IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. ______________
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`VANTAGE POINT TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiff Vantage Point Technology, Inc. (“Vantage Point”) alleges the following for its
`
`complaint against Defendant Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. (“Defendant”).
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff is a corporation formed under the laws of the State of Texas having its
`
`principal place of business at 719 W. Front Street, Suite 244, Tyler, Texas 75702.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Delaware with
`
`a principal place of business at 6501 William Cannon Drive West, Austin, Texas 78735.
`
`Defendant may be served with process via its registered agent Corporation Service Company dba
`
`CSC - Lawyers Incorporating Service Company, 211 E. 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin, Texas
`
`78701.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`3.
`
`This is a patent infringement action. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction
`
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1338.
`
`4.
`
`The Court has personal jurisdiction, because Defendant has availed itself of the
`
`rights and benefits of this District by conducting business in this jurisdiction, including by
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`ARM_VPT_IPR_00000159
`
`ARM Ex. 1004
`IPR Petition - USP 5,463,750
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 1
`
`

`

`promoting products for sale and selling products via the internet, which is accessible to and
`
`accessed by residents of this District. Defendant also has a principal place of business in the
`
`State of Texas and is registered to do business in the state. Defendant has also sued entities in
`
`this District on multiple occasions.
`
`5.
`
`Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1391(b)-(d) and §1400(b)
`
`because substantial acts of infringement have occurred in this District.
`
`COUNT ONE
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,463,750
`
`6.
`
`On October 31, 1995, U.S. Patent No. 5,463,750 (the “’750 Patent”) entitled
`
`“Method and Apparatus for Translating Virtual Addresses in a Data Processing System Having
`
`Multiple Instruction Pipelines and Separate TLB’s for each Pipeline” was duly and legally issued
`
`by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The application for the ’750 Patent was filed
`
`on November 2, 1993 and originally assigned to Intergraph Corporation. A true and correct copy
`
`of the ’750 Patent is attached as Exhibit A hereto.
`
`7.
`
`Plaintiff is the sole and exclusive owner of all right, title, and interest in the ’750
`
`Patent and holds the exclusive right to take all actions, including the filing of this patent
`
`infringement lawsuit, necessary to enforce its rights to the ’750 Patent. Plaintiff also has the
`
`right to recover all damages for past, present, and future infringement of the ’750 Patent and to
`
`seek injunctive relief as appropriate under the law.
`
`8.
`
`Defendant has infringed and continues to directly infringe, either literally or by
`
`equivalents, one or more claims of the ’750 Patent by making, having made, using, selling,
`
`offering for sale and/or importing products that satisfy each and every limitation of one or more
`
`claims of the ’750 Patent, including at least Claim 1. Such products include any and all chipsets
`
`with an ARM Cortex A15, dual ARM Cortex A9, ARM Cortex A8, dual/quad (multi-core) ARM
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`ARM_VPT_IPR_00000160
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 2
`
`

`

`Cortex A7 or dual/quad (multi-core) ARM Cortex A5 core processor design. Upon information
`
`and belief, the accused chipset products include at least the QorIQ LS-2 family, i.MX6DualLite,
`
`i.MX6Dual, i.MX6Quad, i.MX53 family, i.MX50 family, QorIQ LS-1 family, and Vybrid
`
`VF6xx family.
`
`9.
`
`Defendant’s manufacture, sales, offers to sell, and/or importation of the accused
`
`products is unauthorized, without the permission of Plaintiff, and constitutes infringement under
`
`35 U.S.C. §271 for which it is directly liable.
`
`10.
`
`As a result of Defendant’s direct infringement, Plaintiff Vantage Point has been
`
`damaged monetarily and is entitled to adequate compensation of no less than a reasonable
`
`royalty pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284.
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`Plaintiff requests a jury on all issues so triable.
`
`PRAYER
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court:
`
`A. Enter judgment that Defendant has directly infringed, either literally or by
`
`equivalents, the ’750 Patent;
`
`B. Award Plaintiff damages for Defendant’s infringement in an amount to be
`
`determined at trial, including enhanced damages, costs, and pre and post-
`
`judgment interest; and
`
`C. Award any other relief deemed just and proper.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`ARM_VPT_IPR_00000161
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 3
`
`

`

`November 1, 2013
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Paul V. Storm
`
`Paul V. Storm
`Texas State Bar No. 19325350
`Sarah M. Paxson
`Texas State Bar No. 24032826
`GARDERE WYNNE SEWELL LLP
`1601 Elm Street, Suite 3000
`
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`
`
`(214) 999-3000
`
`
`
`pvstorm@gardere.com
`
`
`spaxson@gardere.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`ARM_VPT_IPR_00000162
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 4
`
`