8/13/2019 InterMetro Industries v. Capsa Solutions
1/27
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
INTERMETRO INDUSTRIES CORPORATION,
a Delaware corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAPSA SOLUTIONS, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company,
Defendant.
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
NOW COMES the Plaintiff, INTERMETRO INDUSTRIES
CORPORATION (InterMetro), by its attorneys HARNESS, DICKEY &
PIERCE, PLC, and for its Complaint against CAPSA SOLUTIONS, LLC
(Capsa), states as follows:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. This is an action for patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271, 283,284 and 285.
8/13/2019 InterMetro Industries v. Capsa Solutions
2/27
2
THE PARTIES
2. InterMetro is a Delaware corporation having a principal place ofbusiness at 651 N. Washington St., Wilkes-Barre, PA 18705.
3. On information and belief, Capsa is a Delaware limited liabilitycompany having a place of business at 4800 Hilton Corporate Drive, Columbus,
Ohio 43232.
4. On information and belief, Capsa acquired the assets of the MobileSolutions Group of Artromick International, Inc. in 2009. SeeExhibit 13.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1338(a).
6. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Capsa because Capsa hastransacted business in Pennsylvania by offering for sale and selling computer carts in
Pennsylvania, among other products, that InterMetro alleges infringe its patents. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h) and 42 PA.CONS.STAT. 5322(a).
7. This Court also has personal jurisdiction over Capsa because Capsa hasin the past and continues to cause harm to InterMetro in Pennsylvania as a result of
acts it has and continues to commit both inside and outside of Pennsylvania. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h) and 42 PA.CONS.STAT. 5322(a).
8/13/2019 InterMetro Industries v. Capsa Solutions
3/27
3
8. Venue over Capsa is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. 1391(d) and 1400(b).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
9. On December 10, 2002, the United States Patent and TrademarkOffice (Patent Office) issued United States Patent No. 6,493,220 entitled
Mobile Clinical Workstation (the 220 patent). A copy of the 220 patent is
attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 1.
10. On December 20, 2002, EMS Technologies Inc. (EMS), anInterMetro predecessor-in-interest to point-of-care cart technology embodied in the
220 patent, issued a news release announcing that the Patent Office awarded the
220 patent. The release stated:
This patent describes the essential features of the cart-based form
factor in a workstation, which is equipped with a computer and power
supply, and is connected wirelessly to a local area network by WiFi
access points. [We] developed the technology for cart-based systems,
which allow healthcare providers to realize the full benefits of clinical
point-of-care applications as the way to improve patient safety with a
device that is easy to use.
The patent on the Mobile Clinical Workstation protects the flagship
product of our Healthcare Solutions Group, which has established the
industry-standard form factor and created a leading position in this
growing market for wireless technology.
SeeExhibit 2.
8/13/2019 InterMetro Industries v. Capsa Solutions
4/27
4
11. Over the next decade, EMS and subsequent owners of the point-of-care-cart technology, including InterMetro, pursued additional patents on the
technology through Patent Office continuation practice.
12. Their efforts resulted in the Patent Office awarding U.S. Patent Nos.6,721,178 (the 178 patent); 7,009,840 (the 840 patent); 7,612,999 (the 999
patent); 7,791,866 (the 866 patent); 7,990,691 (the 691 patent); and
8,526,176 (the 176 patent). SeeExhibits 3and 5-9, respectively.
13. On February 10, 2003, EMS sued a competitor for infringing the 220patent.
14. The next day, the Atlanta Business Chronicle published an articleabout the lawsuit. The article quoted EMSs Heathcare Solutions Group Director:
We are quite determined to enforce our patent rights, and to require
other providers of point-of-care carts to either develop their own
unique products, or pay reasonable compensation to EMS for the use
of technology that we created.
See Exhibit 10.
15. EMSs enforcement activities further included issuing press releasesand publishing product brochures with notice of its patents.
16. Moreover, EMS marked its point-of-care carts with its patentnumbers; approached competitors at trade shows to inform them of its patents; and
sent letters to competitors offering an opportunity to license its patent rights.
8/13/2019 InterMetro Industries v. Capsa Solutions
5/27
5
17. EMSs actions resulted in multiple patent infringement lawsuits thatresolved on terms which included the infringers paying undisclosed amounts to
license the patents, and acknowledging the validity and enforceability of the
patents. See Exhibit 11.
18. In February 2005, Flo Healthcare Solutions, L.L.C. (Flo), asuccessor-in-interest to EMSs point-of-care-cart technology, including the related
patents and patent applications, sent notice letters to competitors in the point-of-
care-cart market, including Rioux Vision, Inc. (Rioux Vision). See Exhibit 12.
19. The letters offered an opportunity to license both the 220 and 178patents, they enclosed copies of the patents, and they pointed out that other
competitors were licensed under the patents.
20. On October 26, 2006, Flo sued Rioux Vision for infringing the 178patent.
21. On March 21, 2008, the Court granted Flo summary judgment thatRioux Visions point-of-care carts infringed numerous claims of the 178 patent.
22. On December 8, 2008, Flo sued Omnicell, Inc. (Omnicell), forinfringing the 178 patent.
23. On September 30, 2009, Flo assigned InterMetro the entire right, titleand interest to the point-of-care cart technology, including the related patents and
patent applications.
8/13/2019 InterMetro Industries v. Capsa Solutions
6/27
6
24. The written assignment expressly granted InterMetro the exclusiveright to seek and obtain all remedies available at law (including money damages)
and in equity for any past, present and future infringement of the patent properties.
25. In September 2010, InterMetro settled the lawsuits against RiouxVision and Omnicell, including granting them a license to the patents.
26. Three years before, on September 20, 2007, Rioux Vision filed aPetition forInter PartesReexamination of the 178 patent with the Patent Office.
27. On February 15, 2013, the Patent Office issued a reexaminationcertificate for the 178 patent that confirmed the patentability of claims 2-6, 18-22,
27-33, 39, 43, 44, as well as the patentability of newly added claims 45-130. A
copy of the Inter Partes Reexamination Certificate for the 178 patent is attached to
this Complaint as Exhibit 4.
28. Since the 220 patent issued on December 10, 2002, InterMetro andits predecessors have continuously marked their point-of-care carts with the 220
patent and related patents.
29. Competitors in the point-of-care-cart market have long been on noticeof InterMetros patents for the point-of-care-cart technology and its intent to
enforce these patents.
COUNT IINFRINGEMENT OF U.S.PATENT NO.6,493,220
30. InterMetro restates the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-29.
8/13/2019 InterMetro Industries v. Capsa Solutions
7/27
7
31. On December 10, 2002, the Patent Office duly and lawfully issued the220 patent.
32. InterMetro owns the 220 patent, along with the right to bring suit andrecover damages for past, present and future infringement of the 220 patent.
33. Capsa has in the past and/or currently is directly infringing the claimsof the 220 patent under 35 U.S.C. 271(a) by making, using, offering for sale and
selling, without InterMetros authority, computer carts that embody one or more of
the 220 patent claims.
34. By way of example and not limitation, Capsa has in the past and/orcurrently is making, using, offering for sale and selling the VX series and MX
series mobile computer carts that directly infringe at least claim 2 of the 220
patent, among other claims. See, e.g.,Exhibits 14, 15, 17 and 18.
35. Capsa has in the past and/or currently is inducing and contributing tothe direct infringement of the 220 patent claims in violation of 35 U.S.C.
271(b) and (c), by making, using, offering for sale and selling, without
InterMetros authority, computer carts with knowledge of the 220 patent and its
claims; knowing that others, including customers and users of its computer carts,
will use the carts in an infringing manner; knowing that its computer carts are a
material part of the invention claimed in the 220 patent; knowing that its computer
carts are especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of the
8/13/2019 InterMetro Industries v. Capsa Solutions
8/27
8
220 patent; and knowing that its computer carts are not staple articles or
commodities of commerce that are suitable for substantial non-infringing use.
36. By way of example and not limitation, Capsa has in the past and/orcurrently is making, using, offering for sale and selling the VX series and MX
series mobile computer carts that its customers use to directly infringe at least
claim 2 of the 220 patent, among other claims.
37. Capsas marketing materials extoll the benefits of using its computercarts with computing devices and displays describing them as accommodating an
open platform for a variety of computing hardware options, including laptops, thin-
client PCs, tablet PCs, all-in-one PCs and LCD monitors. See Exhibits 14, 15, 17
and 18.
38. Capsas marketing materials also proclaim that its computer carts are[d]esigned specifically to accommodate [the customers] choice of computer and
that the computer carts are factory-equipped for mounting the selected computing
technology solution for the computer and display. SeeExhibits 17 and 18.
39. The benefits Capsa touts in its marketing materials for its computercarts could not be realized without using a computing device and a display with the
carts.
40. Capsas computer carts have no substantial non-infringing use.
8/13/2019 InterMetro Industries v. Capsa Solutions
9/27
9
41. In view of the facts alleged herein, Capsa has known of the 220patent, or has been willfully blind to the 220 patents existence, since at least
2009.
42. Capsas infringing activities have been willful and deliberate.43. Capsas infringing activities are directly and proximately causing
immediate and irreparable injury to InterMetro for which InterMetro has no
adequate remedy at law.
44. Capsa will continue its infringing activities unless enjoined fromdoing so by the Court.
45. Capsas infringing activities have and continue to directly andproximately cause damages to InterMetro.
COUNT IIINFRINGEMENT OF U.S.PATENT NO.6,721,178
46. InterMetro restates the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-45.47. On April 13, 2004, the Patent Office duly and lawfully issued the 178
patent. Exhibit 3.
48. On February 15, 2013, the Patent Office issued a reexaminationcertificate for the 178 patent, confirming the patentability of claims 2-6, 18-22,
27-33, 39, 43 and 44, as well as the patentability of newly added claims 45-130.
Exhibit 4.
8/13/2019 InterMetro Industries v. Capsa Solutions
10/27
10
49. InterMetro owns the 178 patent, along with the right to bring suit andrecover damages for past, present and future infringement of the 178 patent.
50. Capsa has in the past and/or currently is directly infringing the claimsof the 178 patent under 35 U.S.C. 271(a) by making, using, offering for sale and
selling, without InterMetros authority, computer carts that embody one or more of
the 178 patent claims.
51. By way of example and not limitation, Capsa has in the past and/orcurrently is making, using, offering for sale and selling the LX series, VX series,
and MX series mobile computer carts that directly infringe at least claim 2 of the
178 patent, among other claims. See, e.g.,Exhibits 14 18.
52. By way of further example and not limitation, Capsa has in the pastmade, used, offered for sale and sold the NX series and TX series computer
workstations that directly infringe at least claim 2 of the 178 patent, among other
claims. See, e.g.,Exhibits 19 24.
53. Capsa has in the past and/or currently is inducing and contributing tothe direct infringement of the 178 patent claims in violation of 35 U.S.C.
271(b) and (c), by making, using, offering for sale and selling, without
InterMetros authority, computer carts with knowledge of the 178 patent and its
claims; knowing that others, including customers and users of its computer carts,
will use the carts in an infringing manner; knowing that its computer carts are a
8/13/2019 InterMetro Industries v. Capsa Solutions
11/27
11
material part of the invention claimed in the 178 patent; knowing that its computer
carts are especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of the
178 patent; and knowing that its computer carts are not staple articles or
commodities of commerce that are suitable for substantial non-infringing use.
54. By way of example and not limitation, Capsa has in the past and/orcurrently is making, using, offering for sale and selling the LX series, VX series,
and MX series mobile computer carts that its customers use to directly infringe at
least claim 2 of the 178 patent, among other claims. See, e.g.,Exhibits 14 18.
