Está en la página 1de 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE GPNE CORP., Plaintiff, v.

PILGRIM'S PRIDE CORPORATION; and CADEC GLOBAL, INC. Defendant. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Case No.

COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Plaintiff GPNE Corp. (GPNE) complains upon information and belief of Defendants as follows: NATURE OF LAWSUIT 1. This is a claim for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the United

States, Title 35 of the United States Code. THE PARTIES 2. Plaintiff GPNE is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state

of Delaware with its principal place of business at 2556 Lemon Road, Suite B101, Honolulu, Hawaii 96815. 3. Defendant Pilgrim's Pride Corporation is a company organized under the laws of

Delaware with its registered agent being the Corporation Service Company, 2711 Centerville Rd, Suite 400, Wilmington DE 19808. JBS S.A. beneficially owns over 75% of the Pilgrim's Pride Corporations outstanding common stock. Defendant Pilgrim's Pride Corporation is hereafter identified as Pilgrims.

4.

Defendant Cadec Global, Inc. (Cadec) is a company organized under the laws

of Delaware with its registered agent being the Corporation Service Company, 2711 Centerville Rd, Suite 400, Wilmington DE 19808. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action under 28 U.S.C.

1331 and 1338(a). 6. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendant by virtue of its being an

entity organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, and thus resident within this judicial district. 7. and 1400(b). THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT 8. On June 30, 2009, United States Patent No. 7,555,267 (the 267 Patent), entitled Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b), 1391(c)

Network Communication System Wherein A Node Obtains Resources For Transmitting Data By Transmitting Two Reservation Requests, was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A true and correct copy of the Patent is attached as Exhibit A to this Complaint. 9. On December 27, 2011, United States Patent No. 8,086,240 (the 240 Patent),

entitled Data Communication System Using A Reserve Request And Four Frequencies To Enable Transmitting Data Packets Which Can Include A Count Value And Termination Indication Information, was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A true and correct copy of the Patent is attached as Exhibit B to this Complaint.

10.

GPNE is the assignee and owner of the right, title and interest in and to the 267

and 240 Patents, including the right to assert all causes of action arising under said patents and the right to any remedies for infringement of them. BACKGROUND 11. Pilgrims is one of the worlds largest chicken producers and processor of poultry,

with more than 38,000 employees. Pilgrims operates a fleet of trucks in support of its primary distribution through retailers and foodservice distributors, and the fleet has GPRS telematics capability provided by Defendant Cadec. 12. Cadec provides enterprise-class fleet management solutions that includes true

real-time GPRS telematics data accessibility through, inter alia, its Cadec PowerVue product. 13. GPNE advised Defendant Pilgrims of its infringement of the patents in suit by

letter on August 7, 2013 to its addiliate, and the letter was delivered to Defendants affiliate on August 9, 2013. COUNT I INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT 7,555,267 BY PILGRIMS 14. The allegations set forth in the foregoing paragraphs 1 through 13 are hereby

incorporated by reference and realleged. 15. Defendant Pilgrims is directly infringing at least claim 30 of the 267 patent in

this judicial district and elsewhere in the United States, by making, using, offering to sell and selling the integrated cellular telecommunications system for communicating informatics that utilizes the GPRS protocol. 16. GPNE has been damaged as a result of this infringing conduct described in this

Count. Defendant is thus liable to GPNE in an amount that adequately compensates it 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. COUNT II INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT 8,086,240 BY PILGRIMS 17. The allegations set forth in the foregoing paragraphs 1 through 13 are hereby

incorporated by reference and realleged. 18. Defendant Pilgrims is directly infringing at least claim 27 of the 240 patent in

this judicial district and elsewhere in the United States, by utilizing the GPRS protocol in its method of communicating informatics through the integrated cellular telecommunications system provided in its transportation fleet, and in providing such services for use by its clients. 19. GPNE has been damaged as a result of this infringing conduct described in this

Count. Defendant is thus liable to GPNE in an amount that adequately compensates it 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. COUNT III INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT 7,555,267 BY CADEC 20. The allegations set forth in the foregoing paragraphs 1 through 13 are hereby

incorporated by reference and realleged. 21. Defendant Cadec is directly infringing at least claim 30 of the 267 patent in this

judicial district and elsewhere in the United States, by making, using, offering to sell and selling the integrated cellular telecommunications system for communicating informatics that utilizes the GPRS protocol. 22. GPNE has been damaged as a result of this infringing conduct described in this

Count. Defendant is thus liable to GPNE in an amount that adequately compensates it 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. COUNT IV INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT 8,086,240 BY CADEC 23. The allegations set forth in the foregoing paragraphs 1 through 13 through are

hereby incorporated by reference and realleged. 24. Defendant Cadec is directly infringing at least claim 27 of the 240 patent in this

judicial district and elsewhere in the United States, by utilizing the GPRS protocol in its method of communicating informatics through the integrated cellular telecommunications system provided in its transportation fleet, and in providing such services for use by its clients. 25. GPNE has been damaged as a result of this infringing conduct described in this

Count. Defendant is thus liable to GPNE in an amount that adequately compensates it 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. COUNT V INDIRECT INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENTS 7,555,267 AND 8,086,240 BY CADEC 26. The allegations set forth in the foregoing paragraphs 1 through 13, 21, 22, 24 and

25 are hereby incorporated by reference and realleged. 27. Defendant Cadec is also indirectly infringing at least claim 30 of the 267 patent

and claim 27 of the 240 patent in this judicial district and elsewhere in the United States by inducing infringement of the 267 and 240 patents under 35 U.S.C. 271(b), since at least the date of service of this Complaint, by actively aiding and abetting others (including its direct and indirect customers) whose sale, offer for sale, importation, and use of the accused instrumentalities constitutes direct infringement. Defendant has engaged in these actions with

either the specific intent to cause infringement or with willful blindness to the infringement that it is causing. For example, Defendants actions that actively induce its customers to directly infringe at least claim 30 of the 267 patent and claim 27 of the 240 patent include selling the accused instrumentalities, providing user manuals regarding use of the accused instrumentalities, and providing technical support regarding the use of the accused instrumentalities, where the use of the accused instrumentalities during normal operation by Defendants customers infringe at least claim 30 of the 267 patent and claim 27 of the 240 patent. 28. Defendant Cadec is also committing contributory infringement of the 267 and

240 patents under 35 U.S.C. 271(c) since at least the date of service of this Complaint by selling the accused instrumentalities to others, including but not limited to its customers, knowing and/or being willfully blind to the fact that these products constitute a material part of the invention, were especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of the 267 and 240 patents, and have no substantial non-infringing uses. 29. GPNE has been damaged as a result of this infringing conduct described in this

Count. Defendant is thus liable to GPNE in an amount that adequately compensates it 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.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF GPNE requests that the Court find in its favor and against Defendant, and that the Court grant GPNE the following relief: A. Judgment that each Defendant has infringed the claims of the 267 and 240 Patents, either literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents;

B. Judgment that Defendants account for and pay to GPNE all damages to and costs incurred by GPNE because of Defendants infringing activities and other conduct complained of herein, including without limitation any attorneys fees if Defendants are found to infringe willfully; C. Judgment that Defendants account for and pay to GPNE a reasonable, ongoing, postjudgment royalty because of Defendants infringing activities and other conduct complained of herein; D. That GPNE be granted pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on the damages caused by Defendants infringing activities and other conduct complained of herein; and E. That GPNE be granted such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper under the circumstances. JURY DEMAND Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable as presented in this Complaint.

Dated: December 19, 2013 Of Counsel: Timothy J. Haller NIRO, HALLER & NIRO 181 West Madison Street, Suite 4600 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 236-0733 Fax: (312) 236-3137 haller@nshn.com

Respectfully submitted, /s/George Pazuniak George Pazuniak (DE Bar No. 478) Daniel Murray (DE Bar No. 5785) OKELLY ERNST & BIELLI, LLC 901 North Market Street, Suite 1000 Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 478-4230 Fax: (302) 295-2873 gp@del-iplaw.com dmurray@oeblegal.com Attorneys for Plaintiff