Case 2:14-cv-04489-JG-GRB Document 35 Filed 11/10/14 Page 1 of 19 PageID #: 265
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`
`
`¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ )
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` )
`ANDREA ELECTRONICS
`
`
` )
`CORPORATION,
`
`
`
` )
` )
` ) Case No. 2:14-cv-4489 (KAM-GRB)
` )
` )
` )
` )
` )
` )
` )
` )
` )
` )
` )
` )
`__________________________________________ )
`
`
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B), Plaintiff Andrea
`
`Electronics Corporation (“Andrea”), by and through its counsel, Pepper Hamilton LLP, for its
`
`First Amended Complaint against defendant Lenovo Holding Company, Inc. and Lenovo
`
`(United States) Inc. (collectively, “Lenovo” or “Defendants”) alleges as follows:
`
`NATURE OF ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This is an action for patent infringement under the patent laws of the United
`
`States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 271, et seq., to enjoin infringement and obtain damages resulting from
`
`Defendants’ unauthorized and ongoing actions, in the state of New York and elsewhere, of
`
`1
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LENOVO HOLDING COMPANY, INC. and
`LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC.
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`RTL923_1004-0001
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-04489-JG-GRB Document 35 Filed 11/10/14 Page 2 of 19 PageID #: 266
`
`making, having made, using, selling, having sold, offering to sell, and/or importing or having
`
`imported into the United States, certain personal computer products that infringe one or more
`
`claims in Andrea’s U.S. Patent No. 5,825,898 (the “’898 Patent”), U.S. Patent No. 6,049,607 (the
`
`“’607 Patent”), U.S. Patent No. 6,363,345 (the “’345 Patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 6,483,923
`
`(the “’923 Patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”).
`
`2.
`
`This is an action for direct infringement. Upon information and belief,
`
`Defendants make, have made, use, sell, offer to sell, and/or import or have imported into the
`
`United States certain personal computer products including, but not limited to, desktops,
`
`notebooks, laptops, all-in-ones, and tablets that infringe one or more of the Asserted Patents,
`
`either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`3.
`
`In addition, this is an action for indirect infringement. Upon information and
`
`belief, Defendants contribute to or induce the direct infringement of, either literally or under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents, one or more methods claimed in the ’607, ’345, and ’923 Patents.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiff Andrea is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state
`
`of New York with its principal place of business at 65 Orville Drive, Suite One, Bohemia, New
`
`York 11716.
`
`5.
`
`Upon information and belief, Lenovo Holding Company, Inc. is a corporation
`
`organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of
`
`business at 1009 Think Place, Morrisville, North Carolina 27650. Upon information and belief
`
`Lenovo Holding Inc. is the subsidiary of, or in the alternative, is controlled by Lenovo Group
`
`Ltd.
`
`6.
`
`Upon information and belief, Lenovo (United States) Inc. is a corporation
`
`organized under the laws of the State of Delaware and has a principal place of business at 1009
`2
`
`
`RTL923_1004-0002
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-04489-JG-GRB Document 35 Filed 11/10/14 Page 3 of 19 PageID #: 267
`
`Think Place, Morrisville, North Carolina 27560. Upon information and belief, Lenovo (United
`
`States) Inc. is the subsidiary of or, in the alternative, is controlled by Lenovo Holding Company
`
`Inc.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`7.
`
`This is an action for patent infringement. Federal Question jurisdiction is
`
`conferred upon this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and § 1338(a).
`
`8.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in the
`
`Eastern District of New York because they regularly transact business in this judicial district by,
`
`among other things, offering their products to customers, business affiliates, and/or partners
`
`located in this judicial district. In addition, Defendants have committed acts of direct
`
`infringement of one or more claims of one or more Asserted Patents in this judicial district.
`
`Infringing products made and sold by Defendants including, but not limited to, desktops,
`
`notebooks, laptops, all-in-ones, and tablets are widely advertised in New York and are readily
`
`available at numerous retail locations throughout the state, including within the Eastern District
`
`of New York. Upon information and belief, Defendants make ongoing and continuous
`
`shipments of infringing products into the Eastern District of New York and maintain an
`
`established distribution network that encompasses New York. Infringing products are
`
`manufactured by Defendants, or at their direction, and are used or consumed within this State in
`
`the ordinary course of trade. Defendants admitted that personal jurisdiction is proper in the
`
`Eastern District of New York and that they are subject to personal jurisdiction in the Eastern
`
`District of New York in paragraph 8 of their Answer filed on October 20, 2014.
`
`9.
`
`Venue is proper in the Eastern District of New York under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)
`
`and (c) as well as 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) because Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in
`
`3
`
`
`RTL923_1004-0003
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-04489-JG-GRB Document 35 Filed 11/10/14 Page 4 of 19 PageID #: 268
`
`this district and have committed acts of infringement in this district. Additionally, Plaintiff’s
`
`principal place of business is located in this judicial district.
`
`BACKGROUND AND FACTS RELATED TO THIS ACTION
`
`10.
`
`Andrea is a leading industry developer of product solutions which optimize the
`
`performance of voice user interfaces and has a decorated history deeply rooted in the state of
`
`New York. Its technology has been applied to products related to, among other things, voice
`
`over internet protocol (“VoIP”) telephone, VoIP teleconferencing, video conferencing, speech
`
`recognition, computer gaming, in-car computing, and 3D audio recording.
`
`11.
`
`The leadership of Andrea has spanned three familial generations over 80 years,
`
`and the company has been headquartered in the Long Island community since 1934. Andrea’s
`
`products are featured in the Henry Ford Museum and Smithsonian National Museum of
`
`American History.
`
`12.
`
`In the early 1900s, Frank Andrea, an Italian immigrant, started his business
`
`career. He began as an electroplater for I.P. Frink manufacturing company and studied at night
`
`as a tool maker and machinist at the Mechanics Institute in New York City. In 1913 he joined
`
`the Frederick Pierce Company and, after the outbreak of World War I, worked to design tools to
`
`manufacture parts for a new aircraft radio receiver that he had built. Mr. Andrea soon thereafter
`
`started his own company, FADA.
`
`13.
`
`As founder of FADA, Mr. Andrea employed his family members, including his
`
`16 year-old brother, John. FADA picked up momentum when Mr. Andrea convinced Marconi,
`
`the predecessor of RCA, to place an order for radio parts. FADA began manufacturing parts for
`
`crystal sets and “Do It Yourself” kits. FADA also soon began manufacturing parts such as
`
`sockets and rheostats for tube type radios.
`
`4
`
`
`RTL923_1004-0004
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-04489-JG-GRB Document 35 Filed 11/10/14 Page 5 of 19 PageID #: 269
`
`14.
`
`After selling his controlling interest in FADA, Mr. Andrea founded the Andrea
`
`Radio Corporation (“Andrea Radio”). Andrea Radio’s offerings evolved over time. In 1939,
`
`Andrea Radio developed and produced one of the first television sets, which was displayed at the
`
`World’s Fair in Queens, New York. Andrea Radio sold TV kits and the first television console
`
`models that also housed a radio and phonograph. In 1954, Andrea Radio began developing a
`
`color television and introduced a set in 1957.
`
`15.
`
`During the Second World War, the firm engaged in the production of military
`
`electronics. In 1942, Andrea Radio was presented with the prestigious high honors Navy E
`
`Award for manufacturing excellence and providing military audio communications equipment.
`
`In the early 1960s, Andrea Radio developed and produced several types of high reliability
`
`intercommunication systems for installation in various military and commercial aircraft. Indeed,
`
`Andrea Radio produced the audio intercom system for Project Mercury’s first manned
`
`spacecraft.
