`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`APERTURE NET LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. ___________________
`
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`)))))))))
`
`))
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`SONY MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS
`(USA) INC., SONY MOBILE
`COMMUNICATIONS INC. and SONY
`CORPORATION,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`Figure 1 – Sony’s Xperia X product
`
`
`
`1
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-01840-RGA Document 1 Filed 09/30/19 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: 2
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`1.
`
`Aperture Net LLC (“Aperture” or “Plaintiff”), by and through its counsel, hereby
`
`brings this action for patent infringement against Sony Mobile Communications (USA) Inc.,
`
`Sony Mobile Communications, Inc., and Sony Corporation, (collectively, the “Defendants”)
`
`alleging infringement of the following validly issued patent (the “Patent-in-Suit”): U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,711,204, titled “Channel Sounding for a Spread-Spectrum Signal” (the ’204 Patent),
`
`attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`2.
`
`This is an action for patent infringement arising under the United States Patent
`
`Act 35 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq., including 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`PARTIES
`
`3.
`
` Plaintiff Aperture Net LLC is a company established in Texas with its principal
`
`place of business at 6205 Coit Rd., Ste 300 – 1016, Plano, TX 75024-5474.
`
`4.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Sony Mobile Communications (USA) Inc.
`
`is a company incorporated in Delaware and may be served by its registered agent Capitol
`
`Services, Inc. 1675 S. State Street, Ste. B, Dover, Delaware, 19901.
`
`5.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Sony Mobile Communications, Inc. is a
`
`company established in Japan with a principle place of business at Shinagawa Seaside TS Tower,
`
`4-12-3, Higashi-shinagawa, Shinagawa-ku, Tokyo, 140-0002, Japan.
`
`6.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Sony Corporation is a company established
`
`in Japan with a principle place of business at 1-7-1 Konan Minato-ku, Tokyo 108-0075 Japan.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`7.
`
`This lawsuit is a civil action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws
`2
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-01840-RGA Document 1 Filed 09/30/19 Page 3 of 8 PageID #: 3
`
`of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. The Court has subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant
`
`to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, 1338(a), and 1367.
`
`8.
`
`The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants for the following reasons: (1)
`
`Defendants are present within or has minimum contacts within the State of Delaware and the
`
`District of Delaware; (2) Defendants have purposefully availed itself of the privileges of
`
`conducting business in the State of Delaware and in this district; (3) Defendants have sought
`
`protection and benefit from the laws of the State of Delaware; (4) Defendants regularly conduct
`
`business within the State of Delaware and within this district, and Plaintiff’s cause of action
`
`arises directly from Defendants’ business contacts and other activities in the State of Delaware
`
`and in this district; and (5) Defendants have a regular and established business in Delaware and
`
`has purposely availed itself of the privileges and benefits of the laws of the State of Delaware.
`
`9.
`
`Defendants, directly and/or through intermediaries, ship, distribute, use, offer for
`
`sale, sell, and/or advertise products and services in the United States, the State of Delaware, and
`
`the District of Delaware including but not limited to the products which contain the infringing
`
`’204 Patent systems and methods as detailed below. Upon information and belief, Defendants
`
`have committed patent infringement in the State of Delaware and in this district; Defendants
`
`solicit and have solicited customers in the State of Delaware and in this district; and Defendants
`
`have paying customers who are residents of the State of Delaware and this district and who each
`
`use and have used the Defendants’ products and services in the State of Delaware and in this
`
`district.
`
`10. Venue is proper in the District of Delaware pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1400(b).
`
`Defendants have a regular and established place of business in this district, have transacted
`
`business in this district, and have directly and/or indirectly committed acts of patent infringement
`3
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-01840-RGA Document 1 Filed 09/30/19 Page 4 of 8 PageID #: 4
`
`in this district.
`
`PATENT-IN-SUIT
`
`11.
`
`The Patent-in-Suit teaches systems and methods for improving a spread-spectrum
`
`code-division-multiple-access (“CDMA”) system, using a channel sounding signal from a base
`
`station to provide initial transmitter power levels for remote stations.
`
`12.
`
`The invention disclosed in the Patent-in-Suit discloses inventive concepts that
`
`represent significant improvements in the art and are not mere routine or conventional uses of
`
`computer components. For instance, at the time of filing, CDMA systems suffered from poor
`
`power control. See Ex. A, ’204 Patent, 1:21–2:5. Although various approaches existed to address
`
`power control issues, those approaches suffered from inconsistency, inefficiency, and excessive
`
`delays. See Ex. A, ’204 Patent, 1:21–2:5. The patent-in-suit addressed these concerns by
`
`“permit[ting] a remote power station to have knowledge, a priori to transmitting, of a proper
`
`power level to initiate transmission.” See Ex. A, ’204 Patent, 2:7-10. Further, the patent-in-suit
`
`teaches “to measure and initially correct or compensate for Doppler shift in carrier frequency
`
`caused by the motion of the remote station.” See Ex. A, ’204 Patent, 2:11-13.
`
`ACCUSED PRODUCTS
`
`13. Defendants make, use, offer for sale and sell in the U.S. products, systems, and/or
`
`services that infringe the Patent-in-Suit, including, but not limited to its Xperia X product (the
`
`“Accused Products” or “Accused Instrumentality”).
`
`COUNT I
`(Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,711,204)
`
`14.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations of paragraphs 1-13, the same as
`
`if set forth herein.
`
`4
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-01840-RGA Document 1 Filed 09/30/19 Page 5 of 8 PageID #: 5
`
`15.
`
`The ’204 Patent is valid, enforceable, and was duly and legally issued by the
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) on March 23, 2004. The ’204 Patent is
`
`presumed valid and enforceable. See 35 U.S.C. § 282.
`
`16.
`
`Plaintiff is the owner by assignment of the ’204 patent and possesses all rights of
`
`recovery under the ’204 patent, including the exclusive right enforce the ’204 patent and pursue
`
`lawsuits against infringers.
`
`17. Without a license or permission from Plaintiff, Defendants have infringed and
`
`continues to infringe on one or more claims of the ’204 Patent—directly, contributorily, and/or
`
`by inducement—by importing, making, using, offering for sale, or selling products and devices
`
`that embody the patented invention, including, without limitation, one or more of the patented
`
`’204 systems and methods, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`Direct Infringement
`
`18. Defendants have been and now is directly infringing by, among other things,
`
`practicing all of the steps of the ’204 Patent, for example, through internal testing, quality
`
`assurance, research and development, and troubleshooting. See Joy Techs., Inc. v. Flakt, Inc., 6
`
`F.3d 770, 775 (Fed. Cir. 1993); see also 35 U.S.C. § 271 (2006). For instance, Defendants have
`
`directly infringed the Patent-in-Suit by testing, configuring, and troubleshooting the functionality
`
`of its location technology.
`
`19. By way of example, Defendants have infringed and continues to infringe at least
`
`one or more claims of the ’204 Patent, including at least Claim 1. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is
`
`an exemplary claim chart detailing representative infringement of claim 1 of the Patent-in-Suit.
`
`Contributory Infringement
`
`20. On information and belief, Defendants contributorily infringe on Plaintiff’s ’204
`5
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-01840-RGA Document 1 Filed 09/30/19 Page 6 of 8 PageID #: 6
`
`Patent. Defendants knew or should have known, at the very least as a result of its freedom to
`
`operate analyses and the filing of this complaint, that third parties, such as its customers, would
`
`infringe the ’204 Patent.
`
`21. On
`
`information and belief, Defendants’
`
`implementation of
`
`the accused
`
`functionality has no substantial non-infringing uses. See, e.g., Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway,
`
`Inc., 580 F.3d 1301, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (holding that the “substantial non-infringing use”
`
`element of a contributory infringement claim applies to an infringing feature or component, and
`
`that an “infringing feature” of a product does not escape liability simply because the product as a
`
`whole has other non-infringing uses).
`
`Willful Infringement
`
`22. On information and belief, the infringement of the ’204 Patent by Defendant has
`
`been and continues to be willful. Defendants have had actual knowledge of Plaintiff’s rights in
`
`the ’204 Patent and details of Defendants’ infringement based on at least the filing and service of
`
`this complaint. Additionally, Defendants had knowledge of the ’204 Patent and its infringement
`
`in the course of Defendants’ due diligence and freedom to operate analyses.
`
`Plaintiff Suffered Damages
`
`23. Defendants’ acts of infringement of the ’204 Patent have caused damage to
`
`Plaintiff, and Plaintiff is entitled to recover from Defendants the damages sustained as a result of
`
`Defendants’ wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`Defendants’ infringement of Plaintiff’s exclusive rights under the ’204 Patent will continue to
`
`damage Plaintiff causing it irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law,
`
`warranting an injunction from the Court.
`
`REQUEST FOR RELIEF
`6
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-01840-RGA Document 1 Filed 09/30/19 Page 7 of 8 PageID #: 7
`
`24.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates each of the allegations in the paragraphs above and
`
`respectfully asks the Court to:
`
`(a)
`
`enter a judgment that Defendants have directly infringed, contributorily infringed,
`
`and/or induced infringement of one or more claims of each of the ’204 Patent;
`
`(b)
`
`enter a judgment awarding Plaintiff all damages adequate to compensate it for
`
`Defendants’ infringement of, direct or contributory, or inducement to infringe, the
`
`including all pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate permitted by
`
`law;
`
`(c)
`
`enter a judgment awarding treble damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284 for
`
`Defendants’ willful infringement of the ’204 Patent;
`
`(d)
`
`issue a preliminary injunction and thereafter a permanent injunction enjoining and
`
`restraining Defendants, their directors, officers, agents, servants, employees, and those
`
`acting in privity or in concert with them, and their subsidiaries, divisions, successors, and
`
`assigns, from further acts of infringement, contributory infringement, or inducement of
`
`infringement of the ’204 Patent;
`
`(e)
`
`enter a judgment requiring Defendants to pay the costs of this action, including all
`
`disbursements, and attorneys’ fees as provided by 35 U.S.C. § 285, together with
`
`prejudgment interest; and
`
`(f)
`
`award Plaintiff all other relief that the Court may deem just and proper.
`
`Dated: September 30, 2019
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/Stamatios Stamoulis
`Stamatios Stamoulis (#4606)
`Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-01840-RGA Document 1 Filed 09/30/19 Page 8 of 8 PageID #: 8
`
`800 N. West Street, Third Floor
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 999-1540
`stamoulis@swdlaw.com
`
`Kirk. J. Anderson (CA SBN 289043)
`(Pro Hac Vice forthcoming)
`kanderson@budolaw.com
`BUDO LAW, P.C.
`5610 Ward Rd., Suite #300
`Arvada, CO 80002
`(720) 225-9440 (Phone)
`(720) 225-9331 (Fax)
`
`Attorney(s) for Aperture Net LLC
`
`8
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`