INTUITIVE BUILDING CONTROLS, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`CRESTRON ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`
`
`Case No. 2:15-cv-502
`
`PATENT CASE
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Intuitive Building Controls, Inc. (“Plaintiff” or “IBC”) files this Complaint
`
`against Defendant Crestron Electronics, Inc. for infringement of United States Patent Nos.
`
`6,118,230 (the “’230 patent”), 6,160,359 (the “’359 patent”) and 5,945,993 (the “’993 patent).
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`PLAINTIFF
`
`1.
`
`IBC is a Texas company with its principal place of business at 505 East Travis
`
`Street, Suite 203, Marshall, Texas 75670.
`
`DEFENDANT
`
`2.
`
`On information and belief, Crestron Electronics, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Crestron”)
`
`is a New Jersey corporation with its principal place of business located at 15 Volvo Drive,
`
`Rockleigh, New Jersey 07647. On information and belief, Crestron may be served with process
`
`by serving its registered agent, Corporation Service Company, 830 Bear Tavern Road, West
`
`Trenton, New Jersey 08628. On information and belief, this Court has personal jurisdiction over
`
`Crestron because Crestron has committed, and continues to commit, acts of infringement in the
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`CRESTRON ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`
`
`Case No. 2:15-cv-502
`
`PATENT CASE
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Intuitive Building Controls, Inc. (“Plaintiff” or “IBC”) files this Complaint
`
`against Defendant Crestron Electronics, Inc. for infringement of United States Patent Nos.
`
`6,118,230 (the “’230 patent”), 6,160,359 (the “’359 patent”) and 5,945,993 (the “’993 patent).
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`PLAINTIFF
`
`1.
`
`IBC is a Texas company with its principal place of business at 505 East Travis
`
`Street, Suite 203, Marshall, Texas 75670.
`
`DEFENDANT
`
`2.
`
`On information and belief, Crestron Electronics, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Crestron”)
`
`is a New Jersey corporation with its principal place of business located at 15 Volvo Drive,
`
`Rockleigh, New Jersey 07647. On information and belief, Crestron may be served with process
`
`by serving its registered agent, Corporation Service Company, 830 Bear Tavern Road, West
`
`Trenton, New Jersey 08628. On information and belief, this Court has personal jurisdiction over
`
`Crestron because Crestron has committed, and continues to commit, acts of infringement in the
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`State of Texas, has conducted business in the State of Texas, and/or has engaged in continuous
`
`and systematic activities in the State of Texas.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`3.
`
`This is an action for patent infringement under Title 35 of the United States Code.
`
`IBC is seeking injunctive relief as well as damages.
`
`4.
`
`Jurisdiction is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 (Federal
`
`Question) and 1338(a) (Patents) because this is a civil action for patent infringement arising
`
`under the United States’ patent statutes, 35 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.
`
`5.
`
`Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(c) and 1400(b) because Defendant has
`
`committed acts of infringement in this district and/or is deemed to reside in this district.
`
`6.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant and venue is proper in this
`
`district because Defendant has committed, and continues to commit, acts of infringement in the
`
`state of Texas, including in this district, has conducted business in the state of Texas, including
`
`in this district, and/or has engaged in continuous and systematic activities in the state of Texas,
`
`including in this district.
`
`COUNT I
`
`(INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,118,230)
`
`IBC incorporates paragraphs 1 through 6 herein by reference.
`
`Plaintiff is the owner and assignee of the ʼ230 patent, entitled “Lighting Control
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`System Including Server for Receiving and Processing Lighting Control Requests,” with
`
`ownership of all substantial rights in the ʼ230 patent, including the right to exclude others and to
`
`enforce, sue and recover damages for past and future infringement. A true and correct copy of
`
`the ʼ230 patent is attached as Exhibit A.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`9.
`
`The ʼ230 patent is valid, enforceable and was duly issued in full compliance with
`
`Title 35 of the United States Code.
`
`10.
`
`IBC has been damaged as a result of Crestron’s infringing conduct described in
`
`this Count. Crestron is thus liable to IBC in an amount that adequately compensates it for their
`
`infringements, which, by law, cannot be less than a reasonable royalty, together with interest and
`
`costs as fixed by this Court under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
`
`Direct Infringement
`
`11.
`
`On information and belief, Crestron has and continues to directly infringe one or
`
`more claims of the ʼ230 patent in this judicial district and/or elsewhere in Texas and the United
`
`States, including at least claim 29, by, among other things, making, using, offering for sale,
`
`selling and/or importing infringing lighting control systems, and/or practicing infringing methods
`
`related to lighting control systems, including but not limited to the CP3 3-Series Control System
`
`(“CP3”). Crestron is thereby liable for infringement of the ʼ230 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §
`
`271.
`
`Indirect Infringement – Inducement
`
`12.
