Case 5:14-cv-02591-ODW-DTB Document 1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 1 of 30 Page ID #:1
`
`
`
`Vern Schooley (California Bar No. 40301)
` vschooley@fulpat.com
`James Juo (California Bar No. 193852)
` jjuo@fulpat.com
`FULWIDER • PATTON LLP
`6060 Center Drive, 10th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90045
`Telephone: (310) 824-5555
`Facsimile: (310) 824-9696
`
`Matthew J.M. Prebeg (Texas Bar No. 00791465)
` mprebeg@pfalawfirm.com
`Stephen W. Abbott (Texas Bar No. 00795933)
` sabbott@pfalawfirm.com
`Matthew S. Compton, Jr. (Texas Bar No. 24078362)
` mcompton@pfalawfirm.com
`PREBEG, FAUCETT & ABBOTT PLLC
`8441 Gulf Freeway, Suite 307
`Houston, Texas 77017
`Telephone: (832) 742-9260
`Facsimile: (832) 742-9261
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff, Johnson Safety, Inc.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CASE NO. _____________
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271
`
`Jury Trial Demanded
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`)
`JOHNSON SAFETY, INC.,
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`vs.
`)
`
`)
`VOXX INTERNATIONAL
`)
`CORPORATION,
`)
`VOXX ELECTRONICS
`)
`CORPORATION, and
`INVISION AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS )
`INC.,
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`1
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 30
`
`PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT 1003
`
`

`
`Case 5:14-cv-02591-ODW-DTB Document 1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 2 of 30 Page ID #:2
`
`
`
`1
`
`Plaintiff Johnson Safety, Inc., for its Complaint against Defendants Voxx
`
`2
`
`International Corporation, Voxx Electronics Corporation, and Invision Automotive
`
`3
`
`Systems Inc., alleges as follows:
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff Johnson Safety, Inc., (hereinafter “Johnson Safety” or
`
`“Plaintiff”) is a California Corporation with its corporate headquarters and
`
`principal place of business at 1425 Cooley Ct., San Bernardino, CA 92408.
`
`2.
`
`Upon information and belief, Voxx International Corporation,
`
`previously known as Audiovox Corporation (hereinafter “Voxx” or “Audiovox”),
`
`is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware,
`
`with its principal place of business at 180 Marcus Blvd., Hauppauge, NY 11788.
`
`Voxx is also a registered corporation with the California Secretary of State and
`
`may be served with process by serving its California registered agent: Corporation
`
`Service Company, 2710 Gateway Oaks Dr., Suite 150N, Sacramento, CA 95833.
`
`3.
`
`Upon
`
`information and belief, Voxx Electronics Corporation,
`
`previously known as Audiovox Electronics Corporation (hereinafter “VEC” or
`
`“AEC”)
`
`is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Defendant Voxx International
`
`Corporation, and is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
`
`State of Delaware, with its principal place of business at 150 Marcus Blvd.,
`
`Hauppauge, NY 11788. VEC is also a registered corporation with the California
`
`Secretary of State and may be served with process through its California registered
`
`agent: Corporation Service Company, doing business as CSC - Lawyers
`
`Incorporating Service, 2710 Gateway Oaks Dr., Suite 150N, Sacramento, CA
`
`95833.
`
`4.
`
`Upon information and belief, Invision Automotive Systems Inc.
`
`(hereinafter “Invision”) is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Defendant Voxx
`
`International Corporation, and is a Delaware corporation, with its principal place
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`2
`
`Page 2 of 30
`
`PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT 1003
`
`

`
`Case 5:14-cv-02591-ODW-DTB Document 1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 3 of 30 Page ID #:3
`
`
`
`1
`
`of business at 150 Marcus Blvd., Hauppauge, NY 11788. Invision is also a
`
`2
`
`registered corporation with the California Secretary of State and may be served
`
`3
`
`with process by serving its California registered agent: Corporation Service
`
`4
`
`Company, doing business as CSC - Lawyers Incorporating Service, 2710 Gateway
`
`5
`
`Oaks Dr., Suite 150N, Sacramento, CA 95833.
`
`6
`
`5.
`
`Upon information and belief, Voxx, VEC and Invision, by virtue of
`
`7
`
`their corporate relationship with one another (e.g., the parent-subsidiary-affiliate
`
`8
`
`relationship, as well as from a corporate governance perspective), each shared the
`
`9
`
`same knowledge with respect to the patents-in-suit. Examples of this include ,
`
`10
`
`Thomas C. Malone who serves (or has served) as the President of Voxx
`
`11
`
`Electronics Corp., the Senior Vice President of Sales of Voxx International
`
`12
`
`Corporation, the President of Audiovox Electronics Corporation, a subsidiary of
`
`13
`
`Voxx International Corporation, the President of Invision Automotive Systems,
`
`14
`
`Inc., as well as other roles in various Voxx related entities, including Audiovox
`
`15
`
`Advanced Accessories Group LLC and Audiovox Atlanta Corp. In addition to Mr.
`
`16
`
`Malone, there are other individuals that serve (or have served) as officers or other
`
`17
`
`roles in multiple Voxx related entities, including at least Ms. Loriann Shelton and
`
`18
`
`Mr. Charles M. Stoehr.
`
`19
`
`6.
`
`Throughout this pleading, and unless specifically noted otherwise,
`
`20
`
`Defendants Voxx, VEC, and Invision will be referenced collectively as the
`
`21
`
`“Defendants” and individually as the “Defendant.” The terms “Defendants” or
`
`22
`
`“Defendant”, as well as a reference to a specific Defendant, also includes those
`
`23
`
`employees, agents, and all other persons or entities that the Defendant(s) direct
`
`24
`
`and/or control.
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`3
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 30
`
`PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT 1003
`
`

`
`Case 5:14-cv-02591-ODW-DTB Document 1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 4 of 30 Page ID #:4
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`THE PATENTS
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,871,356
`
`7.
`
`On March 22, 2005, United States Patent No. 6,871,356, entitled
`
`“Mobile Video System” (the “‘356 patent”), was duly and legally issued by the
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). A true and correct copy
`
`of the ‘356 patent is attached as Exhibit “A.”
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 282, the ‘356 patent is presumed valid.
`
`The ‘356 patent was the subject of an Inter Partes Reexamination
`
`(Ser. No. 95/000,103), requested on August 1, 2005. Audiovox Corporation
`
`requested the reexamination and was a real party in interest to that reexamination.
`
`The USPTO confirmed the patentability of all claims of the ‘356 patent as
`
`originally issued. A copy of the reexamination certificate is included within
`
`Exhibit “A.”
`
`10. Defendants, by virtue of their corporate relationship to one another,
`
`are thus estopped from asserting the invalidity of all claims in the ‘356 patent on
`
`any ground which was raised or could have been raised during the inter partes
`
`reexamination proceedings per 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) (2006). At a minimum, at least
`
`one of the Defendants, Voxx International Corporation, formerly known as
`
`Audiovox Corporation, is estopped from asserting the invalidity of all claims in the
`
`‘356 patent on any ground it raised or could have raised during the inter partes
`
`reexamination proceedings per 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) (2006).
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,267,402
`
`11. On September 11, 2007, United States Patent No. 7,267,402, entitled
`
`“Headrest-Mounted Monitor” (the “‘402 patent”) was duly and legally issued by
`
`the USPTO. A true and correct copy of the ‘402 patent is attached as Exhibit “B.”
`
`12. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 282, the ‘402 patent is presumed valid.
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`4
`
`Page 4 of 30
`
`PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT 1003
`
`

