Case 2:23-cv-00305-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 06/24/23 Page 1 of 21 PageID #: 1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`Sockeye Licensing TX LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`Delta Electronics (USA) Inc.,
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:23-cv-305
`
`Patent Case
`
`Jury Trial Demanded
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiff Sockeye Licensing TX LLC (“Sockeye”), through its attorney, Isaac Rabicoff,
`
`complains against Defendant Delta Electronics (USA) Inc. (“Defendant”) and alleges the
`
`following:
`
`PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff Sockeye Licensing TX LLC is a limited liability company organized and
`
`existing under the laws of Texas with its principal place of business at 320 Wilmette Avenue,
`
`Glenview, IL 60025.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Delaware that
`
`maintains a principal place of business at 2925 E Plano Pkwy, Plano, TX 75074.
`
`JURISDICTION
`
`3.
`
`This is an action for Patent infringement arising under the Patent laws of the
`
`United States, Title 35 of the United States Code.
`
`4.
`
`This Court has exclusive subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and
`
`1338(a).
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00305-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 06/24/23 Page 2 of 21 PageID #: 2
`
`5.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because it has engaged in
`
`systematic and continuous business activities in the Eastern District of Texas. Specifically,
`
`Defendant provides its full range of services to residents in this District. As described below,
`
`Defendant has committed acts of Patent infringement giving rise to this action within this
`
`District.
`
`VENUE
`
`6.
`
`Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c) because Defendant is a
`
`foreign corporation. In addition, Defendant has committed acts of patent infringement in this
`
`District, and Plaintiff has suffered harm in this district.
`
`PATENTS-IN-SUIT
`
`7.
`
`Sockeye is the assignee of all right, title, and interest in United States Patent No.
`
`9,547,981 (the “’981 Patent”), including all rights to enforce and prosecute actions for
`
`infringement and to collect damages for all relevant times against infringers of the ’981 Patent.
`
`Accordingly, Sockeye possesses the exclusive right and standing to prosecute the present action
`
`for infringement of the ’981 Patent by Defendant.
`
`8.
`
`Sockeye is the assignee of all right, title, and interest in United States Patent No.
`
`8,135,342 (the “‘342 Patent”), including all rights to enforce and prosecute actions for
`
`infringement and to collect damages for all relevant times against infringers of the ‘342 Patent.
`
`Accordingly, Sockeye possesses the exclusive right and standing to prosecute the present action
`
`for infringement of the ‘342 Patent by Defendant.
`
`9.
`
`On January 17, 2017, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued the
`
`’981 Patent. The ’981 Patent is titled “System, Method and Apparatus for Using a Wireless
`
`Device to Control Other Devices.” The application leading to the ’981 Patent was filed on
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00305-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 06/24/23 Page 3 of 21 PageID #: 3
`
`November 3, 2014, which is a continuation of U.S. Application No. 13/418,829; which was filed
`
`on March 13, 2012; which is a divisional application of U.S. Application No. 11/898,912, now
`
`the ’342 Patent, which was filed on September 17, 2007; which claims priority from provisional
`
`application number 60/844,645, which was filed on September 15, 2006. A true and correct
`
`copy of the ’981 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. A
`
`true and correct copy of the parent Patent, the ’342 Patent, is attached hereto as Exhibit B and
`
`incorporated herein by reference.
`
`10.
`
`Prior to the filing of the applications that matured into the ’981 Patent and its
`
`parent ’342 Patent in 2006, state of the art cell phone designs emphasized their use as standalone
`
`devices. In the industry it was widely expected that, as the multimedia capabilities of the cell
`
`phone became richer, the cell phone itself would serve as a multimedia player and alternative to
`
`traditional modes of viewing video, such as via television screens. Accordingly, cell phone
`
`manufacturers at the time of filing focused on developing the “onboard” capabilities of their
`
`products, rather than adapting them to connect with and control a higher resolution device. Thus,
`
`for example, the Nokia N92 mobile device announced in 2005 was marketed as a phone for
`
`watching TV. The Nokia N92, while capable of playing “mobile TV,” was designed as an
`
`alternate platform for watching television, and it operated as a standalone device, wholly-
`
`independent of television sets of the period. The ‘342 and ’981 Patents went further. In contrast
`
`to the standalone approach of the Nokia N92, the ‘342 and ’981 Patents taught particular systems
`
`and methods by which the cell phone could connect with and control a higher resolution display
`
`device, streaming video thereto. The state-of-the-art cell phones of the day were not equipped to
`
`operate in this way, nor was this their goal. Indeed, as Nokia stated at the time, the “Nokia N92
`
`offers easy access to TV programs without having to sit in front of a television set.” Exhibit C.
