This case was last updated from U.S. District Courts on 12/20/2021 at 17:17:06 (UTC).

ImmerVision, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.

Case Summary

On December 8, 2021, ImmerVision, Inc. (“ImmerVision” or “Plaintiff”), represented by Dennis James Butler and John David Simmons of Panitch Schwarze Belisario & Nadel LLP, filed an intellectual property lawsuit against Apple, Inc. (“Apple” or “Defendant”), seeking declaratory and injunctive reliefs along with damages and other reliefs for the Defendant’s alleged infringement of the United States Patent owned by the Plaintiff. This case was filed in U.S. District Court in the District of Delaware with Judge Christopher J. Burke and Judge Maryellen Noreika presiding.

 

The Plaintiff filed this complaint for the alleged infringement of the United States Patent No. 6,844,990 (the “Asserted Patent” or “the ‘990 Patent” or “Patent-in-suit”) owned by the Plaintiff.

 

In the complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that, “Upon information and belief, Defendant has been and is currently infringing at least claim 32 of the ‘990 Patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, by making, causing to be made, using, selling, offering to sell, or importing into the United States, without license or authority, at least the Accused Products. The iPhone 12 Pro and 13 and iPad Pro 2021 infringe claim 32 of the ‘990 Patent.” The Plaintiff further alleged that,  “As a result of Defendant’s infringement of at least claim 32 of the ‘990 Patent, Plaintiff ImmerVision has been damaged to an extent not yet determined.”

 

The Plaintiff also alleged that, “Apple breached the Mutual Confidentiality Agreement by using ImmerVision’s confidential information and knowhow for purposes other than those allowed under the Mutual Confidentiality Agreement, namely in designing the lenses in the ultra wide angle cameras in the Accused Products. ImmerVision has performed all conditions, covenants, and promises required by the Mutual Confidentiality Agreement.”

 

The Plaintiff further alleged that, “ImmerVision protects its trade secrets from disclosure at least through the use of non-disclosure agreements, such as the Mutual Confidentiality Agreement” and “Apple obtained these trade secrets under the Mutual Confidentiality Agreement” and “Apple improperly used these trade secrets for purposes other than those set forth in the Mutual Confidentiality Agreement by incorporating those trade secrets into the design of the lenses in what it refers to as the “ultra wide camera” in the Accused Products.” The Plaintiff also alleged that,  “ImmerVision has been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial through Apple’s improper use of its trade secrets. ImmerVision’s damages include at least damages sufficient to compensate ImmerVision for the use of its trade secrets in any Accused Product.”

 

There are three claims for relief laid down by the Plaintiff. The first claim alleged is for infringement of the ‘990 Patent. The second claim alleged is for breach of contract. The third claim alleged is for violation of the Defend Trade Secrets Act - 18 U.S.C. § 1836.

 

In their prayer for relief, the Plaintiff requested the Court for declaratory and injunctive reliefs, along with damages, including exemplary damages, profits earned by Apple through use of ImmerVision’s Confidential Information and/or trade secrets, costs in connection with this action, attorneys’ fees, prejudgement interest and any other relief the Court deems just and proper.

 

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:

    1:21-CV-01733

  • Filing Date:

    12/08/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Intellectual Property - Patent

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

Maryellen Noreika

Referral Judge

Christopher J. Burke

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

ImmerVision, Inc.

Defendant

Apple, Inc.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

Dennis James Butler

Attorney at Panitch Schwarze Belisario & Nadel LLP

2200 Concord Pike, Suite 201

Wilmington, DE 19803-2909

John David Simmons

Attorney at Panitch Schwarze Belisario & Nadel LLP

2200 Concord Pike, Suite 201

Wilmington, DE 19803-2909

 

Court Documents

#1

(#1) MOTION for Leave to File Exhibit B to Complaint Under Seal - filed by ImmerVision, Inc. (apk) (Entered: 12/09/2021)

#2

(#2) COMPLAINT filed with Jury Demand against Apple, Inc. - Magistrate Consent Notice to Pltf. ( Filing fee $ 402, receipt number ADEDC-3759068.) - filed by ImmerVision, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A-G, #2 Civil Cover Sheet)(apk) (Entered: 12/09/2021)

2 #1

Exhibit A-G

2 #2

Civil Cover Sheet

#3

(#3) Notice, Consent and Referral forms re: U.S. Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (apk) (Entered: 12/09/2021)

#4

(#4) Report to the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks for Patent/Trademark Number(s) US 6,844,990 B2. (apk) (Entered: 12/09/2021)

#5

(#5) Disclosure Statement pursuant to Rule 7.1: No Parents or Affiliates Listed filed by ImmerVision, Inc. (apk) (Entered: 12/09/2021)

#6

DOCUMENT UNAVAILABLE

#7

(#7) ORDER granting D.I. #1 Motion for Leave to File Exhibit B to Complaint Under Seal. Plaintiffs shall file a public version of Exhibit B filed under seal, which redacts any confidential information, within seven days of this Order. Signed by Judge Maryellen Noreika on 12/9/2021. (apk) (Entered: 12/09/2021)

#8

(#8) REDACTED VERSION of #6 Exhibit to a Document by ImmerVision, Inc.. (Simmons, John) (Entered: 12/09/2021)

 

Docket Entries

  • 12/20/2021
  • DocketRemark: The parties should follow the Court's Standing Order Regarding Courtesy Copies, a copy of which is found on Judge Burkes portion of the District Court's webpage: https://www.ded.uscourts.gov/judge/magistrate-judge-christopher-j-burke (dlb) (Entered: 12/20/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/20/2021
  • DocketREMARK: The parties should be aware that the Court encourages the participation of newer attorneys in courtroom proceedings and at oral argument. Please see the Court's Standing Order Regarding Courtroom Opportunities for Newer Attorneys, a link to which is provided here for the parties' convenience:#http://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/ded/files/forms/StandingOrder2017.pdf (dlb) (Entered: 12/20/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/16/2021
  • Docket(#9) ORAL ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Christopher J. Burke - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is referred to Magistrate Judge Christopher J. Burke to hear and resolve all pre-trial matters up to and including expert discovery matters (but not including summary judgment motions, Daubert motions, pre-trial motions in limine or the pre-trial conference), subject to 28 U.S.C. 636(b) and any further Order of the Court. All subsequent filings in this action shall be captioned as follows: Civil Action No. 21-1733-MN-CJB. ORDERED by Judge Maryellen Noreika on 12/16/2021. (dlw) (Entered: 12/16/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/16/2021
  • DocketCORRECTING ENTRY: removed incorrect related case (21-cv-1481 from civil cover sheet), and added correct related case, 21-cv-1484. (rjb) (Entered: 12/16/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/15/2021
  • DocketCase Assigned to Judge Maryellen Noreika. Please include the initials of the Judge (MN) after the case number on all documents filed. (rjb) (Entered: 12/15/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/09/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#8) REDACTED VERSION of #6 Exhibit to a Document by ImmerVision, Inc.. (Simmons, John) (Entered: 12/09/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/09/2021
  • DocketRemark: Case Submitted for Routine Judicial Assignment. (apk) (Entered: 12/09/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/09/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#7) ORDER granting D.I. #1 Motion for Leave to File Exhibit B to Complaint Under Seal. Plaintiffs shall file a public version of Exhibit B filed under seal, which redacts any confidential information, within seven days of this Order. Signed by Judge Maryellen Noreika on 12/9/2021. (apk) (Entered: 12/09/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/09/2021
  • DocketRemark: Exit Electronic Copies to Duty Judge (MN). (apk) (Entered: 12/09/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/08/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#6) [SEALED] EXHIBIT B to D.I. #2 Complaint filed by ImmerVision, Inc.. (apk) (Entered: 12/09/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/08/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#5) Disclosure Statement pursuant to Rule 7.1: No Parents or Affiliates Listed filed by ImmerVision, Inc. (apk) (Entered: 12/09/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/08/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#4) Report to the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks for Patent/Trademark Number(s) US 6,844,990 B2. (apk) (Entered: 12/09/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/08/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#3) Notice, Consent and Referral forms re: U.S. Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (apk) (Entered: 12/09/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/08/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#2) COMPLAINT filed with Jury Demand against Apple, Inc. - Magistrate Consent Notice to Pltf. ( Filing fee $ 402, receipt number ADEDC-3759068.) - filed by ImmerVision, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A-G, #2 Civil Cover Sheet)(apk) (Entered: 12/09/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/08/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#1) MOTION for Leave to File Exhibit B to Complaint Under Seal - filed by ImmerVision, Inc. (apk) (Entered: 12/09/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where Apple Inc. is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer Dennis James Butler