`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 2002
`EXHIBIT 2002
`
`

`

`Case 6:10-cv-00473-LED-KFG Document 1 Filed 09/14/10 Page 1 of 27 PageID #: 1
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`
`
`ERICSSON INC. and
`TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM
`ERICSSON,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:10-cv-473
`
`
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`D-LINK CORPORATION,
`D-LINK SYSTEMS, INC.,
`NETGEAR, INC., ACER, INC., ACER
`AMERICA
`CORPORATION,
`and
`GATEWAY, INC.
`
`
`v.
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiffs Ericsson Inc. and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (collectively, “Plaintiffs” or
`
`“Ericsson”) file this Original Complaint for Patent Infringement against Defendants D-Link
`
`Corporation and D-Link Systems, Inc. (collectively, “D-Link”), Netgear, Inc. (“Netgear”), Acer,
`
`Inc. and Acer America Corporation (collectively, “Acer”), and Gateway, Inc. (“Gateway”), (D-
`
`Link, Netgear, Acer, and Gateway collectively, “Defendants”), and allege as follows:
`
`PARTIES
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff Ericsson Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
`
`business at 6300 Legacy Drive, Plano, Texas 75024.
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson is a corporation organized under the
`
`laws of the country of Sweden with its principal place of business at Torshamnsgatan 23, Kista,
`
`164 83 Stockholm, Sweden.
`
`
`Dallas 305466v4
`
`

`

`Case 6:10-cv-00473-LED-KFG Document 1 Filed 09/14/10 Page 2 of 27 PageID #: 2
`
`
`
`Defendant D-Link Corporation is a Taiwanese corporation, with its principal
`
`3.
`
`place of business at 4F, No. 289, Xinhu 3rd Road, Neihu District, Taipei City, Taiwan.
`
`
`
`4.
`
`D-Link Corporation is making, using, selling, importing, and/or offering for sale
`
`routers and/or other devices, having Atheros, QMI, Ralink, Foxconn, Gemtek, Lite-On, Marvell,
`
`Realtek, or Cambridge Silicon Radio chipsets, that are compliant with one or more of 802.11(a),
`
`802.11(e), 802.11(g), and 802.11(n) wireless LAN standards (hereinafter “D-Link WLAN-
`
`compliant products”).
`
`
`
`5.
`
`D-Link Corporation is doing business in the United States and, more particularly,
`
`in the Eastern District of Texas by making, using, selling, importing, and/or offering for sale
`
`802.11-compliant products with PCMCIA interfaces (“PCMCIA routers”), as well as the D-Link
`
`WLAN-compliant products, including but not limited to D-Link’s Wireless G series,
`
`RangeBooster G series, Wireless N 150 series, Wireless N 300, Xtreme N series, and
`
`RangeBooster N series products that infringe the patent claims involved in this action or by
`
`transacting other business in this District.
`
`
`
`6.
`
`Defendant D-Link Systems, Inc. is a California corporation, with its principal
`
`place of business at 17595 Mt. Hermann Street, Fountain Valley, California 92708.
`
`
`
`7.
`
`D-Link Systems, Inc. is making, using, selling, importing, and/or offering for sale
`
`routers and/or other devices, having Atheros, QMI, Ralink, Foxconn, Gemtek, Lite-On, Marvell,
`
`Realtek, or Cambridge Silicon Radio chipsets, that are compliant with one or more of 802.11(a),
`
`802.11(e), 802.11(g), and 802.11(n) wireless LAN standards (“D-Link WLAN-compliant
`
`products”).
`
`
`
`8.
`
`D-Link Systems, Inc. is doing business in the United States and, more
`
`particularly, in the Eastern District of Texas by making, using, selling, importing, and/or offering
`
`for sale PCMCIA routers, as well as the D-Link WLAN-compliant products, including but not
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`Dallas 305466v4
`
`
`
`PAGE 2
`
`

