Case 5:17-cv-00083-RWS Document 1 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 1
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TEXARKANA DIVISION
`
`
`No. 5:17-cv-
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`DESHODAX LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`ONEPLUS, INC.,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiff Deshodax LLC, by and through its undersigned counsel, files its Original
`
`Complaint for Patent Infringement and alleges based on knowledge as to itself and information
`
`and belief as to the Defendant as follows.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff Deshodax LLC is a Texas limited liability company with a principal
`
`office at 3000 Custer Road, Suite 270-7001, Plano, Texas 75075.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant OnePlus, Inc., is a California corporation with a principal office at
`
`4017 Marjoram Ter, Fremont, California 94538. Defendant may be served with process via its
`
`registered agent Mary Wong, 7291 Coronado Drive #5, San Jose, California 95129.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`This action arises under the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.
`
`Subject matter jurisdiction is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`1338.
`
`5.
`
`Upon information and belief, this Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant
`
`because (i) Defendant conducts business in this Judicial District, directly or through
`
`intermediaries; (ii) at least a portion of the alleged infringements occurred in this Judicial
`
`District; and (iii) Defendant regularly solicits business, engages in other persistent courses of
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TEXARKANA DIVISION
`
`
`No. 5:17-cv-
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`DESHODAX LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`ONEPLUS, INC.,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiff Deshodax LLC, by and through its undersigned counsel, files its Original
`
`Complaint for Patent Infringement and alleges based on knowledge as to itself and information
`
`and belief as to the Defendant as follows.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff Deshodax LLC is a Texas limited liability company with a principal
`
`office at 3000 Custer Road, Suite 270-7001, Plano, Texas 75075.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant OnePlus, Inc., is a California corporation with a principal office at
`
`4017 Marjoram Ter, Fremont, California 94538. Defendant may be served with process via its
`
`registered agent Mary Wong, 7291 Coronado Drive #5, San Jose, California 95129.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`This action arises under the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.
`
`Subject matter jurisdiction is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`1338.
`
`5.
`
`Upon information and belief, this Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant
`
`because (i) Defendant conducts business in this Judicial District, directly or through
`
`intermediaries; (ii) at least a portion of the alleged infringements occurred in this Judicial
`
`District; and (iii) Defendant regularly solicits business, engages in other persistent courses of
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:17-cv-00083-RWS Document 1 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 2
`
`conduct, or derives revenue from goods and services provided to individuals in this Judicial
`
`District.
`
`6.
`
`Venue is proper in this Judicial District under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b), (c), and
`
`1400(b).
`
`THE PATENT-IN-SUIT
`
`7.
`
`On December 11, 2007, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office duly and lawfully
`
`issued U.S. Patent No. 7,307,398 (the “398 patent”), entitled “Image Processing Device and
`
`Method for Controlling a Motor System.” A true and correct copy of the 398 patent is attached
`
`at Exhibit A.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`398 patent.
`
`The 398 patent is presumed valid under 35 U.S.C. § 282(a).
`
`Plaintiff is the owner and assignee of all substantial rights, title, and interest in the
`
`THE ACCUSED PRODUCT
`
`10.
`
`Defendant makes, uses, sells, offers for sale, or imports one or more products that
`
`infringe one or more claims of the 398 patent.
`
`11.
`
`Defendant’s Accused Product is its OnePlus 3T smartphone.
`
`COUNT I
`DIRECT INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,307,398
`
`12.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of its foregoing allegations.
`
`13. Without license or authorization and in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), Defendant
`
`directly infringes one or more claims of the 398 patent in this District and throughout the United
`
`States, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`14.
`
`Defendant directly infringes at least Claim 8 of the 398 patent in violation of 35
`
`U.S.C. § 271(a) by, among other things, making, using (at least by testing the Accused Product
`
`before selling), offering for sale, selling, or importing within this District and the United States
`
`its Accused Product as explained in Exhibit B.
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`Case 5:17-cv-00083-RWS Document 1 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 3
`
`15.
`
`Claim 8 is understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art who has the
`
`requisite education, training, and experience with the technology at issue in this case.
`
`16.
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art understands Plaintiff’s theory of how
`
`Defendant’s Accused Product infringes Claim 8 upon a plain reading of this Complaint, the 398
`
`patent, and Claim 8.
`
`17.
`
`Plaintiff reserves the right to modify its infringement theory as discovery
`
`progresses in this case, and it shall not be estopped for claim construction purposes by its
`
`preliminary infringement analysis as provided in this Complaint. Plaintiff’s preliminary
`
`infringement analysis is not representative of its final claim construction positions.
`
`18.
`
`Since at least the date that Defendant was served with a copy of this Complaint,
`
`Defendant has known that its Accused Product directly infringes one or more claims of the 398
`
`patent.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`Plaintiff requests the following relief:
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Judgment that Defendant has infringed the 398 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a);
`
`An accounting of all infringing acts including, but not limited to, those acts not
`
`presented at trial;
`
`C.
`
`An award of damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 adequate to compensate Plaintiff for
`
`Defendant’s past and future infringement, including any infringement from the date of filing of
`
`this Complaint through the date of judgment, together with interest and costs;
`
`D.
`
`Judgment that this case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and an award of
`
`Plaintiff’s reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; and
`
`E.
`
`Such further relief at law or in equity that this Court deems just and proper.
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMAND
`
`Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all claims and issues so triable under Federal Rule of
`
`Civil Procedure 38(b).
`
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`Case 5:17-cv-00083-RWS Document 1 Filed 04/11/17 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 4
`
`Dated: April 11, 2017
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`_________________
`Peter J. Corcoran, III
`Texas State Bar No. 24080038
`CORCORAN IP LAW, PLLC
`2019 Richmond Road, Suite 380
`Texarkana, Texas 75503
`Tel: (903) 701-2481
`Fax: (844) 362-3291
`Email: peter@corcoranip.com
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff
`Deshodax LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
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
