throbber
Case 6:17-cv-00299 Document 1 Filed 05/12/17 Page 1 of 18 PageID #: 1
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 6:17-cv-299
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`CYPRESS LAKE SOFTWARE, INC.
`
`
`
`v.
`
`FUJITSU AMERICA, INC.
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Cypress Lake Software, Inc. (“Cypress”) files this complaint against
`
`Fujitsu America, Inc. (“Fujitsu” or “Defendant”) alleging infringement of the following
`
`validly issued United States patents (the “Patents-in-Suit”):
`
`1.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,781,299, titled “Methods, systems, and computer program
`
`products for coordinating playing of media streams” (the “’299 Patent”);
`
`2.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,661,361, titled “Methods, systems, and computer program
`
`products for navigating between visual components” (the “’361 Patent”);
`
`3.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,983,264, titled “Methods, systems, and computer program
`
`products for coordinating playing of media streams” (the “’264 Patent”);
`
`4.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,423,923, titled “Navigation methods, systems, and
`
`computer program products (the “’923 Patent”);
`
`5.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,423,938, titled “Methods, systems, and computer program
`
`products for navigating between visual components” (the “’938 Patent”); and
`
`6.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,423,954, titled “Graphical user interface methods,
`
`systems, and computer program products” (the “’954 Patent”).
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-00299 Document 1 Filed 05/12/17 Page 2 of 18 PageID #: 2
`
`NATURE OF THE SUIT
`
`1.
`
`This is a claim for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the United
`
`States, Title 35 of the United States Code.
`
`PARTIES
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff Cypress Lake Software, Inc., is a Texas company with its principal place
`
`of business at 318 W. Dogwood Street, Woodville, TX 75979. Cypress is the owner and
`
`assignee of the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`3.
`
`On information and belief, Fujitsu America, Inc. is a company organized and
`
`existing under the laws of California, with a principal place of business at 1250 East
`
`Arques Avenue, Sunnyvale, CA 94085-5401. Fujitsu America, Inc. may be served
`
`through its registered agent, C T Corporation System, at 1999 Bryan Street, Suite 900,
`
`Dallas, TX 75201-3136.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`4.
`
`This lawsuit is a civil action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws
`
`of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. The Court has subject-matter jurisdiction
`
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, 1338(a), and 1367.
`
`5.
`
`The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant for at least four reasons:
`
`(1) Defendant has committed acts of patent infringement and contributed to and induced
`
`acts of patent infringement by others in this District and elsewhere in Texas;
`
`(2) Defendant regularly does business or solicits business in this District and in Texas;
`
`(3) Defendant engages in other persistent courses of conduct and derives substantial
`
`revenue from products and/or services provided to individuals in this District and in
`
`Texas; and (4) Defendant has purposefully established substantial, systematic, and
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-00299 Document 1 Filed 05/12/17 Page 3 of 18 PageID #: 3
`
`continuous contacts with the District and should reasonably expect to be haled into court
`
`here.
`
`6.
`
`Defendant’s ties with Texas and this District are extensive. Defendant operates a
`
`website that sells and solicits sales of infringing products to consumers in this District
`
`and Texas (see Exhibit A); Defendant offers telephonic and electronic support services for
`
`infringing products to customers in this District and Texas (see Exhibit B); Defendant
`
`offers software and updates for infringing products for download by customers in this
`
`District and Texas (see, e.g., Exhibit C); Defendant has partnered with numerous retailers
`
`in this District and Texas (see Exhibit D); Defendant operates a sales office and employs
`
`people in Texas (see Exhibit E); and Defendant has a registered agent for service in Texas
`
`(see above). Given these extensive contacts, the Court’s exercise of jurisdiction over
`
`Defendant will not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
`
`7.
`
`Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)-(c) and
`
`1400(b) because Defendant does business in the State of Texas, Defendant has committed
`
`acts of infringement in Texas and in the District, a substantial part of the events or
`
`omissions giving rise to Cypress’s claims happened in the District, and Defendant is
`
`subject to personal jurisdiction in the District. See Luci Bags LLC v. Younique, LLC, No.
`
`4:16-CV-00377, 2017 WL 77943, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 9, 2017) (“For venue purposes, a
`
`defendant entity is deemed to reside in any judicial district where it would be subject to
`
`the court's personal jurisdiction with respect to the civil action in question.”) (citing 28
`
`U.S.C. § 1391(c)(2)).
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-00299 Document 1 Filed 05/12/17 Page 4 of 18 PageID #: 4
`
`THE ACCUSED DEVICES
`
`8.
`
`Defendant designs, develops and/or manufactures computers and tablets that
`
`employ the Microsoft Windows 10 operating system, including, but not limited to, its
`
`E546, E547, E556, E557, E736, E746, E756, U727, U745, U747, U757 models of
`
`LIFEBOOK notebooks, its P727, T726, T734, T936, T937 and T4220 models of
`
`LIFEBOOK tablets, and its Q616, Q702, Q704, Q736, Q737 and R726 models of
`
`STYLISTIC tablets (collectively, the “Accused Devices,” which are comprised of the
`
`“Accused Windows Non-Touchscreen Devices” and “Accused Windows Touchscreen
`
`Devices”—see Exhibits 1 and 2).
`
`9.
`
`Windows 10 has two features that infringe the Patents-in-Suit: Miracast and Snap
`
`Assist. When implemented in connection with the Accused Devices, Miracast infringes
`
`the ‘299 Patent and the ‘264 Patent, and Snap Assist infringes the remaining Patents-in-
`
`Suit.
`
`10. Miracast is a wireless display standard included in Windows 10 that allows a user
`
`to wirelessly project his or her computer screen to a second device such as a television,
`
`projector,
`
`or
`
`other
`
`computer.
`
`(See,
`
`e.g.,
`
`https://support.microsoft.com/en-
`
`ca/help/15053/windows-8-project-wireless-screen-miracast.)
`
`11.
`
`Snap Assist is a Windows 10 feature that allows a user to drag a window to the
`
`left or right edge of the screen in order to resize it to half the screen and then choose
`
`another window for the other half of the screen from a displayed menu of potential
`
`windows. (See, e.g., https://blogs.windows.com/windowsexperience/2015/06/04/arrange-
`
`your-windows-in-a-snap/#OrBBCudRUWRMYFzj.97.)
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-00299 Document 1 Filed 05/12/17 Page 5 of 18 PageID #: 5
`
`12.
`
`Defendant has not sought or obtained a license for any of Cypress’s patented
`
`technologies. Yet Defendant’s Accused Devices are using methods, devices, and systems
`
`taught by Cypress’s Patents-in-Suit.
`
`COUNT 1:
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,781,299
`
`Cypress incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-12 above.
`
`The ’299 Patent is valid, enforceable, and was duly and legally issued on July 15,
`
`13.
`
`14.
`
`2014.
`
`15. Without a license or permission from Cypress, Defendant has infringed and
`
`continues to infringe on one or more claims of the ‘299 Patent—directly, contributorily,
`
`or by inducement—by importing, making, using, offering for sale, or selling products and
`
`devices that embody the patented invention, including, without limitation, one or more of
`
`the Accused Devices, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`16.
`
`Defendant has been and now is directly infringing by, among other things,
`
`practicing all of the steps of the ’299 Patent and/or directing, controlling, and obtaining
`
`benefits from its partners, distributors and retailers practicing all of the steps of the ‘299
`
`Patent. Specifically, Defendant imports the Accused Devices into the United States,
`
`offers for sale and sells the Accused Devices in the United States, and generates revenue
`
`from sales of the Accused Devices to U.S. customers (see, e.g., Exhibit A).
`
`17.
`
`Defendant has been and now is indirectly infringing by way of inducing
`
`infringement by others and/or contributing to the infringement by others of the ‘299
`
`Patent in the State of Texas, in this judicial district, and elsewhere in the United States,
`
`by, among other things, making, using, importing, offering for sale, and/or selling,
`
`without license or authority, products for use in systems that fall within the scope of one
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-00299 Document 1 Filed 05/12/17 Page 6 of 18 PageID #: 6
`
`or more claims of the ‘299 Patent. Such products include, without limitation, one or more
`
`of the Accused Devices. Such products have no substantial non-infringing uses and are
`
`for use in systems that infringe the ’299 Patent. By making, using, importing offering for
`
`sale, and/or selling such products, Defendant injured Cypress and is thus liable to
`
`Cypress for infringement of the ’299 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271. Those whom
`
`Defendant induces to infringe and/or to whose infringement Defendant contributes are
`
`the end users of the Accused Devices. See Dynacore Holdings Corp. v. U.S. Philips
`
`Corp., 363 F.3d 1263, 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Defendant had knowledge of the ‘299
`
`Patent at least as early as the service of this complaint and is thus liable for infringement
`
`of one or more claims of the ‘299 Patent by actively inducing infringement and/or is
`
`liable as contributory infringer of one or more claims of the ‘299 Patent under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 271.
`
`18.
`
`Defendant’s acts of infringement of the ’299 Patent have caused damage to
`
`Cypress, and Cypress is entitled to recover from Defendant the damages sustained as a
`
`result of Defendant’s wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial pursuant to
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271. Defendant’s infringement of Cypress’s exclusive rights under the ‘299
`
`Patent will continue to damage Cypress, causing it irreparable harm, for which there is no
`
`adequate remedy at law, warranting an injunction from the Court.
`
`19.
`
`On information and belief, the infringement of the Patents-in-Suit by Defendant
`
`has been willful and continues to be willful. Defendant knew or should have known that
`
`its incorporation of the accused technology in its Accused Devices represented an
`
`objectively high likelihood of infringing the patents-in-suit. See In re Seagate Tech., LLC,
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-00299 Document 1 Filed 05/12/17 Page 7 of 18 PageID #: 7
`
`497 F.3d 1360, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (en banc). Defendant had knowledge of the Patents-
`
`in-Suit, including but not limited to filing and service of this Complaint.
`
`20.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant has at least had constructive notice of the
`
`’299 Patent by operation of law.
`
`COUNT 2:
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,661,361
`
`21.
`
`22.
`
`Cypress incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-20 above.
`
`The ’361 Patent is valid, enforceable, and was duly and legally issued on
`
`February 25, 2014.
`
`23. Without a license or permission from Cypress, Defendant has infringed and
`
`continues to infringe on one or more claims of the ’361 Patent—directly, contributorily,
`
`or by inducement—by importing, making, using, offering for sale, or selling products and
`
`devices that embody the patented invention, including, without limitation, one or more of
`
`the Accused Devices, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`24.
`
`Defendant has been and now is directly infringing by, among other things,
`
`practicing all of the steps of the ‘361 Patent and/or directing, controlling, and obtaining
`
`benefits from its partners, distributors and retailers practicing all of the steps of the ’361
`
`Patent. Specifically, Defendant imports the Accused Devices into the United States,
`
`offers for sale and sells the Accused Devices in the United States, and generates revenue
`
`from sales of the Accused Devices to U.S. customers (see, e.g., Exhibit A).
`
`25.
`
`Defendant has been and now is indirectly infringing by way of inducing
`
`infringement by others and/or contributing to the infringement by others of the ’361
`
`Patent in the State of Texas, in this judicial district, and elsewhere in the United States,
`
`by, among other things, making, using, importing, offering for sale, and/or selling,
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-00299 Document 1 Filed 05/12/17 Page 8 of 18 PageID #: 8
`
`without license or authority, products for use in systems that fall within the scope of one
`
`or more claims of the ’361 Patent. Such products include, without limitation, one or more
`
`of the Accused Devices. Such products have no substantial non-infringing uses and are
`
`for use in systems that infringe the ‘361 Patent. By making, using, importing offering for
`
`sale, and/or selling such products, Defendant injured Cypress and is thus liable to
`
`Cypress for infringement of the ’361 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271. Those whom
`
`Defendant induces to infringe and/or to whose infringement Defendant contributes are
`
`the end users of the Accused Devices. See Dynacore Holdings Corp. v. U.S. Philips
`
`Corp., 363 F.3d 1263, 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Defendant had knowledge of the ‘361
`
`Patent at least as early as the service of this complaint and is thus liable for infringement
`
`of one or more claims of the ‘361 Patent by actively inducing infringement and/or is
`
`liable as contributory infringer of one or more claims of the ’361 Patent under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 271.
`
`26.
