IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`Alexandria Division
`
`FILED
`
`Plaintiff
`
`V.
`
`25.)! JJLI II P LI: LIL!
`
`If:_i_I’\l l
`
`Civil ActionNo I 40/?fl( flf5
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`SPHERIX INCORPORATED,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants
`
`VERIZON SERVICES CORR;
`
`VERIZON SOUTH INC.;
`
`VERIZON VIRGINIA LLC;
`
`VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC;
`
`VERIZON FEDERAL INC;
`VERIZON BUSINESS NETWORK
`
`SERVICES INC.;
`
`MCI COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, INC.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiff, Spherix Incorporated (“Spherix”) for its complaint against defendants Verizon
`
`Services Corp, Verizon South Inc., Verizon Virginia LLC, Verizon Communications Inc.
`
`(collectively, “Verizon Services, South, Virginia, and Communications”),Verizon Federal Inc.,
`
`Verizon Business Network Services Inc., and MCI Communications Services, Inc. (“Verizon”
`
`for all defendants) alleges as follows:
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`I.
`
`Spherix is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of
`
`Delaware with its principal place of business at 6430 Rockledge Drive, Suite 503, Bethesda,
`
`Maryland 20817.
`
`Page 1 of 18
`
`VERIZON EXHIBIT 1008
`
`Page 1 of 18
`
`VERIZON EXHIBIT 1008
`
`

`

`2.
`
`Upon information and belief, Verizon Services Corp. (“Verizon Services”) is a
`
`corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its
`
`principal place of business at 1310 North Courthouse Road, Arlington, Virginia 22201.
`
`3.
`
`Upon information and belief, Verizon South Inc. (“Verizon South”) is a
`
`corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia with
`
`its principal place of business at 703 East Grace Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
`
`4.
`
`Upon information and belief, Verizon Virginia LLC (“Verizon Virginia”) is a
`
`company duly organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia with its
`
`principal place of business at 703 East Grace Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
`
`5.
`
`Upon information and belief, Verizon Communications Inc. (“Verizon
`
`Communications”) is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of
`
`Delaware, with its principal place of business at 140 West Street, New York, New York 10013.
`
`Verizon Communications can be served with process through its agent CT Corporation System,
`
`4701 Cox Road, Suite 285, Glen Allen, Virginia 23060.
`
`6.
`
`Upon information and belief, Verizon Federal Inc. (“Verizon Federal”) is a
`
`corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its
`
`principal place of business at 2200] London County Parkway Ashbum, Virginia 20147.
`
`7.
`
`Upon information and belief, Verizon Business Network Services Inc. (“Verizon
`
`Business”) is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware,
`
`with its principal place of business at One Verizon Way, PO. Box 627, Basking Ridge, New
`
`Page 2 of 18
`
`Page 2 of 18
`
`

`

`Jersey 07920. Verizon Business can be served with process through its agent CT Corporation
`
`System, 4701 Cox Road, Suite 285, Glen Allen, Virginia 23060.
`
`8.
`
`Upon information and belief, MCI Communications Services, Inc. (“MCI”) is a
`
`corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its
`
`principal place of business at One Verizon Way, PO. Box 627, Basking Ridge, New Jersey
`
`07920. MCI can be served with process through its agent CT Corporation System, 4701 Cox
`
`Road, Suite 285, Glen Allen, Virginia 23060.
`
`JURISDICTION
`
`9.
`
`This is an action for patent infringement under the patent laws of the United
`
`States, Title 35 U.S.C. of the United States Code, arising from Verizon’s manufacture, use, sale
`
`or offer for sale of various products and services, including, but not limited to, network services
`
`such as FiOS and telephony services during the term of US. Patent Nos. 6,507,648; 6,882,800;
`
`6,980,564; and 8,166,533. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action
`
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a) because this action arises under the patent laws of the
`
`United States, including at least 35 U.S.C. § 271 (a)-(c).
`
`10.
`
`Upon information and belief, this Court has personal jurisdiction over Verizon
`
`Services because Verizon Services has its principal place of business at 1310 North Courthouse
`
`Road, Arlington, Virginia and thus resides in this District, and has transacted business,
`
`contracted and committed acts of infringement in this District out of which this complaint arises.
`
`Further, Verizon Services has purposefully availed itself of the benefits of this District by filling
`
`lawsuits in this District. The exercise ofjurisdiction over Verizon Services would not offend
`
`traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
`
`Page 3 0f 18
`
`Page 3 of 18
`
`

`

`11.
`
`Upon information and belief, this Court has personal jurisdiction over Verizon
`
`South because Verizon South is a Virginia corporation with its principal place of business at 703
`
`East Grace Street, Richmond, Virginia and thus resides in this District, and has transacted
`
`business, contracted, and committed acts of infringement in this District out of which this
`
`complaint arises. Further, Verizon South has purposefiilly availed itself of the benefits of this
`
`District by filling lawsuits in this District. The exercise ofj urisdiction over Verizon South would
`
`not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
`
`12.
`
`Upon information and belief, this Court has personal jurisdiction over Verizon
`
`Virginia because Verizon Virginia is a Virginia company with its principal place of business at
`
`703 East Grace Street, Richmond, Virginia and thus resides in this District, and has transacted,
`
`contracted, and committed acts of infringement in this District out of which this complaint arises.
`
`Further, Verizon Virginia has purposefully availed itself of the benefits of this District by filling
`
`lawsuits in this District. The exercise ofjurisdiction over Verizon Virginia would not offend
`
`traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
`
`13.
`
`Upon information and belief, this Court has personal jurisdiction over Verizon
`
`Communications because Verizon Communications is registered to do business, and maintains a
`
`registered agent for service of process, in this District, and thus is present in, and has
`
`purposefully availed itself of the benefits of the laws of this District, and has directly and through
`
`directing and controlling the actions of its wholly-owned subsidiaries and affiliates, Verizon
`
`Services, Verizon South, Verizon Virginia, Verizon Federal, Verizon Business, and MCI has
`
`transacted business, contracted, and committed acts of infiingement in this District out of which
`
`this complaint arises. Further, Verizon Communications has purposefully availed itself of the
`
`Page 4 of 18
`
`Page 4 of 18
`
`

`

`benefits of this District by filling lawsuits in this District. The exercise ofjurisdiction over
`
`Verizon Communications would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
`
`14.
`
`Upon information and belief, this Court has personal jurisdiction over Verizon
`
`Federal because Verizon Federal has its principal place of business at 22001 Loudon County
`
`Parkway Ashbum, Virginia and thus resides in this District, and has transacted business,
`
`contracted, and committed acts of infringement in this District out of which this complaint arises.
`
`The exercise ofjurisdiction over Verizon Federal would not offend traditional notions of fair
`
`play and substantial justice.
`
`15.
`
`Upon information and belief, this Court has personal jurisdiction over Verizon
`
`Business and MCI because Verizon Business and MCI are registered to do business, and
`
`maintain a registered agent for service of process, in this District, and thus are present in, and
`
`have purposefully availed themselves of the benefits of the laws of this District, and have
`
`transacted business, contracted, and committed acts of infringement in this District out of which
`
`this complaint arises. Further, Verizon Business and MCI have purposefully availed themselves
`
`of the benefits of this District by filling at least one lawsuit in this District. The exercise of
`
`jurisdiction over Verizon Business and MCI would not offend traditional notions of fair play and
`
`substantial justice.
`
`VENUE
`
`16.
`
`Upon information and belief, venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 1391 and 1400 because defendants, through their contacts with this District, including the
`
`making, using, selling and offering for sale of FiOS network services, reside in and are subject to
`
`personal jurisdiction in this District.
`
`Page 5 of 18
`
`Page 5 of 18
`
`

`

`BACKGROUND
`
`17.
`
`This lawsuit asserts causes of action for infringement of United States Patent Nos.
`
`6,507,648; 6,882,800; 6,980,564; and 8,166,533 (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). All of the
`
`inventions disclosed and claimed in the Asserted Patents were assigned to the entities in Nortel
`
`corporate family (“Nortel”).
`
`18.
`
`During bankruptcy proceedings many years later, Nortel sold the Asserted Patents,
`
`,
`
`among others, to a consortium of technology companies known as Rockstar Bidco, LP. Spherix
`
`now owns the Asserted Patents, and has the exclusive right to sue for infringement and recover
`
`damages for all past, present, and future infringement.
`
`19.
`
`Nortel’s history is inextricably intertwined with the origins of telecommunications.
`
`Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone in 1874, for which he received a United States
`
`Letters Patent in 1876 (US. Patent No. 174,465). The Bell Telephone Company (later AT&T)
`
`was formed in 1877. Bell Canada was formed three years later, in 1880. Nortel was formed as
`
`the manufacturing arm of Bell Canada in 1895. In its early years, Nortel was instrumental in
`
`establishing the Canadian telecommunications industry. By the mid-twentieth century, Nortel
`
`had matured into a global research and development powerhouse.
`
`20.
`
`At its peak in 2000, Nortel had grown to more than 90,000 employees worldwide,
`
`including 35,000 in the United States, had market capitalization of nearly $300 billion and had
`
`yearly revenues approaching $30 billion. In 2000 alone, for example, Nortel spent nearly $4
`
`billion on research and development involving some 25,000 research and development
`
`employees world-wide, including nearly 10,000 in the United States.
`
`Page 6 of 18
`
`Page 6 of 18
`
`

`

`21.
`
`Nortel had offices world-wide, with over 100 locations in the United States alone.
`
`Nortel was an innovator in the telecommunications industry. For example, Nortel was one of the
`
`first to envision telecommunications over fiber optics; it led the industry’s move to the era of
`
`digital telecommunications; it was the first to develop a telephone with the controls in the
`
`handset rather than in the base; and it contributed to the development of numerous
`
`telecommrmications standards and created core technology necessary to implement many of
`
`those standards. From 1992 through 2009, Nortel invested more than $34 billion into research
`
`and development.
`
`22.
`
`Nortel’s substantial research and development investments, and the inventiveness
`
`of the Nortel technology professionals, directly resulted in Nortel receiving well over 6,000
`
`active patents and patent applications covering wireless, wireless 4G, data networking, optical,
`
`voice, intemet, service provider, semiconductor and other telecommunications as of July 2011.
`
`23.
`
`Nortel made patents a priority and its employees received bonuses for their
`
`innovations. Each of the Asserted Patents issued as the result of the inventiveness of Nortel
`
`personnel and Nortel’s significant research investment.
`
`24.
`
`Each of the named inventors of the Asserted Patents assigned all of their rights in
`
`the respective Asserted Patent to Nortel.
`
`25.
`
`Nortel entered bankruptcy protection in 2009. As part of the bankruptcy, Nortel
`
`sold a portion of its patent assets for an unprecedented and widely-publicized $4.5 billion —
`
`which was $1.3 billion more than the combined value of all of Nortel’s business units that were
`
`sold prior to the patent auction. The purchasers were a consortium of leading technology
`
`Page 7 0f 18
`
`Page 7 of 18
`
`

`

`companies collectively known as Rockstar Bidco, LP. Among the assets sold to Rockstar Bidco,
`
`LP were the Asserted Patents.
`
`26.
`
`Rockstar Bidco, LP transferred the patents to Rockstar Consortium US, LP
`
`(“Rockstar”), an intellectual property company built on a core of former Nortel technology and
`
`business professionals. Many of Rockstar’s employees are former Nortel employees, including
`
`former Nortel engineers, managers and attorneys.
`
`27.
`
`Plaintiff Spherix was founded in 1967 as a scientific research company.
`
`Spherix’s common stock trades on the NASDAQ Capital Market system under the symbol SPEX.
`
`28.
`
`Historically, Spherix has focused on biotechnology research and development. Its
`
`research has led to numerous patents and patent applications relating to diverse innovative
`
`biotechnologies such as water purification, biodegradation management, and the use of tagatose
`
`for food and potentially medical and environmental applications. Spherix acquired the Asserted
`
`Patents.
`
`29.
`
`Spherix has formed a Technology Advisory Board to identify and address market
`
`opportunities for innovative technology, including telecommunications technology. Part of the
`
`purpose of the creation of the Technology Advisory Board is to reward and provide
`
`compensation to the inventors of the patents Spherix acquires.
`
`30.
`
`Verizon is one of the world’s leading providers of communications, information
`
`and entertainment products and services to consumers, business, and governmental agencies.
`
`Verizon operates one of the largest Internet Protocol (IP) networks, and one of the largest optical
`
`networks, in the world, each of which is used to provide voice and data services to customers
`
`Page 8 of 18
`
`Page 8 of 18
`
`

`

`across the United States. Verizon has a workforce of approximately one-hundred and seventy
`
`six thousand employees, and Verizon’s consolidated revenue is approximately $120 Billion
`
`dollars.
`
`31.
`
`Verizon operates IP networks in the United States, including in the Eastern
`
`District of Virginia. Verizon uses its IP networks to offer various services, including FiOS, VoIP,
`
`and intemet services in the state of Virginia, including in the Eastern District of Virginia.
`
`32.
`
`Verizon also provides telephony services in the United States, including in the
`
`Eastern District of Virginia.
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF US. PATENT NO. 6,507,648
`
`COUNT I
`
`33.
`
`On January 14, 2003, United States Letters Patent No. 6,507,648 (the “’648
`
`patent”) for “Method and Apparatus for Prioritizing Voice and Data in a Circuit-Switched
`
`Network,” was duly and legally issued to Kevin W. Golka, John R. Donak and Lorne A. Porter.
`
`All rights and interest in the ’648 patent have been assigned to Spherix. A true and correct copy
`
`of the ”648 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`34.
`
`Upon information and belief, Verizon has directly infringed and continues to
`
`directly infringe the ’648 patent. The infringing acts include at least the making, using, selling
`
`and/or offering for sale of switching units, software and/or methods for processing call requests,
`
`and/or related products and/or services, that implement Multilevel Precedence and Preemption
`
`(MLPP) that are covered by one or more claims of the ’648 patent. Verizon is liable for
`
`infringement of the ’648 patent pursuant to at least 35 U.S.C. § 271 (a).
`
`Page 9 0f 18
`
`Page 9 of 18
`
`

`

`35.
`
`Upon information and belief, at least as of the service of this complaint, Verizon
`
`indirectly infringes one or more claims of the ’648 patent by actively inducing infringement by
`
`their corporate affiliates (“corporate affiliates” as used throughout, includes, but is not limited to
`
`one or more defendants), customers, and/or vendors, who directly infringe the ’648 patent by
`
`making, using, selling and/or offering for sale switching units, software and/or methods for
`
`processing call requests, and/or related products and/or services, that are covered by one or more
`
`claims of the ’648 patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271 (b). Verizon, at least as of the service
`
`of this complaint, will have done this with knowledge of the ’648 patent and with knowledge that
`
`the infringing acts, if taken, constitute infringement or with a belief that there is a high
`
`probability that the infringing acts, if taken, would constitute infringement, but will have
`
`deliberately avoided confirming that belief.
`
`36.
`
`Upon information and belief, at least as of the service of this complaint, Verizon
`
`contributorily infringes one or more claims of the ’648 patent by selling and/or offering for sale
`
`switching units, software and/or methods for processing call requests, and/or related products
`
`and/or services, and/or components thereof, which are not staple articles of commerce and when
`
`combined and/or used by corporate affiliates, customers, and/or vendors, can only be combined
`
`and/or used in a way that infringes one or more claims of the ’648 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 271 (0). Verizon, at least as of the service of this complaint, will have done this with
`
`knowledge of the ’648 patent and with knowledge that the switching units, software and/or
`
`methods for processing call requests, and/or related products and/or services, and/or components
`
`thereof constitute a material part of the invention claimed in the ’648 patent.
`
`37.
`
`The acts of infiingement by Verizon have caused damage to Spherix, and Spherix
`
`is entitled to recover from Verizon the damages sustained by Spherix as a result of the wrongfiil
`
`Page 10 of 18
`
`-10-
`
`Page 10 of 18
`
`

`

`acts of Verizon, in an amount subject to proof at trial. Infringement of the ’648 patent by
`
`Verizon continues to cause damage to Spherix.
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF US. PATENT NO. 6,882,800
`
`COUNT II
`
`38.
`
`On April 19, 2005, United States Letters Patent No. 6,882,800 (the “’800 patent”)
`
`for “Optical Switching System for Switching Opticals [sic] Signals in Wavelength Groups,” was
`
`duly and legally issued to Alan F. Graves. All rights and interest in the ’800 patent have been
`
`assigned to Spherix. A true and correct copy of the ”800 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
`
`39.
`
`Upon information and belief, Verizon has directly infringed and continues to
`
`infringe the ’800 patent. The infringing acts include at least making, using, selling and/or
`
`offering for sale optical switching systems, and/or related products and/or services, including, for
`
`example and without limitation, optical switching systems with OADM nodes, using, for
`
`example the Cisco ONS 15454 and cross-connect card, and related products and/or services, that
`
`are covered by one or more claims of the ’800 patent. Verizon is liable for infringement of
`
`the ’800 patent pursuant to at least 35 U.S.C. § 271 (a).
`
`40.
`
`Upon information and belief, at least as of the service of this complaint, Verizon
`
`indirectly infringes one or more claims of the ’800 patent by actively inducing infringement by
`
`their corporate affiliates, customers, and/or vendors, who directly infringe the ’800 patent by
`
`making, using, selling and/or offering for sale optical switching systems, and/or related products
`
`and/or services, that are covered by one or more claims of the ’800 patent, in violation of 35
`
`U.S.C. § 271 (b). Verizon, at least as of the service of this complaint, will have done this with
`
`knowledge of the ’800 patent and with knowledge that the infringing acts, if taken, constitute
`
`Page 11 of 18
`
`-11-
`
`Page 11 of 18
`
`

`

`infringement or with a belief that there is a high probability that the infringing acts, if taken,
`
`would constitute infringement, but will have deliberately avoided confirming that belief.
`
`41.
`
`Upon information and belief, at least as of the service of this complaint, Verizon
`
`contributorily infringes one or more claims of the ’800 patent by selling and/or offering for sale
`
`optical switching systems, and/or related products and/or services, and/or components thereof,
`
`which are not staple articles of commerce and when combined and/or used by corporate affiliates,
`
`customers, and/or vendors, can only be combined and/or used in a way that infringes one or more
`
`claims of the ’800 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271 (c). Verizon, at least as of the service of
`
`this complaint, will have done this with knowledge of the ’800 patent and with knowledge that
`
`the optical switching systems, and/or related products and/or services, and/or components thereof
`
`constitute a material part of the invention claimed in the ’800 patent.
`
`42.
`
`The acts of infringement by Verizon have caused damage to Spherix, and Spherix
`
`is entitled to recover from Verizon the damages sustained by Spherix as a result of the wrongful
`
`acts of Verizon, in an amount subject to proof at trial. Infiingement of the ’800 patent by
`
`Verizon continues to cause damage to Spherix.
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF US. PATENT NO. 6,980,564
`
`COUNT III
`
`43.
`
`‘ On December 27, 2005, United States Letters Patent No. 6,980,564 (the “’564
`
`patent”) for “Modular Data Communication Equipment System,” was duly and legally issued to
`
`Juan 0. Rodriguez, David J. Berman, and James D. Lakin, Roswell. All rights and interest in
`
`the ’564 patent have been assigned to Spherix. A true and correct copy of the ’564 patent is
`
`attached hereto as Exhibit C.
`
`Page 12 of 18
`
`-12-
`
`Page 12 of 18
`
`

`

`44.
`
`Upon information and belief, Verizon Services, South, Virginia, and
`
`Communications have directly infringed and continue to infringe the ’564 patent. Upon
`
`information and belief, the infringing acts include at least making, using, selling and/or offering
`
`for sale network interface units, service delivery units, systems including such units, and/or
`
`related products and/or services, including, for example and without limitation, FiOS products
`
`and/or systems that include Optical Network Terminals (ONTs) that communicate with any one
`
`of a family of set top boxes, routers and/or other customer premises equipment, that are covered
`
`by one or more claims of the ’564 patent. Verizon Services, South, Virginia, and
`
`Communications are liable for infringement of the ’564 patent pursuant to at least 35 U.S.C. §
`
`271 (a).
`
`45.
`
`Upon information and belief, at least as of the service of this complaint, Verizon
`
`Services, South, Virginia, and Communications indirectly infringe one or more claims of
`
`the ’564 patent by actively inducing infringement by their corporate affiliates, customers, and/or
`
`vendors, who directly infringe the ’564 patent by making, using, selling and/or offering for sale
`
`network interface units, service delivery units, systems including such units, and/or related
`
`products and/or services, that are covered by one or more claims of the ’564 patent, in violation
`
`of 35 U.S.C. § 271 (b). Verizon Services, South, Virginia, and Communications, at least as of
`
`the service of this complaint, will have done this with knowledge of the ’564 patent and with
`
`knowledge that the infringing acts, if taken, constitute infringement or with a belief that there is a
`
`high probability that the infringing acts, if taken, would constitute infringement, but will
`
`deliberately avoid confirming that belief.
`
`46.
`
`Upon information and belief, at least as of the service of this complaint, Verizon
`
`Services, South, Virginia, and Communications contributorily infringe one or more claims of
`
`Page 13 of 18
`
`.. 13 _
`
`Page 13 of 18
`
`

`

`the ”564 patent by selling and/or offering for sale network interface units, service delivery units,
`
`systems including such units, and/or related products and/or services, and/or components thereof,
`
`which are not staple articles of commerce and when combined and/or used by corporate affiliates,
`
`customers, and/or vendors, can only be combined and/or used in a way that infringes one or more
`
`claims of the ’564 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271 (c). Verizon Services, South, Virginia,
`
`and Communications, at least as of the service of this complaint, will have done this with
`
`knowledge of the ’564 patent and with knowledge that the network interface units, service
`
`delivery units, systems including such units, and/or related products and/or services, and/or
`
`components thereof constitute a material part of the invention claimed in the ’564 patent.
`
`47.
`
`The acts of infringement by Verizon Services, South, Virginia, and
`
`Communications have caused damage to Spherix, and Spherix is entitled to recover from
`
`Verizon Services, South, Virginia, and Communications the damages sustained by Spherix as a
`
`result of the wrongfill acts of Verizon Services, South, Virginia, and Communications in an
`
`amount subject to proof at trial. Infringement of the ’564 patent by Verizon Services, South,
`
`Virginia, and Communications continues to cause damage to Spherix.
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF US. PATENT NO. 8,166,533
`
`COUNT IV
`
`48.
`
`On April 24, 2012, United States Letters Patent No. 8,166,533 (the “’533 patent”)
`
`for “Method for Providing Media Communication Across Firewalls,” was duly and legally issued to
`
`Wei Yuan. All rights and interest in the ’533 patent have been assigned to Spherix. A true and
`
`correct copy of the ’533 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit D.
`
`49.
`
`Upon information and belief, Verizon has directly infringed and continues to
`
`infringe the ’533 patent. The infringing acts include at least making, using, selling and/or
`
`Page 14 of 18
`
`-14 _
`
`Page 14 of 18
`
`

