Case 6:22-cv-00573 Document 1 Filed 06/03/22 Page 1 of 26
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`QUANTUM IMAGING LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`SONY GROUP CORPORATION; SONY
`CORPORATION OF AMERICA; SONY
`INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT INC.;
`SONY INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT
`LLC; AND BLUEPOINT GAMES, INC.
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`Civil Action No. 6:22-cv-573
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Plaintiff Quantum Imaging LLC files this Complaint for Patent Infringement and Damages
`
`against Defendants Sony Group Corporation, Sony Corporation of America, Sony Interactive
`
`Entertainment Inc., Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC, and Bluepoint Games, Inc. and would
`
`respectfully show the Court as follows:
`
`PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff Quantum Imaging LLC (“Quantum” or “Plaintiff”) is a Wyoming Limited
`
`Liability Company. Quantum is the assignee of the four patents-in-suit (see ¶ 66), which relate to,
`
`among other things and without limitation, inventions related to devices and programs that offer
`
`functionality providing users the ability to engage in business-related transactions and other
`
`functionalities while playing games and other functionalities.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant Sony Group Corporation is a corporation organized and existing under
`
`the laws of Japan with its principal executive offices at 1-7-1 Konan Minato-ku, Tokyo, 108-0075
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00573 Document 1 Filed 06/03/22 Page 2 of 26
`
`Japan. Defendant Sony Group Corporation engages in business in the State of Texas but, upon
`
`information and belief, does not maintain a regular place of business in the State or a designated
`
`agent for service of process. Therefore, pursuant to § 17.044 of the Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code,
`
`Defendant Sony Group Corporation has designated the Secretary of State as its agent for service
`
`of process and may be served with process through its counsel or by serving the Secretary of
`
`State. The Secretary of State may forward service to Defendant Sony Group Corporation at its
`
`home office address located at 1-7-1 Konan Minato-ku, Tokyo, 108-0075 Japan.
`
`3.
`
`Defendant Sony Corporation of America is a corporation organized and existing
`
`under the laws of the State of New York with its principal executive offices at 25 Madison Avenue,
`
`New York, NY 10010. On information and belief, Defendant Sony Corporation of America is the
`
`U.S. headquarters of Defendant Sony Group Corporation. Defendant Sony Corporation of America
`
`may be served through its registered agent, Corporation Service Company at 80 State Street,
`
`Albany, NY 12207.
`
`4.
`
`Defendant Sony Interactive Entertainment Inc. is a corporation organized and
`
`existing under the laws of Japan with its principal place of business at 1-7-1 Konan Minato-ku,
`
`Tokyo, 108-0075 Japan. Defendant Sony Interactive Entertainment Inc. is also a corporation
`
`organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware. Defendant Sony Interactive
`
`Entertainment Inc. may be served through its registered agent, Corporation Service Company, at
`
`251 Little Falls Drive, Wilmington, Delaware 19808. On information and belief, Defendant Sony
`
`Interactive Entertainment Inc. is a subsidiary of Defendant Sony Group Corporation.
`
`5.
`
`Defendant Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC is a limited liability company
`
`organized and existing under the laws of the State of California. Defendant Sony Interactive
`
`Entertainment LLC is registered to do business in Texas and may be served at 211 E 7th Street,
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00573 Document 1 Filed 06/03/22 Page 3 of 26
`
`Suite 620, Austin Texas, 78701. On information and belief, Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC
`
`is a subsidiary of Defendant Sony Group Corporation.
`
`6.
`
`Defendant Bluepoint Games, Inc. (“Bluepoint”) is a corporation organized under
`
`the laws of the State of Texas with principal place of business at 5000 Plaza on the Lake, Austin,
`
`TX 78746, and may be served via its registered agent, Corporation Service Company D/B/A CSC-
`
`Lawyers Inc. at 211 E 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin Texas, 78701. On information and belief,
`
`Bluepoint Games Inc. is part of PlayStation Studios (formerly SCE Worldwide Studios and SIE
`
`Worldwide Studios), which is a division of Defendant Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC and/or
`
`Defendant Sony Interactive Entertainment Inc.
`
`7.
