`
`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
`
`
`
`
`