ADC Technology Inc. v. Cellco Partnership et al

Filing 1

COMPLAINT filed by ADC Technology Inc.; Jury Demand. Filing fee $ 350, receipt number 0752-5004501.(Megley, Richard)

ADC Technology Inc. v. Cellco Partnership et al

Doc. 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ADC TECHNOLOGY INC., Plaintiff, v. CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERIZON WIRELESS and T-MOBILE USA, INC., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT Plaintiff ADC Technology Inc., for its complaint against defendants Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless ("Verizon Wireless") and T-Mobile USA, Inc. ("T-Mobile"), alleges as follows: NATURE OF THE SUIT 1. This is a claim for patent infringement arising under the patent laws

Civil Action No. 1:10-cv-4321 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

of the United States, Title 35 of the United States Code. PARTIES 2. ADC Technology Inc. ("ADC") is a corporation organized under the

laws of Japan with a principal place of business in Nagoya, Japan. Among other things, ADC develops technology and sells products used in wireless communication. 3. ADC is the owner of a series of patents on inventions made by

Toshiharu Enmei for ADC, in the field of mobile communication devices.

Dockets.Justia.com

4.

ADC owns all right, title, and interest in, and has standing to sue

for, the infringement of the following United States Patents that are titled "Portable Communicator": · · · 5. No. 6,985,136 issued January 10, 2006 ("the `136 Patent"); No. 7,057,605 issued June 6, 2006 ("the `605 Patent"); and No. 7,567,361 issued July 28, 2009 ("the `361 Patent"). Each of the following defendants has infringed one or more of the

ADC patents by selling, offering to sell, and/or importing mobile communication devices in the United States, including sales in Illinois and this judicial district. 6. Verizon Wireless is a Delaware general partnership with its

principal place of business at 1 Verizon Way, Basking Ridge, New Jersey 07920. Verizon Wireless does substantial business in this judicial district by, among other things, operating wireless telecommunications systems and providing wireless services, and by providing the wireless handset products accused of infringement in this judicial district. Such products and services are sold and/or offered for sale at numerous Verizon Wireless stores located within this judicial district, including one such store located at 36 South State Street, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 7. T-Mobile is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of

business at 12920 SE 38th Street, Bellevue, Washington 98006. T-Mobile does substantial business in this judicial district by, among other things, operating wireless telecommunications systems and providing wireless services, and by providing wireless handset products accused of infringement in this judicial

2

district. Such products and services are sold and/or offered for sale at numerous T-Mobile stores located within this judicial district, including one such store located at 9 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60603. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 8. This Court has exclusive jurisdiction over the subject matter of this

case for patent infringement under 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a). 9. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Verizon Wireless by virtue

of its tortious acts of patent infringement which have been committed in the State of Illinois and in this judicial district and by virtue of its regular and systematic transaction of business in the State of Illinois. Verizon Wireless has previously admitted that this Court has personal jurisdiction over it. See, MSTG, Inc. v. Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, Case No. 08-cv-7411, pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Docket No. 103, at p. 4. 10. This Court has personal jurisdiction over T-Mobile by virtue of its

tortious acts of patent infringement which have been committed in the State of Illinois and in this judicial district and by virtue of its regular and systematic transaction of business in the State of Illinois. T-Mobile has previously

consented to personal jurisdiction in this Court. See, MSTG, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., Case No. 09-cv-03684, pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Docket No. 82, at p. 3.

3

11.

Each of the defendants has placed its infringing products in the

stream of commerce with knowledge and intent that the products would be distributed and sold to customers in Illinois and this judicial district. 12. and 1391. Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1400(b) All defendants reside in this district because they are subject to

personal jurisdiction here. All defendants have committed acts of infringement in this district, and a substantial part of the infringing acts have occurred here. PATENT INFRINGEMENT 13. Verizon Wireless has infringed at least one claim of each of the

`605 and `361 patents, at least by importing, selling, and offering to sell mobile communication devices, including but not limited to phones designated by the names Verizon Escapade and Verizon CDM8975. 14. T-Mobile has infringed at least one claim of each of the `136, `605,

and `361 patents, at least by importing, selling, and offering to sell mobile communication devices, including but not limited to phones designated by the names T-Mobile Tap, T-Mobile My TouchTM and T-Mobile G1TM. 15. Each defendant's infringement has injured ADC, and ADC is

entitled to recover damages adequate to compensate it for such infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty. 16. ADC's injury will continue unless and until this Court enters an

injunction against further infringement by all defendants. 17. 287. ADC has complied with any applicable provisions of 35 U.S.C. §

4

PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff ADC Technology Inc. respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment against each of defendants Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, T-Mobile USA, Inc., and against their subsidiaries, successors, parents, affiliates, officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with them, granting the following relief: A. The entry of judgment in favor of ADC Technology Inc. on the claim

of infringement for each of the `605 and `361 patents against Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless; B. The entry of judgment in favor of ADC Technology Inc. on the claim

of infringement for each of the `136, `605 and `361 patents against T-Mobile USA, Inc.; C. An award of damages adequate to compensate ADC Technology

Inc. for the infringement that has occurred (together with prejudgment interest from the date the infringement began), but in no event less than a reasonable royalty as permitted by 35 U.S.C. § 284; D. A permanent injunction against further infringement of the `136,

`605, and `361 patents; E. A finding that this case is exceptional and an award to ADC

Technology Inc. of all relief provided by 35 U.S.C. § 285; and F. Such other and further relief that ADC Technology Inc. is entitled to

under law, and any additional relief that this Court or a jury may deem just and proper.

5

JURY DEMAND ADC Technology Inc. demands a trial by jury on all issues presented in this complaint. ADC Technology Inc.

/s/ Richard B. Megley, Jr. Raymond P. Niro Dean D. Niro Patrick F. Solon Richard B. Megley Niro, Haller & Niro 181 West Madison, Suite 4600 Chicago, Illinois 60602-4515 [phone] Fax: [phone]

6