`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`SHERMAN DIVISION
`
`
`MAXIM INTEGRATED PRODUCTS, INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.,
`JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO.:
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CHASE EX. 1006 - p. 1/17
`
`
`
`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-
`
`CHASE EX. 1006 - p. 2/17
`
`
`
`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-
`
`CHASE EX. 1006 - p. 3/17
`
`
`
`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-
`
`CHASE EX. 1006 - p. 4/17
`
`
`
`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-
`
`CHASE EX. 1006 - p. 5/17
`
`
`
`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-
`
`CHASE EX. 1006 - p. 6/17
`
`
`
`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-
`
`CHASE EX. 1006 - p. 7/17
`
`
`
`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-
`
`CHASE EX. 1006 - p. 8/17
`
`
`
`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-
`
`CHASE EX. 1006 - p. 9/17
`
`
`
`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-
`
`CHASE EX. 1006 - p. 10/17
`
`
`
`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-
`
`CHASE EX. 1006 - p. 11/17
`
`
`
`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-
`
`CHASE EX. 1006 - p. 12/17
`
`
`
`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-
`
`CHASE EX. 1006 - p. 13/17
`
`
`
`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-
`
`CHASE EX. 1006 - p. 14/17
`
`
`
`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-
`
`CHASE EX. 1006 - p. 15/17
`
`
`
`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
`
`demands a trial by jury of this action.
`
`
`Dated: October 1, 2012
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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-
`
`CHASE EX. 1006 - p. 16/17
`
`
`
`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-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CHASE EX. 1006 - p. 17/17
`
`