Case 2:22-cv-11403-TGB ECF No. 4, PageID.7 Filed 07/20/22 Page 1 of 39
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`
`
`2:22-MD-03034-TGB
`
`
`HON. TERRENCE G. BERG
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2:22-CV-11403-TGB
`
`
`HON. TERRENCE G. BERG
`
`
` JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
` §
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`IN RE NEO WIRELESS, LLC
`PATENT LITIG.
`
`
`NEO WIRELESS, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR
`CO., INC. & HONDA
`DEVELOPMENT &
`MANUFACTURING OF
`AMERICA, LLC,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF NEO WIRELESS, LLC’S FIRST AMENDED
` 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”). Neo files this amended complaint to add additional
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`
`
`2:22-MD-03034-TGB
`
`
`HON. TERRENCE G. BERG
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2:22-CV-11403-TGB
`
`
`HON. TERRENCE G. BERG
`
`
` JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
` §
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`IN RE NEO WIRELESS, LLC
`PATENT LITIG.
`
`
`NEO WIRELESS, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR
`CO., INC. & HONDA
`DEVELOPMENT &
`MANUFACTURING OF
`AMERICA, LLC,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF NEO WIRELESS, LLC’S FIRST AMENDED
` 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”). Neo files this amended complaint to add additional
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-11403-TGB ECF No. 4, PageID.8 Filed 07/20/22 Page 2 of 39
`
`defendants, and to address the arguments made in Honda’s Motion to Dismiss
`
`(Dkt. 21). To be clear, Neo strongly disagrees with the arguments in Honda’s
`
`motion, which mischaracterize Neo’s original complaint, ignore the clear
`
`sufficiency of Neo’s complaint under the appropriate pleading standards, and
`
`improperly rely on matter outside the pleadings. Neo’s original complaint, which
`
`contained over 300 pages of detailed allegations and claims charts, drastically
`
`exceeded the specificity required to plausibly allege Honda’s infringement of the
`
`Asserted Patents. Nevertheless, to reduce the burden on the Court, Neo has filed
`
`this Amendment within its time to do so as a matter of course, in order to moot
`
`Honda’s motion and leave no doubt that Neo has stated a claim for which relief can
`
`be granted.
`
`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
`Plaintiff Neo Wireless, LLC is a Delaware corporation with its
`
`1.
`
`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,
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-11403-TGB ECF No. 4, PageID.9 Filed 07/20/22 Page 3 of 39
`
`90501. HMC may be served through its 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
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`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 1338(a).
`
`6.
`
`Venue in the Southern District of Ohio is proper under 28 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1400(b) because, on information and belief, each Honda entity (1) has committed
`
`acts of infringement in the Southern District of Ohio and (2) has a regular and
`
`established place of business in the Southern District of Ohio.
`
`7.
`
`The Southern District of Ohio has general jurisdiction over HDMA
`
`because its principal place of business is in the forum state.
`
`8.
`
`Both Honda Defendants are also subject to the Southern District of
`
`Ohio’s specific personal jurisdiction due at least to each Honda Defendant’s
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-11403-TGB ECF No. 4, PageID.10 Filed 07/20/22 Page 4 of 39
`
`substantial business activities in the State and within the Southern District of Ohio,
`
`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 the Southern District of Ohio.
`
`9.
`
`Honda maintains facilities throughout the state of Ohio and the
`
`Southern District of Ohio, including at least the following: HMC operates an
`
`engine plant at 12500 Meranda Road, Anna, Ohio 45302 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 a $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
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-11403-TGB ECF No. 4, PageID.11 Filed 07/20/22 Page 5 of 39
`
`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 the Southern
`
`District of Ohio. 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 the Southern
`
`District of Ohio, 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 the Southern District of Ohio.
`
`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 expectation that those products will
`
`be purchased and used by customers and/or consumers in the Southern District of
`
`Ohio.
`
`
`3 See https://ohio.honda.com/.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-11403-TGB ECF No. 4, PageID.12 Filed 07/20/22 Page 6 of 39
`
`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 on behalf of the inventors. 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.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-11403-TGB ECF No. 4, PageID.13 Filed 07/20/22 Page 7 of 39
`
`17. The ’366 patent is valid and enforceable.
`
`II. The ’908 Patent
`
`18. On November 10, 2020, 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
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-11403-TGB ECF No. 4, PageID.14 Filed 07/20/22 Page 8 of 39
`
`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.
