`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`Civil Action No.
`__________
`
`IRONBURG INVENTIONS LTD. a
`United Kingdom Limited Company,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`COLLECTIVE MINDS GAMING
`CO. LTD., a Canadian Limited
`Company,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`IRONBURG EX2014, Page 1
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-04110-TWT Document 1 Filed 11/02/16 Page 2 of 22
`
`Plaintiff Ironburg Inventions Ltd. (“Plaintiff”), by and through counsel, files
`
`this Complaint for patent infringement and demand for jury trial against Defendant
`
`Collective Minds Gaming Co. Ltd. (“Defendant”).
`
`Plaintiff alleges as follows:
`
`PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff Ironburg Inventions Ltd. (“Ironburg”) is a company organized and
`
`existing under the laws of the United Kingdom having its principal place of
`
`business at 10 Market Place, Wincanton, BA9 9LP, Great Britain.
`
`2.
`
`Ironburg conducts business in the United States by and through Scuf
`
`Gaming International, LLC (“Scuf Gaming”), a Georgia-based manufacturer,
`
`wholesaler, retailer, and restorer of custom video game equipment and accessories,
`
`including video game controllers (“gaming controllers”), which include Plaintiff’s
`
`patented technology.
`
`3.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Collective Minds Gaming Co. Ltd.
`
`(“Collective Minds”) is a company organized and existing under the laws of
`
`Canada, having a place of business at 8515 Place Devonshire, Suite 205, Mount
`
`Royal, Quebec H4P 2K1, Canada.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`4.
`
`This is a complaint for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`IRONBURG EX2014, Page 2
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-04110-TWT Document 1 Filed 11/02/16 Page 3 of 22
`
`the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction
`
`under 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1338(a).
`
`5.
`
`Defendant has committed acts and continues to commit acts within this
`
`District giving rise to this action, and venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)
`
`and §1400(b).
`
`6.
`
`On February 4, 2014, United States Patent No. 8,641,525 (hereafter the “
`
`'525 Patent”) entitled, “CONTROLLER FOR VIDEO GAME CONSOLE,” was
`
`duly and legally issued to Plaintiff Ironburg. A copy of the '525 Patent is annexed
`
`hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`7.
`
`On July 28, 2015, United States Patent No. 9,089,770 (hereafter the “ '770
`
`Patent”) entitled, “CONTROLLER FOR VIDEO GAME CONSOLE,” which is a
`
`continuation of the '525 Patent, was duly and legally issued to Plaintiff Ironburg.
`
`A copy of the '770 Patent is annexed hereto as Exhibit B.
`
`8.
`
`On March 22, 2016, United States Patent No. 9,289,688 (hereafter the “ '688
`
`Patent”) entitled, “GAMES CONTROLLER,” was duly and legally issued to
`
`Plaintiff Ironburg. A copy of the '688 Patent is annexed hereto as Exhibit C.
`
`9.
`
`On May 31, 2016, United States Patent No. 9,352, 229 (hereinafter the “'229
`
`Patent”) entitled “CONTROLLER FOR A GAMESCONSOLE,” was duly and
`
`legally issued to Ironburg. A copy of the '229 Patent is annexed hereto as
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`IRONBURG EX2014, Page 3
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-04110-TWT Document 1 Filed 11/02/16 Page 4 of 22
`
`Exhibit D.
`
`10. On April 12, 2016, United States Patent No. 9,308,450 (hereinafter the “'450
`
`Patent”) entitled “GAME CONTROLLER,” was duly and legally issued to
`
`Ironburg. A copy of the '450 Patent is annexed hereto as Exhibit E.
`
`11. Plaintiff Ironburg is the owner and assignee of record of the 525, the '770,
`
`the '688, the '229 and the '450 Patents (together the “Patents-in-Suit”).
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`12. As part of its business, Plaintiff licenses its patents, including to Scuf
`
`Gaming and Microsoft Corporation.
`
`13. Defendant is presently making, using, importing, marketing, selling, and/or
`
`offering to sell gaming controller products, including but not limited to
`
`Defendant’s Strike Pack product and Defendant’s Trigger Grips product1, in this
`
`District and elsewhere in the United States, which products are intended to be used,
`
`per instructions that Defendant provides to its customers, to modify Microsoft
`
`Xbox One gaming controllers, with the result being that the modified Xbox One
`
`gaming controllers incorporate one or more of Plaintiff’s patented technologies.
`
`
`1 Pictures from Defendant’s website of Defendant’s Strike Pack product
`(http://www.collectiveminds.ca/cm00030.html) and of Defendant’s Trigger Grips
`product (http://www.collectiveminds.ca/cm00090.html), and which include
`instructions for using those products to modify Xbox One gaming controllers, are
`annexed hereto as Exhibit F.
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`IRONBURG EX2014, Page 4
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-04110-TWT Document 1 Filed 11/02/16 Page 5 of 22
`
`14. At least as early as March 4, 2016, in written and oral communications with
`
`Collective Minds, Ironburg notified Collective Minds that its marketing of gaming
`
`controller products, including Collective Minds’ Strike Pack product and Trigger
`
`Grips product, when used as intended to modify Xbox One gaming controllers,
`
`resulted in gaming controllers that infringed Ironburg’s gaming controller patents.
`
`In those pre-suit communications with Collective Minds, Ironburg specifically
`
`identified various claims in patents and then-pending patent applications as being
`
`met by Xbox One gaming controllers modified with Collective Minds gaming
`
`controller products as follows:
`
`(cid:120)
`
`On March 4, 2016
`o Claim 20 of the '525 Patent (related to Collective Minds’ Strike
`
`Pack)
`o Claim 1 of the '770 Patent (related to Collective Minds’ Strike
`
`Pack)
`o Claim 1 of the then-pending patent application for the yet-to-
`
`be-issued '450 Patent (related to Collective Minds’ Trigger
`
`Grips)
`
`(cid:120)
`
`On March 29, 2016
`o Claim 1 of the '688 Patent (related to Collective Minds’ Strike
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`IRONBURG EX2014, Page 5
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-04110-TWT Document 1 Filed 11/02/16 Page 6 of 22
`
`Pack)
`
`(cid:120)
`
`(cid:120)
`
`On April 15, 2016
`o Claim 1 of the just-issued '450 Patent (related to Collective
`
`Minds’ Trigger Grips)
`
`On October 25, 2016
`o Claim 24 of the '229 Patent (related to Collective Minds’ Strike
`
`Pack)
`
`15. Despite the repeated notice that Ironburg provided Collective Minds
`
`regarding the '525, '770, '688, '229 and '450 Patents being infringed as a result of
`
`Collective Minds’ marketing of its gaming controller products, Collective Minds
`
`still continues to market those gaming controller products in the U.S., including
`
`through its website, and still continues to have U.S. retailers like GameStop,
`
`BestBuy USA, Amazon.com and EBGames sell those gaming controller products.
`
`See, e.g., http://www.collectivemindss.ca/index.html.
`
`COUNT I
`(Direct and Induced Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,641,525)
`
`16. Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 15 of this complaint as
`
`if fully set forth herein.
`
`17. Gaming controller products made, used and sold by the Defendant, including
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`IRONBURG EX2014, Page 6
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-04110-TWT Document 1 Filed 11/02/16 Page 7 of 22
`
`Defendant’s Strike Pack, when used as intended to modify Xbox One gaming
`
`controllers, including with instructions from Defendant on how its customers
`
`should modify the controllers, result in a modified gaming controller (“Strike Pack
`
`Modified Controller”).
`
`18. Each and every claim in the '525 patent is directed to a gaming controller.
`
`There are only two independent claims in the '525 patent: Claims 1 and 20. They
`
`are similar, but Claim 1 includes a limitation that Claim 20 does not (Claim 20
`
`does not specify that an element is resilient and flexible). Claims 1 and 20 include
`
`the following claim elements: (1) an outer case, (2) a front control, (3) shaped to be
`
`held in the hand of a user such that the user's thumb is positioned to operate the
`
`front control, and (4) two back controls with elongated members. The Strike Pack
`
`Modified Controller is a hand held controller that includes the aforementioned
`
`claim elements, viz., (1) an outer case, (2) a front control, (3) shaped to be held in
`
`the hand of a user such that the user's thumb is positioned to operate the front
`
`control, and (4) two back controls with elongated members. The remaining claims
`
`of the patent include the elements of Claim 1 and add additional limitations. For
`
`example, Claim 12 further requires that the elongate members are parallel to one
`
`another, and Claim 15 further requires a switch mechanism disposed between each
`
`of the elongate members and an outer surface of the back of the controller. The
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`IRONBURG EX2014, Page 7
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-04110-TWT Document 1 Filed 11/02/16 Page 8 of 22
`
`Strike Pack Modified Controller includes each element of exemplary Claims 1, 20
`
`and 12, 15. Plaintiff contends that the infringement is literal, but reserves the right
`
`to rely on the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`19. Defendant directly infringes the '525 patent by making the Strike Pack
`
`Modified Controller and advertising it to customers in the United States. See, e.g.,
`
`Exhibit F; see also www.collectivemindss.ca/index.html.
`
`20. Defendant’s customers directly infringe the '525 patent by making and using
`
`the Strike Pack Modified Controller in the United States.
`
`21. Defendant has induced and continues to induce its customers to directly
`
`infringe the '525 patent. Defendant (i) knew and still knows that that patent exists,
`
`(ii) knew and still knows that the acts it has induced and still is inducing (i.e. its
`
`customers’ modifications to create Strike Pack Modified Controllers using
`
`Defendant’s instructions) would cause infringement of that patent, and (iii)
`
`intended and still intends that those acts of inducement occur with the desired
`
`result (i.e. Xbox One gaming controllers being modified to create Strike Pack
`
`Modified Controllers, with infringement resulting therefrom).
`
`22. Defendant’s acts which cause infringement of the '525 Patent have caused
`
`and will continue to cause Plaintiff substantial and irreparable injury, for which
`
`Plaintiff is entitled to receive injunctive relief and damages adequate to
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`IRONBURG EX2014, Page 8
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-04110-TWT Document 1 Filed 11/02/16 Page 9 of 22
`
`compensate Plaintiff for such infringement.
`
`23. Plaintiff is entitled to damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 for Defendant’s acts to
`
`cause infringement of one or more claims of the '525 Patent.
`
`COUNT II
`(Direct and Induced Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,089,770)
`
`24. Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 23 of this complaint as
`
`if fully set forth herein.
`
`25. Gaming controller products made, used and sold by the Defendant, including
`
`Defendant’s Strike Pack, when used as intended to modify Xbox One gaming
`
`controllers, including with instructions from Defendant on how its customers
`
`should modify the controllers, result in a Strike Pack Modified Controller.
`
`26. Each and every claim in the '770 patent is directed to a gaming controller.
`
`There is only one independent claim in the '770 patent: Claim 1. Claim 1 includes
`
`the following claim elements: (1) an outer case, (2) two back controls with
`
`elongated members, (3) the first back control extending at least half the distance
`
`between the top and bottom of the controller, and (4) the second back control also
`
`extending at least half the distance between the top and bottom of the controller.
`
`The Strike Pack Modified Controller is a hand held controller that includes the
`
`aforementioned claim elements, viz., (1) an outer case, (2) two back controls with
`
`elongated members, (3) the first back control extending at least half the distance
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`IRONBURG EX2014, Page 9
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-04110-TWT Document 1 Filed 11/02/16 Page 10 of 22
`
`between the top and bottom of the controller, and (4) the second back control also
`
`extending at least half the distance between the top and bottom of the controller.
`
`The remaining claims of the patent include the elements of Claim 1 and add
`
`additional limitations. For example, Claim 13 further requires a switch mechanism
`
`disposed between each of the elongate members and an outer surface of the back of
`
`the controller. The Strike Pack Modified Controller includes each element of
`
`exemplary Claims 1 and 13. Plaintiff contends that the infringement is literal, but
`
`reserves the right to rely on the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`27. Defendant directly infringes the '770 patent by making the Strike Pack
`
`Modified Controller and advertising it to customers in the United States. See, e.g.,
`
`Exhibit F; see also www.collectivemindss.ca/index.html.
`
`28. Defendant’s customers directly infringe the '770 patent by making and using
`
`the Strike Pack Modified Controller in the United States.
