Case 2:11-cv-00372-TJW Document 1 Filed 08/24/11 Page 1 of 28 PageID #: 1
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`CASE NO.:
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`TECHNOLOGIES PROPERTIES LIMITED, LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`ACTION ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., AMERICA
`ACTION, INC., AIPTEK INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`AIPTEK, INC., ALURATEK, INC., AUDIOVOX
`CORPORATION, CEIVA LOGIC, INC., CIRCUS
`WORLD DISPLAYS LTD., COBY ELECTRONICS
`CORPORATION, CURTIS INTERNATIONAL,
`LTD., DIGITAL SPECTRUM SOLUTIONS, INC.,
`EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY, MUSTEK
`SYSTEMS, INC., MUSTEK, INC., NEXTAR INC.,
`PANDIGITAL, INC., ROYAL CONSUMER
`INFORMATION PRODUCTS, INC., SONY
`CORPORATION, SONY CORPORATION OF
`AMERICA, TRANSCEND INFORMATION, INC.,
`TRANSCEND USA, VIEWSONIC
`CORPORATION, WIN ACCORD, LTD. and
`WINACCORD USA, INC.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Technologies Properties Limited, LLC hereby alleges for its Complaint against
`
`Defendants Action Electronics Co., Ltd., America Action, Inc., Aiptek International, Inc.,
`
`Aiptek, Inc., Aluratek, Inc., Audiovox Corporation, CEIVA Logic, Inc., Circus World Displays
`
`Ltd., Coby Electronics Corporation, Curtis International, Ltd., Digital Spectrum Solutions, Inc.,
`
`Eastman Kodak Company, Mustek Systems, Inc., Mustek, Inc., Nextar, Inc., Pandigital, Inc.,
`
`Royal Consumer Information Products, Inc., Sony Corporation, Sony Corporation of America,
`
`Transcend Information, Inc., Transcend USA, Viewsonic Corporation, Win Accord, Ltd. and
`
`WinAccord USA, Inc. (collectively the “Defendants”) on personal knowledge as to its own
`
`actions and on information and belief as to the actions of others, as follows:
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:11-cv-00372-TJW Document 1 Filed 08/24/11 Page 2 of 28 PageID #: 2
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff Technologies Properties Limited, LLC (“TPL”) is a California limited
`
`liability company with a principal place of business at 20883 Stevens Creek Blvd., Suite 100,
`
`Cupertino, California 95014.
`
`2.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Action Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Action”) is a
`
`Taiwanese corporation with a principal place of business at No. 198, Zhongyuan Rd., Zhongli
`
`City, Taoyuan County 320, Taiwan. On further information and belief, Defendant America
`
`Action, Inc. (“America Action”) is a California Corporation with its principal place of business
`
`at 100 Exchange Place, Pomona, CA 91768. Action and America Action will be referred to
`
`herein individually and collectively as the “Action Defendants.”
`
`3.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant AIPTEK International, Inc. is a Taiwanese
`
`corporation with a principal place of business at No.19, Industry E. Rd IV., Science Park,
`
`Hsinchu 300, Taiwan. On further information and belief, Defendant AIPTEK, Inc. is a
`
`California Corporation with its principal place of business at 51 Discovery, Ste. 100, Irvine, CA
`
`92618. AIPTEK International, Inc., and AIPTEK, Inc. will be referred to herein individually and
`
`collectively and the “AIPTEK Defendants.”
`
`4.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Aluratek, Inc. (“Aluratek”) is a California
`
`corporation with a principal place of business at 14831 Myford Road, Tustin, California 92780.
`
`5.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Audiovox Corporation (“Audiovox”) is a
`
`Delaware corporation with a principal place of business at 180 Marcus Blvd., Happauge, New
`
`York 11788.
`
`6.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant CEIVA Logic Inc. (“CEIVA”), is a
`
`Delaware corporation with a principal place of business at 214 E. Magnolia Blvd., Burbank,
`
`California 91502.
`
`7.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Circus World Displays Ltd. (“CWD”) is a
`
`Canadian corporation with a principal place of business at 4080 Montrose Road, Niagara Falls,
`
`L2H 1J9, Canada.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:11-cv-00372-TJW Document 1 Filed 08/24/11 Page 3 of 28 PageID #: 3
`
`8.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Coby Electronics Corporation (“Coby”) is a
`
`New York corporation with a principal place of business at 1991 Marcus Ave., Suite 301, Lake
`
`Success, New York 11042.
