Comcast IP Holdings I LLC v. Sprint Communications Company LP et al

Filing 1

COMPLAINT for Patent Infringement filed with Jury Demand against Nextel Operations Inc., Sprint Communications Company LP, Sprint Spectrum LP - Magistrate Consent Notice to Pltf. ( Filing fee $ 350, receipt number 311-1026299.) - filed by Comcast IP Holdings I LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Civil Cover Sheet)(dmp, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

COMCAST IP HOLDINGS I, LLC,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY )
L.P.; SPRINT SPECTRUM L.P.; and
)
NEXTEL OPERATIONS, INC.;
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
)

Case No.:
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
Plaintiff Comcast IP Holdings I, LLC (“Comcast”) for its complaint for patent
infringement against Defendants Sprint Communications Company L.P. (“Sprint
Communications”), Sprint Spectrum L.P. (“Sprint Spectrum”), and Nextel Operations, Inc.
(“Nextel Operations”) (collectively, “Sprint”) alleges as follows:
THE PARTIES
1.

Plaintiff Comcast is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the

State of Delaware, with its principal place of business in Wilmington, Delaware.
2.

Defendant Sprint Communications is a limited partnership organized under the

laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business in Overland Park, Kansas.
3.

Defendant Sprint Spectrum is a limited partnership organized under the laws of

the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business in Overland Park, Kansas.
4.

Defendant Nextel Operations is a corporation organized under the laws of the

State of Delaware, with its principal place of business in Overland Park, Kansas.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5.

This action arises under the United States patent laws, 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, et seq.

The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and
1338(a).
6.

Each of the Defendants transacts business within the judicial district and has

committed acts of patent infringement within the judicial district. The Court therefore has
personal jurisdiction over each of the Defendants.
7.

Further, each of the Defendants is subject to this Court’s jurisdiction by virtue of

their incorporation in Delaware and their having availed themselves of the laws and protections
of this district.
8.
Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)-(c) and 1400(b).
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(SPRINT’S INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,012,916)
9.

Comcast restates and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 8

above and incorporates them by reference.
10.

Comcast is the lawful owner, by assignment, of the entire right, title, and interest

in United States Patent No. 7,012,916 (“the ‘916 patent”), entitled “Method And Apparatus For
Accessing Communication Data Relevant To A Target Entity Identified By A Number String,”
which was issued on March 14, 2006 to inventors Colin Low and Andrew Seaborne. A copy of
the ‘916 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
11.

Sprint has been and now is infringing the ‘916 patent, within this judicial district

and elsewhere, by making, using, offering for sale, and/or selling products and services that
access communications data relevant to a target entity identified by a number string. Such
products and services include, without limitation, Sprint’s wireless telephony services (such as,
for example, services currently or previously provided under Sprint’s Basic, Talk, Simply
Everything, Everything Data, Everything Messaging, Everything Plus, and Any Mobile Anytime
2

wireless plans), Sprint’s Wholesale telephony services (such as, for example, Sprint’s Wholesale
VoIP Solutions services), Sprint’s enterprise and business voice products and services (such as,
for example, Sprint’s Managed IP Telephony services), Sprint’s SMS products and services for
wireless (such as, for example, services currently or previously provided under Sprint’s Vision
Pack, Unlimited Texting, Wireless Texting and Wireless Premium Text Message plans), Sprint’s
MMS products and services for wireless (such as, for example, Sprint Wireless Picture Mail,
Sprint Wireless Video Mail, and Sprint Mobile Email), Sprint Unified Communications, and
Sprint Collaboration services that provide voice, telephony, conferencing, and messaging
services.
12.

On information and belief, Sprint has had knowledge of the ‘916 patent since at

least November 5, 2008 or shortly thereafter and Sprint’s infringement has been willful since that
time.
13.

Comcast has been damaged by Sprint’s infringement of the ‘916 patent, has been

irreparably harmed by that infringement, and will suffer additional damages and irreparable harm
unless this Court enjoins Sprint from further infringement.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(SPRINT’S INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,206,304)
14.

Comcast restates and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 13

above and incorporates them by reference.
15.

Comcast is the lawful owner, by assignment, of the entire right, title, and interest

in United States Patent No. 7,206,304 (“the ‘304 patent”), entitled “Method And Apparatus For
Determining A Telephone Number For Accessing A Target Entity,” which was issued on April
17, 2007 to inventors Colin Low, Andrew Seaborne, and Nicolas Bouthors. A copy of the ‘304
patent is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
16.

Sprint has been and now is infringing the ‘304 patent, within this judicial district

and elsewhere, by making, using, offering for sale, and/or selling products and services that
3

determine a telephone number for accessing a target entity. Such products and services include,
without limitation, Sprint’s wireless telephony services (such as, for example, services currently
or previously provided under Sprint’s Basic, Talk, Simply Everything, Everything Data,
Everything Messaging, Everything Plus, and Any Mobile Anytime wireless plans), Sprint’s
Wholesale telephony services (such as, for example, Sprint’s Wholesale VoIP Solutions
services), Sprint’s enterprise and business voice products and services (such as, for example,
Sprint’s Managed IP Telephony services), Sprint’s SMS products and services for wireless (such
as, for example, services currently or previously provided under Sprint’s Vision Pack, Unlimited
Texting, Wireless Texting and Wireless Premium Text Message plans), Sprint’s MMS products
and services for wireless (such as, for example, Sprint Wireless Picture Mail, Sprint Wireless
Video Mail, and Sprint Mobile Email), Sprint Unified Communications, and Sprint
Collaboration services that provide voice, telephony, conferencing, and messaging services.
17.

On information and belief, Sprint has had knowledge of the ‘304 patent since at

least November 5, 2008 or shortly thereafter and Sprint’s infringement has been willful since that
time.
18.

Comcast has been damaged by Sprint’s infringement of the ‘304 patent, has been

irreparably harmed by that infringement, and will suffer additional damages and irreparable harm
unless this Court enjoins Sprint from further infringement.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(SPRINT’S INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,903,641)
19.

Comcast restates and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 18

above and incorporates them by reference.
20.

Comcast is the lawful owner, by assignment, of the entire right, title, and interest

in United States Patent No. 7,903,641 (“the ‘641 patent”), entitled “Method And Apparatus For
Accessing Communication Data Relevant To A Target Entity Identified By A Number String,”

4

which was issued on March 8, 2011 to inventors Colin Low, Andrew Seaborne, and Nicolas
Bouthors. A copy of the ‘641 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
21.

Sprint has been and now is infringing the ‘641 patent, within this judicial district

and elsewhere, by making, using, offering for sale, and/or selling products and services that
access communication data relevant to a target entity identified by a number string. Such
products and services include, without limitation, Sprint’s wireless telephony services (such as,
for example, services currently or previously provided under Sprint’s Basic, Talk, Simply
Everything, Everything Data, Everything Messaging, Everything Plus, and Any Mobile Anytime
wireless plans), Sprint’s Wholesale telephony services (such as, for example, Sprint’s Wholesale
VoIP Solutions services), Sprint’s enterprise and business voice products and services (such as,
for example, Sprint’s Managed IP Telephony services), Sprint’s SMS products and services for
wireless (such as, for example, services currently or previously provided under Sprint’s Vision
Pack, Unlimited Texting, Wireless Texting and Wireless Premium Text Message plans), Sprint’s
MMS products and services for wireless (such as, for example, Sprint Wireless Picture Mail,
Sprint Wireless Video Mail, and Sprint Mobile Email), Sprint Unified Communications, and
Sprint Collaboration services that provide voice, telephony, conferencing, and messaging
services.
22.

Comcast has been damaged by Sprint’s infringement of the ‘641 patent, has been

irreparably harmed by that infringement, and will suffer additional damages and irreparable harm
unless this Court enjoins Sprint from further infringement.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(SPRINT’S INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,873,694)
23.

Comcast restates and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 22

above and incorporates them by reference.
24.

Comcast is the lawful owner, by assignment, of the entire right, title, and interest

in United States Patent No. 6,873,694 (“the ‘694 patent”), entitled “Telephony Network
5

Optimization Method And System” which was issued on March 29, 2005 to inventor Greg
Lipinski. A copy of the ‘694 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit D.
25.

Sprint has been and now is infringing the ‘694 patent, within this judicial district

and elsewhere, by making, using, offering for sale, and/or selling products and services using
telephony network optimization methods. Such products and services include, without
limitation, Sprint’s wireless telephony offerings that support both voice and data (such as, for
example, services currently or previously provided under Sprint’s Basic, Talk, Simply
Everything, Everything Data, Everything Messaging, Everything Plus, and Any Mobile Anytime
wireless plans).
26.

Comcast has been damaged by Sprint’s infringement of the ‘694 patent, has been

irreparably harmed by that infringement, and will suffer additional damages and irreparable harm
unless this Court enjoins Sprint from further infringement.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Comcast prays for judgment:
1.

that Sprint has infringed and is infringing the ‘916 patent, the ‘304 patent, the

‘641 patent, and the ‘694 patent;
2.

that Sprint’s infringement of the ‘916 patent and the ‘304 patent has been and is

3.

enjoining Sprint and Sprint’s officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys,

willful;

and all other persons in active concert or participation with any of them, from infringing the ‘916
patent, the ‘304 patent, the ‘641 patent, and the ‘694 patent;
4.

awarding Comcast compensatory damages for Sprint’s infringement, together

with interest and costs pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284;
5.

awarding Comcast enhanced damages for Sprint’s willful infringement of the

‘916 patent and the ‘304 patent;
6

6.

awarding Comcast reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285; and

7.

granting Comcast such other and further relief in law or in equity as this Court

deems just or proper.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Comcast demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ LLP
/s/ Ryan P. Newell____________________
Arthur G. Connolly (#2667)
Ryan P. Newell (#4744)
1007 N. Orange Street
P.O. Box 2207
Wilmington, DE 19899
Tel: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Comcast IP Holdings I, LLC
Dated: February 21, 2012
Of Counsel:
DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP
Matthew B. Lehr
Anthony Fenwick
David J. Lisson
Austin D. Tarango
Shiwoong Kim
1600 El Camino Real
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

7