Case 1:20-cv-03128-ER Document 1 Filed 04/20/20 Page 1 of 10
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`MANHATTAN DIVISION
`
`
`
`Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`Skylum Software USA Inc.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`Case No. 1:20-cv-3128
`
`Patent Case
`
`Jury Trial Demanded
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. (“Plaintiff”), through its attorneys, complains of
`
`Skylum Software USA Inc. (“Defendant”), and alleges the following:
`
`PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. is a corporation organized and existing
`
`under the laws of Canada that maintains its principal place of business at 560 Baker Street, Suite
`
`1, Nelson, BC V1L 4H9.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant Skylum Software USA Inc. is a corporation organized and existing
`
`under the laws of Nevada that maintains an established place of business at 142 W 57th Street,
`
`New York, NY 10019.
`
`JURISDICTION
`
`3.
`
`This is an action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the
`
`United States, Title 35 of the United States Code.
`
`4.
`
`This Court has exclusive subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and
`
`1338(a).
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`MANHATTAN DIVISION
`
`
`
`Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`Skylum Software USA Inc.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`Case No. 1:20-cv-3128
`
`Patent Case
`
`Jury Trial Demanded
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. (“Plaintiff”), through its attorneys, complains of
`
`Skylum Software USA Inc. (“Defendant”), and alleges the following:
`
`PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. is a corporation organized and existing
`
`under the laws of Canada that maintains its principal place of business at 560 Baker Street, Suite
`
`1, Nelson, BC V1L 4H9.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant Skylum Software USA Inc. is a corporation organized and existing
`
`under the laws of Nevada that maintains an established place of business at 142 W 57th Street,
`
`New York, NY 10019.
`
`JURISDICTION
`
`3.
`
`This is an action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the
`
`United States, Title 35 of the United States Code.
`
`4.
`
`This Court has exclusive subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and
`
`1338(a).
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-03128-ER Document 1 Filed 04/20/20 Page 2 of 10
`
`5.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because it has engaged in
`
`systematic and continuous business activities in this District. As described below, Defendant has
`
`committed acts of patent infringement giving rise to this action within this District.
`
`VENUE
`
`6.
`
`Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) because Defendant has
`
`committed acts of patent infringement in this District, and has an established place of business in
`
`this District. In addition, Plaintiff has suffered harm in this district.
`
`PATENTS-IN-SUIT
`
`7.
`
`Plaintiff is the assignee of all right, title and interest in United States Patent Nos.
`
`6,873,743 (the “’743 Patent”); 7,088,855 (the “’855 Patent”); 8,073,250 (the “’250 Patent”);
`
`(collectively the “Patents-in-Suit”); including all rights to enforce and prosecute actions for
`
`infringement and to collect damages for all relevant times against infringers of the Patents-in-
`
`Suit. Accordingly, Plaintiff possesses the exclusive right and standing to prosecute the present
`
`action for infringement of the Patents-in-Suit by Defendant.
`
`The ’743 Patent
`
`8.
`
`The ’743 Patent is entitled “Method and apparatus for the automatic real-time
`
`detection and correction of red-eye defects in batches of digital images or in handheld
`
`appliances,” and issued 3/29/2005. The application leading to the ’743 Patent was filed on
`
`3/29/2002. A true and correct copy of the ’743 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and
`
`incorporated herein by reference.
`
`9.
`
`The ’743 Patent is valid and enforceable.
`
`The ’855 Patent
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-03128-ER Document 1 Filed 04/20/20 Page 3 of 10
`
`10.
`
`The ’855 Patent is entitled “Method and system for removal of red eye effects,”
`
`and issued 8/8/2006. The application leading to the ’855 Patent was filed on 1/22/2001. A true
`
`and correct copy of the ’855 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 2 and incorporated herein by
`
`reference.
`
`11.
`
`The ’855 Patent is valid and enforceable.
`
`The ’250 Patent
`
`12.
