`
`By: /s/Andrew W. Spangler
`Andrew W. Spangler
`State Bar No. 24041960
`Spangler & Fussell P.C.
`208 N. Green Street, Suite 300
`Longview, Texas 75601
`903-753-9300
`Fax: 903-553-0403
`Email: spangler@sfipfirm.com
`
`James A. Fussell, III
`AR State Bar No. 2003193
`Spangler & Fussell P.C.
`211 N. Union Street, Suite 100
`Alexandria, VA 22314
`Telephone: (903) 753-9300
`Facsimile: (903) 553-0403
`Email: fussell@sfipfirm.com
`
`-16-
`
`demands a trial by jury of this action.
`
`
`Dated: October 1, 2012
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 16 of 17
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-01641-JFC Document 1 Filed 10/01/12 Page 17 of 17
`
`
`Co-Counsel:
`Matthew. D. Powers
`CA Bar No. 104795 (Admitted E.D. Tex.)
`Steven S. Cherensky
`CA Bar No. 168275 (Admitted E.D. Tex.)
`555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 360
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`Telephone: (650) 802-6000
`Fax: (650) 802-6001
`Email:
`matthew.powers@tensegritylawgroup.com
`steven.cherensky@tensegritylawgroup.com
`
`James C. Otteson
`CA Bar No. 157781 (Admitted E.D. Tex.)
`Philip W. Marsh
`CA Bar No. 276383 (Admitted E.D. Tex.)
`Michael D.K. Nguyen
`CA Bar No. 264813 (Admitted E.D. Tex.)
`AGILITY IP LAW, LLP
`149 Commonwealth Drive
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`Telephone: 650-227-4800
`Fax: 650-318-3483
`Email: jim@agilityiplaw.com
` phil@agilityiplaw.com
` mnguyen@agilityiplaw.com
`
`Of Counsel:
`Michael North
`NORTH WEBER & BAUGH LLP
`2479 E. Bayshore Road, Suite 707
`Palo Alto, CA 94303
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff,
`Maxim Integrated Products, Inc.
`
`-17-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 17 of 17
`
`
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
