Case 2:21-cv-12040-DPH-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.1 Filed 09/01/21 Page 1 of 11
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`
`APTIV SERVICES US, LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`BLITZSAFE TEXAS, LLC,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. _________
` (Jury Demanded)
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF
`NONINFRINGEMENT AND INVALIDITY AND DEMAND FOR JURY
`TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-12040-DPH-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.2 Filed 09/01/21 Page 2 of 11
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Aptiv Services US, LLC (“Aptiv Services US”) seeks a declaratory
`
`judgment that it does not infringe any claim of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,489,786 (the “’786
`
`Patent”), and 8,155,342 (the “’342 Patent”), and that the ’786 and ’342 Patents are
`
`invalid. There is a live and existing controversy between Aptiv Services US and
`
`Blitzsafe Texas, LLC (“Blitzsafe”). On May 12, 2021 defendant Blitzsafe filed a
`
`patent infringement suit (Case No. 221-cv-00160) asserting the ’786 and ’342
`
`Patents in the Eastern District of Texas against Aptiv PLC—a foreign company and
`
`affiliate of Aptiv Services US. However, the Eastern District of Texas lacks personal
`
`jurisdiction over Aptiv PLC. Aptiv PLC does not engage in any of the alleged
`
`infringing conduct. Aptiv Services US seeks a declaration from this Court that it
`
`does not infringe the’786 and ’342 Patents and that the ’786 and ’342 Patents are
`
`invalid.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`
`
`Aptiv Services US is a limited liability company organized and existing
`
`under the laws of the State of Delaware and maintains its principal place of business
`
`at 5725 Innovation Drive, Troy, Michigan 48098.
`
`
`
`On information and belief, including Blitzsafe’s allegations in
`
`litigations filed in Texas, Blitzsafe is a limited liability company organized and
`
`existing under the laws of the State of Texas and maintains its principal place of
`
`business at 100 W. Houston Street, Marshall, Texas 75670. (Exhibit A).
`
`
`
`
`
`On information and belief, Blitzsafe owns the ’786 and ’342 Patents.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`Blitzsafe has aggressively asserted its patent rights. Beginning on July
`
`16, 2015 Blitzsafe undertook a campaign of alleging infringement of the ’786 and
`
`’342 Patents against original equipment manufacturer (OEM) auto manufacturers
`
`and their suppliers of automobile audio systems. Since that time, Blitzsafe has filed
`
`29 separate cases against various OEM auto manufacturer defendants including
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-12040-DPH-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.3 Filed 09/01/21 Page 3 of 11
`
`
`
`Honda, Hyundai, Nissan, Toyota, Volkswagen, BMW, Volvo, Subaru, Mercedes
`
`Benz, Mazda, Mitsubishi, General Motors, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, Aston
`
`Martin, Volvo Trucks, and Mack Trucks.
`
`
`
`On information and belief, Blitzsafe has done business in the Eastern
`
`District of Michigan. Blitzsafe’s own complaint alleges that it sells products
`
`throughout the United States, which would include Michigan. (Exhibit A at ¶ 1).
`
`
`
`On further information and belief, a number of the OEM automobile
`
`manufacturers have entered into written contracts with Blitzsafe pursuant to which
`
`those manufacturers have taken a license to the ’786 and ’342 Patents from Blitzsafe.
`
`On further information and belief, certain of these manufacturer licensees of
`
`Blitzsafe make and/or sell licensed products within the Eastern District of Michigan
`
`which are not marked with the patent numbers of the ’786 and ’342 Patents.
`
`
`
`On May 12, 2021 Blitzsafe filed suit against Aptiv PLC—the foreign
`
`affiliate of Aptiv Services US—in the United States District Court for the Eastern
`
`District of Texas (the “Texas Action.”) for alleged infringement of the ’786 and ’342
`
`Patents. (Exhibit A). Blitzsafe sued the wrong entity because Aptiv PLC does not
`
`engage in any of the alleged infringing activity. Rather, Aptiv Services US imports
`
`and sells the products in the United States that Blitzsafe has accused of infringement
`
`in the Texas Action.
`
`
`
`The Texas Action accuses Aptiv PLC of infringement of the ’786 and
`
`’342 patents. Specifically, Blitzsafe accused Aptiv PLC of “manufacturing,
`
`importing, offering to sell, selling, and or importing into the United States audio and
`
`multimedia integration systems including, but not limited to, Delphi DEA5XX
`
`Radios, Delphi DEA6XX Radios, and Delphi DEA7XX Radios” (hereinafter the
`
`“Accused Products”). (Exhibit A at ¶ 12).
`
`
`
`By filing the Texas Action seeking damages and an injunction against
`
`further sales of the Accused Products, Blitzsafe directly and/or impliedly threatened
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-12040-DPH-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.4 Filed 09/01/21 Page 4 of 11
`
`
`
`suit against all affiliates of Aptiv PLC involved in the making, using, selling,
`
`offering for sale, or importing the Accused Products in the United States.
`
`
`
`It is Aptiv Services US, not Aptiv PLC, that imports the Accused
`
`Products into the United States and sells those products to customers in the United
`
`States. It is not uncommon in patent disputes involving defendants with complex
`
`corporate structures for the patent owner to sue the wrong legal entity in a complaint
`
`alleging patent infringement. When that happens, the patent owner often either
`
`amends its complaint to name the correct legal entity or files a new lawsuit against
`
`the correct legal entity. As soon as Blitzsafe determines that Aptiv Services US
`
`imports and sells the Accused Products, Blitzsafe is likely to file suit against Aptiv
`
`Services US. Thus, there is a ripe and existing substantial controversy between
`
`Aptiv Services US and Blitzsafe.
`
` Additionally, Blitzsafe has demonstrated its intent to assert the ’786 and
`
`’342 Patents against the Accused Products imported and sold by Aptiv Services US
`
`by alleging infringement by those same Accused Products in the Texas Action.
`
`Blitzsafe’s allegations of infringement with respect to the Accused Products creates
`
`a substantial ripe and existing controversy between Aptiv Services US and Blitzsafe.
`
` Other entities previously or currently accused by Blitzsafe of infringing
`
`the ’786 and ’342 Patents include the downstream customers of Aptiv Services US.
`
`These direct or indirect customers of Aptiv Services US include at least General
`
`Motors, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, Volvo Trucks, Mack Trucks, and PACCAR.
`
` On information and belief, Blitzsafe has done business in the Eastern
`
`District of Michigan, having entered into licenses with respect to the ’786 and ’342
`
`Patents with entities headquartered in the Eastern District of Michigan. Those acts
`
`and occurrences are material to this declaratory judgment because, upon information
`
`and belief, existing licenses (a) mandate a finding of noninfringement against Aptiv
`
`Services US as to at least some of the sales of the Accused Products due to the terms
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-12040-DPH-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.5 Filed 09/01/21 Page 5 of 11
`
`
`
`of licenses granted by Blitzsafe to one or more of Aptiv Services US’s customers,
`
`and (b) would prevent Blitzsafe from recovering certain damages pursuant to 35
`
`U.S.C. § 287 even if Blitzsafe could prove infringement by any of the Accused
`
`Products. In addition, existing licenses may be material to a determination of
`
`damages, should Blitzsafe successfully demonstrate that the ’786 and ’342 Patents
`
`are valid and infringed.
`
` On information and belief, General Motors is headquartered in the
`
`Eastern District of Michigan with a place of business at 300 Renaissance Center,
`
`Detroit, MI, 48243. On further information and belief, General Motors has entered
`
`into a written contract with Blitzsafe pursuant to which General Motors has taken a
`
`license to the ’786 and ’342 Patents from Blitzsafe.
`
` On information and belief, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles is headquartered
`
`in the Eastern District of Michigan with a place of business at 1000 Chrysler Dr.,
`
`Auburn Hills, MI, 48326. On further information and belief, Fiat Chrysler
`
`Automobiles has entered into a written contract with Blitzsafe pursuant to which Fiat
`
`Chrysler has taken a license to the ’786 and ’342 Patents from Blitzsafe.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
` This action arises under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §
`
`2201 et seq., and under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of the United
`
`States Code.
`
` This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims alleged in this
`
`action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, 1338, 2201, and 2202 because this Court has
`
`exclusive jurisdiction over declaratory judgment claims arising under the patent laws
`
`of the United States pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338, 2201, and 2202.
`
` This Court can provide the declaratory relief sought in this Declaratory
`
`Judgment Complaint because an actual and substantial case or controversy exists
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-12040-DPH-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.6 Filed 09/01/21 Page 6 of 11
`
`
`
`between the parties within the scope of this Court’s jurisdiction pursuant to 28
`
`U.S.C. § 2201.
