`
`
`
`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
`
`