Case 6:15-cv-00630-JRG-JDL Document 1 Filed 07/01/15 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO.
`
`PATENT CASE
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`CHRIMAR SYSTEMS, INC. D/B/A
`CMS TECHNOLOGIES AND
`CHRIMAR HOLDING COMPANY, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiffs Chrimar Systems Inc. d/b/a CMS Technologies (“Chrimar”) and Chrimar
`
`Holding Company, LLC (“Holding”) file this Original Complaint (“the Complaint”) for
`
`infringement of United States Patent Nos. 8,155,012 (“the ’012 Patent”), 8,942,107 (“the ’107
`
`Patent”), 8,902,760 (“the ’760 Patent”), and 9,019,838 (“the ’838 Patent”), collectively the
`
`“Patents-in-Suit.”
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Chrimar is a Michigan corporation with a place of business located at 36528 Grand River
`
`Avenue, Suite A-1, Farmington Hills, Michigan 48335.
`
`2.
`
`Holding is a Texas limited liability company with a place of business located at 911 NW
`
`Loop 281, Suite 211-14, Longview, Texas 75604.
`
`3.
`
`Chrimar and Holding are collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs” or “CMS.”
`
`CHRIMAR V. JUNIPER – ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`PAGE 1
`
`JUNIPER Ex 1015-pg. 1
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO.
`
`PATENT CASE
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`CHRIMAR SYSTEMS, INC. D/B/A
`CMS TECHNOLOGIES AND
`CHRIMAR HOLDING COMPANY, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiffs Chrimar Systems Inc. d/b/a CMS Technologies (“Chrimar”) and Chrimar
`
`Holding Company, LLC (“Holding”) file this Original Complaint (“the Complaint”) for
`
`infringement of United States Patent Nos. 8,155,012 (“the ’012 Patent”), 8,942,107 (“the ’107
`
`Patent”), 8,902,760 (“the ’760 Patent”), and 9,019,838 (“the ’838 Patent”), collectively the
`
`“Patents-in-Suit.”
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Chrimar is a Michigan corporation with a place of business located at 36528 Grand River
`
`Avenue, Suite A-1, Farmington Hills, Michigan 48335.
`
`2.
`
`Holding is a Texas limited liability company with a place of business located at 911 NW
`
`Loop 281, Suite 211-14, Longview, Texas 75604.
`
`3.
`
`Chrimar and Holding are collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs” or “CMS.”
`
`CHRIMAR V. JUNIPER – ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`PAGE 1
`
`JUNIPER Ex 1015-pg. 1
`
`
`
`Case 6:15-cv-00630-JRG-JDL Document 1 Filed 07/01/15 Page 2 of 9 PageID #: 2
`
`4.
`
`Juniper Networks, Inc. (“Juniper”) is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
`
`business located at 1133 Innovation Way, Sunnyvale, California 94089. This Court has personal
`
`jurisdiction over Juniper.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400(b).
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant has engaged in
`
`continuous and systematic activities in the state of Texas, including in this district.
`
`PATENTS-IN-SUIT
`
`9.
`
`Chrimar is the owner and assignee of the ’012 Patent, entitled “System and Method for
`
`Adapting a Piece of Terminal Equipment” and Holding is the exclusive licensee of the ’012
`
`Patent. CMS owns all substantial rights in the ’012 Patent. A true and correct copy of the ’012
`
`Patent is attached as Exhibit A.
`
`10.
`
`The ’012 Patent is valid, enforceable, and was duly issued in full compliance with Title
`
`35 of the United States Code.
`
`11.
`
`Chrimar is the owner and assignee of the ’107 Patent, entitled “Piece of Ethernet
`
`Terminal Equipment” and Holding is the exclusive licensee of the ’107 Patent. CMS owns all
`
`substantial rights in the ’107 Patent. A true and correct copy of the ’107 Patent is attached as
`
`Exhibit B.
`
`CHRIMAR V. JUNIPER – ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`PAGE 2
`
`JUNIPER Ex 1015-pg. 2
`
`
`
`Case 6:15-cv-00630-JRG-JDL Document 1 Filed 07/01/15 Page 3 of 9 PageID #: 3
`
`12.
`
`The ’107 Patent is valid, enforceable and was duly issued in full compliance with Title 35
`
`of the United States Code.
`
`13.
`
`Chrimar is the owner and assignee of the ’760 Patent, entitled “Network System and
`
`Optional Tethers” and Holding is the exclusive licensee of the ’760 Patent. CMS owns all
`
`substantial rights in the ’760 Patent. A true and correct copy of the ’760 Patent is attached as
`
`Exhibit C.
`
`14.
`
`The ’760 Patent is valid, enforceable and was duly issued in full compliance with Title 35
`
`of the United States Code.
`
`15.
