Wildcat Intellectual Property Holdings, LLC v. 4Kids Entertainment, Inc. et al
Filing
1
COMPLAINT for Patent Infringement against 4Kids Entertainment, Inc., Chaotic USA Entertainment Group, Inc., Electronic Arts Inc., Konami Digital Entertainment, Inc., Nintendo of America, Inc., Panini America, Inc., Pokemon USA, Inc., Sony Computer Entertainment America, Inc., Sony Online Entertainment, LLC, The Topps Company, Inc., Wizards of The Coast, LLC, Zynga, Inc. ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number 0540-3105546.), filed by Wildcat Intellectual Property Holdings, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet)(Davis, Stafford)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
WILDCAT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
HOLDINGS, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
1. 4KIDS ENTERTAINMENT, INC.;
2. CHAOTIC USA ENTERTAINMENT GROUP,
INC.;
3. ELECTRONIC ARTS INC.;
4. KONAMI DIGITAL ENTERTAINMENT, INC.;
5. NINTENDO OF AMERICA INC.;
6. PANINI AMERICA, INC.;
7. POKEMON USA, INC. n/k/a THE POKEMON
COMPANY INTERNATIONAL, INC.;
8. SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT
AMERICA LLC;
9. SONY ONLINE ENTERTAINMENT LLC;
10. THE TOPPS COMPANY, INC.;
11. WIZARDS OF THE COAST LLC; and,
12. ZYNGA INC.
Case No.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Defendants.
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
1.
This is an action for patent infringement in which Wildcat Intellectual
Property Holdings, LLC (“Wildcat” or “Plaintiff”) makes the following allegations
against 4Kids Entertainment, Inc.; Chaotic USA Entertainment Group, Inc.; Electronic
Arts Inc.; Konami Digital Entertainment, Inc.; Nintendo of America Inc.; Panini
America, Inc.; Pokemon USA, Inc. n/k/a The Pokemon Company International, Inc.;
Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC; Sony Online Entertainment LLC; The
Topps Company, Inc.; Wizards of the Coast LLC; and Zynga Inc.
1
PARTIES
2.
Plaintiff Wildcat is a Texas Limited Liability Company with its principal
place of business at 5000 Legacy Dr., Ste. 470, Plano, Texas, 75074.
3.
On information and belief, Defendant 4Kids Entertainment, Inc. (“4Kids”)
is a New York corporation with its principal place of business at 1414 Avenue of the
Americas, New York, NY 10019. On information and belief, 4Kids may be served with
process through its Chief Executive Officer Alfred R. Kahn at its principal place of
business at 1414 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10019.
4.
On information and belief, Defendant Chaotic USA Entertainment Group,
Inc. (“Chaotic”) is a California corporation with its principal place of business at 3830
Valley Center Dr., Ste. 705-405, San Diego, CA 92130. On information and belief,
Chaotic may be served with process through its President Bryan Gannon at its principal
place of business at 3830 Valley Center Dr., Ste. 705-405, San Diego, CA 92130.
5.
On information and belief, Defendant Electronic Arts Inc. (“EA”) is a
Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 209 Redwood Shores Pkwy.,
Redwood City, CA 94065. EA may be served with process through its registered agent
National Corporate Research, Ltd., 800 Brazos St., Ste. 400, Austin, TX 78701.
6.
On information and belief, Defendant Konami Digital Entertainment, Inc.
(“Konami”) is an Illinois corporation with its principle place of business at 2381
Rosecrans Ave., Ste. 200, El Segundo, CA 90245. Konami may be served with process
through its registered agent Joji Kagei, 19191 S. Vermont Avenue, Suite 420, Torrance
CA 90502-1051.
2
7.
On information and belief, Defendant Nintendo of America Inc.
(“Nintendo”) is a Washington corporation with its principal place of business at 4600
150th Ave., Redmond, WA 98052. Nintendo may be served with process through its
registered agent CT Corporation System, 350 N. Saint Paul St., Ste. 2900, Dallas, TX
75201.
8.
On information and belief, Defendant Panini America, Inc. (“Panini”) is a
Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 5325 FAA Blvd., Ste. 100,
Irving, TX 75061. Panini may be served with process through its registered agent
Corporation Service Company D/B/A CSC-Lawyers Incorporating Service Company,
211 E. 7th St., Ste. 620, Austin, TX 78701.
9.
On information and belief, Defendant Pokemon USA, Inc. n/k/a The
Pokemon Company International, Inc. (“Pokemon”) is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business at 1177 Avenue of the Americas, Fl. 31, New York, NY
10036.
Pokemon may be served with process through its registered agent CT
Corporation System, 111 8th Ave., New York, NY 10011.
10.
On information and belief, Defendant Sony Computer Entertainment
America LLC (“SCEA”) is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place
of business at 919 East Hillside Blvd., Foster City, CA 94404. SCEA may be served with
process through its registered agent Corporation Service Company D/B/A CSC-Lawyers
Incorporating Service Company, 211 E. 7th St., Ste. 620, Austin, TX 78701.
11.
On information and belief, Defendant Sony Online Entertainment LLC
(“SOE”) is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business at
8926 Terman Ct., San Diego, CA 92121. SOE may be served with process through its
3
registered agent The Prentice-Hall Corporation System, Inc., 2711 Centerville Road,
Suite 400, Wilmington, DE 19808.
12.
On information and belief, Defendant The Topps Company, Inc.
(“Topps”) is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 1 Whitehall
St., New York, NY 10004. On information and belief, Topps may be served with process
through its Chairman Arthur T. Shorin at its principal place of business at 1 Whitehall St.,
New York, NY 10004.
13.
On information and belief, Defendant Wizards of the Coast LLC
(“Wizards”) is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business
at 1600 Lind Ave. SW, Ste. 400, Renton, WA 98055. Wizards may be served with
process through its registered agent CT Corporation System, 1801 West Bay Dr. NW,
Ste. 206, Olympia, WA 98502.
14.
On information and belief, Defendant Zynga Inc. (“Zynga”) is a Delaware
corporation with its principal place of business at 365 Vermont St., Unit A, San
Francisco, CA 94103. Zynga may be served with process through its registered agent
Corporation Service Company D/B/A CSC-Lawyers Incorporating Service Company,
211 E. 7th St., Ste. 620, Austin, TX 78701.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
15.
This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of
the United States Code. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1331 and 1338(a).
4
16.
Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(c) and 1400(b).
On information and belief, Defendants have transacted business in this district, and have
committed and/or induced acts of patent infringement in this district.
17.
On information and belief, Defendants are subject to this Court’s specific
and general personal jurisdiction pursuant to due process and/or the Texas Long Arm
Statute, due at least to its substantial business in this forum, including: (i) at least a
portion of the infringements alleged herein; and (ii) regularly doing or soliciting business,
engaging in other persistent courses of conduct, and/or deriving substantial revenue from
goods and services provided to individuals in Texas and in this Judicial District.
COUNT I
INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,200,216
18.
Plaintiff is the owner by assignment of United States Patent No. 6,200,216
(“the '216 Patent”) entitled “Electronic Trading Card” – including all rights to recover for
past and future acts of infringement. The '216 Patent issued on March 13, 2001. A true
and correct copy of the '216 Patent is attached as Exhibit A.
19.
On information and belief, Defendants 4Kids and Chaotic have been and
now are directly infringing, and/or inducing infringement by others, and/or contributing
to the infringement by others, including customers of 4Kids and Chaotic, the '216 Patent
in this judicial district, and elsewhere in the United States. Infringements by 4Kids and
Chaotic include, without limitation, making, using, selling, hosting, and/or providing
access to within the United States, and/or importing into the United States, at least
4Kids’s and Chaotic’s Chaotic online trading card game, infringing one or more claims of
the '216 Patent. Also upon information and belief, 4Kids and Chaotic knew or should
have known that the Chaotic online trading card game would induce infringement by
5
their customers. It is further alleged that 4Kids and Chaotic have contributed to the
infringement of the '216 Patent by engaging in such activities knowing that their Chaotic
online trading card game is especially made or especially adapted to be used in a method
that infringes the '216 Patent, and which does not have a substantial non-infringing use.
Defendants 4Kids and Chaotic are thus liable for infringement of the '216 Patent under 35
U.S.C. § 271(a), (b), & (c).
20.
On information and belief, Defendant EA has been and now is directly
infringing, and/or inducing infringement by others, and/or contributing to the
infringement by others, including customers of EA, the '216 Patent in this judicial
district, and elsewhere in the United States. Infringements by EA include, without
limitation, making, using, selling, hosting, and/or providing access to within the United
States, and/or importing into the United States, at least EA’s BattleForge videogame,
infringing one or more claims of the '216 Patent. Also upon information and belief, EA
knew or should have known that the BattleForge videogame would induce infringement
by its customers. It is further alleged that EA has contributed to the infringement of the
'216 Patent by engaging in such activities knowing that its BattleForge videogame is
especially made or especially adapted to be used in a method that infringes the '216
Patent, and which does not have a substantial non-infringing use. Defendant EA is thus
liable for infringement of the '216 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), (b), & (c).
21.
