throbber
Case 6:15-cv-00163-JDL Document 43 Filed 08/18/15 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 796
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`CHRIMAR SYSTEMS, INC., ET AL.,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`ALCATEL-LUCENT S.A., ET AL.,
`
`
`
`
`6:15-CV-00163-JDL
`LEAD CASE
`
`Patent Case
`
`Jury Trial Demanded
`
`Defendants.
`
`V. AMX, LLC.
`
`6:15-CV-00164-JDL (consolidated case)
`
`
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`Chrimar Systems Inc. d/b/a CMS Technologies (“Chrimar”) and Chrimar Holding
`
`Company, LLC (“Holding”) file this First Amended Complaint (“the Complaint”) against
`
`consolidated Defendant AMX, LLC (“AMX”) 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”).
`
`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 211-30, Longview, Texas 75604.
`
`3.
`
`Chrimar and Holding are collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs” or “CMS.”
`
`CHRIMAR V. AMX – FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`PAGE 1
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00163-JDL Document 43 Filed 08/18/15 Page 2 of 10 PageID #: 797
`
`
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`AMX, LLC is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located at 3000
`
`Research Drive, Richardson, Texas 75082. This Court has personal jurisdiction over
`
`AMX.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`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 AMX because AMX has engaged in continuous
`
`and systematic activities in the state of Texas, including in this district. In addition, AMX
`
`has committed, and continues to commit acts of infringement 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 has
`
`ownership of all substantial rights in the ’107 Patent. A true and correct copy of the ’107
`
`Patent is attached as Exhibit B.
`
`CHRIMAR V. AMX – FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`PAGE 2
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00163-JDL Document 43 Filed 08/18/15 Page 3 of 10 PageID #: 798
`
`
`
`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.
`
`17.
`
`The ’012,’107, ’760, and ’838 Patents are collectively “the Patents-in-Suit.”
`
`AMX’S ACCUSED PRODUCTS
`
`18.
`
`Upon information and belief, AMX makes, uses, offers to sell, sells, and/or imports
`
`powered devices (“PDs”) that comply with IEEE 802.3af and/or 802.3at. Such products
`
`include, but are not limited to, wireless access points (the NXA products), touch/control
`
`panels (e.g., the Modero products), docking stations (e.g., the MVP products), wireless
`
`gateways (e.g., the ZigBee products), audio/video receivers (e.g., the DTV products),
`
`keypads and control pads (e.g., the Metreau and Novara products), content sharing
`
`CHRIMAR V. AMX – FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`PAGE 3
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00163-JDL Document 43 Filed 08/18/15 Page 4 of 10 PageID #: 799
`
`
`
`devices (e.g., the Enzo products), entry communicators (e.g., the Metreau products),
`
`control pads (e.g., the Massio and Novara products), communications gateways (e.g., the
`
`NetLinx products), LAN control boxes (e.g., the EXB products), the multi-format
`
`transmitters/switches (e.g., the DXLink products), encoder/decoders (e.g., the MAX-CS
`
`products), phone controllers (e.g., the NXV-CPI products), and PoE extractors (e.g., the
`
`PS-PoE products), collectively the “Accused PD Products.”
`
`19.
`
`Upon information and belief, AMX makes, uses, offers to sell, sells, and/or imports
`
`power sourcing equipment (“PSEs”) that comply with IEEE 802.3af and/or 802.3at. Such
`
`products include, but are not limited to, Ethernet switches (e.g., the NXA products),
`
`media switches (e.g., the Enova products), midspans, and PoE injectors (e.g., the DXLink
`
`power sourcing products), collectively the “Accused PSE Products.”
`
`20.
`
`The Accused PD Products and the Accused PSE Products are collectively the Accused
`
`Products.
`
`21.
`
`Upon information and belief, the Accused Products are offered for sale and sold
`
`throughout the United States, including within the Eastern District of Texas.
`
`22.
`
`AMX 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.
`
`23.
`
`AMX provides direct and indirect support concerning the Accused Products to end users,
`
`including end users within the Eastern District of Texas.
`
`CHRIMAR V. AMX – FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`PAGE 4
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00163-JDL Document 43 Filed 08/18/15 Page 5 of 10 PageID #: 800
`
`
`
`24.
`
`25.
`
`COUNT I
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,155,012
`
`CMS incorporates paragraphs 1 through 233 herein by reference.
`
`AMX has and continues to directly infringe the ’012 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 PD Products.
`
`26.
`
`AMX 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 AMX induces others to directly
`
`infringe the ’012 Patent.
`
`27.
`
`28.
`
`29.
`
`End users that use the Accused PD Products directly infringe the ’012 Patent.
`
`AMX has been on notice of the ’012 Patent since at least as early as November of 2013.
`
`AMX has not produced or relied upon an opinion of counsel suggesting that the ’012
`
`Patent is invalid or that the Accused PD Products do not infringe the ’012 Patent.
`
`30.
`
`CMS has been damaged as a result of AMX’s infringing conduct described in this Count.
`
`31.
`
`32.
`
`COUNT II
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,942,107
`
`CMS incorporates paragraphs 1 through 30 herein by reference.
`
`AMX has and continues to directly infringe the ’107 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 PD Products.
`
`CHRIMAR V. AMX – FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`PAGE 5
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00163-JDL Document 43 Filed 08/18/15 Page 6 of 10 PageID #: 801
`
`
`
`33.
`
`AMX 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 AMX induces others to directly
`
`infringe the ’107 Patent.
`
`34.
`
`35.
`
`End users that use the Accused PD Products directly infringe the ’107 Patent.
`
`AMX has been on notice of the ’107 Patent since at least as early as March 2015, but on
`
`information and belief, it was aware of the ’107 Patent before March 2015.
`
`36.
`
`AMX has not produced or relied upon an opinion of counsel suggesting that the ’107
`
`Patent is invalid or that the Accused PD Products do not infringe the ’107 Patent.
`
`37.
`
`CMS has been damaged as a result of AMX’s infringing conduct described in this Count.
`
`38.
`
`39.
`
`COUNT III
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,902,760
`
`CMS incorporates paragraphs 1 through 37 herein by reference.
`
`AMX has and continues to directly infringe the ’760 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 Products.
`
`40.
`
`AMX 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 AMX induces others to directly
`
`infringe the ’760 Patent.
`
`CHRIMAR V. AMX – FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`PAGE 6
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00163-JDL Document 43 Filed 08/18/15 Page 7 of 10 PageID #: 802
`
`
`
`41.
`
`AMX 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.
`
`42.
`
`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 AMX knows the same to be especially made or
`
`especially adapted for use in an a manner that infringes one or more claims of the ’760
`
`Patent.
`
`43.
`
`The Accused Products are not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for
`
`substantial noninfringing use.
`
`44.
`
`45.
`
`End users that use the Accused Products directly infringe the ’760 Patent.
`
`AMX has been on notice of the ’760 Patent since at least as early as the filing date of this
`
`Complaint, but on information and belief, it was aware of the ’760 Patent before the
`
`filing of this Complaint.
`
`46.
`
`AMX has not produced or relied upon an opinion of counsel suggesting that the ’760
`
`Patent is invalid or that the Accused Products do not infringe the ’760 Patent.
`
`47.
`
`CMS has been damaged as a result of AMX’s infringing conduct described in this Count.
`
`COUNT IV
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,019,838
`
`48.
`
`CMS incorporates paragraphs 1 through 47 herein by reference.
`
`CHRIMAR V. AMX – FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`PAGE 7
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00163-JDL Document 43 Filed 08/18/15 Page 8 of 10 PageID #: 803
`
`
`
`49.
`
`AMX 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.
`
`50.
`
`AMX 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 AMX induces others to
`
`directly infringe the ’838 Patent.
`
`51.
`
`52.
`
`End users that use the Accused PSE Products directly infringe the ’838 Patent.
`
`AMX has been on notice of the ’838 Patent since at least as the filing date of this
`
`Complaint, but on information and belief, it was aware of the ’838 Patent before the
`
`filing of this Complaint.
`
`53.
`
`AMX has not produced or relied upon an opinion of counsel suggesting that the ’838
`
`Patent is invalid or that the Accused PSE Products do not infringe the ’838 Patent.
`
`54.
`
`CMS has been damaged as a result of AMX’s infringing conduct described in this Count.
`
`55.
`
`56.
`
`57.
`
`ADDITIONAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`CMS has complied with 35 U.S.C. § 287.
`
`AMX’s infringement of the Patents-in-Suit has been willful.
`
`AMX has been on notice of the ’012 Patent since at least November of 2013, of the ’107
`
`Patent since at least March of 2015, of the ’760 Patent since at least July 2015, and of the
`
`’838 Patent since at least July 2015, but has done nothing to curb its infringing conduct.
`
`CHRIMAR V. AMX – FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`PAGE 8
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00163-JDL Document 43 Filed 08/18/15 Page 9 of 10 PageID #: 804
`
`
`
`
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`CMS hereby requests a trial by jury pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil
`
`Procedure.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`
`
`CMS requests that this Court find in its favor and against AMX, and that this Court grant
`
`CMS the following relief:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Enter judgment that AMX has infringed the Patents-in-Suit;
`
`Enter judgment that AMX’s infringement of the ’ Patents-in-Suit has been willful,
`
`and that AMX’s continued infringement of the Patents-in-Suit is willful;
`
`c.
`
`Award Plaintiffs damages in an amount adequate to compensate Plaintiffs for
`
`AMX’s infringement of the Patents-in-Suit, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty in
`
`accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 284;
`
`d.
`
`Award enhanced damages based on AMX’s willful infringement of the ’012 ,
`
`’107, ’760, and ’838 Patents;
`
`e.
`
`Award Plaintiffs pre-judgment and post-judgment interest to the full extent
`
`allowed under the law, as well as their costs;
`
`f.
`
`Declare that this is an exceptional case and award Plaintiffs their reasonable
`
`attorneys’ fees incurred in this action;
`
`g.
`
`Award such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate and just under the
`
`circumstances.
`
`
`
`CHRIMAR V. AMX – FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`PAGE 9
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00163-JDL Document 43 Filed 08/18/15 Page 10 of 10 PageID #: 805
`
`
`
`Dated: August 18, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`/s/ Richard L. Wynne, Jr.
`Richard W. Hoffmann
` REISING ETHINGTON PC
` 755 W. Big Beaver Road, Suite 1850
` Troy, Michigan 48084
` 248-689-3500
` 248-689-4071 (fax)
` hoffmann@reising.com
`
`Richard L. Wynne, Jr.
` Texas State Bar No. 24003214
` Richard.Wynne@tklaw.com
`Justin S. Cohen
` Texas State Bar No. 24078356
` Justin.Cohen@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, INC.
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing document was filed electronically in
`compliance with Local Rule CV-5(a). As such, this document was served on all counsel who
`have consented to electronic service on August 18, 2015.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Richard L. Wynne, Jr.
`Richard L. Wynne, Jr.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CHRIMAR V. AMX – FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`PAGE 10
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket