Washington Research Foundation v. Apple, Inc. et al

Filing 1

COMPLAINT against defendant(s) All Defendants (Receipt # 0981-3031515), filed by Washington Research Foundation. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Summons, # 3 Summons, # 4 Summons, # 5 Summons, # 6 Summons, # 7 Summons, # 8 Summons, # 9 Summons, # 10 Summons, # 11 Summons)(Yeh, Jonathan)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

WASHINGTON RESEARCH
FOUNDATION, a Washington Corporation,
Plaintiff,

NO. 12-2092

vs.
APPLE INC., a California Corporation; DLINK SYSTEMS, INC., a California
Corporation; HEWLETT-PACKARD
COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation;
LOGITECH INTERNATIONAL S.A., a Swiss
Corporation; LOGITECH INC., a California
Corporation; MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
a Washington Corporation; PARROT SA, a
French Corporation; PARROT, INC., a New
York Corporation; SAMSUNG
ELECTRONICS COMPANY, LIMITED, a
Republic of Korea Corporation; and
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
INCORPORATED, a New York Corporation.
Defendants.

COMPLAINT

JURY DEMAND

23
24
25
COMPLAINT - 1

BLANK Law & Technology P.S.
157 Yester Way, Third Floor
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

1

Plaintiff Washington Research Foundation complains against defendants Apple, Inc.

2

(“Apple”); D-Link Systems, Inc. (“D-Link”), Hewlett-Packard Company (“HP”), Logitech

3

International S.A. and Logitech Inc. (collectively, “Logitech”); Microsoft Corporation

4

(“Microsoft”); Parrot SA and Parrot, Inc. (collectively, “Parrot”); Samsung Electronics

5

Company, Limited and Samsung Electronics America, Incorporated (collectively, “Samsung”)

6

as follows:

7

I. PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE

8

1.

9
10

This action arises under the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 United States

Code. This Court has jurisdiction of this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a).
2.

Washington Research Foundation (also referred to as “WRF”) is an independent

11

nonprofit Washington State 501(c)(3) organization based in Seattle, Washington. Washington

12

Research Foundation was created in 1981 and is mandated by federal statute to review

13

technology disclosures by the University of Washington and other Washington research

14

institutions, obtain protection for such technology through patents, copyrights, or other means,

15

and provide for the license, sale, or other exploitation of such technology. The activities of the

16

Washington Research Foundation are funded by revenue from technology licensing and the

17

investment of retained funds. Washington Research Foundation has benefited Washington State

18

research institutions by licensing a variety of technologies to industry, including the basis for a

19

hepatitis B virus vaccine, blood clotting factors, recombinant insulin, and wireless technology

20

supporting the “Bluetooth” and other wireless technologies.

21

3.

Washington Research Foundation provides support through gifts and grants for

22

scholarship and research.

23

disbursements to the University of Washington totaling more than $370 million, thus providing

24

a substantial return on investment to the taxpayers whose dollars support this institution. The

Washington Research Foundation has made gifts and licensing

25
COMPLAINT - 2

BLANK Law & Technology P.S.
157 Yester Way, Third Floor
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

1

gifts from the Washington Research Foundation have supported the creation of over 100

2

endowments for chairs, professorships, research fellowships and graduate stipends in science,

3

medicine and engineering, all at reduced or no cost to the taxpayer. Educational programs

4

created and supported by the Washington Research Foundation include the Center for

5

Technology Entrepreneurship (University of Washington Business School) and the Program for

6

Technology Commercialization (University of Washington Bioengineering), all of which

7

substantially benefit society and improve the human condition. The Washington Research

8

Foundation was a founding supporter of technology “gap” funding programs at the University of

9

Washington, the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, and Washington State University.

10

4.

Defendant Apple Inc. is a corporation established under the laws of California and

11

based in California. Apple Inc. manufactures and sells electronic devices such as cell phones

12

and notebook computers, including selling or offering to sell such devices (including the accused

13

devices) within this judicial district and by conducting other business within this judicial district

14

or elsewhere in the United States that impacts this jurisdiction.

15

5.

Apple has manufactured, used, imported into the United States, sold and/or

16

offered for sale devices which infringe, or the use of which infringes, at least the Asserted

17

Patents. Specifically, and by way of example, Apple has manufactured, used, imported into the

18

United States, sold and/or offered for sale products employing unlicensed chipsets that are made

19

by third party semiconductor manufacturers Atheros, Qualcomm, and/or Qualcomm-Atheros.

20

6.

Defendant D-Link Systems, Inc. is a corporation established under the laws of

21

California and based in California. D-Link manufactures, sells electronic devices such as

22

wireless routers, including selling or offering to sell such devices (including the accused

23

devices) within this judicial district, and conducts other business within this judicial district or

24

elsewhere in the United States that impacts this jurisdiction.

25
COMPLAINT - 3

BLANK Law & Technology P.S.
157 Yester Way, Third Floor
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

1

7.

D-Link has manufactured, used, imported into the United States, sold and/or

2

offered for sale devices which infringe, or the use of which infringes, at least the Asserted

3

Patents. Specifically, and by way of example, D-Link has manufactured, used, imported into the

4

United States, sold and/or offered for sale products employing unlicensed chipsets that are made

5

by third party semiconductor manufacturers Atheros, Qualcomm, and/or Qualcomm-Atheros.

6

8.

Defendant Hewlett-Packard is a corporation established under the laws of

7

Delaware and based in Palo Alto, California. Hewlett-Packard manufactures, sells electronic

8

devices such as notebook computers, including selling or offering to sell such devices (including

9

the accused devices) within this judicial district, and conducts other business within this judicial

10
11

district or elsewhere in the United States that impacts this jurisdiction.
9.

Hewlett-Packard has manufactured, used, imported into the United States, sold

12

and/or offered for sale devices which infringe, or the use of which infringes, at least the

13

Asserted Patents. Specifically, and by way of example, Hewlett-Packard has manufactured,

14

used, imported into the United States, sold and/or offered for sale products employing

15

unlicensed chipsets that are made by third party semiconductor manufacturers Atheros,

16

Qualcomm, and/or Qualcomm-Atheros.

17

10.

Defendant Logitech International S.A. is a corporation established under the laws

18

of Switzerland and based in Switzerland. Defendant Logitech Inc. is a corporation established

19

under the laws of the State of California and based in the United States, and is a wholly owned

20

subsidiary of Logitech International S.A. Logitech International S.A., including through its

21

subsidiary Logitech Inc., manufactures and sells electronic devices such as wireless mice,

22

keyboards and hubs, including selling or offering to sell such devices (including the accused

23

devices) within this judicial district and by conducting other business within this judicial district

24

or elsewhere in the United States that impacts this jurisdiction.

25
COMPLAINT - 4

BLANK Law & Technology P.S.
157 Yester Way, Third Floor
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

1

11.

Logitech has manufactured, used, imported into the United States, sold and/or

2

offered for sale devices which infringe, or the use of which infringes, at least the Asserted

3

Patents. Specifically, and by way of example, Logitech has manufactured, used, imported into

4

the United States, sold and/or offered for sale products employing unlicensed chipsets that are

5

made by third party semiconductor manufacturers Atheros, Qualcomm, and/or Qualcomm-

6

Atheros.

7

12.

Defendant Microsoft Corporation is a corporation established under the laws of

8

the State of Washington and based in Washington.

9

devices, including selling or offering to sell such devices (including the accused devices) within

10

this judicial district, and conducts other business within this judicial district or elsewhere in the

11

United States that impacts this jurisdiction.

12

13.

Microsoft manufactures, sells electronic

Microsoft has manufactured, used, imported into the United States, sold and/or

13

offered for sale devices which infringe, or the use of which infringes, at least the Asserted

14

Patents. Specifically, and by way of example, Microsoft has manufactured, used, imported into

15

the United States, sold and/or offered for sale products employing unlicensed chipsets that are

16

made by third party semiconductor manufacturer manufacturers Atheros, Qualcomm, and/or

17

Qualcomm-Atheros.

18

14.

Defendant Parrot SA is a corporation established under the laws of France and

19

based in France . Defendant Parrot, Inc. is a corporation established under the laws of New

20

York, and based in Michigan, and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Parrot. Parrot, SA including

21

through its subsidiary Parrot, Inc., manufactures, sells electronic devices, including selling or

22

offering to sell such devices (including the accused devices) within this judicial district, and

23

conducts other business within this judicial district or elsewhere in the United States that

24

impacts this jurisdiction.

25
COMPLAINT - 5

BLANK Law & Technology P.S.
157 Yester Way, Third Floor
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

1

15.

Parrot has manufactured, used, imported into the United States, sold and/or

2

offered for sale devices which infringe, or the use of which infringes, at least the Asserted

3

Patents. Specifically, and by way of example, Parrot has manufactured, used, imported into the

4

United States, sold and/or offered for sale products employing unlicensed chipsets that are made

5

by third party semiconductor manufacturers Atheros, Qualcomm, and/or Qualcomm-Atheros.

6

16.

Defendant Samsung Electronics Company, Limited is a corporation established

7

under the laws of the Republic of Korea and based in Seoul, Korea. Defendant Samsung

8

Electronics America, Incorporated is a corporation established under the laws of the State of

9

New York and based in Ridgefield Park, New Jersey, and is a wholly owned subsidiary of

10

Samsung Electronics Company, Limited. Samsung Electronics Company, Limited, including

11

through its subsidiary Samsung Electronics America, Inc., manufactures, sells electronic devices

12

such as cell phones and notebook computers, including selling or offering to sell such devices

13

(including the accused devices) within this judicial district, and conducts other business within

14

this judicial district or elsewhere in the United States that impacts this jurisdiction.

15

17.

Samsung has manufactured, used, imported into the United States, sold and/or

16

offered for sale devices which infringe, or the use of which infringes, at least the Asserted

17

Patents. Specifically, and by way of example, Samsung has manufactured, used, imported into

18

the United States, sold and/or offered for sale products employing unlicensed chipsets that are

19

made by third party semiconductor manufacturers Atheros, Qualcomm, and/or Qualcomm-

20

Atheros.

21

18.

In accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 299(a)(1)-(2), these defendants have been named

22

in a common complaint because they purchase the infringing radios from the same common

23

supplier, and on information and belief, to the extent relevant to the asserted claims, the

24
25
COMPLAINT - 6

BLANK Law & Technology P.S.
157 Yester Way, Third Floor
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

1

infringement arises out of the “same accused product or process,” and therefore the issues of

2

claim construction, validity, and infringement are common to all of the defendants.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

II. WASHINGTON RESEARCH FOUNDATION’S LOW IF PATENT
PORTFOLIO
19.

The University of Washington is the assignee of a portfolio of patents duly and

legally issued to Edwin A. Suominen for the inventions claimed therein relating to radio
frequency (RF) receiver technology used in commercially significant Bluetooth®, FM, GSM,
Wi-Fi, and other Low IF radio data communication systems. Relevant issued patents include
(collectively, the “Subject Patents”):
•

method,” filed September 13, 1996, and issued August 10, 1999;

11
12

•

U.S. Patent 6,427,068, titled “Simplified high frequency tuner and tuning
method,” filed May 24, 1999, as a division of the ‘341 Patent, issued July 30,

13

2002;

14
15

U.S. Patent 5,937,341, titled “Simplified high frequency tuner and tuning

•

U.S. Patent 6,631,256, titled “Simplified high frequency tuner and tuning
method,” filed October 27, 2001, as a continuation of the ‘068 Patent, issued

16

October 7, 2003;
17
18

•

U.S. Patent 7,116,963, titled “Simplified high frequency tuner and tuning
method,” filed August 25, 2003, as a continuation of the ‘256 Patent, issued

19

October 3, 2006;
20
21

•

U.S. Patent 7,606,542, titled “Simplified high frequency tuner and tuning
method,” filed June 15, 2005, issued October 20, 2009;

22
23

•

U.S. Patent 7,606,549, titled “Selective channel tuner and tuning method,” filed
August 23, 2006, issued October 20, 2009;

24
25
COMPLAINT - 7

BLANK Law & Technology P.S.
157 Yester Way, Third Floor
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

•

1

U.S. Patent 7,639,996, titled “Simplified high frequency tuner and tuning

2

method,” filed July 10, 2008, as a divisional of the ‘542 Patent, issued December

3

29, 2009;
•

4

U. S. Patent 7,853,225, titled “Simplified high frequency tuner and tuning

5

method,” filed ), filed on November 9, 2009, is a divisional of the ‘996 patent,

6

issued December 14, 2010;
•

7

U.S. Patent 7,853,239, titled “Simplified high frequency tuner and tuning
method,” filed November 9, 2009 as a divisional of the ‘996 Patent, issued

8

December 14, 2010;

9

•

10

U.S. Patent 7,860,482, titled “Simplified high frequency tuner and tuning
method,” filed November 9, 2009, as a divisional of the ‘996 Patent, issued

11

December 28, 2010;
12

•

13

U.S. Patent 7,925,238, titled “Simplified high frequency tuner and tuning
method,” filed July 10, 2008, issued April 12, 2011;

14

•

15

U.S. Patent 8,005,450, titled “Simplified high frequency tuner and tuning
method,” filed June 12, 2009, issued August 23, 2011;

16

•

U.S. Patent 8,116,705, titled “Simplified high frequency tuner and tuning

17

method,” filed November 9, 2009, issued February 14, 2012; and,
18

•

19

U.S. Patent 8,140,043, titled “Simplified high frequency tuner and tuning
method,” filed April 11, 2011, issued March 20, 2012.

20

The ‘068, ‘256, ‘963, ‘542, ‘225, and ‘238 Patents are hereinafter referred to as “the Asserted

21

Patents.”

22

20.

The University of Washington is also the assignee of a portfolio of patent

23

applications naming Edwin A. Suominen as inventor relating to radio frequency (RF) receiver

24

technology, including certain radio frequency receiver technology used in commercially

25
COMPLAINT - 8

BLANK Law & Technology P.S.
157 Yester Way, Third Floor
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

1

significant radio data communication systems.

2

Application Serial No. 12/749,742, filed March 30, 2010 (the “Pending Application”).

3

Hereinafter, the Subject Patents and the Pending Application may be referred to jointly as the

4

“Subject Patents and Application.”

5

21.

The relevant pending application is U.S.

Mr. Suominen assigned all right, title and interest in the Subject Patents and

6

Application to the University of Washington, including the right to sue for past damages. The

7

University of Washington, in turn, exclusively licensed the Subject Patents and Application to

8

the Washington Research Foundation to include in its patent licensing program and, if

9

necessary, to enforce in the name of the Washington Research Foundation all rights available in

10

law and equity under the Subject Patents and Application including the right to sue and collect

11

for past infringement.

12

22.

Two of WRF’s Subject Patents have been reconfirmed over two separate

13

reexamination requests. An anonymous third-party Requester initially filed a Request for Ex

14

Parte Reexamination with the USPTO identifying Claims 1 – 55 of Patentee’s Asserted ‘542

15

Patent (90/011,063). Later, the same anonymous third-party Requester filed a second Request

16

for Ex Parte Reexamination identifying Claims 18 – 20 of WRF’s ‘341 Patent (90/011,107).

17

23.

As part of its ongoing patent prosecution of related cases, WRF promptly filed

18

copies of the reexamination requests in each of its pending cases, as well as copies of its

19

responses. WRF encouraged the Examiners of the pending cases to review the arguments

20

therein. Seven of those pending applications were subsequently allowed by two independent

21

Examiners, and are now issued as patents (the ‘225, ‘239, ‘482, ‘238, ‘450, ‘623, and ‘029

22

Patents).

23
24

24.

On March 4, 2011, the USPTO terminated both of the reexamination requests in

WRF’s favor. Reexamination certificates published on May 17, 2011. Thus, nine patents and

25
COMPLAINT - 9

BLANK Law & Technology P.S.
157 Yester Way, Third Floor
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

1

applications have been issued or confirmed valid over all of the art and arguments presented to

2

WRF (and then submitted to the USPTO) during the course of enforcing the patents and in the

3

two ex parte requests for reexamination.

4

III. THE LICENSING PROGRAM

5

25.

The Washington Research Foundation has for several years engaged in a program

6

to license the Subject Patents and Application. In accordance with that program, WRF provided

7

notice of the Subject Patents and Application (in their various stages of issuance and pendency)

8

to numerous companies that manufactured, imported, sold and/or offered for sale in the United

9

States electronic devices believed to practice the inventions described and claimed in the Subject

10

Patents and Application. More specifically, WRF advised major companies in several industries

11

that the use of certain unlicensed radio chipsets in products that they manufactured, imported,

12

sold and/or offered for sale in the United States would or could result in direct infringement of

13

various claims of the Subject Patents and Application.

14

companies, and not to the chipset manufacturers, because these companies are the direct

15

infringers; that is, these companies import, sell or offer for sale in the United States products

16

that either infringe device claims, or the use of which infringes method claims of WRF’s issued

17

patents. Thus, WRF provided notice of the Subject Patents and Application to (among others)

18

major corporations in the following industries:

WRF provided notice to these

19

•

Automotive industry;

20

•

Cellular Handset industry;

21

•

Computer/Electronics industry,

22

•

Electronics and Consumer Retailers / Distributors, and

23

•

Wireless Module Manufacturers.

24
25
COMPLAINT - 10

BLANK Law & Technology P.S.
157 Yester Way, Third Floor
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

1

These major companies placed on notice by the Washington Research Foundation are referred to

2

collectively as “the Alleged Direct Infringers.”

3

26.

On information and belief, a number of the Alleged Direct Infringers have

4

indemnity agreements with their suppliers of radio chipsets and intend to rely on those

5

indemnity obligations to address any infringement of the Subject Patents and Application. As a

6

result, numerous of the Alleged Direct Infringers declined to accept a license from WRF. On

7

information and belief, a number of the Alleged Direct Infringers provided notice to their

8

respective radio chipset suppliers of WRF’s infringement allegations.

9

27.

Thereafter, several radio chipset suppliers contacted WRF to discuss the merits of

10

WRF’s infringement allegations and the possibility of acquiring a license under the Subject

11

Patents and Application.

12

suppliers.

13

28.

In addition, WRF initiated discussion with other radio chipset

As a result of its licensing efforts, Washington Research Foundation was able to

14

conclude licenses under the Subject Patents and Application with several radio chipset

15

companies, including:

16

•

Airoha Technology Corp.

17

•

Broadcom Corp.

18

•

CSR plc

19

•

Ericsson AB with rights extending to two of its licensees:

20

o National Semiconductor

21

o Winbond

22

•

Infineon

23

•

Marvell Semiconductor, Inc.

24

•

Silicon Laboratories

25
COMPLAINT - 11

BLANK Law & Technology P.S.
157 Yester Way, Third Floor
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

1

•

SiTel Semiconductor BV

2

•

ST-Ericsson and ST-NXP, with limited rights extending to:

3

o STMicroelectronics (for STMicroelectronics non-automotive Bluetooth

4

products made or sold prior to August 2, 2008),

5

•

TOSHIBA Corp

6

•

NXP Semiconductors N.V.

7

These licensed companies are hereinafter referred to as “Licensed Chipset Suppliers.” The

8

specific terms and conditions of each license signed with the Licensed Chipset Suppliers are

9

confidential. In general, however, each of the Licensed Chipset Suppliers obtained a license

10

that, among other things, enables its customers to make, import, use, sell or offer for sale in the

11

United States products that include licensed radio chipsets (as defined by the respective

12

Licensed Fields of each agreement). As a result of these licenses, many of the Alleged Direct

13

Infringers are now indirectly licensed for the subset of their products that use chipsets from the

14

Licensed Chipset Suppliers.

15

29.

In addition, as a result of the refusal of certain chipset companies to acquire

16

licenses to avoid subjecting their customers to litigation, WRF successfully licensed the Subject

17

Patents and Application to several of the Alleged Direct Infringers, including at least:

18

•

Cisco Systems, Inc.,

19

•

GN Netcom A/S,

20

•

Harman International Industries, Inc., and

21

•

VTech Communications, Inc.

22

These companies are hereinafter referred to as “Licensed Integrators.” The terms and conditions

23

of the licenses signed with the Licensed Integrators are confidential. However, in general, these

24

licenses allow Licensed Integrators to employ in their products infringing chipsets without

25
COMPLAINT - 12

BLANK Law & Technology P.S.
157 Yester Way, Third Floor
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

1

regard to whether the chipsets are licensed by the manufacturer under the Subject Patents and

2

Application.

3

30.

Products manufactured by the Licensed Chipset Suppliers or the Licensed

4

Integrators within the scope of their respective license agreements with WRF are hereinafter

5

referred to as “Licensed Products.” WRF does not assert that use of a Licensed Product by any

6

company (including any named Defendant or Alleged Direct Infringer) constitutes infringement

7

of any of the Subject Patents or Applications. Due to the existence of numerous Licensed

8

Products manufactured by the Licensed Chipset Suppliers and Licensed Integrators, each

9

Defendant had and continues to have the ability to avoid infringement of WRF’s Asserted

10
11

Patents.
31.

WRF is informed and believes that other Alleged Direct Infringers manufactured,

12

used, imported, sold or offered for sale in the United States products that included certain

13

chipsets of at least Atheros, Qualcomm, or Qualcomm-Atheros, that are not licensed under the

14

Subject Patents or Applications. To avoid continuing loss of potential damages caused by the

15

applicable six year statutory damage limitation, WRF will seek the Court’s assistance in

16

discovery to promptly identify those additional direct infringers, as appropriate.

17

32.

Over the last several years WRF has engaged in negotiations with Atheros and

18

Qualcomm (who acquired Atheros which is now Qualcomm-Atheros).

19

negotiations, WRF explained its infringement contentions with respect to at least the following

20

Atheros, Qualcomm, and Qualcomm-Atheros radios: AR6002, AR6003, AR6102, AR6103,

21

AR9002, AR9271, AR9280, AR9285, AR9287, AR9380, AR9382, AR9390 and AR9392.

22

WRF believes that additional Atheros, Qualcomm, and Qualcomm-Atheros radios similarly

23

infringe WRF’s Asserted Patents. WRF has offered both Atheros and Qualcomm a license

24

under WRF’s Asserted Patents on terms substantially similar to those signed by other Licensed

During these

25
COMPLAINT - 13

BLANK Law & Technology P.S.
157 Yester Way, Third Floor
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

1

Chipset Suppliers listed above. To date, Atheros, Qualcomm, and Qualcomm-Atheros have

2

failed to take a license on terms that are consistent with WRF’s prior licenses and that would

3

cover the past and present infringing activities of the OEM and integrator companies (such as

4

the Defendants) for the manufacture, use, importation, sale and/or offer for sale in the United

5

States of products employing its infringing chipsets.

6

IV. DEFENDANTS’ INFRINGEMENT

7

32.

Apple manufactures, uses, imports, sells and/or offers for sale in the United

8

States products employing certain Wi-Fi radio chipsets (including at least the AR9280 radio)

9

manufactured or sold by Atheros, Qualcomm, or Qualcomm-Atheros. Specifically, at least the

10

27” iMac EMC 2309 and 2374 made by Apple, and likely others, are believed to use an

11

infringing radio supplied by Atheros, Qualcomm, or Qualcomm-Atheros. The manufacture, use,

12

importation, sale and/or offer for sale in the United States of products by Apple that employ at

13

least the identified chips are believed to infringe numerous claims of WRF’s patents, including

14

WRF’s Asserted ‘068 Patent, ‘256 Patent, ‘963 Patent, ‘542 Patent; ‘225 Patent, and, ‘238

15

Patent. WRF placed Apple on notice of the 11/649,305 and 11/154,272 Applications at least as

16

early as September 1, 2005. The ‘305 Application has since issued as the ‘963 Patent. The

17

‘272 Application has since issued as the ‘542 Patent. The relevant claims are in substantially the

18

same form as they were published. Accordingly, WRF is entitled to provisional damages

19

against Apple under 35 U.S.C. § 154(d).

20

33.

D-Link manufactures, uses, imports, sells and/or offers for sale in the United

21

States products employing certain Wi-Fi radio chipsets (including at least the AR9285 and

22

AR9287 radios) manufactured or sold by Atheros, Qualcomm, or Qualcomm-Atheros.

23

Specifically, at least the following products made by D-Link, and likely others, are believed to

24

use an infringing radio supplied by Atheros, Qualcomm, or Qualcomm-Atheros:

25
COMPLAINT - 14

BLANK Law & Technology P.S.
157 Yester Way, Third Floor
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

1

a. D-Link’s DIR-600 Router;

2

b. D-Link’s DIR-601 Router;

3

c. D-Link’s DIR-615 Router; and,

4

d. D-Link’s DIR-632 Router.

5

The manufacture, use, importation, sale and/or offer for sale in the United States of products by

6

D-Link that employ at least the identified chips infringe numerous claims of WRF’s patents,

7

including (without limitation) WRF’s Asserted ‘068 Patent, ‘256 Patent, ‘963 Patent, ‘542

8

Patent, ‘225 Patent, and ‘238 Patent. WRF placed D-Link on notice of the 11/649,305 and

9

11/154,272 Applications at least as early as September 1, 2005. The ‘305 Application has since

10

issued as the ‘963 Patent. The ‘272 Application has since issued as the ‘542 Patent. The

11

relevant claims are in substantially the same form as they were published. Accordingly, WRF is

12

entitled to provisional damages against D-Link under 35 U.S.C. § 154(d).

13

34.

Hewlett-Packard manufactures, uses, imports, sells and/or offers for sale in the

14

United States products employing certain Wi-Fi radio chipsets (including at least the AR9285

15

radio) manufactured or sold by Atheros, Qualcomm, or Qualcomm-Atheros. Specifically, at

16

least the following products made by Hewlett-Packard, and likely others, are believed to use an

17

infringing radio supplied by Atheros, Qualcomm, or Qualcomm-Atheros:

18

a. HP’s DV5-2040BR Pavilion Entertainment Notebook PC; and,

19

b. HP’s ProBook 4520s Notebook PC.

20

The manufacture, use, importation, sale and/or offer for sale in the United States of products by

21

Hewlett-Packard that employ at least the identified chips infringe numerous claims of WRF’s

22

patents, including (without limitation) WRF’s Asserted ‘068 Patent, ‘256 Patent, ‘963 Patent,

23

‘542 Patent, ‘225 Patent, and ‘238 Patent. WRF placed Hewlett-Packard on notice of the

24

11/649,305 Application at least as early as October 29, 2004. The ‘305 Application has since

25
COMPLAINT - 15

BLANK Law & Technology P.S.
157 Yester Way, Third Floor
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

1

issued as the ‘963 Patent.

2

Application at least as early as September 1, 2005. The ‘272 Application has since issued as the

3

‘542 Patent. The relevant claims are in substantially the same form as they were published.

4

Accordingly, WRF is entitled to provisional damages against Hewlett-Packard under 35 U.S.C.

5

§ 154(d).

6

35.

WRF placed Hewlett-Packard on notice of the 11/154,272

Logitech manufactures, uses, imports, sells and/or offers for sale in the United

7

States products employing certain Wi-Fi radio chipsets (including at least the AR9271 radio)

8

manufactured or sold by Atheros, Qualcomm, or Qualcomm-Atheros. Specifically, at least the

9

Revue made by Logitech, and likely others, are believed to use an infringing radio supplied by

10

Atheros, Qualcomm, or Qualcomm-Atheros. The manufacture, use, importation, sale and/or

11

offer for sale in the United States of products by Logitech that employ at least the identified

12

chips infringe numerous claims of WRF’s patents, including (without limitation)

13

Asserted ‘068 Patent, ‘256 Patent, ‘963 Patent, ‘542 Patent, ‘225 Patent, and ‘238 Patent. WRF

14

placed Logitech on notice of the 11/649,305 and 11/154,272 Applications at least as early as

15

September 1, 2006. The ‘305 Application has since issued as the ‘963 Patent. The ‘272

16

Application has since issued as the ‘542 Patent. The relevant claims are in substantially the

17

same form as they were published. Accordingly, WRF is entitled to provisional damages

18

against Logitech under 35 U.S.C. § 154(d).

19

36.

WRF’s

Microsoft manufactures, uses, imports, sells and/or offers for sale in the United

20

States products employing certain Wi-Fi radio chipsets (including at least the AR6002 radio)

21

manufactured or sold by Atheros, Qualcomm, or Qualcomm-Atheros. Specifically, at least the

22

Zune HD made by Microsoft, and likely others, are believed to use an infringing radio supplied

23

by Atheros, Qualcomm, or Qualcomm-Atheros. The manufacture, use, importation, sale and/or

24

offer for sale in the United States of products by Microsoft that employ at least the identified

25
COMPLAINT - 16

BLANK Law & Technology P.S.
157 Yester Way, Third Floor
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

1

chips infringe numerous claims of WRF’s patents, including (without limitation)

2

Asserted ‘068 Patent, ‘256 Patent, ‘963 Patent, ‘542 Patent, ‘225 Patent, and ‘238 Patent. WRF

3

placed Microsoft on notice of the 11/649,305 and 11/154,272 Applications at least as early as

4

October 29, 2004.

5

Application has since issued as the ‘542 Patent. The relevant claims are in substantially the

6

same form as they were published. Accordingly, WRF is entitled to provisional damages

7

against Logitech under 35 U.S.C. § 154(d).

8

37.

WRF’s

The ‘305 Application has since issued as the ‘963 Patent. The ‘272

Parrot manufactures, uses, imports, sells and/or offers for sale in the United

9

States products employing certain Wi-Fi radio chipsets (including at least the AR102 radio)

10

manufactured or sold by Atheros, Qualcomm, or Qualcomm-Atheros. Specifically, at least the

11

AR Drone made by Parrot, and likely others, are believed to use an infringing radio supplied by

12

Atheros, Qualcomm, or Qualcomm-Atheros. The manufacture, use, importation, sale and/or

13

offer for sale in the United States of products by Parrot that employ at least the identified chips

14

infringe numerous claims of WRF’s patents, including (without limitation) WRF’s Asserted

15

‘068 Patent, ‘256 Patent, ‘963 Patent, ‘542 Patent, ‘225 Patent, and ‘238 Patent. WRF placed

16

Parrot on notice of the 11/154,272 Application at least as early as December 4, 2007. The ‘272

17

Application has since issued as the ‘542 Patent. The relevant claims are in substantially the

18

same form as they were published. Accordingly, WRF is entitled to provisional damages

19

against Parrot under 35 U.S.C. § 154(d).

20

38.

Samsung manufactures, uses, imports, sells and/or offers for sale in the United

21

States products employing certain Wi-Fi radio chipsets (including at least the AR6002 and

22

AR9382 radios) manufactured or sold by Atheros, Qualcomm, or Qualcomm-Atheros.

23

Specifically, at least the following products made by Samsung, and likely others, are believed to

24

use an infringing radio supplied by Atheros, Qualcomm, or Qualcomm-Atheros:

25
COMPLAINT - 17

BLANK Law & Technology P.S.
157 Yester Way, Third Floor
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

1

a. Samsung’s Jack phone;

2

b. Samsung’s Propel Pro phone; and

3

c. Samsung’s Series 5 3G Chromebook.

4

The manufacture, use, importation, sale and/or offer for sale in the United States of products by

5

Samsung that employ at least the identified chips infringe numerous claims of WRF’s patents,

6

including (without limitation) WRF’s Asserted ‘068 Patent, ‘256 Patent, ‘963 Patent, ‘542

7

Patent, ‘225 Patent, and ‘238 Patent. WRF placed Samsung on notice of the 11/649,305 and

8

11/154,272 Applications at least as early as December 27, 2006. The ‘305 Application has since

9

issued as the ‘963 Patent. The ‘272 Application has since issued as the ‘542 Patent. The

10

relevant claims are in substantially the same form as they were published. Accordingly, WRF is

11

entitled to provisional damages against Samsung under 35 U.S.C. § 154(d).

12

39.

WRF will employ the tools of discovery to determine what, if any, other products

13

of the Alleged Direct infringers in the past six years use infringing chipsets manufactured or

14

sold by Atheros, Qualcomm, or Qualcomm-Atheros.

15

40.

Defendants’ use of chipsets that include inventions claimed in WRF’s Asserted

16

Patents significantly increases the sales price and revenue associated with those products. For

17

example, the infringing Wi-Fi chipsets enable Defendants’ products to communicate on Wi-Fi

18

networks. Without the infringing Wi-Fi chipsets, Defendants’ products would not be able to

19

communicate over wireless networks.

20

41.

Since at least the issuance of the Asserted Patents, Defendants have infringed the

21

Asserted Patents, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), with resultant damage to Washington

22

Research Foundation, in an amount to be proven at trial.

23
24

42.

In the alternative, Defendants have been on notice of the patents and applications

which issued as the Asserted Patents. Nevertheless, Defendants affirmatively sell, offer to sell,

25
COMPLAINT - 18

BLANK Law & Technology P.S.
157 Yester Way, Third Floor
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

1

encourage and intend for their customers to use their products in a manner that infringes on the

2

claimed methods of the Asserted Patents. Defendants’ conduct amounts to active inducement of

3

infringement in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), with resultant damage to Washington Research

4

Foundation, in an amount to be proven at trial.

5

43.

Moreover, Defendants, with actual knowledge of the Subject Patents and

6

Application, and without lawful justification, willfully and deliberately infringed at least the

7

Asserted Patents.

8

WHEREFORE, WASHINGTON RESEARCH FOUNDATION PRAYS FOR

9

43.

Judgment on the Complaint that Defendants, and each of them, have infringed,

10

or actively induced others to infringe U.S. Patents 6,427,068; 6,631,256; 7,116,963; 7,606,542;

11

7,853,225; and 7,925,238.

12

44.

An award of damages against Defendants, and each of them, adequate to

13

compensate Washington Research Foundation for past infringement of at least the Asserted

14

Patents, together with interest and costs as fixed by the Court, such damages to be trebled

15

because of the willful and deliberate character of the infringement;

16

45.

Judgment that this case is “exceptional” in the sense of 35 U.S.C. § 285, and that

17

Washington Research Foundation is entitled to an award of its reasonable attorneys’ fees in the

18

prosecution of this action; and

19

46.

20

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

21

Plaintiff hereby makes a demand for a trial by jury pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal

22
23

Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Rules of Civil Procedure as to all issues in this lawsuit.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 30th day of November, 2012.

24
25
COMPLAINT - 19

BLANK Law & Technology P.S.
157 Yester Way, Third Floor
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

1

BLANK LAW & TECHNOLOGY P.S.

2

By: _ /s/ C. Dean Little____________
C. Dean Little, WSBA No. 1269
Jonathan Yeh, WSBA No. 32734
157 Yesler Way, Third Floor
Seattle, WA 98104
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
Local Counsel for Plaintiff

3
4
5
6
7
8

Of Counsel (Pro Hac Vice Applications to be Submitted):
VICTORIA GRUVER CURTIN, P.L.C.

9
10

By: /s/ Victoria Curtin
Victoria Gruver Curtin
(Arizona Bar No. 010897)
14555 North Scottsdale Rd, Ste. 160
Scottsdale, Arizona 85254
Tel.: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Counsel for Plaintiff

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Steven G. Lisa
(Illinois Bar No. 6187348)
LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN G. LISA, LTD.
55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3210
Chicago, IL 60603
Tel : [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Counsel for Plaintiff

20
21
22
23
24

Gerald D. Hosier
(Nevada Bar No. 5023)
8904 Canyon Springs Drive
LasVegas, NV 89117
Tel.: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Counsel for Plaintiff

25
COMPLAINT - 20

BLANK Law & Technology P.S.
157 Yester Way, Third Floor
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]