`
`29. Defendant has induced and continues to induce its customers to directly
`
`infringe the '770 patent. Defendant (i) knew and still knows that that patent exists,
`
`(ii) knew and still knows that the acts it has induced and still is inducing (i.e. its
`
`customers’ modifications to create Strike Pack Modified Controllers using
`
`Defendant’s instructions) would cause infringement of that patent, and (iii)
`
`intended and still intends that those acts of inducement occur with the desired
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`IRONBURG EX2014, Page 10
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-04110-TWT Document 1 Filed 11/02/16 Page 11 of 22
`
`result (i.e. Xbox One gaming controllers being modified to create Strike Pack
`
`Modified Controllers, with infringement resulting therefrom).
`
`30. Defendant’s acts which cause infringement of the '770 Patent have caused
`
`and will continue to cause Plaintiff substantial and irreparable injury, for which
`
`Plaintiff is entitled to receive injunctive relief and damages adequate to
`
`compensate Plaintiff for such infringement.
`
`31. Plaintiff is entitled to damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 for Defendant’s acts to
`
`cause infringement of one or more claims of the '770 Patent.
`
`COUNT III
`(Direct and Induced Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,289,688)
`
`32. Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 31 of this complaint as
`
`if fully set forth herein.
`
`33. Gaming controller products made, used and sold by the Defendant, including
`
`Defendant’s Strike Pack, when used as intended to modify Xbox One gaming
`
`controllers, including with instructions from Defendant on how its customers
`
`should modify the controllers, result in a Strike Pack Modified Controller.
`
`34. Each and every claim in the '688 patent is directed to a gaming controller.
`
`There are only two independent claims in the '688 patent: Claims 1 and 30. They
`
`are similar, but Claim 1 is directed to a controller with certain features and
`
`controls, and Claim 30 is directed to features and controls. Claim 1 includes the
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`IRONBURG EX2014, Page 11
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-04110-TWT Document 1 Filed 11/02/16 Page 12 of 22
`
`following claim elements: (1) an outer case, (2) multiple controls on the front and
`
`top of the case, (3) the case shaped to be held in two hands with the user's thumbs
`
`operating the top controls and index fingers operating the front controls, (4) at least
`
`one additional back control with an elongate member that is operable by the user’s
`
`middle, ring or little finger, (5) and the elongate member has one side disposed
`
`proximate an outer surface of the case and the opposite side is non-parallel with
`
`that outer surface. The Strike Pack Modified Controller is a hand held controller
`
`that includes the aforementioned claim elements, viz., (1) an outer case, (2)
`
`multiple controls on the front and top of the case, (3) the case shaped to be held in
`
`two hands with the user's thumbs operating the top controls and index fingers
`
`operating the front controls, (4) at least one additional back control with an
`
`elongate member that is operable by the user’s middle, ring or little finger, (5) and
`
`the elongate member has one side disposed proximate an outer surface of the case
`
`and the opposite side is non-parallel with that outer surface. The remaining claims
`
`of the patent include the elements of Claim 1 and add additional limitations. The
`
`Strike Pack Modified Controller includes each element of exemplary Claim 1.
`
`Plaintiff contends that the infringement is literal, but reserves the right to rely on
`
`the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`35. Defendant directly infringes the '688 patent by making the Strike Pack
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`IRONBURG EX2014, Page 12
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-04110-TWT Document 1 Filed 11/02/16 Page 13 of 22
`
`Modified Controller and advertising it to customers in the United States. See, e.g.,
`
`Exhibit F; see also www.collectivemindss.ca/index.html.
`
`36. Defendant’s customers directly infringe the '688 patent by making and using
`
`the Strike Pack Modified Controller in the United States.
`
`37. Defendant has induced and continues to induce its customers to directly
`
`infringe the '688 patent. Defendant (i) knew and still knows that that patent exists,
`
`(ii) knew and still knows that the acts it has induced and still is inducing (i.e. its
`
`customers’ modifications to create Strike Pack Modified Controllers using
`
`Defendant’s instructions) would cause infringement of that patent, and (iii)
`
`intended and still intends that those acts of inducement occur with the desired
`
`result (i.e. Xbox One gaming controllers being modified to create Strike Pack
`
`Modified Controllers, with infringement resulting therefrom).