`
`On information and belief, Sony Group Corporation, Sony Corporation of America,
`
`Sony Interactive Entertainment Inc., Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC, and Bluepoint Games
`
`Inc. (collectively referred to as “Sony” or “Defendants”) directly and/or indirectly develop, design,
`
`manufacture, distribute, market, offer to sell and/or sell infringing products and services in the
`
`United States, including in the Western District of Texas, and otherwise direct infringing activities
`
`to this District in connection with their products and services as set forth in this complaint.
`
`JURISDICTION
`
`8.
`
`This civil action arises under the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et
`
`seq., including without limitation 35 U.S.C. §§ 271, 281, 283, 284, and 285. This is a patent
`
`infringement lawsuit over which this Court has subject matter jurisdiction under, inter alia, 28
`
`U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, and 1338(a).
`
`9.
`
`This United States District Court for the Western District of Texas has general and
`
`specific personal jurisdiction over Defendants because, directly or through intermediaries,
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00573 Document 1 Filed 06/03/22 Page 4 of 26
`
`Defendants have committed acts within the District giving rise to this action and are present in and
`
`transact and conduct business in and with residents of this District and the State of Texas.
`
`10.
`
`Quantum’s causes of action arise, at least in part, from Defendants’ contacts with
`
`and activities in this District and the State of Texas.
`
`11.
`
`Defendants have committed acts of infringing the patents-in-suit within this District
`
`and the State of Texas by making, using, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing in or into this
`
`District and elsewhere in the State of Texas, products claimed by the patents-in-suit, including
`
`without limitation products made by practicing the claimed methods of the patents-in-suit.
`
`Defendants, directly and through intermediaries, make, use, sell, offer for sale, import, ship,
`
`distribute, advertise, promote, and/or otherwise commercialize such infringing products into this
`
`District and the State of Texas. Defendants regularly conduct and solicit business in, engage in
`
`other persistent courses of conduct in, and/or derive substantial revenue from goods and services
`
`provided to residents of this District and the State of Texas.
`
`12.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants pursuant to TEX. CIV. PRAC.
`
`& REM. CODE § 17.041 et seq.
`
`13.
`
`Personal jurisdiction exists over Defendants because Defendants have minimum
`
`contacts with this forum as a result of business regularly conducted within the State of Texas and
`
`within this district, and, on information and belief, specifically as a result of, at least, committing
`
`the tort of patent infringement within Texas and this District.
`
`14.
`
`This Court also has personal jurisdiction over Defendants, in part, because
`
`Defendants do continuous and systematic business in this District, including by providing
`
`infringing products and services to the residents of the Western District of Texas that Defendants
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00573 Document 1 Filed 06/03/22 Page 5 of 26
`
`knew would be used within this District, and by soliciting business from the residents of the
`
`Western District of Texas.
`
`15.
`
`Defendants are further subject to personal jurisdiction in this Court because, inter
`
`alia, Defendants through agents regularly solicit and transact business in the Western District of
`
`Texas, and have an established place of business in the Western District of Texas. Accordingly,
`
`this Court’s jurisdiction over the Defendants comports with the constitutional standards of fair play
`
`and substantial justice and arises directly from the Defendants’ purposeful minimum contacts with
`
`the State of Texas.
`
`16.
`
`This Court also has personal jurisdiction over Defendants, because Defendants
`
`have made its products available within this District.
`
`17.
`
`18.
`
`Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391, and 1400(b).
`
`For example, Bluepoint maintains its principal place of business at 5000 Plaza on
`
`the Lake, Austin, Texas 78746.
`
`19.
`
`Defendants have posted over 100 opportunities for employment in this District from
`
`January 1, 2022, until the date of this Complaint.
`
`20.
`
`As of the date of this Complaint, via the PlayStation.com website, Defendants are
`
`seeking to immediately hire at least 12 positions in Austin:1
`
`
`1 https://www.playstation.com/en-us/corporate/playstation-careers/
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00573 Document 1 Filed 06/03/22 Page 6 of 26
`
`21.
`
`Similarly, as of the date of this Complaint, “PlayStation” is hiring for at least 18
`
`
`
`on-site positions in Austin.2
`
`22.
`
`For Bluepoint, as of the date of this Complaint, LinkedIn lists 68 current Bluepoint
`
`employees in Austin,3 including, for example, 12-year Bluepoint employee Mr. Steven Schaefer,
`
`whose latest project is stated to be Demon’s Souls for the PlayStation 5 (one of the Accused
`
`Products in this Complaint):4
`
`
`
`
`2 https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/search/?f_C=1254%2C10516637%2C57993393%2C25821%
`2C32068831&geoId=90000064&location=Austin%2C%20Texas%20Metropolitan%20Area&so
`rtBy=R
`3 https://www.linkedin.com/company/bluepoint-games/
`4 https://www.linkedin.com/in/steven-schaefer-42b97067/
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00573 Document 1 Filed 06/03/22 Page 7 of 26
`
`as well as 6.5- year Bluepoint employee Mr. Chris Torres, who is the Animation Director for the
`
`Accused Product, Demon’s Souls: 5
`
`
`
`23.
`
`Importantly, of the 68 Bluepoint employees listed as located in Austin via
`
`LinkedIn,6 only five are listed as being located outside of the Austin metropolitan area and
`
`presumably working remotely with the Austin Bluepoint office. These individuals include the
`
`following: (1) Mr. Kyle Shubel, a Senior Product Manager who has been at Bluepoint since April
`
`2022 listed as being remote in Springfield, Missouri;7 (2) Mr. Alex Gold, a one-year Senior Game
`
`Designer at Bluepoint who is listed as working in Austin but located in the San Francisco Bay
`
`Area;8 (3) Mr. Sven Bybee, who apparently has done work for Bluepoint on a freelance basis from
`
`Decatur, Georgia as an Freelance Concept Artist for the last 4.5 years;9 (4) Ms. Briana Gibson, of
`
`Sarasota Florida, who has worked as a Junior Environment Artist for Bluepoint for three years;10
`
`and (5) Mr. Jose Parodi, a Character Concept Artist who has worked remotely from Medellín,
`
`Colombia since April 2018.11 All other Bluepoint employees are listed as being based and residing
`
`in the Austin area, including the President, Head of Technology, Director of Business and Legal
`
`Affairs, and all other Bluepoint personnel in top roles as well as the game designers.
`
`
`5 https://www.linkedin.com/in/chris-torres-8886184/
`6 https://www.linkedin.com/search/results/people/?currentCompany=%5B%228919250%
`22%5D&keywords=bluepoint%20games&origin=FACETED_SEARCH&position=0&searchId=
`f6ee24f9-d5f4-4129-93fd-cb6c94c118ce&sid=0YY
`7 https://www.linkedin.com/in/kyleshubel/
`8 https://www.linkedin.com/in/alexgoldgames/
`9 https://www.linkedin.com/in/svenbybee/
`10 https://www.linkedin.com/in/brianna-gibson-636895127/
`11 https://www.linkedin.com/in/jose-parodi-6a458163/
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00573 Document 1 Filed 06/03/22 Page 8 of 26
`
`24.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants employ individuals, and offer employment
`
`opportunities to individuals, in this District, including but not limited to Principal Hardware
`
`Architects; Service Reliability Engineers; Manager, Hardware & System Engineers; and Platform
`
`Engineers; among others.
`
`25.
`
`On information and belief, several key witnesses are located in this District,
`
`including Sony personnel as well as non-party witnesses (including former Sony employees).
`
`26.
`
`For example, on information and belief, Bruno Matzdorf, a Senior Manager of
`
`Tools and Middleware, works in this District.
`
`27.
`
`On information and belief, Colin DuPre, a Vice President of Technical Operations,
`
`works in this District.
`
`28.
`
`District.
`
`29.
`
`this District.
`
`30.
`
`On information and belief, Jeffrey Larkin, a Senior VFX Artist, works in this
`
`On information and belief, Fabio Lissi, a Senior Engineering Manager, works in
`
`On information and belief, Richard Britain, a Manager of Project Management –
`
`Technical Operations, works in this District.
`
`31.
`
`32.
`
`District.
`
`33.
`
`On information and belief, Nicholas Hancock, an Engineer, works in this District.
`
`On information and belief, John Burns, a Senior Software Engineer, works in this
`
`On information and belief, Greg Herzbrun, a Manager of Release Engineering,
`
`works in this District.
`
`34.
`
`On information and belief, Michael Mengden, a Senior Software Engineer, works
`
`in this District.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00573 Document 1 Filed 06/03/22 Page 9 of 26
`
`35.
`
`District.
`
`36.
`
`37.
`
`On information and belief, Rebecca Markovsky, a Software Engineer, works in this
`
`On information and belief, Jeff Schanz, a Remote Animator, works in this District.
`
`On information and belief, the above-named individuals work, at least in part, on
`
`and/or with the Accused Products (as defined at ¶ 66 herein).
`
`38.
`
`On information and belief, there are many more key witnesses who work on and/or
`
`with the Accused Products in this District.
`
`39.
`
`On information and belief, millions of lines of relevant code in the Accused
`
`Products are maintained in this District, and many of Defendants’ employees who have edited such
`
`code are currently located in this District.
`
`40.
`
`On information and belief, relevant hardware used in the Accused Products is
`
`maintained in this District, and many of Defendants’ employees who have performed work related
`
`to such hardware did so in this District and/or are currently located in this District.
`
`41.
`
`On information and belief, there are key witnesses in this District who work in other
`
`divisions and/or subsidiaries of Defendants, including those who perform legal, finance,
`
`marketing, and account management functions related to the Accused Products.
`
`42.
`
`On information and belief, all individuals described above, whether named or
`
`unnamed, work, at least in part, on and/or with the Accused Products.
`
`43.
`
`On information and belief, the majority of relevant documents are accessible by
`
`Defendants through its offices in this District.
`
`44.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants maintain a data center in this District.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00573 Document 1 Filed 06/03/22 Page 10 of 26
`
`45.
`
`Defendants have authorized sellers and sales representatives that offer and sell the
`
`Accused Products through the State of Texas, including in this District and to consumers in this
`
`District, such as Best Buy and GameStop.
`
`46.
`
`Since Judge Albright was sworn in as a Federal District Court judge on September
`
`6, 2018, the median time to trial in patent cases in the Waco Division of the Western District of
`
`Texas has been 656 days (1.8 years), which is significantly faster than alternative venues.
`
`47.
`
`Sony Group Corporation, doing business under the name Sony Corporation, has
`
`consented to venue for patent-related suits in this District before. See Solas OLED Ltd. v. LG
`
`Display Co. LTD., et al., 19-cv-00236, Doc. No. 138, ¶ 9.
`
`THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT
`
`48.
`
`On June 4, 2013, United States Patent No. 8,458,028 (“the ‘028 patent”), entitled
`
`“SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR INTEGRATING BUSINESS-RELATED CONTENT INTO
`
`AN ELECTRONIC GAME” was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and
`
`Trademark Office (“USPTO”) to Frances Barbaro Altieri. A true and correct copy of the ‘028
`
`patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`49.
`
`50.
`
`The ‘028 patent claims patent-eligible subject matter and is valid and enforceable.
`
`Quantum is the exclusive owner by assignment of all rights, title, and interest in the
`
`‘028 Patent, including the right to bring this suit for injunctive relief and damages, and including
`
`the right to sue and recover all past, present, and future damages for infringement of the ‘028
`
`Patent.
`
`51.
`
`Defendants are not licensed to practice any claim of the ‘028 Patent, either
`
`expressly or implicitly, nor do they lawfully enjoy or benefit from any rights in or to the ‘028
`
`patent whatsoever.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00573 Document 1 Filed 06/03/22 Page 11 of 26
`
`52.
`
`On April 9, 2019, United States Patent No. 10,255,724 (“the ‘724 patent”), entitled
`
`“INTERACTIVE VIRTUAL THEMATIC ENVIRONMENT” was duly and legally issued by the
`
`USPTO to Frances Barbaro Altieri. A true and correct copy of the ‘724 patent is attached hereto
`
`as Exhibit B.
`
`53.
`
`54.
`
`The ‘724 patent claims patent-eligible subject matter and is valid and enforceable.
`
`Quantum is the exclusive owner by assignment of all rights, title, and interest in the
`
`‘724 Patent, including the right to bring this suit for injunctive relief and damages, and including
`
`the right to sue and recover all past, present, and future damages for infringement of the ‘724
`
`Patent.
`
`55.
`
`Defendants are not licensed to practice any of the claim of the ‘724 patent, either
`
`expressly or implicitly, nor do they lawfully enjoy or benefit from any rights in or to the ‘724
`
`patent whatsoever.
`
`56.
`
`On November 24, 2020, United States Patent No. 10,846,941 (“the ‘941 patent”),
`
`entitled “INTERACTIVE VIRTUAL THEMATIC ENVIRONMENT” was duly and legally
`
`issued by the USPTO to Frances Barbaro Altieri. A true and correct copy of the ‘941 patent is
`
`attached hereto as Exhibit C.
