Case 1:21-cv-00718 Document 1 Filed 01/26/21 Page 1 of 25
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`NETWORK APPS, LLC, a Washington limited
`liability company; KYLE SCHEI, an individual;
`and JOHN WANTZ, an individual,
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`
`
`-against-
`
`AT&T INC., a Delaware corporation; AT&T
`CORP., a New York corporation; AT&T
`MOBILITY LLC, a Delaware limited liability
`company; and AT&T SERVICES, INC., a
`Delaware corporation,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 21-cv-718
`COMPLAINT FOR:
`BREACH OF CONTRACT, PATENT
`INFRINGEMENT, AND
`CORRECTION OF INVENTORSHIP
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`Plaintiffs Network Apps, LLC (“Network Apps”), Kyle Schei, and John Wantz, for their
`
`Complaint against Defendants AT&T Inc., AT&T Corp., AT&T Mobility LLC and AT&T
`
`Services, Inc. (all collectively referred to as “Defendants” or “AT&T”), allege as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`Nowadays, we think nothing of the fact that our smart phones ring, and we can
`
`answer the call on our iPad or Apple Watch. But if we paused to reflect, we would conclude that
`
`the technology is astonishing. Think of it! Your cell phone rings at home, and you can answer
`
`the same call on your smartwatch, while jogging. And you can even make calls from that same
`
`watch or phone, and those calls appear to come from the same phone number. In fact, all of your
`
`devices appear to have a common number, no matter how far apart your devices happen to be. Just
`
`a few years ago, tablets and smartwatches were new technology. When they first appeared on the
`
`market, they did not work in sync. Each device had its own SIM card and its own number. If you
`
`wanted to receive calls on your smartwatch, you would need to connect your smartwatch to a cell
`
`phone within close proximity or teach someone a different phone number to call. Someone had to
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00718 Document 1 Filed 01/26/21 Page 2 of 25
`
`
`
`develop the system necessary to handle phone calls so that the same call would reach each device.
`
`With respect to AT&T’s services, that “someone” was Plaintiffs Kyle Schei, John Wantz, and their
`
`company Mya Number (now Network Apps).
`
`2.
`
`This is not a case where Plaintiffs invented some technology that was then locked
`
`away, moldering in a drawer, and AT&T “somehow” found that technology and stole it. No. Here,
`
`the parties had a relationship. AT&T knew of Plaintiffs’ expertise and existing product platform.
`
`AT&T sought out Plaintiffs to solve this very problem – how do we sync up a customer’s smart
`
`devices so that they respond to a phone call placed to a single phone number? AT&T entered into
`
`nondisclosure, development and licensing agreements with Mya Number. AT&T was so eager to
`
`be first to market with this new, “twinning” technology that AT&T agreed that Mya Number would
`
`own all the intellectual property rights associated with the technology that Mya Number would
`
`license, extend, and make available. AT&T even agreed to pay Mya Number a royalty of $1 per
`
`user per month, plus certain maintenance fees.
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiffs set to work. They devoted thousands of man-hours to the project, and
`
`they developed a workable, elegant “Twinning Solution.” Plaintiffs demonstrated the concept.
`
`AT&T gasped, not because it worked so well (which it did) but because AT&T’s business people
`
`realized: (i) the market for tablets and smartwatches was exploding; (ii) the royalty AT&T had
`
`agreed to pay Mya Number would cost AT&T a fortune; and (iii) AT&T would not even own the
`
`technology. AT&T tried desperately to retrieve the situation. AT&T sent four different teams of
`
`lawyers in succession to meet with Plaintiffs in an effort to persuade them to reduce their royalty
`
`and transfer ownership of the technology to AT&T. Plaintiffs would not budge – a deal was a
`
`deal.
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00718 Document 1 Filed 01/26/21 Page 3 of 25
`
`
`
`4.
`
`AT&T resorted to force. AT&T told Plaintiffs that it was through with them.
