Your Federal Quarterly Tax Payments are due April 15th Get Help Now >>

Starbucks Mobile Payment Patent case by paidcontent

VIEWS: 1,474 PAGES: 13

									              Case 4:12-cv-00005-RAS-DDB Document 1-5
JS 44 (Rev. 09/11)
                                                                                       Filed 01/06/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 114
                                                                             CIVIL COVER SHEET
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as provided
by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating
the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS                                                                                         DEFENDANTS
Maxim Integrated Products, Inc.                                                                         Starbucks Corporation


     (b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff                                                    County of Residence of First Listed Defendant
                                  (EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)                                                                    (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
                                                                                                          NOTE:                     IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
                                                                                                                                    THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.


     (c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number)                                             Attorneys (If Known)
Andrew W. Spangler, Spangler Law P.C., 208 N. Green St., Ste. 300,
Longview, TX 75601, 903-753-9300; James C. Otteson, Agility IP Law,
LLP, 149 Commonwealth Drive, Menlo Park, CA 94025, 650-227-4800
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION                           (Place an “X” in One Box Only)          III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff)
                                                                                                     (For Diversity Cases Only)                                         and One Box for Defendant)
’ 1     U.S. Government               ’ 3 Federal Question                                                                    PTF        DEF                                           PTF      DEF
          Plaintiff                         (U.S. Government Not a Party)                       Citizen of This State         ’ 1        ’ 1       Incorporated or Principal Place      ’ 4 ’ 4
                                                                                                                                                   of Business In This State

’ 2     U.S. Government               ’ 4 Diversity                                             Citizen of Another State          ’ 2     ’    2   Incorporated and Principal Place     ’    5   ’ 5
          Defendant                         (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)                                                             of Business In Another State

                                                                                                Citizen or Subject of a           ’ 3     ’    3   Foreign Nation                       ’    6   ’ 6
                                                                                                  Foreign Country
IV. NATURE OF SUIT                    (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
           CONTRACT                                          TORTS                                  FORFEITURE/PENALTY                        BANKRUPTCY                     OTHER STATUTES
’   110 Insurance                        PERSONAL INJURY                PERSONAL INJURY         ’ 625 Drug Related Seizure          ’ 422 Appeal 28 USC 158            ’   375 False Claims Act
’   120 Marine                       ’   310 Airplane                 ’ 365 Personal Injury -         of Property 21 USC 881        ’ 423 Withdrawal                   ’   400 State Reapportionment
’   130 Miller Act                   ’   315 Airplane Product               Product Liability   ’ 690 Other                               28 USC 157                   ’   410 Antitrust
’   140 Negotiable Instrument                 Liability               ’ 367 Health Care/                                                                               ’   430 Banks and Banking
’   150 Recovery of Overpayment      ’   320 Assault, Libel &               Pharmaceutical                                            PROPERTY RIGHTS                  ’   450 Commerce
        & Enforcement of Judgment             Slander                       Personal Injury                                         ’ 820 Copyrights                   ’   460 Deportation
’   151 Medicare Act                 ’   330 Federal Employers’             Product Liability                                       ’ 830 Patent                       ’   470 Racketeer Influenced and
’   152 Recovery of Defaulted                 Liability               ’ 368 Asbestos Personal                                       ’ 840 Trademark                            Corrupt Organizations
        Student Loans                ’   340 Marine                         Injury Product                                                                             ’   480 Consumer Credit
        (Excl. Veterans)             ’   345 Marine Product                 Liability                        LABOR                      SOCIAL SECURITY                ’   490 Cable/Sat TV
’   153 Recovery of Overpayment               Liability                PERSONAL PROPERTY        ’   710 Fair Labor Standards        ’   861 HIA (1395ff)               ’   850 Securities/Commodities/
        of Veteran’s Benefits        ’   350 Motor Vehicle            ’ 370 Other Fraud                 Act                         ’   862 Black Lung (923)                   Exchange
’   160 Stockholders’ Suits          ’   355 Motor Vehicle            ’ 371 Truth in Lending    ’   720 Labor/Mgmt. Relations       ’   863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g))         ’   890 Other Statutory Actions
’   190 Other Contract                       Product Liability        ’ 380 Other Personal      ’   740 Railway Labor Act           ’   864 SSID Title XVI             ’   891 Agricultural Acts
’   195 Contract Product Liability   ’   360 Other Personal                 Property Damage     ’   751 Family and Medical          ’   865 RSI (405(g))               ’   893 Environmental Matters
’   196 Franchise                            Injury                   ’ 385 Property Damage             Leave Act                                                      ’   895 Freedom of Information
                                     ’   362 Personal Injury -              Product Liability   ’   790 Other Labor Litigation                                                 Act
                                             Med. Malpractice                                   ’   791 Empl. Ret. Inc.                                                ’   896 Arbitration
        REAL PROPERTY                      CIVIL RIGHTS               PRISONER PETITIONS                Security Act                  FEDERAL TAX SUITS                ’   899 Administrative Procedure
’   210 Land Condemnation            ’   440 Other Civil Rights       ’ 510 Motions to Vacate                                       ’ 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff                Act/Review or Appeal of
’   220 Foreclosure                  ’   441 Voting                         Sentence                                                       or Defendant)                       Agency Decision
’   230 Rent Lease & Ejectment       ’   442 Employment                 Habeas Corpus:                                              ’ 871 IRS—Third Party              ’   950 Constitutionality of
’   240 Torts to Land                ’   443 Housing/                 ’ 530 General                                                        26 USC 7609                         State Statutes
’   245 Tort Product Liability               Accommodations           ’ 535 Death Penalty              IMMIGRATION
’   290 All Other Real Property      ’   445 Amer. w/Disabilities -   ’ 540 Mandamus & Other    ’ 462 Naturalization Application
                                             Employment               ’ 550 Civil Rights        ’ 463 Habeas Corpus -
                                     ’   446 Amer. w/Disabilities -   ’ 555 Prison Condition          Alien Detainee
                                             Other                    ’ 560 Civil Detainee -          (Prisoner Petition)
                                     ’   448 Education                      Conditions of       ’ 465 Other Immigration
                                                                            Confinement               Actions

V. ORIGIN                 (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
                                                                                                                  Transferred from
’ 1 Original           ’ 2 Removed from          ’ 3 Remanded from             ’ 4 Reinstated or ’ 5 another district                    ’ 6 Multidistrict
    Proceeding             State Court                    Appellate Court              Reopened                   (specify)                       Litigation
                                   Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
                                            35 U.S.C. Section 271
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:
                                            Patent Infringement
VII. REQUESTED IN     ’ CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION                                             DEMAND $                                   CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
     COMPLAINT:          UNDER F.R.C.P. 23                                                                                                     JURY DEMAND:         ’ Yes     ’ No
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
                       (See instructions):
      IF ANY                               JUDGE                                                                                        DOCKET NUMBER

DATE                                                                    SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD

01/12/2012                                                             /s/Andrew W. Spangler
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

    RECEIPT #                     AMOUNT                                  APPLYING IFP                                    JUDGE                           MAG. JUDGE


                 Print                                Save As...                                                                                                              Reset
            Case 4:12-cv-00005-RAS-DDB Document 1-5                                     Filed 01/06/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 115
JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 09/11)


                      INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44

                                                                 Authority For Civil Cover Sheet
  The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as required
by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the
use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of Court for each civil
complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:
I.       (a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use only
the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and then the official, giving
both name and title.
        (b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the
time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land condemnation
cases, the county of residence of the “defendant” is the location of the tract of land involved.)
         (c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting
in this section “(see attachment)”.
II.     Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.C.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an “X” in one
of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.
United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.
United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an “X” in this box.
Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment to the
Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes precedence, and box
1 or 2 should be marked.
Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the citizenship of
the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; federal question actions take precedence over diversity cases.)
III.    Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this section
for each principal party.
IV.      Nature of Suit. Place an “X” in the appropriate box. If the nature of suit cannot be determined, be sure the cause of action, in Section VI below, is
sufficient to enable the deputy clerk or the statistical clerks in the Administrative Office to determine the nature of suit. If the cause fits more than one nature of
suit, select the most definitive.
V.       Origin. Place an “X” in one of the seven boxes.
Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.
Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441. When the petition
for removal is granted, check this box.
Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing date.
Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.
Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or multidistrict
litigation transfers.
Multidistrict Litigation. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1407. When this
box is checked, do not check (5) above.
Appeal to District Judge from Magistrate Judgment. (7) Check this box for an appeal from a magistrate judge’s decision.
VI.    Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional statutes
unless diversity.          Example:               U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553
                                                  Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service
VII.     Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an “X” in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.
Demand. In this space enter the dollar amount (in thousands of dollars) being demanded or indicate other demand such as a preliminary injunction.
Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.
VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket numbers
and the corresponding judge names for such cases.
Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.
Case 4:12-cv-00005-RAS-DDB Document 1                 Filed 01/06/12 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 1




                           UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                            EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
                                SHERMAN DIVISION

   MAXIM INTEGRATED PRODUCTS,                     )     CASE NO.:
   INC.,                                          )     JURY
                                                  )
                  Plaintiff,                      )
                                                  )     COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
          v.                                      )     INFRINGEMENT
                                                  )
   STARBUCKS CORPORATION,                         )     DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
                                                  )
                  Defendant.                      )
                                                  )


          Maxim Integrated Products, Inc. (“Maxim”) hereby alleges for its Complaint

   against defendant Starbucks Corporation (“Starbucks”) on personal knowledge as to its

   own actions and on information and belief as to the actions of others, as follows:

                                       THE PARTIES

          1.      Plaintiff Maxim is a Delaware Corporation with a place of business at

   120 San Gabriel Drive, Sunnyvale, California 94086.

          2.      Defendant Starbucks Corporation (“Starbucks”) is a Washington

   Corporation with its principal place of business at 2401 Utah Avenue South, Suite 800,

   S-LA1, Seattle, Washington 98134.

                               JURISDICTION AND VENUE

          3.      This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of

   the United States Code.

          4.      This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331

   and 1338(a).




   COMPLAINT
Case 4:12-cv-00005-RAS-DDB Document 1               Filed 01/06/12 Page 2 of 11 PageID #: 2



          5.      This Court has personal jurisdiction over Starbucks because Starbucks

   has transacted business in this District. Specifically, Starbucks has offered for sale,

   sold, and/or advertised its products and services in this District. Starbucks maintains

   numerous retail locations throughout this District. Thus, Starbucks has committed and

   continues to commit acts of patent infringement in this District.

          6.      Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c), and

   1400(b).

                                 THE ASSERTED PATENTS

          7.      On August 17, 1999, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly

   and legally issued U.S. Patent No. 5,940,510 (“the ’510 Patent”), entitled “Transfer of

   Valuable Information Between a Secure Module and Another Module,” to Stephen M.

   Curry, Donald W. Loomis, and Michael L. Bolan. A copy of the ’510 Patent is attached

   to the Complaint as Exhibit A.

          8.      On September 7, 1999, the United States Patent and Trademark Office

   duly and legally issued U.S. Patent No. 5,949,880 (“the ’880 Patent”), entitled “Transfer

   of Valuable Information Between a Secure Module and Another Module,” to Stephen

   M. Curry, Donald W. Loomis, and Michael L. Bolan. A copy of the ’880 Patent is

   attached to the Complaint as Exhibit B.

          9.      On August 15, 2000, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly

   and legally issued U.S. Patent No. 6,105,013 (“the ’013 Patent”), entitled “Method,

   Apparatus, System, and Firmware for Secure Transactions,” to Stephen M. Curry,

   Donald W. Loomis, and Christopher W. Fox. A copy of the ’013 Patent is attached to

   the Complaint as Exhibit C.




   COMPLAINT                                        -2-
Case 4:12-cv-00005-RAS-DDB Document 1               Filed 01/06/12 Page 3 of 11 PageID #: 3



          10.     On May 22, 2001, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly

   and legally issued U.S. Patent No. 6,237,095 (“the ’095 Patent”), entitled “Apparatus

   for Transfer of Secure Information Between a Data Carrying Module and an Electronic

   Device,” to Stephen M. Curry, Donald W. Loomis, and Christopher W. Fox. A copy of

   the ’095 Patent is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit D.

