`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
`
`
`
`Civil Action No.:
`
`
`TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED
`
`MOUNTECH IP LLC,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
` v.
`
`TRACFONE WIRELESS, INC.,
`
` Defendant.
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR INFRINGEMENT OF PATENT
`
`Now comes Plaintiff, Mountech IP LLC (“Plaintiff” or “Mountech”), by and through
`
`undersigned counsel, and respectfully alleges, states, and prays as follows:
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This is an action for patent infringement under the Patent Laws of the United States,
`
`Title 35 United States Code (“U.S.C.”), to prevent and enjoin Defendant TracFone Wireless, Inc.
`
`(hereinafter “Defendant”), from infringing and profiting, in an illegal and unauthorized manner
`
`and without authorization and/or consent from Plaintiff, U.S. Patent No. 7,991,784 (the “‘784
`
`Patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 8,311,805 (the “‘805 Patent,” and together with the ‘784 Patent, the
`
`“Patents-in-Suit”), which are attached respectively as Exhibits A and B and incorporated herein
`
`by reference, and pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §271, and to recover damages, attorney’s fees, and costs.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff is a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business at
`
`6001 W. Parmer Lane, Suite 370-1079, Austin, Texas 78727-3908.
`
`3.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant is a corporation incorporated in and under
`
`the laws of Delaware, having a principal place of business at 9700 NW 112th Avenue, Miami,
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-23178-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/31/2020 Page 2 of 16
`
`Florida 33178. Upon information and belief, Defendant may be served with process c/o Corporate
`
`Creations Network, Inc., 801 US Highway 1, North Palm Beach, Florida 33408.
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiff is further informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendant
`
`is in the business of designing and/or manufacturing smartphones – that is, mobile telephones
`
`capable of performing many functions of a computer and having a touchscreen interface, internet
`
`access, and an operating system capable of running downloaded applications – and offering the
`
`same for sale to consumers under TracFone® and other brands, among other things. Defendant
`
`derives a portion of its revenue from sales and distribution via electronic transactions conducted
`
`on and using at
`
`least, but not
`
`limited
`
`to,
`
`its
`
`internet website
`
`located at
`
`www.shop.tracfone.com/shop/en/tracfonestore, and its incorporated and/or related systems
`
`(individually and collectively, the “Defendant Website”). Plaintiff is informed and believes, and
`
`on that basis alleges, that, at all times relevant hereto, Defendant has done and continues to do
`
`business in this judicial district, including, but not limited to, providing products/services to
`
`customers located in this judicial district by way of the Defendant Website.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`5.
`
`This is an action for patent infringement in violation of the Patent Act of the United
`
`States, 35 U.S.C. §§1 et seq.
`
`6.
`
`The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
`
`§§1331 and 1338(a).
`
`7.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant by virtue of its systematic and
`
`continuous contacts with this jurisdiction and its residence in this District, as well as because the
`
`injury to Plaintiff and the cause of action alleged by Plaintiff arose in this District, as alleged
`
`herein.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-23178-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/31/2020 Page 3 of 16
`
`8.
`
`Defendant is subject to this Court’s specific and general personal jurisdiction
`
`pursuant to its substantial business in this forum, including: (i) committing at least a portion of the
`
`infringements alleged herein in this judicial District; and (ii) regularly doing or soliciting business,
`
`engaging in other persistent courses of conduct, and/or deriving substantial revenue from goods
`
`and services provided to individuals in this forum state and in this judicial District.
`
`9.
`
`Venue is proper in this judicial District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1400(b), because
`
`Defendant maintains its principal place of business in this District and at least some of the
`
`infringing conduct occurred in this District.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`10.
`
`On August 2, 2011, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”)
`
`duly and legally issued the ‘784 Patent, entitled “Automatic Dynamic Contextual Data Entry
`
`Completion System,” after a full and fair examination. The ‘784 Patent is attached hereto as
`
`Exhibit A and incorporated herein as if fully rewritten.
`
`11.
`
`Plaintiff is the owner of the ‘784 Patent, having received all right, title and interest
`
`in and to the ‘784 Patent from the previous assignee of record. Plaintiff possesses all rights of
`
`recovery under the ‘784 Patent, including the exclusive right to recover for past infringement.
`
`12.
`
`To the extent required, Plaintiff has complied with all marking requirements under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 287 with respect to the ‘784 Patent.
`
`13.
`
`Claim 1 of the ‘784 Patent recites a method – performed in a character entry system,
`
`so that incomplete character strings input by a user interacting with the character entry system, that
`
`are part of a series of input character strings which establish a context for the incomplete input
`
`character string, can be completed by the selection of a presented character string using an input
`
`device connected to the character entry system – comprising computing contextual associations
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-23178-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/31/2020 Page 4 of 16
`
`between multiple character strings based upon occurrence of character strings relative to each other
`
`in documents present in the character entry system, wherein the computing contextual associations
`
`comprises: (i) identifying pertinent documents present in the character entry system; (ii) creating
`
`a list of character strings contained within documents in the character entry system; and (iii)
`
`creating an interrelationship between distinct character strings in the list using their occurrence in
`
`the documents of the character entry system; in response to the user inputting a specified threshold
`
`of individual characters using the input device, identifying at least one selectable character string
`
`from among the character strings used in creating the computed contextual associations that can
`
`complete the incomplete input character string in context; providing the identified at least one
`
`selectable character string to a user in a manner suitable for selection by the user using the input
`
`device; and receiving, in the system, the user's selection and completing the incomplete input
`
`character string based upon the selection. See Ex. A, at Col. 18: 14 - 45.
`
`14.
`
`As identified in the ‘784 Patent, prior art methods to provide automated word
`
`completion within incomplete character strings input by a digital device user had technological
`
`faults and did not provide for a method that is automatic, dynamic, and context-based. See Ex. A
`
`at Col. 1 & 2.
`
`15.
`
`Based on the foregoing assertions, Claim 1 of the ‘784 Patent provides non-abstract
`
`ideas, unconventional inventive concepts, and is a practical application of the invention as
`
`described in the specifications.
`
`16.
`
`In the alternative and at the very least, whether Claim 1 of the ‘784 Patent provides
`
`a non-abstract idea, unconventional inventive concepts, or a practical application thereof as
`
`described in the specification is a genuine issue of material fact that must survive the pleading
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-23178-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/31/2020 Page 5 of 16
`
`stage. See Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc., 882 F.3d 1121, 1128 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2018) (reversing grant of motion to dismiss).
`
`17.
`
`Defendant commercializes, inter alia, methods that perform all the steps recited in
`
`at least one claim of the ‘784 Patent. More particularly, Defendant commercializes, inter alia,
`
`methods that perform all the steps recited in Claim 1 of the ‘784 Patent. Specifically, Defendant
`
`makes, uses, sells, offers for sale, or imports a method that encompasses that covered by Claim 1
`
`of the ‘784 Patent.
`
`18.
`
`On November 13, 2012, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”)
`
`duly and legally issued the ‘805 Patent, entitled “Automatic Dynamic Contextual Data Entry
`
`Completion System,” after a full and fair examination. The ‘805 Patent is attached hereto as
`
`Exhibit B and incorporated herein as if fully rewritten.
`
`19.
`
`Plaintiff is the owner of the ‘805 Patent, having received all right, title and interest
`
`in and to the ‘805 Patent from the previous assignee of record. Plaintiff possesses all rights of
`
`recovery under the ‘805 Patent, including the exclusive right to recover for past infringement.
`
`20.
`
`To the extent required, Plaintiff has complied with all marking requirements under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 287 with respect to the ‘805 Patent.
`
`21.
`
`The Abstract of the ‘805 Patent teaches a method, performed in a character entry
`
`system, for interrelating character strings so that an incomplete input character string can be
`
`completed by selection of a presented character string involving computing relationship scores for
`
`individual character strings in the system from documents present in the character entry system, in
`
`response to inputting a string of individual characters that exceeds a specific threshold, identifying
`
`at least one selectable character string from among contextual associations that can complete the
`
`input character string in context, based upon an overall ranking score computed as a function of at
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-23178-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/31/2020 Page 6 of 16
`
`least two other scores, and providing the identified at least one selectable character string to a user
`
`for selection. See Ex. B at Abstract.
`
`22.
`
`As identified in the ‘805 Patent, prior art methods to provide automated word
`
`completion within incomplete character strings input by a digital device user had technological
`
`faults and did not provide for a method that is automatic, dynamic, and context-based. See Ex. B
`
`at Col. 1 & 2.
`
`23.
`
`Claim 1 of the ‘805 Patent recites a method, performed in a character entry system,
`
`for interrelating character strings so that an incomplete input character string can be completed by
`
`selection of a presented character string, the method comprising: computing relationship scores
`
`for individual character strings in the system from documents stored in memory of the character
`
`entry system, the relationship scores consisting of a function consisting of co-occurrence scores
`
`between pairs of distinct character strings stored in a single matrix created from the character
`
`strings in the stored documents; in response to inputting of a string of individual characters that
`
`exceeds a specified threshold, identifying at least one selectable character string from among
`
`contextual associations that can complete the input character string in context based upon an
`
`overall ranking score computed as a function of a relationship score and at least one other score;
`
`and providing the identified at least one selectable character string to a user for selection. See Ex.
`
`B at Col. 19: 24-43.
`
`24.
`
`The method of Claim 2 of the ‘805 Patent recites the method of Claim 1, wherein
`
`each relationship score represents the contextual association between an individual character string
`
`and another character string based upon co-occurrence of character strings relative to each other.
`
`See Ex. B at Col. 19: 44-47.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-23178-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/31/2020 Page 7 of 16
`
`25.
`
`Based on the foregoing assertions, Claims 1 and 2 of the ‘805 Patent provide non-
`
`abstract ideas, unconventional inventive concepts, and are practical applications of the invention
`
`as described in the specifications.
`
`26.
`
`In the alternative and at the very least, whether Claims 1 and 2 of the ‘805 Patent
`
`provide a non-abstract idea, unconventional inventive concepts, or practical applications thereof
`
`as described in the specification is a genuine issue of material fact that must survive the pleading
`
`stage. See Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc., 882 F.3d 1121, 1128 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2018) (reversing grant of motion to dismiss).
`
`27.
`
`Defendant commercializes, inter alia, methods that perform all the steps recited in
`
`at least one claim of the ‘805 Patent. More particularly, Defendant commercializes, inter alia,
`
`methods that perform all the steps recited in Claims 1 and 2 of the ‘805 Patent. Specifically,
`
`Defendant makes, uses, sells, offers for sale, or imports a method that encompasses that covered
`
`by Claims 1 and 2 of the ‘805 Patent.
`
`DEFENDANT’S PRODUCT(S)
`
`28.
`
`Defendant offers products, such as the TCL A1 (A501DL) (the “Accused
`
`Product”), that practice a method, performed in a character entry system (e.g., the predictive text
`
`system of the Accused Product), so that incomplete input character strings input by a user
`
`interacting with the character entry system, which are part of a series of input character strings
`
`which establish a context for the incomplete input character string (e.g., previous appearance of
`
`charter strings in adjacent fashion), can be completed by a selection of a presented character string
`
`(e.g., selection of suggested selectable words) using an input device (e.g., the touchscreen of the
`
`Accused Product) connected to the character entry system.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-23178-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/31/2020 Page 8 of 16
`
`29.
`
`A non-limiting and exemplary claim chart comparing the Accused Product to Claim
`
`1 of the ‘784 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated herein as if fully rewritten.
`
`30.
`
`The Accused Product practices computing contextual associations between
`
`multiple character strings based upon occurrence of character strings relative to each other (e.g.,
`
`number of adjacent co-occurrence of pairs of various character strings) in documents (e.g., notes,
`
`message, email, etc.) present in the character entry system. See Ex. C.
`
`31.
`
`In the Accused Product, as in Claim 1 of the ‘784 Patent, various character strings
`
`are associated with each other based on their mutual co-occurrence with adjacency. For instance,
`
`when two paragraphs, hereinafter referred to as the “Combined Essay,” containing the phrases
`
`“James maxwell”, “James Maxima”, and "James Michener" are typed, and therefore input into the
`
`predictive text system of the Accused Product, the predictive text system of the Accused Product,
`
`based on the frequency of mutual co-occurrence of the string “James” with “maxwell”, “Maxima”,
`
`and “Michener,” in the given order, starts providing selectable character strings when “James m”
`
`is typed. The two selectable character strings, among others, are “maxwell” and “Maxima.” See
`
`Ex. C. For the reliability of the demonstration, the Combined Essay is typed five times. The
`
`frequency of occurrence of “James Maxwell”, “James “Maxima”, and “James Michener” is 105,
`
`50, and 20 respectively calculated over the Combined Essay repeated for five times. See Ex. C.
`
`32.
`
`As shown in Exhibit C, since pairs of strings, for example “James” and “maxwell,”
`
`adjacently appeared the most number of times (105) in comparison to the other pairs of strings
`
`with “James” as one of the strings, “maxwell” appears as a selectable option followed by
`
`“Maxima”, since the number of adjunct appearances of “James” with “Maxima” is 50. See Ex. C.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-23178-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/31/2020 Page 9 of 16
`
`33.
`
`As in Claim 1 of the ‘784 Patent, the Accused Product practices identifying
`
`pertinent documents (e.g., stored notes or notes being composed) present in the character entry
`
`system (e.g., the predictive text system of the Accused Product). See Ex. C.
`
`34.
`
`As in Claim 1 of the ‘784 Patent, the Accused Product practices creating a list of
`
`character strings contained within documents in the character entry system (e.g., the predictive text
`
`system of the Accused Product) and creating an interrelationship between distinct character strings
`
`(e.g., frequency of adjacent appearance of pairs of character strings) in the list using their
`
`occurrence in the documents of the character entry system (e.g., the predictive text system of the
`
`Accused Product). As shown in Exhibit C, various character strings are associated with each other
`
`based on their mutual co-occurrence with adjacency. For instance, when two paragraphs,
`
`hereinafter referred to as the “Combined Essay” and containing the phrases “James maxwell”,
`
`“James Maxima”, and "James Michener" are typed, and therefore input to the predictive text
`
`system of the Accused Product, the predictive text system of the Accused Product, based on the
`
`frequency of mutual co-occurrence of the string “James” with “maxwell”, “Maxima”, and
`
`“Michener”, in the given order, start providing selectable character strings when “James m” is
`
`typed. The two selectable character strings, among others, are “maxwell” and “Maxima.” For the
`
`reliability of the demonstration, the Combined Essay is typed five times. See Ex. C. The frequency
`
`of occurrence of “James Maxwell”, “James “Maxima”, and “James Michener” is 105, 50, and 20
`
`respectively calculated over the Combined Essay repeated for five times. For calculating mutual
`
`co-occurrences of pairs of character strings, the Accused Product must create a list of character
`
`strings contained in the documents (i.e., previously stored notes or notes being composed). See
`
`Ex. C.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-23178-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/31/2020 Page 10 of 16
`
`35.
`
`The Accused Product practices, in response to the user inputting a specific threshold
`
`(e.g., inputting a starting character of a word followed by the corresponding preceding word) of
`
`individual characters using the input device (e.g., the touchscreen of the Accused Product),
`
`identifying at least one selectable character string (e.g., predicting selectable words for user
`
`selection) from among the character strings used in creating the computed contextual associations
`
`that can complete the incomplete input character string in context. See Ex. C. Since pairs of strings,
`
`for example “James” and “maxwell,” adjacently appeared for the most number of times (105) in
`
`comparison to the other pairs of strings with “James” as one of the strings, “maxwell” appears as
`
`a selectable option followed by “Maxima” – since the number of adjacent appearances of “James”
`
`with “Maxima” is 50 and is greater than the adjacent appearance of “James” with “Michener,”
`
`which stands at 20. See Ex. C. Exhibit C provides a Matrix depicting association of character string
`
`“James”, with the string “maxwell”, “Maxima”, and “Michener.”
`
`36.
`
`The Accused Product practices providing the identified at least one selectable
`
`character string (e.g., suggesting words for user selection) to a user in a manner suitable for
`
`selection by the user using the input device (e.g., the touchscreen of the Accused Product). As
`
`shown in Exhibit C, since pairs of strings, for example “James” and “maxwell,” adjacently appear
`
`for the most number of times (105) in comparison to the other pairs of strings with “James” as one
`
`of the strings, “maxwell” appears as a selectable option followed by “Maxima”, since the number
`
`of adjacent appearances of “James” with “Maxima” is 50 and is greater than the adjacent
`
`appearance of “James” with “Michener,” which stands at 20. Shown in Exhibit C is a Matrix
`
`depicting association of character string “James” with character strings “maxwell”, “Maxima”,
`
`and “Michener.” See Ex. C.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-23178-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/31/2020 Page 11 of 16
`
`37.
`
`The Accused Product practices receiving the user's selection (e.g., selecting a
`
`suggested word by user) in the system and completing the incomplete input character string based
`
`upon the selection. See Ex. C.
`
`38.
`
`The elements described in the preceding paragraphs are covered by at least Claim
`
`1 of the ‘784 Patent. Thus, Defendant’s use of the Accused Product is enabled by the methods
`
`described in the ‘784 Patent.
`
`39.
`
`A non-limiting and exemplary claim chart comparing the Accused Product to
`
`Claims 1 and 2 of the ‘805 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit D and incorporated herein as if fully
`
`rewritten.
`
`40.
`
`The Accused Product practices a method, performed in a character entry system
`
`(e.g., the predictive text system of the Accused Product), for interrelating character strings so that
`
`an incomplete input character string can be completed by selection of a presented character string
`
`(e.g., selection of suggested selectable words). See Ex. D.
`
`41.
`
`As in Claim 1 of the ‘805 Patent, the Accused Product practices computing
`
`relationship scores for individual character strings in the system from documents (e.g., notes, e-
`
`mail, etc.) stored in memory (e.g., memory of the Accused Product) of the character entry system
`
`(e.g., predictive text system of the Accused Product), the relationship scores consisting of a
`
`function consisting of co-occurrence scores between pairs of distinct character strings stored in a
`
`single matrix created from the character strings in the stored documents. As shown in Exhibit D,
`
`various character strings are associated with each other based on their mutual co-occurrence with
`
`adjacency. For instance, when two paragraphs, hereinafter referred to as the “Combined Essay”
`
`and containing the phrase “James maxwell”, “James Maxima”, and "James Michener" are typed,
`
`and therefore input to the predictive text system of the Accused Product, the predictive text system
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-23178-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/31/2020 Page 12 of 16
`
`of the Accused Product, based on the frequency of mutual co-occurrence of the string “James”
`
`with “maxwell”, “Maxima”, and “Michener”, in the given order, starts providing selectable
`
`character strings when “James m” is typed. The two selectable character strings, among others, are
`
`“maxwell” and “Maxima.” For the reliability of the demonstration, the Combined Essay is typed
`
`five times. See Ex. D. The frequency of occurrence of “James Maxwell”, “James “Maxima”, and
`
`“James Michener” is 105, 50, and 20 respectively calculated over the Combined Essay repeated
`
`for five times. Since pairs of strings, for example “James” and “maxwell,” adjacently appeared for
`
`the most number of times (105) in comparison to the other pairs of strings with “James” as one of
`
`the strings, “maxwell” appears as a selectable option followed by “Maxima”, since the number of
`
`adjunct appearances of “James” with “Maxima” is 50. See Ex. D. Shown in Exhibit D is a Matrix
`
`depicting association of character string “James” with character strings “maxwell”, “Maxima”,
`
`and “Michener.”
`
`42.
`
`As in Claim 1 of the ‘805 Patent, the Accused Product practices a method, in
`
`response to inputting of a string of individual characters that exceeds a specified threshold (e.g.,
`
`inputting a starting character of a word), of identifying at least one selectable character string (e.g.,
`
`predicting selectable words for user selection) from among contextual associations that can
`
`complete the input character string in context based upon an overall ranking score computed as a
`
`function of a relationship score and at least one other score. As shown in Exhibit D, since pairs of
`
`strings, for example “James” and “maxwell,” adjacently appeared for the most number of times
`
`(105) in comparison to the other pairs of strings with “James” as one of the strings, “maxwell”
`
`appears as a selectable option followed by “Maxima” – since the number of adjacent appearances
`
`of “James” with “Maxima” is 50 and is greater than the adjacent appearance of “James” with
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-23178-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/31/2020 Page 13 of 16
`
`“Michener,” which stands at 20. See Ex. D. Shown in Exhibit D is a Matrix depicting association
`
`of character string “James” with character strings “maxwell”, “Maxima”, and “Michener.”
`
`43.
`
`As in Claim 1 of the ‘805 Patent, the Accused Product practices providing the
`
`identified at least one selectable character string (e.g., suggesting words for user selection) to a
`
`user for selection (e.g., user can select a desired word). As shown in Exhibit D, since pairs of
`
`strings, for example “James” and “maxwell,” adjacently appeared for the most number of times,
`
`105 to be precise, in comparison to the other pairs of strings with “James” as one of the strings,
`
`“maxwell” appears as a selectable option followed by “Maxima”, since the number of adjacent
`
`appearances of “James” with “Maxima” is 50 and which is greater than the adjacent appearance
`
`of “James” with “Michener” which stands at 20. Shown in Exhibit D is a Matrix depicting
`
`association of character string “James” with character strings “maxwell”, “Maxima”, and
`
`“Michener.” See Ex. D.
`
`44.
`
`As in Claim 2 of the ‘805 Patent, the Accused Product practices a method such that
`
`each relationship score represents the contextual association between an individual character string
`
`and another character string based upon co-occurrence of character strings relative to each other.
`
`As shown in Exhibit D, since pairs of strings, for example, “James” and “maxwell” has adjacently
`
`appeared for the most number of times, 105 to be precise, in comparison to the other pairs of strings
`
`with “James” as one of the strings, “maxwell” appears as a selectable option followed by
`
`“Maxima”, since the number of adjacent appearances of “James” with “Maxima” is 50 and which
`
`is greater than the adjacent appearance of “James” with “Michener” which stands at 20. Shown in
`
`Exhibit D is a Matrix depicting association of character string “James” with character strings
`
`“maxwell”, “Maxima”, and “Michener.” See Ex. D.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-23178-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/31/2020 Page 14 of 16
`
`45.
`
`The elements described in the preceding paragraphs are covered by at least Claims
`
`1 and 2 of the ‘805 Patent. Thus, Defendant’s use of the Accused Product is enabled by the methods
`
`described in the ‘805 Patent.
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT
`
`46.
`
`Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all of the allegations set forth in
`
`the preceding paragraphs
`
`47.