`
`Chrimar is the owner and assignee of the ’838 Patent, entitled “Central Piece of Network
`
`Equipment” and Holding is the exclusive licensee of the ’838 Patent. CMS owns all substantial
`
`rights in the ’838 Patent. A true and correct copy of the ’838 Patent is attached as Exhibit D.
`
`16.
`
`The ’838 Patent is valid, enforceable and was duly issued in full compliance with Title 35
`
`of the United States Code.
`
`DEFENDANT’S ACCUSED PRODUCTS
`
`17.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant makes, uses, offers to sell, sells, and/or imports
`
`Power over Ethernet (“PoE”) powered devices (“PDs”) that comply with and/or are compatible
`
`with IEEE 802.3af and/or 802.3at. Such products include, but are not limited to, wireless access
`
`points such as the WLA321 Access Point, collectively the “Accused PD Products.”
`
`18.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant makes, uses, offers to sell, sells, and/or imports
`
`PoE power sourcing equipment (“PSEs”) that comply with and/or are compatible with IEEE
`
`802.3af and/or 802.3at. Such products include, but are not limited to, PoE switches such as the
`
`EX200 (w/PoE) Switch, collectively the “Accused PSE Products.”
`
`CHRIMAR V. JUNIPER – ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`PAGE 3
`
`JUNIPER Ex 1015-pg. 3
`
`
`
`Case 6:15-cv-00630-JRG-JDL Document 1 Filed 07/01/15 Page 4 of 9 PageID #: 4
`
`19.
`
`The Accused PD Products and the Accused PSE Products are collectively the “Accused
`
`Products.”
`
`20.
`
`Upon information and belief, the Accused Products are offered for sale and sold
`
`throughout the United States, including within the Eastern District of Texas.
`
`21.
`
`Defendant has purposefully and voluntarily placed the Accused Products into the stream
`
`of commerce with the expectation that these products will be purchased and used by end users in
`
`the United States, including end users in the Eastern District of Texas.
`
`22.
`
`Defendant provides direct and indirect support concerning the Accused Products to end
`
`users, including end users within the Eastern District of Texas.
`
`COUNT I
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,155,012
`
`CMS incorporates paragraphs 1 through 22 herein by reference.
`
`Defendant has and continues to directly infringe the ’012 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C.
`
`23.
`
`24.
`
`§ 271(a) by making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing into the United States the
`
`Accused PD Products.
`
`25.
`
`Defendant has and continues to indirectly infringe the ’012 Patent in violation of 35
`
`U.S.C. § 271(b) by inducing its partners, customers, distributors, and/or end users to use, offer
`
`for sale, and sell the Accused PD Products, and therefore Defendant induces others to directly
`
`infringe the ’012 Patent.
`
`26.
`
`27.
`
`End users that use the Accused PD Products directly infringe the ’012 Patent.
`
`Defendant has been on notice of the ’012 Patent since at least as early as the filing date of
`
`this Complaint.
`
`CHRIMAR V. JUNIPER – ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`PAGE 4
`
`JUNIPER Ex 1015-pg. 4
`
`
`
`Case 6:15-cv-00630-JRG-JDL Document 1 Filed 07/01/15 Page 5 of 9 PageID #: 5
`
`28.
`
`CMS has been damaged as a result of Defendant’s infringing conduct described in this
`
`Count.
`
`COUNT II
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,942,107
`
`CMS incorporates paragraphs 1 through 28 herein by reference.
`
`Defendant has and continues to directly infringe the ’107 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C.
`
`29.
`
`30.
`
`§ 271(a) by making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing into the United States the
`
`Accused PD Products.
`
`31.
`
`Defendant has and continues to indirectly infringe the ’107 Patent in violation of 35
`
`U.S.C. § 271(b) by inducing its partners, customers, distributors, and/or end users to use, offer
`
`for sale, and sell the Accused PD Products, and therefore Defendant induces others to directly
`
`infringe the ’107 Patent.
`
`32.
`
`33.
`
`End users that use the Accused PD Products directly infringe the ’107 Patent.
`
`Defendant has been on notice of the ’107 Patent since at least as early as the filing date of
`
`this Complaint.
`
`34.
`
`CMS has been damaged as a result of Defendant’s infringing conduct described in this
`
`Count.
`
`
`
`
`
`CHRIMAR V. JUNIPER – ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`PAGE 5
`
`JUNIPER Ex 1015-pg. 5
`
`
`
`Case 6:15-cv-00630-JRG-JDL Document 1 Filed 07/01/15 Page 6 of 9 PageID #: 6
`
`COUNT III
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,902,760
`
`CMS incorporates paragraphs 1 through 34 herein by reference.
`
`Defendant has and continues to directly infringe the ’760 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C.
`
`35.
`
`36.
`
`§ 271(a) by making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing into the United States the
`
`Accused Products.
`
`37.
`
`Defendant has and continues to indirectly infringe the ’760 Patent in violation of 35
`
`U.S.C. § 271(b) by inducing its partners, customers, distributors, and/or end users to use, offer
`
`for sale, and sell the Accused Products, and therefore Defendant induces others to directly
`
`infringe the ’760 Patent.
`
`38.
`
`Defendant has and continues to indirectly infringe the ’760 Patent in violation of 35
`
`U.S.C. § 271(c) by offering to sell, selling, and/or importing the Accused Products into the
`
`United States.
`
`39.
`
`The Accused PD Products and/or Accused PSE Products are components of a patented
`
`machine, manufacture, combination, or system, constitute a material part of the invention as
`
`claimed in the ’760 Patent, and Defendant knows the same to be especially made or especially
`
`adapted for use in a manner that infringes one or more claims of the ’760 Patent.
`
`40.
`
`The Accused Products are not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for
`
`substantial noninfringing use.
`
`41.
`
`42.
`
`End users that use the Accused Products directly infringe the ’760 Patent.
`
`Defendant has been on notice of the ’760 Patent since at least as early as the filing date of
`
`this Complaint.
`
`CHRIMAR V. JUNIPER – ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`PAGE 6
`
`JUNIPER Ex 1015-pg. 6
`
`
`
`Case 6:15-cv-00630-JRG-JDL Document 1 Filed 07/01/15 Page 7 of 9 PageID #: 7
`
`43.
`
`CMS has been damaged as a result of Defendant’s infringing conduct described in this
`
`Count.
`
`44.
`
`45.
`
`COUNT IV
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,019,838
`
`CMS incorporates paragraphs 1 through 43 herein by reference.
`
`Defendant has and continues to directly infringe the ’838 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 271(a) by making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing into the United States the
`
`Accused PSE Products.
`
`46.
`
`Defendant has and continues to indirectly infringe the ’838 Patent in violation of 35
`
`U.S.C. § 271(b) by inducing its partners, customers, distributors, and/or end users to use, offer
`
`for sale, and sell the Accused PSE Products, and therefore Defendant induces others to directly
`
`infringe the ’838 Patent.
`
`47.
`
`48.
`
`End users that use the Accused PSE Products directly infringe the ’838 Patent.
`
`Defendant has been on notice of the ’838 Patent since at least as early as the filing date of
`
`this Complaint.
`
`49.
`
`CMS has been damaged as a result of Defendant’s infringing conduct described in this
`
`Count.
`
`ADDITIONAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`50.
`
`CMS has complied with 35 U.S.C. § 287.
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`
`
`CMS hereby requests a trial by jury pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil
`
`Procedure.
`
`CHRIMAR V. JUNIPER – ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`PAGE 7
`
`JUNIPER Ex 1015-pg. 7
`
`
`
`Case 6:15-cv-00630-JRG-JDL Document 1 Filed 07/01/15 Page 8 of 9 PageID #: 8
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`
`
`CMS requests that this Court find in its favor and against Defendant, and that this Court
`
`grant CMS the following relief:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Enter judgment that Defendant has infringed the Patents-in-Suit;
`
`Award Plaintiffs damages in an amount adequate to compensate Plaintiffs for
`
`Defendant’s infringement of the Patents-in-Suit, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty in
`
`accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 284;
`
`c.
`
`Award Plaintiffs pre-judgment and post-judgment interest to the full extent
`
`allowed under the law, as well as their costs;
`
`d.
`
`Order Defendant to pay a reasonable royalty for each future infringement of the
`
`Patents-in-Suit;
`
`e.
`
`Declare that this is an exceptional case and award Plaintiffs their reasonable
`
`attorneys’ fees incurred in this action;
`
`f.
`
`Award such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate and just under the
`
`circumstances.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CHRIMAR V. JUNIPER – ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`PAGE 8
`
`JUNIPER Ex 1015-pg. 8
`
`
`
`Case 6:15-cv-00630-JRG-JDL Document 1 Filed 07/01/15 Page 9 of 9 PageID #: 9
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/ Justin S. Cohen
`Justin S. Cohen
` Texas State Bar No. 24078356
` Justin.Cohen@tklaw.com
`Richard L. Wynne, Jr.
` Texas State Bar No. 24003214
` Richard.Wynne@tklaw.com
`
`THOMPSON & KNIGHT LLP
`One Arts Plaza
`1722 Routh St., Suite 1500
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`214.969.1211
`214.880.1599 (Fax)
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
`CHRIMAR SYSTEMS, INC. D/B/A CMS
`TECHNOLOGIES and CHRIMAR HOLDING
`COMPANY, LLC
`
`
`Dated: July 1, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CHRIMAR V. JUNIPER – ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`PAGE 9
`
`JUNIPER Ex 1015-pg. 9
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