          11.     Maxim is the owner of the ’510, ’880, ’013, and ’095 Patents

   (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”).

                                         COUNT I
                              (Infringement of the ’510 Patent)

          12.     Maxim incorporates and realleges paragraphs 1-11.

          13.     Starbucks directly infringes one or more claims of the ’510 Patent

   (literally or under the doctrine of equivalents) by making, using, offering to sell, and/or

   selling products, devices, systems, and/or components of systems which embody the

   patented invention, including the “Starbucks Card Mobile,” “Starbucks for iPhone,” and

   “Starbucks for Android” applications.       Infringement arises from the use of such

   applications to communicate with systems operated by or on behalf of Starbucks.

          14.     Starbucks induces its customers and other third parties to infringe one or

   more claims of the ’510 Patent (literally or under the doctrine of equivalents) at least by

   providing the “Starbucks Card Mobile,” “Starbucks for iPhone,” and “Starbucks for

   Android” applications and instructions to use these applications. Customers and other

   third parties infringe by using such applications to communicate with systems operated

   by or on behalf of Starbucks. Starbucks knew and/or was willfully blind that the acts it

   induced constituted patent infringement.




   COMPLAINT                                        -3-
Case 4:12-cv-00005-RAS-DDB Document 1                Filed 01/06/12 Page 4 of 11 PageID #: 4



             15.    Starbucks contributes to the infringement of the ’510 patent by selling,

   offering to sell, importing, and/or supplying components of the claimed subject matter

   of the ’510 patent, including providing the “Starbucks Card Mobile,” “Starbucks for

   iPhone,” and “Starbucks for Android” applications to customers. These applications are

   especially made and/or especially adapted for use in infringing the ’510 patent and are

   not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing

   use.

             16.    Starbucks had notice of the ’510 Patent by no later than on or about

   August 3, 2011.

             17.    Starbucks has willfully infringed the ’510 Patent.

             18.    Starbucks has committed these acts of infringement within the United

   States.

             19.    Starbucks has committed these acts of infringement without license or

   authorization.

             20.    Maxim has suffered damages as a result of Starbucks’ infringement of

   the ’510 Patent. In addition, Maxim will continue to suffer severe and irreparable harm

   unless this Court issues a permanent injunction prohibiting Starbucks, its agents,

   servants, employees, representatives, and all others acting in active concert therewith

   from infringing the ’510 Patent.

                                         COUNT II
                               (Infringement of the ’880 Patent)

             21.    Maxim incorporates and realleges paragraphs 1-20.

             22.    Starbucks directly infringes one or more claims of the ’880 Patent

   (literally or under the doctrine of equivalents) by using applications which embody the




   COMPLAINT                                         -4-
Case 4:12-cv-00005-RAS-DDB Document 1               Filed 01/06/12 Page 5 of 11 PageID #: 5



   patented invention, including the “Starbucks Card Mobile,” “Starbucks for iPhone,” and

   “Starbucks for Android” applications.       Infringement arises from the use of such

   applications to communicate with systems operated by or on behalf of Starbucks.

   Infringement is either by Starbucks alone and/or in concert with customers or other

   third parties according to a common scheme or under the direction or control of

   Starbucks.

          23.     Starbucks induces its customers and other third parties to infringe one or

   more claims of the ’880 Patent (literally or under the doctrine of equivalents) at least by

   providing the “Starbucks Card Mobile,” “Starbucks for iPhone,” and “Starbucks for

   Android” applications and instructions to use these applications. Customers and other

   third parties infringe by using such applications to communicate with systems operated

   by or on behalf of Starbucks. Starbucks knew and/or was willfully blind that the acts it

   induced constituted patent infringement.

          24.     Starbucks contributes to the infringement of the ’880 patent by selling,

   offering to sell, importing, and/or supplying components of the claimed subject matter

   of the ’880 patent, including providing the “Starbucks Card Mobile,” “Starbucks for

   iPhone,” and “Starbucks for Android” applications to customers. These applications are

   especially made and/or especially adapted for use in infringing the ’880 patent and are

   not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing

   use.

          25.     Starbucks had notice of the ’880 Patent by no later than on or about

   August 3, 2011.

          26.     Starbucks has willfully infringed the ’880 Patent.




   COMPLAINT                                        -5-
Case 4:12-cv-00005-RAS-DDB Document 1                Filed 01/06/12 Page 6 of 11 PageID #: 6



             27.    Starbucks has committed these acts of infringement within the United

   States.

             28.    Starbucks has committed these acts of infringement without license or

   authorization.

             29.    Maxim has suffered damages as a result of Starbucks’ infringement of

   the ’880 Patent. In addition, Maxim will continue to suffer severe and irreparable harm

   unless this Court issues a permanent injunction prohibiting Starbucks, its agents,

   servants, employees, representatives, and all others acting in active concert therewith

   from infringing the ’880 Patent.

                                         COUNT III
                               (Infringement of the ’013 Patent)

             30.    Maxim incorporates and realleges paragraphs 1- 29.

             31.    Starbucks directly infringes one or more claims of the ’013 Patent

   (literally or under the doctrine of equivalents) by making, using, offering to sell, and/or

   selling products, devices, systems, and/or components of systems which embody the

   patented invention, including the “Starbucks Card Mobile,” “Starbucks for iPhone,” and

   “Starbucks for Android” applications. Infringement arises when such applications are

   combined with a mobile device and/or from the use of such applications to

   communicate with systems operated by or on behalf of Starbucks.

             32.    Starbucks induces its customers and other third parties to infringe one or

   more claims of the ’013 Patent (literally or under the doctrine of equivalents) at least by

   providing the “Starbucks Card Mobile,” “Starbucks for iPhone,” and “Starbucks for

   Android” applications and instructions to use these applications. Customers and other

   third parties infringe by combining such applications with a mobile device and/or using




   COMPLAINT                                         -6-
Case 4:12-cv-00005-RAS-DDB Document 1                Filed 01/06/12 Page 7 of 11 PageID #: 7



   such applications to communicate with systems operated by or on behalf of Starbucks.

   Starbucks knew and/or was willfully blind that the acts it induced constituted patent

   infringement.

             33.    Starbucks contributes to the infringement of the ’013 patent by selling,

   offering to sell, importing, and/or supplying components of the claimed subject matter

   of the ’013 patent, including providing the “Starbucks Card Mobile,” “Starbucks for

   iPhone,” and “Starbucks for Android” applications to customers. These applications are

   especially made and/or especially adapted for use in infringing the ’013 patent and are

   not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing

   use.

             34.    Starbucks had notice of the ’013 Patent by no later than on or about

   August 3, 2011.

             35.    Starbucks has willfully infringed the ’013 Patent.

             36.    Starbucks has committed these acts of infringement within the United

   States.

             37.    Starbucks has committed these acts of infringement without license or

   authorization.

             38.    Maxim has suffered damages as a result of Starbucks’ infringement of

   the ’013 Patent. In addition, Maxim will continue to suffer severe and irreparable harm

   unless this Court issues a permanent injunction prohibiting Starbucks, its agents,

   servants, employees, representatives, and all others acting in active concert therewith

   from infringing the ’013 Patent.




   COMPLAINT                                         -7-
Case 4:12-cv-00005-RAS-DDB Document 1               Filed 01/06/12 Page 8 of 11 PageID #: 8



                                        COUNT IV
                              (Infringement of the ’095 Patent)

          39.      Maxim incorporates and realleges paragraphs 1-38.

          40.      Starbucks directly infringes one or more claims of the ’095 Patent

   (literally or under the doctrine of equivalents) by making, using, offering to sell, and/or

   selling products, devices, systems, and/or components of systems which embody the

   patented invention, including the “Starbucks Card Mobile,” “Starbucks for iPhone,” and

   “Starbucks for Android” applications. Infringement arises when such applications are

   combined with a mobile device and/or from the use of such applications to

   communicate with systems operated by or on behalf of Starbucks.