`

`offering for sale a packet-based communications network, a method for routing information
`
`packets, and/or related products and/or services, including, for example and without limitation, a
`
`packet-based communications network and/or a method for routing information packets, and
`
`related products and/or services that employ the SIP protocol for communicating across firewalls,
`
`that are covered by one or more claims of the ’533 patent. Verizon is liable for infringement of
`
`the ’533 patent pursuant to at least 35 U.S.C. § 271 (a).
`
`50.
`
`Upon information and belief, at least as of the service of this complaint, Verizon
`
`indirectly infringes one or more claims of the ’533 patent by actively inducing infringement by
`
`their corporate affiliates, customers, and/or vendors, who directly infringe the ’533 patent by
`
`making, using, selling and/or- offering for sale a packet-based communications network, a
`
`method for routing information packets, and/or related products and/or services, that are covered
`
`by one or more claims of the ’533 patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271 (b). Verizon, at least as
`
`of the service of this complaint, will have done this with knowledge of the ’533 patent and with
`
`knowledge that the infringing acts, if taken, constitute infringement or with a belief that there is a
`
`high probability that the infringing acts, if taken, would constitute infringement, but will have
`
`deliberately avoided confirming that belief.
`
`51.
`
`Upon information and belief, at least as of the service of this complaint, Verizon
`
`contributorily infringes one or more claims of the ’533 patent by selling and/or offering for sale a
`
`packet-based communications network, a method for routing information packets, and/or related
`
`products and/or services, and/or components thereof, which are not staple articles of commerce
`
`and when combined and/or used by corporate affiliates, customers, and/or vendors, can only be
`
`combined and/or used in a way that infringes one or more claims of the ’533 patent in violation
`
`of 35 U.S.C. § 271 (0). Verizon, at least as of the service of this complaint, will have done this
`
`Page 15 of 18
`
`-15-
`
`Page 15 of 18
`
`

`

`with knowledge of the ”533 patent and with knowledge that the a packet-based communications
`
`network, a method for routing information packets, and/or related products and/or services,
`
`and/or components thereof constitute a material part of the invention claimed in the ’533 patent.
`
`52.
`
`The acts of infringement by Verizon have caused damage to Spherix, and Spherix
`
`is entitled to recover from Verizon the damages sustained by Spherix as a result of the wrongful
`
`acts of Verizon, in an amount subject to proof at trial. Infringement of the ’533 patent by
`
`Verizon continues to cause damage to Spherix.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Spherix prays for judgment and seeks relief as follows:
`
`(a)
`
`For judgment that the claims of the ’648 patent have been and/or continue to be
`
`infringed;
`
`(b)
`
`For judgment that the claims of the ’800 patent have been and/or continue to be
`
`infringed;
`
`(c)
`
`For judgment that the claims of the ’564 patent have been and/or continue to be
`
`infringed;
`
`(d)
`
`For judgment that the claims of the ’533 patent have been and/or continue to be
`
`infringed;
`
`(e)
`
`For an accounting of all damages sustained by Spherix as the result of Verizon’s
`
`acts of infringement.
`
`Page 16 of 18
`
`_ 16 _
`
`Page 16 of 18
`
`

`

`(t)
`
`For actual damages together, with prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and
`
`post-judgment royalties, according to proof;
`
`(g)
`
`For an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 or as otherwise
`
`permitted by law;
`
`(h)
`
`For all costs of suit; and
`
`(i)
`
`For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38, Plaintiff demands a trial by jury of any and all issues
`
`properly tn'able to a jury.
`
`Page 17 of 18
`
`-17-
`
`Page 17 of 18
`
`

`

`Dated:
`
`June 1 l, 2014
`
`Respectfully Submitted:
`
`By: £16. £4
`
`Erik C. Kane
`
`VA No. 68294
`
`Atlorneyfor Plaintiffi Spherix Incorporated
`KENYON & KENYON LLP
`
`1500 K Street, N.W., Suite 700
`
`Washington, DC 20005
`Telephone: 202.220.4200
`Facsimile: 202.220.4201,
`Email: Ekanefakenvoncom
`
`Walter E. Hanley, J 1'
`John R. Kenny
`Lewis V. Popovski
`Mark A. Hannemann
`
`Attorneysfbr Plaintifi; Spherix Incorporated
`KENYON & KENYON LLP
`
`One Broadway
`New York, NY 10004
`
`Telephone: 212.425.7200
`Facsimile: 212.425.5288
`
`Email: WHanlevGfikenvoncom
`
`Email: JKennvngkenyoncom
`Email: LPopovskiflKenvoncom
`Email: MHannemannfiDkenvon.com
`
`Page 18 of 18
`
`-18 -
`
`Page 18 of 18
`
`