`

`Case 6:10-cv-00473-LED-KFG Document 1 Filed 09/14/10 Page 3 of 27 PageID #: 3
`
`limited to D-Link’s Wireless G series, RangeBooster G series, Wireless N 150 series, Wireless N
`
`300, Xtreme N series, and RangeBooster N series products that infringe the patent claims
`
`involved in this action or by transacting other business in this District. D-Link Systems, Inc.,
`
`may be served with process by serving its registered agent, Nancy Lemm, at 17595 Mt. Hermann
`
`Street, Fountain Valley, California 92708.
`
`
`
`9.
`
`Defendant Netgear, Inc. is a Delaware corporation, with its principal place of
`
`business at 350 East Plumeria Drive, San Jose, California 95134-1911.
`
`
`
`10.
`
`Netgear, Inc. is making, using, selling, importing, and/or offering for sale routers
`
`and/or other devices, having Atheros, QMI, Ralink, Foxconn, Gemtek, Lite-On, Marvell,
`
`Realtek, or Cambridge Silicon Radio chipsets, that are compliant with one or more of 802.11(a),
`
`802.11(e), 802.11(g), and 802.11(n) wireless LAN standards (hereinafter “Netgear WLAN-
`
`compliant products”).
`
`
`
`11.
`
`Netgear, Inc. is doing business in the United States and, more particularly, in the
`
`Eastern District of Texas by making, using, selling, importing, and/or offering for sale PCMCIA
`
`routers, as well as the Netgear WLAN-compliant products, including but not limited to Netgear’s
`
`G-series and N-series products that infringe the patent claims involved in this action or by
`
`transacting other business in this District. Netgear, Inc. may be served with process by serving
`
`its registered agent, CT Corporation System at 818 West Seventh Street, Los Angeles, California
`
`90017.
`
`
`
`12.
`
`Defendant Acer, Inc. is a Taiwanese corporation, with its principal place of
`
`business at 8F, 88, Sec 1, Hsin Tai Wud Road, Hsichih 221, Taiwan.
`
`
`
`13.
`
`Acer, Inc. is making, using, selling, importing, and/or offering for sale products,
`
`having Atheros, QMI, Ralink, Foxconn, Gemtek, Lite-On, Marvell, Realtek, or Cambridge
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`Dallas 305466v4
`
`
`
`PAGE 3
`
`

`

`Case 6:10-cv-00473-LED-KFG Document 1 Filed 09/14/10 Page 4 of 27 PageID #: 4
`
`Silicon Radio chipsets, that are compliant with one or more of 802.11(a), 802.11(e), 802.11(g),
`
`and 802.11(n) wireless LAN standards (hereinafter “Acer WLAN-compliant products”).
`
`
`
`14.
`
`Acer, Inc. is doing business in the United States and, more particularly, in the
`
`Eastern District of Texas by making, using, selling importing, and/or offering for sale the Acer
`
`WLAN-compliant products, as well as personal computers including physical wireless
`
`enablement switches, including but not limited to Acer’s TravelMate series, Aspire series,
`
`Extensa series, Ferrari series, and Veriton series products that infringe the patent claims involved
`
`in this action or by transacting other business in this District.
`
`
`
`15.
`
`Defendant Acer America Corporation is a California corporation, with its
`
`principal place of business at 333 W. San Carlos Street, Suite 1500, San Jose, California 95110.
`
`
`
`16.
`
`Acer America Corporation is making, using, selling, importing, and/or offering
`
`for sale products, having Atheros, QMI, Ralink, Foxconn, Gemtek, Lite-On, Marvell, Realtek, or
`
`Cambridge Silicon Radio chipsets, that are compliant with one or more of 802.11(a), 802.11(e),
`
`802.11(g), and 802.11(n) wireless LAN standards (“Acer WLAN-compliant products”).
`
`
`
`17.
`
`Acer America Corporation is doing business in the United States and, more
`
`particularly, in the Eastern District of Texas by making, using, selling importing, and/or offering
`
`for sale the Acer WLAN-compliant products and personal computers including physical wireless
`
`enablement switches, including but not limited to Acer’s TravelMate series, Aspire series,
`
`Extensa series, Ferrari series, and Veriton series products that infringe the patent claims involved
`
`in this action or by transacting other business in this District. Acer America Corporation may be
`
`served with process by serving its registered agent, CT Corporation System at 350 North St. Paul
`
`Street, Dallas, Texas 75201.
`
`
`
`18.
`
`Gateway, Inc. is a Delaware corporation, with its principal place of business at
`
`7565 Irvine Center Drive, Irvine, California 92618.
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`Dallas 305466v4
`
`
`
`PAGE 4
`
`

