freight tracking technologies v. apm terminals virginis et. al

8/13/2019 Freight Tracking Technologies v. APM Terminals Virginis et. al.

1/6

U N I T E D S T A T E S D I ST R IC T C O U R T

E A S T E R N D I S T R I C T O F V I R G I N I A

N O R F O L K D I V IS IO N

F R E I G H T T R A C K I N G

TECHNOLOGIES L L C

P l a i n t i f f

v

A P M T E RM I NA L S V IR G IN IA INC. andA PM T ER M IN AL S N ORTH A M ER IC AI N C

D e f e n d a n t

C I V I L A C T I O N N O

F I L E D

Z 13 CZC 20 P 3: 5

CLERK US DISTRICT COURTALEXANDRIA. VIRGINIA

C O M P L A I N T A N D D E M A ND F O R J U R Y T R I A L

PlaintiffFreight Tracking Technologies, LLC ( Plaintiff or Freight Tracking ) by its

attorneys complain of Defendants APM Terminals Virginia Inc. and APM Terminals North

America, Inc. as fol lows:

N a t u r e o f t he A c ti on

1. This is an action for patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271, et seq by Freight

Tracking against APM Terminals Virginia Inc. and APM Terminals North America, Inc.

(collectively, APM ) for infringement of United States Patent Nos. 6,266,008 (the 00 8

patent ) and 7,102,564 (the 564 patent ) through APM s use of Freight Tracking s patented

technology for determining the locations of freight containers in freight yards using GPS

receivers at the APM Terminals Virginia marine terminal in Portsmouth, Virginia, as well as at

other APM operated terminals throughout the United States.


2/6

T h e Par t i e s

2. PlaintiffFreight TrackingTechnologies LLC is a Texas limited liabilitycompany

with its principal place of business at 901 South MoPac Expressway AustinTX 78746. Charles

D. Huston the named inventor of the 008 and 564 patents is the managing memberof Freight

Tracking. Plaintiff is the assignee of the 008 and 564 patents. A copy ofthe 008 patent is

attached at Exhibit A; a copy of the 564 patent is attached as Exhibit B.

3. Defendant APM Terminals Virginia Inc. is a Virginiacorporation with its

principal place of business at 9300 Arrowpoint Blvd., Charlotte NC 28273.

4. Defendant APM Terminals North America is a Delaware corporation registered inVirginia, with its principal place of business at 1000 APM Terminals Blvd., Portsmouth VA

23703 .

J u r is d ic t io n a n d Ve n u e

5. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28

U.S.C. 1331 and 1338(a).

6. This Court has personal jurisdiction over APM by virtue of its continuous,

systematic contacts with the Commonwealth of Virginia and this Judicial District, and by virtue

of its purposeful availment of the resourcesof this Judicial District. See e.g. APM Terminals

North America Inc v Versiant Corporation Inc Civ. A. No. 2:13-cv-00579 (E.D. Va. 2013);

APM Terminals Virginia Inc M/VZHENHUA 24 et l Civ. A. No. 2:1l-cv-00102 (E.D. Va.

2011).

7. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) and 1400(b),

because substantial infringing activities are occurring in this judicial district, including at the

APM marine terminal in Portsmouth, Virginia. Venue is further proper as APM is registered


3/6

within the Commonwealth of Virginia and APM TerminalsNorth America, Inc. s principalplace

o f b u si ne ss i s located i n P o r ts m o u th .

B a c k gr o un d a n d O v e r v i e w o f th e 0 0 8 a n d 5 6 4 P a te n ts

8. The invention claimed in the 008 and 564 patents is the brainchild of Charles D.

Huston, a Stanford educated industrial engineer who served for nearly twenty years as an Air

Force fighter pilot. Around 1989,Mr. Huston was searchingfor methods to track opposing

fighters in air combatfor missionreconstruction. Mr. Hustonspent many hours researching GPS

technology, even though GPS was not declared operational until 1994.

9. These experiences led Mr. Hustonto seek practical, multi-disciplinaryapplications for GPS technology. For example, in 1990, Mr. Huston thought of using GPS on

golf courses and approached co-inventor Darryl Cornish to assist. Through experimentation and

research, Messrs. Huston and Cornish determined they could provide golfers with range finders

and real-time tracking despite GPS signals being intentionally downgraded (called selective

availability) by the U.S. government prior to 2000.

10. In 1991, Messrs. Huston and Cornish filed a patent application that resulted in

U.S. Patent No. 5,364,093 ( the 093 patent ) .

11. In 1994, Messrs. Huston and Cornish were exploring other uses for their

technology. Two results were the 008 and 564 patents, which were filed as continuations-in-

part of the aforementioned 093 patent.

12. The technology claimed in the 008 and 564 patents enable GPS tracking of

freight containers. More specifically, the patents provide a system and method for determining

the locations of freight containers in a freight yard using a remote unit that includes a GPS

receiver.


4/6

13. The useof the patented technology of the 008 and 564 patentshas allowed

marineterminal operators to enjoy significant cost savings by reducingwastedcontainer moves

and the incidence of lost containers reduced, as well as increased productivity, increased

container density, and fewer injuries to longshoremen.

14. The 008 patent was filed on November 4, 1994. The systems and methods

claimed bythe 008patent were developed before GPS technology was widely commercially

accessible. Accordingly, the 008 patent is a pioneerpatent, having been forward cited in over

50 subsequent patent applications.

15. On July 4, 2001, the U.S. Patent Office issued the 008 patent to Charles Huston

and Daryl Cornish.

16. The 564 patent was filed on April 13,2004.

17. On September 5,2006, the U.S. Patent Office issued the 564 patent to Charles

Huston and Daryl Cornish.

18. On July 21,2011, Mr. Cornish assigned his interest in the 008 and 564 patents

to M r. H u st on .

19. On September 12,2013, Mr. Huston assigned his interest in the 008 and 564

patents to Plaintiff Freight Tracking Technologies, LLC.

A P M s I n f r i n g e m e n t o f t h e 0 0 8 P a t e n t

20. APM is tracking containers that come through its freight yards by implementing

the systems and/orpracticing the methods of the 008 patent, including at leastclaim 18.21. APM has implemented and uses technologyat its terminals that give the terminal

the capacity to identify shipping containers and track their exact GPS location.

22. APM is therefore directly infringing the 008 patent by using the claimed systems


5/6

and methods of the 008 patent to determine freight container locations in its freight yards using

GPS technology.

23. This infringement of the 008 patent by APM has caused and will continue to

cause Freight Tracking damage.

A P M s I n f r i n g e m e n t o f t h e 5 64 P a te nt

24. APM is tracking containers that come through its freight yards by implementing

the systems and/or practicing the methods of the 564 patent, including at least claim 1.

25. APM has implemented and uses technology at its terminals that give the terminal

the capacity to identify shipping containers and track their exact GPS location.

26. APM is therefore directly infringing the 564 patent by using the claimed systems

and methods of the 564 patent to determine freight container locations in its freight yards using

GPS technology.

27. This infringement of the 564 patent by APM has caused and will continue to

cause Freight Tracking damage.

WHEREFORE Plaintiff prays that this Court:

A. Enter judgment that AP M has infringed the 00 8 and 56 4 patents;

B. Award Plaintiff its damages, including at least a reasonable royalty, resulting

from the patent infringement of APM pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 284;

C. Award Plaintiff its prejudgment interest on their damages and their costs, pursuant

to 35 U.S.C. 284;

D. To the extent that APM continues to infringe Plaintiffs patented technology, yet

refuses to take a license, award APM an ongoing royalty sufficient to compensate adequately for

APM s ongoing infringement;

5


6/6

E. Award Plaintiff its fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this action, including

such fees and costs recoverable under 35 U.S.C. 285 an d 28 U.S.C. 1920.

F. Award Plaintiff any such other and further relief as the Court may deemjust and

prope r.

J U R Y T R I A L D E M A N D

Plaintiffdemands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

Dated: December20,2013 WILEY REIN LLP

James H. Wallace, Jr.*Brian H. Pandya (VA 72233)Adrienne G. Johnson (VA 78631)1776 K St ree t N W

Washington, D.C. 20006(202) 719-7000 (phone)(202) 719-7049 (fax) pro hac viceforthcoming

AT TO R N E Y S F O R P L A IN T T IF F R E I G H T

TRACKING TECHNOLOGIES, LL C

freight tracking technologies v. apm terminals virginis et. al

Documents