Case 4:13-cv-00638 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 03/08/13 Page 1 of 7
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`HOUSTON DIVISION
`
`
`Civil Case No. 4:13-cv-638
`
`
`
`
`Jury demanded
`
`
`
` §
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`e-WATCH, INC.
`
`Plaintiff
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`FLIR SYSTEMS, INC.
`
`Defendant
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`e-WATCH, INC. files this action complaining of FLIR SYSTEMS, INC. and for cause
`
`of action respectfully shows as follows:
`
`
`
`PARTIES
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff e-WATCH, INC. is a Nevada Corporation with its principal office in San
`
`Antonio, Texas, and with offices in Houston, Texas.
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Defendant FLIR SYSTEMS, INC. is an Oregon corporation with its principal office
`
`at 27700 SW Parkway Ave., Wilsonville, Oregon.
`
`SERVICE OF PROCESS
`
`
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Defendant FLIR Systems, Inc. may be served with process by serving its
`
`Registered Agent for Service of Process, National Registered Agents, Inc. 1021 Main St., Suite
`
`1150, Houston, Texas 77002.
`
`
`
`Page 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`HOUSTON DIVISION
`
`
`Civil Case No. 4:13-cv-638
`
`
`
`
`Jury demanded
`
`
`
` §
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`e-WATCH, INC.
`
`Plaintiff
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`FLIR SYSTEMS, INC.
`
`Defendant
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`e-WATCH, INC. files this action complaining of FLIR SYSTEMS, INC. and for cause
`
`of action respectfully shows as follows:
`
`
`
`PARTIES
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff e-WATCH, INC. is a Nevada Corporation with its principal office in San
`
`Antonio, Texas, and with offices in Houston, Texas.
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Defendant FLIR SYSTEMS, INC. is an Oregon corporation with its principal office
`
`at 27700 SW Parkway Ave., Wilsonville, Oregon.
`
`SERVICE OF PROCESS
`
`
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Defendant FLIR Systems, Inc. may be served with process by serving its
`
`Registered Agent for Service of Process, National Registered Agents, Inc. 1021 Main St., Suite
`
`1150, Houston, Texas 77002.
`
`
`
`Page 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 4:13-cv-00638 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 03/08/13 Page 2 of 7
`
`
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`4.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and
`
`1338(a), because plaintiff’s claims arise under federal laws relating to patents and unfair
`
`competition.
`
`5.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant because it transacts
`
`business within the United States, including to consumers within the geographic boundaries of
`
`the Southern District of Texas. The Court also has personal jurisdiction because the defendant
`
`have committed acts of patent infringement within the geographic boundaries of the Southern
`
`District of Texas.
`
`6.
`
`Venue is proper in the Southern District of Texas under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)
`
`because, on information and belief, FLIR distributes its allegedly infringing products through a
`
`distribution center in Houston, Texas, because it substantial acts of infringement giving rise to
`
`plaintiff’s claim occurred and continue to occur within the boundaries of the Southern District of
`
`Texas, and because the defendant maintains a registered agent for service of process within the
`
`boundaries of the Southern District of Texas.
`
`
`
`FACTS
`
`7.
`
`e-Watch develops and markets hardware, software and services designed to
`
`centrally manage a multiplicity of safety, security and access control devices using IP protocol
`
`over a computer network, including modern professional security surveillance systems and
`
`associated cameras. For example, a corporate office campus may include access control by way
`
`of still frame pictures of individuals seeking access or full motion cameras monitoring rooms,
`
`hallways, or doors. e-Watch also develops and markets digital camera systems, which, among
`
`
`
`Page 2
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 4:13-cv-00638 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 03/08/13 Page 3 of 7
`
`
`
`other things, have the capability of creating high resolution still and streaming video signals from
`
`a multiplicity of image transducers, compressing the digital image signal, and sending a
`
`multiplicity of image signals over a digital network. The advantage of e-Watch’s technology is,
`
`among other things, that it allows live monitoring and digital recording of high resolution, full
`
`frame rate, color images, either on site, offsite, or in distributed locations.
`
`8.
`
`e-Watch is the owner of the following United States Patents:
`
`Title
`Patent No.
`
`
`6,970,183 (the ’183 patent) Multimedia Surveillance and Monitoring
`System Including Network Configuration
`
`Digital Security Multimedia Sensor
`
`
`7,023,913 (the ’913 patent)
`
`Issue Date
`
`Nov 29,
`2005
`
`Apr 4,
`2006
`
`
`
`The digital camera surveillance systems marketed by e-Watch incorporate claims included these
`
`patents.
`
`
`
`9.
`
`FLIR Systems is a world leader in the design, manufacture and distribution of
`
`thermal imaging cameras and associated products and systems. It makes, uses and sells, or
`
`attempts to make, use or sell, or otherwise provide throughout the United States and within the
`
`geographical area covered by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas,
`
`products which utilize the systems, methods and apparatus in at least one claim in each of the
`
`’183, and ’913 Patents. The infringing products include, but are not limited to the FLIR FC-
`
`Series Cameras, F-Series Cameras, PT-Series Cameras, D-Series Cameras and Sensor Manager
`
`Page 3
`
`
`
`
`
`Software.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 4:13-cv-00638 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 03/08/13 Page 4 of 7
`
`
`
`CLAIM I
`INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’183 PATENT
`
`The ‘183 patent describes a surveillance and security system that includes a
`
`10.