`
`Defendant’s acts of infringement of the ’361 Patent have caused damage to
`
`Cypress, and Cypress is entitled to recover from Defendant the damages sustained as a
`
`result of Defendant’s wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial pursuant to
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271. Defendant’s infringement of Cypress’s exclusive rights under the ’361
`
`Patent will continue to damage Cypress, causing it irreparable harm, for which there is no
`
`adequate remedy at law, warranting an injunction from the Court.
`
`27.
`
`On information and belief, the infringement of the Patents-in-Suit by Defendant
`
`has been willful and continues to be willful. Defendant knew or should have known that
`
`its incorporation of the accused technology in its Accused Devices represented an
`
`objectively high likelihood of infringing the patents-in-suit. See In re Seagate Tech., LLC,
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-00299 Document 1 Filed 05/12/17 Page 9 of 18 PageID #: 9
`
`497 F.3d 1360, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (en banc). Defendant had knowledge of the Patents-
`
`in-Suit, including but not limited to filing and service of this Complaint.
`
`28.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant has at least had constructive notice of the
`
`‘361 Patent by operation of law.
`
`COUNT 3:
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,983,264
`
`29.
`
`30.
`
`Cypress incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-28 above.
`
`The ‘264 Patent is valid, enforceable, and was duly and legally issued on March
`
`17, 2015.
`
`31. Without a license or permission from Cypress, Defendant has infringed and
`
`continues to infringe on one or more claims of the ’264 Patent—directly, contributorily,
`
`or by inducement—by importing, making, using, offering for sale, or selling products and
`
`devices that embody the patented invention, including, without limitation, one or more of
`
`the Accused Devices, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`32.
`
`Defendant has been and now is directly infringing by, among other things,
`
`practicing all of the steps of the ’264 Patent and/or directing, controlling, and obtaining
`
`benefits from its partners, distributors and retailers practicing all of the steps of the ‘264
`
`Patent. Specifically, Defendant imports the Accused Devices into the United States,
`
`offers for sale and sells the Accused Devices in the United States, and generates revenue
`
`from sales of the Accused Devices to U.S. customers (see, e.g., Exhibit A).
`
`33.
`
`Defendant has been and now is indirectly infringing by way of inducing
`
`infringement by others and/or contributing to the infringement by others of the ’264
`
`Patent in the State of Texas, in this judicial district, and elsewhere in the United States,
`
`by, among other things, making, using, importing, offering for sale, and/or selling,
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-00299 Document 1 Filed 05/12/17 Page 10 of 18 PageID #: 10
`
`without license or authority, products for use in systems that fall within the scope of one
`
`or more claims of the ’264 Patent. Such products include, without limitation, one or more
`
`of the Accused Devices. Such products have no substantial non-infringing uses and are
`
`for use in systems that infringe the ‘264 Patent. By making, using, importing offering for
`
`sale, and/or selling such products, Defendant injured Cypress and is thus liable to
`
`Cypress for infringement of the ‘264 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271. Those whom
`
`Defendant induces to infringe and/or to whose infringement Defendant contributes are
`
`the end users of the Accused Devices. See Dynacore Holdings Corp. v. U.S. Philips
`
`Corp., 363 F.3d 1263, 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Defendant had knowledge of the ‘264
`
`Patent at least as early as the service of this complaint and is thus liable for infringement
`
`of one or more claims of the ‘264 Patent by actively inducing infringement and/or is
`
`liable as contributory infringer of one or more claims of the ‘264 Patent under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 271.
`
`34.
`
`Defendant’s acts of infringement of the ‘264 Patent have caused damage to
`
`Cypress, and Cypress is entitled to recover from Defendant the damages sustained as a
`
`result of Defendant’s wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial pursuant to
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271. Defendant’s infringement of Cypress’s exclusive rights under the ‘264
`
`Patent will continue to damage Cypress, causing it irreparable harm, for which there is no
`
`adequate remedy at law, warranting an injunction from the Court.
`
`35.
`
`On information and belief, the infringement of the Patents-in-Suit by Defendant
`
`has been willful and continues to be willful. Defendant knew or should have known that
`
`its incorporation of the accused technology in its Accused Devices represented an
`
`objectively high likelihood of infringing the patents-in-suit. See In re Seagate Tech., LLC,
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-00299 Document 1 Filed 05/12/17 Page 11 of 18 PageID #: 11
`
`497 F.3d 1360, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (en banc). Defendant had knowledge of the Patents-
`
`in-Suit, including but not limited to filing and service of this Complaint.