`
`The ’250 Patent is entitled “Method and system for removal of red eye effects,”
`
`and issued 12/6/2011. The application leading to the ’250 Patent was filed on 12/4/2007. A true
`
`and correct copy of the ’250 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 3 and incorporated herein by
`
`reference.
`
`13.
`
`The ’250 Patent is valid and enforceable.
`
`COUNT 1: INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’743 PATENT
`
`Plaintiff incorporates the above paragraphs herein by reference.
`
`Direct Infringement. Defendant has been and continues to directly infringe one
`
`14.
`
`15.
`
`or more claims of the ’743 Patent in at least this District by making, using, offering to sell,
`
`selling and/or importing, without limitation, at least the Defendant products identified in the
`
`charts incorporated into this Count below (among the “Exemplary Defendant Products”) that
`
`infringe at least the exemplary claims of the ’743 Patent also identified in the charts incorporated
`
`into this Count below (the “Exemplary ’743 Patent Claims”) literally or by the doctrine of
`
`equivalents. On information and belief, numerous other devices that infringe the claims of the
`
`’743 Patent have been made, used, sold, imported, and offered for sale by Defendant and/or its
`
`customers.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-03128-ER Document 1 Filed 04/20/20 Page 4 of 10
`
`16.
`
`Defendant also has and continues to directly infringe, literally or under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents, the Exemplary ’743 Patent Claims, by having its employees internally
`
`test and use these Exemplary Products.
`
`17.
`
`The service of this Complaint upon Defendant constitutes actual knowledge of
`
`infringement as alleged here.
`
`18.
`
`Despite such actual knowledge, Defendant continues to make, use, test, sell, offer
`
`for sale, market, and/or import into the United States, products that infringe the ’743 Patent. On
`
`information and belief, Defendant has also continued to sell the Exemplary Defendant Products
`
`and distribute product literature and website materials inducing end users and others to use its
`
`products in the customary and intended manner that infringes the ’743 Patent. Thus, on
`
`information and belief, Defendant is contributing to and/or inducing the infringement of the ’743
`
`Patent.
`
`19.
`
`Induced Infringement. Defendant actively, knowingly, and intentionally has
`
`been and continues to induce infringement of the ’743 Patent, literally or by the doctrine of
`
`equivalents, by selling Exemplary Defendant Products to their customers for use in end-user
`
`products in a manner that infringes one or more claims of the ’743 Patent.
`
`20.
`
`Contributory Infringement. Defendant actively, knowingly, and intentionally
`
`has been and continues materially contribute to their own customers’ infringement of the ’743
`
`Patent, literally or by the doctrine of equivalents, by selling Exemplary Defendant Products to
`
`their customers for use in end-user products in a manner that infringes one or more claims of the
`
`’743 Patent. Moreover, the Exemplary Defendant Products are not a staple article of commerce
`
`suitable for substantial noninfringing use.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-03128-ER Document 1 Filed 04/20/20 Page 5 of 10
`
`21.
`
`Exhibit 4 includes charts comparing the Exemplary ’743 Patent Claims to the
`
`Exemplary Defendant Products. As set forth in these charts, the Exemplary Defendant Products
`
`practice the technology claimed by the ’743 Patent. Accordingly, the Exemplary Defendant
`
`Products incorporated in these charts satisfy all elements of the Exemplary ’743 Patent Claims.
`
`22.
`
`Plaintiff therefore incorporates by reference in its allegations herein the claim
`
`charts of Exhibit 4.
`
`23.
`
`Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages adequate to compensate for Defendant’s
`
`infringement.
`
`24.
`
`25.
`
`COUNT 2: INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’855 PATENT
`
`Plaintiff incorporates the above paragraphs herein by reference.
`
`Direct Infringement. Defendant has been and continues to directly infringe one
`
`or more claims of the ’855 Patent in at least this District by making, using, offering to sell,
`
`selling and/or importing, without limitation, at least the Defendant products identified in the
`
`charts incorporated into this Count below (among the “Exemplary Defendant Products”) that
`
`infringe at least the exemplary claims of the ’855 Patent also identified in the charts incorporated
`
`into this Count below (the “Exemplary ’855 Patent Claims”) literally or by the doctrine of
`
`equivalents. On information and belief, numerous other devices that infringe the claims of the
`
`’855 Patent have been made, used, sold, imported, and offered for sale by Defendant and/or its
`
`customers.
`
`26.
`
`Defendant also has and continues to directly infringe, literally or under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents, the Exemplary ’855 Patent Claims, by having its employees internally
`
`test and use these Exemplary Products.
`
`27.
`
`The service of this Complaint upon Defendant constitutes actual knowledge of
`
`infringement as alleged here.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-03128-ER Document 1 Filed 04/20/20 Page 6 of 10
`
`28.
`
`Despite such actual knowledge, Defendant continues to make, use, test, sell, offer
`
`for sale, market, and/or import into the United States, products that infringe the ’855 Patent. On
`
`information and belief, Defendant has also continued to sell the Exemplary Defendant Products
`
`and distribute product literature and website materials inducing end users and others to use its
`
`products in the customary and intended manner that infringes the ’855 Patent. Thus, on
`
`information and belief, Defendant is contributing to and/or inducing the infringement of the ’855
`
`Patent.
`
`29.
`
`Induced Infringement. Defendant actively, knowingly, and intentionally has
`
`been and continues to induce infringement of the ’855 Patent, literally or by the doctrine of
`
`equivalents, by selling Exemplary Defendant Products to their customers for use in end-user
`
`products in a manner that infringes one or more claims of the ’855 Patent.
`
`30.
`
`Contributory Infringement. Defendant actively, knowingly, and intentionally
`
`has been and continues materially contribute to their own customers’ infringement of the ’855
`
`Patent, literally or by the doctrine of equivalents, by selling Exemplary Defendant Products to
`
`their customers for use in end-user products in a manner that infringes one or more claims of the
`
`’855 Patent. Moreover, the Exemplary Defendant Products are not a staple article of commerce
`
`suitable for substantial noninfringing use.
`
`31.
`
`Exhibit 5 includes charts comparing the Exemplary ’855 Patent Claims to the
`
`Exemplary Defendant Products. As set forth in these charts, the Exemplary Defendant Products
`
`practice the technology claimed by the ’855 Patent. Accordingly, the Exemplary Defendant
`
`Products incorporated in these charts satisfy all elements of the Exemplary ’855 Patent Claims.
`
`32.
`
`Plaintiff therefore incorporates by reference in its allegations herein the claim
`
`charts of Exhibit 5.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-03128-ER Document 1 Filed 04/20/20 Page 7 of 10
`
`33.
`
`Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages adequate to compensate for Defendant’s
`
`infringement.
`
`34.
`
`35.
`
`COUNT 3: INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’250 PATENT
`
`Plaintiff incorporates the above paragraphs herein by reference.
`
`Direct Infringement. Defendant has been and continues to directly infringe one
`
`or more claims of the ’250 Patent in at least this District by making, using, offering to sell,
`
`selling and/or importing, without limitation, at least the Defendant products identified in the
`
`charts incorporated into this Count below (among the “Exemplary Defendant Products”) that
`
`infringe at least the exemplary claims of the ’250 Patent also identified in the charts incorporated
`
`into this Count below (the “Exemplary ’250 Patent Claims”) literally or by the doctrine of
`
`equivalents. On information and belief, numerous other devices that infringe the claims of the
`
`’250 Patent have been made, used, sold, imported, and offered for sale by Defendant and/or its
`
`customers.
`
`36.
`
`Defendant also has and continues to directly infringe, literally or under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents, the Exemplary ’250 Patent Claims, by having its employees internally
`
`test and use these Exemplary Products.
`
`37.
`
`The service of this Complaint upon Defendant constitutes actual knowledge of
`
`infringement as alleged here.
`
`38.
`
`Despite such actual knowledge, Defendant continues to make, use, test, sell, offer
`
`for sale, market, and/or import into the United States, products that infringe the ’250 Patent. On
`
`information and belief, Defendant has also continued to sell the Exemplary Defendant Products
`
`and distribute product literature and website materials inducing end users and others to use its
`
`products in the customary and intended manner that infringes the ’250 Patent. Thus, on
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-03128-ER Document 1 Filed 04/20/20 Page 8 of 10
`
`information and belief, Defendant is contributing to and/or inducing the infringement of the ’250
`
`Patent.
`
`39.
`
`Induced Infringement. Defendant actively, knowingly, and intentionally has
`
`been and continues to induce infringement of the ’250 Patent, literally or by the doctrine of
`
`equivalents, by selling Exemplary Defendant Products to their customers for use in end-user
`
`products in a manner that infringes one or more claims of the ’250 Patent.
`
`40.
`
`Contributory Infringement. Defendant actively, knowingly, and intentionally
`
`has been and continues materially contribute to their own customers’ infringement of the ’250
`
`Patent, literally or by the doctrine of equivalents, by selling Exemplary Defendant Products to
`
`their customers for use in end-user products in a manner that infringes one or more claims of the
`
`’250 Patent. Moreover, the Exemplary Defendant Products are not a staple article of commerce
`
`suitable for substantial noninfringing use.
`
`41.
`
`Exhibit 6 includes charts comparing the Exemplary ’250 Patent Claims to the
`
`Exemplary Defendant Products. As set forth in these charts, the Exemplary Defendant Products
`
`practice the technology claimed by the ’250 Patent. Accordingly, the Exemplary Defendant
`
`Products incorporated in these charts satisfy all elements of the Exemplary ’250 Patent Claims.
`
`42.
`
`Plaintiff therefore incorporates by reference in its allegations herein the claim
`
`charts of Exhibit 6.
`
`43.
`
`Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages adequate to compensate for Defendant’s
`
`infringement.
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`44.
`
`Under Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff respectfully
`
`requests a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-03128-ER Document 1 Filed 04/20/20 Page 9 of 10
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests the following relief:
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`A judgment that the ’743 Patent is valid and enforceable;
`
`A judgment that Defendant has infringed, contributorily infringed, and/or induced
`
`infringement of one or more claims of the ’743 Patent;
`
`A judgment that the ’855 Patent is valid and enforceable;
`
`A judgment that Defendant has infringed, contributorily infringed, and/or induced
`
`infringement of one or more claims of the ’855 Patent;
`
`A judgment that the ’250 Patent is valid and enforceable;
`
`A judgment that Defendant has infringed, contributorily infringed, and/or induced
`
`infringement of one or more claims of the ’250 Patent;
`
`An accounting of all damages not presented at trial;
`
`A judgment that awards Plaintiff all appropriate damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284
`
`for Defendant’s past infringement and, with respect to the ’743 patent, the ’855
`
`patent, the ’250 patent, any continuing or future infringement, up until the date
`
`such judgment is entered including pre- or post-judgment interest, costs, and
`
`disbursements as justified under 35 U.S.C. § 284;
`
`I.
`
`And, if necessary, to adequately compensate Plaintiff for Defendant’s
`
`infringement, an accounting:
`
`i.
`
`that this case be declared exceptional within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285
`
`and that Plaintiff be awarded its reasonable attorneys’ fees against Defendant
`
`that it incurs in prosecuting this action;
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-03128-ER Document 1 Filed 04/20/20 Page 10 of 10
`
`ii.
`
`that Plaintiff be awarded costs, and expenses that it incurs in prosecuting this
`
`action; and
`
`iii.
`
`that Plaintiff be awarded such further relief at law or in equity as the Court
`
`deems just and proper.
`
`Dated: April 20, 2020
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`/s/ Isaac Rabicoff
`Isaac Rabicoff
`Rabicoff Law LLC
`73 W Monroe St
`Chicago, IL 60603
`(773) 669-4590
`isaac@rabilaw.com
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff
`Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
