Case 1:20-cv-20813-RNS Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2020 Page 1 of 34
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
`
`Civil Action No.1:20-cv-20813-RNS
`
`
`SISVEL INTERNATIONAL S.A.,
`3G LICENSING S.A.,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`BLU PRODUCTS, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiffs Sisvel International S.A. and 3G Licensing S.A. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), for
`
`their Amended Complaint against Defendant BLU Products, Inc. (“BLU” or “Defendant”), 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.
`
`Sisvel International S.A. (“Sisvel”) is an entity organized under the laws of
`
`Luxembourg with a place of business at 6, Avenue Marie Thérèse, 2132 Luxembourg, Grand
`
`Duchy of Luxembourg.
`
`3.
`
`3G Licensing S.A. (“3G Licensing”) is also an entity organized under the laws of
`
`Luxembourg with a place of business at 6, Avenue Marie Thérèse, 2132 Luxembourg, Grand
`
`Duchy of Luxembourg.
`
`Page 1 of 34
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-20813-RNS Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2020 Page 2 of 34
`
`
`
`4.
`
`Founded in Italy in 1982, Sisvel is a world leader in fostering innovation and
`
`managing intellectual property. Sisvel works with its partners offering a comprehensive approach
`
`to patent licensing: from issuing initial calls for essential patents; facilitating discussions among
`
`stakeholders; developing multiparty license agreements; executing and administering licenses; to
`
`collecting and distributing royalties. At the same time, Sisvel actively promotes a culture of
`
`respect and understanding of the intellectual property and innovation ecosystem through, for
`
`example, its regular presence at the key consumer electronics trade fairs and intellectual property
`
`events, participation in policy discussions and conferences, as well as open dialogues with a
`
`number of government bodies, standard-setting organizations and industry associations.
`
`5.
`
`In early 2016, Sisvel initiated licensing activities in North America via its U.S.
`
`subsidiary, Sisvel US Inc.
`
`6.
`
`A subsidiary of the Sisvel Group founded in 2015, 3G Licensing, is an intellectual
`
`property company operating in the consumer electronics and telecommunications industry. The
`
`company is composed of specialists with an extensive experience in administering licensing
`
`programs on behalf on behalf of third-party companies and organizations.
`
`7.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant is a corporation organized and existing
`
`under the laws of Florida, with its principal place of business at 10814 NW 33rd St., Building 100,
`
`Doral, Florida 33172.
`
`8.
`
`Defendant maintains a registered agent for service of process in Florida, Bernard L.
`
`Egozi, at 2999 NE 191st Street, Number 407, Aventura, Florida 33180. Upon information and
`
`belief, Defendant sells and offers to sell products and services throughout the United States,
`
`including in this judicial district, and introduces products and services that enter into the stream of
`
`Page 2 of 34
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-20813-RNS Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2020 Page 3 of 34
`
`commerce and that incorporate infringing technology knowing that they would be sold in this
`
`judicial district and elsewhere in the United States.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`9.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter jurisdiction of this case under
`
`28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 (federal question) and 1338(a) (patent law – 35 U.S.C. § 101, et seq.).
`
`10.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant, because Defendant has
`
`sufficient minimum contacts within the State of Florida and this District, pursuant to due process,
`
`as Defendant has purposefully availed itself of the privileges of conducting business in the State
`
`of Florida by regularly conducting and soliciting business within the State of Florida and within
`
`this District, and because Plaintiffs’ causes of action arise directly from Defendant’s business
`
`contacts and other activities in the State of Florida and this District. Further, this Court has
`
`personal jurisdiction over Defendant because it is incorporated in the State of Florida and has
`
`purposely availed itself of the privileges and benefits of the laws of the State of Florida.
`
`11.
`
`Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) as Defendant is
`
`incorporated in the State of Florida and has a regular and established place of business in this
`
`District at 10814 NW 33rd St., Building 100, Doral, Florida 33172.
`
`ACCUSED INSTRUMENTALITIES
`
`12.
`
`Defendant makes, uses, sells and offers for sale, provides, and causes to be used,
`
`now and within the past six years, the Vivo Series, Grand Series, Studio Series, and Zoey Series
`
`of cellular devices (“Accused Instrumentalities”), among other such devices.
`
`13.
`
`Defendant advertises that the Vivo Series of products are compliant with the 2G,
`
`3G and 4G/LTE cellular network standards (See product information for the Vivo Series of
`
`products, attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
`
`Page 3 of 34
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-20813-RNS Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2020 Page 4 of 34
`
`14.
`
`Defendant advertises that the Grand Series of products are compliant with the 2G,
`
`3G and 4G/LTE cellular network standards (See product information for the Grand Series of
`
`products, attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
`
`15.
`
`Defendant advertises that the Studio Series of products are compliant with the 2G
`
`and 3G cellular network standards (See product information for the Studio Series of products,
`
`attached hereto as Exhibit 3.
`
`16.
`
`Defendant advertises that the Zoey Series of products are compliant with the 2G
`
`and 3G cellular network standards (See product information for the Zoey Series of products,
`
`attached hereto as Exhibit 4.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`17.
`
`Plaintiffs are the owners by assignment of a portfolio of patents, including the
`
`twelve patents described in detail in the counts below (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”), that
`
`relate to technology for cellular communications networks, including variations or generations of
`
`cellular communication network technology such as, but not limited to 2G, 3G, and 4G/LTE.
`
`18.
`
`Cellular communication network technology is used to provide data transmission
`
`across mobile cellular networks.
`
`19.
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,529,561 (“the ’561 patent”), 7,433,698 (“the ’698 patent”),
`
`8,364,196 (“the ’196 patent”), 7,751,803 (“the ’803 patent”), and 7,894,443 (“the ’443 patent”)
`
`were assigned to Nokia Corporation either directly from the inventors or through mergers. In 2011
`
`the ’561, ’698, ’196, ’803, and the ’443 patents were assigned to a trust by Nokia Corporation. On
`
`April 10, 2012, Sisvel obtained ownership of the ’561, ’698, ’196, ’803, and the ’443 patents.
`
`20.
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 7,274,933 (“the ’933 patent”), 7,460,868 (“the ’868 patent”),
`
`7,596,375 (“the ’375 patent”), 8,273,374 (“the ’374 patent”), 8,472,955 (“the ’955 patent”),
`
`8,948,756 (“the ’756 patent”), and 8,897,503 (“the ’503 patent”) were assigned to Research in
`
`Page 4 of 34
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-20813-RNS Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2020 Page 5 of 34
`
`Motion Ltd. from the inventors. Research in Motion Ltd. changed its name to Blackberry, Ltd. in
`
`2013. On November 16, 2018, the ’933, ’868, ’375, ’374, ’955, ’756, and ’503 patents were
`
`assigned to Provenance Asset Group LLC from Blackberry, Ltd. On April 5, 2019, Sisvel obtained
`
`ownership of the ’933, ’868, ’375, ’374, ’955, ’756, and ’503 patents from Provenance Asset
`
`Group LLC. On July 11, 2019, Sisvel assigned the ’933, ’868, ’375, ’374, ’955, ’756, and ’503
`
`patents to 3G Licensing.
`
`21.
`
`Sisvel and 3G Licensing are the rightful owners of the Asserted Patents and hold
`
`the entire right, title and interest in the Asserted Patents.
`
`22.
`
`Sisvel first sent a letter to BLU on July 11, 2014, offering for BLU to license
`
`Sisvel’s patents essential to cellular standards including 2G and 4G/LTE. The correspondence
`
`identified BLU products such as Vivo and Studio products that were covered by claims of Sisvel’s
`
`patents. The July 11, 2014 correspondence attached a list of patents covering BLU’s products
`
`including the ’561 patent and the ’803 patent.
`
`23.
`
`During 2015 Sisvel sent additional correspondence to BLU regarding licensing of
`
`Sisvel’s patents. On March 9, 2016 Sisvel sent correspondence to BLU again offering for BLU to
`
`license Sisvel’s patents essential to cellular standards including 2G and 4G/LTE. The March 9,
`
`2016 letter specifically identified the ’803 patent and the ’196 patent as patents for which BLU’s
`
`products required a license. Sisvel sent followup letters to BLU on June 1, 2016 and December 6,
`
`2016.
`
`24.
`
`On March 22, 2018 Sisvel sent additional correspondence to BLU regarding
`
`licensing of Sisvel’s patents and referencing prior communications. The March 22, 2018 letter
`
`included links to Sisvel’s website, which specifically identified the ’698 patent, the ’196 patent,
`
`the ’803 patent, and the ’443 patent. Following the March 22, 2018 letter, Sisvel and BLU engaged
`
`Page 5 of 34
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-20813-RNS Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2020 Page 6 of 34
`
`in an extensive correspondence through additional letters and email. Despite Sisvel’s continuous
`
`efforts over more than four years, BLU refused to take a license to Sisvel’s patents.
`
`COUNT I – INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,529,561
`
`25.
`
`The allegations set forth in the foregoing paragraphs 1 through 24 are incorporated
`
`into this First Claim for Relief.
`
`26.
`
`On March 4, 2003, the ’561 patent, entitled “Data Transmission In Radio System”
`
`was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office from a patent
`
`application filed on May 10, 2001, which claims priority to a PCT application filed on September
`
`7, 2000, and further claims priority to a foreign patent application filed on September 10, 1999.
`
`A true and correct copy of the ’561 patent is attached as Exhibit 5.
`
`27.
`
`Plaintiff Sisvel is the assignee and owner of the right, title and interest in and to the
`
`ʼ561 patent, including the right to assert all causes of action arising under said patents and the right
`
`to any remedies for infringement of them.
`
`28.
`
`The ʼ561 patent discloses a system and method that Plaintiffs believe is essential
`
`under the 2G cellular standard as explained in attached Exhibit 6. The 2G cellular standard is
`
`incorporated in the 3G and 4G LTE standards. Thus, Defendant’s Accused Instrumentalities that
`
`are compliant with the 2G, 3G and 4G LTE standards are necessarily infringing the ʼ561 patent.
`
`29.
`
`Defendant was made aware of the ʼ561 patent and its infringement thereof by
`
`correspondence from Plaintiffs on July 11, 2014 as discussed in paragraph 22 above.
`
`30.
`
`Defendant was made further aware of the ʼ561 patent and its infringement thereof
`
`at least as early as the date of filing of this Complaint.
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 34
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-20813-RNS Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2020 Page 7 of 34
`
`31.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant has and continues to directly infringe at
`
`least claim 10 of the ʼ561 patent by making, using, selling, importing, offering for sale, providing,
`
`practicing, and causing the Accused Instrumentality that infringe the patented methods.
`
`32.
`
`Since July 11, 2014, when Defendants was first made aware of the ’561 patent,
`
`Defendant’s infringement has been, and continues to be willful.
`
`33.
`
`Upon information and belief, these Accused Instrumentality are used, marketed,
`
`provided to, and/or used by or for the Defendant’s partners, clients, customers/subscribers and end
`
`users across the country and in this District.
`
`34.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant has induced and continues to induce others
`
`to infringe at least claim 10 of the ’561 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 Defendant’s partners, clients, customers/subscribers, and end users,
`
`whose use of the Accused Instrumentality constitutes direct infringement of at least one claim of
`
`the ’561 patent.
`
`35.
`
`In particular, the Defendant’s actions that aid and abet others such as its partners,
`
`customers/subscribers, clients, and end users to infringe include advertising and distributing the
`
`Accused Instrumentality and providing instruction materials, training, and services regarding the
`
`Accused Instrumentality.
`
`36. Any party, including Defendant’s partners, clients, customers/subscribers, and end
`
`users, using the Accused Instrumentalities necessarily infringes the ʼ561 patent because the
`
`invention of the ʼ561 patent is required to comply with the relevant cellular standard. Defendant
`
`advertises the Accused Instrumentalities as compliant with the relevant cellular standard, which
`
`induces others to infringe the ʼ561 patent. Defendant has knowingly induced infringement since
`
`Page 7 of 34
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-20813-RNS Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2020 Page 8 of 34
`
`at least July 11, 2014 when Defendant was first made aware of the ʼ561 patent during extensive
`
`correspondence with Plaintiffs as discussed in paragraphs 22-24 above.
`
`37.
`
`Upon information and belief, the Defendant is liable as a contributory infringer of
`
`the ʼ561 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) by offering to sell, selling and importing into the United
`
`States the Accused Instrumentality that infringe the patented methods, to be especially made or
`
`adapted for use in an infringement of the ʼ561 patent. Each of the Accused Instrumentality is a
`
`material component for use in practicing the ʼ561 patent and is specifically made and are not a
`
`staple article of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use. In particular, each Accused
`
`Instrumentality is advertised to be compliant with the relevant standard and primarily used in
`
`compliance with that standard.
`
`38.
`
`Plaintiffs have been harmed by Defendant’s infringing activities.
`
`COUNT II – INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,433,698
`
`39.
`
`The allegations set forth in the foregoing paragraphs 1 through 24 are incorporated
`
`into this Second Claim for Relief.
`
`40.
`
`On October 7, 2008, the ’698 patent, entitled “Cell Reselection Signaling Method”
`
`was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office from Patent
`
`Application No. 10/181,078, which is the U.S. National Stage Application of PCT application No.
`
`PCT/FI01/00038, filed on January 17, 2001, which claims priority to a foreign patent application
`
`filed on January 17, 2000. A true and correct copy of the ’698 patent is attached as Exhibit 7.
`
`41.
`
`Plaintiff Sisvel is the assignee and owner of the right, title and interest in and to the
`
`ʼ698 patent, including the right to assert all causes of action arising under said patents and the right
`
`to any remedies for infringement of them.
`
`42.
`
`The ʼ698 patent discloses a system and method that Plaintiffs believe is essential
`
`under the 3G cellular standard as explained in attached Exhibit 8. The 3G cellular standard is
`
`Page 8 of 34
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-20813-RNS Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2020 Page 9 of 34
`
`incorporated in the 4G LTE standard. Thus, Defendant’s Accused Instrumentalities that are
`
`compliant with the 3G and 4G LTE standards are necessarily infringing the ʼ698 patent.
`
`43.
`
`Defendant was made aware of the ʼ698 patent and its infringement thereof by
`
`correspondence from Plaintiffs on March 22, 2018 as discussed in paragraph 24 above.
`
`44.
`
`Defendant was made further aware of the ʼ698 patent and its infringement thereof
`
`at least as early as the date of filing of this Complaint.
`
`45.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant has and continues to directly infringe at
`
`least claims 10 and/or 11 of the ʼ698 patent by making, using, selling, importing, offering for sale,
`
`providing, practicing, and causing the Accused Instrumentality that infringe the patented methods.
`
`46.
`
`Since March 22, 2018, when it was first made aware of the ’698 patent, Defendant’s
`
`infringement has been, and continues to be willful.
`
`47.
`
`Upon information and belief, these Accused Instrumentality are used, marketed,
`
`provided to, and/or used by or for the Defendant’s partners, clients, customers/subscribers and end
`
`users across the country and in this District.
`
`48.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant has induced and continues to induce others
`
`to infringe at least claims 10 and/or 11 of the ’698 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 Defendant’s partners, clients, customers/subscribers, and end
`
`users, whose use of the Accused Instrumentality constitutes direct infringement of at least one
`
`claim of the ’698 patent.
`
`49.
`
`In particular, the Defendant’s actions that aid and abet others such as its partners,
`
`customers/subscribers, clients, and end users to infringe include advertising and distributing the
`
`Page 9 of 34
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-20813-RNS Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2020 Page 10 of 34
`
`Accused Instrumentality and providing instruction materials, training, and services regarding the
`
`Accused Instrumentality.
`
`50. Any party, including Defendant’s partners, clients, customers/subscribers, and end
`
`users, using the Accused Instrumentalities necessarily infringes the ʼ698 patent because the
`
`invention of the ʼ698 patent is required to comply with the relevant cellular standard. Defendant
`
`advertises the Accused Instrumentalities as compliant with the relevant cellular standard, which
`
`induces others to infringe the ʼ698 patent. Defendant has knowingly induced infringement since
`
`at least March 22, 2018 when Defendant was first made aware of the ʼ698 patent during extensive
`
`correspondence with Plaintiffs as discussed in paragraphs 22-24 above.
`
`51.