`
`36.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant has at least had constructive notice of the
`
`’264 Patent by operation of law.
`
`COUNT 4:
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,423,923
`
`37.
`
`38.
`
`Cypress incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-36 above.
`
`The ’923 Patent is valid, enforceable, and was duly and legally issued on August
`
`23, 2016.
`
`39. Without a license or permission from Cypress, Defendant has infringed and
`
`continues to infringe on one or more claims of the ’923 Patent—directly, contributorily,
`
`or by inducement—by importing, making, using, offering for sale, or selling products and
`
`devices that embody the patented invention, including, without limitation, one or more of
`
`the Accused Devices, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`40.
`
`Defendant has been and now is directly infringing by, among other things,
`
`practicing all of the steps of the ’923 Patent and/or directing, controlling, and obtaining
`
`benefits from its partners, distributors and retailers practicing all of the steps of the ’923
`
`Patent. Specifically, Defendant imports the Accused Devices into the United States,
`
`offers for sale and sells the Accused Devices in the United States, and generates revenue
`
`from sales of the Accused Devices to U.S. customers (see, e.g., Exhibit A).
`
`41.
`
`Defendant has been and now is indirectly infringing by way of inducing
`
`infringement by others and/or contributing to the infringement by others of the ’923
`
`Patent in the State of Texas, in this judicial district, and elsewhere in the United States,
`
`by, among other things, making, using, importing, offering for sale, and/or selling,
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-00299 Document 1 Filed 05/12/17 Page 12 of 18 PageID #: 12
`
`without license or authority, products for use in systems that fall within the scope of one
`
`or more claims of the ’923 Patent. Such products include, without limitation, one or more
`
`of the Accused Devices. Such products have no substantial non-infringing uses and are
`
`for use in systems that infringe the ’923 Patent. By making, using, importing offering for
`
`sale, and/or selling such products, Defendant injured Cypress and is thus liable to
`
`Cypress for infringement of the ’923 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271. Those whom
`
`Defendant induces to infringe and/or to whose infringement Defendant contributes are
`
`the end users of the Accused Devices. See Dynacore Holdings Corp. v. U.S. Philips
`
`Corp., 363 F.3d 1263, 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Defendant had knowledge of the ’923
`
`Patent at least as early as the service of this complaint and is thus liable for infringement
`
`of one or more claims of the ’923 Patent by actively inducing infringement and/or is
`
`liable as contributory infringer of one or more claims of the ’923 Patent under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 271.
`
`42.
`
`Defendant’s acts of infringement of the ’923 Patent have caused damage to
`
`Cypress, and Cypress is entitled to recover from Defendant the damages sustained as a
`
`result of Defendant’s wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial pursuant to
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271. Defendant’s infringement of Cypress’s exclusive rights under the ’923
`
`Patent will continue to damage Cypress, causing it irreparable harm, for which there is no
`
`adequate remedy at law, warranting an injunction from the Court.
`
`43.
`
`On information and belief, the infringement of the Patents-in-Suit by Defendant
`
`has been willful and continues to be willful. Defendant knew or should have known that
`
`its incorporation of the accused technology in its Accused Devices represented an
`
`objectively high likelihood of infringing the patents-in-suit. See In re Seagate Tech., LLC,
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-00299 Document 1 Filed 05/12/17 Page 13 of 18 PageID #: 13
`
`497 F.3d 1360, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (en banc). Defendant had knowledge of the Patents-
`
`in-Suit, including but not limited to filing and service of this Complaint.
`
`44.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant has at least had constructive notice of the
`
`’923 Patent by operation of law.
`
`COUNT 5:
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,423,938
`
`45.
`
`46.
`
`Cypress incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-44 above.
`
`The ’938 Patent is valid, enforceable, and was duly and legally issued on August
`
`23, 2016.
`
`47. Without a license or permission from Cypress, Defendant has infringed and
`
`continues to infringe on one or more claims of the ‘938 Patent—directly, contributorily,
`
`or by inducement—by importing, making, using, offering for sale, or selling products and
`
`devices that embody the patented invention, including, without limitation, one or more of
`
`the Accused Devices, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`48.
`
`Defendant has been and now is directly infringing by, among other things,
`
`practicing all of the steps of the ‘938 Patent and/or directing, controlling, and obtaining
`
`benefits from its partners, distributors and retailers practicing all of the steps of the ’938
`
`Patent. Specifically, Defendant imports the Accused Devices into the United States,
`
`offers for sale and sells the Accused Devices in the United States, and generates revenue
`
`from sales of the Accused Devices to U.S. customers (see, e.g., Exhibit A).
`
`49.
`
`Defendant has been and now is indirectly infringing by way of inducing
`
`infringement by others and/or contributing to the infringement by others of the ’938
`
`Patent in the State of Texas, in this judicial district, and elsewhere in the United States,
`
`by, among other things, making, using, importing, offering for sale, and/or selling,
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-00299 Document 1 Filed 05/12/17 Page 14 of 18 PageID #: 14
`
`without license or authority, products for use in systems that fall within the scope of one
`
`or more claims of the ’938 Patent. Such products include, without limitation, one or more
`
`of the Accused Devices. Such products have no substantial non-infringing uses and are
`
`for use in systems that infringe the ‘938 Patent. By making, using, importing offering for
`
`sale, and/or selling such products, Defendant injured Cypress and is thus liable to
`
`Cypress for infringement of the ’938 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271. Those whom
`
`Defendant induces to infringe and/or to whose infringement Defendant contributes are
`
`the end users of the Accused Devices. See Dynacore Holdings Corp. v. U.S. Philips
`
`Corp., 363 F.3d 1263, 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Defendant had knowledge of the ’938
`
`Patent at least as early as the service of this complaint and is thus liable for infringement
`
`of one or more claims of the ‘938 Patent by actively inducing infringement and/or is
`
`liable as contributory infringer of one or more claims of the ‘938 Patent under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 271.
`
`50.
`
`Defendant’s acts of infringement of the ‘938 Patent have caused damage to
`
`Cypress, and Cypress is entitled to recover from Defendant the damages sustained as a
`
`result of Defendant’s wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial pursuant to
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271. Defendant’s infringement of Cypress’s exclusive rights under the ’938
`
`Patent will continue to damage Cypress, causing it irreparable harm, for which there is no
`
`adequate remedy at law, warranting an injunction from the Court.
`
`51.
`
`On information and belief, the infringement of the Patents-in-Suit by Defendant
`
`has been willful and continues to be willful. Defendant knew or should have known that
`
`its incorporation of the accused technology in its Accused Devices represented an
`
`objectively high likelihood of infringing the patents-in-suit. See In re Seagate Tech., LLC,
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-00299 Document 1 Filed 05/12/17 Page 15 of 18 PageID #: 15
`
`497 F.3d 1360, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (en banc). Defendant had knowledge of the Patents-
`
`in-Suit, including but not limited to filing and service of this Complaint.
`
`52.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant has at least had constructive notice of the
`
`‘938 Patent by operation of law.
`
`COUNT 6:
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,423,954
`
`53.
`
`54.
`
`Cypress incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-52 above.
`
`The ’954 Patent is valid, enforceable, and was duly and legally issued on August
`
`23, 2016.
`
`55. Without a license or permission from Cypress, Defendant has infringed and
`
`continues to infringe on one or more claims of the ’954 Patent—directly, contributorily,
`
`or by inducement—by importing, making, using, offering for sale, or selling products and
`
`devices that embody the patented invention, including, without limitation, one or more of
`
`the Accused Devices, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`56.
`
`Defendant has been and now is directly infringing by, among other things,
`
`practicing all of the steps of the ’954 Patent and/or directing, controlling, and obtaining
`
`benefits from its partners, distributors and retailers practicing all of the steps of the ‘954
`
`Patent. Specifically, Defendant imports the Accused Devices into the United States,
`
`offers for sale and sells the Accused Devices in the United States, and generates revenue
`
`from sales of the Accused Devices to U.S. customers (see, e.g., Exhibit A).
`
`57.