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00305-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 06/24/23 Page 4 of 21 PageID #: 4
`
`Notably, so-called “[t]hird generation mobile phones” or “3G mobiles” which were capable of
`
`“multi-media communication” of this kind—i.e., “viewing TV on a mobile phone”—were far
`
`from the norm in 2006. Exhibit D. As NEC stated at the time, although such devices were
`
`“expected to be extremely popular,” using a cell phone to view television was itself a
`
`“groundbreaking way to use mobile phones.” Id. Still more groundbreaking was the inventive
`
`approach of the ‘342 and ’981 Patents, which went beyond the cell phones merely equipped to
`
`play television, such as the Nokia N92 and the NEC e636, and taught particular systems and
`
`methods by which the cell phone could connect with and control a higher resolution display
`
`device for streaming video. The claimed inventions would have been inoperable on even the
`
`most sophisticated cell phones of the period, such as the Nokia N92 and NEC e636, because they
`
`required significant technical advancements and improvements to the hardware and software
`
`“stack” of the cell phone in order to enable their inventive functionality. See Exhibit E.
`
`Background of the Patented Technology
`
`11.
`
`The ‘342 and ’981 Patents taught the hardware and software “stack” necessary to
`
`implement the particular methods claimed in the Patents. For example, Figure 3D illustrates the
`
`relationships between the hardware and software components of the cell phone itself, as well as
`
`the internet and a high-resolution display device, in terms of their hierarchy and I/O requirements
`
`and functions. Figure 3D teaches a cell phone operating system that supports TCP/IP services, a
`
`desktop browser and operating system within the cell phone, and the device drivers necessary to
`
`manage streaming media as it is received from the network, rendered by the operating system,
`
`and communicated to external devices. Figure 3D teaches that the cell phone’s device drivers
`
`interact with the peripheral communications hardware and software that, in turn, communicates
`
`with external display devices. Further, Figure 3B shows that the peripheral communications
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00305-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 06/24/23 Page 5 of 21 PageID #: 5
`
`hardware and software interacts with multichannel USB, and IEEE 1394 and IEEE 802.11
`
`protocols that, in turn, use a multiport wireless interface to communicate with a high-resolution
`
`digital display device. Without the hardware and software stack (or its equivalents) disclosed,
`
`inter alia, in Figures 3B and 3D of the ‘342 and ’981 Patents, the claimed inventions would have
`
`been inoperable. The hardware and software stack disclosed in the Patents was absent from the
`
`more advanced cell phones of the day (e.g., the Nokia N92 and NEC e636), which were designed
`
`as mere standalone devices—a completely different paradigm than that disclosed in the ‘342 and
`
`’981 Patents, which teach the cell phone connecting with and controlling a higher resolution
`
`display device on which media may be streamed.
`
`12.
`
`In the few prior art examples where a cell phone was actually connected to
`
`another device, the cell phone was used in a manner completely different than that claimed in the
`
`‘342 and ’981 Patents, and for different purposes. As the inventor pointed out during
`
`prosecution of the parent ’342 Patent, the prior art merely “describe[d] a conventional tethering
`
`operation of a cell phone to a computer, and not peripheral cell phone control of the claimed
`
`invention.” Exhibit F [Prosecution History of ’342 Parent Patent, Amendment, May 31, 2011, at
`
`11]. According to the “conventional tethering operation[s]” of the prior art, the “PC or laptop
`
`connects to the internet via another PC’s or a cell phone’s wireless Internet connection,
`
`providing a bridge connection but not ceding control.” Id. By contrast, the “instant invention,”
`
`the inventor explained, “does not use a cell phone to connect a ‘computer’ to the Internet” —
`
`“[q]uite the reverse, the instant invention connects peripheral devices (connected to the
`
`computer) to the cell phone to create a desktop computing environment on the cell phone.” Id.
`
`As the inventor described it in a later amendment during prosecution of the ’342 parent Patent,
`
`the “present invention” was one “directed to an innovative approach to employ a cell phone or
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00305-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 06/24/23 Page 6 of 21 PageID #: 6
`
`like PDA . . . to create a media center controlled by the user through the cell phone–without the
`
`usage of the computing power of the peripherals’ PC.” Exhibit G. [Prosecution History of ’342
`
`Patent, Amendment, January 17, 2012, at 31]. The inventor emphasized that in the prior art “the
`
`portable device is a mere tether” and “has zero control – the network server is running things
`
`directly” in the “traditional client/server relationship.” Id. at 32. By contrast, the parent ’342
`
`Patent “expressly involves and claims control of the peripheral device by the portable device, not
`
`at network control.” Id. Thus, at best, the prior art contemplated the “conventional tethering” of
`
`the cell phone to the computer for the purpose of improving the functionality of the computer
`
`according to the “traditional client/server relationship.” The ‘342 and ’981 Patents, however—
`
`which share a specification—claim and teach improvements in the cell phone hardware and
`
`software “stack,” enabling it to control the high-resolution display device, in a clear reversal of
`
`the “traditional client/server relationship” and departure from “conventional tethering.” As the
`
`inventor stated during prosecution of the ’981 Patent, quoting the summary of the invention,
`
`“‘[t]he user may access’ the movies and videos ‘using the desktop monitor’ because, for example
`
`the ‘user interfaces’ of the web site providing this content ‘can be displayed through’ the
`
`‘desktop monitor’ ” and “[t]hose ‘user interfaces are sent to the ‘desktop monitor’ by means of
`
`the ‘wireless cell phone.’ ” Exhibit H [Prosecution History of ’981 Patent, Sept. 7, 2016,
`
`Declaration of Michael D. Harold, at pages 3-4, para. 7(a)(4)]. None of the prior art discloses the
`
`hardware and software “stack” necessary to execute this inventive and unconventional
`
`functionality or to accomplish the objectives of the ‘342 and ’981 Patents.
`
`13.
`
`As the inventor pointed out during prosecution of the ’981 Patent, the methods
`
`employed in the prior art failed to disclose, for example, the claimed step of “transmitting by the
`
`mobile communications device of at least some of the particular movie or video to the display
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00305-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 06/24/23 Page 7 of 21 PageID #: 7
`
`device for display thereon simultaneously while at least some of the particular movie or video is
`
`being downloaded from the server to the mobile communications device.” Exhibit I [Prosecution
`
`History of ’981 Patent, Sept. 9, 2016 Amendment, at 8] (emphasis added). This unconventional
`
`step of claim 1 of the ’981 Patent not only distinguishes it from prior art methods but constitutes
`
`one of the ’981 Patent’s “inventive concepts,” both in its own right as well as in combination
`
`with other claim elements, rendering the Patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Indeed, the
`
`inventor pointed out that this step “teaches away” from the prior art, which merely “discloses
`
`that a document must be fully downloaded before it can be accessed,” from prior art wherein
`
`“content is fully downloaded before the mobile device ‘detects’ the display” or from prior art
`
`wherein “a video conference is received or initiated before it is routed to the external display.”
`
`(Emphasis added). As such, the inventor noted, the prior art “teach[es] away from the claimed
`
`methods.” Id. at 8-9.
`
`14. With respect to the ‘342 Patent, the element of Claim 21 reciting “wherein said
`
`peripheral device, controlled by said user from said wireless device,” expressly “claims control
`
`of the peripheral device by the portable device, not at network control.” Exhibit G, at 32. This
`
`unconventional element of Claim 21 of the ‘342 Patent not only distinguishes the invention from
`
`prior art systems but constitutes one of the ‘342 Patent’s “inventive concepts,” both in its own
`
`right as well as in combination with other claim elements, rendering the Patent eligible under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 101. Whereas the prior art taught “conventional tethering” of the cell phone to the
`
`computer for the purpose of improving the functionality of the computer according to the
`
`“traditional client/server relationship,” Claim 21 of the ‘342 Patent claims control by the portable
`
`device over the peripheral device, in a clear reversal of the “traditional client/server relationship”
`
`and departure from “conventional tethering.” Exhibit G at 32; Exhibit F at 11.
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00305-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 06/24/23 Page 8 of 21 PageID #: 8
`
`15.
`
`As the inventor further noted during prosecution of the ’981 Patent, the “claims
`
`are specifically limited to the field of consumer electronic entertainment, as contemplated by the
`
`specification.” For example, claim 1 of the ‘981 Patent specifically limits the “electrical
`
`coupling” between the display device and the mobile communications device to be “for
`
`consumer electronic entertainment purposes,” which puts “limitations . . . on the type of
`
`electrical couplings that are covered by the claims.” Id. at 10-11.
`
`16.
`
`The USPTO issued the ’981 Patent on January 17, 2017, without ever having
`
`rejected any of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 during prosecution.
`
`17.
`
`The inventor of the ‘342 and ’981 Patents conceived of the inventions disclosed
`
`and claimed therein and worked to commercialize them for several years. Among his goals (and
`
`later those of his company, Zamboola) was to provide hardware and software solutions for the
`
`mobile market to allow the interfacing of user information between devices in an enhanced way.
`
`Accordingly, after filing in 2006 the applications that eventually issued as the ’981 Patent and its
`
`parent ’342 Patent, he set to work prototyping solutions that reduced the claimed inventions to
`
`practice. Mr. Harold began by modifying an “open source” cell phone released after filing, the
`
`Openmoko “Neo,” which had an operating system and some of the hardware necessary to
`
`support streaming media from the Internet to a high-resolution display device. However,
`
`because the software on the Neo proved to be too unstable for the purposes of the claimed
`
`inventions, the inventor was forced to migrate to an “Android” operating system. Still more
`
`modifications were necessary after migrating to the Android OS, which was not designed for the
`
`purpose of streaming media to a high-resolution display device, and lacked the architecture for
`
`concurrent, multi-threaded operations and inter-process communications. Subsequently, the
`
`inventor adapted open source device drivers to these purposes. Additionally, because the Neo
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00305-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 06/24/23 Page 9 of 21 PageID #: 9
`
`had a USB port, the inventor developed a USB-to-VGA connector that allowed the cell phone to
`
`display media at the higher resolution VGA, controlled by the user via the Neo touchscreen.
`
`Thus, the conventional software and hardware components available required significant
`
`modifications from their original form before it was possible to integrate them into a prototype
`
`incorporating the claimed inventions.
`
`18.
`
`19.
`
`The ‘342 and ’981 Patents are valid and enforceable.
`
`The ‘342 and ’981 Patents describe a need to provide an improved paradigm for
`
`using a wireless cell phone or other such communications device as a central component of a
`
`desktop or other such computing environment. Ex. A, 2:61-64.
`
`20.
`
`The ‘342 and ’981 Patents describe a system, method and apparatus in which the
`
`user of a wireless cell phone device establishes a direct connection with a desktop computer
`
`monitor, keyboard, mouse or other component using any combination of wireline connections
`
`and wireless connections. Id. at 1:30-36.
`
`21.
`
`The ‘342 and ’981 Patents are not directed to a method of organizing human
`
`activity or to a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in commerce. The ‘342 and ’981
`
`Patents describe a system that addresses a technical problem—using a wireless cell phone as a
`
`central component of a desktop or other computing environment that includes, in addition to a
`
`desktop computer monitor and a desktop keyboard and mouse, using the use of desktop speakers
`
`and a desktop printer. Id. at 3:7-12—with a technical solution: increasing the use of a cell phone
`
`as a connection, communications and controlling device for desktop computers, digital display
`
`monitor and keyboard and mouse. Id. at 3:41-48.
`
`22.
`
`The ‘342 and ’981 Patents do not preempt the field or preclude the use of other
`
`wireless cell phones. For example, many companies offer currently offer rudimentary products
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00305-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 06/24/23 Page 10 of 21 PageID #: 10
`
`that allow a cell phone to project images, presentations and movies onto a nearby wall or surface.
`
`Id. at 2:9-12. The prior art also only uses cell phones as computing devices and not as a full-
`
`sized computer monitor or other full-size digital output device for manipulating data or issuing
`
`commands remotely through the handheld communications devices. Id. at 3:20-27.
`
`23.
`
`The ‘342 and ’981 Patents do not take a well-known or established business
`
`method or process and apply it to a general-purpose computer. Instead, in an exemplary
`
`embodiment, they describe a wireless cell phone as a central component of a desktop or other
`
`computing environment that includes, in addition to a desktop computer monitor and a desktop
`
`keyboard and mouse, the use of desktop speakers and a desktop printer. Id. at 3:7-12. The
`
`desktop computer monitor or other full-size digital display device is also used as a visual output
`
`device, and a full-size keyboard and mouse are used as user input devices. Id. 2:66-3:1.
`
`24.
`
`The PTAB declined to institute an IPR against the asserted claim 21 of the ’342
`
`Patent in IPR2016-00989, and therefore determined that there was not a reasonable likelihood of
`
`unpatentability on the given grounds. See RPX Corp. v. Sockeye Licensing TX, LLC, IPR2016-
`
`00989 (P.T.A.B. 2016) (declining to institute an IPR as to claims 21, 22, 25 and 26). In IPR2016-
`
`01052, the Petitioner did not seek to institute an IPR of claim 21. See RPX Corp. v. Sockeye
`
`Licensing TX, LLC, IPR2016-01052 (P.T.A.B. 2016) (requesting an IPR for claims 11-19 and
`
`58-76 and denying institution of an IPR for claims 60-61 and 69). In the application leading to
`
`the ’981 Patent, the Examiner expressly considered all of the IPR petitions filed against the ’342
`
`Patent referred to supra, and allowed the ’981 Patent to issue over all the prior art cited in those
`
`IPR petitions.
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`INDIRECT INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’981 PATENT
`
`Sockeye incorporates the above paragraphs herein by reference.
`10
`
`25.
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00305-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 06/24/23 Page 11 of 21 PageID #: 11
`
`26.
`
` Upon information and belief, Defendant manufactures outside the United States
`
`various products (e.g., projectors with accessories that provide wireless functionality) some of
`
`which are offered for sale in the USA through the following website:
`
`https://www.vivitekusa.com/page/home-theater-cedia/ which lists two projector models:
`
`DH3660Z and D963HDD Plus.
`
`27.
`
`Defendant advertises on its website
`
`(https://www.vivitekusa.com/productdetail/D963HD-Plus/) that a NovoEnterprise device is an
`
`accessory that can be utilized with the D963HD projector to provide it with a “screen mirroring”
`
`function for iOS and Android. The combination of the D963HDD Plus projector together with
`
`the NovoEnterprise accessory together for an exemplary “Infringing Product.” The phrase
`
`Infringing Product also shall include all of Defendant’s products that are constructed in a manner
`
`similar to, from a patent infringement perspective, the D963HD projector with the
`
`NovoEnterprise accessory.
`
`28.
`
`The Infringing Products allow, for example, a YouTube video to be selected and
`
`then downloaded from a YouTube server to a user’s smartphone, and then wirelessly cast from
`
`the smartphone to the casting circuitry inside the accessary portion of the Infringing Products
`
`which allows the video to be displayed on a surface at which the lens of the projector in the
`
`Infringing Product is pointed. When the Infringing Products are used as in this manner, that use
`
`involves the performance of all of the steps recited in at least claims 1, 5 and 15-16 of the ’981
`
`Patent as, for example, discussed in greater detail hereinafter:
`
`
`
`a.
`
`The preamble of claim 1 recites a “method for downloading and viewing a
`
`movie or video display device.” While it is not a positively recited limitation, corresponding to
`
`the preamble of claim 1, each Infringing Product includes casting circuitry that provides a screen
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00305-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 06/24/23 Page 12 of 21 PageID #: 12
`
`mirroring or casting functionality. This allows a user to cause, e.g., a YouTube video to be
`
`downloaded from a YouTube server to the user’s smartphone, and then wirelessly cast from the
`
`smartphone to the casting circuitry inside each Infringing Product for display on the surface at
`
`which the lens of the projector is pointed during use.
`
`
`
`b.
