Case 2:14-cv-06859-MRP-AS Document 1 Filed 09/03/14 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #:1
`
`
`
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
` Frederick A. Lorig (Bar No. 057645)
` fredericklorig@quinnemanuel.com
` Amar L. Thakur (Bar No. 194025)
` amarthakur@quinnemanuel.com
` Bruce R. Zisser (Bar No. 180607)
` brucezisser@quinnemanuel.com
`865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90017-2543
`Telephone: (213) 443-3000
`Facsimile:
`(213) 443-3100
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Seymour Levine
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`WESTERN DIVISION
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` CASE NO.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
`INFRINGEMENT AGAINST BOEING
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Complaint for Patent Infringement
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Seymour Levine, an individual
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`The Boeing Company, a Delaware
`Corporation,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BOEING Ex. 1007, p. 1
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-06859-MRP-AS Document 1 Filed 09/03/14 Page 2 of 7 Page ID #:2
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiff Seymour “Sy” Levine, by and through his undersigned attorneys, for
`
`his Complaint against Defendant The Boeing Company alleges as follows:
`
`
`
`1.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`This Court has original jurisdiction over the patent infringement claims
`
`in this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`2.
`
`Venue is established in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 1391(c) and 1400(b).
`
`
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`3.
`
`This is a civil action for infringement of United States Patent No.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`RE39,618 (the “Patent-in-Suit”). This action arises under the patent laws of the
`
`14
`
`United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`
`
`PARTIES
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiff Seymour “Sy” Levine is an individual residing at 4928
`
`18
`
`Maytime Lane, Culver City, CA 90230. Mr. Levine is the sole inventor of the
`
`19
`
`20
`
`Patent-in-Suit.
`5.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant The Boeing Company
`
`21
`
`(“Boeing”) is a Delaware Corporation whose affiliations within this judicial district
`
`22
`
`are so continuous and systematic as to render it essentially at home in this judicial
`
`23
`
`district. In addition, on information and belief Boeing has infringed the Patent-in-
`
`24
`
`Suit within this judicial district. Boeing Commercial Airplanes, a division of
`
`25
`
`Boeing and the business unit responsible for the activity alleged herein to infringe
`
`26
`
`the Patent-in-Suit, operates and is expanding the Boeing Commercial Airplanes
`
`27
`
`Engineering Design Center at facilities within this District in Long Beach and Seal
`
`28
`
`Beach, California. The Engineering Design Center is responsible for, among other
`
`2
`
`Complaint for Patent Infringement
`
`
`
`BOEING Ex. 1007, p. 2
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-06859-MRP-AS Document 1 Filed 09/03/14 Page 3 of 7 Page ID #:3
`
`
`
`things, ongoing support for a number of Boeing commercial aircraft models which
`
`include or can be retrofitted to include the features alleged herein to infringe the
`
`Patent-in-Suit. In addition, Boeing has and continues to operate aircraft test and
`
`logistics facilities in this judicial district, including in Palmdale, Victorville, and San
`
`Bernardino, California from where Boeing uses the system alleged herein to infringe
`
`the Patent-in-Suit. Boeing also has facilities in Anaheim and El Segundo,
`
`California, within this judicial district. Boeing has also repeatedly availed itself to
`
`the courts in this judicial district to resolve civil disputes with other parties. By
`
`virtue of these and other activities in this judicial district, both contemporaneous and
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`historical, Boeing’s affiliations with this judicial district are so continuous and
`
`11
`
`systematic as to render it essentially at home in this judicial district.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`6. Mr. Levine is a Senior Life Member of the IEEE with an M.Sc. in
`
`15
`
`electrical engineering who, although now retired, spent many years working for
`
`16
`
`and/or consulting with many of the largest aerospace companies in the world. In
`
`17
`
`1995, Mr. Levine retired as Chief Engineer at Northrop Grumman’s Electronic
`
`18
`
`Systems Division where he was, among other things, in charge of the inertial
`
`19
`
`navigation system for the B-2 Stealth Bomber and the Automatic Test Equipment
`
`20
`
`(ATE) of the Peacekeeper Missile. Before joining Northrop, Mr. Levine worked on
`
`21
`
`navigation and guidance systems at both Litton Guidance & Control and Sperry
`
`22
`
`Gyroscope Company and one of his early patents reads on the first inertial
`
`23
`
`navigation system used in a Boeing commercial aircraft. Mr. Levine is a named
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`inventor on twelve U.S. patents, ranging in fields from inertial navigation to
`remotely piloted vehicles.
`7.
`
`After retiring in 1995, Mr. Levine developed and patented a number of
`
`27
`
`technologies related to the safety of commercial aviation, including the Patent-in-
`
`28
`
`Suit, which the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued as U.S. Patent No.
`
`3
`
`Complaint for Patent Infringement
`
`
`
`BOEING Ex. 1007, p. 3
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-06859-MRP-AS Document 1 Filed 09/03/14 Page 4 of 7 Page ID #:4
`
`
`
`RE39,618 (the “‘618 patent”) on May 8, 2007 as a reissue of U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,974,349, claiming priority to U.S. Patent No. 5,890,079, filed December 17, 1996.