`
`Case 5:14-cv-02591-ODW-DTB Document 1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 5 of 30 Page ID #:5
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,379,125
`
`13. On May 27, 2008, United States Patent No. 7,379,125, entitled “Flat
`
`Thin Screen TV/Monitor Automotive Roof Mount” (the “‘125 patent”) was duly
`
`and legally issued by the USPTO. A true and correct copy of the ‘125 patent is
`
`attached as Exhibit “C.”
`
`14. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 282, the ‘125 patent is presumed valid.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,448,679
`
`15. On November 11, 2008, United States Patent No. 7,448,679, entitled
`
`“Headrest-Mounted Monitor” (the “‘679 patent”) was duly and legally issued by
`
`the USPTO. A true and correct copy of the ‘679 patent is attached as Exhibit “D.”
`
`16. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 282, the ‘679 patent is presumed valid.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,894,003
`
`17. On February 22, 2011, United States Patent No. 7,894,003, entitled
`
`“Flat Thin Screen TV/Monitor Automotive Roof Mount” (the “‘003 patent”) was
`
`duly and legally issued by the USPTO. A true and correct copy of the ‘003 patent
`
`is attached as Exhibit “E.”
`
`18. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 282, the ‘003 patent is presumed valid.
`
`The Patents-In-Suit
`
`19. The ‘356 patent, ‘402 patent, ‘125 patent, ‘679 patent, and ‘003 patent
`
`22
`
`are collectively referred to as “the Patents-in-Suit”.
`
`23
`
`20.
`
`Johnson Safety is the assignee of the Patents-in-Suit and has all
`
`24
`
`rights, title, and interest in and to each of the Patents-in-Suit, including all
`
`25
`
`substantial rights in and to the Patents-in-Suit, and including the right to sue and
`
`26
`
`collect damages for past, present, and future infringement.
`
`27
`
`21.
`
`Johnson Safety designs, manufactures and sells mobile entertainment
`
`28
`
`systems that include in-vehicle headrest-mounted video systems and overhead
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`5
`
`Page 5 of 30
`
`PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT 1003
`
`

`
`Case 5:14-cv-02591-ODW-DTB Document 1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 6 of 30 Page ID #:6
`
`
`
`1
`
`video systems. The Defendants are direct competitors of Johnson Safety in the
`
`2
`
`area of in-vehicle video systems.
`
`3
`
`22. Voxx, VEC, and Invision also manufacture and/or sell in-vehicle
`
`4
`
`headrest-mounted video systems and overhead video systems, including those
`
`5
`
`referred to herein as the “Accused Products,” which are further described below,
`
`6
`
`7
`
`under product lines branded as Advent, Audiovox, and Invision.1
`
`23. Prior to filing this suit, Johnson Safety complied with the marking
`
`8
`
`requirement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 287(a) and is thus entitled to recover past
`
`9
`
`damages for Defendants’ infringement of the Patents-in-Suit, as more fully
`
`10
`
`described below.
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`24. This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35
`
`United States Code, particularly §§ 271, 281, 283, 284 and 285. This Court has
`
`jurisdiction over these claims for patent infringement under Title 28 United States
`
`Code §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`25. Upon information and belief, personal jurisdiction exists generally
`
`and specifically over each of the Defendants because: each Defendant has
`
`sufficient minimum contacts with the forum as a result of business conducted
`
`within the State of California and within the Central District of California; each
`
`Defendant has purposefully availed itself of the privileges of conducting business
`
`in the State of California and in the Central District of California; each Defendant
`
`has sought protection and benefit from the laws of the State of California; each
`
`Defendant has transacted business in a continuous and systematic manner within
`
`the State of California and within the Central District of California, including but
`
`not limited to, making, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or leasing products
`
`and/or methods, as described and claimed in the Patents-in-Suit either directly, or
`
`
`1 http://investors.voxxintl.com/ (“Corporate Profile”).
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`6
`
`Page 6 of 30
`
`PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT 1003
`
`

`
`Case 5:14-cv-02591-ODW-DTB Document 1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 7 of 30 Page ID #:7
`
`
`
`1
`
`through inducing or contributing to the infringing acts of others, including
`
`2
`
`subsidiaries and/or intermediaries; and because Johnson Safety’s claims for relief
`
`3
`
`arise directly from the Defendants’ business contacts and other activities in the
`
`4
`
`State of California and in the Central District of California. The Defendants
`
`5
`
`placed the Accused Products into the stream of commerce, and they knew, or
`
`6
`
`should have known, that the Accused Products would be sold and used in the State
`
`7
`
`of California and within this District, such as infringing headrest-mounted video
`
`8
`
`systems sold and used in the State of California and within this District that
`
`9
`
`include the Accused Products.
`
`10
`
`26. Upon information and belief, the Defendants derive substantial
`
`11
`
`revenue from the sale of the Accused Products through interstate and international
`
`12
`
`commerce.
`
`13
`
`27. Upon information and belief, the Defendants expect or should
`
`14
`
`reasonably expect their actions to have consequences within this District.
`
`15
`
`28. The above acts, and those further described herein, have injured, and
`
`16
`
`continue to injure, Johnson Safety within this District.
`
`17
`
`29. Venue is proper in this Court under Title 28 United States Code §§
`
`18
`
`1391(b)–(d) and 1400(b). Johnson Safety has been headquartered in this District
`
`19
`
`since 1984 and does business in this District.
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`COUNT I: FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`
`(INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,871,356)
`
`30. The Plaintiff incorporates its previous allegations by the reference.
`
`Accused Products
`
`31. Voxx and VEC have been and are now making, using, selling,
`
`offering for sale within the United States, and/or importing into the United States,
`
`at least the following headrest-mounted video systems: HR7011PKG, DD7012,
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`7
`
`Page 7 of 30
`
`PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT 1003
`
`

`
`Case 5:14-cv-02591-ODW-DTB Document 1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 8 of 30 Page ID #:8
`
`
`
`1
`
`DM7012, MM7012, and other headrest-mounted video systems, that infringe
`
`2
`
`claims in the ‘356 patent (hereinafter collectively referred as the “Accused
`
`3
`
`Headrest Systems-I”).
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Direct Infringement
`
`32. Voxx and VEC have directly infringed and continue to infringe at
`
`least claims 1 and 5 of the ‘356 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of
`
`equivalents, by installing the Accused Headrest Systems-I into vehicles during
`
`testing, development, production, and/or exhibition.
`
`Inducement of Infringement
`
`33. Voxx and VEC have had actual knowledge of the ‘356 patent at least
`
`since the serving of the underlying Complaint in this case.
`
`34. Upon information and belief, Voxx and VEC, by virtue of its
`
`corporate relationship with Voxx, knew of, or were willfully blind towards, the
`
`‘356 patent, at least since August 1, 2005 when Audiovox Corporation was a real
`
`party in interest to the Inter Partes Reexamination (Ser. No. 95/000,103) of the
`
`‘356 patent before the USPTO.
`
`35. For example, Thomas C. Malone serves (or has served) as the
`
`President of Voxx Electronics Corp., the Senior Vice President of Sales of Voxx
`
`International Corporation, the President of Audiovox Electronics Corporation, a
`
`subsidiary of Voxx International Corporation,
`
`the President of Invision
`
`Automotive Systems, Inc., as well as other roles in various Voxx related entities,
`
`including Audiovox Advanced Accessories Group LLC and Audiovox Atlanta
`
`Corp.
`
`36.
`
`In addition to Mr. Malone, there are other individuals that serve (or
`
`have served) as officers or in other roles in multiple Voxx related entities,
`
`including at least Ms. Loriann Shelton and Mr. Charles M. Stoehr.
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`8
`
`Page 8 of 30
`
`PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT 1003
`
`

`
`Case 5:14-cv-02591-ODW-DTB Document 1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 9 of 30 Page ID #:9
`
`
`
`1
`
`37. Upon information and belief, Voxx and VEC, by virtue of its
`
`2
`
`corporate relationship with Voxx, knew, of, or were willfully blind towards, the
`
`3
`
`‘356 patent by virtue of the ‘356 patent being cited by at least 19 of Voxx’s patents
`
`4
`
`during the prosecution thereof, and also by virtue of being Johnson Safety’s
`
`5
`
`competitors in the area of in-vehicle video systems.
`
`6
`
`38. Since becoming aware of, or being willfully blind towards, the ‘356
`
`7
`
`patent, Voxx and VEC have continued to intentionally, actively, and knowingly
`
`8
`
`make, use, sell, offer to sell, and/or import one or more of the Accused Headrest
`
`9
`
`Systems-I through their retailers, resellers, distributors, websites (including but not
`
`10
`
`limited to www.voxxintl.com), as well as in other ways.
`
`11
`
`39. Since becoming aware of, or being willfully blind towards, the ‘356
`
`12
`
`patent, Voxx’s and VEC’s advertising, sales, and/or installation materials in
`
`13
`
`relation
`
`to
`
`the Accused Headrest Systems-I have
`
`intentionally, actively,
`
`14
`
`knowingly, and willfully contained and continue to contain instructions, directions,
`
`15
`
`suggestions, and/or invitations that intentionally, actively, and knowingly invite,
`
`16
`
`entice, lead on, influence, encourage, prevail on, move by persuasion, cause,
`
`17
`
`and/or influence the public, Voxx’s and VEC’s distributors, retailers, customers,
`
`18
`
`and/or www.voxxintl.com website users to install the Accused Headrest Systems-I
`
`19
`
`into a vehicle and/or use the Accused Headrest Systems-I in a vehicle, and thereby
`
`20
`
`directly infringe at least claims 1 and 5 of the ‘356 patent, either literally or under
`
`21
`
`the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`22
`
`40. Since becoming aware of, or being willfully blind towards, the ‘356
`
`23
`
`patent, Voxx and VEC were willfully blind or knew that the public’s, the
`
`24
`
`distributors’, the retailers’, the customers’ and/or the website users’ acts relative to
`
`25
`
`installing the Accused Headrest Systems-I into a vehicle and/or using the Accused
`
`26
`
`Headrest Systems-I in a vehicle directly infringe, either literally or under the
`
`27
`
`doctrine of equivalents, at least claims 1 and 5 of the ‘356 patent.
`
`28
`
`
`
`41. For these reasons, Voxx and VEC are liable for inducing infringement
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`9
`
`Page 9 of 30
`
`PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT 1003
`
`

`
`Case 5:14-cv-02591-ODW-DTB Document 1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 10 of 30 Page ID #:10
`
`
`
`1
`
`of the ‘356 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Contributory Infringement
`
`42. At least for the reasons stated above, Voxx and VEC have had actual
`
`knowledge of, or were willfully blind towards, the ‘356 patent.
`
`43. Since becoming aware of, or being willfully blind towards, the ‘356
`
`patent, Voxx and VEC have intentionally, actively, and knowingly sold, or offered
`
`to sell the Accused Headrest Systems-I with wireless FM transmitters within the
`
`United States or imported the Accused Headrest Systems-I with wireless FM
`
`transmitters into the United States.
`
`44. The Accused Headrest Systems-I are a component of a patented
`
`machine, manufacture, and/or combination because the Accused Headrest
`
`Systems-I meet at least one element of at least claim 1 of the ‘356 patent, either
`
`literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`45. The Accused Headrest Systems-I are a material part of the invention
`
`of at least claims 1 and 5 of the ‘356 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of
`
`equivalents, because the majority of the elements of claims 1 and 5 are present in
`
`the Accused Headrest Systems-I with wireless FM transmitters, either literally or
`
`under the doctrine of equivalents, and for the reasons stated herein, in relation to
`
`the lack of substantial non-infringing use.
`
`46. The Accused Headrest Systems-I with wireless FM transmitters are
`
`especially made or especially adapted for use in the infringement of at least claims
`
`1 and 5 of the ‘356 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents,
`
`because the combination of a vehicle with the Accused Headrest Systems-I with
`
`wireless FM transmitters directly infringe the ‘356 patent, either literally or under
`
`the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`47. Since becoming aware of, or being willfully blind towards, the ‘356
`
`patent, Voxx and VEC were willfully blind or knew that the Accused Headrest
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`10
`
`Page 10 of 30
`
`PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT 1003
`
`

`
`Case 5:14-cv-02591-ODW-DTB Document 1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 11 of 30 Page ID #:11
`
`
`
`1
`
`Systems-I with wireless FM transmitters were especially made or especially
`
`2
`
`adapted for use in the infringement of at least claims 1 and 5 of the ‘356 patent,
`
`3
`
`either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`4
`
`48. The Accused Headrest Systems-I with wireless FM transmitters are
`
`5
`
`not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial non-
`
`6
`
`infringing use because the only substantial use of the Accused Headrest Systems-I
`
`7
`
`with wireless FM transmitters is to be installed in a vehicle and function as an in-
`
`8
`
`vehicle headrest video system, which directly infringes at least claims 1 and 5 of
`
`9
`
`the ‘356 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`10
`
`49. Since becoming aware of, or being willfully blind towards, the ‘356
`
`11
`
`patent, Voxx and VEC were willfully blind or knew that the Accused Headrest
`
`12
`
`Systems-I with wireless FM transmitters were not a staple article or commodity of
`
`13
`
`commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use.
`
`14
`
`50. By selling, offering to sell, and/or importing into the United States
`
`15
`
`one or more of the Accused Headrest Systems-I with wireless FM transmitters
`
`16
`
`and/or the components thereof, Voxx and VEC have contributed to the
`
`17
`
`infringement by the public, the distributors, the retailers, the customers, and the
`
`18
`
`website users who import, make, use, sell, offer to sell, lease, and/or offer to lease
`
`19
`
`a vehicle installed with an Accused Headrest System-I with wireless FM
`
`20
`
`transmitters, and thus directly infringe at least claims 1 and 5 of the ‘356 patent,
`
`21
`
`either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`22
`
`51. For these reasons, Voxx and VEC are contributory infringers of at
`
`23
`
`least claims 1 and 5 of the ‘356 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of
`
`24
`
`equivalents.
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`11
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Page 11 of 30
`
`PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT 1003
`
`

`
`Case 5:14-cv-02591-ODW-DTB Document 1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 12 of 30 Page ID #:12
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`COUNT II: SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`
`(INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,267,402)
`
`52. The Plaintiff incorporates its previous allegations by the reference.
`
`Accused Products
`
`53. Voxx and VEC have been and are now making, using, selling,
`
`offering for sale within the United States, and/or importing into the United States,
`
`at least the following headrest-mounted video systems: HR7011PKG, DD7012,
`
`DM7012, MM7012, and other headrest-mounted video systems, that infringe the
`
`‘402 patent (hereinafter collectively referred as the “Accused Headrest Systems-
`
`II”).
`
`Direct Infringement
`
`54. Voxx and VEC have directly infringed and continue to infringe at
`
`15
`
`least claim 10 of the ‘402 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of
`
`16
`
`equivalents, by replacing existing headrest-mounted video systems with the
`
`17
`
`Accused Headrest Systems-II during testing, development, and/or production.
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Inducement of Infringement
`
`55. Voxx and VEC have had actual knowledge of the ‘402 patent at least
`
`since the serving of the underlying Complaint in this case.
`
`56. Upon information and belief, Voxx and VEC, by virtue of their
`
`corporate relationship, knew of, or were willfully blind towards, the ‘402 patent at
`
`least since May 31, 2011, when Audiovox submitted an Information Disclosure
`
`Statement during the prosecution of U.S. utility patent application Ser. No.
`
`11/272,002, identifying the ’402 patent as one of the prior art references.
`
`57. Since becoming aware of, or being willfully blind towards, the ‘402
`
`patent, Voxx and VEC have continued to intentionally, actively, and knowingly
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`12
`
`Page 12 of 30
`
`PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT 1003
`
`

