neology v. federal signal et. al

7/31/2019 Neology v. Federal Signal et. al.

1/49

Case 1:12-cv-01345-UNA Document 1 Filed 05/21/12 Page 1 of 49 PageID #: 1


2/49

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

27

28

2NEOLOGYS COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

116546/000005/1502647.01

3.Neology is informed and believes and thereon alleges that defendanFederal Signal Technologies, LLC (FSTech), is a limited liability corporatio

duly organized under the laws of the State of Delaware doing business as Federa

Signal Technologies Group, with its principal place of business at 2 Technolog

Drive, Suite 100, Irvine, California 92618.

4.Neology is informed and believes and thereon alleges that defendant SirCorporation (Sirit) is a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State o

Texas, with its principal place of business at 2 Technology Drive, Suite 100, Irvin

California 92618.

5.Neology is informed and believes that Sirit and FSTech are wholly ownesubsidiaries or affiliated companies of FSC.

6. Defendants FSC, FSTech, and Sirit are collectively referred to herein aDefendants.

Nature of Claims, Jurisdiction, and Venue

7. This action arises under the Patent Laws of the United States under 3U.S.C. 271 et seq., and seeks damages, injunctive relief and attorneys fee

under 35 U.S.C. 283, 284, and 285. This Court has subject matter jurisdictio

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1338.

8. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because Defendantdo business in this judicial district, have purposely availed themselves of th

privileges and benefits of the laws of the State of California, have directe

continuous and systematic activities at this judicial district, and have, o

information and belief, committed acts of patent infringement during the course o

their business within this judicial district.

9. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391 an1400(b).

/ / /

/ / /



3/49

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

27

28


116546/000005/1502647.01

Count I

(Patent Infringement, Contributory Infringement & Inducement To Infringe

688 Patent)

10. Plaintiff Neology incorporates and alleges paragraphs 1-9 above as fully set forth herein.

11. On April 26, 2006, United States Letters Patent No. 7,034,688 (th688 Patent) was duly and properly issued for an invention entitled Selectiv

Metal Removal Process for Metallized Retro-Reflective and Holographic Films an

Radio Frequency Devices Made Therewith. The 688 Patent was duly and legall

issued to Neology, assignee of inventors Francisco Martinez de Velasco Cortin

and Manfred Rietzler. A copy of the 688 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

12.Neology is the owner of the 688 Patent and has all legal and equitabrights to enforce the 688 Patent, to bring and maintain this action, and to make

have made, use, import, offer or sell products or services covered by the 68

Patent.

13. The 688 Patent is now, and at all relevant times since its date oissuance has been, valid and enforceable.

14. Despite the fact that Neology has exclusive rights in the inventions othe 688 Patent, Defendants have infringed, contributed to the infringement o

and/or have induced infringement of, literally or under the doctrine of equivalent

the 688 Patent by making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling Radio Frequenc

Identification (RFID) transponders (RFID tags) that infringe, or contribute to, o

induce others to infringe at least claim 1 of the 688 Patent. These infringin

products comprise at least the following: IDentity Headlamp Mount Tag wit

Hologram. It is believed that Defendants will continue to infringe, contributoril

infringe, and/or induce infringement of, the 688 Patent unless enjoined by th

Court. Defendants infringement and other actions have caused substantial injur

to Neology.



4/49

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

27

28


116546/000005/1502647.01

15.On information and belief, Defendants acts were committed knowingland intentionally.

16.Prior to the filing of the lawsuit Defendants knew of the existence of th688 Patent. On at least one occasion, on or about 2008, Neology made an investo

presentation to Defendants executives that included a disclosure of the technolog

covered in the 688 Patent and the 688 Patent. The amount of money damage

that plaintiff Neology has suffered due to Defendants acts of infringement has no

been calculated but is subject to proof at trial.

Count II

(Patent Infringement, Contributory Infringement & Inducement To Infringe

154 Patent)

17. Plaintiff Neology incorporates and alleges paragraphs 1-17 above as fully set forth herein.

18. On December 8, 2008, United States Letters Patent No. 7,463,154 (th154 Patent) was duly and properly issued for an invention entitled Selectiv

Metal Removal Process for Metallized Retro-Reflective and Holographic Films an

Radio Frequency Devices Made Therewith. The 154 Patent was duly and legall

issued to Neology, assignee of inventors Francisco Martinez de Velasco Cortin

and Manfred Rietzler. A copy of the 154 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit B.

19.Neology is the owner of the 154 Patent and has all legal and equitabrights to enforce the 154 Patent, to bring and maintain this action, and to make

have made, use, import, offer or sell products or services covered by the 15

Patent.

20. The 154 Patent is now, and at all relevant times since its date oissuance has been, valid and enforceable.

21. Despite the fact that Neology has exclusive rights in the inventions othe 154 Patent, Defendants have infringed, have contributed to the infringemen

of, and/or have induced infringement of, literally or under the doctrine o



5/49

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

27

28


116546/000005/1502647.01

equivalents, the 154 Patent by making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling RFID

tags that infringe or contribute to, or induce others to infringe at least claim 31 o

the 154 Patent. These infringing products comprise at least the following: th

IDentity Headlamp Mount Tag with Hologram. It is believed that Defendants wi

continue to infringe, contributorily infringe, and/or induce infringement of, the 15

Patent unless enjoined by this Court. Defendants infringement and other action

have caused substantial injury to Neology.

22. On information and belief, Defendants acts were committed knowingland intentionally.

23. Prior to the filing of the lawsuit Defendants knew of the existence of th154 Patent. On at least one occasion, on or about 2008, Neology made an investo

presentation to Defendants executives that included a disclosure of the technolog

covered by the 154 Patent, which is a continuation of the 688 Patent disclosed t

Defendants in said presentation.

24. The amount of money damages that plaintiff Neology has suffered duto Defendants acts of infringement has not been calculated but is subject to proo

at trial.

25. A photographic example of one of the accused infringing products enclosed herein as Exhibit C.

REQUESTED RELIEF

WHEREFORE, plaintiff Neology respectfully requests the following relief

a.judgment that Defendants infringe the 154 Patent;b.judgment that Defendants infringe the 688 Patent;c. the entry of a permanent injunction, requiring Defendants and the

officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, licensees, successor

assigns, and customers, and those in active concert or participation with any o

them, to stop making, using, offering to sell, or selling in the United States o



6/49



7/49

EXHIBIT A



8/49



9/49



10/49



11/49



12/49



13/49



14/49



15/49



16/49



17/49



18/49



19/49



20/49



21/49



22/49



23/49



24/49



25/49

EXHIBIT B



26/49



27/49



28/49



29/49



30/49



31/49



32/49



33/49



34/49



35/49



36/49



37/49



38/49



39/49



40/49



41/49



42/49



43/49

EXHIBIT C



44/49



45/49



46/49



47/49



48/49



49/49


neology v. federal signal et. al

Documents