`
`Defendant has been and now is indirectly infringing by way of inducing
`
`infringement by others and/or contributing to the infringement by others of the ’954
`
`Patent in the State of Texas, in this judicial district, and elsewhere in the United States,
`
`by, among other things, making, using, importing, offering for sale, and/or selling,
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-00299 Document 1 Filed 05/12/17 Page 16 of 18 PageID #: 16
`
`without license or authority, products for use in systems that fall within the scope of one
`
`or more claims of the ’954 Patent. Such products include, without limitation, one or more
`
`of the Accused Devices. Such products have no substantial non-infringing uses and are
`
`for use in systems that infringe the ’954 Patent. By making, using, importing offering for
`
`sale, and/or selling such products, Defendant injured Cypress and is thus liable to
`
`Cypress for infringement of the ’954 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271. Those whom
`
`Defendant induces to infringe and/or to whose infringement Defendant contributes are
`
`the end users of the Accused Devices. See Dynacore Holdings Corp. v. U.S. Philips
`
`Corp., 363 F.3d 1263, 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Defendant had knowledge of the ‘954
`
`Patent at least as early as the service of this complaint and is thus liable for infringement
`
`of one or more claims of the ’954 Patent by actively inducing infringement and/or is
`
`liable as contributory infringer of one or more claims of the ’954 Patent under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 271.
`
`58.
`
`Defendant’s acts of infringement of the ’954 Patent have caused damage to
`
`Cypress, and Cypress is entitled to recover from Defendant the damages sustained as a
`
`result of Defendant’s wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial pursuant to
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271. Defendant’s infringement of Cypress’s exclusive rights under the ’954
`
`Patent will continue to damage Cypress, causing it irreparable harm, for which there is no
`
`adequate remedy at law, warranting an injunction from the Court.
`
`59.
`
`On information and belief, the infringement of the Patents-in-Suit by Defendant
`
`has been willful and continues to be willful. Defendant knew or should have known that
`
`its incorporation of the accused technology in its Accused Devices represented an
`
`objectively high likelihood of infringing the patents-in-suit. See In re Seagate Tech., LLC,
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-00299 Document 1 Filed 05/12/17 Page 17 of 18 PageID #: 17
`
`497 F.3d 1360, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (en banc). Defendant had knowledge of the Patents-
`
`in-Suit, including but not limited to filing and service of this Complaint.
`
`60.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant has at least had constructive notice of the
`
`’954 Patent by operation of law.
`
`REQUEST FOR RELIEF
`
`Cypress incorporates each of the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 60 above and
`
`respectfully asks the Court to:
`
`(a)
`
`enter a judgment that Defendant has directly infringed, contributorily
`
`infringed, and/or induced infringement of one or more claims of each of the
`
`Patents-in-Suit;
`
`(b)
`
`enter a judgment awarding Cypress all damages adequate to compensate it
`
`for Defendant’s infringement of, direct or contributory, or inducement to infringe,
`
`the Patents-in-Suit, including all pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the
`
`maximum rate permitted by law;
`
`(c)
`
`enter a judgment awarding treble damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284 for
`
`Defendant’s willful infringement of one or more of the Patents-in-Suit;
`
`(d)
`
`issue a preliminary injunction and thereafter a permanent injunction
`
`enjoining and restraining Defendant, its directors, officers, agents, servants,
`
`employees, and those acting in privity or in concert with them, and their
`
`subsidiaries, divisions, successors, and assigns, from further acts of infringement,
`
`contributory infringement, or inducement of infringement of the Patents-in-Suit;
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-00299 Document 1 Filed 05/12/17 Page 18 of 18 PageID #: 18
`
`(e)
`
`enter a judgment requiring Defendant to pay the costs of this action,
`
`including all disbursements, and attorneys’ fees as provided by 35 U.S.C. § 285,
`
`together with prejudgment interest; and
`
`(f)
`
`award Cypress all other relief that the Court may deem just and proper.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Cypress demands a jury trial on all issues that may be determined by a jury.
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Randall T. Garteiser
`Randall T. Garteiser
` Texas Bar No. 24038912
` rgarteiser@ghiplaw.com
`Christopher A. Honea
` Texas Bar No. 24059967
` chonea@ghiplaw.com
`GARTEISER HONEA, P.C.
`119 W. Ferguson Street
`Tyler, Texas 75702
`Telephone: (903) 705-7420
`Facsimile: (888) 908-4400
`
`Kirk J. Anderson
` California Bar No. 289043
` kanderson@ghiplaw.com
`Ian Ramage
` Californi

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket