Google Inc. v. Rockstar Consortium US LP et al
Filing
20
MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(2) AND 12(b)(3) FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION AND IMPROPER VENUE AND TO DECLINE EXERCISING JURISDICTION UNDER THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT filed by MobileStar Technologies LLC, Rockstar Consortium US LP. Motion Hearing set for 3/13/2014 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 4th Floor, Oakland before Hon. Claudia Wilken. Responses due by 2/6/2014. Replies due by 2/13/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Afzal Dean, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C, # 6 Exhibit D, # 7 Exhibit E, # 8 Exhibit F, # 9 Exhibit G, # 10 Exhibit H)(Reichman, Courtland) (Filed on 1/23/2014)
EXHIBIT B
Case 2:13-cv-00895-JRG Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 1 of 44 PageID #: 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
ROCKSTAR CONSORTIUM US LP, §
AND MOBILESTAR TECHNOLOGIES §
LLC
§
§
PLAINTIFFS
§
v.
§ Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-895
§
HTC CORPORATION AND
§
HTC AMERICA, INC.
§ JURY TRIAL REQUESTED
§
DEFENDANTS.
§
PLAINTIFFS ROCKSTAR CONSORTIUM US LP AND MOBILESTAR
TECHNOLOGIES LLC’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs Rockstar Consortium US LP (“Rockstar”) and MobileStar Technologies
LLC (“MobileStar”) file this Original Complaint for patent infringement under 35 U.S.C.
§ 271 and in support thereof would respectfully show the Court the following:
PARTIES
1.
Plaintiff Rockstar Consortium US LP (“Rockstar”) is a limited partnership
organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, and maintains its
principal place of business at Legacy Town Center 1, 7160 North Dallas Parkway Suite
No. 250, Plano, TX 75024.
2.
Plaintiff MobileStar Technologies LLC (“MobileStar”) is a subsidiary of
Rockstar and is a limited liability corporation organized and existing under the laws of
the State of Delaware, and maintains its principal place of business at Legacy Town
Center 1, 7160 North Dallas Parkway Suite No. 250, Plano, TX 75024.
McKool 940071v1
Case 2:13-cv-00895-JRG Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 2 of 44 PageID #: 2
3.
Upon information and belief, Defendant HTC Corporation is a corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the country of Taiwan with its principal place of
business headquarters at 23 Xinghua Road, Taoyuan City, Taoyuan County 330, Taiwan.
4.
Upon information and belief, Defendant HTC America, Inc. is a
subsidiary of Defendant HTC Corporation and is a corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the state of Texas with its principal place of business at 13920 SE
Eastgate Way, Suite 400, Bellevue, Washington 98005.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5.
This is an action for patent infringement under the Patent Laws of the
United States, 35 U.S.C. § 271. This Court has exclusive subject matter jurisdiction over
this case for patent infringement under 28 U.S.C. § 1338.
6.
Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400(b).
7.
This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants HTC Corporation
and HTC America, Inc. (collectively, “HTC”). HTC has conducted and does conduct
business within the State of Texas.
HTC, directly or through subsidiaries or
intermediaries (including distributors, retailers, and others), ships, distributes, offers for
sale, sells, and advertises (including the provision of an interactive web page) its products
(including its infringing products) and/or services in the United States, the State of Texas,
and the Eastern District of Texas.
HTC, directly and through subsidiaries or
intermediaries (including distributors, retailers, and others), has purposefully and
voluntarily placed one or more of its infringing products and/or services, as described
below, into the stream of commerce with the expectation that they will be purchased and
used by consumers in the Eastern District of Texas. These infringing products and/or
2
McKool 940071v1
Case 2:13-cv-00895-JRG Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 3 of 44 PageID #: 3
services have been and continue to be purchased and used by consumers in the Eastern
District of Texas. HTC has committed acts of patent infringement within the State of
Texas and, more particularly, within the Eastern District of Texas.
ASSERTED PATENTS
8.
On November 17, 1998, U.S. Patent No. 5,838,551 (“the ’551 Patent”)
entitled “Electronic Package Carrying an Electronic Component and Assembly of Mother
Board and Electronic Package” was duly and legally issued with Yee-Ning Chan as the
named inventor after full and fair examination. Rockstar owns all rights, title, and
interest in and to the ’551 Patent and possesses all rights of recovery under the ’551
Patent. MobileStar is the exclusive licensee of the ’551 patent.
9.
On March 14, 2000, U.S. Patent No. 6,037,937 (“the ’937 Patent”) entitled
“Navigation Tool for Graphical User Interface” was duly and legally issued with Brian
Finlay Beaton, Colin Donald Smith, and Bruce Dale Stalkie as the named inventors after
full and fair examination. MobileStar owns all rights, title, and interest in and to the ’937
Patent and possesses all rights of recovery under the ’937 Patent.
10.
On October 3, 2000, U.S. Patent No. 6,128,298 (“the ’298 Patent”)
entitled “Internet Protocol Filter” was duly and legally issued with Bruce Anthony
Wootton and William G. Colvin as the named inventors after full and fair examination.
Rockstar owns all rights, title, and interest in and to the ’298 Patent and possesses all
rights of recovery under the ‘298 Patent. MobileStar is the exclusive licensee of the ’298
Patent.
11.
On December 25, 2001, U.S. Patent No. 6,333,973 (“the ’973 Patent”)
entitled “Integrated Message Center” was duly and legally issued with Colin Donald
3
McKool 940071v1
Case 2:13-cv-00895-JRG Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 4 of 44 PageID #: 4
Smith and Brian Finlay Beaton as the named inventors after full and fair examination.
MobileStar owns all rights, title, and interest in and to the ’973 Patent and possesses all
rights of recovery under the ‘973 Patent.
12.
On October 8, 2002, U.S. Patent No. 6,463,131 (“the ’131 Patent”)
entitled “System and Method for Notifying a User of an Incoming Communication
Event” was duly and legally issued with Marilyn French-St. George, Mitch A. Brisebois
and Laura A. Mahan as the named inventors after full and fair examination. MobileStar
owns all rights, title, and interest in and to the ’131 Patent and possesses all rights of
recovery under the ‘131 Patent.
13.
On July 20, 2004, U.S. Patent No. 6,765,591 (“the ’591 Patent”) entitled
“Managing a Virtual Private Network” was duly and legally issued with Matthew W.
Poisson, Melissa L. Desroches, and James M. Milillo as the named inventors after full
and fair examination. MobileStar owns all rights, title, and interest in and to the ’591
Patent and possesses all rights of recovery under the ‘591 Patent.
14.
On August 30, 2005, U.S. Patent No. 6,937,572 (“the ’572 Patent”)
entitled “Call Trace on a Packet Switched Network” was duly and legally issued with
Brian B. Egan and Milos Vodsedalek as the named inventors after full and fair
examination. Rockstar owns all rights, title, and interest in and to the ’572 Patent and
possesses all rights of recovery under the ‘572 Patent.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
15.
HTC has directly and indirectly infringed and continues to directly and
indirectly infringe each of the ’551, ’937, ’298, ’973, ’131, ’591, and ’572 Patents by
engaging in acts constituting infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), (b), (c), and/or (f),
4
McKool 940071v1
Case 2:13-cv-00895-JRG Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 5 of 44 PageID #: 5
including but not necessarily limited to one or more of making, using, selling and
offering to sell, in this District and elsewhere in the United States, and importing into this
District and elsewhere in the United States, certain mobile communication devices having
a version (or an adaption thereof) of Android operating system (“HTC Mobile
Communication Devices”).
16.
HTC is doing business in the United States and, more particularly, in the
Eastern District of Texas by making, using, selling, importing, and/or offering for sale
HTC Mobile Communication Devices, including but not limited to HTC’s family of
smart phones, including, but not limited to HTC One, Vivid, Desire, Butterfly, EVO,
Rezound, Sensation, Trophy, Rhyme, and Hero families, HTC’s family of tablets,
including, but not limited to Jetstream, EVO View, and Flyer families, and other similar
products that infringe the patent claims involved in this action or by transacting other
business in this District.
COUNT ONE
PATENT INFRINGEMENT BY HTC
17.
Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-16 as if fully set forth
herein. As described below, HTC has infringed and/or continues to infringe the ‘551,
‘937, ‘298, ‘973, ‘131, ‘591, and ‘572 Patents.
18.
At least the HTC Mobile Communication Devices infringe at least claim 1
of the ‘551 Patent. HTC makes, uses, sells, offers for sale, imports, exports, supplies
and/or distributes within the United States these products and thus directly infringes one
or more claims of the ’551 Patent, including at least claim 1.
19.
HTC indirectly infringes the ’551 patent by inducing infringement by
others, such as resellers, of at least claim 1 in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) in this
5
McKool 940071v1
Case 2:13-cv-00895-JRG Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 6 of 44 PageID #: 6
District and elsewhere in the United States. Direct infringement is the result of activities
performed by the manufacturers, resellers, and/or end-users of the HTC Mobile
Communication Devices. HTC had actual notice of the ’551 Patent at least by October
24, 2012, in view of a communication from Rockstar, and/or its predecessors-in-interest
to HTC, and also received knowledge as of the date this lawsuit was filed.
20.
HTC’s affirmative acts of selling HTC Mobile Communication Devices,
causing the HTC Mobile Communication Devices to be manufactured and distributed,
and providing instruction manuals for HTC Mobile Communication Devices induced
HTC’s manufacturers and resellers to make or use HTC Mobile Communication Devices
in their normal and customary way to infringe the ’551 patent. Through its manufacture
and sales of HTC Mobile Communication Devices, HTC specifically intended its
resellers and manufacturers to infringe the ’551 patent; further, HTC was aware that these
normal and customary activities would infringe the ’551 patent. HTC performed the acts
that constitute induced infringement, and would induce actual infringement, with the
knowledge of the ’551 patent and with the knowledge or willful blindness that the
induced acts would constitute infringement.
21.
Accordingly, a reasonable inference is that HTC specifically intends for
others, such as resellers and end-use customers, to directly infringe one or more claims of
the ‘551 Patent in the United States because HTC has knowledge of the ‘551 Patent and
HTC actually induces others, such as resellers and end-use customers, to directly infringe
the ’551 patent, by using, selling, exporting, supplying and/or distributing within the
United States, HTC Mobile Communication Devices for resale to others, such as resellers
6
McKool 940071v1
Case 2:13-cv-00895-JRG Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 7 of 44 PageID #: 7
and end-use customers. HTC knew or should have known that such actions would induce
actual infringement.
22.
HTC indirectly infringes the ‘551 Patent by contributing to infringement
by others, such as resellers and end-use customers, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 271(c)
in this District and elsewhere in the United States. Direct infringement is the result of
activities performed by the manufacturers, resellers, and/or end-users of HTC Mobile
Communication Devices. HTC had actual notice of the ’551 Patent at least by October
24, 2012, in view of a communication from Rockstar, and/or its predecessors-in-interest
to HTC, and also received knowledge as of the date this lawsuit was filed.
23.
HTC Mobile Communication Devices include at least one electronic
package comprising a component that is located between an EMI shield and a ground
member for performing shielding operations. The EMI shield is incorporated into the
electronic package, which is then mounted to a circuit board in HTC Mobile
Communication Devices, and on information and belief, the electronic component does
not function in an acceptable manner absent the EMI shielding.
Furthermore, the
electronic package incorporating the EMI shield does not operate in isolation, but is
designed to operate within the Mobile Communication Device, and absent the EMI
shielding of the electronic component, HTC Mobile Communication Devices would not
function in an acceptable manner.
24.
A reasonable inference to be drawn from the facts set forth is that the EMI
shielded electronic package in HTC Mobile Communication Devices is especially made
or especially adapted to operate in a HTC Mobile Communication Device as an EMI
shield.
7
McKool 940071v1
Case 2:13-cv-00895-JRG Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 8 of 44 PageID #: 8
25.
A reasonable inference to be drawn from the facts set forth is that the EMI
shielded electronic package is not a staple article or commodity of commerce and that the
use of the EMI shielded electronic package is required for operation of HTC Mobile
Communication Devices.
Any other use would be unusual, far-fetched, illusory,
impractical, occasional, aberrant, or experimental.
26.
The EMI shielded electronic package in HTC Mobile Communication
Devices are each a material part of the invention of the ’551 patent and are especially
made for the infringing manufacture, sale, and use of HTC Mobile Communication
Devices. HTC Mobile Communication Devices, including the EMI shielded electronic
package, are especially made or adapted as an electronic package that infringes the ’551
patent. Because the sales and manufacture of HTC Mobile Communication Devices
including the EMI shielded electronic package infringe the ’551 patent, HTC’s sales of its
infringing products have no substantial non-infringing uses.
27.
Accordingly, a reasonable inference is that HTC offers to sell, or sells
within the United States a component of a patented machine, manufacture, combination,
or composition, or a material or apparatus for use in practicing a patented process,
constituting a material part of the invention, knowing the same to be especially made or
especially adapted for use in an infringement of such patent, and not a staple article or
commodity of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use. HTC provides to
others HTC Mobile Communication Devices with distinct and separate components,
including hardware components, which have no substantial non-infringing use.
28.
At least HTC Mobile Communication Devices with an operating system
configured and installed by HTC to support Gallery, Email, Maps and Browser
8
McKool 940071v1
Case 2:13-cv-00895-JRG Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 9 of 44 PageID #: 9
functionality, infringe at least claim 13 of the ‘937 Patent. HTC makes, uses, tests, sells,
offers for sale, imports, exports, supplies and/or distributes within the United States these
devices and thus directly infringes at least claim 13 of the ‘937 Patent.
29.
HTC indirectly infringes the ‘937 patent by inducing infringement by
others of at least claim 13, such as resellers, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) in this
District and elsewhere in the United States. Direct infringement is the result of activities
performed by the manufacturers, resellers, and end-users of the HTC Mobile
Communication Devices. HTC received actual notice of the ’937 Patent at least by
January 12, 2010 from a communication from Rockstar, and/or its predecessors-ininterest, to HTC, and also received knowledge as of the date this lawsuit was filed.
30.
HTC’s affirmative acts of selling HTC Mobile Communication Devices,
causing the HTC Mobile Communication Devices to be manufactured, and providing
instruction manuals for HTC Mobile Communication Devices induced HTC’s
manufacturers and resellers to make or use the HTC Mobile Communication Devices in
their normal and customary way to infringe the ‘937 patent. Through its manufacture and
sales of HTC Mobile Communication Devices, HTC specifically intended its resellers
and manufacturers to infringe the ‘937 patent; further, HTC was aware that these normal
and customary activities would infringe the ‘937 patent. HTC performed the acts that
constitute induced infringement, and would induce actual infringement, with knowledge
of the ‘937 patent and with the knowledge or willful blindness that the induced acts
would constitute infringement.
31.
Accordingly, a reasonable inference is that HTC specifically intends for
others, such as resellers and end-use customers, to directly infringe one or more claims of
9
McKool 940071v1
Case 2:13-cv-00895-JRG Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 10 of 44 PageID #: 10
the ‘937 patent in the United States because HTC has knowledge of the ‘937 patent and
actually induces others, such as resellers and end-use customers, to directly infringe, by
using, selling, exporting, supplying and/or distributing within the United States, HTC
Communication Devices for resale to others, such as resellers and end-use customers.
HTC knew or should have known that such actions would induce actual infringement.
32.
The use of at least HTC Mobile Communication Devices with an
operating system configured and installed by HTC to support Gallery, Email, Maps and
Browser functionality as intended by HTC infringes at least method claim 1 of the ‘937
Patent. HTC uses these products and thus directly infringes at least method claim 1 of
the ‘937 Patent.
33.
In addition, HTC provides at least HTC Mobile Communication Devices
with an operating system configured and installed by HTC to support Gallery, Email,
Maps, and Browser functionality to others, such as resellers and end-use customers, in the
United States who, in turn, use these products to infringe at least method claim 1 of the
‘937 Patent.
34.
HTC indirectly infringes the ’937 patent by inducing infringement by
others, such as resellers and end-use customers, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) in
this District and elsewhere in the United States. Direct infringement is the result of
activities performed by the manufacturers, resellers, and/or end-users of the HTC Mobile
Communication Devices. HTC received actual notice of the ’937 Patent at least by
January 12, 2010, in view of a communication from Rockstar, and/or its predecessors-ininterest, to HTC, and also received knowledge as of the date this lawsuit was filed.
10
McKool 940071v1
Case 2:13-cv-00895-JRG Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 11 of 44 PageID #: 11
35.
HTC provides at least HTC Mobile Communication Devices with an
operating system configured and installed by HTC to support Gallery, Email, Maps and
Browser functionality to others, such as resellers and end-use customers, in the United
States who, in turn, use these products to infringe the ’937 Patent.
Through its
manufacture and sales of HTC Mobile Communication Devices, HTC specifically
intended its resellers and manufacturers to infringe the ’937 patent.
36.
HTC specifically intends for others, such as resellers and end-use
customers, to directly infringe one or more claims of the ’937 Patent in the United States.
For example, HTC provides instructions to resellers and end-use customers regarding the
use and operation of HTC’s products in an infringing way. Such instructions include at
least “Your HTC Jetstream User Guide,” available on HTC’s web site at
http://dl3.htc.com/htc_na/user_guides/htc-jetstream-att-ug.pdf, “Your HTC One S User
Guide,”
available
on
HTC’s
web
site
at
http://dl4.htc.com/web_materials/Manual/HTC_One_S/HTC_One_S_User_Guide.pdf,
“Your
HTC
One
X+
User
Guide,”
available
on
HTC’s
web
site
at
http://dl4.htc.com/web_materials/Manual/HTC_One_X_plus/HTC_One_X_plus_User_G
uide.pdf, and “Your HTC Vivid User Guide,” available on HTC’s web site at
http://dl3.htc.com/htc_na/user_guides/htc_vivid_att_userguide_0409.pdf. When resellers
and end-use customers follow such instructions, they directly infringe the ‘937 Patent.
HTC knows that by providing such instructions, resellers and end-use customers follow
those instructions, and directly infringe the ‘937 Patent. HTC thus knows that its actions
induce the infringement.
11
McKool 940071v1
Case 2:13-cv-00895-JRG Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 12 of 44 PageID #: 12
37.
HTC performed the acts that constitute induced infringement, and would
induce actual infringement, with the knowledge of the ’937 patent and with knowledge or
willful blindness that the induced acts would constitute infringement.
38.
HTC indirectly infringes the ’937 patent, by contributing to infringement
by others, such as resellers and end-use customers, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 271(b)
in this District and elsewhere in the United States. Direct infringement is the result of
activities performed by the manufacturers, resellers, and/or end-users of HTC Mobile
Communication Devices. HTC received actual notice of the ’937 Patent at least by
January 12, 2010, in view of a communication from Rockstar, and/or its predecessors-ininterest to HTC, and also received knowledge as of the date this lawsuit was filed.
39.
HTC Mobile Communication Devices include functionality that, inter alia,
displays a navigable graphical user interface (“navigable GUI”) that permits a user to
manipulate and control the contents of the display to maximize the use of display real
estate. This navigable GUI is included in HTC Mobile Communication Devices with an
operating system configured and installed by HTC to support at least the Gallery, Email,
Maps, and Browser functionalities.
On information and belief, these functionalities
cannot operate in an acceptable manner absent the navigable GUI, as it is included in
every HTC Mobile Communication Device.
40.
A reasonable inference to be drawn from the facts set forth is that the
navigable GUI as included in HTC Mobile Communication Devices is especially made or
especially adapted to operate on a HTC Mobile Communication Device as a navigable
GUI that permits a user to manipulate or control the contents of the display to maximize
the use of display real estate on the user’s HTC Mobile Communication Devices.
12
McKool 940071v1
Case 2:13-cv-00895-JRG Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 13 of 44 PageID #: 13
41.
A reasonable inference to be drawn from the facts set forth is that the
navigable GUI as included in the Mobile Communication Device is not a staple article or
commodity of commerce and that the use of the navigable GUI in HTC Mobile
Communication Devices is required for the operation of HTC Mobile Communication
Devices. Any other use would be unusual, far-fetched, illusory, impractical, occasional,
aberrant, or experimental.
42.
HTC Mobile Communication Devices with the navigable GUI are each a
material part of the invention of the ’937 patent and are especially made for the infringing
manufacture, sale, and use of HTC Mobile Communication Devices.
HTC Mobile
Communication Devices with the navigable GUI are especially made or adapted as a
navigable GUI that infringes the ’937 patent. Because the sales and manufacture of HTC
Mobile Communication Devices with a navigable GUI infringes the ’937 patent, HTC’s
sales of its infringing products have no substantial non-infringing uses.
43.
Accordingly, a reasonable inference is that HTC offers to sell, or sells
within the United States a component of a patented machine, manufacture, combination,
or composition, or a material or apparatus for use in practicing the ’937 patent,
constituting a material part of the invention, knowing the same to be especially made or
especially adapted for use in an infringement of such patent, and not a staple article or
commodity of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use. HTC provides to
others, HTC Mobile Communication Devices with distinct and separate components,
including software components, which have no substantial non-infringing use.
44.
At least HTC Mobile Communication Devices with an operating system
configured and installed by HTC to support the Mobile Hotspot functionality infringe at
13
McKool 940071v1
Case 2:13-cv-00895-JRG Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 14 of 44 PageID #: 14
least claims 27 and 31 of the ‘298 Patent. HTC makes, uses, sells, offers for sale,
imports, exports, supplies and/or distributes within the United States these devices and
thus directly infringes at least claims 27 and 31 of the ‘298 Patent.
45.
HTC indirectly infringes the ‘298 patent by inducing infringement by
others of at least claim 27 and 31, such as resellers, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. §
271(b) in this District and elsewhere in the United States. Direct infringement is the
result of activities performed by the manufacturers, resellers, and end-users of the HTC
Mobile Communication Devices. HTC had actual notice of the ’298 Patent at least by
July 29, 2012 from a communication from Rockstar, and/or its predecessors-in-interest,
to HTC, and also received knowledge as of the date this lawsuit was filed.
46.
HTC’s affirmative acts of selling HTC Mobile Communication Devices,
causing the HTC Mobile Communication Devices to be manufactured, and providing
instruction manuals for HTC Mobile Communication Devices induced HTC’s
manufacturers and resellers to make or use the HTC Mobile Communication Devices in
their normal and customary way to infringe the ‘298 patent. Through its manufacture and
sales of HTC Mobile Communication Devices, HTC specifically intended its resellers
and manufacturers to infringe the ‘298 patent; further, HTC was aware that these normal
and customary activities would infringe the ‘298 patent. HTC performed the acts that
constitute induced infringement, and would induce actual infringement, with the
knowledge of the ‘298 patent and with the knowledge or willful blindness that the
induced acts would constitute infringement.
47.
Accordingly, a reasonable inference is that HTC specifically intends for
others, such as resellers and end-use customers, to directly infringe one or more claims of
14
McKool 940071v1
Case 2:13-cv-00895-JRG Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 15 of 44 PageID #: 15
the ‘298 patent in the United States because HTC has knowledge of the ‘298 patent and
actually induces others, such as resellers and end-use customers, to directly infringe, by
using, selling, exporting, supplying and/or distributing within the United States, HTC
Communication Devices for resale to others, such as resellers and end-use customers.
HTC knew or should have known that such actions would induce actual infringement.
48.
The use of at least HTC Mobile Communication Devices that support the
Mobile Hotspot functionality as intended by HTC infringes at least method claims 14 and
24 of the ‘298 Patent. HTC uses these products and thus directly infringes at least
method claims 14 and 24 of the ‘298 Patent.
49.
In addition, HTC provides at least HTC Mobile Communication Devices
that support the Mobile Hotspot functionality to others, such as resellers and end-use
customers, in the United States who, in turn, use these products to infringe at least
method claims 14 and 24 of the ‘298 Patent.
50.
HTC indirectly infringes the ’298 patent by inducing infringement by
others, such as resellers and end-use customers, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) in
this District and elsewhere in the United States. Direct infringement is the result of
activities performed by the manufacturers, resellers, and/or end-users of HTC Mobile
Communication Devices in their intended use, including a customer’s use of the Mobile
Hotspot functionality. HTC received actual notice of the ’298 Patent at least by July 29,
2012, in view of a communincation from Rockstar, and/or its predecessors-in-interest, to
HTC, and also received knowledge as of the date this lawsuit was filed.
51.
HTC’s affirmative acts of selling its HTC Mobile Communication Devices
and providing instruction manuals induced the end-users of HTC Mobile Communication
15
McKool 940071v1
Case 2:13-cv-00895-JRG Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 16 of 44 PageID #: 16
Devices to use HTC Mobile Communication Devices in their normal and customary way
to infringe the ’298 patent at least through using Mobile Hotspot functionality. HTC also
provides instructions, including at least“Your HTC Jetstream User Guide,” available on
HTC’s web site at http://dl3.htc.com/htc_na/user_guides/htc-jetstream-att-ug.pdf, “Your
HTC
One
S
User
Guide,”
available
on
HTC’s
web
site
at
http://dl4.htc.com/web_materials/Manual/HTC_One_S/HTC_One_S_User_Guide.pdf,
“Your
HTC
One
X+
User
Guide,”
available
on
HTC’s
web
site
at
http://dl4.htc.com/web_materials/Manual/HTC_One_X_plus/HTC_One_X_plus_User_G
uide.pdf, and “Your HTC Vivid User Guide,” available on HTC’s web site at
http://dl3.htc.com/htc_na/user_guides/htc_vivid_att_userguide_0409.pdf for using the
Mobile Hotspot functionality. Through its sales of HTC Mobile Communication Devices
with Mobile Hotspot functionality, HTC specifically intended the end-users of HTC
Mobile Communication Devices to infringe the ’298 patent; further, HTC was aware that
the normal and customary use of Mobile Hotspot functionality would infringe the ’298
patent.
HTC also enticed its end-users to use the Mobile Hotspot functionality by
providing instruction manuals and also providing Mobile Hotspot functionality. HTC
performed the acts that constituted induced infringement, and would induce actual
infringement, with the knowledge of the ’298 patent and with the knowledge or willful
blindness that the induced acts would constitute infringement.
52.
