Adaptix, Inc. v. Apple Inc. et al

Filing 1

COMPLAINT for Patent Infringement against AT&T Mobility LLC, Apple Inc. ( Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0971-8036706.). Filed byAdaptix, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to Complaint, # 2 Exhibit B to Complaint, # 3 Civil Cover Sheet)(Shafer, Daniel) (Filed on 9/26/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6

Christopher D. Banys (CA Sate Bar: 230038)
Richard C. Lin
(CA State Bar: 209233)
Daniel M. Shafer
(CA State Bar: 244839)
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
BANYS, P.C.
1032 Elwell Court, Suite 100
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

7
8

Attorneys for Plaintiff,
ADAPTIX. INC.

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12
13

ADAPTIX, INC.
Plaintiff,

14
15
16

Case No. ________________

v.
APPLE, INC., and AT&T MOBILITY
LLC

17

COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
INFRINGEMENT
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Defendants.

18
19

ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

20
21
22
23

This is an action for patent infringement in which plaintiff, ADAPTIX, Inc. (“ADAPTIX”),
complains against defendants, Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) and AT&T Mobility LLC (“AT&T”)
(collectively “the Defendants”), as follows:
THE PARTIES

24
25
26
27
28

1.

ADAPTIX is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 4100

Midway Road, Suite 2010, Carrollton, Texas 75007.
2.

On information and belief, Apple is a California corporation with a principal place of

business at 1 Infinite Loop, Cupertino, California 95014.
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

1

1
2

3.

On information and belief, AT&T Mobility LLC (“AT&T”) is a Delaware corporation

with its principal place of business at 675 W. Peachtree St. Suite 42-090, Atlanta, Georgia 30375.

3

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4
4.

This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of the United

5
States Code. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
6
5.

Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)-(c) and

7
1400(b) because Defendants have committed acts within this judicial district giving rise to this action,
8
and continue to conduct business in this District, and/or have committed acts of patent infringement
9
within this District giving rise to this action.
10
6.

On information and belief, each defendant is subject to this Court’s specific and/or

11
general personal jurisdiction pursuant to due process because they have committed acts giving rise to
12
this action within this judicial district and/or have established minimum contacts within California and
13
within this judicial district such that the exercise of jurisdiction over Defendants would not offend
14
traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
15
BACKGROUND

16
17

7.

On March 9, 2012 ADAPTIX filed a patent infringement suit against APPLE, AT&T,

18

and AT&T, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division,

19

Case No. 6:12-cv-0125 (“the first-filed case”).

20

8.

The first-filed case alleged infringement by those defendants of U.S. Patent Nos.

21

7,454,212 and 6,947,748, the same two patents alleged against APPLE and AT&T in this Complaint,

22

as set forth in detail infra. (For convenience, these two patents may be referred to as “the Suit

23

Patents.”)

24

9.

25
26

On information and belief, APPLE and AT&T were aware of each of the Suit Patents at

least as early as the March 9, 2012 filing date of the first-filed case.
10.

On January 4, 2013, ADAPTIX filed a patent infringement suit against APPLE,

27

AT&T, and AT&T, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler

28

Division, Case No. 6:13-cv-0028 (“the second-filed case”).
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

2

1
2
3
4
5

11.

The second-filed case alleged infringement by those defendants of the Suit Patents, the

same two patents alleged against APPLE and AT&T in this Complaint, as set forth in detail infra.;
12.

On information and belief, APPLE and AT&T were again made aware of each of the

Suit Patents at least as early as the January 4, 2013 filing date of the second-filed case.
13.

On or about March 28, 2013, motions to transfer the first- and second-filed cases to this

6

District filed by APPLE and AT&T were granted. Eventually, the cases ended up in this Division and

7

were given Case Nos. 5:13-cv-1774 PSG and 5:13-cv-2023 PSG, respectfully, and assigned to the

8

Honorable Paul S. Grewal.

9

14.

On or about September 20, 2013, an in-person and telephone hearing was held before

10

Judge Grewal in a case related to the first- and second-filed cases, i.e., Case No. 5:13-cv-1774,

11

concerning an ADAPTIX request for leave to supplement its Infringement Contentions in the

12

aforesaid -1774 Case (the “September 20th Hearing”).

13
14
15

15.

On information and belief, counsel-of-record for APPLE and AT&T, among others,

were either present at the September 20th Hearing or on the telephone during the Hearing.
16.

Towards the end of the September 20th Hearing, ADAPTIX’s counsel stated to the

16

Court, in words or effect, that ADAPTIX is in the process of supplementing its Infringement

17

Contentions in at least both the first- and second-filed cases to add as accused products APPLE’s just-

18

newly-publicly-released-that-day products known as the Apple iPhone 5s and Apple iPhone 5c. At

19

the time of the filing of this Complaint, ADAPTIX had not yet received its September 25th electronic

20

Transcript Order request for the September 20th Hearing.

21

17.

On September 26, 2013, ADAPTIX sent separate emails to APPLE and AT&T counsel

22

that stated the following: “As a follow-up to our concerns made apparent by our verbal comments

23

during last Friday’s (September 20, 2013) hearing in front of Judge Grewal, Adaptix is in the process

24

of supplementing its Infringement Contentions to add the Apple iPhone 5s and Apple iPhone 5c. We

25

understand that these products were publicly released … on or about September 20, 2013. Please

26

advise whether you will oppose Adaptix’s supplementation, and if so, please provide a time you will

27

be available to meet and confer regarding the supplementation.”

28
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

3

1

18.

On information and belief, APPLE and AT&T were aware at least as early as

2

September 20, 2013 that ADAPTIX had formed a belief that the Apple iPhone 5s and Apple iPhone 5c

3

devices infringed one or more claims of the Suit Patents, and that ADAPTIX was seeking to

4

supplement its Infringement Contentions in at least both the first- and second-filed cases to add as

5

accused products APPLE’s just-newly-publicly-released-that-day products known as the Apple iPhone

6

5s and Apple iPhone 5c.

7

COUNT I
(INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,454,212)

8
9

19.

ADAPTIX is the owner by assignment of United States patent number 7,454,212,

10

entitled “OFDMA WITH ADAPTIVE SUBCARRIER-CLUSTER CONFIGURATION AND

11

SELECTIVE LOADING” (“the ‘212 Patent”) with ownership of all substantial rights in the ‘212

12

Patent, including the right to exclude others and to sue and recover damages for the past and future

13

infringement thereof. A true and correct copy of the ‘212 Patent is attached as Exhibit A.

14

20.

On information and belief, Apple is directly and/or indirectly infringing at least one or

15

more claims of the ‘212 Patent in this judicial district and elsewhere in California and the United

16

States by, among other things, making, using, offering for sale, selling and/or importing computerized

17

devices, including without limitation the iPhone 5s and iPhone 5c, which, at a minimum, directly

18

infringe the ‘212 Patent. Apple is thereby liable for infringement of the ‘212 Patent pursuant to 35

19

U.S.C. § 271. Apple’s infringement has caused damage to ADAPTIX, which infringement by the

20

Defendants and damage to ADAPTIX will continue unless and until Apple is enjoined.

21

21.

On information and belief, AT&T is directly and/or indirectly infringing at least one or

22

more claims of the ‘212 Patent in this judicial district and elsewhere in California and the United

23

States by, among other things, making, using, offering for sale, selling and/or importing computerized

24

devices, including without limitation the iPhone 5s and iPhone 5c which, at a minimum, directly

25

infringe the ‘212 Patent. AT&T is thereby liable for infringement of the ‘212 Patent pursuant to 35

26

U.S.C. § 271. AT&T’s infringement has caused damage to ADAPTIX, which infringement and

27

damage will continue unless and until AT&T is enjoined.

28
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

4

1

22.

Defendants directly contribute to and induce infringement through supplying infringing

2

systems and components to customers. Defendants’ customers who purchase systems and components

3

thereof and operate such systems and components thereof in accordance with defendants’ instructions

4

directly infringe one or more claims of the ‘212 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271.

5

23.

The infringement by each defendant identified in this Count has caused irreparable

6

injury to ADAPTIX for which remedies at law are inadequate. Considering the balance of the

7

hardships between the parties, a remedy in equity, such as a permanent injunction is warranted and

8

such a remedy would be in the public interest.

9

COUNT II
(INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,947,748)

10
11

24.

ADAPTIX is the owner by assignment of United States patent number 6,947,748

12

entitled “OFDMA WITH ADAPTIVE SUBCARRIER-CLUSTER CONFIGURATION AND

13

SELECTIVE LOADING” (“the ‘748 patent”) with ownership of all substantial rights in the ‘748

14

patent, including the right to exclude others and to sue and recover damages for the past and future

15

infringement thereof. A true and correct copy of the ‘748 patent is attached as Exhibit B.

16

25.

On information and belief, Apple is directly and/or indirectly infringing at least one or

17

more claims of the ‘748 Patent in this judicial district and elsewhere in California and the United

18

States by, among other things, making, using, offering for sale, selling and/or importing computerized

19

communications devices, including without limitation the iPhone 5s and iPhone 5c, which, at a

20

minimum, directly infringe the ‘748 Patent. Apple is thereby liable for infringement of the ‘748

21

Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271. Apple’s infringement has caused damage to ADAPTIX, which

22

infringement by Defendants and damage to ADAPTIX will continue unless and until Apple is

23

enjoined.

24

26.

On information and belief, AT&T is directly and/or indirectly infringing at least one or

25

more claims of the ‘748 patent in this judicial district and elsewhere in California and the United

26

States by, among other things, making, using, offering for sale, selling and/or importing computerized

27

devices, including without limitation the iPhone 5s and iPhone 5c which, at a minimum, directly

28

infringe the ‘748 patent. AT&T is thereby liable for infringement of the ‘748 patent pursuant to 35
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

5

1

U.S.C. § 271. AT&T’s infringement has caused damage to ADAPTIX, which infringement and

2

damage will continue unless and until AT&T is enjoined.

3

27.

Defendants directly contribute to and induce infringement through supplying infringing

4

systems and components to customers. Defendants’ customers who purchase systems and components

5

thereof and operate such systems and components thereof in accordance with Defendants’ instructions

6

directly infringe one or more claims of the ‘748 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271.

7

28.

The infringement by each defendant identified in this Count has caused irreparable

8

injury to ADAPTIX for which remedies at law are inadequate. Considering the balance of the

9

hardships between the parties, a remedy in equity, such as a permanent injunction is warranted and

10

such a remedy would be in the public interest.

11

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

12
Wherefore, ADAPTIX respectfully requests that this Court enter:
13
A.

Judgment in favor of ADAPTIX that each defendant has infringed the ‘212 and ‘748

14
patents as aforesaid;
15
B.

A permanent injunction enjoining each defendant, its officers, directors, agents,

16
servants, affiliates, employees, divisions, branches, subsidiaries, parents and all others acting in active
17

concert or privity therewith from direct, indirect and/or joint infringement of the ‘212 and ‘748 patents

18
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 283;
19
C.

Judgment and order requiring each defendant to pay ADAPTIX its damages with pre-

20
and post-judgment interest thereon pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284; and
21
D.

Any and all further relief to which the Court may deem ADAPTIX entitled.

22
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

23

ADAPTIX requests a trial by jury on all issues so triable by right pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

24
25

38.

26
27
28
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

6

1

Date: September 26, 2013

2

By: _/s/ Daniel M. Shafer_________________
Christopher D. Banys (CA State Bar: 230038)
Richard C. Lin
(CA State Bar: 209233)
Daniel M. Shafer
(CA State Bar: 244839)
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
BANYS, P.C.
1032 Elwell Court, Suite 100
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Paul J. Hayes
Steven E. Lipman
HAYES MESSINA GILMAN & HAYES, LLC
300 Brickstone Square, 9th Floor
Andover, MA 01810
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

10
11
12
13
14
15

ATTORNEYS FOR THE PLAINTIFF
ADAPTIX, INC.

16
17

ADAPTIX, INC.

.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

7