`
`Based on the information presently available to IBC, absent discovery, and in
`
`addition or in the alternative to direct infringement, IBC contends that Crestron has and
`
`continues to indirectly infringe one or more claims of the ’230 patent, including at least claim 29,
`
`by inducing others, including customers, end-users, and/or installers of Crestron’s lighting
`
`control hardware and/or software, including but not limited to the CP3, to make, use, sell, offer
`
`for sale, and/or import infringing lighting control systems and/or to practice infringing methods
`
`in violation of one or more claims of the ʼ230 patent, including at least claim 29.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`13.
`
` Crestron has been on notice of the ʼ230 patent since at least service of this action,
`
`or before, but has continued since that time to cause others to directly infringe the ʼ230 patent as
`
`alleged herein. In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(3), IBC will likely have additional
`
`evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery on this
`
`issue.
`
`14.
`
`On information and belief, since Crestron has been on notice of the ʼ230 patent,
`
`Crestron has knowingly induced infringement of the ʼ230 patent, including at least claim 29 of
`
`the ʼ230 patent, and possessed specific intent to encourage others’ infringement.
`
`15.
`
`On information and belief, since Crestron has been on notice of the ʼ230 patent,
`
`Crestron knew or should have known that its actions would induce actual infringement of the
`
`ʼ230 patent, including at least claim 29 of the ʼ230 patent, by customers, end-users, and/or
`
`installers of lighting control lighting control hardware and/or software, including but not limited
`
`to the CP3.
`
`16.
`
`For example, since Crestron has been on notice of the ʼ230 patent, Crestron has
`
`purposefully and voluntarily made available lighting control hardware and/or software with the
`
`expectation that they would be utilized by customers, end-users, and/or installers in the United
`
`States in a way that infringes at least claim 29 of the ʼ230 patent.
`
`17.
`
`Since Crestron has been on notice of the ʼ230 patent, Crestron has also provided
`
`support to customers, end-users, and/or installers of Crestron’s lighting control hardware and/or
`
`software, including but not limited to the CP3.
`
`18.
`
`Crestron has not produced or relied upon an opinion of counsel suggesting that
`
`the ʼ230 patent is invalid or is not infringed by Crestron’s lighting control systems, including but
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`not limited to the CP3. In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(3), IBC will likely have
`
`additional evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for discovery on this issue.
`
`19.
`
`Crestron has not produced any evidence as to any investigation, design around or
`
`that any remedial action was taken with respect to the ʼ230 patent. In accordance with Fed. R.
`
`Civ. P. 11(b)(3), IBC will likely have additional evidentiary support after a reasonable
`
`opportunity for discovery on this issue.
`
`COUNT II
`
`(INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,160,359)
`
`IBC incorporates paragraphs 1 through 19 herein by reference.
`
`Plaintiff is the owner and assignee of the ʼ359 patent, entitled “Apparatus for
`
`20.
`
`21.
`
`Communicating with a Remote Computer to Control an Assigned Lighting Load,” with
`
`ownership of all substantial rights in the ʼ359 patent, including the right to exclude others and to
`
`enforce, sue and recover damages for past and future infringement. A true and correct copy of
`
`the ʼ359 patent is attached as Exhibit B.
`
`22.
`
`The ʼ359 patent is valid, enforceable and was duly issued in full compliance with
`
`Title 35 of the United States Code.
`
`23.
`
`IBC has been damaged as a result of Crestron’s infringing conduct described in
`
`this Count. Crestron is thus liable to IBC in an amount that adequately compensates it for its
`
`infringements, which, by law, cannot be less than a reasonable royalty, together with interest and
`
`costs as fixed by this Court under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
`
`Direct Infringement
`
`24.
`
`On information and belief, Crestron has and continues to directly infringe one or
`
`more claims of the ʼ359 patent in this judicial district and/or elsewhere in Texas and the United
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`States, including at least claim 9, by, among other things, making, using, offering for sale, selling
`
`and/or importing infringing lighting control systems, and/or practicing infringing methods
`
`related to lighting control systems, including but not limited to the TSW-750 7” Touch Screen
`
`(“TSW-750”). Crestron is thereby liable for infringement of the ʼ359 patent pursuant to 35
`
`U.S.C. § 271.
`
`Indirect Infringement – Inducement
`
`25.
`
`Based on the information presently available to IBC, absent discovery, and in the
`
`alternative to direct infringement, IBC contends that Crestron has and continues to indirectly
`
`infringe one or more claims of the ’359 patent, including at least claim 9, by inducing others,
`
`including customers, end-users, and/or installers of Crestron’s lighting control hardware and/or
`
`software, including but not limited to the TSW-750, to make, use, sell, offer for sale, and/or
`
`import infringing lighting control systems and/or to practice infringing methods in violation of
`
`one or more claims of the ʼ359 patent, including at least claim 9.