Accordingly, a reasonable inference is that HTC actively induces
infringement of the ‘298 Patent by others, such as resellers and end-use customers. HTC
specifically intends for others, such as resellers and end-use customers, to directly
infringe one or more claims of the ‘298 Patent in the United States because HTC had
16
McKool 940071v1
Case 2:13-cv-00895-JRG Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 17 of 44 PageID #: 17
knowledge of the ‘298 Patent, and HTC actually induces infringement by providing
instructions to resellers and end-use customers regarding the use and operation of HTC
Mobile Communication Devices in an infringing way. Such instructions include at least
“Your
HTC
Jetstream
User
Guide,”
available
on
HTC’s
web
site
at
http://dl3.htc.com/htc_na/user_guides/htc-jetstream-att-ug.pdf, “Your HTC One S User
Guide,”
available
on
HTC’s
web
site
at
http://dl4.htc.com/web_materials/Manual/HTC_One_S/HTC_One_S_User_Guide.pdf,
“Your
HTC
One
X+
User
Guide,”
available
on
HTC’s
web
site
at
http://dl4.htc.com/web_materials/Manual/HTC_One_X_plus/HTC_One_X_plus_User_G
uide.pdf, and “Your HTC Vivid User Guide,” available on HTC’s web site at
http://dl3.htc.com/htc_na/user_guides/htc_vivid_att_userguide_0409.pdf. When resellers
and end-use customers follow such instructions, they directly infringe the ‘298 Patent.
HTC knows that by providing such instructions, resellers and end-use customers follow
those instructions, and directly infringe the ‘298 Patent. HTC thus knows that its actions
induce the infringement.
53.
HTC indirectly infringes the ‘298 Patent by contributing to infringement
by others, such as resellers and end-use customers, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 271(c)
in this District and elsewhere in the United States. Direct infringement is the result of
activities performed by the manufacturers, resellers, and/or end-users of HTC Mobile
Communication Devices in their intended use, including a customer’s use of the Mobile
Hotspot functionality. HTC received actual notice of the ’298 Patent at least by July 29,
2012, in view of a communication from Rockstar, and/or its predecessors-in-interest, to
HTC, and also received knowledge as of the date this lawsuit was filed.
17
McKool 940071v1
Case 2:13-cv-00895-JRG Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 18 of 44 PageID #: 18
54.
HTC Mobile Communication Devices with the Mobile Hotspot
functionality allow wireless devices from a first, or private, network to connect to a
second, or public, network such as the Internet. The Mobile Hotspot functionality is
designed to route data packets between wireless devices tethered to the Mobile Hotspot to
nodes on a public network such as the Internet, and cannot function in a manner that does
not utilize the Mobile Hotspot functionality available to HTC Mobile Communication
Devices. Upon information and belief, the Mobile Hotspot functionality is designed to
entice a user to access nodes in a second, or public, network such as the Internet.
55.
A reasonable inference to be drawn from the facts set forth is that the
Mobile Hotspot functionality is especially made or especially adapted to operate on a
mobile communication device for providing access for wireless devices in a first, or
private, network to nodes in a second, or public, network.
56.
A reasonable inference to be drawn from the facts set forth is that the
Mobile Hotspot functionality is not a staple article or commodity of commerce and that
the use of the Mobile Hotspot functionality of HTC Mobile Communication Devices is
for interfacing first and second data communications networks, e.g., a private network
and a public network such as the Internet. Any other use would be unusual, far-fetched,
illusory, impractical, occasional, aberrant, or experimental.
57.
HTC Mobile Communication Devices with Mobile Hotspot functionality
are each a material part of the ’298 patent and especially made for the infringing use of
the Mobile Hotspot functionality for interfacing private and public data communication
networks. HTC Mobile Communication Devices with the Mobile Hotspot functionality
are especially made or adapted to provide access for wireless devices in a first, or private,
18
McKool 940071v1
Case 2:13-cv-00895-JRG Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 19 of 44 PageID #: 19
network through the Mobile Communication Device, to nodes in a second, or public,
network that perform or facilitate performance of the steps that infringe the ’298 patent.
Furthermore, HTC provides user manuals describing the uses of HTC Mobile
Communication Devices that infringe the ’298 patent.
Because the sales and
manufacture of HTC Mobile Communication Devices with Mobile Hotspot functionality
infringes the ’298 patent, HTC’s sales of its infringement products have no substantial
non-infringing uses.
58.
Accordingly, a reasonable inference is that HTC offers to sell, or sells
within the United States a component of a patented machine, manufacture, combination,
or composition, or a material or apparatus for use in practicing a patented process,
constituting a material part of the invention, knowing the same to be especially made or
especially adapted for use in an infringement of such patent, and not a staple article or
commodity of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use. HTC provides to
others, HTC Mobile Communication Devices with an operating system configured and
installed by HTC to support Mobile Hotspot functionality. HTC installs and configures
HTC Mobile Communication Devices with distinct and separate components, including
software components, which are used only to perform the infringing method claims.
59.
At least HTC Mobile Communication Devices with an operating system
configured and installed by HTC to support an integrated notification message center
functionality infringe at least claims 1 and 21 of the ‘973 Patent. HTC makes, uses, sells,
tests, uses, offers for sale, imports, exports, supplies and/or distributes within the United
States these devices and thus directly infringes one or more claims of the ’973 patent,
including at least claims 1 and 21.
19
McKool 940071v1
Case 2:13-cv-00895-JRG Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 20 of 44 PageID #: 20
60.
HTC indirectly infringes the ‘973 patent by inducing infringement by
others of at least claim 1 and 21, such as resellers, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 271(b)
in this District and elsewhere in the United States. Direct infringement is the result of
activities performed by the manufacturers, resellers, and end-users of the HTC Mobile
Communication Devices. HTC had actual notice of the ’973 Patent at least by March 12,
2012 from a communication from Rockstar, and/or its predecessors-in-interest, to HTC,
and also received knowledge as of the date this lawsuit was filed.
61.
HTC’s affirmative acts of selling HTC Mobile Communication Devices,
causing the HTC Mobile Communication Devices to be manufactured, and providing
instruction manuals for HTC Mobile Communication Devices induced HTC’s
manufacturers and resellers to make or use the HTC Mobile Communication Devices in
their normal and customary way to infringe the ‘973 patent. Through its manufacture and
sales of HTC Mobile Communication Devices, HTC specifically intended its resellers
and manufacturers to infringe the ‘973 patent; further, HTC was aware that these normal
and customary activities would infringe the ‘973 patent. HTC performed the acts that
constitute induced infringement, and would induce actual infringement, with the
knowledge of the ‘973 patent and with the knowledge or willful blindness that the
induced acts would constitute infringement.
62.
Accordingly, a reasonable inference is that HTC specifically intends for
others, such as resellers and end-use customers, to directly infringe one or more claims of
the ‘973 patent in the United States because HTC has knowledge of the ‘973 patent and
actually induces others, such as resellers and end-use customers, to directly infringe, by
using, selling, exporting, supplying and/or distributing within the United States, HTC
20
McKool 940071v1
Case 2:13-cv-00895-JRG Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 21 of 44 PageID #: 21
Communication Devices for resale to others, such as resellers and end-use customers.
HTC knew or should have known that such actions would induce actual infringement.
63.
The use of at least HTC Mobile Communication Devices with an
operating system configured and installed by HTC to support an integrated notification
message center functionality as intended by HTC infringes at least method claim 8 of the
‘973 Patent. HTC uses these devices within the United States and thus directly infringes
one or more claims of the ’973 patent, including at least claim 8.
64.
HTC indirectly infringes the ’973 patent by inducing infringement by
others, such as resellers and end-use customers, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) in
this District and elsewhere in the United States. Direct infringement is the result of
activities performed by the manufacturers, resellers, and/or end-users of HTC Mobile
Communication Devices. HTC received actual notice of the ’973 Patent at least by
March 12, 2012, in view of a communication from Rockstar, and/or its predecessors-ininterest, to HTC, and also received knowledge as of the date this lawsuit was filed.
65.
HTC provides at least HTC Mobile Communication Devices with an
operating system configured and installed by HTC to support integrated notification
message center functionality to others, such as resellers and end-use customers, in the
United States who, in turn, use HTC Mobile Communication Devices to infringe at least
method claim 8 of the ‘973 Patent. Through its manufacture and sales of HTC Mobile
Communication Devices, HTC specifically intended its resellers and manufacturers to
infringe the ’973 patent.
66.
HTC specifically intends for others, such as resellers and end-use
customers, to directly infringe one or more claims of the ‘973 Patent in the United States.
21
McKool 940071v1
Case 2:13-cv-00895-JRG Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 22 of 44 PageID #: 22
For example, HTC provides instructions to resellers and end-use customers regarding the
use and operation of HTC Mobile Communication Devices in an infringing way. Such
instructions include at least “Your HTC Jetstream User Guide,” available on HTC’s web
site at http://dl3.htc.com/htc_na/user_guides/htc-jetstream-att-ug.pdf, “Your HTC One S
User
Guide,”
available
on
HTC’s
web
site
at
http://dl4.htc.com/web_materials/Manual/HTC_One_S/HTC_One_S_User_Guide.pdf,
“Your
HTC
One
X+
User
Guide,”
available
on
HTC’s
web
site
at
http://dl4.htc.com/web_materials/Manual/HTC_One_X_plus/HTC_One_X_plus_User_G
uide.pdf, and “Your HTC Vivid User Guide,” available on HTC’s web site at
http://dl3.htc.com/htc_na/user_guides/htc_vivid_att_userguide_0409.pdf. When resellers
and end-use customers follow such instructions, they directly infringe the ‘973 Patent.
