Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Z013 CZC 20 P 3: 53
CLERK US DISTRICT COURT ALEXANDRIA. VIRGINIA
FREIGHT TRACKING
TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
Plaintiff
vs.
CIVIL ACTION NO
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 '"008
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.
The Parties
2.
with its principal place of business at 901 South MoPac Expressway, Austin TX 78746. Charles
D. Huston, the named inventor of the '008 and '564 patents, is the managing member of Freight
Tracking. Plaintiff is the assignee of the '008 and '564 patents. A copy of the '008 patent is
attached at Exhibit A; a copy of the '564 patent is attached as Exhibit B.
3.
4.
Virginia, with its principal place of business at 1000 APM Terminals Blvd., Portsmouth VA
23703.
Jurisdiction and Venue
5.
This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28
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 resources of this Judicial District. See, e.g., APMTerminals North America, Inc. v. Versiant Corporation, Inc., Civ. A. No. 2:13-cv-00579 (E.D. Va. 2013);
APM Terminals Virginia, Inc. v. M/VZHENHUA 24 et al, Civ. A. No. 2:1l-cv-00102 (E.D. Va.
2011).
7.
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
within the Commonwealth of Virginia and APM TerminalsNorth America, Inc.'s principal place
of business is located in Portsmouth. Background and Overview of the '008 and '564 Patents
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 searching for methods to track opposing
fighters in air combatfor mission reconstruction. Mr. Huston spent many hours researching GPS
technology, even though GPS was not declared operational until 1994.
9.
applications 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
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-inpart 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.
13.
The use of the patented technology of the '008 and '564 patentshas allowed
marine terminal operators to enjoy significant cost savings by reducing wasted container 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 by the '008 patent 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
16. 17.
The '564 patent was filed on April 13, 2004. On September 5,2006, the U.S. Patent Office issued the ' 564 patent to Charles
18.
to Mr. Huston.
On July 21,2011, Mr. Cornish assigned his interest in the '008 and '564 patents
19.
On September 12,2013, Mr. Huston assigned his interest in the '008 and '564
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 least claim 18.
21. 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. 22. APM is therefore directly infringing the '008 patent by using the claimed systems
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
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 APM has infringed the '008 and '564 patents;
B.
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-
E.
Award Plaintiff its fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this action, including
such fees and costs recoverable under 35 U.S.C. 285 and 28 U.S.C. 1920.
F.
proper.
Award Plaintiff any such other and further relief as the Court may deemjust and
James H. Wallace, Jr.* Brian H. Pandya (VA 72233) Adrienne G. Johnson (VA 78631)
1776 K Street NW