TracBeam, L.L.C. v. Google, Inc.

Filing 2

COMPLAINT against Google, Inc., filed by TracBeam, L.L.C.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(mll, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION

TRACBEAM, L.L.C., a Colorado limited
liability company,
Plaintiff,
vs.

6:13CV93
SEVERED FROM
CASE NO. 6:11-cv-96
Jury Trial Demanded

AT&T INC., a Delaware corporation; AT&T
MOBILITY L.L.C., a Delaware limited
liability company; METROPCS
COMMUNICATIONS, INC., a Delaware
corporation; METROPCS WIRELESS, INC.,
a Delaware corporation; TEXAS RSA 7B3,
L.P. D/B/A PEOPLES WIRELESS
SERVICES, a Texas corporation; SPRINT
NEXTEL CORPORATION, a Kansas
corporation; SPRINT SPECTRUM L.P., a
Delaware limited partnership; NEXTEL OF
CALIFORNIA, INC., a Delaware
corporation; NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS
OF THE MID-ATLANTIC, INC., a Delaware
corporation; NEXTEL OF NEW YORK,
INC., a Delaware corporation; NEXTEL
SOUTH CORP., a Georgia corporation;
NEXTEL OF TEXAS, INC., a Texas
corporation; NEXTEL WEST CORP., a
Delaware corporation; CELLCO
PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERIZON
WIRELESS, a Delaware partnership;
GOOGLE, INC., a Delaware corporation; and
SKYHOOK WIRELESS, INC., a Delaware
corporation.
Defendants.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
Plaintiff TracBeam, L.L.C., (“TracBeam”), by counsel and pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), on information and belief, alleges the following in support of its
Complaint for patent infringement against Defendants AT&T, Inc.; AT&T Mobility, L.L.C.;
MetroPCS Communications, Inc.; MetroPCS Wireless, Inc.; Texas RSA 7B3, L.P. d/b/a Peoples
Wireless Services; Sprint Nextel Corporation; Sprint Spectrum, L.P.; Nextel of California, Inc.;
Nextel Communications of the Mid-Atlantic, Inc.; Nextel of New York, Inc.; Nextel South
Corp.; Nextel of Texas, Inc.; Nextel West Corp.; Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless;
Google, Inc.; and Skyhook Wireless, Inc. (collectively “Defendants”):
Introduction
1.

Plaintiff TracBeam owns the inventions described and claimed in United

States Patent Nos. 7,764,231 entitled “Wireless Location Using Multiple Mobile Station
Location Techniques” (the “„231 patent”) and 7,525,484 entitled “Gateway and Hybrid Solutions
for Wireless Location” (the “„484 patent”) (collectively “the Patents”). Defendants have used
and continue to use Plaintiff‟s patented technology in products and/or services that they make,
use, import, sell, and/or offer to sell. TracBeam seeks damages for patent infringement and an
injunction preventing Defendants from making, using, selling, or offering to sell, and from
contributing to and inducing others to make, use, sell, or offer to sell, the technology claimed by
the Patents without Plaintiff‟s permission.
Plaintiff TracBeam
2.

Plaintiff TracBeam is a limited liability company existing under and by

virtue of the laws of the State of Colorado.

1

Defendants
AT&T Defendants
3.

AT&T, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business

in Dallas, Texas.
4.

AT&T Mobility, L.L.C. is a Delaware limited liability company with its

principal place of business in Atlanta, Georgia. (AT&T, Inc. and AT&T Mobility, L.L.C. are
collectively referred to as “AT&T.”)
MetroPCS Defendants
5.

MetroPCS Communications, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its

principal place of business in Richardson, Texas.
6.

MetroPCS Wireless, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place

of business in Richardson, Texas. (MetroPCS Communications, Inc. and MetroPCS Wireless,
Inc. are collectively referred to as “MetroPCS.”)
Peoples Defendant
7.

Texas RSA 7B3, L.P. d/b/a Peoples Wireless Services (“Peoples”) is a

Texas corporation with its principal place of business in Quitman, Texas.
Sprint Nextel Defendants
8.

Sprint Nextel Corporation is a Kansas corporation with its principal place

of business in Overland Park, Kansas.
9.

Sprint Spectrum, L.P. is a Delaware limited partnership with its principal

place of business in Overland Park, Kansas.
10.

Nextel of California, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal

place of business in Overland Park, Kansas.

2

11.

Nextel Communications of the Mid-Atlantic, Inc. is a Delaware

corporation with its principal place of business in Overland Park, Kansas.
12.

Nextel of New York, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal

place of business in Overland Park, Kansas.
13.

Nextel South Corp. is a Georgia corporation with its principal place of

business in Overland Park, Kansas.
14.

Nextel of Texas, Inc. is a Texas corporation with its principal place of

business in Overland Park, Kansas.
15.

Nextel West Corp. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of

business in Overland Park, Kansas. (Sprint Nextel Corporation; Sprint Spectrum, L.P.; Nextel of
California, Inc.; Nextel Communications of the Mid-Atlantic, Inc.; Nextel of New York, Inc.;
Nextel South Corp.; Nextel of Texas, Inc.; and Nextel West Corp are collectively referred to as
“Sprint Nextel.”)
Verizon Defendant
16.

Cellco Partership d/b/a Verizon Wireless (“Verizon”) is a Delaware

partnership with its principal place of business in Basking Ridge, New Jersey.
Google Defendant
17.

Google, Inc. (“Google”) is a Delaware corporation with its principal place

of business in Mountain View, California.
Skyhook Defendant
18.

Skyhook Wireless, Inc. (“Skyhook”) is a Delaware corporation with its

principal place of business in Boston, Massachusetts.

3

The Patents
19.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office issued the „231 patent

(attached as exhibit A) on July 27, 2010; and the „484 patent (attached as exhibit B) on April 28,
2009. Through assignment, Plaintiff is the owner of all right, title, and interest in the Patents,
including all rights to pursue and collect damages for infringement of the Patents.
Jurisdiction and Venue
20.

This is an action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of

the United States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 271 and 281, et seq. The Court has original jurisdiction over this
patent infringement action under 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a).
21.

Each of the Defendants has committed acts and continues to commit acts

within this judicial district giving rise to this action. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and § 1400.
First Claim for Patent Infringement
(Infringement of the ‘231 patent)
22.

Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of the allegations in paragraphs 1 -

21 above and further alleges as follows:
23.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office issued the „231 patent on

July 27, 2010. Plaintiff is the owner of the „231 patent with full rights to pursue recovery of
royalties or damages for infringement of said patent, including full rights to recover past and
future damages.
24.

Without a license or permission from Plaintiff, AT&T has infringed and is

continuing to infringe one or more claims of the „231 patent and, unless enjoined, will continue
to do so, by making, using, providing, selling, offering for sale, or importing infringing products
and services. AT&T‟s infringing products and services include, without limitation, its products

4

and services for determining the locations of wireless mobile devices (e.g., the locations of
AT&T subscribers‟ cellular phones). AT&T, which has knowledge of the „231 patent, has also
actively and knowingly contributed to and induced, and continues to actively and knowingly
contribute to and induce, infringement by users of AT&T‟s products and services.
25.

AT&T‟s infringement of the „231 patent has been and continues to be

willful. AT&T knew or should have known of a provisional patent application that led to the
„231 patent as early as 1996, when Plaintiff contacted AT&T in written correspondence
regarding Plaintiff‟s wireless location technology and patent applications; AT&T was then
directly informed by Plaintiff in 1998 of the international application that later issued as the „231
patent; and AT&T knew or should have known of the „231 patent upon its issuance. AT&T has
disregarded and continues to disregard an objectively high likelihood that its actions constitute
infringement of the „231 patent. This objectively-defined risk has been known or so obvious that
it should have been known to AT&T.
26.

As a result of AT&T‟s infringement of the „231 patent, Plaintiff has been

damaged by and will continue to suffer additional, irreparable damage, in an amount not yet
determined, and will suffer an impairment of the value of its patent rights unless AT&T is
enjoined from continuing to infringe the „231 patent.
27.

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 281, Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages from

AT&T to compensate it for AT&T‟s infringement of the „231 patent.
28.

Without a license or permission from Plaintiff, MetroPCS has infringed

and is continuing to infringe one or more claims of the „231 patent and, unless enjoined, will
continue to do so, by making, using, providing, selling, offering for sale, or importing infringing
products and services. MetroPCS‟s infringing products and services include, without limitation,

5

its products and services for determining the locations of wireless mobile devices (e.g., the
locations of MetroPCS subscribers‟ cellular phones). MetroPCS, which has knowledge of the
„231 patent, has also actively and knowingly contributed to and induced, and continues to
actively and knowingly contribute to and induce, infringement by users of MetroPCS‟s products
and services.
29.

As a result of MetroPCS‟s infringement of the „231 patent, Plaintiff has

been damaged by and will continue to suffer additional, irreparable damage, in an amount not yet
determined, and will suffer an impairment of the value of its patent rights unless MetroPCS is
enjoined from continuing to infringe the „231 patent.
30.

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 281, Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages from

MetroPCS to compensate it for MetroPCS‟s infringement of the „231 patent.
31.

Without a license or permission from Plaintiff, Sprint Nextel has infringed

and is continuing to infringe one or more claims of the „231 patent and, unless enjoined, will
continue to do so, by making, using, providing, selling, offering for sale, or importing infringing
products and services. Sprint Nextel‟s infringing products and services include, without
limitation, its products and services for determining the locations of wireless mobile devices
(e.g., the locations of Sprint Nextel subscribers‟ cellular phones). Sprint Nextel, which has
knowledge of the „231 patent, has also actively and knowingly contributed to and induced, and
continues to actively and knowingly contribute to and induce, infringement by users of Sprint
Nextel‟s products and services.
32.

Sprint Nextel‟s infringement of the „231 patent has been and continues to

be willful. Sprint Nextel knew or should have known of a provisional patent application that led
to the „231 patent as early as 1996, when Plaintiff contacted Sprint Nextel (or one of its

6

predecessor corporations) regarding its wireless location technology and patent applications;
Plaintiff then provided detailed information both orally and in writing regarding its wireless
location technology to Sprint Nextel (or one of its predecessor corporations) in 1997 pursuant to
a non-disclosure agreement that was executed after Plaintiff had filed the international
application that later issued as the „231 patent; and Sprint Nextel (or one of its predecessor
corporations) knew or should have known of the „231 patent upon its issuance. Sprint Nextel has
disregarded and continues to disregard an objectively high likelihood that its actions constitute
infringement of the „231 patent. This objectively-defined risk has been known or so obvious that
it should have been known to Sprint Nextel.
33.

As a result of Sprint Nextel‟s infringement of the „231 patent, Plaintiff has

been damaged by and will continue to suffer additional, irreparable damage, in an amount not yet
determined, and will suffer an impairment of the value of its patent rights unless Sprint Nextel is
enjoined from continuing to infringe the „231 patent.
34.

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 281, Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages from

Sprint Nextel to compensate it for Sprint Nextel‟s infringement of the „231 patent.
35.

Without a license or permission from Plaintiff, Verizon has infringed and

is continuing to infringe one or more claims of the „231 patent and, unless enjoined, will
continue to do so, by making, using, providing, selling, offering for sale, or importing infringing
products and services. Verizon‟s infringing products and services include, without limitation, its
products and services for determining the locations of wireless mobile devices (e.g., the locations
of Verizon subscribers‟ cellular phones). Verizon, which has knowledge of the „231 patent, has
also actively and knowingly contributed to and induced, and continues to actively and knowingly
contribute to and induce, infringement by users of Verizon‟s products and services.

7

36.

Verizon‟s infringement of the „231 patent has been and continues to be

willful. Verizon (or one of its predecessor corporations) knew of a provisional patent
application that led to the „231 patent as early as 1996, when Plaintiff contacted Verizon (or one
of its predecessor corporations) regarding Plaintiff‟s wireless location technology and patent
applications; Plaintiff provided additional information regarding its technology to Verizon (or
one of its predecessor corporations) in 1997 after Plaintiff had filed the international application
that later issued as the „231 patent; and Verizon knew or should have known of the „231 patent
upon its issuance. Verizon has disregarded and continues to disregard an objectively high
likelihood that its actions constitute infringement of the „231 patent. This objectively-defined
risk has been known or so obvious that it should have been known to Verizon.
37.

As a result of Verizon‟s infringement of the „231 patent, Plaintiff has been

damaged by and will continue to suffer additional, irreparable damage, in an amount not yet
determined, and will suffer an impairment of the value of its patent rights unless Verizon is
enjoined from continuing to infringe the „231 patent.
38.

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 281, Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages from

Verizon to compensate it for Verizon‟s infringement of the „231 patent.
39.

