This case was last updated from U.S. District Courts on 05/16/2021 at 09:37:10 (UTC).

CXT Systems, Inc. v. Costco Wholesale Corporation

Case Summary

On March 17, 2021, CXT Systems, Inc. (“CXT” or “Plaintiff”), represented by Alfred Ross Fabricant, Jacob Daniel Ostling, Peter Lambrianakos, and Vincent J Rubino, III of Fabricant LLP individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Costco Wholesale Corporation (“Costco” or “Defendant”) seeking injunctive relief and damages along with royalty as well as other reliefs for allegedly infringing the technology relating to systems and methods relating to optimizing the online shopping experience. This case was filed in U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Texas with Judge Rodney Gilstrap and Judge Roy S. Payne presiding.

In its complaint, Plaintiff alleged that “CXT has not licensed or otherwise authorized Defendant to make, use, offer for sale, sell, or import any products that embody the inventions of the Patent”. Plaintiff also alleged that “Defendant has directly infringed and continues to directly infringe the  Patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, without authority and by making, using, offering to sell, selling, and/or importing into the United States products that satisfy each and every limitation of one or more claims of the Patent. Upon information and belief, these products include the Accused Infrastructures that practice the methods and systems covered by the  Patent including, account management and checkout functionality implemented at least in part with WebSphere Commerce. These infrastructures infringe at least claim 1 of the  Patent.”

The Plaintiff further alleged that “Defendant has indirectly infringed and continues to indirectly infringe one or more claims of the  Patent by knowingly and intentionally inducing others, including end users and service providers of the Accused Infrastructures, to directly infringe, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, by making, using, offering to sell, selling, and/or importing into the United States products that include infringing technology, such as the Accused Infrastructures that practice the systems and methods covered by the  Patent.”

The Plaintiff also alleged that “Defendant, with knowledge that these products, or the use thereof, infringe the  Patent knowingly and intentionally induced, and continues to knowingly and intentionally induce, direct infringement of the  Patent by providing these Accused Infrastructures to end users and/or service providers for use in an infringing manner.”

The Plaintiff further alleged that “Defendant induced infringement by others, including end users, with the intent to cause infringing acts by others or, in the alternative, with the belief that there was a high probability that others, including end users, infringe the  Patent, while remaining willfully blind to the infringement.”

There are three claims for relief laid down by the Plaintiff. The first claim is for the infringement of the 581 Patent , the second claim is for the infringement of the 806 Patent, and the third claim is for the infringement of the 875 Patent.

In its prayer for relief, the Plaintiffs has requested the court to award damages sufficient to compensate Plaintiff for Defendant’s infringement of the Patents-in-Suit, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty, including supplemental damages post-verdict, together with pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and costs and further to permanently restraining and enjoining the Defendant from future infringement and ordering an accounting for acts of alleged infringement along with costs of litigation.  

This case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the status of this case. Sign up to view the latest case updates and court documents. 



Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    2:21-CV-00095

  • Filing Date:

    03/17/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Intellectual Property - Patent

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

Rodney Gilstrap

Referral Judge

Roy S. Payne

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

CXT Systems, Inc.

Defendant

Costco Wholesale Corporation

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

Jacob Daniel Ostling

Attorney at Fabricant LLP - NY

230 Park Avenue, 3Rd Floor W.

New York, NY 10169

Alfred Ross Fabricant

Attorney at Fabricant LLP - NY

230 Park Avenue, 3Rd Floor W.

New York, NY 10169

Peter Lambrianakos

Attorney at Fabricant LLP - NY

230 Park Avenue, 3Rd Floor W.

New York, NY 10169

Vincent J Rubino, III

Attorney at Fabricant LLP - NY

230 Park Avenue, 3Rd Floor W.

New York, NY 10169

Justin Kurt Truelove

Attorney at Truelove Law Firm

207 N Wellington, P O Box 1409

Marshall, TX 75671

Defendant Attorney

Domingo Manuel Llagostera

Attorney at Blank Rome LLP - Houston

717 Texas Avenue, Suite 1400

Houston, TX 77002-2727

 

Court Documents

#14

#13

#12

#11

#10

#9

#8

#7

#6

#5

#4

#3

DOCUMENT UNAVAILABLE

#2

1 #4

Civil Cover Sheet

1 #3

Exhibit C - U.S. Patent No. 8,260,806

1 #2

Exhibit B - U.S. Patent No. 7,257,581

1 #1

Exhibit A - U.S. Patent No. 7,016,875

#1

7 More Documents Available
View All Documents

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/13/2021
  • DocketDefendant's Unopposed FIRST Application for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint is granted pursuant to Local Rule CV-12 for Costco Wholesale Corporation to 5/26/2021. 30 Days Granted for Deadline Extension.( ch, ) (Entered: 04/13/2021)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/13/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#14) Defendant's Unopposed First Application for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint re Costco Wholesale Corporation.( Llagostera, Domingo) (Entered: 04/13/2021)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/13/2021
  • Docket***FILED IN ERROR. PER ATTORNEY Document # 12, Unopposed Application for Extension of Time. PLEASE IGNORE.*** (ch, ) (Entered: 04/13/2021)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/13/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#13) SUMMONS Returned Executed by CXT Systems, Inc.. Costco Wholesale Corporation served on 4/5/2021, answer due 5/5/2021. (Fabricant, Alfred) (Entered: 04/13/2021)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/12/2021
  • Docket***FILED IN ERROR***Defendant's Unopposed FIRST Application for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint is granted pursuant to Local Rule CV-12 for Costco Wholesale Corporation to 5/5/2021. 30 Days Granted for Deadline Extension.( ch, ) Modified on 4/13/2021 (ch, ). (Entered: 04/12/2021)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/12/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#12) ***FILED IN ERROR***Defendant's Unopposed First Application for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint re Costco Wholesale Corporation.( Llagostera, Domingo) Modified on 4/13/2021 (ch, ). (Entered: 04/12/2021)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/12/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#11) NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Domingo Manuel Llagostera on behalf of Costco Wholesale Corporation (Llagostera, Domingo) (Entered: 04/12/2021)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/31/2021
  • DocketCASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne. (ch, ) (Entered: 03/31/2021)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/19/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#10) NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Justin Kurt Truelove on behalf of CXT Systems, Inc. (Truelove, Justin) (Entered: 03/19/2021)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/18/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#9) SUMMONS Issued as to Costco Wholesale Corporation. (ch, ) (Entered: 03/18/2021)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
1 More Docket Entries
  • 03/17/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#7) NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Vincent J Rubino, III on behalf of CXT Systems, Inc. (Rubino, Vincent) (Entered: 03/17/2021)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/17/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#6) NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Peter Lambrianakos on behalf of CXT Systems, Inc. (Lambrianakos, Peter) (Entered: 03/17/2021)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/17/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#5) CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT filed by CXT Systems, Inc. identifying Corporate Parent Quest Patent Research Corporation for CXT Systems, Inc.. (Fabricant, Alfred) (Entered: 03/17/2021)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/17/2021
  • DocketIn accordance with the provisions of 28 USC Section 636(c), you are hereby notified that a U.S. Magistrate Judge of this district court is available to conduct any or all proceedings in this case including a jury or non-jury trial and to order the entry of a final judgment. The form #Consent to Proceed Before Magistrate Judge is available on our website. All signed consent forms, excluding pro se parties, should be filed electronically using the event Notice Regarding Consent to Proceed Before Magistrate Judge. (ch, ) (Entered: 03/17/2021)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/17/2021
  • DocketCase assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap. (ch, ) (Entered: 03/17/2021)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/17/2021
  • Docket***FILED IN ERROR. PER ATTORNEY Document # 3, Corporate Disclosure Statement. PLEASE IGNORE.*** (ch, ) (Entered: 03/17/2021)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/17/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#4) NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Alfred Ross Fabricant on behalf of CXT Systems, Inc. (Fabricant, Alfred) (Entered: 03/17/2021)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/17/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#3) ***FILED IN ERROR***CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT filed by CXT Systems, Inc. identifying Corporate Parent Quest Patent Research Corporation for CXT Systems, Inc.. (Fabricant, Alfred) Modified on 3/17/2021 (ch, ). (Entered: 03/17/2021)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/17/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#2) Notice of Filing of Patent/Trademark Form (AO 120). AO 120 mailed to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. (Fabricant, Alfred) (Entered: 03/17/2021)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/17/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#1) COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT against Costco Wholesale Corporation ( Filing fee $ 402 receipt number 0540-8302090.), filed by CXT Systems, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - U.S. Patent No. 7,016,875, #2 Exhibit B - U.S. Patent No. 7,257,581, #3 Exhibit C - U.S. Patent No. 8,260,806, #4 Civil Cover Sheet)(Fabricant, Alfred) (Entered: 03/17/2021)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where CXT Systems, Inc. is a litigant

Latest cases where COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, a Washington Corporation is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer Jacob Daniel Ostling

Latest cases represented by Lawyer Justin Kurt Truelove