`
`Case 5:14-cv-02591-ODW-DTB Document 1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 13 of 30 Page ID #:13
`
`
`
`1
`
`make, use, sell, offer to sell, and/or import one or more of the Accused Headrest
`
`2
`
`Systems-II through their retailers, resellers, distributors, websites (including but
`
`3
`
`not limited to www.voxxintl.com), as well as in other ways.
`
`4
`
`58. Since becoming aware of, or being willfully blind towards, the ‘402
`
`5
`
`patent, Voxx’s and VEC’s advertising, sales, and/or installation materials in
`
`6
`
`relation to the Accused Headrest Systems-II have intentionally, actively,
`
`7
`
`knowingly, and willfully contained and continues to contain instructions,
`
`8
`
`directions, suggestions, and/or
`
`invitations
`
`that
`
`intentionally, actively, and
`
`9
`
`knowingly invite, entice, lead on, influence, encourage, prevail on, move by
`
`10
`
`persuasion, cause, and/or influence the public, Voxx’s and VEC’s distributors,
`
`11
`
`retailers, customers, and/or www.voxxintl.com website users to, at least, replace
`
`12
`
`existing headrest-mounted video systems with the Accused Headrest Systems-II,
`
`13
`
`and thereby directly infringe at least Claim 10 of the ‘402 patent, either literally or
`
`14
`
`under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`15
`
`59. Since becoming aware of, or being willfully blind towards, the ‘402
`
`16
`
`patent, Voxx and VEC were willfully blind or knew that the public’s, the
`
`17
`
`distributors’, the retailers’, the customers’ and/or the website users’ acts relative to
`
`18
`
`replacing the existing headrest-mounted video systems with the Accused Headrest
`
`19
`
`Systems-II, directly infringe, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, at
`
`20
`
`least claim 10 of the ‘402 patent.
`
`21
`
`60. For these reasons, Voxx and VEC are liable for inducing infringement
`
`22
`
`of the ‘402 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`COUNT III: THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`
`(INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,379,125)
`
`61. The Plaintiff incorporates its previous allegations by the reference.
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`13
`
`Page 13 of 30
`
`PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT 1003
`
`

`
`Case 5:14-cv-02591-ODW-DTB Document 1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 14 of 30 Page ID #:14
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Accused Products
`
`62. At least Invision has been and is now making, using, selling, offering
`
`for sale within the United States, and/or importing into the United States, at least
`
`the following overhead video system: Invision G10. At least Voxx and VEC have
`
`been and are now making, using, selling, offering for sale within the United States,
`
`and/or importing into the United States, at least the following overhead video
`
`systems: Advent ADVDLX10.
`
` Both the Invision G10 and the Advent
`
`ADVDLX10, as well as the other of Defendants’ in-vehicle roof-mounted video
`
`systems, that infringe the ‘125 patent, will be collectively referred as the “Accused
`
`Overhead Systems-I” hereinafter.
`
`Direct Infringement
`
`63. By so making, using, selling, or offering to sell within the United
`
`States, and/or importing into the United States at least the aforementioned Accused
`
`Overhead Systems-I, one or more of the Defendants have directly infringed and
`
`continue to infringe at least claim 1 of the ‘125 patent, either literally or under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents.
`
`64. To the extent that the other Defendants direct and/or control the acts
`
`of Invision, those Defendants are liable for Invision’s acts. Upon information and
`
`belief, at least Thomas C. Malone, President of Audiovox Electronics Corp.,
`
`directed and controlled the actions of Invision after its purchase. Upon
`
`information and belief, Mr. Malone is also the Senior Vice President of Sales at
`
`Voxx International Corporation and has been since 2006.
`
`Inducement of Infringement
`
`65. The Defendants have had actual knowledge of the ‘125 patent at least
`
`since the serving of the underlying Complaint in this case.
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`14
`
`Page 14 of 30
`
`PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT 1003
`
`

