Case: 1:22-cv-03535 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/07/22 Page 1 of 130 PageID #:1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`EASTERN DIVISION
`
`
`GESTURE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS,
`LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO.
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiff Gesture Technology Partners, LLC (“GTP” or “Plaintiff”) files this original
`
`complaint against Motorola Mobility LLC (“Motorola” or “Defendant”) alleging, based on its own
`
`knowledge as to itself and its own actions, and based on information and belief as to all other
`
`matters, as follows:
`
`PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Gesture Technology Partners, LLC is a limited liability company filed under the
`
`laws of the State of Ohio, with its principal place of business at 2815 Joelle Drive, Toledo, OH
`
`43617.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant Motorola Mobility LLC is a Delaware limited liability company, with
`
`its principal place of business at 222 W. Merchandise Mart Plaza, Suite 1800, Chicago, Illinois
`
`60654.
`
`3.
`
`Motorola may be served through its registered agent, The Corporation Trust
`
`Company at Corporation Trust Center, 1209 Orange St., Wilmington, Delaware, 19801.
`
`4.
`
`Motorola, an indirect subsidiary of Lenovo Group Limited, is involved in the
`
`development and sale of hardware and software relating to mobile products, such as smartphones.
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-03535 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/07/22 Page 2 of 130 PageID #:2
`
`5.
`
`Motorola designs, manufactures, makes, uses, imports into the United States, sells,
`
`and/or offers for sale in the United States smartphones. Motorola’s smartphones are marketed,
`
`used, offered for sale, and/or sold throughout the United States, including within this district.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`6.
`
`GTP repeats and re-alleges the allegations in Paragraphs 1-5 as though fully set
`
`forth in their entirety.
`
`7.
`
`This is an action for infringement of United States patents arising under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 271, 281, and 284–85, among others. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction of the action
`
`under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and § 1338(a).
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1400(b) and 1391(c).
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Motorola pursuant to due process because,
`
`inter alia, (i) Motorola has done and continues to do business in Illinois; (ii) Motorola has
`
`committed and continues to commit acts of patent infringement in the State of Illinois, including
`
`making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling accused products in Illinois, and/or importing
`
`accused products into Illinois, including by Internet sales and/or sales via retail and wholesale
`
`stores, inducing others to commit acts of patent infringement in Illinois, and/or committing at least
`
`a portion of any other infringements alleged herein in Illinois; and (iii) Motorola regularly places
`
`its products within the stream of commerce—directly, through subsidiaries, or through third
`
`parties—with the expectation and knowledge that such products will be shipped to, sold, or used
`
`in Illinois and elsewhere in the United States. Thus, Motorola has established minimum contacts
`
`within Illinois and purposefully availed itself of the benefits of Illinois, and the exercise of personal
`
`jurisdiction over Motorola would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-03535 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/07/22 Page 3 of 130 PageID #:3
`
`10.
`
`Venue is proper in this district as to Motorola under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). Venue
`
`is further proper as to Motorola because it has committed and continues to commit acts of patent
`
`infringement in this district, including making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling accused
`
`products in this district, and/or importing accused products into this district, including by Internet
`
`sales and/or sales via retail and wholesale stores, and inducing others to commit acts of patent
`
`infringement in this district.
`
`11.
`
`Furthermore, Motorola has a regular and established place of business in this
`
`district, including at least at 222 W. Merchandise Mart Plaza, Suite 1800, Chicago, Illinois, 60654.
`
`THE TECHNOLOGY
`
`12.
`
`GTP repeats and re-alleges the allegations in Paragraphs 1-11 as though fully set
`
`forth in their entirety.
`
`13.
`
`GTP was founded in 2013 by Dr. Timothy Pryor, the sole inventor of the four
`
`Asserted Patents. He currently resides in Toledo, Ohio. Dr. Pryor received a B.S. in Engineering
`
`Physics from Johns Hopkins University in 1962, where he was also a member of the Army Reserve
`
`Officer in Training (ROTC) program. Upon graduation, he was commissioned as a Second
`
`Lieutenant in the United States Army. Dr. Pryor continued his education, obtaining an M.S. in
`
`Physics from the University of Illinois (1964) and a Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering from the
`
`University of Windsor (1972).
`
`14.
`
`Dr. Pryor rose to the rank of Captain in the U.S. Army before his honorable
`
`discharge in 1967. Dr. Pryor served at the U.S. Army Aberdeen Proving Ground and in Italy,
`
`commanding missile teams supporting the Italian armed forces on a NATO anti-aircraft missile
`
`site, charged with guarding nuclear warheads and providing technical assistance to NATO.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-03535 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/07/22 Page 4 of 130 PageID #:4
`
`15.
`
`Dr. Pryor is a named inventor on over 200 patents and patent applications. For the
`
`past four decades, he has been a pioneer in laser sensing technology, motion sensing technology,
`
`machine vision technology and camera-based interactive technology.
`
`16.
`
`Since the 1970’s, Dr. Pryor has founded and led three other companies: two small
`
`operating companies in the automotive parts inspection and robotics businesses, one company that
`
`developed new forms of vehicle instrument panel controls, and co-founded another company that
`
`utilized camera-based sensors for physical therapy. Dr. Pryor is responsible for a significant
`
`amount of the research and development for the technologies at these companies.
`
`17.
`
`The patents-in-suit, U.S. Patent Nos. 8,194,924 (the “’924 patent”), 7,933,431 (the
`
`“’431 patent”), 8,878,949 (the “’949 patent”), and 8,553,079 (the “’079 patent”) (collectively, the
`
`“Asserted Patents”), are generally directed to innovations in using mobile phone cameras to assist
`
`a user to interact with their smartphone, including, for example, but not limited to unlocking their
`
`phone, taking and using photos or videos, and providing other functions.
`
`18.
`
`Dr. Pryor conceived of the inventions embodied in the Asserted Patents in the mid-
`
`to late-1990s, when he was working on a variety of different projects related to imaging and
`
`computer control. Dr. Pryor describes the process as a brainstorm that led to several breakthrough
`
`moments, ultimately resulting in the Asserted Patents.
`
`THE ACCUSED PRODUCTS
`
`19.
`
`GTP repeats and re-alleges the allegations in Paragraphs 1-18 as though fully set
`
`forth in their entirety.
`
`20.
`
`Motorola infringed the asserted patents by making, using, selling, offering to sell,
`
`and importing its smartphones and tablets including, but not limited to the Motorola One Fusion+,
`
`the Motorola One 5G, the Motorola One Zoom, the Motorola One Action, the Motorola One
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-03535 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/07/22 Page 5 of 130 PageID #:5
`
`Hyper, the Motorola G Stylus, the Motorola G Power, the Motorola G Fast, and the Motorola E
`
`(collectively the “Accused Products”).
`
`EXAMPLES OF MOTOROLA’S MARKETING OF THE FEATURES
`
`21.
`
`The Accused Products have features including, but not limited to, at least the
`
`following: Auto Smile Capture, Shot Optimization, Smart Composition, Portrait Mode, Cutout,
`
`Live Filter, Best Shot, Google Lens Integration, AR Sticker, Electronic Image Stabilization, Face
`
`Beauty, Attentive Display, Group Selfie, Gesture Selfie, and facial recognition (the “Features”).
`
`22.
`
`23.
`
`The Features drive the popularity and sales of the Accused Products.
`
`For example, Motorola has marketed the Accused Products using Auto Smile
`
`Capture to automatically take photos when everyone is the frame is smiling, as described in the
`
`following screenshot from Motorola’s website:1
`
`
`
`
`1 Motorola
`Power,
`g
`moto
`at
`available
`Ltd.,
`Co.,
`Electronics
`https://www.motorola.com/us/smartphones-moto-g-power-gen-2/p (last accessed February 7,
`2022).
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-03535 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/07/22 Page 6 of 130 PageID #:6
`
`24.
`
`Motorola has marketed its Accused Products using Shot Optimization to obtain the
`
`best quality photos, as described in the following screenshot from Motorola’s website:2
`
`25.
`
`Motorola has marketed its Accused Products using functions in taking photos and
`
`videos, such as the gesture control in its front-facing camera, as described in the following
`
`screenshot from Motorola’s website:3
`
`
`
`
`2 Motorola
`Power,
`g
`moto
`at
`available
`Ltd.,
`Co.,
`Electronics
`https://www.motorola.com/us/smartphones-moto-g-power-gen-2/p (last accessed February 7,
`2022).
`3 Motorola Electronics Co., Ltd., Taking selfies - motorola one 5G, available at
`https://support.motorola.com/us/en/Solution/MS153524 (last accessed February 7, 2022).
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-03535 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/07/22 Page 7 of 130 PageID #:7
`
`26.
`
`Motorola has marketed its Accused Products using attentive display to keep the
`
`Accused Product’s screen on when looking at it, as described in the following screenshot from
`
`Motorola’s website:4
`
`
`
`COUNT I
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,194,924
`
`
`
`27.
`
`GTP repeats and re-alleges the allegations in Paragraphs 1-26 as though fully set
`
`forth in their entirety.
`
`28.
`
`GTP owns all substantial rights, interest, and title in and to the ’924 patent,
`
`including the sole and exclusive right to prosecute this action and enforce the ’924 patent against
`
`infringers, and to collect damages for all relevant times. The United States Patent and Trademark
`
`
`4 Motorola Electronics Co., Ltd., Display settings - motorola one 5G ACE, available at
`https://support.motorola.com/us/en/Solution/MS156753 (last accessed February 7, 2022).
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-03535 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/07/22 Page 8 of 130 PageID #:8
`
`Office duly issued the ’924 patent on June 5, 2012. A copy of the ’924 patent is attached as Exhibit
`
`A.
`
`29.
`
`The ’924 patent is titled “Camera Based Sensing in Handheld, Mobile, Gaming or
`
`Other Devices.” The ’924 patent describes using a camera output such that the handheld device’s
`
`computer performs a control function on the device, such as acquiring or taking images, reading
`
`things, determining data, transmitting data, printing data, and actuating a vehicle or function.
`
`30.
`
`31.
`
`The claims of the ’924 patent are not directed to an abstract idea.
`
`Motorola has directly infringed (literally or under the doctrine of equivalents) at
`
`least Claim 1 of the ’924 patent.
`
`32.
`
`Motorola has infringed the ’924 patent by making, using, selling, offering for sale,
`
`and importing the Accused Products.
`
`33.
`
`The Accused Products are handheld devices with a housing and a computer,
`
`including but not limited to one or more System-on-Chips.
`
`34.
`
`The Accused Products have at least one first camera oriented to view a user of the
`
`Accused Product. The first camera has an output when used.
`
`35.
`
`The Accused Products have at least one second camera oriented to view an object
`
`other than the user. The second camera has an output when used.
`
`36.
`
`The first and second cameras of the Accused Products have non-overlapping fields
`
`of view.
`
`37.
`
`The computer of the Accused Products is adapted to perform a control function,
`
`such as the control functions associated with the Features, based on an output of either the first
`
`camera or the second camera.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-03535 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/07/22 Page 9 of 130 PageID #:9
`
`38.
`
`Plaintiff has been damaged as a result of the infringing conduct by Motorola alleged
`
`above. Thus, Motorola is liable to Plaintiff in an amount that compensates it for such
`
`infringements, which by law cannot be less than a reasonable royalty, together with interest and
`
`costs as fixed by this Court under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
`
`39.
`
`Plaintiff has satisfied all statutory obligations required to collect pre-filing damages
`
`for the full period allowed by law for infringement of the ’924 patent.
`
`40.
`
`Plaintiff has not offered for sale nor sold any product implicated by 35 U.S.C. §
`
`287 with respect to the ’924 patent.
`
`41.
`
`Motorola had knowledge of the ’924 patent at least as of the filing of this
`
`Complaint.
`
`42.
`
`Motorola has also indirectly infringed one or more claims of the ’924 patent by
`
`inducing others to directly infringe the ’924 patent. Motorola has induced end-users and other
`
`third-parties to directly infringe (literally or under the doctrine of equivalents) the ’924 patent by
`
`using the Accused Products. Motorola took active steps, directly or through contractual
`
`relationships with others, with the specific intent to cause them to use the Accused Products in a
`
`manner that infringes one or more claims of the ’924 patent, including, for example, Claim 1 of
`
`the ’924 patent. Such steps by Motorola included, among other things, advising or directing end-
`
`users and other third-parties to use the Accused Features in the Accused Products in an infringing
`
`manner; advertising and promoting the use of the Accused Products in an infringing manner; or
`
`distributing instructions that guide end-users and other third-parties to use the Accused Products
`
`in an infringing manner. Motorola performed these steps, which constitute induced infringement
`
`with the knowledge of the ’924 patent and with the knowledge that the induced acts constitute
`
`infringement. Motorola was aware that the normal and customary use of the Accused Products by
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-03535 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/07/22 Page 10 of 130 PageID #:10
`
`others would infringe the ’924 patent. Motorola’s direct infringement of the ’924 patent was
`
`willful, intentional, deliberate, or in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights under the patent.
`
`COUNT II
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,933,431
`
`43.
`
`GTP repeats and re-alleges the allegations in Paragraphs 1-42 as though fully set
`
`forth in their entirety.
`
`44.
`
`GTP owns all substantial rights, interest, and title in and to the ’431 patent,
`
`including the sole and exclusive right to prosecute this action and enforce the ’431 patent against
`
`infringers, and to collect damages for all relevant times. The United States Patent and Trademark
`
`Office duly issued the ’431 patent on April 26, 2011. A copy of the ’431 patent is attached as
`
`Exhibit B.
`
`45.
`
`The ’431 patent is titled “Camera Based Sensing in Handheld, Mobile, Gaming, or
`
`Other Devices.” The ’431 patent describes a method for a user to control a handheld device using
`
`gestures that are observed by a sensor on the handheld device.
`
`46.
`
`Motorola has directly infringed (literally or under the doctrine of equivalents) at
`
`least Claim 7 of the ’431 patent. Motorola has infringed the ’431 patent by making, using, selling,
`
`offering to sell, and importing the Accused Products.
`
`47.
`
`48.
`
`49.
`
`50.
`
`The claims of the ’431 patent are not directed to an abstract idea.
`
`The Accused Products are handheld computers.
`
`The Accused Products have a housing.
`
`The Accused Products have one or more cameras associated with their housing.
`
`The one or more cameras obtain images of objects using reflected light from the objects.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-03535 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/07/22 Page 11 of 130 PageID #:11
`
`51.
`
`A computer, including but not limited to at least one System on Chip, resides within
`
`the housing of the Accused Products. The computer analyzes images obtained by the one or more
`
`images to determine information about a position or movement of the object.
`
`52.
`
`The Accused Products use information about the object to control a function of the
`
`Accused Products, such as the functions associated with the Features.
`
`53.
`
`Plaintiff has been damaged as a result of the infringing conduct by Motorola alleged
`
`above. Thus, Motorola is liable to Plaintiff in an amount that adequately compensates it for such
`
`infringements, which by law cannot be less than a reasonable royalty, together with interest and
`
`costs as fixed by this Court under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
`
`54.
`
`Plaintiff has satisfied all statutory obligations required to collect pre-filing damages
`
`for the full period allowed by law for infringement of the ’431 Patent.
`
`55.
`
`Plaintiff has not offered for sale nor sold any product implicated by 35 U.S.C. §
`
`287 with respect to the ’431 patent.
`
`56.
`
`Motorola had knowledge of the ’431 patent at least as of the filing of this
`
`Complaint.
`
`57.
`
`Motorola has also indirectly infringed one or more claims of the ’431 patent by
`
`inducing others to directly infringe the ’431 patent. Motorola has induced end-users and other
`
`third-parties to directly infringe (literally or under the doctrine of equivalents) the ’431 patent by
`
`using the Accused Products. Motorola took active steps, directly or through contractual
`
`relationships with others, with the specific intent to cause them to use the Accused Products in a
`
`manner that infringes one or more claims of the ’431 patent, including, for example, Claim 7 of
`
`the ’431 patent. Such steps by Motorola included, among other things, advising or directing end-
`
`users and other third-parties to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner; advertising and
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-03535 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/07/22 Page 12 of 130 PageID #:12
`
`promoting the use of the Accused Products in an infringing manner; or distributing instructions
`
`that guide end-users and other third-parties to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner.
`
`Motorola performed these steps, which constitute induced infringement with the knowledge of the
`
`’431 patent and with the knowledge that the induced acts constitute infringement. Motorola was
`
`aware that the normal and customary use of the Accused Products by others would infringe the
`
`’431 patent. Motorola’s direct and indirect infringement of the ’431 patent was willful, intentional,
`
`deliberate, or in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights under the patent.
`
`COUNT III
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,878,949
`
`58.
`
`GTP repeats and re-alleges the allegations in Paragraphs 1-57 as though fully set
`
`forth in their entirety.
`
`59.
`
`GTP owns all substantial rights, interest, and title in and to the ’949 patent,
`
`including the sole and exclusive right to prosecute this action and enforce the ’949 patent against
`
`infringers, and to collect damages for all relevant times. The United States Patent and Trademark
`
`Office duly issued the ’949 patent on November 4, 2014. A copy of the ’949 patent is attached as
`
`Exhibit C.
`
`60.
`
`The ’949 Patent is titled “Camera Based Interaction and Instruction.” The ’949
`
`patent describes a device that allows a user to control the device using gestures registered by the
`
`front-facing camera and an electro-optical sensor.
`
`61.
`
`62.
`
`The claims of the ’949 patent are not directed to an abstract idea.
`
` Motorola has directly infringed (literally or under the doctrine of equivalents) at
`
`least Claim 1 of the ’949 patent. Motorola infringed the ’949 patent by making, using, selling,
`
`offering for sale, and importing the Accused Products.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-03535 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/07/22 Page 13 of 130 PageID #:13
`
`63.
`
`64.
`
`The Accused Products are portable devices.
`
`The Accused Products have a housing. The housing has a forward-facing portion
`
`that includes an electro-optical sensor that has a field of view and a digital camera.
`
`65.
`
`Within the housing is a processing unit including, but not limited to, at least one
`
`System on Chip. The processing unit is coupled to the electro-optical sensor.
`
`66.
`
`The processing unit in the Accused Products has been programmed to determine if
`
`a gesture has been performed in the electro-optical sensors field of view based on an output from
`
`the electro-optical sensor.
`
`67.
`
`The processing unit of the Accused Products controls the digital camera in response
`
`to the gesture performed. Such gestures are used by the Features.
`
`68.
`
`Plaintiff has been damaged as a result of the infringing conduct by Motorola alleged
`
`above. Thus, Motorola is liable to Plaintiff in an amount that adequately compensates it for such
`
`infringements, which by law cannot be less than a reasonable royalty, together with interest and
`
`costs as fixed by this Court under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
`
`69.
`
`Plaintiff has satisfied all statutory obligations required to collect pre-filing damages
`
`for the full period allowed by law for infringement of the ’949 Patent.
`
`70.
