Case 2:15-cv-00209-JG-GRB Document 1 Filed 01/14/15 Page 1 of 20 PageID #: 1
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`DELL INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-209
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ )
`
`
`
`
`
`
` )
`ANDREA ELECTRONICS
`
` )
`CORPORATION,
`
`
` )
` )
` )
` )
` )
` )
` )
` )
` )
` )
` )
` )
` )
` )
`____________________________________ )
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiff Andrea Electronics Corporation (“Andrea” or “Plaintiff”), by and through its
`
`counsel, Pepper Hamilton LLP, for its Complaint against defendant Dell Inc. (“Dell” or
`
`“Defendant”) 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
`
`Defendant’s unauthorized and ongoing actions, in the state of New York and elsewhere, of
`
`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
`
`1
`
`
`RTL345-2_1011-0001
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00209-JG-GRB Document 1 Filed 01/14/15 Page 2 of 20 PageID #: 2
`
`“’607 Patent”), U.S. Patent No. 6,363,345 (the “’345 Patent”),U.S. Patent No. 6,377,637 (the
`
`“’637 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, Defendant
`
`makes, has made, uses, sells, offers to sell, and/or imports or has imported into the United States
`
`certain personal computer products including, but not limited to, desktops, notebooks, laptops,
`
`all-in-ones, Chromebooks, 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, Defendant contributes to or induces the direct infringement, either literally or under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents, of one or more claims in the ’898, ’607, ’637, ’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, Dell Inc. is a corporation organized and existing
`
`under the laws of Delaware, headquartered at 1 Dell Way, Round Rock, Texas 78682-7000. Dell
`
`Inc. may be served through its registered agent for service of process, Corporation Service
`
`Company, 2711 Centerville Road, Suite 400, Wilmington, Delaware 19808.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`6.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in the
`
`Eastern District of New York because it regularly transacts business in this judicial district by,
`
`among other things, offering products to customers, business affiliates, and/or partners located in
`
`this judicial district. In addition, Defendant has committed acts of infringement of one or more
`2
`
`
`RTL345-2_1011-0002
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00209-JG-GRB Document 1 Filed 01/14/15 Page 3 of 20 PageID #: 3
`
`claims of each of the Asserted Patents in this judicial district. Infringing products made and sold
`
`by Defendant including, but not limited to, desktops, notebooks, laptops, all-in-ones,
`
`Chromebooks, 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, Defendant makes ongoing and continuous shipments of
`
`infringing products into the Eastern District of New York and maintains an established
`
`distribution network that encompasses New York. Infringing products are manufactured by
`
`Defendant, or at its direction, and are used or consumed within this State in the ordinary course
`
`of trade.
`
`7.
`
`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 Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in
`
`this district and has 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
`
`8.
`
`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.
`
`9.
`
`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.
`
`3
`
`
`RTL345-2_1011-0003
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00209-JG-GRB Document 1 Filed 01/14/15 Page 4 of 20 PageID #: 4
`
`10.
`
`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.
`
`11.
`
`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.
`
`12.
`
`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.
`
`13.
`
`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,
`
`4
`
`
`RTL345-2_1011-0004
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00209-JG-GRB Document 1 Filed 01/14/15 Page 5 of 20 PageID #: 5
`
`Andrea Radio produced the audio intercom system for Project Mercury’s first manned
`
`spacecraft.
`
`14. Mr. Andrea passed away in 1965, leaving his son, Frank Jr., to continue the
`
`Andrea business.
`
`15.
`
`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.
`
`16.
`
`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.
`
`17.
`
`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,
`
`5
`
`
`RTL345-2_1011-0005
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00209-JG-GRB Document 1 Filed 01/14/15 Page 6 of 20 PageID #: 6
`
`Andrea had shipped over one million SuperBeam stereo array microphones, and millions of
`
`DSDA stereo array microphone and EchoStop speakerphone products.
`
`18.
`
`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.
`
`COUNT I
`
`(Infringement of the ’898 Patent)
`
`19.
`
`20.
`
`Paragraphs 1 through 18 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.
`
`21.
`
`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.
`
`6
`
`
`RTL345-2_1011-0006
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00209-JG-GRB Document 1 Filed 01/14/15 Page 7 of 20 PageID #: 7
`
`22.
`
`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.
`
`23.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant – without authority, consent, right, or
`
`license – manufactures, makes, has made, uses, sells, offers for sale, and/or imports 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 ’898 Patent.
`
`24.
`
`Further, upon information and belief, Defendant has also indirectly infringed at
`
`least one claim of the ’898 Patent by inducing infringement.
`
`25.
`
`Defendant has been aware of the ’898 Patent and of Andrea’s allegations of
`
`infringement since at least the filing of this Complaint. Additionally, Defendant had constructive
`
`notice of the ‘898 patent prior to the filing of this Complaint by virtue of Andrea’s marking
`
`practice, as set forth in Count VI below.
`
`26.
`
`Despite Defendant’s awareness of the ’898 Patent and Andrea’s allegations, it has
`
`knowingly and actively induced others to infringe the ’898 Patent by selling personal computer
`
`products containing microphone input(s) with, for example, “microphone focus” functionality,
`
`which, when used, results in the direct infringement of at least one claim of the ’898 Patent by
`
`end-users – e.g., customers. For example, Defendant has provided and continues to provide
`
`promotional materials advertising “microphone focus” functionality described and claimed in the
`
`’898 Patent. See, e.g., Exhibit F, Exhibit G, Exhibit H, Exhibit I and Exhibit J. Upon
`
`information and belief, Defendant’s implementation of its microphone focus functionality
`
`reduces interference in a received signal in a manner that infringes the claims of the ‘898 Patent.
`
`7
`
`
`RTL345-2_1011-0007
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00209-JG-GRB Document 1 Filed 01/14/15 Page 8 of 20 PageID #: 8
`
`At least by advertising such functionality, Defendant has induced and is actively inducing end-
`
`users to use that functionality and infringe at least one claim of Andrea’s ’898 Patent.
`
`27.
`
`Further, upon information and belief, Defendant has also indirectly infringed at
`
`least one claim of the ’898 Patent by contributing to infringement.
`
`28.
`
`Upon information and belief, the microphone focus functionality implemented in
`
`Defendants’ personal computer products, which comprises a combination of hardware (e.g.,
`
`microphone input(s)) and software (e.g., voice/audio processing), is made solely for the purpose
`
`of reducing or eliminating interference from voice and/or other audio signals received through at
`
`least one microphone in a manner that infringes at least one claim of the ’898 Patent. Further,
`
`this combination of hardware and software is especially made and/or especially adapted for use
`
`in the infringement of Andrea’s ’898 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, Defendant has contributed to the infringement of the
`
`’898 Patent by end-users – e.g., customers – who use said combination of hardware and software
`
`provided in Defendant’s products.
`
`29.
`
`As a result of Defendant’s 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.
`
`30.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant will continue its infringement of the ’898
`
`Patent unless enjoined by the Court. Defendant’s infringing conduct has caused Andrea
`
`irreparable harm and will continue to cause such harm without the issuance of an injunction.
`
`COUNT II
`
`(Infringement of the ’607 Patent)
`
`31.
`
`Paragraphs 1 through 30 are incorporated by reference as if fully restated herein.
`8
`
`
`RTL345-2_1011-0008
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00209-JG-GRB Document 1 Filed 01/14/15 Page 9 of 20 PageID #: 9
`
`32.
`
`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.
`
`33.
`
`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.
`
`34.
`
`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 duplex communication.
`
`35.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant – without authority, consent, right, or
`
`license – manufactures, makes, has made, uses, sells, offers for sale, and/or imports 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.
`
`36.
`
`Further, upon information and belief, Defendant has also indirectly infringed at
`
`least one claim of the ’607 Patent by inducing infringement.
`
`37.
`
`Defendant has been aware of the ’607 Patent and of Andrea’s allegations of
`
`infringement since at least the filing of this Complaint. Additionally Defendant had constructive
`
`notice of the ‘607 patent prior to the filing of this Complaint by virtue of Andrea’s marking
`
`practice, as set forth in Count VI below.
`
`38.
`
`Despite Defendant’s awareness of the ’607 Patent and Andrea’s allegations, it has
`
`knowingly and actively induced others to infringe the ’607 Patent by selling personal computer
`
`products containing at least one microphone or microphone input with echo cancellation which,
`
`9
`
`
`RTL345-2_1011-0009
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00209-JG-GRB Document 1 Filed 01/14/15 Page 10 of 20 PageID #: 10
`
`when used, results in the direct infringement of at least one claim of the ’607 Patent by end-users
`
`– e.g., customers. Defendant has provided and continues to provide promotional materials
`
`advertising echo cancellation functionality as described and claimed in the ’607 Patent. See, e.g.,
`
`Exhibit F, Exhibit G, Exhibit H, Exhibit K and Exhibit L. Upon information and belief,
`
`Defendant’s implementation of echo cancellation in its products reduces or cancels interference
`
`in a manner that infringes the claims of the ‘607 Patent. At least by advertising such
`
`functionality, Defendant has induced and is actively inducing end-users to use that functionality
`
`and infringe at least one claim of Andrea’s ’607 Patent.
`
`39.
`
`Further, upon information and belief, Defendant has also indirectly infringed at
`
`least one claim of the ’607 Patent by contributing to infringement.
`
`40.
`
`Upon information and belief, the echo cancellation implemented in Defendant’s
`
`personal computer products, which comprises a combination of hardware (e.g., microphone(s) or
`
`microphone input(s)) 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 at least
`
`one microphone in a manner that infringes at least one claim of the ’607 Patent. Further, this
`
`combination of hardware and software is especially made 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, Defendant has contributed to the infringement of the
`
`’607 Patent by end-users – e.g., customers – who use said combination of hardware and software
`
`provided in Defendant’s products.
`
`10
`
`
`RTL345-2_1011-0010
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00209-JG-GRB Document 1 Filed 01/14/15 Page 11 of 20 PageID #: 11
`
`41.
`
`As a result of Defendant’s 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.
`
`42.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant will continue its infringement of the ’607
`
`Patent unless enjoined by the Court. Defendant’s 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)
`
`43.
`
`44.
`
`Paragraphs 1 through 42 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.
`
`45.
`
`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.
`
`46.
`
`47.
`
`The ’345 Patent generally relates to noise cancellation and reduction.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant – without authority, consent, right, or
`
`license – manufactures, makes, has made, uses, sells, offers for sale, and/or imports 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 ’345 Patent.
`
`48.
`
`Further, upon information and belief, Defendant has also indirectly infringed at
`
`least one claim of the ’345 Patent by inducing infringement.
`
`11
`
`
`RTL345-2_1011-0011
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00209-JG-GRB Document 1 Filed 01/14/15 Page 12 of 20 PageID #: 12
`
`49.
`
`Defendant has been aware of the ’345 Patent and of Andrea’s allegations of
`
`infringement since at least the filing of this Complaint. Additionally Defendant had constructive
`
`notice of the ‘345 Patent prior to the filing of this Complaint by virtue of Andrea’s marking
`
`practice, as set forth in Count VI below.
`
`50.
`
`Despite Defendant’s awareness of the ’345 Patent and Andrea’s allegations, it has
`
`knowingly and actively induced others to infringe the ’345 Patent by selling personal computer
`
`products i at least one microphone or microphone input with noise suppression or cancellation
`
`functionality which, when used, results in the direct infringement of at least one claim of the
`
`’345 Patent by end-users – e.g., customers. Defendant has provided and continues to provide
`
`promotional materials advertising noise suppression or cancellation functionality as described
`
`and claimed in the ’345 Patent. See, e.g., Exhibit F, Exhibit G, Exhibit H, Exhibit M and Exhibit
`
`N. Upon information and belief, Defendant’s implementation of noise suppression or
`
`cancellation functionality in its products reduces or cancels noise in a manner that infringes the
`
`claims of the ’345 Patent. At least by advertising such functionality, Defendant has induced and
`
`is actively inducing end-users to use that functionality and infringe at least one claim of Andrea’s
`
`’345 Patent.
`
`51.
`
`Further, upon information and belief, Defendant has also indirectly infringed at
`
`least one claim of the ’345 Patent by contributing to infringement.
`
`52.
`
`Upon information and belief, the noise suppression or cancellation in Defendant’s
`
`personal computer products, which comprises a combination of hardware (e.g., microphone(s) or
`
`microphone input(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
`
`at least one microphone in a manner that infringes at least one claim of the ’345 Patent. Further,
`
`12
`
`
`RTL345-2_1011-0012
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00209-JG-GRB Document 1 Filed 01/14/15 Page 13 of 20 PageID #: 13
`
`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, Defendant has contributed to the infringement of the
`
`’345 Patent by end-users – e.g., customers – who use said combination of hardware and software
`
`provided in Defendant’s products.
`
`53.
`
`As a result of Defendant’s 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.
`
`54.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant will continue its infringement of the ’345
`
`Patent unless enjoined by the Court. Defendant’s infringing conduct has caused Andrea
`
`irreparable harm and will continue to cause such harm without the issuance of an injunction.
`
`COUNT IV
`
`(Infringement of the ’637 Patent)
`
`55.
`
`56.
`
`Paragraphs 1 through 54 are incorporated by reference as if fully restated herein.
`
`On April 23, 2002, United States Patent No. 6,377,637 (the “’637 Patent”) was
`
`duly and legally issued for “Sub-Band Exponential Smoothing Noise Canceling System.” The
`
`’637 Patent is in full force and effect. A true and correct copy of the ’637 Patent is attached
`
`hereto as Exhibit D and made part hereof.
`
`57.
`
`Andrea is the owner of all right, title, and interest in and to the ’637 Patent, with
`
`the exclusive right to enforce the ’637 Patent against infringers and the exclusive right to collect
`
`damages for all relevant times, including the right to prosecute this action.
`
`13
`
`
`RTL345-2_1011-0013
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00209-JG-GRB Document 1 Filed 01/14/15 Page 14 of 20 PageID #: 14
`
`58.
`
`The ’637 Patent generally relates to noise cancellation and reduction and, more
`
`specifically, to noise cancellation and reduction using sub-band processing and exponential
`
`smoothing.
`
`59.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant – without authority, consent, right, or
`
`license – manufactures, makes, has made, uses, sells, offers for sale, and/or imports 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 ’637 Patent.
`
`60.
`
`Further, upon information and belief, Defendant has also indirectly infringed at
`
`least one claim of the ’637 Patent by inducing infringement.
`
`61.
`
`Defendant has been aware of the ’637 Patent and of Andrea’s allegations of
`
`infringement since at least the filing of this Complaint. Additionally Defendant had constructive
`
`notice of the ‘637 patent prior to the filing of this Complaint by virtue of Andrea’s marking
`
`practice, as set forth in Count VI below.
`
`62.
