Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Princeton Digital Image v. Harmonix Music Systems et. al.

Princeton Digital Image v. Harmonix Music Systems et. al.

Ratings: (0)|Views: 205|Likes:
Published by PriorSmart
Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-01461-UNA: Princeton Digital Image Corporation v. Harmonix Music Systems Inc. et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l75W for more info.
Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-01461-UNA: Princeton Digital Image Corporation v. Harmonix Music Systems Inc. et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l75W for more info.

More info:

Published by: PriorSmart on Nov 14, 2012
Copyright:Public Domain

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

02/01/2013

pdf

text

original

 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
 PRINCETON DIGITAL IMAGE CORPORATION,Plaintiff,v.HARMONIX MUSIC SYSTEMS, INC. andELECTRONIC ARTS, INC.,Defendants.Case No.JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
COMPLAINT
Princeton Digital Image Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff” or “PDIC”)demands a jury trial and complains against the Defendants as follows:
THE PARTIES
1. PDIC is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Texas.2. Upon information and belief, Harmonix Music Systems, Inc. (“HMSI”) is acorporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware conducting business inthis district.3. Upon information and belief, Electronic Arts Inc. (“EAI”) is a corporation organizedand existing under the laws of the State of Delaware conducting business in this district.Defendants EAI and HMSI are referred to herein collectively as “Defendants.”
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4. This action arises under the patent laws of the United States of America, Title 35 of the United States Code. This Court has jurisdiction of this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and1338(a).
 
 25. Upon information and belief, each of the Defendants is doing business andcommitting infringements in this judicial district, and each is subject to personal jurisdiction in this judicial district.6. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400(b).
THE PATENT
7. Plaintiff PDIC repeats and incorporates herein the entirety of the allegationscontained in paragraphs 1 through 6 above.8. On April 30, 1996, U.S. Patent No. 5,513,129 (hereinafter referred to as “the ‘129patent”) was duly and legally issued for an invention entitled “METHOD AND SYSTEM FORCONTROLLING COMPUTER-GENERATED VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENT IN RESPONSE TOAUDIO SIGNALS.” By assignment, dated December 14, 2011, PDIC became the owner of allright, title and interest in the ‘129 patent, including the right to receive royalties for pastinfringements thereof. The ‘129 patent relates generally to allowing the control of a virtualenvironment in response to a music signal. A copy of the ‘129 patent is attached hereto asExhibit 1.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTIONClaim For Patent Infringment
9.
 
Plaintiff PDIC repeats and incorporates herein the entirety of the allegationscontained in paragraphs 1 through 8 above.10. Defendant EAI is a publisher and distributor of electronic games that allow thecontrol of a virtual environment in response to a music signal, including at least a game knowncommercially as
 Rock Band 
.11. Defendant HMSI is a developer of electronic games that allow the control of avirtual environment in response to a music signal, including at least the
 Rock Band 
game.
 
 3Defendant EAI provided development assistance to Defendant HMSI with respect to variouselectronic games, including at least the
 Rock Band 
game.12. Defendants each infringe one or more claims of the ‘129 patent directly through theirdeveloping, making, using, offering for sale and/or selling of at least the
 Rock Band 
game, and/orindirectly by inducing infringement of the ‘129 patent by end users of at least the
 Rock Band 
game,and/or by contributing to infringement of the ‘129 patent through their offering for sale and/orselling of at least the
 Rock Band 
game.13. Because of the relationship between Defendant EAI and Defendant HMSI withrespect to at least development, publication, and distribution, of the
 Rock Band 
game, Defendants’infringements of the ‘129 patent arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions, andinvolve common issues of fact.14. Defendants are liable for infringement of the ‘129 patent with respect to at least the
 Rock Band 
game. It is anticipated that discovery will reveal other products developed, made, used,offered for sale and/or sold by Defendants, which infringe one or more claims of the ‘129 patent.15. Plaintiff has been damaged by each of the Defendants’ infringements of the ‘129patent, and will be irreparably harmed unless such infringing activities are enjoined by this Court.16. Upon information and belief, one or more of the Defendants have been aware of the‘129 patent since at least about March 30, 2009, and their infringement has been willful since atleast that date. On or about that date, the ‘129 patent was cited by the patent examiner against oneof HMSI’ patent applications relating to the
 Rock Band 
game. Since at least that time, one or bothDefendants have known of the ‘129 patent, and continued to induce performance of the steps of themethods claimed in the ‘129 patent, and those steps were in fact performed.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->