`
`16. Mr. Andrea passed away in 1965, leaving his son, Frank Jr., to continue the
`
`Andrea business.
`
`17.
`
`In the 1970s and 1980s, Andrea Radio became a premier supplier of high
`
`performance avionic intercom equipment for defense industry manufacturers like Bell
`
`Helicopter, Boeing, Sikorsky, and Lockheed, prompting Andrea Radio to change its name to
`
`Andrea Electronics Corporation. Andrea produced microphone audio pre-amplifiers for Navy
`
`aviators’ oxygen mask helmet systems. The experience gained from producing audio intercom
`
`systems for high noise environments paved the way for Andrea’s emphasis on active noise
`
`cancellation.
`
`5
`
`
`RTL923_1004-0005
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-04489-JG-GRB Document 35 Filed 11/10/14 Page 6 of 19 PageID #: 270
`
`18.
`
`Product development continued in the 1990s with Andrea producing the first
`
`Active Noise Canceling (“ANC”) boom microphone computer headset for deployment with
`
`computer speech recognition. Andrea shipped millions of headsets and microphone products to
`
`software OEMs. In 1998, Andrea developed and produced the first digital array microphone for
`
`commercial use, providing hands-free voice command and control functionality. In 1999,
`
`Andrea developed and produced the first USB headset as well as the first desktop digital array
`
`microphone.
`
`19.
`
`In the 2000s, Andrea broadened the application of its product offerings. In 2001,
`
`it developed and produced digital noise canceling array microphones for speech control systems
`
`in police cruisers. In 2002, Andrea revolutionized PC audio input by introducing the first stereo
`
`array microphone interface for integrated audio coder/decoders (“CODECs”). By the late 2000s,
`
`Andrea had shipped over one million SuperBeam stereo array microphones, and millions of
`
`DSDA stereo array microphone and EchoStop speakerphone products.
`
`20.
`
`Andrea has continued its innovation and offers microphone and earphone
`
`technologies designed to enhance sound quality. Andrea, now led by Frank Andrea’s grandson,
`
`Douglas Andrea, successfully transformed itself from a manufacturer of industrial and military
`
`intercommunication systems into a creator of cutting-edge audio technologies. Andrea
`
`incorporates its new patented technologies to enable natural language interfaces and enhance the
`
`performance of voice-related applications. Today, Andrea offers a variety of products
`
`incorporating its technologies such as headsets and headphones, microphones, software
`
`algorithms, USB audio solutions and related accessories. Since its inception, Andrea has gone
`
`through a remarkable evolution as an audio technology leader, meeting the ever-changing needs
`
`of a demanding audio communications marketplace.
`
`6
`
`
`RTL923_1004-0006
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-04489-JG-GRB Document 35 Filed 11/10/14 Page 7 of 19 PageID #: 271
`
`COUNT I
`
`(Infringement of the ’898 Patent)
`
`21.
`
`22.
`
`Paragraphs 1 through 20 are incorporated by reference as if fully restated herein.
`
`On October 20, 1998, United States Patent No. 5,825,898 (the “’898 Patent”) was
`
`duly and legally issued for “System and Method for Adaptive Interference Cancelling.” The
`
`’898 Patent is in full force and effect. A true and correct copy of the ’898 Patent is attached
`
`hereto as Exhibit A and made part hereof.
`
`23.
`
`Andrea is the owner of all right, title, and interest in and to the ’898 Patent, with
`
`the exclusive right to enforce the ’898 Patent against infringers and the exclusive right to collect
`
`damages for all relevant times, including the right to prosecute this action.
`
`24.
`
`The ’898 Patent generally relates to signal processing. Specifically, the ’898
`
`Patent discloses an adaptive signal processing system and method for reducing interference in a
`
`received signal.
`
`25.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendants – without authority, consent, right, or
`
`license – manufacture, make, have made, use, sell, offer for sale, and/or import into the United
`
`States certain personal computer products that directly infringe, either literally and/or under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents, at least one claim of the ’898 patent. As a result of Defendants’
`
`infringing conduct, Andrea has suffered damages and will continue to suffer damages in an
`
`amount that, by law, cannot be less than a reasonable royalty, together with interest and costs as
`
`fixed by the Court under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
`
`26.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendants will continue their infringement of the
`
`’898 Patent unless enjoined by the Court. Defendants’ infringing conduct has caused Andrea
`
`irreparable harm and will continue to cause such harm without the issuance of an injunction.
`
`
`7
`
`
`RTL923_1004-0007
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-04489-JG-GRB Document 35 Filed 11/10/14 Page 8 of 19 PageID #: 272
`
`COUNT II
`
`(Infringement of the ’607 Patent)
`
`27.
`
`28.
`
`Paragraphs 1 through 26 are incorporated by reference as if fully restated herein.
`
`On April 11, 2000, United States Patent No. 6,049,607 (the “’607 Patent”) was
`
`duly and legally issued for “Interference Canceling Method and Apparatus.” The ’607 Patent is
`
`in full force and effect. A true and correct copy of the ’607 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit B
`
`and made part hereof.
`
`29.
`
`Andrea is the owner of all right, title, and interest in and to the ’607 Patent, with
`
`the exclusive right to enforce the ’607 Patent against infringers and the exclusive right to collect
`
`damages for all relevant times, including the right to prosecute this action.
`
`30.
`
`The ’607 Patent generally relates to an interference canceling method and
`
`apparatus. For instance, the ’607 Patent discloses an echo canceling method and apparatus
`
`which provides echo-canceling in full duplex communication.
`
`31.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendants – without authority, consent, right, or
`
`license – manufacture, make, have made, use, sell, offer for sale, and/or import into the United
`
`States certain personal computer products that directly infringe, either literally and/or under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents, or enable the practice of, at least one claim of the ’607 Patent.
`
`32.
`
`Further, upon information and belief, Defendants have also indirectly infringed at
`
`least one of the claims of the ’607 Patent by inducing infringement of at least one claim of the
`
`’607 Patent.
`
`33.
`
`Defendants have been aware of the ’607 Patent and of Andrea’s allegations of
`
`infringement since at least July 25, 2014, the filing date of the original Complaint in this action.
`
`Additionally, Defendants had constructive notice of the ‘607 patent prior to initiation of this
`
`action by virtue of Andrea’s marking practice, as set forth in Count V below.
`8
`
`
`RTL923_1004-0008
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-04489-JG-GRB Document 35 Filed 11/10/14 Page 9 of 19 PageID #: 273
`
`34.
`
`Despite Defendants’ awareness of the ’607 Patent and Andrea’s allegations, they
`
`have knowingly and actively induced others to infringe the ’607 Patent by selling personal
`
`computer products containing hardware and/or software for performing audio processing which,
`
`when used, result in the direct infringement of at least one of the method claims of the ’607
`
`Patent by end-users – e.g., customers. Defendants have provided and continue to provide
`
`promotional materials advertising the audio processing functionalities described and claimed in
`
`the ’607 Patent. For example, Defendants have advertised and continue to advertise that their
`
`products include microphones for cancelling noise, including, for example, echo and background
`
`noise. See, e.g., Exhibit E
`
`(http://www.lenovo.com/shop/emea/content/pdf/ThinkPad/XSeries/X230DSEN.pdf) and Exhibit
`
`F (http://shop.lenovo.com/us/en/laptops/thinkpad/t-series/t440/). Upon information and belief,
`
`Defendants’ implementation of noise cancellation reduces or cancels interference in a manner
`
`that infringes the claims of the ‘607 Patent. At least by advertising such functionality,
`
`Defendants have induced and are actively inducing end-users to use that functionality and
`
`infringe at least one method claim of Andrea’s ’607 Patent.
`
`35.
