Case 2:22-cv-11403-TGB ECF No. 1, PageID.1 Filed 03/29/22 Page 1 of 16
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`NEO WIRELESS, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.
`& HONDA DEVELOPMENT &
`MANUFACTURING OF AMERICA, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
`EASTERN DIVISION AT COLUMBUS
`§
`
`§
`CIVIL ACTION NO.: 2:22-cv-01824
`§
`
`§
`
`§
`
`§
`
`§
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`PLAINTIFF NEO WIRELESS, LLC’S COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiff Neo Wireless, LLC (“Neo Wireless,” “Neo,” or “Plaintiff”), brings this action for
`
`patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271 against Defendants American Honda Motor Co., Inc.
`
`(“HMC”) and Honda Development & Manufacturing of America, LLC (“HDMA”) (collectively,
`
`“Honda,” “Honda Defendants,” or “Defendants”). Plaintiff alleges, based upon its own personal
`
`knowledge with respect to its own actions and based upon information and belief with respect to
`
`all others’ actions, as follows:
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff Neo Wireless, LLC is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
`
`business located in Wayne, Pennsylvania.
`
`2.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant American Honda Motor Co. is a corporation
`
`organized and existing under the laws of the State of California with its principal place of business
`
`at 1919 Torrance Boulevard, Torrance, California, 90501. HMC may be served through its
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-11403-TGB ECF No. 1, PageID.2 Filed 03/29/22 Page 2 of 16
`
`registered agent, Corporation Service Company, 50 West Broad Street, Suite 1330, Columbus,
`
`Ohio 43215.
`
`3.
`
`On information and belief, Honda Development & Manufacturing of America, LLC
`
`is a corporation organized and existing organized and existing under the laws of the State of Ohio
`
`with its principal place of business at 24000 Honda Parkway, Marysville, Ohio 43040. HDMA
`
`may be served through its registered agent, Corporation Service Company, 50 West Broad Street,
`
`Suite 1330, Columbus, Ohio 43215.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`This action arises under the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.
`
`Subject matter jurisdiction is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`1338(a).
`
`6.
`
`Venue in this District is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) because, on information
`
`and belief, each Honda entity (1) has committed acts of infringement in this District and (2) has a
`
`regular and established place of business in this District.
`
`7.
`
`This Court has general jurisdiction over HDMA because its principal place of
`
`business is in the forum state.
`
`8.
`
`Defendants are also subject to this Court’s specific personal jurisdiction due at least
`
`to each Honda Defendant’s substantial business activities in the State and within this District,
`
`including: (1) at least a portion of the infringements alleged herein; and/or (2) regularly doing or
`
`soliciting business, engaging in other persistent courses of conduct, and/or deriving substantial
`
`revenue from goods and services provided to individuals in Ohio and in this District.
`
`9.
`
`Honda maintains facilities throughout the state of Ohio and this District, including
`
`at least the following: HMC operates an engine plant at 12500 Meranda Road, Anna, Ohio 45302
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-11403-TGB ECF No. 1, PageID.3 Filed 03/29/22 Page 3 of 16
`
`that serves as the flagship of the Acura brand, the Honda Accord, and represents the largest of its
`
`Ohio operations with a facility spanning over 4 million square feet;1 HMC also operates an
`
`automobile plant and transportation research center located at 11000 OH-347, East Liberty, Ohio
`
`43319 which encompasses much of Honda’s research and development including $124 million
`
`state-of-the-art wind tunnel facility, new technology in testing capabilities for Honda’s vehicles,
`
`including the accused products, 110,000 square feet of space.2 HMC operates an automobile and
`
`motorcycle plant at 24000 Honda Parkway, Marysville, Ohio 43040. HMC similarly maintains a
`
`regular and established place of business through its transmission plant at 6964 OH-235, Russells
`
`Point, Ohio 43348 and its Honda Rider Education Center and parts center located at 101 S Stanfield
`
`Rd, Troy, Ohio 45373.
`
`10.
`
`HDMA’s principal place of business is located within this District. On information
`
`and belief, HDMA operates a research and development center at 21001 OH-739, Raymond, Ohio
`
`43067 where HDMA engages in research, development, testing, and designing of Honda products,
`
`including the Accused Products.3
`
`11.
`
`Defendants do and intend to do business in Ohio and in this District, directly or
`
`through intermediaries, and offer their products and/or services, including those accused herein of
`
`infringement, to customers and potential customers located in Ohio and in this District.
`
`12.
`
`Defendants, both directly and through their subsidiaries or intermediaries
`
`(including distributors, retailers, and others), have purposefully and voluntarily placed one or more
`
`infringing products and/or services, as described below, into the stream of commerce with the
`
`
`1 See https://ohio.honda.com/our-operations.
`2 See https://hondanews.com/en-US/releases/honda-opens-new-world-class-wind-tunnel-in-ohio.
`3 See https://ohio.honda.com/.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-11403-TGB ECF No. 1, PageID.4 Filed 03/29/22 Page 4 of 16
`
`expectation that those products will be purchased and used by customers and/or consumers in the
`
`Southern District of Ohio.
`
`13.
`
`These infringing products and/or services have been and continue to be made, used,
`
`sold, offered for sale, purchased, and/or imported by customers and/or consumers in the Southern
`
`District of Ohio.
`
`14.
`
`Defendants have placed the Accused Products into the stream of commerce by
`
`selling and/or offering to sell the Accused Products in the Southern District of Ohio, shipping
`
`Accused Products into the Southern District of Ohio, and/or shipping Accused Products knowing
`
`that those products would be shipped into the Southern District of Ohio.
`
`THE ASSERTED PATENTS
`
`I.
`
`The ’366 Patent
`
`15.
`
`On June 18, 2013, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally
`
`issued U.S. Patent No. 8,467,366 (“the ’366 patent”), entitled “Methods and Apparatus for
`
`Random Access in Multi-Carrier Communication Systems.” A copy of the ’366 patent is attached
`
`as Exhibit 1.
`
`16.
`
`The ’366 patent issued from U.S. Patent Application 13/205,579, which was filed
`
`by Neocific Inc. on August 8, 2011 and was assigned from the inventors to Waltical Solutions,
`
`Inc. on April 8, 2005. The application was later assigned from Waltical Solutions, Inc. to Neocific,
`
`Inc. on December 14, 2005. The now-issued ’366 patent was assigned from Neocific, Inc. to CFIP
`
`NCF LLC on November 22, 2019 before it was assigned to Neo Wireless LLC on January 23,
`
`2020.
`
`
`
`17.
`
`The ’366 patent is valid and enforceable.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-11403-TGB ECF No. 1, PageID.5 Filed 03/29/22 Page 5 of 16
`
`II.
`
`The ’908 Patent
`
`18.
`
`On April 17, 2018, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally
`
`issued U.S. Patent No. 10,833,908 (“the ’908 patent”), entitled “Channel Probing Signal for a
`
`Broadband Communication System.” A copy of the ’908 patent is attached as Exhibit 2.
`
`19.
`
`The ’908 patent issued from U.S. Patent Application 16/902,740, which was filed
`
`on June 16, 2020 by Neo Wireless LLC on behalf of the inventors.
`
`20.
`
`The ’908 patent is valid and enforceable.
`
`III. The ’941 Patent
`
`21.
`
`On September 11, 2018, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and
`
`legally issued U.S. Patent No. 10,075,941 (“the ’941 patent”), entitled “Methods and Apparatus
`
`for Multi-Carrier Communications With Adaptive Transmission and Feedback.” A copy of the
`
`’941 patent is attached as Exhibit 3.
`
`22.
`
`The ’941 patent issued from U.S. Patent Application 15/082,878, which filed by
`
`Neocific, Inc. on March 28, 2016. The now-issued ’941 patent was assigned from Neocific, Inc.
`
`to CFIP NCF LLC on November 22, 2019 before it was assigned to Neo Wireless LLC on January
`
`23, 2020.