`
`9.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Curtis International, Ltd. (“Curtis”) is a
`
`Canadian corporation with a principal place of business at 315 Attwell Drive, Etobicoke,
`
`Ontario, M9W 5C1, Canada.
`
`10.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Digital Spectrum Solutions, Inc. (“DSS”) is
`
`a California corporation with a principal place of business at 17821 Mitchell N, Irvine, California
`
`92614.
`
`11.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Eastman Kodak Company (“Kodak”) is a
`
`New Jersey corporation with a principal place of business at 343 State Street, Rochester, New
`
`York, 14650.
`
`12.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Mustek Systems, Inc. (“Mustek”) is a
`
`Taiwanese corporation with a principal of business at 25, R&D Road II, Science-Based
`
`Industrial Park, Hsin Chu, Taiwan. On further information and belief, Defendant Mustek, Inc. is
`
`a California Corporation with its principal place of business at 14751 Franklin Unit B, Tustin,
`
`CA 92780. Mustek and Musket, Inc. will be referred to herein individually and collectively as
`
`the “Mustek Defendants.”
`
`13.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Nextar, Inc. (“Nextar”) is a California
`
`corporation with a principal place of business at 1661 Fairplex Drive, La Verne, California
`
`91750.
`
`14.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Pandigital, Inc. (“Pandigital”) is a Delaware
`
`corporation with a principal place of business at 6375 Clark Ave Suite 100, Dublin, California
`
`94568.
`
`15.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Royal Consumer Information Products, Inc.
`
`(“Royal”) is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business at 379 Campus Drive
`
`Somerset, New Jersey 08875.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:11-cv-00372-TJW Document 1 Filed 08/24/11 Page 4 of 28 PageID #: 4
`
`16.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Sony Corporation is a Japanese corporation
`
`with a principal place of business at 1-7-1 Konan, Minato-ku, Tokyo 108-0075, Japan. On
`
`further information and belief, Defendant Sony Corporation of America (“SCA,” and
`
`collectively with Sony Corporation, “Sony”) is a New York corporation with a principal place of
`
`business at 1 550 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10022.
`
`17.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Transcend Information, Inc. (“Transcend”)
`
`is a Taiwanese corporation with a principal place of business at No.70, XingZhong Rd., NeiHu
`
`Dist., Taipei, Taiwan. On further information and belief, Defendant Transcend USA
`
`(“Transcend USA”) is a California Corporation with its principal place of business at 1645 North
`
`Brian Street, Orange, CA 92867. Transcend and Transcend USA will be referred to herein
`
`individually and collectively as the “Transcend Defendants.”
`
`18.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant ViewSonic Corporation (“ViewSonic”) is a
`
`Delaware corporation with a principal place of business at 381 Brea Canyon Road, Walnut,
`
`California 91789.
`
`19.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Win Accord, Ltd. (“Win Accord TW”) is a
`
`Taiwanese corporation with a principal place of business at 12F, No. 225, Sec. 5, Nan Jing E.
`
`Road, Song Shan District, Taipei, Taiwan 105. On further information and belief, Defendant
`
`WinAccord USA, Inc. (“WinAccord USA”) is a California Corporation, with its principal place
`
`of business at 2526 Qume Drive, Suite 24, San Jose, California, 95131. Win Accord TW and
`
`WinAccord USA will be referred to herein collectively as the “WinAccord Defendants.”
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`20.
`
`This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of the
`
`United States Code, §§ 271 and 281, et seq. because each of the Defendants has committed acts
`
`of patent infringement within the United States and this judicial district. Accordingly, this Court
`
`has subject matter jurisdiction of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`21.
`
`Personal jurisdiction and venue are proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
`
`1391(b), 1391(c) and 1400(b), in that the defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in this
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:11-cv-00372-TJW Document 1 Filed 08/24/11 Page 5 of 28 PageID #: 5
`
`district. At a minimum, each of the defendants has delivered infringing products into the stream
`
`of commerce with the expectation that they will be purchased by consumers in Texas, including
`
`consumers in the Eastern District of Texas.
`
`THE ’623 PATENT
`
`22.