`

`Case 6:10-cv-00473-LED-KFG Document 1 Filed 09/14/10 Page 5 of 27 PageID #: 5
`
`
`
`Gateway, Inc. is making, using, selling, importing, and/or offering for sale
`
`19.
`
`products, having Atheros, QMI, Ralink, Foxconn, Gemtek, Lite-On, Marvell, Realtek, or
`
`Cambridge Silicon Radio chipsets, that are compliant with one or more of 802.11(a), 802.11(e),
`
`802.11(g), and 802.11(n) wireless LAN standards (hereinafter “Gateway WLAN-compliant
`
`products”).
`
`
`
`20.
`
`Gateway, Inc. is doing business in the United States and, more particularly, in the
`
`Eastern District of Texas by making, using, selling importing, and/or offering for sale the
`
`Gateway WLAN-compliant products, as well as personal computers including physical wireless
`
`enablement switches, including but not limited to Gateway’s LT series, EC series, ID series, NV
`
`series, P series, SX series, DX series, FX series, and ZX series products that infringe the patent
`
`claims involved in this action or by transacting other business in this District. Gateway, Inc. may
`
`be served with process by serving its registered agent, CT Corporation System at 818 West
`
`Seventh Street, Los Angeles, California 90017.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`
`
`21.
`
`This is a civil action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the
`
`United States, Title 35, United States Code, including 35 U.S.C. §§ 271 and 281-285.
`
`Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`
`
`22.
`
`Venue is proper in the Tyler Division of the Eastern District of Texas pursuant to
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1391 and 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b).
`
`
`
`23.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over D-Link. D-Link has conducted and does
`
`conduct business within the State of Texas. D-Link, directly or through intermediaries
`
`(including distributors, retailers, and others), ships, distributes, offers for sale, sells, and
`
`advertises products that infringe the patent claims involved in this action in the United States, the
`
`State of Texas, and the Eastern District of Texas. D-Link has purposefully and voluntarily
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`Dallas 305466v4
`
`
`
`PAGE 5
`
`

`

`Case 6:10-cv-00473-LED-KFG Document 1 Filed 09/14/10 Page 6 of 27 PageID #: 6
`
`placed one or more of its PCMCIA routers and D-Link WLAN-compliant products into the
`
`stream of commerce with the expectation that they will be purchased by consumers in the
`
`Eastern District of Texas. The D-Link PCMCIA routers and WLAN-compliant products have
`
`been and continue to be purchased by consumers in the Eastern District of Texas. D-Link has
`
`committed the tort of patent infringement within the State of Texas and, more particularly, within
`
`the Eastern District of Texas.
`
`
`
`24.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Netgear. Netgear has conducted and
`
`does conduct business within the State of Texas. Netgear, directly or through intermediaries
`
`(including distributors, retailers, and others), ships, distributes, offers for sale, sells, and
`
`advertises products that infringe the patent claims involved in this action in the United States, the
`
`State of Texas, and the Eastern District of Texas. Netgear has purposefully and voluntarily
`
`placed one or more of its PCMCIA routers and Netgear WLAN-compliant products into the
`
`stream of commerce with the expectation that they will be purchased by consumers in the
`
`Eastern District of Texas. The Netgear PCMCIA routers and WLAN-compliant products have
`
`been and continue to be purchased by consumers in the Eastern District of Texas. Netgear has
`
`committed the tort of patent infringement within the State of Texas and, more particularly, within
`
`the Eastern District of Texas.
`
`
`
`25.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Acer. Acer has conducted and does
`
`conduct business within the State of Texas. Acer, directly or through intermediaries (including
`
`distributors, retailers, and others), ships, distributes, offers for sale, sells, and advertises products
`
`that infringe the patent claims involved in this action in the United States, the State of Texas, and
`
`the Eastern District of Texas. Acer has purposefully and voluntarily placed one or more of its
`
`Acer WLAN-compliant products and personal computers including physical wireless enablement
`
`switches into the stream of commerce with the expectation that they will be purchased by
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`Dallas 305466v4
`
`
`
`PAGE 6
`
`

`

`Case 6:10-cv-00473-LED-KFG Document 1 Filed 09/14/10 Page 7 of 27 PageID #: 7
`
`consumers in the Eastern District of Texas. The Acer WLAN-compliant products and personal
`
`computers including physical wireless enablement switches have been and continue to be
`
`purchased by consumers in the Eastern District of Texas. Acer has committed the tort of patent
`
`infringement within the State of Texas and, more particularly, within the Eastern District of
`
`Texas.
`
`
`
`26.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Gateway. Gateway has conducted and
`
`does conduct business within the State of Texas. Gateway, directly or through intermediaries
`
`(including distributors, retailers, and others), ships, distributes, offers for sale, sells, and
`
`advertises products that infringe the patent claims involved in this action in the United States, the
`
`State of Texas, and the Eastern District of Texas. Gateway has purposefully and voluntarily
`
`placed one or more of its Gateway WLAN-compliant products and personal computers including
`
`physical wireless enablement switches into the stream of commerce with the expectation that
`
`they will be purchased by consumers in the Eastern District of Texas. The Gateway WLAN-
`
`compliant products and personal computers including physical wireless enablement switches
`
`have been and continue to be purchased by consumers in the Eastern District of Texas. Gateway
`
`has committed the tort of patent infringement within the State of Texas and, more particularly,
`
`within the Eastern District of Texas.
`
`GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`
`
`27.
`
`On June 23, 1998, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally issued
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,771,468 (“the ‘468 Patent”), entitled “Multi-Purpose Base Station,” to Per
`
`Stein. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson is the owner by assignment of the ‘468 Patent.
`
`
`
`28.
`
`On August 4, 1998, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally issued
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,790,516 (“the ‘516 Patent”), entitled “Pulse Shaping for a Data Transmission
`
`in an Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexed System,” to Perols Leif Mikael Gudmundson,
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`Dallas 305466v4
`
`
`
`PAGE 7
`
`

`

`Case 6:10-cv-00473-LED-KFG Document 1 Filed 09/14/10 Page 8 of 27 PageID #: 8
`
`Lars Gustav Brismark, and Per-Olof Anderson. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson is the owner
`
`by assignment of the ‘516 Patent.
`
`
`
`29.
`
`On November 16, 1999, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally
`
`issued U.S. Patent No. 5,987,019 (“the ‘019 Patent”), entitled “Multi-Rate Radiocommunication
`
`Systems and Terminals,” to Alex Krister Raith, James Ragsdale, and John Diachina.
`
`Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson is the owner by assignment of the ‘019 Patent.
`
`
`
`30.
`
`On December 11, 2001, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally
`
`issued U.S. Patent No. 6,330,435 (“the ‘435 Patent”), entitled “Data Packet Discard
`
`Notification,” to Tawfik Lazraq and Farooq Khan. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson is the
`
`owner by assignment of the ‘435 Patent.
`
`
`
`31.
`
`On July 23, 2002, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally issued
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,424,625 (“the ‘625 Patent”), entitled “Method and Apparatus for Discarding
`
`Packets in a Data Network Having Automatic Repeat Request,” to Peter Larsson and Mikael
`
`Larsson. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson is the owner by assignment of the ‘625 Patent.
`
`
`
`32.
`
`On October 15, 2002, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally
`
`issued U.S. Patent No. 6,466,568 (“the ‘568 Patent”), entitled “Multi-Rate Radiocommunication
`
`Systems and Terminals,” to Alex Krister Raith, James Ragsdale, and John Diachina.
`
`Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson is the owner by assignment of the ‘568 Patent.
`
`
`
`33.
`
`On February 11, 2003, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally
`
`issued U.S. Patent No. 6,519,223 (“the ‘223 Patent”), entitled “System and Method for
`
`Implementing a Semi Reliable Retransmission Protocol,” to Stefan Henrik Andreas Wager and
`
`Reiner Ludwig. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson is the owner by assignment of the ‘223 Patent.
`
`
`
`34.
`
`On August 3, 2004, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally issued
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,215 (“the ‘215 Patent”), entitled “Method for Minimizing Feedback
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`Dallas 305466v4
`
`
`
`PAGE 8
`
`