`
`Plaintiff has not offered for sale nor sold any product implicated by 35 U.S.C. §
`
`287 with respect to the ’949 patent.
`
`71.
`
`Motorola had knowledge of the ’949 patent at least as of the filing of this
`
`Complaint.
`
`72.
`
`Motorola has also indirectly infringed one or more claims of the ’949 patent by
`
`inducing others to directly infringe the ’949 patent. Motorola has induced end-users and other
`
`third-parties to directly infringe (literally or under the doctrine of equivalents) the ’949 patent by
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-03535 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/07/22 Page 14 of 130 PageID #:14
`
`using the Accused Products. Motorola took active steps, directly or through contractual
`
`relationships with others, with the specific intent to cause them to use the Accused Products in a
`
`manner that infringes one or more claims of the ’949 patent, including, for example, Claim 1 of
`
`the ’949 patent. Such steps by Motorola included, among other things, advising or directing end-
`
`users and other third-parties to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner; advertising and
`
`promoting the use of the Accused Products in an infringing manner; or distributing instructions
`
`that guide end-users and other third-parties to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner.
`
`Motorola performed these steps, which constitute induced infringement with the knowledge of the
`
`’949 patent and with the knowledge that the induced acts constitute infringement. Motorola was
`
`aware that the normal and customary use of the Accused Products by others would infringe the
`
`’949 patent. Motorola’s direct and indirect infringement of the ’949 patent was willful, intentional,
`
`deliberate, or in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights under the patent.
`
`COUNT IV
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,553,079
`
`73.
`
`GTP repeats and re-alleges the allegations in Paragraphs 1-72 as though fully set
`
`forth in their entirety.
`
`74.
`
`GTP owns all substantial rights, interest, and title in and to the ’079 patent,
`
`including the sole and exclusive right to prosecute this action and enforce the ’079 patent against
`
`infringers, and to collect damages for all relevant times. The United States Patent and Trademark
`
`Office duly issued the ’079 patent on October 8, 2013. A copy of the ’079 patent is attached as
`
`Exhibit D.
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-03535 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/07/22 Page 15 of 130 PageID #:15
`
`75.
`
`The ’079 patent is titled “More Useful Man Machine Interfaces and Applications.”
`
`The ’079 patent describes methods and apparatuses related to determining gestures illuminated by
`
`a light source of a computer by using a camera housed in the computer.
`
`76.
`
`77.
`
`The claims of the ’079 patent are not directed to an abstract idea.
`
`Motorola has directly infringed (literally or under the doctrine of equivalents) at
`
`least Claim 11 of the ’079 patent. Motorola has infringed the ’079 patent by making, using, selling,
`
`offering for sale, and importing the Accused Products.
`
`78.
`
`79.
`
`The Accused Products are computer apparatuses.
`
`The Accused Products contain a light source that will illuminate a human body part
`
`within a work volume.
`
`80.
`
`The Accused Products have one or more cameras. The one or more cameras have
`
`a fixed relation to the light source. The one or more cameras of the Accused Products are oriented
`
`to observe gestures performed by a human body part.
`
`81.
`
`The Accused Products have one or more processors including, but not limited to,
`
`one or more System on Chips, that have been programmed to determine a gesture performed based
`
`on output from the one or more cameras.
`
`82.
`
`Plaintiff has been damaged as a result of the infringing conduct by Motorola alleged
`
`above. Thus, Motorola is liable to Plaintiff in an amount that adequately compensates it for such
`
`infringements, which by law cannot be less than a reasonable royalty, together with interest and
`
`costs as fixed by this Court under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
`
`83.
`
`Plaintiff has satisfied all statutory obligations required to collect pre-filing damages
`
`for the full period allowed by law for infringement of the ’079 patent.
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-03535 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/07/22 Page 16 of 130 PageID #:16
`
`84.
`
`Plaintiff has not offered for sale nor sold any product implicated by 35 U.S.C. §
`
`287 with respect to the ’079 patent.
`
`85.
`
`Motorola had knowledge of the ’079 patent at least as of the filing of this
`
`Complaint.
`
`86.
`
`Motorola has also indirectly infringed one or more claims of the ’079 patent by
`
`inducing others to directly infringe the ’079 patent. Motorola has induced end-users and other
`
`third-parties to directly infringe (literally or under the doctrine of equivalents) the ’079 patent by
`
`using the Accused Products. Motorola took active steps, directly or through contractual
`
`relationships with others, with the specific intent to cause them to use the Accused Products in a
`
`manner that infringes one or more claims of the ’079 patent, including, for example, Claim 11 of
`
`the ’079 patent. Such steps by Motorola included, among other things, advising or directing end-
`
`users and other third-parties to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner; advertising and
`
`promoting the use of the Accused Products in an infringing manner; or distributing instructions
`
`that guide end-users and other third-parties to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner.
`
`Motorola performed these steps, which constitute induced infringement with the knowledge of the
`
`’079 patent and with the knowledge that the induced acts constitute infringement. Motorola was
`
`aware that the normal and customary use of the Accused Products by others would infringe the
`
`’079 patent. Motorola’s inducement is ongoing.
`
`87.
`
`Motorola’s direct and indirect infringement of the ’079 patent was willful,
`
`intentional, deliberate, or in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights under the patent.
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`Plaintiff hereby requests a trial by jury on all issues so triable by right.
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-03535 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/07/22 Page 17 of 130 PageID #:17
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`GTP requests that the Court find in its favor and against Motorola, and that the Court grant
`
`GTP the following relief:
`
`a.
`
`Judgment that one or more claims of the Asserted Patents have been infringed,
`
`either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, by Motorola or all others acting in concert
`
`therewith;
`
`b.
`
`Judgment that Motorola accounts for and pays to GTP all damages to and costs
`
`incurred by GTP because of Motorola’s infringing activities and other conduct complained of
`
`herein;
`
`c.
`
`Judgment that Motorola’s infringements be found willful, and that the Court award
`
`treble damages for the period of such willful infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284;
`
`d.
`
`Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on the damages caused by Motorola’s
`
`infringing activities and other conduct complained of herein;
`
`e.
`
`That this Court declare this an exceptional case and award GTP its reasonable
`
`attorneys’ fees and costs in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 285; and
`
`f.
`
`All other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper under the
`
`circumstances.
`
`Dated: July 7, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Brian E. Martin
`Brian E. Martin
`STAMOS & TRUCCO LLP
`One East Wacker Drive, 3rd Floor
`Chicago, Il 60601
`Tel: 312-630-7979
`bmartin@stamostrucco.com
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-03535 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/07/22 Page 18 of 130 PageID #:18
`
`Fred I. Williams
`Texas State Bar No. 00794855
`Michael Simons
`Texas State Bar No. 24008042
`WILLIAMS SIMONS & LANDIS PLLC
`The Littlefield Building
`601 Congress Ave., Suite 600
`Austin, TX 78701
`Tel: 512-543-1354
`fwilliams@wsltrial.com
`msimons@wsltrial.com
`
`Todd E. Landis
`State Bar No. 24030226
`WILLIAMS SIMONS & LANDIS PLLC
`2633 McKinney Ave., Suite 130 #366
`Dallas, TX 75204
`Tel: 512-543-1357
`tlandis@wsltrial.com
`
`John Wittenzellner
`Pennsylvania State Bar No. 308996
`WILLIAMS SIMONS & LANDIS PLLC
`1735 Market Street, Suite A #453
`Philadelphia, PA 19103
`Tel: 512-543-1373
`johnw@wsltrial.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Gesture Technology
`Partners, LLC
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-03535 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/07/22 Page 19 of 130 PageID #:19
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that on July 7, 2022, the undersigned caused a copy of
`
`the foregoing document to be served on Motorola through a process server.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Brian E. Martin
`Brian E. Martin
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-03535 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/07/22 Page 20 of 130 PageID #:20
`Case: 1:22-cv-03535 Document#: 1 Filed: 07/07/22 Page 20 of 130 PagelD #:20
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`

`
`
`I 11111 11111111 III 11111 Hill JI1i11111,11,11)1111111111111111111111111
`
`
`
`
`
`USOO8194924B2
`
`(12) United States Patent
`(12) United States Patent
`Pryor
`Pryor
`
`(10) Patent No.:
`(10) Patent No.:
`(45) Date of Patent:
`(45) Date of Patent:
`
`US 8,194,924 B2
`US 8,194,924 B2
`Jun. 5, 2012
`Jun. 5, 2012
`
`(54) CAMERA BASED SENSING IN HANDHELD,
`CAMERA BASED SENSING IN HANDHELD,
`(54)
`MOBILE, GAMING OR OTHER DEVICES
`MOBILE, GAMING OR OTHER DEVICES
`(76) Inventor: Timothy R. Pryor, Sylvania, OH (US)
`(76)
`Inventor: Timothy R. Pryor, Sylvania, OH (US)
`(*) Notice:
`Subject to any disclaimer, the term of this
`Notice:
`Subject to any disclaimer, the term of this
`* )
`patent is extended or adjusted under 35
`patent is extended or adjusted under 35
`U.S.C. 154(b) by 0 days.
`U.S.C. 154(b) by 0 days.
`
`Appl. No.: 13/051,698
`(21)
`(21) Appl. No.: 13/051,698
`
`Filed:
`(22)
`(22) Filed:
`
`Mar. 18, 2011
`Mar 18, 2011
`
`(65)
`(65)
`
`Prior Publication Data
`Prior Publication Data
`US 2011 FO170746A1
`Jul. 14, 2011
`US 2011/0170746 Al
`Jul. 14, 2011
`
`O
`O
`Related U.S. Application Data
`Related U.S. Application Data
`(63) Continuation of application No. 12/834,281, filed on
`(63) Continuation of application No. 12/834,281, filed on
`Jul. 12, 2010, now Pat. No. 7,933,431, which is a
`Jul. 12, 2010, OW Pat. No. 7,933,431, which is a
`continuation of application No. 11/980,710, filed on
`continuation of application No. 1 1/980,710, filed O
`Oct. 31, 2007, now Pat. No. 7,756,297, which is a
`Oct. 31, 2007, now Pat. No. 7,756.297, which is a
`continuation of application No. 10/893.534, filed on
`continuation of application No. 10/893,534, filed on
`Jul. 19, 2004, now Pat. No. 7,401,783, which is a
`Jul. 19, 2004, now Pat. No. 7,401,783, which is a
`continuation of application No. 09/612.225, filed on
`continuation of application No. 09/612,225, filed on
`Jul. 7, 2000, now Pat. No. 6,766,036.
`Jul. 7, 2000, now Pat. No. 6,766,036.
`(60) Provisional application No. 60/142,777, filed on Jul. 8,
`(60) Provisional application No. 60/142,777, filed on Jul. 8,
`1999.
`1999.
`
`(51) Int. Cl.
`(51) Int. Cl.
`(2006.01)
`GO6K 9/00
`(2006.01)
`G06K 9/00
`(52) U.S. Cl. ......................... 382/103: 382/154; 382/312
` 382/103; 382/154; 382/312
`(52) U.S. Cl.
`(58) Field of Classification Search .................. 382/103,
`(58) Field of Classification Search
` 382/103,
`382/154, 312
`382/154, 312
`See application file for complete search history.
`See application file for complete search history.
`
`(56)
`(56)
`
`References Cited
`References Cited
`U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS
`U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS
`3,909,002 A
`9/1975 Levy
`3,909,002 A
`9/1975 Levy
`4,219,847. A
`8/1980 Pinkney et al.
`4,219,847 A
`8/1980 Pinkney et al.
`
`7/1