`
`57.
`
`58.
`
`The ‘941 patent claims patent-eligible subject matter and is valid and enforceable.
`
`Quantum is the exclusive owner by assignment of all rights, title, and interest in the
`
`‘941 Patent, including the right to bring this suit for injunctive relief and damages, and including
`
`the right to sue and recover all past, present, and future damages for infringement of the ‘941
`
`Patent.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00573 Document 1 Filed 06/03/22 Page 12 of 26
`
`59.
`
`Defendants are not licensed to practice any claim of the ‘941 patent, either
`
`expressly or implicitly, nor do they lawfully enjoy or benefit from any rights in or to the ‘941
`
`patent whatsoever.
`
`60.
`
`On April 27, 2021, United States Patent No. 10,991,165 (“the ‘165 patent”), entitled
`
`“INTERACTIVE THEMATIC ENVIRONMENT” was duly and legally issued by the USPTO to
`
`Frances Barbaro Altieri. A true and correct copy of the ‘165 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit
`
`D.
`
`61.
`
`62.
`
`The ‘165 patent claims patent-eligible subject matter and is valid and enforceable.
`
`Quantum is the exclusive owner by assignment of all rights, title, and interest in the
`
`‘165 Patent, including the right to bring this suit for injunctive relief and damages, and including
`
`the right to sue and recover all past, present, and future damages for infringement of the ‘165
`
`Patent.
`
`63.
`
`Defendants are not licensed to practice any claim of the ‘165 patent, either
`
`expressly or implicitly, nor do they lawfully enjoy or benefit from any rights in or to the ‘165
`
`patent whatsoever.
`
`64.
`
`The ‘028, ‘724, ‘941, and ‘165 patents are collectively referred to herein as the
`
`“Quantum Patents” or the “patents-in-suit.”
`
`65.
`
`66.
`
`Plaintiff has fulfilled its obligations, if any, under 35 U.S.C. § 287.
`
`ACCUSED INSTRUMENTALITIES
`
`Hereafter, the terms “Accused Instrumentalities” or “Accused Products” refer to all
`
`products manufactured, used, tested, imported, sold, or offered for sale by or on behalf of
`
`Defendants practicing the patents-in-suit and all processes employed by Defendants that practice
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00573 Document 1 Filed 06/03/22 Page 13 of 26
`
`the patents-in-suit, consisting of at least Defendants’ products that include and/or support its
`
`PlayStation line of products.
`
`67.
`
`On information and belief, and as an example, such Accused Products include at
`
`least the following: PlayStation Network, PlayStation VITA, PlayStation 4 (all versions, including
`
`without limitation, PS4 Pro), PlayStation VR, and PlayStation 5 (all versions). The Accused
`
`Products further include game software that is distributed and sold by Defendants, including
`
`without limitation Bluepoint’s Demon’s Souls.
`
`68.
`
`The Accused Products include, among other things and without limitation,
`
`functionality providing users the ability to engage in business-related transactions and other
`
`functionalities while playing games.
`
`69.
`
`Defendants manufacture, use, test, market, offer for sale, sell and/or import into the
`
`United States the Accused Products.
`
`70.
`
`On or around February 28, 2005, Defendants were made aware of the patent family
`
`for at least part of the patents-in-suit and nevertheless willfully infringed the patents-in-suit.
`
`COUNT I
`PATENT INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘028 PATENT
`
`Plaintiff restates and realleges the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.
`
`Defendants have, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §271(a), directly infringed, and continue to
`
`71.
`
`72.
`
`directly infringe, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, one or more claims, including
`
`without limitation at least claim 1 of the ‘028 patent, by making, using, testing, selling, offering
`
`for sale and/or importing into the United States the Accused Products.
`
`73.
`
`Defendants also indirectly infringe the ‘028 patent by actively inducing the direct
`
`infringement by third parties under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00573 Document 1 Filed 06/03/22 Page 14 of 26
`
`74.
`
`Defendants have knowingly (since at least the date of this Complaint),
`
`intentionally, and actively aided, abetted and induced others to directly infringe at least one claim
`
`of the ‘028 patent (such as its customers in this District and throughout the United States).
`
`75.
`
`76.
`
` Defendants continue to induce infringement of the ‘028 patent.
`
` Defendants have contributorily infringed and are contributory infringers because,
`
`with knowledge of the ‘028 patent (since at least the date of this Complaint), they supply a material
`
`part of a claimed combination, where the material part is not a staple article of commerce and is
`
`incapable of substantial noninfringing use.
`
`77.
`
` Defendants contribute to their customers’ infringement because, with knowledge
`
`of the ‘028 patent, Defendants supply the technology that allows their customers to infringe the
`
`‘028 patent.
`
`78.
`
`Defendants have knowledge that their activities concerning the Accused Products
`
`infringe one or more claims of the ‘028 patent.
`
`79.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants will continue to encourage, aid, or otherwise
`
`cause third parties to import, sell, offer for sale, and use the Accused Products (which are acts of
`
`direct infringement of the ‘028 patent) and Defendants have and will continue to encourage those
`
`acts with the specific intent to infringe one or more claims of the ‘028 patent.
`
`80.
`
`Further, Defendants provide information and technical support to their customers,
`
`including promotional materials, product manuals, brochures, videos, demonstrations, and website
`
`materials encouraging their customers to purchase and instructing them to use the Accused
`
`Products (which are acts of direct infringement of the ‘028 patent).
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00573 Document 1 Filed 06/03/22 Page 15 of 26
`
`81.
`
`Alternatively, Defendants know and/or will know that there is a high probability
`
`that the importation, sale, offer for sale, and use of the Accused Products constitutes direct
`
`infringement of the ‘028 patent but took deliberate actions to avoid learning of these facts.
`
`82.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants’ infringement of the ‘028 patent has been
`
`willful and merits increased damages.
`
`83.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants have known that their activities concerning
`
`the Accused Products infringed one or more claims of the ‘028 patent since at least the date of this
`
`Complaint.
`
`84.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants have made no attempt to design around the
`
`claims of the ‘028 patent.
`
`85.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants did not have a reasonable basis for believing
`
`that the claims of the ‘028 patent were invalid.
`
`86.
`
`On information and belief, the Accused Products are available to businesses and
`
`individuals throughout the United States and in the State of Texas, including in this District.
`
`87.
`
`Quantum has been damaged as the result of Defendants’ willful infringement. Upon
`
`information and belief, Defendants will continue to infringe one or more claims of the ‘028 patent
`
`unless and until they are enjoined by this Court.
`
`88.
`
`Defendants have caused and will continue to cause Quantum irreparable injury and
`
`damage by infringing one or more claims of the ‘028 patent. Quantum will suffer further
`
`irreparable injury, for which it has no adequate remedy at law, unless and until Defendants are
`
`enjoined from infringing the claims of the ‘028 patent.
`
`89.
`
`The claim chart attached hereto as Exhibit E describes how the elements of
`
`exemplary claim 7 from the ‘028 patent are infringed by the Accused Products. This provides
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00573 Document 1 Filed 06/03/22 Page 16 of 26
`
`details regarding only one example of one basis of Defendants’ infringement, and only as to a
`
`single patent claim, and Plaintiff reserves its right to amend and fully provide its infringement
`
`arguments and evidence thereof until its Preliminary and Final Infringement Contentions are later
`
`produced according to the Court’s scheduling order in this case
`
`COUNT II
`PATENT INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘724 PATENT
`
`Plaintiff restates and realleges the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.
`
`Defendants have, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), directly infringed, and continue
`
`90.
`
`91.
`
`to directly infringe, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, one or more claims, including
`
`without limitation at least claim 1 of the ‘724 patent, by making, using, testing, selling, offering
`
`for sale and/or importing into the United States the Accused Products.
`
`92.
`
`Defendants also indirectly infringe the ‘724 patent by actively inducing the direct
`
`infringement by third parties under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).
`
`93.
`
`Defendants have knowingly (since at least the date of this Complaint),
`
`intentionally, and actively aided, abetted and induced others to directly infringe at least one claim
`
`of the ‘724 patent (such as its customers in this District and throughout the United States).
`
`94.
`
`95.
`
` Defendants continue to induce infringement of the ‘724 patent.
`
` Defendants have contributorily infringed and are contributory infringers because,
`
`with knowledge of the ‘724 patent (since at least the date of this Complaint), they supply a material
`
`part of a claimed combination, where the material part is not a staple article of commerce and
`
`is incapable of substantial noninfringing use.
`
`96.
`
` Defendants contribute to their customers’ infringement because, with knowledge
`
`of the ‘724 patent, Defendants supply the technology that allows their customers to infringe the
`
`‘724 patent.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00573 Document 1 Filed 06/03/22 Page 17 of 26
`
`97.
`
`Defendants have knowledge that their activities concerning the Accused Products
`
`infringe one or more claims of the ‘724 patent.
`
`98.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants will continue to encourage, aid, or otherwise
`
`cause third parties to import, sell, offer for sale, and use the Accused Products (which are acts of
`
`direct infringement of the ‘724 patent), and Defendants have and will continue to encourage those
`
`acts with the specific intent to infringe one or more claims of the ‘724 patent.
`
`99.
`
`Further, Defendants provide information and technical support to their customers,
`
`including promotional materials, product manuals, brochures, videos, demonstrations, and website
`
`materials encouraging its customers to purchase and instructing them to use Defendants‘ Accused
`
`Products (which are acts of direct infringement of the ‘724 patent).
`
`100. Alternatively, Defendants know and/or will know that there is a high probability
`
`that the importation, sale, offer for sale, and use of the Accused Products constitutes direct
`
`infringement of the ‘724 patent but took deliberate actions to avoid learning of these facts.
`
`101. On information and belief, Defendants’ infringement of the ‘724 patent has been
`
`willful and merits increased damages.
`
`102. On information and belief, Defendants have known that their activities concerning
`
`the Accused Products infringed one or more claims of the ‘724 patent since at least the date of this
`
`Complaint.
`
`103. On information and belief, Defendants have made no attempt to design around the
`
`claims of the ‘724 patent.
`
`104. On information and belief, Defendants did not have a reasonable basis for believing
`
`that the claims of the ‘724 patent were invalid.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00573 Document 1 Filed 06/03/22 Page 18 of 26
`
`105. On information and belief, the Accused Products are available to businesses and
`
`individuals throughout the United States and in the State of Texas, including in this District.
`
`106. Quantum has been damaged as the result of Defendants’ willful infringement. Upon
`
`information and belief, Defendants will continue to infringe one or more claims of the ‘724 patent
`
`unless and until they are enjoined by this Court.
`
`107. Defendants have caused and will continue to cause Quantum irreparable injury and
`
`damage by infringing one or more claims of the ‘724 patent. Quantum will suffer further
`
`irreparable injury, for which it has no adequate remedy at law, unless and until Defendants are
`
`enjoined from infringing the claims of the ‘724 patent.
`
`108. The claim chart attached hereto as Exhibit F describes how the elements of
`
`exemplary claim 1 from the ‘724 patent are infringed by the Accused Products. This provides
`
`details regarding only one example of one basis of Defendants’ infringement, and only as to a
`
`single patent claim, and Plaintiff reserves its right to amend and fully provide its infringement
`
`arguments and evidence thereof until its Preliminary and Final Infringement Contentions are later
`
`produced according to the Court’s scheduling order in this case.
`
`COUNT III
`PATENT INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘941 PATENT
`
`109. Plaintiff restates and realleges the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.
`
`110. Defendants have, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), directly infringed, and continue
`
`to directly infringe, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, one or more claims, including
`
`without limitation at least claim 1 of the ‘941 patent, by making, using, testing, selling, offering
`
`for sale and/or importing into the United States the Accused Products.
`
`111. Defendants also indirectly infringe the ‘941 patent by actively inducing the direct
`
`infringement by third parties under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00573 Document 1 Filed 06/03/22 Page 19 of 26
`
`112. Defendants have knowingly (since at least the date of this Complaint),
`
`intentionally, and actively aided, abetted and induced others to directly infringe at least one claim
`
`of the ‘941 patent (such as its customers in this District and throughout the United States).
`
`113.
`
`114.
`
` Defendants continue to induce infringement of the ‘941 patent.
`
` Defendants have contributorily infringed and are contributory infringers because,
`
`with knowledge of the ‘941 patent (since at least the date of this Complaint), they supply a material
`
`part of a claimed combination, where the material part is not a staple article of commerce and is
`
`incapable of substantial noninfringing use.
`
`115.
`
` Defendants contribute to t