Summers Patent Holdings v. Clarion Corporation of America et. al.

7/27/2019 Summers Patent Holdings v. Clarion Corporation of America et. al.

1/26


2/26

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28- 1 -

COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Plaintiff Summers Patent Holdings, LLC, by and through its attorneys,

hereby alleges for its complaint against defendant Clarion Corporation of America

as follows:

INTRODUCTION

This complaint is based upon d efendant Clarion Corporation of Americas

(Defendant or Clarion) unauthorized making, importing, using, selling a nd

offering to sell in the United States and abroad products that infringe United States

Patent No. 5,971,799 (the 799 patent) , and inducing others to do so.

THE PARTIES

1. Plaintiff Summers Patent Holdings, LLC (SPH or Plaintiff) is a

limited liability corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of

California.

2. SPH is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that defendant

Clarion Corporation of America is now, and at all times herein mentioned was, a

corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California with its

principal place of business at 6200 Gateway Drive, Cypress, California 90630.

3. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associateor otherwise, of the defendants named herein as DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, are

unknown to Plaintiff and Plaintiff therefore sues said defendants by such fictitious

names. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to show their true names and capacities

when ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that

each of such fictitiously named defendants is responsible in some manner for the

matters herein alleged. (All defendants are collectively referred to herein as

Defendants).

4. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that at all

times mentioned herein Defendants were the partners, joint venturers, affiliates,

agents, servants, employees, landlords, lessees, or alter ego of their co-Defendants

and, in doing the things hereinafter mentioned, were acting within the scope of their

Case 2:13-cv-05891-DDP-SH Document 1 Filed 08/13/13 Page 2 of 26 Page ID #:38


3/26

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28- 2 -


authority as such with the permission and consent of their co-Defendants and are

jointly responsible for the wrongful conduct alleged herein.

JURISDICTION

5. This is an action for patent infringement that arises under, among other

things, the United States patent laws, 35 U.S.C. 101 et seq. , including, inter alia ,

271. Subject matter jurisdiction is therefore based upon 28 U.S.C. 1331 and

1338(a), providing for federal question jurisdiction of patent infringement actions

and exclusive jurisdiction of patent infringement actions in the U.S. district courts.

6. This Court has both general and specific personal jurisdiction over

defendant Clarion because Clarion has systematic and continuous contacts with the

State of Califor nia and because the claims alleges herein also stem from Clarions

contacts with the State of California. On information and belief, Clarion is

registered with the California Secretary of State to do business in California, is

organized and existing under the laws of the State of California, and the acts of

infringement alleged herein occurred at least in part within California and this

judicial district. Clarion has purposefully availed itself of the laws of the State of

California by making, importing, using, selling, offering to sell, throughoutCalifornia and in this judicial district product s that infringe the 799 patent, and

inducing others to do so.

VENUE

7. SPH is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that this Court is

the appropriate venue for this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)-(d) and

1400(b) because the acts of patent infringement alleged herein were engaged in

within this judicial district and because Clarion resides within this judicial district.

FACTS

8. Plaintiff SPH is a private technology company engaged in the business

of, among other things, monetizing technology and its federally protected

intellectual property, which SPH and/or its principals have developed and/or



4/26

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28- 3 -


acquired during their many years in various technology industries. The principals

of SPH have worked approximately 36 years in the mobile electronics industry,

developing and assisting in the development of many innovative ideas over that

time, many of which have been patented and/or copyrighted. SPH and/or its

pri ncipals have taken great care to avoid actual or possible infringement of others

inventions by, among other things, duly purchasing or acquiring patents and/or

licenses where necessary to ensure that their commercial activity fully complies

with applicable patent and other intellectual property law. SPH believes that others

in the industry likewise bear a responsibility to ensure that their own activities do

not infringe SPHs patents or other intellectual property rights.

9. Among other intellectual property, SPH owns U.S. Patent No.

5,971,799 (the 799 Patent). On October 26, 1999, the United States Patent and

Trademark Office duly and lawfully issued the 799 Patent, titled Y -Shaped

Harness for the Interconnection Between a Vehicle Radio, Vehicle Harness and

Add- On Electronic Device for the novel and unobvious invention of SPHs Y -

Shaped Harness. A true and correct copy of the 799 Patent is attached hereto as

Exhibit A .10. The 799 Patent was originally assigned to Mr. George Swade, and

thereafter was assigned to Precision Interface Electronics, Inc. ( SPHs principals

previous company) on December 3, 2003. The patent was then assigned from

Precision Interface Electronics, Inc. to plaintiff SPH on March 11, 2013.

11. SPH is the current owner of all rights , title and interest in the 799

Patent.

12. The technology at issue in the 799 Patent, SPHs Y -Shaped Harness,

has been used extensively, and its novel and nonobvious design is demonstrated by

the fact that it has already been nonexclusively licensed without litigation.

13. SPH is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that defendant

Clarion designs, manufactures, distributes, and uses devices which embody and



5/26

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28- 4 -


infringe SPHs 799 patent throughout the country, including the State of California

and this judicial district, and induces others to do so. Among other things, SPH has

obtained and studied installation manuals for infringing devices, including Clarion

Model Nos. PSW-GM-SU-B/T/G/R, PSWJPGC, PSWFSU, and PSWFRGR.

14. SPH is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that with

knowledge of and in direct contravention of SPHs rights to the 799 Patent,

defendant Clarion promoted, sold, offered to sell, caused others to sell, and caused

others to use infringing products throughout the United States and abroad, including

in the State of California and in this judicial district.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Against All Defendants)

INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. US 5,971,799

(35 U.S.C. 271)

15. SPH hereby incorporates by reference each of the preceding

paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

16. Defendant Clarion has infringed the 799 Patent by importing,

manufacturing, using, selling, offering for sale, and causing others to sell and usewithin the United States and abroad, including in the State of California and in this

judicial district, Y- Harnesses that fall within the scope of the 799 Patent and

embody and infringe the technology described therein. On information and belief,

Defendant will continue to infringe the 799 Patent in this manner unl ess enjoined

by this Court.

17. Even if Clarions products do not literally infringe the 799 Patent,

they are substantially similar to the inventions claimed in the 799 Patent such that,

under the doctrine of equivalents, they infringe.

18. SPH is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant has

infringed the 799 Patent willfully, with full knowledge of SPHs rights to the 799



6/26

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28- 5 -


Patent, and has unjustly profited and continues to unjustly profit from its

infringement in an amount yet to be determined.

19. SPH is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant has

willfully contributed to the infringement of and willfully induced others to infringe

the 799 Patent by, for example, causing others to use and sell Y-Harnesses that fall

within t he scope of the 799 Patent, and will continue to contribute to the

infringement of and induce others to infringe the 799 Patent unless enjoined by

this Court.

20. Specifically, claims 1 through 10 of the 799 Patent are primarily

directed to a harness which interconnects a powered subwoofer, a car radio, and the

cars main electrical harness using male/female plug connections between the three

devices. This invention allows an aftermarket powered subwoofer to be connected

to a power source and the radio without the splicing of wires, which was

unavailable prior to the 799 Patent .

21. On information and belief, and based on SPHs investigation and pre -

filing analysis, defendant Clarion manufactures, sells, and induces others to use, the

technology embodied and covered by the claims of the 799 Patent as described above. Among other things, Clarions product user manuals clearly instruct

purchasers of Clarion powered subwoofers on the installation procedures of the

products using a Clarion T-Harness. The Clarion T-Harness has male/female plugs

that attach to the vehicles main electrical harness, the vehicles radio, and the

Clarion powered subwoofer in the manner described by the 799 Patents claims,

and is therefore infringing.

22. As a direct and proximate result of the infringing activities of

Defendant, SPH has been, is being and, unless the Court enjoins such activities,

will continue to be, damaged. Consequently, SPH is entitled to compensation for

its damages from Defendants in an amount that cannot be presently quantified but

will be ascertained at trial.



7/26

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28- 6 -


PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, SPH prays for relief and judgment from this Court:

(a) For an order declaring that the 799 Patent owned by SPH was duly

and legally issued and is valid and enforceable;

(b) For an order declaring that Defendant has directly infringed, infringed

under the doctrine of equivalents, contributorily infringed, and/or induced the

infringement of one or more claims of the 799 Patent;

(c) For an order declaring that Defendant has willfully infringed one or

more claims of the 799 Patent;

(d) For an order, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 283, enjoining Defendant, its

officers, directors, employees, successors and assigns, agents, attorneys,

subsidiaries, parent corporations, and all persons in active concert with Defendant,

preliminarily and permanently, from making, using, selling, offering to sell,

exporting, or inducing others to do so, products that infringe the 799 Patent;

(e) That Defendant be required to prepare and deliver to the Court, or to

such agents as the Court may designate, a complete list of entities to whom

Defendant distributed or sold Defendant products that infringe the 799 Patent andthat Defendant be required to serve a copy of such list on SPHs attorneys;

(f) For damages, together with prejudgment interest, based on

Defendants infringement of the 799 Patent, such damages being trebled pursuant

to 35 U.S.C. 284 for the willful, wanton, and deliberate nature of such

infringement, in an amount to be proven at trial;

///

///

///

///

///

///



8/26

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28- 7 -


(g) For costs and reasonable attorneys fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 285;

and

(h) For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

Dated: August 12, 2013 WUCETICH & KOROVILAS LLPJASON M. WUCETICHDIMITRIOS V. KOROVILAS

BYERS IP LAW & CONSULTINGSTEPHEN D. BYERS

By:JASON M. WUCETICH

Attorneys for Plaintiff SUMMERS PATENT HOLDINGS, LLC



9/26

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28- 8 -


DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Pursuant to the Seventh Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b), Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury against

defendants on all claims so triable.

Dated: August 12, 2013 WUCETICH & KOROVILAS LLPJASON M. WUCETICHDIMITRIOS V. KOROVILAS

BYERS IP LAW & CONSULTINGSTEPHEN D. BYERS

By:JASON M. WUCETICH

Attorneys for Plaintiff SUMMERS PATENT HOLDINGS, LLC



10/26

EXHIBIT A



11/26

EXHIBIT A, PAGE 009



12/26

EXHIBIT A, PAGE 010



13/26

EXHIBIT A, PAGE 011



14/26

EXHIBIT A, PAGE 012



15/26

EXHIBIT A, PAGE 013



16/26

EXHIBIT A, PAGE 014



17/26

EXHIBIT A, PAGE 015



18/26

EXHIBIT A, PAGE 016



19/26

EXHIBIT A, PAGE 017



20/26

EXHIBIT A, PAGE 018



21/26

EXHIBIT A, PAGE 019



22/26

EXHIBIT A, PAGE 020



23/26



24/26



25/26



26/26


Summers Patent Holdings v. Clarion Corporation of America et. al.

Documents

Transcript of Summers Patent Holdings v. Clarion Corporation of America et. al.