`
`surveillance sensor (such as motion detector) which generates a signal that is converted into a
`
`network compatible signal, sent over a network, and logged by a computer. A second security
`
`sensor (such as a camera) also generates data which is sent to and logged by the computer. In
`
`addition, the computer also communicates back with this second sensor to control a
`
`preprogramed function, such as, in the case of a camera, zoom in or out, pan left or right, etc.
`
`This is a conceptual summary of the technology described in the patent; a complete list of
`
`claims and limitations are found in the patent itself.
`
`11.
`
`12.
`
`The ’183, Patent is valid and enforceable.
`
`FLIR has and continues to infringe, contributorily infringe or actively induce the
`
`infringement of the ’183 Patent by using, selling and offering for use or sale products and
`
`services within this judicial district which incorporate e-Watch’s patented technology. FLIR is
`
`offering for sale or use, or selling or using these products without license or authority from e-
`
`Watch.
`
`13.
`
`The claims of the patent are either literally infringed or infringed under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents. These infringing acts of FLIR are committed in violation of 35 U.S.C. §
`
`271.
`
`14.
`
`Upon information and belief, plaintiff alleges that the acts of infringement by
`
`FLIR are willful, making this an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
`
`15.
`
`Upon information and belief, plaintiff further alleges that the actions of FLIR
`
`have resulted in substantial lost profits to the plaintiff, and substantial unjust profits and
`
`enrichment to FLIR, all in amounts yet to be determined. The infringing acts committed by
`
`
`
`Page 4
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 4:13-cv-00638 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 03/08/13 Page 5 of 7
`
`
`
`FLIR have caused irreparable harm to the plaintiff and will continue to do so unless enjoined by
`
`the Court.
`
`CLAIM II
`INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’913 PATENT
`
`
`16.
`
`The ‘913 patent describes a digital security camera capable of generating and
`
`transmitting digital high resolution full motion video and still images. It includes at least two
`
`high resolution image transducers which generate full motion video signals and still frame image
`
`signals. The raw image data is then compressed, and the two compressed signals are then
`
`merged by a multiplexer into a single signal. This combined signal is then processed into a
`
`format suitable for transmission over a network. This is a conceptual summary of the technology
`
`described in the patent; a complete list of claims and limitations are found in the patent itself.
`
`17.
`
`18.
`
`The ’913, Patent is valid and enforceable.
`
`FLIR has and continues to infringe, contributorily infringe or actively induce the
`
`infringement of the ’913 Patent by using, selling and offering for use or sale products and
`
`services within this judicial district which incorporate e-Watch’s patented technology. FLIR is
`
`offering for sale or use, or selling or using these products without license or authority from e-
`
`Watch.
`
`19.
`
`The claims of the patent are either literally infringed or infringed under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents. These infringing acts of FLIR are committed in violation of 35 U.S.C. §
`
`271.
`
`20.
`
`Upon information and belief, plaintiff alleges that the acts of infringement by
`
`FLIR are willful, making this an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
`
`
`
`Page 5
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 4:13-cv-00638 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 03/08/13 Page 6 of 7
`
`
`
`21.
`
`Upon information and belief, plaintiff further alleges that the actions of FLIR
`
`have resulted in substantial lost profits to the plaintiff, and substantial unjust profits and
`
`enrichment to FLIR, all in amounts yet to be determined. The infringing acts committed by
`
`FLIR have caused irreparable harm to the plaintiff and will continue to do so unless enjoined by
`
`the Court.
`
`DAMAGES
`
`22.
`
`As a result of the infringement described herein, Plaintiff has suffered actual and
`
`consequential damages, however, plaintiff does not yet know the full extent of such damages and
`
`such extent cannot be ascertained except through discovery and special accounting. To the
`
`fullest extent permitted by law, plaintiff seeks recovery of damages for lost profits, reasonable
`
`royalties, unjust enrichment, and benefits received by the defendant as a result of using the
`
`misappropriated technology. Plaintiff seeks any other damages to which it may be entitled in
`
`law or in equity.
`
`23.
`
`The acts of infringement described herein were committed intentionally,
`
`knowingly, and with callous disregard of plaintiff’s legitimate rights. Plaintiff is therefore
`
`entitled to and now seeks to recover exemplary damages in an amount not less than the
`
`maximum amount permitted by law.
`
`ATTORNEYS FEES
`
`24.
`
`Plaintiff is entitled to recover reasonable and necessary attorneys fees under
`
`applicable law.
`
`CONDITIONS PRECEDENT
`
`25.
`
`All conditions precedent to plaintiff’s right to recover as requested herein have
`
`
`
`Page 6
`
`occurred or been satisfied.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 4:13-cv-00638 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 03/08/13 Page 7 of 7
`
`
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`26.
`
`Plaintiff demands a trial by jury pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38.
`
`PRAYER
`
`
`
`WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, plaintiff e-Watch, Inc. asks that
`
`defendant FLIR Systems, Inc. be cited to appear and answer and, on final trial, that plaintiff have
`
`judgment against each defendant for the following:
`
`
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`Actual economic damages;
`
`Exemplary treble damages as allowed by law;
`
`Permanent injunction;
`
`Attorney fees;
`
`Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as allowed by law;
`
`Costs of suit; and
`
`All other relief in law or in equity to which plaintiff may show itself justly
`entitled.
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`__________________________________
`W. Shawn Staples ▪ TBN 00788457
`Michael J. Stanley ▪ TBN 19046600
`Stanley Frank & Rose
`7026 Old Katy Rd., Suite 259
`Houston, Texas 77024
`Tel: 713-980-4381 ▪ Fax: 713-980-1179
`wsstaples@stanleylaw.com
`Attorney in Charge for e-Watch, Inc.
`
`
`
`Page 7
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
