E-Micro Corporation v. Google, Inc. et al

Filing 1

COMPLAINT Jury Trial Demanded against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number 0540-3214838.), filed by E-Micro Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Civil Cover Sheet)(Chin, Edward)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
E-Micro Corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
Google, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co.,
Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc.,
Samsung Telecommunications America,
L.L.C., Sprint Nextel Corporation, Sprint
Spectrum L.P., Nextel Operations, Inc.,
Sprint Solutions, Inc., Amazon.com, Inc.,
Best Buy Co., Inc., and BBY Solutions,
Inc.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Civil Action No. 6:11-CV-465
Jury Trial Demanded

ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Plaintiff E-Micro Corporation (“E-Micro” or “Plaintiff”) hereby alleges for this Original
Complaint against Defendants Google, Inc. (“Google”), Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
(“Samsung”),

Samsung

Telecommunications

Electronics

America,

America,

L.L.C.

Inc.

(“Samsung

(“Samsung-America”),

Telecom-America”),

Samsung

Sprint

Nextel

Corporation (“Sprint Nextel”), Sprint Spectrum L.P. (“Sprint Spectrum”), Nextel Operations,
Inc. (“Nextel Operations”), Sprint Solutions, Inc. (“Sprint Solutions”), Amazon.com, Inc.
(“Amazon”), Best Buy Co., Inc. (“Best Buy”), and BBY Solutions, Inc. (“BBY”) (hereinafter
collectively, “Defendants”) on personal knowledge of its own actions and on information and
belief as to the actions of others, as follows:

ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 1 of 31

THE NATURE OF THE ACTION
1.

This is a claim for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the United

States, Title 35 of the United States Code.
2.

Plaintiff E-Micro is a small Texas-based intellectual property development and

licensing company founded in 1998 by its President, Frank J. Gangi, who is the sole inventor of
the patents at issue in this action. Frank J. Gangi has an extensive retailing background and has
held executive management, financial, and financial management positions with some of
America’s most well known companies including 7-Eleven (Southland Corporation), where he
was Chief Financial Officer; American Express; The Singer Company; Johnson & Johnson; and
IBM Corporation.
3.

E-Micro’s intellectual property portfolio contains eleven duly issued, valid, and

enforceable United States Patents; all of which were issued to Frank J. Gangi and have been
assigned by him to E-Micro. The patents at issue in this action are three of E-Micro’s “Wallet
Consolidator” patents, which reflect the advantages of having a single electronic device for
“consolidating the various cards, and other types of information, which individuals typically
carry in a wallet or purse,” as explained in the Background of the Invention section of the
asserted patents. Specifically, the asserted and infringed patents relate to devices and methods for
electronically storing and retrieving information pertaining to electronic commerce and
consumer identification (e.g., credit cards, debit cards, electronic coupons, identification cards,
and other selected data) for facilitating point-of-sale transactions. The terms “digital wallet” and
“e-wallet” are also used generally to describe this technology.
4.

In this action, the Defendants are accused of past and ongoing direct and indirect

infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,349,885, entitled “Wallet consolidator and related methods of

ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 2 of 31

processing a transaction using a wallet consolidator,” issued March 25, 2008; U.S. Patent No.
7,708,198, entitled “Wallet consolidator to facilitate a transaction,” issued May 4, 2010; and U.S.
Patent No. 7,712,658, entitled “Wallet consolidator and related methods of processing a
transaction using a wallet consolidator,” issued May 11, 2010. Although not presently asserted in
this action, the first in E-Micro’s “Wallet Consolidator” series of patents is U.S. Patent No.
6,131, 811, entitled “Wallet Consolidator,” issued on October 17, 2000.
5.

The Defendants have in the past and continue to use, sell, offer to sell, and/or

import within the United States devices and methods that infringe E-Micro’s Asserted Patents.
The Defendants’ infringement has been willful and is ongoing. Among the principal infringers
are defendants Google and Samsung. For example, Google and Samsung jointly developed the
accused infringing Samsung Nexus S 4G from Google (“Samsung Nexus S 4G”) mobile phone,
which uses the accused infringing Google Wallet software application for Android operating
system-based devices for electronically storing and retrieving information from credit cards,
debit cards, and electronic coupons for performing transactions with point-of-sale terminals via
wireless radio-frequency technology called near field communication (“NFC”).1 The transaction
is made by positioning the phone on or very close over the point-of-sale terminal so that the
phone can communicate the necessary stored card information to the terminal.
6.

The activities of Google, Samsung, and their co-defendants infringe one or more

claims in each of the Patents-in-Suit. By this action, E-Micro seeks to put a stop to the
Defendants’ illegal conduct and obtain compensation for the Defendants’ past and ongoing

1

Google touts, “Google Wallet is an Android app that makes your phone your wallet. It stores
virtual versions of your existing plastic cards on your phone. Simply tap your phone to pay and
redeem offers using near field communication, or NFC . . . It will eventually hold many if not all
of
the
cards
you
keep
in
your
leather
wallet
today.”
See
http://www.google.com/wallet/vision.html (accessed Sept. 8, 2011).
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 3 of 31

violations. E-Micro’s small size and limited resources do not mean that the Defendants, worth
billions of dollars and employing thousands of people, should be allowed to continue using EMicro’s patented technology without E-Micro’s permission and without justly compensating EMicro. Frank J. Gangi’s inventions are no less novel and no less useful because he is an
individual inventor and not an employee of a multi-billion-dollar company. America was built on
the back of small companies like E-Micro and the creative achievements of individuals like Mr.
Gangi. E-Micro’s intellectual property rights should not be violated by anyone, particularly
major corporations such as the Defendants, who have benefitted from their unauthorized and past
and ongoing use of E-Micro’s inventions.
THE PARTIES
7.

Plaintiff E-Micro Corporation (“E-Micro” or “Plaintiff”) is a corporation duly

organized and existing under the laws of the State of Texas that maintains its principal place of
business at 941 Patrician Court, Fairview, TX 75069, which is located within the Eastern District
of Texas. Since the beginning of its existence in 1998, E-Micro has maintained its principal place
of business in the Eastern District of Texas. E-Micro’s sole founder and President, Frank J.
Gangi, currently resides in and has maintained residency within the Eastern District of Texas
since at least as early as 1998.
8.

Defendant Google, Inc. (“Google”) is a corporation organized and existing under

the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business at 1600 Amphitheatre
Parkway, Mountain View, California 9404. Google may be served via its registered agent,
Corporation Service Company (d/b/a “CSC-Lawyers Incorporating Service Company”), 211 East
7th Street, Suite 620, Austin, TX 78701. On information and belief, Google designed, developed,
made, used, and distributed the Google Wallet application for Android operating system-based

ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 4 of 31

mobile phones. On information and belief, Google recruited and induced the Samsung and Sprint
defendants and MasterCard Worldwide (“MasterCard”) and First Data Corporation (“First
Data”) to be partners with Google in the Google Wallet payments ecosystem. On information
and belief, Google develops and distributes the Android operating system to mobile phone
original equipment manufacturers (“OEMs”) such as Samsung for installation on mobile phones
such as the Samsung Nexus S 4G. On information and belief, Google actively encourages OEMs
to use the Android operating system because Google expects and has benefitted from increased
use of Google Search and other Google-distributed applications installed or made available on
those Android phones, which generates additional and substantial advertising revenue for
Google. On information and belief, Google Wallet is among the Android applications that
Google expects to and has benefitted from the aforementioned revenue model. On information
and belief, Google does business throughout this judicial district and throughout the United
States.
9.

Defendant Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Samsung”) is a Korean corporation

organized and existing under the laws of the Republic of Korea with its principal place of
business at 250, 2-ga, Taepyong-ro, Jung-gu, Seoul 100-742, South Korea. On information and
belief, Samsung is South Korea’s largest company and one of Asia's largest electronics
companies. Samsung designs, manufactures, and provides to the U.S. and world markets a wide
range of products, including consumer electronics, computer components and various mobile and
entertainment products. On information and belief, Samsung does business throughout this
judicial district and throughout the United States.
10.

Defendant Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“Samsung-America”) is a New

York corporation with its principal place of business at 105 Challenger Road, Ridgefield Park,

ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 5 of 31

NJ 07660-2101. Samsung-America may be served via its registered agent, CT Corporation
System, 350 N. St. Paul Street, Suite 2900, Dallas, TX 75201-4234. On information and belief,
Samsung-America was formed in 1977 as a subsidiary of Samsung, and markets, sells, or offers
for sale a variety of consumer electronics, including TVs, VCRs, DVDs, and MP3 players, and
video cameras, as well as memory chips and computer accessories, such as printers, monitors,
hard disk drives, and DVD/CD-ROM drives. On information and belief, Samsung-America also
manages the North American operations of Samsung Telecommunications America, Samsung
Electronics Canada, and Samsung Electronics Mexico. On information and belief, SamsungAmerica does business throughout this judicial district and throughout the United States.
11.

Defendant Samsung Telecommunications America, L.L.C. (“Samsung

Telecom-America”) is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business
at 1301 East Lookout Drive, Richardson, TX 75082, which on information and belief, is within
the Eastern District of Texas. Samsung Telecom-America may be served via its registered agent,
Corporation Service Company, 211 East 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin, TX 78701-3218. On
information and belief, Samsung Telecom-America was founded in 1996 as a subsidiary of
Samsung, and markets, sells, or offers for sale a variety of personal and business
communications devices in the United States, including cell phones. On information and belief,
Samsung Telecom-America does business throughout this judicial district and throughout the
United States.
12.

Defendants Samsung, Samsung-America, and Samsung Telecom-America

together are hereinafter referred to as the “Samsung Defendants.”
13.

Defendant Sprint Nextel Corporation (“Sprint Nextel”) is a Kansas corporation

with its principal place of business at 6500 Sprint Parkway, Overland Park, KS 66251. Sprint

ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 6 of 31

Nextel may be served via its registered agent, Corporation Service Company, 200 SW 30th St.,
Topeka, KS 66611. On information and belief, Sprint Nextel does business throughout this
judicial district and throughout the United States.
14.

Defendant Sprint Spectrum L.P. (“Sprint Spectrum”) is a Delaware limited

partnership with its principal place of business at 6500 Sprint Parkway, Overland Park, KS
66251. Sprint Spectrum may be served via its registered agent, Corporation Service Company,
211 East 7th St., Suite 620, Austin, TX 78701-3218. On information and belief, Sprint Spectrum
does business throughout this judicial district and throughout the United States. On information
and belief, Sprint Spectrum L.P. operates as a subsidiary of Sprint Spectrum Holding Company,
L.P. On information and belief, Sprint L.P. provides landline and wireless communication and
telephone services.
15.

Defendant Nextel Operations, Inc. (“Nextel Operations”) is a Delaware

corporation with its principal place of business at 6500 Sprint Parkway HL 5A, Overland, KS
66251 and may be served via its registered agent, Corporation Service Company, 200 SW 30th
St., Topeka, KS 66611. On information and belief, Nextel does business throughout this judicial
district and throughout the United States.
16.

Defendant Sprint Solutions, Inc. (“Sprint Solutions”) is a Delaware corporation

with its principal place of business at 701 Brazos St., Suite 1050, Austin, TX 78701, and may be
served via its registered agent, Corporation Service Company, 211 East 7th St., Suite 620, Austin,
TX 78701. On information and belief, Sprint Solutions does business throughout this judicial
district and throughout the United States.
17.

Defendants Sprint Nextel, Sprint Spectrum, Nextel Operations, and Sprint

Solutions together are hereinafter referred to as the “Sprint Defendants.”

ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 7 of 31

18.

Defendant Amazon.com, Inc. (“Amazon”) is a Delaware corporation with its

principal place of business at 1200 12th Avenue South, Suite 1200, Seattle, WA 98144, and may
be served via its registered agent, Corporation Service Company, 300 Deschutes Way SW, Suite
304, Tumwater, WA 98501. On information and belief, Amazon does business throughout this
judicial district and throughout the United States and transacted business in this district
including, more specifically, directly and/or through intermediaries, shipping, distributing,
offering for sale, selling, and/or advertising (including via the provision of such services over the
Internet) each of its products and services in the State of Texas.
19.

Defendant Best Buy Co., Inc. (“Best Buy”) is a Minnesota corporation with its

principal place of business at 7601 Penn Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423, and may be
served via its registered agent, CT Corporation System, Inc., 100 South 5th Street, Suite 1075,
Minneapolis, MN 55402. On information and belief, Best Buy does business throughout this
judicial district and throughout the United States and transacted business in this district
including, more specifically, directly and/or through intermediaries, shipping, distributing,
offering for sale, selling, and/or advertising (including via the provision of such services over the
Internet) each of its products and services in the State of Texas.
20.

Defendant BBY Solutions, Inc. d/b/a Best Buy (“BBY”) is a Minnesota

corporation with its principal place of business at 7601 Penn Avenue South, Richfield, MN
55423 and may be served via its registered agent, CT Corporation System, Inc., 100 South 5th
Street, Suite 1075, Minneapolis, MN 55402. On information and belief, BBY does business
throughout this judicial district and throughout the United States and transacted business in this
district including, more specifically, directly and/or through intermediaries, shipping,

ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 8 of 31

distributing, offering for sale, selling, and/or advertising (including via the provision of such
services over the Internet) each of its products and services in the State of Texas.
21.

Defendants Best Buy and BBY together are hereinafter referred to as the “Best

Buy Defendants.”
22.

Defendants Google, Samsung Defendants, Sprint Defendants, Amazon, and Best

Buy Defendants together are hereinafter referred to as the “Defendants.”
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
23.

E-Micro incorporates and realleges the allegations contained in the preceding

paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein.
24.

This action for patent infringement arises under the patent laws of the United

States, Title 35 of the United States Code. The Court’s jurisdiction over this action is proper
under the above statutes, including 35 U.S.C. § 271, et seq., 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question
jurisdiction) and § 1338 (jurisdiction over patent actions).
25.

On information and belief, this Court has personal jurisdiction over each

Defendant because each has committed and continues to commit acts of infringement within the
State of Texas and within this District, and places infringing products into the stream of
commerce, with the knowledge or understanding that such products are sold in the State of
Texas, including in this District. The acts by each Defendant causes injury to E-Micro within this
District. On information and belief, the Defendants derive revenue from the use and sale of
infringing products within this District, expect their actions to have consequences within this
District, and derive substantial revenue from interstate and international commerce. On
information and belief, the Defendants have sufficient minimum contacts within the forum and
each Defendant does substantial, continuous and systematic business in the State of Texas,

ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 9 of 31

including the Eastern District of Texas, and have purposefully directed activities to residents of
the State of Texas. On information and belief, Samsung Telecom-America has its principal place
of business within the Eastern District of Texas.
26.

Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), (c), and (d), as well as

28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), for the reasons set forth above and herein. E-Micro is and has been located
in the Eastern District of Texas since 1998. Also, on information and belief, Samsung TelecomAmerica has its principal place of business within the Eastern District of Texas.
E-MICRO’S ASSERTED PATENTS
27.

E-Micro incorporates and realleges the allegations contained in the preceding

paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein.
28.

E-Micro and inventor Frank J. Gangi have protected E-Micro’s innovative

technologies through intellectual property rights in the form of utility patents awarded by the
United States Patents and Trademark Office. Among these utility patents are the “Wallet
Consolidator” series of patents relating to to devices and methods for electronically storing and
retrieving information pertaining to electronic commerce and consumer identification (e.g.,
credit cards, debit cards, electronic coupons, identification cards, and other selected data) for
facilitating point-of-sale transactions. The terms “digital wallet” and “e-wallet” are also used
generally to describe this technology.
29.

Through this civil action, E-Micro asserts direct, indirect, and willful

infringement of one or more claims in each of the following “Wallet Consolidator” patents:
a)

U.S. Patent No. 7,349,885, entitled “Wallet consolidator and related
methods of processing a transaction using a wallet consolidator” (“’885
Patent”);

ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 10 of 31

b)

U.S. Patent No. 7,708,198, entitled “Wallet consolidator to facilitate a
transaction” (“’198 Patent”);

c)

U.S. Patent No. 7,712,658, entitled “Wallet consolidator and related
methods of processing a transaction using a wallet consolidator” (“’658
Patent”)

30.

The preceding list of asserted patents together shall hereinafter be referred to

collectively as the “Patents-in-Suit” or “Asserted Patents.”
31.

The ’885 Patent, entitled “Wallet consolidator and related methods of processing

a transaction using a wallet consolidator,” was duly and legally issued by the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office to E-Micro’s founder and President, Frank J. Gangi on March 25, 2008 after
full and fair examination. The ’885 Patent issued from U.S. Patent Application Serial No.
09/923,617 filed on August 6, 2001. A true and correct copy of the ’885 Patent is attached hereto
as Exhibit A.
32.

The ’198 Patent, entitled “Wallet consolidator to facilitate a transaction,” was

duly and legally issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to E-Micro’s founder and
President, Frank J. Gangi on May 4, 2010 after full and fair examination. The ’198 Patent issued
from U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 11/931,479 filed on October 31, 2007. A true and
correct copy of the ’198 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
33.

The ’658 Patent, entitled “Wallet consolidator and related methods of processing

a transaction using a wallet consolidator,” was duly and legally issued by the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office to E-Micro’s founder and President, Frank J. Gangi on May 11, 2010 after full
and fair examination. The ’658 Patent issued from U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 11/932,049

ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 11 of 31

filed on October 31, 2007. A true and correct copy of the ’658 Patent is attached hereto as
Exhibit C.
34.

E-Micro is the owner as assignee of all rights, title, and interest in and under each

of the Patents-in-Suit.
35.

E-Micro has standing to sue for infringement of each of the Patents-in-Suit.

36.

E-Micro does not currently manufacture or sell any products embodying any

claims of the Asserted Patents and thus, no marking is currently required. Each of E-Micro’s
patents have been and continue to be listed on E-Micro’s corporate website. Indeed, on
information and belief, Google viewed E-Micro’s web site and certain of E-Micro’s patents at
least as early as September 2007 and on subsequent occasions before the filing of this action. It
was only after having viewed E-Micro’s web site and certain of E-Micro’s patents, including the
very first “Wallet Consolidator” patent – U.S. Patent No. 6,131,811, that Google then later
introduced the Google Wallet application for electronically storing and retrieving credit card and
other card-related information for facilitating point-of-sale transactions. Rather than innovate and
develop their own technology, Google and its co-defendants chose to copy E-Micro’s
technology.
E-MICRO AND INVENTOR FRANK J. GANGI
37.

E-Micro incorporates and realleges the allegations contained in the preceding

paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein.
38.

E-Micro Corporation is a small Texas-based intellectual property development

and licensing company founded in 1998 by its President, Frank J. Gangi, who is the sole inventor
of the patents at issue in this action. E-Micro’s intellectual property portfolio contains multiple
duly issued, valid, and enforceable United States Patents including the patents at issue in this

ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 12 of 31

action, which relate to “wallet consolidator” devices and methods for electronically storing and
retrieving information pertaining to electronic commerce and consumer identification (e.g.,
credit cards, debit cards, electronic coupons, identification cards, and other selected data) for
facilitating point-of-sale transactions. E-Micro and Mr. Gangi currently reside in and have
maintained residency within the Eastern District of Texas since at least as early as 1998.
39.

Frank J. Gangi has an extensive retailing background and has held executive

management, financial and financial management positions with some of America’s most well
known companies including 7-Eleven (Southland Corporation), where he was Chief Financial
Officer; American Express; The Singer Company; Johnson & Johnson; and IBM Corporation.
Mr. Gangi is a graduate of Fairleigh Dickinson University where he received a Bachelor of
Science degree in Accounting and Seton Hall University where he received a Master of Business
Administration degree in Finance.
COUNT I
DEFENDANTS’ DIRECT INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’885 PATENT
40.

E-Micro incorporates and realleges the allegations contained in the preceding

paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein.
41.

Each Defendant named in this lawsuit is liable for infringing one or more claims

of the ’885 Patent. None of the Defendants have obtained permission from E-Micro to use its
inventions in the ’885 Patent.
Google’s Infringement of the ’885 Patent
42.

Defendant Google has willfully infringed and continues to willfully infringe

(literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents) one or more claims of the ’885 Patent by,
without limitation, using the Samsung Nexus S 4G mobile phone and the Google Wallet

ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 13 of 31

application. Google’s infringing uses include, but are not limited to, using the Nexus S 4G
mobile phone and the Google Wallet application for testing, demonstration, marketing, and/or
other purposes. For example, one such infringing use was conducted by a senior Google
executive, Osama Bedier, publicly on May 26, 2011 at the Google Wallet Product Launch event
before an audience that included Google’s current and potential future partners as shown on a
video uploaded to YouTube by Google at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=am8t6iZ7up0. On
information and belief, Google’s infringing acts are covered by, without limitation, claims 1 and
14 of the ’885 Patent. Google’s infringement of the ’885 Patent has caused substantial damage to
E-Micro. Google’s infringing activities violate 35 U.S.C. § 271.
Samsung Defendants’ Infringement of the ’885 Patent
43.

The Samsung Defendants have infringed and continue to infringe (literally and/or

under the doctrine of equivalents) one or more claims of the ’885 Patent by, without limitation,
using the Samsung Nexus S 4G mobile phone and the Google Wallet application. The Samsung
Defendants’ infringing uses include, but are not limited to, using the Nexus S 4G mobile phone
and the Google Wallet application for testing, demonstration, marketing, and/or other purposes.
Also, the Samsung Defendants have infringed and continues to infringe (literally and/or under
the doctrine of equivalents) by selling, offering to sell, and/or importing the Samsung Nexus S
4G phone. Their infringing acts are covered by, without limitation, claims 1 and 14 of the ’885
Patent. The Samsung Defendants’ willful infringement of the ’885 Patent has caused substantial
damage to E-Micro. The Samsung Defendants’ infringing activities violate 35 U.S.C. § 271.
Sprint Defendants’ Infringement of the ’885 Patent
44.

The Sprint Defendants have infringed and continue to infringe (literally and/or

under the doctrine of equivalents) one or more claims of the ’885 Patent by, without limitation,

ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 14 of 31

using the Samsung Nexus S 4G mobile phone and the Google Wallet application. The Sprint
Defendants’ infringing uses include, but are not limited to, using the Nexus S 4G mobile phone
and the Google Wallet application for testing, demonstration, marketing, and other purposes.
Also, the Sprint Defendants have infringed and continues to infringe (literally and/or under the
doctrine of equivalents) by selling, offering to sell, and/or importing the Samsung Nexus S 4G
phone. Their infringing acts are covered by, without limitation, claims 1 and 14 of the ’885
Patent. The Sprint Defendants’ willful infringement of the ’885 Patent has caused substantial
damage to E-Micro. The Sprint Defendants’ infringing activities violate 35 U.S.C. § 271.
Amazon’s Infringement of the ’885 Patent
45.

Defendant Amazon has infringed and continues to infringe (literally and/or under

the doctrine of equivalents) one or more claims of the ’885 Patent by, without limitation, using,
selling, offering to sell, and/or importing the Samsung Nexus S 4G phone. Amazon’s infringing
acts are covered by, without limitation, claim 1 of the ’885 Patent. Amazon’s infringement of the
’885 Patent has caused substantial damage to E-Micro. Amazon’s infringing activities violate 35
U.S.C. § 271.
Best Buy Defendants’ Infringement of the ’885 Patent
46.

The Best Buy Defendants have infringed and continue to infringe (literally and/or

under the doctrine of equivalents), one or more claims of the ’885 Patent by, without limitation,
using, selling, offering to sell, and/or importing the Samsung Nexus S 4G phone. Their
infringing acts are covered by, without limitation, claim 1 of the ’885 Patent. The Best Buy
Defendants’ infringement of the ’885 Patent has caused substantial damage to E-Micro. Best
Buy’s infringing activities violate 35 U.S.C. § 271.

ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 15 of 31

COUNT II
DEFENDANTS’ DIRECT INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’198 PATENT
47.

E-Micro incorporates and realleges the allegations contained in the preceding

paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein.
48.

Each Defendant named in this lawsuit is liable for infringing one or more claims

of the ’198 Patent. None of the Defendants have obtained permission from E-Micro to use its
inventions in the ’198 Patent.
Google’s Infringement of the ’198 Patent
49.

Defendant Google has willfully infringed and continues to willfully infringe

(literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents) one or more claims of the ’198 Patent by,
without limitation, using the Samsung Nexus S 4G mobile phone and the Google Wallet
application. Google’s infringing uses include, but are not limited to, using the Nexus S 4G
mobile phone and the Google Wallet application for testing, demonstration, and marketing
purposes. For example, one such infringing use was conducted by a senior Google executive,
Osama Bedier, publicly on May 26, 2011 at the Google Wallet Product Launch event before an
audience that included Google’s current and potential future partners as shown on a video
uploaded to YouTube by Google at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=am8t6iZ7up0. On
information and belief, Google’s infringing acts are covered by, without limitation, claim 1 of
the ’198 Patent. Google’s infringement of the ’198 Patent has caused substantial damage to EMicro. Google’s infringing activities violate 35 U.S.C. § 271.
Samsung Defendants’ Infringement of the ’198 Patent
50.

The Samsung Defendants have infringed and continue to infringe (literally and/or

under the doctrine of equivalents) one or more claims of the ’198 Patent by, without limitation,

ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 16 of 31

using the Samsung Nexus S 4G mobile phone and the Google Wallet application. The Samsung
Defendants’ infringing uses include, but are not limited to, using the Nexus S 4G mobile phone
and the Google Wallet application for testing, demonstration, marketing, and other purposes.
Also, the Samsung Defendants have infringed and continues to infringe (literally and/or under
the doctrine of equivalents) by selling, offering to sell, and importing the Samsung Nexus S 4G
phone. Their infringing acts are covered by, without limitation, claim 1 of the ’198 Patent. The
Samsung Defendants’ willful infringement of the ’198 Patent has caused substantial damage to
E-Micro. The Samsung Defendants’ infringing activities violate 35 U.S.C. § 271.
Sprint Defendants’ Infringement of the ’198 Patent
51.

The Sprint Defendants have infringed and continue to infringe (literally and/or

under the doctrine of equivalents) one or more claims of the ’198 Patent by, without limitation,
using the Samsung Nexus S 4G mobile phone and the Google Wallet application. The Sprint
Defendants’ infringing uses include, but are not limited to, using the Nexus S 4G mobile phone
and the Google Wallet application for testing, demonstration, marketing, and other purposes.
Also, the Sprint Defendants have infringed and continues to infringe (literally and/or under the
doctrine of equivalents) by selling, offering to sell, and/or importing the Samsung Nexus S 4G
phone. Their infringing acts are covered by, without limitation, claim 1 of the ’198 Patent. The
Sprint Defendants’ willful infringement of the ’198 Patent has caused substantial damage to EMicro. The Sprint Defendants’ infringing activities violate 35 U.S.C. § 271.
Amazon’s Infringement of the ’198 Patent
52.

Defendant Amazon has infringed and continues to infringe (literally and/or under

the doctrine of equivalents) one or more claims of the ’198 Patent by, without limitation, using,
selling, offering to sell, and/or importing the Samsung Nexus S 4G phone. Amazon’s infringing

ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 17 of 31

acts are covered by, without limitation, claim 1 of the ’198 Patent. Amazon’s infringement of the
’198 Patent has caused substantial damage to E-Micro. Amazon’s infringing activities violate 35
U.S.C. § 271.
Best Buy Defendants’ Infringement of the ’198 Patent
53.

The Best Buy Defendants have infringed and continue to infringe (literally and/or

under the doctrine of equivalents) one or more claims of the ’198 Patent by, without limitation,
using, selling, offering to sell, and/or importing the Samsung Nexus S 4G phone. Their
infringing acts are covered by, without limitation, claim 1 of the ’198 Patent. The Best Buy
Defendants’ infringement of the ’198 Patent has caused substantial damage to E-Micro. Best
Buy’s infringing activities violate 35 U.S.C. § 271.
COUNT III
DEFENDANTS’ DIRECT INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’658 PATENT
54.

E-Micro incorporates and realleges the allegations contained in the preceding

paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein.
55.

Each Defendant named in this lawsuit is liable for infringing one or more claims

of the ’658 Patent. None of the Defendants have obtained permission from E-Micro to use its
inventions in the ’658 Patent.
Google’s Infringement of the ’658 Patent
56.

Defendant Google has willfully infringed and continues to willfully infringe

(literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents) one or more claims of the ’658 Patent by,
without limitation, using the Samsung Nexus S 4G mobile phone and the Google Wallet
application. Google’s infringing uses include, but are not limited to, using the Nexus S 4G
mobile phone and the Google Wallet application for testing, demonstration, and marketing

ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 18 of 31

purposes. For example, one such infringing use was conducted by a senior Google executive,
Osama Bedier, publicly on May 26, 2011 at the Google Wallet Product Launch event before an
audience that included Google’s current and potential future partners as shown on a video
uploaded to YouTube by Google at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=am8t6iZ7up0. On
information and belief, Google’s infringing acts are covered by, without limitation, claim 1 of
the ’658 Patent. Google’s infringement of the ’658 Patent has caused substantial damage to EMicro. Google’s infringing activities violate 35 U.S.C. § 271.
Samsung Defendants’ Infringement of the ’658 Patent
57.

The Samsung Defendants have infringed and continue to infringe (literally and/or

under the doctrine of equivalents) one or more claims of the ’658 Patent by, without limitation,
using the Samsung Nexus S 4G mobile phone and the Google Wallet application. The Samsung
Defendants’ infringing uses include, but are not limited to, using the Nexus S 4G mobile phone
and the Google Wallet application for testing, demonstration, marketing, and other purposes.
Also, the Samsung Defendants have infringed and continues to infringe (literally and/or under
the doctrine of equivalents) by selling, offering to sell, and importing the Samsung Nexus S 4G
phone. Their infringing acts are covered by, without limitation, claim 1 of the ’658 Patent. The
Samsung Defendants’ willful infringement of the ’198 Patent has caused substantial damage to
E-Micro. The Samsung Defendants’ infringing activities violate 35 U.S.C. § 271.
Sprint Defendants’ Infringement of the ’658 Patent
58.

The Sprint Defendants have infringed and continue to infringe (literally and/or

under the doctrine of equivalents) one or more claims of the ’658 Patent by, without limitation,
using the Samsung Nexus S 4G mobile phone and the Google Wallet application. The Sprint
Defendants’ infringing uses include, but are not limited to, using the Nexus S 4G mobile phone

ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 19 of 31

and the Google Wallet application for testing, demonstration, marketing, and other purposes.
Also, the Sprint Defendants have infringed and continues to infringe (literally and/or under the
doctrine of equivalents) by selling, offering to sell, and/or importing the Samsung Nexus S 4G
phone. Their infringing acts are covered by, without limitation, claim 1 of the ’658 Patent. The
Sprint Defendants’ willful infringement of the ’658 Patent has caused substantial damage to EMicro. The Sprint Defendants’ infringing activities violate 35 U.S.C. § 271.
Amazon’s Infringement of the ’658 Patent
59.

Defendant Amazon has infringed and continues to infringe (literally and/or under

the doctrine of equivalents) one or more claims of the ’658 Patent by, without limitation, using,
selling, offering to sell, and/or importing the Samsung Nexus S 4G phone. Amazon’s infringing
acts are covered by, without limitation, claim 1 of the ’658 Patent. Amazon’s infringement of the
’658 Patent has caused substantial damage to E-Micro. Amazon’s infringing activities violate 35
U.S.C. § 271.
Best Buy Defendants’ Infringement of the ’658 Patent
60.

The Best Buy Defendants have infringed and continue to infringe (literally and/or

under the doctrine of equivalents) one or more claims of the ’658 Patent by, without limitation,
using, selling, offering to sell, and/or importing the Samsung Nexus S 4G phone. Their
infringing acts are covered by, without limitation, claim 1 of the ’658 Patent. The Best Buy
Defendants’ infringement of the ’658 Patent has caused substantial damage to E-Micro. The Best
Buy Defendants’ infringing activities violate 35 U.S.C. § 271.

ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 20 of 31

COUNT IV
DEFENDANTS’ WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT
61.

E-Micro incorporates and realleges the allegations contained in the preceding

paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein.
Google’s Willful Infringement
62.

Defendant Google committed its acts of infringement willfully and without

license or authorization from E-Micro. Google’s infringement of the Patents-in-Suit has been and
continues to be willful. For example and without limitation, on information and belief, Google
viewed E-Micro’s web site and certain of E-Micro’s patents at least as early as September 2007
and on subsequent occasions before the filing of this action. It was only after having viewed EMicro’s web site and certain of E-Micro’s patents, including the very first “Wallet Consolidator”
patent – U.S. Patent No. 6,131,811, that Google then later introduced the Google Wallet
application for electronically storing and retrieving credit card and other card-related information
for facilitating point-of-sale transactions. Google has disregarded and continues to disregard an
objectively high likelihood that its actions constitute infringement of the Patents-in-Suit. The
objectively-defined risk has been known or so obvious that it should have been known to
Google. Google’s willful infringement of the Patents-in-Suit has caused substantial damage to EMicro.
Samsung Defendants’ Willful Infringement
63.

The Samsung Defendants committed their acts of infringement willfully and

without license or authorization from E-Micro. Their infringement of the Patents-in-Suit has
been and continues to be willful. For example and without limitation, on information and belief,
Google viewed E-Micro’s web site and certain of E-Micro’s patents at least as early as

ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 21 of 31

September 2007 and on subsequent occasions before the filing of this action. It was only after
having viewed E-Micro’s web site and certain of E-Micro’s patents, including the very first
“Wallet Consolidator” patent – U.S. Patent No. 6,131,811, that Google then later introduced the
Google Wallet application for electronically storing and retrieving credit card and other cardrelated information for facilitating point-of-sale transactions. In March 2011, Google joined the
NFC Forum as a principal member. Samsung was already a member of the NFC forum at that
time. On information and belief, Samsung obtained knowledge about E-Micro and its patented
technology via its joint membership and collaboration with Google via the NFC Forum.
Samsung was a Sponsor member of the NFC Forum, the highest level of membership. On
information and belief, Samsung also obtained pre-suit knowledge of E-Micro and E-Micro’s
patented technology as a founding partner with Google in the Google Wallet project. The
Samsung Defendants have disregarded and continue to disregard an objectively high likelihood
that their actions constitute infringement of the Patents-in-Suit. The objectively-defined risk has
been known or so obvious that it should have been known to the Samsung Defendants. The
Samsung Defendants’ willful infringement of the Patents-in-Suit has caused substantial damage
to E-Micro.
Sprint Defendants’ Willful Infringement
64.

The Sprint Defendants committed their acts of infringement willfully and without

license or authorization from E-Micro. Their infringement of the Patents-in-Suit has been and
continues to be willful. For example and without limitation, on information and belief, Google
viewed E-Micro’s web site and certain of E-Micro’s patents at least as early as September 2007
and on subsequent occasions before the filing of this action. It was only after having viewed EMicro’s web site and certain of E-Micro’s patents, including the very first “Wallet Consolidator”

ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 22 of 31

patent – U.S. Patent No. 6,131,811, that Google then later introduced the Google Wallet
application for electronically storing and retrieving credit card and other card-related information
for facilitating point-of-sale transactions. In March 2011, Google joined the NFC Forum as a
principal member. Sprint was already a member of the NFC forum at that time. On information
and belief, Sprint obtained knowledge about E-Micro and its patented technology via its joint
membership and collaboration with Google via the NFC Forum. On information and belief,
Sprint also obtained pre-suit knowledge of E-Micro and E-Micro’s patented technology as a
founding partner with Google in the Google Wallet project. The Sprint Defendants have
disregarded and continue to disregard an objectively high likelihood that their actions constitute
infringement of the Patents-in-Suit. The objectively-defined risk has been known or so obvious
that it should have been known to the Sprint Defendants. The Sprint Defendants’ willful
infringement of the Patents-in-Suit has caused substantial damage to E-Micro.
COUNT V
DEFENDANTS’ CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT
65.

E-Micro incorporates and realleges the allegations contained in the preceding

paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein.
Google’s Contributory Infringement
66.

Defendant Google has willfully contributorily infringed and continues to willfully

contributorily infringe (literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents) one or more claims of
each of the Patents-in-Suit by, without limitation, providing, selling, and/or offering to sell the
Google Wallet application. The Google Wallet application is not a staple article of commerce
and has no substantial non-infringing uses. Google’s actions contribute to the direct infringement
of each of the Patents-in-Suit by consumers, businesses, Samsung Defendants, Sprint

ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 23 of 31

Defendants, Amazon, Best Buy Defendants, and others that use, sell, offer to sell, and/or import
within the United States the Samsung Nexus S 4G. Google’s willful contributory infringement of
the Patents-in-Suit has caused substantial damage to E-Micro. Google’s infringing activities
violate 35 U.S.C. § 271.
Samsung Defendants’ Contributory Infringement
67.

The Samsung Defendants have willfully contributorily infringed and continue to

contributorily infringe (literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents) one or more claims of
each of the Patents-in-Suit by, without limitation, selling, offering to sell, and/or importing
within the United States the Secure Element (based on an NXP Semiconductors PN65 chip)
component that is a part of the Samsung Nexus S 4G mobile phone. The Secure Element
component is not a staple article of commerce and has no substantial non-infringing uses. On
information and belief, the Secure Element was designed to store credit card and other
information and run programs for point-of-sale transactions using the infringing Samsung Nexus
S 4G phone. The Samsung Defendants’ actions contribute to the direct infringement of one or
more claims of each of the Patents-in-Suit by consumers, businesses, mobile phone
resellers/retailers, the Sprint Defendants, Amazon, the Best Buy Defendants, and others that use,
sell, offer to sell, and/or import within the United States the Samsung Nexus S 4G and Google
Wallet. The Samsung Defendants’ willful contributory infringement of each of the Patents-inSuit has caused substantial damage to E-Micro. The Samsung Defendants’ infringing activities
violate 35 U.S.C. § 271.
Sprint Defendants’ Contributory Infringement
68.

The Sprint Defendants have willfully contributorily infringed and continue to

contributorily infringe (literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents) one or more claims of

ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 24 of 31

each of the Patents-in-Suit by, without limitation, selling, offering to sell, and/or importing
within the United States the Secure Element (based on an NXP Semiconductors PN65 chip)
component that is a part of the Samsung Nexus S 4G mobile phone. The Secure Element
component is not a staple article of commerce and has no substantial non-infringing uses. On
information and belief, the Secure Element was designed to store credit card and other
information and run programs for point-of-sale transactions using the infringing Samsung Nexus
S 4G phone. The Sprint Defendants’ actions contribute to the direct infringement of one or more
claims of each of the Patents-in-Suit by consumers, businesses, mobile phone resellers/retailers,
Amazon, the Best Buy Defendants, and others that use, sell, offer to sell, and/or import within
the United States the Samsung Nexus S 4G and Google Wallet. The Sprint Defendants’ willful
contributory infringement of each of the Patents-in-Suit has caused substantial damage to EMicro. The Sprint Defendants’ infringing activities violate 35 U.S.C. § 271.
COUNT VI
DEFENDANTS’ INDUCEMENT OF INFRINGEMENT
69.

E-Micro incorporates and realleges the allegations contained in the preceding

paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein.
Google’s Inducement of Infringement
70.

Defendant Google has willfully induced and continues to willfully induce

infringement of (literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents) one or more claims of each of
the Patents-in-Suit. Google’s deliberate actions include, but are not limited to, developing and
distributing the Google Wallet application, recruiting its corporate partners (e.g., Sprint,
Samsung, First Data, Citigroup, and MasterCard) for the Google Wallet program; developing
and distributing the Android operating system; actively recruiting new partners to join the

ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 25 of 31

Google Wallet program; instructing consumers and others about how to use the Samsung Nexus
S 4G phone to perform point-of-sale transactions; instructing consumers and others about how to
use Google Wallet via mobile phones such as the Samsung Nexus S 4G phone to perform pointof-sale transactions; and/or actively marketing and encouraging broad use of the Google Wallet
system, These actions, individually and collectively, have induced and continue to induce the
direct infringement of each of the Patents-in-Suit by consumers, businesses, mobile phone
resellers/retailers, the Samsung Defendants, the Sprint Defendants, Amazon, the Best Buy
Defendants, and others using the Samsung Nexus S 4G mobile phone and the Google Wallet
application. These actions have also induced and continue to induce the direct infringement of
each of the Patents-in-Suit by the Samsung Defendants, Sprint Defendants, Amazon, Best Buy
Defendants, and mobile phone resellers/retailers to import, sell, and/or offer to sell the Samsung
Nexus S 4G phone. Google’s willful inducement of infringement of each of the Patents-in-Suit
has caused substantial damage to E-Micro. Google’s infringing activities violate 35 U.S.C. §
271.
Samsung Defendants’ Inducement of Infringement
71.

The Samsung Defendants have willfully induced and continue to willfully induce

infringement of (literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents) one or more claims of each of
the Patents-in-Suit. The Samsung Defendants’ deliberate actions include, but are not limited to,
instructing consumers and others about how to use the Samsung Nexus S 4G phone to perform
point-of-sale transactions; instructing consumers and others about how to use Google Wallet via
mobile phones such as the Samsung Nexus S 4G phone to perform point-of-sale transactions;
and actively marketing and encouraging the use, sale, offer to sell, and import within the United
States of the Samsung Nexus S 4G phone and Google Wallet application by consumers,

ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 26 of 31

businesses, mobile phone resellers/retailers, the Sprint Defendants, Amazon, the Best Buy
Defendants, and others. These actions have induced and continue to induce infringement of each
of the Patents-in-Suit by consumers, businesses, mobile phone resellers/retailers, the Sprint
Defendants, Amazon, the Best Buy Defendants, and others. The Samsung Defendants’ willful
inducement of infringement of each of the Patents-in-Suit has caused substantial damage to EMicro. The Samsung Defendants’ infringing activities violate 35 U.S.C. § 271.
Sprint Defendants’ Inducement of Infringement
72.

The Sprint Defendants have willfully induced and continue to willfully induce

infringement of (literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents) one or more claims of each of
the Patents-in-Suit. The Sprint Defendants’ deliberate actions include, but are not limited to,
instructing consumers and others about how to use the Samsung Nexus S 4G phone to perform
point-of-sale transactions; instructing consumers and others about how to use Google Wallet via
mobile phones such as the Samsung Nexus S 4G phone to perform point-of-sale transactions;
and actively marketing and encouraging the use, sale, offer to sell, and import within the United
States of the Samsung Nexus S 4G phone and Google Wallet application by consumers,
businesses, mobile phone resellers/retailers, Amazon, the Best Buy Defendants, and others.
These actions have induced and continue to induce infringement of each of the Patents-in-Suit by
consumers, businesses, mobile phone resellers/retailers, Amazon, the Best Buy Defendants, and
others. The Sprint Defendants’ willful inducement of infringement of each of the Patents-in-Suit
has caused substantial damage to E-Micro. The Sprint Defendants’ infringing activities violate
35 U.S.C. § 271.

ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 27 of 31

DAMAGES
73.

E-Micro incorporates and realleges the allegations contained in the preceding

paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein.
74.

Each of Defendants’ acts of infringement has caused substantial damage to E-

Micro. As a direct and proximate consequence of the acts and practices of each of the
Defendants, E-Micro has been, is being, and will continue to be injured in its business and
property rights, and has suffered, is suffering, and will continue to suffer injury and damages for
which it is entitled to relief under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
75.

Each Defendant is liable to E-Micro for such infringement, and as a result, E-

Micro seeks recovery of the following damages:
a. E-Micro seeks damages to adequately compensate it for Defendants’ infringement
of the Patents-in-Suit. Such damages should be no less than the amount of a
reasonable royalty under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
b. Based on information and belief, E-Micro contends that Defendants’ acts of
infringement have been and are willful, as described in the preceding paragraphs.
Therefore, under 35 U.S.C. § 284, E-Micro seeks a finding of willfulness and
recovery of enhanced damages up to three times the amount of damages found by
the trier of fact. E-Micro further seeks recovery of its reasonable attorneys’ fees
and expenses under 35 U.S.C. § 285. E-Micro further seeks pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest at the maximum rate permitted by law.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
76.

E-Micro is entitled to and pray for relief on all claims as follows:

ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 28 of 31

a. A judgment that each of the Patents-in-Suit is infringed, directly and/or indirectly,
either literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, by Defendants as
described herein;
b. A judgment and order preliminarily and permanently enjoining each Defendant,
its officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, affiliates, attorneys,
representatives, successors and assigns, and those acting in privity or in concert
with them, and their parents, subsidiaries, and divisions from further acts of direct
infringement, contributory infringement, and/or inducing infringement of the each
of the Patents-in-Suit in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 283;
c. A judgment and order requiring each Defendant to pay E-Micro all damages
adequate to compensate for each Defendant’s infringement of E-Micro’s patents
under 35 U.S.C. § 284, and in no event less than a reasonable royalty. Such
damages shall include treble damages for willful infringement as provided by 35
U.S.C. § 284, and supplemental damages for any continuing post-verdict
infringement up until entry of the final Judgment with an accounting as needed;
d. A judgment and order requiring each Defendant to pay E-Micro pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest at the maximum rate permitted by law on the damages
awarded;
e. A judgment and order finding this case to be an exceptional case and requiring
each Defendant to pay the costs of this action (including all disbursements) and
attorneys’ fees as provided by 35 U.S.C. § 285; and
f. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 29 of 31

JURY TRIAL DEMAND
77.

E-Micro hereby request a trial by jury on each claim for relief alleged in this

Complaint.
Dated: September 8, 2011.

Respectfully submitted,

____________________________________
EDWARD CHIN, Attorney in Charge
STATE BAR NO. 50511688
D. NEIL SMITH
STATE BAR NO. 00797450
ANTHONY BRUSTER
STATE BAR NO. 24036280
NICOLE REED KLIEWER
STATE BAR NO. 24041759
ANDREW J. WRIGHT
STATE BAR NO. 24063927
EDWARD B. CLOUTMAN, IV
STATE BAR NO. 24074045
NIX PATTERSON & ROACH, L.L.P.
5215 N. O’Connor Blvd., Suite 1900
Irving, Texas 75039
972.831.1188 (telephone)
972.444.0716 (facsimile)
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
DEREK GILLILAND
STATE BAR NO. 24007239
NIX PATTERSON & ROACH, L.L.P.
205 Linda Drive
Daingerfield, Texas 75638
903.645.7333 (telephone)

ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 30 of 31

903.645.5389 (facsimile)
[e-mail]
R. BENJAMIN KING
TEXAS STATE BAR NO. 24048592
NIX PATTERSON & ROACH L.L.P.
2900 St. Michael Drive, Suite 500
Texarkana, Texas 75503
903.223.3999 (telephone)
903.223.8520 (facsimile)
[e-mail]
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
E-MICRO CORPORATION

ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 31 of 31