`
`Claim 1 recites “electrically coupling for consumer electronic
`
`entertainment purposes a display device suitable for use in a media center environment with a
`
`mobile communications device that does not form a part of the media center environment.”
`
`Corresponding to this limitation of claim 1, at least a portion of the lens of each Projector
`
`Infringing Product and the surface at which an image from the lens is displayed forms a “display
`
`device” that is suitable for use in a media center environment where a movie or video can be
`
`watched or online games can be played. The user utilizes a mobile communications device, e.g.,
`
`a smartphone, that is not a part of that environment. The user’s smartphone is coupled to the
`
`casting circuitry of each Projector Infringing Product by means of a wireless network connection.
`
`
`
`
`
`c.
`
`Claim 1 recites “causing a first graphic user interface to be displayed on
`
`the display device that conveys information to a viewer of the display device about videos or
`
`videos that are individually downloadable from a server for display on the display device for
`
`consumer electronic entertainment purposes.” Corresponding to this limitation of claim 1, when
`
`selecting a video, the YouTube graphic user interface “”GUI”) is cast from the smartphone to the
`
`casting circuitry which then causes it to be displayed to the user on the surface at which the lens
`
`of the projector is pointed. By viewing the YouTube GUI, the user can select a video to watch.
`
`
`
`d.
`
`Claim 1 recites “receiving entertainment selection commands by the
`
`mobile communications device to allow a particular one of the videos or videos to be selected for
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00305-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 06/24/23 Page 13 of 21 PageID #: 13
`
`downloading from the server based on visual feedback the viewer receives by reading or
`
`interacting with the first graphic user interface shown on the display device.” Corresponding to
`
`this limitation of claim 1, the user selects a video to watch by entering commands into the
`
`smartphone. The user makes the selection by reading the YouTube GUI that is displayed on the
`
`surface at which the lens of the projector is pointed.
`
`
`
`e.
`
`Claim 1 recites “receiving by the mobile communications device of the
`
`particular movie or video that is sent to it from the server based on the viewer's reading or
`
`interaction with the first graphic user interface shown on the display device.” Corresponding to
`
`this limitation of claim 1, by selecting a particular video to be watched, the user’s smartphone
`
`indicates to the YouTube servers that the particular video should be sent to user’s smartphone.
`
`The user makes the selection by reading the YouTube GUI that is displayed on the surface at
`
`which the lens of the projector is pointed during use.
`
`
`
`f.
`
`Claim 1 recites “transmitting by the mobile communications device of at
`
`least some of the particular movie or video to the display device for display thereon
`
`simultaneously while at least some of the particular movie or video is being downloaded from
`
`the server to the mobile communications device.” Corresponding to this limitation of claim 1,
`
`the particular video that the user selected is streamed from the YouTube server to the casting
`
`circuitry inside each Infringing Product via the user’s smartphone or tablet.
`
`
`
`g.
`
`Claim 1 recites “wherein the electrical coupling between the mobile
`
`communications device and the display device allows the particular movie or video to be sent
`
`there between when the mobile communications device is located a distance away from the
`
`display device at which a person watches a video at home.” Corresponding to this limitation of
`
`claim 1, the wireless connection between the user’s smartphone and the casting circuitry inside
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00305-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 06/24/23 Page 14 of 21 PageID #: 14
`
`each Infringing Product is sufficiently strong and robust to allow the user to watch the video
`
`when the smartphone is located, for example, between 10-15 away from the user’s smartphone
`
`and the Infringing Product.
`
`
`
`h.
`
`Claim 5 recites the “method of claim 1, wherein the mobile
`
`communications device is adapted to communicate with the server via the internet.
`
`Corresponding to this limitation of claim 5, the user’s smartphone is adapted to communicate
`
`with the YouTube server via the internet.
`
`
`
`i.
`
`Claim 15 recites the “method of claim 1, wherein the transmitting of the
`
`particular movie or video from the mobile communications device to the display device for
`
`display thereon occurs substantially simultaneously with the downloading of the particular movie
`
`or video from the server to the mobile communications device. Corresponding to this limitation
`
`of claim 15, the particular video that the user selected is streamed from the YouTube server to
`
`the casting circuitry inside each Infringing Product via the user’s smartphone or tablet.
`
`
`
`j.
`
`Claim 16 recites the method of claim 1, wherein the causing step includes
`
`downloading the first GUI from the server to the mobile communications device. Corresponding
`
`to this limitation of claim 16, the user’s smartphone communicates with the YouTube server to
`
`allow it to send to the smartphone at least a portion of the first GUI.
`
`29.
`
`At https://www.vivitekusa.com/page/home-theater-cedia/, Defendant advertises
`
`that the D963HD Plus projector can be used for “home theater” purposes. At
`
`https://www.vivitekusa.com/productdetail/D963HD-Plus/, Defendant advertises that the
`
`NovoEnterprise is an accessory that can be used with the D963HD Plus projector to provide it
`
`with a “screen mirroring” function for iOS and Android devices. At
`
`https://www.vivitekusa.com/productdetail/novoenterprise/, Defendant advertises that
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00305-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 06/24/23 Page 15 of 21 PageID #: 15
`
`NovoEnterprise product provides “Airplay and Google Cast support” and that it “fully
`
`supports Apple AirPlay and Google Cast, enabling quick and simple screen mirroring and
`
`content streaming from a wide number of today’s most popular laptop, tablet, and
`
`smartphone devices.”
`
`30.
`
`Thus, by promoting the above-mentioned uses of the D963HDD Plus projector
`
`with the NovoEnterprise accessory, Defendant actively induces its customers to use the device to
`
`perform the steps of all claim elements of at least claims 1, 5 and 15-16 of the ‘981 Patent for the
`
`reasons discussed above in paragraph 28.
`
`31.
`
`Since at least the time of the filing of this Complaint, Defendant has had
`
`knowledge of the ‘981 Patent, as well as knowledge that the above-mentioned uses of the
`
`Infringing Products induce Defendant’s customers to infringe least claims 1, 5, 15-16 of the ‘981
`
`Patent. This infringement by Defendant’s customers, which Defendant has induced, is ongoing
`
`and will likely continue during the pendency of this action.
`
`32.
`
`Sockeye is entitled to recover damages adequate to compensate it for such
`
`infringement in an amount no less than a reasonable royalty under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`INDIRECT INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’342 PATENT
`
`Sockeye incorporates the above paragraphs herein by reference.
`
`The Infringing Products allow, for example, a YouTube video to be selected and
`
`33.
`
`34.
`
`then downloaded from a YouTube server to the user’s smartphone, and then wirelessly cast from
`
`the smartphone to the casting circuitry inside the Infringing Products for display on the surface at
`
`which the lens of the projector is pointed during use. When the Infringing Products are used in
`
`this manner, that use involves the performance of all of the steps of recited in at least claim 21 of
`
`the ‘342 Patent. For example:
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00305-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 06/24/23 Page 16 of 21 PageID #: 16
`
`a.
`
`Claim 21 of the ‘342 Patent, which depends from independent claim 20, recites the
`
`preamble of claim 20 which references a “peripheral device control system, comprising.” While
`
`it is not a positively recited limitation, corresponding to the preamble of claim 21, each Infringing
`
`Product forms a “peripheral device.”
`
`b.
`
`Claim 21 of the ‘342 Patent recites “a peripheral device.” Corresponding to this
`
`limitation, each Infringing Product forms a “peripheral” device.
`
`c.
`
`Claim 21 of the ‘342 Patent recites “an interconnector.” Corresponding to this
`
`limitation, each Infringing Product includes casting circuitry inside the NovoEnterprise accessory
`
`that allows videos or videos casted over to it to be shown on the surface at which the lens of the
`
`projector is pointed during use.
`
`d.
`
`Claim 21 of the ‘342 Patent recites “said interconnector connecting, at the control
`
`of a user, a wireless device to said peripheral device, and.” Corresponding to this limitation, the
`
`casting circuitry in each Infringing Product forms an “interconnector.” The casting circuitry
`
`allows a user to cause a YouTube video to be downloaded from a YouTube server to the user’s
`
`smartphone, and then wirelessly cast from the smartphone to the casting circuitry for display on
`
`the surface at which the lens of the projector is pointed during use.
`
`e.
`
`Claim 21 of the ‘342 Patent recites “downloading user information to said
`
`peripheral de