Message: guess
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRCICT OF CALIFORNIA
e.Digital Corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
Hewlett-Packard Company,
Defendant.
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 Hewlett-Packard
Company (“Defendant” or “HP”) 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, 35 U.S.C. §§ 271, 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
'15CV0333 AJB NLS
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.
5. Upon information and belief, certain of the Defendant’s accused
products have been and/or are currently sold and/or offered for sale to California
PARTIES
6. 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.
7. Upon information and belief, Defendant Hewlett-Packard Company is
a Delaware corporation registered and lawfully existing under the laws of the State
of, with an office and principal place of business located at 3000 Hanover Street,
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1185.
THE ASSERTED PATENT
8. 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
9. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each of the
allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 8 above.
10. The accused products include but are not limited to Defendant’s
products that utilize Flash Memory Storage including but not limited to its line of
tablets and PCs. A primary and substantial function of the accused products is to
process information and write electronic data to and store such data in electronic
format in non-volatile flash memory utilizing embedded memory, SD card memory
and/or SSD memory.
11. Defendant has directly and indirectly infringed and is directly and
indirectly infringing Claim 1 of the ’108 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, et
seq., by making, using, offering for sale, selling in the United States and/or
importing into the United States without authority, the accused products identified
above. Claim 1 of the ’108 patent teaches a method of memory management for a
non-volatile storage medium. The method comprises several steps, which generally
involves, without limitation, writing electronic data segments from volatile,
temporary memory to a non-volatile, long-term storage medium by linking data
segments according to a number of specified steps.
12. Plaintiff alleges that at least as of the date of the filing of the
originally filed complaint in this matter, if not sooner, Defendant knew or should
have known of the existence of Claim 1 of the ’108 patent and the fact that the
accused products infringe said Claim 1.
13. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant sold, sells, offers to sell, ships, or
otherwise delivers the accused products to customers or end-users with all the
features required to infringe Claim 1 of the ’108 patent. Upon information and
belief, Defendant knows that the accused products infringe Claim 1 of the ‘108
patent and intends to induce third parties to include its customers and end-users to
also infringe Claim 1 of the ‘108 patent.
14. Upon information and belief, the accused products, alone or in
combination with other products, directly or, alternatively, under the doctrine of
equivalents practice each of the limitations of independent Claim 1 of the ’108
patent when they are used for their normal and intended purpose of writing to and
storing electronic data on non-volatile memory. Thus, Defendant directly infringes
Claim 1 of the ’108 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) when it demonstrates,
tests or otherwise uses the accused products in the United States.
15. By way of example, certain website(s) publish the Defendants’
descriptions of the accused products including their specifications, features and
functionality which discloses the use of eMMC, SSD or other flash memory. Upon
information and belief, consumers and end-users are provided information
concerning how to use of the accused products in a way that infringes Claim 1.
Such conduct evidences Defendant’s act of direct infringement of Claim 1 of the
’108 patent.
16. Plaintiff also alleges on information and belief that Defendant uses,
makes, sells, offers to sell and/or imports the accused products knowing that they
will be used by its customers and end-users for writing and storing electronic data
to non-volatile memory utilizing the steps described in Claim 1 of the ’108 patent
utilizing eMMC, SSD or flash memory. Defendant’s product literature, videos,
blogs, articles, support forums, discussion boards, instructional materials, and/or
instructional videos advertise and encourage customers to use the accused
product(s) knowing that the accused products utilize the methods of memory
management taught by Claim 1 of the ’108 patent and in a manner it knows
infringes upon Claim 1 of the ’108 patent.
17. Defendant also provides operating manuals, user or guides,
instructional, or other instructional and/or informational material that instruct
customers and end-users on how to connect the accused products and use them as
non-volatile storage devices for electronic data. Among other things, Defendant’s
informational materials lay out step-by-step instructions on how to write data into
the memory of the accused products – a process that utilizes the method disclosed
in Claim 1 of the ’108 patent and which Defendant knows (at the least as of the
filing of the original complaint if not sooner) infringes the method taught in Claim
1 of the ’108 patent. Plaintiff believes that Defendant directs consumers and endusers
to consult and utilize such instructional material.
18. Plaintiff believes and thereupon alleges that Defendant is aware that
its customers and end-users are using the accused products in an infringing manner
based on, among other things, the fact that Defendant encourages its customers and
end-users to use the accused products in an infringing manner as set forth in the
preceding Paragraphs.
19. As alleged above, incorporated herewith, and based upon information
and belief, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant, without authority, has induced and
continues to induce infringement of the ’108 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. §
271(b) inasmuch as:
a. The accused products infringe Claim 1 during the normal use of
the accused products by Defendant’s customers and/or end-users;
b. Defendant has known and has been continuously aware of the
’108 patent since at least the filing of the original complaint in this
action, if not sooner;
c. Defendant has acted in a manner that encourages and continues to
encourage others to infringe Claim 1 of the ’108 patent by, among
other things, intentionally instructing and/or encouraging
customers and end-users to use the accused products in a manner
that Defendant knows or should have known would cause them to
infringe the ’108 patent;
d. Defendant sells, distributes, and supplies the accused products to
customers and end-users with the intent that the products be used
in an infringing manner;
e. Defendant provides operating manuals, guides, instructional
and/or informational videos, or other instructional and/or
informational material designed to instruct customers and endusers
to use the products in an infringing manner; and,
f. Defendant advertises, markets, and promotes the use of the
accused products in an infringing manner.
20. As alleged above, incorporated herewith, and based upon information
and belief, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has contributed and continues to
contribute to the infringement of Claim 1 of the ’108 patent in violation of 35
U.S.C. § 271(c) inasmuch as:
a. The accused products infringe Claim 1 of the ’108 patent during
the normal use of the accused products by Defendant’s customers
and/or end-users;
b. Defendant has known and has been continuously aware of the
’108 patent since at least the filing of the original complaint in this
action, if not sooner;
c. Defendant imports into the United States, sells and/or offers to
sell within the United States products that (a) practice the method
of memory management of Claim 1 of the ’108 patent; and, (b)
Defendant knows that the same constitute material infringing
component(s) of the accused products, which were made and/or
especially adapted for use in the accused products;
d. The memory management component(s) and methods of the
accused products are not staple articles of commerce suitable for
substantial non-infringing use with respect to the ’108 patent; and,
e. Defendant sells, has sold, and/or has supplied the accused
products knowing of Plaintiff’s ’108 patent and knowing that the
accused products incorporate Plaintiff’s patented method and/or
were specially adapted for use in a way which infringes the ’108
patent.
21. As alleged above, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant had notice of the
’108 patent and knowledge of infringement of Claim 1 of the ’108 patent since at
least the filing of the original complaint in this matter, if not sooner. Defendant has
and continues to sell products that practice the ’108 patent after acquiring
knowledge of infringement.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief and judgment as follows:
1. That Defendant be declared to have infringed the Patent-in-Suit;
2. That Defendant, Defendant’s officers, agents, servants, employees,
and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with them, be
preliminarily and permanently enjoined from infringement of the Patent-in-Suit,
including but not limited to any making, using, offering for sale, selling, or
importing of unlicensed infringing products within and without the United States;
3. Compensation for all damages caused by Defendant’s infringement of
the Patent-in-Suit to be determined at trial;
4. A finding that this case is exceptional and an award of reasonable
attorneys fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285;
5. Granting Plaintiff pre-and post-judgment interest on its damages,
together with all costs and expenses; and,
6. Awarding such other relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
Dated: February 17,2015
HANDAL & ASSOCIATES
By: /s/Anton N. Handal
Anton N. Handal
Pamela C. Chalk
Gabriel G. Hedrick
Attorneys for Plaintiff
e.Digital Corporation
21 Recommendations
Loading...
Loading...
New Message
Please
login
to post a reply