`
`Approximately one year later, AT&T came out with its “own” solution, “Numbersync.” The
`
`problem is that the AT&T solution uses the same concept and architecture as Plaintiffs’ “Twinning
`
`Solution,” and the purported “inventors” of AT&T’s solution are the very AT&T personnel who
`
`liaised with Plaintiffs, while they developed their “Twinning Solution.” In fact, AT&T’s solution
`
`is Plaintiffs’ solution with some cosmetic changes. Now, however, AT&T is selling “its” solution
`
`to hundreds of thousands of customers each month, in violation of Plaintiffs’ patent rights and
`
`without compensating Plaintiffs under Mya Number’s royalty agreement.
`
`5.
`
`By means of the present action, Plaintiffs seek to recover from AT&T for breach
`
`of contract and patent infringement. Given AT&T’s over 170 million subscribers, and the fact that
`
`AT&T has failed to pay royalties since October of 2015, Plaintiffs estimate the damages to be in
`
`excess of $450 million.
`
`II.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`6.
`
`Plaintiff Network Apps is a Washington limited liability company with its principal
`
`place of business in Seattle, Washington. Network Apps is the assignee and owner of all the assets,
`
`including the confidential and proprietary information, trade secrets, patents, contracts, and claims
`
`(collectively “Assets”) previously owned by Mya Number. The managing members of Network
`
`Apps are Kyle Schei and John Wantz (collectively the “Inventors”).
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiff Kyle Schei is an individual residing in the State of Washington.
`
`Plaintiff John Wantz is an individual residing in the State of Texas.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant AT&T Inc. is a Delaware corporation with
`
`its principal place of business at 208 S. Akard Street, Dallas, Texas 75202.
`
`10.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant AT&T Corp. is a New York corporation,
`
`with its principal place of business at One AT&T Way, Bedminster, New Jersey 07921, and a
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00718 Document 1 Filed 01/26/21 Page 4 of 25
`
`
`
`wholly owned subsidiary of AT&T Inc. Upon information and belief, AT&T Corp. does business
`
`under at least the following names: AT&T Mobility LLC and AT&T Services, Inc.
`
`11.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant AT&T Mobility LLC is a Delaware
`
`limited liability company, with its principal place of business at 1025 Lenox Park Blvd. NE,
`
`Atlanta, Georgia 30319, and a wholly owned subsidiary of AT&T Inc.
`
`12.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant AT&T Services, Inc. (“AT&T Services”)
`
`is a Delaware corporation, with its principal place of business at 208 S. Akard Street, Dallas, Texas
`
`75202, and a wholly owned subsidiary of AT&T Inc.
`
`III.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`13.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the patent claims under 28 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1331, § 1332 and § 1338(a) because this action arises under the patent laws of the United States,
`
`including 35 U.S.C. § 271 et seq.
`
`14.
`
`The Court has supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over Plaintiffs’
`
`breach of contract claims because Plaintiffs’ claims are so related to the claims within the Court’s
`
`original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article 3 of the U.S.
`
`Constitution.
`
`15.
`
`Upon information and belief, at all times herein mentioned, there existed a unity of
`
`interest between AT&T Inc. and its subsidiaries, including but not limited to 100% ownership and
`
`control, common directors, officers, and managers, and participation in a common scheme of
`
`marketing, advertising, and sale of the technology in issue in this case, that any individuality and
`
`separateness between said Defendants has ceased, and each of the Defendants is the alter ego of
`
`the other Defendants, and adherence to the fiction of the separate existence of the Defendants
`
`would permit an abuse of the corporate privilege and sanction fraud and promote injustice.
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00718 Document 1 Filed 01/26/21 Page 5 of 25
`
`
`
`16.
`
`Upon information and belief, at all times herein mentioned, each of the Defendants
`
`was the agent and representative of the other Defendants, acting within the purpose and scope of
`
`said agency and representation, and each of the Defendants authorized and ratified the conduct of
`
`each of the other Defendants herein alleged.
`
`17.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants, because: Defendants conduct
`
`business in this District and have committed acts of infringement in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271
`
`in this District, and/or Defendants have consented to personal jurisdiction within this District by
`
`means of the contracts in issue.
`
`18.
`
`Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1400 for the patent claim because Defendants
`
`have a regular and established place of business in this District and have committed acts of
`
`infringement in the District.
`
`19.
`
`Venue is proper and convenient under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) for the contract claims
`
`because Defendants have consented to suit in this District by means of the contracts in issue.
`
`20.
`
`Joinder of Defendants in this case is proper under 35 U.S.C. § 299 because
`
`Defendants act jointly and collectively to offer for sale, sell, use, and induce the use of infringing
`
`AT&T-branded products and services. At least some of Plaintiffs’ right to relief is joint, several
`
`and/or in the alternative against Defendants and is with respect to or arises from the same
`
`transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences relating to the same accused
`
`products and processes. The claims against Defendants share an aggregate of operative facts, and
`
`common questions of fact will arise in this action, including: the design and creation of Plaintiffs’
`
`Twinning Solution and affiliated technology, the design and creation of the accused intellectual
`
`property; Defendants’ collective actions in offering for sale, selling and using the accused
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00718 Document 1 Filed 01/26/21 Page 6 of 25
`
`
`
`processes; and Defendants’ collective actions to induce customers to use the intellectual property
`
`in question.
`
`IV.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`Mr. Schei and Mr. Wantz Found Mya Number and
`Successfully Develop Several Interesting Telephone Technologies
`
`21. Mr. Schei and Mr. Wantz are Seattle natives and college friends. They have
`
`collaborated to create and manage a number of technology startups, including among others Mya
`
`Number, Inc. (“Mya Number”). (Mya Number is now an inactive Washington corporation, having
`
`previously transferred all of its Assets to Plaintiff Network Apps.) Mya Number successfully
`
`developed and brought to market an internet protocol multimedia subsystem, or phone call
`
`management system, called myaNumber-for-FamiliesTM, which allows an unsophisticated user,
`
`such as a child or senior citizen to reach someone for help. Using myaNumber-for-FamiliesTM,
`
`the caller has to remember only a single telephone number. Calling that number would then place
`
`calls to successive recipients in a predefined order. For example, a child’s phone might first ring
`
`one parent’s phone, and then the other, and then a nanny or grandparent, and then possibly the
`
`family doctor, if no one else answered first. Or, at the user’s option, the grouped numbers could
`
`ring all at once. After the calls were placed, an email and text message report would be sent to
`
`each of the grouped phone numbers.
`
`22. Mya Number also developed myaNumber-autoModeTM, a product designed to keep
`
`new drivers safe. For a mobile phone using myaNumber-autoModeTM, if the mobile phone
`
`detected that it was traveling at or above a certain speed (indicating that the owner was driving),
`
`the text message and voice call functions on the mobile phone would be suspended until its speed
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00718 Document 1 Filed 01/26/21 Page 7 of 25
`
`
`
`was reduced. The phone would also generate a text and/or email notification that would be sent
`
`to the parent’s phone number.
`
`AT&T Takes An Interest in Mr. Schei And Mr. Wantz And Their Mya Number
`Technology
`
`23.
`
`Based on their successful track record, AT&T took an interest in Mr. Schei and Mr.
`
`Wantz and their Mya Number technology. AT&T asked them to integrate myaNumber-for-
`
`FamiliesTM into AT&T’s own telecommunications offerings. For this purpose, on November 28,
`
`2012, AT&T and Mya Number entered into a Limited Application Programming Interface Usage
`
`Agreement (the “Interface Agreement”). The Interface Agreement provides, among other things,
`
`that each party’s use of the other’s confidential information was strictly limited to fulfilling the
`
`purposes of the project. Moreover, the Interface Agreement specifies that each party retains
`
`exclusive rights to any exchanged information or technologies. The Interface Agreement also
`
`provides that it binds AT&T’s affiliates.
