Case 2:18-cv-08962-JLL-CLW Document 1 Filed 05/08/18 Page 1 of 19 PageID: 1
`
`Case 2:18-cv-08962-JLL-CLW Document 1 Filed 05/08/18 Page 1 of 19 PageID: 1
`
`James E. Cecchi
`Caroline F. Bartlett
`
`CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY
`& AGNELLO, RC.
`5 Becker Farm Road
`Roseland, NJ 07068
`Telephone: (973) 994-1700
`Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
`Attorneys for PlaintiffSIPCO, LLC
`
`Gregory J. Myers, MN #0287398
`Kristen G. Marttila, MN #0346007
`
`LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
`100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
`Minneapolis, MN 55401
`Telephone: (612) 339-6900
`Facsimile: (612) 339—0981
`
`DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`SIPCO, LLC,
`
`.
`.
`RAB L1ght1ng Inc.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No.
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Plaintiffs, SIPCO, LLC (“SIPCO”), by and through undersigned counsel, hereby brings
`
`suit against RAB LIGHTING INC. (“RAB”) and alleges as follows:
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This is a civil action for patent
`
`infringement of United States Patents Nos.
`
`7,103,511 (‘511 Patent), 7,468,661 (‘661 Patent), 6,914,893 (‘893 Patent), 7,263,073 (‘073
`
`Patent), 6,836,737 (‘737 Patent), and 8,924,587 (‘587 Patent) under the patent laws ofthe United
`
`States, including 35 U.S.C. §§271 and 281-285.
`
`2.
`
`A copy of the ‘511 Patent together with its Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate is
`
`attached as Exhibit A; a copy of the ‘661 Patent is attached as Exhibit B; a copy of the ‘893
`
`Patent is attached as Exhibit C; a copy of the ‘073 Patent is attached as Exhibit D; a copy of the
`
`‘737 Patent is attached as Exhibit E; a copy of the ‘587 Patent is attached as Exhibit F.
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-08962-JLL-CLW Document 1 Filed 05/08/18 Page 2 of 19 PageID: 2
`
`Case 2:18-cv-08962-JLL-CLW Document 1 Filed 05/08/18 Page 2 of 19 PageID: 2
`
`PARTIES
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiff SIPCO, LLC is a limited liability company organized and existing under
`
`the laws of the State of Georgia and maintains its principal place of business at 20638 Duxbury
`
`Terrace, Ashburn, Virginia 20147.
`
`4.
`
`Defendant RAB is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
`
`State of New Jersey, with its principal place of business at 170 Ludlow Avenue, Northvale, New
`
`Jersey, 07647.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`5.
`
`Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a), this Court has original jurisdiction
`
`over the subject matter of this action because this is an action arising under the Patent Laws of
`
`the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et. seq.
`
`6.
`
`This court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because infringing activity
`
`alleged herein took place in the State of New Jersey.
`
`Further,
`
`the exercise of personal
`
`jurisdiction comports with Due Process under the United States Constitution.
`
`7.
`
`Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400(b), venue is proper in this district.
`
`GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`SIPCO, LLC
`
`8.
`
`SIPCO is a small research, development and technology company originally
`
`based in Atlanta, Georgia. T. David Petite was its founding member.
`
`9.
`
`In the 19905, through his own individual research and development efforts, Mr.
`
`Petite invented a large number of wireless control and distribution technology applications. The
`
`inventions resulting from Mr. Petite’s efforts include, but are not limited to, various ways of
`
`moving data as economically and seamlessly as possible over both wired and wireless networks.
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-08962-JLL-CLW Document 1 Filed 05/08/18 Page 3 of 19 PageID: 3
`
`Case 2:18-cv-08962-JLL-CLW Document 1 Filed 05/08/18 Page 3 of 19 PageID: 3
`
`10.
`
`Through the 19905 and early 20005 investors contributed tens of millions of
`
`dollars for technology development and implementation of networks. Clients included Georgia
`
`Power, Alabama Power, Newnan Utilities GA, Johnson Controls, Synovus Bank, and Grand
`
`Court Lifestyles residential living facilities.