`
`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
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-11403-TGB ECF No. 4, PageID.15 Filed 07/20/22 Page 9 of 39
`
`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, 2018 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. The ’302 patent is valid and enforceable.
`
`33. 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.
`
`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
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-11403-TGB ECF No. 4, PageID.16 Filed 07/20/22 Page 10 of 39
`
`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. The inventions in the Patents-in-Suit relate to various improvements
`
`in OFDMA networks and corresponding user equipment, and those improvements
`
`have since been incorporated into the 3GPP standards for 4G/LTE and 5G/NR
`
`networks.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-11403-TGB ECF No. 4, PageID.17 Filed 07/20/22 Page 11 of 39
`
`38. 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.
`
`39. 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 attorney with a well-established track record of
`
`assisting companies, inventors and patent holders to ensure they are fairly
`
`compensated for their inventions.
`
`40. 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.
`
`41. 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
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-11403-TGB ECF No. 4, PageID.18 Filed 07/20/22 Page 12 of 39
`
`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.
`
`42. 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 vehicle tracking, roadside assistance, remote start, remote climate control
`
`adjustment, navigation map updates, live traffic data, and Wi-Fi hotspot, etc.
`
`43. Honda provides 4G LTE connectivity in its various Honda brands,
`
`including the accused products, via the HondaLink system integrated into the
`
`accused products.
`
`44. 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.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-11403-TGB ECF No. 4, PageID.19 Filed 07/20/22 Page 13 of 39
`
`45. 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.”
`
`46. Honda’s Accused Products are configured to operate within 4G/LTE
`
`and/or NR/5G cellular networks and in communication with base stations and other
`
`network access points. The cellular networks and base stations are interoperable
`
`and implement the one or more releases of the 4G/LTE and NR/5G 3GPP
`
`standards from release 8 through at least release 17. The cellular networks,
`
`including the cell-serving base stations, are controlled and configured by various
`
`carriers and implemented using a variety of hardware and/or software.
`
`Additionally, each base station may operate differently based on the wireless
`
`conditions, location, and/or network configuration.
`
`47. Additionally, the communications between Honda’s Accused
`
`Products and the serving base station include a multitude of signals back and forth
`
`in normal operation, such as when establishing connections, sending and receiving
`
`control information, sending and receiving reference signaling, communicating
`
`data in the uplink and downlink, obtaining network parameters, etc. And Honda’s
`
`Accused Products do this across a potentially large range of time and locations,
`
`including across a variety of base station equipment and configurations and/or
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-11403-TGB ECF No. 4, PageID.20 Filed 07/20/22 Page 14 of 39
`
`wireless conditions. As such, Honda’s Accused Products are configured to operate
`
`across the various modes, formats, and schemes defined in the 4G/LTE and NR/5G
`
`3GPP standards.
`
`48. As described further below and set forth in Exhibits 7–12, the
`
`Asserted Patents read onto portions of the 4G/LTE or NR/5G standards, each of
`
`which Honda implements in its Accused Products. In particular, Honda and/or its
`
`customers and end users must practice one or more claims from each of the
`
`Asserted Patents in order to implement the 4G/LTE and/or NR/5G standards in the
`
`Accused Products. Thus, on information and belief, Honda’s implementation(s) of
`
`the LTE/4G and/or NR/5G standards necessarily infringes one or more claims of
`
`the Asserted Patents.
`
`49. Honda does not have any rights to the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`50. 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.
`
`51.
`
`In the interest of providing detailed averments of infringement, Neo
`
`Wireless has identified below at least one claim per patent to demonstrate
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-11403-TGB ECF No. 4, PageID.21 Filed 07/20/22 Page 15 of 39
`
`infringement. However, the selection of claims should not be considered limiting,
`
`and additional claims of the Patents-in-Suit (including 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
`
`52. Neo Wireless incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as if
`
`fully set forth herein.
`
`53. As set forth below, Honda’s Accused Products incorporate, without
`
`any license from Neo Wireless, 4G/LTE and/or 5G/NR technology protected by
`
`patents owned by Neo Wireless. Neo Wireless respectfully seeks relief from this
`
`Court for Honda’s infringement.
`
`54. 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 the Southern District of Ohio and elsewhere in the United States,
`
`and/or importing into the Southern District of Ohio 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.
`
`55. Each Honda entity, directly or by controlling the activities of its
`
`subsidiaries, makes, sells, offers for sale, uses, and imports the Accused Products
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-11403-TGB ECF No. 4, PageID.22 Filed 07/20/22 Page 16 of 39
`
`in the United States. And, each Honda entity engages in the designing, developing,
`
`testing, and manufacturing of the Accused Products sold, used, and offered for sale
`
`in the United States, as well as the sales the Accused Products.
`
`56. HMC makes, sells, offers for sale, uses, and imports vehicles outfitted
`
`with instrumentalities that infringe the Asserted Patents in the United States.
`
`57. For example, HMC owns and operates the American Honda official
`
`website that offers for sale infringing vehicles outfitted with instrumentalities that
`
`infringe the Asserted Patents in the United States.4
`
`58. Similarly, HMC owns and operates locations across the United States
`
`responsible for the development and designing of Honda automobiles sold across
`
`the United States, including the Accused Products.5
`
`59. HMC imports foreign-made vehicles outfitted with instrumentalities
`
`that infringe the Asserted Patents for use, sale, offer for sale, and other distribution
`
`throughout the United States.
`
`60. HDMA owns and operates at least four manufacturing facilities across
`
`the Unites States responsible for designing, building, assembling, manufacturing,
`
`offering for sale, and selling the Accused Products throughout the United States.
`
`
`4 See https://www.honda.com/.
`5 See https://global.honda/innovation/design/designstudio/studio7.html.
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-11403-TGB ECF No. 4, PageID.23 Filed 07/20/22 Page 17 of 39
`
`61. Each Honda entity has indirectly infringed the Asserted Patents under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271(b) by actively 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.
`
`62. For example, HMC’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 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.
`
`63. Similarly, HDMA’s sales, development, and 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 that invite, entice, lead on, influence, encourage, prevail on,
`
`move by persuasion, and/or cause its subsidiaries, distributors, retailers,
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-11403-TGB ECF No. 4, PageID.24 Filed 07/20/22 Page 18 of 39
`
`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.
`
`64. Each Honda entity has further provided the above-mentioned
`
`technical documentation and training materials to its subsidiaries, distributors,
`
`retailers, dealerships, customers, and the public that cause end users of the Accused
`
`Products to utilize the products in a manner that directly infringe on one or more
`
`claims of the Asserted Patents, and engaged in such inducement to promote the
`
`sales of the Accused Products (e.g. through user manuals, product support,
`
`marketing materials, technical materials, and training materials) to actively induce
`
`the end users of the Accused Products to infringe the Asserted Patents.
`
`65. As another example, HMC advertises on its website to its customer
`
`and other end users “How to Use the Built in 4G LTE Wi-Fi” on the Accused
`
`Products. These advertisements are meant to entice sales and the use of the
`
`Accused Instrumentalities, and further describe to a customer or end user how to
`
`use the Accused Instrumentalities.6
`
`66. HMC and HDMA further advertise and provide their customers and
`
`end users with specifications describing the Accused Instrumentalities and how
`
`they are used in the Accused Products.
`
`
`6 See https://owners.honda.com/vehicles/information/2022/Odyssey/features/Wi-Fi-
`Hotspot/1/how-to-use-the-built-in-4g-lte-wi-fi.
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-11403-TGB ECF No. 4, PageID.25 Filed 07/20/22 Page 19 of 39
`
`67. Honda took the above actions intending to cause infringing acts by
`
`others.
`
`68. 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.
`
`69. Neo sent a letter to HMC on November 29, 2021 that Honda received
`
`no later than November 30, 2021 informing Honda of Neo Wireless’s relevant
`
`patent portfolio, including listing the patents-in-suit and how the patents-in-suit
`
`cover certain 3GPP wireless standards used in Honda’s Accused Products in an
`
`attempt to initiate commercial licensing discussions. Honda did not respond,
`
`refused to engage in any good faith licensing negotiations, and continued
`
`infringing on the Asserted Patents. On information and belief, each Honda entity
`
`obtained actual knowledge of the Asserted Patents and its infringement thereof
`
`through HMC no later than November 30,2021. In any event, HMC and HDMA
`
`were on notice and had actual knowledge of the Asserted Patents and their
`
`infringement on the date of service of this Complaint. Therefore, each Honda
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-11403-TGB ECF No. 4, PageID.26 Filed 07/20/22 Page 20 of 39
`
`entity 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 and has deliberately and wantonly continued to infringe on Neo’s patent
`
`rights.
`
`70. For the reasons described above, each Honda entity’s infringement of
`
`the Asserted Patents has been willful and egregious.
`
`71. 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
`
`72. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations of all of the foregoing paragraphs
`
`as if fully restated herein.
`
`73. As described above, each Honda entity has infringed and continues to
`
`infringe the ’366 Patent by implementing, using, offering for sale, and selling
`
`4G/LTE and/or 5G/NR cellular functionality according to one or more 3GPP
`
`standard releases from 8 through 17 in the Accused Products, and performing the
`
`acts of infringement described above.
`
`74. Honda’s Accused Products are configured to operate across the
`
`various modes, formats, and schemes defined in the 4G/LTE and NR/5G 3GPP
`
`standards. Honda’s Accused Products are configured to operate within 4G/LTE
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-11403-TGB ECF No. 4, PageID.27 Filed 07/20/22 Page 21 of 39
`
`and/or NR/5G cellular networks that are controlled and configured by various
`
`carriers and implemented using a variety of hardware and/or software.
`
`Additionally, each base station may operate differently based on the wireless
`
`conditions, location, and/or network configuration. Accordingly, Honda’s Accused
`
`Products are configured to accommodate those differences and implement the
`
`3GPP standards holistically, and do not exclude particular modes or schemes in
`
`which a serving base station may be configured to operate.
`
`75. Each of Honda’s Accused Products implements the portions of the
`
`3GPP LTE standard specification that read on at least claim 1 of the ’366 patent.
`
`See Exhibit 7. Exhibit 7 illustrates how implementing and carrying out certain
`
`portions of the 3GPP LTE standard (“covered functionality”) requires the
`
`practicing of at least claim 1 of the ’366 patent. Id. On information and belief, each
`
`portion of the standard cited in Exhibit 7 is implemented to provide LTE
`
`functionality in the Accused Products. For example, the covered functionality of
`
`the ’366 patent is present in the 3GPP LTE standard from the earliest release
`
`number 8 through the last LTE release number 17. As further illustrated in Exhibit
`
`7, third-party industry experts through textbooks and articles confirm the inclusion
`
`of the covered functionality within the 3GPP LTE standard. Further, industry
`
`experts consulted by Neo have confirmed that, based on their experience with and
`
`knowledge of the 3GPP standards and their implementation, the Accused Products
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-11403-TGB ECF No. 4, PageID.28 Filed 07/20/22 Page 22 of 39
`
`are configured to practice the covered functionality when they provide LTE
`
`connectivity. The technology covered by claim 1 of the ’366 patent and reflected in
`
`the 3GPP standard portions set out in Exhibit 7 is a core part of communications on
`
`an LTE network, and would be required in any device operating on said network.
`
`For example, the covered functionality related to the random-access procedure is
`
`integral to the establishment of connections between Honda’s Accused Products
`
`and the serving base stations for LTE networks. Additionally, based on FCC filings
`
`and corroborating public information, Defendants’ Accused Products are compliant
`
`with various 3GPP LTE releases, including release 8 and later releases, and are
`
`configured with the covered functionalities. Finally, on information and belief, due
`
`to the features Honda advertises as enabled by the 4G/LTE functionality, including
`
`but not limited to remote connectivity and Wi-Fi internet access, Honda’s Accused
`
`Products implement the covered functionality of the 3GPP LTE standard
`
`regardless of whether one or more aspects of that functionality is mandatory or
`
`optional to implement the LTE standard.
`
`76. Honda’s Accused Products therefore meet at least one claim of the
`
`’366 patent.
`
`77. To the extent that Honda releases any new version of Honda’s
`
`Accused Products, such instrumentalities will meet the claims of the ’366 patent
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-11403-TGB ECF No. 4, PageID.29 Filed 07/20/22 Page 23 of 39
`
`and infringe under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a)–(b) in ways analogous to Honda’s current
`
`infringement described above.
`
`78. 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
`
`79. Neo Wireless incorporates the allegations of the foregoing paragraphs
`
`as if fully restated herein.
`
`80. As described above, each Honda entity has infringed and continues to
`
`infringe the Asserted Patents by implementing and using 4G/LTE and/or 5G/NR
`
`cellular functionality accordi
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
