throbber
Case 1:19-cv-02056-RGA Document 1 Filed 10/29/19 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`APERTURE NET LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. ___________________
`
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`)))))))))
`
`))
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`RAZER USA LTD.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`Figure 1 – Razer’s Phone 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-02056-RGA Document 1 Filed 10/29/19 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 Razer USA Ltd., (“Razer” or
`
`“Defendant”) 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 Razer USA Ltd. is a company
`
`incorporated in Delaware and may be served by its registered agent Harvard Business
`
`Services, Inc. at 16192 Coastal HWY, Lewes, Delaware, 19958.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`5.
`
`This lawsuit is a civil action for patent infringement arising under the
`
`patent laws 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.
`
`6.
`
`The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant for the following
`
`reasons: (1) Defendant is present within or has minimum contacts within the State of
`
`Delaware and the District of Delaware; (2) Defendant has purposefully availed itself of
`
`the privileges of conducting business in the State of Delaware and in this district; (3)
`2
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-02056-RGA Document 1 Filed 10/29/19 Page 3 of 8 PageID #: 3
`
`Defendant has sought protection and benefit from the laws of the State of Delaware; (4)
`
`Defendant regularly conducts business within the State of Delaware and within this
`
`district, and Plaintiff’s cause of action arises directly from Defendant’s business contacts
`
`and other activities in the State of Delaware and in this district; and (5) Defendant has 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.
`
`7.
`
`Defendant, directly and/or through intermediaries, ships, distributes, uses,
`
`offers for sale, sells, and/or advertises 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, Defendant has committed patent infringement in the State of
`
`Delaware and in this district; Defendant solicits and has solicited customers in the State
`
`of Delaware and in this district; and Defendant has paying customers who are residents of
`
`the State of Delaware and this district and who each use and have used the Defendant’s
`
`products and services in the State of Delaware and in this district.
`
`8.
`
`Venue is proper in the District of Delaware pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
`
`1400(b). Defendant has a regular and established place of business in this district, has
`
`transacted business in this district, and has directly and/or indirectly committed acts of
`
`patent infringement in this district.
`
`PATENT-IN-SUIT
`
`9.
`
`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.
`3
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-02056-RGA Document 1 Filed 10/29/19 Page 4 of 8 PageID #: 4
`
`10.
`
`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
`
`11. Defendant makes, uses, offers for sale and sells in the U.S. products,
`
`systems, and/or services that infringe the Patent-in-Suit, including, but not limited to its
`
`Razer Phone 2 product (the “Accused Products” or “Accused Instrumentality”).
`
`COUNT I
`(Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,711,204)
`
`12.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations of paragraphs 1-11, the
`
`same as if set forth herein.
`
`13.
`
`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.
`
`14.
`
`Plaintiff is the owner by assignment of the ’204 patent and possesses all
`
`4
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-02056-RGA Document 1 Filed 10/29/19 Page 5 of 8 PageID #: 5
`
`rights of recovery under the ’204 patent, including the exclusive right enforce the ’204
`
`patent and pursue lawsuits against infringers.
`
`15. Without a license or permission from Plaintiff, Defendant has 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
`
`16. Defendant has 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,
`
`Defendant has directly infringed the Patent-in-Suit by testing, configuring, and
`
`troubleshooting the functionality of its location technology.
`
`17. By way of example, Defendant has 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
`
`18. On
`
`information and belief, Defendant contributorily
`
`infringes on
`
`Plaintiff’s ’204 Patent. Defendant 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,
`5
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-02056-RGA Document 1 Filed 10/29/19 Page 6 of 8 PageID #: 6
`
`such as its customers, would infringe the ’204 Patent.
`
`19. On information and belief, Defendant’s 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
`
`20. On information and belief, the infringement of the ’204 Patent by
`
`Defendant has been and continues to be willful. Defendant has had actual knowledge of
`
`Plaintiff’s rights in the ’204 Patent and details of Defendant’s infringement based on at
`
`least the filing and service of this complaint. Additionally, Defendant had knowledge of
`
`the ’204 Patent and its infringement in the course of Defendant’s due diligence and
`
`freedom to operate analyses.
`
`Plaintiff Suffered Damages
`
`21. Defendant’s acts of infringement of the ’204 Patent have caused damage
`
`to Plaintiff, and Plaintiff is entitled to recover from Defendant the damages sustained as a
`
`result of Defendant’s wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial pursuant to
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271. Defendant’s 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
`
`22.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates each of the allegations in the paragraphs above and
`6
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-02056-RGA Document 1 Filed 10/29/19 Page 7 of 8 PageID #: 7
`
`respectfully asks the Court to:
`
`(a)
`
`enter a judgment that Defendant has 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 Defendant’s infringement of, direct or contributory, or inducement to infringe,
`
`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
`
`Defendant’s willful infringement of the ’204 Patent;
`
`(d)
`
`issue a preliminary injunction and thereafter a permanent injunction
`
`enjoining and restraining Defendant, its directors, officers, agents, servants,
`
`employees, and those acting in privity or in concert with it, 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 Defendant 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: October 29, 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-02056-RGA Document 1 Filed 10/29/19 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
`
`
`
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket