Case 1:17-cv-01399-RGA Document 1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 1
`
`
`THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`IRONWORKS PATENTS, LLC,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`Civil Action No.
`
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
` This is an action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the United
`
`States, Title 35 of the United States Code, against Defendant Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) that relates
`
`to three U.S. patents owned by Ironworks Patents, LLC (“Ironworks”): 6,850,150; 8,847,734
`
`and RE39,231. In a patent infringement trial in this court, Case No. 10-cv-258-SLR, the jury
`
`found that RE39,231 was valid and infringed by Apple. The Court awarded Ironworks
`
`$10,723,926 ($0.125 per phone), including reasonable royalty damages and pre-judgment and
`
`post-judgment interest, based on infringement by iPhone 3G, iPhone 4 GSM, and iPhone 4
`
`CDMA. Royalties sought herein include damages for infringement of RE39,231 by
`
`subsequent models of the iPhone. Ironworks files this Complaint now, in an abundance of
`
`caution, for the purpose of preserving its rights to seek damages on those subsequent
`
`models of the iPhone.
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
` 
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01399-RGA Document 1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 2 of 14 PageID #: 2
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff Ironworks is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the
`
`State of Illinois, with an office at 125 S. Clark St., 17th Floor, Chicago, Illinois 60603.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant Apple is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
`
`state of California and has its principal place of business in Cupertino, California.
`
`3.
`
`Apple is engaged in the design, manufacture, marketing and sale of, among other
`
`things, smartphone and tablet devices, including but not limited to the iPhone 4s, iPhone 5,
`
`iPhone 5s, iPhone 5c, iPhone 6 (Plus), iPhone 6s (Plus), iPhone SE, iPhone 7 (Plus), iPhone 8
`
`(Plus), and iPhone X. Apple sells its devices throughout the United States and specifically in this
`
`district.
`
`4.
`
`Apple was found liable for patent infringement and judgment was entered against
`
`Apple in the civil action captioned, Ironworks Patents, LLC v. Apple, Inc., bearing Case No. 10-
`
`cv-258-SLR, which is pending appeal in the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`5.
`
`This Complaint states causes of action for patent infringement arising under the
`
`patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 100 et seq., and, more particularly 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`6.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction of this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331
`
`and 1338(a) in which the district courts have original and exclusive jurisdiction of any civil
`
`action for patent infringement.
`
`7.
`
`Apple is subject to this Court’s general personal jurisdiction pursuant to due
`
`process and/or the Delaware Long-Arm Statute, 10 Del. C. § 3104, due at least to its substantial
`
`business conducted in this District, including: (i) having transacted business within the State of
`
`Delaware and attempted to derive financial benefit from residents of the State of Delaware in this
`
` 
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01399-RGA Document 1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 3 of 14 PageID #: 3
`
`District, including benefits directly related to the instant patent infringement causes of action set
`
`forth herein; (ii) having placed its products and services into the stream of commerce throughout
`
`the United States and having been actively engaged in transacting business in Delaware and in
`
`this District, and (iii) having committed the complained of tortious acts in Delaware and in this
`
`District.
`
`8.
`
`Apple, directly and/or through subsidiaries and agents (including distributors,
`
`retailers, and others), makes, imports, ships, distributes, offers for sale, sells, uses, and advertises
`
`(including offering products and services through its website, https://www.apple.com) its
`
`products and services in the United States, the State of Delaware, and the District of Delaware.
`
`9.
`
`Apple, directly and/or through its subsidiaries and agents (including distributors,
`
`retailers, and others), has purposefully and voluntarily placed one or more of its infringing
`
`products and/or services, as described below, into the stream of commerce with the expectation
`
`that they will be purchased and used by consumers in the District of Delaware. These infringing
`
`products and/or services have been and continue to be purchased and used by consumers in the
`
`District of Delaware. Apple has committed acts of patent infringement within the State of
`
`Delaware and, more particularly, within the District of Delaware.
`
`10.