`
` An actual and substantial case or controversy exists as to the ’786 and
`
`’342 Patents at least because Aptiv Services US does not infringe and has not
`
`infringed any claims of the ’786 and ’342 Patents with respect to its activities in the
`
`United States involving the Accused Products. Blitzsafe’s allegations regarding the
`
`Accused Products in the Texas Action implicate the products supplied by Aptiv
`
`Services US in the United States. It is reasonably foreseeable that having wrongfully
`
`accused Aptiv PLC of selling the Accused Products in the United States that
`
`Blitzsafe will sue Aptiv Services US when Blitzsafe learns that it is Aptiv Services
`
`US that sells the Accused Products in the United States.
`
` Blitzsafe has purposefully availed itself of the protection of the laws of
`
`the State of Michigan by directing its actions, as set out above, toward the forum
`
`state. Moreover, Blitzsafe’s Texas Action targets products imported and sold by
`
`Aptiv Services, US, an LLC with its principal place of business in the Eastern
`
`District of Michigan. The effect of the Texas Action seeks relief that would impact
`
`Aptiv Services US within the state of Michigan because Blitzsafe seeks to
`
`permanently enjoin the making, selling, and importing of the Accused Products
`
`which would (a) impact the revenue of Aptiv Services US, (b) interfere with the
`
`customer relationships of Aptiv Services US, as well as (c) restrict the collaborative
`
`development and engineering activities between at least Aptiv Services US and Fiat
`
`Chrysler Automobiles in Auburn Hills, Michigan. Blitzsafe has further targeted its
`
`enforcement efforts and licensing efforts against businesses in Michigan, including
`
`at least General Motors and Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, customers of Aptiv Services
`
`US. Blitzsafe has done business in the Eastern District of Michigan by entering into
`
`licenses with respect to the ’786 and ’342 Patents with entities headquartered in the
`
`Eastern District of Michigan.
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-12040-DPH-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.7 Filed 09/01/21 Page 7 of 11
`
`
`
` Blitzsafe’s actions further target Aptiv Services US in the Eastern
`
`District of Michigan because it is possible that Aptiv Services US could be deemed
`
`to be in privity with Aptiv PLC for purposes of filing a petition for inter partes review
`
`of the ‘786 and/or ‘342 Patents. 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) creates a one-year time bar to
`
`file a petition for Inter Partes Review with respect to any party in privity with a party
`
`against whom a complaint is filed for patent infringement. Blitzsafe’s action
`
`targeting the Accused Products in the Texas Action thus creates uncertainty as to
`
`whether Aptiv Services US could be time barred if it fails to file a petition for inter
`
`partes review within one year of the service of the complaint in the Texas Action.
`
`The uncertainty created by Blitzsafe’s conduct puts Aptiv Services US in the
`
`uncomfortable position of having to file a petition for Inter Partes Review within a
`
`year for fear that it could be deemed to be in privity with Aptiv PLC and be barred
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) if it does not file such a petition. Thus, the Texas Action
`
`may impact the legal rights of Aptiv Services US and imposes the costs of a legal
`
`investigation concerning those rights on Aptiv Services US.
`
` As a result of the above facts, Blitzsafe has established sufficient
`
`minimum contacts with the Eastern District of Michigan such that Blitzsafe is
`
`subject to specific personal jurisdiction in this action. Blitzsafe’s acts as set forth
`
`above fall within a number of subsections of Michigan’s long arm statute. See MCL
`
`600.715. Further, the exercise of personal jurisdiction based on these repeated and
`
`pertinent contacts does not offend traditional notions of fairness and substantial
`
`justice.
`
` Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400,
`
`including because, under Sixth and Federal Circuit law, venue in declaratory
`
`judgment actions for noninfringement and invalidity of patents is determined under
`
`the general venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-12040-DPH-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.8 Filed 09/01/21 Page 8 of 11
`
`
`
` Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), venue is proper in any judicial district
`
`where a defendant resides. An entity with the capacity to sue and be sued, such as
`
`Blitzsafe, is deemed to reside in any judicial district in which such defendant is
`
`subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to the civil action in question
`
`under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c).
`
` As discussed above, Blitzsafe is subject to personal jurisdiction with
`
`respect to this action in the Eastern District of Michigan, and thus, at least for the
`
`purposes of this action, Blitzsafe resides in the Eastern District of Michigan and
`
`venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
`
`FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`
`(Declaratory Judgment That Aptiv Services US Does Not Infringe The ’786
`
`Patent)
`
` Aptiv Services US repeats and realleges each and every allegation
`
`contained in paragraphs 1 through 25 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
`
`
`
`In view of the facts and allegations set forth above, there is an actual,
`
`justiciable, substantial, and immediate controversy between Aptiv Services US and
`
`Blitzsafe regarding infringement of the ’786 Patent with respect to the claims of the
`
`’786 Patent that Blitzsafe has alleged or currently alleges are infringed by the
`
`Accused Products.
`
` Aptiv Services US does not infringe any valid claim of the ’786 Patent
`
`and seeks such a declaration to resolve the actual dispute between the parties.
`
` Aptiv Services US is entitled to a declaratory judgment that it does not
`
`infringe, and has not infringed, the ’786 Patent.
`
`SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`
`(Declaratory Judgment That Aptiv Services US Does Not Infringe The ’342
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-12040-DPH-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.9 Filed 09/01/21 Page 9 of 11
`
`
`
`Patent)
`
` Aptiv Services US repeats and realleges each and every allegation
`
`contained in paragraphs 1 through 29 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
`
`
`
`In view of the facts and allegations set forth above, there is an actual,
`
`justiciable, substantial, and immediate controversy between Aptiv Services US and
`
`Blitzsafe regarding infringement of the ’342 Patent with respect to the claims of the
`
`’342 Patent that Blitzsafe has alleged or currently alleges are infringed by the
`
`Accused Products.
`
` Aptiv Services US does not infringe any valid claim of the ’342 Patent
`
`and seeks such a declaration to resolve the actual dispute between the parties.
`
` Aptiv Services US is entitled to a declaratory judgment that it does not
`
`infringe, and has not infringed, the ’342 Patent.
`
`THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`
`(Declaratory Judgment That The Claims Of The ’786 Patent Are Invalid)
`
` Aptiv Services US repeats and realleges each and every allegation
`
`contained in paragraphs 1 through 33 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
`
`
`
`In view of the facts and allegations set forth above, there is an actual,
`
`justiciable, substantial, and immediate controversy between Aptiv Services US, on
`
`the one hand, and Blitzsafe, on the other, regarding whether any claim of the ’786
`
`Patent asserted by Blitzsafe against the Accused Products is valid.
`
` The claims of the ’786 Patent asserted by Blitzsafe against the Accused
`
`Products are invalid and Aptiv Services US thus seeks such a declaration to resolve
`
`the actual dispute between the parties.
`
` Aptiv Services US is entitled to a declaratory judgment that the claims
`
`of the ’786 Patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and/or 112.
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-12040-DPH-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.10 Filed 09/01/21 Page 10 of 11
`
`
`
`FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`
`(Declaratory Judgment That The Claims Of The ’342 Patent Are Invalid)
`
` Aptiv Services US repeats and realleges each and every allegation
`
`contained in paragraphs 1 through 37 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
`
`
`
`In view of the facts and allegations set forth above, there is an actual,
`
`justiciable, substantial, and immediate controversy between Aptiv Services US, on
`
`the one hand, and Blitzsafe, on the other, regarding whether any claim of the ’342
`
`Patent asserted by Blitzsafe against the Accused Products is valid.
`
` The claims of the ’342 Patent asserted by Blitzsafe against the Accused
`
`Products are invalid and Aptiv Services US thus seeks such a declaration to resolve
`
`the actual dispute between the parties.
`
` Aptiv Services US is entitled to a declaratory judgment that the claims
`
`of the ’342 Patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and/or 112.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Aptiv Services US hereby demands a jury for all issues so triable.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`Aptiv Services US respectfully requests the following relief:
`
`A.
`
`That the Court enter judgment declaring that Aptiv Services US has not
`
`infringed and does not infringe any valid claim of the ’786 and ’342 Patents;
`
`B.
`
`That the Court enter a judgment declaring that the claims of the ’786 and ’342
`
`Patents are invalid;
`
`C.
`
`That the Court declare that this case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and
`
`award Aptiv Services US its attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses incurred in
`
`this action;
`
`D.
`
`That the Court award Aptiv Services US any and all other relief to which it
`
`may show itself to be entitled; and
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-12040-DPH-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.11 Filed 09/01/21 Page 11 of 11
`
`
`
`E.
`
`That the Court award Aptiv Services US any other relief as the Court may
`
`deem just, equitable, and proper.
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC
`
`By: /s/ Andrew M. Grove
`Andrew M. Grove (P48868)
`Attorney for Plaintiff
`450 West Fourth Street
`Royal Oak, Michigan 48067-2557
`Phone: (248) 645-1483
`Fax: (248) 723-1568
`Email: jg@h2law.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF APTIV
`SERVICES US, LLC
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`David G. Wille
`Jeff D. Baxter
`Mark H. Johnson
`BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
`2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 900
`Dallas, TX 75201
`Telephone: 214-953-6500
`Facsimile: 214-953-6503
`
`Dated: September 1, 2021
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`