HTC knows that by providing such instructions, resellers and end-use customers follow
those instructions, and directly infringe the ‘973 Patent. HTC thus knows that its actions
induce the infringement.
67.
HTC performed the acts that constitute induced infringement, and would
induce actual infringement, with the knowledge of the ’973 patent and with the
knowledge or willful blindness that the induced acts would constitute infringement.
68.
HTC indirectly infringes the ’973 patent, by contributing to infringement
by others, such as resellers and end-use customers, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 271(b)
in this District and elsewhere in the United States. Direct infringement is the result of
activities performed by the manufacturers, resellers, and/or end-users of HTC Mobile
Communication Devices. HTC received actual notice of the ’973 Patent at least by
22
McKool 940071v1
Case 2:13-cv-00895-JRG Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 23 of 44 PageID #: 23
March 12, 2012, in view of a communication from Rockstar, and/or its predecessors-ininterest, to HTC, and also received knowledge as of the date this lawsuit was filed.
69.
HTC Mobile Communication Devices include functionality that, inter alia,
displays an integrated notification message center contained in a single list.
The
notification message center is designed to provide a user with a single list of notifications
regardless of the types of messages (e.g., email, text, etc) on the user’s Mobile
Communication Device. On information and belief, this functionality cannot operate in
an acceptable manner absent the integrated notification message center, as it is included
in every HTC Mobile Communication Device.
70.
A reasonable inference to be drawn from the facts set forth is that the
integrated message center in HTC Mobile Communication Devices is especially made or
especially adapted to operate on a HTC Mobile Communication Device as an integrated
notification message center that provides a user with notifications concerning different
types of messages on the user’s Mobile Communication Device.
71.
A reasonable inference to be drawn from the facts set forth is that the
integrated notification message center in the Mobile Communication Device is not a
staple article or commodity of commerce and that the use of the integrated notification
message center in HTC Mobile Communication Devices is required for operation of HTC
Mobile Communication Devices. Any other use would be unusual, far-fetched, illusory,
impractical, occasional, aberrant, or experimental.
72.
HTC Mobile Communication Devices with the integrated notification
message center are each a material part of the invention of the ’973 patent and are
especially made for the infringing manufacture, sale, and use of HTC Mobile
23
McKool 940071v1
Case 2:13-cv-00895-JRG Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 24 of 44 PageID #: 24
Communication Devices. HTC Mobile Communication Devices, including the integrated
notification message center, are especially made or adapted as an integrated notification
message center that infringes the ’973 patent. Because the sales and manufacture of HTC
Mobile Communication Devices with an integrated notification message center infringes
the ’973 patent, HTC’s sales of its infringing products have no substantial non-infringing
uses.
73.
Accordingly, a reasonable inference is that HTC offers to sell, or sells
within the United States a component of a patented machine, manufacture, combination,
or composition, or a material or apparatus for use in practicing a patented process,
constituting a material part of the invention, knowing the same to be especially made or
especially adapted for use in an infringement of such patent, and not a staple article or
commodity of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use. HTC provides to
others, HTC Mobile Communication Devices with distinct and separate components,
including software components, which have no substantial non-infringing use.
74.
At least HTC Mobile Communication Devices with an operating system
configured and installed by HTC to support Message and Notification functionality
infringe at least claim 1 of the ‘131 Patent. HTC makes, uses, sells, offers for sale,
imports, exports, supplies and/or distributes within the United States these devices and
thus directly infringes at least claim 1 of the ‘131 Patent.
75.
HTC indirectly infringes the ‘131 patent by inducing infringement by
others of at least claim 1, such as resellers, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) in this
District and elsewhere in the United States. Direct infringement is the result of activities
performed by the manufacturers, resellers, and end-users of the HTC Mobile
24
McKool 940071v1
Case 2:13-cv-00895-JRG Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 25 of 44 PageID #: 25
Communication Devices. HTC had actual notice of the ’131 Patent at least by November
28, 2012 from a communication from Rockstar, and/or its predecessors-in-interest, to
HTC, and also received knowledge as of the date this lawsuit was filed.
76.
HTC’s affirmative acts of selling HTC Mobile Communication Devices,
causing the HTC Mobile Communication Devices to be manufactured, and providing
instruction manuals for HTC Mobile Communication Devices induced HTC’s
manufacturers and resellers to make or use the HTC Mobile Communication Devices in
their normal and customary way to infringe the ‘131 patent. Through its manufacture and
sales of HTC Mobile Communication Devices, HTC specifically intended its resellers
and manufacturers to infringe the ‘131 patent; further, HTC was aware that these normal
and customary activities would infringe the ‘131 patent. HTC performed the acts that
constitute induced infringement, and would induce actual infringement, with the
knowledge of the ‘131 patent and with the knowledge or willful blindness that the
induced acts would constitute infringement.
77.
Accordingly, a reasonable inference is that HTC specifically intends for
others, such as resellers and end-use customers, to directly infringe one or more claims of
the ‘131 patent in the United States because HTC has knowledge of the ‘131 patent and
actually induces others, such as resellers and end-use customers, to directly infringe, by
using, selling, exporting, supplying and/or distributing within the United States, HTC
Communication Devices for resale to others, such as resellers and end-use customers.
HTC knew or should have known that such actions would induce actual infringement.
78.
The use of at least HTC Mobile Communication Devices with an
operating system configured and installed by HTC to support Message and Notification
25
McKool 940071v1
Case 2:13-cv-00895-JRG Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 26 of 44 PageID #: 26
functionality as intended by HTC infringes at least method claim 5 of the ‘131 Patent.
HTC uses these products and thus directly infringes at least method claim 5 of the ‘131
Patent.
79.
In addition, HTC provides at least HTC Mobile Communication Devices
with an operating system configured and installed by HTC to support Message
functionality to others, such as resellers and end-use customers, in the United States who,
in turn, use these products to infringe at least method claim 5 of the ‘131 Patent.
80.
HTC indirectly infringes the ’131 patent by inducing infringement by
others, such as resellers and end-use customers, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) in
this District and elsewhere in the United States. Direct infringement is the result of
activities performed by the manufacturers, resellers, and/or end-users of HTC Mobile
Communication Devices in their intended use, including a customer’s use of the Message
and Notifications functionality. HTC received actual notice of the ’131 Patent at least by
November 28, 2012, in view of a communication from Rockstar, and/or its predecessorsin-interest, to HTC, and also received knowledge as of the date this lawsuit was filed.
81.
HTC’s affirmative acts of selling HTC Mobile Communication Devices
and providing instruction manuals induced the end-users of HTC Mobile Communication
Devices to use HTC Mobile Communication Devices in their normal and customary way
to infringe the ’131 patent at least through using Message and Notifications functionality.
HTC also provides instructions, including at least “Your HTC Jetstream User Guide,”
available on HTC’s web site at http://dl3.htc.com/htc_na/user_guides/htc-jetstream-attug.pdf, “Your HTC One S User Guide,” available on HTC’s web site at
http://dl4.htc.com/web_materials/Manual/HTC_One_S/HTC_One_S_User_Guide.pdf,
26
McKool 940071v1
Case 2:13-cv-00895-JRG Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 27 of 44 PageID #: 27
“Your
HTC
One
X+
User
Guide,”
available
on
HTC’s
web
site
at
http://dl4.htc.com/web_materials/Manual/HTC_One_X_plus/HTC_One_X_plus_User_G
uide.pdf, and “Your HTC Vivid User Guide,” available on HTC’s web site at
http://dl3.htc.com/htc_na/user_guides/htc_vivid_att_userguide_0409.pdf, for using the
Messaging and Notifications functionality. Through its sales of Mobile Communication
Devices with Messaging and Notifications functionality, HTC specifically intended the
end-users of HTC Mobile Communication Devices to infringe the ’131 patent; further,
HTC was aware that the normal and customary use of the Message and Notifications
functionality would infringe the ’131 patent. HTC also enticed its end-users to use the
Messaging and Notifications functionality by providing instruction manuals.
HTC
performed the acts that constituted induced infringement, and would induce actual
infringement, with the knowledge of the ’131 patent and with the knowledge or willful
blindness that the induced acts would constitute infringement.
82.
Accordingly, a reasonable inference is that HTC actively induces
infringement of the ‘131 Patent by others, such as resellers and end-use customers. HTC
specifically intends for others, such as resellers and end-use customers, to directly
infringe one or more claims of the ‘131 Patent in the United States because HTC had
knowledge of the ‘131 Patent, and HTC actually induces infringement by providing
instructions to resellers and end-use customers regarding the use and operation of HTC
Mobile Communication Devices in an infringing way. Such instructions include at least
“Your
HTC
Jetstream
User
Guide,”
available
on
HTC’s
web
site
at
http://dl3.htc.com/htc_na/user_guides/htc-jetstream-att-ug.pdf, “Your HTC One S User
Guide,”
available
on
HTC’s
27
McKool 940071v1
web
site
at
Case 2:13-cv-00895-JRG Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 28 of 44 PageID #: 28
http://dl4.htc.com/web_materials/Manual/HTC_One_S/HTC_One_S_User_Guide.pdf,
“Your
HTC
One
X+
User
Guide,”
available
on
HTC’s
web
site
at
http://dl4.htc.com/web_materials/Manual/HTC_One_X_plus/HTC_One_X_plus_User_G
uide.pdf, and “Your HTC Vivid User Guide,” available on HTC’s web site at
http://dl3.htc.com/htc_na/user_guides/htc_vivid_att_userguide_0409.pdf. When resellers
and end-use customers follow such instructions, they directly infringe the ‘131 Patent.
HTC knows that by providing such instructions, resellers and end-use customers follow
those instructions, and directly infringe the ‘131 Patent. HTC thus knows that its actions
induce the infringement.
83.
HTC indirectly infringes the ‘131 Patent by contributing to infringement
by others, such as resellers and end-use customers, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 271(c)
in this District and elsewhere in the United States. Direct infringement is the result of
activities performed by the manufacturers, resellers, and/or end-users of HTC Mobile
Communication Devices in their intended use, including a customer’s use of the
Messaging and Notification functionality. HTC received actual notice of the ’131 Patent
at least by November 28, 2012, in view of a communication from Rockstar, and/or its
predecessors-in-interest, to HTC, and also received knowledge as of the date this lawsuit
was filed.
84.
HTC’s Message and Notification functionality receives and displays
message of different types, such as a phone call, voice mail, text message, or email. The
Message and Notification Services functionality is designed to notify the user of an
incoming communication and to select the format of the message received and cannot
function in a manner that does not utilize the messaging functionality available to HTC
28
McKool 940071v1
Case 2:13-cv-00895-JRG Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 29 of 44 PageID #: 29
Mobile Communication Devices.
Upon information and belief, the Message and
Notifications functionality is designed to entice a user to receive notifications of an
incoming communication.
85.
A reasonable inference to be drawn from the facts set forth is that the
Message and Notifications functionality especially made or especially adapted to operate
on HTC Mobile Communication Devices for notifying a user of an incoming
communication.
86.
A reasonable inference to be drawn from the facts set forth is that the
Message and Notifications functionality is not a staple article or commodity of commerce
and that the use of the Messaging and Notifications functionality of the HTC Mobile
Communication Devices is for notifying a user of an incoming communication. Any
other use would be unusual, far-fetched, illusory, impractical, occasional, aberrant, or
experimental.
87.
HTC Mobile Communication Devices with Messaging and Notifications
functionality are each a material part of the ’131 patent and especially made for the
infringing use of the Messaging and Notification functionality to receive and display
messages.
HTC Mobile Communication Devices including the Messaging and
Notification functionality, are especially made or adapted to notify a user of an incoming
communication that perform or facilitate performance of the steps that infringe the ’131
patent. Furthermore, HTC provides user manuals describing the uses of its Mobile
Communication Devices that infringe the ’131 patent.
Because the functionality
provided by HTC’s Messaging and Notification to notify a user of an incoming
29
McKool 940071v1
Case 2:13-cv-00895-JRG Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 30 of 44 PageID #: 30
communication infringes the ’131 patent, HTC’s sales of its infringing products have no
substantial non-infringing uses.
88.
Accordingly, a reasonable inference is that HTC offers to sell, or sells
within the United States a component of a patented machine, manufacture, combination,
or composition, or a material or apparatus for use in practicing a patented process,
constituting a material part of the invention, knowing the same to be especially made or
especially adapted for use in an infringement of such patent, and not a staple article or
commodity of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use. HTC provides to
others, Mobile Communication Devices with an operating system configured and
installed by HTC to support Message and Notification functionality. HTC installs and
configures on these products distinct and separate components, including software
components, which are used only to perform the infringing method claims.
89.
At least HTC Mobile Communication Devices with an operating system
configured and installed by HTC to support VPN management functionality, including
the HTC Galaxy S III, infringe at least claims 1 and 8 of the ‘591 Patent. HTC makes,
uses, sells, offers for sale, imports, exports, supplies and/or distributes within the United
States these devices and thus directly infringes at least claims 1 and 8 of the ‘591 Patent.
90.
HTC indirectly infringes the ‘591 patent by inducing infringement by
others of at least claims 1 and 8, such as resellers, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 271(b)
in this District and elsewhere in the United States. Direct infringement is the result of
activities performed by the manufacturers, resellers, and end-users of the HTC Mobile
Communication Devices. HTC had actual notice of the ’591 Patent at least by October
30
McKool 940071v1
Case 2:13-cv-00895-JRG Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 31 of 44 PageID #: 31
24, 2012 from a communication from Rockstar, and/or its predecessors-in-interest, to
HTC, and also received knowledge as of the date this lawsuit was filed.
91.
HTC’s affirmative acts of selling HTC Mobile Communication Devices,
causing the HTC Mobile Communication Devices to be manufactured, and providing
instruction manuals for HTC Mobile Communication Devices induced HTC’s
manufacturers and resellers to make or use the HTC Mobile Communication Devices in
their normal and customary way to infringe the ‘591 patent. Through its manufacture and
sales of HTC Mobile Communication Devices, HTC specifically intended its resellers
and manufacturers to infringe the ‘591 patent; further, HTC was aware that these normal
and customary activities would infringe the ‘591 patent. HTC performed the acts that
constitute induced infringement, and would induce actual infringement, with the
knowledge of the ‘591 patent and with the knowledge or willful blindness that the
induced acts would constitute infringement.
92.
Accordingly, a reasonable inference is that HTC specifically intends for
others, such as resellers and end-use customers, to directly infringe one or more claims of
the ‘591 patent in the United States because HTC has knowledge of the ‘591 patent and
actually induces others, such as resellers and end-use customers, to directly infringe, by
using, selling, exporting, supplying and/or distributing within the United States, HTC
Communication Devices for resale to others, such as resellers and end-use customers.
HTC knew or should have known that such actions would induce actual infringement.
93.
The use of at least HTC Mobile Communication Devices with an
operating system configured and installed by HTC to support VPN management
functionality as specified and intended by HTC infringes at least claims 1 and 8 of the
31
McKool 940071v1
Case 2:13-cv-00895-JRG Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 32 of 44 PageID #: 32
‘591 Patent. HTC uses these products and thus directly infringes at least claims 1 and 8
of the ‘591 Patent.
94.
In addition, HTC provides at least its Mobile Communication Devices
with an operating system configured and installed by HTC to support VPN management
functionality to others, such as resellers and end-use customers, in the United States who,
in turn, use these products to infringe at least claims 1 and 8 of the ‘591 Patent.
95.
HTC indirectly infringes the ’591 patent by inducing infringement by
others, such as resellers and end-use customers, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) in
this District and elsewhere in the United States. Direct infringement is the result of
activities performed by the manufacturers, resellers, and/or end-users of HTC Mobile
Communication Devices in their intended use, including a customer’s use of the VPN
management functionality. HTC received actual notice of the ’591 Patent at least by
October 24, 2012, in view of a communication from Rockstar, and/or its predecessors-ininterest, to HTC, and also received knowledge as of the date this lawsuit was filed.
96.
HTC’s affirmative acts of selling its Mobile Communication Devices and
providing instruction manuals induced the end-users of HTC Mobile Communication
Devices to use HTC Mobile Communication Devices in their normal and customary way
to infringe the ’591 patent at least through using VPN management functionality. HTC
also provides instructions, including at least “Your HTC Jetstream User Guide,” available
on HTC’s web site at http://dl3.htc.com/htc_na/user_guides/htc-jetstream-att-ug.pdf,
“Your
HTC
One
S
User
Guide,”
available
on
HTC’s
web
site
at
http://dl4.htc.com/web_materials/Manual/HTC_One_S/HTC_One_S_User_Guide.pdf,
“Your
HTC
One
X+
User
Guide,”
32
McKool 940071v1
available
on
HTC’s
web
site
at
Case 2:13-cv-00895-JRG Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 33 of 44 PageID #: 33
http://dl4.htc.com/web_materials/Manual/HTC_One_X_plus/HTC_One_X_plus_User_G
uide.pdf, and “Your HTC Vivid User Guide,” available on HTC’s web site at
http://dl3.htc.com/htc_na/user_guides/htc_vivid_att_userguide_0409.pdf, for using the
VPN management functionality.
Through its sales of HTC Mobile Communication
Devices with VPN management functionality, HTC specifically intended the end-users of
HTC Mobile Communication Devices to infringe the ’591 patent; further, HTC was
aware that the normal and customary use of VPN management functionality would
infringe the ’591 patent. HTC also enticed its end-users to use the VPN management
functionality by providing instruction manuals. HTC performed the acts that constituted
induced infringement, and would induce actual infringement, with the knowledge of the
’591 patent and with the knowledge or willful blindness that the induced acts would
constitute infringement.
97.
Accordingly, it is a reasonable inference that HTC actively induces
infringement of the ‘591 Patent by others, such as resellers and end-use customers. HTC
specifically intends for others, such as resellers and end-use customers, to directly
infringe one or more claims of the ‘591 Patent in the United States because HTC had
knowledge of the ‘591 Patent, and HTC actually induces infringement by providing
instructions to resellers and end-use customers regarding the use and operation of HTC’s
products in an infringing way. Such instructions include at least “Your HTC Jetstream
User Guide,” available on HTC’s web site at http://dl3.htc.com/htc_na/user_guides/htcjetstream-att-ug.pdf, “Your HTC One S User Guide,” available on HTC’s web site at
http://dl4.htc.com/web_materials/Manual/HTC_One_S/HTC_One_S_User_Guide.pdf,
“Your
HTC
One
X+
User
Guide,”
33
McKool 940071v1
available
on
HTC’s
web
site
at
Case 2:13-cv-00895-JRG Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 34 of 44 PageID #: 34
http://dl4.htc.com/web_materials/Manual/HTC_One_X_plus/HTC_One_X_plus_User_G
uide.pdf, and “Your HTC Vivid User Guide,” available on HTC’s web site at
http://dl3.htc.com/htc_na/user_guides/htc_vivid_att_userguide_0409.pdf. When resellers
and end-use customers follow such instructions, they directly infringe the ‘591 Patent.
HTC knows that by providing such instructions, resellers and end-use customers follow
those instructions, and directly infringe the ‘591 Patent. HTC thus knows that its actions
induce the infringement.
98.
HTC indirectly infringes the ‘591 Patent by contributing to infringement
by others, such as resellers and end-use customers, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 271(c)
in this District and elsewhere in the United States. Direct infringement is the result of
activities performed by the manufacturers, resellers, and/or end-users of HTC Mobile
Communication Devices in their intended use, including a customer’s use of the VPN
management functionality. HTC received actual notice of the ’591 Patent at least by
October 24, 2012, in view of a communication from Rockstar, and/or its predecessors-ininterest, to HTC, and also received knowledge as of the date this lawsuit was filed.
99.
HTC’s VPN management functionality facilitates management of VPNs.
The VPN management functionality is designed for management of VPNs and cannot
function in a manner that does not utilize the VPN management functionality available to
HTC Mobile Communication Devices. The VPN management functionality is designed
upon information and belief to entice a user to manage VPNs.
100.
A reasonable inference to be drawn from the facts set forth is that the VPN
functionality is especially made or especially adapted to operate on HTC Mobile
Communication Devices for providing VPN management functionality.
34
McKool 940071v1
Case 2:13-cv-00895-JRG Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 35 of 44 PageID #: 35
101.
A reasonable inference to be drawn from the facts set forth is that the VPN
management functionality is not a staple article or commodity of commerce and that the
use of the VPN management functionality of HTC Mobile Communication Devices is for
managing VPNs. Any other use would be unusual, far-fetched, illusory, impractical,
occasional, aberrant, or experimental.
102.
HTC
Mobile
Communication
Devices
with
VPN
management
functionality are each a material part of the invention of the ’591 patent and especially
made for the infringing use of the VPN functionality to receive call trace information.
HTC Mobile Communication Devices including the VPN management functionality, are
especially made or adapted to provide VPN management functionality that perform or
facilitate performance of the steps that infringe the ’591 patent. Furthermore, HTC
provides user manuals describing the uses of its Mobile Communication Devices that
infringe the ’591 patent. Because the functionality provided by HTC’s VPN management
functionality infringes the ’591 patent, HTC’s sales of its infringing Mobile
Communication Devices have no substantial non-infringing uses.
103.
Accordingly, a reasonable inference is that HTC offers to sell, or sells
within the United States a component of a patented machine, manufacture, combination,
or composition, or a material or apparatus for use in practicing a patented process,
constituting a material part of the invention, knowing the same to be especially made or
especially adapted for use in an infringement of such patent, and not a staple article or
commodity of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use. HTC provides to
others, Mobile Communication Devices with an operating system configured and
installed by HTC to support VPN management functionality.
35
McKool 940071v1
HTC installs and
Case 2:13-cv-00895-JRG Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 36 of 44 PageID #: 36
configures on these products distinct and separate components, including software
components, which are used only to infringe the ‘591 Patent.
104.
The use of at least HTC Mobile Communication Devices with an
operating system configured and installed by HTC to support Location Services
functionality, as intended by HTC infringes at least method claim 17 of the ‘572 Patent.
HTC uses these Mobile Communication Devices and thus directly infringes at least
method claim 17 of the ‘572 Patent.
105.
In addition, HTC provides at least its Mobile Communication Devices
with an operating system configured and installed by HTC to support Location Services
functionality to others, such as resellers and end-use customers, in the United States who,
in turn, use these products to infringe at least method claim 17 of the ‘572 Patent.
106.
HTC indirectly infringes by inducing infringement by others, such as
resellers and end-use customers, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) in this District
and elsewhere in the United States.
Direct infringement is the result of activities
performed by the manufacturers, resellers, and/or end-users of HTC Mobile
Communication Devices in their intended use, including a customer’s use of the Location
Services functionality. HTC received actual notice of the ’572 Patent at least by May 8,
2012, in view of a communication from Rockstar, and/or its predecessors-in-interest, to
HTC, and also received knowledge as of the date this lawsuit was filed.
107.
HTC’s affirmative acts of selling its Mobile Communication Devices and
providing instruction manuals induced the end-users of HTC Mobile Communication
Devices to use HTC Mobile Communication Devices in their normal and customary way
to infringe the ’572 patent at least through using Location Services functionality. HTC
36
McKool 940071v1
Case 2:13-cv-00895-JRG Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 37 of 44 PageID #: 37
also provides instructions, including at least “Your HTC Jetstream User Guide,” available
on HTC’s web site at http://dl3.htc.com/htc_na/user_guides/htc-jetstream-att-ug.pdf,
“Your
HTC
One
S
User
Guide,”
available
on
HTC’s
web
site
at
http://dl4.htc.com/web_materials/Manual/HTC_One_S/HTC_One_S_User_Guide.pdf,
“Your
HTC
One
X+
User
Guide,”
available
on
HTC’s
web
site
at
http://dl4.htc.com/web_materials/Manual/HTC_One_X_plus/HTC_One_X_plus_User_G
uide.pdf, and “Your HTC Vivid User Guide,” available on HTC’s web site at
http://dl3.htc.com/htc_na/user_guides/htc_vivid_att_userguide_0409.pdf, for using the
Location Services functionality.
Through its sales of HTC Mobile Communication
Devices with Location Services functionality, HTC specifically intended the end-users of
HTC Mobile Communication Devices to infringe the ’572 patent; further, HTC was
aware that the normal and customary use of Location Services would infringe the ’572
patent.
HTC also enticed its end-users to use the Location Services by providing
instruction manuals. HTC performed the acts that constituted induced infringement, and
would induce actual infringement, with the knowledge of the ’572 patent and with the
knowledge or willful blindness that the induced acts would constitute infringement.
108.
Accordingly, a reasonable inference is that HTC actively induces
infringement of the ‘572 Patent by others, such as resellers and end-use customers. HTC
specifically intends for others, such as resellers and end-use customers, to directly
infringe one or more claims of the ‘572 Patent in the United States because HTC had
knowledge of the ‘572 Patent, and HTC actually induces infringement by providing
instructions to resellers and end-use customers regarding the use and operation of HTC’s
products in an infringing way. Such instructions include at least “Your HTC Jetstream
37
McKool 940071v1
Case 2:13-cv-00895-JRG Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 38 of 44 PageID #: 38
User Guide,” available on HTC’s web site at http://dl3.htc.com/htc_na/user_guides/htcjetstream-att-ug.pdf, “Your HTC One S User Guide,” available on HTC’s web site at
http://dl4.htc.com/web_materials/Manual/HTC_One_S/HTC_One_S_User_Guide.pdf,
“Your
HTC
One
X+
User
Guide,”
available
on
HTC’s
web
site
at
http://dl4.htc.com/web_materials/Manual/HTC_One_X_plus/HTC_One_X_plus_User_G
uide.pdf, and “Your HTC Vivid User Guide,” available on HTC’s web site at
http://dl3.htc.com/htc_na/user_guides/htc_vivid_att_userguide_0409.pdf. When resellers
and end-use customers follow such instructions, they directly infringe the ‘572 Patent.
HTC knows that by providing such instructions, resellers and end-use customers follow
those instructions, and directly infringe the ‘572 Patent. HTC thus knows that its actions
induce the infringement.
109.
HTC indirectly infringes the ‘572 Patent by contributing to infringement
by others, such as resellers and end-use customers, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 271(c)
in this District and elsewhere in the United States. Direct infringement is the result of
activities performed by the manufacturers, resellers, and/or end-users of HTC Mobile
Communication Devices in their intended use, including a customer’s use of the
Locations Services functionality. HTC received actual notice of the ’572 Patent at least
by May 8, 2012, in view of a communication from Rockstar, and/or its predecessors-ininterest, to HTC, and also received knowledge as of the date this lawsuit was filed.