`
`This Court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over Apple is consistent with the
`
`Delaware Long-Arm Statute, 10 Del. C. § 3104, and traditional notions of fair play and
`
`substantial justice.
`
`11.
`
`Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. §1400(b) because the defendants
`
`have committed acts of infringement in this District (including for example, by selling the Apple
`
`Accused Devices to users in this District) and Apple, Inc. has a regular and established place of
`
`business in this District at 125 Stanton Christiana Road, Newark, DE 19702.
`
` 
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01399-RGA Document 1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 4 of 14 PageID #: 4
`
`BACKGROUND FACTS REGARDING THE IRONWORKS PATENTS
`
`12.
`
`Ironworks is the owner of record and assignee of each of U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`6,850,150; 8,847,734 and RE39,231 (collectively the “Patents-in-Suit”), attached as Exhibits A,
`
`B, and C, respectively.
`
`13.
`
`RE39,231, titled “Communication terminal equipment and call incoming control
`
`method,” was originally filed by, and assigned to, Sony Corporation (“Sony”).
`
`14.
`
`Sony, based in Japan, is one of the world’s largest consumer electronics and
`
`entertainment companies.
`
`15.
`
`Sony spends a significant amount of revenue on research and development. For
`
`example, Sony Corporation spent over $4 billion on research and development in each year from
`
`2012 -2016 (e.g., 468,183 million yen in 2016).
`
`16.
`
`Sony’s long history of innovation has resulted in the company being awarded
`
`more than 3,200 patents.
`
`17.
`
`The ’150 Patent, titled “Portable device”, was originally filed by, and assigned to,
`
`Nokia Mobile Phones Ltd. (“Nokia”). The ’734 Patent, titled “Method of giving the user
`
`information, portable device, and computer program product,” is a continuation of the ’150
`
`Patent.
`
`18.
`
`Nokia is a Finnish multinational communications and information technology
`
`company, and at one time was the world’s largest producer of mobile phones.
`
`19.
`
`For example, the world’s first mobile phone satellite call was made on a Nokia
`
`phone.
`
`20.
`
`For more than 20 years, Nokia has defined many of the fundamental technologies
`
`used in virtually all mobile devices and taken a leadership role in standards setting. As a result,
`
` 
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01399-RGA Document 1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 5 of 14 PageID #: 5
`
`Nokia owns a leading share of essential patents for GSM, 3G radio and 4G LTE technologies.
`
`These, together with other Nokia patents for Wi-Fi and video standards, form the core of Nokia’s
`
`patent portfolio.
`
`21.
`
`Nokia spends a significant amount of revenue on research and development. For
`
`example, Nokia spent about 4.9 billion Euros R&D investment in 2011 and 2016. Between
`
`1984 and 2014, Nokia has invested more than 50 billion Euros to create a portfolio of 30,000
`
`patents and patent applications.
`
`22.
`
`Nokia’s long history of innovation has resulted in the company being awarded
`
`more than 30,000 patents in more than 10,000 patent families.
`
`APPLE’S AWARENESS OF THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT
`
`23.
`
`The Patents-in-Suit were previously owned by MobileMedia Ideas, LLC
`
`(“MMI”).
`
`24.
`
`On February 19, 2010, MMI notified Apple by letter that its smartphone products
`
`have infringed and continue to infringe the ’150 Patent and RE39,231.
`
`25.
`
`On March 31, 2010, MMI sued Apple for the infringement of fourteen patents,
`
`including RE39,231.
`
`26.
`
`On September 9, 2016 the jury reached a verdict that RE39,231 was valid and
`
`infringed by Apple and granted MMI $3 million in damages, which reflected a per-unit royalty
`
`of approximately 4.2 cents/unit.
`
`27.
`
`On April 17, 2017, Ironworks filed an unopposed motion to Substitute Party and
`
`took over the ongoing litigation against Apple.
`
`28.
`
`On May 16, 2017, Ironworks informed Apple that its infringement of the ’150 and
`
`’734 patents was ongoing and presented a claim chart demonstrating infringement of the ’150
`
` 
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01399-RGA Document 1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 6 of 14 PageID #: 6
`
`patent in an in-person meeting.
