throbber
Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 31, PageID.1047 Filed 07/20/22 Page 1 of 40
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`
`
`IN RE NEO WIRELESS, LLC
`PATENT LITIG.
`
`
`2:22-MD-03034-TGB
`
`
`HON. TERRENCE G. BERG
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2:22-CV-11405-TGB
`
`
`
`
`HON. TERRENCE G. BERG
`
`
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
` §
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`NEO WIRELESS, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`NISSAN NORTH AMERICA
`INC. & NISSAN MOTOR
`ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION
`a/k/a NISSAN MOTOR
`ACCEPTANCE COMPANY
`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
`
`Nissan North America Inc. (“Nissan NA”) and Nissan Motor Acceptance
`
`Corporation (“NMAC”) (collectively, “Nissan,” “Nissan Defendants,” or
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 31, PageID.1048 Filed 07/20/22 Page 2 of 40
`
`
`
`“Defendants”). Neo files this amended complaint to add additional defendants, and
`
`to address the arguments made in Nissan’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 19). To be
`
`clear, Neo strongly disagrees with the arguments in Nissan’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 Nissan’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 Nissan’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 Nissan North America Inc.
`
`(“Nissan NA”) is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state
`
`of Delaware with its principal place of business at One Nissan Way, Franklin,
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 31, PageID.1049 Filed 07/20/22 Page 3 of 40
`
`
`
`Tennessee 37067. Nissan NA may be served through its registered agent,
`
`Corporation Service Company, 2908 Poston Ave., Nashville, Tennessee 37203.
`
`3.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Nissan Motor Acceptance
`
`Corporation a/k/a Nissan Motor Acceptance Company LLC (“NMAC”) is a
`
`corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware with its
`
`principal place of business at One Nissan Way, Franklin, Tennessee 37067.
`
`NMAC may be served through its registered agent, Corporation Service Company,
`
`2908 Poston Ave., Nashville, Tennessee 37203.
`
`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.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`§§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`6.
`
`Venue is proper in the Middle District of Tennessee under 28 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1400(b) against Nissan NA and NMAC because, on information and belief, each
`
`Nissan Defendant (1) has committed acts of infringement in the Middle District of
`
`Tennessee and (2) has a regular and established place of business in the Middle
`
`District of Tennessee.
`
`7.
`
`The Middle District of Tennessee has general personal jurisdiction
`
`over Nissan NA and NMAC because each entity’s principal place of business is in
`
`the forum state and in the Middle District of Tennessee.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 31, PageID.1050 Filed 07/20/22 Page 4 of 40
`
`
`
`8.
`
`The Nissan Defendants are also subject to the Middle District of
`
`Tennessee’s specific personal jurisdiction due at least to the Nissan Defendants’
`
`substantial business activities in the Middle District of Tennessee. Defendants have
`
`continuous and systematic business contacts with the State of Tennessee.
`
`Specifically, Defendants conduct business and have committed acts of patent
`
`infringement and have induced acts of patent infringement by others in the Middle
`
`District of Tennessee, the State of Tennessee, and elsewhere in the United States.
`
`Defendants, directly and through subsidiaries or intermediaries, have committed
`
`and continue to commit acts of infringement in the Middle District of Tennessee
`
`by, among other things, designing, developing, manufacturing, importing, offering
`
`to sell, and selling products that infringe the asserted patents.
`
`9.
`
`Defendants do and intend to do business in Tennessee and in the
`
`Middle District of Tennessee, directly or through intermediaries, and offer their
`
`products and/or services, including those accused herein of infringement, to
`
`customers and potential customers located in Tennessee and in the Middle District
`
`of Tennessee.
`
`10. 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
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 31, PageID.1051 Filed 07/20/22 Page 5 of 40
`
`
`
`be purchased and used by customers and/or consumers in the Middle District of
`
`Tennessee.
`
`11. Defendants maintain facilities in the Middle District of Tennessee and
`
`throughout the State of Tennessee, including at least Nissan NA’s headquarters at
`
`One Nissan Way, Franklin, Tennessee 37067, and Nissan’s Smyrna Vehicle
`
`Assembly Plant at 983 Nissan Drive, Smyrna, Tennessee 37167.
`
`12. Nissan’s Smyrna Vehicle Assembly Plant has an annual production
`
`capacity of 640,000 vehicles and currently produces at least six different vehicle
`
`models.1
`
`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 Middle District of Tennessee.
`
`14. Defendants have placed the Accused Products into the stream of
`
`commerce by selling and/or offering to sell the Accused Products in the Middle
`
`District of Tennessee, shipping Accused Products into the Middle District of
`
`Tennessee, and/or shipping Accused Products knowing that those products would
`
`be shipped into the Middle District of Tennessee.
`
`
`1 https://www.nissanusa.com/about/corporate-information.html.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 31, PageID.1052 Filed 07/20/22 Page 6 of 40
`
`
`
`THE ASSERTED PATENTS
`The ’366 Patent
`
`I.
`
`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.
`
`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”),
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 31, PageID.1053 Filed 07/20/22 Page 7 of 40
`
`
`
`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 was 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
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 31, PageID.1054 Filed 07/20/22 Page 8 of 40
`
`
`
`“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
`
`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
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 31, PageID.1055 Filed 07/20/22 Page 9 of 40
`
`
`
`“Method and System for Multi-Carrier Packet Communication with Reduced
`
`Overhead.” 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 from 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
`Inventor Xiaodong (Alex) Li, Ph.D. founded Neocific Inc. in the early
`
`34.
`
`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.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 31, PageID.1056 Filed 07/20/22 Page 10 of 40
`
`
`
`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 times 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.
`
`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.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 31, PageID.1057 Filed 07/20/22 Page 11 of 40
`
`
`
`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.
`
`In recent years, automakers have implemented this cellular
`
`communications technology into their vehicles. 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 after a collision. In 2007, 3G technology emerged, bringing greater speed
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 31, PageID.1058 Filed 07/20/22 Page 12 of 40
`
`
`
`and capacity to these features and allowing automakers to design more advanced
`
`functions.
`
`42. When the technology emerged, Nissan began implementing the
`
`newest 4G LTE cellular technology into many of its 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, Nissan 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. Nissan provides 4G LTE connectivity in its various products via the
`
`NissanConnect system.
`
`44. Building on these 4G LTE capabilities, Nissan developed and utilizes
`
`the NissanConnect Services application that enables its customers to interact with
`
`their vehicles from their cellular devices, using the cellular connectivity of the
`
`Accused Products. Features on the NissanConnect Services application include
`
`remote start, keyless entry, voice commands, and diagnostics.
`
`45. Nissan models that implement 4G/LTE communications—including
`
`but not limited to the Titan, Pathfinder, and Armada models—as well as those that
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 31, PageID.1059 Filed 07/20/22 Page 13 of 40
`
`
`
`may in the future implement 4G/LTE or 5G/NR capabilities, infringe the Patents-
`
`in-Suit and are collectively referred to herein as the “Accused Products.”
`
`46. Nissan’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 Nissan’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 Nissan’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
`
`wireless conditions. As such, Nissan’s Accused Products are configured to operate
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 31, PageID.1060 Filed 07/20/22 Page 14 of 40
`
`
`
`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 Nissan implements in its Accused Products. In particular, Nissan 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, Nissan’s implementation(s) of
`
`the LTE/4G and/or NR/5G standards necessarily infringes one or more claims of
`
`the Asserted Patents.
`
`49. Nissan does not have any rights to the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`50. 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, to the extent it was necessary, Neo Wireless
`
`provided Nissan 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
`
`infringement. However, the selection of claims should not be considered limiting,
`
`and additional claims of the Patents-in-Suit (including method, system, and
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 31, PageID.1061 Filed 07/20/22 Page 15 of 40
`
`
`
`apparatus claims) that are infringed by the Nissan Defendants will be disclosed in
`
`compliance with the Court’s rules related to infringement contentions.
`
`NISSAN’S ACTS OF PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`52. Neo Wireless incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as if
`
`fully set forth herein.
`
`53. As set forth below, Nissan’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 Nissan’s infringement.
`
`54. Each Nissan entity 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 Middle District of Tennessee and elsewhere in the
`
`United States, and/or importing into the Middle District of Tennessee and
`
`elsewhere in the United States, one or more of Nissan’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 Nissan entity directly or by controlling the activities of its
`
`subsidiaries, makes, sells, offers for sale, uses, and imports the Accused Products
`
`in the United States. And, each Nissan entity engages in the designing, developing,
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 31, PageID.1062 Filed 07/20/22 Page 16 of 40
`
`
`
`testing, and manufacturing of the Accused Products sold, used, and offered for sale
`
`in the United States, as well as the sale of the Accused Products.
`
`56. For example, Nissan NA, directly or by controlling the activities of its
`
`subsidiaries, manufactures, makes, sells, offers for sale, uses, and imports vehicles
`
`outfitted with instrumentalities that infringe the Asserted Patents in the United
`
`States.
`
`57. Nissan NA makes, sells, offers for sale, uses, and imports vehicles
`
`outfitted with instrumentalities that infringe the Asserted Patents to its customers,
`
`subsidiaries, distributors, retailers, dealerships and/or end users in the United
`
`States.
`
`58. For example, Nissan NA owns and operates four manufacturing
`
`facilities in the United States responsible for designing, building, assembling,
`
`manufacturing, offering for sale, and selling the Accused Products sold throughout
`
`the United States. Similarly, Nissan NA owns and operates the Nissan USA
`
`Official Website that offers for sale infringing vehicles outfitted with
`
`instrumentalities that infringe the Asserted Patents in the United States.
`
`59. Nissan NA also owns and operates the official Nissan website for the
`
`United States that offers for sale infringing vehicles outfitted with instrumentalities
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 31, PageID.1063 Filed 07/20/22 Page 17 of 40
`
`
`
`that infringe the Asserted Patents to subsidiaries, dealerships, distributors, retailers,
`
`and end-user customers.2
`
`60. Nissan NA 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.
`
`61. NMAC sells, offers for sale, and uses the Accused Products in the
`
`United States. For example, NMAC offers for sale and sells the lease returns for
`
`the Accused Products at wholesale auction.
`
`62. Each Nissan 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 LTE and/or NR features within the
`
`United States, and/or instructing, dictating, or training its dealerships and
`
`customers to use the infringing features. Because they performed these acts with
`
`full knowledge of the Asserted Patents and their infringement thereof, as set forth
`
`in detail below, each Nissan entity has specifically intended others, such as its
`
`subsidiaries, dealerships, distributors, retailers, and end-user customers, to infringe
`
`
`2 See https://www.nissanusa.com/.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 31, PageID.1064 Filed 07/20/22 Page 18 of 40
`
`
`
`Neo’s Asserted Patents knowing its subsidiaries, dealerships, distributors, retailers,
`
`and end-user customers’ acts constitute infringement.
`
`63. For example, Nissan NA’s advertising, sales, design, development
`
`and/or technical materials related to the 3GPP LTE/4G and/or 5G/NR standards
`
`associated with the Nissan 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 their
`
`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.
`
`64. Similarly, NMAC’s advertising, sales, and technical materials related
`
`to the 3GPP LTE/4G and/or 5G/NR standards associated with the Nissan 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.
`
`65. Each Nissan 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
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 31, PageID.1065 Filed 07/20/22 Page 19 of 40
`
`
`
`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.
`
`66. Nissan NA advertises on its website to its customers and other end
`
`users Nissan’s NissanConnect with Wi-Fi Hotspot technological capabilities for
`
`the Accused Products meant to use the Accused Features as a means to entice sales
`
`and use of the Accused Instrumentalities.3 These advertisements, among others,4
`
`further describe to a customer or end user how to use the Accused
`
`Instrumentalities.
`
`67. Nissan NA further advertises and provides its customers and end users
`
`with specifications describing the Accused Instrumentalities and how they are used
`
`in the Accused Products.
`
`68. NMAC, as the reseller for its customers’ lease returns, also provides
`
`the above-mentioned specs and encourages its customers and end users to use
`
`Nissan’s NissanConnect and other infringing features in the resold Accused
`
`
`3 See https://www.nissanusa.com/connect/features-apps/car-wifi-hotspot.html.
`4 See https://www.nissanusa.com/connect.html.
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 31, PageID.1066 Filed 07/20/22 Page 20 of 40
`
`
`
`Products with a deliberate disregard for its known infringement of the Asserted
`
`Patents.
`
`69. Nissan took the above actions intending to cause infringing acts by
`
`others.
`
`70. Further, Nissan has made, used, sold, offered to sell, imported and/or
`
`encouraged the making, using, selling, offering to sell, or importing of Nissan’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, each Nissan entity 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.
`
`71. Neo sent a letter to Nissan NA on November 29, 2021 that Nissan
`
`received no later than December 1, 2021 informing Nissan 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 Nissan’s Accused Products in
`
`an attempt to initiate commercial licensing discussions. NMAC, who shares the
`
`same address as Nissan NA, obtained actual knowledge of the patents-in-suit and
`
`how the patents-in-suit cover certain 3GPP wireless standards used in Nissan’s
`
`Accused Products through Nissan NA. Nissan did not respond, refused to engage
`
`in any good-faith licensing negotiations, and continued infringing the Asserted
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 31, PageID.1067 Filed 07/20/22 Page 21 of 40
`
`
`
`Patents. In any event, Nissan NA and NMAC were on actual notice of the Asserted
`
`Patents and its infringement on the date of service of this Complaint. Therefore,
`
`each Nissan 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.
`
`72. For the reasons described above, Nissan’s infringement of the
`
`Asserted Patents has been willful and egregious.
`
`73. Nissan’s acts of infringement have caused damage to Neo Wireless.
`
`Neo Wireless is entitled to recover from Nissan the damages incurred by Neo
`
`Wireless as a result of Nissan’s wrongful acts.
`
`COUNT ONE: INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’366 PATENT
`74. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations of all of the foregoing paragraphs
`
`as if fully restated herein.
`
`75. As described above, each Nissan 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.
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 31, PageID.1068 Filed 07/20/22 Page 22 of 40
`
`
`
`76. Nissan’s Accused Products are configured to operate across the
`
`various modes, formats, and schemes defined in the 4G/LTE and NR/5G 3GPP
`
`standards. Nissan’s Accused Products are configured to operate within 4G/LTE
`
`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, Nissan’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.
`
`77. Each of Nissan’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
`
`
`
`22
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 31, PageID.1069 Filed 07/20/22 Page 23 of 40
`
`
`
`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
`
`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 Nissan’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 Nissan advertises as enabled by the 4G/LTE functionality, including
`
`but not limited t

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket