Case 6:13-cv-00511-LED Document 74 Filed 03/21/14 Page 1 of 24 PageID #: 414
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:13-cv-511
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` §
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS
`EQUIPMENT LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`ZTE CORPORATION, ZTE (USA) INC.,
`ZTE SOLUTIONS, INC.,
`AT&T MOBILITY LLC,
`CELLCO PARTNERSHIP INC. D/B/A
`VERIZON WIRELESS,
`SPRINT SOLUTIONS, INC.,
`SPRINT SPECTRUM L.P.,
`BOOST MOBILE, LLC,
`T-MOBILE USA, INC., and
`T-MOBILE US, INC.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiff Cellular Communications Equipment LLC files this First Amended Complaint
`
`
`
`against ZTE Corporation; ZTE (USA) Inc.; ZTE Solutions, Inc.; AT&T Mobility LLC; Cellco
`
`Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless; Sprint Solutions, Inc.; Sprint Spectrum L.P.; Boost Mobile,
`
`LLC; T-Mobile USA, Inc.; and T-Mobile US, Inc. (collectively, the “Defendants”) for
`
`infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,819,923 (“the ’9923 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,215,962 (“the
`
`’962 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,941,174 (“the ’174 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 8,055,820 (“the
`
`
`
`1
`
`LG Electronics Ex. 1003
`
`LGE_0000129
`
`

`

`Case 6:13-cv-00511-LED Document 74 Filed 03/21/14 Page 2 of 24 PageID #: 415
`
`’820 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,218,923 (“the ’8923 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 6,810,019 (“the
`
`’019 patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 6,377,804 (“the ’804 patent”).
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Cellular Communications Equipment LLC (“CCE”) is a Texas limited liability
`
`company with its principal place of business in Plano, Texas.
`
`2.
`
`On information and belief, ZTE Corporation is a corporation organized and
`
`existing under the laws of the People’s Republic of China with its principal place of business in
`
`ZTE Plaza, Keji Road South, Hi-Tech Industrial Park, Nanshan District, Shenzhen, Guangdong
`
`Province, P.R. China 518057. This Defendant does business in the State of Texas and in the
`
`Eastern District of Texas. This Defendant has been served with process and has appeared.
`
`3.
`
`ZTE (USA) Inc. is a New Jersey corporation with its principal place of business
`
`in Richardson, Texas. This Defendant does business in the State of Texas and in the Eastern
`
`District of Texas. This Defendant has been served with process and has appeared.
`
`4.
`
`ZTE Solutions Inc. (with ZTE Corp. and ZTE (USA) Inc., “ZTE”) is a
`
`Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Richardson, Texas. This
`
`Defendant does business in the State of Texas and in the Eastern District of Texas. This
`
`Defendant has been served with process and has appeared.
`
`5.
`
`AT&T Mobility LLC (“AT&T”) is a Delaware limited liability company with its
`
`principal place of business in Atlanta, Georgia. This Defendant does business in the State of
`
`Texas and in the Eastern District of Texas. This Defendant has been served with process and has
`
`appeared.
`
`6.
`
`Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless (“Verizon”) is a Delaware general
`
`partnership with its principal place of business in Basking Ridge, New Jersey. This Defendant
`
`
`
`2
`
`LGE_0000130
`
`

`

`Case 6:13-cv-00511-LED Document 74 Filed 03/21/14 Page 3 of 24 PageID #: 416
`
`does business in the State of Texas and in the Eastern District of Texas. This Defendant has
`
`been served with process and has appeared.
`
`7.
`
`Sprint Solutions, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
`
`business in Reston, Virginia. This Defendant does business in the State of Texas and in the
`
`Eastern District of Texas. This Defendant has been served with process and has appeared.
`
`8.
`
`Sprint Spectrum L.P. is a Delaware limited partnership with its principal place of
`
`business in Overland Park, Kansas. This Defendant does business in the State of Texas and in
`
`the Eastern District of Texas. This Defendant has been served with process and has appeared.
`
`9.
`
`Boost Mobile, LLC (with Sprint Solutions, Inc., and Sprint Spectrum L.P.,
`
`“Sprint”) is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in Irvine,
`
`California. This Defendant does business in the State of Texas and in the Eastern District of
`
`Texas. This Defendant has been served with process and has appeared.
`
`10.
`
`T-Mobile USA, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business
`
`in Bellevue, Washington. T-Mobile USA, Inc. maintains a significant presence in Richardson,
`
`Texas and offers products and services under the T-Mobile and MetroPCS brands. This
`
`Defendant does business in the State of Texas and in the Eastern District of Texas. This
`
`Defendant has been served with process and has appeared.
`
`11.
`
`T-Mobile US, Inc. (with T-Mobile USA, Inc., “T-Mobile”) is a Delaware
`
`corporation with its principal place of business in Bellevue, Washington. T-Mobile US, Inc.
`
`maintains a significant presence in Richardson, Texas, and offers products and services under the
`
`T-Mobile and MetroPCS brands. This Defendant does business in the State of Texas and in the
`
`Eastern District of Texas. This Defendant has been served with process and has appeared.
`
`
`
`3
`
`LGE_0000131
`
`

`

`Case 6:13-cv-00511-LED Document 74 Filed 03/21/14 Page 4 of 24 PageID #: 417
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`12.
`
`This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, namely 35 U.S.C. §§
`
`271, 281, and 284-285, among others.
`
`13.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and
`
`1338(a), and 1367.
`
`14.
`
`Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c),
`
`and 1400(b). On information and belief, each Defendant is deemed to reside in this judicial
`
`district, has committed acts of infringement in this judicial district, has purposely transacted
`
`business in this judicial district, and/or has regular and established places of business in this
`
`judicial district.
`
`15.
`
`On information and belief, each Defendant is subject to this Court’s specific and
`
`general personal jurisdiction pursuant to due process and/or the Texas Long Arm Statute, due at
`
`least to their substantial business in this State and judicial district, including: (A) at least part of
`
`their infringing activities alleged herein; and (B) regularly doing or soliciting business, engaging
`
`in other persistent conduct, and/or deriving substantial revenue from goods sold and services
`
`provided to Texas residents.
`
`COUNT I
`
`(INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,819,923)
`
`CCE incorporates paragraphs 1 through 15 herein by reference.
`
`CCE is the assignee of the ’9923 patent, entitled “Method for Communication of
`
`16.
`
`17.
`
`Neighbor Cell Information,” with ownership of all substantial rights in the ’9923 patent,
`
`including the right to exclude others and to enforce, sue and recover damages for past and future
`
`infringements. A true and correct copy of the ’9923 patent is attached as Exhibit A.
`
`
`
`4
`
`LGE_0000132
`
`

`

`Case 6:13-cv-00511-LED Document 74 Filed 03/21/14 Page 5 of 24 PageID #: 418
`
`18.
`
`The ’9923 patent is valid, enforceable and was duly issued in full compliance with
`
`Title 35 of the United States Code.
`
`19.
`
`Defendants ZTE, AT&T, and T-Mobile have and continue to directly infringe one
`
`or more claims of the ’9923 patent in this judicial district and elsewhere in Texas and the United
`
`States, including at least claim 11, by, among other things, making, using, offering for sale,
`
`selling and/or importing ZTE mobile devices, including, for example: the ZTE Avail, the ZTE
`
`Z221 GoPhone, and the ZTE Z431 GoPhone, sold or otherwise distributed by or through AT&T
`
`(the “’9923 AT&T Mobile Devices”); and the ZTE Aspect, the ZTE Concord, the ZTE T-Mobile
`
`4G Hotspot, and the ZTE T-Mobile Sonic 2.0 Mobile Hotspot, sold or otherwise distributed by
`
`or through T-Mobile (the “’9923 T-Mobile Mobile Devices”). These devices are collectively
`
`referred to as the “’9923 ZTE Devices.”
`
`20.
`
`Defendants directly infringe the apparatus claims of the ’9923 patent by making,
`
`offering to sell, selling, and/or importing the ’9923 ZTE Devices. Defendants are thereby liable
`
`for direct infringement.
`
`21.
`
`On information and belief, each Defendant is a 3GPP member organization, or is
`
`affiliated with a 3GPP member organization, and has known of the ’9923 patent at least as early
`
`as April 2010, when it was disclosed to 3GPP via the European Telecommunications Standards
`
`Institute (“ETSI,” an organizational member of 3GPP).
`
`22.
`
`On information and belief, despite having knowledge of the ’9923 patent and
`
`knowledge that they are directly infringing one or more claims of the ’9923 patent, Defendants
`
`named in this Count have nevertheless continued their infringing conduct and disregarded an
`
`objectively high likelihood of infringement; thus, Defendants’ infringing activities relative to the
`
`’9923 patent have been, and continue to be, willful, wanton and deliberate in disregard of CCE’s
`
`rights.
`
`
`
`5
`
`LGE_0000133
`
`

`

`Case 6:13-cv-00511-LED Document 74 Filed 03/21/14 Page 6 of 24 PageID #: 419
`
`23.
`
`On information and belief, ZTE and AT&T test, make, use, offer for sale, sell,
`
`and/or import ’9923 AT&T Mobile Devices described in this Count, pursuant to one or more
`
`contractual agreements between them relating to, at least, the distribution and sale of such
`
`devices. Accordingly, ZTE and AT&T are jointly, severally, or alternatively liable for
`
`infringements described in this Count.
`
`24.
`
`On information and belief, ZTE and T-Mobile test, make, use, offer for sale, sell,
`
`and/or import ’9923 T-Mobile Mobile Devices described in this Count, pursuant to one or more
`
`contractual agreements between them relating to, at least, the distribution and sale of such
`
`devices. Accordingly, ZTE and T-Mobile are jointly, severally, or alternatively liable for
`
`infringements described in this Count.
`
`25.
`
`CCE has been damaged as a result of Defendants’ infringing conduct described in
`
`this Count. Defendants are, thus, liable to CCE in an amount that adequately compensates it for
`
`their infringements, 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 II
`
`(INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,215,962)
`
`CCE incorporates paragraphs 1 through 15 herein by reference.
`
`CCE is the assignee of the ’962 patent, entitled “Method for an Intersystem
`
`26.
`
`27.
`
`Connection Handover,” with ownership of all substantial rights in the ’962 patent, including the
`
`right to exclude others and to enforce, sue and recover damages for past and future
`
`infringements. A true and correct copy of the ’962 patent is attached as Exhibit B.
`
`28.
`
`The ’962 patent is valid, enforceable and was duly issued in full compliance with
`
`Title 35 of the United States Code.
`
`
`
`6
`
`LGE_0000134
`
`

`

`Case 6:13-cv-00511-LED Document 74 Filed 03/21/14 Page 7 of 24 PageID #: 420
`
`29.
`
`Defendants ZTE, AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, and T-Mobile have and continue to
`
`directly and/or indirectly infringe (by inducing infringement and/or contributing to infringement)
`
`one or more claims of the ’962 patent in this judicial district and elsewhere in Texas and the
`
`United States, including at least claims 1, 2, 11, 12, and 13, by, among other things, making,
`
`using, offering for sale, selling and/or importing ZTE mobile devices, including, for example: the
`
`ZTE Z221 GoPhone, the ZTE Z431 GoPhone, and the ZTE Avail, sold or otherwise distributed
`
`by or through AT&T (the “’962 AT&T Mobile Devices”); the ZTE Jetpack 4G LTE Mobile
`
`Hotspot 890L, sold or otherwise provided by Verizon (the “’962 Verizon Mobile Devices”); the
`
`ZTE Force and the ZTE Flash, sold or otherwise distributed by or through Sprint (the “’962
`
`Sprint Mobile Devices”); and the ZTE Anthem 4G, the ZTE Avid 4G, the ZTE Aspect, the ZTE
`
`Concord, the ZTE T-Mobile 4G Hotspot, and the ZTE T-Mobile Sonic 2.0 Mobile Hotspot, sold
`
`or otherwise distributed by or through T-Mobile (the “’962 T-Mobile Mobile Devices”). These
`
`devices are collectively referred to as the “’962 ZTE Devices.”
`
`30.
`
`Defendants directly infringe the apparatus claims of the ’962 patent by making,
`
`offering to sell, selling, and/or importing the ’962 ZTE Devices. Defendants also directly
`
`infringe the ’962 patent by making, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or importing the ’962
`
`ZTE Devices to practice the claimed methods. Defendants are thereby liable for direct
`
`infringement.
`
`31.
`
`Additionally, Defendants are liable for indirect infringement of the ’962 patent
`
`because they induce and/or contribute to the direct infringement of the patent by their customers
`
`and other end users who use the ’962 ZTE Devices to practice the claimed methods.
`
`32.
`
`On information and belief, each Defendant is a 3GPP member organization, or is
`
`affiliated with a 3GPP member organization, and has known of the ’962 patent at least as early as
`
`December 2010, when it was disclosed to 3GPP via ETSI.
`
`7
`
`
`
`LGE_0000135
`
`

`

`Case 6:13-cv-00511-LED Document 74 Filed 03/21/14 Page 8 of 24 PageID #: 421
`
`33.
`
`On information and belief, despite having knowledge of the ’962 patent,
`
`Defendants named in this Count have and continue to specifically intend for persons who acquire
`
`and use such devices, including Defendants’ customers, to use such devices in a manner that
`
`infringes the ’962 patent, including at least claims 1, 2, 11, 12, and 13. Defendants knew or
`
`should have known that their actions — including instructing customers and end users regarding
`
`use of the ’962 ZTE Devices — have and continue to actively induce infringement.
`
`34.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants named in this Count have known and
`
`know that their products accused of infringing (and/or components thereof) are a material part of
`
`the inventions of the ’962 patent, are especially made and/or adapted for use in infringing the
`
`’962 patent, and are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial non-
`
`infringing use.
`
`35.
`
`On information and belief, despite having knowledge of the ’962 patent and
`
`knowledge that they are directly and/or indirectly infringing one or more claims of the ’962
`
`patent, Defendants named in this Count have nevertheless continued their infringing conduct and
`
`disregarded an objectively high likelihood of infringement; thus, Defendants’ infringing
`
`activities relative to the ’962 patent have been, and continue to be, willful, wanton and deliberate
`
`in disregard of CCE’s rights.
`
`36.
`
`On information and belief, ZTE and AT&T test, make, use, offer for sale, sell,
`
`and/or import the ’962 AT&T Mobile Devices described in this Count, pursuant to one or more
`
`contractual agreements between them relating to, at least, the distribution and sale of such
`
`devices. Accordingly, ZTE and AT&T are jointly, severally, or alternatively liable for
`
`infringements described in this Count.
`
`37.
`
`On information and belief, ZTE and Verizon test, make, use, offer for sale, sell,
`
`and/or import the ’962 Verizon Mobile Devices described in this Count, pursuant to one or more
`
`
`
`8
`
`LGE_0000136
`
`

`

`Case 6:13-cv-00511-LED Document 74 Filed 03/21/14 Page 9 of 24 PageID #: 422
`
`contractual agreements between them relating to, at least, the distribution and sale of such
`
`devices. Accordingly, ZTE and Verizon are jointly, severally, or alternatively liable for
`
`infringements described in this Count.
`
`38.
`
`On information and belief, ZTE and Sprint test, make, use, offer for sale, sell,
`
`and/or import the ’962 Sprint Mobile Devices described in this Count, pursuant to one or more
`
`contractual agreements between them relating to, at least, the distribution and sale of such
`
`devices. Accordingly, ZTE and Sprint are jointly, severally, or alternatively liable for
`
`infringements described in this Count.
`
`39.
`
`On information and belief, ZTE and T-Mobile test, make, use, offer for sale, sell,
`
`and/or import the ’962 T-Mobile Mobile Devices described in this Count, pursuant to one or
`
`more contractual agreements between them relating to, at least, the distribution and sale of such
`
`devices. Accordingly, ZTE and T-Mobile are jointly, severally, or alternatively liable for
`
`infringements described in this Count.
`
`40.
`
`CCE has been damaged as a result of Defendants’ infringing conduct described in
`
`this Count. Defendants are, thus, liable to CCE in an amount that adequately compensates it for
`
`their infringements, 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 III
`
`(INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,941,174)
`
`CCE incorporates paragraphs 1 through 15 herein by reference.
`
`CCE is the assignee of the ’174 patent, entitled “Method for Multicode
`
`41.
`
`42.
`
`Transmission by a Subscriber Station,” with ownership of all substantial rights in the ’174 patent,
`
`including the right to exclude others and to enforce, sue and recover damages for past and future
`
`infringements. A true and correct copy of the ’174 patent is attached as Exhibit C.
`
`9
`
`
`
`LGE_0000137
`
`

`

`Case 6:13-cv-00511-LED Document 74 Filed 03/21/14 Page 10 of 24 PageID #: 423
`
`43.
`
`The ’174 patent is valid, enforceable and was duly issued in full compliance with
`
`Title 35 of the United States Code.
`
`44.
`
`Defendants ZTE, AT&T, and T-Mobile have and continue to directly and/or
`
`indirectly infringe (by inducing infringement and/or contributing to infringement) one or more
`
`claims of the ’174 patent in this judicial district and elsewhere in Texas and the United States,
`
`including at least claims 1, 6, 9, 14, 18, and 19, by, among other things, making, using, offering
`
`for sale, selling and/or importing ZTE mobile devices, including, for example: the ZTE Avail,
`
`the ZTE Z221 GoPhone, and the ZTE Z431 GoPhone, sold or otherwise distributed by or
`
`through AT&T (the “’174 AT&T Mobile Devices”); and the ZTE Concord, the ZTE T-Mobile
`
`4G Hotspot, and the ZTE T-Mobile Sonic 2.0 Mobile Hotspot, sold or otherwise distributed by
`
`or through T-Mobile (the “’174 T-Mobile Mobile Devices”). These devices are collectively
`
`referred to as the “’174 ZTE Devices.”
`
`45.
`
`Defendants directly infringe the apparatus claims of the ’174 patent by making,
`
`offering to sell, selling, and/or importing the ’174 ZTE Devices. Defendants also directly
`
`infringe the ’174 patent by making, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or importing the ’174
`
`ZTE Devices to practice the claimed methods. Defendants are thereby liable for direct
`
`infringement.
`
`46.
`
`Additionally, Defendants are liable for indirect infringement of the ’174 patent
`
`because they induce and/or contribute to the direct infringement of the patent by their customers
`
`and other end users who use the ’174 ZTE Devices to practice the claimed methods.
`
`47.
`
`On information and belief, each Defendant is a 3GPP member organization, or is
`
`affiliated with a 3GPP member organization, and has known of the ’174 patent at least as early as
`
`August 2010, when it was disclosed to 3GPP via ETSI.
`
`
`
`10
`
`LGE_0000138
`
`

`

`Case 6:13-cv-00511-LED Document 74 Filed 03/21/14 Page 11 of 24 PageID #: 424
`
`48.
`
`On information and belief, despite having knowledge of the ’174 patent,
`
`Defendants named in this Count have and continue to specifically intend for persons who acquire
`
`and use such devices, including Defendants’ customers, to use such devices in a manner that
`
`infringes the ’174 patent, including at least claims 1, 6, 9, 14, 18, and 19. Defendants knew or
`
`should have known that their actions — including instructing customers and end users regarding
`
`use of the ’174 ZTE Devices — have and continue to actively induce infringement.
`
`49.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants named in this Count have known and
`
`know that their products accused of infringing (and/or components thereof) are a material part of
`
`the inventions of the ’174 patent, are especially made and/or adapted for use in infringing the
`
`’174 patent, and are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial non-
`
`infringing use.
`
`50.
`
`On information and belief, despite having knowledge of the ’174 patent and
`
`knowledge that they are directly and/or indirectly infringing one or more claims of the ’174
`
`patent, Defendants named in this Count have nevertheless continued their infringing conduct and
`
`disregarded an objectively high likelihood of infringement; thus, Defendants’ infringing
`
`activities relative to the ’174 patent have been, and continue to be, willful, wanton and deliberate
`
`in disregard of CCE’s rights.
`
`51.
`
`On information and belief, ZTE and AT&T test, make, use, offer for sale, sell,
`
`and/or import the ’174 AT&T Mobile Devices described in this Count, pursuant to one or more
`
`contractual agreements between them relating to, at least, the distribution and sale of such
`
`devices. Accordingly, ZTE and AT&T are jointly, severally, or alternatively liable for
`
`infringements described in this Count.
`
`52.
`
`On information and belief, ZTE and T-Mobile test, make, use, offer for sale, sell,
`
`and/or import the ’174 T-Mobile Mobile Devices described in this Count, pursuant to one or
`
`
`
`11
`
`LGE_0000139
`
`

`

`Case 6:13-cv-00511-LED Document 74 Filed 03/21/14 Page 12 of 24 PageID #: 425
`
`more contractual agreements between them relating to, at least, the distribution and sale of such
`
`devices. Accordingly, ZTE and T-Mobile are jointly, severally, or alternatively liable for
`
`infringements described in this Count.
`
`53.
`
`CCE has been damaged as a result of Defendants’ infringing conduct described in
`
`this Count. Defendants are, thus, liable to CCE in an amount that adequately compensates it for
`
`their infringements, 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 IV
`
`(INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,055,820)
`
`CCE incorporates paragraphs 1 through 15 herein by reference.
`
`CCE is the assignee of the ’820 patent, entitled “Apparatus, System, and Method
`
`54.
`
`55.
`
`for Designating a Buffer Status Reporting Format Based on Detected Pre-Selected Buffer
`
`Conditions,” with ownership of all substantial rights in the ’820 patent, including the right to
`
`exclude others and to enforce, sue and recover damages for past and future infringements. A true
`
`and correct copy of the ’820 patent is attached as Exhibit D.
`
`56.
`
`The ’820 patent is valid, enforceable and was duly issued in full compliance with
`
`Title 35 of the United States Code.
`
`57.
`
`Defendants ZTE, AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, and T-Mobile have and continue to
`
`directly and/or indirectly infringe (by inducing infringement and/or contributing to infringement)
`
`one or more claims of the ’820 patent in this judicial district and elsewhere in Texas and the
`
`United States, including at least claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21, by,
`
`among other things, making, using, offering for sale, selling and/or importing ZTE mobile
`
`devices, including, for example: the ZTE Z998 and ZTE Overture, sold or otherwise distributed
`
`by or through AT&T (the “’820 AT&T Mobile Devices”); the ZTE Jetpack 4G LTE Mobile
`
`
`
`12
`
`LGE_0000140
`
`

`

`Case 6:13-cv-00511-LED Document 74 Filed 03/21/14 Page 13 of 24 PageID #: 426
`
`Hotspot 890L, sold or otherwise distributed by or through Verizon (the “’820 Verizon Mobile
`
`Devices”); the ZTE Force and the ZTE Flash, sold or otherwise distributed by or through Sprint
`
`(the “’820 Sprint Mobile Devices”); and the ZTE Anthem 4G, the ZTE Avid 4G, and the ZTE T-
`
`Mobile Sonic 2.0 Mobile Hotspot, sold or otherwise distributed by or through T-Mobile (the
`
`“’820 T-Mobile Mobile Devices”). These devices are collectively referred to as the “’820 ZTE
`
`Devices.”
`
`58.
`
`Defendants directly infringe the apparatus claims of the ’820 patent by making,
`
`offering to sell, selling, and/or importing the ’820 ZTE Devices. Defendants also directly
`
`infringe the ’820 patent by making, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or importing the ’820
`
`ZTE Devices to practice the claimed methods. Defendants are thereby liable for direct
`
`infringement.
`
`59.
`
`Additionally, Defendants are liable for indirect infringement of the ’820 patent
`
`because they induce and/or contribute to the direct infringement of the patent by their customers
`
`and other end users who use the ’820 ZTE Devices to practice the claimed methods.
`
`60.
`
`On information and belief, each Defendant is a 3GPP member organization, or is
`
`affiliated with a 3GPP member organization, and has known of the ’820 patent at least as early as
`
`June 2009, when it was disclosed to 3GPP via ETSI.
`
`61.
`
`On information and belief, despite having knowledge of the ’820 patent,
`
`Defendants named in this Count have and continue to specifically intend for persons who acquire
`
`and use such devices, including Defendants’ customers, to use such devices in a manner that
`
`infringes the ’820 patent, including at least claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, and
`
`21. Defendants knew or should have known that their actions — including instructing customers
`
`and end users regarding use of the ’820 ZTE Devices — have and continue to actively induce
`
`infringement.
`
`
`
`13
`
`LGE_0000141
`
`

`

`Case 6:13-cv-00511-LED Document 74 Filed 03/21/14 Page 14 of 24 PageID #: 427
`
`62.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants named in this Count have known and
`
`know that their products accused of infringing (and/or components thereof) are a material part of
`
`the inventions of the ’820 patent, are especially made and/or adapted for use in infringing the
`
`’820 patent, and are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial non-
`
`infringing use.
`
`63.
`
`On information and belief, despite having knowledge of the ’820 patent and
`
`knowledge that they are directly and/or indirectly infringing one or more claims of the ’820
`
`patent, Defendants named in this Count have nevertheless continued their infringing conduct and
`
`disregarded an objectively high likelihood of infringement; thus, Defendants’ infringing
`
`activities relative to the ’820 patent have been, and continue to be, willful, wanton and deliberate
`
`in disregard of CCE’s rights.
`
`64.
`
`On information and belief, ZTE and AT&T test, make, use, offer for sale, sell,
`
`and/or import the ’820 AT&T Mobile Devices described in this Count, pursuant to one or more
`
`contractual agreements between them relating to, at least, the distribution and sale of such
`
`devices. Accordingly, ZTE and AT&T are jointly, severally, or alternatively liable for
`
`infringements described in this Count.
`
`65.
`
`On information and belief, ZTE and Verizon test, make, use, offer for sale, sell,
`
`and/or import the ’820 Verizon Mobile Devices described in this Count, pursuant to one or more
`
`contractual agreements between them relating to, at least, the distribution and sale of such
`
`devices. Accordingly, ZTE and Verizon are jointly, severally, or alternatively liable for
`
`infringements described in this Count.
`
`66.
`
`On information and belief, ZTE and Sprint test, make, use, offer for sale, sell,
`
`and/or import the ’820 Sprint Mobile Devices described in this Count, pursuant to one or more
`
`contractual agreements between them relating to, at least, the distribution and sale of such
`
`
`
`14
`
`LGE_0000142
`
`

`

`Case 6:13-cv-00511-LED Document 74 Filed 03/21/14 Page 15 of 24 PageID #: 428
`
`devices. Accordingly, ZTE and Sprint are jointly, severally, or alternatively liable for
`
`infringements described in this Count.
`
`67.
`
`On information and belief, ZTE and T-Mobile test, make, use, offer for sale, sell,
`
`and/or import the ’820 T-Mobile Mobile Devices described in this Count, pursuant to one or
`
`more contractual agreements between them relating to, at least, the distribution and sale of such
`
`devices. Accordingly, ZTE and T-Mobile are jointly, severally, or alternatively liable for
`
`infringements described in this Count.
`
`68.
`
`CCE has been damaged as a result of Defendants’ infringing conduct described in
`
`this Count. Defendants are, thus, liable to CCE in an amount that adequately compensates it for
`
`their infringements, 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 V
`
`(INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,218,923)
`
`CCE incorporates paragraphs 1 through 15 herein by reference.
`
`CCE is the assignee of the ’8923 patent, entitled “Control of Terminal
`
`69.
`
`70.
`
`Applications in a Network Environment,” with ownership of all substantial rights in the ’8923
`
`patent, including the right to exclude others and to enforce, sue and recover damages for past and
`
`future infringements. A true and correct copy of the ’8923 patent is attached as Exhibit E.
`
`71.
`
`The ’8923 patent is valid, enforceable and was duly issued in full compliance with
`
`Title 35 of the United States Code.
`
`72.
`
`Defendants ZTE, AT&T and Sprint have and continue to directly infringe one or
`
`more claims of the ’8923 patent in this judicial district and elsewhere in Texas and the United
`
`States, including at least claims 24 and 26, by, among other things, making, using, offering for
`
`sale, selling and/or importing ZTE mobile devices, including, for example: the ZTE Radiant, the
`
`
`
`15
`
`LGE_0000143
`
`

`

`Case 6:13-cv-00511-LED Document 74 Filed 03/21/14 Page 16 of 24 PageID #: 429
`
`ZTE Z998, the ZTE Avail 2, the ZTE Sonata 4G, the ZTE Overture, the ZTE Prelude, and the
`
`ZTE Velox, sold or otherwise distributed by or through AT&T (the “’8923 AT&T Mobile
`
`Devices”); and the ZTE Force, the ZTE Flash, and the ZTE Warp Sequent, sold or otherwise
`
`distributed by or through Sprint (the “’8923 Sprint Mobile Devices”). These devices are
`
`collectively referred to as the “’8923 ZTE Devices.”
`
`73.
`
`Defendants directly infringe the apparatus claims of the ’8923 patent by making,
`
`offering to sell, selling, and/or importing the ’8923 ZTE Devices. Defendants are thereby liable
`
`for direct infringement.
`
`74.
`
`On information and belief, ZTE and AT&T test, make, use, offer for sale, sell,
`
`and/or import ’8923 AT&T Mobile Devices described in this Count, pursuant to one or more
`
`contractual agreements between them relating to, at least, the distribution and sale of such
`
`devices. Accordingly, ZTE and AT&T are jointly, severally, or alternatively liable for
`
`infringements described in this Count.
`
`75.
`
`On information and belief, ZTE and Sprint test, make, use, offer for sale, sell,
`
`and/or import ’8923 Sprint Mobile Devices described in this Count, pursuant to one or more
`
`contractual agreements between them relating to, at least, the distribution and sale of such
`
`devices. Accordingly, ZTE and Sprint are jointly, severally, or alternatively liable for
`
`infringements described in this Count.
`
`76.
`
`CCE has been damaged as a result of Defendants’ infringing conduct described in
`
`this Count. Defendants are, thus, liable to CCE in an amount that adequately compensates it for
`
`their infringements, 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.
`
`
`
`16
`
`LGE_0000144
`
`

`

`Case 6:13-cv-00511-LED Document 74 Filed 03/21/14 Page 17 of 24 PageID #: 430
`
`COUNT VI
`
`(INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,810,019)
`
`CCE incorporates paragraphs 1 through 15 herein by reference.
`
`CCE is the assignee of the ’019 patent, entitled “Reducing Interference in Inter-
`
`77.
`
`78.
`
`Frequency Measurement,” with ownership of all substantial rights in the ’019 patent, including
`
`the right to exclude others and to enforce, sue and recover damages for past and future
`
`infringements. A true and correct copy of the ’019 patent is attached as Exhibit F.
`
`79.
`
`The ’019 patent is valid, enforceable and was duly issued in full compliance with
`
`Title 35 of the United States Code.
`
`80.
`
`Defendants ZTE, AT&T, and T-Mobile have and continue to directly infringe one
`
`or more claims of the ’019 patent in this judicial district and elsewhere in Texas and the United
`
`States, including at least claims 11, 12 and 13, by, among other things, making, using, offering
`
`for