`
`29.
`
`On June 15, 2017, this court issued a Final Judgment in favor of Ironworks
`
`Patents LLC against Apple Inc. for the infringement of RE39,231 and enhanced the damages
`
`award to $10,723,926.00, which included pre and post-judgement interest and reflected a 12.5
`
`cents/unit royalty rate.
`
`30.
`
`Apple has in the past and continues to directly infringe asserted claims of the
`
`Patents-in-Suit pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271 by making, using, selling and importing systems,
`
`devices, and apparatuses covered by the asserted patent claims identified below, including the
`
`Apple Accused Devices.
`
`COUNT I: INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. RE39,231 CLAIM 12
`
`31.
`
`Ironworks Patents incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs
`
`1 to 30 of this Complaint as though set forth in full herein.
`
`32.
`
`Claim 12 of RE39,231 Patent provides:
`
`Preamble
`to Claim 12
`
`Element A
`
`A communication terminal for informing a user of a received call from a
`remote caller by an alert sound, comprising:
`
`an alert sound generator for generating the alert sound when the call is
`received from the remote caller;
`
`control means for controlling said alert sound generator; and
`
`Element C means for specifying a predetermined operation by the user, wherein when
`said alert sound generator is generating the alert sound and said means for
`specifying said predetermined operation is operated by the user, said
`control means controls said alert sound generator to change a volume of the
`generated alert sound only for the received call, without affecting the
`volume of the alert sound for future received calls, while leaving a call
`ringing state, as perceived by the remote caller, of the call to the terminal
`from the remote caller unchanged,
`
`further comprising: RF signal processing means for transmitting and/or
`receiving radio waves; and an antenna for transmitting and/or receiving
`said radio waves, wherein said call ringing state between said apparatus
`
`Element B
`
`Element D
`
` 
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01399-RGA Document 1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 7 of 14 PageID #: 7
`
`and said remote caller is established by said transmitted and/or received
`radio waves.
`
`
`
`33.
`
`“Apple Accused Polite Ignore Devices” for purposes of this count include the
`
`iPhone 4s, iPhone 5, iPhone 5s, iPhone 5c, iPhone 6 (Plus), and iPhone 6s (Plus).
`
`34.
`
`Previous Apple iPhone models (e.g., iPhone 3 and 4) have already been found to
`
`infringe claim 12 and the Apple Accused Polite Ignore Devices work the same way, with regard
`
`to this claim, as the devices already determined to be infringing.
`
`35.
`
`Apple Accused Polite Ignore Devices are communication terminals for informing
`
`a user of a received call from a remote caller by an alert sound (e.g., a ringtone).
`
`36.
`
`Apple Accused Polite Ignore Devices include an alert sound generator (e.g.,
`
`speaker) for generating the ringtone when the call is received from the remote caller.
`
`37.
`
`Apple Accused Polite Ignore Devices include control means for controlling said
`
`alert sound generator.
`
`38.
`
`Apple Accused Polite Ignore Devices include means for specifying a
`
`predetermined operation by the user (e.g., pushing a volume button).
`
`39. When the alert sound generator is generating the ringtone and the means for
`
`specifying the predetermined operation is operated by the user, the control means controls the
`
`alert sound generator to change a volume of the ringtone (e.g., silence the ringtone) only for the
`
`received call, without affecting the volume of the ringtone for future received calls.
`
`40.
`
`The call ringing state, as perceived by the remote caller, of the call to the terminal
`
`from the remote caller remains unchanged (i.e., silencing the incoming call ringtone does not
`
`send the call to voicemail).
`
`41.
`
`Apple Accused Polite Ignore Devices include RF signal processing means for
`
` 
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01399-RGA Document 1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 8 of 14 PageID #: 8
`
`transmitting and/or receiving radio waves and an antenna for transmitting and/or receiving the
`
`radio waves, wherein the call ringing state between the apparatus and the remote caller is
`
`established by the transmitted and/ or received radio waves.
`
`42.
`
`Apple directly infringes claim 12 of RE39,231 by manufacturing and selling
`
`Apple Accused Polite Ignore Devices.
`
`43.
`
`Apple sold the Apple Accused Polite Ignore Devices knowing that Apple has
`
`infringed at least claim 12 of RE39,231 under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) directly from October 7, 2011
`
`until the expiration of the patent.
`
`44.
`
`Apple’s conduct between October 7, 2011 and the expiration of RE39,231 is the
`
`subject of the prior Jury Verdict and Final Judgment of infringement by this Court.
`
`45.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Apple’s acts of patent infringement, Ironworks
`
`Patents has been injured and has sustained damages.
`
`COUNT II: INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. RE39,231 CLAIM 2
`
`46.
`
`Ironworks Patents incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs
`
`1 to 45 of this Complaint as though set forth in full herein.
`
`47.
`
`Claim 2 of RE39,231 provides:
`
`Element A The communication terminal according to claim 12, wherein said control
`means controls the state of said alert sound generator to stop the sound.
`
`
`
`
`48.
`
`“Apple Accused Polite Ignore Devices” for purposes of this count include the
`
`iPhone 4s, iPhone 5, iPhone 5s, iPhone 5c, iPhone 6 (Plus), and iPhone 6s (Plus).
`
`49.
`
`Previous Apple iPhone models (e.g., iPhone 3 and 4) have already been found to
`
`infringe claim 2 and the Apple Accused Polite Ignore Devices work the same way, with regard to
`
`this claim, as the devices already determined to be infringing.
`
` 
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01399-RGA Document 1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 9 of 14 PageID #: 9
`
`50.
`
`Apple Accused Polite Ignore Devices are telecommunications terminals wherein
`
`the control means controls the state of the alert sound generator to stop the sound (e.g., mute or
`
`silence the ringtone).
`
`51.
`
`Apple directly infringes claim 2 of RE39,231 by manufacturing and selling Apple
`
`Accused Polite Ignore Devices.
`
`52.
`
`Apple sold the Apple Accused Polite Ignore Devices knowing that Apple has
`
`infringed at least claim 12 of RE39,231 under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) directly from October 7, 2011
`
`until the expiration of the patent.
`
`53.
`
`Apple’s conduct between October 7, 2011 and the expiration of RE39,231 is
`
`subject to the terms of the prior Jury Verdict and Final Judgment of infringement by this Court.
`
`54.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Apple’s acts of patent infringement, Ironworks
`
`Patents has been injured and has sustained damages.
`
`COUNT III: INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT ’150 CLAIM 1
`
`55.
`
`Ironworks Patents incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs
`
`1 to 54 of this Complaint as though set forth in full herein.
`
`56.
`
`Claim 1 of the ’150 Patent provides:
`
`Preamble
`to Claim 1
`
`Element A
`
`Element B
`
`
`Element C
`
`
`Element D
`
`A portable device, comprising:
`
`
`control means for monitoring and controlling the operation of the device;
`
`and a user interface which comprises alarm means for performing a silent
`alarm producing a silent, invisible, tactile sensation in the user;
`
`wherein the control means are arranged to give the user abstract
`information on multiple internal operational events of the device by using
`various alarm patterns of silent, invisible sensations produced by the
`alarm means and sensed by the user,
`
`the alarm patterns differing from one another such that at least one alarm
`
` 
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01399-RGA Document 1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 10 of 14 PageID #: 10
`
`
`
`
`
`pattern characteristic sensed by the user varies, said abstract information
`comprising a notification of a selected item on a menu of the user
`interface.
`
`
`57.
`
`“Apple Accused Tactile Alert Devices” for purposes of this count include the
`
`iPhone 4s, iPhone 5, iPhone 5s, iPhone 5c, iPhone 6 (Plus), iPhone 6s (Plus), iPhone SE, iPhone
`
`7 (Plus), iPhone 8 (Plus), and iPhone X.
`
`58.
`
`Apple Accused Tactile Alert Devices are portable devices as described in this
`
`claim.
`
`59.
`
`Apple Accused Tactile Alert Devices include a control means (e.g., a
`
`microprocessor with iOS software) for monitoring and controlling the operation of the device.
`
`60.
`
`Apple Accused Tactile Alert Devices include a user interface, which includes
`
`alarm means (e.g., a Taptic Engine) for performing a silent alarm producing a silent, invisible,
`
`tactile sensation (e.g., vibration) in the user.
`
`61.
`
`Apple Accused Tactile Alert Devices’ microprocessor and iOS are arranged to
`
`give the user abstract information on multiple internal operational events of the device by using
`
`various vibration patterns produced by the Taptic Engine and sensed by the user.
`
`62.
`
`Apple Accused Tactile Alert Devices’ vibration patterns differ from one another
`
`so that the vibration characteristics sensed by the user varies.
`
`63.
`
`The various vibration patterns (e.g., “System Haptics”) give iPhone users abstract
`
`information on internal operational events of the device, including a notification of a selected
`
`item on a menu of the user interface (e.g., selection of a date or letter in an iPhone app).
`
`64.
`
`Apple directly infringes claim 1 of the ’150 Patent by manufacturing and selling
`
`Apple Accused Tactile Alert Devices.
`
` 
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01399-RGA Document 1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 11 of 14 PageID #: 11
`
`65.
`
`Apple makes, uses, and/or imports the Apple Accused Tactile Alert Devices
`
`knowing that Apple has infringed and continues to infringe at least claim 1 of the ’150 Patent
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) directly.
`
`66.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Apple’s acts of patent infringement, Ironworks
`
`Patents has been and continues to be injured and has sustained, and will continue to sustain,
`
`damages.
`
`COUNT IV: INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT ’734 CLAIM 1
`
`67.
`
`Ironworks Patents incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs
`
`1 to 66 of this Complaint as though set forth in full herein.
`
`68.
`
`Claim 1 of the ’734 Patent provides:
`
`Preamble
`to Claim 1
`
`Element A
`
`
`Element B
`
`Element C
`
`
`Element D
`
`
`
`
`A mobile station comprising:
`
`
`a user interface configured to enable a user to control operation of the
`mobile station by manual input and to obtain information on the operation
`of the mobile station,
`
`a tactile alert device configured to generate a tactile vibration, and
`
`a control circuit configured to control the tactile alert device to generate a
`first tactile vibration with a first pattern in response to a first event and a
`second tactile vibration with a second pattern that is distinctly humanly
`perceptibly different from the first pattern in response to a second event
`different from the first event,
`
`wherein one of the events is user entry of an incorrect personal
`identification number code.
`
`
`69.
`
`“Apple Accused Haptic Feedback Devices” for purposes of this count include the
`
`iPhone 6s (Plus), iPhone SE, iPhone 7 (Plus), iPhone 8 (Plus), and iPhone X.
`
`70.
`
`Apple Accused Haptic Feedback Devices are mobile stations as described in this
`
` 
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01399-RGA Document 1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 12 of 14 PageID #: 12
`
`claim.
`
`71.
`
`Apple Accused Haptic Feedback Devices include a user interface that is
`
`configured to enable a user to control operation of the mobile station by manual input (e.g.,
`
`touching the touchscreen) and to obtain information on the operation of the mobile station (e.g.,
`
`when a phone call is incoming).
`
`72.
`
`Apple Accused Haptic Feedback Devices include a tactile alert device (e.g., a
`
`linear actuator or Taptic Engine) configured to generate a tactile vibration.
`
`73.
`
`Apple Accused Haptic Feedback Devices include a control circuit configured to
`
`control the tactile alert device. The linear actuator or Taptic Engine can generate a first tactile
`
`vibration with a first pattern (e.g., “Heartbeat”) in response to a first event (e.g., an incoming
`
`call) and a second tactile vibration with a second pattern (e.g., “Staccato”) that is distinctly
`
`humanly perceptibly different from the first pattern in response to a second event (e.g., entry of
`
`an incorrect PIN).
`
`74.
`
`Apple Accused Haptic Feedback Devices vibrate in a distinct pattern when an
`
`incorrect personal identification number code (e.g., “pass code”) has been entered.
`
`75.
`
`Apple directly infringes claim 1 of the ’734 Patent by manufacturing and selling
`
`Apple Accused Haptic Feedback Devices.
`
`76.
`
`Apple makes, uses, and/or imports the Apple Accused Haptic Feedback Devices
`
`knowing that Apple has infringed and continues to infringe at least claim 1 of the ’734 Patent
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) directly.
`
`77.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Apple’s acts of patent infringement, Ironworks
`
`Patents has been and continues to be injured and has sustained, and will continue to sustain,
`
`damages.
`
` 
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01399-RGA Document 1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 13 of 14 PageID #: 13
`
`
`
`WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT
`
`78.
`
`Apple has infringed and continues to infringe the above identified claims of each
`
`of the Patents-in-Suit despite its knowledge of the ’150 and RE39,231 by February 2010; its
`
`specific knowledge that prior iPhone models infringe RE39,231; its specific knowledge of how
`
`Apple infringes the ’150 and ’734 Patents since at least May 2017; and the objectively high
`
`likelihood that its acts constitute patent infringement.
`
`79.
`
`Apple’s infringement of the Patents-in-Suit is willful and deliberate, entitling
`
`Ironworks to enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
`
`80.
`
`Apple’s willful infringement and unwillingness to enter into license negotiations
`
`with Ironworks make this an exceptional case such that Ironworks should be entitled to recover
`
`its attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in relation to this matter pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §285.
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`Ironworks demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Ironworks requests that this Court enter judgment in its favor
`
`and against Apple as follows:
`
`A.
`
`Adjudging, finding, and declaring that Apple has infringed of the above-identified
`
`claims of each of the Patents-in-Suit under 35 U.S.C. § 271;
`
`B.
`
`Awarding the past and future damages arising out of Apple’s infringement of the
`
`Patents-in-Suit to Ironworks in an amount no less than a reasonable royalty, together with
`
`prejudgment and post-judgment interest, in an amount according to proof;
`
`C.
`
`Awarding reasonable royalty damages arising out of Apple’s acts of
`
` 
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01399-RGA Document 1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 14 of 14 PageID #: 14
`
` infringement under at least Counts I and II between October 7, 2011 and the expiration of
`
`RE39,231, at a rate not less than that used by the Court to enhance the jury verdict, 12.5
`
`cents/unit, together with pre-judgment interest thereon to the date of entry of judgment;
`
`D.
`
`Adjudging, finding, and declaring that Apple’s infringement is willful and
`
`enhanced damages and fees as a result of that willfulness under 35 U.S.C. § 284;
`
`E.
`
`Adjudging, finding, and declaring that this is an “exceptional” case pursuant to 35
`
`U.S.C. § 285;
`
`F.
`
`Awarding attorney’s fees, costs, or other damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 284 or
`
`285 or as otherwise permitted by law; and
`
`G.
`
`Granting Ironworks such other further relief as is just and proper, or as the Court
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`FARNAN LLP
`
`/s/ Michael J. Farnan
`Brian E. Farnan (Bar No. 4089)
`Michael J. Farnan (Bar No. 5165)
`919 N. Market St., 12th Floor
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Telephone: (302) 777-0300
`bfarnan@farnanlaw.com
`mfarnan@farnanlaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff,
`Ironworks Patents, LLC
`
`deems appropriate.
`
`
`
`Dated: October 6, 2017
`
`Of Counsel:
`
`David Berten
`Alison Aubry Richards
`Global IP Law Group, LLC
`55 W. Monroe St., Ste. 3400
`Chicago, Illinois 60603
`Phone: 312.241.1500
`dberten@giplg.com
`arichards@giplg.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 
`
`
`
`14
`
`