`
`Upon information and belief, the Defendant is liable as a contributory infringer of
`
`the ʼ698 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) by offering to sell, selling and importing into the United
`
`States the Accused Instrumentality that infringe the patented methods, to be especially made or
`
`adapted for use in an infringement of the ʼ698 patent. Each of the Accused Instrumentality is a
`
`material component for use in practicing the ʼ698 patent and is specifically made and are not a
`
`staple article of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use. In particular, each Accused
`
`Instrumentality is advertised to be compliant with the relevant standard and primarily used in
`
`compliance with that standard.
`
`52.
`
`Plaintiffs have been harmed by Defendant’s infringing activities.
`
`COUNT III – INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,364,196
`
`53.
`
`The allegations set forth in the foregoing paragraphs 1 through 24 are incorporated
`
`into this Third Claim for Relief.
`
`54.
`
`On January 29, 2013, the ’196 patent, entitled “Cell Reselection Signaling Method”
`
`was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office from a patent
`
`Page 10 of 34
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-20813-RNS Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2020 Page 11 of 34
`
`application filed on August 19, 2008 and claims priority a foreign patent application filed on
`
`January 17, 2000. A true and correct copy of the ’196 patent is attached as Exhibit 9.
`
`55.
`
`Plaintiff Sisvel is the assignee and owner of the right, title and interest in and to the
`
`ʼ196 patent, including the right to assert all causes of action arising under said patents and the right
`
`to any remedies for infringement of them.
`
`56.
`
`The ʼ196 patent discloses a system and method that Plaintiffs believe is essential
`
`under the 3G cellular standard as explained in attached Exhibit 10. The 3G cellular standard is
`
`incorporated in the 4G LTE standard. Thus, Defendant’s Accused Instrumentalities that are
`
`compliant with the 3G and 4G LTE standards are necessarily infringing the ʼ196 patent.
`
`57.
`
`Defendant was made aware of the ʼ196 patent and its infringement thereof by
`
`correspondence from Plaintiffs on March 9, 2016, as discussed in paragraph 23 above.
`
`58.
`
`Defendant was made further aware of the ʼ196 patent and its infringement thereof
`
`at least as early as the date of filing of this Complaint.
`
`59.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant has and continues to directly infringe at
`
`least claims 1, 2, 14, 17 and/or 18 of the ʼ196 patent by making, using, selling, importing, offering
`
`for sale, providing, practicing, and causing the Accused Instrumentality that infringe the patented
`
`methods.
`
`60.
`
`Since March 9, 2016, when it was first made aware of the ’196 patent, Defendant’s
`
`infringement has been, and continues to be willful.
`
`61.
`
`Upon information and belief, these Accused Instrumentality are used, marketed,
`
`provided to, and/or used by or for the Defendant’s partners, clients, customers/subscribers and end
`
`users across the country and in this District.
`
`Page 11 of 34
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-20813-RNS Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2020 Page 12 of 34
`
`62.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant has induced and continues to induce others
`
`to infringe at least claims 1, 2, 14, 17 and/or 18 of the ’196 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 Defendant’s partners, clients,
`
`customers/subscribers, and end users, whose use of the Accused Instrumentality constitutes direct
`
`infringement of at least one claim of the ’196 patent.
`
`63.
`
`In particular, the Defendant’s actions that aid and abet others such as its partners,
`
`customers/subscribers, clients, and end users to infringe include advertising and distributing the
`
`Accused Instrumentality and providing instruction materials, training, and services regarding the
`
`Accused Instrumentality.
`
`64. Any party, including Defendant’s partners, clients, customers/subscribers, and end
`
`users, using the Accused Instrumentalities necessarily infringes the ʼ196 patent because the
`
`invention of the ʼ196 patent is required to comply with the relevant cellular standard. Defendant
`
`advertises the Accused Instrumentalities as compliant with the relevant cellular standard, which
`
`induces others to infringe the ʼ196 patent. Defendant has knowingly induced infringement since
`
`at least March 9, 2016 when Defendant was first made aware of the ʼ196 patent during extensive
`
`correspondence with Plaintiffs as discussed in paragraphs 22-24 above.
`
`65.
`
`Upon information and belief, the Defendant is liable as a contributory infringer of
`
`the ʼ196 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) by offering to sell, selling and importing into the United
`
`States the Accused Instrumentality that infringe the patented methods, to be especially made or
`
`adapted for use in an infringement of the ʼ196 patent. Each of the Accused Instrumentality is a
`
`material component for use in practicing the ʼ196 patent and is specifically made and are not a
`
`staple article of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use. In particular, each Accused
`
`Page 12 of 34
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-20813-RNS Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2020 Page 13 of 34
`
`Instrumentality is advertised to be compliant with the relevant standard and primarily used in
`
`compliance with that standard.
`
`66.
`
`Plaintiffs have been harmed by Defendant’s infringing activities.
`
`COUNT IV – INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,751,803
`
`67.
`
`The allegations set forth in the foregoing paragraphs 1 through 24 are incorporated
`
`into this Fourth Claim for Relief.
`
`68.
`
`On July 6, 2010, the ’803 patent, entitled “Method and Arrangement For
`
`Optimizing the Re-Establishment of Connections In a Cellular Radio System Supporting Real
`
`Time and Non-Real Time Communications” was duly and legally issued by the United States
`
`Patent and Trademark Office from a patent application filed on February 22, 2001 and claims
`
`priority to foreign patent applications filed on February 24, 2000 and March 24, 2000. A true and
`
`correct copy of the ’803 patent is attached as Exhibit 11.
`
`69.
`
`Plaintiff Sisvel is the assignee and owner of the right, title and interest in and to the
`
`ʼ803 patent, including the right to assert all causes of action arising under said patents and the right
`
`to any remedies for infringement of them.
`
`70.
`
`The ʼ803 patent discloses a system and method that Plaintiffs believe is essential
`
`under the 3G cellular standard as explained in attached Exhibit 12. The 3G cellular standard is
`
`incorporated in the 4G LTE standard. Thus, Defendant’s Accused Instrumentalities that are
`
`compliant with the 3G and 4G LTE standards are necessarily infringing the ʼ803 patent.
`
`71.
`
`Defendant was made aware of the ʼ803 patent and its infringement thereof by
`
`correspondence from Plaintiffs on July 11, 2014 as discussed in paragraph 22 above.
`
`72.
`
`Defendant was made further aware of the ʼ803 patent and its infringement thereof
`
`at least as early as the date of filing of this Complaint.
`
`
`
`Page 13 of 34
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-20813-RNS Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2020 Page 14 of 34
`
`73.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant has and continues to directly infringe at
`
`least claim 17 of the ʼ803 patent by making, using, selling, importing, offering for sale, providing,
`
`practicing, and causing the Accused Instrumentality that infringe the patented methods.
`
`74.
`
`Since July 11, 2014, when it was first made aware of the ’803 patent, Defendant’s
`
`infringement has been, and continues to be willful.
`
`75.
`
`Upon information and belief, these Accused Instrumentality are used, marketed,
`
`provided to, and/or used by or for the Defendant’s partners, clients, customers/subscribers and end
`
`users across the country and in this District.
`
`76.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant has induced and continue to induce others
`
`to infringe at least claim 17 of the ’803 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 Defendant’s partners, clients, customers/subscribers, and end users,
`
`whose use of the Accused Instrumentality constitutes direct infringement of at least one claim of
`
`the ’803 patent.
`
`77.
`
`In particular, the Defendant’s actions that aid and abet others such as its partners,
`
`customers/subscribers, clients, and end users to infringe include advertising and distributing the
`
`Accused Instrumentality and providing instruction materials, training, and services regarding the
`
`Accused Instrumentality.
`
`78. Any party, including Defendant’s partners, clients, customers/subscribers, and end
`
`users, using the Accused Instrumentalities necessarily infringes the ’803 patent because the
`
`invention of the ’803 patent is required to comply with the relevant cellular standard. Defendant
`
`advertises the Accused Instrumentalities as compliant with the relevant cellular standard, which
`
`induces others to infringe the ’803 patent. Defendant has knowingly induced infringement since
`
`Page 14 of 34
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-20813-RNS Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2020 Page 15 of 34
`
`at least July 11, 2014 when Defendant was first made aware of the ’803 patent during extensive
`
`correspondence with Plaintiffs as discussed in paragraphs 22-24 above.
`
`79.
`
`Upon information and belief, the Defendant is liable as a contributory infringer of
`
`the ʼ803 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) by offering to sell, selling and importing into the United
`
`States the Accused Instrumentality that infringe the patented methods, to be especially made or
`
`adapted for use in an infringement of the ʼ803 patent. Each of the Accused Instrumentality is a
`
`material component for use in practicing the ʼ803 patent and is specifically made and are not a
`
`staple article of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use. In particular, each Accused
`
`Instrumentality is advertised to be compliant with the relevant standard and primarily used in
`
`compliance with that standard.
`
`80.
`
`Plaintiffs have been harmed by Defendant’s infringing activities.
`
`COUNT V – INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,894,443
`
`81.
`
`The allegations set forth in the foregoing paragraphs 1 through 24 are incorporated
`
`into this Fifth Claim for Relief.
`
`82.
`
`On February 22, 2011,
`
`the ’443 patent, entitled “Radio Link Control
`
`Unacknowledged Mode Header Optimization” was duly and legally issued by the United States
`
`Patent and Trademark Office from a patent application filed on August 23, 2006, and claims
`
`priority to provisional patent application No. 60/710,193 filed on August 23, 2005. A true and
`
`correct copy of the ’443 patent is attached as Exhibit 13.
`
`83.
`
`Plaintiff Sisvel is the assignee and owner of the right, title and interest in and to the
`
`ʼ443 patent, including the right to assert all causes of action arising under said patents and the right
`
`to any remedies for infringement of them.
`
`84.
`
`The ʼ443 patent discloses a system and method that Plaintiffs believe is essential
`
`under the 3G cellular standard as explained in attached Exhibit 14. The 3G cellular standard is
`
`Page 15 of 34
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-20813-RNS Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2020 Page 16 of 34
`
`incorporated in the 4G LTE standard. Thus, Defendant’s Accused Instrumentalities that are
`
`compliant with the 3G and 4G LTE standards are necessarily infringing the ʼ443 patent.
`
`85.
`
`Defendant was made aware of the ʼ443 patent and its infringement thereof by
`
`correspondence from Plaintiffs on March 22, 2018, as discussed in paragraph 24.
`
`86.
`
`Defendant was made further aware of the ʼ443 patent and its infringement thereof
`
`at least as early as the date of filing of this Complaint.
`
`87.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant has and continues to directly infringe at
`
`least claim 16 of the ʼ443 patent by making, using, selling, importing, offering for sale, providing,
`
`practicing, and causing the Accused Instrumentality that infringe the patented methods.
`
`88.
`
`Since March 22, 2018, when it was first made aware of the ’443 patent, Defendant’s
`
`infringement has been, and continues to be willful.
`
`89.
`
`Upon information and belief, these Accused Instrumentality are used, marketed,
`
`provided to, and/or used by or for the Defendant’s partners, clients, customers/subscribers and end
`
`users across the country and in this District.
`
`90.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant has induced and continues to induce others
`
`to infringe at least claim 16 of the ’443 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 Defendant’s partners, clients, customers/subscribers, and end users,
`
`whose use of the Accused Instrumentality constitutes direct infringement of at least one claim of
`
`the ’443 patent.
`
`91.
`
`In particular, the Defendant’s actions that aid and abet others such as its partners,
`
`customers/subscribers, clients, and end users to infringe include advertising and distributing the
`
`Page 16 of 34
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-20813-RNS Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2020 Page 17 of 34
`
`Accused Instrumentality and providing instruction materials, training, and services regarding the
`
`Accused Instrumentality.
`
`92. Any party, including Defendant’s partners, clients, customers/subscribers, and end
`
`users, using the Accused Instrumentalities necessarily infringes the ʼ443 patent because the
`
`invention of the ʼ443 patent is required to comply with the relevant cellular standard. Defendant
`
`advertises the Accused Instrumentalities as compliant with the relevant cellular standard, which
`
`induces others to infringe the ʼ443 patent. Defendant has knowingly induced infringement since
`
`at least March 22, 2018 when Defendant was first made aware of the ʼ443 patent during extensive
`
`correspondence with Plaintiffs as discussed in paragraphs 22-24 above.
`
`93.
`
`Upon information and belief,