Progressive Casualty Insurance Company v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
Content
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. JURY DEMAND Case No.
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Plaintiff Progressive Casualty Insurance Company (“Progressive”), by and through its attorneys, for its complaint against Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”), demands a jury trial and alleges as follows: NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. This action arises under the Patent Laws of the United States, Title 35 of the
Unites States Code (for example, 35 U.S.C. §§ 271, 281, 283, 284, and 285), for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,064,970 (the “’970 patent”) (attached as Exhibit A), U.S. Patent No. 8,090,598 (the “’598 patent”) (attached as Exhibit B), and U.S. Patent No. 8,140,358 (the “’358 patent”) (attached as Exhibit C). PARTIES 2. Progressive is a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Ohio, with its
principal place of business at 6300 Wilson Mills Road, Mayfield Village, Ohio 44143.
3.
On information and belief, State Farm is a corporation organized under the laws
of the state of Illinois, with its principal place of business at One State Farm Plaza, Bloomington, Illinois, 61710. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4. This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of the
United States code, §§ 1, et seq. 5. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). 6. 7. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400(b). On information and belief, State Farm has committed and/or induced acts of
infringement in this district, is subject to personal jurisdiction in this district, and therefore resides in this district. 8. On information and belief, State Farm regularly transacts and conducts business
in this district, has registered with the Ohio Department of Insurance, and sells insurance within the State of Ohio. Progressive is suffering from the effects of State Farm’s unlawful conduct in this district. COUNT I 9. Progressive incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1
through 8 as though fully asserted herein. 10. On May 16, 2000, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally
issued the ’970 patent for an invention related to the determination of insurance ratings based upon vehicle monitoring. Progressive owns the ’970 patent.
2
11.
On information and belief, State Farm was aware of the ’970 patent prior to the
acts of infringement alleged herein. 12. On information and belief, State Farm, individually or through one or more agents
under its direction and control, has been and still is operating a usage-based vehicle insurance program entitled “Drive Safe & Save.” 13. On information and belief, State Farm, individually or through one or more agents
under its direction and control, operates and maintains an Internet website at http://www.statefarm.com/insurance/auto_insurance/drive-safe-save/drive-safe-save.asp (the “Drive Safe & Save website”) that includes details regarding the “Drive Safe & Save” program. 14. On information and belief, State Farm, or a third party vendor acting on behalf of
and under the direction and control of State Farm, in connection with the “Drive Safe & Save” program, obtains data regarding driving characteristics, including, for example, mileage, speed, rapid acceleration, left turns and right turns, from an insured vehicle. 15. On information and belief, State Farm, or a third party vendor acting on behalf of
and under the direction and control of State Farm, calculates a rating based on the obtained driving characteristics data in accordance with a formula provided by or for State Farm. 16. State Farm is infringing the ’970 patent, including through the operation of the
“Drive Safe & Save” program, which includes each and every feature of the claimed invention. State Farm is infringing either directly, through its own actions and/or the actions of one or more third-party vendors acting under its direction and/or control, or indirectly, through active inducement of the infringing actions with knowledge of or deliberate indifference to the existence and infringement of the ’970 patent.
3
17.
On information and belief, State Farm has continued its infringing activities
despite having notice of the ’970 patent. State Farm’s infringement is willful, entitling Progressive to the recovery of enhanced damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284. 18. In addition, this is an exceptional case, justifying an award of attorneys’ fees and
costs to Progressive pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285. 19. State Farm’s infringement has caused and will continue to cause damage and
irreparable harm to Progressive until enjoined by this Court. The amount of the damage and harm has not yet been determined but will be proven at trial. COUNT II 20. Progressive incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1
through 19 as though fully asserted herein. 21. On January 3, 2012, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and
legally issued the ’598 patent for an invention related to a vehicle monitoring system. Progressive owns the ’598 patent. 22. On information and belief, State Farm was aware of the ’598 patent prior to the
acts of infringement alleged herein. 23. On information and belief, State Farm, individually or through one or more agents
under its direction and control, has been and still is operating a usage-based vehicle insurance program entitled “Drive Safe & Save.” 24. On information and belief, State Farm, individually or through one or more agents
under its direction and control, operates and maintains an Internet website at http://www.statefarm.com/insurance/auto_insurance/drive-safe-save/drive-safe-save.asp (the “Drive Safe & Save website”) that includes details regarding the “Drive Safe & Save” program.
4
25.
On information and belief, State Farm, or a third party vendor acting on behalf of
and under the direction and control of State Farm, in connection with the “Drive Safe & Save” program, obtains data regarding driving characteristics, including, for example, mileage, speed, rapid acceleration, left turns and right turns, from an insured vehicle. 26. On information and belief, State Farm, or a third party vendor acting on behalf of
and under the direction and control of State Farm, calculates an insurance rating or safety score based on the obtained driving characteristics data in accordance with a formula provided by or for State Farm. 27. State Farm is infringing the ’598 patent, including through the operation of the
“Drive Safe & Save” program, which includes each and every feature of the claimed invention. State Farm is infringing either directly, through its own actions and/or the actions of one or more third-party vendors acting under its direction and/or control, or indirectly, through active inducement of the infringing actions with knowledge of or deliberate indifference to the existence and infringement of the ’598 patent. 28. On information and belief, State Farm has continued its infringing activities
despite having notice of the ’598 patent. State Farm’s infringement is willful, entitling Progressive to the recovery of enhanced damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284. 29. In addition, this is an exceptional case, justifying an award of attorneys’ fees and
costs to Progressive pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285. 30. State Farm’s infringement has caused and will continue to cause damage and
irreparable harm to Progressive until enjoined by this Court. The amount of the damage and harm has not yet been determined but will be proven at trial.
5
COUNT III 31. Progressive incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1
through 30 as though fully asserted herein. 32. On March 20, 2012, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and
legally issued the ’358 patent for an invention related to a vehicle monitoring system. Progressive owns the ’358 patent. 33. On information and belief, State Farm was aware of the ’358 patent prior to the
acts of infringement alleged herein. 34. On information and belief, State Farm, individually or through one or more agents
under its direction and control, has been and still is operating a usage-based vehicle insurance program entitled “Drive Safe & Save.” 35. On information and belief, State Farm, individually or through one or more agents
under its direction and control, operates and maintains the Drive Safe & Save website that includes details regarding the “Drive Safe & Save” program. 36. On information and belief, State Farm, or a third party vendor acting on behalf of
and under the direction and control of State Farm, in connection with the “Drive Safe & Save” program, obtains data regarding driving characteristics, including, for example, mileage, speed, rapid acceleration, left turns and right turns, from an insured vehicle. 37. On information and belief, State Farm, or a third party vendor acting on behalf of
and under the direction and control of State Farm, calculates an insurance rating or safety score based on the obtained driving characteristics data in accordance with a formula provided by or for State Farm.
6
38.
State Farm is infringing the ’358 patent, including through the operation of the
“Drive Safe & Save” program, which includes each and every feature of the claimed invention. State Farm is infringing either directly, through its own actions and/or the actions of one or more third-party vendors acting under its direction and/or control, or indirectly, through active inducement of the infringing actions with knowledge of or deliberate indifference to the existence and infringement of the ’358 patent. 39. On information and belief, State Farm has continued its infringing activities
despite having notice of the ’358 patent. State Farm’s infringement is willful, entitling Progressive to the recovery of enhanced damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284. 40. In addition, this is an exceptional case, justifying an award of attorneys’ fees and
costs to Progressive pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285. 41. State Farm’s infringement has caused and will continue to cause damage and
irreparable harm to Progressive until enjoined by this Court. The amount of the damage and harm has not yet been determined but will be proven at trial.
7
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Progressive demands the following relief: A. judgment that State Farm has infringed, contributorily infringed and/or actively
induced others to infringe the ’970, ’598, and ’358 patents; B. a preliminary and permanent injunction against State Farm’s continued
infringement and inducement of infringement of the ’970, ’598, and ’358 patents; C. an award of damages in favor of Progressive and against State Farm adequate to
compensate Progressive for State Farm’s infringement of the ’970, ’598, and ’358 patents (including an assessment of pre-judgment interest and post-judgment interest); D. enhancement of damages by up to three times the amount found or assessed based
on State Farm’s willful infringement, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284; E. F. a finding that this case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285; an award to Progressive for its reasonable expenses, including attorneys’ fees, and
costs of this action; and G. an award of such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
8
JURY DEMAND Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Progressive hereby respectfully requests a jury trial on all issues and claims so triable.
Dated: April 30, 2012
Respectfully submitted, By: /s/ Calvin P. Griffith James R. Wooley (Ohio Bar No. 0033850) [email protected] Calvin P. Griffith (Ohio Bar No. 0039484) [email protected] Patrick J. Norton (Ohio Bar No. 0069978) [email protected] JONES DAY North Point 901 Lakeside Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44114 Telephone: (216) 586-3939 Facsimile: (216) 579-0212 Attorneys for Plaintiff Progressive Casualty Insurance Company
9
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. JURY DEMAND Case No.
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Plaintiff Progressive Casualty Insurance Company (“Progressive”), by and through its attorneys, for its complaint against Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”), demands a jury trial and alleges as follows: NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. This action arises under the Patent Laws of the United States, Title 35 of the
Unites States Code (for example, 35 U.S.C. §§ 271, 281, 283, 284, and 285), for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,064,970 (the “’970 patent”) (attached as Exhibit A), U.S. Patent No. 8,090,598 (the “’598 patent”) (attached as Exhibit B), and U.S. Patent No. 8,140,358 (the “’358 patent”) (attached as Exhibit C). PARTIES 2. Progressive is a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Ohio, with its
principal place of business at 6300 Wilson Mills Road, Mayfield Village, Ohio 44143.
3.
On information and belief, State Farm is a corporation organized under the laws
of the state of Illinois, with its principal place of business at One State Farm Plaza, Bloomington, Illinois, 61710. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4. This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of the
United States code, §§ 1, et seq. 5. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). 6. 7. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400(b). On information and belief, State Farm has committed and/or induced acts of
infringement in this district, is subject to personal jurisdiction in this district, and therefore resides in this district. 8. On information and belief, State Farm regularly transacts and conducts business
in this district, has registered with the Ohio Department of Insurance, and sells insurance within the State of Ohio. Progressive is suffering from the effects of State Farm’s unlawful conduct in this district. COUNT I 9. Progressive incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1
through 8 as though fully asserted herein. 10. On May 16, 2000, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally
issued the ’970 patent for an invention related to the determination of insurance ratings based upon vehicle monitoring. Progressive owns the ’970 patent.
2
11.
On information and belief, State Farm was aware of the ’970 patent prior to the
acts of infringement alleged herein. 12. On information and belief, State Farm, individually or through one or more agents
under its direction and control, has been and still is operating a usage-based vehicle insurance program entitled “Drive Safe & Save.” 13. On information and belief, State Farm, individually or through one or more agents
under its direction and control, operates and maintains an Internet website at http://www.statefarm.com/insurance/auto_insurance/drive-safe-save/drive-safe-save.asp (the “Drive Safe & Save website”) that includes details regarding the “Drive Safe & Save” program. 14. On information and belief, State Farm, or a third party vendor acting on behalf of
and under the direction and control of State Farm, in connection with the “Drive Safe & Save” program, obtains data regarding driving characteristics, including, for example, mileage, speed, rapid acceleration, left turns and right turns, from an insured vehicle. 15. On information and belief, State Farm, or a third party vendor acting on behalf of
and under the direction and control of State Farm, calculates a rating based on the obtained driving characteristics data in accordance with a formula provided by or for State Farm. 16. State Farm is infringing the ’970 patent, including through the operation of the
“Drive Safe & Save” program, which includes each and every feature of the claimed invention. State Farm is infringing either directly, through its own actions and/or the actions of one or more third-party vendors acting under its direction and/or control, or indirectly, through active inducement of the infringing actions with knowledge of or deliberate indifference to the existence and infringement of the ’970 patent.
3
17.
On information and belief, State Farm has continued its infringing activities
despite having notice of the ’970 patent. State Farm’s infringement is willful, entitling Progressive to the recovery of enhanced damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284. 18. In addition, this is an exceptional case, justifying an award of attorneys’ fees and
costs to Progressive pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285. 19. State Farm’s infringement has caused and will continue to cause damage and
irreparable harm to Progressive until enjoined by this Court. The amount of the damage and harm has not yet been determined but will be proven at trial. COUNT II 20. Progressive incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1
through 19 as though fully asserted herein. 21. On January 3, 2012, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and
legally issued the ’598 patent for an invention related to a vehicle monitoring system. Progressive owns the ’598 patent. 22. On information and belief, State Farm was aware of the ’598 patent prior to the
acts of infringement alleged herein. 23. On information and belief, State Farm, individually or through one or more agents
under its direction and control, has been and still is operating a usage-based vehicle insurance program entitled “Drive Safe & Save.” 24. On information and belief, State Farm, individually or through one or more agents
under its direction and control, operates and maintains an Internet website at http://www.statefarm.com/insurance/auto_insurance/drive-safe-save/drive-safe-save.asp (the “Drive Safe & Save website”) that includes details regarding the “Drive Safe & Save” program.
4
25.
On information and belief, State Farm, or a third party vendor acting on behalf of
and under the direction and control of State Farm, in connection with the “Drive Safe & Save” program, obtains data regarding driving characteristics, including, for example, mileage, speed, rapid acceleration, left turns and right turns, from an insured vehicle. 26. On information and belief, State Farm, or a third party vendor acting on behalf of
and under the direction and control of State Farm, calculates an insurance rating or safety score based on the obtained driving characteristics data in accordance with a formula provided by or for State Farm. 27. State Farm is infringing the ’598 patent, including through the operation of the
“Drive Safe & Save” program, which includes each and every feature of the claimed invention. State Farm is infringing either directly, through its own actions and/or the actions of one or more third-party vendors acting under its direction and/or control, or indirectly, through active inducement of the infringing actions with knowledge of or deliberate indifference to the existence and infringement of the ’598 patent. 28. On information and belief, State Farm has continued its infringing activities
despite having notice of the ’598 patent. State Farm’s infringement is willful, entitling Progressive to the recovery of enhanced damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284. 29. In addition, this is an exceptional case, justifying an award of attorneys’ fees and
costs to Progressive pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285. 30. State Farm’s infringement has caused and will continue to cause damage and
irreparable harm to Progressive until enjoined by this Court. The amount of the damage and harm has not yet been determined but will be proven at trial.
5
COUNT III 31. Progressive incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1
through 30 as though fully asserted herein. 32. On March 20, 2012, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and
legally issued the ’358 patent for an invention related to a vehicle monitoring system. Progressive owns the ’358 patent. 33. On information and belief, State Farm was aware of the ’358 patent prior to the
acts of infringement alleged herein. 34. On information and belief, State Farm, individually or through one or more agents
under its direction and control, has been and still is operating a usage-based vehicle insurance program entitled “Drive Safe & Save.” 35. On information and belief, State Farm, individually or through one or more agents
under its direction and control, operates and maintains the Drive Safe & Save website that includes details regarding the “Drive Safe & Save” program. 36. On information and belief, State Farm, or a third party vendor acting on behalf of
and under the direction and control of State Farm, in connection with the “Drive Safe & Save” program, obtains data regarding driving characteristics, including, for example, mileage, speed, rapid acceleration, left turns and right turns, from an insured vehicle. 37. On information and belief, State Farm, or a third party vendor acting on behalf of
and under the direction and control of State Farm, calculates an insurance rating or safety score based on the obtained driving characteristics data in accordance with a formula provided by or for State Farm.
6
38.
State Farm is infringing the ’358 patent, including through the operation of the
“Drive Safe & Save” program, which includes each and every feature of the claimed invention. State Farm is infringing either directly, through its own actions and/or the actions of one or more third-party vendors acting under its direction and/or control, or indirectly, through active inducement of the infringing actions with knowledge of or deliberate indifference to the existence and infringement of the ’358 patent. 39. On information and belief, State Farm has continued its infringing activities
despite having notice of the ’358 patent. State Farm’s infringement is willful, entitling Progressive to the recovery of enhanced damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284. 40. In addition, this is an exceptional case, justifying an award of attorneys’ fees and
costs to Progressive pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285. 41. State Farm’s infringement has caused and will continue to cause damage and
irreparable harm to Progressive until enjoined by this Court. The amount of the damage and harm has not yet been determined but will be proven at trial.
7
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Progressive demands the following relief: A. judgment that State Farm has infringed, contributorily infringed and/or actively
induced others to infringe the ’970, ’598, and ’358 patents; B. a preliminary and permanent injunction against State Farm’s continued
infringement and inducement of infringement of the ’970, ’598, and ’358 patents; C. an award of damages in favor of Progressive and against State Farm adequate to
compensate Progressive for State Farm’s infringement of the ’970, ’598, and ’358 patents (including an assessment of pre-judgment interest and post-judgment interest); D. enhancement of damages by up to three times the amount found or assessed based
on State Farm’s willful infringement, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284; E. F. a finding that this case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285; an award to Progressive for its reasonable expenses, including attorneys’ fees, and
costs of this action; and G. an award of such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
8
JURY DEMAND Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Progressive hereby respectfully requests a jury trial on all issues and claims so triable.
Dated: April 30, 2012
Respectfully submitted, By: /s/ Calvin P. Griffith James R. Wooley (Ohio Bar No. 0033850) [email protected] Calvin P. Griffith (Ohio Bar No. 0039484) [email protected] Patrick J. Norton (Ohio Bar No. 0069978) [email protected] JONES DAY North Point 901 Lakeside Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44114 Telephone: (216) 586-3939 Facsimile: (216) 579-0212 Attorneys for Plaintiff Progressive Casualty Insurance Company
9