Without a license or permission from Plaintiff, Google has infringed and is

continuing to infringe one or more claims of the „231 patent and, unless enjoined, will continue
to do so, by making, using, providing, selling, offering for sale, or importing infringing products
and services. Google‟s infringing products and services include, without limitation, its products
and services for determining the locations of wireless mobile devices, including its My Location
product. Google, which has knowledge of the „231 patent, has also actively and knowingly

8

contributed to and induced, and continues to actively and knowingly contribute to and induce,
infringement by users of Google‟s products and services.
40.

As a result of Google‟s infringement of the „231 patent, Plaintiff has been

damaged by and will continue to suffer additional, irreparable damage, in an amount not yet
determined, and will suffer an impairment of the value of its patent rights unless Google is
enjoined from continuing to infringe the „231 patent.
41.

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 281, Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages from

Google to compensate it for Google‟s infringement of the „231 patent.
42.

Without a license or permission from Plaintiff, Skyhook has infringed and

is continuing to infringe one or more claims of the „231 patent and, unless enjoined, will
continue to do so, by making, using, providing, selling, offering for sale, or importing infringing
products and services. Skyhook‟s infringing products and services include, without limitation,
its products and services for determining the locations of wireless mobile devices. Skyhook,
which has knowledge of the „231 patent, has also actively and knowingly contributed to and
induced, and continues to actively and knowingly contribute to and induce, infringement by
users of Skyhook‟s products and services.
43.

As a result of Skyhook‟s infringement of the „231 patent, Plaintiff has

been damaged by and will continue to suffer additional, irreparable damage, in an amount not yet
determined, and will suffer an impairment of the value of its patent rights unless Skyhook is
enjoined from continuing to infringe the „231 patent.
44.

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 281, Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages from

Skyhook to compensate it for Skyhook‟s infringement of the „231 patent.

9

Second Claim for Patent Infringement
(Infringement of the ‘484 patent)
45.

Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of the allegations in paragraphs 1

– 21 above and further alleges as follows:
46.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office issued the „484 patent on

April 28, 2009. Plaintiff is the owner of the „484 patent with full rights to pursue recovery of
royalties or damages for infringement of said patent, including full rights to recover past and
future damages.
47.

Without a license or permission from Plaintiff, AT&T has infringed and is

continuing to infringe one or more claims of the „484 patent and, unless enjoined, will continue
to do so, by making, using, providing, selling, offering for sale, or importing infringing products
and services. AT&T‟s infringing products and services include, without limitation, its products
and services for determining the locations of wireless mobile devices (e.g., the locations of
AT&T subscribers‟ cellular phones). AT&T, which has knowledge of the „484 patent, has also
actively and knowingly contributed to and induced, and continues to actively and knowingly
contribute to and induce, infringement by users of AT&T‟s products and services.
48.

AT&T‟s infringement of the „484 patent has been and continues to be

willful. As described above, AT&T knew or should have known of the „231 patent, of which the
„484 patent is a continuation; and AT&T knew or should have known of the „484 patent upon its
issuance. AT&T has disregarded and continues to disregard an objectively high likelihood that
its actions constitute infringement of the „484 patent. This objectively-defined risk has been
known or so obvious that it should have been known to AT&T.
49.

As a result of AT&T‟s infringement of the „484 patent, Plaintiff has been

damaged by and will continue to suffer additional, irreparable damage, in an amount not yet

10

determined, and will suffer an impairment of the value of its patent rights unless AT&T is
enjoined from continuing to infringe the „484 patent.
50.

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 281, Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages from

AT&T to compensate it for AT&T‟s infringement of the „484 patent.
51.

Without a license or permission from Plaintiff, MetroPCS has infringed

and is continuing to infringe one or more claims of the „484 patent and, unless enjoined, will
continue to do so, by making, using, providing, selling, offering for sale, or importing infringing
products and services. MetroPCS‟s infringing products and services include, without limitation,
its products and services for determining the locations of wireless mobile devices (e.g., the
locations of MetroPCS subscribers‟ cellular phones). MetroPCS, which has knowledge of the
„484 patent, has also actively and knowingly contributed to and induced, and continues to
actively and knowingly contribute to and induce, infringement by users of MetroPCS‟s products
and services.
52.

As a result of MetroPCS‟s infringement of the „484 patent, Plaintiff has

been damaged by and will continue to suffer additional, irreparable damage, in an amount not yet
determined, and will suffer an impairment of the value of its patent rights unless MetroPCS is
enjoined from continuing to infringe the „484 patent.
53.

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 281, Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages from

MetroPCS to compensate it for MetroPCS‟s infringement of the „484 patent.
54.

Without a license or permission from Plaintiff, Peoples has infringed and

is continuing to infringe one or more claims of the „484 patent and, unless enjoined, will
continue to do so, by making, using, providing, selling, offering for sale, or importing infringing
products and services. Peoples‟ infringing products and services include, without limitation, its

11

products and services for determining the locations of wireless mobile devices (e.g., the locations
of Peoples subscribers‟ cellular phones). Peoples, which has knowledge of the „484 patent, has
also actively and knowingly contributed to and induced, and continues to actively and knowingly
contribute to and induce, infringement by users of Peoples‟ products and services.
55.

As a result of Peoples‟ infringement of the „484 patent, Plaintiff has been

damaged by and will continue to suffer additional, irreparable damage, in an amount not yet
determined, and will suffer an impairment of the value of its patent rights unless Peoples is
enjoined from continuing to infringe the „484 patent.
56.

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 281, Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages from

Peoples to compensate it for Peoples‟ infringement of the „484 patent.
57.

Without a license or permission from Plaintiff, Sprint Nextel has infringed

and is continuing to infringe one or more claims of the „484 patent and, unless enjoined, will
continue to do so, by making, using, providing, selling, offering for sale, or importing infringing
products and services. Sprint Nextel‟s infringing products and services include, without
limitation, its products and services for determining the locations of wireless mobile devices
(e.g., the locations of Sprint Nextel subscribers‟ cellular phones). Sprint Nextel, which has
knowledge of the „484 patent, has also actively and knowingly contributed to and induced, and
continues to actively and knowingly contribute to and induce, infringement by users of Sprint
Nextel‟s products and services.
58.

Sprint Nextel‟s infringement of the „484 patent has been and continues to

be willful. As described above, Sprint Nextel knew or should have known of the „231 patent, of
which the „484 patent is a continuation; and Sprint Nextel knew or should have known of the
„484 patent upon its issuance. Sprint Nextel has disregarded and continues to disregard an

12

objectively high likelihood that its actions constitute infringement of the „484 patent. This
objectively-defined risk has been known or so obvious that it should have been known to Sprint
Nextel.
59.

As a result of Sprint Nextel‟s infringement of the „484 patent, Plaintiff has

been damaged by and will continue to suffer additional, irreparable damage, in an amount not yet
determined, and will suffer an impairment of the value of its patent rights unless Sprint Nextel is
enjoined from continuing to infringe the „484 patent.
60.

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 281, Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages from

Sprint Nextel to compensate it for Sprint Nextel‟s infringement of the „484 patent.
61.

Without a license or permission from Plaintiff, Verizon has infringed and

is continuing to infringe one or more claims of the „484 patent and, unless enjoined, will
continue to do so, by making, using, providing, selling, offering for sale, or importing infringing
products and services. Verizon‟s infringing products and services include, without limitation, its
products and services for determining the locations of wireless mobile devices (e.g., the locations
of Verizon subscribers‟ cellular phones). Verizon, which has knowledge of the „484 patent, has
also actively and knowingly contributed to and induced, and continues to actively and knowingly
contribute to and induce, infringement by users of Verizon‟s products and services.
62.

Verizon‟s infringement of the „484 patent has been and continues to be

willful. Verizon (or one of its predecessor corporations) knew or should have known of the „231
patent, of which the „484 patent is a continuation; and Verizon knew or should have known of
the „484 patent upon its issuance. Verizon has disregarded and continues to disregard an
objectively high likelihood that its actions constitute infringement of the „484 patent. This

13

objectively-defined risk has been known or so obvious that it should have been known to
Verizon.
63.

As a result of Verizon‟s infringement of the „484 patent, Plaintiff has been

damaged by and will continue to suffer additional, irreparable damage, in an amount not yet
determined, and will suffer an impairment of the value of its patent rights unless Verizon is
enjoined from continuing to infringe the „484 patent.
64.

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 281, Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages from

Verizon to compensate it for Verizon‟s infringement of the „484 patent.
65.

Without a license or permission from Plaintiff, Google has infringed and is

continuing to infringe one or more claims of the „484 patent and, unless enjoined, will continue
to do so, by making, using, providing, selling, offering for sale, or importing infringing products
and services. Google‟s infringing products and services include, without limitation, its products
and services for determining the locations of wireless mobile devices, including its My Location
product. Google, which has knowledge of the „484 patent, has also actively and knowingly
contributed to and induced, and continues to actively and knowingly contribute to and induce,
infringement by users of Google‟s products and services.
66.

As a result of Google‟s infringement of the „484 patent, Plaintiff has been

damaged by and will continue to suffer additional, irreparable damage, in an amount not yet
determined, and will suffer an impairment of the value of its patent rights unless Google is
enjoined from continuing to infringe the „484 patent.
67.

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 281, Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages from

Google to compensate it for Google‟s infringement of the „484 patent.

14

68.

Without a license or permission from Plaintiff, Skyhook has infringed and

is continuing to infringe one or more claims of the „484 patent and, unless enjoined, will
continue to do so, by making, using, providing, selling, offering for sale, or importing infringing
products and services. Skyhook‟s infringing products and services include, without limitation,
its products and services for determining the locations of wireless mobile devices. Skyhook,
which has knowledge of the „484 patent, has also actively and knowingly contributed to and
induced, and continues to actively and knowingly contribute to and induce, infringement by
users of Skyhook‟s products and services.
69.

As a result of Skyhook‟s infringement of the „484 patent, Plaintiff has

been damaged by and will continue to suffer additional, irreparable damage, in an amount not yet
determined, and will suffer an impairment of the value of its patent rights unless Skyhook is
enjoined from continuing to infringe the „484 patent.
70.

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 281, Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages from

Skyhook to compensate it for Skyhook‟s infringement of the „484 patent.
Jury Demand
71.

Plaintiff demands trial by jury of all issues relating to its claims regarding

the „231 and „484 patents.
Prayer for Relief
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as follows:
A.

A judgment in favor of Plaintiff that (a) AT&T, MetroPCS, Sprint, Verizon,
Google, and Skyhook have infringed the „231 patent, and (b) AT&T, MetroPCS,
Peoples, Sprint, Verizon, Google, and Skyhook have infringed the „484 patent;

15

B.

A judgment and order finding that AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon have willfully
infringed the „231 and „484 patents;

C.

A decree preliminarily and permanently enjoining (a) AT&T, MetroPCS, Sprint,
Verizon, Google, and Skyhook as well as their officers, directors, employees,
agents, and all persons in active concert with them, from infringing, and
contributing to or inducing others to infringe the „231 patent; and (b) AT&T,
MetroPCS, Peoples, Sprint, Verizon, Google, and Skyhook as well as their
officers, directors, employees, agents, and all persons in active concert with them,
from infringing, and contributing to or inducing others to infringe the „484 patent;

D.

A judgment and order requiring (a) AT&T, MetroPCS, Sprint, Verizon, Google,
and Skyhook to pay Plaintiff compensatory damages, costs, expenses, and preand post-judgment interest for Defendants‟ infringement of the „231 patent, as
provided under 35 U.S.C. § 284; and (b) AT&T, MetroPCS, Peoples, Sprint,
Verizon, Google, and Skyhook to pay Plaintiff compensatory damages, costs,
expenses, and pre- and post-judgment interest for Defendants‟ infringement of the
„484 patent, as provided under 35 U.S.C. § 284;

E.

A judgment and order finding that this patent infringement case is exceptional
within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285 and awarding Plaintiff its reasonable
attorneys‟ fees; and

F.

Any and all other relief to which Plaintiff may be entitled.

16

Dated: May 19, 2011

Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ S. Calvin Capshaw
Gregory S. Dovel
CA State Bar No. 135387
Email: [e-mail]
Richard E. Lyon
CA State Bar No. 229288
Email: [e-mail]
DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 310-657-7069
S. Calvin Capshaw
State Bar No. 03783900
Elizabeth L. DeRieux
State Bar No. 05770585
CAPSHAW DERIEUX, L.L.P.

114 E. Commerce Ave.
Gladewater, Texas 75647
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Robert Christopher Bunt
State Bar No. 00787165
Email: [e-mail]
PARKER & BUNT, P.C.
100 East Ferguson, Ste. 1114
Tyler, TX 75702
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 903/533-9687
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
TRACBEAM, L.L.C.

17

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic
service are being served this 19th day of May, 2011, with a copy of this document via the Court‟s
CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3). Any other parties will be served by electronic mail,
facsimile transmission and/or first class mail or formal service of process on this same date.
/s/ S. Calvin Capshaw

18