smartdrive systems v. drivecam

8/2/2019 Smartdrive Systems v. Drivecam

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/smartdrive-systems-v-drivecam 1/28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

28

27

SFI-728082v1 COMPLAINT FOR PATENT

INFRINGEMENT

Nicola A. Pisano (State Bar No. 151282)[email protected] C. Bolten (State Bar No. 268284)[email protected] DAY12265 El Camino Real, Suite 200San Diego, CA 92130Telephone: 858.314.1200Facsimile: 858.314.1150

Patrick Michael (State Bar No. 169745)[email protected] Wallace (State Bar No. 197882)[email protected] DAY555 California Street, 26th FloorSan Francisco, CA 94104-1500Telephone: 415.626.3939Facsimile: 415.875.5700

Attorneys for Plaintiff SMARTDRIVE SYSTEMS, INC.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SMARTDRIVE SYSTEMS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

DRIVECAM, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No.

COMPLAINT FOR PATENTINFRINGEMENT

[JURY TRIAL DEMANDED]

Plaintiff SmartDrive Systems, Inc. (“SmartDrive”), a Delaware corporation, by and

through its attorneys alleges the following:

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This is an action for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,139,820 (“the ‘820 patent”)

against defendant DriveCam, Inc. (“DriveCam”) under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), (b) and (c).

/ /

'12CV0683 MDDLAB



1

2

4

6

7

9

14

15

16

17

18

19

25

27

3

5

8

10

11

12

13

20

21

22

23

24

26

28

SFI-728082v1 - 2 -COMPLAINT FOR PATENT

INFRINGEMENT

PARTIES

2. Plaintiff SmartDrive is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business

at 9276 Scranton Road, Suite 500, San Diego, CA 92121.

3. Defendant DriveCam is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business

at 8911 Balboa Avenue, San Diego, CA 92123.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. This is an action arising under the Patent Laws of the United States. Accordingly,

this Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and § 1338(a).

5. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant. Defendant’s headquarters

and principal place of business are in this District. In addition, on information and belief,

Defendant has transacted business and supplied goods and services in this District, purposely

availed itself of the privileges and benefits of the laws of this State, and committed acts of patent

infringement during the course of its business in this District.

6. SmartDrive is also headquartered, and has its business operations, in this District.

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

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

[Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,139,820]

8. Paragraphs 1 through 7 are incorporated by reference as if fully stated herein.

9. On March 20, 2012, the ‘820 patent, entitled “Discretization Facilities for Vehicle

Event Data Recorder,” was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent & Trademark

Office to inventors James Plante, Ramesh Kasavaraju, Gregory Mauro and Andrew Nickerson.

SmartDrive owns by assignment the entire right, title and interest in and to the ‘820 patent

including the right to bring this suit for damages. A true and correct copy of the ‘820 patent is

attached as Exhibit A.

10. Upon service of this complaint, if not earlier, DriveCam has had knowledge of the

‘820 patent.

11. DriveCam has directly infringed, and continues to infringe, at least claims 1-6 and

8-18 of the ‘820 patent by importing, making, using, offering to sell and selling DriveCam’s DC2



1

2

3

6

14

20

22

23

24

25

26

4

5

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

15

16

17

18

19

21

27

28


INFRINGEMENT

and DC3 systems and associated software, including DriveCam’s Event Review Process software

in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).

12. Additionally, DriveCam’s customers and end users also directly infringe at least

claim 1-6 and 8-18 of the ‘820 patent by using the DC2 and DC3 systems and associated software

in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).

13. DriveCam encourages, provides support and instructs its customers and end users

to use the DC2 and DC3 systems and associated software in a manner that infringes at least

claims 1-6 and 8-18 of the ‘820 patent. Upon service of this complaint, if not earlier, DriveCam

will have had knowledge of the ‘820 patent, knowledge that its actions induce infringement of the

‘820 patent, knowledge that infringement of the ‘820 patent has and will continue to take place,

and upon information and belief, intent that such infringement take place. DriveCam’s ongoing

inducement with such knowledge and intent therefore subjects DriveCam to liability as an

indirect infringer in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).

14. DriveCam’s DC2 and DC3 systems and associated software are especially made

and adapted for infringing the ‘820 patent, are not a staple article or commodity of commerce,

and that have no substantial non-infringing uses. DriveCam’s ongoing importation, manufacture,

use, offers to sell and sales of its DC2 and DC3 systems and associated software with such

knowledge contribute to its users’ infringement and subject DriveCam to liability as an indirect

infringer under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c).

15. SmartDrive has been and will continue to be irreparably damaged by DriveCam’s

infringement of the ‘820 patent.

16. DriveCam’s infringement will continue unless enjoined by this Court.

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

Wherefore SmartDrive requests the following relief:

a) A judgment that DriveCam has infringed and is infringing the ‘820 patent;

b) An order enjoining DriveCam, its officers, agents, employees, and those persons in

active concert or participation with any of them, and DriveCam’s successors and assigns, from

infringing the ‘820 patent;



1

4

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

3

5


INFRINGEMENT

c) An award of damages adequate to compensate SmartDrive for its damages

resulting from DriveCam’s infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, together with pre- and post

judgment interest and an accounting;

d) A finding that this is an exceptional case and award to SmartDrive of its

reasonable attorney’s fees in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 285 and/or other applicable authority;

e) An award to SmartDrive of its costs; and

f) Such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.

Dated: March 20, 2012 JONES DAY

By: /s/ Patrick Michael Patrick Michael

Attorneys for Plaintiff SMARTDRIVE SYSTEMS, INC.Email: [email protected]

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b), SmartDrive demands a trial by jury of this action.

Dated: March 20, 2012 JONES DAY

By: / s/ Patrick MichaelPatrick Michael

Attorneys for Plaintiff SMARTDRIVE SYSTEMS, INC.

Email: [email protected]



INDEX OF EXHIBITS

to Complaint for Patent Infringement

Exhibit

Tab

Title Page

Numbers

A United States Patent No. US 8,139,820 B2 1-22

SFI-728088v1



EXHIBIT A



Exhibit A

Page 1



Exhibit A

Page 2



Exhibit A

Page 3



Exhibit A

Page 4



Exhibit A

Page 5



Exhibit A

Page 6



Exhibit A

Page 7



Exhibit A

Page 8



Exhibit A

Page 9



Exhibit

Page 10



Exhibit

Page 11



Exhibit A

Page 12



Exhibit A

Page 13



Exhibit A

Page 14



Exhibit A

Page 15



Exhibit A

Page 16



Exhibit A

Page 17



Exhibit A

Page 18



Exhibit A

Page 19



Exhibit A

Page 20



Exhibit A

Page 21

smartdrive systems v. drivecam

Documents