Case 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 10/05/17 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Transcription

1 Case 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 10/05/17 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS AVIGILON CORPORATION and AVIGILON USA CORPORATION, INC., v. Plaintiffs, CANON INC., Defendant. C.A. No. 1:17-cv JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DECLARATORY JUDGMENT COMPLAINT Avigilon Corporation ( Avigilon Corp. and Avigilon USA Corporation, Inc. ( Avigilon USA (together Plaintiffs hereby file this Complaint for Declaratory Judgment against Canon Inc. ( Canon or Defendant and allege as follows: NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. This action seeks a judgment declaring that Plaintiffs products, such as: the Avigilon Control Center software, Avigilon web interface, HD Pro Cameras, HD Bullet Cameras, HD Cameras, HD Domes, H4 Edge Solution Cameras, H4 SL Cameras, H4 Fisheye Cameras, HD PTZ, HD LPR, HD Micro Dome, HD Multisensor, HD Panoramic, ACC ES Analytics Appliance, ACC ES HD Recorder, HD NVR Premium, HD NVR Standard, HD NVR Value, HD NVR Server, HD NVR Workstation, HD Video Appliance Series, 2 and 4 Monitor Professional High Performance Monitoring Stations and any combination thereof (hereinafter Avigilon Products do not infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 6,580,451 (the 451 Patent, 6,911,999 (the 999 Patent, 7,034,864 (the 864 Patent, 7,321,453 (the 453 Patent, and 9,191,630 (the 630 Patent (collectively Canon Patents, which arises under the Patent Laws of the United States and the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act.

2 Case 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 10/05/17 Page 2 of 12 PARTIES 2. Avigilon Corp. is a Canadian corporation having a place of business in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 3. Avigilon USA is a Delaware corporation having a place of business at 1717 McKinney Avenue, Suite 1590, Dallas, Texas Avigilon USA is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Avigilon Corp. 4. Plaintiffs also have a place of business in this District at 450 Artisan Way, Somerville, MA, Plaintiffs have at least 20 employees in this District that work on the technology that Canon has identified as allegedly related to and infringing the Canon Patents. 5. On information and belief, Canon is a Japanese corporation having its principal place of business at 30-2, Shimomaruko 3-chrome, Ohta-ku, Tokyo , Japan. 6. On information and belief, Canon purportedly owns by assignment the 451 Patent, entitled Communication Apparatus, Image Processing Apparatus, Communication Method, and Image Processing Method, which issued on June 17, (See Exhibit 1, Canon Inc. v. Avigilon USA Corp, et al., C.A. No. 2:17-CV BMC (E.D.N.Y. A copy of the 451 Patent is attached as Exhibit On information and belief, Canon purportedly owns by assignment the 999 Patent, entitled Camera Control System, which issued on June 28, (See Ex. 1. A copy of the 999 Patent is attached as Exhibit On information and belief, Canon purportedly owns by assignment the 864 Patent, entitled Image Display Apparatus, Image Display System, and Image Display Method, which issued on April 25, (See Ex. 1. A copy of the 864 Patent is attached as Exhibit 4. 2

3 Case 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 10/05/17 Page 3 of On information and belief, Canon purportedly owns by assignment the 453 Patent, entitled Image Input System, which issued on January 22, (See Ex. 1. A copy of the 453 Patent is attached as Exhibit On information and belief, Canon purportedly owns by assignment the 630 Patent, entitled Dynamic Layouts, which issued on November 17, (See Ex. 1. A copy of the 630 Patent is attached as Exhibit 6. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 11. An actual controversy now exists between Plaintiffs and Canon with respect to alleged infringement of claim 1 of the 451 Patent, claim 1 of the 999 Patent, claim 1 of the 864 Patent, claim 1 of the 453 Patent, and claim 15 of the 630 Patent by Plaintiffs Avigilon Products. This Court thus has proper subject matter jurisdiction over this dispute pursuant to inter alia 28 U.S.C and 1338(a and 28 U.S.C and This Court has personal jurisdiction over Canon. On information and belief, Canon regularly and continuously does and solicits business in this District either directly or through its authorized sales representatives. Canon also specifically markets its products to customers and potential customers in Massachusetts. For example, it has an office at 40 Broad Street, #102, Boston, Massachusetts Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b, 1391(c and 1400(b. BACKGROUND FACTS 14. Plaintiffs design, develop and manufacture video analytics, network video management software and hardware, surveillance cameras, and access control solutions and offer these solutions across the world and across a broad spectrum of industries. 3

4 Case 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 10/05/17 Page 4 of 12 The 4011 Case 15. On July 6, 2017, Canon brought suit against Plaintiffs for alleged infringement of the Canon Patents in Canon Inc. v. Avigilon USA Corp, et al., C.A. No. 2:17-CV BMC (E.D.N.Y. (the 4011 Case. 16. The allegations in the 4011 Case were directed against the Avigilon Products. 17. On October 3, 2017, while the parties were preparing for the Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f conference in the 4011 Case scheduled for October 13, 2017, Plaintiffs indicated to Canon their intent to file a motion to transfer the 4011 Case to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on the basis that this District is the proper forum to litigate the parties disputes regarding the Canon Patents. 18. Today, on October 5, 2017, and without prior notice to Plaintiffs, Canon filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a(1(A(i and the Court terminated the 4011 Case on the same date. COUNT I (Declaratory Judgment of Non-infringement of the 451 Patent 19. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 18 above as though fully set forth 20. Canon has specifically alleged in at least the 4011 Case that the Avigilon Products directly and indirectly infringe claim 1 of the 451 Patent. Thus, an immediate, real and justiciable controversy exists between Plaintiffs, on the one hand, and Canon, on the other hand, with respect to the alleged infringement of the 451 Patent. 21. None of the Avigilon Products infringe claim 1 of the 451 Patent. 22. As such, Plaintiffs have not and do not directly infringe or actively induce infringement of claim 1 of the 451 Patent. 4

5 Case 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 10/05/17 Page 5 of Absent a Declaration that claim 1 of the 451 Patent is not infringed by Plaintiffs Avigilon Products, Plaintiffs will face real and immediate harm or the threat of future harm caused by Canon. 24. Declaratory relief is both appropriate and necessary to establish that Plaintiffs Avigilon Products do not infringe claim 1 of the 451 Patent and thus that the Canon Patents cannot be asserted against Plaintiffs. COUNT II (Declaratory Judgment of Non-infringement of the 999 Patent 25. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 24 above as though fully set forth 26. Canon has specifically alleged in at least the 4011 Case that the Avigilon Products directly and indirectly infringe claim 1 of the 999 Patent. Thus, an immediate, real and justiciable controversy exists between Plaintiffs, on the one hand, and Canon, on the other hand, with respect to the alleged infringement of the 999 Patent. 27. None of the Avigilon Products infringe claim 1 of the 999 Patent. 28. As such, Plaintiffs have not and do not directly infringe or actively induce infringement of claim 1 of the 999 Patent. 29. Absent a Declaration that claim 1 of the 999 Patent is not infringed by Plaintiffs Avigilon Products, Plaintiffs will face real and immediate harm or the threat of future harm caused by Canon. 30. Declaratory relief is both appropriate and necessary to establish that Plaintiffs Avigilon Products do not infringe claim 1 of the 999 Patent and thus that claim 1 of the 999 Patent cannot be asserted against Plaintiffs. 5

6 Case 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 10/05/17 Page 6 of 12 COUNT III (Declaratory Judgment of Non-infringement of the 864 Patent 31. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 30 above as though fully set forth 32. Canon has specifically alleged in at least the 4011 Case that the Avigilon Products directly and indirectly infringe claim 1 of the 864 Patent. Thus, an immediate, real and justiciable controversy exists between Plaintiffs, on the one hand, and Canon, on the other hand, with respect to the alleged infringement of the 864 Patent. 33. None of the Avigilon Products infringe claim 1 of the 864 Patent. 34. As such, Plaintiffs have not and do not directly infringe or actively induce infringement of claim 1 of the 864 Patent. 35. Absent a Declaration that claim 1 of the 864 Patent is not infringed by Plaintiffs Avigilon Products, Plaintiffs will face real and immediate harm or the threat of future harm caused by Canon. 36. Declaratory relief is both appropriate and necessary to establish that Plaintiffs Avigilon Products do not infringe claim 1 of the 864 Patent and thus that claim 1 of the 864 Patent cannot be asserted against Plaintiffs. COUNT IV (Declaratory Judgment of Non-infringement of the 453 Patent 37. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 36 above as though fully set forth 38. Canon has specifically alleged in at least the 4011 Case that the Avigilon Products directly and indirectly infringe claim 1 of the 453 Patent. Thus, an immediate, real and 6

7 Case 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 10/05/17 Page 7 of 12 justiciable controversy exists between Plaintiffs, on the one hand, and Canon, on the other hand, with respect to the alleged infringement of the 453 Patent. 39. None of the Avigilon Products infringe claim 1 of the 453 Patent. 40. As such, Plaintiffs have not and do not directly infringe or actively induce infringement of claim 1 of the 453 Patent. 41. Absent a Declaration that claim 1 of the 453 Patent is not infringed by Plaintiffs Avigilon Products, Plaintiffs will face real and immediate harm or the threat of future harm caused by Canon. 42. Declaratory relief is both appropriate and necessary to establish that Plaintiffs Avigilon Products do not infringe claim 1 of the 453 Patent and thus that claim 1 of the 453 Patent cannot be asserted against Plaintiffs. COUNT V (Declaratory Judgment of Non-infringement of the 630 Patent 43. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-42 as though fully set forth 44. Canon has specifically alleged in at least the 4011 Case that the Avigilon Products directly and indirectly infringe claim 15 of the 630 Patent. Thus, an immediate, real and justiciable controversy exists between Plaintiffs, on the one hand, and Canon, on the other hand, with respect to the alleged infringement of the 630 Patent. 45. None of the Avigilon Products infringe claim 15 of the 630 Patent. 46. As such, Plaintiffs have not and do not directly infringe or actively induce infringement of claim 15 of the 630 Patent. 7

8 Case 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 10/05/17 Page 8 of Absent a Declaration that claim 15 of the 630 Patent is not infringed by Plaintiffs Avigilon Products, Plaintiffs will face real and immediate harm or the threat of future harm caused by Canon. 48. Declaratory relief is both appropriate and necessary to establish that Plaintiffs Avigilon Products do not infringe claim 15 of the 630 Patent and thus that claim 15 of the 630 Patent cannot be asserted against Plaintiffs COUNT VI (Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of the 451 Patent 49. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 48 above as though fully set forth 50. The 451 Patent is invalid and/or unenforceable for failure to comply with one or more of the requirements of Title 35 of the United States Code, including without limitation, Sections 101, 102, 103 and/or 112. invalid. 51. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment that claim 1 of the 451 Patent is 52. Absent a Declaration that claim 1 of the 451 Patent is invalid, Plaintiffs will face real and immediate harm or the threat of future harm caused by Canon. 53. Declaratory relief is both appropriate and necessary to establish that claim 1 of the 451 Patent is invalid and thus claim 1 of the 451 Patent cannot be asserted against Plaintiffs. COUNT VII (Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of the 999 Patent 54. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 53 above as though fully set forth 8

9 Case 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 10/05/17 Page 9 of The 999 Patent is invalid and/or unenforceable for failure to comply with one or more of the requirements of Title 35 of the United States Code, including without limitation, Sections 101, 102, 103 and/or Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment that claim 1 of the 999 Patent is invalid. 57. Absent a Declaration that claim 1 of the 999 Patent is invalid, Plaintiffs will face real and immediate harm or the threat of future harm caused by Canon. 58. Declaratory relief is both appropriate and necessary to establish that claim 1 of the 999 Patent is invalid and thus claim 1 of the 999 Patent cannot be asserted against Plaintiffs. COUNT VIII (Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of the 864 Patent 59. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 58 above as though fully set forth 60. The 864 Patent is invalid and/or unenforceable for failure to comply with one or more of the requirements of Title 35 of the United States Code, including without limitation, Sections 101, 102, 103 and/or 112. invalid. 61. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment that claim 1 of the 864 Patent is 62. Absent a Declaration that claim 1 of the 864 Patent is invalid, Plaintiffs will face real and immediate harm or the threat of future harm caused by Canon. 63. Declaratory relief is both appropriate and necessary to establish that claim 1 of the 864 Patent is invalid and thus claim 1 of the 864 Patent cannot be asserted against Plaintiffs. 9

10 Case 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 10/05/17 Page 10 of 12 COUNT IX (Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of the 453 Patent 64. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 63 above as though fully set forth 65. The 453 Patent is invalid and/or unenforceable for failure to comply with one or more of the requirements of Title 35 of the United States Code, including without limitation, Sections 101, 102, 103 and/or 112. invalid. 66. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment that claim 1 of the 453 Patent is 67. Absent a Declaration that claim 1 of the 453 Patent is invalid, Plaintiffs will face real and immediate harm or the threat of future harm caused by Canon. 68. Declaratory relief is both appropriate and necessary to establish that claim 1 of the 453 Patent is invalid and thus claim 1 of the 453 Patent cannot be asserted against Plaintiffs. COUNT X (Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of the 630 Patent 69. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 68 above as though fully set forth 70. The 630 Patent is invalid and/or unenforceable for failure to comply with one or more of the requirements of Title 35 of the United States Code, including without limitation, Sections 101, 102, 103 and/or 112. invalid. 71. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment that claim 15 of the 630 Patent is 72. Absent a Declaration that claim 15 of the 630 Patent is invalid, Plaintiffs will face real and immediate harm or the threat of future harm caused by Canon. 10

11 Case 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 10/05/17 Page 11 of Declaratory relief is both appropriate and necessary to establish that claim 15 of the 630 Patent is invalid and thus claim 15 of the 630 Patent cannot be asserted against Plaintiffs. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request the Court to enter judgment for Plaintiffs and against Canon as follows: A. Declaring that Plaintiffs Avigilon Products have not and do not infringe, and that Plaintiffs have not and are not actively inducing infringement of claim 1 of the 451 Patent, claim 1 of the 999 Patent, claim 1 of the 864 Patent, claim 1 of the 453 Patent, and claim 15 of the 630 Patent by making, using, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing into the United States the Avigilon Products; B. Declaring that the Canon Patents are invalid; C. Awarding Plaintiffs all costs and fees, including reasonable attorneys fees, incurred in connection with this action; and D. Awarding such further relief as the Court may deem proper and just. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiffs demand a jury trial for all issues deemed to be triable by a jury. 11

12 Case 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 10/05/17 Page 12 of 12 Date: October 5, 2017 Respectfully submitted, MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS, GLOVSKY AND POPEO PC By /s/ Daniel B. Weinger Michael T. Renaud (BBO # mtrenaud@mintz.com Daniel B. Weinger (BBO # dbweinger@mintz.com Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. One Financial Center Boston, MA Phone: ( Fax: (