Evolutionary Intelligence, LLC v. Sprint Nextel Corporation et al

Filing 1

COMPLAINT for Patent Infringement against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number 0540-3833883.), filed by Evolutionary Intelligence, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit A '536 Patent, # 3 Exhibit B '682 Patent)(Ainsworth, Charles)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
EVOLUTIONARY INTELLIGENCE, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 6:12-cv-791

SPRINT NEXTEL CORPORATION, SPRINT
COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY L.P.,
SPRINT SPECTRUM, L.P., SPRINT
SOLUTIONS, INC.,

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Defendants.

COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
Plaintiff Evolutionary Intelligence, LLC states its Complaint against Defendants Sprint
Nextel Corporation, Sprint Communications Company L.P., Sprint Spectrum L.P., and Sprint
Solutions, Inc., and alleges as follows:
THE PARTIES
1.

Plaintiff Evolutionary Intelligence, LLC is a limited liability company organized

and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business in San
Francisco, California.
2.

Upon information and belief, Defendant Sprint Nextel Corporation is a corporation

organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of
business at 6200 Sprint Pkwy, Overland Park, KS 66251.
3.

Upon information and belief, Defendant Sprint Communications L.P. is a limited

partnership organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal
place of business at 6200 Sprint Pkwy, Overland Park, KS 66251.

4.

Upon information and belief, Defendant Sprint Spectrum, L.P. is a limited

partnership organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal
place of business at 6500 Sprint Pkwy, Overland Park, KS 66251.
5.

Upon information and belief, Defendant Sprint Solutions Inc. is a corporation

organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of
business at 6500 Sprint Pkwy, Overland Park, KS 66251.
6.

For purposes of this complaint, Sprint Nextel Corporation, Sprint Communications

Company L.P., Sprint Spectrum L.P., and Sprint Solutions Inc. are collectively referred to as
“Sprint” or “Defendants.”
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
7.

Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the above paragraphs of this

Complaint, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
8.

This action is for patent infringement pursuant to the patent laws of the United

States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the action pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
9.

Personal jurisdiction exists generally over Defendants because Defendants have

sufficient minimum contacts with the forum as a result of business conducted within the State of
Texas and within the Eastern District of Texas. Personal jurisdiction also exists specifically over
the Defendants because they, directly or through subsidiaries or intermediaries, make, use, offer
for sale, sell, import, advertise, make available and/or market one or more products and/or
services within the State of Texas, and more particularly, within the Eastern District of Texas,
that infringe the patent-in-suit, as described more particularly below.

2

10.

Venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and

1400(b), because Defendants have committed acts of infringement in the Eastern District of
Texas and have transacted business in the Eastern District of Texas.
COUNT ONE
INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,010,536
11.

Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the above paragraphs of this

Complaint, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
12.

Plaintiff is the owner of all right, title, and interest in United States Patent No.

7,010,536, entitled “System and Method for Creating and Manipulating Information Containers
with Dynamic Registers,” duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark
Office on March 7, 2006 (the “‘536 patent”). A true and correct copy of the ‘536 patent is
attached hereto as Exhibit A.
13.

Defendants have infringed and continue to infringe, literally and/or under the

doctrine of equivalents, one or more claims of the ‘536 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271 by making,
using, offering to sell, selling, and/or importing into the United States the patented invention
within the United States. Specifically, Defendants have infringed and continue to infringe the
‘536 patent by making, using, offering to sell, selling, and/or importing into the United States the
Sprint CDMA and 4G networks, as well as the Sprint Services Framework—a common
development framework that Sprint utilizes to enable developers to access core services of the
Sprint networks and mobile devices, including location-based services (“LBS”) and/or
GeoFencing services. By way of example, and without limitation, these services are generally
described at http://developer.sprint.com/dynamicContent/sprintservices/overview/2.
14.

As a result of Defendants’ infringing activities with respect to the ‘536 patent,

Plaintiff has suffered damages in an amount not yet ascertained. Plaintiff is entitled to recover

3

damages adequate to compensate it for Defendants’ infringing activities in an amount to be
determined at trial, but in no event less than reasonable royalties, together with interest and costs.
Defendants’ infringement of Plaintiff’s exclusive rights under the ‘536 patent will continue to
damage Plaintiff, causing irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law, unless
enjoined by this Court.
15.

Plaintiff reserves the right to allege, after discovery, that Defendants’ infringement

of the ‘536 patent is willful and deliberate, entitling Plaintiff to increased damages under 35
U.S.C. § 284, and to attorneys’ fees incurred in prosecuting this action under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
COUNT TWO
INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,702,682
16.

Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the above paragraphs of this

Complaint, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
17.

Plaintiff is the owner of all right, title, and interest in United States Patent No.

7,702,682, entitled “System and Method for Creating and Manipulating Information Containers
with Dynamic Registers,” duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark
Office on April 20, 2010 (the “‘682 patent”). A true and correct copy of the ‘682 patent is
attached hereto as Exhibit B.
18.

Defendants have infringed and continue to infringe, literally and/or under the

doctrine of equivalents, one or more claims of the ‘682 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271 by making,
using, offering to sell, selling, and/or importing into the United States the patented invention
within the United States. Specifically, Defendants have infringed and continue to infringe the
‘682 patent by making, using, offering to sell, selling, and/or importing into the United States the
Sprint CDMA and 4G networks, as well as the Sprint Services Framework—a common
development framework that Sprint utilizes to enable developers to access core services of the

4

Sprint networks and mobile devices, including location-based services (“LBS”) and/or
GeoFencing services. By way of example, and without limitation, these services are generally
described at http://developer.sprint.com/dynamicContent/sprintservices/overview/2.
19.

As a result of Defendants’ infringing activities with respect to the ‘682 patent,

Plaintiff has suffered damages in an amount not yet ascertained. Plaintiff is entitled to recover
damages adequate to compensate it for Defendants’ infringing activities in an amount to be
determined at trial, but in no event less than reasonable royalties, together with interest and costs.
Defendants’ infringement of Plaintiff’s exclusive rights under the ‘682 patent will continue to
damage Plaintiff, causing irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law, unless
enjoined by this Court.
20.

Plaintiff reserves the right to allege, after discovery, that Defendants’ infringement

of the ‘682 patent is willful and deliberate, entitling Plaintiff to increased damages under 35
U.S.C. § 284, and to attorneys’ fees incurred in prosecuting this action under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Plaintiff requests entry of judgment in its favor against Defendants as follows:
a)

For a declaration that each Defendant has infringed one or more claims of the

‘536 patent and ‘682 patent;
b)

For an award of damages adequate to compensate Plaintiff for Defendants’

infringement of the ‘536 patent and ‘682 patent, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty,
together with prejudgment and post-judgment interest and costs, in an amount according to
proof;
c)

For an entry of a permanent injunction enjoining each Defendant, and its

respective officers, agents, employees, and those acting in privity with them, from further

5

infringement of the ‘536 patent and ‘682 patent, or in the alternative, awarding a royalty for postjudgment infringement; and
d)

For an award to Plaintiff of such other costs and further relief as the Court may

deem just and proper.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff respectfully
requests a trial by jury.
Dated: October 17, 2012

Respectfully submitted,
/s/Charles Ainsworth_________________
Charles Ainsworth
State Bar No. 00783521
Robert Christopher Bunt
State Bar No. 00787165
PARKER, BUNT & AINSWORTH, P.C.
100 E. Ferguson, Suite 1114
Tyler, TX 75702
903/531-3535
903/533-9687
E-mail: [e-mail]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Adam J. Gutride, Esq.
Seth A. Safier, Esq.
Todd Kennedy, Esq.
Anthony J. Patek, Esq.
835 Douglass Street
San Francisco, California 94114
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
EVOLUTIONARY INTELLIGENCE,
LLC

6