          41.      Starbucks induces its customers and other third parties to infringe one or

   more claims of the ’095 Patent (literally or under the doctrine of equivalents) at least by

   providing the “Starbucks Card Mobile,” “Starbucks for iPhone,” and “Starbucks for

   Android” applications and instructions to use these applications. Customers and other

   third parties infringe by combining such applications with a mobile device and/or using

   such applications to communicate with systems operated by or on behalf of Starbucks.

   Starbucks knew and/or was willfully blind that the acts it induced constituted patent

   infringement.

          42.      Starbucks contributes to the infringement of the ’095 patent by selling,

   offering to sell, importing, and/or supplying components of the claimed subject matter

   of the ’095 patent, including providing the “Starbucks Card Mobile,” “Starbucks for

   iPhone,” and “Starbucks for Android” applications to customers. These applications are

   especially made and/or especially adapted for use in infringing the ’095 patent and are




   COMPLAINT                                        -8-
Case 4:12-cv-00005-RAS-DDB Document 1                   Filed 01/06/12 Page 9 of 11 PageID #: 9



   not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing

   use.

             43.      Starbucks had notice of the ’095 Patent by no later than on or about

   August 3, 2011.

             44.      Starbucks has willfully infringed the ’095 Patent.

             45.      Starbucks has committed these acts of infringement within the United

   States.

             46.      Starbucks has committed these acts of infringement without license or

   authorization.

             47.      Maxim has suffered damages as a result of Starbucks’ infringement of

   the ’095 Patent. In addition, Maxim will continue to suffer severe and irreparable harm

   unless this Court issues a permanent injunction prohibiting Starbucks, its agents,

   servants, employees, representatives, and all others acting in active concert therewith

   from infringing the ’095 Patent.

                                       PRAYER FOR RELIEF

             For the above reasons, Maxim respectfully requests that this Court grant the

   following relief in favor of Maxim and against Starbucks:

             (a) A judgment in favor of Maxim that Starbucks has directly infringed (either

                   literally or under the doctrine of equivalents) one or more claims of the

                   Asserted Patents;

             (b) A permanent injunction enjoining Starbucks and its officers, directors, agents,

                   servants, affiliates, employees, divisions, branches, subsidiaries, parents, and

                   all others acting in active concert or participation with Starbucks, from




   COMPLAINT                                            -9-
Case 4:12-cv-00005-RAS-DDB Document 1             Filed 01/06/12 Page 10 of 11 PageID #: 10



               infringing the Asserted Patents;

           (c) A judgment and order requiring Starbucks to pay Maxim its damages, costs,

               expenses, and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest for Starbucks’

               infringement of the Asserted Patents;

           (d) An award of treble damages for Starbucks’ willful infringement of the

               Asserted Patents;

           (e) A judgment and order finding that this is an exceptional case within the

               meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285 and awarding Maxim its reasonable attorney fees;

               and

           (f) Any and all such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

                                DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

           Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff Maxim

    demands a trial by jury of this action.




    COMPLAINT                                      -10-
Case 4:12-cv-00005-RAS-DDB Document 1   Filed 01/06/12 Page 11 of 11 PageID #: 11



    Dated: January 6, 2012                SPANGLER LAW P.C.



                                          By: /s/ Andrew W. Spangler

                                          Andrew W. Spangler
                                          State Bar No. 24041960
                                          Spangler Law PC
                                          208 N. Green Street, Suite 300
                                          Longview, Texas 75601
                                          903-753-9300
                                          Fax: 903-553-0403
                                          Email: spangler@spanglerlawpc.com

                                          Attorneys for Plaintiff
                                          Maxim Integrated Products, Inc.

                                          Of Counsel:

                                          James C. Otteson
                                          Philip Marsh
                                          Michael Nguyen
                                          AGILITY IP LAW, LLP
                                          149 Commonwealth Drive
                                          Menlo Park, CA 94025

                                          Michael North
                                          NORTH WEBER & BAUGH LLP
                                          2479 E. Bayshore Road, Suite 707
                                          Palo Alto, CA 94303




    COMPLAINT                           -11-

								
To top