`
`Case 5:14-cv-02591-ODW-DTB Document 1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 15 of 30 Page ID #:15
`
`
`
`1
`
`66. Upon information and belief, each of the Defendants, by virtue of
`
`2
`
`their corporate relationship, knew of, or were willfully blind towards, the ‘125
`
`3
`
`patent at least since December 1, 2009, when Audiovox submitted an Information
`
`4
`
`Disclosure Statement during the prosecution of U.S. utility patent application Ser.
`
`5
`
`No. 11/649,121, identifying the ’125 patent as one of the prior art references.
`
`6
`
`67. Upon information and belief, each of the Defendants, by virtue of
`
`7
`
`their corporate relationship, knew of, or was willfully blind towards, the ‘125
`
`8
`
`patent at least since October 10, 2009, when the ‘125 patent was cited by the
`
`9
`
`examiner during the prosecution of Audiovox’ U.S. utility patent application Ser.
`
`10
`
`No. 11/593,380 as one of the prior art references.
`
`11
`
`68. Upon information and belief, each of the Defendants, by virtue of
`
`12
`
`their corporate relationship, knew of, or was willfully blind towards, the ‘125
`
`13
`
`patent at least since February 22, 2012, when the ‘125 patent was cited by the
`
`14
`
`examiner during the prosecution of Voxx’ U.S. utility patent application Ser. No.
`
`15
`
`11/691,168 as one of the prior art references.
`
`16
`
`69. Upon information and belief, Invision is a competitor of Johnson
`
`17
`
`Safety and is thus aware of the ‘125 patent.
`
`18
`
`70.
`
`Invision assigned U.S. Pat. No. 6,339,455 to Johnson Safety and at
`
`19
`
`least since that time has, upon information and belief, had actual knowledge, or
`
`20
`
`been willfully blind towards, patents assigned to Johnson Safety.
`
`21
`
`71. Since becoming aware of, or being willfully blind towards, the ‘125
`
`22
`
`patent, the Defendants have continued to intentionally, actively, and knowingly
`
`23
`
`make, use, sell, offer to sell, and/or import one or more of the Accused Overhead
`
`24
`
`Systems-I through their retailers, resellers, distributors, websites (including but not
`
`25
`
`limited to www.voxxintlcorp.com and www.invisionautomotive.com), as well as
`
`26
`
`in other ways.
`
`27
`
`72. Since becoming aware of, or being willfully blind towards, the ‘125
`
`28
`
`patent, the Defendants’ advertising, sales, and/or installation in relation to the
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`15
`
`Page 15 of 30
`
`PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT 1003
`
`

`
`Case 5:14-cv-02591-ODW-DTB Document 1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 16 of 30 Page ID #:16
`
`
`
`1
`
`Accused Overhead Systems-I have intentionally, actively, knowingly, and
`
`2
`
`willfully contained and continues to contain instructions, directions, suggestions,
`
`3
`
`and/or invitations that intentionally, actively, and knowingly invite, entice, lead on,
`
`4
`
`influence, encourage, prevail on, move by persuasion, cause, and/or influence the
`
`5
`
`public,
`
`the Defendants’
`
`distributors,
`
`retailers,
`
`customers,
`
`and/or
`
`6
`
`www.voxxintlcorp.com and www.invisionautomotive.com website users to, at
`
`7
`
`least, make, use, sell, offer to sell, or import one or more of the Accused Overhead
`
`8
`
`Systems-I to practice the inventions claimed in the ‘125 patent, and thus directly
`
`9
`
`infringe at least claim 1 of the ‘125 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of
`
`10
`
`equivalents.
`
`11
`
`73. Since becoming aware of, or being willfully blind towards, the ‘125
`
`12
`
`patent, the Defendants were willfully blind or knew that the public’s, the
`
`13
`
`distributors’, the retailers’, the customers’ and/or the website users’ acts relative to
`
`14
`
`making, using, selling, offering to sell, importing, leasing, and/or offering to lease
`
`15
`
`one or more of the Accused Overhead Systems-I to practice the inventions claimed
`
`16
`
`in the ‘125 patent, directly infringe, either literally or under the doctrine of
`
`17
`
`equivalents, at least claim 1 of the ‘125 patent.
`
`18
`
`74. For these reasons, the Defendants are liable for inducing infringement
`
`19
`
`of at least claim 1 of the ‘125 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of
`
`20
`
`equivalents.
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28