Case 2:15-cv-01575-JRG Document 1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 1
`
`
`
`
`LOGANTREE LP
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`FITBIT INC.
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-cv-1575
`JURY DEMAND
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff LoganTree LP files this, its Original Complaint for patent infringement.
`
`Plaintiff asserts claims for patent infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576 (“the „576 Patent”),
`
`as reexamined, against Defendant Fitbit Inc. under 35 U.S.C. §271, et seq. In support thereof,
`
`Plaintiff would respectfully show the Court the following:
`
`PARTIES
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff LoganTree LP (“Plaintiff” or LoganTree”) is a Nevada corporation with
`
`its principal place of business located at 123 W. Nye Lane, Carson City, NV 89706.
`
`3.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant Fitbit Inc. (“Defendant” or “Fitbit”) is a
`
`Delaware corporation having its principal place of business located at 405 Howard Street, San
`
`Francisco, California, 94105. Defendant may be served through its registered agent, The
`
`Company Corporation, 2711 Centerville Road, Suite 400, Wilmington, Delaware, 19808.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01575-JRG Document 1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 2
`
`
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`4.
`
`This is an action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the
`
`United States, Title 35, United States Code. This Court has exclusive subject matter jurisdiction
`
`over this case for patent infringement under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`5.
`
` This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Fitbit because Fitbit is
`
`present within and/or has minimum contacts with the State of Texas and the Eastern District of
`
`Texas; Fitbit has purposefully availed itself of the privileges of conducting business in the State
`
`of Texas and in the Eastern District of Texas; Fitbit has sought protection and benefit from the
`
`laws of the State of Texas; Fitbit regularly conducts business within the State of Texas and
`
`within the Eastern District of Texas; Fitbit has purposefully and voluntarily placed infringing
`
`products in the stream of commerce with the expectation that its products will be purchased by
`
`end users in the State of Texas and in the Eastern District of Texas; Fitbit has committed the tort
`
`of patent infringement within the State of Texas and within this Judicial District; and Plaintiff‟s
`
`causes of action arise directly from Fitbit‟s business contacts and other activities in the State of
`
`Texas and in the Eastern District of Texas.
`
`6.
`
`More specifically, Fitbit directly and/or through intermediaries (including
`
`distributors, retailers, and others) ships, distributes, offers for sale, sells, and/or advertises its
`
`products in the United States, the State of Texas, and the Eastern District of Texas, including but
`
`not limited to the Accused Products identified below. Fitbit solicits customers in the State of
`
`Texas and in the Eastern District of Texas. Fitbit has customers who are residents of the State of
`
`Texas and the Eastern District of Texas and who use Fitbit‟s products and services, including the
`
`Accused Products, in the State of Texas and in the Eastern District of Texas. Fitbit derives
`
`substantial revenue from goods and service provided to individuals in Texas and in this Judicial
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01575-JRG Document 1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 3
`
`
`
`District. Further, Fitbit has previously been subject to this Court‟s jurisdiction in the cases of
`
`Sportbrain Holdings, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc., Civil Action No. 2:13-00212-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.),
`
`FEGO Precision Industrial Co, Ltd. v. Fitbit, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-40 (E.D. Tex.); Olivistar, LLC v.
`
`Fitbit, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-536 (E.D. Tex.).
`
`7.
`
`Venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and
`
`1400. On information and belief, Fitbit has transacted business in this district, and has directly
`
`and/or indirectly committed and/or induced acts of patent infringement in this district.
`
`THE PATENT-IN-SUIT
`
`8.
`
`On May 9, 2000, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) duly
`
`and lawfully issued the „576 Patent, entitled “Training and Safety Device, System and Method to
`
`Aid in Proper Movement During Physical Activity,” after a full and fair examination. A true and
`
`correct copy of the „576 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`9.
`
`On March 17, 2015, following a reexamination requested by LoganTree, the PTO
`
`issued a reexamination certificate for the „576 Patent, bearing U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576 C1
`
`(“the „576 Reexamination Certificate”). A true and correct copy of the „576 Reexamination
`
`Certificate is attached hereto as Exhibit B. The „576 Patent as reexamined is referred to as the
`
`“Reexamined „576 Patent.”
`
`10.
`
`The named inventor of the „576 Patent is Theodore L. Brann.
`
`11. Mr. Brann assigned all right, title, and interest in the „576 Patent to Plaintiff
`
`LoganTree.
`
`12.
`
`Plaintiff possess all rights of recovery under the „576 Patent and the Reexamined
`
`„576 Patent, including the exclusive right to sue for infringement and recover past damages.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01575-JRG Document 1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 4
`
`
`
`13.
`
`The Reexamined „576 Patent generally relates to systems and methods for
`
`monitoring movement of body parts during physical activity using a movement sensor, in which
`
`a user-defined event can be detected and event information related to the detected user-defined
`
`event can be stored along with time stamp information reflecting a time at which the user-
`
`defined event occurred.
`
`COUNT ONE: INFRINGEMENT OF THE REEXAMINED ‘576 PATENT
`
`14.
`
`15.
`
`Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 13 herein.
`
`Fitbit manufactures and sells to customers within the United States activity
`
`monitoring devices that infringe the Reexamined „576 Patent, including but not limited to the
`
`following (collectively “Accused Products”): Fitbit Zip, Fitbit One, Fitbit Flex, Fitbit Charge,
`
`Fitbit Charge HR, and Fitbit Surge.
`
`16.
`
`Fitbit, directly or through intermediaries, made, had made, used, imported,
`
`provided, supplied, distributed, sold and/or offered for sale the Accused Products, which monitor
`
`movement of body parts during physical activity using a movement sensor, in which a user-
`
`defined event can be detected and event information related to the detected user-defined event
`
`can be stored along with time stamp information reflecting a time at which the user-defined
`
`event occurred, which infringe one or more claims of the Reexamined „576 Patent. Particularly,
`
`Fitbit makes, uses, provides, offers for sale, and sells the Accused Products that directly infringe
`
`at least claim 1 of the Reexamined „576 Patent, either literally or under the doctrine of
`
`equivalents.
`
`17.
`
`The infringing actions of Fitbit are and have at all times been without the consent
`
`of, authority of, or license from Plaintiff.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01575-JRG Document 1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 5
`
`
`
`18.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of the infringement of the Reexamined „576
`
`Patent by Fitbit, Plaintiff has suffered damages in an amount that cannot yet be fully ascertained,
`
`which will be proven at trial.
`
`19.
`
`Fitbit‟s infringement of Plaintiff‟s exclusive rights under the Reexamined „576
`
`Patent will continue to damage Plaintiff, causing irreparable harm for which there is no adequate
`
`remedy at law. Unless enjoined by this Court, Fitbit will continue to infringe the Reexamined
`
`„576 Patent.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff LoganTree requests that the Court grant the following relief:
`
`a)
`
`enter judgment that Defendant Fitbit infringes and has directly infringed the
`
`Reexamined „576 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a);
`
`b)
`
`order Defendant to pay damages adequate to compensate Plaintiff for Defendant‟s
`
`infringement of the Reexamined „576 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, together
`
`with pre-judgment and post-judgment interests, in an amount according to proof;
`
`c)
`
`enter a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant and its officers, agents,
`
`servants, employees, and attorneys, and all other persons and entities acting in
`
`concert or participation with them, from infringing the Reexamined „576 Patent.
`
`d)
`
`in the event a permanent injunction is not granted, determine the conditions for
`
`future infringement or grant such other relief as the Court deems appropriate;
`
`e)
`
`enter judgment that this case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and award
`
`Plaintiffs reasonable attorneys‟ fees and costs incurred in this action; and
`
`f)
`
`award such other and further relief, at law or in equity, as the Court deems just
`
`and proper.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01575-JRG Document 1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 6
`
`
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Plaintiff respectfully requests a trial by jury on all issues so triable, pursuant to Fed. R.
`
`Civ. P. 38.
`
`DATED: October 2, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`MCCATHERN, P.L.L.C.
`
`/s/ Arnold Shokouhi
`Arnold Shokouhi
`State Bar No. 24056315
`arnolds@mccathernlaw.com
`Levi G. McCathern, II
`State Bar No. 00787990
`lmccathern@mccathernlaw.com
`James E. Sherry
`State Bar No. 24086340
`jsherry@mccathernlaw.com
`3710 Rawlins, Suite 1600
`Dallas, Texas 75219
`Telephone: 214.741.2662
`Facsimile: 214.741.4717
`
`Of Counsel
`
`SUGHRUE MION P.L.L.C.
`William H. Mandir (pro hac vice pending)
`wmandir@sughrue.com
`Brian K. Shelton (pro hac vice pending)
`bshelton@sughrue.com
`2100 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
`Washington, DC 20037
`Telephone: 202.293.7060
`Facsimile: 202.293.7860
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff LoganTree LP
`
`
`
`6
`
`