55. By way of further example and not limitation, Capsa has in the pastmade, used, offered for sale and sold the NX series and TX series computer
workstations that its customers use to directly infringe at least claims 2 of the 178
patent, among other claims. See, e.g.,Exhibits 19 24.
56. Capsas marketing materials extoll the benefits of using its computercarts with computing devices and displays describing them as accommodating an
open platform for a variety of computing hardware options, including laptops, thin-
client PCs, tablet PCs, all-in-one PCs and LCD monitors. See Exhibits 14 - 24.
57. Capsas marketing materials also proclaim that its computer carts are[d]esigned specifically to accommodate [the customers] choice of computer and
that the computer carts are factory-equipped for mounting the selected computing
technology solution for the computer and display. SeeExhibits 17 and 18.
8/13/2019 InterMetro Industries v. Capsa Solutions
12/27
12
58. The benefits Capsa touts in its marketing materials for its computercarts could not be realized without using a computing device and a display with the
carts.
59. Capsas computer carts have no substantial non-infringing use.60. In view of the facts alleged herein, Capsa has known of the 178
patent, or has been willfully blind to the 178 patents existence, since at least
2009.
61. Capsas infringing activities have been willful and deliberate.62. Capsas infringing activities are directly and proximately causing
immediate and irreparable injury to InterMetro for which InterMetro has no
adequate remedy at law.
63. Capsa will continue its infringing activities unless enjoined fromdoing so by the Court.
64. Capsas infringing activities have and continue to directly andproximately cause damages to InterMetro.
COUNT IIIINFRINGEMENT OF U.S.PATENT NO.7,612,999
65. InterMetro restates the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-64.66. On November 3, 2009, the Patent Office duly and lawfully issued the
999 patent. Exhibit 6.
8/13/2019 InterMetro Industries v. Capsa Solutions
13/27
13
67. InterMetro owns the 999 patent, along with all rights to bring suit andrecover damages for past, present and future infringement of the 999 patent.
68. Capsa has in the past and/or currently is directly infringing the claimsof the 999 patent under 35 U.S.C. 271(a) by making, using, offering for sale and
selling, without InterMetros authority, carts that embody one or more of the 999
patent claims.
69. By way of example and not limitation, Capsa has in the past and/orcurrently is making, using, offering for sale and selling the LX series, VX series,
and MX series mobile computer carts that directly infringe at least claims 8, 9 and
10 of the 999 patent, among other claims. See, e.g.,Exhibits 14 18.
70. Capsa has in the past and/or currently is inducing and contributing tothe direct infringement of the 999 patent claims in violation of 35 U.S.C.
271(b) and (c), by making, using, offering for sale and selling, without
InterMetros authority, computer carts with knowledge of the 999 patent and its
claims; knowing that others, including customers and users of its computer carts,
will use the carts in an infringing manner; knowing that its computer carts are a
material part of the invention claimed in the 999 patent; knowing that its computer
carts are especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of the
999 patent; and knowing that its computer carts are not staple articles or
commodities of commerce that are suitable for substantial non-infringing use.
8/13/2019 InterMetro Industries v. Capsa Solutions
14/27
14
71. By way of example and not limitation, Capsa has in the past and/orcurrently is making, using, offering for sale and selling the LX series, VX series,
and MX series mobile computer carts that its customers use to directly infringe at
least claims 8, 9 and 10 of the 999 patent, among other claims. See, e.g.,Exhibits
14 18.
72. Capsas marketing materials extoll the benefits of using its computercarts with computing devices and displays describing them as accommodating an
open platform for a variety of computing hardware options, including laptops, thin-
client PCs, tablet PCs, all-in-one PCs and LCD monitors. See Exhibits 14 - 18.
73. Capsas marketing materials also proclaim that its computer carts are[d]esigned specifically to accommodate [the customers] choice of computer and
that the computer carts are factory-equipped for mounting the selected computing
technology solution for the computer and display. SeeExhibits 17 and 18.
74. The benefits Capsa touts in its marketing materials for its computercarts could not be realized without using a computing device and a display with the
carts.
75. Capsas computer carts have no substantial non-infringing use.76. In view of the facts alleged herein, Capsa has known of the 999
patent, or has been willfully blind to the 999 patents existence, since at least
2009.
8/13/2019 InterMetro Industries v. Capsa Solutions
15/27
15
77. Capsas infringing activities have been willful and deliberate.78. Capsas infringing activities are directly and proximately causing
immediate and irreparable injury to InterMetro for which InterMetro has no
adequate remedy at law.
79. Capsa will continue its infringing activities unless enjoined fromdoing so by the Court.
80. Capsas infringing activities have and continue to directly andproximately cause damages to InterMetro.
COUNT IVINFRINGEMENT OF U.S.PATENT NO.7,791,866
81. InterMetro restates the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-80.82. On September 7, 2010, the Patent Office duly and lawfully issued the
866 patent. Exhibit 7.
83. InterMetro owns the 866 patent, along with all rights to bring suit andrecover damages for past, present and future infringement of the 866 patent.
84. Capsa has in the past and/or currently is directly infringing the claimsof the 866 patent under 35 U.S.C. 271(a) by making, using, offering for sale and
selling, without InterMetros authority, computer carts that embody one or more of
the 866 patent claims.
85. By way of example and not limitation, Capsa has in the past and/orcurrently is making, using, offering for sale and selling the VX series and MX
8/13/2019 InterMetro Industries v. Capsa Solutions
16/27
16
series mobile computer carts that directly infringe at least claims 1, 8, 9, 12, 13, 17
and 18 of the 866 patent, among other claims. See, e.g.,Exhibits 14, 15, 17 and
18.
86. By way of further example and not limitation, Capsa has in the pastmade, used, offered for sale and sold the NX series and TX series computer
workstations that directly infringe at least claims 8, 9, 17 and 18 of the 866 patent,
among other claims. See, e.g.,Exhibits 19 24.
87. Capsa has in the past and/or currently is inducing and contributing tothe direct infringement of the 866 patent claims in violation of 35 U.S.C.
271(b) and (c), by making, using, offering for sale and selling, without
InterMetros authority, computer carts with knowledge of the 866 patent and its
claims; knowing that others, including customers and users of its computer carts,
will use the carts in an infringing manner; knowing that its computer carts are a
material part of the invention claimed in the 866 patent; knowing that its computer
carts are especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of the
866 patent; and knowing that its computer carts are not staple articles or
commodities of commerce that are suitable for substantial non-infringing use.
88. By way of example and not limitation, Capsa has in the past and/orcurrently is making, using, offering for sale and selling the VX series and MX
series mobile computer carts that its customers use to directly infringe at least
8/13/2019 InterMetro Industries v. Capsa Solutions
17/27
17
claims 1, 8, 9, 12, 13, 17 and 18 of the 866 patent, among other claims. See, e.g.,
Exhibits 14, 15, 17 and 18.
89. By way of further example and not limitation, Capsa has in the pastmade, used, offered for sale and sold the NX series and TX series computer
workstations that its customers use to directly infringe at least claims 8, 9, 17 and
18 of the 866 patent, among other claims. See, e.g.,Exhibits 19 24.
90. Capsas marketing materials extoll the benefits of using its computercarts with computing devices and displays describing them as accommodating an
open platform for a variety of computing hardware options, including laptops, thin-
client PCs, tablet PCs, all-in-one PCs and LCD monitors. See Exhibits 14, 15 and
17 - 24.
91. Capsas marketing materials also proclaim that its computer carts are[d]esigned specifically to accommodate [the customers] choice of computer and
that the computer carts are factory-equipped for mounting the selected computing
technology solution for the computer and display. SeeExhibits 17 and 18.
92. The benefits Capsa touts in its marketing materials for its computercarts could not be realized without using a computing device and a display with the
carts.
93. Capsas computer carts have no substantial non-infringing use.
8/13/2019 InterMetro Industries v. Capsa Solutions
18/27
18
94. In view of the facts alleged herein, Capsa has known of the 866patent, or has been willfully blind to the 866 patents existence, since at least
2010.
95. Capsas infringing activities have been willful and deliberate.96. Capsas infringing activities are directly and proximately causing
immediate and irreparable injury to InterMetro for which InterMetro has no
adequate remedy at law.
97. Capsa will continue its infringing activities unless enjoined fromdoing so by the Court.
98. Capsas infringing activities have and continue to directly andproximately cause damages to InterMetro.
COUNT VINFRINGEMENT OF U.S.PATENT NO.7,990,691
99. InterMetro restates the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-98.100. On August 2, 2011, the Patent Office duly and lawfully issued the
691 patent. Exhibit 8.
101. InterMetro owns the 691 patent, along with all rights to bring suit andrecover damages for past, present and future infringement of the 691 patent.
102. Capsa has in the past and/or currently is directly infringing the claimsof the 691 patent under 35 U.S.C. 271(a) by making, using, offering for sale and
8/13/2019 InterMetro Industries v. Capsa Solutions
19/27
19
selling, without InterMetros authority, computer carts that embody one or more of
the 691 patent claims.
103. By way of example and not limitation, Capsa has in the past and/orcurrently is making, using, offering for sale and selling the VX series and MX
series mobile computer carts that directly infringe at least claims 1, 12, 16, 19 and
33 of the 691 patent, among other claims. See, e.g.,Exhibits 14, 15, 17 and 18.
104. By way of further example and not limitation, Capsa has in the pastand/or currently is making, using, offering for sale and selling the LX series mobile
computer carts that directly infringe at least claims 25, 28 and 33 of the 691
patent, among other claims. See, e.g.,Exhibits 14 and 16.
105. By way of further example and not limitation, Capsa has in the pastmade, used, offered for sale and sold the NX series and TX series computer
workstations, that directly infringe at least claims 1, 2, 12, 16, 17, 19 and 33 of the
691 patent, among other claims. See, e.g.,Exhibits 19 24.
106. Capsa has in the past and/or currently is inducing and contributing tothe direct infringement of the 691 patent claims in violation of 35 U.S.C.
271(b) and (c), by making, using, offering for sale and selling, without
InterMetros authority, computer carts with knowledge of the 691 patent and its
claims; knowing that others, including customers and users of its computer carts,
will use the carts in an infringing manner; knowing that its computer carts are a
8/13/2019 InterMetro Industries v. Capsa Solutions
20/27
20
material part of the invention claimed in the 691 patent; knowing that its computer
carts are especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement the
claims of the 691 patent; and knowing that its computer carts are not staple
articles or commodities of commerce that are suitable for substantial non-
infringing use.
107. By way of example and not limitation, Capsa has in the past and/orcurrently is making, using, offering for sale and selling the VX series and MX
series mobile computer carts that its customers use to directly infringe at least
claims 1, 12, 16, 19 and 33 of the 691 patent, among other claims. See, e.g.,
Exhibits 14, 15, 17 and 18.
108. By way of further example and not limitation, Capsa has in the pastand/or currently is making, using, offering for sale and selling the LX series mobile
computer carts that directly infringe at least claims 25, 28 and 33 of the 691
patent, among other claims. See, e.g.,Exhibits 14 and 16.
109. By way of further example and not limitation, Capsa has in the pastmade, used, offered for sale and sold the NX series and TX series computer
workstations that its customers use to directly infringe at least claims 1, 2, 12, 16,
17, 19 and 33 of the 691 patent, among other claims. See, e.g.,Exhibits 19 24.
110. Capsas marketing materials extoll the benefits of using its computercarts with computing devices and displays describing them as accommodating an
8/13/2019 InterMetro Industries v. Capsa Solutions
21/27
21
open platform for a variety of computing hardware options, including laptops, thin-
client PCs, tablet PCs, all-in-one PCs and LCD monitors. See Exhibits 14 - 24.
111. Capsas marketing materials also proclaim that its computer carts are[d]esigned specifically to accommodate [the customers] choice of computer and
that the computer carts are factory-equipped for mounting the selected computing
technology solution for the computer and display. SeeExhibits 17 and 18.
112. The benefits Capsa touts in its marketing materials for its computercarts could not be realized without using a computing device and a display with the
carts.
113. Capsas computer carts have no substantial non-infringing use.114. In view of the facts alleged herein, Capsa has known of the 691
patent, or has been willfully blind to the 691 patents existence, since at least
2011.
115. Capsas infringing activities have been willful and deliberate.116. Capsas infringing activities are directly and proximately causing
immediate and irreparable injury to InterMetro for which InterMetro has no
adequate remedy at law.
117. Capsa will continue its infringing activities unless enjoined fromdoing so by the Court.
8/13/2019 InterMetro Industries v. Capsa Solutions
22/27
22
118. Capsas infringing activities have and continue to directly andproximately cause damages to InterMetro.
COUNT VIINFRINGEMENT OF U.S.PATENT NO.8,526,176
119. InterMetro restates the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-118.120. On September 3, 2013, the Patent Office duly and lawfully issued the
176 patent. Exhibit 9.
121. InterMetro owns the 176 patent, along with all rights to bring suit andrecover damages for past, present and future infringement of the 176 patent.
122. Capsa has in the past and/or currently is directly infringing the claimsof the 176 patent under 35 U.S.C. 271(a) by making, using, offering for sale and
selling, without InterMetros authority, computer carts that embody one or more of
the 176 patent claims.
123. By way of example and not limitation, Capsa has in the past and/orcurrently is making, using, offering for sale and selling the VX series and MX
series mobile computer carts that directly infringe at least claims 1, 8 and 15 of the
176 patent, among other claims. See, e.g.,Exhibits 14, 15, 17 and 18.
124. By way of further example and not limitation, Capsa has in the pastmade, used, offered for sale and sold the NX series and TX series computer
workstations that directly infringe at least claims 1, 8 and 15 of the 176 patent,
among other claims. See, e.g.,Exhibits 19 24.
8/13/2019 InterMetro Industries v. Capsa Solutions
23/27
23
125. Capsa has in the past and/or currently is inducing and contributing tothe direct infringement of the 176 patent claims in violation of 35 U.S.C.
271(b) and (c), by making, using, offering for sale and selling, without
InterMetros authority, computer carts with knowledge of the 176 patent and its
claims; knowing that others, including customers and users of its computer carts,
will use the carts in an infringing manner; knowing that its computer carts are a
material part of the invention claimed in the 176 patent; knowing that its computer
carts are especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of the
176 patent; and knowing that its computer carts are not staple articles or
commodities of commerce that are suitable for substantial non-infringing use.
126. By way of example and not limitation, Capsa has in the past and/orcurrently is making, using, offering for sale and selling the VX series and MX
series mobile computer carts that its customers use to directly infringe at least
claims 1, 8 and 15 of the 176 patent, among other claims. See, e.g.,Exhibits 14,
15, 17 and 18.
127. By way of further example and not limitation, Capsa has in the pastmade, used, offered for sale and sold the NX series and TX series computer
workstations that its customers use to directly infringe at least claims 1, 8 and 15 of
the 176 patent, among other claims. See, e.g.,Exhibits 19 24.
8/13/2019 InterMetro Industries v. Capsa Solutions
24/27
24
128. Capsas marketing materials extoll the benefits of using its computercarts with computing devices and displays describing them as accommodating an
open platform for a variety of computing hardware options, including laptops, thin-
client PCs, tablet PCs, all-in-one PCs and LCD monitors. See Exhibits 14, 15, 17
and 18.
129. Capsas marketing materials also proclaim that its computer carts are[d]esigned specifically to accommodate [the customers] choice of computer and
that the computer carts are factory-equipped for mounting the selected computing
technology solution for the computer and display. SeeExhibits 17 and 18.
130. The benefits Capsa touts in its marketing materials for its computercarts could not be realized without using a computing device and a display with the
carts.
131. Capsas computer carts have no substantial non-infringing use.132. In view of the facts alleged herein, Capsa has known of the 176
patent, or has been willfully blind to the 176 patents existence, since at least
2013.
133. Capsas infringing activities have been willful and deliberate.134. Capsas infringing activities are directly and proximately causing
immediate and irreparable injury to InterMetro for which InterMetro has no
adequate remedy at law.
8/13/2019 InterMetro Industries v. Capsa Solutions
25/27
25
135. Capsa will continue its infringing activities unless enjoined fromdoing so by the Court.
136. Capsas infringing activities have and continue to directly andproximately cause damages to InterMetro.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, InterMetro Industries Corporation prays that this Court:
A. Enter judgment for InterMetro against Capsa declaring that it haswillfully infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 6,493,220; 6,721,178; 7,612,999; 7,791,866;
7,990,691; and 8,526,176;
B. Permanently enjoin and restrain Capsa, its agents, servants, employees,partners, attorneys, successors and assigns, and all those acting in concert with it
from infringing, either directly, by inducement or contributorily, U.S. Patent Nos.
6,493,220; 6,721,178; 7,612,999; 7,791,866; 7,990,691; and 8,526,176;
C. Enter an Order requiring Capsa to file with this Court and to serve uponInterMetro or InterMetros counsel, within thirty (30) days after the entry and service
of any injunction issued, a report in writing and under oath setting forth in detail the
manner and form in which it has complied with the injunction;
D. Require Capsa post an appropriate bond and Order any otherappropriate relief to assure compliance with any injunctive provision or other
provision Ordered by the Court;
8/13/2019 InterMetro Industries v. Capsa Solutions
26/27
26
E. Enter an Order directing Capsa and its agents, servants, employees,partners, attorneys, successors and assigns, and all those acting in concert with it,
to deliver to this Court or to InterMetro for destruction, or show proof of said
destruction, of all infringing products;
F. Order an equitable accounting to determine the profits of and othersums Capsa derived from the complained-of patent infringement and other
wrongful acts, and that such amount be paid over to InterMetro as an equitable
remedy;
G. Award to InterMetro all damages it has sustained as a result of theCapsas patent infringement and order that said damages be trebled in accordance
with 35 U.S.C. 284;
H. Enter judgment declaring that this case is exceptional and thatInterMetro is entitled to recover its costs and reasonable attorneys fees incurred in
this action, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 285; and
I. Enter judgment granting such other and further relief and damages to
InterMetro as justice and equity may require.
JURY DEMAND
InterMetro Industries Corporation hereby requests a trial by jury of all
issues so triable.
8/13/2019 InterMetro Industries v. Capsa Solutions
27/27
Respectfully submitted,
DATED: November 22, 2013 By: s/ Dale M. Heist
Dale M. Heist, PA23314
John Frank Murphy, PA206307
WOODCOCK WASHBURN LLP
Cira Centre, 12thFloor
2929 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104
(215) 568-3100
(215) 564-3439 (fax)
OFCOUNSEL
Glenn E. Forbis, PA263218, MIP52119
George D. Moustakas, MIP41631
Neal D. Sanborn, MIP75725
HARNESS,DICKEY &PIERCE,PLC5445 Corporate Drive, Suite 400
Troy, Michigan 48098
(248) 641-1400
(248) 641-0270 (fax)
Attorneys for Plaintiff INTERMETRO
INDUSTRIES CORPORATION