`
`23.
`
`The ’941 patent is valid and enforceable.
`
`IV.
`
`The ’450 Patent
`
`24.
`
`On October 15, 2019, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and
`
`legally issued U.S. Patent No. 10,447,450 (“the ’450 patent”), entitled “Method and System for
`
`Multi-Carrier Packet Communication with Reduced Overhead.” A copy of the ’450 patent is
`
`attached as Exhibit 4.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-11403-TGB ECF No. 1, PageID.6 Filed 03/29/22 Page 6 of 16
`
`25.
`
`The ’450 patent issued from U.S. Patent Application 15/676,421, which was filed
`
`by Neocific, Inc. on August 14, 2017. The now-issued ’450 patent was later assigned from
`
`Neocific, Inc. to CFIP NCF LLC on November 22, 2019 before it was assigned to Neo Wireless
`
`LLC on January 23, 2020.
`
`26.
`
`The ’450 patent is valid and enforceable.
`
`V.
`
`The ’512 Patent
`
`27.
`
`On March 30, 2021, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally
`
`issued U.S. Patent No. 10,965,512 (“the ’512 patent”), entitled “Method and Apparatus Using
`
`Cell-Specific and Common Pilot Subcarriers
`
`in Multi-Carrier, Multi Cell Wireless
`
`Communication Networks.” A copy of the ’512 patent is attached as Exhibit 5.
`
`28.
`
`The ’512 patent issued from U.S. Patent Application 17/012,813, which was filed
`
`by Neo Wireless on September 4, 2020.
`
`29.
`
`The ’512 patent is valid and enforceable.
`
`VI.
`
`The ’302 Patent
`
`30.
`
`On September 8, 2020, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and
`
`legally issued U.S. Patent No. 10,771,302 (“the ’302 patent”), entitled “Channel Probing Signal
`
`for a Broadband Communication System.” A copy of the ‘302 patent is attached as exhibit 6.
`
`31.
`
`The ’302 patent issued from U.S. Patent Application 15/953,950, which was filed
`
`on April 16, 2019 and was assigned by Neocific, Inc. to CFIP NCF LLC on November 22, 2019
`
`before it was assigned to Neo Wireless LLC on January 23, 2020.
`
`32.
`
`33.
`
`The ’302 patent is valid and enforceable.
`
`Neo Wireless owns all rights, title, and interest in and to each of the ’366, ’908,
`
`’941, ’450, ’512, and ’302 patents (the “Patents-in-Suit”) and possesses all rights of recovery.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-11403-TGB ECF No. 1, PageID.7 Filed 03/29/22 Page 7 of 16
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`34.
`
` Inventor Xiaodong (Alex) Li, Ph.D. founded Neocific Inc. in the early 2000s to
`
`design, develop, and implement a new wireless communication system. He and his co-inventors
`
`had extensive experience with wireless communications systems, including the development of
`
`the Wi-Max standards, and a deep understanding of the flaws in existing systems at the time. The
`
`inventors saw an opportunity to create a new wireless communication system meant to address
`
`those flaws while incorporating cutting-edge Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiple Access
`
`(OFDMA) based technologies, and, starting in the 2004-2005 timeframe, they filed patents on the
`
`work.
`
`35.
`
`Dr. Li served as the President and Founder of Neocific. Dr. Li obtained his Ph.D.
`
`in electrical engineering from the University of Washington, his M.S. from Shanghai Jiao Tong
`
`University, and his B.S. from Tsinghua University. Dr. Li has authored more than 30 journal and
`
`conference papers in wireless communications, video coding, and networking. He has been granted
`
`more than 100 U.S. and foreign patents.
`
`36.
`
`Dr. Titus Lo, Ph.D. is a founding employee of Neocific. Dr. Lo obtained his Ph.D.
`
`in electrical engineering from McMaster University and his B.S. from the University of British
`
`Columbia. Dr. Lo has authored more than 30 technical papers in international peer-reviewed
`
`journals and presented more than 50 time at industry events. He has been granted more than 100
`
`U.S. and foreign patents.
`
`37.
`
`Neo Wireless owns all substantial right, title, and interest in the Patents-in-Suit, and
`
`holds the right to sue and recover damages for infringement thereof.
`
`38.
`
`David Loo is the CEO of Plaintiff Neo Wireless. Mr. Loo works and resides in
`
`Wayne, Pennsylvania. Mr. Loo has over a decade of experience as a licensing executive and patent
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-11403-TGB ECF No. 1, PageID.8 Filed 03/29/22 Page 8 of 16
`
`attorney with a well-established track record of assisting companies, inventors and patent holders
`
`to ensure they are fairly compensated for their inventions.
`
`39.
`
`The wireless communication industry has been developing rapidly since Bell Labs
`
`developed the First Generation of modern commercial cellular technology in 1984. Multiple
`
`wireless communication technologies designated by generations emerged and brought new
`
`capacities to people all over the world. In 2008, 3GPP created and finalized the LTE standards as
`
`an upgrade to 3G. The cellular industry recognized its major benefits, and virtually all cellular
`
`device manufacturers have embraced LTE as the next generation of commercial cellular
`
`technology and developed phones, hotspots, and other cellular-connectivity devices to utilize the
`
`4G LTE technology.
`
`40.
`
`Automakers have implemented this cellular communications technology into its
`
`vehicles. For example, telematics systems first debuted in 1996 through OnStar using analog cell
`
`networks, which allowed consumers to receive remote diagnostics, remotely unlock vehicles, and
`
`receive emergency services including aid after a collision. In 2007, 3G technology emerged
`
`bringing greater speed and capacity to these features allowing automakers to design more advanced
`
`functions.
`
`41.
`
`At least as far back as 2015, Honda began implementing the newest 4G LTE
`
`cellular technology into Honda’s accused products. 4G LTE technology provided for 10 times
`
`faster data speeds, increased responsiveness, and the ability to support voice and data connections
`
`simultaneously. 4G LTE connection further provides consumers with a variety of in-vehicle wi-fi
`
`hot spots and vast entertainment options. As a result, Honda could better support a variety of
`
`wireless features including SOS emergency assistance, automatic collision notification, stolen
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-11403-TGB ECF No. 1, PageID.9 Filed 03/29/22 Page 9 of 16
`
`vehicle tracking, roadside assistance, remote start, remote climate control adjustment, navigation
`
`map updates, live traffic data, and wi-fi hotspot, etc.
`
`42.
`
`Honda provides 4G LTE connectivity in its various Honda brands, including the
`
`accused products, via the HondaLink system integrated into the accused products.
`
`43.
`
`Building on these 4G LTE capabilities, Honda develops and utilizes the HondaLink
`
`mobile app that allows owners of its vehicles to interact with their vehicles from their cellular
`
`devices. Features on this app include the ability to remotely start, lock, or unlock the vehicle, or to
`
`monitor the vehicle’s condition.
`
`44.
`
`Honda models that implement 4G/LTE communications—including but not limited
`
`to the Odyssey, Pilot, and Passport models—as well as those that may in the future implement
`
`4G/LTE or 5G/NR capabilities, are collectively referred to herein as the “Accused Products.”
`
`45.
`
`As described above, the Asserted Patents read onto portions of the LTE or 4G/5G
`
`standards, which Honda implements in the Accused Products.
`
`46.
`
`47.
`
`Honda does not have any rights to the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`Neo Wireless is entitled to past damages for Honda’s infringement of the Patents-
`
`in-Suit. Neo Wireless has complied with 35 U.S.C. § 287. Neo Wireless does not make, offer for
`
`sale, or sell within the United States any patented article under the Asserted Patents. Additionally,
`
`Neo Wireless provided Honda with actual notice of its infringement prior to the filing of this
`
`lawsuit, or at a minimum by the filing of this Complaint.
`
`48.
`
`In the interest of providing detailed averments of infringement, Neo Wireless has
`
`identified below at least one claim per patent to demonstrate infringement. However, the selection
`
`of claims should not be considered limiting, and additional claims of the Patents-in-Suit (including
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-11403-TGB ECF No. 1, PageID.10 Filed 03/29/22 Page 10 of 16
`
`method, system, and apparatus claims) that are infringed by Honda will be disclosed in compliance
`
`with the Court’s rules related to infringement contentions.
`
`ALLEGATIONS OF PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`49.
`
`Neo Wireless incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as if fully set
`
`forth herein.
`
`50.
`
`As set forth below, Honda’s Accused Products incorporate, without any license
`
`from Neo Wireless, LTE, 4G, and 5G technology protected by patents owned by Neo Wireless.
`
`Neo Wireless respectfully seeks relief from this Court for Honda’s infringement.
`
`51.
`
`Honda has directly infringed, and continues to directly infringe, the Asserted
`
`Patents under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by making, using, selling and/or offering to sell, in this District
`
`and elsewhere in the United States, and/or importing into this District and elsewhere in the United
`
`States, one or more of Honda’s Accused Products, that is, certain infringing vehicles outfitted with
`
`instrumentalities that infringe the Asserted Patents, as further described in detail in Counts I-VI
`
`infra.
`
`52.
`
`Honda has indirectly infringed the Asserted Patents under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) by
`
`inducing infringement by others, such as its subsidiaries, dealerships, distributors, retailers, and
`
`end-user customers, by, for example, implementing the infringing features in its cellular-capable
`
`products, encouraging its users to take advantage of 4G/LTE and/or 5G/NR features within the
`
`United States, and/or instructing, dictating, or training its dealerships and customers to use the
`
`infringing features.
`
`53.
`
`Similarly, Honda’s advertising, sales, design, development, and/or technical
`
`materials related to the 3GPP LTE/4G and/or 5G/NR standards associated with the Accused
`
`Products contained and continue to contain instructions, directions, suggestions, and/or invitations
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-11403-TGB ECF No. 1, PageID.11 Filed 03/29/22 Page 11 of 16
`
`that invite, entice, lead on, influence, encourage, prevail on, move by persuasion, and/or cause its
`
`subsidiaries, distributors, retailers, dealerships, customers, and the public to directly infringe at
`
`least one claim of each of the Patents-in-Suit, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`54.
`
`55.
`
`Honda took the above actions intending to cause infringing acts by others.
`
`Honda received actual notice of its infringement of the Asserted Patents as early as
`
`November 30, 2021, and at least as early as the date of service of this Complaint. Therefore, Honda
`
`was or is now aware of the Asserted Patents or has willfully blinded itself as to the existence of
`
`the Asserted Patents and the Accused Products’ infringement thereof.
`
`56.
`
`Further, Honda has made, used, sold, offered to sell, imported and/or encouraged
`
`the making, using, selling, offering to sell, or importing of Honda’s Accused Products despite
`
`knowing of an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of the Asserted
`
`Patents at all times relevant to this suit. Alternatively, Honda subjectively believed there was a
`
`high probability that others would infringe the Asserted Patents but took deliberate steps to avoid
`
`confirming that it was actively inducing infringement by others.
`
`57.
`
`For the reasons described above, Honda’s infringement of the Asserted Patents has
`
`been willful.
`
`58.
`
`Honda’s acts of infringement have caused damage to Neo Wireless. Neo Wireless
`
`is entitled to recover from Honda the damages incurred by Neo Wireless as a result of Honda’s
`
`wrongful acts.
`
`COUNT ONE: INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’366 PATENT
`
`59.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates the allegations of all of the foregoing paragraphs as if fully
`
`restated herein.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-11403-TGB ECF No. 1, PageID.12 Filed 03/29/22 Page 12 of 16
`
`60.
`
`As described above, Honda has infringed and continues to infringe the Asserted
`
`Patents by implementing and using 4G/LTE and/or 5G/NR cellular functionality in the Accused
`
`Products, and performing the acts of infringement described above.
`
`61.
`
`Each of Honda’s Accused Products implement the portions of the 3GPP LTE
`
`standard specification that read on at least claim 1 of the ’366 patent. See Exhibit 7.
`
`62.
`
`63.
`
`Honda’s Accused Products therefore meet at least one claim of the ’366 patent.
`
`To the extent that Honda releases any new version of its Accused Products, such
`
`instrumentalities will meet the claims of the ’366 patent and infringe under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a)–
`
`(b) in ways analogous to Honda’s current infringement described above.
`
`64.
`
`Neo Wireless has been damaged and continues to be damaged by Honda’s
`
`infringement of the ’366 patent.
`
`COUNT TWO: INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’908 PATENT
`
`65.
`
`Neo Wireless incorporates the allegations of the foregoing paragraphs as if fully
`
`restated herein.
`
`66.
`
`As described above, Honda has infringed and continues to infringe the Asserted
`
`Patents by implementing and using 4G/LTE and/or 5G/NR cellular functionality in the Accused
`
`Products, and performing the acts of infringement described above.
`
`67.
`
`Each of Honda’s Accused Products implement the portions of the 3GPP LTE
`
`standard specification that read on at least claim 11 of the ’908 patent. See Exhibit 8.
`
`68.
`
`69.
`
`Honda’s Accused Products therefore meet at least one claim of the ’908 patent.
`
`To the extent that Honda releases any new version of its Accused Products, such
`
`instrumentalities will meet the claims of the ’908 patent and infringe under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a)-(b)
`
`in ways analogous to Honda’s current infringement described above.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-11403-TGB ECF No. 1, PageID.13 Filed 03/29/22 Page 13 of 16
`
`70.
`
`Neo Wireless has been damaged and continues to be damaged by Honda’s
`
`infringement of the ’908 patent.
`
`COUNT THREE: INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’941 PATENT
`
`71.
`
`Neo Wireless incorporates the allegations of the foregoing paragraphs as if fully
`
`restated herein.
`
`72.
`
`As described above, Honda has infringed and continues to infringe the Asserted
`
`Patents by implementing and using 4G/LTE and/or 5G/NR cellular functionality in the Accused
`
`Products, and performing the acts of infringement described above.
`
`73.
`
`Each of Honda’s Accused Products implement the portions of the 3GPP LTE
`
`standard specification that read on at least claim 13 of the ’941 patent. See Exhibit 9.
`
`74.
`
`75.
`
`Honda’s Accused Products therefore meet at least one claim of the ’941 patent.
`
`To the extent that Honda releases any new version of its Accused Products, such
`
`instrumentalities will meet the claims of the ’941 patent and infringe under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a)-(b)
`
`in ways analogous to Honda’s current infringement described above.
`
`76.
`
`Neo Wireless has been damaged and continues to be damaged by Honda’s
`
`infringement of the ’941 patent.
`
`COUNT FOUR: INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’450 PATENT
`
`77.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates the allegations of all of the foregoing paragraphs as if fully
`
`restated herein.
`
`78.
`
`As described above, Honda has infringed and continues to infringe the Asserted
`
`Patents by implementing and using 4G/LTE and/or 5G/NR cellular functionality in the Accused
`
`Products, and performing the acts of infringement described above.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-11403-TGB ECF No. 1, PageID.14 Filed 03/29/22 Page 14 of 16
`
`79.
`
`Each of Honda’s Accused Products implements the portions of the 3GPP LTE
`
`standard specification that read on at least claim 7 of the ’450 patent. See Exhibit 10.
`
`80.
`
`81.
`
`Honda’s Accused Products therefore meet at least one claim of the ’450 patent.
`
`To the extent that Honda releases any new version of its Accused Products, such
`
`instrumentalities will meet the claims of the ’450 patent and infringe under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a)–
`
`(b) in ways analogous to Honda’s current infringement described above.
`
`82.
`
`Neo Wireless has been damaged and continues to be damaged by Honda’s
`
`infringement of the ’450 patent.
`
`COUNT FIVE: INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’512 PATENT
`
`83.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates the allegations of all of the foregoing paragraphs as if fully
`
`restated herein.
`
`84.
`
`As described above, Honda has infringed and continues to infringe the Asserted
`
`Patents by implementing and using 4G/LTE and/or 5G/NR cellular functionality in the Accused
`
`Products, and performing the acts of infringement described above.
`
`85.
`
`Each of Honda’s Accused Products implements the portions of the 3GPP LTE
`
`standard specification that read on at least claim 15 of the ’512 patent. See Exhibit 11.
`
`86.
`
`87.
`
`Honda’s Accused Products therefore meet at least one claim of the ’512 patent.
`
`To the extent that Honda releases any new version of its Accused Products, such
`
`instrumentalities will meet the claims of the ’512 patent and infringe under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a)–
`
`(b) in ways analogous to Honda’s current infringement described above.
`
`88.
`
`Neo Wireless has been damaged and continues to be damaged by Honda’s
`
`infringement of the ’512 patent.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-11403-TGB ECF No. 1, PageID.15 Filed 03/29/22 Page 15 of 16
`
`COUNT SIX: INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’302 PATENT
`
`89.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates the allegations of all of the foregoing paragraphs as if fully
`
`restated herein.
`
`90.
`
`As described above, Honda has infringed and continues to infringe the Asserted
`
`Patents by implementing and using 4G/LTE and/or 5G/NR cellular functionality in the Accused
`
`Products, and performing the acts of infringement described above.
`
`91.
`
`Each of Honda’s Accused Products implements the portions of the 3GPP LTE
`
`standard specification that read on at least claim 23 of the ’302 patent. See Exhibit 12.
`
`92.
`
`93.
`
`Honda’s Accused Products therefore meet at least one claim of the ’302 patent.
`
`To the extent that Honda releases any new version of its Accused Products, such
`
`instrumentalities will meet the claims of the ’302 patent and infringe under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a)–
`
`(b) in ways analogous to Honda’s current infringement described above.
`
`94.
`
`Neo Wireless has been damaged and continues to be damaged by Honda’s
`
`infringement of the ’302 patent.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests the following relief:
`
`a. a judgment in favor of Plaintiff that Defendants have infringed, either literally
`
`and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, the Asserted Patents;
`
`b. a judgment that Defendants’ infringement has been and is willful;
`
`c. a judgment and order requiring Defendants to pay Plaintiff its damages, costs,
`
`expenses, and any enhanced damages to which Plaintiff is entitled for Defendant’s
`
`infringement;
`
`d. a judgment and order requiring Defendants to provide an accounting and to pay
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-11403-TGB ECF No. 1, PageID.16 Filed 03/29/22 Page 16 of 16
`
`supplemental damages to Plaintiff, including without limitation, pre-judgment and
`
`post-judgment interest;
`
`e. a judgment and order requiring Defendants to pay ongoing royalties;
`
`f. a judgment and order finding that this is an exceptional case within the meaning of
`
`35 U.S.C. § 285 and awarding Plaintiff its reasonable attorney fees against
`
`Defendants; and
`
`g. any and all other relief as the Court may deem appropriate and just under the
`
`circumstances.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38, Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury on all claims and
`
`issues so triable.
`
`DATED: March 29, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`SAND, SEBOLT & WERNOW CO., LPA
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Howard L. Wernow
`Howard L. Wernow (Bar No. 0089019)
`Aegis Tower – Suite 1100
`4940 Munson Street NW
`Canton, Ohio 44718
`Telephone: (330) 244-1174
`Facsimile: (330) 244-1173
`Email: howard.wernow@sswip.com
`
`Jason D. Cassady
`(Pro hac vice forthcoming)
`CALDWELL CASSADY CURRY P.C.
`2121 N. Pearl St., Suite 1200
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`Telephone: (214) 888-4848
`Facsimile: (214) 888-4849
`Email: jcassady@caldwellcc.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
`NEO WIRELESS LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`