`
`24.
`
` AT&T also asked Mya Number to participate as a “Showcase Developer” at
`
`various marketing events. These events were intended to demonstrate how third-party developers
`
`could create applications that would integrate with AT&T’s own telecommunications offerings.
`
`Among such events, in 2012, AT&T asked Mya Number to present during an executive keynote
`
`presentation at the AT&T Developer Summit in Las Vegas held in conjunction with the Consumer
`
`Electronics Expo in Las Vegas—the preeminent event for marketing new and upcoming consumer
`
`technology.
`
`AT&T Asks Mya Number To Develop A Twinning Solution; Several Agreements Are
`Signed To Facilitate The Project
`
`25.
`
`In the early 2010s, smartwatches were becoming affordable and popular, and tablets
`
`were becoming even more so. The problem was that each device had to have its own SIM card to
`
`connect to a cellular network, and each SIM card was associated with a unique phone number.
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00718 Document 1 Filed 01/26/21 Page 8 of 25
`
`
`
`This technology was inconvenient. For someone to call a customer’s smartwatch, the caller had
`
`to dial a phone number unique to that watch. What was needed was a system that would allow a
`
`caller to dial a single number, that for the customer’s cellphone, and have the call ring through to
`
`a smartphone or tablet as well. On or about October 7, 2013, Ed Schmit, Executive Director of
`
`AT&T Mobility, LLC, and Kari Tillman, another employee of AT&T, contacted Mya Number and
`
`asked it to create and license the required technology. See Exhibit 3 (email from Ed Schmit). Mya
`
`Number agreed to undertake the work. The project would come to be referred to interchangeably
`
`as the “Twinning Solution,” “NumberSync,” “NDA 34,” or simply “myaNUMBER” – after the
`
`Plaintiffs.
`
`26.
`
`As part of the project, AT&T worked with Mya Number to source OEMs to deliver
`
`hardware to deploy the intended Twinning Solution. To facilitate this portion of the project,
`
`beginning in or around November 2013, AT&T and Mya Number entered into several three-way
`
`non-disclosure agreements (“NDAs”) with market-leading hardware OEMs. The NDAs each
`
`provide that a party receiving confidential information could “use the Information only as needed
`
`for the purposes of the Project.” The NDAs also prohibit each receiving party from disclosing the
`
`acquired information to third parties.
`
`27.
`
`After execution of the NDAs, Mr. Schei and Mr. Wantz kept a number of AT&T
`
`employees apprised of Mya Number’s progress on the project, including Ed Schmit, Kari Tillman,
`
`John Powell (AT&T Lead Channel Marketing Manager), Jeff Bradley (Senior Vice President of
`
`AT&T Wireless), Carolyn Billings (Associate Vice President, AT&T Developer Program),
`
`Carlton Hill (AT&T Vice President, Device Operations and Developer Services), David
`
`Christopher (Chief Marketing Officer of AT&T Mobility). In addition, Mr. Schei and Mr. Wantz
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00718 Document 1 Filed 01/26/21 Page 9 of 25
`
`
`
`kept representatives of the OEMs apprised as well, to facilitate incorporation of the Twinning
`
`Solution into the OEM hardware.
`
`Mya Number Develops An Elegant, Commercially Viable Solution
`
`28. Mya Number’s efforts proved successful. At its own expense, and under the
`
`direction of Mr. Schei and Mr. Wantz, Mya Number designed and developed an elegant,
`
`commercially viable, “Twinning Solution”. That solution enables a user with multiple devices to
`
`group them together on a cellular network and have those various devices function seamlessly as
`
`though they were all associated with a single telephone number, with no distinction to the user.