`
`11.
`
`After proving that
`
`the technology worked in the field, several companies
`
`competed to purchase an exclusive license to Mr. Petite’s technology for the market known as
`
`“smart grid.” Landis+Gyr (http://www.landisgyr.comf) (previously Siemens Metering) took an
`
`exclusive license to the smart grid technology in 2002 and in 2005 purchased rights to the
`
`technology for utility applications for $30,000,000. Mr. Petite’s technology has been deployed in
`
`millions of meters deployed across N01th America and throughout the world.
`
`12.
`
`SIPCO retained the rights to the mesh network patents, and for use of the
`
`technology outside of the utility space. It still maintains ownership of the software, firmware,
`
`hardware and patent portfolio that resulted from Mr. Petite’s research and development efforts.
`
`13.
`
`SIPCO’s patent portfolios (of which the patents in suit are a part) include
`
`inventions that are widely recognized as pioneering in various fields of use. As a result, more
`
`than 100 corporations have taken licenses to them. Licensees include companies operating in the
`
`vertical markets of Industrial Controls, Lighting, Smart Grid, Building Automation, Network
`
`Backhaul, Home Appliance, Home Automation and Entertainment, Sensor Monitoring, and
`
`Internet Service Provisioning. Licensed products include products using standard wireless mesh
`
`protocols such as WirelessHART, Zigbee, IEEE 80215.4, Thread, 6LoWPAN, Z-Wave, as well
`
`as proprietary wireless protocols such as that marketed by Enocean.
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-08962-JLL-CLW Document 1 Filed 05/08/18 Page 4 of 19 PageID: 4
`
`Case 2:18-cv-08962-JLL-CLW Document 1 Filed 05/08/18 Page 4 of 19 PageID: 4
`
`14.
`
`SIPCO is the exclusive owner of all rights, title, and interest in the patents in suit,
`
`including the right to exclude others and to enforce, sue and recover damages for past and future
`
`infringement thereof.
`
`DEFENDANT RAB LIGHTING INC.
`
`15.
`
`RAB is a lighting products company based in Northvale, New Jersey, that sells
`
`products nationwide, including networked lighting control systems.
`
`16.
`
`RAB has annual net sales in excess of $50 million.
`
`It is a market leader and one
`
`of the nation’s leading providers of indoor and outdoor lighting and energy management
`
`solutions.
`
`17.
`
`RAB has made, used, offered for sale, and sold wireless lighting control systems
`
`and components, including a line of systems, products and methods that are within or part of the
`
`Lightcloud line or lines (hereinafter “Lightcloud”).
`
`l8.
`
`RAB advertises wireless lighting control systems and components that “use
`
`Lightcloud enabled fixtures” for a “simple and affordable way to benefit from wireless lighting
`
`controls” and products that feature fixtures with “Lightcloud pre-installed” that are “plug-and—
`
`play” with no special installation or wiring required.
`
`19.
`
`For example, RAB advertises — and, therefore, has made, used, offered for sale,
`
`and sold — Lightcloud products it calls the:
`
`- “Lightcloud Touch,” a wall-mounted touchscreen for switching, dimming and scene
`
`control via a local mesh network;
`
`- Lightcloud Dimmer, an in-wall device that delivers remote switching, dimming and
`
`scene control;
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-08962-JLL-CLW Document 1 Filed 05/08/18 Page 5 of 19 PageID: 5
`
`Case 2:18-cv-08962-JLL-CLW Document 1 Filed 05/08/18 Page 5 of 19 PageID: 5
`
`- “Lightcloud Daylight” solar-powered wireless sensors that can dim or shut off electric
`
`lighting when sunlight is sufficient;
`
`- Lightcloud Sensor, which detects and switches or dims both local and remote circuits
`
`based on motion;
`
`- “Lightcloud Gateway,” the brain ofa Lightcloud system that communicates with RAB’S
`
`servers by a private cellular connection; and
`
`- “Lightcloud Controller,” a basic building block of a Lightcloud system to control the
`
`system, including switching and dimming, power management or extending the range of
`
`a Lightcloud mesh network.
