Pacer - e.DIGITAL v. Intel Wow ! Patent # 108
in response to
by
Message: WOW !!! 9 NEW CASES JUST FILED Dec 5th
e.Digital Corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
Intel Corporation,
Defendant.
Case No.
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
INFRINGEMENT
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff e.Digital Corporation (“e.Digital” or “Plaintiff”), by and through its
undersigned counsel, complains and alleges against Defendant Intel Corporation
(“Intel” or “Defendant”) as follows:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. This is a civil action for infringement of a patent arising under the
laws of the United States relating to patents, 35 U.S.C. § 101,
et seq., including,
without limitation, § 281. Plaintiff e.Digital seeks a preliminary and permanent
injunction and monetary damages for the infringement of its U.S. Patent No.
5,839,108.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2. This court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case for patent
infringement under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a) and pursuant to the patent laws
of the United States of America, 35 U.S.C. § 101,
et seq.
3. Venue properly lies within the Southern District of California
pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b), (c), and (d) and 1400(b). On
information and belief, Defendant conducts substantial business directly and/or
through third parties or agents in this judicial district by selling and/or offering to
sell the infringing products and/or by conducting other business in this judicial
district. Furthermore, Plaintiff e.Digital is headquartered and has its principal
place of business in this district, engages in business in this district, and has been
harmed by Defendant’s conduct, business transactions and sales in this district.
4. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because, on
information and belief, Defendant transacts continuous and systematic business
within the State of California and the Southern District of California. In addition,
this Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendant because, on information
and belief, this lawsuit arises out of Defendant’s infringing activities, including,
without limitation, the making, using, selling and/or offering to sell infringing
products in the State of California and the Southern District of California. Finally,
this Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because, on information and
belief, Defendant has made, used, sold and/or offered for sale its infringing
products and placed such infringing products in the stream of interstate commerce
with the expectation that such infringing products would be made, used, sold
and/or offered for sale within the State of California and the Southern District of
California.
PARTIES
5. Plaintiff e.Digital is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters and
principal place of business at 16870 West Bernardo Drive, Suite 120, San Diego,
California 92127.
6. Upon information and belief, Defendant Intel is a corporation
registered and lawfully existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with an
office and principal place of business located at 2200 Mission College Blvd, Santa
Clara, CA 95054-1549.
THE ASSERTED PATENT
7. On November 17, 1998, the United States Patent and Trademark
Office duly and legally issued United States Patent No. 5,839,108 (“the ’108
patent”) entitled “Flash Memory File System In A Handheld Record And Playback
Device,” to its named inventors Norbert P. Daberko and Richard K. Davis.
Plaintiff e.Digital is the assignee and owner of the entire right, title and interest in
and to the ’108 patent and has the right to bring this suit for damages and other
relief. A true and correct copy of the ’108 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
COUNT ONE
INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’108 PATENT BY DEFENDANT
actively induced infringement and continues to actively induce infringement of the
’108 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) by causing others to directly infringe
the claims of the ’108 patent and/or by intentionally instructing others how to use
the accused products in a manner that infringes the claims of the ’108 patent. On
information and belief, Defendant has induced and continues to induce
infringement by instructing customers to operate the product in an infringing
manner and/or when Defendant tests or otherwise operates the accused products in
the United States.
13. Upon information and belief, Defendant, without authority, has
contributed and continues to contribute to the infringement of the ’108 patent in
violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) by importing into the United States, selling and/or
offering to sell within the United States accused products that (1) embody and
constitute a material part of the invention of the ’108 patent, (2) Defendant knows
to be especially adapted for use in infringing the ’108 patent, and (3) are not staple
articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use with respect to the
’108 patent.
14. Based on information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant sells,
ships, or otherwise delivers the accused product with all the features required to
infringe the asserted claims of the ’108 patent. On information and belief, these
products are designed to practice the infringing features.
15. Upon information and belief, certain of the products manufactured by
Defendant have been and/or are currently sold and/or offered for sale at, among
other places, the B&H Photo Video online store website located at
to consumers including, but not limited to,
consumers located within the State of California.
16. Defendant had knowledge of infringement of the ’108 patent since at
least the filing of this complaint. On information and belief, Defendant has
continued to sell products that practice the ’108 patent after acquiring knowledge
Dated: December 5, 2013
HANDAL & ASSOCIATES
By: /s/ Pamela C. Chalk
Anton N. Handal
Gabriel G. Hedrick
Pamela C. Chalk
Attorneys for Plaintiff
e.Digital Corporation
15 Recommendations
Loading...
Loading...
New Message
Please
login
to post a reply