`
`26.
`
` Crestron has been on notice of the ʼ359 patent since at least service of this action,
`
`or before, but has continued since that time to cause others to directly infringe the ʼ359 patent as
`
`alleged herein. In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(3), IBC will likely have additional
`
`evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery on this
`
`issue.
`
`27.
`
`On information and belief, since Crestron has been on notice of the ʼ359 patent,
`
`Crestron has knowingly induced infringement of the ʼ359 patent, including at least claim 9 of the
`
`ʼ359 patent, and possessed specific intent to encourage others’ infringement.
`
`28.
`
`On information and belief, since Crestron has been on notice of the ʼ359 patent,
`
`Crestron knew or should have known that its actions would induce actual infringement of the
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`ʼ359 patent, including at least claim 9 of the ʼ359 patent, by customers, end-users, and/or
`
`installers of lighting control hardware and/or software, including but not limited to the TSW-750.
`
`29.
`
`For example, since Crestron has been on notice of the ʼ359 patent, Crestron has
`
`purposefully and voluntarily made available hardware and/or software with the expectation that
`
`they would be utilized by customers and/or users in the United States in a way that infringes at
`
`least claim 9 of the ʼ359 patent.
`
`30.
`
`Since Crestron has been on notice of the ʼ359 patent, Crestron has also provided
`
`support to customers and/or users of Crestron’s lighting control hardware and/or software,
`
`including but not limited to the TSW-750.
`
`31.
`
`Crestron has not produced or relied upon an opinion of counsel suggesting that
`
`the ʼ359 patent is invalid or is not infringed by Crestron’s lighting control systems, including but
`
`not limited to the TSW-750. In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(3), IBC will likely have
`
`additional evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for discovery on this issue.
`
`32.
`
`Crestron has not produced any evidence as to any investigation, design around or
`
`that any remedial action was taken with respect to the ʼ359 patent. In accordance with Fed. R.
`
`Civ. P. 11(b)(3), IBC will likely have additional evidentiary support after a reasonable
`
`opportunity for discovery on this issue.
`
`COUNT III
`
`(INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,945,993)
`
`IBC incorporates paragraphs 1 through 32 herein by reference.
`
`Plaintiff is the owner and assignee of the ʼ993 patent, entitled “Pictograph-Based
`
`33.
`
`34.
`
`Method and Apparatus for Controlling a Plurality of Lighting Loads,” with ownership of all
`
`substantial rights in the ʼ993 patent, including the right to exclude others and to enforce, sue and
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`recover damages for past and future infringement. A true and correct copy of the ʼ993 patent is
`
`attached as Exhibit C.
`
`35.
`
`The ʼ993 patent is valid, enforceable and was duly issued in full compliance with
`
`Title 35 of the United States Code.
`
`36.
`
`IBC has been damaged as a result of Crestron’s infringing conduct described in
`
`this Count. Crestron is thus liable to IBC in an amount that adequately compensates it for its
`
`infringements, which, by law, cannot be less than a reasonable royalty, together with interest and
`
`costs as fixed by this Court under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
`
`Direct Infringement
`
`37.
`
`On information and belief, Crestron has and continues to directly infringe one or
`
`more claims of the ʼ993 patent in this judicial district and/or elsewhere in Texas and the United
`
`States, including at least claim 1, by, among other things, making, using, offering for sale, selling
`
`and/or importing infringing lighting control systems, and/or practicing infringing methods
`
`related to lighting control systems, including but not limited to the TSW-750 7” Touch Screen
`
`(“TSW-750”). Crestron is thereby liable for infringement of the ʼ993 patent pursuant to 35
`
`U.S.C. § 271.
`
`Indirect Infringement – Inducement
`
`38.
`
`Based on the information presently available to IBC, absent discovery, and in the
`
`alternative to direct infringement, IBC contends that Crestron has and continues to indirectly
`
`infringe one or more claims of the ’993 patent, including at least claim 1, by inducing others,
`
`including customers, end-users, and/or installers of Crestron’s lighting control hardware and/or
`
`software, including but not limited to the TSW-750, to make, use, sell, offer for sale, and/or
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`import infringing lighting control systems and/or to practice infringing methods in violation of
`
`one or more claims of the ʼ993 patent, including at least claim 1.
`
`39.
`
` Crestron has been on notice of the ʼ993 patent since at least service of this action,
`
`or before, but has continued since that time to cause others to directly infringe the ʼ993 patent as
`
`alleged herein. In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(3), IBC will likely have additional
`
`evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery on this
`
`issue.
`
`40.
`
`On information and belief, since Crestron has been on notice of the ʼ993 patent,
`
`Crestron has knowingly induced infringement of the ʼ993 patent, including at least claim 1 of the
`
`ʼ993 patent, and possessed specific intent to encourage others’ infringement.
