Freeny et al v Apple Inc

Filing 1

COMPLAINT for Patent Infringement against Apple Inc. ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number 0540-4115339.), filed by James P. Freeny, Bryan E. Freeny, Charles C Freeny. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit A to Complaint)(Banys, Christopher)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
CHARLES C. FREENY III, BRYAN E.
FREENY, and JAMES P. FREENY,
Plaintiffs,

Case No. ______________
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

v.
APPLE INC.,

Defendant.
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
Plaintiffs Charles C. Freeny III, Bryan E. Freeny, and James P. Freeny (collectively
“Plaintiffs”), for their Complaint against Defendant Apple Inc., hereby allege as follows:
THE PARTIES
1.

Plaintiff Charles C. Freeny III is an individual residing in Flower Mound, Texas.

2.

Plaintiff Bryan E. Freeny is an individual residing in Ft. Worth, Texas.

3.

Plaintiff James P. Freeny is an individual residing in Spring, Texas.

4.

On information and belief, Defendant Apple Inc. (“Apple”) is a corporation duly

organized and existing under the laws of the State of California, having its principal place of
business at 1 Infinite Loop, Cupertino, CA 95014.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5.

This is an action for patent infringement arising under the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C.

§§101 et seq. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ federal law claims under 28 U.S.C.
§§1331 and 1338(a).

1

6.

This Court has specific and/or general personal jurisdiction over Defendant Apple

because it has committed acts giving rise to this action within this judicial district and/or has
established minimum contacts within Texas and within this judicial district such that the exercise
of jurisdiction over each would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
7.

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

because Apple has committed acts within this judicial district giving rise to this action, and
continue to conduct business in this district, and/or have committed acts of patent infringement
within this District giving rise to this action.
INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,110,744
8.

Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in the

Paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein.
9.

On September 19, 2006, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and

lawfully issued United States Patent Number 7,110,744 (“the ’744 patent”) entitled
“Communication and Proximity Authorization Systems.” A true and correct copy of the ’744
patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
10.

The named inventor of the ’744 patent is Charles C. Freeny, Jr., who is now

deceased.
11.

Plaintiffs are the sons of Charles C. Freeny, Jr., and Plaintiffs are the owners and

assignees of all right, title and interest in and to the ’744 patent, including the right to assert all
causes of action arising under said patent and the right to any remedies for infringement of it.
12.

On information and belief, Apple has been and now is infringing the ’744 patent

in the State of Texas, in this judicial district, and elsewhere in the United States by, among other
things, making, using, importing, offering to sell, and/or selling in the United States dual band

2

wireless networking products that embody the inventions claimed in the ’744 patent, including
but not limited to the Apple AirPort Express and AirPort Extreme and all reasonably similar
products.
13.

On information and belief, Apple will continue to infringe the ’744 patent unless

enjoined by this Court.
14.

Apple’s acts of infringement have damaged Plaintiffs in an amount to be proven

at trial, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty. Apple’s infringement of Plaintiffs’ rights
under the ’744 patent will continue to damage Plaintiffs, causing irreparable harm for which
there is no adequate remedy at law, unless enjoined by this Court.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enter judgment against Apple as
follows:
a.

For judgment that Apple has infringed and continues to infringe the claims of the

’744 patent;
b.

For preliminary and permanent injunction against Apple and its respective

officers, directors, agents, servants, affiliates, employees, divisions, branches,
subsidiaries, parents, and all others acting in active concert therewith from infringement
of the ’744 Patent;
c.

For an accounting of all damages caused by Apple’s acts of infringement;

d.

For damages to be paid by Apple adequate to compensate Plaintiffs for such

infringement, including interest, costs and disbursement as justified under 35 U.S.C. §
284; and
e.

For such other relief at law and in equity as the Court may deem just and proper.

3

DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL
Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury of all issues triable by a jury.
Dated: April 29, 2013

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Christopher D. Banys
Christopher D. Banys - Lead Attorney
BANYS, P.C.
Christopher D. Banys
SBN: 230038 (California)
Richard C. Lin
SBN: 209233 (California)
2200 Geng Road, Suite 200
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
LOCAL COUNSEL:
WARD & SMITH LAW FIRM
Wesley Hill
SBN: 24032294
P.O. Box 1231
1127 Judson Rd., Ste. 220
Longview, TX 75601
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
CHARLES C. FREENY III, BRYAN E. FREENY,
AND JAMES P. FREENY

4