Case 2:15-cv-00183-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/09/15 Page 1 of 19 PageID #: 1
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS
`TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-00183
`
`JURY TRIAL REQUESTED
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.,
`LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
`AMERICA, INC., SAMSUNG
`TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA,
`LLC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS
`TECHNOLOGIES, LLC’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiff Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC (“MTel” or “Plaintiff”) files
`
`this Complaint against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and
`
`Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, (collectively, “Defendants” or “Samsung”) for
`
`infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,754,946 (the “’946 Patent”), U.S. Patent Nos. 5,809,428 (the
`
`“’428 Patent”), 581,804 (the “’804 Patent”), 5,590,403 (the “’403 Patent”), 5,915,210 (the ’210
`
`Patent”), 5,659,891 (the “’891 Patent”) (together the “Patents-in-Suit”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §
`
`271 and alleges as follows.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`Plaintiff MTel is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of
`
`1.
`
`business at 1720 Lakepointe Drive, Suite 100, Lewisville, TX 75057.
`
`2.
`
`MTel owns and controls a portfolio of patents developed by Mobile
`
`Telecommunications Technologies Corp. (“MTel Corp.”) and its related entities, such as
`
`Destineer and SkyTel Communications.
`
`753110v.4
`
`1
`
`Petitioner Samsung - SAM1002
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00183-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/09/15 Page 2 of 19 PageID #: 2
`
`3.
`
`MTel Corp. was a pioneer in wireless communications and is credited with
`
`launching the world’s first two-way wireless data messaging service, dubbed SkyTel 2-Way. In
`
`1993, the Federal Communications Commission awarded MTel Corp. a “Pioneer Preference” for
`
`its innovative 2-way data messaging network.
`
`4.
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., (“SEC”) a Korean corporation, has its principal
`
`place of business at 416 Maetan-3dong, Yeongton-gu, Suwon-City, Gyeonggi-do 443-742, South
`
`Korea. SEC may be served with process pursuant to the Hague Convention.
`
`5.
`
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“SEA”), a New York corporation, has its
`
`principal place of business at 85 Challenger Road, Ridgefield Park, New Jersey 07660. SEA may
`
`be served with process via its registered agent The Corporation Trust Company, 820 Bear Tavern
`
`Road, West Trenton, NJ 08628.
`
`6.
`
`Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, (“STA”) a limited liability
`
`company duly organized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware, with its principal
`
`place of business at 1301 East Lookout Drive, Richardson, Texas 75082. Samsung may be
`
`served with process by serving Corporation Service Company, 211 E. 7th Street, Suite 620,
`
`Austin, Texas 78701-3218.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`This is an action for patent infringement under the Patent Laws of the United
`
`7.
`
`States, Title 35 of the United States Code. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this
`
`action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). Venue lies in this judicial district pursuant to
`
`28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400(b).
`
`8.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Samsung under the laws of the State of
`
`Texas, including the Texas long-arm statute, TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 17.042.
`
`PLAINTIFF MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS
`TECHNOLOGIES, LLC’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AGAINST SAMSUNG
`
`2
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00183-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/09/15 Page 3 of 19 PageID #: 3
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates all statements of jurisdiction in the preceding paragraphs. In
`
`addition to the continuous and systematic contacts that Samsung has with Texas, including the
`
`multi-billion dollar investment Samsung has made into manufacturing in Texas, the causes of
`
`action against Samsung in this Complaint arise from or are connected with purposeful acts
`
`committed by Samsung in Texas. Samsung has conducted and continues to conduct business
`
`within the State of Texas, directly or through intermediaries or agents, or offers for sale, sells, or
`
`advertises (including through the provision of interactive web pages) products or services, or
`
`uses or induces others to use products or services in Texas that infringe the ’946 Patent, and the
`
`’506 Patent, or knowingly contributes to or induces infringement of the ’428 Patent, the ’946
`
`Patent, and the ’506 Patent.
`
`THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT
`
`On May 19, 1998, the USPTO duly and legally issued United States Patent No.
`
`10.
`
`5,754,946 titled “Nationwide Communication System,” after a full and fair examination. A true
`
`and correct copy of the ’946 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Plaintiff is the assignee of all
`
`right, title and interest in and to the ’946 Patent and possesses the exclusive right of recovery
`
`under the ’946 Patent, including the exclusive right to recover for past and future damages for
`
`past and future infringement of the ’946 Patent. The ’946 Patent is valid and enforceable.
