PanTaurus LLC v. Google, Inc.

Filing 1

COMPLAINT against Google, Inc. ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0540-4626736.), filed by PanTaurus LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet)(Tadlock, Charles)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BEAUMONT DIVISION
PANTAURUS LLC,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:14-cv-232

v.
PATENT CASE
GOOGLE, INC.,
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Defendant.

COMPLAINT
Plaintiff PanTaurus LLC files this Complaint against Google, Inc., for infringement of
United States Patent No. 6,272,533 (the “‘533 Patent”).
PARTIES AND JURISDICTION
1.

This is an action for patent infringement under Title 35 of the United States Code.

Plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief as well as damages.
2.

Jurisdiction is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 (Federal

Question) and 1338(a) (Patents) because this is a civil action for patent infringement arising
under the United States patent statutes.
3.

Plaintiff PanTaurus LLC (“Plaintiff” or “PanTaurus”) is a Texas limited liability

company with its principal office located in the Eastern District of Texas, at 2305 North Street,
Suite 205, Beaumont, Texas 77702.
4.

Upon information and belief, Defendant Google, Inc. (“Defendant”) is a Delaware

corporation with a principal office located at 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View,
California 94043. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant has
committed, and continues to commit, acts of infringement in the state of Texas, has conducted

business in the state of Texas, and/or has engaged in continuous and systematic activities in the
state of Texas.
5.

On information and belief, Defendant’s instrumentalities that are alleged herein to

infringe were and/or continue to be made, used, imported, offered for sale, and/or sold in the
Eastern District of Texas.
VENUE
6.

Venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(c)

and 1400(b) because Defendant is deemed to reside in this district. In addition, and in the
alternative, Defendant has committed acts of infringement in this district.
COUNT I
(INFRINGEMENT OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 6,272,533)
7.

Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 6 herein by reference.

8.

This cause of action arises under the patent laws of the United States, and in

particular, 35 U.S.C. §§ 271, et seq.
9.

Plaintiff is the owner by assignment of the ‘533 Patent with sole rights to enforce

the ‘533 Patent and sue infringers.
10.

A copy of the ‘533 Patent, titled “Secure Computer System And Method Of

Providing Secure Access To A Computer System Including A Stand Alone Switch Operable To
Inhibit Data Corruption On A Storage Device,” is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
11.

The ‘533 Patent is valid and enforceable, and it was duly issued in full

compliance with Title 35 of the United States Code.
12.

The ‘533 Patent is a prominent, pioneering patent in the field of computer

security. This is evidenced in part by the extent to which the ‘533 Patent has been forward-cited
as prior art in connection with the examination of subsequently-issued U.S. patents. The ‘533

2

Patent has been forward-cited in more than 130 subsequently-issued U.S. patents to date,
including patents originally assigned to such prominent companies as Intel (93 times), Dot Hill
Systems (12 times), IBM, Nikon, Dell, Seagate, Lenovo, McAfee, Hewlett Packard, Lockheed
Martin, and STMicroelectronics.
(Direct Infringement)
13.

Upon information and belief, Defendant has infringed and continues to directly

infringe one or more claims of the ‘533 Patent, including at least claim 29, by making, using,
importing, selling and/or offering for sale secure computer systems covered by one or more
claims of the ‘533 Patent, including without limitation Google tablets utilizing a Tegra 3 or
Tegra 4 processor (for example, the Google Nexus 7 tablet) (collectively, the “Accused
Instrumentalities”).
(Indirect Infringement – Inducement)
14.

Upon information and belief, Defendant has induced infringement and continues

to induce infringement of one or more claims of the ‘533 Patent, including at least claim 29, by
end users of the Accused Instrumentalities. Defendant specifically intended for end users of the
Accused Instrumentalities to infringe the ‘533 Patent and knew that the end users’ acts
constituted infringement. Defendant had knowledge of the ‘533 Patent or acted with willful
blindness to the ‘533 Patent, and Defendant had the specific intent to cause infringement.
15.

At least from the time of service of this Complaint, Defendant has had knowledge

of the ‘533 Patent.
16.

Upon information and belief, since Defendant has been on notice of the ‘533

Patent, Defendant has continued to encourage, instruct, enable, and otherwise cause end users of

3

the Accused Instrumentalities to use the Accused Instrumentalities in a manner that infringes one
or more claims of the ‘533 Patent, including at least claim 29.
17.

Defendant’s specific intent to cause infringement can be inferred from, without

limitation, the facts that Defendant makes, uses, sells, offers for sale and/or imports the Accused
Instrumentalities comprising or containing the infringing secure computer system, that
Defendant markets certain infringing security and performance features of the Accused
Instrumentalities in its promotional materials, and that Defendant differentiates in its promotional
materials certain infringing security and performance features of the Accused Instrumentalities
from other systems that do not contain such infringing features. In addition, Plaintiff is not
aware of any evidence showing any investigation or design around by Defendant, or that
Defendant has taken any remedial action with respect to the ‘533 Patent.
18.

In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(3), Plaintiff will likely have additional

evidentiary support for its claims of induced infringement after a reasonable opportunity for
discovery on this issue.
(Additional Allegations Related to Count One)
19.

Defendant’s actions complained of herein are causing irreparable harm and

monetary damage to Plaintiff and will continue to do so unless and until Defendant is enjoined
and restrained by this Court.
20.

Plaintiff is in compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 287.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, requests a trial by jury of
all issues so triable by right.

4

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court to:
a)

Enter judgment for Plaintiff on this Complaint on all causes of action asserted
herein;

b)

Enjoin Defendant, its agents, officers, servants, employees, attorneys and all
persons in active concert or participation with Defendant who receive notice of the
order from further infringement of United States Patent No. 6,272,533 (or, in the
alternative, awarding Plaintiff a running royalty from the time of judgment going
forward);

c)

Award Plaintiff damages resulting from Defendant’s infringement in accordance
with 35 U.S.C. § 284;

d)

Award Plaintiff pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and costs; and

e)

Award Plaintiff such further relief to which the Court finds Plaintiff entitled under
law or equity.

Dated: April 23, 2014

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Craig Tadlock
______
Craig Tadlock
State Bar No. 00791766
John J. Harvey, Jr.
State Bar No. 09179770
Keith Smiley
State Bar No. 24067869
TADLOCK LAW FIRM PLLC
2701 Dallas Parkway, Suite 360
Plano, Texas 75093
903-730-6789
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff PanTaurus LLC

5