`
`A Lightcloud installation “requires at least one Lightcloud Gateway” to manage the wireless
`
`devices.
`
`20.
`
`The specifications for Lightcloud require that it includes products that use or are
`
`based on devices that contain integrated radios operating to IEEE 802.15 .4 standards for wireless
`
`mesh protocols. Such Lightcloud systems consist of devices that have the capability of
`
`communicating with each other via a distributed mesh network. Lightcloud communicates as a
`
`closed system using a proprietary protocol, compliant with United States National Security
`
`Agency’s “Recommended Practices Guide for Securing Zigbee Wireless Networks in Process
`
`Control System Environments.”
`
`21.
`
`Upon information and belief, Lightcloud products that consist of devices
`
`containing integrated radios operating to IEEE 80215.4 standards employ a Zigbee device.
`
`22.
`
`RAB has installed Lightcloud in several hundred commercial and residential
`
`locations and settings, such as airports and aviation centers, community centers, hospitals and
`
`healthcare facilities, hotels,
`
`industrial
`
`sites, offices,
`
`restaurants,
`
`retail
`
`sites,
`
`schools and
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-08962-JLL-CLW Document 1 Filed 05/08/18 Page 6 of 19 PageID: 6
`
`Case 2:18-cv-O8962-JLL-CLW Document 1 Filed 05/08/18 Page 6 of 19 PageID: 6
`
`universities, places of worship, sports and recreation facilities and residential sites. Lightcloud
`
`installations are applicable to a variety of lighting and controls, including area lights, garage
`
`lights, stairwell lights, bay lights, panel lights, floodlights and other light varieties.
`
`DEFENDANT’S KNOWLEDGE OF PLAINTIFF’S PATENTS
`
`23.
`
`RAB initiated contact with SIPCO on December 14, 2015 to discuss the SIPCO
`
`licensing program and has been aware of the patents in suit since at
`
`least that time frame.
`
`Following discussions with a representative for SIPCO, SIPCO’s representative provided sample
`
`claim charts relating to the ‘511 Patent,
`
`the ‘66] Patent, and the ‘893 Patent detailing the
`
`infringement of at least one claim of each of those patents.
`
`24.
`
`RAB was subsequently engaged in license discussions with SIPCO over the
`
`course of the next two years. RAB’s outside counsel reviewed several of the patents in suit with
`
`RAB’s upper management and in repeated discussions with SIPCO’s representative.
`
`25.
`
`RAB was also presented with a list of other patents owned by SIPCO or its related
`
`company, IPCO, LLC (“IPCO”).
`
`26.
`
`RAB ultimately delayed discussions and did not finalize a license agreement with
`
`SIPCO or IPCO.
`
`COUNT I: DIRECT AND INDIRECT INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘511 PATENT
`
`27.
`
`Plaintiff hereby restates the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs
`
`above as if fully set forth herein.
`
`28.
`
`Plaintiff
`
`is
`
`the
`
`owner
`
`by
`
`assignment of
`
`the
`
`‘51]
`
`Patent,
`
`“Wireless
`
`Communications Networks For Providing Remote Monitoring Of Devices.” The ‘511 Patent
`
`was duly and legally issued on September 5, 2006, and was reexamined and a Reexamination
`
`Certificate was issued on October 25, 2011.
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-08962-JLL-CLW Document 1 Filed 05/08/18 Page 7 of 19 PageID: 7
`
`Case 2:18-cv-08962-JLL-CLW Document 1 Filed 05/08/18 Page 7 of 19 PageID: 7
`
`29.
`
`Independent claim 1 of the ‘51] Patent states:
`
`A wireless communication network adapted for use in an automated monitoring
`system for monitoring and controlling a plurality of remote devices via a host
`computer connected to a wide area network, the wireless communication network
`comprising:
`
`a plurality of wireless transceivers having unique identifiers, each of the plurality
`of wireless transceivers configured to receive a sensor data signal from one of
`the plurality of remote devices and transmit an original data message using a
`predefined wireless communication protocol,
`the original data message
`comprising the corresponding unique identifier and sensor data signal and
`further configured to receive the original data message using the predefined
`communication protocol, the repeated data message including the sensor data
`signal and the corresponding unique identifier; and
`
`a site controller in communication with at least one of the plurality of wireless
`transceivers,
`the site controller configured to receive the original data
`messages and the repeated data messages,
`identify the remote device
`associated with the corresponding sensor data signal, and provide information
`related to the sensor data signal to the wide area network for delivery to the
`host computer.
`
`See Exhibit A, Col. 23, line 21 -- 46.
`
`30.
`
`Defendant has been and now is directly infringing at least claim 1 of the ‘511
`
`Patent by making, having had made, using, offering for sale, and selling Lightcloud networked
`
`lighting control system products that include Zigbee devices.
`
`31.
`
`A claim chart, attached as Exhibit G, explains how Defendant directly infringed,
`
`and is infringing, claim 1 ofthe ‘511 Patent.
`
`32.
`
`Defendant has been and now is indirectly infringing as a contributory infringer
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 271 at least claim 1 of the ‘511 Patent by making, having had made, using,
`
`offering for sale, and selling Lightcloud networked lighting control system products that include
`
`Zigbee devices, wherein Lightcloud is a component of a patented system, constituting a material
`
`part of the invention, knowing the same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-08962-JLL-CLW Document 1 Filed 05/08/18 Page 8 of 19 PageID: 8
`
`Case 2:18-cv-08962-JLL-CLW Document 1 Filed 05/08/18 Page 8 of 19 PageID: 8
`
`infringement of such patent, and not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for
`
`substantial noninfringing use.
`
`33.
`
`Defendant’s acts of infringement have caused and continue to cause damage to
`
`Plaintiff. Plaintiff is entitled to recover from Defendant the damages sustained by Plaintiff as a
`
`result of Defendant’s wrongful acts.
`
`COUNT II: DIRECT AND INDIRECT INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘661 PATENT
`
`34.
`
`Plaintiff hereby restates the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs
`
`above as if fully set forth herein.
`
`35.
`
`Plaintiff is the owner by assignment of the ‘661 Patent, “Systems And Methods
`
`For Monitoring And Controlling Remote Devices.” The ‘661 Patent was duly and legally issued
`
`on December 23, 2008.
`
`36.
`
`Claim 9 ofthe ‘66] Patent states:
`
`A system for controlling a remote device comprising:
`
`a target remote device having an actuator to be controlled;
`
`a computer configured to execute at least one computer program that generates at
`least one control signal responsive to a system input signal; said computer
`integrated with a wide area network (WAN);
`
`a gateway connected to the WAN configured to receive and translate the at least
`one control signal
`
`a wireless transmitter coupled with the gateway for transmitting a wireless signal
`that contains the control signal;
`
`a first wireless transceiver electrically interfaced with an actuator for receiving the
`wireless signal and further retransmitting the wireless signal
`to the target
`remote device; and
`
`logic coupled to the target remote device for extracting the control signal from the
`retransmitted wireless signal and imparting an action on the actuator in
`response to the extracted control signal.
`
`See Exhibit B, Col. 19, line 43 — Col. 20, line 4.
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-08962-JLL-CLW Document 1 Filed 05/08/18 Page 9 of 19 PageID: 9
`
`Case 2:18-cv-08962-JLL-CLW Document 1 Filed 05/08/18 Page 9 of 19 PageID: 9
`
`37.
`
`Defendant has been and now is directly infringing at least claim 9 of the ‘661
`
`Patent by making, having had made, using, offering for sale, and selling Lightcloud networked
`
`lighting control system products that include Zigbee devices.
`
`38.
`
`A claim chart attached as Exhibit H, explains how Defendant directly infringed,
`
`and is infringing, claim 9 ofthe ‘661 Patent.
`
`39.
`
`Defendant has been and now is indirectly infringing as contributory infringers
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 271 at least claim 9 of the ‘661 Patent by making, having had made, using,
`
`offering for sale, and selling Lightcloud networked lighting control system products that include
`
`Zigbee devices, wherein Lightcloud is a component of a patented system, constituting a material
`
`part of the invention, knowing the same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an
`
`infringement of such patent, and not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for
`
`substantial noninfringing use.
`
`40.
`
`Defendant’s acts of infringement have caused and continue to cause damage to
`
`Plaintiff. Plaintiff is entitled to recover from Defendant the damages sustained by Plaintiff as a
`
`result of Defendant’s wrongful acts.
`
`COUNT III: DIRECT AND INDIRECT INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘893 PATENT
`
`41.
`
`Plaintiff hereby restates the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs
`
`above as if fully set forth herein.
`
`42.
`
`Plaintiff is the owner by assignment of the ‘893 Patent, “System And Method For
`
`Monitoring And Controlling Remote Devices.” The ‘893 Patent was duly and legally issued on
`
`July 5, 2005.
`
`43.
`
`Claim 1 of the ‘893 Patent states:
`
`A system for communicating commands and sensed data between remote devices,
`the system comprising:
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-08962-JLL-CLW Document 1 Filed 05/08/18 Page 10 of 19 PageID: 10
`
`Case 2:18-cv-08962-JLL-CLW Document 1 Filed 05/08/18 Page 10 of 19 PageID: 10
`
`a plurality of transceivers, each transceiver being in communication with at least
`one other of the plurality of transceivers, wherein each transceiver has a
`unique
`address, wherein the unique address
`identities
`an individual
`transceiver, wherein each transceiver is geographically remote from the other
`of the plurality of transceivers, wherein each transceiver communicates with
`each of the other transceivers via preformatted messages;
`
`a controller, connected to one of the plurality of transceivers, the controller being
`in communications with each of the plurality of transceivers via a controller
`transceiver, the controller communicating via preformatted messages;
`
`wherein the preformatted messages comprises at least one packet, wherein the
`packet comprises:
`
`a receiver address comprising a scalable address of the at least one of the
`intended receiving transceivers;
`
`sender address comprising the unique address of the sending transceiver;
`
`a command indicator comprising a command code;
`
`at least one data value comprising a scalable message; and
`
`an error detector comprising a redundancy check error detector; and
`
`wherein the controller sends preformatted command messages via the controller
`transceiver, and the plurality of transceivers send preformatted response
`messages.
`
`See Exhibit C, Col. 14, line 50 — Col. 15, line 12.
`
`44.
`
`Defendant has been and is now directly infringing at least claim 1 of the ‘893
`
`Patent by making, having had made, using, offering for sale, and selling Lightcloud networked
`
`lighting control system products that include Zigbee devices.
`
`45.
`
`A claim chart attached as Exhibit I, explains how Defendant directly infringed,
`
`and is infringing, claim 1 of the ‘893 Patent.
`
`46.
`
`Defendant has been and now is indirectly infringing as a contributory infringer
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 271 at least claim 1 of the ‘893 Patent by making, having had made, using,
`
`offering for sale, and selling Lightcloud networked lighting control system products that include
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-08962-JLL-CLW Document 1 Filed 05/08/18 Page 11 of 19 PageID: 11
`
`Case 2:18-cv-08962-JLL-CLW Document 1 Filed 05/08/18 Page 11 of 19 PageID: 11
`
`part of the invention, knowing the same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an
`
`infringement of such patent, and not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for
`
`substantial noninfringing use.
`
`47.
`
`Defendant’s acts of infringement have caused and continue to cause damage to
`
`Plaintiff. Plaintiff is entitled to recover from Defendant the damages sustained by Plaintiff as a
`
`result of Defendant’s wrongful acts.
`
`COUNT IV: DIRECT AND INDIRECT INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘073 PATENT
`
`48.
`
`Plaintiff hereby restates the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs
`
`above as if fully set forth herein.
`
`49.
`
`Plaintiff is the owner by assignment of the ‘073 Patent, “Systems And Methods
`
`For Enabling A Mobile User To Notify An Automated Monitoring System Of An Emergency
`
`Situation.” The ‘073 Patent was duly and legally issued on January 31, 2002.
`
`50.
`
`Claim 1 ofthe ‘073 Patent states:
`
`A mobile communication device for use with an automated monitoring system for
`monitoring and controlling a plurality of remote devices,
`the automated
`monitoring system comprising a site controller
`in communication with the
`plurality of remote devices via a plurality of transceivers defining a wireless
`communication network and in communication with a host computer via a wide
`area network, the mobile communication device comprising:
`
`a
`comprising
`memory
`communication device;
`
`unique
`
`identifier
`
`associated with
`
`the mobile
`
`logic responsive to a transmit command to retrieve the unique identifier from
`memory and generate a transmit message using a predefined communication
`protocol being implemented by the wireless communication network,
`the
`transmit message comprising the unique identifier such that
`the transmit
`message may be
`received by the
`site
`controller via
`the wireless
`communication network and such that the site controller may identify the
`mobile communication device and notify the host computer of the transmit
`message;
`
`a wireless transmitter to communicate over the wireless communication network
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-08962-JLL-CLW Document 1 Filed 05/08/18 Page 12 of 19 PageID: 12
`
`Case 2:18-cv-08962-JLL-CLW Document 1 Filed 05/08/18 Page 12 of 19 PageID: 12
`
`a data packet
`wherein the predefined communication protocol comprises
`comprising: a receiver address identifying the receiver of the data packet; a
`sender address identifying the sender of the data packet; and a command
`indicator specifying a predefined command code; and
`
`fulther comprising a data payload, a checksum field for
`the data packet
`performing a redundancy check, a packet length indicator which indicates a
`total number of bytes in the current packet; a total packet indicator which
`indicates the total number of packets in the current message; and a current
`packet indicator which identifies the current packet; and a message number
`identifying the current message.
`
`See Exhibit D, Col. 13, lines 6-43.
`
`51.
`
`Defendant has been and is now directly infringing at least claim 1 of the ‘073
`
`Patent by making, having had made, using, offering for sale, and selling Lightcloud networked
`
`lighting control system products that include Zigbee devices.
`
`52.
`
`A claim chart attached as Exhibit J, explains how Defendant directly infringed,
`
`and is infringing, claim 1 ofthe ‘073 Patent.
`
`53.
`
`Defendant has been and now is indirectly infringing as a contributory infringer
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 271 at least claim 1 of the ‘073 Patent by making, having had made, using,
`
`offering for sale, and selling Lightcloud networked lighting control system products that include
`
`Zigbee devices, wherein Lightcloud is a component of a patented system, constituting a material
`
`part of the invention, knowing the same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an
`
`infringement of such patent, and not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for
`
`substantial noninfringing use.
`
`54.
`
`Defendant’s acts of infringement have caused and continue to cause damage to
`
`Plaintiff. Plaintiff is entitled to recover from Defendant the damages sustained by Plaintiff as a
`
`result of Defendant’s wrongful acts.
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-08962-JLL-CLW Document 1 Filed 05/08/18 Page 13 of 19 PageID: 13
`
`Case 2:18-cv-08962-JLL-CLW Document 1 Filed 05/08/18 Page 13 of 19 PageID: 13
`
`COUNT V: DIRECT AND INDIRECT INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘737 PATENT
`
`55.
`
`Plaintiff hereby restates the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs
`
`above as if fully set forth herein.
`
`56.
`
`Plaintiff is the owner by assignment of the ‘737 Patent, “Systems And Methods
`
`For Providing Remote Monitoring Of Consumption For A Utility Meter.” The ‘737 Patent was
`
`duly and legally issued on August 9, 2001.
`
`57.
`
`Claim 1 ofthe ‘737 Patent states:
`
`A communication device adapted for use in an automated monitoring system for
`providing remote monitoring of utility consumption, the automated monitoring
`system comprising a site controller in communication with a plurality of utility
`meters via a wireless communication network and in communication with a host
`
`computer via a wide area network, the communication device comprising:
`
`a data interface configured to receive data related to the consumption measured by
`a utility meter;
`
`memory comprising a unique identifier corresponding to the utility meter;
`
`logic configured to receive the data related to the consumption measured by the
`utility meter, retrieve the unique identifier corresponding to the utility meter,
`and generate a transmit message using a predefined communication protocol
`being implemented by the wireless communication network,
`the transmit
`message comprising the unique identifier and the data related to the
`consumption measured by the utility meter and configured such that
`the
`transmit message may be received by the site controller via the wireless
`communication network and such that the site controller may identify the
`utility meter and notify the host computer of the transmit message;
`
`the wireless
`communication over
`configured for
`transceiver
`a wireless
`communication network and configured to provide the transmit message to
`the wireless communication network and receive messages from the wireless
`communication network; and
`
`logic configured to receive a transmit message from another communication
`device and retransmit the received transmit message.
`
`See Exhibit E, Col. 17, lines 8-40.
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-08962-JLL-CLW Document 1 Filed 05/08/18 Page 14 of 19 PageID: 14
`
`Case 2:18-cv-08962-JLL-CLW Document 1 Filed 05/08/18 Page 14 of 19 PageID: 14
`
`58.
`
`Defendant has been and is now directly infringing at least claim 1 of the ‘737
`
`Patent by making, having had made, using, offering for sale, and selling Lightcloud networked
`
`lighting control system products that include Zigbee devices.
`
`59.
`
`A claim chart attached as Exhibit K, explains how Defendant directly infringed,
`
`and is infringing, claim 1 of the ‘737 Patent.
`
`60.
`
`Defendant has been and now is indirectly infringing as a contributory infringer
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 271 at least claim 1 of the ‘737 Patent by making, having had made, using,
`
`offering for sale, and selling Lightcloud networked lighting control system products that include
`
`Zigbee devices, wherein Lightcloud is a component ofa patented system, constituting a material
`
`part of the invention, knowing the same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an
`
`infringement of such patent, and not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for
`
`substantial noninfringing use.
`
`61.
`
`Defendant’s acts of infringement have caused and continue to cause damage to
`
`Plaintiff. Plaintiff is entitled to recover from Defendant the damages sustained by Plaintiff as a
`
`result of Defendant’s wrongful acts.
`
`COUNT VI: DIRECT AND INDIRECT INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘587 PATENT
`
`62.
`
`Plaintiff hereby restates the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs
`
`above as if fully set forth herein.
`
`63.
`
`Plaintiff is the owner by assignment of the ‘587 Patent, “Systems And Methods
`
`For Controlling Communication Between A Host Computer And Communication Devices.” The
`
`‘587 Patent was duly and legally issued on August 9, 2001.
`
`64.
`
`Claim 3 of the ‘737 Patent states:
`
`A site controller for use in a wireless communication network, the site controller
`
`comprising:
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-08962-JLL-CLW Document 1 Filed 05/08/18 Page 15 of 19 PageID: 15
`
`Case 2:18-cv-08962-JLL-CLW Document 1 Filed 05/08/18 Page 15 of 19 PageID: 15
`
`a transceiver configured to receive data messages from one or more wireless
`transceivers of the wireless communication network, each of the one or more
`wireless transceivers having a unique identifier and configured to receive a
`sensor data signal from a remote device, the data messages comprising the
`sensor data signal and the unique identifier of the corresponding wireless
`transceiver; and
`
`a network interface device configured to provide communication between the site
`controller and a wide area network,
`
`wherein the site controller is configured to identify remote devices associated
`with the sensor data signals of the received data messages,
`
`wherein the site controller is further configured to provide information related to
`the sensor data signals to the wide area network for access by a network
`device, and
`
`and determine and store upstream and downstream communication paths for the
`one or more wireless transceivers of the wireless communication network.
`
`See Exhibit F, Col. 19, lines 3-38.
`
`65.
`
`Defendant has been and is now directly infringing at least claim 3 of the ‘587
`
`Patth by making, having had made, using, offering for sale, and selling Lightcloud networked
`
`lighting control system products that include Zigbee devices.
`
`66.
`
`A claim chart attached as Exhibit L, explains how Defendant directly infringed,
`
`and is infringing, claim 3 ofthe ‘587 Patent.
`
`67.
`
`Defendant has been and now is indirectly infringing as a contributory infringer
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 271 at least claim 3 of the ‘587 Patent by making, having had made, using,
`
`offering for sale, and selling Lightcloud networked lighting control system products that include
`
`Zigbee devices, wherein Lightcloud is a component of a patented system, constituting a material
`
`part of the invention, knowing the same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an
`
`infringement of such patent, and not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for
`
`substantial noninfringing use.
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-08962-JLL-CLW Document 1 Filed 05/08/18 Page 16 of 19 PageID: 16
`
`Case 2:18-cv-08962-JLL-CLW Document 1 Filed 05/08/18 Page 16 of 19 PageID: 16
`
`Defendant’s acts of infringement have caused and continue to cause damage to Plaintiff.
`
`Plaintiff is entitled to recover from Defendant the damages sustained by Plaintiff as a result of
`
`Defendant’s wrongful acts.
`
`DEFENDANT’S WILLFULNESS OF INFRINGEMENT
`
`68.
`
`Plaintiff hereby restates the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs
`
`above as if fully set forth herein.
`
`69.
`
`Defendant actually knew that it was infringing at least one claim of the ‘51 1, ‘661
`
`and ‘893 patents because Defendant was provided claim charts showing such infringement.
`
`Defendant further actually knew that it was infringing at least one claim of the ‘073, ‘737 and
`
`‘587 patents because it was made aware of such patents.
`
`70.
`
`Alternatively, to the extent Defendant did not actually know that it was infringing,
`
`Defendant acted despite an objectively high likelihood that their actions constituted infringement
`
`of the patents in suit, and this objectively defined risk was either known or so obvious that it
`
`should have been known to Defendant.
`
`71.
`
`For example, Defendant knew about the ‘51 1, ‘661 and ‘893 patents because each
`
`of them were cited in a correspondence from Plaintiff s representative to Defendant in March
`
`2016. Defendant,
`
`in response, failed to advance any argument to distinguish the claims or
`
`support a position of non-infringement.
`
`72.
`
`Plaintiff notes that the following Petitions for Inter Partes Review have been filed
`
`with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, with the following status:
`
`a. Case IPR2015-00663 relating to Patent 7,103,51 1; a Petition was filed on February 2,
`
`2015. On June 23, 2015, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ruled that “Petitioner does
`
`not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge to the
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-08962-JLL-CLW Document 1 Filed 05/08/18 Page 17 of 19 PageID: 17
`
`Case 2:18-cv-08962-JLL-CLW Document 1 Filed 05/08/18 Page 17 of 19 PageID: 17
`
`patentability of claims
`
`1—4,
`
`6—1 1, 27—47, and 51—64 of the ’511 patent as
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.” (emphasis in original). On August 29, 2015, the
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied the Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of
`
`the Board’s finding that the claims were patentable.
`
`. Case IPR2014—00751 relating to Patent 7,468,661; a Petition was filed on May 14,
`
`2014 to review claims 1—-14. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board instituted trial with
`
`respect to claims 1—4 and 9—13 on November 17, 2014. (Paper 15) On November 13,
`
`2015, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ruled that “claims 2—4
`
`are unpatentable,”
`
`but “claims 1 and 9—13
`
`have not been shown to be unpatentable.” Case IPR2017-
`
`00001 relating to Patent 7,468,661; a Petition was filed on October 1, 2016 to
`
`institute a review of claims 1, 5, 6, 8-12, and 14. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`instituted trial with respect to claims 5, 6 and 8. On March 28, 2018, the Patent Trial
`
`and