the infringement of Claim 1 of the ’108 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c)
inasmuch as:
a. The accused products infringe Claim 1 of the ’108 patent during
the normal use of the accused products by Intel’s customers
and/or end-users;
b. Intel has known and has been continuously aware of the ’108
patent since at least the filing of the original complaint in this
action, if not sooner;
c. Intel imports into the United States, sells and/or offers to sell
within the United States products that (a) practice the method of
memory management of Claim 1 of the ’108 patent; and, (b) Intel
knows that the same constitute material infringing component(s)
of the accused products, which were made and/or especially
adapted for use in the accused products;
d. The memory management component(s) and methods of the
accused products are not staple articles of commerce suitable for
substantial non-infringing use with respect to the ’108 patent; and,
e. Intel sells, has sold, and/or has supplied the accused products
knowing of Plaintiff’s ’108 patent and knowing that the accused
products incorporate Plaintiff’s patented method and/or were
specially adapted for use in a way which infringes the ’108 patent.
20. As alleged above, Plaintiff alleges that Intel had notice of the ’108
patent and knowledge of infringement of Claim 1 of the ’108 patent since at least
the filing of the original complaint in this matter, if not sooner. Intel has and
continues to sell products that practice the ’108 patent after acquiring knowledge
of infringement.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief and judgment as follows:
1. That Defendant be declared to have infringed the Patent-in-Suit;
2. That Defendant, Defendant’s officers, agents, servants, employees,
and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with them, be
preliminarily and permanently enjoined from infringement of the Patent-in-Suit,
including but not limited to any making, using, offering for sale, selling, or
importing of unlicensed infringing products within and without the United States;
3. Compensation for all damages caused by Defendant’s infringement of
the Patent-in-Suit to be determined at trial;
4. A finding that this case is exceptional and an award of reasonable
attorneys fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285;
5. Granting Plaintiff pre-and post-judgment interest on its damages,
together with all costs and expenses; and,
6. Awarding such other relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
Dated: March 19, 2014
By: /s/Pamela C. Chalk
Anton N. Handal
Pamela C. Chalk
Gabriel G. Hedrick
Attorneys for Plaintiff
e.Digital Corporation
