Valjakka v. Amazon.Com, Inc. et al

On September 10, 2021, Lauri Valjakka (“Lauri” or “Plaintiff”), represented by Erick Scott Robinson of Porter Hedges LLP, filed an intellectual property lawsuit against Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon Web Services, Inc., and Amazon.com Services, Inc., (collectively, the “Defendants”). The plaintiff filed suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, damages along with prejudgment and post-judgment interest, ongoing royalties, and costs for the Defendant’s alleged infringement of United States Patent No. 8,495,167 (“the ‘167 Patent”), entitled “Data Communications Networks, Systems, Methods and Apparatus”. This case was filed in the U.S. District Court in the Western District of Texas. 

In the complaint, the plaintiff alleged that, “Defendant has, under 35 U.S.C. §271(a), directly infringed, and continues to directly infringe, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, one or more claims, including without limitation at least claim 1 of the ‘167 Patent, by making, using, testing, selling, offering for sale and/or importing into the United States Defendant’s Accused Products.”

The plaintiff further alleged that, “Defendant also indirectly infringes the ‘167 Patent by actively inducing the direct infringement by third parties under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Defendant has knowingly and intentionally actively aided, abetted and induced others to directly infringe at least one claim of the ‘167 Patent (such as its customers in this District and throughout the United States). Defendant continues to induce infringement of the ‘167 Patent. Defendant has contributorily infringed and is a contributory infringer because, with knowledge of the ‘167 Patent, it supplies a material part of an infringing method and/or system, where the material part is not a staple article of commerce, and is incapable of substantial non-infringing use. Defendant contributes to its customers’ infringement because, with knowledge of the ‘167 Patent, Defendant supplies the technology that allows its customers to infringe the patent.”

The only claim for relief laid down by the plaintiff is for the infringement of ‘167 patent, wherein the plaintiff claimed that Defendant has had knowledge that its activities concerning the Accused Products infringe one or more claims of the ‘167 Patent. On information and belief, Defendant will continue to encourage, aid, or otherwise cause third parties to import, sell, offer for sale, and use the Accused Products and Defendant has and will continue to encourage those acts with the specific intent to infringe one or more claims of the ‘167 Patent. 

In its prayer for relief, the plaintiff requested the court for a judgment that Defendant has directly infringed either literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents and continues to directly infringe the Patent-in-suit, that Defendant has induced infringement and continues to induce infringement of the Patent-in-suit, and that Defendant has and continues to contributorily infringe the Patent-in-suit. The plaintiff requests the court order Defendant to pay Plaintiff damages including past damages, treble damages for willful infringement, and supplemental damages for any continuing post-verdict infringement through entry of the final judgment with an accounting as needed. Further, the plaintiff also requested the court to award Plaintiff injunctive relief, its reasonable attorneys’ fees, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on the damages and a compulsory ongoing royalty and award such other and further relief as the court deems just and equitable.

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.