`
`11.
`
`The ’946 Patent describes and claims, among other things, devices and networks
`
`that provide for the transmission of unreceived portions of a message.
`
`12.
`
`The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) duly and legally
`
`issued on September 15, 1998, United States Patent No. 5,809,428, entitled “Method and Device
`
`for Processing Undelivered Data Messages in a Two-Way Wireless Communications System.”
`
`A true and correct copy of the ’428 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit B. Plaintiff is the
`
`PLAINTIFF MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS
`TECHNOLOGIES, LLC’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AGAINST SAMSUNG
`
`3
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00183-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/09/15 Page 4 of 19 PageID #: 4
`
`assignee of all right, title, and interest in and to the ’428 Patent and holds the exclusive right of
`
`recovery under the ’428 Patent, including the exclusive right to recover for past and future
`
`infringement of the ’428 Patent. The ’428 Patent is valid and enforceable. Claims of the ’428
`
`Patent enjoy a statutory presumption of validity. 35 U.S.C. § 282.
`
`13.
`
`The ’428 Patent describes and claims, inter alia, methods, systems, and devices
`
`for reliable message transmission and storing undeliverable messages, such as “chat” and push
`
`messaging systems.
`
`14.
`
`On December 3, 1996, the USPTO duly and legally issued United States Patent
`
`No. 5,581,804 titled “Nationwide Communication System,” after a full and fair examination. A
`
`true and correct copy of the ’804 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit C. Plaintiff is the assignee
`
`of all right, title and interest in and to the ’804 Patent, including the exclusive right to recover for
`
`infringement of the ’804 Patent. The ’804 Patent is valid and enforceable.
`
`15.
`
`The ’804 Patent claims, inter alia, methods and systems which allow for rapid
`
`communication of large messages and efficient use of system resources.
`
`16.
`
`On December 31, 1996, the USPTO duly and legally issued United States Patent
`
`No. 5,590,403, titled “Method and System for Efficiently Providing Two Way Communication
`
`Between a Central Network and Mobile Unit,” after a full and fair examination. A true and
`
`correct copy of the ’403 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit D. MTel is the assignee of all right,
`
`title and interest in and to the ’403 Patent and possesses the exclusive right of recovery under the
`
`’403 Patent, including the exclusive right to recover for past and future infringement of the ’403
`
`Patent. The ’403 Patent is valid and enforceable.
`
`17.
`
`The ’403 Patent discloses and claims, inter alia, a two-way communications
`
`system for communication between a system network and a mobile unit.
`
`PLAINTIFF MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS
`TECHNOLOGIES, LLC’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AGAINST SAMSUNG
`
`4
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00183-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/09/15 Page 5 of 19 PageID #: 5
`
`18.
`
`On August 19, 1997, the USPTO duly and legally issued United States Patent No.
`
`5,659,891, titled “Multicarrier Techniques in Bandlimited Channels,” after a full and fair
`
`examination. A true and correct copy of the ’891 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit E. MTel is
`
`the assignee of all right, title and interest in and to the ’891 Patent and possesses the exclusive
`
`right of recovery under the ’891 Patent, including the exclusive right to recover for past and
`
`future infringement of the ’891 Patent. The ’891 Patent is valid and enforceable.
`
`19.
`
`The ’891 Patent discloses and claims, inter alia, using co-located transmitters to
`
`achieve higher transmission capacity for two-way digital communications.
`
`20.
`
`On June 22, 1999, the USPTO duly and legally issued United States Patent No.
`
`5,915,210, titled “Method and System for Providing Multicarrier Simulcast Transmission,” after
`
`a full and fair examination. A true and correct copy of the ’210 Patent is attached hereto as
`
`Exhibit F. MTel is the assignee of all right, title and interest in and to the ’210 Patent and
`
`possesses the exclusive right of recovery under the ’210 Patent, including the exclusive right to
`
`recover for past and future infringement of the ’210 Patent. The ’210 Patent is valid and
`
`enforceable.
`
`21.
`
`The ’210 Patent discloses and claims, inter alia, a multi-carrier simulcast
`
`transmission system for transmitting in a desired frequency band.
