Case 3:21-cv-05500-JCS Document 1 Filed 07/16/21 Page 1 of 12
`
`
`
`JOSEPH W. COTCHETT
`(SBN 36324; jcotchett@cpmlegal.com)
`TAMARAH P. PREVOST
`(SBN 313422; tprevost@cpmlegal.com)
`KEVIN J. BOUTIN
`(SBN 334965; kboutin@cpmlegal.com)
`COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
`San Francisco Airport Office Center
`840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
`Burlingame, CA 94010
`Telephone: (650) 697-6000
`Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
`
`PAUL W. REIDL
`(SBN 155221; paul@reidllaw.com)
`LAW OFFICE OF PAUL W. REIDL
`25 Pinehurst Lane
`Half Moon Bay, CA 94019
`Telephone: (650) 560-8530
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff,
`TJTM Technologies, LLC
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TJTM TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`Law Offices
`COTCHETT, PITRE &
`MCCARTHY, LLP
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR
`PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-05500-JCS Document 1 Filed 07/16/21 Page 2 of 12
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`I.
`NATURE OF THE ACTION ............................................................................................1
`THE PARTIES ...................................................................................................................2
`II.
`JURISDICTION ................................................................................................................2
`III.
`IV. VENUE AND INTRA-DISTRICT ASSIGNMENT .......................................................3
`V.
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS ............................................................................................3
`A.
`THE INVENTOR CREATES A NOVEL APPLICATION TO SHUT OFF
`CELL PHONE NOTIFICATIONS WHILE DRIVING ..........................................3
`THE USPTO ISSUES THE ‘853 PATENT ............................................................4
`SAMSUNG INFRINGES THE ‘853 PATENT BY LAUNCHING THE
`“CAR MODE” FEATURE OF ITS GALAXY PHONES ......................................5
`THE PTAB AFFIRMS THE VALIDITY OF THE PATENT ................................6
`D.
`FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`(Infringement of Patent No. 8,958,853) ........................................................................................7
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF................................................................................................................9
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL ...................................................................................................10
`
`B.
`C.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Law Offices
`COTCHETT, PITRE &
`MCCARTHY, LLP
`
`_____________________________________________________________________________
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`i
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-05500-JCS Document 1 Filed 07/16/21 Page 3 of 12
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Plaintiff TJTM Technologies, LLC (“TJTM”), brings this action against Samsung
`
`Electronics America, Inc. (“Samsung”), to stop it from using TJTM’s patented technology in its
`cell phones without permission. TJTM seeks damages and injunctive relief. On information and
`belief, it alleges as follows:
`I.
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`1. This is a civil action for patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.
`2. On February 17, 2015, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”)
`issued U.S. Patent No. 8,958,853, entitled “Mobile Device Inactive Mode and Inactive Mode
`Verification” to its inventor (the “’853 Patent”). This describes the “OFF MODE” application. A
`true and correct copy of the ‘853 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`3. The inventor of the ‘853 patent is an engineer, inventor and restauranteur. TJTM is
`the legal owner of the ‘853 patent by assignment. The Managing Member of TJTM is the wife
`of the inventor, Dr. Connie Morris, who practices dentistry in South San Francisco.
`4. The “OFF MODE” application was invented in 2013. The inventor was concerned
`that drivers were increasingly distracted by incoming calls and text messages while driving,
`which creates a public safety hazard. The “OFF MODE” application allows users to block
`telephone calls, text messages, and other notifications while driving and otherwise, gives them
`the option of issuing automated replies to senders or callers informing them that the driver is
`temporarily unavailable, and then provides a log of missed communications when “OFF MODE”
`is turned off. “OFF MODE” increases highway safety by diminishing the urge to use one’s cell
`phone while driving. This allows drivers to focus solely on the road and traffic.
`5. The inventor paid a software engineer to build the “OFF MODE” application. He
`made it available for downloading in 2013 on Google Play and his own website. Since then, it
`has been downloaded more than 61,000 times.
`“OFF MODE” was the first application of its kind and, given its novelty, the
`6.
`inventor was issued the ‘853 patent.
`/ / /
`/ / /
`
`Law Offices
`COTCHETT, PITRE &
`MCCARTHY, LLP
`
`_____________________________________________________________________________
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`1
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-05500-JCS Document 1 Filed 07/16/21 Page 4 of 12
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Samsung has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the ‘853
`7.
`Patent by offering its “Car Mode” feature in its Galaxy phones to millions of consumers
`throughout the world. Samsung’s “Car Mode” mirrors the claims of the ‘853 patent.
`It is inconceivable that Samsung did not know about the ‘853 patent and the “OFF
`8.
`MODE” app when it first adopted the “Car Mode” feature for its Galaxy phones. Instead of
`licensing the ‘853 patent for a reasonable royalty, however, Samsung helped itself to TJTM’s
`invention and paid no compensation to it. On information and belief, Samsung gambled that
`TJTM could not afford to litigate its claims under the ‘853 patent. This lawsuit followed, and
`seeks, among other things, monetary damages and injunctive relief.
`II.
`THE PARTIES
`Plaintiff TJTM Technologies, LLC, is a California limited liability company with
`9.
`its principal place of business in San Mateo, California. Dr. Connie Morris is its Managing
`Member.
`Defendant Samsung is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
`10.
`State of New York. Its corporate headquarters are in Ridgefield Park, New Jersey.
`III.
`JURISDICTION
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 (Federal
`11.
`question) and 1338 (a) (any act of Congress relating to patents and trademarks.).
`This Court has personal jurisdiction because Samsung resides in this District. It
`12.
`employs thousands of people in offices in San Francisco, San Jose, Mountain View and Menlo
`Park. It has a store in Palo Alto that sells the infringing phones, and it has sold phones to tens of
`thousands of consumers in this District. On information and belief, it owns a California
`corporation, Samsung Semiconductors, Inc., having its offices in San Jose. This Court also has
`personal jurisdiction because Samsung has committed and induced acts of patent infringement
`and has regularly and systematically conducted and solicited business in this District by and
`through, at a minimum, its sales and offers for sale of Samsung products and services, and other
`/ / /
`/ / /
`
`Law Offices
`COTCHETT, PITRE &
`MCCARTHY, LLP
`
`_____________________________________________________________________________
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`2
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-05500-JCS Document 1 Filed 07/16/21 Page 5 of 12
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`contractual arrangements with Samsung customers and third parties using such Samsung products
`and services, including the infringing Galaxy phones, located in and/or doing business within this
`District.
`IV. VENUE AND INTRA-DISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
`Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c) and 1400 (b).
`13.
`Pursuant to Local Rule 3-2(c), intellectual property actions are assigned on a District-wide basis.
`There was a previous case in this District involving the same patent, SMTM
`14.
`Technology, LLC, v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 4:19-cv-08133-YGR that was assigned to the Hon.
`Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. In the interests of judicial economy this case should be assigned to
`her because it is a related case.
`V.
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`A.
`
`THE INVENTOR CREATES A NOVEL APPLICATION TO SHUT OFF
`CELL PHONE NOTIFICATIONS WHILE DRIVING
`
`The inventor is well known in the Bay Area for his restaurants, philanthropy, and
`15.
`his line of LEFTY O’DOUL’S non-alcohol cocktail mixers.
`16. What is not so well known about him, however, is that he earned a degree in
`mechanical engineering from Cal Poly and has always had an intellectual curiosity for applying
`that training to solving everyday problems. He owns several patents, including patents for
`automatic earthquake shut off valves and systems.
`In 2013, Dr. Morris and the inventor’s children were complaining that he was
`17.
`always on or checking his phone while he was driving. He took that to heart and invented “OFF
`MODE,” a breakthrough application for cell phones. He realized that he was not alone in
`spending time on the phone while driving; there were an increasing number of automobile
`accidents caused by driver distraction due to cell phone use. Automobile accidents caused by
`distracted driving were on the rise and had become as serious a public safety problem as driving
`while intoxicated. As many as 25% of all automobile accidents – or 1.6 million crashes – were
`caused by texting and driving. Many drivers are aware of the risks of distracted driving but lack
`the willpower not to use their phones while driving.
`
`Law Offices
`COTCHETT, PITRE &
`MCCARTHY, LLP
`
`_____________________________________________________________________________
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`3
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-05500-JCS Document 1 Filed 07/16/21 Page 6 of 12
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`The inventor recognized a need for a technological solution that would limit user
`18.
`distractions without forcing the user to turn off their phone and thereby miss essential
`communications. In furtherance of this, the “OFF MODE” function of the ‘853 patent
`automatically notifies the sender that the recipient is temporarily unavailable, and it provides a
`log of missed communications once “OFF MODE” is turned off.
`The proliferation of accidents caused by distracted driving also created a need for
`19.
`a driver to prove, in the event of an accident, that he or she was not using their phone while
`driving. Accordingly, the inventor created novel functionality for suppressing communications
`to a user and a means for verifying that a user was not receiving or responding to
`communications while driving.
`In essence, “OFF MODE” as described in the ‘853 patent allows users to shut off
`20.
`notifications while driving, and replies with automated responses letting people know they are
`busy. The “OFF MODE” application blocks the screen from showing text, email, phone calls
`and other notifications, eliminating distractions so that the driver can focus on road safety. Users
`still receive incoming messages but without the distracting pop-up notifications, pings, dings,
`vibrations or other sounds. When “OFF MODE” is turned off, a report of all missed texts and
`calls is made available to the driver.
`In 2013, after conceiving of the “OFF MODE” function, the inventor, hired a
`21.
`software engineer to build an app for the Android platform and a patent lawyer to draft the patent
`application. This cost him over $50,000.
`In May 2013, the “OFF MODE” app was released to the public. The inventor
`22.
`created a Facebook page for it that has over 5,000 followers. He also made the app available on
`the Google Play web site. The “OFF MODE” app has been downloaded more than 61,000 times.
`The inventor felt so strongly about the public safety advantages of his app that he
`23.
`made it available to the public for free. He did not charge anything for the download.
`
`THE USPTO ISSUES THE ‘853 PATENT
`B.
`On June 14, 2013, the inventor filed a provisional patent application for the “OFF
`24.
`MODE” app titled “Mobile Device Inactive Mode and Inactive Mode Verification.”
`
`Law Offices
`COTCHETT, PITRE &
`MCCARTHY, LLP
`
`_____________________________________________________________________________
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`4
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-05500-JCS Document 1 Filed 07/16/21 Page 7 of 12
`
`
`
`On February 9, 2014, the inventor filed a non-provisional patent application for
`25.
`“OFF MODE.”
`On February 17, 2015, the inventor was issued United States Patent No.
`26.
`8,958,853 for “Mobile Device Inactive Mode and Inactive Mode Verification.” See Exhibit A.
`
`C.
`
`SAMSUNG INFRINGES THE ‘853 PATENT BY LAUNCHING THE “CAR
`MODE” FEATURE OF ITS GALAXY PHONES
`In or around August 2015, Samsung launched its Galaxy 5 phone. This featured
`27.
`what it touted as a significant new and novel application, “Drive Mode,” (now called “Car
`Mode.”) It had the same features as the “OFF MODE” invention. “Car Mode” while driving
`causes the Galaxy phone to stay silent and the screen to stay dark while the user is driving.
`Likewise, if someone sends a message, they receive an automatic reply letting them know that
`the user is temporarily unavailable. If the message is important, the sender can type the word
`“urgent” to make sure the user receives a notification. Samsung’s “Car Mode” feature for its
`Galaxy phones mirrors or constitutes the equivalent of the elements comprising the ‘853 patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Law Offices
`COTCHETT, PITRE &
`MCCARTHY, LLP
`
`_____________________________________________________________________________
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`5
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-05500-JCS Document 1 Filed 07/16/21 Page 8 of 12
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`28. While “Car Mode” while driving may have been new to Samsung, it was certainly
`not new to the marketplace. The Galaxy 5 phone was released over two and a half (2 1/2) years
`after the TJTM released its “OFF MODE” app and six (6) months after the grant of the ‘853
`patent. Given the massive legal resources available to Samsung to search its new technology for
`patent infringement, and the knowledge that its software engineers and business executives have
`of the apps available for download, it is inconceivable that Samsung was not fully aware of the
`TJTM app and the ‘853 patent at the time it adopted “Car Mode” for its Galaxy phones.
`On information and belief, “Car Mode” has been included in every subsequent
`29.
`version of the Galaxy phone.
`
`THE PTAB AFFIRMS THE VALIDITY OF THE PATENT
`D.
`The inventor learned that Apple had incorporated his invention into its iOS 11
`30.
`software for its iPhones and was profiting from it. He believed it was wrong for Apple to steal
`his invention, profit from it and not pay him royalties. He therefore contacted Apple, told it that
`it was using the technology covered by the ‘853 patent and requested that he be paid an
`appropriate royalty. Apple refused.
`Shortly thereafter, the ‘853 patent was challenged at the Patent Trial and Appeal
`31.
`Board (“PTAB”)1 by a company called Unified Patents, Inc. Unified Patents is a membership-
`based organization dedicated to eliminating what a member considers to be a “poor quality
`patent,” particularly in the tech field. On information and belief, Apple and Samsung are both
`members of Unified Patents.
`Unified Patents claimed that the ‘853 patent was invalid because the technology
`32.
`was already known, or strongly suggested by, previous patents. The PTAB disagreed, and on
`July 30, 2019, issued a decision holding that United Patents “failed to demonstrate a reasonable
`likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim of
`the ‘853 Patent.” The PTAB decision is attached as Exhibit B.
`
`
`1
`The Patent Trial and Appeal Board is an adjudicative body within the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office. It decides appeals from decisions of the patent examiners, and adjudicates
`the patentability of issued patents challenged by third parties in post-grant proceedings.
`
`Law Offices
`COTCHETT, PITRE &
`MCCARTHY, LLP
`
`_____________________________________________________________________________
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`6
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-05500-JCS Document 1 Filed 07/16/21 Page 9 of 12
`
`
`
`TJTM ultimately sued Apple for infringing the ‘853 patent. That lawsuit settled
`
`33.
`before trial.2
`At a minimum, Samsung learned of the ‘853 patent from Unified Patents either at
`34.
`the time the proceeding was filed or after its unsuccessful conclusion. Notwithstanding this
`knowledge, Samsung continued using “Car Mode” in its Galaxy phones.
`FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`(Infringement of Patent No. 8,958,853)
`TJTM re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in Paragraphs 1-34
`35.
`of this Complaint.
`Samsung has directly infringed, and continues to infringe, all claims of the ‘853,
`36.
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271, by making, using, selling, or offering to sell within the United
`States, without authority, Galaxy phones containing the infringing “Car Mode” during the term
`of the ‘853 patent.
`As just one non-limiting example, set forth below is a description of Samsung’s
`37.
`infringement of claim one of the ‘853 patent in connection with Samsung’s “Car Mode” feature
`of its galaxy phones. TJTM reserves the right to modify this description, including, for example,
`on the basis of information about Samsung’s “Car Mode” feature that is obtained through
`discovery.
`The “Car Mode” feature of the Galaxy phones infringes the ’853 patent in the
`38.
`following ways:
`
`a processor, controlling the wireless
`communication module; and
`
`a memory controlled by the processor, the
`
`The ‘853 patent was assigned to TJTM after the PTAB proceeding and the Apple case.
`
`2
`
`Law Offices
`COTCHETT, PITRE &
`MCCARTHY, LLP
`
`_____________________________________________________________________________
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`7
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,958,853
`
`1. A mobile device comprising:
`
`a wireless communication module;
`
`
`Galaxy Phone “Car Mode”
`
`Claim 1
`The Galaxy phone is a mobile device.
`
`The Galaxy phone includes a wireless
`communication module for sending and
`receiving phone calls, messages and the like.
`The Galaxy phone includes a microprocessor
`that controls the wireless communication
`module.
`Car Mode is performed by the execution of the
`
`

`

`memory including instructions that when
`executed by the processor cause the
`processor to perform the steps of:
`
`providing a graphical user interface through
`which a user customizes one or more
`functions of the mobile device when placed
`in an inactive mode;
`
`receiving a user selection to automatically
`initiate the inactive mode in response to the
`pairing of the mobile device with a vehicle;
`
`receiving a user selection of an away
`message to use when the mobile device is in
`inactive mode;
`
`in response to the pairing of the mobile
`device and the vehicle, automatically
`initiating a process to place the mobile
`device in inactive mode;
`when the mobile device is in inactive mode,
`in response to receiving a communication
`from the wireless communication module,
`transmitting the user selected away message
`via the wireless module and suppressing one
`or more sound, visual, or vibration
`communication cues that would have
`accompanied the communication had the
`mobile device not been in inactive mode.
`
`Case 3:21-cv-05500-JCS Document 1 Filed 07/16/21 Page 10 of 12
`
`
`
`instructions stored in the memory of the mobile
`devices by the processor.
`
`The user can customize one or more functions,
`e.g., how it activates, etc.
`
`
`
`The user can select “Car Mode” (inactive mode)
`to automatically engage when the mobile device
`pairs to the vehicle via Bluetooth.
`
`The Galaxy phone used in conjunction with Car
`Mode, allows customization of an away
`message to use when the mobile device is in
`inactive mode while driving.
`
`The Galaxy phone can be set to automatically
`engage when the mobile device pairs with the
`vehicle via Bluetooth.
`
`When the mobile device is in inactive mode,
`Car Mode provides a means for a user to send
`the away message to users upon receiving a
`communication from the wireless
`communication module, allowing the user to
`transmit the user selected away message via the
`wireless module.
`
`Also, in response to receiving a communication
`from the wireless communication module, any
`one of sound, visual, or vibration that would
`have accompanied the communication had the
`mobile device not been in inactive mode is
`suppressed.
`
`As the direct and proximate result of Samsung’s infringing conduct, TJTM has
`39.
`suffered injury and, if Samsung’s conduct is not stopped, will continue to suffer, irreparable
`injury, and significant damages, in an amount to be proven at trial. Because TJTM’s remedy at
`law is inadequate, it seeks permanent injunctive relief.
`This is not the first time that Samsung has infringed patents with its Galaxy
`40.
`phones. Apple filed a patent infringement lawsuit in this District against Samsung alleging
`infringement of patents related to its iPhone. A jury ruled that Samsung had infringed the Apple
`patents and awarded Apple substantial damages.
`TJTM is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Samsung’s
`41.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Law Offices
`COTCHETT, PITRE &
`MCCARTHY, LLP
`
`_____________________________________________________________________________
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`8
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-05500-JCS Document 1 Filed 07/16/21 Page 11 of 12
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`infringement of the ‘853 patent has been and continues to be intentional, willful, and without
`regard to TJTM’s rights. TJTM is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that
`Samsung’s infringement of the ‘853 patent is and has been intentional, deliberate, and willful at
`least because it had knowledge of the ‘853 as a result of its participation in the cell phone
`industry. It surely had knowledge of the “OFF MODE” app which was available for download
`long before the launch of the “Car Mode” feature which, on information and belief, led Samsung
`to knowledge of the ‘853 patent.
`TJTM is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Samsung has
`42.
`gained profits by virtue of its infringement of the ‘853 patent or, at a minimum, has avoided
`paying license fees for the use of the technology claimed in the ‘853 patent.
`TJTM has sustained damages as a direct and proximate result of Samsung’s
`43.
`infringement of the ‘853.
`TJTM will suffer and is suffering irreparable harm from Samsung’s infringement
`44.
`of the ‘853. TJTM has no adequate remedy at law and is entitled to an injunction against
`Samsung’s continuing infringement of the ‘853. Unless enjoined, Samsung will continue its
`infringing conduct.
`
`
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`WHEREFORE, TJTM prays for relief, as follows:
`A judgment that the ‘853 is valid and enforceable;
`1.
`2.
`A judgment that Samsung has infringed one of more claims of the ‘853 patent;
`3.
`An order and judgment permanently enjoining Samsung and its officers, directors,
`agents, servants, employees, affiliates, attorneys, and all others acting in privity or in concert
`with them, and their parents, subsidiaries, divisions, successors and assigns from further acts of
`infringement of the ‘853 patent;
`A judgment awarding TJTM all damages adequate to compensate for Samsung’s
`4.
`infringement of the ‘853, and in no event less than a reasonable royalty for Samsung’s acts of
`infringement, including all pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate
`permitted by law;
`
`Law Offices
`COTCHETT, PITRE &
`MCCARTHY, LLP
`
`_____________________________________________________________________________
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`9
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-05500-JCS Document 1 Filed 07/16/21 Page 12 of 12
`
`
`
`A judgment awarding TJTM all damages, including treble damages, based on any
`5.
`infringement found to be willful pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, together with prejudgment interest;
`Actual damages suffered by TJTM as a result of Samsung’s unlawful conduct, in
`6.
`an amount to be proven at trial, as well as prejudgment interest as authorized by law;
`A judgment that this is an exceptional case and an award to TJTM of its costs and
`7.
`reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in this action as provided by 35 U.S.C. § 285; and
`Such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
`8.
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, TJTM hereby demands a
`
`jury trial on all issues raised by the Complaint.
`
`Dated: July 16, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`By:
`/s/ Joseph W. Cotchett
`JOSEPH W. COTCHETT
`TAMARAH P. PREVOST
`KEVIN J. BOUTIN
`COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
`San Francisco Airport Office Center
`840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
`Burlingame, CA 94010
`Telephone: (650) 697-6000
`Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
`
`
`
`By:
`/s/ Paul W. Reidl
`PAUL W. REIDL
`LAW OFFICE OF PAUL W. REIDL
`25 Pinehurst Lane
`Half Moon Bay, CA 94019
`Telephone: (650) 560-8530
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff,
`TJTM Technologies, LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`Law Offices
`COTCHETT, PITRE &
`MCCARTHY, LLP
`
`_____________________________________________________________________________
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`10
`
`