`
`On December 20, 2005, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and
`
`legally issued U.S. Patent No. 6,976,623 (“the ’623 Patent”), entitled “Flash Juke Box,” to
`
`Sreenath Mambakkam, et al. A copy of the ’623 Patent is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit
`
`A.
`
`23.
`
`The ’623 Patent discloses a memory card reader having a number of interfaces to
`
`read at least two different types of memory cards, and to provide parallel read/write access to
`
`both cards to enable the transfer of data from one card to the other. The invention permits faster
`
`data transfer between flash cards by providing parallel read/write access to both while
`
`transferring data between cards.
`
`24.
`
`TPL is the exclusive licensee of the ’623 Patent.
`
`THE ʼ549 PATENT
`
`25.
`
`On January 9, 2007, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and
`
`legally issued U.S. Patent No. 7,162,549 (“the ʼ549 Patent”) entitled “Multimode Controller For
`
`Intelligent And ‘Dumb’ Flash Cards,” to Sreenath Mambakkam, et al. A copy of the ’549 Patent
`
`is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit B.
`
`26.
`
`The ’549 Patent discloses a controller chip that interfaces with a flash storage
`
`system where the flash storage system may have a controller for error correction. Using
`
`firmware, the controller chip conducts bad block mapping in the event that the controller of the
`
`flash storage system does not have a controller for error correction. This permits the flash
`
`adapter to conduct bad block mapping in the adapter rather than in, for example, a host
`
`computer. This invention is especially key for consumers that use xD-Picture Cards or Smart
`
`Media cards, as these card types do not include an error correction controller.
`
`27.
`
`TPL is the exclusive licensee of the ʼ549 Patent in the United States.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:11-cv-00372-TJW Document 1 Filed 08/24/11 Page 6 of 28 PageID #: 6
`
`THE ʼ443 PATENT
`
`28.
`
`On November 13, 2007, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and
`
`legally issued U.S. Patent No. 7,295,443 entitled “Smartconnect Universal Flash Media Card
`
`Adapters,” to Sreenath Mambakkam, et al. A copy of the ’443 Patent is attached to the
`
`Complaint as Exhibit C.
`
`29.
`
`The ’443 Patent discloses a multi-media memory adapter that has two planar
`
`elements defining a port between them for receiving multi-memory media cards. At least one of
`
`the planar elements has flash card contact pins integrated in molded plastic. The adapter has a
`
`controller that maps a set of signal lines to a subset of the contact pins based upon the identified
`
`type of memory media card inserted into the reader.
`
`30.
`
`The invention allows a single-slot molded plastic flash card reader to use a single
`
`controller to interface with multiple types of multi-media cards, including without limitation
`
`CompactFlash (CF), MultiMediaCard (MMC) and Secure Digital (SD). Figure 3 (reproduced
`
`below), illustrates one embodiment of the ’443 Patent:
`
`
`
`31.
`
`TPL is the exclusive licensee of the ʼ443 Patent in the United States.
`
`THE ʼ424 PATENT
`
`32.
`
`On April 21, 2009, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and
`
`legally issued U.S. Patent No. 7,522,424 entitled “Smartconnect Universal Flash Media Card
`
`Adapters,” to Sreenath Mambakkam, et al. A copy of the ’424 Patent is attached to the
`
`Complaint as Exhibit D.
`
`33.
`
`The ’424 Patent discloses a single-slot flash card reader that has a number of sets
`
`of contact pins mounted in a single slot reader at locations adapted to interface with the electrical
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:11-cv-00372-TJW Document 1 Filed 08/24/11 Page 7 of 28 PageID #: 7
`
`contacts of different types of memory media cards. The patent discloses a set of interconnection
`
`pins, 312 as illustrated in Figure 3, reproduced below. A controller maps power, ground and/or
`
`data signals between the interconnection pins and the proper contact pins, depending on the type
`
`of card in the slot.
`
`
`
`34.
`
`The invention further permits the use of a single controller in a single-slot reader
`
`that accepts multiple flash card types, including MultiMediaCard, Secure Digital and others.
`
`35.
`
`TPL is the exclusive licensee of the ʼ424 Patent in the United States.
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`(Infringement of the ’623 Patent)
`(35 U.S.C. § 271)
`
`36.
`
`Plaintiff repeats and incorporates by reference each of the allegations contained in
`
`Paragraphs 1 through 35 above, and further alleges as follows:
`
`37.