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT
`
`Plaintiff reincorporates Paragraphs 1 through 21 as though fully restated herein.
`
`Samsung, without authorization or license, has directly and/or indirectly infringed
`
`22.
`
`23.
`
`multiple claims of the ’946 Patent, ’804 Patent, ’403 Patent, ’891 Patent, ’804 Patent, and ’210
`
`Patent (together, the “Patents-in-Suit”) in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271 as stated below.
`
`Samsung, without authorization or license, continues to directly and/or indirectly infringe
`
`PLAINTIFF MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS
`TECHNOLOGIES, LLC’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AGAINST SAMSUNG
`
`5
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00183-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/09/15 Page 6 of 19 PageID #: 6
`
`multiple claims of the ’946 Patent, ’804 Patent, ’891 Patent, and ’804 Patents. Samsung’s
`
`infringement of the ’403 Patent was willful at least since its knowledge of the patent. Samsung’s
`
`infringement of the ’946 Patent, ’804 Patent, ’891 Patent, and ’804 Patents has been and will
`
`continue to be willful at least since its knowledge of the respective patents.
`
`24.
`
`Samsung’s customers are likewise direct infringers of the Patents-in-Suit when
`
`Samsung’s customers use Samsung’s products and services.
`
`25.
`
`On November 17, 2014, MTel received a favorable jury verdict in Mobile
`
`Telecomms. Techs., LLC v. Apple, No. 2:13-CV-258-RSP (E.D. Tex.). See Verdict attached as
`
`Exhibit G. The jury in that case found the accused features of various accused Samsung devices
`
`infringed some of the same Patents-in-Suit asserted here. Samsung’s devices and services
`
`contain similar features that are not meaningfully different from those found to be infringing in
`
`Mobile Telecomms. Techs., LLC v. Apple.
`
`FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`(INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,754,946)
`
`Plaintiff reincorporates Paragraphs 1 through 25 as though fully set forth herein.
`
`Samsung, without authorization or license, has been and is now directly or
`
`26.
`
`27.
`
`indirectly infringing one or more claims of the ’946 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, as
`
`stated below.
`
`28.
`
`Samsung’s customers and all end-users of Samsung’s devices, equipment,
`
`products, or services are direct infringers of the ’946 Patent.
`
`29.
`
`Samsung has knowledge of the ’946 Patent and will continue to act with an
`
`objectively high likelihood that its actions constitute infringement of that valid patent. Such
`
`infringement demonstrates a deliberate and conscious decision to infringe, or at least a reckless
`
`disregard of MTel's patent rights, entitling MTel to up to treble damages.
`
`PLAINTIFF MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS
`TECHNOLOGIES, LLC’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AGAINST SAMSUNG
`
`6
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00183-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/09/15 Page 7 of 19 PageID #: 7
`
`30.
`
`Samsung directly infringes and will continue to directly infringe by making,
`
`using, selling, offering to sell, and/or importing software and equipment in the United States that
`
`embody claims and/or practice the methods of the ’946 Patent, including the Samsung “Galaxy”
`
`series of smartphones, tablets and phablets, such as all devices marketed under Note, PRO, and
`
`Tab brands; all Samsung mobile devices running version 5 (Lollipop) of the Android operating
`
`system or any other operating system with an email or messaging application that was not
`
`previously involved in Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC v. Samsung, Inc., Case
`
`2:13-CV-259-RSP (E.D. Tex.); and all Samsung mobile devices running messaging services and
`
`other applications, such as web browsers.
`
`31.
`
`The use by end users of messaging services and other applications that allow for
`
`message retransmission on the accused mobile devices and networks also directly infringes each
`
`of the claims of the ’946 Patent. Samsung has and will continue to contribute to and induce the
`
`infringement of end users by intentionally instructing and otherwise encouraging infringement
`
`by end users by providing manuals and similar instructions on the operation of its mobile units
`
`and compatible messaging services and other applications that allow for message retransmission.
`
`For example, Samsung instructs end users on ways and methods of retrieving portions of web
`
`pages and other messages. The messaging features utilized by the mobile units to infringe the
`
`’946 Patent have no substantial non-infringing uses other than to operate as claimed by one or
`
`more claims of the ’946 Patent. Samsung intentionally contributes to and induces direct
`
`infringement of the ’946 Patent with knowledge that its actions constitute infringement of the
`
`’946 Patent since at least the filing or service of this action.