`
`Despite Defendant’s awareness of the ’637 Patent and Andrea’s allegations, it has
`
`knowingly and actively induced others to infringe the ’637 Patent by selling personal computer
`
`products containing at least one microphone or microphone input with noise suppression or
`
`cancellation functionality which, when used, results in the direct infringement of at least one
`
`claim of the ’637 Patent by end-users – e.g., customers. Defendant has provided and continues
`
`to provide promotional materials advertising noise suppression or cancellation functionality as
`
`described and claimed in the ’637 Patent. See, e.g., Exhibit F, Exhibit G, Exhibit H, Exhibit M
`
`and Exhibit N. Upon information and belief, Defendant’s implementation of noise suppression
`
`or cancellation functionality in its products reduces or cancels noise in a manner that infringes
`
`the claims of the ’637 Patent. At least by advertising such functionality, Defendant has induced
`
`14
`
`
`RTL345-2_1011-0014
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00209-JG-GRB Document 1 Filed 01/14/15 Page 15 of 20 PageID #: 15
`
`and is actively inducing end-users to use that functionality and infringe at least one claim of
`
`Andrea’s ’637 Patent.
`
`63.
`
`Further, upon information and belief, Defendant has also indirectly infringed at
`
`least one claim of the ’637 Patent by contributing to infringement.
`
`64.
`
`Upon information and belief, the noise suppression or cancellation in Defendant’s
`
`personal computer products, which comprises a combination of hardware (e.g., a 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 at least one microphone
`
`in a manner that infringes at least one claim of the ’637 Patent. Further, this combination of
`
`hardware and software is especially made and/or especially adapted for use in the infringement
`
`of Andrea’s ’637 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, Defendant has contributed to the infringement of the
`
`’637 Patent by end-users – e.g., customers – who use said combination of hardware and software
`
`provided in Defendant’s products.
`
`65.
`
`As a result of Defendant’s 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.
`
`66.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant will continue its infringement of the ’637
`
`Patent unless enjoined by the Court. Defendant’s infringing conduct has caused Andrea
`
`irreparable harm and will continue to cause such harm without the issuance of an injunction.
`
`COUNT V
`
`(Infringement of the ’923 Patent)
`
`67.
`
`Paragraphs 1 through 66 are incorporated by reference as if fully restated herein.
`15
`
`
`RTL345-2_1011-0015
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00209-JG-GRB Document 1 Filed 01/14/15 Page 16 of 20 PageID #: 16
`
`68.
`
`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 E and made part hereof.
`
`69.
`
`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.
`
`70.
`
`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.
`
`71.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant – without authority, consent, right, or
`
`license – manufactures, makes, has made, uses, sells, offers for sale, and/or imports 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.
`
`72.
`
`Further, upon information and belief, Defendant has also indirectly infringed at
`
`least one claim of the ’923 Patent by inducing infringement.
`
`73.
`
`Defendant has been aware of the ’923 Patent and of Andrea’s allegations of
`
`infringement since at least the filing of this Complaint. Additionally, Defendant had constructive
`
`notice of the ‘923 patent prior to the filing of this Complaint by virtue of Andrea’s marking
`
`practice, as set forth in Count VI below.
`
`74.
`
`Despite Defendant’s awareness of the ’923 Patent and Andrea’s allegations, it has
`
`knowingly and actively induced others to infringe the ’923 Patent by selling personal computer
`
`products containing microphone(s) or microphone input(s) with a “microphone focus” or beam
`
`16
`
`
`RTL345-2_1011-0016
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00209-JG-GRB Document 1 Filed 01/14/15 Page 17 of 20 PageID #: 17
`
`forming functionality, which, when used, results in the direct infringement of at least one claim
`
`of the ’923 Patent by end-users – e.g., customers. Defendant has provided and continues to
`
`provide promotional materials advertising microphone focus functionality described and claimed
`
`in the ’923 Patent. See, e.g., Exhibit F, Exhibit G, Exhibit H, Exhibit I and Exhibit J. Upon
`
`information and belief, Defendant’s implementation of its microphone focus functionality
`
`reduces interference in a received signal in a manner that infringes the claims of the ‘923 Patent.
`
`At least by advertising such functionality, Defendant has induced and is actively inducing end-
`
`users to use that functionality and infringe at least one claim of Andrea’s ’923 Patent.
`
`75.
`
`Further, upon information and belief, Defendant has also indirectly infringed at
`
`least one claim of the ’923 Patent by contributing to