throbber
Case 1:20-cv-23178-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/31/2020 Page 1 of 16
`
`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
`
`

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