`

`Case 6:10-cv-00473-LED-KFG Document 1 Filed 09/14/10 Page 9 of 27 PageID #: 9
`
`Responses in ARQ Protocols,” to Bela Rathonyi, Joachim Sachs, Michael Meyer, Per Beming,
`
`Mathias Johansson, Christiaan Roobol, Erik Schon, and Kazuhiko Inoue. Telefonaktiebolaget
`
`LM Ericsson is the owner by assignment of the ‘215 Patent.
`
`
`
`35.
`
`On January 9, 2001, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally issued
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,173,352 (“the ‘352 Patent”), entitled “Mobile Computer Mounted Apparatus
`
`for Controlling Enablement and Indicating Operational Status of a Wireless Communication
`
`Device Associated with the Mobile Computer,” to Billy Gayle Moon. Ericsson Inc. is the owner
`
`by assignment of the ‘352 Patent.
`
`
`
`36.
`
`Ericsson is the owner of all rights, title, and interest in and to the ‘516 Patent,
`
`‘019 Patent, ‘435 Patent, ‘625 Patent, ‘568 Patent, ‘223 Patent, and ‘215 Patent (“the Ericsson
`
`WLAN Patents”). Ericsson is also the owner of all rights, title, and interest in and to the ‘468
`
`and ‘352 Patents. Ericsson possesses all rights to sue and recover for past and future
`
`infringement.
`
`
`
`37.
`
`Each of the Ericsson WLAN Patents, the ‘468 Patent, and the ‘352 Patent is valid
`
`and enforceable.
`
`
`
`38.
`
`Defendants have infringed, and continue to infringe, directly, contributorily,
`
`and/or through the inducement of others, the claimed methods and apparatuses of the Ericsson
`
`WLAN Patents through the IEEE 802.11-compliant products they make, use, import, export, sell,
`
`and/or offer for sale. D-Link and Netgear have infringed, and continue to infringe, directly,
`
`contributorily, and/or through the inducement of others, the claimed methods and apparatuses of
`
`the ‘468 Patent through the PCMCIA routers they make, use, import, export, sell, and/or offer for
`
`sale. Acer and Gateway have infringed, and continue to infringe, directly, contributorily, and/or
`
`through the inducement of others, the claimed methods and apparatuses of the ‘352 Patent
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`Dallas 305466v4
`
`
`
`PAGE 9
`
`

`

`Case 6:10-cv-00473-LED-KFG Document 1 Filed 09/14/10 Page 10 of 27 PageID #: 10
`
`through personal computers including physical wireless enablement switches they make, use,
`
`import, export, sell, and/or offer for sale.
`
`
`
`39.
`
`Defendants are aware of several of the Ericsson WLAN Patents, have knowledge
`
`of the infringing nature of their activities, have nevertheless continued their infringing activities,
`
`and their infringing activities have been and continue to be willful. D-Link was previously
`
`provided written and verbal notice of the ‘516 Patent, ‘435 Patent, ‘625 Patent, and ‘223 Patent,
`
`as well as D-Link’s infringement of each such patent. Netgear was previously provided written
`
`and verbal notice of the ‘019 Patent, the ‘568 Patent, the ‘625 Patent, the ‘223 Patent, the ‘435
`
`Patent, the ‘215 Patent, and the ‘516 Patent, as well as Netgear’s infringement of each such
`
`patent. Acer and Gateway were previously provided written and verbal notice of the ‘625 Patent,
`
`the ‘223 Patent, the ‘435 Patent, the ‘215 Patent, the ‘019 Patent, and the ‘568 Patent, as well as
`
`Defendants’ infringement of each such patent.
`
`
`
`40.
`
`Ericsson has been damaged as a result of Defendants’ infringing conduct.
`
`Defendants are, therefore, liable to Ericsson in an amount that adequately compensates Ericsson
`
`for Defendants’ infringement, which, by law, cannot be less than a reasonable royalty, together
`
`with interest and costs as fixed by this Court under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
`
`COUNT I
`
`Infringement of the ’468 Patent
`
`
`
`41.
`
`Ericsson repeats and realleges the allegations in paragraphs 1-40 as though fully
`
`set forth herein.
`
`
`
`42.
`
`D-Link has been and is now directly infringing the ‘468 Patent by making, using,
`
`selling, offering for sale, importing into the United States, and/or exporting D-Link PCMCIA
`
`routers that practice or embody one or more claims of the ‘468 Patent. For example, D-Link’s
`
`DIR-450 and DIR-451 products, wireless routers with PCMCIA card slots, embody Claim 1 of
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`Dallas 305466v4
`
`
`
`PAGE 10
`
`