110.
HTC’s Location Services functionality provides call trace information, i.e.,
a geographic location of HTC Mobile Communication Devices. The Location Services
functionality is designed to notify the user of HTC Mobile Communication Devices of
call trace information, i.e., a geographic location of the Mobile Communication Devices,
38
McKool 940071v1
Case 2:13-cv-00895-JRG Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 39 of 44 PageID #: 39
and cannot function in a manner that does not utilize the Location Services functionality
available to the Mobile Communication Devices. Upon information and belief, the
Location Services functionality is designed to entice a user to access call trace
information.
111.
A reasonable inference to be drawn from the facts set forth is that the
Location Services functionality is especially made or especially adapted to operate on
HTC Mobile Communication Devices for obtaining call trace information, i.e., a
geographic location of the Mobile Communication Devices.
112.
A reasonable inference to be drawn from the facts set forth is that the
Location Services functionality is not a staple article or commodity of commerce and that
the use of the Location Services functionality of HTC Mobile Communication Devices is
for providing call trace information.
Any other use would be unusual, far-fetched,
illusory, impractical, occasional, aberrant, or experimental.
113.
HTC
Mobile
Communication
Devices
with
Location
Services
functionality are each a material part of the ’572 patent and especially made for the
infringing use of the Location Services functionality to receive call trace information, i.e.,
a geographic location of the Mobile Communication Devices.
The Mobile
Communication Devices including the Location Services functionality are especially
made or adapted to provide call trace information that perform or facilitate performance
of the steps that infringe the ’572 patent. Furthermore, HTC provides user manuals
describing the uses of its products that infringe the ’572 patent. Because the functionality
provided by HTC’s Location Services to obtain call trace information, i.e., a geographic
39
McKool 940071v1
Case 2:13-cv-00895-JRG Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 40 of 44 PageID #: 40
location of the Mobile Communication Devices, infringes the ’572 patent, HTC’s sales of
its infringing products have no substantial non-infringing uses.
114.
Accordingly, a reasonable inference is that HTC offers to sell, or sells
within the United States a component of a patented machine, manufacture, combination,
or composition, or a material or apparatus for use in practicing a patented process,
constituting a material part of the invention, knowing the same to be especially made or
especially adapted for use in an infringement of such patent, and not a staple article or
commodity of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use. HTC provides to
others, Mobile Communication Devices with an operating system configured and
installed by HTC to support Location Services functionality. HTC installs and configures
on these products distinct and separate components, including software components,
which are used only to perform the infringing method claims.
115.
HTC’s acts of infringement have caused damage to Rockstar and
MobileStar. Rockstar and MobileStar are entitled to recover from HTC the damages
sustained by Rockstar and MobileStar as a result of HTC’s wrongful acts in an amount
subject to proof at trial. In addition, the infringing acts and practices of HTC have
caused, are causing, and, unless such acts and practices are enjoined by the Court, will
continue to cause immediate and irreparable harm to Rockstar and MobileStar for which
there is no adequate remedy at law, and for which Rockstar and MobileStar are entitled to
injunctive relief under 35 U.S.C. § 283.
116.
HTC received actual notice of its infringement of the ‘551, ‘937, ‘298,
‘973, ‘131, ‘591, and ‘572 Patents through at least letters sent by Rockstar and/or its
predecessors-in-interest, Nortel Networks Ltd. and/or Nortel Networks, Inc., to HTC, and
40
McKool 940071v1
Case 2:13-cv-00895-JRG Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 41 of 44 PageID #: 41
through meetings between employees of Rockstar and/or its predecessors-in-interest,
Nortel Networks Ltd., or Nortel Networks Inc. and HTC. HTC also has knowledge of its
infringement of the Patents-in-Suit by way of this Complaint.
117.
HTC has willfully infringed and/or does willfully infringe the ‘551, ‘937,
‘298, ‘973, ‘131, ‘591, and ‘572 Patents.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Rockstar and MobileStar hereby demand a jury trial for all issues so triable.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Rockstar and MobileStar pray for the following relief:
1.
A judgment that HTC has directly infringed the ‘551 Patent, contributorily
infringed the ‘551 Patent, and/or induced the infringement of the ‘551 Patent.
2.
A judgment that HTC has directly infringed the ‘937 Patent, contributorily
infringed the ‘937 Patent, and/or induced the infringement of the ‘937 Patent.
3.
A judgment that HTC has directly infringed the ‘298 Patent, contributorily
infringed the ‘298 Patent, and/or induced the infringement of the ‘298 Patent.
4.
A judgment that HTC has directly infringed the ‘973 Patent, contributorily
infringed the ‘973 Patent, and/or induced the infringement of the ‘973 Patent.
5.
A judgment that HTC has directly infringed the ‘131 Patent, contributorily
infringed the ‘131 Patent, and/or induced the infringement of the ‘131 Patent.
6.
A judgment that HTC has directly infringed the ‘591 Patent, contributorily
infringed the ‘591 Patent, and/or induced the infringement of the ‘591 Patent.
7.
A judgment that HTC has directly infringed the ‘572 Patent, contributorily
infringed the ‘572 Patent, and/or induced the infringement of the ‘572 Patent.
41
McKool 940071v1
Case 2:13-cv-00895-JRG Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 42 of 44 PageID #: 42
8.
A permanent injunction preventing HTC and its respective officers,
directors, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, licensees, successors, and assigns, and
those in active concert or participation with any of them, from directly infringing,
contributorily infringing, and/or inducing the infringement of the ’551 Patent;
9.
A permanent injunction preventing HTC and its respective officers,
directors, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, licensees, successors, and assigns, and
those in active concert or participation with any of them, from directly infringing,
contributorily infringing, and/or inducing the infringement of the ’937 patent;
10.
A permanent injunction preventing HTC and its respective officers,
directors, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, licensees, successors, and assigns, and
those in active concert or participation with any of them, from directly infringing,
contributorily infringing, and/or inducing the infringement of the ’298 patent;
11.
A permanent injunction preventing HTC and its respective officers,
directors, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, licensees, successors, and assigns, and
those in active concert or participation with any of them, from directly infringing,
contributorily infringing, and/or inducing the infringement of the ’973 patent;
12.
A permanent injunction preventing HTC and its respective officers,
directors, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, licensees, successors, and assigns, and
those in active concert or participation with any of them, from directly infringing,
contributorily infringing, and/or inducing the infringement of the ’131 patent;
13.
A permanent injunction preventing HTC and its respective officers,
directors, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, licensees, successors, and assigns, and
42
McKool 940071v1
Case 2:13-cv-00895-JRG Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 43 of 44 PageID #: 43
those in active concert or participation with any of them, from directly infringing,
contributorily infringing, and/or inducing the infringement of the ’591 patent;
14.
A permanent injunction preventing HTC and its respective officers,
directors, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, licensees, successors, and assigns, and
those in active concert or participation with any of them, from directly infringing,
contributorily infringing, and/or inducing the infringement of the ’572 patent;
15.
A judgment that HTC’s infringement of the ’551, ‘937, ‘298, ‘973, ‘131,
‘591, and ‘572 Patents has been willful;
16.
A ruling that this case be found to be exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285,
and a judgment awarding Rockstar and MobileStar to its attorneys’ fees incurred in
prosecuting this action;
17.
A judgment and order requiring HTC to pay Rockstar and MobileStar
damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284, including supplemental damages for any continuing
post-verdict infringement up until entry of the final judgment, with an accounting, as
needed, and treble damages for willful infringement as provided by 35 U.S.C. § 284;
18.
A judgment and order requiring HTC to pay Rockstar and MobileStar the
costs of this action (including all disbursements);
19.
A judgment and order requiring HTC to pay Rockstar and MobileStar pre-
judgment and post-judgment interest on the damages awarded;
20.
A judgment and order requiring that in the event a permanent injunction
preventing future acts of infringement is not granted, that Rockstar and MobileStar be
awarded a compulsory ongoing licensing fee; and
21.
Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
43
McKool 940071v1
Case 2:13-cv-00895-JRG Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 44 of 44 PageID #: 44
DATED: October 31, 2013.
Respectfully submitted,
MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
/s/ Theodore Stevenson, III
Mike McKool, Jr.
Texas Bar No. 13732100
mmckool@mckoolsmith.com
Douglas A. Cawley
Texas Bar No. 0403550
dcawley@mckoolsmith.com
Theodore Stevenson, III
Lead Attorney
Texas State Bar No. 19196650
tstevenson@mckoolsmith.com
David Sochia
Texas State Bar No. 00797470
dsochia@mckoolsmith.com
MCKOOL SMITH P.C.
300 Crescent Court, Suite 1500
Dallas, Texas 75201
Telephone: (214) 978-4000
Facsimile: (214) 978-4044
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
ROCKSTAR CONSORTIUM US,
LP AND MOBILESTAR
TECHNOLOGIES LLC
44
McKool 940071v1
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?