`
`On information and belief, without a license or permission from Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant Aluratek has infringed, induced others to infringe, and/or contributorily infringed,
`
`literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, at least claims 1, 2, 9, 10, 17 and 18 of the ’623
`
`Patent. Defendant Aluratek did so by importing, making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling
`
`products and devices that embody and/or practice the patented invention. On information and
`
`belief Defendant Aluratek was provided notice of the ʼ623 patent on April 2, 2008. On
`
`information and belief, Defendant Aluratek provides instructions to its users with the intent to
`
`induce infringement of the ʼ623 patent. Without limitation, an example of Defendant Aluratek’s
`
`infringing products is the ADMPF315F and related families of products. Defendant Aluratek’s
`
`infringement of the ’623 Patent has caused substantial damage to Plaintiff. On information and
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:11-cv-00372-TJW Document 1 Filed 08/24/11 Page 8 of 28 PageID #: 8
`
`belief, Aluratek’s infringement of the ʼ623 Patent has been willful and deliberate, entitling
`
`Plaintiff to enhanced damages and attorneys’ fees.
`
`38.
`
`On information and belief, without a license or permission from Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant Coby has infringed, induced others to infringe, and/or contributorily infringed,
`
`literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, at least claims 1, 2, 9, 10, 17 and 18 of the ’623
`
`Patent. Defendant Coby did so by importing, making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling
`
`products and devices that embody and/or practice the patented invention. On information and
`
`belief, Defendant Coby was provided notice of the ʼ623 patent on February 21, 2008. On
`
`information and belief, Defendant Coby provides instructions to its users with the intent to
`
`induce infringement of the ʼ623 patent. Without limitation, an example of Defendant Coby’s
`
`infringing products is the DP1052 and related families of products. Defendant Coby’s
`
`infringement of the ’623 Patent has caused substantial damage to Plaintiff. On information and
`
`belief, Coby’s infringement of the ʼ623 Patent has been willful and deliberate, entitling Plaintiff
`
`to enhanced damages and attorneys’ fees.
`
`39.
`
`On information and belief, without a license or permission from Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant Pandigital has infringed, induced others to infringe, and/or contributorily infringed,
`
`literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, at least claims 1, 2, 9, 10, 17, and 18 of the ’623
`
`Patent. Defendant Pandigital did so by importing, making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling
`
`products and devices that embody and/or practice the patented invention. On information and
`
`belief Defendant Pandigital was provided notice of the ʼ623 patent on February 21, 2008. On
`
`information and belief, Defendant Pandigital provides instructions to its users with the intent to
`
`induce infringement of the ʼ623 patent. Without limitation, an example of Defendant
`
`Pandigital’s infringing products is the PI1002DW and related families of products. Defendant
`
`Pandigital’s infringement of the ’623 Patent has caused substantial damage to Plaintiff. On
`
`information and belief, Pandigital’s infringement of the ʼ623 Patent has been willful and
`
`deliberate, entitling Plaintiff to enhanced damages and attorneys’ fees.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:11-cv-00372-TJW Document 1 Filed 08/24/11 Page 9 of 28 PageID #: 9
`
`40.
`
`On information and belief, without a license or permission from Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant Royal has infringed, induced others to infringe, and/or contributorily infringed,
`
`literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, at least claims 1, 2, 9, 10, 17 and 18 of the ’623
`
`Patent. Defendant Royal did so by importing, making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling
`
`products and devices that embody and/or practice the patented invention. On information and
`
`belief Defendant Royal was provided notice of the ʼ623 patent on August 27, 2009. On
`
`information and belief, Defendant Royal provides instructions to its users with the intent to
`
`induce infringement of the ʼ623 patent. Without limitation, an example of Defendant Royal’s
`
`infringing products is the PF120 256 12” and related families of products. Defendant Royal’s
`
`infringement of the ’623 Patent has caused substantial damage to Plaintiff. On information and
`
`belief, Royal’s infringement of the ʼ623 Patent has been willful and deliberate, entitling Plaintiff
`
`to enhanced damages and attorneys’ fees.
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`(Infringement of the ’549 Patent)
`(35 U.S.C. § 271)
`
`41.
`
`Plaintiff repeats and incorporates by reference each of the allegations contained in
`
`Paragraphs 1 through 40 above, and further alleges as follows:
`
`42.
