Case 1:19-cv-01425-CFC Document 1 Filed 07/30/19 Page 1 of 16 PageID #: 1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`PRINCEPS INTERFACE
`TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`LENOVO GROUP LIMITED, LENOVO
`(UNITED STATES) INC., LENOVO
`GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY (UNITED
`STATES) INC. and LENOVO CONNECT
`(UNITED STATES) INC.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`Civ. No. __________
`
` JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiff Princeps Interface Technologies LLC (“Princeps” or “Plaintiff”), for its
`
`Complaint against Defendants Lenovo Group Limited (“LGL”); Lenovo (United States) Inc.
`
`(“LUS”); Lenovo Global Technology (United States) Inc. (“LGTUS”) and Lenovo Connect
`
`(United States) Inc. (“LCUS”), (collectively “Lenovo” or “Defendants”), alleges the following:
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1. This is an action for patent infringement arising under the Patent Laws of the
`
`United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`2. Plaintiff Princeps is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the
`
`State of Delaware with a place of business at Princeps Interface Technologies LLC, c/o Kustal
`
`and Kustal, P.C., 261 West 35th Street, Suite No. 1003, New York, New York 10001.
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01425-CFC Document 1 Filed 07/30/19 Page 2 of 16 PageID #: 2
`
`3. Upon information and belief, Defendant Lenovo Group Limited (“LGL”) is a
`
`Chinese corporation having its principal place of business at No. 6 Chuang Ye Road, Haidian
`
`District, Shangdi Information Industry Base, 100085 Beijing, China. LGL produces and sells
`
`telecommunications, electronics and mobile phone technologies worldwide, including in the
`
`United States and in this District. More specifically, Defendant LGL works in the designing,
`
`manufacturing, importing, distributing and selling of the Accused Instrumentalities under the
`
`brand name “Motorola Mobility” as described in more detail below and in the attached claim
`
`chart.
`
`4. Upon information and belief, Defendant Lenovo (United States) Inc. (“LUS”) is a
`
`Delaware corporation having its principal place of business at 8001 Development Drive,
`
`Morrisville, North Carolina 27560. Defendant LUS is a subsidiary of or otherwise controlled by
`
`LGL. Defendants LGL and LUS act in concert regarding the allegations set forth in this
`
`Complaint and, therefore, the conduct described herein is fairly attributable to either or both
`
`entities. More specifically, Defendants LUS and LGL work collectively in the designing,
`
`manufacturing, importing, distributing and selling of the Accused Instrumentalities under the
`
`brand name “Motorola Mobility” as described in more detail below and in the attached claim
`
`chart.
`
`5. Upon information and belief, Defendant Lenovo Global Technology (United
`
`States) Inc. (“LGTUS”) is a Delaware corporation having its principal place of business at 8001
`
`Development Drive, Morrisville, North Carolina 27560. Defendant LGTUS is a subsidiary of or
`
`otherwise controlled by LGL. Defendants LGL and LGTUS act in concert regarding the
`
`allegations set forth in this Complaint and, therefore, the conduct described herein is fairly
`
`attributable to either or both entities. More specifically, Defendants LGTUS and LGL work
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01425-CFC Document 1 Filed 07/30/19 Page 3 of 16 PageID #: 3
`
`collectively in the designing, manufacturing, importing, distributing and selling of the Accused
`
`Instrumentalities under the brand name “Motorola Mobility” as described in more detail below
`
`and in the attached claim chart.
`
`6. Upon information and belief, Defendant Lenovo Connect (United States) Inc.
`
`(“LCUS”) is a Delaware corporation having its principal place of business at 8001 Development
`
`Drive, Morrisville, North Carolina 27560. Defendant LCUS is a subsidiary of or otherwise
`
`controlled by LGL. Defendants LGL and LCUS act in concert regarding the allegations set forth
`
`in this Complaint and, therefore, the conduct described herein is fairly attributable to either or
`
`both entities. More specifically, Defendants LCUS and LGL work collectively in the designing,
`
`manufacturing, importing, distributing and selling of the Accused Instrumentalities under the
`
`brand name “Motorola Mobility” as described in more detail below and in the attached claim
`
`chart.
`
`7. Upon information and belief, the Defendants (LGL, LUS, LGTUS and LCUS) work
`
`collectively and interact extensively as a united entity in the designing, manufacturing,
`
`importing, distributing and selling of the Accused Instrumentalities under the brand name
`
`“Motorola Mobility” as described in more detail below and in the attached claim chart.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`8.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`9. Venue with respect to Defendant LGL is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. §
`
`1391(c)(3) because, upon information and belief, Defendant LGL is not a resident of the United
`
`States, and also under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because LGL sells and offers to sell products and
`
`services throughout the United States, including in this District, and introduces products and
`
`services into the stream of commerce and effectuates these sales knowing that the products and
`
`services would be sold in this District and elsewhere in the United States.
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01425-CFC Document 1 Filed 07/30/19 Page 4 of 16 PageID #: 4
`
`10. This Court has personal jurisdiction over LGL. LGL is amenable to service of
`
`summons for this action. Defendant LGL has sought protection and benefit from the laws of the
`
`State of Delaware by forming one of its United States affiliates in this District and/or by placing
`
`infringing products into the stream of commerce through an established distribution channel with
`
`the awareness and/or intent that they will be purchased by consumers in this District.
`
`11. LGL – directly or through intermediaries (including distributors, retailers, and
`
`others), subsidiaries, alter egos, and/or agents – ships, distributes, offers for sale, and/or sells its
`
`products in the United States and this District. LGL has purposefully and voluntarily placed one
`
`or more of its infringing products into the stream of commerce with the awareness and/or intent
`
`that they will be purchased by consumers in this District. LGL knowingly and purposefully
`
`ships infringing products into and within this District through an established distribution channel.
`
`These infringing products have been and continue to be purchased by consumers in this District.
`
`Upon information and belief, through those activities, LGL has committed the tort of patent
`
`infringement in this District.
`
`12. On information and belief, Defendant LGL is subject to this Court’s general and
`
`specific personal jurisdiction because LGL has sufficient minimum contacts within the State of
`
`Delaware and this District, pursuant to due process and/or the Del. Code. Ann. Tit. 3, § 3104,
`
`because Defendant LGL purposefully availed itself of the privileges of conducting business in
`
`the State of Delaware and in this District, because Defendant LGL regularly conducts and
`
`solicits business within the State of Delaware and within this District, and because Plaintiff’s
`
`causes of action arise directly from Defendant LGL’s business contacts and other activities in the
`
`State of Delaware and this District. Having purposefully availed itself of the privilege of
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01425-CFC Document 1 Filed 07/30/19 Page 5 of 16 PageID #: 5
`
`conducting business within this District, Defendant LGL should reasonably and fairly anticipate
`
`being brought into court here.
`
`13. Venue with respect to Defendant LUS is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. §
`
`1400(b) because LUS is a Delaware corporation and therefore resides in this District.
`
`14. This Court has personal jurisdiction over LUS. LUS is amenable to service of
`
`summons for this action. Furthermore, personal jurisdiction over LUS in this action comports
`
`with due process. LUS has conducted and regularly conducts business within the United States
`
`and this District. LUS has purposefully availed itself of the privileges of conducting business in
`
`the United States, and more specifically in the State of Delaware and this District. LUS has
`
`sought protection and benefit from the laws of the State of Delaware by forming one of its
`
`United States affiliates in this District and/or by placing infringing products into the stream of
`
`commerce through an established distribution channel with the awareness and/or intent that they
`
`will be purchased by consumers in this District.
`
`15. LUS – directly or through intermediaries (including distributors, retailers, and
`
`others), subsidiaries, alter egos, and/or agents – ships, distributes, offers for sale, and/or sells its
`
`products in the United States and this District. LUS has purposefully and voluntarily placed one
`
`or more of its infringing products into the stream of commerce with the awareness and/or intent
`
`that they will be purchased by consumers in this District. LUS knowingly and purposefully ships
`
`infringing products into and within this District through an established distribution channel.
`
`These infringing products have been and continue to be purchased by consumers in this District.
`
`Upon information and belief, through those activities, LUS has committed the tort of patent
`
`infringement in this District.
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01425-CFC Document 1 Filed 07/30/19 Page 6 of 16 PageID #: 6
`
`16. On information and belief, Defendant LUS is subject to this Court’s general and
`
`specific personal jurisdiction because LUS has sufficient minimum contacts within the State of
`
`Delaware and this District, pursuant to due process and/or the Del. Code. Ann. Tit. 3, § 3104,
`
`because Defendant LUS purposefully availed itself of the privileges of conducting business in
`
`the State of Delaware and in this District, because Defendant LUS regularly conducts and solicits
`
`business within the State of Delaware and within this District, and because Plaintiff’s causes of
`
`action arise directly from Defendant’s business contacts and other activities in the State of
`
`Delaware and this District. Having purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting
`
`business within this District, Defendant LUS should reasonably and fairly anticipate being
`
`brought into court here.
`
`17. Venue with respect to Defendant LGTUS is proper in this District under 28
`
`U.S.C. § 1400(b) because LGTUS is a Delaware corporation and therefore resides in this
`
`District.
`
`18. This Court has personal jurisdiction over LGTUS. LGTUS is amenable to service
`
`of summons for this action. Furthermore, personal jurisdiction over LGTUS in this action
`
`comports with due process. LGTUS has conducted and regularly conducts business within the
`
`United States and this District. LGTUS has purposefully availed itself of the privileges of
`
`conducting business in the United States, and more specifically in the State of Delaware and this
`
`District. LGTUS has sought protection and benefit from the laws of the State of Delaware by
`
`forming one of its United States affiliates in this District and/or by placing infringing products
`
`into the stream of commerce through an established distribution channel with the awareness
`
`and/or intent that they will be purchased by consumers in this District.
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01425-CFC Document 1 Filed 07/30/19 Page 7 of 16 PageID #: 7
`
`19. LGTUS – directly or through intermediaries (including distributors, retailers, and
`
`others), subsidiaries, alter egos, and/or agents – ships, distributes, offers for sale, and/or sells its
`
`products in the United States and this District. LGTUS has purposefully and voluntarily placed
`
`one or more of its infringing products into the stream of commerce with the awareness and/or
`
`intent that they will be purchased by consumers in this District. LGTUS knowingly and
`
`purposefully ships infringing products into and within this District through an established
`
`distribution channel. These infringing products have been and continue to be purchased by
`
`consumers in this District. Upon information and belief, through those activities, LGTUS has
`
`committed the tort of patent infringement in this District.
`
`20. On information and belief, Defendant LGTUS is subject to this Court’s general
`
`and specific personal jurisdiction because LGTUS has sufficient minimum contacts within the
`
`State of Delaware and this District, pursuant to due process and/or the Del. Code. Ann. Tit. 3, §
`
`3104, because Defendant LGTUS purposefully availed itself of the privileges of conducting
`
`business in the State of Delaware and in this District, because Defendant LGTUS regularly
`
`conducts and solicits business within the State of Delaware and within this District, and because
`
`Plaintiff’s causes of action arise directly from Defendant’s business contacts and other activities
`
`in the State of Delaware and this District. Having purposefully availed itself of the privilege of
`
`conducting business within this District, Defendant LGTUS should reasonably and fairly
`
`anticipate being brought into court here.
`
`21. Venue with respect to Defendant LCUS is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1400(b) because LCUS is a Delaware corporation and therefore resides in this District.
`
`22. This Court has personal jurisdiction over LCUS. LCUS is amenable to service of
`
`summons for this action. Furthermore, personal jurisdiction over LCUS in this action comports
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01425-CFC Document 1 Filed 07/30/19 Page 8 of 16 PageID #: 8
`
`with due process. LCUS has conducted and regularly conducts business within the United States
`
`and this District. LCUS has purposefully availed itself of the privileges of conducting business
`
`in the United States, and more specifically in the State of Delaware and this District. LCUS has
`
`sought protection and benefit from the laws of the State of Delaware by forming one of its
`
`United States affiliates in this District and/or by placing infringing products into the stream of
`
`commerce through an established distribution channel with the awareness and/or intent that they
`
`will be purchased by consumers in this District.
`
`23. LCUS – directly or through intermediaries (including distributors, retailers, and
`
`others), subsidiaries, alter egos, and/or agents – ships, distributes, offers for sale, and/or sells its
`
`products in the United States and this District. LCUS has purposefully and voluntarily placed
`
`one or more of its infringing products into the stream of commerce with the awareness and/or
`
`intent that they will be purchased by consumers in this District. LCUS knowingly and
`
`purposefully ships infringing products into and within this District through an established
`
`distribution channel. These infringing products have been and continue to be purchased by
`
`consumers in this District. Upon information and belief, through those activities, LCUS has
`
`committed the tort of patent infringement in this District.
`
`24. On information and belief, Defendant LCUS is subject to this Court’s general and
`
`specific personal jurisdiction because LCUS has sufficient minimum contacts within the State of
`
`Delaware and this District, pursuant to due process and/or the Del. Code. Ann. Tit. 3, § 3104,
`
`because Defendant LCUS purposefully availed itself of the privileges of conducting business in
`
`the State of Delaware and in this District, because Defendant LCUS regularly conducts and
`
`solicits business within the State of Delaware and within this District, and because Plaintiff’s
`
`causes of action arise directly from Defendant’s business contacts and other activities in the State
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01425-CFC Document 1 Filed 07/30/19 Page 9 of 16 PageID #: 9
`
`of Delaware and this District. Having purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting
`
`business within this District, Defendant LCUS should reasonably and fairly anticipate being
`
`brought into court here.
`
`The Inventions
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`25.
`
`Timothy B. Higginson is the sole inventor (hereinafter “the Inventor”) of U.S.
`
`
`
`Patent No. 6,703,963 (“the ’963 patent” or “the patent in suit”). A true and correct copy of the
`
`’963 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`26. The ’963 patent resulted from the pioneering efforts of the Inventor in the area of
`
`small-profile multifunctional input devices. These efforts resulted in the development of novel
`
`input devices, and methods for operating them. The input devices utilize one or more functional
`
`modes and one or more domain levels associated with entering input values into the devices. A
`
`provisional patent application directed to the inventions was filed in the United States in
`
`September 2001.
`
`27. At the time of the Inventor’s pioneering efforts, the most widely implemented
`
`technology used to address keying input data still involved implementing variants of the
`
`traditional two-handed QWERTY keyboard. In that type of system, as explained in the ’963
`
`patent:
`
`The QWERTY keyboard has been used as an input means since the
`
`development of the very first electronic devices. However, with the development
`of smaller, portable electronic devices, use of the QWERTY keyboard with these
`devices has certain drawbacks. As electronic devices have become smaller
`through advances in integrated circuitry, the traditional QWERTY keyboard is
`simply too large for many of the smaller electronic devices as the keyboard must
`be large enough to accommodate both hands of the user. Moreover, due the large
`size of the traditional keyboard, it is not sufficiently portable for use in
`conjunction with many of these electronic devices.
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01425-CFC Document 1 Filed 07/30/19 Page 10 of 16 PageID #: 10
`
`Previous attempts to overcome this short coming of the keyboard have
`
`included the use of foldable keyboards as shown in U.S. Pat. No. 6,174,097 and
`the use of keyboards that allow for the direct connection of the electronic device
`to a full-size portable QWERTY keyboard as shown in U.S. Pat. No. 6,108,200.
`However, neither of these approaches reduces the area required for the use of the
`keyboard.