On information and belief, Defendant Konami has been and now is
directly infringing, and/or inducing infringement by others, and/or contributing to the
infringement by others, including customers of Konami, the '216 Patent in this judicial
district, and elsewhere in the United States. Infringements by Konami include, without
6
limitation, making, using, selling, hosting, and/or providing access to within the United
States, and/or importing into the United States, at least Konami’s Marvel trading card
videogame and Yu-Gi-Oh! Online Duel Accelerator videogame, infringing one or more
claims of the '216 Patent. Also upon information and belief, Konami knew or should
have known that the Marvel trading card videogame and Yu-Gi-Oh! Online Duel
Accelerator videogame would induce infringement by its customers. It is further alleged
that Konami has contributed to the infringement of the '216 Patent by engaging in such
activities knowing that its Marvel trading card videogame and Yu-Gi-Oh! Online Duel
Accelerator videogame are especially made or especially adapted to be used in a method
that infringes the '216 Patent, and which do not have a substantial non-infringing use.
Defendant Konami is thus liable for infringement of the '216 Patent under 35 U.S.C. §
271(a), (b), & (c).
22.
On information and belief, Defendants Nintendo and Pokemon have been
and now are directly infringing, and/or inducing infringement by others, and/or
contributing to the infringement by others, including customers of Nintendo and
Pokemon, the '216 Patent in this judicial district, and elsewhere in the United States.
Infringements by Nintendo and Pokemon include, without limitation, making, using,
selling, hosting, and/or providing access to within the United States, and/or importing
into the United States, at least Nintendo’s and Pokemon’s Pokemon Trading Card Game
Online, infringing one or more claims of the '216 Patent. Also upon information and
belief, Nintendo and Pokemon knew or should have known that Pokemon Trading Card
Game Online would induce infringement by their customers. It is further alleged that
Nintendo and Pokemon have contributed to the infringement of the '216 Patent by
7
engaging in such activities knowing that their Pokemon Trading Card Game Online is
especially made or especially adapted to be used in a method that infringes the '216
Patent, and which does not have a substantial non-infringing use. Defendants Nintendo
and Pokemon are thus liable for infringement of the '216 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a),
(b), & (c).
23.
On information and belief, Defendant Panini has been and now is directly
infringing, and/or inducing infringement by others, and/or contributing to the
infringement by others, including customers of Panini, the '216 Patent in this judicial
district, and elsewhere in the United States. Infringements by Panini include, without
limitation, making, using, selling, hosting, and/or providing access to within the United
States, and/or importing into the United States, at least Panini’s NFL Adrenalyn XL
online game, infringing one or more claims of the '216 Patent. Also upon information
and belief, Panini knew or should have known that the NFL Adrenalyn XL online game
would induce infringement by its customers.
It is further alleged that Panini has
contributed to the infringement of the '216 Patent by engaging in such activities knowing
that its NFL Adrenalyn XL online game is especially made or especially adapted to be
used in a method that infringes the '216 Patent, and which does not have a substantial
non-infringing use. Defendant Panini is thus liable for infringement of the '216 Patent
under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), (b), & (c).
24.
On information and belief, Defendant SCEA has been and now is directly
infringing, and/or inducing infringement by others, and/or contributing to the
infringement by others, including customers of SCEA, the '216 Patent in this judicial
district, and elsewhere in the United States. Infringements by SCEA include, without
8
limitation, making, using, selling, hosting, and/or providing access to within the United
States, and/or importing into the United States, at least SCEA’s The Eye of Judgment
Legends videogame, infringing one or more claims of the '216 Patent.
Also upon
information and belief, SCEA knew or should have known that the The Eye of Judgment
Legends videogame would induce infringement by its customers. It is further alleged that
SCEA has contributed to the infringement of the '216 Patent by engaging in such
activities knowing that its The Eye of Judgment Legends videogame is especially made
or especially adapted to be used in a method that infringes the '216 Patent, and which
does not have a substantial non-infringing use. Defendant SCEA is thus liable for
infringement of the '216 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), (b), & (c).
25.
On information and belief, Defendant SOE has been and now is directly
infringing, and/or inducing infringement by others, and/or contributing to the
infringement by others, including customers of SOE, the '216 Patent in this judicial
district, and elsewhere in the United States. Infringements by SOE include, without
limitation, making, using, selling, hosting, and/or providing access to within the United
States, and/or importing into the United States, at least SOE’s Legends of Norrath online
trading card game, infringing one or more claims of the '216 Patent.
Also upon
information and belief, SOE knew or should have known that the Legends of Norrath
online trading card game would induce infringement by its customers. It is further
alleged that SOE has contributed to the infringement of the '216 Patent by engaging in
such activities knowing that its Legends of Norrath online trading card game is especially
made or especially adapted to be used in a method that infringes the '216 Patent, and
9
which does not have a substantial non-infringing use. Defendant SOE is thus liable for
infringement of the '216 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), (b), & (c).
26.
On information and belief, Defendant Topps has been and now is directly
infringing, and/or inducing infringement by others, and/or contributing to the
infringement by others, including customers of Topps, the '216 Patent in this judicial
district, and elsewhere in the United States. Infringements by Topps include, without
limitation, making, using, selling, hosting, and/or providing access to within the United
States, and/or importing into the United States, at least Topps’s Toppstown, infringing
one or more claims of the '216 Patent. Also upon information and belief, Topps knew or
should have known that Toppstown would induce infringement by its customers. It is
further alleged that Topps has contributed to the infringement of the '216 Patent by
engaging in such activities knowing that its Toppstown is especially made or especially
adapted to be used in a method that infringes the '216 Patent, and which does not have a
substantial non-infringing use. Defendant Topps is thus liable for infringement of the
'216 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), (b), & (c).
27.
On information and belief, Defendant Wizards has been and now is
directly infringing, and/or inducing infringement by others, and/or contributing to the
infringement by others, including customers of Wizards, the '216 Patent in this judicial
district, and elsewhere in the United States. Infringements by Wizards include, without
limitation, making, using, selling, hosting, and/or providing access to within the United
States, and/or importing into the United States, at least Wizards’s Magic Online game,
infringing one or more claims of the '216 Patent. Also upon information and belief,
Wizards knew or should have known that the Magic Online game would induce
10
infringement by its customers. It is further alleged that Wizards has contributed to the
infringement of the '216 Patent by engaging in such activities knowing that its Magic
Online game is especially made or especially adapted to be used in a method that
infringes the '216 Patent, and which does not have a substantial non-infringing use.
Defendant Wizards is thus liable for infringement of the '216 Patent under 35 U.S.C. §
271(a), (b), & (c).
28.
On information and belief, Defendant Zynga has been and now is directly
infringing, and/or inducing infringement by others, and/or contributing to the
infringement by others, including customers of Zynga, the '216 Patent in this judicial
district, and elsewhere in the United States. Infringements by Zynga include, without
limitation, making, using, selling, hosting, and/or providing access to within the United
States, and/or importing into the United States, at least Zynga’s Warstorm game,
infringing one or more claims of the '216 Patent. Also upon information and belief,
Zynga knew or should have known that the Warstorm game would induce infringement
by its customers. It is further alleged that Zynga has contributed to the infringement of
the '216 Patent by engaging in such activities knowing that its Warstorm game is
especially made or especially adapted to be used in a method that infringes the '216
Patent, and which does not have a substantial non-infringing use. Defendant Zynga is
thus liable for infringement of the '216 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), (b), & (c).
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter:
11
1. A judgment in favor of Plaintiff that Defendants have infringed, directly,
jointly, and/or indirectly, by way of inducing and/or contributing to the infringement of
the '216 Patent;
2. A permanent injunction enjoining Defendants and their officers, directors,
agents, servants, affiliates, employees, divisions, branches, subsidiaries, parents, and all
others acting in active concert therewith from infringement, inducing the infringement of,
or contributing to the infringement of the '216 Patent;
3. A judgment and order requiring Defendants to pay Plaintiff its damages, costs,
expenses, and prejudgment and post-judgment interest for Defendants’ infringement of
the '216 Patent as provided under 35 U.S.C. § 284;
4. A judgment and order finding that this is an exceptional case within the
meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285 and awarding to Plaintiff its reasonable attorneys’ fees; and
5. Any and all other relief to which Plaintiff may show itself to be entitled.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff, under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, requests a trial by
jury of any issues so triable by right.
12
Dated: July 1, 2011
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Stafford Davis
Darrell G. Dotson
State Bar No. 24002010
Gregory P. Love
State Bar No. 24013060
Scott E. Stevens
State Bar No. 00792024
Todd Y. Brandt
State Bar No. 24027051
STEVENS LOVE
P.O. Box 3427
Longview, Texas 75606
Telephone: (903) 753–6760
Facsimile: (903) 753–6761
darrell@stevenslove.com
greg@stevenslove.com
scott@stevenslove.com
todd@stevenslove.com
Stafford Davis
State Bar No. 24054605
THE STAFFORD DAVIS FIRM, PC
305 S. Broadway, Suite 406
Tyler, Texas 75702
Telephone: (903) 593-7000
Facsimile: (903) 705-7369
sdavis@stafforddavisfirm.com
Attorneys for Wildcat Intellectual Property
Holdings, LLC
13
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?