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
Sonic Industry v. U.S. Bancorp

Sonic Industry v. U.S. Bancorp

Ratings: (0)|Views: 166 |Likes:
Published by PriorSmart
Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 3:12-cv-01514-DMS-BGS: Sonic Industry, LLC v. U.S. Bancorp. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, the Hon. Dana M. Sabraw presiding. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l6gq for more info.
Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 3:12-cv-01514-DMS-BGS: Sonic Industry, LLC v. U.S. Bancorp. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, the Hon. Dana M. Sabraw presiding. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l6gq for more info.

More info:

Published by: PriorSmart on Jun 20, 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

04/02/2014

pdf

text

original

 
1
SONIC INDUSTRY, LLC’S COMPLAINTFOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
123456789101112131415161718192021222324BRYAN M. GARRIE, APCBRYAN M. GARRIE (#131738)P.O. Box 2731La Jolla, California 92038Tel.: (858) 459-0020LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW P. TYSONMATTHEW P. TYSON (#178427)1117 Wall Street, Suite 4La Jolla, California 92037Tel.: (619) 787-0614Attorneysfor SONIC INDUSTRY, LLCUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIASONIC INDUSTRY, LLC,Plaintiff,
v
.U.S. BANCORP,Defendant.Case No.
SONIC INDUSTRY, LLC’S COMPLAINTFORPATENT INFRINGEMENT
Jury Trial Demanded
'12
CV1514
BGS
DMS
 
2
SONIC INDUSTRY, LLC’S COMPLAINTFOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
123456789101112131415161718192021222324Plaintiff SONIC INDUSTRY, LLC (“Plaintiff” or “Sonic”) alleges:
NATURE OF THE CASE
1.
 
This is a patent infringement action. Sonic is the exclusive licensee of UnitedStates Patent No. 5,954,793 entitled “Remote Limit-Setting Information Distribution System” (the“’793 Patent,” a copy of which is attached as EXHIBIT 1.) The ‘793 Patent covers a remotely-configurable information distribution system which selectively filters inbound information inresponse to selection and limitparameters provided by a remotely-connected processing device.Defendant U.S. BANCORP (“Defendant” or “Bancorp”)has infringed and is infringing on the‘703 Patent by providing a patented remote limit-setting information distribution system to itscustomers. Accordingly, Sonic brings this action to redress the misappropriation by Bancorp andto seek injunctive relief and monetary damages.
PARTIES
2.
 
Plaintiff is a limited liability company organized and existing under the law of theState of Delaware. Plaintiff maintains its principal place of business at 3422 Old Capital Trail,PMB (STE) 1549, Wilmington, Delaware 19808-6192. Plaintiff is the exclusive licensee of the‘793 Patent which respect to the Defendant, and possesses the right to sue for infringement andrecover past damages.3.
 
Defendant is a corporation organized and existing under the law of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business located at 800 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis,Minnesota 55402.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4.
 
This action arises under the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1
et seq.
,including 35 U.S.C. §§ 271, 281, 283, 284, and 285. This Court has subject matter jurisdictionover this case for patent infringement under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
 
3
SONIC INDUSTRY, LLC’S COMPLAINTFOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
1234567891011121314151617181920212223245.
 
This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because: Defendant is presentwithin or has minimum contacts with the State of California and the Southern District of California; Defendant has purposefully availed itself of the privileges of conducting business in theState of California and in the Southern District of California; Defendant has sought protection andbenefit from the laws of the State of California; Defendant regularly conducts business within theState of California and within the Southern District of California; and Plaintiff’s causes of actionarise directly from Defendant’s business contacts and other activities in the State of California andin the Southern District of California.6.
 
Furthermore, Defendant, directly and/or through authorized intermediaries, ships,distributes, offers for sale, sells, and/or advertises (including the provision of an interactive webpage) its products and services in the United States, the State of California, and the SouthernDistrict of California. Upon information and belief, Defendant has committed patent infringementin the State of California and in the Southern District of California, has contributed to patentinfringement in the State of California and in the Southern District of California, and/or hasinduced others to commit patent infringement in the State of California and in the SouthernDistrict of California. Defendant solicits customers in the State of California and in the SouthernDistrict of California. Defendant has paying customers who are residents of the State of Californiaand the Southern District of California and who use the Defendant’s products and services in theState of California and in the Central District of California.7.
 
Venue is proper in the Southern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1391 and 1400(b). ///  ///  /// 

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)//-->