`
`41.
`
`On information and belief, since Crestron has been on notice of the ʼ993 patent,
`
`Crestron knew or should have known that its actions would induce actual infringement of the
`
`ʼ993 patent, including at least claim 1 of the ʼ993 patent, by customers, end-users, and/or
`
`installers of lighting control hardware and/or software, including but not limited to the TSW-750.
`
`42.
`
`For example, since Crestron has been on notice of the ʼ993 patent, Crestron has
`
`purposefully and voluntarily made available infringing hardware and/or software with the
`
`expectation that they would be utilized by customers, end-users, and/or installers in the United
`
`States in a way that infringes at least claim 1 of the ʼ993 patent.
`
`43.
`
`Since Crestron has been on notice of the ʼ993 patent, Crestron has also provided
`
`support to customers, end-users, and/or installers of Crestron’s lighting control hardware and/or
`
`software, including but not limited to the TSW-750.
`
`44.
`
`Crestron has not produced or relied upon an opinion of counsel suggesting that
`
`the ʼ993 patent is invalid or is not infringed by Crestron’s lighting control systems, including but
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`not limited to the TSW-750. In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(3), IBC will likely have
`
`additional evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for discovery on this issue.
`
`45.
`
`Crestron has not produced any evidence as to any investigation, design around or
`
`that any remedial action was taken with respect to the ʼ993 patent. In accordance with Fed. R.
`
`Civ. P. 11(b)(3), IBC will likely have additional evidentiary support after a reasonable
`
`opportunity for discovery on this issue.
`
`ADDITIONAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`46.
`
`Plaintiff has been damaged as a result of Defendant’s infringing conduct
`
`described herein. Crestron is thus liable to Plaintiff in an amount that adequately compensates
`
`Plaintiff for Defendant’s infringement, which, by law, cannot be less than a reasonable royalty,
`
`together with interest and costs as fixed by the Court under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
`
`47.
`
`Defendant’s actions complained of herein will continue unless Defendant is
`
`enjoined by this Court.
`
`48.
`
`49.
`
`Plaintiff has complied with 35 U.S.C. § 287.
`
`Defendant’s actions complained of herein are causing irreparable harm and
`
`monetary damage to Plaintiff and will continue to do so unless and until Defendant is enjoined
`
`and restrained by this Court.
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`
`
`IBC hereby requests a trial by jury pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil
`
`Procedure.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`
`
`IBC requests that this Court find in its favor and against Defendant, and that this Court
`
`grant IBC the following relief:
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Enter judgment for Plaintiff on this Complaint;
`
`Enter judgment that one or more claims of the ’230, ’359, and ’993 patents have
`
`been infringed, either directly or indirectly by Defendant;
`
`c.
`
`Enter judgment that Defendant account for and pay to IBC all damages to and
`
`costs incurred by IBC because of Defendant’s infringing activities and other
`
`conduct complained of herein;
`
`d.
`
`Award Plaintiff damages resulting from Defendant’s infringement in accordance
`
`with 35 U.S.C. § 284;
`
`e.
`
`Enter a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant and its officers, directors,
`
`agents, servants, affiliates, employees, divisions, branches, subsidiaries, parents,
`
`and all others acting in active concert or participation with them, from infringing
`
`or inducing infringement of the ’230, ’359, and ’993 patents, or, in the alternative,
`
`judgment that Defendant account for and pay to IBC a reasonable royalty and an
`
`ongoing post-judgment royalty because of Defendant’s past, present and future
`
`infringing activities and other conduct complained of herein;
`
`f.
`
`That IBC be granted pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on the damages
`
`caused by Defendant’s infringing activities and other conduct complained of
`
`herein;
`
`g.
`
`h.
`
`Find the case to be exceptional under the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 285;
`
`That IBC be granted such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and
`
`proper under the circumstances.
`
`DATED: April 14, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`THE SIMON LAW FIRM, P.C.
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Anthony G. Simon
`Anthony G. Simon
`Michael P. Kella
`Benjamin R. Askew
`Timothy D. Krieger
`800 Market Street, Suite 1700
`St. Louis, Missouri 63101
`P. 314.241.2929
`F. 314.241.2029
`asimon@simonlawpc.com
`mkella@simonlawp.com
`baskew@simonlwpc.com
`tkrieger@simonlawpc.com
`
`Wesley Hill
`Texas State Bar No. 24032294
`WARD, SMITH & HILL, PLLC
`P.O. Box 1231
`1127 Judson Road, Ste. 220
`Longview, Texas 75606-1231
`(903) 757-6400
`(903) 757-2323 (fax)
`wh@wsfirm.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
`INTUITIVE BUILDING CONTROLS,
`INC.
`
`
`
`12
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
