Case 1:20-cv-04941 Document 1 Filed 06/26/20 Page 1 of 13
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`SYCLONE IP LLC
`
`Plaintiff,
`
` v.
`
`SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
` CIVIL ACTION NO.
` JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR INFRINGEMENT OF PATENT
`
`COMES NOW, Plaintiff Syclone IP LLC (“Syclone” or Plaintiff), through the undersigned
`
`attorneys, 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 Sony Corporation of
`
`America (hereinafter “Defendant”), from infringing and profiting, in an illegal and unauthorized
`
`manner and without authorization and/or of the consent from Syclone, from U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,941,363 (the “‘363 patent”, attached hereto as Exhibit “A”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §271, and to
`
`recover damages, attorney’s fees, and costs.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff Syclone is a Texas entity with its principal place of business at 6009 W.
`
`Parker Rd., Ste. 149-1085, Plano, TX 75093.
`
`3.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant is a corporation established under the laws
`
`of the State of New York, having a principal place of business at 25 Madison Avenue, New York,
`
`NY 10010-8601. Upon information and belief, Defendant may be served with process at
`
`Corporation Service Company, 80 State Street, Albany, NY 12207-2543.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`SYCLONE IP LLC
`
`Plaintiff,
`
` v.
`
`SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
` CIVIL ACTION NO.
` JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR INFRINGEMENT OF PATENT
`
`COMES NOW, Plaintiff Syclone IP LLC (“Syclone” or Plaintiff), through the undersigned
`
`attorneys, 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 Sony Corporation of
`
`America (hereinafter “Defendant”), from infringing and profiting, in an illegal and unauthorized
`
`manner and without authorization and/or of the consent from Syclone, from U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,941,363 (the “‘363 patent”, attached hereto as Exhibit “A”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §271, and to
`
`recover damages, attorney’s fees, and costs.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff Syclone is a Texas entity with its principal place of business at 6009 W.
`
`Parker Rd., Ste. 149-1085, Plano, TX 75093.
`
`3.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant is a corporation established under the laws
`
`of the State of New York, having a principal place of business at 25 Madison Avenue, New York,
`
`NY 10010-8601. Upon information and belief, Defendant may be served with process at
`
`Corporation Service Company, 80 State Street, Albany, NY 12207-2543.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-04941 Document 1 Filed 06/26/20 Page 2 of 13
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`4.
`
`The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
`
`§§1331 and 1338(a) because the action arises under the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 1 et seq.
`
`5.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant by virtue of its systematic and
`
`continuous contacts with this jurisdiction, including having branches and employees in New York,
`
`as well as because of the injury to Syclone, and the cause of action Syclone has risen, as alleged
`
`herein.
`
`6.
`
`Defendant is subject to this Court’s specific and general personal jurisdiction
`
`pursuant to due process and/or the New York Long Arm Statute, N.Y. Civ. Pract. L. R. 302, due at
`
`least to its substantial business in this forum, including: (i) at least a portion of the infringements
`
`alleged herein; 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 New York and in this judicial district.
`
`7.
`
`Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) because
`
`Defendant is a resident of this District.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`8.
`
`On January 27, 2015, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”)
`
`duly and legally issued the ‘363 patent, entitled “Device Battery Management” after a full and fair
`
`examination. (Exhibit A).
`
`9.
`
`Syclone is presently the owner of the patent, having received all right, title and
`
`interest in and to the ‘363 patent from the previous assignee of record. Syclone possesses all rights
`
`of recovery under the ‘363 patent, including the exclusive right to recover for past infringement.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-04941 Document 1 Filed 06/26/20 Page 3 of 13
`
`10.
`
`The ‘363 patent contains five independent claims and twenty-five dependent
`
`claims. Defendant commercializes, inter alia, products that contain all the elements recited in at
`
`least one claim of the ‘363 patent.
`
`11.
`
`The invention claimed in the ‘363 patent comprises a system and method for
`
`providing battery management for a device.
`
`DEFENDANT’S PRODUCTS
`
`12.
`
`Defendant offers electronic products for individuals and businesses, such as the
`
`“Xperia XZ3” smartphone (the “Accused Instrumentality”), that performs a method for providing
`
`battery management for a device, as recited in claim 1 of the ‘363 patent.1 For example, as shown
`
`in Defendant’s website, the Accused Instrumentality includes Qnovo Adaptive charging & Battery
`
`care for providing battery management:2
`
`
`
`13.
`
`As recited in claim 1 of the ‘363 patent, the Accused Instrumentality performs the
`
`step of charging the device battery to a less than full charge using the device charger. For example,
`
`the Accused Instrumentality The accused product practices, through Battery Care, charging the
`
`device’s battery up to 90% battery level using the device charger:3
`
`
`
`
`1https://www.sony.com/electronics/support/mobile-phones-tablets-mobile-phones/xperia-xz3/specifications
`2 Id.
`
`3 http://web.archive.org/web/20190727154548/https://www.sonymobile.com/us/products/phones/xperia-xz3/battery/
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-04941 Document 1 Filed 06/26/20 Page 4 of 13
`
`
`
`14.
`
`As recited in claim 1 of the ‘363 patent, the Accused Instrumentality performs the
`
`step of determining a device battery top off charge trigger associated with the device and the device
`
`battery. For example, the Accused Instrumentality detects a user’s charge patterns and estimates
`
`when the user will disconnect the charger in order to charge the device’s battery to 90% when the
`
`device will stay connected to the charger.4
`
`15.
`
`As recited in claim 1 of the ‘363 patent, the Accused Instrumentality performs the
`
`step of maintaining the less than full charge until a top off charge is to be provided. For example,
`
`the Accused Instrumentality resumes charging when the time for disconnecting the device from
`
`the charger is close.5
`
`16.
`
`As recited in claim 1 of the ‘363 patent, the Accused Instrumentality performs the
`
`step of providing the top off charge to the device battery in response to the device battery top off
`
`4 Id.
`5 Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-04941 Document 1 Filed 06/26/20 Page 5 of 13
`
`charge trigger. For example, the Accused Instrumentality only charges the device’s battery up to
`
`100% just before the charger is disconnected.6
`
`17.
`
`The steps described in paragraphs 12-16 are covered by at least claim 1 of the ‘363
`
`patent. Thus, Defendant’s use of the Accused Instrumentality is enabled by the invention described
`
`in the ‘363 patent.
`
`18.
`
`As recited in claim 14 of the ‘363 patent, the Accused Instrumentality includes a
`
`machine readable non-transitory medium having stored therein instructions that, when executed,
`
`cause the machine to provide battery management for the device.7 For example, as shown in
`
`Defendant’s website, the Accused Instrumentality includes Qnovo Adaptive charging & Battery
`
`care for providing battery management through software stored in its 64GB internal memory:8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`19.
`
`As recited in claim 14 of the ‘363 patent, the Accused Instrumentality executes
`
`instructions for charging the device battery to a less than full charge using the device charger. For
`
`example, the Accused Instrumentality executes instructions, through Battery Care, for charging
`
`the device’s battery up to 90% battery level using the device charger:9
`
`
`
`6 Id.
`7https://www.sony.com/electronics/support/mobile-phones-tablets-mobile-phones/xperia-xz3/specifications
`8 Id.
`
`9 http://web.archive.org/web/20190727154548/https://www.sonymobile.com/us/products/phones/xperia-xz3/battery/
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-04941 Document 1 Filed 06/26/20 Page 6 of 13
`
`
`
`20.
`
`As recited in claim 14 of the ‘363 patent, the Accused Instrumentality executes
`
`instructions for determining a device battery top off charge trigger associated with the device and
`
`the device battery. For example, the Accused Instrumentality detects a user’s charge patterns and
`
`estimates when the user will disconnect the charger in order to charge the device’s battery to 90%
`
`when the device will stay connected to the charger.10
`
`21.
`
`As recited in claim 14 of the ‘363 patent, the Accused Instrumentality executes
`
`instructions for maintaining the less than full charge until a top off charge is to be provided. For
`
`example, the Accused Instrumentality resumes charging when the time for disconnecting the
`
`device from the charger is close.11
`
`22.
`
`As recited in claim 14 of the ‘363 patent, the Accused Instrumentality executes
`
`instructions for providing the top off charge to the device battery in response to the device battery
`
`10 Id.
`11 Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-04941 Document 1 Filed 06/26/20 Page 7 of 13
`
`top off charge trigger. For example, the Accused Instrumentality only charges the device’s battery
`
`up to 100% just before the charger is disconnected.12
`
`23.
`
`The steps described in paragraphs 18-22 are covered by at least claim 14 of the ‘363
`
`patent. Thus, Defendant’s use and manufacturing of the Accused Instrumentality is enabled by the
`
`invention described in the ‘363 patent.
`
`24.
`
`As recited in claim 21 of the ‘363 patent, the Accused Instrumentality comprises a
`
`device battery, device charger configured to be electrically coupled to the device, and a machine
`
`readable non-transitory medium having stored therein instructions that, when executed, cause the
`
`machine to provide battery management for the device.13 For example, as shown in Defendant’s
`
`website, the Accused Instrumentality includes Qnovo Adaptive charging & Battery care for
`
`providing battery management through software stored in its 64GB internal memory using the
`
`included charger:14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`25.
`
`As recited in claim 21 of the ‘363 patent, the Accused Instrumentality executes
`
`instructions for charging the device battery to a less than full charge using the device charger. For
`
`
`
`12 Id.
`13https://www.sony.com/electronics/support/mobile-phones-tablets-mobile-phones/xperia-xz3/specifications
`14 Id.
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-04941 Document 1 Filed 06/26/20 Page 8 of 13
`
`example, the Accused Instrumentality executes instructions, through Battery Care, for charging
`
`the device’s battery up to 90% battery level using the device charger:15
`
`
`
`26.
`
`As recited in claim 21 of the ‘363 patent, the Accused Instrumentality executes
`
`instructions for determining a device battery top off charge trigger associated with the device and
`
`the device battery. For example, the Accused Instrumentality detects a user’s charge patterns and
`
`estimates when the user will disconnect the charger in order to charge the device’s battery to 90%
`
`when the device will stay connected to the charger.16
`
`27.
`
`As recited in claim 21 of the ‘363 patent, the Accused Instrumentality executes
`
`instructions for maintaining the less than full charge until a top off charge is to be provided. For
`
`example, the Accused Instrumentality resumes charging when the time for disconnecting the
`
`device from the charger is close.17
`
`
`15 http://web.archive.org/web/20190727154548/https://www.sonymobile.com/us/products/phones/xperia-
`xz3/battery/
`16 Id.
`17 Id.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-04941 Document 1 Filed 06/26/20 Page 9 of 13
`
`28.
`
`As recited in claim 21 of the ‘363 patent, the Accused Instrumentality executes
`
`instructions for providing the top off charge to the device battery in response to the device battery
`
`top off charge trigger. For example, the Accused Instrumentality only charges the device’s battery
`
`up to 100% just before the charger is disconnected.18
`
`29.
`
`As recited in claim 21 of the ‘363 patent, the Accused Instrumentality comprises a
`
`processor coupled to the machine readable medium to execute the plurality of instructions. For
`
`example, as shown in Defendant’s website19, the Accused Instrumentality includes a Qualcomm
`
`Snapdragon 845 processor:
`
`
`
`30.
`
`The steps described in paragraphs 24-29 are covered by at least claim 21 of the ‘363
`
`patent. Thus, Defendant’s use and manufacturing of the Accused Instrumentality is enabled by the
`
`invention described in the ‘363 patent.
`
`COUNT I
`(DIRECT INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘363 PATENT)
`
`Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in
`
`31.
`
`paragraphs 1 to 30.
`
`32.
`
`In violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, Defendant is now, and has been directly infringing
`
`the ‘363 patent by making and using a product, at least during internal testing, that includes all the
`
`elements recited in claims 1, 14 and 21 of the ‘363 patent, as outlined in paragraphs 12-30 of the
`
`present complaint.
`
`
`
`18 Id.
`19 https://www.sony.com/electronics/support/mobile-phones-tablets-mobile-phones/xperia-xz3/specifications
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-04941 Document 1 Filed 06/26/20 Page 10 of 13
`
`33.
`
`Defendant has had knowledge of infringement of the ‘363 patent at least as of the
`
`service of the present complaint.
`
`34.
`
` Defendant has directly infringed and continues to directly infringe at least claims
`
`1, 14 and 21 of the ‘363 patent by using the Accused Instrumentality 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 ‘363 patent, Plaintiff has been and continues to be
`
`damaged.
`
`35.
`
`By engaging in the conduct described herein, Defendant has injured Syclone and is
`
`thus liable for infringement of the ‘363 patent, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`36.
`
`Defendant has committed these acts of infringement without license or
`
`authorization.
`
`37.
`
`As a result of Defendant’s infringement of the ‘363 patent, Syclone 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.
`
`38.
`
`Syclone will continue to suffer damages in the future unless Defendant’s infringing
`
`activities are enjoined by this Court. As such, Syclone 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.
`
`COUNT II
`(INDIRECT INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘363 PATENT)
`
`
`
`39.
`
`Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in
`
`paragraphs 1 to 38.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-04941 Document 1 Filed 06/26/20 Page 11 of 13
`
`40.
`
` In violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, Defendant is now, and has been indirectly
`
`infringing the ‘363 patent.
`
`41.
`
`Defendant has had knowledge of infringement of the ‘363 patent at least as of the
`
`service of the present complaint.
`
`42.
`
`Defendant has indirectly infringed and continues to indirectly infringe at least
`
`claims 1, 14 and 21 of the ‘363 patent by actively inducing its respective customers, users, and/or
`
`licensees to directly infringe by using the Accused Instrumentality. Defendant engaged or will
`
`have engaged in such inducement having knowledge of the ‘363 patent. Furthermore, Defendant
`
`knew or should have known that its action would induce direct infringement by others and intended
`
`that its actions would induce direct infringement by others. For example, Defendant sells, offers
`
`to sell and advertises the Accused Instrumentality through websites or digital distribution
`
`platforms that are available in New York, specifically intending that its customers use it.20
`
`Furthermore, Defendant’s customers’ use of the Accused Instrumentality is facilitated by the
`
`invention described in the ‘363 patent. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s indirect
`
`infringement by inducement of the ‘363 patent, Plaintiff has been and continues to be damaged.
`
`43.
`
`By engaging in the conduct described herein, Defendant has injured Syclone and is
`
`thus liable for infringement of the ‘363 patent, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`44.
`
`Defendant has committed these acts of infringement without license or
`
`authorization.
`
`45.
`
`As a result of Defendant’s infringement of the ‘363 patent, Syclone 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. Syclone will continue to suffer
`
`
`20 sony.com/electronics/support/mobile-phones-tablets-mobile-phones/xperia-xz3
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-04941 Document 1 Filed 06/26/20 Page 12 of 13
`
`damages in the future unless Defendant’s infringing activities are enjoined by this Court. As such,
`
`Syclone 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.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`46.
`
`Syclone demands a trial by jury of any and all causes of action.
`
`
`
`WHEREFORE, Syclone prays for the following relief:
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`a.
`
`That Defendant be adjudged to have directly infringed the ‘363 patent either
`
`literally or under the doctrine of equivalents;
`
`b.
`
`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 ‘363 patent;
`
`c.
`
`An award of damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §284 sufficient to compensate Syclone
`
`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;
`
`d.
`
`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;
`
`e.
`
`That Defendant be directed to pay enhanced damages, including Syclone’s
`
`attorneys’ fees incurred in connection with this lawsuit pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §285; and
`
`f.
`
`That Syclone have such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and
`
`proper.
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-04941 Document 1 Filed 06/26/20 Page 13 of 13
`
`Dated: June 26, 2020
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Nicholas Loaknauth
`Nicholas Loaknauth
`USDC # NL0880
`Law Office of Nicholas Loaknauth, P.C.
`1460 Broadway
`New York, NY 10036
`(212) 641-0745
`Facsimile: (718) 301-1247
`Email: nick@loaknauthlaw.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
`SYCLONE IP LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