`
` In violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, Defendant is now, and has been directly infringing
`
`the ‘784 Patent and ‘805 Patent.
`
`48.
`
`Defendant has had knowledge of infringement of the Patents-in-Suit at least as of
`
`the service of the present Complaint.
`
`49.
`
` Defendant has directly infringed and continues to directly infringe at least one
`
`claim of the Patents-in-Suit by using, at least through internal testing or otherwise, the Accused
`
`Product without authority in the United States, and will continue to do so unless enjoined by this
`
`Court. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s direct infringement of the Patents-in-Suit,
`
`Plaintiff has been and continues to be damaged.
`
`50.
`
`Defendant has induced others to infringe the Patents-in-Suit, by encouraging
`
`infringement, knowing that the acts Defendant induced constituted patent infringement, and its
`
`encouraging acts actually resulted in direct patent infringement.
`
`51.
`
`By engaging in the conduct described herein, Defendant has injured Plaintiff and is
`
`thus liable for infringement of the ‘784 Patent and ‘805 Patent, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`52.
`
`Defendant has committed these acts of infringement without license or
`
`authorization.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-23178-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/31/2020 Page 15 of 16
`
`53.
`
`As a result of Defendant’s infringement of the Patents-in-Suit, Plaintiff has suffered
`
`monetary damages and is entitled to a monetary judgment in an amount adequate to compensate
`
`for Defendant’s past infringement, together with interests and costs.
`
`54.
`
`Plaintiff will continue to suffer damages in the future unless Defendant’s infringing
`
`activities are enjoined by this Court. As such, Plaintiff is entitled to compensation for any
`
`continuing and/or future infringement up until the date that Defendant is finally and permanently
`
`enjoined from further infringement.
`
`55.
`
`Plaintiff reserves the right to modify its infringement theories as discovery
`
`progresses in this case; it shall not be estopped for infringement contention or claim construction
`
`purposes by the claim charts that it provides with this Complaint. The claim charts depicted in
`
`Exhibits C and D are intended to satisfy the notice requirements of Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal
`
`Rule of Civil Procedure and do not represent Plaintiff’s preliminary or final infringement
`
`contentions or preliminary or final claim construction positions.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`56.
`
`Plaintiff demands a trial by jury of any and all causes of action.
`
`
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the following relief:
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`a. That Defendant be adjudged to have directly infringed the ‘784 Patent and ‘805 Patent,
`
`either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents;
`
`b. An accounting of all infringing sales and damages including, but not limited to, those
`
`sales and damages not presented at trial;
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-23178-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/31/2020 Page 16 of 16
`
`c. That Defendant, its officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, affiliates,
`
`divisions, branches, parents, and those persons in active concert or participation with any of them,
`
`be permanently restrained and enjoined from directly infringing the ‘784 Patent and ‘805 Patent;
`
`d. An award of damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §284, sufficient to compensate Plaintiff
`
`for the Defendant’s past infringement and any continuing or future infringement up until the date
`
`that Defendant is finally and permanently enjoined from further infringement, including
`
`compensatory damages;
`
`e. An assessment of pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and costs against
`
`Defendant, together with an award of such interest and costs, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. §284;
`
`f. That Defendant be directed to pay enhanced damages, including Plaintiff’s attorneys’
`
`fees incurred in connection with this lawsuit pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §285; and
`
`g. That Plaintiff be granted such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and
`
`proper.
`
`Dated: July 31, 2020
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SAND, SEBOLT & WERNOW CO., LPA
`
`/s/ Howard L. Wernow
`Howard L. Wernow B.C.S.
`Florida Bar No. 107560
`Aegis Tower – Suite 1100
` 4940 Munson Street NW
`Canton, OH 44718
`Phone: 330-244-1174
`Fax: 330-244-1173
`Email: howard.wernow@sswip.com
`
`Board Certified in Intellectual Property
`Law By the Florida Bar
`
`ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF
`
`16
`
`