`
`A true and correct copy of the ‘618 patent is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit
`
`A.
`
`8.
`
`Defendant Boeing offers its commercial aircraft customers a service
`
`that allows Boeing to actively monitor the health of an aircraft while it is in flight in
`
`order to provide real-time maintenance advice. Boeing’s Airplane Health
`
`Management system (“AHM”) consists of one or more transmitters onboard the
`
`aircraft that communicates in-flight aircraft performance data to a Boeing-operated
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`ground station, where Boeing monitors thousands of aircraft parameters; analyzes
`
`11
`
`these parameters in the context of the particular aircraft’s configuration and history
`
`12
`
`as well the historical performance of other similar aircraft in the Boeing fleet; and
`
`13
`
`provides its customers real-time advice concerning anticipated maintenance needs.
`
`14
`
`As of August 2014, Boeing claimed that AHM is used by more than 70 airline fleets
`
`15
`
`worldwide as part of the Boeing Edge system, which is designed to “drive optimized
`
`16
`
`performance, efficiency and safety across customer operations.” AHM, is used on a
`
`17
`
`number of different Boeing aircraft models, including many 737s, 747s, 757s. 767s,
`
`18
`
`MD-10s, MD-11s, Boeing Business Jets, most 777s, all Boeing 787s and, as
`
`19
`
`hereinafter alleged, infringes the Patent-in-Suit.
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`9.
`
`COUNT I - PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by this reference paragraphs
`
`1 through 8, inclusive, as though fully set forth in this paragraph.
`10. Boeing makes, uses, sells and offers for sale in the United States
`
`25
`
`aircraft and services incorporating the AHM system, and components thereof,
`
`26
`
`which, together with at least one Boeing ground station infringe one or more claims
`
`27
`
`of the ‘618 patent.
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`Complaint for Patent Infringement
`
`BOEING Ex. 1007, p. 4
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-06859-MRP-AS Document 1 Filed 09/03/14 Page 5 of 7 Page ID #:5
`
`
`
`11. Boeing is not licensed or otherwise authorized to make or use the
`
`apparatuses claimed in the ‘618 patent.
`12. On information and belief, Boeing’s infringement of the ‘618 patent
`
`has been and continues to be willful, at least in part because Boeing was aware of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,974,359, which was reissued as the ‘618 Patent-in-Suit and which
`
`was cited as prior art during the prosecution of at least 10 of Boeing’s patents.
`
`Moreover, Mr. Levine presented a paper describing his invention at the NTSB
`
`International Conference on Transportation Recorders entitled “The Remote Aircraft
`
`Flight Recorder and Advisory Telemetry System, RAFT (Patented).” On
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`information and belief, one or more Boeing engineers was present at that
`
`11
`
`12
`
`symposium.
`13. By reason of Defendant Boeing’s infringing activities, Mr. Levine has
`
`13
`
`suffered, and will continue to suffer, substantial damages in an amount no less than
`
`14
`
`a reasonable royalty.
`
`15
`
`///
`
`16
`
`///
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`Complaint for Patent Infringement
`
`BOEING Ex. 1007, p. 5
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-06859-MRP-AS Document 1 Filed 09/03/14 Page 6 of 7 Page ID #:6
`
`
`
`as follows:
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`Wherefore, Plaintiff respectfully prays for judgment against Defendant
`
`(a) A judgment holding Boeing liable for infringement of United States
`
`Patent No. RE39,618;
`
`(b) An award to Mr. Levine of all available and legally permissible
`
`damages caused by Defendant’s infringing acts, but in no event less than a
`
`reasonable royalty and prejudgment and post-judgment interest thereon;
`
`(c) A judgment holding that Boeing’s infringement is willful and enhanced
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284;
`
`11
`
`(d) A judgment holding this case to be an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C.
`
`12
`
`§ 285, and on such basis, an award of attorney fees for Plaintiff against Defendant
`
`13
`
`Boeing; and
`
`(e)
`
`Such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
`
`
`
`DATED: September 3, 2014
`
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN, LLP
`
`By/s/ Frederick A. Lorig
`Frederick A. Lorig
`Bruce R. Zisser
`Amar L. Thakur
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Seymour Levine
`
`6
`
`Complaint for Patent Infringement
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`BOEING Ex. 1007, p. 6
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-06859-MRP-AS Document 1 Filed 09/03/14 Page 7 of 7 Page ID #:7
`
`
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b), Seymour Levine demands a trial by
`
`jury on all matters and issues triable by jury.
`
`
`
`DATED: September 3, 2014
`
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN, LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By/s/ Frederick A. Lorig
`Frederick A. Lorig
`Bruce R. Zisser
`Amar L. Thakur
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Seymour Levine
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`Complaint for Patent Infringement
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`BOEING Ex. 1007, p. 7