`
`Calls to the user ring through to each device. And calls emanating from any of the devices appear
`
`to emanate from one telephone number. The Twinning Solution also permits the same grouping
`
`for incoming and outgoing text messages. Importantly, the Twinning Solution accomplishes this
`
`result through the cellular network, so that the devices need not be physically proximate, connected
`
`by Bluetooth, or on the same WiFi network.
`
`29.
`
`As part of its Twinning Solution, Mya Number created NumberSync Grouping,
`
`Call Delivery, and Messaging Services Platform, as well as software development kits/Android
`
`application packages for OEM hardware integration, messaging services, other executable and
`
`non-executable code, and an end-user interface to connect the NumberSync Grouping, Call
`
`Delivery, and Messaging Services Platform to the AT&T network and the OEM hardware.
`
`Pursuant to the Interface Agreement and the NDAs, Mya Number retained the rights to all patents,
`
`copyrights, trade secrets, and other confidential and proprietary information it developed as part
`
`of the Twinning Solution.
`
`30.
`
`On or about January 8, 2014, Mya Number successfully demonstrated its
`
`NumberSync Grouping, Call Delivery, and Messaging Services Platform to Jeff Bradley (Senior
`
`Vice President of AT&T Wireless), Ralph De La Vega (Vice-Chairman of AT&T Inc.), David
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00718 Document 1 Filed 01/26/21 Page 10 of 25
`
`
`
`Christopher (Chief Marketing Officer of AT&T Mobility), and the OEM hardware leadership by
`
`executing inbound and outbound calls and text messages to and from grouped devices using an
`
`existing phone number.
`
`Mya Number And AT&T Enter Into The Professional Services Agreement and Statement
`Of Work
`
`31.
`
`On or about June 27, 2014, Mya Number and AT&T entered into a Professional
`
`Services Agreement (“PSA”) and an accompanying Statement of Work (“SOW”). The PSA
`
`contemplates that both parties would exchange confidential information, but that each party’s use
`
`of such information would be restricted and permitted only as needed for the purpose of further
`
`development of the Twinning Solution. The PSA further specified that each party would retain its
`
`own intellectual property rights to the material exchanged, including patent, copyright, trademark,
`
`service mark, and any other property rights.
`
`32.
`
`The SOW sets forth terms under which Mya Number would provide its Twinning
`
`Solution to AT&T. The Twinning Solution was acknowledged as Mya Number’s proprietary
`
`hardware, software, and services-based solution that enables a mobile smartphone and a separate
`
`device (such as a tablet or smartwatch) to link for purposes of mobile voice, text, and data over the
`
`network by using a unique subscription identification number. The contract required that Mya
`
`Number deploy its own hosted Twinning Solution, the use of which AT&T would be able to
`
`license, and also provides for an exclusivity period, during which Mya Number could not license
`
`a “Twinning Solution” to any other mobile carrier. The SOW further memorialized AT&T’s
`
`agreement that Mya Number retains all rights to the Twinning Solution. Moreover, the SOW
`
`stated that, even if AT&T obtained any rights to the Twinning Solution during its work with Mya
`
`Number, AT&T must transfer and assign all such rights to Mya Number.
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00718 Document 1 Filed 01/26/21 Page 11 of 25
`
`
`
`33.
`
`Further, the SOW provides that AT&T would pay Mya Number support,
`
`maintenance and license fees. The license fees include $1 per twinned device per month for all
`
`active twinning devices over the initial 30,000 (for which no payment was required.) In addition,
`
`Mya Number would receive maintenance/support fees per twinned device ranging from $1.48 for
`
`the first 30,000 devices to $0.15 per device for every device over 75,000 devices. In exchange,
`
`Mya Number agreed to grant AT&T a non-transferrable license.
`
`34.
`
`As Mya Number was fulfilling its obligations under the SOW by implementing the
`
`Twinning Solution in AT&T’s network, Mya Number filed U.S. Patent Application number
`
`14/525,039 on October 27, 2014, which encompassed the Twinning Solution. The application was
`
`duly and legally granted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on September 6, 2016 as United
`
`States Patent No. 9,438,728 (the “’728 Patent”), entitled “Telephone Number Grouping Service
`
`for Telephone Service Providers.” The ’728 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
`
`AT&T Employees Contemporaneously Recognize
`Mya Number’s Intellectual Property Rights
`
`35.