`
`38. Defendant’s acts which cause infringement of the '688 Patent have caused
`
`and will continue to cause Plaintiff substantial and irreparable injury, for which
`
`Plaintiff is entitled to receive injunctive relief and damages adequate to
`
`compensate Plaintiff for such infringement.
`
`39. Plaintiff is entitled to damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 for Defendant’s acts to
`
`cause infringement of one or more claims of the '688 Patent.
`
`///
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`IRONBURG EX2014, Page 13
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-04110-TWT Document 1 Filed 11/02/16 Page 14 of 22
`
`COUNT IV
`(Direct and Induced Infringement Of U.S. Patent No. 9,352,229)
`40. Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 39 of this complaint as
`
`if fully set forth herein.
`
`41. Gaming controller products made, used and sold by the Defendant, including
`
`Defendant’s Strike Pack, when used as intended to modify Xbox One gaming
`
`controllers, including with instructions from Defendant on how its customers
`
`should modify the controllers, result in a Strike Pack Modified Controller.
`
`42. Each and every claim in the '229 patent is directed to a gaming controller.
`
`There are only two independent claim in the '229 patent: Claims 1 and 24. They
`
`are similar, but Claim 24 also includes an element for a mounting plate on the back
`
`of the controller. Claim 1 includes the following claim elements: (1) an outer
`
`case, (2) multiple controls on the front and top of the case, (3) the case is shaped to
`
`be held in two hands with the user's thumbs operating the top controls and index
`
`fingers operating the front controls, (4) at least one additional back control with an
`
`elongate member that is operable by the user’s middle finger, (5) the additional
`
`control is inherently resilient and flexible and can be displaced by the user to
`
`activate a control function, and (6) the elongate member is at least partially
`
`disposed in a respective channel located on the back of the outer case (the channel
`
`being elongated along a longitudinal dimension of the elongate member). The
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`IRONBURG EX2014, Page 14
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-04110-TWT Document 1 Filed 11/02/16 Page 15 of 22
`
`Strike Pack Modified Controller is a hand held controller that includes the
`
`aforementioned claim elements, viz., (1) an outer case, (2) multiple controls on the
`
`front and top of the case, (3) the case is shaped to be held in two hands with the
`
`user's thumbs operating the top controls and index fingers operating the front
`
`controls, (4) at least one additional back control with an elongate member that is
`
`operable by the user’s middle finger, (5) the additional control is inherently
`
`resilient and flexible and can be displaced by the user to activate a control function,
`
`and (6) the elongate member is at least partially disposed in a respective channel
`
`located on the back of the outer case (the channel being elongated along a
`
`longitudinal dimension of the elongate member). The Strike Pack Modified
`
`Controller also includes the additional aforementioned claim element of a
`
`mounting plate on the back of the controller. The remaining claims of the patent
`
`include the elements of Claim 1 and add additional limitations. The Strike Pack
`
`Modified Controller includes each element of exemplary Claims 1 and 24.
`
`Plaintiff contends that the infringement is literal, but reserves the right to rely on
`
`the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`43. Defendant directly infringes the '229 patent by making the Strike Pack
`
`Modified Controller and advertising it to customers in the United States. See, e.g.,
`
`Exhibit F; see also www.collectivemindss.ca/index.html.
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`IRONBURG EX2014, Page 15
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-04110-TWT Document 1 Filed 11/02/16 Page 16 of 22
`
`44. Defendant’s customers directly infringe the '229 patent by making and using
`
`the Strike Pack Modified Controller in the United States.
`
`45. Defendant has induced and continues to induce its customers to directly
`
`infringe the '229 patent. Defendant (i) knew and still knows that that patent exists,
`
`(ii) knew and still knows that the acts it has induced and still is inducing (i.e. its
`
`customers’ modifications to create Strike Pack Modified Controllers using
`
`Defendant’s instructions) would cause infringement of that patent, and (iii)
`
`intended and still intends that those acts of inducement occur with the desired
`
`result (i.e. Xbox One gaming controllers being modified to create Strike Pack
`
`Modified Controllers, with infringement resulting therefrom).
`
`46. Defendant’s acts which cause infringement of the '229 Patent have caused
`
`and will continue to cause Plaintiff substantial and irreparable injury, for which
`
`Plaintiff is entitled to receive injunctive relief and damages adequate to
`
`compensate Plaintiff for such infringement.
`
`47. Plaintiff is entitled to damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 for Defendant’s acts to
`
`cause infringement of one or more claims of the '229 Patent.
`
`COUNT V
`(Direct and Induced Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,289,688)
`
`48. Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 47 of this complaint as
`
`if fully set forth herein.
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`IRONBURG EX2014, Page 16
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-04110-TWT Document 1 Filed 11/02/16 Page 17 of 22
`
`49. Gaming controller products made, used and sold by the Defendant, including
`
`Defendant’s Trigger Grips, when used as intended to modify Xbox One gaming
`
`controllers, including with instructions from Defendant on how its customers
`
`should modify the controllers, result in a modified gaming controller (“Trigger
`
`Grips Modified Controller”).
`
`50. Each and every claim in the '450 patent is directed to a gaming controller.
`
`There is only one independent claim in the '450 patent: Claim 1. Claim 1 includes
`
`the following claim elements: (1) a chassis with an outer wall that includes an
`
`outer surface of the controller, (2) a trigger that extends through that outer wall and
`
`moves relative to the chassis, (3) a strike plate that is connected to and moves with
`
`the trigger, (4) a screw that goes through that outer wall and contacts the strike
`
`plate to adjustably define a command initiation point, and (5) the command
`
`initiation point is one end of a range of motion of the trigger. The Trigger Grips
`
`Modified Controller is a hand held controller that includes the aforementioned
`
`claim elements, viz., (1) a chassis with an outer wall that includes an outer surface
`
`of the controller, (2) a trigger that extends through that outer wall and moves
`
`relative to the chassis, (3) a strike plate that is connected to and moves with the
`
`trigger, (4) a screw that goes through that outer wall and contacts the strike plate to
`
`adjustably define a command initiation point, and (5) the command initiation point
`
`
`
`-16-
`
`
`
`IRONBURG EX2014, Page 17
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-04110-TWT Document 1 Filed 11/02/16 Page 18 of 22
`
`is one end of a range of motion of the trigger. The remaining claims of the patent
`
`include the elements of Claim 1 and add additional limitations. The Trigger Grips
`
`Modified Controller includes each element of exemplary Claim 1. Plaintiff
`
`contends that the infringement is literal, but reserves the right to rely on the
`
`doctrine of equivalents.
`
`51. Defendant directly infringes the '450 patent by making the Strike Pack
`
`Modified Controller and advertising it to customers in the United States. See, e.g.,
`
`Exhibit F; see also www.collectivemindss.ca/index.html.
`
`52. Defendant’s customers directly infringe the '450 patent by making and using
`
`the Strike Pack Modified Controller in the United States.
`
`53. Defendant has induced and continues to induce its customers to directly
`
`infringe the '450 patent. Defendant (i) knew and still knows that that patent exists,
`
`(ii) knew and still knows that the acts it has induced and still is inducing (i.e. its
`
`customers’ modifications to create Trigger Grips Modified Controllers using
`
`Defendant’s instructions) would cause infringement of that patent, and (iii)
`
`intended and still intends that those acts of inducement occur with the desired
`
`result (i.e. Xbox One gaming controllers being modified to create Trigger Grips
`
`Modified Controllers, with infringement resulting therefrom).
`
`54. Defendant’s acts which cause infringement of the '450 Patent have caused
`
`
`
`-17-
`
`
`
`IRONBURG EX2014, Page 18
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-04110-TWT Document 1 Filed 11/02/16 Page 19 of 22
`
`and will continue to cause Plaintiff substantial and irreparable injury, for which
`
`Plaintiff is entitled to receive injunctive relief and damages adequate to
`
`compensate Plaintiff for such infringement.
`
`55. Plaintiff is entitled to damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 for Defendant’s acts to
`
`cause infringement of one or more claims of the '450 Patent.
`
`INCREASED DAMAGES UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 284
`56. Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 55 of this Complaint as
`
`if fully set forth herein.
`
`57. Plaintiff is entitled to increased or enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C.
`
`Section 284 for ongoing egregious and willful misconduct. Collective Minds’
`
`infringement and inducing infringement has been and is willful and its conduct has
`
`been and is egregious.
`
`58. Collective Minds’ egregious and willful misconduct includes but is not
`
`limited to the continued, deliberate sale of gaming controller products, including
`
`the Strike Pack and Trigger Grips, and instructing its customers to use those
`
`products to modify Xbox One gaming controllers, despite repeated and ever
`
`increasing notifications and cease and desist demands from Ironburg that Xbox
`
`One controllers modified with those products infringe at least four Ironburg
`
`patents. Collective Minds’ egregious conduct is beyond what is found in a typical
`
`
`
`-18-
`
`
`
`IRONBURG EX2014, Page 19
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-04110-TWT Document 1 Filed 11/02/16 Page 20 of 22
`
`patent case.
`
`59. Collective Minds has and continues to sell the accused controller products
`
`and to instruct its customers to use those products to modify Xbox One gaming
`
`controllers despite actual knowledge that such modified controllers actually
`
`infringe at least the four patents at issue in this suit.
`
`60. Additionally, Collective Minds acted despite a high likelihood that its
`
`actions, including but not limited to its marketing and sales of its Strike Pack and
`
`Trigger Grips products, together with Collective Minds’ instructions to its
`
`customers, constituted infringement and inducement to infringe of the Patents-in-
`
`Suit. Collective Minds acted despite the fact that the risk of such infringement
`
`should have been known to the Collective Minds and was actually known to
`
`Collective Minds. Collective Minds’ infringement and inducement, including but
`
`not limited to its marketing and sales of the Strike Pack and Trigger Grips and
`
`instructing its customers to use those products to modify Xbox One gaming
`
`controllers, has been with actual notice of infringement of each of the Patents-in-
`
`Suit, including as a result of Ironburg’s communications with Collective Minds
`
`regarding Defendant’s Strike Pack and Trigger Grips products and Ironburg’s
`
`patents and patent applications.
`
`///
`
`
`
`-19-
`
`
`
`IRONBURG EX2014, Page 20
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-04110-TWT Document 1 Filed 11/02/16 Page 21 of 22
`
`REQUEST FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court grant the
`
`following relief:
`
`A. The entry of judgment declaring that Defendant has induced infringed
`
`each of the Patents-in-Suit;
`
`B. An award of all available damages, including, but not limited to any lost
`
`profits from Defendant’s inducing infringement of the Patents-in-Suit, but in any
`
`event not less than a reasonable royalty, together with pre-judgment and post-
`
`judgment interest;
`
`C. An injunction restraining Defendant and its affiliates, subsidiaries,
`
`officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, representatives, licensees,
`
`successors, assigns, and all those acting for them and on their behalf, from further
`
`inducing infringement of the Patents-in-Suit, as well as any other contributions to
`
`infringement of the Patents-in-Suit;
`
`D. The entry of an order declaring that this is an exceptional case and
`
`awarding Plaintiff its costs, expenses, and reasonable attorney fees under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 285 and all other applicable statutes, rules, and common law;
`
`E. An award of enhanced and treble damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 for
`
`Defendant's egregious conduct beyond what is found in a typical patent case; AND
`
`
`
`-20-
`
`
`
`IRONBURG EX2014, Page 21
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-04110-TWT Document 1 Filed 11/02/16 Page 22 of 22
`
`F. An order awarding Plaintiff any such other relief as the Court may deem
`
`just and proper under the circumstances.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Plaintiff demands trial by jury on all claims and issues so triable.
`
`
`
`Dated: November 2, 2016
`
`
`
`317887093.1
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Cynthia R. Parks
`Cynthia R. Parks
`GA Bar No. 563929
`PARKS IP LAW LLC
`730 Peachtree St. NE, Suite 600
`Atlanta, GA 30308
`Telephone: (678) 365-4444
`Facsimile: (678) 365-4450
`
`Of Counsel:
`Robert D. Becker
`CA Bar No. 160648
`MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP
`1841 Page Mill Road, Suite 200
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`Telephone: (650) 812-1300
`Facsimile: (650) 213-0260
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`IRONBURG INVENTIONS LTD.
`
`
`
`
`-21-
`
`
`
`IRONBURG EX2014, Page 22
`
`