Uniloc Et. Al. v. DRS Technologies

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION

UNILOC USA, INC. and UNILOC
LUXEMBOURG S.A.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DRS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:14-cv-573
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Plaintiffs Uniloc USA, Inc. (Uniloc USA) and Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. (Uniloc
Luxembourg) (collectively, Uniloc) file this Original Complaint against DRS Technologies,
Inc. for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,490,216 (the 216 patent).
THE PARTIES
1. Uniloc USA, Inc. (Uniloc USA) is a Texas corporation with its principal place
of business at Legacy Town Center I, Suite 380, 7160 Dallas Parkway, Plano, Texas 75024.
Uniloc USA also maintains a place of business at 102 N. College, Ste. 806, Tyler, Texas 75702.
2. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. (Uniloc Luxembourg) is a Luxembourg public limited
liability company, with its principal place of business at 15, Rue Edward Steichen, 4th Floor, L-
2540 Luxembourg.
3. Uniloc Luxembourg and Uniloc USA are collectively referred to as Uniloc.
Uniloc has researched, developed, manufactured, and licensed information security technology
solutions, platforms and frameworks, including solutions for securing software applications and
digital content. Uniloc owns and has been awarded a number of patents. Unilocs technologies

2
enable, for example, software and content publishers to securely distribute and sell their high-
value technology assets with minimum burden to their legitimate end users. Unilocs technology
are used in several markets, including, for example, software and game security, identity
management, intellectual property rights management, and critical infrastructure security.
4. DRS Technologies, Inc. (DRS or Defendant) is a Delaware corporation with
its principal place of business at 2345 Crystal Drive, Suite 1000, Arlington, Virginia 22202. DRS
may be served with process through its registered agent, Corporation Service Company, at 2711
Centerville Road, Suite 400, Wilmington, Delaware 19808. Upon information and belief, DRS
does business in the State of Texas and in the Eastern District of Texas.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5. Uniloc brings this action for patent infringement under the patent laws of the
United States, namely 35 U.S.C. 271, 281, and 284-285, among others. This Court has subject
matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1338(a), and 1367.
6. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(c) and
1400(b). On information and belief, Defendant is deemed to reside in this judicial district, has
committed acts of infringement in this judicial district, has purposely transacted business
involving its accused products in this judicial district and/or, has regular and established places
of business in this judicial district.
7. Defendant is subject to this Courts personal jurisdiction pursuant to due process
and/or the Texas Long Arm Statute, due at least to its substantial business in this State and
judicial district, including: (A) at least part of its infringing activities alleged herein; and (B)
regularly doing or soliciting business, engaging in other persistent conduct, and/or deriving
substantial revenue from goods sold and services provided to Texas residents.

3
COUNT I
(INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,490,216)

8. Uniloc incorporates paragraphs 1 through 7 herein by reference.
9. Uniloc Luxembourg is the owner, by assignment, of the 216 patent, entitled
SYSTEM FOR SOFTWARE REGISTRATION. A true and correct copy of the 216 patent is
attached as Exhibit A.
10. Uniloc USA is the exclusive licensee of the 216 patent with ownership of all
substantial rights in the 216 patent, including the right to grant sublicenses, exclude others and
to enforce, sue and recover damages for past and future infringements.
11. The 216 patent is valid, enforceable and was duly issued in full compliance with
Title 35 of the United States Code.
12. Defendant has infringed one or more claims of the 216 patent in this judicial
district and elsewhere in Texas, including at least claim 19, without the consent or authorization
of Uniloc, by or through making, using, offering for sale, selling and/or importing a system,
device and/or method for reducing software piracy, reducing casual copying and/or reducing the
unauthorized use of software, including without limitation DRSs product activation system and
process that permits customers to activate and/or register software, used in connection with its
software products including but not limited to Orca3D Version 1.3.1.
13. Defendant also may have infringed through other product activation systems and
processes that permit customers to activate and/or register software not presently known to
Uniloc. Uniloc reserves the right to discover and pursue relief against all infringing
instrumentalities.
14. Uniloc has been damaged as a result of Defendants infringing conduct described
in this Count. Defendant is, thus, liable to Uniloc in an amount that adequately compensates it

4
for Defendants infringements, which, by law, cannot be less than a reasonable royalty, together
with interest and costs as fixed by this Court under 35 U.S.C. 284.
15. Any allegation of infringement against any defendant herein was not made on the
basis of its use, sale, offer for sale, making or importing of any product, software, system,
method or service provided by Flexera Software LLC or Rovi Solutions Corporation or any of
their present or former affiliates or predecessors (including Flexera Software, Inc. Acresso
Software Inc., Installshield Software Corporation, Flexco Holding Company, Inc., Installshield
Co Inc., Globetrotter Software, Inc., C-Dilla Limited and Macrovision Corporation) (each a
Licensee Product), including any product, software, system, method or service incorporating
or using the activation, licensing, or registration functionality provided by such Licensee
Product.
JURY DEMAND
Uniloc hereby requests a trial by jury pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Uniloc requests that the Court find in its favor and against Defendant, and that the Court
grant Uniloc the following relief:
a. J udgment that one or more claims of the 216 patent has been infringed, either
literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, by Defendant;
b. J udgment that Defendant account for and pay to Uniloc all damages to and costs
incurred by Uniloc because of Defendants infringing activities and other conduct
complained of herein;
c. That Uniloc be granted pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on the damages
caused by Defendants infringing activities and other conduct complained of
herein; and
d. That Uniloc be granted such other and further relief as the Court may deem just
and proper under the circumstances.

5

Dated: June 23, 2014 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ E. Leon Carter by permission Wes Hill
E. Leon Carter (TX Bar 03914300)
[email protected]
J . Robert Arnett II (TX Bar 01332900)
[email protected]
Ryan S. Loveless (TX Bar 24036997)
[email protected]
CARTER SCHOLER ARNETT HAMADA &
MOCKLER, PLLC
8150 N. Central Expressway, 5th Floor
Dallas, Texas 75206
Telephone: (214) 550-8188
Facsimile: (214) 550-8185

J ames L. Etheridge
Texas State Bar No. 24059147
Etheridge Law Group, PLLC
2600 E. Southlake Blvd., Suite 120/324
Southlake, Texas 76092
817.470-.249
817.877.5950 (Fax)
J [email protected]

T. J ohn Ward, J r. (TX Bar 00794818)
[email protected]
J . Wesley Hill (TX Bar 24032294)
[email protected]
WARD & SMITH LAW FIRM
P.O. Box 1231
1127 J udson Road, Ste. 220
Longview, Texas 75606-1231
Telephone: (903) 757-6400
Facsimile: (903) 757-2323

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
UNILOC USA, INC. AND UNILOC
LUXEMBOURG S.A.

Uniloc Et. Al. v. DRS Technologies

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Uniloc Et. Al. v. DRS Technologies

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Uniloc Et. Al. v. DRS Technologies

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

You might also like