`
`32.
`
`Samsung also intentionally encourages and instructs mobile network operators
`
`(e.g., AT&T, Sprint, Verizon) and/or retailers to make, use, import, sell, and/or offer to sell
`
`PLAINTIFF MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS
`TECHNOLOGIES, LLC’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AGAINST SAMSUNG
`
`7
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00183-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/09/15 Page 8 of 19 PageID #: 8
`
`Samsung mobile devices and communication networks that Samsung knows infringe each claim
`
`of the ’946 Patent. Samsung provides detailed instructions and support regarding how to operate
`
`mobile devices, communication networks, and network operation centers in manners that
`
`infringe the ’946 Patent. Samsung also induces infringement by, for example, entering
`
`marketing and sales agreements and by providing components used in infringement, technical
`
`support, advertisements, marketing materials, instruction booklets, user guides, email services,
`
`Messaging Services, and/or service manuals.
`
`33.
`
`Samsung has had knowledge of the ’946 Patent since at least the filing of Mobile
`
`Telecommunications Technologies, LLC v. Samsung, Inc., Case 2:13-CV-259-RSP (E.D. Tex.) or
`
`its service.
`
`34.
`
`35.
`
`SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`(INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,809,428)
`
`Plaintiff incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 33 as though fully set forth herein.
`
`Samsung, without authorization or license, has been and is now directly or
`
`indirectly infringing one or more patent claims of the ’428 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271
`
`as stated below.
`
`36.
`
`Samsung’s customers and all end-users of Samsung devices, equipment, products,
`
`or services are direct infringers of the ’428 Patent.
`
`37.
`
`Samsung has had knowledge of the ’428 Patent since at least the filing of Mobile
`
`Telecommunications Technologies, LLC v. Samsung, Inc., Case 2:13-CV-259-RSP (E.D. Tex.) or
`
`its service.
`
`38.
`
`Samsung has knowledge of the ’428 Patent and acts and will continue to act with
`
`an objectively high likelihood that its actions constitute infringement of that valid patent. Such
`
`PLAINTIFF MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS
`TECHNOLOGIES, LLC’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AGAINST SAMSUNG
`
`8
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00183-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/09/15 Page 9 of 19 PageID #: 9
`
`infringement demonstrates a deliberate and conscious decision to infringe, or at least a reckless
`
`disregard of MTel’s patent rights, entitling MTel to up to treble damages.
`
`39.
`
`Samsung has directly infringed, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents,
`
`and will continue to directly infringe each patent claim of the ’428 Patent by making, using,
`
`selling, offering to sell, and/or importing in the United States network operation centers,
`
`including messaging servers and/or other networking components (e.g. push servers, Samsung’s
`
`Smart Connectivity Solution (SCS) servers) and mobile units (e.g. Galaxy Note 4, Samsung
`
`Smart TVs, such as the UN55H6350, Samsung Link-compatible devices, Smart Home-
`
`compatible devices, Samsung Gear devices, Samsung Galaxy Series mobile devices) running
`
`messaging services (e.g. Google Chat/Hangouts, WhatsApp, Facebook, Google Cloud
`
`Messaging, Smart Connectivity SDK apps).
`
`40.
`
`The use by end users of accused messaging services on the accused mobile units
`
`also practices the methods of the ’428 Patent. Such use by the end users is direct patent
`
`infringement of the ’428 Patent. Samsung has and will continue to contribute to and induce the
`
`infringement of end users by intentionally instructing and otherwise encouraging infringement
`
`and by providing infringing mobile units and compatible messaging services preinstalled and for
`
`installation after activation of Samsung-branded mobile devices. The messaging services and
`
`mobile devices have features relevant to the end users’ direct infringement that have no
`
`substantially non-infringing uses other than to operate and perform as claimed by one or more
`
`claims of the ’428 Patent. The Samsung-branded mobile devices are specially enabled for
`
`utilizing the messaging services. Samsung encourages end users to use the messaging services
`
`and intends the end users to use its mobile units enabled with at least one infringing messaging
`
`service as contemplated by the claims of the ’428 Patent. Samsung intentionally contributes to
`
`PLAINTIFF MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS
`TECHNOLOGIES, LLC’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AGAINST SAMSUNG
`
`9
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00183-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/09/15 Page 10 of 19 PageID #: 10
`
`and induces direct infringement of the ’428 Patent with knowledge that its actions constitute
`
`infringement of the ’428 Patent since at least the filing or service of this action.
`
`41.
`
`Samsung also intentionally encourages and instructs Mobile Network Operators
`
`(e.g., AT&T, Sprint, Verizon) and/or retailers to make, use, import, sell, and/or offer to sell
`
`Samsung Android mobile devices that Samsung knows infringe each claim of the ’428 Patent.
`
`Samsung provides detailed instructions and support regarding how to operate mobile devices and
`
`network operation centers in manners that infringe the ’428 Patent. Samsung also induces
`
`infringement by, for example, entering marketing and sales agreements and by providing
`
`components used in infringement, technical support, advertisements, marketing materials,
`
`instruction booklets, user guides, email services, messaging services, and/or service manuals.
`
`THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`(INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,581,804)
`
`42. MTel incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 41 as if set forth here in full
`
`43.
`
`Samsung directly infringes by making, using, selling, offering for sell, and/or
`
`importing software and equipment that embody claims of the ’804 Patent. Samsung operates an
`
`electronic messaging network that includes equipment and software, including but not limited to,
`
`Samsung mobile devices, such as the Galaxy Series of devices; mobile device management (e.g.
`
`Samsung SAFE MDM) software and hardware; Samsung Smart Connectivity Solution, Samsung
`
`Wireless Enterprise Solution controllers, access points, and technologies, such as AirMove and
`
`Self Organizing Network (SON); and related software and equipment that embody the claims of
`
`the ’804 Patent.
`
`44.
`
`The messaging network can send control signals to Samsung mobile devices that
`
`prevent the device from sending registration signals to the messaging network.
`
`45.
`
`The messaging network can send probe signals to Samsung mobile devices.
`
`PLAINTIFF MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS
`TECHNOLOGIES, LLC’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AGAINST SAMSUNG
`
`10
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00183-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/09/15 Page 11 of 19 PageID #: 11
`
`46.
`
`Samsung mobile devices send registration messages that show the location of
`
`device. On information and belief, the receipt of these messages by the messaging network is
`
`logged.
`
`47.
`
`On information and belief, Samsung mobile devices send responses to probe
`
`signals back to the messaging network.
`
`48.
`
`On information and belief, the messaging network logs the messages sent to and
`
`received from Samsung mobile devices.
`
`49.
`
`On information and belief, if the Samsung mobile devices are not optimally
`
`acknowledging the receipt of messages from the messaging network, the messaging network can
`
`send control signals to the Samsung mobile devices to command them to send registration
`
`signals.
`
`50.
`
`51.
`
`Samsung customers are direct infringers of the claims of the ’804 Patent.
`
`Samsung instructs and otherwise encourages its customers to infringe the claims
`
`of the ’804 Patent by providing manuals and similar instructions on the operation of the
`
`messaging network and Samsung mobile devices. When provided to Samsung’s customers,
`
`these devices operate in ways that infringe the ’804 Patent and have no non-infringing uses.
`
` (INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 5,590,403, 5,659,891 AND 5,915,210)
`
`52. MTel incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 51 as if set forth here in
`
`full.
`
`53.
`
`On information and belief, MTel alleges that Samsung infringes the ’403, ’210,
`
`and ’891 Patents by making, using, selling, offering to sell, importing, and supporting certain
`
`subcarrier spacing structures and/or multiple input multiple output (“MIMO”) transmission
`
`techniques, including those generally referred to as transmit diversity and spatial multiplexing,
`
`which are implemented within Samsung mobile devices pursuant to LTE or 802.11 standards,
`
`PLAINTIFF MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS
`TECHNOLOGIES, LLC’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AGAINST SAMSUNG
`
`11
`
`11
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00183-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/09/15 Page 12 of 19 PageID #: 12
`
`such as those in Galaxy Series devices (e.g Galaxy S5 and Galaxy Note 4); all Samsung products
`
`supporting 802.11 n and ac WLAN transmission, such as WEA302i and 303i; and Samsung
`
`eNodeB base stations (e.g.Samsung MBS).
`
`54. MTel alleges, for example, and accuses all Samsung mobile devices supporting or
`
`using techniques consistent with MIMO aspects of the IEEE 802.11 standards (e.g., as described
`
`at http://www.wi-fi.org/file/wi-fi-certified-n-longer-range-faster-throughput-multimedia-grade-
`
`wi-fi-networks-2009 at 5-6:
`
`55.
`
`A MIMO system has some number of transmitters (N) and receivers (M) ...
`
`Signals from each of the N transmitters can reach each of the M receivers via a different path in
`
`the channel. A MIMO device with multiple antennas is capable of sending multiple spatial
`
`streams – spatially distinct data streams within the same channel. A MIMO device with multiple
`
`antennas is capable of receiving multiple spatial streams. Multipath helps decorrelate the
`
`received signals enabling transmission of multiple data streams through the same MIMO channel
`
`– a technique called spatial multiplexing. MIMO can multiply data rate through a technique
`
`called spatial multiplexing - dividing a data stream into several branches and sending it as
`
`multiple parallel data streams simultaneously in the same channel.
`
`56. MIMO can also be used to improve the robustness and range of 802.11n
`
`communications through a technique called spatial diversity. When the same data stream is
`
`transmitted across multiple spatial streams error rate can be reduced. An additional technique
`
`improving range and reliability called Space Time Block Coding (STBC) is also incorporated
`
`into Wi-Fi CERTIFIED n.)
`
`PLAINTIFF MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS
`TECHNOLOGIES, LLC’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AGAINST SAMSUNG
`
`12
`
`12
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00183-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/09/15 Page 13 of 19 PageID #: 13
`
`FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`(INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,590,403)
`
`57. MTel incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 56 as if set forth here in
`
`full.
`
`58.
`
`Samsung has directly infringed by making, using, selling, offering for sell, and/or
`
`importing in the United States devices and/or methods encompassed by the claims of the ’403
`
`Patent, including base stations and small cells, wireless routers, controllers, access points, and
`
`set-top boxes, and mobile devices, such as Samsung’s CY-SWR1100, SMT-G7400, Samsung
`
`WLAN Solution for Wireless Enterprise Series, Galaxy Series devices, and Samsung eNodeB
`
`base stations (collectively “MIMO Transmission Devices”), that embody the claims or practice
`
`the methods of the ’403 Patent. Samsung’s accused products implement and use the Wi-Fi
`
`standard IEEE 802.11n or ac. Samsung has infringed the ’403 Patent because of the MIMO
`
`features used and advertised as part of the accused MIMO Transmission Devices, among others.
`
`59.
`
`End users of MIMO Transmission Devices are direct infringers of the claims of
`
`the ’403 Patent. Samsung has induced infringement of at least one claim of the ’403 Patent,
`
`literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, in violation of 35 U.S.C. §271(b), by, among
`
`other things, actively, knowingly, and/or recklessly aiding and abetting others (including
`
`Samsung’s customers and end users) through activities such as supporting and marketing with
`
`the specific intent to induce others to directly use without license or authority, processes that fall
`
`within the scope of at least one claim of the ’403 Patent.
`
`60.
`
`Samsung has contributed to the infringement of at least one claim of the ’403
`
`Patent, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, in violation of 35 U.S.C. §271(c), by,
`
`among other things, providing its 802.11n or ac compliant MIMO-enabled products that embody
`
`a material part of the claimed inventions of the ’403 Patent, knowing that such products are
`
`PLAINTIFF MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS
`TECHNOLOGIES, LLC’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AGAINST SAMSUNG
`
`13
`
`13
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00183-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/09/15 Page 14 of 19 PageID #: 14
`
`especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of these claims, and that they
`
`are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use.
`
`Samsung also contributed to its users’ and customers’ infringement of the ’403 Patent.
`
`61.
`
`Samsung has had knowledge of the ’403 Patent since at least August 20, 2013,
`
`when it appeared in Mobile Telecomms. Techs., LLC v. Sprint, No. 2:13-CV-259-RSP (E.D.
`
`Tex.), a case in which MTel asserted the ’403, ’210, and ’891 Patents against Apple in regards to
`
`products that are not meaningfully different in their infringing operation from Samsung MIMO
`
`Transmission Devices. Despite having knowledge of these patents, Samsung (1) continued to
`
`infringe, including continuing to make, use, sell, offer for sale and/or importing the accused
`
`devices; (2) continued to advertise the accused devices on its website; (3) continued to provide
`
`instructions on the devices’ use. Samsung’s actions were at least objectively reckless as to the
`
`infringement risk and this objective risk was either known or should have been known by
`
`Samsung. Samsung’s infringement of these three patents was willful, intentional, and in
`
`conscious disregard of MTel’s rights under the patents.
`
`FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`(INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,915,210)
`
`62. MTel incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 61 as if set forth here in
`
`full.
`
`63.
`
`Samsung has directly infringed by making, using, selling, offering for sell, and/or
`
`importing in the United States devices and/or methods encompassed by the claims of the ’210
`
`Patent, including base stations and small cells, wireless routers, controllers, access points, and
`
`set-top boxes, and mobile devices, such as Samsung’s CY-SWR1100, SMT-G7400, Samsung
`
`WLAN Solution for Wireless Enterprise Series, Galaxy Series devices, and Samsung eNodeB
`
`base stations (collectively “MIMO Transmission Devices”), that embody the claims or practice
`
`PLAINTIFF MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS
`TECHNOLOGIES, LLC’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AGAINST SAMSUNG
`
`14
`
`14
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00183-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/09/15 Page 15 of 19 PageID #: 15
`
`the methods of the ’210 Patent. Samsung’s accused products implement and use the Wi-Fi
`
`standard IEEE 802.11n or ac, which implement MIMO transmissions and certain subcarrier
`
`frequency structures. Samsung has infringed the ’210 Patent at least because of the MIMO
`
`features and frequency structures used and advertised as part of the accused MIMO Transmission
`
`Devices, among others.
`
`64.
`
`End users of MIMO Transmission Devices are direct infringers of the claims of
`
`the ’210 Patent. Samsung induced infringement of at least one claim of the ’210 Patent, literally
`
`and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, in violation of 35 U.S.C. §271(b), by, among other
`
`things, actively, knowingly, and/or recklessly aiding and abetting others (including Samsung’s
`
`customers and end users) through activities such as supporting and marketing with the specific
`
`intent to induce others to directly use without license or authority, processes that fall within the
`
`scope of at least one claim of the ’210 Patent.
`
`65.
`
`Samsung contributed to the infringement of at least one claim of the ’210 Patent,
`
`literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, in violation of 35 U.S.C. §271(c), by, among
`
`other things, providing its 802.11n or ac compliant MIMO-enabled products that embody a
`
`material part of the claimed inventions of the ’210 Patent, knowing that such products are
`
`especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of these claims, and that they
`
`are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use.
`
`Samsung also contributed to its users’ and customers’ infringement of the ’210 Patent.
`
`SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`(INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,659,891)
`
`66. MTel incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 66 as if set forth here in
`
`full.
`
`PLAINTIFF MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS
`TECHNOLOGIES, LLC’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AGAINST SAMSUNG
`
`15
`
`15
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00183-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/09/15 Page 16 of 19 PageID #: 16
`
`67.
`
`Samsung has directly infringed and will continue to directly infringe by making,
`
`using, selling, offering for sell, and/or importing in the United States devices and/or methods
`
`encompassed by the claims of the ’891 Patent, including base stations and small cells, wireless
`
`routers, controllers, access points, and set-top boxes, and mobile devices supporting OFDM
`
`transmissions in a bandlimited channel, such as Samsung’s CY-SWR1100, SMT-G7400,
`
`Samsung WLAN Solution for Wireless Enterprise Series, Galaxy Series devices, and Samsung
`
`base stations (collectively “Transmission Devices”), that embody the claims or practice the
`
`methods of the ’891 Patent. Samsung’s accused products implement and use the LTE and Wi-Fi
`
`standard IEEE 802.11n or ac, which implement certain subcarrier frequency structures.
`
`Samsung has infringed and will continue to infringe the ’891 Patent at least because of the
`
`frequency structures used and advertised as part of the accused Transmission Devices, among
`
`others.
`
`68.
`
`End users of Transmission Devices are direct infringers of the claims of the ’891
`
`Patent. Samsung has and will continue to induce infringement of at least one claim of the ’891
`
`Patent, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, in violation of 35 U.S.C. §271(b), by,
`
`among other things, actively, knowingly, and/or recklessly aiding and abetting others (including
`
`Samsung’s customers and end users) through activities