`
`Further, upon information and belief, Defendants have also indirectly infringed at
`
`least one of the claims of the ’607 Patent by contributing to the infringement of at least one claim
`
`of the ’607 Patent.
`
`36.
`
`The noise cancellation in Defendants’ personal computer products, which
`
`comprises a combination of hardware (e.g., microphones) and software (e.g., voice/audio
`
`processing) is made solely for the purpose of reducing or eliminating noise from voice and/or
`
`other audio signals received through the microphone array in a manner that infringes at least one
`
`claim of the ’607 Patent. Further, this combination of hardware and software is especially made
`
`9
`
`
`RTL923_1004-0009
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-04489-JG-GRB Document 35 Filed 11/10/14 Page 10 of 19 PageID #: 274
`
`and/or especially adapted for use in the infringement of Andrea’s ’607 Patent, is not a staple
`
`commodity of commerce, and is not suitable for substantial non-infringing use. By selling
`
`personal computer products containing this combination of hardware and software, Defendants
`
`have contributed to the infringement of the ’607 Patent by end-users – e.g., customers – who use
`
`said combination of hardware and software provided in Defendants’ products.
`
`37.
`
`As a result of Defendants’ infringing conduct, Andrea has suffered damages and
`
`will continue to suffer damages in an amount that, by law, cannot be less than a reasonable
`
`royalty, together with interest and costs as fixed by the Court under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
`
`38.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendants will continue their infringement of the
`
`’607 Patent unless enjoined by the Court. Defendants’ infringing conduct has caused Andrea
`
`irreparable harm and will continue to cause such harm without the issuance of an injunction.
`
`COUNT III
`
`(Infringement of the ’345 Patent)
`
`39.
`
`40.
`
`Paragraphs 1 through 38 are incorporated by reference as if fully restated herein.
`
`On March 26, 2002, United States Patent No. 6,363,345 (the “’345 Patent”) was
`
`duly and legally issued for “System, Method and Apparatus for Cancelling Noise.” The ’345
`
`Patent is in full force and effect. A true and correct copy of the ’345 Patent is attached hereto as
`
`Exhibit C and made part hereof.
`
`41.
`
`Andrea is the owner of all right, title, and interest in and to the ’345 Patent, with
`
`the exclusive right to enforce the ’345 Patent against infringers and the exclusive right to collect
`
`damages for all relevant times, including the right to prosecute this action.
`
`42.
`
`43.
`
`The ’345 Patent generally relates to noise cancellation and reduction.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendants – without authority, consent, right, or
`
`license – manufacture, make, have made, use, sell, offer for sale, and/or import into the United
`10
`
`
`RTL923_1004-0010
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-04489-JG-GRB Document 35 Filed 11/10/14 Page 11 of 19 PageID #: 275
`
`States certain personal computer products that directly infringe, either literally and/or under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents, or enable the practice of, at least one claim of the ’345 Patent.
`
`44.
`
`Further, upon information and belief, Defendants have also indirectly infringed at
`
`least one of the claims of the ’345 Patent by inducing infringement of at least one claim of the
`
`’345 Patent.
`
`45.
`
`Defendants have been aware of the ’345 Patent and of Andrea’s allegations of
`
`infringement since at least July 25, 2014, the filing date of the original Complaint in this action.
`
`Additionally, Defendants had constructive notice of the ‘345 patent prior to initiation of this
`
`action by virtue of Andrea’s marking practice, as set forth in Count V below.
`
`46.
`
`Despite Defendants’ awareness of the ’345 Patent and Andrea’s allegations, they
`
`have knowingly and actively induced others to infringe the ’345 Patent by selling personal
`
`computer products containing hardware and/or software for performing audio processing which,
`
`when used, result in the direct infringement of at least one of the method claims of the ’345
`
`Patent by end-users – e.g., customers. Defendants have provided and continue to provide
`
`promotional materials advertising the audio processing functionalities described and claimed in
`
`the ’345 Patent. For example, Defendants have advertised and continue to advertise that their
`
`products include microphones for cancelling noise, including, for example, echo and background
`
`noise. See, e.g., Exhibit E
`
`(http://www.lenovo.com/shop/emea/content/pdf/ThinkPad/XSeries/X230DSEN.pdf) and Exhibit
`
`F (http://shop.lenovo.com/us/en/laptops/thinkpad/t-series/t440/). Upon information and belief,
`
`Defendants’ implementation of noise cancellation reduces or cancels noise in a manner that
`
`infringes the claims of the ‘345 Patent. At least by advertising such functionality, Defendants
`
`11
`
`
`RTL923_1004-0011
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-04489-JG-GRB Document 35 Filed 11/10/14 Page 12 of 19 PageID #: 276
`
`have induced and are actively inducing end-users to use that functionality and infringe at least
`
`one method claim of Andrea’s ’345 Patent.
`
`47.
`
`Further, upon information and belief, Defendants have also indirectly infringed at
`
`least one of the claims of the ’345 Patent by contributing to the infringement of at least one claim
`
`of the ’345 Patent.
`
`48.
`
`The noise reduction technology in Defendants’ personal computer products,
`
`which comprises a combination of hardware (e.g., microphone(s)) and software (e.g., for
`
`voice/audio processing) is made solely for the purpose of reducing or eliminating noise from
`
`voice and/or other audio signals received through the microphone array in a manner that
`
`infringes at least one claim of the ’345 Patent. Further, this combination of hardware and
`
`software is especially made and/or especially adapted for use in the infringement of Andrea’s
`
`’345 Patent, is not a staple commodity of commerce, and is not suitable for substantial non-
`
`infringing use. By selling personal computer products containing this combination of hardware
`
`and software, Defendants have contributed to the infringement of the ’345 Patent by end-users –
`
`e.g., customers – who use said combination of hardware and software provided in Defendants’
`
`products.
`
`49.
`
`As a result of Defendants’ infringing conduct, Andrea has suffered damages and
`
`will continue to suffer damages in an amount that, by law, cannot be less than a reasonable
`
`royalty, together with interest and costs as fixed by the Court under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
`
`50.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendants will continue their infringement of the
`
`’345 Patent unless enjoined by the Court. Defendants’ infringing conduct has caused Andrea
`
`irreparable harm and will continue to cause such harm without the issuance of an injunction.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`RTL923_1004-0012
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-04489-JG-GRB Document 35 Filed 11/10/14 Page 13 of 19 PageID #: 277
`
`COUNT IV
`
`(Infringement of the ’923 Patent)
`
`51.
`
`52.
`
`Paragraphs 1 through 50 are incorporated by reference as if fully restated herein.
`
`On November 19, 2002, United States Patent No. 6,483,923 (the “’923 Patent”)
`
`was duly and legally issued for “System and Method for Adaptive Interference Cancelling.” The
`
`’923 Patent is in full force and effect. A true and correct copy of the ’923 Patent is attached
`
`hereto as Exhibit D and made part hereof.
`
`53.
`
`Andrea is the owner of all right, title, and interest in and to the ’923 Patent, with
`
`the exclusive right to enforce the ’923 Patent against infringers and the exclusive right to collect
`
`damages for all relevant times, including the right to prosecute this action.
`
`54.
`
`The ’923 Patent generally relates to signal processing. Specifically, the ’923
`
`Patent discloses an adaptive signal processing system and method for reducing interference in a
`
`received signal.
`
`55.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendants – without authority, consent, right, or
`
`license – manufacture, make, have made, use, sell, offer for sale, and/or import into the United
`
`States certain personal computer products that directly infringe, either literally and/or under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents, or enable the practice of, at least one claim of the ’923 Patent.
`
`56.
`
`Further, upon information and belief, Defendants have also indirectly infringed at
`
`least one of the claims of the ’923 Patent by inducing infringement of at least one claim of the
`
`’923 Patent.
`
`57.
`
`Defendants have been aware of the ’923 Patent and of Andrea’s allegations of
`
`infringement since at least July 25, 2014, the filing date of the original Complaint in this action.
`
`13
`
`
`RTL923_1004-0013
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-04489-JG-GRB Document 35 Filed 11/10/14 Page 14 of 19 PageID #: 278
`
`Additionally, Defendants had constructive notice of the ‘923 patent prior to initiation of this
`
`action by virtue of Andrea’s marking practice, as set forth in Count V below.
`
`58.
`
`Despite Defendants’ awareness of the ’923 Patent and Andrea’s allegations, they
`
`have knowingly and actively induced others to infringe the ’923 Patent by selling personal
`
`computer products containing hardware and/or software for performing audio processing which,
`
`when used, result in the direct infringement of at least one of the method claims of the ’923
`
`Patent by end-users – e.g., customers. Defendants have provided and continue to provide
`
`promotional materials advertising the audio processing functionalities described and claimed in
`
`the ’923 Patent. For example, Defendants have advertised and continue to advertise their dual
`
`array microphones for noise cancellation in their products. See, e.g., Exhibit E
`
`(http://www.lenovo.com/shop/emea/content/pdf/ThinkPad/XSeries/X230DSEN.pdf) and Exhibit
`
`F (http://shop.lenovo.com/us/en/laptops/thinkpad/t-series/t440/). Upon information and belief,
`
`Defendants’ implementation of noise cancellation reduces or cancels interference in a received
`
`signal in a manner that infringes the claims of the ‘923 Patent. At least by advertising such
`
`functionality, Defendants have induced and are actively inducing end-users to use that
`
`functionality and infringe at least one method claim of Andrea’s ’923 Patent.
`
`59.
`
`Further, upon information and belief, Defendants have also indirectly infringed at
`
`least one of the claims of the ’923 Patent by contributing to the infringement of at least one claim
`
`of the ’923 Patent.
`
`60.
`
`Upon information and belief, the combination of hardware (e.g., microphone(s))
`
`and software (e.g., voice recognition and audio processing software) in Defendants’ personal
`
`computer products is made solely for the purpose of reducing or eliminating noise from voice
`
`and/or other audio signals received through the microphone array in a manner that infringes at
`
`14
`
`
`RTL923_1004-0014
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-04489-JG-GRB Document 35 Filed 11/10/14 Page 15 of 19 PageID #: 279
`
`least one claim of the ’923 Patent. Further, this combination of hardware and software is
`
`especially made and/or especially adapted for use in the infringement of Andrea’s ’923 Patent, is
`
`not a staple commodity of commerce, and is not suitable for substantial non-infringing use. By
`
`selling personal computer products containing this combination of hardware and software,
`
`Defendants have contributed to the infringement of the ’923 Patent by end-users – e.g.,
`
`customers – who use said combination of hardware and software provided in Defendants’
`
`products.
`
`61.
`
`As a result of Defendants’ infringing conduct, Andrea has suffered damages and
`
`will continue to suffer damages in an amount that, by law, cannot be less than a reasonable
`
`royalty, together with interest and costs as fixed by the Court under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
`
`62.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendants will continue their infringement of the
`
`’923 Patent unless enjoined by the Court. Defendants’ infringing conduct has caused Andrea
`
`irreparable harm and will continue to cause such harm without the issuance of an injunction.
`
`COUNT V
`
`(Notice of the Asserted Patents under 35 U.S.C. § 287)
`
`63.
`
`64.
`
`Paragraphs 1 through 62 are incorporated by reference as if fully restated herein.
`
`Prior to the initiation of this action, Andrea provided constructive notice to the
`
`public, including Defendants, of the Asserted Patents, by consistently marking substantially all
`
`of their articles practicing the Asserted Patents.
`
`65.
`
`In addition, Defendants received actual notice of Andrea’s Asserted Patents on
`
`July 25, 2014 when Andrea filed its original Complaint in this action.
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`Andrea hereby requests a trial by jury pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil
`
`Procedure.
`
`15
`
`
`RTL923_1004-0015
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-04489-JG-GRB Document 35 Filed 11/10/14 Page 16 of 19 PageID #: 280
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`Wherefore, Andrea requests the following relief:
`
`a.
`
`Judgment that one or more claims of the ’898, ’607, ’345, and ’923
`
`Patents have been directly infringed either literally and/or under the
`
`Doctrine of Equivalents by Defendants;
`
`b.
`
`Judgment that one or more of the method claims of the ’607, ’345, and
`
`’923 Patents have been indirectly infringed either literally and/or under the
`
`Doctrine of Equivalents by Defendants;
`
`c.
`
`Judgment that Defendants be held liable and ordered to account for and
`pay to Andrea:
`Damages adequate to compensate Andrea for Defendants’
`(1)
`infringement of the ’898, ’607, ’345, and ’923 Patents, for
`Andrea’s lost profits and/or in an amount no less than a reasonable
`royalty, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284.
`Andrea’s reasonable attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285; and
`Andrea’s pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and costs
`
`(2)
`(3)
`
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §284;
`
`d.
`
`Judgment that Defendants be permanently enjoined from any further
`
`conduct that infringes one or more claims of the ’898, ’607, ’345, and ’923
`
`Patents; and
`
`e.
`
`Judgment that Andrea be granted such other and further relief as the Court
`
`may deem just and proper under the circumstances.
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`RTL923_1004-0016
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-04489-JG-GRB Document 35 Filed 11/10/14 Page 17 of 19 PageID #: 281
`Case 2:14-cv-04489-JG-GRB Document 35 Filed 11/10/14 Page 17 of 19 Page|D #: 281
`
`Date: November 10, 2014
`
`Respectfully submitfb
`ggouiiflwbl
`
`Goutam Patnaik
`
`.
`
`Tuhin Ganguly
`Kelly E. Rose
`Pepper Hamilton LLP
`Hamilton Square
`600 Fourteenth Street, N.W.
`
`Washington, DC 20005-2004
`Tel: 202.220.1200
`Fax: 202.220.1665
`
`William D. Belanger
`Frank Liu
`
`Supama Datta
`Pepper Hamilton LLP
`19th Floor, High Street Tower
`125 High Street
`Boston, MA 02110-2736
`Tel: 617.204.5100
`Fax: 617.204.5150
`
`Cor.m.s'el_for Plaintiff
`Andrea Electronics Corporation
`
`RTL923_1004-0017
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-04489-JG-GRB Document 35 Filed 11/10/14 Page 18 of 19 PageID #: 282
`
`Certificate of Service
`
`I hereby certify that on November 10, 2014, the foregoing document was filed with the Clerk of
`
`the Court and served in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and/or the Eastern
`
`District’s Local Rules, and/or the Eastern District’s Rules on Electronic Service upon the
`
`following parties and participants:
`
`
`Eric J. Klein
`Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP
`1700 Pacific Avenue
`Suite 4100
`Dallas, TX 75201
`
`Fred I. Williams
`Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP
`600 Congress Avenue
`Suite 1350
`Austin, TX 78701
`
`Kellie Johnson
`Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP
`1700 Pacific Avenue
`Suite 4100
`Dallas, TX 75201
`
`Todd Landis
`AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
`1700 Pacific Avenue
`Suite 4100
`Dallas, TX 75201
`
`Wesley D. Markham
`Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP
`One Bryant Park
`Bank Of America Tower
`New York, NY 10036
`
`
`Counsel for Defendants
`
`Lenovo Holding Company, Inc. and Lenovo (Untied States) Inc.
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`RTL923_1004-0018
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-04489-JG-GRB Document 35 Filed 11/10/14 Page