`

`Case 6:10-cv-00473-LED-KFG Document 1 Filed 09/14/10 Page 11 of 27 PageID #: 11
`
`the ‘468 Patent. D-Link also has been and is now contributing to and/or inducing others, such as
`
`end users of such D-Link PCMCIA routers, to directly infringe one or more claims of the ‘468
`
`Patent. D-Link’s actions are in violation of one or more of the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a),
`
`(b), (c), (f), and (g).
`
`
`
`43.
`
`Netgear has been and is now directly infringing the ‘468 Patent by making, using,
`
`selling, offering for sale, importing into the United States, and/or exporting Netgear PCMCIA
`
`routers that practice or embody one or more claims of the ‘468 Patent. For example, Netgear’s
`
`MBR814XUC product, a wireless router with a PCMCIA card slot, embodies Claim 1 of the
`
`‘468 Patent. Netgear also has been and is now contributing to and/or inducing others, such as
`
`end users of such Netgear PCMCIA routers, to directly infringe one or more claims of the ‘468
`
`Patent. Netgear’s actions are in violation of one or more of the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a),
`
`(b), (c), (f), and (g).
`
`
`
`44.
`
`D-Link’s and Netgear’s acts have caused, and unless restrained and enjoined, will
`
`continue to cause, irreparable injury and damage to Ericsson and its affiliates for which there is
`
`no adequate remedy at law. Unless enjoined by this Court, D-Link and Netgear will continue to
`
`infringe the ‘468 Patent.
`
`COUNT II
`
`Infringement of the ’516 Patent
`
`
`
`45.
`
`Ericsson repeats and realleges the allegations in paragraphs 1-44 as though fully
`
`set forth herein.
`
`
`
`46.
`
`D-Link has been and is now directly infringing the ‘516 Patent by making, using,
`
`selling, offering for sale, importing into the United States, and/or exporting the D-Link WLAN-
`
`compliant products that practice or embody one or more claims of the ‘516 Patent. For example,
`
`the D-Link WLAN-compliant products supporting pulseshaping of OFDM signals practice or
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`Dallas 305466v4
`
`
`
`PAGE 11
`
`

`

`Case 6:10-cv-00473-LED-KFG Document 1 Filed 09/14/10 Page 12 of 27 PageID #: 12
`
`embody Claims 1 and 16 of the ‘516 Patent. D-Link also has been and is now contributing to
`
`and/or inducing others, such as end users of such D-Link WLAN-compliant products, to directly
`
`infringe one or more claims of the ‘516 Patent. D-Link’s actions are in violation of one or more
`
`of the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), (b), (c), (f), and (g).
`
`
`
`47.
`
`Netgear has been and is now directly infringing the ‘516 Patent by making, using,
`
`selling, offering for sale, importing into the United States, and/or exporting Netgear WLAN-
`
`compliant products that practice or embody one or more claims of the ‘516 Patent. For example,
`
`the Netgear WLAN-compliant products supporting pulseshaping of OFDM signals practice or
`
`embody Claims 1 and 16 of the ‘516 Patent. Netgear also has been and is now contributing to
`
`and/or inducing others, such as end users of such Netgear WLAN-compliant products, to directly
`
`infringe one or more claims of the ‘516 Patent. Netgear’s actions are in violation of one or more
`
`of the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), (b), (c), (f), and (g).
`
`
`
`48.
`
`Acer has been and is now directly infringing the ‘516 Patent by making, using,
`
`selling, offering for sale, importing into the United States, and/or exporting the Acer WLAN-
`
`compliant products that practice or embody one or more claims of the ‘516 Patent. For example,
`
`the Acer WLAN-compliant products supporting pulseshaping of OFDM signals practice or
`
`embody Claims 1 and 16 of the ‘516 Patent. Acer also has been and is now contributing to
`
`and/or inducing others, such as end users of such Acer WLAN-compliant products, to directly
`
`infringe one or more claims of the ‘516 Patent. Acer’s actions are in violation of one or more of
`
`the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), (b), (c), (f), and (g).
`
`
`
`49.
`
`Gateway has been and is now directly infringing the ‘516 Patent by making,
`
`using, selling, offering for sale, importing into the United States, and/or exporting the Gateway
`
`WLAN-compliant products that practice or embody one or more claims of the ‘516 Patent. For
`
`example, the Gateway WLAN-compliant products supporting pulseshaping of OFDM signals
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`Dallas 305466v4
`
`
`
`PAGE 12
`
`

`

`Case 6:10-cv-00473-LED-KFG Document 1 Filed 09/14/10 Page 13 of 27 PageID #: 13
`
`practice or embody Claims 1 and 16 of the ‘516 Patent. Gateway also has been and is now
`
`contributing to and/or inducing others, such as end users of such Gateway WLAN-compliant
`
`products, to directly infringe one or more claims of the ‘516 Patent. Gateway’s actions are in
`
`violation of one or more of the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), (b), (c), (f), and (g).
`
`
`
`50.
`
`Defendants’ acts have caused, and unless restrained and enjoined, will continue to
`
`cause, irreparable injury and damage to Ericsson and its affiliates for which there is no adequate
`
`remedy at law. Unless enjoined by this Court, Defendants will continue to infringe the ‘516
`
`Patent.
`
`COUNT III
`
`Infringement of the ’019 Patent
`
`
`
`51.
`
`Ericsson repeats and realleges the allegations in paragraphs 1-50 as though fully
`
`set forth herein.
`
`
`
`52.
`
`D-Link has been and is now directly infringing the ‘019 Patent by making, using,
`
`selling, offering for sale, importing into the United States, and/or exporting the D-Link WLAN-
`
`compliant products that practice or embody one or more claims of the ‘019 Patent. For example,
`
`the D-Link WLAN-compliant products supporting Quality of Service operation practice or
`
`embody Claim 19 of the ‘019 Patent. D-Link also has been and is now contributing to and/or
`
`inducing others, such as end users of such D-Link WLAN-compliant products, to directly
`
`infringe one or more claims of the ‘019 Patent. D-Link’s actions are in violation of one or more
`
`of the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), (b), (c), (f), and (g).
`
`
`
`53.
`
`Netgear has been and is now directly infringing the ‘019 Patent by making, using,
`
`selling, offering for sale, importing into the United States, and/or exporting the Netgear WLAN-
`
`compliant products that practice or embody one or more claims of the ‘019 Patent. For example,
`
`the Netgear WLAN-compliant products supporting Quality of Service operation practice or
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`Dallas 305466v4
`
`
`
`PAGE 13
`
`

`

`Case 6:10-cv-00473-LED-KFG Document 1 Filed 09/14/10 Page 14 of 27 PageID #: 14
`
`embody Claim 19 of the ‘019 Patent. Netgear also has been and is now contributing to and/or
`
`inducing others, such as end users of such Netgear WLAN-compliant products, to directly
`
`infringe one or more claims of the ‘019 Patent. Netgear’s actions are in violation of one or more
`
`of the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), (b), (c), (f), and (g).
`
`
`
`54.
`
`Acer has been and is now directly infringing the ‘019 Patent by making, using,
`
`selling, offering for sale, importing into the United States, and/or exporting the Acer WLAN-
`
`compliant products that practice or embody one or more claims of the ‘019 Patent. For example,
`
`the Acer WLAN-compliant products supporting Quality of Service operation practice or embody
`
`Claim 19 of the ‘019 Patent. Acer also has been and is now contributing to and/or inducing
`
`others, such as end users of such Acer WLAN-compliant products, to directly infringe one or
`
`more claims of the ‘019 Patent. Acer’s actions are in violation of one or more of the provisions
`
`of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), (b), (c), (f), and (g).
`
`
`
`55.
`
`Gateway has been and is now directly infringing the ‘019 Patent by making,
`
`using, selling, offering for sale, importing into the United States, and/or exporting the Gateway
`
`WLAN-compliant products that practice or embody one or more claims of the ‘019 Patent. For
`
`example, the Gateway WLAN-compliant products supporting Quality of Service operation
`
`practice or embody Claim 19 of the ‘019 Patent. Gateway also has been and is now contributing
`
`to and/or inducing others, such as end users of such Gateway WLAN-compliant products, to
`
`directly infringe one or more claims of the ‘019 Patent. Gateway’s actions are in violation of one
`
`or more of the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), (b), (c), (f), and (g).
`
`
`
`56.
`
`Defendants’ acts have caused, and unless restrained and enjoined, will continue to
`
`cause, irreparable injury and damage to Ericsson and its affiliates for which there is no adequate
`
`remedy at law. Unless enjoined by this Court, Defendants will continue to infringe the ‘019
`
`Patent.
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`Dallas 305466v4
`
`
`
`PAGE 14
`
`

`

`Case 6:10-cv-00473-LED-KFG Document 1 Filed 09/14/10 Page 15 of 27 PageID #: 15
`
`
`COUNT IV
`
`Infringement of the ’435 Patent
`
`
`
`57.
`
`Ericsson repeats and realleges the allegations in paragraphs 1-56 as though fully
`
`set forth herein.
`
`
`
`58.
`
`D-Link has been and is now directly infringing the ‘435 Patent by making, using,
`
`selling, offering for sale, importing into the United States, and/or exporting the D-Link WLAN-
`
`compliant products that practice or embody one or more claims of the ‘435 Patent. For example,
`
`the D-Link WLAN-compliant products or other products supporting Block Acknowledgement
`
`Request operation practice or embody Claim 1 of the ‘435 Patent. D-Link also has been and is
`
`now contributing to and/or inducing others, such as end users of such D-Link WLAN-compliant
`
`products, to directly infringe one or more claims of the ‘435 Patent. D-Link’s actions are in
`
`violation of one or more of the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), (b), (c), (f), and (g).
`
`
`
`59.
`
`Netgear has been and is now directly infringing the ‘435 Patent by making, using,
`
`selling, offering for sale, importing into the United States, and/or exporting the Netgear WLAN-
`
`compliant products that practice or embody one or more claims of the ‘435 Patent. For example,
`
`the Netgear WLAN-compliant products or other products supporting Block Acknowledgement
`
`Request operation practice or embody Claim 1 of the ‘435 Patent. Netgear also has been and is
`
`now contributing to and/or inducing others, such as end users of such Netgear WLAN-compliant
`
`products, to directly infringe one or more claims of the ‘435 Patent. Netgear’s actions are in
`
`violation of one or more of the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), (b), (c), (f), and (g).
`
`
`
`60.
`
`Acer has been and is now directly infringing the ‘435 Patent by making, using,
`
`selling, offering for sale, importing into the United States, and/or exporting the Acer WLAN-
`
`compliant products that practice or embody one or more claims of the ‘435 Patent. For example,
`
`the Acer WLAN-compliant products or other products supporting Block Acknowledgement
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`Dallas 305466v4
`
`
`
`PAGE 15
`
`

`

`Case 6:10-cv-00473-LED-KFG Document 1 Filed 09/14/10 Page 16 of 27 PageID #: 16
`
`Request operation practice or embody Claim 1 of the ‘435 Patent. Acer also has been and is now
`
`contributing to and/or inducing others, such as end users of such Acer WLAN-compliant
`
`products, to directly infringe one or more claims of the ‘435 Patent. Acer’s actions are in
`
`violation of one or more of the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), (b), (c), (f), and (g).
`
`
`
`61.
`
`Gateway has been and is now directly infringing the ‘435 Patent by making,
`
`using, selling, offering for sale, importing into the United States, a