`
`On information and belief, without a license or permission from Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant Aluratek has infringed, induced others to infringe, and/or contributorily infringed,
`
`literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, at least claims 1, 7, 11, 17, 19, and 21 of the ’549
`
`Patent. Defendant Aluratek did so by importing, making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling
`
`products and devices that embody and/or practice the patented invention. On information and
`
`belief Defendant Aluratek was provided notice of the ʼ549 patent on April 2, 2008. On
`
`information and belief, Defendant Aluratek provides instructions to its users with the intent to
`
`induce infringement of the ʼ549 patent. Without limitation, an example of Defendant Aluratek’s
`
`infringing products is the ADMPF315F and related families of products. Defendant Aluratek’s
`
`infringement of the ’549 Patent has caused substantial damage to Plaintiff. On information and
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:11-cv-00372-TJW Document 1 Filed 08/24/11 Page 10 of 28 PageID #: 10
`
`belief, Aluratek’s infringement of the ʼ549 Patent has been willful and deliberate, entitling
`
`Plaintiff to enhanced damages and attorneys’ fees.
`
`43.
`
`On information and belief, without a license or permission from Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant Audiovox has infringed, induced others to infringe, and/or contributorily infringed,
`
`literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, at least claims 1, 7, 11, 17, 19 and 21 of the ’549
`
`Patent. Defendant Audiovox did so by importing, making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling
`
`products and devices that embody and/or practice the patented invention. On information and
`
`belief Defendant Audiovox was provided notice of the ʼ549 patent on October 15, 2008. On
`
`information and belief, Defendant Audiovox provides instructions to its users with the intent to
`
`induce infringement of the ʼ549 patent. Without limitation, an example of Defendant
`
`Audiovox’s infringing products is the DPF808 and related families of products. Defendant
`
`Audiovox’s infringement of the ’549 Patent has caused substantial damage to Plaintiff. On
`
`information and belief, Audiovox’s infringement of the ʼ549 Patent has been willful and
`
`deliberate, entitling Plaintiff to enhanced damages and attorneys’ fees.
`
`44.
`
`On information and belief, without a license or permission from Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant Coby has infringed, induced others to infringe, and/or contributorily infringed,
`
`literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, at least claims 1, 7, 11, 17, 19 and 21 of the ’549
`
`Patent. Defendant Coby did so by importing, making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling
`
`products and devices that embody and/or practice the patented invention. On information and
`
`belief, Defendant Coby was provided notice of the ʼ549 patent on February 21, 2008. On
`
`information and belief, Defendant Coby provides instructions to its users with the intent to
`
`induce infringement of the ʼ549 patent. Without limitation, an example of Defendant Coby’s
`
`infringing products is the DP1052 and related families of products. Defendant Coby’s
`
`infringement of the ’549 Patent has caused substantial damage to Plaintiff. On information and
`
`belief, Coby’s infringement of the ʼ549 Patent has been willful and deliberate, entitling Plaintiff
`
`to enhanced damages and attorneys’ fees.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:11-cv-00372-TJW Document 1 Filed 08/24/11 Page 11 of 28 PageID #: 11
`
`45.
`
`On information and belief, without a license or permission from Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant DSS has infringed, induced others to infringe, and/or contributorily infringed, literally
`
`or under the doctrine of equivalents, at least claims 1, 7, 11, 17, 19 and 21of the ’549 Patent.
`
`Defendant DSS did so by importing, making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling products and
`
`devices that embody and/or practice the patented invention. On information and belief
`
`Defendant DSS was provided notice of the ʼ549 patent on November 21, 2008. On information
`
`and belief, Defendant DSS provides instructions to its users with the intent to induce
`
`infringement of the ʼ549 patent. Without limitation, an example of Defendant DSS’s infringing
`
`products is the MF-801 and related families of products. Defendant DSS’s infringement of the
`
`’549 Patent has caused substantial damage to Plaintiff. On information and belief, DSS’s
`
`infringement of the ʼ549 Patent has been willful and deliberate, entitling Plaintiff to enhanced
`
`damages and attorneys’ fees.
`
`46.
`
`On information and belief, without a license or permission from Plaintiff, the
`
`Mustek Defendants have infringed, induced others to infringe, and/or contributorily infringed,
`
`literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, at least claims 1, 7, 11, 17, 19 and 21 of the ’549
`
`Patent. The Mustek Defendants did so by importing, making, using, offering to sell, and/or
`
`selling products and devices that embody and/or practice the patented invention. On information
`
`and belief, the Mustek Defendants were provided notice of the ʼ549 patent on November 21,
`
`2008. On information and belief, the Mustek Defendants provide instructions to their users with
`
`the intent to induce infringement of the ʼ549 patent. Without limitation, an example of the
`
`Mustek Defendants’ infringing products is the PF-A720BM and related families of products.
`
`The Mustek Defendants’ infringement of the ’549 Patent has caused substantial damage to
`
`Plaintiff. On information and belief, the Mustek Defendants’ infringement of the ʼ549 Patent has
`
`been willful and deliberate, entitling Plaintiff to enhanced damages and attorneys’ fees.
`
`47.
`
`On information and belief, without a license or permission from Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant Pandigital has infringed, induced others to infringe, and/or contributorily infringed,
`
`literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, at least claims 1, 7, 11, 17, 19 and 21 of the ’549
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:11-cv-00372-TJW Document 1 Filed 08/24/11 Page 12 of 28 PageID #: 12
`
`Patent. Defendant Pandigital did so by importing, making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling
`
`products and devices that embody and/or practice the patented invention. On information and
`
`belief Defendant Pandigital was provided notice of the ʼ549 patent on February 21, 2008. On
`
`information and belief, Defendant Pandigital provides instructions to its users with the intent to
`
`induce infringement of the ʼ549 patent. Without limitation, an example of Defendant
`
`Pandigital’s infringing products is the PI8004W01 and related families of products. Defendant
`
`Pandigital’s infringement of the ’549 Patent has caused substantial damage to Plaintiff. On
`
`information and belief, Pandigital’s infringement of the ʼ549 Patent has been willful and
`
`deliberate, entitling Plaintiff to enhanced damages and attorneys’ fees.
`
`48.
`
`On information and belief, without a license or permission from Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant Royal has infringed, induced others to infringe, and/or contributorily infringed,
`
`literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, at least claims 1, 7, 11, 17, 19 and 21 of the ’549
`
`Patent. Defendant Royal did so by importing, making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling
`
`products and devices that embody and/or practice the patented invention. On information and
`
`belief Defendant Royal was provided notice of the ʼ549 patent on August 27, 2009. On
`
`information and belief, Defendant Royal provides instructions to its users with the intent to
`
`induce infringement of the ʼ549 patent. Without limitation, an example of Defendant Royal’s
`
`infringing products is the PF120 256 12” and related families of products. Defendant Royal’s
`
`infringement of the ’549 Patent has caused substantial damage to Plaintiff. On information and
`
`belief, Royal’s infringement of the ʼ549 Patent has been willful and deliberate, entitling Plaintiff
`
`to enhanced damages and attorneys’ fees.
`
`49.
`
`On information and belief, without a license or permission from Plaintiff, the
`
`WinAccord Defendants have infringed, induced others to infringe, and/or contributorily
`
`infringed, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, at least claims 1, 7, 11, 17, 19, and 21 of
`
`the ’549 Patent. The WinAccord Defendants did so by importing, making, using, offering to sell,
`
`and/or selling products and devices that embody and/or practice the patented invention. On
`
`information and belief, the WinAccord Defendants were provided notice of the ʼ549 patent on
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:11-cv-00372-TJW Document 1 Filed 08/24/11 Page 13 of 28 PageID #: 13
`
`August 22, 2011. On information and belief, the WinAccord Defendants provide instructions to
`
`their users with the intent to induce infringement of the ʼ549 patent. Without limitation, an
`
`example of the WinAccord Defendants’ infringing products is the Orion Seven.O-7” Slim
`
`(OR17D-05) and related families of products. The WinAccord Defendants’ infringement of the
`
`’549 Patent has caused substantial damage to Plaintiff. On information and belief, the
`
`WinAccord Defendants’ infringement of the ʼ549 Patent has been willful and deliberate, entitling
`
`Plaintiff to enhanced damages and attorneys’ fees.
`
`THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
`(Infringement of the ’443 Patent)
`(35 U.S.C. § 271)
`
`50.
`
`Plaintiff repeats and incorporates by reference each of the allegations contained in
`
`Paragraphs 1 through 49 above, and further alleges as follows:
`
`51.
`
`On information and belief, without a license or permission from Plaintiff, the
`
`Action Defendants have infringed, induced others to infringe, and/or contributorily infringed,
`
`literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, at least claims 9 and 14 of the ’443 Patent. The
`
`Action Defendants did so by importing, making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling products
`
`and devices that embody and/or practice the patented invention. On information and belief, the
`
`Action Defendants were provided notice of the ʼ443 patent on August 27, 2009. Without
`
`limitation, an example of the Action Defendants’ infringing products is the Home 7” DPF -
`
`1600018 and related families of products. The Action Defendants’ infringement of the ’443
`
`Patent has caused substantial damage to Plaintiff. On information and belief, the Action
`
`Defendants’ infringement of the ʼ443 Patent has been willful and deliberate, entitling Plaintiff to
`
`enhanced damages and attorneys’ fees.
`
`52.
`
`On information and belief, without a license or permission from Plaintiff, the
`
`AIPTEK Defendants have infringed, induced others to infringe, and/or contributorily infringed,
`
`literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, at least claims 9, 11, and 12 of the ’443 Patent. The
`
`AIPTEK Defendants did so by importing, making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling products
`
`and devices that embody and/or practice the patented invention. On information and belief, the
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:11-cv-00372-TJW Document 1 Filed 08/24/11 Page 14 of 28 PageID #: 14
`
`AIPTEK Defendants were provided notice of the ʼ443 patent on July 27, 2011. Without
`
`limitation, an example of the AIPTEK Defendants’ infringing products is the P8i26 and related
`
`families of products. The AIPTEK Defendants’ infringement of the ’443 Patent has caused
`
`substantial damage to Plaintiff. On information and belief, the AIPTEK Defendants’
`
`infringement of the ʼ443 Patent has been willful and deliberate, entitling Plaintiff to enhanced
`
`damages and attorneys’ fees.
`
`53.
`
`On information and belief, without a license or permission from Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant Aluratek has infringed, induced others to infringe, and/or contributorily infringed,
`
`literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, at least claims 9, 11, 12, and 14 of the ’443 Patent.
`
`Defendant Aluratek did so by importing, making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling products
`
`and devices that embody and/or practice the patented invention. On information and belief,
`
`Defendant Aluratek was provided notice of the ʼ443 patent on April 2, 2008. Without limitation,
`
`an example of Defendant Aluratek’s infringing products is the ADMPF315F and related families
`
`of products. Defendant Aluratek’s infringement of the ’443 Patent has caused substantial
`
`damage to Plaintiff. On information and belief, Defendant Aluratek’s infringement of the ʼ443
`
`Patent has been willful and deliberate, entitling Plaintiff to enhanced damages and attorneys’
`
`fees.
`
`54.
`
`On information and belief, without a license or permission from Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant Audiovox has infringed, induced others to infringe, and/or contributorily infringed,
`
`literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, at least claims 9, 11, 12 and 14 of the ’443 Patent.
`
`Defendant Audiovox did so by importing, making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling products
`
`and devices that embody and/or practice the patented invention. On information and belief,
`
`Defendant Audiovox was provided notice of the ʼ443 patent on October 15, 2008. Without
`
`limitation, an example of Defendant Audiovox’s infringing products is the DPF808 and related
`
`families of products. Defendant Audiovox’s infringement of the ’443 Patent has caused
`
`substantial damage to Plaintiff. On information and belief, Defendant Audiovox’s infringement
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:11-cv-00372-TJW Document 1 Filed 08/24/11 Page 15 of 28 PageID #: 15
`
`of the ʼ443 Patent has been willful and deliberate, entitling Plaintiff to enhanced damages and
`
`attorneys’ fees.
`
`55.
`
`On information and belief, without a license or permission from Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant CEIVA has infringed, induced others to infringe, and/or contributorily infringed,
`
`literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, at least claims 9, 11, 12 and 14 of the ’443 Patent.
`
`Defendant CEIVA did so by importing, making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling products
`
`and devices that embody and/or practice the patented invention. On information and belief,
`
`Defendant CEIVA was provided notice of the ʼ443 patent on October 31, 2008. Without
`
`limitation, an example of Defendant CEIVA’s infringing products is the CEIVA Pro 80 and
`
`related families of products. Defendant CEIVA’