Case 3:16-cv-00395-H-WVG Document 1 Filed 06/03/15 Page 1 of 7
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:15-cv-946
`
`Jury Trial Demanded
`
`
`
`FASTVDO LLC,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`DELL INC.; SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
`AMERICA, INC.; SAMSUNG
`ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.; and SAMSUNG
`TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA LLC
`
`
`
` Defendant.
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`In this action for patent infringement, Plaintiff FastVDO LLC (“FastVDO”) makes the
`
`following allegations against Dell Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics
`
`America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, “Defendants”):
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`1.
`
`Data compression and decompression techniques are commonly applied in order
`
`to transmit large amounts of data, such as audio or image data, over channels with limited
`
`bandwidth or to store data in limited memory space. Compressed data, however, is highly
`
`susceptible to errors that can result in catastrophic effects on the reconstructed data, thereby
`
`necessitating the implementation of error protection techniques. Such error protection, however,
`
`decreases the efficiency of the data transmission and can result in delays.
`
`2.
`
`In 1992, James Meany and Christopher Martens, while working in the aerospace
`
`and defense industry, began a project to develop a reduced bandwidth digital data link for use in
`
`man-in-the-loop missile control systems. This was part of a larger effort called the Advanced
`
`Terminal Guidance (“ATG”) project.
`
`

`
`Case 3:16-cv-00395-H-WVG Document 1 Filed 06/03/15 Page 2 of 7
`
`3.
`
`Error correction and detection was essential to handle channel errors on the link in
`
`these highly sensitive and important aerospace and defense projects. Meany and Martens, in
`
`working to address error vulnerabilities, further developed an entirely new error resilient coding
`
`scheme that achieves improved error resilience while providing better coding efficiency than
`
`previous coding methods. Consequently, their systems and methods included novel approaches
`
`using unequal error-protection coding and were successful in increasing overall throughput over
`
`an error-protected link.
`
`4.
`
`In early 1995, Meany and Martens diligently began preparations to seek patent
`
`protection for their inventions, and filed a patent application with the United States Patent and
`
`Trademark Office (“USPTO”) on April 17, 1996. On December 15, 1998, the USPTO issued
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,850,482 (the “’482 patent”), entitled “Error Resilient Method and Apparatus
`
`for Entropy Coding.” Since then, the ’482 patent has been cited in at least 127 other U.S. patents
`
`or patent applications.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`5.
`
`FastVDO is a Florida limited liability corporation with a principal place of
`
`business at 3097 Cortona Drive, Melbourne, Florida 32940.
`
`6.
`with its principal place of business at One Dell Way, Round Rock, Texas 78682.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Dell Inc. (“Dell”) is a Delaware corporation
`
`7.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“SEC”) is a
`
`corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Public of Korea with a principal place
`
`of business at 416, Maetan 3-dong, Yeongtong-gu, Suwon-si, Gyeonggi-do 443-742, South
`
`Korea.
`
`8.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`
`(“SEA”) is a subsidiary of SEC, and is a New York corporation with a principal place of
`
`business at 85 Challenger Road, Ridgefield Park, New Jersey 07660.
`
`9.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Samsung Telecommunications America,
`
`LLC (“Samsung Telecom”) is a Delaware limited liability company with a principal place of
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`Case 3:16-cv-00395-H-WVG Document 1 Filed 06/03/15 Page 3 of 7
`
`business at 1301 East Lookout Drive, Richardson, Texas 75082. Hereafter, SEC, SEA, and
`
`Samsung Telecom are collectively referred to as “Samsung.”
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`10.
`
`This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.,
`
`including § 271.
`
`11.
`
`12.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants in this action because
`
`Defendants have committed acts within this District giving rise to this action and have
`
`established minimum contacts with this forum such that the exercise of jurisdiction over
`
`Defendants would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Defendants,
`
`directly and through subsidiaries or intermediaries (including distributors, retailers, and others),
`
`have committed and continue to commit acts of infringement in this District by, among other
`
`things, making, using, importing, offering for sale, and/or selling products that infringe the
`
`asserted patent, and inducing others to infringe the asserted patent.
`
`13.
`
` Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)-(d) and 1400(b)
`
`because, among other reasons, Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in this District, and
`
`Defendants have committed and continue to commit acts of patent infringement in this District.
`
`COUNT I
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,850,482
`
`14.
`
`FastVDO incorporates by reference the allegations in the foregoing paragraphs,
`
`and further alleges as follows:
`
`15.
`
`FastVDO is the owner by assignment of the ’482 Patent, a true and correct copy
`
`of which is attached as Exhibit A to this Complaint.
`
`16.
`
`The ’482 patent relates to methods and apparatuses for compressing and
`
`decompressing data by entropy encoding and decoding. More particularly, the ’482 patent
`
`provides, for example, improved error-resilient methods and apparatuses for encoding and
`
`decoding that utilize unequal error protection techniques. These techniques include, inter alia,
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case 3:16-cv-00395-H-WVG Document 1 Filed 06/03/15 Page 4 of 7
`
`generating a plurality of code words representative of respective portions of the data and
`
`providing error protection to at least one of the first portions of the plurality of code words while
`
`maintaining any error protection provided to one or more other portions of the data at a lower
`
`level than the error protection provided to the respective first portion.
`
`17.
`
`Samsung, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, has infringed and continues to directly
`
`infringe one or more claims of the ’482 patent, in this District and elsewhere in the United States,
`
`by manufacturing, using, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing products that utilize, for
`
`example, unequal error-protection coding, including products that comply with Adaptive Multi-
`
`Rate (“AMR”) and Adaptive Multi-Rate, Wide-Band (“AMR-WB”) protocols, such as the
`
`Samsung Galaxy smartphone and tablet series, and any such reasonably similar products
`
`(collectively, the “Accused Devices”). Samsung has committed these acts of infringement
`
`without license or authorization.
`
`18.
`
`On information and belief, Samsung knew of the ’482 patent prior to the filing of
`
`this suit, and therefore has infringed and continues to infringe the ’482 patent willfully under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 284. The ’482 patent is identified in at least two of the Samsung’s own patents in the
`
`same field of technology, including U.S. Patent No. 7,778,477, which issued to SEC on August
`
`17, 2010, and U.S. Patent No. 7,860,322, which issued to SEC on December 28, 2010.
`
`Samsung, with knowledge of the ’482 patent, acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its
`
`manufacturing, using, selling, offering for sale, and importing the Accused Devices infringed
`
`FastVDO’s valid ’482 patent.
`
`19.
`
`Samsung also indirectly infringes the ’482 patent by inducing infringement by
`
`others, such as manufacturers, resellers, and/or end-users of the Accused Devices, of one or more
`
`claims of the ’482 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271. On information and belief, Samsung
`
`knew of the ’482 Patent and knew of its infringement, including by way of this lawsuit.
`
`Samsung’s affirmative acts in this District of, inter alia, selling the Accused Devices and causing
`
`the Accused Devices to be manufactured and distributed, and providing instruction manuals, user
`
`manuals, and advertising pamphlets for, and describing the operation of, the Accused Devices,
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case 3:16-cv-00395-H-WVG Document 1 Filed 06/03/15 Page 5 of 7
`
`have induced and continue to induce Samsung’s manufacturers, resellers, and/or end-users to
`
`use, sell, offer for sale, and/or import the Accused Devices in their normal and customary way to
`
`infringe the ’482 patent. Samsung specifically intended and was aware that these normal and
`
`customary activities would infringe the ’482 patent. Samsung performed the acts that constitute
`
`induced infringement, and would induce actual infringement, with the knowledge of the ’482
`
`patent and with knowledge, or willful blindness to the probability, that the induced acts would
`
`constitute infringement.
`
`20.
`
`Dell, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, has infringed and continues to directly
`
`infringe one or more claims of the ’482 patent, in this District and elsewhere in the United States,
`
`by manufacturing, using, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing the Accused Devices,
`
`including by selling and offering for sale the Samsung Galaxy smartphone and tablet series on its
`
`website www.dell.com. Dell has committed these acts of infringement without license or
`
`authorization.
`
`21.
`
`Dell also indirectly infringes the ’482 patent by inducing infringement by others,
`
`such as manufacturers, resellers, and/or end-users of the Accused Devices, of one or more claims
`
`of the ’482 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271. On information and belief, Dell knew of the
`
`’482 Patent and knew of its infringement, including by way of this lawsuit. Dell’s affirmative
`
`acts in this District of, inter alia, selling the Accused Devices and causing the Accused Devices
`
`to be manufactured and distributed, and providing instruction manuals, user manuals, and
`
`advertising pamphlets for, and describing the operation of, the Accused Devices, have induced
`
`and continue to induce Dell’s manufacturers, resellers, and/or end-users to use, sell, offer for
`
`sale, and/or import the Accused Devices in their normal and customary way to infringe the ’482
`
`patent. Dell specifically intended and was aware that these normal and customary activities
`
`would infringe the ’482 patent. Dell performed the acts that constitute induced infringement, and
`
`would induce actual infringement, with the knowledge of the ’482 patent and with knowledge, or
`
`willful blindness to the probability, that the induced acts would constitute infringement.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case 3:16-cv-00395-H-WVG Document 1 Filed 06/03/15 Page 6 of 7
`
`22.
`
`By engaging in the conduct described herein, Defendants have injured FastVDO
`
`and are thus liable for infringement of one or more claims of the ’482 patent under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`271.
`
`23.
`
`As a result of Defendants’ infringement of the ’482 patent, FastVDO has been
`
`damaged and is entitled to a money judgment in an amount adequate to compensate for
`
`Defendants’ infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the
`
`invention by Defendants, together with interest and costs as fixed by the Court.
`
`
`
`FastVDO respectfully requests the following relief from this Court:
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`A judgment in favor of FastVDO that Defendants have infringed the ’482 patent;
`
`A judgment and order requiring Defendants to pay FastVDO its damages, costs,
`
`expenses, and pre-judgment and post-judgment
`
`interest for Defendants’
`
`infringement of the ’482 patent as provided under 35 U.S.C. § 284;
`
`C.
`
`A judgment and order finding that Defendants have willfully infringed the ’482
`
`patent and awarding FastVDO up to three times the amount of its actual damages
`
`for Defendants’ willful infringement, as authorized by 35 U.S.C. § 284;
`
`D.
`
`A judgment and order finding that this is an exceptional case within the meaning
`
`of 35 U.S.C. § 285 and awarding to FastVDO its reasonable attorneys’ fees
`
`against Defendants;
`
`E.
`
`Any and all other relief to which FastVDO may be entitled.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, FastVDO requests a trial by
`
`jury of any issues so triable by right.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 3:16-cv-00395-H-WVG Document 1 Filed 06/03/15 Page 7 of 7
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`
`
`By: /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: charley@pbatyler.com
`E-mail: rcbunt@pbatyler.com
`
`DATED: June 3, 2015
`
`
`
` RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Marc A. Fenster (CA SBN 181067)
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Reza Mirzaie (CA SBN 246953)
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 12424 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Los Angeles, California 90025
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Telephone: (310) 826-7474
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Facsimile: (310) 826-6991
`
`
`
`
`
`
` mfenster@raklaw.com
`
` rmirzaie@raklaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Attorneys for Plaintiff FastVDO LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`6