Docstoc
EXCLUSIVE OFFER FOR DOCSTOC USERS
Try the all-new QuickBooks Online for FREE.  No credit card required.

TerrraSpark Geosciences v. Paradigm et. al

Document Sample
TerrraSpark Geosciences v. Paradigm et. al Powered By Docstoc
					                          UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                       FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
                                HOUSTON DIVISION



TERRASPARK GEOSCIENCES, LLC                      )
                                                 )
       Plaintiff,                                )         CASE NO.
                                                 )
v.                                               )         Jury Trial Demanded
                                                 )
PARADIGM, B.V.,                                  )
PARADIGM GEOTECHNOLOGY, B.V.,                    )
PARADIGM GEOPHYSICAL CORP.,                      )
PARADIGM LTD., and                               )
PARADIGM SERVICES CORP.,                         )
                                                 )
       Defendants.                               )


                       COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT


       Plaintiff TerraSpark Geosciences, LLC (“TerraSpark”) files this Complaint for patent

infringement against Defendants Paradigm, B.V., Paradigm Geotechnology, B.V., Paradigm

Geophysical Corp., Paradigm Ltd., and Paradigm Services Corp. (collectively, “Paradigm” or the

“Paradigm Entities”), and alleges as follows:

                                           PARTIES

       1.      Plaintiff TerraSpark Geosciences, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company

having its principal place of business at 10955 Westmoor Drive, Westminster, Colorado 80021-

2704 (“TerraSpark”).

       2.      On information and belief, Paradigm B.V. (“Paradigm B.V.”) is a private limited

liability company incorporated in the Netherlands, and has a principal place of business in the

Netherlands located at WTC-A Tower 7th Floor, Strawinskylaan 717, Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Paradigm B.V. operates directly through a regional operational office located at Two Memorial




COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT                                                         PAGE 1
Plaza, 820 Gessner, Suite 400, Houston, Texas 77024 and/or is conducting business through an

affiliate located at this address.

        3.      On information and belief, Paradigm Geotechnology, B.V. (“Paradigm

Geotechnology”) is a private limited liability company incorporated in the Netherlands, and has a

principal place of business in the Netherlands located at WTC-A Tower 7th Floor,

Strawinskylaan 717, Amsterdam, Netherlands. Paradigm B.V. operates directly through a

regional operational office located at Two Memorial Plaza, 820 Gessner, Suite 400, Houston,

Texas 77024 and/or is conducting business through an affiliate located at this address.

        4.      On information and belief, Paradigm Geophysical Corp. (“Paradigm

Geophysical”) is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware, and has a

principal place of business at Two Memorial Plaza, 820 Gessner, Suite 400, Houston, Texas

77024, and/or is conducting business through an affiliate located at this address.

        5.      Upon information and belief, Paradigm Ltd. is a Caymen Island holding company

(“Paradigm Ltd.”). The website www.pdgm.com (the “Website”) purports to be operated by and

contain copyrighted material of “Paradigm Ltd.” However, the website www.pdgm.com is

registered to Paradigm Geophysical. The Accused Products (described below) are described,

promoted and/or offered for sale on the Website. Paradigm, Ltd. has a principal place of

business at Two Memorial Plaza, 820 Gessner, Suite 400, Houston, Texas 77024, and/or is

conducting business through an affiliate located at this address.

        6.      On information and belief, Paradigm Services Corp. (“Paradigm Services”) is a

Delaware corporation having a principal place of business at Two Memorial Plaza, 820 Gessner,

Suite 400, Houston, Texas 77024.




COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT                                                          PAGE 2
                                 JURISDICTION AND VENUE

       7.       This civil action for patent infringement arises under the Patent Laws of the

United States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq. This Court has jurisdiction over the claims presented herein

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).

       8.       On information and belief, each of the Paradigm Entities directly and/or

indirectly imports, manufactures, imports, uses, offers for sale, and/or sells the Accused Products

as defined below within the United States, including this District, that infringe one or more

claims of United States Patent No. 8,010,294 entitled “EXTRACTION OF DEPOSITIONAL

SYSTEMS” (the “'294 Patent”).

       9.       On information and belief, each of the Paradigm Entities directly and/or

indirectly sells and/or offers for sale the Accused Products within this District. In addition, each

of the Paradigm Entities directly or indirectly sells the Accused Products within the United

States, which Accused Products are placed in the stream of commerce and ultimately are used,

sold and/or or offered for sale in this District. On information and belief, customers who have

purchased the Accused Products from Paradigm are using the Accused Products in this District.

Therefore, Paradigm has directly infringed the '294 Patent within this District and/or contributed

to or induced infringement of the '294 Patent within this District.

       10.      Each of the Paradigm Entities is a foreign corporation transacting business within

the state of Texas; is causing tortious injury to TerraSpark by committing all or part of the

tortious acts described herein within the State of Texas, including this District; is causing tortious

injury to TerraSpark in the State of Texas, including this District, by committing all or part of the

tortious acts or omissions described herein outside the State of Texas; and/or is causing tortious

injury by committing all or part of the tortious acts or omissions described herein outside the




COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT                                                             PAGE 3
State of Texas while regularly conducting or soliciting business or deriving revenue from goods

used or consumed or services rendered within the State of Texas, including this District.

Paradigm has transacted and continues to transact business in this District, and has committed

acts of patent infringement in this District. Therefore, this Court has general and specific

personal jurisdiction over each of the Paradigm Entities under the Texas long-arm statute, TEX.

CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE §17.042.

        11.    Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1400(b) and 1391(c).

                                  GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

        12.    United States Patent No. 8,010,294 entitled “EXTRACTION OF

DEPOSITIONAL SYSTEMS” (“the '294 Patent”) was duly and legally issued by the United

States Patent and Trademark Office on August 30, 2011. A true and correct copy of the '294

Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

        13.    TerraSpark is the owner of all rights, title and interest in and to the '294 Patent,

and is entitled to sue for past and future infringement thereof.

        14.    Upon information and belief, Paradigm has imported, made, used, sold and/or

offered for sale in the United States Paradigm’s SKUA® suite of subsurface modeling modules

including the SKUA UVT modeling transform module (the “Accused Products”), which infringe

one or more claims of the '294 Patent.

        15.    Two publications describing the SKUA UVT modeling transform module are

attached hereto as Exhibits 2 and 3, respectively, and are incorporated by reference in their

entirety.

        16.    Upon information and belief, Paradigm contributes to infringement of the '294

Patent by selling the Accused Products, including its SKUA UVT modeling transform module,




COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT                                                              PAGE 4
which has no substantial non-infringing use, to its customers, who directly infringe the '294

Patent by using the Accused Products.

          17.   Upon information and belief, Paradigm induces end users to infringe one or more

claims of the '294 Patent by selling the Accused Products to customers, and/or by providing

operating manuals for its SKUA UVT modeling transform module that instruct Paradigm’s

customers how to use the SKUA UVT modeling transform module in a manner that infringes

one or more claims of the '294 Patent.

          18.   Paradigm had constructive notice of TerraSpark’s patent rights because

TerraSpark marks its products embodying the inventions of the '294 Patent with the '294 Patent

number.

          19.   Furthermore, TerraSpark provided actual notice of the '294 Patent to Paradigm at

least as early as December 6, 2011.

          20.   Despite such notice, Paradigm has imported, made, offered for sale, and sold, and

continues to import, make, use, sell, and/or offer for sale in the United States the Accused

Products, which infringe one or more claims of the '294 Patent.

          21.   Paradigm competes with TerraSpark in this District and elsewhere in the United

States.

                                 FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
                                 (Infringement of the '294 Patent)

          22.   TerraSpark incorporates paragraphs 1 through 21 as though fully set forth herein.

          23.   Upon information and belief, Paradigm has infringed, induced infringement of,

and/or contributed to infringement of the '294 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271 by

importing, making, using, selling, and/or offering to sell in the United States the Accused

Products that are covered by at least one claim of the '294 Patent.



COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT                                                              PAGE 5
       24.     Paradigm’s infringement of the '294 Patent is and has been willful. Paradigm’s

continued infringement of the '294 Patent has caused TerraSpark damages, and will continue to

cause irreparable damages to TerraSpark unless Paradigm is enjoined by this Court. TerraSpark

does not have an adequate remedy at law.

                                     PRAYER FOR RELIEF

       WHEREFORE, TerraSpark requests the following relief:

       A.      A judgment in favor of TerraSpark that Paradigm has directly infringed and has

indirectly infringed, by way of inducement and/or contributory infringement, one or more claims

of the Asserted Patents and that such infringement has been willful;

       B.      A judgment in that TerraSpark has been irreparably harmed by the infringing

activities by Paradigm and is likely to continue to be irreparably harmed by Paradigm’s

continued infringement;

       C.      Preliminary and permanent injunctions prohibiting Paradigm and its officers,

agents, servants, employees and those persons in active concert or participation with any of

them, as well as all successors or assignees of the interests or assets related to the Accused

Products, from further infringement, direct and indirect, of the '294 Patent;

       D.      A judgment and order requiring Paradigm to pay TerraSpark damages adequate to

compensate for Paradigm’s infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 284, which damages may include

lost profits but in no event shall be less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the

inventions of the Asserted Patents, including pre- and post-judgment interest and costs, including

expenses and disbursements;

       E.      A judgment and order awarding treble damages to TerraSpark pursuant to 35

U.S.C. § 284, in view of the willful and deliberate nature of the infringement, with interest;




COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT                                                              PAGE 6
        F.      A judgment declaring this to be an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and

awarding TerraSpark its attorneys’ fees;

        G.      A judgment holding each of the Paradigm entities jointly and severally liable for

all damages, costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees so awarded; and

        H.      Any and all such further necessary or proper relief as this Court may deem just.

                                           JURY DEMAND

        Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, TerraSpark hereby

requests a jury trial on all issues so triable.




COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT                                                          PAGE 7
DATED: June 8, 2012             BUETHER JOE & CARPENTER, LLC



                                By:   /s/ Eric W. Buether

                                      Eric W. Buether (Counsel in Charge)
                                      State Bar No. 03316880
                                      Eric.Buether@BJCIPlaw.com

                                      Brian A. Carpenter
                                      State Bar No. 03840600
                                      Brian.Carpenter@BJCIPlaw.com

                                      Christopher M. Joe
                                      State Bar No. 0078770
                                      Chris.Joe@BJCIPLaw.com

                                      1700 Pacific Avenue
                                      Suite 4750
                                      Dallas, Texas 75201
                                      Phone: (214) 446-1271
                                      Fax:     (214) 635-1827

                                      ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
                                      TERRASPARK GEOSCIENCES, LLC




COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT                                           PAGE 8

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:22
posted:6/12/2012
language:
pages:8