`
`…An additional drawback to the QWERTY keyboard is that it was
`
`designed to accommodate the mechanical components of the first typewriters, as
`such, the layout of its keys does not facilitate the rapid input of data from the
`keyboard.
`
`…Another drawback to the traditional QWERTY keyboard is that it has
`
`typically only had a single functionality, namely alphanumeric input. However,
`with the decrease in size of many of electronic devices, additional functions are
`required from a smaller keyboard that current keyboards cannot accommodate.
`
`(See Exhibit A, ’963 patent at 1:37 to 2:23.)1
`
`28. The Inventor conceived of the inventions claimed in the ’963 patent as a way to
`
`address the aforementioned drawbacks of the prior art. As explained in the ’963 patent:
`
`The miniaturization of many electronic devices has allowed them to be
`
`designed such that they can be operated with only a single hand of the user or has
`made their use incompatible with a full-sized QWERTY keyboard. Because the
`QWERTY keyboard was developed for two-handed use with the original
`typewriter, it cannot be readily adapted for efficient use by only a single hand, or
`one or both thumbs when used in conjunction with many electronic devices.
`
`…Previous attempts to increase the speed and efficiency of data input into
`
`an electronic device have included the development and use of voice-recognition
`software. However, the error rate typically associated with this type of software
`has thus far prevented its large-scale use as an effective input device.
`
`…Previous attempts to overcome shortcomings of the QWERTY
`
`keyboard have included the use of alternative keyboards, such as the standard 12-
`key arrangement found on most telephone and cellular phones. A drawback of
`using the standard telephone as a data-input device is the slow rate of input due to
`use of only a single finger or thumb to activate the keys.
`
`
`
`1 Citations to patents in this Complaint refer to columns and lines within columns of any cited
`patent. For example, the citation referenced by this footnote refers to column 1, at line 37
`through column 2, at line 23 in the ’963 patent.
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01425-CFC Document 1 Filed 07/30/19 Page 11 of 16 PageID #: 11
`
`(See Exhibit A, ’963 patent at 1:56 to 2:30.)
`
`The present invention provides a multifunctional input device. The input
`
`device includes a functional mode which defines the mode of operation of the
`input device. Each functional mode includes one or more domain levels with
`each domain level containing one or more domain-level values. Each domain
`level-value within each functional mode is assigned to one of a plurality of
`programmable input keys. The domain-level value assigned to each input key
`controls the function of that input key within a given functionality and domain
`level. The present invention also includes a display to indicate the domain-level
`value associated with each of the programmable input keys within a given
`functionality.
`
`(See Exhibit A, ’963 patent at 2:33-45.)
`
`
`
`Technological Innovation
`
`29.
`
`The patented inventions disclosed in the ’963 patent resolve technical problems
`
`related to data input devices, and particularly, to problems related to the utilization of small-
`
`profile data input devices. As the patent explains, there are several limitations of the prior art as
`
`regards full-sized QWERTY keyboards in that:
`
`[T]he keyboard must be large enough to accommodate both hands of the
`
`user. Moreover, due the large size of the traditional keyboard, it is not
`sufficiently portable for use in conjunction with many of these electronic devices.
`
`(’963 patent at 1:40-48.)
`
`The miniaturization of many electronic devices has allowed them to be
`
`designed such that they can be operated with only a single hand of the user or has
`made their use incompatible with a full-sized QWERTY keyboard.
`
`(’963 patent at 1:56-59.)
`
`Moreover, the size of the standard QWERTY keyboard, which can have in
`
`excess of 100 keys, often limits its versatility and utility as an input device.
`
`(’963 patent at 1:64-66.)
`
`
`30. The claims of the ‘963 patent do not merely recite the performance of some well-
`
`known business practice from the pre-Internet world along with the requirement to perform it on
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01425-CFC Document 1 Filed 07/30/19 Page 12 of 16 PageID #: 12
`
`the Internet. Instead, the claims of the patent in suit recite inventive concepts that are deeply
`
`rooted in computerized data input and data processing. They offer technology that overcomes
`
`problems specifically arising out of how to maximize efficiency and versatility associated with
`
`entering data into a small profile data input device.
`
`31.
`
`In addition, the claims of the patent in suit recite inventive concepts that improve
`
`the functioning of electronic data input devices catalogs, particularly as they recite a combination
`
`of controls by which a user can dynamically generate user-specific data input interfaces for the
`
`devices.
`
`32. Moreover, the claims of the ‘963 patent recite inventive concepts that are not
`
`merely routine or a conventional use of computer technology or transaction processing. Instead,
`
`the patented inventions disclosed in the patent in suit provide a new and novel solution to
`
`specific problems related to automating and customizing the process of entering data into small
`
`profile input devices by dynamically utilizing user specified control combinations. The claims of
`
`the patent in suit thus specify how interfaces for entering user data are manipulated to yield a
`
`desired result.
`
`33. And finally, the patented inventions disclosed in the patent in suit do not preempt
`
`all the ways that user-specific interface selections may be used to improve entering data into
`
`small profile input devices, nor does the patent in suit preempt a well-known or prior art
`
`technology, such as a standard QWERTY keyboard.
`
`34. Accordingly, the claims in the ‘963 patent recite a combination of elements
`
`sufficient to ensure that the claims, in substance and in practice, amount to significantly more
`
`than a patent-ineligible abstract idea.
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01425-CFC Document 1 Filed 07/30/19 Page 13 of 16 PageID #: 13
`
`COUNT I - INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,703,963
`
`35. The allegations set forth in the foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein by
`
`reference.
`
`36. On March 9, 2004, the ’963 patent was duly and legally issued by the United
`
`States Patent and Trademark Office under the title “Universal Keyboard.”
`
`37. Princeps is the assignee and owner of the right, title and interest in and to the ’963
`
`patent, including the right to assert all causes of action arising under said patent and the right to
`
`any remedies for infringement of it.
`
`38. Upon information and belief, the Defendants have directly infringed and continue
`
`to directly infringe at least claims 1, 2, 3, 9, 12 and 60 of the ’963 patent under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`271(a) by making, using, selling, offering to sell and/or importing information input devices such
`
`as Lenovo “Moto” brand phones with proprietary Lenovo Apps and/or third-party Apps with
`
`keyboard functionalities and an operating system such as the Android operating system (the
`
`“Accused Instrumentalities”), as set forth in detail in the attached preliminary and exemplary
`
`claim charts provided in Exhibit A-1. (See Princeps’ Claim Chart for claims 1, 2, 3, 9, 12 and 60
`
`of the ’963 patent, Ex. A-1.)
`
`39. The Accused Instrumentalities infringed and continue to infringe claims 1, 2, 3, 9,
`
`12 and 60 of the ’963 patent during the pendency of the ’963 patent.
`
`40. Lenovo was made aware of the ’963 patent and its infringement thereof at least as
`
`early as the filing of this Complaint.
`
`41. Users in Delaware and elsewhere in the United States have used and interacted
`
`with each Defendant’s systems as recited in claims 1, 2, 3, 9, 12 and 60 of the ’963 patent.
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01425-CFC Document 1 Filed 07/30/19 Page 14 of 16 PageID #: 14
`
`42. Upon information and belief, since at least the time of receiving this Complaint,
`
`Lenovo has induced and continues to induce others to infringe at least claims 1, 2, 3, 9, 12 and
`
`60 of the ’963 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) by, among other things, and with specific intent
`
`or willful blindness, actively aiding and abetting others to infringe, including but not limited to
`
`Lenovo’s partners and customers, whose use of the Accused Instrumentalities constitutes direct
`
`infringement of at least claims 1, 2, 3, 9, 12 and 60 of the ’963 patent.
`
`43.
`
`In particular, Lenovo’s actions that aid and abet others such as their partners and
`
`customers to infringe include distributing the Accused Instrumentalities and providing
`
`instructional materials and/or services related to the Accused Instrumentalities. On information
`
`and belief, Lenovo has engaged in such actions with specific intent to cause infringement and
`
`with willful blindness to the resulting infringement because Lenovo has had actual knowledge of
`
`the ’963 patent and that its acts were inducing infringement of the ’963 patent since at least the
`
`time of receiving this Complaint.
`
`44. Upon information and belief, Lenovo is liable as a contributory infringer to at
`
`least claims 1, 2, 3, 9, 12 and 60 of the ’963 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) by offering to sell,
`
`selling and importing into the United States input device technology, such as the Lenovo Galaxy
`
`S series devices, and proprietary Lenovo apps utilizing keyboard input interfaces which are
`
`especially made or adapted for use in an infringement of the ’963 patent. The Accused
`
`Instrumentalities are material components for use in practicing the ’963 patent and are
`
`specifically made and are not a staple article of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing
`
`use.
`
`45. On information and belief, Defendants, collectively Lenovo, is a for-profit
`
`organization with revenues of approximately 45 billion U.S.D. per year. Moreover, Defendants,
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01425-CFC Document 1 Filed 07/30/19 Page 15 of 16 PageID #: 15
`
`their employees and/or agents make, use, sell, offer to sell, import, provide and cause to be used
`
`the Accused Instrumentalities for Defendant’s customers, leading to direct and indirect revenues
`
`and profit. As one example of indirect profit, entities such as the Defendants, will frequently
`
`offer the Accused Instrumentalities at reduced pricing as an inducement to attract select
`
`categories of customers, such as students, who then purchase additional products or services. On
`
`information and belief, without the availability of infringing tools such as the Accused
`
`Instrumentalities, Defendants would be at a disadvantage in the marketplace and would generate
`
`less revenue overall.
`
`46. On information and belief, since at least the time it received notice by this
`
`Complaint, Lenovo’s infringement has been and continues to be willful.
`
`47. Princeps has been harmed by Lenovo’s infringing activities.
`
`48. Princeps reserves the right to modify its infringement theories as discovery
`
`progresses in this case. It shall not be estopped for purposes of its infringement contentions or its
`
`claim constructions by the claim charts it provides with this Complaint. Princeps intends the
`
`claim chart (Exhibit A-1) for the ’963 patent to satisfy the notice requirements of Rule 8(a)(2) of
`
`the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. The claim chart is not Princep’s preliminary or final
`
`infringement contentions or preliminary or final claim construction positions.
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff demands a trial by
`
`jury on all issues triable as such.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Princeps demands judgment for itself and against the Lenovo
`
`Defendants as follows:
`
`A.
`
`An adjudication that the Defendants have infringed the ’963 patent;
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01425-CFC Document 1 Filed 07/30/19 Page 16 of 16 PageID #: 16
`
`B.
`
`An award of damages to be paid by Defendants adequate to compensate Plaintiff
`
`for the Defendants’ past infringement of the ’963 patent, and any continuing or future
`
`infringement through the date such judgment is entered, including interest, costs, expenses and
`
`an accounting of all infringing acts including, but not limited to, those acts not presented at trial;
`
`C.
`
`A declaration that this case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285, and an award of
`
`Plaintiff’s reasonable attorneys’ fees; and
`
`D.
`
`An award to Plaintiff of such further relief at law or in equity as the Court deems
`
`just and proper.
`
`Dated: July 30, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEVLIN LAW FIRM LLC
`
`/s/ Timothy Devlin
`Timothy Devlin (#4241)
`tdevlin@devlinlawfirm.com
`Patrick R. Delaney (pro hac vice to be filed)
`pdelaney@devlinlawfirm.com
`1526 Gilpin Ave.
`Wilmington, Delaware 19806
`Telephone: (302) 449-9010
`Facsimile: (302) 353-4251
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff,
`Princeps Interface Technologies LLC
`
`- 16 -
`
`