`
`Throughout Mya Number’s engagement under the Interface Agreement, the PSA
`
`and the SOW, AT&T employees recognized that Mya Number had retained ownership over every
`
`aspect of the Twinning Solution.
`
`36.
`
`For example, in October 2013, Mya Number sent an email to certain AT&T
`
`executives describing Mya Number’s proposed Twinning Solution. Responsive emails confirm
`
`that AT&T had “bought off” on the idea and wanted Mya Number to move quickly, targeting a
`
`December 2015 launch date.
`
`37.
`
`In another email, AT&T employee Kari Tillman introduced Mr. Schei to OEM
`
`manufacturers by noting that Mya Number developed the Twinning Solution AT&T was seeking
`
`to implement: “Kyle is the CEO of myaNUMBER, the developer with a very promising solution
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00718 Document 1 Filed 01/26/21 Page 12 of 25
`
`
`
`that allows the mobile number of the watch and smartphone to bet [sic] ‘twinned’ and allows the
`
`customer to keep their existing number, while also ‘masking’ the outgoing calls from the watch.”
`
`A copy of an email thread between Kari Tilmann and Mya Number is attached hereto as Exhibit
`
`4.
`
`38.
`
`As AT&T and Mya Number were negotiating the licensing fees that Mya Number
`
`would receive, Mr. Schmit wrote in a December 23, 2013 email that Mya Number “built this for
`
`AT&T,” and “You guys are in a great position—our execs and others at AT&T know this. We are
`
`paying you to build up unique expertise and AT&T is viewed as carrier leader.” A copy of the
`
`email thread between Mr. Schmit and Mr. Schei is attached hereto as Exhibit 5.
`
`39.
`
`In February 2014, when Mya Number was introduced to other device
`
`manufacturers, AT&T asked Mya Number to provide explanations, documents, diagrams, and
`
`code that could help AT&T and OEM manufacturers understand how the Twinning Solution
`
`worked and how it could be extended to work with equivalents manufactured by other OEMs.
`
`40.
`
`AT&T continued to acknowledge that Mya Number had developed and designed
`
`the Twinning Solution by referring third-party device manufacturers to Mya Number. For
`
`example, in March of 2014, an employee working on a high-profile smartwatch contacted Mya
`
`Number because he understood that Mya Number had developed the Twinning Solution and wrote,
`
`“My name is Ed Campbell and I am a Systems Engineer . . . and I received some documentation
`
`today on the myaNUMBER service that your company provides for AT&T.”
`
`AT&T Terminates Mya Number And Launches NumberSync
`
`41.
`
`Starting in the fall of 2014, AT&T started complaining to Mya Number about the
`
`projected royalties that it would incur, by using Mya Number’s Twinning Solution. Thereafter,
`
`AT&T sent, one after another, four sets of lawyers to negotiate with Mya Number about: (i)
`
`reducing the royalty and (ii) transferring the technology rights to AT&T. Mya Number refused to
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00718 Document 1 Filed 01/26/21 Page 13 of 25
`
`
`
`renegotiate. On or about October 23, 2014, AT&T informed Mya Number that it would “no longer
`
`be pursuing the launch of the NumberSync service.” Exhibit 6 (email from John Powell). At no
`
`point had AT&T expressed any complaints or concerns to Mya Number regarding the Twinning
`
`Solution itself, and AT&T provided no explanation as to why the NumberSync service was
`
`terminated.
`
`42.
`
`Exactly one year later, AT&T began deploying “AT&T NumberSync.” See, e.g.,
`
`https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/at-t-to-let-customers-link-their-smartphone-number-to-
`
`wearables-and-other-devices-through; https://about.att.com/innovationblog/erik_sundelof. Upon
`
`information and belief, AT&T continues to provide AT&T NumberSync as a standard value-add
`
`for all its subscribers. See, e.g., https://www.att.com/shop/wireless/features/numbersync.html.
`
`43.
`
`Upon information and belief, AT&T assigned employees, who had access to Mya
`
`Number’s intellectual property and confidential information, to replicate Mya Number’s Twinning
`
`Solution and launch AT&T’s own NumberSync service. As one example, Kari Tillman worked
`
`with Mya Number on behalf of AT&T during the Mya Number “Twinning Solution” project. Ms.
`
`Tillman had access to Mya Number’s trade secrets, confidential information, hardware designs,
`
`software code, and innovative solution during the project and was subject to the provisions of the
`
`PSA, SOW, NDAs and Interface Agreement. Ms. Tillman indicates on her LinkedIn profile that
`
`she
`
`directed
`
`the
`
`development
`
`of
`
`AT&T
`
`NumberSync.
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`7
`
`(https://www.linkedin.com/in/karitillman (“Direct the development of complementary services for
`
`connected wearables, including AT&T NumberSync”)). Upon information and belief, other
`
`individuals at AT&T, who had access to Mya Number’s confidential and proprietary information,
`
`also worked to develop and launch AT&T NumberSync.
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00718 Document 1 Filed 01/26/21 Page 14 of 25
`
`
`
`44.
`
`Upon information and belief, AT&T used without permission Mya Number’s
`
`proprietary intellectual property and information, disclosed to AT&T pursuant to the Interface
`
`Agreement, NDAs, and PSA, in connection with the development of its NumberSync.
`
`45.
`
`In addition, on information and belief, AT&T used intellectual property and
`
`proprietary information obtained from Mya Number under the PSA, NDAs and Interface
`
`Agreement to pursue AT&T’s own patent related to “twinning.” In this respect, AT&T filed U.S.
`
`Patent Application number 14/536,418 on November 7, 2014, which issued as U.S. Patent Number
`
`9,723,462 (the “’462 Patent”), entitled “Cloud-Based Device Twinning.” See Exhibit 2. The ’462
`
`Patent application was granted on August 1, 2017. Ed Schmit and Jayanta Das are listed as the
`
`named inventors on the ’462 Patent. Mr. Schmit worked with Mya Number on behalf of AT&T
`
`during the Mya Number “Twinning Solution” project and had access to and knowledge of Mya
`
`Number’s confidential information and innovative technology under the provisions of the PSA,
`
`NDAs and Interface Agreement. Upon information and belief, Mr. Schmit improperly used such
`
`information obtained from Mya Number in pursuit of the invention in the ’462 Patent.
`
`46.
`
`Because the solution described in the ’462 Patent restates the Twinning Solution
`
`invented by Mr. Schei and Mr. Wantz and assigned to Mya Number, as embodied in the ’728
`
`Patent, Mr. Schei and Mr. Wantz are the true inventors, and Mya Number is the true owner of the
`
`’462 Patent.
`
`47.
`
`AT&T has not assigned the ’462 Patent and the related family of patents to Mya
`
`Number.
`
`48.
`
`AT&T has not paid any royalties to Mya Number in conjunction with AT&T’s
`
`deployment of AT&T’s NumberSync, in violation of Mya Number’s contractual and intellectual
`
`property rights.
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00718 Document 1 Filed 01/26/21 Page 15 of 25
`
`
`
`49.
`
`And now, AT&T is claiming credit for Mya Number’s work. For example, AT&T
`
`now claims to have developed NumberSync from ideation through to the solution:
`
`Describe a project you saw from concept to implementation.
`
`Project Cascade, now known as NumberSync, was taken from an idea to concept
`and, ultimately, to an implemented solution. NumberSync lets you call and text
`from your smartwatch, tablet or connected car using the same mobile number your
`family, friends and colleagues already know.
`
`See https://about.att.com/innovationblog/erik_sundelof.
`
`50.
`
`AT&T also claims credit for Mya Number’s myaNumber-autoModeTM product:
`
`You’ve probably used – or at least heard of – DriveMode, a mobile app that sends
`automated replies to people texting you while you’re on the road. It was a
`cornerstone of our It Can Wait campaign. The idea for that app originated from one
`of our AT&T call center employees who was personally affected by texting while
`driving. It’s just one of many innovations that have come through [The Innovation
`Pipeline] that have cut costs, improved efficiencies, and enhanced the way we and
`our customers live, work and play.
`
`https://about.att.com/innovationblog/2019/05/innovation_pipeline_anniversary.html
`
`(emphasis
`
`added). In the same press release, AT&T again claims credit for creating NumberSync:
`
`Additional projects that have come through our TIP program include:
`
`. . .
`
`NumberSync: This solution enabled customers to use their mobile numbers on any
`compatible device. While it’s a fairly standard feature today, the concept of being
`able to receive calls using your mobile number on any device was a revolutionary
`one just a few years back.
`
`Id.
`
`51.
`
`On December 2, 2016, Mya Number assigned all of its intellectual property, assets
`
`and claims to Network Apps.
`
`COUNT 1 – BREACH OF CONTRACT
`
`52.
`
`Paragraphs 1-51 are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00718 Document 1 Filed 01/26/21 Page 16 of 25
`
`
`
`53.
`
`The SOW expressly states that Mya Number retains the intellectual property it
`
`developed for the Twinning Solution. Furthermore, AT&T agreed that it would not reverse
`
`engineer, decompile, or disassemble the Twinning Solution or any other aspect of the Twinning
`
`Solution.
`
`54.
`
`AT&T has used and continues to use Mya Number’s intellectual property in its
`
`AT&T NumberSync product.
`
`55.
`
`AT&T agreed to pay Mya Number a royalty and maintenance fees in consideration
`
`for use of Mya Number’s intellectual property.
`
`56.
`
`AT&T has failed to pay any royalty or maintenance fees to Mya Number pursuant
`
`to the SOW.
`
`57.
`
`AT&T agreed to assign to Mya Number any intellectual property rights to the
`
`Twinning Solution that AT&T obtains.
`
`58.
`
`AT&T has failed to assign to Mya Number U.S. Pat. No. 9,723,462, (and a series
`
`of follow-on continuation patents, namely, U.S. Patent Nos. 10,057,738, 10,200,832, 10,484,846
`
`and 10,750,332), which cover the Twinning Solution.
`
`59.
`
`AT&T has breached the terms of the Interface Agreement, the NDAs, the PSA and
`
`the SOW.
`
`60.
`
`As a result of AT&T’s breach of the these agreements, Network Apps has suffered
`
`and will continue to suffer damage. Network Apps is entitled to recover from AT&T the damages
`
`it has suffered as a result of AT&T’s breach in an amount in excess of $450 million to be proven
`
`at trial.
`
`
`
`-16-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00718 Document 1 Filed 01/26/21 Page 17 of 25
`
`
`
`61.
`
`Network Apps is further entitled to an injunction causing AT&T to assign full
`
`ownership, right, title, and interests to U.S. Pat. Nos. 9,723,462; 10,057,738; 10,200,832;
`
`10,484,846; and 10,750,332 (and all other related patents and applications) to Network Apps.
`
`COUNT 2 – PATENT INFRINGEMENT UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 271
`
`Paragraphs 1-61 are hereby incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
`
`The ’728 patent generally relates to a method and system for associating multiple
`
`62.
`
`63.
`
`telephone numbers with distinct physical devices, grouping at least two of the telephone numbers
`
`for incoming and outgoing calls and text messages, providing controls such that the grouped
`
`telephone numbers are capable of activating one or more of the multiple physical devices in
`
`response to an incoming call on one of the numbers and allowing outgoing calls from any of the
`
`devices to appe